When Hillary Clinton was running against Bernie Sanders, Daniel Denvir ended his column in Salon with this observation.
The Clintons rose to power by marginalizing the left and dividing working people against each other. Little, it seems, has changed. (from here)
Denvir complaint is not against identity politics, which he apparently supports. His problem was the way H. Clinton approached class issues. Sanders, as a socialist, focused on class warfare. Clinton?
Clinton, who not so long ago bragged that Obama had failed to attract the support of “hardworking Americans, white Americans,” is now tweeting through the lens of intersectionality and entreating white voters on the campaign trail to “recognize our privilege and practice humility.” Clinton, however, is using racial justice against class-based grievances as a tool to attack Sanders from the right. Her campaign has gone so far as to suggest that Sanders’ pledge to make public universities tuition-free is racist because it would exclude private historically black colleges and universities. Only this campaign, this year, could cause a Democrat to suggest that free public education is racist. (from here)
Intersectionality? I had to look that one up too. Denvir’s column is full of pseudointellectual babble, but he did observe something important. Instead of being about freedom and resolving our conflicts, the battle between Clinton and Sanders came down to a dispute over identity politics. Of course, now that H. Clinton has defeated Sanders tuition-free public universities are no longer racist; they are a “right”.
Have you heard that Hillary Clinton is the “first woman” ever to be nominated for president by a major political party? Of course you have. The media have repeated the line so often it is broken news.
Hillary Clinton’s nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country.
To quote Clinton in another context, “what difference does it make” that she is a woman? A liberal is a liberal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity. (continued here)
Thomas goes on to remind us that “tolerance” in the hands of Liberal Democrats politicians is just a weapon, not a sincerely held belief. When Conservative minorities (women included) reach high positions of power, Liberal Democrats don’t applaud; they attack.
Of course, Liberal Democrats try to tie Donald Trump’s rise in presidential politics to racism. H. Clinton called Trump’s supporters deplorable, even irredeemable. Inevitably some academics, Eric D. Knowles and Linda R. Tropp, went out to find “proof” she is right.
Many political commentators credit Donald Trump’s rise to white voters’ antipathy toward racial and ethnic minorities. However, we believe this focus on racial resentment obscures another important aspect of racial thinking.
In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics” – an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.
We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics. But our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump. (continue here)
We have politicians who make it their business to stir up and exploit racial divisions. Therefore, whites are growing nervous about being exploited. That’s Trump’s fault?
Blacks largely vote Democrat, but why? What do they get out of it? Consider the view of a black pastor, Rev. Bill Owens.
As a child, I picked cotton for three cents a pound. As a young man, I stood up against racial discrimination, marching with leaders like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. as part of the great Civil Rights Movement. As an adult, I worked to pass on the value of education to a new generation through the Give Me a Chance Ministry and later founded the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP).
For much of that time, like many other African-American men, I considered myself a Democrat. Then came the moment when I realized that the Democratic Party had abandoned me and my values. Now, I am astounded to see the harm they have caused to the black voters that have supported them for so long.
State-sponsored dependency, launched through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and perpetuated in endless government programs, has robbed us of our dignity and enslaved our people. Failed housing policies have destroyed the inner cities and helped turn black-on-black crime into the scourge of our communities. Abortion-on-demand has had a near-genocidal effect on our population, and all of these policies have helped encourage illegitimacy, the destruction of the family, and a terrible cycle of poverty. (from here)
Is Trump the man Owens sees as the solution? We don’t know. Owens does not tell anyone how to vote, but I think Owens sees God as the solution. What is also plain is that Owens thinks the Democrats have abandoned God. The purveyors of identity politics do not seem much willing to tolerate Christian beliefs.
So what is remarkable about Trump? How did this outsider gain the Republican nomination? Perhaps it has something to do what with Monica Crowley calls Trump’s most profound words.
In the 16 months since Donald Trump announced his candidacy, he has said many hard-hitting and provocative things.
But he has also said the single most important thing of the campaign.
It was a statement that was so obvious and deceptively simple that it largely evaporated into the political ether. But it was also a statement of such power that it transformed the Republican presidential race — and may very well determine the future path of the nation. And it was only five words long.
“I’m rich!” he exclaimed. “I’m really rich.”
That declarative statement was as profound a statement any candidate for president could make — because for eight long years, President Obama and the left have waged a vicious, relentless war on the wealthy, individual success, business and the nation’s prosperity. Personal wealth has been endlessly attacked and demonized, and economic growth has been stifled. Mr. Obama and his comrades have used brutal class warfare to radically redistribute wealth in order to achieve what he called “the fundamental transformation of the nation.” (continued here)
America use to praise success. Now too many of us envy it. When we covet what others have, devious people just pit us against each other. Instead of making America great, they encourage us to tear our country down.
Can Trump resolve our divisions, America’s epidemic of identity politics? No. Only God can heal our self-inflicted wounds, but listen to the video above. What Trump offers is far more healthy than what his opponent offers. The subject is his First 100 Day Plan.
To Be Continued