It has been a while now since the recent election, but only now can I bring myself to put in words my anger and disgust. The voters had an opportunity to elect the first woman of colour as their chief executive. Instead they chose to return an old white male to the position.
Full of expectation and hope, I travelled to the capital for the election. Normally I like the city, but I could not wait to get out of there when the outcome became clear. I was expecting to see a blue wave on the night, but to my dismay all I saw was a tsunami of red.
Make no mistake: the outcome was a victory for misogyny and racism. I know for most of you this was a contest in which you were an observer only. You did not vote. Nonetheless, if you are happy with the result then I want nothing to do with you. If you follow me on social media, then please unfollow me now.
It is hard for me even to say the winner’s name. When I pass strangers in the streets here, I look at them suspiciously. ‘You voted for him, didn’t you’, my expression says. They do not meet my eyes. Cowards and ignoramuses, all of them.
I am told I must respect the process and accept the result. But I cannot. An election won by hate and lies is not legitimate. Therefore I refuse to recognise that Labor leader and ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr defeated former Liberal leader Elizabeth Lee last month.
That’s how it works. My preferred candidate was unsuccessful, hence I will accuse the victor of demagoguery, as well as resort to the infantile reductionisms of identity politics. Ask me to substantiate my accusations, and I will label you an enabler of fascism.
But as we know, those tactics get traction only if the minority candidate in question is of the left. We saw that last week when US Vice-President and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris was trounced in the presidential election.
“Trump led this march of hostility and America joined in misogynistic and racist lock-step,” wrote USA Today columnist Suzette Hackney, saying the champions of President-elect Donald Trump lacked “moral decency”.
“Black women tried to save this country again last night,” declared The View co-host Sunny Hostin. “What we did not have is white women – who voted about 52 per cent, right, for Donald Trump – uneducated white women is my understanding.”
That is the frustrating thing about uneducated people, you see. Such is their ignorance they reject the informed endorsements of the wise and the measured, whether it be actors Robert De Niro and Mark Hamill or entertainers Beyoncé and Lady Gaga. How will the republic survive if singer Cher and Basic Instinct star Sharon Stone make good on their promise to leave the country following a Trump victory?
Incensed by the election outcome, radical feminists are urging women to punish heterosexual men. They advocate withholding sex and refusing to date men or have children. The members of a fringe group have even pledged to undergo a collective hysterectomy, meaning of course they will not get to pass on their genes. I think this a splendid idea.
Given what colleges teach these days, hardly any of these activists would be aware few vice-presidents succeed in running for the top job. The inaugural veep, John Adams, described the vice-presidency as “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived, or his imagination conceived”. If true, it explains why Harris was appointed to the position.
Okay, that is a tad unfair. To her credit, I thought she was President Joe Biden’s equal in many respects, particularly her tortuous syntax and her ability to make an entire nation cringe. Biden, at least, has the excuse of declining faculties.
Voters recognised that Harris lacks the qualities required for the presidency, especially gravitas. This is something many commentators refuse to acknowledge. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson angrily claimed Trump was “exploiting bigotry” when he described her laughter as “cackling”.
But Trump was right. Harris’s forced laughter is not just embarrassing. It is also a poor disguise for her nervousness and lack of confidence. The commander-in-chief must project resolve, not indecisiveness.
Could you imagine, for example, if Harris, instead of John F. Kennedy, was in the Oval Office during the Cuban missile crisis? Think of her live address to the nation:
“My fellow Americans, this government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. And Cuba is not just an island, right? Cuba is an island that is surrounded by water. You too plainly discovered that – I mean our U-2 planes have discovered there are a lot of trees on Cuba. And the Soviets are using their missiles to hide these trees, right?”
Why voters opted for Trump instead of Harris is understandable – at least to some.
“I just can’t understand how such a choice is possible,” wailed ABC presenter Jonathan Green in Crikey last weekend. “At their heart, the politics of Trump are divisive to the point of being fundamentally misanthropic. They put fear and hate as guiding values. They are the precise opposite of that deeper human possibility: connected empathy.”
It would make for an interesting exit poll question. “Excuse me, sir, but did you vote for Donald Trump, or did you vote for connected empathy?”
Perhaps it is just me, but I have difficulty associating that phrase with the Democrats. I do not think of connected empathy when I read of rampant anti-Semitism on American campuses. I do not think of connected empathy when I think of DEI idealogues and anti-white revisionism. And I did not think of connected empathy when I heard the reports that Trump was nearly assassinated during the campaign.
Eight months ago, I wrote about the possibility of Trump returning to the presidency and what that would mean for the Albanese government. To summarise, half the cabinet have made derogatory, gratuitous, and often puerile remarks about the President-elect, foolishly thinking he was a spent force. A chortling Anthony Albanese chose the date of Biden’s inauguration to try to embarrass then prime minister Scott Morrison by his association with Trump.
That was the Albanese of 2021. The Albanese of 2024 has had a rethink. He has now decided he wants to be mates with Trump. “We had a terrific discussion last week,” he said. “Good beginning to our relationship.”
I do not envy Albanese. Trump no doubt will enjoy watching him squirm. He will have to grovel, and we are talking subterranean-level grovelling. But on the positive side, Albanese has finally found a prime ministerial task that he can perform well.
Bulls riding into 2025 on high hopes of a Trump boom
In the spirit of festive cheer, it’s time to look back on some of the things that went right in 2024 and why 2025 might not be as ghoulish as most are expecting.
A pox on the porpentines and pesky popinjays
This is journalism’s off-season. Our audience is drunk, hating the kids, or hiding from foaming Uncle Peter. Like the Antichrist, my dark hour has come, and I am filled with malice. My target is the entire, simpering modern English language.