10 ms·
America’s Future Is Texas
- themgt 9y agoEvan Smith, of the Texas Tribune, has closely followed thirteen legislative sessions. He noted that, even as Dan Patrick and his Republican allies slashed government services, they allocated eight hundred million dollars for border security. “White people are scared of change, believing that what they have is being taken away from them by people they consider unworthy,” he told me. “But all they’re doing is poking a bear with a stick. In 2004, the Anglo population in Texas became a minority. The last majority-Anglo high-school class in Texas graduated in 2014. There will never be another. The reality is, it’s all over for the Anglos.” Texas leads the nation in Latino population growth. For Wu, the sanctuary-cities bill was the natural culmination of the “bigoted, racist mentality” that has emerged in Texas, which he calls the epicenter of the Tea Party. “Trump is simply the most visible manifestation of that mentality,” he told me. “It’s been percolating up in the Republican Party for the past decade.” I find the way this piece is written really emblematic of the sort of two-faced and bad faith style for which our urban elites are becoming infamous. We have a number of things going on in the article, but part of the core point is stated only partially, which is that due to mass immigration the demographics of Texas are rapidly changing to "majority-minority" in such a way as to almost guarantee Democratic victory in the near future. And yet at the same time, the causes of this rapid demographic change are just barely hinted at, and mainly to not-so-subtly suggest anyone who opposes the demographic change or wants to enact policy measures to try to stop the trend is simply backwards, bigoted and naive to political realities. Trump is president, the GOP is currently ascendent, the political divide in the country is about as bad as it's ever been and getting worse, and the New Yorker is seemingly clueless to the way it's perceived by much of the country when it puts out a barely read-between-the-lines article whose message is: we will replace your people via mass immigration and you dumb hicks aren't going to stop it. If this becomes a country where saying "it’s all over for the Anglos" is normalized or even celebrated among urban elites, I seriously worry about our future for any kind of political peace.
- rayiner 9y agoThe liberal rhetoric against white people has gotten alarming. Replace "anglos" in those quotes with another ethnic group and the result would be scary. Can you imagine a purportedly mainstream person cheering, e.g. the changing demographics of D.C. (where the black majority is rapidly being replaced by white gentrifiers) in that tone?
- angersock 9y agoChrist, I never thought we'd cleanly agree on something, but here we are.
- tptacek 9y agoCan you be more specific about the rhetoric you're referring to? "Liberal" means a lot of things, and the subtext behind different mentions of "white" people varies a lot too. If you're going to wade into this particular debate, you should be as clear as you can. It's especially tricky on this thread, because you seem to be responding to a quote expressing concern about demographic changes in Texas, which carries a weird subtext of Latinos and African Americans somehow being responsible for ensuring that they remain minorities. That can't possibly be what you mean. So, what do you mean?
- themgt 9y agoI think it's easier to discuss this notion mapped to other nations, because the set of assumptions and stigma around these issues specifically in the US makes it very difficult to talk about. The US has also always been ethnically diverse, but diversity is not the same thing as to be devoid of an identity. Suffice it to say that US demographics are changing rapidly and many who see that as a good thing are going from acknowledging the change as a fact to actually openly celebrating it and predicting their own near-future cultural/political dominance based on the decline of whites to a minority status on national and state levels. Trying to point out how ... uncouth and toxic at best, this sort of rhetoric is, and the way it's heard in much of the country - simply trying to point out this interplay from an anthropologist on mars perspective - itself becomes almost impossible because accusations of racism fly immediately upon even bringing up that some people may be offended and angered when others celebrate the impending decline of their race and culture. Let's take a hypothetic Japan, or Ghana say, facing low native birth rates and a huge influx of white northwest European immigrants rapidly changing the demographics, culture and politics in their country. You can have whatever perspective you want on whether that new diversity and demographic replacement would be a beneficial thing in a given context, but regardless can you not see how elites celebrating that cultural/ethnic change in the faces of those confronting newfound minority status would often not be taken well? If you wanted to bring about a minority-Japanese nation of Japan, a minority-Ghanaian nation of Ghana, would you do it while also high-fiving over the decline of ethnically Japanese/Ghanaian people and their culture? Would you say "The reality is, it’s all over for the Japanese" and that their complaints about said fact is "poking a bear with a stick"? Might, just might, that serve to ratchet up tensions? Trump is sitting in office, and those of us on the left who try to point any of this utterly toxic dynamic playing out out are just routinely attacked as racist. It's a truly disheartening own-goal by those who claim to want this whole project to work out. You're not changing anyone's minds, just convincing them to keep their mouths shut and vote Trump.
