People who refuse to accept responsibility for failure always require scapegoats to bear the blame. Hillary Clinton lost the election and, because this cannot be her fault — she is always blameless — she must rationalize defeat by heaping scorn on those who voted against her:
If you look at the map of the United States, there is all that red in the middle where Trump won. I won in the coasts, I win, you know, Illinois, Minnesota, places like that. But what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, “make America great again,” was looking backwards. You know, “You didn’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”
Bitter much, ma’am? Allahpundit points out that, during the same event in Mumbai, India, Hillary also recycled a claim she’s made before, namely that married women voted against her because of . . . well, patriarchy: “Part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”
This is not an explanation, it’s an excuse. It is a refusal to accept failure, a selfish rationalization that allows Hillary (and other Democrats) to avoid admitting that their policy agenda isn’t popular. By the way, their policies weren’t popular during the eight years of Obama’s presidency, either; the difference was that Obama had a personal charisma that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have. Obama defeated John McCain and Mitt Romney largely on the basis of his own charisma, and also as a result of Bush-era GOP policy failures. What was Hillary’s selling point in 2016? First, that she was an experienced politician and, second, that she would continue the general direction of Obama-era policy. Trump offered voters an alternative, one untainted by association with Bush-style Republicanism, and this was enough to shift the balance in several states (including Pennsylvania and Michigan) long considered “safe” for Democrats.
In a way, however, Hillary is right. She was popular among voters in places that were “optimistic” and “moving forward” as a result of Obama-era policies intended to benefit certain people in certain places — which isn’t necessarily an argument in favor of those policies, especially if you did not benefit yourself. What did Hillary offer to working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan, except a continuation of the same liberal policies that had resulted in their economic and social marginalization? For decades, going back at least as far as the early 1990s, these voters have felt neglected by the political elite, and they do not like being told that their problems are due to their being “backwards” and prejudiced.
If you habitually insult people — which is what Democrats have been doing to white voters in “all that red in the middle” for many years now — you should not be surprised when they vote against you. Elections have consequences, and Trump’s success in breaking the bipartisan elite’s stranglehold on federal policy could produce a decisive shift in American politics. If he fails, however, would it be fair for him to blame Democrat voters? Wouldn’t we laugh in scorn if Trump made such excuses?
Winners don’t need excuses. Victory is its own justification. Whatever criticism you might have of Nick Saban’s coaching strategies, you can’t deny that Alabama won the national championship, and whatever you say about Trump, he is the president, isn’t he?
Hillary travels to Mumbai, disparaging Trump voters — “all that red in the middle” of America — to the delight of her international audience. Let’s hope American voters never forget that insult.
