It is no use trying to sum people up. One must follow hints, not exactly what is said, nor yet entirely what is done.
The day has finally arrived, and there’s no easy way to say this: I decided to endorse Donald Trump as candidate for President of the United States. I know that by doing this I risk losing a few Facebook friends and maybe some clients.
So be it. I can take it.
And I don’t plan to do this, as has happened lately, by affirming the negative issues or pointing out the negative qualities in the other candidates. After all, I’m totally entitled to my own opinion, something I’ve learned the hard way in the last few weeks of Brazilian political turmoil.
If people can declare that they “followed their heart” when voting for Bernie Sanders in the New York primaries, for example, why can’t I do the same? Who died and left any of them king? King of the “right opinion,” at least? Owners of the “ultimate truth”?
Let’s face it: There’s no “ultimate truth” involved in politics. It’s all theater. And our role in this impossible guessing game is to try to see behind the smoke screens both sides have dedicated themselves to blowing in our way on a daily basis.
As I’m writing on Wednesday, after five Trump victories in the latest primaries, it might seem “evident” that I’m opting for the indisputable frontrunner on the Republican side, assuming that the “Republican option” is something I chose a long time ago, when I first grew disappointed with Barack Obama after rooting for him so strongly. Or after I decided to give in to the remarkable pressure my husband exerts on me, except that I recognize he has actually convinced me through reasonable, logical arguments.
There’s no point in highlighting failed reasoning, such as “nobody can be elected President of the United States without winning Ohio.” I could react: Nobody can be elected President of the United States by only winning Ohio, don’t you agree? I also fail to see the point in emphasizing Ted Cruz’s attempt to solve this riddle by putting himself and Kasich together on a team of losers, thus “pretending” Cruz — or the newly-created double entity — has won Ohio and is, therefore, entitled to the presidency, in a twisted rationale. Or, after this deal was quickly deemed unfeasible, pretending to be the Republican nominee by appointing two-percent Fiorina, “singing” Fiorina as his “vice-president.”
Ted Cruz. What a frightening character. And yet I saw myself compared to him in a pretty unfair response to my positions, expressed in a comment in The New York Times. Too timely to be considered something other than fortuitous coincidence — I don’t believe in coincidences, pero que las hay, las hay — I was confronted with a Modern Love article on the very day I’ve published my chronicle “Tough Love,” which was, more or less, about the same subject — “the transgender mania,” oops, sorry, “movement.” I did not hesitate one minute before trying to enter the New York Times “arena” through the back door, that is, by posting in a comment a link to my chronicle. Ufa.
It worked. A few people more than the usual couple of readers were redirected to my published essay. Fortunately, the vast majority of comments to the NYT article followed the same line of reasoning mine did, reflecting a clear rejection of an obvious minority’s imposing views, which have been given a privileged podium by an equally imposing “leftist agenda,” or something in this direction.
Not only was I compared to Ted Cruz, but I was also contemptuously qualified as a “cisgender” — for those of you who still don’t know what the term means, it refers to “a person whose gender option equals the gender assigned at birth,” something deeply offensive, apparently. Why should I — or anyone, for that matter — be subjected to such a limiting fate? Forced to accept that I’m a woman just because I was born one? When has nature ever been assigned such an indisputable, anti-democratic role?
Despite the (positive) fact that I was forced to accept how hard it is to adopt the role of a commentator in these extremist days — it takes a “thick skin,” indeed — I was also happy to learn not everybody has finally lost their senses. A good number of women tried to explain how, for instance, their breasts (and mine!) are a living, nourishing element, intertwined with blood vessels, nerve terminals and the like, not a mere “sack filled with fluid.” One gay man stated a unique point of view, according to which the “transgender movement” is actually a retrogression, going in the opposite direction of earlier sexual freedom demands and their consequential gains. “Biological sex is not changeable,” he said. “Transgenderism is rooted in regressive ideas of what it means to be male and female.”
Now, you could surely ask, what the heck has this gender frenzy to do with Donald Trump being elected president?
What I believe is that the already mentioned “leftist agenda” has lost its way. What started as a defense of fundamental human rights, joyously supported by our generation in our younger years, has degenerated into a kind of “dictatorship of the minorities.” And I’m not trying to dismiss real, crucial human rights, such as the freedom of speech, of expression, or even more crucial, the right to a home, enough food, money and education to enable a fair quality of life. Neither do I mean to describe actual “minorities,” such as the poor, or people of (other than white) color, or, imagine that, “women” — clarifying the irony: according to nature, women should account for about 50% of the human race — but actual “rarities.” Why should we let ourselves be limited, utterly abused by these rarest of beings, to satisfy their utmost convenience?
Don’t get me wrong. As a “recent conservative,” I’m in favor of everybody’s freedom. As long as it does not interfere with my own.
This does not mean that, once elected, Donald Trump will be able to stop this maddening trend, or even be interested in stopping it. But I’m sure Hillary Clinton will do her best to maintain it, as shown in her speeches. Or even if she doesn’t, the actual election of a Democrat, a so-called “liberal,” will send a powerful message that we, the majority, endorse this nonsense, this overwhelming loss of reason that is prevailing at this moment.
As I write, I am listening, without paying too much attention, to Donald Trump’s “major foreign policy speech.” Nothing really new on that front, pardon the unintentional pun. Whatever he says or does at this point, we must understand what is at stake: a presidential election; votes; period. Radical national movements or changes in this country’s international course, although depending on the president’s style as previously seen, still have to be approved by a Congress and a Senate, right?
We are deeply in need of a change; that is a fact. It does not mean that, no matter how hard we try, we will be able to cross the thick smoke screen that conceals the future in order to envision the right direction. All we can rely on is our internal (moral) compass, which may be seriously damaged today by the intensity of so many different opinions attacking us from all kinds of networks, reflecting all kinds of disguised prejudice, intolerance and usually undeserved, yet emphatic affirmations. This is a world in which the loudest voice, or at least the one with most “likes,” is taken as the right one.
I will limit myself to endorsing Donald Trump (and of course I’m being ironic) for two reasons: Like him, I like to nickname people; and secondly, I always start a revelation saying “I would never say that…” followed by that very thing I would never say. If I’m horribly wrong, we will soon find out. Or not, in case Hillary is elected. Ultimately, there is no such thing as “if.” I’m just following my best instincts. Period. There’s no point in contradicting them, at least for me.
Not to mention, of course, that the majority of issues or talking points in this election season were introduced by Donald Trump at the very beginning, if you already forgot or failed to pay attention. The others have been limiting themselves to parroting him or arguing against his ideas, with few exceptions. Which means, Donald Trump is already the “brain” behind the future government, the one dealing the cards. Although Alan has criticized him for being unable to read on a teleprompter.
Now that the “big speech” is over, there’s no comparing Obama’s charisma to Donald Trump’s. It is a fact. Time will tell if great charisma is really what we need to make this world better. We started so well on the greater justice and fairness path, a few years ago. Where did we lose ourselves in the way?
Maybe we will fare better if we opt for a not so “clear,” albeit false notion of what is right. I currently do not know. I would certainly be happier to make this “endorsement” in a more excited, righteous tone, like our opponents usually do. But I cannot. The world does not allow me, since I’m still in doubt about so many issues, so many choices. But not concerning this one. This one is said and done.