The idea behind white identity politics is that there is a subset of white voters and/or white Americans in general who feel a sense of attachment to their group. They feel a sense of solidarity. They think that their race and their racial identity is important to who they are, and that influences how they see and view the political world. Tied up in that sense of identity is the belief that whites are losing out in the United States and that their status and their power are somehow under threat. Subsequently, these white voters are responding to that politically by supporting policies and candidates that they view as protecting their group and preserving its status.I do support Trump's policies from a belief that they protect my interests, and I will grant that I perceive my interests as under threat. The source of the threat, nevertheless, doesn't take the form of dark skin, though it's true that a candidate who has nothing to point to but his skin (approvingly, and mine, disapprovingly) will arouse my suspicion. The argument has devolved to "Of course you only think that way because you're blinded by race, so listen to me while I obsess on race." Supposedly I'm motivated by fanatical loyalty to Social Security and Medicare (which I don't even like), primarily because they are the kinds of things white people like.
Chauncey's whole argument is that, Trump being indisputably contemptible, there's only one explanation remaining for my support: I'm evil, too. And how are people evil today? Only in one way: racism. Q.E.D. Even my otherwise inexplicable sense of oppression by "non-believers" can be explained by racism, because if you scratch the surface, white evangelicals are simply terrified racists who hate brown people.
And then it seems I overlook Trump's "gross disregard for the Constitution." Where do people even get this stuff? Chauncey might as well be beaming Martian at me.
What to do? Chauncey advocates court-packing, "discarding any notions of civility and compromise," using social media to correct a pro-right advantage (you need special spectacles to detect that), and using
simple, clear direct messaging which speaks to both emotions and the facts: The Republicans are trying to kill you. The Republicans are making you sick. Republicans don't care about your family. Republicans don't want you to vote. Republicans are stealing your money and giving it to rich people. Donald Trump thinks you are stupid.Would that primitive bludgeon of a message square any less with reality if you substituted "Democrats" for "Republicans"? Is there anything left in politics of this stripe but projection?
The Republicans are trying to kill you.
ReplyDeleteNot really.
Republicans, or at least conservative patriots, were so triggered by me bringing up the "war" of "Civil War 2", that they did almost everything to ignore it or argue against it.
Not knowing that this was in itself a behavior that fueled the war activism of the Leftist alliance in pushing and escalating things.
You can't win or prevent a war by trying to convince everyone that all the victims are too scared of a war to fight one. That's how terrorism works, to win by convincing people it is too costly.
If R or E were trying to kill Leftists, I would know about it. Far earlier than the main sewer media, and far earlier than the public that would hear what the sewer deigns to tell them is a threat (Alt Right vs Flat Earth Theory vs Trangender)
Donald Trump thinks you are stupid.
ReplyDeleteEveryone online pretty much thinks I am stupid whenever they run out of IQ and EQ points to counter my arguments.
I don't always agree with you, Y, but I have never for a moment thought you were stupid.
ReplyDeleteIs there anything left in politics of this stripe but projection?
ReplyDeleteThere is the Progressive movement's long-standing contempt for ordinary Americans that's obvious in DeVega's piece.
Or, he's satirizing the Left. Nah....
Eric Hines
"I overlook Trump's 'gross disregard for the Constitution.' ..."
ReplyDeleteIt gets difficult when the Court system says an immigration restriction IS constitutional if imposed by nation but not by religion; or a Census question IS constitutional if drafted for a moral purpose but not an immoral purpose, or a prioritization decision on law enforcement IS constitutional if unilaterally declared by one President; but may NOT be reversed by a subsequent president without Congressional agreement.
The Constitution requires mind-reading now?
I don't always agree with you, Y, but I have never for a moment thought you were stupid.
ReplyDeleteNone of us think that as far as I know. You're welcome here, even if you sometimes encounter disagreement or push-back.
The Constitution requires mind-reading now?
ReplyDeleteIntent-ascription, I think, more than mind-reading.
My favorite one lately has been 'Donald Trump must not be allowed to undermine the rule of law!' as, for example, on whether or not his taxes or advisers can be subpoenaed by Congress; but 'the rule of law' when it comes to Federal immigration laws? Feh, that's only for racists!
How about customary international law on what constitutes a facially valid asylum claim? Feh!
You don't, Tex, I never picked up that particular thought or vibration from you.
ReplyDeleteThe internet is full of "humans" however.
As for Grim, this comment section here https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2019/06/two-from-al-daily.html
ReplyDeletepaints a different story than what you "know".
Many people here, Grim, do not actually write what they feel or think, due to your rules or merely for respect of you or others. However, that does not prevent me from picking up on what they are really feeling and thinking, any more than it prevented me from picking up your reactions to certain topics that triggers you into "pushing back".
You hold them to a higher standard and thus give them the benefit of the doubt. I do not need to give them the benefit of the doubt, because what they are really thinking and feeling towards me is plain obvious to me, as an open book. I read it as easily as I read this text now.
You once found this concept unbelievable, if I recall. Of course, I myself found it unbelievable, which is why I rationalized it as textual reading, which is actually not I have found out.
It is not an IQ issue either or a psychological one. The best psychologists on Earth and the best Prometheus Society and Mensa society members, do not automatically have these talents and gifts from the godhead. Although some might consider it a destined curse instead. Hearing and seeing all the internal negative thoughts, angry attitudes of your upbringing and tradition and trigger reactions, is neither pleasant nor exactly desired on my part. I have found it useful to "mirror" all of it back, a thousand fold. Punch back 1000 times harder. Although that was ironically not as effective as it could be, since most people did not internalize or just rationalized their actual heart and emotions, to the point where they saw what I reflected back on them as an Attack originating from a Foreign Other. The fact that it worked at all as a stalking horse is a miracle in and of itself, online. It works even better in person.
I have a profound lack of psychic ability, for which I am regularly grateful, but I had the sense that he was teasing you. Now teasing can be mean, but it can also be done with good will, and you have to admit that some of your claims are going to be hard for ordinary people to swallow. I try to take them as seriously as I can, because I can tell that you do.
ReplyDeleteAs for myself, the main thing I remember us clashing over was your propensity for calling our domestic political conflict a "war." It wasn't that, and I believe -- perhaps because I'm not cued in to the warp of Fate, which is another kindness devoutly to be sought according to the Havamal -- that we might have avoided it becoming so through careful attention to courtesy and seeking ways to make room for each other. Perhaps we might yet, although these days your prophecy is looking healthier than it used to do.