Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I kind of wonder what the country would look like if we let the south go.



I mean, if there were one, wouldn't someone have pursued it in the last fifty years?

Probably not? Who was going to sign these policies: Nixon or Raygun or Dubya? In the last 48 years, there's been Democrat control of the White House and Congress for eight years and only two of those years were the Democrats almost entirely anti-racist (2009-2010).

 

[Teggy]

What does that mean in policy terms? Also, isn't that what we have been trying to do and failing with? As Y2kev's article earlier argued, the problem is that there's a psychological resistance to talk when it comes from certain positions. Is just talking going to be sufficient? Surely that talk needs to talk place in a certain context before it will be acknowledged? A stable, secure environment?

I really don't know - I think the big problem is that all of this is rooted in the fact that one groups ancestors were slaves to the others. It's not really something you're going to solve with policy so much as culture unless you are willing to do something crazy like create government sponsored developments with preset racial minimums.

Promoting more mixing is going to come from the people. IMHO the best thing the government can be doing is making sure that everyone has access to the same level of education and infrastructure (Internet, utilities, recreation facilities, etc.)

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'd agree with that, sure.

I would argue that poorer whites have the tendency to be more economically liberal and more socially conservative. Bernie's campaign was, consistently, about economical liberalism. He only made racial issues part of his campaign when he was forced to, and he never spoke about them in the same way that Hillary did. This was never an issue where he appeared to be insanely comfortable speaking about.

So, while Bernie was pushing more liberal economic policies, I think his lack of specificity (and lack of integration of) liberal social policies helped him among working class whites. That helps to explain why he won the people who wanted the nominee to be more conservative than Obama.

So given that we seem to have agreed that education and providing jobs for post-industrial America is likely to have at least some positive impact on racism, as per:

We continue to push education, training and rebuilding the economy. We work to transition people from the jobs that aren't coming back to the jobs of the future.

and we agree that the more these social programmes are talked about in the context of minorities as you mention above, shouldn't the best way of alleviating racism be to campaign approximately on Sanders' position? I'm not talking about his rhetoric or campaign staff or tone or even policy detail necessarily; but rather the raison d'etre of his run.

 

[User 463088]

I mean, we can't give them what they want.

They want the old economy back. Sorry. You can't have that.
They want to continue to be the majority indefinitely. You can't have that either.
They want to stop globalization. You can't have that.
They want to stop TEH GAY. We're not going back in the closet.
They are terrified of becoming the oppressed after being the oppressor.

There are certain things we just can't give them. What we can do is make a more equal country. If that means that straight, white men lose some of the institutional power they have used like a weapon for decades...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I really don't know - I think the big problem is that all of this is rooted in the fact that one groups ancestors were slaves to the others. It's not really something you're going to solve with policy so much as culture unless you are willing to do something crazy like create government sponsored developments with preset racial minimums.

Promoting more mixing is going to come from the people. IMHO the best thing the government can be doing is making sure that everyone has access to the same level of education and infrastructure (Internet, utilities, recreation facilities, etc.)

But policy very definitely impacts culture, right? The two aren't independent. For example, you could achieve more racial mixing and a reduction in housing segregation by increasing federal housing assistance.

I agree with the latter part of your post; I just think it's a small element of the necessary conditions that the government can actively work towards.

 

[mo60]

I don't know if this was posted here before but it looks the FBI stated recently that there is not enough evidence to support criminal charges against Hilary Clinton right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/clinton-server-drone-fbi/index.html

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That wasn't actually a response to my question, adam, although I appreciated the .gif.

 

[User 463088]

So given that we seem to have agreed that education and providing jobs for post-industrial America is likely to have at least some positive impact on racism, as per:



and we agree that the more these social programmes are talked about in the context of minorities as you mention above, shouldn't the best way of alleviating racism be to campaign approximately on Sanders' position? I'm not talking about his rhetoric or campaign staff or tone or even policy detail necessarily; but rather the raison d'etre of his run.

That is what we're running on. But we are not and cannot run at the exclusion of everything else. Hillary and Bernie agree about this. We need an economy that works. We need to decrease income inequality. There's no daylight between the two candidates on that.

My argument is Bernie was successful because he only focused on that issue to the exclusion of the other ones. Everything else was secondary or framed only in context of income issues. We shouldn't do that as a party, because the way to build a coalition is not through working class whites.

We push policies that help everyone get ahead. Even if the working class whites don't like them, they'll either take advantage of them or be left behind. We cannot force people to not be racist assholes. We can (and should) marginalize the racists until they're forced to not be assholes.

 

[Abinash117]

I said it before, but low-income white Americans are different then low-income blacks. They are different culturally, ideological wise, and have different experiences. Being poor doesn't mean they vote Democratic.

I assume white working-class people believe firmly in putting in work, receiving any handouts basically is cheapening hard work. They believe that supporting businessmen will lead them into having better lives and that these people know what they are doing because they think that these businessmen worked to the top and got to where they are right now. Sooner or later the wealth will eventually come down to help them. Anything that is seen as giving an easy way out is a no go. That is why they most likely don't support welfare programs because it would be helping the minorities whom are perceived as lazy and they don't work hard for it. Stuff like social security isn't really welfare, but something they got for working hard. Plus, I think a quite a few are socially conservative, but aren't passionate about it in some cases and conservatism as some deference to successfully people and certain authorities.


Additionally, many white working class people probably had good manufacturing jobs awhile back and those times where the glory days of the country with the Great Recession I guess to many it got worse now. Now they are seeking a successfully person to lead them out. Trump has the perception of not being the typical politician that lead them bullshit that got them no where( Tea Party and 2014). He is seen a winner and the no bullshit person that can get things done. He can say what he wants as long as he can lead back to the glory days then things will get better. The Republican Party always feed them bullshit like making Obama out to be the antichrist when the Republican Party failed to stop them they went against the establishment. The Republican Party is a fiscal conservative party as such, it will support policies that will benefit businesses and a say a lot of that is were you get the worship and deep connections of businesses in the party

Supporting Democrats or Hillary Clinton is supporting how are things now and practices that in what they think mainly helps out minorities or others that aren't them. It could just be simply an ideology level - believing in some aspects of fiscal conservatism, but not all like free trade.

I do not think it is simply for racist reasons, but it plays a part.

 

[User 463088]

That wasn't actually a response to my question, adam, although I appreciated the .gif.

That was posted before I saw your response, btw. Check the time stamps brah.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That is what we're running on. But we are not and cannot run at the exclusion of everything else. Hillary and Bernie agree about this. We need an economy that works. We need to decrease income inequality. There's no daylight between the two candidates on that.

My argument is Bernie was successful because he only focused on that issue to the exclusion of the other ones. Everything else was secondary or framed only in context of income issues. We shouldn't do that as a party, because the way to build a coalition is not through working class whites.

But with respect, that's not really how it works, right? I mean, in order to have the largest amount of votes and political capital to achieve reform on these issues (minority issues), you need the largest possible coalition, right? And minority America isn't going to vote Republican regardless; not with Trump. They're already in the coalition. Campaigning on those issues is redundant (note: not at all the same as saying those issues themselves are redundant; they're not, they're immensely important). In fact, they're worse than redundant: they're actively damaging the ability of the Democrats to compete for a demographic that, historically, they used to dominate. Sanders' GE coalition looks/looked wider than Clinton's; he consistently performed better against Trump in polling than she did. Some of this might be due to Sanders' voters misleading pollsters, but /r/s4p is not representative of Sanders supporters and I don't think most Sanders supporters think that way. Is it not plausible to suppose that Sanders' campaign ethos was genuinely the better way to build a wide coalition, capable of maximizing the amount of available votes for minority reform (again, not necessarily Sanders' campaign itself, given whatever weaknesses you might think he have in terms of policy specifics or skeletons in the closet, but rather, the rough political positioning of the campaign)?

 

[shinra-bansho]

So in the Upshot's fun

Spoiler

for nerds

data visualisation.

2004 -> 2012, turnout/voted Dem
All men: 61%/44% -> 56%/46%
All white men: 64%/39% -> 59%/36%

Men, no HS: 36%/56% -> 33%/60%
White men, no HS: 37%/47% -> 31%/40%

Young men (<29): 44%/46% -> 39%/54%
Young white men: 48%/38% -> 40%/41%

----

Make America Great Again resonates because it's code. I'm actually quite glad Clinton called this out specifically in her nomination speech. These people view increased opportunity for others as coming at their expense, even if empirically there's a lot of support already towards poor whites.

(Brown) immigrants take their jobs.
Black people getting healthcare means less dollars spent on them, or worse, it's dollars coming from their taxes.
A woman in office means less men in office.

"When gays get married, it ruins it for the rest of us."

They want to "make America great again," by returning to the days of yore when they held a position of superiority.

And ultimately, it leaves me begging the question: these people don't want to share the tent with the blacks and the Mexicans and the gays and the trans. So why exactly should there be so much effort to bring them it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That was posted before I saw your response, btw. Check the time stamps brah.

That's fair, my apologies.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And ultimately, it leaves me begging the question: these people don't want to share the tent with the blacks and the Mexicans and the gays and the trans. So why exactly should there be so much effort to bring them it.

I'm actually kind of worried by this sentiment. Firstly, many of these people are not well off. If you don't have a high-school diploma, you face an 8% unemployment rate, much higher than the American average. You're obviously materially worse-off; you have a low-income. You have less ability to provide for your kids; you're more easily exploited by big companies; you face all of the health problems associated with low-income due to poor diet and stress so you die younger. You feel alienated by your country which can create a huge sense of social anomie and abandonment. You face a higher chance of mental health problems.

These are people in need, some quite desperately so. They're not intrinsically racist; I think we can all agree on that. At some point, they've been failed very badly by society; racism is them lashing out at this failure. They don't feel like they've benefited from racism, not when they're living in states that don't see jobs.

Bringing these people into the tent doesn't mean accepting racism. That would be morally abhorrent. Bringing these people into the tent means trying to address the causes of racism. So that gives us two strong reasons to want to do this: firstly, these are often people in genuine need, but secondly by doing so we can help other people in need (minorities) by undermining the societal racism that so badly affects their lives.

The fact that the supposedly leftist American party has little concern for the economically disadvantaged because that economic disadvantage has lead them to extreme views is worrying. At the end of the day, they'll still hold those views because you haven't done anything about it.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump never talks about immigrants taking jobs, he just rants about crime in the safest period in American history.

Economic disadvantage has not led to extreme views.

 

[Zornack]

Sanders needs to reign in his surrogates.

 

[royalan]

I mean, we can't give them what they want.

They want the old economy back. Sorry. You can't have that.
They want to continue to be the majority indefinitely. You can't have that either.
They want to stop globalization. You can't have that.
They want to stop TEH GAY. We're not going back in the closet.
They are terrified of becoming the oppressed after being the oppressor.

There are certain things we just can't give them. What we can do is make a more equal country. If that means that straight, white men lose some of the institutional power they have used like a weapon for decades...

Amen.


I know I've had it...officially.

 

[Abinash117]

So in the Upshot's fun

Spoiler

for nerds

data visualisation.

2004 -> 2012, turnout/voted Dem
All men: 61%/44% -> 56%/46%
All white men: 64%/39% -> 59%/36%

Men, no HS: 36%/56% -> 33%/60%
White men, no HS: 37%/47% -> 31%/40%

Young men (<29): 44%/46% -> 39%/54%
Young white men: 48%/38% -> 40%/41%

----

Make America Great Again resonates because it's code. I'm actually quite glad Clinton called this out specifically in her nomination speech. These people view increased opportunity for others as coming at their expense, even if empirically there's a lot of support already towards poor whites.

(Brown) immigrants take their jobs.
Black people getting healthcare means less dollars spent on them, or worse, it's dollars coming from their taxes.
A woman in office means less men in office.

"When gays get married, it ruins it for the rest of us."

They want to "make America great again," by returning to the days of yore when they held a position of superiority.

