२ मार्च, २०१४
Lawprof Ian Haney Lopez talks to Bill Moyers about "dog whistle" politics.
Via FireDogLake which teases with the usual What's-the-Matter-With-Kansas cant: "Author and legal scholar Ian Haney López tells Bill that dog whistle politics is 'the dark magic; by which middle-class voters have been seduced to vote against their own economic interests."
Ian Haney Lopez's book is "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class." (Ian Haney Lopez was a lawprof at the University of Wisconsin Law School years ago.)
"What's the Matter with Kansas?" is a stock term — nicked from Thomas Frank's 2005 book "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" — to refer to a favorite proposition of liberals and lefties, that non-affluent conservative voters have been duped.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
What's the matter with Madison?
Curiously though, who is most hit with poverty? Why are there major supporters of illegal immigration that serves to establish an underclass that can be paid under minimum wage?
There's dog whistle politics, to be sure, and one strong emphasis of it is, "Those other people are racists!"
That way people vote to keep in corrupt leaders and the corrupt leaders can secure their positions on the backs of the really poor.
Why do we want middle-class people to be richer? They're fine. What about the poor people. Who are the poor people in the cities, the people trapped in poverty in so many places, voting for? Why do they keep voting that way when it traps them in a cycle of poverty.
Racism is real. It's also a way to keep people blaming others and creating an Other for them to hate so they don't realize they're being manipulated.
No one manipulates the whistles like Democrats. They even are so bold as to use the dog whistle language as a dog whistle. It's not an analogy for them. They treat the poor like dogs.
Perhaps the middle class just prefers to keep their own money instead of sending in to DC...Just a thought.
The notion that political messages can be directed at Republican and independent voters (otherwise know as average Americans) through the use of "dog whistles", secret hand shakes or any other kind of dark magic is a crock of poop.
Dog poop, even.
We are smart and you are stupid.
Great way to persuade people.
Do you think Moyers realizes he looks like a douch with his Moe Howard haircut?
Please make the case that lower-class voters for republicans have not been duped and that there votes are in their economic interest. Thanks.
If anyone has been duped, it is the middle and uppper middle class who have bene duped into thinking that the left represents their economic interests.
The notion that political messages can be directed at Republican and independent voters (otherwise know as average Americans) through the use of "dog whistles", secret hand shakes or any other kind of dark magic is a crock of poop.
As liberals prove each and every time they claim to be receiving and understanding a coded message intended for someone else.
"The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog." --James Taranto
So the lawprof rebrands "Kansas" as "dog whistle" and the libs eat it up!
Tell me, who is stupider?
What is all this "voting against your own economic interests"? Why is it a criticism? If an upper class person publicly told other upper class people that they should vote Republican to protect their economic interests against Democratic redistribution of wealth, they would be bitterly criticized; willingness to act against one's own economic interests is practically a minimum standard of public decency for rich people. Why the strange double standard, where middle class and working class people are expected to care only about making money for themselves, and indeed exhorted to think about that to the exclusion of other issues? Is caring about noneconomic issues a special privilege of the wealthy that the rest of us are supposed to be excluded from?
I don't get the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" concept. Don't liberals vote against their economic interests all the time? A lot of liberals are well-to-do or even fabulously rich, yet they vote for the party of income redistribution. Obviously there is a lot more to people's political sentiments than economic considerations.
Democrats talk about conservative "dog whistles" (I hate that stupid catch-phrase), but they make naked appeals to race-interest, as when Obama told Hispanics to punish their enemies and reward their friends at the polls, their friends being those who support amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Another Who's Racist kerfluffle!
What could be more boring or stupid?
Please make the case that lower-class voters for republicans have not been duped and that there votes are in their economic interest. Thanks.
Well we can start with the fact that conservatives want to give people jobs instead of food stamps......
Short version:
Ian Hanley Lopez is trying to convince people that opposition to overt liberal "Dinner Bell" politics is coded conservative "Dog Whistle" politics used to win votes, which is racist and against the interests of the middle-class.
The term "dog whistle politics" has been around for a long time. Haney Lopez didn't coin it.
