Josh Marshall identifies three main sources of Donald Trump’s appeal. The first is the angst a segment of the white population is feeling about demographic and cultural change. The second is the appeal of “dominance politics” to a significant subset of the Republican base. The third is that for this same subset of the Republican base, the violation of political norms (i.e., extreme political incorrectness) is extremely popular.
That’s all true, but Trump’s support is wider than this and for a simple reason.
Conditions for ordinary Americans have gotten more difficult and our government is squabbling about paying our bills on time and whether or not to keep the lights on in the Capitol building.
What makes Trump popular when he insults every major Republican politician, talking head, or news outlet is that the people are worse off and any candid assessment of the folks in Washington DC gives them zero hope for near-term improvement.
We can argue about which side is more culpable, and in my opinion it is not even a close call–the Republicans are the main culprit–, but Trump is popular on the right because their leaders are so unpopular. He’s getting support from the middle and even the left because (whomever is responsible) the result they’re seeing is gridlock and inaction and a deteriorating status quo.
As just a thought exercise, try figuring which parts of Trump’s message overlap with the message of Bernie Sanders. Whatever is left over is what is explaining Trump’s unique appeal to a subset of right-wingers.
The Democratic nominee doesn’t need to worry about these left-overs. What they need to worry about is the common indictment of the system.
For a while, the right thought they could break our government and get rewarded because their message is that government doesn’t work. Well, it didn’t work out that way for too long, because now they’ve got to contend with Trump.
That’s their problem, but it could be our problem soon if our nominee isn’t tuned into the zeitgeist of the country.
That may not be fair, but politics is rarely fair. A good politician gets ahead of the zeitgeist. A bad one gets run over by it.
Ask Jeb Bush.
I’m on a loony toon email list and this is the most current explanation and justification for voting for Trump:
“I have reservations too. I get solace knowing some Trump supporters are people whose opinions I respect.
Part of me wants to cheer Trump on. He is making the Republican elite show their true colors, even Rubio and Cruz. Most the hit pieces on Trump are distorted, out of context with just a shred of truth. I feel Trump has not contributed to the system as much as he has learned to deal with it. He’s a negotiator. That is better than our Republican congress giving Obama everything he want plus more and then pretending like they didn’t want to.
Unfortunately our selection of president is the least of our problems. We have a Congress full of people who don’t care what the original intent of the Constitution is. We have an elitist Congress full of power hungry, greedy, spineless, manipulative liars, a Congress who have made themselves completely irrelevant in law making and guarding the purse. We the People keep voting the same lowlifes into office every 2 years. So who’s the real problem here. We keep electing the same spendthrift local politicians too. They are all clamoring and lining up to get their share of federal money like it’s coming out of some magic box. The system is so broken and so dysfunctional it is beyond repair.
Trump is a true outsider beholden to no one. Any of the other candidates it will be business as usual maybe just a slightly slower pace. The last several times Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency government grew faster than ever. Finally the people are standing up and saying “We’ve had enough and we’re not taking it anymore”. So part of me says Go TRUMP Go. It’s risky. It’s unknown. Our other choice is our continued march to hell”
So this is where some of these people are coming from. And it’s selfish and dangerous.
Could be because they believe there’s no door with a lady and only doors with jackals and hyenas.
So I guess their expectation is that somehow Congress is just going to be a rubber stamp for all those wonderful things that Trump is promising to them? That ” elitist Congress full of power hungry, greedy, spineless, manipulative liars, a Congress who have made themselves completely irrelevant in law making and guarding the purse”. They are going to champion all of their dreams?
They like to bitch about Congress, but do the Trump supporters understand that Congress is one of the three branches of our government? What is Trump going to do to force Congress to bend to his will? Is there a Congressional level Trump team that is going to piggyback on his campaign? Obviously, things are still fluid, but the Tea Party HATES Trump. Where in Congress are all these people going to come from to push through these policies that enjoy that support of only 30-35% of voters?
I suppose The Donald is just going to ride into Washington on a unicorn and hand out ponies to all these people.
The average person knows nothing about the US government. Only 25% American know a Senator’s term is six years, only 20% knew how many Senators there were. Two-thirds of Americans can’t name all three branches of the U.S. federal government.
And on and on and on.
So the safest answer is, “Yes. They do expect Trump to come riding into DC on a unicorn and hand out ponies.”
