Mediaboss Marketing

Trumps victory is virtually incomprehensible without a reading on the dynamics of white identity and national formation. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

The first two weeks of the Trump presidency ought to be engraved in our memories as if in granite. We are witness to three simultaneous crises: a crisis of the working class, which, fractured by race, region, citizenship status and religious belief, lacks political cohesion or organisational representation.

Then we have a crisis of the ruling class, which was bullied and backed into a corner by a megalomaniacal kleptocrat who stole their candy, and who has no respect for the core institutions of class rule or for the stories his class brothers and sisters tell each other about the delights of the prevailing world order.

And a crisis of the state, in which far-right ideologues, autocrats and theocrats, having captured the governing apparatus, are rapidly concentrating power in the executive while bureaucrats scramble toward either dissent and defiance or appeasement and accommodation.

In response to these crises, a highly consequential debate about the direction of the Democratic party rages among academics, pundits and politicians. Sparked by the Columbia University professor Mark Lilla in a New York Times opinion piece, this debate is most active among liberals, but ranges both rightward and leftward as well.

The controversy focuses on the role of identity politics in Hillary Clintons presidential defeat. Essentially, the debate turns on whether the Democratic party and Clinton, in their embrace of racial, religious and sexual minorities, forsook working-class white people, who responded to their abandonment by casting their votes for Trump.

According to this perspective, the journey back from the devastation of 2016 requires that the party take an indefinite break from identity politics to concentrate on winning back economically squeezed white workers. Theres a leftish version of this line an economic fundamentalism that posits that bread-and-butter issues trump all others. The classic liberal version, seemingly reasonably, demands the subordination of the part to the whole, the interests of particular groups to the national interest.

Both boil down to the same thing: its time to subordinate the rights claims of various interest groups to an economic agenda that prioritises solving the distress of white workers. Only this adjustment will create the conditions for Democrats to make gains in congressional and state-wide races and retake the White House in 2020. (Or, in the leftish version, only this adjustment will set the foundation for building a successful workers movement.)

Where the Democratic party lands on this issue matters enormously. The traction this analysis gains will impact the flow of attention and resources of the party, liberal thinktanks and liberal philanthropy, as well as the focus of progressive organisations. It is likely to determine how the Democratic party positions itself relative to 2018 and 2020, and whether that positioning has the intended effect of creating a sufficiently broad electoral coalition to roll back Trumpism. With so much at stake, it is worth taking a moment to examine what might be problematic about analyses that lay 2016s rout of the Democratic party at the feet of identity politics.

Its never a good idea to enter willingly into a frame your opponent has constructed to entrap you. The term identity politics is part of a whole vocabulary including thought police, politically correct, and liberal elites, whose main intention is to undermine the legitimacy of liberal and left politics. Uncritically adopting the identity politics language of the right is the equivalent of dropping our guard and waltzing on to their terrain. Masters tools, masters house, anyone? We need to recognise a toxic frame when we see one and refuse to be a party to its proliferation.

Setting aside questions of language and framing, there is in fact an expression of identity politics core to the evolution of our nation and critical to how we understand the current juncture. White identity and nation-building have been bound together since way before the founding fathers and the drafting of our framing documents. The rest of us have had to fight our way into the body politic. Or, in the case of Indian nations, make the best of a spectacularly unequal and uneasy standoff.

The conceptual contrast between white Christians and red savages underwrote relentless territorial expansion and genocide. Between white Christians and black savages, the enslavement of Africans and the appropriation of their bodies, their labour, their progeny; between brown savages and white Christians, the taking of the south-west; between the yellow peril and white patriotic Americans, various exclusions, internments, property appropriations and ghettoisations.

This is not to project the racial sensibilities of today back onto social and political environments that operated on completely different sets of assumptions but to reckon with the degree to which the nation-building project has been, at the same time, a white identity formation project. Until we collectively get this, some will continue to deny the white rights subtext of Make America Great Again, or be surprised at how powerfully it resonated. Trumps victory is virtually incomprehensible without a reading on the dynamics of white identity and national formation. The liberal inquiry into the role of identity politics in Clintons loss is pointed in a direction diametrically opposite to where one might find answers.

This is not an argument against addressing the concerns and economic anxieties of white workers. It is an argument for:

(1) addressing those concerns as a component part of a larger story about the declining fortunes of the class as a whole;

(2) refusing to make concessions to racism, heterosexism, xenophobia, Christian supremacy, or misogyny while addressing those concerns;

(3) being clear that the displacement of white economic anxiety on to black people and immigrants is neither warranted nor wise;

(4) being clear that the postwar deal of expanding economic fortunes for a wide swath of white workers is completely off the table; what is on the table is the search for new forms of multiracial, multiethnic, multigendered worker organising that applies itself to the riddle of how to effectively extract significant concessions from 21st century capital;

(5) understanding that the work of addressing the economic and social concerns of white workers, and winning them away from thoroughly reactionary politics, is not principally an issue of crafting the best messages and communications strategies to produce results in the next election cycle, but a long-term, no-short-cuts proposition to which a battalion of people and organisations will need to devote their lives.

A liberal imagination perversely fixated on the alleged excesses of identity politics forgets that social movements of the marginalised are the spark and spur of democracy. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement extended democratic rights to the formerly enslaved and perpetually reviled, removing a deep moral stain from the nation. The womens movement unleashed the potential and talent of half the countrys population.

While the small-minded argue about bathrooms and pronouns, transgender activists, at great risk to themselves, have gifted us with a far more capacious understanding of the evolving spectrum of gender identities and expressions. None of these movements is done. Each has advanced not just the interests of a singular identity group, but also the ambit of freedom for all. Most assuredly, the generation that stepped forward in the wake of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown will not stand down just because some liberals are having a panic attack.

We are all navigating treacherous terrain, seeking a way forward. At least some of us know that not a single development over the past period indicates that the way forward requires that we abandon our freedom dreams. To the contrary.

Read the rest here:
Liberals, don't fall into the right's 'identity politics' trap - The Guardian

5474450

Democratic residents of Washington, D.C., arent willing to share their homes with President Donald Trump supporters, according to a Friday report from The New York Times.

Thelocal housing page on Craigslist.com is full of Democrats who arent open to sharing their living quarters with anyone who supports Trump or Republicans.

If youre racist, sexist, homophobic, or a Trump supporter, please dont respond, one open-minded couple posted in their craigslist ad. We wont get along.

A woman even went so far as to put her disdain for the president on the title of her ad, Trump supporters this isnt the house for you, (no, seriously).

Please no Imperial Sympathizers, Borg, Vogons, Lannisters (some exceptions), Sith, or Trump supporters, Kevin Kemp wrote, comparing supporters of Trump with derided antagonists in fiction. As a black man, Black Lives Matter is sort of important to me, and Trump supporters arent known for their fondness of that movement.

Despite Democrats attempts to keep Trump supporters from coming to D.C., several Republican haunts report surging business, including the Old Ebbitt Grill that resides just one block away from the White House.

Follow Phillip On Twitter

Have a Tip? Let us Know

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Here is the original post:
'No Trump Clause': City Liberals Discriminating Based On Politics - Daily Caller

President Donald Trumps words have been horrid, from liberals standpoint.

But three weeks in, things arent so bad in lib-land. Republicans are in disarray on repealing the Affordable Care Act, which citizens increasingly like, and President Trump says the GOP now may not have a bill until 2018. Courts are toying with Trumps Justice Department over his grandstanding emergency ban on people from countries that have never sent the U.S. an adult terrorist. Stuff he has done approving oil pipelines, ordering more study of a regulation designed to keep financial advisers from ripping off clients is mostly talk.

By mid-February 2009, Barack Obama was within days of passing a major tax cut, was restructuring General Motors, galvanizing clean-energy and digital-medicine industries through the stimulus, and was well underway on financial-services reform. By mid-2010, all that, plus Obamacare, was law.

So should Democrats calm down? Yes and no. Yes, because Trumps not getting much of anywhere on issues that matter most. But, really, no.

No, because keeping the heat on has pushed Trumps disapproval rating to 54% in Gallup surveys. In other surveys by Quinnipiac University, voters said Trump is wrong on repeal of Obamacare, refugees, climate change, even his beloved Mexican-border wall.

And no, because heat makes Trump obsess over minutiae and make unforced errors, like wasting three of his first four of his first 100 days in office debating the size of his inaugural crowd and spending days going on about appellate-court judges he says politicize immigration. Thats rich, coming from one who publicly said Muslim ban so many times not even Rudy Giuliani denied his intent.

Read: Appeals court upholds suspension of Trumps immigrant ban

Keeping heat on plays to the presidents lack of discipline and makes him do kid-with-ADHD things like griping about his daughters clothing line getting dropped by Nordstrom a tweet the president launched Wednesday when he was supposed to be in an intelligence briefing. Nordstrom shares rose 4% JWN, -1.21% , in a shock to everyone who doesnt read MarketWatch: We pointed out weeks ago that markets are learning to blow Trump off.

For liberals, a distracted Donald is a weak Donald, who did nothing important Wednesday and signed some empty executive orders Thursday. He was too busy claiming a political rival lied about Trumps own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, throwing the president under the bus, only to have his own staff confirm Gorsuchs comments.

Liberals should hope Trump spending four years throwing meat to 35% of voters who think the Keystone XL pipeline is a jobs program (35 full-time jobs once up and running!), coal mining is the industry of the future, and Uhmurkas hidin in fear from refugees who are Obamas Muslim cousins innyway.

And, Australia!

Liberals will always have Australia.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) is dealing with pressure from both President Donald Trump and Democrats over issues including trade, infrastructure spending and the controversial Trump travel ban. WSJ's Gerald F. Seib outlines how Sen. Schumer can navigate this tricky terrain over the next four years. Photo: AP

For Trump to do damage a Democratic president cant easily undo in 2021, hed need enough self-discipline to craft a sensible replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Ted Cruz scored rhetorical points about subsidized health care remaining expensive in a debate with Bernie Sanders this week but wait for the price of unsubsidized insurance the GOP thinks can replace it, all so people earning $250,000 a year and up can get a less-than-1% tax cut.

Trump said Thursday hell have a phenomenal tax announcement in a few weeks, but coming from him that could mean anything. And the next shiny butterfly may yet distract him.

For Trump to do real damage, hed cut corporate taxes in some way that doesnt add as much as $17,000 to imported-car prices, as a study from auto-industry researchers Baum and Associates projects. That plan would also boost prices for cheap Wal-Mart clothing, not to mention Ivankas classy Chinese-made duds.

Or hed figure out how to gut Dodd-Frank financial reforms without making it an obvious sap to Goldman Sachs. Then hope no less-savvy Goldman wannabe goes belly-up by 2020.

Instead, Mr. President, liberals demand you propose things that are obviously bonkers. Send marshals (or, troops!) to Chicago to help cut a murder rate lower than in the 1990s. Send more troops to Mexico to hunt bad hombres. Have your attorney general fight nonexistent voter fraud. Comp Japans Prime Minister at Mar-a-Lago! Better, charge him rack rate, like the WWII loser Japan is.

That way, you can spend time on these things, not gutting health-insurance markets or divvying up Syria with your new bruh Vladimir Putin.

And theyd like you to tweet all day long. Especially during intelligence briefings. About Nordstrom, or judges throwing your plans out faster than you can stack the Supreme Court.

Or the National Park Services coverup of photos proving your inaugural crowd was bigger than President Obamas, but got lost and went to Area 51.

I checked with Sen. Elizabeth Warren you know, Pocahontas? and she swears this would be splendid, much like telling Frances president you want a refund on NATO defense spending, which you already did.

I explained that its nuts. I warned her!

Nevertheless, she persisted.

Read more from the original source:
Opinion: Should liberals calm down about President Trump? - MarketWatch

To the Editor:

After reading the Letters to the Editor over the past few weeks, it is clear the mental health problems in this country are far greater than I suspected.

A couple that stand out include the man who wrote his own obituary. He talks about how we have destroyed the planet and he longs for the days of moderate and predictable weather. Dude, where have you been living the last 81 years? Did you ever take a history class where they talked about the Dust Bowl, plagues of locust, and other catastrophic weather events that have occurred throughout history? The world was never "San Diego like" with sunny skies and 70 degree temps for 300 days a year.

Next was the woman who said old, white, GOP men would come and take away her right to have an abortion. She talked about all of the high-risk pregnancies that occur and how those women will now die. Talk about spreading "fake news" around the county!

Finally, you have all of the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" folks protesting and terrorizing the nation. It is clear that liberals in this country have come unglued and we must do something about it for the sake of the nation.

I implore President Donald Trump to de-fund Planned Parenthood to stop the murder of infants and the selling of baby parts. The money saved can be used to buy antidepressants that will be free for all the poor souls who cannot survive in our new "America First" world.

Jamie Diamond

Woodstock

Get breaking and town-specific news sent to your phone. Sign up for text alerts from the Northwest Herald.

Read the rest here:
Liberals unglued - Northwest Herald

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

I'm a conservative. But sometimes wonder if I could describe myself as a member of the political left.

After all, I am animated by the same moral instinct that leftists endlessly and loudly profess: the belief that a society's moral worth is measured by how it treats its weakest, neediest, and most marginalized members. Like them, I am outraged by all the ways in which our society screws over the little guy. These convictions are born of my Christian faith and are anchored deep in my mind and heart.

But it's those same moral convictions that too often make me angry at the political left as it currently exists in the West, and make it impossible for me to call myself a leftist. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this better than the debate around the confirmation of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her stance on school choice.

School choice is not a fantasy of right-wing ideologues. For parents of means, it is a reality. They are able to either pay for private schools or move to districts with high-quality public schools. What school choice advocates like DeVos want is simply for poor children to have the same opportunities afforded to those parents who are better off. Opportunities that, by the way, many liberal parents happily exercise for themselves.

What's so wrong with the public school system as it is? Well, a lot.

Large, centralized, bureaucratic, top-down systems are impervious to change, innovation, institutional learning, and adaptability. They are particularly disadvantaged when it comes to being responsive to the needs of those they are supposed to serve as opposed to those of the insiders who man them. A public school classroom is not some platonic ideal of learning. It was born out of a very specific time and place, the late 19th century, when the elite ideal was the industrial assembly line. The way schools are designed today is based on these old ideas, which are rooted in shoddy philosophy and pseudo-science that has long been outdated.

Consider this: If a 19th century school teacher walked into a contemporary classroom, she would feel right at home, and could start teaching with minimal adaptation. Meanwhile, if a 19th century surgeon walked into a contemporary operating room, he would be utterly out of place, and if he wanted to perform a surgery, he would have to go through years of unlearning and relearning. This simple analogy should have us running around with our hair on fire every single day from sunrise to sundown in a state of collective fury.

Why haven't schools changed? In so many spheres of human endeavor medicine, business, the military, and academia new scientific discoveries, new organizational paradigms, and technological change have brought evolution and transformation. Innovation and efficiency comes about through a complicated trial-and-error process, one which is most effective the more decentralized it is, exactly the kind of process that large, top-down, centralized, bureaucratic organizations are most impervious to.

This issue is personal for me. As I was growing up, my family had economic ups and downs, and I experienced the worst as well as the best of what the school system in an advanced First World country had to offer. I had an unconventional learning style, which meant I did not do well in traditional public schools, and it was only because my parents eventually had enough money to put me in private schools that I eventually made something of myself academically. There is no doubt in my mind that if I had I not been afforded these opportunities, I would have become a teenage dropout.

I have personally witnessed the destruction that a top-down, one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic system can wreak on the lives of children who have the gall to be a square peg in a round hole, or have underprivileged parents, or both. There are so many kids with tremendous gifts whose lives will never reach their full potential because the public school system lets them down.

I broke out, and did well for myself. Now my own daughter goes to an alternative private school where she thrives to an astonishing degree, even as public school parents around me are in various states of dismay and panic. Every time I drop my daughter off or pick her up from school or go to a PTA meeting, I utter a silent prayer of thanks for this incredible luck and joy, right before my heart breaks at the thought of the parents who do not have the same privilege.

And then, if I'm in a sour mood, my thoughts go to the progressives who would sanctimoniously explain that, because I am a conservative, and I support school choice, I am somehow an advocate for cruelty or disregard for the poor. But it is they who are the members and agents of a political coalition whose goal is the sustainment of a system that actively destroys underprivileged children's lives.

Maybe you disagree, and that's fine. But for all that is beautiful, spare me your sanctimony. My cause is holy, and yours stinks to high heaven.

View post:
Liberals are wrong to gang up on Betsy DeVos - The Week Magazine