|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's dangerous talk. It smacks of that 'de haut en bas' (looking down from a great height), that has added fuel to the attack by the right wing on the 'liberal elite'. We, who are intelligent, deprecate those who are not. Scary stuff.
Yes, let's just make sure that every child gets a gold star and is told how special they are and that they scored full marks on the test.
I am not interested in any talk that says one kind of person is always right and another kind is always wrong. Indeed, acknowledging the poor results of globalisation and free trade is not compatible with saying the elites are always right.
But neither am I interested in the constant talking down of expertise that says that "elites" never actually get to be damn well elite, that all opinions are legitimate now matter how divorced they are from facts, and that the inherent equal worth of human beings means we can never tell any of them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Funny thing about the "elite" coastal areas of the country - a whole lot of non-elite people choose to live here.
That is the thing about urban areas. Their inhabitants are fairly self-selecting and tend not to mind moving to get a better life. I spent much of my life in London and, to be honest, could not wait to get out of the sticks.
The sort of resentment that Trump drew on was based on areas, which was heavily dependent on one industry which shut down, or which was shedding jobs. Generations would have worked in that industry and there was an expectation that sons would follow their fathers. The question - why don't you move where the jobs are? would get you a long dissertation about people not wanting to move away from communities and extended families.
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Acknowledging the perceived problems with the establishment does not lead me to the conclusion that the only choice available was to buck the establishment, any more than I would conclude that, with no other treatment option for a nasty disease being offered, I ought to choose to kill the patient.
That's the thing though. Trump is offering another treatment. A risky one, for sure, but if the patient chooses to try it rather than accepting mediocre hospice care until their disease kills them then I find it hard to criticise them for that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But neither am I interested in the constant talking down of expertise that says that "elites" never actually get to be damn well elite, that all opinions are legitimate now matter how divorced they are from facts, and that the inherent equal worth of human beings means we can never tell any of them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
That's not what people are saying though (or at least, it's not what I'm saying). We're talking about people who are getting royally screwed over by the politics and policies of the elites. And the thing with that is, even if the elites are right in global or national terms, those people have the right to reject them because of it. They have the right to say "it's not working for me, so I want to try something different".
And they did.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And they did.
By electing someone who is deeply embedded in the 1% elite and who has spent a career screwing Americans out of money in order to become wealthy.
Stop me if you've heard this before: the poor protest against the political elite by electing a demagogue who stands against everything that would or could be done to relieve their pain.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Stop me if you've heard this before: the poor protest against the political elite by electing a demagogue who stands against everything that would or could be done to relieve their pain.
Not everything. He seems to be for protectionism, pulling out of overseas trade deals, and therefore shifting the economic scales such that it's more profitable for factories, mills, etc. to operate in the US rather than Mexico or China. If the factories come back, the jobs come back.
Sure, he may not follow through on that (a comment which could be made about any politician ever). But what was Clinton offering as an alternative?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not everything. He seems to be for protectionism, pulling out of overseas trade deals, and therefore shifting the economic scales such that it's more profitable for factories, mills, etc. to operate in the US rather than Mexico or China. If the factories come back, the jobs come back.
No, he says a load of crap about protectionism - which he probably can't actually deliver - but what he stands for is how he has run his life and his businesses over the last 40 years. Which, to be honest, has not been about employing highly paid, highly skilled Americans, it has been about getting the job for the least amount of money and the most amount of profit.
Even if he is right about protectionism, and I highly suspect he isn't and any trade barrier will have a knock-on effect which will further damage the US economy, he can't undo the public knowledge of his business behaviour. He hasn't held public office so we can't judge him on that, but we can judge him on how he conducted his private and business affairs, and that was by being an arse.
quote:
Sure, he may not follow through on that (a comment which could be made about any politician ever). But what was Clinton offering as an alternative?
Right, he might not follow through on his own dodgy ideas and might instead revert to being the oligarch that he's been up to now. No shit.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Earlier this year I happened to visit the upper left hand corner of Pennsylvania, a rectangular state. There is nothing there; it is heavily forested and the economy is sustained by tourism, fishing and hunting. The locals complained of how difficult it was, and how they wished there was some other industry, so that young people wouldn't move away. But when queried they didn't want heavy industry or manufacturing, which would call for the expansion of roads and rail. They didn't want the forests converted to factories. In fact they didn't want anything to change at all except for the infusion of a couple zillion dollars. Well, so would we all.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And they did.
By electing someone who is deeply embedded in the 1% elite and who has spent a career screwing Americans out of money in order to become wealthy.
Stop me if you've heard this before: the poor protest against the political elite by electing a demagogue who stands against everything that would or could be done to relieve their pain.
Except, as pointed out by this blog post, "the poor" voted for Clinton. This whole narrative of economic distress causing the masses of the disaffected to reject the establishment is very comforting until you start cruelly exposing it to facts. Non-white Americans are, if anything, much more likely to be living in economically disadvantageous conditions and yet overwhelming rejected Trump's supposed appeal to prosperity.
An alternative hypothesis (and one that manages to actually fit the known facts) is that Donald Trump ran a campaign explicitly appealing to white nationalism, and American whites were drawn to that message in a way they weren't drawn to Mitt Romney's winks-and-nods about the mooching 47% of the country, despite the fact that the American economy was actually in worse shape in 2012 than it is in 2016. At some point the knee-jerk, a priori rejection of racism as a motivator has to be re-examined.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Funny thing about the "elite" coastal areas of the country - a whole lot of non-elite people choose to live here.
That is the thing about urban areas. Their inhabitants are fairly self-selecting and tend not to mind moving to get a better life. I spent much of my life in London and, to be honest, could not wait to get out of the sticks.
...
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
This.
My husband cycled coast to coast USA this summer. The insular nature of some communities astounded him. If he went into cafes and gas stations (long hair, cycling gear) all conversation stopped while they stared at him like he'd dropped in from another planet.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sorry, others disagree.
Pew research says:
quote:
In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.
And
quote:
Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group. In 2012 and 2008, non-college whites also preferred the Republican over the Democratic candidate but by less one-sided margins (61%-36% and 58%-40%, respectively).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Thing is, it depends on the measure you're using. If you are using income, then it's the higher income brackets who voted for Trump. But, when you look at education it's those without college degrees.
So the conclusion has to be that Trump's support came from uneducated white males who were nevertheless earning relatively well[. IME of the UK, these tend to be the "self made men" who, also IME, worship their creator.
Make of that what you will.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that's dangerous talk. It smacks of that 'de haut en bas' (looking down from a great height), that has added fuel to the attack by the right wing on the 'liberal elite'. We, who are intelligent, deprecate those who are not. Scary stuff.
Yes, let's just make sure that every child gets a gold star and is told how special they are and that they scored full marks on the test.
I am not interested in any talk that says one kind of person is always right and another kind is always wrong. Indeed, acknowledging the poor results of globalisation and free trade is not compatible with saying the elites are always right.
But neither am I interested in the constant talking down of expertise that says that "elites" never actually get to be damn well elite, that all opinions are legitimate now matter how divorced they are from facts, and that the inherent equal worth of human beings means we can never tell any of them that they have no idea what they're talking about.
Is anyone actually saying that? I don't think I am. I just think that Amanda's quote is dangerous, esp. the phrase, 'the rest of us are in great danger of contagion'.
Whoah, there horsey. That's really asinine, and a classic projection. They are stupid, and what do you know, I might catch the virus. Well, no, that's a stupid thing to say.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except, as pointed out by this blog post, "the poor" voted for Clinton.
No, they didn't. That post says that "the poor" voted for Clinton by a ten-point margin, whereas everyone else was more or less equally divided. Which says that "poor" isn't the determining factor.
Which you know - it's the white poor that voted Trump - the black poor went almost exclusively for Clinton.
But I don't quite agree that this means that they are actively voting for racism and white pride. I think there's two things going on - Trump has his popularist appeal to protectionism, which sells well in small towns that have lost all economic activity, (but less well in the cities), and he has the nasty racist dog-whistle thing.
Poor black people tend to live in cities (and are more likely to blame their poverty on structural racism than China), recognize the dog-whistles and aren't voting for it.
Poor small-town and rural white people blame their poverty on foreign countries and immigrants stealing their jobs, and either don't notice or aren't as affected by the casual racism.
Are they responsible for voting for the racism? Sure - but I think it's more a case of not willing to stand against racism than being actively racist. Particularly when the targets of the racism are city-dwellers, who are a very different species from small-town and rural folks, regardless of race.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Sorry, others disagree.
Pew research says:
quote:
In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.
Actually others don't. College graduates may have backed Clinton by 9 points, but according to that Pew page white college graduates went for Trump by 4 points.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Poor small-town and rural white people blame their poverty on foreign countries and immigrants stealing their jobs, and either don't notice or aren't as affected by the casual racism.
Are they responsible for voting for the racism? Sure - but I think it's more a case of not willing to stand against racism than being actively racist. Particularly when the targets of the racism are city-dwellers, who are a very different species from small-town and rural folks, regardless of race.
Sorry, but how is blaming mostly non-white immigrants for "stealing their jobs" not racist? And how can these (again, mostly non-white) immigrants steal rural people's jobs if they're all in the cities?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually others don't. College graduates may have backed Clinton by 9 points, but according to that Pew page white college graduates went for Trump by 4 points.
I'm not following: there are more white voters than anyone else, right? And there are less graduates than non-graduates? And the states that pushed Trump to the win had a swing of white non-graduates?
Which part of that are you saying is wrong?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
Look, here's the sucky bit. You're opposing "open and mobile" (what are the others, closed?) to those who are bound to a community and family. You find the first group far preferable. Think about that for a moment.
You've just put most women in the second boat, because it is still women who bear most of the burden of caring for extended family members (and therefore cannot move away). And I don't see that reality changing any time soon. Sure, they could abandon Granddad, or dump their sister's kids while she's struggling to cope with end-stage cancer--but that would just place an even bigger burden on social services, wouldn't it? Which is hardly what we want. We need to make it possible for them to stay and at the same time make a living.
You've also put that burden on any two-career couple--or rather, on the one of them who feels obliged to stay geographically because the spouse has a career that can't be moved. Is it better that they should separate? My experience is that most couples who do in fact separate geographically end up divorcing. There are exceptions, of course. And it is hard on the children. Or should they not have children in the first place?
As long as people remain human, we will continue to form ties and obligations that require us to stay in certain places. It's not right to blame those people and favor the ones who are mobile--usually only temporarily, either because they are quite young or because they have not formed new family ties for whatever reason. For most of them, the time will come when "mobile" becomes "gotta stay here." "Mobile" is usually a temporary stage of life.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
When I was growing up economic historians blamed the rise of fascism on the effects of protectionism, in particular on trade barriers. When goverments reacted to the Wall Street Crash by putting up tariffs on foreign exports that exacerbated the problems.
The US and UK recovered partly because in the thirties they went back to a free trade policy.
But the free trade policy they went back to was accompanied by domestic subsidies and government investment. It wasn't a pure no government interference in trade policy. I'd call it Keynesianism but they were doing it anyway to some extent and sought out Keynes to endorse it rather than responding to Keynes.
Accepted wisdom may have changed. But that's what I was taught.
At the moment, we have no tariffs and low government subsidies. We're half way between the Keynesian route and the pre-Keynesian route. Bringing up tariff barriers takes us from our current position in the wrong direction.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
Look, here's the sucky bit. You're opposing "open and mobile" (what are the others, closed?) to those who are bound to a community and family. You find the first group far preferable. Think about that for a moment.
I couldn't agree more. We saw this with Brexit as well, where people were talking about the ability to live anywhere on a continent as if it was something everyone should aspire to. It's as if concepts like community and family just don't matter to these people.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Listening to the PM programme on BBC Radio 4: NigelFarrage (cringe, cringe) has been rubbishing President Obama; Trump's call list hadTheresa May as tenth on the list. Eddie Mair asked if that might be because he was .told to 'Phone No. 10'!
