Wednesday, November 22, 2017

The Nationalist Delusion of Trump Voters

Adam Serwer, The Atlantic: While the rest of the country gawked at Louisiana and the [David] Duke fiasco, Walker Percy, a Louisiana author, gave a prophetic warning to the New York Times. "Don't make the mistake of thinking David Duke is a unique phenomenon confined to Louisiana rednecks and yahoos. He's not," Percy said. "He's not just appealing to the old Klan constituency, he's appealing to the white middle class. And don't think that he or somebody like him won't appeal to the white middle class of Chicago or Queens." The plain meaning of Trumpism exists in tandem with denials of its implications; supporters and opponents alike understand that the president's policies and rhetoric target religious and ethnic minorities, and behave accordingly. But both supporters and opponents usually stop short of calling these policies racist.

More

It is as if there were a pothole in the middle of the street that every driver studiously avoided, but that most insisted did not exist even as they swerved around it.

The most economically vulnerable Americans voted for Clinton overwhelmingly; the usual presumption is exactly the opposite.

In other words, Trump won white voters at every level of class and income. He won workers, he won managers, he won owners, he won robber barons. This is not a working-class coalition; it is a nationalist one.

Trump's support among whites decreases the higher you go on the scales of income and education. But the controlling factor seems to be not economic distress but an inclination to see non-whites as the cause of economic problems.

Comments

"Overall, poor and working-class Americans did not support Trump; it was white Americans on all levels of the income spectrum who secured his victory. Clinton was only competitive with Trump among white people making more than $100,000, but the fact that their shares of the vote was nearly identical drives the point home: Economic suffering alone does not explain the rise of Trump.

Nor does the Calamity Thesis explain why comparably situated black Americans, who are considerably more vulnerable than their white counterparts, remained so immune to Trump's appeal.

The answer cannot be that black Americans were suffering less than the white working class or the poor, but that Trump's solutions did not appeal to people of color because they were premised on a national vision that excluded them as full citizens."

"When you look at Trump's strength among white Americans of all income categories, but his weakness among Americans struggling with poverty, the story of Trump looks less like a story of working-class revolt than a story of white backlash.

And the stories of struggling white Trump supporters look less like the whole truth than a convenient narrative -- one that obscures the racist nature of that backlash, instead casting it as a rebellion against an unfeeling establishment that somehow includes working-class and poor people who happen not to be white."

The linked article is long and detailed in it's analysis... which is becoming more obviously correct on a daily basis. If you comment without reading much of it, you'll prolly be giving a knee-jerk reaction that won't hold up to the facts.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-21 07:35 PM

"Economic suffering alone does not explain the rise of Trump. Nor does the Calamity Thesis explain why comparably situated black Americans, who are considerably more vulnerable than their white counterparts, remained so immune to Trump's appeal. The answer cannot be that black Americans were suffering less than the white working class or the poor, but that Trump's solutions did not appeal to people of color because they were premised on a national vision that excluded them as full citizens."

That paragraph is where the author makes their potential error. They have spent the whole of the article comparing white voters to all voters with the understanding that it is 'all voters' who voted rationally against Trump, and the only possible reason that white voters voted differently was racial animus. It doesn't seem to register with the author that their premise may be wrong, and the same data could lead to the conclusion that something caused the non-white voters to vote far outside of the norm of 'all voters'. What that thing is that pushed non-white voters to pull the lever for Clinton is not investigated in this article or the data, instead the author chooses one theory of why things turned out the way they did, coincidentally the theory that paints the picture they are pushing, and writes the article with that as the obvious result.

So there you have it. The author has pushed one theory as to why Trump won the presidency from the biased position that white voters voted in a nationalistic way without examining if their theory was incorrect and perhaps it was other groups who voted nationalistically. The author so very much wanted it to be true, so he decided to believe that it was.

I'm not taking a side or saying that he is wrong. I am pointing out a flaw in the author's lengthy work. A less biased author would do well to research more than 1 possible view-point before making a work of this nature. Oh, and lying in the work, as the author does, pretty much ruins the credibility you might have for your work.

#2 | Posted by Avigdore at 2017-11-22 01:55 PM

The Nationalist Delusion of Trump Voters

This is only ONE of their many delusions.

Keep in mind these are the chumps who elected a billionaire who makes his products in china to save us from billionaires making their products in china.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 04:57 PM

"I'm not taking a side or saying that he is wrong. I am pointing out a flaw in the author's lengthy work. A less biased author..."

Newsflash:
You're saying he's wrong.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-22 05:00 PM

- without examining if their theory was incorrect

The article is short book length, examining many possible theories, and stating several of them, then debunking them.

- lying in the work

What, "lie"?

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-22 05:27 PM

#2 - This is not a legitimate rebuttal to the article. It's just you looking for a reason to dismiss it without reading it or even taking the effort to rebut any aspect of the article.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-22 06:25 PM

I can tell you why there is a rise of white nationalism. It's so easy to see. And you liberal "researchers" can push numbers to your conclusions all you want.

The reason Trump won and the reason why there is White power groups and Nazi's now is:

You cannot tell one race it is dominate at the expense of another race. Plain and simple. It's liberal/Progressive race politics in full view. This time, it backfired on you and you got Trump. You got everything you deserved.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-23 09:01 AM

are you drunk already boaz? seriously. are you saying that there is white nationalism because of liberals and progressive?

#8 | Posted by cjk85 at 2017-11-23 01:08 PM

#7 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-11-23 09:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Was that actually done?

Are you talking about some wide eyed undergraduates?

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-23 01:34 PM

Thought this was going to be an article about the general culture of hypocrisy and obviously fraudulent nationalism that exists in this country but turns out to be another race baiting piece.

Oh well, carry on with the counter productive -----------....

#10 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-23 01:45 PM

How is it counter productive to discuss nationalism?

Do you think it's your privilege to tell everyone what their concerns are allowed to be?

#11 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-23 02:13 PM

I love how Boaz is dgaf to everyone but this issue has him warning everyone to not anger the bigots. He knows what can happen. We're living it right now.

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-23 02:14 PM

I can tell you why there is a rise of white nationalism. It's so easy to see. And you liberal "researchers" can push numbers to your conclusions all you want.

The reason Trump won and the reason why there is White power groups and Nazi's now is:

You cannot tell one race it is dominate at the expense of another race. Plain and simple. It's liberal/Progressive race politics in full view. This time, it backfired on you and you got Trump. You got everything you deserved.

#7 | Posted by boaz

The rise of white nationalism is a reaction to the reduction in white dominance in power positions.

When you've had all the advantages your whole life, then those advantages are reduced, you feel like your at a DIS advantage, when really you're just whiny and self centered, and you don't want a level playing field.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-23 04:08 PM

Sorry but Trump just didn't actually win anything. Hillary got more votes and Republicans used modern voting suppression methods in several swing states to steal the election. I am totally tired of these op-eds with some writer tries to explain to us little people why the person who got the most votes isn't President. It's a bunch of garbage, we need to focus on the gerrymandering and voter suppression techniques used by the Republicans starting with Kris Kobach who is now on President Trumps national voter fraud panel as if there is really a problem with voter fraud. It's a lie they are now using to justify the next election theft.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-23 04:23 PM

#14

There is no evidence that either voter fraud or voter suppression occurred on a scale sufficient to effect the election.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-23 05:11 PM

There is no evidence that either voter fraud or voter suppression occurred on a scale sufficient to effect the election.

#15 | Posted by et_al

WRONG.

www.thenation.com
Wisconsin's Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)
A new study shows how voter-ID laws decreased turnout among African-American and Democratic voters.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-23 06:02 PM

www.commondreams.org

Mission Accomplished: Study Shows GOP-Backed Voter ID Laws Work to Suppress Turnout

"It's certainly possible that there were enough voters deterred that it flipped the election," says lead author study about 2016 voting in Wisconsin

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-23 06:03 PM

Did you actually read the Project USA* study or the Common Dreams article?

