November 27, 2012

WSJ: "Most-Racial America: Antiwhite bigotry goes mainstream"

Something I haven't been able to bring myself to do is make a list of the vast outpouring of animus toward white men since the election. Of course, this orgy of insults has nothing to do with the unfair strength of white men, and everything to do with their weakness and fairness.

James Taranto, WSJ editorial page editor, inspects a representative example of this rhetoric in the Wall Street Journal:
Most-Racial America 
Antiwhite bigotry goes mainstream.

By JAMES TARANTO 
... At issue is a Nov. 19 letter to the President Obama, written by Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina and signed by 97 House Republicans, which declares that the signatories are "deeply troubled" that the president is considering nominating Rice secretary of state, and that they "strongly oppose" such a nomination. 
"Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter," the letter states. We noted Tuesday with some amusement that Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, was claiming that "incompetent" was the latest code word for "black." 
The Post focuses on the critics rather than their choice of words. Here's the passage that outrages Jacobson: "Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can't know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."

Rep. Jeff Duncan is suspiciously pale, according to the Washington Post. 
Let's examine this argument carefully. The Post acknowledges that "we can't know their hearts." But it finds a (literally) prima facie reason to suspect them of invidious motives: Almost all of them are persons of pallor. The Post is casting aspersions on Duncan and his colleagues based explicitly on the color of their skin. And it is accusing them of racism! 
A couple of other items related to race and politics caught our attention over the Thanksgiving weekend. First, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and CBC member, resigned from Congress "amid federal ethics investigations and a diagnosis of mental illness," as the Chicago Tribune reports. That sets up a special election to fill the vacancy: 
Some Democrats quickly offered to broker a nominee to avoid several African-American contenders splitting the vote in the heavily Democratic and majority black 2nd Congressional District, which could allow a white candidate to win.
This passes with neither editorial comment nor a disapproving quote. It's hard to imagine the same absence of reaction if a group of pols offered "to broker a nominee" with the goal of preventing a black candidate from winning a white-majority district. 
Then there's the email from the Obama campaign--yeah, they're still coming, though at a slower pace than before the election--inviting supporters to take a survey. Among the questions: "Which constituency groups do you identify yourself with? Select all that apply." 
There are 22 boxes you can check off. Some are ideological ("Environmentalists" and perhaps "Labor"), some occupational ("Educators," "Healthcare professionals"), some regional ("Americans abroad," "Rural Americans"). There's a box for "Women" but none for men, though there's a separate "Gender" question, which hilariously has three options: "Male," "Female" and "Other/no answer." Touré will no doubt soon inveigh against the "otherization" of the Gender No. 3. 
What caught our attention were the ethnic categories: "African Americans," "Arab-Americans," "Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," Jewish Americans," "Latinos" and "Native Americans" (the last, of course, refers to American Indians, not natural-born citizens). 
Notice anything missing? 
One explanation for the absence of a "white" or "European-American" category (or, alternatively, several dozen specific European ethnicities) could be that whites tend to vote Republican, and the campaign is interested in Democratic-leaning voting blocs. But several other of the Obama survey categories lean toward the GOP, too: "People of faith," "Rural Americans," "Seniors," "Small business owners" and "Veterans/military families." Counterpart groups that are Democratic-leaning or swing-voting are missing from the list, too, including nonbelievers, urban and suburban dwellers, and the middle-aged (though there are categories for both "Young professionals" and "Youth"). 
The reason for the absence of a "Whites" category is that white identity politics is all but nonexistent in America today. That wasn't always the case, of course: For a century after the Civil War, Southern white supremacists were an important part of the Democratic Party coalition. They were defeated and discredited in the 1960s, and the Democrats, still the party of identity politics, switched their focus to various nonwhite minorities. 
Obama's re-election was a triumph for this new identity politics--but the Post's nasty editorial hints at a reason to think this form of politics may have long-term costs for both the party and the country. 
The trouble with a diverse coalition based on ethnic or racial identity is that solidarity within each group can easily produce conflicts among the groups. Permissive immigration policies, for example, may be good for Hispanics and Asians but bad for blacks. Racial preferences in college admissions help blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians. 
One way of holding together such a disparate coalition is by delivering prosperity, so that everyone can feel he's doing well. Failing that, another way is by identifying a common adversary--such as the "white male." During Obama's first term, the demonization of the "white male" was common among left-liberal commentators, especially MSNBC types. The Post has now lent its considerably more mainstream institutional voice to this form of bigotry. 
This seems likely to weaken the taboo against white identity politics. Whites who are not old enough to remember the pre-civil-rights era--Rep. Duncan, for instance, was born in 1966--have every reason to feel aggrieved by being targeted in this way. 
The danger to Democrats is that they still need white votes. According to this year's exit polls, Obama won re-election while receiving only 39% of the white vote. But that's higher than Mitt Romney's percentage among blacks (6%), Latinos (27%), Asian-Americans (26%) or "Other" (38%). It's true that Republicans suffer electorally for the perception that they are hostile to minorities, but Democrats also stand to suffer for being hostile to whites. 
The danger for the country is that a racially polarized electorate will produce a hostile, balkanized culture. In 2008 Obama held out the hope of a postracial America. His re-election raises the possibility of a most-racial America.

Well said. But, notice, that as a white guy writing for white guys, Taranto can't help but say that the problem with the current orgy of demonization of white guys is that it's bad for everybody, not that it's bad for white guys.

Presumably, Taranto of the WSJ has been reading me for a long time. But he's kind of new to writing about this. So, he may figure that his nicely balance appeal to fairness and the public weal might persuade Democrats to moderate their course by frightening them that they are inciting a white backlash. But, I suspect they will have a succinct yet far-reaching reply:

"Shut up, you loser."

Why compromise when you can have it all? Control of the political process and control of the discourse?

What do you think Jorge Ramos, Univision's anchorman, will say to himself when reading this? "Hey, Taranto, your job is to promote 'There shall be open borders' and get my taxes cut. If I was worried about the natives I wouldn't insult them so much. So, get back to work and no more mouthing off, or I'll call you a racist for asking for equality and fairness."

42 comments:

Dennis Dale said...

I have a great litmus test for the Post and doddering old Clyburn, if they really are concerned with racism and not just protecting their own: did these same politicians rally to oppose Condoleeza Rice?

Anonymous said...

"I have a great litmus test for the Post and doddering old Clyburn, if they really are concerned with racism and not just protecting their own: did these same politicians rally to oppose Condoleeza Rice?"

Where's the thumbs up function?

Anonymous said...

Nothing new here, move on.

The genesis of this 'new settlement' lies in the election of JFK in 1960, and the subsequent MLK 'civil rights' bandwagon, and in actual fact represents the definitive example of a hand well played. Thus you had ERA and white women folloing the bandwagon (penis envy) and the total, bloodless coup, the long marcg through the institutions that resulted in complete triumph and dominance.
'Dominance' is the operative word here. The revolt of white women and black men against the white phallus - and that organ is pretty much sentenced to permanent ederal mandated compulsory enshrivellment (by order, Bulldyke central), these days.

Tom Regan said...

Risks a balkanized nation? Wake up, its been happening for some time. White flight is only gathering pace. Ultimately the future for any multiethnic society is either Balkan or Brazlian, and the second really is only an embryonic precusor to the former. In the Brazlian model, essentially you have towns within towns and states within states which are ethnically homogenous. The completely seperate worlds they live in, the loss of common ground (literally and figuratively) breeds mistrust and alienation and ends up in a genuine splintering of the nation into microstates.
Its a future that would have been good to avoid, but things have progressed too far now for the US to avoid that fate.
That an article like this should appear in the WSJ is telling. I've been seeing a few other mainstream news people and news sites which are at least acknowledging the growing racial division, even if they have to use code words (people who want stuff said Bill O'R) and stop short of sympathizing with the incipient stages of white identity politics.

Anonymous said...

" This seems likely to weaken the taboo against white identity politics. Whites who are not old enough to remember the pre-civil-rights era--Rep. Duncan, for instance, was born in 1966--have every reason to feel aggrieved by being targeted in this way.

The danger to Democrats is that they still need white votes. According to this year's exit polls, Obama won re-election while receiving only 39% of the white vote. But that's higher than Mitt Romney's percentage among blacks (6%), Latinos (27%), Asian-Americans (26%) or "Other" (38%). It's true that Republicans suffer electorally for the perception that they are hostile to minorities, but Democrats also stand to suffer for being hostile to whites. "

Translation: quiet down with the racial animus, guys! Wait a decade or two until the present white majority is a minority and then there will be no chance whatsoever for a reversal.

Reg Cæsar said...

The revolt of white women and black men against the white phallus - and that organ is pretty much sentenced to permanent ederal mandated compulsory enshrivellment --Whiskey's li'l brother

Some of this is self-inflicted.

Anonymous said...

Taranto can't help but say that the problem with the current orgy of demonization of white guys is that it's bad for everybody, not that it's bad for white guys.

Yes. Actually he can't bring himself to defend whites at all, not just white males.

2 sentences: Permissive immigration policies, for example, may be good for Hispanics and Asians but bad for blacks. Racial preferences in college admissions help blacks and Hispanics at the expense of Asians.

In both cases, the harm to whites is not mentioned.

Does this piece represent progress (from a patriotic POV) in the MSM?

Or is it simply documenting receding white influence?

Simon in London said...

The article is nominally concerned that anti-white racism will hurt the Democrats, but I guess that's more like 'concern trolling'. What it is actually doing by pointing out the mainstreaming of anti-white racism, is giving mainstream white people permission to object to it, and hopefully stop it.

Prophet said...

Anti-white racism is necessary to hold the very diverse Democratic coallition together. Without it, the various different coallitions within the Democratic Party would turn on each other, so don't expect the anti-white rehtoric to end any time soon.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Ultimately the future for any multiethnic society is either Balkan or Brazlian"

What's with this meme about our future being Brazil? America's current racial dynamic is sui generis; judging from Brazil's example, it's not something that occurs automatically as the white percentage of the population drops. Brazil may only be about 50% white, but its Supreme Court is less diverse than ours. Brazil only appointed its first black Supreme Court Justice in 2003 (although he is the current head of the court, due to seniority). Take a gander at the current members of the Brazilian Supreme Court. It's less diverse than ours. Same with Brazil's Executive Branch.

Anonymous said...

It's often said that "you can't believe in a welfare state and open borders"... but that just encouraged libertarians to use open borders in order to attack the welfare state... which is even dumber than "starving the beast".

The reality is that you can't believe in democracy and believe in open borders.

The libertarian concepts of property and property are way too small. Only some anarcho-capitalists and paleo-libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard in his later years get this right.

Hey libertarians, a nation is a corporation and you're devaluing my shares... you assholes.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you have got to quote this Education Realist blog post on your blog... it is devastating.

http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/more-on-mumford/

desert lady said...

appealing to the increasingly obvious anti-white stance of the pseudoLeft is the only way the pro-plutocrat GOP can have any electoral base at all. If the liberals were not so brainwashed to be anti-white, the GOP and its anti-worker agenda would have no electoral base at all to speak of.

And I am damn proud to be the only person in the world to point out this fact.

I_Affe said...

"Shut up, you loser."

That's also a common tactic used by feminists whenever anyone brings up problems that typically affect males.

sunbeam said...

Tom Regan said:

"Risks a balkanized nation? Wake up, its been happening for some time. White flight is only gathering pace. Ultimately the future for any multiethnic society is either Balkan or Brazlian, and the second really is only an embryonic precusor to the former. In the Brazlian model, essentially you have towns within towns and states within states which are ethnically homogenous. The completely seperate worlds they live in, the loss of common ground (literally and figuratively) breeds mistrust and alienation and ends up in a genuine splintering of the nation into microstates."

I agree with this. I also think that the Democratic Party is a kind of unwieldy coalition (well it probably always has been).

The current Republican Party is more of a mess, but the Democratic Party definitely has some fracture lines.

Right now I think the most likely fissure in that party is between Hispanics and Blacks.

Right now Asians don't really seem to identify themselves as a racial interest group (not like Blacks or Hispanics). Group feelings seem stronger as Koreans or Vietnamese than as "Asian."

But if that ever arises beyond a vague resentment of "You are stealing our women," I could see an Asian/Jewish conflict arising. They both want to occupy the same limited niche that admits members in the same way (elite college attendance).

As a wildcard I have to wonder whether the rise of China might not advantage Asians (particularly Chinese) versus Jews in a lot of fields.

Long run I think the White "homeland" is going to be the Midwest and Northeast. It will run from Tennesee west to Arkansas, and take some wiggly path from there. Along the coast Virginia or Maryland will be the dividing line.

The Western parts of this territory are kind of vague to me. I used to think the Pacific Northwest would be a part of it, but I think the politics of that area are going to change in the decades to come. I think it will be Northern Aztlan, and the immigrants will come in such numbers that they are not normalized to the values of the Northwestern Whites.

Said Whites will then start bailing to other places, just as they did from California, regardless of their commitment to Diversity.

Anonymous said...

A phenomenom throughout the western world is that 'left' parties, that in previous generations used to champion the cause of the working man, now have as their defining cause the championing of 'minorities' and non-white minorities (which includes immigrants)being the 'kings' of all causes.

Truth said...

Reggie, you know ancient Latin ligature, but you could use some work on hyperlink.

Truth said...

"did these same politicians rally to oppose Condoleeza Rice?"

Of course not, If Daddy Bush had nominated the Klingon Commander, they would have went to Whiskey's house to borrow his translation tapes.

Anonymous said...

Taranto has devoted most of his career to smearing people who wanted to slow down immigration. Also smearing those who opposed the Iraq war. Anything that irks him makes me happy.

Thales said...

The "white", "male" and "heterosexual" checkboxes are on the DHS terrorist form.

beowulf said...

"What's with this meme about our future being Brazil? America's current racial dynamic is sui generis"

What makes Brazil Brazil is economic inequality. Its Gini Index is 15 points higher than the US (which in turn is 15 points higher than Norway).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Anonymous said...

The correct phrase is not "Antiwhite bigotry" or "Antiwhite racism.

The correct phrase is anti-Semitism against white people.

Anonymous said...

Well said. But, notice, that as a white guy writing for white guys, Taranto can't help but say that the problem with the current orgy of demonization of white guys is that it's bad for everybody, not that it's bad for white guys.

I think this is mostly due to lingering white supremacist sentiments. It is just assumed that white people, men particularly, are so superior that nothing could possibly seriously hurt them as a group. It has less to do with race and more with history...Europe and European offshoots have been on top for so long that even cultural memory doesn't contain any recollection of when they weren't.

Anonymous said...

Great point, Daveinhackensack.

Anonymous said...

@ Desert Lady

You aren't the only one to point this out. Run along to the kitchen, sandwiches need making.

Anonymous said...

"This seems likely to weaken the taboo against white identity politics. Whites who are not old enough to remember the pre-civil-rights era--Rep. Duncan, for instance, was born in 1966--have every reason to feel aggrieved by being targeted in this way."

unless their american history textbooks make sure to stress the point and then have the anti white privilege values instilled in them in college.

Dirty Harriet said...

Whine, whine, whine. I can't believe you are upset about this. There's nothing new about it.

Remember the LOVE KILLS commercial from the last Super Bowl? If not, look it up. It showed a black man hitting a white woman and killing her.

I'm actually encouraged and heartened by the fact that mainstream white bloggers such as Jacobson, and mainstream media, such as the Wall Street Journal, have picked up on this.

Even the sclerotic, sick, old, National Review has noticed demography.

Demography is now front and center on Free Republic.

You're gonna be a loser as long as you put up with the sh*t.

Of course the Congressional Black Cock-up is going to say that every obstacle they face is due to racism. Don't you expect that by now? Why be shocked?

Fight the bastards. Stop whining and fight the bastards. Can I say that on Steve's blog? If not, change "bastards" to "ladies."

helene edwards said...

appealing to the increasingly obvious anti-white stance of the pseudo Left is the only way the pro-plutocrat GOP can have any electoral base at all

You're cute, but a fuzzy thinker. There's no "pseudo" Left," but in any event the GOP makes no effort to "appeal" to them. Probably what you meant to say was that if there weren't any non-rich whites trying to escape the Left's bigotry, the GOP wouldn't have any votes at all. That would be closer.

Anonymous said...

by order, Bulldyke central

Brilliant - comedy gold!

Anonymous said...

One thing's for sure:
Taranto and his ilk will not be making a living writing for non-whites. Would be kinda nice if all these anti-empirical progs would just prmote and write themselves out of jobs. Justice.

Anonymous said...

Ultimately the future for any multiethnic society is either Balkan or Brazlian

True but there also the other option - an Indian style caste system.

sunbeam said...

Beowulf said:

""What's with this meme about our future being Brazil? America's current racial dynamic is sui generis"

What makes Brazil Brazil is economic inequality. Its Gini Index is 15 points higher than the US (which in turn is 15 points higher than Norway).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality "

Yeah, but if you read this blog for the same reasons most do, you come to the conclusion there is nothing you can do about the Gini coefficient (unlike in eras past), except to embrace a level of socialism or communism or what you want to call it, that has never been necessary in Scandinavia.

I don't know what happens with those Nordic countries vis a vis immigration. I suspect it is going to be halted in the next decade or so. I kind of have it internalized as a fact of human nature that when whatever pro-immigration groups in Sweden and Norway start to become personally affected by immigration, it will cease.

So I really don't think these countries ever will face the situation that Brazil and the US do.

In short, if you believe that intelligence is not equal between "races," then inequality is built into things.

Anonymous said...

Does commenter Truth often use constructions like "would have went"?

Delarge said...

Beyond being more rigid, the Indian caste system isn't unlike the arrangement in Brazil. Brazil, like most Latin American countries, contains a loose caste system based on pigment (a pigmentocracy; Richard Lynn wrote an interesting essay on the subject). The social and economic sorting of people according to pigment is probably the result of IQ differences between the pigment groups (whites being the most intelligent, blacks the least, and pardos or mulattoes intermediate).

Dennis Dale said...

Of course not, If Daddy Bush had nominated the Klingon Commander, they would have went to Whiskey's house to borrow his translation tapes.

Exactly. Just as they fawned over Colin Powell and now search through their slender supplies for a Great Brown Hope. The real story is they're going after Rice because Hillary is too strong. The whole Benghazi operation was a disaster from start to finish, and never should have happened. But the Republicans have to cling fast to their "national defense" image. God, the hypocrisy on all sides!

Note the Republicans have tried on occasion to play the race card in defending their own tokens (and suddenly the Post et al reclaim their critical faculties). Race baiting for me, not for thee, white boy.

Truth said...

"Does commenter Truth often use constructions like "would have went"?"

No, does commenter "anonymous" often forget punctuation between "like" and "would?"

Corn said...

Sunbeam said:

"Long run I think the White "homeland" is going to be the Midwest and Northeast. It will run from Tennesee west to Arkansas, and take some wiggly path from there. Along the coast Virginia or Maryland will be the dividing line."


Hmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Redoubt

DaveinHackensack said...

Beowulf & Sunbeam,

""What's with this meme about our future being Brazil? America's current racial dynamic is sui generis"

What makes Brazil Brazil is economic inequality. Its Gini Index is 15 points higher than the US (which in turn is 15 points higher than Norway).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality "

Yeah, but if you read this blog for the same reasons most do, you come to the conclusion there is nothing you can do about the Gini coefficient (unlike in eras past), except to embrace a level of socialism or communism or what you want to call it, that has never been necessary in Scandinavia.


This is worth unpacking a little. Three factors jump out when considering inequality in the US, Brazil, and Norway: demographics, social welfare policy, and the ratio of natural resource wealth to population. All three factors work in Norway's favor: it has a homogeneous population with high levels of human capital, it has a generous welfare state, and it has enormous oil wealth and a tiny population of about 5 million.

No one expects the US to look anything like Norway in the future, so let's set it aside. Let's compare the US and Brazil. The US has a lot of natural resource wealth, but also a huge population of 315 million. We have a larger white population, but also much more emphasis on diversity and affirmative action than Brazil, and a much more generous welfare state. The poor in America live in subsidized apartments, not in shanties.

At this point, Brazil probably has a better ratio of natural resource wealth to population than we do. It's energy independent, thanks to sugar cane-derived ethanol, and it recently discovered a huge oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. Plus, it's already a hard and soft commodity superpower, and it has a population about a third less than ours, with about as much land area as the continental US. So, even in Ben Franklin terms alone it's blessed. But Brazilian blacks have a much smaller share of the pie -- economically and politically -- than American blacks do. Why? I think it's mainly due to two reasons:

1) Although close to half the population might be considered black by US standards, fewer than 8% of Brazilians self-identify as black. Another ~43% of Brazilians self-identify as "pardo", or mixed race. That's a huge difference in racial dynamics right there. If Obama were Brazilian, he probably wouldn't have self-identified as black on their census form.

2) The poor in Brazil - disproportionately NAM, as here (Brazil has a large ethnic Japanese minority) - have gotten so little from the government for so long that it's much easier and cheaper for the government to placate them. Brazil's previous president won their adulation with a welfare program that amounted to about $12 per child per month. Even adjusting for per capita income and purchasing power, that's a pittance compared to the cash and non-cash benefits the poor get in the US.

Brazil can afford to keep stepping that up gradually as far as the eye can see. It has a primary budget surplus, and a healthy ratio of debt to GDP, plus it's got those huge oil fields coming on line. At this point, Brazil's future looks brighter than ours in some ways.

DaveinHackensack said...

"The real story is they're going after Rice because Hillary is too strong"

No, they're going after Rice because she was Obama's point person in spreading misinformation about Benghazi after the attack, and she is Obama's preferred nominee to replace Hillary.

Anonymous said...

At what point do European-Americans stop calling themselves "white" or, even more pathetically, "non-Jewish white"?

Anonymous said...

"The reason for the absence of a "Whites" category is that white identity politics is all but nonexistent in America today."

The reason there is not category for whites is that they're trying to identify you as a member of a group that wants to take. Take from whom? From the white majority, of course. Leftism is about nursing grievances against white, European, masculine, Christian culture.

White Christian men hate farmers. White Christian men hate women (especially single women). White Christian men hate Jews, and Asians, and seniors, and soldiers, and black people, and...well God knows they pretty much hate everyone.

ErisGuy said...

The Republicans must be come an explicit Christian party that appeals to Christians of all races. Or it will become an echo of racialist, socialist party of the Democrat Party.