Some interesting perspectives on the election

As the sturm und drang finally begins to die down over last week’s Presidential election, I’ve been reading some interesting reflections on it and what it’s revealed.

The New York Times has two interesting articles.  The first is headlined, ‘The Two Americas of 2016‘.  It maps the ‘Republican sea’ and the ‘Democratic islands’ as different views of the USA.  Here they are in thumbnail size:

Full-size images, and lots more details, are at the link.

In another article, the NYT notes that ‘The Divide Between Red and Blue America Grew Even Deeper in 2016‘.  It provides maps of predominantly Democratic and Republican counties (i.e. where over 80% of votes were cast for either party) for elections going back to 1996.  The results are sometimes startling.  They clearly illustrate a growing red tint to the map as Republican voters come to dominate rural areas;  but equally, the cities get ‘bluer’ as Democratic voters migrate there.  I found this comparison of counties by race and political affiliation to be particularly interesting.  Click the graphic for a larger view.

There are more graphics and information at the link.  Both NYT articles are worth your time.

The above graphic raises an interesting (and worrying) question for the future of US politics.  Will the Democratic Party ‘give up’ on white rural voters, seeing its future in cities and minority communities, and pander to the latter’s interests exclusively?  Will the Republican Party do likewise to its primary support base, and become the ‘white party’ of America?  I think both moves would be very bad for the country as a whole, but politicians aren’t noted for putting the country ahead of their party or their personal interests.  If it’ll help them get re-elected, and help their party to retain its grasp of at least some of the reins of power, they’ll probably do it, no matter what ‘it’ may be.

On that subject, Slate published an article by its (black) chief political correspondent, titled simply ‘White Won‘.  Here’s an excerpt.

Pundits and observers will attribute Trump’s win to “populism” or his “anti-elite” message. This is nonsense. Trump ran for president as a nationalist fighter for white America. He promised to deport Hispanic immigrants. He promised to ban Muslims from the United States. He refused to acknowledge Barack Obama’s legitimacy, casting him—until the end—as a kind of usurper of rightful authority. When faced with the fetid swamps of white reaction—of white supremacists and white nationalists and anti-Semites—he winked, and they cheered in response. And for good reason.

More than anything, Trump promises a restoration of white authority. After eight years of a black president—after eight years in which cosmopolitan America asserted its power and its influence, eight years in which women leaned in and blacks declared that their lives mattered—millions of white Americans said enough. They had their fill of this world and wanted the old one back. And although it’s tempting to treat this as a function of some colorblind anti-elitism, that cannot explain the unity of white voters in this election. Trump didn’t just win working-class whites—he won the college-educated and the affluent. He even won young whites. Seventeen months after he announced his candidacy, millions of white Americans flocked to the ballot box to put Trump into the White House. And they did so as a white herrenvolk, racialized and radicalized by Trump.

. . .

Americans are stubbornly, congenitally optimistic. And the millions who backed Trump see something in his visage. Something that gives them hope. Here’s what I see. I see a man who empowered white nationalists and won. I see a man who demanded the removal of nonwhite immigrants and won. I see a man who pledged war crimes against foreign enemies and won. I see a man who empowers the likes of Rudy Giuliani and others who see blacks as potential criminals to control, not citizens to respect.

There’s more at the link.

Let me say at once that I don’t agree with the author;  but let me also say that I accept his sincerity in writing those words.  He really, truly believes what he’s saying, even though I think it’s completely false.  For that reason, I’m not going to call him a liar.  I will, however, observe that President-elect Trump and the Republican Party are going to have to address such perspectives with actions rather than words.  It won’t do them (or me, for that matter) any good to deny such views.  Words are cheap.  No, they’re going to have to come up with concrete actions to persuade black voters, by example, that they’re neither pro-white nor anti-black.

That may be difficult, because present federal and federally-sponsored entitlement programs appear to be largely set up to favor black city-dwellers.  That’s not a racist statement:  it’s empirically verifiable.  Count up the dollars going to each entitlement or welfare program, and the size and scope of the bureaucracies that administer and support them, and draw your own conclusions.  I strongly oppose continuing with such favoritism.  I’d like to see welfare and entitlement programs modified to treat everyone alike, irrespective of race or location;  and that must inevitably mean cutting back expenditure on ‘favorites’ in order to balance it across the whole population.  That will inevitably be decried as ‘racist’, even though it’s only restoring balance.

That friction is forecast in an article at the Federalist titled ‘This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente‘.  Here’s an excerpt.

Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of us have?

Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism. It’s like the Morrissey lyric: “is evil just something you are, or something you do.” Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.

That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make today’s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else.

More at the link.

I’ve had all too much personal experience of this ‘privilege theory’ nonsense as a pastor and prison chaplain.  It’s used to try to intimidate people like me;  to make us so scared of being accused of racism that we’ll knuckle under to even the most outrageous demands.  I’ve even had my South African origins used against me. “You’re a white South African.  That means you’re doubly racist!”  To that, my answer has usually been short, not very sweet, and unprintable.  I’ve shed my own blood in the fight against apartheid, which was far more racist, brutal and violent than anything seen in the USA for the past century or more.  After experiencing that, if anyone wants to throw accusations of racism at me, I’ll ram them back down their throat on the end of my boot – and laugh in their faces while I do it.  Take your racist bull**** elsewhere, dumbass.  It’s not going to work with me.

