Yes, it's divisive to call Trump supporters racist. And yes, it could make more of them turn out to vote for him. So, yes, it might be bad politics for Democrats. But the alternative of NOT calling them racist is much more dangerous, because in the interest of potentially keeping them at home in November, we are allowing racism to grow into a national disease that is simply unacceptable. Trump is an obvious and blatant racists and Trump supporters are supporters of racism. That is all there is to it. The 60% of the country who does not support Trump needs to keep reminding Bannon, Miller and all Trump supporters that they are supporters of racism.
45
Bannon and Miller might have the intellectual capacity to have thought this through, Trump no way.
25
Perhaps calling Trump out on his racism does strengthen his position with some voters. Is that a reason not to do it? Have we completely lost faith in the American people? I have not. I will continue to demonstrate and promote my outrage against his racism, cruelty, stupidity, and destructiveness. And if that helps Trump, so be it.
19
Oooh. This is a conversation that needs to take place in a rational manner, but I'm not sure an argument, "racial self-interest," that sounds like it's one step short of Hitler's "racial purity" ideal is the best way to do that.
That aside: We lefties should admit, some liberal discourse has gotten carried away with shaming "white people," as though all white Americans are born with a house, a car, and a job, and never have to lift a finger. Of course they feel insulted and frustrated. The point of making sure oppressed groups have their voices heard and believed is that nobody likes to have their experiences erased. White people, esp. straight men, have historical power as a broad demographic. But they also have life experiences, and those, like anyone else's should not be erased.
Part of the problem may be labeling: "white people" and the even more problematic "white privilege." Does that include Jews? Light-skinned Latinos/as? Only if you pass as a white Christian? What if you only pass sometimes? If you've been exposed to hateful slurs and bigotry throughout your life, being lumped into "white privilege" by other oppressed groups, even though you understand they experience more bigotry, comes as a slap in the face.
Decades ago, white ethnicities of recent immigration (Irish, Italian, etc.) could express ethnic pride w/o sounding like white supremacists. Perhaps we should return to recognizing difference and stop lumping all white people together.
26
So now it's Thomas Edsall's tuirn. A week ago, it was David Brooks. Two Weeks ago, it was Ross Douthat. Three weeks ago, it was Frank Bruni. Four weeks ago, it was...who remembers? But it definitely was yet another white male NYT columnist solemnly explaining that if we call out covert racists, they'll get resentful and become overt racists.
The fact that covert racists sincerely don't believe they're racists doesn't make it true. Sincere bakers and sincere county clerks and sincere clergymen don't believe they're homophobes, and sincere Supreme Court justicies don't believe a Muslim ban is a Muslim ban, and sincere patriots don't believe tearing children away from their mothers is un-American.
Donald Trump is a racist. Not everybody who voted for Donald Trump, or supports Donald Trump, is a racist. But everybody who voted for Donald Trump, or supports Donald Trump, know what he is. They may not be as repellent as he is, but it's a close enough call that I detest them only a tiny bit less than I detest him.
27
Vote and if that doesn't work, take to the streets like we did once before. I'm Jewish and will not be a sheep. Not again!
15
Mr Edsel is certainly right that calling racist isn’t winning any votes.
But I can’t abide doing anything to placate these “misunderstood” people who “only” want to ensure a white majority. That’s not what America is about. That’s not what I’m about.
If that consigns is to a generation of Trumps, I guess so be it. Gerrymandering, the electoral college and now SCOTUS has us by the ankles anyway.
12
Damned if you do damned if you don't.
The same tactic employed by rapists and sexual abusers to the faces of their victims - Larry Nassar, Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein.
And, we, the victims, have to just shut up and smile.
It's true, and it hurts. It's humiliating, exhausting, draining.
It stinks.
And Trump gets away with it, lying right to your face.
11
If it works for Trump when the Left calls him and his supporters racist, does it similarly benefit the Left when Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren, and etc. are called "low IQ" and "Pocahontas" and Democrats are considered traitors? If the battle is for the moderate voter, do the same tactics work both ways? If not, why not?
15
The election of President Trump was in itself an epic act of trolling.
14
Please, Prof. Kaufman, enlighten us. How is "racially self-interested" different from "racist"? You posit a distinction without a difference.
12
Let me see if I understand. Racism is not liking other ethnic groups, but it's NOT liking your group a whole lot better than those others and not wanting them around. Right.
7
From day one, when Trump announced he was running the media gave him wall-to-wall attention at the expense of the other republican candidates running. Every time he opened his ignorant mouth the cameras were there giving him free air time while all the other candidates had to pay to get their ads on television. He was loud, brash, crude, rude and every other adjective in between. The television news media is to blame for this. Clarification: I remember this man in late 70’s and early 80’s, when he was beginning to loudly promote himself with his ghost written book. He was a grifter/showman/phony back then and with the millions he got from daddy he thought he hit a home run. I loath Trump and have for a long time)
I do not believe that Trump supporters are all racists, some are and they support him because he dog whistles them.Trump is a racist and there is plenty of history there to prove that he is. It is a pity that some people can’t see what he is doing is going to hurt them. Some of these people work in trades that had Trump hired them he would of stiffed them. I’m not talking about the Christian Right, they have already sold their souls which karma will repay them someday, it’s the everyday working people who work hard and just want to survive, they are the ones who are getting hurt by Trump and his wealthy supporters. The wealthy supporters who see in Trump a push over for anyone who says nice things to him (Kim, Putin, so on), someone they can use. God help us all.
12
When I reach the entrance to Heaven I don't want to questioned about why, when I walked the earth, I didn't call a racist a racist.
12
As a Democrat and a liberal, I am very careful about judging people's moral character. It is too easy to be self-righteous and it only makes people defensive. Nevertheless there is a time to speak up but a couple of nuggets to consider before calling someone a racist.
As the scripture says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly."
And as Jesus said, "Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
4
Every time we mention the name of the current president he gains some more troll power. I might have to avoid certain card games for a while.
6
I don't believe that the democrats don't believe in immigration reform, but that reform need to be based in reality and not because they are "Mexicans" or "Muslims" for Trump and his supporters to assert that Mexicans are rapists and murderers, that they "take away jobs" is based in racism, not facts. It also undermines what this countries principals are, when in fact the US takes in far less immigrants than other countries that see the value they bring. It also makes me wonder how many whites would be allowed to immigrate into the US, if this were the turn of the century. Since most of us are two-three generations away from our own immigrant background, not one US citizen (unless your indigenous to this country, and NO white person is, the only real Americans wore feather in their hair and are the ones we put on a reservation).
But It's the way that Trumpists, go about it that is racist, and when you have people that walk up to a Mexican and start screaming in their face that they are animals, rapists, murderers, and of course, drug dealers, what else motivates that kind of behavior. Certainly, not someone that want's real immigration reform. I have yet to hear one liberal, progressive, say, I want wide open borders, where people can just walk across. No, what they want is reasonable immigration with a path to citizenship. If RWA (right wing authoritarians) don't want to be called a racist, then stop acting like a racist. The pendulum will swing back, it always does.
9
This article leaves out a major issue: Trump is most likely a Putin plant who is carrying out a Russian agenda. It's no secret that Putin backs right-wing anti-immigrant parties in Europe (Austria, Italy, France, Holland, etc.) and that dividing and weakening America and Western Europe is very much his goal. The problem, quite simply, is not civility, when an illegitimate regime, helped to office by a hostile foreign power, abuses the Constitution and commits offenses of various kinds (corruption, race-baiting, false accusations of millions of illegal voters, separating infants and children from parents, inciting or approving of Nazis and White Supremacists, etc.) Huckabee Sanders was served and asked to leave the Red Hen because she represents a cruel and despotic regime opposed to gay rights and a number of the restaurant's staff were gay. She lies profusely and willingly -why is that acceptable or considered part of civil behavior?
12
I see the point that some are making. Racists are motivated by fear and hatred, but opponents of increased diversity are merely looking out for their ethno-demographic interests.
3
Why is this piece depressing ?
Because it is so true...
Not sufficient... but true.
1
Let's see. We don't mention being racist to racists who think they are not racist because that will make them angry? Or maybe we just tell the racists they are actually nice people who just like whites more than blacks and that's it OK to "stick to your own kind?" Or perhaps we side-step the issue by suggesting that people who don't look, act, or sound like you might like to have some of the same rights you have -- that is, of course, if you don't mind. Really.
If they are insulted or offended and Trump uses that to make them angrier then the Democrats are stuck. Be quiet and lose or speak up and lose. No. It reminds me of "women/blacks/latinos/gays" should be happy to be alive, and be grateful they are not thrown in jail for breathing the air, except when they are. YOU SPEAK UP. Always.
I'm sorry most Americans have drunk the Kool-Aid sold by FOX/Sinclair's tabloid excuse for news. 24/7 propaganda. Lies called truths and truths denigrated as lies. I guess Trump is clever in blaming the "liberals" for everything he has and is causing. The base believes him. Astounding.
The greatest evil in the world is ignorance. Starve public education and you have a gullible public that the wealthy can manipulate. Ask Mrs. DeVos. Scary bad, scary very bad.
What a dark and horrible time to be an American. I never thought the Baby Boomers, who preached peace and love, would end up ruining the world. Heart breaking to one of them.
20
Yes, Trump is racist, ignorant, hateful, mean, misogynist.
But the left has been reflexively calling any and all conservatives these things for so long that these charges have become almost meaningless. Note how we have had to upgrade to “white supremacist” since mere “racism” has lost its sting.
This excommunication of opponents as depraved or “on the wrong side of history” is a way to shut down and/or control the parameters of debate. Liberals present their positions as if they are self-evidently correctly, values-neutral, almost free of politics itself. So argumentation becomes less about the issue at hand, as it does identifying and calling out the bad character of the person they are arguing with.
The left’s game of “last one to shout ‘bigot’ is a rotten egg!” has not only created an intellectually lazy, authoritarian liberalism, but worst of all, has weaponized the language and goals of anti-bigotry and social justice, which themselves can only be attained with fairness.
Outside of this environment Trump would not have been given a second look.
13
I just got eye strain and a headache trying to navigate through all-of-this. I should have been forewarned that a piece chock-full of links and surveys had very little substance.
Alas- the final lines are nothing more than the solution of appeasers (or someone who isn't impacted):
"Shut up and take it; else you'll further aggravate the beast."
8
Supreme irony here that NYT, which has yet to figure out how cover either Trump or the Republicans, deigns to lecture on how to deal with them
The NYT, which has been complicit in spreading and legitimizing the worst of Trump/Republican impulses, which continues to produce headlines appearing to agree with Trump when the accompanying article does the opposite, which cites without comment the most bizarre harangue and damnable calumny from Trump's lids and his tweets, feels we need instruction, that we require correction when we openly bristle at "grapefruit thighs", "rapists and murderers", at thousands of children stolen from their parents (some apparently irrevocably).
Look first to yourself, Times. Fix this.
5
I AGREE with Edsall that the Democrats should not take his bait. Except it suggests that he has not noticed that they are organizing themselves and opposing Trump's trashing of the Constitution through legal channels. Yes, Maxine Waters came out with an idea that I'd have expected from a member of the KKK, but her passion clouds her judgment at times. As to Steven Miller, a classmate of his from elementary school said that Miller is autistic. So his observations about people should be completely disregarded. Trump goes through life as if it's a big food fight, since he got tons of negative attention as a kid by going to birthday parties and throwing food around. His father was arrested in 1924 for fighting with police after a KKK rally, in which PAPA Trump had apparently participated. Such violence does not stop at the front door when someone fighting with the police comes in. So I believe that much of Trump's abusive behaviors were learned at his father's knee, Or over his father's knee, more like. Trump channels Hitler, Stalin and Mao, from his experience with Roy Cohn influenced by Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover. Had they been more powerful the would have been as destructive as three of the most evil persons in modern history. And, yes, I'm saying that Trump is one of the most modern persons of our times. Woe be unto us if we do not stop his destruction. He's already sold us down the river to Putin le Putain. And there's plenty more abuse in store from him.
2
I’m not quite sure what people meant back when it was in vogue to say “God is a verb.”
But I studied analytic philosophy long enough and I’ve drafted a sufficient number of proposed laws to know one had better be very careful about using nouns.
Since uttering “false equivalence” is an important go-to defensive move on the left you might consider that the broader you make terms such as racism or sexism, the larger the set of distinct behaviors to which you apply the terms, the likelier it becomes that any given pair of behaviors covered by one of those terms will present a false equivalence.
Also, a mountain of anecdotal evidence and some scientific studies show enforcing notions of PC is counterproductive. Yet many on the left resist altering their behavior accordingly. Ponder deeply whether you’re in fact motivated by the power and sense of gratification that comes with being an arbiter of what can be said and thought.
Consider going to school on the efforts to change how we think and talk about people with disabilities and the legislation designed to aid people with disabilities. Curb cuts are everywhere. There aren’t large numbers of people tossing around terms like “crip” or “retard” anymore. Signing the Americans with Disabilities Act was the proudest domestic achievement of a Republican President. Good job, people. Well done. It was a pleasure, after awhile, to do as you indicated.
2
I find it interesting that this is now the 2nd article in the NY Times written by a white man telling others to "behave". If the woman behaved in the early 1900's, I would not have the right to vote. If people of color "stayed in their place", I would not be able to (fill in the blanks). If the revoluionists in the 1700's behaved, we would be singing God Save the Queen.
Now more than ever is not the time to behave.
6
Here is the scenario verbatim:
"A white American who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of America’s population."
I had to read it three times to understand it. It talks about a "white American," and then makes reference to "her group and its history."
I kept trying to figure out what her ethno-linguistic heritage might be until it dawned on me that her "group" is white. The person in the scenario is very likely a racist, possibly even a white supremacist, though there's some chance she isn't. What we can say with confidence is that she is deluded.
3
The unspoken truth that nobody is willing to admit in surveys is that accusations of racism are no longer politically effective because a growing percentage of Americans now believe that racism is a good thing, and are more likely to vote for the candidate labelled as racist by the mainstream.
3
One of the messages seems to be--When in doubt, do not lecture. Sound advice.
4
Riling us up, agitating us, getting us to take the bait.
Someone who does this is controlling us. Evoking what they are after.
This is the game.
Someone said, don't get mad, get even. Meaning, stop wasting your emotional energy on being riled up, instead, be strategic and tactical. And calm, so you can be the latter two things.
7
Conservatives who become angry when it is pointed out to them that their ideology is predicated on racism and they do not feel they are racist is predictable to the point of absurdity. Who among us likes to have their shortcomings pointed out to us by others? The difference is in critical thinking, in being able to honestly look inward at your motivation for decisions you make. Even if that means you must acknowledge that your bias leans toward racism, sexism, or class-ism. As to the discomfort of the supposedly "forgotten" white majority with immigration based on their fears of being supplanted, I have no empathy. America is built on assimilation of people from many cultures, and a change in the majority/minority percentage is not only positive, it is inevitable. As a white person, I am not afraid of the shift. Fear is the enemy of reason.
4
There is a difference between wanting no discrimination as it pertains to legal immigration, and preying on people’s worst instincts when it comes to controlling our borders. Again, if Canadians were pouring in to avoid danger or persecution, how many politicians would make a big issue of it? Trump is creating a venue to allow the expression of anti-Hispanic bias in those who are racist to begin with. If it were Nigerians coming in it would be the same or worse. Trump is subtly making it fashionable to be racist. Just keep it Anonymous.
5
Thank you for an insightful, research-based article.
2
"...liberals and Democrats should avoid stepping into Trump’s trap."
So tell us, Mr. Edsall, why do you exclude the media from playing into Trump's little hands?
2
Note that the Trump supporter's anti immigrant fervor does not extend to her choice of vehicles.
2
'Hispanics' are not a race - they are an ethnic-linguistic group. 'Muslims' are an ethno-religious group. Similarly, anti-Mexican or anti-Guatemalan views are xenophobic ie against another national group. Being pro-white is racist, ie racially based whether due to feelings of white identity, white interests, or anti another group. Being pro-American is nationalist. And all these attitudes share common roots in authoritarian values against out-groups, however defined. Let's get the terms right in our debates.
3
so anti-immigration "...is influenced by a desire to slow decline in their group’s share of the population rather than due to an irrational fear of outgroups,..."
Uh? What? For goodness sakes - what is the motive other than out of fear of the other? And maybe not so irrational as the racial make-up shifts brown, whites lose their white privilege (which most can't admit to as we live in a meritocracy).
3
the clear evidence that Republican anti-immigration rhetoric is racist is the fact that they only talk about black and brown skinned non European origin immigrants. They are remarkably silent about illegal Caucasian immigrants of northern European ancestry.
3
How different groups rationalize 'racial self-interest' is truly fascinating.
But ‘Racial Self-Interest’ is racism. It literally fits the definition you can find in a dictionary (Merriam-Webster):
"a belief that... racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
1
It’s like when I was a kid and teased my brother. His angry protests to our mom gave me glee and made me feel powerful. Trump and his supporters are no different. They thrive on our disgust, outrage and condemnation. They have the power to outrage and victimize and they love it. What would happen if we responded with pity instead?
3
Thank you Mr. Edsall. As usual, yours is the only opinion page offering a reasoned, thoughtful piece.
1
From white supremacy to "white heritage" to "Normal", the euphemisms change, what doesn't change is that Donald Trump is their savior and will remain so no matter what Democrats say or don't say. As president Donald Trump controls the conversation. Democrats must beat Donald Trump at his own game. To do so they must not capitulate but raise the stakes. Just once I would like to hear a Democrat respond to Donald Trump's "infest and invade" rhetoric that border security would have been a fait accompli in 2013 by means of the Gang Of 8 bill, and that the small band of hardliners who prevented it from being voted on in the House bears full responsibility for any weakness in border security today.
1
I'm white, older, and utterly confused as to the mean of 'racial self interest.' Why would someone feel the need to maintain the same percentage of one's one ethnic/racial group unless--1, they have an advantage and don't want to relinquish it or 2, they feel that the people whose percentage is increasing are 'less than?' Sounds like racism to me.
5
As president Donald Trump controls the conversation and so now the opposition must beat him at his own game. History has shown us that appeasement is never a winning strategy. Donald Trump will continue to blame Democrats for the "infestation" of the country. Just once I would like to hear a Democrat remind him that comprehensive immigration reform would have been passed in 2013 but for a minority of hardliners who prevented the House from voting on it, and as such it is those hardliners who bear full responsibility for any deficiency in border security today.
Simply countering the Trump strategy with a more “nuanced” response to his racism and that of his followers ignores Trump’s underlying and persistent strategy of blatantly lying to create a false narrative to manipulate the perceptions of his supporters. No amount of nuance, especially truth- or fact-based, can counter the relentless vilification of his opponents based on that false narrative.
3
Courtesy in face of a fist in the mouth is a hearty helping of Teeth Soup in Red Bouillon served in the palm of your hand.
It is delusional to ascribe what is happening in America today to ANYTHING having to do with immigration, etc. This nation is comprised of large groups of people who SHOULD NOT, and CANNOT, live together as a "society" because they believe in FUNDAMENTALLY different things. Abortion is not a "voting" issue; for many, its them naked before God accounting for their faith. That is not my belief, but I acknowledge the intensity of others' faith.
The solution is for all sides to stop trying to force their "I" down the other person's throat like political foie gras was being made, and to sit down and divide ourselves up logically to everyone's advantage. That will result in what we "say" we don't want, but how we "act" says otherwise. Civil division is far better than civil war and will probably allow us to better live in peace. The borders between all our divisions will be highly active places; but once you continue inside, you CAN get away from the "Other."
America isn't working; and, it is rapidly working less well all the time. Our collective jingoistic pride won't allow us to admit our faults. The Constitution has been exposed to be a prayer instead of our guide to turbulent times. If we continue as we are, we will simply go the way of other nations, which is to be expected.
1
I dislike Trump and his administration, but I think that immigration is more complicated than either side would have me believe. I know there are jobs available that the members existing american populace will not do unless forced to do so. Have you tried to get into a hotel room lately at the time for check in? Your room is probably not ready because there are no longer immigrant workers to clean them. I do not see many people clamoring to wash dishes or pick fruit either. The fact is that immigrants will do the jobs that most natives will not because they value the fact that they have a job at all. That being said, I am opposed to unsecure borders, sanctuary cities, and unrestricted immigration. We are after all a nation, not a frontier. I believe that there are enough people trying to enter our country legally and they should be rewarded for doing so. Those that seek to enter our country illegally are breaking the law and I have no sympathy for them. With respect to my fellow americans I believe in the equality and abhor racism in any form. But when I hear people say that I am a racist because I am not for open borders and unrestricted access to our country it makes me angry. And as Mr. Edsall opines, it pushes me closer to voting for anyone, not just Trump, who is not liberal. Because frankly there are many of us who are fed up with being preached to by the left and told how we should think and act.
3
It boils down to this...no one wants to be called a nasty name, whether it describes them or not. Do it often enough and they will ignore, fight back etc.
Don't call names, instead display facts, statistics etc. Those are on our side where it comes to immigration.
1
Interesting that "racial self-interest" is treated as distinct from racism. I'm not so sanguine that these are distinct. How would a person, acting in "racial self-interest", behave differently from a person acting from racism?
2
Trump has made the decision to go all in on immigration as a blunt instrument of his border control. Next the wall.
There is no formula for countering a demagogue that is proven and fool proof. Logic and facts useless. If not the Red Hen Trump would overdose us with MS-13 or Dems want open borders. Bring up Pelosi as a symbol for open borders. Did Maxine Waters and Deniro help things no. Will that determine the fundamental challenge in the upcoming election, no.
The midterms are a final exam for representative democracy. If the voting majority wants an autocrat with a compliant Congress then the GOP holds the House. The alternative is clear. This is a binary choice.
3
"Insofar as the left engages in a war of incivility, it cedes the field of battle to a president who relishes uncivil combat." - - - No kidding! This couldn't be more obvious, and it is incredibly sad that it actually needs to be said.
2
I hate to see what's going on in this country over race and immigration, and in case you think I'm just an uninterested commentator on that keep in mind you know hardly a thing about me. I hate to see it.
But let's look around us and see that this isn't a "USA" issue, it's a world issue (and I don't mean to point fingers at any other country, but let's deal with all the facts, eh?):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/world/europe/netherlands-face-coverin...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/17/manus-island-dete...
The essence of the conservative mindset is that we have a good idea of what was, a fair idea of what is, and no idea of what will be. For those who have been aggrieved, the past was bad so the future must be better, right? More conservatism: only if we have our eyes wide open, consider realistic rather than idealistic outcomes, and accept that all progress requires change, but all change does not beget progress. There is 20,000 years of folklore and wisdom to support that conservative approach to evolving society, while the liberal approach is flaming out after barely 400 years.
Yup, that's right.
So, resentment of toward the suggestion that you may or may not be a racist for supporting an immigration policy has possibly fueled the rise of Trump. Boy have we all been played. Voting
for the conman out of resentment doesn't seem to be the most rational of decisions. Resentment and anger may win you elections and a bit of vengeful self satisfaction, but deep down you know you've lost.
1
Let me get this straight. If I steal your wallet, please don't call me a thief. Being called a thief will upset me and I will then turn to a life of crime. Instead, please recognize that I am practicing "economic self-interest." Being a thief is widely recognized as wrong; practicing economic self-interest is widely accepted and, indeed, principled.
Mr. Edsall, and those whose work he quotes, are dead wrong in terms of morality. Tactically, they might have a point. So, call racism by it's name, but do so calmly and rationally to avoid playing to Miller and Trump's trap.
7
What happens when we shift from accusing a person of being a racist to saying that one of their ideas is racist?
We don’t invent many of “our” ideas, we inherit most of them.
And in this country, the idea that one whole color of people is more deserving and worthy than the darker ones is an idea we all inherit, whether we like it or admit it or not.
2
Um, no. Anyone who believes that racial self-interest is not inherently racist has already been lost. Republicans will continue to field candidates who pander to this group. There is no political benefit to protecting their feelings.
2
A lot of this makes good sense, and everyone in social science has long known that getting a straight answer to some poll questions is tough because people don't want to seem socially unacceptable. But there's an inherent problem with the belief of many American and British people that "when the white majority seeks lower immigration to help maintain their population share, this is racially self-interested rather than racist behavior." That's because what we have learned in the past few decades about genetics tells us that biologically, there is no such thing as race. Race is entirely socially constructed. So believing that it matters whether the percentage of the population who have a complexion like yours decreases is, in fact, racist. There's no getting around it.
4
Trump has been playing the incivility game, bullying liberals and progressives, and for that matter, ANYONE who disagrees with him, is stirring up prurient desires hidden in his followers, further polarizing the country...
This attitude of demeaning the opposition at every turn is becoming as dangerous as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater...
If this 'come get me' attitude continues one can see the seeds of an eventual civil war in the US (with 350 million plus fire arms in homes?).
1
Excellent article, one of the first where I see the ethno-demographic interest recognized as a separate entity from racism. The stubborn refusal of the left to acknowledge it is part of what got us Trump.
Just one objection: white Americans’ increasingly negative attitude towards immigration is not due only to to “anguish over diminishing proportion and role in the overall population”, but also to blatant promotion of identity politics by the leftist elites. In order words, when white people are told that they have to apologize and repent simply for being white, they don’t think it’s fair. Obviously that doesn’t excuse the opposite that Trump practices, blatant white identity politics. One shouldn’t have to state the obvious, but these days so many think that if you criticize one side, you must like the other.
2
Can someone please expalin why Immigration
is inherently good for the Poor of America.
Undocumented immigrants do not take jobs
away from Lawyers and Doctors, but compete with
the poorest of Americans for work, pay, housing
and spaces in public schools.
Does it mean anything to be an American Citizen
anymore or not ?
2
One of the things that infuriates me is that our press helped elect Trump. Now we watch his show all the time, with dread.
The other thing that is extremely frustrating is seeing that "democracy" is not a robust system of government, yet we continued to export it to so many countries for years.
It only took ONE corrupt and authoritarian racist to bring our democratic system to its knees.
Our country is divided. One party controls all the arms of government. Our moral center has been eroded.
The legislature is enabling Trump escape accountability for his apparent collusion with Russia to upend our electoral system. Please, enough with the pretense that our "only I can do it demagogue" was not present in the meetings to execute the Russian
policies for the world.
The press is not powerful enough to create a robust democracy. Not with Sinclair broadcasting and Fox News acting as state propaganda machines.
A democratic system of government does NOT work. Period. The worst, it seems, is yet to come from Trump and his amoral band of lying sycophants.
2
My concern about immigration is not that white people like me are going to become minorities. It is that we live on a finite planet, already groaning with overpopulation.
When I was a kid (60 + years ago) the population of the U.S. was 180 million, and now it's 329 million. This is not sustainable. We should be promoting family planning in the U.S. and around the world. And yes, that does mean coming to grips with an aging population.
Population stabilization is going to happen at some juncture: the world cannot support an infinitely increasing population of humans (or of anything else).
"...liberals and Democrats should avoid stepping into Trump’s trap." Yes, Trump's trap is attention. The more he is attacked on racism, etc, the more media attention he gets. His supporters rally.
Yes, Democrats need to find better approaches that really work.
They might start by holding idea contests, all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There might be slogans, gestures, images, songs, etc that work.
But as long as Democrats refuse to accept outside ideas they fail.
1
I see this debate as a distraction from the fact that Trump and the Republicans are robbing all of us,excepting the one percent, blind ,passing spending bills and driving us deeper into debt,while preparing to cut services, and rolling back all kinds of social and enviornmental progress that has been made over the past twenty years. There is an irrational fear of the Other gripping some people in this country that reveals to me that they have never really lived and worked amongst the people that they seem to be so scared of.
3
How is 'Racial self-interest' not racism? Which alternative universe are we living in that we parse words so such as extent as to lose our souls?
Someone please explain to me how 'Racial self-interest' is about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
1
I totally agree with your insights. But I don't think most liberals are going to get it. It's too tempting to react rather than consider the consequences and 'respond' intelligently.
Horrible insults were thrown at the Obamas while and after they were in the White House. They responded with silence thus not allowing most of that vitriol to become headlines. Their dignity prevailed.
Last week Elizabeth Warren gave a speech somewhere and the only thing that was reported about it was her "your not going to shut me up" reply to a Trump twitter.
To Trump insulting people comes naturally, it always has. But to people like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller this is a strategic tactic. And it's working.
Social media makes 'throwing gasoline on the fire' inevitable. But mainstream media and public figures could make a difference by not taking the bait and considering the consequences of what they say and publish.
