Atrios comments today on racism and the toleration of racism within the Republican Party:
I do think one of the political journalist beliefs is that Republicans are too gentlemanly to go full racist (and similar), but they always CAN and if they do the Dems are totally screwed.
....The Republican extended universe is actually quite weird. Because of the way political journalism is, it all sounds "normal" but actually these people are the weirdos! Enough people are like "what the fucking fuck" when you claim kids are shitting in litterboxes in schools because of pronouns.
I think there are more nuances here than you might think at first glance. True, some Republicans (and some Democrats!) are just plainly racist. They'd love it if Donald Trump and his acolytes were even more open about it.
But then, as Atrios says, there are the normie Republicans. These folks don't care much for the bizarro memes or the straight up racism, but many of them nonetheless have related fears of anti-racism. They're afraid of saying not quite the right word and being publicly called out for it. They don't like the whole pronoun thing. They're afraid of being falsely accused of sexual harassment. They want to rein in illegal immigration and don't want to be accused of racism for it. Ditto for fear of crime.
You may well wonder if this collection of fears means these people are just plain racist even though they'd deny it. That's a tricky question, and I'm not sure I'm ready to take a side on it. Politically, though, what it means is that there are lots of fairly conventional Republicans who aren't actively racist in the sense of not wanting a Black couple to move next door, but are, let's say, anti-anti-racist because modern liberal anti-racism makes them afraid of falling afoul of norms they think have gone too far. And of course they also like all the usual Republicans positions on taxes and regulations and policing and so forth. So they keep voting Republican even if they're contemptuous of Donald Trump.
I don't know what, if anything, Democrats should try to do about this. But there are things they could do if they wanted. They could take illegal immigration more seriously—especially since loose borders don't even appeal all that strongly to lots of Hispanics these days. They could loosen up on the wokeness and stop being afraid of crossing the most progressive folks in the room. They could give up on the pronouns since they're confusing and hard to remember and, let's face it, sound kind of silly most of the time.
This is mostly "lead by example" stuff, not major legislation. And maybe it's a bad idea. I'm genuinely on the fence about much of it, although I'm pretty sure we've screwed up badly on immigration by pandering too much instead of adopting some serious policies like E-Verify and a massive change in how our courts deal with asylum claims.
On the other kinds of things, I'm pretty sure that being a little less doctrinaire would help Democrats considerably and probably wouldn't do much harm to people of color. But maybe I'm wrong.
As a Democrat I pay attention to what they say, besides what they do.
They could take illegal immigration more seriously—especially since it doesn't even appeal all that strongly to lots of Hispanics these days.
This is a no-brainer, and Biden could surely get GOP votes on a legislative proposal to step up border enforcement, perhaps combined with more vigorous enforcement of the workplace, greater use of E-Verify, etc. Maybe (I doubt it but you never know) he could even get GOP votes for increased legal immigration inflows as part of such legislation—perhaps concentrating on the highly skilled, a la Australia or Canada.
No, he could not. There have been numerous attempts to put a bipartisan bill together. All of them failed due to the GOP.
The GOP is playing a bigger game with the issue: Illegal immigration is good for employers (aka GOP donors); it pushes wages down. They don't want it to go away. It is also good for GOP candidates who can use it to win by exploiting people's racism. If they were serious about doing away with illegal immigration they would go after their employers. But they never do. They don't want the issue to go away, especially now that the Supreme Court has snatched the abortion issue away from them.
Current immigration policy is so schizophrenic that it's hard to take seriously anyone pushing to beef it up.
The apparent economic goal for a long time has been plenty of exploitable labor, and the political goal is a convenient scapegoat / boogeyman.
Ok I will bite- offer one immigration plan short of wholesale deportation and shutting the doors that Republicans would support. I for one support strengthening E-verify, curtailing immigration, hiring more judges and facilities, etc. etc. But do I support expelling people who have been here since they were infants for example, of course not. And so forth. There is simply no plan from their part, and spare me the fence which does absolutely nothing. And if they were to come with any plan whatsoever they would be annihilated by other partisans, see for example the cowardly Rubio. My take is that they prefer the issue more than a solution and there is really nothing one can do with that.
