From "Americans Are Divided by Their Views on Race, Not Race Itself/It’s a crucial difference — and grounds for optimism" by Eric Kaufmann (author of “Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities") in the NYT.
Why is this "grounds for optimism"? Kaufman asserts that "ideological differences... are less polarizing than racial conflict, in which whole communities mobilize against an enemy."
A mix of races are found in each racial ideology, preventing tribe and creed from pushing in the same direction, which might lead to civil conflict. This raises the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions.That's how the column ends, with hope in American political elites. Aren't they the ones stoking this ideological division? At least the masses of people aren't organized by whatever race they happened to acquire by nature. I get that. But I think the elites are choosing to manipulate people with racial ideas, which are interesting and exciting and sure get us going. Why would they stop what's been working for them? Why would they heal? Obama didn't take his fantastic opportunity to heal. Now, there was some high level hope in the elite...
And this "Whiteshift" author dangles "the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions"? The elites are thriving in the wounds.
Posts
97 comments:
I see it as optimistic on 2 grounds:
1. Race is immutable, ideology can change, which opens the door for discussion and attempts at persuasion, surely better than condemning someone based on genetics or unchangeable history.
2. The great progressive project to divide us by race, gender, etc., is having problems.
Interesting that the NYT, a foremost purveyor of the evil of hate-based identity politics, would run such a piece, though.
Aren't they the ones stoking this ideological division?
Stoking and exploiting.
"the hope that American [people] can one day heal the country’s divisions"
Fixed it for him.
I see Trump fans and AOC fans each stoking the fears and prejudices and most outrageous faux-solutions of their respective (a term I used advisedly here) bases. And those bases are both anti-"elite."
Trump; Rush Limbuagh; Hannity; Mark Levin. They spend as much time trolling the GOP Congressional leadership as they spend attacking the far left.
AOC; she's famous for the principle reason of having knocked off a member of the Democratic congressional leadership in a primary.
I see the extremes of TrumpLand on one side and the AOC Green World on the other side and yessir; my hope is with the elites to supply better ideas.
But I think the elites are choosing to manipulate people with racial ideas, which are interesting and exciting and sure get us going. Why would they stop what's been working for them? Why would they heal?
No question about it. The NYT may have [accidentally] caught on to something but analyzed it incorrectly.
Odd that one would think that the people who bear the majority of the blame for the country's divisions would be the ones to heal the country's divisions.
In real life the Blacks and whites get along fine. It’s the politicians that have always divided us as best they can to get votes. And then along came the Hispanics.
Yes, only the political elites can save us....
“Help us Obi-Wan, you’re our only hope”
GMAFB
The left should draft Anderson Cooper. He’s got everything:
Gay,
Gloria Vanderbilt money
TV show celebrity fame
Leftist ideology credentials
And he’s white which appears to be where the left is headed for “electability”
The elites are part of the superstructure that established red-lining, incarceration systems, so yes they can help heal the divide along with individuals who rise through the system with an open heart like Roderick Bankston who wrote Shed So Many Tears while wrongly incarcerated for over twenty years.
The elites are thriving in the wounds.
Like maggots.
Meade said... "the hope that American [people] can one day heal the country’s divisions"
I wonder the word "heal" should be replaced with the word "accept."
"Heal" is a coercive term -- it assumes an end point. Obama's mantra of "hope" was a way to avoid the problems with "heal." Most everyone can accept the concept of hoping for a better future. Hope doesn't presume a policy. Heal presumes policy and with policy comes the divisions between the people who advocate different policies, and the rancor between the people in power and the people out of power.
Extremes in Trumpland?
Trump is a more middle of the road politician. It's amazing that Trump is seen as an extremist. I see him as an extremist in smashing Overton Windows, that have been slowly been moving leftward they are more and more disconnected from the majority view. And with a Social Mob that enforces the Overton Windows. eGOP and Democrats seem to be part of the uniparty. And the media has been doing their best to use the Trump is a racist, supports White Supremacists, etc. tropes against him. And Trump just ignores it, and keeps on moving forward. Trump seems to have his finger on the pulse of the US on immigration and racism, and the Left (Media, Academia, Hollywood, and Democrats) are out of touch using it to motivate the base for political reasons.
The dirty little secret is if Trump manages to get more of the Black Vote, he will doom the Democrats electorally.
Immigration is a perfect example of this, where the majority want a wall. And politicians are fiddling, while Rome burns.
This way on immigration:
- The Democrats get more voters
- The Elite more Nannies and Gardeners
- Agriculture businesses get cheap labor
- Tech companies get H1B's for cheap tech labor.
- Democrats can claim ordinary Americans are racists, and motivate their base by showing how righteous they are. Open borders forever!
Win win for everyone, except regular workers. It's amazing how dysfunctional the current immigration system is, and the only person that seems to want to reform it is Trump. The problem is Trump is uncouth, and says it as it is. And punches back, instead of losing gracefully.
I wonder about that statement, minorities aren't setting the agenda on racial issues, white liberals are. Not that it isn't true but it does cast the racial minorities in the role of supporting cast to the lefty white power structure. Which seems like something one would not want to acknowledge since it makes the idea of "healing" (whatever that's supposed to look like) even less likely. I think we saw an example of this, something like this, in the Chelsea Clinton experience with the Muslim students at the NZ memorial.
...reflecting both a campus- and online-driven cultural awakening...
More like an awokening...
Chuck said...
...my hope is with the elites to supply better ideas.
Please point out some recent successful implementations of the elites' "better ideas."
NPR this morning used one of their 4 questions for Bernie to ask his view of reparations.
It reminded me of the early Republican primaries where those guys got a lot of weird questions from "non-partisan" debate moderators--George Stephanopolous asking Mitt Rommey if states could ban contraceptives, that kind of thing--in what was clearly battle-space preparation.
It's tempting to view things that "bubble up" like this as being reflective of some wider social movement/truth but I wonder how much of it is agenda-driven--with the primary agenda being that of the Media (which, in what can only be a cosmic coincidence, happens to correspond to the concerns of the woke Left).
I like watching fights between various leftwing groups as much as the next guy but it's hard not to feel sorry for them when they're subjected to (and admittedly watered-down version of) the same kind of crap the non-Left has to put up with in terms of Media distortion and narrative-driving.
Anyway Gov Blackface Northam's still in office as is his Lt. Governor Fairfax despite the latter being "credibly accused" of sexual assault by 2 women. Things are different when you have that (D) next to your name!
The political elites, of all tribes, have absolutely zero incentive to heal the ideological racial divide. To attempt to do so would damage their electoral prospects among their base of support, or at least they believe it will. The elites of the Left have generally rocketed to prominence by hurling the racist epithet at the elites of the Right, particularly Trump. I'm not a Trump guy/voter but I've come more to his side of the issues in part in response to the racists accusations directed at him. Seeing his approval numbers improve over time shows a correlation with the volume and intensity of the attacks, particularly among Independents, so I'm not alone. Biden, of all the potential Democrat candidates, is the one that is talking about healing. He can afford to do so because he is an established nationally recognized pol, I guess we'll see if it hurts him.
In my experience, as a non-elite man among the non-elites, I don't see or hear any sort of racial divide. People I come in contact with, of all types and races, are just doing their best to care for themselves and their families. Only the elites and the politics junkies are hyper focused on polarizing racial stuff. The elites could heal the racial divide, such as it is, by stopping their near constant talking about and blaming of it.
I don't believe the current crop of elites will offer a solution to this problem. For one thing, it's not in their interest to solve these divisions since they're the ones benefiting from them in the first place.
I believe that any solution to the current division won't come from elites. Indeed it won't come from anyone in power. It can't come from the top down. It can only come from the bottom up. Regular people of all races need to become more skeptical of all the messages they seem to be ceaselessly bombarded with day in and day out. They need to ask the question of themselves "Do I honestly believe that millions of my fellow Americans wish me ill and want me to fail? Does that scenario jibe with my day to day interactions with other people?".
Eric Kaufmann's The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America is a great book and thoroughly demolishes the "nation of immigrants" canard we are so often served in immigration debates. I have not yet read Whiteshift, but I know people who have, and I have read some excerpts from Kaufmann. He "gets" the immigration issue a lot better than other academics but is still far too optimistic for my taste. Kaufmann believes in "broadening the category of white," which I think is pretty naive and ignores the trends of the last half century, what Steve Sailer has described as the "flight from white."
There are essentially two areas in the world that have created technologically advanced societies with a high standard of living, northwest Europe and their descendants (e.g. USA, Canada, Australia) and Northeast Asia and their descendants (e.g. Taiwan, Singapore). As such, people who live in low standard of living countries (e.g. Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia) want to leave and move to the nice places. Northeast Asia, not being plagued with the sickness of white guilt, has correctly and smartly resisted these urges. Northwest Europe, not so much.
And this "Whiteshift" author dangles "the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions"? The elites are thriving in the wounds.
Kaufmann delivers a simple and elegant analysis.
In delivering the analysis and data, is he giving the "elite" one more chance -- or avoiding their wrath?
He's already flirting with heresy and thoughtcrime.
For instance, simply observing that racial ideology and identity politics have become the central organizing principle of Democrat Party would sound partisan and probably be career suicide.
Baby steps.
Unstated is that healing the nation's divisions means seizing power back from those other guys.
I find it offensive and condescending that the author (Kaufmann) thinks that there are actually classes of people; "elites" who can fix things for the lesser people. He presumably classes himself as belonging to the "elite" class.
The elites are thriving in the wounds.
Exactly this. Perhaps not all of those who consider themselves are purposely creating the wounds....some actively are....however, the widening gap between people created by the (self appointed) elites creates several things where they do thrive.
Opportunities for financial, political and social advancement. $$$
But more importantly, they revel in the self comforting illusion that they ARE elite and therefore better than, smarter than everyone else. (snifff!) And therefore more capable of making decisions for others because those non-elites are just not up to the task. They are the boss!!!!
"'White' is a description of a person’s race..."
I think at one point this was true, but I disagree with this now.
"Whiteness" has become an ethos and ideological. When any number of personalities in media and elsewhere - regardless of race - can now be labeled as have "white" thoughts or reinforcing "white supremacy" the entire concept of "whiteness" takes on a larger ideological context and becomes a catch-all for 'Western Civilization'.
"Whiteness" then becomes something ideological that can be associated with favorite political points of disagreement
1) Belief in private property, and that yes - people can own private property
2) Individual liberty and freedom of speech including speech that you might not agree with
3) Innovation and creativity as the fundamental economic and social driver, not government. (Aka from the bottom up, not govt. down)
Among many others. "Whiteness" is now an ideological concept for many on the left. Something that can be adopted and internalized regardless of skin color.
@Chuck:
I see the extremes of TrumpLand on one side and the AOC Green World on the other side and yessir; my hope is with the elites to supply better ideas.
The problem with this analysis is that the elites' ideas are really great...for elites. They're terrible for most of the rest of the population. This has generally been true in history, but American elites at least used to have some sense of noblesse oblige. That concept is pretty much nonexistent in modern American culture, where decadence, self-indulgence, and self-enrichment at the expense of any other consideration are the ethos that rule the day.
