A reader who signs in as “Democracy” posted the following comment in response to Jennifer Berkshire’s article in The Nation. Berkshire argued that Terry McAuliffe lost the governor’s race in Virginia because he is a corporate Democrat who doesn’t understand or value public education and couldn’t defend it against Glenn Youngkin’s attacks.
Democracy wrote:
I’ll agree with Jennifer Berkshire that Terry McAuliffe didn’t exactly grasp the historical foundation(s) for public schools. But then, neither do MOST politicians. Nor do most voters. That’s NOT why McAuliffe lost the Virginia election. Racism was.
As I noted previously, prior to the election, the NY Times reported this: “Republicans have moved to galvanize crucial groups of voters around what the party calls ‘parental rights’ issues in public schools, a hodgepodge of conservative causes ranging from eradicating mask mandates to demanding changes to the way children are taught about racism…Glenn Youngkin, the Republican candidate in Virginia, stoked the resentment and fear of white voters, alarmed by efforts to teach a more critical history of racism in America…he released an ad that was a throwback to the days of banning books, highlighting objections by a white mother and her high-school-age son to ‘Beloved,’ the canonical novel about slavery by the Black Nobel laureate Toni Morrison.”
The Washington Post reported this: “Youngkin surged in the late weeks of the race by tapping into a deep well of conservative parental resentment against public school systems. He promised to ban the teaching of critical race theory, an academic approach to racial history that’s not on the Virginia K-12 curriculum….the conservative news media and Republican candidates stirred the stew of anxieties and racial resentments that animate the party’s base — thundering about equity initiatives, books with sexual content and transgender students on sports teams.”
And, again, the NY Times: “the past half-century of American political history shows that racially coded attacks are how Republicans have been winning elections for decades…Youngkin dragged race into the election, making his vow to ‘ban critical race theory’ a centerpiece of his stump speech and repeating it over the closing weekend — Race is the elephant in the room.”
The Associated Press reported this, on CRT and the the Virginia governor’s race: “The issue had weight in Virginia, too. A majority of voters there — 7 in 10 — said racism is a serious problem in U.S. society, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of Tuesday’s electorate…The divide along party lines was stark: 78% of Youngkin voters considered the focus on racism in schools to be too much.”
How does Jennifer Berkshire explain all this? She doesn’t. UVA political analyst Larry Sabato described the Youngkin Critical Race Theory strategy this way: “The operative word is not critical.And it’s not theory. It’s race. What a shock, huh? Race. That is what matters. And that’s why it’s sticks. There’s a lot of, we can call it white backlash, white resistance, whatever you want to call it. It has to do with race. And so we live in a post-factual era … It doesn’t matter that [CRT] isn’t taught in Virginia schools. It’s this generalized attitude that whites are being put upon and we’ve got to do something about it. We being white voters.”
White voters — especially low-education white voters surely did listen hard and hear well. Youngkin won 76 percent of non-college graduate whites. And Youngkin got way more of the non-college white women votes (75 percent) than McAuliffe.
Check the exit polls:
WHITE WOMEN COLLEGE GRADS
VA 2020: 58% Biden, 41% Trump
VA 2021: 62% McAuliffe, 38% Youngkin
WHITE WOMEN NON-COLLEGE
VA 2020: 56% Trump, 44% Biden
VA 2021: 75% Youngkin, 25% McAuliffe
How does Jennifer Berkshire explain all this? She doesn’t. There’s a reason that KKKers, and Neo-Nazis and white supremacists — Trump’s “very fine people” — identify with the Republican Party. And that’s because it is the party of Trump, and racism, and voter suppression, and white grievance and white nationalism. The Virginia election just mirrored who and what white Republican voters are.

LOL… “Democracy” looks like they read they NY Times 24/7 and simply regurgitate the party line.
94% of Americans support interracial marriage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/09/10/record-high-94-of-americans-approve-of-interracial-marriage-up-from-4-in-1958-poll-finds/?sh=494cfb7910f6
The Youngkins voters were against the idea of making everything about race. That is not racism. That’s what Martin Luther King advocated.
LikeLike
Not allowing students to learn about our history involving race is what Dr. King advocated? Or would advocate?
LikeLike
Chuck,
One opinion on this issue: https://www.statesman.com/story/opinion/two-views/2021/01/18/two-views-critical-race-theory-threatens-what-king-achieved/6646069002/
LikeLike
Matt Metzger, re: link– I see the call for ‘separate spaces’ which the author decries as “re-segregation” as a cyclical re-assessment. We saw the exact same thing in the late ‘60’s. African-Americans called for pow-wows among themselves in order to assess how govt policies were affecting them, and what needed to change. CRT is a 2nd gen re-examination: after civil rights laws, after affirmative action— how have things changed for us, what still needs to be done?
The twisting of the [unfortunately labeled] ‘defund police’ slogan deserves no space & can be ignored— half of his so-called two-prong “CRT” movement. The first prong being supposedly “a separate and unequal education system,” supported by exactly one school district [San Diego]. Being as that’s all he’s got, one wonders whether he even got what’s going on in the San Diego schsys right…
LikeLike
Matt, I read the article, though I only saw one view. Critical Race Theory and Critical Race theorists have nothing to do with what Republicans are using it for. Critical Race theorists live in Universities and Graduate colleges. They are not on the streets or in the schools. You may agree or disagree with them, but CRT is being used as an excuse to fight against students learning history. Dr. King would certainly understand this is a red herring. I’m guessing you do too.
LikeLike
CRT is taught in law schools. Not as doctrine but as a prompt for debate and critical thinking. It’s being cynically used by the GOP to incite a culture war issue, instead of promising real change.
LikeLike
Ahahahaha….this coming from a guy who cites Christopher Rufo as “evidence.”
What a troll.
LikeLike
Right away with the name-calling. You guys are hilarious!
It’s the same old playbook here… any opposing viewpoints are “propaganda”. Yet you recycle the same, tired “low educated white voters” line.
What about the Black caucus that endorsed Youngkin? Are they racist too?
https://www.wavy.com/news/politics/virginia-politics/hampton-roads-black-caucus-endorses-glenn-youngkin-for-governor/
LikeLike
But Youngkin did not get the endorsement of the Greater Hampton Roads Black Democrats or other black groups. https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/elections/black-caucus-youngkin-republicans/291-1a9ccc67-eca8-4e03-8cab-a2b841ebce73
LikeLike
The “white supremacists” elected a black lieutenant governor along with Youngkin, didn’t they?
LikeLike
The black lieutenant governor is a gun-toting rightwing conservative.
LikeLike
Matt Matzgar is not just a troll, he’s clearly a conservative, and pretty much a liar.
Metzgar cites a phony “black caucus” support for Glenn Youngkin to try and refute the FACT that Youngkin ran an overtly racist campaign.
Not only does Metzgar dismiss facts about the Youngkin campaign and the voting results, but he tries (badly) to promote Republican dirty tricks and his own delusions as “truth.” Big fail.
So, what is this “black caucus” Metzgar refers to?
“Members of the Greater Hampton Roads Black Democrats, Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, which consists of African American leaders elected to the Virginia General Assembly, and the Democratic Black Caucus of Virginia are raising concerns about the group, saying the group, and particularly its name, cause confusion in the community and does not represent them…Virginia State Senator and President pro tempore Louise Lucas, who is co-chairing McAuliffe’s campaign, told 13News Now HRBC is a Republican organization deliberately calling itself a caucus to cause confusion with the other groups…”
But here is the kicker:
“Hampton Roads Black Caucus board member Ronald Taylor would only refer to himself as a board member. However, the group’s registration with the Commonwealth, last updated in 2019, lists Taylor as President. Taylor said anyone can join the organization, but he could not provide a make-up of its membership. He also wouldn’t say who is on the board, claiming board members signed a confidentiality agreement…the same state online record that lists Taylor as a board leader, also shows three other people, including Virginia Beach Republican Party Chairman William Curtis as the group’s secretary.”
Hmmm. How about that?
When Taylor was asked about membership, if the “black caucus” was actually comprised mostly of Blacks, he gave a goofy answer about needing “everybody to give support” — probably especially from white Republicans.
Like I said about Republicans in the post above, “The Virginia election just mirrored who and what white Republican voters are.”
Looks like that applies directly to Matt Metzgar.
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/elections/black-caucus-youngkin-republicans/291-1a9ccc67-eca8-4e03-8cab-a2b841ebce73
LikeLike
Yup they are fine with interracial marriage. But not integrated schools or neighborhoods. .
Fine with a White man marrying a Black woman as long as they don’t move next door . . But would disown their daughters if they married a Black man .
And they are going nuts about teaching history.
Nonsense.
LikeLike
A Black principal in Grapevine, Texas has left his post because the BOE did not like his comments about the George Floyd murder. He is accused of promoting CRT. The board also asked him to remove from social media a picture of him with his white wife. BTW if we examined Dr. Whitfield’s DNA, I can guarantee he is mostly white. The main point is that in 2021 it shouldn’t be an issue at all. The concept of race is a social construct. The anti-CRT movement is mostly about racism that still plagues this country. https://www.thedailybeast.com/grapevine-colleyville-texas-school-board-ousts-black-principal-james-whitfield-over-critical-race-theory
LikeLike
Exactly, Joel
LikeLike
Yes, absolutely. Democracy gets it exactly correct, as do you, Joel. Of we have our resident white hoods here who get their fee-fees hurt because they are “enlightened” (“enwhitened”?). Certainly far more than any of us. Comes with their assumed privilege.
Their argument goes like this: I am not a racist, I am color blind when it comes to race. (Clue #1) How dare you implicate me as being even remotely related to, benefitting from the history of, or encouraging racism? (Clue #2) Given those two “facts,” I’m willing, able, and excited about extending that mindset to include all those other frustrated white folks, regardless of their “reasoning.” (Clue #3).
They all add up to why clueless people are happily marching us to the end of American experiment. Their children and grandchildren will have so much to thank them for. They won’t have pesky democracy, opportunity (since they will have far fewer people to compete against), objectivity, or anything else that reads of fairness and decency. That’s what their parents convinced them of so well. Enclosed communities with private police, discrimination of whatever “others” “threaten” or way of life, private schools where we determine to curriculum, and nice estates and vacation spots hermetically sealed for them. Race will be their reasoning since the Constitution will long have been dead. And the winners will still be righteously indignant, just like their fore fathers.
LikeLike
…anything else that wreaks of…
LikeLike
clueless people are happily marching us to the end of American experiment
Yup
LikeLike
Isn’t the American experiment an essentially racist endeavor? If so, no one should lament it’s demise.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King would have endorsed Youngkin in Va
LikeLike
But I think that Frederick Douglass guy might have. I’ve been hearing good things about him.
LikeLike
Indeed, Diane! And Greg, hilarious (in a frightening sort of way)!
LikeLike
How the South Won the Civil War by Heather Cox:
https://crosscut.com/video/crosscut-festival-main-stage/how-south-won-civil-war-dr-heather-cox-richardson
LikeLike
Sadly, we are still fighting the Civil War in one way or another.
LikeLike
So what’s the strategy for convincing these disgusting, uneducated, racist white women to vote for the democrat next time?
LikeLike
Why Flerp….you sound like you might be a Trumper. Are you?
Here’s conservative Charlie Sykes on that very issue.
See what he suggests.
https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/misreading-the-politics-of-normalcy?r=2k4r8&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=
LikeLike
Democracy
Thanks for the link.
You’re going to fail in convincing about Flynn and religion at this site.
Commenters here won’t even believe that the state Catholic Conferences own school choice legislation in their states, even though the Conferences publicly admit it.
LikeLike
No, I’m not. Are you now or have you ever been a Communist?
Can you bottom-line the Sykes proposal for me? That’s a lot of words to read on a phone.
LikeLike
It’s telling that democracy won’t deny that he’s a Communist. . . .
LikeLike
I am not a Communist. I am a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party, and I second everything that “democracy” has written here. The Republicans run and win by playing the race card. They are racist, nativist, and homophobia. They want America to be safe for their campaign donors.
LikeLike
Flerp, here’s Sykes’ bottom line: “Perhaps Democrats could also take a break from their own internecine bloodletting long enough to make the case that the GOP has become an extremist, nihilistic, and reckless danger to the Republic.
If democracy really does face an existential crisis, perhaps the Administration and Congress should act like it.
LikeLike
Flerp, thanks so much for your flippant remark. Perhaps it escaped you, but I think the name – democracy – pretty much says it all.
You seem not to care much for democracy or democratic values. What do you have against them?
LikeLike
Bethree makes my case for me, by completely missing the point of it in her final observation above. It’s the American people, not the administration and Congress, who have to act like it is the existential crisis it is. Removing that responsibility and duty but putting it on “others” is a fundamental part of authoritarianism.
LikeLike
bethree — so the plan to convince uneducated white women who voted for Youngkin to vote Democratic is to convince her that “the GOP has become an extremist, nihilistic, and reckless danger to the Republic”?
How is that a new plan? Isn’t that basically all McAuliffe did in his campaign?
LikeLike
GregB, flerp: that was not a comment by me, just quoting the closing of the Sykes piece per flerp’s request for a summary– forgot to put in the close-quote mark. So he’s the one who “completely missed the point” :-Þ
LikeLike
p.s. it wasn’t a good summary, tho. Try this: he lists a lot of crazy stuff Reps are doing, & says “Biden was elected to restore a sense of ‘normalcy.’ But these are not normal times, and perhaps the reality is that a normal approach to politics in profoundly abnormal times is a formula for political disaster.” Goes on to call Biden Mr Rogers; never specifies what sort of [crazy?] stuff he thinks WH should be doing.
My opinion: Biden is exactly right to counter Rep crazy stuff by giving it zero air time and governing in a “normal” fashion. Never-Trumpers need to figure out how to fix the bed they made but don’t want to lie down in. We can’t do it for them.
LikeLike
Please accept my apologies, Ginny. I’ll have to watch for collateral damage in my “not putting up with it” in the future. Please forgive me.
LikeLike
Flerp-
Ignoring the specific Va. Gov. race-
I had an impression that is likely wrong. I thought that most women wanted a path to equality and understood that education was the way to financial independence. Then, I witnessed Sarah Palin, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene who devalue knowledge.
Some women currying favor with men, e.g. the nuns at Trump’s rally, get steered to voting for guys like Gaetz, Greitens and Trump.
But, Palin, Boebert and Greene don’t fit into the “currying favor” group and they clearly represent more women than I thought. What’s their deal- are they trying to gain stature in a U.S. that dismisses them based on their economic circumstances and lack of knowledge? They are attracted to right wing politicians and wealthy libertarians who pander to their notions?
LikeLike
Those “nuns” might be fake
LikeLike
They were not fake. The Newark, Ohio, order that they were from was identified. Their membership in the order was confirmed.
Nuns in the northeast may not support the GOP but, in the midwest many do.
LikeLike
Interesting post, Linda. I don’t agree “most women want a path to equality and understand that education is the way to financial independence.” That’s an enlightened viewpoint. Thinking women. Perhaps a quarter of us– add women working lifelong, make it a third. There are many more women (if I’m not mistaken) who don’t even think about the need for financial independence until they have a children out of wedlock, or are suddenly abandoned by partners, or who discover through divorce that it is not a slam-dunk to get alimony &/or child-support. And there are many among those who cling to old paradigms despite the evidence staring them in the face.
LikeLike
Thank you Bethree for helping me to understand the U.S. that so shocked me by selecting Trump.
The women who voted against Hillary because she was a woman, gave the “old paradigm” confirmation.
With my question, I wasn’t headed to conservative religion but, that is where you took me. Conservative clergy and conservative religious at Fox reinforce the old paradigm.
Lucky for Melinda Gates that she married a rich guy and could afford a good lawyer. The “enlightenment” of public schools hasn’t persuaded her to support them despite her rhetoric about women’s equal rights.
LikeLike
Melinda Gates is a graduate of Catholic schools, not public schools.
LikeLike
Already knowing that Melinda Gates was a Catholic school grad, my point was that enlightenment isn’t a curriculum feature of conservative religious schools. In fact, it’s the opposite.
LikeLike
What do you call a “fake nun”?
Fun.
What do you call a real nun?
Run!
LikeLike
Sister Mary Elephant
LikeLike
Thanks for the humor, Poet.
LikeLike
Flerp,
The democrats can’t convince racist voters to vote for them.
Why do you think they should?
But they can call out the lies of people who claim that democrats hate kids and “don’t listen to parents” because so many white parents were outraged that their public schools would dare take precautionary measures during a pandemic to prevent the entire medical system from being overtaxed.
flerp, I don’t want democrats to listen to parents who want schools to teach that Trump won the election and that our white founders didn’t have a racist bone in them.
Let’s agree to disagree.
LikeLike
nycpsp, you fling the racist epithet around a lot. That non-college-educated white women went 3-1 for Youngkin (even higher than they went for Trump) is not necessarily about racism. For some of them, sure. But I don’t think things are so B&W (no pun). It may just be an intellectual exercise but I do think using some nuance, understanding where they’re coming from could possibly help Dems to focus their message/ policies. I would imagine many of them in 2021 are fearful for their & their kids’ economic futures– they’re in a worse place than usual due to covid (especially those among them who are single moms). Even those who are ‘racist’ may be reacting mainly to a zero-sum concept of the economy, fighting for what looks like shrinking turf. What if we Dems were able to pass legislation granting all of them cheap or free childcare/ preschool/ community college, regardless of who they voted for?
LikeLike
One thing is certain: Youngkin will not elevate their economic status. He will throw red meat to his base.
LikeLike
bethree5,
I know the threads can be hard to follow, but I was REPLYING to the following comment above:
“So what’s the strategy for convincing these disgusting, uneducated, racist white women to vote for the democrat next time?”
I didn’t “fling the racist epithet around”. I answered a question that specifically asked how to convince racist voters.
Wasn’t I allowed to use “racist” to reply to a question that was specifically about racist voters? It was taught that it was usually better to repeat the question in the answer to make it more clear.
I didn’t say that all Youngkin’s voters were racist. I ANSWERED a question about how Democrats can attract the Youngkin voters who are racist. And I pointed out that Democrats shouldn’t try to attract them.
The question didn’t ask how to convince the Youngkin voters who aren’t racist, so I didn’t answer a question that wasn’t asked.
LikeLike
Talk about burying the lead! “Even those who are ‘racist’ may be reacting mainly to a zero-sum concept of the economy, fighting for what looks like shrinking turf.”
You just defined racism without realizing it. At its core, racism is built on a false zero-sum concept of society and life, not just the economy. No wonder all of you can’t understand why virtually all of your arguments here are hollow and logically inconsistent. Not to mentioned the rhetorical equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. How’s that for a cliché?
LikeLike
Greg, why “all of you”? Kind of like “You people all…”
LikeLike
IMO, a focus on the need for and what it takes for political wins would improve the threads
I very much want to believe, but, I’m a realist, that political fallout factored into the commenters’ rejection of the reality of a public school enemy that publicly identifies itself and its monumental success.
LikeLike
Yes, Diane, that was an unfortunate choice of words. My intent was certain individuals’ arguments above without actually naming them. I wanted to focus on their views and retract the way I used those words.
LikeLike
nycpsp– yes I did lose track of what you were replying to, sorry– & thanks for clarifying your position.
gregB– absolutely correct: racism = tribalism = zero-sum mentality. What I was trying to get at (& said it badly):
we have put high heat under the zero-sum mentality with 40+ yrs of economic policy that has been disastrous for working & middle classes. Whatever we can do to distribute wealth more appropriately helps lower the heat.
LikeLike
“monumental”
LikeLike
The Covid policy response at the national, state and local level may or may not have had impact in the Va. Gov. race. It’s unwise to discount its impact in 2022 since there are still communities throughout the nation that have groups within requiring the presentation of
vaccination proof and Covid testing, in addition to wearing masks.
We shouldn’t ignore that conservative influencers have linked CRT and Covid masks/vaccinations in their attacks on schools.
Consider the current and future political impact of the backlog in the supply chain and its resulting inflation, neither being Biden’s fault. Never the less, voter messaging from both parties, hangs stringent Covid policy around the Democratic Party’s neck. It doesn’t help that Fauci is inextricably linked to Bill Gates who has been presented to the public as a liberal.
If part of the reason that Dems lose in 2022 or 2024 is their perceived policy response to Covid, the cost to the nation is the loss of its democracy.
Looking at the price paid for democracy, one historical benchmark is Lincoln’s willingness to sacrifice 750,000 soldiers out of a general population of 30.5 mil. For perspective about pandemic human loss, in 1918, 675,000 died out of a U.S. population of 105,000,000 and that was at a time when there was no vaccine. The current U.S. pop. is about 350-360 mil.
When the economic cost of public policy swings party support, in some periods it might not have mattered but, in 2022 and 2024, the price to be paid is American democracy. Yes, even one death is tragic and it’s unfair when the people serving others face-to-face suffer disproportionate harm. Should policies to prevent the harm continue without reviewing the expanded impact?
We can be confident that Bill Gates won’t care if public schools are a casualty of Covid policy. And, IMO, he won’t sweat a GOP government. Big business hasn’t been a casualty of Covid, their response has been price gouging which creates inflation for American families.
LikeLike
“….Lincoln’s willingness to sacrifice 750,000 soldiers….”
That 750,000 estimate includes soldiers of the Confederacy. In my opinion, all the fault lies with the South which tried to violently secede from the Union. The Southern leaders, including Jefferson Davis were the ones who were willing to sacrifice the lives of the Rebels and by extension the combatants of the North. Lincoln was given no choice but to go to war to keep the country together. The actions of the South initiated the whole catastrophe.
LikeLike
I agree, Joe.
Lincoln knew the cost of lives on both sides and that it was the price to be paid to preserve the Union, specifically, he was committed to a nation that in the future would guarantee the individual rights of people, “to eat the bread for which they toiled.”
LikeLike
The question you are not asking is where we would be without that policy. .
So 750,000 dead with a vaccine available for the General Public since last April . Perhaps a trip back in time to NYC at the start of the pandemic would be in order . . 25,000 NYC residents, Metro NY closer to 40,000 dead in a 3 month period with lock downs . Would you want to speculate how much higher that would be if lock downs were not implemented.
There are all sorts of reasons why different areas of the country are affected at different levels, population density, household density, Climate, when in the Pandemic different regions were infected .
By June of 2020 there were at least some medical protocols available to treat patients from a cheap steroid to how patients were positioned dropping death rates by a third. .
In spite of large numbers of the elderly population of Florida being vaccinated and thus relatively unaffected by death and hospitalization. Besides a low household density of that population. Jim Jones deSantis managed to murder 20,000 of his cult members. While states like NY saw only a few hundred deaths.
So as Sykes said.
“Biden and his allies need to disabuse themselves of the notion that we will see a return to “normalcy” anytime soon.
That means a re-calibration not only of his agenda, but his rhetoric, and the let’s-return-to-the-old-norms approach of his Justice Department. (Grand juries, anyone? Special Counsels?)
Perhaps Democrats could also take a break from their own internecine bloodletting long enough to make the case that the GOP has become an extremist, nihilistic, and reckless danger to the Republic.
If democracy really does face an existential crisis, perhaps the Administration and Congress should act like it.”
That means calling Republican’s like Jim Jones deSantis exactly what they are; murders and traitors. It means calling out their cult followers as well.
LikeLike
I may “not be asking” a lot of important questions. The questions that I AM asking are what does the political landscape look like for Dems as a result of their decisions and the uncontrollable variables attached to the Covid pandemic. And, secondly, is it in the Dems’ best interest at the ballot box to double down or to pivot in a way that preserves life but, reduces their exposure in terms of backlash to restrictive Covid measures.
We can all agree, the righteousness of truth has value. If it’s not tethered to the political win necessary to preserve democracy, there is a more compelling concern for me and I hope for Dem strategists.
LikeLike
Great discussion on this thread.
LikeLike
Agreed. Thanks, Greg, Joel, and others!
LikeLike
Do I understand the discussion correctly here?
Are we saying that by doing the right thing to address the pandemic, the democrats are hurting themselves?
What is the solution?
LikeLike
Linda– Fed policy: I see no vaccine mandates in place nor on the horizon. Fed job is to keep CDC guidance up to date, showing what safety measures will likely minimize hospital load & promote gradual return to normal. Biden is wisely leaving it to private sector—and states/ school districts– to mandate as they see fit. Private sector wants biz to prosper: they may well mandate employee vaccines/ venue evidence of vaccine in order to ensure safety/ continued bounce-back into something approaching normal biz. Likewise, schdists: they may mandate vaccines [or alternatively, regular testing] in order to keep in-person school open.
“If part of the reason that Dems lose in 2022 or 2024 is their perceived policy response to Covid, the cost to the nation is the loss of its democracy.” If voters decide to interpret Dems’ “perceived” policy response to covid as something other than it is, what’s the remedy? Let’s get real: voters will vote their immediate pocketbooks, and their sense as to the economic trend. Right now, jobs are plentiful & it’s an employee’s market: that’s good for Dems. Roads/bridges et al infrastructure bill passage will provide the sense that more/ better jobs are in the offing. If Dems can pass measures getting significant bucks into their wallets via continue childcare credits et al, so much the better.
LikeLike
What “the Dems” and people who care about the American Republic — and that excludes the vast majority of Republicans — need to do is to protect voting rights. “We, the People” is the foundation of the Constitution, and voting is the essence of that…and Republicans – who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution – are doing everything they can to dismantle it.
LikeLike
Sorry to say, I don’t think voters voted based on their economic self interest. They vote based on an emotional narrative involving values and meanwhile vote for the candidate who undermines their economic self interest.
LikeLike
As Diane points out, messages that don’t make people go to the polls and vote Democratic, are wasted efforts. We can hope the infrastructure message works.
Michael Flynn’s statement about religion was a gift to the Democratic Party and the party should capitalize on it.
We know one significant attack against Democrats will be that they are ant-Christian. Silence, in response, hasn’t worked for the Dems.
A Democratic identity as “protectors of religious plurality”, has the advantage of evoking the emotions of those Repubs in minority religions. And, it ratchets up the interest of Dems who rely on analytical reasoning. Framing abortion and LGBTQ is very important. Liberal Dems, especially young adults, must bring their friends and turn out to protect themselves from theocracy.
Jan. 6 showed us that it is politically imperative to wedge apart the two major conservative religions which Paul Weyrich and Pat Buchanan brought together. Repositioning them as powerful competitors for the same turf, opens a door for Dems. Evangelicals wanting to increase their power should get a clear picture of the extensive Catholic infrastructure funded by taxpayers, 3rd largest U.S. employer, ownership of one in 6 hospitals, school choice legislation and conservative Catholic SCOTUS decisions that benefit Catholicism, etc. Voters, among the approx. 50% of white GOP Catholics need to have a view of the evangelical threat to their religion.
We see a wedge within the Judeo-Christian GOP segment developing in the Ohio Mandel and Pukita race for Senate. There’s no reason it can’t be similar between the two major conservative religions.
LikeLike
I agree that identity politics is a losing strategy in the long run. It’s a corporate strategy, based on demographical analytics. Better to tax wealthy individuals and corporations. Better to provide tuition free higher education. Better to provide universal health care and lower the cost of prescription drugs. Bernie to — I mean better to provide a green new future for all young people.
LikeLike
Prediction: shortly you will be accused of accepting a “right-wing framing” of issues.
LikeLike
Took a few hours longer than I expected, but sure enough it came to pass.
LikeLike
I agree that socialized medicine and campaigning to let government bureaucrats replace private insurance is a losing strategy in the long run. It’s a Marxist strategy, based on demographical analytics. Better to tax wealthy individuals and corporations. Better to provide tuition free higher education. Better to fight racism and provide a green new future for all young people.
But we need to stop talking about having government bureaucrats run your healthcare. It’s the fault of people who won’t stop talking about socialized medicine that we don’t have a higher federal minimum wage and the Green New Deal. Promising voters that government bureaucrats will decide what medical care you can get is not going to win elections and the progressives need to stop saying it’s a good idea to have government bureaucrats run elections.
Prediction: shortly I will be accused of accepting a “right-wing framing” of issues.
LikeLike
I have retiree benefits (which I pay for) in addition to Medicare.
Some faceless bureaucrat in the private sector decides what services the company will pay for. The benefits are limited (no dental expenses more than $1500 in a year).
Medicare (run by the government’s bureaucrats) is more efficient and more generous.
Those who rail against “socialized medicine”) should swear never to enroll in Medicare,which IS socialized medicine.
LikeLike
typo:
“Promising voters that government bureaucrats will decide what medical care you can get is not going to win elections and the progressives need to stop saying it’s a good idea to have government bureaucrats deciding what medical care people get.
Prediction: shortly I will be accused of accepting a “right-wing framing” of issues.
LikeLike
I’m on Medicare, government bureaucrats do not make decisions about my health, the doctors do. We should have a universal health care system, a national healthcare system as do ALL the other wealthy industrialized countries such as Germany, France, Canada, Israel, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Spain, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, etc. We need Medicare for all, doctors and hospitals still remain privately run. The doctors and hospitals are not employed by the government or Medicare.
LikeLike
Joe Jersey and Diane Ravitch,
I’m sorry my sarcasm was lost in my reply.
I was pointing out how easy it is to label something negatively (like using terms like “socialized medicine” or “identity politics”) to suggest that those ideas or policies are something that are very bad.
The reason that Republican voters aren’t pressuring their politicians into supporting Medicare for All is because they read all kinds of right wing talking points to make Medicare for All sound nasty. Bureaucrats running medicine.
The far right is trying to do the same thing with racism. They are turning support for policies intended to address the racism in our society as simply “identity politics”.
Propaganda got a lot of people to be fearful of “Medicare for All” and it could have divided the Democrats in 2020 but the progressives didn’t play along. Biden’s support or non-support of Medicare for All was not used to divide our party. It could have been.
Propaganda is getting a lot of people to be fearful of “identity politics”. I’m shocked at how many good and thoughtful people here are reinforcing the false narrative that the Democrats don’t care about white people and only talk about race all the time. Very depressing to see it.
LikeLike
I read that the average cost for a family plan is now $22,000 per year. Even with the ACA that offers subsidies to qualifying people, that sum is unbelievable. The government cannot afford to pay so many subsidies. Our market based healthcare is broken. We have to adopt some type of universal healthcare. There are no other real alternatives.
LikeLike
retired teacher– I’m assuming that $22k/yr is what people are paying for a so-called employer-provided healthcare program. Which doesn’t surprise me, as we were paying $15k for a family of 4 a dozen yrs ago. Healthcare costs have not gone up 46% in 12 yrs, but the costs have re-shuffled so that those in higher quadrant of middle class and upper-middle class are bearing the brunt of all increases. Here’s the good news: ACA!! My sons are Sched C free-lancers, & get good solid healthcare at local clinics for a rate they can easily afford. Also, my husband still works part-time at his corp (post-retirement) so we are on an ACA-like plan. Yes it’s high-deductible, but fees are still negotiated to reasonable levels, & drug co-pays are very low… Obviously tho, the big picture is skewed, many people are paying too much; single payer is what we all need.
LikeLike
LeftCoastTeacher
Have Republicans provided any of those things to the American people . In fact they oppose all of those things . They invented Identity politics and have run on it in every election since 68 while taking care of the oligarchy. Seems to work pretty well for them.
I am not saying that all you say should not have been done. I am not saying that Democrats have not failed to deliver ,they have. But to think that is what moves voters is delusional.
LikeLike
Much respect to you, Joel. Republicans set the trap and Democrats fall into it.
LikeLike
Or maybe it’s more accurate to say there’s one party, the corporate party, and Dems and Repugs both fall into line.
LikeLike
LeftCoastTeacher,
It is not “identity politics” to be concerned about aggressive policing tactics that disproportionately affect unarmed black men and a legal system that exonerates those who stalk and often kill black folks for the crime of looking “dangerous” to them. It is not “identity politics” to read a history book where the experience of non-Europeans is limited to what white people think is important, and where casual biases in content is dismissed as “no big deal” because it doesn’t bother white people.
All of those things – taxing wealthy individuals, tuition free high education, universal health care, etc — are supported by black politicians and white politicians who care about racism. And they ALSO know that you can fight for all of that without blowing off a concern about racism as “identity politics” and telling people who aren’t white and privileged to shut up about police aggressively policing their unarmed sons, because if they shut up, then they can have universal healthcare.
That perspective is exactly what turns off the huge non-white voting block that would otherwise help progressives win elections. White folks saying that racism just isn’t a big deal as long as prescription drug prices are low or you get free college.
Calling it “identity politics” is part of the right wing narrative that concern with racism is too “divisive”. It shouldn’t be mentioned because it just isn’t as important as universal healthcare or taxing the wealthy. And I agree that white Trump voters don’t place much importance in it.
Which is exactly why the progressives keep losing. Voters concerned about racism aren’t pushing “identity politics”, they are concerned about racism.
White people who use the term “identity politics” instead of “racism” are just trying to use a word that makes it easy for them to justify why they are willing to blow off an issue of concern to their base in order to appeal to white folks without a college degree who don’t like discussing racism.
Imagine if I lectured progressives that they are too concerned with socializing medicine and that’s turning people off, and if those progressives would stop talking about socializing medicine and taking away people’s private health insurance all the time, maybe the minimum wage would pass or this country would already have a green new deal.
But it’s all the fault of progressives because they won’t keep talking about socialized medicine and they need to stop talking about socialized medicine if they want to win elections.
Because that’s kind of what those concerned with racism hear when you post that “identity politics” is the problem.
Calling a concern for racism “identity politics” is like calling a concern for universal health care “socializing medicine”.
Ask voters if they like socialized medicine and most won’t like it. Ask voters if they like identity politics and most won’t like it.
That’s why the right wants progressives to help defeat themselves by using their right wing framing of the issues.
Ask yourself who came up with calling the progressive desire for universal healthcare “socialized medicine”.
And ask yourself who came up with calling the desire to address the problems of institutional racism as “identity politics”.
Hint: it was the right wing.
Looking for ways to demonize something people like by referring to it with words designed to turn off voters.
Socialized medicine. Identity politics. People who use those terms who actually support universal healthcare and fighting racism are getting played by the far right.
LikeLike
nycpsp– This part is wrong: “White folks saying that racism just isn’t a big deal as long as prescription drug prices are low or you get free college… Calling it “identity politics” is part of the right wing narrative that concern with racism is too “divisive”. It shouldn’t be mentioned because it just isn’t as important as universal healthcare or taxing the wealthy.” All those things—low prescription prices, free college, universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy—are even more beneficial to folks of color [and poor whites] than they are to “white folks.”
Here’s where you get it right: “Calling a concern for racism “identity politics” is like calling a concern for universal health care “socializing medicine”.
LikeLike
“All those things—low prescription prices, free college, universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy—are even more beneficial to folks of color [and poor whites] than they are to “white folks.”
I know. Perhaps my post was poorly written, but that was my point. Why does that even need to be said? It’s obvious. You are answering a question whose false framing is “Democrats only talk about race” or “Democrats only talk about race because that’s the only thing their base cares about.” Democrats have always talked about those issues you list above, too. And Democrats have always known those issues were important to people who are ALSO concerned with racism.
Why the false framing that there has to be a choice? Why can’t Democrats be very concerned about racism and also concerned about universal healthcare and wages and the environment?
The narrative that democrats talk about racism “too much” is implicitly racist. Because Democrats don’t talk about racism more than they talk about any of the other issues of concern to their voters — all those issues that you listed above. But apparently some white people believe that is “too much”.
All those things—low prescription prices, free college, universal healthcare, taxing the wealthy—are just as beneficial to working class white folks. So instead of lecturing democrats to be quiet about racism, shouldn’t someone be lecturing to working class white folks that they should be voting for Democrats? Democrats would enact some of this if they didn’t Republicans thwarting them at every turn.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing:
“Better to tax wealthy individuals and corporations. Better to provide tuition free higher education. Better to provide universal health care and lower the cost of prescription drugs.”
Most citizens – and even LOTS of Republican voters – favor these things.
The obstacles are Fox and the Republican Party and lots and lots of lies.
LikeLike
I agree that socialized medicine and campaigning to let government bureaucrats replace private insurance is a losing strategy in the long run>
Oh, yeah. Ofc. Forget this existence proof: The US is the ONLY nation among the 38 in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development that does not have universal healthcare, and it’s per capita costs are TWICE those of the other OECD nations and its health outcomes WORSE. But let’s not get a little thing like reality get in the way of corporate propagandizing against replacing private insurance with universal healthcare as in those countries where things are so much cheaper, fairer, and better in terms of longevity, infant mortality, and incidence of chronic and fatal disease.
LikeLike
Bob, I actually do support (in theory) a national health service, although unlike many on the left I think it’s an extremely complicated issue and the cost concerns are valid. Making it happen will be an enormous political fight that requires voters of all stripes and ideologies to recognize a common interest. Culture wars make that impossible, and the latest iteration of the culture wars is just beginning and it will divide the Democratic Party itself as much as it divides the nation.
LikeLike
If you are over 65, you do have the benefit of a national health system. My open heart surgery was underwritten by Medicare. It cost me $300, but that’s a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what I was billed. Think high six figures.
LikeLike
Bob,
I was being sarcastic.
Voters who support Medicare for All will be very turned off if the Democrats follow terrible advice to stop talking about Medicare for All by arguing that that voters don’t vote for Democrats because the only thing Democrats talk about is how much they want “government bureaucrats to take over healthcare”.
Voters who are concerned with racism will be very turned off if the Democrats follow terrible advice to stop talking about racism by arguing that voters don’t vote for Democrats because the only thing Democrats ever talk about is “identity politics”.
That is why this “advice” is wrong. It starts with a premise that is a complete lie and gets people here to have a discussiion where thefalse premise is accepted as true.
The false premise is that the Democrats do nothing but talk about identity politics. When it is the REPUBLICANS who are the ones who talk about identity politics all the time.
Which party only about identity politics and has no ideas? The Republicans.
Which party in this discussion is assumed to be the one that only talks about identity politics and has no ideas? The Democrats.
Why does this discussion reinforce the lie?
Thank you Diane Ravitch, who is not falling for this. She is trying to keep the discussion on track, while too many want to again take advice from the same right wingers who always tell them that only by blowing off their base and keeping silent when they see racism can democrats win. That’s how they lose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not accusing you of anything, I see the sarcasm. But, for argument’s sake, the Klansman in a nice suit loves this sentence and reads it differently the because can be, and is in our current world, so vague and intentionally dishonest. Let’s look at some clues.
“identity politics”: define. As I read it to be in this sentence, the way the term is used is one that is a right wing bundling of distortions, lies, and false conclusions about individual people, many who have come from or live in conditions that define their views of politics. I would argue this term has no place in rational political debate centered on actual issues. It is a perception created by one side to tilt the debate completely in their direction when it becomes commonly accepted.
“losing strategy”: again, define. What, in your view is a “winning strategy?” And how should one achieve it. Are the rules fair? Are they based on set of principles including truth, verifiable fact, expertise, experience, and so on? Or should this not matter, as our resident Klansmen insist? Because the system is so fair. Is obvious partisan gerrymandering a “losing strategy” or a “winning” one? Is a strategy of getting enough
“long run”: sorry, but please define. For whom? For what? I would argue, as I observe things, as of now, the visions that the two prevailing political forces in this nation have today would be quite different in the “long run”. One would be an authoritarian state, perhaps with the veneer of constitutional rules and decorum, in which we end up with a society of assured haves and have nots determined at birth. And man is that just the icing on the cake for an aggrieved white voter, but they not exactly where they will certainly NOT end up.
It’s funny that a lawyer completely opened up a rebuttal he could have avoided. The rhetorical structural intent of that first sentence, which sets the tone of the entire comment completely off course if you don’t catch the sarcasm. And that’s the problem, too many see this as the opposite of sarcasm; it is a call to arms. It accepts a reality that only exists in aggrieved, disillusioned minds, not in those of citizens want to do the hard work of maintaining a democratically-based republic open to all. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest, LCT. Cleared my head a bit.
LikeLike
LOL, Greg, did you just refer to me as a “Klansman”?
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the state of our discourse, 2021.
There’s no telling what great things we can accomplish together!
LikeLike
Typical. The guy that says nasty things about other people claims victimhood if he is treated the way he treats others.
LikeLike
I love it NYCPSP!! You get extra credit for the day for seeing that so quickly!
LikeLike
This from the same person who quite recently referred to a form of music about which he knows nothing as “thuggish” and the audience “disproportionately thuggish” (now that’s some clumsy used of coded language from that old man yelling a clouds). He referred to an intellectual who generating a much needed public debate about the fundamental issue of our time a “grifter.” Nothing racial or name calling about that…
And he mischaracterized my comment on him. I categorically did not call him a Klansman. I called him “a Klansman in a nice suit.” I kinda have respect for a real Klansman because you know what you’re dealing with. The latter is much more sinister.
LikeLike
wish you guys would stop the ad hominem cr#p
LikeLike
bethree5,
both siderism?
LikeLike
Define cr#p. I clearly explain why I come to the conclusions I do above, thus by definition my comments are not ad hominem. If I group people, it is because of their self-professed ideas and actions. I believe that is fair, you may not. But by not means would I just call people I know nothing about with the obvious racially-implied words thugs or miscreants. Now that’s cr#p. If you insist and I can find time later today, I’ll be happy to define if for you.
LikeLike
Correction, I meant to write grifters above instead of miscreants.
LikeLike
Again, lol:
“Or should this not matter, as our resident Klansmen insist”
Who are the blog’s “resident Klansmen,” Greg?
LikeLike
Majorities of white men and white women have NEVER voted in modern times for Dems at the national level. NOT ONCE. What’s the meaning of this fact?
LikeLike
!!!!!
LikeLike
“After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, Johnson rued that the Democratic Party had lost the South for a generation”
Lots of Southern Democrats became Republicans after the voting rights act. After the country elected a Black president for two terms, Republicans in the South lost their minds even more. Anti-CRT and attacks on institutions like public schools are part of the extreme racist backlash that now is moving toward fascism after being emboldened by the likes of Trump. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5/14/22434869/southern-democrats-jim-crow-civil-rights-act-ted-cruz-for-people-act-letters
LikeLike
BTW Beto O’Rourke has announced he will run for governor of Texas.
LikeLike
I just sent Beto a donation of $100. I will give more in the future.
LikeLike
First two guesses don’t count. We know the answer.
LikeLike
The answer, Steve, is not hard to discern. Lyndon Johnson was the last Democratic president to win a majority of the white vote, but Johnson pushed hard for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Voting Right Act of 1965.
You know where all the racist Southern Democrats went, right? And you know that racists across the country were incensed by both pieces of legislation, right? And you know that Republicans across the country keep trying to suppress voting, especially the votes of people of color, right?
So what’s all that tell you?
LikeLike
No question, it was about Race, – and “White Rage”! Recommended: read Carol Anderson; read the “New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander, and, read “Begin Again” by Eddie S. Glaude, Jr. Those are examples, and now there are many great Black scholars, fiction writers, columnists, who in recent years have shared a TRUTH about America since the Obama era. Now there’s a “BACKLASH.” There is a backlash about the TRUTH that I’m sad to say, many of my White brothers and sisters don’t want to hear and I’m deeply saddened after fifty years past the American Civil Rights movement. No, we haven’t quite turned the corner on race to a “post-racial” society in America. Our deep history that begins with slavery and native genocide is embedded and unreconciled. There’s been an Obama “Backlash. MAGA world views and the Big Lie about the last Presidential Election. The “Big Lie” prevents people from moving forward to the future. Moreover, American politics have morphed into a situation where one political party and its leaders (Republicans) constantly demonize the other, i.e., “Democrats.” Leadership on the other side from Democrats is needed. Democrats are demonized and attacked daily by media PROPAGANDA. sites that inflame people and create feelings of anger and hate. The demonization, the hate, the political dysfunction must stop.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment. Without Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch, it would have been different.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. Millions of daily and repeated hateful lies from every angle feeds the hate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
feeds the hate and scrambles messaging: nothing ever moves far because there is always more “shocking” fodder pushing in another direction
LikeLike
Well said, Mr. Thornburg!
LikeLike
Wake up, Woke People. Come back to the real world. Racism is at an all time low, white people are not more evil than other groups, and most of us just want to be part of the American tribe. Find me one right-winger who says “Soft pedal the ugly parts of American history.” Listen to them: they WANT the warts taught. This is progress. Stop acting as if we’re still in 1960. Unfortunately the colleges have been churning out generations of students who know nothing but race and gender theory. If you take that away from them, their brains have nothing they know how to think about, so they’re loathe to give it up. I really think this is a big part of the problem: deficient college education.
LikeLike
Ponderosa,
A dozen or so states have passed laws banning the teaching of anything that is “divisive” or that makes students “uncomfortable.” I don’t interpret that to mean “teach American history honestly and accurately, warts and all.”
LikeLike
I do. Listen to Youngkin’s words. Listen to the Fox commentators. They’re surprisingly open minded sounding. They just don’t want this nutso critical theory junk being taught as a catechism.
I never hear the Left talking about teaching the GOOD side of American history or Western Civ. –only the bad. I never hear acknowledgement that there IS a good side.
LikeLike
I have never met a teacher in K-12 who teaches CRT.
CRT is not “nuts.”
It is a way of examining laws and institutions to see how they create segregation and disparate treatment of blacks.
For an example, read Richard Rothstein’s book, The Color of Law, which shows in detail how federal housing programs created and reinforced housing segregation, complemented by state and local laws and regulations which did the same.
The best illustration of CRT in action came from President Lyndon B. Johnson, who said in his Howard University speech of 1965:
“The voting rights bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in a long series of victories. But this victory–as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom–“is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
“That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society–to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.
“But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
“Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
“This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.”
The Supreme Court has whittled down the protections of the Voting Rights Act, and now Republican states are passing laws to restrict access to voting.
Just to acknowledge what we see right now is a confirmation of Critical Race Theory.
LikeLike
Anyone who writes a falsehood like:
“the colleges have been churning out generations of students who know nothing but race and gender theory.”
needs to be marginalized.
Ponderosa, your school has been churning out students who know nothing but that whites are superior. Do you think that is a good thing?
Remember, we are having a discussion on your terms, except that instead of just one side — your side — being allowed to offer up something that has no basis in fact, now both sides get to do it.
I prefer that people who post untruths like “the colleges have been churning out generations of students who know nothing but race and gender theory.” be marginalized. But if everyone wants to have discussions on their terms, I will do so.
Ponderosa, your school has been churning out students who know nothing but that whites are superior. Is that true? Based on your own use of invented facts, I assume you don’t care whether it is true or not.
LikeLike
NYCP:
Have you spoken to an Oberlin grad lately?
LikeLike
Ponderosa,
I know quite a few students who recently attended Oberlin college. Unlike you, they actually don’t say things like “Have you talked to one of the students in Trump supporting families recently?” in an attempt to further theior first lie that “Ponderosa’s schools turns out students who embrace white supremacy.”
Sorry, but you really do not have a clue about Oberlin at all, which happens to have a top notch science and music program. I can think of a very recent Oberlin grad who is thoughtful, had professors who taught him to use facts and evidence (and not smears like you do) and is a progressive who is far more thoughtful about issues than you are.
Are there some young students activists at Oberlin whose use of evidence to support their point of view is very similar to Ponderosa’s use of evidence to support their point of view? Of course. But if anything, you find those folks on the right, which has never offered any good arguments for their positions except scare mongering.
Ponderosa’s smear of Oberlin is outrageous. Has Ponderosa ever met any Oberlin grads? Or did she just believe the bogeyman propaganda?
LikeLike
Diane,
Few would argue that history puts blacks today at a disadvantage. Where people differ is what to do about it. The campus lefties want whites to plumb their souls over and over. They want to police speech, setting the line for taboo speech further and further to the left on a daily basis. They want to remind blacks they’re victims, over and over, ad nauseum. Normal people acknowledge the injustice and carry on, trying to make things better for everyone. Normal people know the Left has lost perspective and gone off the deep end into a quasi-religious zealotry. The basis, it seems to me, is radical French philosophy (e.g. Foulcault) that talks all about oppressors and oppressed. you and I are too old to have gone through that, but it colors most college grads’ thinking these days..
LikeLike
Ponderosa,
Thanks so much for whitesplaining what the “campus lefties” – the all-powerful students who supposedly call the shots at campuses – are doing. Oberlin students fought for higher wages for some of the low wage workers on campus. They protest when black students are treated by campus security as more dangerous and potential lawbreakers while white students doing the same thing are not. Even the ones concerned with classroom content aren’t the same, with the majority just wanting professors to recognize some of the implicit racism that can happen in classrooms.
Your characterizing those fighting for racial justice and economic justice in those terms reminds me of the anti-teachers union folks reducing all teachers as people who want a union to protect sexual predators and lazy teachers and get paid a generous salary for a job with 3 months vacation.
It’s disingenuous.
LikeLike
J.H.C. there’s just so much idiocy above it’s hard to know where to start. They itch-bay about being persecuted or accused for mis-framing of arguments as a reason for being agains something and don’t see that their entire rhetoric is more tired than the one they accuse opponents of using. And talk about assumptions in this framed debate: “The campus lefties want whites to plumb their souls over and over. They want to police speech, setting the line for taboo speech further and further to the left on a daily basis. They want to remind blacks they’re victims, over and over, ad nauseum. Normal people acknowledge the injustice and carry on, trying to make things better for everyone.”
Let’s try it this way: “Universities are doing more research and education about racism and its effects, and the process, like done in academia, is not without serious challenges. A part of this process is the reassessment of language, it must change with the times to accurately reflect them. This, too, must be a robust, honest debate, because it depends greatly on which side of that use of language is. Part of this is a thorough accounting of history; events, trends, and agreement on basic things. For example, to be responsible American citizens, it is important for every one to understand slavery–not just from the point of view sweeping event, but how those events played out on the ground–the injustices, brutality, and inhumanity hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of lives it affected. They should know about the legacy of slavery, how Reconstruction for one side became a temporary episode before a much longer period, called ‘Redemption’ by one side, continues through this day. The will learn the concepts of generational and community wealth and how that legacy has played out in migration, freedom to work, FHA-supported and private housing, the New Deal, the GI Bill, voting, and so on. Normal American citizens should learn as much detail about events like these, understand how they effect our world, acknowledging the injustice along the way. This can easily be done with making any current or future individuals, for lack of a better word right now, ‘feel guilty’ about their lives. Understanding these issues better will provide more basis for future generations to move on and find the policies that benefit them collectively to give greater substance and meeting to the creed E Pluribus Unum.”
There, fixed, it. Funny thing about that framing argument. Upon closer inspection, the shoddy workmanship of those simple, reactionary frames aren’t nearly as solid as their buyers claim.
LikeLike
“Whitesplaining”? This is the kind of crap people are sick of. Racializing everything. Give it a break. Go make friends with some working class people; you’re in a bubble.
LikeLike
“Go make friends with some working class people”, now that, ladies and germs, is what’s known as chutzpah! And this is coming from a person who might have some friends are black (but can they also be working class? I’m going to have to ask them.). Please, more hackneyed clichés! They enlighten the debate so much more than explaining things. And it’s much easier to take them for granted. I could spend a few hours on how the Oberlin cliché, but it’s time to go.
LikeLike
By the way, I attended Oberlin and have regular contact with recent graduates.
LikeLike
GregB,
Thank you for that really thoughtful and comprehensive re-framing of the issue.
Your comment is what should be discussed. Instead we have a discussion about whether the fact that college students police all speech is a good thing or a bad thing. We have a discussion about how college students want black people to see themselves as victims is a good thing or a bad thing.
Ponderosa accepts the right wing narrative as the starting point, and then the discussion has to be about whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that college students want to remind blacks they’re victims.”
When in fact, none of it is true. Reminding blacks that they are victims???
This is similar to our resident you know who. I see a lot of posts where conservative people here post some really outrageous comments and insults, and then profess to be victimized because someone said they were “white-splaining”.
“Normal people acknowledge the injustice and carry on, trying to make things better for everyone.”
“Acknowledge the injustice and carry on?” “Trying”??
LikeLike
Find me one right-winger who says “Soft pedal the ugly parts of American history.”
Interestingly, if you Google “right winger soft peddle American history”, the first thing it gives you is this: https://tsta.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/HB3979-flyer.pdf That’s just too weirdly inappropriate.
To begin to answer the question, here are some I can name right way: David Barton, Steve Scalise, Lynne Cheney, Sam Brownback, Glenn Youngkin, Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, the entire Republican Sun Belt congressional delegation, everyone who thinks CRT is a thing… I’m sure the readers here can add a few thousand to the list if they cared to. But, then again, you asked for only one.
LikeLike
Greg, you forgot Trump and Steven Miller.
LikeLike
Ponderosa, you are sadly out of touch.
From the NY Times just the other day:
“Loudoun County was just another American suburbia taking a hard look at its schools…White students were no longer in the majority, and educators were trying to be more aware of how racism could affect their students’ education…The district hired a consulting firm to help train teachers about bias. It tried to hire more teachers of color…But there were rumblings of resistance…Vocal parents protested the district’s antiracism efforts as Marxism…they got plenty of help from Republican operatives…”
“In the not-too-distant past, Loudoun County was dominated by farmers and Republicans. In recent years it has experienced a wave of residential growth to 420,000 people, becoming more suburban, increasingly diverse and more liberal…The student body has changed, too. Twenty five years ago, 84 percent of the students were white; today, 43 percent are…”
This is what is driving white conservative Republicans — and maybe especially the white conservative “Christians” — absolutely crazy.
A recent poll asked this question: “Do you approve or disapprove of public schools teaching about the history of racism?”
In response 43 percent of Republicans “opposed schools EVEN BROACHING the subject” (emphasis mine), and more than a third disapproved “STRONGLY.
Now why would that be?
LikeLike
I would only add: there’s another backlash that’s been ongoing for 50+ years, the white-rw-cultural backlash to the late-‘60s liberal white-college-kids rebellion against post-WWII McCarthyism & its VNWar, which was melded with black civil rights activism. That confluence scared the pants off the circa-early-1900’s status-quo’ers, & they are still fighting it. The Obama presidency simply amped it up.
LikeLike
You people will go to any lengths to deny the obvious. People don’t vote for corporate Democrats because they have nothing to offer. Anyone here old enough to remember how every Conressional candidate who supported M4A and GND won in 2020? What did McAuliffe have to offer? “I’m not the Trump guy,”
The Dems are going to run Harris/Buttigieg in 2024 on a platform of “We’re not Trump”, the their rears handed to them, and you folks are going to have the satisfaction of blaming the trifecta of racism, sexism and homophobia for another round of Trump.
Or you could get off your collective behinds and start doing what you said you’d do when you told us all to VBNMW: start pushing the Democrats left. If a paltry infrastructure bill that’s a tenth of its original size and full of privatized pork is all the Dems have to run on, brace yourselves for a red wave.
LikeLike
Bingo. 100% correct.
“blaming the trifecta of racism, sexism and homophobia for another round of Trump.” Exactly – I fail to see why Dems won’t let go of this losing strategy.
LikeLike
Pushing Tom Daschle and Tony Podesto out of the way has to be one of the initial steps.
LikeLike
One reason to “blame racism” is to read what Republicans say and read the laws they pass re voting rights and CRT.
LikeLike
“read what Republicans say”????? How dare you! If we do that we might understand what they and their apologists are up to. Is that what we really want? They do such a good job of keep us informed in so many obvious ways about the things we must know. Indeed, I let out a cheer when I read above: “Racism is at an all time low”!!! Ain’t that grand? Who knew!?! And you want me to be as stupid as to actually “read what (they) say”? I think you’re asking for a bit much. Reading and listening to what they say just gets in the way a winning strategy.
LikeLike
To be fair to Matt, it isn’t only that the Republican Party is the party of Trump, it’s also that Trump is racist – and so are LOTS of his supporters – and Trump is xenophobic – and so are LOTS of his supporters, and Trump has tried to suppress voting – and so have his Republican enablers – and Trump has proved himself to be a seditionist traitor — and Republicans are fine-and-dandy with it.
LikeLike
While so called moderate Democrats and Republicans sit on the sideline and allow this to continue. End the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation or we will follow the path of the UK and there will only remain one very corrupt party.
LikeLike
democracy,
The average person is not racist. The average Trump voter is not racist. All parties have extremists in them – both Dem and Rep.
94% of Americans approve of interracial marriage. Yet the media makes it sounds like 100% of the Rep party (which is roughly half of the voters) is racist. It’s simply not true.
See the new book: “Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy” for how and why the media pushes this.
LikeLike
Matt Metzgar,
The average German in Nazi Germany wasn’t anti-Semitic.
But if the average German was not much bothered with empowering a party invoking anti-Semitism, what do you call it?
Where are the Republicans condemning the white guys who killed Ahmaud Arbery?
When you say you aren’t racist, and twist yourself into knots to explain why Ahmaud Arbery’s death at the hands of a few white men wasn’t a crime because Arbery “looked dangerous”, then maybe your definition of “not racist” is different than mine.
Where are the Republican leaders outraged at Arbery’s death? And why is it so hard for Republicans to condemn racism?
LikeLike
Where’s the opposition to Flynn calling for one religion in the U.S.? Josh Mandel in Ohio doubled down on support.
LikeLike
The life of this thread is certainly an indication that the “white supremicist” right concerns all of us. As Mark Twain said, I think, history rhymes. So let’s make poetry that doesn’t require a rhyme scheme to end the folly that calls for a racist future.
LikeLike
Please make your point without being rude, to wit, the accusatory, “You people..” intro to your comment. In any case, on the national level, we only have 2 viable political parties. It’s D or R, the 3rd parties, which also include the far right Libertarians as well as the Greens, poll in the low single digits, etc. Third parties are a big fat zero. Eventually the GOP is going to win, no party can maintain control for a significant extended period of time.
Biden may not FDR but he’s light years better than Trump. If Harris runs for president in 2024, she would probably pick a more experienced and establishment Democrat as a running mate, not Buttigieg.
LikeLike
Dienne, do you have any ideas how Biden could have gotten the votes he needed to pass a far larger infrastructure plan? What should he have done differently to win over Manchin and Sinema? Every single Republican voted against it.
LikeLike
Just saying that dienne77 likes to post provocative things and disappear so that we all argue amongst ourselves using only her misleading framing of the issue.
she posted: “Anyone here old enough to remember how every Congressional candidate who supported M4A and GND won in 2020?”
But Biden did not support either of those and won in 2020. He won both the primary and general election.
Why waste or time arguing whether or not it was support of M4A or not support for M4A that is the reason dems lose elections. Neither of those things are true. But the right wing can only win by dividing everyone who supports an expansion of Medicare and supports the government taking action to address climate change. They get them to argue about whether Democrats won or lost because they supported the GND instead of calling out the ugly lies of the Republicans that made enough Democratic voters think their candidate was too corrupt or too corporate or too Marxist. Shutting down those lies will allow any candidate to win, whether they are strong supporters of the GND and M4A or more similar to Biden and want to expand Medicare and offer good climate change legislation.
Democrats lose when right wing propaganda is amplified and legitimized. Given that right wing framing hurts both progressive and moderate candidates, one thing we should all agree on is that it needs to be shut down.
The Republicans want us to “discuss” whether it is a good thing that Democrats focus so strongly on identity politics that blame white people or if Democrats talking only about identity politics and blaming white people is the reason that Democrats lose elections. They don’t want us to discuss how to fight the Republicans’ agenda to disenfranchise voters and end democracy.
LikeLike
start pushing the Democrats left.
Good advice. Biden can galvanize Democrats by laying low and practicing the politics of the center. I know that this is his shtick, but it will not work today. I fear that indeed, Dems are going to have their asses handed to them in 2020 and 2024 if the party does not shift dramatically leftward.
LikeLike
cx: CANNOT galvanize Democrats by laying low and practicing politics from the center
Changing his public tone won’t miraculously get Manchin and Sinema to grow hearts, but it’s important anyway
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd,
Dems will get their you know what handed to them if they take advice from white Trump defenders.
You think that blowing off a concern with racism, reducing the concerns of many of their base about racist policing and racist discipline and school books with implicitly racist content is a good idea?
You think that lecturing to those voters concerned with racism that they better stop their “identity politics” because white Trump defenders say they won’t get their Medicare for All if they don’t shut up is a good strategy? lol
It’s really no different than what James Carville lectures. Demonizing one important issue of concern to some progressive voters and scapegoating that issue so that other progressive voters will be mad at them.
It’s an attempt to divide. I really can’t believe people here are falling for it.
Just look at who is giving that advice? Matt Metzgar and dienne77.
I realize that a right winger who hates public schools may have advice for Democrats, but I will warn you that it is not because that person wants to empower the progressive agenda.
LikeLike
I believe, NYC Parent, that if it is to win elections in the near term, it must stop trying to middle-of-the road everything. It must set out clear national goals on healthcare for all, voting rights, a much more steeply progressive tax system, police reform, DACA, the end of mandatory standardized testing, the teaching of unvarnished American history, and much else. I don’t expect this to happen. I don’t think that I am falling for anything, and I haven’t a clue why you would think this. I am certainly not blowing off a concern about systemic racism, which I have posted about many times on this blog.
LikeLike
Bob,
You are definitely not a Trump defender so I wasn’t referring to you! I was just pointing out that the advice to stop talking about racism was coming from suspect sources who don’t want democrats to win elections.
LikeLike
Trump is a bloviating, malignantly narcissistic, utterly ignorant, fascist, sexist, racist, clueless, vindictive, completely dishonest, dangerous, cretinous, amoral, criminal, treasonous orange lunatic. Other than that, I have no problems with the guy.
LikeLike
“You people” (I am referring to internet trolls) will go to any length to deny the obvious.
Anyone here old enough to remember how the democrat who did NOT support M4A and GND won the democratic primary and the general election in 2020?
Anyone here old enough to remember how the candidates who DID support M4A and GND did not even win enough votes to win a primary that excluded half of the electorate that hates the GND the most?
If a democrat can’t win a primary that excludes the voters who will be most turned off by M4A and GND, how are they going to win the general election?
FYI, while some posters are in great denial, the idea that the ONLY thing that democrats ever talk about is racism, sexism and homophobia is basic right wing talking points. It is part of the fearmongering appeal to the white Trump voters who hate that those things are talked about.
I love how the right wing turns around everything and accuses Democrats of doing what their own beloved far right do.
To wit, the far right demonizes discussions of race, sexism and homophobia to appeal to white voters without college degrees so those voters don’t notice that the far right is screwing them over so the ultra rich benefit.
When you see a posting lying that all the Democrats talk about is addressing racism (which those posters refer to as “identity politics”), you know that they don’t really care about anything except reinforcing the false narrative that the Republicans are the ones to save white America from the “identity politics” that causes white folks to feel that they are the real victims of racism.
LikeLike
Read my comment (which is pending) as to how one troll here tried to gaslight everyone.
LikeLike
Wow. What a terrible “analysis” dienne. Geez.
A $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill – largest in more than 70 years – is “paltry?”
LikeLike
Name-calling 101
“Sidetrack opponents with name calling
and ridicule. This is also known as the
primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy,
though other methods qualify as variants
of that approach. Associate opponents
with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’,
‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’ ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’,
‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’,
‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’,
and so forth. This makes others shrink
from support out of fear of gaining
the same label, and you avoid dealing
with issues.
Question motives. Twist or amplify any
‘fact’ which could be taken to imply that
the opponent operates out of a hidden
personal agenda or other bias.
This avoids discussing issues and
may force the accuser to be defensive.
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself
or associate yourself with authority
and present your argument with enough
‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate
you are ‘one who knows’, and simply
say it isn’t so.
Play Dumb. No matter what argument is
offered, avoid discussing issues except
with denials they have any credibility,
make any sense, provide any proof,
contain or make a point, have logic,
or support a conclusion.
Mix well for maximum effect.”
LikeLike
Telling the truth about the party of Trump is not name calling.
LikeLike
Yes, race does play a role in electoral politics, but it is far more complicated than this. When the Tea Party was adopted by the Republican Party in 2010, it certainly had some racial overtones, but the big component was a mythology of American “exceptionalism” that promotes the falsehood that average Americans are tasked to keep “elites” at bay. Since Clinton’s victory in 1992, the Democratic Party has basically run campaigns that try to avoid controversy. Too many times issues that seem to matter to core democratic voters, economic equality, equal opportunity, and a healthy pluralistic society, are not promoted in elections in order to not anger the suburban moderates. The Democratic Party of today is more similar to the Republican Party of the 1950’s and 1960’s than the Democratic Party of the 1970s. The societal angst in this country is coming from all sides. Meanwhile the political establishment simply wants to stay in power, not take on the problems of our time. Frustration with an establishment that seems unable, or worse, unwilling to take on climate change or income inequality becomes easy fodder for the racist right, but it also injects fear and uncertainty into communities that are struggling to make ends meat. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 was an act of electoral desperation that took far more than support from his base. Even though he lost in 2020, he still got the second highest vote total in history. The Democratic Party struggles because they seem to want to make everyone happy. The perception, whether real or imagined, is that the Democratic leadership doesn’t seem to believe what they say.
LikeLike
Since Clinton’s victory in 1992, the Democratic Party has basically run campaigns that try to avoid controversy. Too many times issues that seem to matter to core democratic voters, economic equality, equal opportunity, and a healthy pluralistic society, are not promoted in elections in order to not anger the suburban moderates.
Until this changes, Democrats lose.
LikeLike
My crystal ball says Repugs get the House and Senate in 2022, and DeSantis is elected president in 2024 UNLESS the case for economic equality and opportunity is taken directly to the people by Mr. Biden. I don’t see this happening.
So, it will be a complete sweep. House, Senate, White House, Supreme Court.
We are in deep trouble.
LikeLike
Bob,
We are in deep trouble if Democrats run away from their voters’ concern for racism.
LikeLike
The economic problem and the problem with race in America are two sides of one coin.
LikeLike
Fortune Telling
Crazy eight
And crystal balls
Tell us fate
Before it falls
Tarot card
And palm of hand
Give us word
Of what is planned
LikeLike
Mr. Bonner: Always enjoy your thought-provoking posts
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
Nice job, Paul, of regurgitating mainstream media “pundits.”
LikeLike
Right now we are experiencing an inflationary spiral that is driven by the supply chain bottleneck created by a pandemic and exacerbated by the greed of shipping and storage companies charging exorbitant prices to retailers. As in 2010, there is no immediate government solution and the Democrats are left holding the bag. Meanwhile, so called moderates like Manchin and Sinema refuse to act own anything that doesn’t please their sugar daddies. This is not mainstream media but actual experience for voters. Race is a serious problem in this country and with humanity in general, but it is the economy or fear of the future economy that drives voters. Regretfully, because Democrats are terrible at messaging, Republican fear mongering convinces just enough that they are the best stewards for the economy.
LikeLike
Well said, Democracy! ❤
LikeLike
Thank you, Bob.
LikeLike
The fact that Youngkin won that election on the lie that he’d stop Virginia’s public school from teaching something they were not teaching is more evidence of how deplorably ignorant and dangerous the uneducated and apparently nonreading (even if they have the ability to read) white voters in this country are.
The Big Lie Traitor won the 2016 election with the same tactics that turned out the same voters to push him across the line.
LikeLike
Glad to read that everyone is playing nice on the playground today! Actual thought provoking posts instead of name calling and rage.
LikeLike
you jinxed it.
LikeLike
Yep…spoke too soon.
LikeLike
Way, way too early.
LikeLike
And it took a nosedive quickly! Reading the comments this morning was like watching _ucker Carlson but Dem style.
LikeLike
I just had to get this in: The space between Trump and DeSantis, in males, is called the perineum.
LikeLike
Wow, Diane, Joel, GregB, and others are on fire today! So many insightful comments! And, Diane and Democracy, thanks again for this wonderful post.
Diane and Democracy–these go together in my mind.
LikeLike
Bob, I absolutely agree.
But there are also a lot of comments that are disingenuous and outright nasty.
LikeLike
One of the most revealing things that shows how insidious implicit racism is:
There was an excellent post by democracy that talked about how racism plays a role in elections and hurts democrats.
Which led to a discussion about all these issues that are supposed to help insure a democrat victory.
But no one is demanding that Democrats pass voting rights protections.
No one is saying that Democrats can’t win any elections if they don’t first pass voting right protections and fight restrictions to make it harder for their base to vote.
Why is that?
All this infighting about how Democrats should stop talking about racism or that they talk too much about racism or that the economic policies they are able to get passed aren’t good enough.
No one talks about how if more people voted, maybe more progressive Democrats would be elected.
Wonder how the right wing got us to fight about which of the many good issues are the reason that Democrats win or lose elections. Don’t talk about racism. Don’t talk about the Green New Deal. Don’t talk about socialized medicine. Do talk about Medicare for All. Do talk about the Green New Deal.
All of which divides us while the Republicans continue to disenfranchise more and more non-white people who would be more likely to vote for progressive agendas.
While we debate which issue will make more non-college educated white folks vote for progressives instead of Republicans invoking white supremacist and anti-democracy ideas.
LikeLike
Disenfranchisement of black people is a HUGE and important issue. So many tactics being used. Really insidious! Thanks for raising this!
LikeLike
They’re being disenfranchised for PARTISAN purposes. If they weren’t heavily Democratic, the GOP wouldn’t be disenfranchising them. The GOP doesn’t hate blacks, it hates Democrats.
LikeLike
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+where%27s+my+black&&view=detail&mid=FDFD18DD792DBDAF83BAFDFD18DD792DBDAF83BA&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dtrump%2Bwhere%2527s%2Bmy%2Bblack%26FORM%3DHDRSC3
LikeLike
Wrong link. Here’s the right one:
LikeLike
Ponderosa says:
“If they weren’t heavily Democratic, the GOP wouldn’t be disenfranchising them.”
Yikes! I can’t believe you just tried to normalize this.
Ponderosa, here is food for thought:
If the GOP doesn’t want black people to be heavily Democratic, all they have to do is offer policies that would appeal to them! Not invoke allusions to white supremacy to keep white voters without a college degree from leaving the party that offers them nothing. Except racism.
The Democrats are not working overtime to pass new laws that disenfranchise working class white voters because they are heavily Republican now.
Instead we are sitting here having a discussion about how to bring them back to the democratic party.
I don’t think you are racist, but I do think that you have a knee jerk reaction to the very idea that someone who is not trying to be racist can unwittingly be internalizing a view of the world in which whites and blacks are not really viewed the same.
The Nazis also disenfranchised Jews because they were so heavily against the Nazi party. Please consider the comment you made.
LikeLike
If Democrats were to somehow disenfranchise rural whites, I wouldn’t necessarily infer they hated whites; I’d assume they were playing dirty politics.
I wish Dems would play to win instead of playing to look the most righteous . Woke language is dooming Dems:
The progressive agenda is dead if they can’t win elections.
LikeLike
“I wish Dems would play to win instead of playing to look the most righteous .”
Do you not realize that you post right wing talking points as if they were true?
It isn’t “righteous” to be concerned with issues of racial justice. Just like it isn’t “righteous” to be concerned with climate change.
Do you have any evidence that there are lots of working class white people who support Medicare for All, higher minimum wages and taking action to deal with climate change, but they all refuse to vote democrat because of “wokeness”!???
That is incredibly insulting to white working class people. You seem to be saying that they’d vote against their economic self-interest — vote for policies that hurt their own children and destroy their environment — because of “wokeness”.
If it was really “wokeness” they feared, those white working class voters would have calling their Republican Congressmen demanding Medicare for All or a higher minimum wage. Why don’t they?
Because of “wokeness”? I doubt it. It’s because the Republicans have them brainwashed to think that programs like Medicare for All or raising the minimum wage are bad ideas.
If it wasn’t fear of “wokeness”, it would be fear of “socialism” or “Marxism” or “pro-terrorism” or whatever bogeyman of the year the right wing elevates to scare working class white voters.
LikeLike
nycpsp– I hope you get a chance to look at the link Ponderosa posted. It’s an interview with Jacobin about a recent poll they did with a few thousand working-class people. The poll sounds unusually well-crafted, getting into a lot of granular detail on the nuances of these issues. There’s a lot of good news there about attitudes, but at the same time it points to the difficulties. The thrust being, finding ways to unite workers across party lines on progressive policies that would benefit them all.
LikeLike
The appeal to voters has to be economic, but as Joel said, you actually have to deliver. The Democratic Party has lost a lot of the working class here. In the US, the working class votes for the bobbleheads of oligarchs. We are the only OECD country in which this is consistently the case. Why? Because the Democratic Party here is too beholden to oligarchs itself. It isn’t going to go bold on economic issues. It isn’t going to be a true labor party. Just a sort of labor party. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. It’s still better than the fascist alternative offered by the Trumpy Fascist Repugnican Party, but it’s near beer.
LikeLike
More on this theme: c-span.org, click on “BookTV”, look for 10/3/21 discussion between Heather McGhee [“The Sum of Us”] and George Packer [“Last Best Hope”] (moderator Chris Hayes), part of Brooklyn Book Festival
Start at 00:28:20 for conversation on building cross-racial solidarity among ordinary people/ workers
LikeLike
I read the above comments and think “I’m done fighting”.
Apparently, all Republicans have to do is keep being obstructionists, and then Democrats will lose, because even their own supporters will be saying “there is no reason to vote for Democrats because they aren’t delivering because they are secretly under the control of oligarchs and that’s why they aren’t delivering.” Sure, that’s a great message. Can’t imagine why the Republican party, despite being the most corrupt,do-nothing, hate-spewing anti-democratic party since it began, is still getting so much support when the voters keep hearing that “even Democrats” know that Democrats don’t want to do anything for you because they obey their corporate overlords.” Why wouldn’t they believe that when both parties are saying it so it must be true.
What a perfect incentive for Republicans to keep being obstructionists! They know they will never be blamed for it — even Democrat voters will blame the Democrats for not passing perfect progressive legislation. It’s a win-win for Republicans because they block Dems from doing anything plus that makes people vote to empower them.
Funny how I never hear anyone on the right saying “the Republicans could have made abortion illegal like they promised and could have instituted mandated prayer in school, but the fact that abortion isn’t illegal yet shows that they are really controlled by left wing unions and atheists, and you should not trust those sell-out, secretly liberal commie Republicans.” If only conservative voters had heard that message for years and years, we wouldn’t be in this mess as there would simply be an ineffective, powerless Republican party.
The Democrats are a big tent party and currently the vast majority of Democrats lean moderate to progressive and a very few are conservative (but not trying to end democracy). With the slimmest of majorities, the Dems can do nothing without their conservative members agreeing.
Remember, even if there was no filibuster, the dems can do nothing without Manchin and Sinema now. NOT. ONE. THING. The Senate is tied 50-50.
The answer is not to convince voters that the Dems are doing nothing because they want to do nothing. They do. Maybe what the majority of Dems want to do isn’t quite as progressive as we’d like, but if Biden had the Senate majority that LBJ had or Truman had after he ran against the “do nothing Congress” (Republicans in Senate blocking legislation), a lot better legislation would pass.
We should be calling the Republican party the “block everything good” party. The narrative that voters should internalize is that Republicans block everything except making billionaires richer. That Republicans need to be perceived as the party that prevents all the good things that voters want from happening.
Democrats have passed good legislation when they have had significant majorities, not threadbare ones. While hindsight is 20/20, no one in the Obama administration or in the 2009 Senate had a crystal ball. No one thought that the Republicans would pay no political price for filibustering everything and instead be rewarded for it.
Democrats were hesitant to end it for very valid reasons. That seems to have been the wrong choice. On the other hand, I am 100% positive that if the Dems had ended the filibuster, Trump and the Republican Congress would have pushed through the most abhorrent legislation in 2017 and people would have said “it’s all the Democrats’ fault for ending the filibuster.”
I feel as if I have entered a bizzaro world. I have been paying attention to politics since the late 1970s, and never in my life have I seen a Republican party that presents such a huge danger to our country. I remember being depressed seeing Reagan dismantle so many good things, but never – not once – did I fear he would dismantle democracy itself.
The democrats want to do good things. I remember when Bernie Sanders seemed like he stood as a huge outlier to the party, and now Bernie Sanders chairs the powerful Senate budget committee and there are many Senators and Congressmen who support many (not all) of his ideas.
This isn’t the time to make sweeping attacks to push the narrative that the Democratic party is a monolith only as good as its 2 most conservative members. It is to tell the truth – that Bernie Sanders isn’t the outlier anymore — Sinema and Manchin are. And if we elect a lot more “regular” Democrats, those two outliers will cease to have any power. It’s an argument for electing a lot more Democrats — not the narrative the far right wants us to push that is an argument for acting to undermine all Democrats so that Republicans can win.
LikeLike
Always enjoy your comments NYC parent.
I mentioned voting rights on here somewhere, and have cited it in lots of other comments elsewhere.
Remember those votes that Trump singled out as “fraudulent?” The ones from Milwaukee and Detroit and Philadelphia and Atlanta? There’s a reason that he cited those cites, and those votes.
I’ve also said – for years here – that democratic values and democratic citizenship should be the focus of public school education. Shouldn’t values like popular sovereignty (“We, the People”) and equality and justice and freedoms for all citizens (“liberty and justice for all”) and promoting the general welfare be critical components of educating for democracy?
These are exactly the things that Republicans do NOT want and do NOT believe in.
LikeLike
Thanks, democracy. And thank you for your informative and thoughtful comments on this blog.
You may notice that certain folks try to marginalize me on here — they seem to believe that belittling and making personal attacks is how to have a reasonable discussion.
Blocking voting rights legislation that used to be wildly popular for both parties? Singling out certain places as hotbeds of voter fraud?
Normalizing efforts by Republicans to disenfranchise voters of color by saying “well they don’t vote for Republicans” instead of criticizing Republicans for not offering those voters any reason to vote for them — while at the same time condemning the democrats for not doing enough to make white working class voters happy (as if all their economic policies that would help them don’t count)?
Do you notice that the implicit racism in how a few people are demanding that all discussion of your ideas must be framed?
It starts with the premise that Democrats talk about race “too much” and then excuses the white folks who vote for the political party that invokes racism.
LikeLike
Dear Lindo, it’s John Podesta, not Podesto. Is there a John Podesto out there that I am not aware of? I am not a fan of John Podesta but spellllllllllllllllllling counts since this an education blog. Now have a fine Chianti with some sautéed fava beans, etc. Whoops, I meant to say Linda, my bad.
LikeLike
I worked for a big educational publishing house once that put out a big grammar and composition textbook series, and in one of the books, the word misspelled was misspelled in the first paragraph of the Spelling chapter. The same company misspelled Grammar as Grammer in HUGE type on a half title page. That page had to be physically cut out of tens of thousands of copies of the book.
LikeLike
Sounds familiar.
LikeLike
I appreciate the analogy. An individual’s last name which regularly appears in print over the span of one’s entire reading history should be remembered, say like Ezekiel or is it Ezechiel?
Glad to know you could figure out who I was talking about when I gave you so little to work with.
LikeLike
I do this, too. I keep putting an n in Jan Resseger’s name! I then catch myself and feel terrible. She’s such a great advocate for public education!
LikeLike
I have spent a lifetime hearing people say, “You are not in our list, database, blah blah blah” because my name is spelled like the word for a person who herds sheep, Shepherd, but it is almost invariably entered as Sheppard, Shepard, Sheperd, Shepperd, Shephard, or some other variant. And so few people know that the proper spelling of the last name of the previous president is Dump.
LikeLike
“Dump”. Thanks for the humor, Bob.
LikeLike
Matt Metzgar says this, in response to Youngkin’s overtly racist campaign:
“What about the Black caucus that endorsed Youngkin? Are they racist too?”
And Pondersa says, like Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial page, “The ‘white supremacists’ elected a black lieutenant governor along with Youngkin, didn’t they?”
First, to Metzgar’s gaslighting. The “Black caucus” he cites is nothing but a Republican operation. It’s a front.
“Members of the Greater Hampton Roads Black Democrats, Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, which consists of African American leaders elected to the Virginia General Assembly, and the Democratic Black Caucus of Virginia are raising concerns about the group, saying the group, and particularly its name, cause confusion in the community and does not represent them…Virginia State Senator and President pro tempore Louise Lucas, who is co-chairing McAuliffe’s campaign, told 13News Now HRBC is a Republican organization deliberately calling itself a caucus to cause confusion with the other groups…”
“Hampton Roads Black Caucus board member Ronald Taylor would only refer to himself as a board member. However, the group’s registration with the Commonwealth, last updated in 2019, lists Taylor as President. Taylor said anyone can join the organization, but he could not provide a make-up of its membership. He also wouldn’t say who is on the board, claiming board members signed a confidentiality agreement…the same state online record that lists Taylor as a board leader, also shows three other people, including Virginia Beach Republican Party Chairman William Curtis as the group’s secretary.”
Hmmm…how about that?
When Taylor was asked if in fact, the “Black caucus” was comprised mostly of Blacks, he hemmed and hawed and said that it was for “everybody to give support.” Yeah, especially white Republicans.
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/elections/black-caucus-youngkin-republicans/291-1a9ccc67-eca8-4e03-8cab-a2b841ebce73
As to Ponderosa’s claim, does he not realize that Winsome Sears is a far right-winger who endorsed the Texas vigilante abortion ban? And defended Trump’s many racist comments? And is a gun nut? Does Ponderosa not grasp that sears was a beneficiary of Youngkin’s racist down-ballot vote? Or does he just prefer to ignore all this and pretend it doesn’t matter?
Beyond all that, there’s this, as Hakeem Jefferson and Michael Teslar pointed out:
“Republicans are increasingly more likely than Democrats to hold prejudiced views of minorities, so Black Republicans like Sears often draw especially strong support from white Americans with otherwise anti-Black views simply because they draw most of their support from Republican voters…Republicans are more likely to hold prejudiced views and also more likely to support a Republican candidate. But that’s the point: For many white GOP voters, anti-Black views don’t seem to get in the way of supporting a Black Republican.”
They can then claim that they aren’t REALLY racist, even as they support voter suppression laws and gerrymandering that target people of color.
They get their cake and get to eat it to, so to speak. But it’s all a canard. A lie. And repeating it doesn’t make it true.
LikeLike
“eat it too…”
LikeLike
Are there any black commenters on the blog who can weigh in on this?
Wait, are there any black commenters on the blog?
LikeLike
FLERP, I have never asked any reader what their race is. What’s your point?
LikeLike
Flerp should start reading up on Hakeem Jefferson’s work……that of Michael Tesler too. Here’s a Chris Hayes interview with Tesler:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rise-white-identity-politics-didn-t-start-trump-explains-michael-ncna926191
LikeLike
There have been many commenters who identified themselves as African American.
LikeLike
And many guest posts by Diane from prominent African-American researchers, scholars, and public education advocates
LikeLike
FLERP
I recently read a NYT comment from a black male professional regarding the incessant and relentless white hot spotlight on racism, white privilege/guilt, black victimhood, CRT/1619, and wokeism. He said that when he’s at the gym or visiting his black friends or at work socializing with his black colleagues that they talk about sports, the stock market, family news, the weather, etc. and give virtually no thought or voice to the topic of racism in America. Just the way MLK would want it. Just like BLM this is a white ultra-progressive, super-woke phenomena.
LikeLike
I don’t agree that discussion of racism is a “white ultra-progressive, super-woke phenomena.” Red states are passing laws intended to curtail the ability of Black people to vote. The same states are banning the teaching of CRT, meaning any analysis of the history of racism. You think that such laws are of no interest to Black people? I disagree.
LikeLike
BLM – a grassroots movement that was going on for many years and almost completely ignored by the media until George Floyd’s long death was caught on video – is a “white ultra-progressive, super-woke phenomena”???
Tell me you are racist without telling me you are racist.
Citing a NYC comment as your evidence for your why you are certain that BLM is a “white ultra-progressive, super-woke phenomena”?
Tell me you are racist without telling me you are racist.
The casual implicit racism of people who I suspect would certify they aren’t racist at all is completely revealed in this long discussion.
LikeLike
^correction: citing a NYT comment (not NYC)
LikeLike
Is it fair to suggest that blacks do not have the same capacity to overcome the same “obstacles” baked into voting laws as whites?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The laws are designed to suppress the Black vote, which goes heavily for Democrats. Gerrymandering also undermines Black and Democratic votes.
You may have noticed that every Republican voted against the John Lewis Act, which was supposed to protect voting rights. Have you not heard about the new state laws that were passed specifically to suppress the Black vote? Is this news to you?
LikeLike
Is it fair to suggest that whites do not have the same “obstacles” baked into voting laws at all?
LikeLike
Suggesting or claiming that blacks are less capable than whites of meeting simple voter ID requirements is insulting and unsupported by any actual data.
LikeLike
Voter ID is not the issue. Restrictions on voting, supported only by Republicans, have been passed in several red states. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/01/texas-voting-bill-greg-abbott/
Why did the Democrats in the Texas legislature flee to DC in their effort to block the Republican restrictions on voting? You trivialize their struggle.
LikeLike
As if “liberty and justice for all” is somehow “a white ultra-progressive, super-woke phenomena.”
Are you really that clueless, or do you just enjoy gaslighting?
LikeLike
I posted this earlier, but it hasn’t shown up, so I’m adding it again.
Matt Metzgar says this, in response to Youngkin’s overtly racist campaign:
“What about the Black caucus that endorsed Youngkin? Are they racist too?”
And Pondersa says, like Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial page, “The ‘white supremacists’ elected a black lieutenant governor along with Youngkin, didn’t they?”
First, to Metzgar’s gaslighting. The “Black caucus” he cites is nothing but a Republican operation. It’s a front.
“Members of the Greater Hampton Roads Black Democrats, Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, which consists of African American leaders elected to the Virginia General Assembly, and the Democratic Black Caucus of Virginia are raising concerns about the group, saying the group, and particularly its name, cause confusion in the community and does not represent them…Virginia State Senator and President pro tempore Louise Lucas, who is co-chairing McAuliffe’s campaign, told 13News Now HRBC is a Republican organization deliberately calling itself a caucus to cause confusion with the other groups…”
“Hampton Roads Black Caucus board member Ronald Taylor would only refer to himself as a board member. However, the group’s registration with the Commonwealth, last updated in 2019, lists Taylor as President. Taylor said anyone can join the organization, but he could not provide a make-up of its membership. He also wouldn’t say who is on the board, claiming board members signed a confidentiality agreement…the same state online record that lists Taylor as a board leader, also shows three other people, including Virginia Beach Republican Party Chairman William Curtis as the group’s secretary.”
Hmmm…how about that?
When Taylor was asked if in fact, the “Black caucus” was comprised mostly of Blacks, he hemmed and hawed and said that it was for “everybody to give support.” Yeah, especially white Republicans.
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/politics/elections/black-caucus-youngkin-republicans/291-1a9ccc67-eca8-4e03-8cab-a2b841ebce73
As to Ponderosa’s claim, does he not realize that Winsome Sears is a far right-winger who endorsed the Texas vigilante abortion ban? And defended Trump’s many racist comments? And is a gun nut? Does Ponderosa not grasp that sears was a beneficiary of Youngkin’s racist down-ballot vote? Or does he just prefer to ignore all this and pretend it doesn’t matter?
Beyond all that, there’s this, as political scientists Hakeem Jefferson (who is Black) and Michael Tesler pointed out
“Republicans are increasingly more likely than Democrats to hold prejudiced views of minorities, so Black Republicans like Sears often draw especially strong support from white Americans with otherwise anti-Black views simply because they draw most of their support from Republican voters…Republicans are more likely to hold prejudiced views and also more likely to support a Republican candidate. But that’s the point: For many white GOP voters, anti-Black views don’t seem to get in the way of supporting a Black Republican.”
They can then claim that they aren’t REALLY racist, even as they support voter suppression laws and gerrymandering that target people of color.
They get their cake and get to eat it too, so to speak. But it’s all a canard. A lie. And repeating it doesn’t make it true.
LikeLike
Over 100 comments in this thread mentioning culture wars, why people vote as they do, the impact of race in voting,…
Meanwhile, being informed about relevant factors, requires understanding the 8-30–2021 Pew research, “Most White Americans (71%) who regularly attend worship services voted for Trump in 2020”.
LikeLike
so funny given that Trump worships only himself and Mammon
LikeLike
Bannon pulled out the religious vernacular when he referred to Trump as his “vessel”.
Bob, maybe you can help me with blog protocol Is it o.k. to identify and then, call a demographic that voted for Youngkin, racist? But, would sanctioning apply if a person brought up the 63% of White Catholics who regularly attend mass and voted for Trump?
Is it socially acceptable to label some school privatizers racist? But, not acceptable to say the same about state religious conferences that own the states’ school choice legislation?
LikeLike
That there are religious components to political demographics is undeniable. Trumpism without the snake handler vote is inconceivable. But Diane is the master in her house (and an extraordinarily wise and patient one), so I defer to her to answer any questions about what is or isn’t acceptable there. There is definitely a far-right-wing, extremist faction in the Catholic church. But then there is Biden and the cordial audience given him by Pope Francis. Warm regards.
LikeLike
Bob
Thanks for the reply.
LikeLike
Linda,
You posted that 63% of white Catholics voted for Trump, but what percentage of white Protestants or white Evangelicals voted for Trump? Aren’t those percentages just as high or higher?
I once remember reading that white Jews were the white religious/ethnic group that voted the most Democratic. Don’t know if that’s still true.
But if similarly high percentages of white voters who practice other religions also voted for Trump, then not sure how meaningful that statistic is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
2020 presidential vote by religion
Protestant: 40% Biden, 59% Trump
Catholic: 49% Biden, 50% Trump
Unaffiliated: 71% Biden, 26% Trump
White evangelical Protestant: 15% Biden, 84% Trump
Black Protestant: 91% Biden, 9% Trump
White Catholic: 42% Biden, 57% Trump
Atheist: 87% Biden, 11% Trump
Agnostic: 84% Biden, 14% Trump
Attend religious services monthly or more often: 40% Biden, 59% Trump
Attend religious services yearly or less often: 58% Biden, 40% Trump
LikeLiked by 1 person
Surprises in those numbers: 0
LikeLiked by 1 person
from Pew Research
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob,
Those percentages suggest that it isn’t any specific religion (except perhaps Evangelical) but whether the followers of that religion practice a right wing version of that religion.
I suspect the same findings would be true in Judaism, where a much larger percentage of ultra Orthodox Jews voted for Trump and a much smaller percentage of Reform Jews voted for Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whenever I look at those 2020 numbers, they look to me like
51.3% Sane Persons, 46.8% Denizens of Bizarroland
LikeLike
Pew’s separation of regular church attendees, in the 2020 Trump v. Biden polling, is the origin of the 63% I cited. (The date and article title appear above.)
Two major religions in the U.S., evangelical and Catholic. (1) Yes, I could write about a grouping like a conservative subset of the Lutheran church that is experiencing a revival in Finland and a bit of one here. BUT, they are small potatoes without political influence. (2) Neither of the words, evangelical nor protestant is capitalized because they are not aggregated into a centralized hierarchy like the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church.
I’ve explained before but, evidently it doesn’t plant and I predict it won’t now, either. Media tells people about evangelical leaders and what they are up to. Their churches operate independently, being neither organizationally unified nor a confederacy. They don’t have a collective of theocratic offices in almost every state capitol explicitly set up to influence legislators.
Meanwhile, the public is living in the past relative to its perception of the Catholic church. The public’s view, which has not been corrected, is of the 1970’s Church with its liberal Newman Centers on campuses and, of a time when the Church avoided involvement in the public square. Pope John Paul II changed the Church. One thing we see is the coming together of evangelical leaders and a number of Catholic bishops to form a religious, political right wing (e.g. the Manhattan Declaration). The training manual of Paul Weyrich (Koch) posted at Theocracy Watch lays out a plan. Below, in the matter of school choice, we can see that the state Catholic Conferences delivered. We can also see that the USCCB delivered on a right wing goal when they funded a clinic with $2 mil. which has been described as a model to replace Planned Parenthood with non-pharmaceutical birth control advised exclusively.
A few examples follow that show the fulfillment of Pope John Paul II’s call on church members to evangelize through public policy and in all spheres. (A) The shrine in D.C., that honors John Paul II, gave Trump a photo op opportunity after he was rebuffed by the Episcopalian church. (B) State Catholic Conferences upped their game in state capitols. A state conference advised Bishop Hebda that he could prohibit his priests from voting in the 2020 Democratic primary. (C) Robert P. George, John Eastman, Tim Burch, William Barr, Steve Bannon, Leonard Leo, Michael Flynn, Carl Anderson, etc. upped their game. The bio of the new leader of the very wealthy Knights of Columbus, the largest lay organization if the world, suggests to me he was chosen in the model of Carl Anderson. Kelley may not have been a Republican strategist or legislative aide to Jesse Helm as Anderson was but, he did work for an ambassador in the State Department, in a function focused on religion. (D) Patrick Wolfe in the education department at University of Arkansas was featured in Arkansas Catholic as a “Catholic you should know.” Diane has commented on his work relative to public schools and privatization.
The public would be surprised to learn the source of the school choice legislation in capitols. The Southwestern Indiana Catholic Community Newspaper told readers in April of this year, on the 10th anniversary of the legislation, who the source of school choice legislation was in the state. The foundation of Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly’s firm is the largest corporation in Indiana) was also instrumental in the legislation. You can read on-line about the religious giving of the foundation.
Evangelicals rank high as Republican voters and everybody knows it, my telling of that story is redundant. The second point I make is, I don’t see that they are as well organized to achieve theocracy. As one example, there is not one evangelical on SCOTUS.
The universities of evangelicals don’t seem to supply nearly as many people for powerful positions where they influence policy. They don’t appear to have anything like Notre Dame’s ACE.
Now, if I can ask you a question, NYC, the preceding doesn’t matter in terms of impact on the U.S. political landscape? When it comes to gaining access to the seat of power, it’s no different than a pastor of
say, a local Black church. Please don’t cite the very rare MLK just to make a contrarian point.
LikeLike
There are 7 members who were raised Catholic on SCOTUS, 6 of whom now represent the conservative majority who will probably end Roe this year. This is probably not by accident. There has been an aggressive movement by conservative Catholics to gain access to the levers of power that push their “Religious” agenda, particularly in regard to abortion and sexual behavior. Former Attorney General Barr has been an active progenitor of conservative Catholicism. This is why Bishops now brazenly act to deny Biden, also Catholic, communion and use their hierarchical tradition order priests to vote a certain way. This movement has discovered that evangelical prosperity Christianity is an ally. Although so called evangelicals are not a confederation, they have in many ways allied to push a racist and theocratic ideology. Evidence their mass photo ops with the former guy. They have also done great damage to the Christian faith in dismissing social justice practiced by Jesus himself. Past autocratic movements show us that it doesn’t take many to move the masses in destructive ways. The hyper focus of an apocalyptic vision separating the sheep from the goats is a very powerful means to end this democratic experiment.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Paul. I think the intelligent people at this blog understand the situation and its threat to democracy’s majority rule.
Pope Francis has addressed his fears about the right wing politicization of America’s Catholic Church.
IMO, the cozy relationship between Charles Koch and the D.C.-located Catholic University of America is highly problematic for democratic decision making in Wash.
Cleta Mitchell (Koch) acted as attorney for Robert P. George’s National Organization for Marriage. John Eastman was Board President of NOM. Eastman stood, on Jan. 6, on the dais with Rudy Giuliani.
LikeLike
Paul,
“particularly in regard to (1) abortion (2) sexual behavior” and,
(3) public school privatization
LikeLike
Linda [@11:23am 11/16]– Linda– I disagree only that the public sees the RC Church in ‘70’s terms. The non-Catholic’s main point of intersection is with Catholic schools; my impression is the public has seen them as more culturally conservative than mainstream Protestants for a long time (even in the ‘70’s, Berrigans etc notwithstanding). The increasing number of conservative Catholics on SCOTUS has increased that perception.
Facts are Biden & Trump split the Catholic vote, as usual: “AP VoteCast showed 50% of Catholics backing Trump and 49% favoring Biden, reflecting the faith’s longstanding role as a closely contested vote in presidential elections — particularly in Rust Belt battleground states such as MI and WI. Trump won both of those states by less than 1 percentage point in 2016, but Biden prevailed in both this year.” Whereas “Trump won support from about 8 in 10 white evangelical Christian voters in [2020].” [White evangelical Christians are roughly the same number as all RC voters: both groups are about 21% of the electorate].
Which is why I don’t concern myself particularly with the Catholic vote. Apparently despite best efforts of USCCB/ Weyrich/ Leo, the ‘faithful’ have minds of their own. However the proliferation of conservative-thinking Catholics on SCOTUS is alarming, and I assume the $clouty political RC movers & shakers have much to do with that…
LikeLike
Linda,
Thank you for that interesting information. That is very important information.
I think that once in a while your posts seem to call out Catholics in a way that seems anti-Catholic, which I do not think is your intention.
When I read the last couple very informative posts, what I learned is that the Catholic Church has a more established hierarchy in the US (and worldwide) than the protestant churches, and thus it has been easier for the far right billionaire money to infiltrate that hierarchy, and then use it to influence politics and turn America into the religious country of their dreams. And that is a serious problem, although I am glad to see that despite the far right takeover of the American Catholic Church hierarchy and their shocking success in placing their adherents into powerful positions throughout the country — from Congress to the Supreme Court — half the Americans who identify as Catholics still voted for Biden.
I second bethree5’s comments above, too.
But thank you Linda, because there is a danger when our country is no longer a beacon for religious freedom but instead a country molded as a right wing religious oligarchy. I appreciate you reminding us with your posts.
LikeLike
Bethree-
Pew reported about the election in 2020- 63% of white Catholics who regularly attended church voted for Trump. We can draw the inference that only 37% voted for Biden.
Two points-
(1) Using the population as a whole, let’s focus on your identification of half of the Catholic population (although Hispanic and Black Catholics voted for Trump at lesser rates). I may have been in error in my perception that in general, Catholic education levels were higher than those of evangelicals and that their perceptions of their environment were influenced by more diverse exposure. I may be making a erroneous decision, that both of those conditions make them more persuadable to acting in the best interests of our democracy.
(2) Geographically, where the Catholic votes are cast matters greatly
e.g. swing states. Indiana enacted school choice legislation. Two people linked to Catholic dioceses take credit for that. In Virginia, the state Catholic Conference says it was “instrumental” in the passage of school choice legislation in the state. Before I dismiss Catholic voting as inconsequential, based on the fact that the hierarchy’s messaging about Trump ended in a 50/50 split, I’d want to know if the 50% who are theoretically in every state have communicated to the state legislatures that the dioceses do not speak for them.
Please advise.
LikeLike
Bethree-
My perception about the way the Catholic Church is generally viewed is based on three sources (1) the characterization of it’s politicking, as change, by a number of scholars and by media reporters at specialized publications e.g. Trump’s U.S. State Department.
(2) the absence of mention of the Church in msm when articles are about Christian nationalists e.g. Jan. 6
(3) the number of commenters in threads at this blog who totally divorce from conservative religion, the topics of abortion, LGBTQ and school privatization, if Catholicism wasn’t a conservative religion, the left’s willingness to target evangelicals would prevail
To be more thorough, a researcher could look at the content of National Catholic Reporter’s articles over time for some insight.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment NYC
LikeLike
By making every issue race-related, the ultra-liberals are pushing voters in Montana and other rural states into the arms of the Republicans. This is losing us the few Democrats that we still have left in office. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) will probably lose next. Please, stop this. There won’t be any Democrats left out here. Montana, which used to be closer to half-and-half (leaning Republican), is going completely Red. We just got a new Congressional district too, so the U.S. House will most likely be adding another Montana Republican in the next election.
LikeLike
It is NOT “ultra-liberals” who are making “every issue” about race. It’s Trump conservatives. It’s Trump “Christians.” It’s Republicans.
Why do they do it?
Because the Republican Party is comprised overwhelmingly of white people who feel aggrieved, who feel that they are “victims,” and who are – in fact – racists. And they watch Fox and Tucker Carlson, who pushes white supremacy.
Let’s just the the truth.
LikeLike
Exactly right, Democracy. Republicans are pushing the specter of Black hegemony, stoking racial fears. Since they have no ideas about how to govern, they always create a culture war.
LikeLike
Having spent my entire life in the South with conservative autocracy, I can tell you that they simply do not believe in governing.
LikeLike
Paul [@ 11:49am]– that is a nuance I never considered. Not that they ‘don’t know how’– they have no interest in governing. In other words, never met a law they liked. Hmm, a lot in common with the Northern rurals I was raised with, whose politics can be summarized as ‘leave me the hell alone.’
I notice you say “Southern autocrats” rather than “Republicans,” meaning it goes a lot further back than Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy.’ And perhaps that they prefer to ‘govern’ (control) via connections and social pressure.
LikeLike
Ginny,
The GOP knows what it’s against. What’s it for?
LikeLike
Diane– anarchism?
LikeLike
When you say, “please stop this,” are you talking about this thread on this blog? Racism is the topic: we’re debating democracy’s position that “racism explains the Youngkin victory in Virginia.” Just a few posts ago, we were debating Jan Resseger’s blog post which drew a different conclusion. Being as VA is the locus of discussion, and CRT an issue highlighted by Youngkin, the racism under discussion is primarily against African-Americans.
Montana is sparsely populated with few urban centers; you have 6% Native Americans, 3% Hispanics, and just 0.6% African-Americans. Perhaps Montanans get the idea “ultra-liberals make every issue race-related” from the media. Or… that may not be the main thing driving the state more red in recent years There’s an analysis of 2020 voting here, you could see if you agree with it: https://montanafreepress.org/2020/11/11/politicos-explain-montanas-red-wave/
LikeLike
I think it is actually time we advocate for what we believe. We have been appeasing the opposition for too long and look where that has gotten us.
LikeLike
A starting point is to position the Democratic Party as the party that protects religious plurality.
It will be opposed by two of the people who want the left to move toward the right wing agendas- Manchin and Daschle.
Daschle and his son (Daschle Group lobbying firm) contributed to Sinema’s campaign.,
LikeLike
Paul I agree it’s time to advocate for what we believe. How we deliver that [‘progressive,’ by today’s standards] message is crucial, and I don’t mean by imitating rwnj hatred/ epithets, nor trying to strike some mushy middle-of-the-road message that sounds like it’s disguising neoliberal intentions.
Bob may be right that “In the US, the working class votes for the bobbleheads or oligarchs. We are the only OECD country in which this is consistently the case. Why? Because the Democratic Party here is too beholden to oligarchs itself. It isn’t going to go bold on economic issues. It isn’t going to be a true labor party. Just a sort of labor party. Wink wink.” OTOH, our progressives are beginning to develop a decent caucus, and mainstream Dems have responded to the pandemic with decidedly progressive proposals. And 1st link below demonstrates openness to progressive ideals across the working class whether voting Dem or Rep [working class represents 74% of voters!]
I am convinced the only thing that will make our party work is by addressing spiraling income-inequality, and that can only be done by building cross-racial working-class solidarity.
There is discussion about this & some recommendations in these two links:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlqQEhCDL0A&t=25s posted by Ponderosa above & well worth watching: an interview with Jacobin about a recent poll they did with a few thousand working-class people. The poll sounds unusually well-crafted, getting into a lot of granular detail on the nuances of these issues
2. c-span.org, click on “BookTV”, look for 10/3/21 discussion between Heather McGhee [“The Sum of Us”] and George Packer [“Last Best Hope”] (moderator Chris Hayes), part of Brooklyn Book Festival (Start at 00:28:20 for conversation on building cross-racial solidarity among ordinary people/ workers)
LikeLike
MT
100+%
Obviously none of these commenters who are arguing otherwise have been listening to NPR lately. Every single report is couched in terms of racial (in)equity and/or racism; their reporters are overdosing on DEI.
Proof will be in the pudding one year from now when the House and Senate are in the majority and the Mitch & Kevin show will be hard to stomach. They could also make Trump Speaker of the House as that position does not require membership! Looks like 2023 will be the year of the impeachment.
LikeLike
The Woke folk here on this blog seem to think they’re the normal ones. No, they’re a small minority –a bunch of my fellow nerds who’ve sequestered themselves in a bubble. They got good grades, went to college and moved to liberal enclaves where everyone is like them. They don’t seem to realize that a far greater percentage of Americans were C students who didn’t go to college and are light years away from viewing the world through a peevish Post-Structuralist, critical theory lens. Those of us who live outside the bubble know how noxious the Woke are to ordinary Americans. They look like close-minded anti-Republican bigots –and they are. They revel in their bigotry. They think it’s virtue. I teach, dwell among and talk to working class Americans. As Matt pointed out, 94% of Americans support interracial marriage. My most Trumpy students adore a Black student in my classes; he is their leader. Trumpsters adore Herman Cain, Larry Elder and other Black politicians. The Republican teachers on my campus are filled with benevolence toward their Black and Hispanic students, as far as I can tell. There is no epidemic of racism, despite Woke screams to the contrary. If you want to see flagrant racism, go to Japan, Mexico, Denmark or any other country on Earth. We’re the LEAST racist. Most minorities just want to be regular Americans, not “intersectional” specimens. Most Trump supporters are not hateful bigots, and treating them as such drives them further into the GOP fold. Black and Hispanic men, repulsed by Oberlin-speak, are flocking to the GOP. When the GOP regains the reins of power, the Woke are going to realize that they have much more dire problems on their hands than eliminating un-Woke thoughts from fellow citizens’ brains. We could be headed to Viktor Orban-style dictatorship-lite, and the clueless Woke will be a prime reason. The Woke should focus 100% on getting Dems elected, whatever it takes. And they should stop opining about politics until they spend a few hours a week talking to working class Americans.
LikeLike
“Woke” is simply another term along the lines of liberal, communist, or socialist that is used to create a new enemy. The entire argument against wokeness is that they stand for things that seem too “radical” for those who simply act to maintain a status quo. It is in fact right wing politicians who historically act to squelch any form of dissent in the form of book banning (burning), voter suppression, or threats of violence. None when broken down, liberal or conservative, represent the majority view. I too have worked among the middle class for most of my career. This is not a lament against working class bigotry but against the propaganda that augments fear. What did Pogo say? “We have met the enemy and he is us…”
LikeLike
Paul,
I oppose the campus radicals who are behind many of the forces shaping our schools today. They shape CA schools by forming the education department bureaucrats who govern our schools, the union leaders, the teachers and the administrators. They have taken over the professional organizations like the California Council of the Social Studies. They have shaped current policy to punish schools for “inequity” in discipline and special education referrals in a ham-fisted ideological manner that do nothing to help anyone and cause active harm. Everything I hear from this panoply of institutional forces tells me that I need to be a social justice activist and that I need to make my students social justice activists. They tell me don’t teach any facts, only skills. UNLESS it comes to facts about oppression. Definitely teach those. They never say “teach the good in American history.” They never say “teach the glories of liberal democracy.” They never say “just teach the important information about the world and let students form their opinions by themselves.” You might just say this is just an oversight. But it’s not. Their silence is telling. Just as Trump’s failure to say one positive thing about democracy was telling. They don’t want to let kids think for themselves. They want curriculum to be propaganda so that kids will be activists in their cause. I think this is a corruption of the public school mission. Parents sense this. Progressives who insist none of this is happening are gaslighters.
I support an old fashioned view of public schools: teach the facts well and mostly objectively with a subtle bias toward the American project, its Constitution, the Enlightenment and liberal democracy.
LikeLike
To paraphrase Einstein, the more I learn, the more I do not know. So which facts should we teach? Isn’t that the problem here? Public education should be about learning to inquire. There is no canon on factual knowledge because throughout history we have been disproving what was believed to be fact (ie the solar system revolved around the Earth). The danger I see from the right is that they are afraid of our past because it lessens their power. None of us have authority over fact. I was once told by a wise earth science teacher that, and I paraphrase here, if a scientist moves from theory to fact, then he is not a scientist. This is why we have the scientific method. Our role as educators is to encourage critical thinking that brings better answers. Historically our societies get in trouble when we think we know the ultimate truth. Scholars learn new things about our history every day. Then new scholars come around who debunk the previous theory. The struggle that is taking place in some universities over limiting speech should not be confused with a progressive movement that is fighting income inequality or segregation. For every so called progressive university struggling with this you can add most of the evangelical Christian universities that are extremely restrictive about what their students are even allowed to believe (I invite you to listen to the podcast Gangster Capitalism season on Liberty University). We shouldn’t fear knowledge, we should seek to expound upon it.
LikeLike
“Trumpsters adore Herman Cain, Larry Elder and other Black politicians.”
“Adore”? Do the Democrats “adore” Val Demings? Or do they respect her and empower her?
“Republican teachers on my campus are filled with benevolence toward their Black and Hispanic students…”
“benevolence”? You complain that we don’t understand white working class people, but I grew up in a blue collar town. I feel so much benevolence for the people there who don’t have college degrees and suffered in this economy that I voted for the Democrats who were offering them something instead of the Republicans who weren’t.
I don’t understand why those voters do not appreciate my benevolence, as you do point out that feeling benevolence means that I don’t have any biases toward them at all. I simply feel benevolence and I just don’t understand why they don’t appreciate my benevolence.
Your belief that people who vote for politicians spewing racism are not racist themselves is exactly the argument made for why the Germans bear no responsibility for Hitler.
Blaming “wokeness” for why people vote for a party spewing hate that has nothing but hate to offer them sounds ridiculous. The Republicans are giving them absolutely nothing. But they’d rather have nothing because the Republicans have convinced them that the “woke elites” just don’t feel any benevolence toward them. And we all know that when white people believe that we “woke” folks feel benevolence toward them, they will join the Democratic party.
How we can white working class folks in Montana to believe we feel benevolence toward them. I leave it up to you experts to give us guidance.
LikeLike
NYCP
Those trees you harp on are part of a forest that seems to escape your sensibilities. Suggest you find a good hobby beyond this as your rants are not only predictably long winded but repetitive to the point of (dare I say) White noise.
LikeLike
Rage,
I guess you couldn’t defend the “benevolence” remark either.
LikeLike
Question to democracy or Paul Bonner,
How do those of us who care about democracy and truth and understand that denying that racism exists doesn’t make it go away counter it when people who are presumably not right wingers and presumably believe themselves not to be racists are absolutely certain that this is true: “They don’t want to let kids think for themselves. They want curriculum to be propaganda so that kids will be activists in their cause.”
Maybe ponderosa has had to completely change the content of her lessons over the last 5 or 10 years and no longer teaches anything but how to be a social justice warrior. That’s not what is happening in “woke” NYC.
I have no idea what goes on where ponderosa lives. The only thing I know is that the content that my kid got is not that. My kid loves history and has learned facts and events and context and wasn’t turned off the way I was by reading my approved American History textbook assignment each night and answering the questions about when and where the battles of the American Revolution were and memorizing the dates when “all the important” event happened.
My kid isn’t learning to be a “social justice warrior”. But my kid is learning the history that makes them aware of the racism that has been part of this country from the beginning, and there is absolutely nothing wrong if learning the truth makes kids want to change that. That doesn’t mean my kid is learning that America is evil. But my kid is certainly learning that America has never been a perfect country and isn’t one now. And that is okay. That doesn’t make kids “hate America”. It makes them want to change America for the better!
What makes kids “hate America” is teachers telling them lies about how America isn’t racist at all while they see a white cop kneel on a handcuffed, unarmed black man for 9 minutes in full view of other cops while bystanders are begging him over and over again to stop. Do we censor videos of that reality so students will “love America” more?
Reading comments by people who I imagine are thoughtful teachers who believe in public schools presenting a completely invented picture of America, in which “social justice warriors” have taken over public education?
I doubt that is the experience in their classroom because it certainly isn’t the experience in the classroom of woke, liberal NYC public schools. I suspect now teachers have to be a little more inclusive and reconsider the content in books that they have always found perfectly fine. I know lots of teachers who welcome doing that and they are amazing teachers. Those teachers are the ones who made my kid love history. They didn’t create social justice warriors, they create kids interested in learning more who have the tools to critically read and evaluate the excess of information now available to them outside the classroom.
LikeLike
Got it. Benevolent Republican teachers: sinister.
LikeLike
NYC:
I’m happy to hear your kid was not deprived of facts. And I know there’s a lot of good teaching going on here in California in spite of the woke apparatchiks who tell us how we should teach. But I’m worried that there will be fewer and fewer resisters. If everyone did what the University of California History and Social Studies Project wanted us to do, it would be a disaster.
LikeLike
Benevolent Republican teachers – condescending.
I promise you I am completely benevolent in how I interact with any white working class people. And as you point out, the evidence that I have no biases against any white working class person is that I act benevolently to them when I interact with them.
I ask you to be the fair-minded person you think you are and consider whether I sound condescending to white working class folks when I said that.
LikeLike
ponderosa,
Is the U of California history and social studies project really so bad?
flerp posted a tweet recently that presented a few sentences from what I believe was the elective “Ethnic Studies Class” curriculum, which implied that class was something very negative. So I went to the link so I could see for myself. In fact, I thought that class sounded interesting and engaging and I would be perfectly happy if my history-loving kid took it (although I think it was an elective).
I could not understand why flerp would post such a misleading representation of that course. Was it to scare parents into wrongly believing that this ethnic studies course was going to make their kids feel that all white people are evil? Or to make it sound stupid? It sounded like a class that would make kids more aware – dare I say “educated” – about the media. I thought that the curriculum was appropriate. It wasn’t a replacement for history.
I am positive you have more direct knowledge than I do about California, but whenever I see citations that are supposed to be evidence of how terrible it is, I go to the source and read the context. It rarely is as bad as it is presented. Sometimes there are few silly things or ideas, but that is always true and those few silly parts are minor when compared to an overall program that seemed quite good. And I have never seen any curriculum that didn’t have some silly parts, so sometimes I feel like there is a double standard and anything labeled “progressive” gets combed over and discredited for the kinds of minor silly things that can be found in all courses that aren’t held to that standard of perfection.
Anyway, I am sympathetic to there being problems with the new standards that should be fixed, but I am skeptical about whether they are really as evil as their portrayal by the right wing media.
LikeLike
Rage-
You appointed yourself the boss of NYC Parent. The appointment has been rejected.
LikeLike
First, I am not a Republican nor am I a Democrat. I find the comments around “white backlash” interesting. Why is white backlash, if real, surprising? The leftists, the Democrats, and their sycophants in the media have now been demonizing white people for decades. Apparently it is acceptable to be racist as long as your target is white, and particularly male. The people who comment on these issues are fond of stressing that it is the ignorant and uneducated white people who are seduced by the siren racist call of the evil Republicans. The Democrats have done this for decades. Why isn’t it considered racist for 97 percent of black people to vote for Obama? My fear is that it will get worse and for all the hand wringing on the left, they will never understand that if you demonize regular people, eventually they will become the actual demons that you fear.
LikeLike