‘Deplorables’ Comments: Polarizing Democratic Society

Commentary

In an interview with MSNBC host Joy Reid, Hillary Clinton made comments that suggested that American voters may not really understand the consequences of a Republican congressional victory.

Basically, American voters are not smart enough and can be characterised as “dumb” people who lack the necessary intellectual capacity or rigour to appreciate what the Democrats could do for America.

If voters are not smart enough to vote Democrat, they must necessarily be dumb to vote Republican!

Clinton’s gaffe has been dubbed by the media as the “Deplorables 2.0” comment, referring to when she described half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.”

This irresponsible comment, now known as “Deplorables 1.0,” affected her presidential aspirations and spawned a new “deplorables” industry in the United States.

Roxanne Roberts, in a Washington Post article, reveals that “Five years later, you can purchase hats, T-shirts, hoodies and other gifts for the deplorables in your life. … The sales blurb [of a ‘Deplorables’ cap] explains: ‘Being a Deplorable is now a mark of pride among God-fearing, gun-loving, hard-working Americans.’”

Clinton’s “Deplorables 2.0” comment, however, reveals the existence of a disturbing trend involving the public and humiliating denigration of one’s political opponents and the abandonment of political ethics.

Of course, Clinton’s comment could easily also have been made by her conservative opponents, who might well think that people, who vote for progressive candidates, are dumb and somehow fail to consider the consequences of their actions.

This American narrative is also relevant in attempting to understand Australian political developments.

For example, if the Victorian state government of Premier Daniel Andrews were to be re-elected later this month, conservative members of the political spectrum might well deplore the “dumb” choice to endorse a government that, arguably, has done irreparable damage to the cohesiveness of society. Remember, this government has adopted contentious social engineering legislation and curtailed the free movement of people with the longest lockdown of the pandemic—262 days.

Making Sensitive Comments in the Public Forum

Comments like “Deplorable 1.0 and 2.0” are politically sensitive statements and, hence, they are not often made publicly.

But in private discussions, conservatives might rail against progressives for undermining the foundations of the established democratic order.

In particular, they might excoriate the unrestrained adoption of social engineering legislation, which dramatically changes the way in which people are born, live, identify, and die.

They may bemoan the discrimination against religion, the curbing of freedom of speech, and the promotion of gender dysphoria legislation, just to name a few.

So, it can be assumed that conservatives might well describe progressives as stupid people who are destroying the achievements and traditions of Western civilisation. Similarly, progressives might ridicule conservative elements for their assumed opposition to “social progress” and “social justice.”

However, if these disparaging remarks are made in a private forum and not publicly aired, any damage to the democratic foundations of Western countries is minimal,

But it might be a problem if the comments are made in a public forum.

The polarization, resulting from the making of ill-considered public statements, constitutes a direct assault on the concept of “democracy,” where voters are entitled to indicate how they would like their country to be governed.

But more importantly, the demonstrable polarisation trend reveals the deeming inability of the political elites to strengthen the foundations upon which the democratic system rests.

Potentially Undermining Social Stability

It is precisely the destabilising of the foundations of the democratic nature of Western societies that makes politics into a poisonous mixture of unrestrained ambition, hate, and dissension.

Clinton’s “Deplorables 2.0” suggestion—and similar expressions by politicians of all colours and persuasions—that an unwanted election result is the consequence of uninformed, unintelligent voters might well be an unfortunate side-effect of a democratic system.

Nevertheless, there are instances where Clinton-like “deplorables” comments are appropriate, even if made in a public forum.

An example would be commentary to the effect that the Brazilian electorate is unwise to have elected a convicted, corrupt politician as the leader of Brazil.

The argument that even politicians are entitled to a second chance would not work in a case like this if they have previously participated in the political process for reasons of self-gratification and personal enrichment.

It is clear that the uncharitable description of one’s political opponents as “deplorables” may not be helpful in the development and maintenance of a stable democratic society.

As Roberts put it: “In a nation where half the country thinks the other half is wrong and possibly even deplorable, it’s about how we talk about each other” that is important.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.