It does seem to be the expectation of these adoring Trump fans. I keep hearing snippets on the radio – so I take w/a grain of salt but have heard quite a few with similar content lately – about how Trump is this “outsider” who’s going to “shake things up.” And we “need an outsider” to do this.
One person I heard yesterday is some kind of local govt person somewhere (I forget where), so you might think that perhaps an elected local govt pol would have some inkling of how it works in DC, but apparently not.
Plus everyone is so completely starry eyed about Trump being a business man, and this is what we “need.” The inability to grasp how the corporations have basically f*cked us all is mind boggling, plus the notion that bc someone like Trump – a crook who’s worked with the Mob, amongst other issues & has gone into bankruptcy numerous times – is somehow going to be more knowledgeable and effective at running the govt. I mean it’s just face-palm time over and over.
I get why people are angry, but Trump is no solution. But most US citizens are so low info on how govt works that Trump is very easily gulling them. Very easily.
Thirty-six years of “the government is the problem, not the solution” propaganda has wormed its way completely into the brains of a large portion of the electorate. They don’t even know that the worm is there, much less that it’s parasitic.
Josh Marshall is hand waiving to avoid admitting your point…that Americans have a true grievance about the way in which they have been misgoverned for the past 50 yrs.
And while Reagan may have initiated the rot, Dems have certainly played their part, from Carter on. I think we all know it won’t be a Republican who manages to finally destroy SS, it will be a Dem. It has not been Republican presidents PASSING bad trade agreements, it has been Democratic ones.
Curious, I find a lot of Trump supporters don’t really believe a lot of his claims.
The present is so intolerable, they are taking the door with the tiger.
Economic reductionism in a shiny new wrapper.
Change the prevailing mode of production, and all the other stuff — racism, sexism, bigotry of all kinds, all the rifts in the working class will change, automagically, and the International will become the human race.
Of course not! What a silly straw man argument.
Relax, I can only recall him making 2 or 3 posts that aren’t hippy punching in the last 7 years. When the revolution comes, he’ll be second up against the wall.
I know people are amped up about the primaries, but maybe we should step back from implying that other commenters should be killed, eh?
I’m pretty sure I’ve made this particular crack long before the primaries. It plays off his joking about revolutions but by being second its supposed to convey that its a joke.
And now I had to explain the joke :/
Maybe you could check out the suicide rate increases since 2008 in the US and EU and tell us how social issues made them happen…
There are no social issues per se.
They’re all just epiphenomena of the prevailing means of production.
With the end of finance capitalism, and the advent of a socialist means of production, production for use instead of production for profit, all existing social configurations and organizations will reform themselves into less toxic and destructive structures.
Quite the haystack you are constructing for yourself.
It’s not a haystack, it’s the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economics.
simple google: does unemployment lead to bad things?
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=does%20unem
ployment%20lead%20to%20bad%20outcomes%3F
You may be interested in reading this: The Donald or Hillary: Who is Better for Investors?
LOL The tomato can kicker wins…
Unfortunately a large portion of the citizenry buys into the meme that the govt should be smaller bc it doesn’t work. Well it mainly doesn’t work by design. The Agencies have long been populated by those friendly to big corporations, so they ignore what’s good for We the People and implement regulations and programs and giveaways to the rich. That’s simplistic but the starting point.
US citizens mostly see a do-nothing Congress and get mad, but they keep voting in the same old same old and keep blaming the other side for the problems. Citizens, themselves, have been taught that compromise is a dirty word, and that only thing worthy is sheer utter obstructionism.
D voters aren’t much better informed. They feel frustrated by the shenanigans of the R party, but how much, really, has the D party done to counter this and provide alternative viewpoints. And at the end of the day, most of the Ds are every bit in bed with the corporate lobbyists as the Rs are.
I cannot see how Trump will change things and make this all work better, but I do “get” peoples’ frustrations with the way things are. I’m not sure, though, how we get out of this miasma, and frankly, I don’t trust Trump to do a better job.
Trump talks a good game, but his actions belie his words time and again. He talks about undocumented people taking away jobs, but he is known to hire undocumented workers for pennies on the dollar in his various casinos and hotels. He talks about how H1(b) visas are used to take away jobs from US workers, but he’s known to liberally use H1(b) visas to hire indentured servants mostly from Eastern Europe for pennies on the dollar.
Frankly, I don’t see Trump as anything more or less than a Carney barker flim-flam con artist. He’s really no different from Mitt RMoney, who off-shored tens of thousands of good-paying US jobs, bankrupted well run profitable companies to the detriment of the workers, while pocketing a big bankruptcy pay-out for himself. RMoney and his ladeda wife pretend they’re somehow above it all and condescend to the serfs.
All I see is that Trump is willing to pretend that he’s on the side of the serfs and speaks more vulgarly than RMoney. But at the end of the day, Trump will continue con the rubes and rob them blind, just like RMoney has & does and probably continues to do.
Trump’s vulgar bombast aside, while he may SAY some things that resonate, I question his true intentions. Actions speak louder than words. Sad to say, the “average” US voter is pig-ignorant, and especially in the case of rightwingers, impervious to facts.
whoever is responsible, not whomever
Josh Marshall’s commentary is quite interesting. It’s worth a read. Among other things, he concludes that an electoral campaign with Trump as candidate will once again revolve around the roughly 10% of the voters who are persuadable, because in the end, all the Republicans denouncing Trump would hold their noses and vote for him. In other words…the campaign would be the same as with any other GOP nominee in terms of targeting swing voters.
Would that still be the case if the GOP convention degenerates into horse trading as a way to keep the nomination away from Trump? We can all speculate.
I don’t think that’s right. Campaigns haven’t been about convincing swing voters since 2006, which is the last campaign where there seems to have been much swinging. Campaigns today are about mobilizing the base. An anti-Trump campaign would be about making the nose-holders too discouraged to show up and vote while getting some of our less-reliable voters to the polls out of disgust and fear.
Another thing: when people complain about the federal government’s inability to do anything, it’s worth remembering that the peculiar American system was set up so as to make legislative and executive functions cumbersome. The people who wrote the Constitution feared unrestrained power and “factionalism”. IMHO the modern GOP has taken an already cumbersome system and sabotaged it.
How much of our actual governing is done through regulatory agencies? Might be instructive to see them actually doing the public service they were designed to do, originally. And that is executive dept, no?
That’s one of the flaws of US government; the highest levels of the regulatory agencies are filled with executive appointees. And they can impede or disable the actions of the civil servants that work beneath them. A good example of this would be Stephen Johnson at the EPA.
But even without getting into bad faith actors in the regulatory agencies, you have the basic organizational issues that come with turning over agency executives every few years (eight at most, right?).
How much support he actually has nationwide is also quite complex, given the media obsession with him. Let’s remember how Palin was the de facto head of the Republican party for about a year, at least in the media’s eyes.
He’s beating the evolutionary Rick Santorum and the Miami Mouse. With Romney and McCain you were safe saying that the floor for them in the general was 45% of the vote and likely slightly higher. We have no idea what Trump’s floor is.
<blocklquote>We have no idea what Trump’s floor is.</blockquote<p>
His floor? Parquet.
Expensive parquet. (He got a good deal on it…)
AG
“Blocklquote?
Ruins the joke.
Sorry.
AG
OT Hillary has an ad really taking Bernie down for his vote against the auto bailout. What is a little white lie when it seems right. Amirite?
If it’s white and it’s a lie, IOKIYAC.
There were three votes that are relevant to the discussion.
“Firms in the auto industry, which were provided assistance under the EESA, will only receive additional assistance in the context of a comprehensive restructuring designed to achieve long-term viability.”
Sanders, along with 41 other senators voted no on releasing that second tranche. This time Stabenow voted yes because of the monies that were going to the auto bailout. Clinton voted yes.
My Conclusion – Sanders October TARP vote was not a vote against the auto bailout but his January TARP vote was in that he was willing to not bail out the auto industry as long as the banks were not given access to that second tranche of funds. In other words his priority was not giving the money to the banks over bailing out the auto industry. And that was a valid choice but it is also a choice he now has to own.
Thank you very much for that detailed information. Appreciated.
Yes, he needs to own his choice. But the ad does not put,it in context. Like telling part of the truth but not all the truth. Just a little white lie, I suppose.
Eh. I continue to think that the idea that the public electorate is angry and looking for radical change is overblown. Politically active people (on both sides) are angry and looking for change, but that doesn’t mean that population as a whole is.
You can already see this in the primaries. Sanders isn’t winning, he’s losing, to the most establishment candidate ever. And Trump is only winning because his opposition is split.