3
It is interesting and telling that this analysis never examines the core concern of many voters. That is how will many immigrants impact our community? There are real concerns about social, cultural and financial impact. It is as if Democrats only want to lecture us about pc responses, e.g., “it is not who we are.” A more interesting study would be about the results and impact of mass immigration in Dearborn, MI, Little Mogadishu, MN or Oxnard, CA, etc. Democrats don’t seem to care what the perceptions of the populace are. If they hear about them, they are dismissed. This is one of the many reasons The Deplorables voted for President Trump.
1
We're discovering, again, just how much ideas matter, how much strenuous, informed, skillful, and ethical critical inquiry matters.
"Racially self-interested behavior" by white people is by definition racism. But to understand that truth one needs to know about the biology of race (or rather, the lack thereof), and especially about the history of race. Whiteness was invented by Europeans and Americans of European descent in order to allow them to pursue interests as a group by exploiting, abusing, and oppressing black people. Obviously white people needed to forget or deny the history of that invention for the resulting whiteness to work as intended. These matters have been established soundly by historians such as Edmund Morgan and Nell Irvin Painter, and many others. The idea that racial self-interest isn't racism is just the latest in a long history of efforts to deny the history and logic of whiteness.
I'm not saying Trump's base will be open to taking in this lesson; they won't. They will go down with the ship of whiteness, if it comes to that.
In the meantime I suppose Mr. Edsall's advice about emphasizing the inhumanity rather than the racism of Trump's policies may be worth taking. It's pretty easy to establish the inhumanity of children crying in cages a thousand miles from their parents. It's racist, too. But maybe the troll does want to hear that.
1
Calling someone racist or any other disparaging name is not a way to get that person on your side. People who harbor racial animus may be in denial or they may resent having one of their flaws pointed out. I believe that everyone, even racial minorities, is racist to some extent. Some people recognize this in themselves and try to work past it, some are in denial, and some are just fine with being racist. The best way to persuade someone is to use an argument that resonates with that person, starting with more detailed questions about the person's views. As we see, incivility at best accomplishes nothing, and at worst backfires because it turns the perpetrators into victims.
Interestingly, the column seems to indicate that even those who consider themselves progressive, when faced with creative questioning, reveal that they don't favor immigration as much as they may claim.
2
It must be supremely comforting for the millions of America's black citizens to learn that, instead of being victimized by racism, they were instead "affected" by the racial self-interest of the country's whites when they were systematically excluded from town after town, village after village, and nieghborhood after neighborhood in what historian James Loewen terms the "great unraveling" of racial egalitarianism that followed the collapse of Reconstruction. Even if they were denied decent places to live, jobs in professions for which they were qualified, and, more broadly, the freedom of association, at least our black fellow citizens, according to Edsall's analysis, were simply collateral damage in a legitimate movement of whites to control their own racial destiny.
I suppose that only when the rules of Jim Crow were challenged, if only slightly, and blacks were publicly murdered, often with the collusion of white officials, that they were then rightly termed victims of racism. Destructive white supremacy, aka "racial self-interest," is as American as apple pie..Read Loewen's SUNDOWN TOWNS for a moving account of this side of our national character, whose power to mock the Enlightenment universalism of our founding principles remains today largely unacknowledged and, to judge from this article, the mistaken object of apologetics and distinctions without differences.
1
So when the white supremacists rally in Washington this year be sure to hand them a brochure. Ok but what about the guy who looked at Google searches? Stephens-Davidowitz saw that searches containing racist epithets and jokes were spiking across the country during Trump’s primary run, and not merely in the South but in upstate New York, Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, rural Illinois, West Virginia, and industrial Michigan. Not Trump voters? I do agree with the point that liberals and liberal politicians especially don't do a good job of explaining the why of a particular issue. Whereas conservatives are better at presenting concise and clear arguments to support their positions. They are also not afraid to state their positions for fear of offending.
What people dislike most about liberals, particularly highly educated and wealthy liberals, and especially liberals with media exposure, is the tendency for liberals to tell others how they should think and act. There is a long tradition of this Puritanism in the US, and it has been despised since the first Puritans told their neighbors how to paint their fences. The message in this article is not telling Liberals to be more polite. The message is to lead by example, rather than by self-righteous hectoring. While less satisfying to the Puritanical liberal, leading by quiet example actually works over the long haul, while self-righteous hectoring most often actively encourages silent resistance. There really is a silent majority on many issues, and they respond negatively to being lectured to.
1
I think the Repub’s inflammatory talk about immigration and the back and forth about who is a racist is a trap for Democrats leading up to November elections. The issues should be economic: tax cuts for the wealthy, exploding deficits that are already leading to Republican’s hypocritical talk about cutting Social Security and Medicare, job losses and stagnant wages. White working class is worried about their future and believes dark skinned immigrants will take their jobs at lowerwages, and overrun their communities. Dems should argue that their lives have been made difficult by Republican policies that only favor the wealthy at the expense of working people. Government needs to invest in their communities with infrastructure, job training, free community college, health care for all like Medicare: a new New Deal for America. We need to give these people something to believe in and hope for . Telling them they are racists and looking down on them drives them away. Maybe if they can make better lives for themselves with government help, their anger towards immigrants will lessen and some sensible, bipartisan Immigration reform can get through Congress.
1
Not our voice, but our echo.
This argument is similar to the one against socially enforced "political correctness" - which was a determinant factor in Trump's election. But it could also be turned against "racial preference" if widespread tolerance towards this (seemingly "natural") phenomenon becomes a social norm. And so much more so if it translates into stable policies - which would ultimately bring back a sort of segregation "lite" into the mainstream. It is nevertheless true that a lot of Trump voters are not rabid white supremacists and that - when possible - constructive dialog rather than invective should be pursued when debating immigration issues.
"The gap between the most well-educated Clinton supporters and the least well-educated Trump supporters is stark — 91.3 percent to 5.5 percent. In other words, the very definition of racism is deeply contested." Not surprising.
The gap between the most well-educated republicans and the least well-educated is what? Not much, that's the problem.
3
I'm an Independent liberal who supports sensible immigration policy, but certainly not to Keep America White Again.
Shortly after the election, after I got over the initial shock, I tried to make some sense out of why so many Americans voted for trump. I resisted my gut reaction that they voted on racists terms, and attributed their support to an albeit misguided belief that The Great Deal Maker was going to fix all of America's social and economic problems with his Wharton Negotiating Skills.
Now, a year-and-a-half into this this nincompoop's administration, I am convinced that the prime motivator for his supporters is indeed a racist desire to keep America white.
And I gotta hand it to 'em. trump and his republicant cohorts in Congress know how to bait us liberals. For example: calling us "elites."
I invite any of trump's supporters to spend a day in my life, take a look at my house, my car, my lifestyle. While it's certainly not a deplorable lifestyle, I assure them there's nothing elite about it.
Having good common sense, compassion for fellow human beings, and respect for the law does not make one an Elite.
6
A little history might clarify matters. There is an enormous history of immigration and migration across millennia not just decades or centuries, and around the globe and not just to the US or Western Europe. Race and ethnicity are extremely complicated matters as is the concept or term "white." Think how in the era of "Jim Crow" Southern whites in defense of their group interest practiced blatant racial domination. They also lynched Italian immigrants who were deemed nonwhite. And the congressional Dillingham Commission that investigated immigration in the first decade of the twentieth century distinguished good white immigrants from northern and western Europe from inferior types then arriving from southern and eastern Europe, the former maintaining the proper demographic balance of the nation, the latter undermining it. A sentiment that in 1924 became the central component of a new immigration law. Was not all that a form of "racism" regardless of how its advocates rationalized their actions and beliefs. Fine don't label "racists" "racists" because it simply intensifies their feelings of insecurity, unlike
"snowflakes" who melt at the first discomfort they feel. Yes, it doesn't serve much purpose to indict specific individuals, especially to their face, as "racists" but it is certainly in order to examine the long history of immigration restriction and to see its basis in forms of "racism" and to criticize specific immigration policies as "racist" in origin and effect.
1
The key question is not what constitutes racism, nor is it how to gently and civilly persuade racists to desist from their support for the institutions of white supremacy. The key to beating racism and xenophobia is not to make it a single issue cause but rather to join it to the struggle of ordinary working people of all colors and backgrounds for a better life for themselves and their children. A revival of the labor movement in the US is the key, because only by building class solidarity between white workers and workers of color and showing it's connection to general economic stability and security can fear, resentment, and support for white supremacy be weakened and destroyed. If that's the kind of "subtlety" that Mr. Edsall is talking about then I agree we need more of it.
2
I've been using the Internet for 30 years, going way back to BBS systems, gopher, www/Mosaic and beyond to date. I've also been hearing people advise 'don't feed the trolls' for 30 years, and I am hard-pressed to recall it ever actually working. It feels good, and seems like taking the high road... but it just isn't effective. Trolls are stopped by booting/banning them, and not tolerating their nonsense; simply hoping to ignore them away has never worked, and never will. In fact, if allowed to persist without repercussion, they keep pressing harder until they do get a rise out of someone. Always. Unchecked, they will also encourage others to join in with the bad behavior.
Ignoring the problem never solves the problem. 'Don't feed the trolls' is simply poor advise.
Being ‘civil’ won’t stop civil war.
4
Three things strike me after reading this analysis. The first is that Mr. Trump and his accomplices are willing to employ inherently hurtful behavior as a primary tactic for garnering political gain. The second is that we’re all being manipulated by means of that tactic - those who believe that immigration is a boon to our society, through direct triggers like the word “infest," and those who don't, indirectly through the apoplexy of the first group. And the third - more a question than an observation - is this: if what I really believe is NOT that Trump supporters are necessarily racist but rather that immigration enhances our country, and that we should try to find ways to integrate hard-working and contributing people into our midst rather than building walls and myths against them, how and where can I convey that, in a receptive forum?
2
Some of the comments I've read seem to be saying that
those who hold explicit racist mind sets and those who
have a more nuanced way about expressing anxiety about
racial identity, their own and others, should be responded to in
the same way by calling out and focusing upon the racism in both and leaving the response at that. They lump into the same pool
the deplorables with everyone else.
This reaction, while psychologically easy to be gratified by
because to confront racism when and wherever it rears
its monstrous visage is an intrinsic good, may not be
the most effective in teasing away the
irredentist from the merely anxious. That is the point of the research summarized in the article.
We need to be in the business of converting those hearts and minds that are capable of being reached, not shoving everyone else out the door by a uniform communication strategy. Manifest self righteousness is not a winning strategy, especially when it comes off as preaching and closes minds instead.
Edsall's column is, I think, best understood in this way.
3
"They should cite assimilation data to reassure anxious majorities."
I know several Trump supporters, all reasonably well educated, white, and middle class. They don't believe in data, or facts for that matter, so this suggestion is useless. Perhaps some could be persuaded, but not the ones I know.
1
I'm a far left Democrat--voted for Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general.
I also support greatly reducing immigration numbers for the sake of American workers, and of the environment, both within the US and globally (immigrants' greenhouse emissions arrive an average of 4-fold after arrival in the US b/c they come mostly from developing countries, and the US has the highest per capita emissions among major industrialized nations.)
People who accuse those of us who would reduce immigration of being racists make me angry. I view them as attempting to shut off debate.
4
So you're saying people should stop using labels and name-calling, and instead focus on the issues and impacts instead?
Insane!
That might mean asking the party in control how they're addressing the need for real reform - not gestures just to show "toughness" or something. It would mean finding small towns full of Republican voters that are thriving because of the arrival of immigrants or refugees. It would require showing the harm to agricultural productivity and trades like construction as low-paying jobs are suddenly going unfilled, crops aren't getting picked, homes aren't going up. Once refugee's come up, we'd probably have to document that very real fact that the US has never had Sharia law despite there being several million Muslims born and raised here. Ask LA, Houston, Detroit, etc..
Would it be name-calling to ask the anti-immigration crowd how we preserve wealth and safety nets without population growth? That's the real change society has to face - and Japan and Europe (including Russia) are already falling towards that problem. Then we can talk about a total immigration package, to help our towns, our economy and secure our borders.
2
Not surprisingly given the ideological bias, no distinction is made here between poll results that deal with lawful immigration as opposed to illegal intrusion: Tom conflates them into the rubric “immigration”. However, by doing so I contend that Tom fails to get at real motivations, and by failing in that he also fails to understand the real state of American views. You can’t conflate the two: they’re completely different animals. However, if you were to focus on views dealing with lawful immigration and illegal intrusion separately, support probably would wane significantly for the proposition that Trump is stoking fears about “immigration”.
Trump primarily is talking about illegal intrusion, a phenomenon that opens us to uncontrolled potential dilution of our dominant culture by the effects of caving to conditions created by OTHER societies that impel hordes of their own people to escape their OWN cultures, not seeking the closest less dreadful alternative but intentionally seeking ours instead, for purely economic reasons – while we have millions of Americans concerned about their OWN economic prospects. Conditions created by those other cultures over which we have no control or even material influence, short of military invasions and culture-changing occupations of decades of required duration – which isn’t going to happen.
As a consequence …
1
… Tom blows up ANY legitimate definition of “racism” himself, without the need for help from Alexander Janus or anyone else; and seeks to bend it to his own ideological ends.
Miller and Bannon may have ruthlessly supported the tactic of egging-on ideological adversaries to flick spit-wads at Trump, thereby increasing his support among those who find the spit-wads to be flying too thickly to be fair or even rational; but their tactical approaches to garnering ideological support don’t really say anything about “racism”.
Tom, our resident expert on studies and charts, should first focus on getting the data feeding those studies and charts, and his definitions, more relevant to the real issues claimed to need better understanding, and not merely on flogging ideological themes.
Trump is speaking to an issue that is regarded as existential by millions of Americans. Some of those Americans probably are motivated by racism; but overwhelmingly, they’re motivated by deep offense at the view by others that unlimited illegal intrusion is perfectly okay, and is nothing more or less than “immigration”.
2
Although a distinction can certainly be made between legal immigration and illegal intrusion, as you put it, I'm not at all sure that distinction is as material to Trump's base as you suggest. One of the first things Trump did was to issue an order shutting down legal immigration from majority-Muslim countries. Ending the diversity visa lottery is also on his wish list for immigration reform.
Sure, people get even more angry about illegal immigration than the legal kind, but it seems to me that that anger is being driven much less by a concern for the rule of law (notwithstanding that Trump uses that phrase) than by worry about white Americans losing their majority status. That's the real fuel for this fire.
3
Donald Trump's rhetoric is regarded as an existential threat by millions. The likes of Bannon and Miller use the term "identity politics" advisedly. Preservation of the white Christian power structure is what they are after. Illegal immigration is a plausible deniability distraction.
Edsall informs us that in order to win elections, Democrats just have to stop standing tall against racism, sexism, Nazis, fascists, and the illegal, even treasonous, behaviors of Trump and his kleptocratic friends.
Who, exactly, would that benefit?
4
The fact that Republicans consider illegal immigration such a critical issue (even before Trump) is why it’s a safe bet they are racist. Why? There are only about 11 million illegal immigrants in a country of 327 million. The vast majority work hard and pay taxes for services they don’t get. They lower prices in industries where they work, such as food, construction, and landscaping. There is some evidence they hurt those without high school educations, but most others benefit overall.
Compare that to 32 million uninsured, or the top 1% with 40% of the wealth, or a $600+ billion defense budget, or an unsustainable deficit trajectory in a booming economy ($13.7 trillion over 10 years vs. $9.4 trillion in the Obama baseline, an increase of nearly 50% due to Trump’s policies). The make illegal immigration seem small indeed in importance, right?
The good news is that raising taxes on the rich to fund education and healthcare for the middle class will solve many of these problems. Democrats need to hammer that message in simple terms.
28
David Doney,
You wrote, "The good news is that raising taxes on the rich to fund education and healthcare for the middle class will solve many of these problems. Democrats need to hammer that message in simple terms."
I'm sure that Trump agrees wholeheartedly. In fact, I'll bet that he's counting on it. I'll even bet that he's going to do whatever he can to provoke Democrats to 'hammer that message'.
Democrats created Trump, they elected Trump, and now they are working furiously to keep him in office, all to the enormous detriment of the Nation.
Be well,
Chuck
9
On the contrary. Immigrants on average earn little more than minimum wage. Nonetheless, they get healthcare, 54% of them get welfare (as to around 31% of Americans), and their kids get schooling--very expensive.
(I agree that taxes should be raised on the wealthy for the purposes you mention.)
4
The fact the RWA (right wing authoritarians) doesn't like being called racist, when every word that leaves their gobs, is racist, then stop using racist terms. It's extremely short sighted of the RWA to assume that democrats don't want immigration reform, they do, but they want real, lasting, and fair reform, not some heavy handed, separating families garbage. The RWA's are totally out of touch with the real monetary costs of separating children from their parents, then housing them for months, all on the tax payers dime.
Imagine if Trumps grandfather was barred from entering the US because he was a German. Remember Wilson had it out for Germans, he considered all of them anti-american. We can now say, that this country WOULD have been far better off had the grandfather not been readmitted into the US. He left the US and came back, during World War I he kept a low profile because of anti-German feelings in the US due to the war. German-born citizens came under suspicion.
Both parties have long used immigration for votes, Obama made Spanish speaking ads, appealing directly to Hispanics, for their votes. Reagan on the other hand' gave them amnesty, with the promise of a path to citizenship. It's hard for a RWA to imagine what they would do in similar circumstances.
If the party of Trump thinks that the democrats are just going to sit on their hands come November, they need to rethink that idea. The democrats need to come out swinging, and get people to the polls.
1
Trump has so far cost me over $300,000 in lost income from my energy related business. His party is cutting and threatening to destroy the Social Security and Medicare that I will be relying on in several years. His Supreme Court has just pulled the rug out from public sector unions, and now threatens to roll back all of the protections gained by workers and minorities over the past 100 years.. His EPA is gutting the protections to the environment. He is destroying our county's military alliances. He is trashing our close allies and trading partners while sucking up to our adversaries, essentially ceding international influence to Russia and China. And he got into the position to inflict all of this damage by race-baiting on the immigration issue. So whether Trump is a racist or not, he is deliberately projecting that image so his handlers can steal from everyone.
61
I’m sorry for your business difficulties. It’s true Trump is. performer playing to his racist minions. It’s their own fault for being so, no one else’s, not even Trump’s. And oeople who call out racism are beave ro do so. There is a lot of pressure on them to go away.
Fascinating read, especially as it relates to racism. No one wants to be known as bigoted; of course they resent the implication. But it doesn't mean it's not so. And what are liberals supposed to think, that the best way to get through these troubled times is to bury one's head in the sand and walk on eggshells, lest someone get angry? Republicans make extremely inflammatory remarks: Their voters honestly believe Trump's warnings of immigrant criminals pouring over the border and other lies. You've seen the disturbing Trump rally images, where members of the media and protesters are villified and all but threatened. This is not rational. The upshot: Dems must speak out and be just as aggressive.
21
I disagree: the stuff Trump says is definitely racist, and I would privately classify most anyone who supports him as either racist, or, at the least, willing to accept having a racist president in exchange for paying less taxes, etc.
It is very principled to speak what one really thinks, and I've read more than enough Twitter threads by righteous fellow liberals eviscerating Trump, almost all of which I agree with. But those are worth nothing to kids separated from their parents. We need to be making policy, and in order to win elections, we need at least some people who voted for Trump to vote Democrat.
There are 2 ways to do this: 1. continue to condemn every word that comes out of Trump's mouth and loudly proclaim that his supporters are racist in the hopes of shaming some of them into voting Democrat. 2. Explain that we don't want open borders [I personally do but that's another story], that we also recognize the need to do more to reduce illegal immigration, but that our plan will be cheaper, more effective, and more humane than building a wall and a bunch of new prisons.
This is not a disingenuous strategy, it's actually very transparent. Right now I genuinely don't know what most Democrats would do regarding immigration if they had power, because almost all of our messaging is focused on criticizing trump. Right now there aren't 2 visions, there is Trump's vision, and then a bunch of people on Twitter yelling about how anyone who supports that vision is racist
Even in the face of cities in Texas, are asking what immigration crisis.
As George Costanza put it: It's not a lie if you believe it's the truth. The white race (is there such a thing? I don't believe there is) has been opposing immigration from outsiders as long as there's been a United States. The legitimacy of that opposition is always being touted. I read an article from the early 20th century that confidently stated that Jews would never equal their white brethren in intellectual achievement. Italians were viewed as other than white, now Mexicans are being denounced as "other." No one is saying we should prohibit white people from trying to get other races to stay away, and I get that it's not smart to call them deplorable or racist, but if trying to keep other races from entering your country or living near you isn't racist, then what on God's green earth IS?
22
Liberals seem to have discovered the one issue for which, magically, there is no downside whatsoever: immigration.
Of course there are huge benefits. But to even acknowledge that, like other issues, there are costs as well, is to announce oneself as a hateful bigot to the left, end of discussion.
Trump and other demagogues get their fuel from this.
Yeah it's definitely racist. I feel like the problem isn't so much individuals identifying it as racist, but many democrats running for office in 2018 can't win unless they can convince some people who voted for Trump to vote for them.
Few people like to admit that a past decision they made was racist, so if the strategy is banking on Trump supporters doing some self examination and admitting their sins I don't think it will work. It's possible to acknowledge privately that Trump, and many of his supporters, are racist, while at the same time not making potential voters' past mistakes the selling point of your campaign.
I am a lifelong Democrat, and right now I genuinely don't know what our party's stance on immigration is. It's useless to spend time trying to tell voters that Trump's stance on immigration is evil if we don't have a succinct, comprehensive, and practical alternative to offer instead.
Tony,
Do races exist or not ?
If they don't then how can a person be a "racist"
if they do
then it is just a form of tribalism -
something that is natural to all humans.
Regrettable, but natural.
1
The Republicans control most state legislatures, both houses of Congress, the White House and The Supreme Court. This did not happen because the Democrats did not express clearly and loudly their negative feelings toward Trump. They do that to little effect. It happened because Democrats did not do well enough in selling the voting public on the value to those voters of the Democratic platform and candidates. Much more thought needs to be focused there. Perhaps the Democrats need to set aside “Happy Days are Here Again” as their theme song and to replace it with another old ditty: “We better accentuate the positive —Eliminate the negative —Latch on to the affirmative — Don't mess with Mister In-Between!” Message clear?
8
Please run for president :)
Seriously, I hate Trump as much as the next guy but we need to be able to attract moderate voters - - and some trump supporters-- in order to win seats. It's genuinely not impossible to do flip people - - there are many people who voted for Obama and then Trump. But trying to guilt people into it isn't going to work.
Right now I genuinely don't know what Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would do to immigration policy if they had power, because they haven't presented a memorable and cohesive alternative plan. Same for other issues. We can't make the defining appeal of our party be simply that we aren't Trump--and there's no reason why we should, because unlike Republicans, we actually want to implement policies that would be beneficial to most Americans.
I think this problem goes back to Hillary, and her campaigns decision to make disqualifying Trump its primary message. The whole strategy makes you look like all you want is to maintain the status quo and prevent anyone crazy from shaking it up.
1
Yes, white voters over the last forty years have followed the dog whistle of the Republican Party. This is just as they planned. Read Kevin Phillips. Lee Atwater.
There was no inducement that Democrats could give to those voters sweeter than that sound.
It is a shame the republican party, which has nothing good to offer 99% of Americans, is so good at keeping the conversation about immigration. While they go about their business of strip-mining the country for the libertarian donor class, the rest of us talk about race. All these words, and I can't recall seeing a concrete proposal with numbers anywhere. How many people are actually trying to cross the southern border? How many should we allow in each year? Obviously, it can't be all, our population would double, by some estimates. Of course the divider-in-chief is using this issue to lather up his base, but I would like to at least see something from the opposition beyond the fact that trump is a racist. I got that.
7
People who say they are unaware of what the Democratic Party stands for are saying more about themselves than about the Democratic Party. Or they aren’t buying what we’re selling, which is the same difference, really.
7
Not sure that's true, at least for immigration. The reality is that we (democrats) have been walking a very weird and duplicitous line for a while on immigration. Under Obama we deported millions, implemented E-Verify at a wide scale, and brought tons of modern technology to CBP. No Democrat, to my knowledge, has endorsed open borders or dramatically expanding visa programs to the level that would make immigration unnecessary.
At the same time, we all get very upset every time we hear about someone poor soul getting deported, we get very upset. Now many democrats want to abolish ICE, which seems like putting the cart before the horse. Basically, such calls amount to wanting to keep existing policies in place, but make enforcement much less effective. To be honest, it kind of feels like many democrats ideal policy is "just do what we were doing before these pictures of kids in cages started showing up in my facebook feed."
If other Democrats feel, as I do, that we should give residency to anyone who wants it, they should say so, but I don't think any elected Democrat has supported that idea. Short of that change or something similar, all I hear from Democrats is "we should treat 12 million people who live here as illegal, but underfund the enforcement of immigration laws so that they're not enforced that widely."
2
I disagree. As a marketing professional for over 30 years and a liberal Democrat, I think Dems are falling short on messaging. Trump is showing us how it's done -- brilliantly -- and we refuse to acknowledge and emulate him. We won't lower ourselves and would rather write policy dissertations and read them aloud to our base. Nobody who was not in a coma in 2016 knew what Trump stood for. Hillary? Not so much.
2
Mr. Edsall states that many open racists have joined the Trump ranks, while many supporters "do not believe" they are racist. He couldn't bring himself to say simply that many are not racist.
This is more liberal folderol dressed up un a slightly more respectful package than Maxine Waters hands out. The left condescends saying that many Trump voters do not *think* themselves racist, but--wink, wink--we on the left know they really are. There're uneducated refugees from flyover country who entirely lack self-awareness.
The left does not understand: we're tired of you always presuming to define racism snd those who supposedly exhibit it. It is the left's cultural moment, not that of the derided white majority, that is passing.
(NB: Rob Reiner was on TV this week stating that all Trump supporters are racist, no doscussion, and anyone who disagrees with that is himself racist. He, and Samantha Bee, and Michelle Wolff, and Linda Sansour, and Jimmy Kimmel--they're the gift that keeps on giving.)
12
Would you accept that actively working to aggregate wealth and power to one’s own race is racism? If not, what would be your definition?
Written, with typos, from my cardio bike. No, we don't all smoke and wolf down biscuits 'n gravy.
Nice try. When David Duke, Richard Spencer, Matthew Heimbach, Steve King, Joe Arpaio, Ann Coulter Jared Taylor, Andrew Anglin and the Unite the Right crowd, and all their followers and the people who never raise the slightest objection to them, chose a candidate to support in 2016, who did they choose? And who do they support now?
Just own it already.
1
Population growth is what keeps our economy running. Just ask Japan. Immigration is part of the demographic mix that has allowed us to stay on top.
Am I the only person to know this??? Am I the only person to ever raise this point??
14
Bret Stephens made this very same point in his column on June 21. His commentary is worth reading. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/trump-immigration-reform.html
When the headline in the NYT is what Trump called Senator Warren in Nevada the day before, and what she called him back, rather than ALL that she said about policy (her criticism of current public policy and her vision of where the country should be) in a campaign appearance, this newspaper appallingly succumbs to the Trump agenda of manipulating the media to his advantage, manufacturing fake controversies, dominating the news cycle with his own narrative.
Stop reporting tweets; stop analyzing his manners. Keep the focus on policy issues and professional conduct.
30
Democrats will be vulnerable to Hannity and Trump as long as they promote the meme that this country has no right to regulate and control its borders. An insistence on letting in whoever arrives to the border does not make sense to many people - and demonizing them is counterproductive and water for the Trumpian mill.
10
"as long as they promote the meme that this country has no right to regulate and control its borders."
That certainly is not what the Democrats are saying,
But it is what Hannity and Trump say the Democrats are saying
People who listen only to Hannity and Trump are vulnerable to being fooled by liars who only seek to enrich themselves at the expense of others (including those they fool)
19
I'm a far left Democrat--voted for Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general--and I'm sick over the Supreme Court.
If the Democrats truly wanted to regulate who comes into our country, the first thing we would do is work to pass a national, mandatory E-Verify. There's just no excuse not to do so.
And at least some of our senators and congresspeople would be proposing bills to reduce legal immigration.
Seriously, which Democrats are supporting open borders and unregulated immigration? I am only hearing from Trump and his mouthpieces that this is the case. Please show who is openly supporting open borders.
No one, not even most racists, is proud of their prejudice; they're only offended when they're called racists. If the Democrats want to save this country they'll concentrate on criticising radical Republicans who have installed workplace laws attacking the working class, and legislation favoring an enormous concentration of wealth above equitable pay, on ignoring housing, available health care to create a permanent underclass. Talk the truth to power, Democrats, because not doing so has make you powerless.
10
Institutional racism is an effort to reduce the distribution of resource ownership and political power including monopoly over the use of force in favor of perceived racial groups. Individual racism are conscious and unconscious efforts, choices, and decisions that support institutional racism. Whatever the excuse, anything that results in an unequal exercise of power whereby one group is harmed or disadvantaged is a wrong. This article is rubbish as is the alleged “science” it relies on. If this thesis had captured the zeitgeist of the 1860’s, we’d all be singing kumbaya while slavery survived.
5
"These white conservatives whose immigration stance is influenced by a desire to slow decline in their group’s share of the population rather than due to an irrational fear of outgroups, feel accused of racism. This breeds resentment."
This sentence really speaks for itself, doesn't it? A desire to always be the majority race is, by definition, racist because it's placing greater value on a white American citizen than on any other human being in America. Am I missing something...?
16
This is so spot on. Can you contemplate a nation of only whites? Who would want to live there? Only white Santa and white Jesus. These people are a joke with there immigration righteousness.
1
"The gap between the most well-educated Clinton supporters and the least well-educated Trump supporters is stark — 91.3 percent to 5.5 percent. In other words, the very definition of racism is deeply contested."
What you mean to say is, "uneducated Trump voters are racist."
10
So the strategy is to refrain from calling out white nationalism so that we don't anger Trump's base? We should refrain from moral outrage so that we don't offend Trump voters who say "I'm not racist, but..."?
My brother voted for Trump. He lives in a McMansion in the suburbs and doesn't have a book or a magazine in his house. When I told him I thought Trump was a racist, he said, "Then you think I'm a racist, too, because I like everything he's doing."
There is no winning over Trump supporters. My wish is that we stop giving air time to his lying surrogates on CNN or any other TV News. Report on his policies and interview experts. Forget the rest.
14
What is the distinction this survey is trying to draw between “acting in her racial self-interest” and “being racist”? I would argue that acting in one’s racial self-interest is by definition racist because that is are favoring one’s racial group over others.
11
"Racism is a taboo, whereas ethnic self-interest, like individual self-interest, is viewed as normal."
Perhaps it would help to normalize use of the word 'racism' in the service of clarity.
6
Most people who are racist will deny that they are racist. Racism persists on account of their failure to confront their irrational fears. I’m amazed by how so-called racist scientific researchers try to justify racism. The Bell Curve by Charles
Murray and now Professor Eric Kaufman,
Political Scientist from the University of London who states that Racial Self Interest is not Racism. Most of the expressed racial self interest in America and Europe today, dehumanize immigrants.
7
Don't take the bait. Just vote.
16
So rollover and play dead in the face of racism is the strategy to combat racism is that what you’re saying Tom? It certainly seems to be what you are implying.
7
This president is only interested in inciting the populace by telling everybody what they should be afraid of and who to blame.
He has no reasonable or intelligent solutions. A wall won’t work. Tariffs won’t work. Bans won’t work.
Who has a real answer. The republicans are lemmings and they are following their leader to the edge of the cliff. The sooner they go over the edge, the better.
November can’t come too soon.
13
Let’s hope they are the only ones who follow him off that cliff but I’m afraid that just has he bankrupted his own companies (gambling casinos, only pathetic bloodsuckers own casinos), he will drive this country’s economy into the ditch. He only knows how to sell himself and his grift, he is not the masterful, businessman that he has conned a third of the country into believing. Then you have the wealthy who support him because they see someone they can con into pushing their right wing agenda by being nice to him.
1
Well said!
Early in the 2016 presidential primaries Trump made fun of a crippled newspaper reporter; that's all anyone needs to know about this TV personality. He also had belittling nicknames for the other candidates.
He's a bully.
His crowd loves it.
So much for parsing racism. or semi-racism or whatever, he understands his audience and they understand him.
31
Most Trump supporters are not the true "deplorables" (neo-nazis, white supremacists, kkkers, etc.) that Clinton was referring to. They may feel they legitimately have the concerns that Trump expresses. They are almost completely unaware of their own implicit bias and the "white privilege" they benefit from. This is not surprising as it takes serious effort and self-reflection to gain such understanding. It also helps to have an environment conducive to such self-reflection, an environment not readily available to many of us.
2
Take a look at the footage from his recent rallies. Even the so-called “good ones” are terrible people.
"We're not Trump" is not a political platform. Democrats must offer something positive and constructive in the coming elections. I don't think Pelosi and Perez are the people to do it. I'm still undecided about Schumer. Counter factuals about "what could happen if. .." are also a waste of time and money. "These are the things we will do when elected: ..." is what voters need to see in order to become motivated. People know Trump is a fool. They are willing to trade existential danger for some policy wins. They need counter-tweets from the DNC every time Trump erupts with the latest lunacy. They need to hear from a single identified Democrat as the voice of sanity on the other side. This is not happening now. If there is to be any hope of change it had better happen soon. You'd think professional politicians would get this.
15
As far as "don't feed the troll," is the issue moral, or tactical?
If the issue is tactical, then consider that conservative whites have generally voted at much higher rates than young liberal whites and minorities.
The obvious question is about "Trump’s rhetoric — migrants “infest” and “invade our country” — is intended not only to intensify the anti-immigrant views of his supporters..." what is the impact low-turnout liberals?
We will find out in November, just how mad Trump is making women, blacks, latinos, asians, educated whites, young americans.
7
Edsall says, "Plenty of open racists have joined Trump’s ranks, millions of them, but his supporters also include millions of men and women who believe they are not racist and who react in anger when they are reflexively accused of racism."
That is a meaningless distinction. Few actual racists think of themselves as racist. "Open racists?" Who are they? Never met one.
As for these theoretical "non-racists" being angry...TOO BAD! They are responsible for installing a sociopath in the White House. We have a right to be angry at THEM and when we relinquish that right, we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Mr. Edsall, please spare us your lame lectures.
11
I had to stop reading this article once I got to the question, "Is this person: 1) just acting in her racial self-interest, which is not racist." Acting specifically for the interest of your race is inherently racist. I don't think all white people opposed to immigration must be racist (the supposed information the question is meant to provide), but I can't deny the meaning of a question's words. As with a lot of survey questions, this one is poorly written and elucidates nothing. I can't imagine basing an analysis on anything so flawed.
4
I’m not basing what I say on studies that Trump supporters don’t know about or care about, but are supposed to make me curl my toes and whisper sweet nothings so the MAGA hordes don’t go and get themselves energized.
They are racist. And we will beat them back at the polls, yelling all the way. Let the frantic little bunnies get as energized as they want.
4
The " racial self-interest vs racist" argument doesn't even rise to the level of splitting hairs. The racially self-interested want to keep down and keep out those who look different from them and so do the racists. That it upsets racists to be called on their racism only proves that some tiny, ethical corner of their mind understands that their bigotry is immoral. That they cling more strongly to their bigotry when called on it shows immaturity, not principle.
15
The argument that the liberals have brought this conservative hate about is ridiculous. Moreover, any discussion of Trump that does not include his treasonous conspiracy with Russia is pointless. The racists have become more vocal but their number has not increased. To ignore the fact that a racist learns to be a racist, ignores the reality of how humans live. All people learn to be that which they become. And, more importantly, we all can learn to be different.
10
We live in a time where white chefs who cook "non-white" dishes are denounced as "racist" by self-described progressives.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/22/471309991/when-chefs-bec...
Do you think Trump gains or loses from this kind of insanity?
1
This column is a primer on rabble rousing: stir up the id, the primes always serpentine subconscious mind, and fact, logic, common sense go out the window.
Once inflamed, the id drowns out the rational mind. To restore it, the clamor must be calmed, which won’t result from countering shouts or pale appeals to sanity, but by getting rid of the hucksters and removing their podiums - talk radio, rabid pulpits, trolling social media, Fox & Friends, Sinclair media, ...
Only Congress can do that - restore the Fairness Doctrine, rescind airwave licenses, repeal Citizens United, regulate Facebook & Twitter & Google pushing propaganda for profit.
Vote!
7
The most shocking information in this op-ed is that there are people with post-graduate degrees who support Trump! Trump U must have had a greater enrollment than previously reported.
8
They don't support him because they think he's great or agree with all his crazy repetitious nonsense; they support him because he's breaking down all barriers to their thievery.
6
The fundamental problem with the liberals bashing the conservatives as racists as the liberals bare recognize the difference between legal and illegal immigration. It is certainly not inherently racist to oppose illegal immigration and the more the Dems make that a political issue, the more they will lose!
6
Tribalism is an excuse for excluding other people because one believes that the jungle does not possess enough resources to feed both tribes adequately. Such conclusions are of course built upon falsehoods created by those who want to maintain their power base.
Mr. Edsall you know of which you speak. For those who don't get it, might I recommend the following book, written in 1970: The Rhetoric of No by Ray Fabrizio. Mr. Fabrizio also wrote other books which address how tribalism is accomplished. It took WW2 to tamp down the Nazi threat and now it is resurfacing in the form of education, science, knowledge of history is not relevant. Don't refer to that tribe as ignorant because they are insulted. I guess pride precedes fall.
5
What are the income levels of white post grad Clinton voters vs the White post grad Trump voters? Just curious.
And you have Trump post grads but what about just grads as with Clinton voters.
Sorry – I don’t get it. The argued distinction between “racially self-interested” and “racist behavior” seems like splitting hairs. It’s self-serving semantics, the use of a euphemism to justify racism. To label exclusionary behavior as “racial self-interest” is to enter an alternative linguistic reality that legitimatizes and normalizes what we used to call racism. It’s a rhetorical sleight of hand, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, it certainly is about "autonomy" - the power for one cultural group to impose its beliefs, values and traditions on everyone else, to define “common good.” It’s the naked struggle for moral authority; moral authority implies superiority; superiority implies racism in this context.
It’s also about the unfamiliarity with the “other.” How is unfamiliarity not fear-driven and thus racism? The talk on the right is laced with code words for racism. Conservative talk-radio calls for the preservation of “Western values” ( aka “ethnic self-interest”) - a coded appeal to retain “white” values and superiority.
“Ethnic self-interest” is precisely what the Puritans invoked in early 17th century Massachusetts when dealing with the Pequot Indians. The few Pequots the Puritans did not massacre were imprisoned in “conversion camps” and forced to “assimilate” – to pray, speak, eat, and dress like a Puritan. This was not considered racism by Puritans, but a benevolent “elevation” from savage to human being.
If it quacks like a duck…
30
Thank you Mr. Edsall. When you wrestle a pig in a pigsty you both get muddy. The difference is that the pig likes it. Its time for us to wise up and stop playing into the hands of Trump and his allies. Our understandable anger is cannon fodder for Fox News and Twitter. Our best intentions are twisted so we look mean spirited and intolerant. Kill them with kindness. They don't know how to attack reasoned thought and action. Trump will overplay his hand.
8
The Dems have done nothing and Trump attacks. Rational discussion from Pelosi like liberal grad students isn't the Achilles heal of Trump attacks. Their accompanying kindness gets than squashed against the windshield of the speeding Trump Nascar. Show some teeth. Rage, rage before the dying of the light.
4
The more I think about this article, the less important I think it is. I will never give a bigot the benefit of the doubt, and my revulsion for the current administration is based mostly on the race-baiting chief executive.
Did these “not racists” oppose President Obama’s ACA because he was black, or...because he went to an Ivy league law school?
Neither...they opposed it because non-whites would benefit from the ACA. It is not plausible that the subjects of these studies separate “what kind of people benefit” from “should poor people have health insurance.” Or in this case, “should we allow more immigration.”
This article points out that calling out their dislike of immigration as a form of racism only deepens their resolve to oppose immigration.
This is really because by calling it racism, I am confirming for them that most of the benefits of immigration will be going to non-whites.
It strains credulity to say I should call support for building a wall on the southern border “a reasoned policy choice to reduce immigration” so that they will not want to build it.
And FYI, highlighting “enriching the culture” to the “Rosanne” demographic is a fool’s errand.
3
Call a thorn the rose's protective shield, it still pricks. And what all this fails to consider is the demographic shift that is coming doesn't necessarily require immigration to happen. Over time, the population here today is sufficient.
2
This is a very informative article. Miller and Bannon's remarks show clearly that Trump's strategy is - as Bannon put it - to pour gasoline on liberals and make them react as viscerally as possible. When we scream "racism," they smile and say "Gotcha." The studies quoted by Mr. Edsall show the tension that resides in all of us between the "demands" of social desirability (tailoring our reactions to what is socially acceptable), and the strong need to come to our own conclusions (i.e., don't call me a racist,don't tell me what to think, and do NOT tell me what is PC).
I can't count the times I've read Trump supporters remark:
"Nothing makes me happier than to see a liberal's head explode with outrage." It's a satisfying power trip to see that you can control someone else's emotions. Ask any teenager who feels great pleasure in making their parents lose it over a snide remark. Adults often play the same game.
But Trump's strategy of using dog whistles, race-baiting, and outright lies to outrage and provoke the left is clearly far more dangerous than any personal power trip. He revs up both the left and the right. He has the left screaming, "Racists! Liar! Evil people!" and he has the right cheering him on and yelling "You can't tell us what to think! And you can't tell us who who we are!"
Trump has the entire country playing the race card. His "genius" is in manipulating people's emotions to react in ways that will meet his goals.
7
While the parade of polls reiterates the historic differences between red and blue, even to the debate as to whether the Civil War was fought about sovereignty or slavery (it was both if you read Lincoln’s first inaugural address) none of your polls posed the question of policies predicated on lies and propaganda. How do you feel being informed that there is no crisis at our borders because each year fewer illegals cross them and many here return home? How do you feel supporting a leader who lied about watching victims jump from windows at the towers on 9/11? How do you feel learning that your leader lies about his deal-making success since he has bankrupted six times, lost ten billion dollars and on average over forty four years therefore grew his wealth by 2 1/4 percent per year? While no one likes to be told that they’re bigots of any sort, let alone gullible enough in middle age to espouse hatred of Otherness, Trump cannot revise reality no matter how stubbornly he and his revisionists imagine. Bannon has misread Shakespeare, deconstruction and history while the trust fund architect of an immigration purge, Stephen Miller, has spent his adolescence and young adulthood as nothing more than a prankster and now an execrable false king’s Fool. Indictments, pleas and prosecutions supersede polls and sociology, and even elections based on the fallacies inherent in the egregious Electoral College without which the last Republican elected would have been Bush the elder.
5
When I was a slave owner way back when, it was in my self-interest to own slaves. It still is, but no one will let me own anyone anymore. How fair is that?
5
There’s a simple litmus test; anyone who prefaces an opinion with the phrase: “I’m not a racist, but . . . “ usually is.
6
Declaring that denial equals proof was an especially effective prosecution tactic during the Salem witch trials.
1
It is so tiring and boring to read all these analyses. Folks, we should all be true to ourselves. Liberals become merely NIMBYISTS when their self interests are threatened. The opposite side of the unfair and racist "affirmative action" is the legacy program. White liberals merely sacrifice Asian Americans to promote their "zoo experience" of "diversity". They can always send their kids to public schools and state colleges if they truly want to "benefit from racial diversity".
Further, race was formed through isolation and racial cleansing. Human migrations happen all the time and there were never peaceful solutions. The entire human history is a record of crimes against "humanity".
Seriously, Trump will win his second term and he will nominate totally four Supreme Court Justices. Elections do have consequences but some of the liberals insisted on their "principle". Well, for most of us small people, any incremental change is an opportunity to move forward and we will happily accept the realities. In any way, don't blame me. I dutifully vote in every election big or small along the party line. I knew better. Sad!
‘Small’ has a specific connotation that I am pleased to accept.
Good article. I’m reminded by it that smoking cessation programs, after not achieving significant results by scolding people about their “bad” cigarette habits, have made more headway by sympathizing with the difficulty of quitting, and emphasizing the freedom one has to make one’s own health decisions (while describing the consequences). The high school kids of my generation—and the adults they became—were always “the rebels,” happy to harm their own health and happiness just to prove that “I can if I want to.” As Mr. Edsall and the sources he cites argue, Democrats might be wise to treat Trump addicts the same way.
2
The question is, why do so many people want to immigrate to such a racist country?
2
Ed, I hope you find the information you are asking for. In the meantime, please wait to form an opinion.
So, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we'd better not call it a duck since it thinks it is a swan?
14
Why is it that we liberals are always the ones being told we must shut up so as not to trigger the raving and ranting conservatives?
I'm tired of trying to save this marriage. Let's get a divorce.
22
1 - Stop wasting time worrying about what the zombie horde is going to be upset about because they will get whipped up about anything true or not.
2 - Organize - we are much greater in numbers.
3 - Vote in November. It doesn't matter how much you have liked a local Republican - do not vote for even the mildest, middle of the road Republican.
4 - When we win this time there can be no quarter for the zombies and the monsters that whip them into a frenzy. NONE. The Republican party and its racists, bigots and imbeciles must be wrecked for the safety of the Republic and for the reestablishment of a right of center non-zombie opposition.
13
Exactly: get power, use it.
2
Let me get this straight: there’s a difference between “racial self-interest” and “racism”? What a perfect piece of high-flown sophistry. Forgive me if I don’t buy it.
10
1.) The problem with a lot of these studies is they have weak p-values. I'm not saying that the dynamic isn't there, but it's difficult to prove on statistical grounds.
2.) In the "art" of rhetoric in the politicians is to appeal to people who feel they aren't racist, but using language that nonetheless appeals to the hidden racism. This has been around for quite some time, and was evident in Reagan and the Atwater strategy. It's less underground then it was - words like "infest" have less veneer than what Reagan used. This dynamic is not so quantifiable, but is the most likely explanation. I don't have any great insight into how to combat this, although the statistics of crime associated with immigration is far more convincing and shows that there isn't a significant chance of suffering harm because of asylum seekers.
Aristotle said that art of rhetoric is disguising emotion as logic. Twas ever thus.
5
Well said. And, if I may add (with sadness,) there is no way to fight it. It is the new norm of an overcrowded, resource-depleted, environmentally-degradated planet. Edsall’s is, in such a paradigm, a rationalizing of hoarding for one’s own.
2
Divide and conquer is a fundamental guiding principle of Republican governance , not checks and balance. Koch Bros call it “creative destruction”. Dividing citizens against one another, picking winners and losers /makers and takers, as Paul Ryan explains it. The seedbed for division along religious, moral, social, economic grounds is played out as policy to gain power over the whole. DJT is a master at the shakedown of division, playing from his toolbox of victimization, at will, to destroy all means of unity. Division/destruction of our system of checks and balances is the goal here, racism, religious liberty, culture norms of 1950, elitism, aliens, freedom are the words and narrative. The behaviors described here are learned and the Republican Party has “taught” thru their carefully crafted narrative. Melania said it “best” with her jacket “I don’t care”. Whatever works.
6
It infuriates me to hear that Trump's grotesque outbursts are well thought out attempts to annoy "liberals." He's a self-serving, corrupt individual who spews hate to get the only applause that's still out there for him.
12
Once again, white and elite liberals run for the hills once it becomes clear what the left is up against.
In this case, even though it’s crystal clear that the opposition are white privilege hoarding racists, we’re being asked to reposition this fact as an example of racial self-interest.
Just like the white left turned it’s back on the Dreamers, on open borders, on Black Lives Matter, on asylum, on Maxine Waters, on Bernie Sanders, on free health care for all, and for free education.
This is why strong socialists like Ocasio-Cortez are the new face of the left. People like me are done with all of this white privilege protecting, virtue signaling spinelessness.
If you’re too afraid to open schools to minority applicants that may not test well, if you’re too afraid to abolish ICE and tear down the borders, then what good are you to the movement?
Just join the GOP already. It’s becoming increasingly obvious where wealthy white liberals stand. They’re even worse than wealthy and downmarket white Republicans. At least the latter are honest about what they really want.
The former just want to seem “cool,” like people who have a black friend, but when push comes to shove they quietly slink off and come up with excuses like the ones featured in this column. It’s pathetic. Kicking them out of the party, or demanding reparations from them if they’re going to remain, seems like the better move. They’re really not worth the mental energy it takes to keep them on the train.
3
Trans, so your answer is no borders at all. Highly unlikely and not a good idea. White elite liberals are a joke, especially those in the entertainment field. As they are escorted into bullet proof gas guzzlers back to their respective gated community where the only brown skinned people are those that take care of their kids or do their lawns.
4
Margo, Trans Cat is a provacateur trying to divide the Left, Trans Cat dwscribes me to a T, but I support Ocasio-Cortez. Trans Cat doesn’t bother me and I am willing to work with liberals of all stripes.
2
The self image of a middle aged, white, relatively wealthy American is not important. When they criticize a race as a whole, or, as I have repeatedly heard during the past two years, use the "n" word, they are racist. It is wrong to be concerned about their distorted self image. It is wrong to not call them out for their racist attitudes and behaviors.
6
How snowflaky bigots have become (these are not your father's bigots)!
Let's continue to call a racist a racist, and let the chips (or snowflakes) fall where they may.
These guidelines to proceed cautiously are akin to other absurd points I heard today on a local NPR program (the "Texas Standard") regarding city plastic bans. The speaker suggested you shouldn’t make (equally snowflaky) Texans "feel bad" about using plastic straws and plastic bags that are clearly creating environmental damage (since according to the host, folks in this state especially "don’t like to be told what to do," as if anyone does). Rather he and his guest suggested one should make sure to phrase the need to make better choices in a positive light about how it might help their children and grandchildren.
6
After a while Trump becomes boring.
1
Trump is racist. He wants people from Sweden and Scandinavian countries in general to come here - he said that. He doesn't want people of color and those from third-world countries to immigrate, and those that come should have been living in nice houses. He is using animosity to instill anger and victimhood, and, sadly, it's working. Using semantics and studies to separate people from their feelings won't change them. At the same time normal, rational people are searching for a way to counter that hatred. I think Trump is hoping to whip up enough emotional support for himself that in spite of overwhelming ethics problems and his treasonous alliance with Russia, he will continue to dominate American politics. Will more people vote against him in November? Will the Mueller probe result in unavoidable legal action or will lawlessness become more the norm as we slowly sink into a pit of graft and corruption? Will people leave their particular bubbles to form a common bond or accept the lies and propaganda spewed by greedy self interests using economic and racial soft touch points? Or will produce studies that tiptoe around the real impacts of economic self interest and the hatred of other until everyone just wanders off in disgust?
3
What is wrong in preferring an immigrant from Norway to someone from Haiti? Regardless of skin pigmentation, the choice should favor the better educated and skilled, English-speaking and culturally compatible candidates. On average, this favors the Scandinavians, and has nothing to do with racism.
Also - such policies have been followed by the Canucks and Australians without much controversy. If you can't let the entire world in ... it makes sense to choose those are likely to contribute the most to modern economy.
1
So, is Trump insane or is he 'crazy like a fox'? Are we reacting to a dirty street-fighter because he's so in our face on a daily basis vs the oily, smug, backroom politicians who lie and smile to our face while stabbing us in the back to benefit their crony capitalist and special interest donors?
I for one prefer knowing what I'm up against.
1
Yeah...sorry. To those "non-racists" who adamantly support a regime that promotes, suppports, and embodies racism but take offense to being called racist, I say, tough luck. Failing to stand up against institutional racism and supporting those that proffer in racist and disciminatory practices is condoning racism and makes you a racist. Their side hates political correctness, so call a spade a spade. Enough playing by the rules of civility. Look where it has gotten us. The gloves are off and if you support this president and his racist, regressive agenda, then you are complicit and should be called out as such.
7
Precisely. Thank you. This isn't even a difficult issue, is it?
Isn't it odd how Trump and the Republicans never tire of telling people how strong and tough they are, but then they play the victim at every opportunity. For such tough, self-proclaimed "wolves" they are easily hurt.
They knew precisely what they were doing and who they were voting for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9YPYRaeTW0
The issue of owning a choice (rather than feeling externally compelled to prefer) is common sense among helping-professions practitioners, especially health care. Look at the "Brief Negotiation" approach to counseling; and the "motivational interviewing" approach to counseling.
A vital complement to this is being an exemplar of the better choice: being highly admirable and owning the better choice that others admire because the owner of the choice generally appealing for admirable reasons.
This is why virtue ethics has returned to importance in philosophy, and deontological ethics has waned.
1
I should add that an obvious implication of Tom Edsall’s discussion for the November elections deserves emphasis: Obviously, campaigning FOR a Democratic Vision that’s locally appealing is the better way than campaigning maining against Trumpism.
Yet, that’s the challenge for local Democrats: A cohering Vision of why prospects for local futures is better served by focusing on THAT constructively—and inspiringly!—rather than than mainly fighting Trumpism.
But fighting Trumpism is necessary! Yet, the fight must be in light of an appealing local Vision. Classically, Negative campaigning lacks the Postive, constructive basis that critical campaigning based in a great vision owns.
Good critique serves a positive future. If critique lacks a visiion that it’s seen to serve, then critique tends toward handwringing reactionism, even another kind of nihilism in contest with the nihilism of Trumpland.
So if someone wants laws adhered to especially those concerning immigration that person in the eyes of the left is a racist and/or bigot. Gee thanks for clearing that up.
Keep this up and continue to play identity politics and you, the Left and the Times will hand 45 another term. You people don't learn from past mistakes.
2
Given that the question in the poll was about immigration and did NOT say "illegal immigration", what does the poll have to do with "following the law"?
Your comment leads me to surmise that you either automatically assume that the question about what you think it means and anyone who doesn't see the question as you see it is playing identity politics.
To see a racist and extremely nationalistic immigration law, look at the 1924 Immigration Act (including the numbers) and the Chinese Exclusion Acts (plus the statements the sponsors made in Congress) and tell me that one should always assume that limiting immigration was never racist, or supremacist. Those Acts were the result of some wanting to "reduce immigration" by keeping the "wrong people" out (read Southern and Eastern European in addition to African, Asian, etc.).
"Identity politics" is a label that the press helped the right impose upon the Dems and the left - despite the fact that identity - WHITE IDENTITY - has been at the core of the GOP's electoral strategy since Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and Lee Atwater's refinements that helped Reagan and Bush I win the Presidency.
They have also, almost as successfully, labelled "Politically Correct" any attempt to question their reactionary, racist, sexist drivel.
People who feel like they are being protected when the GOP tells them that they're under attack from "invading hordes of illegals" (like during the recent Fox News and Trump obsession with the caravan of asylum seekers from Central America) can be fooled some of the time, but eventually reality sinks in. There is no invasion of raping, murdering illegals coming to take their jobs - presumably between rapes and murders - and live high on welfare; it's a distraction from the realities of an unfettered corporate economy where "corporations are people" and they can hire enough politicians to make the laws work for them; it's a lie to make you worry about your non-white neighbors, buy more guns, and not worry about the sorry state of our non health care system.
1
It’s past time to address what Trump and his administration are doing to us instead of his blather, but we do not do it. He sucks us in to focusing upon what he wants and we overlook what he is doing. It makes all of us outraged but ineffectual.
6
Great article - treating many issues that people are loathe to discuss. Some other ways of asking the same questions:
For most of my life (white, in my 60's), integration has meant getting an African-American minority into majority white schools. What does immigration mean with a smaller or non-existent white majority? An Arizona politician was severely chastised when he stated, "we are running out of white people", but it is a serious question. How are white children treated when they are a racial minority in a majority African-American school? A majority Muslim school? All of these questions are permissible when a minority is substituted for "white" but deemed racist when asked of white people.
1
Possibly because the history of white people in this country is completely different from the history of minorities? You can just exchange the word 'white' into the sentence and ignore the history and context. That's where your logic breaks down.
I miss an important distinction here: legal vs. illegal immigration. Many people are supportive, or at least neutral on the former, while hostile to the latter.
15
There is definitely an economic component to opposition to immigration having to do with what level of taxpayer-funded benefits such as Medicaid that should be available to illegal immigrants. This is an issue that needs to be discussed explicitly, especially in the context of the rising economic inequality that is behind so much middle-class economic anxiety.
10
Ummm, no, we don't need to discuss "what level of taxpayer-funded benefits such as Medicaid" are allowed for illegal immigrants. The answer is that they are not eligible for any federal public benefits. No Medicaid. No SSI. No SNAP. No TANF. No housing assistance. Zero.
However, illegal immigrants do pay about $6-7 billion every year into Social Security (that's only their part, not the additional $6-7 billion the employer pays). They also contribute ~$12 billion every year in state & local taxes.
You are never going to convince the American public that a sick person should be denied healthcare. Saint Ronnie Ray-gun passed legislation requiring that people be cared for. It was just about the only issue on which I ever agreed with him.
Legal immigration is one thing. I am staunchly against illegal aliens. Nevertheless, once someone is here they cannot be denied medical care.
The answer is to seal the borders and enact E-verify before they get here illegally. Keep them from getting in unless we allow them in. That solves the Medicaid question.
Read, reread, reread...
"Pro-immigration forces should avoid using charges of racism to sideline discussions of ethno-demographic interests. Instead, they should accept the importance of cultural concerns but argue positively for immigration on humanitarian, national-interest or liberal grounds. They should cite assimilation data to reassure anxious majorities."
20
Now the stakes are raised to such a point as to be beyond mind -boggling. The Golden Rule is Out : what is In is a chess game of mind sets that fractures the picture of what it means to be genuinely concerned for our fellow man. To be outraged at what is going on at our Southern Border is seen as aberrant behavior by Trump's base. Multiply this by the Big Picture of hot points such as treatment of LGBTQ people ;obliviousness of Scientific Facts ; unreasonable tariffs foisted on our allies ; the perilous state of global environment, and myriad other issues that need to be addressed with a compassionate, firm yet temperate hand and the realization that the Trump administration is determined to destroy it all in their effort to bring about a dictatorship. I think we are perilously close to seeing it become a reality.
11
Like so many highly partisan issues, immigration has been reduced to a binary choice: pro or anti. This may be convenient for the most outspoken advocates of each absolute position as well as far too many journalists, but it makes resolving this issue through compromise instead of winner-take-all tactics much harder. A healthy democracy deserves debate beyond the second-grade level.
Mr. Edsall could usefully go on to examine attitudes about different kinds of immigration, such as refugees fleeing credible death threats or political persecution, or people experiencing crop failure or weather-induced devastation, or seeking better opportunities for their children. And the monolithic opposition to immigration may not be mostly about race — can we look at opposing immigration for reasons other than those rooted in national identity or race, such as crowding, environmental sustainability, or increased competition for vanishing middle-class jobs?
17
It doesn't seem that any of the academic researchers have separated the population into "anti-immigration" and "anti-illegal immigration" when they do the studies of attitudes.
It seems that many people (including people of color) are uncomfortable with our immigration laws being ignored and unenforced. The situation seems especially upsetting to those who have recently gone through the proper legal channels to immigrate here. Claiming that people who are "anti-illegal immigration" are racist is even more upsetting to those on the receiving end of the accusation.
10
The NYTs has reported that Trump didn't lose support among Republicans, but his child separation policy raised qualms. Racism is ingrained in white people. White people assume they should run the show. Look at the irrational hatred of Obama by the Republicans during his time in office. Racial memory is such that it goes to the most primal aspects of a person. One has to make a conscious effort to walk in another persons shoes. Trump makes it easy for people to feel resentment. To easily make simplistic assumptions that the American dream is disappearing because non white people are stealing it from them. The undeserving poor is bed rock politics in the Republican party.
11
Agree with the prescription here – that immigration rights need to be placed within a larger context of social advancement and the need to avoid name-calling.
Completely reject the blame card of the last paragraph. If there is any blame to be cast, let it fall where it belongs: in those people who allow themselves to be ruled by fear and who fall prey to the easy promises of demagogues.
11
Anti-immigrant sentiment has a long history in this country, and it wasn't always targeted at people of a different race. There are many reasons people are concerned about immigrants, and that is true at all levels of society. There are benefits and costs to a "flat" world. There is a certain amount of disruption, and lots of people dislike disruption (see NIMBY, cries of gentrification).
Accusing people of racism, instead of addressing legitimate concerns - competition for jobs, places at top schools, differences in values - for example, how many of us would be OK with their neighborhood suddenly having a majority of immigrants who were seriously conservative Muslims? How many of us would tolerate our children going to a school where 50% of the girls were wearing burkas? How many of us would be happy if our local gov't was suddenly taken over by people who didn't share our values/beliefs?
The fact is that some pro-immigration people are the ones who benefit greatly from immigrant labor. We all have limits to our generosity.
We can make the case for why we should be generous, why the people who cross our border DO share our values, why immigrants are contributing to our economy, without talking about racism.
But if we do want to talk about racism, we should also mention the racism that causes people to sit out elections, because "all white politicians" are the same.
7
In some communities employers hire immigrants because they can't find citizens who can pass the drug test.
2
Lots of people hire illegals or immigrants, because they're hungry for work and are willing to work hard and possibly for less than people born here, in order to get a foothold in this country. For them, just being here is a step up. It takes a certain amount of stamina, resiliance and pluck to leave your country and establish yourself in a new one, and these are all qualities that employers like.
Trump knows all this, and I suspect he will support an expansive guest worker program that gives employers all the benefits of cheaper workers, without their being able to vote. At the same time, Republicans are working to shrink the safety net so that Americans become more desperate for work - any kind of work, at any pay.
Along those lines, Harvard University had a limit on how many Jews it would admit because who would want to send their kid to a university full of Jews (that was before Jews were considered "white"). And not so long ago, who would be comfortable with a lot of Irish Catholic immigrant kids in their schools? (that was also before Irish immigrants were considered "white'). Maybe you just want more Norwegian immigrants? They don't seem to want to come here much.
The Democrats have not,so far, succeeded in taking charge of the conversation. Everything is a reaction to what the administration says, does or tweets. It's past time to set the agenda for the mid-terms and articulate what the alternative stands for. And if the Democrats want to win, they should stand for one thing: greater economic equality including healthcare for all. Nothing will change unless people's economic anxieties are addressed. It's pointless to debate whether cracking down on immigration is racist when the issue is really down to people's anxieties over work and wages.
11
Yes, Democrats should advocate for greater economic equality; and because if there is a group that is disadvantaged, it should be remedied because if anyone is deprived, we all are diminished.
3
The Democrats are just as guilty as the republicans as they too have been bought and paid for by big business. They have lost sight of what the Democratic Party once stood for. Seven of the top ten millionaires in DC are Dems.
2
Mr. Edsall, this article is very interesting. The research is thorough and there is a logic to you recommendation.
However, I hope you understand how deeply personal this issue is to minorities.
I was born in this country, but my parents were immigrants. I am not white. I am not a Christian. Nevertheless I had never before felt like I was less of an American than anyone else. I love this country. I have always been proud of this country. I have always believed the American Dream.
But for the first time in my life, I feel like my country doesn't want people like me or my family to be here. I don't know how to deal with that? Every day I feel sad. Every day I feel like a stranger in my own land.
16
You have plenty of company in your sadness. Even though my ancestors were here before there was a United States. I don't feel wanted either. That's the real problem with the deep division. Neither 'team' can accept the other and each team wants to claim the high ground and keep it. None of us know how to deal with the huge emotional divide. Relatives and friends are afraid to speak to each other fearing a rift that can happen so suddenly even over seemingly small matters.
The fears may not be justified but they are real just the same as fears. Fears are powerful and controlling. When will some leader come along who can calm fears instead of stir and stoke the fires of resentment at feeling left out or left behind or disrespected.
7
Thank you for this thorough examination of some of the complicated factors that contributed to Trump's election. At the end of the day, however, there is one simple solution: remove Trump from office. Just as a stab wound cannot heal while a knife continues to rip the skin, our national mindset cannot right itself while under the blitzkrieg of this administration.
4
The "emotion" driving this is primitive, tribalistic and violent ... who ever promised anyone that they can have a white country or a "Christian" country ... geographic national boundaries can't discriminate between peoples ... I guess that certain people keep teaching these prejudices and you-know-who has reinforced it big time ... diversity, of appearance, of culture, of language, of food, of religion, the more differences the better, in my opinion ... and our current birth rate produces negative growth ... also, any idiot knows that over time entropy and randomness increase, ie peoples spread over the globe ..
3
"Don't feed the troll." Great advice. When it falls on the American press, however, it falls on deaf ears.
6
Thomas Edsall is shilling for people who say, “I’m not a racist, I just want the most for my race.”
1
When are we Democrats going to wake up, abandon wedge issues, come together and play hardball? The Republicans are masters of it, which is why we now have a tipped Supreme Court and an idiot in the WH.
16
It is a long-standing American tradition to believe you are not a racist while, in fact, you actually are a racist. Goes back to the founding fathers. Remember, the man who wrote: "We hold these things to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" also owned slaves.
7
Dont back down to a bully, it only encourages them.
4
Being paid by the word feeds both the manipulative troll and the writers'/commentators' families.
The press, from Fox to CNBC and the New York News to the New York Times, has no business complaining about the current situation given their contributions and complicity.
5
I'd like to be sure I have the instructions right.
You can call all Mexicans rapists; you can call all Muslims terrorists; you can call all African Americans lazy, welfare-loving criminals. You can destroy families seeking asylum, so long as the families are Latino. You can establish baby prisons, so long as its inhabitants are Latino.
But I can't call you a racist, because you will resent it.
Have I gotten that right?
84
You're exactly the kind of person who's referred to in this article. Not all Trump supporters think that all Mexicans are rapists, etc. Most just want to stop illegal immigration, not immigration in general. No nation on this earth allows their borders to be violated as much as we do. We have very liberal immigration policies that allow people of all races and beliefs into our country. Canada's laws are much more exclusionary. If you stop calling all 63 million Trump voters racist, some of them might vote Democratic. Otherwise, as this article points out, they will become defensive and insulted. When was the last time you voted for somebody who insulted you?
4
I think the point is that using ugly labels, however true, may be detrimental to the desired outcome -- that is, electing a Democratic majority to Congress to check the Racist-in-Chief.
2
I think you miss the point Edsall was trying to make, i.e. semantics matter. Certain words, such as racist, are emotionally charged and can make the recipient of the message defensive and tune out anything else you say. Consider how advertisers neutralized the emotionally charged term "used cars" with "pre-owned vehicles" or how Republicans emotionally charged the neutral term "estate tax" with "death tax."
I know people who are ardent Trump supporters and I can talk to them and plant seeds of doubt in their mind by how I approach an issue. For instance when allegations come up about immigrants being rapists or criminals, I tell them that overall population statistics document that American citizens have much higher rates of rape or crime and that generalizations made on the basis of one negative news report about an immigrant are unfair. I talk about how my immigrant grandparents faced heavy discrimination when they came to America and ask how did their immigrant ancestors fare. I talk about how immigrants are the lifeblood of many rural communities in America and how they are the reason the US population is not facing the same aging crisis as Japan and many other advanced industrialized countries.
How you advance argument is as important as what you say. Edsall has raised a very important point.
3
Liberals have always been willing to split the difference. But the more we compromise, the worse the deplorables get. How is stealing a S.Ct. seat and blocading all of Obama's policies by any means possible justified. No comprimises, not surrender. If they want a fight, game ON! We are ready.
9
Nor should one feed the KGB/FSB troll in the Kremlin. Bear in mind that everything Trump does is at the behest and command of his Russian puppet master/handler, Vladimir Putin. Why else would the former be going to Helsinki, but for his annual performance review by the latter? From Russia with Love.
10
I have but one bit of advice for Liberals.
Keep your focus on organizing and ultimately voting in the next, and all elections. The right is irrelevant, because they are decidedly in the minority. - this was realized last election, by garnering 3 million less votes and the way that any progressive policy polls in the majority.
Just show up and vote en masse.
Afterwards, we must be magnanimous and try our hardest to enact those Progressive policies that will help those that will be in need. (especially those republicans that have been devastated by their party's policies)
We cannot let them waver on the fence ever again.
27
hi pardnuh! Keep up the good work.
1
As a person who is spending there free time trying to educate and assist in voter registration, we have to take our democracy seriously. I so agree with what you say ,we need to remain focused and be at the top of our game. We need to educate ourselves about the law, register to VOTE, show up at rallies but VOTE.
6
Racism and vote cheating are different in some ways, but they are part of the same gigantic monstrosity now set on establishing an autocracy that only works for the few. They won't say so out loud, but they don't care if their victims are dead, sick, in jail, deported, or elsewhere, as long as they do their suffering somewhere else out of sight so their poor little feelings of humanity aren't aroused.
Here's another example: in a supposedly "Christian" nation nobody mentions that fact that Jesus probably wasn't "white" in the lowest common denominator definition of white.
People remake their politics and their religion to fit their prejudices. They're too busy to step back and take an honest look at how that works.
Just one horrible example: for-profit prisons and the school-to-prison pipeline. Good money for the contractors, a quota, and some "bratty" school kids (preferably "colored) put away so they can't vote.
It's all a huge cheat, just like our dumpster-fire-of-vanity-in-chief. Nasty stuff.
But I agree with Mr. Edsall, naming it doesn't work. People don't want to know. They will double down. It doesn't matter that they can dish it out but not take it. Their mirrors don't work that way.
5
I left out the manipulators at the top of the pyramid. They aren't necessarily racist, but they sure know how to get their billions by playing the gullible. Kochs, Mercers, and all the rest. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
5
Money corrupts, too. And lots and lots of money invites in the devil.
1
@Susan
Here we are (yet gain) posting one after the other :) You are right, that the hypocrisy cannot be addressed while out of power. We must be in a position of strength before we can offer a hand.
How many interviews have we seen where the wife is losing her health care (possibly her life) and the husband looks right into the camera and says he supports this administration and will do so again ? SMH
Time to roll up the sleeves luv.
1
Immigration is not the problem here. The problem is an often capricious system of granting asylum, determining who deserves asylum, the hiring of undocumented immigrants (and that the actual cost to the companies doing so is negligible), the fact that more than a few employers prefer to hire using visas to avoid paying Americans, and that most undocumented immigrants are not crossing the borders the way Trump says they are. More overstay their visas and vanish into the "ether".
There's no doubt that the GOP is excellent at identity politics. And Trump is excellent at verbal bombing when it comes to pushing buttons. What is missing is a well thought out and targeted approach/counter to this from the Democrats. Where's the well reasoned rebuke? Where is the leadership? They're in DC, not out in country speaking to us. If they have the facts and those facts are in opposition to what Trump and the GOP are saying why isn't the Democratic leadership out here stating it?
If they don't say anything or say it the wrong way they are giving this administration all the ammunition it needs to win. State the facts with emotion, don't confuse feelings with facts.
8
I think we have our slogan:
They don't care. Do U?
7
The difficulty in extrapolating the findings of very specific questions such as the ones listed is that they force people to pick narrowly-defined answers to narrowly-defined questions. Based on the recent comments to the Editorial Board's support of DeBlasio's attempt to eliminate the entrance test to the City's beacon schools, I suspect that a question such as "Is it racist to eliminate a uniform race-blind skill-based test to determine admission to NYC's beacon schools and replace it with a process that disadvantages Asian-Americans in particular while benefiting Blacks and Latinos? Answer Yes or No" will flip the results of the findings for many of the polled groups. BTW, that same question could also be reformulated to change the results again.
The reality is that most voters recognize that no single candidate (particularly in a two-party system) can ever represent all their interests perfectly. As a result, most voters make a list of the issues that motivate them, rank them, and see which candidate(s) have positions that are closest to their rank-ordered list. Many conservatives voted for Hillary after running through that calculus. The left has to be careful that moderates on either side end up being turned off by egregious accusations of racism and vote Republican - which is clearly what the right is salivating about.
2
Maybe it's better to focus on policy and acts, not on trying to change people's beliefs. If we can change behavior, then beliefs may follow.
One strategy to get persuadable people and uninformed left-leaning folks (our best audiences) to listen and support liberal policies/candidates is to avoid name-calling, AND to explain (over and over as needed) in very simple language why the bad policies/acts are bad for us and how doing X instead would be helpful to us. This reminds/educates the uninformed that Dems really do stand for something and have good evidence-based ideas.
When hearing lies, try saying, "there they go again, trying to con us"
2
Some in a once dominant racial majority now feel insecure that their position of economic and cultural dominance cannot be taken for granted. Quite understandable. These are the dynamics that shape society. They are disruptive, often ugly and eventually lead to a sulky acceptance of the new circumstances.
One very important factor is missing from this otherwise thoughtful analysis:
And that is, the widespread belief among conservative citizens that immigrants aren't coming here to find jobs or safety but actually to get free medical care, free education for their children, and social support (welfare, housing and food assistance) in general.
Most conservative grassroots Americans I've met are, indeed, not racist. But they are bitterly resentful at the thought of immigrants breaking the rules (by illegal entry), taking money out of their pockets (via the taxes that pay for social programs), and secretly laughing at us the whole time.
This attitude also operates strongly among conservative Europeans I know in regard to their own immigration debates.
I point out to conservatives that lazy people just don't have the motivation to forsake their homes, travel thousands of miles, give all their money to shady smugglers, and risk horrible deaths by desert heat or ocean drowning, simply to sign up for American or European welfare rolls.
But such logical arguments will gain little traction unless prominent liberal leaders stop playing the racism card.
Instead, it's time to serious address the grassroots-conservative fear of rule-breaking immigrants ripping them off (as groundless as we liberals find such fears to be) and take this emotional energy away from the ring-wing politicians who so cleverly exploit it.
4
Couldn't agree more.
1
For shirts that fit, I can recommend a tailor.
I always find Mr. Edsall's articles helpful and educational, if often depressing, like this one. What I take away is the old saw, "I am not a racist, but..."
This is great food for thought. I believe almost every word of this opinion piece along with Charles Blow's "Trump Remakes America" from yesterday, so I struggle to reconcile those along with my own experiences in different incarnations of "the real America".
I was raised in the rural Midwest, where nearly everyone is white and Christian. I understand the insult of the coastal elite calling one's home "flyover country" and regarding it as the home of rubes. Even some Trump supporters have accused me of being backward, just because they come from a somewhat larger city, and despite evidence of my intelligence. I have plenty of relatives and old friends who are strong Trump supporters out of sincere belief in what he stands for. In particular, several of them truly believe that every Muslim in the world is intent on disempowering or killing every non-Muslim American. Even though I vehemently disagree, I can't turn my back on the sincerity of their belief. I think that most conflict results from people having conflicting assumptions.
The city on my tag, Ann Arbor, is the liberal bastion where I have lived for a long time, and is mostly white. I was economically fortunate to buy a house early in a wave of gentrification that has turned my neighborhood into one of the most elite liberal parts of Ann Arbor. But recently we had a neighborhood meeting to address racist incidents there, in solidarity with the few remaining black residents.
You without sin, cast the first stone.
2
Yep. I've been banging this drum for a while now, simply based on my own observations, conversations and experiences. Thank you for putting some actual research behind it.
Hopefully some liberals will listen. It doesn't mean you give up the fight, just that you are smart about it and use different tactics, because right now, these tactics are only helping Trump.
4
Of course, everyone is prejudiced towards those most similar to themselves. Add up all the characteristics: ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, religion, age, education level, location, urban/rural, northern/southern, east/west, etc. In addition, there is simple life experience regarding interactions with those different from one self. Have you had lots of interactions with those very different, or have your interactions been more homogenous?
So, research that shows liberals/progressives as overtly saying they are pro immigration, but covertly suggesting they are opposed, comes as no surprise. Everyone places themselves within some group...and thinks they know how that group would answer questions about immigration. They feel some compunction to conform to their group think. The exceptions to that tendency involves strong moral or reasoned convictions.
I don't live in a diverse community. Despite that, I support immigration and diversity across the board. Why that is relates to my values and tendency to arrive at my conclusions without consulting group think. I'm not a follower, unlike so many others who apparently need to be part of a larger entity and walk in lock-step. In addition, my education in the biological sciences informs my opinion that diversity is stronger than monoculture.
That said, Edsall makes a point. Democrats should not push the racist meme. Stick with the fact that we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants.
VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS
2
Interesting dilemma.
Do we avoid feeding the troll by down-defining racism and recognizing something called 'racial self-interest' as a separate category of people whose views are socially acceptable? Do we make racially self-interested people who aren't racists but want to keep brown and black people out of America for what we are now prepared to deem acceptable non-racist reasons?
So Jackson's trail of tears was acceptable because it was based on the racial self-interest of whites who wanted native American land? How about slavery? There were certainly good economic white interests at stake that we might have been more sensitive to before insisting that slavery was wrong.
There is a moral as well as a political dimension to this that must be taken into consideration. If the only way we can protect ourselves from the troll is to equivocate on what racism is, I am not sure that protecting ourselves from our own racism is ultimately worth it.
Wow. There is now research showing that screaming "racist deplorable" is ineffective as getting people to support your policy ideas. Amazing.
I guess the last election wasn't proof enough.
Now it turns our that polls say that working class Latino, white and blacks have fairly similar views on immigration. (They are way more similar with each other than with some of the editorials in this paper.)
Trump's favorable rating with Latinos spiked up 10 percent in the last week. So much for the alleged fear of a "browning of America" driving immigration anxiety.
It might be tough for some readers to imagine but Bannon is right that the economic upheaval caused by immigration creates anxiety in working class regardless of what identity group you put them in.
5
I’ve felt for sometime now that Trump knows exactly what he is doing when he says outrageous things. He’s a brilliant verbal opponent, knowing exactly how to “brand” liberals with words and slogans so his conservative base will applaud. The mistake liberals make is to take his bait, to swallow it whole and then to wonder why they’ve gone mad. There’s a wonderful line in Shakespeare’s sonnet 129–“as a swallowed bait on purpose laid to make the taker mad.” Trump knows how to make liberals mad.
4
when oh when will people stop calling Trump "brilliant". His outrageous tweets, his lies at press conferences, his totally made up and inconsistent outbursts, are outrageous primarily because he is the President of the United States. He "perfected" this approach during his associations with Roy Cohn and later with Worldwide Wrestling - where it would these "exaggerated hyperbolic" statements and pure lies would be at home.
It sounds like the author is suggesting that the left should propose ending immigration altogether - except from Northern Europe where the "white people" live (Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese have only been "white" to white America for the past 75 years or so). That will certainly separate those who oppose all immigration from those who oppose immigration by only non-whites (the racists). Of course, it will get more complicated when some of the immigrants from Scandinavia are not white.
Great article. I am a bleeding heart liberal and I too make the mistake of going down the racist rabbit hole. This makes sense to me. It is a very fine line between having a difference of opinion and severely offending another person. I believe liberals should take note of this piece and the studies cited here. Keeping this in mind will be helpful to me as we move into the mid terms - Democrats have a deep hole to dig themselves out of as far as messaging is concerned - Trump and his followers have us on the ropes. I hope politicians that are running against republicans can overcome.
1
Here we go again. Another argument suggesting that we Democrats should try to understand and accept Trump supporters' resentment of us when we observe what we see as implicit racism. But they're under no obligation to understand and reflect upon our reasoning.
Maybe Edsall rightly asserts that liberals should stop taking Trump's divisive and inflammatory bait. I'd like to hear some ideas of how we might do that exactly. Stop decrying blatant bigotry when. We hear and see it? Ignore and keep quiet? Doesn't seem helpful to me but I'm lost much of the time now.
3
Hannah Arendt explored "the banality of evil," pointing out that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary cruelty, as in Nazi Germany in the '30s-'40s. I don't think it's a stretch to infer that those siding with Trump — after his multitude of inflammatory racist statements/actions as president & along the campaign trail — harbor some form of racism as well. To ignore this is to enable the normalization of bigotry and discrimination. Trump supporters can deny it, just as Trump does, but it doesn't make it any less true.
3
Calling people racist has always been a great way to get the opposition to close ranks. That if anything explains Trump’s 90% support among Republicans. And we now know one of those Republicans feels so strongly on the subject that he is retiring from the Supreme Court so that Trump can choose his successor.
Racism is a topic where few are free from sin. Accusations of racism are self-evident hypocrisy—chest-beating not politics. Clinton paid dearly for the “despicables” remark (which in her case was taken out of context). You’d think someone would have learned.
7
Deplorables, not despicables.
1
It's all in the numbers: According to the UNO 2016 report, the fertility rate in the US is falling and is now well below replacement levels for all groups combined. But, if you look at fertility rates for the three major population subclasses, an interesting difference jumps out. The report finds that the fertility rate among whites is 58.8 live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44. However the fertility rate for hispanics is 70.6 and for blacks it is 63.3. What this tells us is that without even factoring in immigration, the relatively low fertility rate of the white, nonhispanic population and the relatively higher fertility rates of the other groups will lead to relatively higher increases in the nonwhite populations over time. Immigration of nonwhites can exacerbate the existing trends but the relative share of white nonhispanics will still increase unless the fertility of this group goes up.
1
"Faced with Trump as an adversary, Democrats and liberals must calculate carefully. One of the most important questions facing the American left is how complicit — albeit unwillingly and unconsciously — it has been in his rise."
The question from here on in: Will the liberal left take T. Edsall's sage strategic advice seriously.
This entire column -- in one quote after another from objective researchers unencumbered by ideology as much as humanly possible -- points out the many flaws of the non-religious liberal left's use of religious/dogmatic approaches to social harmony and acceptance of the "other." No one enjoys being labeled a "sinner" aka "racist."
Casting anti-immigrationists as racists is a losing strategy and ultimately a denial of natural, basic human tendencies: We reflexively identify with our group, and when punished for feeling that way, we react negatively toward our accusers.
Yet another immensely intelligent and well-researched column from T. Edsall, who leans as liberal as anyone of us but also understands the peril we liberals place ourselves in when we devolve into attack mode against our fellow citizens and play exactly into Trump's hands.
5
How do you change someone's mind? You calmly and even happily -- if you can -- investigate his thoughts, their logicality and validity, socratically.
His conclusions may be reasonable. So check them out: Listen patiently to them; evaluate them; analyze them; make sure you know what he really means, then repeat it back to him till he gives his assent that you understand him fully and correctly.
If he's wrong, he will probably see his own error and admit it, at least tacitly. If he's correct, you should both agree to that denouement. Let the chips fall where they may. Never let stubborn pride prevent you from accepting the truth. The truth helps everyone.
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."
-- Proverbs 15:1
4
Of course, facts and logic are of no use in dealing with the ancient reptilian portion of the brain. Once the id is fired up, rationality is irrelevant.
Trump and his cohorts know all this, as do rabble rousers on talk radio, Fox & Friends, blogs, rabid pulpits, and the rest of the billionaire backed propaganda blitz.
Before rationality can reassert itself, the disinformation machine has to be dismantled and the clatter calmed.
3
I think it is racist to characterize immigrants as rapists and murderers, when most people understand that immigrants are fleeing poverty, violence, and social disruption. I think it is racist to beat a drum about a "flood" of immigrants when it is completely clear that the number of illegal immigrants has been decreasing since the Bush II presidency, and the number of arrests at the border has been increasing. I think it's racist to hammer on immigrants as a reason for white people to become fearful, defensive and even hostile toward all people of color, citizens and immigrants, in order to mobilize their votes. I think it is racist to suggest that immigrants should be blamed for the loss of upward social mobility in a society in which the gap between rich and poor has been steadily growing for decades. I think it is racist to stir up emotional fears in poor white people about social programs that benefit people of color, in the cynical knowledge that many of those white people will not stop to remember that the numerical majority of people receiving public assistance are white.
And, I think it's sad that Democrats struggle to mobilize votes because many discouraged people don't vote at all, believing that things just keep getting worse and there's nothing they can do about it. And I think it's disgusting that a minority of white people claim to speak for ALL white people with these hateful attitudes. They don't speak for me!
3
Edsall knows that the real issue regarding immigration is economic and not racial. NYT Columnist and Economics Nobelist Krugman said as much in 2006, '“the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”'
Also in 2006, Senator Obama said, "When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
In July 2015, Candidate Sander when asked about increasing immigration: 'Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”'
But by then, Sanders was forced to back down: Democratic interests now aligned with big business including the Koch brothers. They wanted lowered wages. Those are Sanders words.
The problem is that Democrats like Clinton who accepted $675,000 for 3 talks from Goldman were bought by big business.
Trump represents the working class just as FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ did and Sanders wanted to do 3 years ago.
Until 3 years ago Trump and Sanders were in agreement: anti-Koch.
See:
Beinhart: How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immig...
7
Trump does not represent the working class. No one does. Trump represents himself only.
I believe every country should be able to control entry over its borders. The US does not and our immigration process is a mess. Believing this does not make me racist, or a nativist for that matter. I cannot, for example, just pick up and move to Sweden and become a Swedish citizen with all attendant rights, when my plane touches down. Sweden would not be acting in a racist manner to prevent me from doing so.
Trump, however, takes the facts that our immigration is a mess and that we should have a secure border and injects racism into both the problem and his proposed solutions. Denying that the appeal of his ideas is racist gives him and his supporters cover for this fact. He and Miller are both trolls but it is incontrovertible by this point that they are racist trolls, no more interested in solving the very real issues of immigration than their supporters. Using race to provoke reactions is racism by any reasonable measure.
5
"The US does not and our immigration process is a mess."
The first half of that sentence is utterly false. Does anyone who arrives in the US by car, boat, plane, train, bicycle, or foot not have to show a passport and/or visa? Obviously, the answer is emphatically yes. Nor can anyone just move here and become a citizen as in your Swedish example - were that true there could be no such thing as "illegal immigration".
Certainly the system is a mess and certainly there are people who move here and work under the table. Do you think this is the only country where that happens? And did you know that many of those people arrive by planes and boats and simply don't go home when the visa expires? And most of that group are white or Asian.
The problem that 45 and his gang of thieves have is with brown immigrants, more so if they are also not Christian. The doors would be wide open without restriction for anyone from northern and western Europe. It is purely about both race and about maintaining the privilege that they all deny having but at least subconsciously know is a central fact in their lives.
I would like to have seen answers to the statements "Cutting off Polish immigration" and "Cutting off Hispanic immigration." I can guess how those non-racists would have responded.
Racists are motivated by fear. What are they afraid of? Anyone different from them. What is the most obvious indicator of difference? Skin color.
Polish people have a different culture and a different language. Mexicans have a different culture and a different language. So how do white Americans decide that Polish immigrants are good and Mexican immigrants are bad? Skin color.
White Americans' fear of anybody who isn't white translates into racism that has been a cancer at the heart of this nation since its birth. Racism isn't a black or brown problem - it's a white problem.
That fear is irrational. How could skin color in itself possibly be a source of fear? It's not a gun or a culture - it's a color!
I can see the value of approaching this question from a different perspective. Fear is a common issue in psychotherapy, and good therapy doesn't shame or order - it asks and listens, and then offers guidance on how to control fear rather than let fear control you.
But therapy takes time, and meanwhile non-white immigrants as well as non-white Americans face the pernicious effects of white racism every minute of their lives. Are they supposed to wait to live full and free lives while whites go to therapy?
Our Constitution mandates against racism. That's an order.
4
1. Politics for these people (Trumpists) is primarily a way to exercise their cruelty. Read J.G. Ballard for the details.
2. It is interesting and morbidly ironic that the worst thing these people can imagine is somebody, particularly a brown person, getting something for nothing and yet they consistently vote for people who have successfully dedicated their lives to doing just that.
3. It is amusing that Trumpists accuse the Dems of grandstanding over their child abuse policy. Their leader is the PT Barnum of the grandstand.
4. It took years of deliberate effort by vested interests to create these know-nothings who are easily led by the nose, incapable of distinguishing lies from truth, or an honest person from a crook. Duped, blinded by their own prejudice, they can be depended on to act against their own self-interest again and again. Throw into the mix misogyny, the dumbing down of the population by inadequate education, suspicion of learning, rejection of science and history, not to mention the help of a hostile foreign power and you have the environment in which these people choose Donald Trump and the GOP.
5. How is it not perfectly clear that Trump is a Putin operative? Why is America following him?
4
“Last month, an unabashed Stephen Miller, Trump’s ever- calculating White House aide, described this tactic to the Atlantic as ‘constructive controversy - with the purpose of enlightenment.’”
The word “enlightenment” is certainly the last word or concept one would ever expect to hear fall from the lips of the malevolent Mr. Miller. Far from “enlightening” us he and his master Trump would gladly lead us into “authoritarian darkness”
5
"Cultural conservatives care deeply about the effects of immigration and resent being told their thoughts and voting behavior are racist."
Of from an earlier time in our history:
Slave holders care deeply about the effects of emancipation and resent being told their thoughts and voting behavior are racist.
4
Exactly. Maybe they need to be made aware of exactly how terrible they'll look in the history books 50-100 years from now.
Perhaps show them the b&w photos of screaming white people during the school desegregation showdowns of the 1950s...
1
It is a mistake to thinks that all those who despise Trump are liberals. And one way to turn them towards Trump is by repeatedly calling them liberals in the media. There are plenty of good-minded republicans who also despise Trump for what he's done to their party, no matter what the polls say. So be careful of tarring people with a brush they don't associate with. As we saw two years ago, people can turn quite easily -- often just out of spite towards someone, anyone, and especially the media.
Those feeding the trolls would be you; the media! Because it is you lot who's making a living on it. The rest of us are just suffering through it.
3
Another entire article not distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration. Yes, I’d say that plays into Trumps tiny little hands.
2
Maybe "racial self-interest is not racism" if your race is the underling and you just want to made equal to others. E.g. "Black Lives Matter" means they (should) matter _no less_ than white lives -- not more. But if your "racial self-interest" is to maintain your race's already dominant position, then by definition you're seeking to keep other races as lessers. At that point, why isn't it racism -- or at least, why isn't it morally blameworthy? Shouldn't we be committed to equality for all, regardless of race -- i.e. to making race irrelevant as a factor in life?
4
While it may be racist to want to preserve your racial majority in a region, it is also arguably rational.
If liberals want to work with conservatives on immigration, accept the premise that we want to reduce immigration (nobody had a problem with this premise during Obama’s tenure) and come up with a plan that
1. Pulls funds from border patrol
2. Pulls funding from our never ending war on drugs in Mexico and South America
3. Uses these funds to provide increased humanitarian aid so these countries aren’t so terrible that its citizens have to flee to the US
Either work with racists on issues or insult them until we have 9 Neil Gorsuch’s in the Supreme Court and Trump for life
5
Trump & his goons are right about the strategy. They bait the Democrats into a fight about how racist Republicans are, and they get a conversation about how Democrats don't care about anyone but immigrants & minorities.
The fact is, most middle class & poor people, of all races, are deeply upset about the way the economy works. That discontent could be turned into a conversation about taxation policy, or about labor laws, or about unions, or about wages. It could be turned into a conversation about political corruption. It could be turned into a conversation about employers who hire undocumented immigrants. But the powers that be want a fight about border walls and racism. It will do what it is designed to do: maintain the rather insane political status quo.
14
I still don't think resentment at be called racist or immigration gets people to the ballot box in large numbers, enough to be a force. But when your livelihood is threatened or your grip on a middle class life is threatened and you are poorly educated (that is one excuse, not everyone gets that pass though) you flail chaotically at these things as threats because of an underlying racist attitude. So it's economics. If the working class and the rural class were doing well, we would not have Trump, despite any amount of immigration. It is only a matter of time before they realize that he has not helped them at all, that he really was a con. Enough of them will realize this, because things for them are only going to get worse. Then the jig will be up for Trump and Bannon and, quite frankly, the GOP.
3
Trump's base hates being called racist even if they clearly are. They believe all the constant lies from the authoritarian president with his daily attacks on the press as the "enemy of the American people."
But, who, exactly, is the American people? For Trump, it's the cult that shows up at his unhinged rallies and to sing his constant praises and feed his insatiable and very needy ego.
Trump has no interest in uniting our country; he thrives on division. This November's midterms will be a true referendum on who are the "real Americans." But, whichever sides wins, we'll all end up losing. After the elections, we'll be as, or more, divided than ever.
3
Pro-immigration versus anti-immigration is polarizing nonsense. Of course we need an immigration policy and the resources to implement that policy. Pro-assistance to the poor versus anti-assistance to the poor, pro-pollution versus anti-pollution, pro-billionaires versus anti-billionaires, pro-white versus anti-white. Better to educate about complexity than repeat simplifications.
An intelligent analysis, as Mr. Edsall often offers. But I strenuously disagree.
Even the researcher he cites, Ashley Jardina, uses the phrase "playing the race card," thus showing some of her own cards.
The essence of Edsall's argument is to stop telling the truth for fear that it will further outrage the liars. That is a capitulation I am unwilling to make. Trump is racist. A reasonable analysis makes any and every Trump voter complicit in racism. Shall we pretend this is just another point of view? Shall we not "poke the bear?"
We must be bolder, not meeker, in response to this vicious assault on justice. Perhaps naming racism will infuriate the racists. But mollify them through silence will be death by a thousand cuts. I have already bled enough at the hands of these monsters.
5
Trump has basically succeeded in driving us all crazy. My normally calm husband goes ballistic when he listens to Trump hurling insults, lying, and mocking our institutions. But we don't have the luxury of ignoring Trump - as we could if he were just an unhinged relative. So we must react carefully and intelligently or we lose our own credibility and alienate any remaining moderate voters. It's really, really difficult...
6
Thank you as always for providing so much information with you editorials whether I agree or not I'm always more informed after reading one of your articles.
I'm one of those defensive types. Here's what I don't understand. The liberal view as expressed in this paper is essentially open borders and free trade. These things both suppress the wages of unskilled labor. Then you complain about the wage gap. Created by open borders and free trade. Instead of messing with the economy by imposing a 15 dollar minimum wage why don't we curtail trade and immigration? If we are going to allow economic immigration for humanitarian reasons then let's talk about it. Who, how many at what cost. Am I a racist?
2
Brian writes, "Here's what I don't understand. The liberal view as expressed in this paper is essentially open borders and free trade...Am I a racist?"
Brian doesn't provide enough information to be absolutely certain he's a racist, but it's a very likely. Still, there are degrees of racism just like there are degrees of assault...and Brian is only displaying the underlying racism typical of most people. And note, I did not single out white people.
So, let's move on. The liberal view, whether expressed in this paper or otherwise, is not in favor of open borders or free trade. What liberal advocate is suggesting that the borders be open to anyone and everyone...without any limits? What liberal advocate is suggesting that background checks aren't necessary or that quotas be abandoned? Brian's assertion that liberals support open borders is a straw man argument. Liberals do not want to send the border patrol home and let everyone and anyone into the country.
Next point...free trade. Brian, free trade has a history of advocacy from the right, not the left. The opposition to free trade came from the left...because free trade was seen as capitalism/owners interests valued over the workers. Trump, I'll admit, has stood that on its head. Of course, now that we've had free trade for decades, going back to limited trade will be very disruptive and put the world in recession. For what? Protectionism doesn't work very well. Trade is better in the long run for everyone.
1
Trump remains merely the most spectacular symptom of the alternative fact Republican cancer on this democratic republic from which he erupted, the GOP having completed devolution from party to religious cult of strongly-held beliefs founded on alternative facts of never more than 2 seconds invested in their inventions, unlimited by degree of preposterousness, rendered literally impervious to evidence on moral grounds by the flip-flopper doctrine and the requirement to "stick to your Republican principles."
3
So now it takes a team of psychology professors to search for and prove racial animosity in specific groups? Psychological fields are occupied by 90% libs, the entire field of study is of dubious scientific rigor as even simple diagnosis of one patient by multiple psychologists rarely come to same diagnosis. Were parallel study's done focused on other races to find similiar prejudice?
I suggest trying this: Place a broken down car with a poor minority family on the roadside, one in a while liberal enclave, another in a white conservative Republican area. See what percentage of each stop to render assistance when it really matters.
2
What then does Mr. Edsall propose we call white supremacists and white nationalists other than what they are? I get that no one want to look in the mirror and see a monster, but if your vision of making America great involves maintaining the value of whiteness at the expense of everything else, you have some very serious problems.
3
I find current American culture degrading. I cringe when I see so many tattoos polluting the bodies of otherwise-attractive people, so many vastly overweight citizens lumbering along with eyes glued to a small device in the palms of their hands, enormous hairstyles taking up too much space, too much flesh exposed in flimsy clothing, strip malls and billboards lining roads, and our becoming a nation of potheads. Yes, as a hetero European-American I am uncomfortable with the increasing presence of black and brown citizens staying at motels and shopping in stores which used to be the province of us white folks, the gay/trans/bi "diversity" thrown at us by media. But I believe that all God's chillun got a place in the choir, this land is my land this land is your land, and and our changing demographics mean America is living up to its professed ideals which I embrace with all my heart.
4
Hillary Clinton's campaign is a vivid example of what happens when you feed the troll. As Trump campaigned using "Build the wall" as a slogan, Clinton accused Trump of trying to build a wall, thereby repeating his message and helping build Trump's base. She called some Trump supporters "deplorable," which further heightened the fervor of Trump supporters. I hope that the media follows Edsall's advice SCOTUS ignored Trump's tweets and remarks made at rallies. So should the media. Trump's remarks are repetitive and no longer are no longer newsworthy. Please don't feed the troll!
1
Like the wife of an alcoholic husband, we are most likely to save this “marriage,” if, rather than shame and harangue him about his drinking, we go to Al-anon and work on our own character defects. And if in the meantime, he alienates the neighbors, bankrupts the family, burns down the house, abuses the kids, and ends up in jail, we’ll be left with our integrity and our sanity which we can mindfully employ to rebuild our marriage.
Is divorce a possibility?
4
It’s the only way.
Diversity is a stablizing force in a pluralistic culture but a antagonisitic one in a monist one. What a group (such as whites) place their well being above the well being of the country as a whole, they are both wrong to do so and racist as well. We see this in Trump's trade war approach. Monists don't need to unite. E Pluribus Unum doesn't apply to a single identity socieities. Our American E pluribus unum implies diversity and pluralism which Trump, Miller, Bannon, and their followers don't understand. Thanks for the well researched column.
3
Gee, and telling a woman who works twice as hard and is twice as good at her job that she doesn't deserve the same pay as her male colleague isn't sexist and discriminatory, it's just males wanting to preserve male dominance? And the same for the doctor who is better than his colleagues but happens to have an Asian race? I'm sorry, this is not justifiable, no matter what you choose to call it.
3
The very low priority that this country gives to its children and to education is what has gotten us into this mess. Trump has said in the past that he would choose to run under the GOP because the members are easier to influence. Implicit in this is the lies and propaganda that will easily take hold.
I wish that the media could focus on anything but Trump and DC for 2 weeks to see what happens. The narcissist will get even more extreme to get attention. His ruse will be exposed. The toxic town full of amoral opportunists and sociopaths will fade from importance. We can uncover the true substance that is buried under tons of manure.
2
Or... two weeks later we would find that while we weren't paying attention, Trump declared a nation emergency, suspended all civil rights and declared himself dictator for life. That is how it happens.
One thing that is illustrated perfectly in this column is we are not having an honest debate. Politicians on both sides are posturing and taking disingenuous positions to inflame one side or the other, and citizens are apprehensive revealing their true concerns. Meanwhile, nothing constructive is being contemplated to actually solve the problem which is supposed to be the reason we have elected these representatives.
I'm not very old, but I remember a time when elections and campaign-style rhetoric took up a fraction of the time and the rest of the time was spent governing. Now it has completely flipped and it seems the reason for elected representatives is to act out social proxy wars.
7
Headline: "Don’t Feed the Troll in the Oval Office"
Considering that this column is an epic troll, I have to tip my hat to the headline writer. Cleverly done.
2
So people don't like to be told they are racist, but they hold racists views. And the more we tell them they are racists, the deeper they dig in.
Fine, dig in.
9
Being civil was the mistake that the Ukrainians made in tolerating Manafort's last Putin stooge he helped put into office. In the end, it was war and bullets that threw the Russians out of Ukraine, though they lost Crimea.
Put "manafort and ukraine and war" into google and spend only a couple of minutes to see what I mean.
Don't think for a minute that civil discourse will save America from the same ruinous course. Putin is sitting in our White House, really, and he is using American racists, gay haters, and women haters to power his taking America down to his level.
Contempt is fine, but it will never beat Trump or Putin. And civil discourse, in the face of the fascists, for that is what they are, is a stupid waste of time. Putin will never leave his comfortable dictatorship in Moscow, nor with America's far right stop stealing our Democracy.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
22
My nephew is a racist. He believes that people with dark skins are, for some reason, less intelligent, more criminal and lazier than whiter people. His knee-jerk reaction to proposals to help poor people is negative, even though he is himself lower middle class based on income. The face of a poor person in his mind is black.
He believes he isn't racist. His sources of information in the news outlets confirm his prejudices. He thinks his attitudes are perfectly rational.
11
Imagine yourself in Germany in 1993. Hitler has just become chancellor and is accruing power daily. Would it have made sense for liberal and democratic people not to call him and his supporters white supremacists, anti-Semites, and jingoists? Would that have made it easier to change their views? Germany was beginning to recover from its depression, because of road building and rearmament. Unemployment was dropping, wages were rising, and ordinary Germans were quite satisfied with the new regime.
Historical analogies and thought experiments can be misused, but in this case I think they are helpful. Trump and his supporters should be resisted vigorously.. Above all, by getting out to vote (the first task of citizenship), but also by shaming public officials who are part of his administration. Nuance be dammed.
15
This is nonsense. How can the desire to slow decline of the white share of the population be used as an excuse for racism when it is in fact based entirely on race itself?
4
As I see it, Steve Bannon has been one of the least successful Trumpian rabble rousers, even though he tries to depict his firing from the White House as some sort of liberation to continue his "deconstruction of the administrative state." He failed miserably in trying to make Marine Le Pen more popular in France, was largely ignored in Italy and Breitbart, his alt-right propaganda outlet, is popular only with a very small minority of racists and neo-Nazis. I wish our real media would stop paying attention to this has-been, who is not half as smart as he thinks he is.
15
What if you are sure you are not a racist, and take exception to that characterization of you, but you are willing to overlook a candidate who is, 1) obviously a racist, 2) calls racists good people even if they are members of groups who are loyal to racism and 3) consistently endorses other racist candidates.
If you vote for a racist candidate, then you are not a racist?
That's where the defense (?!) is, "I don't agree with everything he (the racist candidate) says, but he just has a different way of talking and he certainly isn't as bad as everyone says, and he gets things done, and he's a man of his word."
If we cannot even agree on what "a man of his word" means when it concerns a lifetime of grifting, how can we agree on facts about what constitutes racism?
It is not a matter of opinion when it comes to what tax evasion is. It's a little more of a gray area when it comes to racism, but that doesn't mean one is blind to it when it rears its ugly head. And if you vote for an ugly head, then you are endorsing racism by proxy. You just hope someone else will do the dirty work.
15
The point the writer is making is that we increase opposition to immigration by calling others racist for opposing it. That is all. If we want to have an effect on immigration and win voters to our side, we should refrain from 'calling out' others on their racism. We are not arguing whether we believe they are racist. This is a tactical issue and one we had better address if we want to win in 2020. Right wing trolls (including the president) try to provoke us into calling them racist, Nazis, etc. We need to stop rising to the bait and keep our part of the discussion verbally neutral. We need to stop calling them names- it just makes them mad. Discuss why immigration is positive for our country. Taking the high road will result in our looking like the grownups in the room.
7
As usual, Edsall makes a good point: calling someone racist just because they favor restrictions on immigration is really, really stupid.
6
Of course they're racist. It's just that now we're not going to be allowed to say so. It's their version of PC.
29
It is my experience that those accusing others of "playing the race card", are indeed racist to the core.
6
Disturbing. We can't state the truth because doing so will offend the liars. We must use euphemisms to avoid pointing out vile and disgusting behavior lest doing so will lead to even more terrible behavior.
This Catch 22 cannot be used to muzzle intelligent, decent, compassionate, people who know right from wrong, truth from lies, racism from diversity.
So I for one will risk offending the offensive. I already know deplorables cannot be enlightened, cannot be reasoned with, cannot be awakened to truth or decency. They are beyond hope. So let them double down on their ignorance and racism.
And let Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, all educated people, stand up together and resist the Trump cancer and Trump cult that have put America in a national nightmare.
Let truth be told. Donald Trump is a racist even if he is not a KKK member. Most of his cult followers are racists whether they acknowledge it or are offended to hear it. The truth must be told.
15
It does seem that the real nativists on this western hemisphere are coming home to roost. When our Christian European Caucasian fore-parents claimed all the land by force & deception some 3-400 yrs ago, from the natives who had occupied it for 10,000 yrs before us, none ever dreamed that Karma would come back to bite us in our lazy white big behinds.
My family, on both sides, trace their roots in eastern Canada from the 1500's as dyed in the wool Protestant British patriots. Yet, here on the BC west coast where I have lived for nearly 6 decades, there is no escaping the 10's of thousands of years of First Nations Hawaiian-South Asian influence & the 24,000 yrs old First Nations from Siberia who first migrated & populated the West coast of North America.
Our arrogance & ignorance of these facts needs pricked by conscience alone, if nothing else. When South Americans come knocking on "our" doors, they are actually just coming back home. Especially if our wars & military involvement in their countries in Central & South America are the causes of their needs to flee. Trump & his supporter racists need to be put back in their place by whatever means, just as slavers were.
10
Edsall is a relatively well meaning white man. That makes this piece all the more depressing. A word to the clueless: white people as a group discriminate against blacks, AND resent being told they do. Always been that way. So we blacks will continue to tell truth to power, whether you like it or not
14
Ugh... thanks for breeding about ten Trump voters just now. Saying that any group does anything based on the color of their skin is racist by definition. I think you illustrate the article's point.
4
Uh,...identifying, stereotyping and lumping people into a group by race is the very definition of racism. This is something the right has been pointing out for a while now. The only true way to stop racism is to stop identifying and dividing people up by race.
2
How many people who are racists believe they are racists?
How many racists admit they are racists?
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
4
Huh? The polling clearly exposes racism, and of course tRump supporters are bigots. Edsall misses the point however by a large margin - you don't oppose tRump because he is a bigot - you oppose his racist policies, duh!
I find this ironic - the media hangs on every outrageous tweet the ignoramus puts out. Paraphrasing Carville, its the policies stupid!
Regardless, one cant blame tRump voters or politicians for the lack of turnout. Put down the phone, get your ill-informed rump off the couch and vote. Had turnout been higher none of this would be happening.
1
Hence people of color must work together democratically to build their power. Whites will do everything they can block that power but since white folks will soon be in the minority, people of color will soon be able to have this democracy working for them instead working against them as it does now.
1
Correction: the Neo- Fascist Troll in the Oval Office. The one His fans have been waiting for, their entire lives. Seriously.
6
Incredibly interesting and important poece here.
My first reaction was, whoa ... what? And some commenters here appear to be having similar reactions. But read it all the way through to the end. Its very important.
Trump is a troll. His minioons are trolls. And lots of this nonsense is racist claptrap. But Dems/reasonable people/liberals must wake up and smell the coffee. Facts are facts. Either deal with them and adjust your strategy accordingly - or lose.
3
I think you are looking past the resistance. Don’t assume that it is not effective because ‘Edsel’ says so. People like having the excuse “Well, I *was* going to stop being racist until those young people started yelling.”
Yeah, right.
If voters remain in their places,
The Congress will fill up with racists.
To send the sick trolls
Back down their black holes
Stand up and get into their faces.
6
This is no different than Netanyahu's fear mongering during Israel's last election when he screamed through their media on election day: The Arabs are voting! The Arabs are voting! It worked for him. Two peas in a pod
7
Edsall is a relatively well meaning white man. That makes this piece all the more depressing. A word to the clueless: white people as a group discriminate against blacks, AND resent being told they do. Always been that way. So we blacks will continue to tell truth to power, and you whites will continue to resent it. Your feelings are secondary to my rights.
Regardless of how well polls are crafted to deal with beliefs in"racial self-interest", people who ARE blatantly anti-Black anti-Brown or just anti anyone not white immigrant, will never believe they are racist. PS I know who they're voting for if you're not quite sure.
6
Supporting a racist president = you are a racist.
Very simple.
If the point of this “research” is to somehow redefine racism, then I’m not buying it. We are living through a fun house mirror and frankly it’s just a daily nightmare.
12
"Racial Self Interest"? Talk about putting lipstick on a pig....
1
Gee, have you stopped beating your wife? Cmon, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot and this navel gazing gets us nowhere. Its about the voter turnout, stupid!!! Turnout will cure all ills.
4
Except if it’s rigged. Hoping my hat is delicious come November, but ‘Status Quo Ekes Out Slight Victory’ seems the likely 1st Wednesday morning headline.
1
Only 19 comments on this fascinating and crucial discussion?!
People are worried about being labeled "racist"!
I have found that taking a few days off (even of NYT, sorry) to decompress and focus on my own mental health is beneficial for everyone. I have come to realize that the root of this is fear, and fear is just the "survival mode" of the human animal.
While it's quite helpful in a car accident or fire, the fear system is basically useless, indeed counterproductive for most of us most of the time. It is the predominant power, though for most of us emotionally. Therefore it is the easiest button to push, and also the cheapest for advertisers, candidates, colleagues, whoever wants to influence us.
By disengaging from fear this no longer works, at least to the same extent. From that perspective it is easy to see what is really going on: Person A wants me to buy this product. Candidate B wants me to be afraid of immigrants..
Or whatever. If you don't feel the fear, or feel it less that you did then this strategy gets diffused. This is the best place for us to operate from in decision-making. Not without care or caution, but without RE-action that so often leads to destruction.
1
Calling people "racist" solves nothing. It may allow some people to vent subconscious anger (unresolved conflicts with parents), but it will not help the Dems win the House in November.
Right now the deck is so stacked against the Dems electorally, that winning in November may prove to be nothing more than wishful thinking. Why erode that possibility even further by enraging the opposition? Why help Trump (who’ll be meeting soon with Putin) again rig the elections?
That is the practical politics. There is also the question of the pot calling the kettle black. What is all the anti-white-working-class rhetoric if not a form of bigotry in its own right, a white-on-white racism, if you will? Does everyone miss the irony of a privileged, heritable meritocracy, mostly educated whites, accusing the white working-class of "white privilege"?
Finally, there is the enduring question of identity politics. Democrats have exhausted themselves arguing about such pertinent questions as who gets to use which bathroom, while the right has stolen all levers of power in the country by stealth and single-mindedness of purpose. What is this discussion in Comments if not more identity politics? It just goes on and on, the participants seemingly oblivious to the hole they are digging ever deeper for themselves. Edsall is right to ask how "complicit" Democrats and liberals have been in Trump’s rise. The answer surely is, a lot!
22
very learned man!
2
There are many more decent, humane Americans than Trump Deplorables.
We all need to register and vote and help the millions of Americans disenfranchised by Republican Jim Crow laws to register to vote.
This is the solution the the radical Republican right-wing hijacking of America.
Donate a few dollars to voter registration organizations
https://www.voterparticipation.org/support-our-work/donate-to-vpc/
https://www.rockthevote.org/donate/
We need a record voter turnout on November 6 2018.
30
Psychological research has shown people who vote for and support politicians like Trump are almost unanimously right wing authoritarian followers. Right wing authoritarian followers have very little insight into this mindset and little self awareness, and they are relatively immune to the cognitive dissonance that comes with, say, being a Christian and hating immigrants or supporting programs to help the less fortunate. They are unlikely to change no matter what rhetoric is used; even if no one talks about the racism implicit in fervent anti-immigration policies and the exaggeration of the problems caused by immigration, the leaders of these authoritarians will still trigger all their worst impulses because that is what they do. They don't need us to supply the ammunition. Progressives need to understand this, but we should not stifle our thoughts and ideas so as to not stir up the menace of the right wing. We have seen how well that goes in the last century. Politicians and voters need to speak to their true beliefs and we will see who wins out in the end, as their are only the thinnest of margins separating success from failure. There has been a long slide back against progressive politics, but it need not continue, as the majority is in favor of progress racially and economically.
8
The level of immigration is at a high level the past 40 years. The population of the USA as gone from 200 million in 1967 just after the 1965 major immigration law, to 327 last July. The GAO estimates that about 70 percent of this increase is due to foreigners moving to the USA and their offspring.
This increase in population has caused millions of acres of natural and agricultural land ( like orange groves in Florida ) to be converted to housing, shopping, roads, and parking lots. Even with better zoning, there is just no way around when you add so many new residents that trees and wildlife will be gone.
It is quite logical that rational people would oppose high levels of legal immigration. A lot of people on the left which normally supports environmental causes should be chastened by the Audubon Society meadow bird count of 1967 and the one of 2007. It showed a 40 percent reduction in this type of bird who loves the high, well drained landed coveted by developers. The Audubon Society said that the reduction in birds was due to a decline in acreage of habitat.
So were is the environmental debate on immigration ? It is much easier to accuse those who oppose large scale immigration as being against the racial makeup of it. That way you paint them as irrational. Thus you don't have to consider all the other aspects of it.
