The OP wrote a long, thoughtful post and yet some posters’ immediate reaction was to resort to dismissive one-line zingers that prove, rather than disprove, his point.
One issue with much of the messaging that the OP mentions is that lecturing people about “privilege” almost always backfires if the people being lectured do not ***feel ***particularly privileged. White privilege exists, but it is often in subtle, indirect, hard-to-notice forms. On the other hand, the anti-white-male sentiment that the OP speaks of manifests itself in obvious, direct fashion. So when you have privilege that is subtle, but anti-privilege sentiment that is obvious, it is a recipe for backfiring and losing votes.
The anti-privilege activists seem to think that people being lectured about privilege will simply calmly “take it” and nod dutifully, “Yes, I acknowledge my white male privilege and I will humbly vote as you tell me to and keep my mouth shut as I am being lectured and criticized.” That runs counter to every aspect of human nature. Sure, some might do it, but millions others will be angered and veer politically away from the lecturer’s point of view as a result.
The real problem with our political culture is that white men are just too silent and don’t speak up in support of white men enough. Poor disenfranchised voiceless white men. I weep for us I do.
The remedy is time. Equality and fairness can feel like oppression for those previously at the top, when inequality has been the norm for so long. It’s just a human reaction, and white people are human. It can be difficult to accept that you’ve had a leg up in society due to things like race or gender, especially if your life hasn’t been so hot. But it doesn’t change facts or history. Poor white people have had it tough, but not as tough as poor black people, both in the past and present.
Time will cure this, as old white racists die and can no longer spread racist ideas (even non hateful racist ideas), and there are more and more interracial couples, and fewer people live in all white towns and communities.
If you want to win, why don’t you spend your time combating anti-black (BLM are the REAL racists), anti-Hispanic (build a wall!), anti-Muslim (I, Donald J Trump) sentiments that exist, oh, in 5000 times the numbers that anti-white-male sentiments exist, and drive fearful young white men to vote for idiots who propose to institutionalize racist policies to keep them safe?
Do you honestly think that young white males feeling marginalized by a few vocal asshats on the left is a bigger problem than young white males feeling marginalized by a campaign of fear and hatred from the alt-right?
Yes. I think the best way to do that is to combine social justice politics and economic “help the poor and middle class/the rich and corporations have it too easy” politics.
One can have a good message and yet deliver it poorly and therefore fail to hit the mark. The way a message is delivered often hits the listener much more than what the actual message is itself. If the message is perceived as a* personal attack,* the listener will usually bristle.
AIUI, this concept is emphasized in a great deal of relationship counseling, business communication workshops, professional circles, diplomacy, conflict resolution and whatnot. I see no reason why it should not apply to politics and electioneering.
This. However, I don’t see losing white men as the problem, I see it as large swaths of fence sitters who are getting on various types of social media, and reading reactions much like the ones in this thread. Honestly, I don’t believe some folks realize how abrasive some of them are coming off.
Also, when I read stories of progressives, and how they react to things like Michelle Wolf’s WHC dinner, or how they reacted to the senator who dared tell Zuckerberg he wants a “terms of service” that’s written in a language that’s easy to understand rather than “Swahili” . I just shake my head and think to myself: “Yep, you guys ain’t help’n”.
Bill Maher said it best: “Progressives meed to learn the difference between an enemy, and an imperfect friend”.
No, that’s begging the question. By claiming that the issue should be seeking the solution, you’re jumping over the issue of whether the problem even exists.
I already said: if you don’t see it happening, or don’t even think it happens at all, then do nothing. I’m just asking people to say something when they do see something.
Or, while they may not admit it, they really care about getting the pleasure from mutually basturbating with others in their tribe more than they care about winning or being fair.
Good! My thesis is not “Trump is continuing to rise in popularity across the board”. But just as I was stunned that people would actually elect him (even if it was after losing by three million votes), I can’t believe he is over forty percent after the shit show he has put on (at least before the election, you could imagine credulous people thinking that he was going to bring some kind of sleek CEO efficiency to the Oval). And the generic ballot has been dropping, when Dems need a double digit lead or close to it.
I have to believe that if Democrats were not associated with PC progressivism, we’d be twenty points ahead. But OTOH if the GOP were associated with Kasich and Romney rather than Trump and the Freedom Caucus, they’d be much better positioned as well.
No, he didn’t. He wrote a long post about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist. If it were well thought out, he would have noticed the logical problems.
The majority of the thread are actual rebuttals or taking on people believe this concept when it is false. Only a few responses are “one-liners” and none of them attack him for being white, so they don’t prove his point in any way.
The thing is, the majority of the responders in this thread, and this “liberal” board in general, are white males. There are large numbers of us liberal white males. If there was discrimination for being such, we would not only have to know about it, but be participating it in ourselves.
But we don’t. As I said, every example I’ve ever encountered, the problem has been something the person has said (or done). Then they claim it’s because they are white. Or they describe something that isn’t discrimination, like not getting special treatment.
The real subject here is why this myth persists, and why people who don’t seem to be racists believe it. Why is this thing we ridiculed a few years ago as KKK propaganda finding traction today? And what can we do to convince people that it’s not true?
Now, if the OP had talked about some sort of snideness towards conservatives, or just rural whites, we might have a different topic. But whites in general? The majority of liberals are white!
No, you’re suggesting that changing behavior X will produce outcome Y without filling in any of the necessary data points to show that this is the case.
From where I sit, changing behavior X (not sneering at white men) will NOT produce outcome Y, because outcome Y (young white men rushing to the GOP) seems to be caused by other things, things that I see in MUCH greater numbers, things supported openly by Republican politicians and embedded in Republican platforms.
We can all agree that giving someone a papercut for no reason is bad, but if they’re already bleeding to death from a grizzly bear attack, what good does it do to chastise the person giving them a papercut?
I can see that someone might rationalize a switch to the Republican Party because they claim the Progressives in the Democratic Party are demonizing white men. It’s a easier lie to tell yourself or others than admitting you’re not comfortable with progressive politics or more comfortable with Trump. I say this because 1) white men aren’t being demonized to any significant degree by anyone that matters, and 2) a huge number of white men (like me) are perfectly willing to remain in the party despite what the OP claims is happening. We’re not that bothered by it. Those who are, we can conclude, have something else going on.
To paraphrase Maher: It’s easier to confound your enemies than it is to control your friends. The Republicans have been expert at manipulating what I call the “Myth of the Monolithic Opposition”. Group A does something offensive to the feelings of group B and this is taken as evidence that a much larger group feels that same way even though the links between group A and the larger group are tenuous at best and may even only be derived negatively (as in Republicans don’t think that way, so they must be Democrats). The Republicans have, and have artfully exploited, the natural advantage that they have in this regard following from the fact that their voters are much more subject to “binary thinking”.
Thinking that one poll tells it all is really burying one’s head in the sand.
Currently, the Democratic party advantage is 7 points over the Republicans, based on multiple polls that ask people which party they would support in a congressional election.