The Project USA "study" was comparing turnout over several years. The method was polling and focus groups. It concluded that if WI turnout had increased by some 1.3%, the average study increase, instead of dropping some 3% then 200,000 more "disadvantaged" voters might have turned out. Who would they have voted for? Who knows.

Common Dreams is no better. I'll use the articles' words.

"Mayer explained to the New York Times that his study does not claim that the voter ID laws in Wisconsin actually swung the election in Donald Trump's favor, but he would not rule it out either.

"The survey did not ask any questions about how people would have voted or about their party identification," Mayer told the Times. "But it's certainly possible that there were enough voters deterred that it flipped the election."

In other words, they're both pulling s--t out their a--. Try again with something empirical instead of conjectural.

* Priorities USA Action is the largest Democratic Party super PAC. Founded in 2011, it supported Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. It was the primary super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. It focused mainly on high-dollar donors. en.wikipedia.org

#18 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-23 06:39 PM

Few people voted FOR Trump. A lot of people voted AGAINST Clinton. And another point is that Trump was for America while Clinton was for Clinton. Even the Latin community didn't buy her BS. And Trump getting elected screwed up the "Grand Plan". So, he must be brought down at all cost to insure the chosen few retain control. It ain't that hard to figure out. Hell. Trump is more of a Democrat than any POTUS since Carter.

#19 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-23 11:54 PM

And another point is that Trump was for America while Clinton was for Clinton.

Have you seen any evidence that donald was for anything other than donald?

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-23 11:57 PM

Trump for America?

Jesus Christ. Where do you live? I've got some garbage I can sell you instead of throwing it away. It's actualky quite valuable, I swear.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-24 01:18 AM

Multiple studies have shown that Drumpf's election was racially motivated. People who were really feeling economic anxiety voted for HRC. All you have to do is look at the South, where white people believe they're the victims of racial injustice, WOW try walking a mile in a POC's shoes!

BLOTUS has let the genie out of the bottle. He has stoked racial discord like no candidate since George Wallace, and IT WORKED, because America is still basically a racist country. Those fat old Faux Spews watching racists can't succumb to their hypertension and clogged arteries soon enough. Just f'n depressing.

The US is really three countries: the West Coast and some surrounding states like NM, CO, and NV; the East Coast down to VA; the rest is flyover country and it can enjoy being bankrupted by its authoritarian oligarchy run by RepubliKKKlans and the King of Debt and bankruptcies, Combover Caligula. I have ZERO in common with some idiot douchebag Drumpf voter from plaices SC, MS, AB or SD.

#22 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-11-24 04:59 AM

Multiple studies have shown that Drumpf's election was racially motivated.

So was Obama's election. So what?

WOW try walking a mile in a POC's shoes!

If you really think about it, politicians as a class are POS. Politics attracts the worst of the worst.

#23 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 07:04 AM

White nationalism/exceptionalism is in play as is racism. But so are other factors including a general disgust with DC and vote tampering in it's many forms. The opportunities to cheat in otherwise tight races are endless and difficult to uncover where the race is tight. Gore won Florida in 2000 then brought a knife to a gunfight. Republicans learned they can cheat and get away with it. They have ramped up fake voter purge lists.

#24 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-24 07:22 AM

"I have ZERO in common with some idiot douchebag Drumpf voter from plaices SC, MS, AB or SD."

Hmmmm...we must be a lot alike. I have ZERO in common in some idiot Hillebeast voter from CA, OR, WA, NY or MA.

#25 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-24 08:55 AM

"Gore won Florida in 2000..."

Uhhhh..actually, he didn't. BUT, it's all mute anyway. If he had just won his own home state FL would have been irrelevant. It should give you a clue that the folks who knew him best kicked him to the curb. We "volunteers" are proud that we were responsible for his loss. By the way, he was full of ca ca when he said in a speech that he worked in tobacco fields.

#26 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-24 09:01 AM

"And the stories of struggling white Trump supporters look less like the whole truth than a convenient narrative -- one that obscures the racist nature of that backlash, instead casting it as a rebellion against an unfeeling establishment that somehow includes working-class and poor people who happen not to be white."

Speaking of "racists"...

"A white writer named Kate Morgan, who seems monumentally concerned about environmental issues, decided to attack the idea of being white on Wednesday, going so far as to say that she hated white culture, didn't like labeling people white, and thought the United States was not much better than North Korea. Her tweeting started toward becoming a rant with this:"

www.dailywire.com

Are you one of THESE racists, Corky?

#27 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-24 09:20 AM

Trump isn't a patriot. Save that "for America" ----

#28 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-24 10:16 AM

Trump won the same reason Obama won, change. People are sick of the self serving way Washington works. Today's congressional sexual harassment slush fund that we the tax payers fund to pay off accusers is just another example of what the Trump voters are tired of. People on the left just can't accept that Clinton got beat because she is part of that corrupt network and the last thing people saw was it getting cleaned up if she was elected. The racism and voter suppression excuse is getting really old. Trump may not get it cleaned up but voters saw a better chance of him doing it than Clinton. And once again Corky loves to degrade the Trump voter. Keep it up, it sure worked for you last time.

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-11-24 10:19 AM

"Trump won the same reason Obama won, change. People are sick of the self serving way Washington works."

So they elected the most self-serving President in history?

"People on the left just can't accept that Clinton got beat because she is part of that corrupt network and the last thing people saw was it getting cleaned up if she was elected."

B*****t. We can't accept that Kris Kobach stole the election with Interstate Crosscheck but then Republicans, like you, have never had a problem with stolen elections and use phony accusations of voter fraud to distract from election fraud.

"And once again Corky loves to degrade the Trump voter."

No one degrades the Trump voter more than the Trump voter.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-24 10:24 AM

#29

Racism is a thing.

Voter suppression is a thing.

At best-at the very,very best- people voted Trump because they confused fire for frying pan.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-24 10:25 AM

"Sorry but Trump just didn't actually win anything. Hillary got more votes..."

Ahhhh, THAT ol' mantra again. Hillary got more votes in a select few states. Take a look especially at Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland and California, followed by NY, MD, IL, OR and WA. THAT'S where she got those extra popular votes, some of which may or may not have been legal. She did NOT get more votes in the majority of the 30 states carried by Trump. SO, give it up, danni, that's the way it works and HAS worked for a couple of centuries.

#32 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-24 10:34 AM

map for #32

www.bbc.com

#33 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-24 10:38 AM

Jestgettinracist.

As the article points out, Trump lost the working class vote, but won the white racist vote.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-24 11:02 AM

#30 Crosscheck, crosscheck, crosscheck. You are the only one who still believes that debunked crap. And as far as knowing why someone voted for Trump how would you know? Did you vote for him? And btw when you were all in for Sanders you were crowing how Clinton was owned by Wall Street which meant that she was part of the corrupt Washington system. It's unbelievable that you can't see the hypocracy.

#35 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-11-24 11:24 AM

"Jestgettinracist".

I'm gonna tell you one more time, Corky. You and others like to label folks racist by name and I'm gonna start making complaints to RCade over it. I married an Asian woman in the Ryukyu Islands and was married to her for sixteen years. I have a grandaughter married to a great black man and two mixed-race great-grandchildren. My brother was married to a naturalized Mexican woman for over fifty years and now I have a whole population of Hispanic nephews, nieces, grand-nephews and grand-nieces with whom I share blood. I served for twenty years in the military with people of many races with whom I'm still friends. I find it offensive that you try to pin that label on me and others who don't deserve it. I was once suspended just for calling you a name like Corkeeeee or some such and I don't really care if you make fun of Jestgettinalong BUT if you continue with that racist BS I'm gonna squawk loudly.

#36 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-24 11:29 AM

#36 Corky uses it when he has nothing else which is often. I like you find it offensive.

#37 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-11-24 11:46 AM

So there you have it. The author has pushed one theory as to why Trump won the presidency from the biased position that white voters voted in a nationalistic way without examining if their theory was incorrect and perhaps it was other groups who voted nationalistically. The author so very much wanted it to be true, so he decided to believe that it was.
I'm not taking a side or saying that he is wrong. I am pointing out a flaw in the author's lengthy work. A less biased author would do well to research more than 1 possible view-point before making a work of this nature. Oh, and lying in the work, as the author does, pretty much ruins the credibility you might have for your work.

#2 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Denialism at its finest.

This paragraph right here is one of those few that sounds really good when you read it...until you re-read it and think about it for more than a split second.

What are you suggesting? That black and Arab voters voted nationalistically for Clinton? That White voters choosing Clinton voted nationalistically?

The author's premise is completely correct: there is an ideological line that runs through Trump voters tying them together. It's literally the one thing they have in common: A sense of nationalism premised on the idea that religions and racial minorities are to blame for many of the country's issues.

#38 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 11:51 AM

#36

Then one might suppose that you would recognize the racism in Trump World, which was enough voters, about 36 percent, to get him elected, and be as appalled by it as are most people in this country.

If you don't want to be identified with such people, perhaps you shouldn't spend so much time defending them.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-24 12:46 PM

#36 | POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

Did you really just pull the "I have a black friend so I can say the N word" defense?

#40 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 12:55 PM

The 2018 midterm election is not far away.
Democrats will have their chance to return from the dead and save the human race from Trump.

#41 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 03:30 PM

#39 nice, based on a poll that also said Hillary would win in an electoral land slide. You buying bridges Corky?

#42 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-11-24 03:58 PM

- based on a poll

No, silly fish, not a poll.... and I gave him too much credit:

26 Percent of Eligible Voters Voted for Trump

mises.org

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-24 04:13 PM

We can't accept that Kris Kobach stole the election with Interstate Crosscheck ...

"We," as in you and a few others that swallowed on Palast's conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker. Voting rights warriors like the ACLU and the NAACP et al, not so much.

#44 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-24 04:39 PM

"In theory, the program is supposed to detect possible cases of people voting in multiple locations. But academics and states that use the program have found that its results are overrun with false positives, creating a high risk of disenfranchising legal voters.

A statistical analysis of the program published earlier this year by researchers at Stanford, Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and Microsoft, for instance, found that Crosscheck "would eliminate about 200 registrations used to cast legitimate votes for every one registration used to cast a double vote."

www.washingtonpost.com

No wonder rwingers like it.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-24 04:48 PM

Et_Al, is CrossCheck used to remove names from the voter rolls, or not?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-24 05:27 PM

Double votes, apples.

Multiple registrations, oranges.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-24 06:12 PM

Politics is built on an edifice of delusion. Get used to it.

#48 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 06:20 PM

Politics is built on an edifice of delusion. Get used to it.

Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 06:20 PM | Reply

You sure do know delusion honey.

#49 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-24 06:24 PM

'some of which may or may not have been legal."

Could you possibly fit more weasel words into one phrase?

If you, or anyone else, has proof of widespread in-person voter fraud, bring it. Until then, you're just flinging your feces.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-24 06:29 PM

#47

Sour grapes.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-24 06:38 PM

#50 it's all they've got. They've slung it for so long there's no way they believe it anymore, it's just pure dishonesty at this point.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-24 07:17 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Bloomberg: Food Stamps Should Be Spent on Food (178 comments)

Shutdown (64 comments)

Trump Tweet Blows Up GOP Strategy to Avoid Shutdown (60 comments)

Feds Plot Massive NoCal Immigration Sweep (39 comments)

World's Belief in U.S. Leadership Hits New Low (37 comments)

Bannon Thinks He Can Defy Congress (37 comments)

Trump's Year 1 Approval 18% Below Obama's (30 comments)

Trump: Terror Attack Could Save GOP in 2018 (29 comments)

Wisconsin's FoxConn Bribe Rises to $4.5 Billion (29 comments)