Below are three untruths about Tuesday's election:
1. THE ELECTION WAS ABOUT THE OUTSIDER
Not really. It was about culture. We know this for a fact: if you replaced Trump with Rubio, Kasich or Cruz, you'd still get the SAME attacks from “Funny or Die,” Bill Maher, Jay Z, Lady Gaga, and so on.
The culture enveloped within the liberal industrial complex deems any opposition to be evil. So really, the rebellion wasn't about insiders vs. outsiders -- it was about a rejection of decades of liberal fascism expressed through identity politics, balkanized grievances, racial politics, attacks on traditional institutions and anti-exceptionalism.
The Trump phenomenon was a thumb in the eye of liberal complacency. It was the first time in my memory that a Republican gave the same treatment back to the Democrats. That caused this new fretting over polarization. There was no polarization when only one side (the Dems) was the bully.
No one spoke of polarization when the left demonized a decent man like Mitt Romney. But when you have a candidate like Trump hit back, now you have polarization. This should have been a gift for Republicans -- but it wasn't.
Where Trump and his mouthpieces went wrong was turning this into an attack not on leftism, but on the establishment -- which lumped real Republicans, ideological conservatives, hard working grass roots activists, and even noted military heroes into the same box as Hillary, Obama, Hollywood and the Harvard faculty.
Sorry Trumpets -- those people who were winning Republican state seats and governorships for decades -- they weren't the enemy. They were on your side -- and they were slandered by simpleminded shouters.
The fallout: a lower, less enthusiastic turnout among Republicans.
And a last point about this non-establishment vs. establishment myth: it gave a phony path for opportunists to abandon the principles they had previously pretended to cherish. A so-called conservative who demonized you for not being religious or right wing enough now dropped to his knees for the perfect RINO. Suddenly… principles didn't matter!
The best example of this charlatanism: any evangelical leader who spent decades chastising his flock (and non-flock alike) for immorality was suddenly out stumping for Trump.
2. THE MEDIA'S IN THE TANK FOR (FILL IN NAME OF CANDIDATE)
No, the media is in the tank for ratings. Remember, Trump got more free media than all the candidates combined.
Every network loved him, because he made them money by getting them eyeballs -- which helped pave the way for his nomination.
So as you complain about the unfairness of the coverage against Trump now remember that without the media, you wouldn't even be having that conversation. Instead you'd be wondering about how big the margin will be in the Rubio win.
And yes, there were reporters who tried to curry favor with the Clinton campaign in hopes of gaining access. But is that any worse than a newspaper spending hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing stories in order to kill them?
The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Enquirer paid a Playboy Playmate six figures for her story of her affair with Trump (while he was already married to Melania). In a practice called, "catch and kill,” the paper, it’s alleged, bought the story to protect Trump by buying and burying it. When we bring up media collusion there's one hell of an example.
We covered another, flimsier example of "fixing" that implicated Hillary -- involving a guy named Jeff Rovin. But what of this Playmate story by our own beloved Wall Street Journal? This "catch and kill” explains one glaring oddity: as the Enquirer generated salacious stories about Trump opponents like Hillary and Ted Cruz, it seems to have missed the big stories on Trump. For a paper that prides itself on scoops, the Enquirer was absent on the Trump front.
We talk about the candidates’ flaws -- but what of ours? Team sport ideology has compromised principles -- as we accept certain actions that would have repulsed us before. Loyalty these days seems a replacement for principle. This operates on the analogy that people consider a political party a "home." I don't. My home is my actual home.
There are lots of people whose jobs depend on Trump winning on Tuesday. There are a lot of people whose jobs depend on Hillary winning. This is why you have to take any opinion not tethered to facts with a grain of poop. The exceptions to this amorality: the people who were honest to a fault, and were willing to lose a paycheck. Think Jonah Goldberg. Kevin Williamson. Ben Shapiro. Think of everyone of who didn't sacrifice principles for more appearances on TV.
But look -- there’s a bright side for breathless TV chatter boxes: you will benefit from your adversary winning!
If Trump wins, the left will do great. If Hillary wins, so will the right. Fact is it's just easier to scream at the enemy than it is to support your own embarrassment.
3. THE WORLD IS ENDING
It's not. Or if is ending, it has nothing to do with this election.
If Hillary wins, or if Trump wins -- it's not as big a deal as the people say it is.
When JFK was assassinated? Yes, that was a BIG deal. When Nixon resigned? That was a BIG deal. But despite the horror and shock from those events -- we all got on with life. We still went to work. We fed the kids. We mowed the lawn. So lighten up with the apocalyptical BS. No one is going to change your life as much as the people around you who love you and care about you.
And remember, the easiest thing to stoke, is anger. And if you're a conservative, and you get off on anger, then you're not a conservative at all.
Conservatives by nature reject the easy lure of emotion. We decry impulsiveness -- it's why we're seen as stiff and humorless. When in fact, we're full of wisdom brought on from life experience.
It's a good thing when we let a little emotion in but to let it govern your decisions is wrong.
And remember, liberals: Trump is a centrist. Cruz was way more to the right. And he got rejected!
Trump also thrives on acceptance. He needs love -- and will likely abandon his most rightwing talking points (because he already has those guys), to court YOU, the respected liberal.
So if Trump wins, all you leftists will be in the driver's seat. You'll get more from him than from Hillary.
And remember, conservatives: Hillary is hawkish. She's also she's out of steam -- hobbled by scandal, distrust and dislike. She might be of little impact at all -- just happy to sit in meetings, nod a lot, then watch “Madame Secretary” on Netflix through the early evening. She won't care who hates her, because it's a forgone conclusion.
So if Trump wins, he becomes more liberal, and if Hillary wins, she becomes more conservative. Trump ran to the right of his internal vision; Hillary ran toward Bernie Sanders to save herself. Once they take the oath, they will change.
And we'll read about it online. Then walk the dog.