Liberalism gets such a bad rap because its public face is a bunch of supercilious, sniveling, passive-aggressive, holier-than-thou, easily butthurt, schoolmarmish shitheads who insist that it’s their meritocratic due to permanently rule their inferiors, i.e., everyone else. Limousine liberals, we might call them, although John Lindsay, being merely high-minded and maybe a bit out of touch, never held a candle to them for reprehensible public attitudes.
It’s no wonder, if you think about it, that these fuckheads are so enamored of Uber. Uber is a car service for arrivistes, including ones who haven’t yet arrived. To understand its socioeconomics, it’s crucial to understand it as a car service in every possible negative sense of the classic Upper East Side car service and then some. Like a “parker, fetch the car; we mustn’t be late to Oyster Bay” car service, it forces its employees to maintain unwaveringly deferential manners before their clients in the hope of not being fired for some trifling perceived slip of rudeness or insubordination. Cabbies are subject to nothing of the sort. Their dispatchers figure that a stuck-up, whiny bitch can ask for a different one next time if she found it so intolerable to ride with a fellow who’s a bit uncouth around the edges. Even black limo drivers in established business relationships with reasonable clients can let their guard down because they know they aren’t dealing with assholes who get their jollies from pushing the poors around. Uber drivers cannot. They have no idea from fare to fare whether they’ll be given a B for customer service and “deactivitated”–or, as normal people say, fired.
Maintain at least a 3.6 GPA or you’re gone. We aren’t talking about the exacting degree of precision and attention that a surgeon needs to make all the correct cuts and none of the wrong cuts, which might be permanently ruinous for the patient. We aren’t even talking about the attention an engineer needs not to Robert Sanchez his train around a curve into the rear end of another train. We’re talking about jitney cabbies who fail to be total customer service rockstars for privileged passengers who feel enfranchised for being able to rate them in instant electronic surveys.
Hey there, girl buddy friend, name’s Kroeger. Get in the shower, cuz you’re gonna get fucked.
Of course this yuppie scum has lined up behind one of the scummiest yuppies ever to seek the presidency. She uses her own credentialing and work ethic as cudgels against those she presumes less educated and lazier. She ran the meritocratic race and won it. She poured her blood, sweat, and tears into the yuppie rat race. How can this blowhard who has never held elected office show up, outmaneuver her to the left as the nominee of a right-wing party, and actually get support from labor constituencies that were her party’s within her own lifetime?
They must be bigots. They must all be bigots.
It can’t be that Hillary and her yuppie horde treat the poor like shit. It can’t be that they act like they want the poor to suffer and die silently, away from them, after they’ve been certified as useless to the talented tenth. It can’t be that they constantly make fun of the uneducated, the unemployed, the unsuccessful. It can’t be that they arrogantly assume the lockstep support of black voters in one breath and smear poor white voters, whose socioeconomic circumstances are closer to the black mainstream than the bourgeois white mainstream, in the next. It can’t be that the Democratic Party has spent two generations selling out the poor and the Republican Party has an outsider presidential nominee who is promising to withdraw from international trade deals that have beggared entire industrial communities. No, it has to be that they adhere to bigotries that BoBo virtue-signalers have rebuked and, in the old Vatican tradition, Indexed.
I have two longtime Hillary partisans in my Facebook feed, both of them frankly embarrassments to the Democratic Party, although the Party as currently constituted is too dense and self-regarding to tell. Both are Jews, and not credits to the Tribe, Lawrence and (((otherwise))). I’m always afraid that one or both of them will start complaining about antisemitism that isn’t there, because they’re already upset about the sort of phantom misogyny that keeps bringing the Democratic Party deeper and deeper into popular discredit. They’re outer party members of exactly the faction that takes David Duke seriously as a threat, rather than as a ridiculous D-List gadfly for appropriating academic activist language to praise “European-Americans” on NPR. I’m Jewish enough to potentially catch the downsides of antisemitism, and in the interest of self-preservation and the welfare of my relatives I have an ear to the ground for antisemitism that materially threatens the communal welfare of Jews, so, no, I do not feel any shame in rebuking striving money Jews, and no, I do not consider it antisemitic to call a couple of specific assholes who started giving me the hairy eyeball long before I said a bad word about them striving money Jews. Calling Bernie Sanders an uppity kike would be antisemitic, but I reregistered as a Democrat and voted for him.
Money Jews for Clinton is a real movement, if one that tries to work quietly. Bernie and Debbie are (((not on such cordial terms lately))), as some of you have surely heard. As with much of her campaign, Hillary halfheartedly copied a reasonable position taken by her opponent–in this case, that it’s wrong to associate with scandal-plagued machine politicians–without actually reforming a damned thing.
The things I hear from my own Money Jews for Clinton on Facebook, and not just about Clinton, are obnoxious. One of them posted a comment about how she had often been accused of being “aggressive” for behavior that would have gotten a man labeled as “passionate.” I might have believed her if I hadn’t known her to be pushy, self-serious, and censorious in college, and if she weren’t trying to shape public policy today with a mindset that I doubt has improved significantly. I don’t appreciate it when men behave that way, either. This has nothing to do with not liking women who are confident, assertive, or witty. I don’t seek out dumbass bimbos. Some women, though, are just obnoxious. They seem to do the lion’s share of the complaining about sexism, which by their reckoning is always directed at women and never at men, never mind that bitch I’m the one who’s sleeping in his car.
And just look at the standard bearer, pictured above, whom they’ve finally elevated to the Democratic Party presidential nomination, eight years after Barack Obama’s disappointing failure to be assassinated in Kennedyesque fashion before the primaries had been concluded. Criticizing this yuppie ur-shrew is sexist. Not wanting her to become president because she’s articulably disqualified on moral grounds is sexist. How can these male chauvinist pigs stand in the way of the first female President of the United States? Rebuking her for the moral parasitism of her foul-mouthed screaming fits at and around male Secret Service agents in her protective detail is sexist. They have male privilege, so they don’t need anyone’s sympathy just because they’re paid mediocre salaries for a job demanding extreme vigilance and a willingness to put their lives on the line to protect someone who has repeatedly been accused of screaming bloody murder at the help. Sympathizing with female Secret Service agents detailed to the prospective first woman president is equally misogynistic. It isn’t about their T&A; it’s about Hillary’s. They’re the help, too. So are Julia Pearson and “Father Joe” Clancy. Mediocrities who commanded a troubled law enforcement agency but haven’t been accused of repeatedly yelling at subordinates for no good reason just don’t have that wonky presidential qualification thing in their favor. They just didn’t pay their dues in the proper institutions. Sucks to be them. See ya! Wouldn’t wanna BE ya!
Low morale at the Secret Service didn’t just happen. Having to guard the likes of the Clintons, instead of, say, the Roosevelts or the Trumans or the Eisenhowers, can’t be good for morale.
The other money Jew for Clinton whom I mentioned above is a dorky lawyer who posts tendentious lectures on Facebook about how Hillary is obviously the most qualified candidate for the presidency. In one of these, he noted that although we’re all free to vote as we see fit, voting for a candidate other than Clinton might result in the election of Donald Trump. No shit, Dr. Madonna. I had no idea that voting against one of the major-party candidates in an effectively two-party system might result in the election of the other major-party candidate. You don’t fucking say.
What annoyed me about this dude’s lecture was his assumption that his entire audience was horrified by Trump. The more I hear of that kind of condescending warning about the possibility that a vote against Hillary might elevate Trump, the more I want to vote for Trump. The philosophy of lesser evils cuts both ways. I’ve consistently found Trump less frightening than Clinton. This is in spite of all the credible stories of scandal involving Trump, especially his business dealings. He’s running against a family political machine that has had an aura of scandal about it for the entire quarter century that it’s been operating nationally. Worse, the current public principal of this machine sounds temperamentally unfit to hold any power whatsoever due to the screaming fits, is implicated in public corruption involving foreign governments and robber barons as Secretary of State, mishandled classified information on an illicit private computer server for the apparent purpose of obstructing public records requests, appears to have intimidated or corrupted federal law enforcement agencies investigating her conduct as Secretary of State, and appears to be falling into rapidly worsening physical health while her aides cover for her.
It takes a lot for the opponent of someone so compromised to be even more objectionable. I can’t count out the possibility that Trump is somehow even worse, but I have not been convinced that he is. The stories I’ve seen about his off-camera behavior suggest that his rudeness in public is mainly a persona for the press. Trump apparently wants the public to think he’s ruder and rougher than he actually is. Hillary clearly wants to cultivate the opposite reputation. She’s a coarse shrew who wants to be regarded as the cultured, well-mannered lady that, time and time again, in forum after forum, she has shown she is not.
If there’s one party I want to punish this year, it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans. The partiality and fraud of Democratic Party officials helped Clinton beat Sanders in the primaries. The Clintons didn’t let their campaign rest on their vile smears of Sanders and his base. We now have a casually subversive neoliberal grifter catfishing as a leftist after beating back the strongest leftist candidate in generations with a barrage of sleazy false accusations of bigotry. The Clinton machine helped circulate a viral quip about how Anthony Weiner is proof that they don’t have their enemies murdered. What they didn’t explain is how keeping such a sorry loser around as a foil and a target for their unearned magnanimity doesn’t make the Clintons look good by comparison, or why the Clintons keep being accused of assassinating their enemies. Why do they, of all political families, inspire that gut reaction in so many people and keep becoming the subject of assassination conspiracy theories? It’s worth asking what it is about them that leads so many people to believe that they have their enemies whacked. It’s categorically true that Bill had Ricky Ray Rector killed for political advantage, so the precedent has been set. These aren’t petty questions of appearances. This isn’t Tricky Dick looking like crap on television and allowing Broad-Bangin’ Jack’s video vigor to kill his radio star.
And, yes, there are elements of the Democratic base that I relish punishing. I do not cherish the talented tenth shitheads who have taken the party over and alienated a critical mass of the less affluent, turning them into a combination of Republicans and eligible non-voters. I never asked these fuckwads to crash the Democratic Party and drive the left out so that Republican extremists could fill the resulting power vacuum. Their will to power has grotesquely distorted political alignments in the United States, with a number of disastrous results. Sanders tried to restore the pre-Clinton alignment in a manner that I strongly supported and fully trusted, by pulling the Democratic Party to the left. Trump has begun a political realignment by establishing a populist base in the Republican Party, a move that I don’t trust nearly as much and one that few observers expected until he pulled it off. The GOP now contains a strong left-labor base in addition to its traditional stomach-turning mishmash of religious busybodies, tyrannical local elites, and other assorted reactionary creeps. It’s a bizarre political home for the labor left, but when the Democratic Party has been taken over by the Clinton machine and a Republican candidate has won the presidential nomination after appealing to trade unionists with calls to roll back neoliberal attacks on labor, it’s close to inevitable.
There’s no fully controlling for bigotry as a variable in Trump’s success. There’s no way to crack open the minds of whole electorates and determine whether they were taken by his smears of racial and religious minorities or by the sense that he would restore American manufacturing by cracking down on unfettered offshoring and illegal immigration of scab labor. By the same token, though, there’s no controlling for bourgeois class bigotry as a variable in Clinton’s support. She dog-whistled like mad at poor whiteys when she ran against Barack Obama in 2008, so this is just the latest Clintonian chameleon stunt. Back then Hillary catfished as just another working-class broad; this time, she’s the scandalized schoolmarm ragging on the class clown.
And we don’t have a very good idea of how Bernie Sanders, who did not and does not catfish or dogwhistle, would do among Trump’s current supporters in a general election because Hillary and her machine successfully did him dirty in the primaries. Trump beat out multiple warring establishment factions in his primary; Sanders lost to a single ruthless, monomaniacally focused political machine whose only other competition was a handful of dark horses who never got any traction. As things stand now, the more credible major-party populist is a blowhard who consorts with internet trolls and white supremacists. This makes it easier for Democrats to slur the labor unionists in Trump’s base as a bunch of bigots. Back when Sanders was still in the race, the polls had him doing better than Clinton in a hypothetical general election against Trump, but he’s out of the running now.
It’s pretty clear, though, that the Clintons and their ilk are perfectly happy siloing the remnants of the industrial labor left into a movement teeming with uncouth extremists. It’s easier than having to deal with them as an enduring part of the Democratic base.
I have to wonder what exactly the bourgeois supremacists find so objectionable about Trump and his campaign. Are they actually triggered by Pepe memes? Are they afraid that the sans-culottes will rise up and deplorably put their heads in wicker baskets? If so, why? Are they worried that they’ll have to do more actual work for a living if surplus wealth is redistributed back to those doing the actual production instead of credentialed bullshit artists? I know better by now than to take their assertions at face value, so I’m at something of a loss as to what really motivates their politics. Many of them can hardly face their own motivations. The hypocrisy needed to be nominally on the left while pursuing the yuppie project has to be seen to be imagined.
I do, however, know that a great many of these same yuppies harbor ugly feelings towards me for not getting with their program. I deeply resent them for taking such a sick stance and frankly love the idea of upsetting them by voting for a populist who is running against their unbelievably untrustworthy candidate. These people deserve a rebuke from the losers whose immiseration they have spent decades justifying. They deserve that backsass. Yes, Virginia, there is an educated Trump supporter writing this essay. Yes, it’s possible to be educated and vote for a twit whom the more ostentatiously educated hate.
Nice basket there; shame if I stuffed a bunch of you into it. Nice unexplained illnesses the Clintons have, for that matter; shame they always look so terminally ill.