I tried to read all of this week's episode of Douthat's "Ode to the Conservative Pretzel" but was so confused by the time I got to the fourth paragraph I had to give up and have a glass of wine. Once again his mental twists, hairpin turns and extreme contortions boil down to "conservatives good, liberals bad". How comforting it must be to wrap oneself up in a blanket of radical right political (and often religious) ideology and remove oneself from reality. How sad so many really good writers can't find employment at major newspapers.
31
"It's a reason why in multi-ethnic societies multiracial parties are the exception rather than the rule." Excuse me? What do you call the Democratic Party which is a multi-racial powerhouse in multi-ethnic USA? If Obama had to rely on black people only , or even black plus brown, to elect him president, he would have been sunk. Hillary cannot win with just minority voters either. What nonsense.
34
It's a little hard to spot the main thread of this editorial.
On observation: On one hand, Douthat allows that the aim of liberal affirmative action policies may be rooted in idealism. But then he accuses them of being a political patronage system. (I at least think that's an important claim, because "patronage" is in the title of the op-ed!) But calling something patronage ineliminably makes reference to the aims someone has by offering a benefit. There must be some sort of quid the offerer of patronage seeks for their quo. But that's not an idealistic motivation. So I don't see how Douthat can have it both ways: either accuse your opponents of having base intentions like every other conservative columnist or don't. There's no middle line to hue in this case.
Maybe Douthat would respond by drawing a distinction between the aims of individual liberals and the function of affirmative action policies in our political system, and argue that the former might be idealistic but the latter a crude system of patronage in spite liberals' intentions. But social-functional arguments are dubious, I think, and need a more sophisticated argument than some cui bono? observations about who wins and who loses.
Anyway, i agree that liberals should also focus on economic issues. I don't think it's an insoluable problem, or even a very difficult one, to design policies that benefit the most disadvantaged without ignoring those slightly better off than them.
On observation: On one hand, Douthat allows that the aim of liberal affirmative action policies may be rooted in idealism. But then he accuses them of being a political patronage system. (I at least think that's an important claim, because "patronage" is in the title of the op-ed!) But calling something patronage ineliminably makes reference to the aims someone has by offering a benefit. There must be some sort of quid the offerer of patronage seeks for their quo. But that's not an idealistic motivation. So I don't see how Douthat can have it both ways: either accuse your opponents of having base intentions like every other conservative columnist or don't. There's no middle line to hue in this case.
Maybe Douthat would respond by drawing a distinction between the aims of individual liberals and the function of affirmative action policies in our political system, and argue that the former might be idealistic but the latter a crude system of patronage in spite liberals' intentions. But social-functional arguments are dubious, I think, and need a more sophisticated argument than some cui bono? observations about who wins and who loses.
Anyway, i agree that liberals should also focus on economic issues. I don't think it's an insoluable problem, or even a very difficult one, to design policies that benefit the most disadvantaged without ignoring those slightly better off than them.
16
The reality of Trumpistic thought has broken through a strained relationship, I liked Ross because he is bright but I didn't like his politics. Now I like Ross because I don't like mindless neoliberalism. I appreciate the explanation of FDR liberalism, Johnson was a tough bird, but he would get in one's face exclaiming it was a good liberal value. Anything, breakfast, was a good LBJ liberal value. And by gosh, since TV showed craziness down south, we won The Civil Rights Act (I was 9, it was won for me, they said.) But by this time, the neighborhoods were burning. So I became whitey and a target. You are all getting a taste of black hate. It should have its own wiki page and when it does, I won't be alone anymore.
4
Whenever I get to thinking I might not vote for Trump. I just go the NYT comments.
18
Language is so malleable that patronage, affirmative action, a hand up, and I suppose even "legacy admission" now are synonyms. For those who believe free marlet capitalism with its inevitable winners and losers is a law of nature, any such intervention that these tems describe when provided by government to assist the losers must be reframed as a hand out, the dole, or racial preference. THe under educated white man is doubly cursed. He has been in the Republican Party of small government since 1968 when Civil Rights legislation drove him from the Democrat Party of big hand out government. More importantly he is neither a racial or a demographic minority. For half a century when federal bankruptcy law preserved corporate losers neither party paid the suffering white man "loser" any attention. The Democrats tried with their plan for mortgage repayment plans, infrastructure spending but were blocked by a Republican legislature more interested in repealing Obamacare that now insures millons of poor white families that do not live in states witth Republican governors. If America had A Bastile, I suspect this neglected class that needs but can not get government assistance might burn it to the ground.
3
Perhaps the Trump Experience is necessary for us to define ourselves as a people. To set an outer marker, to say "No, we will not go beyond this."
If that is the case, we should be grateful for the lesson. Sometimes to define who you are, you must pass through who you are not.
If that is the case, we should be grateful for the lesson. Sometimes to define who you are, you must pass through who you are not.
11
It is the chicken or the egg. Were Trump supporters always bigots waiting for him to come around or did their economic futures come crashing down around them causing them to rally around this type of candidate? Bigots have always been with us and it is obvious that their proclivities would push them in his direction. The abandonment of blue collar workers by the Republican establishment and the professional elite in the Democratic Party is a fault line that has gotten bigger and bigger over the decades. We should not be surprised when the fault line finally cracked wide open out jumped "The Orange Menace".
13
The democratic party has been Balkanizing the American population into competing for patronage factions of desperate people for decades via mass immigration of different from the majority ethnic and racial groups and failing to do anything to stop 70% teem pregnancy and 30% high school dropout rates in black and Hispanic communities. And they have not done this to achieve some fantasy magic of an equal opportunity Utopia, but rather to eliminate ANY majority who could form a consensus and so oppose whatever the democrat party elite wanted to shove down the common people's throat. The group that needed to be destroyed in the USA to accomplish their one party dictatorship just happened to be white and middle class. And the people they fear the most in any group are of course men (strongest, not submissive, serve in military, actually make nation run, build everything) so middle and working class white men had to be targeted as the embodiment of evil on earth and branded, most automatically assumed to be racists, xenophobes, bigots etc in order to justify their vilification. Soon the 99% in the USA will be all equally worse of bowing and scraping to the democrat gold people, philosopher kings. In other words we will be just like most of the failed state 3rd world nations, or China where a super elite rule over a mass of cowering cowards holding out their hands for just enough crumbs to stay alive that are only delivered unless one totes the one party line.
16
@staples
A totally one-sided piece of agit-prop that doesn't even begin to address the Republican "Southern-strategy", and what it has done, and is doing to communities of color.
Another thing.
You have noticed that it's basically White people flocking to Trump and his racist road-show, haven't you?? -- And when is the last time you heard of ANY legislation proposed (forget being passed!) that would benefit anyone other than their selectively chosen demographic base?
And how do you explain the likes of Manafort, Aisles, Giuliani and Rove?? THEY AREN'T DEMOCRATS --- and they are about as dedicated as they come to preserving the 99%.
So when it comes to a group the "needs to be destroyed" -- this might be a good place to start.
A totally one-sided piece of agit-prop that doesn't even begin to address the Republican "Southern-strategy", and what it has done, and is doing to communities of color.
Another thing.
You have noticed that it's basically White people flocking to Trump and his racist road-show, haven't you?? -- And when is the last time you heard of ANY legislation proposed (forget being passed!) that would benefit anyone other than their selectively chosen demographic base?
And how do you explain the likes of Manafort, Aisles, Giuliani and Rove?? THEY AREN'T DEMOCRATS --- and they are about as dedicated as they come to preserving the 99%.
So when it comes to a group the "needs to be destroyed" -- this might be a good place to start.
8
By "transfer program" is Mr. Douthat referring to how Wal-Mart and other highly profitable corporations save billions of dollars on salaries and benefits by having tax payers provide food stamps and Medicaid to their employees?
43
As a journalist working in Tennessee and Missouri my entire adult life, I've watched as need-based scholarships and internships were steadily converted into affirmative action for minorities and strictly "merit-based" scholarships, which go disproportionately to children of well-to-do families with little financial need. Opportunities for struggling white kids have been almost totally eliminated in the space of 30 years and the vast majority of voting Americans are acutely aware of this.
Both parties must rejigger their priorities to provide a more level playing field based on economic need and academic initiative and promise.
Scholarship committees used to do just this. They looked for worthy students who could benefit from a hand up and awarded help accordingly. Today awards are handed out based on skin color or test scores, the latter varnished with a a lineup of fake charities and extracurriculars cooked up by prep school and wealthy kids to make everyone feel better about the process. Colleges and universities support this because it improves their minority and academic rankings and brings in kids of families more likely to give charitable donations.
No one is looking out for needy white kids with potential. Until they do, we're vulnerable to even more Trumpmania.
Both parties must rejigger their priorities to provide a more level playing field based on economic need and academic initiative and promise.
Scholarship committees used to do just this. They looked for worthy students who could benefit from a hand up and awarded help accordingly. Today awards are handed out based on skin color or test scores, the latter varnished with a a lineup of fake charities and extracurriculars cooked up by prep school and wealthy kids to make everyone feel better about the process. Colleges and universities support this because it improves their minority and academic rankings and brings in kids of families more likely to give charitable donations.
No one is looking out for needy white kids with potential. Until they do, we're vulnerable to even more Trumpmania.
19
I'd be more sympathetic to this entry if Mebster wouldn't pretend that the good old days meant that white folks were at the head of the line, if not the whole line itself.
Ah, when America was GREAT.
Ah, when America was GREAT.
12
"Trump’s protectionist argle-bargle...." Love it.
5
Even with hands out and pandering, there is no escaping identity politics. All politics is based on first on identity, economics and other things after. Whites, like any other group, tend to vote their race interests. Nothing wrong with that.
The only reason the various grievance groups in the Democratic party come together is because they have a common enemy. It's not the best way for minorities to practice nationalism, but at least it's still based on some kind of tribalism. If American wants to move forward, it should embrace nationalism from all peoples, majority and minorities. Both conservatism and liberalism are failed ideologies, and it's time they were scrapped.
The only reason the various grievance groups in the Democratic party come together is because they have a common enemy. It's not the best way for minorities to practice nationalism, but at least it's still based on some kind of tribalism. If American wants to move forward, it should embrace nationalism from all peoples, majority and minorities. Both conservatism and liberalism are failed ideologies, and it's time they were scrapped.
8
A good number of Trump supporters are voting against the status quo, not for him. It is meaningful that local taxes payers pay the increased cost of refugees through increased education and Medicaid assessments. Refugees and immigrants also take over $4oB out of the US economy , sending that money overseas. We can all feel good for s while, but who is going to pay for it in the long run?
12
Data show that Trump's white, working-male supporters share the same level of racial resentment as other white males. It's not hard to get a core group of white males (or females, for that matter) to get worked up over their loss of privilege.
4
".....This constituency, the gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class, is the Trumpian core. By embracing white identity politics, they’re being bigoted...."
Interesting how "bigots" are no longer wealthy white people who think they are better than everyone else, as they were years ago, but poor white working people. Yeah, we know: nobody in the "highly educated" middle and upper class is a "racist," either. It's those low-educated white poor people. The ones who have nothing are the bigots and racists of the world plotting to keep everyone else down. Yeah, those poor people are the ones we hate. Uh, huh.
Interesting how "bigots" are no longer wealthy white people who think they are better than everyone else, as they were years ago, but poor white working people. Yeah, we know: nobody in the "highly educated" middle and upper class is a "racist," either. It's those low-educated white poor people. The ones who have nothing are the bigots and racists of the world plotting to keep everyone else down. Yeah, those poor people are the ones we hate. Uh, huh.
12
Interesting column, but ultimately I disagree with the conclusion. I think we're ultimately headed toward a split along economic/education lines. One party, probably the Democrats, will represent the educated classes that benefit from globalization and the information economy, while another party, likely the Republicans (or an offshoot if Trump ends up killing off the GOP) will be economically populist, leftist in all but name, and represent the working classes and those left behind by globalization.
Ultimately I don't see the parties breaking down along racial lines simply because the country is much too diverse for that to happen. And the demographic changes that led to that diversity are accelerating, not decreasing. The current populism of the GOP is indeed largely powered by white resentment and white nationalism, but long-term that's a losing bet. A populist party with national aspirations will need to embrace the country's multi-ethnic fabric. There's no way to remain nationally viable otherwise.
I don't expect this shift to happen overnight. Indeed, we're likely at the beginning of the re-alignment. I imagine it'll be much more pronounced in three or four election cycles.
Ultimately I don't see the parties breaking down along racial lines simply because the country is much too diverse for that to happen. And the demographic changes that led to that diversity are accelerating, not decreasing. The current populism of the GOP is indeed largely powered by white resentment and white nationalism, but long-term that's a losing bet. A populist party with national aspirations will need to embrace the country's multi-ethnic fabric. There's no way to remain nationally viable otherwise.
I don't expect this shift to happen overnight. Indeed, we're likely at the beginning of the re-alignment. I imagine it'll be much more pronounced in three or four election cycles.
4
Ross, please give up. Right now you cannot justify the G.O.P. anyway you look at it. It is in shambles. The Leadership has gone missing and there is a clueless demagogue who is their Nominee in the November General Election. Racism has been a great part of being Republican but right now they are having an existential crisis. Priorities Ross, priorities. Racism is too entrenched in the Republican Party. It will take decades and decades to change a mindset, if it is even possible, that is.
16
Left unaddressed is the fact that patronage politics leave the patronized dependent upon the good will of the patron, a good will that can evaporate when a more attractive client groups comes along - witness Mr. Douthat's example of the "forgotten white male". Such patronage ultimately leads to economic dependency and a perpetuation of the poverty it was supposed to alleviate, witness the disproportionate percentage of multigenerational Black single mothers and the fact that 75-80% of all Black children are currently being raised without a father.
The real question, which the Democratic Party and Liberals have resolutely refused to address, is to what extent their policies of ever expanding patrona have retarded the advancement of the "poor and underpriviledged" they are suppose to help. If these policies, which been in place and constantly expanded for half a century or more. are so beneficial then how does one explain the stagnation of their clients - the continuing and disproportionately high unemployment rates for Black males and teenagers, the 4 year gap in educational achievement, a homicide rate (both victim and perpetrator) at least 6 times that of White and Hispanic Americans, and a non-existent family structure -which is probably the best explanation for the other social pathologies. Maybe the answer is less patronage and more insistence and rewarding of individual effort and achievement.
The real question, which the Democratic Party and Liberals have resolutely refused to address, is to what extent their policies of ever expanding patrona have retarded the advancement of the "poor and underpriviledged" they are suppose to help. If these policies, which been in place and constantly expanded for half a century or more. are so beneficial then how does one explain the stagnation of their clients - the continuing and disproportionately high unemployment rates for Black males and teenagers, the 4 year gap in educational achievement, a homicide rate (both victim and perpetrator) at least 6 times that of White and Hispanic Americans, and a non-existent family structure -which is probably the best explanation for the other social pathologies. Maybe the answer is less patronage and more insistence and rewarding of individual effort and achievement.
14
It just seems bizarre to me that any Democratic party effort to redress the economic ills of African Americans is defined as buying votes while trying to sell trickle down economics and lift yourself by your boot-straps is supposed to be a good thing. Keeping the poor, poor and the rich, rich may appeal to those who want to preserve their advantages...but it is a sure recipe for national chaos.
12
Very thoughtful article. Though I believe Mr. Douthat's statement, "...welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use" is misleading. Recent immigrants are, on average, poorer than native-born Americans and would be expected to use welfare programs at a higher rate. Control for income and you'll probably find that immigrants actually use the welfare system less than native-born Americans. (These figures are surely out there.)
4
A demographic whose core ideal is bigotry is simply not accessible to any appeal to solidarity with groups towards which they are bigoted.
It is good that these people have been enabled to fully reveal themselves. We can only hope that we will survive the revelation.
It is good that these people have been enabled to fully reveal themselves. We can only hope that we will survive the revelation.
4
There is no doubt that from its earliest days the Democratic Party had been the party of the racist voter - in the form of pro-slavery, anti-reconstruction, Jim Crow, KKK dominance of much of it machinery, the Dixiecrats etc.
By the 1960's, however, it shifted in philosophy and brought itself into line with the pro-civil rights positions of the GOP. Ideally, that should have advanced substantive civil rights, and removed the "race card" from politics, at least at a national level. In reality it resulted in quite a dilema - what about the "racist voters"? Legislation, alone, does not change people's hearts.
The GOP saw an opportunity, seized it, and exploited it in presidential elections ever since - the southern strategy, silent majority, law and order, welfare queens, Willie Horton, birthers, etc.
There is no doubt economically stressed voters want change and a break from policies they blame for their situations. But, Trump has offered them nothing substantive on that score, so that can't be what's attracting them to him. What attracts them is; make America great again, build a wall, ban Muslims, second amendment extremist rhetoric, Obama founded ISIS, anti-political correctness and Trump being an unreconstructed birther. None of this creates jobs, provides financial security or fosters economic properity. Yet, some voters are going for it, and the reason is obvious.
By the 1960's, however, it shifted in philosophy and brought itself into line with the pro-civil rights positions of the GOP. Ideally, that should have advanced substantive civil rights, and removed the "race card" from politics, at least at a national level. In reality it resulted in quite a dilema - what about the "racist voters"? Legislation, alone, does not change people's hearts.
The GOP saw an opportunity, seized it, and exploited it in presidential elections ever since - the southern strategy, silent majority, law and order, welfare queens, Willie Horton, birthers, etc.
There is no doubt economically stressed voters want change and a break from policies they blame for their situations. But, Trump has offered them nothing substantive on that score, so that can't be what's attracting them to him. What attracts them is; make America great again, build a wall, ban Muslims, second amendment extremist rhetoric, Obama founded ISIS, anti-political correctness and Trump being an unreconstructed birther. None of this creates jobs, provides financial security or fosters economic properity. Yet, some voters are going for it, and the reason is obvious.
21
Conservatism will have to change by admitting that it has been using white identity politics since Reagan's Philadelphia speech, and explicitly turn away from this politics towards some other way of attracting these voters (or replacing them with others). This is problematic, since what these voters support is a white identity politics that sees itself as a fair and responsible response to the real racial differences that explain why whites do better than blacks, the sort of perspective Confederates developed to justify slavery and segregation.
Conservatives are willing to deliver this if it is linked to lower taxes on the rich, and they have done so in places like Alabama but have been relatively unable to do so nationwide despite decades of screaming about welfare queens, job-killing taxes, and the debt that is just about to bankrupt us. They have been relatively successful in some states, but have not created the promised economic tide that will lift all boats and make their success secure.
The conservative coalition of oligarchs, religious fanatics, near-anarchists (libertarians), and the moderates known as RINOs, holds together only by avoiding their obvious contradictions with each other and with reality itself. They work together to create persuasive images that win elections, and give no thought whatsoever to the accuracy or coherence of these images. They need to get real, but doing so will destroy them.
Conservatives are willing to deliver this if it is linked to lower taxes on the rich, and they have done so in places like Alabama but have been relatively unable to do so nationwide despite decades of screaming about welfare queens, job-killing taxes, and the debt that is just about to bankrupt us. They have been relatively successful in some states, but have not created the promised economic tide that will lift all boats and make their success secure.
The conservative coalition of oligarchs, religious fanatics, near-anarchists (libertarians), and the moderates known as RINOs, holds together only by avoiding their obvious contradictions with each other and with reality itself. They work together to create persuasive images that win elections, and give no thought whatsoever to the accuracy or coherence of these images. They need to get real, but doing so will destroy them.
10
The phenomena as described--in my subjective interpretation--are truly tragic, and that is what is so depressing.
Race thus so "colors" political-social-economic reality, and isn't this our embarrassing non-secret?
Race thus so "colors" political-social-economic reality, and isn't this our embarrassing non-secret?
3
This whole column is just a continuation of and justification for polarizing racial politics. More than 400 years following the Jamestown colony, black Americans are still paying the price for slavery and white supremacy. American-style capitalism is not a zero sum game, but it does favor those who have capital over those with no capital. But if those without capital had more opportunity for success starting with better pre-natal care, housing, safety, nutrition, education, job training, employment, etc., they would begin to acquire capital and begin to escape poverty. It might replicate the experience of so many 19th and 20th century immigrants to America who embraced their opportunity with hope and hard work. But the escape from poverty and from racial oppression for poor black Americans is that much more difficult because of that very history of slavery and white supremacy. However, no one can persuade me that all of America would not be better off if we could end the entrenched generational impoverishment that plagues parts of black America. We need a "Man on the Moon" approach. We do not even know what to do to solve the problem even we agreed to try. Fifty years ago in Michael Harrington's, Poverty in America, he wrote of an $11 billion dollar poverty gap. What is it today, 15, 20, 25 times more? Even if $250 billion to be spent over 25 years, it would be worth it. By comparison, it's a rounding error in the military budget. The benefit would be staggering.
7
"This combination is (mostly) rooted in idealism. But it still amounts to a system of ethnic patronage, which white Americans who are neither well-off nor poor enough to be on Medicaid see as particularly biased against them."
No, Ross. Many ARE poor enough to be on Medicaid, but your guys, the greedy R's, refuse to accept federally subsidized Medicaid out of their sick need to stymie all things "Obama". Seriously, do you right wingers believe the junk you spew?
No, Ross. Many ARE poor enough to be on Medicaid, but your guys, the greedy R's, refuse to accept federally subsidized Medicaid out of their sick need to stymie all things "Obama". Seriously, do you right wingers believe the junk you spew?
21
The tone and the content of Trump's campaign goes way beyond economic grievance. Yesterday he went to a majority white suburb of Milwaukee to do his best George Wallace impression. He told the mostly white crowd there that blacks were too dumb to vote Republican and that he would restore 'law and order', meaning put them blacks back in their place. This is about fanning the flames of racial hatred, pure and simple. Not economics.
24
In the 1920s the anti-immigration targets were “eastern and southern Europeans, (“Russian” Jews and Sicilians). The Immigration Restriction Act of 1921 (The Emergency Quota Act) and The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), both signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge.
The Misissippis River Flood of 1927 brought about long-term social and political changes in the country. African Americans largely switched their loyalty from the historically antislavery Republican Party (the party of Pres. Calvin Coolidge, in office during the disaster) to the Democratic Party. In addition, the disaster contributed to the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to cities in the North.
Historians, economists and sociologists will point to the period from 1945 to 1980 as being the high water mark of the American middle and working classes as well as being an aberration in America's social and economic history.
At the same time minorities were being excluded from unions for reasons or race.
In 1968 after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights acts 3 years the formerly Solid (Democratic) South began its transition to the Solid (Republican) South.
In 1980 the US elected a president who would make eviscerating unions politically and socially acceptable. The first words of his first campaign speech, where the bodies of 3 civil rights workers were recovered, were "I believe in states' rights."
Sometimes things have reasons as to why they are...
The Misissippis River Flood of 1927 brought about long-term social and political changes in the country. African Americans largely switched their loyalty from the historically antislavery Republican Party (the party of Pres. Calvin Coolidge, in office during the disaster) to the Democratic Party. In addition, the disaster contributed to the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to cities in the North.
Historians, economists and sociologists will point to the period from 1945 to 1980 as being the high water mark of the American middle and working classes as well as being an aberration in America's social and economic history.
At the same time minorities were being excluded from unions for reasons or race.
In 1968 after the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights acts 3 years the formerly Solid (Democratic) South began its transition to the Solid (Republican) South.
In 1980 the US elected a president who would make eviscerating unions politically and socially acceptable. The first words of his first campaign speech, where the bodies of 3 civil rights workers were recovered, were "I believe in states' rights."
Sometimes things have reasons as to why they are...
12
Isn't pandering the way one gets elected and re-elected? There is this myth about telling people "the truth." Doesn't work with the family at Thanksgiving, doesn't work with the wife in bed and definitely doesn't work with the voting public at election time.
4
In many ways the word "pandering" has been co-opted and cheapened by its extensive over-use. Especially when it comes to politics, where the ability to reach across the aisles, or come to a compromise is not necessarily a bad trait to have.
Whether or not this works within the realms of one's own family is of little significance on the grander scale.
Whether or not this works within the realms of one's own family is of little significance on the grander scale.
2
Lets be honest for once. African-Americans are much worse off now, after almost eight years of Obama's neo-liberalism, then anyone expected. Of course everyone in the "middle-class" and below have suffered enormously. Yes we do need to "make America Great again", which means we need to create real jobs for real - non-virtual - people - citizens- black, white and Hispanic. Just like the millions of jobs that have been created in the last eight years in China.
No amount of foolish "Trump-bashing" and racial division, at the expense of truth is going to fix the problem. Certainly Hillary has no intention of helping the poorest lower middle class whites, blacks, Hispanics or anyone else.
No amount of foolish "Trump-bashing" and racial division, at the expense of truth is going to fix the problem. Certainly Hillary has no intention of helping the poorest lower middle class whites, blacks, Hispanics or anyone else.
11
And the fact that you think the Orange Bloviator will do ANY of this means you are lost.
Lets be honest for once. African-Americans are much worse off now, after almost eight years of Obama's neo-liberalism, then anyone expected.
And by the way? What is "neo-liberalism"other than some spew you picked up from Breitbart or Fox?
Lets be honest for once. African-Americans are much worse off now, after almost eight years of Obama's neo-liberalism, then anyone expected.
And by the way? What is "neo-liberalism"other than some spew you picked up from Breitbart or Fox?
3
@rollins
What facts do you have to substantiate your statement about African-Americans being "worse off now, after almost eight years of Obama's neo-liberalism" ???
Another thing.
There is nothing "foolish" about "Trump-bashing" -- He has done everything in his power to deserve what's being said about him.
What facts do you have to substantiate your statement about African-Americans being "worse off now, after almost eight years of Obama's neo-liberalism" ???
Another thing.
There is nothing "foolish" about "Trump-bashing" -- He has done everything in his power to deserve what's being said about him.
10
First of all, you believe what you believe about Trump's voters because doing so confirms your preexisting prejudices.
"The pull of white identity politics can be overcome, but only with great effort. Not least because it requires not only that conservatism change, but that minority voters be persuaded that the change is meaningful." Why does the pull of white identity politics require that conservatism change? People who vote for Trump, almost all of them, were never intellectual conservatives to begin with. For them, "conservatism" was more an expression of Christian whiteness, a familial and regional traditionalism, or a way of voting against the party of colored people living the high life off their hard-earned tax dollars.
Again, what you want is a kind of liberal-left economics tied to traditional Christian values, and there isn't, as of now, a sufficient constituency for that. No one who is poor, except whites hung on Limbaugh and Hannity, cares for the kind of Misesian economic analysis favored by the Kochs. They're needing some kind of help and they're going to vote for the party that they feel offers them that help. And as long as populistic conservative media exists, no matter how much you change ascendant Republican economic doctrines -- and good luck with that -- you're still not going to deal with the people whose minds are captured by talk radio.
The GOP will someday change and be nationally competitive again. But I'm betting it's not in the way you imagine.
"The pull of white identity politics can be overcome, but only with great effort. Not least because it requires not only that conservatism change, but that minority voters be persuaded that the change is meaningful." Why does the pull of white identity politics require that conservatism change? People who vote for Trump, almost all of them, were never intellectual conservatives to begin with. For them, "conservatism" was more an expression of Christian whiteness, a familial and regional traditionalism, or a way of voting against the party of colored people living the high life off their hard-earned tax dollars.
Again, what you want is a kind of liberal-left economics tied to traditional Christian values, and there isn't, as of now, a sufficient constituency for that. No one who is poor, except whites hung on Limbaugh and Hannity, cares for the kind of Misesian economic analysis favored by the Kochs. They're needing some kind of help and they're going to vote for the party that they feel offers them that help. And as long as populistic conservative media exists, no matter how much you change ascendant Republican economic doctrines -- and good luck with that -- you're still not going to deal with the people whose minds are captured by talk radio.
The GOP will someday change and be nationally competitive again. But I'm betting it's not in the way you imagine.
2
Before you make any more sweeping generalizations about Trumpsters, why don't you follow the link in Douthat's article to a Washington Post article that analyzes a recent Gallup study?
The linking phrase is "gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class"
The linking phrase is "gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class"
1
this election cycle neither party is doing this voter group any favors. both are making them promises that they will be unable to keep and that would not help to solve their problems. in the past when technological change over took and displaced workers the problem did not last long because life expectancy was short and they died out quickly. our problems today are the result of longer life spans (although in this group they are shrinking somewhat). its important to keep some historical perspective about who these people are. not much more than 300 years ago they would have been feudal peasants living in huts with dirt floors and sleeping with their animals. that's not nearly enough time to produce the kind of fundamental change in people that would allow them to adapt to today's realities with becoming susceptible to appeals to tribalism and xenophobia. for the sake of social stability we need find a way to easy their anxieties as they make the inevitable transition to the next plane of existence.
Lets allso teech them some grammer, two.
1
The problems with Donald Trump are legion and many too ridiculously complicated to waste time decoding. Two are so clear it is impossible to miss or misunderstand them: Donald Trump is a virulent racist and Donald Trump is dumber than a bag of rocks. He is a flashy incarnation of the worst of the American character. Our country was founded in racism and genocide and we have always had a love affair with violence. Trump is successfully playing on that bone-deep hatred.I haven't seen this kind of hideous demagoguery since I heard George Wallace speak in Alabama in the 1960's. I find it very, very frightening.
26
Well put.
7
Totally agree.
4
Both parties are culpable. Both Dems and Reps shelter corporate malfeasance trying to divert from the actual issue. The Reps pretend that an influx of undocumented labor is the issue without acknowledging that there are laws that prevent Corporations from hiring people in the country without visas. Dems focus on that same labor being victimized and automated business practices reducing the available number of good paying jobs.
In reality we are all victims of the same corporate greed which the government willfully ignores. H1B visas have flooded the skilled labor market with cheap poorly trained workers on the white collar side while a blind eye toward an illegal workforce dominates on the blue collar side.
Neither party has the best interest of the worker at heart. All sides of the labor equation are being victimized to enhance the greed of the ultra rich. The social pressure is enormous. Even college degrees are no longer a bulwark against chronic unemployment.
Until we face up to the reality that we are in this together and stop fighting among ourselves the availability of good paying, long term jobs will continue to deteriorate.
The enemy is the same. The oligarchy and their craven practices continue to shred the social fabric of our country. We are all in this together.
In reality we are all victims of the same corporate greed which the government willfully ignores. H1B visas have flooded the skilled labor market with cheap poorly trained workers on the white collar side while a blind eye toward an illegal workforce dominates on the blue collar side.
Neither party has the best interest of the worker at heart. All sides of the labor equation are being victimized to enhance the greed of the ultra rich. The social pressure is enormous. Even college degrees are no longer a bulwark against chronic unemployment.
Until we face up to the reality that we are in this together and stop fighting among ourselves the availability of good paying, long term jobs will continue to deteriorate.
The enemy is the same. The oligarchy and their craven practices continue to shred the social fabric of our country. We are all in this together.
16
"The more you favor a left wing politics that stresses economic forces above all else, the more you'll cast Trump's blue collar support as the bit fruit of the Democratic Party's turn to neoliberalism, and argue that social democracy rather than shaming and shunning is the cure for right-wing populism." The rise of "the Donald" is all the fault of the Democratic Party's concern for maintaining the social safety net? This is an interesting thesis, which is only valid if one believes that SNAP programs, expanded Medicaid programs and Head Start programs are only used by minorities.
Mr. Douthat is echoing Mr. Romney's 47% argument. "The takers" aren't interested in bettering their lives or people who need help because they have had bad luck, illness or other unforeseen problems in their ability to earn a decent living. It was the Republicans who opposed the extension of Unemployment Insurance beyond the previous limits, even though their base would have benefited greatly by such an extension. The Republicans cast all social programs in terms of takers and the poor down-trodden people who have to pay taxes which, apparently only benefit the takers. The taxpayers don't use the infrastructure that the Democratic jobs programs would have repaired or updated in the Republican universe. Only the takers, who won't work are the recipients of government largesse. Forget about oil depletion allowances, or farm subsides to agribusiness or the big give away to the big pharma.
Mr. Douthat is echoing Mr. Romney's 47% argument. "The takers" aren't interested in bettering their lives or people who need help because they have had bad luck, illness or other unforeseen problems in their ability to earn a decent living. It was the Republicans who opposed the extension of Unemployment Insurance beyond the previous limits, even though their base would have benefited greatly by such an extension. The Republicans cast all social programs in terms of takers and the poor down-trodden people who have to pay taxes which, apparently only benefit the takers. The taxpayers don't use the infrastructure that the Democratic jobs programs would have repaired or updated in the Republican universe. Only the takers, who won't work are the recipients of government largesse. Forget about oil depletion allowances, or farm subsides to agribusiness or the big give away to the big pharma.
6
Wow! So dense, literally and figuratively. The Democratic party is largely mutliracial, the Republican party is very limited in that respect. In both cases it is not what most Americans desire in a political party, but they must choose one or the other because that's what's on the (limited) menu. This election is much the same, neither candidate is particularly popular, but one is obviously a better choice than the other. Perhaps it is time for America to expand its political horizons and move toward a more multiparty, parliamentary system. That will have it's own flaws, but it will offer more of the breadth with greater participation that Ross is seeking.
2
I disagree that economically disaffected white males have been forgotten by the Democratic party. Rather, any and all programs that could have helped this population have been systematically blocked the last two administrations by Republicans in Congress. It is disingenuous to lay blame on both parties when it has been cynical Republican politicians who claim to represent them do everything in their power in the name of fiscal discpline to block programs targeted to help.
10
I continue to see white conflated with high income. Jews and Asians are the most educated and highest income ethnic groups. There is also substantial differentiation within the Hispanic bucket (which is neither an ethnic group nor a race and makes absolutely no sense as a bucket). All of these groups are right there with moderate whites in being disgusted by the Republicans both before and after Trump. This isn't about each groups racial handouts like you say Ross. This is about sanity, reason and compassion. The Republicans have very little of all three.
13
The outrage du jour is Paul Manafort. What we learned from various infotainment outlets and opinionators is the extreme capability Paul Manafort has convincing people with lots of other people’s money he can convince everyone to make decisions that benefit anyone paying for his services.
All we have are shadowy ledgers real Americans can't read and lots of people sworn to secrecy delighted to tell those secrets as long as their own secrets are kept. It is confusing and conspiratorial enough to make a person think Manafort concocted the entire story and Hillary paid him to do it. Stay tuned and look for secret emails to turn up.
Donald is doing his part to make America great again rubbing our noses in one GOP absurdity after another. Perhaps some people will see the buried lead to this story thanks to Donald; clever people operating on the fringe of various laws that are rarely enforced. Are Donald’s demand for lower taxes and deregulation sarcasm, irony or parody?
The only consistent part of the madness is it originates in the Donald Trump for president reality TV show. Look for Donald to actually shoot Paul Manafort in the middle of Fifth Avenue sometime in late October after Hillary's latest treachery is revealed. The Donald Trump show needs a yooooge final installment and jumping a pen full of hungry sharks on water skis has already been done. Some viewers will finally understand and the GOP core will be even angrier finally having a good reason.
All we have are shadowy ledgers real Americans can't read and lots of people sworn to secrecy delighted to tell those secrets as long as their own secrets are kept. It is confusing and conspiratorial enough to make a person think Manafort concocted the entire story and Hillary paid him to do it. Stay tuned and look for secret emails to turn up.
Donald is doing his part to make America great again rubbing our noses in one GOP absurdity after another. Perhaps some people will see the buried lead to this story thanks to Donald; clever people operating on the fringe of various laws that are rarely enforced. Are Donald’s demand for lower taxes and deregulation sarcasm, irony or parody?
The only consistent part of the madness is it originates in the Donald Trump for president reality TV show. Look for Donald to actually shoot Paul Manafort in the middle of Fifth Avenue sometime in late October after Hillary's latest treachery is revealed. The Donald Trump show needs a yooooge final installment and jumping a pen full of hungry sharks on water skis has already been done. Some viewers will finally understand and the GOP core will be even angrier finally having a good reason.
3
Mr. Trumps policies are an extension of the Republican orthodoxy. His transparent racism and hatred have nothing to do with policy. Folks can disagree on policy but that does not mean they need to respond by spewing hatred and demonizing there opponents. Mr. Trump is the worse of America not because of what he believes but because his bullying and racist comments are deplorable. Every day he demonizes his opponents is another day we say to the world that America supports his bigotry. I wish he could discuss a topic based on facts versus fear and hatred. I would not want to be friends with someone like him as he appears to have no intellectual curiosity and believes if you just repeat lies and make things up people will follow. Some folks will but this November we all get to vote on who represents our ideals. Let's hope it's not Mr. Trump. Folks who have been left behind have a reason to feel frustration but can we start discussions to try and solve the issues versus name calling. This whole presidential election has been one big waste of money and shows how utterly dysfunctional the Republican Party has become. We need another Party to balance things out because too much of a good thing generally turns out to be too good to be true. How low will people sink before we can have a serious discussion. This should disgust all Americans. Congress could not support funding of a deadly disease before they recessed but Mr. Trump can spew verbal diarrhea almost daily. Disgusting.
5
There is a fact about racism and other forms of oppression that Ross like the low information Trump supporters miss. It's the existence of an ever- or too-often present force that continues to depress opportunities for those who are not white, male and hetero and correspondingly to elevate opportunities for those who are. Those white males enjoy a privilege that makes them more likely to get jobs and apartments and less likely to get arrested. Civil rights efforts aren't about "idealism" or patronage, they are about leveling the playing field. The last few years have really improved discussions of privilege and prejudice, even in Idaho where I live. Low income white makes may not see themselves as privileged as compared to some "ruling elite" but with the police shootings of blacks and other evidence of systemic racism they can come to understand that combatting racism doesn't amount to giving others an unfair handout. That sort of community building is something I see progressives doing. Stoking resentment and misunderstanding and fear -- that looks like a singularly republican effort to me.
5
I'm so fed up with the excuses and explanations, we see bandied about every day, insofar as racism is concerned.
Racism exists in the world, everywhere, but most especially here in the United States of America, united only in its goal of maintaining the divide that exists between races, and between religions, and it's biggest goal of all is too nurture and maintain their greatest achievement, inequality.
The elites, the 1%ters, our masters, the owners of America, will do whatever it takes to keep the people at each others throats, any way and every way, because to not do so will allow us to see reality, and unite in one great attempt to get at their throats.
America today is synonymous with racism, practised all over the country, most especially against black and Hispanic Americans, with growing use of religion as a fallback position, just in case race suddenly becomes a non-issue.
And running for the Presidency, we have two charlatans, Hillary and Trump, one who refers to black youth as "super predators", and the other who openly espouses that America become entirely the same as it's original settlers, "White Anglo Saxon Protestants", (WASP).
We should all be in the streets, with pitchforks, by the tens of millions, showing the establishment that 320 million people can become very, very, VERY angry.
Racism exists in the world, everywhere, but most especially here in the United States of America, united only in its goal of maintaining the divide that exists between races, and between religions, and it's biggest goal of all is too nurture and maintain their greatest achievement, inequality.
The elites, the 1%ters, our masters, the owners of America, will do whatever it takes to keep the people at each others throats, any way and every way, because to not do so will allow us to see reality, and unite in one great attempt to get at their throats.
America today is synonymous with racism, practised all over the country, most especially against black and Hispanic Americans, with growing use of religion as a fallback position, just in case race suddenly becomes a non-issue.
And running for the Presidency, we have two charlatans, Hillary and Trump, one who refers to black youth as "super predators", and the other who openly espouses that America become entirely the same as it's original settlers, "White Anglo Saxon Protestants", (WASP).
We should all be in the streets, with pitchforks, by the tens of millions, showing the establishment that 320 million people can become very, very, VERY angry.
5
"This constituency, the gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class, is the Trumpian core. "
The average Trump supporter has an income of $72,000 a year. This is not "lower middle class", *especially* in the regions that Trump supporters tend to be more common.
So, one of the other factors is regional, yes. People in traditionally "red" states are far more likely to be Trump supporters than those in California or New York State.
Donald Trump rose to political popularity as "birther" in chief, which combined racism and religious bigotry (the black man is a Muslim!). Why are so many not able to remember this? This was, and is, why he's popular. It's racism, religious bigotry, and xenophobia. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling you.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/birtherism_and_bigotry_these_are_the_vil...
The average Trump supporter has an income of $72,000 a year. This is not "lower middle class", *especially* in the regions that Trump supporters tend to be more common.
So, one of the other factors is regional, yes. People in traditionally "red" states are far more likely to be Trump supporters than those in California or New York State.
Donald Trump rose to political popularity as "birther" in chief, which combined racism and religious bigotry (the black man is a Muslim!). Why are so many not able to remember this? This was, and is, why he's popular. It's racism, religious bigotry, and xenophobia. Anyone who claims otherwise is fooling you.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/birtherism_and_bigotry_these_are_the_vil...
4
As a beneficiary of affirmative action (the only government program I can think of that to some degree explicitly assigns benefits based on race), I find it ironic that socially speaking those expressing dissatisfaction about this program are mostly those folks who would not have received the benefits assigned to me because of my ethnicity in the first place. Other than affirmative action, I can’t think of any other government plan that explicitly favors poor minorities over poor whites, if at all. Such a misunderstanding of government benefits is promoted by the same popular racial notions that allow for the undemocratic politicizing of race and the characterization of people based on physical features and gender the author is questioning here. The reality is the great bulk of government programs directly provided to people are assigned based on economic need—on the idea that poor children should be able to eat and go to school on a consistent basis. The fact is these fixed funds are small compared to what our government spends on corporate subsidies. Anyhow, reading this article, I wasn't sure why the author chose to fix some social categories (such as race) in his analysis, while allowing for the possibility of change in political affiliation.
5
There is a very important group that is left out in this commentary. They are for the most part white, lower middle class, many small business and farmers that feel that at every turn, someone is biting at their heels. The government is the easy target. Racism does play a big role, especially with a non white president. They realize that Trump is not the answer, but they hate Clinton. For the most part, they will vote for Trump or not at all. But, nobody is talking to them. They need better roads, better public services, better health care and at the same time, they hate taxes, hate government and blame it all on the 'MAN'. Way too many feel that the country is broken. They don't read the fine print of lower crime etc., they only see the horrible terrorism, the mass killings and all blaring out in the headlines and nightly news. They are looking for a 'leader' that will fix it.
1
Well we do have a multiracial party in the USA and Mr. Douthat is aware of that fact. He "expects" that party to fracture along racial lines. Hmm. I can't say it couldn't happen but I'm not "expecting" it. Call me a pollyanna if you like but it looks to me like it's the Republican party which is gonna fracture. Despite being a mono-racial party.
4
The tragedy of race and politics today is when a whole lot of people who’re going up against the same establishment end up going against each other, because they seize on what they consider the most important or comprehensive reason for their plight, ignoring other factors, which means passing over factors that might be more soluble than racial issues.
You have to decide whether you really can afford the cost or have the time to wait around for others to recognize your rectitude and then...what? Not sure what’s supposed to happen next.
You have to decide whether you really can afford the cost or have the time to wait around for others to recognize your rectitude and then...what? Not sure what’s supposed to happen next.
1
At some point African-Americans will realize that they have been duped into becoming the underpaid servants of the Democratic Party. Democrats stir up racial identity and feeling that A-As are oppressed, offer tired ole Great Society programs that don't work, provide Black children with inferior public school educations (rather than attacking the root causes, including teachers' unions), say and do nothing about the complete collapse of the Black nuclear family, intercity crime, and teenage pregnancies, chant that Republicans are racists because they offer different ideas, and expect Blacks to vote for a Pres. candidate who should be in jail rather than the White House. With friends like those, who needs enemies!
Laws will never end racism, but black success will. African-Americans, Republicans offer a piece of the American Dream, not government handouts. Wipe the scales from your eyes. Vote Republican!
Laws will never end racism, but black success will. African-Americans, Republicans offer a piece of the American Dream, not government handouts. Wipe the scales from your eyes. Vote Republican!
3
But what are the Republicans going to do for poor people? Raise the minimum wage? (I don't think so.) Offer single-payer health care? (No.) Birth control or access to abortion? No. Free college education? No. Legalize marijuana? No. Expand Social Security and Medicare? No. Initiate modern public transit work projects? No. Fix the crumbling infrastructure? No.
What is it that the Republicans plan to do to help poor and working class Americans?
What is it that the Republicans plan to do to help poor and working class Americans?
5
You miss the point! Government is not the solution. GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME THE PROBLEM! African-Americans don't need single-payer health insurance. They need good jobs because they have an education and a sense that they can stand on their own. In other words, treat them like all other groups in America, let them take pride that they can stand on their own now that segregation ended 50 yrs. ago.
Democrats seem to think the Pilgrims got off of the boat, found the nearest Native American, and asked where the Pilgrims could sign up for Food Stamps.
Democrats seem to think the Pilgrims got off of the boat, found the nearest Native American, and asked where the Pilgrims could sign up for Food Stamps.
2
Ross, if your sympathies are truly with the middle- and working- classes (or the, nowadays unmentioned, poor) -- despite the fact that Republican policies have been equally neoliberal to the Dem party, with Rep patronage being the property of the highest upper income earners (AKA the 1%) -- then there is an easy route for you. Support the movement started by Sen. Bernie Sanders of VT. You know...the politician the NYT denounced from day one of his primary campaign.
4
Please. NOT the Bernie pity-party again.
It's time to move on.
We've got a country to save from Donald Trump and his conservative "Breitbart" cohorts.
It's time to move on.
We've got a country to save from Donald Trump and his conservative "Breitbart" cohorts.
2
Revisionist nonesense! It is the Republican party that is built on racial grievance and identity politics not the Democratic party. Remember, the modern GOP was established in opposition to Johnson's civil rights and voting rights acts, which were exclusively concerned with eliminating codified racial preference, not in providing enhanced benefits for black people. Somehow or another, the conservative movement has reversed the origin story to cast themselves as the defenders of universal equality.
In general, Democrats positions on most issues involve appeals to fairness. Taxes should be fair (those that receive the most should pay the highest share), enviornmental policy should be fair and account for its real cost, health policy should be fair in that being poor shouldn't be a death sentence. Republicans on the other hand have cornered themselves into absurd policy positions that are specificially designed to favor their composite interest groups regardless of underlying fact.
"Low taxes on the rich help everyone by encouraging growth!" No they don't.
"Police racism is only in the minds of black people." Well, a lot of dead innocent black people beg to differ.
"Global warming is a hoax and our oil companies are doing the lord's work." Turns out global warming is worse than we thought.
Is the GOP racist and greedy? Yes. It's also the hypocritic founder of interest group politics. I'll take the party of fairness and sensibility any day.
In general, Democrats positions on most issues involve appeals to fairness. Taxes should be fair (those that receive the most should pay the highest share), enviornmental policy should be fair and account for its real cost, health policy should be fair in that being poor shouldn't be a death sentence. Republicans on the other hand have cornered themselves into absurd policy positions that are specificially designed to favor their composite interest groups regardless of underlying fact.
"Low taxes on the rich help everyone by encouraging growth!" No they don't.
"Police racism is only in the minds of black people." Well, a lot of dead innocent black people beg to differ.
"Global warming is a hoax and our oil companies are doing the lord's work." Turns out global warming is worse than we thought.
Is the GOP racist and greedy? Yes. It's also the hypocritic founder of interest group politics. I'll take the party of fairness and sensibility any day.
4
A white identity politics that does not veer off into white nationalism is simply impossible. What has to happen is strengthening of multiracial organizations such as labor unions.
4
The emphasis on anything, but effects of the undeniable transfer of wealth for several decades is a smokescreen used by both parties to cover the actual intent of our wealth controlled presidency, legislature and increasingly influenced judiciary.
Some may consider this observation ill founded and politically motivated when in fact there is no denial regarding the transfer of wealth and only a nominal defense from those who through politics seek a guaranteed part of that wealth.
So called race-based wrongs, denial of voting rights and lack of decent pay among a ton of other disparities are simply the most obvious and easily promoted which then allow the more destructive wealth transfer to continue without heed to any consequence.
Science fiction? Just facts most trusting citizens cannot bring themselves to believe would emanate from their trusted representatives. A con game that like the lottery benefits very few and impoverishes a lot more.
Neither the Democrat nor the Republican operatives care one whit about more than feathering their own nests and the fact we believe them is an indication of how well they learned the lessons Mr Barnum taught.
Some may consider this observation ill founded and politically motivated when in fact there is no denial regarding the transfer of wealth and only a nominal defense from those who through politics seek a guaranteed part of that wealth.
So called race-based wrongs, denial of voting rights and lack of decent pay among a ton of other disparities are simply the most obvious and easily promoted which then allow the more destructive wealth transfer to continue without heed to any consequence.
Science fiction? Just facts most trusting citizens cannot bring themselves to believe would emanate from their trusted representatives. A con game that like the lottery benefits very few and impoverishes a lot more.
Neither the Democrat nor the Republican operatives care one whit about more than feathering their own nests and the fact we believe them is an indication of how well they learned the lessons Mr Barnum taught.
3
Douthat's piece builds a caricature of mainstream liberalism and sets up a false equation with mainstream conservatism as if both have abandoned the white working class. Ross- check the democratic platform- raising the minimum hourly wage, universal medical care, support for unions, billions for infrastructure to create more jobs. These are policies that benefit the poor regardless of their pigment. And then check the Republican platform- cancel the Affordable Care Act, keep the hourly wage as is, and lower taxes for the top 1%. Ross- both wings of the democratic party benefit the white working class. Neither wing of the republican party does. One of the great mysteries of contemporary politics is how white working voters imagine that Trump is working on their behalf.
2
This year presidential election is very troublesome; some people support Donald Trump since he’s not a real politicians when in truth, you need a worthy true leader with the political background ready to confront homeland discriminatory violence; the eminent threat imposed by Isis and his Jihadist’s group; and to work for the economic future of all Americans, not just the people at the top of the socioeconomic scale. But…where is that Presidential nominee?
I believe the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party should open room to young blood; politicians capable of working together to confront the issues of the 21st century; ready to reach a middle ground; meaningful bipartisan legislation without race, religion or greed getting in the way. Only then, we might find true leadership.
In the meantime, we’re between a rock and a hard place.
I believe the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party should open room to young blood; politicians capable of working together to confront the issues of the 21st century; ready to reach a middle ground; meaningful bipartisan legislation without race, religion or greed getting in the way. Only then, we might find true leadership.
In the meantime, we’re between a rock and a hard place.
Douthat's analysis is absolutely correct that the "Democratic Party’s turn to neoliberalism," and the "pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism" (read, Clintonism) have displaced that "social democracy [which] rather than shaming and shunning is the cure for right-wing populism.."
Of course, this entire piece is written without the obvious word "Sanders" appearing. Having done all it could to undermine Sanders's campaign, the NYT is now full of stories about neo-liberal catastrophe, Clinton's cavorting with the wealthy while playing identity politics with working people, etc.
I guess the possibility of class politics is ultimately scarier than identity liberalism.
Of course, this entire piece is written without the obvious word "Sanders" appearing. Having done all it could to undermine Sanders's campaign, the NYT is now full of stories about neo-liberal catastrophe, Clinton's cavorting with the wealthy while playing identity politics with working people, etc.
I guess the possibility of class politics is ultimately scarier than identity liberalism.
4
This is the same old "divide and conquer " rhetoric from the right. Let's NOT acknowledge history and current exclusion here! Just watching Cleveland and Philadelphia beyond the the network camera pans of the crowds--and looking at WHO has a voice and how the leadership is composed tells us what is really going on. Beyond the optics--this MATTERS.
3
I congratulate Ross for at least trying, but he is still not facing the fact that the GOP has been instigating racism among working class whites since NIxon's days - because that is the only way to sell them poisonous policies that are against their class interests.
12
Perhaps Mr Douthat is hoping the Second Coming will arrive wearing red, white and blue GOP buttons. . .
4
The GOP thinks or at least says that government is the problem and that unregulated capitalism is the solution. GOP politicians then run on the promise of shrinking the government and cutting taxes and regulations as they blow the cultural, racial dog whistle. Sadly, the poor white uneducated Trump supporter has failed to recognize that the government is a far better friend than the GOP's politicians.
4
The clinton Foundation has done plenty to benefit poor communities world wide. What have they done for the "white man without a college education living in a region experiencing economic distress."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/08/16/clinton-foundat...
Although Bill Clinton foresaw the biggest high tech boom, internet boom and bubble of modern times, Y2K fears and aftermath of the turn of the century economy, he and his administration grossly underestimated the after effects. They did not warn the American public, they did not prepare the public sufficiently left without any training and left exposed to onslaught of globalization. The same thing with previous admins that blindly allowed manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas, without providing the American "white and black worker" the means, the education, the training to replace these jobs.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/08/16/clinton-foundat...
Although Bill Clinton foresaw the biggest high tech boom, internet boom and bubble of modern times, Y2K fears and aftermath of the turn of the century economy, he and his administration grossly underestimated the after effects. They did not warn the American public, they did not prepare the public sufficiently left without any training and left exposed to onslaught of globalization. The same thing with previous admins that blindly allowed manufacturing jobs to be shipped overseas, without providing the American "white and black worker" the means, the education, the training to replace these jobs.
3
As long as the Republican Party's answer to white working class voters left behind by the economy is "Cut taxes for the wealthy," those white working class voters will continue to be left behind.
The problem faced by Republicans and those who identify as conservatives is that they continue to genuflect at the alter of tax cuts for the rich despite overwhelming evidence that their chosen policy doesn't produce anything like the benefits they claim.
Perhaps a good first step would be for Republicans to concede that there is such thing as objective reality, and that it is the performance of political policy in the real world -- not in the imagined, closed-circuit world of far right media -- that dictates whether that policy is worth pursuing.
Just a thought . . .
The problem faced by Republicans and those who identify as conservatives is that they continue to genuflect at the alter of tax cuts for the rich despite overwhelming evidence that their chosen policy doesn't produce anything like the benefits they claim.
Perhaps a good first step would be for Republicans to concede that there is such thing as objective reality, and that it is the performance of political policy in the real world -- not in the imagined, closed-circuit world of far right media -- that dictates whether that policy is worth pursuing.
Just a thought . . .
7
Ideology above all else. Mr. Douthat and others of the pundit class who unfortunately wield disproportionate power and influence are so firmly committed to the fullest realization of their own specific political theories and beliefs that they'll gladly diminish actual people or even whole groups of people with "weaker claims" to economic and social stability than they deem appropriate. Thanks straight white man for keeping everybody in line.
4
The GOP donor class will support anyone who advocates lower taxes and abolition of estate taxes. Poor white social conservatives (Trump's base) may have finally woken up to the fact that being mindless foot soldiers in the GOP culture war (abortion, guns et al) for decades has not brought them any benefits. Their standard of living has deteriorated, jobs have been lost due to globalization and their American dream has evaporated. Tax cuts have not only benefited the wealthy disproportionately but they are being asked to be pay for it with reductions in programs that benefit them. Criticism of obscene compensation for corporate management is attributed to envy but its consequences are stagnant wages and higher unemployment. Management is rewarded for keeping expenses (read: wages/benefits & head count) low – lower the expenses, bigger the CEOs’ bonuses. GOP has also been relentless in pursuing policies that favor the rich and its active role in weakening of labor laws and the decline of unions has aggravated this situation.
The realization by the base that it has been an unwitting accomplice in this pursuit at its own expense may be the source of its anger. An even greater irony is that it wants bigger govt with a larger safety net that addresses its concerns while providing its unwavering support to a party that is hostile to unions and advocates small govt. The base is blaming its decades of stupidity at the polls on immigrants, minorities et al.
The realization by the base that it has been an unwitting accomplice in this pursuit at its own expense may be the source of its anger. An even greater irony is that it wants bigger govt with a larger safety net that addresses its concerns while providing its unwavering support to a party that is hostile to unions and advocates small govt. The base is blaming its decades of stupidity at the polls on immigrants, minorities et al.
6
The tragic part of Trump voters is that their legitimate concerns about unaddressed economic stagnation in certain parts of this country are completely negated by their grossly ignorant social views. It's the intellectual equivalent of someone trying to sell you a magazine subscription while they murder a puppy.
6
Well........One of Mr. Douthat's better columns.
I find myself in agreement with most of the commentary and have very little to add. Only this:
The lesser educated, non-union, white male must take his fair share of blame for Donald Trump. Yes, Republicans have been selling them a bill of goods since Nixon. But they have been willing buyers and are less educated than ever. Why they vote against their own economic interests is beyond my ken
I find myself in agreement with most of the commentary and have very little to add. Only this:
The lesser educated, non-union, white male must take his fair share of blame for Donald Trump. Yes, Republicans have been selling them a bill of goods since Nixon. But they have been willing buyers and are less educated than ever. Why they vote against their own economic interests is beyond my ken
3
Generally, I like to read the NYT comments rather than those left on WSJ articles because most commentators here seem more balanced and have a sense of perspective compared with their WSJ compatriots.
Unfortunately, the comments on this article are disappointing -- most of them being summary dismissals of Douthat and/or the primary constituents of the Republican party, without much introspection into why people might feel alienated from the Democratic Party and its platform.
This column can be easily summed up as "Trump is playing identity politics as obviously as the Republican Party has ever done, specifically imitating years of Democratic Party politics in mirror fashion. That Democrats don't understand this illuminates their difficulties in capturing the very demographic Trump is appealing to."
Perhaps the commentators here should think about that.
Unfortunately, the comments on this article are disappointing -- most of them being summary dismissals of Douthat and/or the primary constituents of the Republican party, without much introspection into why people might feel alienated from the Democratic Party and its platform.
This column can be easily summed up as "Trump is playing identity politics as obviously as the Republican Party has ever done, specifically imitating years of Democratic Party politics in mirror fashion. That Democrats don't understand this illuminates their difficulties in capturing the very demographic Trump is appealing to."
Perhaps the commentators here should think about that.
4
If there is one media outlet responsible for perpetuating identity politics above all else it's got to be NYTimes. However, to their credit they do allow a piece like this to be published in their newspaper. Whites are becoming a minority, we are already there in most all large cities, they will eventually start acting like one and it will be interpreted as bigotry at first, but inevitably what do you expect?
6
I just don't think Ross Douthat will ever understand that conservatives (whether Democratic or Republican) were the enemies of freedom, the civil rights movement, and the economic interests of the vast majority of Americans throughout the 20th and on into the 21st centuries. It was conservative Democrats who prevented many New Deal programs from being extended to the black working classes of the south. It was conservatives of both parties who opposed the civil rights movement and women's liberation. The GOP will be just fine when it shoves the conservative revolutionaries to the side and embraces once again the progressive wing of the party represented by such Republicans as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Nelson Rockefeller. That wing, like most liberals, and unlike all conservatives, understood that the industrial revolution created enormous social and economic problems in America.
2
Progressives refuse to accept that the Industrial Revolution produced enormous CHANGE. Progressives embody the decidedly conservative philosophy that the Luddites got it right. Destroy the machines, and Utopia is within their grasp. Progress is recidivistic. Forward into the Future, which is the glorious Past. Vive the Stone Age!
Progressives
Progressives
Do you actually think your post will impress anyone outside of the Fox News crowd? This has nothing to do with utopianism. Conservatives have never understood that the industrial revolution transformed the 18th-c American society and economy. Suddenly you had millions of people living in enormous cities. Creating a sewage system for that change alone required a different sort of local government. Economic downturns could not simply be endured by eating the food you produced on your own farm. Industrial capitalism needed a different sort of educated personality. Banks and stock markets required greater regulation otherwise they constantly collapsed. Liberalism means capitalism. And it was the liberals who saved capitalism in the 20th c, not the conservatives (that's why leftists hate liberals too). By the way, this is how you construct an effective argument in a limited space.
The white lower middle class has taken so many hits, it's easy to see why they might be hysterical. Sadly, it is self-inflicted. from the moment they started voting for Reagan, their doom was sealed. I remember seeing unionized workers in Michigan voting Republican for the first time, and I thought to myself "this is slow-motion suicide". i was right
The solution? Go Left, get your tails to religious service, get or stay married, and quit your bad habits. It's going to take a few decades, but with a good moral grounding and well-placed votes you can help yourselves. And stop obsessing about minorities; they are int he same boat as you. The Plutocrats want nothing more than poor people fighting with each other, instead of unifying.
The solution? Go Left, get your tails to religious service, get or stay married, and quit your bad habits. It's going to take a few decades, but with a good moral grounding and well-placed votes you can help yourselves. And stop obsessing about minorities; they are int he same boat as you. The Plutocrats want nothing more than poor people fighting with each other, instead of unifying.
5
Ross, this is the second time that you've used a statistic from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) without noting their well-documented ties to white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and flat-out racists: https://www.splcenter.org/20090201/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intoleranc...
Their claim that immigrants are more likely to use "welfare" than native-born citizens is simply not true, as the decidedly non-partisan Congressional Research Service has found: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33809.pdf
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've been taken in by CIS' thin veneer of civil discourse, but I'm beginning to wonder if you just don't care or worse, that you agree with them.
Their claim that immigrants are more likely to use "welfare" than native-born citizens is simply not true, as the decidedly non-partisan Congressional Research Service has found: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33809.pdf
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've been taken in by CIS' thin veneer of civil discourse, but I'm beginning to wonder if you just don't care or worse, that you agree with them.
5
Our species seems to be hardwired with an us-vs-them mentality. To see everything as a zero sum game. If they get some advantage, we don't. And when we're down and out, sometimes that's all we have to explain our situations, to soothe our egos and believe that we didn't fail, we were attacked. And if we were attacked, we should fight back.
Politicians know this well.
I've spent enough time in poor rural white communities to know that's how they feel. Despite striking similarities between them and poor urban black communities--multigenerational poverty, violence, drug abuse, low educational attainment, broken families--there is no kinship, no shared sense of being in the same predicament, albeit for different historical reasons. For poor rural whites, who may hold many racial stereotypes because they know so few non-whites, it's easy to blame minorities and the Democratic party for supporting the disenfranchised so long as they're people of color.
And the latest campaign of White Privilege seems especially egregious. Destitute rural whites, who live in rusty trailers crumbling beneath tarpaper roofs, don't, and cannot, understand what privilege their whiteness confers. It doesn't put food on the table or a solid roof over their heads. It comes across as just another snub in a long parade of slights by urban elites who call them bigoted, stupid and misogynistic.
I'm a Progressive, but so often I find our message very counterproductive.
...and along comes Trump.
Politicians know this well.
I've spent enough time in poor rural white communities to know that's how they feel. Despite striking similarities between them and poor urban black communities--multigenerational poverty, violence, drug abuse, low educational attainment, broken families--there is no kinship, no shared sense of being in the same predicament, albeit for different historical reasons. For poor rural whites, who may hold many racial stereotypes because they know so few non-whites, it's easy to blame minorities and the Democratic party for supporting the disenfranchised so long as they're people of color.
And the latest campaign of White Privilege seems especially egregious. Destitute rural whites, who live in rusty trailers crumbling beneath tarpaper roofs, don't, and cannot, understand what privilege their whiteness confers. It doesn't put food on the table or a solid roof over their heads. It comes across as just another snub in a long parade of slights by urban elites who call them bigoted, stupid and misogynistic.
I'm a Progressive, but so often I find our message very counterproductive.
...and along comes Trump.
6
Hammond, the reason your Progressive message is very counterproductive is because of your inherent arrogance. Sadly, I don't think you realize how bigoted and condescending your elitism reverberates with us poor old folks out here in the land of generational poverty. You take your personal experience in "poor rural white communities" and generalize it to a sub-section of millions of people. Really, Hammond, how many poor rural white communities have you experienced? I bet you that you haven't spent ten minutes in my rural community, or a rural community within five hundred miles.
1
"This constituency, the gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class, is the Trumpian core."
Did Mr. Douthat even read the linked article he references? It clearly says:
"Among people who had similar educations, lived in similar places, belonged to the same religion and so on, those with greater incomes were modestly more likely to favor Trump. They were just as likely to be either working or looking for work as others... These results suggest that personal finances cannot alone account for Trump's appeal."
Perhaps Mr. Douthat is referring to this part of the article, "Those who said they felt they were struggling were more likely to support Trump," and "It could be that Trump supporters aren't worried for themselves, but for their children." but, rather than actually being worse off, they are being sold a narrative that trade and immigrants are responsible for their perceived problems, which the article also refutes. Trump voters have a higher median income ($72K) than Clinton or Sanders ($61K) voters and well above the national median ($56K).
It is unfortunate that these "zombie ideas," that Trump voters are "insecure lower middle class," keep lumbering along promulgated by pundits like Mr. Douthat, who draw conclusions to support their own biases but which are not supported even by the data they choose to cite.
Did Mr. Douthat even read the linked article he references? It clearly says:
"Among people who had similar educations, lived in similar places, belonged to the same religion and so on, those with greater incomes were modestly more likely to favor Trump. They were just as likely to be either working or looking for work as others... These results suggest that personal finances cannot alone account for Trump's appeal."
Perhaps Mr. Douthat is referring to this part of the article, "Those who said they felt they were struggling were more likely to support Trump," and "It could be that Trump supporters aren't worried for themselves, but for their children." but, rather than actually being worse off, they are being sold a narrative that trade and immigrants are responsible for their perceived problems, which the article also refutes. Trump voters have a higher median income ($72K) than Clinton or Sanders ($61K) voters and well above the national median ($56K).
It is unfortunate that these "zombie ideas," that Trump voters are "insecure lower middle class," keep lumbering along promulgated by pundits like Mr. Douthat, who draw conclusions to support their own biases but which are not supported even by the data they choose to cite.
4
Ross Douthat's fine column tells us why means-tested programs don't work. They are divisive, appearing to advance one group over another, so they never achieve the widespread support necessary for their survival.
His use of the term, "ethnic patronage," has been decried as unnecessarily provocative by some readers. But it serves a purpose: to alert us how many of our fellow citizens view selective government largesse.
Democrats, from Hillary on down, don't seem to get it. Social Security and Medicare teach us just how strong, successful and secure from political sniping such universal programs can be, but their lesson seems lost on Democrats.
Medicare-for-All, a universal proposal, would similarly be secure from the political sniping that afflicts Obamacare, and that may ultimately be its undoing.
There are a whole host of well-meaning proposals offered by Hillary that target key constituencies. They need to be consolidated and universalized.
If a President Hillary Clinton is to bring the country together, as she hopes to do, she must eliminate "ethnic patronage."
Some liberal readers may scoff at this suggestion. But in so doing, they will reveal how little they understand the forces of reaction in this country.
His use of the term, "ethnic patronage," has been decried as unnecessarily provocative by some readers. But it serves a purpose: to alert us how many of our fellow citizens view selective government largesse.
Democrats, from Hillary on down, don't seem to get it. Social Security and Medicare teach us just how strong, successful and secure from political sniping such universal programs can be, but their lesson seems lost on Democrats.
Medicare-for-All, a universal proposal, would similarly be secure from the political sniping that afflicts Obamacare, and that may ultimately be its undoing.
There are a whole host of well-meaning proposals offered by Hillary that target key constituencies. They need to be consolidated and universalized.
If a President Hillary Clinton is to bring the country together, as she hopes to do, she must eliminate "ethnic patronage."
Some liberal readers may scoff at this suggestion. But in so doing, they will reveal how little they understand the forces of reaction in this country.
4
I read this thing twice, and I came to a conclusion: if you can't say something concrete about a real issue, please stop writing. Too many of us already have our heads lost in ideological fog.
8
Democrats have won the political battle of racial perception because of demographic changes and the persistence of segregation. In a mostly segregated society, white liberals can ultimately seek refuge from real and perceived racial and economic threats in the comforts of their communities and their bank accounts. Because of demographic changes, however, it would take more than educated Republicans to permanently defeat the political coalition Democrats have formed with minority groups and women. Would it be the political exposure of the social contradictions inherent in white liberal identity? Would it be that as more people of color enter the ranks of the middle and upper classes, integration will finally happen and racial identity perpetuated by poverty and segregation will begin to dissipate? To what extent can Republicans tap the other mitigating factors that contribute to social identity and political preference after years of bluntly committing to the racial concerns of poor and lower middle class whites? Time will tell. One thing is certain: As of today, the Republican strategy has failed. Still, the social crisis in this failure and the Democratic tenuous coalition will not end with the election of Hillary Clinton, or the eventual choosing of a moderate candidate by the Republican Party. To divert the focus from polarized racial definitions to integrated social justice is more likely to benefit us all.
"This crude attempt at imitation, unfortunately, is part of a very common iterative cycle in politics. It’s a reason why, in multiethnic societies, multiracial parties are the exception rather than the rule."
And yet, Mr. Douthat, when one watched the two parties respective conventions one had to be struck by the fact that one of the two parties is, in fact, multiethnic and multiracial. One could see it in both the attendees and the speakers in Philadelphia. In Cleveland, by contrast, the very few people of color were swimming in a sea of whiteness, angry whiteness. And just yesterday the man at the top of the Republican ticket made the most pathetic attempt I have ever heard to try and portray the Democrats as "taking the black vote for granted" while speaking to yet another crowd of disaffected suburban white voters.
And yet, Mr. Douthat, when one watched the two parties respective conventions one had to be struck by the fact that one of the two parties is, in fact, multiethnic and multiracial. One could see it in both the attendees and the speakers in Philadelphia. In Cleveland, by contrast, the very few people of color were swimming in a sea of whiteness, angry whiteness. And just yesterday the man at the top of the Republican ticket made the most pathetic attempt I have ever heard to try and portray the Democrats as "taking the black vote for granted" while speaking to yet another crowd of disaffected suburban white voters.
6
Being of the left, I appreciate the sympathies extended by Mr. Douthat, but I have a quibble with his following statement:
"... the more you favor a left-wing politics that stresses economic forces above all else, the more you’ll cast Trump’s blue collar support as the bitter fruit of the Democratic Party’s turn to neoliberalism, and argue that social democracy rather than shaming and shunning is the cure for right-wing populism."
Maybe others on the left would disagree, but my personal opinion is that trying to forcefully educate the right on the merits of social democracy does not sound like a cure for our current brand of right-wing populism. Remember, we're talking about a populism born of deeply held resentments for the political establishment. There's another reason, a large one in fact, why Bernie Sanders consistently polled better with the right than HIllary Clinton despite being to her left, and it's real simple: honesty. That's it. Given a choice between a social democrat they perceive is honest and a pro-deregulation establishment democrat they perceive is a liar, the majority of the right will opt for the former.
Warming up conservatives to social democracy would take time and an evidence-based approach rather than some politician who's trying to get elected waving theory in their faces. The best way we can show them our theory is sound is by first garnering their trust. People line up behind honesty and integrity, so let's show it to them.
"... the more you favor a left-wing politics that stresses economic forces above all else, the more you’ll cast Trump’s blue collar support as the bitter fruit of the Democratic Party’s turn to neoliberalism, and argue that social democracy rather than shaming and shunning is the cure for right-wing populism."
Maybe others on the left would disagree, but my personal opinion is that trying to forcefully educate the right on the merits of social democracy does not sound like a cure for our current brand of right-wing populism. Remember, we're talking about a populism born of deeply held resentments for the political establishment. There's another reason, a large one in fact, why Bernie Sanders consistently polled better with the right than HIllary Clinton despite being to her left, and it's real simple: honesty. That's it. Given a choice between a social democrat they perceive is honest and a pro-deregulation establishment democrat they perceive is a liar, the majority of the right will opt for the former.
Warming up conservatives to social democracy would take time and an evidence-based approach rather than some politician who's trying to get elected waving theory in their faces. The best way we can show them our theory is sound is by first garnering their trust. People line up behind honesty and integrity, so let's show it to them.
3
Terrific insights.
While I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton November 8, I couldn't help but cynically view her 2016 candidacy as the apotheosis of a Democratic coalition of convenience between its economic elites and a less-well-off base that responds to identity politics and ethnic patronage. This helps explain the exasperating criticism directed at Bernie Sanders that somehow his message of common economic interests was racially insensitive.
Of course, when we talk about a coalition of convenience between economic elites and a less-well-off base that responds to identity politics and ethnic patronage, we could just as well be describing the Republican Party. Just, just like it takes a thief to catch a thief, it took Donald Trump, the consummate con artist, to expose the long con that the GOP's economic elites have been playing on its ethnic base.
Of course, the economic elites have been getting their way in the Democratic side for too long too, to the point where we've reached a bipartisan consensus that continually devalues work and workers. Hence the decades-long decline of the middle class. The longer we continue to divide ourselves along the lines of Republican=white and Democrat=minority and the parties aren't challenged to pursue policies that incentivize work, the deeper that decline will go.
While I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton November 8, I couldn't help but cynically view her 2016 candidacy as the apotheosis of a Democratic coalition of convenience between its economic elites and a less-well-off base that responds to identity politics and ethnic patronage. This helps explain the exasperating criticism directed at Bernie Sanders that somehow his message of common economic interests was racially insensitive.
Of course, when we talk about a coalition of convenience between economic elites and a less-well-off base that responds to identity politics and ethnic patronage, we could just as well be describing the Republican Party. Just, just like it takes a thief to catch a thief, it took Donald Trump, the consummate con artist, to expose the long con that the GOP's economic elites have been playing on its ethnic base.
Of course, the economic elites have been getting their way in the Democratic side for too long too, to the point where we've reached a bipartisan consensus that continually devalues work and workers. Hence the decades-long decline of the middle class. The longer we continue to divide ourselves along the lines of Republican=white and Democrat=minority and the parties aren't challenged to pursue policies that incentivize work, the deeper that decline will go.
6
The article is based on limited facile assumptions and definitions and creates over-simplistic dichotomies. Not sure who the author's true audience is. "Neoliberalism" is not defined by "ethnic patronage" at the expense of a "social democracy" -- and neither is the Democratic ethos. If anything, the Democratic convention demonstrated an idealistic effort to unify interests to establish a progressive economy that works for everyone. Admittedly, they could do a better job of articulating that vision to rebut the conservative accusation of splintered identity politics.
And by the way, apparent disparate ethnic groups are a social reality in this country; perhaps the legacy of enforced segregation. Liberals did not create them. These groups would be wise to reach out to each other and join forces under a big tent social democracy vision for which the GOP will never have the intellectual or moral fiber.
And by the way, apparent disparate ethnic groups are a social reality in this country; perhaps the legacy of enforced segregation. Liberals did not create them. These groups would be wise to reach out to each other and join forces under a big tent social democracy vision for which the GOP will never have the intellectual or moral fiber.
2
To my mind, this column is too speculative and simplistic by half, but it was worth reading for its last line.
I propose (with a serious smile) that next year there be erected a statue in a prominent public square in Washington, DC, with a fallen, bound, and distressed Trump towered over by a rampant dragon representing the aroused electorate. The only words that should identify this memorial to chained and neutralized madness should be Ross's: 'After Trump, what forgiveness?'
I propose (with a serious smile) that next year there be erected a statue in a prominent public square in Washington, DC, with a fallen, bound, and distressed Trump towered over by a rampant dragon representing the aroused electorate. The only words that should identify this memorial to chained and neutralized madness should be Ross's: 'After Trump, what forgiveness?'
1
The unemployed factory workers want their jobs back, but that won't happen.
Robots make other robots which make widgets.
Robots make other robots which make widgets.
3
"This combination is (mostly) rooted in idealism."
I don't think so. The hand-up to illegal immigration was/is rooted in the economics of cheap labor. Business power-brokers are the ones who have lobbied for this hand-up for it creates larger profit margins and a steady work force for difficult jobs. If you want to call it idealism, call it capitalistic idealism, straight G.O.P. playbook. The elites, both Dems and Republicans, like this steady flow of cheap labor and are more than willing to look the other way. Now that an angry base wants a cut, the power-brokers need to come up with some spin that keeps wages low, profit margins high, and the shareholders happy. Construction, hotel service, farming, restaurant work -- the power-brokers that own these types of businesses look to exploit labor. Let's call this "idealism" what it really is.
I don't think so. The hand-up to illegal immigration was/is rooted in the economics of cheap labor. Business power-brokers are the ones who have lobbied for this hand-up for it creates larger profit margins and a steady work force for difficult jobs. If you want to call it idealism, call it capitalistic idealism, straight G.O.P. playbook. The elites, both Dems and Republicans, like this steady flow of cheap labor and are more than willing to look the other way. Now that an angry base wants a cut, the power-brokers need to come up with some spin that keeps wages low, profit margins high, and the shareholders happy. Construction, hotel service, farming, restaurant work -- the power-brokers that own these types of businesses look to exploit labor. Let's call this "idealism" what it really is.
7
If the GOP had allowed votes in Congress on proposed infrastructure programs frequently proposed by Obama, it is possible many of these white male unappreciated voters would be better off today, and not as willing to support a carnival barker from NYC. The racial component of their unhappiness would not be totally eliminated, but working together with people of various races and ethnicities might have eased their angst a bit.
5
This column is written in a mind-twisting obtuse way. What baffles me is why working class people would vote GOP, the party whose beneficiaries are the wealthy and corporations as well as lobby groups like the NRA, big pharma, and others whose aims are detrimental to the needs of the majority of the populace. I am not baffled by how this happens. There has been a long history of dog whistle politics in the GOP from Nixon's southern strategy to Reagan's welfare queens leading to the outing of racism, sexism, xenophobia and deliberate ignorance we see now with Donald Trump. The GOP elites were quite happy to get white working class votes so long as there was plausible deniability about the base appeals they used. Now this has been exposed with Trump's shameless calls to the worst in people. What you call white identity politics is a manifestation of a wish to return to a time when minorities, women, and immigrants knew their place at the end of the line. That is not going to happen any more than South Africa will go back to the good old days of apartheid. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of basic equality and equal opportunity. No amount of Douhat word twisting will change that.
2
There are very few liberals to be seen in the print or broadcast media in the USA. There are conservatives like the Clintons, Pelosi, Reid and the rest, there is the NYT and the major networks and there is a right wing reactionary movement incorrectly labelled conservative.
With a group so adamant in maintaining same old same old labelled liberal and a group forceful in returning to the system in place before the enlightenment it is little wonder we are faced with a choice between Trump and Clinton.
With a group so adamant in maintaining same old same old labelled liberal and a group forceful in returning to the system in place before the enlightenment it is little wonder we are faced with a choice between Trump and Clinton.
4
@moe
Sorry. There is no choice between Trump and Clinton...for anyone who is thinking, anyway.
Another thing.
Why did all the people who are now banging on about the "status-quo", wait so long to float a candidate who might even have a chance at being something more than a fancy notion??? ...The train has already left the station in this election.
Sorry. There is no choice between Trump and Clinton...for anyone who is thinking, anyway.
Another thing.
Why did all the people who are now banging on about the "status-quo", wait so long to float a candidate who might even have a chance at being something more than a fancy notion??? ...The train has already left the station in this election.
2
N.
For me personally it is the same old song for the last 40 years.
I do agree however there really is no choice but there really has been no choice for 50 years as i am not a right wing reactionary.
Even in the 1990s I had no difficulty choosing between the conservative neoliberals and the right wing reactionaries.
For me personally it is the same old song for the last 40 years.
I do agree however there really is no choice but there really has been no choice for 50 years as i am not a right wing reactionary.
Even in the 1990s I had no difficulty choosing between the conservative neoliberals and the right wing reactionaries.
1
@moe
I agree with you. It's a rough pick. But NOTHING scares me more than the thought of whom Donald Trump has chosen to associate himself with (Manafort, Ailes, Breitbart, Rudy Giuliani, etc.) -- and the fact that people may actually vote him into the Oval Office.
Strange times ahead....
I agree with you. It's a rough pick. But NOTHING scares me more than the thought of whom Donald Trump has chosen to associate himself with (Manafort, Ailes, Breitbart, Rudy Giuliani, etc.) -- and the fact that people may actually vote him into the Oval Office.
Strange times ahead....
1
-- How about GOP destruction of unions starting w/ Reagan vs Air Traffic Controllers, and continuing through Scott Walker et al today? Blue collar working men becoming voiceless was no accident...
4
The huge problem I have with this article is its insistence that nonwhites have become some kind of an advantaged or privileged class through affirmative action practices. That's very much a conservative bias, along with the idea that reverse racism is a major problem. While it is true that white males aren't as privileged as they were 25 years ago, in education, employment, and wealth, they are still the most well-off group in America. There's no evidence that white males are losing out economically due to affirmative action.
10
When you're in a position of privilege, equality looks like oppression.
3
The Liberal election playbook for decades has been to label any political opponent with the "ism" of the day and hope voters are stupid.
7
Foaming ruminations! Totally incoherent.
Douthat is impossible to read. He goes on and on and, honestly, I cannot draw a single coherent thread or a kernel of meaning in all of this. And I am a reasonably intelligent, reasonably thoughtful, reasonably well-read, excessively educated gentleman of a certain age.
Enough of this free association. Please get a "conservative" writer who is not so utterly conflicted and confused – and self-absorbed in his own religious/political fantasy world – and who can write something interesting for all of us.
Douthat is impossible to read. He goes on and on and, honestly, I cannot draw a single coherent thread or a kernel of meaning in all of this. And I am a reasonably intelligent, reasonably thoughtful, reasonably well-read, excessively educated gentleman of a certain age.
Enough of this free association. Please get a "conservative" writer who is not so utterly conflicted and confused – and self-absorbed in his own religious/political fantasy world – and who can write something interesting for all of us.
2
Ross, just face it, the Republican party is racist, has nominated a racist and is supporting that racist. It is pretty simple even if you try to make it more complicated with words like "solidaristic". I am soooo impressed with how smart you are, yet you don't know up from down.
5
It's shamefully dishonest to even pretend that the few benefits a few minority individuals have received from affirmative action programs are any balance or equivalent to the tremendous advantages whiteness has conferred and continues to confer in America.
Admit that many resent even the very presence of blacks in America and bitterly oppose anything that seems to help them in any way.
Admit that many resent even the very presence of blacks in America and bitterly oppose anything that seems to help them in any way.
3
How might one define a "pan-racial conservatism" in the Republican party? What kind of "great effort" would contribute to overcoming the pull of white identity politics?
I appreciate Douthat's efforts—particularly explaining some of the nuances of political coalitions.
What I would like to hear more of from him is how coalitions effect policy positions. Identity politics is tiresome on the left and easy to spot. But is there anything new, really, about Trump except for the openness of his appeals to various forms of fear and working class resentments? I don't see Trump so much as an aberration, but as the inevitable result of the stresses generated by years of responding to the donor class on policy while appealing to general voters in the media.
I would like to know whether it is the openness of Trump's racism or his promise to strengthen Social security and Medicare that motivates the Reformicons to shun supply side economics. Does it all com e down to, "Worse than Hillary"/"Better than Hillary" or is there more to it?
I appreciate Douthat's efforts—particularly explaining some of the nuances of political coalitions.
What I would like to hear more of from him is how coalitions effect policy positions. Identity politics is tiresome on the left and easy to spot. But is there anything new, really, about Trump except for the openness of his appeals to various forms of fear and working class resentments? I don't see Trump so much as an aberration, but as the inevitable result of the stresses generated by years of responding to the donor class on policy while appealing to general voters in the media.
I would like to know whether it is the openness of Trump's racism or his promise to strengthen Social security and Medicare that motivates the Reformicons to shun supply side economics. Does it all com e down to, "Worse than Hillary"/"Better than Hillary" or is there more to it?
I have watched in dismay a family member who, some years ago, left Canada for an American spouse gradually become a core Republican, hateful of anything blithely condemned as"liberal", a Fox news supporter of unfettered gun access.
Central to this turning was the election of Barack Obama, with all the implicit but unspoken taint of a deep-seated racism. From the antipathy of Obama to the castigation of Clinton, coupled with the logic deficits exemplified by Hannity and other talk radio pundits, a layer of conspiracies have built a parallel universe, largely untouched and unwanting of either fact, logic or accepatble proofs.
It has become a black void across our family, and for myself unable to reach across. On another scale I see and hear the American body politic, that family increasingly growing separate, dark to each other and dangerously suspicious and profoundly antagonistic, atavistic of the other.
This is increasingly dangerous to the American body politic, and to others on the outside, but inherently tied to the American reality in one degree or another.
As one writer commented; Trump may be a one year problem, but those following him represent a hundred year problem.
Central to this turning was the election of Barack Obama, with all the implicit but unspoken taint of a deep-seated racism. From the antipathy of Obama to the castigation of Clinton, coupled with the logic deficits exemplified by Hannity and other talk radio pundits, a layer of conspiracies have built a parallel universe, largely untouched and unwanting of either fact, logic or accepatble proofs.
It has become a black void across our family, and for myself unable to reach across. On another scale I see and hear the American body politic, that family increasingly growing separate, dark to each other and dangerously suspicious and profoundly antagonistic, atavistic of the other.
This is increasingly dangerous to the American body politic, and to others on the outside, but inherently tied to the American reality in one degree or another.
As one writer commented; Trump may be a one year problem, but those following him represent a hundred year problem.
I think you make a mistake when you assume Hillary Clinton coalition of voters don;t have common ground when it comes to economic theory and philosophy. It is true that Bernie Sanders in his ignorance or carelessness was striking at racial lines with his young white millennials and the rest of the coalition, but I think you misunderstand friction for a fault line.
1
Both Reaganite Republicanism and Democratic neoliberalism have failed to appeal to or promote the economic interests of the white middle- and lower-middle class workers. The Reaganite Republicans initiated this neglect and the Democratic neoliberals, in attempting to govern by compromise with the Reaganites, themselves became more Reaganite in their economic programs.
The middle- and lower-middle class workers--cursed as they are by job insecurity, stagnant or lowering wages, and the absence of once traditional healthcare and retirement benefits--are increasingly aware that both the GOP establishment and the Democratic establishment have failed them. To these workers, on economic policies, the difference between the two parties is comparable to the difference between French vanilla and plain vanilla ice cream.
First and foremost, both party establishments serve the interests of their donors. The working class voters are becoming increasingly aware of this and consequently detest establishment figures in both parties.
