dagblog - Comments for "The Roadblocks to Progressivism - Small Town America"

The concept of democracy

Verified Atheist — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:57:32 +0000

In reply to The Roadblocks to Progressivism - Small Town America

The concept of democracy seemed to be something in the nation at that time that was for white people.

I think this could be refined further by changing the word "people" to "men".

It's not just that they don't

kgb999 — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 08:16:17 +0000

In reply to The Roadblocks to Progressivism - Small Town America

It's not just that they don't like change, it's that they won't like any policy that would cause their white towns and neighborhoods to change. And it's not that they hate entitlements and safety nets, it's that they hate these safety nets helping those the deem beneath them. This is why Reagan's "Welfare Queen" statement played so well in these areas. And it still does.

I'm not seeing small town America being against safety nets if we're talking about institutional programs such as Medicare/Social Security/etc. That seems pretty consistent nationally.

On wider social programs, you may have a point historically speaking. But you are missing something important about the current dynamic. There isn't really anything going on in the national discussion that would cause (or prevent) their white towns and neighborhoods to dramatically change (in a way that impacts whiteness - which is what I infer as your meaning). I don't think that generally speaking there are masses of [insert non-white demographic here] people just dying to move to outer BFE ... if only the folks currently there weren't bigoted a-holes. Even immigration reform and solving unauthorized migration won't really change much - no matter how it's addressed.

This is the first time I've lived somewhere that can be described as "lily white" (well, with a mature awareness anyway). It has been a bit of an eye-opener and made me question some of my core assumptions. I've mentioned on other threads that the issues of class, poverty and relative opportunity that often manifest along racial lines in more diverse communities are every bit as extant here. From the grocery in the poor section of town (where everyone's on food assistance and many don't have vehicles to drive elsewhere) being far more expensive to a disproportionate number of arrests and convictions falling to the less-monied classes (easily accomplished through aggressive policing in poorer neighborhoods and protective policing in nicer ones).

That is what I found so powerful about Shirley Sherrod's message. She talked about coming to a similar realization from a different perspective than mine entirely: that the problems faced by poor black Americans that keep generation after generation stuck in poverty are shared by all people trying to escape poverty. A similar understanding was evidenced in Colin Powell's response to Kanye West when it was asserted the people of New Orleans had been ignored because they were black. Powell responded they had been ignored because they are poor, and the problems of poverty disproportionately impact African Americans (particularly in New Orleans).

I think the way our approach to civil rights and equality has been so deeply intertwined with the approach to addressing poverty is a strong driver for the resentment you discuss. It is an undeniable (and unacceptable) fact that the percentage of minorities in poverty (and impacted by the so-called downturn) is disturbingly and disproportionately high, for African Americans in particular. It is equally true that the sheer number of Europeanish Americans thus afflicted is devastating.

As far as the national conversation (and liberal intelligentsia) is concerned, people who happen to be white yet stuck in these conditions don't appear to exist. Or at least nobody directly advocates on their behalf. Despite facing the same generational hurdles to achieving higher education and advancing opportunity shared by all families and individuals stuck in a cycle of systemic poverty. At the same time there is strong single-race advocacy (and support infrastructure) servicing pretty much every other demographic. While it's a comforting tritism to retort "The entire government is a single-race advocacy," that is kind of bullshit. Either way, the dynamic creates at least an appearance, or feeling, that resources are readily available to help everyone EXCEPT white people ... who just have to pay the taxes that make it happen. It is difficult to overstate how much this feeling plays in to absolutely buying the "Welfare Queen" construct in the policy abstract, even while simultaneously feeling personal acceptance and friendship for minorities socially.

I posted on a local PBS special about hate groups in Idaho a few weeks back. One section highlights a new "church" that has opened somewhere outside Sandpoint. As the program highlights, the message they are using to get people in the door is one of white exclusion. Basically they preach the system is such that anyone who dares advocate on behalf of white people, to suggest the government should address the needs of the majority, is called a racist. And sure enough ... along comes someone to call them racist ... thus proving the point (See! we told you ... now, would you like to come to "special" meetings and get more involved?). Once accepted as true, the view becomes self-reinforcing ... like the reformed Nazi tried to explain in a different part of the same program; when people are yelling hate back at them, a parent can just lean over to a child and whisper "See! They hate you because you are white." ... they affirmatively say the same things to each other and potential recruits.

It seems like a very dangerous vacuum exists which at this point only hate groups are stepping up to fill. I can only see the dynamic increasing in light of the fact that the powers that be seem to be planning on making the dog-eat-dog even worse ... and keeping it there for a long time.

It also seems pretty clear that the current frictions and factionalization among the disenfranchised is playing into the hands of entrenched powers in a big way. A cynical person might even speculate they intentionally promote such things. That's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of Cornel West. When he gets to the heart of his message, consistently it is to advocate for poor and working people without distinction. Those who have a strong and credible message of unity are important. We need social and economic justice for all people.

I think in the end you and I reach the same point: the way to move opinion is to focus on addressing issues for the people who are worried or hurting and articulate how a better approach benefits them. True justice would, by it's very nature, address the disproportional negative pressures on the minority community at the same time it would address the sheer numbers within the majority population also under these same pressures - so should be easily salable on it's merit. Now all we need is a just approach ... and someone willing to carry it's water.

"How does an African American

smithers_T — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 05:22:30 +0000

In reply to How does an African American

"How does an African American businessman provide documentation to prove he can't get a cab in Manhattan while his white counterpart does not?"

Somebody actually studied that problem (if I find the citation I'll put it up), it was slightly different than your scenario, it looked at all people types (not only businessmen).

If I remember it correctly it was in Washington DC and the surrounding area. The only evidence of what was perceived to be racism (based on anecdotal information) was a reluctance to pick up younger African American males after sunset. It turned out, upon further investigation, that many cabbies had been rolled by young African American males after sunset, especially in certain areas with high drug activity. This was actually a case of "reluctant racial discrimination". Some cabbies reported feeling some guilt but they wanted for their own safety ultimately.

I have a nephew who that happened to. In his case, he picked up the young man in a high crime area not knowing better, the man accused him of being a cop (which of course he wasn't) and almost took his life.

The above problem, I think, is economic, not racial. Statistics don't point to race as indicators of vice, they point to economic conditions.

How does an African American

Elusive Trope — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 04:08:41 +0000

In reply to "[I] know where of I speak.

How does an African American businessman provide documentation to prove he can't get a cab in Manhattan while his white counterpart does not?

There has always been small

Ramona — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 04:05:47 +0000

In reply to The Roadblocks to Progressivism - Small Town America

There has always been small town closed-mindedness, even in city neighborhoods. It's the old survival instinct, which then of course becomes tribal, as there is safety in numbers. They're not open to change and they're suspicious of outsiders and outside thoughts. They're comfortable with the familiar and with "it's the way it's always been".

That mindset is almost impossible to permeate. I've lived in many places like that and have managed to stay above it, but what happens then is not so pleasant, either. I am forever the outsider, looked on with slight suspicion, privy to only the most superficial friendships, and always made to feel there are things I don't know and never will. But if I'm living around people whose political leanings and values are different than mine, it's almost the only way we can live together.

For example, I now live in a fairly remote place where blacks are seen only now and then. Liberals are seen even less. I write a liberal blog but nobody here knows about it, and that's the way it has to be if we're to maintain any kind of neighborly contact. They vote Republican, and I don't. They know that, but so far there haven't been any real blasts over it, because that's not how we operate here. We don't have to prove points. I don't feel the need to try and convince them of my POV, and neither do they.

Where the trouble comes in closed-minded communities is when the "different" is the enemy. Here there is no real "different", no one so alien they might be perceived as a danger to the group, so I'm spared having to take sides or having to come to the defense of the "different".

If that were to happen, I would have to leave. Pure and simple. I could no longer live among them, because I would become the enemy and so would they.

For most of our history we've managed to function as a country, even with our differences. We were one in some respects, but separate in others, even during the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam era, when our protests grew louder and stronger. We were still one country. We held together. I can't say that's true now.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it lies with something like "leaving the minorities out of it completely". The minorities are a part of the whole, and liberals/progressives are a part of the part of the whole. I agree that any argument has to include proof that actions do harm to everyone, including the actors. But how to get through to small minds is the question every society wrestles with, without resolution, I'm afraid.

Okay, I'm no help here at all. But it's a great conversation and I hope more jump in and comment. Should be interesting.

The internet has been a real

stillidealistic — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 04:04:34 +0000

In reply to We are definitely becoming

The internet has been a real growth mechanism for me. I lived in a VERY small town for 25 years, and had little interaction with people who had a broader vision of the world.

Since discovering TPM, and now Dag, my horizons have broadened considerably, and since I took the time to read and learn and discuss instead of just criticizing, and getting to "know" the people I interact in cyber-space with, my world view has changed a lot... I am a very different person than I was 3 years ago.

Crap! Just realized I let

stillidealistic — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:54:13 +0000

In reply to I don't feed trolls stillli.

Crap! Just realized I let your birthday pass w/o sending best wishes...hope it was a good one!

I'm sorry, but if you make

smithers_T — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:46:47 +0000

In reply to Buckle up, folks! Here we go

I'm sorry, but if you make comments about the "lily white", about "these people".."in their white towns" needing to be fought, on the perceptual basis of bigoted racial attitude toward minorities, then you've opened up a serious unhappy topic all by yourself, and it's valid to comment on it. As for the troll comment... well, put up some facts, and there could not possibly be a context for that. Maybe you have a point though. Maybe I shouldn't expect any. Which is fine. Rant away.

I don't feed trolls stillli.

cmaukonen — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:35:37 +0000

In reply to Buckle up, folks! Here we go

I don't feed trolls stillli. I am quite content in just feeding myself.

Buckle up, folks! Here we go

stillidealistic — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:32:04 +0000

In reply to "[I] know where of I speak.

Buckle up, folks! Here we go again.

I'm not kidding, if a comment comes from smithers_t, you can bet it isn't going to be happy talk.

Back in the TPM days, engaging with people like this was called "feeding the troll." So, if you're having fun with him (or her) keep engaging. If not, quit feeding him, and he'll go away. Many of you are putting a lot of time and effort into your responses to him, and basically it is spitting into the wind. He reads comments for ammo to lob back, not to learn or try to understand where you're coming from.