by Josh Guckert

Many on Tuesday called the election a choice between the lesser of two evils, and that it was. However, the selections were not Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Rather, it was a much more fundamental debate: unabashed straightforwardness and expression of unease with drastic social change; or feelings of elitism and intolerance toward those who dare question the aforementioned “progress.”

Over the last several years, so-called “social justice warriors (SJWs)” have taken control of the American left, particularly among younger demographics. These individuals were bred on feelings of tolerance; however, that positive sentiment quickly disintegrated upon the successes of their causes. Much like the French Revolution, these crusaders became that which they actually despised upon taking control of society.

Rather than shaming gay Americans “into the closet” as many had done in previous eras, these SJWs discouraged provocative discourse which could “trigger” uneasy listeners. Instead of black Americans being urged to use segregated drinking fountains, students urged colleges to open “safe spaces” wherein individuals could be free from improper use of pronouns.

In addition, any questioning of these protocols was met with lofty allegations of racism, sexism, transphobia, and xenophobia. Most notably, these titles were freely thrown at nearly all conservatives and Republicans, even those as mild-mannered as John McCain and Mitt Romney. Therefore, when again attempting to label Trump as such, the words didn’t sting as much as they would have otherwise. In many ways, it was like the “boy who cried wolf.”

How, then, did those in disagreement express their displeasure with the status quo? They didn’t tell pollsters or perhaps even their family or friends. They just voted to the person who would “make America great again.”