Monster Mash

Scott writes an article on the current framing of both Hillary and Trump. All good points, but what I find interesting, much like his rhetorical shiv earlier this year of "endorsing Hillary for his personal safety" is the following:

The biggest illusion this election is that we think the people on the other side can’t see the warts on their own candidate. But I think they do. Clinton supporters know she is crooked, but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician. Americans assume that even the “good” politicians are trading favors and breaking every rule that is inconvenient to them. I’ve never heard a Clinton supporter defend Clinton as being pure and honest. Her supporters like her despite her crookedness.

Likewise, Trump supporters know what they are getting. They know he’s offensive. They know he’s under-informed on policies. They know he pays as little in taxes as possible. They know he uses bankruptcy laws when needed. They know he ignores facts that are inconvenient to his message. They just don’t care. They want to push the monster into Washington D.C., close the door, and let him break everything that needs to be broken. Demolition is usually the first step of building something new. And Trump also knows how to build things when he isn’t in monster mode.

I can say for certain that many Hillary supporters understand she's a crook.

Many of them are also SJW's, or die hard liberals and feminists, who are so conditioned by years of 'education" and media that they consider Trumps words about women letting him make a move and enjoying it a sign of a monstrous predator, and of building a wall "divisive" - such that it justifies people beating up Trump supporters and maybe the Republicans torched their own office (SJW's project much?).

Scott is very deliberate in what he writes. Just like reading Vox Day (and I'd love to see them in a brainstorm together), you have to be damn careful that what you've understood is what he actually wrote, and it helps to be extremely aware of carried context and baggage. In part, because as Roosh notes, he admits he's playing head games with people.

Let's break down two critical concepts:

The biggest illusion this election is that we think the people on the other side can’t see the warts on their own candidate. But I think they do. Clinton supporters know she is crooked, but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician. Americans assume that even the “good” politicians are trading favors and breaking every rule that is inconvenient to them. I’ve never heard a Clinton supporter defend Clinton as being pure and honest. Her supporters like her despite her crookedness.  

He's laid out earlier in the article all the horribly crooked things Hillary has been part of or directed. but the critical part is this: "but I think they assume it is a normal degree of crookedness for an American politician." He's saying that yes, they know she's crooked, even for an American politician, but they assume it's a normal level of psychopathy (and shows like House of Cards frankly don't help in alleviating that impression, even if Underwood is portrayed as being far, far worse than usual), and not something truly abusive and unhealthy.

Whereas for Trump, he points out that some low degree sexisim and misogyny exists everywhere, and that not only are his voters OK with his flaws, but if you read between the lines, they're not assuming a lower degree of monsterhood than really exists.

TLDR: Hillary is painted as a crook, her supporters know she's a crook, and assume that it's a normal degree of crookedness and not the rampant abuse of power, incompetence, and trail of dead bodies, foreign and domestic, that have been left behind. Trump IS a monster, and one the establishment rightly fears, but not the one he's painted as, that voters are afraid of, and his supporters have a more realistic appreciation of what they're getting from him.