- Simulacra 9y agoDuplicate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692859
- cpr 9y agoThe usual wide-eyed New Yorker "ain't no one here but us liberals" tone, where simply listing the actions of the other side is assumed to elicit shock and horror. A bit tiring.
- arbuge 9y agoIf those actions happen to be blatant gerrymandering, it sounds pretty justified to me.
- stupidcar 9y ago"Listing the actions" is also known as reporting. It's a style of journalism — devoid of emotional editorialising and outright fabrication — that remains popular amongst at least some of us liberals.
- coredog64 9y ago> He then watched helplessly as the truck rammed into a bus carrying members of the First Baptist Church of New Braunfels. Thirteen people were killed. [some stuff deleted] The accident was one of many that might have been prevented had Governor Perry signed the 2011 texting bill into law. Suggesting that Perry not signing the bill into law and killed 13 people isn't emotional editorialising? People who text and drive are bad at risk assessment. People who are bad at risk assessment are more likely to ignore laws like this. So what is the fking point of this paragraph except to create a link in the reader's mind that Rick Perry literally murders people with his veto pen?
- briandear 9y agoDistracted driving was already a crime in Texas. So a texting law is technically redundant. People want feel-good headline friendly laws, not actual enforcement of the laws that already exist.
- spiffyman 9y agoReally good point. By the same token, someone should let Dan Patrick know that it's already illegal to surveil and harass people in bathrooms.
- nvahalik 9y agoYou may all go to hell... I'll be here in Texas.
- bdcravens 9y agoThe downvotes obviously don't know the original quote: "You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas" - Davy Crockett when he lost his congressional bid in Tennessee (the exact circumstances of this quote vary, made a bit more grandiose over the years)
- smt88 9y agoI knew it. I downvoted because it didn't contribute to the discussion.
- bdcravens 9y agoThat makes sense, and I agree. That said, it does seem extremely jarring if one doesn't know the context.
- CalChris 9y agoGone to Texas was hardly original to Crockett. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_to_Texas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_to_Texas
- bdcravens 9y agoTrue, but that particular quote ("You may all go to hell...") apparently is.
- briandear 9y agoDoesn’t anyone ever complain about “left wing zealots?” The Berkeley government is filled with them but publications such as the New Yorker rarely bat an eye. Texas does have Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who famously inquired about the flag on Mars the astronauts left as well as being the worst boss in Washington among congressional staffers – yet the New Yorker wrings their hands about “right wing zealots.” Ignorance ought to be condemned regardless of political party.
- Simulacra 9y agoThey do, there is a lot of complaining, however considering the mainstream media has a left-leaning bent, if not outright preference, there may be a reluctance to eat their own. So to speak. Thus the only time you hear about “left wing zealots” is from right-leaning media, of which there really isn't a strong, mainstream presence. Fox news did this for a long time but they've lost a lot of their shine and power.
- Pxtl 9y ago> the mainstream media has a left-leaning bent The facts have a well-known liberal bias.
- coldtea 9y agoThe conservative side is today associated with blue colar jobs and the poor (especially white poor). People doing journalism, especially in large cities like NY, would not want to be seen dead among those people.
- robotresearcher 9y agoAnd yet somehow I see stories in the media about the working poor, coal communities, rural medicaid recipients, etc, pretty much every single day.
- coldtea 9y agoThose with old-school leftist leanings will report ON them, but not OF their opinions (except to sneer them, from the viewpoint of "I know what's best for you"). Others, who have left such old-style leftist leanings behind, will just sneer at them or report what they know: their urban upper/middle class echo bubble and white people's problems (of which, high on the list is a paternalistic concern for the lives of non-whites).
- jasonrhaas 9y agoBasically this article is a boring recount of the history of politics in Texas. Everyone needs a mantra I guess, Texas has its own thing, like putting the Texas flag everywhere for example. In Boston and MA, they are obsessed with their sports teams, in Texas they are obsessed with Texas.
- smt88 9y agoDoesn't it also address gerrymandering? Do you think gerrymandering is good and/or boring?