And ultimately, it leaves me begging the question: these people don't want to share the tent with the blacks and the Mexicans and the gays and the trans. So why exactly should there be so much effort to bring them it.

I don't think it is that simply, a lot of this stuff is down to perception and decreasing living standards. Blacks and Mexicans are just easy targets Republicans use because they know that those groups don't vote for them anyway. The only why that Democrats can effectively convince these folks is by pretty much dominating the government including the presidency and by improving their lives. After that no reason to rock the boat.

 

[User 463088]

But with respect, that's not really how it works, right? I mean, in order to have the largest amount of votes and political capital to achieve reform on these issues (minority issues), you need the largest possible coalition, right? And minority America isn't going to vote Republican regardless; not with Trump. They're already in the coalition. Campaigning on those issues is redundant (note: not at all the same as saying those issues themselves are redundant; they're not, they're immensely important). In fact, they're worse than redundant: they're actively damaging the ability of the Democrats to compete for a demographic that, historically, they used to dominate. Sanders' GE coalition looks/looked wider than Clinton's; he consistently performed better against Trump in polling than she did. Some of this might be due to Sanders' voters misleading pollsters, but /r/s4p is not representative of Sanders supporters and I don't think most Sanders supporters think that way. Is it not plausible to suppose that Sanders' campaign ethos was genuinely the better way to build a wide coalition, capable of maximizing the amount of available votes for minority reform (again, not necessarily Sanders' campaign itself, given whatever weaknesses you might think he have in terms of policy specifics or skeletons in the closet, but rather, the rough political positioning of the campaign)?

Well, I don't much care what his fictional coalition would have looked like, to be honest. He'd have lost a fuck ton of working class white support once he was hit with the red scare. His coalition in the primaries was predominately white, predominately male and very young.

I do not believe you can equate his GE polling to be based on his fictitious wider coalition. It's entirely based on the fact that he hasn't had a single negative thing said or run against him in the primaries.

You're giving him this great credit for getting white voters (something Hillary did in 2008) and ignoring the fact that is coalition was NOT wide or deep. It was white, sure, but that's it. To assume that all of Hillary's factions would have immediately fallen in line after a total repudiation of Bernie throughout the campaign is completely, in my opinion, taking the political and ideological positions of her coalition for granted.

 

[shinra-bansho]

NB, I'm not saying don't pursue policies that will benefit everyone who isn't well off and will benefit these people. I'm saying that specifically trying to get these people to vote Democratic isn't necessarily going to be fruitful.

They're not voting Democrat. But they don't need to.
The President is meant to be the President for everyone in the US, regardless of whether they voted for you.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Trump never talks about immigrants taking jobs, he just rants about crime in the safest period in American history.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...icans_are_taking_our_jobs_and_killing_us.html

I love the Mexican people … I respect Mexico … but the problem we have is that their leaders are much sharper, smarter and more cunning than our leaders, and they’re killing us at the border. They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...icans_are_taking_our_jobs_and_killing_us.html

That's clearly about outsourcing jobs to Mexico.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well, I don't much care what his fictional coalition would have looked like, to be honest. He'd have lost a fuck ton of working class white support once he was hit with the red scare. His coalition in the primaries was predominately white, predominately male, and was centered around places we don't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

Again, I'm not talking about Sanders specifically; ignore the red scare stuff and think about a hypothetical Democrat who ran on the "economic inequality first and foremist"m position. What I'm saying is that a Democrat candidate who brings in whites and males in this way while retaining women and minorities is a winning candidate, and a big-winning candidate. That's great for minorities.

You're giving him this great credit for getting white voters (something Hillary did in 2008) and ignoring the fact that is coalition was NOT wide or deep. It was white, sure, but that's it. To assume that all of Hillary's factions would have immediately fallen in line after a total repudiation of Bernie throughout the campaign is completely, in my opinion, taking the political and ideological positions of her coalition for granted.

I don't think they'd immediately have fallen in line. I mean, alternate timeline Clinton who got beat by Ms. Hypothetical Democrat would have had to patch things up in the same way this timeline's Sanders will. What I am saying is that Clinton doesn't seem to reach much beyond the Democratic base, and assuming the Democratic base will vote Democrat isn't really taking that much for granted; that's sort of the definition of Democratic base.

 

[kadotsu]

I like the pivot from heritage racism to border racism. The classics are always the best.

 

[Clefargle]

What more can we do? We talk, we introduce bills, we try and change the law to help them, and in return the racists spit in our faces. We have tried everything, and they continue to do the same bullshit over and over again. That shit is tiring. Every effort we try to do to help them is immediately met with resistance. When we try and have a serious conversation about the way minorities are treated by the justice system it's immediately met with skepticism. Shit one of the major political parties in the U.S has been actively stoking the fires and courting racists for 40+ years. At this point it's become clear to me there is nothing we can realistically do about racism in the U.S. The only thing that is going to change it is time. When the U.S. becomes a minority majority, and their votes become irrelevant then and only then we might be able to make a real dent.

We shut them out, make them politically irrelevant and force their shitty opinions out of policy. Yes it will take time, but that doesn't mean we can't do anything.

 

[Mecha]

Since there has been talk about the Green Party on GAF this election season:

The Green Party voted 68 to 19 in favor of basically becoming a communalist party.

Here's the text of the proposal.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Since there has been talk about the Green Party on GAF this election season:

The Green Party voted 68 to 19 in favor of basically becoming a communalist party.

Here's the text of the proposal.

The Green Party seeks to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the state-socialist system that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices.

Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system Òecological socialism,Ó Òcommunalism,Ó or the Òcooperative commonwealth,Ó but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making.

Production is best for people and planet when democratically owned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community empowerment will ensure that decisions that greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Small, democratically run enterprises, when embedded in and accountable to our communities, will make more ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic, diverse ownership of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.

 

[dramatis]

You think Trump is genuinely in the best interests of low-income, white America?

Think about it this way: in the eyes of the voters who carried Trump to victory in the Republican primary, he is representative of what they believe is their best interest.

Like I said, it is arrogant to presume for others what their best interests are. You can offer an argument, a discussion, or a persuasion, but do not assume you have superior knowledge of what the 'best interests' of other people are. The electorate can sense that attitude and vote accordingly.

 

[B-Dubs]

Since there has been talk about the Green Party on GAF this election season:

The Green Party voted 68 to 19 in favor of basically becoming a communalist party.

Here's the text of the proposal.

Were they drunk at the time? This reads like they were drunk at the time or voting on, and at the time of writing, this proposal.

 

[Abinash117]

.



I don't think they'd immediately have fallen in line. I mean, alternate timeline Clinton who got beat by Ms. Hypothetical Democrat would have had to patch things up in the same way this timeline's Sanders will. What I am saying is that Clinton doesn't seem to reach much beyond the Democratic base, and assuming the Democratic base will vote Democrat isn't really taking that much for granted; that's sort of the definition of Democratic base.

Hillary has been trying to expand her base outside of Democratic base or leaners. She will be mostly targeting some GOP women as they probably be easy to because of Trump.

 

[User 463088]

Again, I'm not talking about Sanders specifically; ignore the red scare stuff and think about a hypothetical Democrat who ran on the "economic inequality first and foremist"m position. What I'm saying is that a Democrat candidate who brings in whites and males in this way while retaining women and minorities is a winning candidate, and a big-winning candidate. That's great for minorities.



I don't think they'd immediately have fallen in line. I mean, alternate timeline Clinton who got beat by Ms. Hypothetical Democrat would have had to patch things up in the same way this timeline's Sanders will. What I am saying is that Clinton doesn't seem to reach much beyond the Democratic base, and assuming the Democratic base will vote Democrat isn't really taking that much for granted; that's sort of the definition of Democratic base.

You're arguing for a perfect candidate. Of course a perfect candidate that is everything to everyone will win. I'm arguing that the only way you're going to get a significant portion of that white, working class coalition together is by ignoring most liberal stances on social issues. No candidate, no matter how wonderful on helping out the white man economically, is going to get an evangelical to vote with his pocketbook, when we're, as a party, allowing the gays to get married and women have abortions. No economic policy is going to make the unemployed white person not hate "Mexicans" for taking his job.

Because of the stances we have as a party on race, gender and sexuality are often opposed by the coalition you're trying to woo, one of two things has to happen. We either have to change our stance (not going to happen) or they have to change their minds. We cannot force people to be less racist. We cannot force people to be less homophobic. We cannot force religious peoples to change their minds on social issues. All we can do is continue to promote the policies that make us more equal. Either they will change their minds, or they will continue to become less and less relevant.

And Hillary's coalition is the winning one. Not Bernie's. Not Trump's.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I mean this basically seems kind of fanciful. The hypothetical Republican who can bring in African Americans and Hispanics while retaining the white base, and evangelicals, and confederate gun nuts, and whatever else makes up the generic GOP coalition, would be big winning too.

The reason they can't is because there are certain priorities that are off putting to black voters. And the same applies to why the Democratic coalition isn't conducive to many of these people.

Unless the suggestion is to essentially throw everything that currently creates the Democratic coalition under the bus, that these people find off-putting, in terms of priorities. Like ensuring reproductive rights. Or civil liberties.

Putting economic inequality front and centre isn't going to suddenly make the Trump voter go Democratic.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, FWIW B-Dubs, I do actually think this is also a very relevant question for a lot of European countries. Marine le Pen and Trump are not especially dissimilar. If you can read German, the AfD's policy manifesto could more or less be swapped from Trump's: https://www.alternativefuer.de/wp-c.../2016/03/Leitantrag-Grundsatzprogramm-AfD.pdf I just think America is a particularly interesting and important example, because a) out of all Western nations, America's far right party (and I don't think that's an understatement of Trumpism) is the most successful bar perhaps Austria, and b) America's political currents effect everyone else.

 

[Mecha]

Were they drunk at the time? This reads like they were drunk at the time or voting on, and at the time of writing, this proposal.

I'm not sure how they plan on enacting these reforms, a plan would be interesting to look at.

 

[User 463088]

I mean this basically seems kind of fanciful. The hypothetical Republican who can bring in African Americans and Hispanics while retaining the white base, and evangelicals, and confederate gun nuts, and whatever else makes up the generic GOP coalition, would be big winning too.

The reason they can't is because there are certain priorities that are off putting to black voters. And the same applies to why the Democratic coalition isn't conducive to many of these people.

Unless the suggestion is to essentially throw everything that currently creates the Democratic coalition under the bus, that these people find off-putting, in terms of priorities. Like ensuring reproductive rights. Or civil liberties.

Putting economic inequality front and centre isn't going to suddenly make the Trump voter go Democratic.

Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Think about it this way: in the eyes of the voters who carried Trump to victory in the Republican primary, he is representative of what they believe is their best interest.

Like I said, it is arrogant to presume for others what their best interests are. You can offer an argument, a discussion, or a persuasion, but do not assume you have superior knowledge of what the 'best interests' of other people are. The electorate can sense that attitude and vote accordingly.

Bluntly put, I think you're completely and totally wrong. People are often wrong about their own welfare. I mean, you're right that condescension is a deterrent, but that's several worlds away from implying that people are always and necessarily the best judges of their own welfare (though they often are). What we do desire is very certainly not what we should desire, or even *would* desire under different conditions.

 

[B-Dubs]

Also, FWIW B-Dubs, I do actually think this is also a very relevant question for a lot of European countries. Marine le Pen and Trump are not especially dissimilar. If you can read German, the AfD's policy manifesto could more or less be swapped from Trump's: https://www.alternativefuer.de/wp-c.../2016/03/Leitantrag-Grundsatzprogramm-AfD.pdf I just think America is a particularly interesting and important example, because a) out of all Western nations, America's far right party (and I don't think that's an understatement of Trumpism) is the most successful bar perhaps Austria, and b) America's political currents effect everyone else.

This is literally all I wanted you to acknowledge. It's not only the Germans either.

Part of the reason the GOP does so well is the timeline of American institutional racism and the two-party system.

I'm not sure how they plan on enacting these reforms, a plan would be interesting to look at.

I assume whatever plan they'd manage to cobble together would read like the fever dream of an amnesiac heroin addict.

 

[ampere]

RE: racism in the US vs other countries

This chart shows the percentage of people in each country that say "they would not want people of another race as neighbors"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

Obviously this isn't a gold standard or perfect, but it's some form of data and it doesn't suggest that the US is more racist on average, but less. Do we have more issues with gun violence? Yes, but that's a problem with our gun laws in addition to a problem with racism.

A professor responded to the article and showed some more specific data in Romania that indicated that as the questions get more intimate (live near, work with, be friends with, be part of your family. etc) people tend to be less accepting. So of course this image above shouldn't be interpreted as 95% of Americans being fine with interracial marriage

That survey of Romania

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I mean, economic inequality hadn't started to increase by 1980 and then white Americans still voted for a massive racist who was heavily pro-business also.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That map goes round the internet a lot and sadly it's based on faulty data; see:

http://sites.tufts.edu/inclusivecommerceblog/2013/05/16/surveys-gone-bad-when-yes-means-no/

 

[Spoiled Milk]

IWannaBe is the most reductionist poster on all of PoliGAF and I am happy I put him on my ignore list.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean this basically seems kind of fanciful. The hypothetical Republican who can bring in African Americans and Hispanics while retaining the white base, and evangelicals, and confederate gun nuts, and whatever else makes up the generic GOP coalition, would be big winning too.

The reason they can't is because there are certain priorities that are off putting to black voters. And the same applies to why the Democratic coalition isn't conducive to many of these people.

Unless the suggestion is to essentially throw everything that currently creates the Democratic coalition under the bus, that these people find off-putting, in terms of priorities. Like ensuring reproductive rights. Or civil liberties.

Putting economic inequality front and centre isn't going to suddenly make the Trump voter go Democratic.

I mean, I'd put reasonably good money on a Democratic candidate who literally ran almost no material on civil liberties and focused just on economic inequality in their campaign doing *much* better than one who focused on civil liberties, ceteris paribus. It's not suddenly going to make every Trump voter go Democratic, but it'll get more than the comparative.

If you're black, you're probably not voting Republican. So you either vote Democrat, or don't vote. If you're post-industrial working class, you might vote either way. Every vote won off Trump is worth twice as much as a vote prevented from not voting, because not only have you got an extra vote for you, you've reduced your opponent's vote by one as well. That's basic electoral competition stuff.

 

[johnsmith]

Were they drunk at the time? This reads like they were drunk at the time or voting on, and at the time of writing, this proposal.

It's the Green Party they were obviously high. On marijuana.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I think you're on the right path, really.

We continue to push education, training and rebuilding the economy. We work to transition people from the jobs that aren't coming back to the jobs of the future. If certain working class whites get pissed that the benefits also go to the icky brown people, that's their issue. We are not on the losing side of this argument morally, intellectually or demographically.

But education is still mostly related to property taxes, a local issue. Georgia, decent state, ranks low on rankings for education. Good colleges, terrible public school system.

How do you push education for a group of people not interested?

 

[Oblivion]

I don't know if this was posted here before but it looks the FBI stated recently that there is not enough evidence to support criminal charges against Hilary Clinton right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/clinton-server-drone-fbi/index.html

Updated a classic gif for the new age.

 

[royalan]

Actually, if there is one thing I will credit Donald Trump with, it's with making me question the importance of the "evangelical voter" as a voting block worth granting individual importance.

I mean, Trump is an unrepentant sinner who pronounced "Second Corinthians" as "Two Corinthians." As someone within an extremely religious background (as in, spent several years on a religious commune religious) Trump's attempts to appeal to the evangelical vote is when his pandering is at its most obvious and offensive.

And yet, he won evangelical voters over the actual evangelical in a landslide.

Really just confirmed for me that "evangelical voter" is just code for "racist/sexist/homophobic voter." It's what I've always felt. Just appeal to that, and don't worry about quoting Jesus.

 

[Daniel B·]

You guys can sleep soundly tonight as an imminent lawsuit (YT video lhnk - skipped ahead to just before quoted section), hereby named The Retroactive Hurricane, will dispell all impropriety from the Democratic primary elections, and this fine nation will have the President it so needs, at this time in our history :

We're going to file a lawsuit [within days] and the lawsuit is going to demand that all of the exit polls, 24 exit polls, showing the fraud now be published, that they stop suppressing the evidence of crime. Secondly, we now have the guy who was investigating the fraud in the 2004 Ohio election. ... he has been investigating all of these primaries; we have indentified which precincts in this country, that fraud has occurred, and we will be going into court with a demand to inspect the ballots. We will digitally photograph the ballots, we can count um, we can do it publicly, everyone can observe or participate...
...
The fix is on; they've done it, they've stolen again, again, again, again, again, they're serial vote thieves, and we've got the evidence, we've got the know how, we've got the experts, we've got the mechanism of the courts that understand the problem, and we're going after it. We're gonna be filing a racketeering lawsuit, under the Ohio rackteering laws, the strongest in the country, and we can bring in every state...
...
I will represent to you as a lawyer; in my opinion Hillary Clinton has been used for the purpose of scuttling Bernie Sanders campaign for President.

She's been used, but they've been caught, it's obvious, it's just like Bernie Sanders when he talks about the system is rigged, the elections are rigged, the evidence is clear, everybody is gonna see it, and the game is over, Bernie has won, in fact, and he will win officially before the Republican convention.
...
We are suing the media as being complicit in the crime [applause]. They are acting as accessories after the fact. They are covering up evidence of criminal activity, it's a crime.

I too will be sleeping soundly, as they granted my wish, of a California exit poll, which will be published shortly.

 

[Piecake]

I don't agree that any given person is equally likely to be racist. I think people who are less educated, travel less, and interact less with people of color are more likely to be racist. So yeah, I think there's a correlation between racism and not having a college degree or being poor (and resenting people "takin ur jerb").

So you'd think the solution is just to educate everyone and get them to talk to some black people. I don't know if black people would agree or disagree that's the way to fix it though. I'd be interested to see what people think.

I think there was a study or a poll or something that came out this year that showed the most racist communities were those where there were no minorities.

edit: I think Buchanan basically made it acceptable in the party to be outwardly racist. His speech at the convention in particular damaged the Republican party severely. That party is angry and the climate worked. If it were Trump vs. Rubio vs. Cruz from the outset, Trump wouldn't have won. He benefitted from the damage the tea party did over the last six years, the divided field, and the republican elites being utterly incompetent.

If I remember correctly, I believe that there has been research done to show that an effective way to reduce prejudice is through communication and working together. However, that communication has to be among equals, that it be cooperative, and that their efforts be recognized.

Think there is an actual term for the idea, but I forget what it is.

 

[User 463088]

But education is still mostly related to property taxes, a local issue. Georgia, decent state, ranks low on rankings for education. Good colleges, terrible public school system.

How do you push education for a group of people not interested?

I agree we have to do something about public education. It's not working, and we need to fix it. Stat.

As to pushing people towards post secondary education, making it more affordable is a good first step. I feel like the job market itself is pushing people towards needing education. I would like to see an increase in funding for vocational and technical education.

 

[ampere]

That map goes round the internet a lot and sadly it's based on faulty data; see:

http://sites.tufts.edu/inclusivecommerceblog/2013/05/16/surveys-gone-bad-when-yes-means-no/

That's certainly believable, a few of those countries do look like outliers. Looks like those links are outdated, but that data is still viewable http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp

Is this implying that all of the data is bad, or just the crazy high outlier countries are off? That article only mentions Bangladesh, but I think the general point regarding the US not being particularly bad on a global scale may still apply. Of course this in no way means the US doesn't have a long way to go, with the point about more intimate relations obviously being less tolerated than "can someone live near me"

I'd like to see an accurate version of this data in map form, but I'm not sure I have the patience or scripting skills to gather it all from the WVS