|
On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist.
I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems.
That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist.
|
On October 18 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist. I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems. That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist.
Removing it from our particular context... why? Denial and outrage has worked to make it so accusations of racism - especially if they're true - are an 'unjust slur' that is all 'about engaging in identity politics' and that makes people on the right SO mad, so mad they'll vote to defend the honour of anyone so unfairly categorised.
Aside from the monstrousness of it, you can't deny it's working. Danglars doesn't understand racism and doesn't need to. His political reality says it's a leftist construct that must be defeated. And racism against whites/marginalisation of the religious is a much bigger issue, too. Ask Tomi Lahren, she'll tell you.
And as you point out yourself, and XDaunt just did, Democrats - the party who admits racism is a thing - are rubbish at making political capital out of it because the electorate think the word has no bearing in reality anymore. Though I've no idea for how much of said electorate that's true.
|
On October 18 2018 20:53 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist. I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems. That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist. Removing it from our particular context... why? Denial and outrage has worked to make it so accusations of racism - especially if they're true - are an 'unjust slur' that is all 'about engaging in identity politics' and that makes people on the right SO mad, so mad they'll vote to defend the honour of anyone so unfairly categorised. Aside from the monstrousness of it, you can't deny it's working. Danglars doesn't understand racism and doesn't need to. His political reality says it's a leftist construct that must be defeated. And racism against whites/marginalisation of the religious is a much bigger issue, too. Ask Tomi Lahren, she'll tell you. And as you point out yourself, and XDaunt just did, Democrats - the party who admits racism is a thing - are rubbish at making political capital out of it because the electorate think the word has no bearing in reality anymore. Though I've no idea for how much of said electorate that's true.
The part of the US that doesn't think Trump says and does racist things is pretty small. The reality is that most people just don't care about racism (or at least enough to change a vote) that doesn't clearly and negatively impact their bottom line.
As to electorally, racism never has been and likely never will be a winning issue, just one any representative of the "left" will have carry forward or not be worth the paper they print the ballot on. It's not like it's new. People who have done racist things throughout history have absolved themselves of any moral or ethical consequence through almost identical arguments made here. Granted the context has changed, none of it is really new.
|
On October 18 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist. I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems. That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist.
What do you mean by "the neoliberal identity politics version of racism," verses presumably a more accurate way of thinking about racism?
|
On October 18 2018 22:08 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist. I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems. That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist. What do you mean by "the neoliberal identity politics version of racism," verses presumably a more accurate way of thinking about racism?
It's a superficial and paternal version. Previously described as "the white moderate" by MLK. It's the kind that thinks that racism is a southern and Republican thing, rather than a United States (and beyond) thing, which is part of why they thought Trump couldn't possibly win.
|
|
|
"Paternalistic" is probably too nice of an adjective. "Exploitative" is more accurate.
|
The way racism is discussed and legislated is certainly exploitative. It's built on fear.
The specifically anti-white versions perpetuated by Ta-Nehisi Coates (The First White President), or Ekow N. Yankah (Can My Children Be Friends With White People?), and Alexis Grenell (White Women, Come Get Your People), is just servicing the Democratic base and intellectuals.
|
On October 18 2018 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2018 20:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 18 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist. I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems. That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist. Removing it from our particular context... why? Denial and outrage has worked to make it so accusations of racism - especially if they're true - are an 'unjust slur' that is all 'about engaging in identity politics' and that makes people on the right SO mad, so mad they'll vote to defend the honour of anyone so unfairly categorised. Aside from the monstrousness of it, you can't deny it's working. Danglars doesn't understand racism and doesn't need to. His political reality says it's a leftist construct that must be defeated. And racism against whites/marginalisation of the religious is a much bigger issue, too. Ask Tomi Lahren, she'll tell you. And as you point out yourself, and XDaunt just did, Democrats - the party who admits racism is a thing - are rubbish at making political capital out of it because the electorate think the word has no bearing in reality anymore. Though I've no idea for how much of said electorate that's true. The part of the US that doesn't think Trump says and does racist things is pretty small. The reality is that most people just don't care about racism (or at least enough to change a vote) that doesn't clearly and negatively impact their bottom line.
Well... guilty as charged. Although with two qualifications:
1. I hope you would concur that economics and racism are not in opposition to each other, and that favorable economics (especially towards the working class) benefits underprivileged minorities as well.
2. The “neoliberal identity politics” version of “racism” eats up a lion’s share of the bandwidth that could be used to actually consider the issue while being wholly unproductive.
|
I think my view and LL's view are pretty similar in that regard. My main political concern is clearly neoliberalism and what we do with the economy. It's just that the economy is so ingrained as being liberalism in the US mindset that we rarely get to discuss socialism or fascism, so I end up speaking more about social issues simply because, well, I'm here.
I don't want to dismiss social fights either. It's true that racism decreases if the economy works well for all people, but it's not like everything gets magically fixed. Those fights also matter, and should be fought. I feel less comfortable being in the center of them cause it's not really my place as someone who isn't oppressed, but I'll be an ally for sure.
|
On October 18 2018 23:54 Danglars wrote:
The way racism is discussed and legislated is certainly exploitative. It's built on fear.
The specifically anti-white versions perpetuated by Ta-Nehisi Coates (The First White President), or Ekow N. Yankah (Can My Children Be Friends With White People?), and Alexis Grenell (White Women, Come Get Your People), is just servicing the Democratic base and intellectuals.
Those pieces aren't anti-white though. Coats' biggest problem is his failure to critique imperialism and US empire. I can understand why the click-baity headlines could trigger folks though.
On October 19 2018 00:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2018 21:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 18 2018 20:53 iamthedave wrote:On October 18 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 18 2018 09:20 xDaunt wrote:
The point that is being missed here is that the leftist constructions of racism, insofar are they are bases for political action, are being rejected by the country. And no where is this more apparent than in immigration policy. Democrats are literally being instructed not to talk about illegal immigration or the wall because Trump and the GOP are soundly trouncing them on that issue. Hell, Latino support for Trump is far higher than Democrats ever thought it might be given that Trump is allegedly a racist. I don't think it's missed by neb or myself, but probably by the same neoliberal wing of Democrats that fully embrace that particular construction (the one I believe you're describing). I think we have different opinions on how that reflects on the country and the individuals that not only reject the neoliberal identity politics version of racism but assert that racism has been rendered a meaningless word, by those who wielded it for shallow political victories or reflexively use it to avoid having to understand more complex policies and systems. That aside, you really have to disabuse yourself of this notion that any minority support for any candidate means that either they or their policy isn't racist. Removing it from our particular context... why? Denial and outrage has worked to make it so accusations of racism - especially if they're true - are an 'unjust slur' that is all 'about engaging in identity politics' and that makes people on the right SO mad, so mad they'll vote to defend the honour of anyone so unfairly categorised. Aside from the monstrousness of it, you can't deny it's working. Danglars doesn't understand racism and doesn't need to. His political reality says it's a leftist construct that must be defeated. And racism against whites/marginalisation of the religious is a much bigger issue, too. Ask Tomi Lahren, she'll tell you. And as you point out yourself, and XDaunt just did, Democrats - the party who admits racism is a thing - are rubbish at making political capital out of it because the electorate think the word has no bearing in reality anymore. Though I've no idea for how much of said electorate that's true. The part of the US that doesn't think Trump says and does racist things is pretty small. The reality is that most people just don't care about racism (or at least enough to change a vote) that doesn't clearly and negatively impact their bottom line. Well... guilty as charged. Although with two qualifications: 1. I hope you would concur that economics and racism are not in opposition to each other, and that favorable economics (especially towards the working class) benefits underprivileged minorities as well. 2. The “neoliberal identity politics” version of “racism” eats up a lion’s share of the bandwidth that could be used to actually consider the issue while being wholly unproductive.
1. They can, but like previous programs if not specifically kept in mind, Black people will be left out.
2. Neoliberal politics eat up too much bandwidth, racism is just one topic. The responses like "Blue/All Lives Matter" are peak stupid as well.
|
www.nytimes.com
In fact, white liberals are well to the left of the black electorate on some racial issues.
Take the issue of discrimination as a factor holding back African-American advancement. White liberals are to the left of black Democrats, placing a much stronger emphasis than African-Americans on the role of discrimination and much less emphasis on the importance of individual effort.
|
I really wish one day articles would stop framing what they describe here as a move to the left :/
|
Democrats have moved decidedly to the Left. Their positions on things like abortion, gun control, immigration, and various identity politics-related policies are unquestionably progressive and left wing. And the party demands nearly strict orthodoxy on this stuff. In fact, Democrats have become so left wing that they can't even openly campaign on what they they really believe. Project Veritas has recently released a series of videos from inside the Bredesan and McCaskill campaigns showing just that. America just isn't where the Democrat Party is right now, which is one of the reasons that it has been so substantially wiped out in local elections over the past 8 years.
|
I get what you're saying, surely you also get what I'm saying, right? It's not the first time I'm having this conversation, but I'm not sure I've had it with you personally.
|
On October 19 2018 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:
I get what you're saying, surely you also get what I'm saying, right? It's not the first time I'm having this conversation, but I'm not sure I've had it with you personally.
I do, but my followup question is why do you have a problem with it?
|
On October 19 2018 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2018 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:
I get what you're saying, surely you also get what I'm saying, right? It's not the first time I'm having this conversation, but I'm not sure I've had it with you personally. I do, but my followup question is why do you have a problem with it?
It limits the scope of accepted political positions. You can be a socially conservative socialist, and I'm sure you can even be a socially liberal fascist (I haven't met one but I see no immediate contradiction, you can be for economic nationalism and view the world through a nation-based ideology and also use the argument of social cohesion that is often used within fascism to justify a better treatment of the non immigrant minorities within your nation). If the only way to be leftwing is to be more socially liberal and the only way to be rightwing is to be more socially conservative, then economic liberalism (maybe even neoliberalism specifically at this point) is the assumed way of the world. So in my view, on top of not completely making sense, it's also very unhelpful.
|
Just to give you some of the focus in Republican messaging:
Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Cory Booker are featured. They show the raucous protest (we might even say, mob) at the steps of the Supreme Court after Kavanaugh. They show Ted Cruz and his wife getting shouted out of the restaurant.
Obviously, the film itself deserves no special credit, because there's no shortage of material to scoop up and display to make the connection. The real point is this: Democrats don't really have anywhere to run. The violence and the protests may be minimized, but they want Americans to conclude that the country should be doing this because Trump and Republicans are just so awful. The Republicans assume the position of having the cooler heads and standing as adults in the room.
This is the narrative Democrats wanted with their perspective on illegal alien detention, Trump rhetoric and trolling, and health care. Now it's more or less swapped.
CNN host Don Lemon lost his cool with network commentator Matt Lewis while discussing the “mob behavior” of liberals versus conservatives Tuesday, telling him to “shut up” while he made his point.
Lewis, a columnist for The Daily Beast, said the difference between him and journalists on the left is he is willing to admit when someone on the right is embracing “mob behavior.”
“The difference between center right journalists and liberal activists is, I will admit that it is a mob behavior. It is a mob mentality when Donald Trump and the people say ‘lock her up.’ I’m willing to admit that,” Lewis declared.
“I’m waiting for liberals and intellectually honest liberals to admit that when you harass Ted Cruz at a restaurant, that is also mob-like behavior. Why is it that I’m willing to concede that Donald Trump is a bad person and that’s mob behavior, but I never hear liberals come on and concede that.” [...]
“I will answer your question,” Lemon replied. “Is it mob behavior? No, it’s not mob behavior. It’s people who are upset and angry with the way the country is going.”
qtd in Daily Caller
Matt Lewis is a center-right journalist at the left or center-left online publication Daily Beast. He sought consensus for calling fair and foul without partisan blinders. What pissed him off, and pisses others off, is he only gets agreement when Trump allies engage in behavior he thinks reminiscent of the mob, and can't grab denunciations of the same power when it's left-wing activists in the wrong. Maybe the left is somehow justified in going low, but Americans expect the media to report it as the response instead of talking it down.
|
Shrug. Yes, it'd be nice, but what do you expect? Neither side is going to call out it's own allies. It's pretty hilarious to see anyone on the right call the left 'an unhinged mob' after Charlottesville. What's the point of even asking for non-partisanship when you aren't willing to offer it? You're a literal case in point of why it isn't happening and probably won't.
Your (as in, the US) political language has been full of violence for years and its now beginning to play out in the public sphere rather than just among fringe groups. And it's most likely going to get a lot worse before it gets better, given how many of those fringe groups are actively antagonising the other side to make it worse.
Including, you know, the President. Oh wait, he's not a fringe group.
|
Beto got the only laugh of the debate when Cruz tried to present the Democrats as partisan as opposed to him and he just slightly commented on the irony. I don't think this strategy of affecting calmness and moderation is going to reach as many people as the strategists seem to think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
