Read on Twitter
I think that most Republicans elected before Obama were/are neoliberals with underlying bigotry. Obama and the recession precipitated the turning point where the neoliberals lost control of their party to their own cynical bigotry-signaling. Now bigotry *is* the party.
Someone already QTed who does not know what underlying means.
Apparently the above verbiage is hard. If you are familiar with my account, lol, you donât think I believe that the racism of the GOP popped up in 2008.
It was the underlying basis. Now the neoliberalism is gone. Itâs just the bigotry.
It was the underlying basis. Now the neoliberalism is gone. Itâs just the bigotry.
And again, for the person continuing to argue with me about what I intended to say - which is among the stupidest arguments that exist.
I think I have stumbled upon a stressful topic: how to talk about (or whether to acknowledge) the shift in the GOP from more covert to more overt racism.
1/
1/
You can check @KevinMKruseâs documentation for the shift over the last century, accelerating in the 1960s, to two parties essentially divided on segregation. The GOP called in the segregationists and the Democratic Party did not. 2/
TBF, itâs not that some Democrats did not try to keep those constituents - many tried to âboth sidesâ it. But the GOP didnât both-sides and some Democrats were not both-sidesing, so the march was on.
3/
3/
Black voters left the GOP and segregationists (or post-segregationists) joined the GOP.
But itâs not deniable they felt compelled to dog-whistle it. One of the chief southern strategists said so (next tweet, warning lots of N-word) 4/
But itâs not deniable they felt compelled to dog-whistle it. One of the chief southern strategists said so (next tweet, warning lots of N-word) 4/
And George Allenâs âmacacaâ thing shows that until at least 2006, Republicans would be harmed by blatant clear-cut racism. 5/
If he said such a thing now, I think that Fox News and other RW messengers would say âyeah but some other non-Republican said this other racist thing, so we goodâ and the Trumpers would say âyeah!â and George Allen would get *more* votes.
6/
6/
So I understand there is reluctance to say that something has changed, because that can sound like apologism for the underlying racism before 2008- a pass, an excuse for those who practiced it. 7/
But we should be able to talk about this shift, from underlying to overt, because I think it matters. Not because overt is necessarily worse than underlying (in some ways itâs better because we all know the terms and deniability is lost) 8/
But because understanding of systems and why and how they change is essential to the power to change them.
For instance, I think that the looking at the links between the current overt and the former covert can make people better at spotting the covert in the future. 9/
For instance, I think that the looking at the links between the current overt and the former covert can make people better at spotting the covert in the future. 9/
And politicians can learn how using covert messaging will actually transform their party. I think there are some - like George HW Bush - who had a much different (âkinder, gentlerâ) racism from the current GOP - stay with me. My point is not that his form is better or worse - 10/
But GHW Bush did not stop his campaign from using the most cynical racism available in its messaging (see Willie Horton). Thus, GHW Bush who probably believed that the shift in his party was deplorable, willingly fed the shift in his party. 11/
Willie Hortoning Dukakis was an appeal to racism. âVote for GHW Bush because you are racistâ was the underlying message. But it was processed as âvote for GHW Bush because scary criminalâ - one step away from overt racism.
12/
12/
But the people who that appeal worked for, whether subtly in their subconscious or consciously, were voting GOP *because they are racist*. So the GOP was collecting more and more voters who are high-level motivated *by racism*. These are the âReagan Democratsâ
13/
13/
Democrats who shifted to the GOP because âwelfare queensâ etc.
people like GHW Bush who are *shocked* *gasp* at what their party became (hello Lincoln Project) MADE THEIR PARTY what it is by calling in racists.
14/
people like GHW Bush who are *shocked* *gasp* at what their party became (hello Lincoln Project) MADE THEIR PARTY what it is by calling in racists.
14/
Before I end, am I saying the âkinder gentlerâ patrician racism of GHWB is *better* than the overt? Probably not, from *my* perspective. Same results and harder to combat.
But from *his* perspective? Of course it is. 15/
But from *his* perspective? Of course it is. 15/
But the main point is that a party becomes who the party appeals to.
If the party works for the Joe Rogan vote, subtly or openly, the Joe Rogan voter will become part of how the party is defined.
16/
If the party works for the Joe Rogan vote, subtly or openly, the Joe Rogan voter will become part of how the party is defined.
16/
If it works, subtly or openly, for Black votes, Black voters will become part of how it is defined. If it works, subtly or openly, for racist votes, racist voters will become part of how it is defined.
17/
17/
GHW Bush decided to go ahead and let his campaign go beyond his patrician quiet racism. This choice was also a decision to shift his party to the more overt racism that made him uncomfortable and that he deplored.
/end
/end
