We humans are excellent at motivated reasoning: taking a preferred framing and using it to "explain" events. The more highly educated we are, the better we are at it.
So, when dealing with something as fraught as the 2016 US Presidential elections, it is best to start, as much as possible, with the empirics: in this case, the voting statistics. The following post is based on the voting statistics from David Leip's Atlas of US elections--a very informative and easily accessed resource.
If we look at the pattern over the previous two elections, in 2012 Mitt Romney increased the Republican vote by 1m while Barack Obama lost 3.6m votes. In other words, Donald Trump essentially replicated Mitt Romney's increase in popular votes while Hillary Clinton continued the decline in the Democratic popular vote, but not quite as much.
So, what we see is a steady trajectory over the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections--the Democratic popular vote declining significantly, albeit at a slightly slower rate; the Republican vote increasing at a significantly slower, but steady, rate. In votes for President, the Republicans have not been surging nearly as much as the Democrats have been going backwards. Which strongly suggests analysis should not concentrate on what the Republicans were doing right so much as what the Democrats have been doing wrong.
[Cross-posted at Skepticlawyer.]
We homo sapiens are also a profoundly cultural species. In particular, we are moralising, status-conscious, coalition builders. We have a powerful, apparently inbuilt, tendency to copy behaviour which either has prestige or comes from folk with prestige. Which gives us even more reasons to buy into framings that reinforce a sense of who we are and where we (seek to) fit.
In 2016, as in 2000, the Republican ticket won the Electoral College, though the Democratic ticket won the popular vote. This is a fairly rare event in US political history (it happened previously in 1824, 1876 and 1888), so to have it happen twice in 5 elections is noteworthy.
So, comparing the 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections, several things stand out. (All figures are rounded up to a single decimal point.)
In both elections, the third Party vote was above 2%.
The third Party vote totalled 3.8% in 2000, mainly due to Ralph Nader's candidacy for the Greens winning 2.7% of the vote. It was 5.6% in 2016, mainly due to Gary Johnson's candidacy for the Libertarians winning 3.3% of the vote.
In both elections, the Democratic popular vote win was due to California.
In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, the Republican ticket won the popular vote in the rest of the USA. Since California, like most states, uses a "winner take all" system for its Electoral College delegate selection and since it is leaning more and more Democratic, there is less and less reason for Republican Presidential campaigns to put any effort in campaigning there.
We can see this effect in the Californian results. In 2000, Al Gore won California 5.9m votes to 4.6m votes. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won California 7.4m votes to 3.9m votes.
In 2000, George W Bush won the rest of the US popular vote by 0.7m votes. In 2016, Donald Trump won the rest of the US popular vote by 1.8m votes. In both elections, the Democrat advantage in California was larger than the Republican advantage in the rest of the US.
The two elections had very different dynamics compared to the previous Presidential election
The most striking difference in the two elections was how well the Party tickets did compared to the immediately prior Presidential election. In 2016, Donald Trump increased the Republican vote over 2012 by 1m votes. In 2000, George W Bush increased the Republican vote over 1996 by 11.3m--largely due to the collapse in the Reform Party vote.
In 2000, Al Gore increased the Democrat vote over 1996 by 3.6m. In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost 2.4m votes over 2012. (In both elections, the Democrats were the Presidential incumbent Party.)
In popular vote terms, the Democrats currently dominate Presidential politics
In the 7 US Presidential elections after 1988, the Republicans have won the popular vote once: in 2004. But they have won the Presidency 3 times: 2000, 2004, 2016. As, however, the Democrat dominance in the popular vote is essentially a California effect, their popular vote failures may be something of a warning to the Republicans but, short of changing how the Electoral College works (either by abolishing it, or eliminating "winner takes all") the political significance of that will continue to be muted.
Given that the Republicans continue to dominate Congressional and State politics, a constitutional amendment to change the Presidential selection system seems somewhat unlikely. Indeed, the Republican domination of State politics is striking:
Republican America is now so vast that a traveler could drive 3,600 miles across the continent, from Key West, Fla., to the Canadian border crossing at Porthill, Idaho, without ever leaving a state under total GOP control.
Who goes backwards?
As the US population continues to grow, and as it remains very much a Two-Party state, with very strong institutional barriers to third Parties getting anywhere, Democratic or Republican tickets going backwards in the popular vote is somewhat noteworthy. George H W Bush managed it in 1988 (-5.6m) and 1992 (-9.8m). John McCain managed it in 2008 (-2.1m). The only Democratic candidates to manage it in that time have been Barack Obama in 2012 (-3.6m) and Hillary Clinton (-2.4m).
The Republican Presidential vote has been relatively steady since George W Bush's win in 2004:
2004 62.0m
2008 60.0m
2012 60.9m
2016 61.9m
The Democratic Presidential vote has been much more variable in that time:
2004 59.0m
2008 69.5m
2012 65.9m
2016 63.6m
The Republicans seem to have more solidly attached votes, the Democrats a larger "floating" vote. Donald Trump got (slightly) less votes than President Bush in 2004, despite 12 years of population growth, while continuing the slow increase in the Republican vote since 2008. Hillary Clinton got more votes than John Kerry in 2004 while continuing the significant decline in the Democratic vote since 2008.
Starting with the electoral facts
The story of the 2016 election is the continuing Democratic decline in votes being significantly larger than the slow Republican increase in votes. The story is not how The Donald and the Republicans won the general election, the story is how Hillary and the Democrats lost. Any analysis that does not start from there is imposing its framing on the election. Especially as the much vaunted switch of the "Rust Belt" white working class to the Republicans seems to have been underway from 2012, long before The Donald's upset win in the Republican primaries was even a surreal possibility.
The victory story for The Donald is how he won the Republican primaries. An analysis which can tie that to the Democrat decline in Presidential votes is one worth considering.
[Cross-posted at Skepticlawyer.]
Don't forget the illegal alien vote
ReplyDeleteNeed systematic evidence to talk about that.
DeleteAnd the Elven vote.
Delete"In both the 2000 and 2016 elections, the Republican ticket won the popular vote in the rest of the USA. ... In 2000, George W Bush won the rest of the US popular vote by 0.7m votes. In 2016, Donald Trump won the rest of the US popular vote by 1.8m votes."
ReplyDeleteTrump won the popular vote in 30 states; Clinton in 20 states and nationally. There is no such thing as "the rest of the US popular vote." You don't get to exclude California just because you can't win it.
My point is that the Republicans can continue to ignore California, continue to lose the popular vote and still win the Presidency. That is what is significant about there being a single state in two elections where the Democrat winning a plurality of the popular vote was entirely due to California. (I.e. that their majority in California was larger than their deficit in the rest of the US). There is no other state in which that is true.
DeleteHonestly, I'm feeling more and more frightened each day since the election. It seems to me that not enough people are really grasping the gravity of this situation. Millions of people seem to have convinced themselves - more or less with the backing of major media outlets - that Trump and his supporters are literally equivalent to the Nazis. It's hard to tell how many people are somewhat knowingly promulgating this trope for political advantage and how many actually believe it, but it seems that at least a pretty fair number of people are in the latter category.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone realize how dangerous that is? Imagine if you were transported back in time to Germany in 1933. Would you feel ANY moral restraints, ANY limit to what you'd be willing to do to impede the rise of the Nazis? Probably not, right? I wouldn't. Even the opponents of Hitler who were actually there in 1933 would have been more restrained, because at that date there were only a few people who had an inkling of just how monstrously evil and destructive he really was. Now, however, it is being widely suggested that we regard a particular American politician to be "like" the historical Hitler. I'm certainly no fan of Donald Trump (and didn't vote for him), but there's just nothing that remotely justifies that characterization of him anywhere in the public record.
I hope I'm just being paranoid but, I don't recall ever seeing violent riots in the street and widespread open advocacy of political assassination in response to a US election before. Could this be like the atmosphere that people here experienced in 1860?
Those people in the media who have done their homework, and who actually do realize that the "racism" and "bigotry" and "homophobia" of the Trump crowd is mostly a gigantic falsehood - there must be some of them at least - do they not realize that they are playing with fire? Can't they see the danger in this approach?
I virtually never comment on blogs but I regularly read a fair number of them. You are one of the most thoughtful and intelligent bloggers I've ever seen. If you tell me I'm probably overreacting to all this, it would be most comforting :)
Is the hysteria over this guy anything like as severe in Australia? I imagine the reaction to a foreign election is never going to be all that dramatic, but I'm wondering if many people down there seem to be buying in to this descent-of-fascism in the USA nonsense.
The Donald was something of a Rorschach candidate -- he said so many contradictory things you can imagine almost anything about him. (Hence the line about his opponents taking him literally but not seriously and his supporters taking in seriously but not literally.) A Trump Administration has to start actually doing things. At which point, one can reasonably expect that everything will likely start seeming more normal.
Delete(And no, the hysteria is not as bad here and thanks for the appreciation of my blogging.)
I would not say you are over-reacting in seeing the reaction as over-wrought and the mainstream media as irresponsible. And there probably are some parallels to 1860. And, for that matter, 1828. But once the difference between demagoguery (which The Donald is) and actual fascism (which The Donald is not) become clearer, one can expect the reaction to simmer down.
Also, Mr Dilbert (Scott Adams) has something to say about all of this.
Deletehttp://blog.dilbert.com/post/153480921421/persuasion-versus-populism
"Darkness is good. ... Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they [alluding to liberals and the media] get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing."
Deletehttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747
"This will not end with labeling unruly protestors “economic terrorists.”
DeleteFirst they came for the protestors."
http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/mrblog-economic-terrorism-rise-trump-regime/
Bannon invoking Andrew Jackson does not scare me. That is well within American historical norms. The Erickson bill is rather more noxious, but seems unlikely to get through Congress (not something that is going to appeal to Paul Ryan, for example) and definitely would not get through the Supreme Court (can't think of a single Justice who would uphold it). And, really, how different is it from attempts to block donations to climate sceptics as "racketeering"?
DeleteThe point is the man hasn't even assumed office and already this is where things are. That is to say, the public fear is hardly unfounded. People who have the least to lose are always the last to recognize such perils. As for Paul Ryan, a few weeks ago Trump was hardly appealing to him, either. But look how fast that's changed.
DeleteReading at the link.... This appears to be one of those dumb bills that bans stuff that is already illegal on the basis of motivation, much like "hate crime" legislation. At any rate, just a few lines in to the article is an example of the ideas these people are soaking in every day... "white Americans who see the progress of black Americans and immigrants as detrimental to America's greatness...". Utter nonsense, no evidence at all is presented, and as always pretending not to notice the distinction made between legal and illegal immigrants. And it goes on and on like this. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that most of the people throwing around these kind of accusations don't even believe them themselves.
DeleteAnd yet, the miasma of hate they have created has permeated everything, and deeply influences many people's perception of events, perhaps without them even realizing it. The New York Times and Washington Post allow their putatively neutral descriptions of news events to reflect these fantasies of Trump and all of his supporters being racist / homophobic / xenophobic and so on and so on....without the slightest concern for how destructive and dangerous this must be. At this stage those who suffer from it most may actually be the "oppressed" people Trump's opponents are supposedly so concerned about, many of whom appear to have been persuaded that they really are in mortal danger from their white neighbors. Not to mention, it is at least possible that *real* incidents of racial, ethnic, or homophobic harassment may well be increased by this pervasive atmosphere of *false* condemnation.
This election has indeed resulted in a violent paroxysm of hate and ignorance sweeping the nation - but it's coming almost entirely from Trump's *opponents*. They are accusing their fellow citizens of being Nazis while some from their side are in the streets *literally* employing brownshirt tactics.
I hope you're right about things simmering down as it becomes clear that Trump is no fascist. I just hope it eventually *does* become clear. Some of the most venerable news organizations in the country seem to be invested in making everyone believe he IS a fascist.
Are there grounds to be nervous about President Trump? Absolutely. He was, to put it mildly, the "high variance" candidate. Is the mainstream media being somewhat sensationalist? Yes. To the point of irresponsibility? Very arguable. Should we be sceptical and wary? Yes. Are a lot of the reactions overblown? Yes. Are some of them off-target in what are the more solidly based grounds for worry? Yes. Philosopher Stephen Hicks put's The Donald's elections in a context than is less than encouraging. http://www.stephenhicks.org/2016/11/20/eight-steps-to-trump-economics/
Delete"This appears to be one of those dumb bills that bans stuff that is already illegal on the basis of motivation, much like "hate crime" legislation."
DeleteThat's like saying genocide shouldn't be a crime because murder is already illegal. Your sheer lack of comprehension is stunning.
"these fantasies of Trump and all of his supporters being racist / homophobic / xenophobic and so on and so on"
Can you be any more ridiculous? Nobody says ALL of his supporters. Not to mention, have you been living under a rock?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hate-harassment-incidents-spike-since-donald-trump-election/
http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/more-homophobic-notes/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hate-on-the-rise-after-trumps-election
My housemate is a black man and I live in Pennsylvania. Please don't make me tell you his story.
If an election result is widely characterised as a triumph of racism/misogyny/homopobia/etc, then separating those who feel empowered by that and those who feel empowered by the actual campaign is often far from clear. (Also, just to take the New Yorker piece, words and graffiti are very low level stuff while "endorsed by the KKK" means remarkably little, given the organisation is bankrupt and David Duke managed 3% of the vote in Louisiana: Hillary was apparently endorsed by the Communist Party, which means nothing too.)
DeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteOh, my sheer lack of comprehension is stunning. Well, that's very persuasive. OK, I'll change my mind and agree with everything you say. I'm just so impressed with all your clever insults, you must be right.
Folks like you did 100 times more to get this disastrous clown elected than any alt-right group.
Talk about a lack of comprehension.
Lorenzo,
ReplyDeleteOh absolutely there are very clear grounds for concern about this guy. I wouldn't have voted for him in a million years. However, as you seem to be suggesting, this hysteria is, if anything, *diverting* attention from the issues that warrant genuine concern.
The people who are most important to persuade of Trump's policy shortcomings are his supporters....but they are so used to getting shrieked at by people like the anonymous commenter here that they are probably tuning out almost anything critical at this point, and I have to admit that is pretty understandable.
