Now, I’m totally confused. Am I, to you, supposed to be on the far left or on the far right, or is it just all one big race-obsessed mishmash, like the rest of your ahistorical and myopic worldview? The fact that I’m explaining why Trump gets support from alienated poor and working-class whites means I’m a Trump voter? The fact that I recognize that these people are feeling alienated by anti-white racism means I’m a bigoted racist myself? I’m arguing for a broad-scale attack on the entrenched establishment that prevents equality of opportunity from becoming a reality, and yet, to you, I’m some sort of conservative? I mean, this is such total nonsense that I don’t need to respond to it beyond posing those rhetorical questions. If you want to misrepresent my views and throw around loaded epithets, be my guest, but it won’t change the fact that, somewhere in the back of your mind, you’ll know that you’re losing the substantive argument, just like all African-Americans will lose out if they bring Corporate Clinton to power.
The reality — and part of the reason for your confusion — is that Sanders’ and Trump’s voters have much more of an overlap than do the voters of the status quo candidates of corporate America, including the dynastic legacy candidates such as Corporate Clinton and the fortunately rejected Jeb Bush. And it’s no surprise that the Establishment in both parties in doing its best to roll out every dirty trick in the book against Sanders and Trump because they’re speaking directly to struggling citizens and threatening the Establishment’s power structure. It’s sad to see that you — who purport to be some sort of crusader for racial justice — would endorse Corporate Clinton, someone who will simply reinforce racial polarization while doing nothing of substance to help the cause of black people in America.
I won’t go point by point because many of your points ring completely hollow, but I’ll say a few words in response to some of your claims:
- You say I’m bastardizing Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy by quoting him in support of the ideal of race-blindness, but you don’t actually adduce any evidence in support of your assertion. The fact is that, outside of black nationalists, a race-blind society was the widespread ideal of the civil rights movement. Black people wanted to be treated like HUMAN BEINGS who aren’t any better or worse than other human beings in America, which is a view I support 100% and that no non-racist should have a problem with. But, as I documented, with time, that view changed to a more anti-white, zero-sum, us-vs.-them, race-conscious mentality, and the predictable result is the growing black-white polarization we’ve seen in the last few years. If you want to take issue with any of the specific points I made about the actual history of these trends, go ahead, but so far, you’ve just been bloviating.
- You say, “Get rid of racism and antiblackness and maybe then we can ‘blend in.’” What you don’t get is that this is a chicken-and-egg problem. The more you stress the sociological fiction of race that has been used, historically, for the purpose of asserting one group’s purported superiority to another, the more people, both black and white, will see race as a real, insuperable barrier. I’ve told you that the ONLY real way of addressing anti-black racism is through class-based reforms because, historically speaking, EVERY group that constituted an underclass in America — Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Catholics, Jews, you name it — was discriminated against based on who they were and labeled genetically inferior, but when that group made it into the middle class and got integrated, the prejudice against it largely dissipated. I have no reason to believe the same thing wouldn’t happen with black Americans if they became fully integrated rather than constituting a racially marked underclass. This is why the solution to racism isn’t anti-racism, just like the solution to anti-Semitism isn’t Zionism. The more racists there are, the more anti-racists there will be, and conversely, the more anti-racists there are, the more racists there will be. These kinds of binaries are mutually reinforcing and have to be dissolved rather than constantly re-balanced. The way to dissolve this dialectic is through class, which unites a broad group of people rather than prolonging cycles of race-based bickering and oppression that accomplish nothing.
- You wrote, “ Democrats haven’t won working class whites, or whites in general, since they fled the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights Bill (for obvious reasons) and focusing on them will lead to more losses such as Bernie Sanders’.” I guess actual statistics don’t much matter to you, huh? As I documented in my last response, Obama actually WON the white vote. A majority of those allegedly racist whites of yours actually supported a black president. But then, after that, our country started to engage in non-stop race-baiting and demonizing of white people. The result? Well, they fled the Democratic Party. Now, many of them are voting for Trump. I’m not suggesting Democrats need to “focus on” white people. I wouldn’t want them to focus on white people or black people. I’d want them to focus on the lack of equality of opportunity in the rigged society we’re living in. That’s a message that would attract everyone, and the very fact that an old, self-professed socialist from Vermont is gaining as much traction as he is is a testament to that fact. To defeat him, Corporate Clinton has had to engage in her version of the good old Southern strategy, which tries to balkanize the electorate by pandering to race issues in order to get poor black people to vote against their own economic interests just like Republicans have gotten poor white people to vote against their own economic interests by doing essentially the same thing. She should be ashamed of herself, but I don’t think shame is a feeling that the trend-following, flip-flopping, opportunistic, bought-and-paid-for Corporate Clinton very often feels.
- A bit like Marco Rubio in that debate repeating the same thing regardless of how silly it looked, you keep on parroting this talking point of yours about Nixon’s aide saying the war on drugs was about hurting blacks, but you keep ignoring my larger point that the war on drugs wasn’t fought by just one president, and it certainly didn’t have just one motivation, and it also enjoyed widespread support in black communities. If you don’t want to get beyond your ready-made talking points, that’s fine, but then don’t expect me or anyone else to buy any of what you’re selling.