The silence of the sheepish
Tom Brown sent me the following:
President-elect Donald Trump is drawing praise from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups for appointing former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist.
“Perhaps The Donald is for real,” Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party, told CNN in an segment that included interviews with several white nationalists.
. . .
Bannon told Mother Jones over the summer that his conservative news outlet was “the platform of the alt-right,” a far-right ideology that promotes white supremacy.
Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart ran headlines such as: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”
So where’s the outrage?
With Dems and blacks:
Top Democrats – including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada – and anti-discrimination groups are ripping the president-elect for the choice.
Pelosi said the hire undermines attempts to unite the country.
“There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump Administration,” she said.
And the Southern Poverty Law Center released a statement Monday saying Bannon’s appointment goes “directly against Trump’s pledge to be a president to ‘all Americans.'”
What a bunch of killjoys! Seriously, after reading that I was hoping for some similar outrage from the GOP. Instead here’s what The Hill reported:
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) got into an uncomfortable back-and-forth with reporters Monday, when they read him a series of racist and misogynistic Breitbart headlines from Bannon’s time at the helm.
“The president has a right to select who he thinks is best to be able to move through,” McCarthy said.
The President absolutely has a right to pick whoever he chooses. And Republicans have a 1st amendment right to criticize objectionable choices. I can recall previous cases of presidential appointees who received a great deal of criticism, even by their own party.
This is exactly what I was getting at in my recent libertarian column. There are so many people on the right who are tone deaf about racism. We shouldn’t adopt the over-the-top political correctness that you see on campuses, but what’s wrong with insisting that top White House officials are not self described alt-righters? Is that too much to ask?
PS. In a way it’s weird for me to be doing these posts. Most of the time I think the press is too sensitive about race, too eager to cry racism. But now when it’s right in front of our eyes, lots of people on the right still can’t see it. Or maybe they are like sheep, afraid of angering the big bad Donald Trump.
PPS. I really hope Trump stops doing these things; I’m getting sick of talking about him. And on economic policy the early signs are actually pretty positive.
PPPS. Speaking of farm animals, how about those three cows!
PPPPS. File this under “I hope he’s a quick learner“:
A source told NBC News that Trump asked President Barack Obama during their Thursday meeting how many White House staffers he could replace. And when the sitting president responded that Trump gets to staff just about the entire White House, the president-elect was surprised, NBC’s source said.
The Wall Street Journal reported a similar anecdote, but said that it was Trump aides who seemed “unaware” that the West Wing staff needed to be replaced after Obama’s departure.
Tags:
14. November 2016 at 14:45
Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart ran headlines such as: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”
Again, Sarah Posner’s not the most reputable source. The article about Wm Kristol was written by…David Horowitz. The other headlines are rather outre. They weren’t written to please people in faculty rathskellars in Boston.
14. November 2016 at 14:46
Or maybe they’re like Franz von Papens.
Thanks for H/T
14. November 2016 at 14:57
Alt-right has no official definition. This is all grasping at straws. Let’s judge on policy.
14. November 2016 at 15:03
Prof. Sumner,
Looking at the decline of international stock indices, big tech, and multinational stocks such as Colgate, Nestle, and Pepsico in the few days after Trump’s election, it seems to me investors fear that trade disruption might screw up multinational supply chains……
14. November 2016 at 16:12
So much for the notion that trump will be more isolationist ? Is this One more ill-founded notion about trump…a favorite of Hill haters and Liberties…. Biting the dust ?
Bolton for State !?!?!?…….NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
insane..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-bolton-secretary-of-state-donald-trump_us_582a314ee4b02d21bbca46b2?vq9j2p0wpmtdpfogvi
14. November 2016 at 16:15
Don’t worry Scott, Trump’s bud Alex Jones will surely speak out if DT should wander too far afield … You know, if he doesn’t expose the false flag mass shootings, chemtrails, fish-people and such:
https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/798284170317414400
As Mason says, 3rd wave AltR gold!
14. November 2016 at 16:17
If the Market doesn’t care about racism, why should I? Alternate title: I Voted For A Tax Cut, And All I Got Was This Lousy Despot.
14. November 2016 at 16:41
What’s worse, wait until Trump and Melania learn they are allowed to redecorate the White House….
14. November 2016 at 16:45
Say wasn’t this the guy from the W admin that was keen on using tactical nukes on Iran?
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_582a314ee4b02d21bbca46b2
14. November 2016 at 16:55
Sumner, at what point did you change your mind about the stock market being the best indicator of the health of the economy? You used to trumpet the days of the stock market going up and telling your readers to celebrate whenever something happened that you “liked”. Was it one day after the election results? Or was it when prices starting going up?
14. November 2016 at 17:00
This is pretty good on Bannon & AltR from conservative perspective (8 things to know about AltR):
https://twitter.com/SykesCharlie/status/798138357419102211
14. November 2016 at 17:10
Scott Sumner is unusually observant, we should all pay close attention to what he says. Remember his infamous post on the perils of the American beaver to the environment? We all laughed then. Well, in today’s BBC there’s this:
Argentina plans to cull 100,000 beavers in Tierra del Fuego
“Nice Beaver” – Leslie Nielsen, The Naked Gun
14. November 2016 at 17:22
Yes, much of the Republican Party may be tone deaf on racism, or maybe most of them are simply racist and/or have no problem with racism.
Which seems the more direct explanation?
14. November 2016 at 17:22
Except your whole premise is based on bs Mother Jones lies. “Bannon told Mother Jones over the summer that his conservative news outlet was “the platform of the alt-right,” a far-right ideology that promotes white supremacy.”
“a far-right ideology that promotes white supremacy.” I doubt very much many alt-righters would agree with that characterization.
http://conservativetribune.com/shock-video-hillary-kkk/
“However, what happened when it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had praised a former Ku Klux Klan leader as her “mentor?” Well, actually, nothing — because that’s how the liberal media roll.
The “mentor” in question was former West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat who was inexplicably never really held to account for his leadership in the KKK early in his career.”
Hillary Clinton’s the racist! One of her mentors was a KKK leader!!
14. November 2016 at 17:34
Huffpo has plenty of racist headlines. They just happened to be against whites. How many blacks has Huffpo called “Uncle Toms” and race traitors for being on the right?
And plenty of Hillary’s advisers write at Huffpo.
Where’s my outrage?
Just stop it already. It’s not good for your blood pressure.
14. November 2016 at 17:34
@Ray,
Now Sumner thinks just mentioning the word Beaver is misogynist.
14. November 2016 at 17:36
“Yes, much of the Republican Party may be tone deaf on racism, or maybe most of them are simply racist and/or have no problem with racism.”
As a white man, you don’t get to define racism. Remember.
14. November 2016 at 17:39
Senator Bird left the KKK in the 1940s and had this to say:
http://www.snopes.com/robert-byrd-kkk-photo/
14. November 2016 at 17:44
Scott, I can see from the comments why Phil Mason calls them “3rd wave alt-right.”
—-
?
14. November 2016 at 18:22
Sumner, you are citing the SPLC. They are a extreme radical left wing hate group. Should we ban you for citing a hate group as a respectable authority? SPLC offends moderate Democrats. They labeled Ben Carson, the doctor, as a hater because he didn’t fully sign on to 100% of the gay rights movement. They label completely reasonable immigration restriction advocacy groups like fairus.org as “hate groups”.
Why express bigotry and blanket condemnation of the “alt-right” which, btw, has a subjective definition. Clearly, if Bannon claimed to represent the “alt-right” he didn’t perceive it as some terrible label.
You are accusing Trump and Bannon of racism by several degrees of association. Trump is racist because he picks Bannon. And Bannon is racist because he associates with the “alt-right” which is arguably racist based on associations with Internet trolls.
I’d argue Obama has more direct ties to racism. Obviously, he had huge ties to Reverend Wright who was overtly racist. Obama was a racial advocate for specifically black Americans which is clearly biased and racist. Look at Obama’s 2016 music album pick with an intentionally racist album cover, the “dead white judge album”. Even the National Review criticizes Obama for racial dog whistles. Just sheepish silence from Sumner and other Republicans. Only when it’s a personal nemesis like Trump is racism worth calling out?
14. November 2016 at 19:26
Didn’t Steve Bannon win the campaign? How come people want him out of the administration? People may not like him, but he got the job done.
14. November 2016 at 19:36
There is, I think, one generally accepted commonality amongst all those who self identify as a member of the AltRight…
…Mom’s Basement!
—
?
14. November 2016 at 19:44
Ban him from his own blog?
—-
?
14. November 2016 at 19:47
Here’s one Alt who offers a self definition:
14. November 2016 at 19:48
https://youtu.be/CJ3B6L2fUA8
14. November 2016 at 19:48
“Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy”? The headline is unattractive and crazy, but I’m having trouble generating my *outrage*.
14. November 2016 at 20:27
Scotty, you should look beyond HuffPo to understand what folks on the right are thinking about Bannon. As far as I can tell all the NeverTrumpers dislike Bannon and have criticized him before and after the election.
Also, I have not found anything to substantiate your claim that Trump cheats on his taxes. Either you have a scoop that you’ve been holding back or your credibility is slipping.
14. November 2016 at 20:28
“We shouldn’t adopt the over-the-top political correctness that you see on campuses, but what’s wrong with insisting that top White House officials are not self described alt-righters? Is that too much to ask?”
As David Marcus argues, this is the end of America’s racial status quo:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-americas-racial-detente/
14. November 2016 at 20:42
“Sumner, you are citing the SPLC. They are a extreme radical left wing hate group. Should we ban you for citing a hate group as a respectable authority?”
As a white male, you don’t get to define what a radical hate group is.
Remember that.
14. November 2016 at 20:44
“Scotty, you should look beyond HuffPo to understand what folks on the right are thinking about Bannon. As far as I can tell all the NeverTrumpers dislike Bannon and have criticized him before and after the election.”
And they are all criticizing him now. But Scott seems to think that if that outrage isn’t expressed in the news outlets he frequents (like the overtly racist Huffpo), then it doesn’t exist.
14. November 2016 at 21:04
Scott, I stumbled upon this today: you might like:
https://www.allthink.com/1902322
I just asked the author if he’d read J.D.
Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy (because from what I know of it that’s what came to mind reading his piece). He hasn’t, but on his to do list.
14. November 2016 at 21:16
ChargerCarl, thanks for the link to that post. You might like the one above I posted for Scott.
14. November 2016 at 22:54
@Carl
From your link:
“As a white person, I cannot fully understand what Trump’s victory means for people of color.”
I’ve noticed that the people who seem to be going completely hysterical and losing their minds are largely white. When I saw the Trump riots on YouTube or in person at my local university, there are some non-whites, but it’s largely white.
Hollywood movie director and writer Paul Schrader is calling for violent, armed rebellion against Trump. What complete insanity! White guy!
Even Sumner, an intelligent economics academic, has lost his mind over Trump.
A lot of regular black people I know don’t like Trump, maybe hate the guy, but still seem to have their sanity and composure. Their team lost, but let’s give Trump a chance and hope for the best.
I remember someone said that when Trump loses, this fevered alternative reality that the alt right imagine will vanish. Honestly, I think the alt right is closer to reality and it’s everyone else who is being rudely awoken from their fevered denial of reality.
14. November 2016 at 23:39
Massimo: “I’ve noticed that the people who seem to be going completely hysterical and losing their minds are largely white. When I saw the Trump riots on YouTube or in person at my local university, there are some non-whites, but it’s largely white.”
Black people might actually be afraid what will happen in a black demonstration in Trump’s America. Remember he has admired Chinese leaders’ actions in Tiananmen ’89.
15. November 2016 at 01:42
Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy
The pill does in fact have nasty effects on women.
WTF is so outrageous about saying it ?
15. November 2016 at 04:38
Trump’s whole campaign was about being alternative right. If he would have been old right he would have lost the election.
I don’t know much about Bannon but Andrew Breitbart was mostly okay. Breitbart introduced Bannon to his network so I guess Bannon must be okay as well. We’ll see.
Bannon remains on the same position that he already had in team Trump: strategy and advising. His strategy and advises must have been pretty good so far otherwise Trump would not have won the election that was labeled by the mainstream media as unwinnable.
15. November 2016 at 04:55
I echo Bill Ellis above. Bolton?
Trump may take a page out of the Reagan and Bush Jr, play books, and rev up military outlays, funneling money to GOP affiliates.
The federal government patronage system. Sort of like the old “city machines,” Boss Tweed, Pendergast.
On borrowed money, however.
15. November 2016 at 05:42
https://seattle.craigslist.org/see/evg/5877106822.htmlp
————-quote———
Protest Trump Full-Time! $15/hr! (Seattle) hide this posting
compensation: $15-22/hr.
Washington CAN! is our state’s oldest and largest Grassroots Non-Profit. We’ve been organizing and winning on the local and national level for over 35 years on issues such as Racial, Social, and Economic Justice, Health Care, Immigration Reform, Tax Fairness, and a Living Wage for all workers.
We are seeking motivated individuals who would like to be paid to participate/volunteer/organize Trump protests across Washington state.
This is a gig with no guarantee of full-time or part-time employment, benefits, etc.
For Full Time and Part Time Positions, please call show contact info and ask for Sol. If you do not reach Sol, please leave a message with your name, number, and a good time to reach you.
Students, women, and minorities are urged to apply.
————-endquote————
There are suckers born every minute.
15. November 2016 at 05:42
Speaking of sheepish silence, how about the sheepish silence from most of the mainstream media on the “divisive” Soros funded riots, or the violence against peaceful Trump supporters?
Sumner’s outrage is not credible. It appears too much as virtue signaling.
15. November 2016 at 05:56
Yes, much of the Republican Party may be tone deaf on racism, or maybe most of them are simply racist and/or have no problem with racism. Which seems the more direct explanation?
Neither is an explanation. About 90% of the verbiage devoted to discussions of ‘racism’ is a mixture of gamesmanship and stupidity on the part of SJWs and partisan Democrats. What Richard John Neuhaus said the better part of a generation ago remains true: “It is the first refuge of the phony and the incompetent”.
15. November 2016 at 05:58
I echo Bill Ellis above. Bolton?
Why is it that the two of you take an interest in poorly-sourced rubbish published on the Huffington Post?
15. November 2016 at 06:01
There is, I think, one generally accepted commonality amongst all those who self identify as a member of the AltRight…
…Mom’s Basement!
Actually, Ron Unz is an accomplished businessman, as is Wick Allison.
15. November 2016 at 06:23
Scott,
during WWI and the interwar period, Austrian Editor/writer Karl Kraus published a stream of editorials, articles, and plays critical of the affairs of the day – the war itself, the press’ idiocy, political hypocrisy, literary mediocrity, you name it. But when Hitler came to power, he didn’t say much about him. In his own words, he was “short of ideas on Mr. Hitler”. Basically, it’s hard to seriously criticize something so absurd.
Trump is in his own league too, in a different category, and just as hard to criticize meaningfully. Every day brings new confirmation that he was part playing an act and now immediately reneges on major promises. And in part he seems to be genuinely clueless. So half his appointments / policy proposals sound reasonable, and half sound ludicrous, because it’s all at complete random. Maybe that’s why Obama seems to take to him now, he sees the urgent need.
15. November 2016 at 06:24
Senator Bird left the KKK in the 1940s and had this to say:
I take it you’re not aware of just how weird and out-of-place was Robert Byrd’s Klan organizing. The 2d incarnation of the Klan was a fad organization. It had a five digit membership in 1919, a 7 digit membership in 1923, and a five digit membership in 1935. It was formally dissolved in 1944. Byrd was a 25 year old man recruited by old Klansmen in 1942 to take over the organization in its but end period. West Virginia’s not Mississippi. It’s part of the upland South and has to this day a small black population. There likely weren’t 500 klavern members in the entire state. It was really passe, rather like holding War Bond rallies in 1963.
