What we do know is that people like me, and probably like most readers of The New York Times, truly didn’t understand the country we live in.Amazing how many pundits on that summary page explain the whole thing as racism and sexism. If this be racism and sexism, make the most of it.
Duh
Paul Krugman writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
This was amusing, too (also from Krugman):
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and the markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my speciality. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer. If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Is it possible their predictions about the market were as sharply on point as their predictions about the election?
Cassandra, it is delightful to see you.
True story: I received a phone call first thing this morning from a progressive friend who has decided that he needs to buy a gun. He has until now been a staunch advocate of gun control, but would I mind to walk him through the process?
Minds are changing already. Perhaps that limited government thing might seem like a good idea, too.
Pure projection. Their reasons for voting AGAINST Trump were not the reasons people voted FOR him.
Is it possible their predictions about the market were as sharply on point as their predictions about the election?
Heh :)
Cassandra, it is delightful to see you.
I have missed all of you, Grim. I've been in an email back-and-forth with my oldest friend (a lifelong Democrat). She wrote me several months ago, frustrated with articles about conservatives that didn't (she said) sound like any of her friends and genuinely mystified at how anyone could support Trump.
He wouldn't have been my first, second, or third choice, frankly. I hope I was able to convey to her, though, that neither could I vote for Hillary -- and also that I viewed Hillary with the same horror with which she viewed Trump.
Incredible, incredible election. We live in interesting times.
That sounds like me. He wasn't my first, second, or third choice, but I never was in any doubt whether I'd vote for him over Clinton. I don't think I succeeded in making a single progressive friend or relative understand that I viewed Clinton with the same horror with which any of them viewed Trump. One old friend, a smart man, simply couldn't understand why I thought she was a crook. There was no use trying to talk to him about it. He'd talk about the motives of her accusers but never the facts they were accusing her of.
Grim, make sure they're not too despondent first (the way some people are talking, I'm half serious, my daughter's school morning was like a funeral).
Christopher, yes, that's quite right. The folks around here (L.A.) have so built the bogeyman, and bought into all the hype, that they're truly terrified. I'd be more sympathetic, buy it's mostly their doing, not least in letting Hillary steal the Dem primary, and pushing Trump through the primaries on the other side. They made their bed, now they'll have to lay in it.
One old friend, a smart man, simply couldn't understand why I thought she was a crook. There was no use trying to talk to him about it. He'd talk about the motives of her accusers but never the facts they were accusing her of.
I've run into that as well. I've also run into people who gushed about her "accomplishments" but when asked, couldn't name a single one. That didn't even put a dent in their assurance.
In retrospect (given all the horrified hand-wringing), maybe the media/DNCs Smart Strategy of boosting Herr Trump wasn't so smart after all. I mean, if you really believe the guy is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, how much sense does it make to help him get the GOP nomination?
I woke this morning with full expectation of a criminal and traitor destined for the WH. What a surprise.
The reason the idiots are upset is they are projecting- they expect Trump to do to them, what they secretly would like to do to us. Their way always ends in the gulag or the grave. People insist on all the excuses and protestations "oh, they would NEVER do THAT!"
my stock response is to say, "OK,go read "Ordinary Men", and get back to me.
I don't have patience for the Hillary supporters. They are wandering in a house with a rotting corpse, the stink is everywhere, but they pretend there is no body because they won't look in the bedroom, even though the smell is worst next to the door. I don't call this smart- blind maybe, or hypnotized. When they elevate politics to a religion, they cannot accept heresy. So they have a train wreck of the mind, when cognitive dissonance runs head on into reality.
We have a very dangerous few months ahead- the crazies and the calculating ,international and domestic, know this may be the last chance to have the advantage of a feckless, America hating, indecisive president.
*waves up-thread at Cassandra* Good to see you back! The Clinton supporters at school ranged from irked to resigned to truly despondent to furious. The despondent individual is a very well-meaning individual who wants to go into politics to "make the world better." The furious pinned everything on "the first woman in the White House" and seems convinced that Trump will deport anyone who is not a white Anglo-Saxon. I kept quiet, since I voted for the lesser of two evils, emphasis on evils, in my opinion.
LittleRed1
Years ago I wrote off Herr Dr. Krugman as a pompous ass. This video influenced me. Krugman gets p3wned on Canadian Health Care.
I am not surprised at all that Herr Dr. Krugman didn't understand the depths of racism and sexism embedded in his political opponents.It was rather amusing to find out that the reason he gave for not having understood his political opponents merely highlighted how little he actually understood his political. "I've corrected my mistake." No, you haven't- you've compounded it.
Herr Dr. Krugman understands the great world beyond his academic specialty as well as Noam Chomsky understands the world outside his specialty of linguistics. Yet both spend considerable time explaining the world to the hoi polloi. Given Herr Dr. Ktugman's pontificating on how the Stimulus was unsuccessful because $800 billion just wasn't enough to get the job done, I suspect that Herr Dr. Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has a good understanding of economics confined to very narrow parameters.
I have spent little time discussing politics with others this year. I am not going to convince them, and there is very little likelihood they are going to convince me. I also got tired of encountering the "You are a racist/bigot/hater" schtick.
Krugman's understanding of economics seems to shift according to which party dominates. He's been known to do a complete 180 simply b/c his guy is in charge and now, what was once stupid and destructive is brilliant and wise :p
Hi back atcha, LittleRed1 !
I have mostly had to walk away from politics for a while. The level of anger in the real world has been stunning (on both sides, but mostly the right - for what I consider to be legitimate reasons). Too often, I have found myself losing my temper with people who disagree with me (only in my mind, but even that's not something I am used to, or want to encourage). Again, sometimes there was good cause for my anger, but sometimes there wasn't. That's not a good thing, and one I've had little experience with.
Various lists that I have organized on my Facebook page were basically melting down to the point I thought they might oooze off the screen at me.
One individual (who I thought very liberal--well maybe he is) ended up taking everyone to task over their anti-Trump vitriol, in a very polite but firm manner. It's not going well for him.
Actually one of the bravest things I've ever seen anybody do, short of fighting in combat.
I don't know how many of you ever check out Heterodox Academy, but one of the bright spots in the last year has been seeing so many progressives defend free speech that they really, really disagree with.
We need more leaders who call to what's best in us, not bring out the worst.
How many of the commenters here have frequent, friendly contact with minorities?
Are you describing interactions with other white people?
raven..."The reason the idiots are upset is they are projecting- they expect Trump to do to them, what they secretly would like to do to us"
Or even not so secretly. A meme has been circulating on FB along the following lines:
"If Democrats were REALLY rigging elections, then we'd have single-payer healthcare, solar cars, and no Fox News"
Pretty much a direct admission that they (whoever wrote & circulated this meme) would like to forceably suppress dissenting media voices.
Liza,
I don't think you've commented here before. We have a comments policy, which you haven't violated but should be aware of, that has served us fairly well over more than a decade now.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do have friendly contact with many you'd consider minorities -- for example, the gun-control advocate I helped buy a gun this afternoon was born in the Soviet Union, emigrated to Israel where he served in the IDF, and then later became a US citizen. His fear is the fear of Antisemitism, which is an understandable one given the tone of the recent campaign.
Our friendship is actually based not on politics nor on any similarity of life experiences, but on stiff disagreements about philosophy. He's a Kantian, you see. Nothing to be done about it. I've certainly tried. He's even convinced that Kant's efforts to derive positive duties through practical reason are doomed, but ultimately thinks that the capacity to derive negative duties is good enough to justify the project.
Liza
How many of the commenters here have frequent, friendly contact with minorities?
Are you describing interactions with other white people?
Te lo digo asi. Hablo bastante con vecinos en Castellano. O con una vecina,una judía sefardí [del medio Este] - pero en ingles, aunque ella comprende bastante de Castellano por poder hablar Frances. Me entiendes? Podria agregar mas con respecto a mi vida cotidiana o con respecto a una visita reciente a mi tierra natal en Nueva Inglaterra [no tan "whitebread" como se cree], pero un entrometida como Ud. no merece tales detalles de mi vida.
I found your questions rather off-putting, rather arrogant, rather busybody, worthy of a blankety-blank SJW. To the devil with your categorizing.
I have a short fuse on this because of the very great tendency of those who consider themselves "liberals" or "progressives"- a tribe I used to belong to- to label anyone they disagree with as "racist" or "bigoted." Unnerstan?
Why Starbucks hasn't given me a reason to patronize them: Black Coffee In White Neighborhoods: 17 Reactions To Starbucks’ #RaceTogether Campaign. Granted, my being able to have a cup of coffee at home for pennies instead of for $4.00 or whatever it costs at Starbucks is a bigger reason for not patronizing the place.
Liza:
How many minorities have frequent, friendly contact with whites? Isn't that the issue - that people of *all* ethnic groups and faiths generally feel far more comfortable silo-ing themselves off into homogenous groups of people who look, act, talk, and worship like they do? People who share experiences and interests?
FWIW, for the first 50 years of my life I moved every 1-3 years and lived in arguably the most integrated and diverse society in America: the military. Yet even in the military, when large groups socialized, the men tended to group with other men, women with women, blacks with other blacks, Hispanics with other Hispanics. You can rail against this, but it's normal human behavior. Commands (or simply wives like me whose voluntary job it was to "mix things up" and make sure every single person felt welcome and included) planned activities to break up these natural groupings from time to time but you're never going to eliminate them entirely b/c people are both naturally lazy (it's nice not to have to constantly interpret/explain yourself - to be with people who "get" you) and "groupish" (we are tribal by design - these alliances have tremendous survival value). Ask anyone in DC who is upset about "gentrification" (blacks, angry because whites want to live in their neighborhoods, rendering them no longer all black).
Am I arguing for segregation? No, actually the opposite. We can't understand each other if - for instance - college students try to reverse the progress of the civil rights area and demand all black or all female or all [insert identity group here] enclaves where they never have to hear how anyone else sees the world.
Intolerance and ignorance, it would seem, are all around us. Equal opportunity sports, if you like.
Cassandra
Intolerance and ignorance, it would seem, are all around us. Equal opportunity sports, if you like.
Grim had a recent posting that is relevant to your point. Who Are the Bigots?
What tees me off about the SJW types or someone like Liza is that the implicit or explicit message they have is what I call the Chevy Chase approach: "You're racist/bigoted, and I'm not." Or, "I believe you are bigoted/intolerant. Prove to me that you are not. Of course, I am without bigotry and am very tolerant."
We all have both tolerance and intolerance within us. We all form in-groups and out-groups. The SJW types assume that THEY are completely "tolerant," and those who disagree with them are completely "intolerant." That is, the SJW types inadvertently show that we all form in-groups and out-groups.
We all have both tolerance and intolerance within us. We all form in-groups and out-groups. The SJW types assume that THEY are completely "tolerant," and those who disagree with them are completely "intolerant." That is, the SJW types inadvertently show that we all form in-groups and out-groups.
Bingo :)
And people are exquisitely to perceived slights directed at their in-group, and utterly blind to slights perceived by other groups. Other social segregation having NOTHING to do with race I've observed:
Officers, staff NCOs, junior enlisted all having their own social groups, to whom they gravitate. Singles with no kids, marrieds with small children, marrieds with older/grown children. Conservatives/liberals.
Mothers/career women.
When people try to reduce a world that's infinitely complex to a single dimension, it's like looking at the world through a martini straw - your vision is artificially compressed (tunnel vision). Dividing the world into identity groups who fear/hate each other is likewise idiotic. It makes nothing better.
For Liza, I have actually been the only white student at a school. I have also been physically assaulted by students of another race, had students of another race harass me and my brother and try to start fights, and have seen racial fights instigated, not by whites trying to preserve some all white enclave, but by black students bullying other kids who were terrified of them. Mind you, these acts were committed by supposedly frightened students afraid of the white majority. But they certainly weren't afraid to attack students who had done nothing to them, in broad daylight with teachers around. How does that happen, and what do we do about it? Excusing it doesn't seem likely to improve matters (much less foster better understanding between people of differing races and backgrounds).
Nowadays, there are regressive stunts like that one recently pulled at Berkeley, where students blocked a main thoroughfare and only let students of color through. Police are all around, and they do nothing to protect the rights of all students to freely walk across their own campus, to attend classes they are paying for.
Actions such as these are wrong, by any standard, and no matter who performs them. How arrogant is it to assume (on no evidence) what any group knows or has experienced?
I ask the question because the comments here generally have the same about the same point of view. There is a prominent sentiment that people voting for Trump are tired of being associated with racism and sexism.
Unfortunately, our party system really only presents 2 real options every election cycle. With only two, I am sure many people who voted for Trump aren't racists, they just despised Hillary as much as I despised Trump and had to make a choice. That makes sense. I understand that reasoning. It was a politically expedient choice for people who want to advance their own political ideology despite the bearer not being a very good human being. Yes, that is a judgement that I am making about Trump. I am aware of that and am comfortable saying it about him.
What I think Krugman and those like me who voted for Hillary "don't understand" about the country is the segment of the population that has been supporting him from the very beginning. Many of those excited supporters have said and proposed some very vile things. Of course, any party or group of supporters is going to have a segment of people who are fringe or a little "off" or more extreme than the rest of the group. So, I get that too.
What is different, in my mind, is how readily the larger population of conservative voters were willing to accept this type of behavior. There was very little backlash within the larger party about this. It is difficult to contemplate that so many people wound up finding ways to become comfortable enough to co-exist with his behavior and his more hateful supporters.
There is another element to "not understanding." To me, personally, and many like me, Trump seems so obviously "not what people think he is." I don't understand working class people voting for Trump because Trump probably never spent a day in his life doing anything for working class people. He is a billionaire who likes the extravagant life, runs in the circles of the wealthy, benefits from tax breaks and rules that working class people will never get or have, uses China and other places to manufacture his products, screws over working class people who have worked for him, etc. He is petty towards those who fall out of his favor and is like so many of the jerky kinds of power-hungry bosses that working class people have had to deal with forever.
It's not that someone like me can't "understand" fellow Americans. It that someone like me can't understand why people would choose Trump as their champion. He is not "one of the people." He and those like him are just like the Clintons, using his power to get what he wants because he can.
To me, he is not a change agent. He is the same old same old, just packaged more obnoxiously and unappealingly.
I don't understand that.
When it comes to race, I ask the question I asked because I live and work in a diverse community. My neighbors, my co-workers, my children's friends are 50% people of color/minorities/etc., however you want to label them. We are all working class. And these friends, coworkers, and neighbors are just doing what my family is doing: working, raising kids, and trying to manage costs and responsibilities. When i hear people complain about college campuses and Black Lives Matter and yet those things have literally no impact on their daily lives, other than inciting outrage and anger within them when they hear about it, it seems strange to me. I have family members who live in the whitest, wealthiest gated communities and yet they are fearful and have many guns and are constantly worried about black and hispanic criminals. Yet, nothing ever happens to them in their communities.
I don't understand that.
I live in a very diverse, working class neighborhood, and I am not fearful. Why are those who are so secure and protected the ones who are most worked up?
I don't understand that.
Well, you won't find a lot of original Trump supporters here. I was a Jim Webb supporters from the beginning. (You also won't find too many who disagree with your assertion that Trump is a bad person in an ordinary moral or ethical sense.)
What you will find here is a community of people who have held security clearances, or who have been deeply involved in the lives of those who have. Hillary Clinton's corruption of our systems of defense and law cannot be overstated as an issue in turning me against her. I voted for her in 2008, in the primary. I could never do so again after seeing her performance as Secretary of State.
I think that the Clinton supporters I know -- and I know a lot of them -- are generally unable to grasp the depth of outrage on this point because most of them have never been part of the spear. They see Clinton as a woman of accomplishment, and Trump as a clown at best and a Nazi at worst, and can't imagine how anyone could judge against Clinton given the choice.
The perspective of those who have taken and kept oaths at war is not usual among Americans today. Perhaps it's impossible to explain, across that divide, how outrageous her conduct was -- and how much more outrageous it was to see the very systems of law and discipline perverted to prevent her from facing accountability.
But for me, and I think for many others here, the thought of a President who had successfully corrupted all the systems of accountability was far more terrifying than a Trump. He will be held accountable for what he does -- by Democrats in Congress, by those Democratic-leaning officials who make up most of the Federal bureaucracy, by the Democratic-leaning media. Whatever mistakes he makes, we'll know about them. They won't be covered or hidden. And if there's anything anyone can do to punish or stop him, it will be done -- and the people who do it will be treated like heroes for it.
If that's right, then Trump is much less deadly to our system than Clinton would have been. And I do believe that it is right. I don't expect Trump to do right all the time, but I think the system can handle him when he does wrong.
We have seen, with our own eyes, that Clinton faced no such controls. We saw her violate her oaths, her sworn word in sworn statements, her legal agreements, and the trust she held with those deployed. We saw that the system that should have punished her instead bent itself to excusing her. That fact was far more dangerous than anything to our way of life.
Liza:
There is a prominent sentiment that people voting for Trump are tired of being associated with racism and sexism.
A more accurate description would be "There is a prominent sentiment that people voting for Trump are tired of SJWs/Progressives using the racist/bigot/sexist label to otherise/demonize those who disagree with them." While I didn't specifically say that in my initial comments, that was my underlying sentiment.
Why are those who are so secure and protected the ones who are most worked up? I don't understand that.
I don't live in a gated community. I'm not that wealthy. Protected? I will spare you the crime stories. Protected financially -not all that much, I assure you. Regarding "protected," I am reminded of getting a letter from Obama for America requesting funds. I was considering sending Obama for America a nasty letter in return, but didn't do so, remembering what happened to Joe the Plumber. As what happened to Joe the Plumber got repeated over the years, I was being not paranoid, but prudent. Not to mention what the IRS did to Tea Party groups.
Moreover, the whites with high school educations who voted for Trump aren't all that "protected," and are rather unlikely to live in gated communities. If you believe that by voting for Trump they are voting against their economic interests, I would ask you how much President Goldman Sachs has advanced their economic interests. Not much. And they concluded that Hillary would have been more of the same.
What I think Krugman and those like me who voted for Hillary "don't understand" about the country is the segment of the population that has been supporting him from the very beginning.
You may have observed that most of the commenters here did not consider Trump their first choice. Nor was Trump my first choice. For starters, I merely point out that many who supported Trump from the beginning do not support open borders- in contrast to Hillary. Those who work construction just might have their own selfish economic reasons for not supporting open borders. I would suggest that the Muslim terror attacks in the US in the past few years have not exactly increased support for open borders. There has been plenty written about "first supporters" of Trump. For starters, I suggest you consult Victor Davis Hanson, or JD Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy.
For further edification, I would add that only over my dead body would I vote for a Democrat for President. Nor am I the only person in that category. I was once a Democrat, then voted Third Party, and gradually drifted over to the Republicans. I have voted Third Party for President more than I have voted Republican for President. What prompted me to vote Republican for the first time, in 1988, was Democrat support for the Sandinistas. I have worked in Latin America and have read extensively on it. As the Sandinistas supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and jailed a Pole when he entered Nicaragua with a valid visa because he was suspected of belonging to Solidarity, I could not countenance prominent Democrats like John Kerry making nice with the Sandinistas. I resumed voting Third Party in 1992.
Over my dead body? Over the years I have noted that Democrats attract a LOT of smug, sneering condescending types. I don't like being sneered at. Sorry about that.
Back to work.
Liza
When i hear people complain about college campuses and Black Lives Matter and yet those things have literally no impact on their daily lives, other than inciting outrage and anger within them when they hear about it, it seems strange to me.
Yet you appear to get worked up about alleged racism/bigotry from strangers, most of whom live hundreds of miles from you, who have "literally no impact on your daily life." Just sayin.'
I will speak about college campuses, as that is a topic with which I have a better acquaintance. There is less tolerance for diversity of thought on college campuses today than there once was. Can we agree on that? Cassandra mentioned Heterodox Academy website, which addresses that issue. It provides documentation on reduced tolerance for diversity of thought, if you do not agree with me. By contrast, consider the college campus of yesteryear.
The following is anecdotal, but it illustrates the point. During the Vietnam War, there were 3 adjacent faculty offices which illustrated different viewpoints on their respective doors. One door had a political cartoon against the Vietnam War. The third door displayed an American flag. The door in the middle had a Demilitarized Zone sign. While the respective faculty members disagreed with each other, they "agreed to disagree," and maintained civil relations with each other. I doubt that would occur today. Today, leftist orthodoxy would be enforced.
When I was an undergrad, I was on the left, but read journals like National Review and Commentary in addition to such lefty stalwarts as Ramparts and The Nation, as I wanted to know what the enemy on the right was thinking. One day I was surprised to read a letter to the editor of National Review from the younger brother of a high school classmate. He wrote that as a conservative at Columbia, he was definitely in the minority, but other students were civil and respectful to him when he expressed his political views. Would that occur at Columbia today? I doubt that very much. He would be demonized, shouted down.
Because the university experience was important for me, and because with grad school it extended well into my middle age, what occurs on campus is important to me. But you inform me that my concern is "strange" to you. I would suggest that my concern about what occurs on college campuses is no more "strange" than your concern about Trump voters, the overwhelming majority of whom you will never meet.
Liza:
I can't speak for others, but this stuff DOES affect me.
My oldest son has been a cop for 15+ years. Until this year I never seriously feared for him. The crime victims he serves are mostly black, as are the people who hurt them. That's who he works to protect. How is he supposed to do that without arresting more than the allowed 13% of the population (even in 90% black districts)? BLM has fanned the flames of race hatred with a shockingly ignorant (to anyone who understands even basic math or statistics, or who stops to think for more than 20 seconds) narrative.
My other son and DIL live literally a few miles from Ferguson, where looting and violence and arson went on and on and on, hurting black residents and business owners. MY DIL's school has lost millions of dollars and had to close down dorms. Parents don't want to send their kids to college in riot zone, and frankly who can blame them?
I live near Baltimore, home to more rioting. We visited just after the riots and talked with black restaurant workers who complained that no one would eat there now. They were afraid of losing their jobs. I'm perfectly safe in my own neighborhood, and I am not generally "afraid of minorities". I have to reason to be. But in the past 8 years, we've watched Occupy destroy public property with impunity in several cities. We've watched BLM riots, arson, etc. described as "mostly peaceful" in several cities. 17 buildings destroyed in Ferguson alone. Then there's "workplace violence" on military installations.
And there have been quite a few very disturbing videos of students violating school rules and harrassing other students. One at my alma mater, where students chased other students into locked rooms, shouted abuse at them - all with complete impunity!
These are all signs of a breakdown in law and order and the respect ALL people owe each other. Should I not care because it's not in my neighborhood yet?
I wholeheartedly agree with Grim's last comment as well. Every single word.
(he just fainted from shock :) - we like to spar)
Liza,
I was going to prepare a long story about all the minorities I have worked and lived with, but realized I was falling into the same old justification trap- so here is my question-
Why are the first words from you, implying some sort of racism on my part? Is the leftist propaganda now so pervasive that no policy decision whatsoever can be engaged in without invoking the racist-sexist dogma?
Have a concern over whether a woman can handle a full combat load and drag two boxes of desperately needed machinegun ammo up a hill-hey, I must be a sexist!
Have a concern about a flood of illegals,coming unhindered across our borders, entirely un-vetted, many OTM, while we are in a war?- Hey, I must be a racist!
Wonder if any of the previously unknown or eradicated diseases cropping up in the US might have something to do with a flood of refugees? Racist racist racist!
It is to the point where all the left has is racesexracesexracesex
Quite frankly, it is disgusting, stupid, and dangerous- the unremitting emphasis on identity politics has made racial relations much worse in many areas, and is essentially eliminating any meaningful discussion of actual policy issues.
The comment about the gated community members being "fearful." They have the money, they have the desire, and who are you to mock their gate? Some just don't want to have their gas tanks siphoned off, and like the gate. Some don't want cars filled with unknown males driving up to the house while they are at work and their wife is at home. (sexist comment, sorry.) And some want to reduce the chance of some serious violence, because yes, it DOES happen once in a while.
My suspicion is, you have been lucky in regard to criminals, and I hope you stay that way-encountering them is unpleasant.
PS-It might be revealing to do a police map examination of your neighborhood. It may be less peaceful than you suppose. Or not, but an education either way.
What is different, in my mind, is how readily the larger population of conservative voters were willing to accept this type of behavior. There was very little backlash within the larger party about this. It is difficult to contemplate that so many people wound up finding ways to become comfortable enough to co-exist with his behavior and his more hateful supporters.
Liza, are you seriously unaware of the whole #nevertrump controversy? Mitt Romney, George Will, and so many others coming flat out against Trump? There has been an ongoing, very vitriolic and passionate controversy in conservative circles over Trump since the beginning.
I can only attribute this to either the media not covering it much, or the silo-ing/information bubbles that both parties are prone to - (meaning, we mostly seek out those who agree with us and cover what we're interested in, and avoid anything that contradicts the groupthink/narrative).
There's been plenty of opposition to Trump. That opposition may not fit a liberal template (objecting to him for the same reasons, or using the exact same catchphrases: racist, sexist, xenophobic, Islamophobic), but I can assure you it was and is quite real. My parents are lifelong Republicans, and my mother spent the day after the election in tears.
I don't share many of her fears (I do share some), but perhaps your assumptions about conservatives aren't accurate?
Perhaps I can address this:
There is another element to "not understanding." To me, personally, and many like me, Trump seems so obviously "not what people think he is." I don't understand working class people voting for Trump because Trump probably never spent a day in his life doing anything for working class people. He is a billionaire who likes the extravagant life, runs in the circles of the wealthy, benefits from tax breaks and rules that working class people will never get or have, uses China and other places to manufacture his products, screws over working class people who have worked for him, etc. He is petty towards those who fall out of his favor and is like so many of the jerky kinds of power-hungry bosses that working class people have had to deal with forever.
Seeing life through the lens of class resentments is more typically a liberal way of thinking. Many working class conservatives are working very hard to become prosperous. They don't tend to see the economy as "rigged" (though some do). They view success as the American Dream, not as "stealing from the working classes". So there's that.
It's not that someone like me can't "understand" fellow Americans. It that someone like me can't understand why people would choose Trump as their champion. He is not "one of the people." He and those like him are just like the Clintons, using his power to get what he wants because he can.
Again, conservatives aren't necessarily looking for a class avatar. I think many working class whites believe the GOP establishment (largely New England born, Ivy League educated, toffee nosed WASPs) have forgotten them. I don't share this, but I've read it often enough to think it's at least part of the explanation.
If that's the perception, then Trump is a white hot surface-to-air missile aimed at everything they represent ("class", in the sense of using the right fork and not swearing in public, not being ashamed of traditional masculinity/competition, etc.). I don't think there's an accurate, monolithic view of right leaning voters, any more than there is of left leaning ones.
I don't understand how my friends can overlook Hillary's corruption and contempt for the law. I don't understand how Hillary gets away with acting all shocked at Trump's uncouthness while surrounding herself with equally uncouth artists like JayZ who say awful things about women. But they're willing to do that because they think Trump is worse.
Liza
It's not that someone like me can't "understand" fellow Americans. It that someone like me can't understand why people would choose Trump as their champion. He is not "one of the people." He and those like him are just like the Clintons, using his power to get what he wants because he can.
By your description, neither Trump nor Clinton are feasible candidates as "champions of the people." Do you believe they should have voted Third Party, such as Libertarian, Green [Green Presidential candidate Jill Stein in effect endorsed Trump], or McMullin?
But you voted for Hillary. So is your position that "As an alleged 'champion of the people,' Trump is a sham. He is just as much of a sham as the Clintons, so people should vote for Hillary?"
I ask the question because the comments here generally have the same about the same point of view.
Substitute Clinton for Trump. You've described the situation--absent blatant corruption and an utter disdain for security--from a perspective you pretend not to understand. Yet you're a rational, adult human being, same as the rest of us.
Eric Hines
I was going to prepare a long story about all the minorities I have worked and lived with, but realized I was falling into the same old justification trap- so here is my question-
Amazing how that trap works, doesn't it Raven.
To me, when an ant demands I justify why I am not an anti ant racist... you know what my response is? I step on it and crush it.
Communication is a human conceit for equals or superiors. It is not something to be used for tools, zombies, or tools of Lucifer.
The Alt Right produces the same social consensus via propaganda and memes. Meaning they can make people act ruthless against perceived other humans due to social pressure and stigma. Me, I do it by my own Will and Decision, I do not need a crowd or an island for approval or authorization. VoxDay's alt right's usual response to me, when they lose their computer code geek feelings of safety, is to accuse me of being a bad human that nobody wants. Usually that kind of attack against self esteem works against their greatest enemy, the Leftist alliance or SJWs. It is quite amusing to think they believe it will work against me, but then again, that's a good thing as it shows people's ignorance. So long as they are ignorant, they cannot use the right weapons against the right targets.
I voted for her in 2008, in the primary. I could never do so again after seeing her performance as Secretary of State.
Now to me that's insane, given what I knew of the Demoncrats even in 2007, and Clinton's attempt to use the body armor issue to get more Americans killed.
But to you, that was sane back then, ironic but a good comparison of the differences so many years ago. Have people changed? They say they haven't, and I say they have. In some ways they have changed, but in other ways, not. Just as it seems to Grim that I am losing it by talking about Lucifer, I consider Grim voting for Demoncrats in 2008, also on the same plane.
Liza, your question interested me. I realized that the comments I was thinking of came exclusively from people online. I have no way of knowing their race or ethnicity. They also have no way of knowing mine, though it's always interested me that people online tend to assume I'm a male, even a misogynist male, whereas in fact I'm more violently feminist than almost any progressives I know. As far as the minorities with whom I'm in constant contact in real life, in this small rural Texas county that mostly means Vietnamese and Hispanic, with the occasional black, and none of them has ever tried to insult my political views, nor--as far as I know--ever had reason to suspect me of ethnic or gender hostility. I'm pretty sure my gay friends don't suspect me of homophobia. Only people who know nothing about me jump to the conclusion that racist homophobic misogyny is the true key to my Trump vote. If you think gay rights and women's rights and BLM are the only issues that matter, it's probably hard to imagine someone whose vote follows economic and small-government lines instead. Most people don't have that much imagination, and little education or even curiosity about what motivates their political opponents.
"What is different, in my mind, is how readily the larger population of conservative voters were willing to accept this type of behavior. There was very little backlash within the larger party about this." This is always the big problem, isn't it? It's how many of us here feel about Clinton supporters who appear blind to her crimes no matter what she does. It's a matter of priorities. I don't have to like Mr. Trump personally. He's not my boyfriend; the government is not my boyfriend. I'm not generally a fan of men who collect trophy wives. He's a bloody Keynesian, a crony capitalist, and a big-stater who's certain to disappoint me in office. All he has going for him is that I could not possibly have stomached pulling the lever for Clinton, and he was the only realistic alternative. I'll probably like 10-25% of what he does, which will put him 10-25% ahead of Clinton. If the weak-kneed GOP ninnies in Congress actually carry through with their promise to repeal the ACA again, I suspect Trump won't veto the measure. That alone is worth my vote. I also believe his S. Ct. nominees will make much less sick than the ones Clinton would have dreamed up once the checks cleared.
Sanity is rationality, generally speaking. In 2008, I was in Iraq. The Republican primary was between John McCain and Mike Huckabee (who was never actually going to come close to winning the nomination). The Democratic primary was a tightly-fought race between Hillary Clinton and a half-term Senator with no military or other relevant experience, who would be taking over to lead two hot wars -- including the one in which I was personally engaged.
I voted in the primary that seemed to give me a chance to limit the harm. Ultimately, of course, Clinton lost, and the the Republicans lost, and that largely unqualified young man became President. You can see what became of Iraq as a consequence. And Syria. The whole Middle East, really.
There was a reason, in other words: it was a rational decision on its terms, even if ultimately it didn't change the outcomes. I still think Clinton would have done a better job in Iraq than Obama, though her subsequent tenure as Secretary of State suggests she wasn't going to perform as well as I'd have hoped she would.
Indeed, given the facts on the ground today, I would have to say that she could hardly have done worse.
Indeed, given the facts on the ground today, I would have to say that she could hardly have done worse
A lot of the facts seem to indicate her direct involvement. The Libyan fiasco, the subsequent Syrian fiasco, etc. Why the US ever decided to oust Qaddafi, after he agreed to suspend his WMD programs, I cannot figure out- outside of providing a tremendous arms cache for the Islamists, and a conduit to Europe for all the refugees, it sent an unmistakable signal we were not to be trusted and the only way to keep the US from interfering is to KEEP or GET WMD's.
The level of stupid was staggering. The only explanation is that it was a deliberate goal to destabilize.
Liza
I ask the question because the comments here generally have the same about the same point of view. There is a prominent sentiment that people voting for Trump are tired of being associated with racism and sexism.
I would also add that people voting for Trump are tired of the attacks on Trump supporters. Perhaps the most recent example: Black Men ATTACK AND BEAT White Man for Supporting Trump!!!!! [I copied the title]
This is far from the first example I have seen of Trump supporters being attacked, though it is the first one I believe I have seen of blacks being the attackers. From what I can tell, nearly all of the attacks related to politics this year have been on Trump supporters.
The narrative of many Democrats was that Trump was bringing Fascism to the US, but the examples of gangs attacking those of opposing political views- a prime element of the ascension to power of both Hitler and Mussolini- was nearly all of gangs attacking Trump supporters. Which reminds me of that famous Tom Wolfe quote: "that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." Democrats talk of Fascism, but act like Fascists. No, not all Democrats. Hillary's slogan was "Stronger together," which brings to mind fasces, a bundle of sticks tied together.
You can see what became of Iraq as a consequence. And Syria. The whole Middle East, really.
The Left was never, ever going to allow Iraq and Afghanistan to be "liberated", no matter who was President post 2008. You saw that with the IRS in action too vis a vis the Tea Party. They will scorch earth anyone who tries to follow or counter the Left, including foreign Iraqis fighting their Islamic Jihad allies. I had that belief back in 2007, back when Petraeus and others believed Iraq was a victory and would continue to be. I knew otherwise, however. I just didn't write or say much of anything about it.
State Department sabotaged OIF once, they can do it again.
Unfortunately, not even I know all the details about why I believed the Left was so powerful and dangerous back then. Thus I could not explain it. But even if I could, I doubt anyone else would have understood or agreed.
However, Clinton's record on sabotaging Iraq and being a disciple of Alinsky, that was easily known. I did not underestimate the power of the Leftist alliance back then, even though I failed to get enough evidence to prove my case. Well now we don't have to worry about that. Iraq and ISIL proves my case, for what good it does.
Perhaps it is too much to hope for that people stop underestimating the power of the Leftist alliance and treat people like Alinsky with a bit more caution and respect. But knowing what I know of humans, that is a foolish hope. Hope and Change. Assuming Trum even gets to DC alive...
Why the US ever decided to oust Qaddafi, after he agreed to suspend his WMD programs, I cannot figure out-
Qaddafi worked with Bush2 to destroy AQ. That's not something the Left ever forgives, you attacking their allies. Do you think the Left forgave the Vietnamese for aiding Americans against the Left's Soviet allies? No, they did not, hence Fall of Saigon.
Qaddafi was also said to be going into a gold standard and making his own African bank. That would counter globalism and the federal reserve, so Clinton bribes might be part of it too. Pay to Play, yeah, making money passively is great for the Clintons. Only a few people have to die, right, good turn around all in all.
And of course Benghazi was an intentional thing State did to send weapons to ISIL and Syrian terrorists. Of course it was. Many Leftist operations are intentional, not "mistakes born of incompetence". This goes all the way back to whether Hussein was amoral or sociopathic or just too stupid to lead.
I don't think stupidity is his problem. Evil is Hussein's problem.
I had a really nice, long comment ready then Blogger ate it, then I had to step away, so several points I was going to make have been made. Anyway, I'll add this:
"It's not that someone like me can't "understand" fellow Americans. It that someone like me can't understand why people would choose Trump as their champion. He is not "one of the people." He and those like him are just like the Clintons, using his power to get what he wants because he can."
I think it's partly because on the right, politics is politics, not the center of our lives, so we don't need politicians to be our exemplars- we're grateful when that's possible, but politicians are, well, politicians- I don't expect too much from them as a class. It's also partly that many have felt that the GOP has been largely impotent, and needed a fighter who was effective. Think Clint Eastwood's character in "High Plains Drifter". He's coarse, different, and a 'bad' guy, but he's effective, and the only hope they have, because so far no one has delivered for them, and they're up against a vicious enemy.
You mentioned fearfulness and working class neighborhoods vs. gated communities, and living as I do in a very progressive, blue community on a hill surrounded by Barrios (though largely now gentrifying into hipster havens) just outside downtown Los Angeles, I have to say that the fairly well off progressives here tend to be the most fearful of going 'down there' and of people coming up here- although to be honest there's some reason for that if you check the police reports. I personally find the working class folks (though that's sometimes hard to define around here) to be the more sane and normal folks who are more tolerant, and frankly, more fun to be around. Being prepared to defend yourself isn't the same as being fearful. It's like saying if you buy fire insurance for your house you're fearful of a house fire even though the statistics say you're highly unlikely to need the insurance.
Anyway, I hope it doesn't seem like we're piling on, but we're a lively bunch here. Certainly we welcome the varied point of view, and the discussion. Welcome to the Hall!
Liza
What I think Krugman and those like me who voted for Hillary "don't understand" about the country is the segment of the population that has been supporting him from the very beginning. Many of those excited supporters have said and proposed some very vile things.
Speaking of "saying and proposing some very vile things," consider the 36 Times Obama Said You Could Keep Your Health Plan. In my book, it is very vile for the POTUS to lie, and lie repeatedly, about proposed legislation.
Of course, any party or group of supporters is going to have a segment of people who are fringe or a little "off" or more extreme than the rest of the group. So, I get that too.What is different, in my mind, is how readily the larger population of conservative voters were willing to accept this type of behavior. There was very little backlash within the larger party about that.
I noticed that "the larger population of Democrat voters were willing to accept this type of behavior,", i.e., the behavior being the POTUS's repeatedly lying about Obamacare, when some time after Obamacare was passed it became evident that no, one could NOT keep one's health plan. "There was very little backlash within the larger party about that." No, there wasn't.
Please note that this vile behavior,the repeated lying about Obamacare, did not come from an outlier,from some fringe group, but from the very top: the POTUS himself. And once it became public knowledge that the POTUS had repeatedly lied about Obamacare, there was nary a peep from the Democrat side of the aisle. Just business as usual. No backlash at all. All in a good cause, apparently.
Um. There is no possible way that I can respond to the lengthy flurry of comments at this moment. I have read them and will try to respond to things over the next day, but I haven't ignored them.
I'll hit a few quick ones right now.
I think it's partly because on the right, politics is politics, not the center of our lives, so we don't need politicians to be our exemplars- we're grateful when that's possible, but politicians are, well, politicians- I don't expect too much from them as a class
I am still, technically, a registered republican. I was an evangelical for many, many years. I can tell you that in my experience in the south at that time, and as an evangelical, this was/is(?) simply not true. If politics was just politics to everyone on the right, the world would look very different. Many evangelicals have tried desperately to paint Trump as an exemplar, finding all kinds of ways to excuse his behavior. Granted, evangelicals are only one part of "the right," but they still bring a lot of votes.
Gringo,
I am not sure how to respond to you. You seem to believe that Obama purposely and willfully lied rather than thinking that he was simply wrong. Obamacare sucks not because of the government but because private insurance companies are private and owe nothing to anybody and exist only to make a profit, just like every hospital, clinic, doctor, testing facility etc. It's one of the reasons our medical system is so completely screwed up and expensive. Our country, at this moment, does not view health care as a public good. It is viewed as a business. Obamacare tried to walk the line between business and government health care. It is the worst of both worlds in many ways. And yet, for some people who had no way to get insurance it has been incredibly helpful.
So, I don't see it as vile behavior because I don't believe that Obama knew that private medical insurance companies would do what they have done. You could say he was naive. You could say that he didn't understand the complexities of the health system. You could say that he should have known better. Even if all those things are/were true it is not the way that you are currently portraying it.
What would even be the motivation for Obama to purposely lie like that? What would be the up side to it?
Of all the things that you could try and point to as "vile" behavior why do you choose that?
Texan99
It's interesting that all of the comments that have made you upset are from people you don't know in real life. I would say that's a good thing.
Once again ACA/Obamacare has come up. You mention how much you want it repealed.
I don't understand the hatred for it because I know so many people who have struggled because of medical issues and the inability to get coverage or afford care and prescriptions for year before Obamacare, up through its implementation and now. It is an issue that affects almost everyone in this country unless people are independently wealthy.
Liza
What would even be the motivation for Obama to purposely lie like that? What would be the up side to it?
Very simple: get support for Obamacare. It worked.
ObamaCare architect: 'Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass.
An architect of the federal healthcare law said last year that a "lack of transparency" and the "stupidity of the American voter" helped Congress approve ObamaCare.
In a clip unearthed Sunday, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber appears on a panel and discusses how the reform earned enough votes to pass.He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."
Gruber made the comment while discussing how the law was "written in a tortured way" to avoid a bad score from the Congressional Budget Office. He suggested that voters would have rejected ObamaCare if the penalties for going without health insurance were interpreted as taxes, either by budget analysts or the public.
"If CBO scored the [individual] mandate as taxes, the bill dies," Gruber said.
"If you had a law that made it explicit that healthy people are going to pay in and sick people are going to get subsidies, it would not have passed," he added.
What is lack of transparency? Hiding things so they won't be discovered. In effect, lying. Recall Obama saying he was going to be the transparent President. Or do you recall that?
I had good insurance in the individual market, maintained at considerable cost and trouble. The ACA made it illegal for my insurance company to continue to offer it to me. The Obamacare policy with which I had to replace it cost three times as much, and degenerated after only one year to an HMO. Competition has almost completed disappeared, so I have only worsening choices and prices to look forward to.
The President didn't lie about what insurance companies would do. He lied about how his own bill worked, and how his own agency would write rules to implement it, specifically how the grandfathering rules would be written and enforced deliberately to disqualify existing coverage. The email traffic from that period shows that he knew better and was not speaking merely out of ignorance, as appalling as mere ignorance would have been. I find it remarkable how many people expect me to support the ACA on the theory that it has provided coverage to people who lacked coverage, but who can't or won't face the problem of millions of people in the individual market, like me, who had it and were deprived of it. I seriously doubt the law could have passed even that idiot Congress if it had been honestly described as "taking insurance from these people so we can give it to these other people." It took lies to pass it, and they duly relied on lies. It's not something I'll forget, or chalk up to politics as usual, or interpret as a well-meaning mistake.
I agree it's a good sign that people in my real life don't make the ignorant mistake of attributing racism, sexism, or homophobia to me. It doesn't change the prevalence of that thoughtless, lazy attitude in many of Trump's opponents I encounter online. I just went and looked at another dozen examples in my Facebook feed: "Trump election proves it was a myth we had entered a post-racial America" and so on. Tired old garbage. Having hated racism all my life, I never thought I'd reach the point where one more whining remark on the subject would lead me only to roll my eyes. I don't have the patience any more to sort out when complaints actually have something to do with racism and when someone has just learned that he can shut down any discussion by invoking that magic word.
I think people upset by Trump's win are trying to make themselves feel better by explaining the phenomenon away by a magically incantatory charge of racism--like a Puritan attributing every evil in life to the Devil's influence over his neighbors. They'd do better to open their eyes to how they lost so much support in what ought to have been a cakewalk of an election. Clinton lost to Donald friggin' Trump, for Pete's sake. It takes an unbelievably contemptible Dem candidate to pull that off. His supporters know exactly what's the matter with him, and it wasn't enough to motivate them to swallow her, or to ignore the ravages their government (and the smug chattering class) have wrought in their lives in recent years.
Liza
So, I don't see it as vile behavior because I don't believe that Obama knew that private medical insurance companies would do what they have done
To claim that Obama and his administration didn't know how private medical insurance companies would respond to the bill is naive. Congress does extensive research on consequences of bills. Gruber got paid $400,000 to model the consequences, for starters. The insurance companies were merely responding to how the bill was written. As such, not being able to keep your health insurance is a consequence of the bill, making it deceitful to blame losing insurance on the private insurance companies.
For argument's sake, let's assume that Obama really did believe that you could keep your health insurance. As this was decidedly not the result of Obamacare, this would indicate that Obama had no idea about what was contained in the bill he was so intensely pushing. We are back to an old argument in conservative circles about Obama- knave or fool. Knave if he realized that you could not keep your insurance; fool if he believed you could keep your insurance.
Either way, the POTUS does not come across very well.
Texan99
I think people upset by Trump's win are trying to make themselves feel better by explaining the phenomenon away by a magically incantatory charge of racism--like a Puritan attributing every evil in life to the Devil's influence over his neighbors.
My hometown's vote for Barack Obama was in the 60s in 2012. Hillary Clinton's vote in my hometown was in the 40s, fourteen percent lower than what Obama got in 2012. It is difficult to see racism in that vote. If you believe there was sexism in that vote, I would inform you that my hometown has voted for female candidates for governor, multiple times.
It is an issue that affects almost everyone in this country unless people are independently wealthy.
This is plainly untrue. My wife and I had no health insurance--by choice--in the pre-Obamacare days. We paid cash for her biopsy and her subsequent bilateral mastectomy to take care of her breast cancer. At the time, too, we were on the boundary of the Federal Poverty Guideline.
What would be Obama's motivation for lying about Obamacare? Others have mentioned some motivations. Here's another: his legacy. The legacy that he said he'd take it as a personal insult if a favored (by him and his identity politics) group of Americans didn't come out and vote for it. The legacy that he put, in so many words, on the ballot in one of his last speeches of the campaign. Obamacare is at the center of his legacy.
Even calling Obamacare health insurance is, at best, a mischaracterization. Insurance is a transfer of risk in return for a risk-based fee. Obamacare has utterly destroyed that; it's mandated coverage for a mandated fee.
Of all the things that you could try and point to as "vile" behavior why do you choose that?
Here are some others, then. It is mainstream Left, not fringe groups, that so blatantly and insistently play identity politics and has done so the last several years, not just in the recent campaign. The Left insists that conservative women are sluts who should be subject to gang rape--preferably by well-endowed black men--or their mouths held open and crapped in. There was no blowback against that on the Left. It is the mainstream Left who demand that blacks vote Left--Conservative blacks are traitors to their race (!) or Uncle Toms or Oreos. There's no blowback against that from the Left.
It's the mainstream Left that insists that Tea Partiers are racist and are tea baggers, not fringe groups.
It was the Democrat Hillary Clinton who called millions of Americans irredeemable and deplorable--for the heinous crime of supporting Trump and not her. There was no blowback against that from the Left. Clinton didn't even apologize for that; although the Left does dishonestly masquerade her subsequent remarks as one.
It's the mainstream Left who insist there's nothing wrong with Clinton's cavalier attitude (if not outright criminal behavior) regarding security with her unprotected private server on which she conducted State Department official business. It's Clinton and the mainstream Left who deny that she handled classified information through that unprotected server.
It's Clinton who lied about the source of the attacks on our Benghazi consulate and the associated murders of four Americans--and the mainstream Left who back her up on those lies.
Eric Hines
Hi, Cass! Good to see you!
Hi, Liza, welcome to the Hall! It's a bit rough and tumble here, but we're all ladies and gentlemen, at least, mostly, in a rather neo-medieval sense. Well, except Ymar. We're still not entirely sure about him, and he probably likes it that way. Anyway, you'll get used to it.
You asked: How many of the commenters here have frequent, friendly contact with minorities?
Are you describing interactions with other white people?
It's an interesting assumption that we are all white and that all white people are interchangeable and faceless units of a community instead of unique individuals with unique experiences, values, and aspirations. With minorities, too, you seem to assume it is more valuable to know a generic black person than my friend Saud.
I guess your experience of both whites and non-whites is very different from mine.
But let me ask you in return, do you have frequent, friendly contact with people who are two generations older or younger than you?
How about people with whom you have deep political disagreements? Or deep religious disagreements?
What about military personnel? Police? Firefighters? EMTs? Anyone whose job is to risk their lives for the community or country?
Or people in very different employment situations? (E.g., if you are an employee, with people who are self-employed or who own small businesses.)
I ask because those are some of the commitments to real diversity. White, black, Asian, whatever. That's just a skin deep commitment.
You know, it's funny- in a recent kerfuffle at my daughters elementary school regarding some racially inappropriate things said between kids (not racist slanders, more along the lines of just not yet knowing how to handle racial talk and hearing so much on their parents TVs or radios (or perhaps from their parents as they spoke of the threat of President Trump). There was a parent meeting about this, and funnily, most of the parents of non-white or mixed heritage were pretty calm about it, but it was the white parents that were really in an uproar. They thought this was their big chance to fight racism (as if our little elementary school had started a blossoming youth chapter of the KKK or something). White guilt, I suppose. It was also rather amusing to hear people publically say things like 'well, at least we're all progressives here', just assuming that everyone here was like them ideologically. The last thing they want is diversity- at least beyond skin color.
Of course, I think it was here someone mentioned (Grim maybe?) that 'White' was a recent term, and one borne of a desire to see unity with the newly immigrated Italians and Irish, who at the time were not seen as like other Americans- white as they all were to modern eyes. It's an outdated idea, this whole concept of race- something that has flowed with migration and cultural patterns over the millennia since before recorded history.
Of course, I think it was here someone mentioned (Grim maybe?) that 'White' was a recent term, and one borne of a desire to see unity with the newly immigrated Italians and Irish...
That's close to what I said, yes. Our current sense of the term "white" developed out of the last mass immigration crisis, which gave rise to intense social suppression of Italians and Irish and Germans, etc. The assimilation of everyone into the category called "white" was the result.
The category itself is somewhat older than their assimilation into it; I think that the evidence shows that these white/black racial categories arose as an excuse for reintroducing slavery to a Christian Europe that had banned the practice during the High Middle Ages. Wolfram von Eschenbach doesn't recognize them, and neither does Malory, although both are aware of (and feature prominently and quite honorably) black characters in their stories. It looks as if there were a number of black citizens in European nations during the High Middle Ages who were treated as certainly quite exotic but not inferior -- much as I was when I lived in China.
White guilt, I suppose.
Nothing so honest. Just virtue signaling for their own egos.
Or maybe not; you know those folks better than I. But I've had a bellyful of such PC pollution.
I'd be curious what the non-whites/mixed heritage ones thought of these outbursts.
Eric Hines
Oh, certainly some of those who were really pushing on the principal to address the "crisis" were all about the virtue signalling, well, that and apparently some were real drama queens- though one was a part black, but you'd have no idea until she told you. The mixed/minority folks, and to be fair many of the whites too, were much more reasonable, concerned that we shouldn't make more of it than it was (just kids either being dumb, or unaware) so as not to create an unwarranted concern among the kids, and to not create a potent weapon for bullies if this was overplayed, as was I, and also, just more understanding, I think, that this was nothing in the scheme of things. Probably because we knew what real racism was, either personally or through our parents.
As is usual with these things, there was a very emotional, very loud core driving an issue that most people, even here, disagreed with at least partly, but the sane, quiet folks never get heard. I learned that when we got wind of someone going all crazy on some issue, it was important to let the principal know we were on her side (because they always think the school isn't doing enough), and to give her the ability to tell someone 'hey, I've got other parents that don't want what you do', so as to help balance out the nuts.
Liza to Gringo re Obamacare lies
Of all the things that you could try and point to as "vile" behavior why do you choose that?
I just happened to see the Instapundit video with the multiple times Obama informed us rubes that if we liked our health care plans we could keep them. No, that was not the first time I was aware Obama had said that.
Regarding who benefits from Obamacare, I suggest you peruse this. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders If this is the case, the blame is not on the insurance companies, but on those who wrote Obamacare, made public statements in favor of Obamacare, and voted for Obamacare. in it.
I don't blame you for not making any further responses, as there is so much to respond to.
Have we run her off? That would be too bad.
Eric Hines
People should see what VoxDay's commenters write to me when they want to run me off. This stuff is pretty mild in comparison to the highest levels of internet meme factory propaganda in group outing.
Very effective against problem children on the Left though that need their safe spaces. A minor slight annoyance to me, as I'm mostly concerned with data mining, not persuading people.
Post a Comment