Trump and the Charge of the Faux-Lib Brigade

A scrutiny of the ‘liberal’ opinions targeting Donald Trump in the major media outlets during the run up to the presidential election compels one to conclude that these opinions on the extreme left have nothing to do with the liberal values on which western civilization is founded. This ‘Faux-liberalism’ is bitterly authoritarian and illiberal. It does not brook even the mildest dissent from its scriptural truth. It is willing to sacrifice even the most fundamental values of true liberalism, liberty and individualism, to advance its illiberal worldview.  

The Two Contenders

The new ‘values’ the faux-libs propound are calculated to destroy the free world and the liberties it ensures for its citizens. What are these 'new values'? Open borders, illegal immigration, religious self-segregation, color-coded justice, indulgence towards and assent to religious laws that sanctify gender discrimination and restrict individual freedoms, a skewed idea of ‘multiculturalism’. In their stridency and intent the faux-libs are almost like the fundamentalist religious movements in developing countries that disguise themselves as political parties to capture power.

Ironically, this election was partly won for Donald Trump by the media, whose unbalanced, glaringly partisan coverage evidently repulsed ordinary voters, driving them towards Trump. News outlets like NYT, USA Today, and CNN were at the vanguard of this concerted movement of petulance thriving on prejudice. Even the results of the several ‘polls’ conducted by their experts were reduced to mere wish fulfillment of the faux-libs, the predictions ending up as ridiculous misfires.

The reporting in the liberal media was held hostage to the fau-libs’ anti-Trump crusade and was so unjustly partisan in the way it was going about ridiculing and damning Mr. Trump, twisting every word he spoke, dredging up forgotten minor transgressions from his distant past and building them up into monstrosities, finding even in his minutest gestures and utterings signs of ugliness, ineptitude, and apocalyptic evils ranging from racism and misogyny to xenophobia and KKK sympathy.

Contrastingly, the same media that was on a spiralling anti-Trump trip was pathologically indulgent towards Mrs. Clinton, fawning over her, readily willing to forgive or rationalize every one of her transgressions and ineptitudes, accusations of wrong-doings, or any perceptible flaws in her persona such as the alleged tendency to misrepresent facts when it (i.e., the misrepresentation) benefits her in the given situation, a trait on which, incidentally, the irrepressible Christopher Hitchens once devoted an entire article in www.slate.com (‘the Case Against Clinton’, 01/14/2008).

The seduced media even failed to condemn the Clinton team’s cynical and tasteless exploitation of the supreme sacrifice of a US soldier, in one of their campaigns.

The academic and professional pedigree of Mrs. Clinton and her extensive political experience is indisputable, but how about Mr. trump himself? Here is a Wharton School alumni, a successful author with over 20 works under his belt, an effective and popular communicator and presenter, a builder of wealth in the truest American sense, and a brilliant businessman and manager of people. This version of Trump was sidelined and smothered in the deliberate propagandizing unleashed by the faux-libs. What was projected as ‘Trump’ was an unreal B-movie like ogre of huge proportions imagined up by the faux-libs, almost like the Putin-phobic Economist Magazine’s caricature of Vladimir Putin. Such caricaturing fails to impress in the long run.

The Economists's Putin Caricature.

Incidentally, the faux-libs reactions to Trump were to a large extent clouded by exocentric thinking.  Objectivity be damned, Trump should be condemned if Putin seems to like him, or if the Russians seem to appreciate him, or if the extreme rightwing bestowed their unwanted attention on him. Strangely, Trump had to struggle against two opposing flank movements: the unsolicited amorous passes from the extreme rightwing and the unrelenting hate from the illiberal faux-libs.

The issues Trump raised are existential threats faced by free societies, not just USA.  An example of this is his pre-occupation with the negative aspects of multiculturalism, the creeping invasion of negative cultures in free societies- an invasion which threatens to destroy liberties. It is the height of cynicism to think that the man on the street does not identify with such anxieties. American Declaration of Independence which declares, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” ,  affirms the equality of all men and women of all races, and is the best antidote against the evil of racism. All races are equal.

But it does not follow that all cultures are equal too, or equally good!  It is not true. There are progressive and regressive cultures in the world. There are cultures in the world that sanctify gender discrimination, disempowerment of women, and restrictions on freedom of conscience; not merely sanctify, but willing to violently enforce these regressive norms on individuals. Influence of such cultures can erode justice, civil authority, and freedom. Positive values of various cultures can be co-opted, but the negative aspects should be opposed and rejected. Multiculturalism, when it encourages positive cultural traditions, enriches free societies. But blanket multiculturalism, that is the uncritical acceptance of illiberal cultural traditions also as a necessity,  fails the test of reason, and Trump was able to generate an emotional connect with many voters on this issue.

What was obvious to a discerning person at that time - that the whole edifice of the contrasting media reportages on the two contenders was an artifice of deception built on exaggerations, false premises, over-simplifications, and wishful thinking- is now out in the open.   Reality has dispersed the fog of faux-lib propaganda, but the whining and breast-beating, decrying the end of the world brought on by the Trump win, continue in the media. Add to that the spectacle of the thousands of misguided souls who march against the electoral verdict, apparently wanting nothing less than a beer-hall putsch on electoral democracy.

 PostScript: The faux-libs’ newfound affection for ‘popular votes’ as opposed to ‘electoral votes’ is rather ingenuous, amusing. It is true Clinton won more popular votes, but only because she had large margins in those few electoral seats she won. But, since electoral votes represent geographic areas, Trump’s victory simply means Trump had, though marginally, more influence in a larger geographical area of the country.