Racism Is Why Trump Is So Popular: Trump’s popularity with his base in the U.S. isn’t the result of economic anxiety, as many claimed in 2016. It’s about race and demographics.
Racism Is Why Trump Is So Popular: Trump’s popularity with his base in the U.S. isn’t the result of economic anxiety, as many claimed in 2016. It’s about race and demographics.
Trump’s popularity with his base isn’t the result of economic anxiety, as many claimed in 2016. It’s about race and demographics.
In 1980, white people accounted for about 80 percent of the U.S. population.
In 2024, white people account for about 58 percent of the U.S. population.
Trump appeals to white people gripped by demographic hysteria. Especially older white people who grew up when white people represented a much larger share of the population. They fear becoming a minority.
While the Census Bureau says there are still 195 million white people in America and that they are still the majority, the white population actually declined slightly in 2023, and experts believe that they will become a minority sometime between 2040 and 2050.
Every component of the Trump-Republican agenda flows from these demographic fears.
The Trump phenomenon and the surge of right-wing extremism in America was never about economic anxiety, as too many political reporters claimed during the 2016 presidential campaign.
It was, and still is, about race and racism.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Try and be more open minded. The world isn't black and white and the issues that are important to you are not universally the priority for everyone. For instance, imagine if you were an immigrant from a country that was heavily drone attacked by the US. You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less. The world will make more sense if you can invest time in understanding other people in stead of labelling them.
Try and be more open minded. The world isn’t black and white and the issues that are important to you are not universally important to everyone.
Obviously I understand this. The problem is, "racism is not important to me" is still a position with its own moral implications. Understanding a position does not mean you are alright with it. Not every sincerely-held position is equal. And yes, there are many black-and-white, "red line" positions. Genocide, murder, rape, etc, are not positions that people need to just "allow for differing opinions on".
You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less.
It's funny you brought this up in particular, because I've talked before about a friend of mine who is in this position (he is Palestinian, and has lost a lot of family to Israeli- and likely US- weapons). He is anti-US-government, not anti-DNC/GOP (obviously his reaction is not universal to immigrants, but neither would any other given immigrant's reaction be).
- If he told me that he didn't want to vote at all, I would understand and have no issue with that.
- If he told me he was going to vote Democrat despite Biden's complicity, I'd understand that, and it would not affect my opinion of him for better or worse.
- If he told me he was going to vote Republican because Biden was so pro-Israel, I'd understand the bad logic, and I'd think he was an idiot (and to be clear, I know he doesn't think this).
- If he told me he wanted to harm Jewish people, I'd understand where that is coming from as an emotional reaction, but I would not be okay with any concrete steps taken towards that (and to be clear, he has never so much as intimated that).
Understanding a viewpoint does not mean you have to be equally accepting of all possible conclusions stemming from that viewpoint.
The problem is, “racism is not important to me” is still a position with its own moral implications.
That's strawmanning my argument. I'm saying that just because someone prioritizes another issue over racism doesn't make them bigoted. And if they believe their priority issues are best addressed by the Republican party or won't be addressed by the Democrats, it would make sense for them to vote for trump.
The "all trump supporters are racists" argument comes from echo chambers and is dismissive of people's legitimate criticisms of the Democrats. It's not accurate or useful in creating meaningful discourse.
That’s strawmanning my argument. I’m saying that just because someone prioritizes another issue over racism
Apologies. Please amend my comment to
The problem is, “racism is not as important to me as some other issue” is still a position with its own moral implications.
Perhaps more technically accurate, but no different in effect.
And if they believe their priority issues are best addressed by the Republican party or won’t be addressed by the Democrats, it would make sense for them to vote for trump.
I feel like you think this is a counterpoint, or in disagreement with what I said, but it's not. It's literally what I said. If your personal economic issues or religious preferences are above the well-being of others in your personal priorities, that is a moral stance that is perfectly valid to criticize. Whether you are ignoring the harms, or simply de-prioritizing them in favor of your preferred benefits, it's the same outcome.
The “all trump supporters are racists” argument comes from echo chambers
I would refer you to the first line of my first comment in this post, which said
it’s not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, it’s saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is
The problem is that some conservatives clearly want to be able to associate with the GOP based on piecemeal parts of their platform without actively opposing those parts they disagree with, and then have the right not to be held accountable in part for the damage that those parts they may or may not agree with do. That's not how it works. I voted for Biden, and I have to live with the damage he's done in Gaza and the West Bank. It is 1000% fair to judge me for that complicity. And that wasn't even part of his platform, but I still enabled that.
Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that.
dismissive of people’s legitimate criticisms of the Democrats.
Check my comment history if you think I have any shortage of criticism of the Democratic Party, please. I have no issues with criticism of it.
I am highly interested in what criticisms from the Right are legitimate, though. The DNC is still a Center-Right party of neoliberal corporatism, even if we're slowly making progress on it.
It’s not accurate or useful in creating meaningful discourse.
Frankly, I think we're past the point where we can have that conversation at the national level. All of the routes for that have been under attack for years. No one trusts the other side's media networks. No one trusts the other side's politicians. Forums like Beehaw or even Facebook (given the way it's structured) do not have anything even beginning to approach a national scale in their reach.
I've had good results with having these conversations with family members and a friend, but that's not sufficient to fix what is now truly a social problem.
I appreciate this discourse and your thoughtful responses. These kind disagreements are what we need more of. I still disagree that supporting trump necessarily means condoning racism as depending on what issues you prioritize, it may be a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Hi! I'd like to budge in here, because while I think that the discourse you're having is extremely useful, I think you're missing @Greg@lemmy.ca 's point. I've spent a few hours considering your discussion so far, and I have a lot to say about it, so bear with me. If at any point I mischaracterize what has been said, please correct me.
I believe that Greg was arguing for what I'm going to call "moderate-ism." If that name doesn't suit you, feel free to change it. The idea he's trying to convey is complex enough to warrant a name.
As some background, I consider myself agnostic, but I have both religious and atheist friends with strong points-of-view. Your discussion was similar in style to the conversations I've had with them. I say this to point out that "moderate-ism" is an idea about how to think about ideas, and is beyond any singular ideology.
I'd like to start by remaking your argument, move onto what the "moderate-ism" idea is, and then how it applies to your situation. Finally I'll point out where I think the misunderstandings in your conversation were, and how they are similar to other "moderatist" debates that I've had.
These are the important points you've made: (You made a few others, but I think they were ancillary. I do address some of them later).
"If you “disagree less” with vocal racists who have personal ties with White Nationalist groups… I might have some bad news for you."
And:
"The problem is, “racism is not as important to me as some other issue” is still a position with its own moral implications."
As well as:
"[I'm] not saying simply that all Republican voters are racist, [I'm] saying that Trumpism and the surging Christian-Nationalist movement is."
So, to more accurately convey your point: (and this is where the "correct me" part comes in).
"To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it's important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump."
Note that neither I nor Greg are actually arguing for Trump. We're arguing for moderate-ism. Assuming that there could be a valid point-of-view is different from believing them.
Lets boil the situation down more: Imagine we have two candidates running for president, but we only know one thing: One is racist; The other is not. The question is: how many valid points-of-view are there that end in voting for the racist? Your statements imply that there are none, but you're assuming too much. A single point of view is extremely complex, and takes time to digest. If we're talking about the millions of people who will vote for Trump, and their millions of different points-of-view, you certainly can't assume most of them are invalid.
To put this in more mathematical terms: Imagine that each point-of-view is a vector. There is a set of point-of-view's that could be considered valid. We don't know very much about this set, only that it's large. Therefore, to assume that this set of valid points-of-view doesn't contain any which involve voting for Trump, would be to act on knowledge you don't have.
The idea is more complicated than it seems at first glance. It's more than just saying "other points-of-view could be valid." A better simplification would be: Don't assume that there isn't a valid point-of-view involving 'X' type of belief. In more humanistic terms I'm saying, don't completely rule out a system of beliefs because there's a lot you might not understand.
The part of your conversation that reeled me in was when Greg made the following statement: "... Imagine ... you were an immigrant from a country that was heavily drone attacked by the US. You might make your voting decisions based on the party that bombed your homeland less." To which you made an argument as to why that specific statement would be incorrect. Gregg then called this rebuttal a straw-man.
There was a major misunderstanding here. Greg wasn't actually making that argument. He was simply illustrating that there could be a point-of-view that you haven't considered; One which is also valid. The difficulty of trying to make the argument in that way, and one that I've run into frequently, is that neither he nor I know specifically what that point of view is. If we did, we would believe it, or have disproved it. Rather, we assume that a valid point-of-view may exist; It's possible we just haven't come across it yet.
The reason the idea of "moderate-ism" is important, is that it helps a person avoid making broad assumptions about what can and can't be true. I think this is what Greg meant when he said "Keep an open mind," and "not everything is black and white." Moderate-ism also avoids alienating the people in the group you aren't a part of.
Ultimately most of us want the same things, we just have different idea's about how to get there; Believing that is called "good faith." Moderate-ism ties in by helping us work together instead of against each other.
Based on what you've already said you may have the following rebuttal:
"[I'm not arguing that their point of view isn't valid, or that to vote for Trump is inherently wrong. I'm simply saying that] Trump is openly, unapologetically racist and sexist. If you choose to associate with him, you do have to own that."
Based on the prior discourse, this could be restated: "It's okay to vote for Trump, if you own that you are a morally reprehensible person." Most people don't want to be morally reprehensible. This is effectively making the same argument as I did (for you) above.
(I thought I would have more counter-counter arguments...)
Anyway, I appreciate that you've made it this far, and your willingness to discuss your opinions. I'm extremely interested in your thoughts on my "essay". xD Again, I understand I'm cutting in. Please point out any and all mischaracterizations of your discussion.
Hi there! I don't mind anyone joining in, it's an open forum. :)
I will mostly keep my response devoid of specific political discussion, and focused on "moderate-ism".
I understand your point in this regard, and Greg's, but I believe that it as an ideology (if you prefer to think of it as one) is based on several incorrect assumptions on your part, first and foremost being that you are intrinsically assuming I (or anyone else you encounter) am not fully familiar with conservatives' (or whatever opposing group's) views on these subjects.
You are essentially just advocating for giving the benefit of the doubt. That is completely fair. It's also something I've already done, many many times.
I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism. If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.
If we’re talking about the millions of people who will vote for Trump, and their millions of different points-of-view, you certainly can’t assume most of them are invalid.
First off, I am not assuming anything, I am extremely familiar with the points of view of many different groups of conservatives, and have discussed these issues at length with them. And while I understand the knee-jerk emotional reaction that "millions of people can't be wrong", if you step back a moment you'll realize this is not at all true. Millions of people around the world are racist, sexist, imperialist, supremacist, etc. It's often not their fault, it's just their environment, but that is a reason, not an excuse.
I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist, and I would add that many who are, are not so knowingly. But many are openly racist, and all of them are, whether they like it or not, following an ideology that is being led by a racist. That tends to attract other racists, greatly increasing their concentration, and also normalizes racism among the group, which makes it very easy to be and to be around open racism without realizing it, much less interrogating it. If you are assuming that the ratio of racists must be even across all groups, that is a very incorrect and flawed assumption. Groups make different biases welcome or unwelcome by their own ideologies and actions.
I'm a white guy with a very full beard that wears jeans, work boots, and t-shirts. Believe me when I say, I have seen many times, in many places, just how fast the bigotry comes out as soon as it's just people who look like me, and who assume they are safely in fellow (conservative) company.
But secondly, why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is? No assumptions should be acted on without verification, so purely from a standpoint of assessing a group, why is the positive starting point only valid? I would argue that you should assume both ways, and see which assumption holds up to the scrutiny of facts better.
"If they actually aren't bad, what am I missing? If I assume an unknown factor is present, does that match the facts?"
"If they are actually bad, what would that look like and mean? Does that match the facts?"
There was a major misunderstanding here. Greg wasn’t actually making that argument. He was simply illustrating that there could be a point-of-view that you haven’t considered; One which is also valid.
Yes, but he was attempting to do it by using an example he assumed I would not have encountered, which was just another an incorrect assumption. Assuming your own ignorance is a useful exercise to a point when it comes to interrogating your own assumptions and viewpoints about another group, but only insofar as you do not have actual evidence to the contrary. Which is what the Intercept article was attempting to demonstrate that we have, about Trumpers.
The difficulty of trying to make the argument in that way, and one that I’ve run into frequently, is that neither he nor I know specifically what that point of view is. If we did, we would believe it, or have disproved it. Rather, we assume that a valid point-of-view may exist; It’s possible we just haven’t come across it yet.
Sure. But once again, what is your threshold for finally saying, "okay, yes, this is a bad group"? You can't just keep assuming that everyone is only good, otherwise you're just serving to cover for bad people.
Moderate-ism also avoids alienating the people in the group you aren’t a part of.
Which is good, unless they are part of a group that should in fact be alienated. My impression from your comment is that you do not actually have a set methodology or threshold for determining whether a group is that.
To loop back to something I said earlier, it's very useful to assume your own ignorance when interrogating your biases and beliefs.
It's not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism, which is what I see Greg as doing (though perhaps not intentionally).
I never assumed you didn't have exposure to conservatives and I didn't assume you wouldn't have encountered the example I provided. I'm not arguing from ignorance. If some part of my argument isn't clear please feel free to ask questions instead of making assumptions. I'm happy to continue the conversation and I'm sorry if I came across as dismissive.
Thank you for the thorough reply!
We’re still misunderstanding each other. Before we can have a truly productive argument we need to better understand the other’s point, (of course). I draw your attention to the fact that I summarized what I think your argument is. In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using "moderate-ism."
“To vote for Trump requires an inherently flawed point of view; it’s important for us to be moral people. Voting for Trump would support racism. This would be so morally reprehensible that there is nothing with enough significance to out-weigh it. Therefore, do not vote for Trump.”
I find these types summaries useful for a couple reasons. First, it allows me to verify I understand your point correctly. Secondly, when I’m making a rebuttal, it allows me to attack things which are implied in your argument but not explicitly said; It allows me to take the implicit and make it explicit. I will summarize your points similarly for the rest of our discourse. Please give them your best lawyerly eye and correct me as necessary. I would appreciate if you would make similar summaries of my arguments. While this does add some overhead to our discussion, it’s easy to see why arguing against a point not fully grasped is futile; The importance of avoiding this warrants precaution. I find several rounds of revising these summaries to be common in my conversations.
This may clarify a repeated misunderstanding in the discussion.
I stated several times that I do not believe all Republicans are racist.
It’s not that all Republicans are racist, it’s that they’re supporting it. Given what you’ve said, you might also say, “To be a racist, and to support a racist, are very close on the spectrum of morality.”
In general I am attempting to disprove the summery using "moderate-ism" (Or dangerous apologism as you might say ;)
I appreciate that you chose to focus on our ideological differences. Here’s where I think the disconnect is: To say that a point-of-view could be valid is different to saying a point-of-view is correct. It follows that a point-of-view can be both valid and incorrect.
By way of example: to actively seek to harm the innocent (those who do not seek to harm) is invalid and incorrect. To prioritize it’s prevention below other things is valid, and the level of prioritization is either correct or incorrect based on how it’s being prioritized.
To take an example from religion: To assert “God is certainly real” or “God is certainly not real” is both invalid and incorrect. However, to take the stance that “he may be real”, or “may not be real” is valid. Furthermore, we simply can’t know if those statements are correct or not. (This may be highly controversial, I’m willing to argue specifically about this point of view, but it’s a different topic).
I assert that to be racist is both invalid and incorrect, but that to support a racist for office is valid, and depending on the situation may be correct or incorrect. To focus on what I believe the important part of our disagreement is, I’m willing to assume that voting for trump is the incorrect choice, on the other hand I’m arguing that it’s valid. To better define “valid” in this context: A point-of-view which takes into account the facts known by that person and draws what would be a correct conclusion given those facts. “Correct” means to understand all the necessary facts and therefore draw the conclusion which is ultimately the truth.
You’re asserting that nothing should out-weigh the fact that he’s racist. Yet, there are certainly valid points-of-view that do out-weigh the fact he’s racist.
I would like to demonstrate this concept more by addressing your other arguments.
I would assert that if you do not have a threshold for deciding that your extended good-faith-assumption is not actually correct in a given instance, you do not have a workable ideology, just dangerous apologism.
The threshold would be different for determining both validity and correctness. However to your point:
If you (or in this case, Greg) do have a threshold, I think it would be productive or even necessary to state where it lies, so that it can be openly interrogated whether that threshold has been crossed.
I admit my threshold is underdeveloped. However, I have shown above that it does exist. I can’t state specifically where it lies, at least very accurately. Can you state your own threshold both generally and accurately? I would like to point out that we may actually be arguing over whether we’ve crossed the threshold for “validity.”
On your second point
why is assuming a group is not bad, more valid than assuming it is?
My original statement was over-generic. I concede that point to you- it’s not more valid. (Valid by the dictionary definition, not my own). However, in regards to the people who will vote for Trump: Given their large quantity and diversity, we can’t assume their point of view is invalid. They could be making the “correct” choice based on the facts they understand. (Though, ultimately they are incorrect).
This again leads to my rebuttal to your main argument stated above. (Rather, to what I believe your argument to be. I’m emphasizing the importance of the summery). You can’t assume that nothing out-weighs the morality of voting for a racist. We don’t know what other “facts” they think they’re working with. Even if they know he’s racist, that’s not enough to condemn their point of view to invalidity.
Granted, I understand that you’ve had many conversations with conservatives. But that’s not enough to claim that every possible point-of-view, which would result in voting for trump, is invalid.
On your third point
[People who vote for Trump] are part of ... a group that should in fact be alienated.
It’s not very useful to assume the ignorance of others, except to quash or dismiss criticism.
I assert that based on the size of this group we don’t have enough information to alienate all of them. Similarly we can assume that a notable portion of them are ignorant. I’m not attempting to dismiss your criticism of their correctness. I’m attempting to dismiss your criticism of the validity of their point-of-view.
In any case, thanks for the earnest discussion, as always. :)
I'll use your method, and summarize what I believe your position to be:
- You can do the right thing
- You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons
- You can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons
- We should not treat people who do the wrong thing for the right reasons as just as bad as those who do it for the wrong reasons
- Because we cannot know the reasons that each individual holds internally, we should not condemn the entire group of wrongdoers
END OF LIST (since the markdown lists don't leave any space afterwards)
I think I can see why this is leaving you with no definite threshold for labeling a group as inherently bad, and if I may offer a solution: you need to apply the concept of an Affirmative Defense.
An affirmative defense is a legal concept that occurs when someone admits they have done something wrong, but argues that is was for the right reasons. It then shifts the burden of proof to them, to prove that their reasons made their actions right/ valid (e.g. "yes I shot them, but it was self defense, and here's the proof").
Barring that, it will always be impossible under your system to "call a Nazi a Nazi", because there can always be some hypothetical justification in their minds that you can't know. This plays into your point that you can not truthfully claim certainty for/against God. You cannot claim to know what is in someone's mind.
When it comes to real-world harms, though, that cannot be a valid defense. Otherwise, a person can do anything and simply say, "but you don't know if I had a good reason for it".
When it comes to real-world harms, it is beholden on the wrongdoers to prove that their reasons made their actions acceptable. Anything else will leave you unable to condemn and confront evil.
Putting Trump in power is a real-world harm. I have yet to hear a valid reason for doing it.
Thanks for using my method :) I like your metaphorical court of law.
Your most recent arguments were:
・It’s important that wrong-doers are able to be found guilty.
・The situation plays a role in the severity of the punishment, but that doesn’t change that fact a wrong-doer is guilty. (I think that’s a good description of affirmative defense)
To continue your train of thought: If a person votes for Trump, it’s important that we are able to accuse them of that evil. It’s true that they could have a good reason for doing so, but to assume that would allow evil in general to go unpunished. We have to make a judgment based on the facts we have or we can’t make progress.
After re-reading the conversation from the beginning I want to reword what I believe your core arguments to be:
・Look, people make evil decisions. They are still humans, but we can’t let that prevent us from fighting back. Ultimately, supporting someone who’s legitimately racist is pretty fucked up, you can't deny that.
・If you haven’t heard a good reason to do an evil thing, than don’t assume there is one. This isn’t to say the reason doesn’t exist, but we have to "sentence the defendant" based on the facts we currently know.
I've been convinced. I have to admit that I think I could have seen your point sooner if I wasn’t affected by bias. I think I was falling to the same trap as @Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg because my family is very conservative. It’s difficult to accuse people you care for.
I think that @greg@lemmy.ca and I both had the same gut instinct to defend someone against a seemingly brash insult. Our conversation made me realize that being “nice” in that way is flawed.
(Dark_arc and Greg, I mentioned you because I’m curious to know if you agree with where this argument went, please comment if you feel so inclined).
That being said, you and I never addressed the intercept article specifically. We discussed people who are not racist but still vote for trump. The article discusses people who are racist themselves. I'm willing to leave the conversation here, because I don't think the article is very useful in itself.
One point to clarify wrt affirmative defense is that if the argument is made successfully, they would not be guilty of a crime, as in that case the action that would normally be a crime is not.
If someone can present a reason that voting for Trump is actually better than not, I'm all ears, but it would be a high bar to clear.