Defining Racism

[rageoftyrael1987]

So, I'm starting this thread because I'm curious about how feminists define racism. They use racism as defined, very basically as "prejudice plus power". There's obviously more to this, but if you're at all into this kind of stuff, you know what I'm talking about.

Now, what I'm curious about is if anyone can give me a good reason why they decided to change the definition of racism in this way. I'm basically looking for a reason why they made this change that is actually helpful to people.

I ask this, because I only see the negative aspects and have yet to discover why this change makes any sense. One of the issues I have with their attempt to override the previous definition is that most people know the previous definition, and so when they're conversing with someone about racism, both sides are conversing from different points of definition. Eventually, one side has to make clear what definition they're using, as there will almost certainly be some confusion. At this point, the person who is using the "prejudice plus power" definition will often pretty much demand that their definition be the accepted definition going forward.

Another issue I have is that racism as redefined to contain "power" seems to really only benefit people of color who wish to behave and converse in a racist manner, but also not be called out for being racist, because they "can't be racist" based on the definition. They'll concede that they can be prejudiced, but based on this new definition, because their particular race doesn't have institutional power, they can't be racist.

This just seems to muddy the waters and give racist people of color carte blanche to be racist, while simultaneously being certain they are doing no wrong.

Also, why couldn't they just add a word to racism, for this to make sense? Institutional Racism might work. Perhaps.... something "catchy" like Heavy Racism, or Weighted Racism. Strong Racism vs. Weak Racism.

From what I've seen, what this attempt to change the definition does is take a word that is well known and taken seriously, and subvert it's definition in such a way to support their agendas. It doesn't appear to add anything to the discussion on racism, but it does appear to help them steer the conversation in their own direction.

As you can tell, I don't much like this new definition, as I don't believe it changes anything for the better, beyond allowing feminists to control the conversation better, and allow people of color to behave poorly to towards white people and claim they aren't being racist.

However, before I simply disregard this new definition as nothing more than an attempt to control the conversation and demonize white people, I thought I'd come here and see if there were any people willing to give me some insight as to how changing the definition is beneficial not only to feminists and people of color, but to everybody as a whole.

Thanks for any input!

 

[Woberts]

Uh oh, we've got a live one!
I call upon the mighty @Stevicus!

 

[Augustus]

I'm curious about how feminists define racism

Feminists?? Why was this all their doing?

Thanks for any input!

I'd define racism as the belief that certain people are inferior due to their race/ethnicity. As such in requires an implicit intent to afford people preferential/inferior treatment due to their ethnicity.

Racism should have quite a high threshold to be a meaningful concept, and calling 'racism' at every minor stereotype, prejudice or cultural unawareness just renders the terms senseless.

Insisting on the presence of 'power' in order for something to be racist is also nonsensical as this means that racism has nothing to do with the beliefs held by an individual but by the social circumstances in which the individual is situated and are outwith their control.

As an example: 2 people of different ethnicities hold identical beliefs regarding the inferiority of the other's race. Even though they are just everyday folk, one is technically from the 'powerful' side, the other the 'disenfranchised'. Only one of these people would be a racist. Let's say there was a revolution, and now the roles are reversed. Still only one is a racist, but now it's the other one. Even though neither party has done anything, one has stopped being a racist and the other has become one.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, I'm starting this thread because I'm curious about how feminists define racism. They use racism as defined, very basically as "prejudice plus power". There's obviously more to this, but if you're at all into this kind of stuff, you know what I'm talking about.

Now, what I'm curious about is if anyone can give me a good reason why they decided to change the definition of racism in this way. I'm basically looking for a reason why they made this change that is actually helpful to people.

I ask this, because I only see the negative aspects and have yet to discover why this change makes any sense. One of the issues I have with their attempt to override the previous definition is that most people know the previous definition, and so when they're conversing with someone about racism, both sides are conversing from different points of definition. Eventually, one side has to make clear what definition they're using, as there will almost certainly be some confusion. At this point, the person who is using the "prejudice plus power" definition will often pretty much demand that their definition be the accepted definition going forward.

Another issue I have is that racism as redefined to contain "power" seems to really only benefit people of color who wish to behave and converse in a racist manner, but also not be called out for being racist, because they "can't be racist" based on the definition. They'll concede that they can be prejudiced, but based on this new definition, because their particular race doesn't have institutional power, they can't be racist.

This just seems to muddy the waters and give racist people of color carte blanche to be racist, while simultaneously being certain they are doing no wrong.

Also, why couldn't they just add a word to racism, for this to make sense? Institutional Racism might work. Perhaps.... something "catchy" like Heavy Racism, or Weighted Racism. Strong Racism vs. Weak Racism.

From what I've seen, what this attempt to change the definition does is take a word that is well known and taken seriously, and subvert it's definition in such a way to support their agendas. It doesn't appear to add anything to the discussion on racism, but it does appear to help them steer the conversation in their own direction.

As you can tell, I don't much like this new definition, as I don't believe it changes anything for the better, beyond allowing feminists to control the conversation better, and allow people of color to behave poorly to towards white people and claim they aren't being racist.

However, before I simply disregard this new definition as nothing more than an attempt to control the conversation and demonize white people, I thought I'd come here and see if there were any people willing to give me some insight as to how changing the definition is beneficial not only to feminists and people of color, but to everybody as a whole.

Thanks for any input!

My input is strictly advice about posting threads....
To define racism is a worthy topic, but tying it to feminism is distracting.
Tis best to keep a theme simple & straightforward.
This way you might get some relevant discussion before someone hijacks
for their own unrelated agenda.

 

[Quintessence]

I've never heard of this, and I don't see what it has to do with feminism. I have a sneaking suspicion this was something promulgated by bad journalism or fake news. Quite willing to be proven wrong on that point, though.

 

[Stevicus]

Uh oh, we've got a live one!
I call upon the mighty @Stevicus!

You rang?

 

[George-ananda]

They use racism as defined, very basically as "prejudice plus power".

I can't say I have heard that definition before. It sounds like a terrible definition as you point out only those that are perceived to be in power can be racist (as one criticism of the definition).

 

[Stevicus]

So, I'm starting this thread because I'm curious about how feminists define racism. They use racism as defined, very basically as "prejudice plus power". There's obviously more to this, but if you're at all into this kind of stuff, you know what I'm talking about.

Now, what I'm curious about is if anyone can give me a good reason why they decided to change the definition of racism in this way. I'm basically looking for a reason why they made this change that is actually helpful to people.

I ask this, because I only see the negative aspects and have yet to discover why this change makes any sense. One of the issues I have with their attempt to override the previous definition is that most people know the previous definition, and so when they're conversing with someone about racism, both sides are conversing from different points of definition. Eventually, one side has to make clear what definition they're using, as there will almost certainly be some confusion. At this point, the person who is using the "prejudice plus power" definition will often pretty much demand that their definition be the accepted definition going forward.

Another issue I have is that racism as redefined to contain "power" seems to really only benefit people of color who wish to behave and converse in a racist manner, but also not be called out for being racist, because they "can't be racist" based on the definition. They'll concede that they can be prejudiced, but based on this new definition, because their particular race doesn't have institutional power, they can't be racist.

This just seems to muddy the waters and give racist people of color carte blanche to be racist, while simultaneously being certain they are doing no wrong.

Also, why couldn't they just add a word to racism, for this to make sense? Institutional Racism might work. Perhaps.... something "catchy" like Heavy Racism, or Weighted Racism. Strong Racism vs. Weak Racism.

From what I've seen, what this attempt to change the definition does is take a word that is well known and taken seriously, and subvert it's definition in such a way to support their agendas. It doesn't appear to add anything to the discussion on racism, but it does appear to help them steer the conversation in their own direction.

As you can tell, I don't much like this new definition, as I don't believe it changes anything for the better, beyond allowing feminists to control the conversation better, and allow people of color to behave poorly to towards white people and claim they aren't being racist.

However, before I simply disregard this new definition as nothing more than an attempt to control the conversation and demonize white people, I thought I'd come here and see if there were any people willing to give me some insight as to how changing the definition is beneficial not only to feminists and people of color, but to everybody as a whole.

Thanks for any input!

Well, there's a lot here to go into, but one thing I would note is that for any word ending in the suffix "-ism," dictionary definitions are woefully insufficient for understanding the concept being addressed.

As the song goes: "Ev'rybody's talking 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism, ism, ism"

I'd concede that identity politics has come up with quite a few clinkers; the way liberals have approached this issue has been flawed and ill-conceived from the very start. The main flaw is that they neglected and ignored concepts of classism for far too long. Since the Civil Rights era, the rich have gotten much richer and the disparity between rich and poor has widened enormously.

My conspiratorial side considers the possibility that it could have all been a set up to keep the lower classes divided against each other. When you see it in practice, it turns out to be a cacophonous, incoherent, inconsistent ideological mess.

As a "white male" myself, I have become somewhat aware that there appears to be "someone" out there who wants me to believe that I'm being demonized and targeted solely because of my race and gender. One can probably come up with all kinds of examples out there of people publicly bashing "white males," which makes people believe that these bashers of white males are being sexist and racist, while betraying the very ideals they claim to uphold.

Of course, many would counter that these claims of demonization and white male bashing are exaggerated, that it's just a few extreme radicals who do not reflect the views of the majority of liberals or other practitioners of identity politics. In that sense, changing the definitions wouldn't really help, although everyone is free to ask for clarification in any given discussion or debate.

 

[PureX]

Racism is just bigotry based on race. But most bigots aren't that exclusive. They tend to apply their bigotry to race, sex, religion, politics and economic status more or less equally. Once the bigot feels that need to presume himself to be superior, he'll slander pretty much anyone different from himself to satisfy it.

 

[rageoftyrael1987]

Feminists?? Why was this all their doing?

I'm not sure that it is, though I do believe that it was a feminist who came up with the new definition, and it has always been feminists who seem to use it.

I'd define racism as the belief that certain people are inferior due to their race/ethnicity. As such in requires an implicit intent to afford people preferential/inferior treatment due to their ethnicity.

Racism should have quite a high threshold to be a meaningful concept, and calling 'racism' at every minor stereotype, prejudice or cultural unawareness just renders the terms senseless.

Insisting on the presence of 'power' in order for something to be racist is also nonsensical as this means that racism has nothing to do with the beliefs held by an individual but by the social circumstances in which the individual is situated and are outwith their control.

As an example: 2 people of different ethnicities hold identical beliefs regarding the inferiority of the other's race. Even though they are just everyday folk, one is technically from the 'powerful' side, the other the 'disenfranchised'. Only one of these people would be a racist. Let's say there was a revolution, and now the roles are reversed. Still only one is a racist, but now it's the other one. Even though neither party has done anything, one has stopped being a racist and the other has become one.

I absolutely agree with pretty much all of this. I've definitely hit a point of boredom with what people are willing to call people racist for. I honestly feel that intent is very important to tell whether someone is racist or not, as I believe we all can accidentally say something perceived as racist without having any intent behind it. It honestly feels like a tool for some people, who either can't debate with someone they disagree with, or simply doesn't want to. "I don't have to debate this racist!"

Also, yeah, your example very much indicates what I see wrong with this attempt to redefine racism. As I said, if they had simply added a word, to make it clear they were speaking about racism, but a different kind, that'd be all well and good. Instead, people have simply taken this new definition and claimed it as the only valid one. Obviously not most people, as most people become nonplussed when they hear of this new definition, but those with an agenda have taken to it quite well. I believe this may have to do with the idea that the new form of racism allows people of color to become automatic victims and incapable of being the aggressor, even when their rhetoric is blatantly prejudiced and actually quite aggressive.

As we all likely know, people will often identify and side with a victim before they will an aggressor.

Well, there's a lot here to go into, but one thing I would note is that for any word ending in the suffix "-ism," dictionary definitions are woefully insufficient for understanding the concept being addressed.

As the song goes: "Ev'rybody's talking 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism, ism, ism"

I'd concede that identity politics has come up with quite a few clinkers; the way liberals have approached this issue has been flawed and ill-conceived from the very start. The main flaw is that they neglected and ignored concepts of classism for far too long. Since the Civil Rights era, the rich have gotten much richer and the disparity between rich and poor has widened enormously.

My conspiratorial side considers the possibility that it could have all been a set up to keep the lower classes divided against each other. When you see it in practice, it turns out to be a cacophonous, incoherent, inconsistent ideological mess.

As a "white male" myself, I have become somewhat aware that there appears to be "someone" out there who wants me to believe that I'm being demonized and targeted solely because of my race and gender. One can probably come up with all kinds of examples out there of people publicly bashing "white males," which makes people believe that these bashers of white males are being sexist and racist, while betraying the very ideals they claim to uphold.

Of course, many would counter that these claims of demonization and white male bashing are exaggerated, that it's just a few extreme radicals who do not reflect the views of the majority of liberals or other practitioners of identity politics. In that sense, changing the definitions wouldn't really help, although everyone is free to ask for clarification in any given discussion or debate.

I absolutely agree with your views on classism. While I will not pretend that racism doesn't exist, it has always seemed to me that classism has had a much heavier hand in the tales of woe many people of color have. While there are people who are clearly racist, who like to talk about how black people commit all this crime and etc. I have very much argued with these people that anything they point towards black people can just as easily be pointed at with poor white folk. The ghetto is full of crime? Have you ever been to the poor areas where white people live? It's not much better. Black men don't want to take care of their children? I haven't noticed that an exactly stellar rate of poor white men stepping up to take care of their children either.

I absolutely agree that classism is a very much overlooked part of the whole conversation, but when somebody is focused on racism as the answer, my response of "What about classism." Is often ignored or derided.


Revoltingest - I appreciate the tips. I'll keep that in mind in the future.

 

[Shad]

So, I'm starting this thread because I'm curious about how feminists define racism. They use racism as defined, very basically as "prejudice plus power". There's obviously more to this, but if you're at all into this kind of stuff, you know what I'm talking about.

Now, what I'm curious about is if anyone can give me a good reason why they decided to change the definition of racism in this way. I'm basically looking for a reason why they made this change that is actually helpful to people.

It helps them with their ideology and group-think.

 

[sealchan]

Well, there's a lot here to go into, but one thing I would note is that for any word ending in the suffix "-ism," dictionary definitions are woefully insufficient for understanding the concept being addressed.

As the song goes: "Ev'rybody's talking 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism, ism, ism"

I'd concede that identity politics has come up with quite a few clinkers; the way liberals have approached this issue has been flawed and ill-conceived from the very start. The main flaw is that they neglected and ignored concepts of classism for far too long. Since the Civil Rights era, the rich have gotten much richer and the disparity between rich and poor has widened enormously.

My conspiratorial side considers the possibility that it could have all been a set up to keep the lower classes divided against each other. When you see it in practice, it turns out to be a cacophonous, incoherent, inconsistent ideological mess.

As a "white male" myself, I have become somewhat aware that there appears to be "someone" out there who wants me to believe that I'm being demonized and targeted solely because of my race and gender. One can probably come up with all kinds of examples out there of people publicly bashing "white males," which makes people believe that these bashers of white males are being sexist and racist, while betraying the very ideals they claim to uphold.

Of course, many would counter that these claims of demonization and white male bashing are exaggerated, that it's just a few extreme radicals who do not reflect the views of the majority of liberals or other practitioners of identity politics. In that sense, changing the definitions wouldn't really help, although everyone is free to ask for clarification in any given discussion or debate.

There is a need to identify systemic racism I think and maybe that is where the power comes in. You can have racism in terms of individual attitude and choice but there is also a need to recognize if the individual wields power in a cultural system. Sometimes that power impacts beyond the scope of individual attitude or choice.

 

[rageoftyrael1987]

There is a need to identify systemic racism I think and maybe that is where the power comes in. You can have racism in terms of individual attitude and choice but there is also a need to recognize if the individual wields power in a cultural system. Sometimes that power impacts beyond the scope of individual attitude or choice.

I understand that, but why does that potential need mean we need to change the definition of racism? As I said, it would have been much simpler for everyone else if they'd just added a word to it, to make it clear they meant something other than what most people understand racism to mean. If somebody was talking about racism, and they meant to include the power concept, systemic racism seems like a valid way of putting it. The other person would likely immediately stop and ask what the difference was, rather than them potentially talking at length, before they realize they're using two different definitions.

I'm not questioning the need for conversation around the idea of power plus prejudice, I'm questioning why they chose to simply discard the old definition in favor of this new one, that seems clearly biased for their agenda.

 

[sealchan]

I understand that, but why does that potential need mean we need to change the definition of racism? As I said, it would have been much simpler for everyone else if they'd just added a word to it, to make it clear they meant something other than what most people understand racism to mean. If somebody was talking about racism, and they meant to include the power concept, systemic racism seems like a valid way of putting it. The other person would likely immediately stop and ask what the difference was, rather than them potentially talking at length, before they realize they're using two different definitions.

I'm not questioning the need for conversation around the idea of power plus prejudice, I'm questioning why they chose to simply discard the old definition in favor of this new one, that seems clearly biased for their agenda.

I see your point...but maybe the goal is to define racism as other than just a personal bias. Maybe this definition comes out of an activist or academic perspective that is wanting to focus on racism as only a systemic issue and remove the "tangent" of psychological bias. Not sure if that even makes sense.

i suppose I would agree that the redefinition is confusing and that if an organization or a academic group wants to focus on the power politics of racism that a new compound term would be less awkward.

My thoughts...

Systemic racism
Institutional racism

 

[Stevicus]

I absolutely agree that classism is a very much overlooked part of the whole conversation, but when somebody is focused on racism as the answer, my response of "What about classism." Is often ignored or derided.

That's the hypocrisy of today's modern "liberals" who have abandoned the working classes in favor of the elite. That's why they're losing hearts and minds by the millions lately.

 

[sealchan]

That's the hypocrisy of today's modern "liberals" who have abandoned the working classes in favor of the elite. That's why they're losing hearts and minds by the millions lately.

That's one way to look at it. But with the last election where there were multiple Republican candidates for President the conservatives chose the one candidate they thought best...now polls show, by my calculations that those conservatives are approximately 60% xenophobes who see whites and/or Christian's as the culture of this nation and they dont want that to change. As their leader they have selected he who shall not be named.

Xenophobia is a step too far for the vast majority of liberals. The net gain of hearts of the non whites and the younger generations is worth it especially in the long run.

Each side has their elites and their commoners.

 

[Stevicus]

That's one way to look at it. But with the last election where there were multiple Republican candidates for President the conservatives chose the one candidate they thought best...now polls show, by my calculations that those conservatives are approximately 60% xenophobes who see whites and/or Christian's as the culture of this nation and they dont want that to change. As their leader they have selected he who shall not be named.

Xenophobia is a step too far for the vast majority of liberals. The net gain of hearts of the non whites and the younger generations is worth it especially in the long run.

Each side has their elites and their commoners.

That may have been true for some voters, but in the key states which shifted the election in _____'s favor (such as in the Rust Belt), the idea of opposing free trade and bringing manufacturing jobs back to America resonated with a lot of people. It's something they hadn't heard from either party in a long time, as both Republicans and Democrats were largely in favor of free trade.

I doubt that xenophobia had much to do with it, although on that subject, the Democrats were quick to jump on the xenophobia bandwagon when it suited them, with all the talk about "foreign interference" regarding the last election.

 

[sealchan]

That may have been true for some voters, but in the key states which shifted the election in _____'s favor (such as in the Rust Belt), the idea of opposing free trade and bringing manufacturing jobs back to America resonated with a lot of people. It's something they hadn't heard from either party in a long time, as both Republicans and Democrats were largely in favor of free trade.

I doubt that xenophobia had much to do with it, although on that subject, the Democrats were quick to jump on the xenophobia bandwagon when it suited them, with all the talk about "foreign interference" regarding the last election.

What I said about 60% was based on a detailed survey which categorized Trump voters on a number of issues. Surveys taken before the election looked at the economic, border security and other issues and they under estimated the turnout for Trump. Later multiple surveys looked at xenophobia and found that that was a very significant factor in who voted for Trump.

Immigration, border security and voting reform are cover issues for those who dont want what they think of as America (white and Christian) to disappear. A Muslim ban is not border security and is against what security experts from several past administrations recommend) and there was never wide spread voter fraud to investigate. These are false concerns raised by a president feeding prejudice to a base who fears losing their dominance. Look at the surveys.

Here is a detailed one for starters...

The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

 

[Stevicus]

What I said about 60% was based on a detailed survey which categorized Trump voters on a number of issues. Surveys taken before the election looked at the economic, border security and other issues and they under estimated the turnout for Trump. Later multiple surveys looked at xenophobia and found that that was a very significant factor in who voted for Trump.

Immigration, border security and voting reform are cover issues for those who dont want what they think of as America (white and Christian) to disappear. A Muslim ban is not border security and is against what security experts from several past administrations recommend) and there was never wide spread voter fraud to investigate. These are false concerns raised by a president feeding prejudice to a base who fears losing their dominance. Look at the surveys.

Here is a detailed one for starters...

The Five Types of Trump Voters | Democracy Fund Voter Study Group

As I said, this may be true for some voters, although in this survey, the group you're describing above would fall under the category of "American Preservationists," which (according to the survey) was only 20%. I was referring more to the crossover voters, the ones who made an actual difference in the election. (Recall that the pre-election polls and surveys predicted a Hillary triumph, so that just goes to show how accurate polls are.)

I don't doubt that xenophobia is on the rise, as this also appears to be true in other countries as well. It's also true that a flagging economy can be a contributory factor in leading to xenophobia, not to mention the effect of decades of propaganda about how many "boogiemen" there are in the world.

Of course, a lot of this can be blamed on the GOP, and that may explain why the establishment GOP candidates were tossed aside in favor of Trump, who was even a maverick within his own party (and a former Democrat to boot).

But the Democrats also gave in to the GOP agenda on a lot of issues, particularly in the realm of economics, foreign policy, and trade. So, on those issues, the voters saw no appreciable difference between the two parties. Even on the issue of border security, the Democrats essentially gave in to the War on Drugs and refused to support legalization.

The Democrats ostensibly devoted most of their political capital on identity politics, which was seemingly effective in rallying their traditional voting blocs for short-term gains, but it was done at the expense of losing a good many working class voters which had been their major voting bloc for over half a century.

I suppose it may be true that some Americans who identify as white or Christian may be afraid of losing dominance, but remember that this is also multiply-connected to the ruling class' intensive push towards American exceptionalism and the notion that America is the "leader of the free world."

For decades, the flag-wavers and militarists have pushed the idea that America is defending "freedom" and "democracy" around the world, fighting terrorism and tyranny. Even the Democrats have mostly given in on this idea (despite having a history of sharply opposing these notions, such as during the 60s and 70s).

If the propagandists are going to keep drumming this idea that America is so "great" and "noble" for decades in the hearts and minds of the American people, along with the idea that there are so many "enemies" around the world requiring our militaristic attention, then it really should be no surprise that we see the kind of side effect leading to xenophobia and fear that America may be threatened or losing its dominance.

It all ties in with the agenda of the ruling class which has been evident for a very long time. If they didn't realize the consequences of their manipulative and warlike propaganda, then it means that they're out of touch and really don't understand enough about Middle America.

Apart from that, people tend to vote based on what affects them personally more than anything else. As an example, most Americans aren't Muslim, so they're not necessarily going to be all fired about a Muslim ban as much as the political elite think they should be. Most Americans aren't going to cross the border illegally, so they're not going to be all fired up about a wall along the border, not as much as some elitists think they should be.

It doesn't mean they would necessarily support these things either, but it's clear that other issues took a higher priority in their eyes. When so many tens of millions are struggling to make ends meet, it's hard to make them care about the plight of those who aren't even in this country yet.

For those who have lucrative careers, live in nice homes, and have more than enough money to feed themselves - a lot of people see that they're ahead of the game and have very little to complain about. This is true even they can't get a wedding cake or if some creepy guy touched them in a private place. Being hungry, homeless, unemployed/underemployed is much, much worse in many people's eyes. If the elite Democrats are unwilling or unable to understand this, then that's on them.

 

[sealchan]

As I said, this may be true for some voters, although in this survey, the group you're describing above would fall under the category of "American Preservationists," which (according to the survey) was only 20%. I was referring more to the crossover voters, the ones who made an actual difference in the election. (Recall that the pre-election polls and surveys predicted a Hillary triumph, so that just goes to show how accurate polls are.)

I don't doubt that xenophobia is on the rise, as this also appears to be true in other countries as well. It's also true that a flagging economy can be a contributory factor in leading to xenophobia, not to mention the effect of decades of propaganda about how many "boogiemen" there are in the world.

Of course, a lot of this can be blamed on the GOP, and that may explain why the establishment GOP candidates were tossed aside in favor of Trump, who was even a maverick within his own party (and a former Democrat to boot).

But the Democrats also gave in to the GOP agenda on a lot of issues, particularly in the realm of economics, foreign policy, and trade. So, on those issues, the voters saw no appreciable difference between the two parties. Even on the issue of border security, the Democrats essentially gave in to the War on Drugs and refused to support legalization.

The Democrats ostensibly devoted most of their political capital on identity politics, which was seemingly effective in rallying their traditional voting blocs for short-term gains, but it was done at the expense of losing a good many working class voters which had been their major voting bloc for over half a century.

I suppose it may be true that some Americans who identify as white or Christian may be afraid of losing dominance, but remember that this is also multiply-connected to the ruling class' intensive push towards American exceptionalism and the notion that America is the "leader of the free world."

For decades, the flag-wavers and militarists have pushed the idea that America is defending "freedom" and "democracy" around the world, fighting terrorism and tyranny. Even the Democrats have mostly given in on this idea (despite having a history of sharply opposing these notions, such as during the 60s and 70s).

If the propagandists are going to keep drumming this idea that America is so "great" and "noble" for decades in the hearts and minds of the American people, along with the idea that there are so many "enemies" around the world requiring our militaristic attention, then it really should be no surprise that we see the kind of side effect leading to xenophobia and fear that America may be threatened or losing its dominance.

It all ties in with the agenda of the ruling class which has been evident for a very long time. If they didn't realize the consequences of their manipulative and warlike propaganda, then it means that they're out of touch and really don't understand enough about Middle America.

Apart from that, people tend to vote based on what affects them personally more than anything else. As an example, most Americans aren't Muslim, so they're not necessarily going to be all fired about a Muslim ban as much as the political elite think they should be. Most Americans aren't going to cross the border illegally, so they're not going to be all fired up about a wall along the border, not as much as some elitists think they should be.

It doesn't mean they would necessarily support these things either, but it's clear that other issues took a higher priority in their eyes. When so many tens of millions are struggling to make ends meet, it's hard to make them care about the plight of those who aren't even in this country yet.

For those who have lucrative careers, live in nice homes, and have more than enough money to feed themselves - a lot of people see that they're ahead of the game and have very little to complain about. This is true even they can't get a wedding cake or if some creepy guy touched them in a private place. Being hungry, homeless, unemployed/underemployed is much, much worse in many people's eyes. If the elite Democrats are unwilling or unable to understand this, then that's on them.

I used to think it was the economy until surveys demonstrated it was xenophobia.

Also see the thread...

A Measure of Xenophobia

...for how I calculated that 60% of Trump voters are behind xenophobic ideals or policies with a basis not in substance but xenophobia.