From Hillbilly Elegy...

Annie Deighnaugh

Just started reading this book and found this of interest. Vance refers to a study done by Markstrom, Marshall and Tryon in 2000:


"...avoidance and wishful-thinking forms of coping "significantly predicted resiliency" among Appalachian teens. Their paper suggests that hillbillies learn from an early age to deal with uncomfortable truths by avoiding them or by pretending better truths exist. This tendency might make for psychological resilience, but it also makes it hard for Appalachians to look at themselves honestly."

SaveComment424Like1
Comments (424)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

My only critique is that I don't see evidence of RW "psychological resilience" on this site.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Bingo

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

I don't know about what everyone else thinks, but these threads about trying to understand the people who voted for trump are getting very tiresome.

Posted in another crl's thread.

"Our intent should no longer be understanding these people who are celebrating right now. We do understand them. We’ve listened to them. That’s why we know that they cannot be convinced by any previously used methods to connect with rational people. Their blind hatred of the Left and their complete adoration of this President makes them practically speaking, unreachable."

https://johnpavlovitz.com

11 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

grapeleaves, what's the alternative?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

Have you read the thread that crl posted and from which I just quoted? And have you read the entire Pavlovitz piece?

I think we play right into their hands with these kinds of threads. It confirms to them

they are justified in their hatred of the left.

What are you hoping to accomplish with a thread like this?

Are you thinking if we understand them, it will translate into Democratic votes??


Remember the article from the Caracas Chronicles?

More or less is saying the same thing. Quit trying to understand and convert them.

The more we do that the more they dig in.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

I suspect that Annie's post isn't targeted to the RW posters. From what I see here, they aren't interested in evaluating their behavior so a post like this will fall on deaf ears or provoke.

But I do understand the need to understand how we got here.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

Lol. Are you really trying to convert people you treat like subhuman dirt on a daily basis? Not going to happen. The more you belittle conservatives and independents, the more firmly you drive them into our open arms. Keep up the good job!

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

grapeleaves, yes I did read it and I'm still looking for what's the alternative. If we don't understand what leads them to do and say the things they do, then how can we change the level of vitriol that's growing between us?

pavlovitz only offers this: The only course of action right now, is for those of us motivated by things other than revenge and payback and vitriol, to be clear, loud, and unified.

I think the left is. I think it's far beyond revenge or payback. I think it is in defense of all the rights and freedoms we hold dear. But if we don't understand the motivations and how and where the attacks from the right are coming and for what purposes, we can't fully defend ourselves or hope to change the divisiveness we now find our nation in.


6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mtnrdredux_gw

Fixing the divisiveness is good, but between us chickens, that azz in the WH is the primary cause of that. I know that I, and very many of my compatriots, never felt such passionate enmity toward another party as I do today. Nowhere near close. Because no prez was this awful or heinous or mean until Hair T.

So right now I only care about one thing. Regaining as much power as we can, any way we can. Fixing divisiveness comes later in my own Hierarchy of Needs. So frankly, i don't need or want to "understand" "them". I only need and want to understand swing voters.

As far as the OP, Their paper suggests that hillbillies learn from an early age to deal with uncomfortable truths by avoiding them or by pretending better truths exist.

I don't know the study, but are we sure only "hillbillies" do this?



16 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

The intent of the post may not be targeted at the trump voter, but it is used by them.

It proves to them we just look down our nose at them.

I know it is bizarre thinking to us.

I live in a RED state. I'm around these kinds of people.

I had a MIL , had she been alive, would probably have voted for Trump.She was quick to perceive real, or imagined slights by people who" thought they were better than her". Analyzing them and trying to understand how they ticked would have been considered a slight to her.

She resented me to her dying day for "forcing" her son to go back to school. What was good enough for her was good enough for her son.

His campaign would have spoken to her.

It is just my opinions that most of these people are not gettable and us trying to understand them is not what it is going to take to"get " them.

Democrats should be working on getting all the people who never vote .

Would you believe in my very Red state, that there are almost as many registered Democrats as Republicans. The Democrats don't vote.



6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mtnrd, I see divisiveness and regaining power as interlinked...it's like allez said, if the dems are painted with such an evil brush then those at the margin will be unable to vote for them and be driven toward the gop...we saw that with hillary where people were so willing to believe the lies about her that many who even voted for obama couldn't vote for her.

grapeleaves, I agree, the vote is critical...also who is counting the votes is critical...but understanding and trying to reduce divisiveness is also an essential element, IMHO.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

As another red state dweller, grapeleaves is right.

Even used in the context of a quote, I would not use “hillbilly”. But I don’t think it matters much. I do understand the Trump voters. And it makes no difference. It’s energy and effort that are better spent getting people out to vote.

Look at all the cold, hard facts that have been presented here on HT. The Trump supporters just laugh and think of it as getting us to jump through hoops. If we spend all our time on defense, we’re not going to change a thing.

Its ludicrous to defend Dems from being painted as evil. It’s manipulation and distraction. Annie, you still expect them to be honest and fight fairly when they have proven many times that they have forgotten how.

14 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The alternative is to work on voter registration drives and to vote.

What we see here on HT are strident Trump Loyalists. They only listen to select sources.

Nixon never lost the support for his presidency about 25% of Americans.

10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I'm just ducking in here with not much time to post this morning. I read the Pavlovitz article and it makes me sad. He is wrong, in my opinion, when he assesses the motivation of the right as being fueled by spite. He is welcome to his belief, but spite is a shallow emotion, and that statement in itself tells me how much thought Pavlovitz has putten into considering the source of our disagreements. People on both sides have real, deep, legitimate differences in how we see things.

I can only speak for myself. If I had hatred for the people on the left, I would not spend my time reading or posting here. I have no hatred of the left. Period. I just don't always understand them.

I read and sometimes post here to try to understand why you think differently from the way I do. I think that matters because we all live in the same country. Like d_gw, I would like to understand how we have arrived at this point.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, if it's not too much trouble, do you know the page in the book where Vance refers to this study? I have it but it's been a while since I've read it, and I'd like to understand the context better and why Vance is discussing it. I could look it up later today, thanks in advance.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, chapter 1...pg 20 in my hard cover book.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mtnrdredux_gw

I do understand the Trump voters. And it makes no difference. It’s energy and effort that are better spent getting people out to vote.

Look at all the cold, hard facts that have been presented here on HT. The Trump supporters just laugh and think of it as getting us to jump through hoops. If we spend all our time on defense, we’re not going to change a thing.

Its ludicrous to defend Dems from being painted as evil. It’s manipulation and distraction. Annie, you still expect them to be honest and fight fairly when they have proven many times that they have forgotten how.

Yup, a million times, yup.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mtnrdredux_gw

if the dems are painted with such an evil brush then those at the margin will be unable to vote for them and be driven toward the gop...

If people who care about "evil", choose T for that reason over anyone the dems put up, then, let's be honest, they do not care about "evil" or they do not see it where it exists. So let's not waste time on them.

we saw that with hillary where people were so willing to believe the lies about her that many who even voted for obama couldn't vote for her.

I think most Obama voters who didn't support Hillary would give their right arm for a do-over. They thought they had the freedom to lodge a "protest vote" or "make a statement" or "shake things up". That last one particularly galls me. What ungrateful, spoiled children to be so frivolous and have such reckless aims. They never imagined what they would unleash.

10 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

What ungrateful, spoiled children to be so frivolous and have such reckless aims.

I totally understand the Obama voters who switched to Trump. And I think they did the right thing. They are not "ungrateful", nor are they "spoiled children" - they just want a better life. If you're one of those people, we have a home for you in the Republican Party.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

trump's approval rating has been rising from 37% to 42% since December. Rather than a 'do over', there are those who are glad they supported him when they weren't so sure before. So whatever propaganda has been put out by rw media and russia, it's working. It's not just about getting people out to vote, but which way those at the margin will vote. trump has always been a huge marketing and perception campaign and we can't ignore that aspect of it. And that includes understanding what makes trump supporters tick.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

I think you may have had a good shot at turning Trump supporters away from Trump Annie. A lot of us didn't support Trump in the primaries. But there's nothing like fighting a common enemy shoulder to shoulder to cement that bond.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
artemis_ma

Maybe because I live in blue states I need to understand, and those I've talked to directly who voted for Trump have a myriad different reasons for having done so.

Or maybe there's this just personal need in myself to understand motivations that rock other folk.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

I find it puzzling that those who live in blue states say they don't understand the trump voter. I've known that type of person my entire life while growing up in upstate NY, but I grew up in a working class city. Maybe you all grew up in a different type of city in your blue states. The regional differences don't fully account for his appeal.

Trump's approval rating has gone up with moderate Republicans because he passed the tax cuts. Some Evangelicals who were on the fence are embracing him because of his SCOTUS picks. Those two things are his only positive achievements. Then he does something asinine and his approval ratings drop back into the mid-30s.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kitchenwitch111

Trump's most significant achievement is maintaining the loyalty of his base in spite of poor performance

9 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

in spite of poor performance

You're joking right? Trump got a lot done - or shall we say undone :-)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

Did it ever occur to you that the right wants this division. It actually occured long before Trump. He spotted what was already there and ran with it. Division, helped along by right wing media, works for them and they are not going to give it up.


Understanding how they tick is not going to make a bit of difference.

In fact it could make it worse. It is like you think the patient is sick

and you've got to understand what is making them sick.







6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mtnrdredux_gw

Allez,

My comment was specifically in re people who said they "just wanted to shake things up." A lot of people who said that were cavalier about what they were putting at risk.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kitchenwitch111

You're joking right? Trump got a lot done - or shall we say undone :-)

Trump can’t create, he can only destroy. That’s easy.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mtnrdredux_gw

May, I agree with you about the twin appeals of tax cuts and the courts. I am still surprised at how much folderol they accept to get those things. Pretty single minded!

Moreover, the tax cuts were very top-heavy and I think people have seen that now, and a lot of mid sized businesses who like small gov and less reg are getting whacked with the impacts of tariffs.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
artemis_ma

Did it ever occur to you that the right wants this division. It actually occured long before Trump. He spotted what was already there and ran with it. Division, helped along by right wing media, works for them and they are not going to give it up.

Understanding how they tick is not going to make a bit of difference.

In fact it could make it worse. It is like you think the patient is sick

and you've got to understand what is making them sick.

Um, grapeleaves, I don't think I understand your argument here?

And indeed as I've noted there are many reasons why people chose to vote Trump (just as there are many reasons people chose to vote Hillary. Or, third party. Or, just stay home and NOT vote). To get somewhere you need to understand... just like you need to understand what is making someone who is ill how they got that way.

EDIT: yes, there are elements in the RW that love this division. I don't think this accounts for all by any means.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mtnrdredux_gw

His approval rating is about 6 points below when he took office.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
artemis_ma

I find it puzzling that those who live in blue states say they don't understand the trump voter. I've known that type of person my entire life while growing up in upstate NY, but I grew up in a working class city. Maybe you all grew up in a different type of city in your blue states. The regional differences don't fully account for his appeal.

Actually, Mayflower, I was simply responding to the couple of posters who live in red states who state they don't need to understand. It's just in my case I see a variety of reasons for why people vote the way they do, and if I can understand in specific cases, sometimes, even often, their choices make sense to me.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

His approval rating is about 6 points below when he took office.

Approval rating does not equal vote.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

I'm less convinced that it is a red state/blue state divide than it is a rural/urban one.

I wonder if trump supporters realize that unless they're very wealthy, their tax cut has already disappeared into the higher prices in their gas tanks, and again in their higher prices for health care, and yet again if they have variable rate mortgages...

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Mudhouse, why do you bring up the word "spite"?

You were the first to use it here.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"...avoidance and wishful-thinking forms of coping "significantly predicted resiliency" among Appalachian teens."

We see some grown up liberals relying on this coping mechanism, fantasizing for over a year of undoing an election, of impeaching President Trump, and of persuading Americans they're somehow "racists" and "bigots" because they believe immigration should reflect the needs of the United States and the American people.

The latest fantasy for the liberal fringe involves the notion that liberals empower themselves by singling out fellow citizens for public shaming, assault, and death threats.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

Some of you are making the assumption that they are well reasoned votes in these Red states and if you understood the reason for their vote it would help to bridge the divide. For many it is just a case of the Democrat being " other"

An example. During our teachers strike my daughter organized a food bank type program for her smaller town on the edge of a larger city. There are many poor people in that community and with school out children were going to go hungry.

Food was actually delivered to the homes of children who were going to go hungry.

It was such a success that it is going to continue throughout the year. So several people who got involved in the program thought she should run for office.

She said to them. I'm a Democrat. The response was "Oh." Never mind was implied.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
suellen19

Annie

short answer is No.

if they did they would be hopping mad and seriously regretting their careless vote.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Ziemia: Mudhouse, why do you bring up the word "spite"? You were the first to use it here.

https://johnpavlovitz.com/

Only because it was in the title of the article that grapeleaves posted and was being discussed here, Those Who Would Vote For Spite. It's the main point of the Pavlovitz article: We need to live and work and vote for equality, diversity, compassion, love, and justice—not for spite.

Personally I think spite is not an accurate description of what motivates the right. I think opinions on issues motivate the right (most of us.)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
woodnymph2_gw

While I would not label the mind-set that of only "Appalachian", I would agree with Annie that it is less a red state/blue state division than an urban vs. rural divide. I also think it is a divide between East Coast/ West Coast and the 'flyover" states.

Each side is now demonizing the other, but it was a long time in coming. The seeds were in the works long before Trump, but his egregious, verbal tirades against minorities in general have fueled the fire greatly, and given voice to the "common man" to blurt out their buried prejudices.

I think the left, since the inauguration of Trump, sees itself in a righteous conflict, having the moral high ground, with an anger fueled by a battle for justice and fair play.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Thanks Annie, for helping me locate the quote in the book. My take is that Vance is using the quote from the study to illustrate his belief that the people in Appalachia aren't very good at accurately assessing themselves, especially when criticized, and that ultimately hurts them.

My thought is that this type of coping mechanism isn't only found in Appalachian teens, as adopted and woodnymph noted above.

I can't identify personally with people who grew up poor in Appalachia. But I can recognize the protective defensiveness that most people use as a coping mechanism when they are personally criticized for being different from others (whether it's where/how you grew up, or political beliefs.)

I think it happens easily when the criticism switches from differences of opinion over an idea to personal criticism. When it switches from "I don't like your viewpoint" to "I don't like who you are as a person." From "you're wrong" to "you're stupid," for example.

I think Vance's opinion about what is most harmful to the people he grew up with is hard to argue with. How we can more broadly apply that observation to people who support Trump is a little bit murkier, for me personally.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

I think the left, since the inauguration of Trump, sees itself in a
righteous conflict, having the moral high ground, with an anger fueled
by a battle for justice and fair play.

So did the Nazis when they killed all the jews. And you see the same type of rhetoric and dehumanization of the perceived enemy from the left.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
j4c_11

None of us here have ever condoned violence.

Sure you do. Once you've labelled everyone on the right as racist nazi fascist subhuman scum, you've justified any act against them and they deserve whatever they have coming. Some guy on another thread thinks if you go harass lawmakers you're the hero. Another one on another thread thinks that's what they get for displaying fascist nazi flags.

I think it's time for the Democratic Party leaders to get their extreme wing under control. Before things get out of hand any more than they already have.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"I think the left, since the inauguration of Trump, sees itself in a righteous conflict, having the moral high ground, with an anger fueled by a battle for justice and fair play."

I agree. I think it sees itself as more virtuous, intelligent, compassionate, and more deserving of influence and leadership. But if it really is all of those things, how does it demonstrate superior virtue, intelligence, and compassion? How has it conducted itself since it lost the presidency? Has it acted like a party that deserves to be in power? Why would the population you call deplorable trust you to do anything for them?

If the left wants to persuade middle America it has something to offer, it needs to tell us what it is. You don't persuade people to join you by calling them names. Or for scolding them for wanting their own families and country to come first.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kitchenwitch111

Who knew that Dems would be the next scary thing for the RWers! What a bunch of Snowflakes LOL

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

No, there is anger among lefts but it is not labeling the 'other' (Trump supporters) as the enemy.

Just another twist from stretching the anger and dismay.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
woodnymph2_gw

Historically, in recent decades, the Left has stood for the Common Man, the Middle Class, the voice of Compassion, the front line fighters for rights of minorities, and we have marched for peace, freedom of choice and universal health care.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Back to 'spite': this is the word he uses to describe the emphasis of this administration to undo anything done by Obama. His working to understand just why that is such a big motivation for them. And blaming so many things wrong today on Obama.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Another interesting tidbit from Hillbilly Elegy...which may be a source of racial animus among trump voters:

The number of working-class whites in high-poverty neighborhoods is growing. In 1970, 25 percent of white children lived in a neighborhood with poverty rates above 10 percent. In 2000, that number was 40 percent. It's almost certainly even higher today. As a 2011 Brookings Institution study found, "compared to 2000, residents of extreme-poverty neighborhoods in 2005-09 were more likely to be white, native-born, high school or college graduates, homeowners, and not receiving public assistance." In other words, bad neighborhoods no longer plague only urban ghettos; the bad neighborhoods have spread to the suburbs.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: Another interesting tidbit from Hillbilly Elegy...which may be a source of racial animus among trump voters...

Annie, if those statistics still hold, those families would have been experiencing increased financial stress due to decreased employment opportunities, increased concern about the safety of their families and personal property, falling property values, increased drug use, and more.

Why frame this in terms of race? I know it fits a popular narrative about Trump supporters, but that ignores other valid issues that influence people when they go to the polls, seeking hope for help with the problems they face.

After citing the Brookings Institute statistics, Vance goes on to discuss the reasons for the increased poverty rates in the neighborhoods, and he cites declining home values, and the economic impact of job loss that lead to the overall decline of the Middletown community. Specifically, the collapse of Armco Kawasaki Steel, and the inability of many of the locals to consider higher education as a way out of the economically depressed area.

My point is, I don't see any connection in Vance's writing with the racial issues you point to in your comment above. How do you make that connection?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Last week, Vance had an op-ed in the WSJ about Kavanaugh. It is helping me to know Kavanaugh and to understand what those who wish for conservative judges mean. My take is that their view amounts to the rights of businesses are greater than the rights of individuals (I know they disagree strongly with this summary).

One example is the CFPB which was established by legislation. It provides protections to individual borrowers (otherwise recourse is through law suits).

A conservative view is that CFPB allows bureaucrats to establish control of business. And that should only be achieved through law (in their view). So, they argue their views by seeking out troublesome text instead of seeking out the intent of the law's framers. Because the only 'intent' they consider are the original framers.

The Case for Brett Kavanaugh https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-brett-kavanaugh-1530572358

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Exerpts, in order of appearance:

Who is best at being a judge, as demonstrated by a consistent record of applying textualist and originalist reasoning to significant legal questions?

his qualifications stand on their own. First, he has the necessary intellectual commitments. He is a committed textualist and originalist, one whose time on the bench has revealed a unique ability to apply these principles to legal facts. He deeply believes in the constitutional separation of powers as a means for ensuring governmental accountability and protecting individual liberty.

