The wisdom of Interfluidity

It is tempting, among those of us who would be appalled by a Trump victory, to try to sway undecided voters by equating voting for Trump with racism full-stop. That’s a bad idea. If it becomes the mainstream view that Trump voters are simply racists, it leaves those who are already committed, those who are unwilling to abandon Trump or to stomach Clinton, little choice but to own what they’ve been accused of. Racist is the new queer. The same daring, transgressional psychology that, for gay people, converted an insult into a durable token of identity may persuade a mass of people who otherwise would not have challenged the social taboo surrounding racism to accept the epithet with defiant equanimity or even to embrace it. The assertion that Trump’s supporters are all racists has, I think, become partially self-fulfilling. In and of itself, that will make America’s already deeply ugly racial politics uglier. It will help justify the further pathologization of the emerging white underclass while doing nothing at all to help communities of color except, conveniently for some, to set the groups at one another’s throats so they cannot make common cause. It will become yet another excuse for beneficiaries of economic stratification to blame its victims. Things were bad before this election. They are worse now, and we should be very careful about how we carry this experience forward. These are frightening times.

Here is more, interesting throughout.

Comments

The irony is that the Information Age has resulted in the scrubbing of serious issues from the election, and an obsession with scandal and catty gossip.

If FDR was running (sorry) today we would be obsessed with wheelchair access and not the war.

If it was Kennedy, it would be Marilyn instead of Cuba.

It's a frivolous age and there will be a price to pay at some point.

*Dis-Information Age

More isn't necessarily better, and while there may be more wheat, there is exponentially more chaff to sift through

Well said

Kennedy's misbehavior was very carefully concealed, as was Johnson's.

That's his point, today it wouldn't be concealed. It also shows how relatively clean Obama is/was. No Wikileaks or Access Hollywood stuff on him.

A lot of rumors for whatever they are worth, but I'll bet he's just a boring guy.

Be careful of believing that. Obama is particularly protected by his special status.

And under his watch he sure did discover a lot from reading the papers. (hint: he didn't.)

Chip,

You got it 100% right but your examples are jumbled.

The second world war was nine years in the future of FDR's 1932, first term election campaign. Cuba and Marilyn were nowhere on anybody's mind in JFK's 1960 election campaign. (FYI the Bay of Pigs disaster, the Cuban Missile crisis, and military involvement in Vietnam were JFK screw-ups)

And, congratulations! You're a genius compared to the 32% of millennials that believe that Bush killed more people than Stalin.

Which is it? Is Hillary lying to her Wall Street/Too-Big-to-Fail money men, or is she lying to you people?

I'll be relieved when Trump wins. Vote Trump. Keep deplorable my friends.

Yeah Trump pretty much has it in the bag at this point. That will be a relief.

I think this assertion is unfounded. Remember, we're viewing those past elections through the lens of history. The petty gossip tends to get pushed aside to fit narratives about grand cycles and ideological clashes. Just read some of the campaign points in the election of 1800. It makes Trump/Hilary look like a couple of old friends congenially running for a Mormon school board. Of course in hindsight it all seems very lofty and erudite. Of course, it was a battle of philosophical ideas about the role of Federalism vs Agrarian Democracy. At least that's how history boos read, because it's pretty hard to defend a PhD thesis about who was grabbing who's p*ssy in the 18th century.

http://www.cleveland.com/ministerofculture/index.ssf/2016/07/hamilton_jefferson_and_the_ugl.html

Frightening for whom?

Trump uses a racist appeal, but that doesn't make his supporters racists. Racism is a red herring to avoid Trump's essential un-American message. Ezra Klein: "Trump’s distaste for America has come clearer. His frontal assault on the basic legitimacy of the country’s presidential election is more than a rationalization — it’s a tell, a revealed preference, a window into how little regard Trump has for the country he seeks to lead. America is great. And one of the reasons it’s great is that it has a long history of peaceful, predictable transitions of power. We venerate George Washington for stepping down at a time when his countrymen would have made him king. The Constitution was amended to ensure no leader, no matter how beloved, could hold the White House for more than eight years. The tradition is so strong that in 2000, Al Gore conceded the presidency, even though he won more votes than the victor and only lost Florida, if he lost Florida, because of a confusing butterfly ballot. The end of his campaign came through a Supreme Court decision, not a full and fair recount. He could have contested the outcome. But he didn’t. Gore loved America. He believed it great, and thus worth protecting. “Let there be no doubt,” he said, “while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”'

This spirit isn’t just noble; it’s essential for democracies to survive. “Graceful concessions by losing candidates constitute a sort of glue that holds the polity together, providing a cohesion that is lacking in less-well-established democracies,” writes Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at UC Riverside, and co-author of Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy.

At what point does graceful concession become signalling that, really, what the winning candidate proposes to do isn't really all that bad?

Say Trump wins. Would you expect Hilary to make a graceful concession to him, one that granted imprimatur and legitimacy to him as the successor? Or would you expect a bit more of a graceless concession, more of a signal that "This guy may have won, but he has ideas which are really bad for the country"?

I don't think it's possible to look at concession without looking at polarisation. I don't think it's possible to talk about it without looking at trust in the political process and in honesty that political leaders really are upholding what they believe to be true.

Perhaps she wouldn't offer a nice concession. But she would concede, and she wouldn't call into question the legitimacy of the democratic process. Of that we can be fairly certain. Trump is ALREADY questioning the legitimacy of the process, and is hinting that his supporters shouldn't accept the outcome. One is much more dangerous than the other.

That's a legitimate point. Despite her past talk of the "vast right wing conspiracy", back when Bill was targeted by allegations of sex scandal (which she apparently continues to reference - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-the-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-is-even-better-funded-now/) to my knowledge she has shown absolutely no sign of resorting to any claims of electoral fraud against her by the Republican Party in this cycle, and neither has her machine expressed any concerns about large scale electoral fraud by the Republican Party.

(Though internally, behind closed doors, at least her campaign chariman staff seems satisfied to accuse Obama of it back during the 2008 primary - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/15/wikileaks-john-podesta-believed-obama-forces-committed-voter-fraud/)

But is that this unique trait of Trump, used in a calculated and authoritarian way particular to him, or an exaggeration of the polarisation and mistrust of the political class? Klein's statement seems to target this as a personal failing of Trump, driven by his own personality, rather than an emerging systematic issue, driven by increasingly widespread views of the integrity of political elites.

Trump is pretty sui generis. Maybe now that he's managed to secure a nomination a bunch more Trumps will try to do the same, but let's hope not. He deserves most of the blame for his anti-Americanism. Don't hate the game, hate the player.

The Podesta example you link to is about caucuses, not actual elections. It's a suspicion but not a specific allegation.

OTOH, the right wing media has been selling the notion that there is widespread vote fraud, which justifies voter ID laws. They're reaping what they sow.

"anti-Americanism"

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

@The Original D

"The Podesta example you link to is about caucuses, not actual elections."

A distinction without a difference.

@JH: no, you wouldn't

Trump could just be playing to his base. He probably realizes that his only shot is to get massive turnout from his "deplorables". He's throwing red meat to them. Will he graciously concede the election? I think it depends on his post election goals and strategy. He's built a brand for himself during this election and it could be in his best interest to keep pandering to his supporters for attention and profit.

Vote Trump. Keep deplorable my friends.

what if Trump is right?

there might be some minor fraud at the ballot box, but this election has already been rigged at the higher media level

There's no reason for Trump's supporters to accept this election as legitimate

If Ezra Klein and the rest of the media actually want us to respect for the basic legitimacy of this system, they need to hold themselves to a significantly higher standard

Conflating media bias with "rigging" is a nice rhetorical move, but it's also pretty patronizing. Can people be trusted to make an informed decision based on widely available facts (the internet, after all, exists), or can't they? And if they can't, why bother with democracy?

They can't, but the illusion of democracy is maintained as a safety valve to prevent revolt. The elite is quite expert at using the mass news and entertainment media as well as the public schools and universities to obtain the results they want from a majority of the population.

I'm pretty sure if they if this were true, Trump would not have become a major party nominee in the first place.

Trump is much better at it than the usual run of elites.

This is entirely accurate. It is also the only way of preventing a regression to the middle ages. In general the non-elite are opposed to the foundation of modern prosperity, which is free exchange. Of goods, ideas, people. Especially people.

The non-elite currently have a deal where the elite are not allowed to form private militias, we actually follow one adult one vote for selecting our government and individuals have relatively (to other times in history) greater chance of breaking the elite/non-elite barrier. Realistically, it doesn't get much better than that. Revolts go hand in hand with heads on spikes outside the city walls.

None of this is to say that the current elite is not corrupt or in need of overhaul. Or that opportunity access or the justified redistribution for harmonious living are at the optimal levels (could be higher). A 'radical centrist' assault on the current morass would be much welcome. It may come from a combination of the current 'far-right' and 'far-left'. But it will still be driven by relative elites, those that value individual liberty, utility and free exchange.The non-elite aren't getting their culture back. And we cannot make the perfect the enemy fo teh good.

On the specific issue of working class discontent driven by de-industrialisation of previously Fordist economic ecosystems, that was inevitable once Asia shrugged off its autarky and the factor price equalisation happened. Anglo politicians failed in creating the right political compact and should have followed Helmut Kohl's lead sooner.

Importing people at record rates to vote for the Democrats is rigging the process.

Unless one is able to convince those new imports of the value of the Republican positions. For a while, it looked like we were heading in that direction.

People can change their minds but culture is a sticky thing.

"Can people be trusted to make an informed decision based on widely available facts (the internet, after all, exists), or can’t they?"

are facts actually widely available if they're drowned in non-facts?

"And if they can’t, why bother with democracy?"

That's a depressingly interesting question

There is a reason the Press is special and gets special mentions, and gets called the 4th estate.

A fully biased press is extremely dangerous, as we will find out I think. No, it won't be because the choose a bad president, but because its unfair, and humans don't like unfairness.

That goes both ways though. If media bias is valid for claim of rigging, then the primaries were rigged for Trump.

Why not? HRC would have had a lot more trouble with a conventional Republican candidate. If you believe that the system is rigged against Trump, you might as well believe that the system was rigged against a more conventional, and ergo competitive, Republican candidate that might have threatened Ms. Clinton more seriously.

Funny, It was the media that made Trump the viable candidate. Without his ability to play the press like a cheap drum he would have been left in the dust by the other republican candidates.

And now he is blaming the press of bias -- take pity on me because I'm an orphan.

The media made Trump viable at the behest of Hillary's campaign. Podesta emails are informative but ignored.

Then the media was rigged indeed....rigged for Trump. As SPENCER just said, if you believe the media actually does that sort of thing, it's hypocrisy to rail against it after benefitting from it. Of course, Trump is not exactly opposed to raging hypocrisy.

Rigged FOR Clinton, BY her request, TO ensure an easy general election victory.

I wasn't a Trump supporter, I thought Rubio could win. I was amazed at Trump's victories. Podesta emails prove that HRC asked media to take Trump seriously and to cover him, and that media was receptive. This, of course, in addition to her multi-front attack on Sanders.

Did you know she stole furniture from State, too? It's in the FBI release, which isn't being covered (what a coincidence). What is it with the Clintons and stealing furniture?

@Thomas, did you miss the follow-up where it was clarified that no, in fact, the only furniture she took was things she had brought in.

Didn't see that. Can only podesta email info at right wing sources.

getting the media to cover you seems like a different thing than getting them to propagandize for you

Think about it.

A GOP Jeb Bush nomination would have meant (1989 to 2009, and 2017 to ?) that 20 of the last 28 years and at least four future years will have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. The system rigging begins with the gangster government: Comey, Lynch, and Obama wrongly refused to indict Hillary.

If you think you live in a republic/under the rule of law you are delusional. In a republic, under the rule of law a crime is a crime regardless of whether a marine general (recently charged for less egregious acts) or Hillary the Great did it.

Sadly for liberalism, who if not Hillary a sociopathic liar and proven incompetent?

The problem is that many USA citizens were very scared by the wedding cake incidents, scared that they may end up in jail. Many are also angry that Democrats insist on funding abortion with tax dollars. And they pushing around Nuns over minor issues, even Mark Shields a democrat found that deplorable. And Hillery Clinton, unable to put herself in these people shoes, calls the deplorable and irredeemable and so they support Trump Sad, very sad.

The lower social strata whites know the system is rigged. It says so right in our laws.

Affirmative action based on race is a slap in the face of underclass whites.

Can we now answer Sandra Day O'Connor question?

The answer is never and you are a racist for asking.

The answer to her question is always a five-part balancing test.

My wife immigrated from Honduras when she was about 25 years old and she thinks AA for Hispanics is absurd! We think who in world passed those laws? Call AA for Hispanics absurd is not hyperbole, just the strangeness of USA policy. Absurd! What's next AA for whites in basketball?

If by "many" you mean "between ten and twenty", then okay. If you mean some sizable percentage of the electorate, then I'm going to call BS until some evidence is presented. I really doubt that a significant number of people are afraid they're going to be thrown in jail for discriminating against LBGT people. Most people don't even have a job where they could have an opportunity to discriminate in such a way.

Yes, Mr. Klein. We're such a great nation because we continue to stoke unverifiable skepticism about how our guy lost, decades after the fact. How truly noble of us.

I thought accusing people of being anti-American was bad? But again, I don't write for Vox.

I have forgotten most of the story about the vote count or non-count in Florida. But Klein seems to go way beyond the evidence in his account. As I recall, before it was preempted by the Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court was proposing a full and fair recount but a partial and unfair one.

Similarly, Gore could hardly complain about being denied the Presidency despite winning the popular vote. Only days before the election, concerned that George W might be tempted to use such an argument if he won the popular vote, Gore had restated his unswerving support for the Electoral College.

For a selfless renunciation of his right to demand a recount (that would have been grounded in Mayor Daley's electoral fraud in Chicago), Klein might have expressed his veneration for Dick Nixon.

Ezra Klein is a smart guy, but his style is pure condescending sophistry. Is this just an acknowledgement that persuasion in his forum is impossible and it's come down to showing off?

This is the most lucid insight I've read on the topic of race relations, although I'm not sure where wisdom begins and pragmatism ends.

We all clearly have biases, some of which we may not recognize. We have tribal instincts, although some more than others. Clearly Blacks have a stronger sense of "community" between people with a similar endowment of melanin. Whites identify with "whiteness" to a far lesser extent and, when they do identify, it is usually an ethnic basis, I.e. Irish, Italian, Greek, Scandinavian, etc.

I have become numb to accusations of racism that have been thrown around so casually to describe anyone non-black who doesn't see things the way they see it. I would never embrace the term "racist" because it has no place in my being, but I see a growing resurgence of white identity groups.

It's obvious in this election that Clinton is playing strongly for the women's vote but perhaps at the cost of alienating men. Why should we continue to see ourselves marginalized. We have higher unemployment rates, lower college admissions, more workplace deaths, higher levels of imprisonment, longer prison sentences for the same crime, less chance of receiving child custody, and a perception at least that marriage is a raw deal for us.

There will be a white and male backlash. Trump is tapping into this when every other Republican feared to tread.

"It’s obvious in this election that Clinton is playing strongly for the women’s vote but perhaps at the cost of alienating men."

I think that we would be better off if the first woman president were much more conciliatory toward me. Hillary Clinton's 77 on the dollar rhetoric ignores so much and can be quite destructive.

Talking about unequal pay encourages employers to try get away with paying less too, and so is partially self-fulfilling.

If Donald Trump said this, 50 media organizations would write articles about how it's a bs cover for misogyny and you would celebrate and believe that.

Insane comment, Millian. You're better than that.

Lucid insight? Steve Sailer(among many others) has been making basically the same point for years.

The problem is that Trump is a cartoon caricature of every negative male stereotype. She hardly had to do more than mention the Miss Universe contest to send him into a still ongoing spasm of rage and egotism.

Yes, there will be a backlash, but so what? White males don't matter anymore because we've reached a diversity tipping point. The backlash will be crushed.

Roadwar now, we are ready.

The left already has hundreds of violent extremist Anarchist groups ready to attack. You see them at Trump rallies, wearing black, faces covered, attendance paid for by the Hillary campaign and the superPacs it colludes with. #projectveritas

Oh man I can't wait....why haven't they been given the order?

Oh, did the media not cover the attacks on Trump supporters at Trump rallies?

www.reddit.com/r/antifa

Go get your orders.

"The left already has hundreds of violent extremist Anarchist groups ready to attack."

If they're working for the left they're not Anarchists.

They are anarcho communists.

Normally I don't care when there is more than one "anon," but FYI this is one of those situations.

Yes Lord forbid you lose the credibility you've carefully built up as "anon"

I've never been called a 'racist' in everyday life. It's used in the context of public discourse and it's use is in the context of forensic games.

Blacks have a stronger sense of community BECAUSE they are subject to continuous racism from the society around them. When people face an external threat, they band together. Same time used to be true of Irish Americans. As Anti-Catholic bias stopped being a thing, Irish people stopped caring about being Irish. Same thing is true of whites in general. Whites don't face an external threat and hence don't feel their "whiteness" as such.

For some that's obviously changing Hazel. Although probably mostly on the internet.

Yes, and it's a mistake. For both America and the white working class people who are backing Trump.

I should mention that really, it's SAD to see some whites feeling like they are threatened. Because the true path to racial harmony is never going to be white identity vs. black identity. It's never going to be people spiraling off into racial sub-groups and vying for dominance. And that is a game that the Democrats have played for decades and we're now seeing how destructive that is. But when white people start playing that game, they are playing a game that the Democrats wrote the rulebook for. The Republicans could have, and occasionally have, seized the moral high ground of treating everyone as an individual. Only when white people forget they are white can black people forget they are black. And that is the only real path forward for race relations.

Pearls before swine with this crowd, Hazel. But I'll give you a +1 anyway.

"you put your gun down first, then I will, you can trust me"

Jesus let himself be crucified.

Yeah, and Jesus died.

Jesus rose from the dead.

Seems to me like the hotbed of racial tension originates on college campuses, presumably a progressive stronghold where it is most likely for whites to forget they are white. If it doesn't work there why on earth would it work anywhere else?

I would say that whites are hyper-conscious of being white on college campuses. Isn't that the entire point of "checking your privilege" ? To be always aware of one's race and the advantages and disadvantages it brings? Seems to have worked, as working class whites now seem keenly conscious of their whiteness and it's not working out the way campus liberals thought.

Is the true path to racial harmony rich whites aligning themselves with minority groups with the intention of making life worse for poor whites? When people talk about white privilege and white control of the system, it's insane, Bill Clinton cares not for me or anyone that I know. Yes white people and more specifically white men run the system, but they do not provide for low status and low income white people. They use their own positions of power has both evidence of white privilege and a platform by which to push anti-white legislation aimed at low status whites.

When the Democrats proposed systems to correct racial and gender imbalances, ask yourself, "will the white male Children of the white male Democratic establishment be negatively affected by this?".

So ... you think they should use their position to make life better for low-status and low-income whites?
Does everything have to be about which racial group it benefits?

Poor whites are not the ones who will got bumped due to AA besides AA reduces the value of the signal of a degree for blacks.

Hazel, I think you are quite right about how white identity politics leads to dangerous places. But if you are hinting that it is a mistep in the political tug-of-war then, I don't buy it.

The rulebook that "Democrats" wrote is one where a bunch of relatively small client groups rely on their organisational betters to act out their identity politics against one large group that sees itself above identitiy politics.

If that group were to descend into the muck, then the rules have changed, and the Dems have no strategy except to hope that the organised Republican party continues to stand aloof.

If blacks have a stronger sense of racial identity, it is for the same reason that seventy years after its independence from Britain, caste remains a central identity in India. Caste membership has been given new life by laws and policies that grant government preferences based on caste. In the United States, the racial porkbarrel pays people to be black (and a collection of other "protected" classes or identities). Incentives matter. The civil rights movement has become the civil rights lobby. And blacks are less a race than they are a special interest.

Just try a version of Reagan's "gates" test as a thought experiment. If you open the gate between a free country and a communist country, which directions do people go? If people are asked to classify themselves racially today, I predict you will find more whites or mixed self-identify as blacks than blacks and mixed identify as whites. Take President Obama; please.

If people are asked to classify themselves racially today, I predict you will find more whites or mixed self-identify as blacks than blacks and mixed identify as whites. Take President Obama; please.

Surely your aware that the genes which characterize African descent are dominant and therefore equally mixed race people look "black", and hence get treated as "black". "Passing" starts to become possible at about 1/8th African ancestry. So that would account for why most "mixed-race" people identify as black.

Also, the solution to Democrats playing identity politics and making everyone part of a racial identity group is NOT for white people to become just another racial identity group. You're playing directly into their hands. The solution is to persistently transcend race and appeal to people on the basis of what is universally fair and just, regardless of skin color. Be the one group that *doesn't* care about race. Lead by example.

In the US SJW context, this is denying someone their experience and identity. Which also means you are racist (obviously).

*doesn't care about race*

*gets hit with disparate impact suit*

*cares about race*

Trump hasn't done much explicitly white activism. He's always advocated as an American nationalist, but the cucks call it "white identity politics" nonetheless. 9 times out of 10 that word is just like "racist," a word meant to insult rather than enlighten.

So's the word "cuck"

@msgkings, agree, cuck was always meant to be an insult, and we all will admit it's mainly an insult. But the people who say they oppose "white identity politics" would say they oppose it as an ideology or practice, but they never define what exactly it is. For instance, Jonah Goldberg says Trump's nationalism is "white identity politics," and the only evidence is that his supporters are "overwhelmingly white."(As opposed to the vibrant diversity of a National Review cruise!):

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439048/trumps-nationalism-white-identity-politics-brand-name

"the genes which characterize African descent are dominant"

Whaaa?

Trump hasn’t done much explicitly white activism.

The anti-immigration/anti-trade stuff is clearly all about keeping America white and protecting the jobs of working class whites. Everyone acknowledges this. We just had a major thread the other day about how people supposedly aren't racist for fearing demographic change.

I'm unaware of many tit-for-tat stable equilibriums that involve you forgiving 30 tats in a row. Mostly that just means getting taken advantage of with impunity into perpetuity.

My +1 was to the last paragraph not the other stuff

Also, the solution to Democrats playing identity politics and making everyone part of a racial identity group is NOT for white people to become just another racial identity group. You’re playing directly into their hands. The solution is to persistently transcend race and appeal to people on the basis of what is universally fair and just, regardless of skin color. Be the one group that *doesn’t* care about race. Lead by example.

To me mixed race children look more white than African.

"The anti-immigration/anti-trade stuff is clearly all about keeping America white and protecting the jobs of working class whites. Everyone acknowledges this. We just had a major thread the other day about how people supposedly aren’t racist for fearing demographic change."

What nonsense. I used to live in Michigan, and I heard many, many liberals saying that it was all because of free trade agreements and the decline of manufacturing that that city was a hellhole. Liberals complain about something for ages, but when Trump starts saying the same exact thing, it's "obviously" proof of racism.

"That city" referring to Detroit, but I didn't need to tell you that.

Blacks have a stronger sense of community BECAUSE they are subject to continuous racism from the society around them

Your Asperger's is showing. Back to Saskatoon.

"BECAUSE they are subject to continuous racism from the society around them."

The hallucinatory world of American goodthinkers never ceases to amaze me. Other races in the U.S have to live with disproportionate black violence against them, and also fund their relative dysfunction through taxation. Only Americans are incapable of noticing this - the rest of the world just laughs at your cowardice.

It's totally possible for societal racism to co-exist with social dysfunction.
To paraphrase, just because your community is dysfunctional, doesn't mean people aren't racist against you.

Indeed, that can be self-re-enforcing in both directions. For example, the much higher black crime rate leads employers to be reluctant to hire black teenagers, which leaves more black teenagers without jobs and thus easily caught up in crime.

What shocks me is seeing some people demanding publicly their "right" to be racists...

"We all clearly have biases, some of which we may not recognize. We have tribal instincts, although some more than others. Clearly Blacks have a stronger sense of “community” between people with a similar endowment of melanin. Whites identify with “whiteness” to a far lesser extent and, when they do identify, it is usually an ethnic basis, I.e. Irish, Italian, Greek, Scandinavian, etc."

This is incredibly Americentric. Did you stop to think if this is the case in Africa? (It's not, look up Xhosa wars, Rwandan genocide, African tribal conflicts etc.) What about in countries with a white minority? Would you predict that there would be less tribal unity between say, Afrikaaner and Anglican white South Africans than between the various black South African tribes? The common factor is that minorities, especially those at odds with a majority population, tend to show greater unity.

Lots of political attacks backfire. Someone thinks "I'm doing my part to move the ball towards my end zone" but it ends up hardening opposition.

If people see those on the other side as willing to compromise, they are willing to compromise themselves. If they see the other side as just waiting for a moment of weakness to completely attack, they will respond in kind.

It all depends if your purpose is to influence people or just to increase standing among your own tribe, of course.

ittle choice but to own what they’ve been accused of. Racist is the new queer. The same daring, transgressional psychology that, for gay people,

Except that 'queer' is a descriptive term. Homosexual men sodomize other men. 'Racist' applied to the opposition is gamesmanship and, at this juncture, banal gamesmanship.

If Trump loses, let's be real, the outcome will be that next week its the steelman version of Trump, without whatever sexual scandals have brought him down in this cycle. A successor without his lack of personal puritanism and his ideological mud, everything else intact. It certainly won't be back to globalist business as usual, with the insurgent quashed and calm markets enduring.

Frankly, I don't think doesn't really matter if Trump's supporters are branded as racists by the electoral cycle. They're already branded as racists and they know they will be. It also doesn't matter because the people who would brand Trump's supporters as racists actually believe this and would regard any encouragement that they moderate as a degree of unacceptable cynicism and lying.

But what if the "lack of personal puritanism and his ideological mud" are the steelman version of Trump? It's telling that the downballot primary candidates who tried to paint themselves as the option for Trump voters against Establishment incumbents were pretty uniformly massacred even in the era of Trump.

It's an important question ('what if...'). I hope Trump is a special case, because of his name recognition and 'success'. A non-Trump spouting Trumpism probably doesn't get nearly the traction but we will see.

The Democrats declared war on white men. Huma Abedin could get affirmative action to make up for her poor LSAT, but a toothless, shoeless, white son of meth addicts couldn't. And the left is totally fine with that. Poor white people are deplorable anyway.

Shrill language aside about wars on white men (like Bill Clinton, Bill DeBlasio, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Noam Chomsky and other white guys liberals hate), I've always felt affirmative action should be economically based and not racially so.

Yes, it is true that high status white men are willing to throw low status white men under the bus. This is ubiquitous in everything from Flyover states to our gracious host's unwillingness to out his political beliefs.

Agreed. The internal dynamics of social class competition is the strongest vector. Or, as Mr. Sailer puts it, 'leapfrogging loyalties'. Scott Sumner provides much evidence of that (unintentionally, of course).

Her parents were South Asian Muslims, so probably not so much with the affirmative action.

@ msgkings The reason it's not done that way is because, contrary to popular belief, racial gaps do not disappear when controlling for socio-economic status. So it doesn't solve the problem (the awkward fact that the lowest achievers are disproportionately from certain racial groups).

"Shrill language aside about wars on white men (like Bill Clinton, Bill DeBlasio, (((Bernie Sanders))), Ralph Nader, John Kerry, (((Noam Chomsky))) and other white guys liberals hate)"

Fixed it for you.

@gregor: it would still be an improvement doing it that way, because it would seem fairer to all parties including whites (and Asians). Whether or not you think it's efficacious, it's probably fairer for poor white kids to get some help vs wealthy black or Hispanic ones. Even if 'racial gaps' persist.

And in fact there is some class-based affirmative action in college admissions and tuition. My wife's cousin got into Stanford and got a full ride, without any particularly outstanding achievement. He had straight A's and a decent SAT and played water polo, but nothing notable. But he didn't pay a dime, because he was a lower middle class white guy.

@JH: I'm curious, do you also type those brackets for (((Ivanka Trump))) and her family? How about (((Mark Levin))) or (((Michael Savage)))?

@msgkings, depends on the context. I'm hoping Ivanka Trump runs, she can be like Marine Le Pen, more popular than her father. The purpose is to separate them from whites. Whatever your opinion on their racial status, the Left doesn't consider them part of the white oppressor class, they are part of the victim class. Thus, I felt their inclusion in your list was inappropriate.

@JH: the hell? You're all mixed up, man. My point was that liberals don't actually hate all white men and then I listed a bunch of them that liberals love plenty. 'The Left' is actually famously anti-Israel and parts of it are pretty anti-Semitic like yourself. I was just curious if your anti-Semitism extended to heroes of the right like Ivanka Trump, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage.

" My point was that liberals don’t actually hate all white men and then I listed a bunch of them that liberals love plenty."

And my point is that Jews aren't really considered white by the Left. Even if they identify Jews as white, they are honorary non-whites. I was talking about the "mainstream" Left, not the far-Left loony bins, some of whom are antisemitic.(Though they are usually anti-white as well.)

" I was just curious if your anti-Semitism extended to heroes of the right like Ivanka Trump, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage."

I have a positive opinion of those folks, yes.

@msg i hope you didnt dismiss my point. Yes, Bill Clinton is rich from selling whatever he sells to corporations and foreign government, and Noam Chomsky is rich from selling justifications for anything a leftist wants. But when Hillary talks about deplorables, she means regular white people who don't live in cities and weren't educated in flagship state or higher universities.

Imagine how dull your argument would sound to a Democrat, and the President is black!

@Thomas: You missed my point. There's no war on whites, at least not from 'the Left', as my example showed you. There's definitely elitism. Elites do look down on the lower classes, no matter their color. It's hard not to, that's kind of what 'elite' means, you are 'above' others so look 'down' at them: they are less wealthy, less intelligent, less healthy, etc.

Not every one of them of course, but then not every black person is 'inferior' either.

Again, I would prefer a society where affirmative action and other things were class based not race based.

Behind Door #1 he could be popular because he's loud and crass, and does what he wants and won't be cowed, and he satisfies the beliefs of ethnic majority men that they're superior, and gives people a sort of incoherent demagogic blank slate when it comes to policy, and all that business. If that's so, Trump may be the state of the art as far as that can go.

Behind Door #2 it could be that voters really are looking for a nationalistic centrist who is in opposition to current international trade arrangements and military policy, who expresses optimism towards the potential of the US's poorly educated working classes, and who is openly derisive and dismissive towards both open borders and to ethnic, gender and sexual identity politics. That package could go quite a ways in being shored up to a strong position from where Trump's taken it, when alienated from his personal flaws, flip flopping and contradictions.

I've not yet seen a persuasive argument for Door #1, one that isn't by a #NeverTrump type or Left Wing activist, and made unpersuasive by their sheer self belief that it *must* be the true interpretation which is on the right side of history.

There seems to be a reasonable strong negative case for Door #1, insofar as no other candidates have managed anything within an order of magnitude of Trump's success to date espousing a similar policy attitude. Additionally, the fact that his support has started to fade on the presumable basis of character deficiencies rather than policy issue would be a datum suggesting Door #1.

Door #2 Trump needed Door #1 Trump to break through. It just might take a little "crazy" to break down the status quo and re-frame some issues. Trump single-handedly put immigration and trade on the table in a big way...and these are issues that desperately need to be discussed in new ways. That alone is more than obama accomplished in 8 years of a "change" platform. Even if Trump's "solutions" stink (they do), at least we are now able to have the conversation and that's the first step.

Door #2 would be fine, if someone with integrity and intelligence came along with those views. Maybe that will happen. Rand Paul? Someone like him but more nationalistic?

The thing with Trump, which you seem to recognize, is that his politics are meaningless to him, he stumbled onto a schtick that worked (up to now), I don't think he actually knows or cares anything about the stances he bellows about. He certainly doesn't give even a speck of a rat's ass about the poor working classes. The King of Mar-a-Lago is now Will Rogers? Puh-leeze.

His "schtick" is that he isn't a mealy mouthed crybaby who'll raise the white flag as soon as the left starts accusing him of some ism or phobia, as they do to every Republican candidate.

Please, all he does now is cry. About the media, about #NeverTrump, about all those women persecuting him. Boo hoo.

It's documented reality that the media is in it for Clinton. Avoid wikileaks if you are a desperate coward.

And the tears just keep falling. Yeah the media kept calling Trump a clowny racist hypocritical idiotic vacuous pig to help Clinton, not because he's an obvious clowny racist hypocritical idiotic vacuous pig.

Rand Paul gets the Trump treatment because he is not in the club either. I know a freshman representative through my parents and he said it is worse than he ever imagined. The log rolling, in legislation and in secret.

Trump whines, but he doesn't apologize. Key difference which is what is appealing to Trump supporters. For example in the debate he whined about interrupting and it being "3 on 1". If you're already supporting him it is pleasing to see someone on "your side" give some gruff back to the media ("their side"). To others I imagine it looks more like plain ole whining. He is unapologetically giving it back to the other side, something the right has been wanting for quite a long time, to play by our rules not theirs.

"If you've watched 5 minutes of TV news in the last week, you know about Trump's offensive comments and alledged groping, if you've watched for 24 hours, you know nothing about Podesta Emails and the FBI FOIA."

"Please, all he does now is cry. About the media, about #NeverTrump, about all those women persecuting him. Boo hoo."

It's plain enough that much of the hysteria in the media and on the left toward him is not only because he represents a turn toward red blooded populism and a repudiation of the liberal bizzaro world project, but also because he takes the slime they throw at him and throws it right back. Call it what you want, it's good enough for me.

Trump sometimes reminds me this one rich kid I knew when I was a kid. Like "I cannot believe that you people lie like this."

It's also possible that Door #2 is correct, but that you pretty-much had to be Trump or someone similar to take that message to a national audience.

Candidates basically need to get donors and favorable media coverage early on, in order for the voters to have a chance to vote for them. The Door #2 message is probably a really bad fit for most donors (more isolationist foreign policy, immigration restrictions, tariffs), and is also an extremely bad fit for the common beliefs of people working in the media. Trump's starting wealth and name recognition, plus his amazing gaming of the media (exploiting their need for outrage fests to get himself on TV constantly during the primaries) let him bypass those two filters, which might have kept anyone else with a similar message safely away from power.

On the racism Obama could have been great but:

http://un-thought.blogspot.com/2016/10/thoughts-on-trumps-success.html

I have in the past said that Trump is what many conservatives wanted all along and I still believe that is a big factor but I also think there is something else, which follows.

(I like President Obama as a person but, I think he has badly mishandled issues of race. He seems to me to be more decent that most politicians.)

When President Obama was elected many people hoped that he would defend the Government and whites to his black constituency but starting in the Travon Martin case and then in the Fergison case he seemed to side with the aggrieved blacks without even waiting for the evidence to come in. He never pointed out that is was impossible to know if the Martin or Brown where the aggressors, He also failed to promise to blacks that he would attempt to rectify the situation from with in if did turn out to be persecution of blacks so that they could stop protesting.

He also failed to point out that there are 340 million people in the USA 40 million of them are black and these are bound to happen regularly but that does not mean whites are out to persecute balcks.

He failed to say "Look many whites for me, they are not so bad". That if I can get to be president prejudice, while it still exist, is not holding blacks back significantly. That blacks can do well in the USA and most are.

Wrongfully but people elect a minority they expect him put great effort in to reconcile his minority with the majority Obama failed badly in this challenge. Angering people and so Trump.

I fear Hillary Clinton will do the same always siding with women against men. For example the pay differential disappears when you factor in hours, occupations and career interruptions but she keep pushing the issue.

BTW I thought that some BLM supporters like Bill DeBlasio were playing with political fire.

#podestaemails De Blasio is a "terrorist"

"He also failed to promise to blacks that he would attempt to rectify the situation from with in if did turn out to be persecution of blacks so that they could stop protesting."

This is manifestly untrue. During his first term he spoke to black people about the importance of taking personal responsibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/16obama.html?_r=0

And in April he spoke to BLM protestors about the importance of engaging the issue with more than just slogans http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/obama-says-movements-like-black-lives-matter-cant-just-keep-on-yelling.html?_r=0

If an article about absent fathers and an indirect critique of BLM is what you came up with, I must be right?

He's a shameless race-huckster, a familiar American figure, and the Democrats have been stirring blacks to commit violence across the country this year. You are the most willfully ignorant people to have ever existed. It's more than willful, in fact - it's deliberate and sanctimonious ignorance.

"starting in the Travon Martin case and then in the Fergison [sic] case he seemed to side with the aggrieved blacks without even waiting for the evidence to come in"

It did not "start" then. He sided with Henry Louis Gates against the police back in 2009 without evidence.

The Gates case did seem a silly exercise in police discretion, though I seem to recall the officer had some sort of explanation.

No excuse about Martin / Zimmerman. There's no reason for the President to say anything about murky local crime stories. And, of course, we later learned that Zimmerman was loitering about on a walkway waiting for the police to arrive when Martin walked 75 yards from where he was staying to said walkway and attacked Zimmerman. Your son picks fights with the neighborhood watch captain, Mr. President?

Obama isn't a typical African American. Other than skin color, sort of, he has little in common culturally to most African Americans. I wonder if deep down inside he feels like he really has much to say about the situation.

He's not, as generally defined in America, an African-American at all. In US parlance, an African-American is descended from slaves. He's descended from white Kansas bankers and a Kenyan student. Nobody in his background has lived in a ghetto, been a sharecropper or played in a Delta blues band.

I don't think this is true (that he is not "as generally defined in America" African-American)

To be fair, his ancestors may have played a role in the slave trade. Surely when Nehisi Coates reparations come in, we will do a full investigation to determine if Obama's ancestors sold slaves and if so hold him accountable for his share of guilt by accident of birth.

It is one of the many ironies of history that proportionately more black Americans are descendants of slaveholders than white Americans.

Ironic, or very on point as an example of the monstrosity of slavery?

In the parts of America where I have lived:

New England
New York City
several Midwestern cities

"African American" is used to denote "black" people, because many people believe this is the most racially neutral way to describe them. Has nothing to do with slave-descendant-status.

It's a good post. His plea for a little solidarity and civility, which is admirable. My worry, though, is that it'll amount to little, though, because it's in the interest of politicians and their various hangers-on to continue stirring the pot, on both the left and the right. Making black and white people thing there's some sort of racist conspiracy out there to either kill them and/or take their stuff is likely to prove a more successful political formula than tax reform or student loan forgiveness or what have you.

To be fair, a whole lot of average citizens are virtue signaling on FB, too.

Who doesn't want to have voted against Hitler, if you understand my meaning. (he's not Hitler, but its fun to imagine he would be Hitler, except my vote stopped him!)

"Things were bad before this election. They are worse now" What, Trump has a bigger effect that the BLM fascists?

The Trump supporters I know do not exactly "own their racism". Their view is more like; an accusation of racism is not refutable and usually BS, so why bother caring?

The long-term effect will be an actual increase in racism since frivolous accustations vastly outnumber ones with merrit. Soon there will be no good word for real instances of racist behaviour.

Which is this? Frivolous or "harmless" troll enjoying the vibe:

https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/788080897216086017

#podestaemails: "needy latinos, backwards catholics"

When you find yourself defending "put people in the oven" jokes, it might be time to back away from the keyboard.

I didn't even click your dumbass link of some nobody on the internet. Try reading right from the top of the Democrat establishment.

And you are defending people who branded opposition to the ACA as racist. The word has no meaning at all, and the conservatives who dove under the furniture in the face of a vague accusation of racism no longer seem to have anyone listening to them.

Try defending Chicago, a staunch Democrat city with an extraordinary murder rate among blacks. Almost like the Africaans and their townships where they could keep trouble far away.

I asked a question Derek, I didn't make a crazy accusation.

Romney, one very polite man.... demonized by media as racist.

Tea Party, several very polite groups... demonized by media as racist.

Trump, rude and with a huge horde.... demonized by media as racists.

My God, are you all in for shock when you see what comes next after Trump loses.

Won't be that shocking. Trump and Ailes and Bannon will start up a media outlet that will be all about Trump continuing his rallies in front of adoring throngs, railing against what makes the nation great and calling for Clinton's impeachment.

Women will flock to work there.

Right? Those dudes are HOT!

Maybe so, but they'll always treat their co-anchors very professionally.

And during all of this there was a large crowd of people who thought (and still think) that Obama is a Kenya-born Muslim. Do you think progressives created that?

It's just a marker for "Obama isn't part of my team and doesn't represent my interests of values." Which is pretty accurate.

It betrays that markers and teams have overtaken dignity and reason.

# projectveritas: Hillary camp paid mentally ill and homeless people to instigate violence at Trump rallies, and to riot. Millian's idea of dignity.

Dignity = Alpha Dog grabbing women by the cat?

@Thomas: Hillary is awful. Trump is worse. Trumpistas never get that.

Hillary is the leader of a criminal enterprise, Trump is a moron outsider. Clinton accessories never get that.

Trump is, nominally, on our side. In an age of tribal politics you gotta play for your home team. Win or Lose.

Considering the current reporting on Trump's own foundation, accusing Clinton of heading up a criminal enterprise still amounts to little more than the pot calling the kettle black.

"Dignity = Alpha Dog grabbing women by the cat?"

I'm trying to understand which era you think you live in? Are you offended that Trump might actually have done that, or only that he was caught on tape saying that he could? If it's the deed, Clinton and Kennedy were worse. If it's the vulgarity, LBJ and Nixon were worse. Where have you been that you think you can pretend to still be so innocent?

Nixon? Nixon being vulgar was saying something like, "I don't give a [expletive] about the lira".

@Art: well Nixon also was known for using some pretty sharp racist and anti-Semitic language too. It was a different time of course, but let's not pretend he wasn't a foul mouthed racist by today's standards.

"Do you think progressives created that?"

Yes, they are called 2008 Clinton supporters.

LOL, you're really dumb enough to buy into that one? Can't someone be a Republican who doesn't have to always be dumb in a partisan way? I ask the same of dumb partisan Democrats too.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7860

"* 7 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)'s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world's most populous Islamic country."

Educate yourself, msg, CNN is doing a poor job.

Which part of his statement is the cause for your castigation?

The only defense anyone has for Trump is that Clinton is also shitty. But that's not a defense of Trump.

Clinton is awful, but in a normal politician way. She is not against the nation and the democratic system we have going. She will do anything to get power, but once she has it she will do normal stuff to try to make things better in the manner she and her party see it (they may be wrong but they will be trying). And when she loses an election she says congrats to the winner and plots her next move. This is how most politicians operate.

If you can't see a difference with Trump you aren't intelligent enough to engage.

Trump is not evil. There is a difference.

"If you can’t see a difference with Trump you aren’t intelligent enough to engage."

If you don't accept my premise in toto, I will stick my fingers in my ears.

Neither is Clinton. Grow up.

Hillary has made choices for political expediency that have resulted in torture and mmurder. That's what happened in Benghazi, and HRC took the investigation very seriously; her staff brainstorming to hide emails. #podestaemails

"but once she has it she will do normal stuff to try to make things better in the manner she and her party see it"

Despite Clinton's persona as a pragmatic technocrat, these people are fundamentally ideological, and fanatics at that. It's one of the more interesting things to come out of wikileaks. Rather than cynical operatives, Podesta and co. are activist left liberals, at least on cultural issues. Podesta himself wished the San Bernadino shooter had turned out to be a white man, like some kind of alt-right caricature of an "SJW".

I have been where VOX rounded back to:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety

Yes, this was referenced by Interfluidity, but it was better than it IMO. And to go from there to the gross simplification that Lebanon's problem is "diversity" .. borders on deplorable.

Ezra Klein prints talking points from HRC. #Podestaemails

The point is, the uncontested point, there are racists. What do you do next? Do you pat them on the head and say "of course you are"?

That story about Derek Black says that you convert them with inclusion, compassion, but I'm not sure that you don't have to hold the line in the meantime. Hate and exclusion should never be (re)normalized in American society, even if taking a guy who dislikes "Mexicans" out for tacos is a step in the right direction.

For reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-white-flight-of-derek-black/2016/10/15/ed5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

What is the correct Trump post-mortem?

To take an early stab, Trump was elevated in the primaries by more than one constituency, but actual racists were one group. Cut ahead to the general and Trump is supported by a lot of people, ranging from "I always vote Republican" to "I will vote for David Duke on the same ballot." It would probably have to be a write-in at this piont, but he was there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#2016_campaign_for_U.S._Senate

I can understand that "vote Republican" people would be offended by the assertion that they are "vote Duke" folks as well, but it's not like anyone is claiming that they are space aliens. This is a real and actual phenomena in our world. There are people who back Duke and vote Republican.

Perhaps rather than faulting Democrats (and independents like me) for noticing Duke, just say straight up that you aren't that segment. It would be even stronger if you said you wanted them out of the Republican party. State some straightforward reasons that the Republican platform is good for all Americans.

Just David Duke anon? Who else should we have to disavow? Please, tell us how we may contort ourselves to win your approval and esteem. And keep telling us, because I have a feeling this isn't going to end with David Duke or the next "deplorable" person.

You know what? If you did just say "I am not a David Duke Republican" that probably would be enough to reassure a lot of people.

Of course you said this:

"In the process of telling us to extinguish our own race, our betters are also patting us on the back, in the sense that they believe that only we whites are intelligent and sophisticated enough to do it!"

Help me to understand how that is not racist - to believe there is a "white race," facing "extinction."

"Help me to understand how that is not racist – to believe there is a “white race,” facing “extinction.”

First of all, I was replying there to someone who believes all racial identity should be extinguished in favour of "mutual respect" between atomised individuals. So strictly speaking it was hypothetical.

But just taking it on it's face, I don't see what's so racist about it. Is the mere association with a "racial" group ("whites" in this case) racist in your eyes? My threshold for "racism" is lot higher than that.

Is believing that your own "racial group" is under demographic threat racist (apart from whether it's factually true or not)? Or would the fact itself be racist?

If you identify with the historical and cultural products of your "race" and fear it being demographically diluted or subsumed in your traditional "land" you might be labelled a racist, but I don't see why there should be any negative connotation to that. What negative connotation there is, seems to be driven by a ideology that just implicitly assumes that "multiculturalism" is the only way forward and alternatives lead to barbarism. I'm just not prepared to grant that. Of course, what "diversity" exists already within a nation has to be carefully accommodated, but pushing blindly forward into more diversity only aggravates the problems.

"You know what? If you did just say “I am not a David Duke Republican” that probably would be enough to reassure a lot of people."

Donald Trump condemned David Duke. Trump's polling at 49 in Louisiana while Duke is polling at 3 percent. Reassured?

A better an more positive read for the day:

https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/788036739755548672

When has the accusation of "racist" ever improved race relations? And, damage an entire racism-industry has done to public-discourse will not be fully known for generations to come.

Presumably, race relations are better now than before the 1960s, correct?

Racism + Talking About Racism = C.

The above formula proves that if we talk about racism non-stop, it will disappear completely.

Maybe. But worse than 10 years ago. I'm watching Scrubs on Netflix. Funny show that ran through the 1990s. You couldn't say half the stuff they said back then. There wasn't all the racial tension there is now. People who get along can joke with each other.

If you want to go by the entertainment theory of race relations in the U.S., then the halcyon days of race relations ended around 1997. Black sitcom and black sketchcom perished as viable formats. Will and Grace debuted. The Left realized half their base was unwilling to pursue policies that would improve economics of working class black families, and it would be more viable to push gay tolerance rather than race relations as the issue that distinguished the right from the wrong kind of white people. The rest is history.

Black sketchcom perished? Tell that to Dave Chappelle and Key & Peele

Scrubs premiered in 2001.

Are they?

There is a big difference between how race relations are for well off urban professionals in gated communities, and how they are down stream. I don't think the race relations between the white trash and the hood rats in my city are particularly good. My city was not in the deep south and didn't have Jim Crow, and from what I've read and seen about 1960s things may have actually been better for black people then they are today. At least in terms of things like jobs, crime, and intact family structure. We are experiencing the same race riots that we had in the 1960s.

It's worth noting too that race relations between the blacks and hispanics in my city aren't that good either, and this relationship has essentially no legacy that should be dragging it down.

Yes, Millian. Your obvious point is correct, even if the MR consensus wishes it were not. The civil rights movement produced more civil rights.

Everyone above who argued against that simple truth should be ashamed.

Rights are obviously better, but that's not Millian or BDub were talking about. Pay attention.

Race relations are better too. Obviously.

What's your proof, beyond asserting it.

Same as the 'proof' asserted by all the racists commenting here for their various obsessions.

The graph of "approves of interracial marriage" is an easy metric.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

I'm curious to see if there would be a difference if the question was asked in regards to their own children

anon is right. Among average people, race relations are much better.

The key is that in politics, its gotten worse. Identity politics is where race matters far more than 3 guys hanging out on the corner.

People are less racist than ever but there are more accusations if race than any time since the 60s?

More accusations of racism*

Public discourse, the law, higher education, the civil service. The interesting question is why the cohorts in charge of higher education and the legal profession after 1965 have been so intent on damaging them by setting up this perpetual-motion patronage mill. I doubt it does blacks much good on balance. You just get careers like Michelle Obama's and Houston Baker's.

"partially self-fulfilling" - so, they ARE all racists, but, we shouldn't say that, but, Interfluidity can say that.

Forgive me for not getting on board with this (of course not all Trump supporters are racists, the problem is that maybe 40 per cent are, which is an epistemically uncanny number for making broad assertions).

