Tom Edsall’s weekly column for the New York Times, trolling the nether reaches of academia for useful information, is absolutely essential. Edsall’s oeuvre reminds me of what my pal John DiIulio, the distinguished sociologist, once said: that his competitive advantage was the “ability to read vast piles of boring academic stuff so you don’t have to.” This week, Edsall tackles another absolutely essential question: how important was racial animus in Donald Trump’s 2016 victory?
The short answer: extremely important. The longer answer, and Edsall specializes in teasing out the nuances, is: extremely important but not exactly in the way you think. He cites a recent paper by three academics who argue that the number of “extreme” racists who voted for Trump was slightly lower than for previous Republican candidates but the number of “moderate” racists who voted for Trump was higher, which made all the difference.
This may be true. It also may be a function of the age cohort of “extreme” racists, the folks who use the n-word, who are probably dying off. There’s some nutritional value in the distinction, but I have reservations about the calculations of racism made by pollsters and some observations about the ModBigot phenomenon:
Most people don’t want to talk about something sensitive as race over the telephone with someone they don’t know. Indeed, I think racism has usually been undervalued or hidden in most surveys. For example: You ask someone what the most important issue is. They say, the economy. But how many pollsters dig down to the next level: How so? There, you might get an answer like, “The economy is lousy because we spend so much money on poor blacks and immigrants.” (Reality check: That is not true. We spend more money on poor whites than on poor blacks. Immigrants tend to be a wash: they add as much to the economy as they take away in services like health care—and probably add a lot more in a tight labor market like the current one.)
Trump made “moderate” racism acceptable, thus outing bigots who wouldn’t cop to it in the past. What is a “moderate” bigot? I assume it’s someone who says she doesn’t believe blacks are inferior, but they’re…different. Looser sexually. More unwed mothers. And therefore more crime, drug use etc. etc. OR, ModBigots are people who don’t believe that blacks should be getting affirmative action advantages that white kids don’t. OR, they look at a chucklehead like CNN’s Don Lemon and think: he wouldn’t have that job if he were white. OR, they resent the diversity, equity and inclusion seminars that corporations are shoving down their throats. These sorts of assumptions are odious, but contain an element of truth. As I’ve written here before, the issue of favorable treatment, in law, based on race is questionable policy at best…and against the spirit of the Constitution, at worst. (As were, of course, enslavement and segregation and redlining etc etc—the racist policies that are our national disgrace.)
Trump’s “honesty” about Mexican immigrant rapists and black criminals is part of a general diminution of public civility. I remember being shocked, for example, when a notably prissy publication I worked for—the New Yorker—started spelling out the f-word. This is something we Baby Boomers brought on. We thought potty talk was honest. In some cases, it was. But it ushered in a public boorishness that made Donald Trump possible.
The Democratic Party, and liberals in general, have been far too tolerant of intolerant racial extremists like Ibram X. Kendi. “Anti-racism,” a tortured formulation, promotes the idea that race hate is immutable and whites are natural born bigots. It is a race-resentment expansion machine in an era where blacks and whites are getting along better than they ever have. It stands on the wrong side of the future. Democrats have paid the electoral price for that.
Racism has been a pillar of the Republican Party since Nixon’s 1968 Southern Strategy. In a recent lecture—hat tip to Sam Brown—Taylor Branch cites a factoid once offered by Bill Clinton. There is one polling question that absolutely divides the parties: Were the 1960s good or bad? If you say good, you’re a Democrat. If bad, you’re a Republican. (As a flaming moderate, can I say that the causes—civil rights, antiwar, feminism—were righteous; the methods, sometimes not so much)
Let’s not forget the bottom line: Whether you consider them “extreme” or “moderate,” they’re still seeing the world through a—to coin a phrase—"deplorable” lens. Race remains the single most important and divisive issue in American life. It cannot be avoided (as far too many liberals want to do). It has to be faced because it has the power to tear us apart.
My Book Pages
Speaking of which, I’ve not read many books that ring true about the tensions between working class whites and blacks. Copperhead by Alexi Zentner is one of them. (Caveat Lector: I’m not talking about Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver, which I hear is terrific but haven’t read yet.) Zentner’s Copperhead takes place over the course of a weekend in upstate New York. Its hero is Jessup, a terrific high school football player and A+ student who comes from a family of white supremacists. He is appalled by their philosophy but loves them—and that’s the book’s greatest strength: the white supremacists are not caricatures (at least, not the ones in his family). They are thoughtful and complicated and kind. It’s well-written and if, at times, the plot veers toward the sensational, it’s a very compelling ride…and relevant to many of the issues I write about here on Sanity Clause.
TransParency
In its apparent quest to write a story about every single living trans person in the United States, the Washington Post has launched a major survey of….trans people. It is the fourth most-read story on the Post’s website as I write this. Happily, Charles Lane’s smart column about where the Dems and GOPs agree is number one. I love the Washington Post. It’s a great paper. But more Lane, less coverage of a group that represents less than 1% of the population, please!
Soros Slander
To reinforce that last bit of puffery, the Washington Post has also exposed the prevailing right-wing slander that George Soros has had a special impact in funding the campaigns of liberal district attorneys. He hasn't, though he certainly has contributed to liberal causes. I must say that the right’s obsession with Soros is a bit stomach-curdling. I would like to believe that anti-semitism isn’t involved, but too often it is.
Symmetry
On a completely different and far more gratifying note: Some food for spiritual conjecture from Probable Impossibilities by the brilliant and lovely Alan Lightman.
Using our modern knowledge of the sizes of things, we can say very specifically where human beings fit in the hierarchy of the cosmos. How many times should the size of a human body be halved to reach the size of an atom? The answer is about 33. Going in the opposite direction, one can ask how many times the size of a human being should be doubled to reach the size of a typical star like our sun…the answer is 30. Thus, counting in doublings, the size of a human body is nearly halfway between an atom and a star.
If you like Sanity Clause, please pass the word:
If you’d like to stick around, please join the tribe. It’s free, for now:
Or send one along to a friend: