Immigration Myths and Global Realities

[Ana the Ist]

If the diminished status is a result of the loss of an unearned boost fueled by a discriminatory bias, then yes, they should be okay with it.

I hate to be the one to constantly point this out...but it turns out implicit biases don't really affect behavior.

That, plus when you look at the state of much of "white America"....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2594203

I wouldn't expect them to be "okay with it" anytime soon...

 

[Ana the Ist]

If the diminished status is a result of the loss of an unearned boost fueled by a discriminatory bias, then yes, they should be okay with it.

I think the main point is that you can't push both an "identity politics" agenda and push a "social justice" agenda at the same time.

If its ok for people to group up according to race....and seek the betterment of their "identity group"....then whites are just capable of legitimately doing that as blacks, latinos, gays, trans, etc.

If however, the politics you want to push are all about social justice...then each group has the right to seek to undo any perceived injustices they face. That means fighting against affirmative action, racial diversity in the workplace, or even any welfare programs which disproportionately benefit one group more than another. Social justice is, after all, about fairness across group lines....not for one group but not another.

The left did better when they championed economic justice. One can only wonder who would be president now if they had told poor and working class whites that they were fighting for them...instead of blaming them for everything.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I hate to be the one to constantly point this out...but it turns out implicit biases don't really affect behavior.

That, plus when you look at the state of much of "white America"....

4 in 5 in USA face near-poverty, no work

I wouldn't expect them to be "okay with it" anytime soon...

I think the main point is that you can't push both an "identity politics" agenda and push a "social justice" agenda at the same time.

If its ok for people to group up according to race....and seek the betterment of their "identity group"....then whites are just capable of legitimately doing that as blacks, latinos, gays, trans, etc.

If however, the politics you want to push are all about social justice...then each group has the right to seek to undo any perceived injustices they face. That means fighting against affirmative action, racial diversity in the workplace, or even any welfare programs which disproportionately benefit one group more than another. Social justice is, after all, about fairness across group lines....not for one group but not another.

The left did better when they championed economic justice. One can only wonder who would be president now if they had told poor and working class whites that they were fighting for them...instead of blaming them for everything.

Championing economic justice alone is great - unless the people you're trying to help don't see themselves as "poor", and only see your policies as giving handouts to the people beneath them on the socieconomic ladder.

IIRC, most of these super-poor whites don't actually vote. Rather, it's the folks above them on the ladder who vote and who hold a lot of resentment towards the poor, even though many of those voters may only be just barely getting by themselves. Trump voters had a somewhat higher-than-average median income, didn't they?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Championing economic justice alone is great - unless the people you're trying to help don't see themselves as "poor", and only see your policies as giving handouts to the people beneath them on the socieconomic ladder.

IIRC, most of these super-poor whites don't actually vote. Rather, it's the folks above them on the ladder who vote and who hold a lot of resentment towards the poor, even though many of those voters may only be just barely getting by themselves. Trump voters had a somewhat higher-than-average median income, didn't they?

Depends on who you ask...at least a majority of Trump voters are wealthier than the average...but it's not clear from this article how big that majority is...

Who Were Donald Trump's Voters? Now We Know

I think she could've snagged a fair number of this group though with a different message...

"American Preservationists (a 20 percent cluster) are the core group that propelled Trump to the nomination. Nearly nine in ten of these voters described their vote as a vote for Trump, and more than three-quarters (77 percent) had a very favorable opinion of him. The Preservationists have lower levels of formal education and lower incomes than other Trump groups. They favor higher taxes on the rich, back the social safety net, believe the economic and political systems are rigged, and are skeptical of free trade. They are very skeptical about immigration. They vote for both Democrats and Republicans and look like Democrats on many economic issues."

Bolded for emphasis...

Perhaps even some of this group...

"Anti-Elites (19 percent) lean to the progressive end of the economic spectrum and believe the economic and political systems are rigged. Their views on immigration, race, and American identity are relatively moderate compared to other groups. Nearly half had favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012, but they moved sharply against her in 2016. They are slightly younger than the other Trump groups."

Those are people worried about their wallet...and you're never going to convince them to open it up for someone else because of their race.