I ran into a kind of interesting blog post but a guy named James A. Lindsey at a site called Allthink. It was the headline that sucked me in: Liberals, Want Trump to Win? Keep Calling Him Racist.
I didn’t think I would be persuaded by any argument supporting that headline and I wasn’t persuaded by Lindsey’s, but I found that I was glad to have read it anyway because, although unevenly presented, he did paint some portraits of the right that are worth contemplating.
If you bother to take the time to look for yourself, be patient. The second half of the piece is significantly better than the first. In fact, I almost gave up on it too soon.
The core argument is certainly wrong, which is that Trump actually derives enough strength from being characterized as a misogynistic, racist, bigot that it’s counterproductive to hurl those labels at him. I don’t doubt that these labels endear him to his strongest supporters, but he’ll never have enough of those kind of people to be competitive in the general election. So, the primary premise of the piece is way off and isn’t even worth considering.
Yet, he does a much better job of giving us a modestly sympathetic presentation of the psychological disposition of the conservative mind. In particular, he describes what it’s like to have your core political views consistently portrayed as narrow-minded and hateful, when you don’t experience them that way yourself.
People left, right, and center – but especially on the right – are justifiably sick and tired of being called bigots and having almost everything in social politics reduced to smear campaigns about bigotry…
…Conservatives who support Trump hate political correctness, and it isn’t because they’re racists, sexists, misogynists, homophobes, and all the rest. Some of them are those things, and some of them aren’t. What they hate about political correctness is that someone who doesn’t know or understand them has the gall to tell them what they can and can’t (and should and shouldn’t) say or think. Worse, those busybodies feel it is perfectly appropriate to throw around socially stigmatizing labels of bigotry without even daring to listen to the more nuanced view that conservatives feel they hold on matters of identity politics.
It’s tempting to attack that “nuanced view” and ignore the rest. Often, the nuance is little more than an inability or even a refusal to understand the privileged position of being white in this country. What’s more boring than reading a white person’s complaints about how they can’t have a White History Month or found an organization devoted to the advancement of white (non-colored) people?
But people can be blinkered and misguided without having hate in their hearts, and there’s a reason that you’ll often hear conservatives appeal to Martin Luther King Jr.’s aspirational language about getting to a point where people aren’t judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. There’s a sense in which the conservative rejection of Identity Politics is an effort to embrace a society where race doesn’t matter. If Dr. King was right, then why should a black construction company get any preference in contracting? Why should a college admission board give a preference to a Latina over a white student? How can we get to the point where people don’t consider race when we have policies that insist on looking at race? How can a white person completely ignore race when they are sometimes disadvantaged by their race?
“Nuanced” is a generous term for this perspective, but it’s possible to have it with good intentions.
Conservatives as a rule also hate collectivism and that certain groups – usually not their own groups, it should be pointed out – are granted certain apparent unearned advantages, like affirmative action, apparently one-sided sexual harassment policies, and state benefits. (Note: I’m not saying that conservative cases against those efforts are right or wrong, or that they attend to the relevant details; I’m just saying what the conservatives I know don’t like about “liberal” thinking and policy.) These aspects of identity politics become intolerable to Trump’s brand of conservative once coupled with social speech codes that make speaking out against them (even carefully) into deviant behavior.
It’s even easier to see how it can be worse than frustrating to have your religious views disparaged as stupid and hateful, and how quickly the merits of “tolerance” can ring hollow when your beliefs are not tolerated. Conservative views about race and human sexuality are being marginalized in our society, and there’s a predictable psychological side effect to that.
Progressives often insist that there is great moral force in the fact that marginalized and oppressed communities cannot psychologically bear the oppression, and they’re right. Social progressives seem simultaneously completely unconcerned that conservatives may face similar psychological difficulty with accepting change more quickly than they are able. Because of the difference in civil liberties at hand, I don’t mean to suggest that there is complete parity between these circumstances; there’s not. Still, demanding that one group deal with more than they can bear at the behest of the rights of another is precisely what makes identity politics so divisive, and the blade cuts both ways.
It’s easy to mock this. Think of the guy who shows frustration that he keeps having to change how he refers to the descendants of African slaves in this country. “It used to be acceptable to call people colored, and why doesn’t the NAACP change their name if the term is so offensive?”
But there’s little doubt that resentment of this kind of political correctness is a massive factor in Trump’s popularity, just as it explained the appeal of Ben Carson. People love Trump because he flouts all the rules about what you can say and how you can say it. They love him for this even when they disagree with what he’s saying and how he’s saying it. Being politically incorrect is the important thing, because it really feels like Trump is trying to carve out some space so they can breath again and not feel like they’re walking on eggshells all the time.
To be fair, though, it’s not just the political correctness. Conservatives blame immigration and changing demographics for creating the political and social environment where their views are defined as stupid, bigoted, and hateful. So, Trump’s attacks on Mexican and Muslim immigration are part of the same message. Trump will halt and reverse this trend and make it safe for people just to be themselves again.
I think this is all a very charitable way of characterizing the mind of a Trump supporter, but it does help explain his appeal to people who aren’t white nationalists and who don’t harbor conscious race-hatred in their hearts.
And, of course there are other factors, like job loss and disillusionment with the performance of the Republican Establishment, that help explain Trump’s appeal.
Perhaps it would be wise to be a bit more charitable to these folks, a little more patient and understanding.
But their minority status is precisely why they’re feeling so anxious and angry, and there’s no reason to fear that they’ll somehow constitute an electoral majority (by themselves) in November. If calling Trump on his racism and misogyny makes these folks love him more, it’s not an electoral problem. Their views are on the margin as it is.
What’s problematic is how this affects our culture, and the fissures that are opening in our society are causing a gridlocked government where consensus on issues large and small has become illusive.
It might be healthier for our country if there were a little more space for alternative views before they get shut down as obviously racist and intolerant, but it’s hard to be gracious and patient with people who are trying beat you politically so that they can continue to discriminate against our nation’s most vulnerable people.
On the other hand, while it may be hard, it’s also part of the recipe for political and cultural success. When you meet firehoses and billy clubs with love and a shining humanity, you will eventually win. And, before too long, most of your oppressors will come to respect what you’ve done.
Why is it always on people of color and progressives to be the bigger person?
I don’t know. But there are real limits on how much you accomplish by meeting intolerance with intolerance. And it’s hard to be patient with angry people or to win them over with an attitude of moral superiority. That’s why love for your neighbor and setting the right examples are still the best answers.
Trump is a racist.
And a bigot.
They are tired of Political Correctness.
I call bullshyt on this.
NOBODY is stopping them from having ‘freedom of speech.’
They can come up to me and call me Nigger all day long.
That is their freedom of speech.
What they want, is FREEDOM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPEECH.
They want it to be 1948, where, I, as a Black woman, would just have to sit there and take being called a Nigger all day long.
Instead, it’s 2016, and AINT NO WAY, I’m going to let some White person call me Nigger all day long without there being CONSEQUENCES for the White person.
Now, on one end, it’s just getting your ass cursed out.
on the other end, you roll upon the ‘wrong one’, and your teeth will be Chicklets on the floor.
They want Freedom from the consequences, BooMan.
And,nobody’s having that in 2016.
Nobody’s having some phucking con-man accuse a sitting judge of being incompetent, by virtue of his ethnic background.
not.having.it.
HELL MUTHAPHUCKIN’ NO.
Not being the bigger person.
Not.going.to.happen.
You nailed it rikyrah.
.
I’m not talking about how people react to Trump. I’m talking about his appeal and what explains it beyond simple racism and bigotry and misogyny.
I totally disagree with this guy’s premise about how to deal with Trump himself. I hope I made that clear. I reject it morally, tactically, and strategically.
But this piece is about how a much more general discourse takes place.
Maybe read the piece I cited.
See, I understand all that was written.
I just call bullshyt.
I call bullshyt because that’s what it is.
At the bottom line, it’s about the White man being mad that ‘ all you gotta be is White’ doesn’t go as far as it used to in this country.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?
WHEN was America so great?
When my ancestors were in chains?
When they lived in terror under the Police State known as Jim Crow?
When, Black folk like my father, no matter how brilliant, simply had only certain jobs that they could do?
When, my mother, a Phi Beta Kappa, graduated from college and knew she had one of two options: teacher or social worker.
THAT was when America was great?
We fundamentally disagree on this.
At the crux.
At the core.
At the base.
Of Trump’s support is racism and bigotry.
Spare me, it’s about economics. If it was about economics, they wouldn’t be supporting the muthaphucka who has a tax plan to give more shyt away to the 1%.
They haven’t read Trump’s tax plan.
They could care less about his Tax plan.
They only know that he attacks the Mexicans, and the Muslims, and the Blacks the way that they WISH they could..like in the good old days.
Maybe you don’t take Trump at his words.
I do. As a non-White person, I DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY to think that Trump is saying anything other than what he means.
Hear! Hear!
I couldn’t agree with you more. All this “talk” about how poor poor pitifully oppressed WHITE MEN have big old sad bc of lost job opportunities, etc. I say: B.S.! If it was about THAT, well maybe I’d have patience to listen bc that’s important for all of us.
It’s not about that, though. They want to be an out loud racist homophobic sexist bigot AND be praised, admired and loved for it.
As you say, these people can say whatever they want to say to whomever… but then they have to DEAL with the consequences. And they don’t like that. They whine and cry and boo hoo: it’s so unfaaaaiiiirrrrr! Black people can use the “n” word but I can’t! Call the whaaambulance!!!
I just wrote about this on another blog. Digby had a blurb that she pulled from somewhere. It was some white privileged younger guy whiiiinging about how it’s so unfaaaiiiir because he’s been unfriended on Facebook for “expressing his views.” And all this political correctness is just so very oppressive and it’s unfaaaiiir. Horrible Liberals!
Say what you want. Act the way you want. Deal with what happens. If you don’t want to get burned, don’t get close to the fire.
And: grow up.
I think more than a few Trumpers are Republicans who have come to hate the Republican Party. They have no outlet for their dissatisfaction, and they certainly won’t vote Democratic.
In their hearts many of them know Trump is a jackass.
This only works for them because they’ve come to hate their political party so much that it doesn’t matter. It’s a huge protest vote. Maybe even a dying gasp of some sort, as the things these people believe in are being slowly set aside.
Nice to see that you’re beginning to think through a few things that a few of us have been pointing out for the past year.
Now check out the NYTimes: There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.
It’s a more refined data collection and analytical model of the 2012 election results than the exit polls (that many here, including me, have been using to make their case for X or Y), and it has explanatory power for why the polls have continuously shown that Sanders does better against Trump (and any of the others before they dropped out) than Clinton does.
What they want, is FREEDOM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPEECH.
Indeed. That’s my perception too. But that’s a different issue than the ones raised in the article that Booman posted.
Nah. If there’s one thing I’ve had enough of, it’s playing the ‘your intolerance of my intolerance is intolerant’. Fuck em.
This comes close to getting at something that’s crucial in general. You note,
I think this is all a very charitable way of characterizing the mind of a Trump supporter, but it does help explain his appeal to people who aren’t white nationalists and who don’t harbor conscious race-hatred in their hearts.
This describes the vast majority of Trump’s voters, both in the primaries and even more so in the general. The key insight is that these people are accused of bigotry and racism, when they believe they are no such thing. How can that be? I think it has to do with the difference between a consciously chosen belief, and one that is ‘inherited’ as part of the general world view one simply accepts as How Things Are.
Now is it the case that How Things Are is racist, misogynist, classist, and worse. (I left our militarist, e.g.). But accusations of racism carry the implicit notion that these folks are making conscious choices to be racist, when as far as they know, they are carrying on as they always have.
I think this is what drove “Reagan Democrats” away. Nice white people in nice white neighborhoods thought that resisting black families moving in was necessary to preserve the values of their homes. Did they also have some plain old latent and not-so-latent racism? Sure. But they also thought that they didn’t hate black people, etc. But nonetheless were accused. And they resented it.
So our mission must be, as you say, to show a little patience, etc. And some understanding. All of that comes from approaching them with the love and respect that every person deserves. Even racists.
A little listening goes a long way. So too, skipping the Grad School Speech Patterns that seem mostly to show how clever/educated the speaker is — which comes across as intended: condescension. This is one of the main reasons I’ve so enjoyed this site — the genuine open-mindedness of the writers and so many commenters.
It’s very simple:
That’s it. That’s the whole equation. And it’s the reason accusations of racism will never stick; they involve thinking on a level that these people can’t do.
I mean, J Smooth is always worth a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
I don’t care how “frustrating” it is. Conservatives can’t understand compensatory measures and can’t accept statistically valid truths that run against their anecdotal evidence. Both of these shortcomings are evidence of blinkered, immature thinking that they must overcome if they’re going to join us in the modern world.
We all have moments of bigoted thinking (I recoiled at gay marriage, at first, because it just seemed so strange and “unnatural”) but we get over them because we’re rational beings and we can accept that society and culture are more sophisticated than any one person’s totally subjectively limited emotional “gut feelings.” Encouraging people to go the other direction — to trust and believe their moments of hindbrain-driven fear and doubt — is barbaric; I don’t care how disorienting or insulting they find it when they’re lectured in this fashion.
I don’t take issue with your defense, but I think that, as you say, we all carry around “immature thinking”. As I’ve said, Hillary supporters, who you would think are on a higher plane than Trump supporters, have divorced themselves from the concept of all those billions that the Clintons have gotten from the fabulously wealthy will not interfere with her good stewardship of the government when issues of the agenda require a decision that favors the rich v. poor.
We all know that Clinton will continue wars overseas. We can speculate where but we all know she’s going to continue the bombing, the regime changes et al. We justify it in our minds with some “yeah, buts”. But destroying a country for the oil industry doesn’t mean that Clinton will be more likely to push for a higher minimum wage.
We also are subject to being fear-driven. That’s why we watch horror movies, and that’s why eighty percent of America got behind the invasion of Iraq.
The very idea that you can make any kind of lateral comparison between Clinton — a lifelong politician who went to a real school and was a United States Senator and Secretary of State and was involved in all those facets of the Clinton Initiative — and a dirty, mob-connected real estate con man who traffics in childish innuendo, cant keep out of bankrupcy court, puts his name on vodka and steaks, in universally loathed in his own city (where I live) and doesn’t even understand the rudiments of the United States government on the broadest eight-grade level, is simply a disqualifying statement.
The Clintons made some money for themselves while devoting their lives to public service. Big deal. Trump’s entire ethos is making money — for no greater reason than pure, vulgar acquisition — by means of one or two garish, awful buildings I have to walk past every day and a bunch of horrible graft (by means of unpaid workers who labored in unsafe conditions, money being systematically fleeced from gullible senior citizens, etc.).
The two people shouldn’t even be in the same sentence, let alone the same national contest. It’s ridiculous. The idea that they’re “equally hated” is especially obscene — it’s not remotely true — but, even setting that aside, the mild frustrations we have over Clinton (and the fact that she’ll undoubtedly extend Obama’s more egregious policies as well as the good ones) is absolutely nothing compared to the problems of that crooked, incompetent, narcissistic, stupid, ignorant, genuinely evil man.
Jordan, the Clintons have accrued approximately three billion in money from the wealthiest of the wealthy in the last fifteen years. There is two billion in the Clinton Foundation, the rest is through the Clinton Global Initiative, various campaign donations, speaking fees, book earnings et al. The three billion dollar estimate does not take into account the massive transfer of money since last fall into her campaign proper and to all the disconnected PACs.
The Clintons’ “quiet” three billion may actually be more than Trump’s “noisy” ten billion.
We both don’t like Trump. He is essentially a man with an ego that needs to constantly be fed. Most lifelong politicians know how to make their egos appear to blend with national interest.
But Hillary is the beneficiary of the .01%’s largesse. As I’ve said elsewhere, it seems like in order to defend Clinton’s candidacy one must disabuse his or herself of the concept of quid pro quo. If you want to track the relationship of donations to the Clinton Foundation and, say, arms deals to the people who support ISIS, it’s there. Or Clinton Global Initiative’s involvement with energy deals in Central Asia and Latin America during Hillary’s days at the State Department.
You write: “The two people shouldn’t even be in the same sentence, let alone the same national contest. It’s ridiculous. The idea that they’re “equally hated” is especially obscene — it’s not remotely true…”
The latest likeability poll, Quinnipiac, has Clinton at 37-57, or minus 20. It’s not as bad as Trump’s numbers, but really, you CAN compare Clinton’s negatives with Trump’s. It’s one of the things that you do during a political campaign. A lot of that hate comes from the Republicans’ twenty years of smearing the Clintons, some of that is from the left, examining the actual record of Clinton. Going back to the Vietnam War, is there any war, secret or otherwise, that Hillary hasn’t supported? I can’t think of any.
That you, as a defender of Clinton, seem to be so disconnected from reality, is somewhat depressing.
I’m not disconnected from reality at all. I know exactly what Hillary Clinton is — she’s an entrenched pol who’s got an essentially Republican platform with some liberal social positions blended in (along with symbolic values of being a woman etc.), which is just exactly how much we can expect from the U. S. Presidency at this point in time.
And, when you raise billions for a foundation, you don’t keep the money.
But you control it. Let me give an example, and it isn’t even Clinton money.
Penny Pritzker, a Chicago billionaire and supporter of Clinton, donated a half million dollars and created a fund for Flint in the weeks before the Michigan primary. The mayor of Flint and Chelsea Clinton were the two people in charge of that fund. The mayor of Flint endorsed Clinton right before the primary.
Did the half-million in any way affect the mayor of Flint? That is allegedly a charity of sorts, directed at a problem that the mayor is facing. Maybe, as has been alleged, the mayor saw it as a fund that could be used for personal needs, as a fired worker has claimed of another fund set up for the Flint crisis.
The parties will deny it, but we know the direction of the money and the events that followed.
When you sit on two billion you can “donate” to all sorts of things, NGOs which work for “democracy” and which help to overthrow regimes around the world, for example. Or maybe building a road (which coincidentally goes from a tin mine or banana plantation to the docks).
