The white alternative reality

Great, great, Thomas Edsall column on Trump and the Republican Party.  Please read it!  I read somewhere the other day (and damnit, lost the link) that Trump came of age at a time when native-born whites were an unusually high proportion of Americans.  A lot of these older white guys (and, yes, some younger ones and women, too) really don’t like the change in our country.

Donald Trump’s success is no surprise. The public and the press have focused on his defiant rejection of mannerly rhetoric, his putting into words of what others think privately. But the more important truth is that a half-century of Republican policies on race and immigration have made the party the home of an often angry and resentful white constituency — a constituency that is now politically mobilized in the face of demographic upheaval. [emphases mine]

Demographic upheaval may be understating it. From 1970 to 2010, the Hispanic population of the United States grew fivefold, from 9.6 million to 50.5 million. From 2000 to 2010, the number of white children under 18 declined by 4.3 million while the number of Hispanic children grew by 4.8 million. In 2013, white children became a minority, 47.7 percent ofstudents ages 3 to 6.

The Trump phenomenon arguably represents a culmination of the 50-plus-year transformation of the Republican Party…

In the four presidential elections before 1964, according to American National Election Studies, Republican candidates had won an average of 30 percent of the minority vote. From 1964 to 2008, the Republican share dropped to an average of 6.1 percent of the minority vote. Since 1964, the Republican Party has become, in effect, a white party…

Trump’s vitriol expresses the degree to which the American debate over immigration has grown ugly, even hideous. At the same time, Trump’s followers are motivated, and enraged, by what they see as a breakdown of law and order and the erosion of norms and standards they believe should be upheld. They are frustrated by the poor performance of the public schools their children attend, by cities and suburbs they believe to be under siege, by a criminal justice system they perceive as dysfunctional, and by a government they view as incompetent…

To voters who see the world this way, Trump offers the promise that he can restore a vanished America, that he can “make America great again,” as his campaign puts it.

As for the alternate reality, check out this included chart:

white

Got that?  Over 60% of Republicans and 3/4 of Tea-Partiers believe that discrimination against whites is as much a problem as discrimination against minorities.  My goodness, talk about drinking the Fox Kool-Aid.  What utterly delusional thinking (though, I guess it makes sense if all your news is from Fox).  A disturbingly-high percentage of Democrats and college-educated hold these views, but as you can see, the numbers are dramatically lower.  But, I would argue that this chart gives a key insight into the warped worldview that is driving so much of the support for Trump, and sadly, animates much of the Republican base.

Advertisements

Blacklivesmatter knows how to fix policing

For a while there was a lot of complaint that #Blacklivesmatter did not have any clear solutions.  When it comes to policing they have laid-out a clear, smart, evidence-based agenda to improve policing.  An agenda which would very much benefit all Americans (though, disproportionately Blacks as they disproportionately face the consequences of bad policing).  Radley Balko summarizes:

Last week, the leaders of Black Lives Matter* released a series of policy solutions to address police killings, excessive force, profiling and racial discrimination, and other problems in law enforcement, called “Campaign Zero.” Critics and police organizations have portrayed Black Lives Matter as radical, anti-police, and anti-white. But the policies Campaign Zero is pushing are none of those things. Instead, they’re practical, well-thought out, and in most cases, achievable. Most will also directly benefit everyone — not just black people.

In most cases, the policies Campaign Zero is suggesting are already in place in one or more police departments across the country, and Campaign Zero points this out. That’s smart, and I suspect that it will prove to be effective. It makes it more difficult for police groups to portray those proposals as “anti-cop.” But it also makes it easier to pitch those ideas to policymakers and the public. They’ve already been field-tested. As a set, these policies are more a list of “best practices” than revolutionary reform. A few of the proposals will be a tougher sell, but even those are far short of world-shaking. There are no calls to disarm the police. No calls to abolish law enforcement agencies. No demands that police unions be prohibited. This isn’t a fervid manifesto. It’s a serious effort to solve a problem. (Its practicality is undoubtedly born of urgency. There’s no time for wild-eyed ideology when people are dying.)

This isn’t criticism, but praise. These are proposals that will almost certainly have an impact, even if only some of them are implemented. The ideas here are well-researched, supported with real-world evidence and ought to be seriously considered by policymakers at all levels of government.

Here’s a quick rundown:

Full rundown from Balko.  Shorter version from me: end broken windows policing, end policing for profit, limit use of force, demilitarization, body cameras, better training, independent investigations and prosecutions of police misconduct, and even more.  If you’ve been following criminal justice issues at all, you know that’s a damn good list.  Here’s to #blacklivesmatter helping to make these much needed policy changes happen.

The pope, abortion, and the politicization of Catholic theology

Interesting news story yesterday about Pope Francis and abortion.  Having actually spent time among real people and the the problems they face, Pope Francis is going easy– relatively speaking– on those who have had abortions.

Pope Francis shook up the Catholic world — again — on Tuesday by announcing that all priests around the world will be authorized to forgive the “sin of abortion” during the church’s “Year of Mercy.”

Traditionally, Catholics knowingly involved in the procurement of abortion, condemned as a “moral evil” by the church, are automatically excommunicated and may be forgiven only with permission from a bishop.

I certainly like the tone he strikes:

The Pope’s new policy, which does not change church doctrine, technically applies only to the Year of Mercy, a centuries-old Catholic practice during which believers may receive special indulgences for their sins.

“The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails,” Francis said in a statement Tuesday. “Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option.”

“I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion,” the Pope continued. “I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision.”

So, I was surprised to learn this significant lacuna in my knowledge of Catholic theology.  I had not realized that there had been sins for which only a bishop could offer absolution.  I find that more than a little absurd, honestly.  But what I find really absurd is that this list of sins for “automatic excommunication” includes abortion, but not murder.  Burn a family, strangle a baby, throw a toddler against a wall, molest, torture, and murder a child and you are not automatically excommunicated and any old priest can offer you absolution.  But have an abortion– even under dire personal circumstances (e.g., extreme poverty, unwilling father of the child, etc.)– and morally speaking, the Catholic Church somehow think you are worse than a serial killer.

[And I don’t even want to address the moral silliness of the idea that this year only, a priest can absolve you, but next year, this sin is going to require a Bishop’s absolution again.  Seriously?!  There’s a reason indulgences make the Catholic Church a laughing stock.]

I did not find this explanation on-line, but the NPR story I heard today said that the sin was worse because the unborn child was the most defenseless.  As if an infant can really protect itself!  Please.  Much less an 10-year old against an adult.  But somehow, absolutely devastate a family, neighborhood, and community by murdering a 10-year old (and yes, that’s what happens, widespread devastation) and this is somehow a worse sin that taking the life of the unborn fetus potentially known only to the mother?!!   Yes, all life may be sacred, but when a beloved mother of five or a young child with all the world ahead of her is prematurely snuffed out, the harm to other humans and society is exponentially greater?  How can anyone possibly argue that abortion is somehow worse?  All I can suggest is that this really a political position, more than a theological one.  Maybe a theologian out there can enlighten me, but this strikes me as awfully similar to the fact that the church rails against abortion (which is politically safe for it), but essentially never raises a peep about the equally intrinsic evil (following church doctrine, that is) of destroying unused embryos from IVF (parents desperately trying to have children are pretty damn sympathetic).

I’m actually quite comfortable with the Catholic Church considering abortion to be a very serious moral sin.  What I hate is bending theology and morality beyond any reasonable interpretation to suggest that abortion is somehow far worse than all these things any sentient person knows to be otherwise the case.  [Or placing it as the sine qua non of Catholic belief and practice, for that matter.  Jesus seemed much more concerned with the poor and oppressed.]

%d bloggers like this: