z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 1 By DANIEL HENNINGER
Sept. 14, 2016 7:24 p.m. ET
2019 COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of
phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen
as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the
politically incorrect.
They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it
was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of
unheard Americans—rebelled against the intellectual elites’ ancien ré
gime of political correctness.
It remains to be seen what effect Hillary’s five phobias will have on the
race, which tightened even before these remarks and Pneumonia-gate. The two
events produced one of Mrs. Clinton’s worst weeks in opposite ways.
As with the irrepressible email server, Mrs. Clinton’s handling of her
infirmity—“I feel great,” the pneumonia-infected candidate said while
hugging a little girl—deepened the hole of distrust she lives in. At the
same time, her dismissal, at Barbra Streisand’s LGBT fundraiser, of
uncounted millions of Americans as deplorables had the ring of genuine
belief.
Perhaps sensing that public knowledge of what she really thinks could be a
political liability, Mrs. Clinton went on to describe “people who feel that
the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody
cares about them . . . and they’re just desperate for change.”
She is of course describing the people in Charles Murray’s recent and
compelling book on cultural disintegration among the working class, “Coming
Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” This is indeed the bedrock
of the broader Trump base.
Mrs. Clinton is right that they feel the system has let them down. There is
a legitimate argument over exactly when the rising digital economy started
transferring income away from blue-collar workers and toward the “creative
class” of Google and Facebook employees, no few of whom are smug
progressives who think the landmass seen from business class between San
Francisco and New York is pocked with deplorable, phobic Americans.
Naturally, they’ll vote for the status quo, which is Hillary.
But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what
rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and
underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they
want a radical mid-course correction. Which Mrs. Clinton isn’t and never
will be.
This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. The progressive Democrats,
a wholly public-sector party, have disconnected from the realities of the
private economy, which exists as a mysterious revenue-producing abstraction.
Hillary’s comments suggest they now see much of the population has a
cultural and social abstraction.
To repeat: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”
Those are all potent words. Or once were. The racism of the Jim Crow era was
ugly, physically cruel and murderous. Today, progressives output these
words as reflexively as a burp. What’s more, the left enjoys calling people
Islamophobic or homophobic. It’s bullying without personal risk.
Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive
cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. Nativists exist, and the sky
is still blue. But the overwhelming majority of these people aren’t phobic
about a modernizing America. They’re fed up with the relentless, moral
superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old
campus activists.
Evangelicals at last week’s Values Voter Summit said they’d look past Mr.
Trump’s personal résumé. This is the reason. It’s not about him.
The moral clarity that drove the original civil-rights movement or the women
’s movement has degenerated into a confused moral narcissism. One wonders
if even some of the people in Mrs. Clinton’s Streisandian audience didn’t
feel discomfort at the ease with which the presidential candidate slapped
isms and phobias on so many people.
Presidential politics has become hyper-focused on individual personalities
because the media rubs them in our face nonstop. It is a mistake, though, to
blame Hillary alone for that derisive remark. It’s not just her. Hillary
Clinton is the logical result of the Democratic Party’s new, progressive
algorithm—a set of strict social rules that drives politics and the culture
to one point of view. A Clinton victory would enable and entrench the
forces her comment represents.
Her supporters say it’s Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is “divisive.” Just
so. But it’s rich to hear them claim that their words and politics are “
inclusive.” So is the town dump. They have chopped American society into so
many offendable identities that only a Yale freshman can name them all.
If the Democrats lose behind Hillary Clinton, it will be in part because
America’s les déplorables decided enough of this is enough.
Write [email protected]/* */ | z***e
发帖数: 1757 | | t*******d
发帖数: 12895 | | m***i
发帖数: 1978 | | G**Y
发帖数: 33224 | 5 fb了
seen
it
of
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: By DANIEL HENNINGER
: Sept. 14, 2016 7:24 p.m. ET
: 2019 COMMENTS
: Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “
: racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of
: phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen
: as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the
: politically incorrect.
: They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it
: was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of
| A****y
发帖数: 2467 | 6 Democrats’ Deplorable Emails
How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked
messages.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 15, 2016 7:21 p.m. ET
If the 2016 election is remembered for anything beyond its flawed candidates
, it will be recalled as the year of the Democratic email dump. Or rather,
the year that the voting public got an unvarnished view of the disturbing—
nay, deplorable—inner workings of the highest echelons of the Democratic
Party.
What makes the continuing flood of emails instructive is that nobody was
ever meant to see these documents. Hillary Clinton set up a private server
to shield her communications as secretary of state from the public. She gave
top aide Huma Abedin an account on that server. She never envisioned that
an FBI investigation and lawsuits would drag her conversations into the
light.
The Democratic National Committee and Colin Powell (an honorary Democrat)
likewise believed their correspondence secure. But both were successfully
targeted by hackers, who released the latest round of enlightening emails
this week.
ENLARGE
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
These emails provide what the public always complains it doesn’t have:
unfiltered evidence of what top politicians do and think. And what a picture
they collectively paint of the party of the left. For years, Democrats have
steadfastly portrayed Republicans as elitist fat cats who buy elections, as
backroom bosses who rig the laws in their favor, as brass-knuckle lobbyists
and operators who get special access. It turns out that this is the precise
description of the Democratic Party. They know of what they speak.
The latest hack of the DNC—courtesy of WikiLeaks via Guccifer 2.0—shows
that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t alone in steering favors to big donors. Among the
documents leaked is one that lists the party’s largest fundraisers/donors
as of 2008. Of the top 57 cash cows 18 ended up with ambassadorships. The
largest fundraiser listed, Matthew Barzun, who drummed up $3.5 million for
Mr. Obama’s first campaign, was named ambassador to Sweden and then
ambassador to the United Kingdom. The second-largest, Julius Genachowski,
was named the head of the Federal Communications Commission. The third
largest, Frank Sanchez, was named undersecretary of commerce.
Keep in mind what an earlier leak revealed: a May 18, 2016, email from an
outside lawyer to DNC staffers in which the attorney suggests a call to “go
over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay
to play letters.” Add this to what the Clinton and Abedin emails have shown
to be a massive pay-to-play operation at the Clinton Foundation, in which
megadonors like the crown prince of Bahrain got special access to the
secretary of state.
And there are also all those Clinton speeches, for which they were paid
millions. News comes this week that despite the Clintons’ promises to
distance themselves from their foundation, they will first be holding what
sounds like one last fire sale on future presidential access: a belated
birthday bash for Bill Clinton, with a glitzy party at the Rainbow Room in
Manhattan. A donation of $250,000 gets you listed as “chair” of the party,
while “co-chair” costs $100,000. Foundation officials are refusing to say
who has donated, or how much.
So which political party is all about money, influence and special access?
The Republican Party held a true, democratic primary. Seventeen candidates
battled it out, and the voters choose a nominee that much of the party
establishment disliked.
Leaked emails show that the Democratic Party hierarchy retreated to a
backroom to anoint Hillary Clinton and then exercised its considerable power
to subvert the primary process and kill off the Bernie Sanders campaign. In
one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggested sliming Mr.
Sanders on religion: “Can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe
in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read
he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.
My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an
atheist.” How’s that for deplorable?
Perhaps most revealing are Mr. Powell’s emails, which show, undisguised,
how Clinton supporters think. Specifically, the emails demonstrate that this
crowd recognizes the Clintons as a menace—and yet they are willing to
excuse away anything. “I would rather not have to vote for her,” Mr.
Powell wrote to a friend. “A 70-year person with a long track record,
unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still [
sleeping with] bimbos at home.”
Unpack that. Mr. Powell is saying that Hillary is old; that she is a scandal
factory; that she will cut any corner to win and do anything for a buck;
that she won’t help the country; and that her husband remains a liability.
And yet other emails suggest Mr. Powell nonetheless was (is?) debating
giving her a boost with a well-timed endorsement in the fall.
This is the modern Democratic Party. The more it has struggled to sell its
ideas to the public, the more it has turned to rigging the system to its
political benefit. Don’t take Republicans’ word for it. Just read the
emails.
Write to [email protected]/* */ | r*s
发帖数: 2555 | 7 这记者直接把 dicking 换成 sleeping with | b********n
发帖数: 38600 | 8 http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t/USANews/32168935.html
seen
it
of
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: By DANIEL HENNINGER
: Sept. 14, 2016 7:24 p.m. ET
: 2019 COMMENTS
: Hillary Clinton’s comment that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are “
: racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic”—a heck of a lot of
: phobia for anyone to lug around all day—puts back in play what will be seen
: as one of the 2016 campaign’s defining forces: the revolt of the
: politically incorrect.
: They may not live at the level of Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables,” but it
: was only a matter of time before les déplorables—our own writhing mass of
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 9 6:30 p.m.
Donald Trump is taking the stage in Miami with a new backdrop — a tribute
to the French Revolution with the banner “Les Deplorables.”
The song “Do You Hear the People Sing?” from the Broadway hit “Les
Miserables” played as Trump saluted the crowd at the James L. Knight Center
.
“Welcome to all of you deplorables!” Trump said. The screen behind him
glowed with a mock-up of Trump and some supporters in French Revolutionary
garb.
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: 原文网址
: http://www.wsj.com/articles/les-deplorables-1473895470
|
|