Nevertheless, progressives and far-left agitators are throwing around accusations of racism as if they were candy.  They’re going to have to grow out of that, or risk permanently alienating the productive class in this country – the same productive class that largely voted for President-elect Trump.  That could prove to be wildly counterproductive in years to come, because if Mr. Trump doesn’t deliver what they voted for, they may well turn to more extreme politicians in the future.  No-one in his right mind wants that.



  1. I am very interested to see how long it will take to get the Grown Ups to settle the masses down. If this keeps up for the two months then the sane part of the country may just write the Democratic Party off entirely as a lost cause.

    No doubt there's polling going on about this now.

  2. I agree that the writer of the article is probably sincere in his views, but I wonder. I wonder why it's all right for other ethnicities to vote for their own interests, even at the expense of American values and ideals, but not white people. I wonder why it is such an anthema to uphold the law re: immigration. I wonder why it is framed as unspeakably evil to put a hold on immigrants from countries we are at war with until they can be properly vetted.

    I wonder why it is so horrible for the working class to use their vote to express how they feel about supporting so many who, through poor life choices, cannot support themselves. Welfare was meant to act as something to tide you over until you got back on your feet, not a way of life.

    I wonder if this writer, and others like him, realize that by demonizing anyone who exercises true diversity of thought–to say nothing about having a firmer grip on how reality works–they are inuring the very people they rely on for support from name calling, shaming, and other information as a way to coerce their entitlement programs.

    And I wonder if people like this author are so caught up in their infantile narcissistic feel bads that they are completely ignorant of history. Those people who are so busy screaming for and demanding their rights are strangely silent when it comes to detailing their responsibilities. Or are they really so foolish as to believe you can have one without the other? This practice of one group getting the rights while leaving the other group to shoulder the responsibilities is unsustainable.

  3. Don't know about you, Peter, but they ticked me off when the colors got flipped. Remember when Reagan was Prez, and conservative was blue, and the Progressives (commies, in some opinions) were the more appropriate Red?

  4. You know, the blinders these people put on are truly awe-inspiring. Having labeled one chunk of the world "white" and expecting it to all act the same, they label another chunk of the world "hispanic" and expect it to vote as a lockstep block. You're the daughter of Cuban exiles who watched their country be torn apart by socialism? Obviously you're hispanic, so you must vote for socialism! You're the son of Portuguese dairy farmers who've been in the country since before their dairy farm was in a US state? Obviously you're hispanic, so you must be in favour of illegal immigration!

    You're a suburban-raised doctor with a family, paying hefty taxes and seeing damned little for it, but because of your skin color you must be in complete solidarity with the ghetto thugs whose bullet wounds you treat!

    The more pundits, pollsters, and politicians break this down by race and not ideology, the blinder they will become to the "voting blocks" who quietly pack up and leave their party.

  5. Trump didn't win because of white racism.

    A slightly lower percentage of whites voted for Trump than for Romney.

    A slightly higher percentage of blacks and Hispanics voted for Trump than for Romney!

  6. We've been paying the Danegeld because it was easier, and cheaper than alternatives.

    Not for much longer.

    Like a yap dog you put up with because arguing with your girlfriend about it just isn't worth the hassle, eventually there comes a time when the girlfriend becomes an "ex-" or the dog decides to bite. Then you deal with it.

    "We" created the conditions under which the current conditions developed and "we'll" have to clean up the mess. It is going to be ugly, violent, unfair, and really really really regrettable. But it will happen if only because "if something can't continue, it won't."

    Their magic words are losing their power over us. Some will go so far as to embrace the accusations and say "as well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb." Some will just go back to Kipling, hardening their hearts and quoting "if you don't work, you die."

    On the flip side, some of the parasite class will discover that they can work, they can succeed, and their lives and the lives of their children will improve.


  7. If you look at that map of Southern Texas along the border, not too many white libtards there. Yet, no libtards will come move there for the 'duh-versity'.

    I'm on Fecesbook, and did not a number of Hispanics who were not happy with Trump but like their guns, think illegal immigration should stop, and are nominal Catholics who don't think a tranny should be able to use a ladies restroom with their daughters.

  8. When the break up occurs, and it will eventually, one would be wise to refer back to the Yugoslav civil war and study what happened to enclaves geographically separated from their own kind. That map gives you a pretty decent layout of the fracture lines in the US.

    It also shows the effect of the absolute poison being pumped out by supposed institutions of higher learning. Find a college town in an area of otherwise heritage America and you'll find a poisonous den of vipers brainwashing your offspring and raking in millions of taxpayer dollars and tuition for the privilege.

  9. Sir, I'm sure he does sincerely believe it. It's abject nonsense, but he sincerely believes it. If I recall correctly, Lenin is said to have referred to such people of sincerity as "useful idiots".

    Perhaps I'm just a dumb, inbred, bitterly-clinging, deplorable hick, but "privilege theory" has always reminded me of the "class struggle" arguments I read in the issues of the CPUSA's Daily Worker that were shoved into my hands when I was at Uni. It was bull***t then, and it's dumbed-down bull***t today.

    I don't see them backing off, or smartening up. Yes, despair is a sin, but, if they continue on their present course (and I believe they will), I see no outcome that can be even remotely described as good. All I can think to do is pray, and I'm not sure of what I should pray for…

  10. polls are for strippers.
    "they" got it wrong because the hard working, tax paying, freedom loving americans OF ALL COLORS have had enough, and after 25 years of liberal. more or less, globalism said "we want something else". Hillary was more of the same, trump, even if not well liked is definatly something different

  11. Are the cities getting bluer because the Democrats are migrating there, or are they getting bluer because the Republicans are leaving?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *