Why
the Proletariat is Still with the President
Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 1/6/19
In
the 2016 presidential election, Americans had a choice between a woman who
believed that her gender and her last name would catapult her to victory, and a
man who chose to be himself in spite of his political inexperience, adulterous
past, crude language, and seemingly uncertain ideology.
Anyone who has run for
office could tell that the woman was not working hard to gain victory. The man was, however, and after countless
stumbles (real or perceived), won the race.
Neither his virulent enemies nor he himself could do anything to thwart
his success. Approximately 63 million
Americans voted him in.
The losers of this
political race remain in disbelief. The
losing candidate’s fawning media is still aghast. They all frown and agonize. Risking paralysis of analysis, they still
ponder how they lost and how the 63 million could be so ignorant. Their faces show pain. They spew verbal hate. And they plot.
Refusing to accept the results
of an election and rejecting the norm of moving on toward the next presidential
contest, they throw at the election winner all the vile they can muster. Neither the president’s wife nor his
12-year-old son is off limits. Resorting
to tactics common in third world countries, they speak of toppling a duly elected
president.
Interestingly enough,
it’s not primarily the losing political party that is leading the charge. It’s the national media and entertainment
celebrities. Embarrassed – because they
used the president and gave him so much attention – they now seek
absolution. (Do we need to name the networks, the nationally known newspapers, and
the individual media stars who daily bomb the president with popcorn?)
Of course, the media’s
deepest frustration and condescension is for the 63 million. Who are those people? Were any of them educated? Were they rural Americans with just enough
city cousins to swing an election? Maybe
they’re the type who listens to that Bill Gaither guy’s music. Coal miners, probably. Maybe some are teachers at those small
community or technical colleges. The
youngest of Goldwater’s voters are in their seventies now. Was it the last and successful gasp of the
Goldwaterites? Whatever, we know for
sure those people don’t read or think for themselves.
So swirls the collective
brain of the commentators and celebrities who hardly know the difference
between an Angus and a Holstein, a shot gun and a rifle, or a plum and a
persimmon. Their distance from common folks is illustrated by the Washington
Post reporter who wrote, “For agriculture secretary, Trump has picked former
Georgia governor Sonny Purdue who once led a prayer for rain.” (Weird people, those praying governors.)
Bounded by camera
lights and concrete, removed from the masses, and disdainful of such beautiful
words as “heartland,” “Americana,” and “nation,” media stars exude their transnational
enthusiasm, their amorphous globalism, and their transgender affection. They
murder the American spirit.
How fertile a ground
for an outsider to walk into and plant his seed of fresh thought: the fresh
thought of taking care of America first, lest America lose all ability to help
anybody; the thought of a president being a fighter unafraid of the media; of
middle class concerns long ignored. The
thought – the glorious irony – of a billionaire traitor to his class who be-danged
if he doesn’t excite those working stiffs whom the commentator media types hold
in disdain. The thought of manufacturing
being once again a trademark of America.
The proletariat, the
president’s base, still supports him because he doesn’t “grow” or “evolve.” Bush I “grew,” moving from “Read my lips…” to
forsaking what his lips said. Bill
Clinton, Obama, and Sen. Schumer “grew” from calling for tight borders to
arguing for the very opposite. The media
“grew” when it began to alter the meaning of words in order to condemn them:
words like gender, patriotism, nationalism, populism, and even civilization.
The media rejects
Churchill’s definition of civilization: “Civilization means a society based
upon the values of civilians.” That’s what
those 63 million are: civilians! And
they proudly wear Karl Marx’s label, “the proletariat.” They are working people who, again in
Churchill’s words, “hold to the central principle of subordination of the
ruling authority to the settled customs and traditions of the people as
expressed in their Constitution.”
And yes, they honor
that Constitution, unlike the talking heads who abuse its First Amendment,
claiming it renders them untouchable.
How “ Old World” things
have become. Like Europe of yesteryear,
it’s now the proletariat versus the elites.
History, however, points to continued proletariat victories.
Roger Hines
1/2/19
No comments:
Post a Comment