The Reaganites initiated this state of affairs. If workers were at all astute, they would direct their primary antipathy at the pro-corporate, pro-big business Party of Reagan--the Party of privatization, deregulation, lower taxes on the extremely wealthy, of union-busting, etc.
The Party of Reagan, of course, keeps a significant number of white working-class voters in thrall by means of divisive social issues: guns, gays, abortion, religious liberty, etc.
The middle- and lower-middle class workers--cursed as they are by job insecurity, stagnant or lowering wages, and the absence of once traditional healthcare and retirement benefits--are increasingly aware that both the GOP establishment and the Democratic establishment have failed them. To these workers, on economic policies, the difference between the two parties is comparable to the difference between French vanilla and plain vanilla ice cream.
First and foremost, both party establishments serve the interests of their donors. The working class voters are becoming increasingly aware of this and consequently detest establishment figures in both parties.
The Reaganites initiated this state of affairs. If workers were at all astute, they would direct their primary antipathy at the pro-corporate, pro-big business Party of Reagan--the Party of privatization, deregulation, lower taxes on the extremely wealthy, of union-busting, etc.
The Party of Reagan, of course, keeps a significant number of white working-class voters in thrall by means of divisive social issues: guns, gays, abortion, religious liberty, etc.
4
I'd say a resentful white bigot. He was a bigot before his situation changed, and now he's worse.
2
Republicans represent the greedy and the democrats represent the intellectual snobs, both give lip service to caring about anybody else.
1
Yawn... Mr. Douthis has written pretty much the same article over and over again. When will he come up with something enlightening?
1
As Joe Biden says, this is malarkey! Surveys have shown that the average Trump voter has a higher than average income. It has more to do with the changing color of America. The Republicans courted the white working class voter by demonizing others, playing the race card covertly, implying others who don't look like you are getting something for nothing and are taking your jobs away. The "bias against white Americans" has been manufactured by the Republican party. The Republicans, starting with Nixon, sowed this seed and what it reaps is only anger and blaming others for perceived injustice. The other day, I saw a Trump supporter being interviewed at a rally and she said she is supporting Trump as we need to get that Muslin out of office!! Mr. Douthat, I must say your thoughts are too anaylitical for the typical Trump voter.
2
The inability of minorities to recognize the damage inflicted by Nixon's Southern strategy has kept them locked in limbo. Neo-liberalism doesn't offer them much now.
As long as we perpetually hold down any class of citizens, the making of an uprising will always be a threat. Milwaukee is the latest example.
As long as we perpetually hold down any class of citizens, the making of an uprising will always be a threat. Milwaukee is the latest example.
@joe
Are you the "Official Minority Spokesman"??? -- How do you know what ability they have, or haven't???
This isn't about some kind of monolithic block, like you seem to think.
Are you the "Official Minority Spokesman"??? -- How do you know what ability they have, or haven't???
This isn't about some kind of monolithic block, like you seem to think.
1
Every presidential year the GOP pretends to claim it's really a "big tent." Come one, come all is the rhetoric, like clock work, except the historical record exposes the con game.
From Nixon's "southern strategy" to GOP governors trying to suppress minority access to the polls, it is beyond weird that the game still is played.
Insulting too.
From Nixon's "southern strategy" to GOP governors trying to suppress minority access to the polls, it is beyond weird that the game still is played.
Insulting too.
2
Ross always creeps me out. Reminds me of the hall monitor at St Ann's, really trying hard to rationalize the status quo and his place in it. Ross craves ritual, habit, security and symbols of continuity, like incense.
Paranoia is an American tradition, when the GOP lost the Cold War paranoia wrap they began a search for a new enemy, first by criminalizing their political opponents over lifestyle questions (Impeachment over a blow job) and after 9/11 calling their opponents cowards (Kerry) and now traitors (Obama and Clinton). Now its Islamic Terrorism and the GOP is leaning into it hard and its not going to work.
In the past
Paranoia is an American tradition, when the GOP lost the Cold War paranoia wrap they began a search for a new enemy, first by criminalizing their political opponents over lifestyle questions (Impeachment over a blow job) and after 9/11 calling their opponents cowards (Kerry) and now traitors (Obama and Clinton). Now its Islamic Terrorism and the GOP is leaning into it hard and its not going to work.
In the past
1
Every group that has experienced discrimination (women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, etc.) votes Democratic.
Income and wealth has nothing to do with it.
This situation will continue as long as the Republican base is made up of bigoted idiots (who believe for example that President Obama is a Marxist, Kenyan, Muslim atheist.)
Income and wealth has nothing to do with it.
This situation will continue as long as the Republican base is made up of bigoted idiots (who believe for example that President Obama is a Marxist, Kenyan, Muslim atheist.)
6
@ted
Hold on. Time to put down the Birther-Kool Aid for a minute --
First. President Obama is neither Marxist, Kenyan, or Muslim atheist (how is something like that possible, anyway???)
Another thing.
Ever wonder why "every group that has experienced discrimination votes Democratic"??? -- It's because they can't get through the door with Republicans.
Hold on. Time to put down the Birther-Kool Aid for a minute --
First. President Obama is neither Marxist, Kenyan, or Muslim atheist (how is something like that possible, anyway???)
Another thing.
Ever wonder why "every group that has experienced discrimination votes Democratic"??? -- It's because they can't get through the door with Republicans.
1
Let's get one thing straight, Democrats have never abandoned lower middle class, white workers. Those people have been fooled into thinking so, but it is not so. Medicaid expansion, a hike in the minimum wage, extensions in unemployment insurance, progressive tax policies, investing in infrastructure jobs and strong support for unions are all Democratic ideals which are designed to help lower middle class white workers and each of these initiatives have been blocked by Republicans in Congress. most of the people on welfare are white as are most of the beneficiaries of Obamacare. As with the constant conflating of Hillary's name with the word scandal, the Republicans and their media arm, have somehow twisted those with good intentions into the enemies of white working class people when nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the lower educated are the ones most susceptible to this fiction shows you just how morally bankrupt the teller of these tales are. They are preying on these people, at the same time they are deflecting who is really to blame, by appealing to the worst instincts of the frightened.
7
Take a look at any rural white community suffering economic dislocation and you'll see plenty of white people taking advantage of the very same social welfare programs that the Democrats champion. The southern states are more dependent on federal government largess than those in the northeast. Yet for some reason, poor whites seem blind to this reality. They rail against government even as they collect their food stamps. There is no rational explanation for it, other than bigotry and the fact that Republicans are selling them a bill of goods.
Truth is, if the working class whites, blacks and latinos who share much in common economically would band together they could be an unstoppable political force. Somebody must be benefiting from the politics of division.
Truth is, if the working class whites, blacks and latinos who share much in common economically would band together they could be an unstoppable political force. Somebody must be benefiting from the politics of division.
8
Thomas, I have seen this firsthand and I wonder about it too.
The only explanation I have heard is based on two claims: First, it seems that long term welfare recipients tend to vote at much lower rates than the working class groups above them. Second, the working class is resentful of those on public assistance and vote accordingly.
I've had any number of conversations with small business owners--restaurants, gas stations and general stores in poor rural areas--and it doesn't take long before they start complaining about the freeloaders and their sense of entitlement.
Don't know if this is the reason, but it jibes with my observations.
The only explanation I have heard is based on two claims: First, it seems that long term welfare recipients tend to vote at much lower rates than the working class groups above them. Second, the working class is resentful of those on public assistance and vote accordingly.
I've had any number of conversations with small business owners--restaurants, gas stations and general stores in poor rural areas--and it doesn't take long before they start complaining about the freeloaders and their sense of entitlement.
Don't know if this is the reason, but it jibes with my observations.
The question is really if a one-off candidate like DT changes anything structurally with our two parties, or whether things just return to the previous status quo. DT is much more like a third party candidate like Ross Perot or our MN version Jesse Ventura. Both RP and JV could poll high and even potentially win, but because they have no real bandwidth, no fellow party members to work with in the legislature and no "heirs" to their legacy they leave no real mark. These one offs are simply cults of personality and are best regarded as such. So much ink and posturing, so little legacy!
Resort to identity politics whether solely focused on ethno-racial groups or with economic underpinnings is indicative of failure of political parties and leaders to having lived up to the standards of democratic politics the advancement of which subsumes social identities, giving an individual an agency consciousness, thereby also a choice to embrace multiple identities afforded by a modern society.
3
This phenomenon plagues and infects even a large democracy like India, alas. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/after-huge-dalit-rally-in-una-caste-tensi...
3
With all due respect to Mr. Douthat, he is making the same major blunder as Donald Trump by basically assuming that all "Minorities" (i.e.Black) are poor, working-class or not, but in need of some kind of social welfare.
And by assuming this, the author negates the college-educated, middle and upper middle class of African-Americans, who have become all but invisible in the political diaspora, and in any course of discussion.
But whatever the case, Donald Trump, by sheer dint of his words and actions, has done absolutely nothing to secure the African-American vote. And it's fairly safe to assume that he wouldn't get it anyway.
And by assuming this, the author negates the college-educated, middle and upper middle class of African-Americans, who have become all but invisible in the political diaspora, and in any course of discussion.
But whatever the case, Donald Trump, by sheer dint of his words and actions, has done absolutely nothing to secure the African-American vote. And it's fairly safe to assume that he wouldn't get it anyway.
39
"plus welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use" They really need to fact check these. I know its an editorial and not news, but direct false statements shouldn't go unanswered in the paper of record.
1
I tried to follow Douthat's argument but got lost in his sophistries. Perhaps that's what always happens when a Republican tries to be an apologist for Herr Trump. Call a spade a spade-- Donald Trump is unabashedly racist, ignorant, angry, divisive, has "anger management problems", a classical narcissist, a bigot, etc. Perhaps not entirely sane. End of explanation.
1
Missing from this analysis is the greatest recipient of Republican largesse--the corporation--and its concerted effort (with the gleeful support of the GOP) to bust unions. There isn't a single, more significant cause of white working class decline.
A conservatism devoted to being the mistress of corporate America isn't part of white worker's plight? Who sent those jobs offshore, Ross?
A conservatism devoted to being the mistress of corporate America isn't part of white worker's plight? Who sent those jobs offshore, Ross?
"permanently large immigration flows?" What is the flow now? And does that statement accurately represent bipartisan and now mostly Democratic immigration reform proposals?
"Plus welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use?" Are you counting disability and workmen's comp?
"Plus welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use?" Are you counting disability and workmen's comp?
2
Trump himself is a boob, but his followers deserve to be listened to. They are not all, or even mostly, bigots. They are people who worry about the economy, the size of government, our lawmakers' preoccupation with race, gender and sexuality. For example, the ones I have talked to on the subject of immigration don't hate Mexicans; they have serious concerns about the effect of unchecked immigration on social services, wages and working conditions. They don't hate the sick, but for them, Obamacare has been a negative.
Yet liberals, who are so tolerant and humanistic towards every other group, respond to their concerns with contempt. "What's the matter, afraid you'll lose your burger-flipping job to an immigrant?" "Shoulda gone to college." "Guess you were too busy dating your sister to learn new skills." To me, that indicates that the liberal quest for justice is really just identity politics in disguise.
Yet liberals, who are so tolerant and humanistic towards every other group, respond to their concerns with contempt. "What's the matter, afraid you'll lose your burger-flipping job to an immigrant?" "Shoulda gone to college." "Guess you were too busy dating your sister to learn new skills." To me, that indicates that the liberal quest for justice is really just identity politics in disguise.
3
What is this populist shift in the way conservatives approach taxes that you speak of? I only as because I'm darn near certain that the one issue (other than hatred of dems) that unites republicans - from Mitch McConnell to Donald Trump to both of their supportrers - is a near monomaniacal focus on cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy. How, exactly, is that a populist shift?
You should carefully consider the source of your arguments, Mr. Douthat. The claim that immigrants are more likely to use welfare springs from a questionable "study" in 2015. Stating something as fact without citation is ethically questionable.
For a more balanced view of that study:
https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-the...
For a more balanced view of that study:
https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-the...
Mr. Douthat makes some good points, but makes the same mistake as Mr. Trump and his supporters if over generalization. Asian Americans have not generally seen an advantage with affirmative action. Yet they overwhelmingly support the liberal position on it. It is possible seek a just and equitable society even if one is doing well. The precise methodology is up for debate. I favor the method Mr. Douthat describes as "socialist". But I can see some of the approaches Mr. Douthat describes as working.
The canard that Trump's core consists of white males without a college education (why not just come out and say "white trash") is no more or less flawed than calling Clinton's core "welfare queens." Nonsense. Millions of Americans from both ends of the political spectrum are disaffected by the last few decades of political ineptitude and special interest pandering and patronage. The rage against the "system" bred Bernie Sanders as much as it nurtured Trump. Neither candidate is better or worse than the other. They both represent the failure of the American people to select a decent standard bearer. Spew all the well-deserved criticism at Trump you will, but don't ever try to convince educated Americans like me, with over 20 years of post high-school professional education, that Clinton is fit for the Presidency either. And there are legions of highly educated people like myself who feel the same way. She is a lying, unethical fraud and shame on the NYT for propping up her disreputable candidacy. Shame on the Trump apologists as well. Just stop pigeonholing voters based on your own political agenda. Everyone knows you are biased towards Clinton. That's perfectly acceptable. But don't insult and degrade those who disagree with your opinion. Thanks.
3
Ross Douthat seems confused on the racial demographics of poverty. African Americans are disproportionately poor, but in raw numbers there are far more poor whites than poor blacks. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 31.6 million whites live below poverty level compared to 10.8 million blacks. Democrats design antipoverty programs to target African American poverty as part of the party’s racial patronage. It is this racial patronage along with race-based affirmative action programs that disturbs poor whites who are struggling to make ends meet.
Source: Page 12-13, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014, Current Population Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo...
Source: Page 12-13, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014, Current Population Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo...
1
Ross is getting to be a very good political analyst. But his theories sometimes remind me of string theory in physics: sounds good and the math works, but the relation to reality is doubtful.
One could indeed "address both economic and racial/gender injustices". But as long as the cultural elite (as represented by many Times journalists and commenters) dismiss a whole category of the dispossessed as "angry white men who are uneducated, fearful, racist, xenophobic, and anxious at the loss of their privilege", they are driving them to look elsewhere.
2
I think I'm going to vote for the candidate who isn't racist. Kind of finding all the analysis to have a diluting effect on an issue that - at least for me - is big enough to make this a one issue election.
1
There is also the never Hillary voting block made of a range of economic types, mostly white. We cannot forget about those people, mostly from middle America.
1
Watch on day one of hrc's presidency she's going to make trump secretary of interior or some stupid job, then can you really say the system isn't rigged?, identity politics are also used by the dems to scare older, female, minority voters to vote for Hillary because she's an older female, religious democrat, vs her opponent, some old, white, Jewish atheist communist. If working people and specifically white working people still voted democrat, or even still voted, she would have faced landslide loss in the primary.
2
The whole argument is a ruse: suggesting that the direction of left liberal politics is focused on benefiting minorities, when in fact a Bernie Sanders speaking up for the middle class is a direct appeal to white middle class concerns; protecting Social Security and Medicare from a Republican party intent on degrading both.
2
A. Trump talks as though he cares about the white working class, but the only actual policies he has committed to -- big tax cuts for the wealthy -- will not help the white working class.
B. When the political fault line is racial, rather than class-based, working class Americans, whether they are white of African American, are the ones who suffer. This is a game the 1% have been playing successfully for a very long time.
B. When the political fault line is racial, rather than class-based, working class Americans, whether they are white of African American, are the ones who suffer. This is a game the 1% have been playing successfully for a very long time.
An overly long wharblgarbl filled article that misses the point.
There are two types of Trump supporters:
1. Racists.
2. People willing to support a racist so they don't have to vote for someone with a (D) next to their name.
There are two types of Trump supporters:
1. Racists.
2. People willing to support a racist so they don't have to vote for someone with a (D) next to their name.
1
Sorry your rationalizations don't cut it. When it comes to issues of Racism and Sexism... the ENDS never justify the MEANS. Your ability to "gloss over SEXISM i (a "patronage" that you must of stashed away somewhere... because if you had been paying attention at all you surely must have "observed" it) intrigues me and alarms me. I hope and pray that American Citizens don't take the bait being set for them by current Republican Presidential Candidate. He really doesn't care for them, no matter their color, culture or sex. I don't believe he has any interest in advancing or improving their opportunities in life. He is simply inciting fear and anger to get what he wants... so that he can feed his own insatiable ego.
There are no excuses for Trump. At the same time, anyone nostalgic for the old left doesn't know it very well. Mean spirited, pro-Soviet, totally unrealistic, Bernie and Bernie-ites are its congenitally defective progeny.
1
Trump supporters might be more of a political Rorschach test if there was no so much transparently objectionable that went with them. How about the assaults on peaceful protestors and even a threat to kill one? How about the demeaning language towards Hispanics? How about the utter indifference to Trump’s lies and outrageousness? How about playing turning a blind eye to Trump’s history of stiffing working people? How about ridiculous slogans like “Hillary for prison 2016” and “Save freedom, stop Hillary?”
This is not about judging the downtrodden, it is about accountability for accepting that which should be unacceptable.
This is not about judging the downtrodden, it is about accountability for accepting that which should be unacceptable.
1
White identity politics?
Yesterday trump gave a speech, trying to appeal to black voters, in Wisconson. However he spoke in West Bend. A small place, full of white people. Who got bored, apparently, by his delivery and his appeal that if he's president everybody will be "treated equally."
Apparently that wasn't what the trump audience came for! If anything it likely turned the off. Not on! (Equal treatment of all citizens is far, far from the "red meat" these "white identity voters" came for.). Black folks in Milwaukee, an hour away, likely weren't impressed either.
Wisconsin's governor (the failed presidential candidate, Scott Walker) dealt with the recent riots in Milwaukee in his nasty, autocratic way. And then blamed the escalation of riots - if you can believe this - on Hillary! (Um, no! His own dictatorial crackdowns while gov have inflamed blacks! And a majority in WI!)
Trump is reeling. He asserts he'll never change. But then he appeals to blacks in white rural Wisconsin? Give me a break! (Would he go to Milwaukee and speak in a black neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.)
Trump is on a trajectory to a historic NON-win. The race is nearly baked. Just about all he can do now is plan that long vacation. Meanwhile, it's quite a ride - on the way down. To defeat!
Yesterday trump gave a speech, trying to appeal to black voters, in Wisconson. However he spoke in West Bend. A small place, full of white people. Who got bored, apparently, by his delivery and his appeal that if he's president everybody will be "treated equally."
Apparently that wasn't what the trump audience came for! If anything it likely turned the off. Not on! (Equal treatment of all citizens is far, far from the "red meat" these "white identity voters" came for.). Black folks in Milwaukee, an hour away, likely weren't impressed either.
Wisconsin's governor (the failed presidential candidate, Scott Walker) dealt with the recent riots in Milwaukee in his nasty, autocratic way. And then blamed the escalation of riots - if you can believe this - on Hillary! (Um, no! His own dictatorial crackdowns while gov have inflamed blacks! And a majority in WI!)
Trump is reeling. He asserts he'll never change. But then he appeals to blacks in white rural Wisconsin? Give me a break! (Would he go to Milwaukee and speak in a black neighborhood? I seriously doubt it.)
Trump is on a trajectory to a historic NON-win. The race is nearly baked. Just about all he can do now is plan that long vacation. Meanwhile, it's quite a ride - on the way down. To defeat!
I don't know of any white men favoring Trump. I do know of two women who favor him, apparently because they hate Hillary. I am tired of the Times trying to interpret everything based on their silly "identity politics" theory.
3
You don't have to be poor and "uneducated" to follow Trump. The cheapest home sold here last month was $300,000 and will require another $200,000 to make it habitable. Four out of every five homes are owned by seasonal residents and the hot new car last year was the $240,000 Bentley.
On a four mile by six mile island we have 36 police officers. The local crimes consist of Dui's and domestic violence.
Wealthy, old white men who used to be somebody (CEO, company presidents, business owners) but now retired and can't cope with the fact that no one says"how high?" when he says jump.
Trump campaign signs grow like mildew on patio furniture and bumper stickers have homes on Porsche Cayenne's and Mercedes.
They are the "have mores" in the land of "haves" and they live in fear.
On a four mile by six mile island we have 36 police officers. The local crimes consist of Dui's and domestic violence.
Wealthy, old white men who used to be somebody (CEO, company presidents, business owners) but now retired and can't cope with the fact that no one says"how high?" when he says jump.
Trump campaign signs grow like mildew on patio furniture and bumper stickers have homes on Porsche Cayenne's and Mercedes.
They are the "have mores" in the land of "haves" and they live in fear.
1
Trump is a salesman. At the moment he is selling himself. Is he an ethical man? We need to look at what he does, not what he says.
America is in a dynamic state, meaning one of constant change. Many persons have become disenfranchised and are looking for answers, if not downright promises on how to fix their problem. It's difficult to be idealistic or even logical when hungry and or frightened. Trump has been able to take advantage of this.
Trump will ride the waves of hysteria as long as he can. This phenomenon has gotten him to his status as candidate. A great deal of news about him is out there. Buy the pitch, or laugh at the joker. It's America's choice!
America is in a dynamic state, meaning one of constant change. Many persons have become disenfranchised and are looking for answers, if not downright promises on how to fix their problem. It's difficult to be idealistic or even logical when hungry and or frightened. Trump has been able to take advantage of this.
Trump will ride the waves of hysteria as long as he can. This phenomenon has gotten him to his status as candidate. A great deal of news about him is out there. Buy the pitch, or laugh at the joker. It's America's choice!
2
OK.
Mr. Douthat begins by defining four categories of voters, two conservative, two liberal, and declares that he prefers the conservatives who favor a "populist shift" and the Far Lefties who sympathize with the white working class.
Problem: Nobody belongs in that first conservative category except Mr. Douthat and his coauthors ... and the Far Lefties he describes are fiction. Bernie supporters do not socialize with belligerent, anti-government Trump crowds.
So. Two of these categories are fantasies.
More serious problem? The author accuses liberals of profiting from race-based politics and giving little in return (hmm ... reminds me of Republicans who for years have profited from RACIST politics and given nothing but bologna in return.)
But the Democrats I know aren't just committed to government programs that would improve the lives of African-Americans and of anyone else who's struggling. They're also committed to defending women's rights to make decisions about their own sexual lives, and the rights of LGBT citizens to be recognized fairly.
Here's a proposed topic for a new article: What does Mr. Douthat think about the GOP's reliance on judgmental fundamentalist Christians? (See: Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence.) There's a Category 5.
Conclusion. Liberal politics aren't based on narrow exploitation of gullible African-Americans. They're based on the conviction that we live in a diverse country and had better get used to it.
Mr. Douthat begins by defining four categories of voters, two conservative, two liberal, and declares that he prefers the conservatives who favor a "populist shift" and the Far Lefties who sympathize with the white working class.
Problem: Nobody belongs in that first conservative category except Mr. Douthat and his coauthors ... and the Far Lefties he describes are fiction. Bernie supporters do not socialize with belligerent, anti-government Trump crowds.
So. Two of these categories are fantasies.
More serious problem? The author accuses liberals of profiting from race-based politics and giving little in return (hmm ... reminds me of Republicans who for years have profited from RACIST politics and given nothing but bologna in return.)
But the Democrats I know aren't just committed to government programs that would improve the lives of African-Americans and of anyone else who's struggling. They're also committed to defending women's rights to make decisions about their own sexual lives, and the rights of LGBT citizens to be recognized fairly.
Here's a proposed topic for a new article: What does Mr. Douthat think about the GOP's reliance on judgmental fundamentalist Christians? (See: Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence.) There's a Category 5.
Conclusion. Liberal politics aren't based on narrow exploitation of gullible African-Americans. They're based on the conviction that we live in a diverse country and had better get used to it.
4
Conclusion:
Liberal politics is primarily based upon identity politics and appealing to special interests while sticking someone else with the bill. Kind of like going to the grocery store and buying everyone their favorite foods and handing the bill to the lady in line behind you!
Liberal politics is primarily based upon identity politics and appealing to special interests while sticking someone else with the bill. Kind of like going to the grocery store and buying everyone their favorite foods and handing the bill to the lady in line behind you!
3
Two things:
I've never heard the phrase 'argle-bagle'; nor has the spelling check on my Mac.
Notwithstanding, it seems an appropriate description of your columns of late which attempt to make sense of an older word: 'non-sense'.
Second,
As a writer you should learn to hit delete when you write phrases like: ''they're being bigoted, BUT'. (Emphasis mine)
I've never heard the phrase 'argle-bagle'; nor has the spelling check on my Mac.
Notwithstanding, it seems an appropriate description of your columns of late which attempt to make sense of an older word: 'non-sense'.
Second,
As a writer you should learn to hit delete when you write phrases like: ''they're being bigoted, BUT'. (Emphasis mine)
1
Although I usually do not enjoy Mr.Douthat's intentionally disorienting writing style, I surprisingly agree with some points our Catholic Conservative pundit makes today. Refreshing.
Neoliberalism, inherently divisive and racist, hijacked classic conservatism and "the old left’s class politics" now have turned into "the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism".
Unfortunately, he then goes on to label a large part of Trump supporters as resentful white bigots. Again.
This is not helpful.
Neoliberalism is an ideology of the elites that has taken over both parties, a Weltanschauung that is the main reason for income and wealth inequality, a dogma that pivots one group against another, a 'philosophy' that has wrecked havoc all across the planet.
This neoliberal religion embraced by both parties, used to systain systemic elitism and greed, needs to be eradicated just like radical Wahhabi Islam. Only after that goal is achieved, a healthy discussion on race, racial identity, welfare and a coherent, all-inclusive vision for a more just Union can emerge.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and the neoliberals advising and bankrolling her promise more of the same for years to come, as does Trump: a cesspool of rich, greedy insiders dominating politics today to the detriment of the rest of us, white, black, latino, gay, straight etc.
At least they aren't racist when it comes to shafting the poor and voiceless.
Neoliberalism, inherently divisive and racist, hijacked classic conservatism and "the old left’s class politics" now have turned into "the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism".
Unfortunately, he then goes on to label a large part of Trump supporters as resentful white bigots. Again.
This is not helpful.
Neoliberalism is an ideology of the elites that has taken over both parties, a Weltanschauung that is the main reason for income and wealth inequality, a dogma that pivots one group against another, a 'philosophy' that has wrecked havoc all across the planet.
This neoliberal religion embraced by both parties, used to systain systemic elitism and greed, needs to be eradicated just like radical Wahhabi Islam. Only after that goal is achieved, a healthy discussion on race, racial identity, welfare and a coherent, all-inclusive vision for a more just Union can emerge.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and the neoliberals advising and bankrolling her promise more of the same for years to come, as does Trump: a cesspool of rich, greedy insiders dominating politics today to the detriment of the rest of us, white, black, latino, gay, straight etc.
At least they aren't racist when it comes to shafting the poor and voiceless.
7
@chris
What's not helpful is your apparent willingness to net people into convenient little boxes just to make your point.
It's possible that not ALL Trump supporters are racists, and that Clinton has more dimensions than you are willing to see.
So, hören Sie bitte auf damit....give it a break.
What's not helpful is your apparent willingness to net people into convenient little boxes just to make your point.
It's possible that not ALL Trump supporters are racists, and that Clinton has more dimensions than you are willing to see.
So, hören Sie bitte auf damit....give it a break.
1
The irony in a campaign filled with ironies is the economic policies Trump would pursue, would, in the long term, eliminate what jobs are left for uneducated white males.
1
"Eventually, we ended up with a liberalism that favors permanent preferences for minority groups, permanently large immigration flows — plus welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use."
Net immigration from Mexico has been negative since 2009, when Democrats took control of executive and legislative branches and. Barack Obama, the most liberal president since LBJ in many ways, has deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined. If that indicates some liberal plot to enact "permanently large immigration flows," I am Salma Hayek.
This kind of confidently asserted right-biased misinformation puts the lie to the notion that the New York Times is a "liberal-biased" media source, and shows just how systematically right-biased all our media sources actually are. It's not universal. But it is systematic enough to ensure that our successive governments have been forced to pursue policies that are essentially chasing phantoms but hurting real human beings.
Do better, Ross.
Net immigration from Mexico has been negative since 2009, when Democrats took control of executive and legislative branches and. Barack Obama, the most liberal president since LBJ in many ways, has deported more immigrants than all previous presidents combined. If that indicates some liberal plot to enact "permanently large immigration flows," I am Salma Hayek.
This kind of confidently asserted right-biased misinformation puts the lie to the notion that the New York Times is a "liberal-biased" media source, and shows just how systematically right-biased all our media sources actually are. It's not universal. But it is systematic enough to ensure that our successive governments have been forced to pursue policies that are essentially chasing phantoms but hurting real human beings.
Do better, Ross.
6
For years, the white working class has characterized minorities as lazy, shiftless, unwilling to absorb American values; they are, you know, losers. Globalization, however, and GOP slash and burn the government policies have come together in the perfect storm to cost them dearly. They find themselves at the same place in society as those lazy, shiftless "others" but can't wrap their brains around how that can be. They are mad, but it's tough to change course and be angry at the trusted, seemingly sensible, and godly ship's captain who has assured you for the long journey that only fools run into icebergs. So, you just believe that it can't be true, even as the iceberg looms right ahead.
1
Nice try. You miss the point, and it has little to do with FDR. White moneyed male power (translate: the Republican leadership) keeps the upper hand by using race to pit poor, uneducated whites against minorities. ("you are not like 'them'"). It has worked like a charm and guarantees that poor whites will vote against their own economic self interest every single time. And then will blame "them" for their collective and recurring disenfrachisement.
3
I have read and reread this article, and I don't have a clue what Ross is saying. Can someone please explain?
3
Why should "white" Hispanic, George Zimmerman, reap the fruits of Affirmative Action?
1
The only thing Mr. Zimmerman will "reap" is some extremely bad Karma.
1
The "poorly educated white man" trope is a marvel of political spin. The Democrats are totally dependent on the votes of the uneducated masses who believe the Democrats hollow promises of free stuff. I bet the average Republican voter is far better educated than the average Democrat voter.
2
The fact remains, the Democrats pander to destructive movements like BLM and support racial socialism (from each according to his whiteness, to each to according to his non-whiteness) to gain wealth and power. The Democrats have no coherent ideology; they're just a loose affiliation of special interests.
2
"In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deliberately excluded blacks from certain benefits and job programs. This was discrimination, but it was also patronage." Really? Even though FDR was dealing with a country that was very much ignorant of the impact of racism, he, at his wife's urging, made substantial efforts at improving the status of black people.
People are upset because liberals chasing their dreams of a world utopia prefer to take care of immigrants over their fellow citizens. If a poor Syrian family comes to the U.S., the liberals welcome them with open arms, trying to give them every opportunity. If a poor white family (actual American citizens) seeks helps, liberals look down on them as 'stupid, uneducated or Trump supporters'. Many poor whites feel excluded in their own country by the Ivy-league and Amtrak corridor elites.
3
if you want to know what's going on in political America, the first thing you need to do is to not read anything written by Ross Douthat. Unwinding the confusion that can result from even small doses will severely stunt your progress
2
I'm an academic who has written for scholarly journals in two languages.
Why can't the NYT hire someone to clean up the muck that is Ross Douthait's writing? He must have had graduate assistants as his rhetoric teachers in college.
Why can't the NYT hire someone to clean up the muck that is Ross Douthait's writing? He must have had graduate assistants as his rhetoric teachers in college.
2
This column uses lots of fancy words and obscure arguments to arrive at absurd, overly complicated conclusions that are "too clever by half" and not worth the trouble of trying to grasp! Mr. Douthat, whose columns used to be a pleasure to read, has resorted to using tortured arguments to avoid reaching the obvious conclusions at issue.
Namely, the Republican Party principally exists to promote the self-interested, largely noxious agenda of certain powerful lobbies -- the antitax lobby of the plutocrats, the defense-contractor lobby, the arms lobby, the fossil fuel lobby, and various others. Naturally, these lobbies lack popular support for their special pleading, if it is to be decided on the merits.
So the various Republican lobbies have rallied support from struggling, poorly-educated whites, preying upon their insecurities and inciting their racism in order to gain their votes. They have been doing so since Richard Nixon devised his "Southern strategy" to capture the votes of Wallace supporters. Ronald Reagan perfected the approach.
Now Donald Trump has crassly abandoned the dog whistles for a bullhorn. In so doing, Mr. Trump has performed the commendable service of revealing to the country who these people are, what are their priorities, and how they have been exploited by a Republican Party that the entire time has been in hawk to the oligarchs of war, arms and discredited energy sources.
Namely, the Republican Party principally exists to promote the self-interested, largely noxious agenda of certain powerful lobbies -- the antitax lobby of the plutocrats, the defense-contractor lobby, the arms lobby, the fossil fuel lobby, and various others. Naturally, these lobbies lack popular support for their special pleading, if it is to be decided on the merits.
So the various Republican lobbies have rallied support from struggling, poorly-educated whites, preying upon their insecurities and inciting their racism in order to gain their votes. They have been doing so since Richard Nixon devised his "Southern strategy" to capture the votes of Wallace supporters. Ronald Reagan perfected the approach.
Now Donald Trump has crassly abandoned the dog whistles for a bullhorn. In so doing, Mr. Trump has performed the commendable service of revealing to the country who these people are, what are their priorities, and how they have been exploited by a Republican Party that the entire time has been in hawk to the oligarchs of war, arms and discredited energy sources.
3
Don't forget the gun lobby.
2
@ rs: I didn't. I referred to them as the arms lobby. Thanks for the comment.
The very people who comprise Trump's forgotten economic core (as opposed to his racist and fascist core) are themselves ignorant of his lifetime of exploiting and destroying working people and small businesses in his quest to keep all the money. He recently appeared at the Doral Country Club in Miami, which he had bought for $150M and renovated. There are at least 23 small contractors who have obtained liens against him for nonpayment..
Companies in NYC refuse to work for him and he has to bring in imported labor.
A typical example is a painting contractor who had a contract with the Doral to do over $200,000 in work. Trump stiffed them for the last $34,000 payment. When they sued, his lawyers' defense was Trump felt he had "already paid enough" no matter what the contract said.
The judge agreed with the paint company, put a lien on the Doral and actually drew up foreclosure and auction papers for the property. Trump not only was forced to pay the company its $34,000 to avoid losing the $150M property, but the judge made him pay the company's $300,000 legal fees - far greater than the original contract.
Most of the businesses either stiffed by Trump or receiving token payments were told by Trump to take the token payment and go away. He said if they demanded fair pay, his lawyers would tie them up in court for years, running up their legal fees far beyond the debt they hoped to collect.
Good for the judge who made him pay this contractor's legal fees.
Companies in NYC refuse to work for him and he has to bring in imported labor.
A typical example is a painting contractor who had a contract with the Doral to do over $200,000 in work. Trump stiffed them for the last $34,000 payment. When they sued, his lawyers' defense was Trump felt he had "already paid enough" no matter what the contract said.
The judge agreed with the paint company, put a lien on the Doral and actually drew up foreclosure and auction papers for the property. Trump not only was forced to pay the company its $34,000 to avoid losing the $150M property, but the judge made him pay the company's $300,000 legal fees - far greater than the original contract.
Most of the businesses either stiffed by Trump or receiving token payments were told by Trump to take the token payment and go away. He said if they demanded fair pay, his lawyers would tie them up in court for years, running up their legal fees far beyond the debt they hoped to collect.
Good for the judge who made him pay this contractor's legal fees.
6
I still don't understand what "identity politics" means. For decades, African-Americans were excluded from mainstream society because of an identity imposed on them from without--an identification of them as being different and largely inferior, or at least unworthy to mix with white society. A similar process was applied to gays, who at least could try and hide their identity (with much sacrifice). Jews were treated similarly though at least tolerated. And on and on, with Chinese, Italians, Irish . . .
The civil rights movements of the mid 20th century and on was an effort by those groups to claim the same rights to housing, education, employment, voting, and freedom from gratuitous violence, that white people in the US enjoyed. The ancestors of today's "conservatives" resisted this effort, but were in the end unsuccessful.
Today's "conservatives" recognize the futility of continuing to subjugate these groups in this day and age, And I think many of them sincerely believe in equality for African Americans, certainly Jews, and even gays. But they still feel this compulsion to push back, against what they perceive as a "leftist" point of view. The bizarre intellectual construct of "identity politics" is their straw man that allows them to do this.
The civil rights movements of the mid 20th century and on was an effort by those groups to claim the same rights to housing, education, employment, voting, and freedom from gratuitous violence, that white people in the US enjoyed. The ancestors of today's "conservatives" resisted this effort, but were in the end unsuccessful.
Today's "conservatives" recognize the futility of continuing to subjugate these groups in this day and age, And I think many of them sincerely believe in equality for African Americans, certainly Jews, and even gays. But they still feel this compulsion to push back, against what they perceive as a "leftist" point of view. The bizarre intellectual construct of "identity politics" is their straw man that allows them to do this.
47
Ross - you first.
Republicans/Republican party:
Continue to hail the benefits of Trickle down economics.
STILL obstruct regulation of the banking industry.
Party elites in manufacturing and agriculture support the free flow of labor across borders and free trade agreements - Unions have historically opposed both.
They opposed the creation of Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage laws (let alone increases in it) that help all working people.
The Republican party has more managed to re-restrict voting rights in many states since the Supreme Court's Decision to invalidate key elements of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans did this for reasons that don't exist - voter Fraud - without Trump's help. (not tough for a party that too often denies global warming and evolution too)
For goodness sake, they won't even allow a vote on the current Supreme Ct. nominee!
Republicans/Republican party:
Continue to hail the benefits of Trickle down economics.
STILL obstruct regulation of the banking industry.
Party elites in manufacturing and agriculture support the free flow of labor across borders and free trade agreements - Unions have historically opposed both.
They opposed the creation of Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage laws (let alone increases in it) that help all working people.
The Republican party has more managed to re-restrict voting rights in many states since the Supreme Court's Decision to invalidate key elements of the Voting Rights Act. Republicans did this for reasons that don't exist - voter Fraud - without Trump's help. (not tough for a party that too often denies global warming and evolution too)
For goodness sake, they won't even allow a vote on the current Supreme Ct. nominee!
1
Mr. Douthat:
Who knew you had such a great sense of humor? Or that you could write sarire of this quality? At first, I thought this was a parody of a David Brooks' column, But,seriously folks isn't this a riot!
Somehow, we find that, yes, Democrats have enabled the rise of Trump. Who knew? Thanks for revising history, yet, again. This mess of ideas and
callow supositions needs an editor or a wastebasket.
Who knew you had such a great sense of humor? Or that you could write sarire of this quality? At first, I thought this was a parody of a David Brooks' column, But,seriously folks isn't this a riot!
Somehow, we find that, yes, Democrats have enabled the rise of Trump. Who knew? Thanks for revising history, yet, again. This mess of ideas and
callow supositions needs an editor or a wastebasket.
4
"Solidaristic?" I really wish you and other opinion writers mostly of the right wing variety would cut out the new jargon. I can barely keep up with the neologistic blather you generate to obfuscate. In short, use plain English to explain your ideas. I'm annoyed by needing a dictionary to check on the meaning of a word and it's implied meaning at the same time.
2
". . . the kind that various studies have identified as his archetypal backer: a white man without a college education living in a region experiencing economic distress."
And a racist.
And a racist.
4
Is Donald Trump the worst teleprompter reader in the world? For all of his showmanship skills, to see the pain oozing out of his face as he performs a truly Herculean effort of discipling himself is comical and hard to watch. His timing is laborious and stilted. Worst is his bad rhythm. It must be some kind of dog whistle to middle aged white guys like me, but it is not working.
1
Trump is an ephemeral part of the political landscape. Identity politics is a deeply ingrained problem. The United States is increasingly composed of homogenous groups that neither interact nor respect each other. Historically such societies are characterized by violence and economic disaster. Welcome to the next Middle East.
1
Douthat has inadvertently written a superbly persuasive piece for voting Libertarian. As he shows, both the various forms of Republicans' trickle down pitch and the Democrats' concern for more and more minorities are scams. The Republicans have been lying for decades and the Democrats have fostered poisonous identity politics -- and these two have now produced the Trump phenomenon -- itself the biggest scam of all.
The extremes of Libertarianism are insane, but the core is not only common sense but a potential third way to cleanse ourselves of the rotten residue of both major parties.
The extremes of Libertarianism are insane, but the core is not only common sense but a potential third way to cleanse ourselves of the rotten residue of both major parties.
1
Ross's piece is a preamble to his question: "what next for the GOP?"
The most likely answer is: "Nothing new." The Ryan-McConnell blockade will continue. Executive action will be the only way to get anything done. And in the next election, the GOP will field another set of dimwits, hopefully ALL of them servile to the party next time around.
The rest of Ross's piece is about dealing with dissatisfaction among the voters, which is the crux of the present election. The answer to that is nowhere in sight, in either party, or in the corporate sector.
The changes needed are so large and so grave a blockaded Congress and block-headed CEOs will do nothing, even if they did have some meager desire to do something, and some dim glimmer of how to do it.
The most likely answer is: "Nothing new." The Ryan-McConnell blockade will continue. Executive action will be the only way to get anything done. And in the next election, the GOP will field another set of dimwits, hopefully ALL of them servile to the party next time around.
The rest of Ross's piece is about dealing with dissatisfaction among the voters, which is the crux of the present election. The answer to that is nowhere in sight, in either party, or in the corporate sector.
The changes needed are so large and so grave a blockaded Congress and block-headed CEOs will do nothing, even if they did have some meager desire to do something, and some dim glimmer of how to do it.
1
The article carries on the MSM narrative that Trump is a racist.
Of course, there is no evidence that Trump is a racist, but that doesn't matter.
This is Liberal politics at its best. Label your opponents with your favorite "ism" and hope voters are stupid.
Of course, there is no evidence that Trump is a racist, but that doesn't matter.
This is Liberal politics at its best. Label your opponents with your favorite "ism" and hope voters are stupid.
2
It is not racial patronage, it is America. The GOP is 89% white. The Democratic party is 60% white, 22% black 16% latino/hispanic . The United States is 62% white, 13% black, 17% latino/ hispanic. The United States gets it's needs met by the party that represents all of the people not just 62%. The GOP has spent more time denying people the vote than trying to establish policies that might engage non-white voters. Learn the right message from the mess you have created. Serve all of the people.
3
You and We Cannot let "a white man without a college education living in a region experiencing economic distress" or "Or a resentful white bigot, lashing back against the transformation of America by rallying around a candidate who promises to make America safe for racism once again?" hold the rest of the Country, Hostage.
2
According to the Left, you are a racist if you disagree with any of their redistribution policies or ideas. According to the Left, you are a racist if you think All Lives Matter. According to the Left, you are a racist if you think Freedom of Speech allows you to say things the Left doesn't like. If you don't toe the Leftist/Progressive Line, it's because you're racist.
I want to see wages rising and prices falling. However, the Left does not. The Left wants minimum wages to rise - which means higher prices for everyone else. The Left wants "managed" inflation from the Fed - which means higher prices for everyone. The Left wants restraints and regulations on banks, fossil fuels, automobiles, cell phones, energy - pretty much everything, which means higher prices for everyone.
