What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[11B4V]

Greatest show on earth. This will be studied for generations.

Yes, but studied as what?

Who knows, but it won't be us.

[dps]

Another issue is the extent to which one believes in top-down bureaucratic initiatives as effective (or even  appropriate) means to address inequality of outcomes. The key question to me seems to be, in spite of the wide acknowledgment that racism is inherently evil and that historical injustices continue to play a significant role in inequality of outcomes, what specifically is to be done about it? It strikes me as reasonable to doubt whether many of the attempted remedies (e.g. school busing, affirmative action, etc.) really achieve what they intend or whether the negative effects of such initiatives outweigh the positive.

I'd also say it is singularly unhelpful and misleading to utilize polarizing terms like "white supremacist" society given how polemical and charged such a phrase is in our society, and what those phrases would conjure up for most moderate actors. Even if we redefine it in certain contexts to mean something somewhat different than the popular understanding, it begs the strategic question why use such a loaded term at all, if its user isn't just preaching to the choir, but truly interested in effecting dialogue and achieving progress.

Sometimes you only have two choices:  call out evil or enable it.  I don't think there is anything to be achieved from a dialogue with white supremacists, but there is something to be achieved by marginalizing them.

The problem is, too many people on the left are quick to label anyone they disagree with as a racist or white supremacist, so you end up alienating and marginalizing people who agree with you on goals, but disagree with you on methods.

[DGuller]

The problem is, too many people on the left are quick to label anyone they disagree with as a racist or white supremacist, so you end up alienating and marginalizing people who agree with you on goals, but disagree with you on methods.

Obviously you should make sure that the evil is really evil before you call it out, don't be a boy crying wolf.  But when the evil truly is evil, and you pull your punches because you don't want to sound shrill or divisive or counterproductive, you really are being a good man who does nothing.

[sbr]

Binyamin Appelbaum‏Verified account @BCAppelbaum  5m5 minutes ago

McCain is hugging Democrats. McConnell just walked off the floor.

[11B4V]

FAIL

[Tonitrus]

Never a good idea to aggressively target mostly-safe Senators.

[garbon]

Another issue is the extent to which one believes in top-down bureaucratic initiatives as effective (or even  appropriate) means to address inequality of outcomes. The key question to me seems to be, in spite of the wide acknowledgment that racism is inherently evil and that historical injustices continue to play a significant role in inequality of outcomes, what specifically is to be done about it? It strikes me as reasonable to doubt whether many of the attempted remedies (e.g. school busing, affirmative action, etc.) really achieve what they intend or whether the negative effects of such initiatives outweigh the positive.

I'd also say it is singularly unhelpful and misleading to utilize polarizing terms like "white supremacist" society given how polemical and charged such a phrase is in our society, and what those phrases would conjure up for most moderate actors. Even if we redefine it in certain contexts to mean something somewhat different than the popular understanding, it begs the strategic question why use such a loaded term at all, if its user isn't just preaching to the choir, but truly interested in effecting dialogue and achieving progress.

Sometimes you only have two choices:  call out evil or enable it.  I don't think there is anything to be achieved from a dialogue with white supremacists, but there is something to be achieved by marginalizing them.

The problem is, too many people on the left are quick to label anyone they disagree with as a racist or white supremacist, so you end up alienating and marginalizing people who agree with you on goals, but disagree with you on methods.

Well they aren't being helpful if they support the goals but are sitting by complacent. Coddling doesn't typically spur people onto action.

[derspiess]

No because supposed colorblindness is exactly what leads to the reinforcement of racism. Can't fix a problem you can't see.

Great, now the Boogie Boys were reinforcing racism?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQeYPKWcVrE

[Malthus]

Another issue is the extent to which one believes in top-down bureaucratic initiatives as effective (or even  appropriate) means to address inequality of outcomes. The key question to me seems to be, in spite of the wide acknowledgment that racism is inherently evil and that historical injustices continue to play a significant role in inequality of outcomes, what specifically is to be done about it? It strikes me as reasonable to doubt whether many of the attempted remedies (e.g. school busing, affirmative action, etc.) really achieve what they intend or whether the negative effects of such initiatives outweigh the positive.

I'd also say it is singularly unhelpful and misleading to utilize polarizing terms like "white supremacist" society given how polemical and charged such a phrase is in our society, and what those phrases would conjure up for most moderate actors. Even if we redefine it in certain contexts to mean something somewhat different than the popular understanding, it begs the strategic question why use such a loaded term at all, if its user isn't just preaching to the choir, but truly interested in effecting dialogue and achieving progress.

Exactly.

It seems to me that using this sort of distorting rhetoric is an utterly unnecessary own goal for progressives.

It sounds great - to the converted - but sounds like ranting and name-calling to the unconverted. The notion  that "calling out" people is a great way of convincing them is one of the biggest missteps of the political left, and we are seeing some of the unfortunate results right now.

[garbon]

What use are allied who otherwise are sitting idle? In what sense are they actually allies?

[Valmy]

What use are allied who otherwise are sitting idle? In what sense are they actually allies?

I think he was saying they are not (yet) allies. If they are already allies then it sounds great.

[DGuller]

The notion  that "calling out" people is a great way of convincing them is one of the biggest missteps of the political left, and we are seeing some of the unfortunate results right now.

You don't convince "them".  You convince the moderates and independents that the people you're calling out shouldn't be normalized or caucused with.

[Valmy]

My problem is you have people who are not necessarily opponents, just skeptics and/or people who have been sheltered from what you are saying. Then you blast them for being vile. I don't think that is productive.

[Oexmelin]

But it's not blasting them. The whole point of the debate is to show/debate structural effect. In my experience, derailing the topic is not the effect of "the left" calling everyone they disagree with racists, it's pople,insisting that they, personally, are not racist. And it's a bloody old tactic/reflex that James Baldwin denounced in the 60s. At some point, people need to decide whether or not what is more important to them is fighting racism, or simply not being called a racist.

[Malthus]

My problem is you have people who are not necessarily opponents, just skeptics and/or people who have been sheltered from what you are saying. Then you blast them for being vile. I don't think that is productive.

Or even - as Camerus noted - people who agree on the problem, but disagree on solutions.

To give an example: one concrete solution to inequality of outcomes is to institute hard quotas - make sure that every university, every business, every government department hires the same percentage of (let's say) Blacks, Asians, and Whites, the same percentage of men and women, who exist in the population at large.

This may be a good plan; it may be a bad plan. Is any good added to the debate over whether it is good or bad, by calling everyone who disagrees with it a "White supremacist"?

To my mind, such labeling is a fundamentally bad idea, for two reasons:

(1) It is, quite simply, incorrect. People can easily have lots of reasons for opposing such a plan, other than being a "White supremacist", a "racist" or whatever. For example, an opponent of this plan could point out that instituting a hard quota risks instituting racism, as people will logically associate the group that benefits the most from such a system with lower standards.

(2) It is ineffective. People see it as simply name-calling, devoid of truth.