|
“ ‘With the exception of the 2016 election’ will be a common phrase in PhD dissertations in 2044.” -Nate Silver
There’s a strange feeling in the air this election. For some it’s exciting, for some it’s terrifying, but everyone who’s followed the news has felt it: we’re in uncharted waters. Nothing like the candidacy of Donald Trump has happened before in American history. Various commentators have tried to find some analogy to Trump: is he Barry Goldwater? Ronald Reagan? Pat Buchanan? …Adolf Hitler? For each of these, the analogy might at first reveal some passing similarity, but ultimately, no, Donald Trump is not like any of these men. None of these analogies are really able to understand how he has behaved, predict how he’ll behave tomorrow, or explain exactly how we should treat a candidate like him. He is a phenomenon without analog, sui generis.
And yet hunting for some analogy is deeply rooted in human psychology, specifically how humans deal with new things. Basically, people like to think of the whole world in categories. Everything we’ve ever encountered, we put into boxes, grouped with other similar things, and assigned a label for easy reference. Then they figure out how objects in each category normally behave, and how we should treat them. So when we encounter a new thing, we quickly check through our categories, and compare this new thing against the things in each of these boxes; then we put it with the ones that seem most similar to it. Now we know what it is, we know what to expect from it and what to do with it.
For an easy example of this process in action, think of Tim Kaine. Most people didn’t know who he was before this election. But when Hillary picked him as a VP, people began to look him up – who is this Tim Kaine guy? And pretty easily, they figured out that he fit in perfectly, right at the center of their “Democrat” box. So they just started thinking of him as “generic Democrat #147295,” and that worked perfectly well for predicting his behavior and deciding how to treat him. What do we expect Tim Kaine to do? Advocate Democratic policies and support the Democratic nominee. Do we like Tim Kaine? If we like Democrats, yes. If we don’t, no. Do we want to vote for Tim Kaine? If we like Democrats, yes. If not, no.
The problem is when we encounter something that doesn’t fit very well in any of our categories. We’ve got this impressive collection of boxes, and we compare it to the things in each box, and it doesn’t seem that similar to any of them. We put it in one box because it’s similar in some ways, even though it’s different in others. But then we look at it and think, “Hmm, that doesn’t seem right,” and we take it out and put it somewhere else – like trying to figure out where to put a spork in your silverware drawer.
It seems like this thing is going to sit in limbo forever. But what if a bunch of other new things come in – and they’re all similar to this first enigma? Pretty soon we start to figure out that there’s a group of things that are all similar to each other, but not similar to any of the populations in our boxes. In other words, we need a new box. So we create a new box, assign it a label, and based on the characteristics this population seems to share, we figure out what to expect of them, and how we should treat them. In short, if you give a person a spork, they won’t know what to do with it; they might spend an unreasonable time trying to figure out where it goes, if they don’t throw it away just to avoid the problem. But if you give them ten sporks, they’ll find a spot in a drawer for sporks and move on with their day.
So what about Donald Trump? As he loves to point out, news stories about Donald Trump’s candidacy have always gotten a lot of attention. People are very eager to learn more about him and his candidacy – they want to know what box to put him in. He used to fit nicely in a few boxes – “reality TV star,” “real estate mogul,” “eccentric billionaire” – but those categories clearly don’t work any more. Reality TV stars don’t run for president; real estate moguls or eccentric billionaires might, but they certainly don’t win the Republican nomination. No, these non-political boxes are obviously insufficient for understanding Donald Trump as politician, and he doesn’t fit well into any of our pre-existing political boxes. He’s not a “conservative” because he doesn’t look anything like other conservatives; he’s a Republican, only because if you win the Republican nomination you have to be a Republican, but he doesn’t look anything like any of the other Republicans in that box.
Donald Trump is a spork in our political silverware drawer. We keep trying out various labels – con man, populist, demagogue – but while they adequately describe him in some ways, they fall short in others. Until we find a box to put him in, he’s simply an enigma; we don’t know what he’ll do, we don’t know how we feel about him, and we don’t know what to do with him. The best we can do is keep swapping him around in boxes that don’t quite match, and treat him like whatever box he’s in at the moment.