If you believe that sickle cell and Tay Sachs aren't equally prevalent among all races then you are a racist under one definition.

If you are white and believe that black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime then you are racist under another definition.

If you are black and believe that white people are innately evil then you are not racist under one definition.

If you are black and believe that the problems of the black community are primarily rooted in single parent households then you are racist under some definitions.

Lastly if you are a white supremacist you are racist under all definitions.

Conflating all of these things together is the left's strategy and it's why racist has lost its power. When the NAACP is coming out against charter schools that drastically improve black performance and future opportunities, racist means nothing.

Agreed. It's all humbug.

The problem we have in public life stems in part from the internal dynamics of the black population and can be seen in Ferguson. Ordinary working class blacks never seem to have the megaphone or to be able to assert their interests. In Ferguson, you had a large mass of black homeowners whose interests were being trashed by all the undocumented shopping and it was as if they did not exist. Another is the bifurcation of worldviews among blacks, where the insights and impressions of everyday life seem to never inform civic action or thinking about public life in any way. A third problem in the other direction is the habit (and insistence) of suburban voters that people living six miles away from them are to be regarded as if they were on the dark side of the moon. None of the foregoing is ever hashed out anywhere.

Well, when they do get to speak, they don't seem eager to say they are voting for that famous non-racist and all round good guy, Donald J. Trump.

Don't forget the 5 billion or so other human racists.

Your standard for racism is typically hyper hypersensitive, but thats OK, keep sqealing racist at 40 percent of the population. The sooner we can get this hysteria to a fever pitch the sooner we can get this war on the road.

"You are a racist for making this comment."

-the people who label poor whites 'deplorable', Catholics 'backwards', latinos 'needy', and pray mass shooters are white guys.

You will lose the war. You lost every such war since 1861, if I recall correctly.

Not that they ARE racists but that they will accept the label, and the label will change not to mean actual racism but just conservatism, which in turn will hinder any fight against actual racism

"We have to destroy the fight against racism in order to save it". Still not buying it. Lots of people on MR think black people's weakness in America is their own fault for being born mentally weak. That is textbook racism.

You would address my point above if you were capable, but there is no rebuttal in existence.

reality has a racist bias, huh huh huh

The point was the many conflicting and sometimes politicized definitions of racism destroy the value of racist as an insult. We are all racists. Most of us don't hate other races. Some of us hate other races, like the tiny amount of white supremacists, and the mainstream Feminist, BLM, La Raza, and Academy Democrats.

I don't quite grasp Millian's meaning, but I prefer Chief Justice Roberts' line, "The way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

The left believea that the way to stop discrimination is to institute laws that discriminate against white males and then change the definition of discrimination to disinclude white males.*

*High status white males, like Clintons and Soros's will still get in to HYS.

I have no idea what you are talking about

I am old enough to remember plenty of Dems chanting "Selected not elected" and the Diebold fix arguments from 2004. There is a The Atlantic article this month that Kerry still believes he was robbed in Ohio and tells his tale of woe to foreign officials.

Yet Trump is uniquely bad.

Your first sentence doesn't somehow mean that Trump isn't uniquely bad. Come on, Bob, you can be a Republican and oppose Clinton and still recognize that.

My recollection is that the matter was raised with Kerry by another member of Congress and he dismissed it, saying he'd looked into it. The one pushing that mess in public fora was Mark Crispin Miller, who, I would wager, has never had anything to do with the mechanics of an election in his life.

One of the latest leaked emails gives the impression that Ezra Klein is a willing mouthpiece for Hillary:

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/788097958113898497

Too bad this didn't come out a couple weeks ago so Tyler could have asked him about it.

Ezra Klein is a shill. He always has been and he always will be. If Clinton wins maybe he'll be rewarded for his dedicated service but it certainly won't be quid pro quo.

Not Quid Pro Quo like when Undersecretary of State Kennedy proposed allowing FBI agents in to Iraq of they would alter classification of emails to get Hillary off thr hook. As released in FBI* FOIA document dump.

*Clinton campaign has not announced whether this FBI release came from Vladimir Putin.

This is the most frustrating thing about the media coverage of Clinton's email stuff. People who have no idea how document classification and handling of classified documents getting bent out of shape over things they do not understand.

Classification guides are CRAZY long. They're CRAZY complex. They've got more gray than a BDSM book. But everyone acts like it so simple. So cut-and-dry. This is probably what doctors feel like when they watch ER or House or whatever's contemporary.

Yeah i have a TS/SCI so thanks for your input.

Inside of our secured compartment, we needed two people to open the safe to access information with the same level of classification that Hillary was sending on her Blackberry and server administered by morons like Paul Combetta.

Again thanks for your input. There is no gray in classification. Hillary was an OCA meaning that the designation of classified material was entrusted to her. A lieutenant commander who used her bullshit excuses would have their career ended. Let alone a SES or caninet level official, my God.

She knew exactly what she was doing and didn't care at all. But again, thanks for your attempt to Voxsplain, but scummy liberals are a rarity in the military or intelligence community.

Press Secretary Klein?

If he needs the work. What's Jay Carney doing now?

I suspect he would have to take a paycut for a much less cushy gig.

But imagine that STATUS?! As HRC demonstrated, status can buy influence can buy cash.

No, Thomas, you have this backwards.

"First you get the money, then you get the power. Once you get the power, then you get the woman." - Tony Montana

Hillary started with the woman so this was natural. I wouldn't dare assume Ezra's gender so xe may follow Hillary's model.

Ezra is buddy buddy with Tyler now so that would most certainly not have been asked.

I can't take anyone seriously who is intelligent, yet hasn't seen through the kindergarten-level semantics of the word "racism".

"Racist" is just an vague epithet used to shut down debate and create confusion at this point. It's not a serious term you can use in dialectic and expect to arrive at truth. It's a rhetorical cudgel - not a moral or empirical term. Not to mention it was coined in the 1930s by Franz Boaz - hardly an ancient moral term. Yet it's supposed to carry the same mala in se heft as murder and other heinous acts, and we're supposed to bend down to it and redirect our thoughts back to the proscribed overtonian decency whenever it's uttered. Category error.

The more interesting question is: why are White identity politics so off-limits? Why can certain things be abstracted and said by some people, but not by others? Why must some people be atoms, but others not? If Kurds, Jews, Japanese, Saami and Tibetans can all 1) self-identity as an ethnic group, 2) claim legimitate group interests, 3) express positive affect toward their group, 4) lay claim to a territory, why must Whites abnegate that right? Why is it that Whites only exist when they have done something wrong, and in all other contexts they must be relativized, reduced and atomized? Why is reductionism the philosophical tool in one context, but not in another? In other words, why does Fredrik Reinfeldt, former Swedish PM, state that "the only thing Swedish is barbarism" when only 50 years ago Swedish PM Tage Erlander said that we are lucky to be racially homogenous? What changed?

If ethnicity is such a forbidden abstraction, it should be forbidden for everyone. Either transhumanist Homo Startrekensis is the ultimate teleology of all humanity, or ethnic identity is a permissible identity-construct for everyone. And if the former, then we might as well do away with annoying constructs like "family", "loyalty", "emotions" or "romance" as well - because, why should we revaluate some all-too-human values, and not others?

So, ethnicity for everyone, or for no one. No forbidden abstractions for some groups, and not for others. A Swede can be a Viking, or the Japanese have to open their borders.

Otherwise, we get the weird situation where Muhammad Ali and Dalai Lama can be ethno-nationalists in the discourse, but Whites can't. Where a moral saint in East Asia can say that Germany has too many immigrants and is losing its identity, but a white German cannot.

So, why is there such a double-standard? There are four possible reasons for such a double-standard:

1) White are the only moral Historical Subject, the vanguard group that Acts and Oppresses everyone else. The lightspeed constant to which everyone else's victim-level is relative. Ie Whites as absolute evil (but at the same time the only ones who are competent enough to be moral subjects - the racism!) and everyone else as varying degrees of victim/object.

2) Whites are so historically depraved because of Hitler that they must forever forfeit their right to ethnic identity. This makes no sense, because 26 million white Russians died fighting against the Nazis. Also, Genghis Khan killed a lot of people.

3) The whole anti-racism is basically psychological warfare designed to attack White people as an ethnic group. Demoralization war. Were the same tactics used on, say, the Kurds or the Saami, it would fall under the United Nations treaty on genocide, paragraph 2.

4) Whites, especially Northern Europeans, are on the far right on the bell curve for universalism and altruism, and on the far left for ingrouping and clannishness. Reasons for this: Ice Age evolutionary pressures (man against nature, higher IQ and more abstract thinking), exogamous marriage patterns, possibly other things (I don't pretend to be an expert on it so I won't speak much on it).

#1 and #2 is what our sanctified priests in the media and academia expound, #3 is the real reason if you ask me. And #4 might play a role.

I'd really appreciate good counter-arguments to what I just wrote!

Evidently, Whites write too much and assume silence implies consent.

Did you just comment at us without consent? #streetharassment2016

This morning, without asking, I kissed my wife goodbye. Please don't report me, Millian! How many Hail Global Warmings do I need to pray to Al Gore?

You're quite correct. In this blog commentariat, however, there's a lingering element of a "racist" attitude that's been directed at those deemed of a lower intelligence. There's often advocacy of tying immigration quotas to the measured intelligence of prospective immigrants. Somehow, in Marginal Revolution Land, the most intelligent are considered "better" than their non-genius inferiors. Part of this feeling is due to the perception that less intelligent people are more likely to be criminals or recipients of state benefits. In reality, criminals are probably above average in intelligence. But, evidently, everyone needs some to look down on and at the moment, here, it's the less intelligent. And we know that they're not the elites of the coasts.

"Part of this feeling is due to the perception that less intelligent people are more likely to be criminals or recipients of state benefits. In reality, criminals are probably above average in intelligence."

Not sure if trolling or just stupid.

Not "better" in a holistic sense, but certainly if I can pick between two people to come into my country, join my club, live next door, and the only thing I know is their IQ, I am going to pick the higher one. Not sure how that could possibly be racist?

1) White are the only moral Historical Subject, the vanguard group that Acts and Oppresses everyone else. The lightspeed constant to which everyone else’s victim-level is relative. Ie Whites as absolute evil (but at the same time the only ones who are competent enough to be moral subjects – the racism!) and everyone else as varying degrees of victim/object.

Or you could say that the perspective which sees white people as the only relevant moral actor is subtly racist in itself. It is less racist to regard all individuals as individual actors capable of being either victim or oppressor in different contexts and periods and accountable to the same standards of moral behavior.

2) Whites are so historically depraved because of Hitler that they must forever forfeit their right to ethnic identity. This makes no sense, because 26 million white Russians died fighting against the Nazis. Also, Genghis Khan killed a lot of people.

I don't know anyone who thinks this. America fought against Hitler, and America is the standard bearer of stereotypical whiteness today. If you want a better reference, try slavery.

3) The whole anti-racism is basically psychological warfare designed to attack White people as an ethnic group. Demoralization war. Were the same tactics used on, say, the Kurds or the Saami, it would fall under the United Nations treaty on genocide, paragraph 2.

Yup. They're all out to get you. Nobody is in it because they actually want racial harmony, or actually want white people and black people to be intergrated into a cohesive social unit.

4) Whites, especially Northern Europeans, are on the far right on the bell curve for universalism and altruism, and on the far left for ingrouping and clannishness. Reasons for this: Ice Age evolutionary pressures (man against nature, higher IQ and more abstract thinking), exogamous marriage patterns, possibly other things (I don’t pretend to be an expert on it so I won’t speak much on it).

Or
5) Western civilization is more technically, intellectually, and socially advanced, and western inclusiveness is *because of* our higher level of intellectual advancement, notwithstanding the presence of various groups of people (lower class whites, lower class blacks) who have not achieved this level of enlightenment. So we're constantly engaged in a battle to bring everyone else up to our level, and the people we expect to be most capable of that are *other white people*. This seems like a double standard to white people until you realize that it's actually a double standard *in favor of* white people. It presupposes that white people are more intellectually capable of not being racist than black people.

"This seems like a double standard to white people until you realize that it’s actually a double standard *in favor of* white people."

In the process of telling us to extinguish our own race, our betters are also patting us on the back, in the sense that they believe that only we whites are intelligent and sophisticated enough to do it! Well, when you put it like I guess I have no choice but to get on board...

You know, I come off as a huge nationalist with my previous comment, but I'm not. I'm simply pointing out contradictions in the Discourse. I'm fine with people having whatever opinions they want, as long as they are consistent. This is the key sin of most liberals I meet: they are not coherent. (It's almost to the point that one wants to steelman them to just to have worthy debate, but they seldom seem to understand the strong versions of their own ideology...)

Personally, I would be for some kind of world-government if it truly was of Star Trek caliber. If we're to all be a happy world family, we'd better be going to the stars, inventing AIs and immortality, and sending out space marines to fight aliens. Stuff like that.

If we're going abolish the White race just for Cola Cola, Soros, degeneracy, and MTV, I don't really see the point. In that case, I'd rather continue to get my warm-and-fuzzies from tribal identity. I'm not a geneolator like NS types, but tribal identity *is* real and if we need to abolish it, it'd better be for a good reason.

If the world ain't ready for a worthy world-project, don't go for global scale.

I agree with you, and actually I think this whole shift in public opinion towards nativism and nationalism would've been much easier to handle for elites if they were willing to pursue those kinds of grand national or international "prestige" projects.

The technocratic liberals - the Democrats - are opposed because professional economists are opposed, on the grounds that they are "inefficient" allocations of resources - i.e. "think of all the extra widgets we could buy from Walmart for the cost of a Mars project or high speed rail". The Republicans are opposed on the grounds that anything deviating from the free market is heresy. So in the mean time the population, instead of gazing up and out towards national identity, national prestige, or a grand cooperative international project, is turning inwards and against itself, and subgroups are starting to pick at each other. There just isn't anything to capture anyone's imagination, unless you're a fervent ideologue.

Elites seem to think that if we can just fast forward the next 20 years we'll be living in a Star Trek world, their moral goals of lifting up the global poor will have been achieved and the native population will be pacified by a Walmart bounty and a simultaneous ideological suppression which will have pushed "bad thoughts" out of the realm of normal thinking.

Yes. In order to avoid racist jackboots smashing shop windows, we need bug-stomping jackboots on Klendathu.

Also, I know Star Trek is a metaphor, but it did take them like 300 years and several world wars to get there. And once they got there, it's "us against the klingons". A whole lot of UN-in-space statolatry, and they still end up back at square 1 in a sense.

I'm wondering if this kind of thing is solvable at all, barring scooping out certain bits of the human brain (heck, nervous system) and just re-architecting us fundamentally. But then we're not human anymore.

Fair comments. Perhaps we do need some sort of unifying international mission to draw us together, like terraforming Mars or something.
The left would have us do things like defeat hunger or something, but the problem is that's not a mission in which everyone pitches in, it's a wealth transfer from white people to non-white people. In order to be unifying the mission has to be something to which everyone contributes a positive amount. Not something in which one side is giving and the other is receiving.

In the process of telling us to extinguish our own race, our betters are also patting us on the back, in the sense that they believe that only we whites are intelligent and sophisticated enough to do it!

We're not asking you to exterminate all white people. We're asking you to stop thinking of yourself as a member of the super-special-white-in-group.
You act like not thinking of yourself as a racial category is some form of genocide.

In my experience, unilateral disarmament very rarely works, and when it does the other parties are just as "enlightened" as the disarming one, which would kind of put a wrinkle in your "only white are enlightened enough to do it" theory.

"You act like not thinking of yourself as a racial category is some form of genocide."

It can be. UN convention says:

"(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;"

The UN convention clearly pre-supposed that the abstraction of "ethnic group" is valid. If that is the case, and someone starts telling ONE specific group "no, you're not a group", then that could be construed as a demoralizing effort intended to bring about worsening conditions for said group.

If someone were to go around to CERTAIN groups and say "you're not a group!" that would be considered very problematic by the world community. Heck, the Swedish government itself protects the right to Saami identity, under exactly that line of reasoning.

In any case, it might not be genocide, but it's such a huge double standards, and as such there must be a justification, whether that is

-unique historical evil requiring forfeiting of tribalism

-role as vanguard Inner Party leaders shuttling humanity out of tribalism

-unique evolutionary heritage which gives cognitive ability to not be tribalist, thus indulging in tribalism is a more serious offense

-role of de-facto majority group which means tribal thinking is dangerous to the minorities (this one is iffy since Whites won't be the majority forever)

Or any other justification you can think of.

The UN convention clearly pre-supposed that the abstraction of “ethnic group” is valid. If that is the case, and someone starts telling ONE specific group “no, you’re not a group”, then that could be construed as a demoralizing effort intended to bring about worsening conditions for said group.

That would be the case if white people were being oppressed by some outside non-white group. What's actually going on is white people having a conversation among themselves in which some white people are telling other white people to stop thinking of themselves according to racial categories. Black people aren't claiming that whiteness doesn't exist. People that play at black racial identity politics are just fine with white people identifying themselves as a separate group, as it reinforces black identity politics. Only the dominant group can "cease to exist", and allow others to merge into it.

Good points. You seem to be on the side of abolishment of ethnicity as valid group identity, in favor of post-tribal techno-utopia.

If you're consistent with this - which means barring *everyone* from having a tribal "we" - then that seems like a valid position.

But then you have to convince all non-whites to give up their clannishness and march together toward transhumanism.

Otherwise it's an unfair double-standard, and either leads to the whites-as-only-moral-actors or whites-as-penitent-criminals justifications for it. With the former, you're basically saying that non-whites are Orwell's proles, who don't have agency and don't matter absent white leadership. With the latter, you end up comparing atrocities and trying to come up with a standard which makes whites qualitatively worse (because otherwise they don't deserve to be in a special category). Not to mention it's a huge guilt-trip which goes on forever.

But yeah, if you're for "White tikkun olam as sci-fi world-project", I can't really fault you for it. It's a consistent position. Even though I would hope for some kind of solution to let Whites LARP group-identity within the framework of trekkie world government.

Others would argue that World Cup Football plays the role you want and that it's problematic that Americans don't participate (not really). Maybe Americans should have All-Black and All-White basketball teams or something.

I think it comes down to one's moral "null hypothesis".

If your "default" is that humans should come together, disregard tribalism, and just be cool to each other, then any tribalism above the playful level (ie soccer) is seen as automatically troglodite, something evil people do.

If, on the other hand, your default is that humans ARE tribalistic, that this is OK because it's just human nature, and that attempts to nullify that are going to lead to misery, then you arrive at different conclusions. Under such a premise, it might be worth it to abolish tribal identity, but the pay-off must be worth it. Fighting off aliens, colonizing Mars, living forever, inventing AIs and uploading ourselves. Something that is strong enough to want to cast off core parts of our mind programming.

Basically, is there an LSD-induced insight that would be strong enough for you to want to change CORE aspects of yourself? What would be worth that? If could have psychic powers and superhuman strength, but had to change your gender and never see your family again, would you do it? That's the transhumanist bargain.

It's a contrived example, but it illustrates what I mean. To YOU, maybe tribal identity is something superficial like soccer, but that's hardly the case for EVERYONE.

I'll try to put in feelz terms.

I might be moving from Sweden in the coming years, due to several factors, but mostly centered around the economy and immigration.

Already, I feel like an alien in my own country sometimes, but I'm still in the majority most of the time.

But I try to imagine what it will be like 10-20 years from now, if current trends continue.

I get a real feeling of sadness in my stomach, as if I'm homesick but there is no place to return to, when I think about that.

Do you see what I mean?

Of course, I'm a rational adult, and I can probably adapt to living in Shanghai or whatever. But I'll never come home again, and all I'll have is memories of how it used to be.

I put this in very emotional terms to try and convey to you what "tribalism" actually means. I think this is one of those bio-chemical set-points where some people just don't get homesick (for instance).

The thing is that human tribalism *is known to* lead to extreme human misery. Like, as in war, genocide, slavery, oppression.
Maybe getting rid of tribalism (except for the playful kind, i.e. soccer) will lead to a different kind of misery, but I have a hard time believing it will beat the kind of misery that humanity has experienced from war, slavery, and genocide.

"This seems like a double standard to white people until you realize that it’s actually a double standard *in favor of* white people. It presupposes that white people are more intellectually capable of not being racist than black people."

Which they likely are. See my point #4.

But, OK, one can construct a logically coherent worldview where Whites are not allowed to be ethnocentric, but non-whites are, because Whites are predisposed by nature to not be as ethnocentric, meaning Whites who are ethnocentric are somehow more primitive and regressive. It's a double-standard but it's a justified one. We would then add White duty to bring non-whites into the future, with the eventual goal of abilition of tribal identity. We avoid the moral-actors problem because there is a goal to transform non-whites into moral actors.

Another logical conclusion is that some form of eugenics is needed to bring non-whites down to a proper level of ethnocentrism so they can also become moral actors.

So, White tikkun olam + eugenics for non-whites to make them moral actors on par with Whites.

I hardly think this is a position any progressive would agree to! (Even if is kind of what they really think, if you spell it out).

Why do you think that the Democrats are so big on making sure that free birth control is available to everyone through the ACA ?

But seriously, the problem is that non-whites have a harder time not being ethnocentric because they are in the minority and there are still lots of ethnocentric whites who won't accept them. They're in the weaker and more threatened position, and people who are more threatened tend to be more tribal. White people don't have as good an excuse for behaving tribally.

All identity politics is poison: white, black, or otherwise. In fact, I'd go further. All identities are poison: they simplify an individual into an in-group/out-group dichotomy.

+1
Exactly. Stop being a slave to one collective or another. True unity can only be achieved first by total atomization. Destroy all group identities and build a new one around mutual respect between utterly unique individuals.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a crazy utopian social engineering project from hell at all. Replacing "mutual respect" with "class consciousness" I get a sense of deja-vu.

Total individualism is the exact opposite of class consciousness. But I exagerrate slightly.
Human nature does bind us into families and groups, but those groups should be chosen or naturally formed from direct personal relationships. Having a loyalty to some abstract collective like "race" or "nation", or "class" is ridiculous. Those concepts need to be broken down so that people can discover and form real meaningful bonds that are beneficial to themselves and not the political masters.

It's not so much "mutual respect between utterly unique individuals" I was taking issue with, it was the part about "total atomization. Destroy all group identities and build a new one".

And in the long run, I wonder how you're going to prevent "loyalty to some abstract collective" short of a constant propaganda drubbing (they've been trying that for the last 20 years, doesn't seem to be working lately) and thought crime (a nascent effort).

Probably, you would need to erode features that could serve as identifying poles - like physical features and historical narratives told in terms of those kinds of "abstract collectives". Maybe a good way to do it would be to try some kind of "vanguard" action - like surreptitiously importing large populations of foreigners that could dilute the native population and over generations, erode their identifying features. You'd hope no one would catch on to this move by a "vanguard party" until this "false consciousness" had been transformed into the revolutionary consciousness of "mutual respect between utterly unique individuals", otherwise you might get trouble.

What should we be bonding over instead?

like surreptitiously importing large populations of foreigners that could dilute the native population and over generations, erode their identifying features.

So, you're afraid of miscegenation, then?

"So, you’re afraid of miscegenation, then?"

I'm afraid of militant ideologues with a paternalistic moral attitude whose project calls for an upheaval and overturning of norms and associations that a large part of the population is invested in.

Sounds kind of like the Soviet Union. Where do you draw the line? Are families allowed?

Do we take children from their mothers, like the Spartans? It's all arbitrary identity, right?

That is simply inhuman.

I agree with identity politics being poison, but Trumpian white identity politics is a defensive response against the anti-white rhetoric from the left. I'm a "fucking white male", so there are hundreds of college departments around the country dedicated to exposing my evil.

In a world of pacifists, someone willing to kill is king. When a tolerant society tolerates an intolerant society, it is suicide. When one side is willing to drop nukes and the other isn't, there will be war.

The left will never stop telling minorities that they are victims of white men, so there will never be racial harmony. Too much money and power are at stake.

That was some really clear thinking.

How about #5: In US political discourse, labeling someone a racist is largely a matter of labeling them as lower-class and uneducated. It has very little to do with actual racism.

The general rule I've seen for discussing stuff like this is to taboo the word whose definition is the basis of the argument. Instead of saying "You are a racist." you get "You are a person who believes that blacks have a higher crime rate than whites," or "You are a person who thinks it should be legal to discriminate in hiring" or "You are a person who thinks all the nonwhites in America should be murdered or driven out of the country." But that actually only works when everyone in the conversation wants to do it; otherwise, it's easy to fall back on the magic-word arguments.

Whenever I hear -ist words I like to put on my time-traveller goggles and headphones. If someone would yell "ultramontanian papist!" or "supporter of Graccus!" or "Qing loyalist!", you would rightly find that very quaint and odd. It would feel like someone was throwing a ball at you but you had no way of catching that ball because you'd never received such a ball before.

We get that reaction because those are dead magic-words. They meant something at some point, but now their emotional reaction is spent, and we can look at their content more objectively.

This is also why I get kind of meta-offended when someone yells "racist!" - because, they want me to take off my time-travelling goggles of historical objectivity, step INTO an arbitrary time, and take on the emotional baggage of that time. Why should I do that?

Compare "thief!" or "killer!"

Every person in every culture in every time knows how to "catch that ball" because those are true moral universals.

"Racist!" on the other hand only applies to 1) whites 2) after 1930s who have 3) learned about racism and learned to 4) associate a range of phenomena and beliefs with a very vague word.

So, if we were to make a list of worthy -isms, it would have to be something like:

- Applies to everyone
- Applies throughout time
- Does not require heavy education to grasp
- Is a clear, clean and precisely defined word

Now, we could make some Kantian arguments about synthetic vs a priori knowledge, and how some moral universals MAY in fact need to be learned at a more abstract level, but I'm not going to go into that, because I think you grok what I'm trying to say here. And besides, I don't know about it to be honest. Any one else wanna chime in, feel free.

Re: the actual meaning of "racism". It seems the actual meaning is something like:

"Irrationally being mean to other people - just because your human inborn tribal recognition engine says so - and being mean to them without any real reason to do so"

In other words, "I hate blacks because different than me on superficial level"

Obviously, very few people believe that (but they do exist, of course). Having such a belief is mostly an example of low intelligence - being emotionally incontinent like that and taking some primal urge as fact. It would be the equivalent of saying "women good because horny for them".

So, the trick is loading racism with a very bad connotation - something most people can agree is not only irrational but also mean and disgusting - and then tarrying people with it whenever they express beliefs like "blacks do more crime" or "whites are also a group" or "race and IQ is real" or something similar.

It's basically equivocation - lumping a bunch of different stuff together in one word, then shifting the actual definition subtly to suit your needs. No wonder people go nuts from such language use.

"But that actually only works when everyone in the conversation wants to do it; otherwise, it’s easy to fall back on the magic-word arguments."

Steelmanning*, dialectic and meta-debate** should be the way to go. Instead we get strawmanning, rhetoric and cheap verbal judo***.

* If your opponent gives you a weak version of his argument, you try to make it stronger for him.

** Discussing the form and structure of the discourse itself as much as the actual content.

*** So, -ist words that are intended to trap people inside the discourse. Intellectual ammunition that relies on double binds, vague definitions, and using up all the "willpower points" for logic of the opponent by being misleading and obtuse in some way.

Several years ago, black Republican Congressman J. C. Watts called Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson "race-hustling poverty pimps." Discuss.

One can agree with JC Watts and still believe there are racial issues that deserve attention.

Which ones?

For a huge number of measures of well-being, blacks are noticably doing a lot worse than most other groups in the US. Look at life expectancy, likelihood of committing a crime, likelihood of being a crime victim, high school graduation, college graduation, income, likelihood of being on welfare, likelihood of being a single parent, likelihood of low birth weight, etc.

It's not obvious what the cause of all that is. Explicit racial discrimination now or in the last few decades may explain some of that stuff, but probably not most of it. Many of those problems aren't really within the power of the government to solve. But those all represent issues that deserve attention.

"Poverty pimps" was cribbed from Ed Koch. Sharpton and Crump / Julison as as bad as it gets, except, of course, for the sorosphere rent-a-crowd in BLM. Jackson is a more ambiguous (and poignant) figure.

I don't think there's much salutary purpose to racial protest politics anymore. Bruce Gordon during his brief turn as executive secretary of the NAACP tried to turn it toward social work projects on the Urban League model and was slapped down by the board, who, after he resigned, redoubled their efforts toward...a federal hate crimes bill. Worthless bunch, the NAACP's board. That's the more benign manifestation. BLM, which is a malicious and destructive assemblage, is the more wicked one.

It's simple, black Republicans are racists, just like female Republicans have internalized misogyny. If you're good at researching and writing, you can get a government paid career at a college creating facts just like this.

This weird, cagey, "it's bad when you attack racists" isn't really a good look.

You are a racist.

Either you are a clever and dedicated member of a non-white anti-defamation league, or you really don't understand what a negative impact you have on "normals."

A few of you, MR regulars, refute every week that this "racism" is just mismeasured, an artifact of right-left polling. You take to these pages to fight the simple idea that Americans should have equal rights, and not be maligned or excluded by race, color, or creed.

I believe Americans should all have equal rights, and that makes me a racist according to the left. You believe that minorities should have superior rights, and that makes you a racist according to me.

I have never said "minorities should have superior rights," but on the other hand firingline has said on this page:

"In the process of telling us to extinguish our own race, our betters are also patting us on the back, in the sense that they believe that only we whites are intelligent and sophisticated enough to do it! "

Are you guys buds? If you are for equal rights WTF are you doing answering me and not him?

What right is being violating or what right is he suggesting we violate in his post? He's just using hyperbole in his observation on the left, which harbors large anti-"fucking white male" sentiment.

anon,

Firingline made a comment about what he perceives other people to be saying. He explicitly does not agree with it.

P.S. "all Americans..."

Gee whiz, that's racist against illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly Mexican. Why do you hate Mexicans?

That's how pathetic your side is.

I have never argued for illegal alien rights either. I believe in rule of law.

Then you are a racist just like Donald Trump. Welcome to the basket.

You picked a very strange argument, because everyone seems to be arguing FOR equal rights. What people really don't like is racial discrimination (affirmative action, PC retaliation, etc.). I would think that opposition to systemic racism is something progressives could understand, but apparently not. All they can understand is "BLUE GOOD. RED AND PURPLE BAD."

Folks here don't believe there is any systemic racism to oppose, except of course all the racism against whites.

With good reason. What evidence can you point to in favor of SYSTEMIC racism against non-whites, non-asians? I completely believe there is INDIVIDUAL racism against NAM but what evidence is there for SYSTEMIC racism? The systemic racism against whites is right out there in the open, no one denies it they just say it's okay because the victims are the wrong color. It doesn't get any more systemic than laws that dictate people of certain races get preference over others, right??

Is "the wisdom of interfluidity," some kind of pop-cultre pun that old geezers like me don't understand? Because that article, and especially the blog, has nothing that could ever be described as "wisdom."

For Tyler and the class he aspires to, wisdom means careful manipulation of the public discourse and the disclosure of facts in ways that are expedient to achieving your ultimate moral and political aims, which in Tyler's case is some combination of Star Trek and the Wild West.

Shooting from the hip with cool lasers. Could be a cool tagline.

"some combination of Star Trek and the Wild West."

Reading Average is Over I saw it as a type of cyber-punk vision, slums meet AI. I don't know that that's really what he wants for our country and I suspect that when he gets into the privacy of the voting booth he'll be voting for Donald Trump.

LOL as will so many others, hence Trump's coming landslide.

I'd say the concept of rational astrology contains substantial wisdom. Similarly, Interfluidity's discussion of the built-in relationship between meritocracy, inequality, and underclass dysfunction was very much worth reading.

Yo, who you calling racist? I'm gonna knock you out! This post hit AlexT like numbers, over 200 posts and counting.

The interfluidity post is ridiculous. The economic problems facing less-educated whites have been around for decades, and no unusual economic calamity has befallen them recently. Economic outcomes for this group have actually improved in the last couple of years, as they have for most groups. There is no wave of illegal immigrants currently entering the US, and there is no crime wave afflicting the nation. The idea that uneducated whites support Trump because they are suffering from some kind of economic or social disaster is just not correct.

A much simpler explanation for what’s going on is that the republican party has included a faction of poorly-educated, racist white voters for decades. The size and influence of this group has not grown. The republican party ran a disastrous primary and nominated a candidate that caters to this group, and as a result it ended up with the least-popular presidential candidate in recent memory and will lose the election by a giant margin.

It has little to do with class-related issues. Trump won all the classes, he just won the working class most overwhelmingly. The faux-sympathy for Trump's white working class supporters is just a way for the media to subtly insinuate that only dumb whites would dare to vote against their own dispossession.

What happened was simple: Republicans voted for a candidate they agreed with, rather than another corporate/neocon shill. Trump has some flaws, his alpha male attitude will repel older women who are reminded of the jerkboys who pumped and dumped them decades ago. He may very well lose. But we'll be back in four years with a new candidate. This war isn't over.

Trump is much less popular among Republicans than Romney or McCain, and he is incredibly unpopular among Americans in general. He is going to lose in a landslide to a flawed and beatable Democratic candidate. Unless you think all the polls are wrong for some reason?

Every election they ask Republicans how they will vote, there are always a proportion of them who say they won't vote for the nominee. That proportion hasn't changed. The NeverTrump cucks are a very small group of people, they just have a lot of influence over the media.

According to the current Real Clear Politics average, if the election were today Trump would lose with 216 electoral votes, 10 more than Romney got, so unless his loss was a landslide, Trump isn't going to lose in a landslide:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

My hope is the Bradley Effect. White men will get into that ballot box and will realize that for the first time in their lives they have a chance to vote for the white man's candidate. Older women will remember the last time criminals were declared a certified victim class and allowed to run wild. Younger women will ask themselves if they want their town to turn into Cologne.

Or maybe that's a fantasy. Either way, Trump's got my vote. There's another factor, polls ask "likely voters." Many Trump supporters are like me, people who never voted before or haven't voted in a long time.(The 1990 midterm was my last election.)

Fivethirtyeight has him losing by 7.2 points and 156 electoral votes. Either way, I would call this an embarrassing defeat, especially considering that he is facing a very unpopular opponent who is not an incumbent.

If you actually think he has a chance to win you should put money on it. You can get 9-1 odds on the prediction markets.

FiveThirtyEight isn't an objective measure, they take the polls, then add or subtract points based on their "political analysis." Real Clear Politics is just the polls. Remember what FiveThrityEight said throughout the nomination?

@JH: go to the betting markets and get paid, son!

There has been a dramatic change in culture, particularly popular culture, over the last few years. There is a big backlash to that.

This is fairly accurate, but why should there be a backlash? What's wrong with the change in the culture? I get that old folks mostly complain when things change on them, but why should we applaud them?

I'm very sympathetic to the older white guy in a rural or semi-rural area who is struggling, and wishes things were like they were before. I am not sympathetic to the same guy who then lashes out at others for causing it. No one causes the world to turn. No one causes technology to advance, economies to change, pop culture to evolve. And certainly those things don't happen because Obama, Clinton, Soros and a few others are sitting around a table deciding how to fuck over white people.

"No one causes technology to advance, economies to change, pop culture to evolve."

Indeed, it's like the motion of the planets, immune to human intervention. NAFTA? Obviously some conspiracy theory. Hollywood? Just a rumor, doesn't actually exist.

Tell us what human intervention should we employ to reverse technological progress, economic growth, and cultural change? Or rather explain why any of those things is a good idea...

Those things don't just happen randomly out of thin air. There have been conscious decisions that have resulted in the replacement of white people as the dominant force in american society. There is resentment for letting it happen.

Intervention in cultural affairs would include things like the changing the definition and enforcement of pornography and obscenity. I'm pretty sure a human was involved in that somewhere.

If you don't understand what is wrong with the change in culture, then you don't understand the first thing about your ideological opponents. I could start with the an extremely rapid rise of racism, opposition to free speech, weaponized morality, and excessive and exaggerated sensitivity that are making the public sphere basically unbearably toxic at all times. This may have a minor impact on most peoples' lives overall (until they get fired for some thought-crime) but it is highly alarming to many people.

It's going to be really enjoyable watching this garbage candidate go down in flames over the next three weeks, ushering in a wave of progressive government and a new liberal supreme court. Thanks Trumpkins!

The Republicans are never going to vote on a Democrat's anti-gun, anti-market, anti-speech nominee for SCOTUS, and no majority will ever vote for things like abolishing pronouns. Good luck.

Dems are going to win the senate. Her nominees are going to get confirmed.

Lol, the secret agenda of an international cabal of liberals: eliminate pronouns!

Maybe one thing to seriously note here is that if you do leave all "anti-racism" to the "left" then you do imply that the "right" should not be "anti,"
and thus you do provide safe haven.

You are a racist.

What are some policy initiatives that small government conservatives propose that would be anti-racist?

Eliminating AA? Eliminating minimum wage? Reducing regulations? Charter schools? Checking illegal immigration?

Wow they do that already, why aren't minorities flocking to the GOP??

Same reason southern whites didn't flock to the Republican party proposing to end Jim Crow.

Anti-racist is synonymous with "handout to minorities" only to racists like yourself.

Did I claim that all NAM want is to eliminate racism? Because I do not think that.

Election 2016: This didn't happen. Years from now you'll be shocked at how much this didn't happen.

I stopped reading this guy when he said slavery was not an example of pathology.

Pathology: "the science of the causes and effects of diseases, especially the branch of medicine that deals with the laboratory examination of samples of body tissue for diagnostic or forensic purposes"

There is misconception that Trump is controversial largely because of his style and language. That exacerbates things certainly, but I think it's far more the actual *content* that has them in hysterics. It's NOT just a matter of getting a more polite nationalist for next time. The left has adopted the position that immigration is axiomatically beneficial. It's untoward to even ask if, you know, we might want to look at it pragmatically and consider tightening things up. Any candidate who makes immigration restriction (even a modest reduction) a significant plank will get attacked for being racist, no matter how carefully worded the appeal. And I think the criticism has been so strong with Trump because they're worried he's actually serious, unlike the typical Republican.

The left now labels anyone against immigration as "unamerican" and antithetical to the principles this country was founded on. It is an insult to educated people and a testament to how successful propagandizing our youth has been the last 20 or so years.

Trump said this today: ''as one people, under one God, saluting one American flag."

I would call that antithetical.

That is basically the pledge of allegiance.

After signing it into law, President Eisenhower stated:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."

Was Eisenhower antithetical to America?

That's the liberal/neocon viewpoint, that immigrants are more American than Americans, that having ancestors who fought for this country for generations, at Saratoga, at Gettysburg, at Normandy(maybe that one was a mistake), means nothing, you are "un-American" if you are unwilling to believe in the latest bullshit these idiots preach but won't practice.

Trump 2016.

LOL awesome, Normandy was a mistake how?

400,000 Americans died. Why? With their deeply un-PC views, if they found themselves in America circa 2015, they would be "deplorable," "un-American." Millian says they "lost the war." In a way, they did.

Yeah but what happened as a result of those people dying? I guess they defeated Hitler and Tojo, liberated most of the modern world from them. That's bad why?

Oh of course, it was good for the people liberated. I'm just asking, was fighting the war the right decision for them?

Well, it wasn't good for the other side's dead men either, the Germans and Japanese. Kind of a banal point, I mean: WAR, hunh, good god y'all, what is it good for? Ab-so-lutely NOTHIN' Say it again-ah!

Tolstoy's mistress first came up with that line, that she never received credit is another shame due to the patriarchy.

Why should it matter if your ancestors fought at Normandy, Saratoga, Gettysburg? Is that supposed to somehow make you a better person? Is it supposed to mean you get some sort of preferential treatment by the government?

Let me point out something obvious. You are not your grandfather.

Having ancestors that did that, or accomplished other noteworthy things sets up a standard and an implicit obligation to live up to their example. The pride that comes with these associations are balanced by obligations and responsibilities to live up to their example, or at least to try.

One would think that those men would be fighting for their own descendants more so than the children of foreigners or perhaps even their enemy's children.

I fear the lesson of this election will be the lesson of post-WWI and the Treaty of Versailles, which was only understood in its inevitable conclusion, WWII.

Meh. The problem with the Treaty of Versailles is it was never enforced. There was nothing unreasonable about making Germany pay for the war they started and lost. Germany got it a lot worse after WWII. Was that a mistake?

This is very hilarious, 'Racist is the new queer'. So racists are not given equal rights?

The whole argument falls apart on the basis of this silly assertion.

Are "queers" not given equal rights?

All white males are racists and sexists unless they provide annual contributions to approved organizations and even then they can lose protected status at any time if it is convenient to said organizations. All white men know they are 'racist' and 'sexist', and more and more don't give a '$@&?'. Screw the 'legal system' that supports inequality before the 'law'.

???

He was just summarizing your party's view on fucking white males.

This comments section is amazing. White people find out what black people have been talking about for decades and things are somehow worse than they've ever been? The subset of the GOP that black people have been saying was right there in front of you for decades gets a voice box and politics is worse than it's every been?

The idea that none of these things happened until this main stream white gaze fell upon them is so laughable. Maybe once Clinton is in office the Gaze will drift off somewhere new to illuminate another obvious issue we were ignoring right under our noses, but none of this is new, you just noticed. Spare a thought for why you never noticed any of this was happening before and you'll have a much better convo about race and a million other things.

"White people find out what black people have been talking about for decades"

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that, care to elaborate?

On the political front that the GOP has been patronizing and exploiting this section of the electorate for years, nothing these people want or is saying is new, they just make up a plurality in a broken party now. More generally these issues highlighted as bringing about racial divisions - in the article and this thread. Those conversations were always happening, just in forums that white people would generally not see or could easily ignore. Twitter, Iphones, and more black people in media generally are the only new things in this election cycle.

AA for the children of black doctors and reparations for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and registered Democrats. It's only fair.

Or for the kids who got kicked out when states closed public schools instead of integrating, or for people who were denied federally backed home loans because of race, or black farmers who were shut out of aid programs, or even early release and treatment (gasp!) for people locked up for drug offenses and given disproportionate sentences.

Those people and their kids are all still alive.

But we all know you don't care, and it won't happen anyway, so why be so worked up about it? Why is just finding out that other people you've been ignoring for years, and will continue to ignore, are talking about these things so terrifying/infuriating?

Those things are completely milquetoast and in fact no one is talking about that. They are also all about things that happened some time ago, except for the drug thing which is not at its heart a racial issue. If you were not aware, black farmers did indeed get "reparations," which were actually subject to massive fraud. Are you referring to redlining with the home loans? Because I believe the banks were punished for that and it was location-based and not race-based? I also believe blacks in the U.S. have a higher default rate for a given income?

The newest studies indicate a modest racial sentencing disparity (perhaps 15%) (older studies find no disparity) which I agree is troubling and should be further studied and addressed if practical. Drug crimes are a tricky issue given the number of plea deals, etc., it seems there are few who are really in prison just for possession of drugs. But I am in favor of legalization.

What is "this section of the electorate"? Who are "these people"? What are "these issues... bringing about racial divisions"?

If you are saying toxic racism, victim mentality and weaponized morality were always a part of progressive culture and the only change is that now they are mainstream, then I can believe it but don't see what difference it makes.

I slept on this.

My waking idea is that I really was an optimist. I didn't think "all anti-racism is anti-white" could be such a thing. I really don't know what to make of the fervent few who answer every comment with that theme.

It is impossible that they believe racism, white supremacism, does not exist. So either they feel so politically vulnerable that they must deny it, or they are it, and think they are cute in their borderline arguments.

Sad either way.

So you have come to the totally novel conclusion that people who disagree with you are all racists, great.

By the way I don't recall anyone saying that "all anti-racism is anti-white" but I'm glad you've managed to straw-man so many people so succinctly.

You paint yourself into a corner, angrily.

You are a racist.

No.
Racism is a pathology of an eternal segment of the population we in the South know as white trash.

What the ordinary run of white people are angry about is: we were given to understand - some of us, born post 1965, even from infancy - that we were not going to be the terrible thing called "racist" if we were careful and followed certain rules and distanced ourselves from our elders.

Then they flipped the script, defined "racism" downward, and, damningly, decided there was value in the continued existence of racism.

The very real anger is about the accusation - which should tell you something about how much people have internalized the lesson. A lot of people just *don't know where to go with this.*

Do I need to help you on this, like you never learned what to say?

"I know there are racists, and I am not one. I know that we have not yet achieved a fully fair society. I just don't think that justifies every possible state solution. There are programs that have negative consequences, which don't actually improve things. For instance, race based affirmative action benefits some but also creates divisions and perpetuates stereotypes. We'd be better moving to an income based AA which more clearly works for all Americans starting from behind."

Stuff like that is not really hard, and it has the advantage of not giving shelter to actual racists.

Pretty sure someone who said that would be called racist. After all, "color-blind" is a micro-aggression, right?

No, this is just one of those internet echo-chambers. Go out into the real world - indeed, even university campuses, the supposed SJW bastion or whatever - and you'll find most people are actually reasonable. Nobody uses the term "microaggression" unironically in a non-academic context (i.e. a sociology class). I've definitely heard people use the term plenty ironically though, as if to say - "haha, those stupid sensitive liberals" (which might actually be a fair point if they were being as contrarian and brave as they imagined them-self to be, rather than bashing on this straw-man i.e. the cathedral)

Precisely: most people are actually reasonable. Most people are as they ever were and ever will be. They tend to be at their best at the personal level, not as political animals. Most people are not too bright* in a general way, but yet most people are very smart about something or other.

Or such has been my perhaps-faulty observation.

What I find strange are pundits who find so much variation in virtue in the populace from year to year, and from place to place.

*Some, for instance, would struggle to memorize the speech anon prepared above, that contains the specific policy item would in his view absolve them, for now, from charges of racism. Memorizing definitely peaks in childhood.

Turns out Podesta himself wished the San Bernadino shooter had been white, just like alt-right caricatures of SJWs, so I guess this internet echo chamber you're talking about might be on to something.

Peri, it beats talking about the extinguishment of the white race and then being shocked that someone thinks that's racist.

Really, where I said "certain rules" - it was mostly just the Golden Rule that was in vogue when I was a child. It had the advantage of simplicity.

I'm not seeking a referendum on it; I know it's strictly retro. Just wanted to clarify.

This notion that calling out racism is what causes racism has found a really weird purchase in the econ blogosphere. It's not true at all.

Calling out radical Islamic terrorism causes it as well!

This is utter nonsense.

You don't "reach out" to stick-up-the-# evangelicals, racist &~$nuts, proudly stupid drunks, and con men. Trump supporters no matter their income fit into those categories. There is zero such "Figuring Out Their Plight". You shoot heroin and die, that choice is on you - it's not on me to figure out why. There is no why, there's just stupid people.

Besides, let's say you did go talk to someone in rural Tennessee whose youtube exploits include rolling coal from his lifted F150? What do you think you'll learn? You'll find out how much they hate The Blackity Kenyan ManPresident and the various ways you can love yourself.

Not everyone from the deepest of the South is pro-Trump.. they're just not a majority.. Yet. Even Texas will turn Democrat, eventually.

Picking apart the original article:
"Nations are either integrating or they are fragmenting." -- Then the US has been fragmenting since the day it was born. Today is no different than Andrew Jackson's election.. or the early 20th century where newspapers were explicitly founded to sling mud. You know, like Fox News.
"we have allowed centrifugal forces to grow much stronger than the forces that might tend towards integration." -- Who is this "we" you refer to? I accept zero responsibility for lies believed by idiots.
"fairly or not, perceive Clinton as an icon of a corruption" -- Nope. Trump is no different in that. He's bought by Russia. Again, just because idiots believe things that are repeated doesn't make them fact. It makes it a fact in the idiot's mind, yes... but that's not objective reality.

"the emerging white underclass" -- Nope, Randy. This is the beginning of the backlash against unfettered neoliberalism, full stop.

As I observed many years ago, when parties like Le Pen's National Front started getting traction in Europe, if the so-called "mainstream" parties declare a topic off-limits, only "non-mainstream" parties will talk about it.

This is hardly news, even in this country. In the decade leading up to the Civil War, the political parties tried desperately to "compromise" away the issue. Congress even adopted a rule of debate--the so-called "gag rule"--forbidding abolitionist bills from being presented, and ruling floor debate on the topic literally out of-order.

So it was left to the wackos--the Free-Soilers and their various predecessors--to bring the topic forward. Eventually, the extremists on both sides captured larger and larger shares of the more moderate voters, until finally the Democrats split into a moderate, compromise-oriented, Northern faction and an intransigent, "fire-eater", Southern faction. The Whigs simply imploded and substantial elements of the erstwhile Whig Party found themselves an uneasy home alongside the hard-core abolitionists of the newly-emergent Republican Party.

You can see this fracturing in dramatically graphical form in the results of the 1860 election: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/15/73715-004-7D96FF15.jpg

We are conditioned by our national historical narrative to see the abolitionists as noble, far-seeing harbingers of a racially-just future America. But occasionally we should remind ourselves that a political organization that seizes a Federal arsenal by force and issues a call for a general uprising among an oppressed group--however noble their motives may be--are pretty much the embodiment of domestic terrorism.

Comments for this post are closed