The Irrational Reaction to Trump’s Press Conference Is About Class and White Guilt

 

President Trump, August 15, 2017 (Photo credit: White House Youtube Channel)

The only way to describe the media’s reaction to Trump’s press conference and statements about the events in Charlottesville yesterday is irrational. To understand how irrational the reaction was, just imagine if instead of involving white nationalists and antifa counter protestors the events of last weekend had been a conflict between two rival biker gangs.

Do not change a single event from this weekend but imagine the events being the result of violence at a biker rally. One biker club has its national rally and a rival biker club shows up to protest and disrupt it. During the course of the weekend, a lot of shouting and violence take place. Fights break out on Friday. For reasons yet to be known the local police do nothing to separate the rival gangs and violence and conflict spills over into Saturday. Finally, on Saturday afternoon a member of the first gang runs a car into a crowd of its rival gang injuring nineteen and killing one.

Now ask yourself, would anyone in their right mind claim that only the first biker gang was to blame and everyone is obligated to condemn it? Of course, no one would. There would be national outrage about the problem of biker gangs. The local police would be called to the carpet for not maintaining order. Law enforcement would crack down hard on both gangs and biker rallies in general.

The only reason the media and the nation at large are not having the same reaction it would if Charlottesville involved a fight between biker gangs is because it involved white nationalists. And the media and political class are incapable of having a rational conversation about anything involving white nationalism or white supremacy. The reason for this is that to do so would be to call into question the entire concept of white guilt.

White guilt, like all racial collectivist beliefs, is completely irrational. White guilt is doubly irrational because it embraces the very sort of racial collectivism it claims to reject. It is irrational to say that one person is responsible for the actions of another person just because they share the same color of skin. It is irrational to say that anyone living today is in any way accountable or responsible or has any reason to feel guilty about events that occurred before they were born. The entire concept of collective guilt–be it based on race, class, sex or anything else–is utterly irrational. It represents the worst sort of tribalism, which civilization and rationality seek to end.

White guilt, like all irrational belief systems, is completely antithetical to any form of rational discourse about any of the areas it concerns. Once a believer in an irrational ideology is forced to have a rational discussion about one area of the ideology the entire ideology comes into question. This is why the integration of professional sports did so much toward ending the idea of white racial supremacy. When blacks and whites were not allowed to compete on the same field, whites could hold the irrational belief that whites were inherently superior athletes to blacks. Once Jackie Robinson became a star in the major leagues and Jim Brown became the best football player in the world, whites could no longer hold that belief. They were forced to have a rational conversation based on facts about the relative athletic ability of the two races. And once they did that, they could no longer refuse to question or discuss rationally their views on racial superiority in every other area of life. The entire ideology fell like a house of cards. Within a few decades, white supremacy went from a societal given to a fringe belief.

One of the primary tenants of white guilt is that white nationalism is a unique evil. White guilt necessitates that white nationalism not just be wrong but a unique wrong in the world, worse than communism or any of the sins of other races. If white nationalism isn’t worse than other isms, then whites have no more or less to answer for than any other race or creed and the whole edifice of white guilt collapses. This is of course irrational. White nationalism and belief in white supremacy is evil but no more or less evil than any other form of nationalism or religious or racial supremacy. So no believer in white guilt can have a rational discussion about white nationalism without calling the entire concept of white guilt into question.

Statue of Robert E. Lee (Photo credit: Katherine Welles / Shutterstock.com)

When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend. He said two undeniably truthful and rational things about the events this weekend. First, he said that not everyone at the march in Charlottesville was a white nationalist. This is true. The march was a protest against the tearing down of a Robert E. Lee statue. It was organized by white nationalists but 200 or so people attended. It is perfectly rational and truthful to say that not all of them were white nationalists. Some of them, albeit perhaps a small minority, no doubt were there because they wanted to save the statue.

Second, he said that the counter protesters deserve a significant share of the blame for the resulting violence and death. This is also true. The counter-protesters were active willing participants in the violence that occurred. The proof of that is in the photos and accounts of the weekend given in the Virginia ACLU Twitter feed. And as I explained above, had the events in Charlottesville involved any other group but white nationalists everyone involved would be assessed their share of the blame.

To say those things and to try and have a rational and truthful conversation about last weekend is to admit that it is possible for white nationalists, no matter how bad they are, to have been the victims of a wrong–or at least not totally responsible for the events of this weekend. And to do that is to necessarily admit the reality that white nationalists are not uniquely evil or worse than other violent or supremacist groups. Donald Trump’s statements were a direct challenge to the entire concept of collective white guilt.

One of the interesting things about Charlottesville, that no one seems to have noticed, is that an event that was supposed to be about white nationalism and white supremacy was not a race riot. I have not, in any of the pictures and video I have seen of the weekend, seen a single black person. Charlottesville was a conflict almost entirely or maybe entirely between white people. There is a good reason for this. The debate and conflict over white guilt is almost always a conflict between upper class and middle and lower class whites. Black people are nearly always bystanders or props in that conflict.

To understand why you have to understand how white guilt works. You would think the belief in collective white guilt would be an expression of self-loathing, but it is not. When a white person believes in white guilt they are engaging in one of the purest forms of virtue signaling. Since the belief is irrational and has nothing to do with their actions, they are not accepting any real moral responsibility. What they are doing is asserting their moral superiority over other white people who refuse to accept the belief. When a black person asserts collective white guilt, they are doing it to attack white people. When a white person does it, the white person is saying they understand their burden and the horrible sins of their race. In doing that, the white person is showing their moral superiority over other white people who refuse to accept their guilt and responsibility.

Embracing some level of white guilt is one of the primary ways upper class and gentry whites assert their moral superiority over middle and lower class whites. Middle and lower class whites don’t believe in white guilt. As a result, they often have more rational views about race. Middle and lower class whites can say and think rational things about race that upper-class whites cannot do without losing their class status. Lower and middle-class whites can believe that black people are sometimes just as racist as whites. They can believe that black supremacist groups can be just as bad as the KKK. They can believe that the Civil War was a complex event that wasn’t just about slavery and white supremacy, or that just because South Carolina or Mississippi were slave states and have a bad racial history doesn’t mean there are no good parts of those places or that people from there can’t be proud of their state.

Upper-class whites cannot believe any of that. No upper-class white would ever wave a Confederate flag. No upper-class white would ever say that the Black Panthers are as bad as the KKK. If they are conservative, they might say the KKK is insignificant but they would never say that a black group is qualitatively just as bad. To do any of that would necessarily call into question the idea of white guilt and mean being kicked out of the class.

So when Trump tried to force a rational conversation about white nationalism Washington, D.C., that most white and upper class of cities, lost its collective mind. It was all hands on deck — Left and Right — to save and assert the white guilt moral privilege. The responses to Trump were predictably irrational and counterfactual. For the crime of saying not every incident is entirely one sided, Trump was accused of being a white supremacist. In other words, the president everyone feared he would be. Some of the reaction was so counterfactual it can fairly be called insane. Mitt Romney and John McCain described the counter-protesters as fighters for justice and equality against the forces of prejudice and racism. People who showed up waving Communist flags and carrying pepper spray and bags of feces and urine are now fighters against evil and prejudice. Really? The entire response boiled down to a giant guttural groan of “How Dare You!” by the white upper class. Trump had attacked their most sacred moral privileges and they were not going to take it lying down.

What will be the fall out of all this? Like most things involving Trump, a lot less than people think. First, I don’t think it is going to make a bit of difference politically. The people who voted for Trump are almost to the person people who reject the concept of white guilt. So, they won’t see it the way the media and the Washington Establishment has. They will see it as Trump saying entirely fair and rational things. I don’t see Trump’s support dropping one bit. Trump’s enemies will just have a new reason to feel aggrieved.

Second, I don’t think we are going to see much white nationalist vs. antifa violence. Trump tried to force a conversation the left doesn’t want to have. For the left, white guilt is not just about class it is also how it enforces identity politics. The left needs white guilt. Trump also tried to force the left to talk about its role in this violence. And that is also not a conversation anyone on the left wants to have. The left has condoned and enabled antifa violence for years and gotten away with it. They do not want to have to answer for that.

I think that police departments in Democratic cities are going to start doing their jobs. Instead of standing down at these marches and counter-protests, the police will start keeping the two sides apart, arresting people who show up with weapons and bags of urine, and cracking down hard on any fights that break out, and maintaining order. Deprived of the ability to riot with impunity, antifa will find better things to do. They don’t want to go to jail any more than anyone else and protests get pretty boring if you no longer have free reign to attack people. Deprived of any violence to use to slander the Right, the media will lose interest as well. Over the next few months, these marches are going to return to being the small events of paper-hanging losers they have always been. So, I wouldn’t stock up on ammunition for the coming civil war just yet.

Lastly, I think that the drive to tear down Confederate monuments will likely fizzle as well. They will tear a few more down in Democratic cities but the issue will fade away as well. Trump did another thing yesterday: he laid down the mark that if this stuff didn’t stop they would be calling for tearing down George Washington statues. Of course, all right thinking people are today dismissing this. They, however, know that it is true. There are already calls to tear down the statues of Theodore Roosevelt in museums in New York City. You can tear down Confederate statues and largely avoid a rational conversation. Most people really don’t know who the people were and you can always use the “but it’s racist” charge to keep the average observer from objecting. George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt are different. People do know who they are and can’t be scared off by the racist charge. And the Left doesn’t want a rational conversation about that any more than they want a rational conversation about last weekend.

The statue controversy, like all leftist causes, is entirely manufactured. We had a century-long struggle for black civil rights in this country. During that time not a single person to my knowledge — not Martin Luther King, not W.E.B Dubois, not Booker T. Washington, not Malcolm X — ever cared or said a single word about those monuments. Yet, suddenly, in 2017 they are a threat to all that is right and good. Give me a break. Once the left decides tearing them down is no longer to their advantage, and they will if they haven’t already, no more will be heard about the subject.

Published in Culture
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 101 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    In stark contrast, the Black Panthers arose among that very minority group that had been on the receiving end of oppression and police brutality for centuries

    For centuries? And the BLM movement was based on a lie.
    Black Panthers (disambiguation).

    Not to be confused with the New Black Panther Party or the New Afrikan Black Panther Party.

    • #31
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    My feelings are best shown in my post of a Jennifer Rubin column in the Member Feed:  “How to Disown Trump and Reclaim the Party of Lincoln.”

    • #32
  3. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    My feelings are best shown in my post of a Jennifer Rubin column in the Member Feed: “How to Disown Trump and Reclaim the Party of Lincoln.”

    I don’t see how that response is in any way a rational response to what Trump actually said. It is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Saying that the white nationalists in Charlottesville are not the only ones to blame for what happened there and that the counter protestors are just as bad is not an endorsement of white nationalists. It just isn’t. What it is, however, is an acknowledgment that there is nothing uniquely evil about white nationalism. And doing that necessarily takes away Rubin’s ability to feel superior by virtue of her recognition of white guilt. And that is not something she wants to do.

    • #33
  4. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Kay of MT (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    In stark contrast, the Black Panthers arose among that very minority group that had been on the receiving end of oppression and police brutality for centuries

    For centuries? And the BLM movement was based on a lie.
    Black Panthers (disambiguation).

    Not to be confused with the New Black Panther Party or the New Afrikan Black Panther Party.

    Yes, centuries. Slavery in America began in the colonial period and Jim Crow laws were in place from the end of Reconstruction until the 60’s, when the Black Panther party was founded (I’m taking about the original Oakland version, not any of the New offshoots).  That’s a span of several hundred years.

    • #34
  5. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    Between this excellent post by John Kluge and this one on the Federalist, I think one can form a pretty good assessment of the current situation. First is that white guilt is an effective tool of social conformity and control by the left, and second is that no matter how much you reject racism and white supremacy, you are still guilty of both unless you completely adopt New-think or Right-think or whatever it shall be called.

    • #35
  6. Nick Hlavacek Coolidge
    Nick Hlavacek
    @NickH

    John Kluge: When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend.

    I think you’re giving Trump way too much credit here. I seriously doubt that Trump has deeply considered the issue of white guilt or white nationalism in any significant way. His statements yesterday were a way of pushing back on being forced to specifically condemn the KKK and Nazis in his statement on Monday. That’s a pattern Trump has shown time and time again. If he feels he’s being pushed one way, even if it’s the right way, he pushes back twice as hard. This isn’t some thoughtful response about how the media is refusing to acknowledge the violence of the alt-left or some principled stand in favor of a color-blind society. It’s pure petulance; the emotional reaction of a child being told what to do and not liking it.

     

    • #36
  7. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):

    John Kluge: When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend.

    I think you’re giving Trump way too much credit here. I seriously doubt that Trump has deeply considered the issue of white guilt or white nationalism in any significant way. His statements yesterday were a way of pushing back on being forced to specifically condemn the KKK and Nazis in his statement on Monday. That’s a pattern Trump has shown time and time again. If he feels he’s being pushed one way, even if it’s the right way, he pushes back twice as hard. This isn’t some thoughtful response about how the media is refusing to acknowledge the violence of the alt-left or some principled stand in favor of a color-blind society. It’s pure petulance; the emotional reaction of a child being told what to do and not liking it.

    I think you’re making assumptions that fit your preferred conclusions and treating them as fact instead of massive speculation. And then you’re having an emotional reaction based on your shaky conclusions. It’s pure petulance I tell ya.

    • #37
  8. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):

    John Kluge: When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend.

    I think you’re giving Trump way too much credit here. I seriously doubt that Trump has deeply considered the issue of white guilt or white nationalism in any significant way. His statements yesterday were a way of pushing back on being forced to specifically condemn the KKK and Nazis in his statement on Monday. That’s a pattern Trump has shown time and time again. If he feels he’s being pushed one way, even if it’s the right way, he pushes back twice as hard. This isn’t some thoughtful response about how the media is refusing to acknowledge the violence of the alt-left or some principled stand in favor of a color-blind society. It’s pure petulance; the emotional reaction of a child being told what to do and not liking it.

    Everything he said was rational and true.  I cannot speak to his motivations. Trying to guess them and attributing malice to them is just another way of avoiding rational discourse about last weekend.

    • #38
  9. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):
    It’s pure petulance; the emotional reaction of a child being told what to do and not liking it.

    Seems to me, the pure petulance was exhibited by the press.

    • #39
  10. Randal H Member
    Randal H
    @RandalH

    John Kluge (View Comment):

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):

    John Kluge: When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend.

    I think you’re giving Trump way too much credit here. I seriously doubt that Trump has deeply considered the issue of white guilt or white nationalism in any significant way. His statements yesterday were a way of pushing back on being forced to specifically condemn the KKK and Nazis in his statement on Monday. That’s a pattern Trump has shown time and time again. If he feels he’s being pushed one way, even if it’s the right way, he pushes back twice as hard. This isn’t some thoughtful response about how the media is refusing to acknowledge the violence of the alt-left or some principled stand in favor of a color-blind society. It’s pure petulance; the emotional reaction of a child being told what to do and not liking it.

    Everything he said was rational and true. I cannot speak to his motivations. Trying to guess them and attributing malice to them is just another way of avoiding rational discourse about last weekend.

    Sometimes Trump seems to do the right thing purely out of instinct and intuition (or maybe even petulance), and probably for reasons he couldn’t even articulate. There are a number of things I would wish for in regards to Trump’s behavior, but being able to articulate what he senses is the correct action would be at the top of the list.

    • #40
  11. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    John Kluge (View Comment):

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):

    John Kluge: When Donald Trump spoke yesterday, he attempted to force the nation to have an honest and rational conversation about white nationalism and its involvement in the events last weekend.

    I think you’re giving Trump way too much credit here. I seriously doubt that Trump has deeply considered the issue of white guilt or white nationalism in any significant way. His statements yesterday were a way of pushing back on being forced to specifically condemn the KKK and Nazis in his statement on Monday. That’s a pattern Trump has shown time and time again. If he feels he’s being pushed one way, even if it’s the right way, he pushes back twice as hard. This isn’t some thoughtful response about how the media is refusing to acknowledge the violence of the alt-left or some principled stand in favor of a color-blind society. It’s pure petulance; the emotional reaction of a child being told what to do and not liking it.

    Everything he said was rational and true. I cannot speak to his motivations. Trying to guess them and attributing malice to them is just another way of avoiding rational discourse about last weekend.

    Your rebuttal was much better than mine, John!

    • #41
  12. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Trump took on a very big bully that everyone else is terrified of. Being right doesn’t get you anywhere with a bully. You better think it through and have a good plan. Trump didn’t.

    • #42
  13. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Bob W (View Comment):
    Trump took on a very big bully that everyone else is terrified of. Being right doesn’t get you anywhere with a bully. You better think it through and have a good plan. Trump didn’t.

    Telling the truth rarely makes you many friends. That, however, is no reason not to tell it.

    • #43
  14. Nick Hlavacek Coolidge
    Nick Hlavacek
    @NickH

    John Kluge (View Comment):
    Everything he said was rational and true. I cannot speak to his motivations. Trying to guess them and attributing malice to them is just another way of avoiding rational discourse about last weekend.

    By claiming his statements are “rational”, you are speaking to his motivations. You’re assuming he’s given rational thought to the issue and that making a rational statement was his intent. There’s plenty of evidence that Trump makes impetuous statements and often contradicts himself. His view on some topics seems to depend on whatever argument was last presented to him. It is very possible to have meaningful and rational discussion of the topic without claiming that Trump’s statements have significant relevance.

    • #44
  15. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):

    John Kluge (View Comment):
    Everything he said was rational and true. I cannot speak to his motivations. Trying to guess them and attributing malice to them is just another way of avoiding rational discourse about last weekend.

    By claiming his statements are “rational”, you are speaking to his motivations. You’re assuming he’s given rational thought to the issue and that making a rational statement was his intent. There’s plenty of evidence that Trump makes impetuous statements and often contradicts himself. His view on some topics seems to depend on whatever argument was last presented to him. It is very possible to have meaningful and rational discussion of the topic without claiming that Trump’s statements have significant relevance.

    No I am not. Whether they are rational or not is an objective fact independent from his motivation. The rationality or irrationality of a statement stands on its own.  You can say rational things for irrational reasons. You can’t judge someone’s reasons or motivations for saying or doing something. You can only judge the substance of what they say.

    • #45
  16. Nick Hlavacek Coolidge
    Nick Hlavacek
    @NickH

    John Kluge (View Comment):
    You can’t judge someone’s reasons or motivations for saying or doing something. You can only judge the substance of what they say.

    I disagree. Motivation matters considerably. Think about the analogy that Buckley would often use about buses and pushing old ladies. We may not always be able to perfectly determine someone’s motivations, but history often gives us plenty of clues. I’m willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I can, but not to the point of denying the obvious. On their face and independent of the speaker, Trump’s statements may indeed be rational. There we agree. But it’s just as likely that the next thing he says will be irrational because rationality isn’t what drives him. His ego trumps reality every time.

    • #46
  17. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):
    I think there’s a simpler explanation for the media reaction, at least initally. Trump has a history of tacitly excepting his alt-right support (Steve Bannon did so more or less unequivocally) and incoherency on matters of race (cf. Mexican judge and Obama birther comments). In that context, Trump’s initial statement, as bland and “even handed” as it was, fed into the left’s narrative. They got to say, “See, I told you so.” Trump made this bed and if he wants to avoid further feeding frenzies he can’t afford to be anything other than crystal clear in the future. He has nobody to blame other than himself for that.

    I dispute that history. I also dispute that his words fed into that narrative. No, the words didn’t matter; they were going to be shoehorned into the narrative no matter what.

    Biden claiming that Romney and his supporters wanted to “put y’all back in chains” was Trump’s fault?

    • #47
  18. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    John Kluge: No upper-class white would ever say that the Black Panthers are as bad as the KKK.

    I don’t need to subscribe to white guilt to reject this equation. Groups of people have enslaved and oppressed each other since the dawn of history, whites are in no way unique in this respect.

    However, in the specific context of American history, the KKK was one such group that protected the privileges of a majority group by terrorizing, lynching, and murdering members of a specific racial minority. In stark contrast, the Black Panthers arose among that very minority group that had been on the receiving end of oppression and police brutality for centuries, and while I certainly won’t endorse everything they did or said, their original purpose was to arm themselves to defend themselves and their rights.

    This is precisely what conservatives say the 2nd Amendment is for: it’s not just to protect our right to hunt and sport shoot, it’s also so people can take up arms against an oppressive government. Isn’t that what the Panthers were doing?

    No.  The Panthers wanted to spark a violent Communist revolution.

    • #48
  19. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Nick Hlavacek (View Comment):

    John Kluge (View Comment):
    You can’t judge someone’s reasons or motivations for saying or doing something. You can only judge the substance of what they say.

    I disagree. Motivation matters considerably. Think about the analogy that Buckley would often use about buses and pushing old ladies. We may not always be able to perfectly determine someone’s motivations, but history often gives us plenty of clues. I’m willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I can, but not to the point of denying the obvious. On their face and independent of the speaker, Trump’s statements may indeed be rational. There we agree. But it’s just as likely that the next thing he says will be irrational because rationality isn’t what drives him. His ego trumps reality every time.

    Trump may be irrational. I don’t know. I have never met him. But you can’t conclude that based on the statements he made here. They were perfectly rational. You are just assuming he is irrational and therefore made these otherwise rational statements for irrational reasons because you want to believe he is irrational. Good for you I guess.  But you are just assuming what you want to believe is true is true and then reasoning from there. You are not making any kind of rational case that these statements are not rational or that Trump is irratinal.

    • #49
  20. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Martel (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    FloppyDisk90 (View Comment):
    I think there’s a simpler explanation for the media reaction, at least initally. Trump has a history of tacitly excepting his alt-right support (Steve Bannon did so more or less unequivocally) and incoherency on matters of race (cf. Mexican judge and Obama birther comments). In that context, Trump’s initial statement, as bland and “even handed” as it was, fed into the left’s narrative. They got to say, “See, I told you so.” Trump made this bed and if he wants to avoid further feeding frenzies he can’t afford to be anything other than crystal clear in the future. He has nobody to blame other than himself for that.

    I dispute that history. I also dispute that his words fed into that narrative. No, the words didn’t matter; they were going to be shoehorned into the narrative no matter what.

    Biden claiming that Romney and his supporters wanted to “put y’all back in chains” was Trump’s fault?

    Are you asking me? If so, I’m not sure why. But my answer is no.

    • #50
  21. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    Surely Trump wasn’t surprised by the reaction.

    • #51
  22. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    We need to let go of the idea that the left will stop calling us racist if only we can come up with some nicer way to express our views.  The Tea Party regularly chased white nationalists out of their rallies, and they got labeled “racist” anyway.

    The only solution to this is to furiously attack the race baiters and hustlers who harm minorities today with as much furor as the left attacks the racists who harmed blacks in the past (and us, the imagined racists of today).

    We’ve made every effort to be as polite and conciliatory on racial issues for decades, and all we’ve gotten in return is over 90% of blacks mistrusting us and simmering resentment against us from disenfranchised whites.  Maybe we should try a different strategy.

    • #52
  23. Mikescapes Inactive
    Mikescapes
    @Mikescapes

    I didn’t find your post especially rational. Upper class whites feel guilty –  some do some don’t. Middle and lower class whites don’t. How do you know? Lumping together various people into classes is no substitute for careful analysis. No blacks were present at the counter rally. Yes they were. And some were influential in organizing the counter protest. If Cornell West was present you can bet on black participation. So, you conclude that those disinterested Blacks only standing on the sidewalk were all from Charlottesville. Really! To say nothing of the black outcry since.

    So then, Trump is a rational guy. From a political standpoint, hardly. The (blame on all sides) initial statement was roundly condemned by way too many on all sides. The (damage control) statement a couple of days later got him in deeper. So, now, the (rebirth) of the all sides with names, has left him further out on the limb.

    Look, Ricochet subscribers already know that the Left harbors some of the worst racist, antisemitic, violent thugs, and communist animals. And we know that the crackers at the demonstration are no better. But there is such a thing as timing, emphasis and foresight in political calculus. Trump  and his advisers, plunged headlong into a series of statements that managed to alienate the very same people he needs if he is to weather the storm -and it’s stormy. IF he could just shut his mouth from time to time. Yeah, too much to hope for.

    There’s a Civil Rights investigation that could prosecute the violent and inciters to riot on all sides. Granted, the cops failure to intercede doesn’t help prove cases. In any case, you are a lot more optimistic than I am.

    • #53
  24. John Kluge Inactive
    John Kluge
    @JohnKluge

    Mikescapes (View Comment):
    I didn’t find your post especially rational. Upper class whites feel guilty – some do some don’t. Middle and lower class whites don’t. How do you know? Lumping together various people into classes is no substitute for careful analysis. No blacks were present at the counter rally. Yes they were. And some were influential in organizing the counter protest. If Cornell West was present you can bet on black participation. So, you conclude that those disinterested Blacks only standing on the sidewalk were all from Charlottesville. Really! To say nothing of the black outcry since.

    So then, Trump is a rational guy. From a political standpoint, hardly. The (blame on all sides) initial statement was roundly condemned by way too many on all sides. The (damage control) statement a couple of days later got him in deeper. So, now, the (rebirth) of the all sides with names, has left him further out on the limb.

    Look, Ricochet subscribers already know that the Left harbors some of the worst racist, antisemitic, violent thugs, and communist animals. And we know that the crackers at the demonstration are no better. But there is such a thing as timing, emphasis and foresight in political calculus. Trump and his advisers, plunged headlong into a series of statements that managed to alienate the very same people he needs if he is to weather the storm -and it’s stormy. IF he could just shut his mouth from time to time. Yeah, too much to hope for.

    There’s a Civil Rights investigation that could prosecute the violent and inciters to riot on all sides. Granted, the cops failure to intercede doesn’t help prove cases. In any case, you are a lot more optimistic than I am.

    I never said blacks were disinterested. I said the conflict over white guilt is mostly white. And my statements about the white upper and middle class were general, individuals in each group vary. But that is beside the point. To the extent his statement was bad politics, it is because some people can’t think rationally about the issue. And that is the point. Lastly, this article is about the reaction. It says nothing good or bad about Trump other than that he made rational and truthful statements yesterday. So your like or dislike of him as a politician is irrelevant to what I am talking about.

    • #54
  25. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    Their reaction to Trump is based solely in their desire to see him, the Republicans, and Conservatism destroyed. That’s it. They want to use this to ensure that the next President, and every President from now until doomsday, is a liberal. That’s all there is to it.

    Agreed. President Trump’s words aren’t the problem. First problem is as you describe it Spin – same as it ever was. The second problem is that some simply believe that Trump is a racist trying to coddle other racists, and they will fit whatever he says into that paradigm no matter what kind of twisting justification is required to do it.

    I don’t like Trump, and everyone on Ricochet knows it.  But….every criticism leveled at Trump from the left, whether it has merit or not, is really leveled at me.  Because to them, we are all alt right, we are all ignorant, we are all racists, we are all fascist.  full stop.

    • #55
  26. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    John Kluge (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    Trump took on a very big bully that everyone else is terrified of. Being right doesn’t get you anywhere with a bully. You better think it through and have a good plan. Trump didn’t.

    Telling the truth rarely makes you many friends. That, however, is no reason not to tell it.

    It is a reason not to tell it, or not to tell it the way you did or the time you did, if doing so is going to get yourself, and those who depend on you, beaten up. Trump is supposed to be the leader of the party. The Tuesday press conference was a fight that didn’t need to be fought. As the party leader, he should have a feel for that kind of thing. A professional politician would have. And if he thought it needed to be said, get some advice, think it through, and deliver it in an Oval Office address to the country (which he has never done yet) about the need for straight talk and healing on racial issues. No one interrupting him, trying to trip him up and getting him to say things in ways he doesn’t intend. The bully pulpit, not the press conference fistfight with the media.

    • #56
  27. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Funny how people think similar things at the same time. I wrote an essay entitled, Trump and the all-importance of guilt.

    If you got the time, please check it out.

     

    • #57
  28. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Bob W (View Comment):
    The Tuesday press conference was a fight that didn’t need to be fought.

    A fight? Who were the contestants?

    • #58
  29. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    The Tuesday press conference was a fight that didn’t need to be fought.

    A fight? Who were the contestants?

    The media and Trump. Which detracts from and confuses what he’s trying to say and plays into the hands of the left.

    • #59
  30. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Bob W (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Bob W (View Comment):
    The Tuesday press conference was a fight that didn’t need to be fought.

    A fight? Who were the contestants?

    The media and Trump. Which detracts from and confuses what he’s trying to say and plays into the hands of the left.

    It’s hard not to get into a fight when the other side demands one.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.