The Nationalist's Delusion: Disavowing Racism while promising to enact broad descrimination

[badatusernames]

A friend of mine shared this article with me this morning, and it was probably one of the best articles on modern American politics that I have ever read. I know that's a bold statement, but that's how I felt after reading it. It talks about how racism, partisanship, socioeconomic status, and everything is all connected to get someone as divisive as Trump elected.


The Nationalist's Delusion

Here are what I thought were the highlights...

It was not just Trump’s supporters who were in denial about what they were voting for, but Americans across the political spectrum, who, as had been the case with those who had backed Duke, searched desperately for any alternative explanation—outsourcing, anti-Washington anger, economic anxiety—to the one staring them in the face. The frequent postelection media expeditions to Trump country to see whether the fever has broken, or whether Trump’s most ardent supporters have changed their minds, are a direct outgrowth of this mistake. These supporters will not change their minds, because this is what they always wanted: a president who embodies the rage they feel toward those they hate and fear, while reassuring them that that rage is nothing to be ashamed of.

One hundred thirty-nine years since Reconstruction, and half a century since the tail end of the civil-rights movement, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who explicitly pledged to use the power of the state against people of color and religious minorities, and stood by him as that pledge has been among the few to survive the first year of his presidency. Their support was enough to win the White House, and has solidified a return to a politics of white identity that has been one of the most destructive forces in American history. This all occurred before the eyes of a disbelieving press and political class, who plunged into fierce denial about how and why this had happened. That is the story of the 2016 election.

One measure of the allure of Trump’s white identity politics is the extent to which it has overridden other concerns as his administration has faltered. The president’s supporters have stood by him even as he has evinced every quality they described as a deal breaker under Obama. Conservatives attacked Obama’s lack of faith; Trump is a thrice-married libertine who has never asked God for forgiveness. They accused Obama of being under malign foreign influence; Trump eagerly accepted the aid of a foreign adversary during the election. They accused Obama of genuflecting before Russian President Vladimir Putin; Trump has refused to even criticize Putin publicly. They attacked Obama for his ties to Tony Rezko, the crooked real-estate agent; Trump’s ties to organized crime are too numerous to name. Conservatives said Obama was lazy; Trump “gets bored and likes to watch TV.” They said Obama’s golfing was excessive; as of August Trump had spent nearly a fifth of his presidency golfing. They attributed Obama’s intellectual prowess to his teleprompter; Trump seems unable to describe the basics of any of his own policies. They said Obama was a self-obsessed egomaniac; Trump is unable to broach topics of public concern without boasting.Conservatives said Obama quietly used the power of the state to attack his enemies; Trump has publicly attempted to use the power of the state to attack his enemies. Republicans said Obama was racially divisive; Trump has called Nazis “very fine people.” Conservatives portrayed Obama as a vapid celebrity; Trump isa vapid celebrity.

There is virtually no personality defect that conservatives accused Obama of possessing that Trump himself does not actually possess. This, not some uncanny oracular talent, is the reason Trump’s years-old tweets channeling conservative anger at Obama apply so perfectly to his own present conduct.

Trump’s great political insight was that Obama’s time in office inflicted a profound psychological wound upon many white Americans, one that he could remedy by adopting the false narrative that placed the first black president outside the bounds of American citizenship. He intuited that Obama’s presence in the White House decreased the value of what W. E. B. Du Bois described as the “psychological wage” of whiteness across all classes of white Americans, and that the path to their hearts lay in invoking a bygone past when this affront had not taken place, and could not take place.

That the legacy of the first black president could be erased by a birther, that the woman who could have been the first female president was foiled by a man who confessed to sexual assault on tape—these were not drawbacks to Trump’s candidacy, but central to understanding how he would wield power, and on whose behalf.

Americans act with the understanding that Trump’s nationalism promises to restore traditional boundaries of race, gender, and sexuality. The nature of that same nationalism is to deny its essence, the better to salve the conscience and spare the soul.

Those numbers also reveal a much more complicated story than a Trump base made up of struggling working-class Americans turning to Trump as a result of their personal financial difficulties, not their ideological convictions. An avalanche of stories poured forth from mainstream media outlets, all with the same basic thesis: Trump’s appeal was less about racism than it was about hardship—or, in the euphemism turned running joke, “economic anxiety.” Worse still, euphemisms such as “regular Americans,” typically employed by politicians to refer to white people, were now adopted by political reporters and writers wholesale: To be a regular or working-class American was to be white.

Overall, poor and working-class Americans did not support Trump; it was white Americans on all levels of the income spectrum who secured his victory. Clinton was only competitive with Trump among white people making more than $100,000, but the fact that their shares of the vote was nearly identical drives the point home: Economic suffering alone does not explain the rise of Trump. Nor does the Calamity Thesis explain why comparably situated black Americans, who are considerably more vulnerable than their white counterparts, remained so immune to Trump’s appeal. The answer cannot be that black Americans were suffering less than the white working class or the poor, but that Trump’s solutions did not appeal to people of color because they were premised on a national vision that excluded them as full citizens.
When you look at Trump’s strength among white Americans of all income categories, but his weakness among Americans struggling with poverty, the story of Trump looks less like a story of working-class revolt than a story of white backlash. And the stories of struggling white Trump supporters look less like the whole truth than a convenient narrative—one that obscures the racist nature of that backlash, instead casting it as a rebellion against an unfeeling establishment that somehow includes working-class and poor people who happen not to be white.

But (Bush's) visceral reaction to the implication that he was racist reflects a peculiarly white American cognitive dissonance—that most worry far more about being seen as racist than about the consequences of racism for their fellow citizens. That dissonance spans the ideological spectrum, resulting in blanket explanations for Trump that ignore the plainly obvious.

Perhaps the CNN pundit Chris Cillizza best encapsulated the mainstream-media consensus when he declared shortly after Election Day that there “is nothing more maddening—and counterproductive—to me than saying that Trump’s 59 million votes were all racist. Ridiculous.” Millions of people of color in the U.S. live a reality that many white Americans find unfathomable; the unfathomable is not the impossible.

From a different vantage point, what Trump’s supporters refer to as political correctness is largely the result of marginalized communities gaining sufficient political power to project their prerogatives onto society at large. What a society finds offensive is not a function of fact or truth, but of power. It is why unpunished murders of black Americans by agents of the state draw less outrage than black football players’ kneeling for the National Anthem in protest against them. It is no coincidence that Trump himself frequently uses the term to belittle what he sees as unnecessary restrictions on state force.

But even as once-acceptable forms of bigotry have become unacceptable to express overtly, white Americans remain politically dominant enough to shape media coverage in a manner that minimizes obvious manifestations of prejudice, such as backing a racist candidate, as something else entirely. The most transgressive political statement of the 2016 election, the one that violated strict societal norms by stating an inconvenient fact that few wanted to acknowledge, the most politically incorrect, was made by the candidate who lost.

It’s not that Republicans would have been less opposed to Clinton had she become president, or that conservatives are inherently racist. The nature of the partisan opposition to Obama altered white Republicans’ perceptions of themselves and their country, of their social position, and of the religious and ethnic minorities whose growing political power led to Obama’s election.

Birtherism is a synthesis of the prejudice toward blacks, immigrants, and Muslims that swelled on the right during the Obama era: Obama was not merely black but also a foreigner, not just black and foreign but also a secret Muslim. Birtherism was not simply racism, but nationalism—a statement of values and a definition of who belongs in America. By embracing the conspiracy theory of Obama’s faith and foreign birth, Trump was also endorsing a definition of being American that excluded the first black president. Birtherism, and then Trumpism, united all three rising strains of prejudice on the right in opposition to the man who had become the sum of their fears.

In this sense only, the Calamity Thesis is correct. The great cataclysm in white America that led to Donald Trump was the election of Barack Obama.

Trumpism emerged from a haze of delusion, denial, pride, and cruelty—not as a historical anomaly, but as a profoundly American phenomenon. This explains both how tens of millions of white Americans could pull the lever for a candidate running on a racist platform and justify doing so, and why a predominantly white political class would search so desperately for an alternative explanation for what it had just seen. To acknowledge the centrality of racial inequality to American democracy is to question its legitimacy—so it must be denied.

I don’t mean to suggest that Trump’s nationalism is impervious to politics. It is not invincible. Its earlier iterations have been defeated before, and can be defeated now. Abraham Lincoln began the Civil War believing that former slaves would have to be transported to West Africa. Lyndon Johnson began his political career as a segregationist. Both came to realize that the question of black rights in America is not mere identity politics—not a peripheral matter, but the central, existential question of the republic. Nothing is inevitable, people can change. No one is irredeemable. But recognition precedes enlightenment.

Nevertheless, a majority of white voters backed a candidate who assured them that they will never have to share this country with people of color as equals. That is the reality that all Americans will have to deal with, and one that most of the country has yet to confront.

Yet at its core, white nationalism has and always will be a hustle, a con, a fraud that cannot deliver the broad-based prosperity it promises, not even to most white people. Perhaps the most persuasive argument against Trumpist nationalism is not one its opponents can make in a way that his supporters will believe. But the failure of Trump’s promises to white America may yet show that both the fruit and the tree are poison.

 

[iluvatar5150]

amen

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

The left is what got Trump elected. This racism crap was supposed to be put behind us after we elected Obama. But no, it just got exponentially worse. Guess what, demonizing your opponents as racist devalues the term, trivializes the effects, and breeds resentment that manifests as actual racism. See: Self Fulfilling Prophecy

[Staff edit].

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

[Staff edit].

Yes, some were foolish enough to believe Trump during the campaign. That is changing.

Black women helped Doug Jones to victory over Roy Moore in Alabama

And there is Trump at his news conference saying some Nazis and KKK are "very fine people". Minorities will not forget that. And it is hurting Trump:

Poll: Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26...lics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/
Trump Unpopular Worldwide, American Image Suffers

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

Yes, some were foolish enough to believe Trump during the campaign. That is changing.

Black women helped Doug Jones to victory over Roy Moore in Alabama

And there is Trump at his news conference saying some Nazis and KKK are "very fine people". Minorities will not forget that.

Except he didn't. He said some weren't nazis. Which is true. Also, where's your condemnation for the communist Antifa who turned the entire event into a violent free for all, like they have several times in Berkley and in Hamburg just this year.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Except he didn't. He said some weren't nazis. Which is true. Also, where's your condemnation for the communist Antifa who turned the entire event into a violent free for all, like they have several times in Berkley and in Hamburg just this year.

Nonsense. It was very clear what Trump said and meant. This is why so many people quit his presidential committees over this, some calling Trump out for his racism and divisiveness.
President's arts advisers resign over Trump's Charlottesville response
Trump's business advisory councils disband as CEOs abandon Trump over Charlottesville views

 

[Shiloh Raven]

A friend of mine shared this article with me this morning, and it was probably one of the best articles on modern American politics that I have ever read. I know that's a bold statement, but that's how I felt after reading it. It talks about how racism, partisanship, socioeconomic status, and everything is all connected to get someone as divisive as Trump elected.

The Nationalist's Delusion

Here are what I thought were the highlights...

This article is certainly one of the best articles I've read in a long time. Thank you for sharing it.

amen

I second that.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

[Staff edit]. It was very clear what Trump meant when he said some Nazis and KKK are "very fine people". It is not surprising considering that significant part of Trump base is made up of White Supremacists.

22 million Americans support neo-Nazis, new poll indicates

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Yes, some were foolish enough to believe Trump during the campaign. That is changing.

Black women helped Doug Jones to victory over Roy Moore in Alabama

And there is Trump at his news conference saying some Nazis and KKK are "very fine people". Minorities will not forget that. And it is hurting Trump:

Poll: Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record
Trump Unpopular Worldwide, American Image Suffers

Nonsense. It was very clear what Trump said and meant. This is why so many people quit his presidential committees over this, some calling Trump out for his racism and divisiveness.
President's arts advisers resign over Trump's Charlottesville response
Trump's business advisory councils disband as CEOs abandon Trump over Charlottesville views

I'm afraid the articles you posted and the legitimate points you made about Trump will fall on deaf ears by the majority of Trump supporters. And that is why I'm always pleased when I encounter a former evangelical supporter of his or an evangelical conservative who refused to support him in the first place. I shared a story of former Trump supporters several months ago and I thought I would share that story with you in this thread. You can click here to read my older post with the story in it.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

I'm afraid the articles you posted and the legitimate points you made about Trump will fall on deaf ears by the majority of Trump supporters. And that is why I'm always pleased when I encounter a former evangelical supporter of his or an evangelical conservative who refused to support him in the first place. I shared a story of former Trump supporters several months ago and I thought I would share that story with you in this thread. You can click here to read my older post with the story in it.

Thank you. This was very interesting and true.

I admit I find it very confusing to see Christians support man who brags about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their vaginas, who brags about being perverted peeping tom on the women in his pageant. Who ran scam "University" to take last dollars from desperate people. Who openly displayed his racism by refusing to rent to people of color.

To me this all seems exact opposite of what it means to be Christian. But it is obvious that other people have different idea of what it means to be Christian.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Thank you. This was very interesting and true.

You're welcome, Yonny.

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

Thank you. This was very interesting and true.

I admit I find it very confusing to see Christians support man who brags about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their vaginas, who brags about being perverted peeping tom on the women in his pageant. Who ran scam "University" to take last dollars from desperate people. Who openly displayed his racism by refusing to rent to people of color.

To me this all seems exact opposite of what it means to be Christian. But it is obvious that other people have different idea of what it means to be Christian.

Did you support Hillary?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

[Staff edit].

I've encountered that kind of reaction to a discussion of racism from some white people before. The usual and most popular tactic I've encountered was to shame the person into silence who started the discussion of racism. This tactic would include accusing the person of being a racist themselves and insisting that racism against minorities no longer exists and/or shaming the person by telling them to stop playing the victim and stop living in the past. I've encountered this tactic more times than I can count for almost 25 years since I first began my involvement in Native American political activism and other social justice issues. It's become very predictable and I've come to expect its ad nauseam use.

 

[Larniavc]

I admit I find it very confusing to see Christians support man who brags about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their vaginas, who brags about being perverted peeping tom on the women in his pageant. Who ran scam "University" to take last dollars from desperate people. Who openly displayed his racism by refusing to rent to people of color.

It’s because to a great many people ‘Republican’ equals ‘Jesus’.

It is literally that simple.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I admit I find it very confusing to see Christians support man who brags about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their vaginas, who brags about being perverted peeping tom on the women in his pageant. Who ran scam "University" to take last dollars from desperate people. Who openly displayed his racism by refusing to rent to people of color.

To me this all seems exact opposite of what it means to be Christian. But it is obvious that other people have different idea of what it means to be Christian.

I didn't see this part of your post, Yonny, when I first responded to it. I agree with everything you said in your post. The evangelical support for Trump once confused me as well, but it doesn't anymore because I've witnessed so many evangelicals sing his praises, refer to him as a man of faith and a man of integrity. These Christians also seem apparently willingly to dismiss his questionable behavior too. They seem willing to defend him or make excuses for him no matter what he does or says.

I finally concluded after several weeks of listening to these Christians bending over backward to praise Trump and defend him that either he represents what they believe themselves and they agree with him or their religious political conservatism must supersede whatever else is going on in their life. I don't know how else to explain the alarming level of support for Trump from so many evangelical Christians. I've heard various excuses and attempts at justification for supporting Trump from these Christians, but nothing I've heard so far has been adequate enough to explain their support of him. If Trump was the best candidate that evangelical Republicans could produce to represent their political party and their Christian faith, let alone themselves, then maybe they have truly lost their way.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

[Staff edit].

I think we should also consider the following articles involving Trump and his questionable history concerning racial relations and other racial issues in his past. I think this information is important because the various content in these articles demonstrate that Trump has a documented history of this kind of behavior.

Trump's Long History of Racism

Trump and race: Decades of fueling divisions

Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows

Trump Condemned Racism As ‘Evil.’ Here Are 18 Times He Embraced It.

‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias

The FBI released hundreds of pages related to a 1970s housing discrimination lawsuit against Trump

 

[DaisyDay]

[Staff edit].

Border enforcement, immigration restriction and vetting processes can be racist or not depending on how they're done. For instance, if vetting consists of "no Muslims", then it's bigoted; if it's "no jihadis", then it is not.

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

Border enforcement, immigration restriction and vetting processes can be racist or not depending on how they're done. For instance, if vetting consists of "no Muslims", then it's bigoted; if it's "no jihadis", then it is not.

Great, then we agree Trump's programs have not been racist or bigoted.

 

[DaisyDay]

Great, then we agree Trump's programs have not been racist or bigoted.

No, we agree that they are racist and/or bigoted.

 

[Terminal_Marxicity]

No, we agree that they are racist and/or bigoted.

That has yet to be established.