The Left is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. Prosperity doesn't come from government - it cannot come from the power of a gun, which is the only tool government, and the Left, has.
Prosperity comes from freedom. The Left is dead-set against that.
I want to see wages rising and prices falling. However, the Left does not. The Left wants minimum wages to rise - which means higher prices for everyone else. The Left wants "managed" inflation from the Fed - which means higher prices for everyone. The Left wants restraints and regulations on banks, fossil fuels, automobiles, cell phones, energy - pretty much everything, which means higher prices for everyone.
The Left is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong. Prosperity doesn't come from government - it cannot come from the power of a gun, which is the only tool government, and the Left, has.
Prosperity comes from freedom. The Left is dead-set against that.
5
Mr Douthat exposes how embarrassing it is to have your political isms represented by Mr Trump. Convoluted thinking and sesquipedalian words help to disguise their affinity.
2
The biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit reality is that there is only one human race. Neither color nor ethnicity nor faith nor national origin have anything to do with race aka species. All of those factors are a reflection of chronological ecological isolation. Behind and beneath all of our quests we are primarily vertebrate mammal primate apes driven to seek fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin.
But the socioeconomic political educational historical American harsh immoral reality is that all of those factors have been used to divide and conquer by whomever had the power of demography or geography or economy to reign and rule America. In America that means that the white European Judeo-Christian Mormon majority reigns supreme.
Thus an all white European Catholic like Ross Douthat can look down upon the dusky half-white by biological nature and all white by cultural nurture imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper named Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is the Protestant son of a Kansas American mother named Stanley and a Kenyan African father named Barack.
How long has Clan Douthat been in America and where and why did they come to America? Same questions for Clan Trump and Clan Romney?
But the socioeconomic political educational historical American harsh immoral reality is that all of those factors have been used to divide and conquer by whomever had the power of demography or geography or economy to reign and rule America. In America that means that the white European Judeo-Christian Mormon majority reigns supreme.
Thus an all white European Catholic like Ross Douthat can look down upon the dusky half-white by biological nature and all white by cultural nurture imaginary Kenyan Luo Arab Muslim socialist usurper named Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is the Protestant son of a Kansas American mother named Stanley and a Kenyan African father named Barack.
How long has Clan Douthat been in America and where and why did they come to America? Same questions for Clan Trump and Clan Romney?
4
@mamba
Just for the record. Your virulent racist rants against the ethnic background of President Obama may work well in your circles, but that doesn't change the fact that they are offensive to the point of obfuscating whatever point it is you are trying to make.
Just for the record. Your virulent racist rants against the ethnic background of President Obama may work well in your circles, but that doesn't change the fact that they are offensive to the point of obfuscating whatever point it is you are trying to make.
2
@N. Smith
Just for the record here is my American "racial" colored history.
My earliest know white European ancestor was born in London in 1613, married in Lancaster County in the Virginia Colony in 1640 where he died in 1670.
My earliest known black free person of color African ancestors were living in South Carolina and Virginia at the birth of the nation.
My earliest known black African enslaved ancestors were living in Georgia 1830/35.
My earliest known brown Native American Cherokee ancestors walked or floated to North America 13,000 years ago.
Guess what "race" my colored history makes me in America. Not talking about race and color is a privileged white supremacist luxury.
My point is that there is only one variously colored human race.
Just for the record here is my American "racial" colored history.
My earliest know white European ancestor was born in London in 1613, married in Lancaster County in the Virginia Colony in 1640 where he died in 1670.
My earliest known black free person of color African ancestors were living in South Carolina and Virginia at the birth of the nation.
My earliest known black African enslaved ancestors were living in Georgia 1830/35.
My earliest known brown Native American Cherokee ancestors walked or floated to North America 13,000 years ago.
Guess what "race" my colored history makes me in America. Not talking about race and color is a privileged white supremacist luxury.
My point is that there is only one variously colored human race.
2
@ NSmith
By the way unlike Barack Obama, I was born and bred black on the almighty South Side of Chicago.
Mr. Obama was not and is not and never will be one of "us".
By the way unlike Barack Obama, I was born and bred black on the almighty South Side of Chicago.
Mr. Obama was not and is not and never will be one of "us".
2
The real problem here is that over the past thirty years liberals and conservatives alike have produced slow economic growth that has left the average real incomes of 90% or more of the population stagnant. In this context it makes sense for politics to become a struggle among groups for a greater share of a stagnant pie.
I do not see conservatism or establishment liberalism offering or even thinking about solutions for this. Have you heard about this guy named Sanders?
I do not see conservatism or establishment liberalism offering or even thinking about solutions for this. Have you heard about this guy named Sanders?
1
As common with Doubt That, no Trump supporter is going to understand a word of this column.
1
Back off. You're a fool. I never finished high school and worked full-time starting at 16. I did secretarial work, although the titles are now all Administrative Assistants.
I'm not stupid, I'm not racist, and while there was competition for the top spots where I worked, I usually succeeded. I retired years ago on doctor's orders. (I'd never considered retirement & certainly didn't ask about it. I was surprised when my doctor told me I had no choice & no more time.)
Do not lump everyone who didn't have the opportunity to go to college into Trump supporters. I don't like Hillary, but she conducted herself well when the Lewinsky mess exploded. Her husband was undersexed compared to many other Presidents.
Despite my discomfort with Hillary, she's better than Trump. He lies because his nannies& parents let him get away with it. He can't release his taxes -- just read other Times articles for why. He has courted the hateful and the ignorant, as well as the just plain stupid. His reaction of choice is a temper tantrum. That's why he can't stay on script. How many major figures in his campaign has he "fired"?
For Trump, everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault. The only people who support Trump are people who think the same thing. You sound as stupid as Trump when you group all non-college graduates into the Trump camp. Believe me, there's a real big difference between a BS and being smart. You are living proof.
I'm not stupid, I'm not racist, and while there was competition for the top spots where I worked, I usually succeeded. I retired years ago on doctor's orders. (I'd never considered retirement & certainly didn't ask about it. I was surprised when my doctor told me I had no choice & no more time.)
Do not lump everyone who didn't have the opportunity to go to college into Trump supporters. I don't like Hillary, but she conducted herself well when the Lewinsky mess exploded. Her husband was undersexed compared to many other Presidents.
Despite my discomfort with Hillary, she's better than Trump. He lies because his nannies& parents let him get away with it. He can't release his taxes -- just read other Times articles for why. He has courted the hateful and the ignorant, as well as the just plain stupid. His reaction of choice is a temper tantrum. That's why he can't stay on script. How many major figures in his campaign has he "fired"?
For Trump, everything that goes wrong is someone else's fault. The only people who support Trump are people who think the same thing. You sound as stupid as Trump when you group all non-college graduates into the Trump camp. Believe me, there's a real big difference between a BS and being smart. You are living proof.
9
The elites in both parties hold values that are disdained by their respective bases but one elite value is shared across elite party lines - a big idea belief in American exceptionalism based on the the United States being founded upon ideas of freedom and equality rather than religion, race or nationality. Elite Republicans and Democrats interpret the American idea differently and accord different weights to aspects of it, but both believe that America has a unique place in the world not only because of its military might but because of the power of the big idea.
Until the Bush administration, the big idea of American exceptionalism tricked down to the bases of both parties. Amazingly it survived the Vietnam War. But it could not survive rabid right wing media lies, bankrupt banksters, the lies and incompetence of Iraq and the simmering racism that has boiled over in Republican response to the moderation of Barack Obama.
So here we are. Republicans no longer believe in American exceptionalism and Democrats do. The elite Mr. Dothan and the elite Mr. Brooks have been deposed by their base in favor of a mendacious, self admiring, self serving, ignorant, neo-Confederate facist and the Democratic Party has become the uncomfortable refuge for American exceptionalism headed by a Rockefeller Republican.
This moment will not last. But in November I'm voting for the ghost of Nelson Rockefeller.
Until the Bush administration, the big idea of American exceptionalism tricked down to the bases of both parties. Amazingly it survived the Vietnam War. But it could not survive rabid right wing media lies, bankrupt banksters, the lies and incompetence of Iraq and the simmering racism that has boiled over in Republican response to the moderation of Barack Obama.
So here we are. Republicans no longer believe in American exceptionalism and Democrats do. The elite Mr. Dothan and the elite Mr. Brooks have been deposed by their base in favor of a mendacious, self admiring, self serving, ignorant, neo-Confederate facist and the Democratic Party has become the uncomfortable refuge for American exceptionalism headed by a Rockefeller Republican.
This moment will not last. But in November I'm voting for the ghost of Nelson Rockefeller.
2
Sorry. Did I miss something??? --- WHO is the ghost of Nelson Rockefeller?
While Douthat makes some valid and nuanced points, it's worth remembering what many on the left have repeatedly said, but the right refuses to openly admit: that in order to win elections Republicans have - since Reagan - played upon white America's fears of the other, fears of liberalism, atheists, government, socialism, terrorists, the "elite," immigrants, homosexuals, women who are pro-choice, and anyone else who threatens the straight-white and right male power structure built over four centuries. Republicans know that when people are afraid ("If you don't re-elect us, 'they' will attack us again" Dick Cheney) they look to a strongman for protection from "them." This is what Trump represents and that's ALL his supporters care about. It's not logic or thought, it's fear - pure and simple, and all of Douthat's intelligent parsing of political tea leaves don't amount to a hill of beans.
2
The Republicans, with the help of Reagan, racism and ignorance, destroyed the Unions that would otherwise be helping these people and provide a bulwark against the changing economic tides. Racism was used to convince poor and working class whites to vote against their own self-interest. That self-interest should have led them to common ground with economically marginalized blacks. But hate and ignorance triumphed. I have no sympathy for many of these people who essentially need some group to kick around to feel good about themselves. When they use government "entitlements" - and they do - somehow it's different from blacks using them (government hand-outs?).
Also, Mr. Douthat, blacks and "ethnic" types are Americans. Trump is hardly a "populist" when his supporters constitute a fairly narrow slice of the citizenry. But that's where you give away your own racism. White people, men specifically, constitute the default setting for you. We are making a world where that's not the case anymore. Thus they scream "bloody murder."
Also, Mr. Douthat, blacks and "ethnic" types are Americans. Trump is hardly a "populist" when his supporters constitute a fairly narrow slice of the citizenry. But that's where you give away your own racism. White people, men specifically, constitute the default setting for you. We are making a world where that's not the case anymore. Thus they scream "bloody murder."
3
Mr. Douthat I grew up in the South. I am an almost 71 year old white woman. I saw discrimination up close and personal. I saw crosses burned on lawns as a child. I heard the cries and whispers of lynchings amongst adults. I saw one extraordinary man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. step up to the plate and boldly ask for a place at the table for Blacks, and I saw brave people responding by enduring fire hoses and dogs and refusing to give up a seat on the bus and giving their very lives for that place at the table. These were not welfare seekers these were people who only wanted what white society had always taken for granted and yes they absolutely needed wrongs against them to be redressed.
The Democratic Party has not just been on the side of minorities. It has been on the side of all Americans. Social security was not just for Blacks. Medicare and Medicaid was not just for Blacks. Unions were not just for blacks. Obamacare was not just for Blacks. Democrats and those on the left wanted a fair deal for everyone. What do conservative Republicans stand for? Trickle down economics, tax cuts for the wealthy. wars, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, an end to the social safety nets, and vouchers for education. Do the Republicans really care about Trump's supporters, those who are at the lower boundaries of the Middle Class? No, they only exploit their prejudices in order to get them to vote against their own best interests. Pan-racial conservatism? That is an oxymoron.
The Democratic Party has not just been on the side of minorities. It has been on the side of all Americans. Social security was not just for Blacks. Medicare and Medicaid was not just for Blacks. Unions were not just for blacks. Obamacare was not just for Blacks. Democrats and those on the left wanted a fair deal for everyone. What do conservative Republicans stand for? Trickle down economics, tax cuts for the wealthy. wars, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, an end to the social safety nets, and vouchers for education. Do the Republicans really care about Trump's supporters, those who are at the lower boundaries of the Middle Class? No, they only exploit their prejudices in order to get them to vote against their own best interests. Pan-racial conservatism? That is an oxymoron.
8
@diana
Thank you for sharing this indelible piece of American history.
I hope we never see those days again.
Thank you for sharing this indelible piece of American history.
I hope we never see those days again.
1
Mr. Douthat:
there is only one problem with today's gibberish:
it is built upon a completely false set of premises.
the website, fivethirtyeight, put the truth to the DJT supporters
in May and your 'assumptions' could not be further from reality.
these 'dog-days-of-august' are pumping-up your disillusions ...
as you and your fellow-travelers continue to search for a future,
any future,
for your bigoted, racist, insular, greedy party,
sharing a mirror among yourselves and doing a basic compare-and-contrast might assist.
meanwhile,
should a sizable portion of the 45% of eligible voters who do not vote,
chose to show-up in November,
the Dems will win the Senate and fracture the margin in the House.
happy hunting.
1
Caricatures. Is that all you can come up with?
3
At some point in the evolution of conservative thought leaders, and not only they but we too need them to evolve, they will have to see one thing. They have failed to communicate that a systems first responsibility, whether it be political, economic, or cultural, is to the system itself, not the advancement of the individual. Given this regard for the preservation of the system, not only can the system change and evolve, but it will guarantee that the individual will also advance. Conservative theorists either did not think the average person could understand this, or they wished to keep it to themselves and insure some power and relevance to themselves (review Bill Kristol's freakout). It is as if they said to Trump types "Yeah! Go ahead and be completely self centered and self interested. That's beautiful!" But the purpose of the world is not so Trump types or lefty types concerned with 'othering', can flourish without regard to others. This is basic human dignity, and the hate between the left and right is the surest sign of the loss of this dignity. The left is drowning in an ontological zoo of invented white male types and their attributes, and the right is gasping for air, trying to preserve the form of liberty, and not it's content. God help us.
1
Interesting, but it left out that Trump's argle bargle has appealed to white supremacists, and that is not an accident. Thomas Robb, the head of the Klu Klux Klan, has said that group has wanted a wall on the border with Mexico since the 1970s. Getting out of NATO is another idea one finds on the far right. Trump deliberately went to white supremacists and other far right groups for his political base, if only because no one else had overtly done so. Ignoring that simple fact leads to a less than accurate analysis of his campaign.
2
Douthat makes the mistake that conservative pundits often make: The assumption that "liberalism" is an ideology or akin to one. But liberals tend not to be ideologues. Liberalism implies an openness to new ideas.
3
"Then decades later, liberalism moved to create affirmative action programs to help those same African-Americans." I believe you'll find that both the term "affirmative action" and the first programs were started by the Nixon administration.
Racial patronage? Have you tried to sell that notion to Black Live Matter activists, or even to the NAACP?
Racial patronage -- that's what the GOP has focused on since Nixon -- pandering to the Whites who long for the days of Jim Crow.
What you long for are the days of politics as usual: dividing the below-median-income population by pandering to race, dividing the higher educated and lower educated segments by raising social issues, and sacrificing the interests of the 99%. Maybe the Millennials will buy into that political strategy, or maybe they will lead a true populist movement that champions the interests of the 99%.
Racial patronage -- that's what the GOP has focused on since Nixon -- pandering to the Whites who long for the days of Jim Crow.
What you long for are the days of politics as usual: dividing the below-median-income population by pandering to race, dividing the higher educated and lower educated segments by raising social issues, and sacrificing the interests of the 99%. Maybe the Millennials will buy into that political strategy, or maybe they will lead a true populist movement that champions the interests of the 99%.
2
"Not least because it requires not only that conservatism change, but that minority voters be persuaded that the change is meaningful."
Every Republican I talk to about politics frames arguments along racial lines. Why? If conservatism changed and dropped racial elitism and social concerns it has been so consumed with for decades, that would make it.......well, liberalism?
Every Republican I talk to about politics frames arguments along racial lines. Why? If conservatism changed and dropped racial elitism and social concerns it has been so consumed with for decades, that would make it.......well, liberalism?
Even though a regular reader, I found myself unable to follow your logic in this piece.
2
You forgot about Sanders. The Senator was running on the idea that the nation can truly prosper when everyone has a chance to prosper. Regardless of race, creed or color (or wealth). In many ways the anti-thesis of identity politics.
It was an idea that might have appealed to all sorts of voters. Unfortunately, neo-liberalism won.
That's why I'm voting for Willie Nelson.
It was an idea that might have appealed to all sorts of voters. Unfortunately, neo-liberalism won.
That's why I'm voting for Willie Nelson.
2
The title says it all - Racial Patronage.
Ross, The 60's was not about patronage, it was about gaining equality for African Americans. Now - the GOP COULD have gotten on board with that. Instead, we had the Southern Strategy and Willie Horton. Elite liberalism indeed!
Unions provide some measure of balance for workers when dealing with management. St. Ronald's crushing of the air traffic controllers signaled where the GOP stood - and still does. It is an article of faith that all unions, public and otherwise are evil. Sadly, most of the angry white dudes don't see the irony in that. What is being promised is a take it or leave it low ball deal for workers disguised as meritocracy. If you have a job at all, you are way better than those moochers and takers.
Ross, The 60's was not about patronage, it was about gaining equality for African Americans. Now - the GOP COULD have gotten on board with that. Instead, we had the Southern Strategy and Willie Horton. Elite liberalism indeed!
Unions provide some measure of balance for workers when dealing with management. St. Ronald's crushing of the air traffic controllers signaled where the GOP stood - and still does. It is an article of faith that all unions, public and otherwise are evil. Sadly, most of the angry white dudes don't see the irony in that. What is being promised is a take it or leave it low ball deal for workers disguised as meritocracy. If you have a job at all, you are way better than those moochers and takers.
3
Trump, speaking to virtually an all white audience is endorsed by the klan wants African Americans to vote for him. So, he hires four Black guys to tell African Americans it's ok, Trump didn't mean it.
"But it still amounts to a system of ethnic patronage, which white Americans who are neither well-off nor poor enough to be on Medicaid see as particularly biased against them."
Actually, its more about classism because there are many working class people of all races who fall into that gap i.e. the working poor. You work and make too much for assistance you need but don't make enough to actually get ahead. It's even worse if you have no kids, you get nothing.
I've worked retail prior to my current career and many of the working poor were all races. We all got along. We all were in the same boat. We all knew what the problem was. No one had an issue with race (I say this as a Black women working with Whites, Latinos, S.E. Asians and Blacks). However, we may have been less caught up with race because where we worked and lived was integrated.
To me, the issue is when are working class Whites who support Trump going to figure out they're in the same boat as the rest of us working class people and stop trying to work against us.
Unions are important but you can't cherry pick who gets to join (i.e. trying to keep certain racial groups out and giving assignments to those only in your tribe). Any working class person who supports any politician that doesn't support unions is killing their own economic advancement, regardless of color.
Actually, its more about classism because there are many working class people of all races who fall into that gap i.e. the working poor. You work and make too much for assistance you need but don't make enough to actually get ahead. It's even worse if you have no kids, you get nothing.
I've worked retail prior to my current career and many of the working poor were all races. We all got along. We all were in the same boat. We all knew what the problem was. No one had an issue with race (I say this as a Black women working with Whites, Latinos, S.E. Asians and Blacks). However, we may have been less caught up with race because where we worked and lived was integrated.
To me, the issue is when are working class Whites who support Trump going to figure out they're in the same boat as the rest of us working class people and stop trying to work against us.
Unions are important but you can't cherry pick who gets to join (i.e. trying to keep certain racial groups out and giving assignments to those only in your tribe). Any working class person who supports any politician that doesn't support unions is killing their own economic advancement, regardless of color.
2
The Republican Party is mired in the same sewer that has afflicted this country for generations. Keep poor working people down by fostering racial hatred against 'others.' Democrats fed on this poison until the civil rights years in the 1960's. Republicans seized the opportunity with Nixon's southern strategy. But the chickens are finally coming home to roost with a candidate too unskilled to hide the hatred in a false cloak of respectability. Reagan could pull it off, but not Trump. Apologists are no better and articles like this, trying to put a gloss on the bile of the Republican Party, deserve the same condemnation as the Klansman. These are hard words, but wholly deserving.
4
Because Mr. Douthat is a conservative, I expect liberals to jump all over him for this column, but this is an intelligent discussion of racial politics. Conservatives on one side and the Democratic Party as an institution on the other side need to think about these issues.
As a Democrat, I am not comfortable with only one party always being the "we aren't racist bigots" party. That is not a path to future national prosperity. I invite the Republican Party to start making an anti-bigotry pitch to voters like myself. The year 2020 would be a good start.
As a Democrat, I am not comfortable with only one party always being the "we aren't racist bigots" party. That is not a path to future national prosperity. I invite the Republican Party to start making an anti-bigotry pitch to voters like myself. The year 2020 would be a good start.
"plus welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use."
C'mon Mr. Douthat and NYTs. This is easily verifiable using census data and it is absolutely false. According to the 2014 American Community Survey, immigrants are not more likely to use welfare programs than US born citizens, and if anything, they are somewhat less likely to do so. Among working age (25-54) adults with less than a high school diploma, 4.9 percent of whites reported welfare income and 33.3 reported medicaid coverage, compared to 2.3 and 17.1 percent among similarly educated immigrants. Recently arrived immigrants are no different.
How can we have a healthy political debate in this country if we can't deal in actual facts? I know there are parties that will make things up in order to drive their political narrative, but I wouldn't have thought NYTs columnists to be among them.
C'mon Mr. Douthat and NYTs. This is easily verifiable using census data and it is absolutely false. According to the 2014 American Community Survey, immigrants are not more likely to use welfare programs than US born citizens, and if anything, they are somewhat less likely to do so. Among working age (25-54) adults with less than a high school diploma, 4.9 percent of whites reported welfare income and 33.3 reported medicaid coverage, compared to 2.3 and 17.1 percent among similarly educated immigrants. Recently arrived immigrants are no different.
How can we have a healthy political debate in this country if we can't deal in actual facts? I know there are parties that will make things up in order to drive their political narrative, but I wouldn't have thought NYTs columnists to be among them.
1
John in PA writes:
"Ross, so what your saying is it all boils down to poor whites want a hand out too. This would be perfectly understandable if their pleas weren't accompanied with their stupidity, racism and misogyny."
I'm a classic liberal in every sense, but it's incorrect to associate stupidity and misogyny especially with white people. I don't think John was necessarily doing this, but it's worth mentioning. Among the groups I move in, there is this sense that people who have been oppressed or discriminated against are somehow more morally pure across the board that the people who oppress and discriminate (often unwittingly, merely through the fact of their privilege). While I support the "leg up" for under-served groups, it's not because I believe these groups are any less (or more) likely to contain people who are stupid, misogynist or immoral than groups of white people
"Ross, so what your saying is it all boils down to poor whites want a hand out too. This would be perfectly understandable if their pleas weren't accompanied with their stupidity, racism and misogyny."
I'm a classic liberal in every sense, but it's incorrect to associate stupidity and misogyny especially with white people. I don't think John was necessarily doing this, but it's worth mentioning. Among the groups I move in, there is this sense that people who have been oppressed or discriminated against are somehow more morally pure across the board that the people who oppress and discriminate (often unwittingly, merely through the fact of their privilege). While I support the "leg up" for under-served groups, it's not because I believe these groups are any less (or more) likely to contain people who are stupid, misogynist or immoral than groups of white people
23
You call it patronage, others call it pandering. Identity politics as played by the Democrats is well rooted in the old urban political machines that used the poor to farm votes. Stuck between neoliberalism and dubious programs for the poor, the economically distressed lower middle class are indeed racially and economically distressed.
The problem is, however, far beyond adjustment of political philosophy and tactics. The problem is that neoliberalism and globalization, that great gravy train for the rich and upper middle class is destroying the economy for the working class in all the Western democracies - and that discontent and economic distress is not going away anytime soon.
In a democracy the notion that the market determines everything is a cliff we are going over to the next crash or the election of a demagogue. As an economic theory it is just as suicidal as Alan Greenspan's notion that the banks will regulate themselves.
The problem is, however, far beyond adjustment of political philosophy and tactics. The problem is that neoliberalism and globalization, that great gravy train for the rich and upper middle class is destroying the economy for the working class in all the Western democracies - and that discontent and economic distress is not going away anytime soon.
In a democracy the notion that the market determines everything is a cliff we are going over to the next crash or the election of a demagogue. As an economic theory it is just as suicidal as Alan Greenspan's notion that the banks will regulate themselves.
Despite the title: "The pull of racial patronage", Ross's piece is directed at a simpler matter: "How best should the GOP repackage itself to appeal to aggrieved voters, who are not homogeneous but dived along racial lines?" A division, Ross claims, exacerbated by Democratic effort to aid minorities.
Notice that there is no effort spent by Ross upon WHAT to do for the aggrieved; his effort is toward positioning the GOP to get their votes by appearing "meaningful", while sticking to "solidaristic conservatism", Ross doublespeak for support of the GOP 1/4%.
Notice that there is no effort spent by Ross upon WHAT to do for the aggrieved; his effort is toward positioning the GOP to get their votes by appearing "meaningful", while sticking to "solidaristic conservatism", Ross doublespeak for support of the GOP 1/4%.
62
The US has always had racial patronage; indeed, it was formed based upon racial patronage (genocide of the native residents and importation of African slaves to do the heavy lifting). It has only become an issue when the government started to spread the goodies around.
3
African slaves played an important role in building our cob try as much as the founding fathers many of whom fathered slave children. Yet after hundreds of years blacks are still not treated as equal despite our founding fathers pledge that all men are created equal. Skin color before country. Skin color before duty to fellow human beings. Is That the hidden pledge written in our foundation?
1
@tonei
You are correct about everything you say -- except that "pledge", it isn't hidden. In fact, it's right out there in the open -- and still in full effect.
You are correct about everything you say -- except that "pledge", it isn't hidden. In fact, it's right out there in the open -- and still in full effect.
1
"This was redress and expiation, but it was also another form of patronage: a promise of a hand up, a race-based advantage that only liberalism would provide."
Would like to point out that expiation and redress do not bestow an "advantage". They restore a state that should have been in the first place.
Would like to point out that expiation and redress do not bestow an "advantage". They restore a state that should have been in the first place.
2
I never hear the right wing media say to white people "pull yourself up by your bootstraps like the rest of us or your family values cause all your problems." I wish one of them would say if you are a poor low educated white person in this country stop your whining. You have had every advantage from birth by the fact that you are white in a racist society. Stop complaining about welfare and food stamps, you receive the bulk of it. I guess you support Trump because he whines all day too.
3
So last time around, Douthat blamed misogyny and the decline of morality on the fight for women's rights.
Today, it's liberalism that's responsible primarily for "identity politics," by which he means flagrant racism.
What's it to be next? UNESCO caused the child molestation infesting the Catholic Church?
Today, it's liberalism that's responsible primarily for "identity politics," by which he means flagrant racism.
What's it to be next? UNESCO caused the child molestation infesting the Catholic Church?
3
"welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use"
Which programs are these, Ross? Name them. In most states, illegal immigrants aren't even eligible for the most important federal benefits programs: SNAP (food stamps), TANF (direct cash payments), or CHIP (health insurance for children). Are you suggesting that the number of legal immigrants dwarfs that of American citizens participating in these programs? Numbers, please.
Which programs are these, Ross? Name them. In most states, illegal immigrants aren't even eligible for the most important federal benefits programs: SNAP (food stamps), TANF (direct cash payments), or CHIP (health insurance for children). Are you suggesting that the number of legal immigrants dwarfs that of American citizens participating in these programs? Numbers, please.
2
What Trump has mostly exposed isn't White working class angst over lost jobs, which is real, but White Republican just beneath the surface racism. Watch the vulgarity, the racists cat calls, the rippling violence inside and outside one of Trump's rallies. Two questions must be asked of such scenes: Why doesn't Trump denounce these racist agitators and why don't Trump's less violent supporters rebuke them? It because the whole bunch, Trump's violent supporters & his smiling non-violent supporters, are happy to be associated with Trump's overt racism. That's because they are racist!
1
"identified as his archetypal backer: a white man without a college education living in a region experiencing economic distress." LOL. Only the lazy media-types accept this because it makes it easy to mail in the rest of the column..... Every Trump supporter I know is college educated and tired of the DC crowd, particularly former pols (Pawlenty and Coleman from MN) that cash in following their so-called 'public service'.. We'll take our chances...
3
Here in MA many VC and CEO types voted for Trump in the primaries. Go figure.
2
Is the archetype Hillary clinton backer a back man without a college education?
In one word: No.
Clinton backers are women, from all races.
Clinton backers are women, from all races.
1
@greatnfi
This is a joke, right??? You might want to check out the website...or better yet, look at the pictures. That will also answer your question.
This is a joke, right??? You might want to check out the website...or better yet, look at the pictures. That will also answer your question.
1
"liberalism moved to create affirmative action programs to help those same African-Americans. This was redress and expiation, but it was also another form of patronage: a promise of a hand up, a race-based advantage that only liberalism would provide."
Ross loves to do this, sets up a racial straw man. He excludes the biggest single beneficiaries of affirmative action: white women.
Why does Ross do this? I suggest his white racial identity is stronger than any other facet of his being. When will we end your identity politics, Ross?
Ross loves to do this, sets up a racial straw man. He excludes the biggest single beneficiaries of affirmative action: white women.
Why does Ross do this? I suggest his white racial identity is stronger than any other facet of his being. When will we end your identity politics, Ross?
2
A partial answer is to reinvigorate the unions. Yes unions have often been mechanisms of racial discrimination and exclusion. But they have also been organizations that, despite their flaws, allowed democratic education for blue collar workers. Unions at their best provided workers with a sense of solidarity among workers, regardless of race. And unions help provide a sense of protection of workers. That to raise your voice against unfair conditions or pay did not mean you lost your job. Your shop had your back. Strengthening unions won't solve the problems by itself. But it is part of the solution.
1
This election appears to hinge on class, opportunity, race and wealth. Lines are being drawn, again, between the 'silent majority' and the educated elite. The confusing part is that both sides of the political coin can be described as either/or.
Hillary is seen as the uber insider, wealthy, connected, elitist, but who comes from a very humble background, and has worked with the poor and less advantaged for most of her life. She is really the American self made success story; up from a working class family, to a position of prominence. Bill came from even humbler beginnings.
The republican candidate has never had to wonder where his next meal will come from; never worried about making his mortgage payment, or if his child would get out of high school, much less go to college. Also, the democratic candidate didn't get a Million dollar stake from dad to kick-start her life.
Then to add to the confusion, when did the people who worked for unions, or received the benefits from unions, become so enamored with a party whose goal since Reagan was to destroy the unions? The Republican Party has undermined the foundation of the middle class for decades, but somehow is seen as the last hope for them. That isn't to say that the greed and corruption in some unions didn't help things along, but without their pushing for living wages there wouldn't have ever been the 'silent majority'.
Very convoluted, "...battle lines being drawn, nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
Hillary is seen as the uber insider, wealthy, connected, elitist, but who comes from a very humble background, and has worked with the poor and less advantaged for most of her life. She is really the American self made success story; up from a working class family, to a position of prominence. Bill came from even humbler beginnings.
The republican candidate has never had to wonder where his next meal will come from; never worried about making his mortgage payment, or if his child would get out of high school, much less go to college. Also, the democratic candidate didn't get a Million dollar stake from dad to kick-start her life.
Then to add to the confusion, when did the people who worked for unions, or received the benefits from unions, become so enamored with a party whose goal since Reagan was to destroy the unions? The Republican Party has undermined the foundation of the middle class for decades, but somehow is seen as the last hope for them. That isn't to say that the greed and corruption in some unions didn't help things along, but without their pushing for living wages there wouldn't have ever been the 'silent majority'.
Very convoluted, "...battle lines being drawn, nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
2
Thank you for one of the most insightful articles I have read on the state of politics today. The implicit race based biases in politics are very difficult to discuss without evoking deep seated passions that close off the possibility for understanding.
Ross omits the fact that by 2050 whites will be the minority as Hispanic and Latino will become the majority race in the country. Currently the Democrats have this stronghold and the way this presidential race is trending, I don't see the Democratic Party, for all its faults, losing ground any time soon. The way Trump has castigated and demeaned women and minorities will likely ensure for a generation to come that Republicans lose the White House
1
We must begin from the fact that the United States as a real democracy with some goal of a just society is barely 50 years old. Contrast that with hundreds of years of genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, deep bigotry against women, LGBT, Asians, even "ethnic" whites at times. Acknowledge the fact that there has been continual, and recently escalating, backlash against gains by people other than white men for the entire time. Hate is as American as apple pie, but it has gained a deeper (but by no means exclusive) hold on the Republican Party. What looks to some like racial patronage is our ongoing struggle to figure out what including all of us in We, the People really means.
1
This is a false equivalence. There are bigots on the right. More importantly, if one is a racist, there is a party for you and it is not the Democrats. This has resulted in defensive accusations by those on the right desperate to make it look like pandering by those on the left. It isn't pandering. The base on the left is very diverse. It is not diverse because the left panders to minorities. It is diverse because the right is the home of bigots AND because the left actually works to help everyone, including minorities. One might be able to see how that could appeal to more open minded people.
1
Douthat neglected to mention that it was and still is the policies and politics of the conservative/Republican that put this group of lower income but yet not poor enough white people where they are!!
The politics on the Right that reflesively legislate policies that favor the capital-owning class, in terms of taxation, labor laws, environmental protection, health care, education, etc., and yes, trade, the list goes on. Who refuse to raise minimum wage, provide maternity leave, sick leave? Who pass laws that allow pension plans to be stolen when the capital class decide to reshuffle their "investment"?
Please do not blame the liberals for caring and wanting to help. Fix the problems, as they are, instead of chasticing some other people for doing a partial resolution because YOUR side have tied their hands.
The politics on the Right that reflesively legislate policies that favor the capital-owning class, in terms of taxation, labor laws, environmental protection, health care, education, etc., and yes, trade, the list goes on. Who refuse to raise minimum wage, provide maternity leave, sick leave? Who pass laws that allow pension plans to be stolen when the capital class decide to reshuffle their "investment"?
Please do not blame the liberals for caring and wanting to help. Fix the problems, as they are, instead of chasticing some other people for doing a partial resolution because YOUR side have tied their hands.
2
In our white, upscale community, our friends, both Republican and democrats all share the same nightmare; The possible return of Nancy pelosi as majority speaker, or just as bad, Mitch McConnell, returning to the podium. These two are equally as unpopular as our two presidential candidates. All of our friends are college educated, many with advanced degrees, and we are in agreement that it is time for term limits for all politicians The majority of our friends , both republican and democratic, are for Trump, because he does represent change, for better or worse, and we're willing to take the chance. it can't get any worse than what Obama has done for this country. Clinton, who has not given a press conference in over 230 days, will have most secretive administration that our country has ever seen. And that is not good for America.
3
@beachbum
Well. Since you are living in an all-white, upscale community, you have nothing to worry about if you vote for Trump.
Whereas the rest of the country will have plenty to worry about, if he wins.
Well. Since you are living in an all-white, upscale community, you have nothing to worry about if you vote for Trump.
Whereas the rest of the country will have plenty to worry about, if he wins.
1
There is not such thing as Conservatism with a human face. Or Pan-Racial conservatism as stated here.
Conservatism is only concerned with servicing the fat cat masters that own it. Nothing else.
I seem to vaguely remember calls for and provisions for meaningful help for all aging workers regardless of race back in the nineties. All kaboshed by Republicans as wasteful spending.
We can turn all this round if we cancel the tax breaks for the fat cats, and end the sweetheart deals for the Corp's. Americans and the Nation need reinvestment in the worst kind of way. Dump the Grand Old Pirates to help get this underway.
Conservatism is only concerned with servicing the fat cat masters that own it. Nothing else.
I seem to vaguely remember calls for and provisions for meaningful help for all aging workers regardless of race back in the nineties. All kaboshed by Republicans as wasteful spending.
We can turn all this round if we cancel the tax breaks for the fat cats, and end the sweetheart deals for the Corp's. Americans and the Nation need reinvestment in the worst kind of way. Dump the Grand Old Pirates to help get this underway.
Face it Ross. The GOP has been using every scare and hate tactic since Nixon to divide the real "makers" to enable history's largest wealth transfer to an ever tinier elite. Reagan's destruction of the air traffic controller's union was the beginning of the end of good working class jobs followed up by Newt Gringrich sowing the seeds of distrust of government, poisoning the well, concluding with Trump's rabid anti-establishment attack on everything good about government.
Technological changes have left winners and losers. For decades Republicans have used racist appeals to get support from the economic losers for huge tax cuts for the rich and the elimination of regulations on the rich. At the same time Republicans have blocked both direct assistance to those who are losing out on the economic changes and economic policies that would lead to greater growth in the economy. The Left can be smug and a bit out of touch when it comes to the Trump voter. That said it is Republicans who have made their lives worse and it does not justify their bigotry.
3
The problem with Douhat's thesis that economic insecurity is a major driver of support for trump is that the data do not support the thesis. Large scale studies by both the Washington Post and Hamilton College political scientist, Philip Klickner find that economic status or beliefs do not explain Trump's support.
' "My analysis indicates that economic status and attitudes do little to explain support for Donald Trump," and "those who express more resentment toward African Americans, those who think the word 'violent' describes Muslims well, and those who believe President Obama is a Muslim have much more positive views of Trump compared with Clinton," Klinkner found.'
Douhat here is only slightly veiling an attempt to legitimize a large portion of the GOP that is driven mainly by racial resentment, a feeling that has been nurtured by a generation of Republicans beginning with the Goldwater era. Trump differs from this line of succession only to the extent he has eschewed dog whistle appeals to this base.
' "My analysis indicates that economic status and attitudes do little to explain support for Donald Trump," and "those who express more resentment toward African Americans, those who think the word 'violent' describes Muslims well, and those who believe President Obama is a Muslim have much more positive views of Trump compared with Clinton," Klinkner found.'
Douhat here is only slightly veiling an attempt to legitimize a large portion of the GOP that is driven mainly by racial resentment, a feeling that has been nurtured by a generation of Republicans beginning with the Goldwater era. Trump differs from this line of succession only to the extent he has eschewed dog whistle appeals to this base.
2
It seems like the time might be ripe for national (single payer) health care. This single change would be a massive improvement in the lives of white and non-white working class men and women. And the beauty of such a change would be that it doesn't benefit any small interest groups, it benefits everyone.
If Hillary would only push this, I suspect she might be able to pick up a sizable chunk of working class whites many of whom are feeling intense and obvious pain in dealing with health insurance issues. And the issue would, of course, resonate with her base and with the Berners. Don't play it safe Hillary. This is an opportunity. Carpe Diem.
If Hillary would only push this, I suspect she might be able to pick up a sizable chunk of working class whites many of whom are feeling intense and obvious pain in dealing with health insurance issues. And the issue would, of course, resonate with her base and with the Berners. Don't play it safe Hillary. This is an opportunity. Carpe Diem.
1
The sad truth is that racism and its legacies have created myopia among all of us. Some of us have internalized privilege, some of us have internalied oppression. Some of us are angry at innocent beneficiaries of history, some of us are angry at those who disillusion us about our own privilege. The bottom lime is that our economic system depends on putting a lot of people in perpetual economic desperation so that others can live lives of great privilege and waste. If we could fix that, the other problems would solve themselves over time.
45
Missing from elements that Douthat says make up a Trump supporter, much of the GOP, and Trump himself, is an appalling ignorance and a willful lack of curiosity. Just like his followers, Trump knows what he knows from the shows, is who he is, tells it like it is, and they don't want or need or won't believe anything else
Liberalism, pseudo cosmopolitanism, and idealism has undermined lower middle class whites to the benefit of minorities and immigrants, says Douthat. He trots out the bogey men of immigrant welfare cheats and ethnic patronage to justify the ugly outrage and hatred that Trump has tapped into among a certain group of largely male whites.
Douthat says that ethnic patronage, which whites neither well-off nor poor enough to be on Medicaid see as biased against them. Are there no minority people who are neither well-off but not poor enough to be on Medicaid? I guess not if you squint just so.
"This constituency, the gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class, is the Trumpian core." Where does Douthat live? The millions of gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class and the outright poor include racial and ethnic minorities, women, people who have been marginalized for generations by poor education, blighted neighborhoods, lack of connection and opportunity, racism and misogyny.
The people demonstrating for a higher minimum wage are gainfully employed but insecure and they are also outraged.
But they aren't part of the Trump mob.
Liberalism, pseudo cosmopolitanism, and idealism has undermined lower middle class whites to the benefit of minorities and immigrants, says Douthat. He trots out the bogey men of immigrant welfare cheats and ethnic patronage to justify the ugly outrage and hatred that Trump has tapped into among a certain group of largely male whites.
Douthat says that ethnic patronage, which whites neither well-off nor poor enough to be on Medicaid see as biased against them. Are there no minority people who are neither well-off but not poor enough to be on Medicaid? I guess not if you squint just so.
"This constituency, the gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class, is the Trumpian core." Where does Douthat live? The millions of gainfully employed but insecure lower middle class and the outright poor include racial and ethnic minorities, women, people who have been marginalized for generations by poor education, blighted neighborhoods, lack of connection and opportunity, racism and misogyny.
The people demonstrating for a higher minimum wage are gainfully employed but insecure and they are also outraged.
But they aren't part of the Trump mob.
3
Ever since the 1880s, American politicians have worked very hard to dispel the notion of class and with it class conflict and class solidarity. As a result, class has been replaced with race, which is the main reason why race and poverty have always been closely mapped and why social and economic policy is still framed in racial terms - from welfare queens to Trump's whites.
If programs like affirmative action were income and not race-based, African-Americans and Hispanics would still disproportionally benefit from them, but neither American voters nor politicians can conceive of economic class as meaningful category. American politics is so rooted in exploiting racial conflict that there is no turning back. Wealthy and highly educated elites have embraced a multi-racial society, but most ordinary Americans - of all races - have not and probably never will. By crushing social democracy, the US have taken a truly exceptional turn in Western politics, maybe initially for a better and now definitely for worse.
If programs like affirmative action were income and not race-based, African-Americans and Hispanics would still disproportionally benefit from them, but neither American voters nor politicians can conceive of economic class as meaningful category. American politics is so rooted in exploiting racial conflict that there is no turning back. Wealthy and highly educated elites have embraced a multi-racial society, but most ordinary Americans - of all races - have not and probably never will. By crushing social democracy, the US have taken a truly exceptional turn in Western politics, maybe initially for a better and now definitely for worse.
35
Mr. Douthat certainly knows a fair number of flowery catch phrases but when strung together they produce senseless unfortunate gibberish. Is he seriously indirectly arguing for the continued economic a-critical patronage of the military-industrial complex, for the patronage of the neo-oligarchs through inequitable taxation, for the very real patronage brought about by gerrymandering and the suppression of voting rights? He hints [“…(mostly) rooted in idealism”], without directly saying so, that patronage is misdirected when given to the poor, racial or cultural minorities (“lower-middle-class whites” included) as affirmative action.
Who precisely would Mr. Douthat have as the object of patronage?
Who precisely would Mr. Douthat have as the object of patronage?
