Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
That is one of my big problems with the GOP. Look at every proposal they put forward…can’t find many can you. They only want to end programs that have been put in place to make the world (well, America) a better place. The GOP thinks it is still 1950 and America is the dominant military and economic power in the world and everything is fine here at home. Except of course without that Russia thing.
I’d actually disagree. I think Trump’s election was due to the fact that a large part of the population wanted to send a great big middle finger to the other part of the population. And man, did it work, these people are losing their shit.
I thought one of the more insightful comments I read around the time of the 2016 election was that if we don’t allow people’s ideas and concerns to be expressed within the “reputable” mainstream of public debate, they will not go away. Instead, they will find expression in disreputable ways, expressed by representatives of the fringes rather than the mainstream.
Trump won the Republican primary despite not “paying his dues” like every candidate before him in recent memory (note the surprisingly consistent pattern of nominating the one that got second the last time). There’s a legitimate basis for the old saw “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” It reflects their constituencies’ relative philosophical grounding and emotional reactiveness.
Yet it didn’t work in 2016. Why? I suspect it’s because the Republican establishment was ignoring its base in favor of elite consensus, and Trump was offering a gut-level understanding of the issues that none of the other candidates could match. And I believe one of the reasons why they could not match Trump was because they simply could not bring themselves to address an issue that a significant part of the population thought was important: unchecked immigration.
For many years, this was an issue where the people in charge of both parties have agreed to ignore it in favor of what they wanted, either cheap labor or potential voters. But the idea would not go away simply because the elite consensus said otherwise, it found someone who would advance it. If the idea of actually following US immigration laws were unpopular, it would have gone nowhere, same if there was no political constituency for it. It was a wave waiting for a guy willing to surf it.
And, to wrap it all up, what does this have to do with toleration one way or the other? Because opposing immigration has been conflated with racism. Charges of racism have been amazingly effective at keeping people in line. Keeping a few heads on the pike out front WORKS. Until there’s a guy who won’t play that game and is willing to reject the premise. Of whom you may or may not approve of.
So my theory is that this is not a failure of “tolerating intolerance” as much as finally realizing that using claims of intolerance to keep people from disagreeing with you will work right up to the point where those folks get to express what they really think about the tactic by supporting their “guy.”
TL;DR: “Fuck those guys” is only an effective strategy if the electorate agrees with you.
I do think Trump’s winning of the GOP nomination was a great big “fuck you” to the conventional GOP candidates. It was a repudiation of the Bush family and anyone seen as a “neo-con”. It was a repudiation of “business as normal”.
Trump was just lucky enough to run against someone who the GOP universally hated.
We are all teiman.
Is it legal? Then no.
– Gordon, right-wing pundit in training
100% true - the GOP does indeed hate women.
Ce n’est pas un Teiman.
Since Obama won twice I guess the GOP doesn’t universally hate blacks then. Or at least they didn’t in 2008 and 2012.
I wish you would. You could start with the basic problem of explaining how nice countries in Europe seem to manage to do it. You could say that they’re shitty gulag countries as a result, but I’ve actually been to them, so that’s not really going to work.
I like how Tom basically said all Republicans are racist and all the Republicans just shrugged and started talking about liberal tax policy.
Maybe I’m wrong and Tom is right after all.
Legal immigration can’t really be called ‘unchecked’ (try to get someone into the country some time). As for illegal immigration, it has been declining steadily for more than a decade. I don’t say that people can’t have been concerned over a fantasy - that sort of thing does happen - but surely someone had a responsibility to say it was a fantasy, rather than pretend it was a growing crisis.
It is sometimes called racism, because the opposition is articulated using racists reasons (e.g. because they’ll destroy our European culture). In those cases it should be called racism, because it is.
It appeared to me that he was specifically trying not to say this.
It’s possible, but since he seems thinks that racist code words are just “Republicans talking” I’m not sure I agree with the method he chose if that’s the case.
Yes. You can be against illegal immigration and not be racist. It’s when you start going full Ingraham or talking about them polluting your white culture or how they’re all gang members and murdering rapists that you’ve cross the line into racism.
Hell, we had a good discussion with someone in the immigration thread about it (sorry forgot the name). We didn’t declare him a racist. A few people pointed out some of his points as being somewhat racist as I recall and he reacted with understanding and at the end of the day everyone walked away having learned a little.
I am relatively certain Tom’s tone here was incredulous that this would even be a possible interpretation, and that he would be curious to hear from someone crazy enough to think it.
Which I merrily obliged, because all Republicans are racist, of course.
Anyway, I read his post as being something like “We can ban a guy for being racist, sure, but if they just politely state standard Republican talking points (which I’m reading to be at least Tom’s initial read of gman, if not perhaps his current one), that isn’t grounds for dismissal, is it? I mean unless you guys mean to suggest bog standard Republican talking points are in and of themselves racist! That’s a pretty big leap to make.”
Whereupon I leapt!
Now, if I did misread Tom and you did interpret him correctly, I’m already way happier with how things are being run around here!
What I think is that Republic talking points – I’m not sure why you’re shortening this to “Republicans talking”, because I couldn’t care less how Republicans talk to each other – include racist undertones. What I’m hearing from you is that there’s no distinction between racist undertones and racism. I appreciate your input.
You were probably the one person for whom I already knew the answer to the question. :)
-Tom
P.S. Welcome back!
I mean, there are, but I wouldn’t consider “defending White Culture” as undertones.
Some Republicans are less discreet than others. But the fear that the white majority will be eroded by immigration is a fundamental part of the GOP consciousness these days. It’s freaking them out. Regardless of how overt or dogwhistle they are, it’s a foundation of the Republican mindset. And it’s why they’re so comfortable with support from alt-right lunatics.
-Tom
Honestly I have come around to the opinion Trump was the candidate most Republicans had been waiting for for years.
He genuinely represents their views and its why they love him so much. They do not see his racism his attacks on the United States and the planet as bad things. They WANT those things and they are delighted with the job he is doing.
So yes while I hate Trump I finally see just how fucking ghastly many (most?) Republicans are I hate them way more than him, he is just a tool for their vile views.
Steve Bannon had it right, they are Leninists as Lenin said, “the worse , the better”.
Bravo, sir. Well done!