By my count, Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions have been adopted by the justices 11 times—a record of influence and persuasion that suggests he would be effective on the still-divided high court. His influence has been especially notable in cases involving overreach by regulatory agencies. In two different Environmental Protection Agency cases, each involving billions of dollars in regulatory burdens, the Supreme Court adopted Judge Kavanaugh’s dissenting views in 5-4 decisions by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Kavanaugh’s reasoning in another case, Doe v. Exxon, informed two separate Supreme Court decisions, Jesner v. Arab Bank and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.

A Justice Kavanaugh could also be influential beyond the bench. Like a lot of conservative law students, I acquired my conservative constitutionalism after reading Justices Scalia and Thomas rebut their more progressive colleagues. The conservatives simply have the better of the argument, I often thought. Persuasive power requires not only sound principles but intellectual strength, rhetorical skill, and a willingness to engage with an opponent’s best arguments. From the way he worked in the classroom to his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh regularly reveals those qualities.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, I include race because a) vance included it in his stats and b) because race and ethnicity has been a big issue among trump supporters as evidenced by the desire for a wall, a ban on muslims, and notably a study done of google searches (less biased than surveys) which show that the strongest correlation of searches with trump voters were for racial terms, especially racial jokes.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: I include race because a) vance included it in his stats…

Thanks Annie, but I don’t think the simple inclusion of the word “white” in the Brookings Institute stats about increasing poverty in mostly white neighborhoods is evidence that racial animus played a significant role in Middletown’s problems. I don't think Vance makes that case, either.

Vance’s book exposes problems in his home town of Middletown, including job loss, falling property values, increasing drug abuse, physical abuse, alcoholism, and a general lack of ability for the families trapped there to find a way out. He’s brutally honest about the shortcomings of some members of his own family, and the community as a whole. He believes that some of their problems are furthered by his own culture’s unwillingness to look at themselves with the clarity needed to find better solutions, as stated in your OP.

Annie: …and b) because race and ethnicity has been a big issue among trump supporters as evidenced by the desire for a wall, a ban on muslims, and notably a study done of google searches (less biased than surveys) which show that the strongest correlation of searches with trump voters were for racial terms, especially racial jokes.

I know that’s the view from where you stand, but my viewpoint is that the left has been doggedly determined to portray race and ethnicity as a big issue among Trump supporters from the start, as a way to vilify Trump and anyone who supports him. I don’t agree that being concerned about national/border security is proof of racism.

I really applaud your efforts to discuss the motivation behind the support for Trump, but I don’t see the main issues addressed by Hillbilly Elegy as being related to race. I think it’s a mistake to try to find proof of racism among Trump supporters through excerpts from the book. I’m glad you started this thread though, because I enjoyed revisiting the book a bit.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Ziemia, thanks so much for the link to the timely article about Kavanaugh, written by J.D. Vance. It helped me understand more about Kavanaugh, too.

If anyone is having a hard time seeing the Wall Street Journal article because of paywall issues, here's an archived link that should let you read it:
https://archive.fo/67sWn

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

Wouldnt Kavanaugh best be under its own thread? It seems a diversion when there was a good discussion going about how efficient it is to try to figure out a trump voter.

Dem campaigns are not considering the whys of voting for trump. Maybe sitting around and having a spirited discussion, for the heck of it. But never during a campaign. Which is where we are from now until November.

It seems to cause the right wing and a few Dems some angst that there isnt a white knight riding in and be our candidate in 2020. Dont go there. What we have to do now is campaign for fall elections.

Did it ever occur to you that the right wants this division. It actually occured long before Trump. He spotted what was already there and ran with it. Division, helped along by right wing media, works for them and they are not going to give it up.

Understanding how they tick is not going to make a bit of difference.

In fact it could make it worse.

The posting by some has one central goal: cause Dems to want to fight back. Fighting will shift your focus from campaigning.

President Obama has told us to focus. Dont get distracted. That is, for those that want to win in November.

Its all about who shows up to vote. Better to understand the independent. The far right is solidly dug in.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Zalco/bring back Sophie!

I used to play the lets understand the Trump voter game. Then children were ripped from their parents and put into cages with no provision for their being reunited with their families and Trump voters defended the outrage. Now, I don’t care what motivates them. We just need to get back some Obama voters.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
alexrander

I never had much tolerance for the Right wingers. I mean how much stupidity and bigotry are you able to take? I do think that it's connected to narcissism. Stupid + narcissistic = Republican.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cait1

I never had much tolerance for the Right wingers.

At least one of the HT majority admits his prejudice. Kudos.

@ Annie

because race and ethnicity has been a big issue among trump supporters as evidenced by the desire for a wall, a ban on muslims, and notably a study done of google searches (less biased than surveys) which show that the strongest correlation of searches with trump voters were for racial terms, especially racial jokes.

I find that bias stunning.

A border wall has to do with security, not races or ethic classes.

There was never a 'muslim ban' and repeating that lie says a lot about your inability to understand that unbridled immigration from countries torn apart by terrorists and still in the throes of war create a security risk.

Both those points tell me you are unconcerned with the safety and well being of Americans and I really have to question why you want terrorists and criminals entering the country.

As for google searches, I can only SMH at how ignorant you are concerning all the algorithms google uses to shore up left wing propaganda. Google is extremely biased. You seem to forget how google, FB and others used algorithms and user info to support Hillary and dems during the last election.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

The latest fantasy for the liberal fringe involves the notion that liberals empower themselves by singling out fellow citizens for public shaming, assault, and death threats.

^^^^^^^^^^^

It's mob mentality, abh.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

allez_cuisine

None of us here have ever condoned violence.

Sure you do. Once you've labelled everyone on the right as racist nazi fascist subhuman scum, you've justified any act against them and they deserve whatever they have coming. Some guy on another thread thinks if you go harass lawmakers you're the hero. Another one on another thread thinks that's what they get for displaying fascist nazi flags.

I think it's time for the Democratic Party leaders to get their extreme wing under control. Before things get out of hand any more than they already have.

^^^^^^^

Of course the Left condones violence. I've seen people defend that happened on a baseball field in VA by shrugging, "no one died".

The Left's unhinged,anger is frightening. Their leaders have chosen to stir up the worst elements in the group, keep then aggrieved and on a knife's edge, coiled like a snake.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

I don’t agree that being concerned about national/border security is proof of racism.

^^^^^^^

mudhouse, the Left has linked national security to racism in an effort to smear Trump and his supporters.

The same politicians who are claiming securing our borders is racist and cruel are the same politicians who supported border security and legal immigration for years.

What it comes down to is control and Democratic leaders will use any mean necessary to foment hate for Trump and "the other side" in order to regain power and stay in office.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
adoptedbyhounds

"A border wall has to do with security, not races or ethic classes."

Exactly right. Getting permission to enter is required of everyone.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

Group hug, which I see as liberals going to their extreme wing( bleeding heart liberals) is just playing right into the hands of the right. They are playing you. They are sending you down a rabbit hole. Stop it.

It has been some time ago since I read the book. So I'm a little fuzzy on all the details. But I remember thinking that Vance isn't cutting these people any slack.

And neither should we. ETA They are their own worst enemy.

Some of you people on the left , are really out of touch. You are as much in a bubble as you acuse the right of being in.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Both those points tell me you are unconcerned with the safety and well being of Americans and I really have to question why you want terrorists and criminals entering the country.

^^^^^^

cait, I find people unmoved by the suffering of Americans.

We are not favored and not cared for or about in the eyes of Democrats.

Americans just going about their lives are now targeted, mobbed and harassed with complete disregard for their safety and the safety of their families, and it's actually encouraged.

This is complete lack of concern for the safety and well being of Americans.

The Left is more concerned, nay, consumed with parents temporarily separated from their "children" than American angel parents who will never see, touch or hear their child ever again.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

adoptedbyhounds

"A border wall has to do with security, not races or ethic classes."

Exactly right. Getting permission to enter is required of everyone.

^^^^^^^^

Respect for our laws is also required.

What kind of idiot President would not enforce our laws?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

In all the years I have been posting on HT, it has never once occurred to me that the left wants to persuade the right in any way. It seems that their belief is, the right are such awful people and if we can convince them of their awfulness then they would like to be like us. I also understand that the left doesn't really want to know why people support Trump. They ask the question why, simply to attack reasons given, not to understand them.

Then look at it from the rights perspective. Do I want to be a member of a party who simply name calls anyone who doesn't agree with them? Who takes to the streets in protest because I didn't get things my way? Call myself a feminist when I disparage any woman of the other party. Accost people in public places because they have different political views than me? Cheer on celebrities who call for the assassination of the president, blowing up the White House. Accost people in public for wearing a hat I don't approve of? Now is that a party that I want to be a part of? Never, never will I ever vote for a democrat again. And I know I'm not alone in that.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

You know, Mrs, I have never ever voted a “straight” ticket before now, but I am in total agreement with you. I will never ever vote for another whiny democrat again. DH and I are both changing our no party affiliation here in FL to republican. The hatred spewed by so many democrats, the repulsiveness of the alt-left, the hypocrisy of so many liberals, their treatment of conservatives, their general looniness - is nauseating. Hate from the left pours from their pores. They criticize and resist EVERYTHING so the result is I believe NOTHING from them. The childish ignorant names our President is called here isn’t funny—it’s sick. We have elections. He won this one. The democrats cannot get over losing an election where they had the “fix” in for Clinton. Love their superiority posts—like their opinions are so so correct and moral where those that deign to disagree are pond scum or worse. I think all their asinine “resistance” will backfire. It’s energizing many of us who didn’t get so politically involved before.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

paprikash, the Left have become zealots.

At some point, Democrats are going to do one of two things. Join the insanity by divorcing themselves from reality and immersing themselves in the Left's extremist, radicalized hatred, or #walkaway.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I enjoyed Hillbilly Elegy. Vance’s thoughts and theories mesh well with those from other parts of the country.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

About my sharing the writing of Vance here: it speaks to his views (as well as providing a new example of his writing) makes sense.

Feel free to copy and paste elsewhere.

(At the time, this was a 'sleepy', no drama thread.)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

PS: My message has been:

Too soon for 2020 talk (distraction)

Support your candidate for 2018

Get people registered (if there's any doubt on still being registered (have you voted recently? have you moved recently?)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

This is my take:

Finally, after about 40 years, the RW is getting control of how the U.S. is run-Thank God! So, naturally, the LW, is unhinged, because they have been merrily trodding along all these years, things going their way mostly, and THEN... ALL OF A SUDDEN...it's NOT, and as a matter of fact, it is going the opposite direction...and FAST.

I can actually see how the LW'ers feel-because, things were SLOWLY going their way for many years, and then President Trump gets into office-who does not do things slowly-he gets things done quickly, and it is too much, too fast, for the LW. At least, the RW had a little time to slowly digest what was happening to them over the years, because that was how things got done, S-L-O-W-L-Y.

However, the RW, has taken it and taken it, and taken it, for all these years and we now have someone in office who does not care if Joe Blow next to him (Dem or Rep), likes it or not. In the past, Dem and Rep Presidents have played politics and Trump doesn't care about that so much. However President Trump has learned, while in office, he has had to care more than he thought he would about playing politics, but, people still feel like he is MAGA, which is what those of us, for the last 40 years or so, have been waiting for- for someone with common sense. Yes, we know he has his shortcomings, but President Trump tries to get past as much of the political carp as possible and work for the people who want to MAGA. So, yes, we are more than happy to take advantage of this MORE THAN DESERVED situation!

grapeleaves, common sense tells me, the Democrats you stated above, that don't vote in Oklahoma, are mainly, the poor, who get handouts. Some deserving, most not, which I have stated in the past. So, no they don't vote. Oklahoma has nothing in common with hillbillies in Appalachia (which I consider special people to live that way), except maybe a very small portion in the far corner of the state-where they grow/grew marijuana illegally-and they stay in their neck of the woods, so-to-speak.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

paprikash, you are right! I does energize us!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

There were two Bushes, Reagan, Ford and Nixon. None of them represented you but Trump does?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

I don't know that conservatives and Republicans needed prior Presidents as much as Trump is needed, and it's because the Left, the Democratic party, looks NOTHING like it did in the 20th century.

The Left is now hard Left, radicalized and open- borders Socialist, if not Marxist and Communist.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
arthurpym

Trump has about much common sense as a dead fish. And he's quickly turning the US into a sh**hole.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

Olliesmom, we agree on nothing. Your preception of Oklahomans and mine are very different. I'm assuming you think everything is coming up roses here?

ETA I am not a native Oklahoman. Maybe that accounts for the difference in perception?


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
olliesmom

grapeleaves, maybe so. I thought something was off.

eta: I think Oklahoma has some work to do, of course.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust


arthurpym

Trump has about much common sense as a dead fish. And he's quickly turning the US into a sh**hole.

^^^^^^^

With a robust economy, strong stock market, lowering unemployment, raising wages, increasing home ownership for minorities.

yeah...that's a real hole, lol!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

LOL

The only "Blue Wave" candidates the Trump fans notice are the most progressive ones

That clearly comes from the messaging of their fav TV personalities as it isnt true.

EG, I know that only a few GOP are running on Nazi type themes. Most are not.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Money is important but health is more so.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Did another of my posts disappear? I was sure I responded to mudhouse that I wasn't posting what I did as a suggestion that that was vance's POV...rather it was my take on a source of discontent among trump voters as suggested by data vance used. I thought too that I had linked to the study that was done using google searches as a source as people will lie on a survey, but their searches, which are done entirely for other purposes, are in fact more truthful about their true feelings, including racial issues.

As a barometer of our national consciousness, Google is as accurate (and predictive) as it gets. In 2016, when the Republican primaries were just beginning, most pundits and pollsters did not believe Trump could win. After all, he had insulted veterans, women, minorities, and countless other constituencies.

But Stephens-Davidowitz saw clues in his Google research that suggested Trump was far more serious than many supposed. Searches containing racist epithets and jokes were spiking across the country during Trump’s primary run, and not merely in the South but in upstate New York, Western Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio, rural Illinois, West Virginia, and industrial Michigan.

Stephens-Davidowitz saw in the Google Trends data a racially polarized electorate, and one primed to respond to the ethno-nationalist rhetoric of Trump. Source

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Thanks Annie, I never saw that post, although I've been checking back here. I have to say I'm a hard sell that Google is as accurate as it gets! But I'll take time to read the article you linked, thanks.

Regarding the WSJ article linked by Ziemia: I appreciated the inclusion, because it's a reminder that Vance, a self-proclaimed product of his Appalachian culture, is functioning and contributing to American society in a manner that some would have said was extremely unlikely, based on his tough start in life.

Vance is an investor, commentator and author. He attended Ohio State University and Yale Law School, earning his law degree in 2013. He worked as the principal in a venture capital firm, has been a CNN contributor, and has recently started a non-profit organization, Ohio Renewal, to address the problems he witnessed growing up. His wife Usha is a law clerk to a Supreme Court justice.

His family was damaged by physical abuse, alcoholism, and drug abuse, growing up in the economically ravaged town of Middletown, Ohio. He had to give up his relationship with his drug addicted mother, after she tried to kill him. Not only did he survive it; he wrote about it, in an attempt to find ways to make things better.

To me, Vance is an example of why it’s criminally wasteful to characterize anyone from economically disadvantaged parts of the country as having voices that are less important than others. Rural parts of the country, flyover areas. Since Trump’s election, these areas are used too often by those on the left as examples of what’s wrong with the country, instead of listening to their voices, and considering what they can bring to the table.

Grapeleaves is right, Vance doesn’t cut his people much slack. Vance’s book is tough love, but he celebrates the good things about his people while he’s chastising them for the behaviors that hold them back. He writes about their courage, their independence, and their ability to survive. It raises my hackles anytime I think people are cherry picking from the content to only highlight characteristics they think support their belief that Trump supporters are backwards, racist, undereducated, and ignorant.

That’s not reaching for an understanding. It’s only reaching for things that provide a comfortable support for a preexisting bias, and that prevents progress towards any kind of real understanding.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

To me, Vance is an example of why it’s criminally wasteful to characterize anyone from economically disadvantaged parts of the country as having voices that are less important than others. Rural parts of the country, flyover areas. Since Trump’s election, these areas are used too often by those on the left as examples of what’s wrong with the country, instead of listening to their voices, and considering what they can bring to the table.

^^^^^

It's heartbreaking to me see see Americans maligned for the provenance of their birth.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Great!

No more attacks on the so-called coastal elites, or those born in the so-called inner city areas. The provenance of their birth should not be maligned.

Dare I hope this is the same for our immigrant communities.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Nancy, it's the coastal elites who are the worst offenders and argue that not every American should have the right to vote, and that we should abolish our electoral college system.

They need no defending.

Immigrants are not the same as illegal aliens, so if that is who you are referring to, don't hope.

They are not Americans.

(unless the Democrats actually get off their rear ends and give 1.8 MM of them a path to citizenship, as Trump has offered)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Campanula UK Z8

When class (and material reality) has been erased, all you are left with is the rabbithole of identity politics and utopian idealism (and a recipe for division). Going nowhere apart from benefiting the capitalist class.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

The so-called coastal elites do nothing of the sort, Mimi.

Hard working men and women are disparaged because of where they live on the West Coast.

Immigrants, documented residents, are disparaged when they speak a non-English language, especially Spanish. US-born Spanish speakers also receive their share of grief.

So we all should respect each other, regardless of provenance.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

You know Hillary's favorite line to use when she was raising money at the elites' fancy soirees in the Hamptons and elegant dinner parties in NYC and lavish get togethers in Hollywood?

The "basket of deplorables" joke.

Went over every time.

Until her Hamptons-tested banter went viral.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
woodnymph2_gw

And Trump is the soul of politesse??? Verbally attacking a Gold Star Vet, several women, a disabled man, and some of our best allies, to mention only a few.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

lilac, how do you know what HRC said during fundraising dinners?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Mudhouse: "Since Trump’s election, these areas are used too often by those on the left as examples of what’s wrong with the country, instead of listening to their voices, and considering what they can bring to the table."

Not true from my work and those I am in touch with. I have outreached and know many who have. And the contact is based on 'listening'. (And, these are about either neutral political types or more liberal types.)

PS: I appreciate Vance's writing.. a writer that strives for clarity as well as accuracy.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

It's true that the vast majority of the West Coast doesn't appreciate the alt-right aka white supremacists and white nationalists. Those deplorables are not welcome here.

Rising housing costs saw a number move from California to Idaho and Montana some years ago -- like ex-LAPD officer Mark Fuhrman, and Tom Metzger of White Aryan Resistance (WAR).

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
SandyC.

I guess I live in a "coastal" elite area. Our economy is now the 19 th largest in the world, with technology and healthcare, beating Saudi Arabia and Switzerland.

We are one of the most diverse parts of the country, about 15 years ahead of the rest of the country.

We went through the racist, fear mongering by white national, anti immigrant GOP, Pete Wilson and prop 187.

There will always be racists, who don't read, and are prone to believe the racist rhetoric of a con man like trump. Luckily the deplorables, the base, the lowest of the low, are a small minority of the country, who fear losing their white majority. We have always had them, nothing changes. The Irish and Jews were considered non white on the US census, until the population became more diverse and the white majority was threatened.

Vance, btw, is now a coastal elite and lives in Silicon Valley.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust


nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

It's true that the vast majority of the West Coast doesn't appreciate the alt-right aka white supremacists and white nationalists

^^^^^^

Thank you for your revealing post about how Californians feel about white Americans in flyover states.

You just proved my point, nancy.

Those deplorables are not welcome here.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust


Rita

lilac, how do you know what HRC said during fundraising dinners?


Amy Chozick

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
SandyC.

CA has the highest number of white supremacist groups according to the SPLC. Of course we are the most populated state, but there are lots of hills and rocks for the deplorables to hide out in, in the Central Valley and deserts.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Vance, btw, is now a coastal elite and lives in Silicon Valley.

^^^^^^^

"Elite' is a state of mind, not geographic coordinates.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

I reccoment the book, How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev for those would like to learn more about so-called race being used to shut newcomers out of the country.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"Coastal elites"... "argue that not every American should have the right to vote" (lilacinjust)

The opposite of true.

PS: Hillary is over for nearly everyone here on HT.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Mimi, my comments -- in context -- were perfectly clear in their reference to the alt-right aka white supremacists and white nationalists WHEREVER THEY LIVE.

I specifically gave an example of two racists from California.

If you have to recast my words out of context to prove your assertion, you have already lost the debate.


7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Not all right are "alt right". I don't think this.

I doubt nancy lumps all right into the "alt right".

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

Thanks, lilac, I thought HRC made that comment once in passing. I was not aware it was constant feature of her speeches. What a moronic thing to say and repeat no less.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Now the so-called coastal elites does not refer to an actual geographic location.

Spin, spin, spin.

So "fly over country" also lacks geographic coordinates?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

I am very concerned to see people talk about taking away a citizen's right to vote in the same breath as discussing reforming the Electoral College. Those two things are not the same and should not be confused.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

nancy, just the mere fact that you use the word "deplorable" for Americans tells me that you drank the Hillary Kool Aid.

Not to mention your irresponsible and gratuitous use of "white supremacist".

You exemplify the demonization of white Americans whom are now callously tossed aside in favor of "brown" people, who are not Americans.

Because that's what your Democratic leaders told you to do, so they could secure a burgeoning voting block.

So they can stay in power.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Thanks, ziemia.

When I mean those on the right, I write "the right."

When I specifically mean white supremacists and white nationalists, I mention those descriptions.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

No gratuitous use of white supremacists and nationalists -- they showed themselves quite early in Trump's campaign. Only when scrutiny of Spencer and Milo produced a backlash did Bannon/Breitbart distance themselves from the haters.

Who can forget David Duke's endorsement of Trump.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Mimi, you misrepresent my words, which are clear for everyone to read, just as you misrepresent Hillary's actual quote. She too was specific to identify the white supremacists et al as deplorables.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

FWIW I was always clear on what HRC meant by a basket of deplorable- it was still a ridiculous thing to say and repeat knowing how it would be twisted and used in a clearly populist campaign.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Sandy: Vance, btw, is now a coastal elite and lives in Silicon Valley.

Nope, Sandy, he returned to Ohio to start the organization I referred to above. Here's a quote from his website for his non-profit organization, Our Ohio Renewal:

J.D. lives in Columbus, Ohio with his wife and two dogs, where he works on his nonprofit and investment activities.

I highly doubt Vance would ever refer to himself as an elite, either.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Rita

FWIW I was always clear on what HRC meant by a basket of deplorable- it was still a ridiculous thing to say and repeat knowing how it would be twisted and used in a clearly populist campaign.

^^^^^^

She mean xenophobic, homophobic, islamaphobic, you name it. What really got me was when she called millions of Americans "irredeemable".

I thought, "How can this woman claim she will represent all Americans if she truly believes what she's just said. About MILLIONS of them?"

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Still living on Hillary fuel?

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

mudhouse, nobody would refer to themselves a an elite. A JD from Yale, a best selling book and a career in finance make him an elite. I am glad he is too polite to call attention to his accomplishments. Elite is not an insult.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

... I thought too that I had linked to the study that was done using google searches as a source as people will lie on a survey, but their searches, which are done entirely for other purposes, are in fact more truthful about their true feelings, including racial issues.

Annie, I read the Vox interview with Stephens-Davidowitz. I've got no problem believing that people are most honest with their internet searches than they are with, for example, comments on Facebook, because with an internet search they're asking questions and seeking answers. I also agree it's an interesting source of data.

But the glaring omission to me is this: there's no way that anyone can know WHY those people did the internet searches they did. Stephens_Davidowitz's conclusions seem to interpret the act of doing a search as supporting the topic they're researching. That's ridiculous, to me.

I've done internet searches myself for terms I've never heard of before Trump was elected, once the national conversation erupted into accusations of full-blown racism. If I do an internet search for the definition of white supremacy, does that mean I subscribe to that ideology? Of course not! I have researched that phrase, and in my case, it has honestly meant I'm trying to understand why people who don't know me would accuse me of having those beliefs, and I'm frankly not "up to date" with the tenets of that disgusting belief system. I don't know any white supremacists (most people don't, in fact) even though it's a big topic on the national front. So what do we do? We look it up.

I noticed a comment from arthurpym recently, saying he spends a lot of time reading among hate groups (apologies arthur, if I don't have your wording quite right.) Does that mean that arthurpym is a member of a hate group, or that he agrees with those people? Of course not! It means he is seeking understanding of that group, for his own reasons.

Seeking understanding cannot be construed as agreeing with the terms you're researching. I can't believe that entire interview was conducted without taking this into account, when it comes to the author's conclusions about an uptick in apparent racism in the country (or your conclusions as well.)

Good grief.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Elite is not an insult.

Rita, I think the word elite can mean different things to different people, especially in the current political environment. My take is, the word takes into account a person's roots...where they started out in life...as well as where they are now.

I don't know how Vance would define himself currently, but I stick to my guns that I doubt he'd refer to himself as an elite. I do know for certain he didn't see himself that way originally:

"I went to Yale to earn a law degree. But that first year at Yale taught me most of all that I didn’t know how the world of the American elite works."

Probably I'm being stubborn, but I think it's possible for someone to learn how to operate in the world of the elites, without defining yourself as one. Personally, because of my own humble roots, I'd never refer to myself that way, no matter what I'd achieved in life. But maybe that's just me.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Nancy, if Dukes endorsement of Trump makes him a white supremacist, what does Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama make Obama?

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"Elite" was introduced on this thread, as it often is, as a pejorative by a Trump fan. Nancy prefaced it with 'so-called'.

Using pejoratives while decrying pejoratives is at best illogical.

If "elite" is a description of economic and educational factors that's one thing and a thing that isn't renounceable.

If it reflects intelligence and social standing then there are "fly over states elites" as well as coastal ones.

There are out-of-touch people everywhere.

I wish the GOP and right leaning folks HERE would stop telling me how I think and feel. You can discern things about me by what I agree with and what I deplore.

PS: that means always staying silent on damaging comments = acquiescence.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

How did Trump respond to that endorsement? (Ignoring history before 2015 because that relates to the previous midterms.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I wish the GOP and right leaning folks would stop telling me how I think and feel. You can discern things about me by what I agree with and what I deplore.

I think both sides feel this way Ziemia. Nobody likes to be mischaracterized about how they feel or what they think, and that's a primary reason for my push back against the constant implications that Trump supporters are racists.

I'm glad you don't see evidence in your work that the groups I'm talking about (economically disadvantaged, poor, Appalachian, and others) are used as examples of what's wrong with the country. That's encouraging.

I'll just add one more thing to your possible definitions of elite (because I'm stubborn, lol) and that is that "elite" can also be a reference to our roots, where we grew up and who our family was.

It's a little word, but it can have a range of meanings to different people.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

Changing the definition of elite in order to make it an affinity based affiliation instead of a fact based one, seems misguided. There are other ways of refer to a person's roots or sympathies. I don't think we should allow language to be distorted like this. Words have definitions and while there is some evolution, this use of elite is not a part of that.

For the purposes of this argument, I will use the Google dictionary definition of elite:

a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.

In my world that requires education or training. Education for the intellectual abilities that make one elite, or training for the athletic or artistic ones.

So this disdain for elites on the part of middle America saddens me. Of course there are elites who are bad, who use their knowledge and power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. However, using the term in order to cast aspersions on the whole group implies to me a certain amount of anti-intellectualism which is unfortunate. For people who wish to have better representation in Washington to view advanced education with such suspicion and without much aspiration, suggests to me, they will never achieve the representation they wish for. So long as you are not an "elite" you will be used by people who can manipulate you for their own ends, no matter if they profess to be populists or elitists, you will be fodder for their own agenda.


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Mudhouse, I call out those who make blanket descriptions. Not every time but often.

More of us doing so may help.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Rita, I don't think on this forum that your definition of elite as seen here is the same reference.

As a political usage, elite is more a disparaging term than the one you offer.

Elite here, is used as those who disparage Trump supporters as being uneducated, racist, bigoted, deplorables. As if they believe that somehow, if we were simply as intelligent, compassionate, and well educated as they, we would see the error of our ways and miraculously become a liberal

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

elites= better than, woker than the unwashed, uncultured masses.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

mrskjun & lilac, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do understand how you are using the term. I think there should be a better way of referring to people you see as hostile to a certain set of interests. In reality, we all have many interests in common.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

Lynn, I know that man feels no shame, but playing people so obviously, it's insulting. I don't know how they don't recoil.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Rita

mrskjun & lilac, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do understand how you are using the term. I think there should be a better way of referring to people you see as hostile to a certain set of interests. In reality, we all have many interests in common.

^^^^^^^^^

In the whole scheme of coarse political discussion, the term "coastal elite" is pretty tame, but yes, it's used in a derogatory fashion.

For good reason. That's because I don't use the term because they are hostile to a certain set of interests, but because they are hostile to a certain set of Americans.

People. They are hostile to people.

American people.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Wow! This thread has moved along quickly and reading older posts have triggered a lot of what I'd like to say...there's much to think on and respond to. I'll be getting back as time and brain power allows.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

In the meantime, let me throw a little more meat in the pot. Finished the book and came across this (pgs 192 ff):

Significant percentages of white conservative voters -- about one-third -- believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. In one poll, 32% of conservatives said that they believe Obama was foreign-born and another 19% said they were unsure -- which means that a majority of conservative white Americans aren't certain Obama is even an American...that Obama has ties to Islamic extremists, or is a traitor...

He goes on to suggest that rather than skin color, this is more due to the divide between the working class and the elites.

President Obama came on the scene right as so many people in my community began to believe that the modern American meritocracy was not built for *them*.....

Many try to blame the anger and cynicism of working class whites on misinformation. Admittedly, there is an industry of conspiracy-mongers and fringe lunatics writing about all manner of idiocy....

With little trust in the press, there's no check on the Internet conspiracy theories that rule the digital world...

This isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in any democracy. This is deep skepticism of the very institutions of our society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream.....

Here is where the rhetoric of modern conservatives (and I say this as one of them) fails to meet the real challenges of their biggest constituents. Instead of encouraging engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers...the message of the right is increasingly: It's not your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I agree Annie, it's a good thread, and I'm glad you started it.

Ok, you guys made me even more curious about whether or not Vance would refer to himself as an elite. I finally found an article in the Financial Times covering an interview with him. I think this link will take you to the pdf file (otherwise have to subscribe to FT to read it.)
Hillbilly elegist JD Vance: The People Calling the Shots Really Screwed Up

In the end Vance did not vote for Trump. He voted for Evan McMullin, the conservative independent, instead. But he still has a charitable view of the man who has blown up the norms of American political discourse. That is partly because Vance believes that Trump’s crudeness — and what he sees as the prudish response it elicits from city elites — was vital to the president’s appeal in places such as Appalachia.

Mamaw would not have voted for Trump, had she been alive, because of his history as a philanderer. Yet “the vulgarity that turns a lot of people off, Mamaw would have appreciated and thought was hilarious”. His grandfather was a life-long Democrat, although he voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I think, like a lot of folks, he would have voted against Hillary Clinton,” says Vance. “That sort of condescending elitism that the Clinton campaign came to represent would have turned my grandfather off.”

The top-down condescension that he found so aggravating in 2016 remains alive and well in American politics, Vance argues. “The elite Republican view of why people voted for Donald Trump is that Trump voters are stupid. I think the elite Democratic view is that Trump people were bigoted and immoral. And that’s probably still very much reflected in popular culture,” he says, picking at his fish tacos.

I point out that based on his Ivy League résumé, profession and accomplished spouse — he met his wife Usha at Yale and she is currently clerking for the chief justice of the US Supreme Court — he has become a card-carrying member of the very elite he scorns. Vance laughs. “I react viscerally to this idea that I am a member of the elite, even though it’s objectively true.”

Becoming a father has made him consider this question more seriously. The arrival of his son helped him to reconcile with his now-clean mother, and Vance says he feels an urgent need to make sure his child understands his own impoverished roots. “My greatest fear, within that context, is that, in 18 years, will [my son] feel more comfortable around our law school classmates — or will he feel more comfortable around people like my grandma? I want him to feel more comfortable around people like my grandma. But my intuition is that is going to take a lot of work,” Vance says.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Crikey, I have lived in an area now defined as "coastal elite" all my life. Within the last 24 months I learn that 39.5 million of us Californians are "elites."

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nannygoat_gw

Significant percentages of white conservative voters -- about one-third -- believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. In one poll, 32% of conservatives said that they believe Obama was foreign-born and another 19% said they were unsure -- which means that a majority of conservative white Americans aren't certain Obama is even an American...that Obama has ties to Islamic extremists, or is a traitor...

This might explain why some may look at Trumpets as under-informed, under-educated yahoos.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Significant percentages of white conservative voters -- about one-third -- believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. In one poll, 32% of conservatives said that they believe Obama was foreign-born and another 19% said they were unsure -- which means that a majority of conservative white Americans aren't certain Obama is even an American...that Obama has ties to Islamic extremists, or is a traitor

^^^^^

When is this poll from?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

This might explain why some may look at Trumpets as under-informed, under-educated yahoos.

^^^^^^

Rita, does this give you a sense of context?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

How do the white conservative voters mentioned above come to believe Obama is Muslim, and foreign born?

Is there a greater tendency to believe Obama is the "other" -- Muslim and foreign -- because of his skin color. Or due to unfamiliarity with persons of diverse backgrounds?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Lilac, and Nancy, there's no notation in the book on the part that Annie quoted, so I can't figure out which polls Vance is referring to for these numbers. So no way to know the date, or how the questions were formatted.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

This is from November 2015. It mentions and summarizes a few polls similar to what is quoted above relative to religion.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/nov/23/arsalan-iftikhar/do-59-percent-americans-believe-barack-obama-musli/

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

About birth place:

"Over 60% of Trump’s supporters say Obama was born in the United States, compared with 71% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters.

The poll was conducted among 1,012 adults with a margin of error of 3%"

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/4033161/obama-foreign-born

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, thanks for those excerpts. That was my understanding, too; Vance was not describing an anger based on skin color. In other parts of the book Vance also criticizes the practice of blaming other people for all the things wrong in your life, instead of accepting that some of the fault may be your own.

From the paragraph following the one you posted (with the stats about how many conservatives believe Obama is a Muslim):

Many of my new friends blame racism for this perception of the president. But the president feels like an alien to may Middletonians for reasons that have nothing to do with skin color. Recall that not a single one of my high school classmates attended an Ivy League school. Barack Obama attended two of them and excelled at both. He is brilliant, wealthy, and speaks like a constitutional law professor -- which, of course, he is...

This is why I was pushing back, earlier in the thread, about your attempts to use racial animus as motivation for Trump voters.

Annie: Another interesting tidbit from Hillbilly Elegy...which may be a source of racial animus among trump voters...[The number of working-class whites in high-poverty neighborhoods is growing...]

That's not the point Vance makes in this book, regarding the people he grew up with in Middletown. And I don't believe that racial animus is a motivation for most Trump voters as well.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, the last post from you I see is the one that starts "In the meantime, let me throw a little more meat in the pot." If that helps.

I have no idea why anyone would remove posts about this book. C'mon folks.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Unfortunately vance provides no source for the poll he cites.

But I did find this one from 5/2016: Poll: Two-Thirds of Trump Backers Think Obama Is Muslim

A google search reveals other polls that suggest the % is 54%, 43%, 59% so choose your take.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

I have a hard time understanding why Barack Obama would be seen as alien while a Republican candidate, such as Mitt Romney, would not. Same elite education, and superior accomplishments.

In the snippet provided, no mention is made of Obama's policies as a motive in alienating Vance's people.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse throughout the book, vance specifically says "white" working class so the racial element is there. I think from his POV he didn't want to make presumptions about nonwhite experiences, but there's no doubt that race plays an important role. To wit, at the end of the book, he talks about his cousin Gail who was the first to bring a black baby into the family and then found herself without family at all. "My Mom said she didn't want to hear my name again."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

This article from Vox cites a number of studies that all point in the same direction about the role race played in the trump election.

Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.

So there is data that race played a big role in the trump election, in addition to all the racist remarks trump has made (mexicans are rapists, s***hole countries, etc.), the white supremacists he included in his administration (bannon, miller), and the increase in bigots running for office in the gop (steve king, russell walker, arthur jones). article on gop racists

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh


Another chart from the same source above which suggests that trump did unleash something around racism (and sexism BTW) that neither mccain nor romney did.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

From way up thread, cait: There was never a 'muslim ban'

Really? Guess who said: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Or from this MSNBC interview:

Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?

Trump: That would be probably—they would say, “Are you Muslim?”

Geist: And if they said, “Yes,” they would not be allowed in the country?

Trump: That’s correct.

——————————


Both those points tell me you are unconcerned with the safety and well being of Americans and I really have to question why you want terrorists and criminals entering the country.

I actually don’t want terrorists and criminals entering the country, but I have yet to see any data or analysis that suggests that:

  • a physical wall is effective against illegal immigration
  • those billions would be better spent on a physical wall vs other more modern and technologically based security measures
  • illegal immigrants have a higher crime rate than US citizens…in fact all the data I’ve seen show the opposite
  • more people have died from illegal immigrant terrorist acts than have died from domestic terrorism
  • southern border crossers are in fact terrorists
  • southern border crossers are more numerous than those who overstay visas, so which, from a terrorist POV is more dangerous
  • separating parents from their children and locking them up in cages is:
    • anything but cruel and inhumane
    • totally ineffective as a deterrence policy but was designed to be punishment even for people who did nothing illegal or at worst a misdemeanor
    • racially motivated as one can only justify treating human beings as “vermin” who are “infesting” our nation from “s-hole countries” if they are seen as less than human
2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

This thread is interesting. I’m considering rereading the book.

It’s a shame when intelligent, nuanced posts are removed or ignored

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

mudhouse throughout the book, vance specifically says "white" working class so the racial element is there. I think from his POV he didn't want to make presumptions about nonwhite experiences, but there's no doubt that race plays an important role.

Annie, it's completely ridiculous to assert that anytime someone uses the word "white" as in "white working class" they're referring to racism. Are you serious? We can't even use the word "white" now, without veering into the ever-popular narrative that all Trump voters are racists? Words are descriptive tools we use to communicate with each other, and to automatically associate a derogatory meaning to one of the most common words in the language, so as to warp the meaning of any sentence or phrase including it, to slide it sideways into the meaning you want it to have, is a sad attempt at controlling the language. And a failed one, to me.

The studies the Vox (now, there's an unbiased site any conservative can get behind, right?) article refers to are all written by people who choose to see everything through a filter of race. From my viewpoint, they are university-based researchers in search of data to fit their preselected opinions. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that; it's a free country. But reading their studies didn't offer me anything that caused me to agree with their conclusions.

Michael Tesler: ...economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.

Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Tneta: The 2016 campaign witnessed a dramatic polarization in the vote choices of whites based on education. In this paper, we have demonstrated that very little of this gap can be explained by the economic difficulties faced by less educated whites. Rather, most of the divide appears to be the result of racism and sexism in the electorate, especially among whites without college 25 degrees.

And Jane Coaston, with her Vox article: "Self-described Nazis and white supremacists are running as Republicans across the country. The GOP is terrified" is an attempt to smear the entire Republican party because we have a system that allows any individual to run for office. The fact that nut jobs and wrong-thinkers with shameful ideologies can step up and run is a strength of our system, not a weakness. The voters decide! Coaston herself admits these candidates won't win, but she runs to the finish line in glee with her conclusion that the GOP will be terribly damaged by people who will be shunned by voters in both political parties.

None of these studies or articles are proof that Trump supporters are racist, Annie. They're opinions (which is fine) but opinions I strongly disagree with. I've enjoyed the thread a lot, but your attempt to use Hillbilly Elegy to prove that point is an absolute fail, for me, and so are these efforts to grab other "evidence" to support your theory.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Adding, the excerpt about Vance's cousin Gail only indicates that racism exists. I'm not disputing that racism exists. I've witnessed overt racism in my lifetime, and it definitely exists. That doesn't mean that people voted for Trump because they were motivated by racism, Annie. I think you're blurring the lines in an attempt to find things to support what you want to believe, whether you mean to or not.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"racial element" ≠ racism

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

My just above comment is based on this:

mudhouse throughout the book, vance specifically says "white" working class so the racial element is there. I think from his POV he didn't want to make presumptions about nonwhite experiences, but there's no doubt that race plays an important role.

Annie, it's completely ridiculous to assert that anytime someone uses the word "white" as in "white working class" they're referring to racism.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

PS: I don't read Annie's comments here as a claim about ALL Trump supporters.

Rather thar there is a strong and significant segment for whom racism is a factor in their decision making.

I am going to reread to verify my view.

After re-reading relevant comments from the top I only found one place where it would have been better (IMO) if she had used a "some".

I think Vance used the modifier "white" deliberately to be clear about his community. (Leaving a possible implication he understands he can't speak to not 'white' ones.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

When Trump receives endorsements from known racists -- Richard Spencer, David Duke, etc -- please believe that racism plays a part in his support.

The Unite the Right march in Charlottesville -- Nazis, KKK, assorted white nationalists -- was IN SUPPORT of Trump.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

And the instances where he did disavow support from those sorts, it was lacking passion and he often defends himself with passion. (Getting their endorsement is kinda out of his control.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

If a study or author used the word "female" as a descriptive term, to differentiate from non-females, has the author or study just included a sexist element in their work? Is it an indication that sexism is a topic in the study or work?

If not, why does the use of the word "white" as a descriptive term, to differentiate from non-whites, indicate the inclusion of a racist element, or that racism is a topic in the study or work?

White used before "working class" is how we know the person speaking is referring to white working class people, as opposed to non-white working class people.

No way you guys are gonna convince me using the word "white" as a descriptor indicates that "the racial element is there."

Still ridiculous...in my opinion.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ninamarie(4Ont.)

A common enemy, allez? You are referring to fellow Americans. Which brings me to the question - who do you Trumpsters like?

Apparently you hate babies. Breast feeding mothers. Hispanics. Strippers. Muslims. Catholics. Women. Liberals. Democrats. Environmentalists. Canadians, esp, Justin Trudeau. Blacks. Anybody who lives on any coast. Californians.

Who is left? Who don't you hate?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Again,

racist =/= racial

racial =/= racist

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

White used before "working class" is how we know the person speaking is referring to white working class people [agree], as opposed to non-white working class people. [disagree]

No, it would be more like 'as opposed to no specified racial connotation'. If no racial modifier is included, then one might assumes it is a mixed group --- with members of several races. (I did have an 'or' here but it could bring in a lot of swamp weeds.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Sure Ziemia, I agree that the lack of any modifier can mean a mixed group as well; just saying "working class people" is completely non-specific. But I think we're already pretty far into the weeds here (so that's as far down this road as I'll go.)

Doesn't negate my point that the simple inclusion of the word white does not indicate a concern with racial issues. That's just silly. See my question above, regarding the simple use of the modifier "female." The inclusion of that word does not necessarily indicate a concern with sexism, either, or sexist issues (however you want to phrase that, makes no difference to me.)


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to represent vance's point of view in any way. Rather I'm using some of the material in his book that I found interesting as a basis for discussion.

I also think there may be a presumption here that I don't accept...which is that vance's memoir in any way is representative of a typical trump voter, though my understanding is book is often pointed at as representative of the social and economic plight that led to strong rural support for trump.

IAC, the fact that vance refers frequently to "white working class" is not racism and I didn't say it was. I said it was an element, and important enough one for him to make that distinction. I also pointed out the overt racism in his family regarding his cousin which as he described it suggested it was not unexpected.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

OH carp! I just had a long thing typed out and lost it before I could post it... I hate when that happens!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse: That doesn't mean that people voted for Trump because they were motivated by racism, Annie.

I disagree. I posted multiple studies(here's another) all pointing in the same direction, I have trump's own words and actions before and since becoming president including the fact that he rode in on the birther issue, the lack of response to Puerto Rico's plight, the white supremacists he's hired into the white house, the rise of the alt-right since trump entered the ring, and I have the white supremacists running for office *all on the GOP ticket*.

I'm not saying all trump supporters are racist, but those of his supporters who aren't racist, don't seem to mind that he is....much in the same way they don't mind his womanizing, committing fraud, his bankruptcies, etc.

When you buy the farm, you buy the *whole* farm from fields to manure pits. So take the good with the bad, but at least know who you are supporting.

I think you're blurring the lines in an attempt to find things to support what you want to believe, whether you mean to or not.

I don't *want* to believe trump is a racist-- believe me, our nation would be so much better off if he weren't. But I can't avoid the facts in front of me.

Rather, I think you and so many others are denying the evidence as you'd rather not believe he is who he is or that so many people who voted for him are who they are.

BTW, when I'm talking racism here, I'm not talking about strictly black/white...rather I'm talking about the fear felt by white christians that they are losing their social and economic position of power and privilege to: mexicans, muslims, puerto ricans, jews, blacks, non-English speakers, or however they define the *other*. In the case of vance, it would appear *other* is non-hillbilly.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

While I agree with Annie's comments, my opinion on Trump's personal racism varies slightly. Trump is not above exploiting racism and fear for his own advantage -- his promotion of birther nonsense, for example. He does not actually believe the conspiracy that he was promoting.

I'm not knowledgable about NYC at the time of the Central Park 5 to know if Trump's rush to condemn was for publicity, or an expression of racism. His support of the Unite the Right coalition in Charlottesville sent a message for a specific (and loyal) segment of his supporters.

In a way, cynically exploiting others' racism and fear is worse than being honestly racist. With a racist, you know what to expect. Trump's racism (and bigotry towards Mexicans) is used for his personal benefit.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
SandyC.

Trump was targeted by Sessions and Bannon as a candidate. They knew about the deep racial divides in this country, the rise of animus towards immigrants of color, Muslims and the " other" and needed a showman, carnival barker, to promote their cause, of ultimately cutting legal immigrants from " certain" regions and religions. Sessions has been been very clear in his writings and polices, while in Alabama then the senate, along with Miller his aid, that white Christians were threatened with multiculturalism and increased diversity.

Bannon proposed the " wall" , and once trump began his ridiculous diatribes about building a wall to keep out racists and criminals, the chants from his fans were addictive. Just like George Wallace, trump thrives on his adoring fans and chanting of campaign slogans of Build the wall and lock her up.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

This:

"I'm not saying all trump supporters are racist, but those of his supporters who aren't racist, don't seem to mind that he is.."

I did hope he would put that politicing aside once president and be concerned about proving wrong all the predictions made by Dems before the election.

One strange experience recently, people I know have begun to express opinions on the president. They just bring it up. As if they just have to express their opinion on Trump (negative). This has never occurred before in my life. All of these conversations end with reminders to vote.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

mudhouse: That doesn't mean that people voted for Trump because they were motivated by racism, Annie.

Annie: I disagree. I posted multiple studies (here's another) all pointing in the same direction.

Studies can be published, and statistics can be manipulated, to point to any conclusion the author wants to reach. I’ve read so many skewed and biased studies by now that they frankly do nothing to convince me of anything. I rarely use polls or studies in my posts, because they’re only as believable as their source. Opinions are so polarized these days there’s very little most of us will agree on as a trustworthy source. I might feel differently if I had endless time to read studies, research the authors and methodology, and check for bias in the conclusions drawn, but I don’t. So to me, they’re pretty much useless.

…I have trump's own words and actions before and since becoming president including the fact that he rode in on the birther issue...

I don’t see the proof of racism in Trump’s words that you do, but we won’t agree on any of the specific examples that have been discussed to pieces here, so I’ll move on.

…the lack of response to Puerto Rico's plight,...

I don’t agree there was a disparate government response to the damage in Puerto Rico.

…the white supremacists he's hired into the white house

Bannon and Sessions are not white supremacists, and neither is anyone else in the Trump administration.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, continuing: …the rise of the alt-right since trump entered the ring, and I have the white supremacists running for office *all on the GOP ticket*

Trump isn’t personally responsible for the endorsement of any white supremacist, just as Obama wasn’t personally responsible for the endorsement of anyone promoting race baiting, violence against law enforcement, or outright terrorism. All elected officials express opinions that appeal to good people and bad, sane people and the unbalanced. Those opinions can unfortunately be used to justify harmful acts. Those acts are a reflection on the shortcomings of the white supremacists, criminals, and terrorists who commit them, and there are bad people on the far fringes of both the right and the left.

We all agree that elected officials have a responsibility to consider what they say, especially because of how it might provide justification for bad people to do bad things. But trust me, we’ll all be arguing about where the line is crossed for eternity. Both sides will seize every new tragedy and wave it like a banner to prove the other side is responsible. Nothing is settled and nothing is gained.

Annie: I'm not saying all trump supporters are racist, but those of his supporters who aren't racist, don't seem to mind that he is...

Okay.

Let's get down to it.

There’s that persistent and willful blind spot, Annie. I accept that you believe he’s racist, but I don’t, and millions of other Americans agree with me. I can support your right to have a different viewpoint, but it’s remarkable to me that the left cannot or will not allow me to have mine. They continually gloss over it, as you just did, by stating that I (as a Trump supporter who is not a racist) don’t mind his racism.

No. That is not correct. I don’t think Donald Trump is a racist. You have the right to tell me what you think, but not to tell me what I think. (Ziemia, I believe you made a similar point up thread, and I agreed with you.)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: I don't *want* to believe trump is a racist-- believe me, our nation would be so much better off if he weren't.

It would be wrong for me to question your personal belief, and I won’t. But here’s a glimpse from my side: I’m convinced many on the left do want to believe that Trump is a racist. My guess is, they need Trump to be a racist, so they can use that description to delegitimize his presidency, and vilify his supporters. I don’t know why, but maybe it’s an easier “truth” to accept than the real one.

The real truth is that good and decent people can have views very different from those on the left, on the issues of the economy, education, religion, the environment, the size of government, immigration, national security, health coverage, personal responsibility, free speech, the right to self-defense, and more. And the fact that they hold different views doesn’t make them immoral, inferior, uneducated, ignorant, or racist.

It only means they have different opinions on issues.

The country would be better off if we could argue out the better parts from differing opinions, and find a way to use those better ideas to make things work, instead of automatically vilifying those who disagree with us. I think we used to be a little better at doing this, somehow. I’d like to see us find our way back there, somehow.

I’m 60, and I’ve lived all over the country, working a variety of jobs, and living in cities and in rural areas. I’ve never had anyone imply I was a racist person, or even that I’m willing to overlook the practice of racism until Trump was elected. I’m the same person I’ve always been, with the same values and beliefs and morals. I understand you don’t know me personally, but it’s true.

So, what has changed?

What has changed is the left needs to discredit Donald Trump, and anyone who supports him. And if good or decent people are wrongly accused in the process, it’s a small price to pay, because taking out Trump matters above all else.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

The left did not arbitrarily decide to discredit Trump. He disgraced and discredited himself. The left is holding him accountable. It's truly a shame that a portion of his own party chooses to accept Trump and enable him to the detriment of the country.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

I'm against keeping children in cages.

I pity anyone who thinks that is elitist.


Good and decent people do not ignore the fact that our president is a racist.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Trump has disgraced himself; cynically promoting doubt of President Obama's place of birth, aligning himself with Bannon's and Spencer's promotion of white nationalism, promoting bigotry against Mexicans through lies, scapegoating Muslims, treating women terribly.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

My guess is, they need Trump to be a racist, so they can use that description to delegitimize his presidency, and vilify his supporters.

Wrong. And I wonder if you would go there because the right listens to and reads such nonsense.

You made a bad choice, even if you think you've gotten all those wishes you listed. The wrong messenger in trump.

it wasn't trump's superpowers that made him the goper candidate, it's due to people like you who dismissed his character and lack of qualifications.

You can translate all you want but trump isn't president of the whole country. He is working to divide this country and doing a great job. It seems to be all he knows. The great negotiator is a transparent liar. NATO was a real fun portrayal of his low life mentality.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

Trump is a terrible racist. The man calls immigrants from south of the border, rapists and bad hombres. What would you call that kind of statement? It is racist. Those are his words.

There are many other instances of Trump showing his racism, but this one is plain and simple, making it very hard to spin.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
MikeUSMC

purrmich _6

You can translate all you want but trump isn't president of the whole country.

------------------------

^ Look. Learn.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

(Special shoutout to Annie and mudhouse for keeping a sane discussion alive on this thread, and taking the time to articulate the details of their opposing views in a rational manner. I've enjoyed hearing what everyone who read the book has had to say - thank you.)

2 Likes Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, I agree with your paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Let me highlight where I disagree:

My guess is, they need Trump to be a racist, so they can use that description to delegitimize his presidency, and vilify his supporters....

What has changed is the left needs to discredit Donald Trump, and anyone who supports him. And if good or decent people are wrongly accused in the process, it’s a small price to pay, because taking out Trump matters above all else.

This point of view represents a fundamental problem re trump and the dems as it reverses cause and effect. It assumes that the left detests trump because hillary lost. No. That's simply not true. Sure we would've rather she won. We would've had issues with other republicans and been disappointed, but you wouldn't have had millions in the US and *around the world* protest on 1/21/17 if, say we had president kasich or president jeb.

Rather the problem the left has with trump is *trump*...his actions, his policies, his ignorance, his morals, his emotional volatility, his disrespect for our western allies, his devotion to authoritarianism and putin, his never-ending lies, and the existential threat to our civil rights and our very form of government his administration engenders (and more). trump is the cause. The protests, the 'trump derangement syndrome', the influx of women into politics etc. is the effect. He is *responsible*. He is the cause. He is the problem.

This is where the frustration comes in: The *facts* of donald trump are so apparent and yet trump supporters, who would have never stood for one tiny fraction of his behavior from any other president, dem or gop, have given him a pass on all the outrageous things he's said and done. It's a seeming postulate for trump supporters: he cannot be the problem, therefore everyone else *is*. It's not about the facts of trump but about diminishing the messengers.

I think the race issue discussed here is a perfect example. I've shown studies that his stance on race was an important issue for voters, how his actions/words/history demonstrate his racism, the white supremacists in his administration, etc. No one has posted any facts to the contrary. Yet all of this is discounted as just my irrational need to discredit him. No. I'm trying my best to use the facts in evidence to demonstrate who he is.

IMO it is *essential* that the folks who support trump see him for who he is and what he is doing to our nation as, so long as he has the support of his base, there will be no check on his behavior from congress. And that's inherently dangerous under the best of circumstances, dire with this guy in the oval office.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

The above discussion also ties in nicely with the sentiment mrskjun expressed:

In all the years I have been posting on HT, it has never once occurred to me that the left wants to persuade the right in any way. It seems that their belief is, the right are such awful people and if we can convince them of their awfulness then they would like to be like us. I also understand that the left doesn't really want to know why people support Trump. They ask the question why, simply to attack reasons given, not to understand them.

I can see how it can seem this way, but, for me, it's always been about getting to the truth. I do try to understand why trump supporters support him, and especially why there's this endless supply of mulligans for him and I admit, I don't get it. But if I see something wrong in someone's facts or reasoning, I will point it out. It doesn't mean the right are awful people, rather that we disagree. But the more this gets personal, the more emotional it gets, the more defensive people get, the less able people are to rationally discuss and get to the truth. How often have we seen threads deteriorate into just that on both sides. Lots of heat, little light.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I respectfully disagree, Rita. Using the Spanish word "hombres" (men) isn't racist, and Trump did not say that ALL people from Mexico are "bad men." If he had said all people from Mexico were bad hombres, I'd agree it was a racist statement, because in that case he'd have been referring to the entire race. He didn't say that.

Trump did not say everyone coming from Mexico was a rapist. Some of the people who do cross the border are bad people, and some are rapists. Saying that isn't racist.

We can discuss whether or not it's true, and maybe you don't think anyone from Mexico is bad, or a rapist. That's fine. I think it's safe to say some are bad, some are criminals, and some are rapists, because that's true of the citizens of any country on earth.

We can discuss whether or not it was wise or beneficial for him to say that (I don't think so.) It's definitely not diplomatic, and I can see why it's seen as insulting, but I don't agree that it's racist, because he did not say in either case that ALL people from Mexico were either rapists or "bad hombres."

Edited to add, I really hope you don't think the above is spin...it's really my honest appraisal of those comments, for what it's worth.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, great posts, and I want to thank you for making it possible for us to share our differing viewpoints, without either of us accusing the other of being a lesser person. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that. I'm a little under the weather tonight, and want to go back and really think about your thoughtful replies before writing more. I hope you have the time to hang in there with me a bit longer!

I did feel a light bulb going off in my head as I read through your comments, and that moment is (for me) one of the rare rewards of posting here in HT. That makes me glad I took the time today to try to put my thoughts together as clearly as I could. Thanks again.

1 Like Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

That's is so disingenuous. Making excuses is giving trump an endorsement to be his worst self.

Sh2thole countries; calling people "vermin". We could go on and on.

Someone on the right needs to grow a backbone. All of Congress is complicit at this point.

The enabling is straight out of Psych 101.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

PS Annie, I got a prescription from my doc today for what ails me, so I'll be on drugs when I reply, and God knows what I will type. (Heh.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Thanks mudhouse, i too had some moments of insight in this process...I think it's how it's *supposed* to work, but often doesn't! :)


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Trump did not use qualifiers when speaking of Mexican immigrants. Nothing to limit the scope of his comments, that they only apply to a particular segment.

"When Mexico sends us its people, they're not sending their best."

However, when commenting on "good people" from Mexico, then the qualifier "some" is used . . . and then Trump only "assumes."

How does Trump insult Mexicans? Time counts the ways: http://time.com/4473972/donald-trump-mexico-meeting-insult/

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rita / Bring Back Sophie 4 Real

I think if you have to parse statements as though they were written in an ancient foreign language in order to communicate your point of view, the division between the two sides is nigh insurmountable.

I do not doubt there are many people who support Trump who are not racist. I do not want to ever sound like I am insulting people on the right.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, I think part of what's happening, is it's so much easier to argue like 3 yr olds do -- yeah but what about, you did it first, did not, name calling, and think oneself so clever when one has shut down the other side -- vs. do the work, because it *is* work to think, find data and research, explore one's emotional reactions vs. the rational ones, cut through the hyperbole and find the sincerity, allow for learning something new from the other side and hardest of all, let go of the pride and ego to admit mistakes and change one's mind.

I appreciate that you're willing to do the work.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

I've only skimmed the last part of this thread. Perhaps, I've missed something.

I don't remember race being much a part of Vance's book.

Great line Rita.


I think if you have to parse statements as though they were written in an ancient foreign language in order to communicate your point of view


Some pretty successful diversion going on here..

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Trump supporters read most of the comments here as claims that *all* of them are racist. Even in statements without modifiers (some of my previous comments here address it).

**Yet the following has no modifiers and Trump supporters say he's NOT referring to *all.


"When Mexico sends us its people, they're not sending their best."


Which is it? Isn't it hypocrisy to read similar comments inconsistently?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chloe203

Diversion. Democrats need to learn to recognize when they are purposly being diverted..It is an absolute necessity if they want to win elections.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

I think, in this day of fake news, russian bots, and disrupters in power, *everyone* needs to recognize when they are purposely being distracted or lied to or having their hot buttons pushed.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Ziemia: Trump supporters read most of the comments here as claims that *all* of them are racist.

That’s not right, for me. I read most of the comments here from the left (including Annie’s, in this thread) as saying that racism is a strong motivation for Trump supporters in general. I completely disagree.

It’s pointless to argue over whether or not ALL Trump supporters are racists; it's not true, of course, and if someone believes that, they’re so far away from my viewpoint it’s unwise for me to spend time in an exchange with them.

Are some Trump supporters racist? Yes. Are some Obama supporters racist? Yes. Arguing over what percentage is racist, and who has the worst record, seems pointless to me too. It’s impossible to prove any finite answer, so I don’t spend time there. My target is the widely held belief that racism is a strong motivation, a large part of the mix, for Trump supporters in general. I disagree.

"When Mexico sends us its people, they're not sending their best."

Nancy (and Ziemia), I don’t need a modifier for that statement, because I agree with it. When Mexico encourages their citizens to cross our border illegally, they’re not hoping to send citizens with the skills, experience, and education needed to help Mexico. Mexico’s general population is justifiably unhappy with crushing poverty, government/law enforcement corruption, and horrific violence. Mexico’s leaders have used the border with the US as an escape valve for years instead of dealing effectively with the problems inside their borders.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Rita, I don’t think you’re insulting anyone, and I appreciate your comments here. I’m more pessimistic than I was a year ago, but I still hope the division between our two sides isn’t insurmountable.

Rita: I think if you have to parse statements as though they were written in an ancient foreign language in order to communicate your point of view, the division between the two sides is nigh insurmountable.

Trump supporters don’t have to parse his statements to understand them. People at his rallies aren’t saying, “wait…what?” They understand his speeches, and his tweets. The only time I parse Trump’s comments is when people on the left see things in them that frankly aren’t there.

The shorter something is, the dumber it sounds to parse it. (Remember “it depends on what “is”, is"?) It’s like pulling apart a cupcake to prove there are no bad things baked inside. When you’re done, it’s a pile of crumbs. Then people say, wow, that’s the stupidest cupcake I’ve ever seen. Well, yeah. That’s because you made me rip it up, to prove there’s nothing bad in there, and cupcakes aren’t built for that. It was just a cupcake, or a short phrase, or a simple comment. There’s no elegant end to pulling it apart, but that’s the only way I know to explain why I don’t see what you do, hidden inside.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Yes, I used part of the statement. For sake of brevity. The rest was presumed to be part of the argument. So, here is the full statement --- no modifiers so his assessment is about all Mexicans crossing the border. ALL

"When Mexico sends us its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Mudhouse, your comment reads as if you are intentionally ignoring my point.

When Trump leaves out modifiers you know he's not dissing all. When someone who doesn't support Trump leaves out modifiers you know they are dissing all.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: This point of view represents a fundamental problem re trump and the dems as it reverses cause and effect. It assumes that the left detests trump because hillary lost. No. That's simply not true…
Rather the problem the left has with trump is *trump*...his actions, his policies, his ignorance, his morals, his emotional volatility, his disrespect for our western allies, his devotion to authoritarianism and putin, his never-ending lies, and the existential threat to our civil rights and our very form of government his administration engenders (and more). trump is the cause. The protests, the 'trump derangement syndrome', the influx of women into politics etc. is the effect. He is *responsible*. He is the cause. He is the problem.

Annie, this helped me. I want to group the objections, to talk about them.

Group A: Trump’s actions and policies
Group B: Trump’s ignorance, morals, emotional volatility, disrespect for western allies, never-ending lies
Group C: existential threat to civil rights and our very form of government, devotion to authoritarianism and Putin

Group A’s objections worry me the most, because the divisions about policy (and resulting actions) are deep and real. The left and right don’t always have the same goals on some important issues. Even when we do agree, we fight about the best way to get there. We normally handle national policy disagreements pretty well through our system of government, but that’s not working very well lately, and that worries me. I’d add judicial appointments to Group A.

I understand Group B, even if I don’t share your assessments. If you disagree with Trump’s policies, it makes sense you’ll question his motives, methods, and honesty. You may object to his communication, negotiation, and interaction styles. Over time I found myself questioning some of the same things about Obama. But to me, these objections, while real and heart-felt, are less worrisome in the long term and the big picture, because objections to behaviors largely go away when the person leaves office.

The Group C objections worry me the least. They’re the hardest for me to remember to view as sincere when people express them. I don’t see these as real threats, because I don’t interpret Trump’s behavior as authoritarian or dangerous, like you do. I don’t believe that Trump is being controlled by Putin, or that Trump entities have colluded with Russia. Group C’s objections make me throw up my hands and say, “Why do they believe this?” I’m guessing it’s probably how you feel (“Why don’t they see this?”) when you’re frustrated by the right’s willingness to give Trump a pass on behavior you find horrifying.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Really though, it’s just a pile of “crumbs” to start with.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

Trump supporters don’t have to parse his statements to understand them. People at his rallies aren’t saying, “wait…what?” They understand his speeches, and his tweets. The only time I parse Trump’s comments is when people on the left see things in them that frankly aren’t there.

No, sorry, but that's not what's happening at his rallies. The far right does not have instant decoding so that when he garbles out some words - they go yea, I get that!

BS. it's mob frenzy they're cheering about. The guy next to you is grinning and you don't want to miss out, so you grin. Same with cheering. Same with repeating violent intentions.

MH, I truly wonder just what you get out of these discussions. Because you seem to always say something like - well, that's given me something to think about. Hmmm ..... I don't care or want or expect you to change your opinions. It just sounds like a sales pitch, that's all.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Now, let’s go back to this:
Annie: Rather the problem the left has with trump is *trump*.... trump is the cause. The protests, the 'trump derangement syndrome', the influx of women into politics etc. is the effect. He is *responsible*. He is the cause. He is the problem.

I think, Trump looks like the cause and the problem, because he’s a big, loud, yellow-haired, larger than life presence with a long red tie. He’s always center stage, sucking up all the oxygen in the room. He’s a great Technicolor villain…or hero…depending entirely on whether or not you agree with what he’s working to accomplish.

But I think the left’s real problem isn’t Trump. It’s that some of the right’s preferred goals for the country are different from the left’s, and that fact was dragged mercilessly into the sunlight by the 2016 election. I think it was shocking to the left that the strong opposition of the right existed, and it was shocking to the right that the left’s reaction to the opposition would be so intense. (It was to me.) I think the left is missing the mark by misdirecting their anger at the man who currently personifies the differences between us. I’ve posted that Trump is a vehicle, and a means, and I still believe that.

The problem of differing goals will exist long after Trump is out of office. Trump is the truck that pulled over to give me a ride when I needed it. He’s a big semi truck with noisy air brakes and spotlights, but he’s going the way I needed to go. I got in, and I don’t regret it, because he’s going in the direction he told me he would. When Trump is no longer driving the truck, I’ll look for another going the same way.

I think it’s more important to talk about Group A’s policy objections, because that’s the real divide, and it’s not going away with Trump. Group B, objections to behavior, are understandably annoying as hell to you, but they’re a distraction, and a symptom of the fact that you’re being pulled in a direction you honestly think is terribly wrong for the country’s future. Plus, in a strange way, objections to Trump's behavior only seem to make him more of a hero with his supporters. Group C (threat to civil rights, the constitution, the end of our government as we know it, Putin's control, etc) to me, is a boogey man. I don’t underestimate the boogey man, though, because I know that fear is the strongest persuasion method there is, and it can sway undecided voters. It just doesn't sway me, at all.

Trump is a problem to the left, but an even bigger problem is, remove Trump, and you still have people like me, with opposing viewpoints. Lots of us, and probably enough to have an impact on future votes. So we need to find a way to talk to each other with some degree of respect for our differing viewpoints, instead of arguing about what a monster Trump is.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Obama's speeches were like Charismatic tent revivals for YEARS as he spoke to the enthralled faithful in is famous preacher patois, audience members often emotional and crying, and the Left points their fingers at Trump's supporters cheering someone THEY support.

Trump's audience supports him. Obama's audience worshiped him with unyielding devotion to the anointed one who walked on water.

Now THAT was scary.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

MH, there have always been opposing view points. We were all fine during the Bushes, Ford, Reagan etc. it’s Trump.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

cattyles: Really though, it’s just a pile of “crumbs” to start with.

I mostly agree with you, cattyles. Very often the phrases or sentences that generate months of discussion don't deserve all the attention and parsing they get.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Take it for what it is purrmich. It's not a sales pitch. For those who continuously ask how it is that people continue to support Trump, mudhouse has answered as succinctly as anyone ever has.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Obama's audience worshiped him with unyielding devotion to the anointed one who walked on water.

Repeat a lie often enough and conservatives will believe it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

. I don’t underestimate the boogey man, though, because I know that fear is the strongest persuasion method there is, and it can sway undecided voters. It just doesn't sway me, at all.

^^^^^^^

The Democrats have jarred fear and are selling it by the truckload.

I think when they're not selling fear, they are selling anger and have turned the Left into full-blown rage addicts. First, by telling them that the cure for their anger is resistance by any means necessary.

This included selling the masses an enormous bill of goods: they were going to impeach and get Trump out of office. If not impeach, remove. If not remove, get his to resign like Nixon.

Whatever it took, fair or unfair, that was their promise to their base.

Almost 2 years in, the frustration and anger is mounting to explosive levels, whereby manufactured drama reigns supreme. I mean, did you see? Trump walked a full 2 steps ahead of the Queen and omg, he didn't even bow!

Further, whatever Trump thinks, they believe the opposite, like, on steroids.

Trump wants to secure the borders so they must be for unlimited immigration, open borders and destroying ICE. And on and on and on.

Yes, mudhouse, it's concerning and I would never have imagined Republicans being shot up on a baseball field, or mobbed and harassed for going about their private lives, or their children threatened with unspeakable acts.

But, it's happening.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

MH, there have always been opposing view points. We were all fine during the Bushes, Ford, Reagan etc. it’s Trump.

Yes, there have always been opposing viewpoints, but during those years (I think) many on the right sensed an increasing erosion of the values and traditions they care about, and their concerns about a range of issues increased. Some of my frustrations began before Obama took office, while Republicans were in the White House, and in control of Congress. They only increased during Obama's years.

Many of the right's frustrations existed before Trump. Trump recognized those frustrations and gave them a voice. What Trump has created will outlast Trump himself.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust


cattyles

MH, there have always been opposing view points. We were all fine during the Bushes, Ford, Reagan etc. it’s Trump.

^^^^^^^

No, it's not Trump. You-the Trump haters- have free will. You have choice.

You have chosen a destructive path.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

We had some agreements in Congress until 2013. That is when the House started having success in being against policies with *any* Dem support. And the list of nominees frozen by the Senate started growing.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

For 8 years, Americans who didn't like or disagreed with or suffered because of Obama remained law-abiding, non-hating citizens. We understood that elections have consequences and waited our turn.

We voted and never thought that acting ugly would change a thing.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

It's a lot of BS, mrsk. If you removed all the caveats and .... ah hem ..... humility those long posts would be a short paragraph.

This country will never agree 100% on anything. The divide has always been there and always will. trump is solely responsible for increasing the divide and making it more vicious and ugly. His tweets are meant to divide us. They're meant to try to get us to hate the pillars of government as much as he does.

Putting us back together again - in any sembledge of functionality - will take a true hero. Because trump brings out the worst in people and they're liking being freed up from civility.

That long arm of government that true conservatives don't want, with trump it's become a real thing. Next we'll have the government back into women's reproductive rights.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Putting us back together again - in any sembledge of functionality - will take a true hero.

^^^^^^

Understanding that the Leftist liberals need a "hero". They need a parent. They need to be treated like children who need soothing.

They hold the childish belief that their behavior is out of their control. "He made me do it!".

This regressive behavior is only getting worse.


They need to be Ferberized.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

You picked the wrong messenger. Another republican might have given you some of what you wanted. But trump's base didn't just want to be represented; they want the whole enchilada. Overreaching always causes a boomerang. Does that make good sense when you look at history?

I think there's a real sense of greed happening with the right.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

About the erosion of values that was occurring before Obama: what would those be?

The change in values that I am aware of were in areas of equal access and equal protection. Our laws allowed much that was unequal; we still do but less than previous.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust


purrmich _6

lilac, if you ever had a true argument .... I'd be shocked.

^^^^^^

If you ever treated me with anything but sickening disdain, I'd be shocked.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
THOR, Son of ODIN(2)

Understanding that the Leftist liberals need a "hero". They need a parent. They need to be treated like children who need soothing.

Repeat a lie often enough and conservatives will believe it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

mudhouse, part of the Dem's fantastical and childish thinking is that there must be some magic wand that we can waive to be rid of Trump or have made someone else the Republican candidate who ran against Hillary.

They are SO angry with us for something we had no control over-most of us.

I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. The others dropped like flies.

How is that our fault? But, they will never stop beating us over the head for it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Ziemia: Mudhouse, your comment reads as if you are intentionally ignoring my point. When Trump leaves out modifiers you know he's not dissing all. When
someone who doesn't support Trump leaves out modifiers you know they are
dissing all.

No, I'm not ignoring you, and I don't think I'm being inconsistent. Let me try again.

When Trump doesn't say ALL people from Mexico (are bad), I don't assume he means ALL people from Mexico (are bad).

When people on the left don't say ALL Trump supporters are racist, I don't assume they mean that ALL Trump supporters are racist. That's your interpretation of what I think, and it's not right, as I said above.

I disregard that possible meaning (that all Trump supporters are racist) because it's clearly not true, and if they think it is, nothing I say will change their minds.

I am focused, as I said, on people on the left who believe that racism is a strong motivation among Trump supporters in general. That's what I'm discussing, and that's the belief I care about addressing.

I don't know how to be any more clear, and I'm sorry if that doesn't help.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

When a person - any person - makes a statement, they're viewed and judged on what they have said. it is never the job of the recipient to add in modifiers.

trump wants to be bombastic. His base loves it. So, don't be surprised when he is also judged by what he says.

It is not anyone's job to interpret trump. And therein lies why some of us think he's a racist. We don't backtrack and add in modifiers or entirely different words.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

That's what I'm discussing, and that's the belief I care about addressing.

It occurs to me that MH and Annie had what they considered a good conversation. And I respect that. HT is, however, what it is. Strong opinions. it's right up in the code of conduct.

Not a one of us can contain or control what gets discussed

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

About the erosion of values that was occurring before Obama: what would those be?

That's a completely fair question Ziemia, and I hesitated to post that, because it's a logical next question. But I'd rather not use this thread to try to answer with specifics, and I'm hoping to just leave it as a general comment, so it doesn't take us too far afield. (Apologies.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

lilacinjust: mudhouse, part of the Dem's fantastical and childish thinking is that there must be some magic wand that we can waive to be rid of Trump or have made someone else the Republican candidate who ran against Hillary. They are SO angry with us for something we had no control over-most of us.

Lilac, I think about anger. If I make myself think about a reverse situation, and imagine a Democrat president with an identical speaking, negotiation, and interaction style, while accomplishing policy changes I didn't want to see, I'm sure I'd be objecting about the behavior too, as they are. I'd be objecting to all of it, behavior and policy.

(It's hard to conjure up this picture in my head, because Hillary would never have copied Trump's behavior, and I really can't think who would have....?)

I'd be angry, and I don't know how good I'd be at trying to refocus on the issues, so I'm a little uncomfortable posting to Annie about what "we should talk about" now. It's easier to say that when you feel like your side is on the upswing (even if it's only a temporary upswing.)

I also think it might be better for my own selfish interests if the left focuses on Trump's behavior, instead of focusing on how to develop a clear message about why their policy ideas are better for the country than Trump's.

But I think the constant and extreme anger on both sides is too hard on the country. It's not good for any of us.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

I also think it might be better for my own selfish interests if the left focuses on Trump's behavior, instead of focusing on how to develop a clear message about why their policy ideas are better for the country than Trump's.

^^^^^^

It is better for us if the Left focusing on hating Trump, harassing his staff, acting like angry mobs and generally acting against America's best interests while Trump goes about enacting his policies.

The political ads are writing themselves.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

Not to worry; the left has a deep bench. Unlike the right.

Policy, campaigning, messaging are getting a strong focus. We are not broadcasting our every move and I doubt we ever did.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Ah, it's a "secret" platform.

Not a strategy I'd choose, but I'm not going to help them.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

Even Democrats are begging their fellow leaders to stop with the insanity like abolishing ICE.

Even the Democrats who wrote legislation to abolish ICE could not bring themselves to vote for it!

That's how insane they are right now.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

MH, how do you feel about Trump meeting with Putin after the indictments today?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

Even Democrats are begging their fellow leaders to stop with the insanity like abolishing ICE.

Even the Democrats who wrote legislation to abolish ICE could not bring themselves to vote for it!

The facts are that a small group of Dems wrote the legislation and Ryan (who said he would NEVER bring legislation if it wasn't something trump would sign) is insisting on bringing it forward. Pure f/ing politics, from the black souled Ryan.

No, Dems will not vote for it because it's not what they want. What you just wrote is a manufactured - via fox? infowars? - lie.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
arthurpym

Meh; the left showing anger is nothing compared to the murders the right is committing.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
arthurpym

Even Democrats are begging their fellow leaders to stop with the insanity like abolishing ICE.

FAKE NEWS. Once again!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

cattyles, instead of scurrying to research about indictments right now (news to me) I'll just own up to the fact that between being under the weather, dealing with family stuff, and trying to write some coherent replies to earlier posts, I'm way behind on today's news. I'll try to get caught up.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Re "Mexico is not sending us their best . . . "

First, individuals are choosing to leave -- the Mexican government is sending no one.

Several factors -- tied to the US -- influence immigration from Mexico to the US.

First, NAFTA adversely affected small farmers in Mexico who were unable to compete with the price of US corn being imported, and subsequently lost their means of living.

Second, US demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug cartels operating in Mexico, and the subsequent violence the country is enduring.

Third, there is long tradition -- c WW2 -- of Mexican workers migrating north for agricultural and other work. Also a long tradition of US employers turning a blind eye towards immigration status.

Those coming north have the most ambition and a strong willingness to work. Day laborers, field workers, construction -- these people work hard, most often doing the work that native-born persons consider too demanding for the pay.

Most in California are aware of the above circumstances, and Mexican families in the US -- going back generations -- know the true circumstances of their immigration. For Trump to imply that Mexico was acting without honor towards the US is a mean slap in the face to most Mexican immigrants.

Mexican Americans in California government are the children of "not the best of Mexico." When CA AG Xavier Becerra, or Kevin DeLeon or Anthony Villaraigosa or Gil and Eric Garcetti or Hilda Solis (and so many others in California) hear Trump refer to their parents and grandparents "not the best," it's an incredible insult against hundreds of thousands who have come here, worked hard, and seen the success of their children.

This is the reality of California, and Trump's anti-Mexican bigotry is an affront to a sizable majority of the residents here.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

It might save time if we post "LIE, prove it" after ALL the RW declarations without sources. If the RW does provide a legitimate source, we can always apologize.

If memory serves, I can't think of one time where I asked for a source where the lie was proven correct.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

There is no difference in the responses today, after the indictments. There are many, many words here. I'm hearing: We had to suffer through eight years of a black president. Trump is the punishment and we will defend him even if he sells us all to Putin.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

There's that race card again!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nannygoat_gw


I disregard that possible meaning (that all Trump supporters are racist) because it's clearly not true, and if they think it is, nothing I say will change their minds.

I've heard it said that, while not all Trump supporters are racists, it's a sure bet that all racists are Trump supporters.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

d_gw, I think we know by now where those headlines come from. I had one quick look at fauxfox and couldn't believe the level of hyperbole.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

Mudhouse, please don't worry about it. Rest and recuperate.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
pastriew

More ploys. Score! They will try anything. Suckers!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

I've heard it said that, while not all Trump supporters are racists, it's a sure bet that all racists are Trump supporters.

Many of them fit into Roseanne's explanation of her own behavior, she said that she's not a racist, she's just an idiot.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

I overheard two businessmen talking yesterday and it gave me pause. One said that it was his hope that another democrat would never be voted into office. The other agreed and they went on to discuss their reasons why. It gave me pause. Though I know that I can never vote for another democrat, I also know that we need the two party system. It is a matter of checks and balances. What I don't know, is if we can ever get past the winning at all cost, or never being gracious losers. Will it ever be country first again, or will it always be party first?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I overheard two businessmen talking yesterday and it gave me pause. One said that it was his hope that another democrat would never be voted into office. The other agreed and they went on to discuss their reasons why. It gave me pause. Though I know that I can never vote for another democrat, I also know that we need the two party system. It is a matter of checks and balances. What I don't know, is if we can ever get past the winning at all cost, or never being gracious losers. Will it ever be country first again, or will it always be party first?

I don’t think the protesters in England or Scotland are sore losers. Until Repubs get over this “story” and accept how harmful and dangerous Trump is, Repubs are the party of “winning at all cost”.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, thank you for your reply. I think the parsing of the objections to trump is most helpful in my understanding of the differences between us.


And boy howdy this is right! Group C’s objections make me throw up my hands and say, “Why do they believe this?” I’m guessing it’s probably how you feel (“Why don’t they see this?”) when you’re frustrated by the right’s willingness to give Trump a pass on behavior you find horrifying.


And my biggest frustration is how can I get you to see what I see...especially since, I believe at the core, we agree on a lot of what we want for the country. You don’t see trump as an existential threat to the nation, but I hope we can agree that we don’t want to see fundamental changes in our Constitution, the power of the electorate, or our form of government and its protections for individual rights.


But disagreements over Group A are nothing new to the right and the left. We’ve dealt with that before and will continue to do so…they aren’t as concerning to me...I will revisit this though.


Group B are new and are very specific to trump as we’ve never had a president behave the way he does…I especially like the description of the horse loose in the hospital in terms of all the behavioral norms and traditions he’s broken. What’s stunning to me, is how the right is so dismissive of them when, in the past, it was the very conservatives who were so big on enforcing those norms of civility and behavior. We’ve gone from a president who is excoriated for saluting with a cup of coffee in his hand or wearing a brown suit, to one who is given a pass for dissing gold star families, a dying war veteran, and saluting NK generals. Those are shocking enough, let alone the even bigger ones which have the effect of destroying the norms of behavior for future presidents, and not for the better.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
cattyles

I was planning to knock on doors today for the Dem candidate running against Cruz. But there weren’t enough flyers when I went to pick them up. I doubt I will get to actually talk to very many people but this discussion has been helpful.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The grouping of issues surrounding Trump's presidency is very well done and useful.

I hope Group C is nothing but I fear there's something there. There is 'taint' on many close to DT (during the campaign and in the WH). One small example is Kushner has limited security clearance. The 'why' indicates concerns. 45 relies on atypical advisors. And supposedly his WH hasn't followed up with addressing concerns related to our election process.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, I want to go back to the good exchange you had with mrskjun.

mrskjun: In all the years I have been posting on HT, it has never once occurred to me that the left wants to persuade the right in any way. It seems that their belief is, the right are such awful people and if we can convince them of their awfulness then they would like to be like us.

I feel this way too. Yes, the left has a hard job convincing me that my views on important issues are wrong on the basis of my belief. But their chances of convincing me that my views are wrong because I’m an awful person are absolutely zero. I know who I am, just like you do.

Why doesn't the left choose the path that has at least a small chance of succeeding? With the second path (my views are wrong because I’m awful) there is no chance of progress. The anger (and resulting insults between us) makes it impossible.

This is where someone often steps in and makes a comment about how the right needs to stop whining. I’m not whining, guys. I’m talking about how we can have a chance of keeping some kind of conversation going.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie to mrskjun: I do try to understand why trump supporters support him, and especially why there's this endless supply of mulligans for him and I admit, I don't get it.

Because of two things.

First, we don’t see the mulligans like you do, because we are not looking for bad in everything single thing Trump says and does, as you do. You guys are out to get Trump from the moment you wake up. I'm not, mostly because he supports the policies I do. So we see different things (that's how human perception works.)

Second, Trump is making the changes he said he would, and those are the changes we want to see.

The latter is why we should focus on policy objections (Group A above). Those differences about policy drive the support for Trump!

Here you are, asking over and over, why do these people support Trump, and accept his behavior? And here I am, handing you my answer (policy policy policy) and you keep guys keep saying, “no no, that’s not it. We know why you support Trump better than you do, and it can't be policy.”

So I'm trying to understand. Maybe I need to stop talking and try listening. You don't know me personally, but I've been posting here for a while, and you probably have a pretty good sense of who I am. If not policy, why do you think someone like me would support Trump?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

In my answer to the assertion that Trump has not maligned Mexican immigrants, I have pointed out the effects of Trump's prejudice / scapegoating driving his policy on Mexican immigration.

There's also a clear lack of honesty when Trump addresses immigration -- he is concerned with Mexican (and Central American) immigration. Asian, European, South American immigration is absent from the discussion.

In short, for Trump supporters the claim of "supporting policy" ignores what ideas give form to the policy in the first place: Mexicans are bad people, no Muslim refugee/immigrant is trustworthy, there is no such thing as human-produced global climate change, that there is no unequal treatment of black and brown people by law enforcement and our justice system, etc. Prejudiced assumptions give rise to bad policy.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

You don’t see trump as an existential threat to the nation, but I hope we can agree that we don’t want to see fundamental changes in our Constitution, the power of the electorate, or our form of government and its protections for individual rights.

Absolutely agree.

1 Like Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

In short, for Trump supporters the claim of "supporting policy" ignores what ideas give form to the policy in the first place: Mexicans are bad people, no Muslim refugee/immigrant is trustworthy, there is no such thing as human-produced global climate change, that there is no unequal treatment of black and brown people by law enforcement and our justice system, etc. Prejudiced assumptions give rise to bad policy.

Nancy, If you think Trump's immigration policies are formed primarily by his prejudiced/racist beliefs, do you think they are based on that alone, or are they also based on his concerns about national security and the impact on our economy, and our educational, health, and social assistance programs?

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

reply to mudhouse continued:

But the real concern I have is for Group C. The boogey man is an apt description, as I often feel like Steve McQueen in the movie, “The Blob”. He’s trying to tell the authorities that a killer alien has invaded and the officials just keep dismissing him as a wild-eyed teenager out to create drama. By the time the officials realize it’s the truth, it’s almost too late to save the town.

Of all the groups you highlighted, I consider Group C the *most* important as it drives so much of what trump is doing in Group A.

putin is a bad actor on the global stage. He is at a severe economic disadvantage but wants russia again to be a world power. He can’t grow his country into it, but he can make it relatively more powerful by tearing down all the unions and alliances, diplomatic and economic, that make the west such a powerhouse in the world. He also doesn’t have the economic power to run a military war against the entire west, but has discovered he doesn’t need to. He can do it via propaganda and cyber warfare for far less money, much less risk, and be even more successful than he ever could in a military war. Military wars destroy both sides…the cyber war he’s running only destroys one…ours.

We have seen the results LePen’s close call in France, which the French govt was able to fight on a cyber basis, brexit in the UK, the anti-European govt in Italy, the split of Spain, and even the push for Calexit in the US. Break it all down using divisiveness and chaos. A country, a world, divided against itself will not stand.

The US has not been immune from russian attacks. The information from foreign allied intelligence services, the indictments from Mueller’s investigation, the admissions of facebook, Cambridge Analytica and the tracks through wikileaks, the FBI findings, the agreement by the GOP led senate all point in a single direction: that russia interfered in US elections to favor trump.

Why? putin needs sanctions lifted and that’s what they were pushing for all throughout the election. It was only by nearly unanimous vote that congress stopped trump from lifting them. That’s what all the negotiations during the campaign were about…we’ll get you in office, you lift sanctions once you’re there. But it’s gone even so much further now….affecting Group A policies where trump is pushing exactly what putin wants, from breaking up trade agreements (nafta, tpp, the EU, the WTO, wanting russia to rejoin the G-7) to military alliances (NATO, stopping military exercises with SK, stopping military exercises with NATO, dissing our long-term western allies—see trump’s treatment of May in the Sun interview!) while lauding dictators around the world, but especially paying such fealty to putin. And worst of all for the US, gutting the State Dept which has been the US’s most powerful weapon on the global stage.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Trump & Co have consistently ignored evidence that immigrants -- including undocumented immigrants -- generate a net economic good. California institutions, and others, have conducted studies over the years that have the same conclusions. If there were a net negative result, no CA politician would take the risk to support a drain on state resources.

Concentrating exclusively on our southern border leaves thousands of other points of entry unaddressed.

Same is true for those who are undocumented -- how do they arrive in the US besides crossing the southern border.

What is being done for security at our ports? The number of containers arriving at the port of Long Beach/San Pedro (City of Los Angeles) is staggering, the busiest in the nation, yet resources are proposed for the southern border for drug control and human trafficking.

What is being done for smuggling through marinas and small craft harbors?

Trump & Co have crafted their concerns regarding immigration to a specific country, Mexico. (To a lesser degree, Central America.) This is NOT a comprehensive immigration plan, but policy relying on decades-old existing prejudice against Mexicans. Rhetoric targeting Mexican immigrants is a staple of GOP politics, akin to their Southern Strategy.

Education of immigrant children -- documented or not -- produce leaders in California, as I commented above. Also little to no concern is expressed re Asian or other non-Mexican, non-Central American undocumented children attending public schools.

California recognizes the value of immigrants to our state, and state government has taken steps to incorporate undocumented residents into mainstream society -- special driver's licenses, public schooling, funding medical assistance, allowing reporting of crimes without fear of deportation.

California has the largest population of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, and have for years. If these residents are as dangerous as Trump & Co claim, we would see the state in dire circumstances -- this has not happened.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

I don’t know how to argue but from facts, data, analysis and raising awareness of them. I can’t do marketing campaigns or easy to chant slogans. I can’t do emotional appeals to deep-seated sentiments. But feel completely stymied when after presenting them, others refuse to see them, dismiss them, deny them, minimize/insult me or other messengers, etc.


I guess it’s Arthur Schoopenhauer’s 3 phases of truth:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


My sincere hope is that we get to the 3rd stage before it is too late.

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: Of all the groups you highlighted, I consider Group C the *most*
important as it drives so much of what trump is doing in Group A.

Wow, Annie, thanks for this. It surprises me, and that's when insights happen. And looking for insights is why I keep posting all these long posts (it's really not to annoy purrmich.) ;-)

Nancy and Annie, thanks for the good detailed posts above. I want to spend more time with both. (Gotta leave my keyboard for a bit.) Also Nancy, I didn't reply to your previous post last night in response to my comment about Mexico "not sending their best", but I did do more reading about NAFTA's impact on Mexico, and immigration issues.

I never mean to imply that I can't deepen my understanding of any issue. And I appreciate information on viewpoints, especially when they're viewpoints that I have a hard time understanding well initially.

2 Likes Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Thank you Annie, mudhouse and Nancy for your level headed debate. I really like to see this over meme's and insults. Thank you for your sanity. I liked you all whether I agree or not, this is the type of debate needed. Not grandstanding and rhetoric insults.

5 Likes Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, what I’m about to say is not personal...it's not personal to anyone... but an example of how I see what's happening so I may be able to answer your questions, so please take it in that spirit.

Why doesn't the left choose the path that has at least a small chance of succeeding? With the second path (my views are wrong because I’m awful) there is no chance of progress. The anger (and resulting insults between us) makes it impossible.

--------------

Right: I support trump policies…

Left: trump is racist, his policies are racist

Right: I *like* what trump is doing

Left: therefore you must be racist

Right: I’m not racist

Left: So in addition to being a racist, you’re a liar too.

Right: You are so filled with hate you do nothing but demonize me.

You can take out racism and put in many other descriptors that would lead to the same thought flow: sexist, pro-putin, climate change denier, anti-muslim, etc.

-------------------

I think this is how we get to where we are. I agree this thought flow does make it impossible to have a meeting of the minds, especially when the policies are emotional, the discussion gets emotional. It's far, far easier to just trade insults -- ask any 3 yr old. And the name calling and hate-filled comments and demonization are happening on both sides...at least it's very apparent on these threads.

That's why I'm glad we are having this discussion as it not only clarifies for me your position and thinking, but in discussing, it helps me clarify mine as well.

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

A couple of other things were triggered by your comments mudhouse...

a) perceptions: I think a big problem is not just our perceptions of what's what such as what is good policy, but our perceptions of how we see the other side. I think those perceptions (again, my perception of the situation) esp on the right have been specifically shaped to create divisiveness and demonize the left. The right needs to create fear in their base to keep them united. So people saying happy holidays instead of merry christmas becomes "a WAR on christmas!" People not wanting to see children separated from their families by the government at the border becomes "the left want open borders to let in terrorists and criminals". People being ok with gay marriage becomes "next they'll want pederasty and beastiality legalized." I watch 5 minutes of judge jeanine and I'm thinking armageddon's around the corner! She is scary! And angry!


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Nancy, your post above about illegal aliens being good for the economy leaves out one important item. We are a country of laws, the president of the US is the top law officer. You may want him to, but he cannot turn a blind eye to the law because breaking it benefits some. It's his job to enforce it, not ignore it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

b) policy making: policy is incredibly important...too important to take lightly. Yet I see trump & gop as making policy out of thin air. Pick a policy, any policy. I would think one would start with what the problem is. Then get facts, talk to experts, talk to the stakeholders on all sides, do some analysis, propose a solution, do some analysis of the potential costs, effectiveness and consequences of that solution and then alter or implement in the hopes that it would make the situation better and at least not make it worse.

However, trump just seems to make a campaign slogan: build a wall. Then that becomes policy. Get rid of obamacare. Then that becomes policy. Get rid of NAFTA. Then that becomes policy. Cut taxes. Then that becomes policy. And his implementation is even worse as the people involved don't seem to even have a clue that some great shift in policy is coming so they are caught either backtracking on what the president said (like when the pentagon said they are still planning their exercises with SK) or they are left unprepared (like looking to build tent cities on bases to house children and have no process in place for identifying and reuniting the children with their families).

In my book, that's no way to run a railroad...regardless of if I agree with the policy direction or not....

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie posted:

Right: I support trump policies…

Left: trump is racist, his policies are racist

Right: I *like* what trump is doing

Left: therefore you must be racist

Right: I’m not racist

Left: So in addition to being a racist, you’re a liar too.

Right: You are so filled with hate you do nothing but demonize me.

You can take out racism and put in many other descriptors that would lead to the same thought flow: sexist, pro-putin, climate change denier, anti-muslim, etc.

This thread has been helpful. There are a lot of good comments here that I didn't even have the time to respond to (sorry) and I'm going to go back through them again. I have some new understandings as a result of this thread. I'm going to mull them over.

I'll admit, one insight is that some of the concerns I've been dismissing as annoying, manipulative, and insincere may actually be sincere. I dismiss them because they are so far out of own understanding that I figured they couldn't possibly be real. (I'm thinking especially about the objections in Group C, threats to our government and democracy.) Being honest, those usually seem crazy and over the top, to me. Hysterical, at times, as if the goal was only to score emotional points, and not to discuss the reality of the situation. It's hard for me to see them as real fears, they're so far away from how I see things.

Then again, I love the movie "The Blob." Hmmm.

If I want the left to acknowledge that any of my concerns are real, about the direction of the country, I can't start with the assumption that theirs are all ridiculous tripe, either. At least, not if I really want us to to talk.

I don't have to agree with you to be able to give you credit for being honest about your concerns. That's a step, at least.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

The right needs to create fear in their base to keep them united. So people saying happy holidays instead of merry christmas becomes "a WAR on christmas!" People not wanting to see children separated from their families by the government at the border becomes "the left want open borders to let in terrorists and criminals". People being ok with gay marriage becomes "next they'll want pederasty and beastiality legalized."

Annie the funny thing is, this is my complaint about the left, and how they use fear to keep their base united. For example, Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court becomes "this is a death sentence for thousands of American women!" And, "this is the end of life as we know it!" That's creating fear, too.

I've read a lot about perception and persuasion since Trump was elected. I'm sort of stuck on the topic, as an interest. And all the authors of the best books on persuasion say the same thing: fear is the most powerful persuasion technique.

That's why both sides use it. Both! They use it to win. We should all try to be aware of it.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Dang it, people keep typing good things I want to reply to. But I gotta go. Back later.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

MsK, California recognizes that our federal immigration system is broken, not suited for the 21st century. No chance of reform is in sight for far too many years.

Instead of waiting for Godot, California has taken the initiative in crafting a rational response to the realities of our times. No undocumented person will be referred to ICE merely for lacking papers. With our antiquated immigration system, inadequate immigration law, dysfunctional immigration process set at the federal level, reality has overtaken DC's ability to function. California is responding as best as we can.

You can view California's response to a broken immigration system in the same light as the many states that permit recreational and medical marijuana in response to antiquated federal drug policy.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

So Nancy, do you think each state should be allowed to decide if they support Roe v Wade and vote on abortion?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

False equivalency, MsK.

Women's right to choice is functioning well.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

Sorry Nancy. You don't get it both ways. I'll choose this law because it's good for me, but I'll disregard that one because I don't think it's good for me. Can I choose to drive 50 through a 25 mile an hour school zone because I have an important place to be?

And what about people who believe abortion is murder? Are they not required to abide by the law? Is it ok for them to blow up abortion clinics? Who gets to choose which laws they want to follow?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Those women who believe that a fetus is equal to a baby are not being forced to terminate their pregnancies.

.

Your choice of speed laws as an example is the worst you could possibly make; speed limits are routinely ignored.

.

The immigration system is broken, and for years attempts at reform have failed to advance. World events have a way of overwhelming domestic inaction, and compelling others to take action. California is guilty of recognizing today's reality, and is enacting policies for the greater good of its residents.

California is not performing federal functions, so I am at a loss as to what federal laws are not being followed. For example, California does not control border crossings.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

You could have gotten policy from another repub. Maybe not the extreme attempts at policy trump makes, but policy that doesn't split the country apart.

No matter how you stress policy it cannot be divorced from morality. See Nancy's posts on anti-Mexican immigration.

We wake up in the morning and face the facts about trump's performance as president. The right makes excuses. We're looking at the presidency as a whole, not picking and choosing which aspects of the job are so important they override the rest.

The day the right admits to trump's lying - about anything and everything - will be the day that the divide is lessened. Denying he lies is imo ridiculous. And takes away credibility from the right.

You could have chosen a candidate who didn't embarrass this country daily. His bombastic assaults make for a very large divide.

I've read from rw poster(s) on this thread that what trump does for them is what they care about. The rest of the country is not their concern. Later posts may have been more PC correct, however I believe those first posts were the more honest.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Mrskjun, deflection is not necessary to unravel what California has legislated about immigration. (Several other states have as well.)

First, states cannot pass legal legislation that is contrary to federal law. California law was recently supported in federal appeals court. There are local aspects of life and law enforcement that are legally outside the purview of the feds.

There are federal laws that must be followed by states. However, local LE sets policy.

The feds can set up fed LE to check credentials along highways for example. But they cannot force state and local police to do it. (From what I've read California has passed laws preventing these LE agencies to not do it.)

Basically (at its simplist) the feds can be prevented from using local LE to do its work.

But local laws can't prevent the federal police forces from doing its work.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

But Nancy, if my state doesn't like the law, why should we have to follow it?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

I'll just be a gadfly here and point out that we now have quite a few states flouting federal law by making marijuana use legal...

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Federal law has to be followed.

Constitutional rights have to be granted / followed. (Roe v Wade isn't a law - it is a decision.)

+++++

That marijuana example is an excellent one to bring up. So far no one has taken it to a court at the federal level yet. And this is also why getting bank loans and doing regular banking activities are often impossible.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mrskjun: You may want him [trump] to, but he cannot turn a blind eye to the law because breaking it benefits some. It's his job to enforce it, not ignore it.

I do wish he would enforce the law, like the emoluments clause, the laws against nepotism, laws around campaign finance, laws around obstruction of justice...

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Sessions has threatened to take states to court over legalizing marijuana IIRC.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

LA doesn't have to recognize legal abortion as the law of the land, but please make sure your state treasury has sufficient funds to defend the lawsuits that will be filed challenging LA's position.

As ziemia commented, CA's sanctuary law has withstood a legal challenge. Surely, you've been following Kate's threads re individual states trying to undermine Roe v Wade, and their success against legal challenges.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: I see trump & gop as making policy out of thin air…trump just seems to make a campaign slogan: build a wall. Then that becomes policy. Get rid of obamacare. Then that becomes policy. Get rid of NAFTA. Then that becomes policy. Cut taxes. Then that becomes policy.

Maybe it looks this way to you because you aren’t in the camp of those who have concerns about the issues that Trump is acting on. If an issue isn’t on your radar as something that needs attention, or high on your priority list, it could seem out of the blue when Trump acts on it. For example, when the transgender bathroom legislation controversy hit the news, that issue was not on my radar, or high on my priority list of concerns, so I felt like I had no idea where it came from.

Trump is doing what people elected him to do. If he stops doing that, you’ll see a waning of support among those who voted for him, and a lot of vocalizing about their disappointment.

Annie: And his implementation is even worse as the people involved don't seem to even have a clue that some great shift in policy is coming so they are caught either backtracking on what the president said…or they are left unprepared… and have no process in place…

There’s some truth here. I think Trump’s lack of experience with the lumbering pace of government (and the need to broadcast intentions early and often with huge numbers of interconnected people) does cause some problems in implementation. Lots of people predicted this would be hard for Trump, and to some degree they've been right.

I’m more patient about this than people on the left, because I wanted someone to get things done on issues I care about. …instead of someone who forms endless committees for long analysis and in the end never makes any progress. For example, I’ve been frustrated in past years by the slow pace of help for veterans with problems in the VA hospitals. I’m biased towards action on the things I care about, and that makes me more willing to be patient about kerfuffles in implementations.

I'd venture to guess you also might be more patient about kerfuffles in implementations, if they were issues or projects near and dear to your heart. Logically you'd be more focused on the goal than on what went wrong in reaching that goal. That's probably part of the difference in our perspectives.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

purrmich: You could have gotten policy from another repub. Maybe not the extreme attempts at policy trump makes, but policy that doesn't split the country apart.

In our system, the candidates make their cases about what they'll do if elected, and the voters then choose the candidates based on those promises. The voters listened and enough of them voted for Trump to elect him president. Now he has the chance to work on enacting the policies he outlined...the policies that got him elected.

Other Republican candidates made their case, and they weren't chosen by the voters.

The question in my mind is, are Trump's policies responsible for splitting the country apart, or is it the left's reaction to the fact that Donald Trump was duly elected?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: When you buy the farm, you buy the *whole* farm from fields to manure pits. So take the good with the bad, but at least know who you are supporting.

purrmich: We're looking at the presidency as a whole, not picking and choosing which aspects of the job are so important they override the rest.

I don't understand either of these comments as well as I'd like to. I'm not sure both of the above quotes are saying the same thing, but when I saw the comment from purrmich it reminded me of Annie's similar comment, up thread.

I'd like to understand this better, if either of you are interested in explaining a bit more...?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspa_zone9sunset14

I'd venture to guess you also might be more patient about kerfuffles in implementations, if they were issues or projects near and dear to your heart.

I consider deliberately and/or needlessly inflicting pain on children and permanently damaging people's lives to be something more than a "kerfuffle", as if that's just some little bump in the road on the way to one's own hopes and desires. Maybe some of this has simply been due to inept carelessness or unwillingness to take the time and effort to think things through, but there have been hints of gleeful malice, too. Moves toward shifting policy are expected and part of the deal with a new administration, so don't anger me at all (though I may roll my eyes and rue the stupidity), but this stuff makes me livid.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Found a new article in the Guardian that speaks to many issues discussed here.

For me, its usefulness poses a dilemma. It identifies much of what "we" (those opposed to 45) yet tells us talking about it helps Trump's and other GOP electeds maintain support. {Reminds me of "you don't talk about fight club".}

"""""

Perhaps ironically, identity politics is a both more powerful and efficacious for Republicans (and rightwing populists more generally) than it is for Democrats, since the former are more homogeneous.

As long, therefore, as politics is a fight between clearly bounded identity groups, appeals and threats to group identity will benefit Republicans more than Democrats, which is presumably why Steve Bannon infamously remarked that he couldn’t “get enough” of the left’s “race-identity politics”. “The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em ... I want them to talk about race and identity … every day.”

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

That quote follows (quite far down from this):

This does not mean racism is irrelevant; it matters, but social science suggests it does in more complicated ways than much commentary suggests.

Perhaps because straightforward bigotry has declined precipitously while more subtle, complex resentments remain, understanding how intolerance shapes politics requires examining not just beliefs, but also the relationship between beliefs and the environments people find themselves in. This distinction has important implications for how we interpret and address contemporary social and political problems.

... Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson, for example, found that simply making white Americans aware that they would soon be a minority increased their propensity to favor their own group and become wary of those outside it. (Similar effects were found among Canadians. Indeed, although this tendency is most dangerous among whites since they are the most powerful group in western societies, researchers have consistently found such propensities in all groups.)

Building on such research, Diana Mutz recently argued that Trump’s stress on themes like growing immigration, the power of minorities and the rise of China highlighted status threats and fears particularly among whites without a college education, prompting a “defensive reaction” that was the most important factor in his election. This “defensive reaction” also explains why Trump’s post-election racist, xenophobic and sexist statements and reversal of traditional Republican positions on trade and other issues have helped him – they keep threats to whites front and center, provoking anger, fear and a strong desire to protect their own group.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/14/identity-politics-right-left-trump-racism?CMP=share_btn_tw

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse: Maybe it looks this way to you because you aren’t in the camp of those who have concerns about the issues that Trump is acting on.

No. I've spent my career as a macroeconomist and have been very aware of many policy issues for a long time. Take the tax cut. I have never seen tax policy made in a closed room where the other party was completely excluded and no one was allowed to know what was decided until it was a done deal, including the fact that the CBO couldn't even complete a full scoring on the impact of the tax cut before it was being voted on. This is not how tax policy...something that will affect all Americans for decades to come (especially with the $1.5 trillion additional debt which was anathema to the gop under obama, especially one so lopsided toward the wealthy when the trump voters were presumably upset about the decline of the middle class) ... should be made. Not if you're making policy that's best for the nation as opposed to making policy that's a huge thank you to your biggest individual and corporate donors.

From confusion around repeal/replace/but we have no replacement of obamacare (remember mccain refused to support it as the *process* of making the bill was so bad) to adding tariffs with no articulation as to what is to be accomplished or negotiation as to what partners need to change to reduce/eliminate them (remember the staff scrambling as they had no idea he was even going to announce these tariffs on aluminum and steel with no idea where the percentages even came from), there is no example of a well-considered bill being created and passed in this administration.


5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse: I'd venture to guess you also might be more patient about kerfuffles in implementations...

A mischaracterization indeed. It is not just kerfuffles, it's not just the implementation. I don't consider the death of 4,600 people in Puerto Rico...many more than died on 9/11...as a kerfuffle in implementation.

I agree that government could operate more efficiently to fix problems, but the founding fathers wanted bill making and changes to the government specifically to be a slow and considered one...not a literal fly-by-night operation done in secret and without deliberation as the gop has done under trump/mcconnell/ryan.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse: The question in my mind is, are Trump's policies responsible for splitting the country apart, or is it the left's reaction to the fact that Donald Trump was duly elected?

There is no question in my mind. trump is intentionally splitting the country apart...or rather his minions like bannon and miller are. To wit:

Of course, if the goal were simply to draw voters’ attention to the border, there are plenty of ways to do it that are less controversial (not to mention, less cruel) than ripping young children from the arms of asylum seekers and sticking them in dystopian-looking detention centers. But for Miller, the public outrage and anger elicited by policies like forced family separation are a feature, not a bug.

A seasoned conservative troll, Miller told me during our interview that he has often found value in generating what he calls “constructive controversy—with the purpose of enlightenment.” This belief traces back to the snowflake-melting and lib-triggering of his youth. As a conservative teen growing up in Santa Monica, he wrote op-eds comparing his liberal classmates to terrorists and musing that Osama bin Laden would fit in at his high school. In college, he coordinated an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.” These efforts were not calibrated for persuasion; they were designed to agitate. And now that he’s in the White House, he is deploying similar tactics.

Source

And I've earlier addressed how this fits into putin's goal of creating chaos and rending unifications of all sorts, including between Americans.

In other words, they [russian bots] were working both sides of divisive issues and amplifying the most polarizing positions (and in some cases, intentionally misrepresenting those positions) in an apparent effort to erase the middle ground, discourage reasoned discourse, and make it seem like compromise is either not possible or not desirable. Source

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse: Annie: When you buy the farm, you buy the *whole* farm from fields to manure pits. So take the good with the bad, but at least know who you are supporting.

There were many things I didn't like about obama, even though there were a lot of things I thought he did well...or at least didn't make worse. But I accepted the good with the bad and didn't defend the bad. (I always hated his mom jeans!)

But trump supporters...maybe because they feel so beleaguered and attacked at every turn...will defend every burp and utterance and excuse literally *everything* he says and does...will accept everything he says and even *like* the fact that he says what he says even though they know he's a liar of extraordinary proportions. No one is that perfect, especially not trump.

So I'm left with this thought process: there's a gap between the reality of trump and the perception of trump, so how do his supporters deal with it? Above you suggested that you don't see it because you don't look for it.

...because we are not looking for bad in everything single thing Trump says and does...

Ignorance is bliss, I guess, but at some point, the costs of excusing and tolerating his actions may outweigh the benefits of his policies, but his supporters won't know it if they aren't open to seeing him for exactly who he is...

As we all weigh trump on that cost/benefit scale, many of us decided where we stood even before the election. Others have decided since how much support they can afford to give him. We've seen some notables even leave the gop as a result. But others must see the benefits of trump as *so* great that they will excuse him anything...including his opined shooting someone on 5th ave.

My biggest concern is how will our country deal with it if it is *proven beyond reasonable doubt* that trump is compromised by the russians and has been selling the nation out for personal gain. Will his supporters be willing to give him an honest assessment? Or will they continue to put not just party, but especially trump ahead of nation?

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dirtygert(5-NY)

This has been a most interesting discussion. Well-thought out debate and, for the most part, a very civil back-and-forth. Kudos (I'd put a couple of exclamation points here, but that key doesn't work anymore on my old pc).

1 Like Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Immigration is something that many Dems and liberals want improved through legislation. I am not against walls. But this is a far cry from what Trump demands.

It was the House GOP that stopped what had been a bipartisan bill.

It is very frustrating when Trump supporters ignore recent history which doesn't suit him. And when he makes claims about opponents which have no connection to the reality.

(And the trans legislation is more about protection from bullies - at work and in private matters. The GOP made it about bathrooms. It is about not giving shelter to bullies.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

Those questions addressed to me, Ill be happy to answer when I have a minute.

For now, I have little disagreement with what Annie has said.

Save     Thanked by Annie Deighnaugh
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
artemis_ma

I haven't had the time or inclination to read this entire thread since I took time off from Hot Topics. (okay, I am back.)

But I do remember we were discussing why people may want to discuss events or things with people who they do not see eye to eye with.. to see if understanding can come about.

I ran into the following video, which explains at least to me, why it may be a sign of comprehension to do so. It may NOT mean that you will "get" someone else to agree with you or change their path in life, but the point is, that you open discourse.

Neither participant started out knowing or planning what might happen....

But Daryl Davis wanted to UNDERSTAND. And, in his case, because he talked, and allowed the KKK guy to talk, WITH each other, change in one person happened. It took time. It's not guaranteed, and it may not even be the point behind a real conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw&t=50s

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

purrmich: You could have gotten policy from another repub. Maybe not the extreme attempts at policy trump makes, but policy that doesn't split the country apart.

In our system, the candidates make their cases about what they'll do if elected, and the voters then choose the candidates based on those promises. The voters listened and enough of them voted for Trump to elect him president. Now he has the chance to work on enacting the policies he outlined...the policies that got him elected.

Other Republican candidates made their case, and they weren't chosen by the voters.

The question in my mind is, are Trump's policies responsible for splitting the country apart, or is it the left's reaction to the fact that Donald Trump was duly elected?

I am not questioning that you made your choice. I believe your choice was a bad one for the country. I also don't believe that trump put forth cogent or really any policies while campaigning. The Wall - yea right, and Mexico will pay for it. That's not policy - that's pandering to the fr fears. It was a lie to say Mexico would pay.

Please educate me on any policies he outlined while campaigning.

Many Republicans wanted anyone other than trump. A big enough percentage responded to him on an emotional level for him to be made the repub candidate. (btw I watched each and everyone of the debates)

I doubt that you agree about Russian interference, FBI missteps as relevant to his election. I, wholeheartedly, do.

It is relevant that Clinton got the popular vote. Doesn't mean that trump is illegitimate. But those popular vote shows that the majority in this country were and are not behind trump and his policies.

I do believe that a moderate republican would have been able to get more done. I believe that republican would uphold 2nd amendment rights.

You have quite a long list of what you hope for. Is that how our government works? Every four to eight years, a minority elects an extremist, and that minority gets everything checked off on their wish list? And do you believe it's reasonable that the other side (Dems) should just accept those authoritarian rulings?

Trump is an authoritarian. It's a terrible match for a democratic country.

trump has character issues - lying, impulsivity - these can be objectively proven. It is not perception at work.

The majority in this country didn't want trump and dislike most everything about him. That's factual. it is unrealistic for the rw to expect us to not fight back.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

The question in my mind is, are Trump's policies responsible for splitting the country apart, or is it the left's reaction to the fact that Donald Trump was duly elected?

No one in my Dem group EVER talks about how trump was elected. We are way beyond that. Staying in that mode would be damaging to our party. So, that answer is a solid no.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

I was surprised that mudhouse even asked that question--the "you can't accept that Hillary lost" nonsense. It's a favorite of those who troll this forum and I haven't found that mudhouse posts things just for a reaction.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

I was surprised that mudhouse even asked that question--the "you can't accept that Hillary lost" nonsense.

No Mayflowers, I'm not asking about Hillary. I don't think the current strong reaction to Trump is tied to Hillary at all. The reaction is to Trump, and I'm just trying to understand if the bigger objection is to Trump's policies, or if it's a reaction to Trump himself as president.

I said: The question in my mind is, are Trump's policies responsible for splitting the country apart, or is it the left's reaction to the fact that Donald Trump was duly elected?

Here's how I got there. In my post above, I put Trumps policies into Group A. I said we should focus on discussing objections to Trump's policies, because our differences over policy are the biggest real problem.

Annie and Cattyles implied they disagreed with me that policy disagreements were the biggest problem.

Cattyles said: MH, there have always been opposing view points. We were all fine during the Bushes, Ford, Reagan etc. it’s Trump.

Annie said: But disagreements over Group A are nothing new to the right and the left. We’ve dealt with that before and will continue to do so…they aren’t as concerning to me...

However, purrmich stressed policy was dividing the country: you could have gotten policy from another repub. Maybe not the extreme attempts at policy trump makes, but policy that doesn't split the country apart.

So I asked my question because I'm trying to understand, and I'm not clear on the answer myself. I'm not arguing with anybody, or even trying to push an answer that I think is "the most correct."


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

I'm not sure that policy is the right word; I'd go for methodology. It has been said that his technique resembles 'Ready, shoot, aim", and I think there is validity to the comparison. His desire to get things done quickly causes him to bypass law and the constitution. In the case of the kidnapped children being held, the results bypass morality. His war on the press and the FBI undermine the values of our country. His treatment of our allies weaken us internationally.

Our most recent example has been this overseas visit, where he insults his hosts, essentially calling our allies deadbeats, and threatens to leave NATO. There was no need for the tactic, as our allies have increased spending every year since signing the agreement to do so; the increases for this year had already been agreed to and signed by Trump a week in advance. He could have walked in and led from that, but he didn't. The drama served to weaken the standing of NATO, which needs the US, and to weaken our own international standing; we become the country that can not be relied upon. The only country that gets a potential win from the summit after such a performance is Russia.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

Mudhouse, it's everything. I can't find one tiny thing I like about him.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Artemis, thank you for your post and the link to the video of the Ted Talk with Daryl Davis. It's after way midnight here, and I thought I was too tired when I started it, but I had to finish it (it's well worth listening to, and I hope others will too.)

Two things stood out to me. First that the quest for understanding is in itself a worthy goal. The hope/goal of changing someone's mind is a different thing from the hope/goal of understanding. You can fail at changing someone's mind, but still succeed at understanding. The second thing was the importance of mutual respect, if you have any hope of reaching a level of understanding.

If a black man and a KKK member can find a way to have mutual respect for each other, and at least some level of understanding, over a period of time, I don't know why people here can't do that as well.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
studio10001

Re. just a few of his policy moves:

I take issue with going deeper in debt to fix things that are not broken. Our economic numbers have been good for awhile; the immediate result of the tax break has been corporations using the funds to buy back their own stock, and the CBO, which could only release its figures after the cut was voted on ( pesky methodology, again) now tells us to expect another 1.5 trillion to be added to the deficit. This does not seem good for the country as a whole.

I strongly disagree with starving out the state department, especially if he wants to cut down on illegal immigration.

Massive spending on the flippin wall was a popular rallying cry, but I have seen no data referring to it as efficacious. I have seen reports of the law suits that will be filed, the problems already occurring with our current double fencing solution, issues with wildlife, issues with opacity, drainage, tunneling, cost - but nothing calling the idea effective. The zero tolerance policy that has taken its place has arguably led to more divisiveness than anything he has done to date.


4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

...where he insults his hosts, essentially calling our allies deadbeats, and threatens to leave NATO...

Not only do I find it rich that this guy who was bankrupt at least 4 times and is in debt up to his yin-yang (to russians which I believe is the root of a lot of our problems) calls our allies deadbeats, but it's not at all clear to me that trump understands that they don't actually *owe* the US -- or trump -- any money...rather it's just a commitment to spend a certain % on their GDP toward defense...

and by 'defense', I don't mean build a wall!

(sorry, I couldn't resist!)

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

But the right can dream too.


From The Depths Of Hell

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
deegw

Townhall as a SOURCE?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie, and purrmich, thanks for replying to my question above.

Annie, one more shot at some understanding here, in a thread that's actually been pretty helpful that way. Above, you said:

mudhouse, I think part of what's happening, is it's so much easier to argue like 3 yr olds do -- yeah but what about, you did it first, did not, name calling, and think oneself so clever when one has shut down the other side -- vs. do the work, because it *is* work to think, find data and research, explore one's emotional reactions vs. the rational ones, cut through the hyperbole and find the sincerity, allow for learning something new from the other side and hardest of all, let go of the pride and ego to admit mistakes and change one's mind.

I agree with this! I really appreciate the moments of sincerity in this thread. Even though I try to make an effort to understand things, and talk in a civil way, getting to these moments takes a lot of self examination and effort. It would be SO much easier to just type stuff off the top of my head that made me feel good.

In light of that higher goal, which I share with you, I've gotta say...statements like these really frustrate me, because they prevent that goal:

Annie: But trump supporters......will accept everything he says and even *like* the fact that he says what he says even though they know he's a liar of extraordinary proportions.

Annie: I'm not saying all trump supporters are racist, but those of his supporters who aren't racist, don't seem to mind that he is...

Even though both comments were addressed to me, I can't tell if you're seriously talking to me, or just making a statement to the world in general. If they were to me directly, as a Trump supporter, they're really disrespectful. They demonstrate you think it's OK to tell me what I know, and what I think, and that's not OK. If they're just general statements and not really addressed to me personally, they're at least obnoxiously presumptive.

If you really understood what was in my mind as a Trump supporter, I might appreciate your efforts to help explain it to others. But you're not there yet. You're not even close!

Annie: ...there's a gap between the reality of trump and the perception of trump, so how do his supporters deal with it?


Ignorance is bliss, I guess, but at some point, the costs of excusing and tolerating his actions may outweigh the benefits of his policies, but his supporters won't know it if they aren't open to seeing him for exactly who he is...

A benefit of this thread is I now understand you sincerely view Trump as a threat to the country. I accept it as sincere. Because I now understand that, it would be disrespectful for me to tell you that your concerns about Trump as a threat to the country, or to our form of government, or to our Constitution, are based in ignorance, or not based in reality.

Even if I really DO think that about your concerns, I'd at least be aware that saying so to you would make it very unlikely to have a conversation that had a good chance getting anywhere helpful.

If you think I'm way off target it these comments, and need a whack in the head, you have my permission to do so. I just don't understand how you can make the statement at the very top of this comment, and then make the other statements as well.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lilacinjust

mudhouse, the Alinsky tactics take precedence over actual communication and any desire for understanding.

Trump is constantly maligned as a racist (and of course, his supporters, too), but what did Obama do for black Americans? He was an utter failure to them and they were no better off after his 8 years.

That speaks volumes.

Trump is better for black America than Obama ever was. He gives them opportunity when Obama gave them victimhood.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Ziemia (sorry, I'm way behind on responding to comments here.) I read the Guardian article. I admit it was tough sledding for me, because the content is so geared to people on the left, and so were the embedded links. I don't mind reading them, but it derails my brain when I try to read something that goes from one point I disagree with to another. There were some things I agreed with, including the statement that the left needs to help citizens by focusing on what unites them, instead of what divides them. Except, I don't think the left needs to do that, I wish both sides could do more of that.

I never understood Bannon well. I'm glad he's gone. I admire passion, but my sense was he was a loose cannon, and not helpful to what Trump needs to accomplish. Back when he was freshly in the news (fresh to me, anyway) I tried to read and understand why people here referred to him as a white supremacist. I wasn't able to uncover information that convinced me that was a fair characterization (personally I discard hearsay from angry ex-spouses as solid evidence of anything, but maybe that's just because I used to have one.)

Anyway, I don't relate to Bannon's quote very well. Or to Bannon in general, if that means anything.

This quote frustrated me:
The short-term goal must be winning elections, and this means not helping Trump rile up his base by activating their sense of “threat” and inflaming the grievances and anger that lead them to rally around him.

...mostly because it seems to say that Trump supporters rally around Trump because of anger and grievance. This goes against the case I've tried to make here, which is we are supported because of our opinions on issues, not a sense of anger, or racist beliefs.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

mudhouse, the Alinsky tactics take precedence over actual communication and any desire for understanding.

It's the desire for understanding that I'm looking for. A number of people have popped into this thread with short comments, saying it's been an interesting discussion, and/or it's made them interested in rereading Hillbilly Elegy, and/or it's been nice to have a conversation without as much animosity or ill will.

I think if enough people here want this a little more often, there's no reason it can't be part of how we interact with each other, at least in some of our threads. Call me stubborn! ;-)

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse...I'm working on a long reply (of course!) and it's not quite there. I'm going for a walk to make sure my thinking is straight and will finish it up and post it a little later....but I haven't forgotten our discussion.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Thanks so much Annie, but I wouldn't think you had forgotten, even if the thread ended. I know it's getting long in the tooth, and there are always more important topics that take the place of the older ones. You said up thread that this kind of conversation is hard work. I think that's so true it's almost an understatement.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mayflowers

I never understood Bannon well. I'm glad he's gone. I admire passion,
but my sense was he was a loose cannon, and not helpful to what Trump
needs to accomplish. Back when he was freshly in the news (fresh to me,
anyway) I tried to read and understand why people here referred to him
as a white supremacist.

It sounds like it's time for you to do some reading about Stephen Miller, who is still there and driving much of the most controversial decisions trump makes. He works quietly behind the scenes so he never got the attention that Bannon got. I'd also suggest you read about white nationalism, which isn't the same as white supremacy. Bannon, Miller, white nationalism--that is the party of trump. White supremacy to me is the radical, violent wing of the white nationalist party. So I am not going to pull a mimi on you and call you a violent white supremacist. But are you and other trump supporters white nationalists? I think so.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Running off but want to keep the dialogue going.

Thanks for taking a gander at the Guardian article. (I do work at reading pro- Trump ones but often the ones I find have some basis on disproven recent history or they ignore some important points from recent history.)

My personal tactic has been to question change and to argue against giving desired things totally free. (I am against 'free education' policy that I have heard during the last election, for one example.)

But have to go out NOW.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

mudhouse, I appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to clarify what was said.


If they were to me directly, as a Trump supporter, they're really disrespectful. They demonstrate you think it's OK to tell me what I know, and what I think, and that's not OK. If they're just general statements and not really addressed to me personally, they're at least obnoxiously presumptive.


The comments I made that are presumptive were not directed at you personally, and not general statements to tell rwers what they think. Rather, I was sharing with you *my* thought processes that lead me to my understanding of the situation. (In fact, I even say in the next paragraph that I'm talking about my thought processes.)


I get that you don't think trump is a racist as you've told me so. I believe you believe that. I have more than enough evidence for me to *know* that he is. So how can I reconcile those things? If I understand why you don't believe what is so apparent to me, then maybe it will help us get to a meeting of the minds. But if I don't share my thinking with you and give you the opportunity to correct any perceptions I have about your thinking (rather than taking umbrage at it) then we're less likely to find reconciliation. Right?


For example, I believe in gravity and let's just say Mary doesn't. So I'm left with trying to understand how Mary can not believe something that is so apparent to me...how does Mary explain that when things fall they go down? How does Mary explain that we don't go flying off the surface of the earth? From my perspective, is it that she's misinformed? a victim of non-gravity propaganda? living in a different universe? in deep denial? has an emotional attachment to non-gravity thinking? lacks the intellect to grasp the concept of gravity? has a religious reason for denying gravity? made a mistake about it and her ego and pride won't let her admit it? so loves her non-gravity friends and family that she fears stepping out of her community? so enamored with the leader of the non-gravity movement she will buy anything he says? Other reasons?


Now, until Mary tells me, I can only *presume* to understand her thinking based on what she's said...or other like-minded non-gravity believers have said which I may correctly or incorrectly attribute to her in my search for greater understanding.


I'm pretty sure both sides engage in this kind of thinking. I know I've been told enough times (even disrespectfully and obnoxiously) that I'm just a sore loser over hillary despite how many times I've said I could care less about hillary and it's all about trump.


I suspect misperception and presumption of each others’ thought processes is:

a) where a lot of misperception about the other side lies: our inability to let go of our preconceptions about the other side

b) where a lot of the insults, nastiness, divisiveness and even childish arguments come from, out of frustration

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

Where I have a problem with our discussion is your dismissing my sources out of hand and ignoring my evidence of trump's racism. I feel like I’ve dropped a rock and you’re telling me it has nothing to do with gravity. On an emotional level, it feels like you’re not just dismissing what I said, but that you’re dismissing me. (I suspect that reaction is common on the other side too.) This is not a path to greater understanding but is a roadblock and I’m not sure how we get around it. Yet I sense if we can get around it, it will help us get closer to bridging other issues that also divide us…

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
purrmich _6

Mudhouse - you may want understanding, but what is needed is agreed upon common ground. Some place where we can begin to have a discussion about a mutually agreed upon issue.

It could be: climate change, for example. Many on the right won't acknowledge what scientists know - therefore, there's no bottom line from which to communicate and discuss. I can't even begin to understand the denial of science.

I think I've tried to have a discussion with you. I believe you've picked and chosen and my words have lost the context I gave them.

I'd still be curious if there is any common ground or not.


3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Annie Deighnaugh

purrmich, it also reminds me of Moynahan's everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: Where I have a problem with our discussion is your dismissing my sources out of hand and ignoring my evidence of trump's racism. I feel like I’ve dropped a rock and you’re telling me it has nothing to do with gravity. On an emotional level, it feels like you’re not just dismissing what I said, but that you’re dismissing me. (I suspect that reaction is common on the other side too.) This is not a path to greater understanding but is a roadblock and I’m not sure how we get around it.

purrmich: you may want understanding, but what is needed is agreed upon common ground. Some place where we can begin to have a discussion about a mutually agreed upon issue.

It could be: climate change, for example. Many on the right won't acknowledge what scientists know - therefore, there's no bottom line from which to communicate and discuss. I can't even begin to understand the denial of science.

I agree with both of you this is a problem, and a roadblock. I have some thoughts about why the roadblock happens, but no solutions. I agree it would be worth talking about, though.

(Edited to add, purrmich, you and I used to be able to have some good conversations, and I would like to be able to do that again.)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: I get that you don't think trump is a racist as you've told me so. I believe you believe that. I have more than enough evidence for me to *know* that he is. So how can I reconcile those things?

I think it's possible to reconcile these things by accepting that you and I have different opinions, without also concluding that it must follow that one of us is damaged, less intelligent, less moral, or even wrong. Few things are really black and white. I worry this sounds too simple to be a real answer, but I really don't have any problem reconciling differences of opinions in this way.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mudhouse

Annie: for example, I believe in gravity and let's just say Mary doesn't. So I'm left with trying to understand how Mary can not believe something that is so apparent to me...how does Mary explain that when things fall they go down? How does Mary explain that we don't go flying off the surface of the earth? From my perspective, is it that she's misinformed? a victim of non-gravity propaganda? living in a different universe? in deep denial? has an emotional attachment to non-gravity thinking? lacks the intellect to grasp the concept of gravity? has a religious reason for denying gravity? made a mistake about it and her ego and pride won't let her admit it? so loves her non-gravity friends and family that she fears stepping out of her community? so enamored with the leader of the non-gravity movement she will buy anything he says? Other reasons?

Argh, Annie! ARRRRRRGH, I say!!!

Maybe it wasn't on purpose, but in the example with Mary, did you notice you put yourself in the role of someone who is a defender of truth (gravity exists) and you put Mary (or me, by extension as a Trump supporter you’re trying to understand) in the completely indefensible role of a gravity-denier? And did you notice that all of the reasons you listed for Mary’s belief were uncomplimentary to Mary?

Let’s try this example. Pretend you believe that Trump is a danger to the country, but I think Trump is saving the country. We’re friends though, and I can see you’re honestly upset by the threat you think Trump poses to the country.

Now, I could ask myself, how can my friend Annie have this concern that I can’t even see? Is she just uninformed? Is she a victim of leftist propaganda? Is she living in a liberal bubble? Did overly harsh parents make her a fearful person? Is her anxiety about Trump a sign of depression? Is she obsessed with conspiracy theories? Was she frightened by someone with blond hair as a child? Does she lack the intellect to make accurate character assessments? Did her husband tell her that Trump is bad? Is she threatened by wealthy men? Is she so in love with Rachel Maddow she will buy anything she says?

My example is not so much fun for you, is it? Well, neither was yours, for me, even if you wrote it that way without being aware you were doing so. Thus, the ARRRGGGH!

There’s an assumption in your example, and in some of your posts to me I objected to, that your viewpoint is the right one, and that the opposing viewpoint can only be explained by exploring the shortcomings of the other person.

The incorrect perceptions you had about me (as a Trump supporter, I mean) as a part of the “thought process” you were exploring, were all negative: that I was capable of excusing racism, that I accepted lying, that I was out of touch with reality, and that my incorrect perception of Trump was based in ignorance. (Why are these all negative?)

Annie, to me, this assumption that opposing viewpoints can only be explained by the shortcomings of the other person approaches an elitist perspective. Not in terms of wealth or status; in terms of having a viewpoint that is unshakable because the people who hold the opposing viewpoint must surely be lesser people.

I dislike this perspective, partly because it lets people pretend that they’re being open to discussion, when the door is really closed, because they think their viewpoint is the only right one any good or decent person can have.

Also because, when we believe our viewpoint is the only right one, because we’re somehow better, the goal of the conversation switches from understanding to winning. And winning becomes not only proving that the other guy’s opinion is wrong; we also need to prove he’s a lesser person.

I know this is something we all do, if we don't watch for it, but I think there has been way too much of this since the election. I worry that it's really destructive to our conversations...not just here in HT, but everywhere.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo