side bar
Thursday, July 18, 2019


Where morals cross politics in this hectic election year

As the last electors were drawn in on Election Day, the face of every member of a marginalized group or liberal expressed a roaring silence.

Donald Trump has won the election. The rising numbers leading up to his victory speech were surreal. You could hear the U.S. tearing at the seams as people wept.

An overcast of impending doom loomed over the people.

As the world looked on, a choir-like “WTF” was sung. After slowly trying to swallow the truth, I wondered why this was so surprising. How could the country be both blindsided and warmly embracing in respective corners?

I have meticulously followed this election. I have reviewed polls, debates, interviews and everything in between. I have seen the consensus almost always in favor of Hillary Clinton. At one point, the polls had shown her up by 11 points.

Trump turned in a sub-par performance in the debates while Clinton showcased her prowess. From a variety of media sources, it seemed clear that Clinton would have had smooth sailings right into the White House.

Everyone in my immediate and extended circle was pro-Clinton: peers, social media and even my professors, after I’d deciphered their coded phrases.

I can count on one finger how many Trump supporters I have met personally, and even they were cynical of his presidential abilities. While reminiscing on this fact, I had to admit that someone voted for Trump.

With this fact staring me in the face, I was utterly confused as to where this overwhelming support spawned.

It all came together after my isolated pondering: The people who voted for Trump, who I’m sure could be as close as classmates or coworkers, were not willing to face the backlash of projecting their support.

They did not want to deal with the social repercussions. This is especially for the ones attending an inordinately liberal school, where advocating for a person like Trump would be social suicide.

With this realization, I beg the question: If you are uncomfortable with publicly validating your pick for the leader of your country, was there no red flag to motivate you to — at minimum — ask why you are picking this person?

The conservative (or, from its perspective, liberal) spectrum is not wrong for their current and expanding views. You can think differently than the next person and still be a wholesome individual.

The outcome of the election is not the fault of one holistic property or group.

However, the thought process of singling out mass groups of specific people and then isolate them, socially or legislatively, is not a matter of “good” politics. Christianity or other forces can’t also cover it.

The election shows us many things besides the next president. It highlights a massive public opinion on a set of platforms and, more socially, the country’s majority mindset.

This election has shown that the U.S. is willing to pardon social obstructions to people’s spaces, an anti-socially progressive rhetoric as well as an uncanny lack of inclusiveness and toleration.

This is what Americans think the country should be.

With the constant perpetuation of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and white supremacy, an unsatisfactory demonstration of morale is revealed. These acts are now banners, and Trump is now the U.S.’ figurehead for the upcoming term.

I hope the light can be found as protests continue. I hope that the children who are afraid for their livelihoods continue to keep their heads up.

I hope my identity, like that of other marginalized bodies, is held sacred and kept safe.

Lastly, I hope that President-elect Trump proves me wrong.

Opinion columnist Dana Jones is a print journalism junior and can be reached at [email protected]

Tags: , ,

Back to Top ↑