I also think that Marshall is completely right that we are overestimating Trump. He is not even winning the majority of the Republicans. Let’s say his support is 40% of 40%…16% of the population. That doesn’t make for a landslide. I’m not happy that even this fraction of the population is eager for a proto-fascist, but this doesn’t mean that the electorate as a whole is going to go for a transparent phony with no experience who brags on national television about the size of his unit.
Interesting. Shows you can spin anything in a reasonable way if you just put in the effort. I once had my friend who is a Clinton supporter say that she called Sanders’ bluff on the debate schedule and caused “him to back down” when she agreed to more debates.
That’s rich. The human brain has the capacity to concoct an astronomical amount of nonsense.
Oh, it was ridiculous. All I said was, “Well, T, nothing’s changed from in 2008 when I said that if I ever ran for office, I’d want you as campaign spokesman.”
Are you suggesting that it is “spin” to notice that Clinton is winning the primary race? The point about Trump is arguable, of course, but I believe that poll data does suggest that the majority of republican primary voters would be dissatisfied with a Trump nomination.
Stating facts without context is a form of propaganda, in my mind. You’re clearly trying to imagine that this is all manufactured when everyone can clearly see how ridiculous that is. If you want to tell yourself sweet lies to help sleep at night, do what you have to do.
I’m not really understanding what you’re saying, but I do get that you are insulting me rather than arguing with me, which I think is unworthy of this board.
Take the superdelegates out of the mix and Sanders is losing rather narrowly. He’s won 8 of 19 state contests.
Bernie does much better in the caucus states.
There is one small caucus in early April, the others remaining are all during March.
With over one quarter the delegates allocated, Bernie has roughly 80% of the pace set in David Wasserman’s original scorecard. To get one half the pledged delegates, Bernie would need to perform at roughly 106% of the pace Wasserman calculated. (IOW, he needs to up his game by about one third.)
http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179
BTW, Bernie also does better in open primaries. Almost all the closed primaries are yet to come.
Clinton is winning by 199 pledged delegates. That is larger lead than Obama had over Clinton at any point during the 2008 primary.
Sanders has won 8 states but the delegate counts in those 8 states are not very big. For example he won 3 (Kansas, Nebraska, and Maine) states to Clinton’s 1 (Louisiana) this past weekend and still only netted 2 delegates out of that.
Sure — because the only DEM presidential primary was in 2008; so, everything this year is in comparison to 2008. Must ignore that Sanders got higher turnout in ME, won NH and OK, and did as well Obama in CO, KS and MN, and only lost MA by less than twenty thousand votes compared to Obama who lost it by almost two hundred thousand votes.
Maybe those opposed to neoliberal economic policies and the MIC should have stayed home and waited to cheer the coronation. Acted like proper subjects.
Okay D turnout was higher in some states than it was in 2008 and Sanders did better in some states than Obama did but that doesn’t change that fact that Clinton now has a delegate lead of 199 which is, in fact, a greater lead than Obama ever had.
The reason for using that as a metric for comparison is because Clinton was never able to overcome a much closer delegate race (I am not positive but I don’t think any candidate in modern times has been able to overcome a delegate lead that big) Or if you want let’s use the popular vote totals. Clinton leads in that metric about 60% to 40%.
You can throw out all of the progressive blogosphere favorite words that you want but that doesn’t change that the math simply doesn’t support it being that close of a race.
Odd that similar metrics at this point in 2008 didn’t lead HRC to drop out for another three months. Personally, my interpretation through SC ’08 was that HRC was finished. Then again, I didn’t expect to see a full bore Southern Strategy from her team nor that it would be so successful for her. Shameful, IMHO, but that’s just me and on certain matters I’m not as flexible as a majority of DEMs.
So don’t assume that I did.
I just pointed out that the race isn’t all that close and it isn’t. I don’t see how Senator Sanders wins but if he wants to stay in until the convention then that is his choice.
As for Secretary Clinton not dropping out, the race was actually much closer at this point but by April she too didn’t have a path to victory despite the delegate difference only being 100 or so.
Well, Marie. the situation looks bleak at this moment.
The hill looks less steep to me than it did when Sanders entered the race. Still steep, but now we know where the votes for Sanders and HRC are and aren’t. What the DEM machines can and can’t deliver.
