Political Correctness

Yes, Political Correctness Helped Elect Trump: What Skeptics Need to Know

Was the 2016 election an anti-PC backlash? Here's the evidence.

|

Trump
DAN ANDERSON/EPA/Newscom

McGill University political scientist and occasional Reason contributor Jacob T. Levy raises some good points in an interesting but flawed piece for the Niskanen Center. Levy criticizes the notion that Donald Trump's election to the presidency is a backlash against political correctness. He identifies me as one of the chief proponents of this theory, and accuses me of succumbing to the "pundit's fallacy"—of attributing Trump's victory to something that I already thought was bad.

That's a fair criticism, and Levy has a point when he writes that I perhaps overstated the case for the backlash theory in the headline of my post, "Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash." But in his zeal to acquit political correctness, he misses some key details that make my theory more compelling.

"There is a powerful temptation to attribute the surprising and dramatic fact of Trump's win to some issue about which one had some preexisting ax to grind," writes Levy. True enough, it's important to keep in mind that a variety of factors help explain why Trump won the 100,000 collective votes he needed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And journalists ought to be more careful about bias confirmation.

That said, if there's a danger in embracing the backlash theory because it confirms my negative impression of political correctness, there's also a danger in rejecting the theory simply because one would prefer to see political correctness and the related but distinct issue of identity politics as irrelevant, or even positive, social forces.

Levy writes, "A lot of butterflies flapped their wings to bring about the November 8 result, but we have particularly little reason to think that [political correctness] was one of them."

Here I don't agree—in large part, because I've actually talked to Trump voters, and they give me every reason to believe that political-correctness-run-amok caused them to vote for Trump. Indeed, they said so explicitly. Consider this email I received from a 60-year-old Midwestern Trump voter:

I support most of the cultural revolutions that form the basis of the political correctness issue that you raised. However the backlash for dissenting on certain items was incredible. For example, I support gays marriage and transsexual people's rights. However, I do not support them to the exclusion of other citizen rights. Without elaborating on my views… I will say that I was subjected to a form of political correctness by friends and others that brooked no argument for the rights of the others. This blind adherence to political correctness was my main issue in the recent political arena.

He added that my article on this subject "captured my feelings succinctly" and that he voted for Trump "for the exact reason you stated."

His was among a torrent of emails I received from people after I wrote that article. Another person, a 52-year-old self-described hillbilly, wrote, "If you explain in a considered and respectful way why what I am saying is hurtful or wrong, I will take it on board and try to change. If you talk down to me and tell me what a horrible person I am in the process—maybe not so much." She continued:

Political correctness is NOT "being kind and having good manners". I am southern. I am always kind and I have impeccable manners. What political correctness is to me is an unreasonable expectation of your fellow man. To expect him to have arrived where you are while having completely different life experiences. Contempt is always hurtful. Bullying is always bad. It is ironic that people who bully people for being politically incorrect don't even recognize it as bullying or as just another way of demonizing people who are different than you. They are engaging in the exact same behavior they excoriate. It's ok to be different in the way they are different but not in any other way.

She added that she works three jobs and doesn't have much time to educate herself about the linguistic and cultural requirements of modern progressivism.

Levy writes that the Trump campaign's darkest moments came when he attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel because of the man's Mexican heritage, and when the Access Hollywood tape was released. Levy says this damages my theory, because these were examples of Trump's political incorrectness, and they hurt rather than helped him. The above emails, I think, address this aspect of Levy's criticism. When Trump voters say they want someone who is politically incorrect, they do not necessarily mean that they want someone who is an abusive, racist, sexist bully. If Trump's racist and sexist antics gave them pause about supporting him, maybe it's because they don't see themselves as racists and sexists and resent being associated with racism and sexism. This doesn't confuse their opposition to political correctness; it complements it.

I don't want to overstate the representative nature of two emails, but more than one person writing me in response to an article is a fairly rare occurrence. A great many people writing me—and all saying that I described their feelings perfectly—is something I've rarely experienced, and so I must conclude that what I wrote has some merit.

I'm not sure why Levy or anyone else finds this notion so insane. I'm not saying people were right to feel this way, or to turn to Trump in their frustration. I'm only saying that they did—because that's what they are telling me.

Nor am I the only one privy to this information. When reporters have asked Trump voters about his appeal, they have consistently named political correctness as one of the most important reasons to vote for him. To take just one example, The Washington Post published statements from 29 Trump supporters: just 3 of them used the words "political correctness" explicitly, but a number of others invoke closely-related grievances like the arrogance, bullying, and scolding of the Clinton machine, liberal elites, and left-leaning media figures. Trump supporters told reporters again and again that they like how he speaks his mind and tells it like it is. In other words, they like his explicit rejection of political correctness.

That's the other major thing Levy misses in his article: Trump, more than any other successful political figure in history, self-identified as an icon of resistance to political correctness. "We can't afford to be politically correct anymore," wasn't just Trump's response to the mass-shooting in Orlando—it was the refrain of his entire campaign. His constant rejection of political correctness distinguished him from Republican rivals of the past and present. When asked about a problem to which he did not know the answer—a frequent occurrence, to be sure—the answer was always the same: The media is lying, everyone in government is stupid and incompetent, and if we just stopped being so politically correct and admitted the truth about globalism, about immigration, about Islamic radicalism, we would be safer and more prosperous. Trump complained that he was named TIME's "Person of the Year" instead of "Man of the Year." He has promised to save "Merry Christmas."

But, Levy writes, the backlash explanation fails because the voters who gave the election to Trump probably haven't heard about the kinds of politically-correct excesses that I write about for Reason. According to Levy:

Soave covers disputes about political correctness for a living. Other media professionals, as well as academics, might read this and nod worriedly; they follow the flare-ups about cultural politics and freedom of speech on university campuses, or disputes about which celebrity has said or done something "problematic," routinely. But these remain obscure to the vast majority of voters. And the important thing to know about voters who are still undecided a week or two before a presidential election is that they know exceptionally little about politics. To a first approximation, we should guess that they know nothing about any particular political dispute that isn't on national television that day.

But cable news and talk radio routinely cover the political correctness beat. Even local news and local radio stations wade into the territory when it overlaps with a relevant story at an elementary school or nearby college. You can't seriously believe that media elites are the only people paying attention to the fate of Memories Pizza, or Chip and Joanna Gaines. Some people aren't familiar with those incidents, sure—but some of those people have encountered similar examples in their personal lives.

To say that people are ignorant about the best examples of political-correctness-run-amok seems wrong to me. These examples are highlighted constantly, and some of the most persuasive ones are encountered in everyday life.

Lastly, recall that, as Levy admits, Trump lost educated white voters but made significant gains among non-educated whites—the exact group of people one would expect to be especially motivated by political-correctness-run-amok.

To recap, Trump narrowly won the presidency in part because he did better among less-well-educated working class whites in three key Obama states, and these sorts of voters say they are furious about political correctness when you ask them, and Trump exploited concerns about political correctness more than any other candidate in history, and people who voted for Trump consistently list his anti-PC attitude as one of the most admirable things about him.

For these reasons, I stand by my assertion that the election of Trump is, in part, a backlash against political correctness. The most anti-PC guy won, and he won by inveighing against political correctness constantly, and Trump voters like him because he did that.

The second half of Levy's essay is dedicated to the idea that the related phenomenon of identity politics is getting a bad name and, more provocatively, that the cause of liberty is actually advanced by identity politics. I have less to say about this—I'm open to being persuaded on this front, but I'm not yet moved by Levy's case.

Take Black Lives Matter. Levy cites the BLM movement as a successful identity-based coalition:

Black Lives Matter has provided the first truly large-scale political mobilization against police violence and mass incarceration since the War on Drugs began. …

It's true that it's possible to offer those analyses in a race-neutral way. But given that the policies aren't race-neutral, it shouldn't surprise us that opposition to them isn't either, and that the real political energy for mobilizing against them would be race-conscious energy.

If Black Lives Matter is "identity politics," then identity politics has provided one of the most significant political mobilizations in defense of freedom in the United States in my lifetime. That doesn't belong on the "to be sure" exception side of a rule that is driven by the politics of gender pronouns. It's precisely the other way around.

BLM is a great example of identity politics in action. But is it a great example of identity politics being harnessed for good? I'm unconvinced that BLM has been a net positive, and I say that as someone who embraces most of its goals. Has BLM done the work of persuading people who did not already support criminal justice reform? Is criminal justice reform now closer to being a reality, or further away? I'm worried that by making criminal justice reform about doing what's right for people of color, rather than doing what's right for society in general, BLM might have driven winnable voters into the arms of the law-and-order candidate: Trump. Certainly, if the nation is plagued by racial resentment to the degree the average media liberal seems to think it is, then making criminal justice reform a racial cause was a self-defeating tactic.

When I try to convince older, right-leaning folks to support criminal justice reform, I make a variety of arguments: The War on Drugs doesn't work at all; a free society wouldn't do this; we can't afford to spend so much time and effort putting people in prison; we can't even make prisons drug-free; states should be able to decriminalize drugs; what you smoke in your own home is your business; sentences are too long and it's because of meddlesome federal laws; there's such a thing as the Bill of Rights; etc., etc.

The least convincing argument is the one that goes like this: These policies hurt black people, and you, by extension, are racist for not having denounced them.

To be sure, that's an oversimplification of what BLM is doing. I appreciate that the movement has called attention to the undeniable fact that aggressive policing disproportionately impacts minorities. But I already knew that. Is this approach bringing new people on board? It seems like more of an open question than Levy realizes.

Levy's essay concludes, "Members of disadvantaged minorities standing up for themselves aren't to blame for the turn to populist authoritarianism; and their energy and commitment is a resource that free societies can't do without in resisting it."

Of course they aren't to blame. But U.S. politics have turned toward populist authoritarianism, and those of us who lament this development should think critically about what form our anti-authoritarian activism must take. I'm not saying I know the answer. But if what we were already doing created a powerful, sustained, illiberal backlash, then some reflection is called for, no?

Perhaps the Cato Institute's Jason Kuznicki puts it best. "I am sorry that the current backlash against minority identity politics has taken the form of white people doing identity politics, but now even harder, and using the vehicle of a demographically typical winning Republican presidential coalition to do it," he writes. "But that is where we are. Isn't it?"

For more on this subject, read this New York Times op-ed by Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla, with whom Levy also takes issue. Lilla speaks with Vox here.

NEXT: Electoral College Votes Today, 300 Arrested in Venezuela Protests, Zsa Zsa Gabor Dies: A.M. Links

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.

  1. I still don’t believe anyone went to vote because of political correctness.

    1. Oh I can. The Trumpian Right nowadays is nothing more than Tribal Politics of Vengeance. They wanted to strike back against their presumed PC masters on the Left. That is what Trump is. It certainly wasn’t about ideas or ideology.

      1. Or, they think they should have more money.

      2. Vengence? No. Actually afraid of the guillotine and the tumbrel carts? Yes.

        1. The nutters thought that there would be mass insurrection and conservatives dragged to the camps if Hillary won, yes.

          1. Ok, so how is this different than any other election? The crazies said the same things about Obama.

          2. “The nutters thought that there would be mass insurrection and conservatives dragged to the camps if Hillary won, yes.”

            Which is of course what the crazy wing Leftists are saying about Trump currently.

          3. Have you paid attention to the news or the goings on in your area in, oh, the last 18 months?

    2. I think that there’s a class problem, which PC is a part of, but I don’t think it was driving the results of the election. I think it had more to with the idea that the system is failing.

      People are doing what they’re told – graduating high school, going to college, etc. – and it’s not working anymore. They aren’t getting what they were promised – the American Dream house with a wife and 2.3 kids, two cars, good careers, expendable income, etc.

      I think this is just a consequence of the script falling apart and people don’t know what to do anymore.

      1. People are doing what they’re told – graduating high school, going to college, etc. – and it’s not working anymore. They aren’t getting what they were promised – the American Dream house with a wife and 2.3 kids, two cars, good careers, expendable income, etc.

        I’ve got all of those things (two trucks and a car and four kids, in fact). But as a self-employed, independent consultant, I’ve only achieved and will only maintain any of those things to the extent that the gubmint leaves me the fuck alone.

        1. And that may be another part of the equation – if you have any of those things, then there’s a perception that they could be taken away.

          I threw those things out there as a stereotype of what people want. Whatever expectations people have, they follow the script, and those expectations are no longer met and they find themselves having wasted years of their life, student loan debt or mortgages they can’t pay, and after all that the media and gov. tries telling them what to think.

          1. It’s not just a perception that “they could be taken away”. Some of us have seen 300% increases in health care premiums – many thousands of dollars per year. I can say that personally that has affected my household!

        1. What would that .3 be, just like a torso and one arm? Or are you into midgets?

          1. Someone else’s wife I see on the sly.

            1. This guy gets it.

      2. It’s noteworthy that many of the people who complain about this situation have large flat screen TVs, multiple smartphones, a high speed Internet connection*, central air, washer/dryer, full-size range and oven, etc.; priorities have shifted. Also, it’s worth pointing out that you quite literally can’t buy a new car anything like ones of yesteryear. Never mind e.g. the 1950s; a car made to the standards of the 1990s would be a lawsuit factory for a manufacturer to sell in the U.S. today.

        * = Though it was a bit fun to see Sanders and his supporters point to Budapest as some kind of backwards shithole that still has better Internet speeds and prices than America! Because somebody living in an area with a population density of 800/sq mi should expect the same infrastructure as though it were 8000/sq mi.

        1. Another fun example: microwaves. Everybody’s got one, they’re dirt cheap, they’re major labor-savers, and when they first came out for consumers in the late 1960s, they cost the equivalent of thousands of today’s dollars. Sure, having a microwave isn’t “living the dream” but people still take it for granted.

    3. Only because of it? No. As one of two or three primary factors? Yeah, I think so.

  2. the Niskanen Center

    CANUCK CUCKS TO THE ‘CHIPPER !!!

    1. You know who else won because people blamed the Jews?

      1. Pontius Pilate?

  3. The election was a referendum on elitism, and political correctness is elitist by nature.

    It wasn’t that for everybody, but it made the difference in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.

    I’m sure elites in other parts of the country have no conception of what it’s like to have lost your career, standard of living, and way of life in the rust belt and listen to elites on television argue about whether women should get equal pay. It makes the elites sound like they’re from another planet.

    Likewise, the progressives and social justice warriors that run the Democratic party just spent eight years demonizing the very people they needed to vote for them–the white, blue collar workers. The elites call it political correctness when they demonize rednecks for being racist, homophobic, etc., but white, blue collar workers recognize it as being demonized for being white, heterosexual, Christian, and not having a college degree.

    This all happened before–for the same reasons:

    “‘Reagan Democrats’ no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

    The Democrats lost to Reagan for the same reasons.

    When the Democrats start talking about Trump Democrats, they’ll start being dangerous again.

    1. The Democratic Party of 1980 is a lot different than the party today. The party in 1980 wasn’t built on intolerance and class snobbery. The one today is. They are not going to start talking about Trump Democrats because doing so would require them giving up their class snobbery and intolerance.

      1. “The party in 1980 wasn’t built on intolerance and class snobbery.”

        The Democrats were all about issues like that. They were different issues, but it was still absorbed with minority rights, feminism, etc.

        Today we talk about police shootings and stop and frisk, but back then it was about issues like school busing.

        In the era of white flight, the Democrats were obsessed with busing white kids to black schools. Hello, Democrats? Anybody home?

        1. Does not busing white kids to black schools, because of the race of the students and the racial makeup of the schools, go against what the plaintiffs in the school desegregation cases wanted?

          1. Yes. But somehow saying everyone can go to their neighborhood school regardless of race became “black kids can only succeed if they sit next to a white kid”. Remember Michael, we are the racist ones.

          2. That’s the way elitism works.

            It’s about punishing the racists. It’s about signaling.

            You thought you could escape black neighborhoods with your children. Think again!

            Muhuhahahaha!

    2. I laughed my ass off when Trump compared himself to Reagan. I might have been wrong, we’ll see.

      1. He’s not like Reagan on policy.

        But the Trump Democrats are from the same demographic as the Reagan Democrats, and they broke away from the Democrat candidate and voted for the Republican for the same reasons.

        The Democrats go through these phases where they think we’re in a new era and everything has changed forever. The believe their own hype, and, like a football coach, they keep calling the same play until it fails.

    3. I’m going to agree and disagree, Ken. A big part of this election was the absolute loathing some folks have for Hillary Clinton. They might not have liked Trump, but they hated her guts with a purple passion. You can argue Clinton was the poster child for elitism, a product of dynastic politics and inside-the-beltway establishment “pay-to-play.”

      I think it’s more about Hillary being seen as a walking stereotype as a lying, scheming, hypocritical politician who was more fake than a three dollar bill. Sure, Trump is an asshole… but at least he’s real. And to stretch this analogy, I think many “average folks” see political correctness as phony. Let’s use the BLM movement. Trump supporters look at people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and think, “Hey, these Black Lives Matters” people really just want to make a buck somehow. Professional victims.”

      Working class people are tired of feeling screwed over. They don’t like smug east/west coast liberals looking down their noses at them acting like they are bunch of rubes. If, however, Sanders had won the primary, he’d be the president elect right now. And if the election was all about PC… why would that have happened?

      1. Don’t forget, Hillary’s political correctness is one of the many reasons people loathe her.

      2. Different people voted against Hillary (or just stayed home) for different reasons.

        Union households went 51% – 43% for Hillary over Trump.

        Union households went 56% – 37% for Obama over Romney.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com /news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/ donald-trump-got-reagan-l ike-support-from-union-households/?utm_t erm=.1a24857cb594

        That’s a big difference in the swing states that gave Trump the win: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Those wins were close.

        1. I’m not disagreeing with anything you are saying (in fact I’m agreeing), but I think relying on polls to make a point about this election is not worth much.

          We desperately need a new way of polling that can prove itself by being reliably predictive.

          1. Or simply not poll at all.

      3. In a close election, you can always point to different things that might have made the difference. I would love to believe that Hillary Clinton being a crook was the main reason. I know that was a big part of it, too. I’m sure there are plenty of people who both think that Hillary Clinton is a crook and are sick of the social justice warriors in the Democratic party demonizing them for being white, Christian, heterosexual, etc.

        It’s also interesting to note, however, that Trump did especially well in the primaries–in states with open primaries. The open primary states Trump lost were mostly to native sons–Kasich in Ohio and Cruz in Texas. Trump pretty much ran the board in the other open primary states–because registered Democrats could vote for him, too. There were a lot of people out there who if you called them on the phone and asked them which party they were, they’d say “Republican”, but they’ve actually been registered Democrat since Obama’s first term.

        Trump lost as many states as he won with closed primaries.

        And it really isn’t a mystery that Trump Democrats would respond to his message, which basically had two points:

        1) “They took our jobs!”–by way of immigration and free trade

        2) Being politically incorrect

        1. Hillary = Crook is too shallow of a dive. The election boiled down to a “more of the same” candidate and a “blow the whole thing up” candidate. 2016 is the presidential election version of the “Dumb and Dumber” analysis… so you’re telling me I have a chance (with Trump).

    4. Ken Shultz for the win, AGAIN.

  4. It is a myth that religious Christians voted exclusively Republican. A good number of them, especially suburbanites often voted Democrat. When gay marriage was achieved by court order rather than Democratic process, the writing was on the wall that being an open Christian was about to become effectively illegal. Sure, you could still think what you like but you couldn’t put that into practice in any public way. This suspicion was confirmed by the infamous bakery cases. Yes, those cases involved public accommodation laws but that is not the point. They showed that the left intended to make objecting to gay marriage the same as objecting to interracial marriage. Those cases showed the concerns expressed in the dissent in Ogberfel were absolutely legitimate and Kennedy’s language about “of course people can object” just bullshit.

    Trump got a huge share of the religious vote. A bigger share than even previous Republican nominees. This despite being the least religious and least socially conservative nominee maybe ever. This is because the Democratic Party has become completely hostile to the public practice of Christianity and religious freedom in general. Take that factor away and a lot of religious suburbanites who voted for Trump probably go for Hillary and Hillary is likely President.

    1. I’m not a Catholic. I was brought up in a religions system that was overtly hostile to Catholic theology. When my grandfather didn’t like somebody, he’s call them a Catholic. If he hated them, he’d call them a Jesuit. It was worse than being a communist.

      That being said, when I saw Obama using ObamaCare to force nuns to finance their employee’s fornication, it made me sick. It was especially glaring for a couple of reasons. For one, Obama didn’t have to do it. He had the discretion to exempt them from that requirement but refused. Second, it didn’t seem to matter that Catholics are core supporters of the Democratic party from Massachusetts and New York to the Latinos of California and the Southwest.

      The problem with social justice warriors is that ultimately they run out of other people to hate.

      1. I wonder why he did not try to force imams to finance their employees’ alcoholism.

      2. “I was brought up in a religions system that was overtly hostile to Catholic theology”

        I should add that when I got older, I converted to narcissism.

        1. I should add that when I got older, I converted to narcissism.

          Good system. Works for a lot of people. 😉

      3. Ha. I’m a product of Jesuit education. Far better than even the best public schools. But even a lot of Catholics can’t stand jesuits.

        1. “Far better than even the best public schools.”

          Especially if you ask the Jesuits.

          1. Well they’re right about some things…haha

            I remember trying to piss off my teachers (some of whom were priests) by conspicuously reading Marx, Freud, or Nietzsche (books I incidentally found in the school’s library) and hoping they’d notice. Whenever they did they, to my disappointment, were impressed rather than annoyed.

            Fast-forward a couple years to my (private) presigious secular college: I wouldn’t have risked reading Hayek or Sowell in front of most of my history profs (let alone de Maistre or Buckey) as unless I quickly quipped ‘oh, I’m just trying to understand how these right wing idiots think’ it could render me suspect.

            I think either the Jesuit priests were to the left of my college professors (some might say that’s a credible theory) or my Jesuit school (though far more behaviorally stringent than any college) was more intellectually liberal than my college was. The fact that I had to worry more about blaspheming at a secular college than a Catholic prep school really epitomizes the changing ethos in higher education.

    2. the writing was on the wall that being an open Christian was about to become effectively illegal

      Here in the real world, Christians enjoy the special right to be protected from discrimination in employment or public accommodations.

      1. Here in the real world, there is something called the 1st Amendment which guarantees the free exercise of religion. Moreover, in the real world, every religion is protected from employment discrimination as are sex and race protected. So there is nothing special about that protection.

        Funny how people who start their posts “in the real world” are almost almost always delusional and stupid. Come back when you understand reality as opposed to the voices in your head.

        1. Libertarians think all of those protections are wrong.

          Hilarious that you think there is nothing “special” about picking out a handful of qualities like that. Wait, I think the word might be “privileged.”

          1. Libertarians think religious freedom is wrong? I don’t think the word Libertarian means what you think it does.

            1. In a true libertarian society, I *could* discriminate on whom I hire, and to whom I sell my goods and services. I would not, because money. But “in the real world” this happens anyway; it’s better to be open about it.

          2. Your jackboot must feel comfy to you.

      2. Here in the real real world, facially neutral laws are not enforced neutrally, leading to de facto discrimination by omission on the basis of religious belief.

        1. So you’re saying I could start a business and refuse to hire Christians and that would be fine?

          LOL

          1. The odds that you would be prosecuted are minuscule, compared to starting a business and refusing to hire, say, Muslims.

          2. “So you’re saying I could start a business and refuse to hire Christians and that would be fine?”

            I think most Christians would be fine with that from a legal standpoint.

            And we shouldn’t conflate that with the question of whether Christians should be discriminated against by private businesses.

            Incidentally, does the question of whether nuns should need to underwrite the fornication of their employees have anything to do with accommodation?

            1. There nuns weren’t refusing service to the general public.

              They didn’t want to pay for their employee’s birth control pills.

    3. Take that factor away and a lot of religious suburbanites who voted for Trump probably go for Hillary and Hillary is likely President.

      Thank a gay today for helping us dodge that bullet.

      1. Squirrel-related blockquote fail

        1. The correct phrase is “squirrel-involved”.

      2. I suppose so. I don’t think most gays are going to see it that way. But you are strictly speaking absolutely correct.

    4. Trump got a huge share of the religious vote.

      Maybe true among Christians who actually read the news. My dad voted for Hillary and my mom voted for Gary (both social conservatives) because Trump was too mean and scary. I didn’t vote for anyone but I found myself defending Trump quite a bit because TDS was so rampant among my family members.

    5. One of the darkly (no pun intended) amusing things about the Democrats is the way that they willing to embrace black Christians and members of stereotypically non-white religions, but are hostile to white Christians. It’s almost as if it were an intersection of racism and anti-religious bigotry: “Those superstitious beliefs are childish things suitable for members of the childlike non-white races, but white people are suppose to be mature, rational, and above such things.”

      But it would be interesting to know if black religious Christians voted for Clinton at the same rate as blacks overall, or if they skewed toward Trump relative to the overall black vote.

      1. I’ve long held that progressives are secret white supremacists in action if not belief simply because they have such dismal expectations of minorities while holding whites to such a high standard of conduct.

        Of course, intent trumps action in the progressive worldview, so it hardly matters. As long as you think nice thoughts about the minorities you’re helping hold back, you’re golden.

        1. Yeah, I’ve thought the same thing.

          I’ve also thought that projection underlies so much of what progressives object to, that it’s likely they see racism everywhere because of the racism they themselves harbor.

          That’s why they can’t admit someone might be opposed to Obama only because of his policies. No, it has to be only because he’s black!

          That’s also why they’re so sure the problem with trigger-happy, militarized cops is all about institutional racism and not at all about unions protecting even the most egregiously violent bullies from any real consequences.

      2. Black Christians, Latino Christians, Arabic Muslims, Black Muslims, Jews, Hindus… Democrats don’t have a problem with religion. It’s when religious individuals that try to govern by the bible. Teach Intelligent Design in schools alongside evolution, limit reproductive rights for women, prevent research on stem cells, prevent gays from getting married and admonish their existence. For whatever reasons, religious individual groups as part of a minority don’t have the same feel the need to dictate the personal lifestyle of others…

        1. Go to a black church or a mosque and ask them what they think of gays, atheists, abortion, etc.

        2. Oh, I guess it’s girl scouts pushing gays off buildings and committing atrocities and terrorism around the world based on their belief system.

        3. I guess I didn’t really see what I saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks for the tip, educated worldly person!

          1. Or damn near lose my brother in law and his fiancee in a radical Islam inspired mall attack.

  5. Its not a backlash against political correctness. Its a backlash against Progressivism. The whole idea that everything about the past is horrible and so we must change everything immediately. Most people are actually pretty conservative and don’t appreciate being told they must upend their lives to accommodate tiny little marginalized groups.

    However, a soft touch (backed by iron resolve) can change this in as little as a generation – as the sea-change on gay marriage and homosexuality in general has shown.

    Oh, and being told we’re idiots for ignoring the affect of the status-quo on these marginalized people while watching the Progressives wave off the ‘unintended’ effects of *their* desired policies . . . that doesn’t sit well either.

    Taxes to pay for cowboy poetry festivals sticks in the craw of many a person in this country – even actual cowboys.

    The cherry on the cake is that Trump is (falsely) promising free shit to all the people that the Progressives have been threatening to take the free shit they want to give to other people from. The Liberal Left and Progressivisim have been ‘dividing and conquering’ for a couple generations now through promising special exemptions, privileges, and goodies to supporters – and they got trumped in the last election by a guy playing their own game.

    1. “Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash.”

      Why is it ‘terrifying’? Why is anything Trump does terrifying? How could anything he do be terrifying compared to the fucking status quo over the last three decades? Unilateral war? Already got that. Presidential sanctioned assassination of US citizens? Already got that? Conspiracy to strengthen the power of the government and create special privileges for the governing class? Already got that.

      Hell, its not like Trump is even against gender neutral restrooms – he’s the most LBGT-friendly Republican president ever. And he’s a lot more onboard with the LBGT agenda than a good chunk of the Democratic candidates.

      1. It is terrifying to Progressives that someone might not want to be a part of a gay wedding or not believe that a man can become a woman just by saying so. Somehow it is the backlash that is “terrifying” and not the people who think anyone who objects to any part of the Progressive program is terrifying.

        What amazes and terrifies me about Progressives is how quickly they will buy into an idea if that is what culture deems “tolerant”. I have friends who are very progressive and whom I have known for twenty or more years. And I know for a fact that even five years ago they would have laughed at the idea that society must accommodate the transgendered. Yet, today all of them are absolutely certain that doing so is morally required. What changed other than the marching orders from the movement? And if they will buy into transgender, what won’t they believe?

        1. Maybe they will support lowering the age of consent to 13. there is already a movement for that, as whenever there is a news report about a teacher convicted of unlawful sex with a minor student, so many commenters chime in to say how lucky the minor is.

          1. People have been saying for years that pedophiles are next on the “you must be tolerant” list. And I never believed them. But after the transgender thing and seeing how quickly my progressive friends bought into an idea they would have found repulsive just a shot time before, I am not so sure now. I still will believe it when I see it, but I don’t think it is impossible now. They will move onto something.

            1. To get technical on you, the ephebophiles and hebephiles (who desire post-pubescent minors of different ages) likely have a shot, but actual pedophiles (pre-pubescent) will never get public support, as there are no logical arguments that can support the latter position but a few misguided ones that support the former. But then again, there are cultures, such as in Afghanistan with their dancing boys, that embrace all manner of perversion, so I guess nothing is truly out of the question.

          2. And even that is sexually biased.

            Female teacher + male student = “Wow, that kid got lucky.”

            Male teacher + female student = “ZOMG CUT HIS BALLS OFF!!!!1”

      2. Rico is an Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders worshipping SJW progressive who merely disagrees with many of the tactics used by his fellow lefties.

        Anything that slows down (or even worse reverses) America’s movement towards a western European style massive government lefty welfare state subsumed subordinate to the one world global bureaucracy scares the living shit out of him.

        1. But more importantly, when does he get his fake name? I’m dying to know what you’ll come up with.

          1. You know, when shreek was typing the mental equivalent of diarrhea all over one of the pre-links threads this morning, it occurred to me: Mike M. is Red Shreek. Think about it – they’re both mindlessly angry, relentlessly partisan, and obsessed with using the same retarded turns of phrase over and over again. If there was a reality show where they had to live in the same house together, i would watch at least one episode of it.

            1. Interesting…

              Tony:John::Shreek:Mike M

              I could support that.

              1. I’m trying to figure out who the anti-amsoc is. SIV, maybe, but there’s got to be a closer fit.

            2. The entire show would be one big black bar to cover up all the hatefucking.

              1. +1 grudge-fuckin’ up the poop chute

      3. Based on the crowds cringing at rallies in NYC*, the terror seems to be based on fears of deportation and/or dictatorship.

        *These folks seem to be outnumbered by the commie riff-raff if the signage is any indication

        1. Those folk should be more scared of the commie riff-raff standing right next to them than Trump! Those guys are the ones that would willingly, and with a glad heart, tear them limb from limb if they didn’t show appropriate remorse during their struggle session.

          Most that Trump! can do is talk big.

          I mean, they’re cool with the record levels of deportations and unilateral ‘I’ve got a pen and a cell phone’ dictatorship of the current president.

          1. Yeah, and these weren’t the skinny-jeans commie riff-raff either – more like union heavies.

      4. What on earth is terrifying, indeed? All I have seen from the whitelash is people voting. Wake me up when someone other than proggy lefiists is committing actual crime based on the politics.

        1. Exactly. Be afraid when people stop voting and look for other means. But Progressives are such politics obsessed half wits they don’t understand that.

      5. Why is it ‘terrifying’? Why is anything Trump does terrifying?

        It’s ‘terrifying’ in the sense that a lot of people seem to believe that the only response to progressivism/political correctness is a completely extreme ‘horseshoe’ swing in the ‘other’ direction; that is, white nationalism and/or some degree of fascism. And to some degree that can occur, but as the alt-right has shown it’s still primarily small in number. As much as the NeverTrump crowd complained about it, this ultimately was a conservative reaction to changing dynamics in American society. Probably not the conservativism they wanted, but it is partially a return to more traditional American politics: protectionism, enforced immigration policy, a rejection of race as a virtue, etc.

        1. For the record, I also believe that this belief in ‘terrifying’ change is also what drives people like Robby into partially accepting social justice argumentation. When you think the only two options are social justice and white nationalism, even if you disagree with a large part of the social justice narrative you’ll still try to be part of ‘that group’ rather than the ‘other group’ by arguing against their positions within that framework. When in reality what libertarians should be doing is arguing that it’s fundamentally a moronic binary choice that isn’t reflective of reality.

        2. A pendulum typically goes from a level on one side to almost the exact same level on the other side, so there is that. Still, all this talk of white nationalism and the like sounds like little more than the usual scaremongering the left traffics in whenever a non-prog is elected.

          The left is never going to engage in some necessary self-reflection after this. Progs do not and will not grasp that insulting anyone who dares to stray from the hive on even a single issue is a losing strategy.

          1. Still, all this talk of white nationalism and the like sounds like little more than the usual scaremongering the left traffics in whenever a non-prog is elected.

            That’s exactly what it is. I mean, there were leftists comparing Barry Goldwater, an ethnically Jewish man, to Hitler within 20 years of WW2. There is nothing too outlandish or too low to which someone won’t stoop when the matter is politics.

  6. In other words, the Left is sticking to its story that they ran an absolutely perfect campaign with the greatest most qualified evah! candidate. And they lost because the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming!. Except they didn’t lose because something something popular vote something something racist Electoral College.

    Well, gee. That’s perfectly clear, isn’t it?

  7. I’ve heard that there is no such thing as backlash.

  8. On Trump’s Victory Tour the conspicuous Christmas trees and asking the crowd if they prefer “Man of the Year” to “Person of the Year” show that anti-P.C. was a central theme of the campaign.

    1. I didn’t RTFA before commenting.

      1. Got distracted by a sexy rooster, huh?

      2. A lot of us mostly come to read each others’ comments.

  9. Robby I know you can’t bring yourself to just come out and say it in the article, but at least admit it. YOU KNOW BLM has been a net negative specifically because they made it about race and not justice and individual rights.

    This isn’t even anything that is a possible question. There was actually a growing more mainstream backlash against police violence and over incarceration that was immediately aborted as soon as BLM came on the scene and started claiming every black shot by police was murdered and supporting violent thugs just because they were black.

    The problems with racism in America is that when you try to address issues of racism by focusing on the racial angle you get pushback and resistance, when you focus on the problems as neutral moral and individual rights issues they get fixed

    1. As someone who is very disturbed by the police culture in this country, I fucking hate BLM. Those assholes did more damage to the cause of police accountability than if they had been a false flag operation created by the police unions to discredit police critics. They set back the cause of police accountability at least a decade.

      1. As Christopher C. Morton wrote ,

        Black Lies matter and the police unions are merely dueling bands of sociopaths seeking to create untouchable castes of felons. Only their respective constituencies differ.

      2. You know, if you assume Soros somehow used his wealth to fake his Jewish heritage and was always just a Nazi, then things make more sense. You couldn’t do a better job creating a waxing far-right, white nationalist movement in liberal nations than he has.

      3. THIS. I know many conservatives (albeit those who had a spark of libertarianism to begin with) who were starting to come around on police reform and at least marijuana laws. But, BLM pushed them back to “Blue Lives Matter”.

    2. Support for police is now generally very high, and the discussion is now entirely obsessed with a back-and-forth about the ‘inherent racism of American society’. Which essentially turns the argument into “you’re a racist!”, “no I’m not, your communities are dysfunctional!”, “See, I knew you were a racist!”. With no mention of general police accountability whatsoever.

      But remember, we can totally work with progressives on issues. They just shove in their own narrative/pet issues and turn the entire thing into another screaming match of the kulturkampf. What an ally.

  10. Considering that BLM has long since morphed into a sort of Internationale, it’s hardly surprising that they’re not “bringing new people on board”.

  11. I’m not sure why Levy or anyone else finds this notion so insane. I’m not saying people were right to feel this way, or to turn to Trump in their frustration. I’m only saying that they did?because that’s what they are telling me.

    Let me help you out a bit on that. They find your notion insane because they want to do more of it.

  12. The BLM people did more than simply racialize everything (which was bad enough).

    There was the whole part of blocking public highways, keeping people from their jobs and in at least on case keeping an ambulance stock in the crowd. And even for people who were just driving to a restaurant or park, they had to be held up in traffic by people who thought calling them racist was more important than their desire to use the public roadways.

    And the penumbra of rioters around the BLM demonstrations – you know “we don’t endorse arson and looting *but* the legitimate concerns blah blah” or “we don’t endorse arson or looting *but* what about the 400 years of oppression” or “we don’t endorse arson or looting *but* isn’t it awful how the cops are so militarized when they go into potential riot zones?”

    One retard interviewed on H&R said the rioting was The Only Way To Get Attention to Our Cause (though the guy didn’t riot himself, of course). Another rioter didn’t like the way I mocked the looters and arsonists – he thought that was racist (because I’m really a big supporter of rioters as long as they’re white /sarc).

    Then Hillary goes and yammers about unconscious racism, and Trump says we need quote, “law and order” – a word wiped out of the prog lexicon because it’s (guess what) racist.

    Yeah, the BLM did good work for the Trump campaign.

    1. ambulance *stuck* in the crowd

    2. another *retard* not another rioter

    3. BLM made criticizing the police the same thing as endorsing anarchy and criminality in most people’s minds. Like I say above, a false flag operation created by the police unions to discredit police critics could not have done a better job of that than BLM actually did.

    4. Retarding race relations by about 40 years is perhaps Obama’s greatest legacy.

      1. Excellent use of the word retarding there.

  13. I don’t think it’s just “political correctness” that drove it, it’s racism. The open and increasingly virulent racism against white people (and similar hatred of men, and to a lesser extent, Christians and the cisgendered) expressed by progressives is part of it.

    The discriminatory policies and double-standards about tolerance that are harmful to those groups would be seen as terribly foolish and naive if they were expressed by actual liberals, but coming from people whose speech constantly evinces contempt for the white/male/cis/christian, it’s much more plausibly seen as a deliberate attack.

    Yes, peopled don’t like being told what they’re not allowed to say, but they also don’t like policies that seem designed, out of malice, to screw them on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, regardless of whether they’re a minority.

    1. Yeah, pretending political correctness is just being polite is willfully obtuse. Its pretty obvious that, as practiced, PC is virulent tribalism and bigotry of a kind we have not seen in this country in fifty years.

      The fact that it is being rejected should be celebrated, not deemed “terrifying.”

      I kinda want to cut Robby some slack, but man, its hard sometimes.

      1. First and foremost PC is about controlling thought by controlling language. Any person who values freedom should be appalled by it.

        1. ^^Yep. Read Orwell’s “The Principles of Newspeak” and marvel at his skill at prophecy.

    2. You have to hand it to these people, they always get the nicest euphemisms. PC, identity politics, sjw, all almost sound like compliments. Are they mindfucking us? Or are we just that unimaginative about coming up with slurs for racist, misadrist, totalitarian asshats?

  14. As no candidate wins for just one reason, it’s safe to say that Trump won because of political correctness. And it’s likely correct to say he won because of the economy and jobs. One can make the assertion he won because his opponent was seen as dishonest. Different people making these assertions will all be right. All of those things piled up to add to Trump’s electoral victory, and taking any one of them away likely would have lead to his defeat.

    1. Don’t blame me, i pulled the lever for Johnson. Then i was asked to leave the polling area.

      1. Pulling it more than twice is playing with it.

    2. Kind of like how every “yea” for the ACA was the deciding vote?

    3. YOUR BORING I WANT ONE SUPERREASON

      1. Well, obviously they all add up to the lowest common denominator of white nationalism, so be sure to tell facebook.

  15. Trump won because voters are stupid. This is why we absolutely need free universal college.

    1. College never made anybody smart, homie.

  16. Isn’t bitching and moaning about PC bullying just another flavor of political correctness from the right?

    1. No.

      Very few people on the right think you should not be allowed to speak viewpoints opposing theirs. Sure they won’t agree with you and they might even think you are a moron for holding the opinions you do but they would never argue that you aren’t allowed to hold them and should not be allowed to voice them.

      That however is a core part of the argument for Political Correctness, that there are thoughts and beliefs that are so hurtfully wrong that you should never be allowed to even voice them and if you do you should be shunned from the public sphere forevermore.

      1. Well, for ordinary political speech yes. But it’s hard to overlook their terrible views on flag burning, and porn/obscenity.

        1. which is hardly limited to the right. need I cite the TWO times Hillary speechified and tried to get a flag burning law passed in Congress?

          1. and PLENTY on the left are as strongly anti-porn as the religious right (radfems etc.)

            macKinnonism has taken over in several countries, such that even those that do “allow” porn have severe restrictions (no role play, no bondage etc.) put in place by radfems, some third wavers etc.

            among SJW’s etc. and the ID left, there are TONS who don’t merely oppose porn but think it should be illegal.

            and of course they also support “hate speech” laws which is the worst kind of obscenity laws. It’s one thing to ban the 7 dirty words on television (was it 7? Carlin) and it’s another to ban IDEAS completely from the public square such that it’s a crime even to utter them – aka “hate speech”

            I have yet to see a leftwing speaker assaulted or shut down on college campuses by rightwingers

            this is common against the right, libertarians, and even some on the (moderate) left such as Christine Hoff-Somers.

    2. It can be, as with most things details matter. Complaining that any disagreement is PC bullying is basically the same thing.

      On the other hand complaining about people using the heckler’s veto or state power to enforce their point of view on you, or to silence your view isn’t the same thing.

  17. There’s a 22 year old Chinese grad student working in our office. Been here only a month having come straight out of Uni. Yeah, she’s hot. Anyways, she’s doing some kind of engineering research, so I asked her if many women in China are studying engineering. Evidently, yes, but she was quick to point out that women just aren’t as good at it as the men. Matter of fact and without any shame or blame. Was she anti PC? Maybe people in the US are just sick of not being able to say blatantly obvious things. I don’t know given I haven’t been in the states in over a decade.

      1. At my age, all I need is the mental image of “hot 22 year old Chinese grad student” and I’m good to go.

  18. Regardless – Trump showed that we were resilient to microagressions and we didn’t need safe spaces after all. Ironically – this tolerance to opposing viewpoints will prove to be the undoing of his movement.

  19. I think the biggest thing you’re leaving out of the discussion is the white democrats who heard over and over in this election cycle that they were the enemy, and who chose to stay home instead of voting for anybody at all. I don’t think a whole lot of people were motivated to vote for Trump, but I think a whole lot of people were put off the Democrats. Trump only won because Hillary lost.

  20. “But U.S. politics have turned toward populist authoritarianism, and those of us who lament this development should think critically about what form our anti-authoritarian activism must take. I’m not saying I know the answer. But if what we were already doing created a powerful, sustained, illiberal backlash, then some reflection is called for, no?”

    And so you would not consider the last eight years of political correctness as ‘illiberal’? Do you read your own articles?

  21. One of my family members is the biggest homo/trans-phobe I know. He voted for Hillary because he works as a government contractor and she would be friendlier to his paycheck.

  22. I can say with some confidence that any millenials on my Facebook feed who pulled for Trump likely considered PC as one of their big reasons. College campuses are drowning out their beliefs, and they’re all worshipping Milo and Ben Shapiro. They’re being forced to sit through indoctrination at their welcome week meetings as freshmen. Schools are adding more and more online training for stuff like Title IX that teaches you nothing and takes up 2 hours of your already limited time

    Many schools have a “diversity” requirement that basically just means taking a course from an extremely liberal professor about a topic that does not matter to you. If you join a fraternity or sorority, you have to deal with blatant and unsubstantiated accusations that you yourself directly support sexual assault or racism. University presidents feel a need to email students saying “Everything will be ok” just because the other candidate won, or someone wrote “Trump” in chalk

    Hell, I’m a grad student in a STEM major and across the board everyone my year is extremely liberal, right down to not supporting free speech on campus and being hostile to anyone who may have voted Trump. I saw a talk where the speaker couldn’t resist taking shots at Trump beforehand. Not even STEM is completely free of this PC culture. As someone libertarian-ish, I feel like expressing my politics would completely ostracize me among other students, and that’s not what I expected in a field that should be apolitical

    1. It’s a little ironic – the people who whine the loudest about the likes of Milo are the very ones whose antics made someone like him possible.

    2. Still trying to cure myself of the reflex to call these people “liberals”

      1. Just add ‘il’ before it and it works.

    3. People in Chip2B^2’s cohort have had political correctness pumped into their skulls at hydraulic lift pressures from preschool through grad school and by every communication and social medium. That’s why so many of them think that way.

      1. I was actually lucky enough to not really get it that much in grade school, just through the media, my family, and other students. My chemistry teacher once devoted an entire day to lecturing about why global warming is false. Looking back, much of what he was saying was factually wrong, but I’m still glad he did it. My econ teacher railed against Obama’s corruption due to his Chicago ties. That didn’t stick for me at the time, but his Milton Friedman videos did. My history teacher expressed skepticism about the bailout. Then, going to college in a red state, I slowly turned libertarian. The current wave of PC picked up right as I graduated

        I realize most people aren’t so lucky

  23. Great rebuttal Robbo, you didn’t even give the Commentariat? much to troll you on even.

    1. Except for explaining the fact that in the ONE state where trans rights were an issue, because of HB2, Drumpf won but the candidates for governor and AG lost. Both campaigned heavily on supporting HB2. Explain why PC worked against them.

      Yes, Robby, in North Carolina.

      Funny, that.

  24. I made this point earlier in a response to Ken, but among the Trump supporters I know the “Fuck Hillary” sensibility seemed the most dominant theme. I had a colleague tell me that the only reason I didn’t like Clinton was because she is a woman. Combine raw hatred on the right and a weird myopia of Clinton being “the most qualified person ever” on the left and you have Shitstorm 16.

    I also think America has become a reality television country. I’m not surprised at a reality television president. Given Trump’s success, I think more entertainers will move into politics. I think at least one person on the 2020 Democratic ticket will be a celeb.

    1. +Revolting Masses

  25. Even if PC qua PC didn’t cause voters to vote Trump, it certainly didn’t dissuade them and almost assuredly led them to tune out the hysterics of lefties (not to mention their candidate) who insisted on impugning Trump’s supporters and their motives. (I did my fair share of slandering, calling into question their political acumen, their intelligence, the questionable merit of universal suffrage in light of their candidate. But I never thought them racist or misogynistic.)

  26. “Take Black Lives Matter.”

    One of the better takes on Black Lives Matter was by our own R C Dean:

    Better for the police-industrial complex (which includes the DOJ) to displace blame to “racism” rather than pervasive, endemic, and institutionalized thuggery and disregard of Constitutional rights by the police.

    And they have willing accomplices in the grievance industry.

    Its sad, really, how an opportunity to try to rein in our budding police state (pervasive surveillance, immunized and privileged pubsec employees, the pursuit of victimless crimes and revenue production, and the political weaponization of police and prosecutors) has gotten sidetracked. Now its just another racialized grievance, that is easy to ignore and dismiss.

    Another opportunity lost.

  27. BLM is full of shit. We have now had FIVE studies in the last 18 months studying whether there is racial bias against blacks in police shootings. All have found no such bias. All have found police LESS likely to shoot blacks vs. whites in similar circ’s. Between 2004 and 2013 among known suspects (most police shootings have multiple witnesses/video etc) 42% of officers killed were killed by black males and in the same period, 27% of those killed by police were black males.According to crime VICTIMS (not cops) iow NCVS data and remember crime is disproportionately INTRAracial, depending on the crime, between 42-50%+ of violent crime offenders were black males.

    So, BLM is just full of shit. Black lives matter MORE to cops than white lives,since they are less likely to shoot the former than the latter in the same circs.

    if cops were racist, then they would (per capita), shoot more Asians than whites, but the opposite is true. Cops shoot Asians FAR less than whites as proportional to population. and of course, Asians commit far fewer violent crimes per capita than whites. funny how that works.

    Women commit far less violent Part I crimes than men, and are shot in fewer than 5% of police shootings
    I’m happy to see support for BLM has plummeted and support for cops is at a 40 yr high, one percentage point from all time high. for every “strongly disapprove” of cops, depending on year, there are about 4 times as many who “strongly approve”.

    we … are … winning…

    1. Good takedown of BLM, too bad everyone on H&R except you fell for their racial propaganda.

      /sarc

      1. hey. I have certainly seen a metric assload of posts here stating or implying police disproportionately shoot blacks.

        Granted, not as many RECENTLY. I think BLM has caused a backlash (ironically). Iow, people are now MORE cognizant that while bad shooting happen, they don’t happen disproportionately to blacks.

  28. Levy’s argument from the alleged polling dips associated with particularly egregious Trump moments reveals something important about the pro-PC side of this argument, which is that pro-PCers sometimes understand “anti-PC” as a kind of unlimited and indiscriminate demand for transgressions of PC per se. If Trump had called for gulags for the gender-fluid, according to what Levy is saying, anti-PCers should have REALLY liked him in those moments (or at least not liked him less), because gender-fluid gulags are REALLY anti-PC. It’s absurd.

    That said, the question of the degree to which anti-PC sentiment actually “caused” Trump seems pretty murky indeed. One demographic and possibly “identity” related issue (though with no obvious connection to “PC”) that hardly anyone seems to want to touch is that: if Clinton holds onto Obama’s black vote in MI,WI,NC, she wins the election and then the whole narrative is different. Why is hardly anyone inquiring into why black voters didn’t come out for Clinton the way they did for Obama? The Right has no interest in it because it only wants to continue to beat progressives over the head for alienating the white working class, and the Left has no interest in it because it would mean facing a dilemma that either black voters fucked up by not coming out for Clinton, or Clinton/Dems fucked up by failing to adequately rally black voters, neither of which are currently acceptable to Dems.

  29. “I’m worried that by making criminal justice reform about doing what’s right for people of color, rather than doing what’s right for society in general, BLM might have driven winnable voters into the arms of the law-and-order candidate: Trump. Certainly, if the nation is plagued by racial resentment to the degree the average media liberal seems to think it is, then making criminal justice reform a racial cause was a self-defeating tactic.”

    Ding ding ding! Exactly. If the BLM had spent less time talking about “white privilege” and more about how society should care about how the police treats citizens, they might have had some success in persuading some of these Trump voters to care about criminal justice reform.

    1. And fwiw, plenty of Trump voters, myself included (I was going to vote for Johnson until he shilled for Hillary)… are for Criminal justice Reform…

      I want some law changes making it easier to prosecute police, I want citizen review boards (with sufficient deadly force training), etc.

      But that doesn’t equal support for an org that chants a mantra from a cop killing piece of shit, that spouts false rhetoric about police and shootings of blacks, that strongarms gay pride marches, that assaults and trespasses (Milo in Chicago for example was assaulted and they trespassed, took over the stage and mics, and campus admin refused to let cops make arrests etc.), that has chants about frying pigs like bacon, that takes over a vigil for victims of the Orlando shooting of over 50 men in a gay bar to spout racist rhetoric at the crowd, etc. etc.

      Not to mention BLM, Obama, and enablers of the “hands up don’t shoot” lie have indirectly resulted in massive depolicing causing a massive unprecedented (at least since Prohibition) one year spike in violent crime . Iow, BLM has helped CAUSE the deaths of HUNDREDS of blacks, as well as others.

    2. Yeah I know, criminal justice reform was on track to actually happen until those BLM punks showed up.

      Oh, wait. That’s not right at all. Criminal justice reform is just as DOA today as it was years before BLM showed up.

      Complain about BLM if you like, but it’s not like they “hurt the cause”.

  30. “Members of disadvantaged minorities standing up for themselves aren’t to blame for the turn to populist authoritarianism

    On the other hand, members of disadvantaged minorities engaging in rioting, thuggery, blocking traffic, violent and racist rhetoric, etc. most certainly contributed to it. Also contributing is the PC penchant for certain talking heads to cram said heads up their asses by characterizing such behavior as just minorities ‘standing up for themselves.’

    1. Because you, like Trump saw thousands of cheering Muslims on 9/11 in Jersey City, saw talking heads actually say “rioting, thuggery, violent and racist rhetoric” was ‘standing up for themselves.’

      LOL

  31. Wow. This analysis is way off base. In truth, Trump and Sanders were pumping from different ends of the same pool of economic discontent. This is best demonstrated by the Rust Belt states “flippiing” from Reagan/Bush to Obama to Trump. They were all looking for the much promised but never delivered economic relief.

    In truth, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have curried, abandoned and then betrayed the working people of America…repeatedly.

    Trump just got lucky and hit the jackpot by carjacking the GOP’s vehicle, but he’s no Republican and certainly not a Conservative.

  32. Calling half of your opponent’s supporters “deplorables” didn’t help either.

  33. “…Trump narrowly won the presidency in part because he did better among less-well-educated working class whites in three key Obama states…”

    Pure BS. Trump beat the bitch like a dirty rug 306 electoral votes to 232.

  34. I could only read a small part of the article. Is Robbie butthurtt?

  35. It’s vital that a hefty portion of the general population who whine about this circumstance have vast level screen TVs, numerous cell phones, a fast Internet connection*, focal air, washer/dryer, full-measure range and stove, and so forth.; needs have moved. Additionally, it merits calling attention to that you truly can’t purchase another auto anything like ones of yesteryear. Don’t worry about it e.g. the 1950s; an auto made to the norms of the 1990s would be a claim processing plant for a producer to offer in the U.S. today.

  36. So Drumpf snowflakes could not stand the idea of someone telling them that transexuals are people whose rights are being threatened, in addition to the existence, and that unless others were given the right to trample them, they had no choice but to vote for Drumpf?

    Say, the ONLY state in which trans rights were an issue was North Carolina, because of HB2

    And guess what? Two dudes the gov. and the candidate for AG ran on supporting HB2.

    The voter turnout was HIGHER in those two races, and Drumpf still won.

    But Robby knows that PC forced people to vote for Drumpf.

    LOL

  37. A lot of “political incorrect” fight typically involves social and racial issues that have not delivered for the GOP. The republicans made the most gains on fiscal side of things, especially Obamacare. Most Trumpers cheered when Trump hoisted the rainbow flag and went after radical Islam for killing the LGBTQ community in Orlando.

    But when the nation is CONSTANTLY rocked by some outside controversy (immigration, cultural appropriation, various discrimination grievances) while your problems are being ignored, it was bound to lead to a backlash. Trump was the guy who went to them and said “I’m on your side” instead of waxing poetics about fighting for “equality” or “limiting the size of government” which was becoming standard from the left and the right.

    And it ALWAYS came back to whiteness. Why is the MSM paying attention to the plight of Latino immigrants, even though you’re struggling just as much in Wisconsin? Because you’re white. Does the media go after Muslim bakeries or mosques for their hard anti-gay marriage stance? Nope, for obvious reasons. The same reason why MSM engage in lecture and gun control hysteria when a white guy shoots up the place, but urge nuance and reason when a radicalized Muslim does exactly the same?

    This isn’t limited to Caucasians. When you become a convenient target for everything, they’ll eventually fight back. Even the Jews fought back. Most of the country is still white and enough of them made noise to dominate the EC.

  38. It’s ok to be different in the way they are different but not in any other way.

    “You can’t be a non-conformist if you don’t wear the uniform.”

    Jack Chalker
    Midnight at the Well of Souls

  39. … you want to paint the election as a referendum on PC? That votes for Trump were actually votes against “PC”?

    Okay.

    If that’s how we’re playing this… millions more voted for PC then against PC. So even if 100% of folks voting for Trump were doing it because they’re angry about “PC”? Then the country still doesn’t care.

  40. “If you explain in a considered and respectful way why what I am saying is hurtful or wrong, I will take it on board and try to change. If you talk down to me and tell me what a horrible person I am in the process?maybe not so much.”

    “And I will have no choice but to vote for Trump. Because that is the only logical thing to do, I have no choice in the matter”

  41. OMG, is Robby having a Blind Squirrel Moment?

  42. “Levy writes, “A lot of butterflies flapped their wings to bring about the November 8 result, but we have particularly little reason to think that [political correctness] was one of them.”

    It’s one thing to say that PC wasn’t the only or even main factor, it’s another to deny its significance at all. I live in Michigan and voted for Trump reluctantly, but my son, who also lives here, and one of my best friends, who lives in Ohio, were eager supporters. While political correctness wasn’t the only reason for our votes, it was part of a constellation of issues surrounding a sliperly slope towards statist totalitarianism.

    The people who support political correctness are the same people who support all that other nonsense. Perhaps much of the Trump vote was at least as much against the supporters of PC as it was against the concept of PC.

  43. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  44. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  45. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  46. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.