Ted Kennedy promoted the fiction that his Klan membership was what he had to do to get elected. That’s absurd. At no time bar the period running from about 1920 to 1930 would Klan membership have been much of an aide to any aspiring politician in the South except in moldy pockets of Mississippi. Neither Robert Byrd’s predecessor in the Senate (Chapman Revercomb) nor his colleague (Jennings Randolph) were segregationists, much less Klan members. All other members of the West Virginia delegation cast votes in favor of three salient pieces of civil rights legislation passed in 1960, 1964, and 1965 respectively, FWIW. Byrd voted no in 1964 and begged off in 1965.
15. November 2016 at 06:31
Maybe that’s why Obama seems to take to him now, he sees the urgent need.
Oh shut up. Barack Obama was on air talent for the likes of David Plouffe. He was a sometime lawyer, an undistinguished legislator, a failed eleemosynary executive. His wife was a patronage baby / grafteuse whose positions were dependent on her husband’s seat on a crucial subcommittee in the Illinois legislature. He’s never had anything to offer but cookie-cutter haut bourgeois attitude. His time in office has been testament to what academic students of politics called ‘political institutionalization’. The government can run when he’s sound asleep. The riffs he’s added have been scandals like the IRS business, the Benghazi lies, the abusive behavior of the Justice Department, and the Iran deal.
15. November 2016 at 06:42
Travis, That’s possible.
Bill, I wonder how the Trumpistas who claimed he was the “peace candidate” reacted to the Bolton rumor.
XVO, If you don’t know anything about the alt right, perhaps you should just refrain from commenting on the matter.
AIG, These posts improve my blood pressure. It’s not healthy to hold it in.
Don You said:
“As far as I can tell all the NeverTrumpers dislike Bannon and have criticized him before and after the election.”
That’s exactly my point. The minority of Republicans who hate Trump have criticized Bannon. So why don’t the pro-Trump Republicans also criticize Trump? Why the silence?
As far as taxes, are you claiming it’s OK to not declare loan forgiveness as income? Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d like to see the evidence that Trump was allowed to not report loan forgiveness as income. Now I do agree that Trump has not been convicted of tax fraud, but Hillary has also not been convicted. I first raised the issue in a post showing that there were just as many corruption allegations against Trump as Clinton.
Massimo, As far as “losing my mind over Trump” I presume you are referring to my recent posts praising his early hints on where his economic policy is going. Or is it my criticism of Trump appointing a racist as #2 White House official? Try looking in the mirror buddy.
Christian, You said:
“I don’t know much about Bannon but Andrew Breitbart was mostly okay. Breitbart introduced Bannon to his network so I guess Bannon must be okay as well. We’ll see.”
Breitbart was not a racist, Bannon is. When you don’t know anything about a subject, sometimes it’s just better to keep your mouth shut.
Ben, You can’t say I didn’t warn you guys.
15. November 2016 at 06:54
I must be living in an nightmare alternate universe. I’ve actually heard most conservatives who’ve spoken on the issue defend Trump openly musing about purposely and needlessly bankrupting the US government. His backtrack was to say he wouldn’t have to “negotiate” with our creditors, but could just print money to cover the debt.
The fact that more aren’t concerned we’re sliding into banana republic status gives me more confidence that we are in fact sliding toward banana republic status.
The example of Argentina keeps coming up in my mind. Argentina was the 12th wealthiest country in the world during the early 20th century, before Peron. Their status since, needless to say, has been less positive and far less stable. Periods of crisis related to bankdruptcy and high inflation, along with military coups, became rather routine to them.
We have a country full of disturbed morons who apparently can’t wait to bring such results to the US.
15. November 2016 at 06:59
@Andy,
“Black people might actually be afraid what will happen in a black demonstration in Trump’s America. Remember he has admired Chinese leaders’ actions in Tiananmen ’89.”
This was a dumb comment by Trump, but this reaction is just hysterical and over the top. People are really losing their minds over this. Trump is not about to drive tanks over people and no one seriously expects that to happen.
To reiterate, notice that prominent black celebs like Oprah, Dave Chapelle, Charles Barkley all advocated for Hillary and against Trump, but they are asking the public to calm down and give Trump a shot.
Also, remember, many others have this obsession with military strong man Abraham Lincoln who targeted civilian children, burned down people’s homes, killed family members of combatants, and practiced mass tortured and dismemberment.
15. November 2016 at 07:19
Scott,
What makes you think Breitbart himself wasn’t racist? He defended racists, like Rush Limbaugh, from charges of racism all the time. People who do that tend to be racist, to say the least.
15. November 2016 at 07:37
We have Nazis and KKK members cheering the selection of one of the most senior officials in a presidents inner circle.
Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower are rolling in their graves.
How absorbed into “team” mentality do people have to get to not have a problem with Nazi endorsement of a political appointee?
Absolutely nutty! Batshit crazy! A Nazi sympathizer in the inner circle of the presidency! Holy hell.
15. November 2016 at 07:45
Student,
In fairness to Trump, fascists have long supported the Republican Party. Trump has just brought more of them out and excited them by being so open about his fascism.
15. November 2016 at 07:58
I must be living in an nightmare alternate universe.
No Scott, you are living entirely within your imagination, which has little correspondence to the actual social world most of us live in.
15. November 2016 at 08:01
with military strong man Abraham Lincoln who targeted civilian children, burned down people’s homes, killed family members of combatants, and practiced mass tortured and dismemberment.
Torture and dismemberment? Where did that come from?
You’ve confused Pres. Lincoln with Gen. Sherman. See Robert Stacy McCain (a Georgia native) on Gen. Sherman: there are times when you have to be brutal for the war to end. Without the brutality, the war is endless, as it has been in the Near East. That’s something to ponder.
15. November 2016 at 08:23
@Art
“You’ve confused Pres. Lincoln with Gen. Sherman. See Robert Stacy McCain (a Georgia native) on Gen. Sherman: there are times when you have to be brutal for the war to end. Without the brutality, the war is endless, as it has been in the Near East. That’s something to ponder.”
Lincoln had full knowledge and support of General Sherman’s tactics. Sherman did actively target all civilians, burn down entire cities, actively work to starve entire populations, but “torture and dismemberment” probably wasn’t the best characterization of that.
You don’t need brutality to end war, you need brutality to win. The American Civil War didn’t need to be endless at all, it didn’t need to happen in the first place, just agree to peaceful secession, and no warfare or horrors of war are needed at all.
When you are fighting against an aggressor determined to kill you, then there is more justification for brutality.
15. November 2016 at 08:28
“There are so many people on the right who are tone deaf about racism”
You meant to say “there are so many people on the right who are racist”
Remember of it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are it is a duck.
Finally I love reading all the hysterics from the ODS crowd. Every single insult they girl about Obama is easily applicable to Trump. These guys are so pathetic.
15. November 2016 at 08:31
“We have Nazis and KKK members cheering the selection of one of the most senior officials in a presidents inner circle.”
Hitler liked being a vegetarian. That is a weak condemnation of being vegetarian. Many Islamic terrorists are big fans of US Democrats. By itself, this is a very weak condemnation of Democrats.
“Absolutely nutty! Batshit crazy! A Nazi sympathizer in the inner circle of the presidency! Holy hell.”
There is zero evidence of this. You lept from some Nazi sympathizers like Stephen Bannon to Stephen Bannon is a nazi sympathizer which is absurd. You are being nutty.
15. November 2016 at 08:38
It’s a scientific fact that birth control causes problems, including permanent changes in brain structures. You’re basically just rolling the dice and loading women up with synthetic versions of hormones that trick her body into behaving as though it’s pregnant. Another way to think of birth control is “infertility pills”.
As for all these ‘KKK’ groups. How do we know these aren’t Soros-funded ops? Does anyone actually know anyone who is into this? Does anyone take it seriously? It’s telling that Scott didn’t spend any time writing about the anarchists and literal self described communists who were excited about Obama in 2008. Sad.
15. November 2016 at 08:46
“It didn’t need to happen, just agree to peaceful succession…”
Or… Don’t capture, enslave, and treat human beings as animals in order to line ones pockets while simultaneously purporting to support the doctrine that all are created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They could also have simply accepted fair compensation for their property and all would have been well. But they chose to succeed in order to continue to pretend these human beings were property in order to steal the products of th swear of another’s brow.
“Zero evidence of this”… Silly me for considering the man’s own words as evidence. What is the platform of the alt-right again? Why does he speak of renegade Jews? Why does the Chairman of the Nazi Party of America like him so much?
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.
15. November 2016 at 08:50
last I saw, ISIS celebrated Trumps victory. As well, how many people in any prior presidents inner circle were former editors for websites they described as platforms for something like Islamic fundamentalism? This is unprecedented and only a fool or a sympathizer himself can’t see that.
15. November 2016 at 09:09
Scott Freelander,
Fair. But now they have a man inside the presidents inner circle. And GOP congressman are like, well yeah, he may be a racist, mysogynist, wife beating homophobe, with fascist tendencies… But setting those minor disqualifications aside… he’s a good man. I’d like to see their pros and cons list that led to that decision.
Daniel,
For once I agree with you. I really really have a problem with someone saying birth control can make a woman unnattractive and nutty. It’s can be true. It is also generally bad for a human being.
Now about that Nazi stuff or your BS about woman wanting to be grabbed by the pussy…
15. November 2016 at 09:10
*really don’t have a problem with… iPhone is killing me today.
15. November 2016 at 09:52
“Silly me for considering the man’s own words as evidence. What is the platform of the alt-right again? Why does he speak of renegade Jews? Why does the Chairman of the Nazi Party of America like him so much?”
The “renegade Jew” article on Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/15/bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/
Was written by David Horowitz. Horowitz is a famous, well known Jewish, and fanatically pro-Jewish pro-Israel political figure. The suggestion that David Horowitz is writing anti-semitic nazi-sympathizer anti-Jew articles is beyond absurd. Also, Ben Shapiro, another orthodox Jew who is known for being fanatically pro-Jew/pro-Israel used to be the most famous, celebrated writer on Breitbart, until a rift formed over something that had nothing to do with being Jewish and he quit. But Horowitz and Shapiro have absolutely been core parts of Breitbart, celebrated parts of the alt-right, and accusing them of being these anti-semitic Nazis is no more reasonable than calling Netanyahu an anti-semitic anti-Jewish nazi.
“Or… Don’t capture, enslave, and treat human beings as animals in order to line ones pockets while simultaneously purporting to support the doctrine that all are created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”
The US north could have demanded an end to slavery in exchange for sovereignty. Instead, the US north demanded an end to southern sovereignty in exchange for promises of continued slavery.
The US north didn’t even claim to be fighting for abolition. In fact, Northern leaders of the war promised to fight against abolition. And Southern leaders, like Robert E Lee, wrote that slavery was evil and would end on its own and fought as a loyal son to the sovereign state of Virginia.
Most US southerners didn’t even own slaves and had no direct involvement in slavery. How is punishing or killing them or burning down their homes and farms morally justified?
15. November 2016 at 11:55
Student,
Yes, many conservatives in the US always long had an affinity for fascism, but it’s obviously gotten much worse.
15. November 2016 at 11:57
In other words, Krugman’s long been correct about most conservatives, though he unfairly casts aspersions toward many specific conservatives.
15. November 2016 at 12:20
Some Jewish people worked for Brietbart, that settles it. Definently just a coincidence nazis and KKK types are celebrating his selection.
And yeah the civil war it was all about sovereignty. Haha. Slavery had nothing to do with it… If the south would have conceded on the issue of slavery there would have been no disagreement about sovereignty.
I think you would benefit from reading the sussession documents themselves. Take them at their own words. You can start with that of Mississippi.
Is the destruction of homes and farms morally justified given that most southerners didn’t own slaves? At the outset of war, no (I suppose unless you were one of the enslaved and had your children sold and your wives raped and your brothers beaten with no recourse). However, war is a SOB. Which is why it ought be avoided.
Was the destruction of innocent Germans homes and farms… Germans that had no part in nazi conquest and the genocide of the Jews justified?
15. November 2016 at 12:25
Confederate States of America – Mississippi Secession
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
“… Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove…”
15. November 2016 at 13:30
Alt-Right? Who are they? When all else fails, let’s bring out the Nazis. That is why Trump won? Or if not, we can secretly get their policies in place?—whoever “they” are. Just what would those policies be? Like Biden once said, put black people back in chains like Romney was ready to do? The first thing Trump said in his acceptance speech was helping the inner cities—I must of missed the secret hand signal he was giving to the alt-right nazis that he was only kidding. When you say your IQ goes down 30 pts when discussing politics, I wonder if you really mean that. I respect you a great deal–for real—but you are really unbearable when you discuss politics. This DOES NOT mean you should support Trump’s policies (or not)—but I would really prefer you write about what he does and what he says he will do as a politician then this other nonsense.
15. November 2016 at 13:42
When you don’t know anything about a subject, sometimes it’s just better to keep your mouth shut.
Funny I thought the same thing. Sorry if I don’t trust your labelling of Breitbart as non-racist and the labelling of his best buddy Bannon as racist. You are an authority regarding market monetarism and also in other economic fields. You should focus on that.
President-elect Donald Trump is drawing praise from the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups…
That’s not really an argument. How is that fallacy named again? It’s like the stupid fallacy Hillary brought up again and again that ISIS would celebrate Donald Trump as President. Again: That’s not an argument. Or when black radical groups celebrated the election of Obama. Not an argument either. How did those fallacies work out for Hillary by the way? Oh yes, I remember: She lost the election that was unlosable.
15. November 2016 at 14:12
Christian,
ISIS did celebrate Trumps victory…
15. November 2016 at 14:31
Some Jewish people worked for Brietbart, that settles it.
The ‘some Jewish people’ in question would be Mr. Breitbart himself.
15. November 2016 at 14:36
So… Hitler was a confirmed catholic.
15. November 2016 at 15:32
“Some Jewish people worked for Brietbart, that settles it. Definently just a coincidence nazis and KKK types are celebrating his selection.”
It is outrageous that you referenced a specific “Renegade Jew” article written by a well known pro-Jewish/pro-Israel Jew ad evidence of anti-semitic Nazi sympathies.
I haven’t seen serious evidence of anti-semitism of nazi sympathies in Trump or Bannon and people like Horowitz and Shapiro would be lightning quick to point it out if it existed.
UK Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn have more genuine, serious anti-semitism issues.
“And yeah the civil war it was all about sovereignty. Haha. Slavery had nothing to do with it…”
You aren’t reading what I’m writing. I did not say that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war. Of course it idid. Slavery was the main motivation for secession. However, abolition was not the main goal of the leaders of the north. In fact, General Sherman swore to fight against abolitionists, Lincoln’s biggest political enemies were other more serious abolitionists. And leaders of the South, notable Robert E Lee said that slavery was an evil and he was fighting as a loyal son of the sovereign state of Virginia. I think it’s quite clear Robert E Lee wasn’t leading people to fight to preserve slavery. So, while I definitely didn’t claim or believe that slavery had nothing to do with the war, I also don’t think it’s accurate or reasonable to portray the war as a direct conflict over the issue of slavery.
“I think you would benefit from reading the sussession documents”
It is spelled secession…
“Was the destruction of innocent Germans homes and farms… Germans that had no part in nazi conquest and the genocide of the Jews justified?”
Good point. In WWII, allies definitely deliberate attacked German civilians, notable in the fire bombing of Dresden. That is morally similar to bombing civilian cities in Japan.
The big difference is Germany and Japan were 100% clearly aggressor nations. They had some level of support from their people. And yes, war is terrible, ideally the whole war could have been avoided, and all casualties avoided, but I’m far more sympathetic with attacks against a clearly aggressive nation bent on conquest and plunder and genocide.
The US Confederate South was merely fighting for independence which is much more reasonable.
15. November 2016 at 15:54
So… Hitler was a confirmed catholic.
No. He rejected the Church. Modal among senior Nazis was an interest in Norse mythology. Some of Hitler’s cabinet ministers were drawn from the extant German establishment (e.g. Hjalmar Schacht) and were not Nazi Party members until it was mandatory (around about 1937). You also had the military flag rank officers, who generally were not Nazi Party members. These aside, you’re not going to find many senior figures in the regime who were in good standing in the Church.
15. November 2016 at 16:35
Art,
He was confirmed may 22, 1904 at Linz Cathedral. My point is ones religious background doesn’t mean a thing if they reject it and pursue something else. Here we have a catholic that persecuted the church. Bannon is no different, which is why nazis love him.
Massimo,
iPhone has been killing me today, so what u get the point. It was always about slavery. Just because Lee said something to cover his arse doesn’t mean a thing. He made a choice and he chose to fight to uphold slavery.
Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs but deep down its apparent where his allegiances were which is why the south succeeded (see that iphone switch, I left it for you to steam over). The entire thing was over slavery going back decades. Read the secession documents. They say so and make the case it stated in the 1820s if not earlier. Lincoln had problems with the abolitionist for the same reason a guy like sumner has issues with SWJs. People take things to far and lose sight of the forrest for the trees.
Why is it so hard to admit the south was fighting to uphold the exploitation of millions of people for their personal gain. They were greedy bastards that didn’t give a rats ass about Liberty so long as they could line their pockets on the back of millions of people they convinced themselves were subhuman.
You alt rights are on the side of evil. Plain and simple. Bannon is arguing the nazi position and main streaming that rubbish. And you all are so team red you don’t even care. Open your eyes, even if you hate Hillary, this Alt right shit is evil.
15. November 2016 at 17:36
He was confirmed may 22, 1904 at Linz Cathedral. My point is ones religious background doesn’t mean a thing if they reject it and pursue something else. Here we have a catholic that persecuted the church. Bannon is no different, which is why nazis love him.
Observant Jews amount to maybe 30% of the total in this country. Perhaps more in Israel. It’s a communal identity that’s only episodically religious in content. That’s not exactly an esoteric piece of information about American Jewry. Stop pretending you know the difference between your tuchus and the Turkish toilet.
15. November 2016 at 17:43
‘Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart ran headlines such as: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”’
Did you actually read these articles, Scott?
“Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew”
As noted above, the author is a Jew accusing Kristol of being a turncoat Republican specifically for seeking to undermine Trump, with the result that a Democrat would take office to Israel’s detriment. This breaking of the faith with Israel makes Kristol a ‘renegade Jew’ in the author’s eyes. I think the title is exactly the case the author makes.
“Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield”
This is in response to a Washington Post story in which Giffords calls for background checks at gun shows. One might be left with the impression that Giffords would have been spared but for a background check. In fact, her assailant had passed a background check.
There is little evidence background checks at gun shows do much to affect crime or homicide rates. From NPR: “[The]data suggests that gun shows don’t directly supply many of the guns used in crimes. Spokespeople from the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gun sellers, both also pointed NPR to government data showing that less than 1 percent of prison inmates in 1997 said they got their guns from gun shows. Meanwhile, nearly 80 percent obtained their guns from friends, family or “street” (illegal) sources.”
Here’s the text of the Breitbart story:
“On March 4 Breitbart News reported on Gabby Giffords’ renewed push to extend background checks to gun shows so that everyone has to pass the same background check her attacker passed. Media outlets and gun control proponents went apoplectic, exposing the fact that they had assumed Giffords would be able to push background checks as a solution to “violence” without her claims being scrutinized.
“In other words, Giffords is their human shield — the gun control representative who could do and say what she wanted without facing any real pressure to prove her claims were true.
“But BN showed that her claims that background checks are a way of “stopping violence” can’t even survive Giffords’ personal experience. After all, her attacker, Jared Loughner, passed a background check to acquire the gun with which he attacked her in January 2011.”
This may not be the most gracious journalism, but it’s defensible in terms of accuracy.
“Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy”
This is a rather cheeky article, but actually well-supported. The author references studies which show the pill causes weight gain, a lowering of the voice (via the Huffington Post, no less) and changes in women’s movements, all leading to a lower attractiveness as judged by men,according to these various studies.
Now, this story has a John Oliver tone to it, but again, it’s not false.
There must be 10,000 stories on Breitbart, and these three are the worst–not written by Steve Bannon–but written under his editorial control? After countless hours of searching, this is what was dug up? Now, I know very little about Bannon (save that he correctly predicted Trump back in 2014). He may be a terrible person, but these three articles do not support that assertion.
And this is the problem I so often find when I start tracking down ideological pieces originating on the left. There is scant regard for facts or balance, and a very deliberate attempt to promote a kind of propaganda.
If you had bothered to check for yourself, you would have known that, too.
16. November 2016 at 04:56
Steven Kopits, thanks for looking into the Breitbart articles. I looked into Horowitz, and at first glance he seems to be a magnet for controversy, but not in a right-wing specific way. Some people just thrive on provocation. One can be more or less tolerant of this, but it has to be a personal choice in a free society
The whole Bannon controversy is a bit of a red herring IMO. So Trump makes him Strategist and Senior Advisor. In other words, he has successfully helped Trump, and Trump hopes for more of the same. Do or do not like it, but substantially, there’s nothing new here
Compare this to hiring Priebus as Chief of Staff. Now this is a truly powerful gatekeeper position, where Trump can’t help but give up some power to someone with (clearly) their own agenda. Depending on how you view Priebus and GOP establishment, this makes you open the Champagne bottle or lose sleep
The Strategist position? Not so much. Trump lends his ear. Will Bannon sing him the Siren’s song, or tell the (deadly) funniest joke in the world? Anything short of that is inconsequential in the medium-long run
Nothing of this changes anything about Trump himself. It’s just a hint (not more) that he may be less in power already than once thought. make of this what you will
16. November 2016 at 05:31
As far as I can tell, Bannon himself hasn’t written anything. Where is the PRIMARY SOURCE material that Bannon is a racist.
16. November 2016 at 06:31
As far as I can tell, Mark Fields (the president and CEO of Ford Motor Company) has no background in engineering, has never actually worked a line, nor has he ever actually assembled a car… Where is the primary evidence he is a car manufacturer?
Come on people, when you lead an organization devoted to the cause of white nationalism, do you actually have to engage in the work in the trenches in order to be associated with its rhetoric?
16. November 2016 at 06:38
Scott, You said:
“What makes you think Breitbart himself wasn’t racist? He defended racists, like Rush Limbaugh, from charges of racism all the time. People who do that tend to be racist, to say the least.”
It’s exactly these kinds or arguments that drive people TOWARDS Trump. I know lots of non-racist conservatives who love listening to Rush.
Steven, You asked:
“Did you actually read these articles, Scott?”
I’ve seen dozens of Breitbart stories, I know exactly what the website is all about. It’s a sewer, not much different from places like Drudge.
Michael, You said:
“Nothing of this changes anything about Trump himself. It’s just a hint (not more) that he may be less in power already than once thought. make of this what you will”
This stuff has me rolling on the floor laughing. Like Trump is some sort of Reagan, who actually holds deeply help beliefs, and must be protected from advisers who want to push him away from his deeply held views.
He’s a con man; you guys have been conned. Trump is all about promoting Trump. Get used to it.
16. November 2016 at 08:45
If Bannon wasn’t a public person, Scott, you would have just admitted to committing libel. No different from Rolling Stone at UVA.
