I came across a post on Facebook by Occupy Democrats, and it was of a white working class man with a text-over caption that was grossly over-generalized, and if it had been framed for another purpose, any other purpose, contextualizing another non-white male, it would have or could have easily, while remaining as overly generalized as the text implied was common (making no efforts to avoid the already gross stereotypes concerning Trump’s victory), it would have been seen and understood to be racist, sexist, or phobic in one or another way. The white working class man was speaking to you and to me with his eyes directly into the camera lens, and he was talking about how his job ad been sent to China and how he now has a job that provides no pension or health benefits, but that he votes Republican because Benghazi is more important to him, which of course points to the notion that there could be no other reason for anyone to be dis-affected from the Clinton Gang—yes, Gang.
I wrote in my re-posting to Facebook: “Do you not see how heinously racist this is, falling right in line with the received ideas as to why Trump won . . .” and I went on to say, “when twice the number of African Americans who voted for Romney in 2012, voted for Trump? And yes they did. I also asked, Explain how some reports cite nearly 30% of the Hispanic vote went for Trump? Which might be a liberal estimate, liberal in numerical assessment, not in political . . .
As I had said in the post on Facebook, Bill Clinton signed into legislation measures that lead to more jobs going to China than any other President; so, Hilary supporters using this against anyone who voted for Trump is absurd and grossly disingenuous. But then, even if the post was initially used by Democrats who do not support Hilary, it is still propaganda and not critique, one of many received ideas contemporary liberals like using instead of having to think. But please do not stop reading here in order to comment in reflex, as if your not having read the article through is enough or could be; thereby, by not reflexively commenting, you will thus spare me and my readers any one of the many inanely drawn statements in indignation that some might have, mostly concerning the policy ping-pong between Democrats and Republicans too many of you imagine is ideological debate.
Bill Clinton’s welfare reform was right-wing in a way Regan could only have dreamed about making; affecting African Americans more direly if one wants to examine the States by state and how they have read his reform into policy; and please read in this Obama’s not having done anything to change that, often being too afraid of the Republicans to be Liberal enough to do so; and not having had enough political cache from the beginning,having only spent 2 years in the House before his Presidency . . . no one owed him anything.
Bill Clinton signed into legislation more de-regulation of the Banks/Wall Street than any other President in history. Please refer to Clinton’s gutting of New deal reforms that disallowed banks from entering practices that they then could endeavor from the late-late 90s to the fiasco we saw now nearing ten years ago. 2008 financial crisis—point your finger at Bill and Alan (Greenspan). Clinton could very well have been worse for Americans and better for Banks simultaneously than any President in history, an irony couched by his middle name, Jefferson, a namesake who warned us that Banks are more dangerous to a people and their liberty than any standing army . . . but of course in the knees that many Hilary supporters have for minds, this makes me one of the Deplorables, except how do they explain my critiques of Trump and his heinous black-shirted Cabinet?
Now let me make myself perfectly clear, Trump is a buffoon and the Republicans have become mostly heinous, but then the Democrats are even worse because they have everyone imagining that they stand for liberal causes and the People. Now that charade is straight out of the Devil’s theater; Statecraft is stagecraft.
And by the way, the mass incarceration of America was begun under Clinton and has been a direct result of the prosecutorial reading of his anti-crime legislation that he gleefully signed into law. Please spare me the memory of Bill Clinton; if any fantasies or fictionalized docudrama accounts of assassination were to be indulged . . . a horrible, horrible President, which my saying thus will incur a slew of reflexive comments from mainstream Democrats and Hilary supporters landing beside the point.
The Falling Leaf Review 