A Purple Revolution to Fight the Fourth Reich?

by William Skink

As a privileged white male, there are things I’m not experiencing right now. I’m not afraid of my reproductive rights being taken away, and I’m not afraid of being deported. I’m not wondering if a new permissiveness to grope my body will go viral or if articles of my clothing can now be violently ripped from around my head with impunity.

While individual acts of violence should be strongly condemned and prosecuted, depicting every single person who voted for Trump as racist, sexist and Islamophobic is a mistake.

Yesterday I stood in a short line outside Best Buy to get the Nintendo Classic. To help pass the time, conversations meandered and eventually touched on politics. A woman who identified herself as Hispanic indicated she voted for Trump, and now that she is seeing stories of gay friends being harassed on Facebook, she expressed dismay that she would be associated with that kind of behavior.

What would the losing team think about this woman? That she is stupid and ignorant? That she has an abusive male spouse forcing her to vote Trump? Would they ridicule and mock her and blame her for the ugliness that seems to be rising to the surface?

The narrative forming right now explaining Trump’s victory is best summarized by this term: whitelash. The problem with this notion is exposed by the actual data of who voted, and who didn’t. The following lengthy excerpt is from Jeffrey St. Clair’s analysis at Counterpunch:

There’s no doubt Clinton lost the white vote. Lost it big: 58-27. She was even trounced by Trump with white women voters by a stunning 53 to 43% margin. Think about that for a moment. More than half of the white women who bothered to vote preferred a serial sexual predator to Hillary Clinton. (Hillary won the total women’s vote 54 to 42 percent. But that’s one percent less than the 55% Obama got in 2012!)

But did whites vote in such large margins for Trump because they feared blacks, Muslims and Hispanics? Some of them, surely. America is a racist country, has been and will be. But is it any more racist now than it was four years ago, when the Tea Party and what we now call the Alt Right feverishly tried to take down Barack Obama?

There’s no evidence to show that it is and plenty of data to suggest that it is not. For one thing, the voting age population is more diverse now than it was four years ago. This should have been a decisive advantage for Clinton, but it wasn’t. Why?

Let’s dig a little deeper into the numbers. Clinton lost the white vote by almost the exact same margin that Obama did to Romney in 2012. Holding that margin should have been a huge advantage for Clinton because, demographically speaking, the share of white voters is falling and the share of black and Hispanic voters is rising. How could she possibly lose given that dynamic?

The problem, and this should come as a shock to the Whitelash Theorists, is that Trump did 2% better with blacks than Romney did and Hillary performed 5% worse than Obama for a total spread of 7% less than the 2012 margins.

Even more startling, given Trump’s vile Mexican-bashing, is that Trump won a higher percent of Hispanic votes (29%) than Romney (27%) and Hillary won a much smaller share of Hispanic votes (65%) than Obama (71%) for a total decline of 8% from 2012.

Even so, Hillary should have won the election. Why? Because Trump got 1.5 million fewer votes than Romney. There was no great white surge.

The fatal problem is that Hillary got 5.4 million fewer votes than Obama, many of those black and Hispanic voters, and lost 6 states that Obama won twice: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio. That’s pretty conclusive evidence that Hillary didn’t lose because of racism.

This data isn’t going to help those wishing to immediately direct the rage and confusion of Hillary supporters at racist white people. The protests that have immediately sprung up are being depicted by those on the right as a Soros-style color revolution. There’s no doubt Soros has helped finance color revolutions in other countries, but now the contention is a “purple revolution” is being direct at America.

This is what Trump means when he refers to “professional protesters” helping to fuel this civil unrest. Because Trump is saying it, the idea is instantly poison to anyone on the left, but the left should remember the seeds of the Occupy Wall Street movement did indeed originate from a Soros-funded petri-dish, which Reuters reported on back in 2011:

Anti-Wall Street protesters say the rich are getting richer while average Americans suffer, but the group that started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world’s richest men.

There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans. Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.

Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.

Both sides–Trump supporters and Hillary supporters–are being skillfully manipulated for maximum effect.

I doubt many protesters hitting the streets these last few nights are consciously aware of how wealth can seed and direct color revolutions–they are legitimately horrified at the prospects of a Trump presidency and face the threat of real violence from emboldened segments of America’s extreme-right fringe. That doesn’t mean the claim of professional protesters involved is without merit.

On the flip-side, most Trump supporters aren’t card-carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan, but that doesn’t mean the growth of the “alt-right” is a harmless, benign phenomenon. In today’s Missoulian there is an article about American Nazi Party literature showing up in Missoula.

I think what we are seeing (for those with eyes to see) is a classic divide and conquer strategy deployed by the plutocrats and their billionaire puppet masters.

If both sides allow themselves to be manipulated, then what we will have is a Soros-backed color revolution violently disrupting an American Fourth Reich. If that’s the narrative, both sides lose and the Plutocrats win.

Advertisements

About William Skink

I'm a poet and political cynic living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A Purple Revolution to Fight the Fourth Reich?

  1. JC says:

    Somehow this seems very appropriate:

    Start wearing purple, wearing purple
    Start wearing purple for me now
    All your sanity and wits, they will all vanish
    I promise, it’s just a matter of time

    I know you since you were a twenty, I was twenty,
    and thought that some years from now
    a purple little little lady will be perfect
    for dirty old and useless clown

    Like

  2. JC says:

    Quick anecdote, my partner and I have a friend, a 70 year old right wing republican man who’s never voted democrat in his life. In a talk with him yesterday he indicated he voted for Trump, not because of all the white nationalist crap, but because he thought he would end the wars, draw down the military and its budget and the savings could be put to good use domestically for all the problems we have like crumbling infrastructure, dwindling manufacturing ability, health care, and the like.

    Who woulda thunk it? Republicans looking to Trump as the peace candidate, one who would rather invest america’s wealth at home, than abroad to maintain empire.

    Turnout by traditional democrat allies was heavily suppressed by the knowledge that the dem party no longer supported their values, and actively colluded to prevent challenges to the Clinton ascendency. And 10% of Obama’s voters turned to Trump as they believed he would break the neocon/neoliberal chokehold that has held both parties hostage.

    We live in interesting times…

    Like

  3. 01stevekelly says:

    The media’s job right now is to convince us all that power again changed hands — democracy, Republic or whatever one wants to believe — without bloodshed and tanks in the streets. It would be a mistake to believe any of it. Exhibit A: Standing Rock. Police state is alive and well. The next American flag will be 13 stripes and one (purple?) star.

    Like

  4. Big Swede says:

    Purple. The color of sour grapes.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s