It’s meant to be a tough and challenging question, since I think you’re a thoughtful and fundamentally decent guy.
Suppose David Duke, who opposes gun control, were running for President (or a local office, if you’d prefer) against Barack Obama (or some other sober, reasonable, and anti-white-supremacist Democrat), who favors at least some forms of gun control. That “necessary, but not sufficient” condition rules out voting for Obama. I would presume that there are other “necessary, but not sufficient” qualities that would rule out voting for Duke despite his opposition to gun control. So that would mean you wouldn’t vote for either candidate, I presume (maybe you’d support a third party candidate, or note vote at all).
Is this correct?
I’m hopeful it’s not. Obviously I’m trying and hoping that you’ll agree that opposing white supremacism (remember – this presumes you agree with Coates about its power and influence) would be more important than opposing gun control.
These two things aren’t as distinct as you suggest, and neither are the solutions.
A good example is neighborhood segregation. It is pretty clear that neighborhood segregation is largely a function of government policies in place from the 1920s through the 1970s. Most of those policies have been dismantled. But they have left a mark. Beyond the simple momentum of people wanting to remain close to their families and friends–which is not insignificant–there is also the ability to have developed inter-generational wealth through home ownership, there is the impact of schools and therefore on social mobility, and much else besides. Layered on top of that is a whole network of current policies that affect people differently based on where they live. The water crisis in Flint would be a good example. And there is the way that residential segregation maintains white supremacy, among other ways by preventing diverse racial experiences for black and white children.
Is that white supremacy current or past? Does the remedy really depend on your answer?
White supremacy isn’t some uniform force affecting all nonwhite people equally.
John Mace may have been referring to this 1 hour interview with Mark Lilla, wherein Coates was invoked. Lilla is sort of on the opposite spectrum of left politics from Coates, arguing that identity politics is overall the wrong strategy for liberals if they want to win elections.
I would think that many in his position would probably not vote at all, or vote third party. Gun control is important to them. When asked what methods he thought would be best to combat gun violence in america, he said that ending the drug war would make the best first step.
To this, I completely agree, but while trump may appoint scotuses that will ensure that gun rights stay untouched, he also appointed sessions who has more than doubled down on the drug war, which will increase gun violence, and create an even greater public outcry that something needs to be done about guns, ultimately making it harder to get his first priority, unrestricted access to guns.
Single issue voters are single issue voters, and it does not matte the secondary effects of their vote, as long as the primary and most obvious result of their vote is moving in the direction of their primary goal, that is all that is important, even if the predictable secondary effects actually create obstacles to their goals.
That’s probably it. I only heard about 10-15 minutes of the discussion, and it’s possible I mistakenly assumed it’s what the entire hour was about. NPR programs at that time of day are typically 1 hour, but sometimes they cover multiple subjects.
I think most people here agree that Trump is at least pandering to racists and emboldening them enough to march down main street without their hoods. But with all the other factors that contributed to Trump’s election, it seems pretty myopic to say that racism won Trump the election. Trump was not a reaction to Obama.
If you lived in a swing state, would this change your calculus?
But I’m pretty surprised by your answer. My hypothetical stipulated that you accepted Coates’ conclusions on the power and influence of white supremacism. If you still wouldn’t prioritize fighting white supremacism above fighting gun control even with this stipulation, then your moral calculus is far different than I assumed it would be. Can you explain your reasoning?
I doubt it – I think minorities and young people would have turned out in similar numbers as ‘12, which would have carried Obama relatively comfortably. But I don’t think this takes anything away from Coates’ (or my) arguments – Trump’s success, or near-success had he lost, can be explained by these factors and others, and white supremacism remains a very significant threat (if one accepts this argument) even if the white supremacists’ favored candidate loses.
That there’s even the significant possibility that a (functionally) white supremacist candidate (assuming you accept this about Trump) can win a major party’s nomination in the present is horrifying by itself, and demonstrates the remaining power and influence of white supremacism.
I missed that part of the hypothetical, about agreeing with Coates conclusions so I didn’t take that into account. I’m not sure I can answer that, because his conclusions are too foreign to me to internalize. The hypothetical is not merely changing minor circumstances, but more fundamental worldviews. The best I could say is that if I were different I would think differently.
I doubt I would change approaches in a swing state. As a matter of principle, I couldn’t vote for a person who espoused things I found disqualifying. If one person wants to kill you by bludgeoning, and the other by stabbing, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to pick one or the other, they are both bad and should be resisted. Coates somewhat addresses this in the interview, about how to approach when the future is so bleak.
So we struggle, and maybe one day things will be better. It doesn’t mean we should accept the shit sandwich now just because the only choices are one with and one without lettuce.
Assuming Trump is a functionally white supremacist candidate is a pretty huge assumption, even using Coates definition and framework. I’m still not seeing how Trump was propelled by white supremacism into winning the Republican party nomination among a field of majority white candidates.
As for the general election I think another major assumption is that Trump would not have been possible without white supremacism. For any given general election I believe either party has about a 50% chance of winning. In this era of partisanship I think most people will just see the R or D and throw their vote that way. This is illustrated in the fact that Trumps numbers were similar to Romneys in terms of the white vote and he actually made gain in other demographics. I’m just not seeing the whiteness angle that the author is going for .
I think many of his actions and statements assist white supremacism in some way. I don’t know what’s in his heart, but I don’t think that particularly matters. If the president is saying and doing some things that assist the cause of white supremacism, then I’m not going to quibble if someone calls him a white supremacist.
I think that, unlike most of the other republican candidates, trump did not distance himself from the white supremacists. USually, most of the republicans publicly disavow racism and white supremacist groups. There may be those on the left who think that there are dog whistles going on or whatever, but their public statements are usually unambiguously against the KKK and Nazis.
Trump is different. It is hard to say what is in his heart as regards to his feelings on race, but he did not distance himself from it. He didn’t call out David Duke as a racist who does not represent his values. In doing so, he became a candidate that white supremacist could vote for. If you are a republican member of the KKK, and someone like Jeb Bush says that the KKK is reprehensible, while someone like trump is far more equivocating about whether or not he disapproves of the KKK, you’re gonna be voting for trump.
And I think that is ultimately what coates was getting at. Not denouncing racism and hate groups used to be a pretty major third rail in politics. It was just a given that those seeking to govern would be against racism since the 70’s. Trump courted the racist vote in a way that hasn’t been done in over a generation.
Is that a yes or a no? Sounds like a yes to me, give that last part.
But if you’re concerned about the currency that white supremacy has in US politics, why not use a metric that is directly related to white supremacy? David Duke is a white supremacist. There is no doubt about that. He ran for the Senate in LA in 2016, maybe even thinking he could ride, in part, on Trump’s coat tails. He got 3% of the vote. This was in the deep south, so I think we can safely assume that his ideas would translate into a much lower number on the national level.
I think the top three things that characterize Trump’s political philosophy are:
Trump
Trump
Trump
He was propelled to national prominence because he is a celebrity, and I don’t see that his success is indicative of how other white (or WHITE) guys would do who are not also yuuuuuge celebrities.
It’s an “I don’t know”. As to the rest, I think it’s clear that we define white supremacism differently (or have different bars). Duke’s beliefs are white supremacism, quite obviously, but that doesn’t mean that one must necessarily be as bigoted (or as open in one’s beliefs) as Duke to qualify as a white supremacist.
IMO, that 3% is probably the floor for people who have open white supremacist beliefs. I don’t know the true number with any sort of white supremacist beliefs, but I suspect it’s quite a bit higher than that, and that doesn’t include those who are indifferent to white supremacism, which is probably much more common.
Sure, there are white racists. I really dont think there are that many, but that’s besides the point.
And they likely voted for Trump.
Just like they voted for Romney, and McCain, and Dole and GW Bush. But they lost anyway.
The white racist vote didnt decide this election.
What did is the blue collar workers voting for Trump as he gave them Hope that they might get back their lost manufacturing jobs- or keep the one they had.
I agree that Trump’s public statements regarding David Duke were…strange to say the least. He bungled through numerous messages before he ‘disavowed’ him. Although I would ask, which party received the “racist vote” before Trump started courting it? Did they stay home? My point is that the racist vote would’nt propel Trump to the presidency because, and I think Coates would agree, that that section of the population was probably not voting democrat.
The way I interpret the numbers is that compared to Romney, Trumps support grew among minorities, who probably shouldnt be considered white supremacists. The other place he improved was among the rust belt white vote. However, these same people voted in Obama twice.
I think we have very different ideas of what makes someone a white supremacist after trying to understand Coates framework and reading Andys interpretation of Johns post.