To think that having two billion dollars in a Foundation, given to you by the wealthiest of the wealthy, cannot be used to advance your personal power is naive. Again, the banishment of the concept of quid pro quo among Clinton defenders.
Yeah, but you don’t just keep the money (as Trump does, or would if he actually had that fantasy $10 billion) which is the totally mindless greed/acquisition worship that the other side lionizes. (The “job creators” etc.)
I don’t know why you’re disregarding this crucial distinction; it’s the most important element in what we’re discussing.
You don’t seem to recognize the power that accrues with sitting on the top of two billion. Have you ever read anything about the Rockefeller Foundation?
If the crucial distinction is that H. Clinton’s largesse was given to her by the ultra-wealthy who have some control over the flow of their money, versus the money earned in the capitalist marketplace by Trump, I’m not sure I understand the crucial distinction. The Clintons can direct the Foundation’s money which help goals of her political supporters.
Trump’s fortune is not as powerful as Clinton’s power through her political connections. Her fortunes can and have a relationship to her policies. Trump may be a con man, but he is not necessarily serving the interests of his class. Not like Clinton.
I am reminded of my recent ban from another website. The person who most likely had me booted was hot and bothered that I said Mussolini knew what fascism was underneath it all, the merging of state and corporate interests. He tried to make a point that Mussolini never used the word “corporatism”, which I didn’t quite say. But I can go to my 1943 copy of George Seldes FACTS AND FASCISM, Chapter III, “Big Business Bossed Mussolini” and list all the various corporate entities that financed fascism in Italy. No fascist without the backing of big money gets very far or lasts very long.
In that sense, Clinton is more of a textbook fascist than Trump. She certainly has a longer career of warmongering than Trump, and the violence of war is generally a part of the definition of fascism. Her relationship with big money backers is greater than Trump’s.
I don’t want to get too cynical here, but looking back I think I got tossed because someone didn’t want to acknowledge how money drives fascism. This must be the same fever that allows Clinton supporters to ignore the concept of quid pro quo.
I don’t reject the relationship between capital and fascism (and, Mussolini is clearly the best example); I don’t want to ban you, and I have no trouble understanding the quid pro quo of corporate largesse vs. public sector votes, favoritism etc.
Nevertheless I think there’s a crucial difference between A) some lucky investor, CEO or Wall Street fuck getting $120 million in salary/bonuses or stock options or dividends, and just blithely sitting on it, or, using it to buy personal favors, exactly as such — meaning, totally believing (as all those assholes do) that the only social-contract obligagtion they have is to “earn” all that money and just fucking keep it, because they’re “job creators” vs. B) someone setting up a foundation to channel that wealth and others’ wealth into public good works (even within our corrupt crony-capitalist system). It’s a philosophical difference, and a major one.
Especially when you look at the Clintons who were dirt-poor and made their names and reputations in public service vs. Trump, a person with no value to society whatsoever, who inherited and squandered his fortune, which is based on profiteering in one of the most corrupt businesses that exists. (I mean, I respect car makers more than real estate developers.)
Again, a philosophic difference. Re-read my first paragraph: I’m not “naive” and I have no difficulty seeing how things actually work. I’m just saying, there’s a crucial difference between one thing and the other.
Jordan, is there or is there not a quid pro quo between the three billion dollars that the Clintons have gotten over the last fifteen years or did all these corporations and billionaires shower her with money for no reason?
It’s that simple. Yes or no.
Of course there is; I’ve said so.
I’m reading your posts; can’t you extend me the same courtesy?
Well, I don’t see the difference how Trump and Clinton got their money as proof that Trump would be a worse candidate for President. He’s a worse candidate for President because he’s an orange-haired clown who spouts racist things. Clinton’s accrual of wealth and power suggests that she knows what she’s doing. But what she’s done suggests what she’ll do, and one way to chart that is to follow the money. I see Clinton ultimately destroying the Democratic brand, and I see more wars, more death in the future. Which doesn’t make her a particularly good pick in my book.
Yes, I know. You’re just repeating your position — which was clear from the outset and which I acknowledged — while my position hasn’t made the slightest impact on you; there’s no indication that you understand it or even read it carefully, let alone seeing its merits.
Many political arguments follow this pattern, as you should know since (as you’ve explained) since you’ve 1) already gotten banned on other sites and 2) seem somewhat puzzled by why this happened; why you were reacted to in this fashion.
There’s nothing preventing you from becoming better at this; it’s basic discourse.
The Bernie or Busters are much, much more principled than you or I. In fact, if and when Frau Hitlery takes office, all of the baby blood will be on our hands.
You have to essentially treat Bernie or Busters the same way you treat Tea Party lunatics. Objective, observable reality doesn’t matter, and instead, you have to defend yourself against the upcoming future genocides that Hitlery is going to cause around the world as a matter of fact as soon as we violate decent human principles for voting for Hitlery.
Also: Benghazi.
Quid pro quo, Nicholas.
Cult of personality, Bob.
Well, going up to the top of this particular string, I agreed with you that everyone uses uncritical thinking. I then used the example of Clinton supporters ignoring the concept of quid pro quo when predicting Clinton’s future job as President. Then you got very upset that I could even compare Trump and Clinton. Then we exchanged posts regarding Trump’s wealth versus Hillary’s wealth.
I guess I could take your posts, break them down clause by clause, and we could go over it together. I think our problems arose about when you said “The very idea that you can make any kind of lateral comparison between Clinton [and Trump].” But of course you can. That’s what everyone does when they vote.
And if you are concerned about war, about corporate influence in legislation, then you could reasonably consider Clinton the bigger danger. Our peace-prize-winning current President is massing troops on Russia’s border (just an exercise!) and the Russians don’t like it. Clinton says she will “impose” a no-fly zone over Syria, where the Russians are now flying sorties against the various Islamist factions to include ISIS and al-Nusrah who are killing non-Sunnis in Syria. It’s kind of a subtle way for her to announce a future shooting war with a nuclear power.
Now you are liberal, so you are more aware of this than conservatives, and when a Republican was in the White House you even probably worried about them getting us into a nuclear war.
