Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Look, I'm not going to shit all over your narrative, but if you think the unifying vision is racism, rather than greed and selfishness, I don't know how to even talk to you.

The GOP is loaded with bigots. No doubt in the least. And a significant part of the party's appeal is nativism and racism.

Adam Serwer:

During the final few weeks of the campaign, I asked dozens of Trump supporters about their candidate’s remarks regarding Muslims and people of color. I wanted to understand how these average Republicans—those who would never read the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer or go to a Klan rally at a Confederate statue—had nevertheless embraced someone who demonized religious and ethnic minorities. What I found was that Trump embodied his supporters’ most profound beliefs—combining an insistence that discriminatory policies were necessary with vehement denials that his policies would discriminate and absolute outrage that the question would even be asked.

It was not just Trump’s supporters who were in denial about what they were voting for, but Americans across the political spectrum, who, as had been the case with those who had backed Duke, searched desperately for any alternative explanation—outsourcing, anti-Washington anger, economic anxiety—to the one staring them in the face. The frequent postelection media expeditions to Trump country to see whether the fever has broken, or whether Trump’s most ardent supporters have changed their minds, are a direct outgrowth of this mistake. These supporters will not change their minds, because this is what they always wanted: a president who embodies the rage they feel toward those they hate and fear, while reassuring them that that rage is nothing to be ashamed of.

The Atlantic

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But the unifying message that keeps the non-racists and non-nativists voting GOP is taxes.

GOP voters say what they say about taxes as an integral part of the "vehement denial that their policies would discriminate" referred to by Serwer. And Democrats don't like taxes any more than Republicans do.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is an interesting distinction. And I'm going to respond even though it's never a good idea, because I remember you posting about how screwed our approach to imprisoning people is.

If every single institution is set up to favor one group of people over all others, isn't voting "self-interest" inherently racist through willful blindness?

TM

I don't agree with that characterization. I don't think all systems are set up to favor one group over all others. It's more complicated than that.

But I do agree - voting for something you know will have a racist result is, well, a racist vote. I'd prefer racist-accomplice, but what's the difference, really?

Of all the reasons I could not vote for Trump, his "law n' order" dog whistle was the biggest. I didn't think Hillary'd do shit to help with justice reform either, however, so that issue didn't compel me to change my decision to go with "Option C."

But yes, I think any open-minded voter who votes R has to wrestle with the fact that he's supporting a justice system that's running a War on Blacks (and some other minorities, and poor people). I think most people reconcile it with, "The Democrats won't do much different in re justice reform." And in most regards, historically, that's been true.

Nobody gives a fuck about justice reform because nobody gives a fuck about victims of the justice system. They've nothing to donate, and no voice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Adam Serwer:



The Atlantic



GOP voters say what they say about taxes as an integral part of the "vehement denial that their policies would discriminate" referred to by Serwer. And Democrats don't like taxes any more than Republicans do.

I think that fellow is full of shit.

First, you can't use "Trump voters" to describe the whole group. What he actually means is, "Right Wingers." "Trump Voters" is a much bigger category.

Almost every Trump Voter to whom I've spoken has stated:

1. Embarrassment he was the candidate;
2. Disgust at the choice;
3. Reluctance to admit they did it; and,
4. The grudging explanation, "Well, you know... It's a hedge against higher taxes. Democrats always raise taxes. Why take a chance? And Trump will be decent for business. Or at least better than Obama."

Now, of course, my social scene is white collar, educated, and generally not-missing-any-meals. I'm sure the dirt farmer Trump vote thinks differently. But that generalization in that guy's article? That's shit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Of all the reasons I could not vote for Trump, his "law n' order" dog whistle was the biggest.

Law and order is a great place to starting thinking about what's in GOP voters' self interest. Is it?

It's sure is expensive to lock up as many people we do, mostly because of drugs. It doesn't help reduce drug dependency. Arguably it puts their white kids in danger of getting swept up in it (although maybe they think whiteness will work for them).

So where's the self interest? Do they think they benefit from prison (i.e., pretty much slave) labor? Do they think they get an advantage in the labor markets from reduced competition?

They probably do tell themselves that it enhances their safety, but isn't it pretty easy to see that as self delusion? White GOP voters are pretty darn safe already.

I think most people reconcile it with, "The Democrats won't do much different in re justice reform."

Again, I think you're conflating what you think with what most people think. And, honestly, your thinking that Dems, who are ever more dependent on black voters, care but won't do anything doesn't make much sense.

If we're talking regulating banks, then fine, Dems are beholden to the same interests as the GOP. But what's the interest that Dems can't cross on maintaining mass incarceration?

And in most regards, historically, that's been true.

History is not a good guide here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

4. The grudging explanation, "Well, you know... It's a hedge against higher taxes. Democrats always raise taxes.

Again, let's practice with our bullshit detector. Is "Democrats always raise taxes" a true statement? It is not. So why do we think this person is being honest (with himself or with you)?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't agree with that characterization. I don't think all systems are set up to favor one group over all others. It's more complicated than that.

Of course. Name an institution.

Home ownership: Government-lead institutional racist approach to keeping blacks from owning homes, restricting them to certain areas, driving down their home prices and supporting lenders who adopted those policies.

Policing and justice system and penal system: Too obvious to state. War on drugs, removal of right to vote, unfair sentencing, police not policed, DAs not interested in justice,

Segregation: First De jure, now de facto

Education: Born out of segregation, but designing a funding system for public education based on immediate and cleverly-drawn districts, makes sure white retain an advantage indefinitely. I won't preach about how inflated GPAs and advanced courses that are offered to the privileged serve a similar function when it comes to college admissions.

Voting: The whole goal of Republicans, conservatives, anyone on the right is to restrict voting and outright suppress it in dozens and dozens of ways

Employment: Uh, 'nuff said.

Any others? I'd be happy to discuss.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But I do agree - voting for something you know will have a racist result is, well, a racist vote. I'd prefer racist-accomplice, but what's the difference, really?

Of all the reasons I could not vote for Trump, his "law n' order" dog whistle was the biggest. I didn't think Hillary'd do shit to help with justice reform either, however, so that issue didn't compel me to change my decision to go with "Option C."

She surely wouldn't go in the exact opposite direction of where we were headed with Obama. Sessions has done incredible damage (stepping away from already established settlement agreements with police departments, restarting the war on drugs, fully embracing civil forfeiture, returning to junk-science when it comes to prosecutions (and abandoning science generally when it comes to criminal prosecutions), and jumping back in with both feet to supporting private prisons, among other things). Let's not even talk about the bullshit Trump talks and tweets about the state of crime and what's happening in inner cities.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But yes, I think any open-minded voter who votes R has to wrestle with the fact that he's supporting a justice system that's running a War on Blacks (and some other minorities, and poor people). I think most people reconcile it with, "The Democrats won't do much different in re justice reform." And in most regards, historically, that's been true.

Willful blindness. See above.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody gives a fuck about justice reform because nobody gives a fuck about victims of the justice system. They've nothing to donate, and no voice.

When you say, "nobody cares," who the hell are you talking about? White people? Right wing white people? Republicans? The rich? Because there are millions of people who care about this. Think about how many people are jailed (a lot on non-violent drug charges) and then think about how many family members and friends they have. Think about the number of people who fear the justice system screwing them over on a bullshit arrest. What are you talking about?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yup. Wasn't Edmund Burke, apologist for the French Aristocracy of Louis XVI's reign, the father of modern conservatism?

