This isn’t how I read it. His trade and international philosophy maybe somewhat out of the ordinary, but compared to his encouragement and rhetorical aid to white supremacists, it’s right smack in the middle. There have been other Republicans (and Democrats, I’m pretty sure) who have said similar things about trade and international affairs. But no national politician has directly encouraged white supremacists recently, at least not without heavy criticism followed by a retraction and apology.
That’s what’s different – the white supremacist stuff is so far out of the ordinary, way, way more than his talk on trade and foreign policy, that even mentioning it once is a huge deal. Saying “maybe Hitler was right” just once would be an ENORMOUS political event for a national politician. If anyone suggested “well mostly he talks about trade” to dismiss this, they’d be deservedly laughed at. The same goes for Trump’s appeals to white supremacism – and while they aren’t as direct as “maybe Hitler was right”, they’ve been repeated for years on end (starting with birtherism, if not before), with no apologies, and have continued into his presidency.
I don’t buy that, in modern times, a national politician can make appeals to white supremacism, over and over again, without this being a core of their appeal and philosophy. Many Trump supporters may not have these opinions themselves, but at best they tolerate it or are unconcerned by it.
Until you can distinguish between an argument you can’t answer, and sarcasm, I suggest you save the sanctimony.
Why did the white backlash not suffice in 2012 to get Trump further than in 2016? In 2012, there was an actual black man running - you could look it up.
iiandyiiii,
Expanding international trade and international alliances has largely been a bipartisan policy for 70 years especially at the Presidential level. Can you name a major party Presidential candidate whose views you think have been similar to Trump ? I don’t think anyone who has won the nomination has even come close to Trump’s views.
As for birtherism I think Slate Star Codex said it best:
The bottom line is Trump is not a normal politician or even a normal person and you can’t understand him by normal standards.
This is not meant as an excuse since I agree he is a terrible person. I don’t think my overall opinion of him is any higher than you or Coates for that matter. I just think it’s important to understand him and his appeal precisely to develop the best strategy to fight him.
"It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true—his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power. "
Can you explain how someone can have the ideology of white supremacy and not be a white supremacist? And we’re not talking about just a tinge of that ideology; not just aspects of that ideology, but that ideology “in all its truculent and sanctimonious power”.
It would be on thing if Coates had said “Trump’s ideology is partly informed by white supremacy” or “White supremacist thought overlaps with Trump’s ideology”. But that’s not what he said. He said his ideology is white supremacy. Are we now going to argue about what the meaning of “is” is?
Fair enough and I should clarify that I agree that racism and bigotry have played some role in Trump’s politics and rise; I just don’t think it’s the dominant role.
Also I think a big part of my misgivings about Coates is his casual use of the term “white supremacy” which I think should be restricted to Nazis, Jim Crow and the like. I think Kevin Drum nailedit:
I think white supremacism is kind of like the whole system of interrelated phenomena, both formal and informal government practices and policies as well as cultural practices in our society, which work together to make life easier for people the system qualifies as “white” and harder for others (to varying degrees). Whether we like it or not, our country has roots in white supremacism, and this system has been very powerful since our founding, and still has great influence today. And much of it is through inertia rather than active malevolent hatred or bigotry. If the polices and practices have this effect, then it takes a lot of effort to change it, and they don’t require hateful people to be cogs in this overall system that still manages to harm non-white people in various ways even if many/most of the people taking part aren’t actually hateful.
Thus these smaller sort of incidents and statements and events that are racist or otherwise bigoted are still related to and part of this overall system and phenomenon of white supremacy.
By that definition of “bigotry”, I guess I hope and expect to vote for a bigoted candidate in the next election – and the one after that, and the one after that – followed by the one after that, and then the one after that? Heck, by that definition of “bigotry”, I feel like I should trying a heck of a lot harder to be a heck of a lot more bigoted!
Is that what you figure Hillary Clinton meant, when she said half of all of Trump’s supporters were deplorables? Is that a brand of “bigotry” to be castigated? Because all this time, I thought bigotry was a bad thing; and here I find out that, no: it’s something to be encouraged and celebrated! Gives a bloke pause, it does!
Perhaps you should read your post again. I read it 3 times before responding to it because I thought I must be misunderstanding it. I asked the question because I hoped you would reply with “that was a paraphrase”, at which point I was going to ask what you were paraphrasing.
Here’s how I read that second paragraph: Trump said “maybe Hitler was right” or something very similar, and he also said a bunch of other stuff that wasn’t quite as eye-popping. But there’s just no way you can dismiss that one instance where he said “maybe Hitler was right”, or something very similar.
It seemed to me that the quoted phrase was the core of your argument. It’s the only thing in your post that could be considered actual evidence of white supremacist thinking. The rest of your post is just claiming that Trump tries to appeal to white supremacists without offering any actual evidence.
So, yeah, if someone said “Maybe Hitler was right” or something very similar, I would think he was appealing to white supremacists. But since Trump never said that, and never said anything close to that, I’m at a loss as to why you would even bring it up.
The other thing that makes it difficult to categorize Trump is that he says all kinds of shit that is not only factually incorrect, but isn’t even close to being factually correct by even the most charitable of interpretations. And then on top of that, he will never, ever admit that he’s wrong. So, he backs himself into all sorts of corners, and you could probably make the case that the core of his philosophy is any number of different, contradictory things. As I said earlier, the only “core” to his philosophy that I can see is his insatiable desire to promote himself. And to do so at any cost to the truth or concern how his actions might negatively affect anyone else.
It was a common criticism of Hillary that “she’d say anything in order to get elected”. But when people said that, what they meant was she would shift her position on issues in order to suit her audience. She would hold her finger up to the wind before taking a position, and was overly cautious about making definitive statements. But she didn’t literally just make shit up on a regular basis. Trump makes shit up, and so he’s in another universe when we say about him “he’ll say anything in order to get elected”. He claimed that Ted Cruz’s father was implicated in JFK’s death. He made light of McCains years as a POW by saying something like “I prefer heroes that don’t get caught”. He claimed his inaugurating day crowd was larger than any other such crowd in history and that 3 million illegal aliens voted in the 2016 election. He viciously, personally attacks his opponents and the only thing he seems to value in other people is unfailing loyalty to himself. He’s the guy in the old western movies selling snake oil off the back of a wagon. He doesn’t care about anything or anyone or any political philosophy other than selling that next bottle of snake oil.
No, Trump didn’t say Hitler was right or anything very similar.
My point was in response to a post that I interpreted to be the argument that “okay, Trump says racist stuff sometimes, but since the majority of his time is spent talking about trade and the economy and foreign policy, then it’s not fair to say that racism is central to his message”.
My response was that if a hypothetical candidate said something absolutely horrible like “Hitler was right” even a single time, even if he spends all the rest of his time talking about the economy, then that would be a huge, huge deal, and it must be considered central to his message (barring a massive mea culpa and huge apology/retraction), because the sentiment is so utterly out there beyond anything close to the norms of politics that its impact is far beyond the impact of other single statements.
Trump hasn’t said anything quite as out there as “Hitler was right”, but I’d argue that if we combine the birtherism, the aspersions on Mexican judges and immigrants, the aspersions on Muslims, the retweeting of white supremacist memes and lies, the excusing of the alt-right and white supremacists of Charlottesville as “many of them are good people” or whatever, and much more, then it’s roughly equivalent to a single utterance of something as utterly horrible and out there as “maybe Hitler was right”. Even if he spends more time talking about other things, this part of his rhetoric was central to his rise in politics (birtherism and the like), and it’s so out of the ordinary that it’s reasonable to believe that this messaging is central to his political identity and support, at least for some large proportion of his supporters.
This doesn’t say anything about Trump’s personal beliefs. I don’t think his beliefs really matter, at least for this discussion. If someone says all the things he has said, then I think it’s entirely reasonable to accuse them of aiding and abetting white supremacists and white supremacism, whether or not he’s doing this as the primary aim or just a side effect.
It’s not a great analogy, but it does illustrate how a plurality doesn’t necessarily translate into the magnitude of support for a particularly odious world view in a two party system. septimus in post #217 identifies this better, but then again I’d say the timing of those primaries (NV and MA) even with 5 contenders still in the race, it was almost a foregone conclusion then so the whole ‘vote for a winner’ mentality could play a part.
Again, I don’t think this is a very useful analysis. Not because Trump may have run in 2012, but looking at historical outcomes and comparing them to the 2016 election can give insight into movement or trends. If Coates is saying that Trump is somehow different, then we’d expect that to manifest itself in some way. Nate Silver did an analysis where he concluded that education level was a good predictor, and he did comparisons to 2012 as well. Simply dismissing 2012 is ignoring key data points.
I’m saying that Coates does say there may be non-racist reasons, but he isn’t interested in them, because racism. This is the Rorschach test again, because I see Coates arguing that racism, white supremacy actually, is the main reason Trump one. He dismisses the idea there could be non-racist reasons.
However, one would get that impression from your post. I suppose, if one parses it out slowly and meticulously, you didnt actually and literally say that thing. But that’s what comes out of it.
That wasn’t my intent, and I thought that was clear because I said “The same goes for Trump’s appeals to white supremacism – and while they aren’t as direct as “maybe Hitler was right”…” – I thought that explicitly made clear that Trump didn’t say this. But if my writing was confusing, I apologize.
OK. I disagree with that last part, but at least now I understand that you weren’t saying that Trump ever said anything that could be paraphrased as “Maybe Hitler was right”.
When you say “this discussion”, do you mean the particular discussion you were having in those few posts, or do you mean this thread? If the latter, I would say Trump’s personal beliefs are precisely what this thread is about. It’s what that article was about, and this thread is about that article.
I mean the whole thread, including the article. IMO, for a national politician saying the kinds of things he’s said, being personally indifferent to white supremacism is functionally no different than being actively motivated by it.
No, it’s quite a bit different. Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden and Portugal and many other nations were neutral during WWII. Does that mean they supported Naziism?