Clinton lost because fear failed, and voters disliked her Social Justice Warriors

Summary: Political gurus gush forth with explanations for Trump’s victory in the Electoral College (although more Americans voted for Clinton). They discuss arcane strategy, the effect of the media, personalities, and scores of other things (mostly trivial). But there are two elephants in the room. First, Clinton relied on the politics of fear, which surprisingly failed. Second, Social Justice Warriors (her shock troops) terrified voters — who realized the power SJW’s would wield as commissars in an HRC administration. Together these two factors account for her support dropping by the tiny margin that led to defeat in the Electoral College.

Hillary Clinton
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

No Fear

(1)  Clinton’s politics of fear failed

“He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.”
By Aristotle, from Joannes Stobaeus’ Florilegium.

The Democrats ran the anything but issues campaign on the fear Trump platform. Fear climate change, fear sexism, fear racism, fear nativism, fear Russia, fear fascism, fear NAZIs, etc.  These created a weak foundation for Clinton’s campaign, especially as she spent so little effort describing an alternative great future for America.

The Putin connection was only weakly supported and extremely speculative. The non-Left majority of Americans was skeptical about the odds of severe danger from climate change. The -ism’s became ineffective after decades of the Left using them as generic attacks on all their foes. Saying Trump was Hitler just triggered Godwin’s Law, probably ending many people’s interest in her message.

For all his clownish behavior and many flaws, Trump offered an action-based plan and a vision for a better America that appealed to many voters. It was a classic case of something beating nothing.

Social Justice Warrior badge

(2)  Social Justice Warriors torpedo Clinton

Feminists began a new campaign in the year before the primaries campaign, attacking the “rape culture on campuses. It featured the usual exaggerated statistics, absurd claims (always believe the victim, unless Bill Clinton is involved), and mandatory indoctrination classes. culminating in the September 2014 signing of the bizarre California law requiring explicit consent to sex (but only for college students) and the November Rolling Stone article about the University of Virginia (the next month admitting its errors, for which they were found guilty of defamation).

In 2015 the Left began the campaign for LGBT rights, especially for transgendered people. This included the next phase in their program to re-engineer gender roles, allowing men into women’s bathrooms (large symbolic and emotional significance, despite the Left’s mockery of any who protested this). This culminated in the announcements that there were 31 genders, the trendy choice of your gender pronouns (“‘Ze’ is a pronoun of choice for the student newspaper at Wesleyan, while ‘E’ is one of the categories offered to new students registering at Harvard.”), and the New York Times approving “Mx” as the transgender title.

The timing of these proved fatal for Clinton’s campaign. Even more than racism, these social justice campaigns have become a “third rail” of political discourse, untouchable by sensible people. But opposition to them remains strong — although hidden and mostly ignored by the news media. Americans want to control the evolution of our society, not the Left’s social engineers.

I believe fear of what a Hillary Administration would do accounts in part for the unexpected weakness of her support by women and even minorities. Americans did not need to consult Nostradamus’ prophecies to realize that Hillary Clinton’s social justice warriors would shift the social engineering gears from Team Obama’s “slow” to Warp 7 — with the full force of the Federal government’s power behind them.

Per 538, one percent of voters shifting from Trump to Clinton would have given her a decisive victory. Clinton might have been defeated by the work of her allies.

For more about these campaigns by the Left see — Are forms to sign before having sex progress or madness? False rape accusations tell us something important about America. The University of Virginia “rape culture” story crashes and burns — Will this become a story of failed agitprop or a win for the Left?  It’s time to forcibly re-shape America to fight the campus rape epidemic, even if it’s fake.

Glyphs of many genders
Click to enlarge.

Understanding the results of Campaign 2016

For More Information

Abby Ohlheiser, a liberal at the WaPo, trace the history of the term “social justice warrior” and attempts to understand what it means: “Why ‘social justice warrior,’ a Gamergate insult, is now a dictionary entry“.

There are other articles discussing the role of SJW’s in the election. “Trump vs. Political Correctness” by James Taranto, op-ed in WSJ. “Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash” by Robby Soave in Reason.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Campaign 2016, and especially these…

SJWs Always Lie
Available at Amazon.

There is always a counter-revolution

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police
by Vox Day.

“…{T}his book is not a polemic against the thought police or an indictment of liberal politics. Even if your politics are to the left of Vox Day’s (and whose aren’t?), you’ll learn potentially career-saving information, as SJWs Always Lie is a how-to book. In SJWs Always Lie you’ll learn how to defend yourself against the thought police. Chapter 7 – What to Do When SJWS Attack – was my favorite.”  (Review by Mike Cernovich.)

From his Amazon page: “{Vox Day} is a platinum-selling game designer who speaks four languages and a three-time Billboard Top 40 Club Play recording artist. His books have been translated into 10 languages. He maintains a pair of popular blogs, Vox Popoli and Alpha Game {both alt-Right advocacy}, which between them average over 3.2 million pageviews per month. He is an American Indian, the Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil, and the leader of the Rabid Puppies. The Wall Street Journal described him as “the most despised man in science fiction.”

New ideas and advice often originate on the fringes of society.


8 thoughts on “Clinton lost because fear failed, and voters disliked her Social Justice Warriors”

  1. Interesting. There’s all sort of references here to Brexit and Trumps win, but no-ones pointed out the biggest similarity between the two campaigns. The Brexit Remainers concentrated on FUD but many people saw it as the establishments attempt to maintain the status quo. Seems Clinton did the same thing, with the same result.

    Ironically, Trump (viewed from the UK) and the Brexit Leave campaigns were, largely, focussed on how much better things would be if people voted for them. Leaving aside personal attack aspects of course.

    The other thing that I think is interesting is the reaction of the millenials. If anything they’re the most fearful. So it would appear they’re very reluctant to embrace change, unless it’s change that’s immediately beneficial to them. So they’re not that much different to any other generation.

    1. Steve,

      Thanks for the perspective on these events from across the pond!

      One key difference between Brexit and Trump. The UK voted for Brexit. They voted against Trump. They’re still counting, but Clinton won the popular vote — probably by one or two million votes. Only our broken system put Trump in.

    2. @fabmax
      > probably by one or two million votes. Only our broken system put Trump in

      When Thatcher was elected in the UK with an overwhelming majority in parliament the Labour party were very keen to point out she was a ‘minority’ government because she got less than 50% of the vote. In 1997 the Blair landslide was achieved with an even smaller percentage of the vote than Thatcher, the Labour party was happy to talk of their landslide, overwhelming support for change, and all that good stuff.

      Your system may be broken, but I bet you’ll never get the incumbent to agree with that sentiment. Particularly if they think there’s a good chance changes will mean they won’t get a second term.

      Both candidates knew the playing field, both had ample time to prepare. I heard today that Clinton has laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the director of the FBI. That’s the sort of thing Trump would have done had he lost, am I the only one to see the irony here?

      1. Steve,

        “Your system may be broken, but I bet you’ll never get the incumbent to agree with that sentiment. Particularly if they think there’s a good chance changes will mean they won’t get a second term.”

        True, but that’s not the point. A system that put the loser of the election in the White House diminishes the legitimacy of the political system. We cannot afford that, since it’s already low and falling. For evidence see Gallup’s Confidence in Institutions survey, and more at this post.

        This is a far bigger problem than giving power to the candidate with the largest, albeit non-majority, vote.

  2. I question the conclusion that fear failed. What we can learn is that not all fears are created equal. Some are easier to promote than others. Fear of immigrants and minorities, fear of neoliberal economics and fear of social justice warriors did just fine; fear of climate change, fear of white male privilege and fear of frank incompetence weren’t a strong enough counterbalance.

    It seems to me that both parties now play primarily to fear; it’s just that the Republicans have chosen or inherited the more marketable fears.

    1. Randy,

      “I question the conclusion that fear failed. What we can learn is that not all fears are created equal.”

      You mistake my conclusion. I did not draw a general conclusion about the efficacy of fear. I said the Fear Campaign by Clinton failed.

      “It seems to me that both parties now play primarily to fear;’

      Yes. I have written 66 posts documenting this; see them here.

    1. 7zander,

      That is interesting. Much of it is logical. There is not much data for such evaluations — his or mine — at this point.

      Reading his article it seems odd that he writes as if Trump won, only to reveal deep into it that Hillary took the popular vote (for the second time in 128 years it didn’t take the Electoral College).

      I think his reading of Trump is largely imaginary, contrary to much of what we know about him. Did Trump stay up at night, wondering how to pay his contractors and fulfill his promises to students at Trump U?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: