Guest Post by Diantha Day Sprouse-- Part 2: The Dominant Class of Angry White People Elected Donald J. Trump

The Dominant Class of Angry White People Elected Donald J. Trump
by Diantha Day Sprouse

Part 2 of 2
(Go to Part I here.)

The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States is nothing less than mockery of the American democratic process, mockery of the American Constitutional form of government, and a triumph for the white nationalistic, supremacist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and authoritarian forces in American society. Donald J. Trump’s victory, and elevation to the status as president, is a backlash of the white dominant class against the collective minority classes within the United States and an omen to liberal democracy of things to come. On January 20, 2017 we will say goodbye to the first African-American President of the United States. Barack Hussein Obama has served this great nation with compassion, dignity, integrity, and generosity. We will be witness to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump to the presidency of the United States. Donald J. Trump, a white man who curried the favor of the white supremacist, nativist, nationalist, xenophobic, and neo-Nazi elements in this country by promising to restore to them the glory days of Jim Crow, will now be President. A con man, a flimflam artist, and philanderer is President. It is hard to imagine a worse candidate for President. Yet the American dominant class composed largely of white men and women have struck back in an attempt to strike down all the social and fiscal changes that have leveled the playing field for the minority groups within the United States.

Unfortunately the ramifications of this ill-conceived Presidency are likely to have long-term effects: a socially and fiscally conservative Supreme Court; a President who considers women chattel property and minorities as leeches, who has a total disregard for civil liberties, truth, and scientific fact, and a man who discourages simple human decency in favor of denigration. Trump espouses and encourages the unbridled vulgarity, know-nothing attitude, disdain for education, and love of a dog-eat-dog free-market approach to economics that is the mantra of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. His campaign rhetoric inflamed the passion of the angry white person, especially the angry white male and to a lesser extent the angry white female. His president-elect acceptance speech and post-election behavior continues to inflame racists to take actions they feared to take under the last four previous administrations. I expect his presidency will be no different. This dominant class made up largely of angry white people now has a leader of whom they approve and who approves of them, and that combination will sorely test the strength and resolve of this nation to remain one nation undivided with liberty and justice for all.

This dominant class of angry white men and women dashed the hopes of feminists by putting Hilary Clinton in her place. They showed how easy it is to smear a woman’s reputation. The employment of fake news sites proliferated and had one main focus---destroy any chance that Hilary Clinton had of becoming president by any means necessary, using connections in Congress and the FBI to agitate and foment suspicion. Angrily beat that horse even after it was dead was their motto. They relentlessly used innuendo and vague references to undermine her credibility. She valiantly fought off relentless attack after vicious attack; however, the forces of angry white men and the collaboration of angry white women just kept coming with one lie after another. I think that Hilary Clinton had no idea how social media and fake news sites were proliferating the innuendo, vague rumors, and fantastic stories of atrocities committed by her or in her name.

This dominant class of angry white men and women has with the election of Donald J. Trump, the epitome of “the ugly American” and antithetical to openness and inclusiveness, dealt a horrendous blow to all who believed in the inherent goodness of people. The dominant class of angry white people has decided that all of us should live in their world, where white vanity is in vogue, hatred of the Other is normative, white arrogance is merely pride of heritage, where there is no truth but their truth, where recklessness is heroic and patriotic, and disdain of democratic process is their right. As in Germany in the 1930s, these attitudes and behaviors will lead us into a world of misery, national decline and untold suffering.

Commentators, talking heads of all kinds, are trying to normalize the situation by telling us to remain calm and we are good people here in America and everything will be just fine. They are down-playing the virulence of the racist rants and hate crimes. They refused to report on the debacle at Standing Rock and the poisoning of the Navajo waters by mine waste. In the meanwhile, Donald J. Trump flies around in his private aircraft, refuses to live in the White House, and takes actions that he has no authority to take.

This dominant class of angry white people are behaving foolishly, recklessly, and self destructively both in the aggregate and as individuals. They now have a narcissistic, cunning demagogue who is only too willing to whip them into a frenzy of white pride and rage and ride the waves of their adulation.

 *****

 Diantha Sprouse earned a BA in psychology with a minor in women's studies from Ohio State University.  She earned her MSE from the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. She is currently the sole proprietor of Heritage Hunters Genealogy Services. She resides in Arlington,  Virginia with her spouse of thirty plus years and their dog Rex.

Guest Post by Diantha Day Sprouse-- Part 1: Who Are Those Angry White People who Voted for Donald J. Trump, and What Do They Want?

Who Are Those Angry White People who Voted for Donald J. Trump, and What Do They Want?

by Diantha Day Sprouse


Part 1 of 2

The 2016 election was fueled by class anger, an anger that has been slowly building for four decades. Many people were caught off guard and completely surprised by the breadth and depth of this long held slow simmered anger-- the anger that comes from thwarted dreams.

The dream is to live in your own Class milieu where you feel comfortable with enough money to grow and flourish. The dream is to be independent and order your own life and not take orders from anyone else. The dream is to own your own business and be self-sufficient.

The people who hold this dream of a comfortable independent life know that Alexander Hamilton was right when he wrote, "He who pays is the master" and "A power over a man's support is a power over his will." The independence-minded middle class/working class wants no man to have power over their wills and wants to be beholden to no man.

During this past year I've been in conversation with two men who typify the working class/middle class. What they had to say reveals the anger and frustrations of people whose dreams have been stunted, people who are misunderstood. Danny M. is a young man who has a family to support and a full-time job. He wants a comfortable life for his family. Ray E. is a little older than Danny M. and more passionate in his support of Mr. Trump. Ray E. has a family and a full time job. He also works two part- time jobs to allow his family to flourish. Neither man would be described as working poor. Some of the things they have to say may illuminate what the middle class/working class is thinking, feeling, hoping and dreaming.

Danny described Mr. Trump's victory this way: "The middle class woke up. Voters who occupy 90% of the nation's land mass stood up and put their middle finger in the face of liberalism and said get the hell out of the way." When we look at the final vote tallies from the 2016 election we see that the center of the nation is colored red for Donald Trump the conservative candidate. If we look at the same map by county rather than state we see a map in which the rural areas are red and the cities are blue.

This is a middle class/working class that is acutely aware of the domestic issues in America. Ray E. says we need to take care of the following issues: "employment numbers, people dependent on assistance, economic health, and neglected infrastructure."

The middle class/working class believes that the restoration of independence and self-confidence in people's ability to take care of themselves will go a long way toward remedying the nations problems. Both Danny and Ray believe that both political parties forgot about the middle class/working class. Ray says he feels like a "forgotten person". Danny says he feels that perhaps he is "out of touch with modern thinking" and describes himself as a "traditionalist."

So why did so many of the middle class/working class vote for Mr. Trump?

The middle class/working class admires the rich but resents the professional white-collar class. Why? For the most part, the middle-class worker has little direct contact with the rich except through television programs. However, professional white collar managers order them around every day. Teachers are perceived to be condescending, patronizing, and generally unhelpful. When I was in high school the guidance counselor told me to "forget about college and just marry a farmer." Rich people are perceived to be independent, hardworking, and taking orders from no one. That perception is part of Donald Trump's appeal.

Middle class/working class people like people to speak their minds and to be open to the point of bluntness. Trump's blunt talk taps that working class/middle class value.

Middle class/working class men perceive themselves to have a manly dignity linked to their ability to take care of their families and themselves. Mr.Trump's persona as an independent man who can take care of his family and himself mirrors that value.

One mistake that liberals have made is to conflate the middle class/working class with the working poor. The needs of the bottom 30% of American families are very different from those of the working middle class. Offers of sick leave, increases in minimum wage, and childcare are often seen as insulting. The middle class/working class want a return of stable full-time jobs that generate a solid middle class/working class life.

Ray feels that "our silent majority movement has nothing to do with taking anything from anyone except politicians and criminals.....it's more about being sure we are included in the future of America....rights to life liberty, and pursuit of happiness." There is a perception grounded in reality that the middle class/working class has been ignored and neglected while the poor have had the lion's share of attention from politicians and social programming alike. This has led to some resentment of the poor by the middle class/working class. Mr.Trump has vowed to help the middle class/working class.

One of the unintended consequences of Mr. Trump's rhetoric has been that groups such as the neo-Nazi party and the Ku Klux Klan feel encouraged and emboldened. How does a typical Donald Trump supporter feel about these groups attaching themselves to the Trump campaign? Ray says he finds these groups attaching themselves to the Trump campaign "offensive." Danny also finds them to be "undesirable" and a "blot" on society.

The middle class/working class has made it clear that they are putting both political parties on notice. Forget us again at your peril. If Mr.Trump does not keep his promises, Ray says, "I will be right there against him with the same enthusiasm that I had while putting him in office." Danny says, "Trump has the opportunity to expand or destroy the conservative brand. There is no in-between, so I have a VERY strong eye on him."

Only time will tell us whether the middle class/working class achieves it dream. Time and history will judge the success of this awakening of the behemoth that is the American middle class/working class. Will the middle class/working class be betrayed by their new hero? Will the Democrats raise a hero for the middle class/working class in the next election cycle? Only time will tell.

Go to Part II here.

Diantha Sprouse earned a BA in psychology with a minor in women's studies from Ohio State University. She earned her MSE from the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. She is currently the sole proprietor of Heritage Hunters Genealogy Services. She resides in Arlington, Virginia with her spouse of thirty plus years and their dog Rex.

The wonderful Elizabeth Warren dissects the "class warfare" charge

Steve Benen provides a partial transcript of the video:

[Elizabeth] Warren, after explaining some of the reasons for the nation’s deep fiscal hole, pointed to a more sensible approach to economic policy in general. “I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.


“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Deconstructing Sheri Tepper's 2008 Interview with Strange Horizons

So, someone asked me what was so offensive about Tepper's interview. After reading her comments, I'm convinced that it might actually be helpful to some people if I did a deconstruction. I don't usually fisk things because it's a format I usually find boring, but it seemed like the best way to come at this.

I'm not going to post the whole thing here, but I still think writing about racism in feminist science fiction is, you know, relevant to the whole Aqueduct Press thing, so I wanted to post some of it here. The rest is at my livejournal.

In sum: This is not a well-researched, annotated, considered response. This is off the cuff, based only on the information I have at hand to draw. I didn't fact even fact check myself. But even if some points are weak or badly stated (quite possible), I think this establishes the rudimentary foundations for why I found Tepper's argument so desperately offensive.

Any given one of these comments I'm criticizing may not be so bad. Certainly, some of them are much, much worse than others. Taken all together, they suggest a certain amount of authoritarianism and black and white thinking, ignorance of or willingness to ignore context & culture, and lots and lots of racism.


Excerpts:

Was she ranting? I don't know? Maybe she was ranting? I get ranting and, you know, if what she said wasn't meant for a literal reading then yay?... but her books mirror these points of view and it's clearly something she's thought out so it's not like "she got on a tear and just went with it." If this is a recurring rant, even one not meant to be taken seriously, she should probably consider the ways in which ableism/etc are fundamentally integrated into it.

Mother Teresa would have done more for humanity by convincing the poor of India to use birth control than she did by being sainted.

So. Of course, this exists in a world in which the stuff Nicoll is talking about in the other thread (first comment) also exists. So, that's point one. Basically point two is that westerners are extremely keen on telling brown people especially, and poor people generally, how many babies they should have because OTHERWISE DOOM. People from those populations push back at the idea by, you know, pointing out that the kind of ecological impact from an Indian child is nowhere like the kind of ecological impact from the average American child. We do not need to prevent brown people from having children in order to save the world; given the history of A) colonialism generally and B) white people attempting to prevent brown people from having children, the fact that this is a popular talking point solution is very disturbing. Additionally, research indicates that birth rates lower when women are given economic resources and education. The idea that one should take away options from women, rather than giving them options--all in order to achieve the same effect--is not awesome. Also, at one point, IIRC, (I don't know if it's still true), India had a number of political seats reserved for women (good) but whether or not women could access them was dependent on how many kids they'd had (not good), and Tepper's comments exist in that world. (ETA: This is apparently incorrect--see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Reservation_Bill--my apologies for the misinformation and for my misconception. Thanks to @jayaprakash) Tepper may not be aware of this shit, but at some point, if she's advocating policies that require taking over the bodies of poor brown people, it sort of becomes her obligation to be aware.

and, they are tribal. Tribal religions, languages, and cultures are bad news. No one with any sense would ever start a war with a tribal country because you would never have any way of knowing who the enemy is at any given time. It took Bill Clinton a few short weeks to figure this out. Bush will never figure it out if he lives to be a hundred. You can conquer and dominate a tribal country, as "the Raj" did in India, but you cannot "work with it" to instill democracy or any other "-cracy." And if you turn over a country to a tribal people, it turns overnight into a tyranny with one tribe dominant.

Ooooookay. So, religions that she detests have features in common. This could be not so racist; e.g. American Christianity could be one of those religions. But one of the features these religions share is being tribal, a word associated with brown people, and sure enough, they are immediately & directly put in contrast with white Americans. Then we have this interesting "you can't work with tribal people" thing which puts them in contrast to white people who apparently can be worked with? India is not a democracy because it is a tyranny with a single dominant tribe? By the rules set out here, America ISN'T a tyranny with a single dominant tribe? You can't "turn the country over" to brown people because they will run it wrong? Seriously?

Regarding the money quote:

Humans cannot purposefully injure others. They have to be capable, once adults, of controlling what they do. Persons who look human but who are uncontrollable or who habitually hurt other people will no longer be defined as human.

Okay. So. Humans who habitually hurt other people will no longer be defined as human. Someone said in your other thread that it must be very hard to see people as inherently good and realize, daily, that they aren't. Sometimes people are complex. Sometimes humans habitually hurt people in some ways and do other stuff, too. So, let's chalk this up to black and white thinking, but I'm going to basically give it to her with the assumption that if she was explicating, she would define what "habitually hurt" means (does colonialism count?)

Then there's the whole "controlling what they do" thing. This is where the ableism/crazy bit comes in, esp because she later uses the word crazy in what appears to be an explication of what "can't control yourself" means. A generous reading indicates that she means that she's declassifying people who HURT OTHERS because they can't control what they do, but that's not exactly what she said. She said OR. I hope OR wasn't what she meant. It probably wasn't. Right? But invoking crazy people and then talking about eugenics (via forced sterilization) also invokes this lovely history America has of forcibly sterilizing people in institutions. Have you read WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME? I assume so? Classification of uncontrollable or crazy is influenced by cultural factors. See also: drapetomania. But more troubling is that the kind of walled city she later invokes reads like some of the abuses perpetuated (historically and contemporarily) by institutions. She's advocating for the kind of cruel treatment crazy people already sometimes get. Again, maybe all this is unintentional, but when you're making this argument, especially while taking on the mantle of advocating in the name of social justice, it's sort of incumbent on you not to stomp on the necks of already oppressed groups, yeah?

Every person born of human parents is not necessarily human. Those born to other parents might be, however. Probably the bonobos are human.

...I expect this was just… a turn of phrase… but it does also suggest that she thinks of some humans (based on behavior) as lower than non-humans (who are not being judged by behavior). Race implications of saying humans one does not like are not people, particularly then going on to invoke ape imagery? And also in, as someone in your earlier thread said, the context of black men in prison populations like the proposed walled city? Like whoa. See also: PETA campaigns where slaves are compared to chickens; lynched men to hung meat; Jews to penned pigs.

The cities for nonhumans will not get overcrowded because the inhabitants will probably kill each other off fairly regularly.

…woo?

Seriously, what the fuck? This is the logic that makes prison rape an ongoing nightmare. This is the logic that chains jailed women giving birth. This is the logic that feeds prisoners green meat. This is the logic that waterboards, that puts prisoners in stress positions, that pries off their fingernails, that presses them with weights, that carves out their organs before putting them in the fire.

And another thing. Look, if you're a radical, then police brutality is something you should be fucking aware of. State abuses are something you should be aware of! Police killing black people on a regular basis and not being punished for it is something you should be aware of. I don't know if I agree with the prison abolition argument, but it's there; it's this progressive idea that demands response when someone talking about social justice is making an argument about the awesomeness of deliberately violent prisons. Is the violence of the system really that much more awesome than the violence perpetuated by individuals?

Are all the arguments about the death penalty going out the window, too? The death penalty applies for everything? Really? Super really? And it's just okay? And I don't think judging fantasies by the real world is always awesome, but with all this other shit going on, too, I really have to ask--in this real world, wherein black people are imprisoned at enormous rates, wherein the apportionment of the death penalty is vastly influenced by race and class, wherein people who are determined to have significant cognitive impairments are killed… is it really a great idea to argue that whatever, it's fine for anyone who contravenes Tepper law to just die?

Walled cities will be built in the wastelands and all nonhuman persons will be sterilized and sent to live there, together, raising their own food

Yay forcible sterilization. This might be less disturbing if so many of her books did not have "yay eugenics" themes. Just ranting? Maybe? But she rants like this a lot. And it's somehow super easier for white, first world ladies to come back to the idea that "oh, eugenics could really work IF ONLY WE IMPLEMENTED IT CORRECTLY" than it is for people who, you know, MIGHT BE SUBJECTED TO IT.

There will be no chat about this sequestration being "inhumane," because the persons so confined are not human by definition… The cities for nonhumans will not get overcrowded because the inhabitants will probably kill each other off fairly regularly.

As Heron said on my blog, "I've yet to see an exception to the rule that anyone who is willing to definite some adults as not-human &/or inherently deserving of exclusion or limited civil rights is not worth listening to." And as Grace Annam said on Alas, "Every OTHER time in human history when we penned certain classes of people into concentration camps … excuse me, “walled cities”, it worked out so well. What could go wrong?"

Sorry, angry capital letters coming: IT IS NOT OKAY TO REDEFINE SOME PEOPLE AS NOT HUMAN AND THEN TAKE PLEASURE IN IMAGINING THEM SUBJECTED TO VIOLENCE. This is why the doctrine of hell is creepy as fuck! She says earlier in the interview that "We all see how the afterlife bit is playing out today"—well, what is this fantasy of walling people who hurt others off and letting them be tortured except what is, effectively, a veiled version of hell?

Just a rant? Maybe. Maybe just a rant. Certainly better if it's a rant! But a rant that supports eugenics from a woman who writes books where eugenics is a solution that works. A rant that supports authoritarianism from a woman that claims to hate it. A rant about how some people aren't really human from someone who claims to be interested in social justice. A rant that classifies addicts and the mentally ill as less than other people. A rant that, hey, revels in torture and pain because apparently Tepper finds imagining that satisfying.

Who's going choosing to go to hell so they can revel in describing the awful?

Naked class warfare

It is hard to keep track of all the democracy surges currently underway. Libya, even. Who would've thunk it? Always interesting, of course, to see the difference in the way the US media covers surges, depending on their location and geopolitical significance. Madison is particularly on mind, though. The mainstream media's inflation of the Tea Party's showing offers a classic example of how far from "balanced" their coverage is. But today, I find myself dwelling on two pieces of information about Governor Scott Walker's so-called Budget Repair Bill that the mainstream media have determinedly ignored or played down-- information that underscores what Walker's shenanigans are really about.

The first piece of information, which ought to be mentioned every time the media mention the "Budget Repair Bill," is that Walker himself created the budget "imbalance." Here's a post at Talking Points Memo (made last week):

This broadside comes less than a month after the state's fiscal bureau -- the Wisconsin equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office -- concluded that Wisconsin isn't even in need of austerity measures, and could conclude the fiscal year with a surplus. In fact, they say that the current budget shortfall is a direct result of tax cut policies Walker enacted in his first days in office.

"Walker was not forced into a budget repair bill by circumstances beyond he control," says Jack Norman, research director at the Institute for Wisconsin Future -- a public interest think tank. "He wanted a budget repair bill and forced it by pushing through tax cuts... so he could rush through these other changes."

"The state of Wisconsin has not reached the point at which austerity measures are needed," Norman adds.

In a Wednesday op-ed, the Capitol Times of Madison picked up on this theme.

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million. To the extent that there is an imbalance -- Walker claims there is a $137 million deficit -- it is not because of a drop in revenues or increases in the cost of state employee contracts, benefits or pensions. It is because Walker and his allies pushed through $140 million in new spending for special-interest groups in January.

You can read the fiscal bureaus report here (PDF). It holds that "more than half" of the new shortfall comes from three of Walker's initiatives:

• $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation, which still holds $73 million because of anemic job growth.
• $48 million for private health savings accounts -- a perennial Republican favorite.
• $67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers, but at levels too low to spur hiring.

In essence, public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda. "The provisions in his bill do two things simultaneously," Norman says. "They remove bargaining rights, and having accomplished that, make changes in the benefit packages." That's how Walker's plan saves money. And when it's all said and done, these workers will have lost their bargaining rights going forward in perpetuity.

Second, there's the fire-sale provision in the bill that is likely there to benefit Scott Walker's chief benefactors, the infamous Koch brothers. Here is Ed at ginandtacos.com:

The lion's share of attention regarding Scott Walker's legislative proposal has been paid to the effort to revoke Wisconsin public employees' collective bargaining rights, but the 144-page bill (more reliable link here) is a far more exhaustive and inclusive list of the fundamentals of Republican politics in the 21st Century. Not many people have the time to plow through the whole bill but those who do will be rewarded with plenty of gems like this:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

If this isn't the best summary of the goals of modern conservatism, I don't know what is. It's like a highlight reel of all of the high-flying slam dunks of neo-Gilded Age corporatism: privatization, no-bid contracts, deregulation, and naked cronyism. Extra bonus points for the explicit effort to legally redefine the term "public interest" as "whatever the energy industry lobbyists we appoint to these unelected bureaucratic positions say it is."

In case it isn't clear where the naked cronyism comes in, remember which large, politically active private interest loves buying up power plants and already has considerable interests in Wisconsin.

And if that's not enough to make your blood boil, consider this: the state of Michigan is choosing to "balance" its budget by shutting down half of the schools in Detroit--and increasing class sizes to 60 students. No, that's not a typo. SIXTY STUDENTS. Just imagine that. All of this crap is coming at a time when the rich have never been richer, when the financial industry has taken billions in hand-outs from the federal government and lavished it on its executives to reward them for their corruption and incompetence. Reminds me of an argument I had with one of my Louisiana relatives about ten years ago. He argued, if you can believe it, against any form of public education. No child "deserves" an education, he said. Well, I guess that's what the folks in Michigan are thinking, too.