- hkmurakami 9y agoBoston is also characterized by its lack of interest in becoming a truly international city. The prefer to be regional and provincial. I respect them for rebuffing the Olympics.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago> We’re forming a patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations that is eroding the Texas model.” He warned that the “Texas miracle” could become a “California nightmare.” There's a reason this resonates with voters. As a California resident I can't stand these things. The desire to legislate everything to a centralized and partisan ideal. So many rules and so many laws. And because of the same gerrymandering that the article complains about giving Republican majority in Texas, there will be nothing new here.
- microcolonel 9y agoYou're saying, from California, that Texas has the overwhelming desire to legislate everything?
- vinceguidry 9y agoNo, he said that over-legislation was one of the things he hates about California. And then he says that Democrats in California are pulling the same gerrymandering shenanigans that they did in Texas.
- microcolonel 9y agoOh, understood. HN gets so vitriolic these days that I have a hard time imagining anyone is doing anything except bragging and distancing themselves from the problem. I guess even I have to take a step back to make sure I don't become a bigot too.
- CalChris 9y agoIn fact, California did the opposite and voters passed a nonpartisan election commission. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistri...
- Pxtl 9y agosigh, and now I miss Molly Ivins again.
- meddlepal 9y agoAmerica's future is splitting apart into several geographic and autonomous regions with a centralized military.
- eo3x0 9y agoThat's a great idea. We should call them States.
- meddlepal 9y agoI was thinking more like regions composing several states. As a New Englander like hell I want people south of NY making political decisions for me. I don't feel a strong association or any affection for the South, Midwest or West. They're places with their own problems none of which I care about.
- throwaway91111 9y agoHeh, in my experience most of new england geographically feels that way about Boston. People can feel disillusioned, alienated, and isolated at any level. There's no natural state size.
- meddlepal 9y agoTotally agree that Boston dominates New England. As someone who grew up and lived outside of the Boston metro people always complained about Boston's dominance of local and regional politics. That said, there is a very strongly shared cultural identity throughout Massachusetts and New England that unites us far more than the cultural and linguistic identity that exists between more geographically distant areas. The only thing I can tell you that I have in common with the average Georgian or Texan is that we probably both speak English, enjoy hot dogs, and watching Football and Baseball. That's not much of a strong reason for us to both be in a strong political, economic and militaristic union.
- kirse 9y ago
- paradite 9y agoOkay. Here's something that may or may not be relevant. I'm a non-native English speaker who have been learning and speaking English professionally for 8 years and I had no problems reading BBC or CNN. However, this article was just beyond me. I struggle to understand many long and convoluted sentence with words that I had never seen before. I don't know if this is a pattern associated with this particular press or not, but I really couldn't bother reading this beyond the first few paragraphs.
- owebmaster 9y agoI heard these days that New Yorker is the magazine of the "illuminated" liberal Americans. I guess this image caption proves it: "Texas is as politically divided as the rest of the U.S., but a recurrent crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed its reputation for proud know-nothingism and retrograde thinking."
- vinhboy 9y agoLOL... yup, that's typical New Yorker writing. I am college educated and I have a hard time reading it, so it's not just you.
- Kluny 9y agoNo, you're not alone. The New Yorker is famous for using big words to try to sound smart. These two sentences, for example: > Fairly considered, the Texas legislature is more functional than the United States Congress, and more genteel than the House of Commons. But a recurrent crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed the state’s reputation for aggressive know-nothingism and proudly retrograde politics. As far as I can tell, even though they are in the same paragraph and nominally about the same topic, and joined together with that "But", they have nothing to do with each other. To me it looks incoherent.
- jacobolus 9y agoThe sentences fit together just fine, but you need to read the whole paragraph. Frederick Law Olmsted wrote in 1853 that he thought that the Texas Legislature was more respectable (for its “manly dignity and trustworthiness”) than Parliament or Congress. Lawrence Wright is agreeing that if we examine the three bodies impartially, the Texas legislature is more “functional” than the US Congress and more “genteel” than the House of Commons, but that still Olmsted’s characterization is unusual because the Texas legislature has historically been known for its crackpots and ideologues and proud anti-intellectualism. The “but” is contrasting Wright’s caveat (that if we consider it “fairly” the Texas legislature isn’t as dysfunctional as Congress) with his main point about the Texas legislature’s long-standing negative reputation.
- xname2 9y agoWhy is the assumption that replacing whites with Hispanics is good for the country? Seriously.
- lubujackson 9y agoI will respond seriously. Firsf of all, it has nothing to do with "replacing" and everything to do with "accepting them also". Despite rose-colored glasses, America has a long tradition of despising every wave of immigrants that has come to the country. From the "dumb Pollacks" and the "dirty Italians" to the "lazy Hispanics" and "terrorist Muslims", Americans have always looked at immigration with fondness from afar and revulsion up close. Over time, that "otherness" has always baked itself into the fabric of our country over a couple generations, but there are some particular challenges for this wave. Mainly skin color and strong religious differences (for Muslims). The whole "Spanish language everywhere!" problem is generational. First wave Italians didn't speak English either, but their children did. So I think the anti-immigration vibe is nothing new and part of the process. Liberals might be making things harder by pushing for cultural preservation/independence rather than (through indifference) encouraging assimilation. I don't think supporting different cultures living side by side ever works out long term. If we either side can stop being so extreme in their approach, maybe we can continue our national process of assimilation and (begrudgedly) open arms to immigrants.
- tptacek 9y agoWe actively preserve Irish, Italian, and Polish culture. We have parades for them. We have sections of cities dominated by them, with language-specific signage. How is this different from what Latinos and Middle-Eastern Muslims are asking for? There is nothing in American anything like the segregation North African Muslim immigrants face in Europe, even in the densest Muslim communities. That's what "independence" looks like. What are we so afraid of here?
- xname2 9y agoWhen I said "replacing", I meant the proportion, i.e. majority/ minority change, as the article suggested. I think you understated the similarities between Americans and Irishs / Italians, and understated the differences between Americans and Hispanics / Muslims. Not sure whether you did this intentionally, but it is so obvious that Americans / Irishs / Italians are part of western culture, they have differences, but they belong to one big group. On the other hand, Southern American / Middle East belong to non-western culture. The latter is even worse, it is anti-western culture. When you look at the countries, US / UK / EU countries are similar, but Southern America countries are different from US / UK / EU countries, and Middle East countries are extremely different. Did you intentionally blind yourself? Also, we lived in a different time with two important changes: 1. welfare state. 2. far-left ideology (multiculturalism, post-modernism, etc.) becomes norm
- Pxtl 9y agoThe downvoters have really come out of the woodwork on this thread to protect the idea that it's okay for the Texan Republican party to gerrymander itself into permanent majority, drive elections off of social wedge-issues instead of real policy, and to use anti-science rhetoric to abandon any sane environmental policy.
- cholantesh 9y agoReally makes you question their commitment to free speech.
- Pxtl 9y agoI don't doubt their commitment to free speech. HN does not owe anybody a megaphone. I doubt their commitment to rational thought, to democratic representation, to a long-term functionally-habitable planet. But not to free speech.
- dtornabene 9y agoGoing to put this at the top first, we'll see if it has any effect... Alot of the toplevel replies to this are so tone deaf and ignorant its mind blowing. For starters, the author is a native texan, as am I, and grew up not far from where I was born and partially raised. He's well known for his work, so the sighing and gnashing of teeth about "liberal New Yorker..." is just dead wrong. He lives in Austin, as well, so this wasn't filed from the fever swamp imagination of Brooklyn (or whatever ppl visualize when they complain of NY). Its also important to note, guessing that many people didn't bother to read such a long piece, that it dwells almost exclusively on Republican politics in the state. And not from some inherently antagonistic place. One of the main interlocutors is Joe Straus, a jewish republican, who is regularly targeted for replacement by his more radical ostensible colleagues for....wait for it.....being a Jew in a position of power in Texas. Pretty sure this is so well known there was a Daily show bit about some years ago. The title is also quite apt. The condition of Texas demographics, not just along lines of race but urban/rural, income, education is also representative of the country at large. As is the vituperative nature of hyper-partisanship. Many of the points the author raises are similarly covered by other Texan journalists, like CD Hooks at the Texas Observer (who is excellent btw). And while other people are savaging Evan Smith here in the thread (wrongly) as some kind of anti-white race warrior, you could do far far worse than his work as well. I was born here (I'm here now, actually) I went to college here. I have family in Texas going back over a 130 years. This is a good piece, covering an especially bad period in Texas politics(the most recent lege session has been almost univserally savaged as reactionary, racist as hell and utterly broken). I hope if anyone bothers to find this comment and is actually interested in Texas and the state of its politics they'll give it a read.
- dtornabene 9y agoPretty sad as well that this is now flagged or throttled off of the front page (and three following pages as well). Its a good piece.