It should be quite clear what I am saying. You are trying to present a case where the electorate is not angry, that this is completely manufactured, and that it’s just a small percentage of the population venting some steam — all highly contestable arguments, and attempts to spin away dealing with issues at hand.
Look around you. Jeremy Corbyn is elected Labour Leader in the UK when the establishment pulled all of the stops to stop it. Syriza won in 2012 and 2015 enough support to pull together a government. Podemos continues to gain traction in Spain. And people my age are telling neoliberalism to go take a hike. Continue carrying on papering over the seething anger what lies down under. I’m sure it’ll work out great for the rest of us.
Yes, they are contestable arguments. I am quite interested to hear you contest them, and I appreciate the data points you have brought up. I don’t appreciate the ad hominem attacks. I find your attempts to look into my soul and explain my motives for posting unconvincing and kind of repugnant.
None of his comments were ad hominim attacks. But speculating about what motivates someone is quite common here. I get it all the time.
Wikipedia: “An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.”
I get that occasionally, I find it extremely offensive.
I typically stop talking to anyone who pulls that on me.
Rae’s context is pretty plain here; if popular support for radical change is so widespread, why don’t we see more of it in the Democratic electorate?
Too accustomed to running with “lesser of two evils”? our “change” election was 2008.
False consciousness.
“why don’t we see more of it in the Democratic” – say, did you miss Bernie Sanders?
Apparently starting at essentially 0% — announcing their run for president on a lawn in Vermont with little fanfare — and finishing with potentially 40-45% of the vote against the most formidable candidate in politics today (except Barack Obama) is proof there isn’t a desire for change.
Reminder:
I think there is a desire for change, no doubt about that. Whether it will happen now is up for grabs. Trump leads that for the republicans. Hillary sounds a lot like Sanders at times, and she has captured the AA vote, a very large block. I hope Sanders carries on win or lose. His message is needed.
Disagree with the last part: the most formidable candidate in politics today (except Barack Obama)
Had it been a two person race in 2008, HRC wouldn’t have been as formidable as she is this time around, but she would have 60% plus of the institutional/elite support and would at least have matched him in fundraising. The breakdown of the IA ’08 caucus numbers suggests that she would have won the state, followed that up with a win in NH (without resorting to “he can’t win b/c he’s …), and entered SC in an extremely strong position and if she didn’t win, it would have been close.
I don’t really consider Sanders, wbo has been a member of the US Senate for a decade (and the House for longer still), to be particularly radical.
He certainly isn’t the Berlusconi figure that Trump is (mercifully).
Can Clinton defend the status quo? It is poplar with some segments of Democratic Primary voters. Those who rate the economy the highest tend to be African American.
I REALLY worry about the parallel to 1980. The ’80 election was dominated by a sense things were coming apart. A sense that the status quo had failed.
For a long time it was very close: but in the end it was a verdict on the status quo and the status quo lost. It is forgotten now, but Reagan was every bit as scary as Trump.
Obama’s numbers are significantly better than Carter’s, though.
If you just look at the economic numbers, then this election should be very close. But the numbers don’t really reflect the economic angst that exists.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/07/economic-forecasts-suggest-the-preside
ntial-race-should-be-a-toss-up-so-why-arent-republicans-doing-better
In the end if there had not been last minute haggling over the Iranian hostages, it is possible ’80 would have been as close as it was predicted to be 5 days out. We know Caddel saw the bottom fall out the weekend before the election. For most of that fall I thought the fact that Reagan was such an idiot that he would bail us out.
So I read confident pieces here about demographics, and I wonder about the parallel, and lack thereof.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/07/economic-forecasts-suggest-the-preside
ntial-race-should-be-a-toss-up-so-why-arent-republicans-doing-better
Wasn’t the timing of the end of the Iran hostage crisis far more sinister? As described in this Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
Either a giant FU to Carter by the Iranian regime or a deal was cut with team Reagan and the FU was for giggles. Iran-Contra suggests it was the latter and it’s probable that the actors will all take that to their graves.
“What they need to worry about is the common indictment of the system.”
Bernie Sanders is a walking talking indictment of the system. Hillary is that system, end of story.
The difference is Bernie places the blame squarely where it belongs, the corporatists that have looted the economy to the point where the economy is in danger of dying for all but the wealthy. Hillary is the chief representative of those corporatists to keep things the way they are, gold outfit and all.
Someone asked Jeff Weaver what Hillary could do if she were nominated to capture the youth vote that is now so enthusiastic for Bernie. He said she could make Bernie Hillary’s VP. They didn’t quite get the level sarcasm.
This scares me because Hillary hasn’t ever been tuned to a zeitgeist. Her skills and accomplishments may be very impressive, but her political instincts are crap IMO.
Yes. This. Exactly this.
Trump is doing well for several reasons:
If you aren’t taking him or his issues seriously, I suggest that you do so. And I also suggest that Democrats remove the word “racist” from their vocabulary. It makes the user look like a moron. And it is proof positive that the user is a simplistic, formulaic thinker. Yes, there are racists out. But the racists are far outnumbered by the vast numbers of American workers who have been genuinely injured by the economic choices over the last 20 years, starting with NAFTA, signed by Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband.
This is just a terrible comment all around. The fascistic language, ideas and rhetorical practices are absolutely clear; it’s no accident or coincidence that everyone is using them despite an overwhelming cultural/social bias against them. In the same breath you talk about “authoritarianism” and then connect it to wealth (and a commensurate “freedom” as if Trump’s facile self-description as some kind of free-range, unbound actor who can make “deals” happen carries any real weight when measured against the actual systemic framework of our government — he’s already had to admit that he’s describing blatantly illegal policies).
And, talking about racism makes a person sound like a moron? Ssys who? I talk about racism all the time and I don’t sound like a moron; I sound like a concerned citizen who’s seeing blatantly extremist (as in, literally White Supremacist, on its own terms) language and rhetoric enter the mainstream, directly because of Trump and his campaign. I’m not remotely a simplistic or formulaic thinker and I can see the burgeoning American racism of the last eight years and especially the last two years and the last six months very clearly. You’re really being very dismissive and condescending and insulting about very serious matters that don’t deserve your scorn.
I have not seen your discussions in which you use the “R-term”. However, “racist” or “racism” is now the catch-all term used by “progressives” against any person.
For instance, let’s say someone makes a comment that they have scepticism about “Black Lives Matter”. Is this a racist comment? In some cases, it could be. It could also be a comment about the tactics of the BLM folks. I certainly stated that the morons who stole Bernie Sanders’ mike during the early parts of his campaign were out of line – this was not a racist comment, merely a comment about how poorly mannered and what total assholes certain persons are/were.
The main fact is that the term “racist” or “racism” is the first term that people come up with if they cannot think of a second. It’s a meaningless term mostly, and just means “I don’t understand something and don’t like it”.
But carry on using it. It is alienating, obfuscating, and 90 % of the time, used incorrectly.
This argument is nonsense. Retreating to semantics and statistics you can’t back up — the idea that racism is a “catch-all term used […] against any person”; “used correctly””90% of the time” that racism “is the first term that people come up with if they cannot think of a second” is bad enough, but the characterization that it’s a “meaningless term” that is used when the speaker is confused or has nothing to say is much worse.
Does the term get mis-applied? Of course it does; any term does. Is it so heavily politicized that every usage is preemptively attacked and the attack used to discredit its user before the merits of the point are discussed. It’s also routinely reversed (Obama “creates racial division”; BLM “is a racist organization” etc.) so that its meaning and importance is further obscured. All the more reason to get it right; to correct the misapplications.
We should hammer the point constantly; we should work to get more and more people to understand the terrible racial injustices and prejudices that tarnish our discourse and weaken and blemish our country. It’s conservatives who insist we live in “a post racial society” and try to get the term and the idea out of circulation, because they know doing so benefits them. You should be on our side, not theirs.
So, your thought is that reflexively, mindlessly, and constantly chanting “racist” will improve our dialog? That’s an incorrect thought.
When you call someone a racist, the dialog ends. And if you expect people to agree that the term “racist” applies to their own behavior, and that they will be improved by that self-attribution, means that you have no understanding of human nature whatsoever.
I didn’t say that. And, of course the discussion doesn’t “end” when somebody says “Racist.” Never mind; you’re not interested in discussing this reasonably — you’re just re-stating your conclusion as if it’s been demonstrated and agreed upon.
It’s interesting to me you’re so hung up on calling someone “racist” as shutting down conversation — which is arguable at times, in my mind, as demonstrated in J Smooth’s video about that (see embed below) — when you go out of your way to be inflammatory labeling undocumented workers as “illegal immigrants” like it’s your hobby.
OK, you want us to censor ourselves, … sounds a little to me, like Mittens request, certain people self deport themselves …. but you’ll have a much harder time convincing these people;
What social science tells us about racism in the Republican party
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/11/what-social-science-tells-us-about-racism-in-
the-republican-party
American crossroads: Reagan, Trump and the devil down south
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/05/trump-reagan-nixon-republican-party-racism
The Republican Party burned itself: How years of racist demagoguing paved the way for this terrifying moment. Donald Trump didn’t create the poisoning atmosphere. He’s just taking advantage of it.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/the_republican_party_burned_itself_how_years_of_racist_demagoguing_p
aved_the_way_for_this_terrifying_moment/
GOP Consultant Tells Black Reporter She Wants To Choke Him For Calling Out Republican Racism
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/03/07/gop-consultant-tells-black-reporter-she-wants-to-choke-him-f
or-calling-out-republican-racism-video/
It’s the Racism, Stupid; The GOP establishment can’t freak out about Trump now. It’s been playing his game for decades, just more artfully.
http://www.thenation.com/article/its-the-racism-stupid/
Donald Trump has dropped the GOP’s mask: Conservatism and racism now officially the same thing
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/donald_trump_has_dropped_the_gops_mask_conservatism_and_racism_now_o
fficially_the_same_thing/
Original Sin; Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people
https://newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people
PS: google republican racism
About 55,100,000 results (0.42 seconds)
Gonna be a wee bit harder to get teh google to censor itself then asking those of us in the frog pond to do so………
good luck on your quest though, …
don quixote would be proud of you.
Some of that is actual racism. However the huge number of responses to the google “republican racism” is PRECISELY due to the false and incorrect use of the two terms together. Today, the progressive reflexive language pairing is that when you say “republican”, you automatically say “racist”.
It’s like the Southern Poverty Law Center and their designation of “hate speech”. Many groups that they designate with “hate speech” are engaged in political discussion that the SLPC does not like, and so they label them as “hate speech”. There are some organizations that are genuinely pernicious, but today, the SLPC has so cheapened the term “hate speech” that it means nothing. Their designation is pretty much useless.
So I guess you agree that racists exist, and teh Donald are tapping into their grievances openly instead of the dog whistle style of politics of the last 48 years out of the (R)epugnant party. BTW before you try and fail denying this;
t-Rump has ripped off the white hood to reveal the repugnant party in it’s full racist glory.
You are quoting Lee Atwater, who coordinated the presidential campaign for Pappy Bush, and who died 20 years ago, and you expect me to take you seriously?
This is the kind of mindless moronic shit that you hear all the time. Lee Atwater is dead. Pappy Bush is not relevant. Don’t quote Lee Atwater if you expect me to take you seriously.
It does explain a lot about you, and about the “racist” term. You see, when you or anyone else uses the term “racist”, it ends thinking. By chanting “racist”, you define Trump, and you no longer have to understand why he is popular.
The term “racist” for Trump means that he will be president before you have the slightest idea why he is popular.
Kind of pathetic, really.
Sorry but your rant does nothing to stop the TRUTH of the fact that t-Rump has reversed the moves Atwater et al made to try to hide the racist roots of many voters the (R)epugnant party actively pursues.
t-Rump is winning because he openly says what they want to hear.
It’s actually kind of pathetic. There are so many comments which defend the ability of the commenter to freely use “racism” that no one actually paid attention to my comments about why Trump is popular.
Apparently, the need to keep this verbal dynamite in the arsenal overwhelms the need to actually understand Trump.
Kind of amazing. Why is the need to reflexively, mindlessly, and perniciously chant “racist” or “racism” so strong?
If you really wanted to have a substantive discussion on this topic you would start by no longer using the term illegals. Whether you want to acknowledge it our not, it is a racially loaded term. And no it also isn’t the term you use for someone who breaks the law. That term is lawbreaker. Unless or until you stop using that term I will never believe you want to have a substantive discussion on this topic.
People are going to call a spade a spade, no matter how much you wish otherwise.
But that is precisely my point. What you call a “spade” is sometimes a spade, and sometimes a large spoon, and sometimes a duck and sometimes an apparition. A word should mean something. It should not be used for every single thing you dislike, and fail to understand.