My sister's daughter, however, a lovely young doctor in her early thirties practicing in Philadelphia, who normally doesn't stay in touch, sent me a rather nice text genuinely trying to find out where I was coming from. It turns out she tends to follow my Facebook page, which surprised me, and perhaps was getting a little more information about what I really think than she'd been able to glean before. As in, oh, my goodness, are you REALLY a Trump supporter?
It was not a waste of time. We managed to keep it civil, and she asked me repeatedly in anguish how it was I could support a racist who deliberately lies to conceal the seriousness of the COVID pandemic from a vulnerable public entirely for his personal gain. I tried in various ways to make her understand how differently I view all these things. Possibly I got across the message that, while she may never have thought of it this way, conservatives actually have some of the same misgivings about whether leftists in political office are treating them as enemies and damaging the country. The point is: we disagree about what damages the country, not about whether it's a good thing to damage the country. I also tried to reassure her that I don't think COVID is a hoax, but I do think COVID coverage is politically biased and likely to erode public confidence at a time when we can ill afford to do that.
She remains convinced that Trump is a racist and that there's no good explanation why conservatives hide this obvious truth from themselves. Aside from the COVID and racist angles, and a general detestation of his personal style, she doesn't appear to have strong negative feelings about the rest of his policies. It surprised me that the question of conservative judges didn't come up.
It's odd: the post that bothered her the most was something I thought completely innocuous: a chart showing the declining COVID case fatality rate over the last six months in a variety of countries, including the U.S., which I posted without any comment or conclusions. It's obvious to her that concentrating on this kind of news is a dangerous inducement to complacency, particularly given our President's unaccountable urging of the population to pretend there is no virus. She insisted that she doesn't favor censorship of news, but clearly this somehow is different in her mind.
At one point my niece expressed dismay that, although it might be understandable how I could have been snookered into voting for Trump in 2016, I could do it again in 2020 after he's proved how awful he is. I told her as diplomatically as I could that in 2016 I doubted his conservative principles, while in 2020 I no longer do. But what I was thinking was this:
24 comments:
She remains convinced that Trump is a racist and that there's no good explanation why conservatives hide this obvious truth from themselves.
Center-left thinking on this is confused. Is it possible not to be a racist? If not -- and much of the time they're arguing that it is not -- then why would it be a mark against someone that they were a racist? "'Ought' implies 'can,'" as Kant might say. If it's unavoidable, then why hold it against him?
Or maybe it's not avoidable, but it's important to make an effort. But then why hold it against him that he tries to portray himself as non-racist, and engages in outreach? He's making an effort, according to his generation's norms.
Or maybe it's not avoidable, but it's important to feel bad about it and express remorse for it. That doesn't actually make any sense, and it's incoherent with their arguments on sexual morality, i.e., if being gay is unavoidable it should not be something that you feel bad about or are asked by society to express remorse for doing.
The basic position doesn't seem to hold up to examination. Personally, I assume Trump is as racist as most 70+ year old men (and probably about as racist as 70+ year old women). I don't really expect him not to be, and it therefore doesn't bother me to discover that he might be. But he does seem to have avoided what I was really worried about four years ago, namely racializing American politics. If anything, he's built a bigger tent than the Republican Party has ever enjoyed before; and he's openly enthusiastic about being supported by anyone, regardless of race. This kind of thing is generational, but for his generation he might be about as good as it gets.
Not really pleasant having political discussions on FB, in my experience, but been doing a little big of it anyhow, lately. Very difficult to know what to start with, in trying to convince some people; the beliefs are mutually self-reinforcing.
"a chart showing the declining COVID case fatality rate over the last six months in a variety of countries, including the U.S., which I posted without any comment or conclusions. It's obvious to her that concentrating on this kind of news is a dangerous inducement to complacency" I have noticed a trend toward believing that information (even if true) can be *dangerous*....the Dems seem to think that human are like computers that, if fed with dangerous code, will simply go ahead and execute it.
Part of it is an increasing trend to view Americans as *consumers* rather than as citizens.
I'd hazard a guess that Trump is considerably less-racist than the average 70 year old man (and the ones I know aren't mostly racist anyhow)...he has spent his career in real estate, and entertainment (including sports), so plenty of experience in working with Black people and Jews (and gays)...plus, he has Jews in the family.
I have yet to see a single instance of Trumps "racist" behavior.
Yet the accusation is ubiquitous among the left.
Nor can they provide any examples.
IMO, they are all brainwashed , just as Yuri Bezmanov warned us.
They cannot reason. Therefore it is pointless to discuss anything related to reasoning, such as policy, with them.
The cognitive dissonance runs deep. For example- "The USA is the crappiest most racist sexist country to ever exist, but building a wall to keep people from coming here is hateful". One would think it would be doing them a favor....
Covid is a good example- if the actual risk factor matched the fear factor, we would have a stack of bodies on every street corner waiting for the morning meatwagon. I have had discussions with educated successful people who are completely wigged out over this. Seen kids and dog's with masks on. Cited the Diamond Princess, the Teddy Roosevelt, the mortality figures from countless countries and states and nothing penetrates.
It is sickening and terrifying at the same time, to see how easily people can be indoctrinated to their position and refuse to see any evidence to the contrary. The Madness of Crowds.
What you are seeing is a kind of mind control or brainwashing. These are the "victims" of the Vampiric Cabal, the slaves that help the enforcers keep the other slaves in line.
This is what I was constantly trying to bring up, but it is difficult to communicate because... it is unbelievable often times until you see it for yourself.
The people are divided, world wide, because this is the real power of the Vampiric Deep State Cabal. These are not... what you were told, it was. It is not because I am hiding things, other than for OPSEC reasons, but simply because it is incomprehensible, really.
Instead of trying to diagnosis anonymous sleeper agents and sons of god, like Ymar online, AVI would do more good to take in covid patients. And I don't mean the physically sick ones, but 50% of humanity right now, mentally speaking. If he wants to check on "paranoid nut cases and psychological in need peeps"... the world and nation is full of them.
And they need more help than Ymar does right now, I guarantee you that. I have my god for help, what does anyone else have... healthcare vaccines?
Maybe it's true that Trump isn't even very racist, at least for a man of his generation. My father was about his age, and he was deeply committed to treating all people with the respect they earned. But he was definitely aware of race, and in fact would redouble his efforts at decency and welcoming if he had to work with a black man. Was that racist? Well, it's definitely not colorblindness.
His parents were even more race-conscious, and referred to parts of Knoxville by a racial slur: "******town." But they'd go there to visit black friends, including once after dark to attend a funeral of a friend even though it was a dangerous time of the Civil Rights Movement and there was a lot of inter-racial violence. My grandfather did not segregate his business, but took anybody's money in return for honest work. But they were definitely racists by today's standards, and thought nothing of using language that I wouldn't so much as write down, let alone speak aloud. I think they were trying to be good, but it was a generational process.
Trump I think really might almost be colorblind, in that he really seems mostly to care if you support him or not. If you do, he loves you. If you don't, he sneers at you. Race seems to be irrelevant to all that, although he definitely seems to especially appreciate it when black supporters appear on the scene. So he's thinking about it, reacting to it, but he's trying to do right at least to those who are willing to be his supporters. (His 'Platinum Plan' for the black community is another question; we'll discuss that another day.)
But he also says things like 'people here in Minnesota have great genetics,' and talks about the 'racehorse theory,' which is a little bit hard to make out without coming to the conclusion that he likes blondes with blue eyes, and thinks they're just generally superior people (like winning racehorses). Of course, racehorse theory misses that horses are used for many purposes; the best racehorse isn't going to be much of a draft horse. There's no universal superiority to be had; different breeds do different jobs better or worse, and individuals better or worse. Humans do so many jobs it's hard to imagine that there's a universally best kind in the same way that you can speak of a best sort of horse for racing.
if the actual risk factor matched the fear factor, we would have a stack of bodies on every street corner waiting for the morning meatwagon.
That was likely the "bodies piled to the moon ,stacked like cordwood" vision I saw years ago and wrote about it here, although I didn't comprehend it as a vision.
Somehow, humanity avoided that fate, and not because of any virtue or hard work on the part of the majority consensus. It was a small elite team or faction working behind the scenes. Just as there are evil "New World Order" types, there must also be positive "New world order" types...
Action, reaction. Light, darkness. Bitter, sweet. Up and downs.
She deserves credit for trying to be nice about it. It is hard for people to let go of it all at once. Liberalism is like whack-a-mole, in that if you beat one thing down another pops up, eventually repeating. But if you got any kernel of doubt in, it might grow.
My major goal for the Trump administration was a challenging press corps. It seemed to me that a Clinton administration could offer any lie -- "we MUST support Kosovo; those deaths were due to a YOUTUBE post; my server was approved by the Justice Department; the deleted e-mail was all about my daughter's wedding; the uranium deal was good for America;..." and the press would roll over and repeat it. However, any statement offered by Donald Trump, I thought, would be incentive for investigation. The tension, division, between the press and the president would help us all better understand reality.
You ever see that Monty Python sketch -- "The Argument Clinic" ?
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition."/"No it isn't."/"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."/" No it isn't."
That's the press. "We have to follow the constitution." /"No we don't"/ "These aren't toddlers in the arms of their parents, these are teenagers being trafficked by coyotes" / "No they aren't" / "Changes to the tax code brings billions of dollars into our economy from multinational corporations' overseas banks." / "No they won't" / "The rioters don't respect any history and might tear down the Lincoln Memorial next." / "You lie." /The media is doing a terrible job, it's horrible Fake News." /" NO IT ISN'T!"
"But he also says things like 'people here in Minnesota have great genetics,' and talks about the 'racehorse theory,' which is a little bit hard to make out without coming to the conclusion that he likes blondes with blue eyes, and thinks they're just generally superior people (like winning racehorses)."
If he's talking about looks, that's a personal preference issue, and of course highly subjective, and also is in fact largely dependent on genetics (though not only), so it's really not racist to remark that, I don't think.
I also think there's a difference between "racist" and "racially insensitive" or maybe there's a better term for something less than racism, but that is aware of and responding to race. I also think there's a constant conflation of race in the absolute term and cultural distinction, as in one might not think black *culture* as reflected in popular culture today is equal to or comparable to what is considered mainstream American culture (often called "white culture" erroneously if you ask me). References to the subculture that consists mostly of black people can easily be interpreted as racist even though that person dealing with a person who is black, but culturally mainstream, may be colorblind or close to it. It's complicated and complex and no one has any interest in today's culture in coming anywhere near these discussions, so it remains unclarified.
Listen to what they are saying.
If you don't support racial quotas in all things, reparations, separate legal and police forces for non-whites, then you're a racist.
My conversation with my niece was by text, not on FB. She never comments, so I was surprised to learn she was reading.
I give her huge credit for starting the conversation and resolutely keeping it civil, even warm, despite how upset she is. I'd be surprised if I planted any seeds of doubt, beyond the notion that someone can be a Trump supporter without being the Antichrist. She's so troubled by the idea that people can support a leader whom she considers dangerous, so I concentrated on encouraging her to imagine that other people find other policies dangerous and share her experience of deep distress when someone like Obama or Biden is in power. I'm really not sure that had ever occurred to her--and yet this is a brilliant, thoughtful, accomplished, responsible, empathetic woman. She nevertheless lives in a bubble.
I put a lot of effort into explaining my discomfort with the increasing atmosphere of censorship. In theory she agrees, and frequently denied that she'd ever advocated censorship. And yet she also believes we shouldn't talk about things like declining case fatality rates, because it's not good for people to know this when we should be keeping them hypervigilant. I think she may explain this to herself by returning to the conviction that the only real problem is that we have a leader who undermines everyone's good-faith efforts by hypnotizing his followers into the belief that the virus doesn't really exist or is no big deal. The difference between thinking it's unreal and thinking that there are more constructive ways to address risk is apparently not at all clear to her.
Yes, free speech is a right wing cause now. Amazing.
"Yes, free speech is a right wing cause now."
On the one hand, I agree with you that it is, indeed, amazing.
On the other hand, I'm troubled that we so easily frame it as a change, or as something new. I don't believe the "right-wing" (at least in the United States) ever opposed free speech. Or even had any concerns about it.
I guess what I'm saying is that to say free speech is a right wing cause "now" casts it as something new, when I believe that it was always a cause that conservative Americans were OK with -- one of many causes that conservatives could and did support. (Only they didn't really have to spend much energy on it, because the left was even more vocal about this cause than they were.)
I think it's more accurate to say that what is amazing is that the left has utterly abandoned the cause of free speech, so that it is now a cause for ONLY the right wing.
And, to be honest, "amazing" doesn't even begin to describe how incomprehensible a change this is.
I hear you. I just mean that "Free Speech!" was one of the banner causes of the hippie-era left in Berkeley and so forth. They were railing in part against obscenity laws, in part against suppression of communist tracts, and so forth, but they were for it. And you're right, of course, that the reason 'Free Speech' was an effective slogan was that the other side was in principle for it too.
Now, though, it's only the right that's defending it. Freedom of speech is framed as a desire to engage in oppressive behaviors, rather than the desire to ensure that people are free to think and express their ideas.
There definitely seems to be a reaction against free expression going on in America today…how strong it is and how deep it goes remains to be seen. As one indicator, a survey by YouGov shows that 43% of those who identify as Liberals favor firing an executive who *privately* donated money to Trump, and 22% of those who identify as Conservatives favor firing an executive who privately donated to Biden…the numbers are 50% and 36% for *strong* liberals and conservatives respectively.
I explored some of the possible reasons for this apparent trend, here:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/64391.html
From Reason today: 'The single most common question I get when I talk about free speech and open inquiry on college campuses comes from a student—usually it will be a freshman, sometimes it's a sophomore—who says, "What do I say, Mr. Rauch, when I try to speak up in a conversation and I'm told, 'Check your privilege. You can't say that.' What do I do when I'm disqualified from the conversation because I don't have the minority perspective?"
'I used to try to say all kinds of things that they could say: "Try this. Try that." That wasn't a good answer. Then I began telling them, "Well, you figure it out. You know how to talk to your generation. I don't." That wasn't a good answer.
'The answer that I finally settled on—though the first two were also partly true—was: "It doesn't matter all that much what you say to them, because they're not listening. That's what they're telling you. They're not listening. What matters is that you not shut up. They do not have the power to silence you if you do not allow yourself to be silenced. Insist on your right to continue the conversation to say what you want to say. Don't slink away. You won't necessarily persuade those people, but, as we found in the gay marriage debate, your real target is that third person on the periphery of the circle of the conversation who is seeing one person acting rationally and reasonably and other people acting irrationally and unreasonably. You're probably winning the heart and mind of that third person, so don't shut up."' https://reason.com/2020/11/01/how-to-tell-if-youre-being-canceled/
If free speech was a principle, yes it should be surprising that entire generations and a group would change their allegiance.
But what if they were merely zombies that obeyed orders, and they were told to hijack and champion freedom back then, but now they are told to hijack and champion some other cause now like transgender rest rooms?
They obey Authority. That connects the dots. If it was a principle or belief, they would have problems changing it. But if it was an order... then their loyalty remains uncahnged. They still Obey.
Tex...."What do I do when I'm disqualified from the conversation because I don't have the minority perspective?"
Plenty of things wrong with this, of course; one of them is the implicit assumption that the *only* perspective the matters, or at least the one that matters most, is race/ethnicity...to which they would probably add gender and sexual preference.
But there are plenty of other kinds of perspectives: personality-type perspective, professional perspective, regional perspective, religious perspective? The idea that it is only the race/sex things that matter seems closer to the Nazi flavor Fascist ideology than for anything else.
'The answer that I finally settled on—though the first two were also partly true—was: "It doesn't matter all that much what you say to them, because they're not listening. That's what they're telling you. They're not listening. What matters is that you not shut up.'
I had a conversation that went that way last week. I'm pretty sure I at least damaged some friendships by not shutting up, including with people I really like, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be silenced by somebody just citing a minority status as a trump card. I'm a minority too -- I'm the only one like me, and I've put in a fair amount of work learning and studying and experiencing the world. Nobody gets to tell me to shut up.
Two things: I don't think it's unfair to imply that free speech did not used to be a right-wing cause. While there were always plenty of rightwingers who were hardliners about free speech, there were many who were mildly on the right who were actually traditionalists, and uncomfortable with any change. Throughout our history we have had many of such folks, and they can legitimately be criticised on those grounds. Even William F Buckley, Jr, hardly an unthoughtful person declared that conservatism "stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." (NR mission statement 1955.) They provide most of our votes, even if they don't provide most of our planners and thinkers. They are Burkeans in a sense that "things work here better than other places. Let us change things only slowly and carefully." That sort did indeed shut down speech up until about 1970. That is, however 50 years ago. Two generations dead after that, now. Those people eventually agreed to hear even things they hated because they were convinced that this was important to the American tradition.
Second: "What matters is that you not shut up. They do not have the power to silence you if you do not allow yourself to be silenced." In those moments you have to refocus that you are not going to convince your disputant. What you are trying to do is "create space" for other observers, who might be intimidated. I usually don't do this well and just annoy people, but very occasionally my pushback has created space for a surprising someone. I recall a young woman whose family history was unknown to the lunch table who rather angrily shut everyone down on the basis of her parents, and especially grandparents' experiences in Slovakia. She had no accent herself, we didn't know. I believe she would not have risked it if I hadn't made my own comments, even though hers were far more persuasive than mine.
The desire to encourage others to express dissent is what led me to be more explicit in my FB posts last week. Sometimes it's good for people to find they're not alone. Sometimes it's good for people to know that, if their own voices are silenced, someone heard and will pick up the banner to spread their message for them, until they can claw the gag back off.
" I'd be surprised if I planted any seeds of doubt"
The seeds are not of doubt, but when watered later by the right life experiences or new knowledge coming into play, can grow into something more- can open eyes. You never know.
Post a Comment