8
This just confirms that Dems and others who oppose Trump should heed Michelle Obama's advice: When they go low, we go high. Stay focused on what WE would do to solve our country's problems, and stop attacking Trump supporters, Trump personally, and his so-called "solutions."
5
The media mechanism by which the troll effect works its
toxic power is the manner by which MSM packages the
gibberish that emanates 24/7 it seems. There is the
recitative of the latest, then there is something in opposition,
then the personal short response interview. Almost always
there will be an outraged you shouldn't say such things response.
When repeated ad nauseum (literally) this reinforces the impression that the listener is being instructed how to respond
by a representative of the elite (political, academic, social).
As noted in this very insightful summary (thank you T. Edsall!),
this creates the internal reflex of digging in one's heels.
There is a historical tradition of nativist xenophobia
dating to the 1920's - 30's. The current "illegal immigration" and "secure borders" memes reflect current anxiety
of (white spaces) being invaded that are similar. Its efficacy as a slogan comes from the implicit, and in various cases purely pro forma, illegality of what's being opposed, as with
driving black with malfunctioning rear light.
As long as "upholding the law" is
the justification, no need exists to develop policy to address any of the actual problems. Only when top level managers are
prosecuted for failing to do due diligence in hiring will
that change.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to learn how many
poorly educated whites are rushing to replace
deported immigrants in landscaping, construction, farms, or meat/poultry processing plants.
6
I used to pay a cleaning service (run by one wasp white woman) which employed Spanish speaking women. They wrecked various items, did a sloppy job, ate my food and bragged about getting government services. I paid $90 a week for the service. I now have one white American woman who charges me $150 a week and expects a tip which I do not begrudge. She doesn’t destroy my chairs, rugs and faucets. She doesn’t take welfare, doesn’t have kids out of wedlock. She doesn’t snack on my food, and she actually cleans my house. Americans will do the jobs our illegal labor pool does. They just need a living wage.
I've come to exactly the same conclusions as you without having access to all of those scholarly papers and data.
Problem is, trying to convince the nascent neo-progressive "movement" in our party to "proceed with caution" is becoming nearly impossible.
They succeed in taking down one "establishment" congressman in New York and all of a sudden they start to believe that they're ready to take over the party.
Taking down Trump in 2020 is dependent upon two things.
1) Get more minority voting participation
2) Reclaim those supposed 3-5% of Obama voters who defected to Trump. If they actually do exist, they would be the ones that are now up for grabs as a result of Trump's evil family separation policy.
However, they can be lost forever more easily than they can be won back. The Democratic left flank is impatient, unwilling to negotiate and to be completely honest downright annoying much of the time with their P.C. lecturing and constant, borderline hysterical moral outrage.
They embody the style in the piece of the "racism brochure" that basically tries to shame people into being "non-racists".
It just doesn't work.
10
There is only one race, the human race. All the rest of these categories are manufactured by man out of fear and bigotry. Ethnicity and race are two different things.
"Most Democrats and liberals, as the accompanying chart shows, do believe that opposition to immigration is racist. " This is very ambiguous. My reaction to it is to ask "Why are they opposed to immigration?"
Otherwise the question quoted is grammatically and intellectually dishonest. "Just acting in her Racial Self Interest" is actually the epitome of being a racist. The false assertion "which is not racist" is a ruse to allow poorly educated bad actors to think themselves righteous or possibly a ploy on the level of deviousness that Miller indicates w/his throwing gas on the fire metaphor. The reason I see is people oppose it due to the onslaught of propaganda over the last 40 years which has succeeded in planting the seeds of the false assertions we see people making which are an echo of the past. This is a tried and true model the upper classes have been using for over 100 years in the US. There is a new lie for the last 40+ years that insists immigrants get "free" things from the gov which citizens are not able to get.
This "racial self interest" argument sounds a lot like the argument for Eugenics. It "feels" right but the unvarnished facts say its dead wrong.
2
School and religion teach that prejudice is wrong. But they can't overcome life experience -- for example, when we think someone got a job on into a college we wanted because of racial favoritism.
1
Here is the video campaign advertisement I would like to see created.
Very simple. Alternate shots between 1. people making statements about
why they didn't want to vote, and 2. statements of fact about exactly
what laws, policies, EPA rules, and so forth have actually changed. Go
back and forth from one statement by a non-voter, to a fact of what has
changed. Don't even need to use statements or images of #45 at all, just
the facts of what has actually changed. Doesn't need to have any political
personalities visible, just facts, and non-voters. You could close it up
with ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Turn on your ad-sense on that on your
you tube channel and you will become wealthy. Surely someone is thinking
of doing this ?
5
Great idea. I've got a couple more. :)
1. Broken campaign promises (Trump's "promise" to negotiate drug prices vs. data showing how much they're rising; his "promise" to bring healthcare nirvana vs. his abandonment of protection for pre-existing conditions).
2. Show what the tax reform will really mean once the chickens come home to roost (7-year limit; crushing federal debt; likelihood of severe cutbacks in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare).
Dems need to show that the policies of Trump and the GOP, rather than making them prosperous, are aimed squarely at their pocketbooks.
1
I like Bill Maher’s comment: “You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.” Aside from sparking outrage on the left, what’s our strategy? If the Trumpists are going to use fear tactics (immigration, racism) we should do likewise, not just to galvanize our own party but theirs as well. Why aren’t our own leaders screaming from the rafters, “The Republicans are coming after your health care, and after that, they’ll come for your Medicare and Social Security.” I’m getting fed up with the Democratic Party and their feeble gestures of resistance while I watch our democracy and our meager safety nets being eroded daily.
15
I guess you either didn't read the article, or you did and don't care. Are you assuming that in mid-term elections, energizing the base is more important than wooing moderate and independent voters? What about in 2020, when Trump is on the ballot? Trump is the master of uncivil combat, developed on the mean streets of New York City and polished to devastating effect in the primaries & general elections. Choose wisely.
3
I guess because it want fly in Peoria because its not true!
So our political elites are correct to supply a "market demand" for racist policies among the ignorant? Wow. It's amazing how far our "leaders" will go to avoid supplying the *real* market demand among Americans of all races for economic fairness, decent-paying jobs, and an adequate health-retirement-disability safety net.
It is always a good idea to avoid ad hominem attacks in politics -- and accusations of racism (which are true in DJT's case, though not necessarily among all of his followers) can sometimes fall into that category -- it is hard not to see Eric Kauffman as an apologist for racist attitudes. The answers to question he posed in his survey are very black-and-white: racist/not racist/don't know. Neither side was given an opportunity to anything other than a) express an extreme position or b) abdicate. The right wing has mastered this art of appealing to the unsubtlest common denominator in our society, to the detriment of all.
1
Also, let's not forget that the other major player in this ugly dance is the news media. The heated conflict over racial and immigration policy is pure ratings and financial gold for the news industry.
The immigration issue is a cable news producer's dream, a negative, confrontational story that plays on everyone's fears and emotions, and hence draws in viewers. And of course, Trump, the master news manipulator, knows this and loves to stoke the fires.
That's why the cable networks gave Trump all the free air time he wanted for his prime-time rallies and unlimited phone call-ins and always positioned him at the middle podium of the candidate debates, so that the camera would always be focused on him.
Every single Trump Tweet, each one intended by him solely as a provocation, is immediately posted by the networks as soon as it is made, knowing it will generate an outraged reaction and attract an audience.
An exasperated guest on a cable news panel recently confronted a cable news personality on why his show insisted on publicizing every outrageous Trump Tweet or statement. He archly replied "We have to, he's the president". Talk about self-serving, circular reasoning.
As the article states, Trump is above all a provocateur, but it is a shame that the news media deliberately enables his provocations, all in the name of corporate profits.
4
And don't feed the trolls in the Democratic Party, either, such as Maxine Waters. Voting remains optional and half the electorate doesn't vote anymore...for one reason: The so-called leadership of both near worthless parties since the 1980s, especially the grifters in Congress. The Dem leadership needs to call out the hateful and dangerous Maxine Waters, along with the Red Hen Restaurant owner, Samantha Bee and other mouthpieces for fringe left boorish incivility and ignorance. For the first time since age 18, I as a centrist Democrat am so ashamed of the Democratic Party and might join the ranks of the non-voting in November.
5
"For the first time since age 18, I as a centrist Democrat am so ashamed of the Democratic Party and might join the ranks of the non-voting in November."
Oh. So you're voting for Trump.
2
The title of the article says it all, do not feed the troll. Conservatives have their fingers on the emotional pulse of the country and know how to yank the strings of their supporters and the opposition to motivate and bring their supporters to the polls in November.
The constant trolling is exhausting to the opposition, wearing them down, eventually keeping them from the polls. Constant trolling is energizing to their supporters, giving them a getting out the vote advantage.
Don't bite, go after policy, offer an alternative.
9
No disrespect to Mr. Edsall, but this article plays into Trump's hands all by itself.
Do we really need to debate what racism is, and who gets to say so, and how?
If your fears about immigration center around a perceived threat to your "ethnic group's share of the population," that means skin color. The skin color of your neighbors is your top concern. You can call it concerns about "culture" or "heritage" but it's still racism by definition.
These ideas play into Trump's strategy that facts are fluid, malleable, and debatable - you know, Conway's famous set of "alternative facts."
Defining racism is not, and should not be a murky subject. By making it so, you simply give people with hate in their hearts a new avenue of plausible deniability.
3
This is an article about long-overdue research into what "racism" is, or may be, about relative to the waves of immigration into North America, Europe, and Scandinavia.
Wars, famine, extreme poverty, lack of educational opportunities, religious persecution, desires for a better life ... these are some of the causes pushing people from Central America north to the United States, and others migrating out of war-torn areas of the Middle East and Northern Africa to simply get away from the bombs and gunfire to survive and thrive elsewhere; and, there are those leaving the bleakest of living conditions in the Sub-Saharan regions in the hope of rebuilding their lives.
Food, shelter, safety from harm. These drivers of immigration are also pushing the patience/tolerance of the citizens of those countries deciding on when, or whether to, accept such large numbers of immigrants and war refugees. Is it racism, economics, protectionism, NIBYism, patriotism? Since nearly all of these immigrants and refugees are "of color" — in various shades, the discussion of racism becomes a very hot topic throughout every country trying to adjust to the numbers of immigrants never experienced before.
This is driving a new right-wing movement across Scandinavia and Europe — tempting some left-of-center liberals to join the anti-immigrant cause. Race-baiting is inflaming old feelings of insecurity and fears of losing cultural identity, especially as the numbers of immigrants continue to grow.
2
Seriously? Wake up. Expressing outrage at Trump isn't a bad strategy. He will whip up rage and resentment in his base regardless of what the rest of the population does. You guys need to get this - his base is motivated by spite and fear and he feeds that to them every day. They belong to him. They are enthralled by him. What matters for the mid-term elections isn't how riled up Trump voters are, that's a given regardless of what their opponents do or say. What matters is how activated the Trump resistance is and that they turn up en masse to retake congress. There's no placating Trump or his people, there is only massive retaliation at the voting booth. Whatever gets more anti-Trump people to vote - do that. This isn't some academic exercise in political theory, it's a knife fight for the soul of the United States.
1
I've reflected recently on four women I know who over the years revealed themselves to be Trump supporters. Their husbands are more often mute but I can assume conform to their spouses position. They have posted things I find abhorrent (Mexican Jokes, a photo of a black defendant, lawyer, and judge, the source of which proved to be a Facebook page festooned in confederate banners) and have said out loud "I think Obama may be the devil".
Yet each one of these people bristle at the suggestion of racism. In fact each of them has also done admirable work, with literacy among minority populations, building a water system in a central American community, teaching in city schools, etc.
So, I reflect on my judgement of them and I am humbled. However I do also believe that they have a bind eye regarding white privilege
and, I do know that the more they see Trump derided, the stiffer their spines become.
As for my own position, I don't think those veiled surveys would have caught me supporting anti immigrant statements. Ask me more nuanced questions on immigration and I might have to think about it.
To Edsall's point that "we feed the troll", we have seen ample evidence of this among people in entertainment, and the most strident voices of the left.
2
The president of Russia Mr Putin has designed a project to divide and conquer Europe and with a bit of luck and Trump's help the United States of America. This is a declared goal of his. To find the cracks in the culture and to widen them, racism, class, extremes of belief religious and ideological.
Trump, Miller, Fox News et al are all in the process of achieving this by telling lies, speaking to "the base" and encouraging and modeling the worst behaviors and language ever. They love to incite their base with simple propaganda repeated ad nauseam and they take delight in offending liberals with their illegal, Justice flouting suggestions and behaviors. Melanie's coat was a prime example of base focusing, kidnapping and caging babies and children was to offend liberals.
Soon the wretched conman will meet with his friend Putin, probably to check out his progress and how the real estate business is going in Russia
We will probably get a report from RT as to what they actually discussed!
Until we, or a politician, or Mr Mueller speaks out against Trump with evidence and convictions against him, we will descend the slippery path to autocracy, aided and abetted by the Republican Party.
8
For his adherents, the Great Prevaricator presents a zero sum game; us v them. “They”will take our jobs, “they”will kill us, or rape us, “they”will contrive to get their hands on our tax money for their entitlements. Trump tells this story to an audience that primed by economic insecurity, uncomfortable with change, threatened with dislocation, economically stagnant. Insecurity isn’t unreasonable in a society with a torn safety net, where children suffer food insecurity, education is wobbly, and health care is an iffy proposition. I don’t think it is that hard to misdirect these fears from actual causes (gross economic insecurity, trickle down tax cuts, poor governance, corporate rapacity) to the scapegoat of immigration. It is this shell game that Democrats must find a way to expose. Until then, Trump will fuse racism, fear, and insecurity at a visceral level.
4
Being in a position of privilege tends to lead to the idea that any expanding of privilege to others somehow diminishes one's own personal holdings. This is the logic behind attempting to limit voting rights as well as behind anti-immigrant policy. It is the logic that makes claims about "hordes," and "swarms" of people violating the borders so effective. The idea that opportunities are limited and that immigrant "others" will come in and take what "we" deserve is simply fallacious thinking. The fact that such beliefs are wrong headed doesn't make them any less pervasive, however, and designating it as "racial self-interest" gives it a cover of validity since who can argue against "self-interest"? Is there racism, xenophobia and prejudice in the Trump/Republican strategy? I have no doubt about it. There is also greed, fear, and a limited view of American values and American resilience and generosity at its core. Addressing the Republicans limited views of these American ideals will serve Democrats better and address some emotional motivations for these ugly and despicable Republican policies.
2
"Who can argue against self interest"? I think Jesus did.
1
Any poll on immigration should include questions on how does immigration (legal or illegal) affect you as a person directly. I suspect a majority of the rabid right or left on the issue aren't actually affected by it at all directly. I would love for all the illegals to buddy up with a legal immigrant or citizen to support them financially (temporarily) and then walk out on their jobs for two weeks during the height of tourism season and harvesting. See the impact of that on our economy and then maybe people will see how valuable these people are and see the businesses behind the hiring of illegal aliens. Demand that H1 visa holders are immediately reported to immigration when their visas expire OR when they lose their job. Make it a penalty on the sponsoring business for not doing so. Reigning in corporations is the answer and the boogeyman behind the rhetoric.
4
According to my dictionary, “racism” is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” I could prefer to live among people of my own race (I really don’t have such a preference) without necessarily believing that my own race is superior to other races. Someone could honestly say, “Regardless of its strengths and weaknesses compared to other races, my race is the race with which I’m familiar, and I want to feel at home.” You would have grounds to call such a person a “bigot,” which my dictionary defines as “one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred or intolerance.” Being unwilling to tolerate the presence of a different racial group is to treat that racial group with intolerance—which is bigotry but not necessarily racism. Your words matter. Don’t degrade language in the service of politics. Trump and his ilk do that.
1
Put another way, some whites who no longer automatically do well in life now feel fear and resentment at losing the old, built in economic and social advantages that used to rig life outcomes in their favor. And then when they see members of other ethnic groups doing better than themselves, they resentfully presume these outcomes must be rigged, not earned.
Immigration in the eyes of these resentful whites is thus a source of more competition and reduced economic and social status. Many whites whose lives haven't turned out as well as they believe they should have won't say it outloud but what they really want is life re-rigged in their favor like it used to be.
Anti-immigration feeling is one way this submerged resentment against losing hereditary white entitlement is out in the open and festering. And Donald Trump's relentless self dealing, self promotion and anti-immigrant bashing 'brand' of false patriotism simultaneously resonates with, helps conceal, and politically captures this angry feeling of lost privilege among resentful whites looking for a champion to re-rig life's outcomes in in their favor.
3
Throughout human history, ethnic and racial groups have striven to preserve their distinctive cultures.
For example, The Celts resisted the Anglo-Saxons, but mange only to hold on to the “Celtic Fringe” of Europe. Does this make the Irish racists? Native Americans ferociously resisted European immigrants. Does this make Native Americans racists?
Multiculturalists envision societies of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, yet remain distinct. However, multicultural immigration erodes a host nation’s distinctive culture.
The issue is whether nations have a right to preserve their distinctive cultures. Most people seem to agree the answer is yes unless the nation is a predominantly white.
11
What I read in this article isn't so much about surveys, but about falling for the baiting of the tweets and comments from Trump and friends. The conversation turns to whatever he wants, he's in control. And NYT responds with outrage to every one of them, as does every other media. Interesting to think what would happen if he were just ignored for say, 48-72 hours.
2
All well and good, the nuances and complexities presented here.
And good advice at the end, for the left not to up the ante in taking the bait on incivility.
However, what's missing - crucially - is the economic history of the working and middle class - especially those without college degrees - since the golden days of the late 1960's.
It would be difficult enough to be welcoming to "the other" with a different complexion and language and religion - but when the working and middle classes have been stagnating in wages and income at best - and many doing worse - then does not opening the immigration gates clearly pour gasoline on an already combustible set of circumstances? And I must add that American business, at least inside Democratic circles, does a good job of hiding their direct self-interest in adding to the low cost labor pool - there is always, among liberals, a good cover story: furthering our traditions, Ellis Island, Statue of Liberty...opportunity for all...that is part of the reality, but not the whole story.
Don't leave the economics out. Big mistake.
3
Elections “can update positively people’s perceptions about the share of people who support an opinion previously believed to be stigmatized,” the authors write. “This may in turn change people’s perceptions about the negative judgment they will face for expressing their opinion.”
A most distressing statement - shows that the survey participants relied neither on any principles or moral compass. How very sad for America's future.
9
This does a very nice job of showing how complex the pitching of political issues can be. It's too bad the Democratic Party is incompetent and has no one doing the research and advising its candidate on how to play things. Republicans have done a great job of spinning their issues. My personal thoughts at the moment are that Democrats need to leave immigration alone and focus on economic issues, particularly the unfairness of Republican tax cuts and the run up of the national debt since 1980. Also, the threat--real or not--of reversing Roe should be brought to center stage. Democrats have already lost the anti abortion vote, but they might be able to energize some moderates. Oh, and force Nancy Pelosi to announce her retirement. Right or not, I am sure campaigns need to be data driven, and the Democratic Party is floundering.
5
The increase in the national debt is the LAST thing Democrats should focus on.
Here are some questions you can think about:
When will the USA run out of money?
The day after the NFL runs out of points. The only thing that limits our printing of money is inflation which is caused by not being able to produce enough stuff to soak up the new money, or in other words, shortages like of oil.
When did too much federal debt EVER have a negative effect on the US economy?
Beats me.
What has happened ALL 6 times we have significantly ( 10% or more) paid down the debt?
We have suffered a depression. In fact, ALL of our 6 depressions followed paying down the debt.
When did we pay off or even pay down the huge WWII debt?
What happened was we actually increased the debt 75% from 1946 to 1973 & enjoyed great prosperity. As the economy grew, the debt simply became insignificant.
How is needed money is added to a growing economy?
1. Banks can create a certain amount by making loans, but we have just seen what happens when they create too much.
2. We can repatriate money sent abroad. We haven't been able to do that for a long time, & it seems unlikely we ever will.
3. It comes from the government via deficit spending, but the spending has to get the money where it will be useful, to the people who need it and will spend it, not to the people who do not need it and will use it to speculate as Trump's tax bill does.
3
The last $20 trillion plus of the national debt is all Republican. Voters need to know that.
I could not get past the experiment conducted by Alexander Janus, which seemed to show that 71% of college graduates, 71% of liberals and 63% of Democrats favored restrictions on immigration when they thought they were expressing their opinion anonymously. I don't know how valid the study is, but if it accurately tracks the opinion of these groups, then this country faces far more serious problems than the level of incivility in our politics.
My concern stems from the apparent distinction Edsall and his sources make between "racial preference" and "racism." Like some other readers, I'm not sure I grasp the difference. What possible reason could a white person have for preferring that his ethnic group remain in the majority, unless he perceives some substantive difference between himself and people of a different skin color? The definition of racism that has always made most sense to me focuses on the notion that ethnicity determines level of intelligence and capacity for moral judgment. Racial preference bears an eerie resemblance to racism.
This column totally ignores the economic dimension of opposition to immigration. However mistaken the fear of job loss may be, it expresses a real concern on the part of millions of Americans.
In any case, the Janus study, which Edsall does not analyze, lacks the scope (only 700 participants) to challenge the conventional wisdom about the attitudes of the American people on race and immigration.
8
Tricky words. Call me a "liberal" in the traditional sense of being open to new ideas (as opposed to conservative who doesn't like new ideas much). I believe in, for example, environmental protections that protect the next generation from this one (aka sustainability). I don't care what people's DNA is - aka "race" - but I do wish for their "culture" to be supportive of sustainability, which is done right is win/win/win (no sacrifice required). I also believe that the core of Western Civ is a secular democracy, and don't want people of any "race" to be threatening secular democracy. I'd like to get to a "race-free" society where people's DNA doesn't matter (aren't we all "mongrels" i.e. not pure anything, anyway?). Instead we can have respectful productive cultural debates that evolve with the challenges we must face. The US is overpopulated, as is the world (a sustainable global human population is probably about 2 Bil.). For the approx 45 years of my adult lifetime, the US has been about 5% of global population consuming about 25% of global resources (and therefore creating about 25% of global environmental damage). This sadly hasn't changed much. More Americans likely means more people unsustainably consuming. So I can favor reduced immigration. "Liberals" focus so much on "identity" politics for me; and it is sad we are playing into the "right"'s wrong hands by doing so.
4
As a lifelong Floridian, it's interesting to watch how people separate themselves from their own histories. Old Anglo Miami residents still bemoan the arrival of Cubans in the 1960s and how that permanently changed Florida. Cuban friends in my generation grew up in FLA and complain about all those newbies from Brazil and other places. Nothing changes, new arrivals are always greeted with suspicion.
25
As a conservative Republican, I was sorry to see this column. Edsall is giving away our secret! Every time Maxine Waters shows up on TV screaming about Trump and calling for personal attacks on Republicans, we get donations. Every time a republican is ejected from a restaurant or attacked while they are trying to eat, moderates join our ranks.
13
You are so right.
As a liberal Progressive, I am infuriated when Progressives rail against rightists. Sixty years ago, I learned that Coca Cola does not acknowledge the existence of Pepsi. (Maybe Coca Cola has changed, but the point stands.)
12
Progressives know this. Which is why we disdain and call you deplorable. Because you rejoice in dirty tricks and win at it. But things are changing. I find it galling that you would get offended by someone yelling in a restaurant but Trump encouraging violence at his rallies just okey dokie.
2
Similarly, I think the left does themselves no favors decrying Trump's anti-Muslim immigration stances while turning a blind eye to the majority of the Muslim world's attitudes towards women, gays, secular democracy, animal welfare, etc, that would elicit outrage here.
1
The short and long term political landscape is that, while Republican millennials look, act and vote much like Gen X, Boomer and even Silent Generation Republicans, Democrat millennials have moved to the far left and do not look, act or vote like Gen X, Boomer and even Silent Generation Democrats. As much as Democrats like to chest thump about a shrinking GOP due to a slight reduction in the ratio of whites to minorities - due to the high birth rate of hispanics, they should not count on that translating into victory. The fastest growing demographic of evangelicals is latino. More than 30% of latinos voted GOP in 2016, as did blacks into the double digits.
Coming up are the first voters of Gen Z. There are fewer of them than there are Millennials (the largest demographic in the U.S. and world). The salient question is whether Gen Z will vote like their parents. If history both speaks and repeats, and it does, we're in for a longer term partisan divide. If the economy holds together, the GOP might just gain some fence sitters, Independents, and centrist Democrats...just as the GOP did in the 1950s, 1970s, 1980s. One demographic of today's voter in both parties can upend all that history: women. There are plenty of Republican and religious conservative women voters. However, if SCOTUS and more states continue restricting women's health and reproductive rights, watch out. We might finally have ourselves a force for long term good that restores order from decades of macho chaos.
4
During the campaign leading up to November 2016, research showed that, since most Hispanic citizens were religious — mostly Catholic— the Evangelical messages of fear-mongering worked pretty well if one was of strong faith.
Oddly enough, African-American churches tended to take the Bible very literally to the point where there was a definite anti-gay rights mood coming out of those churches. Meanwhile, many in the African-American communities saw large numbers of Latin American immigrants coming through our southern border as a threat to the jobs held by African-Americans.
Thus, we should not be surprised that so many African-Americans sided with Trump, a decision they should already be feeling with great regrets.
The chaos model of manipulating voters described as a Miller/El Trumpo thing is actually what reagan used, and the GOP has used ever since to prevent the people from using their government for their own best interests based in their unspoken core belief that most people are not fit to govern themselves. Like they always project from Fox it is in fact class warfare but it is being waged on the people by the "upper classes".
16
As a strategist I’m afraid Steve Banon has a point. In reducing any discussion on immigration to polarizing extremes, i.e. open borders versus racists, many liberal and modeate voters who hold more nuanced views on immigration policy in our current economic framework are disenfranchised. Mr. kaufman’s poll has several inherent biases. Refering to voters who believe immigration policies need to consider protecting the American workforce and social safety-net, with a fair and coherent immigration laws are not fairly labeled “anti-immigrant” which carries a perative tone if nothing else. The phrase in the poll question limiting it to those who oppose immigration “to maintain their group’s share of the majority” is disqualifying. Aren’t there other reasons to question current immigration policy that have nothing to do with race and reflect no lack of sympathy for people who want to come here for a better life? If Democratic politicians want broader immigration policies, first they need to figure out how to raise the minimum wage, protect workers rights, provide affordable healthcare and protect social security. Unless they address the erosion of the middle class which is only threatening to get worse and effects all US citizens, not just whites,a lot of liberals have silent reservations about our immigration policy. Do Democratic politicians not know that? Is that why they consistently play right into to Banon’s and Miller’s hands?
9
The Bullies succeed in making themselves the victims of those they bully. Classic narcissistic behavior. Mental whiplash puts everyone on the defensive unless they are part of the gang. The Dems need new strategies for dealing with crazy old grandpa.
I had to read the experiment over twice before understanding whether I would say oppose to the immigration statement. (I support more immigration therefore I would oppose cutting it off) what do you want to bet many people misread it and thought they were asked if they opposed immigration? I don't for a minute think that liberals and democrats went from 30% or so to 70%. I could see a few admitting when not noticed but this result speaks to experimental error in construction.
5
You are too trusting. The need for you to read it twice to understand it well enough to respond should clue you that it is intended to be confusing which means they seek a particular result or intend to manipulate whatever data they gather to suit themselves.
It's not enough for the Democratic leadership to vote against the Republican agenda in Congress; they must aggressively promote a positive platform that puts immigration on the back burner for now and turns up the heat on issues that the Republicans would prefer not to discuss: money in politics, health care, education, infrastructure, gun violence, opioids. These are the issues on which large majorities agree with our stand. Immigration--not so much. But why is that?
If the statistics Mr. Edsall has cited here are true, many Democrats have reservations about how the Democratic position on immigration is being portrayed. The Republicans have framed our position, and our leaders seem to have let them. The Democrats need to take this issue away from the Republicans by agreeing that we need immigration reform--we do, after all--but without a wall. Most folks will understand that the Mexicans won't be paying for any durn wall--we will, and it'll cost us bigly. And most will see that a wall would interfere with wildlife. Most will understand benefits to them personally: affordable produce, care for dear old Mom at the nursing home instead of in their own spare bedroom. Democrats with access to a mike must repeat, repeat, repeat those points without even mentioning the attitudes of the other side, and they'll turn our negative issue into a positive.
19
100% agree
Excellent points.
Wise advice for Democrats - including those who style themselves far left, because it gets to the heart of why retuning fire with fire - as Trump boasts he does - can not work.
