Trump Uses Mount Rushmore Speech to Deliver Divisive Culture War Message

[JonNC]

That is a very modern right wing interpretation. Here is an academic’s explanation, and it agrees with mine.

Let me guess, an academic from the left.

That’s okay. He’s allowed to have a view, too. But I’ll accept the charge that the modern right wing is, in fact, what I’ve said it is and believes.

And so do Democrats now, even if they didn’t then.

So, progressives now believe that individual rights hold primacy over government power. That’s good to here. Here’s hoping we don’t see calls to undermine gun rights, due process, presumption of innocence and religious free exercise.

When a sufficient number of individuals act in a similar way, they effectively form a system. It is not a codified system in law, but it is still a system. As a hypothetical, suppose all the whites in a town got together privately and agreed to boycott a certain black-owned business because the owner was black.That would qualify as systemic racism, and it would be perfectly legal. I’m not saying that happens anymore, but it does illustrate what is possible.

No. That isn’t systemic because there is no institution involved. That said, we are seeing that kind of bigotry, though, with attacks on Goya. Is that systemic? No. Is it bigotry? Yes.

 

[JonNC]

The term "identity politics " is a modern right-wing denigration of progressives.

No. It isn’t. The left has been using the term for a long time.

Identity politics has been employed in myriad cases since its original wide-spread usage in the early 1980s; but the term has been applied, in the ensuing decades, with radically different connotations dependent upon the term’s context.[4][5] It has gained currency with the emergence of social activism, manifesting in various dialogues within the feminist, American civil rights, and LGBTQ movements, as well as multiple nationalist and postcolonialorganizations.

It has no meaning in 1860 politics, and very little meaning today, except as a bad name that conservatives can call their opponents.

Apparently many on the left disagree. They think things like this:

I used to believe in identity politics because it told me: You and your experience matter. Your identity gives you authority. Your beliefs can’t be invalidated because your identity can’t be invalidated. This logical leap was empowering to take.
In the case of race, non-white people decided that their non-whiteness enabled them to speak with authority on topics of race. White people could only participate when they admitted that they were less worthy of speaking.

That’s not from the right. The constitutional conservative says that everyone has the right to speak on any topic, regardless of race.

And while people didn’t speak of in these terms in 1860, there was clearly a race hierarchy.

When a sufficient number of individuals act in a similar way, they effectively form a system. It is not a codified system in law, but it is still a system.

If it is not codified, it is not a system. One is not obliged to abide by it. If it is systemic, then choosing not to comply violates what is codified.

 

[Culter]

They also stood for full rights to all immigrant citizens and freedom of immigration into the United States.

They still believe in full rights for immigrants and freedom to immigrate legally.

 

[Culter]

That is not very clear. You say systemic racism is illegal. But it is not. Only certain specific racist actions are illegal, but when someone invents a new way to produce a racist outcome, that action is legal until the government figures out how to make it illegal. We have a good many of those holes plugged now, thanks to years and years of civil rights legislation (thank you, Republicans of 1960). But people are clever and keep finding new ways to exercise their racism.

I think the solution to the kind of racism you’re talking about would limit the rights to associate, move, think, and speak, not to mention property rights. It would necessitate that the government step in and pick winners and losers. In other words, it would require something close to an authoritarian government.

 

[Culter]

The term "identity politics " is a modern right-wing denigration of progressives.

Identity politics is part of intersectional theory. The goal is to get 51% of people to feel oppressed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let me guess, an academic from the left.

Then find an academic on the right who agrees with you. You see, claiming every source that disagrees with you is biased against you is no argument.

So, progressives now believe that individual rights hold primacy over government power.

Don’t you think it is a little childish to pretend I was addressing a different question than I was when any casual reader of this thread can see what I was really saying?

No. That isn’t systemic because there is no institution involved.

If you can take liberties with the definition of progressive and conservative I can take liberties with the definition of system.

 

[Culter]

If you can take liberties with the definition of progressive and conservative I can take liberties with the definition of system.

Well, as long as we agree that law, academia, and government are not organized in favor of whites.

 

[JonNC]

Don’t you think it is a little childish to pretend I was addressing a different question than I was when any casual reader of this thread can see what I was really saying?

Childish? That is the entire philosophical difference between progressives and conservatives. The entire difference. Everything else revolves around that issue: individual rights v government power.
Slavery, and later Jim Crow, were government first and foremost, government power restricting individual rights.
The Chauvin/ Floyd issue is, first and foremost, an issue of government power abusing individual rights.
Nothing childish about pointing that out, and if progressives now believe that, that’s good for the country.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Don’t you think it is a little childish to pretend I was addressing a different question than I was when any casual reader of this thread can see what I was really saying?

Childish? That is the entire philosophical difference between progressives and conservatives. The entire difference. Everything else revolves around that issue: individual rights v government power.
Slavery, and later Jim Crow, were government first and foremost, government power restricting individual rights.
The Chauvin/ Floyd issue is, first and foremost, an issue of government power abusing individual rights.
Nothing childish about pointing that out, and if progressives now believe that, that’s good for the country.

For those who are wondering what JonNC is talking about, it is from this post of mine:

LeafByNiggle:

They (the Republicans of 1860) also stood for full rights to all immigrant citizens and freedom of immigration into the United States.

To which JonNC responded:

JonNC:

And Republicans still to. Again, a conservative principle of individual rights.

Which of course makes no sense because expanding immigration (legally) is a progressive belief, not a conservative belief. And it is not an issue of individual rights because individuals from foreign countries have no inherent right to immigrate to this country. I ignore his false association with conservatism and responded with

LeafByNiggle:

And so do Democrats now, even if they didn’t then.

…referring only to the immigration question and ignoring the false individual rights claim. Then JonNC sarcastically responded:

So, progressives now believe that individual rights hold primacy over government power. That’s good to here.

Knowing full well that this is the opposite of what progressives believe.

So now you know the rest of the story.

 

[JonNC]

Which of course makes no sense because expanding immigration (legally) is a progressive belief, not a conservative belief.

No it isn’t. I strongly believe in the expansion of legal immigration. There’s nothing progressive about that.

Knowing full well that this is the opposite of what progressives believe.

And there we are. This is why What is happening in our big cities is a problem cultivated by progressivism. Over and over, American citizens, many of them black, are denied their basic rights by agents of government. That’s what happened to George Floyd. There may or may not be a race component to what happened, no evidence has presented in that regard, but it is about the progressive view that government power takes primacy over individual rights.
That’s why Jim Crow laws were in keeping with progressivism.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No it isn’t. I strongly believe in the expansion of legal immigration. There’s nothing progressive about that.

Show of hand. How many think increasing immigration is a modern day conservative idea? (Considering that Trump has lowered immigration numbers substantially, and promotes efforts to stop chain migration, etc.)

 

[Ender]

I think we are talking about two very different kinds of system racism. You are talking about racism that hurts whites and I am talking about racism that hurts blacks. Perhaps you think that what racism there is is of the former kind?

OK, then let’s restrict the question to systemic racism against blacks. I deny that it exists and I challenge you (again) to cite a single example. Let me also stress that disparate outcome is not necessarily even evidence of discrimination, let alone proof of its existence. I cited several examples of liberal racist policies; let’s see if you can cite even one example of a conservative one.

 

[JonNC]

Show of hand. How many think increasing immigration is a modern day conservative idea? (Considering that Trump has lowered immigration numbers substantially, and promotes efforts to stop chain migration, etc.)

No idea. What we do oppose us the progressive plan of open borders.
Chain migration needs to stop. So do quota systems.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I think we are talking about two very different kinds of system racism. You are talking about racism that hurts whites and I am talking about racism that hurts blacks. Perhaps you think that what racism there is is of the former kind?

OK, then let’s restrict the question to systemic racism against blacks. I deny that it exists and I challenge you (again) to cite a single example. Let me also stress that disparate outcome is not necessarily even evidence of discrimination…

It is either that or it is evidence of something inherently inferior with blacks - either genetically or culturally. No one believes the genetic charge anymore (thankfully), but I have heard the cultural excuse. But then you have to ask where that culture comes from? Did they bring it with them from Africa? No. Whatever culture they had in Africa was largely stamped out through the institution of slavery. So whatever culture they have now is largely a product of the lives they have lived from slavery and onward. There were moments of black progress, such as the booming black business section of Tulsa known as Greenwood, or sometimes “Black Wall Street”. Then entire district was burned to the ground in the race riots of 1921. So to posit that blacks had every opportunity that whites had is simply a fallacy. So that brings us back to alternate reasons for disparate outcome. As Arthur Conan Doyle wrote, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” You may think systemic racism is improbable, but what other explanation is there?

Oh, one more I have heard: The Democrats ruined blacks by their welfare programs. But didn’t those programs apply to poor whites the same as poor blacks? If it “ruined blacks” would it not also have “ruined the whites” too? That one does not make sense either. Do you have any more?

I cited several examples of liberal racist policies; let’s see if you can cite even one example of a conservative one.

You cited some liberal policies, but you did not prove that they have damaged blacks - you only affirmed it. It is harder to prove what specific actions cause racist outcome than it is prove that some such actions must exist - especially when those engaged in those actions are doing everything they can to hide their acts from public scrutiny.

As an analogy, if a lot of fake hundred dollar bills start showing up in circulation, it is reasonable to suppose there is a counterfeiter operating in the area. It is much harder to identify that counterfeiter.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Show of hand. How many think increasing immigration is a modern day conservative idea? (Considering that Trump has lowered immigration numbers substantially, and promotes efforts to stop chain migration, etc.)

No idea. What we do oppose us the progressive plan of open borders.
Chain migration needs to stop. So do quota systems.

Now you are talking like the Democrats of 1860 - i.e. the Conservatives of 1860.

 

[JonNC]

Now you are talking like the Democrats of 1860 - i.e. the Conservatives of 1860.

So they talked about expanding immigration based on fairness and without racial and ethnic quotas. I doubt it. I suspect they were as race driven as today’s Democrats. You know, content if their character is so quaint. Color of their skin is what matters.

 

[Ender]

It is either that or it is evidence of something inherently inferior with blacks - either genetically or culturally.

No, I don’t accept this. There is no more reason to believe this than to believe that poor whites in Appalachia are inherently inferior to whites elsewhere. I thought this argument was pretty thoroughly demolished with the comparison to the success of Asian Americans. If yours are the only two options, how do you account for their achievements, or that of Jews, who are also a high achieving group and this is in spite of the discrimination against them?

You may think systemic racism is improbable, but what other explanation is there?

I have never said it was impossible, as it manifestly existed in the US. What I said was that it doesn’t exist today. As to another explanation, I gave you that as well:

" If your worldview is that you’re the wrong color to achieve success, you will not achieve success".

This has been the mantra of the left since the 60’s: “ Racism is systemic; blacks can’t succeed on their own .” You want an explanation for black poverty? Start with this.

You cited some liberal policies, but you did not prove that they have damaged blacks…

What I cited were examples of systemic racism, ostensibly in place to benefit blacks. I cited them to demonstrate the existence of racist policies emanating from the left. You were challenged to cite even one emanating from the right. So far you have failed to provide one.

It is harder to prove what specific actions cause racist outcome than it is prove that some such actions must exist…

Right, and here it is: “We can’t cite anything, but we know it exists.” I know it exists (on the left) because I can refer to specific examples of it. You “know” it exists because you choose to believe it in spite of a complete lack of evidence. It’s like the conspiracy theorist who believes the lack of evidence that a conspiracy exists is proof that it does. There is no refutation to a position held under such circumstances.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Now you are talking like the Democrats of 1860 - i.e. the Conservatives of 1860.

So they talked about expanding immigration based on fairness and without racial and ethnic quotas. I doubt it. I suspect they were as race driven as today’s Democrats. You know, content if their character is so quaint. Color of their skin is what matters.

No, you’ve got it backwards. It was the Republicans of 1860 who talked about expanding immigration. The Democrats wanted no part of it. They wanted to keep things just they way they were, because they were in favor of the status quo.

 

[JonNC]

No, you’ve got it backwards. It was the Republicans of 1860 who talked about expanding immigration.

And so do I, and many Republicans. The key is not to push wages down or unemployment up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And so do I, and many Republicans.

Mostly the “never Trumper” Republicans. Yes, there are still some good ones left.