Safety Pins and Swastikas
February 25, 2017 7:09 PM   Subscribe

The frameworks of liberal identity politics and “alt-right” white nationalism are proving curiously compatible. Jacobin's Shuja Haider explores the co-opting of progressive methods by the alt right.
posted by Joseph Gurl (76 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite
 
Haider:
White nationalists aren’t too bothered by protests of cultural appropriation, given their claim that, as Yiannopoulos puts it, 'culture is inseparable from race.' When that underlying assumption remains unquestioned, the rhetoric of mainstream antiracism is itself susceptible to appropriation by the Right.

"This is what leads someone like Richard Spencer to voice approval for incidents like one at the University of Ottawa, when a free yoga class for students with disabilities was shut down for 'cultural issues of implication.' A Student Federation statement on the matter went as far as to link it to the threat of 'cultural genocide.' At the blog for Radix Journal, an alt-right publication he founded, Spencer could barely contain his excitement. He cited the incident as an example of 'racial consciousness formation,' and applauded student activists for 'engaging in the kind of ideological project that traditionalists should be hard at work on.'

"It should go without saying that left-liberal identity politics and alt-right white nationalism are not comparable. The problem is that they are compatible.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:10 PM on February 25, 2017


What's good for the goose is good for the butcher, it would seem.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:19 PM on February 25, 2017 [3 favorites]


In a knowing inversion of social justice vocabulary, he describes it as “a safe space for Europeans.”

Otherwise known as "most of the world."
posted by greermahoney at 7:31 PM on February 25, 2017 [14 favorites]


The problem with the post-racial, post-identity movement that Jacobin has long promoted is that joining such a movement doesn't stop employers from subconsciously discriminating against applicants with "foreign" names, police from assuming Black men are the aggressors in any given conflict, or Hollywood from only allowing Asian actors to play ninjas or taxi cab drivers. How are you supposed to address these issues without recognizing that people experience the world differently depending on what they look like and where they come from? And that all of us engage in these subtle forms of discrimination based on our perceptions of different identities?

It is absolutely true and very disturbing that white nationalists have started to co-opt the language of social justice academics. But I have trouble believing that pretending Whiteness doesn't exist is the answer. White people have pretended Whiteness doesn't exist for centuries, and yet, somehow, racism still exists.
posted by Anonymous at 7:34 PM on February 25, 2017


Also, the reason people with non-White, non-cis, non-heterosexual, etc identities have pushed for incorporation of these identities into the social justice framework is because they know damn well that they're going to be judged on those identities whether they ascribe to identity politics or not.
posted by Anonymous at 7:38 PM on February 25, 2017


I mind the bollocks.
posted by onesidys at 7:43 PM on February 25, 2017 [4 favorites]


The problem with the post-racial, post-identity movement that Jacobin has long promoted

This piece isn't promoting that, and I'd disagree with that as a characterization of Jacobin's positions over the years as well.

Also, the reason people with non-White, non-cis, non-heterosexual, etc identities have pushed for incorporation of these identities into the social justice framework is because they know damn well that they're going to be judged on those identities whether they ascribe to identity politics or not.

Yes, for sure. The answer isn't to abandon identity politics.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:43 PM on February 25, 2017 [6 favorites]


Surely it's possible to critique specific examples of how identity politics has been practiced without rejecting the entire concept as a whole. If identity politics is worth preserving, then it should withstand review and reform, no?
posted by Apocryphon at 7:47 PM on February 25, 2017 [14 favorites]


I think the article rested to much of it's thesis on the activities of Milo and Spencer. Both of whom seem focused almost exclusively on the performative actions that a spokesperson typically adopts. For both of them it seems like their core argument is that Liberals are hypocrites for promoting policies that advance the rights of PoC while at the same time ridiculing White Nationalists from promoting a "White" social and cultural identity.

I think where the argument tends to fall apart is that the cultural legacy that White Nationalist seem to be most focused on protecting is the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultural and social norms that have been dominant over the majority of the this countries history. Indeed the entire history of the the US has been colored by the shifting definition of what it means to be White.

White Nationalism is not about just being a booster for Western European culture, indeed the dominance of Western European culture on the world scene is unlikely to be eclipsed anytime soon but it's also about defining white identity through an essential lens of anti-blackness because whiteness is such an loose concept that it by necessity needs it's opposite to help define it's identity. Is it possible to celebrate White identities and not implicitly define other identities as lesser? Perhaps but it's certainly not the intent of people like Spencer or Milo to do that. White Identity politics is 100% about maintaining a position of privilege (typically for younger white males) at the cost of maintaining a system of bias against individuals not belonging to that white identity (for whatever value of Whiteness is being promoted).
posted by vuron at 7:47 PM on February 25, 2017 [24 favorites]


Granted, the article does not purport to be a chronicle of identity politics in the least, but it seems to focus on the gossipy, drama-filled arena of Twitter politics (which the Jacobin often finds itself enmeshed in, as a part of the Sanders-Chapo-leftist-not-liberal faction). Sort of perpetuates the misconception that identity politics is the province of disconnected campus activists and squabbling online flamers and not, I don't know, institutions like the NAACP, or the Black Panthers?
posted by Apocryphon at 8:01 PM on February 25, 2017 [5 favorites]


tl;dr: alt.right says, "I know you are, but what am I?"
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:03 PM on February 25, 2017 [6 favorites]


Apocryphon- I do think it's possible to critique aspects of how identity politics has been used within the context of political activism as well as critical discourse in the bounds of the academy but I also think that for the most part the activities of social justice advocates within minority communities have not been about achieving or advancing a Black National or Latino National identity, etc. While there have certainly been advocates of seperateness as a way of maintain a distinct Black identity, or Latino identity or Asian identity for the most part it feels like the majority of people advocating for a form of liberal identity politics are not so much looking for advantage over other groups but actually parity with the dominant social and cultural identity.

In contrast conservative identity politics seems exclusively focused on presenting the idea that white identities are somehow under threat and only by promoting the interests of the white race are the last 2500+ years of European cultural advancement going to somehow be protected.

As if the Greek, Roman, British, German, etc forefathers of Western Civilization are actually going to disappear into the mists of time anytime soon. But if you listen to these guys we are somehow locked into an existential fight between Western Christian White Males and pretty much the rest of the world whether it's some Muslim Caliphate looking to replace Common Law with Sharia or SJW looking to make white males feel guilty about the actions of our forefathers or simply the growth of liberal secularism that rejects some of the binary essentialism that Spencer and his ilk are so prone to advancing.
posted by vuron at 8:06 PM on February 25, 2017 [4 favorites]


The big idea behind social justice is 'we are all people' and that's got very few cracks in it, in which to insert a cultural screwdriver and twist.

The follow up social mechanism is 'we don't have power and you do so we need to take the power away from you and you need to stop claiming it' and that's nothing but cracks.
posted by Sebmojo at 8:10 PM on February 25, 2017 [9 favorites]


Identity construct theory from the field of psychology should guide us in how we address issues of racial/ethnic/gender/etc. identity, so we aren't all running around like idiots starting cultural wars willy-nilly without realizing we're doing that and without being able to anticipate politically undesirable responses that are often highly predictable. We still have to address the political challenges and issues of social/gender/etc. identity, too, in politics. But being guided by science would be smart.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:21 PM on February 25, 2017 [1 favorite]


I guess ultimately it depends on whether you believe equality or equity are the primary goals of social justice. Race blind approaches to social justice seem to have the unfortunate result of maintain disparity because if you treat everyone equally the individuals with the head start obviously maintain that head start. In contrast if you take the equity stance you risk being seen as promoting the interests of one group or individual above the other group or individuals.

Unfortunately the majority of us might theoretically agree with the need for equity based solutions to social justice issues the limits of our own perspective make it difficult to come to a consensus on what is actually a equitable way of addressing socio-economic disparity. Simply put if you struggle to make ends meet are you going to want to promote social policies that mean that another group might receive a bigger share of resources than you'll get? Especially if that attempt to address issues of equity are grounded in historical events that predate your existence? So of course social justice can be an total minefield. But if social justice work was easy maybe it wouldn't be so necessary because we would've handled it generations ago.
posted by vuron at 8:27 PM on February 25, 2017 [8 favorites]


I mind the bollocks.

but do you lik the bred?
posted by The otter lady at 8:37 PM on February 25, 2017 [9 favorites]


(I've been trying to figure out a way to point out that some activists whose views I share don't realize their way of approaching discussions of the subject of social identity actively hurt the cause by inadvertently creating/inspiring more identity purists.

Some take ham-fisted, self indulgent approaches to discussing these problems.

And that's not meant as a call for oppressed groups to shut up. The oppressed groups aren't the problem. There's room for even radical political confrontation to be effective, done skillfully.

It's the more aggressive white liberals speaking on behalf of oppressed groups that cause most of the problems and really fuel the nihilistic twitch of guys like Bannon and the more garden variety white supremacists, for subtle reasons related to basic human psychology. That's my impression anyway. )
posted by saulgoodman at 8:45 PM on February 25, 2017 [9 favorites]


> I've been trying to figure out a way to point out that some activists whose views I share don't realize their way of approaching discussions of the subject of social identity actively hurt the cause by inadvertently creating/inspiring more identity purists.

Unless these are people you know personally and these are conversations you can have in meatspace, and are willing to have ongoing (and possibly repetitive) conversations with them, then my advice, for what it's worth, is just don't. If you don't know them and haven't worked closely with them, you will come off as lecturing and hectoring. Think about what it is about their approach you think doesn't work, and then don't do those things. Do other things, use other techniques and tactics, be willing to talk about why you personally find them more useful/helpful and don't do anything that sounds like trashing those other people. Invite people to do the things you find useful/helpful.

Also, people like Bannon *never* need incentive to exhibit their bullshit. My being alive and breathing and not liking them is reason enough to them, and I'm certainly not going to stop doing those things, so asking me to take their shit into consideration when I'm figuring out the best ways I can resist is going to get a raised eyebrow in your direction at the very least.
posted by rtha at 8:55 PM on February 25, 2017 [28 favorites]


Saulgoodman- Ultimately confronting people around their choice of strategy is a risky proposition. Tone policing and concern trolling have been strategies that have been used against activist communities for ages and while arguably some activist strategies do hurt social justice causes it's such a minefield that experience has taught me that unless you are really willing to spend the time and energy necessary to develop deep relations with those individuals so that all participants realize that discussions about tactics are about a genuine desire to advance the cause rather than an attempt to engage in silencing behavior then it's really a quick road towards angry conflict between ostensible allies.

I've also come to the conclusion that sometimes it's useful for some percentage of the community to advance a totally extreme position because once you've achieved engagement with the opposition it becomes easier to negotiate towards a mutually agreeable solution if the extreme asks are already out there. Otherwise in effect you are negotiating with yourself. So even if the positions taken by some activist seem extreme or even comical in effect they can still be useful in forming a coalition to advance the great goal of a socially just society.
posted by vuron at 9:16 PM on February 25, 2017 [10 favorites]


They've done this horseshit missing-the-point imitation thing for a while. They love being victims so of course they'll grab the languagebof actuall victims - doesn't mean there's any truth to anything they say or they actually understand anything they imitate. They're just jerks, and love being jerks, and mocking imitation is a standard jerk game.
posted by Artw at 9:47 PM on February 25, 2017 [18 favorites]


The follow up social mechanism is 'we don't have power and you do so we need to take the power away from you and you need to stop claiming it'

uh this is a ... matter of opinion, buddy
posted by listen, lady at 11:48 PM on February 25, 2017 [3 favorites]


piece isn't promoting that, and I'd disagree with that as a characterization of Jacobin's positions over the years as well.

Certainly they have been willing to publish contrary positions:
for
example
posted by atoxyl at 12:30 AM on February 26, 2017 [1 favorite]


Haven't read the article, but isn't the whole point of the 'alt-right' (and, based on historical records, anti-Semitism in general) that no matter what position their opponents take, they will mirror them, grinning all the while? Words don't mean things to the alt-right. That's the whole reason it works.

Ultimately confronting people around their choice of strategy is a risky proposition.

I appreciate this, but if you can, say, draw a direct line from shame mobs (a tactic which seems to have diminished anyway) to the way abusive people use shame and guilt to keep their victims in line (or how cults set standards of behaviour no-one can realistically hope to meet so that they have ammunition against people who need to be Dealt With) is it a legitimate tactic to bring this up without directing it at people specifically?
posted by Merus at 12:51 AM on February 26, 2017 [5 favorites]


I think Artw is right on. The alt-right is like a bunch of aliens who have heard these hu-mans dislike oppression, so they pretend to be oppressed. The giveaway is that they think saying "I'm oppressed!" means they get to ignore everyone else.

I think the article does itself a disservice by trying to complain about neo-Nazis and identity politics. It comes off as both-sides-ism.
posted by zompist at 1:26 AM on February 26, 2017 [15 favorites]


Something similar to what happened in the late '60s is starting to happen again. Elite overproduction has led to a surfeit of naive, demoralised, and disorientated former elites blundering about our 21st-century physical and virtual landscapes. Their perceived loss of status—the disruption of the pathways that would formerly have carried them into the upper realms of the professions or automatically conferred cultural capital on them on the basis of their essential beings—is deeply felt and manifested in various ways. There's the projection of their anger and loss onto other members of their tribe, who are called out for exemplifying the sins they feel most guilty of themselves. There's the free floating guilt, alleviated in most cases by various forms of anhedonic consumption. Fill me with information about all the various ways in which I am terrible! This loss of morale, coupled with a certain cluelessness about the extent of their actual, enduring privilege, leaves them vulnerable to various cults and scams that feed off guilt and negative energy and convert them into various forms of capital.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:31 AM on February 26, 2017 [5 favorites]


ha! "Both-sides-ism" is exactly on the nose what I was thinking, zompist. I was remembering a couple of images from the African History twitter account* I saw recently, this in particular. Those boys in the back will always be with us in some form. I'm not really down with thought pieces about how maybe they might have a point about how "both sides do it." This isn't ancient history; Dorothy Counts is like five years older than Donald Trump. This is the Great America that some want us to return to, and some want us to stop thinking about in terms of identity. This too. Arguing that the left should find "a way of thinking about people that is indifferent to race," means that the only people thinking about race will be those who advocate racial hatred. The rest of us will just be comfortably indifferent.

I understand how focusing on identity can be annoying. I understand that there are some on the left who are bullies, and some who are opportunists. It's a big group. Additionally, many members are quite young and still working through their feelings, realizations, and ideals, and there is a lot of simplistic good vs evil broad brush and reductive thinking that can at times be actively harmful, and there are many challenges to unity precisely because there are so many different groups with different identities and experiences that have a stake in trying to work towards making things less shitty. I understand the desire to co-opt that whole wide array of folks as foot soldiers in the one true socialist vision and insist they not distract or annoy people with their insistence on attention to their own particular (often literally life-and-death) problems, but I don't think it's a persuasive invitation.

* Careful; some images on this (excellent) twitter stream depict graphic death and violence
posted by taz at 2:12 AM on February 26, 2017 [19 favorites]


Thing is, there's plenty of wealth and power to go around. It's just that the 1% are sitting on most of it like a dog in the manger because our system is rigged to keep it there instead of circulating in the economy where it could help everybody achieve the American dream regardless of skin color or cultural tradition. So, non-1% white folks are growling over their sliver of pie instead of noticing we've all been locked out of the bakery. That's what Dr. King was trying to say when they shot him.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:12 AM on February 26, 2017 [11 favorites]


If you don't know them and haven't worked closely with them, you will come off as lecturing and hectoring.

Oh definitely. I get that. That's why it's been so hard to bring up. It doesn't stop being true just because I'm not the ideal messenger. But again, it's mostly white people who seem blind to their own sense of privilege to take on others' natural outrage as if it were uniquely their own, which the white identity people see as arrogant and rank hypocrisy (and what they consider a kind of racial self loathing): the way they see it, I think, some whites want to feel as if they aren't complicit, that they are somehow uniquely blameless among the white population. It's this intragroup dynamic within the white community that fuels a lot of the social conflict. To the white identity purists, I think it seems like liberal whites put themselves above other whites, as somehow less complicit in the history of white racism when to the racists it couldn't be more obvious liberal whites try to exploit racial class for political leverage, too. We can't be racially blind, for obvious reasons. But being so aggressively sanctimonious, as whites, with other white people feeds neatly into the racist narratives about self loathing, race treason, and sanctimonious white liberals who use the logic of our institutionalized racist system opportunistically, for tactical political reasons, while decrying and claiming to despise institutionalized racism.

Nothing purists hate more than what they see as hypocrisy among their own identity group.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:16 AM on February 26, 2017 [3 favorites]


If only our governments had a solution to free up the money sitting in cash piles *coughprintlotsandlotsofmoneycough*
posted by Yowser at 5:50 AM on February 26, 2017 [4 favorites]


I also have to wonder how we got from alt-right to piles of cash. Maybe I should RTFA.
posted by Yowser at 5:53 AM on February 26, 2017 [1 favorite]


I also have to wonder how we got from alt-right to piles of cash.

When I brought up the policies that enable the hoarding of wealth and power by the top 1%, I was building on comments like

“The follow up social mechanism is 'we don't have power and you do so we need to take the power away from you…”

and

“Simply put if you struggle to make ends meet are you going to want to promote social policies that mean that another group might receive a bigger share of resources than you'll get?”
posted by The Underpants Monster at 6:39 AM on February 26, 2017 [1 favorite]


But being so aggressively sanctimonious, as whites, with other white people feeds neatly into the racist narratives about self loathing, race treason, and sanctimonious white liberals who use the logic of our institutionalized racist system opportunistically, for tactical political reasons, while decrying and claiming to despise institutionalized racism.

This I absolutely agree with. Part of having White privilege is having access to White spaces that would not be as socially welcoming or receptive to POC, and thus having the opportunity to expose White people to issues of race they would not normally be exposed to. In the past half year, especially since Trump's election, I have been coming around to the conclusion that as a White person I do not get to enjoy the satisfaction of venting and righteous anger when it comes to confronting other White people. It's not going to help dismantle White supremacy because indiscriminate righteous anger about racism, especially from other White people, is just going to make other White people shut down outside very narrow sets of circumstances.

Is this tone-policing? Yes, it is. But one of the primary arguments against tone-policing is that it demands that an oppressed person suppress their suffering and anger about what's being done to them in favor of preserving the feelings of the oppressor. It's crap, unfair, and an inhumane way of treating someone who's already been dehumanized. Plus frankly I think more White people need to witness what racial oppression does to POC.

But White people are not the oppressed group here. So asking someone to suppress their anger and be more strategic in their approach is not anywhere the same as asking it of a POC. I think White people in the anti-racism movement need to swallow our frustration and do the difficult work of slowly, patiently working through these issues with other White people. One of the reasons I am encouraged by the formation of SURJ and other White-focused anti-racism groups is because they give an opportunity to discuss these strategies in a way that makes it explicitly clear that POC are not expected to adhere to them.
posted by Anonymous at 7:08 AM on February 26, 2017


ha! "Both-sides-ism" is exactly on the nose..

I don't know about this. I've seen portions of the left and identity politics folks be perfectly alright with antisemitism as long as it was of the Nation of Islam variety.
posted by Puddle at 7:09 AM on February 26, 2017 [4 favorites]


*sees that it's the jacobin* *prepares herself for a mess*
posted by cendawanita at 8:35 AM on February 26, 2017 [6 favorites]


Really interesting article and discussion.

What I get from the article (and maybe this is just my own spin on it) is that we need to understand identities within a framework of values or else they end up just as vehicles for othering and zero-sum competition and victimhood. This is a very different than saying we should "stop thinking in terms of identity" or that both sides do it. Rather, identities can be important because they help establish and define shared values such as resistance to oppression, economic equality, or political rights.

The author's comment about (white supremacists' fear of) "a way of thinking that is indifferent to race" seems to me to be saying not that those countering them should ignore race or deny that race is the most important factor in people's oppression. What I read him as saying is that anti-racism has to be grounded in ideas of shared humanity and economic and political equality (which minority activism basically always is!). If it's not, then all you have left to justify your actions is (group-identity-based) self-interest.
posted by ropeladder at 8:44 AM on February 26, 2017 [6 favorites]


Amid widespread debate over trigger warnings, he refused to read Alison Bechdel’s graphic novel Fun Home, a memoir that included depictions of lesbian sex.

It is somehow comforting that with critique and adoption alike, the right still doesn't fucking understand trigger warnings.
posted by FirstMateKate at 11:09 AM on February 26, 2017 [6 favorites]


I've seen portions of the left and identity politics folks be perfectly alright with antisemitism as long as it was of the Nation of Islam variety.

It's maybe possible to critique that without going all the way to "identity politics is preventing the glorious socialist revolution!"
posted by tobascodagama at 11:22 AM on February 26, 2017 [1 favorite]


there is a real and common belief, in some sense maybe it's even the standard American belief, that we basically have a pretty decent economic+social system here, if it were working normally it would be great, but unfortunately it gets distorted and disrupted by racism, heteropatriarchy, etc. i think a lot of liberal Democrats believe this, more or less.

whereas I think the majority of the socialist/Jacobin-left perspective seems to think more that our economic system was built on racism, colonialism, patriarchy, and all kinds of exploitation, and is structured to continue to perpetuate them. I honestly don't think most of these people want to ignore all identities other than class or anything like that. they just think pure identity politics without anti-capitalism can be counterproductive.

i mean if you hang out online you're gonna run into some real assholes. Like weird unreconstructed Marxists or whatever, or just people who are bigoted deep down and have found a political space where they think they have more support for that. but most of the individuals I've run into are very explicitly and consciously intersectional. probably the readers of Jacobin even more so than the writers, who seem to sometimes adopt political ideas as moves in a weird insular status game.
posted by vogon_poet at 1:22 PM on February 26, 2017 [4 favorites]


But White people are not the oppressed group here. So asking someone to suppress their anger and be more strategic in their approach is not anywhere the same as asking it of a POC. I think White people in the anti-racism movement need to swallow our frustration and do the difficult work of slowly, patiently working through these issues with other White people.

Yes, yes--that's exactly it! Take responsibility for it, not try to distance ourselves from the reality of our own social identities in a patently dishonest and condescending way.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:30 PM on February 26, 2017 [1 favorite]


Well, yes.

Far right ideologies have a history of co-opting the rhetoric of the left, going all the way back to actual fascism. Mussolini was raised as a socialist, and broke with socialism over ultra-nationalist and pro-war sentiments, but still coopted some of the terms and the promises. And the Nazis likewise started out coopting the labeling of a "Workers Party" for Anton Drexler's militant nationalist group, hence the name "National Socialism" (which was always nationalist and hardly socialist in practice). Fascism has pretty much always been about promising "economic socialism" without all that internationalist "everybody counts equally and we are all one people" stuff that forms the ethical basis of socialism as an ideology.

For a less Godwin-y take, there's always the Socialist Party of America and its opposition, alongside Owen Meany, to George McGovern and its pro-Vietnam sensibilities. A whole lot of far-right stuff comes from disaffected moderate leftists making a sharp right turn into paranoid politics, becoming people who swap out big chunks of Leftist ideology for various forms of narrow nationalism. It's often done by people who like the idea of being part of a big mass movement but not if it's gonna have "those people" in it or look like something other than "good old American life."

You'd think a writer at The Jacobin would know this history, of all history, a little better.
posted by kewb at 3:19 PM on February 26, 2017 [7 favorites]


A whole lot of far-right stuff comes from disaffected moderate leftists making a sharp right turn into paranoid politics, becoming people who swap out big chunks of Leftist ideology for various forms of narrow nationalism.

See: my elderly great-aunt, who fancied herself a lifelong liberal and Democrat but took a sharp turn into anti-immigrant paranoia after Obama's election (gee, I wonder why) and is now a rabid Trump fan.
posted by Anonymous at 4:37 PM on February 26, 2017


Well, part of the issue is politicians of both parties do pander to group identity in ways that are pretty conspicuously tactical and manipulative and not really focused on achieving any particular social justice aim. When Dems run a candidate to try to appeal to a particular block of voters, it can seem an awful lot like they aren't really so much interested in challenging the foundations of the social systems that perpetuate racial inequality, but only in gaining some tactical advantage to push through a different agenda that seldom actually works out as making a substantial, lasting positive impact on the real life problems faced by the groups they appeal to.

Dems have had chances to seriously propose major social justice initiatives like reparations, for example, but they won't for fear of alienating certain reactionary white voters still in the fold ("pragmatism"), and that's probably smart politics, but it can make the claims about being opposed to racist ideology seem a little insincere now and then. I think that's why one of my former colleagues, a black Democrat, was flirting with voting for Trump when we discussed the election. He seemed to suspect a Clinton presidency might not really be all that positive an outcome for the black community. Possibly because he'd lived through the first round of Clinton welfare and prison sentencing reforms that hit the black community so hard and didn't trust her not to compromise on those kinds of issues now. I'm not sure and can't speak for the guy, obviously, but that was the impression I got.

To the racial purists, Dems want it both ways, to decry racism as unconscionable but at the same time claim it's impossible to ever overcome and exploit it for tactical political gain, which seems like a double bind.

Obama interestingly seemed to understand those dynamics and the whole problem of how the psychology of identity construction intersects with the politics of social identity better than most, maybe due to his own life experience having given him so much direct personal experience in negotiating that difficult terrain between black and white culture.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:37 PM on February 26, 2017 [6 favorites]


Yes, I believe Obama was a generational political talent. The guy was a genuine force in and of himself. Disappointing, for sure, but wow, what a talent.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:59 PM on February 26, 2017 [4 favorites]


I I think that's why one of my former colleagues, a black Democrat, was flirting with voting for Trump when we discussed the election. He seemed to suspect a Clinton presidency might not really be all that positive an outcome for the black community. Possibly because he'd lived through the first round of Clinton welfare and prison sentencing reforms that hit the black community so hard and didn't trust her not to compromise on those kinds of issues now. I'm not sure and can't speak for the guy, obviously, but that was the impression I got.

I know plenty of POC activists who are frustrated with tokenism in the Democratic Party. Being frustrated with tokenism is pretty damn different than voting Trump though, as is evidenced by the fact that only 8% of Black voters went for him. So I'm gonna guess there's a hell of a lot more to your friend's rationale than "but welfare".
posted by Anonymous at 7:02 PM on February 26, 2017


Most of the "Bernie or Trump" guys I heard about fall into one of two camps: pure accelerationists who want to burn everything down, or naive true believers who took Trump at face value when he started copping some of the Bernie side's rhetoric about bankers and big business and rigged elections. saul's friend doesn't seem to fit into either category, though.

I can totally understand not being jazzed about Clinton given her shitty record of anti-black "tough on crime" measures, but what I don't understand in this case is thinking that Trump would be any better. I mean, only one of the two candidates was endorsed by the (*spit*) police unions, and it wasn't the woman. Not to mention the Central Park Five, etc., etc. Was it just a protest vote in a safe state kind of thing?
posted by tobascodagama at 7:47 PM on February 26, 2017 [4 favorites]


I can totally understand not being jazzed about Clinton given her shitty record of anti-black "tough on crime" measures, but what I don't understand in this case is thinking that Trump would be any better.

Yeah, Trump's clearly worse and voters shouldn't have been fooled. But when people are extremely fed up with business as usual, sometimes they're willing to roll the dice on something less predictable--if your options are shit sandwich or door #2, you might pick door #2.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:22 PM on February 26, 2017


(to be clear, I'm trying to explain or speculate, not endorse. There's no realistic opponent that would have made me vote for Trump.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:22 PM on February 26, 2017


schroedinger: it's also possible he was taking an accelerationist position on Trump. I doubt he actually voted for him in the end.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:25 PM on February 26, 2017 [1 favorite]


It's even possible that position was the right one this time. We've still got some leftovers of the middle class with enough political and economic power left to resist. Maybe they'll resist.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:33 PM on February 26, 2017


It's even possible that position was the right one this time. We've still got some leftovers of the middle class with enough political and economic power left to resist.

And all the vulnerable populations that are going to be harmed in the meantime, well, omelets, eggs and all that.

Still, it would be NICE if you could explain this reasoning to my student, an American citizen with a Hispanic surname? How the likelihood of his being imprisoned in a slave camp of a for-profit prison is actually for the best? Could you listen to his response?
posted by happyroach at 12:12 AM on February 27, 2017 [4 favorites]


Hey, I'm not an accelerationist, to be clear. I'm vulnerable myself. I've always argued against it, I'm just digging for some hopeful way to look at this national nightmare...
posted by saulgoodman at 7:12 AM on February 27, 2017


DJT was only "Door #2" if you were blindingly, jackassedly, willfully ignorant. Anybody who claims to be surprised at how awful a president he has turned out to be is either being disingenuous or is somehow not right in the head.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:40 AM on February 27, 2017


I agree, but saying it that way's only likely to make somebody who did make that choice double down next time, whether that's fair or not. Maybe you're right though, and they can't be reached.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:55 AM on February 27, 2017


I'm just digging for some hopeful way to look at this national nightmare...

look at local, grassroots politics. look at local, grassroots groups. jump in, help out, keep your mouth shut about PoC organizing and their priorities. call your state reps and complain about their shitty, racist legislation

midterms are soon and plenty of places are having municipal elections. you keep looking at the national, which you can't control, and feel anxious. look elsewhere.
posted by runt at 12:14 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]


DJT was only "Door #2" if you were blindingly, jackassedly, willfully ignorant. Anybody who claims to be surprised at how awful a president he has turned out to be is either being disingenuous or is somehow not right in the head.

Are you really calling the huge number of Americans who voted for Trump are all "not right in the head"? No wonder all those Trump voters think liberals are condescending and elitist.

(I'm not a Trump apologist, to be clear. He's the literal worst. Well, except for Mike Pence or Paul Ryan, perhaps.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 7:13 PM on February 27, 2017


Well, let's face it, nobody voted for him that wasn't ill informed, an asshole or both.
posted by Artw at 7:24 PM on February 27, 2017


As for the actual literal Nazis, the gakergaters, the alt-right, etc - no empathy for them, not know, not ever. They have no empathy for us, and will do what they can to kill us. We must fight back, push them out whether we can, destroy their relevancy and defeat their works. It's not some shitty little game now, it's life or death.
posted by Artw at 7:28 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]


Are you really calling the huge number of Americans who voted for Trump are all "not right in the head"?

The statement you're responding to (emphasis added) was Anybody who claims to be surprised at how awful a president he has turned out to be is either being disingenuous or is somehow not right in the head.

Given the number of articles I've read about "small town residents vote overwhelmingly for Trump, are horrified when community-minded generous manager of local Mexican restaurant gets arrested for deportation" and "local businessman votes for Trump, gives his employees day off with pay for Day Without Immigrants because he realizes his family members are right when they say 'if we all get deported back to Yemen, it's the fault of the guy you voted for'" and "Trump voter who's only alive and not bankrupt today because of the ACA suddenly realizes that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing"…

Well. 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.
posted by Lexica at 7:44 PM on February 27, 2017 [5 favorites]


*sees that it's the jacobin* *prepares herself for a mess*

Slightly a sidebar, but both the Jacobin and the New Inquiry do this thing where they don't seem to care whether the essays they publish have any kind of identifiable structure. So it's a very consistent experience for me to be reading along, having a variety of responses along the lines of *hmmm,* *maybe* *ehhhh* *nope* *Metafilter's gonna have something to say about this* and then to surface very suddenly and be like, WAIT, what was this article originally supposed to be about? Why are we talking about this, again?

If I were revising these articles for my comp class I feel like I'd write 'Needs stronger topic sentence' and 'Work on developing stronger transitions between ideas' in the margins nonstop. But it's is so consistent it must be the house style. Congratulations on staying on-brand, I guess?
posted by pretentious illiterate at 7:54 PM on February 27, 2017 [3 favorites]


eponysterical! :)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:14 PM on February 27, 2017


Yes, Lexica explained it perfectly. Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what they were getting into and wanted just what they're getting. I'm talking about people who say they didn't think he would be this bad, or said with a straight face that he wouldn't be any worse than Clinton, or thought he was just a bunch of hot air and wouldn't really follow through on the things he threatened.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 9:23 PM on February 27, 2017


The ones that aren't Nazis, and I'm willing to concede that's most of them, pretty much knew they were getting into bed with Nazis and it didn't stop them.
posted by Artw at 9:47 PM on February 27, 2017 [1 favorite]


Huge swaths of voters, esp. in the rust belt and coal country, don't care at all about progressive social issues like gay marriage and trans-friendly bathrooms (I wish they did, of course), and many of them absolutely believed Trump's promises to bring back jobs (in autos, coal, etc.) and to spend massively on infrastructure. Those would both be great things (if done correctly, which is unlikely in this administration, of course), and while I'm beyond skeptical, it's still possible for Trump to make good on those promises. Bannon has been on the record since at least 2014 as a strong proponent of huge infrastructure spending (among many vile beliefs he also holds).
posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:59 PM on February 27, 2017


Well, let's face it, nobody voted for him that wasn't ill informed, an asshole or both.

Understood but to be fair, we do also know there have been some very concerted, deliberate efforts from foreign powers to confuse and mislead the American public. At least some of those low information voters are as much victims of those efforts as they are truly major assholes. I mean, we know Russian intelligence services tried to use some kind of sophisticated online disinfo campaign (more and more it looks like the entire Info Wars phenomenon is part and parcel of their psiops operation to foment sectarian division).

There's always going to be some substantial chunk of the electorate who are poor, occupied with caregiving and making ends meet, and otherwise too occupied dealing with a lack of economic power and opportunity to stay informed and have a deep understanding of all the complicated political problems the nation faces.

It's got to be possible a few Trump voters were just straight up victims here.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:35 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


I mean, there was an attempt to commit fraud here, whether that's what made the difference or not.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:02 AM on February 28, 2017


Understood but to be fair, we do also know there have been some very concerted, deliberate efforts from foreign powers to confuse and mislead the American public. At least some of those low information voters are as much victims of those efforts as they are truly major assholes. I mean, we know Russian intelligence services tried to use some kind of sophisticated online disinfo campaign ...
Problem is, though, you don't really know any of that. Not for sure. All there's been is a series of leaks and innuendos, breathless but ultimately baseless press stories and magazine covers, all underpinned by supposedly classified information from unnamed sources in the intelligence community. All of which could well be (and likely is) part of its own "disinfo campaign," one whose home base of operations is closer to Langley than it is to Moscow.

Meanwhile, 90% of Trump voters were also Romney voters. This is still the GOP base, by and large, but all I see from terrified and status-anxious American liberals is a desperate attempt to demonize them based on the projection of twentieth-century pop-culture boogeyman archetypes (Nazis from a film! Manchurian Candidates!) But the GOP and their voters aren't actually Nazis, nor are they being remote controlled from the former USSR using advanced satellite technology. Putin isn't sitting in an underwater lair somewhere stroking a white cat and personally restricting the number of hot lunch options at your staff cafeteria. That doesn't mean that the Trump regime isn't going to be very, very bad for pretty much anyone outside the immediate Trump family. Why not deal with what Trump actually is rather than shadow boxing with a bunch of externally projected archetypal mystifications?
posted by Sonny Jim at 5:17 AM on February 28, 2017


> "Problem is, though, you don't really know any of that. Not for sure."

Yes, we do. There's even been interviews with the people who are doing it. That Russian intelligence is and has been conducting a disinformation campaign is well-established.
posted by kyrademon at 5:24 AM on February 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


I mean, there was an attempt to commit fraud here, whether that's what made the difference or not.

Political fraud is so normalized, though. I mean, I've expected politicians to lie pathologically since I was like 11, and I'm not the paranoid type. We all pretty much swallow it. The idea of a politician who didn't lie is completely unthinkable. I think Adam Curtis' film Hypernormalisation does a good job exploring this.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:33 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


(IMO, that cynicism is precisely why we got Trump. He's not a politician, so you can trust him! Hillary is, so she must be lying all the time! Like most cynicism, it's just intellectual laziness in a fancy hat.)
posted by tobascodagama at 5:52 AM on February 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


I think there's some truth to that, but I'm not sure the cynicism is just intellectual laziness--there has been a consistent, creeping normalization of political lies, and it got us to the point where there's not even any real consequence to open, easily refuted, face-to-face lies straight from the president. It's fascinating (when it's not terrifying and soul crushing).
posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:02 AM on February 28, 2017


All the intelligence services and the FBI agree, and the Russian Intelligence Services own public statements have acknowledged it. There's no serious reason to doubt it's true Russian intelligence services did exactly what they claim to have done. And Putin has all the motive and opportunity in the world. There's not any real room for doubting the reality of the attempt, even if there is room to debate the effectiveness of the campaign.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:51 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


I mean, there's also actual hard infosec evidence that's been made public. If it's not real, then there's a massive coordinated conspiracy including Russia to make it seem real, which amounts to the same thing.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:53 AM on February 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


there's also actual hard infosec evidence that's been made public

Link? Nothing I've seen has actually included evidence.

(I'm not at all disputing that it might have happened, but I'm strongly disinclined to trust the CIA and I feel pretty justified in that mistrust.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 3:48 PM on February 28, 2017


That Russian intelligence is and has been conducting a disinformation campaign is well-established.

Sure, like we do, like Israel does. No biggy. The hacking accusations are the ones that many feel haven't really been suitably proven.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 3:49 PM on February 28, 2017


If you do not yet understand that Russia exerted unprecedented influence on this election, from its connections to the Trump campaign to involvement in hacking to its concerted, successful online propaganda efforts, then I doubt there is anything that would convince you.

I understand why Trump fans refuse to believe it. But it seems like there is a wing of the left whose anti-HRC narratives run so deep that they can't even bear to acknowledge the Russia stuff because that would take away from their belief that the loss of the election was entirely the result of HRC & Co being neoliberal monsters. It's like, you can think Putin's scheming is real and terrifying and needs to be addressed and still dislike her.
posted by Anonymous at 7:53 PM on February 28, 2017


I doubt there is anything that would convince you.

I've told you what would convince me: hard evidence.

And as I've also said, I don't think those things are untrue. I think they're nebulous and unproven. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were true. But then what?
(I'm also not sure about the "unprecedented" part, I mean, this happened.)
posted by Joseph Gurl at 8:10 PM on February 28, 2017


« Older Call me, Ishmael.   |   The truly villainous font is the ubiquitous Times... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments