A letter to the Dearly Defeated: Seven ways to improve your chances of winning next time

thesun.co.uk

If there’s one thing this year has taught all of us, it’s how we can place exactly no faith in opinion polls. I explained part of the reason for this the day before the election but in the spirit of cooperation, I want to offer sincere and effective ideas for anyone who disagrees with me and voted Remain or rooted for Clinton in this election. The ideas may sound snarky, but they are heartfelt.

1) Don’t literally insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you.

If you think someone on the opposite side of the fence is dreadfully wrong, ask them why they believe what they do. Explain your view. Inspire them. Teach them. Show them you understand.

I’ve found that those who vocally praise or assert their own intelligence the most are usually insecure about it.  There is very, very tenuous evidence that traditional ideologies may represent slightly lower IQ scores. Even if this is true, however, it doesn’t make any ideology right or wrong.

Think about it: would you feel inclined to switch sides to any group that continually lambasted your academic prowess? Or would you feel mentally entrenched and more determined to take revenge?  And even the not-so-bright can see the hypocrisy in preaching the intellectual high ground and then rampaging across the city when you don’t get your way.

Also understand it works both ways - if you offend others, they have a right to express a view that you may find offensive. This is how the world works. Pretending or behaving otherwise will only make life harder.


2) Don’t insult the intelligence of people who disagree with you (metaphorically)

In other words, don’t assume that because you’ve adopted some moral slogan or bumper-sticker gospel, everybody will accept it without question. Yes of course that’s a sin committed eternally by all politicians across the board but let’s look at one example:

In the US, Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton referred to Trump’s vulgar “pussy” remark with professed shock and disgust, Michelle claimed to be “shaken to the core”.  This was long after Michelle attended a concert by rapper Jay-Z featuring his song”pussy”.  On that occasion she managed to suppress her shaken core long enough to invite him to the White House.

The point isn’t that politicians can be hypocrites - we all know that already-  it’s that they see such things as political gains, safe in the surety that the little people will take it in hook, line and sinker. It backfired in the UK and it backfired in the US yesterday. The era of gullible voters may not be dead, but it’s gasping.


3) Don’t assume people will vote for you based on their ethnicity, colour, income bracket or any label you place on them.

Back when this thing started - doesn't it seem like a lifetime ago? - The GOP candidates included an African-American who grew up in poverty, a Latino whose father spoke no English, a female, and the son of a mailman. The Democrats lined up with two white males and one white female. Which party preached the most about "diversity" and which one got on with discussing the issues of the day?

Two of the most inspiring commentaries I saw in the build up to yesterday came from African-Americans.

It’s true  that any demographic will usually vote in its own interests. It’s also true that the Labour wing of Vote Leave and the Democrat party lost touch with some of its key voters.

In the UK, Sunderland and other Labour strongholds voted Leave because they realised that Labour is long, long gone from its working class roots and  has decayed into  a party of elitist, career politicians (possibly excepting Corbyn).

In the USA, Trump took about 5% of the black vote from Hilary. The Democrats brought little to the table for African-Americans except raising the minimum wage, thus mentally consigning them to the lowest income bracket for their lives.

Perhaps African-American, Latino and other “unexpected" Trump voters felt that statistics show their conditions have not improved under a two term Democrat-president. Perhaps they felt that branding someone by race or sexuality is shallow and insulting to their depth of character. Perhaps they aspire to greater things.

Or maybe they just felt taken for granted.


4) I repeat: don’t rely on opinion polls.

Even if you do think someone is a bigot, racist, misogynistic moron, you can hardly expect people to pipe up and offer their honest voting intentions after venting your dislike of them.


5) Don’t get complacent.

Yeh, I know this is a summary of 1-4 but here’s an extra caveat: Remain and Clinton both massively outspent their rivals in campaign funding. Regardless of your support, doesn’t it feel at least a little good to see that money doesn’t completely guarantee success?

6) Accept that democracy is neither perfect nor the Apocalypse

There are many faults with the systems we use (I highly recommend this read) and we’ve seen events of seismic proportions this year. But as I mentioned last time: the sun still comes up. World War 3 will not break out today, Fallout 4 will not become reality and your favourite politician will be promising you the Earth, Sun and stars next time around. Politics has been around since the dawn of mankind and will only die with it. Keeping that in mind, it’s a better look.

7) Don't respond to defeat with more insults 
In the immediate aftermath of a huge disappointment, we can all behave in ways we're not proud of. To continue down a road of slurs, abuse and rioting is never going to help, however. For one thing, it is akin to a spoilt child throwing a tantrum and pours shame on everyone involved. Secondly, it's not the answer. Face the reality that millions of people disagree with you and no, not all of them did it based on colour, gender or anything else. Pretending otherwise is an insult to true victims of prejudice.

Never Wrong: How Clinton Voters and Remainers Deal with Reality

Whatever happens at the polls this year, the sky is not going to fall in on your heads. A lot of the remain voters shared that fear when - against all odds  - the British people overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union last June. The grief hit hard for the massive majority of politicians, elites and media, all of whom remained utterly smug right up to voting day. After all, we’d received increasingly ridiculous threats and warnings ranging from economic collapse to World War 3. The councils reminded the little people which box to tick while big businesses and merchant bankers benevolently funded the Remain campaign. The message was so simple that all of us plebeians should have understood it: Remain is good, Leave is racist, isolationist and bad.

When the huddled masses rebelled at the voting booths, smugness immediately transformed to angry, scapegoating vitriol: Brexiters didn’t really understand what they were voting for, old people voted to punish young people and, of course, it was a victory for “hate”, with completely fabricated statistics to back it up. Furious remainers marched throughout London to denounce hate (and democracy), shouting insults all the way without a hint of irony.

Now across the pond in the run up to voting day, the Americans are looking strikingly similar in their end game. Overrated and minor celebrities have made the ultimate threat and suggested they’ll deprive America of their residence should the public vote for Trump. The left wing media are on full throttle and “groups” are denouncing hate by physically breaking up rallies. Minor media figures are lining up to denounce the bad guy. Whoever’s speaking out against Donald, his alleged crimes are always the same: he’s guilty of being rich, sexist and - the greatest sin of all - “racist”.

But it’s not just the demagogy that rings familiar to Brexit. The sense of unease in everyone’s  suggest that confidence is lacking  It’s not inconceivable that while Hilary Clinton probably will be the next POTUS, the victory margin won’t be as large as many expect.

Now, let’s imagine an even more fanciful scenario where Donald Trump wins. What would the rationale behind it be and how could the polls and media be so wrong, just as they were with Brexit? The answer is actually quite simple: while all politicos are guilty of hyperbole, dishonesty and arrogance, the way at which we arrive at our opinions and policies in the first place can be very different.

Put with crude briefness and with many notable exceptions, my school of thought is like this:  modern liberals and left-wingers begin with a clear cut vision of good and bad. They then place all policies in these baskets without ever taking account of human nature, experience or pragmatism. I call this the ‘Tolkien’ method - everything is clear cut and simple. This is often accompanied by a strong current of intellectual snobbery and pretentiousness.

Conservatives, classic liberals and libertarians are more weary. They incorporate human nature, tradition, cynicism and experience along with a sense of right and wrong. They accept that nobody is all good or all bad, and we have to find the best balance of reality and ideology to benefit the masses. If left-wingers are a Tolkien movie, conservatives are more “Game of Thrones”.

This is important because it explains how and why both sides deal with the flaws and scandals around the people they support and how conflicting views and information are processed.  Liberals have already decided what is “good”, ergo, anything that goes against that view is naturally “bad”,  how could it possibly be anything else? If it’s “bad”, it must be stopped, censored or punished, period. This type of thought is currently dominant in most schools, universities and mainstream media in the west.

By contrast, conservatives tend to be slightly more flexible. They realise politicians will have major flaws, They understand the world has more shades of grey than black or white. If there’s a mistake,  they (people, not politicians) are more likely to acknowledge it. (I should mention other factors such as the belief confirmation theory mean we are all flawed, too.)

The former ideology is over-represented in our media. From the BBC - which is duty bound to be impartial but proven biased - and The Guardian to CNN and the NY Post, our media elites - who earn enough to live in protective bubbles of society, free of the consequences of their ideology - tout the policies of Clinton and Labor to the point of shaming those who speak out against them. Even when dissenting views are expressed, they are treated far more harshly, as impartial tests prove.  Again, this is done with so much complicity and arrogance that it doesn’t seem to occur to pollsters and pundits that it might explain why all those voter surveys are inaccurate. Is it truly surprising that a voter who’s told frequently that voting to leave the EU makes her a bigoted isolationist wants to keep her voting intentions private?

With this in mind, we can seek clarity in the dirty battle between the two US presidential candidates. Hilary voters - including Michelle Obama - claimed to be  “physically sickened” by Trump’s vulgar “pussy” remark. They scream this in the media, yet compartmentalise and ignore Hilary laughing about getting a rapist of a twelve year old girl through a lie detector test.

(Incidentally, Michelle Obama invited rapper Jay-Z to the White House and attended a concert where he sang a song called....”Pussy”. Salon presented this observation in a headline proclaiming "Neo-Nazis" )

Understanding this mindset explains so much more. It explains the motivation between mocking Trump for his repeated comments about ISIS - who are slaughtering innocent people as you read this - while demonising Russia for the endless (and true) Wikileaks revelations without a shred of evidence Putin was behind them. (Wikileaks have never been proven false). It explains why it’s ‘racist” to screen Muslim immigrants but not to hate Russia. It explains why it’s misogynistic to say “pussy” but it’s admirable to vote in Hilary because she’d be the first female president. It explains why it’s “hateful” and “divisive” to build a wall but just and noble to  drop fire on women and children in Syria. (Hilary voted in favour of attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria)

If all these political smears make us dizzy (just be grateful I didn’t mention any of the endless “Nazi” slurs) let’s return to things we know for sure. It’s beyond reasonable doubt that Hilary Clinton destroyed evidence under subpoena by the FBI via a close aide, repeatedly lied about various issues from being under sniper fire in Libya to supporting gay marriage and showed gross negligence for classified information and national security. Her husband raped many women, whom Hilary dismissed as "bimbos". And all this is over and above the more mundane but equally murky and dishonest insider trading scandals. These are all matters of record, they could be concluded  beyond reasonable doubt by a person with no political views.

Compare this to the rhetoric against Trump, which mostly amounts to slurs such as “racist” , “hate”,  “misogynist” etc.  This is the type of vitriol heard most frequently when debating or discussing the personalities involved.  This is not to say none of it is true or reasonable, but it’s not impartial, it can’t be tried in court or proven a danger to national security.

None of this is coincidence. It’s the logical outcome of a thought process that starts by asserting what is, without question, right and, ergo, what goes against it must be bad.  The true danger is when we become so entrenched in this way of thinking that we throw out any evidence suggesting we could just possibly be wrong by dismissing it in Pavolian fashion with any of a range of insults “fascist” , etc) that permits us to sidestep consideration or logic.

It’s nothing new, but in an age of increasingly polarised politics, massive but untrustworthy media sources and higher stakes, it’s a bigger problem than it’s ever been.

Shortly after the shockwaves of Brexit calmed, the British economy started to pick up. In fact, employment levels and markets have seen record highs. This good news has been impossible to process for Remainers still trying to validate apocalyptic consequences they promised everyone beforehand. I can’t help but wonder if, somehow, Donald Trump defies the odds and becomes the next most powerful person in the world, how would the celebrities, Hollywood residents and newscasters explain an American revival to us in six months’ time?