Why do more white progressives say racism is a major problem than do black people?

[Rembrandt Brown]

Among white liberals, according to Pew survey data collected in 2017, 79.2 percent agreed that “racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days.” 18.8 percent agreed that “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition,” a 60.4 point difference, according to a detailed analysis of the Pew data provided the Times by Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate in political science at Georgia State University.

Among blacks, 59.9 percent identified discrimination as the main deterrent to upward mobility for African-Americans, and 32.0 percent said blacks were responsible for their condition — in other words, blacks are more conservative than white liberals on this issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/democrat-electorate-left-turn.html


The ADOS "specifically for blacks" zombies might slit their wrists when they see this:

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020

Nearly twice as many black people (32%) agreed with the following statement as white [liberals] (18.8%): “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/blog.../white-liberals-black-people-and-views-racism

41:11-45:02​

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

The Great Awokening
A hidden shift is revolutionizing American racial politics — and could transform the future of the Democratic Party.
By Matthew Yglesias
Vox
Apr 1, 2019

For all the attention paid to the politics of the far right in the Trump era, the biggest shift in American politics is happening somewhere else entirely.

In the past five years, white liberals have moved so far to the left on questions of race and racism that they are now, on these issues, to the left of even the typical black voter.

This change amounts to a “Great Awokening” — comparable in some ways to the enormous religious foment in the white North in the years before the American Civil War. It began roughly with the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, when activists took advantage of ubiquitous digital video and routine use of social media to expose a national audience in a visceral way to what otherwise might have been a routine local news story.

“If there had been no Twitter or Facebook,” Columbia University’s John McWhorter, an early and somewhat skeptical observer of the Awokening, tells me, “Trayvon [Martin] and Mike Brown would have had about as much impact on white thought as, say, Amadou Diallo did.”

Pollsters began to see a rapid, sustained change. White Democrats suddenly started expressing dramatically higher levels of concern about racial inequality and discrimination, while showing greater enthusiasm for racial diversity and immigration. (While political disputes around race are often found under the same umbrella as gender and sexual orientation, where attitudes are also shifting, the relatively recent, relatively sudden change that constitutes the Great Awokening is fundamentally about race and its relationship to national identity.)

There’s also a certain paradox to the Awokening. As white liberals became more vocal about racial inequality, more racially conservative Democrats left the party and helped power Donald Trump’s electoral victory. This backlash gives the impression that there’s a surging tide of white racism in America.

But just as slavery was not new during the pre-Civil War period, there’s absolutely nothing new about white racism as a force in American politics.Jenée Desmond-Harris wrote in 2016 that Trump was “refreshing” not just “to people who share his views” but “to people who have always known that views like this exist.”

Trump has made white racial resentment more visible than it was before, but at the same time, white liberals have become much more attuned to racism — seeing more of it not necessarily because the world has changed but because their own attitudes toward longstanding features of it have changed.

The exact implications of this for short-term electoral politics are dicey — older, more rural, less educated whites who are relatively untouched by the Awokening exert disproportionate influence in the political system. But the fundamental reality is that the Awokening has inspired a large minority of white Americans to begin regarding systemic racial discrimination as a fundamental problem in American life — opening up the prospects of sweeping policy change when the newly invigorated anti-racist coalition does come to power.

Public opinion on race is shifting
While opinion on LGBTQ issues has been evolving in a broad, steady manner for years, the shift on racial thinking that constitutes the Great Awokening is of more recent vintage. Trump’s presidency itself is probably a driver of this, since there is a tendency well-known to political scientists for public opinion to move in the opposite direction of the person who occupies the White House.

The change, however, appears to predate Trump and, in fact, to have relatively little to do with the calendar of presidential politics. Instead, polling from the Pew Center shows that as late as 2014, most Americans believed there was no longer any need for the country to make changes to address black-white inequality. Consequently, few people believed discrimination was the main barrier to black upward mobility. These numbers then started to change rapidly, with the shift driven overwhelmingly by a change in the views of self-identified Democrats.

The timing of this change suggests that the Ferguson protests were a key flashpoint in changing thinking about the discrimination issue. But Brian Schaffner, a Tufts University political scientist, says the beginnings of the shift were visible even during Barack Obama’s first term.

“I don’t think it’s just a reaction to events,” Schaffner says. Rather, “even prior to Ferguson, people take cues from elites,” and Democratic elites were beginning to signal to the rank and file that they should take systemic racism concerns more seriously.

Obama’s 2012 observation that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” is just one small example of how elite actors have helped push a shift in whites’ perception of race. And the shift, once underway, became mutually reinforcing. Liberal white audiences became increasingly interested in black intellectuals’ conceptions of race and racism in America. Back in April 2015, the social justice group Race Forward produced a series of videos starring Jay Smooth trying to explain the concept of “systemic racism” to a mass audience. Hillary Clinton used the term in a February 2016 speech.

Trump, of course, responded to this with his own racial discourse bringing white identity politics into play in a more explicit way than had been seen in a generation or two. But that evolution was two-sided.

Schaffner observes that “Clinton talked a lot more about racial justice issues during the 2016 campaign than Obama did during his campaigns” — further priming the minority of white Americans who supported her to adopt a more sweeping view of racial justice. Key to this view, as Adam Serwer wrote in the Atlantic in November 2017, is that we should see racism as a question of “institutional and political power” rather than being “about name-calling or rudeness.”

The extent to which that model has become mainstream among Democratic Party leaders is now evident. Just this March, Beto O’Rourke told an overwhelmingly white audience in Iowa that American capitalism is “racist.” The previous summer, Elizabeth Warren called the criminal justice system “racist.” Even Joe Biden — who in the mid-1970s was a leading political opponent of aggressive school integration measures — in a January 2019 speech called on white America “to admit there’s still a systemic racism” in American life. Mainstream Democratic Party politicians, in other words, are beginning to take for granted that their constituents will embrace the more institutional understanding of racism.

At roughly the same time, there has been a large increase in the number of Americans who express positive attitudes about immigration — driven almost entirely by shifting views of Democrats.

The sheer scale of this change is far too large to have been caused by the much-discussed rising Latino share of the electorate.

White Democrats have become much more racially liberal
The biggest change in attitudes on race has been most pronounced among white Democrats.

Opinion leaders often miss the scale and recency of these changes because progressive elites have espoused racial liberalism for a long time. Sean McElwee, of the left-wing policy organization Data for Progress,did an analysis of General Social Survey data, which shows that throughout the 1980s, ’90s, and 2000s, most white Democrats thought African Americans’ lack of individual initiative was the main source of racial inequality in America.

The notion that Obama’s ascension to the presidency would usher in a “post-racial” era of American life, of course, proved false. And not just because of a white backlash to his administration or to the growing diversity of the American population, but because white Democrats dramatically shifted their views of the centrality of racial discrimination in American life after the election of a black man to the highest office in the land.

Some of this is a compositional effect. As Obama pushed racially conservative whites out of the Democratic Party, the remaining Democrats are more racially liberal. But using Voter Study Group data, McElwee is able to show that people who consistently self-identified as Democrats changed their views between 2011 and 2016.

Zach Goldberg, a doctoral candidate at Georgia State University, observes that on key measures of racial attitudes, white liberals’ opinion has moved to the left of where black and Latino opinions are. White liberals are now less likely than African Americans to say that black people should be able to get ahead without any special help.

White liberals also have warmer feelings about immigrants than Hispanics do.

And, critically, white liberals are much more enthusiastic about the idea that diversity makes the United States a better place to live than are blacks or Latinos. Non-liberal whites are least enthusiastic of all, which is not enormously surprising, but Latino views of this are closer to those of non-liberal whites than to white liberals.

At the same time, between 2001 and 2018, the share of Democrats who describe themselves as liberal in Gallup polls has risen from 30 percent to 50 percent. The upshot is that white liberals — a group whose views on race are generally to the left of nonwhites — are now about 40 percent of the overall Democratic Party, making them the largest bloc in the party and the critical driver of Democratic politicians’ leftward shift on race and identity issues.

The Awokening has driven big platform shifts
Back in 1996, the Democratic Party platform read like something out of a Trump campaign ad. “In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed,” the document states. “Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.” Bill Clinton went on to run for reelection boasting about his crackdown at the border.

Even by 2008, when Democrats substantively supported a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, the platform was still framed around enforcement-first themes, intoning that “we cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked.”

On criminal justice, the 2008 platform led with a promise to be “tough on violent crime,” while by 2016, it opened by committing the party to “ending mass incarceration” and explicitly denounced the war on drugs while calling out “the discriminatory treatment of African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians.”

Perhaps the clearest sign of the shift, however, is the completely upturned politics of reparations. Ten years ago, reparations were a total nonstarter in Democratic Party circles. Instead, someone like Rush Limbaugh would try to secure political advantage by characterizing Obama administration economic policies as a form of reparations. Ta-Nehisi Coates’s 2014 article making the case for reparations was obviously enormously influential on the specifics of that question, but also more broadly in the larger Awokening — such that references to redlining and other discriminatory aspects of the post-World War II real estate market are now commonplace throughout progressive circles.

Coates said that “initially I was very surprised” by the size of the white audience for his work — an audience whose existence is both a cause and a consequence of the Awokening — but he’s palpably changed the conversation. Now it’s Democratsthemselves who embrace the term even when their actual policy proposal is race-blind. Kamala Harris, for example, mentioned her LIFT Act, which would boost incomes throughout the bottom 60 percent of the income distribution, as a form of “reparations” even though most of the beneficiaries would not be black.

The leftward shifts on immigration, criminal justice, and reparations are often described as reflecting the electoral clout of nonwhite voters. But while that is surely part of the story, the underlying demographics simply haven’t changed rapidly enough to account for the pace of the change. The key difference is that white liberals have changed their minds very rapidly, thus altering the political space in which Democratic Party politicians operate.

Racial realignment keeps reshaping politics
Ever since the 2016 election, analysts have been stuck in a tedious argument between the observation that racial resentment was a key predictor of which voters flipped to Trump’s camp and those who prefer to ascribe Trump’s ascension to some form of “economic anxiety.”

After all, say the racial resentment skeptics, the Obama-to-Trump flippers were, by definition, willing to vote for Barack Obama — so how racist could they possibly be? A key point to understanding this is that “racial resentment,” as used by political scientists, is a term of art that largely measures political viewsrather than any kind of interpersonal animosity.

One traditional factor that goes into the racial resentment mix, for example, is the General Social Survey question that asks whether you agree or disagree with the statement “Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up; blacks should do the same without special favors.”

This is, in fact, a very revealing query in terms of your understanding of the history of race and ethnicity in the United States. About a third of African Americans disagree with it, which is more than the share of the overall white public but substantially less than the 45 percent of white liberals who say they disagree.

A big part of what Trump did in the 2016 campaign was simply increase the salience of racial conflict themes, thus boosting his appeal to white voters who may have previously backed Democrats on other grounds. But it’s crucial to understand that, in large part because of the Awokening, Trump is not to blame: Democrats themselves have moved the goalposts in terms of what kind of racial views one is expected to affirm as a good liberal.

The growing racial liberalism of rank-and-file white Democrats now has party leaders talking about “systemic racism” and sending strong signals to the party’s base about what kinds of attitudes are appropriate for Democrats to hold.

The irony of the Great Awokening
One of the signature consequences of the Great Awokening is the sense that Trump is a uniquely loathsome figure in American politics.

To the extent that white liberals now see racism as an enormous looming challenge for the country in a way they did not in the relatively recent past, Trump is very much the personification of that challenge. And thus, given the perfect enemy, it’s perhaps not surprising that much of the newly woke attitude is, in crucial respects, a bit vague in its precise policy implications. Everyone is talking about reparations and “institutional racism,” but nobody has a precise policy program for tackling either of those things. Congress passed the prison reform bill, the First Step Act, but there’s little consensus on what the next step is.

But it’s clear that getting rid of Trump is a key part of the story, and a key argument in the 2020 primary is over who is best suited to do that — a flashback candidate like Biden, someone like Harris or O’Rourke who’s more evocative of the future, or a leftist like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

And yet to the extent that one believes — as, in fact, the evidence seems to say — that racial polarization of the electorate was a boon to Trump’s fortunes, it seems plausible that Democrats’ new post-Awokening political style will only help him win. But since anti-racism really is a central motivating force for the anti-Trump coalition, it hardly seems realistic or reasonable to expect it to hide that fact.

Social upheavals simply do not abide by the dictates of partisan politics. The increased moral fervor unleashed by the Great Awakening of the 1840s and 1850s broke the Whig Party and temporarily entrenched the South’s hold on political power. But abolitionist sentiment carried the day in the end. And by the same token, while the Great Awokening might drive some Democrats into Trump’s arms now, the sustained phenomenon is forcing the Democratic Party to confront the legacy of America’s racial caste system squarely. The next Democratic president will have to do the same.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

I watched Bill Maher when that gay dude brought this up. I would like to see what segment of the black population was surveyed. I'm going to take a guess and say a lot of poor black people, if they were given the option ,weren't too willingly to take the survey. If the survey is based on NY Times readers well, it would be skewed anyway.

You seem to do a lot of posts questioning Liberalism. They often come off as low key attacks on people who choose to be liberal (often questioning "extreme liberalism") . Yet, for whatever reason, your posts often seem to ignore the Trump effect on politics. When Trump's extreme right agenda made it into the white house, why wouldn't you expect "Liberals" to not double down in their beliefs and efforts to fight said agenda?

As to your ADOS point, if you read between the lines, they are actually low-key conservatives. Their original manifesto had all kinds of praise for Ronald Reagan. ADOS ignore what Reagan/Bush did to help perpetuate the War on Drugs. They also flat out refuse to acknowledge that Republicans help pass the Clinton Crime Bill. It wasn't like Clinton overrode a veto.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

Since you never seem to post any "anti right" articles or op-eds, let me help you out


The Trump Voters Whose ‘Need for Chaos’ Obliterates Everything Else
Political nihilism is one of the president’s strongest weapons.



By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C. on politics, demographics and inequality.

• Sept. 4, 2019
• 
  

Image

Trump supporters at a rally in Manchester, N.H., in August.CreditCreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times



Over the four years during which he has dominated American political life, nearly three of them as president, Donald Trump has set a match again and again to chaos-inducing issues like racial hostility, authoritarianism and white identity politics.

Last week, at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, the winner of the best paper award in the Political Psychology division was “A ‘Need for Chaos’ and the Sharing of Hostile Political Rumors in Advanced Democracies.”

The paper, which the award panel commended for its “ambitious scope, rigor, and creativity,” is the work of Michael Bang Petersen and Mathias Osmundsen, both political scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark, and Kevin Arceneaux, a political scientist at Temple.

It argues that a segment of the American electorate that was once peripheral is drawn to “chaos incitement” and that this segment has gained decisive influence through the rise of social media.

[The big debates, distilled. This guide will put in context what people are saying about the pressing issues of the week. Sign up for our new newsletter, Debatable.]


In the past, chaos-seekers were on outer edges of politics, unable to exercise influence. Contemporary social media — Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and so on — has empowered this constituency, providing a bullhorn to disseminate false news, conspiracy theories and allegations of scandal to a broad audience. Examples include the lunacy of the Comet Pizza story (a.k.a. Pizzagate), the various anti-Obama birther conspiracies and Alex Jones’s claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 children dead was a “complete fake” staged by the government to promote gun control.

How do Petersen, Osmundsen and Arceneaux measure this “need for chaos"? They conducted six surveys, four in the United States, in which they interviewed 5157 participants, and two in Denmark, with 1336. They identified those who are “drawn to chaos” through their affirmative responses to the following statements:

• I fantasize about a natural disaster wiping out most of humanity such that a small group of people can start all over.
  
  
• I think society should be burned to the ground.
  
  
• When I think about our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking “just let them all burn.”
  
  
• We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.
  
  
• Sometimes I just feel like destroying beautiful things.
  

In an email, Petersen wrote that preliminary examination of the data shows “that the ‘need for chaos’ correlates positively with sympathy for Trump but also — although less strongly — with sympathy for Sanders. It correlates negatively with sympathy for Hillary Clinton.” (After publication of this column, Petersen asked to clarify his comment. “The information given in the above quote,” he said, “solely reflected an initial interpretation of a preliminary analysis, which is not part of the research on which the column is based.”)

In their paper, Petersen, Osmundsen and Arceneaux contend that “the extreme discontent expressed in the ‘Need for Chaos’ scale is a minority view but it is a minority view with incredible amounts of support.”

The responses to three of the statements in particular were “staggering,” the paper says: 24 percent agreed that society should be burned to the ground; 40 percent concurred with the thought that “When it comes to our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking ‘just let them all burn’ ”; and 40 percent also agreed that “we cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over.”

The authors expressly caution that there “is a limitation of the study,” pointedly noting that “we cannot claim” that substantial numbers of “American citizens are ready to go into actual fights with the police or commit other forms of political violence.” Instead, they write,

this study provides insights into the kinds of thoughts and behaviors that people are motivated to entertain when they sit alone (and lonely) in front of the computer, answering surveys or surfing social media platforms.

In these circumstances, “a few chaotic thoughts that lead to a few clicks to retweet or share is enough. When the echoes of similar processes across multiple individuals reinforce each other, it can add up to cascades of hostile political rumors,” conspiracy theories and fake news.

The intense hostility to political establishments of all kinds among what could be called “chaos voters” helps explain what Pew Research and others have found: a growing distrust among Republican voters of higher education as well as empirically based science, both of which are increasingly seen as allied with the liberal establishment.

paper that parallels the work of Petersen and his colleagues, Rose McDermott and Peter K. Hatemi, political scientists at Brown and Penn State, argue that Trump and other right-wing populist leaders have tapped into evolutionarily based “tribal sentiments and drives.”


Trump’s expertise, in this view, lies in his ability to capitalize on the fear of chaos. “Populist movements,” McDermott and Hatemi write, “rely on inflammatory rhetoric to create a tribal ‘us versus them’ condition — this type of environment instigates neural mechanisms from the evolutionary desire to be part of the group.”

The abrupt rise of social media has played a crucial role, they observe:

In many ways, as we have technologically advanced, we have also regressed to more immediate, emotional, and personal forms of political communication. And it is only in understanding the nature of that personal political psychology that we can begin to grapple seriously with the challenges of today, including the consequences of global populism.

In the 2016 campaign, Trump successfully elevated in the national consciousness the perceived threat of undocumented immigrants, a sense of a disordered country and a fear of random criminal assault on the streets of major cities.

In that election, Trump had a great deal to work with: residual anxiety over the 2007-9 recession; battles over the rights of transgender people; rising levels of social and economic inequality; employment losses driven by globalization; rampant automation; the deterioration of traditional family structures; climate change and extreme weather; and the prospect that whites would no longer be the majority.

Peter Drucker, the American management consultant, writing in 1968, 48 years before the 2016 election, anticipated the sense of chaos in the world to come:

We face an Age of Discontinuity in world economy and technology. We might succeed in making it an age of great economic growth as well. But the one thing that is certain so far is that it will be a period of change — in technology and in economic policy, in industrial structures and in economic theory, in the knowledge needed to govern and manage, and in economic issues.

While we have been busy finishing the great nineteenth century economic edifice, the foundations have shifted beneath our feet.

While Trump’s focus on disorder and chaos worked to his advantage during the 2016 campaign, there is no guarantee that he will benefit from it when he is an incumbent seeking re-election.

As the 2018 election demonstrated, Trump’s personally chaotic approach to governance, his record of undermining relations with allies and strengthening ties to autocrats; his use of trade policy to heighten market insecurity; his aggression, his recklessness, his incessant lying; and his sneering contemptuous, bullying style, together worked against him and the Republican Party.

Bert Bakker, a professor of communication research at the University of Amsterdam and a member of the panel that awarded the A.P.S.A. prize, emailed me to discuss his views of the significance of the work of Petersen and his colleagues:

The authors set out to explore the psychological underpinnings of the tendency to share hostile political rumors online. The sharing of hostile political rumors has often been attributed to partisan motivations. Supporters of one party share this kind of information to mobilize voters against another political party. Yet, in the paper, Petersen et al. introduce a second motivation to share hostile political rumors and that is what they call ‘chaotic motivations’.

Bakker continued:

It remains an open question whether those with higher chaotic motivations also turn their “motivations” into action. One could expect that those higher on chaotic motivations are more likely to protest and actually revolt against the political system. Moreover, I could see a role for chaotic motivations in understanding why people support populist politicians. Populist politicians share a message that the elites in, for instance Washington, Paris, Berlin and London, are corrupt, evil and self-centered. Perhaps this rhetoric resonates well with a tendency to like to see the democratic system go down.

The phrase “like to see the democratic system go down” is chilling — and raises the question: How worried should we be about a fundamental threat to democracy from the apparently large numbers of Americans who embrace chaos as a way of expressing their discontent? Might Trump and his loyal supporters seek to bring down the system if he is defeated in 2020? What about later, if the damage he has inflicted on our customs and norms festers, eroding the invisible structures that underpin everything that actually makes America great?

Opinion | Thomas B. Edsall
We Aren’t Seeing White Support for Trump for What It Is
Aug. 28, 2019



Opinion | Thomas B. Edsall
Trump Needs His Base to Burn With Anger
July 3, 2019



Opinion | Thomas B. Edsall
The Deepening ‘Racialization’ of American Politics
Feb. 27, 2019



Opinion | Thomas B. Edsall
The Paranoid Style in American Politics Is Back
Sept. 8, 2016





The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.




Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to The Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday. He previously covered politics for The Washington Pos

 

[Famous1]

Poll is flawed from the jump...nothing to see here.

 

[Walter Panov]

Poll is flawed from the jump...nothing to see here.

This ^^^

and because they (whites in general) are the ones doing the discrimination so they know better than anyone.

 

[bgbtylvr]

White people don’t believe that. They don’t even believe in reverse racism. They know it’s a trope.

 

[dasmybikepunk]

Because a white progressive and a white conservative are the same motherfucking thing!!!!!!

There is no known western litmus test to Gage the one or many reason(s) and realities a black person deals with in
a lifetime in America.

Post is completely moot and adds to the problem.

 

[forcesteeler]

Because a white progressive and a white conservative are the same motherfucking thing!!!!!!

There is no known western litmus test to Gage the one or many reason(s) and realities a black person deals with in
a lifetime in America.

Post is completely moot and adds to the problem.

This is the realist shit a white person has ever said on the internet. All White people are racist

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Poll is flawed from the jump...nothing to see here.

How is it flawed beyong you not agreeing with the results?

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

I watched Bill Maher when that gay dude brought this up. I would like to see what segment of the black population was surveyed. I'm going to take a guess and say a lot of poor black people, if they were given the option ,weren't too willingly to take the survey. If the survey is based on NY Times readers well, it would be skewed anyway.

You seem to do a lot of posts questioning Liberalism. They often come off as low key attacks on people who choose to be liberal (often questioning "extreme liberalism") . Yet, for whatever reason, your posts often seem to ignore the Trump effect on politics. When Trump's extreme right agenda made it into the white house, why wouldn't you expect "Liberals" to not double down in their beliefs and efforts to fight said agenda?

Since you never seem to post any "anti right" articles or op-eds, let me help you out

You "low key" seem to have comprehension issues. Fuck off with your ignorant smears.

I do not often question "extreme liberalism." That's the exact opposite of my approach. I critique liberalism from the left. I get bored with the conversation revolving around Trump and there's a primary on the Democratic side.

The Difference Between Liberalism and Leftism

That's why I ride with the leftists rather than the liberals.

I'm also a pragmatist, though... I think Elizabeth Warren is basically a leftist but she couches her beliefs in liberal rhetoric because she thinks that's what can succeed in America. The same is probably true of Obama. But that Obama "If you work hard and play by the rules, you can succeed" bullshit is pretty close to the core point of distinction between liberals and "fuck this corrupt system" leftists. I don't know where Obama's heart lies, but his liberal mouth certainly lied a lot.

A decade ago, Republicans were openly on some Ron Paul shit, like "You deserve to die in the street if you can't afford health care."

Obamacare changed the debate. I'm not even saying Barack was totally wrong for lying, he deserves a shitload of credit for what he accomplished. But he also insisted on working with Republicans, to the point of a "grand bargain" where he would have cut social security if Republicans didn't hate him so much that they were unwilling to make a deal. Being better than those monsters doesn't necessarily make you right.

The entire point here is that everything can't be boiled down to a duality. It's not just liberal versus conservative.

Liberals support the myth that wealth and merit are correlated in America, while leftists generally view extreme wealth as theft and immoral. Liberals chip away at the margins, saying the rich should pay their fair share and advocating for ways to supplement the crumbs the rest are left with; leftists believe it is outrageous that some people have billions while most have basically nothing.

This thread already has more responses than my last Trump thread-- Official 2020 GOP Primary Thread (Spoiler: The GOP Won't Allow It).

Several recent anti-Trump posts in this thread: https://www.bgol.us/forum/threads/t...efore-9-11-anniversary.1064803/#post-20315054

 

[Famous1]

How is it flawed beyong you not agreeing with the results?

Comparing liberal whites to all blacks.
Racist assed stereotyping motherfuckers assume that all blacks are liberals... they aren't.

 

[mangobob79]

id rather someone errs on the side of trying to do right even if its sometimes misguided

 

["THE MAN"]

They will say it in a poll but won't actually do something about it. Easy to click an answer to feel good about yourself. Hell Bette Midler's dumb ass was recently talking about the Beyhive needing to get the word out about Trump as if its black women's job to correct white women errors. Talking about it doesn't mean shit. Show up when a cop murders another one of us and then we'll talk.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Comparing liberal whites to all blacks.
Racist assed stereotyping motherfuckers assume that all blacks are liberals... they aren't.

I would have definitely liked to have seen a breakdown of liberal blacks vs conservative blacks as well, that's a valid point.

id rather someone errs on the side of trying to do right even if its sometimes misguided

I don't think the white liberals are erring in this area... The reason I posted this is there's an assumption that black people are overwhelmingly of the "black lives matter" variety and that's not true. The real question is why aren't more black people "woke"?

 

["THE MAN"]

I don't think the white liberals are erring in this area... The reason I posted this is there's an assumption that all black people are of the "black lives matter" variety and that's not true. The real question is why aren't more black people "woke"?

Some reason as all other americans. They like being comfortable. All hell breaks loose until the latest social media trend or iPhone comes out.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Some reason as all other americans. They like being comfortable. All hell breaks loose until the latest social media trend or iPhone comes out.

That's probably a big part of it. But when you look at the racial wealth disparity, that suggests that black people are way too comfortable with the status quo.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

You "low key" seem to have comprehension issues. Fuck off with your ignorant smears.

I do not often question "extreme liberalism." That's the exact opposite of my approach. I critique liberalism from the left. I get bored with the conversation revolving around Trump and there's a primary on the Democratic side.

The Difference Between Liberalism and Leftism


This thread already has more responses than my last Trump thread-- Official 2020 GOP Primary Thread (Spoiler: The GOP Won't Allow It).

Several recent anti-Trump posts in this thread: https://www.bgol.us/forum/threads/t...efore-9-11-anniversary.1064803/#post-20315054

If you want to be that way fine. Your passive/agreessive bullshit posts are pretty fucking stupid to be honest. All these discussions are primarily coming about due to whose in the White House. When Obama was in office, you had the alt right going crazy, now it's the opposite. Why is that so fucking hard to comprehend?

Meanwhile, the centralist are trying hard to run Joe Biden to show the party isn't going too far left. Biden was a party joke until.... you guessed it... Trump.

Whether you are tired of Trump or not, taking him out of the equation when having these discussions makes no fucking sense.

 

[neoafrican]

I’m thankful for the read, but these days I’m far more suspicious of...

...articles written by white people, educated at white schools, published in white publications, financed by white organizations, using research from white scientific journals, aggregated from white sociological studies...

...about the Black experience.


Edit: I’m often very critical of ignorant Black people. And I know they do a lot of shit to cause problems for themselves. But I can’t get behind that low a proportion of Blacks saying white supremacy / racism is the primary problem. Most of the other problems we fave stem from it.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

I’m thankful for the read, but these days I’m far more suspicious of...

...articles written by white people, educated at white schools, published in white publications, financed by white organizations, using research from white scientific journals, aggregated from white sociological studies...

...about the Black experience.

Feel free to contribute anything on the subject written by black people.

 

[knightmelodic]

There are so many things that could influence the results of this poll. The good thing is that people are attempting (I hope) to force the issue of institutionalized racism in this country to the forefront. Force it there and keep it there. That's the only way real change will come.

Every single one of the "forefathers" was a slave owner. They viewed Black people like livestock. They are the ones who set down the laws and instituted the white supremacy narrative throughout those laws.

white supremacist beliefs are a cornerstone of european (white) dominance, conquest, and control.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Whether you are tired of Trump or not, taking him out of the equation when having these discussions makes no fucking sense.

You can start all the conversations about Trump you want to, I'm not stopping you. (I read an item about Trump and homelessness that I was thinking about posting later today.) I don't think every political conversation has to revolve around him and they are often more interesting, more enlightening and draw more participants when they do not.

You were just totally off-base with ill-informed insinuations about my motives and should admit that and apologize.

If you want to be that way fine. Your passive/agreessive bullshit posts are pretty fucking stupid to be honest. All these discussions are primarily coming about due to whose in the White House. When Obama was in office, you had the alt right going crazy, now it's the opposite. Why is that so fucking hard to comprehend?

Again, it is your comprehension that is faulty. What suggests any difficulty in understanding that Trump presents an opening for the left?

The alt-right didn't just go crazy, they gained power. Yet fearful Trump opponents seem to think that Democrats can only combat Trumpism with milquetoast Bidenism, seeking a "return to normalcy" when that status quo is what produced Trump in the first place.

Meanwhile, the centralist are trying hard to run Joe Biden to show the party isn't going too far left. Biden was a party joke until.... you guessed it... Trump.

Biden has never been a joke in the Democratic party. He was a viable contender for the presidency in 2008-- credible enough for Obama to choose him as his running mate to shore up the white vote-- and was talked out of running in 2016 because it was Hillary's "turn."

 

[rude_dog]

This is the realist shit a white person has ever said on the internet. All White people are racist

I would agree with that but there's levels to it. I don't think all white people are extreme racists but if you make them mad, it will come out.

A lot of liberals are racist but they like their middle-class union jobs. They understand that the rich are taking advantage of them and the strength of sticking together. The GOP are culture warriors.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

Tell them to prove it by voting that way then

How bout that

 

[Ill Paragraph]

That's probably a big part of it. But when you look at the racial wealth disparity, that suggests that black people are way too comfortable with the status quo.

Well, we tend to be more socially conservative because of our historical reliance on religion (among other things) but I wouldn’t say that we’re comfortable with the status quo. I would argue that many of us don’t rage against it the way that some might expect for two reasons:

1) We don’t think it will change; we’re nothing if not pragmatic
2) Many of us don’t necessarily want to end wealth disparity and discrimination as much as we just want greater access to economic opportunity

I think our collective thinking about discrimination is survival based and not necessarily rooted in apathy or selfishness.

Not that I necessarily think you’re incorrect but it’s helpful to wrap some context around the discussion.

 

[World B Free]

Bullshit ass article......, most Black people always see racism as a problem, maybe they asked the wrong question on their wack-ass survey. They don't understand that racism has been a part of our lives since birth so if you ask a Black person how American life can be improved, more than likely racism isn't going to be the first answer. Racism is too embedded into the fabric of our lives sometimes to even mention it. That's what the article/survey is not understanding.

 

[gene cisco]

Fake ass hippies. Types who are all for diversity as long as too much don't come to their neighborhood. And white liberals LOVE to tell black people what to worry about.

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Tell them to prove it by voting that way then

How bout that

LOL @ the Stugotz denouement.

If you talk to anybody who has worked in voter turnout, educated white people are the last group we have to worry about voting and they're largely anti-Trump. Obviously the progressive ones are going to vote that way.

It's the non-college educated white people and the white conservatives/rich people who are the problem in the booth.

As Famous1 pointed out, a main problem with the statistics in this conversation is they lump all black people together. I'm less interested in the black liberal/conservative split because, whatever social conservative inclinations may exist, black people very decidedly do not vote for conservatives. I'd be more interested in a breakdown of black views based on education-level and income-levels.

Edited to add: And by age! That might be the most important distinction.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

LOL @ the Stugotz denouement.

If you talk to anybody who has worked in voter turnout, educated white people are the last group we have to worry about voting and they're largely anti-Trump. Obviously the progressive ones are going to vote that way.

It's the non-college educated white people and the white conservatives/rich people who are the problem in the booth.

Tell that to 53% of college educated white women who voted for trump


Thanks

 

[Rembrandt Brown]

Tell that to 53% of college educated white women who voted for trump


Thanks

That was the total white female vote, not college-educated white women.

https://www.google.com/search?q=53%25+of+white+women+voted+for+trump&oq=53%25+of+white+women+voted+for+trump

You're welcome.

 

[forcesteeler]

I would agree with that but there's levels to it. I don't think all white people are extreme racists but if you make them mad, it will come out.

A lot of liberals are racist but they like their middle-class union jobs. They understand that the rich are taking advantage of them and the strength of sticking together. The GOP are culture warriors.

With White Supremacy it’s just Good Cop and Bad Cop. These tree hugging liberals preach about inclusion and diversity are the same liberals that will call the cops and harass black people when we try to
Move into there neighborhoods.

The Republican GOP hustle poor white people while they line there pockets and get rich.

 

[forcesteeler]

Tell that to 53% of college educated white women who voted for trump


Thanks

What is more important than gender is White Supremacy and Privilege. That is why they voted for trump.

Most White Women deep down will not align themselves with man hating feminist. The white man is there fathers, brothers and uncles.

Feminism does not really offer anything but being lonely and living with a bunch of cats.

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

That was the total white female vote, not college-educated white women.

https://www.google.com/search?q=53%25+of+white+women+voted+for+trump&oq=53%25+of+white+women+voted+for+trump

You're welcome.

It was not.

And you're welcome again lol


It's hilarious what your cape will flap for

But I guess "it is what it is"

 

[largebillsonlyplease]

What is more important than gender is White Supremacy and Privilege. That is why they voted for trump.

Most White Women deep down will not align themselves with man hating feminist. The white man is there fathers, brothers and uncles.

Feminism does not really offer anything but being lonely and living with a bunch of cats.

Nah white ppl believe in racism more than black ppl according to the op lol

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

You can start all the conversations about Trump you want to, I'm not stopping you. (I read an item about Trump and homelessness that I was thinking about posting later today.) I don't think every political conversation has to revolve around him and they are often more interesting, more enlightening and draw more participants when they do not.

You were just totally off-base with ill-informed insinuations about my motives and should admit that and apologize.


Again, it is your comprehension that is faulty. What suggests any difficulty in understanding that Trump presents an opening for the left?

The alt-right didn't just go crazy, they gained power. Yet fearful Trump opponents seem to think that Democrats can only combat Trumpism with milquetoast Bidenism, seeking a "return to normalcy" when that status quo is what produced Trump in the first place.


Biden has never been a joke in the Democratic party. He was a viable contender for the presidency in 2008-- credible enough for Obama to choose him as his running mate to shore up the white vote-- and was talked out of running in 2016 because it was Hillary's "turn."

Point One-I don't really understand where you are coming from. What do you consider as "good" left politics, when a lot of your posts seem to attack all current forms of left/liberal politics?

Point two- you stated you didn't want to add Trump to any of your post discussions because you are tired of talking about him. Yet to have all these political conversations in some sort of vacuum makes no sense. How can you ignore the extreme right is the reason the extreme left has gotten louder in the last couple of years? As to the second part, the Alt-Right went ape shit when Obama got in and stayed in office. When Trump came around the rallied long and hard to help him get into office.

Point Three-If Biden is such a viable candidate, why is Obama so concerned about him fucking up? The GQ article is a summary of the NY Time article, whose link is posted in my next post. BTW, this was written before the black parents need to sit down with their kids and listen to records comment he made at the last debate.


https://www.gq.com/story/obama-to-biden-dont-run

Obama Repeatedly Tried to Get Biden Not to Run for President
The former president is reportedly worried Biden will "embarrass himself."

BY
LUKE DARBY
August 18, 2019

Pool

One of Joe Biden's biggest selling points as a presidential candidate is the residual glow he enjoys from his time as vice president to Barack Obama. New Jersey senator Corey Booker even called him out for it during the first round of presidential debates, saying, "You invoke President Obama more than anybody in this campaign. You can’t do it when it’s convenient and then dodge it when it’s not."


But despite Biden and Obama's relationship being largely rosy, "Mr. Biden’s simmering ambition was a source of unease for both men," according to the New York Times, which published a deep dive into their history on Friday. The story contains some moments of Biden being characteristically odd, like one instance in 2013 when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said he wouldn't support any budget deal with the White House before his upcoming reelection campaign. Biden responded to the man who early on vowed to stonewall as much of Obama's agenda as possible, "Mitch, we want to see you come back."

The most surprising part of the Times story though is how Obama has on multiple occasions tried to dissuade Biden from running for president. First, in 2016, Obama pressured Biden to sit out the race because he believed Hillary Clinton was the best shot at continuing his legacy. Even though that didn't pan out for Obama, he still tried to talk Biden out of running in 2020. Per the Times:

The two men spoke at least a half dozen times before Mr. Biden decided to run, and Mr. Obama took pains to cast his doubts about the campaign in personal terms."You don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t," Mr. Obama told Mr. Biden earlier this year, according to a person familiar with the exchange. Mr. Biden — who thinks he could have defeated Donald Trump four years ago—responded by telling Mr. Obama he could never forgive himself if he turned down a second shot at Mr. Trump.

Since announcing his candidacy, Biden has proven himself exceptionally gaffe-prone, repeatedly referring to former British prime minister Theresa May as Margaret Thatcher, claiming he was vice president during the 2017 high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and saying, "Poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids," at a speech in Iowa. Apart from making verbal stumbles, he's also defended his working relationship with segregationists in Congress.


The Times also reports that in March, Obama summoned Biden's top campaign advisers, Anita Dunn and Kate Bedingfield, to his Washington office. Multiple sources confirmed to the Times that the ex-president warned the advisers to make sure that Biden doesn't "embarrass himself" or "damage his legacy."

A Joe Biden Nomination Would Solidify All Our Worst Fears About the Democrats
Drew Magary on the presumptuousness of the current front-runner.
BY
DREW MAGARY