Editors' Picks | U.S.

Trump Voters Are Awakening America from Its Post-Racial Dream

February 29, 2016


Supporters of Republican front-runner Donald Trump gather at a rally in Dallas, Texas, on September 14, 2015. / Jamelle Bouie

 

Let us now do something sullying. Let us now praise Donald Trump.

It is not a specific action or statement that earns him his gold star. But he has nonetheless given America something it needs. Oddly from a man so uninformed and inarticulate, that something is knowledge. He is teaching white people something important, for many of us have been locked in shameful ignorance of our countrymen. Much of America convinced itself that there were no racists left—that the silencing of overt bigotry by social and legal censure (think of Paula Deen, Donald Sterling, or Don Imus) meant the problem of personal racism had been overcome. We therefore had to wrap our minds around “racism without racists.” But in fact the racists were with us all along.

A South Carolina poll taken just before that state’s primary vote—which Trump won easily—shows us just how prevalent bigotry is among Trump’s supporters and in the GOP at large. “A third of Mr. Trump’s (and [Ted] Cruz’s) backers believe that Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea,” political scientist Lynn Vavreck writes in the New York Times. The same poll “asked voters if they thought whites were a superior race.” Ten percent of South Carolina voters agreed and 11 percent weren’t sure, which is much the same thing. “Among Mr. Trump’s supporters, only 69 percent disagreed.” Seventy-four percent favor banning Muslims entering the country, and a third would do the same for gays and lesbians. And, nationally, “Nearly 20 percent of Mr. Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War.” In the Washington Post, Vavreck’s colleague Michael Tesler breaks down national polls showing that high levels of “racial resentment” and “immigrant resentment” track support for Trump.

Racists were chastened by the word police but never disabused of white-supremacist ideology.

As surveys such as these demonstrate, blatant personal racism is alive and far too well. Yet, for decades now, anti-racist activists and intellectuals have been wringing water from the stones of “structure,” “institution,” and “color blindness.” White privilege has become the governing concept of anti-racist discourse. These activists and intellectuals are not wrong. Racism is embedded in institutions, and whiteness is a source of carefully husbanded advantage. So are maleness, heterosexuality, and Protestant Christianity. But institutional racism and “possessive investment in whiteness” are at once potent realities and bookish abstractions—to many, as consequential as they are incomprehensible. Try telling a white family on unemployment about their privilege. (Hell, try telling a Princeton student.) If you’re one of the poorly educated people Trump loves, these ideas are probably meaningless to you. Even if you’re not poorly educated but just steeped in America’s racial dysfunction, they may well sound like gibberish or some sort of lefty hoax. Consider that Chief Justice John Roberts, an erudite man and one of the most consequential thinkers of his age, actually believes that if we ignore race there will be no more racism.

This dysfunction and naïveté reflect not so much truth as conviction—many Americans are certain we have moved beyond not just racism but race itself. Think of the exhortations of post-racial America once Obama was in the White House. The activists and intellectuals rightly sneered, but who listened?

Even when the loudest voices in public life acknowledge that America is not post-racial, they have become experts in ignoring racism, and the population with them. We are so adept at blinding ourselves to the racists among us that we don’t even talk about them when we’re, you know, talking about them. The Post analysis follows its pollster’s convention on “racial resentment” and offers its own awkward and contrived “racial conservatism” rather than “racism.” Similarly, the words “racism” and “racist” don’t appear in the Times story explaining that a fifth of Trump’s supporters prefer blacks be enslaved and nearly a third in one state believe that whites are or may be inherently superior to blacks. Instead we hear about “ethnocentrism” and “deeply rooted racial attitudes” and “people who are responsive to religious, social and racial intolerance.” Now that is a verbal fugue to be reckoned with. Encore, maestro, encore.

Shockingly, the most ardent racists also won’t come right out and say it. Klan wizard dragon David Duke tells white people that voting for a candidate other than Trump is committing “treason to your heritage.” Grand enchanter Duke thinks we should recognize the “concerns of European Americans today.” High-powered lizard magician Duke appreciates that Trump has “meant a lot for the human rights of European Americans.”

Ethnocentrism, heritage, racial attitudes, European American human rights? Arise, America! Abandon the battlements of your code words. White people may not say “nigger” much anymore—sorry, “n-----”—but they still think it. At least, a considerable number of them do, and they might just go a long way toward nominating the Republican Party’s presidential candidate.

If this is surprising, it shouldn’t be. Racists were chastened by the word police but never disabused of an ideology in which white supremacy reflects the universe’s order, natural or divine. Remember when self-styled revanchist rancher and anti-federal cowboy hat Cliven Bundy argued that black people “abort their young children” and “put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton”? “Are they better off as slaves,” he mused, lightly disclaiming his beliefs by putting them in the form of a question. Ha ha, post-racial America laughed uncomfortably until he shut up. Ha ha, you’re one crazy guy.

But it is not one crazy guy, and there is no use pretending otherwise. That is 20 percent of the people voting for the man whom the pundits, on the eve of Super Tuesday, call inevitable, overwhelming, a runaway train.

So thank you, Donald Trump, for showing us more clearly the world we live in. Through your own bigoted pronouncements about Muslims and Mexicans—sometimes ironically couched in the formally neutral language of security and rule of law—you have made of yourself a shining beacon attracting the pestilent flies of American racism. They are matter, not vapor. The taboos are smashed and, with them, the recourse to conceptual difficulty. Privilege is real, but it doesn’t rest on a foundation of occult forces. Privilege is real because many Americans believe it is deserved—because they know, deep down, that God-soaked white people are just better than everyone else.

Read more: 

Comments

Racism.  It's what's taught at the family dinner table.  If kids learn it early from their parents, they haul it around for the rest of their lives, and teach it to their kids..  They'd rather be racist than dishonor their parents.

Kids don't need to learn racism from their parents. They can learn it from their peers, the same way cuss words and dirty jokes are handed down from older school kids to younger ones. And now they can go on the internet and really study it and learn all the talking points on pro Confederate and white supremacist web sites.

As both of your points are valid, kids do learn from their peers but are ultimately influenced by their parents.

But, Simon, what are you doing here? Isn’t this sort of thing preaching to the choir? Obviously, the loyal BR readership, on whose patronage you depend, is not the subject of your ire. Any more than a competent political candidate would insult his audience with racist slurs, a professional scribe’s raison dêtre is not to lecture his subscribers. This is clearly intended to reassure your readers that “thank God we are not like them”. A particularly invidious position to take, I should think.

Of course, racism is not really the problem. Such words, usually ending in ‘ism’, generally serve more deliberately to mystify rather than to clarify something as philosophically impenetrable as human behaviour. Meanwhile, no one can really be said to be literally “colourblind”. Not in the sense of being blissfully unaware of variegated colours. Not even those legally diagnosed as such, whose problem is just that their brain’s interpretation of the raw visual sensory data differs from a socially-determined imperative for conformity to a statistical norm. To declare oneself politically colourblind is rather like claiming that Pepsi and Coke are really the same thing. Or that the man currently sitting in the Oval Office is really just like any other American. It’s the interpretation of the significance of what is a patently obvious, genetic deviation that is at issue. But that, too, is only a symptom of a much larger dilemma.

What does it really mean to “be human”? To berate the ignorant for being ignorant scarcely hides a pervasive paradox. To defend “our common humanity” by vociferously disowning large, poll-respondent slabs of the species as “pestilent flies”, barely worthy of due consideration, runs the risk of severely diminishing what it could possibly mean to “be human” at all. It behooves, methinks, those endowed with the requisite intellect, education and pragmatically undeserved privilege, to bear in mind that innate xenophobia, hypocrisy and an inherently pathetic dependency on a hopelessly ambiguous system of wholly arbitrary semantics, ostensibly to “convey indefatigable meaning”, ultimately incriminates us all. Who among ye, will cast the first stone at a lightly-defined “racist”?

Like it or not, the fear of the socially unfamiliar is as genetically predetermined as the fear of flying. As a natural response to the unknown, fear actually saves lives. Unless we treat with the utmost respect and dignity the pariah within our gates, the convicted criminal found guilty of the most heinous crime, the social misfit and all those who, for whatever reason, do not quite satisfactorily comply with our own high-minded expectations of what is deemed acceptable, we run the very serious risk of forfeiting even our own professed attainment to humanity.
 

We don't have to respect these people at all. Racism is precisely the problem. "Genetically pre-determined" fear of people who are different from you is something that people can and do overcome, and they have a moral duty to do so. It has nothing whatever to do with "color-blindness," which is a joke. It has to do with how you treat other people: are you fair, or are you an asshole?
And, by the way, the condescending, highfalutin tone of your comment is utterly nauseating.

Here is a clear demonstration of how the Internet has exposed the contradictions of “democracy”.

Donald Trump, whether intentionally or not, has revealed the logical impossibility of giving everyone a voice. The noble dictum, “The people know best”, finally stands exposed to ridicule. Recall how Hillary Clinton was appalled when the people of Gaza – systematically subjected to the “interests of American National Security” – democratically preferred Hamas. How many times have we seen popularly elected demagogues, promptly amend the system by which they were installed, under the pretext of “guided democracy”? Trump does not need to ascend any further to take the White House. The ineluctable corruption of “the System” has at last been revealed. The veil to obscure The Holy of Holies has been irreparably rent in twain.

Here’s the glaring contradiction, for all to see. To defeat Trump, the GOP is now faced with having to interdict a candidate “preferred by the elite”. An unambiguous denial of the sacrosanct first principle of “democracy”. Which is sure to alienate absolutely the very rank and file, on which every candidate implicitly depends. That is why political rhetoric cannot afford to be seen to dabble in the niceties of philosophical abstraction. The Internet clearly demonstrates that populism is the only game in town. The Greeks, much-lauded as “the inventors of democracy”, never envisaged giving the plebs, “The Great Unwashed”, a voice in the Affairs of State.

SqueakyRat here finds my “condescending, highfalutin tone utterly nauseating”. How I treat other people is defined by being fair, rather than an asshole. [The ad hominem is indispensable. There is no better way to seek to discredit “highfalutin” rhetoric.] Which neatly avoids having to acknowledge that “being human” is inherently problematic. Ever since Homo Sapiens stood up to be counted, we’ve been struggling to transcend our own animal natures. Religion continues to persuade the faithful that our natural instincts are “the root of all evil”. The quintessential, rhetorical paradox. To define as less than human those who offend my own sensibilities, is to lose sight of my own exalted aspirations.

To declare that at least “I am not a liar” is clearly dishonest. There is hardly a more obvious example of my own innate hypocrisy, than to defame another for it. The nascent drive to sexual promiscuity explains the “disgusting immorality” that has spectacularly infected every polite society. Our biologically essential sex drive will forever embarrass the strict hypocrisies inherent to every “enlightened civilisation”.

If I am to deny that “racism” is the foundation of “the milk of human kindness”, then I am an inveterate racist. How else to explain The Holocaust to my grandchildren? Or visiting unspeakable suffering on the innocent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden, Vietnam, Cambodia … and Fallujah. How else to explain the white-supremacist raison d’être of the Pentagon, justifiable only by treating whole populations of South East Asia as monkeys and those of “The Middle East” as primitive camel herders?
 

"You have to be taught to hate and fear
Youhave to be taught from year to year
It has to be drummed in your dear little ear
You have to be carefully taught
 
You have to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made
And people whose skin is a different shade
You have to be carefully taught
 
You have to be taught before it's too late
Before you are six or seven or eight
To hate all the people your relatives hate
You have to be carefully taught, you have to be carefully taught"

The prohibition of "nigger" in writing, and probably in speech, is, in my opinion, counter productive in that seeing "N-----" or "N-word" in print can put only one word in the mind of the reader, and that is "nigger", not "nasturtium" or any other word beginning with "N".
This is automatic; it will trigger the forbidden word in people who would never write or utter it. Test it yourselves, or on yourselves.
I am reminded far too often of a cartoon from the 60s that ran in The Realist, regarding censorship on TV; it depicted a multi-generational family, including the dog, watching TV. One speech/thought bubble stated some text and a "bleep", while the other thought bubbles for every other character contained the word each person thought had been bleeped...of course, they were forbidden TV words, or worse.
It's probably too late, and impossible, to reverse what I believe is an idiotic solution to a racism problem.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. CAPTCHA is not case sensitive.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.