No, Jonah, Trump is not about “white” identity politics

His candidacy is about North American identity politics.

Goldberg writes, at Townhall

First, suggestions that a Trumpian nationalism is rising among all low-income Americans could only be true if all low-income Americans were white. Reading Breitbart.com’s celebrations of populist nationalism or the constant invocations of “We the People” from Trump supporters on social media might leave you with that impression. This is not to say that everyone who supports Trump is a “white nationalist” — which conjures various racist doctrines. Rather, it is to simply point out that Trump’s support is overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, white.

Clinton, according to some polls, gets nearly 9 out of 10 Latino voters and 9.9 out of 10 African-American voters. When Trump pointed out a black attendee at one of his rallies and said, “That’s my African-American,” he might have been speaking literally.

I think commentators focus on the broad-stroke economic arguments because the real issues — the American cultural ones — are so fraught. Simply put, this so-called nationalism in the U.S. is really little more than a brand name for generic white identity politics.More.

Reality check: Clinton’s permanent progressive government rewards African-American and Latino voters for their votes. She will do nothing for their true opportunities in life because she does not need to. Not any more. But more on that below.

First let’s start with: Globalization averages everything. It averages the civil liberties of Canadians and Americans with those of citizens of Malaysia (flogging vids). It is good for global corporate billionaires but not for North Americans, unless you think that cheap dollar store goods are more important than civil liberties.

If you do, God help you; I do not know who else can or would.

North Americans are used to a high standard of living, health care, education, and civil liberties. One way of understanding the Trump candidacy is to realize that neither the GOP nor the Dems —both global donor-backed—thought they needed to pay off white Americans. They can get foreign labour or automated labour much cheaper.

So those people were abandoned and they sensed they were abandoned. They looked for someone who—whatever his defects—was not one of those people. One outcome of the Trump candidacy will surely be the destruction of the Republican Party as an important force in American politics.

Now, about the African-Americans and Latinos: They were already hugely skewed to the Dems and were long acculturated to cultural identity politics (often for legitimate reasons), as opposed to “jobs, jobs, jobs” and “where’s the beef?”.

In a job-hungry environment, they are ready converts to voting for progressive government that will skew policies so as to reward them for their loyalty. They are right to see things this way if the United States is no longer a land of opportunity. Then they need to be in good with the right political patrons.

Clinton well understands that the riches of North America can now be parcelled out to whoever can get votes. The votes of the living, the dead, citizens, non-citizens, clones who vote a number of times are all of equal value to maintain progressive plunder of the public purse.

In the nationalist past, voting was not a glitch because whoever ruled had to consider the interests of the nation state. But in the globalist present, votes are a way for global elites to annex the wealth of the continent while abandoning huge numbers of citizens.

Progressives will continue to reward secure voting blocks (certainly not limited to ethnic voting blocks!)—but usually with favours rather than opportunities. Dependent people are of much more value to them.

If progressives continue to win, yes, everything will go downhill in the medium term. But it works for many voters in the short term. And one cannot blame anyone for voting in their own interests. It’s their own fault if they don’t think for the long term. I, for one, refuse to accept any blame.

The United States may soon look much more like Soviet Shattabanana than it does now.

And I used to think better of Goldberg than I do now.

See also: Smart people missing the point: Jonah Goldberg edition

and

PayPal founder Peter Thiel on freedom vs democracy

Share