The New American Politics thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MattyC

How about Muslim registration (more xenophobic or ethnocentric, but I don't think semantics really matter here)? Or a gigantic wall blocking out Mexico?

I don't think either of these policies is inherently racist. Or rather, I think this claim over-extends racism to apply where it shouldn't. I'll just take the Muslim registration one - I think the wall is treading pretty close to the line on racism but I'm not quite convinced it's over it.

Some of the people who want Muslims registered (or kept out entirely) are animated by actual hatred of Arabs. They assume Muslim equals Arab (which is obviously nonsense), they dislike Arabs as people, and that's the end of the story. "Keep 'em all out and keep the ones already here on a list if we can't get rid of 'em."

Others, though - and I think this is most of the people who would sign on to these Drumpf-propagated positions - are motivated by fear. Sure, they'll say, most Muslims are peaceful, non-dangerous people, but there will be a significant portion of the people who we let in who will be both Muslim and dangerous. So, just to be safe, let's not let any of them in, because while we'll be keeping out a bunch of totally innocent, non-dangerous people, and that sucks for them, we'll be keeping out the dangerous ones as well.

That's a non-bigoted position based on concerns founded on empirical evidence, it's just that the empirical evidence could be wrong, or you can argue that it shouldn't matter because we should be compassionate and take on certain inevitable risks out of concern for our fellow human beings, and these people are allowing fear to cloud their judgment with respect to that concern. These people can probably be dissuaded if you can get them to think rationally about it and not be emotionally driven - although, some probably just won't be convinced. They'll say that the interests they view as important require that they maintain this position. Unless those interests involve the supremacy of their race, that's not a racist position to hold.

There's a sort of "in between" position which is the "culture war" position, or you could call it the "where's my country gone" view. Basically, these people posit that they really like their culture the way it is, and if you're a community of a thousand people and you bring in another thousand people who see the world in a fundamentally different way, that culture will be altered. That's certainly a xenophobic view, and I have no doubt that a bunch of these guys are racists, but it's also factually correct - those cultural changes WILL happen. The concern is to ensure that to the extent they do, they happen for the better, ie to improve the status quo. That is by absolutely no means a foregone conclusion.

[octothorp]

Polls today look great for Trump; even Texas is within the margin of error in some polls. So by extension, they look awful for Cruz. Rubio doesn't seem to have much momentum in the polls, which is bad for him, but if Trump wins Texas and forces Cruz out of the race, that actually might be the best case scenario that could come out of today for Rubio as it gets him a little closer to that two horse race that he thinks he can win. Some of these states have 20% thresholds for candidates to be eligible for delegates, so that's a key thing to watch for tonight with Cruz and Rubio right around the 20% mark in some states.

On the Democrat side, one pollster has Bernie up 5 in Oklahoma, which makes that one of the states to watch. Massechussetts has Hillary up anywhere from 3 to 11, but that's another where Bernie can (and probably needs to) win.

[Jordan!]

I love Bernie and am voting for him in AZ but I can understand why he may not win. It's a really messed up time in the world and Hillary is the better candidate when it comes to International experience. Domestically though? Bernie all the way

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Does anyone know of a good internet stream for watching coverage of today?

[Coach]

Watched a few interviews with Sanders last night. I'm pretty sure he is just an older version of me.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Polls today look great for Trump; even Texas is within the margin of error in some polls. So by extension, they look awful for Cruz. Rubio doesn't seem to have much momentum in the polls, which is bad for him, but if Trump wins Texas and forces Cruz out of the race, that actually might be the best case scenario that could come out of today for Rubio as it gets him a little closer to that two horse race that he thinks he can win. Some of these states have 20% thresholds for candidates to be eligible for delegates, so that's a key thing to watch for tonight with Cruz and Rubio right around the 20% mark in some states.

On the Democrat side, one pollster has Bernie up 5 in Oklahoma, which makes that one of the states to watch. Massechussetts has Hillary up anywhere from 3 to 11, but that's another where Bernie can (and probably needs to) win.

Looking like Trump could win everything but Texas and Hillary everything but Vermont. Not even remotely sure how Cruz or Bernie can justify going on when they can only win their home states. And yeah if Bernie can't win Massachusetts, how can he legitimately sell himself as a national candidate? Not gonna get much friendlier to him than Mass.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Polls today look great for Trump; even Texas is within the margin of error in some polls. So by extension, they look awful for Cruz. Rubio doesn't seem to have much momentum in the polls, which is bad for him, but if Trump wins Texas and forces Cruz out of the race, that actually might be the best case scenario that could come out of today for Rubio as it gets him a little closer to that two horse race that he thinks he can win. Some of these states have 20% thresholds for candidates to be eligible for delegates, so that's a key thing to watch for tonight with Cruz and Rubio right around the 20% mark in some states.

On the Democrat side, one pollster has Bernie up 5 in Oklahoma, which makes that one of the states to watch. Massechussetts has Hillary up anywhere from 3 to 11, but that's another where Bernie can (and probably needs to) win.

It's so weird, I don't know a single person voting for or supporting Trump. At least not one that will admit it. I seem to hang around more right wing people than left, and they are all aghast that the Republicans are going to end up with a joke candidate. Even my FB friends who go on about every right wing cause are all anti Trump. So who are these people voting for him? I think until he starts getting closer to 50% though, it is still a race, because I don't think he is anyone's second choice if more candidates ever drop out.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think either of these policies is inherently racist. Or rather, I think this claim over-extends racism to apply where it shouldn't. I'll just take the Muslim registration one - I think the wall is treading pretty close to the line on racism but I'm not quite convinced it's over it.

Some of the people who want Muslims registered (or kept out entirely) are animated by actual hatred of Arabs. They assume Muslim equals Arab (which is obviously nonsense), they dislike Arabs as people, and that's the end of the story. "Keep 'em all out and keep the ones already here on a list if we can't get rid of 'em."

Others, though - and I think this is most of the people who would sign on to these Drumpf-propagated positions - are motivated by fear. Sure, they'll say, most Muslims are peaceful, non-dangerous people, but there will be a significant portion of the people who we let in who will be both Muslim and dangerous. So, just to be safe, let's not let any of them in, because while we'll be keeping out a bunch of totally innocent, non-dangerous people, and that sucks for them, we'll be keeping out the dangerous ones as well.

That's a non-bigoted position based on concerns founded on empirical evidence, it's just that the empirical evidence could be wrong, or you can argue that it shouldn't matter because we should be compassionate and take on certain inevitable risks out of concern for our fellow human beings, and these people are allowing fear to cloud their judgment with respect to that concern. These people can probably be dissuaded if you can get them to think rationally about it and not be emotionally driven - although, some probably just won't be convinced. They'll say that the interests they view as important require that they maintain this position. Unless those interests involve the supremacy of their race, that's not a racist position to hold.

There's a sort of "in between" position which is the "culture war" position, or you could call it the "where's my country gone" view. Basically, these people posit that they really like their culture the way it is, and if you're a community of a thousand people and you bring in another thousand people who see the world in a fundamentally different way, that culture will be altered. That's certainly a xenophobic view, and I have no doubt that a bunch of these guys are racists, but it's also factually correct - those cultural changes WILL happen. The concern is to ensure that to the extent they do, they happen for the better, ie to improve the status quo. That is by absolutely no means a foregone conclusion.

Here's the problem: the Republican Party consistently uses coded (and sometimes not so coded) language to encourage these xenophobic and racist beliefs, and then puts forward not quite racist policies as solutions to these racist beliefs that they encouraged. For example, in Goldwater's era, encouraging racist stereotypes of blacks, and then putting forward 'state rights' as a solution to it.
Today, they actively encourage stereotypes of Muslims as terrorists or latino immigrants as welfare moochers, and then put forward policies that may not be textbook racism, except that they are the perfect solution to racist and xenophobic views that they encourage.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It's so weird, I don't know a single person voting for or supporting Trump. At least not one that will admit it. I seem to hang around more right wing people than left, and they are all aghast that the Republicans are going to end up with a joke candidate. Even my FB friends who go on about every right wing cause are all anti Trump. So who are these people voting for him? I think until he starts getting closer to 50% though, it is still a race, because I don't think he is anyone's second choice if more candidates ever drop out.

It's gonna be the ultimate "silent" factor test. This tweet from Bret Easton Ellis (American Psycho) kind of sums it up.

Bret Easton Ellis ‏@BretEastonEllis Feb 20
Just back from a dinner in West Hollywood: shocked the majority of the table was voting for Trump but they would never admit it publicly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Here's the problem: the Republican Party consistently uses coded (and sometimes not so coded) language to encourage these xenophobic and racist beliefs, and then puts forward not quite racist policies as solutions to these racist beliefs that they encouraged. For example, in Goldwater's era, encouraging racist stereotypes of blacks, and then putting forward 'state rights' as a solution to it.
Today, they actively encourage stereotypes of Muslims as terrorists or latino immigrants as welfare moochers, and then put forward policies that may not be textbook racism, except that they are the perfect solution to racist and xenophobic views that they encourage.

Yeah, this is dog-whistle politics quintessentially. The issue though is the dog whistles, not the policies that they get support for by using the dog whistles. Those policies either stand or fall on their own merits. The problem is the racist rhetoric, where it's being used ("they're sending us their rapists and criminals"). The "build a wall" policy that results from that isn't necessarily racist, it could be backed by myriad non-racist concerns... it's just a stupid policy in its own right. I guess I'm just saying these are separate issues and they shouldn't be conflated such that anything tangentially related to them is immediately cast as racist.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, this is dog-whistle politics quintessentially. The issue though is the dog whistles, not the policies that they get support for by using the dog whistles. Those policies either stand or fall on their own merits. The problem is the racist rhetoric, where it's being used ("they're sending us their rapists and criminals"). The "build a wall" policy that results from that isn't necessarily racist, it could be backed by myriad non-racist concerns... it's just a stupid policy in its own right. I guess I'm just saying these are separate issues and they shouldn't be conflated such that anything tangentially related to them is immediately cast as racist.

And the gerrymandering of minority areas and voter ID laws disproportionately affecting minorities? Or are we just pretending those aren't clearly racist policies directly tied to and supported by the GOP?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

And the gerrymandering and voter ID laws? Or are we just pretending those aren't clearly racist policies directly championed by the GOP?

... Yes? I don't see either of those as racist. They're clear attempts to rig the game to win elections. That's the whole purpose. They don't give a damn what race you are, they just want to win. If it were predominantly white overtly-Democratic voters who didn't have the ID required to meet the law or who lived in those areas, the policy would be exactly the same.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, this is dog-whistle politics quintessentially. The issue though is the dog whistles, not the policies that they get support for by using the dog whistles. Those policies either stand or fall on their own merits. The problem is the racist rhetoric, where it's being used ("they're sending us their rapists and criminals"). The "build a wall" policy that results from that isn't necessarily racist, it could be backed by myriad non-racist concerns... it's just a stupid policy in its own right. I guess I'm just saying these are separate issues and they shouldn't be conflated such that anything tangentially related to them is immediately cast as racist.

I agree with that except for where you say these are separate issues. Because the whole Republican plan (they aren't unique in using this sort of approach but they have it down to a T and IMO use it for far more sinister purposes) is to use these two elements together (the rhetoric and the policy) in such a way that it keeps their leaders arms length from the rhetoric. Guys like Glenn Beck go around saying the stuff they know whips the base into a frenzy, priming them for the politicians, who then accommodate them. If I allow racism to happen, and encourage it to happen, and take steps to profit from it happening, but don't actively participate in it, I'd say that makes me a racist.

That's one brilliant thing about Trump, he's discovered that the arm's length approach isn't necessary. He's his own surrogate.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Yes? I don't see either of those as racist. They're clear attempts to rig the game to win elections. That's the whole purpose. They don't give a damn what race you are, they just want to win. If it were predominantly white overtly-Democratic voters who didn't have the ID required to meet the law or who lived in those areas, the policy would be exactly the same.

Gotcha. Just a coincidence the policies target minorities. If things were different then they'd totally have the same laws. I like that logic.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Yes? I don't see either of those as racist. They're clear attempts to rig the game to win elections. That's the whole purpose. They don't give a damn what race you are, they just want to win. If it were predominantly white overtly-Democratic voters who didn't have the ID required to meet the law or who lived in those areas, the policy would be exactly the same.

This is downright puzzling. Voter suppression laws disproportionately impact racial minorities by design. The GOP is trying to 'rig the game' by preventing racial minorities from voting.

How is purposefully preventing racial minorities from voting not racist? The ends don't justify the means. The means are racist and that's the policy.

I don't see why you're trying to jump through all these hoops.

The GOP doesn't want blacks and latinos to vote because blacks and latinos vote Democrat. Preventing people from voting based on the colour of their skin is racist.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by octothorp

If I allow racism to happen, and encourage it to happen, and take steps to profit from it happening, but don't actively participate in it, I'd say that makes me a racist.

I couldn't disagree more.

I think it makes you a pretty cynical person and in my view it's immoral behaviour, but it's not racist. It's not motivated by racial hatred. It's motivated by selfishness and ambition - you're so focused on these things that you're willing to manipulate others' racist tendencies to your advantage. There's a clear moral difference.

There's an argument as to which is worse - a true believer, or what you're describing. I think it's the former, probably, but there's a case to be made either way. The point is that these are very different moral actors.

[octothorp]

Just looking at your response about gerrymandering, I think I understand your perspective: that if a politician has a policy that discriminates against a group, but does the policy for political reasons rather than due to some bias against the group, it's not racism. Would that be a fair characterization of your stance, or am I missing it?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Gotcha. Just a coincidence the policies target minorities. If things were different then they'd totally have the same laws. I like that logic.

They would! If there was an equally effective way to prevent WHITE democrats from voting, they'd pursue it with equal zeal. The effect on minorities is essentially collateral damage. For example, if there was a law that could be pushed through that would somehow make it much harder for college professors to vote, I haven't the slightest doubt that they'd go for it.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How is purposefully preventing racial minorities from voting not racist?

If it's not motivated by racist views. Intentions matter - it's the entirety of the information we have about how someone will act next. From this policy, we can infer that the GOP is willing to bend the rules in an un-democratic fashion to cynically increase their chances of winning an election, and that they'll be callously unconcerned with whether or not this has a disproportionate impact on the rights of one ethnic group or another. We can't, in my view, conclude that they hate blacks and hispanics. Blacks and hispanics just happen to be largely democratic voters, and it's this latter quality that is being targeted.

I don't see why you're trying to jump through all these hoops.

Because I have a strong opposition to the over-extension I see happening on my own side of the political spectrum for the use of terms like "racist". People just call anything they don't like racist or bigoted or homophobic these days. Leveling that accusation is for many people all that's necessary; then we don't have to talk about why these guys are actually wrong to propose the measures they're proposing. In fact, there are plenty of principled reasons to oppose GOP policies.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Blacks and hispanics just happen to be largely democratic voters, and it's this latter quality that is being targeted.

Just happen to be? It's no mystery why - racist undercurrents to Republican policy in the last 40-odd years or so.

Not all, or even a majority of Republicans are racist. Most American racists, however, vote Republican. When your party's values appeal to racists, that's a problem you should address, rather than exploit.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

Just happen to be? It's no mystery why - racist undercurrents to Republican policy in the last 40-odd years or so.

Not all, or even a majority of Republicans are racist. Most American racists, however, vote Republican. When your party's values appeal to racists, that's a problem you should address, rather than exploit.

I agree with all of this, but to the first point, it's also just in-group out-group. The racists all happen to be Republicans (again, not "just happen" to be, there are reasons for it that don't boil down to "the Republicans platform is racist so the racists crop up there there"). So the people the racists target are more likely to not be Republicans.

However, that's an over-simplification; for example democratic social and economic policies that target voting blocks that again for a variety of reasons tend to contain disproportionately large numbers of specific minorities, etc etc. You could make a case that it's actually democratic and GOP social policies that initially draw these racial "battle lines", as it were, and then these lines are entrenched by each side playing to their already-extant base.

EDIT: Actually, I want to challenge one claim - this one. "When your party's values appeal to racists, that's a problem you should address." Now, in this case I think that's correct. But it's not a principle I necessarily agree with across the board. If I'm right about something for good, coherent, rational reasons, and it turns out that all the racists happen to agree with me for bad, incoherent, racially prejudiced reasons, that doesn't suggest that I should change my stance just so that I'm not getting their support anymore.