Yes – though that’d be a very silly semantics argument from my perspective. But it’s still about nothing more than the meaning of “Nazi”.
As for Trump’s ideology, I’m not sure if that’s exactly Coates’ claim. I think his claim is that racial bias or grievance is at the center of his political strategy – whether that’s ideology or just convenience or just the will and drive of Bannon and co, I think the appeals to the wall, to birtherism, to negative assertions about Mexicans, to retweeting false and racist claims about black people, etc., was all central to his political strategy.
The problem there is that pretty much everything could be reduced to a semantic argument. I won’t vote for “X” because he’s a Nazi. I oppose policy “Y” because it socialist. If you disagree, we’re just disagree on semantics.
Emphasis added. Are you serious? He’s exact statement has been quoted in this thread at least half a dozen times. Here it is again:
"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. "
If that’s not what he meant, then he shouldn’t have said it. And he didn’t just say “white supremacy” as some throw-away term. He emphasized that it was white supremacy “in all its truculent and sanctimonious power”.
Okay, fair enough, I forgot about that specific quote. Yes, Coates does make this claim. If he’s saying it’s his central and primary ideology, I’m not sure if I’d agree – I think his central ideology is self enrichment and self aggrandizement. But if he’s just saying that Trump personally has significant racist/white supremacist beliefs, then I think that’s a reasonable assertion, based on the list of things Coates’ listed that I quoted (and other things). If Trump believes that a Mexican American judge should recuse himself for a Trump-related case based on being Mexican American (as he’s asserted), then that’s a racist belief (for just one example).
Ted Cruz was actually born in Canada. There was no conspiracy theory claim, no claim based on zero evidence… Cruz was born in Canada, which he has never denied.
You lost me. There is no “if”. He said what he said. This guy is supposed to be acclaimed for his writing ability. If that was what he meant, why didn’t he say that?
Here are things that Coates did not say, so we don’t need to pretend that’s what meant:
“Trump’s ideology is uncomfortably close to certain white supremacist thinking”
“Trump’s ideology overlaps in some areas with the ideology of white supremacy”.
“Trumps ideology isn’t white supremacism, but it unfortunately appeals to a lot of white supremacists”.
I don’t think its good debate form to back off of everything you’ve said in this thread and fall back on the “Trump has said some racially insensitive things” argument.
First, that’s not at all what the author is saying. He is saying that at its core, Trump ideology is pure white supremacism and that his voters are bringing back an ugly wave of white supremacism unlike Reagan or both Bushes.
Second, everyone agrees that Trump has pushed the limit on racial statements and policies, but his supporters, and even some opponents, do not agree that he is a racist or white supremacist. If that is your only contention, then this thread should simply be merged with the other one thousand Trump bashing threads.
Okay. If this differs from my views, it’s to such a slight degree that it doesn’t really bother me. I think I grok the great majority of what he’s saying. I think the latter two things are pretty damn similar to saying that his ideology is racist or white supremacist.
I think it really bothers some folks when someone isn’t laser-pointed exact when talking about racism and white supremacism. It doesn’t bother me. If there’s a problem here, it’s oversensitivity about people talking about racism, not people being careless with accusations about racism, IMO. The former results in excuses for a lot of folks to ignore the significance of racism today. The latter results in hurt feelings or something.
I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying. This is a tough and complicated issue, and I apologize for the times when I’m either getting things wrong or explaining things in a confusing way. I’m certainly trying my best.
Whether or not his supporters believe this is irrelevant, IMO. Some of George Wallace’s supporters probably didn’t believe he was a white supremacist.
Throughout our history white people have a terrible track record, in general, of accurately identifying and describing bigotry and racism against other groups.
No one is asking for “laser point accuracy”. If you can’t see that there is a lot of space between Trump and The Grand Wizard of the KKK, then you’re not going to reach the vast majority of Americans who do. They will just dismiss your ideas as outlandish hyperbole.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are, either. I think there might be some conflating of things you’ve posted with what other folks have posted.
I agree there’s a lot of distance between Trump and the KKK, but I don’t see how that conflicts with anything I’ve said. Hitler was a white supremacist. So was the asshole neighbor I remember who ranted about black people (using racial slurs). As far as I never know, he never hurt anyone physically, but they’re both white supremacists. I’m not sure if I’d call Trump a white supremacist, but I’d definitely call him someone who has rhetorically given great aid and comfort to white supremacists, and to me that’s just as bad as a white supremacist. Whether or not George Wallace believed in segregation when he advocated for it doesn’t really matter to me. That he did it for political convenience is no better than doing so for hatred, IMO.
I really, honestly don’t think quibbling about whether someone who gives great aid and comfort to white supremacists is a white supremacist is that important. If you’re just talking about whether it’s effective persuasion, then that’s a different argument.
It was just a few hours ago that I posted post #400, which you responded to, so I’m surprised you are once again trying to pin my objection to something else.
I don’t think his argument is sound, and I think he makes matters worse by delving into excessive hyperbole.
Communism, socialism, fascism … take you’re pick! Umm no.
The problem with this, is that the are not all the same. It’s not semantics, it’s meaningful differences. Like you say, this is complicated. Simplifying anything race related to white supremacism is uninformative.
Not sure why you keep bringing up honesty - no one is questioning anyone’s honestly held beliefs or whether they hold them. I believe you believe what you write. Same with Coates. I just think it’s wrong. Not semantically wrong, but wrong, or at a minimum, not well supported. If Coates is the guy that thinks anyone who isn’t in favor or reparations is a white supremacist, then that doesn’t that seem to take away the punch from the label? Yes, he does think that.
What is this “aid and comfort” you are referring to? Suppose there was a bill in Congress which proposes to make the possession of a Confederate Battle Flag a federal felony punishable by five years in prison. I oppose that.
Am I giving “aid and comfort” to white supremacists?
Is anyone who speaks out against open borders giving the same aid and comfort?
The fact is that there are two major political parties in the United States and no real voice for those on the extreme right and extreme left. The extreme right will settle for the Republican party and the extreme left will settle for the Democratic party. It does little good to say that the mainstream ideas of each party are mere solicitation and dog whistling to the radical extremes when it is: 1) objectively not true, 2) very little evidence exists to support it being anywhere near true.
Take your side and universal health care. Is that simply a call out to the radicals who want Castro-style totalitarianism here? Of course not, and it is silly to say that Trump does or any mainstream Republican does.
Well, you did say, about white supremacism, that “it’s a catch all label to shut down opposing or parallel conversation”. So I assumed you were saying I was trying to shut down opposing of parallel conversation by using that term.
Coates, in the Hayes’ interview, said he didn’t believe Mitt Romney or George W. Bush was a white supremacist (in contrast to Trump), so I don’t think he believes anyone who isn’t in favor of reparations is a white supremacist.
Trump said there were “good people” marching with the white supremacists and alt-righters of Charlottesville. He placed blame on “both sides” for violence in Charlottesville instigated by white supremacists that killed an anti-racist protester, and injured several more. He spread a racist and evidence-free conspiracy theory for years, and never apologized for it. He retweeted from white supremacists false statistics about black crime.
I think that’s reasonably characterized as rhetorical aid and comfort to white supremacists.
Trump’s campaign was not “launched” by that. I don’t know why people keep saying that. Trump is a celebrity. He’s been talking about running for president for a very long time.
An unprovable hypothetical.
Romney actually belonged to a religion that was explicitly racist for over 10 years of his adult life. I don’t think Romney is a white supremacist either, but a better case could be made for white supremacist thinking from that one fact alone.
If you’re saying that there’s a better case that Romney’s a white supremacist than Trump, then that seems nuts to me. Adding up the housing discrimination stuff, the birtherism, the statements about Mexican immigrants and a Mexican American judge, retweets of false statistics about black people from open white supremacists, the “both sides” blame and praise of some of the marchers in the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally, and more, most of which stemming from the last year or two, seems like a much stronger case for possible white supremacist beliefs than that Romney’s religion had racist policies that ended in the 70s.
I haven’t heard the interview. Perhaps Coates has escalated the rhetoric to a place he is no longer comfortable with and is dialing it back. Or maybe he’s forgotten saying:
Coates says that reparations is an indispensable tool against white supremacy, a necessary condition if you will. Here he only goes so far as to say that if you are against reparations, then you aren’t seriously engaged in the fight against white supremacy. Combine that with the Trump article in the OP and the subsequent NPR interview where he handwaves away people who may have had other reasons besides favoring white supremacy, not engaged in the fight so to speak, and you’re there - if you don’t support reparations, then Coates thinks you’re in favor of white supremacy, basically a white supremacist right? Just like bias, bigotry, racism, white supremacy…basically the same.