My Turn: Why Hillary Lost
Now that everybody has had their opportunity to tell you why Trump won and what it all means, allow me to share with you my theory on the whole matter.
Ben has half-days all this week for Parent-Teacher conferences, so Cami and I decided yesterday to take him to see the new movie Trolls. For whatever it’s worth, it basically an hour an a half Glee episode based on Cinderella and glitter. So, that’s my review of the film. Afterwards, we took the long way home enjoying the afternoon sunshine and a latte macchiato while Ben played Pokémon Go in the back seat and Cami asked me a few pointed questions about what happened and why everybody is so uptight about the whole thing.
Instead of giving her one word answers, I started talking about it and in the middle of my answer on what I thought happened, I said something that just stuck with me. It was as if I had finally put into words what I have come to believe all along.
Some months ago I watched the Ken Burns documentary “Prohibition,” which I found fascinating and I highly recommend. It was on Netflix, but I haven’t checked in there a while, although it is available through Amazon. Along the way of that film, one of the people interviewed defined “progressive” (in the sense of a political agenda) as follows:
Using the power of government to solve a perceived social issue without persuasion.
If you think about it, that was prohibition in a nutshell. There was a problem for some people with alcohol, but “we” did not have a problem with it. In fact, until the 16th Amendment (Income Taxes), we completely funded our government with the taxes collected on booze. But some felt that the only way to end the scourge of alcoholism was to have the government force people to stop drinking and then to control the distillation and distribution using the power of government using force and the new G-Men. Eventually prohibition went away when people realized that it sucked. Eighty-three years later we still have the G-Men, always and ever looking to enforce yet another government prohibition.
In the 1960 poverty became a target for government control. A “war” on it, no less. In the 1970’s it became pollution. After 9/11 it was safe travel. By 2008 it was “Health Care” that simply had to be “fixed” because so many of us were going bankrupt because of crappy healthcare. All of these were perceived as “social issues” that could only be “fixed” or addressed by government. insert government solution here and despite the best of intentions, you would be hard pressed to argue that any of them have “solved” anything.
Which brings us to Tuesday, November 7, 2016. The election pitted two candidates, one a self-proclaimed (and loudly so) “Progressive,” the other a clear social liberal appealing to Conservatives for votes against the progressive.
I am going to say something here that initially many of you will disagree with, but I think that if you think about it for a moment or two, you’ll see what I am saying.
I think that most Americans are more “Liberal” than we would ever admit in polite conversation. Certainly socially. Maybe you don’t feel like you are, but over the years, so many of us have adopted the libertarian philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. What difference does it make to me if my neighbor believes in one god or twenty? As long as he isn’t forcing me to violate my conscience and rights as to how to worship, it doesn’t matter. Today, what difference does it make to me if my neighbor wants to sleep with other men or wear a dress and pretend to be a girl? As long as he isn’t forcing me to violate my conscience or rights, it really doesn’t effect me. (Do you see where I am headed with this?)
BUT… and this is what I said to Cami yesterday that rang my own bell…
“I think that most Americans are more liberal and more tolerant than we would admit. But what we HATE – more than anything – is having the government FORCE us to accept things that otherwise wouldn’t really bother us so much.”
And that is why Hillary lost. The voters of many States recognized that she represented the force of progressivism and the desire to use the force of government to MAKE you and I accept things that don’t really matter in the big scheme of things, but because they now would have the power and force of government they would become focal points of modern G-Men running around and making sure that I don’t cross some imaginary line of offense and outrage.
Trump, well known for his socially liberal positions, didn’t represent the use of government power to make me abide by his terms.
The people you see rioting and whining on social media about how racist and bigoted and sexist we all are are really just representing the desire to use force to control and compel certain behaviors, actions and activities. They proclaim “freedom,” but never use the word “liberty,” do they? They tell us they are the tolerant, but they cannot function without the force of government to make you listen to their point of view and desires for your life. All while screaming that it is you and I who want to force them to live the way they don’t want to live.
Thanks to the prescience of the Framers, who understood that the sectional differences of the nation would need to be balanced, we have a system that forces Presidential Candidates to appeal to the largest part of the nation that sees things pretty much the same way. Most importantly, it doesn’t allow for the tyranny of a majority or for one section of the nation* to be run roughshod over by another. Like it or not, and people who don’t understand it and have never thought about it or studied it will always complain about it (as will the loser of every close election), it works. It does what it was supposed to do. In this case, it prevented a progressive takeover of the government and forced the Executive to allow people to adapt and change at their own pace and speed, rather than compelling them to do so.
One last thought here, and that is this: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law. – 3rd Amendment
The 3rd doesn’t get much run in discussion of politics and Constitutional Law. If you think about it, though, what was the purpose of quartering troops? To control behavior of citizens. To force compliance. To compel behavior acceptable to the government.
What’s the difference – functionally – between a troop quartered in your house and a G-man watching your every move, act and thought?
At the end of the day and all of the discussions and all of the arguments, that’s why Hillary Clinton lost. Because she represented the desire to use the government to force behavior and beliefs and actions. Donald Trump didn’t.
*As a complete aside, what was once seen as the sectional differences between Slave and Non-slave States, have morphed into Urban and Rural. The two sides have differing interests, and just like the past, those differences remain. They have simply moved from one issue to the next. might be a good topic for a future episode of Constitution Thursday?
Posted on November 10, 2016, in 2016 Presidential, 3rd Amendment, 9-11, Article II, Constitution, Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton, History and tagged 2016, 2016 Election, 3rd Amendment, Article II, Donald Trump, Electoral College, Hillary Clinton, Progressive, Progressivism. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.