And this "Whiteshift" author dangles "the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions"? The elites are thriving in the wounds.
Exactly. The writer says "race" and "feelings about race" are different, and conflict over "feelings about race" is less dangerous. But white liberals are encouraging "feelings about race" that fuel actual racial divisions: rejecting assimilation, targeting the ideal "America is a melting pot" as an offensive "micro-aggression," inventing new terms to racially divide ("white privilege," "whiteness studies), and, finally, declaring the notion of a "color blind" society to be a naive goal no longer worth pursuing.
He is right, this is as much about white liberals vs. traditional whites as it is interracial conflict. In fact, a 2017 Pew survey found that 79% of white liberals believed that "racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days.”:
Among blacks, 59.9 percent identified discrimination as the main deterrent to upward mobility for African-Americans, and 32.0 percent said blacks were responsible for their condition — in other words, blacks are more conservative than white liberals on this issue. http://tinyurl.com/yaf5ybtk
Are white liberals really in a better position to rate white racism than blacks? Of course not. They favor the more dramatic stance for political reasons. White liberals need the support of people of color to achieve their political goals, and if that means encouraging racial divisions, so be it.
Racial conflict is being caused by the elites, they won't be the saviors.
tcrosse said...
Unstated is that healing the nation's divisions means seizing power back from those other guys.
tcrosse sums up my point in one sentence.
Something about "whiteshift" reminds me of "Snow Crash".
From the article: "“White” is a description of a person’s race, whereas feelings about whether whites are privileged or whether diversity makes the country stronger are part of a person’s racial ideology."
I would have liked that sentence better if the author had written "whereas feeling about . . . whether diversity makes the country stronger [or weaker]" since at least the inclusion of the word "weaker" would have raised the issue of how much diversity is a good thing and at what point does it lead to division? The twin mantras that "diversity is our strength" and "America is a nation of immigrants" do not encourage a rational examination of this issue.
I also thought it was interesting that of the seven major voting blocs, "the most racially liberal are the Progressive Activists, who form just 8 percent of the population" since this 8 percent lives overwhelmingly in some of the most highly segregated parts of the country: in places like Vermont; Portland, Oregon; Manhattan and Brooklyn; Washington D.C, San Francisco, Boulder, Colorado, etc.
We can't have racial healing because the D-party thrives with the never ending skin-color wars. The tribes must remain separated and angry.
Interview with the last dragon slayer
Excerpt…
Reporter Kim Weaver: What frustrates you the most about being a dragon slayer?
The Last Dragon Slayer: I don’t find anything frustrating about being a dragon slayer, except maybe when I see people who use dragons for their own ends.
RKW: Are people able to control a dragon and make it work for them?
TLDS: Not exactly. Dragons are not controllable. It’s more like taking advantage of either an actual dragon or imaginary dragon to gain some benefit for themselves.
RKW: How does that work? In what way does one use a dragon’s destructiveness to their benefit?
TLDS: That is easy. If the dragon is eating your neighbor’s sheep, or burning a nearby rival’s land, you can gain through their misfortune. But that is sort of understandable. The more serious issue, in my opinion, is when someone uses an imaginary dragon to pit one group of people against another.
RKW: Explain.
TLDS: First you invent a dragon. Then you tell a group of people that this dragon threatens to harm that group.
RKW: But wouldn’t the group easily discover that there is no dragon? Wouldn’t they then get angry at the person who made up the story?
TLDS: That could happen except for one thing.
RKW: And what is that?
TLDS: The dragon inventor does not make the dragon the focus of the problem. Instead, he tells the group that there is a second group that is feeding and nurturing this dragon. By doing it in this way, the dragon inventor no longer has to worry that the dragon would be found out. The anger of the first group is now set against the second group for nurturing a dragon.
TKW: Wouldn’t the second group just tell them that there is no dragon?
TLDS: If only it were that easy. It’s hard to prove a negative. You can’t prove there is no dragon. The first group can look at any perceived tragedy or slight and ascribe it to the dragon. The second group cannot disprove the accusation. And when they get angry at the first group and launch their own accusations, their very antagonism is proof to the first group that they must indeed have a dragon, otherwise why would they do such wicked things like denying the truth and making accusations.
TKW: And this helps the dragon inventor, how?
TLDS: He gains by being the person to rally the troops against the threat of the “others”. He gains power as the leader who has identified the problem. People rally to his cause and give him money.
TKW: Sounds like the dragon inventor is actually worse than a dragon.
TLDS: Not worse. It’s been rumored that dragons can take human form…
A large portion of the electorate will be gulled into acquiescence by the "elites" until some start publicly taking the attitude that you must have confused with someone who cares about what you think. Then the dam will start to crack. The fact that several Liberal dominated states are pushing for stunts like NPV is a tell that the Left is starting to worry. Trump is the catalyst.
Similarly, some find it useful for Roe v Wade to be under constant threat.
Surely we've all had the experience of assuming folks older than us in powerful positions are very smart. They had to be, right? She's the principal of the school -- gotta be smart for that! The mayor? Smart person, surely, right? Hey, you don't get to be a Senator if you're not smart.
Well, as you get older you realize that most of these people, if not all of them, are not particularly smarter than most.
I don't think of them as elite in anything but earnings.
"Obama didn't take his fantastic opportunity to heal."
He succeeded perfectly.
Sussed out fuzzy anti-other sentiment. First, liars re Tea Festivities re supposedly caring about spending. Then, even more so w/ voting/supporting clown POTUS who rose re jabbering about the black interloper from Africa and other such not-white invaders.
Step 1: Reconciliation dies in darkness.
IMHO.
It was not so long ago that Europe was almost exclusively white. Despite the lack of racial pressures, they managed to kill each other at a brisk rate.. In the early twentieth century, the murders were along class and ethnic lines. Earlier, religion and the various peasant revolts provided ample cause for mass murder. There has always been a body of opinion in European thought that holds the view that mass murder is a way to resolve the conflicts among various groups.......,In America, not so much. Outside of the Civil War, murders in America have always been conducted on a small, retail basis and never on the wholesale level. Things here have a tendency to get better. The best way to handle certain divisive issues is to ignore them. In another ten or twenty years these issues will be obsolete. The best goal to pursue is personal enrichment and/or an afternoon nap. That's so much more accessible than social justice or racial equality.
Roy Jacobsen said...
Chuck said...
...my hope is with the elites to supply better ideas.
Please point out some recent successful implementations of the elites' "better ideas."
Off the top of my head, and with perhaps some respectfully invited input from others:
The Securities Act of 1933.
The (Securities) Exchange Act of 1934.
The Sherman Antitrust Act.
The United Nations.
NATO.
The Peace Corps.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Heartland Institute.
The New Yorker, National Public Radio, "Firing Line," National Review, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal.
The WTO.
NAFTA.
The Internet and the World Wide Web. (Including the academic and scientific elites Cal Tech, Cornell, CERN, Stanford, UCLA, the University of Michigan, University of London and University College, London, etc., etc.)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership.
We have of course also had wars, depressions, monopoly abuses, disease epidemics, poverty, scandals and corruption. Just like throughout recorded history. But we are living now better than any humans at any time in global history. If we are to give "the elites" a grade based on our current general worldwide (or our American) standard of living, "the elites" get an "A."
The optimism stems from the fact we mix well as a population and only the elite and the fringes of polity really care about race, and they only “care” in the sense they can use it for political purposes. So while we, as a nation, may superficially debate racial issues, as a practical matter we mingle effortlessly. There has never been a multiracial experiment as large as America, and the People have overcome much that institutions did to wrench up the works, with the result that we DO all “get along” and only people who earn a living accentuating the differences between us keep complaining about racism that doesn’t really exist. The debate exists. The racism is fake news.
I was happy to see push back finally on the “Trump hasn’t denounced white supremacy” bullshit, with many guests rebuking the hosts and other panelists this weekend, literally quoting Trump saying he condemns those people. It is a lie that he hasn’t denounced racists. You have to ignore a lot of his speeches to even try and keep spreading that lie. Race hustling as a business should go the way of the pay phone.
I see the extremes of TrumpLand on one side and the AOC Green World on the other side and yessir; my hope is with the elites to supply better ideas.
Most non-elites do not fall into either camp. But, they aren't loud, so they have no influence on the elite or internet commentary.
Aren't they the ones stoking this ideological division?
Absolutely, and for the obvious reason -- the division is the only thing that keeps them in power.
If racial divisions went away, in this era where other factors divisions among regions and denominations have become so attenuated, one would quite naturally expect that the white working class, the black working class, and the Hispanic working class would all start to vote the same way. The result would be the people with bachelor's degrees (or more) being substantially outvoted in every election -- or more exactly, the ideological content of the parties moving in order to redivide the country fifty-fifty, with the balance of power being in the new unified working class.
Exactly what the new lineup would have in terms of economic ideology is pretty hard to predict. What is certain is that all three working classes are substantially more religious than the college-educated class, so there would be a definitive rightward shift of the balance of power on "social issues". Right now, politicians elected by black and Hispanic communities are substantially to the left of their communities on things like LGBT+ issues, abortion, school prayer, and the like; without racial ideology keeping them in their current coalition, that would change.
But I think the elites are choosing to manipulate people with racial ideas, which are interesting and exciting and sure get us going.
More cruel neutrality? The Left uses race to scare people into supporting them, the Right seeks to eliminate race as a political issue.
" Since 2012, white liberals have moved considerably left on questions related to race, reflecting both a campus- and online-driven cultural awakening that has accelerated in response to Mr. Trump." Awakening my ass, they've been cynically manipulated by race and gender hucksters passing off political activism and self-enrichment as scholarship in all the bogus "studies" departments. The universities created these in a misguided attempt to buy off various protest groups over the years never realizing that they would someday consume and destroy the institutions.
"The elites are thriving in the wounds."
Regarding racial matters, I've several times commented "Must pick that scab lest it heal." Imagining our self-anointed "elites" casting aside both emotional and practical self interest to take up the role of healing agents is simply jaw dropping.
J. Farmer said...
@Chuck:
"I see the extremes of TrumpLand on one side and the AOC Green World on the other side and yessir; my hope is with the elites to supply better ideas."
The problem with this analysis is that the elites' ideas are really great...for elites. They're terrible for most of the rest of the population. This has generally been true in history, but American elites at least used to have some sense of noblesse oblige. That concept is pretty much nonexistent in modern American culture, where decadence, self-indulgence, and self-enrichment at the expense of any other consideration are the ethos that rule the day.
This is an excellent point on your part, which is why fundamental morality (some might say social conservatism), Christianity, American Puritanism, German Protestantism, Anglo-American academic curiosity and humility are all fundamental to true American elitism. And anything that falls short is mere pretension at "elitism."
I don't believe the current crop of elites will offer a solution to this problem. For one thing, it's not in their interest to solve these divisions since they're the ones benefiting from them in the first place.
I agree with this. Indeed; I think both sides (GOP/DNC) were happy for the Kavanaugh hearing spectacle. For a period of days; the nation was focused on what was going in DC/Congress. They had our attention, and that seems to be what they really want. Underlying that attention is fundraising, and both sides made bank. In contrast, most events happening in DC get and deserve little attention from most Americans in their daily lives. I think the racism that exists in the US today is dying out as old division and dividers fall into history. Those continuing to stoke the fire of racism are not doing well in polls, right Kamala?
It used to be that politics was about interests, and everyone can compromise about interests because everyone has them. But racism and anti-racism are about good and evil, and you can’t compromise on that.
Lucid-Ideas said...
"'White' is a description of a person’s race..."
I think at one point this was true, but I disagree with this now.
"Whiteness" has become an ethos and ideological
adding to your concept, consider the validation from young blacks who call out their peers who want an education as"acting white" aka picking up the values you listed.
As for the basic premise?
Diversity does not make the country stronger. diversity has always caused trust issues between groups and individuals ever since we started living in aggregations larger than an extended family/tribe.
The American political elites have a lot to account for, but the worst thing they have done by far is the promotion of racial ideology.
The aspirational ideas that all are created equal, that all are equal before the law, and that American society can and should move forward without regard to race, creed, or national origin give us a future. Raking over and and nursing historic grievances condemn us to a past. Embracing identity politics closes off the future.
America is the land of tomorrow, as Ronald Reagan said. Let's get on to a brighter tomorrow.
Sally327 said...
...it makes the idea of "healing" (whatever that's supposed to look like) even less likely. I think we saw an example of this, something like this, in the Chelsea Clinton experience with the Muslim students at the NZ memorial.
I agree. "Minority" activists are starting to notice they won't be "minority" for long, and they are starting to reject the subordinate role. The push back against white feminists has been pretty rough.
After many years, I've come to the conclusion that racial diversity in a country is like a broken teacup that has been glued back together. I may work, but the fault lines are always there for someone to exploit. A country can hold together if there is an extreme difference in power between different racial/ethnic groups (or if there is a government powerful enough to suppress the people), but as power equalizes, the stresses become too much.
Bosnia used to be hailed as an example of a working multi-ethnic society. I remember hearing about how well the different groups got along, and how high the rate of inter-marriage was. The US is now a conglomeration of Bosnias.
It is interesting that the usual suspect seeks to deflect attention from the topic at hand which is negative for the democrats to mischaracterize the Trump administation as "extremist" when the Heritage Foundation itself characterized Trumps administration and its successes as more conservative than Reagan's.
One supposes that the alliance between the far left and the LLR's will need to be accelerated as we move closer to 2020 to shield the democrats from scrutiny of their clear lunacy which used to beon the margins but is now at the center of the left/dem/LLR coalition.
"Obama didn't take his fantastic opportunity to heal."
Why?
I assert that the Democrats, Obama included, want the issue of race to endure for partisan purposes. The article (intentionally?) misses the point. Race is a permanent issue for the left. It is useful to them as a club with which to beat conservatives. Any other analysis is just window dressing.
Other permanent issues include the environment, abortion and feminism.
The Last Dragon Slayer said...
Interview with the last dragon slayer
---
Excellent.
No Lie: I've previously alluded to The Invisible Racism Dragon in making points about modern racial politics, with its White Knights. The metaphor needs to catch on.
"The elites are thriving in the wounds."
Yes, but not just the elites. Stirring up controversy is everyone's go-to way of getting noticed on the internet, where so many are trying to stand out from the crowd. In politics and some other endeavors, boring is often good, to borrow a phrase, but boring still tends to fall to the bottom on the attracting-eyeballs scale of things. This is a medium (politics is an activity) that rewards the loudest, the most insistent, the ones playing to the segment of the crowd who are easiest to get all stirred up. More's the pity but that's the world we live in.
Only the elite seem to have a need to parse people into groups. Is it really about power or projecting their own white guilt? Perhaps both, but it will eventually fail because it is a false premise outside their privileged bubble.
Most of us carry on with the hurly-burly of everyday life cheek and jowl with people of all sorts and we are learning to rub along together as best we can given the constant moving of the goal posts.
I wonder how the "elites" of the Democratic Party will pursue racial healing from now until the 2020 election. I don't mean this as snark. But doesn't our system reward division more than healing?
Please point out some recent successful implementations of the elites' "better ideas."
"Off the top of my head, and with perhaps some respectfully invited input from others:"
Those weren't race relation ideas. Most weren't ideas at all.
And this "Whiteshift" author dangles "the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions"? The elites are thriving in the wounds.
The article is behind a paywall, and I won’t pay the Times to keep pushing their bigotry. I have to rely on what others who have read it have to say. Glenn Reynolds’ take is succinct: “So basically, most of the racial conflict in today’s America comes from white liberals wanting to feel good about themselves.”
Sounds right to me.
"The elites are thriving in the wounds."
Exactly. That's why Ted Kennedy and John McCain could join together to push Amnesty and why - despite Trump getting elected - there's zero support in DC for a border wall or enforcing immigration laws. When the WSJ and the NYT support the same policy its usually good for the elites - and bad for the rest of us.
And you can imagine how the Elite Press would've gone to town on the Jussie Smollete attack if Jussie hadn't mistakenly staged it in front of a camera that wasn't working. The fake footage would've been shown 24/7 on every TV show - stoking everyone's racial paranoia and emotions.
Sarbanes Oxley and then Dodd Frank, did not solve the problem, neither did the next layer of security bureaucracy, dhs, dni
Chuck said...
The Securities Act of 1933.
The (Securities) Exchange Act of 1934.
The Sherman Antitrust Act.
The United Nations.
NATO.
The Peace Corps.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Heartland Institute.
The New Yorker, National Public Radio, "Firing Line," National Review, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal.
The WTO.
NAFTA.
The Internet and the World Wide Web. (Including the academic and scientific elites Cal Tech, Cornell, CERN, Stanford, UCLA, the University of Michigan, University of London and University College, London, etc., etc.)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Some of the obvious issues with your list include:
-Not many recent entries.
-Some have, shall we say, performed poorly of late (e.g., The New York Times), and have had some dramatic failures throughout their history (e.g., The New York Times).
-For some entries, their reputation is rather overblown. (The UN? Really? The timeless phrase "wretched hive of scum and villainy" comes to mind.)
Nationalism is beneficent tribalism that calls people of all races together I’m America. It is anathema to our elites. I’m optimistic because they’re an increasingly unimpressive bunch, not because they’re going to suddenly propagate better ideas. We’re replacing them, faster than we can be replaced.
"The Securities Act of 1933.
The (Securities) Exchange Act of 1934.
The Sherman Antitrust Act."
Your specialists in these matters may want to comment, but on the whole I do not see how tweaks in these matters - matter. The US is hardly the only country with investments laws, and it is unique only because of the size of its economy. How does anyone know if the US would be better off with British, German or Swiss regulations?
"The United Nations.
NATO.
The Peace Corps. "
Means of war, and wars by other means. You could just as well credit the League of Nations or the pre-WWI European treaty systems. All of which failed because they lacked that necessary factor of US global supremacy.
"The American Civil Liberties Union, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Heartland Institute."
As we say in Tagalog, "laway lang yan" - its nothing but spit. These people do nothing but employ people who love to yak, but no-one important listens to them, nor do they influence even the "elite". As a former aficionado of allegedly substantive discourse, a lifetime of this, the futility of this has become apparent. What actually matters is what kids are taught, especially those of the "elite", or those who will become that, not what some would-be-but-not-really academics natter on about. And one comes to the conclusion, eventually, that the bulk of these people really don't know what they are talking about, and that they are fundamentally insincere. He who pays the piper calls the tune seems to be the highest value in that society.
"The New Yorker, National Public Radio, "Firing Line," National Review, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal."
"Firing Line" is long gone and you will never again see its like on PBS. Which says all you really need to know about the ultimate value of "Firing Line" - it did not impose even the obligation to supply a replacement. Everything that could have been a successor, never was. The rest are, as above, part of a propaganda machine in one way or another.
The WTO.
NAFTA.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership.
"The Internet and the World Wide Web. (Including the academic and scientific elites Cal Tech, Cornell, CERN, Stanford, UCLA, the University of Michigan, University of London and University College, London, etc., etc.)"
Being an engineer I have a very different POV. Technology almost creates itself, tweak adding on tweak almost organically, an irresistible urge among those who like to play with tech. Most actual tech is created by the modern equivalent of blacksmiths trying to make something new and cool and pretty in a spare moment while whacking away at horseshoes.
Institutions like these free-ride on tech, and its aficionados, they do not contribute anything to create or promote it. All these advances are at their root side effects or spin-offs of some earlier or greater technology project, actual contracts to do something, like build a new airplane or missile. The "scientific elites" are not scientific, and most of this does not come from the elites. Most actual tech is created by the modern equivalent of blacksmiths.
Drago said...
It is interesting that the usual suspect seeks to deflect attention from the topic at hand which is negative for the democrats to mischaracterize the Trump administation as "extremist" when the Heritage Foundation itself characterized Trumps administration and its successes as more conservative than Reagan's.
One supposes that the alliance between the far left and the LLR's will need to be accelerated as we move closer to 2020 to shield the democrats from scrutiny of their clear lunacy which used to beon the margins but is now at the center of the left/dem/LLR coalition.
I have no fear of, nor condemnation for, any real "conservatism" coming out of the Trump Administration. I like the regulatory reform; the judicial selections; the generally tough stance on immigration law enforcement; Betsy DeVos at Education. They are all good.
I'm not happy with the loss of budgetary restraint; with Administration-endorsed massive tax cuts combined with Administration-claimed massive military spending increases.
I'm not happy with the incompetence demonstrated on health care reform. Mr. President, EVERYBODY knew that "health care could be so complicated."
I'm not happy with the tariff wars chaos.
Back to the theme of Althouse's blog post; I see no solution to those problems coming from extremist political bases on the right or the left. I see them as complicated, thorny problems with numerous solutions all of which are varying degrees of tough-love/bad tasting medicine. Where intelligent elites usually negotiate compromise solutions.
Wasn't there some talk about a great negotiator and deal-maker back in 2016?
"the hope that American political elites can one day heal the country’s divisions"
They need to actually want that first, but they don't, becuase first, they enjoy the divisions that they use and stoke for political advantage, second, if they did want healing, it would require no compromises on their position and full surrender from their opponents. In other words, healing is he last thing they want. They want victory.
I believe, based on my own feelings and my reading of opinions, that most of the Right wants actual healing of the kind where we accept our differences and share equal opportunity which takes some work, but mostly involves expecting and accepting personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is directly at odds with the progressive ideology that wants you dependent on the government for as much as possible, even wanting to define your relationships with other Americans, and what attitudes you can have about them.
The wall is not diversitist and serves the interest of all Americans irrespective of their color. It is a viable choice to secure civil and human rights, to reduce incentive for labor arbitrage, human trafficking, and rape-rape of women and girls, and to force a quarantine of migrants for processing and to control the progress of alien antigens and carriers that are a threat to the native population. Hopefully, it will encourage emigration reform to mitigate the collateral damage from immigration reform and refugee crises at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
Race is a permanent issue for the left. It is useful to them as a club with which to beat conservatives.
Cries of racism have long been shorthand for Shut up. Your opinion is not wanted.
It is the lazy person's way of countering a conservative argument. I have found it used mostly by highly "educated" Blacks and Whites, not so much am one ordinary people of all races.
My family has done its part to heal the racial divide, being a mixture of white, black, filipino, Korean and Hispanic.
The US is now a conglomeration of Bosnias.
Poppycock! Bosnia-Hersgovinia was not the melting pot America is. The groups that went to war against each other had religious disputes that go back hundreds of years and were struggling to preserve a “country” that came into being as a result of the Cold War Ending, not pulled together by people with a common purpose. To the extent we have Bosnia-like zones, say like the Somali community in Minneapolis, they set themselves apart culturally but are not at war with the surrounding residents, are not subject to systemic discrimination and not trying to overrun the local government. The American people are the most accepting, least racist of all, given the level of mixing together we all do voluntarily when we worship, play, educate, shop, form associations, work and live our extraordinarily peaceful lives.
"...American political elites...." That's a vile phrase! Shame on you, NYT. Shame! SHAME! (Hat tip: Polonius.)
Here is one for you, NYT: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...."
Kaufman asserts that "ideological differences... are less polarizing than racial conflict, in which whole communities mobilize against an enemy."
Because ideological differences never pushed the world the brink of nuclear annihilation or anything...
Except in the rare case, the leftie political playbook to constantly drive a racial wedge between the rest of us is animated not by any true sense of righting injustice but rather as a quest for power and money. The righteous idealism of the 60’s has been replaced by brutal cynicism.
I was part of that idealism and spent many months in the Mississippi delta as part of voter registration drives and after school tutoring for kids in newly integrated schools. What has happened in the years since bears no resemblance to doing the right thing except for the facial rhetoric. Buried below the surface is another corrosive plan altogether.
- Krumhorn
"Why is this "grounds for optimism"?"
Member of prog elite is optimistic about prospects of pros prevailing.
"Aren't they the ones stoking this ideological division?"
Well, yes. But just from one side. Who on the right is "stoking ideological division" with regard to race? Of course, the left calls Trump's call for the wall racist--but what has he actually done or said that is racist, that "stokes division," regardless of the gratuitous lefty smears?
"But I think the elites are choosing to manipulate people with racial ideas"
But what righty elites are "manipulating people with racial ideas"? On the right, "people" have been resisting the "elites" that supposedly spoke for them.
"Why would they heal?"
Healing is another word for grabbing power.
"Obama didn't take his fantastic opportunity to heal."
He didn't and he did. If by healing we mean increasing the likelihood of prog power, divisions were stoked under O for the purpose of healing.
"Now, there was some high level hope in the elite..."
An oddly passive phrase, "there was." I wonder why. Of course, speaking as a cynical conservative, I never had such hope, and I wasn't disappointed.
The problem with this analysis is that the elites' ideas are really great...for elites. They're terrible for most of the rest of the population. This has generally been true in history, but American elites at least used to have some sense of noblesse oblige. That concept is pretty much nonexistent in modern American culture, where decadence, self-indulgence, and self-enrichment at the expense of any other consideration are the ethos that rule the day.
George H.W. Bush seems to be the last noblesse oblige Presidents.
LOL. Spellcheck turned "noblesse" into "jobless"
I'm not happy with the tariff wars chaos.
I am, because based on everything I have seen, we are very likely to win. Articles discussing the tariff wars generally fall into two groups. One group takes the position that “all trade wars are bad” (make that baaaaadddd) and no one ever wins. A more sober group of analyses concludes that the US has little to lose and holds a very strong hand. The latter group of analyses may turn out to be wrong, but at least they appear to have a stronger analytical basis. And when you’re losing, as our lopsided trade deficits suggest, then you have to do something to fix the status quo.
Another reason to think we are winning, of likely to win, is the dishonesty of those who argue against Trump’s actions. Telling us how many farms went bankrupt, allegedly as a consequence of the tariffs, tells us nothing without data about the average annual number of farm bankruptcies during the eight years of Obama’s administration.
Old traditions die hard. It arguably was never about race. Malcolm X in his The Ballot or the Bullet speech contains the following amazing paragraph:
"Right now, in this country, if you and I, 22 million African-Americans -- that's what we are -- Africans who are in America. You're nothing but Africans. Nothing but Africans. In fact, you'd get farther calling yourself African instead of Negro. Africans don't catch hell. You're the only one catching hell. They don't have to pass civil-rights bills for Africans. An African can go anywhere he wants right now. All you've got to do is tie your head up. That's right, go anywhere you want. Just stop being a Negro. Change your name to Hoogagagooba. That'll show you how silly the white man is. You're dealing with a silly man. A friend of mine who's very dark put a turban on his head and went into a restaurant in Atlanta before they called themselves desegregated. He went into a white restaurant, he sat down, they served him, and he said, "What would happen if a Negro came in here? And there he's sitting, black as night, but because he had his head wrapped up the waitress looked back at him and says, "Why, there wouldn't no nigger dare come in here."
He seems to hint at the possibility of the acceptance of Obama who is not an up from US slavery African American but an African (with a white mother at that.)
Can a nation be racist if peope of the same race but different culture are treated differently. Maybe we just are culture bigots.
"The elites could heal the racial divide, such as it is, by stopping their near constant talking about and blaming of it."
Shorter stevew: The elites could heal the racial divide, such as it is, by going away.
I heartily concur. They are, after all, the class whose answer to problems caused by government interference is always Moar Government Interference.
Holy cow. The United Nations is a "better idea"? Someone is seriously advancing this thesis??
The UN embroiled in any number of sex-crime controversies among its "peace-keeping" forces?
The UN who puts out "peace-keeping" forces in the first place?
The UN who keeps appointing the worst-offender nations to its various human-rights and womens-rights councils?
THAT UN?
the complaint against the right. is very much 'what a wicked animal, when attacked it defends itself (or at least notices) now the structure of the political right, has ceded the culture over to the left, which as mark steyn points out, is a very dangerous thing,
"The elites are thriving in the wounds." And exacerbating them.{
"I'm not happy with the tariff wars chaos."
Other than a few thousand American steel workers, I doubt many of us like it. It has cost my company millions of dollars, becuase while the cost of my raw materials have gone up 25%, the Chinese knockoffs of my products have not. This has cost me personally a small fortune, but I still support the sanctions and the costs to me as the price of warfare with a hostile nation, which China is. I desperately want it to be over, and wish it was never necessary, but it is, and it's better than a shooting war, or losing our intellectual lead through bad trade deals. We were on track to one or the other before a man with some balls took the helm. Maybe he's just crazy. I hope the Chinese believe one or the other. I really want this over, but we must win our way back to a sane relationship with China, or they will steal us into weakness and retreat.
SDaly@2:09: I truly fail to see what transgenderism has to do with race.
Is Northwest Europe defined as the Protestant shores of the North and Baltic Seas?
The "army" pushing all this nonsense is the Democrat Party, the party of the ruling class. Divide and conquer.
The Party staffs the federal bureaucracy, controls the K-12 schools through its teachers unions, controls universities and foundations due to the Gramscian long march through the institutions and dominates mass media and Hollywood. The truly big bourgeoisie are mostly leftists and use their tech platforms to push left-wing agendas.
The Democrats: slavery, sedition, segregation and national socialism; racist and genderist and whatever else may divide the people; fascist elitism and crony capitalism.
Trump is the populist on the right, using the Republican Party. Sanders is the populist on the left, using the Democrats, who are hell-bent in a handbasket to get there anyway.
Down with the fascists! Free markets and free people!
The NY Times is one of the country's most divisive forces for evil. And it is a YUGE race hustler too. Nothing good or accurate can come from the NY Times though you find it informative for some odd reason.
Liberal whites — not minorities — are setting the tone on these issues.
This is not true as the Muslim blaming Chelsea Clinton for Christchurch showed us just the other day. The distinction is between leftist political activists and others. Politically active people are not acting on behalf of minorities as they claim but this is just as true of minority activists as white activists.
"I hope the Chinese believe one or the other."
If they don't believe that he's a brilliant deal maker with large testicles, and they also don't believe that he's a victim of severe mental illness, what would be the alternative assessments that they'd make? Lots of folks, such as his SOS who worked closely w/ him, see him as an F-ing moron. His fixer who worked closely as a trusted employee went w/ a 'conman/liar/racist' sorta thing-y.
Yes, it would be good for America if the Chinese believed that DJT is not these sorta things that folks who worked closely with him say he is. Also, hopefully they won't notice that he's being jerked around by that fat kid who likes Dennis. And, it's best if they didn't see Nancy smack him around w/ her (power of the) purse.
It'd also be good if Ferraris grew on trees.
"This is not true as the Muslim blaming Chelsea Clinton for Christchurch showed us just the other day. "
That Muslim girl got Chelsea to back down mainly because it is implicit that she potentially had a horde of white people behind her, and ultimately huge pots of white money. And Chelsea knew that. Ethnic activists have very little power on their own, even if they have some pull within their communities, which they often don't.
@Milwaukie guy:
Is Northwest Europe defined as the Protestant shores of the North and Baltic Seas?
Essentially. Basically the countries in which West Germanic and North Germanic languages are predominantly spoken, so basically Iceland, Ireland, UK, Netherlands, German, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.
Per SDaly: When people are forced to choose, and they will be, a lot of the nice neighbors and family members will be left on different sides of the line.
Not in my family, they won't. Why should biracial or triracial people be 'forced to choose'?
I agree the issue is a difference of ideology. Only I wouldn't call those driving the agenda 'white liberals.' They are not liberal at all. I call them 'white people who hate white people who don't hate white people.'
I agree, too, on the silliness of hoping that 'elites' will magically heal divisions. The elites in media especially are stoking the ideological divisions and benefiting from the conflict. Lots of page views for race stories.
daskol said...
Nationalism is beneficent tribalism that calls people of all races together I’m America. It is anathema to our elites.
Right, we used to share our Americanness. But the left preferred patriotism be delegitimized because they knew it was the path to power.
Seeing as Northam is one of the elites I find it hard to have faith in him. For some reason.
About the last sentence: Maggots thrive in wounds.
Nothing good or accurate can come from the NY Times though you find it informative for some odd reason.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not
fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself
but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also
suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself,
you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu
mockturtle,
"Not in my family, they won't. Why should biracial or triracial people be 'forced to choose'?"
Of course they will have to choose, but I think you misunderstand how things will go.
When identity politics gets into full swing, you won't have the option of sitting out because if you don't make a choice, the outside world will make one for you. I once heard Carl Wilkins, "the last American in Rwanda", speak about his experience there. When things started to get serious there, and people started demanding to know Are You Hutu Or Tutsi, you very much had to choose. He recounted the story of a girl in high school asking her teacher, "Well, what am I?" because up to that point, nobody cared that much. But then, unexpectedly, even somewhat suddenly, they did.
Something similar is happening in South Sudan with the recent troubles: young people are giving up on the traditional scarification, because the typical designs are very much indicative of what clan you belong to, and so they decrease your chance of "passing" if you need to.
We are possibly heading for some very perilous times.
Post a Comment