Yes, but he wasn't an apologist for the ancient regime:

Shenk: You point out early in the book that in order to understand your argument about Trump you have to understand your argument about conservatism more generally. I think now is a good time to step back a little bit and think about that broader subject. The title is a good place to begin because Reactionary Mind is also a reactionary title—you’re playing off of Russell Kirk’s Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. And whatever your differences with Kirk, you both believe that Edmund Burke is a decisive figure in this story. Why?
Robin: At the heart of the conservative vision of the good life is a vision of the best, most excellent men—although they need not be, they’re usually men—ruling over lesser beings.
That idea did not originate with Burke. It goes back to Plato and the ancient Greeks. What makes Burke a conservative, and what makes Burke modern, is that he’s promulgating this idea in an age of mass politics, the age of revolution or the democratic age. Why do we read Edmund Burke? Because he wrote a book called Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Shenk: It’s not Reflections on My Political Theory, Which I’ve Developed Way Ahead of Time. He’s reacting in the moment.
Robin: Exactly. A lot of people who talk about Burke don’t pay close attention to how he goes about reacting against the Revolution, how he makes his arguments. What made it possible for the French Revolution to happen? In Burke’s reading it was that the ruling class had grown weak. It had gotten soft. The ruling class was ultimately responsible for its own demise because it had lost the art of rule—it had grown too comfortable in its own power.
Then he looks at the Jacobins, and is filled with rage and contempt. But at the same time there’s this not-so-secret envy and admiration—the Jacobins were men of talent, energy, and vision—small vision, he thought, but nevertheless, he sees that Jacobinism was where the energies of modern politics lay.
In that collision right there—the sense that the Old Regime is soft, and that all the dynamism is on the revolutionary side—is the crucible of modern conservatism.
What conservatism is, then, is a politics of privilege for a mass democratic age. That specific privileges that are stake are going to change across time, but what’s continuous across time is that conservatism is a politics of reaction, defending privilege in a mass age.

link

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Adam Serwer:



The Atlantic

Among the Trump voters I know best, mostly family, Serwer is exactly right. They'll quickly come out of the closet with the anti-Muslim sentiment, because they view it as acceptable, but they share the broader racism much more guardedly and feel somewhat guilty about it some of the time.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Of course. Name an institution.

Home ownership: Government-lead institutional racist approach to keeping blacks from owning homes, restricting them to certain areas, driving down their home prices and supporting lenders who adopted those policies.

Policing and justice system and penal system: Too obvious to state. War on drugs, removal of right to vote, unfair sentencing, police not policed, DAs not interested in justice,

Segregation: First De jure, now de facto

Education: Born out of segregation, but designing a funding system for public education based on immediate and cleverly-drawn districts, makes sure white retain an advantage indefinitely. I won't preach about how inflated GPAs and advanced courses that are offered to the privileged serve a similar function when it comes to college admissions.

Voting: The whole goal of Republicans, conservatives, anyone on the right is to restrict voting and outright suppress it in dozens and dozens of ways

Employment: Uh, 'nuff said.

Law Partnerships....


(Oh shit now what have I done)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

There's quite a mess to clean up on aisle 9.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

When you say, "nobody cares," who the hell are you talking about? White people? Right wing white people? Republicans? The rich? Because there are millions of people who care about this. Think about how many people are jailed (a lot on non-violent drug charges) and then think about how many family members and friends they have. Think about the number of people who fear the justice system screwing them over on a bullshit arrest. What are you talking about?

TM

What the fuck is he supposed to say? "While many people give a fuck about justice reform, and there are indeed a variety of organizations whose sole mission is justice reform, and a majority of Americans would likely identify inequities in the justice system as a major problem, there is one political party that is actively hostile to such reform, and another that ends up prioritizing it lower than it should because of lack of political money and a potential increase in political liability in doing otherwise." I mean, tl;dr, amirite? Totes. So instead, you get "nobody gives a fuck about justice reform," which is a much tidier little sound bite, and which is delivered simultaneously with Sebastian's castigation about how you are always making broad unsubstantiated generalizations.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Law Partnerships....


(Oh shit now what have I done)

(Stated the obvious?)

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

What the fuck is he supposed to say? "While many people give a fuck about justice reform, and there are indeed a variety of organizations whose sole mission is justice reform, and a majority of Americans would likely identify inequities in the justice system as a major problem, there is one political party that is actively hostile to such reform, and another that ends up prioritizing it lower than it should because of lack of political money and a potential increase in political liability in doing otherwise." I mean, tl;dr, amirite? Totes. So instead, you get "nobody gives a fuck about justice reform," which is a much tidier little sound bite, and which is delivered simultaneously with Sebastian's castigation about how you are always making broad unsubstantiated generalizations.

I see your point.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think that fellow is full of shit.

First, you can't use "Trump voters" to describe the whole group. What he actually means is, "Right Wingers." "Trump Voters" is a much bigger category.

Almost every Trump Voter to whom I've spoken has stated:

1. Embarrassment he was the candidate;
2. Disgust at the choice;
3. Reluctance to admit they did it; and,
4. The grudging explanation, "Well, you know... It's a hedge against higher taxes. Democrats always raise taxes. Why take a chance? And Trump will be decent for business. Or at least better than Obama."

Now, of course, my social scene is white collar, educated, and generally not-missing-any-meals. I'm sure the dirt farmer Trump vote thinks differently. But that generalization in that guy's article? That's shit.

Maybe you and he are talking about different voters. I don't see how you can decide that he is actually talking about a subset of "right wingers" when he specifically says that he talked to "dozens of Trump supporters". Maybe you think he's just lying about that? Um, no.

Or maybe you are he both think you're talking about the same people but actually are talking about different people. Possible. He reports on talking to people in different states and (from what I can tell) different backgrounds. You seem to have focused on white-collar types in the suburbs of Philadelphia. So maybe it's right that you don't have a broad enough perspective.

Or maybe you're both basically talking about the same people and he found a way to get them to discuss what they're thinking in a way you haven't. It's always socially acceptable to say that you're for lower taxes. Serwer writes:

The plain meaning of Trumpism exists in tandem with denials of its implications; supporters and opponents alike understand that the president’s policies and rhetoric target religious and ethnic minorities, and behave accordingly. But both supporters and opponents usually stop short of calling these policies racist. It is as if there were a pothole in the middle of the street that every driver studiously avoided, but that most insisted did not exist even as they swerved around it.

Sounds like you and he are describing the same people, really. You are just more inclined to accept their explanation at face value.

Also from Serwer's article:

Trump’s support among whites decreases the higher you go on the scales of income and education. But the controlling factor seems to be not economic distress but an inclination to see nonwhites as the cause of economic problems. The poorest voters were somewhat less likely to vote for Trump than those a rung or two above them on the economic ladder. The highest-income voters actually supported Trump less than they did Mitt Romney, who in 2012 won 54 percent of voters making more than $100,000—several points more than Trump secured, although he still fared better than Clinton. It was among voters in the middle, those whose economic circumstances were precarious but not bleak, where the benefits of Du Bois’s psychic wage appeared most in danger of being devalued, and where Trump’s message resonated most strongly. They surged toward the Republican column.

Yet when social scientists control for white voters’ racial attitudes—that is, whether those voters hold “racially resentful” views about blacks and immigrants—even the educational divide disappears. In other words, the relevant factor in support for Trump among white voters was not education, or even income, but the ideological frame with which they understood their challenges and misfortunes. It is also why voters of color—who suffered a genuine economic calamity in the decade before Trump’s election—were almost entirely immune to those same appeals.

In other words, voters' racial attitudes better explain -- statistically -- their support for Trump than their economic circumstances.

eta: How on Earth can you go from acknowledging Burke as the source of modern conservatism to pretending that conservatism as we now see it is about a desire to pay lower taxes? It's like you can explain how a transmission works, but then insist that the wiper control makes the car go.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: How on Earth can you go from acknowledging Burke as the source of modern conservatism to pretending that conservatism as we now see it is about a desire to pay lower taxes? It's like you can explain how a transmission works, but then insist that the wiper control makes the car go.

He meant Burke the Brand Name not Burke the Actual Thinker.