Should one fearful of losing privilege be elected in a democracy

[fromderinside]

I was reading the Krugman column "The Angry White Man Caucus" when I was struck by an apparent problem with those of privilege being many of the ones running for office or running the country.

The problem is this. Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

What distinguished Trump voters was, instead, racial resentment. Furthermore, this resentment was and is driven not by actual economic losses at the hands of minority groups, but by fear of losing status in a changing country, one in which the privilege of being a white man isn’t what it used to be.

This became obvious when one who has privilege is rallied around because he is angry about having his privilege challenged by those from a less less privileged status as recent polls indicate. One can't say I don't remember that incident as easily as one can say I remember that incident for the counter reasoning those of privilege used when they denigrated an accuser. It is as likely that a what one considers minor event will not be remembered as it will for who considers the same event major and traumatic will remember the event.

The point is why denigrate and edeny when one doesn't actually remember unless one is fearful that one may have unknowing done something that caused another great harm while one considered it just play or fun, a trifle. Isn't that immoral and unbalanced?

I found the approach of denial and responsibility transfer as an act of cowardice and explicitly immoral by the privileged ones who acted thus. Even Senator Collins comes up short here.

Jump in the water's political but isn't it moral as well?

 

[bigfield]

Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

A lot of American voters want them to legislate and govern that way.

 

[fromderinside]

I am one of those white men of privilege in America who don't want things that way. I consider locking in bad values of the past bad ethics, as immoral, given that even as one viewing things from the empirical side, that that such behavior is doomed to fail society in the future. More importantly is denies want we know about diversity. It denies participation by those there but on the outside. The world is coming to know that diversity, sharing backgrounds, benefits humanity, injects vigor into the gene pool, provides more defense against disease, permits more invention, and most importantly, counters ancient fearful constitutions to maintain ever smaller group control because of our need to discriminate at the clan level.

 

[untermensche]

Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

Of course they can govern.

They have the reigns. They have the power.

But they govern to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of others.

That is the Republican party.

The lockstep party.

One looting binge after another.

That is all the attack of Iraq was. A looting binge while suckers sent their children to die.

 

[bigfield]

I am one of those white men of privilege in America who don't want things that way. I consider locking in bad values of the past bad ethics, as immoral, given that even as one viewing things from the empirical side, that that such behavior is doomed to fail society in the future. More importantly is denies want we know about diversity. It denies participation by those there but on the outside. The world is coming to know that diversity, sharing backgrounds, benefits humanity, injects vigor into the gene pool, provides more defense against disease, permits more invention, and most importantly, counters ancient fearful constitutions to maintain ever smaller group control because of our need to discriminate at the clan level.

In many parts of the the US, people with your cosmopolitan attitude are outnumbered at the polling booth. People want these white male legislators to protect the privileges granted to men and whites; if they didn't then they wouldn't be voting for them.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hmmm. Take person who is fearful of losing privilege and deny him rights because of the color of his skin. There must be a name for this.

 

[untermensche]

He is not looking for his rights.

He is looking to dominate in all matters and have the final say.

 

[fromderinside]

Ethical racism if you need a label to prop up your really weak claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The problem is this. Can those with societal privilege legislate and govern in a multi-status system of government when they obviously are there to preserve their advantages over those who are the targets of their privilege?

If they're elected specifically to protect our privilege, then, yeah.

It would make a lot less sense for us to elect a minority to protect our privilege.

And if a minority person runs on a 'protect whitey's privilege' platform, then does the opposite in office, it'd be our fault for paying attention to campaign promises.

 

[fromderinside]

So, by your stated logic a minority person running in a white majority district has to run on 'protect whitey' to win. That's the exact problem with protecting majority rights. In this case it's white male rights with white female proxies due to conditions of marriage.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Discriminate twice and 'things are gonna be alright' - adapted from Superstar.

I believe whitey, under Johnson, in a moment of madness after Kennedy assassination passed through the Senate the the equal rights amendment which was voted by states into the the fugging constitution in 1972. I thi nk that is so.

So on the face of it your argument sucks wind.

Apparently many think that one is elected to protect the United States of 'Merica rather than some body of same colored faces.

But heck, if you want to say power is ethical it is your privilege to wear your MAGA hat.

But lets go back to the OP. The statement was one fearful of losing privilege is was not intent on maintaining privilege. I believe there are whites out there who believe, as I do, that inclusion is much preferable to exclusion and domination. I don't think they fear losing excessive power. That would be foolish.

