The thread linked above is very good and very clear, and well worth reading.
I've been arguing for years for the importance of the specificity of the term "white supremacy"—referring, as it originally did, to the political project of implementing white rule. It really is an essential framing for understanding the modern GOP.
One quick thing about white supremacy. In an electorate in which white people are an overwhelming majority, it doesn't require exclusion of people of color from political life.
You can see this in California in the early 20th century. In communities in which Japanese-Americans were a small minority, there tended not to be as much segregation. As their numbers rose, so did racial oppression.
There are times and places where racism against tiny minorities (or even non-present groups) drives politics. But you can have white supremacy without racial exclusion, when and where white people are numerically dominant.
This is why it's no contradiction to note (1) that there are people of color in the GOP and (2) that the GOP is a white supremacist party—because what's central to GOP ideology right now is maintaining a majority-white electorate, not excluding people of color entirely.
One more thing on Obama's presidency. Yes, as Zimmer notes, it marked the end of white voters' numerical dominance in presidential elections.
But note the symbolism as well. The Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, a white southern Democrat.
Here's the winner of every election since then:
1964: White male southern Dem.
1968: GOP
1972: GOP
1976: White male southern Dem.
1980: GOP
1984: GOP
1988: GOP
1992: White male southern Dem.
1996: White male southern Dem.
2000: GOP
2004: GOP
2008: Obama
2012: Obama
2016: Trump
Through all the turmoil of the 1960s and the economic and demographic transformation that followed, Democrats were represented in the White House only by moderate white male Southerners. Until Obama. And then all hell broke loose.
(Once you work through all this, by the way, the underpinning of contemporary arguments for the centrality of the Electoral College to American democracy becomes crystal clear.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Once a year I emerge from my lair, see my shadow, and remind you that Al Franken is never going to be a US Senator again. thehill.com/homenews/senat…
Last time this came up, I noted that Minnesota's two senators are both women, and both much younger than Franken. Neither is retiring soon, and his not going to challenge either of them in a primary.
Since then, Franken has apparently moved to New York City. He recently conceded the obvious fact that there's no way in hell he's going to primary Gillibrand, and that leaves Chuck Schumer.
More than half of the 38 Harvard professors who signed an open letter backing an accused sexual harasser on the college's faculty now say they no longer stand by the statement. bostonglobe.com/2022/02/08/met…
Twenty of the 38 signers have withdrawn their names. This after two of the twenty released a statement saying that the letter wasn't intended to say what it very clearly said. thecrimson.com/article/2022/2…
Four more Harvard profs removed their names from the Comaroff support letter overnight, bringing the total to 24 withdrawals out of 38 signatories. bostonglobe.com/2022/02/08/met…
"We need to use the n word while quoting racists so people will know how anti-racist we are, and I don't care if you think that's racist" is a seriously strange take.
Like, yes, I understand that there are arguments to be made that articulating that word is sometimes an antiracist practice. I find them far less compelling than I used to, but I understand them. But this ... isn't that.
Wartching Desperately Seeking Susan with the kid, and am overcome by a vertiginous wave of longing for the shitty downtown magic club. If that place existed, I’d be there twice a week.
It’s like Marie’s Crisis, Spain, and the Coney Island freak show had a baby.
This is our second or third time watching it, and was the outcome of a 20-minute “what to watch tonight” negotiation.
Lots of people confused by this claim, and with good reason—the data Yglesias used came from a study that estimated population once a century. His chart, and particularly his tweet, doesn't reflect that.
So yes, London was probably the biggest city in the world in 1900, but no, that doesn't mean it was the biggest from 1900 to 2000, or that Tokyo "suddenly" took over that year.
Everything sucks, nothing's getting better, and it increasingly feels to many people like nothing CAN get better. So OF COURSE if you ask people "how are you doing?" questions they're going to respond in tones of despair.
(To put it another way, if you click through to @Nate_Cohn's thread, I think he's got it mostly right, though I'd underscore existential despair more than he does.)
I also think Cohn is 100% right to say that how people respond to questions about the economy aren't solely, or in many cases even primarily, about how they feel about the economy right now.