A well written, sober article on Race, "Economic anxiety" and Trump

Politics & Elections
21

The Muslim ban could be called Islamophobic, but given that Trump is a big fan of Saudi Arabia, I don’t think that he personally cares one way or the other, he just knows that most of his base is Islamophobic and is fine to make a symbolic gesture that makes them like him.

I would say that the evidence that he’s racist against black people is pretty solid. Otherwise, there’s no real excuse for his Birtherism, and that is something that there’s no ambiguity of him being a supporter of. There’s no “disgruntled ex-employee” excuse to lean on.

But I’m unaware of any policy decisions that he has made that are strictly targeted to black people.

So, at the moment, he has one racist policy, with the Muslim ban, but I can’t find any policies (plural) via Google or in my memory.

I assume that they are referring to the “grab em by the pussy” hot mic incident.

True, it’s not a confession, but given that he wasn’t aware that he was being taped, it seems fair to call it an admission.

It’s trivially easy to demonstrate that Trump is sexist and a sexual assaulter.

22

So, is the solution that we stop speaking about the effects of history and context, or that trump voters learn something about history and context?

23

I don’t think the article is very sober.

I have a Trumpist mother who lives in a right-wing media cocoon. I know that any claims of racism or sexism with regard to policy decisions is portrayed as being how liberals react to things they don’t like. The whole belief system is fueled by liberal reaction, the louder the better.

People on the right have been inoculated against racist and sexist claims for the last fifteen years or so (my WAG), with assurances that reasonable people of all stripes actually share their concerns about job growth, national security, and the straining of social programs in bigger numbers than the other party lets on about. That women care about more than women’s issues, and people of color care about more than people of color issues, etc., and that loss of power among the special interests is a good thing overall, because everyone is equal.

That is simplistic. My point here is that the right has successfully trained its people to suspect charges of racism and the motives of those who call it out, really working the poles in our polarization. An example is that quote from Trump excerpted in the article.

*“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” *

Democrat: “That’s racist.”
Republican: “No it isn’t.”
(End)

My own POV is that both major political parties are shit and they can’t die fast enough, and that the above exchange is the normal state of discourse, but that’s kind of beside the point. I do think the article is a long and dedicated expression of small and shallow thinking. This part is especially awkward:

*Cautioning that there are limits to social science, Abrajano told me, “All other things being equal, we see that immigration has a strong and consistent effect in moving whites towards the Republican Party. I think having the first African American president elected into the office … You can’t disentangle immigration without talking about race as well, so that dynamic brought to the forefront immigration and racial politics more broadly, and the kind of fear and anxiety that many voters had about the changing demographics and characteristics of the U.S. population.” The Slate writer Jamelle Bouie made a similar observation in an insightful essay in March 2016.
*
It diagnoses itself: You can’t disentangle immigration from race and that’s why people leave you. It doesn’t account for the economic concerns of immigration because they apparently don’t exist, and the author notes that economic anxiety is a “euphemism turned running joke.”

I don’t see a lot of wisdom here; more the opposite. Sorry.

24

Good post.

25

Is that a “racist” policy, or is it based on religion rather than race?

26

Given that there’s a decent number of African-American Muslims that no one seems to care about and terrorism as a mechanism of war was popularized by Protestant Irishmen, I’ll vote that racism is a reasonable term. Mostly, though, I’m just not aware of a better word.

27

Bigoted?

28

Soooo…He’s recorded having a private conversation and suddenly he speaks blinding, brilliant truth? Come on, people, you can’t have it both ways. Which is it - he’s telling the truth or he’s lying? You claim he lies every time he opens his mouth; what if this was nothing more than “locker-room bragging”? So…which is it?

29

You are ignoring the part were his confession is corroborated by the 17 women that have accused him of assaulting them, so yes we can fucking believe it. What more does it take?

30

I would definitely go with racism. It’s always about brown people. It was the refugees they were scared of. Brown people who aren’t actually Muslim get attacked over it. Slurs like “towelhead” only apply certain locations.

There is some attempt to portray it as religious, and I used to buy that. But I’ve observed more recently how must racist tinge it has to it. The whole “Sharia law” thing is something I don’t hear about anymore. It’s about assuming anyone from “over there” is a terrorist.

31

Given that there are a number of women who confirm his description, and that those women are backed by others as having mentioned the events years and decades before, it’s safe to say that it was not just locker-room bragging.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/palm-beach-post-exclusive-local-woman-says-trump-groped-her/w5ii48gwdJY9htsLl88GcP/

32

Well, why don’t you tell us? Is Trump a truth teller or a liar? Or is he lying about this, but telling the truth about being the smartest, hardest-working, not-golf-playing successful president? 'Cause you can’t have it both ways.

33

Do people actually say “I’m proud to be Hispanic?” I think it’s more likely that they’d say they’re proud to be Mexican, or Colombian, or Puerto Rican, or whatever. I know that there are pan-Latino solidarity groups but I doubt this kind of allegiance is very widespread.

For the same reason, “white” people (there’s not actually any such thing as races, just phenotypes - combinations of physical features that are passed down through genetics, and which might predominate among certain ethnic groups but don’t actually constitute discrete “races”…but I digress) might be proud to be Irish proud to be Italian, proud to be Polish-American or Greek-American, or even proud to be of old English stock, but to take pride in being “white” generally, has no purpose. It’s too general of a category! That’s why it’s decried as racist.

“Black”, in America, despite being from many different geographical origins within Africa (and mixed with European ancestry besides), is enough of a distinct subgroup - because of racism, mind you - that I don’t believe black people are racist for saying they’re proud to be black. They are proud of being part of a group that collectively has faced great challenges and has contributed so much to American culture.

34

Confessing to something does not have to be a true statement. There are false confessions.

It is quite possible Trump has never sexually assaulted anyone, but bragged about doing so because he’s that big an asshole. I think it very unlikely Trump has in fact not assaulted anyone given how many women say he has, but it doesn’t speak well for him either way.

35

Personally I believe the women when there are multiple accusers, particularly when the accused brags about doing these things. Let’s not forget in addition to the actual sexual assaults, this monster also barged in the dressing rooms of beauty pageants, even those with teen contestants, so that he could see them in various stages of undress.

36

I don’t think the question that the Left keeps asking is the right question.

It’s not “why did Trump get elected even though he is a racist”. It’s “why don’t people think he is a racist”. The Atlantic can insist until they are blue in the face that opposition to illegal immigration and imported terrorism is racist. It isn’t, and repeating (to each other) over and over isn’t going to change anything, or convince anyone.

Thirty years ago, a Nazi lost an election. And this proves - something or other.

Word.

Regards,
Shodan

37

Perhaps some fantasy publication does this, but most of the articles in The Atlantic that I’m familiar with call Trump racist because he spread a racist conspiracy theory for years, insisted on the guilt of several non-white youths after they were exonerated, said that a judge was biased because of his Mexican ancestry, called Mexican immigrants rapists, retweeted multiple tweets from racist sources (including bullshit statistics about black people and crime), said that the white supremacist marchers in Charlottesville included “good people” and blamed the violence there on “both sides” contrary to the evidence, was sued and settled for housing discrimination against black people, pretended not to know who David Duke was even though he’d talked about him multiple times before, called his supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”, routinely invoked anti-Semitic stereotypes when speaking to or about Jews, advocated for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration, and more.

Maybe you disagree that those things can reasonably be characterized as racist, but those are the reasons why Trump is called racist, not “opposition to illegal immigration and imported terrorism”.

38

Like I said, the Left can’t seem to bring themselves to ask the right question.

I get it - the race card is supposed to be a show-stopper, ending all discussion and deciding all issues. Unless and until the Left understands that this is not necessarily the case, you aren’t going to get very far.

Regards,
Shodan

39

To be fair, the point of the article seemed to be just that, “Racism isn’t a show-stopper for a surprisingly large percentage of the population.” But I would agree that not all of the issues declared racist by the Left are requisitely racist, and I would agree that most of them will read the article and take the message that Trump and Trump voters are racist, despite that not being the point of the article.

40

But when the very example you used to demonstrate the left’s inability to ask the right question – the Atlantic doesn’t in fact claim that Trump is a racist because he opposes imported terrorism – is so bald-facedly wrong, how much credence should we give to your diagnosis at all? “Why don’t people realize that Trump is a racist” may be a valid question to ask, but it won’t be because (as you seem to insinuate) the answer is that Trump isn’t really one.