 

[OLDMAN]

Does anyone really expect people to do any different than to protect and then pass on their advantages to their family and friends? And for most that would be people of the same race. Seems less racial and more personal to me.

 

[fromderinside]

With the right blinkers one can be see anything the trainer desires I guess. Why do we form groups? Then why do we form nations? Then why do we form international organizations? Seems there's a pattern developing here. As we've move on to these larger grouping mankind has benefitted and grown wonderfully. Am I going to go back to tribe now that we have ways to keep people alive, from being killed out of hand, fed, gathering in peace,

Certainly! - I had a dildo in my mouth on that one.

 

[skepticalbip]

"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

~ Martin Luther King, Jr

After reading this thread, I can hear uncle Martin weeping. Not only is there a call to judge people by the color of their skin but now by their gender too.

 

[fromderinside]

If you are not threatened by the possibility of losing political and social advantage then why is a label with any tribal index a problem?

Legacy has two faces. One is the face of progress, the list of improvements in culture for inclusion. The other is pride in one's past the glory of battles won against others.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, by your stated logic ...

Oh.
You took me seriously?

So on the face of it your argument sucks wind.

Oh, good.
It was supposed to.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I believe whitey, under Johnson, in a moment of madness after Kennedy assassination passed through the Senate the the equal rights amendment which was voted by states into the the fugging constitution in 1972. I thi nk that is so.

This is factually incorrect. The Civil Rights Act is a law, not Constitutional amendment, passed in 1965, not 1972. The Equal Rights Amendment is an entirely different, unsuccessful movement.

 

[fromderinside]

My bad.

Still 35 states did ratify the thing. Good old solid whitey south. eh.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No sweat. I just want to say that I'm not sure that the key to Trump's support is racism. No doubt Trump's dog-whistles a big part of his appeal to WN/SF-type assholes (it seems like he pulled them straight out of a white-nationalist tract), but I think that more than that, economic stagnation (in terms of wage-growth vs inflation, or the availability of quality jobs -- or many jobs at all in some places).

Mind you, I'm not saying there's any good justification for voting for that twatwaffle; I'm just trying to explain why the Trumpeteers I know voted the way they did.

 

[skepticalbip]

No sweat. I just want to say that I'm not sure that the key to Trump's support is racism. No doubt Trump's dog-whistles a big part of his appeal to WN/SF-type assholes (it seems like he pulled them straight out of a white-nationalist tract), but I think that more than that, economic stagnation (in terms of wage-growth vs inflation, or the availability of quality jobs -- or many jobs at all in some places).

Mind you, I'm not saying there's any good justification for voting for that twatwaffle; I'm just trying to explain why the Trumpeteers I know voted the way they did.

I think that Trump's success was primarily due to his speaking to the old Democrat constituency of the blue collar middle class. The Democrats were once their champions but abandoned them, allowed their jobs in manufacturing to leave the country, told them to get used to it because their jobs would never return, then disparaged them as "deplorable".

Democrats once represented the interests of the broad working middle class of America and had their unquestioned support. Over the last couple decades, the Democratic party has switched to representing special interest groups and international causes at the expense of their old constituency of working middle class Americans. Trump saw the hole and filled it.

 

[fromderinside]

When workers stood tall and 'right to work' was small unions were in bloom. Then somebody invented Right to Work. It's not that democrats abandoned them. Corporations abandoned them along with states that found they could bribe companies to come where workers were small and 'fight to work' was tall. That's not dems abandoning them.

Southerners abandoned dems as soon as they stood up for minorities after Kennedy was murdered. Publicists shouted that it was unions causing companies to leave the rust belt while it was actually companies going wherever the labor costs were least. They moved to places that enacted right to work laws which were actually places where scab labor was OK as long as it wasn't colored. Most tellingly they fled to India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Korea, China.

Democrats are now working to keep the playing field as level as possible by working for International agreements which regulate labor, wages, and tariffs. They also are encouraging a humanistic form of universalism where people are treated more equally even though there is no national Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution. Essentially the Dems have given up mostly on white privileged america.

Some think there aren't enough people in prison or that blacks and browns should be discouraged from voting. Not Democrats. Tough row to hoe. But, I think there are still enough of us to git'erdone. Example: Is it worth the price of white privilege to have 1 in 25 black males in jail, or 1 in 15 in jail or parole?*

*numbers are hard to get at, but. one can get to my numbers by making appropriate calculations of data in  Incarceration in the United StatesFor instance one can double the 2.3000 per 100,000 and get about 4.6 % males, or just about a million in prison from about 21 million black males.