I am always interested in discussion, including in the Pit. But you know that.
No doubt not giving a shit about candidate color is liberating. I know I don’t care about it. However, feeling either more or less warm to a group not your own strikes me as ridiculous when it is based on color. Color is a useful distraction from the real issue which is economic class.
Not by that response.
But it’s not a big deal. I do the sniping thing sometimes too – it can be fun! But when you snipe in response to a thoughtful attempt to answer a question, then you reduce the chance of actual discussion and exchange of ideas.
The socio-cultural categorization of “race” is different than “color” – I think economic class is indeed a valid consideration in various circumstances, but so is race. Race is bullshit, but it’s a form of bullshit that needs to be considered, because it’s so powerful. IMO, of course.
That’s inherently incoherent.
Interesting discussion! Thanks for such a thoughtful contribution.
Do I really need to spell out why?
How will this hobbling effect work? Could you fill in step 3 below?
- White liberals regard nonwhites more favorably than they regard whites.
- A political scientist observes this phenomenon and writes a paper about it.
- ???
- [del]Profit![/del] Democrats are politically hobbled!
Goldberg, iceberg, what’s the difference? 
Well, the thing is that saying “Race is bullshit, but it’s a form of bullshit that needs to be considered, because it’s so powerful” is not inherently incoherent.
IAN iiandyiiii and cannot speak for him, but it looked pretty clear to me that he was making a valid point which could be more cumbersomely expressed something like this:
**Racial categories are a social construct based partly on superficial phenotypic differences between human populations, partly on linguistic and sociocultural differences between ethnic/cultural groups, and partly on plain old ignorance and prejudice. Racial identity of individuals is not a reliable guide to their genetic relatedness. And there is so far no scientific confirmation of various hypotheses that measured average differences between members of different racial categories in a number of extremely complex characteristics, such as intelligence, athletic ability, proficiency at spelling, etc., are due wholly or partly to genetic differences. Therefore, trying to deduce an individual’s fundamental characteristics or abilities from their racial identity is unscientific bullshit.
However, racial identity is an important aspect of modern human society, and many people regard their racial identity as an important part of who they are, just as they may regard their national, gender, ethnic, regional, etc. identity as an important part of who they are. Also, our society (especially in the US) has historically been largely shaped, and is still profoundly influenced, by far-reaching beliefs and laws concerning the racial classification of individuals. Therefore, social attitudes about race are a powerful influence in society and can’t simply be dismissed as bullshit.**
That position may be somewhat complicated and nuanced, but there’s nothing “inherently incoherent” about it.
Probably:
3) white people notice liberal Democrats scoff at their concerns and decide not to vote Dem.
I disagree with your premise. There is no step 3, in fact there is no step 2. The paper is just describing something, not participating in it. 1 leads to 4, because white liberals’ obsequious flagellation of their own ethnic group is a huge turnoff to the white moderates we desperately need.
White people who are concerned that government isn’t concerned enough with white people’s concerns are called Republicans.
Nope. Or if true, we have no chance to win national elections.
So Democrats have to pretend to be Republicans to win?
At what point can we put everyone’s concerns over just white people’s concerns? Never?
Whites shifted from voting R to D in 2018: 2018 exit polls show greater white Democratic support
They can shift back.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433270-poll-republicans-and-democrats-differ-strongly-on-whether-white
“Only” 38 percent. That’s a big chunk! Good luck winning without them (us). And that 38 percent is of all Democrats. I’d bet it’s close to a majority of white Dems.
Um, this IS your step 3. Jeez.
Now, you’re the one who’s turning “white liberals were more favorable toward nonwhites” into “white liberals’ obsequious flagellation of their own ethnic group.” These two things are not equivalent. Treating them as such to argue your point is unadulterated bullshit.
Oh, and incidentally:
‘observes’ doesn’t imply participation. And how the hell do you describe something that you haven’t observed by some means?
ETA: Observation is what scientists DO. No observation = no data.
Making it a “step” implies participation. What I am talking about is bad for Democrats whether this paper exists or not.
And again, if you are in the 62%, you may find it galling to share the party with us 38 percenters. But purging us leaves you with a few House seats, very few Senate seats or governorships, and certainly no presidents, ever. Would that really not be too great a price to pay for moral purity?
So you think the best thing to do is for both parties to cater only to white people? I’m really not understanding what it is that you want the Democrats to actually do? Pander to white nationalists like Trump? If not that, then what?