I for one support strengthening E-verify, curtailing immigration, hiring more judges and facilities, etc
There is zero possibility of the necessary support among Democrats for "curtailing immigration" if by that you mean reducing quotas. We've already fallen far behind a number of our economic partners in terms of net immigration rate; current immigration inflows are below the US historical average; current US population growth is the lowest in our history; and we have an economy that is facing long term, inflationary labor shortages.
"Inflationary labor shortages". Like Japan's?
Inflation is a matter of balancing supply and demand and fewer people means less demand as well as less supply.
They could give up on the pronouns since they're confusing and hard to remember and, let's face it, sound kind of silly most of the time. This is mostly "lead by example" stuff, not major legislation.
Sure, but activists on Twitter ≠ Democratic Party Officialdom.
If Democrats want to distance themselves from some of this shit—if they want to drive home the message "Hey, this isn't really us; we can't control what a few hard lefty whackjobs get riled up about" then Biden probably needs to throw the occasional hippie punch. That doesn't seem like Joe's style. And fortunately it doesn't appear it's really necessary (judging from this week's results, it would appear most of the electorate realizes CRT professors and people who hurl food at masterpieces aren't the actual Democratic Party). Most voters aren't Andrew Sullivan, thank God.
On MSNBC last evening (11/10) Joy Reid and some guests explained that black people are the back bone of the Democratic Party and that they people would vote more if democrats paid more attention to them.
Apparently David Brooks at the NY Times disagrees with Joy Reid.
"The Democrats are weak because they have become the party of the educated elite."
Democrats aren't weak. They've won the last three federal elections by any reasonable historical standard.
I’ll let you debate weakness with David Brooks. My point was the contradictory assertions by Reid and Brooks about the base of the Democratic Party.
I do, however, think that describing strength or weakness of a party is based on what they achieve. Or perhaps how they wield power. I’m not interested in power. And achievements (as measured by their stated goals) are in short supply. I’m ok with that because most of these goals are meaningless.
Let's face it, we barely won the 2020 election, against an insane clown.
Nationally, Hispanic support for Democratic candidates declined substantially, falling to just a 16 point advantage from 29 points in 2020 and 34 points in 2018. That’s an 18 point decline in Democratic margin across the two cycles. Moreover, the 40 percent of the Hispanic vote that Republican house candidates received in this election is a level of support among this demographic Republicans have not enjoyed since the days of George W. Bush.
Build the wall!
Loosen up on the wokeness.....lol. How exactly does one loosen up on the wokeness?
Sounds like my uncles before the first glass of wine at Thanksgiving. By the 3rd glass we are deep into the unfairness of school desegregation and recounting second hand tales of those peoples community.
Live and let live. It's the let live part that trips most people up.
Live and let live means you should refer to people by the pronouns they ask to be referred by.
How could loosening up on anti-racism possibly resemble letting people live?
For starters, if someone screws up your preferred pronoun, don't immediately scream "bigot" or whatever at them. Just gently inform them of how you prefer to be addressed, and move on.
This is a great example since we are talking about things that don’t actually happen in real life.
You are not addressed by gendered pronouns. "You" is not a gendered pronoun. All the gendered pronouns are third person singular, which means that you use them when talking about someone rather than talking to them.
People tend to confuse pronouns with titles. Titles, such as Mr., Mrs., Ms. etc. are gendered forms of address, but they are NOT pronouns.
Live and let live is MY approach. The fact that others are unpleasant is beyond my control. So… I leave them to their own devices until or unless they actually hurt me.
Thank you jdubs. My uncles god rest their souls were exactly like this though to be fair one uncle in the last ten years of his life mellowed a bit after leaving suburban parishes for a priory in NYC. Anytime I see folks suggesting that the Democrats loosen up on racism issues, I groan.
Voters are smart enough to tell the difference between reformed racists and d*ckhe*d pols who pretend to be "not racist" in public but are very much so behind the scenes. Ralph Northam was reformed racist who wouldn't pass the uncle at Thanksgiving test in the beginning but bought into the need for cleaning Virginia of it's racist past and righting historical wrongs. OTOH Coumo was unrepentant and unreformed and deserved the Karma that came is way.
We shouldn't "loosen up" on anti-racism but instead welcome into the ten reformed racists who have genuine hearts in the right place. Don't slam folks for a ten year old tweet if the ten years after show a clear pattern of support for diversity and inclusion as well as efforts towards reforming structural racism. Do slam politicians who show up on MLK day and on Sunday in Churches in election season but have few if any black and brown pols in positions of power.
"They could take illegal immigration more seriously"
Here's what seriousness about illegal immigration looks like. Any employer caught employing an undocumented worker is fined and does prison time. Anyone who pays for services performed by an undocumented worker (golf course, hotel, restaurant) pays a hefty fine. As long as there is demand, there will be undocumented workers.
Of course, the people who would be punished if we were serious about illegal immigration are the campaign donors, so no politician will ever be serious about illegal immigration.
Absolutely: this should be a pro-labor winner for Democrats, and they have the advantage that the facts support pro-labor solutions. Point out that no matter how high the wall, people can enter the country legally as tourists and then stay and get illegal jobs. Unless Republicans plan to ban tourism, the wall doesn't keep out anyone who can afford bus tickets and a few days in a cheap hotel.
Then point out that if someone stays in the country illegally, but has no job, they have no welfare or other support to stay. Illegal immigration only happens because someone is willing to employ illegal immigrants. It costs a lot of money to track down a single illegal worker, lock them up, and give them a trial. It's a lot more efficient to find the people who are employing large numbers of illegal workers, and even better, the fines for their lawbreaking can support your efforts to track down similar lawbreaking employers. Compare it to going after the drug-lords whose networks bring drugs into the country, instead of going after drug users. Paint it as going after the big villains. Start the program with a high-profile prosecution and dare Republicans to defend someone who cheats honest Americans while cruelly exploiting illegal laborers.
The reason this hasn't happened is that it would devastate the agricultural sector. Who wants to be responsible for tanking America's food supply?
Running against illegal immigration is a no brainer. Recent legal immigrants are not fans of illegal immigrants and illegal immigrants can't vote. Illegal immigration also has significant negative impacts on pretty much everyone involved. E-verify!
Repeat the fact that people applying for asylum ARE NOT illegal immigrants. Point out that if Republicans want to change asylum laws, then they should do that and could have done that multiple times. Instead they tossed children in cages.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jan/23/examining-republican-proposal-change-us-asylum-sys/
tldr: republicans tried.
Democrats blocked them rather than negotiate (if for no other reason than, why give the other side a win?), which is why nothing came of it, and life moved on.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/
tldr: Obama started this. I didn't like it then, and I didn't like it when Trump kept doing it later on, but nobody listens to me. Interesting, though how Republicans get all the blame for it.
Democrats can make inroads with the white rural and old Republican base by continuing to message on Social Security and Medicare. Republicans have so far managed to win the messaging war with the lie they want to save the programs by cutting them back. Need more Obama out there talking about all those hard working people who paid for this their entire working lives etc.
bingo
A few points....
I saw an author give a talk about wokeness. (or is it wokness?). He had a good description of it, "accountability". Alas, can't remember where I saw that. The backlash is because having power is no fun if you can't abuse your authority with impunity. In many ways, wokeness is the evolution of the metoo movement.
Granted, there are some woke zealots, and those in power want to play that up to get their base afraid. In general, you just have to treat people with respect, and there's not a problem.
At its best, wokeness is about accountability. But living in the Academic World, I understand some of what the critics worry about. I've seen arguments break out in professional circles (online forums, conference venues) that really should boil down to one person saying, "Stopping being a dick", and the other person either accepting that or not.
In the "woke" world of Academics, it becomes, "You offended me. You need to apologize. Here is how you should apologize. Recite this script in front of all and rend your garments and profess that you'll do better." People do *not* respond well to that. I saw one argument break out in an online professional group that did end with a young, tenured Ivy league professor literally writing out the apology that they thought a young postdoc needed to give. That professor then got very offended when someone posted the nearly identical "confession" that the Catholic Church wrote for Galileo.
And part of woke ideology in Academia is that intentions never matter, just perceptions of effects. I was offended, it doesn't matter if you meant to or not. Doing it intentionally or inadvertently, the harm to me is the same, so the apology must be the same in either case. Which is counter to how the rest of society works. Intentions shouldn't *always* matter and be the sole deciding factor, but likewise they shouldn't never matter.
Now is this attitude anything akin to racism and sexism? Of course not. Racism and sexism are cancers in our society, and too stringent wokeness is only a common cold. But it's much easier for folks to focus on a cold than a cancer. Cancer is scary and hard to deal with, and human beings are awfully good at denial. 30 years ago, visiting my own oncologist for a "minor" issue, I was always amazed how much emptier the waiting room was in the summer. I remarked upon this to my doctor, who said this was common because "Didn't you know people don't get Cancer in the summer?". And I totally understand how people are fully capable of ignoring the seemingly intractable but very serious problem, but will go bananas over the much lesser problem that they think should be easy to solve.
In anyplace where there is competition to be holier than thou, you'll have problems. Especially with trolls around to stir things up.
It's also easier going nuts over small infractions than it is to try to deal with larger issues.
Kevin, I follow your blog because unlike the baseless word-salad of many Op Eds and commentators, your posts are usually focused and evidence-based, often with multiple data graphs.
And on some issues relating to race, you give us that, as when you look at race, crime, and lead, or examine racial disparities in the educational system. But sometimes, usually in relation to the Democratic party and social issues/"the culture war," you lose that focus and make posts with no data that are all over the place. "Loosen up on anti-racism" is a focused topic, but if that's your focus, why talk about pronouns, or accusations of sexual harassment? And where is your data? Are there polls of swing voters showing that many vote Republican purely on the basis of issues like immigration or "wokeness," and not on issues like abortion or the economy or distrust of the government? Is there any evidence that Republicans aren't already in full "mask off" racism mode NOW? How many Republicans fit into the "anti-anti-racist" category while opposing racism, and why do they find efforts to fight racism in their party more troubling than the actual racism in their party? These issues are studied, and data exists, and your strength is in doing the research and presenting the data, so why not do that here? Why do the graphs disappear when you're writing about the "woke" Democrats?
How do you get a true measure of how much racism affects voting? These days it is not socially acceptable to admit to racism and the major Republican politicians, even Trump, claim that they are not racists and do not support racism. If you ask people why they voted for Trump, how many will say it is because he supports white Christian supremacy? This answer doesn't get on poll questions, and if directly asked people say they voted for Trump because of Hillary's emails, wokeness, pronouns, etc. - they give excuses. Polls and interviews just don't reveal what really motivates people.
Probably many people are annoyed or offended by cancel culture, pronouns, etc. but is that really a reason for voting for disasters like Trump, Boebert, and Greene? What has been going on in American politics - and has always been going on in the politics of many nations - is an appeal to very fundamental and powerful tribal or racial instincts.
If Democrats "loosen up on racism" they might pick up a few people who are really offended by some of these things, but maybe they would lose people who really want to see progress made on racism. A lot of people think the key to Democrats winning more is activating their base, meaning the more progressive - and anti-racist - part. Of course Democrats have to avoid backing issues like "defund the police" which are just political losers.
Sometimes I think Kevin is getting all his information about Democrats from watching FOX.
Things like pronouns are not a major part of the Democratic argument, but they are a major part of Republican complaints about Democrats.
You know who ought to loosen up on racism? Republicans. They have put racist appeals at the center of nearly every campaign for the last 40 years. This is especially so below the national level.
And contrary to what FOX & his right-wing friends are telling Kevin, Democrats do not favor illegal immigration & they do take it seriously. Democrats would like to enact serious immigration reform. You know who doesn't? Republicans. They prefer to keep it as a primarily racist inflaming issue for campaigns.
Republicans have to keep their angry base angry, else they'll lose them.
I’m a bit more with Atrios on this one. And I also think you baked in a couple of assumptions about the current political demographics that are flat-out wrong.
First, you said: “True, some Republicans (and some Democrats!) are just plainly racist.” Some Republicans? Maybe back when the Republican party happily included people like Jim Jeffords and William Cohen only “some” identified Republicans could be said to be racist (actually, probably more, but that’s not my main point). Nowadays, however, it’s undeniable that the Venn Diagram of racists and self-identified Republicans looks pretty close to a circle.
Second, “some Democrats” are racist? Again, this is not the 1970s or 80s when there still were lots white good ol’ boy southern conservative Democrats. I don’t doubt that some Democrats still are "plainly" racist, but both-sidesing “some Rs” and “some Ds” misrepresents the current proportions substantially.
Third, you say “there are lots of fairly conventional Republicans who aren't actively racist in the sense of not wanting a Black couple to move next door.” Again, “lots” of “fairly conventional” Republicans? This characterization again ignores the current composition of the Republican (capital R) party, which has changed substantially since the days of yore. Perhaps if your post were talking about today’s “independents” who usually vote R it would have been more accurate. But even in that case, a waaaaaay higher proportion of those folks than Democrats are racist. So, “a few” might be accurate, but “lots” definitely is wrong.
My mother was a racist who voted Democrat. My father was more a generational racist, meaning, he grew up when and where he grew up, and is closer to what Kevin is talking about. He's die-hard R.
Me, I'm non-denominational so I have a take that probably won't be liked. As a white guy, upper middle class, I know I'm fine. But, sometimes, it feels like here in California, that our politicians would leap over 5 dead bodies like mine to get to just about anyone not like me. I know that isn't true but it feels like it.
If it feels like that to me, imagine what it feels like to a voter in a red state who is independent and doesn't want to be told what to do by the government.
Being afraid of 'anti-racism' is being paranoid that someone might take you for paranoid.
Oh, and the idea that the Republican population are 'too gentlemanly' for something is kneeling on your neck laughable.
Rather than describe "what Democrats should do", I'll describe what I do. I'm a white guy of a certain age. I was old enough to know who Martin Luther King was and be sad when he was killed.
I now hold the belief that it is very difficult to grow up white in the US and not have accumulated some racist attitudes and beliefs. I've certainly found some in myself.
Not the horrible stuff, but stuff that's real and consequential. The attitude I advocate is "I'm working on it" rather than "Everything's fine, there's no racism".
So, when I'm talking to another white person, and no, I don't generally ever try to tell a black person how to respond to racism, I have frequently told them, "I don't think you are any more racist than I am". I will sometimes go on to note how we have a bunch of structure that divides us and cultivates certain attitudes. I've even got "Wow, good point" from some very conservative people that way. (A Catholic in one case, with some level of moral dedication to equality).
I avoid a more accusatory tone, as it elevates me as "righteous". I mean, I would like to feel that way, but I'm more along the lines of "I'm doing the best I can". It works better in conversation, and as persuasion, too.
It's a bit nuanced.
I live in a deep red county. Nobody is attacking anyone for saying something slightly or "accidentally" racist. The liberals who do live here who might consider it generally don't want the awkward social confrontation. You still hear quite a bit of "polite" racism slip into conversations when people feel comfortable. No one here has any real reason to be anxious about being attacked unfairly.
However, they all watch Fox, and Fox keeps running strings of stories about wokeness run amok, and that puts them on edge. It's just another issue where Fox keeps stoking their fears, and there's not much liberals can do about their own behavior to change things, we can just keep fighting Fox.
Trans stuff has them genuinely ruffled, though. They don't understand it. And, unlike taboos like racism, liberals and progressives are vocal about this stuff, even here. (Although not nearly as confrontationally as conservatives imagine.)
Also, open hard-core racism is becoming more visible and tolerated these days. A yard sign for the Patriot Front popped up in my town. One of the side effects of Trump. Liberals calling everything white supremacy makes it harder to identify and get people to take seriously real white supremacy, just like calling everything fascism makes it harder to point to real fascist threats. Those movements are on the rise, and they've made huge inroads into the Republican Party, but if you throw those words around too much, people just tune it out. And they are tuning it out.
But the big problem is Fox and right wing media that is creating a very distorted picture of what's going on in our country.
In a word, "no." Not becuase we don't have some over the top college kids (and it would be nice if more of them voted for crissakes), but because it wouldn't change anything by itself.
Prior to Trump, the Repubs had the following groups.
The anti abortionists and Christian fundamentalists.
The anti taxers.
The don't tell me what to do crowd, which includes anti regulations and to a large extent, anti-science since paying attention to science means things like going along with vaccination mandates.
The gun nut crowd.
And, what Kevin points out, the racists. True, the racists were the most loosely defined group, but obviously there was not talk about a wall with Canada for this reason. And yes, this group includes people who don't particularly think they are racists.
But what the Repubs realized after the Obama loss, was that these 5 groups were simply not enough, all of these 5 positions are rather absolute, and anyone, for example, who thinks that some abortion should be legal, or anyone who thinks that there ought to be immigration reform, are really not going to vote R. No, these 5 groups were the hard core.
I believe that up until 2016 we kidded ourselves that these five groups, importantly, taken together, were not that big of a slice.
But two things became clear First, the general R's decided that the way to deal with this was simply vote against anything proposed by Obama and the Dems. This laid the groudwork for Trump, who just turned it up to 11, realizing (and considering what a jackass he is you really have to hand it to him) that a sixth group which I define as "Democrats are evil" was available, and he cultivated them. Think all the nutters who believe the election was stolen, its not like Mitt Romney ever had a speech aimed at them. Anyway, January 6 consisted of this "sixth group."
But it was an experiment that failed. Because, as Kevin's posts demonstrates, you can get Dems to discuss any policy of the other five, except there is no discussion left on the issue of whether Dems are evil, as a matter of fact the sixth group actually causes Dems to vote out of nothing more than their own desire to not be harmed, and its a turn off for Repubs.
But I see no general way to pick up vote from the other five groups by compromising with them, because all of their positions are too extreme. The five groups, without the sixth, lose.
I'm seeing lots of remarks, and not just from Republicans, saying, "Oh, you better not give a bad review to 'Wakanda Forever' or they'll come after you! We're not allowed to have an opinion on it!"
Considering critics now have it at 84% on Rotten Tomatoes and no one is raising denunciations about that 16% negative, I'd say that's crap. And liberals should point out that such fears are crap.
The Irony is that I actually didn't really like the female Ghostbusters remake (I thought it was meh and lacked the energy of the original) but I wouldn't want to criticize it, NOT because "you aren't allowed to criticize it" but because of all the tedious mysoginist trolls I really didn't want to be associated with. I Bet it's the same with Wakanda Forever, I'm sure the main issue is people not wanting to be identified with the trolls.
Most of the super wokeness is outside of the actual political realm of Democratic politicians. That makes it tough for the party to create the sort of "kind acceptance" atmosphere that most people will be fine with. There is always some random story from some college campus that takes over the conversation.
It's called intersectionality - by pulling back on "wokeness" you're abandoning the principals of equality and opportunity for all. Identity politics have to exist because people are discriminated against historically, generationally and currently due to the overlapping identities the carry in society.
I think Kevin's reasoning is too clever by half. "It goes too far" is such a vague statement, it is useless for any clear thought.
It is really simple: We are all racist; we are hardwired that way. Not being racist requires a willingness to police one's mind at all time. It is work and does not happen by itself. Though I should think it gets easier over time if one stays with it. It is like practicing the piano, the more you practice the easier it gets. But it is always work.
What "moderate" Republicans do is to give their voters permission to be racist, that is the meaning of the "go too far" rhetoric and also of all the noise about critical race theory in schools. De Santis is quite open about it when he claims that CRT makes (white) kids "uncomfortable". Glenn Youngkin is another example of this.
And another thing I forgot to put in the previous. How can anyone look at the Wisconsin senate election and not see that it's about racism? Please. Just stop.
A lot here, but one small note:
"Racist" or "anti-racist" is not a binary thing. There are multiple flavors to each of those descriptions, and in some cases fair disagreement about whether something (or someone) is one or the other.
But because we don't have complete agreement, some people find the words unusable. Even after all these years, the world of political journalism finds it nearly impossible to call Donald Trump "racist." How many thousands of examples does it take? Can anybody with a straight face make the argument that he's not?
If Trump can't be called racist, who can? Practically nobody. Nobody in the news biz (unless I missed it) openly calls DeSantis "racist." But all year long he has been on an "anti-woke" crusade. "Florida is where woke goes to die!" What does he mean by that? I think Lee Atwater could have told you. Every time he says the work "woke," substitute "Black." That's the clear meaning a big segment of his intended audience understands. The respectable white suburban GOP-ers might not want to admit it, the media might not want to call it out, and KD might not see it, but that is a racist political appeal. Certainly in the scope of what DeSantis campaigns on and in the context of our times.
I don't agree with everything that gets labeled as "woke." Some of it's downright silly. I have pushed back at times. But overall, "woke" has been an effort to push people into thinking again about how racism, among other ills, is deep-rooted and pervasive in our society. The "anti-woke" are mostly reactionaries, and if you spend too much of your time pushing back on "woke" overreach, don't be surprised if people come to see you as one of those reactionaries too. Worry too much about the small details and you might be wrong about the big picture.
There's a difference between branding and policy, and Democratic Party policies on immigration have not been that different than the GOP's, with the exception of rounding up children in camps away from their parents (and losing some of them for months). Oh yeah, and wasting taxpayer money on a wall that will never work. It's not as if Obama's administration didn't deport anyone: They deported TONS of folks!
The main difference between the parties vis a vis immigration is just branding. At the local level, Dems favor letting local police handle local policing without handing people over to ICE willy nilly; that's just good policing. At the federal level, there's not much difference, IMHO.
And not only do I not think that we need to dial anything back, I think we need to add to our anti-racist policy.
NOT! I repeat NOT, by claiming more speech or behavior is "racist" but by pointing out that here in the US what racist really means is as much class discrimination as race discrimination. This has the added benefit of reminding everyone that the Dems are the party of the working class, which we are.
How is being a racist in 2022 equal class discrimination? Its so easy and obvious.
When anyone sees a brown or black person in the US, depending on the circumstances, all people engage in stereotypes. All it takes is one confirming observation (that Hispanic guy is dressed like he came from a construction site) and the mind, with lightning precision goes from "Hispanic guy" to "looks like he works in construction" (NOT LOOKS LIKE HE OWNS A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY) to "we know that alot of constructions guys have that job because you can get it without being eductated" to "he's probably not a college grad" to "maybe English is even a second language" to "good odds he's undocumented."
And the next thing you know, you are associating his race with class.
To me, that is what I would say is bang solid proof of structural racism, the assumptions that are made which would not be made if a person was of a different race.
As a middle aged white guy, wearing a Rolex, if I'm standing in the aisle at Home Depot, no matter how disheveled or un-showered, the assumptions would not end up with me being assumed to be a construction worker, but me doing my own yard work.
This permeates society, completely. You don't have to assume black or hispanic people are not "equal people" to be racist - all you have to do is assume that there is a good chance they are working class or lower and that's it.
As as white person, especially a white guy, you have the benefit of an ongoing presumption of competence in whatever it is you are doing. I mean, its so friggen obvious, it is completely structural - its part of the fabric of the United States.
That's the political adjustment which we could make, really.
"Politically, though, what it means is that there are lots of fairly conventional Republicans who aren't actively racist in the sense of not wanting a Black couple to move next door, but are, let's say, anti-anti-racist because modern liberal anti-racism makes them afraid of falling afoul of norms they think have gone too far."
They're not afraid to falling afoul of norms, they're afraid of alienating their base if they were to condemn the obvious racism in their party.
"Woke" is not about pronouns. It is about lynching.
No, for most lefties it's about pronouns
I tolerate lgbt+, I don't celebrate them. In a democracy that is all that is required.
I'd say anyone who doesn't believe racism immediately disqualifies people from public life is close enough to racist themselves as makes no odds. If you're ok enough to vote for it, you own it.