Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" speech at a fund-raiser for her campaign last week has become everything she did not want it to be. It is now a lightning rod, uniting and growing support for her opposition, Donald Trump, as it exposes the contempt she has for ordinary Americans, who are not as good as she is.
While I suppose that different people may choose to be most offended by different aspects of that part of the fund-raising speech, I may take one word -- which many may see as a passing one -- for what the speaker truly intended. And I think that one to be as bad as any she spoke that day.
Look at her exact words (you can hear them in your mind's ear):
"To just [sic] be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket
of deplorables. [pause for light applause; then, raising her hands palms-up to the donors] Right? [pause again so that the country-club set in the room can identify with her] They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic,
Islamophobic -- you name it."
[Aside ... the word before "racist" has been represented in the media often as "the." I believe the word she spoke, with elision, was "they're" and that makes sense in context where "the" does not. But I digress.]
By now I think you can tell where I'm going with this. The gross generalization, of course, is terrible, and the characterization of a large chunk of the country as horribly as she did is equally terrible. But the message is beyond the characterization and generalization, and we need to expose the one word that best portrays that message. That word was:
"Right?"
Yep, that's the one. After uttering the "basket of deplorables" comment, the first thing Hillary Clinton had to do was to distinguish the rich donors in the room from the unwashed masses.
"You, the ones who are going to give me millions for my campaign, you're so much better than those nasty other people. Please nod your heads in agreement."
Yes, that's what Hillary meant when she said the word "Right?", and we need to take her to task for the mindset that she clearly expressed, that exists in her and in the people in the room. They're the elite, they're the upper crust, their money will be safe, they will still get to be entertained by Barbra Streisand and go home to their gated communities with armed guards.
Watch and listen to the recording yet again. Listen to the tone of Hillary's voice when she says "Right?", watch her hands, and hear the combination of the contempt she has for Americans and the association she is trying to create with the limousine liberals in the room. Then try to imagine that contemptuous attitude residing in the White House and running the country.
Donald Trump is a fabulously wealthy man. He clearly can walk with the country-club set any time he wants to, and can continue to consort with the wealthy of the USA as he has for decades. But at no time, in no speech, has a word he has uttered appeared to suggest an obligation as president more to any one American than another.
Surprisingly, he has not been the "rich man's presidential candidate" in the way that he could have been seen as being. His policies and positions have been relatively mainstream Republican orthodoxy, as opposed to anything dramatically intended to keep the wealthy rich. In fact, his own personal wealth and the impact of it on his presidency appear to be a non-factor in his appeals; the impression I get is more that he's made his money, is not afraid of losing it, and now, at a healthy 70, wants to do something for the USA.
That ain't Hillary. With one word in an already-contemptible speech, she exposed her true feelings for America.
She cannot be allowed to lead it.
Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
No comments:
Post a Comment