I love me some Boing, have for years and years, especially the comment threads, but when discussing politics, especially lately, it is, IMHO, very much an echo chamber. This thread is a great example of that, especially at the time I was posting. Again, IMHO.
And when people say things that strike me as so asinine as to be offensive like “everyone who voted for trump is a fascist”, that so completely fail real world application, I have to conclude that they simply don’t know anyone who voted for trump, and are just railing against people they see on the internet and on TV. Most of the people I know in San Francisco (where I’ve lived for 20 years) fit that category.
And one of the reasons I care is that I don’t think this “demonizing of the other” strategy can possibly work to beat trump. In my opinion until people see the battle lines for what they are, which is country versus city, things are just going to get more and more divided, which helps no one. Well, except for Putin.
I work with a couple Trump supporters and one of them (call him Charlie) is only too happy to express his opinions on current events. Charlie’s primary reason for supporting Trump appears to be selfishness, followed closely by racism directed at “Arabs”, and finally, an overwhelming dislike of HRC.
His positions aren’t particularly thoughtful- he doesn’t make anything like enough money to benefit from the republican tax cut, but he likes it anyway because he hates paying taxes and anything called a tax cut must be good. The details are irrelevant.
On immigration, Charlie volunteered to me that he thinks we shouldn’t let in so many Arabs (generically, anyone from the Middle East) because a lot of them are terrorists, and it isn’t fair that they’re given houses when they come here, while we have to work to pay our mortgages.
He covered a lot of ground with his dislike of HRC- she’s corrupt, Benghazi, “but her e-mails” - but the things he complained of the most often were her pants suits and her speaking voice. He couldn’t stand to listen to her, he said, and he would have voted for anybody else just to shut her up.
I want to stress that I am not making this up. I’ve known Charlie for six years, and while he wasn’t my favorite person to start with, when he opened up about this stuff, I was surprised at how perfectly he reflected the Fox News table of contents.
To your point, I don’t know how you reach someone like him. He isn’t knowingly a fascist, but a lot of what he believes dovetails with a fascist mindset. Worse, there’s no space in his belief system for alternate perspectives that could lead to change, and gods know I’ve tried. Polls show that rich, white republicans gave Trump the White House, but it’s people like Charlie that will enable Trump to deliver the country into autocracy. Or, I suppose, to Vladimir Putin.
It’s a liberal and progressive leaning site, for sure. The commentariat here by all evidence seems to be more educated (as opposed to merely credentialed) than average, so of course most of us aren’t going to support Il Douche. I’m not sure what you’re expecting here. That his voters and supporters are unable to effectively defend their position here and therefore stay away is on them, not us.
Frankly, the property rights argument is also absurd to anyone who’s studied history or politics. A right-wing populist government is far more likely to expropriate property than is a left-wing centrist one. The latter is also far more likely than the former to redress a local property-related regulation that’s unfair and unjust.
Look, I get it. You know and like these people who live outside SF – they’re pleasant and kind to you and have never said a racist thing in your hearing. So it’s disconcerting to hear people on BB saying they’re supporting fascism (knowingly or otherwise) as if … well, as if we’re talking about Germans who voted for Hitler in 1933 only because he promised infrastructure spending.
But here’s the thing: if someone doesn’t want to be characterised as supporting fascism then he should avoid voting for and supporting a regime that made its fascist bent (along with its admiration for Putin) clear from the outset. That holds true whether he lives in the city or the country.
All very good points (@faffenfeffer as well) , and thanks for the civil discussion. Again, for me at least, it comes back to a matter of intention though. If someone votes for trump for reasons of property rights, and/or against HRC for personal reasons, it doesn’t really matter whether their reasons are correct in anyone’s opinion, the reasons for many trump voters still had nothing to do with fascism. And looking at a map of the election results, I can’t imagine walking away with the conclusion that fascists must congregate in rural areas.
Edited to add: here’s a map showing the election results and population density:
The intention, as you describe it in this case, is based on ignorance and/or irrationality, along with a willful blindness to the overtly fascist policy positions. I’m sorry, but your friends out in the country have no excuse. They could have stayed home on election day or voted for Gary Johnson, but they decided to vote for Il Douche instead. They may not think of themselves as fascists but they supported one.
It’s more useful to look at demographics first: most of his voters were college-credentialed middle-aged white males who lived in the exurbs, for example. Everything I’ve read indicates that, on average, support for Il Douche correlates first to race, second to education level and quality, third to employment status, with geographic location coming fourth at best.
The latter is an artifact of the first three, a phenomenon that Bill Bishop calls “The Big Sort”. It’s an exacerbation of the centuries-old city/country divide which has been going on long before Putin started meddling but that has only become more toxic since the GOP started pushing it as part of the Southern Strategy and since the same party has been pushing the its inequality-generating “free”-market extremism since Reagan.
2016 was the natural outcome of that witch’s brew. You may not be through with making apologies for non-millionaires who vote for the GOP, but with a fascist regime in the White House you need to understand that the BB commentariat is finished with that. If that gives you a case of the sads about your nice, friendly, property-rights-loving friends in the country who voted for a right-wing populist espousing xenophobic and sexist rhetoric then you’ll have to get used to it here.
No quarter for fascists, no excuses for those who wittingly or unwittingly vote for, support, or enable them.
The intention, as you describe it in this case, is based on ignorance and/or irrationality, along with a willful blindness to the overtly fascist policy positions
Actually their reasoning is completely sound. Republicans are far less likely to enact regulations that interfere with the management of their land. Until Democrats start taking the needs of people in the country seriously, and stop this insane condescension, I’m worried they really don’t have a chance. Hopefully I’m wrong though!
Really? So all those eminent domain cases against rural landowners on behalf of pipelines and real estate developers are mostly the work of federal or state Democrats? Please.
I maintain my position: their intention is based on ignorance and irrationality. This is the post-Reagan U.S.: the big land grabs by government are not for the purpose of nationalisation but to hand the land over to corporations and wealthy individuals. Which party is more prone to that behaviour?
If these folks want to elect someone as mayor or county controller who’ll promise to let them build their sheds wherever and however they want even though he’s also espousing fascist views, fine. The problem I have is when they try to elect Boss Hogg to a jurisdiction larger than their little slice of white rural heaven.
Oh there’s exceptions for sure. But in general, yup, Republicans are less likely to enact regulations that encroach on their property rights. Environmental regulations are a good example of that, but there’s lots and lots of others (and spend a little time living in the country before deciding that all environmental regulations are good). And another big issue for them are gun rights. Again, the Republican party is generally much more supportive of that. If that’s a priority for you (and for many people who live outside the range of the police, it is), then voting Republican makes perfect logical sense.
If these folks want to elect someone as mayor or county controller who’ll promise to let them build their sheds wherever and however they want even though he’s also espousing fascist views, fine. The problem I have is when they try to elect Boss Hawg to a jurisdiction larger than their little slice of white rural heaven.
I’d respectfully submit that governmental overreach extends both ways. Our fascism is their socialism. And using those extreme labels for every one of your political opposition just causes division. And we Democrats are doomed until we at least start to understand our opposition.
Unless a corporation or wealthy individual is making the request of the Republican. That’s far more the rule than the exception these days.
Now you’re the one making assumptions about urbanites. If anything I’ve found that urban environmentalists take a more nuanced and global view of these matters while it’s rural people who tend to assume that what works in their locality will work anywhere.
The feds make over-arching environmental regulation but because they’re national laws covering a variety of biomes they take extra care to assume they don’t end up being too onerous or counter-productive to a particular region. They may mandate that roofing materials for sheds be non-flammable but the feds aren’t in the habit of telling people where to build their sheds – that’s a local zoning code matter.
In the sense of “gun rights” and interpretation of the Second Amendment as defined by the NRA? If so: ignorance and delusion.
Then I’d respectfully submit in turn that they don’t understand the definition of either term.
At this point we do understand them. For the 27% of the electorate that forms the conservative base and the core support of Il Douche what we now have to start doing is writing them off and focusing our efforts on reducing their disproportionate influence on the country as a whole.
I know the BB commentariat for the most part feels this way and look forward to the day when the DNC finally decides to stop courting “good Germans Americans.”
Trump didn’t plant his pasty, dimpled ass behind the resolute desk solely on the back of rural white racial animus. Wealthy middle class republicans voted their issues exactly as you say, and the majority of them probably thought that it was business as usual- roll back a regulation here, swing a little to the right on social issues there. They got what they paid for I guess. But heterodyning on those boilerplate conservative shifts was a payload of radical, arch-conservative ideology- economic protectionism, isolationism, close-your-borders and lock-up-your-wife stuff, with the apparent goal of creating some kind of dynastic conservative oligarchy.
Maybe 30% of Trump’s voters are ok with all that; the appearance of things matters more to them than the substance and as long as the right people are being punished and the right notes are sung, who cares what the punishments are for, or what the song is. But the rest of Trump’s voters shouldn’t be okay with it. If they voted for him out of self-interest (FWIW, I agree with you that they did), they should be able to see that autarky won’t lead them anywhere they want to go.
It may be the case that calling all Trump supporters fascists is counterproductive, since it is an implicit demand that they recognize and show contrition for what they have helped birth. Forcing people to admit that their selfishness is helping to prop up a racist autocrat is not a good first step to bringing them over to our side. But Trump and his enablers are acting like fascists, and not calling that behavior by its name is equally counterproductive since you can’t fight what you refuse to talk about.
I’m willing to write off the 30% who, like the co-worker I described in my previous post, are probably unreachable. As for the other 70%, they don’t have to turn into socialists, but I would ask that they recognize that Team Trump isn’t really on their side. I’m more than willing to forego the walk of shame for them if they’ll just stay at home in November.
Unfortunately it’s more than that. The 27% Know-Nothing base has been present under various names (Moral Majority, Tea Party, etc.) since at least 1980, which means that it’s closer to 50% of those who voted for him.
There is hope for the other 50% and that’s one of the places where “hey, you may not have meant to but you voted for a right-wing populist autocrat (and here’s why)” might convince them to at least stay home in 2020 rather than vote to re-elect him.
But the Know-Nothing 27%, members of which group voted for him under the (erroneous) impression that he’ll protect their property rights and prioritised that over the human rights of others? They’re not going to listen to reason, so (as you suggest) forget 'em.
Sorry to make you seem like more of a softy than you are but it’s hard to argue with the numbers. Take it as an opportunity to be even more of a pessimist than you already are!
The messed up part is that when those aforementioned ‘intentions’ are actually not as “good” as some people like to think, that ‘road’ becomes a fast track…
I have worked with several 'Charlie’s on field assignments, where the work pace of ‘hurry up and wait’ leaves them plenty of time to spout off on exactly what you listed (plus the usual sexist/racist/xenophobic/sexist jokes. Did I mention sexist? Let me mention it again because it’s that bad.).
I know they don’t represent every Trump supporter (nor do I represent ever DSA supporter, as my own views are more closely aligned to that of most Social Democrat parties) but their vitriol is not endearing.
Are those good, hard working country folk ok with the regulations giving them $12B, unearned, in a feeble effort to undo the damage the turnip’s other regulations have done?
It’s the same with Charlie, he’s a pretty vulgar dude.
As obnoxious as I find his views, I think I am more disturbed by the way he expresses them. The things I wrote about, those weren’t confidences vouchsafed in private; positions he’s half-ashamed of. They’re not provocations either, those are just his views and it doesn’t even occur to him that anyone might find them offensive.
That’s where I start to despair; I feel like I’m talking to a Linelander, trying to communicate concepts for which he lacks even the most basic frame of reference.
You need to drop this assumption, hard, if you want to be taken seriously. There are regulars who are rural Americans. I live in the exurbs, halfway between mountains and the city. Tomorrow AM, I’m going fishing with a Trump voter who is a good friend of mine for more than 2 decades. He’s no longer a supporter. He’s figured out that Trump is a conman, and isn’t doing a damn thing for regular people, just filling his own pockets and those of his sycophants.
The only person I know who is still a strong Trump supporter has revealed her own bigotry, loud an clear. She’s lashed out at long-time friends, and generally done a major self-destruct under the strain of trying to keep it together. So, yeah, I’d say she’s a fascist. She’s good with locking up children in concentration camps, she’s fine with cops murdering African Americans, and you have to watch out for “the Gays.” Last winter, she asked me to come pick her up from her house (which has a crazy steep driveway and a blind entrance to a down hill curved street) during after a major snowstorm. Prior to 2016, I would have done it. No freaking way, now. You reap what you sow, and she sows hatred.
He did. It was primarily the obvious graft in the administration. He’s also an outdoorsman, and the taking of public lands in Utah definitely pissed him off.
I would not consider him a part of the 27%. He has a high-school education, but he’s sharp. He is well-liked and really ingratiates himself with people because he’s genuinely helpful and kind. He cares about people and is unselfish about it.
