Just as I finished writing about the imminent shift in global politics, media and academia from the liberal Left to majoritarian Right, NYT – the beacon of ultra-liberal international media – admitted to smugness and incompetence in its election coverage, even if motivated by fear of a reader backlash and concerns about profit. Couldn’t help the “told you so” fist-pump, even as I felt deeply scared about the shift. As an aside, please don't miss the comments on the article hyperlinked above to get a great idea of NYT's bias.
Before anyone dismisses the gravity of this thinly-veiled apology, it should be noted that the last time NYT issued a public apology was for its pro-war coverage of Iraq war. Back then, one of its reporters, Judith Miller, had got sensational stories from a dishonest source, which helped build public support in favour of the war. While NYT’s election coverage might not be as regrettable because it didn’t lead to millions of deaths, the admission does prove more than a modicum of bias and mishandling.
Before the election, when I raised doubts over NYT’s biased and uninformed coverage of the two candidates, the liberals united in their opposition calling Hillary “a great lady”, “one of the best ever” etc., and that only a tiny section of the population, the deplorables, supported Trump, so NYT was right in its coverage. That debate seems settled now.
Every pragmatic liberal, myself being one, must capitalise on this rarest of rare shifts to burst the ultra-liberals’ gargantuan bubble, and ask questions that they have so far been swept under the carpet by imposing their illusion of moral superiority on the dissenters.
First and foremost, the ultra-liberals need to realise that everyone voting for Trump isn’t deplorable. 29% Asians and Hispanics, 8% Blacks, and 37% postgraduates voted Trump. People have priorities – taxation, elimination of Obamacare etc. – that figure above those of the ultra-liberals. Just because someone doesn’t rate gender equality and climate change as their highest priority, doesn’t make them deplorable. In fact, it’s safe to say that everyone who voted Hillary isn’t a messiah and didn’t vote her in pursuit of larger-than-life ideals. They had their own selfish reasons. The minorities largely voted Hillary not to eliminate the scourge of racism per se but for the sake of personal security, isn’t that selfish too? Or maybe they wanted her to continue Obamacare, or impose gun-control, or something else.
Secondly, the liberals must introspect. It’s easy for ultra-liberals to preach the ideals of equality from their vantage point – they forget the link between economics and hate. Of course, no one should be discriminated against on the basis of nationality, gender, religion etc. However, do they honestly expect a homeless man to think the same way? Should it be any surprise that to a homeless Hindu in India, a wealthy Christian walking by will appear as someone who became rich primarily because he ditched his original religion? Even if he doesn’t think that way, the politician next door will pose the Christian as an outsider, and the homeless man will be a sitting duck. This is no different from the way Christian missionaries operate – they blame Hinduism for the wretchedness of their targets, provide incentives for conversion, and it works quite well. Now, the educated understand that such an Us vs. Them view is stupid because it goes ad infinitum, but how does one blame the poor Hindu on the street, or for that matter, the target of conversion? This is exactly what has happened in America. Somehow the liberals are liberal only towards fellow liberals. If this continues, they will end up being self-defeating by providing easy targets to far-right politicians like Trump.
Thirdly, there is a need to start slaying the holy cows. Let’s demand end of triple talaq and UCC. Let’s point out reverse-sexism where it exists. Let’s stop taking those hypocritical human rights organisations at face value. Let’s start asking tough questions - Hillary Chameleonton stuck with her serial-cheater of a husband largely because she wanted to further her own political ambitions, so why is she hailed as a feminist? Her ambitions were also the reason why she went about odiously discrediting all women who came forward. When Trump did the same, we all remember the storm that kicked off, so why this bias towards Hillary? Sure, love for her husband and child must have had a role to play in making her stick, but if any liberal ascribes Hillary’s decision simply to this reason, just give that person an “awww” look and move on, but not before you ask them to read William Chafe’s book on the subject. Had she been a true feminist she’d have said “fuck you” in the face of her husband and pursued her ambitions independently.
There are hundreds of such questions on different topics to be asked, the one above only being representative of them. The next time a liberal laments violence by RSS, ask him whether he’s aware of the dastardly violence perpetrated on a daily basis by the Left in Kerala and Bengal. The next time a liberal waxes eloquent about Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s cryptic preaching, ask him whether he’s ever bothered to read Hindol Sengupta and Sanjeev Sanyal.
At the same time, let’s not lose sight of the liberal causes, even if the liberals themselves pay only lip service to them. Let’s stop buying products of companies that make racist ads. Let’s call for the removal of IHCL chief, Rakesh Sarna, for repeatedly harassing a woman. Let’s fight against all those men, like Trump himself, who always got a free pass.
The liberals and non-liberals are too deeply ensconced in their respective echo chambers to hear the other side. This is dangerous for any democracy. A bridge urgently needs to be built. For better or for worse, the liberals must take the lead because, on an average, they’re more privileged and educated compared to Trump-voters. #notmypresident doesn’t seem like a convincing start.
No comments:
Post a Comment