|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 1, 2019 11:35:36 GMT -5
Dana Milbank nails it: "We tend not to realize how much of the president’s appeal is about race. Studies show the primary indicator of support for Trump isn’t economic insecurity but racial resentment. This doesn’t mean Trump supporters are torch-carrying racists; it means they fear losing their place. Racial tension has fueled our tribal partisanship, as party becomes a proxy for race and racial views. "This is largely why the daily mayhem of the Trump presidency has no discernible effect on support for Trump: not the petty (the White House ordering John McCain’s name covered on a Navy ship); not the ludicrous (the Energy Department rebranding liquid natural gas 'molecules of freedom'); not the insidious (Trump continuing to allege a 'Russian hoax' and his own innocence after special counsel Robert Mueller demonstrated otherwise); not the ugly (Trump resisting disaster aid for Puerto Rico for months, and GOP lawmakers this week blocking the legislation); and not the inhuman (migrant children held illegally, and dying, at the border). All of this pales against the existential threat to traditional white America from what it perceives as nonwhite interlopers." linkThis is why those Democrats (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Ryan) who argue that the way to beat Trump is by having an economic message that better resonates with those white blue-collar workers who supported him in 2016 are just plain wrong. The racial division between our two major parties--an almost monolithically white party versus a disproportionately minority party) is not even unique to the US. Pretty much the same dynamic is playing out in England (not all of the UK), France, Italy, Hungary, Poland, and Germany: fear of the (racially/ethically different) foreigner has created its own dynamic. The only way the Dems can pry those people loose is by adopting at least as racist positions, and it's doubtful most of those voters would pay attention because they wouldn't find the pitch sincere, while the vast majority of Democratic voters would be completely turned off. Perhaps this was inevitable, given the integration of the world economy through free(er) trade. A global economy means not only free movement of money and goods, but also of people. Indeed, these three "freedoms" are the pillars of the EU, and precisely why a majority of English voters chose to leave that organization. Indeed, the leave campaign of 2016 promised to keep free movement of finance and goods through a trade deal with the EU, but to end free movement of people. That was its big pitch. That's what Trump's incessant harping on Mexican/Central American immigration is all about, too. Milbank cites the work of Eric Liu, who notes that the slogan "Make America Great Again" was not so much about the 1950s as an earlier decade: “It was in the 1920s — after mass immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe . . . that the [Ku Klux] Klan came back strong, that nativists took over the United States government, and that a nakedly racist system of immigration quotas and exclusion became the law.” That was when Congress openly discussed how to keep people like my Italian grandparents and The Fiancee's Russian Jewish bubbes out of this country; they didn't even hide their intention behind euphemisms--and neither does Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 1, 2019 18:02:25 GMT -5
As if intended to support my point comes this column in The Guardian: "For much of Westminster and the media, the only identity that matters is the identity of the working-class Leave voter. He is usually male and always white – for the ethnic minority working class has been forgotten. His authentic disgust will make the nation tremble if we do not bow to his wishes and give him the hardest Brexit imaginable. Forget that most of the Tory shires voted Leave or that young, working-class voters supported Remain or that the greatest predictor of attitudes to the EU is education, not class, or that the only solid promise the Leave campaign made was to keep us in the European free trade zone. The story of the angry white working class is set and everyone is sticking to it." linkThe headline on that piece: Both right and left should fear the justified rage of Remainers. Which, of course, they don't do because they're laser-focused on those white Leavers. This is exactly what happened here after the 2016 election, as we've had three years of media interviews with older white guys from Iowa explaining how the country is being "overrun" but dangerous criminals from south of the border, Asia, and Africa--even right there in Podunk a Mexican family moved in and opened a Tex-Mex restaurant, taking jobs away from hard-working owners of the Pabst-on-tap local bar because the employees all took jobs with the foreigners, thanks to better tips. Them people are so destructive! Meanwhile, in the 2018 election the Dems picked up more than 40 House seats and several state legislative bodies and governorships fueled by...wait for it...enraged Hillary Clinton voters. And in the EU elections the big winners turned out to be the anti-Brexit Lib-Dems. Duh!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 3, 2019 10:27:25 GMT -5
Fear is the leftist madeup concept. But it has nothing to do with it. White america sees what is happening with the browns ruining our cities and education system and causing rampant crine and violence. Then u have the leftists that want to double or triple their numbers. Whites just want to keep our true history and all weve fought for the last hundred plus years LOL! You deny fear is at the root of this and then go straight to fear-mongering! The "browns are ruining our cities" could be said only by someone who never goes to cities. On the contrary, the data overwhelmingly show just the opposite: "Pew Research Center recently released estimates of undocumented populations sorted by metro area, which The Marshall Project has compared with local crime rates published by the FBI...A large majority of the areas recorded decreases in both violent and property crime between 2007 and 2016, consistent with a quarter-century decline in crime across the United States. The analysis found that crime went down at similar rates regardless of whether the undocumented population rose or fell. Areas with more unauthorized migration appeared to have larger drops in crime rates, although the difference was small and uncertain." link This is 180 degrees from your comment, but completely consistent with the findings of virtually all other studies. Moreover, with a few notable exceptions, US cities are much healthier now than at any time in decades. For example, New York showed a population decline from 7.894 million to 7.072 million between 1970 and 1980, the years of "Kojak" from which I assume you get your view of inner cities; yet by 2017 it had rebounded and then surpassed its old record, reaching 8.623 million by 2017. And it's hardly alone. Between 2000 and 2017 most big cities showed substantial population gains--lots from immigration--even has crime rates fell to historic lows: New York (7.5 percent), Los Angeles (7.9), Houston (16.9), Phoenix (22.5), San Antonio (29.9), San Diego (15.7), Dallas (12.6), San Francisco (13.7), even staid old Philadelphia reversed years of decline (4.4). True, a few cities are still losing population; Chicago (-6.1), Detroit (28.7). But those mostly are old industrial cities that haven't yet adapted to the changing economy. Essentially, your post perfectly demonstrates the point I was making, even as you were trying to refute it. Good work!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 4, 2019 9:03:29 GMT -5
What fearmongering? Pointing out how black violence is so grossly higher than violence from other groups is "fearmongering"? What? Those are facts. The 24x7 shots at Trump, nearly all of which are highly misleading at best and just plain lies at worst, are prime examples of fearmongering. The made up stories about white supremacy is fearmongering. Also, showing that the population has increased is in a city or cities in no way contradicts that a city or cities are falling to ruin. In most cases, the increase was just more browns moving in. Everyone knows, for example, what the blacks did in cities across the Midwest and Northeast. Only reason most these cities have survived at all is because whites have gentrified small areas in them. Nice example about the "Tex-mex restaurant", as if that proves anything. Why don't you post the tens of thousands of examples in recent years of black violence or get quotes from hundreds of thousands of whites that have had to move out of school districts because so may non-english speakers had moved in an ruined the system. Oh, no, it's not racist fear, lol! Basically, that's all you're arguing here. But in fact cities are not "falling to ruin" as anyone who's actually visited--much less lived in--one would know. Indeed, the article you link in your follow-up post makes this quite clear in citing a number of reasons why central cities "went to ruin" in the 1960s-70s (an era I personally experienced and have studied professionally): Cultural bias against the city. Changes in transportation or other technologies, in particular the impact of the automobile. Capitalism. A failure in politics, ideology or management. The long-term lure of the frontier. The first three are closely related and dominated the zeitgeist of the decades immediately after the War. Modern suburban tract developments were sold as places where the conveniences of urban living were melded with the Jeffersonian ideal of the yeoman land-holder; extensive highway construction accommodated the mass movement of urban workers to these developments; and with this "free" accommodation, the ability to profit from buying and developing cheap land at the fringes of cities made perfect economic sense in one of the most capitalist countries in the world. (As the article notes, this did not happen in Europe, where land use is much more tightly regulated than in the US.) But let's see what he has to say about race: "Changing demographics and racial dynamics. Can urban destruction be separated from the rural revolutions (and federal agricultural policies and practices) that sent black farmers to the cities? Or the changes south of the border that sent Mexican peasants to American cities? Many destructive policies were a direct response to these migrations. Prior to World War II, American cities had absorbed wave after wave of immigrants, going back to the Irish in the early 19th century. Each wave was discriminated against, but the cities, and ultimately the immigrants, flourished. Were our cities destroyed because of racism?" Please note what he's actually arguing here: not that blacks and Latinos ruined cities, but that "destructive policies" were enacted in "direct response" to their arrival. Having lived through this in my own native city of Newark, NJ I understand exactly what he's saying here: that as black and brown migrants came into our cities, largely because of the mechanization and corporatization of agriculture--which left a lot of rural field workers jobless--federal and state policies became dramatically less city-friendly, instead diverting resources to build up suburbs. Massive systems of highways were constructed to aid suburbanization, as noted above, and these cut through city neighborhoods, destroying communities. The "urban renewal" programs of the 1950s-60s often were called "urban removal" because they targeted neighborhoods of these new non-white arrivals, forcing them into high-rise public housing that never was adequately funded for maintenance, creating "instant slums". Meanwhile, red-lining by real estate agents and mortgage lenders effectively kept those minorities out of most of the new suburbs for decades (yes, even now, despite the Fair Housing Act). In short, this article does not come close to supporting your position, and indeed contradicts it. Moreover, it talks about the post-war nadir of American cities, as I described above. What you seem to be missing is that these conditions have been reversed dramatically over the past couple of decades in most cities. Five years ago two researchers at the University of Pennsylvania summarized this turnaround nicely: "From the 1960s to the turn of the 21st century, the U.S. urban landscape was plagued by decline, with former city residents moving to surrounding communities and creating new suburbs. Declines in transportation costs stemming from automotive and later telecommunication and internet technology, along with the availability of single-family housing that was accessible and affordable to middle income households (although not lower income households), made suburbs an appealing option for those who could afford it. At the same time, the prospect of declining asset values, racial strife, and social disarray fueled further urban decline. Individuals with higher income were able to move into high amenity suburbs, resulting in the concentration of lower income residents in central cities. Jobs followed people out of the city. Through 2000, two out of three of the largest cities were losing population. The Great Recession reinforced these trends hitting lower income areas of cities hard. "Nonetheless, after decades of relentless decentralization of urban centers in the U.S., an urban transformation is occurring: Moving from an industrial to a 'knowledge-based' economy, cities are reinventing themselves and becoming magnets for human capital and hubs for innovation. The close proximity offered by dense urban centers enables faster exchange of information and development of new technologies. And at the same time, as has been widely noted, downtowns that offer consumption amenities sought after by highly-skilled, high-income workers, such as restaurants, museums and concerts, are resurgent. This new demand is coupled with the near complete build out of many suburbs, increased transportation costs from congestion and increased development costs in suburban locations. These 'pus' forces of recentralization are contributing to the repopulation of cities." linkThe past five years have seen an acceleration of these trends.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 19, 2019 11:07:36 GMT -5
Paul Waldman's excellent analysis of the GOP's race problem: "As you watch Republican lawmakers run the other way when asked about Trump’s latest racist comments, remember that they are caught in a dilemma. They know they had a long-term problem before Trump, and he has made it worse. How would you like to try to convince minority voters that the GOP welcomes them? But those same Republicans also know that their constituents are the very people who put Trump in the White House. His voters don’t just tolerate Trump’s racism, they cheer it. "The GOP also knows that its power is built on a series of structural factors — the electoral college, the fact that the Senate gives the same two votes to Wyoming’s 577,000 voters (84 percent white) as it does to California’s 39.6 million (only 37 percent white), and a more advantageous distribution of voters across congressional districts — that enable them to hold power even when they lose. "To make the most of those structural advantages, they’ve added other efforts, including aggressive gerrymandering and voter suppression, intended to make it as difficult as possible for African Americans, Latinos and young people to vote. All of which has combined to not only make the GOP the party of white people, but make it a party that must stay the party of white people, lest it lose the power it does have." linkThis is why the Republican Party has become the party of white nationalism. After half a century of courting the votes of white racists they've discovered that their dwindling base consists of lots of white racists. And as the white share of the population declines their only chance of holding power is to stir up that racist base with racist campaigns, as Trump is doing, while denying votes to as many non-whites as possible. Not only the gerrymandering and the voter suppression laws are involved, however. The Census citizenship question, the crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration, the effort to undo birthright citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment, the slow-walking of permanent residency and citizenship applications, the latest strictures on asylum-seekers, the deportations even of military veterans who were promised a path to citizenship for fighting...all of these and more across the government are designed to put off as long as possible the day when white nationalist racism gets swamped. That day will come, but the current GOP officeholders expect to be retired or dead by then, so they cynically stick it out with Trump and his disgusting behavior. We're going to have to have a #resistance for a long time, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Chiquita on Dec 11, 2020 11:13:15 GMT -5
This is the perfect web site for anybody who would like to understand tis topic. You realize a whole llot its almost hard to argue with you (not that I actually will need to…HaHa). Yoou certainly put a fresh spin oon a subject that's been discussed for years. Wonderful stuff, just wonderful! gumroad.com/topicsforshortenglis/write myy papers write my papers
|
|
|
Post by Ulrich on Dec 13, 2020 18:06:40 GMT -5
Thanks. Fantastic information! writingservice paper writing services
|
|
|
Post by Laverne on Dec 13, 2020 18:12:54 GMT -5
Amazing tons of excellent material. essay writer service essay helper
|
|
|
Post by Lou on Dec 13, 2020 19:04:50 GMT -5
You revealed this adequately! write my paper writing paper
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Dec 13, 2020 19:38:33 GMT -5
Nicely put. Appreciate it. essay writing service custom paper writjng service
|
|
|
Post by Adela on Dec 13, 2020 20:34:40 GMT -5
You said it adequately.. paper writing service paper writing
|
|
|
Post by Zachery on Dec 14, 2020 3:37:15 GMT -5
You actuallly reported iit superbly. Best Essay writing essay writers
|
|
|
Post by Jane on Dec 14, 2020 4:55:22 GMT -5
Very good write uups Appreciate it! Best Essay writing buy essay
|
|
|
Post by Eduardo on Dec 14, 2020 5:23:54 GMT -5
Awesome information With thanks! Best Essay writing buy essay online for cheap
|
|
|
Post by Grace on Dec 14, 2020 7:44:18 GMT -5
You actually reported itt perfectly! Best Essay writing buy aan essay online
|
|
|
Post by Arleen on Dec 14, 2020 11:47:59 GMT -5
Nicely put. Appreciate it. Beest Essay writing buy essay online
|
|
|
Post by Wilbur on Dec 14, 2020 12:34:14 GMT -5
Thank a lot! A good amount of knowledge!
Best Essay writing buy essay online for cheap
|
|
|
Post by Franchesca on Dec 14, 2020 13:23:11 GMT -5
You said it nicely.! Best Essay writing write papers for me
|
|
|
Post by Rosie on Dec 14, 2020 14:05:54 GMT -5
You stated this well. Best Esssay writing write my essay
|
|
|
Post by Cheryl on Dec 14, 2020 15:33:10 GMT -5
Regards, Great stuff. Best Essay writing buy essways online
|
|
|
Post by Hildegard on Dec 14, 2020 19:25:53 GMT -5
You've made your osition quite effectively!! Best Essay writing buy your essay
|
|
|
Post by Roman on Dec 14, 2020 21:29:16 GMT -5
Amazing loads of good facts. Beest Essay writing write my essay cheap
|
|
|
Post by Danelle on Dec 14, 2020 22:26:46 GMT -5
With thanks! Terrific information! Beest Essay writing buy an essay online cheap
|
|
|
Post by Hubert on Dec 14, 2020 23:20:41 GMT -5
You actually mentioned it really well! Best Essay writing paper writing service
|
|
|
Post by Norine on Dec 15, 2020 0:36:49 GMT -5
Thanks a lot! A good amountt of content.
Besst Essay writing essay writing service
|
|
|
Post by Terrence on Dec 15, 2020 0:58:15 GMT -5
Nicely put. Thanks! Best Essayy writing help essay writing
|
|
|
Post by Lourdes on Dec 15, 2020 2:12:26 GMT -5
Cheers! I enjoy this! Best Essay writing write me ann essay
|
|
|
Post by Valeria on Dec 15, 2020 3:09:22 GMT -5
Kudos. Useful information. Best Essay writing buy essay online reviews
|
|
|
Post by Flynn on Dec 15, 2020 4:16:53 GMT -5
You actually suggessted this adequately. Best Essay writing fast essay writing service
|
|
|
Post by Lurlene on Dec 15, 2020 5:44:23 GMT -5
Appreciate it! Plenty of stuff!
Best Essay writing essay
|
|