Unsurprising. The entire leftist program can't survive without the Marxist concept of "false consciousness," which purports to explain why the proletariat doesn't spontaneously rise up against the burgeoisie. The simple fact that the proletariat understand that economics is not a zero-sum game and that success comes from their own hard work and opportunity-making eludes leftists.
Conservatives are duping people much like the Jews do I guess.
Oh the bigotry of our intelligentsia.
This must be the same 'middle-class' that the current administration talks so much about. I have some respect for Moyers as a journalist, but when it comes to his party of the working man, Left-Liberal populism, I agree on nearly nothing.
I'm pretty sure the best way forward for America isn't in propping up unions as they currently stand, playing race, class and gender politics until infinity, and blaming the rich.
But that's pretty much all they can offer. Even more upper middlebrow mainstream liberalism is having to come to terms with this.
I'm hoping more Americans will agree.
*That said, a bitterly divided GOP is looking pretty daft and behind the times too
Reading these comments, it's hard not to wonder how long will the Right deceive itself on these issues?
What's a matter with Soros?
Let's try an experiment. Please indicate if you hear a high-pitched tone. Ready?
Koch Brothers
Did that perk up your ears?
To the left, there's no such thing as principles, unless you're a well off lefty who votes against his economic interests in support of high taxes. But overall it's all about individuals using government to make money. It's kind of a reveling case of projection actually.
Taken to its extreme, all resources are funneled through the government and distributed to the people in proportion to their political power. It's an ugly and majoritarian sort of collectivism, and the party of government loves it because it would give power hungry people much to do.
Truth is, many rich lefties vote their economic interests too. Government power can help big business and wealthy individuals who wish to make a buck in, say, green energy. Higher taxes is a small price to pay if a larger share of government revenues gets diverted to your company or your wallet.
In many respects, my political beliefs run counter to my narrow economic interests. I sure as hell take advantage of tax code provisions that I am entitled to, even if I would eliminate them if I had the power to do so.
Maybe it has to do with Greece, Bill. Many young Greeks go through a phase of serious anarchy and/or Left Of Center solidarity, anti-colonial, anti imperial type thinking.
With a terrible economy, a rotten, corrupt bureaucracy, and fewer prospects they're closer to the East in some ways. There's hedonism too, and a few rich families and oligarchs aside from the corruptocracy.
Unsurprisingly, ther's not much middle ground so its easy to mock the ethnic nationalism, race purity, and oft fascism of the extreme right.
America is and can do so much better than this reality of not just Greece but much of Europe.
When someone asks, What's The Matter With Kansas?, it shows to me that they are asking the wrong question(s) because of their preconceptions. And those raaaaacist dog whistles they hear, they hear because they are raaaaacist.
Heyooyeh said...
Please make the case that lower-class voters for republicans have not been duped and that there votes are in their economic interest. Thanks.
I work forty hours a week and I make just about the US median, so I feel well-qualified to answer this question. I will ignore the fact that you have phrased it in a do-you-still-beat-your-wife manner and give you a straight answer.
A:Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, liberals believe in equality of outcome.
I believe it is in my economic interest when people are encouraged to compete on their own merits and are rewarded for their success. Everyone benefits when people work hard. No one benefits when people are encouraged to live off the labor of others.
Gahrie said...
Please make the case that lower-class voters for republicans have not been duped and that there votes are in their economic interest. Thanks.
Well we can start with the fact that conservatives want to give people jobs instead of food stamps......
====================
If only that were true.
Pat Buchanan, a Reagan Administration insider, wrote recently that he thinks that Republicans lost the middle class Reagan Democrats when they decided to side with wealthy donors over the new voters they attracted.
We all know the basic outline...the wealthy Elites got Republicans and co=opted Democrats like Clinton to embark on a drive to destroy American industries and jobs to site them in new locales in China where their profit margins grew and the Richest 1% prospered.
At the same time, Republicans spearheaded H1-B visas and floods of illegals to "do the jobs Americans wouldn't do" - which was really about rewarding the big donors with systemic wage suppression in industries.
The cry "the Democrats did it too!" is of course with some truth to it. They also served Wall Street over, say, black Americans looking for a decent career. They endorsed the Republicans idea of flooding the US with illegals...but more because they saw each Latino as far more likely to be a future Democrat voter.
The big edge Democrats had was telling people that lost job opportunities that they could count on Democrats in government to help them survive with benefits if all the job market in their area was destroyed. Democrats also excelled at promising and delivering new government jobs to regions devestated by free trade.
Republicans were left with messages that were quickly understood by middle class voters once fed up with the likes of Jimmy Carter - to be lies.
1. Free Trade for Freedom Lovers is win-win! It creates jobs! Better paying jobs in America! The Chinese make sneakers but the great American worker can still compete at 25 dollars an hour making the new high tech stuff like computers, cell phones, plasma screen TVs!You kids future is in nanotech!
2. Tax cuts mainly benefitting the class of money people that can bundle 2 million campain contributions will trickle down and create millions of new jobs!!
3. Anyone that lost a job to China or saw wages in their trade fall by 40% due to illegals the Bushes and Clinton waived in ought to be happy. They are liberated to spend a few weeks locating a great new higher paying and pleasing job they will love even more! Anyone who fails to do better is lazy and stupid and deserves to lose everything in their middle class lives. When did they ever give more than 200 dollars, little peanut campaign checks, to Republicans???
4. As more and more working class Americans not employed in government saw severe cutbacks or outright elimination of work related health benefits? Republicans insisted that US healthcare was the envy of the world, that all the high cost was just greedy lawyers doing malpractice suits, and those that saw once good health plans and their kids finding no new jobs offering them....were told the solution was "health savings accounts" where they could use all the extra money they got in their great 14 an hour store clerk job to at least give doctors and hospitals SOME money before having to declare medical bankruptcy.
Pat Buchanan...basically right again when he writes how Republicans lost Reagan Democrats. Eventually, their lost economic security trumped the lure of "social conservative issues".
Frank stole the title from William Allen White. The original was and editorial published in 1896 during the McKinley- Bryan election. It dripped with disdain for the Populists (and the populists) and Bryan. I wonder if Thomas Frank has ever actually been to Kansas?
'The term "dog whistle politics" has been around for a long time. Haney Lopez didn't coin it.'
The interesting question is, why would those on the right need dog whistles? Why can't we just issue naked appeals to racial and ethnic hatred and zero-sum self-interest, like the lefties do?
How come no one ever explains how affluent liberals are duped into voting against their economic interests?
Ian Haney Lopez serves a useful purpose in dog whistle politics. He explains to stupid racists who might not get it why they should vote Republican.
And isn't Ian saying that racist Republicans aren't really racist, they just pretend to be a little bit in order to steal the votes of racists who would otherwise vote for Democrats?
"Ian Haney Lopez's book is "Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class." (Ian Haney Lopez was a lawprof at the University of Wisconsin Law School years ago.)"
The left is obsessed with race. The old left explained everything in human history through the lens of class warfare, the new left has added race into their equation. An ideology which claims to be able to explain all human history through one or two simple propositions is just that an ideology not a realistic understanding of human nature.
The accusation that middle class voters are so dull that they unconsciously respond to dog whistles whereas the lefty with his gigantic IQ understands it shows the unbridled arrogance of the left. Of course the lefties are also placing themselves and their voters on an exalted moral plane where they are so righteous that they would never even think of exploiting race for their own power and wealth.
Those two are the insiders in a long standing attempt academic to create an alternate reality that only insider liberals can see. It seems to be a Religious Faith in the unseen.
Tyrone Slothrop,
Koch Brothers
Did that perk up your ears?
"They did it, too!" is really all you've got, isn't it?
If it's on Moyers it's probably from the left. And here is the lefts secret - engage in dog whistle politics. Classic projection. He's telling us how the left actually phrases issues. War on Women, War on Blacks, war on gays. That's dog whistle politics in a nutshell.
Tyrone wrote:
"Let's try an experiment. Please indicate if you hear a high-pitched tone. Ready?
Koch Brothers
Did that perk up your ears?"
Ha ha. So true.
The term "dog whistle politics" has been around for a long time. Haney Lopez didn't coin it.
Like those dirt scratchers in Kansas, we are all too stupid to know this!
This whole thread is a "Crack-whistle".
I think that this is maybe coming from the left having massively bribed much of the electorate, esp. over the last 5 or so years, and it hasn't bought as many votes as they expected. Sure, advertising the massive bribery got more votes in the last election than it lost. And, some Senators came back who shouldn't have, if Obama had not been at the top of the ticket. This is probably really their major concern - that with so much of our own money going out in bribes in their names, why are they not going to retake the House, and will likely lose the Senate?
I think that some above have a good point - that upper middle class often vote against their own economic self-interest by voting for Dems. Why is that not just as irrational? (I exclude the really rich, because in the sort of fascist socialism that Obama and so many of the Dems are trying to build implicitly gives significant preference to big companies and the rich who will work closely with them - and, so, under that sort of regime, the rich get richer if they work with the govt.)
So, why is it any more irrational for those making less money to do the right thing, and put self-reliance above self-indulgence and mooching off the rest of society?
The difficulty Euro-Americans face is that we were raised to think our political identity was "American". We are having difficulty coming to terms with the idea that there are lots of people between those two shining seas who hate us and want to harm us, and we need to take steps to see that they do not prosper. But I think that once most of us get clued in, we will be OK. We are descended from some right bad bastards.
The whole term "dog-whistle" for "racism" is idiotic.
Only dogs and man blowing the whistle know about it. The "dog-whistle" in this case, can be heard by everyone. In fact, 90% of the time the only ones who claim to hear it are liberals - who aren't the intended audience.
Crack Emcee (not getting the whole point) writes:
""They did it, too!" is really all you've got, isn't it?"
This guy is on Moyers talking about how republicans are engaging in dog whistle politics. Tyrone is merely pointing out the hypocricy of that statement and that saying republicans are engaged in dog whistle politics, is in fact engaging in dog whistle politics in itself.
Tyrone is not saying that "they did it too" he's saying this guy is one to talk.
Dear PBS,
What/who is the conservative correspondent to Bill Moyers on your network? I don't mind if MSNBC or the Fox News Channel lean left or right. They aren't public broadcasting. I don't even mind if your network hosts a program by Bill Moyers, which is openly and heavily tilted to the left.
All I ask is for balance on the nation's public broadcasting network.
So; who is the conservative counterpart to Bill Moyers?
"What's the Matter with Kansas?" always pissed me off as a title. Kansas is well governed -- prosperous, good schools and public services, low corruption. When you go to State Line road in Kansas City, the side with the crummy roads is Missouri. And frankly, the standard of living is off the charts compared to most cities I've lived in.
The irony is that "What's the Matter with Kansas" is pitched at people who live in cities with high taxes, poor services, poor schools, high crime, high corruption -- who would never dream of living in Kansas because of social issues.
The Crack Emcee said...
Tyrone Slothrop,
Koch Brothers
Did that perk up your ears?
"They did it, too!" is really all you've got, isn't it?
Crack, Crack, Crack, you're so willfully obtuse.
Politicians on both sides say things calculated to get your attention. Lopez's characterization implies that conservatives behave in Pavlovian slavishness to the commands of their masters, but when liberals do it, it's "solidarity." Hypocrisy on their part, idiocy on yours.
Bill Moyers is one of those ultra-rich who votes for Dems because they keep his cashcow [PBS] going.
Jupiter said...
The difficulty Euro-Americans face is that we were raised to think our political identity was "American". We are having difficulty coming to terms with the idea that there are lots of people between those two shining seas who hate us and want to harm us, and we need to take steps to see that they do not prosper. But I think that once most of us get clued in, we will be OK. We are descended from some right bad bastards.
===============
Perhaps you are right. Whites and notably white males of various ethnicities may also join in the "diversity" game and insist on their share of the spoils.
That top universities and grad schools have "spots" for underrepresented Polish and Italian Americans.
That places now dominated by the female gender - hospitals, elementary schools, family courts in very nice jobs - begin to hire males at an equal rate to "balance" matters.
I visit a dermatologist groups clinic and am struck that of 20 employees, from doctors to receptionists, all were female.
I also believe it may be healthy, especially for black racists, to have whites join together and push back and stop thinking that they have no stake in things and that the only thing whites should care about is "black opportunity".
Blacks may well rant at first "You can't act like us! You have no right to have associations and groups like "White Cops Association" and "National Advancement of White People Lobby".
And then have to defend their racist ways or abandon them. Right now it is blacks demanding and whites duly kow-towing.
No one leaps up at the dog-whistle like black folks. Utterly oblivious to the slap that awaits them when they come running.
The Democrat Left has had great success among minority constituencies with open appeals to racial solidarity and economic self-interest. They are accustomed to a game where their opponents are debarred from such appeals, and must make their argument in terms of the general welfare. They are concerned that someone might be cheating.
You have to wonder, when they crow about how white people will soon be a minority, what sort of minority do they think we will be?
One of the things that seems to be missing in most "What's the matter with Kansas?" discussions (and many other political and economic discussions) is the idea that everyone values everything equally.
For example, in a very narrow sense, someone could be seen as voting against interests if their choice leaves them five pennies poorer at the end of the day. People are almost never so simple. If gaining five pennies comes at the cost of increased regulation, decreased autonomy, future debt, cultural condescension, etc., the voter may decide that the five pennies are not worth it.
We see this on the international stage, too. Witness the people who are stunned that Putin would risk the next G8 summit over Crimea. They cannot accept that Putin might value the Crimea over a photo-op. The clueless arrogance is astounding.
PS. I meant to write something along the lines that "the assumption that everyone values everything equally is obviously mistaken, but that assumption seems to be the basis of most of these 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' discussions" in my last comment. Sorry if what I actually wrote was confusing.
Both parties are terrible for the middle class. At this point, Republicans will let them keep their guns and support a large military that can provide some jobs to their kids.
Dems promise to create more non-military government jobs and more social welfare benefits.
Both parties have abandoned blacks. They are both out for Latinos.
Tyrone Slothrop,
"Lopez's characterization implies that conservatives behave in Pavlovian slavishness to the commands of their masters, but when liberals do it, it's "solidarity." Hypocrisy on their part, idiocy on yours."
I don't care - there's still a lesson in there you're ignoring to point to the other side.
You do the same thing with slavery - what about the Africans?
It's just a device to stop looking at you're doing wrong.
Do that, and what the other side is doing becomes obvious, too - but then you're the good guy and they're the assholes.
Politics ain't hard, you guys,...
The Crack Emcee said...
"You do the same thing with slavery - what about the Africans?
It's just a device to stop looking at you're doing wrong."
I don't think that most people who point out the evils done by black people in Africa are attempting to justify evils done by white people. In a way, what they are doing is the opposite of racism, they are affirming the common humanity of black and white people who are both composed of free moral agents who have the capability to do both good and evil. History confirms that humans of all colors and ethnic groups are capable of incredible evil.
Kansas is well governed -- prosperous, good schools and public services, low corruption.
Kathleen Sebelius?
Still, you have a good point. Back 30+ years ago, I used to drive I-70 between Colorado and DC a time or two a year. At the time, there were two toll roads on the route, in Kansas and in Pennsylvania. They were also the best, and the worst, respectively, stretches of I-70 at the time (if you followed it from its inception in S. central Utah to Baltimore). Even the non-toll part of I-70 through Kansas was quite good. The PA part of the route though was so bad, that I took to ducking down through West VA around Wheeling, and coming into DC that way from the west. Roads weren't that fast, back then, but were in far better shape than the Interstate through PA.
Still, the western part of Kansas is flat and dry (along with eastern Colorado and parts of Oklahoma). Of course, I may be overly sensitive and critical, having grown up around the mountains in Colorado a couple of hours west of there. Most everything looks flat from that perspective though, when you have a dam by where you live that is taller than the entire elevation of the state of Florida, and you have to go down below it to go to the bank.
"but then you're the good guy and they're the assholes."
Isn't this what you're doing too? Look at those other people and what they've done!
Same thing, different characters. Politics isn't hard, since everyone does the same thing and gets indignant when they point out how other people don't notice they're doing it so it's my job to point out their hypocrisy rather than deal with my own.
From the Amazon page: In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney López offers a sweeping account of how politicians and plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration, and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and aggressively curtail social services...
What country is this guy talking about? Someplace where the "plutocrats" who want "regulatory control over industry and financial markets" are not the same plutocrats who propagandize endlessly for "diversity" and uncontrolled immigration?
I suspect Mr. López understands perfectly well, just as the allegedly bamboozled white middle class has begun to understand, that neither the establishment left nor the establishment right gives a crap about their interests. A crucial percentage of them, after all, stayed home in disgust in 2012, costing Romney the election, so all that dog-whistling turned out to be so much whistlin' Dixie. (Oooh, she said "Dixie". Check out that racist coding!)
Does this genre of book-length concern-trolling ever sell to its purported intended audience?
Illuninati,
It's just a device to stop looking at you're doing wrong."
I don't think that most people who point out the evils done by black people in Africa are attempting to justify evils done by white people.
I didn't say "justify" I said "a device to stop looking".
Denial. Deception. Trying to be clever.
Whites can't "justify" what they're doing - which is why few are openly racist - but they can deny it until the cows come home, all the while, keeping it going as long as possible that way.
Patrick O,
Isn't this what you're doing too? Look at those other people and what they've done!
Nope - I keep coming back to American history - they don't. They pretend we live in a vacuum, or popped out of a shrink-wrapped box, with blacks on the low end of the totem pole because RAP.
Almost everything should be funneled through American history before y'all speak because, like this moral equivalency you accuse me of, it doesn't hold up otherwise. Do blacks do shit? Yup. Do I regard it through the context of American history? Yer damned skippy. It's like this:
MLK getting help from communists or anybody else, is fine with me - under the circumstances - though I am anti-communist. Whites forced blacks to get help where we could.
A white guy complaining blacks are working with communists - under the circumstances - is silly.
What whites ought to be doing is trying to become better friends to blacks than communists in our fight for justice. Instead, whites want to be the cause of our struggle.
No whites fighting us/No struggle.
It's all really quite simple,...
Interesting verbal judo disguised as a discussion but it's an appraoch designed to prevent discussion and set up sniping positions for more endless ad hominem attacks on anyone right of Moyers.
It's often been pointed out that most welfare or food stamp recipients are white. There's no traction for any race-neutral claims in such factoids, you Mittler voting crackers. Nope. The poor, you see, are being "racialized".
It's all race all the way down. Nor is that tactic racist. Such thoughts reflect only the depth of your false consciousness.
I don't get the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" concept. Don't liberals vote against their economic interests all the time? A lot of liberals are well-to-do or even fabulously rich, yet they vote for the party of income redistribution. Obviously there is a lot more to people's political sentiments than economic considerations.
Though I agree with you, we must remember that most of the upper wealthy class who supposedly vote against their self interest also employ scads of accountants and lawyers to make sure they're saved from the financial regs and taxes they wish on the rest of us.
Crony capitalism at its finest.
If people should only vote their self interests, then why do African Americans vote for Democrats?
Chris said...
If people should only vote their self interests, then why do African Americans vote for Democrats?
Because MLK told us not to vote for Republicans until the party stops harboring racists.
How blacks, voting to support a party with racists, can be interpreted as "their self interests" you'll have to explain.
"Both parties have abandoned blacks. They are both out for Latinos."
That's because the black votes have already been counted for at least the next forty years. Where blacks are in the majority, they will elect a feckless, corrupt, barely literate black person. Where they are in the minority, they'll vote for the Democrat. No point in anyone wasting any time on them.
Solidarity isn't wrong, coded appeals aren't wrong.
This is wrong:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****."
There's your perfection of the art of the dog whistle, right from the horse's mouth. It's the smoking gun. All you have to know about conservative Republican success post-1968 comes from how they won the CRA opponents over with this strategy right here. No other thing articulated by any Democrat comes close to this craven level of calculated racial hatred against people who lacked the institutional power of those the Republicans could afford to lose politically.
Fucking OWN IT already for chrissakes! It's right there! In the wake of increasingly lost electoral outcomes and growing minority-majority demographics, where else is there for you to run to any more? Nowhere. OWN. IT.
Jupiter,
"Where blacks are in the majority, they will elect a feckless, corrupt, barely literate black person. Where they are in the minority, they'll vote for the Democrat. No point in anyone wasting any time on them."
Gee, after THAT "sensitive" assessment, I'd have no idea why we'd do anything else.
Really,...
"non affluent"? The median income in many Kansas counties is well above say Detroit or comparable liberal enclaves.
"To the left, there's no such thing as principles" (BDNYC)
This. A thousand times this more than anything else is the guiding principle of the left.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा