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. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Trump can fill stadiums. In 2007, could Bush?

    Joe P: “He was a little busy governing the country. Something Trump doesn’t spend enough of his time doing.”

    If only. Dubya phoned in at least the last three years of his Presidency. You remember that little banking crisis? If only Bush had been on top of things that would never have happened.

    You remember that little collapse of the healthcare system? You remember that tax reform bill? You remember the basic requirement of appointing people to positions? You remember that wall? You remember all of this stuff that was going to happen in the first 100 days?

    If only Trump would focus on anything other than his narcissism, maybe we’d have half of that stuff.

    Trump may be a loudmouth and may say some things on Twitter that are ill advised, but at least he will dare to speak the truth once in a while like he did in his last news conference. If only McCain, Rubio, Romney and Corker could do the same.

    The “truth” telling doesn’t seem to be moving the ball forward on any stuff that actually matters. The point of having full control of government is to, you know, govern.

    Trump is also busy defending the country against it’s domestic enemies that want to trash the Constitution and destroy our many rights, particularly the freedom of speech, something Dubya, McCain, Rubio, Romney and Corder never seem to want to do.

    Oh really? Defending the country you say? How many of these domestic enemies exactly have been locked up or shot? I don’t seem to recall any law enforcement or military operations lately.

    Unless we’re using “domestic enemies” figurative way, that, just involves repeating back to you things you already believe.

    • #91
  2. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    Martel (View Comment):
    But the point still stands that he couldn’t have filled a stadium near the end of his term if his life depended on it.

    Great. How does filling stadiums repeal Obamacare?

    • #92
  3. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Joe P (View Comment):

    Martel (View Comment):
    But the point still stands that he couldn’t have filled a stadium near the end of his term if his life depended on it.

    Great. How does filling stadiums repeal Obamacare?

    I think it was in a recent Commentary podcast that someone explained the methodical way Obama went about getting Obamacare passed, including the foresight to staff the OMB with sympathetic healthcare wonks, guaranteeing good reports. Say what you want about Obama, but he knew how politics works and he understood the optics/PR side of promoting yourself as a positive figure making good things happen. We sneered at his background as a “community organizer” but it paid off for him in ways that will haunt us for decades. Yes, he had the press in his pocket, but his skill at managing the complete process was impressive. Even if Trump appointed a Chief of Staff who had a broader vision of start-to-finish policymaking, I don’t think he could help himself from disrupting their careful planning. Lots of douchebags can draw a crowd if they sing the right tune, but it’s what a president does off-stage that matters the most.

    • #93
  4. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Joe P (View Comment):
    If only Trump would focus on anything other than his narcissism, maybe we’d have half of that stuff.

    I think you’re right, but then, I think all of you (just about) have a point. Trump is Trump. He has what one might call a kind of reckless courage that emerges out of that very narcissism. Courage can come from different places, some more attractive (and productive) than others. I know this is a “cartoon,” but one way to look at it is that Trump was the available tool for the job that enough American voters felt really needed to be done. He might not have been the best tool—- a hammer is better than a crowbar for hammering in a nail, but if your choice is between a crowbar and a sponge…?

    Ironically, given the rhetoric of the left, Trump actually is a person willing to speak truth to power— the media is, after all, very powerful, as is the social-justice progressive left (yeah, yeah, I repeat myself).  This, I would submit, is exactly why his “core supporters” loved him. This—what is happening now— is what those voters felt needed most to be done.

    And this is why the left loathes him and what it is trying to prevent him from doing.

    The preservation of white guilt…ah! Yes! They are, to coin a phrase, clinging bitterly to this, their ideology and weapon.

    It would have been fabulous if Trump was also deeply learned, thoughtful, witty, fast on his rhetorical feet. Boy, wouldn’t it be great to have Winston Churchill? Well, we don’t. Churchills are rare. What we have is Trump. I don’t know how long he’ll survive either.  I hope that whoever succeeds him (Pence, perhaps, and in the not-so-distant future?) will lack Trump’s flaws…but I hope he or she is, even now, absorbing and preparing to retain at least some of Trump’s sheer, reckless guts.

     

    • #94
  5. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Boy, wouldn’t it be great to have Winston Churchill?

    Yes.

    • #95
  6. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    Joe P (View Comment):
    If only Trump would focus on anything other than his narcissism, maybe we’d have half of that stuff.

    I think you’re right, but then, I think all of you (just about) have a point. Trump is Trump. He has what one might call a kind of reckless courage that emerges out of that very narcissism. Courage can come from different places, some more attractive (and productive) than others. I know this is a “cartoon,” but one way to look at it is that Trump was the available tool for the job that enough American voters felt really needed to be done. He might not have been the best tool—- a hammer is better than a crowbar for hammering in a nail, but if your choice is between a crowbar and a sponge…?

    Ironically, given the rhetoric of the left, Trump actually is a person willing to speak truth to power— the media is, after all, very powerful, as is the social-justice progressive left (yeah, yeah, I repeat myself). This, I would submit, is exactly why his “core supporters” loved him. This—what is happening now— is what those voters felt needed most to be done.

    And this is why the left loathes him and what it is trying to prevent him from doing.

    The preservation of white guilt…ah! Yes! They are, to coin a phrase, clinging bitterly to this, their ideology and weapon.

    It would have been fabulous if Trump was also deeply learned, thoughtful, witty, fast on his rhetorical feet. Boy, wouldn’t it be great to have Winston Churchill? Well, we don’t. Churchills are rare. What we have is Trump. I don’t know how long he’ll survive either. I hope that whoever succeeds him (Pence, perhaps, and in the not-so-distant future?) will lack Trump’s flaws…but I hope he or she is, even now, absorbing and preparing to retain at least some of Trump’s sheer, reckless guts.

    However, let’s remember that history’s icons we’re also sometimes flawed or not viewed highly in their own times.  We remember the good that Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan, and others accomplished, not so much how at various times they looked like abject failures and were roundly despised.

    • #96
  7. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Boy, wouldn’t it be great to have Winston Churchill?

    Yes.

    The trailer did not have CC and I understood about every 5th word. So many movies and documentaries to not have CC or Titles. Sad for the hearing impaired and deaf.

    • #97
  8. Justin Hertog Inactive
    Justin Hertog
    @RooseveltGuck

    Why do I get the impression that there are many Republicans out there who wanted Clinton to win the election and who oppose Trump now because they wanted eight more years of phony legislative showdowns with the White House that always end in capitulation and excuses. Sad!

    • #98
  9. Martel Inactive
    Martel
    @Martel

    Justin Hertog (View Comment):
    Why do I get the impression that there are many Republicans out there who wanted Clinton to win the election and who oppose Trump now because they wanted eight more years of phony legislative showdowns with the White House that always end in capitulation and excuses. Sad!

    Don’t forget the fundraising opportunities they’re missing with all the “Stop Hillary’s Agenda!” they’re not able to send.

    • #99
  10. J. D. Fitzpatrick Member
    J. D. Fitzpatrick
    @JDFitzpatrick

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    J. D. Fitzpatrick (View Comment):

    The reason for this is that to do so would be to call into question the entire concept of white guilt.

    Actually, why not call into question the concept of guilt, period? Not “guilty” in a legal sense, but guilt in a psychological sense?

    What do guilt feelings accomplish? Are actions performed because of them better than actions we perform when free of the sense of guilt?

    Once the milk is spilt, don’t lash your conscience over it. Just clean up. Easy. You can do right without feeling guilty about wrongs you’ve done.

    If you spilled the milk or, better, if you flung it in someone’s face then yes, you should feel guilty. Guilt is painful, and we learn from pain. What the OP is talking about is guilt for milk that you neither spilled nor threw, and if it hasn’t been cleared up by now, you certainly aren’t going to be able to do it.

    Vicarious guilt is being pushed as virtue; it’s not. It’s a vice. First, because it’s a lie (‘we’ didn’t enslave anyone; they (the long dead) did) and second because it represents a kind of moral theft. I can’t pick up the burden of your guilt and carry it for you and to attempt this is to cultivate a kind of collective messiah complex that is unattractive, unhealthy and very unhelpful to the people that the wanna-be saviors seek to save.

    This is a useful distinction.

    Still, I maintain that guilt is unnecessary. If I throw milk in someone’s face, it’s either out of malice or ignorance (assuming it’s not self defense.)

    If out of ignorance, I can solve the problem by saying “Sorry, I didn’t understand; I won’t do it again.”

    If out of malice, feeling guilty will accomplish nothing. I need to be locked up.

    • #100
  11. Justin Hertog Inactive
    Justin Hertog
    @RooseveltGuck

    Martel (View Comment):

    Justin Hertog (View Comment):
    Why do I get the impression that there are many Republicans out there who wanted Clinton to win the election and who oppose Trump now because they wanted eight more years of phony legislative showdowns with the White House that always end in capitulation and excuses. Sad!

    Don’t forget the fundraising opportunities they’re missing with all the “Stop Hillary’s Agenda!” they’re not able to send.

    Sad!

    I sincerely hope members of Congress do not try to excuse their inability to pass the big reforms they promised over the years by blaming Trump. No way.

    • #101
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.