It would be funny if it wasn't so seriously un-funny.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Basically, there are two sorts of people in the modern world. The open and mobile ones with skills and attitudes that allow them to cope with change and the people who don't possess those attributes. I suspect that in the long run the former will be the future but, at the moment, the latter appear to have taken charge of the present.
Look, here's the sucky bit. You're opposing "open and mobile" (what are the others, closed?) to those who are bound to a community and family. You find the first group far preferable. Think about that for a moment.
I couldn't agree more. We saw this with Brexit as well, where people were talking about the ability to live anywhere on a continent as if it was something everyone should aspire to. It's as if concepts like community and family just don't matter to these people.
I was surprised at the way Callan phrased that. It also, of course, applies when government wants to move poor people away from expensive areas where they have support networks into cheaper parts of the country where they don't know anyone. I'm also glad to note you've seen through how unrealistic Tebbit's rhetoric on this was all those years ago ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm also slightly suspicious of the desire for "flexibility" - it's often code for "you'll do whatever I as employer want (start covering till 9pm, start coming in at 7am half the week, start working Sundays) no matter how inconvenient for you, so that I don't have to be flexible."
[ 10. November 2016, 16:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I also think it's a false dichotomy. People go through phases, where they are mobile and not.
When I was young, I skipped around like a flea on a hot stove, but recently, when we contemplated moving to another city, we eventually groaned, and cried out, no thanks. We stay put.
But I suppose that connects with the young being more open and radical, and the old more conservative. Hence, Brexit was an old vote, not sure about Trump.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Is this the final position in the Electoral College?
Trump 306 (Including 16 for Michigan, 11 for Arizona)
Clinton 232 (Including 4 for New Hampshire)
I know there are further formalities to be undergone before the Electoral College votes formally, but I think that represents the composition the Election has arrived at.
Am I right?
The Wiki entry, which is still subject to further adjustment, can be found here.
I have in mind closing this thread in a couple of days, and redirecting all discussion to the aftermath thread. Preserving a distinction between backward analysis and forward consequences is likely to become pretty artificial as time moves on.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As long as people remain human, we will continue to form ties and obligations that require us to stay in certain places. It's not right to blame those people and favor the ones who are mobile--usually only temporarily, either because they are quite young or because they have not formed new family ties for whatever reason. For most of them, the time will come when "mobile" becomes "gotta stay here." "Mobile" is usually a temporary stage of life.
"Mobile" is part of America's mythology. The country was built by people who got on the boat and travelled half way around the world away from everything they knew. People have always moved across the country in search of a better opportunity, at a time when moving across the country was much harder than it is now.
And yet we're claiming that the Trump voters are both idolizing the self-sufficient pioneer spirit and also rejecting the call to relocate for better opportunities?
That can't be right.
The difference, I think, is that relocation these days is a much shakier prospect.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is this the final position in the Electoral College?
Trump 306 (Including 16 for Michigan, 11 for Arizona)
Clinton 232 (Including 4 for New Hampshire)
Not one to study US politics, is this result Clinton just being beat or wholly thrashed?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not one to study US politics, is this result Clinton just being beat or wholly thrashed?
It's a fairly narrow victory, in the sense that you're looking at slim margins in several correlated states (basically, if you shift the white uneducated vote a couple of points, Clinton wins by a similar margin). And Clinton is narrowly winning the popular vote (by 0.2% - not all votes are counted yet).
But it's a sound thrashing in the sense that she was expecting to win by several points, and that didn't happen.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%. I will have to check these figures, but it makes the 'angry white men' idea seem a bit more complex. It would be interesting to see some of them interviewed, I guess some would be Republicans anyway, some would be business oriented, some would dislike Clinton. Still surprising.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Croesos--
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, but how is blaming mostly non-white immigrants for "stealing their jobs" not racist?
Possibly might not be racist if the focus is first on being unemployed; then on immigrants (of whatever flavor) for taking those jobs; and lastly on the particular flavor of immigrant, and (in their voice) "how different they are from us regular working (Country)ers who lost our jobs, and WE DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE WE CAN'T SUPPORT OURSELVES AND DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PAY FOR RENT, GAS, AND FOOD! So there!"
If they're racist, it *might* be that they've been driven to it, and are simply trying to survive.
It's really easy to pack all sorts of things into the term "racism", and not examine them to see what and why they are, and just sum them up with "bad human! Bad! BAD! Only social shunning for you!"
Changing the situation has to involve recognizing its roots.
IMHO, FWIW, YMMV.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht--
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Mobile" is part of America's mythology. The country was built by people who got on the boat and travelled half way around the world away from everything they knew. People have always moved across the country in search of a better opportunity, at a time when moving across the country was much harder than it is now.
And yet we're claiming that the Trump voters are both idolizing the self-sufficient pioneer spirit and also rejecting the call to relocate for better opportunities?
That can't be right.
The difference, I think, is that relocation these days is a much shakier prospect.
But most of those pioneers wanted a *home*, whether built of sod, logs, or bricks. And the modern American dream includes owning your own home.
Plus some people (by nature, culture, and/or experience) are built to stay in one place, and others to venture away.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
As to the racism accusation, here is the ever-reliable John Scalzi on the subject. The money quote:
"But the fact remains that in voting for Trump, they voted for racism: It was right there in the package deal, front and center, and hard to miss. They voted for it anyway. And you may argue that voting for racism as part of a larger package deal does not a racist make, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, as far as what people do to others in their personal and day to day lives. But voting for racism will make personal, day-to-day life harder for the targets of that racism. Two days after the election, we’re already seeing that."
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%. I will have to check these figures, but it makes the 'angry white men' idea seem a bit more complex.
I became sceptical that that the hot-mic revelation was going to turn women away from trump in droves. We seemed to have forgotten the Fifty shades factor.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Oh, it's still misogyny. Lateral misogyny. Best way for a woman to gain favor with men in power is to attack the same woman they are attacking, or to tear down a woman who is achieving something they are not.
This is dedicated to every woman I have ever heard say," Oh, I HATE working for a female boss!"
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For some reason, I suspect I'll be repeating this analysis a few more times before this all blows over.
That's not really an analysis, more of a "just so" narrative bare of any supporting evidence and leaning on a bunch of stereotypes. For example, the claim that "the majority of ethnic minority citizens tend to live in big cities" is true as far as it goes, but the majority of white Americans tend to live in cities, too. The switch-over between majority rural and majority urban happened sometime between the 1910 and 1920 censuses. Plus I have to question an "analysis" that's premised on the idea that there are very few Hispanic agricultural laborers in the U.S.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I guess it's just easier to blame it all on racist sexist scumbags or people who are too stupid or feckless to "get on their bike" and abandon their entire life and community in search of work than it is to accept that there may be a lot of people who are being failed by your politics to the extent that they find someone like Trump preferable to another four years of the same thing.
First off, it's the counties where employment has improved the most since 2010 where Trump is drawing a lot of his strength, so I'm not buying a bare assertion of this "economic anxiety" theory.
But mostly I'm irked by what I'd call "Occam's paisley": the principle that any explanation, no matter how complicated or baroque, is preferable to any examination of racism. Donald Trump ran a campaign that openly and explicitly appealed to white nationalism and Republicans supported him much more enthusiastically in the primaries than any of his opponents who were much less explicit. He then ran a general election campaign that likewise appealed to white nationalism in a much more explicit way than any of his Republican predecessors and white American turned out for him in a way that they didn't for Mitt Romney or John McCain. Given that the economy was in worse shape in 2012 than it is in 2016 we would expect the opposite if your "analysis" were correct.
And yet it's considered bad form to ask if Donald Trump's explicit appeals to white nationalism, which are what truly set him apart from previous (recent) Republican presidential candidates, are actually part of his appeal, or even the main attraction?