But apparently announcing a war with a nuclear power in advance isn’t as scary as Donald Trump. Okay.
One example that may help you in understanding Bob’s argument. The Gates Foundation makes many contributions in the educational field. Mostly in support of charter schools that are privately owned and with the intent that two or three publicly traded corporations will one day own all the schools that are funded with public dollars to provide profits/returns to investors. IOW stealing from the commons which is all neoliberalism is, but not what they say in their sales pitch to the rubes.
In other words the founders were wrong in the system they created. Because it was that system that have all of us at this point. It is the very idea that a contest of ideas between the two will decide this election. You might not like it, but it is all we gotz.
Like Churchill said, “democrac ……….”
I don’t want to hear any crypto-“original intent” arguments — you can’t use “the founders” to defend Trump’s candidacy any more than you can use them to defend Reagan’s absentee presidency or W’s abomination of a stolen victory and subsequent catastrophic two terms.
Things change over the centuries. Slaves are set free; women vote; bathrooms become multi-racial and then multi-gender…and media and advertising and other elements pollute the process so that clueless demagogues who understand how to play to a TV camera end up in positions they seriously shouldn’t be in.
I’m not challenging the goddamned constitution when I say that Trump’s candidacy — the fact that he’s standing there as the nominee — indicates things have gone seriously astray. No, he doesn’t belong in the race; it’s an abomination made possible by a lot of very slippery play along very underhanded lines by very unscrupulous people using resources that didn’t exist in 1789.
Jordan, you seem to be misreading clif. You may not think that Trump should be allowed to run for President, or that he somehow besmirches the concept of presidential elections, but I’m pretty sure Trump isn’t the worst person ever to run for President. And if millions vote for Trump, which has happened, it means that all the problems with race and class reflected in Trump’s rhetoric are still in favor among at least a large minority of voters.
Trump is absolutely the worst person ever to head a national ticket.
But he followed the procedures that were laid down for those who wish to be a republican candidate for president representing the entirety of the GOP as far as it is possible.
He is CONSTITUTIONALLY a candidate,and will be nominated if the rules that are now in place are followed.
Doesn’t mean he even meets a large section of their moral arguments they want public, let alone anybody to the left of the extremists who now a days make up the 2016 version of the GOP.
If he is such a problem it is for the party nominating him to deal with in their internal nomination processes.
IF he were to win in November, I’d have agreement with your sentiment, however I don’t foresee that happening. He has already alienated far too many sections of the voting public, some enough they might come out to vote in record numbers, which would drowned what ever minor bump he could draw out of the reactionary far right fringe.
Give him 5 more months of spouting off to attack everyone not in line with his extreme rhetoric, and even the millennials could very well decide he is far too dangerous to chart the course of the country for most of their lives, like Reagan did for ours.
As repugnant as he is, he is starting to reap what he has sown, and just in time to either destroy the GOP by their removing him, or branding them for a generation or two, if they don’t. For all the dog whistle crap they have vomited upon us, it’s a fitting karma for them he has got this far.
I can’t figure out what you’re saying.
You’re certainly not arguing with anything I said, since I never said Trump’s candidacy violated any constitutional laws or precepts of the nation’s founders. I explained in detail why 1) this shouldn’t be happening (Trump’s candidacy) and 2) what the bad forces in modern American forces are that have allowed it to happen; you didn’t really pay any attention and instead just reiterated your irrelevant claim that Trump is constitutionally “legitimate” which nobody challenged.
You and Bob should go somewhere and have a conversation; it will be great because neither of you will hear a word the other’s saying, but it won’t matter since you already agree.
You missed the entire point,
trump is the REPUBLICAN party’s candidate.
It is their party and they have the right to nominate anyone they please, by the rules they decide to follow. We have no right to dictate to the GOP what rules they follow or whom the citizens who claim adherence to that party decided to nominate.
The only right we have is to agree or disagree with their choice relative to the other choices offered by other political parties.
Claiming anything else is simply undemocratic.
The people whom dominate the GOP as their voting base might be everything we find repulsive, but it’s their party and they can run it off the rails if they so choose.
They even can thumb their noses at the GOP party leadership and moneyed interests to nominate a buffoon like trump, like they did, and well it’s their right.
The constitution gives them that right, and even if I disagree with their choices, I’ll defend their right to make their own choice and not limit their choices to only to that which I personally approve.
Sorry, I genuinely believe in that fundamental right
The people whom dominate the GOP as their voting base are those that allowed Reagan, bush Jr and republican control of both houses of congress and a majority of state legislatures and governor mansions.
It is the very reason why this is such a pivotal election for the country, like 1980 was.
It will decide the direction the country takes relative to control of the supreme court for a generation. Also it will allow the ACA and other gains under Barack Obama to become more concreted into the body politics.
That one to me is OUT OF LINE.
Sorry but you don’t own nor control this blog, and until Booman says otherwise, I’ll express my opinion, in the words I choose trying to be respectful, even if you cannot understand the words I choose nor the ideas behind those words.
I sincerely apologize for my untoward remarks.
Both conversations (this one and the one above) are frustrating me; but you’re right — that’s no excuse for being rude.
I got no problem saying the founders system is totally obsolete and needs to replaced with a parliament and a more limited executive, proportional representation and publically funded campaigns that last no more than 90 days.
“We all know that Clinton will continue wars overseas.”
I do not know that. I have the power to join with others to prevent it from being so.
I plan on being part of the coalition which sees to it that Trump does not get his hands on our military and nuclear codes. Donald would conduct a much more reckless foreign policy.
Being part of the coalition which pushes Clinton into the White House will give us more leverage in demanding she does not conduct a reckless foreign policy. I’m conceding nothing. I wish you would join us, rather than continuing this completely disempowering dialogue.
You appear completely fear-driven.
Do not feed the GD trolls!
.