If you know you are *not* a racist, bigoted, xenophobic and homophobic ignoramus, but that is what you get called during practically any political argument, you're going to start ignoring the other side completely. It's just human nature.
The very people who should be most active in persuading others to critically examine and perhaps oppose Trump's policies are out there wiping out the last traces of their own credibility. His economic policies are probably the most troubling risk exposure we're facing and they don't seem to be getting 5% of the attention that the imaginary issues are.
Yes, saw the Stephen Hicks article and appreciate his point. I read him pretty regularly. Recently he did a real interesting essay on the Bhopal Union Carbide disaster, which caught my eye because I had done a detailed case study report on it back in engineering school. I never saw anyone look into the deeper background of the situation as he did and it was quite good.
Moving off The Donald the alleged racist/fascist/etc and onto The Donald the demagogue is the way attention should be directed.
DeleteI'll be sure to tell my housemate who just got discharged from the hospital that his problems are imaginary. Who knows, maybe if I have the time I'll be sure to tell all these people to chill the fuck out, too (http://whywereafraid.com/). Goodbye, guy who strongly felt the need to tell us he "wouldn't have voted for [Trump] in a million years". Yes, I'm sure you wouldn't (https://books.google.com/books?id=xdfX7UCyDuQC&pg=PA2&dq=%22Michelle+Yoshida+begins+the+volume+with+a+narrative+that+sets+the+stage+for+understanding+the+relationship+between+the+individual+and+the+social+aspects+of+hate+crimes.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqmvjZnb_QAhWBvZQKHSnCCT4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Michelle%20Yoshida%20begins%20the%20volume%20with%20a%20narrative%20that%20sets%20the%20stage%20for%20understanding%20the%20relationship%20between%20the%20individual%20and%20the%20social%20aspects%20of%20hate%20crimes.%22&f=false).
ReplyDeleteThe Donald is not actually President yet. No laws have been changed because Congress has not met and passed anything. Hate crimes are still illegal.
DeleteMy comment on hate crimes was meant for DefinitelyNotATrumpVoter up there. As for the rest, ask a Jew (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/217831/what-to-do-about-trump).
Delete"Hillary was apparently endorsed by the Communist Party, which means nothing too"
Yes, because we all know the Communist Party of America despises minorities to the core and wants to see them degraded, if not die (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#African_Americans). Come on, Lorenzo. False equivalence is just lazy.
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteI'm a Jew myself actually. Now it seems you're accusing me of lying about who I voted for. Put it this way, one of us knows for *sure* who I voted for, and it ain't you. Your credibility is just growing in leaps and bounds.
The stupidity of Trump's supporters is embarrassing enough, but the stupidity of his opponents is even worse. Nice work helping to put this asshat in office. Forget about being persuasive, you actually would have done less harm to your cause if you just completely kept your mouth shut to begin with. Hope you're proud of yourself.
Think about trying to accomplish something constructive in public life rather than giving in to an urge for emotional satisfaction by pretending you are morally superior. You're not. You really aren't any different, or better, than the most mindless right-wingers.
False equivalence? Quite right, you folks are actually worse.
Hi back at you, NoBorg. I'm a Jew, too, if you must know. Actually, I'm pretty sure I know your type. The Dave Rubin type. You think you're so smart and special being outside the mainstream liberal groupthink and all. You rail against political correctness. You pride yourself on your maverick rationality. You might not have voted for Trump but you certainly did not vote for "Shillary" either. And that, my fellow kin, that more than anything is what "put this asshat in office." Electorally speaking. Mathematically speaking. Truthfully speaking. Not me being me. Not the Trump voters being them. You, brother. Precious little son of David, the elect. I work at a homeless LGBTQ youth center. I don't feel morally superior. I feel scared. Mostly for these kids -- they have nothing; they have no one; but at least before they had an administration that cared about them, which will not be the case soon enough -- but also for myself. My boyfriend is a Muslim immigrant. He has family abroad. So don't tell me about "trying to accomplish something constructive in public life." I know what the stakes are and I've done my part. I do it every day. You, on the other hand, seem to show no regard for others at all. Every single thing you've said so far reminds me what Tim Kaine said in his debate: "There's a great line from the Gospel of Matthew. 'From the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.' When Donald Trump says [all the heinous things he said] he is showing you who he is." Scroll up, proud son of Zion. Peruse your comments. Parse your words. That cavalier disregard for other people's fears and concerns? That's your heart. But sure, I'm the bad guy; my folks are the worst. Lord help us all.
DeleteLet's try and keep it polite folks. (And I am gay myself, does that count?) The Donald does not care whether folk are gay: those sorts of issues clearly do not move him. (Pence is a bit of a different matter.)
DeleteAnd there's lots of fear to go around. The move to elevate "knowledge" (actually, certified expertise) and (not coincidentally) narrow the range of "acceptable" opinion also has people feeling fearful and alienated.
The reality is, Muslim migration generates difficulties that no other migrant group generates. The po-faced attempt to characterise jihadi violence as "nothing to do with Islam" is nonsense which actually empowers the scaremongers precisely because it is nonsense.
Part of the problem is making who is in government matter too much: the more the stakes of office are raised, the more fear changes in government create. Prosecuting bakers because they don't want their labour to contribute to a religious ceremony they don't approve of is another form of over-reach which then generates its own reaction, for example. If everything becomes a moral outrage (not baking cakes, wearing the "wong" clothes, enjoying the "wrong" games, making the "wrong" jokes etc), then nothing is.
The ability to talk across political divides also gets poisoned--one can't negotiate about alleged moral absolutes or with folk deemed to have put themselves beyond some moral pale. If the biggest victim gets to be the biggest bully, then everyone scrambles for victim status.
The liberal principle that the worth of folk means they have a right to their opinion (and to live their lives) gives everyone space and standing. The PC principle that your moral worth is determined by your opinions does the opposite.
And yes, traditional gender and sexual correctness was and is worse on those on the outer (on which point, Muslim migration also generates extra difficulties), but political correctness seems to be trying to do it best to catch up. It is just another form of moral oppression--remembering that its claim to be morally motivated in no way distinguishes it from traditional sexual and gender correctness, which equally claims to be morally motivated.
Claiming that what is, on the evidence, a small proportion of serious racists are some great menace to all that is decent is as much scaremongering as claiming that queer folk are some great menace to all that is decent. As John McWhorter says, folk nowadays use "racist!" in much the same way as folk in the 1950s used "communist!".
The US has elected a demagogue as President. That is an issue to concentrate one: not flogging the racism! racism! horse yet again.
(Given that black nationalism has poisoned black communities for decades now--remind me how having a monopoly political provider is working for most African-Americans?--there may be a certain irony in having white nationalism do the same for white communities, but that is not actually what seems to be in offing from the President elect with Jewish grandkids who is a somewhat more complicated guy than either his own rhetoric, or still less the media, have painted https://m.reddit.com/r/WomenForTrump/comments/4d03qn/lets_compile_a_list_of_prowomen_prominority/ .)
"The reality is, Muslim migration generates difficulties that no other migrant group generates."
DeleteI agree, but it is more a question of degree with variants across the West (http://muslimtide.com/). More American Muslims, for instance, support gay marriage than American evangelicals. That would not have happened if your generalization were plainly true.
"Claiming that what is, on the evidence, a small proportion of serious racists are some great menace to all that is decent is as much scaremongering as claiming that queer folk are some great menace to all that is decent."
Is that not your claim apropos Muslims? Only a small proportion of Muslims are terrorists, after all, but that has not stopped you from painting Muslims as "some great menace to all that is decent." I do not deny that the left is overzealous these days with the language policing and the virtue signaling. I have no problem saying Islamic terrorism, for example; neither does my Muslim boyfriend, for that matter. A spade is a spade is a spade. The problem is Trump doesn't think that a spade is a spade is a spade -- his record-breaking mendacity will attest to that; and neither does Mike Pence, who thinks that a gay man is actually a straight man just waiting to be converted. Worse still, hardcore Trump supporters definitely don't think that a spade is a spade is a spade, either. They're not just politically incorrect; they're just incorrect, and their incorrectness is demonstrably worse than the political correctness of the left. The fact is experiencing racism is worse than flogging racism. Muslim women being terrorized on the streets is worse than President Obama's refusal to say Islamic terrorism. Unarmed black people being gunned down by the police is worse than SJWs screaming at you for using the wrong word. Gay kids bludgeoned for being gay is worse than people being forced to bake a goddamn cake. That's not political correctness; that's just correct. It's why white kids -- hell, just kids in general -- have never had anything to fear in all the years Obama has been in office whereas Trump, well, must (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/us/at-iowa-high-school-election-results-kindle-tensions-and-protests.html) I (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/magazine/the-identity-politics-of-whiteness.html) go (http://muslimlawprof.org/2016/11/notes-of-a-muslim-american-on-the-election-of-the-wall-builder/) on (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tycvg0eyA3s)? The loudest on both sides are not alike, Lorenzo. The left screeches and you're just annoyed; the right screeches and you're actually afraid.
The issue of police is not a left-right issue: it is not even as much of a black-white issue as it has been claimed. (See http://www.copinthehood.com. The regional disparities are particularly striking.)
DeleteAnd I don't think Muslims are a great threat to everything, I merely point out that they are a different migration issue. US Muslims are relatively liberal for the same reason Australian and Canadian Muslims are -- relatively highly educated, very small minority who want to fit in. Europe has major problems, because various countries have much bigger Muslim communities much less educated: problems which are very likely continue to deteriorate.
There is a bit more fear around about what PCdom implies than you might expect. Admittedly, it is job and career fear, not physical. http://www.socialmatter.net/the-new-blacklist/ But how much all of this can actually be tied to the likely actions of a Trump Presidency is a much more unclear question.
I agree (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/upshot/roland-fryer-answers-reader-questions-about-his-police-force-study.html).
DeleteAgain, I agree.
A blacklist is never a good idea, wherever you are in the political spectrum (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/216271/the-blacklist-in-the-coal-mine-canary-missions-fear-mongering-agenda-college-campuses). As for the question of fear, the answer is less unclear to me than it may be to you, most likely because of my social circle and the work that I do. Kids are my life, Lorenzo. When they tell me they're afraid, my heart breaks and all my "coastal elite" education goes out the window. How do you tell a diverse group of kids kicked out of their homes for being who they are not to be afraid of a Trump administration? They're not blind. They're not deaf. I watched the debates with them. They heard what I heard throughout the campaign. Hence my rather combative tone here, I suppose. All the same, I appreciate your patience and generosity. Indeed, thank you!
Not sure that queer kids specifically have that much reason to be fearful. The Donald has already said he believes that the same-sex marriage issue is closed and is the most secular Republican nominee since Ford. These were not the issues The Donald campaigned on, particularly towards the end: in fact, concentrating on economic issues was his main differentiator from Hillary.
DeleteHow many of your kids can remember a Republican Administration? Or that neglect of queer issues is much more their pattern than active hostility to queer folk--apart from the (now comprehensively failed) opposition to same-sex marriage. VP-elect Pence is more of a worry, but also clearly is going to be a very busy guy. (Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell also don't strike me as folk who want to push such issues either.)
Also, on the "false equivalence": Communists, totalitarian tyranny, megacidal slaughter and mass starvation as social change weapons. Actually, so much worse than the KKK or the Alt Right.
DeleteYes, my apologies Lorenzo and Anonymous for getting a bit too frustrated. Name calling is stupid and certainly unpersuasive. I don't post comments on blogs much (I suppose you can tell) so I got a bit carried away.
DeleteIt's not cavalier disregard for other people's fears: It's the observation that those fears are being magnified all out of reason, and that this is potentially very harmful to the people experiencing these fears. It is also undermining the very people who most want to help them. It is extremely frustrating to me that so few people seem to be alert to this danger. Call me cold hearted all you want, but I think compassion is valuable only insofar as it motivates positive action, and is nearly worthless all by itself. The American political left has assigned much too high a value to *feelings* of compassion rather than to results, and this has resulted in a whole series of own-goals on this and other issues.
The major media in this country have almost unanimously declared that Trump's election was due to white racism. Can you see why THAT might be an important driver in encouraging racist whackjobs? Can you see how the media's determination to magnify the importance of the real "deplorables" out there has empowered those deplorables? You're even kind of doing it yourself right now, anonymous. Are you suggesting that "a diverse group of kids has been kicked out of their homes" because of a guy who won't even take office for eight weeks? What exactly would be different for them if Hillary Clinton had won? Have you considered the possibility that you are inadvertently helping to unnecessarily terrorize them?
As you not-blind-and-deafly watched the debates and campaign, what did you hear Trump *himself* say that could really be identified as racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic? I'm not overjoyed to be put in the position of defending this guy, but jeez - He publicly expressed support for gay marriage *years* before either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did. He's got a Jewish son-in-law who is apparently going to be one of his key advisors, and he evidently polled higher than Clinton in Israel (although why they would conduct such polls in Israel, I have no idea). And, I'm at a loss to find anything he's said that is remotely suggestive of ill will towards African-Americans.
Even the truly problematic things he said have been misrepresented. Suggesting that immigration from Muslim majority countries be suspended, or subjected to a non-Muslim religious test, until the vetting process can be improved is not equivalent to banning or deporting Muslims from the whole country. Religious tests have been used in the past to expedite immigration of oppressed religious minorities, and it is easy to demonstrate that non-Muslims in most of those countries are quite severely oppressed. Suggesting that the mass of illegal immigrants from Mexico, not subjected to normal controls, contains a disproportionate number of violent criminals is not equivalent to declaring "Mexicans are all rapists" and does not imply any kind of ethnic animus or insult towards Mexicans in general. And, for the millionth time, it is not reasonable or fair (or honest) to continue pretending that no distinction is made between legal and illegal immigrants.
Yikes, sorry this got so long winded. Thanks for your patience if you read this far!
1. My workplace receives federal money. It didn't receive federal a penny under Bush, only under Obama, and nobody here -- certainly not the people in management who are already preparing for the worst -- thinks we will continue to receive federal money under Trump/Pence 2016.
Delete2. http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/10/10/donald-trump-vows-appoint-supreme-court-justice-mold-scalia
3. Contemporary American Communists are nothing like their comrades prior or elsewhere. An uncle of mine is a member of the party, and he's in labor union, who, for all his grievances, told me on Thanksgiving he voted for Hillary. "I have honor!" he said.
4. "It's not cavalier disregard for other people's fears: It's the observation that those fears are being magnified all out of reason, and that this is potentially very harmful to the people experiencing these fears." The last time I checked, three of my Hispanic kids reported being assaulted at school after they were told to go back to Mexico (two of them are Puerto Ricans, one of them is a Colombian who was born in America), seven of my black kids reported being called the n-word at school (something which they told me never happened before the election), and twenty three other kids reported being called a myriad of homophobic expletives (again, not a common occurrence before). So I would ask exactly what you've been looking at, and I would suggest that you go to the margins of society and observe what you see there instead.
5. "Call me cold hearted all you want, but I think compassion is valuable only insofar as it motivates positive action, and is nearly worthless all by itself." My Communist uncle would agree with you, and so would the woman he canvassed for. "Part of the problem with just empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have viewed politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3 percent of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage..." (http://www.wellesley.edu/events/commencement/archives/1969commencement/studentspeech#SzUkX6eZRhoGu1L8.97).
6. "Are you suggesting that "a diverse group of kids has been kicked out of their homes" because of a guy who won't even take office for eight weeks?" What a violent misreading of what I wrote. But okay, I'll play along. Slightly over two thirds of those kids came from conservative Christian families; about a third of them were sent to Pence-style conversion therapy. Does that answer your question?
7. "What exactly would be different for them if Hillary Clinton had won?" Federal fucking aid for the food they eat and the beds they sleep in. Also, some of them do very well at school and -- gasp -- want to go to college. Hillary Clinton sure as hell would be good to them, some of whom are girls, by the way. There's that whole first female president thing, you know, which I'm sure you think is totally overrated.
8. "Have you considered the possibility that you are inadvertently helping to unnecessarily terrorize them?" LOL, no. Their own experience at school is quite enough. And for the last time, they have eyes and ears; some of them even have scars now. "Land of the free, home of the brave," am I right?
9. "As you not-blind-and-deafly watched the debates and campaign, what did you hear Trump *himself* say that could really be identified as racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic? I'm not overjoyed to be put in the position of defending this guy, but jeez - He publicly expressed support for gay marriage *years* before either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did. He's got a Jewish son-in-law who is apparently going to be one of his key advisors, and he evidently polled higher than Clinton in Israel (although why they would conduct such polls in Israel, I have no idea). And, I'm at a loss to find anything he's said that is remotely suggestive of ill will towards African-Americans." You can't be serious?
Delete10. "Even the truly problematic things he said have been misrepresented. Suggesting that immigration from Muslim majority countries be suspended, or subjected to a non-Muslim religious test, until the vetting process can be improved is not equivalent to banning or deporting Muslims from the whole country. Religious tests have been used in the past to expedite immigration of oppressed religious minorities, and it is easy to demonstrate that non-Muslims in most of those countries are quite severely oppressed. Suggesting that the mass of illegal immigrants from Mexico, not subjected to normal controls, contains a disproportionate number of violent criminals is not equivalent to declaring "Mexicans are all rapists" and does not imply any kind of ethnic animus or insult towards Mexicans in general. And, for the millionth time, it is not reasonable or fair (or honest) to continue pretending that no distinction is made between legal and illegal immigrants." Oh, you are! Sorry, buddy, I can't help you there. It will ruin my whole Thanksgiving weekend if I try.
11. "Yikes, sorry this got so long winded. Thanks for your patience if you read this far!" Likewise. You take care now.
Repost, initially posted this in the wrong spot.
DeleteOf course I understand that you're not literally suggesting that these kids got kicked out of their houses because of Trump.. I should have been more clear.
Anyway: Well, the most essential point, is that I am just not finding the campaign rhetoric that convincingly justifies the racist / homophobic / anti-semitic labels...and maybe a case can be made for xenophobic, but it's rather weak.
However, Trump's campaign rhetoric is described that way over and over again. Often, it is described as "openly" so, which is indisputably untrue, and sounds a little preemptively defensive against claims of slanted interpretation like I'm making.
The firsthand accounts you are describing from your students are extremely troubling. However, it sounds like the sort of incidents that would be perpetrated by people who felt they had received a "license" to behave that way because of the election results, and I'm claiming that it is primarily Trump's *enemies* who have made them feel they have such a license.
I'm noticing you are a little less responsive on that part of the issue (#9 and #10).
Well, give it some thought if you wish but don't go ruining your weekend!
Another thing, it seems that the claim that Pence supported "conversion therapy" is untrue. It is based on an article he contributed to a long time ago where they mention trying to persuade homosexual men to change their "behaviors" in the context of slowing the spread of STDs. So, not avoiding sex altogether, just being more cautious.
DeleteExactly the sort of thing I mean: "They should use condoms" is changed into "they should become heterosexual" and everyone just goes along with it. That kind of rhetoric may have destructive results but it isn't really *Pence's* fault, is it?
I'll make this quick.
Delete1. "it sounds like the sort of incidents that would be perpetrated by people who felt they had received a "license" to behave that way because of the election results, and I'm claiming that it is primarily Trump's *enemies* who have made them feel they have such a license." http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/11/18/trump-supporter-attacks-elderly-gay-man-my-president-says-we-can-kill-you Now, of course, Trump didn't actually say you can now go around killing gay people -- just as he didn't actually say you can now go around harassing other minorities or painting swastikas all over the place, etc. -- but what does it tell you that some of his supporters (even kids!) sincerely think that he does? #DogWhistleProblem
2. On #9 and #10, let's just take one minority as a quick example. You claimed, for instance, that his rhetoric "does not imply any kind of ethnic animus or insult towards Mexicans in general." Come on, man. Did you forget his brush with the Mexican American judge (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/)? How about "bad hombres"? Would you have been so nonchalant if the Republican presidential candidate had said "shifty Jew" instead?
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realities-of-conversion-therapy_us_582b6cf2e4b01d8a014aea66
Now, can I please go back to enjoying my weekend? :)
Yes please enjoy your weekend! I'll leave you alone until Monday then.
DeletePlenty of people lately are avoiding political conversations altogether, and I don't blame them. It's been a rough couple months, eh?
I've seen some otherwise perfectly nice folks getting to the verge of fistfights with one another. Crazy times.
Rear-going through infant vehicle seats provide loads extra protection for an infants hea neck and even spine.herefore, it's far counseled that you use rear-dealing with baby car seats as long as you may transferring your baby into a ahead-going.For more ==== >>>>>> http://musclegainfast.com/max-testo-xl/
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK, here's a question about the election for committed Democrats: Someone please explain to me, what exactly was so bad about Bernie Sanders again? What chain of logic led the DNC to the conclusion that he had to go because Hillary was more “electable”?
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton was a spectacularly, ludicrously bad candidate. Debate questions ahead of time, allowed to vet questions before interviews, the softest possible coverage on multiple issues, a better funded campaign, and she still manages to lose to Donald friggin TRUMP?? For *this* the DNC rigs their own primary? WTF were they THINKING?? There just aren't enough all-caps and extra punctuation marks in the world to fully express my amazement.
Then on top of that, her husband’s history enables Trump to defuse one of the best bombs they had to throw at him, the revolting “locker room talk” recording. He says “Bill Clinton has said worse than that to me on the golf course” and of course everyone immediately believes him, including, no doubt, most of Hillary’s own supporters (hell, Hillary herself probably believed it). Splendid.
The preposterous security risk she created by setting up a private e-mail server - and there’s little doubt she had a few frantic advisors telling her how dangerous that was - was a monumental error in judgement. No, it’s not remotely comparable to Colin Powell using his yahoo webmail account. Yes, it would have resulted in prison time for an ordinary federal employee. I have a friend who has done a lot of federal government IT work and he says that, based on that episode, being assigned to work for Hillary Clinton would have terrified him to the point of incontinence.
Trump apparently picked up more than enough votes from various groups to compensate for the considerable number of normally republican voters that he alienated. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, lost millions of votes compared to Barack Obama. It’s not plausible that this is largely due to lower enthusiasm from black voters. The whole upper Midwest has sunk into an economic abyss and those folks are not exactly favorably impressed by off-the-record secret speeches to Goldman Sachs. Nor are they impressed by skyrocketing health insurance premiums, the recent timing of which probably had far more impact on this election than “white nationalism”. Add to this some normally highly committed Democratic voters who are in an incandescent rage at the behavior of the DNC, and stayed home or voted for Jill Stein.
So what the hell was so bad about Bernie Sanders?
"Starting with the electoral facts
ReplyDeleteThe story of the 2016 election is the continuing Democratic decline in votes being significantly larger than the slow Republican increase in votes."
You might want to update your "electoral facts". As of this writing, Hillary's vote count stands at 65,844,954. That's virtually equal to Obama's in 2012, which is saying something considering how unpopular she was as a candidate. In other words, there is no such thing as a Democratic decline. If anything, voter demographics in 2020 and beyond (especially in the Sun Belt) will only ever be in the Democrats' favor, which a more popular Democratic candidate will doubtless be able to seize and mobilize, especially now with the added motivation of preventing a second Trump administration.