1
As the Trump circus continues on its destructive path the conservatives who are bailing out, with either one or two feet, either willingly or begrudgingly, are showing up in the "space" of the liberal media bearing cogent, rational, ever more convincing arguments for their positions. And frankly, I like this. It feels to me, a quite liberal-leaning citizen, that a new choice is offered between stark socialistic blue-ness, and Borg-like red self-interest.
It's difficult to see yourself from where you're standing, always. So it's important to engage different views. And as I sit here beside my coffee this morning, I'm taken aback by my own reaction to Mr. Douthat's piece. How could I not have seen it this way?
Not all white people benefit from the societal "white privilege" which I have read about and nodded to regularly in these hallowed NYT pages. These members of the 99% also have been left behind, and chose the Republican party as their standard bearer, not because it had their interests at heart - but because they had no voice and it reached out to them. Why are we so blind to this?
Because we can't see ourselves from where we are.
Here's to hoping that if there be any benefit at all to Trump's disgusting candidacy - it's that we can reunite with our more temperate conservative leaning siblings in rational discussion to the benefit of us all.
It's difficult to see yourself from where you're standing, always. So it's important to engage different views. And as I sit here beside my coffee this morning, I'm taken aback by my own reaction to Mr. Douthat's piece. How could I not have seen it this way?
Not all white people benefit from the societal "white privilege" which I have read about and nodded to regularly in these hallowed NYT pages. These members of the 99% also have been left behind, and chose the Republican party as their standard bearer, not because it had their interests at heart - but because they had no voice and it reached out to them. Why are we so blind to this?
Because we can't see ourselves from where we are.
Here's to hoping that if there be any benefit at all to Trump's disgusting candidacy - it's that we can reunite with our more temperate conservative leaning siblings in rational discussion to the benefit of us all.
1
I traveled extensively in rural Pennsylvania recently and tried to somewhat engage Trump supporters during my trips. There was standard kneejerk racial animus aplenty, and also a sense of a bleak economic future. What struck me most, however, was that these communities were virtually empty of minorities and immigrants (aside from physicians and engineers and a few restaurant owners) and that T.V. and spurious internet trash - not travel or books or even mainstream newspapers - informed their perception that America was succumbing to terrorists and a "liberal" agenda that posed an existential "threat" no one could actually identify but was "obviously" at war with "God". It is easy to see how a Trump has come amongst these folks to become a sort of "savior". It is difficult to forecast what the GOP will do with these citizens come their disappointment and increased rage after a likely electoral defeat.
8
@doctor
Thank you for the report from the Trump-frontline.... Even though it's not surprising that these kind of rural communities are without "minorities", or even alternate news sources.
It's also no great surprise that they would vote for Donald Trump -- that said, I'd still rather take my chances with his defeat than with his win.
Thank you for the report from the Trump-frontline.... Even though it's not surprising that these kind of rural communities are without "minorities", or even alternate news sources.
It's also no great surprise that they would vote for Donald Trump -- that said, I'd still rather take my chances with his defeat than with his win.
I have just completed reading Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" which chronicles the origins of the radical right from the John Birch Society to today's Tea Party, Heritage Foundation and various think tanks, social services charities and Citizens United. The money the Kochs and other very wealthy libertarian small government free marketers have put into political influence has completely distorted the central assumption of this nation: that political party ideology is the product of intellectually held beliefs. While they are the generals and financiers of the movement, they fueled their army on lies. Lies that made their army immediate followers of Donald Trump who put their biases, resentments, fears and prejudices into plain uncertain language.
2
Why is it "racial patronage" to include black people in what white people already have? Why is expanding the American dream to be available to everybody considered "racial patronage"?
Most liberals I know don't favor "mass immigration" nor did we do anything to make it happen. We just don't think it's the end of the world; we see these people making a contribution. Our immigration system needs to be overhauled to be functional. And welfare recipients are overwhelmingly white in most states, contrary to the conservative mythology that people come here just to get fat welfare checks (another conservative myth). You're a smart person, Ross, and we expect better of you.
The Democratic convention featured a crowd that looks like America--all sorts of people. Like most liberals, I think a multiracial society can be a great society--and America has been multiracial since Day 1 so we need to make it work.
I believe that white people who were stranded when manufacturing left our shores need a break as well. But I'm disgusted with their white nationalism, paranoia, xenophobia, their contempt for education and science, and how proud they are of their own hate and ignorance. And they think they're the "real Americans!" (I live among these people and some are relatives; I'm not making this up.) The Republican party has done much to encourage these bad attitudes, and bears much of the blame. It's hard to change their situation when they are unwilling to admit they need to change.
Most liberals I know don't favor "mass immigration" nor did we do anything to make it happen. We just don't think it's the end of the world; we see these people making a contribution. Our immigration system needs to be overhauled to be functional. And welfare recipients are overwhelmingly white in most states, contrary to the conservative mythology that people come here just to get fat welfare checks (another conservative myth). You're a smart person, Ross, and we expect better of you.
The Democratic convention featured a crowd that looks like America--all sorts of people. Like most liberals, I think a multiracial society can be a great society--and America has been multiracial since Day 1 so we need to make it work.
I believe that white people who were stranded when manufacturing left our shores need a break as well. But I'm disgusted with their white nationalism, paranoia, xenophobia, their contempt for education and science, and how proud they are of their own hate and ignorance. And they think they're the "real Americans!" (I live among these people and some are relatives; I'm not making this up.) The Republican party has done much to encourage these bad attitudes, and bears much of the blame. It's hard to change their situation when they are unwilling to admit they need to change.
3
If Trump's rhetoric about "protectionism" is "argle-bargle" about "legacy industries," then what do we call his estate tax fraud about legacy fortunes?
A "legacy industry" might be important for all kinds of reasons: culture, national security, as a training field for developing new industries, etc.
What is argument in favor of protecting legacy fortunes (i.e., inheritances) from the estate tax? From Trump and most Republicans the argument is a con game, pure and simple:
The estate tax is The Death Tax, and working Americans have worked too hard and been taxed too much their entire lives to be hit with a tax for dying!
Yeah, take that cosmopolitan eltie! USA USA USA!!!!
Except that the estate tax taxes estates over $ 5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, which maybe 1% of the population at most.
So we need to add a third category into Douthat's doubtful analysis: racists? forgotten working class? or targets of Trumps latest scam to benefit himself by making people believe that he will make them rich if they touch the hem of garments or pay $35,000 for a chance to learn from his hand picked instructors at Trump University.
A "legacy industry" might be important for all kinds of reasons: culture, national security, as a training field for developing new industries, etc.
What is argument in favor of protecting legacy fortunes (i.e., inheritances) from the estate tax? From Trump and most Republicans the argument is a con game, pure and simple:
The estate tax is The Death Tax, and working Americans have worked too hard and been taxed too much their entire lives to be hit with a tax for dying!
Yeah, take that cosmopolitan eltie! USA USA USA!!!!
Except that the estate tax taxes estates over $ 5 million for an individual and $10 million for a couple, which maybe 1% of the population at most.
So we need to add a third category into Douthat's doubtful analysis: racists? forgotten working class? or targets of Trumps latest scam to benefit himself by making people believe that he will make them rich if they touch the hem of garments or pay $35,000 for a chance to learn from his hand picked instructors at Trump University.
1
The left/Democrats has encouraged identity politics and long ago identified blacks and Hispanics as the most important groups needed to win over to stay in power. I live in a city which is about 4% black and 3% Hispanic yet over 85% of social services goes to these groups. The largest minority in my city is Asian, making up 12%. Given the amount of attention and hand wringing given you would think my city was 80% black 10% Hispanic 9% white and less than 1% Asian.
Yes, these breeds resentment, and it should. Someone who comes here from Mexico yesterday immediately qualifies for affirmative action while poor whites and Asian sit at the back of the bus. The way affirmative action is now implemented is just another handout by the dems to win the vote of certain segments of the population.
I have no love for Trump and would not vote for him. But I applaud the uprising by his supporters who refuse to be cowered by mostly dishonest claims of racial and xenophobia. It is great to see how these labels are losing their power. They have been so abused.
Trump supporters are voting for what is in the best interest of their demographics and it is no more offensive then when blacks or Hispanics do it. Liberals are outraged when their identity politics starts working in the favor of the right. It is their own fault.
Yes, these breeds resentment, and it should. Someone who comes here from Mexico yesterday immediately qualifies for affirmative action while poor whites and Asian sit at the back of the bus. The way affirmative action is now implemented is just another handout by the dems to win the vote of certain segments of the population.
I have no love for Trump and would not vote for him. But I applaud the uprising by his supporters who refuse to be cowered by mostly dishonest claims of racial and xenophobia. It is great to see how these labels are losing their power. They have been so abused.
Trump supporters are voting for what is in the best interest of their demographics and it is no more offensive then when blacks or Hispanics do it. Liberals are outraged when their identity politics starts working in the favor of the right. It is their own fault.
3
I think that we have two separate problems here that are entwined in a very unfortunate way. We still have a very serious problem with racism that can not be denied. We are a society that has a legal unpinning for integration but has a reality of segregation and unequal treatment easily seen in housing, education, job prospects, law enforcement and healthcare. The legacy of 475 years of slavery and legal segregation and disenfranchisement has by no means been erased. We are also a society undergoing profound and often bewildering social, economic and demographic changes. The economic dislocations are particularly brutal with a way of life based on stable remunerative employment in manufacturing and other areas largely disappearing. The way forward is difficult and uncertain and politically is caught up in cross currents of social and racial resentments. Our political leaders, both conservative and liberal, can choose the path of difficult engagement with our problems or can choose to appeal to those social and racial resentments. For me it is not difficult to see what path each of our political parties has chosen.
What amazes me here is the continued lack of focus on the big corporations that are making life unfair. Point at bigots, elites, whoever you want, but the big corporations - the ones that exploit cheap labor and the ones that don't - are the real perpetrators of inequality: the pharmaceutical companies, Walmart, Comcast, Verizon, the insurance companies, the technology companies, and many others that I'm undoubtedly unaware of. They all give to both parties to maintain their influence, and they all hide like cockroaches when it comes to the blame game.
13
Both parties, that's what Bernie was trying to tell us before he was blacked out by the media. Never mind we heard him and we won't forget.
3
Carolson: Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more. I'll add that corporations have skillfully used identity politics to create the illusion that they are "good guys." Corporations will tell you: "Look at our diverse work force: a perfect mix of white, black, male, female, LGBT, and straight. We look like America. Aren't we just swell."
And then these same corporations will lay off large chunks of their diverse work forces. Everyone gets the shaft: all the workers go to the same unemployment line regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I heard that Cisco Systems is about to lay off 14,000 workers. I'm sure that group of 14,00 unfortunate souls "looks like America."
And then these same corporations will lay off large chunks of their diverse work forces. Everyone gets the shaft: all the workers go to the same unemployment line regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I heard that Cisco Systems is about to lay off 14,000 workers. I'm sure that group of 14,00 unfortunate souls "looks like America."
1
Republicans are reeling now because of one single thing: After 40 years of success, the southern strategy isn't working anymore at the presidential level. Obama proved that you can easily win the presidency without the South (and with less than 40 percent of the white vote).
The days of democrats trying to pander to southern white voters by "balancing" their tickets or compromising their core beliefs are gone at last.
The days of democrats trying to pander to southern white voters by "balancing" their tickets or compromising their core beliefs are gone at last.
7
I disagree with your contention that "Trump's protectionist argle-bargle boils down to once again having policies that specifically benefit lower-class whites-..."
I believe that the thrust of Trump's appeal to make America great again is to put America to work again in private jobs by avoiding bad trade deals and government regulation and taxation.
I see the thrust of the Clinton economic approach is to grow the government through increased taxation and regulation to implement policies developed in D.C.
At bottom, it is a choice between wanting to hard work and keeping your earnings, or from each, to each.
But what is remarkable about this article is its ad hominem attack on the stereotypical Trump voter. Talk about racial and class profiling!
I believe that the thrust of Trump's appeal to make America great again is to put America to work again in private jobs by avoiding bad trade deals and government regulation and taxation.
I see the thrust of the Clinton economic approach is to grow the government through increased taxation and regulation to implement policies developed in D.C.
At bottom, it is a choice between wanting to hard work and keeping your earnings, or from each, to each.
But what is remarkable about this article is its ad hominem attack on the stereotypical Trump voter. Talk about racial and class profiling!
3
For most Americans, "diversity" means "not you". They hear it from the leadership of almost every American institution, all the time.
Racial patronage, in the form of "diversity", gave us Trump. Until it ends, and we return to the plain meaning of the Civil Rights Act (no racial discrimination, not even in favor of Democratic voters, not even if it is called "affirmative action"), we will have Trumps. Some of them will be worse than Trump. Some of them will be elected.
Unfortunately, "liberal" has become a euphemism for "racist".
Racial patronage, in the form of "diversity", gave us Trump. Until it ends, and we return to the plain meaning of the Civil Rights Act (no racial discrimination, not even in favor of Democratic voters, not even if it is called "affirmative action"), we will have Trumps. Some of them will be worse than Trump. Some of them will be elected.
Unfortunately, "liberal" has become a euphemism for "racist".
5
@katz
"For most Americans, "diversity" means "not you"".
That's interesting. Considering the fact that "diversity" is supposed to mean: "including you".
Just for the record.
If there were no such thing as racial discrimination, there would be no need for Affirmative Action.
And there is no euphemism for "racist".
"For most Americans, "diversity" means "not you"".
That's interesting. Considering the fact that "diversity" is supposed to mean: "including you".
Just for the record.
If there were no such thing as racial discrimination, there would be no need for Affirmative Action.
And there is no euphemism for "racist".
1
I don't believe the Democratic party will fracture along racial lines. The $15.00 per hour minimum wage would help poor whites and minorities. Effective gun control legislation will save lives in rural Kentucky and Chicago's south side. Environmental policies to reduce carbon emissions will save the planet for everyone. Making college affordable for everyone has no racial bias. I believe all Democrats indeed all reasonable people are appalled by voter id laws and in favor of affirmative action.
The American people are better than you think. The overwhelming rejection of Donald Trump this November will prove it.
The American people are better than you think. The overwhelming rejection of Donald Trump this November will prove it.
110
I agree absolutely with your second paragraph. But I don't know if a national $15 minimum wage is going to solve the problem. The cost of living varies so much from city to city. And while environmental policies are absolutely crucial, their implementation can be thorny in places where people (often rightly) tie those policies to the loss of industrial jobs. Gun control, too. Most people agree it's needed - even if they say they don't - but what is effective? We keep doing the same thing and it just doesn't seem to solve anything. And college affordability? We should talk about who gets subsidies and where. An across the board, free community college allowance might be better than offering free liberal arts degrees to families making less than $120k.
Americans are increasingly in bubbles and don't know or understand the viewpoint of people outside their bubble. To think most Americans are in favor of affirmative action is (insert adjective for wow).
The other issue we face is the left has become so moralistic in the last few years that the majority of Americans that don't favor affirmative action are instantly branded as racists. The left won't consider their viewpoint, in fact anything that deviates from their view is bigoted, no discussion needed. In that way left is the new right.
The other issue we face is the left has become so moralistic in the last few years that the majority of Americans that don't favor affirmative action are instantly branded as racists. The left won't consider their viewpoint, in fact anything that deviates from their view is bigoted, no discussion needed. In that way left is the new right.
1
Most people living now have little knowledge of the past, such as what occurred in the 1930s. Even educated people, unless they were history majors, would not know the details about Roosevelt and what he had to do to pass the New Deal. What people see is the present. If it appears that certain groups are being favored and given unfair advantages, they become angry and resentful and feel that they are the ones being discriminated against. It is also difficult, for people living now, to feel guilt about the sins of past generations.
1
Were my secondary school English teacher to read this, he’d throw it back at Douthat. A concoction of undefined terms. What on earth is the "pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today?" ('Cosmopolitanism' and 'liberalism' are words that used to have meaning, but 'pseudo' and 'elite' are now purely subjective and politicized.)
As a scientist, I learned that a researcher who had difficulty explaining his project really didn't know what he was doing. Douthat ditto. And this comes in the context of Trump's series of speeches on "policy." The economy, terrorism, and law and order are serious issues, and worthy of deep and serious thought. But to Trump, they are just more opportunities to put all the blame for everything on Hillary Clinton. This is not serious analysis: it's shallow, stupid, and sickening. The theme running through Trump’s speeches is white supremacy, one that requires a nod to others because they vote.
The problem with conservatives is that the bench-mark keeps changing, like the rising sea, and they don’t know how far back they want to take the country.
As a scientist, I learned that a researcher who had difficulty explaining his project really didn't know what he was doing. Douthat ditto. And this comes in the context of Trump's series of speeches on "policy." The economy, terrorism, and law and order are serious issues, and worthy of deep and serious thought. But to Trump, they are just more opportunities to put all the blame for everything on Hillary Clinton. This is not serious analysis: it's shallow, stupid, and sickening. The theme running through Trump’s speeches is white supremacy, one that requires a nod to others because they vote.
The problem with conservatives is that the bench-mark keeps changing, like the rising sea, and they don’t know how far back they want to take the country.
17
I agree. Douthat writes about as clearly as my fogged bathroom mirror. Torturous phrasing and gobbledygook run amok.
2
Some good points here - although it's also confused and confusing,
it seems to me.
The problem in part is our "One size fits all" politics.
It's silly to discuss what the Trump voter is like, as if there is only
one kind. It is also difficult to find a party you agree with out of a
choice of two.
But in most of the Western democracies that I am familiar with,
it is increasingly hard to believe that the politicians care much for
the people they claim to represent. The commenters here give
lots of examples of this - focussed on Republicans.
Can they not see that the Hillary democrats look the same way
to many people?
Instead of getting tribal, which is one real problem in these pages,
maybe they could just think about it.
it seems to me.
The problem in part is our "One size fits all" politics.
It's silly to discuss what the Trump voter is like, as if there is only
one kind. It is also difficult to find a party you agree with out of a
choice of two.
But in most of the Western democracies that I am familiar with,
it is increasingly hard to believe that the politicians care much for
the people they claim to represent. The commenters here give
lots of examples of this - focussed on Republicans.
Can they not see that the Hillary democrats look the same way
to many people?
Instead of getting tribal, which is one real problem in these pages,
maybe they could just think about it.
4
"The pull of white identity politics can be overcome, but only with great effort."
Is there any "effort" that could do this, that could stop national political races from functioning with dog-whistles and any wedge issue that can be found? I have my doubts. I'd pin my hopes on the younger generation, as us old white guys (and some women) die off. If younger generations get divided based on skin color and ethnic affiliations, then we'll continue with problems. If blacks and Latinos display increasing polarization, then this will all continue--albeit with different "faces."
For the moment it appears that the younger generations are likely to do a better job, whatever future unforeseen divisions might arise.
Is there any "effort" that could do this, that could stop national political races from functioning with dog-whistles and any wedge issue that can be found? I have my doubts. I'd pin my hopes on the younger generation, as us old white guys (and some women) die off. If younger generations get divided based on skin color and ethnic affiliations, then we'll continue with problems. If blacks and Latinos display increasing polarization, then this will all continue--albeit with different "faces."
For the moment it appears that the younger generations are likely to do a better job, whatever future unforeseen divisions might arise.
The Republican Party since the days (however, short) of William McKinley has been the party of the rich (now the 1 percent). The desire of traditional conservatism with its low taxes (fully embraced by pseudo-populist, Donald Trump) is to maintain and increase wealth. The problem for the nation is that the Democrats under Bill Clinton joined the Republicans in that elitist project. It succeeded so well that the result was the Great Recession and now the populist revolt on both the left and the right in Trumpism and "Feel the Bern" Sanderism. It strains credulity that the Republican Party that has prospered on overt white racism and bigotry and now dominates the Old Confederacy will ever be able or willing to embrace "pan-racial conservatism" with a candidate who has only 1 percent of African-Americans supporting him, has proposed the equivalent of ethnic cleansing ("Deport 'Em All") to handle the "Mexican" (aka Hispanic) immigration problem, and wants to ban all Muslims. The Democrats have been the traditional home for the lower- and middle-class, especially racial minorities since the New Deal and Harry Truman's courageous embrace of desegregation and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The Democrats have only to break the more recent corporate embrace to return to their progressive "pan-racial" liberalism. whether Hillary Clinton is the person to reverse the policies of her husband is the real $64,000 question.
2
While the analysis of the Trump camp seems reasonable, there is the usual Douthat "but the other side" stuff that taints it. This shows what word choice will do:
"In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deliberately excluded blacks from certain benefits and job programs."
In other words, it was all FDR's fault (and, hey, wasn't he married to the granddaughter of a pre-Civil War plantation belle who some claim was the model for Scarlett O'Hara?). The historically correct statement would be "In the 1930s, perceived political realities prevented the New Deal from fully including blacks. The Roosevelt administration did, however, for the first time since Reconstruction, made some (inadequate) efforts to involve blacks in federal programs."
"In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deliberately excluded blacks from certain benefits and job programs."
In other words, it was all FDR's fault (and, hey, wasn't he married to the granddaughter of a pre-Civil War plantation belle who some claim was the model for Scarlett O'Hara?). The historically correct statement would be "In the 1930s, perceived political realities prevented the New Deal from fully including blacks. The Roosevelt administration did, however, for the first time since Reconstruction, made some (inadequate) efforts to involve blacks in federal programs."
7
Well what you said isn't accurate nor does it convey the point the author is trying to make. try again
I dont support Trump. I find one has to say that right off the top when one is expressing disagreement with anything on the left nowadays.
So that said, I find it impossible to support most Republican candidates because they tend to be anti-labor (Scott Walker comes to mind). But then I am white, middle class, and work in the public sector (NYC government). And the racial pandering of the Democratic Party has just left me speechless. So tell me, what party do I try to belong to? The one that wants to strip workers of their hard-won rights, or the one that is clearly uninterested in my vote because I am white and working class? And the democrats arent much better when it comes to the whole jobs thing, mind you. They seem to be, more and more, run by Liberal plutocrats who pander to the race issues and could give a damn about the changing nature of work and opportunity for most middle and lower class workers here.
The Republicans have no problem with taking away everyone's economic gains. The Democrats have no problem with the Republicans doing it as long as it is mostly poor whites they are doing it to. Racial patronage is alive and well. However the Republicans haven't changed much on this. They are same old same old. But if you look at Racial patronage, it is the Left that has fully embraced it- from university, to local government, to public policy.
Both parties have lost me. But then, people like me aren't key to their victory, so why should they.
So that said, I find it impossible to support most Republican candidates because they tend to be anti-labor (Scott Walker comes to mind). But then I am white, middle class, and work in the public sector (NYC government). And the racial pandering of the Democratic Party has just left me speechless. So tell me, what party do I try to belong to? The one that wants to strip workers of their hard-won rights, or the one that is clearly uninterested in my vote because I am white and working class? And the democrats arent much better when it comes to the whole jobs thing, mind you. They seem to be, more and more, run by Liberal plutocrats who pander to the race issues and could give a damn about the changing nature of work and opportunity for most middle and lower class workers here.
The Republicans have no problem with taking away everyone's economic gains. The Democrats have no problem with the Republicans doing it as long as it is mostly poor whites they are doing it to. Racial patronage is alive and well. However the Republicans haven't changed much on this. They are same old same old. But if you look at Racial patronage, it is the Left that has fully embraced it- from university, to local government, to public policy.
Both parties have lost me. But then, people like me aren't key to their victory, so why should they.
11
It is petty simple, one party is against all unions which are the backbone of lower and middle classes and still believe in a proven failure of trickle down eoc., minimum wage, need I go on. The other party is for all of the above. If you are really for the working class it is not hard to figure out who to vote for.
1
And just what do you consider the "racial pandering of the Democratic Party"???
Another thing.
Most of those on the "Left" aren't as liberal-minded as they'd like to think.
Another thing.
Most of those on the "Left" aren't as liberal-minded as they'd like to think.
I agree with what Douthat says here.
However, I don't believe him when he lays claim to solidarity with the economically disadvantaged, nor to his claim that economics is more important to him than social issues. That isn't the Douthat I've read here for years.
Still, it is nicethat he can see it and say it and write it.
However, I don't believe him when he lays claim to solidarity with the economically disadvantaged, nor to his claim that economics is more important to him than social issues. That isn't the Douthat I've read here for years.
Still, it is nicethat he can see it and say it and write it.
2
This sounds like more sour grapes from the Smart Set.
Face the facts - the Very Smart People within the GOP have lost their party. The Smart Set can no longer get support for their wars, their "free" trade, their advocacy for the ultra-wealthy, their push for open borders and cheap labor, and the cheap gestures they extend to the social conservatives.
The GOP Smart Set has been abandoned by their base, and even the social conservatives are now willing to side with the thrice married orange haired clown, because he at least is willing to point out the abject failure of the Smart Set's selfish, "compassionate conservatism." So the Smart Set - which includes Mr. Douthat and is only smart in its own mind - is now out of the party and the people have the reigns. Call it a victory for "racial patronage" or whatever else you elites need to call it in order to cope, but the people aren't going to be conned or shamed anymore by the Smart Set, at least not on the right.
The left is another story, for now. Sanders came close, but at the end of the day the Smart Set was able to maintain control, largely by leveraging the power of Super Delegate insiders, big money, rigged debate schedules, a party apparatus that was indistinguishable from the Clinton campaign, and massive amounts of media bias.
And so the people on the left settle for cheering team blue, because it's team blue. But at the end of the day, they have their own Smart Set problems, which are even bigger than ours.
Face the facts - the Very Smart People within the GOP have lost their party. The Smart Set can no longer get support for their wars, their "free" trade, their advocacy for the ultra-wealthy, their push for open borders and cheap labor, and the cheap gestures they extend to the social conservatives.
The GOP Smart Set has been abandoned by their base, and even the social conservatives are now willing to side with the thrice married orange haired clown, because he at least is willing to point out the abject failure of the Smart Set's selfish, "compassionate conservatism." So the Smart Set - which includes Mr. Douthat and is only smart in its own mind - is now out of the party and the people have the reigns. Call it a victory for "racial patronage" or whatever else you elites need to call it in order to cope, but the people aren't going to be conned or shamed anymore by the Smart Set, at least not on the right.
The left is another story, for now. Sanders came close, but at the end of the day the Smart Set was able to maintain control, largely by leveraging the power of Super Delegate insiders, big money, rigged debate schedules, a party apparatus that was indistinguishable from the Clinton campaign, and massive amounts of media bias.
And so the people on the left settle for cheering team blue, because it's team blue. But at the end of the day, they have their own Smart Set problems, which are even bigger than ours.
3
I definitely see a new "forgotten man" in Trump's supporters. They -have- suffered tremendously in the last thirty years, and to ignore that is to allow oneself to be willfully ignorant. Wages are down. Good blue collar jobs - offering good pay and careers to high school graduates - are gone. Even those who have come through OK, often live in towns that as a whole have suffered: beset by shuttered stores and factories, depressed property values, poor schools, crime... To claim that these are simply racists who are lashing out, is to ignore reality in favor of your comfortable, upper middle class life. It is to be elitist, and it will only make matters worse for us all.
.
That said, I cringe when people say that social democracy is the response these new forgotten men and women want to hear. They take pride in work. Work is honest. Handouts are not. They don't want handouts. They want their old jobs and lives back. It is wrong to suggest that we can simply promise a massive social safety net to catch them (central to the social democrat platform), and win them over en-masse.
.
That said, I cringe when people say that social democracy is the response these new forgotten men and women want to hear. They take pride in work. Work is honest. Handouts are not. They don't want handouts. They want their old jobs and lives back. It is wrong to suggest that we can simply promise a massive social safety net to catch them (central to the social democrat platform), and win them over en-masse.
41
@zaw
Just out of curiosity, what part of Donald Trump's vehemently racist message are you tuning out??? ... And you do remember that he's endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, don't you?
Have you ever wondered why there are hardly ever any people of color at his hates-fests, and why he's made no attempt whatsoever to connect with the Black electorate?
Next....
T
Just out of curiosity, what part of Donald Trump's vehemently racist message are you tuning out??? ... And you do remember that he's endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, don't you?
Have you ever wondered why there are hardly ever any people of color at his hates-fests, and why he's made no attempt whatsoever to connect with the Black electorate?
Next....
T
1
Social democracy is not about handouts it's about security. Before you spout off about it you should learn what it really is and what it really isn't. Security includes lifelong training for jobs.
3
I have news for working class, non-college educated Trumpists, those industrial jobs are not going to come back, unless you move to China (and China is trying to move beyond an industrialized nation as well). The key point is that a college education has always been more accessible to white people from any background. As a white man whose parents never went to college (my father was a fireman) I started at a community college, studied hard and took out loans. I now have two doctorate degrees and am financially doing well. But I still appreciate the need to help those less fortunate and will vote for Hilliary. I have no chip on my shoulder for people who had everything handed to them (as did Trump by the way) of for those on Welfare.
1
Why all the articles about the white working class voters voting for Trump and none about the very powerful, rich white billionaires throwing their wealth and power behind him? It's their message, and that's what should be scarier.
11
"The activist energy on the left is pushing for a more ethnically focused politics, devoted to righting structural race-based wrongs. "
No its not. Its simply an attempt to introduce fairness and equal opportunity into a system that has been rigged to shift the resources of the many to the pockets of the few. Ross you keep putting the "left" (or others) simply in the terms of your own biased world view. Try looking from the other perspective.
No its not. Its simply an attempt to introduce fairness and equal opportunity into a system that has been rigged to shift the resources of the many to the pockets of the few. Ross you keep putting the "left" (or others) simply in the terms of your own biased world view. Try looking from the other perspective.
7
One thing that Douthat leaves out is how much almost every institution and elite in this country is despised. If Trump has a failing it is only that he doesn't attack all of them with enough vigor.
Attacking the trade deals and mass immigration that undermine working peoples wages is spot on, and why he had earned the ire of much of the elite, and the support of so many of us who work for a living. Ditto with the press.
But there is more he could do - our Congress is completely dysfunctional and corrupt. I believe most Americans would like to see term limits on both Senators and Representatives. Even in liberal NYC we voted in term limits twice (Bloomberg's power grab notwithstanding).
He should also go after the "cultural" elite. It still mystifies, and angers, me that multi millionaires in Hollywood think I should care what their opinions are on issues that effect me greatly but from which they are insulated by their spectacular wealth.
Also, Trump, or whoever comes after him, would do well to realize that the Republican elite is as discredited as every other elite. Cutting their taxes? Really? Wonder how many votes that will garner Trump? Probably not enough in an election he should easily win given the mood of the country if only he wouldn't pull punches against ALL the elites and sacred cows.
Attacking the trade deals and mass immigration that undermine working peoples wages is spot on, and why he had earned the ire of much of the elite, and the support of so many of us who work for a living. Ditto with the press.
But there is more he could do - our Congress is completely dysfunctional and corrupt. I believe most Americans would like to see term limits on both Senators and Representatives. Even in liberal NYC we voted in term limits twice (Bloomberg's power grab notwithstanding).
He should also go after the "cultural" elite. It still mystifies, and angers, me that multi millionaires in Hollywood think I should care what their opinions are on issues that effect me greatly but from which they are insulated by their spectacular wealth.
Also, Trump, or whoever comes after him, would do well to realize that the Republican elite is as discredited as every other elite. Cutting their taxes? Really? Wonder how many votes that will garner Trump? Probably not enough in an election he should easily win given the mood of the country if only he wouldn't pull punches against ALL the elites and sacred cows.
25
@ Dan Barnett "One thing that Douthat leaves out is how much almost every institution and elite in this country is despised. If Trump has a failing it is only that he doesn't attack all of them with enough vigor."
That's because Trump is part of the elite, despite the fact he's crude, tacky, ignorant, and has a fondness for Big Macs.
That's because Trump is part of the elite, despite the fact he's crude, tacky, ignorant, and has a fondness for Big Macs.
2
First, a note: the rest of us don't despise "almost every institution and elite in this country." It's just those who need to heap the hate on someone—the elites, blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, whoever—to feel better.
Anyway, Trump wants to cut their taxes just as much as the rest of them. There's no way he ever intended to do anything else, and every one of you who believed otherwise has been taken for a ride. Republicans have been using you to provide the votes for their tax breaks for a generation, and now Trump has come along and done the exact same thing.
Did Donald Trump grow up middle class? Does he know your or my life any better than the stars in Hollywood? Of course not. The only thing he's done differently from Ryan and Co. is pretend he was with the little guy for a while, so his ego could sun itself under the glow of a million adoring fans. Most Republicans are upfront about their plans to slash taxes on their rich friends; Trump just stayed quiet until he had you hook, line, and sinker with racist fury before admitting he'll throw you under the bus. He's an exploiter, not a truth-teller. Not that it matters; they all did just fine because you all voted for them anyway, as long as they said the magic words "tax cuts."
So the moral of the story is that Trump isn't some populist knight who just forgot to rail against the rest of "the elite," no, he was always one of them, pitting you against your fellow Americans for an extra buck. And you all fell for it—again.
Anyway, Trump wants to cut their taxes just as much as the rest of them. There's no way he ever intended to do anything else, and every one of you who believed otherwise has been taken for a ride. Republicans have been using you to provide the votes for their tax breaks for a generation, and now Trump has come along and done the exact same thing.
Did Donald Trump grow up middle class? Does he know your or my life any better than the stars in Hollywood? Of course not. The only thing he's done differently from Ryan and Co. is pretend he was with the little guy for a while, so his ego could sun itself under the glow of a million adoring fans. Most Republicans are upfront about their plans to slash taxes on their rich friends; Trump just stayed quiet until he had you hook, line, and sinker with racist fury before admitting he'll throw you under the bus. He's an exploiter, not a truth-teller. Not that it matters; they all did just fine because you all voted for them anyway, as long as they said the magic words "tax cuts."
So the moral of the story is that Trump isn't some populist knight who just forgot to rail against the rest of "the elite," no, he was always one of them, pitting you against your fellow Americans for an extra buck. And you all fell for it—again.
1
No, the dupes are those who believe that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party will help the poor and working people. They won't. Like Bill Clinton, they will ship jobs overseas, bring in guest workers to lower wages here, and "end welfare as we know it". The only difference is that Bill's attacks on the working class were hidden by a temporary stock market bubble. Hillary is unlikely to be so fortunate and our slow but steady decline in living standards will continue.
1
We can look at the history and evolution of both major parties and find a gradient scale of social views, more among the more diverse Democrats than among Republicans.
Those views, typically rooted in opinions of how active the government should be in alleviating the economic woes of the country, affect black Americans differently than they touch white Americans.
The views of Democrats traditionally differ from those of Republicans in how much the federal government should intervene on behalf of the poor (big difference), the middle class (moderate difference), and the rich (again, big difference).
We can debate endlessly about whether Republican reluctance to have government help the poor is racially motivated or simply has greater negative impact on black Americans because they comprise a greater percentage of the poor.
To a struggling black family, the harsh effect is the same whether the Republican policies are followed for philosophical reasons or because Republicans are racists.
This discussion should be separate and apart from any consideration of the current Republican nominee. The faux populism of Donald Trump has been heavily laced with overt appeals to the anti-black, anti-Hispanic bigotry of Trump’s poorly educated, working-class white supporters.
Last night in Wisconsin, Trump used a cynical outreach to black Americans – undoubtedly conceived, inspired and scripted by Roger Ailes – as a cover for Trump’s Nixonian ‘law and order’ theme.
Those views, typically rooted in opinions of how active the government should be in alleviating the economic woes of the country, affect black Americans differently than they touch white Americans.
The views of Democrats traditionally differ from those of Republicans in how much the federal government should intervene on behalf of the poor (big difference), the middle class (moderate difference), and the rich (again, big difference).
We can debate endlessly about whether Republican reluctance to have government help the poor is racially motivated or simply has greater negative impact on black Americans because they comprise a greater percentage of the poor.
To a struggling black family, the harsh effect is the same whether the Republican policies are followed for philosophical reasons or because Republicans are racists.
This discussion should be separate and apart from any consideration of the current Republican nominee. The faux populism of Donald Trump has been heavily laced with overt appeals to the anti-black, anti-Hispanic bigotry of Trump’s poorly educated, working-class white supporters.
Last night in Wisconsin, Trump used a cynical outreach to black Americans – undoubtedly conceived, inspired and scripted by Roger Ailes – as a cover for Trump’s Nixonian ‘law and order’ theme.
3
Sorry. But make NO mistake about it; Trump is not, has not, and will not ever reach out to Black Americans, under any pretense or disguise.
As an old fashioned Republican who no longer votes for the GOP, I wish Douthat would think instead of left / right dichotomies, of what hurts and what helps. Decades of support for lower taxes have done 2 terrible things, 1) the allowed the well to do to acquire very large holdings of wealth, and 2) they stripped revenue that would have been available for real aid to college students or for construction projects that could have helped in the immediate aftermath of the downturn.
And what about helping manufacturing? Even high end manufacturing needs to have folks who started at a lower end, where (for example) they learned how to form an edge with a tool to exact tolerances. So when we simple abandon lower end manufacturing to others, we destroy the pipeline needed to create the best workers.
For example, Kodak once made cameras. In the 1980s the anticipated digital and considered going back into the business of making their own. Though they ultimately did so, they had no base of expertise in things like shutters or lenses. so the made junk. canon and nikon had the expertise and moved on to digita.
And what about helping manufacturing? Even high end manufacturing needs to have folks who started at a lower end, where (for example) they learned how to form an edge with a tool to exact tolerances. So when we simple abandon lower end manufacturing to others, we destroy the pipeline needed to create the best workers.
For example, Kodak once made cameras. In the 1980s the anticipated digital and considered going back into the business of making their own. Though they ultimately did so, they had no base of expertise in things like shutters or lenses. so the made junk. canon and nikon had the expertise and moved on to digita.
3
I agree that a coalition of blacks and whites and other ethnic groups working together would have a tremendous power. I also agree that Trump harkens back, at least in his supporters' minds, to the old 1930s liberalism, which offered a hand up to specfically white workers. He is older and speaks a populist language (though he is no populist in reality) that endlessly reminds me of my grandparents, unconsciously racist and sexist (unconscious to them, not Trump) and yet for a better economic future, more worker rights, higher protections (although these seem to be, in Trump's campaign, mythic statements). How we get to a post racial world that brings economic gains to the working class will probably mean things unpalatable to today's conservatives, like strong unions, an end to Citizen's United and more enforcement of labor laws.
1
Working Class whites BLM activists may never come together socially, but on single issues, say guaranteed minimum income, a temporary alliance could lead to a form of transcendence/empowerment.
1
I can't believe that Ross Douthat has written an article that implies that the solution to our socioeconomic dislocations lies in the political realm. The only thing governments should do [liberal or conservative] is provide the environment for 'free enterprise and social justice" to thrive. This environment has a different texture for each of the ideologies, but it is a thriving diversified culture that will succeed. We cannot thrive if we rely on economic transfer programs to any of special group. Underlying all, is a good "job".
And the home mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction and the exemption for employer health coverage and the continued disparities in the way schools are funded? Those aren't handouts that disproportionately benefit white people??
That Douthat lends a veneer of respectability to an egregious strain of racism that keeps Republicans up every night worrying that a Black or Brown person may have - God forbid! - received some assistance is nauseating. Especially when the majority of the beneficiaries of just about any federal or state program are white. Absolutely nauseating.
That Douthat lends a veneer of respectability to an egregious strain of racism that keeps Republicans up every night worrying that a Black or Brown person may have - God forbid! - received some assistance is nauseating. Especially when the majority of the beneficiaries of just about any federal or state program are white. Absolutely nauseating.
2
One area where the Democrats may fracture is over the issue of school choice. Black parents who want to get their children out of failing public schools but can't afford to move to the suburbs are opposed by the predominantly white teachers' unions. At some point I see this disagreement exploding and it will be a challenge for Democrats to reconcile these opposing viewpoints.
In addition, the Democrats appeal to ethnic identity has its own problems. Affirmative action affects Asians adversely but blacks favorably. Public employee unions are great if you are a public employee, but not so great if you are a taxpayer.
To maintain its majority status Democrats will have to satisfy increasingly disparate, and often conflicting, groups. Over the long run the Republican positions of universal principles - individual, not group, rights; personal responsibility; free markets rather than crony capitalism; etc. - should prevail.
In addition, the Democrats appeal to ethnic identity has its own problems. Affirmative action affects Asians adversely but blacks favorably. Public employee unions are great if you are a public employee, but not so great if you are a taxpayer.
To maintain its majority status Democrats will have to satisfy increasingly disparate, and often conflicting, groups. Over the long run the Republican positions of universal principles - individual, not group, rights; personal responsibility; free markets rather than crony capitalism; etc. - should prevail.
1
FDR's policies helped blacks by helping unions, since many were far more color-blind than Douthat admits. Eleanor was able to, in effect, "sponsor" black fighting battalions, black fighter groups, and , also in effect, Truman's de-segregation after the war's end. And what killed the unions? Not racism per se, though race is as American as apples in a pie. It was Reaganite baloney about corruption, "right" not to pay dues, etc. My dad's union, the "Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America", the 2nd largest in 1950, was slow to add Puerto Rican workers as well as blacks, but did with no effects on non-color membership.
And all backed Democratic nominees.
Peel away the rhetorical flourishes, and what Douthat presents here is false equivalence: a mea culpa that tars Democrats with the trickle-down, Laffer Curve, Philadelphia Mississippi, "right to work", i.d.-requirements, and gerrymandering done primarily by conservative GOP in a mad, anti-American
attempt to disenfranchise Latino, Latina, black, and, with Trumpolini, immigrant workers -- the last, ironically, essential to the long term fiscal stability since America's birth rate has tanked beyond replacement. Blinders on a Trojan Horse -- the anti-Trump, suddenly super-conservatives GOP's ravings about how good for minorities and the unemployable white kids they'll be -- as Trump leaves. Don't buy that anti-FDR, mildewed equine. It's a fraud, a hollow promise full of the same old... you know what.
And all backed Democratic nominees.
Peel away the rhetorical flourishes, and what Douthat presents here is false equivalence: a mea culpa that tars Democrats with the trickle-down, Laffer Curve, Philadelphia Mississippi, "right to work", i.d.-requirements, and gerrymandering done primarily by conservative GOP in a mad, anti-American
attempt to disenfranchise Latino, Latina, black, and, with Trumpolini, immigrant workers -- the last, ironically, essential to the long term fiscal stability since America's birth rate has tanked beyond replacement. Blinders on a Trojan Horse -- the anti-Trump, suddenly super-conservatives GOP's ravings about how good for minorities and the unemployable white kids they'll be -- as Trump leaves. Don't buy that anti-FDR, mildewed equine. It's a fraud, a hollow promise full of the same old... you know what.
2
I beg to differ with you when using 'race' as a defining aspect of our unjust system to allocate resources according to need; there is one race, the human race, period. Now, the problem of discrimination, a distinct, and shameful, exercise in exploiting our fellow men/women, on the basis of ethnicity and economic status, is real and ongoing, and greatly contributing to the inequality in a capitalistic system; capital trumps labor, and the net benefit always goes to the top, the 'rich and powerful', perpetuating the inequities we see in the lower echelons of society, black and white. The question arises,why is it we vote for a party that has been screwing us all along, hypocritically saying one thing, when their actions bely any promise to alter the injustice of being left behind? Although this inconsistency occurs in both parties, the G.O.P. definitely takes the lead. Can you imagine the chaotic environment if demagogue Trump, highly ignorant and seemingly proud of it, takes the helm? It may mean the last nail in republican's coffin, certainly well deserved, for lack of spine and principle.
2
The identity politics of the left are never racist or sexist. The imitative identity politics are always racist and sexist.
In reality, the identity politics of both right and left serve the same masters: the economic and social elite who like to believe it was all the result of their own hard work and talent and never the result of any luck.
The elite own both parties. They divide the working class and underclass along racial and ethnic lines as best they can to maintain control. Other commenters have correctly pointed out the systematic betrayal of the economic interests of working class Republican voters by officials and the donor class. But the same is true for Democrats as well.
The elite Democrats are all for Black Lives Matter until their brunch is interrupted or until the working class cops won't put their jobs at risk defending the Manhattan elite, and then the editorials about how cops need to do their jobs flow fast and furious. Meanwhile, after 70 years of voting Democrat, inner city African Americans are less well educated, less employed, and less safe. Democrats have refused to enforce immigration laws, resulting in millions of low skilled, undocumented workers who keep working class wages artificially low, especially for African American men.
In reality, the identity politics of both right and left serve the same masters: the economic and social elite who like to believe it was all the result of their own hard work and talent and never the result of any luck.
The elite own both parties. They divide the working class and underclass along racial and ethnic lines as best they can to maintain control. Other commenters have correctly pointed out the systematic betrayal of the economic interests of working class Republican voters by officials and the donor class. But the same is true for Democrats as well.
The elite Democrats are all for Black Lives Matter until their brunch is interrupted or until the working class cops won't put their jobs at risk defending the Manhattan elite, and then the editorials about how cops need to do their jobs flow fast and furious. Meanwhile, after 70 years of voting Democrat, inner city African Americans are less well educated, less employed, and less safe. Democrats have refused to enforce immigration laws, resulting in millions of low skilled, undocumented workers who keep working class wages artificially low, especially for African American men.
2
Having a razor focus on the NC governor’s race since the present Republican Governor and Legislature have negatively impacted the state, it is difficult to focus on Trump/Clinton race. Until yesterday when a repairman at the office explained that he had to add a charge of state tax to the bill. This was enacted by NC’s super majority Republican Governor and Legislature and without missing a beat he began to complain about the Democrats. The Democrats that had nothing to do with the state tax increase. He proceeded to explain the Democrats were attempting to turn us into a zombie socialist state and Hillary (as if he knew her personally) was going to finish us off. He explained that Trump scarred him but he was a Conservative and going to have to vote for him! I realized that this voter couldn’t differentiate between state legislation and federal legislation, nor state taxes and federal taxes.There was a really fear with this mixed up belief that fiction was fact and that voting against a candidate was more important than voting for a candidate.No command of any of the issues at hand (NC has a million at this point) on any level.This is what the Republican/Conservatives have created voters who live in an alternative reality,have no idea how government works nor what are pressing issues at any level nor who is doing the what. Good luck with this strategy Republicans – it is creating government that doesn’t function at any level.
6
"Reaganite Republicans"? Reagan worked hard for the middle class, adjusting tax policy to help. Of course trickle down economic policy nullified much of the attempt. No matter how one attempts to dress up GOP economic policy, when the party is more concerned with deficit than job creation, its constituency will be left in a sort of projective limbo. The government can create jobs, in clean energy and infrastructure, to start. Give Trump supporters meaningful work, a chance to save and to spend, to feel like they are a part of rather than excluded from, and I wonder if much of their ire will melt away. They are not angry because they are uneducated; they are angry because their elected leadership has betrayed them with skewed tax and economic policy. How about a little less intellectualizing/theorizing and a little more real time problem solving, Mr. Douthat.
1
Articles that try to capture the complex sweep of race and politics are bound to fall into generalizations or even stereotypes. Unfortunately that's the case here. So called liberal reforms are too often characterized as racial politics when they actually are broader reforms that benefit the entire society.
The 14Th Amendment which was clearly passed to ensure the rights of newly freed African Americans. But would anyone doubt that its new vision of equality has transformed and improved the lot of all Americans?
Our civil rights acts, initially advanced to end racial discrimination opened the door for similar legislation benefiting women and people with disabilities. Affirmative action, a largely misunderstood policy remains a potent symbol for whites, but in practice it has led to holistic admissions policies that benefit whites as well as racial minorities.
It's time to look at many of these so called ethnic issues in their historical context. When we do it will show that while racial minorities may be the first advocates for some of these policies, that Social Justice is indeed colorblind. That's true for judicial reforms, policing reforms, changes in or drug laws and the point made only in passing in this article, economic justice.
Whites have always been part of these movements and are so today. Let's get beyond the old trope that a policy that benefits minorities is like a zero sum game and therefore takes away from whites. History tells a very different story.
The 14Th Amendment which was clearly passed to ensure the rights of newly freed African Americans. But would anyone doubt that its new vision of equality has transformed and improved the lot of all Americans?
Our civil rights acts, initially advanced to end racial discrimination opened the door for similar legislation benefiting women and people with disabilities. Affirmative action, a largely misunderstood policy remains a potent symbol for whites, but in practice it has led to holistic admissions policies that benefit whites as well as racial minorities.
It's time to look at many of these so called ethnic issues in their historical context. When we do it will show that while racial minorities may be the first advocates for some of these policies, that Social Justice is indeed colorblind. That's true for judicial reforms, policing reforms, changes in or drug laws and the point made only in passing in this article, economic justice.
Whites have always been part of these movements and are so today. Let's get beyond the old trope that a policy that benefits minorities is like a zero sum game and therefore takes away from whites. History tells a very different story.
1
Affirmative Action penalizes Asians.
2
@sean
Got any factual proof of that???
Got any factual proof of that???
Characterizing Trump's success as an appeal to racial patronage is an oversimplification at best. At worst, it's a practice in wishful thinking. There's certainly a racial component to this election. The left experienced a similar divide. Without southern black support, we'd be discussing candidate Sanders instead of candidate Clinton.
However, at it's core, both movements are a rejection of 'neo' politics. Liberal and conservative. You can blame a financial crisis on one and an endless war on the other. So while not alike, the dissenting movements do share a similar goal. Throwing 50 years of failed ideology and compromised practice back into the dumpster.
Neoconservatism reached it's crescendo under George W. Bush. I think Jeb! summarizes their current position quite nicely. We're about to watch what happens to neoliberalism under Clinton 'Round 2'. If she's smart, she'll understand her victory is not a validation of ideology and walk away from it quickly. I suspect she'll struggle to break with longstanding habits though.
Personally, I appreciated Sanders avoidance of ethnic pandering on either side. I understand this was politically convenient for him. However, if we're talking about rooseveltian social democracy, shouldn't assistance be ethnically blind. I'd like to think of a strong social safety net as a universal and necessary public good rather than an apology to any specific demographic. That was the intent. May you be so fortunate as to never need the help.
However, at it's core, both movements are a rejection of 'neo' politics. Liberal and conservative. You can blame a financial crisis on one and an endless war on the other. So while not alike, the dissenting movements do share a similar goal. Throwing 50 years of failed ideology and compromised practice back into the dumpster.
Neoconservatism reached it's crescendo under George W. Bush. I think Jeb! summarizes their current position quite nicely. We're about to watch what happens to neoliberalism under Clinton 'Round 2'. If she's smart, she'll understand her victory is not a validation of ideology and walk away from it quickly. I suspect she'll struggle to break with longstanding habits though.
Personally, I appreciated Sanders avoidance of ethnic pandering on either side. I understand this was politically convenient for him. However, if we're talking about rooseveltian social democracy, shouldn't assistance be ethnically blind. I'd like to think of a strong social safety net as a universal and necessary public good rather than an apology to any specific demographic. That was the intent. May you be so fortunate as to never need the help.
1
I disagree with the statement: "The activist energy on the left is pushing for a more ethnically focused politics, devoted to righting structural race-based wrongs." If there is anything to learn from Bernie's efforts, it is that wealth (or the lack of it) matters and that it cuts across racial and ethnic lines.
I believe that the Democrats will reach out to less well-off whites and that some of them will return to or maintain their original liberal identities. The increasing educated core of the Democratic Party will find it easy to support the economic needs of working people of all races, ethnic groups and gender identities. The GOP, committed to the wealthy, will not. That is not to say that some working-class whites will not find a home in the GOP - they will. They will be lured by the GOP based on social wedge issues, as they have been for years. But they will represent the continued shrinking of the GOP, while the working-class whites who continue to support the Democratic Party will be part of a growing, not shrinking, political party.
So I urge Democrats everywhere to heed the words of Bernie Sanders. I don't personally agree with Bernie at times, but the progressivism that he extolls can only make the Democratic Party stronger and better. Maybe, just maybe, we can turn some of the trends around and make our country better. That is certainly not going to happen with the GOP in power.
I believe that the Democrats will reach out to less well-off whites and that some of them will return to or maintain their original liberal identities. The increasing educated core of the Democratic Party will find it easy to support the economic needs of working people of all races, ethnic groups and gender identities. The GOP, committed to the wealthy, will not. That is not to say that some working-class whites will not find a home in the GOP - they will. They will be lured by the GOP based on social wedge issues, as they have been for years. But they will represent the continued shrinking of the GOP, while the working-class whites who continue to support the Democratic Party will be part of a growing, not shrinking, political party.
So I urge Democrats everywhere to heed the words of Bernie Sanders. I don't personally agree with Bernie at times, but the progressivism that he extolls can only make the Democratic Party stronger and better. Maybe, just maybe, we can turn some of the trends around and make our country better. That is certainly not going to happen with the GOP in power.
5
You believe that "the Democrats will reach out"??? -- Well, that in itself is more than Bernie Sanders did.
With Sanders, it was always a matter of Absolutism. You were either with him all the way, or not.
The Democrats would do well to remember that as well.
With Sanders, it was always a matter of Absolutism. You were either with him all the way, or not.
The Democrats would do well to remember that as well.
1
Two concepts which fits into Douhtat's theory are the ideas of taxation and personal responsibility. Conservatives want reductions in taxes, without reductions in services. Like it or not, we've created an entitlement system, which must be supported for the foreseeable future. Liberals want ever increasing taxes, to fund their utopia, but not from everyone (that's not good politics) - only from the "rich". Unfortunately, one only need remember the story behind the fairy tail "The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg" to see how that will work out.
Personal responsibilty is the one thing that neither candidate wants to talk about. If you (black or white) choose to drop out of school, have children out of wedlock, abuse drug/alcohol and commit crimes, you step outside the social contract. Expecting people who adhere to that contract to support people that don't is a dead end for this country. "Law and Order" may be a simple claxon call, but there's a lot of people who view it as the first step in changing the divide in our country.
Personal responsibilty is the one thing that neither candidate wants to talk about. If you (black or white) choose to drop out of school, have children out of wedlock, abuse drug/alcohol and commit crimes, you step outside the social contract. Expecting people who adhere to that contract to support people that don't is a dead end for this country. "Law and Order" may be a simple claxon call, but there's a lot of people who view it as the first step in changing the divide in our country.
4
I, like many who commented here. found this commentary confusing. I think William Shakespeare wrote a play about such writings, "Much Ado About Nothing". Your last two paragraphs signal a return to the GOP's autopsy report of 2012. The hope is to build a "pan-racial conservatism". This is followed by conservatism's requirement of a meaningful morph attractive to minorities. Who are these minorities? African-Americans only? There are other minorities in America. "And after Trump, what forgiveness?" Who is forgiving whom? Forgiveness is an act of grace. Grace is an act of giving space to reform, to become new, to do over. That requires conversation. No where do I see the GOP and its leaders, including Donald Trump, talking and listening to minorities. The GOP does not have a history that includes and celebrates a Rainbow Coalition. Further, when Donald Trump talks about race, he talks at minorities when they are out of the room (West Bend, Wisconsin is 99% white.). No where in this commentary are conservative values and ideals identified which would be integral to a pan-racial conservatism. A suggestion, try love, hope, peace, and justice, rather than fear, anger, belligerence, and self-righteousness. Celebrate life in the village and not life in the private resort.
5
Putting aside the Donald's utter lunatic behavior, the economic anxieties that the early Trump candidacy focused on are actually pan-racial, and perhaps demographically most relevant to black and Hispanic voters.
I'll never really understand why he decided to declare war on the constituency who could have actually carried him to victory in a general election. Unless, in his heart of hearts, he truly is a bigot.
I frequently differ with Douthat notably on social issues, but I have found his insights since the Trump ascendancy and his analysis consistently the best on these pages, though my sympathies lie elsewhere. I often disagree, but he makes me think.
I'll never really understand why he decided to declare war on the constituency who could have actually carried him to victory in a general election. Unless, in his heart of hearts, he truly is a bigot.
I frequently differ with Douthat notably on social issues, but I have found his insights since the Trump ascendancy and his analysis consistently the best on these pages, though my sympathies lie elsewhere. I often disagree, but he makes me think.
3
I'm becoming more fond of Douthat's columns because of Trump. It gives him a subject to talk about that isn't met with total opposition from the left.
But I think he has something wrong here. I agree with his characterization of the divides in each party, but I doubt this will crack the Democrats. Healthy parties need not have a monolithic stance on every issue, especially ones of little legislative import such as this. Indeed, honest disagreements are necessary for parties to survive, as they provide citizens a hand on the lever of change to determine the stances their party holds. This is part of the failure of the modern Republican Party: it generated so many "culture wars" litmus tests to get into the inner circle that it wound up not representing the true feelings of enough people, and left the door open for Trump to crash the party. Then he had to cobble together all the right positions to pass those tests and get the blessing of that "establishment."
I hope the Democrats continue to have real discussions over whether they want to pursue a primarily economic or social agenda. Bernie Sanders carried the flag for the economic side this year and—as Douthat observes—Hillary Clinton looks to be trying to play to both. Doubtless both will remain in the platform, but the preeminence of one over the other will be an important marker in the history of the early-21st century Democratic Party. These are natural processes, not things to break the party up over.
But I think he has something wrong here. I agree with his characterization of the divides in each party, but I doubt this will crack the Democrats. Healthy parties need not have a monolithic stance on every issue, especially ones of little legislative import such as this. Indeed, honest disagreements are necessary for parties to survive, as they provide citizens a hand on the lever of change to determine the stances their party holds. This is part of the failure of the modern Republican Party: it generated so many "culture wars" litmus tests to get into the inner circle that it wound up not representing the true feelings of enough people, and left the door open for Trump to crash the party. Then he had to cobble together all the right positions to pass those tests and get the blessing of that "establishment."
I hope the Democrats continue to have real discussions over whether they want to pursue a primarily economic or social agenda. Bernie Sanders carried the flag for the economic side this year and—as Douthat observes—Hillary Clinton looks to be trying to play to both. Doubtless both will remain in the platform, but the preeminence of one over the other will be an important marker in the history of the early-21st century Democratic Party. These are natural processes, not things to break the party up over.
49
I am grateful to Mr. Douthat for having the courage and incisiveness to outline these issues, which are now heavily built into the various factions' points of view. Recognizing them and fessing up to them is the only chance for a less divisive, more cooperative society and culture.
What if the white men at Trump rallies knew that they pick up the tab for corporate jets, spa retreats where old white billionaires write off yet another round of golf, 'hunting' expeditions were the same guys bang away at tame game birds, watch a rich and connected friend miss a target and blow a load of buckshot into a companion's face? When ethnic patronage (what an ironic phrase) reaches the level of Corporate Welfare, maybe they'll have a valid gripe. I don't know any poor whites who are waiting for the chance to live in ghettos, surrounded by crumbling buildings and unusable 'parks', send their kids to underfunded schools, just for the opportunity to pick up the 'ethnic patronage' of Medicaid or Food Stamps, or have their sons and daughters profiled ......
Donald has been brilliant in exploiting the ignorance of his supporters.
And the idealists on the Left have failed to educate, and to create the change we all need. We've had a little help in that failure from the Right.
Donald has been brilliant in exploiting the ignorance of his supporters.
And the idealists on the Left have failed to educate, and to create the change we all need. We've had a little help in that failure from the Right.
9
HRC is going to abandon the progressives and turn on her minority core as well: in similar fashion to Bill Clinton. As a New York senator she espoused the interests of the powerful and championed herself as a moderate and appealed to upstate New York conservatives: working whites
What your piece fails to discuss is what does the GOP do to change. I've noted that conservatives refuse to really talk about their own party. So I'll do it for you.
The GOP currently markets itself as a white race party. it's the party of the rich and large corporations and routinely betrays the economic interests of poor and middle class whites. Would the party ever give up its wealthy base? If it did then it could become a more populist party and hence have broad economic appeal to whites and maybe even pick up some minorities. But how would that party differ than a clintonian Democratic Party in terms of economic policy? This new GOP could still be racist but if it were smart would have to at least become more accommodating to white women's issues. Dropping the abortion fight, being neutral on gay marriage, promoting the bachmans and palins in the party would make it clear that white women have a place. This new GOP would seem progressive enough to get a majorities of the white vote. You could still target minority voting, have law and order police killings of Browns, etc. you'd need the religious right to take a step back. The big issue is reducing the power of the rich in the GOP
What your piece fails to discuss is what does the GOP do to change. I've noted that conservatives refuse to really talk about their own party. So I'll do it for you.
The GOP currently markets itself as a white race party. it's the party of the rich and large corporations and routinely betrays the economic interests of poor and middle class whites. Would the party ever give up its wealthy base? If it did then it could become a more populist party and hence have broad economic appeal to whites and maybe even pick up some minorities. But how would that party differ than a clintonian Democratic Party in terms of economic policy? This new GOP could still be racist but if it were smart would have to at least become more accommodating to white women's issues. Dropping the abortion fight, being neutral on gay marriage, promoting the bachmans and palins in the party would make it clear that white women have a place. This new GOP would seem progressive enough to get a majorities of the white vote. You could still target minority voting, have law and order police killings of Browns, etc. you'd need the religious right to take a step back. The big issue is reducing the power of the rich in the GOP
1
@concerned
Unless you are clairvoyant, there is no reason to think that what you say about Clinton and the Progressives is nothing more than your own very subjective opinion.
You have either not noticed, or forgotten, that the Democratic platform has made a significant shift to the left as a result of the Primary campaigns.
Unless you are clairvoyant, there is no reason to think that what you say about Clinton and the Progressives is nothing more than your own very subjective opinion.
You have either not noticed, or forgotten, that the Democratic platform has made a significant shift to the left as a result of the Primary campaigns.
A really good article that lays out the problems clearly. Perhaps the Trump supporters will now support unions.
1
This column ignores every Clinton economic proposal that would help Trump's base: infrastructure spending, tax credits for child care, tuition-free college, improving the Affordable Care Act, an "exit tax" for companies that move overseas, etc. etc. -- all without raising taxes on the working class.
If you ignore the facts, it's easy to pretend they aren't there. But it doesn't make you right.
If you ignore the facts, it's easy to pretend they aren't there. But it doesn't make you right.
11
Programs that favor particular groups because they are poor, i.e. blacks or recent immigrants, are ethnic patronage or identity politics. but other programs that favor a particular group, i.e. tax cuts for the wealthy, are not identity politics but principled economic policies. When Paul Ryan's programs would result in a massive transfer of wealth from the needy(mostly blacks) to the already wealthy( mostly white) he is not practicing racial politics but something else. I see now that Mr, Douthat has explained it to me.
2
When Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion that the way to eliminate racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race, he was scornfully condemned by many "liberals".
The Democratic party endorses racial preferences which many white Americans oppose.
The Democrats have purposely chosen to increase racial animosity and divisiveness to motivate Black voters.
This has been successful politically in the short term but has severely damaged the country.
The Democratic party endorses racial preferences which many white Americans oppose.
The Democrats have purposely chosen to increase racial animosity and divisiveness to motivate Black voters.
This has been successful politically in the short term but has severely damaged the country.
3
Certainly I agree that the Democrats need to be more class-based (think Bernie Sanders) rather than race-based. That's just practical politics (think "majorities win elections") as well as common sense.
But I have a "litmus test" for conservatives who complain that policies are favoring blacks over themselves: why do you complain so much about blacks and never mention women?
The truth is: more affirmative action goes to white women than to blacks, and very few complain about it. (I suppose Mr. Trump does, in a way - by his boorish behavior towards them - but even he won't say it directly.).
Why is it OK to offer benefits to women but not to African or Hispanic Americans?
The obvious answer is that women and men live in the same ethnic community. Most men have mothers, sisters and/or wives. Relatively few whites have (acknowledged) black family members.
And that's the thing, Mr. Douhst. Whites and blacks both need to recognize each other as members of the same community, so that benefits to one group, if in need, really do benefit all. That's true patriotism, Mr. Douhat-one reason why Democrats are proudly waving the flag this season.
So, Mr. Douhat's points are well-taken - but what about he himself? As a Republican, does he seek to unify the country, to bring white, black and Hispanic Americans together as a single community? Or does he seek to further divide us, to promote petty hatters and resentments for the benefit of his party?
But I have a "litmus test" for conservatives who complain that policies are favoring blacks over themselves: why do you complain so much about blacks and never mention women?
The truth is: more affirmative action goes to white women than to blacks, and very few complain about it. (I suppose Mr. Trump does, in a way - by his boorish behavior towards them - but even he won't say it directly.).
Why is it OK to offer benefits to women but not to African or Hispanic Americans?
The obvious answer is that women and men live in the same ethnic community. Most men have mothers, sisters and/or wives. Relatively few whites have (acknowledged) black family members.
And that's the thing, Mr. Douhst. Whites and blacks both need to recognize each other as members of the same community, so that benefits to one group, if in need, really do benefit all. That's true patriotism, Mr. Douhat-one reason why Democrats are proudly waving the flag this season.
So, Mr. Douhat's points are well-taken - but what about he himself? As a Republican, does he seek to unify the country, to bring white, black and Hispanic Americans together as a single community? Or does he seek to further divide us, to promote petty hatters and resentments for the benefit of his party?
1
As a white woman, working full time, married with third kid on the way I'd love to know how affirmative action has helped me.
I work harder than my husband who I love but seriously try being a working Mom. I work harder than my male boss. And I work harder than my directs - two of whom were "diversity" hires. One is a chronic underperformed and yet due to her protected class will not be let go.
I've been promoted twice and yet - If I were my boss or the woman who works for me rather than a white woman and Mom I'd be at a much higher level.
I work harder than my husband who I love but seriously try being a working Mom. I work harder than my male boss. And I work harder than my directs - two of whom were "diversity" hires. One is a chronic underperformed and yet due to her protected class will not be let go.
I've been promoted twice and yet - If I were my boss or the woman who works for me rather than a white woman and Mom I'd be at a much higher level.
Why should Hispanics, but not Asians benefit from Affirmative Action? Hispanics have been discriminated against, but on no more unique in scale Irish, Jews, Italians, Polish. Affirmative Action should solely benefit Native Americans and African-Americans.
1
The Social Democratic Welfare State Model is very popular in western societies, with the US dragging up the rear, especially with no universal healthcare, and enormous tax loop holes for corporate America. The model non the less, offers something for everyone, but financially doesn't appear sustainable. Those who are employed above a certain level of income, and make no mistake, not the 1%, support the model and get no benefits directly. The Clintons will carry on as career insiders, as they are part of the so called elite ruling class. After the coronation, we should be concerned where the Sanders and Trump followers will turn, or what changes they will continue to push for and by what means. The beltway can't erect a wall on their side of the Potomac. Was born and raised in Chicago, the south side where violence is a daily occurrence is an example of LBJ great society A firmly in place African American Ghetto. Segregation is the chosen route to contain the killing.
1
IMHO, this was a rare, 'great' article from you Ross, until you got towards the end with:
"boils down to a desire to once again have policies that specifically benefit lower-middle-class whites — welfare for legacy industries and affirmative action for white men"
REALITY-CHECK: Today's under-funded, underwater Welfare State IS colorblind, if you meet the criteria, you get the benefits
TRUE, they do collect more data than a NASA mission to Mars, but that is only to support an army of social-workers, grant-writers, and glad-hander
"boils down to a desire to once again have policies that specifically benefit lower-middle-class whites — welfare for legacy industries and affirmative action for white men"
REALITY-CHECK: Today's under-funded, underwater Welfare State IS colorblind, if you meet the criteria, you get the benefits
TRUE, they do collect more data than a NASA mission to Mars, but that is only to support an army of social-workers, grant-writers, and glad-hander
1
Douthat's preference for 'the old left’s class politics to the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today' is transparently for easier opponents to run against. I'll take candidates who win. We can pressure officeholders issue by issue.
2
De jure discrimination against blacks extended through the 1950s and 1960s. That made it difficult for the grandparents and great-grandparents of today's young blacks to better themselves and baked in the correlation of being poor with being black.
Today when people rail against the poor for making bad choices and being lazy, they are willfully ignoring history. It makes them feel better about themselves, but it closes off avenues toward effective remedies.
The problem is that there are a lot of poor white people. They don't feel solidarity with poor blacks, but they have common problems and common interests. They are finally beginning to recognize that Republican ideology offers no hope for them, so politicians are fanning the fires of racism and xenophobia to distract them.
Democrats have also been pulled to the right and they are struggling to respond to the very real challenges of rising inequality and declining opportunity. If Republicans can make that seem to be favoritism for blacks, it will be that much harder to devise solutions that have a chance to work in our new environment. The challenge is not to right structural race-based wrongs; it's to provide alternatives for all those caught in a downward spiral.
Today when people rail against the poor for making bad choices and being lazy, they are willfully ignoring history. It makes them feel better about themselves, but it closes off avenues toward effective remedies.
The problem is that there are a lot of poor white people. They don't feel solidarity with poor blacks, but they have common problems and common interests. They are finally beginning to recognize that Republican ideology offers no hope for them, so politicians are fanning the fires of racism and xenophobia to distract them.
Democrats have also been pulled to the right and they are struggling to respond to the very real challenges of rising inequality and declining opportunity. If Republicans can make that seem to be favoritism for blacks, it will be that much harder to devise solutions that have a chance to work in our new environment. The challenge is not to right structural race-based wrongs; it's to provide alternatives for all those caught in a downward spiral.
2
Politics has always been about "us" versus "them."
That's just as true of American secular political parties as it is about the Chinese communist party determined to keep China a one party political structure or Saudi Arabia maintaining its Wahhabist theocracy.
The big difference between the US and others is that, with one very big exception and one not so small exception, our elected officials could be counted on to compromise doctrine in order to get things done.
The big exception of course was the clash of cultures that led to 1861. The not so small exception is the current strategy of the republican party to undermine trust in the federal government.
The difference today in the American political cultural wars is the political attitude of "you're either with us or you're against us."
This scorched earth policy has been adapted by the marginalized segments of our population, whether they be Y'all Qaedas occupying federal lands, Tea Partiers keeping federal hands off Medicare & Social Security, BLM activists rallying the Milwaukee hoods in the hood to riot over a slain criminal, or yes, even the economically disrupted white working class.
The simple truth is that only a small percentage of any population has the smarts, the capital, the drive to become political leaders of large scale movements. Their intent is to wield power. Their need is to rally like minded people to their cause. This is what powerful people do and what they will always do.
That's just as true of American secular political parties as it is about the Chinese communist party determined to keep China a one party political structure or Saudi Arabia maintaining its Wahhabist theocracy.
The big difference between the US and others is that, with one very big exception and one not so small exception, our elected officials could be counted on to compromise doctrine in order to get things done.
The big exception of course was the clash of cultures that led to 1861. The not so small exception is the current strategy of the republican party to undermine trust in the federal government.
The difference today in the American political cultural wars is the political attitude of "you're either with us or you're against us."
This scorched earth policy has been adapted by the marginalized segments of our population, whether they be Y'all Qaedas occupying federal lands, Tea Partiers keeping federal hands off Medicare & Social Security, BLM activists rallying the Milwaukee hoods in the hood to riot over a slain criminal, or yes, even the economically disrupted white working class.
The simple truth is that only a small percentage of any population has the smarts, the capital, the drive to become political leaders of large scale movements. Their intent is to wield power. Their need is to rally like minded people to their cause. This is what powerful people do and what they will always do.
1
@durk
"BLM activists rallying the Milwaukee hoods in the hood to riot over a slain criminal..."
It is this kind of comment, and way of thinking, that is a very good example of an "us" versus "them" mentality.
"BLM activists rallying the Milwaukee hoods in the hood to riot over a slain criminal..."
It is this kind of comment, and way of thinking, that is a very good example of an "us" versus "them" mentality.
1
The time honored tradition of cozying up for votes is not just about giving; it's also about taking.
It is one thing for a party to offer advantages to groups it hope to attract; it is quite another to actively deny rights to others.
The G.O.P.s voter suppression in some states might appease core supporters but the negative implications amount to hanging dirty laundry out to the whole community. It is, to paraphrase Clarence Thomas, a form of low tech lynching. It predates Trump. And it leaves no blood on the hands of the Democrats.
It is one thing for a party to offer advantages to groups it hope to attract; it is quite another to actively deny rights to others.
The G.O.P.s voter suppression in some states might appease core supporters but the negative implications amount to hanging dirty laundry out to the whole community. It is, to paraphrase Clarence Thomas, a form of low tech lynching. It predates Trump. And it leaves no blood on the hands of the Democrats.
3
The flawed (aren't they all) "pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism" as represented by the current Democratic Party is the most open to adaptation of al the choices you describe. Sanders is evidence of that.
And it best takes into account the ideals behind America's global leadership.
As the empire nation in a very dangerous world we cannot focus exclusively on domestic issues, though many of the disaffected wish we would/could. We can't.
This reality makes us vulnerable to the demagogues who simplify, lie, and critique, applying the bogus standard of 'perfection' to their opposition.
Ross, you can help here, but your ideological blinders keep you from fashioning reasonable arguments that will help our struggling democracy achieve its potential.
Get on board !! Country before ideology !!
And it best takes into account the ideals behind America's global leadership.
As the empire nation in a very dangerous world we cannot focus exclusively on domestic issues, though many of the disaffected wish we would/could. We can't.
This reality makes us vulnerable to the demagogues who simplify, lie, and critique, applying the bogus standard of 'perfection' to their opposition.
Ross, you can help here, but your ideological blinders keep you from fashioning reasonable arguments that will help our struggling democracy achieve its potential.
Get on board !! Country before ideology !!
1
Mr. Douthat is getting more interesting for sure. Reagan broke the back of the Unions, one of the main protectors of the working class, of whatever race or ethnicity. Black workers too were lifted up before then. That is what Reagan conservatism has done. It is true that globalization did take a lot of the manufacturing jobs that also were a mainstay of the same group. Joe Bageant in his memoir "Rainbow Pie" describes the devolution of a society that has lost it's way, losing the grounding of religion and the old morality of previous generations. Colleges too have to take the blame for not being connected to the work force, as vocational schools are in Germany. There is still a lot of other answers than white identity politics, which only resurrect a lost racism. That is not the answer. America has to stay more competitive in the global market and workers rights have to be protected.
67
Mr Douthat, It seems to me that you put your finger on it -- The Sanders left-wing has identified the problems and their solutions.
1
A lot of hooey. This is not just a group of racist uneducated white voters backing Trump. 5000 people showed up for his rally a week ago in the highly educated Blue State of Connecticut. These are voters angry with being taken for granted while their jobs are outsourced and illegal immigrants are preferred to the native born. Who is paying for all this liberal virtue signaling? Their is only so long that liberals can spend other people's money before the unwashed ridiculed masses revolt.
4
Indeed is painfully contrived moral and intellectual equivocation - this article.
Please add one more to the thought process that begat this gobbledygook. I stand center, and slight left. I stand in admiration of the right's ability to implement evil, and in disgust at the left's weakness to win anything.
I really don't care anymore what the issues of Trump's acolytes are. Period.
So hateful, spiteful, violence prone, bigoted, intolerant, know-nothing are they, that they are beginning to embarrass republicans (a group that I thought was incapable of humanity, empathy or normal capacity to feel embarrassment). This would be the rank and file republicans who want all extreme convenience and socialism for themselves, and rugged individualism for everyone else (abortion on demand if their daughters are pregnant, stem cell research if their dad is suffering, equal rights for gays only when they are children of republicans, welfare when only whites get it (er, social security), free healthcare only when they get to choose who gets it and who does not, immigration to work on farms, in hospitality, in meat packing and construction but not anything else).
The left's "one the one hand this, and on the other hand that" is what lies at the bottom of everything rotten in American politics and American discourse.
Anyone who justifies the mob clamoring toward Trump based on faux empathy - as do in this article - deserves public ridicule.
Kalidan
Please add one more to the thought process that begat this gobbledygook. I stand center, and slight left. I stand in admiration of the right's ability to implement evil, and in disgust at the left's weakness to win anything.
I really don't care anymore what the issues of Trump's acolytes are. Period.
So hateful, spiteful, violence prone, bigoted, intolerant, know-nothing are they, that they are beginning to embarrass republicans (a group that I thought was incapable of humanity, empathy or normal capacity to feel embarrassment). This would be the rank and file republicans who want all extreme convenience and socialism for themselves, and rugged individualism for everyone else (abortion on demand if their daughters are pregnant, stem cell research if their dad is suffering, equal rights for gays only when they are children of republicans, welfare when only whites get it (er, social security), free healthcare only when they get to choose who gets it and who does not, immigration to work on farms, in hospitality, in meat packing and construction but not anything else).
The left's "one the one hand this, and on the other hand that" is what lies at the bottom of everything rotten in American politics and American discourse.
Anyone who justifies the mob clamoring toward Trump based on faux empathy - as do in this article - deserves public ridicule.
Kalidan
5
The GOP would not have had such a hard time wrestling the party back from Trump had the main players not endorsed him. Now the GOP will have a much more difficult time separating itself from racism. I don't see the Dem white moderates as fracturing from the minority poor the way Mr. Douthat does. I see many white moderates as believers in immigration and social welfare, even when it is at odds with white moderate well being.
78
Your crude viewpoints on race are astounding. You're complete lack of understanding of institutional racism is like speaking with someone from the 50s, or reading the comments section in the WSJ Op-ed pages; in other words, a typical Republican. I don't find your views provocative; I find them sadly lacking in vision, let alone common sense. Too bad you've been a cheerleader for the party of Trump. Your solution: Minorities are to blame for their own poor condition. New conservatism, same as the old.
6
Jeez, this is a tortured essay with a garbled, incomprehensible conclusion. It's kind what we have come to expect from Ross: nonsense.
The NYTimes surely can do better than this. It really needs to look for new talent to bring some thoughtful conservatives to the opinion section. Oops sorry, that's wrong. He is thoughtful, just not intelligent. David Brooks is better but too often goes out into La La land.
Quality conservative opinion.... maybe it doesn't exist any more.
The NYTimes surely can do better than this. It really needs to look for new talent to bring some thoughtful conservatives to the opinion section. Oops sorry, that's wrong. He is thoughtful, just not intelligent. David Brooks is better but too often goes out into La La land.
Quality conservative opinion.... maybe it doesn't exist any more.
11
The Lobbyists are funded by wealthy interests to write and push legislation that favors them. Lobbying is a terrific investment for a corporation because the return through lower taxes and favorable legislation always means a higher bottom line but rarely means higher tax revenues. Optional Union membership is set to destroy the one group that speaks for workers. That is why you should pay your dues.
5
Ross is going to need some Motrin and a massage after the contortions he just went through to justify the racism unleashed by the Republican Party
8
Motrin??? Opoid might be more effective.
What I have observed of the blue collar men and women who are holding fast as Republicans generally don't really know what they want. Most have been propagandized (Fox News) to the point of not having a real political vocabulary.
The waste of time and money that is spent by people who are paying people to analyze the Trump phenomena is truly astounding. He is not real, like all the information on Fox. You have been duped to even listen to him, he knows it, and would steal from everybody who falls for it. Twenty years of Fox fantasyland has resulted in this. Fraud, the likes of we have probably never seen before.
The waste of time and money that is spent by people who are paying people to analyze the Trump phenomena is truly astounding. He is not real, like all the information on Fox. You have been duped to even listen to him, he knows it, and would steal from everybody who falls for it. Twenty years of Fox fantasyland has resulted in this. Fraud, the likes of we have probably never seen before.
6
And the "get government out of my life" crowd will have to stop turning to the government to help them do it. Industries change, technologies change and the supply and demand of labor change. Be resentful that coal is going away, fine, but figure something out. That's capitalism. That's America. And if you need help, and the government helps provide it, through job retraining, for example, take that help and shut up. That, too, is America. There are no easy solutions to change. Technologies have always destroyed some industries while advancing others. It's up to each of us to find the right balance of personal initiative and government assistance. After all, the government DOES build the roads that get you to work. What to do? You can blame technology, you can blame people of a different color, you can blame globalism or immigration, you can blame the government. But you have to look in the mirror once in a while. And, for gosh sake, stopping buying into miracle pain-relief remedies like the one being hawked by Donald Trump.
10
The republican conservative agenda is to avoid taxes for the wealthy every day in every way. We have a revenue problem because taxes paid are way too low to support our obligations. 40 years of
Conservatism in congress has starved our institutions and hobbled our infrastructure. Education is next by syphoning funds in support of charters which means the weakest will be further left behind. We have fewer government workers today than in the 1970's and our population is higher. We don't do maintenance and we don't invest and that is all due to tax breaks for corporations and billionaires, unfunded wars, and unfunded Medicare part d.
It will never trickle down.
Conservatism in congress has starved our institutions and hobbled our infrastructure. Education is next by syphoning funds in support of charters which means the weakest will be further left behind. We have fewer government workers today than in the 1970's and our population is higher. We don't do maintenance and we don't invest and that is all due to tax breaks for corporations and billionaires, unfunded wars, and unfunded Medicare part d.
It will never trickle down.
10
Actually, white people are the largest group accessing welfare programs like food stamps. It is conservative politicians wishing to cut those programs who have pushed the myth of the welfare queen with its racial subtext of "those people" are taking your money. Douthat should also realize that liberals, including wealthy ones, are not conservatives. Wealthy liberal areas often have better social programs with strong political support to pay for them with public money. Intraparty class warfare is much more a Republican thing.
9
Who is on earth would ever consider voting for someone who claims that Global Climate Change is a Chinese hoax to undermine the US economy?
The truth is that Donald Trump does not have the mental stamina to handle this campaign. He has the attention span of a gnat. It is the reason he comes up with bronze age ideas such as building great walls for solving our modern problems. Not very smart.
The bigger question is what is the mental stamina of voters who fall for the bromides of his campaign? Not very smart either.
The truth is that Donald Trump does not have the mental stamina to handle this campaign. He has the attention span of a gnat. It is the reason he comes up with bronze age ideas such as building great walls for solving our modern problems. Not very smart.
The bigger question is what is the mental stamina of voters who fall for the bromides of his campaign? Not very smart either.
5
No matter how Mr. Douthat twists and turns his academic phraseology, the identities of the two parties has solidified : Republicans stand for the restoration of white privilege while the Democrats try to find a way to have people of all races and religions coexist in peace. Sorry all you writers and professors out there, it's really that simple.
264
Haha, right. Because what is going on in Milwaukee now (100% caused by the left) is "coexisting" in peace.
3
"a candidate who promises to make America safe for racism once again?"
Perhaps the most hateful and ignorant article written about Trump and conservatives in general.
Douthat is an elitist partisan hack.
The Progressives love to stereotype people, classify, and prejudge.
That may not be racism, but it sure is prejudice.
Perhaps the most hateful and ignorant article written about Trump and conservatives in general.
Douthat is an elitist partisan hack.
The Progressives love to stereotype people, classify, and prejudge.
That may not be racism, but it sure is prejudice.
2
Where is your example of "white identity politics"? This inference is YOUR racial bias. "affirmative actions for white men"? Further evidence of swinging at Trump as pinata. You are blindfolded if you can't see the conservative ideas of "lifting all boats" includes ALL boats. Liberals still have to prove to the independents still not committed, where the "racism" resides. CNN crowed yesterday that Trump should not go to Milwaukee because he's only polling 1% with black voters. Is that your basis for using the term "racism"? Very weak. Many of the those "insecure lower middle class" people see the attacks on Trump as racist against him. How would they be wrong?
As long as Republicans give preeminence to their dogmatic triad of anti-regulation, tax cuts and no government spending, they will continue to be the anti-worker and anti-poor people party. And the the only reliable way for them to win, at least part of that demographic is to appeal to the "us against them" mentality. It's always, "if you are up, then I must be down" and never "the rising tide lifts all boats".
The biggest con has been that the party that wants to privatize government, eliminate regulations and cut taxes is somehow pro-worker. This particular con game is like a shell game that only succeeds as long as the marks are distracted. Trump is a master at this con. Casino Don uses bigotry, jingoism and glitz to distract the marks, while he toes the pro-wealth party line.
"Neo-liberalism" is just a Republican meme intended to distract the marks from the truth - the Democratic Party may sometimes look like Republicans when they focus on balancing budgets and promoting trade and business, but the Democrats favor including all in the promise of prosperity.
The biggest con has been that the party that wants to privatize government, eliminate regulations and cut taxes is somehow pro-worker. This particular con game is like a shell game that only succeeds as long as the marks are distracted. Trump is a master at this con. Casino Don uses bigotry, jingoism and glitz to distract the marks, while he toes the pro-wealth party line.
"Neo-liberalism" is just a Republican meme intended to distract the marks from the truth - the Democratic Party may sometimes look like Republicans when they focus on balancing budgets and promoting trade and business, but the Democrats favor including all in the promise of prosperity.
9
This is one of the most incoherent op-ed pieces I've read by Ross Douthat. I do not understand what he is trying to say here except that there is a lot of inequality when it comes to the races in America. We know that. We know that the GOP has thrived on exploiting the rage that many white Americans feel when they see members of any minority given preferences or assistance. What the GOP never does is point out that whites have far more privileges than minorities even when those whites are poor or lower middle class. If the GOP was truly interested in fixing things rather than exacerbating them they would stop trying to destroy programs meant to help poor working Americans and extend them so that they help all working Americans. The GOP would try to see that there is a real social safety net in America that helps all who need it rather than cutting out at the bare survival level which can lead to falling back into poverty.
The fact is that the GOP has failed America in its zeal to maintain power. They, not the Democrats who they demonize, have tried to prevent the working poor from voting. They are the party of NO. They are the ones who have refused to fund programs, to help ameliorate unemployment, to participate in helping all Americans have decent healthy lives. They prefer to tell us that raising taxes is a job killer. How about not being able to find a job or get the medical care you need? Those can be life killers.
The fact is that the GOP has failed America in its zeal to maintain power. They, not the Democrats who they demonize, have tried to prevent the working poor from voting. They are the party of NO. They are the ones who have refused to fund programs, to help ameliorate unemployment, to participate in helping all Americans have decent healthy lives. They prefer to tell us that raising taxes is a job killer. How about not being able to find a job or get the medical care you need? Those can be life killers.
20
While I think there is not enough understanding of poor whites in this country, the refusal to address the racial issues of this country is the root of this anxiety. Everyone knows this issue must be addressed and they don't want to do it, thus the anxiety, and perhaps even why the increased anger.
And until that happens there can't be change or forgiveness.
And until that happens there can't be change or forgiveness.
3
After reading both Ross Douthat and David Brooks for years, I have concluded that liberals understand conservatives way better than conservatives understand liberals. Conservatives need to stop imputing diametrically opposed goals and motives to liberals. The best examples are taxes or the size of government. Conservatives want to lower taxes and reduce government out of principle (not well-thought, but that's what it is). Therefore they assume that liberals want to raise taxes (with no nuance) and increase government (out of principle). This is incorrect. Liberals have goals that can be accomplished most easily by changing the distribution of the costs, or imposing regulations. They are means to an end, not a goal.
29
For clarification , the op ed written by sheriff Joseph Clark of Milwaukee, published in The Hill and available at Real Clear Politics dot com can't be beat.
For clarification, the op ed written by sheriff Joseph Clark of Milwaukee, published on The Hill and available at Real Clear Pilitics dot com can't be beat.
Mr. Douthat, you left out of your analysis a critical fact: conservatives have historically targeted the "new forgotten man," cultivating these white men without a college education who are suffering socioeconomic dislocations and persuading them that their grievances and disadvantages are due to liberals who favor minorities. Conservatives have strategically blamed liberals and minorities for the predicament of the forgotten man; conservatives stir racial tensions, transform the "forgotten men" into resentful white bigots.
These "new forgotten men" are not just the angry white men working at Walmart for minimum wage after their middle-class jobs were moved to Mexico and China. These are the high school graduates and GED blue collar skilled workers who lost their jobs because their work was automated by technology (which BTW is now targeting the work of college educated white collar career employees).
The "new forgotten man" is the past farm worker who lost his job because tractors replaced horses, combines and cultivators replaced labor, America moved from an agrarian to an industrial economy. The "new forgotten man" is the man who worked in an industrial economy that required a high school education, which has been transforming to an information economy that requires life-long college education.
Neither liberals nor conservatives can bring back the industrial economy. But unlike conservatives, liberals don't blame the new forgotten man's predicament on minorities.
These "new forgotten men" are not just the angry white men working at Walmart for minimum wage after their middle-class jobs were moved to Mexico and China. These are the high school graduates and GED blue collar skilled workers who lost their jobs because their work was automated by technology (which BTW is now targeting the work of college educated white collar career employees).
The "new forgotten man" is the past farm worker who lost his job because tractors replaced horses, combines and cultivators replaced labor, America moved from an agrarian to an industrial economy. The "new forgotten man" is the man who worked in an industrial economy that required a high school education, which has been transforming to an information economy that requires life-long college education.
Neither liberals nor conservatives can bring back the industrial economy. But unlike conservatives, liberals don't blame the new forgotten man's predicament on minorities.
315
JABarry writes, "But unlike conservatives, liberals don't blame the new forgotten man's predicament on minorities."
No, instead, they blame it on blaming. The forgotten man's predicament is due to his bigotry, don't you know?
Seems to me there's enough bigotry to go around in this story.
No, instead, they blame it on blaming. The forgotten man's predicament is due to his bigotry, don't you know?
Seems to me there's enough bigotry to go around in this story.
1
Does the Democrats Party covet the black men without a college education?
1
"The new forgotten man's predicament" is correctly blamed by liberals on a minority, the business elite who made the decisions to export working class jobs in pursuit of ever greater profits, which they then hide overseas to avoid taxes. “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” 1 Timothy 6:10.
1
Which Trump proposals does Ross Douthat consider racist? Trump’s proposed suspension on immigration visas would apply mostly to Middle Eastern countries that are predominantly white. Trump’s proposed border wall would keep out mostly whites. According to the Census Bureau, the United States was 77.4 percent white in 2014, up three percentage points from 74.4 percent in 2012, due primarily to immigration for Latin America. (Most Latino immigrants are white.) Besides, there’s little difference between Trump’s border wall and Hillary Clinton’s border fence. Hillary voted to expand and extend the existing border fence, saying “It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of fencing within 18 months.” On the campaign trail, Hillary said "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders." Trump’s wall and Hillary’s fence would serve the same purpose.
6
No, most Latino immigrants are not white. Most are mestizos (mix of Amerindian and white ancestors). It's just that to be classified as Amerindian in the U.S., you need an official tribal ID, which most people don't have. So they get classified as white.
1
Trump's acolytes bugle that all his crazy edicts are because he is not a politician. He is the very definition of a politician. He is playing to a segment of our society that feels disenfranchised. I wonder how many people who are genuinely happy, kind, and caring, will vote for him. And, do the disenfranchised truly think that this man has their interests in mind? He certainly is not one of them.
115
I am surprised by the insight in this article, which I mistakenly thought Douthat was incapable of.
It is true that liberals have introduced a new racism that blames "white patriarchs" for America's ills, that is amazingly divisive, and may fracture american politics long after Trump is no longer a political force.
Trump's popularity stems from his appeal to the sense of injustice spawned by this reverse racism.
But solutions are beyond the understanding of the poorly educated voters who dominate the Trump rallies. And it is a bit late for Trump to refashion his argument so that it is palatable to intellectuals.
But there is a strand of potential resolution that deserves discussion, because it provides a potential long-term resolution.
That is focusing on population growth. Like global warming before Gore, population growth is an inconvenient truth that has been ignored, that has been censored from discussion.
Part of the reason may be that it conflicts with religion and with outmoded notions of liberty, according to which women should be allowed to bear as many children as they feel like.
Thus Joe Biden characterizes China's one-child policy as "repugnant," even as he clings to religion that regards birth control as sinful.
Americans cannot see that pronatlism is a deep from of prejudice that sets up a long term battle to achieve more representation in the next generation by a competitive desire for large families.
This is turn is the root of prejudice.
It is true that liberals have introduced a new racism that blames "white patriarchs" for America's ills, that is amazingly divisive, and may fracture american politics long after Trump is no longer a political force.
Trump's popularity stems from his appeal to the sense of injustice spawned by this reverse racism.
But solutions are beyond the understanding of the poorly educated voters who dominate the Trump rallies. And it is a bit late for Trump to refashion his argument so that it is palatable to intellectuals.
But there is a strand of potential resolution that deserves discussion, because it provides a potential long-term resolution.
That is focusing on population growth. Like global warming before Gore, population growth is an inconvenient truth that has been ignored, that has been censored from discussion.
Part of the reason may be that it conflicts with religion and with outmoded notions of liberty, according to which women should be allowed to bear as many children as they feel like.
Thus Joe Biden characterizes China's one-child policy as "repugnant," even as he clings to religion that regards birth control as sinful.
Americans cannot see that pronatlism is a deep from of prejudice that sets up a long term battle to achieve more representation in the next generation by a competitive desire for large families.
This is turn is the root of prejudice.
44
Huh?
Ever heard of separation of church and state?
When China (government) mandates a cap of 1 child. That is the state.
"x" religion doesn't approve of the use of birth control. That is the church.
You can always CHOOSE to leave a religion or ignore one of your religion's tenets. You can not ignore a governments mandate unless you want to suffer imprisonment or death.
Ever heard of separation of church and state?
When China (government) mandates a cap of 1 child. That is the state.
"x" religion doesn't approve of the use of birth control. That is the church.
You can always CHOOSE to leave a religion or ignore one of your religion's tenets. You can not ignore a governments mandate unless you want to suffer imprisonment or death.
False equivalence. "Joe Biden characterizes China's one-child policy as "repugnant," even as he clings to religion that regards birth control as sinful." China's one child policy was instituted because the Communist party leaders saw that they would soon unable to feed the populace unless population growth was curtailed. It resulted in "repugnant" procedures such as forced abortions and elective abortions for male sex selection, the latter made much more prevalent by vast proliferation of ultrasound machines. In the old days, infant daughters were often abandoned to die on a mountainside or in a forest. In one generation the law also resulted in a dearth of women for marriage. The policy has been relaxed considerably in recent years because of these 'unintended' results and the party's desire to remain in power.
As to "religion that regards birth control as sinful", our first and 14th amendments insure that this "sin", as well as that of abortion will never (again) be against the law (as they were before Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade). 'Cafeteria' Catholics have long violated the proscripton anyway; Catholic women use birth control and get abortions at about the same rates as non-Catholics. Most Catholic politicians make it clear that they would never impose their religion's beliefs on the general population, quite unlike fundamentalist Christian sects, who doggedly pursue more and more restrictions on abortion.
As to "religion that regards birth control as sinful", our first and 14th amendments insure that this "sin", as well as that of abortion will never (again) be against the law (as they were before Griswold v Connecticut and Roe v Wade). 'Cafeteria' Catholics have long violated the proscripton anyway; Catholic women use birth control and get abortions at about the same rates as non-Catholics. Most Catholic politicians make it clear that they would never impose their religion's beliefs on the general population, quite unlike fundamentalist Christian sects, who doggedly pursue more and more restrictions on abortion.
Poor Johnny-One-Note!
This sounds like an apologia for Trump's supporters. By trying to explain and contextualize the racism inherent in Trump's worldview, Douthat is tacitly giving hime, and his supporters cover for their vile and destructive perspectives and actions. Douthat also fails to connect the Trump movement's racism with its misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia. Without connecting those dots, and without acknowledging that, in the end, there is no rational explanation or excuse for these views, Douthat's analysis cannot be taken seriously.
10
Come on! Just because Donald's Veterans Affairs Advisor Al Baldasaro urged an audience to boo a gay soldier, or told a group that no one on a battlefield should be expected to protect gay soldiers who might be ogling their behinds.....
He also said HRC should be in front of a firing squad, but .........
The ladies at the Trump Rally wearing shirts adorned with a logo of red, white and blue testicles said it all .........Maybe Mr. Douthat missed them. Or the Donald's call to arms. Which could explain his attempt to apply reason to this hate fest.
He also said HRC should be in front of a firing squad, but .........
The ladies at the Trump Rally wearing shirts adorned with a logo of red, white and blue testicles said it all .........Maybe Mr. Douthat missed them. Or the Donald's call to arms. Which could explain his attempt to apply reason to this hate fest.
3
The GOP has been actively seeking to disenfranchise black and Hispanic voters with gerrymandering and voter suppression laws since Jim Crow and Trump has says NOTHING about those Republican "outreaches" to minorities; he expects to attract their votes? Instead he advocates trickle down voodoo economics for them and tax breaks for folks like himself. Why Blame Hillary for having the loyalty of blacks and Hispanics. His personal insults to almost anyone he dislikes doesn't endure him to any thinking person out of middle school.
16
People liked the idea that a a rising tide lifts all boats - no one minded getting a chance to sail, and fewer people saw trying to get everyone in a boat as a problem.
It was the corollary that was the problem: a sinking tide grounds them.
Trump appeals to the simple instinct to blame other boaters and not the tide for their problems. It is a lot easier to say that there are too many boaters - potentially fixable - than to say there is too little water. So he pushes xenophobia and race-baiting.
Douthat and other conservatives bank all their economic theory on the idea that the tide will lift again (if only we lower taxes and kill regulation.) They have no solutions for the probable reality that we are in a long term drought. And that will drive the divisions and animosity deeper down into both party's bases.
It was the corollary that was the problem: a sinking tide grounds them.
Trump appeals to the simple instinct to blame other boaters and not the tide for their problems. It is a lot easier to say that there are too many boaters - potentially fixable - than to say there is too little water. So he pushes xenophobia and race-baiting.
Douthat and other conservatives bank all their economic theory on the idea that the tide will lift again (if only we lower taxes and kill regulation.) They have no solutions for the probable reality that we are in a long term drought. And that will drive the divisions and animosity deeper down into both party's bases.
17
Excellent, your metaphor gets to the heart of the issue.
The author should cite the source for his statistics on the use of welfare services by immigrant versus non-immigrant families (I suspect it is the conservative Center for Immigration Studies which has a strong immigration reduction mission, despite branding itself as non-partisan). Most immigrants come to this country seeking a better existence for their families, are hard working and resourceful, and contribute far more to society than they will ever get back. There is evidence to support these statements, but the author will need to turn to sources other than conservative think tanks to find it.
18
No, there is not evidence to support that.
You Americans just don't seem the get the one basic point, you are all immigrants. The white average american, all immigrants or children of immigrants. So is this about "I was here first, its all mine and you not getting any". I was taught sharing is a good thing, but maybe this is not a thing in the US. One reaps what one sows.
16
Don't lecture us. The UK has not been immune to the difficult issue of immigration, legal and illegal. Until you deal with the migrants in Calais clamoring to get to the UK, so just move along. Nothing to see here.
How's that Brexit working out for you?
How's that Brexit working out for you?
2
Unfortunately for the point you try to make, we accept 1.1 million legal immigrants a year. Our problem is with illegality, not diversity.
2
The Trump Phenomenon could prove to be our undoing as a Nation, and sitting here in a state of moribund fascination, is self-defeating to say the least. Rise America and Save The Eagle!
Never mind the two Political Parties at war. It has happened before, but let us not give away our Country away. This American wishes Mr. Trump no harm, but twenty years ago, a prize would have been given at a parlor game dinner to the person coming up with the most implausible of nominees.
A young black T.V. cable technician visited over a year ago, and he said 'I am going to vote for Trump', as we shared a big laugh. I wonder if he is singing a different tune today, while here my Country reminds me of a loved one recuperating from an injury. In remission and on the way to recovery?
All of us, whether we are the poorest in the Nation, the Native Indian, descendants of slaves, back to the first Governor of Maryland, or a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, this is our time to take a stand. We cannot afford to gamble with Trump.
Never mind if Hillary Clinton is a super-rich woman. Not all of us want to sit at her guest table. None of this is easy, but she is an American and is fighting for all of us. She cares. I believe in her because in the midst of our Country in turmoil, she offers a feeling of being grounded and stable against all odds. Great courage. I know because I come from the potato fields of Ireland and she is a woman of substance.
Please do not surrender.
Never mind the two Political Parties at war. It has happened before, but let us not give away our Country away. This American wishes Mr. Trump no harm, but twenty years ago, a prize would have been given at a parlor game dinner to the person coming up with the most implausible of nominees.
A young black T.V. cable technician visited over a year ago, and he said 'I am going to vote for Trump', as we shared a big laugh. I wonder if he is singing a different tune today, while here my Country reminds me of a loved one recuperating from an injury. In remission and on the way to recovery?
All of us, whether we are the poorest in the Nation, the Native Indian, descendants of slaves, back to the first Governor of Maryland, or a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, this is our time to take a stand. We cannot afford to gamble with Trump.
Never mind if Hillary Clinton is a super-rich woman. Not all of us want to sit at her guest table. None of this is easy, but she is an American and is fighting for all of us. She cares. I believe in her because in the midst of our Country in turmoil, she offers a feeling of being grounded and stable against all odds. Great courage. I know because I come from the potato fields of Ireland and she is a woman of substance.
Please do not surrender.
184
This is more complicated than it needs to be. White men don't have the claim that minority groups have. They have not been the victims of irrational, institutional, systematic discrimination the way minority groups have. And pretty soon the minorities are going to be the majority. If the way these lower middle class white men are behaving now is any indication, things will get worse before they get better. But columns like this that reinforce imaginary slights and biases don't help the situation. What needs to happen is someone has to tell the no college white guys the truth about themselves. And that their best chance is to join forces with, not fight against, the party that's trying to make things better for everyone rather than the party that's all about corporations and the rich. The choice is clear: Stop complaining for a minute and think.
14
Please read about the history of the Irish. They were subject to slavery and discrimination just as brutal as Africans were. Yet you don't hear about them pulling guns on cops, getting shot, and rioting about it.
1
The existing comments include most of what I might say, except for a response to Douthat's "pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today". Elite? If anyone is 'Elite" it is the rich and super-rich, who have until recently totally controlled the actual actions of the Republican party - whose primary mission is reducing their tax burden. I also hear "Intellectual Elite" from his side of the discussion, wherein the notion that being "Intellectual" makes one "Elite", and that being "Intellectual" is a bad thing. Sounds like the dumb kids in school getting their revenge.
9
The terminology in which Douthat revels is about as relevant and revealing as "Guelph" and "Ghibelline."
1989-1992 marked the end of the Cold War and the ascendancy of the "Boomers" as the dominant actors in national politics. Since then, the electoral map has looked pretty much the same.
"Globalization" - -i.e. the disparate regional impact of "globalization" -- really is driving national politics. In the 21st century, "Blue" and "Red" have more meaning than "liberal" and "conservative" or "left" and "right."
Urbanization is more predictive of how a country or state will vote than gender or racial, ethnic or religious make up.
Gender polarization is more important than racial, ethnic or religious "identity" politics: e.g. the defection of women in the Philadelphia suburbs has made PA "blue." The "Supreme Court" issue in Presidential elections is a euphemism for abortion.
Race and ethnicity explain little or nothing. Since 1992, the three whitest states (per 2015 census data) have gone from staunchly or usually Republican to reliably "blue" (VT, ME, NH). The fourth whitest state (WV) has gone in the opposite direction.
1989-1992 marked the end of the Cold War and the ascendancy of the "Boomers" as the dominant actors in national politics. Since then, the electoral map has looked pretty much the same.
"Globalization" - -i.e. the disparate regional impact of "globalization" -- really is driving national politics. In the 21st century, "Blue" and "Red" have more meaning than "liberal" and "conservative" or "left" and "right."
Urbanization is more predictive of how a country or state will vote than gender or racial, ethnic or religious make up.
Gender polarization is more important than racial, ethnic or religious "identity" politics: e.g. the defection of women in the Philadelphia suburbs has made PA "blue." The "Supreme Court" issue in Presidential elections is a euphemism for abortion.
Race and ethnicity explain little or nothing. Since 1992, the three whitest states (per 2015 census data) have gone from staunchly or usually Republican to reliably "blue" (VT, ME, NH). The fourth whitest state (WV) has gone in the opposite direction.
5
More sophistry from Douhat in defining the alternatives and the complete nonsense about the Democratic coalition fracturing. The over simplification of New Deal history is a typical example. Much new deal legislation did discriminate against blacks particularly in the South because Southern Democratic votes were required to pass liberal new deal legislation which incidentally indirectly furthered desegregation through devices like the Wagner act. When Southerners woke up to what was happening in the late 40's they started to turn against New Deal legislation. The whole issue is another of those bizarre paradoxes of US history like the fact we went to war with the racist Nazi regime with a segregated army. All grist to the mill of Douhat's intellectual dishonesty. The Republican coalition of plutocrats, preachers and white nationalists is falling apart (largely because of its long term embrace of identity politics) and Douhat is attempting to project that process of decay onto the current Democratic coalition. This in fact is in pretty good shape as evidenced by the fact that Obama was the first Democrats since FDR to win over 50% of the vote in two successive elections and it seems likely Clinton will make it a third. Incidentally, the Katznelson book is outstanding but its telling of history is much more complicated and truthful than Douhat's.
82
Yeah, Ross loves to take a dig at Dems whenever he can toss it in. I wonder if he does that in everyday conversations? "Kids, look over there at that run-down home with a car in the front yard - must be an idiotic Obama supporter!" Of course my example was more subtle than Ross typically is, but you get the point.
2
@Freedom Furgle
WV
Exactly so. His type are totally despicable. He's a very bright guy who just makes stuff up in order to adhere to the party line while purporting to be objective or preaching some higher truth. He's the sort of paid apologist you used to see in the USSR, or Germany in the 30's, or of whom there a armies still around like Manafort or shills making up stuff about "Clean" coal, or the health giving properties of tobacco. Odious. Totally odious. One prefers the nut cases. At least they believe what they're saying.
WV
Exactly so. His type are totally despicable. He's a very bright guy who just makes stuff up in order to adhere to the party line while purporting to be objective or preaching some higher truth. He's the sort of paid apologist you used to see in the USSR, or Germany in the 30's, or of whom there a armies still around like Manafort or shills making up stuff about "Clean" coal, or the health giving properties of tobacco. Odious. Totally odious. One prefers the nut cases. At least they believe what they're saying.
2
The real problems of Republistan and 'conservatism' are rooted deeply in cultured stupidity, hypocrisy, and a milieu of factual incoherence.
These character traits and negative attributes are the current building blocks of the Republican Party.
Let's look at food stamps, a program enthusiastically supported by the Democratic Party to assist poor people and a program repeatedly put on the chopping block by the Republican Party.
While it's true that food stamp assistance benefits a higher percentage of the minority populations vs. the white population, it's also true that the majority of food stamp payments go to white Americans due to the fact there are many more white Americans than minorities in America.
SNAP food stamps go to 47 million Americans, of whom 43% are White, 33% are Black, 19% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian.
But the minority SNAP populations logically vote Democratic.
The white SNAP populations tend to vote Republican.
According to a TIME analysis of county-by-county food stamp enrollment, GOP politicians represent more districts with a higher participation rate in SNAP than Democrats.
The place in the USA with the highest SNAP participation rate (52%) is 99% white and 95% Republican.
Owsley County, Kentucky has the lowest median household income in the country, but they're the most prolific food stampers.
The food stamp capital of the US is almost all white and Republican.
The political patronage of Up Is Down stupidity is the real issue in Republistan.
These character traits and negative attributes are the current building blocks of the Republican Party.
Let's look at food stamps, a program enthusiastically supported by the Democratic Party to assist poor people and a program repeatedly put on the chopping block by the Republican Party.
While it's true that food stamp assistance benefits a higher percentage of the minority populations vs. the white population, it's also true that the majority of food stamp payments go to white Americans due to the fact there are many more white Americans than minorities in America.
SNAP food stamps go to 47 million Americans, of whom 43% are White, 33% are Black, 19% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian.
But the minority SNAP populations logically vote Democratic.
The white SNAP populations tend to vote Republican.
According to a TIME analysis of county-by-county food stamp enrollment, GOP politicians represent more districts with a higher participation rate in SNAP than Democrats.
The place in the USA with the highest SNAP participation rate (52%) is 99% white and 95% Republican.
Owsley County, Kentucky has the lowest median household income in the country, but they're the most prolific food stampers.
The food stamp capital of the US is almost all white and Republican.
The political patronage of Up Is Down stupidity is the real issue in Republistan.
542
I am so happy that it was a county in KY, and not WV, that has the highest level of food stamp participants. I know I shouldn't take any joy in that fact, but I'm honestly happy to hear that it's not a county in my state. Go WV!
Among the 254 counties where food stamp recipients doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them in the 2012 presidential election.
2
So your point is what, that people should be more racially conscious, and be okay with our social welfare programs because, guess what, they help whites more than blacks? Maybe the lesson here is that people who are somewhat hostile to the social welfare state are actually not as motivated as you think by racial animus, not that they are motivated by racial animus but are stupid about it. (Indeed, I believe there's a certain amount of evidence that some working class people who are somewhat hostile to food stamps and other social welfare spending are hostile not because of any particular racial animus but because they've seen, up close and personally, that although people legitimately need help there is also quite a lot of abuse of the system.)
1
Trump is a deeply troubled individual...a pathological liar and serial narcissist devoid of intellectual stamina or interest. That he's a racist seems obvious enough. But so do Republicans who have loathed and hated Obama for eight years. They, like Trump, deny the obvious.
There are no excuses for this. Working class and lower middle class white males don't like their plight, such as it is, but they would like being the target of racism even less. They think they have been left behind, but they still have white privilege. As long as Republicans continue to appeal to this, American can never really be great.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
There are no excuses for this. Working class and lower middle class white males don't like their plight, such as it is, but they would like being the target of racism even less. They think they have been left behind, but they still have white privilege. As long as Republicans continue to appeal to this, American can never really be great.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
44
The "deeply troubled individual" who is Trump, is true for millions of Americans, sadly, whose voices he airs, supposedly.
1
so your argument to those working class whites who think they've been left behind is "it could be worse" and "you would like being targets of racism even less?" Those things might well both be true (indeed, i think they unquestionably are true) but saying them is not likely to bring those white working class people around to your side, any more than telling black activists in the US that they are better off here than they would be in the Sudan, or Haiti, for instance, is likely to get them to be quiet about their grievances here. That's just not the sort of argument that moves people.
@Eduardo,
I would have enjoyed seeing you actually address the Douthat argument.
I would have enjoyed seeing you actually address the Douthat argument.
Where to even begin with this gobbledegook?
People on the left and the right aren't happy with the status quo. Somehow, Mr. Douthat, you refuse to address this?
"The activist energy on the left is pushing for a more ethnically focused politics, devoted to righting structural race-based wrongs."
This is just baloney. Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a run for her money because he addressed politics and policies that were geared towards the middle class, not "ethnically focused politics."
So many proposals from Bernie Sanders, for instance raising the minimum wage, which affects 77% of white people, addressed social inequities that have grown under Republicans, and Democrats.
Do I think Hillary Clinton will correct the slide for the middle class in tho country? I don't know.
But I do know that Trump's, Ryan's and the rest of the GOP presenting the same old tax cuts for the rich and repealing things like the estate tax -- misleadingly labeled the "death tax" by the right -- will only help the rich in this country and will do nothing to help the middle class.
People on the left and the right aren't happy with the status quo. Somehow, Mr. Douthat, you refuse to address this?
"The activist energy on the left is pushing for a more ethnically focused politics, devoted to righting structural race-based wrongs."
This is just baloney. Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a run for her money because he addressed politics and policies that were geared towards the middle class, not "ethnically focused politics."
So many proposals from Bernie Sanders, for instance raising the minimum wage, which affects 77% of white people, addressed social inequities that have grown under Republicans, and Democrats.
Do I think Hillary Clinton will correct the slide for the middle class in tho country? I don't know.
But I do know that Trump's, Ryan's and the rest of the GOP presenting the same old tax cuts for the rich and repealing things like the estate tax -- misleadingly labeled the "death tax" by the right -- will only help the rich in this country and will do nothing to help the middle class.
121
"...the absence of economic common ground between Hillary-voting white moderates and the party’s poorer". Can anyone tell me what an "economic common ground" really means? The reality is that we all live within our economic spheres. The issue is whether we are concerned about and do something about those who are not within our sphere. We seem to dwell under the myth that political action, politics, can encompass the totality of the country, with subsequent condemnation of "special interests". The reality is that political parties are a grouping of different, disparate, at times contradictory elements and each one of them has to be tended to, whether it be through appointments or through specific programs that benefit one or the other group in particular. We don't have national parties that control their policies, but state parties, with all their idiosyncracies, that come together once every four years to elect a president. What generally defines American liberalism is the recognition that there are elements within our society that through job discrimination, lack of opportunity or social exclusion call for government intervention. Political parties are supported by those who are supported by the parties. Call it patronage, ethnic politics, as you will, but that's where the game is.
18
As usual, Mr. Douthat's position as a hopeful apologist for the GOP's failings keeps him from advocating any positions on a principled basis. Does it really matter that some voters who support Trump may not be motivated by racial animus, when the candidate appeals to those who are? Like Paul Ryan, such voters are looking the other way, and in doing so, tacitly supporting hatred.
120
There is no indication in this comment that you actually read Mr. Douthat's column; the complete lack of 'apology' for anything is instructive. In fact it is rather an indictment of the GOP for stooping to a politics that plays to racial animus, and a warning that even were they to stop such activity, they could not hope to gather a more diverse base without a miracle of forgetting or forgiveness. I encourage you to go back and read it for what it is—as it is, you're utterly off-topic.
“All is forgiven!” If you don't know the context for this promise, think for a minute through my eyes: a Presidential candidate flees a historic city, travels more than three zip codes on one of two interstates (I-41 or I-43) to an exurb community 95% white to speak African-Americans who live in the rennants of a boom city that produced good jobs with great benefits and lots of overtime, a city known for labor and the American car; well known schools (Cass Tech), the world's tallest department store, Hudson's on Woodward. A city of 1.8 million people, black and white, where money and life flowed around the factory clock.
Years ago, people blamed unions for good wages and benefits and said its workers couldn't compete cost-wise with Asian automakers. Executives lived in Gross Point; the 1% protected themselves, but workers felt the full effects. A million plus fled Detroit.
Trump spoke from an exurb as the light at Woodward and Michigan downtown blinks in the middle of the day about a black issue (not an American issue, no all or us!). His meaning the same as property holders to the runaways, “all is forgiven.”
He did not ask how West Bend remains 95% white; his speech was all, “nowhere to run;” no effort to “come see about me.” The man who refuses to renounce his Nazi & supremacist support had not a single solution, but separated blacks. Describing crime without cause, he offered "all is forgiven," a plan for blame and submission.
Years ago, people blamed unions for good wages and benefits and said its workers couldn't compete cost-wise with Asian automakers. Executives lived in Gross Point; the 1% protected themselves, but workers felt the full effects. A million plus fled Detroit.
Trump spoke from an exurb as the light at Woodward and Michigan downtown blinks in the middle of the day about a black issue (not an American issue, no all or us!). His meaning the same as property holders to the runaways, “all is forgiven.”
He did not ask how West Bend remains 95% white; his speech was all, “nowhere to run;” no effort to “come see about me.” The man who refuses to renounce his Nazi & supremacist support had not a single solution, but separated blacks. Describing crime without cause, he offered "all is forgiven," a plan for blame and submission.
49
Not sure what you mean about the interstates, and I'm not supporting Trump. That said, lots of people, both black and white, left Detroit due to crime. It just was not worth the risk (and still isn't really) to be there.
We left when a bullet bounced through the picture window and that was in the late 50's, almost 10 years before the riots of '67. Now the entire East side is mostly abandoned, and the West side is now going through the same thing. There needs to be more than an economic argument here, because if there are no jobs, why keep having children with no Father's who will support them? What is the thought process? And why the 50 years acceptance of crime murder and mayhem?
We left when a bullet bounced through the picture window and that was in the late 50's, almost 10 years before the riots of '67. Now the entire East side is mostly abandoned, and the West side is now going through the same thing. There needs to be more than an economic argument here, because if there are no jobs, why keep having children with no Father's who will support them? What is the thought process? And why the 50 years acceptance of crime murder and mayhem?
3
Interstates were people movers, speeding whites to the suburbs, to and from work downtown. You didn't see blacks on urban interstates when America resegregated. (Zip codes reveal racial make-up; all the details in the comment code for race/economic growth and decline--according to the political economy's demands, independent of party. (Slave masters needed workers; hence, "all is forgiven.") The system always presents complicity as being in the best interests of blacks, without requiring the system to change, be it justice, wealth, or work.
That bullet, in part, was the result of the absence of policing; remember how long it took police to answer calls? Racism is a dynamic system that works with problems to make them worse, forcing change for the worse by denying resources to confront problems. Notice how black crime is never solved in the inner cities? I lived in neighborhoods that demanded more policing to no avail.
Yes, a criminal underclass exists. But it had silent help. Racism exploits existing weaknesses and makes them worse. Then cleans it up at a profit. But in Detroit it went too far. Trump's presence in all-white West Bend shows he's not serious, only making another racist promise. (A East side vacant lot would have been a great photo-op, but then whites might have gotten the wrong idea!)
That bullet, in part, was the result of the absence of policing; remember how long it took police to answer calls? Racism is a dynamic system that works with problems to make them worse, forcing change for the worse by denying resources to confront problems. Notice how black crime is never solved in the inner cities? I lived in neighborhoods that demanded more policing to no avail.
Yes, a criminal underclass exists. But it had silent help. Racism exploits existing weaknesses and makes them worse. Then cleans it up at a profit. But in Detroit it went too far. Trump's presence in all-white West Bend shows he's not serious, only making another racist promise. (A East side vacant lot would have been a great photo-op, but then whites might have gotten the wrong idea!)
1
Since you don't get my message this will be the last, the interstates you list are not in Michigan, and there is no West Bend. Like much of your comment, it is just wrong. Please do not blame lack of police for bullets in 1958. There were plenty of Police then. The culture of guns, crime, devaluing education and poor parenting are the real problem. There was just as much black flight as white flight, by the way. All races want to avoid bullets, rape and robbery.
Everyone is exhausted by the excuses for plain bad behavior. Is there racism in the USA? Absolutely. Does that justify criminal behavior and having the taxpayer pick up the tab for your kids, your water bill and your rent? Obama and his wife seemed to do ok. it's called hard work, keeping your nose clean, not having children out of wedlock, education and delayed gratification. Sorry, there were no plantations in Michigan, but there was the underground railroad and it was well supported here.
Everyone is exhausted by the excuses for plain bad behavior. Is there racism in the USA? Absolutely. Does that justify criminal behavior and having the taxpayer pick up the tab for your kids, your water bill and your rent? Obama and his wife seemed to do ok. it's called hard work, keeping your nose clean, not having children out of wedlock, education and delayed gratification. Sorry, there were no plantations in Michigan, but there was the underground railroad and it was well supported here.
2
Hogwash. Studies have shown that Trump has support among educated Republicans.
Ross calls for conservatism to "change".
For conservatism to change, it has to cease to be conservative.
Ross calls for conservatism to "change".
For conservatism to change, it has to cease to be conservative.
98
This is true. Trump does have support from educated Republicans. My former girlfriend was a doctor who cared about one thing: tax cuts for herself. She was able to justify anything Trump said, so long as he was going to cut her taxes. I ended things after Trump's attack on the Khan family. I just couldnt listen to her rolling stream of excuses for Trump's behavior any longer.
Stuck in their own nonsensical hype, it is more important for the modern Republican to look the same as the other men in his "party", then to raise a voice against bigotry or hatred.
Republicans do not think, they repeat. Very angerly, but they repeat the same nonsense over and over, even though extensive historical evidence shows that none of their "ideas" resulted in anything positive.
Conservatives used to use accumulated knowledge generated from scientifically obtained data, to plan accordingly and avoid panicking or over reacting. Now a "conservative" thinks the Declaration of Independence was about declaring "freedom from the government"; and publicly behaves like sore loser zealots.
Trump is the modern "conservative", stupid and arrogant. Shouting nonsense, yet surprised when called on it.
fwa
PS...Nobody is going to take your guns.
Republicans do not think, they repeat. Very angerly, but they repeat the same nonsense over and over, even though extensive historical evidence shows that none of their "ideas" resulted in anything positive.
Conservatives used to use accumulated knowledge generated from scientifically obtained data, to plan accordingly and avoid panicking or over reacting. Now a "conservative" thinks the Declaration of Independence was about declaring "freedom from the government"; and publicly behaves like sore loser zealots.
Trump is the modern "conservative", stupid and arrogant. Shouting nonsense, yet surprised when called on it.
fwa
PS...Nobody is going to take your guns.
1
Kevin: define "educated." I have found some educated Americans, but not many. And it has little to do with degrees and parchments.
1
Ross, you are great. I have in the past often thought of Leon Wieseltier's dismissive comments of you, but I am thrilled with your column today. You are right on the most important point in today's debate. Thank you.
8
The column completely mischaracterizes "racial discrimination" in New Deal policies. The political reality was that without the support of key Southern committee chairmen, Roosevelt's New Deal would never have been passed. Roosevelt was keenly aware of the racial discrepancies, but felt he had no choice. It's also amusing that Conservatives like Ross just can't stop themselves from using terms like "ethnic patronage" or Justice Scalia's "racial entitlement"to describe federal laws which are meant to redress decades of blatant bigotry and racism.
331
Roosevelt had to address economic realities first, social policies a distant second. It's indeed disingenuous for Ross to claim bias in the New Deal. Ross writes in bad faith, the usual right wing song and dance.
2
Don Shipp, you had me hook, line, & sinker, all the way to the last alternate-universe sentence:
"or Justice Scalia's "racial entitlement"to describe federal laws which are meant to redress decades of blatant bigotry and racism"
We need to stop somewhere from trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. If we are to follow your goal of addressing past misbehavior, then all of us white, brown, & yellow folks have to sign over the deeds to our property to the Native Americans, and hope they will sell them back to us at affordable prices
"or Justice Scalia's "racial entitlement"to describe federal laws which are meant to redress decades of blatant bigotry and racism"
We need to stop somewhere from trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. If we are to follow your goal of addressing past misbehavior, then all of us white, brown, & yellow folks have to sign over the deeds to our property to the Native Americans, and hope they will sell them back to us at affordable prices
1
At last, something good going on in Florida -- Don Shipp's reasoning.
For Ross Douthat to imply that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a racist is about as low as it gets in pundit land. Why this guy's babbling, incoherent, Republican-justifying drivel appears regularly in The New York Times beats me.
For Ross Douthat to imply that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a racist is about as low as it gets in pundit land. Why this guy's babbling, incoherent, Republican-justifying drivel appears regularly in The New York Times beats me.
3
It troubles me deeply that people want to line up on one side of the aisle as either a conservative or liberal as if they were supporting some kind of sports team. And pundits seem to be aggravating this fan based mentality to their ends and benefit but to our loss. I have never met a person who is purely a conservative or purely a liberal (define these positions in any way that you seem fit) even though they self-define themselves as one or the other. When you get to truly know people we find that we all tend to have conservative or liberal leanings towards a topic or idea but it would be a stretch to label that person either a conservative or liberal. Please stop trying to make a difference in opinion on a subject anything more or using these terms in a derrogatory way. I know it riles people up, but pundits don't feel that they have any accountability to what happens next.
27
> "It troubles me deeply that people want to line up on one side of the aisle as either a conservative or liberal as if they were supporting some kind of sports team"
You are asleep at the wheel here. People are lining up based on ideological mindsets, not loyalty to whatever nonsense you seem to be thinking of
The Right/GOP is the Party-of-the-Rich, the exist to serve the 1%, and in order to remain in power they are willing to do as little as possible to keep the good graces of the interest groups that support them at the Ballot Box.
FORTUNATELY, they got themselves a sweetheart gig. That's because what their supporters want doesn't cost much in terms of money, so all $$ flows to the top. To keep their "BASE" happy, all they have to do is keep on blocking gun-control, and keep passing Abortion-Restriction legislation
AND, AND, AND, they have conditions their lower income supporters that they shouldn't WANT the government to give them any economic benefits, because that would only have corrosive effects, since the guiding principle is
Bailouts for the Rich, Bootstraps for the Poor
* * * *
The Leftist/Democratic Party is the mentality of the Union Boss, who no longer works for a living at the place where they extract their largess from
FIRST, they need to find somebody with deep-pockets, and hold them hostage. Then they need to work as little as possible, and live like a king.
Happy to share some $$ for votes
Prob= Sooner or later they run out of other people's money
You are asleep at the wheel here. People are lining up based on ideological mindsets, not loyalty to whatever nonsense you seem to be thinking of
The Right/GOP is the Party-of-the-Rich, the exist to serve the 1%, and in order to remain in power they are willing to do as little as possible to keep the good graces of the interest groups that support them at the Ballot Box.
FORTUNATELY, they got themselves a sweetheart gig. That's because what their supporters want doesn't cost much in terms of money, so all $$ flows to the top. To keep their "BASE" happy, all they have to do is keep on blocking gun-control, and keep passing Abortion-Restriction legislation
AND, AND, AND, they have conditions their lower income supporters that they shouldn't WANT the government to give them any economic benefits, because that would only have corrosive effects, since the guiding principle is
Bailouts for the Rich, Bootstraps for the Poor
* * * *
The Leftist/Democratic Party is the mentality of the Union Boss, who no longer works for a living at the place where they extract their largess from
FIRST, they need to find somebody with deep-pockets, and hold them hostage. Then they need to work as little as possible, and live like a king.
Happy to share some $$ for votes
Prob= Sooner or later they run out of other people's money
2
Mark: Since Reagan, the tone of public discourse has become more vicious. Gingrich, Delay, and Norquist contributed to that. Trump dragged discourse into the sewer when he set out, during his stealth pre-campaign, to de-legitimize Obama's claim to the presidency and to his hard-won degrees. What did you say about that? What did Douthat say about it back then? Nothing! Obama is my president. De-legitimizing him disenfranchises me. People died for the right to vote. A little heat in my discourse is not out of place.
2
What is being sold here is a narrative that portrays Republican "conservatives" as ideologues devoid of the 0.01%, and the 1%. While the Republican membership is composed of Southern Strategy racists, poor uneducated whites, xenophobes, religious bigots and fanatics, and anti democracy pro-oligarchy misanthropes, they have only been assembled by the ultra rich under a banner to serve the agenda of the rich. Race, ethnicity, and religion are issues exploited by Republicans from a position of fear and hatred. Race, ethnicity, and religion are issues that compel minorities to join forces to strive for equality. Republicans cannot say equality as they are opposed to equality, Republicans support inequality, privilege, wealth unimpeded by regulation, taxes, and responsibility. Corporate persons are Republicans. Pro-fetus religious persons are Republicans. Imperialists are Republicans. Cruelty toward the weak, the poor, babies, children and mothers, the elderly, the sick, and immigrants is Republican.
The real division is and has always been between the elite wealthy and their servant professional class and the populist democrats. There is no equivalence between the two. The one thing that provides needed numbers of voters to the elite is deception (death tax), resentment (affirmative action), fear (immigrants and Muslims), despair ( distrust in government and self), hatred and distrust.
Democrats fail when complacency and flirtation with the rich weaken resolve. 6:22 AM
The real division is and has always been between the elite wealthy and their servant professional class and the populist democrats. There is no equivalence between the two. The one thing that provides needed numbers of voters to the elite is deception (death tax), resentment (affirmative action), fear (immigrants and Muslims), despair ( distrust in government and self), hatred and distrust.
Democrats fail when complacency and flirtation with the rich weaken resolve. 6:22 AM
159
This seems convenient for you to know who to blame for every possible type of problem one may encounter. This simplifies life into a tiny petri-style dish that you can look upon and point to. JFK was an imperialist, so was Bill Clinton, and LBJ, and HRC is too. There are so many elite rich white personages who vote for their own interest when they vote for the donkey.
3
Joseph: "The real division is and has always been between the elite wealthy and their servant professional class and the populist democrats." 'Always' is a very big word. As a species, including our emerging phases, we are about 5 million years old. Democrats are one response to the troubles of cities, but even in 1800, only 3% of humans lived in cities. Until then, we lived in small bands as hunter-gatherers. Democrats fail when they are human, and when they are not renewed and moved along smartly.
"Democrats fail when complacency and flirtation with the rich weaken resolve."
Isn't this exactly why Bernie Sanders appealed to the millions of enthusiastic voters who donated their hard earned dollars to him, and why there is a contest between the two candidates who are left? Both parties pander to, and take money from, the wealthiest and large corporations. Mrs. Clinton carries this baggage, and won't talk about it. Taking large speaking fees from Wall Street and campaign contributions from it - not so populist. Too bad the "people" were blocked from a chance to have their candidate of choice by the DNC and media.
Isn't this exactly why Bernie Sanders appealed to the millions of enthusiastic voters who donated their hard earned dollars to him, and why there is a contest between the two candidates who are left? Both parties pander to, and take money from, the wealthiest and large corporations. Mrs. Clinton carries this baggage, and won't talk about it. Taking large speaking fees from Wall Street and campaign contributions from it - not so populist. Too bad the "people" were blocked from a chance to have their candidate of choice by the DNC and media.
2
Where to begin ?
With phrases such as "transfer programs" and "pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism" Mr. Douthat's framing can't help but yield a harvest of straw men.
But "ethnic competition" and "race based advantage" really are unpleasant dog whistles. Now who is feeding the beast that you would claim only 'elite liberals' can see in Trump's mob ?
I think you are ready to get on that train to violent racism, Mr. Douthat.
But, only as an observer, of course.
With phrases such as "transfer programs" and "pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism" Mr. Douthat's framing can't help but yield a harvest of straw men.
But "ethnic competition" and "race based advantage" really are unpleasant dog whistles. Now who is feeding the beast that you would claim only 'elite liberals' can see in Trump's mob ?
I think you are ready to get on that train to violent racism, Mr. Douthat.
But, only as an observer, of course.
179
"ethnic competition" and "race based advantage" are openly encouraged by the left. Calling them dog whistles is another leftist racial code phrase to silence any dissent. It is impossible to ever object to the democrats racial favoritism or bias without these accusations being bantered around.
Sounds a touch like Spiro Agnew doesn't he?
Nice snark, Buddy. You've got Ross's number!
According to Douthat "Conservatives who favor a populist shift in how the G.O.P. approaches issues like taxes or transfer programs have stressed the ways in which Reaganite Republicanism has failed the working class."
Who are the conservatives that "favor a populist shift?" Who are the conservatives that suggest "Reaganite Republicanism has failed the working class?"
All I hear Trump trumpeting about is cutting taxes for the rich and uber rich and doing away with the "death tax" even though these policies only benefit a thin slice of society. It is more dosage of the same medicine. Trickle down economics is well and alive in conservative circles.
And that may be one reason - among many others - why Hillary is ahead by wide margins in so-called swing states.
Who are the conservatives that "favor a populist shift?" Who are the conservatives that suggest "Reaganite Republicanism has failed the working class?"
All I hear Trump trumpeting about is cutting taxes for the rich and uber rich and doing away with the "death tax" even though these policies only benefit a thin slice of society. It is more dosage of the same medicine. Trickle down economics is well and alive in conservative circles.
And that may be one reason - among many others - why Hillary is ahead by wide margins in so-called swing states.
67
Ross, so what your saying is it all boils down to poor whites want a hand out too. This would be perfectly understandable if their pleas weren't accompanied with their stupidity, racism and misogyny. My wife and I were on a trip in northern PA. She has a Hillary sticker on the back of the her car. 3 young men came up behind us on motorcycles. At a stop sign we went straight and they turned left, but before doing so, one of them gave us the middle finger as a parting gesture.
Does the Republican party really want the likes of these people in its ranks? Trump says immigrants from certain regions should have "extreme" vetting before being allowed into the country. I think perhaps the Republican party should consider vetting who it lets in.
Does the Republican party really want the likes of these people in its ranks? Trump says immigrants from certain regions should have "extreme" vetting before being allowed into the country. I think perhaps the Republican party should consider vetting who it lets in.
462
Judging from eight years of emails from Republican friends, they are all like that.
4
Hey - Trump welcomes Nazis (literally), White Supremacists, virulent anti-gay individuals, and misogynists. There is nothing at all wrong with some bikers flipping you off from the POV of the GOP.
3
Sounds as though you were lucky that a rude gesture was all you and your wife got, John. Good grief!
1
Can't for the life of me remember who I heard say it but recall thinking how true it is: the most crucial issue in American politics is also the least sexy, campaign finance reform.
49
@Glenn
Pssssssst.
Trump is self-financed. That plus the largely Liberal media .
Pssssssst.
Trump is self-financed. That plus the largely Liberal media .
1
Ross neglects a big part of what happened to liberalism. The attempts of social democrats to enact policies easing wage stagnation and promoting job growth hit a brick wall. After we got the affordable care act through, it was impossible to do anything else. Social issues were more promising, and so they got more energy. The big advances here were made possible by the Supreme Court, not Congress. People put their energy into issues that they can succeed at.
The big mistake made by liberals like myself, was in not taking no from Congress for an answer. We should have funded local progressive alliances, to enact as much of the social democratic agenda as possible at least at the pilot level. President Obama has figured this out by trying to enact as many ideas as possible using executive orders.
The big mistake made by liberals like myself, was in not taking no from Congress for an answer. We should have funded local progressive alliances, to enact as much of the social democratic agenda as possible at least at the pilot level. President Obama has figured this out by trying to enact as many ideas as possible using executive orders.
67
Since you think executive orders are a great thing, you won't mind if someone like Trump pushes his agenda the same way?
2
The Democrats pander for immigrant - illegal especially - groups' votes. And they do so at the expense not just of whites but also a core constituency, blacks. Blacks arguably have a "right" to affirmative action, Hispanics - none at all. Yet, every job and college application asks the ethnicity question and awards favoritism to Hispanics. Any wonder that whites are resentful? Blacks should be but their leaders don't appear to appreciate how damaging illegal immigration has been to black progress.
While Democrats have openly and vigerously stiffed white males they are quick to label Trump supporters as bigots. Always the same tactic; squash dissent by labeling those seeking a fair shake as racists; when it is the Democrats who play the "racial card" better than and with greater frequency than any GOP candidate, leader or supporter.
While Democrats have openly and vigerously stiffed white males they are quick to label Trump supporters as bigots. Always the same tactic; squash dissent by labeling those seeking a fair shake as racists; when it is the Democrats who play the "racial card" better than and with greater frequency than any GOP candidate, leader or supporter.
17
Jon: I'm a white male, old even. I'm not stiffed. No one is perfect, but I've outlived the childishness that besets Amarican life, in that people are urged to vote for what they like, not what they value. And BTW, illegal immigrants can't and don't vote.
7
"The Democrats pander for immigrant - illegal especially - groups' votes."
Illegal immigrants do not have the vote.
The rest of your post contains about the same level of deep thought as well.
Illegal immigrants do not have the vote.
The rest of your post contains about the same level of deep thought as well.
2
Wow, did you write that yourself, or did you copy and paste from a list of RNC talking points?
This essay is a good example of the logical fallacy called "false dichotomy".
In fact, this fallacy informs much of Mr. Douthat's writing.
In fact, this fallacy informs much of Mr. Douthat's writing.
96
"Informs" his writing? As far as I can tell, it is the whole point of his writing.
When the 'Average White Guy' bought into the Right wing, Business wing Republican contention of;
"You don't need unions, or OSHA, or any of that social safety net stuff, buddy. We'll look out for you."
the AWG cut his own throat.
Now they closed the factory and sold the equipment, leaving your body wrecked, and your lungs gasping, the Right tells you to blame the Chinese, or the Mexicans, or the Muslims.
And all that 'social safety net stuff' you voted against all those years on account of 'only lazy people need welfare'... :shrug:
"You don't need unions, or OSHA, or any of that social safety net stuff, buddy. We'll look out for you."
the AWG cut his own throat.
Now they closed the factory and sold the equipment, leaving your body wrecked, and your lungs gasping, the Right tells you to blame the Chinese, or the Mexicans, or the Muslims.
And all that 'social safety net stuff' you voted against all those years on account of 'only lazy people need welfare'... :shrug:
559
I worked at a Highway Construction firm in Los Angeles in the early 70s as a "junior executive" where I was privy to the senior executives' many conversations. These gentlemen had a big political goal and that was to repeal the Davis-Bacon act, which called for prevailing wages (i.e. union scale) on federally funded construction projects. As a project engineer, I naturally dealt with the many tradesmen (unionized) that were employed on these projects. From their conversations, I gleaned that their political choice was that of the Republican because of their anathema toward welfare recipients. Consequently, they voted for their bosses' candidates (Republican) who wanted to cut the tradesmen's wages. This is still happening today.
14
Don't forget "blame the liberals." Right-wingers love to portray liberals as latte-sipping, arugula-eating, limosine-riding hypocrites who hate working people, even though the stereotype is about as accurate as the one about Black Cadillac-driving welfare queens who eat bon-bons all day and pop out babies for economic gain.
5
@Nealkas - spot on. An article in today's NYT quotes a Trump supporter at last night's rally in Wisconsin:
Jack Beck, 65, a retired bricklayer who lives in West Bend, said he planned to vote for Mr. Trump and did not blame him for making a low-key stop in Milwaukee, given the city’s racial tensions.
“Every night in Milwaukee, there is someone being shot, and they make nothing of that until a cop is involved, and then all of a sudden it’s always blamed on the cop,” said Mr. Beck, who added that he hoped West Bend’s black population would not increase. He tied much of the unrest in Milwaukee to his belief that black residents do not want to work hard and instead want to use police killings to get handouts from the government.
“If somebody is killed, they think we owe them something,” Mr. Beck said. “I don’t want to seem racist or nothing, but the black heritage has been raised in a certain way that there’s no incentive to get out and work, because all of a sudden you have five kids and there are no dads around.”
Jack Beck, 65, a retired bricklayer who lives in West Bend, said he planned to vote for Mr. Trump and did not blame him for making a low-key stop in Milwaukee, given the city’s racial tensions.
“Every night in Milwaukee, there is someone being shot, and they make nothing of that until a cop is involved, and then all of a sudden it’s always blamed on the cop,” said Mr. Beck, who added that he hoped West Bend’s black population would not increase. He tied much of the unrest in Milwaukee to his belief that black residents do not want to work hard and instead want to use police killings to get handouts from the government.
“If somebody is killed, they think we owe them something,” Mr. Beck said. “I don’t want to seem racist or nothing, but the black heritage has been raised in a certain way that there’s no incentive to get out and work, because all of a sudden you have five kids and there are no dads around.”
1
To quote Michael Gerson, Democrats have become focused on "the organized appeasement of resentments." Problem is, in doing so they've walked away from FDR's core. A core that had become somewhat prosperous, and that now looks around to see empty factories, jobless people and meth and opiate addiction everywhere.
14
Wow! So Democrats are the root cause of opiate addiction. I would have thought it was more complicated than that.
1
The big legacy of Trump should be a new party, the American National Party, to defend the interests of European-Americans. White people have interests too.
Let the GOP to the Bushes, the neocons and their ilk.
Let the GOP to the Bushes, the neocons and their ilk.
4
We have that already. It's called the Ku Klux Klan.
144
Mark: Help me here. What interests do you have that are not shared by blacks of the same socioeconomic status as you?
18
You are proving what he is saying. Stay in Belgium with your "White people have interests" excuse. It's nothing more that trying to start a white only party to help split this country in two. Americans have interests, not white people or black people or asians or gay or immigrant or whatever. We either sink or swim with all of us, together.
16
"a white man without a college education living in a region experiencing economic distress.> The Trump voter ia, according to to recent surveys, one of 87,000 voters by Gallup, is almost the exact opposite if what you describe Ross. Most are employed with income pacing them in the upper median. What most of all have in income is Racial resentment and hate of Conservatives. Yes Ross they agree with what Liberals have been saying for a few deades and now most Americans agree, Conservatism is a failure and is just a tool for the wealthy to stay wealthy. The Racism part we all have known without a Gallup poll. So Ross have a good day.
28
Douthat identifies one of the key long-term weaknesses of Clinton's version of liberalism. The emphasis in her acceptance speech on measures that would aid specific groups converted the oration into a laundry list of promises that lacked any unifying theme centered on the welfare of Americans as a coherent community. Clinton's call for an end to laws and business practices that blocked full equality for women failed to resonate with many men, because she neglected to stress the connection between her demands and the welfare of the entire society.
A governing philosophy which envisions America as a collection of interest groups encourages members of a political coalition to support the goals of their allies only in exchange for a quid pro quo. Contrast this with an approach which attempted to show men how greater equality for women would benefit them, combined with an effort to demonstrate to whites that ethnically egalitarian policies would help to create a more peaceful and prosperous society.
Such ideas would encounter considerable skepticism among people who define change as a zero/sum process. But a message which stressed how ethnic privileges corrupt the beneficiaries and alienate the victims would have the potential to forge an alliance in which both groups pursued a common goal.
The advocates of this approach would need to measure progress, not in terms of a single election cycle, but over an entire generation. But the result might be a more perfect union.
A governing philosophy which envisions America as a collection of interest groups encourages members of a political coalition to support the goals of their allies only in exchange for a quid pro quo. Contrast this with an approach which attempted to show men how greater equality for women would benefit them, combined with an effort to demonstrate to whites that ethnically egalitarian policies would help to create a more peaceful and prosperous society.
Such ideas would encounter considerable skepticism among people who define change as a zero/sum process. But a message which stressed how ethnic privileges corrupt the beneficiaries and alienate the victims would have the potential to forge an alliance in which both groups pursued a common goal.
The advocates of this approach would need to measure progress, not in terms of a single election cycle, but over an entire generation. But the result might be a more perfect union.
128
Let's elect James.
1
Sophistry: reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound, or used to deceive. While Hillary's acceptance speech was more like a state of the union address, her "laundry list of promises" was aimed at the diverse "collection of interest groups" that make up the Democratic party. Every presidential candidate, President, and, indeed, all politicians make promises that are idealistic, aspirational and inspirational e.g "Clinton's call for an end to laws and business practices that blocked full equality for women" (telling use of the past tense "blocked" as though such laws and business practices are things of the past). That this notion "failed to resonate with many (almost all of them white) men" is hardly suprising. As Obama quickly found out, campaign promises are not always achievable once in office, in his case largely due to the complete unwillingness of a Republican Congress, whose main goal was to see that he was a one term President, to compromise on anything. Romney's decisive defeat resulted from his and his party's failure to appeal sufficiently to any "interest group" other than white men, all too many of whom think that their position at the top of the heap is a richly deserved birthright. The result was the subsequent party autopsy, an odd use of the term since autopsies are performed only on the dead. Trump's malarkey is unmasking the fatal flaws of the Republican party and may leave no one left to perform the next autopsy.
1
The problem is Hillary already forgot those promises some staffer wrote for her to read and she never had any intention of actually following through on them.
Unless, of course, donations and speaking fees are forthcoming.
Unless, of course, donations and speaking fees are forthcoming.
The biggest trick the Republican party ever pulled of was convincing lower-class, blue collar, white Americans that unions were no longer in their self-interest. Unions would have helped these economically distressed Americans continue to see pay raises and maintain their benefits. As the power of unions has been diminished (or destroyed completely in some areas), white workers have slowly see many of the gains they made slip away. They're angry and they want to be able to lay the blame for their situation on someone. And so gradually, they have turned away from the Democrats to support Republicans because they feel they were betrayed by a party that was more concerned about helping minorities.
The Democrats shouldn't apologize for becoming the party of civil rights that has championed making this country live up to its creed that we are all equal. But the party MUST to more to address the concerns of all Americans who have seen their circumstances diminish. Until Democrats can show disadvantaged white Americans that the party really does care about them, many of them will continue to vote for Republicans, even someone like Donald Trump who feeds them nothing but lies and bigotry.
The Democrats shouldn't apologize for becoming the party of civil rights that has championed making this country live up to its creed that we are all equal. But the party MUST to more to address the concerns of all Americans who have seen their circumstances diminish. Until Democrats can show disadvantaged white Americans that the party really does care about them, many of them will continue to vote for Republicans, even someone like Donald Trump who feeds them nothing but lies and bigotry.
849
These rural poor whites vote republican because of wedge social issues: abortion, guns, gay civil rights and, yes, racism towards minorities (not just immigrants but also native-born ones).
Those issues are more important for them than anything else, so they're willing to defend tax cuts for the rich and the destruction of unions and the social safety net they rely upon.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
Those issues are more important for them than anything else, so they're willing to defend tax cuts for the rich and the destruction of unions and the social safety net they rely upon.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
7
I have personally watched unions destroy no less than four factories inside a city within three years because they refused to acknowledge the realities of the changing world and sought obstructionism that the parent company eventually just accepted. they cost more than twenty thousand men and women their jobs. like everything in this world, unions are not good or bad as a concept; they simply ARE, and the way in which people operate them skew them one way or another
1
Catch 22 here, folks. The Democratic Party cannot do the work you would like unless the electorate puts them into office. Right now the majority of election districts and much of state and local government across the nation is Republican. Doh! Complaining about Democrats doing them wrong is simply buying into Republican and FOX propaganda. When these angry voters analyze their situation in a way that reflects reality they might actually vote for a party that mostly is coherent with their goals instead of the one that encourages the rich to prey on everyone else through tax breaks etc.
4
What is wrong with people defending their interests? Are only the superrich who can buy lobbyists entitled to do that?
Ross has a strange view on politics. In his eyes every Democratic measure favors special interests - and is therefore "racial patronage". What he forgets is that every government decision favors some group over others. That applies just as well to setting tax rates as to deciding where to build a road.
It is normal in a democracy that people defend their interests. It is also normal that "populists" pick up those groups that are forgotten by the main parties. Discarding Trump supporters as racists is in my opinion just as harmful for the political discussion as discarding trade union members as communists. Unfortunately it looks like that Ross believes that some groups have more rights to defend their interests than others.
Ross has a strange view on politics. In his eyes every Democratic measure favors special interests - and is therefore "racial patronage". What he forgets is that every government decision favors some group over others. That applies just as well to setting tax rates as to deciding where to build a road.
It is normal in a democracy that people defend their interests. It is also normal that "populists" pick up those groups that are forgotten by the main parties. Discarding Trump supporters as racists is in my opinion just as harmful for the political discussion as discarding trade union members as communists. Unfortunately it looks like that Ross believes that some groups have more rights to defend their interests than others.
13
In this democracy, it is only normal to defend your interests if you are part of a special grievance identity group. La Raza and NAACP are allowed, but groups to advance white identity are hate groups. All-women business associations are okay, all-male are not.
1
So, Ross Douthat wants to describe me as a new 'forgotten man', ignored by elites in both parties... or, a resentful white bigot, or both. Well, that is just rude and shows extreme bias.
One bit is correct, I and many millions of others, feel rejected by the elites, the rest of Douthat's insult is nothing more than propaganda, and simply untrue no matter how much some WISH it were true. Just more concocted bias designed to keep-up the agenda of undermining Trump.
Elitism is a massive problem in this country, and so is our complete and utter lack of anything genuinely called news. Think how good it might be to have good and reasoned discussion about what affects us all? But no- the media, in its 'traditional' entirety, is not used for news, but as a tool by mentioned elites to corrupt, influence and propagandize for personal agenda.
Sad, sad, sad... I'll bet you always thought George Orwell was discussing a possible communist (only) dystopia, when in truth he was talking about you and NOW!
One bit is correct, I and many millions of others, feel rejected by the elites, the rest of Douthat's insult is nothing more than propaganda, and simply untrue no matter how much some WISH it were true. Just more concocted bias designed to keep-up the agenda of undermining Trump.
Elitism is a massive problem in this country, and so is our complete and utter lack of anything genuinely called news. Think how good it might be to have good and reasoned discussion about what affects us all? But no- the media, in its 'traditional' entirety, is not used for news, but as a tool by mentioned elites to corrupt, influence and propagandize for personal agenda.
Sad, sad, sad... I'll bet you always thought George Orwell was discussing a possible communist (only) dystopia, when in truth he was talking about you and NOW!
25
"The elites" is code for people with IQs over 40 who actually read newspapers like The Times (and not just the editorials and op/ed pages) as opposed to getting their "news" from FOX, Rush and the tabloids.
44
Stu, thousands if not millions of millennials have IQ > 40, who will not read the NYT! They don't listen to rush either nor foxnews. They listened to bernie, deeply.
4
No Stu, I am sorry but that does not adequately define 'elites'. I, and millions of others, choose not to watch CNN, do not watch Fox, do not listen to propaganda based media. Elites are those, who believe they are ENTITLED to their position, and see the rest of us as simply existing to provide them with that position and privilege.
Use all the code you want, but it might help if you started to sound a little less of an elitist... :-)
It's time to change the way we do the business of running this country, and it is time for the elites to move out of the way.
Or, maybe you, like the elites, think you are more equal than others?
Use all the code you want, but it might help if you started to sound a little less of an elitist... :-)
It's time to change the way we do the business of running this country, and it is time for the elites to move out of the way.
Or, maybe you, like the elites, think you are more equal than others?
3
Perhaps what's driving the emphasis on identity politics is the historically low economic growth. The consensus among economists is that a growth rate of 3% or more is necessary to have a healthy middle class. With average growth rates between 0.5 to 1.5% since 2000, the economy becomes a zero-sum game: gains by one group will come at the expense of other groups. Thus, any patronage system favoring one group over another will appear unfair.
13
One of your main premises -- "that racial & economic grievances can't always be separated" -- is true, & tremendously helpful for understanding our current muddled politics.
Those of us who want with all our hearts an America that works for every racial group & every economic group (& we're more numerous than the politicians seem to assume!) -- want also a Congress that mixes & matches, strikes good deals & gives each party *some* of its more rational goals.
Such an outcome (to whatever extent we might achieve it) would be a darn site better than the current bloody team-sport-politics into which we've fallen.
Those of us who want with all our hearts an America that works for every racial group & every economic group (& we're more numerous than the politicians seem to assume!) -- want also a Congress that mixes & matches, strikes good deals & gives each party *some* of its more rational goals.
Such an outcome (to whatever extent we might achieve it) would be a darn site better than the current bloody team-sport-politics into which we've fallen.
22
I waded through most of this week's Douthatian gobbledy-gook, but have limited patience for the conservatives-describing-liberalism genre.
Here's what I know:
While there is an inherent contradiction between Republican economic practice (reverse-Robin Hoodism) and Republican "populism", there is no such inherent disconnect between liberal desires to address both economic and racial/gender injustices; one may emphasize one without being unsympathetic to the other.
That's why Republicans must lie and pander shamelessly to win elections, while Democrats can be --certainly by comparison-- coherent and intellectually honest.
Here's what I know:
While there is an inherent contradiction between Republican economic practice (reverse-Robin Hoodism) and Republican "populism", there is no such inherent disconnect between liberal desires to address both economic and racial/gender injustices; one may emphasize one without being unsympathetic to the other.
That's why Republicans must lie and pander shamelessly to win elections, while Democrats can be --certainly by comparison-- coherent and intellectually honest.
582
Perhaps that is why the unemployment rate among black men, is at an all time high?
3
Thank you for this comment, I needed a good laugh. Those on the left are the definition of intellectually dishonest. your comment is an excellent case in point. You claim to have empathy, and critical thought, and aren't bigoted;your comment demonstrates none of these. Self criticism is a skill many people could benefit from, the democrats more than most
3
Well articulated, Len Safhay.
2
Mr. Douthat The Trump Campaign is actually the last presidential campaign of Richard Nixon. It is no accident that last night Trump spoke of a need for "law and order". Such was Nixon's 1968 campaign slogan,and the reason for it was the same: a dog whistle for bigoted Southern Democrats to embrace the apostasy of Senator Strom Thurmond(as outlined at the time by Kevin Phillips in Garry Wills's Nixon Agonistes), join the Republican Party, and have their bigoted identities maintained. As seen in the Gallup Poll, Trump's main demographic supporters are 65 years old or older. This is true even in Texas, a formerly rock-solid Republican presidential state.
By supporting Trump, Mr. Douthat, you are witnessing the Republican Party implode. And like a black hole, no votes will come out of it in the future. Given its dependency on bigotry, I for one say no forgiveness but rather good riddance.
By supporting Trump, Mr. Douthat, you are witnessing the Republican Party implode. And like a black hole, no votes will come out of it in the future. Given its dependency on bigotry, I for one say no forgiveness but rather good riddance.
51
Haven't noticed that Douthat supports Trump. Where do you get that from?
2
"Trump's core embraces white identity politics...welfare...and affirmative action for white men." Mr. Rip van Winkle, you're just now waking up?
What do you think Richard Nixon (1968), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984) and G. H. W. Bush (1988) ran on, and won, the presidency? It's a secret that their presidencies were authored by policies designed as race-baiting and exclusion of non-whites?
I'm quite pleased that you called out FDR as a racist, his paternalism towards (mostly) bread line whites masquerading, for the naïve anyway), a distinctly patrician view of government, sort of like wealthy Republicans who smirk at one another as they toss a few crumbs to the masses for the pleasure of indulging themselves in viewing mob behavior up close. It was all just entertainment, a diversion.
But you skipped over JFK and LBJ. The former's timid, toe-testing the waters to see if moderation in race was acceptable was forgotten in the wake of November 22, 1963. The latter, his successor, went against his nature's grain in concert with (most of) the nation's grief and guilt and the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were called into being, both being interpreted by (most) whites as "welfare and affirmative action" for whom they deemed racially undeserving.
I'm saying that Democrats (your "leftists" and "liberals") at least recognized inclusion as necessary in this democracy. Republicans? Not so much. America is attractive in the way a beauty queen is with bad breath.
Take your pick.
What do you think Richard Nixon (1968), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984) and G. H. W. Bush (1988) ran on, and won, the presidency? It's a secret that their presidencies were authored by policies designed as race-baiting and exclusion of non-whites?
I'm quite pleased that you called out FDR as a racist, his paternalism towards (mostly) bread line whites masquerading, for the naïve anyway), a distinctly patrician view of government, sort of like wealthy Republicans who smirk at one another as they toss a few crumbs to the masses for the pleasure of indulging themselves in viewing mob behavior up close. It was all just entertainment, a diversion.
But you skipped over JFK and LBJ. The former's timid, toe-testing the waters to see if moderation in race was acceptable was forgotten in the wake of November 22, 1963. The latter, his successor, went against his nature's grain in concert with (most of) the nation's grief and guilt and the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were called into being, both being interpreted by (most) whites as "welfare and affirmative action" for whom they deemed racially undeserving.
I'm saying that Democrats (your "leftists" and "liberals") at least recognized inclusion as necessary in this democracy. Republicans? Not so much. America is attractive in the way a beauty queen is with bad breath.
Take your pick.
28
The Southern Strategy is no longer enough. People seem to have caught on to the trickle-down scam. Young people just aren't as racist as they used to be. It's getting to the point where Republicans will have to actually do something for working people if they're ever going to win the White House again. This is especially hard to do when all the money is in the hands of the super-rich and big corporations and what they want is to shift the tax burden onto the workers while cutting their wages. The Republican fraud had a nice long run, but it's coming to an end.
116
Do you want to see how the southern strategy worked for the Clintons in the primaries? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/opinion/campaign-stops/clinton-sanders...
Not to mention that legends like John Lewis refused to acknowledge Bernie's contribution to the Civil Rights movement. Southern voters had never heard of Bernie and even asked, does he even believe in Jesus, Its blatant pull of racial patronage by the Clinton camp.
Not to mention that legends like John Lewis refused to acknowledge Bernie's contribution to the Civil Rights movement. Southern voters had never heard of Bernie and even asked, does he even believe in Jesus, Its blatant pull of racial patronage by the Clinton camp.
1
One of Ross's more insightful columns, to be sure. I wrestle with this every day. I am a leftist, a progressive, who, like Hillary, started my young life as a Goldwaterite.
I don't live in a minority community in my city. I have a LOT of minority friends, which doesn't really count. Because I have my life as an old, pinkish-white guy with an elite education public (UCLA) and private (Harvard). They don't.
But I CAME from a background of solid Trump territory. Low education low income whites, whose heritage is Confederate, who resent government and lament the end of slavery for those folks. And I married into an immigrant family that has the same biases, for they are Greek. So I work hard to avoid politics on the holidays.
Bottom line: Ross is kind of right here. My big concern: that when the Trumpetaritat gets hosed in November, they will conclude they should go all Cliven Bundy on the rest of us, and exercise those infamous, badly interpreted by SCOTUS, "Second Amendment Right." Because if they do, well, they aren't the only ones who have a view of the Second Amendment, one that might broaden considerably under duress.
I don't live in a minority community in my city. I have a LOT of minority friends, which doesn't really count. Because I have my life as an old, pinkish-white guy with an elite education public (UCLA) and private (Harvard). They don't.
But I CAME from a background of solid Trump territory. Low education low income whites, whose heritage is Confederate, who resent government and lament the end of slavery for those folks. And I married into an immigrant family that has the same biases, for they are Greek. So I work hard to avoid politics on the holidays.
Bottom line: Ross is kind of right here. My big concern: that when the Trumpetaritat gets hosed in November, they will conclude they should go all Cliven Bundy on the rest of us, and exercise those infamous, badly interpreted by SCOTUS, "Second Amendment Right." Because if they do, well, they aren't the only ones who have a view of the Second Amendment, one that might broaden considerably under duress.
185
The only time Ross Douthat is right about anything is purely accidental. The GOP has been pointing at boogeymen for 50 years. The only thing mutable over time is the identity of the boogeymen. Donald Trump stole the GOP base yelling boogeyman louder than his 16 rivals. The rivals couldn't argue because they were the GOP's boogeymen. Ross is trying to convince you boogeymen politics are in bad taste and the horrible liberals demanding the GOP treat their boogeymen as full citizens are just as horrible as mistreating those boogeymen. It's called false equivalency by some and sophistry by others and Ross Douthat's forte by me. Either way it's pure GOP to use social agendas to rob Americans blind with tax breaks for people, yes people are corporations, who don't need them and deregulation hiding their scams from public view.
5
Well-written message. One thing, though. There are plenty of very liberal Greeks and Greek-Americans (like myself). When you write "for they are Greek", that, to me, implies that all Greeks think that way. We don't. Believe me.
Yasou!
Yasou!
I'm a little surprised your Greek in-laws identify so strongly with Trumpism. As a Jew, I always assume I'm not white enough for purists. People from the southern Mediterranean should remember that they -- along with the Irish and Eastern Europeans -- have also been in the "not really white" category. To forget our own otherness is to adopt a tiger cub as a house pet, ignoring the danger it will pose once it matures to full size.
Trump's determination to maximize his base's identity politics- the new political correction of correctness- and double down on making a campaign of tabloid headlines- is familiar. He used the same tactic managing his casino ventures.
He escaped with bankruptcy bail out and left gutted buildings, but survived by concocting The Apprentice (his imperial cartoon fantasy).
So now he hires a Breitbart rabid dog- like taking out another loan- to make his campaign a bigger bet; never backing down.
The GOP & the nation will suffer the inevitable bankruptcy.
He escaped with bankruptcy bail out and left gutted buildings, but survived by concocting The Apprentice (his imperial cartoon fantasy).
So now he hires a Breitbart rabid dog- like taking out another loan- to make his campaign a bigger bet; never backing down.
The GOP & the nation will suffer the inevitable bankruptcy.
20
When one presents an argument where the reader gets lost in literary subterfuge the message is lost. Exactly what was he attempting to say? One subject should be fact checked, "plus welfare programs that recent immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to use." Given how many "recent" immigrants live in the shadows I find this statement to lack credibility. But Ross writes the story based around a narrative only he seems to understand. Were this a movie he would be dissembling, making mistakes at work, not being focused at simple tasks. My suggestions are: he needs a new job. I heard they are hiring at Hardees, don't drive a car and don't operate any machinery.
42
"This combination is (mostly) rooted in idealism. But it still amounts to a system of ethnic patronage, which white Americans who are neither well-off nor poor enough to be on Medicaid see as particularly biased against them."
They can thank their respective states for that one! How many states refused to expand Medicaid out racial hatred for President Obama?
I tried to make my way through this socio-economic babble (why are Ross Douthat columns so hard to read?) of conflicting theories and conclude he just likes to complicate things.
The bottom line is yes, liberals have favored ethic and minority groups at the expense of white workers who feel everybody gets a leg up but them. But I posit that conservative and GOP policies in general haven't helped them much either, as their class (like everyone's but the super-wealthy) is supposed to follow rugged individualism and forge their own path.
If anything, the "Trump coalition" which long voted GOP for its social and religious issues and second amendment rights feels long left behind since the Bush Recession. The GOP has never done much for those who fall between the middle and absolute bottom economic classes. Their main thrust is supply side economics with a healthy dose of concern for the deficit, which means--yes, of course! Cut back Social Security and Medicare.
Times ran an article on this: that Trump supporters are left behind thanks to BOTH parties, who would do well to save them a place at the policy table.
They can thank their respective states for that one! How many states refused to expand Medicaid out racial hatred for President Obama?
I tried to make my way through this socio-economic babble (why are Ross Douthat columns so hard to read?) of conflicting theories and conclude he just likes to complicate things.
The bottom line is yes, liberals have favored ethic and minority groups at the expense of white workers who feel everybody gets a leg up but them. But I posit that conservative and GOP policies in general haven't helped them much either, as their class (like everyone's but the super-wealthy) is supposed to follow rugged individualism and forge their own path.
If anything, the "Trump coalition" which long voted GOP for its social and religious issues and second amendment rights feels long left behind since the Bush Recession. The GOP has never done much for those who fall between the middle and absolute bottom economic classes. Their main thrust is supply side economics with a healthy dose of concern for the deficit, which means--yes, of course! Cut back Social Security and Medicare.
Times ran an article on this: that Trump supporters are left behind thanks to BOTH parties, who would do well to save them a place at the policy table.
346
Hello Christine!
States refused to expand Medicaid for fiscal purposes, not "racial hatred". You see the Fed would only fund the gaps for 3 years.
"The bottom line is yes, liberals have favored ethic and minority groups at the expense of white workers who feel everybody gets a leg up but them. But I posit that conservative and GOP policies in general haven't helped them much either, as their class (like everyone's but the super-wealthy) is supposed to"
What is the unemployment rate among Black men? 9.7%
States refused to expand Medicaid for fiscal purposes, not "racial hatred". You see the Fed would only fund the gaps for 3 years.
"The bottom line is yes, liberals have favored ethic and minority groups at the expense of white workers who feel everybody gets a leg up but them. But I posit that conservative and GOP policies in general haven't helped them much either, as their class (like everyone's but the super-wealthy) is supposed to"
What is the unemployment rate among Black men? 9.7%
2
If Medicaid expansion was such a great deal - why wasn't in funded at 100% in perpetuity? Maybe, rather than "racial hatred" it was concern over another unfunded liability? For the record, I don't hate Obama because he's black, I loathe him because he has ordered the murder of his own citizens without due process. I despise him because he continues to perpetrate war in countries where the Congress (cowards all) has not authorized it, and because he has done absolutely nothing to rein in the leviathan surveillance state. He could be purple and it wouldn't matter a whit to me.
2
...then they need to stop listening to race-based dog whistle and voting against their own interests.
1
The real trouble with conservatism is that it has been coopted by the super-rich. Or should I say 'bought and paid for by the super-rich.'
There is no amount of Mr. Douthat's logic-brilliant though it is-that can get around this particular failing on the part of conservatism.
Patronage for the super-rich just doesn't cut the mustard any more.
There is no amount of Mr. Douthat's logic-brilliant though it is-that can get around this particular failing on the part of conservatism.
Patronage for the super-rich just doesn't cut the mustard any more.
254
"Conservatism" gave us the Vietnamese War (Goldwater) and the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars (Bush).
4
Joschka: Conservatism is abstract, a property of something or someone, Super is a relative term. Conservatism is the age-old creation of the relatively wealthy who owned enough clubs and spears to enforce their will.
logic-brilliant though it is-.. Gosh, I missed that part. I did not see anything that resembled logic.
What the country needs, and what some unions provided, was a class-based system of patronage that provides benefits to the employed and unemployed to alleviate some of their insecurities. Saying that such a system must be for one group or another is a way of blocking these benefits by generating arguments and resentment.
Republicans have weakened and partly demolished the system of patronage for poorer people, while patronage for the rich and powerful (largely in the form of tax loopholes, lower taxes, and such) has blossomed. This shows that in class societies, multiclass parties are the exception rather than the rule. Both our parties are multiclass: the Democrats by tradition and ideology; the Republicans by accident and the need to win elections. The Democrats are multiethnic ever since they chose civil rights over the Solid South, and this is when the Republicans lost the multiracial character they had had since Reconstruction.
The Democrats are unlikely to fracture over racial lines, although there will be a healthy internal debate. The Republicans are stuck with the white identity politics they adopted to win the South and always deny, and which has considerable power in all areas of the country. Without it they become conservative Democrats who will worry about climate change and judge the size of the deficit and debt against the size of the economy rather than being terrified by the big numbers, and try to avoid racial dog whistles.
Republicans have weakened and partly demolished the system of patronage for poorer people, while patronage for the rich and powerful (largely in the form of tax loopholes, lower taxes, and such) has blossomed. This shows that in class societies, multiclass parties are the exception rather than the rule. Both our parties are multiclass: the Democrats by tradition and ideology; the Republicans by accident and the need to win elections. The Democrats are multiethnic ever since they chose civil rights over the Solid South, and this is when the Republicans lost the multiracial character they had had since Reconstruction.
The Democrats are unlikely to fracture over racial lines, although there will be a healthy internal debate. The Republicans are stuck with the white identity politics they adopted to win the South and always deny, and which has considerable power in all areas of the country. Without it they become conservative Democrats who will worry about climate change and judge the size of the deficit and debt against the size of the economy rather than being terrified by the big numbers, and try to avoid racial dog whistles.
193
That's a good point about unions. Their protections have been shredded, while upper-middle class and upper-class protections have been increased.
4
Democrats have been greatly influenced by the "Social Gospel." Many of us see
political correctness as theological correctness.
political correctness as theological correctness.
3
About 60% of Americans lack a college degree, and about 77% of Americans identity as "white" (Wikipedia). More than 50 million Americans live in areas of "economic distress" (U.S. News).
If these cohorts represent his base, then he should be ten points AHEAD of Mrs. Clinton, not ten points behind. That he's not says more about his mouth than it does about the people to whom he appeals. However, Mrs. Clinton can't seem to break out, and every semi-rational move on Trump's part, such as last Monday's speech, recaptures a few polling points.
Now, that's the context. Trump appeals to our disenfranchised, overwhelmingly our working and middle classes whom establishment elites, on BOTH sides, have failed so dismally for so long. Mrs. Clinton claims to seek their interests but it's not selling because the agendas of Sanders and Warren really focus on the politics of the 1930s and the late 1960s, not on the 21st Century. And then there are the emails, and all else that destroys trust in her. She has immense vulnerabilities.
If Trump can't, in the end, control his mouth, then it won't matter: pulling 45% of America on 8 November still hands Hillary the Oval Office in a landslide. But if he CAN control his mouth, his arguments to an immense coalition of disenfranchised and distrustful have the potential of capturing the prize. And Ross should take note that these are Americans, too. Trump really has until Labor Day to reverse a death-spiral by demonstrating that he's an adult.
If these cohorts represent his base, then he should be ten points AHEAD of Mrs. Clinton, not ten points behind. That he's not says more about his mouth than it does about the people to whom he appeals. However, Mrs. Clinton can't seem to break out, and every semi-rational move on Trump's part, such as last Monday's speech, recaptures a few polling points.
Now, that's the context. Trump appeals to our disenfranchised, overwhelmingly our working and middle classes whom establishment elites, on BOTH sides, have failed so dismally for so long. Mrs. Clinton claims to seek their interests but it's not selling because the agendas of Sanders and Warren really focus on the politics of the 1930s and the late 1960s, not on the 21st Century. And then there are the emails, and all else that destroys trust in her. She has immense vulnerabilities.
If Trump can't, in the end, control his mouth, then it won't matter: pulling 45% of America on 8 November still hands Hillary the Oval Office in a landslide. But if he CAN control his mouth, his arguments to an immense coalition of disenfranchised and distrustful have the potential of capturing the prize. And Ross should take note that these are Americans, too. Trump really has until Labor Day to reverse a death-spiral by demonstrating that he's an adult.
14
Yes, and Labor Day is RAPIDLY approaching. It's almost close enough to hold your breath for Trump to control his mouth.
Do you think he can? (I sure hope he can't.)
Do you think he can? (I sure hope he can't.)
45
'However, Mrs. Clinton can't seem to break out"
Except the polls say she already has. The usual magical words from Richard direct from his rabbit hole.
Except the polls say she already has. The usual magical words from Richard direct from his rabbit hole.
47
It does little long-term good for Trump to control his mouth if it doesn't reflect more discipline in his brain and a more inclusive worldview in his beliefs. He simply is not qualified for the job he seeks in the context in which the US presidency currently operates. Electing him to it simply because he can go 90 days without speaking his true mind is not a desirable goal.
57
"Alternatively, the more you favor a left-wing politics that stresses economic forces above all else, the more you’ll cast Trump’s blue collar support as the bitter fruit of the Democratic Party’s turn to neoliberalism, and argue that social democracy rather than shaming and shunning is the cure for right-wing populism.
My sympathies are with the second group in both debates — as a partisan of a more solidaristic conservatism, and as an outsider who prefers the old left’s class politics to the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today."
Interesting admission, Ross. Yes, the neoliberals took over classical conservatism. Anyone who is really watching what Hillary Clinton has been doing in the days since the DNC convention would know, from picking Tim Kaine as her running mate to a first in presidential electoral politics, picking a transition chief three months before the election even takes place. Her pick, Ken Salazar, is a lobbyist, who among many other neoliberal things, is a champion of the TPP. See
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/765604954040000512
Race is being used to control class by both parties who serve elites, in many of the same ways. We need to get the money out of politics. We need to demilitarize our police forces and root out the causes of police violence. We are drowning in the rot that is corruption. Millions of Americans are mired in a near-permanent state of poverty.
--
Only one candidate is flawed? http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2nR
My sympathies are with the second group in both debates — as a partisan of a more solidaristic conservatism, and as an outsider who prefers the old left’s class politics to the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today."
Interesting admission, Ross. Yes, the neoliberals took over classical conservatism. Anyone who is really watching what Hillary Clinton has been doing in the days since the DNC convention would know, from picking Tim Kaine as her running mate to a first in presidential electoral politics, picking a transition chief three months before the election even takes place. Her pick, Ken Salazar, is a lobbyist, who among many other neoliberal things, is a champion of the TPP. See
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/765604954040000512
Race is being used to control class by both parties who serve elites, in many of the same ways. We need to get the money out of politics. We need to demilitarize our police forces and root out the causes of police violence. We are drowning in the rot that is corruption. Millions of Americans are mired in a near-permanent state of poverty.
--
Only one candidate is flawed? http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2nR
57
"Race is being used to control class by both parties who serve elites..."
More insufferable meaningless rhetoric. The Democrats has historically helped people of color. Saying they are not voting their self-interest is patronizing, the same attitude of the plantation owners.
Remember them?
More insufferable meaningless rhetoric. The Democrats has historically helped people of color. Saying they are not voting their self-interest is patronizing, the same attitude of the plantation owners.
Remember them?
27
"End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Hillary will push for legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose significant political spending. And until Congress acts, she'll sign an executive order requiring federal government contractors to do the same. Hillary will also promote an SEC rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.
Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters."
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
I know Rima, if X is good and Hillary opposes X, Hillary is bad. If Hillary supports X, she is lying.
Amplify the voices of everyday Americans. Hillary will establish a small-donor matching system for presidential and congressional elections to incentivize small donors to participate in elections, and encourage candidates to spend more time engaging a representative cross-section of voters."
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
I know Rima, if X is good and Hillary opposes X, Hillary is bad. If Hillary supports X, she is lying.
15
David Henry,
What an incredible display of white privilege!
What an incredible display of white privilege!
3
JD