Trump voters fear diversity

Trump voters fear diversity? Well-not all do. At least not in my neck of the woods. Most people I know who own their own business voted for the guy for one simple reason: they think he will lower their corporate tax rate and allow them to either buy more toys or expand their business. None of them appear to have any negative attitudes toward other ethnic groups. Their votes were simply -in their mind-a matter of economics. If they could use a diverse population in their own businesses they would-and from what I see-they have. But then again they are fairly well educated and would be considered “upper class”-whatever that means.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by waterfield.

Diversity means different things.

I think a lot of people are just fine with racial and sexual diversity…as long as those people integrate.

They don’t really like cultural diversity. They don’t want their White “way of life” to be altered. So they’re all good with having diversity in the workplace, and in their advertisements, and the rest of it, but as soon as those people start choosing the music, and the menu, and the interior decorations….

Just another bit in an ongoing, complicated discussion.

—

Bernie is wrong and Malcolm was right: What white liberals so often get wrong about racism and Donald Trump

CHAUNCEY DEVEGA

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/03/bernie-is-wrong-and-malcolm-was-right-what-white-liberals-so-often-get-wrong-about-racism-and-donald-trump/

In the United States, white liberals and progressives have historically shown a serious inability to grapple with the realities of the color line and the enduring power of white supremacy. Many of them are either unable or unwilling to understand that fighting against class inequality does not necessarily remedy the specific harms done to African-Americans and other people of color by white racism.

For example, last Friday Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke in Boston at the Our Revolution Rally, where he said this:

Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks. I don’t agree, because I’ve been there.

Given Sanders’ long history of fighting for human rights, his comments are profoundly disappointing. They also demonstrate the blind spot and willful myopia that too many white liberals and progressives have toward white racism in America.

Sanders’ defense of Donald Trump’s “white working class” voters can be evaluated on empirical grounds. This is not a case of “unknown unknowns.” What do public opinion and other data actually tell us about the 2016 presidential election?

Donald Trump’s voters — like Republicans and conservatives on average — are much more likely to hold negative attitudes toward African-Americans and other people of color. Social scientists have consistently demonstrated that a mix of “old-fashioned” white racism, white racial resentment (what is known as “modern racism”), xenophobia, ethnocentrism, sexism and nativism heavily influenced white conservatives and right-leaning independents to vote for Donald Trump.

Trump voters are also more authoritarian than Republicans as a whole. Trump voters possess a fantastical belief that white Americans are “oppressed” and thus somehow victims of racism.

Polling experts such as Cornell Belcher have placed Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton within the broader context of a racist backlash against Barack Obama’s presidency among white voters.

And one must also not overlook how Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and victory inspired a wave of hate crimes across the United States against Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, First Nations people, gays and lesbians and those of other marginalized communities. Donald Trump used a megaphone of racism and bigotry to win the 2016 presidential election. His supporters heard those signals loud and clear.

Sanders is also committing another error in reasoning and inference, one that is common among white Americans in the post-civil rights era. Racism and white supremacy are not a function of what is in peoples’ hearts, what they tell you about their beliefs or the intentions behind their words or deeds. In reality, racism and white supremacy are a function of outcomes and structures. Moreover, the “nice people” that Sanders is talking about benefit from white privilege and the other unearned advantages that come from being white in America.

Sanders’ statement is also a reminder of the incorrect lessons that the Democratic Party is in danger of learning from its 2016 defeat.

Chasing the largely mythical “white working-class voters whose loyalties went from “Obama to Trump” will not win future elections. The white working-class voters they covet are solidly Republican.

Alienating people of color and women by embracing Trump’s base of human deplorables will not strengthen the Democratic Party. It will only drive away those voters who are the Democratic Party’s most reliable supporters.

Sanders has unintentionally exemplified the way that both white liberals and white conservatives are heavily influenced by the white racial frame. As such, both sides of the ideological divide are desperate to see the best in their fellow white Americans, despite the latter’s racist behavior.

This is why “white allies” are often viewed with great suspicion by people of color. Malcolm X discussed this point in 1963:

In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power. Among whites here in America, the political teams are no longer divided into Democrats and Republicans. The whites who are now struggling for control of the American political throne are divided into “liberal” and “conservative” camps. The white liberals from both parties cross party lines to work together toward the same goal, and white conservatives from both parties do likewise.

The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor; and by winning the friendship, allegiance, and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political “football game” that is constantly raging between the white liberals and white conservatives.

Bernie Sanders’ comments on Friday serve as an unintentional reminder of Malcolm X’s wisdom.

===
===

Trump’s supporters believe a false narrative of white victimhood — and the data proves it

SEAN MCELWEE

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/12/trumps-supporters-believe-a-false-narrative-of-white-victimhood-and-the-data-proves-it/

The right sees its political opposition as #triggered snowflakes who need a “safe space.” In the words of Trump’s chief strategist Stephen Bannon, “They’re either a victim of race. They’re victim of their sexual preference. They’re a victim of gender. All about victimhood and the United States is the great oppressor, not the great liberator.”

While Donald Trump and his ilk claim that victimhood is exclusive to the coastal, “politically correct” elite, I find that feelings of victimhood are central to Trump’s appeal. Trump supporters believe that whites and Christians face discrimination while people of color reap the benefits of government largess. Far from being concerned about “facts, not feelings,” Trump supporters and the conservative movement have created a false narrative of victimhood that motivates their supporters.

I examined “feeling thermometer” scores in the 2016 American National Election Studies (ANES) pilot survey (which asks respondents to rank politicians and groups from 0, meaning coldest feelings, to 100, meaning warmest feelings) to explore how they measured feelings for Trump among white respondents, based on their views of discrimination against whites and Christians.

Among whites who believe that white people face no discrimination, the mean feeling thermometer score for Trump was 25 (cold), compared to 64 (warm) among those who believe whites face a “great deal” of discrimination. Among whites who believe Christians face no discrimination, the average feeling thermometer score for Trump was 24, compared with 67 among those who believe Christians face “a great deal” of discrimination (see chart).

Another question asked respondents whether the federal government treats white people or black people better. Among whites who believe the federal government treats whites “much better,” the mean feeling thermometer score for Trump was 19, compared to a mean score of 65 for those who believe the federal government treats black people “much better.”

Among independents and Republicans, those with strong feelings that whites and Christians faced discrimination were more supportive of Trump in the Republican primaries (the ANES survey was completed in January). Among white Republicans and independents who believe whites face no discrimination, 69 percent supported a Republican candidate other than Trump. Among those who believe whites face a “great deal” of discrimination, only 34 percent did. Among those who believe the government treats whites much better, 72 percent chose a candidate other than Trump, whereas among those who feel the government treats black people much better, 49 percent did.

Among Republicans, but particularly among Trump supporters, feelings of white discrimination and loss were profound. Among white Democrats, 74 percent said whites face “little or no” discrimination, compared to 51 percent of white Republicans. While 75 percent of white Democrats said Christians face “little or no” discrimination, only 30 percent of white Republicans did. As the chart below shows, there are deep partisan divides in perceptions on whether the federal government favors white people or black people (or treats both equally).

To paraphrase a popular idiom, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like discrimination. These data suggest that this feeling of loss and victimization, and the need for racial solidarity to protect what remains, is core to understanding Trump’s appeal. As I’ve noted before, beliefs in the importance of white racial solidarity are powerful predictors of Trump support. Whites who believe their race is “very important” to their identity had warmer feelings toward Trump. Trump’s rhetoric reflects this reality: He has described a world in which his white supporters are the victims of bad trade deals, elites and rampant crime. They feel they are living through rapid demographic change that will leave them as a minority of the population — and they know how minorities have been treated for so long in American populations.

As John Paul Brammer notes, Trump’s slogan, “‘Make America Great Again,’ speaks to that victimhood. We were great once. We aren’t anymore, because of those people.” In his book “The Reactionary Mind,” political theorist Corey Robin writes,

Far from being an invention of the politically correct, victimhood has been a talking point of the right ever since Burke decried the mob’s treatment of Marie Antoinette. The conservative, to be sure, speaks for a special type of victim: one who has lost something of value, as opposed to the wretched of the earth, whose chief complaint is that they never had anything to lose.

Trumpism is a movement built around the loss of privilege and perceived social status and a desire to re-create social hierarchy. It is one that requires its adherents to live in a state of constant fear and victimization. This mythology requires extensive ideological work and media filtering to remain true. Conservatives must create an ideological bubble in which crime is out of control (instead of hovering near historic lows), the rate of abortion is rising (instead of falling), refugees are committing terrorist attacks en masse (they aren’t at all) and immigrants are taking jobs (it’s the capitalists), all while the government is funneling money to undeserving black people (black people receive government support in accordance with their share of the population, despite making up a disproportionately large share of the poor). Conservatives, and many in the general public, believe that Muslims and immigrants (both legal and unauthorized) make up a dramatically larger share of the population than they actually do.

At the same time, the right has created a caricature of their opponents on the left. In this imagined caricature, the left is sensitive to being “triggered” at every corner, but also capable of unspeakable political violence. The activist left are “snowflakes” on one hand, and brutal killers on the other. In reality, political violence has long been a tactic of the right, from the labor violence that left thousands of workers dead to lynchings to brutality against peaceful protesters inflicted by corporate security and police to the harassment of women seeking abortion, the destruction of abortion clinics and the assassination of doctors who provide abortions. The rhetoric of victimization has costs — white supremacists are committing unspeakable violence to combat the perceived threat of immigrants, Muslims and people of color. For the next four years, we are likely to have a government driven by perceptions of white Christian victimhood.

I think DeVega is right about what white liberals get wrong about racism to a fair degree.

But I think Bernie knows that even while he downplays it. Bernie is clearly committed to avoiding name-calling, and “gutter” politics, or the appearance of it. He relentlessly looks to forge alliances, and that’s to his credit, I think. So he knows full well a lot of Trump’s appeal is to racists, but he knows nothing is gained by saying so. That’s my opinion.

I read studies-of course I do-part of that has been my profession-but I know for every study on a subject there is an equally valid one out there. Its like competing expert witnesses in a trial.

I have to say, W, that to me that’s a generalization, and, an empty one. It is simply not true that for “every” legitmate study out there there’s an opposite one. Want an example? Show me studies that claim the opposite of the several ones posted here.

That’s the entire problem with the “I rely on what I see” approach. That’s just setting yourself up to not change your mind or not see certain facts. It also means ignoring what OTHERS see. Like people in this thread, ie, some people you know, who have directly seen what you say you haven’t. Do you listen to that with equal energy you expect us to use listening to you?

Always, to me, the REAL discussion means sorting though all kinds of evidence to see what holds up.

And the law is no guide here. You say it yourself, over and over. Law is not like science, or social analysis. In the law one finds out how to persuade people to accept a point of view. It depends not on truth but on the persuasive skill of an advocate, who yes has to sound at least plausible but also knows how to get people to buy in. It’s like sales, advertizing, and in a lot of cases, like religion too. But when I look around at the wide array of things I also see that there are ways of looking at things where the so-called persuasive skill of an advocate can be exploded as bs if what is being said does not stand up to real scrutiny. Scrutiny that depends on, and values, evidence and reason, not on the persuasive ability to get people to buy in. So what I refer to has nothing to do with what people want to hear, or how they feel…it holds up or it doesn’t.

Show me direct evidence that there are valid studies rejecting what is being said here, and you know what? We actually can sort through it all and find the ones that have the better arguments. You can do that on many issues, including this one.

So for example it is easy these days to get some people to buy into “islam is violent as a religion and so it itself is the problem, that’s what we are at war with, a religion.” Yet if you look around and actually examine the diversity of islam and the different situations it exists in, you find that that generalization is not true. The studies that purport to show the generalization is true do not stand up to actual, real scrutiny. So it doesn’t matter if someone can persuade someone to believe it, or if someone says, based on what they personally think is true based on their own experience. They’re still wrong. It can be shown that they are wrong.

waterfield wrote:

I have to admit I remain skeptical of “studies” and “analysis” unless I’ve researched the norms used in such a studies. Even so I know thee are many many different opinions along with “studies” on the engines that drive a Trump supporter. So I tend to look at what’s in front of me-meaning I form opinions normally based on what I see. Do I read studies-of course I do-part of that has been my profession-but I know for every study on a subject there is an equally valid one out there. Its like competing expert witnesses in a trial. For the most part they all sound credible-unless of course you are an expert in that field yourself.

So in my little world-most of my friends are what one would call “business people”. They are not necessarily wealthy country club people although some are. But they have been friends of mine since middle school and a few even earlier. When we gather the talk is about business and sports. Their political vent is normally about how they can benefit from any Republican including Trump more so than any democrat. For the length of time I’ve known them I cannot recall ever witnessing anything that would even be suspect of racism. At parties they talk of taxes, fair trade issue, the costs to them of healthcare, and of course sports. Now I have a neighbor who I’ve heard him use the N work more than once. I don’t need to know anything more. I consider him a racist and I do not see him as a “friend”. Just a neighbor. OTOH I know-because he has shown me-that he would do everything and anything to help you if you had a problem. But maybe not if I was black. Who knows.

We also live in a very eclectic area that has an enormous population of people from Mexico, including my neighbor across the street. We are close because we share a love for the Dodgers and have been to his home several times for various celebrations. What’s interesting is that at least half of his relatives-not including him-were Trump supporters-simply because he “talked tough”. These were Mexicans who obviously did not vote because of a fear of diversity. I don’t know -maybe the macho culture of Mexico and Latin American has something to do with that because to a person they respected Trump’s “machismo”.

I respect both Sanders (didn’t vote for him) and Warren( I would have voted for her) and I agree with their take on this. I also don’t think either one of them holds anything back as Zooey suggests.

In my opinion there is a multitude of reasons why people voted for the guy. Of course there were people who decided enough is enough when it comes to the darkening of the American face (i.e. a fear of diversity). But again I suspect there were as many who thought their own personal financial security would be better served with Trump. Then there were those who simply wanted someone more “tough” to lead the country. Then there were those who simply wanted anyone but Hillary.

I know there are those who so detest this guy-and I’m one of them-that they will attribute to his supporters the most evil characteristic they can-and that happens to be racism ! And if one group has an agenda they can do a study and come to a conclusion that supports their belief system. Which is why I tend to formulate my opinions on what I experience. Yes-I read studies and carefully look to see if they are truly evidence based but at bottom I go back to what my experience tells me. Sometimes studies support what I see and sometimes they don’t. I will always trust what I see because if I see a “study” that says I’m wrong or right I know right around the corner is another study.

I also recognize that I may very well be wrong on this particular issue and Trump supporters may well have supported him because of racism and diversity. That’s just not been I have experienced. Others have a different experience and even take-and that’s fine with me.

Something to keep in mind here, W. On a subject such as racial attitudes, if anything, people tend to understate their views. So all of those surveys of Trump voters are quite likely understating bigotry, racism, prejudice, etc. etc. It’s not like a study asking if you love puppies and rainbows. Who isn’t going to say yes? But questions regarding a person’s take on race? I find it hard to believe you’re going to get everyone being perfectly honest about that. So the fact that an overwhelming number of Trump supporters admit to attitudes about blacks, other minorities and women in the way they do . . . that they vocalize the (crazed) belief that white people are more mistreated than blacks and other minorities . . . . Um, well, we should take them at their word and then add a few percentage points.

But, as I mention above, it’s a terrible idea to suggest politicians should focus on this. It’s okay for laymen to. It’s okay for amateur observers like us to note these things. But if left of center parties/politicians actually want to win, or at least expand their reach, they really shouldn’t. They should focus instead on the conditions that led/lead to these pathologies, and those in power who create, enable, defend and expand them, etc.

Zooey wrote:

I think DeVega is right about what white liberals get wrong about racism to a fair degree.

But I think Bernie knows that even while he downplays it. Bernie is clearly committed to avoiding name-calling, and “gutter” politics, or the appearance of it. He relentlessly looks to forge alliances, and that’s to his credit, I think. So he knows full well a lot of Trump’s appeal is to racists, but he knows nothing is gained by saying so. That’s my opinion.

————
ditto

w
v

zn wrote:

waterfield wrote:

More “studies”.

“More shallow dismissive quotation marks in lieu of an actual argument.”

Don’t mind me. Just bein a rat.

But you DON’T have an argument. Just some overgeneralized shallow dismissal of studies you don’t like (and so don’t read) because they counter your assumptions, a handful of conversations, and then this blissfully sheltered conviction that what YOU see is more than just what YOU see.

Well-thank you for that.

I’m not “arguing” anything. Just stating my belief that there are many different reasons people voted for Trump besides “racism” or a fear of “diversity” which is all part of the equation. If I wanted to win an argument I would go and get a bunch of “studies” that supported my “argument”.

But thanks for the personal attack even if you don’t recognize it as such-which says a lot/

• This reply was modified 7 years, 8 months ago by waterfield.