The ultimate privilege

So we know the outcome of the election in the US, and the reality is that ‘Privilege’, the ‘World order’ - White, Heterosexual, Christian, Male - prevailed. It’s a though this ‘order’ is some form of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, superseding logic or evidence. This article is my own perspective, drafted before the election. Edited based on the result, and not about where my own allegiances lie. The winner of the ‘most powerful job in the world’, should not even have been a candidate - let alone the winner.
I often argue, that the ‘lens’ through which the world is viewed, and skewed, is White, Heterosexual, Christian, Male. When you are not all four, you are often judged or defined by your ‘otherness’. “The first...woman, person of colour, gay/lesbian, etc, to achieve, to hold a certain position, etc”. It’s as if, when you are not all four, it’s a surprise! But actually, given that when you are not all four - you have probably had additional obstacles along the way, it’s not a surprise that it is a surprise. Your ‘otherness’ is how you are often referred to, positively and/or negatively. So, (not ignoring other ‘othernesses’ - neuro, able bodied, sexuality, class, wealth, etc), let’s accept and call - White, Heterosexual, Christian, Male - PRIVILEGED. And there is perhaps no better example today, perhaps in history of this, than Donald Trump. Growing up as a young black kid in the East End of London, two particular rules my parents instilled in me:

• “to stand the same chance, you need to be twice as good”;

• “If you get into trouble with your white friends, don’t expect the same treatment as your friends at the hands of the police”. Incredibly, almost prophetically, these rules seem to be magnified by the US elections, and the incoming president in particular.

Hillary Clinton’s ‘otherness’ is a woman. In my view, despite appearing to be and coming from ‘privilege’, it was unpalatable to the American electorate, to have another ‘other’ president after Obama. Seriously, how on earth can an email scandal derail her chances, given what we now see? I still have “Lock her up” ringing in my ears 8 years later. Barack Obama needed to be beyond clean. To the extent that even his heritage was questioned (mum/dad you were right!!!). After 43 ‘privileged’ presidents, he broke the sequence. But there was no way many voters were going to let that happen again...so Hillary stood no chance. Neither did Kamala - A woman of colour. Writing this, I scratch my head at the fact that the election was even considered a potentially close race. Again, irrespective of my allegiance, the word count of this article prevents me from cataloguing everything, but for example:

- Jan 6th insurrection - irrespective of how big or small his role was;

- Racist language and insinuation;

- Xenophobia - despite the country being founded on immigration;

- Misogyny - countless examples both in words and actions (including sexual assault);

- Countless indictments, and even convictions, etc;

Ask yourself, proven or not, could Clinton or Obama have withstood this? Most poignantly, could Harris?

We now know the outcome. ‘Ultimate Privilege’ beat someone who has two ‘othernesses’, a woman of colour. Her shortcomings for President (according to Trump) were - ‘she has no children’, ‘you can’t say her name properly’, ‘she has only recently acknowledged her ethnicity to win votes’, ‘she has cats’..but we all know what the real shortcomings were. Harris never allowed herself to lower a dignified stance and chant “Lock him up”!!! But she would have been within her rights - at least if she were allowed to play by the same rules as her opponent. But that would be naive, sadly as Hillary found, they don’t have the Ultimate Privilege... therefore the ‘rules’ are not the same. Even Democrat men wavered - because their candidate is a woman of colour. ‘Latinos’ wavered despite what has been said about them by Trump. Republican women remained loyal to Trump. Why? Because he reflects ‘normality’. There have been, including the current president, 46. Of which 45 have been ‘privileged’. My observation, and this article isn’t about politics or allegiances, it’s about fairness and consistency. Trump represents the Ultimate Privilege in every sense, and the ultimate challenge to DEI. If life were fair, would he really even have been a candidate? Privilege prevailed, and it is a harsh reminder for advocates of diversity. Most of the US, and the world is stuck in a ‘Stockholm Syndrome’.