16. November 2016 at 11:14
Scott,
I didn’t say that Breitbart listened to Limbaugh. I said he defended him against charges of racism. Limbaugh is clearly racist. I listened to his show, along with those of other right-wing extremists, occasionally during this election season. When was the last time you listened to Limbaugh’s show? You can find it on he most recent show on Youtube every night.
When people claim obvious racists aren’t racist, it’s likely they’re racist themselves.
By the way, Limbaugh is also a misogynist who just weeks ago said that a woman’s consent is “overrated”, when defending Trump’s sexual assault.
I guess your standards for who you’ll know personally are considerably lower than mine. In my view, that’s one of the reasons the fascists have gotten out of the box.
16. November 2016 at 12:21
By the way, Limbaugh is also a misogynist who just weeks ago said that a woman’s consent is “overrated”, when defending Trump’s sexual assault.
Trump was accused of kissing women and putting his hands on their thighs. It’s only in the ideocracy of this little age that that is defined as ‘sexual assault’.
And, of course, the term ‘misogyny’ has a black letter definition and a common use in political discussion. The common use is humbug.
16. November 2016 at 12:22
It’s a sewer, not much different from places like Drudge.
Drudge is an aggregator.
16. November 2016 at 12:24
Come on people, when you lead an organization devoted to the cause of white nationalism, do you actually have to engage in the work in the trenches in order to be associated with its rhetoric?
The trouble with this question is that the notion Breitbart or the Trump campaign are ‘devoted to white nationalism’ has no reality outside your head. It’s no one’s obligation to disabuse you of your fantasies. It’s yours to observe the world around you intelligently.
16. November 2016 at 12:48
Scott,
Let’s break down the logic of racism, since we fundamentally disagree. First, is there a natural predisposition toward racism?
If you think the answer is yes, then doesn’t it make sense that some combination of reinforcement and punishment is required to keep racism in check?
So, if we don’t make people pay a social and economic price for racism whenever possible, even though some accusations will be false, then how do we shape incentives to keep it under control? Also, what is the mechanism by which what you consider to be hypervigilance against perceived racists functions to actually encourage racism. Perhaps I’m missing something.
I could see overwrought PC encouraging anti-PC comedy and alpha posturing, but outright discrimination on the basis of race?
16. November 2016 at 13:24
Scott, you missed what I was saying. I agree wit you about Trump. I don’t believe Bannon will make a difference (BECAUSE Trump is as he is), so I can’t get worked up about whether he’s unsavoury or not.
My last statement was about Priebus. Trump will not be moved by an advisor, but a chief of staff is a gatekeeper and has real power. I’m surprised Trump has given power to someone who looks like he could use it. I may be wrong about this power, or about Priebus’ stature, but then, so can be all the other reading of tea leaves happening now (reminds one of Kremlin astrology — isn’t it sad?)
16. November 2016 at 13:33
oh, and if you think this is not about power at all, but just about self-aggrandizement and -enrichment… Are you really sure? I think the bigger risk is if it’s not
16. November 2016 at 15:48
If you think the answer is yes, then doesn’t it make sense that some combination of reinforcement and punishment is required to keep racism in check?
Cheap sales pitch.
The name of the game is patronage and virtue signaling and amour propre.
16. November 2016 at 16:31
Art, how would you feel about some dude kissing your wife and rubbing her thighs without her consent? Bet you’d think differently. I know I would want to kick his ass or press charges if I could control myself.
And… The American Nazi party as well as various KKK groups don’t see it as a fantasy. Perhaps maybe it’s you that is living in a fantasy world.
16. November 2016 at 16:37
Art, would you feel assaulted if some dude walked up and rubbed your thighs and kissed you? I bet you’d feel assaulted. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes man. Geeze.
16. November 2016 at 20:06
Michael,
Priebus is a lapdog.
17. November 2016 at 05:57
On the matter of racism, a lot of it is just racism-accusation-weariness. It has been so way, way overdone. When one looks for actual evidence of the scale of actual racism, the evidence is that it is a relatively minor and decreasing problem. David Duke, for example, got 3% of the vote in Louisiana. Scott Alexander has a lot more at a post I strongly commend.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Breitbart is online tabloid journalism. Polemical, online, tabloid journalism. It has all the faults one would expect from that, but reading off headlines, for example, is a less than reliable basis for judging articles.
One gets sick of the constant accusations. I mean, really sick. I do a post about multiculturalism and bang, get a comment about “again” quoting Thomas Sowell “I am not a racist” signal. http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2016/11/03/multiculturalism-is-an-experiment-that-might-fail/comment-page-1/#comment-274455
I know what a nonsense smear it is for me, and have seen enough overdone or simply false accusations on others, and so racism accusations acquire a huge discount factor.
17. November 2016 at 06:51
I don’t currently have an opinion on whether Bannon is racist – he could well be, but the evidence is weirdly thin. You’d normally expect him to be saying or doing racist things, but when you look at sourced articles, it seems to break down to:
1) Admitted racists seem to see Bannon as advancing their interest, and Bannon doesn’t have much problem with that. (I think this is a serious piece of evidence, and the most damning.)
1.1) Related to 1, Bannon conceded in his Mother Jones interview that the alt-right includes racists, and Breitbart published an article making the same point. (They also argue that liberal organizations like BLM include racists, but that may be beside the point).
2) Almost all of the other examples are basically Bannon being a jerk by saying mean things about employees or publishing mean things about feminism, but not really saying mean things about race.
3) Ben Shapiro’s opinion is that he’s not racist, but is comfortable using racists to transform the GOP into a National Front style nationalist/populist party, which is bad enough.
Given (1), he might well be racist or close enough to racist, but normally you see more. Given (2) and (3) he’s inappropriate for the job anyway, but still. . .
17. November 2016 at 07:16
Art, would you feel assaulted if some dude walked up and rubbed your thighs and kissed you? I bet you’d feel assaulted.
No. I might feel violated.
What you don’t seem to get is that ‘sexual assault’ is a legal term of art or a genera for offenses nominated with legal terms of art. Dennis Hastert rubbing some youth’s genitals is a ‘sexual assault’. Donald Trump kissing someone who would rather not be kissed is what used to be called a ‘masher’. It’s not against the law (or might trigger a submisdemeanor common assault prosecution).
Trump is male, these women are female. I’d have been quite amused when I was younger had some woman manhandled me in this manner, but it did not work that way in that time and place (unless the woman in question was seriously intoxicated). What counts as gross and what counts as desirable among women in those social situations has very little to do with the mechanics of what men actually do in those situations.
Since Trump wasn’t a 24 year old bachelor, the descriptions of him, if true, are unattractive. I find it amusing though, that partisans of the Clintons are in the business of promoting manners and morals. (And, while we’re at it, I don’t think you’re ever going to sort out which of these women were actually mistreated and which are attention-seeking con artists).
17. November 2016 at 07:23
Art, how would you feel about some dude kissing your wife and rubbing her thighs without her consent? Bet you’d think differently. I know I would want to kick his ass or press charges if I could control myself.
We’re not hearing from their husbands, if they have any. That wasn’t part of the Hillary / DNC / CNN marketing strategy.
And… The American Nazi party as well as various KKK groups don’t see it as a fantasy. Perhaps maybe it’s you that is living in a fantasy world.
You’re telling me I’m disoriented and taking a beacon from a few hundred people who wear Nazi arm bands and a couple thousand people (give or take a couple-hundred FBI informants) shlepping around in white sheets?
17. November 2016 at 08:35
Steven, You said:
“If Bannon wasn’t a public person, Scott, you would have just admitted to committing libel. No different from Rolling Stone at UVA.”
Huh? Please provide the “libelous” quotation. I have no idea what you are talking about. I never accused him of being a rapist, or committing any kind of crime. I criticized him for the way he runs Breitbart.
Scott, You said:
“When people claim obvious racists aren’t racist, it’s likely they’re racist themselves.”
You really need to get out more. I know lots of people who don’t think Rush is a racist, and who are also not racist. Check out Scott Alexander’s new post. By your definition he’s a racist, whereas he’s actually probably the least racist person on the planet. And he’s far more wise than you are.
JMann, You said:
“I don’t currently have an opinion on whether Bannon is racist – he could well be, but the evidence is weirdly thin. ”
Oh really? Check out the WaPo article that just came out, see what he says about Asians.
17. November 2016 at 09:37
Let me help you on the libel case viz UVA that Rolling Stone just lost.
“A federal jury in Charlottesville, Va., found that the magazine; its parent company, Wenner Media; and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the author of the article, are all liable in a defamation suit filed by Nicole P. Eramo, a former associate dean of students at the university, who said the article depicted her as the “chief villain” of the story.
“Rolling Stone commissioned a review of the article by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, and the school’s report, issued in April 2015, found that the magazine had failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details from Jackie. Rolling Stone retracted its story and removed it from its website.
“The jury found that assertions made within the article, as well as postpublication comments by Ms. Erdely and news releases by Rolling Stone, were defamatory.
“In its finding, the jury decided that the defendants had acted with actual malice, a legal standard that means that the publication either knew that the information published was false, or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/business/media/rolling-stone-rape-story-case-guilty.html?_r=0
17. November 2016 at 10:47
Scott,
While I appreciate your global assessment of my wisdom, I don’t have the same confidence in your interpersonal judgement as you do. Those you claim aren’t racist probably are racists.
You recently claimed liberals who favor drug decriminalization, as opposed to outright legalization, have unconscious desires for disparate sentencing, based on race. This, you said was gleaned from personal interactions. To say the least, I find this a less than convincing argument. Not scientific, to say the least.
Do you think Limbaugh’s racist? Have you heard his show recently? If yes, why would non-racists(or people non-pro rape) listen to him, except for the insane spectacle of it? If you have’t heard his show, tune in. I’ll give you a link, if you like.
Which is more parsimonious? Is it your claim about liberals, who disapprove of racism and racist rhetoric, at least openly, or my claim that conservatives who deny the racism of racist talk show hosts?
Why should anyone find your argument compelling?
17. November 2016 at 11:00
Is it your claim about liberals, who disapprove of racism and racist rhetoric, at least openly, or my claim that conservatives who deny the racism of racist talk show hosts?
You’re a great one-man manufactory of humbug. That it’s helpful to your worldview for Rush Limbaugh to be tagged as a ‘racist’ does not make Rush Limbaugh a ‘racist’. Your wish-fullfillment does not actually alter the social world in which you live.
I have news for you: Allard Lowenstein is dead, as is the world in which he came of age. Liberals almost never confront consequential racism. Discourse about ‘racism’ is a buttress to their amour-propre.
17. November 2016 at 11:04
Scott,
I assume you’re talking about this Scott Alexander post from yesterday:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
I quote from this piece:
“I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter).”
Do you agree with that? This is an example of his superior wisdom? If so, why have Romney, Ryan, etc. said he’s made racist comments, numerous times. Are they liberals crying wolf?
One of the hardest things to see is one’s own interpersonal bias. Haven’t we all had that friend in high school we tried to talk out of marrying that girl that was nothing, but trouble? Remember how everyone saw the problems, but him?
That’s the situation you’re in regarding your judgement, as displayed here. It happens to the best and brightest.
17. November 2016 at 11:12
Scott, Are you claiming Scott Alexander is a racist, or not. Yes or no. That’s all I want. If you provide one more word that “Yes”, or “no”, I’ll ignore your response.
Steven, I asked you to provide an example of a libelous statement I made. You did not. I expect an apology from you.
17. November 2016 at 11:25
Scott,
Above I stated that those who defend racists as not being racists are probably racist. Probably leaves some room for uncertainty. I personally don’t bother with people who defend racists, because it isn’t worth my time to try to figure out who might be the rare exception.
I don’t think Breitbart was one of those exceptions.
So, ignore me and my reasonable questions if you want. I assume you don’t have good answers for all the contradictions.
17. November 2016 at 11:35
Thanks Scott, I hadn’t seen that one, and assumed that Mother Jones had used the most effective points.
For everyone who hasn’t read it, Trump went on Bannon’s radio show and argued that we should let talented or skilled immigrants in, particularly foreign students who obtain valuable education in the US, and that he wanted to let immigrants in who go through the process and bring in valuable skills. Bannon said (a) he was opposed to that(!) (b) that 2/3 or 3/4 of the CEOs in Silicon Valley were from Asia, and (c) that “a country is more than an economy. We’re a civil society.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered-and-coaxed-trump-on-policies-key-to-the-alt-right/2016/11/15/53c66362-ab69-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html
So Bannon was way wrong on Asian CEOs in Silicon Valley (it’s probably closer to 15%), and apparently thinks tech workers and other immigrant professionals threaten American “civil society.”
That’s close enough to racist for me.
(P.s.: I think Trump later waffled on his position on H1-B visas, and now no one knows what he’s planning to do.)
17. November 2016 at 11:39
You’re not going to bully me into answering a question your way. But, I’m reading Alexander’s blog and so far I can only say he doesn’t know much about psychology. He mentions something he calls the “pathogen stress theory of values”.
My own view is that people who have significant enough problems controlling impulses they consider impure often trigger neural modules related to hygiene and send them into overdrive. They often meet diagnostic criteria for OCD, and their personality is constructed around something akin to an autoimmune disorder.
Many who are passionately anti-gay are gay or bisexuals themselves, for example. Conservatives get in a frenzy over liberal voter fraud conspiracy theories, but themselves are the ones much more likely to cheat to get their way. And on, and on, and on… That’s why so many conservatives are the biggest hypocrites.
At the root of all of it is an inferiority complex, and anger caused by the difference between their a priori ideas about how human nature, including their own, works and reality. The same is true in the political realm.
Liberals have problems that tend to be rooted more in pure ignorance or naivete. They’re often too nice, and too unwilling to dominate and destroy their opponents.
17. November 2016 at 11:57
For others who may be reading here who aren’t familiar with Limbaugh, here’s a clip of him defending the “Barack the Magic Negro” song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbBgRiHYrs0
The song begins at about 3:17.
So, Scott says that Alexander says Limbaugh isn’t racist. I leave it to your judgement as to whether Alexander is at least clueless on this.
17. November 2016 at 12:01
And, it turns out Tyler Cowen isn’t too impressed with the Alexander post either. Is he also not as wise as Alexander in Scott’s opinion?
” And everyone else is linking to this Scott Alexander post on crying wolf and racism, but I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions.”
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/11/thursday-assorted-links-84.html
17. November 2016 at 12:05
Scott,
You quote Tim Brown in making an accusation against Bannon:
‘Under Bannon’s leadership, Breitbart ran headlines such as: “Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,” “Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement’s Human Shield,” and “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy.”’
To which you follow up with, “So where’s the outrage?”, which from context, I took to be, “So where’s the outrage on the right?”
And you continue: “[W]hat’s wrong with insisting that top White House officials are not self described alt-righters? Is that too much to ask? … Most of the time I think the press is too sensitive about race, too eager to cry racism. But now when it’s right in front of our eyes, lots of people on the right still can’t see it. Or maybe they are like sheep, afraid of angering the big bad Donald Trump.”
And you quote the Hill: “House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) got into an uncomfortable back-and-forth with reporters Monday, when they read him a series of racist and misogynistic Breitbart headlines from Bannon’s time at the helm.”
This again refers to those same headlines noted above.
To appearances, you are accusing Bannon of being a racist, and complicit in all those things which the Tim Brown post assert. You are seeking to keep him from taking office in the White House.
The only evidence you bring against Bannon is the Brietbart headlines.
To which I asked: “Did you actually read these articles, Scott?”
And here’s the part that makes it libel. You say:
“I’ve seen dozens of Breitbart stories, I know exactly what the website is all about. It’s a sewer, not much different from places like Drudge.”
To being with, as ArtDeco points out, this is factually incorrect. Brietbart writes its own stories and counts as a news service like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. Drudge is an aggregator like Yahoo or MSN. The top five stories on Drudge (top headline down left side) are from the Asian Review, Daily Mail, New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, and Reuters (via Yahoo). Which of these are ‘the sewer’?
But leaving that aside, having been challenged on the accuracy of your accusations, you make no effort to check the facts or retract the assertion. In legal terms, this is malice.
Now suppose someone said, “Scott Sumner’s site is full of racist comments. Sumner tolerates it; he’s a racist.” I would reply, show me direct evidence of Sumner saying something racist or taking a racist position. If the response was, “I know the Money Illusion. I don’t have to look at it to tell you Sumner is a racist,”, well, that’s libel. It involves malice, specifically because the accuser could not be bothered to check whether libelous allegations were true even when challenged.
That’s what you have done.
17. November 2016 at 12:31
Scott, You said:
“But, I’m reading Alexander’s blog and so far I can only say he doesn’t know much about psychology.”
No, he’s merely one of the 5 or 10 brightest psychologists on the planet. But Scott Freelander tells me that Alexander knows nothing about psychology.
Whatever.
And since you refuse to answer my question about Alexander, I’ll take that as a retraction.
Steven, You are at the exact opposite extreme from Scott Freelander. While Scott sees racism everywhere he looks, you can’t see it when it’s right in front of your eyes. Bannon describes his site as the leading website for the Alt-right, which is basically a bunch of white supremacists.
Here’s an example of Bannon:
“Last November, for instance, Trump said he was concerned that foreign students attending Ivy League schools have to return home because of U.S. immigration laws.
“We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,” Trump said. He paused. Bannon said, “Um.”
“I think you agree with that,” Trump said. “Do you agree with that?”
Bannon was hesitant.
“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.””
Is that too complicated for you?
And your comparison with the rape case was absurd. In that case the facts were in doubt, whereas everyone agrees that rape is illegal. In this case we know what Bannon has said and done, whereas different people interpret those statements differently. If he was a private person and sued me, I could come up with 100 elite sources claiming Alt-right is racist. My defense would be easy.
17. November 2016 at 12:32
” And everyone else is linking to this Scott Alexander post on crying wolf and racism, but I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions.”
Tyler Cowen was born in 1962. Over the years, he’s lived in Fall River, Mass., the New Jersey suburbs of NYC, around Boston, and in Northern Virginia. Kind of a silly thing for him to say.
17. November 2016 at 12:33
J Mann, Thanks, Hopefully I’ll have you in the jury when Steven Kopits tries to prosecute me for libel. 🙂
17. November 2016 at 12:35
Bannon describes his site as the leading website for the Alt-right, which is basically a bunch of white supremacists.
1. No, Sarah Posner attributes that statement to him, in her article for Mother Jones.
2. The term wasn’t used in that sense even three years ago. You used to see it applied to an omnibus of people who were critical of the conventional right. Daniel Larison qualified as alt-right.
17. November 2016 at 12:35
Art, I actually agree with you on this one. I obviously don’t fully agree, but it’s a very strongly argued post. Anyone who denies that has his head in the sand.
17. November 2016 at 12:37
Many who are passionately anti-gay are gay or bisexuals themselves, for example.
It would help if you understood the difference between mass entertainment memes – flotsam and jetsam floating around in the heads of Hollywood screenwriters – and actual social phenomena.
17. November 2016 at 12:38
Scott,
You can take it however you want, but what I wrote is plain to read.
I wish you could stay calm during these conversations. I wonder whether I or the fascists annoy you more.
When it comes to psychology, I actually did formal work in the subject and while rusty, I think I can hold my own. You can talk over my head on economics for as long as we’ll both live, but I think there are subjects I may best you on.
We all have our specialties, right?
17. November 2016 at 14:44
Scott,
I should apologize for saying I have higher standards for friends than you do. It was a very offensive way of putting what I meant to say. I do mean that I’m not willing to pay much attention to someone who will listen to Rush Limbaugh, for example, and not merely for the spectacle of it. I do think that’s having a higher standard in that sense. I think that’s a bit better way of expressing it, though I’m not sure how to express something like that without it being offensive.
Perhaps it’s just better to say that I think you’re naive about racism, even though you’re miles ahead of most conservatives and many in the middle.
17. November 2016 at 14:45
Scott –
So now you’re introducing actual evidence. Good for you!
But you think, therefore, that ‘um’ disqualifies Bannon to be Trump’s advisor? That’s it?
17. November 2016 at 16:57
————quote———-
Here’s an example of Bannon:
“Last November, for instance, Trump said he was concerned that foreign students attending Ivy League schools have to return home because of U.S. immigration laws.
“We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,” Trump said. He paused. Bannon said, “Um.”
“I think you agree with that,” Trump said. “Do you agree with that?”
Bannon was hesitant.
“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.””
Is that too complicated for you?
————endquote———–
I doubt it, it seems very straightforward; Trump makes the assertion that foreign students trained at Ivy League schools have to return home rather than stay and work in the USA.
Then Bannon refutes Trump’s point by pointing out that a significant majority of Silicon Valley CEOs are from Asia.
I’d sure like to know what that ellipsis took out, though.
17. November 2016 at 20:29
FYI,
There was another election this month in the U.S.
US bishops elected a new president and vice-president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over the past few days. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston as President and Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles as Vice President.
They also approved a new 5 point strategic plan in place for the next 4 years under the theme ‘Encountering the Mercy of Christ and Accompanying His People with Joy’.
According to Vatican Radio, five points make up the strategic plan of 2017-2020 with the goal of ‘offering a sustained and compelling witness to the power of Christ’s love in the world’.
The first priority is ‘Evangelization’, calling Catholics to ‘open wide the doors to Christ through missionary discipleship and personal encounter’.
‘Family and marriage’ is second with the goal of ‘encourage and heal families and inspire Catholics to embrace the sacrament of matrimony’.
Third, ‘Human life and dignity: to uphold the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death with special concern for the poor and vulnerable’.
Fourth, ‘Vocations and ongoing formation: to encourage vocations to the priesthood and consecrated life, and provide meaningful ongoing formation to clergy, religious and lay ministers’.
Finally, the bishops agreed to promote the important value of ‘Religious freedom: to promote and defend the freedom to serve, witness, and worship’.
The strategic plan reads, ‘Through this work, we will encounter our brothers and sisters wherever they may be along life’s journey, offer them love and support, and in turn, meet Jesus himself who will fortify each one of us for our own journey’.
It goes into effect January 2017.
They also supported a post-election statement given by Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, auxiliary bishop of Seattle, and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration, telling “our brothers and sisters who come to the country seeking a better life: ‘We are with you’”.
26. November 2016 at 09:20
First off, one thing to note: the fact that the KKK (or whatever group) endorses Trump, says he will be great for racism, etc., should not be used as a data point when deciding if Trump is racist (or that his policies will be). Unless you think they have some kind of inside information that you don’t have, using their support as data is “double weighting” existing data. For example, let’s say you take Bannon’s appointment as evidence that Trump will further the KKK’s goals; that’s fine. But when the KKK says that Trump will further their goals, they are basing that statement (in part) on the fact that Bannon was appointed as well, so their endorsement provides no *new* information.
Anyway, as to the main thrust of the post, I disagree that not enough attention is being paid to the racial aspect; in fact, I think the focus on it has been much more intense than is warranted. I say this not because racial issues are unimportant, but because the potential harm he could do due to any racial views he (or his team) might have is dwarfed by the damage he could do in other areas: foreign relations, trade, climate change, etc. Here we have a man with no impulse control who can launch a nuclear strike with no checks and balances, and people are losing their minds over the fact that he said that a lot of illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists. Frankly, it seems like most people (at least on the left) are so obsessed with their own moralism that the actual *results* of a Trump administration is irrelevant to them.
Again, I don’t want to give the impression that the plight of marginalized is irrelevant, but I’m sorry: Trump’s threat to slap massive tariffs on imports concern me a lot more right than whether some guy can take a dump in the ladies room.