It's not about race, because nothing in America is ever about race. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is this the final position in the Electoral College?
Trump 306 (Including 16 for Michigan, 11 for Arizona)
Clinton 232 (Including 4 for New Hampshire)
Not one to study US politics, is this result Clinton just being beat or wholly thrashed?
If you made a list of the last ten elections and ranked them by electoral vote margin, 2016 would be at #8 on the list. The only two closer elections (in terms of electoral vote margin) were George W. Bush's two wins.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%.
The numbers I saw had Trump 20 points worse with white women than equivalent men, and 30 points better with uneducated whites than educated whites. The sex gap was the same for educated and uneducated whites.
Which means amongst other things that a whole load of men are fine with the pussy-grabbing that turns off their wives and sisters. Or something like that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Croesos--
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, but how is blaming mostly non-white immigrants for "stealing their jobs" not racist?
Possibly might not be racist if the focus is first on being unemployed; then on immigrants (of whatever flavor) for taking those jobs; and lastly on the particular flavor of immigrant, and (in their voice) "how different they are from us regular working (Country)ers who lost our jobs, and WE DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE WE CAN'T SUPPORT OURSELVES AND DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PAY FOR RENT, GAS, AND FOOD! So there!"
If they're racist, it *might* be that they've been driven to it, and are simply trying to survive.
It's really easy to pack all sorts of things into the term "racism", and not examine them to see what and why they are, and just sum them up with "bad human! Bad! BAD! Only social shunning for you!"
Changing the situation has to involve recognizing its roots.
IMHO, FWIW, YMMV.
Agree with the analysis but not the conclusion.
The biggest opponents of abolition and civil rights were poor white laborers-- not wealthy white slaveowners/landowners. They saw blacks as competition for low-wage jobs, despite the fact that free labor has a rather depressing effect on wages. There are all sorts of reasons, many quite understandable, why people hang onto irrational beliefs that at least help them feel they're not as bad as those people over there.
But the fact that their fears, struggles or beliefs are understandable, even natural, does not magically make them non-racist. They bought into racist propaganda. It is important that we understand why. But it's also important that we not white wash (term intentional) it by calling it something other than what it was.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
If it's any consolation, opinion polls here showed that about 77% of Australians supported Ms Clinton and 12% Mr Trump.
Can't help but wonder how the vote would have gone has the US a history of compulsory voting.
[ 11. November 2016, 05:40: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact that their fears, struggles or beliefs are understandable, even natural, does not magically make them non-racist. They bought into racist propaganda. It is important that we understand why. But it's also important that we not white wash (term intentional) it by calling it something other than what it was.
Interesting piece here
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just watching BBC news, and a pundit was arguing that where Trump has surprised people is scoring heavily with white women, over 50%. Even with women without degrees, getting 45%.
The numbers I saw had Trump 20 points worse with white women than equivalent men, and 30 points better with uneducated whites than educated whites. The sex gap was the same for educated and uneducated whites.
Which means amongst other things that a whole load of men are fine with the pussy-grabbing that turns off their wives and sisters. Or something like that.
Although the Wiki article on the Presidential Election 2016 is still a work in progress, it does contain a decent summary of voter demographics. You have to scroll down a fairly long way to find it. Amongst other things it shows this.
Gender Difference. 12% more men voted for Trump than Clinton, 12% more women voted for Clinton than Trump.
Marital Status. 21% more married men voted for Trump than Clinton, only 2% more married women voted for Clinton than Trump.
Race/Ethnicity. 21% more white people voted for Trump than for Clinton - by not-coincidence the same differential as for married men. All other races voted strongly for Clinton.
The religious distinctions are also worth looking at. The majority of Christians voted for Trump with varying degrees of strength, people of other faiths and no faiths voted strongly for Clinton. Over 80% of White evangelicals voted for Trump. For everyone else, 59% voted for Clinton.
It was a WASP victory and the demographics suggest strongly that both racial and misogynistic tendencies are to be found in that group.
It was also a victory for the older against the younger. The majority of people under 40 were for Clinton, but the over-40s majority were for Trump.
I think the result will be seen as a blip. The demographic trends are moving against WASPishness. It remains to be seen just how much damage and further divisiveness this blip may cause in an already politically and socially polarised society.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact that their fears, struggles or beliefs are understandable, even natural, does not magically make them non-racist. They bought into racist propaganda. It is important that we understand why. But it's also important that we not white wash (term intentional) it by calling it something other than what it was.
Interesting piece here
This brought up a good old-fashioned 404 page.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
It works if you take the hyphen off the end. Try this one.
Thanks!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump ran a campaign that openly and explicitly appealed to white nationalism and Republicans supported him much more enthusiastically in the primaries than any of his opponents who were much less explicit. He then ran a general election campaign that likewise appealed to white nationalism in a much more explicit way than any of his Republican predecessors and white American turned out for him in a way that they didn't for Mitt Romney or John McCain.
If it's all due to racism as you suggest, then how do you explain the fact that most of the swing voters in states that went from blue to red voted for Obama last time?
But more importantly, if it's all due to racism then how exactly do you plan to turn those votes back around to blue? If I'm right then improving economic conditions in small towns is all it will take, but if you're right then what are the options?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's quite a segue from 'racism was a factor' to 'racism was the only factor' in Trump's win. I don't think anyone is really saying that, are they?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
TouchRump also ran a campaign based on sexism, misogyny and mockery. The people who voted for him excused and ignored this or agree with his behaviour, comments and conduct. We can hope he turns out to be a president very different from the kind of candidate he was. But should any woman agree to meet with him alone? Don't think so.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's quite a segue from 'racism was a factor' to 'racism was the only factor' in Trump's win. I don't think anyone is really saying that, are they?
If the only thing people want to talk about when analysing the result is racism, it's reasonable to assume that it's what they think is the only important factor.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump ran a campaign that openly and explicitly appealed to white nationalism and Republicans supported him much more enthusiastically in the primaries than any of his opponents who were much less explicit. He then ran a general election campaign that likewise appealed to white nationalism in a much more explicit way than any of his Republican predecessors and white American turned out for him in a way that they didn't for Mitt Romney or John McCain.
If it's all due to racism as you suggest, then how do you explain the fact that most of the swing voters in states that went from blue to red voted for Obama last time?
So your question is how could a campaign that explicitly embraced white nationalism work when the previous two Republican campaigns that didn't somehow failed? I think to ask that question is to answer it.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But more importantly, if it's all due to racism then how exactly do you plan to turn those votes back around to blue? If I'm right then improving economic conditions in small towns is all it will take, but if you're right then what are the options?
Then it seems pretty obvious that you're wrong. Economic conditions, even in small towns, were better in November 2016 than they were in November 2012 and much better than they were in November 2008. If improving economic conditions for white Americans is what it takes to get their votes, we wouldn't expect to see the results we did.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's quite a segue from 'racism was a factor' to 'racism was the only factor' in Trump's win. I don't think anyone is really saying that, are they?
If the only thing people want to talk about when analysing the result is racism, it's reasonable to assume that it's what they think is the only important factor.
I'm actually seeing the opposite here; multiple pre-emptive attempts to shut down any discussion of the role that Trump's front-and-center appeal to white nationalism, something that was notably different than his Republican predecessors, played in letting him narrowly succeed where they had failed.
If you factor in that the American right has been working hard to stoke racial fears and resentment for the past three decades, first through talk radio and now on the internet, ignoring what is an obvious and deliberate tactic and hoping it goes away seems like an inadequate approach.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I can't find the link, but the KKK is having a victory march in North Carolina this weekend. And there is this nasty little group.
It is clear that a whole lot of deplorables are taking Trump's election as an affirmation of their notions. It is not an illusion, not a 'oh, he's just saying that'. What is in the Tiny Fingered One's soul is known only to God, but people believe what he has said.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