Not mentioned is the distrust that those who are struggling have for those who are comfortable - not necessarily super-wealthy - but insulated from poverty and all that attends it - bad schools and fear of the future for themselves (retirement?) and their children.
People can feel threatened when it appears that concern for immigrants supersedes attention to their needs, or adds burdens to localities - but never in the highest income districts. Those homes and neighborhoods are not directly affected by an influx of immigrants. So people react to those who preach but who are buffered from actual contact with anyone "different." They are perceived as hypocrites - and so dismissed (Why Trump isn't also seen as a hypocrite and liar, I am waiting for a study to explain).
Responding from the gut level - hate for hate, insult for insult - never works. As the article says - it is exactly what the administration of destruction wants to instigate. I may love the satire of Noah or Colbert, but it won't convince others to change stripes. We all harbor fear of change - and secret resentments - so that self knowledge can be used to connect to others. Anger and righteousness can serve as fuel for personal action; but self-righteous judgments against other groups are politically deadly - and feed the troll.
13
Trump is still popular with his voting base and not seen as a hypocrite because he is a pugilistic rich white male at the top of the food chain and has chosen a veep who also is that in addition to being a fire breathing evangelical misogynist. What's not to like? Trump/Pence represents everything the base wants to be and was always taught was the brass ring. Go big or go home.
"Pro-immigration forces should avoid using charges of racism to sideline discussions of ethno-demographic interests. Instead, they should accept the importance of cultural concerns but argue positively for immigration on humanitarian, national-interest or liberal grounds. They should cite assimilation data to reassure anxious majorities."
Well stated. Of course, this is a nation of immigrants. What the white voters who elected Trump fail to recognize is that our nation needs immigrants for a wide variety of reasons, least of all for labor. The question of course is how one might convince voters of the importance of immigration as a factor in adding positively to the population.
11
He, the current president, is addicted to excitement in all his affairs. He can wind himself up over and over again into a frenzy and he wants to take an audience with him. It feeds him, like oxygen feeds a wild fire.
I have started to look away, to ignore him, and focus on what is the task at hand in my local community and surroundings. I will do my work from the ground up.
20
A large problem, is that the extent of illegal immigration, indeed immigration in general, is misunderstood and mildly - or wildly - blown out of proportion.
-Between 1995 and just before the financial crisis in 2008, the number of illegal immigrants here more than doubled, but since then has flat-lined, and even dropped slightly. Why did it rise so much in this 12 year period? Most experts point the finger at NAFTA. One of NAFTA's lesser known aspects is that it opened up Mexican markets to our agricultural products (mostly corn), thereby crippling the less efficient Mexican farming segment and sending a stream of rural Mexicans into Mexican cities - and to 'el Norte'. When the 'great recession' of 2008 hit, it made it less beneficial to trek north for work, so the net flow of people northward dried up.
-A large percentage of illegal immigrants, or to put it more accurately *unauthorized* immigrants, are actually people who have overstayed their work visas (H1B), usually because the job ended, and they no longer have a business 'sponsor' to stay here legally. These people didn't illegally *enter* the country, but none the less they are here illegally because of change in their work status. Most of these people are from Canada, or European or Asian countries.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-im...
Both parties have been deficient in getting these facts out there. One decidedly more so.
16
An addendum to this:
It should be noted that over the last few years more and more of the people trying cross the southern border illegally aren't coming here for economic reasons. They're literally running for their lives and bringing their children with them (prior 'economic' migrants would rarely bring their children along).
This is due to the drug wars going on in their home countries and regions. Drug wars fueled by the appetite of 10s of millions of Americans for those drugs.
The illegal immigration itself is really the result of an underlying cause. NAFTA and our own lax enforcement of laws against hiring illegal workers in one case, and our own demand for billions of dollars of illegal drugs annually from south of the border in the other case.
8
Actually, the Republican Party isn't being deficient. It does not want the immigration argument to take place on a battlefield on which facts play any role. They are appealing to pure racism (or more politely) to what Mr. Edsall calls white self interest that is in no way racist.
This, for Republicans, is a fight that relies upon emotion, not reason. Facts are the enemy.
2
We forget that American Culture is an amalgam of many other cultures and is made up of many subsets and overlapping sub-cultures. Only by making base generalizations can an American Culture be defined. Unfortunately, base generalizations no longer function to maintain the whole. Tribal specifics have replaced the generalizations in defining American Culture.
As an aside, let’s try not to forget that, if we go back far enough in time, every human who resides in the Americas is related or was an immigrant. It may not be racist to want to preserve American Culture but it is racist to target certain specific groups since anyone who comes here from another country will not be steeped in American Culture. To not be racist, immigration should be cut off for everyone, not just for some select people’s.
3
The U.S. was not an amalgam until the mass immigration in the mid 1800s. However, the U.S. was debating and setting immigration laws since its 1776 inception. There have been fairly steady changes to U.S. immigration laws for 240 years, each was iteration more and more selective until LBJ's 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Law wholesale upended and ended those prior 190 years of citizen preferences, voting and jurisprudence.
3
More or less true on the timeline, although the conclusion is problematic. It is interesting then that the boundaries of "American" tend to stop at the Black and Latino people who trace their lineage in the Americas back farther than the vast majority of White people, including Trump. Sadly, we are all complicit in the genocide and theft from the first people in the Americas.
Of your three sentences the fist and last are, at the very least questionable; and comparing the conversation about "immigration" policy at our country's inception with the current controversy is silly. In 1776 "immigration" was as alike todays as America than was to the present.
Apples to orchards.
It is equally illogical to point out that the issue was growing and changing for 19 decades. Your unsupported claim Congress' 1965 act was entirely new and different, does not contribute to understanding or resolving current controversy.
There are clear threads in our immigration policy history, some democratic, some antidemocratic, most, from some perspective frankly racist.
But we have learned and improved. America thrives solely because of new blood, nothing to do with other natural resources.
America is about making Americans from willing material, whatever the raw material was before. Ignorance of that fact is what makes Trump and his followers frightened and dangerous.
Here's the key issue: the best and the brightest continue to move to large metro areas. Such areas are underrepresented by our electoral college. Our votes in NYC or LA or Chicago are outgunned by rural areas. We are being led by the nose by sparsely populated states. All else is noise. The electoral college must go. Meantime, everyone must vote. Voter turnout remains abysmal.
87
I have a suggestion: let pollsters and academics unearth the facts and the understanding of them, but let novelists and poets, advertising copywriters and successful trial lawyers make the political declarations. This means, in effect, that the Dems should fire virtually all their campaign advisers and, instead, hire Republican ones. The latter understand how to communicate on an emotional level, as your article demonstrates. The former have led the country into successive actions that injure the vast majority of its people. It's not "What's the Matter with Kansas?" It's what's the matter with the Democratic presentations.
12
Maybe we just don't want or need campaign advisors who lie to sway people emotionally. If that is the price for success, I abstain.
3
I agree. The Republicans pretty much have to lie, because their political agenda is so skewed toward favoring the wealthy and the powerful, and in important ways harmful to most voters. But Dems have to tell the truth in understandable and appealing ways. We generally don't. Case in point: I make this kind of argument in many responses to op ed pieces, but hardly ever get more than 2 or three Recommend ratings. My approach, similar to what I am condemning, may be right, but I can't make it compelling.
To all those who believe that calling people racists is the best way to increase acceptance of immigrants:
Edsell has clear evidence that you're a dupe for Trump, and that your moralistic insults are turning people away.
So, I've convinced you, right? You've changed your mind, right?
Why do you think it would work any better on anyone else than it does on you?
51
I don't believe that calling people racist is the best way to increase acceptance of immigrants. I simply believe in calling things by their names and I'm not buying the silly distinctions these researchers concocted, such as "racial self-interest." It's simply a matter of starting with accurate language.
Once you are interested in changing people's minds and/or behaviors, how effective do you think it will be to bend over backwards to make excuses for them?
While I generally agree with this column, it occurs to me that as it has consistently used some version of its so-called "Southern strategy" since the days of Nixon, the most recent iteration being the focus on southern border immigration, it is the GOP that considers its supporters to be racist-inclined. And it also occurs to me that its base will never come to recognize that, any more than it will recognize that its economic interests are in the GOPs crosshairs. That is, until it is too late.
39
That's your selective reasoning at play here. For one, your grasp of modern U.S. presidential history is flawed. Eisenhower scooped up much of the national Democrat vote in the 1950s and carried the south. He was that well-respected of level headed moderate.
However, what was happening parallel to the so-called GOP Southern Strategy was the Democrat open borders and changes to immigration since 1965. And economics plays a BIG role there, too. The Republican Party began carrying the south during its most widespread prosperous economic period ever.
The Southern Strategy excuse never was a fully baked attempt by the Democratic Party fo dig deeper than surface level politics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
1
As George Lakoff constantly tells us, don't use your opponents' frame.
As Lee Atwater or one of them taught, don't bother with your opponents' weaknesses; go after his/her perceived strengths.
E.g., those who care about racism or promiscuity already know that Trump is racist and promiscuous. The others don't care, or even admire those traits.
Instead, for example, demonstrate that Trump is (a) not as rich as he claims to be, and (b) not as great a dealmaker as he claims to be.
More importantly, show that coal is not really coming back.
129
Someday his supporters will see him for the coward and weakling he really is.
George LAKOFF is a genius. The Dems diligently avoid his teachings and continue to lose and lose and lose, baffled at their losses. Any progressives who want to get a leg up on fox-type blowhards need to read “Don’t think of an Elephant” in which he explained Gore’s loss and predicted HRC’s loss a dozen years in advance. Obama got the message and was elected twice, but he couldn’t deliver, and here we are.
To all thinking, caring people who don’t get “trump voters”: read Lakoff. Elephant is a thin book and an easy read and “tremendously” illuminating.
This column along with most other N.Y. Times stories about illegal immigration always conflate legal with illegal immigration. Illegal aliens are called “migrants”, a vague term as well as “undocumented workers”. Word games conflate the two as if illegal aliens have the same stature as legal immigrants. The press has obscured more than enlightened on this issue.
The question that should be asked is if existing immigration laws, most put in place by Democrats, should be enforced or not. If not, then Democrats need to state what they want and how they intend to achieve it. That would be a better solution than than the media hysterics that we witness everyday.
15
Obama had a majority in Congress from 2008 to 2010 which is how he was able to pass the Affordable Care Act without a single Republican vote.
During those 2 years, if Obama had wanted to, he could have passed and "fixed" the immigration laws.
The reality is that he did not want to do it, so it didn't get done.
People like Edsall always leave out these facts.
3
"Racial preference" is gussied up racism, new wine in old bottles. It is vitally important to not conflate racist views with a racist individual. Very few people are racists to the core and using "Racist!" as an epithet hardens their views and shuts down any discussion with them.
If at night, when coming upon a group of black teenagers on a dark street, am I a racist if I cross the street or am I just a prudent man who prefers to avoid confrontation?
And what am I should I cross the same street when finding myself approaching a gaggle of men in red #MAGA hats?
We can only effect change in others if we can maintain dialogue with them. If we cannot talk together, we cannot work together for any common and beneficial projects.
1
Yes or no.
Is prejudice racism?
Is racial profiling racist?
Am I a criminal if I cross the street when I see policemen?
Am I a racist because I think affirmative action in the work place is wrong?
Yes or no seems a little simplistic.
2
I find this incredibly frustrating. If we don’t call out racism for what it is we normalize it. When we do call it out, the perpetrators dig in and double down, unwilling and unable to recognize their own faults for what they are. I am skeptical that citing facts does anything to tamp down racist impulses - human beings are brilliant at coming up with emotional arguments to justify wrong behavior in spite of opposing facts.
The point about immigration being the primary concern of the average Trump voter is chilling. As Trump learns that this is the one issue he’s got to energize his base, how much further will he be willing to go? With his utter lack of compassion and empathy for others and an uncontrollable compulsion for attention and power we may find that separating immigrant children from parents at the border is just the horrifying beginning.
53
Call it what it is: hate. A lack of humanity. UnChristian.
1
Interesting research. My personal research has discovered an additional fact; Trump voters believe whatever exaggerations, lies, conspiracies, or libels Trump tells them no matter what they see, hear or feel. It doesn’t matter how liberals react to Trump outrages to Trump supporters; restraint or resistance will be met with equal mockery. The practice of civility only works when both sides accept its existence. Watch any Trump rally; as Trump once commented he could shoot someone, like Comey for example, and not lose one vote.
6
Here's a strategy: Remind all voters that unless you're a Native American, you're an immigrant. And your family is probably here because of chain migration. If Trump and the current GOP was in power when your family came here, they would have been denied entry...and you would be living in some other country.
10
Have tried it. Ad nuseum. Doesn't work. Everyone who is antiimmigrant's own ancestors were special snowflakes.
7
There is no such thing as Native American. Those first humans to this hemisphere were Asian nomads. So, we can thank China for what is now all of the Americas, north and south. ;-)
2
That won’t help. My ancestors came here legally, waiting years to be admitted and passing rigorous requirements. I am still against illegal immigration, no matter what color, and unless you think immigrants deserve to come in, live in the shadows and be treated like dirt, you actually feel like I do.
2
So, the takeaways from Edsall's analysis:
1. All politics is fundamentally tribal.
2. People don't like being told what to do or think.
Human nature will out.
Possible counters to the above (probably not sufficient, but necessary):
1. Organize, network, get everyone in the disparaged tribes to the voting booths in numbers that those in the disparaging tribes do. Yes, there are many voter suppression tactics, but organize, go anyway, and be prepared to fight loudly and publicly for your right to vote. There will be clashes--make sure they're videoed.
2. Education, education, education. Get people to internalize broader attitudes so they think it's their idea.
Given current state of civics and history education, and oligarchic tendency to slash education funding and "keep 'em dumb", admittedly easier said than done.
5
This discussion about racism, as usual, is essentially how white people feel about it (put upon!) rather than about the crushing effect it has on the black community. We've been coddling racist views, tip toeing around the sensibilities of those views for quite a while. The Southern Strategy of the GOP has thrived. Where has it gotten us? A slow but determined dissolution of our most treasured aspirations as a nation of equal opportunity for all, a dissolution poised now to be codified by SCOTUS in myriad ways.
25
The GOP generally carries more black voters, as well as latino voters around the country, when the economy is good, including in the south. Just a tip for fringe left tax 'n' spend Democrats or socialist Bernie Babies who can't count on their toes and devalue the surplus that centrist, economic-eagle eyed Bill Clinton gifted the U.S. with upon his exit in 2000.
1
"Falling into Trump's trap". This is what I worry about. The liberal reflex is to meet each attack with an equivalent one in return. But is this ultimately effective or merely satisfying our sense of outrage? We progressives had better figure this out soon. I'm with Mr.Edsall in fearing that we continually take the bait.
7
Oh yes, turning the other cheek has worked so well for everyone throughout history. Frederick Douglass said it best, "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both."
1
Steve, please read what I said again. I certainly don't believe in turning the other cheek. But I believe a reflexive tirade or some other response that ends up being merely an insult volley, is not the most clever strategy.
From where I sit, the "liberal reflex" seems confined to hand wringing and fund raising appeals. I'm not sure what else you are saying except that hurling insults alone isn't effective and I know of no one advocating insults as the only response.
Everything is driven by fear: the most effective political weapon. He - She who knows how to manage our fears will prevail. We, in Europe, are in the same boat with you, contemplating fascistic tendencies rooted in the same causes.
I fear for the future of the Western Civilization and Human Rights, if things continue in this predictable way.
7
Stating the premise that "just acting in her racial self-interest, which is not racist" is not racism defies credulity. Offering this false option just gives racists a way out of admitting racism and allows them to hide behind maintaining their percentage of the population. Why does any group get to maintain their position in American society through the suppression of others?
Next time someone polls this nonsense, the poll should include ethnic background and religious affiliation. My guess is that the racist non-racists are likely fall into one group.
27
What's especially egregious is I get the impression that people who believe protecting their (white) racial privileges cry foul about such movements as Black Live Matter as being "racist". *sigh*
"The gap between the most well-educated Clinton supporters and the least well-educated Trump supporters is stark — 91.3 percent to 5.5 percent." And still, we educated voters are not supposed to call or consider them racist? As an empiricist, I follow the data. Besides, they are not just anti-immigrant, but many are anti-brown people period. The long-term effect without immigration is population stagnation, and economic turmoil, but then the long view is of no interest to conservatives.
8
I believe most Americans welcome immigrants. Legal immigrants, that is. The problem that I have, along with most Americans, is with illegal aliens, foreigners who have entered or are staying in this country illegally.
The US has immigration laws that allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws and procedures are in this country illegally (i.e., lawbreakers) and should be detained and deported. It is this way with every other country in the world.
The US cannot afford to support its own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al. It is therefore utterly impossible for US taxpayers to support the millions of people from other countries who would like to come to the US. That is why there are laws limiting the numbers of immigrants allowed into this country each year.
The cruelty lies not in detaining and deporting illegal aliens, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is teaching foreigners how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, abuse, etc.
6
Hammer employers for hiring. Work is a huge draw.
4
The US can easily afford to support its own poor, infirm, elderly, etc. citizens. It just chooses not to in favor of supporting its wealthy citizens. The citizenry permits this by the way it votes.
9
As to your claim that “The US cannot afford to support its own citizens: the poor the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al,” making it “utterly impossible” for US taxpayers to support the untold others who want to come here, I would argue that we could most certainly support all of our own citizens, if we wanted to. There is plenty of money and resources in this land of ours, but we choose not to provide for everyone, in part because those with money and resources don’t want to share it, and partly because we don’t think those others “deserve it,” since they clearly haven’t been working hard enough to come up with it themselves. Giving people stuff just isn’t the AMERICAN WAY, so the 1% creates jobs that don’t pay the rest of us well, and finds any way possible to avoid paying the taxes they owe, because of course they are SO much smarter than the rest of us. Consider as well the fact that 40% of food in the US is wasted, at the cost of $165 billion each year, for a variety of reasons, but mainly it boils down to the fact that if it can’t earn someone some money its fate is to just rot in a field or a landfill regardless of who might benefit from it.
The cruelty, in fact, to those who already live here and to those who deperately want to come here, lies in allowing those who already own the power and privilege in this country to CONTINUE to game the system.
5
Here is my question: if Democrats veer away from describing Trump's immigration positions as racist, is there any assurance that Trump and his Republican acolytes will cease their blatantly racist language and lies, when they discuss immigration? And, assuming the Trumpians do not, and no one calls them out for it, will that effectively change the narrative and have a damaging cultural effect on our country?
56
We can still call them out for being zenophobes or elitists or as bad as the previous populists who disdained Irish and then Italian immigrants. We can also call them out as racist when they disdain the real concerns of African Americans whose people have been here for generations.
5
I think there is every reason to believe they will continue. This article points to research that suggests that calling them out by labeling their conduct is ineffective, even counter productive. Better to focus on refuting their lies to undermine their manipulation.
9
Since Donald Trump assumed office, I have read many articles and reviewed comments--almost without number--that reveal anger that the mainstream media, e.g., refuse to call the president--and his supporters--what they are: racists. "Scream this in the headlines," is my paraphrase for the seemingly uncontrollable urge for many to exactly label the president--and all he stands for--as the racist and intolerant sociopaths that their statements and behavior argue that they truly are.
However, this past week, especially in the Times, we have read op-ed pieces and lengthy news analysis stories of how Trump's legions are entrenched in their worldview and are not about to change. That, indeed, with every attack directed at them, they are re-fueled in their resentments and relish the "uncivil combat" that their general, the president, bids them engage. Frank Bruni, for one, argued that anti-Trump citizens should not take the bait that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) did with her tirades. She's not dousing the fire, Mr. Bruni wrote; she's splashing accelerants all over it.
Personally, I think Donald Trump is driven by a narcissism that is so warped that might belie his deepest beliefs on race--or anything else. He seeks admiration, approval and acceptance; the source of this need is immaterial. That he has found and mined it in "red America" is almost beside the (immigration) point. His "people" feed off of his obvious insecurity (victimization), ratcheting up their own resentment.
59
But as the first couple of paragraphs point out, while Trump may simply be a chaotic narcissist, he is currently being led by the nose by Stephen Miller, who is flat-out evil, and is a coldly calculating ideologue. You can't count on Miller to shoot himself in the foot the way Trump is likely to do.
1
Trump is definitely narcissistic and emotionally needy. He is also greedy in the extreme. I believe his essential motivation is to make as much money, create as many contacts and contracts as possible while in this position of power. Why else would he send Jared Kushner, with no foreign policy experience, to Saudi Arabia, Israel, China? Money is his main motivator. As the con artist extraordinaire, he uses whatever appeals to his base to enlarge his coffers. The upcoming meeting with Putin is in actuality a business meeting at taxpayers expense.
When his base realizes how badly they've been conned, i.e., a two trillion dollar debt, higher prices from tariffs, its support will shrink substantially. It will take time, but it will happen.
The writer's terminology needs to be more precise: "resistance to illegal immigration is not racism." This is not about legal immigration, and there is a distinction between the two.
10
Who makes the laws? Illegal is such an interesting word. In my lifetime sodomy, fornication, masturbation and cohabitation have been illegal in many states. Marijuana prohibition has been a national tragedy. Miscegenation was illegal and segregation legal. Most cultural laws are targeted to benefit the wealthy and powerful. The law in all its majesty equally forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping beneath the bridges of the Seine.
Trump is against legal immigration, too, unless they immigrants are from "countries like Norway."
1
I beg to differ. Republicans want to limit legal as well as undocumented immigration. Opposition to "chain migration" and the diversity lottery are focused on reducing the number of brown people. Period.
1
Sorry, but racists don't get to define racism. There is a reason the more educated define it more broadly and the less educated more narrowly - education. It creates another false equivalence to say everyone's definition of racism is as valid as every others. Some words actually have meanings; gut feelings don't factor into definitions.
79
You claim the right to define racism. Do you grant others the right to reject that? Or do you claim both the right to define racism and the right to reject disagreement on a broad social level, ie, across the US population?
7
Sure. A racist by any other name is still a racist. Just pick your euphemism. Call racists nice non-racist people who are fighting for the rights of the white race if you wish. It's still racist.
I found the entire premise of this piece confusing and disingenuous. I would say that to support policies because it’s in your “racial self interest” is racist.
But the left is mistaken that this is how people who support the enforcement of our immigration laws think. By and large, we don’t buy into the identity politics that have come to animate the left. We support the enforcement of laws and the development of new laws and policies that allow us to choose who we permit into this country. It is just more of the race-baiting to which we’ve become accustomed to ascribe it to a desire to keep the country “white.” (BTW, I know of no one outside fringe groups who have a “white identity” that drives them)
We have lots of needs for new Americans. It would be nice if we as a country controlled it.
3
Then go after the employers.
1
The Democrats need to think of the election as a military campaign.
Right now they are engaged in 1917 style trench warfare, making frontal assaults that are impressive but wholly ineffective.
What they need to do is to use their heads and think on how to outflank or infiltrate their opponents. Thanks to Pravda (Fox News) the right now believes that the Democrats are MS13 supporters who want a billion migrants to come here. You will never win those folks.
But you can win enough of the moderates, the independents, those who did not vote in 2016, those who went to Jill Stein because Hillary was not pure enough, that you can prevail.
7
Tribalism-racism-classism, all birds of a feather that are easily conflated, on to the other.
As factionalism spreads across the land it’s hard not to be engulfed by one of these lesser angels. Working class people have much more in common than they have difference by race.
18
It seems To me that the phrasing of the question might have biased the results. "Is this person: 1) just acting in her racial self-interest, which is not racist; 2) being racist; 3) don’t know."
The first choice actually makes an assertion: that "just" acting in "racial self-interest" is different from being racist. Survey respondents might choose this answer because it validates their own beliefs, or because it seems less judgmental than the second choice.
While there are clearly differences in responses among the groups surveyed, I find the question wording problematic.
3
I recently decided to stop discussing politics with anyone, for any reason. Trump supporters can't change my mind, and I can't change theirs. So, it's best to keep our thoughts to ourselves. But, I do work on voter registration drives and do some volunteering for candidates I like. And, I vote. I'm not interested in shouting matches with anyone. Call me a crazy optimist, but even in spite of the Russian meddling and the gerrymandering and whatever else goes on with our elections, I still believe that change comes with the vote. It's about all we have left, as far as citizen influence in government. Arguments, you tube videos, yelling at strangers in public and online trolling are fine for those that find them effective or cathartic. Just not for me.
6
There appears to be a group left out all together in any polls conducted on immigration. That group is Legal Immigrants.
Since this controversy started I have heard Legal Immigrants object to Illegal Immigrants coming into the country. Not because the Illegals are taking jobs, but because they did not go through the proper channels or spend the money to become legal.
It might be interesting if this kind of poll is taken.
I never believed that all Trump voters were racists and I can't say that I blame them for being lumped in to that category.
Just like not all Democrats are Liberal. Nor all Republicans are conservative.
It is time we start looking more at root causes, not position questions in such a way that only one or two answers are given.
6
Democrats and liberals have had 50 years of experience in dealing with Republicans and conservatives on racism. Nixon, Reagan and Trump have broadcast the same message to voters. "You can take comfort in your prejudices. Millions of Americans share your prejudices. I share and respect your prejudices." Trump has his Stephen Miller. Reagan had Lee Atwater and Nixon had Roger Stone. Nixon, Reagan and Trump were elected and they have succeeded in making our society more hostile to racial, social and economic equality.
As you point out, moderates elected Trump. Moderates provided the majority elected Nixon and Reagan.
Democrats and progressives have faced the same dilemma for 50 years. How can Democrats appeal to better instincts of voters?
Obama had half the answer. You campaign with dignity and you speak of standing up for fairness and justice for all. Bernie Sanders have the other half of the answer. You campaign with dignity and point out that the Republicans and conservatives are shortchanging ordinary Americans to benefit the Koch Bros. and other wealthy donors. It is all about equality, fairness and justice in every aspect of our lives.
10
You might want to tippy toe back from Nixon to identify where much of today's problems began: Lyndon Johnson, who was not a Republican and who absolutely failed in his duty to the American people, opening the door for a Nixon landslide that mirrored the 1980 Reagan landslide, courtesy of Democrats fed up with Carter and the Democratic Party and thus who voted GOP.
I'm curious as to how you see that Johnson "opened the door for a Nixon landslide"? Through the passing of the Civil Rights Act?
Interesting videos on Youtube of the port of Calais France and the tensions truckers face with migrant confrontations. So far the U.S. seems fairly calm by comparison.
1
Name calling, labeling and painting with a broad brush all contribute to the chaos this administration loves. The opposition would benefit from a strategy that involves using the courts and the ballot box instead of the "ain't he awful" outcries that feed the 'hungry beasts'.
6
I imagine it was precisely the dynamic described in this article that explains why, in the face of growing abolitionist condemnation, Southerners before the Civil War stiffened their resolve to justify and defend slavery.
32
I think the thought of losing their free labor had a bit to do with it.
2
True, but during the "Second Great Awakening" in the early 1800s, many Southerners, including some slaveowners, began, in the light of their conversions, to question the moral legitimacy of slavery. That tendency had all but dwindled to nothing by the 1850s.
A charge of "racism" from one group to another is a mistake. What good does it do? Does it hold up the mirror to another's potential bias, or does it lead to defensiveness and voter passion against those who accuse? Especially, what good does it do when there is at least some amount of controversy as to whether the country has the resources or desire to support unlimited numbers of immigrants entering the US?
The Republicans and Trump will have this argument all day long, no whether how racist Trump might actually be. I am a Democrat, and I loathe what has been done to separate families at the border, but what is the clearly articulated alternative, once that aspect has been monitored and abolished?
3
In his recent book "Behave", Robert Sapolsky lays out plenty of biological evidence that the propensity for humans to categorize ourselves as Us/Them is hardwired in our brains. This can't be overcome, because it isn't learned, it's innate; rather, it has to be accommodated in any strategy to expand the number / characteristics of the group perceived as Us... i.e. to reduce racism, or what's being called racism.
1
Multiple persuasive arguments can be made to support a secure border yet at the same time promote measured, predicable and secure immigration to America. Humanitarian interests aside for the moment, consider the two most powerful economic arguments ....1) full employment currently hampers American business from hiring the workers required to prosper.....2) Social Security and Medicre are unsustainable given our aging population and declining birth rates without an influx of younger and healthy persons from other countries. When SS legislation was passed in 1935 there were over 150 active workers for each SS recipient. Currently there are less than 3 active workers for each recipient.....the math simply doesn’t work.
Democrats must change the Trump narrative of “ Democrats = open borders = crime” and change the narrative to one of rational immigration policy is in America’s short and long term best interest. Failure to change the narrative could very well leave us with 6 more years of Trump and an irredeemably slanted Supreme Court.
6
We should consider which causes the other.
Concerns about immigration could stimulate latent racism, rather than an intense racism causing concern about immigration.
In this situation, concerns about immigration could be caused not by pre-existing racism, but rather by what they've been told causes things like low wages and job loss.
It isn't enough to convince that person merely to tell them that is wrong, "No that's not true." They must be told what is true, in terms they understand and accept.
It isn't the immigrants, as blamed by the elite. It is the elite doing it and shifting blame to those least able to defend themselves. "They are lying to you while they laugh at you, and you are angry at somebody else instead."
If they accept that, then the racism melts away in the heat of their anger at the ones really abusing them. And they are Republican today.
5
The polls haven't missed anything except for the depths of corruption in the Republican Party. The party of business identified democracy as a takeover target, and it worked. Citizens United elevated the corporation and diminished the individual in terms of rights and protections. Shareholder value rather than individual liberty is now the divining rod of the US. The 10K is more important than the Constitution.
4
This long analysis deals with people's attitudes toward immigration, but does not deal with the demographic data (facts) that the country has a declining white birth rate and an aging white population. We will need millions of immigrants to fill jobs, particularly those in low paying positions. The simple reality is that we are not going to see significant immigration from Norway or Sweden. That leaves Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia as the source. The people who do not want to see more people of color in the country will have to choose between their "racist" attitudes and fruits and vegetables in the grocery store, clean hotel rooms, mowed lawns and a host of other jobs that will not be filled by white retirees.
5
This is an important column.
Trump and his cohorts are acting on the assumption that even when presented with clear evidence that calling people racists can backfire, liberals will double down rather than altering their flight plans.
And the replies here are unfortunate proof that they are largely not.
If you want to know what people think, look at they do. The Los Angeles school district is now 70% Hispanic. While LA is hailed as a model of diversity, whites and Asians are leaving or finding alternate schools for their kids. That pattern is being repeated around the country as segregation increases.
Liberals need to stop insulting and start listening.
34
I live in a college town, and my children go to a great school that is about as diverse as you can get, both ethnically and economically. I really couldn't tell you who is in the majority and I don't really care. It's awesome. Most families live in town, but about 1/3 come from the greater Lansing area due to a school choice program. The district is a magnet due to quality, and I don't see anybody leaving because of the students' skin color. If anything, parents *choose* it for its diversity. If schools were this good in LA, or any other large city with a concentration of poverty, nobody would be going anywhere.
2
Talbot: Yet again it somehow falls to *liberals* to stop the insults and start listening, despite the fact there is ZERO evidence for anything even remotely similar happening on the right.
Somehow, "just sit there and take it/listen" does not strike me as a very effective resistance. We can and should try to choose our words carefully, but choose them and SAY them, we must!
4
"Liberals need to stop insulting and start listening."
Because conservatives do that so well.
4
Thomas Edsall's column gets to the heart of how "the racist card' has been turned on it's head to become the Trump card.
Both the policy and the rhetoric emanating from the White House are intentionally polarising, meant not just to test the boundaries of what "the new normal" is, but to agitate the opposition. It's incivility with a purpose, folks, and responding in kind fulfils that purpose. The deeper the division, the fresher the wound that it opens, the more fear and anger shunt aside reason and compassion. Nothing goes deeper into the dark psyche of the USA than race.
The immigration debate has been less about statistically underpinned arguments than about xenophobia for quite a while. Even the ultraconservative Washington Times reported on 20 July 2015 that, “About 2.5 million illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S. during President Obama’s tenure.. an improvement compared with the Bush administration.” Mexican workers were returning to Mexico in record numbers as the Mexican economy surged. From 2009-2014, there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants. Illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than native-born Americans. These trends have continued, for the most part, into the Trump administration. But Trump's provocations around the issue were a big factor in him winning the presidency, and the GOP will use it again in 2018.
I haven't contained my anger well at all when responding to these provocations, but Edsall is making me rethink that.
25
History speaks to the present. Since the 1960s, the U.S. let in more than 1 million legal immigrants per year. There were also during many stretches more than 1 million illegal immigrants pouring in that no one did anything to stop. It is disingenuous to begin any discussion of illegal immigration with the premise that it only matters what happened during the term of the last president instead of the last 50 years and genesis of the problem that is still very much a crisis.
2
Great insights. I have one thought about countering the demonizing of immigrants. Here is my view.
US is facing a crisis in caring for the baby boom generation starting in 2022- when the first baby boomers turn 76. The peak need for personal care providers and nurses (Nursing assistants, LPNs, RNs, personal care providers) will occur between 2027-2034. We don't have a path to have sufficient people to support the baby boomers .
Currently-in 2018- many nursing homes and assisted living facilities are staffed by recent immigrants. They would need to close, or shrink their number of residents if they could not hire recent immigrants. These are "entry positions".
This should be discussed as a national priority. States, or DHHS should report the projected need for the population, with suggestions on how to get enough immigrants to meet our country's need.
12
There's an important element not being mentioned: the nation's majority opinion is not being represented by our President, or Congress. When the leadership of the country doesn't reflect the will of the people, I think you have to allow people to be angry. Hopefully, millennials will get out and vote. But honestly, I have my doubts. Since Bush-Gore I've thought each election had the ingredients for under 30 voters to turn out in mass. And they don't show up.
8
Oh, there are plenty of millennials who are up to their neck in this mess. In many respects, Trump is feeding them and they are feeding him. A nasty characteristic of millennials is their unbridled, uncivilized pathology of public shaming, be it those they know or total strangers.
1
I very much agree with this piece. One could imagine that the current animosity that voters on both sides share has been carefully calculated by strategic propaganda aimed at further dividing us and to leave us squabbling instead of thinking about what is really best for us in the real world. In my daily life, I encounter Trump voters and we always have pleasant and civil discussions. They always seem to say, "He has done some good things and some bad things." I always focus on the so=called good things and the conversation moves around to me saying something about worker low pay or the billions that may be spent to build a wall while the average person suffers financially. From that one I get a bit of agreement. Folks, this is really about one person at a time and patient endurance. Do not push buttons. Tell them your ideas for a better America. I generally don't get an argument.
13
Sadly, Democrats from 2008-1016 could not bring themselves to mirror this same polite course in civility and reason by admitting Obama did "some good things and some bad things". See: travel ban and detention of minors by Obama. Give and take only works when both play by the same rules.
2
WE are being played by Trump and the Republicans who have bought into the idea that this will keep them in power and get their wealthy donors what they want. If the Democrats or whoever opposes a Republican (third party please) merely stuck to the issues with some semblance of integrity there should be no problem winning over the voters since it seems 70% of the population wants something different than what the Republicans bring to the table such as, health care and education for all, gun control, better infrastructure, higher minimum wage, protect social security and Medicare. Now with today's tweets it seems that it is clear that Trump has sold his soul to Putin and the Republicans are OK with that. Is it so far fetched to think this rises to treason.
21
Racism, nativism, xenophobia, prejudice against those that do not share our tribal attitudes, it does not matter. They are all ugly and destructive of civil society. Those who don't want to see people from south of the border come to the US may resent being called racists and do not think of themselves as such but their sentiments are still unacceptable and nothing to be proud of. In spite of what Trump tweets no one is for open borders but most are for accepting the persecuted and treating all people as human beings. The haters cannot be condoned but they should not be subjected to the same level of abuse they wish to inflict on others. I cannot respect their opinions but I do hope that some level of humanity and empathy is still there to be awaken and restore some civility to political discourse/
8
There are two issues here. One is tolerance, the other is love.
Tolerance is a basic condition of liberal society. It may have economic benefits, as some here argue; it may lead to cultural discordance, as some others argue. But it is or should be non-negotiable. Tolerance is the negation of discrimination, and without it civil society is destroyed.
Love is something else. Can I tolerate my neighbor without loving her? Yes. Can I make arguments in favor of immigration without loving migrants? Yes.
But what if I love them, in the Paulist sense of caritas (charity)? That we need to keep promoting tolerance as a condition of society almost goes without saying. Those who do not promote it are bigots, or cynics using bigotry for their own ends. But this still does not go without saying: we need to love one another.
15
Although I am a huge fan of Mr. Edsall, I find this column superfluous and somewhat patronizing. Those of us who have managed successfully to navigate through life to a ripe maturity are well aware of the rules of civility. We understand the dynamics and the dangers of escalating conflicts. We don't need lessons on these topics. What we need is a serious meditation on how to recognize when we are being played for patsies by an opposition that deserted the rules of honest political engagement long ago. I know the reactions to avoid in normal circumstances; I need guidance on what to do now. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war........until it isn't. It may be time for some serious consideration of when "it isn't."
128
I thought that was what the column was saying: know your enemy and don't play into his hands.
1
Fear of the "other" is baked into the human DNA. It takes a lot of energy and discipline to step outside of your tribe and see value in different skin colors, languages, and religious beliefs. When confronted with the "other" we all fall on a continuum from open acceptance to racism, with low percentages at each end of the continuum. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle with conservatives leaning one way and liberals the other way. However, as we are witnessing in Europe, when, the "other" reaches a perceived or real population tipping point, the continuum shifts towards more restrictive immigration more racial profiling. And, of course in periods of economic dislocation, negative attitudes towards the other intensify. Great leaders recognize the value of the "other" in any society and work to calm tribal fears. Demagogues, on the other hand, stoke these natural fears, which, historically, never ends well for the "other" or for the nation in general.
15
Very informative, but the underlying fact that white Americans' birth rate is continuing to decline should have also been mentioned, since that necessitates immigration just to keep a steady population in this country.
Changing the minds of GOP'er Fifis and Foo Foos (djt's poodles per George Will) shouldn't really be the Dems' task here, since many studies show that political belief areas of the brain and religious belief areas of the brain are so closely related and almost never change - it's a proverbial battle with windmills to attempt such.
Instead, Emily Ekins has the money quote in the piece:
" The child-parent separation issue most likely will not diminish Trump's core base of support — but it will likely damage support among a group of pivotal moderate voters crucial to his 2016 victory. The strongest empirical studies of the 2016 election are fairly conclusive that immigration concerns most likely drove his base. They likely see this policy as an unpleasant but necessary deterrent to reduce the rate of border crossings. "
The base Fifis and Foo Foos are incorrigible - the Dems are addressing political fence-sitters, and avoiding terms like 'racist' is good advice, but Dems are also cognizant that this type of political focus is educating a younger generation of voters and soon-to-be voters.
Unlike Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Dems are aware that people can see what they're doing and hear what they're saying.
42
No 1st world nation that's finally coming back to top dead center on birth control and control of overpopulation ought engineer immigration laws based on the high breeding of disadvantaged young women in 2nd and 3rd world nations. The U.S. and world has near DOUBLED in population since the 1960s. We are too many, not too few. Quality of life is not the same and will never yield the same high standards, calm, serenity as quantity. Want to see what quantity yields, look no further than India, Much of Africa, Brazil, Mexico and all of Central America. Constantly piling more mice trapped in a cage is no way to live.
2
Agree completely.
One take away here, especially with the millenials finally deciding to vote, is that calling out every trump supporter a racist robot (as correct may that be and as ventasmic as it may feel) accomplishes nothing. People dont want to be like that. Or be around other people like that.
Trumps base of extremists is small. Mamy moderate republicans are sickened bybhis behavior. Dems/moderates must provide something less odious if they are to prevail.
And Edsall is right: dont feed the trolls!
I usually comment on economic topics, and there is a strong econmic argument for more immigration.
The first part is simple. The amount of stuff we can produce is equal to the number of workers times the amount of stuff a single worker can produce, productivity. To get real growth we will have to drastically increase one of these factors. One way is to have a huge increase in productivity. Robots are supposed to provide this, but we sure have not seen much sign of that in the last 5 years. Labor productivity grew at an average rate of just 0.7 percent. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/below-trend-the-us-productivity-sl...
The other way is to increase the number of workers, but the birth rate has been falling for years for native born Americans. Thus we need more immigrants if we are to keep growing.
The second part is a bit more complicated. It answers the question why do we WANT to keep producing more stuff. Well, there are a lot of thing the country needs--fixing roads and bridges, better and cheaper housing, etc. All these thing cost money. No problem. The federal gov can create as much money as we need.
Whoops! Problem. If we create more money than there is stuff to soak it up, we will get excessive inflation. There is why we need to keep producing more stuff and why the money should be spent in ways that facilitate this increased production. Fortunately the things we need to do DO just this. But we need the people to do it.
7
One thing that disturbs me here is the assumption that “ ‘Racial Self-Interest’ is not Racism,” that " racism is a taboo, whereas ethnic self-interest, like individual self-interest, is viewed as normal."
I will be 80 in a month. I have never believed that America was supposed to work that way. Sure, groups can celebrate their cultural heritage so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. They can have their parades and festivals, but when it comes to policies, America was always considered to be the great melting pot in which we all all worked together for the good of all, at least in theory, if not always in practice. This goal no longer seems to be what many people strive for. The new mottoes are:
Greed is good.
Winning us everything.
It's us versus them.
Although I worry for my country, I will not be around to see how all the works out or not.
164
Mr. Edsall is not arguing that "racial self-interest" is not racism. This article is about how to talk with people who may well be racist, but find the term offensive and will not listen to anyone who accuses them of racism. Those of us who believe that those who support severe immigration restriction are racist must learn how to have a conversation. As Mr. Edsall notes, speaking about the benefits of immigration is a better approach that denouncing opponents as racist. Calling out the racists simply feeds into Mr. Trump's agenda.
5
The simple fact is that closing the "Golden Door" to immigrants is a prelude to economic stagnation. Who will harvest fruit and produce crops? Who will staff the restaurants? Who will run convenience stores and gas stations? Who will care for our aging population? Who will be our landscapers, our plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters?
Our birthrate is declining because young people can't afford housing, are saddled with student debt, and must contend with low wages or unemployment, not conditions conducive to family formation.
Japan's resistance to immigration, apparently motivated in part by the need to maintain the racial purity and cultural integrity of their ancient civilization, has been one of the factors in two "Lost Decades" from the early 1990's to the 2010's, a period of economic stagnation whose effects are still being felt.
Exclusionary immigration policies may be emotionally reassuring to many, but they are a recipe for future stagnation.
79
"Who will harvest fruit and produce crops?"
Legitimate question. Best answer proposed is restore something like the bracero program, bring in the labor legally and pay them properly.
"Who will staff the restaurants?"
Koan. If you want the dirt cheap labor that has traditionally powered the business, i suppose you'll have to allow off the books illegal labor. Your problem is that some cities and states have rents so off the charts that the cheap labor can't afford to live there anymore. If you want to raises the wages, as some cities and states are doing, the restaurants can't afford the labor.
"Who will run convenience stores and gas stations? "
Try paying proper wages.
"Who will care for our aging population?"
Another legitimate question. Again, try paying properly.
"Who will be our landscapers, our plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters?"
These jobs used to be, and sometimes still are, well-paying jobs that Americans were happy to do. Once upon a time, when they paid properly with union wages and bennies. But when these workers were able to be replaced by off the books cheaper labor who wouldn't complain, dumped on the doorstep of the ER when hurt, and who could even be stiffed without much repurcussion, oh well.
23
And therein lies the conflict. Two policies which appear to be equally important to the Republican/Trumpist crowd: stop immigration and bust unions/dump any mandatory health coverage and other things that will make people work more for less money. So who is going to take these jobs if they pay as little as they do now... or even less? The current "leadership" of the country explicitly wants lower wages and no immigration. Oh well, I guess we'll take those jobs and nearly starve as opposed to completely starving. But we sure won't buy much with those wages and that's going to cause problems for the economy as a whole. Not that it matters to the people leading this charge; their goal is to grab as much of the moola as fast as possible and amscray to New Zealand (or similar) while leaving their sheep-like followers to wonder what the heck happened.
It's rather racist to rely on immigrants to do the low wage and undesirable jobs in this country. If you are justifying unrestricted immigration because you need someone to pick your fruit, you might be a Koch brother.
7
When I read and hear trump supporters on why they support his stand on immigrants and immigration, I think about the Irish who fled Ireland in the 19th century and Hondurans and Guatemalans fleeing their countries today. Both groups were fleeing to survive.
Racism is a part of the mix that fuels some trump supporters (Charlottesville showed the world that), but I believe that nativism ( a policy of promoting native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants) plays a larger role in this debate.
Mr. Edsall makes a good point about not racing trump to the bottom. Democrats will be more effective in explaining what we stand for as opposed to what we are against (FDR showed us that). Reminding people about the Irish-American experience would be a positive and serve to highlight what Democrats stand for.
77
Except that if it were Irish entering the country in such numbers, the attitudes toward them would be very different. Despite how they were viewed in the 19th century (very negatively, of course), the Irish today are considered a generic type of white people and thus qualify as "one of us".
1
We might remind some of our fellow citizens of the family that had to flee Bethlehem for the safety of Egypt because the gangs sent by the kings were slaughtering the babies.
5
So it looks like word Racist is out
It's a word that we must walk about?
It's a tactical thing
Of racists we can't sing
So for us racist is down the spout.
But inside I am boiling with rage
It's hard for me to turn this page
Of restraint I am wary
The tension is scary
I guess it's just my advanced age.
201
You are not alone.
2
Right there with you, Larry. Obama put his foot in it when he talked about folks clinging to their guns and Bibles, and Clinton was raked over the coals for her remark about the basket of deplorables. The outraged screeching was deafening: how dare they say what was true! And here we are: the truth is a lie, and guns, Bibles, and deplorables rule.
3
I know a guy that agrees with you. He didn't want to use his screen name.
I have not heard the distinction of 'racial preference' and racism made in such a way. The former, especially if likened to something like preference for one's family, would certainly seem more palatable. That said, racial preference can also be used as a weapon for working to assure that "your" people maintain the majority will naturally lead to assumptions that "your" people will lead the culture, determine the traditions, and write the laws - all likely with a bias favoring the majority over all others.
The questions then become, "What is racism?" Is it really different from racial preference? Does the intent to harm the other have to be a part of the equation? Is simply 'wanting the best' for one's own - and getting it - then acceptable, no matter how negatively it impacts other racial/ethnic groups? How does xenophobia fit into the conversation?
I am very careful with my words and rarely, if ever, call another "racist" (though white supremacists certainly deserve the label). I am more likely to call out particular remarks or actions as such than I am to label individuals. That said, I find it hard to separate emphasis on maintaining a white majority and white rule from what I would, in fact, consider racist.
157
Anne-Marie, that is exactly the point. The strategy here is to resist the consciousness-raising that educates white people to their own white privilege, and re-brand whatever-you-call-it -- "race preference," "prejudice," "bigotry," "xenophobia" -- as benign. To foment resentment and division, on purpose, by salving the consciences of people who suspect that their own attitudes might not be entirely defensible, by giving them language with which to defend them and to demonize those who would help them understand and make uncomfortable ethical choices for the greater good. And above all, to divide and conquer so that the real elites -- the very small number of actual plutocrats -- can do as they please, because their victims are too busy eating each other to join together for their common good.
3
Have you ever lived in a majority black city where it's been decades since any black person ever voted for a Caucasian, Asian or Latino. Now, that's racism, just as was that 96% of black voters casted their ballot for Obama in 2008.
2
I've lived in DC and had many black friends. Most of my friends were black.
I wouldn't call your voting preferences racism.
"Instead, they should accept the importance of cultural concerns but argue positively for immigration on humanitarian, national-interest or liberal grounds."
I would replace "liberal" with "moral," (maybe explicitly employing the words of Jesus) in the above sentence.
But Mr. Edsall and his sources hit the nail squarely on the head here, at least in my experience. Insults to voters who don't understand why their views aren't patriotic and principled rather than racist are indeed gas on the fire.
And they feed the troll not a snack, but a feast!
More education, less insult, please!
117
Racial preference is not racism? I don't hate black people, I just don't want them living near me. I don't hate Mexicans, I just don't want them working in my country. I don't hate Jews, I just don't want my daughter to marry one.
There are two ways to discriminate. One is to accentuate the negative, and the other is to accentuate the positive. I like one more than the other has the same effect as not liking the other as much as the one. One assigns a positive attribute and one assigns a negative. But we get to the same place with each path.
I have been told to my face at least a half dozen times in my life, "I only date Christian men." This hurt me terribly, especially when I was young. I have experienced this kind of treatment first hand, and it is racism. It is exclusion. It is rejection for what you are, not who you are. Those that said it to me were very proud of their stance. They were upholding their perceived Christian identity.
What Mr. Edsall is describing is tribalism, pure and simple. Tribalism is the default racism of the human species. Our minds are hardwired with it by nature. It is not a conscious act. It is our autopilot. Tribes compete against each other for scarce resources. That's why tribes demonize and even kill.
These highbrow academics do not want to accept our natural programming that is tearing us apart. Tribalism is the problem. Racism is masked by it which causes people to reject the racism label. I only date......
311
I think you are quite right, Bruce. Analyzing "preferences" by poll-taking and micro-tweaking questions to elicit attitudinal subtleties probably has some use, but in the face of inherent tribalism it's like asking a rabid Red Sox fan to explain his fidelity to the color red as opposed to blue. His answers are just not going to be meaningful enough to be much help. He is a partisan, and for "reasons" he himself doesn't know and can't explain except by ad hoc rationalization.
We know some humans can, though, outgrow most of the aspects of inherent tribalism, and we know there is a continuum of development from blind "hard-wired" racism toward a more universal empathy characteristic of our most revered leaders. Education is one of the ways inherent programs can be dissipated, and actual experience with others not of "my tribe" can also produce empathy, reveal and override inherent identification with tribal compulsions. Trump, obviously, exploits inherent tribalism for his own pathological gratification, and that is his only "genius", the genius of a deliberate con-man and demagogue, untethered from conscience or empathy, cruel and sadistic in his relations with other humans and an unquenchable lust for power.
The question is: will we outgrow inherent tribalism before it kills all of us?
7
One thing dude, if she only dates Christian men you should be thankful she gave you the heave ho. Think about it, you might end up my age having had to go to church every Sunday for 40 years. That's at least 40 x 52 x3 burned hours. If she is a real thumper you might end up at church on Wednesday nights too. Be glad they dissed you. Lot's of pagans who will treat you better and not waste your time on church.
2
Bruce, it sound to me that you were very lucky at least a half dozen times in your life.
1
It is quite clear that well intentioned candidates with a straightforward and helpful message will be the antidote to what is in fact bigotry, based on a fear of being displaced as the ruling class. Egalitarian policies for everyone, based on treating all segments of society as equal stakeholders will be the catalyst for a unified coalition. Wrestling with trump in the mud( he creates), is a waste of time.
123
I don't disagree with anything you say, but I wanted to add that when discussing the rules that should apply to a society it's also important to consider the rules for deciding who gets to be a member of that society in the first place. Do the members of a society have the right to exclude peaceful people on the basis of the circumstances of their birth (sex, race, caste, birthplace)? I think the answer is no. People should be free to decide where they want to live and work. It should not be up to governments to decide for them.
1
Lisa, We had a leader like that. His name was Barack Obama, and look at how Trump, McConnell, their sycophants and their supporters reacted. Can these people be won over by sweet reason? There have been myriad tests of the proposition, yet they addicted to the lies that comfort them, they remain mired in their biases - their desire for racial preference is nothing but racism. Fortunately, the joke is on them; America is becoming increasingly diverse, and these racist (yes, I use the term, because it fits) snowflakes will wither and recede while the rest of America grows stronger.
When immigration is discussed and even reported on, the topic is always focused on non-white, non-European immigrants. I believe that's where the association with race has come from. We never hear about white immigrants who come here illegally or white immigrants who overstay their visas. I bring this up and I think it is important to bring this up, not as a diversion or a deflection, but as a way to help understand why some call people who are anti-immigration racist. Make no mistake, there are and always have been those who are just racist, period, but I think there is a good argument to make the case that the American public has been conditioned to associated immigration with race.
That said, the current administration's zero-tolerance policy is racist.
110
Especially given that two out of three of Trump's wives/ex wives are immigrants, although white.
1
The word 'immigrant' itself has come to mean illegal immigrant -- a phrase avoided by the left because it sounds judgmental, and by the right because to them all immigrants are unwelcome. (Except for the white ones of course.)
A big part the problem is semantics. Bigotry is a personal preference or bias (i.e. "I don't want any black or latino neighbors" or "I have a black friend, but slavery ended 150 years ago, get over it"). Racism is a system and/or policy of oppression (i.e. When a black person is murdered by a lynch mob, the killers won't be brought to justice. or Black people receive longer prison sentences for committing identical crimes as white people do).
Bigotry is personal, but of course feeds into racism, which is collective. What they have in common is ignorance of the facts of past and current systemic racist oppression, or denial of those facts, or of course in a few cases, outright support of that systemic racism.
A past work colleague of mine, who had voted twice for Obama then went all-in for Trump in 2016, had a long conversation about this a couple of times. After I had proven to him that systemic racism exists, and that the playing field is indeed not level, his ultimate answer was 'Well, I don't necessarily think it's right (systemic racism), but that's just the way it is, and it's never going to change'.
33
So ...
Once again, liberals are advised to be more gentle, more understanding and attentive, less divisive, and very careful in choosing their words lest they alienate white supporters of Donald Trump and his obedient army of GOP politicians.
In the meantime, Republican politicians are welcome to preach intolerance of gays, to support small prison camps for the incarceration of children whose desperate parents crossed our border without all the correct documents, to shut down clinics dedicated to offer women contraception and healthcare, to employ thugs’ tactics to block a black president who expected to use his legal authority to appoint a Supreme Court justice, who gerrymander voting districts to secure power, and and and ...
Gosh. We’re so sorry. We liberals should have been more polite. We should always be more polite!
Mr. Edsall, you can pile up small mountains of citations from various researchers. But do you grasp the horror of what’s happening to our country?
311
Deborah, Ithaca: Trump supporters and their ilk have declared unlimited hunting season and are armed with Not Politically Correct cards to hurl at any "Liberal" who speaks passionately about anything.
You're missing the point. If you respond to the trolls, especially if you respond aggressively, you're just accepting that they get to frame the conversation. WHy should they? Choose your own battles.
You miss the point of what Edsall is saying.
He is talking about the political tactics of the Right to reinforce and entrench Trump voters in their beliefs by insulting them as ignorant, racist , and fear mongering - all things that are not the image they have of themselves.
Humans are not rational beings - either on the right or the left. We are easily manipulated emotionally because many emotions are unconscious or suppressed.
Dictators are particularly good at this. They have no moral compunctions so anything goes re stoking fear. The Republicans have made this an art form for many years. It is insidious but extremely effective.
If liberals take the bait they will surely lose future elections. How does that stop the horror of what is happening to our country?
1
Ad hominem attacks mostly just satisfy the attacker and infuriate and further entrench the views of the person being attacked. Trump supporters accusing "liberals" of "being for fully open borders" or "being against free speech" are often just the counterpart of "racist" or "Nazi" attacks directed toward them.
Of course it was historically known to the country's founders that arguing with facts and data offered the most potentially productive way of running a liberal democracy, including cooling destructive name-calling. They designed our governing institutions accordingly and they're still right. It mostly takes self-discipline, patience, and, perhaps, some empathy for the other side to demonstrate what is good and make it attractive . . . and shouting and threatening to make it repulsive.
The 1963 civil rights "March on Washington" personified by King's "I have a dream" speech and the Voting Rights Act that followed personifies one of the high points of a centuries-long, perhaps never-ending, often painful, demonstratively fact-based argument.
27
King was widely reviled up to his assasination. That the “founding fathers” were powdered wig- wearing rationalists is the sort of pablum served up in elementary school filmstrips. booop!
But fact-based arguments cannot reach the Fox News viewers who have swallowed a set of falsehoods masquerading as facts.
2
You're right of course that a great many Fox News viewers, like all of us, have well reinforced resistance to contradictions to what they believe . . . even want to believe. So did a great many followers of Joe McCarthy . . . Bobby Kennedy for example. But personal attacks mostly just have the attackees searching for a counter attack. What turned Kennedy and many others were both counter facts and, most critically counter stories.
And finding and telling those fact laden stories is hard and sometimes dangerous work. The civil rights marchers exposing themselves to fire hoses and snarling dogs were telling a vivid story.