Donald Trump

White Identity Politics Gave Us Trump. But Did the Left Give Us White Identity Politics?

Welcome to the tribe.

|

Trump
Jose More / VWPics/Newscom

Sen. Bernie Sanders recently criticized the Democratic Party's slavish devotion to an overly-simplistic form of race-and-gender-based identity politics.

"It is not good enough for someone to say, 'I'm a woman! Vote for me!' No, that's not good enough," said Sanders. "What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies."

In response, Quentin James—former head of Ready for Hillary's outreach efforts to people of color—had this to say, "I like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders but his comments regarding identity politics suggest he may be a white supremacist, too."

Sanders. A white supremacist. For daring to suggest that the most obvious sort of race-and-gender tribalism was not a winning strategy for the left.

This baseless accusation is emblematic of a specific problem for Democrats who, having successfully galvanized certain segments of the population into identity-based political coalitions, lost the presidential election because the people outside this group—working-class whites—formed a coalition of their own. The Democratic Party has itself to blame, of course: you can't cheer for white men to go extinct and then be surprised when they desert your candidate. Or, as Spiked magazine's Brendan O'Neill put it, liberals essentially did the following:

His point is we shouldn't be surprised to see people vote in keeping with the ill-defined interests of their designated identity group: that's the game the Lena Dunham Left has been playing with increasing fervency for years.

But identity politics—and the backlash they inspired in the form of Trump—are not just a problem for the left: they concern us all. That's because the idea that one's interests are tied to one's tribal affiliation is anathema to the libertarian worldview. In fact, there's nothing less libertarian than the tribe—and the more tribal our politics become, the less respectful of individual liberty they will be.

As an example, Trump's victory is now calling attention to the plight of the supposed "forgotten man"—the struggling white working class. These people have formed a race-and-income-based voting bloc, and they support Trump because he says he supports them. Trump wants to bring back jobs from overseas, punish corporations that screw over workers, and halt immigration as a means of decreasing labor competition.

But just because a set of policies are good for the tribe—and it's dubious whether the previously mentioned policies even satisfy that criteria—does not mean they are good for society, or enhance individual rights. Indeed, halting immigration would be both economically ruinous and a major human rights violation against immigrants, whether or not it makes the white working class happy. And of course, the white working class isn't a sentient being with rights of its own: it's an expression of a collective. Its members have rights, but those are human rights, not white-working-class rights.

And that's the curse of identity politics: in subjugating individual rights, they also undermine social welfare. Instead of asking whether a given policy makes sense, tribalists only ask whether a given policy is good for the tribe to which they belong—for women, or for the white working class, or for Muslims, and so on. In that way, identity politics put the ostensible good of the group before the good of the individual and the good of society as a whole.

Nothing good will come of this. To defend individual liberty and promote human prosperity in the era of Trump, libertarians must fight the insidious notion that the point of politics is to back the tribe's champion.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

172 responses to “White Identity Politics Gave Us Trump. But Did the Left Give Us White Identity Politics?

  1. You know who else was a white supremacist?

      1. Larry Byrd-now there was a white supremacist! When it came to basketball anyway…

        1. Sorry-I meant Larry Bird

      2. The only one ever!

    1. John Wesley Hanes?

    2. Hugo black?

      1. Did he ever come back?

    3. Woodrow Wilson?

    4. Oddly, my Chinese roommate in college?

      1. I’m pretty sure his name was spelled Odd Lee.

        1. They Call Me Bruce.

    5. Walter White?

      1. You’re Goddamn right!

    6. Matt LeBlanc?

    7. Ian Stuart?

    8. Winnipeg Jets fans in the playoffs?

    9. Buford T. Justice?

      1. ” There’s no way, *no* way that you came from *my* loins. Soon as I get home, first thing I’m gonna do is punch yo mamma in da mouth! “

    10. Tila Tequila?

    11. You that one time?

    12. Fidel Castro?

    13. John Mayer’s penis?

    14. Clarence Thomas?

    15. Frosty?

    16. Shaun King?

    17. Every white person everywhere? /progtard

    18. Nathan Bedford Forrest?

    19. Barry White?

    20. Dave Chappelle?

    21. Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

    22. Mr. Sta Puft?

  2. White identity politics gave us Trump? When Trump did slightly worse with white voters than Romney, while doing significantly better than Romney among Latinos and blacks? FFS, Froot Sooshi, do you even logic?

    1. It wasn’t Latinos and blacks that nominated him.

      1. It’s the GOP primaries. Latinos and blacks aren’t nominating anybody.

        1. Exactly. I believe it was the niggers, wetbacks, chinks, and quite possibly saltwater Mexicans, however I have no solid proof as of yet.

          1. Saltwater Mexicans? Haven’t heard that before. Catchy! Are they a band?

    2. Should have refreshed, you beat me by 1 min.

    3. Like most pundits, Soave fails to see that Trump is the convergence of several trends.

      1. This sounds most accurate. But, nuance doesn’t bring the clicks.

        1. And Robby has a lot of stupid ideas.

      2. Like most pundits, Soave will now tell us why a thing happened that they all assured us could never happen in first place. But they are the experts!

    4. Black man elected by black people equals historic moment and rational self interest.

      White man elected by white people equals decline of America and rise of white supremacist.

      Seems legit.

  3. Isn’t it true that Trump got less of the white vote than Romney? Isn’t it true that Trump got more of the black and Hispanic vote than Romney? Oh, it is? Then HTF did white identity politics give us Trump?

  4. I have yet to see evidence that the “white working-class” identity was ever consciously adopted by the Trumpenproletariat.

    1. I don’t think it’s widespread, but you can’t discount that group of alt-righters (and sympathizers). Anecdotally, I was shocked by how many of my friends and coworkers bought into this white-collectivism (though I doubt any of them even know what the alt-right is). You’ll never be able to pin down an exact number, but I believe there’s an identity politics motivation for a good number of people. I think Robby’s pretty spot on (but for some of his immigrant reaction stuff and just how many people the white collectivism is influencing)

      1. White dudes just want to get in on the victim act too. Everybody else is doing it.

      2. How much of that white collectivism is simply a reaction to the realization that all the other identity groups are making hella claims? I ask because i really don’t know. Collectivism is stupid and baffling.

        1. I’m sure it’s the “they get special attention, why don’t we?” thing. That’s the vibe I get from the people I’ve talked to: “White people are treated badly.” “We’re seen as enemies.” “No one is looking out for us, but we’re the majority.” That kind of thing. It’s not even wrong, per se, it’s just lazy.

          1. I think a bit of it goes to the cognitive dissonance that say a white waitress or a white auto mechanic get when told by an elite liberal with Masters degrees that they have giant heaping amounts of privilege due to their skin color and they need to give waaay more of their tax dollars to underprivileged non-white people so that those people can attend college for free and get degrees in social justice that encourage and demand that they spit on any working white people that they see.

            Basically white people are using the old definition of racism and giving the left their middle fingers when they say, X group can’t be racist because they don’t have ….white skin….

            1. Basically the working public is making a move back to wanting to just beat the shit out of moronic fags like that. Which is the correct instinct.

              1. ^ this hehehehe

        2. I think Hoffer nailed it. Most people hate themselves for being insufficient. By identifying with a group, they can adopt the successes of the group and claim it as their own.

          1. I mean, i’ve seen dudes here in the comments do that explicitly.

          2. Most people hate themselves for being insufficient.

            Good description of Michigan fans. (Where did Rico go to school again?)

            Urban is now 5-0 and Harbaugh is now 0-2 in The Game. And TTUN loses 46 seniors and we lose maybe a dozen people, and might only lose 3 starters. We are gonna go into Ann Arbor and make them sorry for whining and acting like bitches after we beat them like a fucking drum for the sixth time in a row. 362 days…

            Oh, and that was off topic. Sorry.

            1. What a stupid thing to care about.

              1. Tell that to Harbaugh and the Michigan fans that have now gone 1830 days since beating us.

          3. Good point.

        3. You may not want to play identity politics, but identity politics wants to play with you.

          1. And that is the crux of the matter. Unfortunately.

      3. To some extent, I’m sure you’re partially right. The thing is, a lot of the Trump voters I know weren’t really talking about race so much as “the middle and working classes”. To them, black and Hispanic ‘Murkans had just as much reason to vote for Trump as they did.

        1. Well, truth be told, when the only way to not be called racist is to swallow progressive programs and bullshit whole, then fuck it, I don’t care anymore….

          1. there’s pretty much no way to avoid being called racist. eventually, you will be regardless of your actual positions on the subject.

            1. So. Then fuck the progtards and their hierarchy of victimhood. Sanctimonious assholes.

              (Mr. Sta Puft approves this message.)

    2. What was consciously adopted? 3 am tweets don’t count.

      1. If 3am tweets are out of consideration, then i don’t even know if anyone HAS a political philosophy anymore.

        1. My political philosophy is get money, fuck bitchez. Coincidentally, Bill Clinton has the same philosophy.

          1. His is just in the other order.

            1. “First ju get de power, den ju get de money, den ju get de womyn.”

              The Honorable Senator Montana from the great state of Cuba

          2. That’s a good philosophy.

          3. It’s a great philosophy I wonder what the hell he was thinking marrying Kim Jong Hil

      2. One thing about 3 AM tweets is that we know Trump will at least be awake to answer that 3 AM phone call….. On second thought, that might not be a good thing.

    3. I have yet to see evidence that the “white working-class” identity was ever consciously adopted by the Trumpenproletariat.

      Largely this. I think most Trump voters identify much more with the working class than the white part of the equation (even if most are white). The emphasis on white seemed to be much more of a reaction of the media analysts, which elements of the alt-right were all too happy to leverage.

      1. It’s both. You’re probably right that it’s more a “working class” thing than “white”. There seem to be many for whom the “white” part is more relevant, but I have nothing objective to base any hard number or percentage on.

        1. Turns out “Vote for me or you’re a racist, sexist, homophobic pile of shit” isn’t a very good campaign slogan….

          1. It is if your black

  5. You know who else thought the election of someone would user in a new age of white identity politics…

    1. *usher

      1. Usher?

        1. Fall of?

          1. “Show me your ticket stubs, or get the fuck out?”

      2. Really? That sounds completely unlike him, but I’ll take your word for it.

    2. Strom Thurmond?

  6. The only way to fight identity politics is to fight them regardless of group identity. The white identity stuff is an inevitable consequence of the Balkanization of the American electorate.

    1. This right here.
      Why does individualism seem to be such a hard sell?

      1. Because having to think of each person you encounter as a real human being with perspectives that are entirely their own is really difficult.

        1. I don’t know if you are being sarcastic (I don’t think so), but you are absolutely correct. It is so much easier to just put strangers into preexisting boxes with all the assumptions about who and what they are already in place. It’s a habit that’s hard to break.

        2. I beginning to think that libertarians are abnormal in our belief in judging people solely as individuals. We are grossly outnumbered by idiots that want just want to belong…..

          1. Those damned conformist idiots need to conform to our nonconformity! Now, how do we sell that?

            What a conundrum.

      2. The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

        – Hoffer

      3. Maybe because when you’re facing an army of people who have no respect for your notions of individuality, it’s kinda nice having someone stand at either hand to keep the bridge with you. I’m not saying individuality is not a wonderful thing to aspire to, but I can completely understand why people form up into packs when they see another pack coming baying for their blood.

    2. Yes, and it’s sad and disappointing to see things heading in this direction. In hindsight, I think this might be why I was always uncomfortable with the identify politics in the Democratic Party.

      1. Hindsight? Uncomfortable?

        You have a gift for understatement.

  7. “What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies.”

    Jesus Christ. Yeh, that’s *exactly* what you need. A paranoid, left-wing crank.

    1. “With that in mind, i’d like to introduce you to-” [ducks behind podium, comes back up with a wig on] “Bernadette Sanders, your 2020 presidential candidate!”

      1. dude, you just won the comments….

        1. Quick! Grab him by the pussy!

  8. OK, I’ll bite. Why is Brendan O’Neill wearing Mickey Mouse ears?

  9. Just because I’m superior to everyone and happen to be white, that doesn’t make me a white supremist.

  10. Quentin James?former head of Ready for Hillary’s outreach efforts to people of color?had this to say, “I like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders but his comments regarding identity politics suggest he may be a white supremacist, too.”

    “It slices. It dices.”

    Seriously, these people have disappeared up their own assholes.

    1. You’re not a fan of the HORFHOETPOC role?

      “Nice to meet you. What do you do?”

      “Me? Oh, I’m part of the Hillary campaign. I’m the HORFHOETPOC.”

    2. An asshole singularity? That’s Nobel stuff if the experimenters can find the boson!

  11. When all politics is identity based, White Identity politics is another flavor in the practical and Libertarianism’s individualist position is a flavor in the theoretical. Since most politics in the real world is practiced in the practical, this is what you get – Identity groups fighting for power/position and “their” slice of the pie. You may not like it, but there it is.

    1. We need Libertopia. I was promised Libertopia. WHERE IS LIBERTOPIA???

      1. Somalia?

        1. Too many bad drivers. Maybe it’s the lack of roads.

      2. Bend over and grab your ankles. Someone will show you shortly.

        1. And it’s best to close your eyes first.

  12. “But just because a set of policies are good for the tribe?and it’s dubious whether the previously mentioned policies even satisfy that criteria?does not mean they are good for society, or enhance individual rights.”

    The left has pushed policies like this for 50 years. Now you notice?

    1. Yes, I’m sure Robby just noticed this now. He’s probably never said anything about the idiocy of those policies before. You got him!

      1. Also, tu quoque bullshit, but that was too easy.

        1. You’re so good at this!!!

  13. Someone once told me that “the answer to any headline formatted as a question is always no”, and for the most part that metric has held true. Today, however, the answer is yes.

  14. “Trump wants to bring back jobs from overseas, punish corporations that screw over workers, and halt immigration as a means of decreasing labor competition.”

    Obviously this only helps the white working class…friends that aren’t white, but are working class are shit out of luck…and obviously couldn’t have voted for Trump…cause race!

  15. halting immigration would be both economically ruinous and a major human rights violation against immigrants

    First, “halting immigration” is not on the table, so enough with that strawman. Secondly, I’d love to hear which specific “human right” is violated when you tell a potential immigrant that he’s not allowed to immigrate because of reasons X, Y or Z. Third, they’re called “natural rights”. “Human rights” is leftspeak for a wide range of things that include “the right to high speed internet”, and is favored over “natural rights” because then they can include basically anything into the list-o-rights. At least try to conceal the fact that you’re a warmed over progressive.

  16. Robby, I blame Jim Harbaugh.

    1. That whiny little twat with his post-game rampage is gonna be bitterly disappointed when Ohio State goes into Ann Arbor in 362 days and thoroughly annihilates his team.

      1. Oh God you actually care about that shit

  17. OK, why are identity politics and tribalism anathema to libertarians?

    1. Because kumbaya

      1. Robby is such a profound and indispensable thinker, that one might think he graduated from a journalism program somewhere.

    2. Because they are utterly anti-individualistic notions.

      1. So are insurance policies and team sports. COLLECTIVISM EVERYWHERE!

    3. Because the only thing identity politics does is make you hate people you’ve never met and take credit for things you had nothing to do with.

      1. ^ This.

    4. Simple … because our philosophy is based in the natural rights of the individual. Identity and tribalism or however you want to place the group above the individual, is anathema to that. It says that the individual means nothing, only the group matters. It says that personal goals should be subsumed to group goals. That it doesn’t matter what you want, only what someone has decided that the group should want, regardless of how it affects any individual within the group.

  18. “halting immigration would be both economically ruinous and a major human rights violation against immigrants”

    It’s a human right to be able to migrate to the US? Since when? Where did it come from? WTH?

    1. Until about WWI, there wasn’t typically any notion of halting a person’s transit from one place to another. It’s a violation of freedom of movement couched in this new nationalistic notion that people born on certain dirt are sacredly entitled to said dirt through no effort of their own.

      1. That is more because of the lack of proof of identity than policy of immigration. Since even in England having a birth certificate was not required until 1875, and the US did not have a system until about 1901, establishing the origin of immigrants was only possible if they volunteered to disclose it or it was otherwise obvious. The Asian Exclusion Act was passed in the US in 1875, preventing the immigration of Asians, and then the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882 excluding all Chinese immigrants. Immigration laws have been around as long as there have been governments. Establishing an international border is an act of control that has always required immigration control.

  19. “Indeed, halting immigration would be both economically ruinous….”

    Rationale please. And what’s the right number of immigrants to avoid this certain catastrophe?

    1. Its Robby. He doesn’t do “rationale”

      1. FWIW, the same argument is advanced by every other Reason writer, so one could pick any article on the topic if more information is needed.

        1. Other Reason articles I’ve seen that made the same point lacked a rationale that had a reasonable basis in economics, if a rationale was attempted.

          1. And I don’t recall the other articles characterizing the results of halting immigration as ruinous.

          2. Even if importing millions of low-skill and low-aptitude people from third world was an unqualified economic gain to a first world advanced economy with a welfare state, economic criteria alone are not the sole factor to consider. Even if in Shikha Dalmia’s wildest wettest dreams it turned out that this Somali terrorist was a net gain economically, there’s still a pretty strong case to be made that this society would have been better off without his presence here.

            1. “Even if importing millions of low-skill and low-aptitude people from third world was an unqualified economic gain to a first world advanced economy with a welfare state, ”

              It WOULD be an unquestionable gain without the damn welfare state. Like how adding a penny to a million dollars is still a gain. So let’s fix the part of the equation that makes our immigrant profits unprofitable, which is the cancerous welfare state, a state that even makes KEEPING OUR OWN CITIZENS unprofitable.

        2. I personally believe there is a demonstrable net economic-gain from immigration; both legal and illegal.. and surprisingly – possibly even more benefit from the illegal kind (and the fact that it remains illegal)

          that said – i don’t at all think that any changes brought to the immigration system by ‘different legislation’ would have any significant effect on this net-benefit;

          in fact the change in any benefit has more to do with how those immigrants are used within the economy, and the rate at which they transition to ‘regular citizens’. I doubt there would be any legislative policy which would have any instant effect on “stopping” illegal immigration, and i also doubt that any change to the legal-immigration system would have any sudden and clear impact on the economy either.

          One can be a proponent of liberal immigration policy without making stupid blanket-statements about the catastrophic consequences of a less-liberal policy.

          1. Yes on all points. But to add to the discussion, one needs to look at net per capita benefit, which most fail to do. Clearly adding immigrants adds to GDP, one metric for economic benefit that many trot out. But adding to gross GDP doesn’t necessarily help individuals if the population increases (on average). And whatever net gain there is per immigrant is small, assuming there is a net gain, which I think there is. Your last point is the one I was making.

    2. The US has a larger land border than many other countries. Do you thin trying to secure miles and miles of worthless fucking desert is magically cost-free?? No, that shit’s expensive.

      1. My assumption was that Robby was not using “halt immigration” literally, but to significantly decrease it in a way that passes a reasonableness test. To take it literally is nonsensical. There is no practical or impractical way to halt immigration entirely.

  20. Indeed, halting immigration would be both economically ruinous and a major human rights violation against immigrants, whether or not it makes the white working class happy.

    What “major” human right do immigrants specifically have to come to the United States without the government controlling the number? And if there is one, do we also have the same right to enter their countries of origin, or are their immigration policies kosher? If yes, will you write a piece decrying the (much stricter) immigration policies of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and most other Latin American countries?

    1. Every other place in the world has an immigration policy stricter than ours, and would be described by Robby as engaging in major human rights violations. So. Not sure what meaning it has.

    2. “What “major” human right…?”

      Freedom of movement.

      “do we also have the same right…?”

      Yes, don’t ask stupid questions.

      “If yes, will you write…?”

      Let me ask a different question. When an author writes something about, say, penalizing free speech on American state campuses or something like that, do you bitch and moan about how the author isn’t also writing articles to point out that countries like France and Saudi Arabia are worse in the freedom of speech department?? If the US moves to criminalize hate speech in the future, will you tell everyone opposing such a measure that they must FIRST write articles about the sad state of free speech in Cuba and North Korea before they can write about such a law proposed in America??

      Why the hell do you think “other countries do it worse” is a good excuse??

  21. I am half Greek and sometimes people think I am Middle Eastern (who are technically Caucasian) or Hispanic, especially in the summer when I have more of a tan. Someone even asked me once if Greeks are a different race. So now I am thinking, why not? Just because some group of overeducated whites at an elite university didn’t say we are? We have our own language, culture, and food, and I had to listen to lots of butt sex jokes in middle/high school (a hate crime nowadays…)

    1. Oh yea, we were oppressed by the Turks for 500 years too, but because they were not an Anglo/Christian power, I guess that doesn’t count.

    2. Worked for Hispanics, didn’t it? Former white European imperialists, extremely numerous, yet somehow a “minority”.

      1. Depends-Mexicans and Central Americans are a mix of indigenous and European, but Argentines, who are also considered Hispanic, are of almost entirely European descent. In South American countries especially, the white Europeans segregated themselves from the darker skinned natives much more than they ever did in the US, and still do.

      2. There was a whole Spanish racial hierarchy in Latin America, whites on top and various degrees of half-breeds below. Of course there’s no distinction when people talking about ‘Hispanics’ as a monolithic group.

        1. Any monolithic racial identity group that includes both David Ortiz and Selena Gomez seems like it might be used for political expediency.

      3. I always wonder how that parses when it comes to the stupid concept “privilege” for Hispanics. On one hand, sure, part of their ancestors were brutally oppressed. But on the other hand, the people who were doing the oppression were… their other ancestors. Do they owe themselves reparations, or how does that work??

        As a Norse-Gael, I’m in a similar situation, but I already paid myself reparations for the viking slave trade, so I’m all in the clear now.

    3. I had to listen to lots of butt sex jokes in middle/high school

      When and where the hell did you go to school, 55 BC in Rome?

      1. SRS -55 RULE!

  22. White Identity Politics Gave Us Trump. But Did the Left Give Us White Identity Politics?

    I think what you are trying to say is that opposition to “black identity politics” gave us Trump. But the opposite of “black identity politics” isn’t “white identity politics”, it is a rejection of any form of identity politics.

  23. halting immigration would be both economically ruinous and a major human rights violation against immigrants

    Trump doesn’t want to “halt immigration”, he wants to halt illegal immigration. His immigration program is similar to that of Canada or most of Europe: you can immigrate if you have special skills or lots of money.

    And deporting illegal immigrants is not a human rights violation. Neither, for that matter, would be restricting legal immigration even if Trump wanted to do that. There is no human right to immigrate to another country. Humans have a right to freedom of movement, which is defined as:

    Freedom of movement, mobility rights, or the right to travel is a human rights concept encompassing the right of individuals to travel from place to place within the territory of a country, and to leave the country and return to it.

  24. My tribe is Libertarian. Not only do we hate all other tribes, we hate each other! We wisely use orphans to deliver our Secret Koch Brother Memos to each other to avoid any icky face-to-face interaction.

  25. Good article.

  26. Wow Robby, you actually wrote this: “In fact, there’s nothing less libertarian than the tribe?and the more tribal our politics become, the less respectful of individual liberty they will be.”

    Well said and spot on.

    1. Which is why you needed to vote for johnson/weld so that the libertarian party would reach the critical 5% threshold… Er, um, nevermind.

  27. RE: White Identity Politics Gave Us Trump. But Did the Left Give Us White Identity Politics?
    Welcome to the tribe.

    Sorry.
    I left the reservation years ago, and I’m not going back…and you can’t make me.

  28. I’m way late to the discussion, but I’m leaving my marker anyway.

    White identity politics most manifestly did not give us Trump. Quit spreading the Big Lie that the DNC is attempting to instill in the American consciousness.

    Trump did better with minorities – Blacks and Hispanics – than Romney. And did worse than Romney among white voters.

    He did manage to get more people out to the polls overall. A lot of people who sat home for Romney came out this time, whether it was to vote for Trump or against Clinton is another matter.

    But it most certainly wasn’t the 3,500 strong white-power movement that brought Trump to the White House. Nor was it some vast cabal of fellow travelers.

    I live and work and play among the vast unwashed middle Americans that you so manifestly do not understand. In most of the country – particularly the south – people don’t give a rats butt about race. They are tired of hearing about it. Particularly white folk.

    Other than a few sub-90 IQ folks, there is no interest in white supremacy at all throughout the south and midwest. It is only among the big-city folk that race identity is so important. The northeastern white liberal view that everyone in the South is a flaming racist is simply projection of their own secret thoughts. People in the South live cheek by jowl with people of other races – and have for years.

    Georgia is 31% Black. New York is 14% Black. Who do you think lives a segregated life?

  29. Oh please! Don’t countermand the stereo types that Americans thrive on. It would mean we’d have to think independently and give up the ease of using group think to answer every inquiry with three bullet points.

  30. Like all good progressitarians, The Hair makes it all about Race.

    Trump won with his anti elite nationalist populism, not white identity politics. Trump is the *alternative* to racial identity politics.

  31. Bullshit. What the Cliintonistas failed at was understanding class warfare. The race meme is just another progressive lie. Hillary threatened entire industries with extinction. What she didn’t realize was that when she said she would shut down the coal industry, that was taken as a threat by the oil and gas industry, the trucking industry, the steel industry, the construction equipment industry, the auto industry, the mining industry, the construction industry, the shipping industry, etc. And many of those industries are solid union strongholds. Some are not. That created a bridge between anti-union and pro-union workers. She even lost among some of the government unions. Hillary only appealed to the coastal elites who have never gotten their hands dirty outside of a bathroom who believe it would be impossible to eat and clean without illegal immigrants. Clinton threatened the economy of the working class, suggesting those she put out of work would be happy with government handouts and “retraining” for lesser-paying jobs. She fully engaged flyover politics and crashed and burned.

    1. Yep.

      “Hillary only appealed to the coastal elites who have never gotten their hands dirty outside of a bathroom…”

      Out here in flyover country we have this stuff called toilet paper. And most of us have the common sense to wash our hands without government mandates. Shocking, I know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.