4 ms·

Look, I know black people that support trump. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politics have been building to this point for 40 years. The use of ra

Look, I know black people that support trump. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politics have been building to this point for 40 years. The use of racial imagery and the stoking of racial fears has been a deliberate strategy. Of course, the class based view of this is that the capital owning class have disenfranchised the rest of the country. It's impossible to talk about class in America without including race. The poor and working poor whites have had more in common with their black neighbors than they have had with the capital owning class since the end of the civil war. That doesn't change the structure of the issue. So, no, I was not saying that it is as simple as race. Ex-Democrat, I can see, but ex-liberal...what, is this person now a mercantilist monarchist or something? I'm assuming that they still support the ideal of democracy and some kind of quasi-market capitalist society? There are some on the "far left" that take the view that Trump is exactly what this country deserves and that if we went "full retard" that it might mean real reform sooner rather than later because of the damage he would do. I don't agree. The American president is clothed in tremendous power and is capable of terrible things. I don't think that the avid environmentalist is actually an avid environmentalist if they think that Trump would be good for the environment after attacking the EPA and the limited good that they do now as choking the lifeblood out of business. EDIT: What I'm trying to say here is that in the American class system the middle class whites who struck a deal with elites for privilege over the poor and people of color are afraid that the deal has changed. They are right. There's no economic advantage to the capital owning class to respect prior social compacts and they have removed all the levers of power that the middle and lower classes had to stop them. They were allowed to remove those levers in the name of maintaining racial privilege for a large group.

kristopolous 10y ago
people are complex creatures and I can't honestly get on board with such a "no true scotsman" argument that conveniently simplifies things.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  im sorry, but how did you read that and come away with simple and no true scotsman? my point is that something can be happening in the macro even while there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary in the micro. i mean, you know that, at this point, things like the southern strategy have been well documented including very literal explanations by the people that came up with it, right? ron reagan announcing his campaign in a town were civil rights workers were murdered? was it just the thing about the environmentalist? and thats going to kill my whole point for you? fine. you met a unicorn. unicorns are real. that doesnt change the meat of my argument. EDIT: yes, i was being snarky about the ex-liberal andbthe environmentalist. i thought the bit about an ex-liberal being a monarchist was funny. classical liberalism joke. sue me.
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    The southern strategy was for pro segregationists in the 60s and early 70s. It's a historical tactic from almost 50 years ago for the old white conservatives of 1968. Those people are far dead and there were many Republican primary contenders who tried these antique tactics and fell flat in the 90s onward. Coopting some dusty historical strategy as starting to work again doesn't sound like a plausible story. Many feel that the modern political machinery had left them behind. You could say he "dog whistles" to saying he cares about poor whites and those who don't have a college degree, but he actively talks about them and how he'd like to secure opportunities for them to succeed. It's safety net and opportunity politics.
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue at this point. The republicans played to a sense of white aggrievement over the 40 years since the 70's while using the political power given to them in the name of that aggrievement to disempower the people that gave it to them. I agree that he does speak to how middle and lower class whites still feel aggrieved but he does it in a way is still consistent with white privilege. You mentioned Arlie Hochshchild in another comment. Did you catch her comment about how Trump is playing the white knight role and that he shames everyone but white men? What about her "deep story" explanation? She's said that in two different interviews that I've heard her in. The one thing that she doesn't include, because its outside the scope of what she's doing, is the extent to which these people are complicit in the construction of their own circumstances. If you only look at this as an economic class struggle it's impossible to explain the reason that people supported parties that were explicitly opposed to their self interest. The class based explanation of the exploitation of poor people without including race is incomplete at best and disingenuous at worst. It's "safety net" in that he's going to get some "safety net" for "you" and not "them". You have to be willingly ignoring that to not see it. EDIT: Saying that the southern strategy was only for pro segregationists in the 60's and early 70's is so demonstrably false that it makes me think you are purposefully being misleading. It BECAME the Republican mainstream. It didn't go away. It won.

kristopolous 10y ago

people are complex creatures and I can't honestly get on board with such a "no true scotsman" argument that conveniently simplifies things.

youdontknowtho 10y ago
im sorry, but how did you read that and come away with simple and no true scotsman? my point is that something can be happening in the macro even while there is anecdotal evidence to the contrary in the micro. i mean, you know that, at this point, things like the southern strategy have been well documented including very literal explanations by the people that came up with it, right? ron reagan announcing his campaign in a town were civil rights workers were murdered? was it just the thing about the environmentalist? and thats going to kill my whole point for you? fine. you met a unicorn. unicorns are real. that doesnt change the meat of my argument. EDIT: yes, i was being snarky about the ex-liberal andbthe environmentalist. i thought the bit about an ex-liberal being a monarchist was funny. classical liberalism joke. sue me.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  The southern strategy was for pro segregationists in the 60s and early 70s. It's a historical tactic from almost 50 years ago for the old white conservatives of 1968. Those people are far dead and there were many Republican primary contenders who tried these antique tactics and fell flat in the 90s onward. Coopting some dusty historical strategy as starting to work again doesn't sound like a plausible story. Many feel that the modern political machinery had left them behind. You could say he "dog whistles" to saying he cares about poor whites and those who don't have a college degree, but he actively talks about them and how he'd like to secure opportunities for them to succeed. It's safety net and opportunity politics.
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue at this point. The republicans played to a sense of white aggrievement over the 40 years since the 70's while using the political power given to them in the name of that aggrievement to disempower the people that gave it to them. I agree that he does speak to how middle and lower class whites still feel aggrieved but he does it in a way is still consistent with white privilege. You mentioned Arlie Hochshchild in another comment. Did you catch her comment about how Trump is playing the white knight role and that he shames everyone but white men? What about her "deep story" explanation? She's said that in two different interviews that I've heard her in. The one thing that she doesn't include, because its outside the scope of what she's doing, is the extent to which these people are complicit in the construction of their own circumstances. If you only look at this as an economic class struggle it's impossible to explain the reason that people supported parties that were explicitly opposed to their self interest. The class based explanation of the exploitation of poor people without including race is incomplete at best and disingenuous at worst. It's "safety net" in that he's going to get some "safety net" for "you" and not "them". You have to be willingly ignoring that to not see it. EDIT: Saying that the southern strategy was only for pro segregationists in the 60's and early 70's is so demonstrably false that it makes me think you are purposefully being misleading. It BECAME the Republican mainstream. It didn't go away. It won.