One of the things that has liberal commentators baffled following Donald Trump’s victory is how 30 percent of Hispanics could vote for someone who called them rapists and criminals. It’s a question that shows the degree to which liberalism in its present form is entrenched in positions that are collapsing under their own weight. Thirty percent of Hispanics were not offended because, in contrast to the rules of political correctness, a person is more than his ethnic origin and because the sober Hispanic knows that Trump never said, or meant to say, that all Hispanics are like that.
Thus it happens that it’s the liberals seeking to defend minorities who expect the Hispanic to reduce himself to the boundaries of his community, even though it’s his right to believe that if Trump improves the economy and strengthens the United States, he can be forgiven his aggravating statements, which every politician makes.
The amazing surprise is also an opportunity to debate what liberalism is in our times. American liberalism brought the world political correctness, which is indeed important, but at a certain point an idea must move from the level of discourse to actualization in the real world.
In this context the world’s most politically correct country, which is even led by a black president, is far from offering de facto equality. What’s absurd is that the Democrats ran a candidate who is the best proof of this. Why should the average American support someone who has been in positions of influence for 30 years, whose husband was president, and who is guaranteed a life of wealth? What’s left for everyone else?
It was precisely because Clinton was the most qualified candidate ever to run for president, as President Barack Obama said in his last campaign speech, that she was a turnoff. She was the embodiment of the establishment. The question Trump addressed to blacks, “What the hell do you have to lose if you vote for me?” may have been offensive but it was also a distilled expression of the cold rationalism that characterizes the essence of his positions under the vulgar rhetoric.
Still, Trump’s win is not a Republican victory. It’s a fact that he won in states where he didn’t have a campaign office. The political map among the younger generation in the United States and in the West in general is changing. There is now a process in which a division is emerging between those who want to overturn the system and forge a new path and those who believe in slow, solid correction from within.
It isn’t clear what exactly the new path is. Perhaps it could have been Bernie Sanders. But we should recall that this is the same reason Obama was elected eight years ago – less because of his positions and more because he presented an alternative, a search for a different course. In this sense, history may testify that Obama and Trump, as fundamentally different as they are, were elected on the same axis.
I was also disappointed by the results. Even those who didn’t see Trump as a Hitler-like fascist did see a man who was vulgar, not serious, and who chose to be divisive. But after eight years of Obama – who on paper was the smartest and best president the United States has had – one cannot say that the world or America are in ideal positions. Once can understand the fear of Trump, but when Ronald Reagan, a former Hollywood actor, came to power, it looked even worse. Reagan is now, in certain contexts, one of the most admired presidents, even by Obama.
Something else to remember is that Trump was elected when America is in any case no longer the exclusive center of the world. China, Russia, India, Germany are all gaining momentum. If Trump picks a good team, while at the same time the Democratic Party conducts some serious soul-searching about its objectives and values, the results needn’t be regarded as the end of the world.