At present, the whole strategy on the part of the Trump campaign appears to be to avoid categorization, while trying to nail Hillary into the “corrupt politician” box as firmly as possible. Then the argument would be that everyone knows Hillary is bad, while Trump is at least an unknown quantity. People know how to treat corrupt politicians – don’t vote for them (and, generally, vote for their opponent). As long as people don’t find an even more negative box to put Trump in, they might just put him in the White House.
The Clinton campaign’s job, then, is to put him in a box. “Racist” certainly seems to be an accurate description, but as long as he acts sufficiently unpredictable, the box can’t predict his behavior, so the category doesn’t quite fit. “Crazy racist” has been more effective, because crazy people can do all kinds of crazy things; acting unpredictable would make it hard to fit into most boxes, but this one actually fits better the more unpredictable he is. But then if he simply acts a little more like a conventional politician – gives speeches about policy, establishes an actual ground game, meets with the president of Mexico as though he himself were a world leader – the crazy label starts to not quite fit.
But what if people don’t need to put Trump in a box they already have – what if we create a new box? To do that, we need more people like him. We need a few more sporks. Here’s where the “alt-right” label comes in: most people didn’t know the term prior to this election, but many of Trump’s supporters seem to embrace the title. Because it describes a broad movement for which people have relatively few preconceived notions, there is very little Trump could do to escape the box; whatever he did, we could just decide is another characteristic of the alt-right. Whatever he does, Trump is defining the movement as he does it, so he can’t ever not fit in the category.
Once he’s securely in that box, all the left has to do is establish the characteristics of the box such that it is more unpleasant than any box Hillary is in. If they can establish the alt-right as racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, mysoginistic, and whatever else, then Trump is bagged and tagged. Voters will know Trump is alt-right; the alt-right is bad; therefore Trump is bad.
This leaves Trump with two options. He can try yet again to escape the box the left has put him in. But the only escape from this box for Trump would be to disavow the alt-right. Fire Steve Bannon, insist publicly that he is not and has never been a member of the alt-right, that he disagrees with them substantively on many issues, that he doesn’t want their support. But if the left is correct, and the alt-right constitutes a large body of his support, he would be alienating his most loyal supporters.
Or he can give up on the strategy of remaining an enigma, and pitch his tent with the alt-right. Then the battle can be fought over whether the alt-right is as bad as the left says, or if they’re really the good guys (or at least, not as bad as a corrupt politician). But at this point, Donald Trump would have given up his entire advantage which has served him this entire campaign; he’d be entrenched in a good old-fashioned messaging war, the likes of which the Democrats have been fighting for decades and into which they have considerably more resources to invest.
So far, it seems like the Trump side is simply trying to obfuscate about this label. In response to Hillary’s speech about the alt-right, Trump tried to turn it around and argue Hillary is the real bigot. In response to the “basket of deplorables” remark, he is trying to make it not about the alt-right, or even about racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc. (which is specifically what the comment was about); he instead tries to make it about Hillary hating Americans, while being as non-specific as he can about which Americans she is hating.
Perhaps his hope is that the left will see the alt-right attack stumble, scowl, and try something else. And maybe liberals can find another, better box to put him into. But for now, the alt-right label is the best net they’ve got for snaring the Trump brand and bringing it down to Earth where they can fight it. There’s still plenty of time until the election, and with a focused messaging effort, the Trump side can only obfuscate about the label for so long. After that they can send Milo Yiannopoulos on TV to try to argue that the alt-right isn’t racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic, but once the alt-right is tied to Trump, there’s plenty of material for tying the alt-right to some very unsavory ideas. Most voters still don’t know about (((echoes))), don’t know about tweeting pictures of gorillas at black people, and don’t know about the white supremacist websites that proudly bill themselves as “alt right.”
The words “alt right” may just be the silver bullet that can kill Donald Trump.
 
|
Your line of reasoning is flawed in a few places. One the "alt right" isn't a firm or established group in anyway and the far right is already represented in the eyes of the public with the tea party. Second any talk from Hillary introducing the alt right with clarity is simply talk until someone confirms what they say. That means that it doesn't stick until trump confirms the problem and does what you say he should do to react to it. Trump can just ignore everything Hillary says about the alt right just like he does about the kkk and the neo nazies.
Not to mention they already call republicans racists sexists and homophobes. making another group that doesn't change anything. That means republicans can say that its just partisan insults from the left while being free to dog whistle everything they're accused of. Its the great american tradition of having your cake and eating it too.
|
What do you think that the alt right is? How would you define it?
|
On September 21 2016 13:47 xDaunt wrote:
What do you think that the alt right is? How would you define it? Well that's kind of the trick. A lot of people have heard the term recently, but don't necessarily know what it is or what it's connection to Donald Trump might be.
So as a question of political strategy (the larger question of what the alt right actually is aside, it seems like the Democrats would like to convince everyone that:
1) The alt right is a new upswell of various racist, sexist, etc. attitudes, basically Stormfront 2.0.
2) Donald Trump is tied closely to the movement, such that any problem you might have with the alt right is a problem you have with Trump.
The former seems like an easy case to make, between the (((echoes))) meme, r/theredpill, harassment of Leslie Jones for no apparent reason other than being black, etc. The latter seems easy too, what with Bannon being at the helm of Trump's campaign and Breitbart news wholeheartedly embracing the alt right. Is there some part of this political calculus I'm missing?
|
On September 21 2016 13:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:47 xDaunt wrote:
What do you think that the alt right is? How would you define it? Well that's kind of the trick. A lot of people have heard the term recently, but don't necessarily know what it is or what it's connection to Donald Trump might be. So as a question of political strategy (the larger question of what the alt right actually is aside, it seems like the Democrats would like to convince everyone that: 1) The alt right is a new upswell of various racist, sexist, etc. attitudes, basically Stormfront 2.0. 2) Donald Trump is tied closely to the movement, such that any problem you might have with the alt right is a problem you have with Trump. The former seems like an easy case to make, between the (((echoes))) meme, r/theredpill, harassment of Leslie Jones for no apparent reason other than being black, etc. The latter seems easy too, what with Bannon being at the helm of Trump's campaign and Breitbart news wholeheartedly embracing the alt right. Is there some part of this political calculus I'm missing?
Well, I do have a pretty good idea of what the alt right is. I've taken a lot of time to research it because I wanted to know whether I fit into it. Spoiler alert: I don't. Nor does Breitbart nor Bannon.
If you really want to learn what the alt right is, go look here. Long story short, people who are true members of the alt right look at everything political and social through the prism of race. And it is from that perspective that alt right members derive and promote racialist agendas that promote racial interests -- specifically white race interests. This is a very radical position that is very selectively held, and the alt right is completely unapologetic about it. I've considered expanding the definition of alt right a bit by arguing that the focus is on "culture" instead of "race," but the real alt right members make their position explicitly clear: it's all about race. They consider anyone who seems to sympathize (to one degree or another) with the alt right but refuses to accept their fundamental truths about race to be "alt lite."
Other people (like Milo) have tried to expand the definition of the alt right beyond what I have described above by lumping in the "trolls." Frankly, I think that this is incorrect and a social disservice. A necessary part of being a political movement is having policy objectives in mind. Chasing "lulz" clearly doesn't cut it. Plus, including the trolls in the definition of alt right undercuts and obfuscates some of the truly horrific aspects of the real alt right agenda.
Which brings us to Trump. Trump's agenda is not a true alt right agenda in that it doesn't go nearly far enough racially in promoting white interests. Sure, he's targeting white voters for support with policies that pander to their interests and he's promoting American culture in a way that that has not been done in at least two generations, but these policies are color blind (racially neutral) in intended application. That's not far enough for the alt right, who see Trump merely as a good first step in the right direction.
And it's here that the attempts to pin Trump to the alt right movement fail. The only way to make such an association work is to adopt an overly-expansive definition of the alt right. But the problem with this approach is that it quickly becomes impossible to identify the defining characteristics of the group when the expansive definition of the group is adopted. So what liberals and democrats are left with is a very unconvincing argument that the alt right is full of racists and sexists without really being able to explain why in a compelling manner. This is why the Pepe article on Hillary's website fell so hilariously flat. If they wanted to call Trump a racist, they should just call him a racist and explain why rather than create a convoluted, esoteric theory that uses a cartoon frog and the alt right as a strawman vehicle to do so. Hell, the term "alt right" is still barely on the fringes of the national consciousness. No one knows what the hell it is. All Donald has to do (and his campaign has already done this) is say, "we have no idea what Hillary is talking about," and the attack on him is completely nullified.
So no, the term "alt right" is not the silver bullet that is going to get rid of Trump. Trump's opponents would be better off taking Trump head on.
|
But Breitbart and Bannon certainly tie themselves to the term. If you want to argue that they're using the term differently than the lovelies over at r/altright, that's fine, but if the average voter googles "what is the alt right" they find a number of articles saying it's racist, something something Breitbart/Bannon, something something tied to Donald Trump. If Bannon describes Breitbart News as "the platform of the alt right," and then people go look up what the alt right is and find this, it's would be easy to assume Breitbart News is supporting that shit. Then it's just a short hop from Breitbart News to Donald Trump, thanks to Bannon at the helm.
Saying opponents should just "attack Trump head on" ignores how political marketing works, in this election cycle in particular. It's not just about saying "Donald Trump said a racist thing, he shouldn't have said that racist thing." Many people will agree at the time, and yet somehow poll numbers won't swing nearly as much as you'd expect if that many people believed Trump is a racist. It's much more effective to paint overarching narratives, which factor in individual issues but aren't so limited in scope. "Trump said Mexicans are rapists, that's bad" is a short-sighted argument. "Trump is leading a rising tide of ethnocentrism and white supremacy that threatens to set back racial equality a century or more" is a better narrative, if you can get people to buy it. And if the alt right is that movement, and you can establish that the alt right loves Trump and Trump loves the alt right, that's probably good enough to sell it.
|
lol, whenever people talk about putting Trump in a box, it makes me think of racing against some CIA-wind up where the parameters are something like "you get to live the life of evel knievel so long as you do nothing to jeopardize your popularity".
I think this is exactly the kind of box the CIA uses....
Imagine trying to define some kind of psychohistory-esc trap against ninja assassins. You're working against a basic protocol like so-and-so is actually trying to die, maybe even before killing his targets.
I don't at all think that Trump's run for presidency is connected to a CIA box of exactly this description any more than I think Trump is sexually interested in Hillary. I did at one point think Barack was a terrorist, but I was paranoid at the time. I have no idea what I'm talking about but I am far more interested in this election than I have been in past elections.
Now I'm starting to think that Trump's candidacy is actually not all that different from the kind of popularity the CIA themselves enjoy....
I see it all NOW! Trump was high and said he's assassinate Hillary when Bill was in office. That's definitely what happened how else could this have come about.
This is a perfect example of how a sincere post can rapidly transform into a troll post when someone not versed into politics tries earnestly to deal with a political thread.
|
United States9917 Posts
except that the alt right has actually been winning trump this race. Clinton's miserable attempts at the alt-right, >pepe the frog, and people like Milo and Alex Jones have only cost her. If she continues to go after them and try to paint a target, Trump only gets stronger and its in the polls.
|
Trumps closest comparison is Duterte.
|
Nice posts, Christian, I think your analysis is sound, though given the nature of elections, always open to change 
|
On September 21 2016 16:06 FlaShFTW wrote:
except that the alt right has actually been winning trump this race. Clinton's miserable attempts at the alt-right, >pepe the frog, and people like Milo and Alex Jones have only cost her. If she continues to go after them and etry to paint a target, Trump only gets stronger and its in the polls.
But I don't think those attacks quite landed. There's no way a majority of the population supports the creepy shit the alt right is into (see, as xDaunt suggested, r/altright). I linked in a post above a Scooby Doo meme that alleges all the world's problems are because of Jews. If people saw that sort of thing as representative of Trumpism that could not possibly help him.
It might help him if the attacks come across as an old person attempting to understand internet memes.
On September 21 2016 21:00 farvacola wrote:Nice posts, Christian, I think your analysis is sound, though given the nature of elections, always open to change
Thanks!
|
So why don't you think that Clinton's alt right attacks landed? What did she miss?
Edit: Also, that NPR article and mother jones article miss the mark badly. Just to give you a hint, Milo isn't a member of the alt right, and he explicitly disclaims being part of it. Using alt right as a synonym for the new form of conservatism that is emerging doesn't work.
|
On September 21 2016 22:46 xDaunt wrote:
So why don't you think that Clinton's alt right attacks landed? What did she miss?
Edit: Also, that NPR article and mother jones article miss the mark badly. Just to give you a hint, Milo isn't a member of the alt right, and he explicitly disclaims being part of it. Using alt right as a synonym for the new form of conservatism that is emerging doesn't work.
I mean, I remember 3 attacks from her. There was the alt right speech. It was alright, I don't remember specifics but I don't think it tried very hard to tie Trump to the issue. It was mostly "there's this new thing called the alt right, it's scary, and I'm against it." Admittedly I only read parts of the speech so that might not be a great summary. But the speech seemed effective enough to me.
Then there was the"basket of deplorables" remark, which got sidetracked in the news by discussions of whether this is the same as the 47% remark. But even if you read the speech she's specifically talking about how many of Trump's supporters are not in that basket, which is the exact opposite of hitting Trump on the alt right.
Then there's the Pepe explainer, which tried to tie Trump to white supremacists, but without using the term alt right, instead choosing the more roundabout avenue of:
1) Pepe the frog is a racist meme used by white supremacists.
2) Trump's son or someone retweeted a Pepe meme about Trump.
3) Therefore Trump is a white supremacist.
People are naturally skeptical of claims from candidates' websites, and this logic was hardly ironclad. But if Hillary (or her surrogates) instead emphasized a) how creepy and racist the alt right is, and b) how closely tied they are to the Trump camp, that seems like an easier case to make.
Edit: Milo's relationship to the alt right seems complicated. He at the very least bills himself as some kind of alt right expert who "gives it a fair hearing in the press." Then people ask him questions like 'what would it look like if the alt right's dream were realized' and he starts to talk about how glorious the world would be, and how bad political correctness it is and how much he'd love it if it were defeated. It's like he's trying to play it off like he's not into the alt right – he's just an impartial journalist cataloguing its history and development – but then he does a really bad job of hiding his sympathy for the movement.
Worth noting, by the way, that Milo doesn't seem to agree with your definition of the alt right at all, and does tie it more closely to the Trump campaign. So if your view is that they're not really that close to the Trump campaign but they are super racist, and Milo's view is that they are tied closely to the Trump campaign but they're [/i]not[/i] super racist, surely it wouldn't be that hard to convince voters that Milo's right about how widespread they are and how close to the Trump camp they are, but you're right about how racist they are.
|
yea but by the theory of dismemberment the only way to deconstruct is to construct completely. Hillary is a basket case no doubt about it but Trump isn't going to salvage the country either. No one really knows Hillary's motives whether they're just power. There is no telling what she'll accomplish as President but the country will accomplish something if she does. Trump's agenda is a lot more appealing to a Romney supporter because at least the message is ironclad. You're a genius for listing like you do but HIllary is not good for the country man
|
Trump is like a cross between Nixon and Bush II: narcissistic and dumb.
I'm reliably informed that the '68 election was actually very similar to this one except it was actually even more unpredictable and crazy.
People should keep in mind that Trump is actually not that bad compared to some others that did become President. It's just that they have forgotten how utterly terrible some past presidents have actually been.
|
Hmm, as a Republican voter Trump fits pretty well in the right of center republican box, he supports enforcing immigration laws, is pro life, supports gun rights, seems a bit moderate on foreign policy but is pro American (Unlike Obama imo)(for the record I think a less hawkish foreign policy is not a bad idea.). On Trade policy Trump is pretty moderate, one of the issues I have with him but easily overlookable compared to Hillary.
Trump actually has a plan to reduce the deficit and improve the economy unlike Hillary who is just "increase taxes on the middle class = great for the economy"
Numerous other issues where he is center right.
Overall, this election is far less complicated than people(read, the media) make it out to be, examine the policies, if you are a progressive, vote Hillary, if you are conservative vote Trump.
All the random noise surrounding Trump is irrelevant from an ideas prospective.
The main reason republican voter are resonating with Trump so much is that he is not afraid to say what he thinks and speak common sense even when its not politically correct to do so.
The refugee issue is a perfect example of this. Trump is saying that inviting refugees in to the country is allowing for the possibility of terrorists coming in with them. This is very reasonable, all you have to do is look at Europe to see the possible effects. Even if you feel the risk is worth it (I think this is a fine debate, perhaps the risk a bombing which may happen anyway is worth allowing refugees.) Trumps policy seems reasonable and many Americans surely feel the same way. Yet the media is shocked by his statements and try to label them as "raceist" I think Trump is showing a disconnect between the thinking public and the media elites, pundits, washington analysts etc.
|
Also really quick on the race issue, I would ask you, What has the Democrat party really done for the black community in the last 20 years? Look at Chicago, 100% Democrat, Democrat mayor, democrat run State pretty much, the poverty rats for blacks are sky high (something like 14 percent from a quick google search) poverty rates are sky high (34 percent again from google) I saw a stat today that black children have only a 36% chance to grow up in a family with both mother and father so what has the Democrat party done for the black community besides stick them in a cycle of dependency crime and poverty? and don't give me excuses about the federal level, the dems had full control of house and senate as well as president for 2 yours and president for 8 not to mention the Clinton era.
So when Trump suggest economic ideas and education reforms which will actually help Black people all over the countryn I ask you why should black people vote for Hillary? Oh right, I forgot, Trump is a racist, silly me, you get welfare and food stamps and free abortions!
(Also don't bring up civil rights was passed with bi-partisan support and it was the democrats who blocked it for years, until it was no longer politically possible).
I probably said way more than I should but this is my take on the whole "Trump is a raceist" shtick.
|
@SlammerIV: Well you kind of hit a lot of different topics pretty rapid-fire there, so it's a bit hard to respond to everything, but I'll do my best.
Regarding Trump's similarity to center-right Republicans:
Trump has a lot of marked differences from ordinary Republicans, which is why you got strong opposition from the right (see #NeverTrump, George Will, Mitt Romney, The National Review, etc.). It's kind of a different topic, which I might try to write a separate blog about, but in brief, the subjects you listed:
-Immigration: This issue has usually been one that doesn't fall very neatly on party lines, but Trump is certainly more extremely in favor of strict borders than Republicans have been, maybe ever (see Reagan and amnesty).
-Pro life: Trump was pro choice until very recently in his life, and has made almost zero mention of the issue on the campaign. The obvious interpretation is that abortion is either an issue where he privately disagrees with the party, or just an issue he doesn't give a shit about.
-Gun rights: Yeah, he seems anti-gun control.
-"Moderate on foreign policy": I don't know where you get this. Trump is neither moderate nor in line with Republican on foreign policy. Republicans fucking hate his anti-NATO, we-may-or-may-not-defend-our-allies positions, and to be clear, these are not moderate positions. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have historically supported anything like what Trump is advocating, and it is a radical change to US foreign policy (thus my characterization of "unprecedented")
-pro-American: I don't even know what this means. Do you think Obama is anti-American? Every candidate for US president is in favor of America; sometimes people on the right call people on the left "Blame America Firsters" for criticizing the US's role as world policeman, but since Donald Trump is far more in favor of diminishing that role than Hillary even that criticism doesn't land.
Trade policy: Extreme protectionism is not moderate. Like his foreign policy, this is a position neither party has really advocated, which is part of what makes it so unprecedented. Donald Trump is campaigning for a foreign policy (both in military and in trade) which actively antagonizes other world powers in hopes of extracting concessions from them (e.g. Mexico paying for the wall, NATO allies pay us money to defend them). "Moderate" implies that it is a compromise between the two parties' positions, but if neither party wants anything like this, it's not moderate.
Deficit/budget plans: Donald Trump's plan is to increase government spending while dramatically lowering taxes. If you think that will be good for the economy, fine, but to think a plan like that will decrease the deficit is pretty close to denying math. The only possible economic argument that it could work is with a very generous supply side economics correction to account for the trillions of dollars of deficit his plan would run. And all this is assuming he finds the hundreds of billions of dollars of spending cuts to government programs that he has promised, without specifying what programs he will cut to save that money. Hillary isn't even who we're talking about, but her plan is primarily to tax the rich more, not the middle class.
And this is a big subject of its own:
Is Donald Trump racist?
This is definitely a topic that deserves its own blog, if not several blogs, but from the links above, let me hit some of the highlights:
-In 1973 Trump and his father were prosecuted by the government – Nixon's Justice Department, specifically – for systematically discriminating against blacks in his apartment buildings. Their case was pretty ironclad. When black testers were sent to inquire about openings, they were consistently told nothing was available, while white testers that inquired immediately after would be shown openings. A former superintendent testified that it was standard policy to mark black people's applications with a "c" for "colored" to signal that the application should be rejected.
-In 1991 former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino John O'Donnell claimed that Trump had been very upset about having a certain black accountant, and quoted Trump as follows:Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control. Trump denied it at the time, but took that back in 1997, saying, "the stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true."
-Numerous instances since the beginning of the campaign, including calling Mexicans rapists, retweeting white supremacists and Nazi sympathizers, and, in a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, making repeated reference to how Jews like to haggle and want to control the world with their money.
Whether Democratic or Republican policies are better for blacks is so tangential to this blog I hesitate to even address it, but since you seem eager to discuss the subject:
That blacks are poor and underprivileged is a pretty bad way of arguing whether Democratic policies are good for blacks, because there's no comparison. If you had a demographically similar city in the same time period governed by Republicans in which blacks fared better, you'd have a good case study (and even then, there'd likely be difficulties with peculiar demographic trends of a particular city; I'm not well versed in Chicago's struggles, but my understanding is that they've had a confluence of economic factors related to industry and population migration that have left them in a peculiarly bad spot). But discussing without a comparison is like running an experiment without a control – you simply can't establish any kind of causality.
Discussing which party's policies are "good for blacks," though, you'll find that Democrats have a significant number of policy suggestions geared specifically toward dealing with many issues that black America is facing: criminal justice reform so that blacks can have more trust in the legal system and get a fair shot; adjust public school funding to depend less heavily on local property taxes, so that blacks aren't doomed to having bad schools simply by living in poor areas; subsidies for low-income housing so poor people living and working in the city don't have to opt for more expensive living situations, such as staying in pay-per-night hotels that cost a lot more than living in an apartment. You may disagree with some of these policies (and I bet you disagree with some other targeted policies, such as affirmative action), but it must at least be acknowledged that these policies are designed to identify the particular problems facing blacks and try to engineer a government response which will help alleviate those problems.
By comparison, Republicans largely tell blacks that they're problems are a result of a) not taking personal responsibility, b) not having enough merit to excel in the meritocracy (see anyone who talks about "bootstraps"), and c) being born out of wedlock. In short, blacks' problems are the fault of black culture, and they need to shape up instead of asking the government for help. Trump is no different; his economic ideas consist of tax breaks for the rich and cutting social programs which normally help the poor, and his "education reforms" are mostly in favor of a voucher system, which is vastly more helpful to middle and upper class people who want to shop around for schools than it is for poor black families, for whom a voucher system has relatively little benefit (and has a very good chance of increasing racial segregation of schools).
|
the alt-right is a bullshit phrase made up by the far left to fearmonger people into not voting for trump. they same way they've skewed him as a racist, xenophobic, retard when in actuality his policies are real solutions to real problems (whereas hillary simply panders to minorities).
|
"the alt-right is a bullshit phrase made up by the far left"
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
