When Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, it was the forces of diversity — some diversities, many diversities — that won.
It was the people less concerned with diversity overall that lost. Again noting that some important notions of diversity do cut the other way, most of all racial diversity. And I do wish to stress that the presumptive argument for “diversity” simply isn’t there, although that conclusion is hard to swallow that if you have imbibed too much contemporary political rhetoric.
In fact, I view the amazing diversity of the election and the electorate as having gotten the better of us. It is an example of how diversity can go wrong.
I believe that until Democrats and Progressives can grasp their lack of diversity intuitively, they will struggle to make their way forward in the new political climate of the United States. They will not understand how anyone could view them as divisive, since they automatically think of diversity as being on their side, rather than something they oppose.
Similarly, this from Clive Crook (thanks to Instapundit):
Elite opinion admits of only one answer: People are more stupid and bigoted than we ever imagined. Without denying that there’s plenty of stupidity and bigotry to go around, I think it’s more a matter of elite incompetence. Elite opinion heard the rebels’ complaints, but instead of acknowledging what was valid, it rejected the grievances in every particular and dismissed the complainers as fools or worse.
And this from Stephen L. Carter:
Too many of my progressive friends seem to have forgotten how to make actual arguments, and have become expert instead at condemnation, derision and mockery. On issue after issue, they’re very good at explaining why no one could oppose their policy positions except for the basest of motives. As to those positions themselves, they are too often announced with a zealous solemnity suggesting that their views are Holy Writ — and those who disagree are cast into the outer political darkness. In short, the left has lately been dripping with hubris, which in classic literature always portends a fall.
I’m not sure they were ever good at making arguments. They haven’t had to be.
It fits with their oppressor (big guy)-oppressed (little guy) spectrum of thinking. In their mindset, they don’t need to actually address the issue and win with reason, they only need to show the other side is somehow for the big guy and against the little guy and that was enough.
I’ve even been accused by folks of being ‘for the big guy,’ which as I told a friend this week, I don’t understand. I’m not a big guy nor do I really know any big guys, so why I would be in cahoots with them was never quite addressed.