It’s all about power. People being ‘disruptive’ or ‘unhelpful’ or ‘unfair.’ That’s what power allows. Scolding people for performing power in (I think) unjust ways is merely saying ‘I want you to be disempowered.’ Reminds me of that Yale Halloween letter that resulted in dismissals/resignations: https:/www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-ya
le-students-on-halloween-costumes
Another take. I found the final footnote interesting:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/01/are-liberals-responsible-rise-donald-trump
“Conservatives as a rule also hate collectivism…”
This statement alone reveals Conservatives to be in fact stupid, bigoted and hateful, because our society is FILLED with collectivism. It would not be able to function without it. Collectivism is simply a shibboleth (like much of their objections to modern society) that they can shout to the hills. It’s their way of saying someone is getting stuff they don’t think they deserve. They, and they alone, deserve to get stuff. Because FREEDOM!
That they are blinkered into ignoring reality is not my fking problem, it’s theirs. This ain’t the wild, wild west anymore, and that was simply a fantasy anyway. Tolerance doesn’t mean tolerating stupid, bigoted and hateful worldviews.
You know it’s kind of funny after all the years of “boot strap” political correctness of the right-wing kind, they are blaming every one else for their problems.
US conservatives are for all intents and purposes, collectivists, as long as they consider you a member of their tribe.
As long as they identify you as a tribe member, then everything is forgiven. Hate the sin, love the sinner, and all that.
The whole “conservatives hate collectivism” is simply an example of their loud and proud use of cognitive dissonance to justify whatever it is they believe, this week.
(but of whom?) enough that I might have to steal it!
Or is it a “quote” rather than a quote?
It’s my quote. Maybe I should put in in italics?
Ha. Good one. That works. Or credit yourself! As in
Why is it always on people of color and progressives to be the bigger person?
Because it allows the supposed champions of personal responsibility and individualism to shift the blame for their bad behavior onto others.
Also, I think the piece would be maybe a tad more persuasive if the author didn’t pull in horseshit like “cultural Marxism” into it.
Well conservatives are never going tonbe the bigger person. Not ever.
That may be the case, but if so, it’s not clear why the appropriate response is, as the author of the linked piece suggests, to endlessly accommodate their temper tantrums.
Allow me to turn that around a bit. The ethos in this country is that there are winners and losers and for a loser to become a winner, a winner must become a loser. Doesn’t matter if it’s not so true that new winner turns a former winner into a loser as there will always be some evidence that it is true and therefore, the existing winners naturally fear public policies that open doors for minorities.
Diversity sold for sentimental reasons (which is prevalent in public service announcements and commercial adverts) are okay but of limited utility to the person that fears a job loss now that women and other minorities are being hired, fears that he may not be as competitive with these new workers, fears that a more diverse work force will result in lower wages for him, etc. The last item wasn’t an irrational fear, wages for working class men have been flat since 1972.
As home ownership is the primary wealth factor for the working class was it irrational for them to fear that integrated their neighborhoods would lower his property value? Of course not. But we failed to come up with public policies that maximized integration and not on the backs of those with little to no wealth to spare. So, we remained silent as white flight undermined the good intentions of integration and that in turn has led to schools being as segregated today as they were in 1954.
As a female beneficiary of affirmative action, I accepted that I has responsibility for earning acceptance among the all male work force (that was easy) but the more important task was getting them to value a female colleague and that welcoming more women would improve the working conditions and income for them as well. Forty years on, sexism and bigotry still exist in the industry and women and other minorities are a minority instead of completely absent. And like many industries, men are likely to remain dominant for a very long time. Change takes time and there are plenty of pitfalls and speed bumps along the way.
Did welcoming more women lead to more income for men? My knee jerk reaction says no but I have no facts to rely on here.
In my situation, yes it did. Diversity reduced the stodginess of the operations and that increased performance and profits. However, part of the equation was that financial services employees were probably a bit underpaid back then; so some of the wage increase was catching up to where the general economy should have taken them earlier.
Oh, yeah…http://qz.com/612086/huge-study-find-that-companies-with-more-women-leaders-are-more-profitable/
Women spend the money, in large part. Why wouldn’t their representation make a product more attractive?
If the company is more profitable but wages didn’t increase then hiring women did nothing for the individual male employees which is what I was asking Marie about.
Empathy has a lot of value beyond the political value.
In a perfect world, we could extend empathy as far as necessary to bring as many people into society as possible. But this is not a perfect world, and I’m not a perfect person. Some people are just plain assholes. If they want to change their behavior, we can talk.
THIS is what I hear from Trump supporters, not racist remarks. It’s not a minor part, it’s the major part. If they were racists, they wouldn’t say “Oh, he’s good too” when you mention Bernie Sanders. Because you may dismiss Sanders as “Oh, he’s white”, they see that he is a Jew, which is non-white to white racists. The Klan hates Jews as much (or more) than blacks.
Democrats keep ignoring white job concerns. At their peril.
They care about jobs?
really?
they support folks that never cared about jobs for them.
ever.
that they don’t understand that, is why I have no sympathy.
So do Democrats, i.e. Hillary supporters. Do you think she really cares if you live or die? After you’ve voted of course.
What I’ve heard from Trump supporters is they like his “politically incorrect” pledge to commit war crimes in Syria, hate rich liberal Jews from NYC, and don’t want to vote for Ted Cruz because he’s not white.
Dueling anecdotes are fun!
Have you actually talked them? Or just read about them?
I overheard two sets of them discussing Trump (obnoxiously loudly) at (expensive) restaurants in NJ.
Well then they should love Hilliary’s war crime record. not to mention Obama’s assassinations.
As I posted in another thread, your observations appear to be more accurate than what your (usually hateful) can tolerate. (Reference NYTimes revision of the 2012 election data today.)
Couldn’t find what you are referring to (NY Times). Could you elaborate? or Provide a link?
Never mind! I found the link in your other post. I read this one first.
Voice, some white people are having a problem finding a job, or a good-paying job.
That is not caused by immigrants and foreigners. It’s caused by greedy people, almost all white men, who have twisted and eliminated the law to serve their greedy purposes. They’ve also successfully blocked the enforcement of laws which were meant to protect white people’s ability to gain a good-paying job.
It’s infuriating that so many have been suckered into blaming the wrong people. For example, Wal-Mart jobs do not have to be decent-paying jobs with good personnel policies. The Waltons are greedy, though, and they hire greedy people. So here we are, with you blaming the Democratic Party’s desire to have a multi-racial coalition for the oligarch class’ snookering of an unfortunately large number of white people.
Including you, apparently.
I intended to write “…Wal-Mart jobs could easily be decent-paying jobs with good personnel policies.”
<Quote>When you meet firehoses and billy clubs with love and a shining humanity, you will eventually win.</quote>
This is possible but far from inevitable.
I think this gets the at the reason why I believed Sanders would have had stronger coat tails.
I’ve said before on here on the record that we will NOT go back to accommodating their requirement of white supremacy. We will have immigration reform. We will hear the concerns of those associated with Black Lives Matter. Those are lines in the sand for me, and if certain sects of white persons don’t like it they have the National White Man’s Party down the hall that can address their grievances.
At the same time, I’m not willing to say “fuck ’em”. These people exist in our body politic, and they comprise a very large portion of the electorate, particularly in the clusters of House seats. We need to reach them somehow.
They however are dying at greater rates. So the problem grows less acute over time.
Damn, so many thoughts swimming around in my head on this post, but I’m at work and can’t take the time to comment in the detail I would like.
But when I saw this bit at the beginning it made me think of something said by comedian Trae Crowder in one of his recent Liberal Redneck videos”
To paraphrase the Liberal Redneck, “Honey, your bein’ called a racist and a bigot ain’t about political correctness. It’s pretty simple, really. If yer gittin’ tired of people always callin’ ya’ a racist and a bigot, then ya’ just gotta stop saying all that biggoty and racist shit!!”
Found this in a tweet this morning:
Yes, yes. I sympathize with the existential threat of Trump. It’s too bad that the Clintons have also been bad for minorities with their re-upping the country into a more severe drug war at the same point in history destroying the welfare system.
If anything, Trump at the head of the Republican ticket should keep most minorities out of the Republican Party.
That doesn’t mean that on Hillary’s plantation we all get to work inside.
I think that Trump’s appeal to not necessarily racist or bigoted people is real, and I think that it arises from general frustration with our current governance.
A lot of Germans who weren’t anti-Semites supported Hitler and Mussolini.
We choose our icons for different reasons. If someone attaches meaning to H. Clinton’s history in politics they may believe that she was be an extension of Obama’s presidency, when the economic remained stagnant or worsened for the bottom 90%.
That is, without buying into Trump’s racist rhetoric, you can think that it’s time for change, and Clinton is not change but a continuation of the rich getting richer while the rest suffer. In order to believe in Trump you have to make the same kinds of disconnection with reality that Clinton supporters do to support her.
In order to believe in Trump you have to make the same kinds of disconnection with reality that Clinton supporters do to support her.
Bob in Portland–Your comment here reminds me of a co-worker who like to pop into my office and rant about how stupid right-wing voters are. One day I stopped him and asked, “Are you just venting, or do you actually hope to convince people to change their minds? Because I don’t know anyone who responds well to being called stupid.”
I actually went into detail a little farther up. I don’t necessarily write here to offend anyone, but differences of opinion often are defined by information one has received versus information someone else has received.
Hillary has worked in the corridors of power for a long time now. The ultra-rich have supported her generously in her political endeavors, not only by large transfers of money, but the use of their power derived from their own wealth.
Hillary supporters will not acknowledge that there is a reason why rich people have given money to her, have backed her career in politics, precisely because she represents their interests. If Penny Pritzker wanted to help the people of Flint, Michigan she didn’t have to put Chelsea Clinton in charge of the pursestrings of the half-million she sent.
Politics, in a sense, is a suspension of disbelief. It’s entertainment of the highest order with the worst performers. Trump supporters see him as a self-made man who wants to stir up the corrupt system. Their vision of what the system entails may or may not scapegoat minorities, foreigners, etc. Hillary’s supporters have to pretend that she cares more about them than she cares about the people who shovel money to her.
That was the point I was making.
You don’t call Clinton supporters stupid. You call them self-deluded and enablers of criminal activity. Now try approaching someone with that criticism, on damn near any topic, as a prelude to trying to convince them about something. I don’t think you will find success.
You should take your own advice, re Sanders supporters.
Classic projection.
There are very few non-Hillary bashers here talking mad shit about how Sanders is a good-for-nothing despot it waiting.
You throw around phrases like Hitlery, and Hitler in a pantsuit, and yet, somehow, people who aren’t publicly shitting on Clinton at every opportunity are Sanders-bashers calling Sanders-supporters stupid?
Come on.
Beam and Mote. Pot and Kettle.
I am a Sanders supporter myself. I just don’t demonize Hillary, as I have told you repeatedly, to no avail.
I think there is no doubt that people get their backs up against the wall, so to speak, when accused of bigotry. I’ve certainly see people respond that way. And unless you, dear reader, are perfect, you have let slip at some point in your life bigoted comments and had someone else confront you about them. (I remember a few cringe-worthy episodes of that variety myself.) If you didn’t feel defensive to at least some degree, I’d be quite surprised.
I think that in trying to understand what goes through the minds of a lot of right wing voters, the most useful framing to use is resentment. Trying to tease apart resentment from racism can be difficult, and some people just equate the two, but they’re not the same.
P.S. Can we please not make this about Hillary Clinton? Fer chrissakes, look at what Booman wrote for some context.
Tiptoeing across minefields comes to mind.
I think you are correct in focusing on resentment.
Nonetheless, selfish, gratuitous, insensitive resentment that enables racists, bigots, haters (intentionally or not) does not make one a better person than a racist, bigot or hater.
It’s like rich people not being racists, they just resent being forced to pay taxes to help poor/disadvantaged people they view as takers.
Not seeing the difference in how they should be judged.
Railing against political correctness is simply a plea to act badly in public with no consequences. The logic of a naturally selfish, immature two year old.
Maybe Trump studied Campaign Management 101 at Trump U
06/09/16 12:53 PM–UPDATED 06/09/16 01:04 PM
By Steve Benen
When Donald Trump recently scheduled a speech on energy policy in Bismarck, North Dakota, many Republicans wondered why in the world he didn’t pick a bigger city in a swing state. When he soon after started campaigning in California, where Republicans stand no realistic chance of winning the presidential race, GOP insiders scratched their heads once more.
This New York Times article today won’t improve the party’s confidence in Team Trump’s strategic thinking.
Donald J. Trump has hired a new pollster to help him capture an elusive Republican victory in New York, his home state, two people briefed on the move said.
The pollster, John McLaughlin, will be focusing exclusively on New York, polling to determine what type of climb Mr. Trump would face in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Though recent polls show Hillary Clinton leading Trump in hypothetical match-ups in the Empire State, the Times article added that the Republican is nevertheless “adamant” about winning New York.
As for how, exactly, he intends to pull this off, Trump isn’t just hiring a pollster. Failed New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, Trump’s campaign’s co-chair in the state, told CNN the campaign will prevail by “blanketing the upstate region with signs and bumper stickers.”
You might think I’m making this up. I’m not. Hitting upstate New York with yard signs is part of the campaign’s recipe for success in one of the nation’s most populous states. (Carl Paladino lost his 2010 gubernatorial race in New York by 29 points. I just thought I’d mention that.)
Note, the same CNN report added that Republican officials in North Carolina and Michigan are “yet to hear from” anyone with the Trump campaign, and the presumptive GOP nominee “doesn’t have so much as a state director” in battlegrounds such as Ohio and Colorado.
IOW, we have Trump as a candidate because the last two terms there was a black President and the going assumption is at least the next term and probably two terms, there will be a white woman President. And after 2024, the demographic transformation kicks and there is high anxiety that there ever will be a white male President again. And all those oppressed peoples will do to Trump voters what some of them have done to minorities and women.
Fear of retribution is a powerful political force. That is the changed America that they fear; they cannot behave unconsciously as they were raised; they actually have to thing about how to respond to people. It’s too much work.
Rather a stunning admission of guilt, isn’t it? However unacknowledged it is consciously, it recognizes just how abhorrently white male America has behaved to the presumed lesser beings they’re ruled for so long.
A good analysis. Of course, one has to also acknowledge – which the GOP is only very very slowly and extremely reluctantly doing – almost 4 decades of extremist Hate Radio, Fox, “Christian” Broadcasting, rightwing think tanks, all of which have churned out ever increasing Southern Strategy. Hatred and fear of all minorities, all women, all gays, now all transgenders, etc.
The past 7+ years have seen incendiary levels of hatred aimed at Obama to the point of barking lunacy. I’m not a big Obama fan, but I’m beyond fed up with how the GOP has behaved towards him.
It riles up the base and gets them to vote against their own interests. I do feel that some of them are starting to figure out that they’ve been “had,” but their solution is a non-starter for them.
Even if Trump wasn’t such a vile bigoted pig, he’s not going to do what he says. He’s just not. I doubt he even wants to. Trump has definitely told Paul Ryan that he’s ready willing and up for cutting and gutting Social Security and Medicare – after telling his base that he’ll “save” them.
These people are just being led down yet another the garden path again by yet another liar who has no intention of working for them or their interests. The only thing Trump is “giving” them is a reflection of their worst selves on a big stage. It’s pretty sad.
This country/planet is never going “back” to some fantasy that never existed. The bigots who want to be bigoted can just go ahead, but it’s not only/just so-called “liberals” who are going to dislike and run away from them. Those days are fading. The younger generations don’t care as much about race. It’s not about so-called “political correctness.” It’s about being tolerant, gracious and polite to everyone. When did good manners get a bad name? Only the GOP can shove bad manners in our faces and tell us that it’s ok to behave that way.
I live in California, and I cannot even count how many mixed race marriages I know of with mixed race kids.
Get over it. We can’t push back time, no matter how much some want.
“I do feel that some of them are starting to figure out that they’ve been “had,” but their solution is a non-starter for them.”
I compare it to people in the stages of grief.
The first stage, is denial. The Republican base has believed for the longest time that Republicans really did give at least a 1/4 of a shit about them. Sure, they only ever got taxes cut, and infrastructure spending slashed, but they were totally with them on gay marriage, and abortion, and flag burning, and other abstract ideas that don’t have an effect on the daily life of a conservative.
The base was dealing with denial in 2012 when it was trying to pick a “true conservative” and flirted with everyone but Rmoney. But, the donor class/establishment was able to rein them in one (last?) time.
Now, the Republican base has moved past the denial stage.
The Republican base is both Angry at the donor class/establishment for lying to it for 60+ years, and Bargaining that Donald Trump, who refuses to use the dog whistle, will either make America Great Again for white privilege, or, will at least burn this fucker down to the ground…in order to save it, of course.
The next stages are Depression, which comes when Trump fails to actually get the nomination, or when Trump loses the general…or when Trump is hopefully unable to do what he wants by a House and Senate that can block what he wants to do.
Acceptance comes if and when the sane(r) Republicans abandon the Republican party, and attempt to take shelter under the right wing of the Democratic party, thereby breaking the Democratic party into two, with a majority center/center-right Democratic party, and a left-wing minority of progressives who will then work on dragging sane right-wingers leftward. At least, that’s my hope.
And the rest of us are afraid that in whatever stage they’re in now, they’re going to irretrievably damage the republic.
Count me as one of those people.
It’s why I’m able to so easily throw away all ethics, values, and moral principles of common human decency, and vote for Hitlery.
Just ask the ‘Busters.
Quick Takes: Trump’s Actual Business Record
by Nancy LeTourneau June 9, 2016 5:11 PM
POLITICAL ANIMAL BLOG
* For anyone still under the illusion that Donald Trump’s business record is his greatest selling point as a presidential candidate, Steve Reilly pretty much tears through that myth.
At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.
Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data…
In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanic’s liens — filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work — since the 1980s…
The actions in total paint a portrait of Trump’s sprawling organization frequently failing to pay small businesses and individuals, then sometimes tying them up in court and other negotiations for years. In some cases, the Trump teams financially overpower and outlast much smaller opponents, draining their resources. Some just give up the fight, or settle for less; some have ended up in bankruptcy or out of business altogether.
……………………………………….
I know it’s sort of cruel to put these folks on film, but I want ads from the ones who had to go out of business because of Trump. …