Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton described millions of Trump supporters as being a bunch of racists in a campaign fund-raiser in September 2016.
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”
It was quite a charge to label millions of people – all Trump supporters – as racists. Does she really think that none of her supporters are racists also?
There are indeed a good number of racists in the country, belonging to both political parties. But to say that there are millions of them is likely a gross over-statement, unless one uses the new “progressive” approach to labeling someone a “deplorable.”
Extending the Definition of “Racists, sexists, homophobes,
xenophobes, Islamophobes – you name it”
The last several years in American history have witnessed an amazing expansion of name-calling by the radical left, as they have sought to extend the broad parameters of inclusiveness. In particular, the “progressives” have championed two general civic courses for society to learn: self-identity and celebrating diversity.
In the new “progressive” social dictionary, a person’s self-identity trumps any physical reality. Specifically, self-identity is not simply a matter of the personal definition of self, but the imposition of that position onto society, which must accept and adapt to that person’s preference.
Consider the case of Rachel Dolezal in June 2015, a white woman who headed the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP. She argued that she “identified as black,” and rose to become head of a local minority organization. Some progressives were happy to welcome her to the cause of black-empowerment, while others were not willing to grant her a new self-defined racial make-up, as doing so would undermine the fight against the “structures of white empowerment.” This was actually a matter of serious debate and discussion.
The case of transgender people impacted Americans on a broader scale than a local Washington group. In May 2016, the Obama administration passed a law that public schools must allow students to use restrooms of their “gender identity.” This ruling impacted millions of children in school. Young girls would now be in a position of changing in a locker room with a person who identified as a woman, even though he had XY chromosomes and male genitalia.
This was too much for wide swaths of America.
When Gov. Pat McCory of North Carolina fought to block the transgender ruling, the progressive community went on a rant that he was a homophobe and against the LGBT community. Various artists and organizations began to boycott the state in solidarity with the progressive ruling.
These days, progressives quickly label people who choose not to recognize self-identity over biology, as racists and homophobes. Add more people to the “basket of deplorables.”
Missing the Celebration
Another way that Hillary Clinton may have been able to reach her millions of people in her “basket of deplorables” was by including people who do not “celebrate diversity” the way that she envisions.
In Clinton’s opening remarks during her second debate with Trump in October 2016 she used that phrase twice:
- “We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity”
- “we will respect one another and we will work with one another and we will celebrate our diversity”
What could Clinton have had in mind?
In August 2015, a court in Colorado ruled against a bakery that would not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery owner claimed that while he would sell anything to a gay couple, making a specific “gay” wedding cake went against his Christian values. However, it seemed that the baker’s opinion went against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s 2014 ruling that dictated that he must create cakes for gay couples.
The ruling put conservatives in a rage.
Questions arose whether the bakery must also create cakes in the shape of a swastika if so ordered by a patron. Would a vegetarian store have to serve meat? A kosher store be forced to open on Saturday? A tattoo artist inscribe something they considered personally offensive?
Conservatives wanted to understand whether the line defining discrimination had moved.
If a store owner was willing to sell anything in the store to anyone who sought to purchase it regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or anything else, how can there be discrimination? To force a company or store owner to create something that is against their beliefs is a completely different hurdle.
The progressives were nonplussed. Of course the store owner should celebrate the gay wedding. To do otherwise would be homophobic.
If that case seemed too narrow and unusual, consider the case of Hobby Lobby that went to the Supreme Court in 2014. Hobby Lobby had fought for the right to not fund contraceptives in the company’s employee health coverage plans, as it offended their Christian beliefs. The court narrowly ruled in the company’s favor.
Millions of people either applauded or cursed the ruling.
Before you could blink, the progressives had minted millions of new “homophobes” and “racists” that disagreed with how to celebrate diversity.
Diversity is part of what makes America great, similar to free speech. We are a better country for having a rich tapestry of people with different backgrounds, races, religions and colors, the same way the country benefits from people having different opinions and approaches to life.
However, the same way we vigorously defend the right of free speech, we are free to disagree and ignore the views completely. As a friend of Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That should be the logical approach to “celebrating diversity” as well. Every person has the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies and lives, but not to force people to endorse or promote those personal decisions.
That does not seem to be the stance of progressives regarding diversity today. They do not just simply seek a world without discrimination, they want an America that endorses and celebrates their progressive stances. Woe unto the person who didn’t cheer Caitlyn Jenner (fka Bruce) winning the Arthur Ashe Courage award.
There are only two choices in a “progressive” society: accept, adapt and celebrate the new progressive agenda OR be labeled a “deplorable.”
And in the likely President Clinton future, either be fired, boycotted or hauled to jail. She made clear that you are not part of her “America.”
Related First.One.Through articles:
Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough
Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis