General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Gori the Grey]

Which is: none.

Or more precisely, one: a Sri Lankan, an Indian. We are okay with one of your kind (it shows how broad-minded and inclusive we are).

By the way, Coulter's specific way of putting the point is very telling regarding the anxieties that drive the right. They know the demographic trends. They know that by 2050, there will no longer be any majority "we" to make decisions about how many of those others we will let in. This "our core identity is WASP" is a last desperate grasping at straws. It will be increasingly aggressive in proportion to the mounting desperation as that date approaches.

We* need to teach white people some way of being white within a "majority-minority" situation--or more precisely encourage them to pre-imagine how they will handle that (since many would reject any teaching on the matter). One of the key elements of white privilege is not having to think of oneself in racial terms at all. One can regard oneself as the default. But one ramification of that is that individual whites have by and large developed no ways of being just one race in a group that includes people of many different races. If a particular White person's working group included two South Asians, one East Asian, two Middle-Easterners and an African-American, how could that person contribute to the group's workings "the White perspective"? Most White people's minds recoil: there's not one thing that being White means; you can be anything if you're White. Until something fills that conceptual space, the anxieties that drive Coulter's formulation will prevail. Because what most white people presently feel in that space is nothing.

*The "we" here is "people of all races who pre-imagine without anxiety a post-White America"

 

[Farm Boy]

And yet they're the people most likely to vote for him.

Do, as people that won't, inform those that will how much they hate him. They must have lacked a proper education!

 

[EnglishEdward]

Or more precisely, one: a Sri Lankan, an Indian. We are okay with one of your kind (it shows how broad-minded and inclusive we are).

By the way, Coulter's specific way of putting the point is very telling regarding the anxieties that drive the right. They know the demographic trends. They know that by 2050, there will no longer be any majority "we" to make decisions about how many of those others we will let in. This "our core identity is WASP" is a last desperate grasping at straws. It will be increasingly aggressive in proportion to the mounting desperation as that date approaches.

I put it you that not only are Whites becoming a minority, but the right that identifies itself as WASP is a declining and aging minority of the White population.

We* need to teach white people some way of being white within a "majority-minority" situation--or more precisely encourage them to pre-imagine how they will handle that (since many would reject any teaching on the matter).

Why? Seems better to let skin coloured based identities simply decline in the USA (as they are elsewhere in the world).
Afterall modern scientists tell us DNA groupings repudiate, rather than recognise, the validity of traditional racial divisions.

One of the key elements of white privilege is not having to think of oneself in racial terms at all.

If whites don't have to think of themseves in racial terms, that seems to me to be a very good thing.

But one ramification of that is that individual whites have by and large developed no ways of being just one race in a group that includes people of many different races. If a particular White person's working group included two South Asians, one East Asian, two Middle-Easterners and an African-American, how could that person contribute to the group's workings "the White perspective"?

What objective requirement is there for a White perspective at all ?

 

[Gori the Grey]

And yet they're the people most likely to vote for him.

No. That's the very thing Ann Coulter said to him: I agree with your policies, but I won't vote for you because you are Indian.

It literally could not be more nakedly racist than that.

@EnglishEdward, as a way of getting past this stage, where that blankness that Whites feel if there's no way of being white will express itself as nativist violence. The end result is the altogether post-racial situation you lay out. But if you try to jump to that, Whites will slot in "oh, default-racial, yeah, I know all about that. Just a human. Like I've always been."

 

[Lexicus]

How exactly will they do that?

We may as well discuss specifics if we are going to make a case for voting to minimize harmful outcomes. Happy to tally those figures because I have a long memory and I know how much the democrats have made this bed and how happy many of them are to let it get this bad or worse. So, let’s do indeed try to judge just how much voting doesn’t actually matter.

It's impossible to discuss specifics here. There are too many specifics about the present situation that are unknown to me without getting into hypothetical futures. If Trump wins, as you seem to want, we will find out exactly how he can make the situation worse. Maybe by awarding Itamar Ben-Gvir the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

And yet they're the people most likely to vote for him.

Do, as people that won't, inform those that will how much they hate him. They must have lacked a proper education!

"Will"? Did you miss that whole "Republican primary" thing?

 

[Lexicus]

Feds accuse Texas prison agency of discriminating against employee for wearing a headscarf

A federal lawsuit asserts that the Texas agency terminated a state prison clerk who refused to remove a head covering in line with her Ifa faith.

www.texastribune.org

This is a great story because it reveals the maggoty rot behind the GOP's rhetoric around "protecting religious freedom."

In line with her Ifa beliefs, Spears began wearing a headscarf to work in September 2019. Ifa, a West African religion, dictates that some of its practitioners cover their “head with a head dressing during periods of religious ceremony, mourning, or to protect her spiritual power,” the complaint read.

Shortly after Spears began wearing the covering, she met with Human Resources Specialist Elizabeth Fisk to explain the religious significance behind the head dressing. According to the complaint, Fisk responded to Spears’ by saying, “Basically you just pray to a rock.”

 

[Farm Boy]

Most likely is the descriptor.

And it is true. He knows who his greater and lesser evils are in the world.

 

[Lexicus]

Most likely is the descriptor.

No, the descriptor was "those that will".

 

[Farm Boy]

Even stronger. But it's what I said. I was watering it down, in case the flavor was too strong. A good lesson for cooks who are serving delicate and bland Midwestern palates.

 

[Sommerswerd]

"Will"? Did you miss that whole "Republican primary" thing?

Ramaswamy didn't... or at least, to the extent that he did, he is certainly getting an education now.

As for Tim Scott... it remains to be seen what, if any takeaways he gleaned. That last infamous appearance onstage with Trump indicates that he learned basically the same lesson as Ramaswamy...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Ramaswamy (Scott): "I want to lead the Republican Party! I'm the MOST Republicaniest Republican to ever Republican! Vote for ME!!!"
Republican voters: "No"
Ramaswamy (Scott): "Hmmm , why did they reject me?? "
Coulter: "Because silly, you're Indian (not white) Duh! We're racist! Didn't you know that?! "
Ramaswamy (Scott): "Oh yeah... I did know that. Duh... I just underestimated it... I thought I could overcome it with ideological overcompensation, but apparently not... so its OK I guess... I can work with that, if so many of you feel that way... so then... what am I allowed to do?"

One of the additional ironies at play here, is that Ramaswamy (and Scott) is/are just (an) unappealing candidate(s) overall, for a variety of different reasons. So it is even more intriguing to see Ramaswamy readily and unironically embrace the notion that he performed so poorly in the primary because he is Indian, rather than because he was a garbage candidate.

in other words... Ramaswamy hears Ann Coulter tell him "I would not vote for you because you're Indian" and concludes "Yeah I've learned that many Republicans feel the same", the implication being, that this was the reason he lost... rather than defending Republican voters by saying something like "Ann Coulter's views are unacceptable and abhorrent and don't reflect any significant portion of the Republican electorate. I lost because I ran a poor campaign and failed to connect with voters or articulate an attractive enough message, not because Republican voters are racist towards Indians or other minorities." He's willing to accept the notion that a substantial contingent of Republican voters are racist when it props him up as a candidate... ie., Ann Coulter saying "I like your ideas/message, even better than any of the other candidates... I just don't like Indians, that's all."

Another point on that, is how Ramaswamy treats/presents Coulter's position as simply a difference of opinion, which he agrees to disagree with, rather than unacceptable racist ideology to highlight and condemn.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump cannot and will not have a non white as VP. If he were to die in office then said VP would be president.....

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trump cannot and will not have a non white as VP.

I suspect that might have more to do with Trump's or his campaign's perception of their electorate than any particular ideological commitment of Trump himself. Trump is cynical enough to name a minority running mate against his personal preferences, if his campaign determined there was some advantage in doing so.

 

[Lexicus]

So it is even more intriguing to see Ramaswamy readily and unironically embrace the notion that he performed so poorly in the primary because he is Indian, rather than because he was a garbage candidate.

Honestly, I don't even think he was a garbage candidate. It's just that the GOP is Trump's world, and everyone else just lives in it.

Even stronger. But it's what I said. I was watering it down, in case the flavor was too strong. A good lesson for cooks who are serving delicate and bland Midwestern palates.

Anyway, I think the observation was Vivek himself said many voters agree with Ann Coulter, so presumably you disagree with him on that?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Honestly, I don't even think he was a garbage candidate. It's just that the GOP is Trump's world, and everyone else just lives in it.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive, and I think both were the case.

Anyway, I think the observation was Vivek himself said many voters agree with Ann Coulter, so presumably you disagree with him on that?

Again, Ramaswamy certainly could have tried to deny that Republicans shared Coulter's view, but he chose to embrace Coulter's view as common among Republicans, not just because it probably accurately reflected his anecdotal experience, but also because it provided a convenient explanation for his loss in the primaries.

 

[Lexicus]

Those things aren't mutually exclusive, and I think both were the case.

Again, Ramaswamy certainly could have tried to deny that Republicans shared Coulter's view, but he chose to embrace Coulter's view as common among Republicans, not just because it probably accurately reflected his anecdotal experience, but also because it provided a convenient explanation for his loss in the primaries.

Yeah, my sense was you and Gori were riffing on Ramaswamy's claim that "many voters" (or whatever it was) agree with Coulter and would never vote for an Indian. I was just curious about Farm Boy's direct thoughts on Ramaswamy's remarks.

Personally I don't think it's true that very many GOP voters would only vote for a WASP candidate for President. Many GOP voters are the "white ethnics" who are by definition not WASP (and once were solid Democratic constituencies). That was one of the reasons Coulter's remarks struck me as a bit odd. Another major GOP consituency is white Hispanics, who are also not WASPs.

Just kinda weird all around. I mean, in a lot of ways Trump's capture of the nomination in 2016 represented the GOP finally repudiating the WASP tribe's position of preeminence in national politics. Reminder that their two Presidents before Trump were both literal members of the WASP aristocracy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Anyway, I think the observation was Vivek himself said many voters agree with Ann Coulter, so presumably you disagree with him on that?

I think he knows there are both. And those that won't now, he's pitching himself for tomorrow. <shrugs> I mean, isn't that a "Duh?"

 

[Crezth]

It's impossible to discuss specifics here. There are too many specifics about the present situation that are unknown to me without getting into hypothetical futures. If Trump wins, as you seem to want, we will find out exactly how he can make the situation worse.

This would be my point in its entirety really. You’re really worried about vague outcomes which are not measurably or observably different from what America has always done and what it has always been. This strange juxtaposition between your loyal devotion to “American democracy” and the fact you can do nothing to save it, from a threat you’re not sure is anything but “racism”, while the current president is perhaps best known for making his bones locking up super predators and setting up the modern massive prison-labor complex, all of this is perfectly exploited by the exact same people who have always robbed you to get you to keep showing up to the polling stations. In all that, the only thing that can happen for sure is that a politician keeps his or her grift going, and the screws continue to tighten on a population of expensive pigs that no longer pull their own weight.

Maybe by awarding Itamar Ben-Gvir the Presidential Medal of Freedom?

But you’re lying to yourself if you think Biden couldn’t do that.

 

[Farm Boy]

Now you have me thinking. The measure by which you select for the processing of commercial livestock is the calculus by which they quit breeding profitably.

We seem to have some other inputs going on at the farm. Maybe less measurable outcomes?

 

[Gorbles]

This would be my point in its entirety really. You’re really worried about vague outcomes which are not measurably or observably different from what America has always done and what it has always been.

They're not vague, they're just hypothetical. Should anyone here take the time and try and craft solid hypotheticals that have a good chance of happening? Will you accept the reasoning then, or will it never be clear enough?

Kinda feels like a fruitless endeavour. Which would be fine, hell if I'm going to try and convince anyone on the hellscape that is modern politics, but you use it to push up Republicans / their candidates / their talking points at the same time. That's why I'm making this post. That's probably why Lexicus responds. And you'd be hard-pressed to find two folks more critical of the Democrats on the left-leaning side of the spectrum (me being a Brit aside).