“can we just all collectively rise above our animal natures and be better people and not signal boost lurid yet statistically rare stories that fuck with everyone’s availability heuristics, particularly when these stories are about the evil of the Hated Enemy”
I very, very much agree with this.
I’m not saying I’ve been perfect in this regard. Far from it. But I think Ozy is right.
This isn’t either adding to or disagreeing with what Ozy said, just an anecdote. When I was a kid, there was a lot of argument about a woman who – Ronald Reagan, then running for the Presidency, claimed – was collecting so much welfare (using 80 different fake names) that she wore furs and owned a brand-new Cadillac. Liberals, including my family, believed that Reagan made this woman up, or at most was vastly exaggerating a more mundane story.
So I was surprised to find out, a few days ago, that Reagan was understating the truth all those decades ago. (The link leads to a very long but also fascinating story.) The woman he was talking about, Linda Taylor,1 really existed, and in fact had around 150 aliases, and was not only a welfare cheat on an enormous scale but also a serial kidnapper of small children (!) and almost certainly a serial murderer (! ! !).
Which goes to support Ozy’s point, I think: This woman, while real, was an extraordinary and perhaps unique villain, and to use her in stump speeches as representative of flaws in the welfare system doesn’t truly advance anyone’s understanding of what’s wrong with welfare or how to improve it.
- One of her many, many names. [↩]
I believe that welfare has its place, and even that there will inevitably be people who abuse it to a point which will drive me angry. What I do not believe is that the existence of abusers and free riders is in any way an argument against welfare.
At the same time, I believe that the existence of people who abuse the system is an extremely useful pretext to drum up opposition to welfare, and that tolerance for such people in something that much be eradicated amongst any organization associated with welfare. As long as crooks are seen to be prosecuted, everything is fine in my book.
If anything, the article that you have linked shows that it took years for those who were upset by Linda Taylor’s activities to find someone who would actually do something about it. Indifference to such abuse is something that fuels the anger of working poor towards the ‘system’. Isolated, but shocking cases is what attracts attention. When the authorities are indifferent to the abuse, anger is quick to follow. The cases do not have to be true. The indifference of the UVA administration was a totally fabricated. The indifference of the Chicago administration was totally real. I did not hear anyone of the Left decry using a sensational and unrepresentative case to push for changes, especially before it became apparent that the story is a fabrication. So why is anyone surprised that the Right is only too happy to use exceptional cases to push their agenda?
I personally think that the people on the Right who use ‘welfare queens’ as an argument against welfare are only too aware that such cases are infrequent, and account for only a very small percentage of the actual funds. But they use what helps inflaming their supporters with righteous anger. In my experience, the people of the Left are not all that likely to refrain from using similar tactics, either.
People are people. I do not choose my sides depending on who uses what tactics. On welfare, I’m with the Left. I do not resent them using somewhat uncommon examples – for example, people who lost large and deserved benefits because of a slight increase in their income. It makes people angry, it highlights a problem, it works.
In the same way, I do not resent the Right when they use uncommon examples. For example, Sweden’s tax code got an overhaul because the public was incensed by the story of a beloved author who had to pay income taxes over 100%. How common do you think that was? But it sure worked.
The notion that one anecdote, especially a personal encounter, trumps all statistical evidence is a very powerful one. It’s a defect in the human psyche.
Agreed.
Indifference to such abuse is something that fuels the anger of a lot more people than the working poor towards the system. It fuels the anger of pretty much anyone who works for a living towards the system.
When the authorities are indifferent to the abuse, suspicion that the authorities’ purpose for the existence of the system is other than what they claim is quick to follow. Accusations that the actual intent of the system is to buy votes among the system’s beneficiaries – including not only welfare recipients but the system’s employees as well – so as to benefit the dominant party favoring the system are quickly made and widely believed.
How many people on the right do you personally know and have engaged in conversation on the matter? My experience is that people on the right believe that instances of people on welfare abusing the system (although perhaps not to the extent of this particular case) are pretty common. Especially when you engage in conversation people who work in businesses in close contact with welfare recipients.
I am not saying that abuses of the system are uncommon – that is also my experience. But at the same time, I think that minor abuses are just that, minor, and actually work toward what I see as one the benefits of welfare – a safety valve preventing worse social upheaval. Sure, they add up to significant portions of the welfare funds. Sure, they take away from more deserving people. But the abuse profits those who are most likely to be trouble for the rest of us anyway. My gut feeling is that while it would be nice to reduce small abuse, it may be more trouble than it’s worth.
What I think is uncommon is “welfare queens and kings”. Yes, they exist, yes they are rather uncommon, and yes, they live in luxury on the backs of the tax payers. Linda Taylor is not unique. I have personally interrogated people who bulldozered the court of a Gypsy pharaoh in Bulgaria in the late 80s. Nowadays, as I read stories from from France, Sweden and Italy, I recognize the pattern. A friend of mine from New York tells me that there is a ‘beggar manager’ living in her extremely expensive building. I believe her.
These people piss me off. Not the wretch that is asking me to buy him alcohol in exchange for food stamps, or the night shift janitor that hides his income so that he can keep getting a few hundreds bucks in food stamps. Those guys need the help, and I do not resent my taxes going there. Better than bombing Serbia…
But the people who are systematically robbing the welfare funds to live a life of luxury through necessity end up directly harming not only those whom they deprive of benefits. In my experience they also practically enslave others – through intimidation, disinformation, and sometimes outright violence and murder. I did not know the specifics about Linda Taylor, but as I was reading the story, I was in no way surprised. This is how such people operate. And yes, such people usually get away with it. It’s their victims that pay the price, in my experience – while their scheme works, and when it comes crumbling down.
—-
Oh, I know and speak to a lot of people on the Right, all the time. I’m an Eastern European nerd who lives in California and works for a company with manufacturing facilities in South and North Carolina. Are you kidding? I’m the designated pinko commie in the exact same way as I am the designated right wing gun nut amongst my wife’s friends from Academia.
A lot of people will try to game whatever system they can, using whatever abilities and resources they possess. Especially when it comes to money
Rich people game taxes, FAFSA, and other things, in a way designed to save them money.
Poor people game welfare, food stamps, affordable housing, and other things, in a way designed to save them money.
Some rich people are very good at it, and get held up as examples of why we need to tax everyone more heavily.
Some poor people are very good at it, and get held up as examples of why we need to end welfare.
Neither of those extremes are really true. However, neither of them really do much to fight against the reality that although most people aren’t super expert good at it, most people DO TRY to game the system at least a bit.
So in the end, it comes down to how you apply morality.
(Off-topic, but too good to miss.)
Speaking of Welfare Queens, this just in: Who enjoys the highest living standard? Scandinavia — the queen of social welfare societies!
At least, assuming you can believe the Social Progress Index. Or the Legatum Prosperity Index. Or the Global Peace Index. Or the Corruptions Perception Index. Or the Rule of Law Index. Or the U.N. Human Development Indicators.
So can’t we all just get along – like Scandinavia? Perhaps not.
A year ago, Daron Acemoglu (MIT), James A. Robinson (Harvard), and Thierry Verdier (Paris School of Economics) published “Asymmetric Growth and Institutions in an Interdependent World.” In it, they argue that the economic growth in the civilized world is subsidized by externalities generated by the technical innovations created by the high-risk, high-reward economic environment of the US.
In short, being the US is an icky job – but dammit, somebody has to do it!
See, I don’t think this is unusual at all. A few examples:
My mom, now retired, worked in daycare for years. She regularly saw people have to quit jobs and go back on welfare because their child care benefits were eliminated for various reasons (change in policy, rise in wages, just timed out, etc.).
People, like my disabled brother and many of his friends, who can’t afford to take part time jobs because they’ll lose the medicaid benefits they need to get the medication which they need to stay alive. This has been addressed in the states that accepted medicaid expansion, but it is still a huge problem elsewhere.
And these are just two examples which I’ve seen in my very privledged, upper middle class life.
gin-and-whiskey @5: that’s a rather reductionist argument.
Of course gaming the system isn’t something limited to only rich or poor people, but let’s set aside the Golden Mean indulgence for a minute; Reagan’s welfare queen had as much to do with actual welfare fraud as Bernie Madoff had to do with the question of the wealthy using tax shelters.
Amp, it baffles me that you stopped here at the issue of anecdata. The ‘welfare queen’ thing wasn’t simply meant to outrage people about an abuser of the system, or to suggest such abuse was widespread. As touched on in the article, it was a wholly unsubtle call-out to racist attitudes and white working-class and middle-class resentment.
mythago:
The record of this woman’s crimes are facts. But this statement is conjecture.
Ah, the siren song of plausible deniability. How I’ve missed you.
Don’t know what you mean, Jake. Are you presuming that because this woman was black, any attack on her is automatically racist?
[shrug] Most of the talk I heard (and hear) about welfare abuse was classist, to be sure (duh, that’s pretty much definitional) but not actually race-based. Most of the debates about people and welfare and bootstraps are class based in my experience, not race based.
Was/is some of it racist? Sure. Anyone who was openly racist does, and did, toss that into the welfare debate (or any other debate for that matter). And anyone who is subconsciously racist will have that affect their conclusions, at least to the degree that they’re talking about POC.
But certainly a lot of this stuff is–and was–inaccurately coded racist by a bunch of people looking for a better way to push their preferred politics. Like, say, what you are doing here.
Gotta love your willingness to acknowledge “coded as racist” but not “codes as racial.”
Not at all. Just that my experience of conversations with people who held the idea of welfare queens & Cadillacs dear made it clear who they thought it applied to. But the phrase itself isn’t overtly racist. That plausible deniability exists in truckloads even though the people who took it to heart clearly heard what we usually call a dog whistle.
If that seems odd then it’s a misread or miscommunication. Whichever it is, I meant it as synonymous with “labelled.”
As in, “my position on welfare is unrelated to race, but is labelled/coded as racist by those who find it easier to make and win generic (if inaccurate) anti-racist claims than to deal with the hideously complex socioeconomic issues behind welfare, and who use that labeling/coding to achieve their goals.”
Yes, what Jake said.
The pretense that racism never exists and should never be criticized except when racists announce “I AM BEING RACIST RIGHT NOW” spelled out in 500 volt lights over Times Square is both incredibly unrealistic, and effectively works as a way of providing racist policies and rhetoric with cover.
Also, while Linda Taylor was white (although she sometimes pretended to be black, NDN, Latina, and Jewish) and the majority of her fraud was committed in Michigan, Reagan deliberately omitted her ethnicity and made mention of Chicago’s south side. Her crimes were not limited to welfare “fraud,” but bigamy, filing false insurance claims and false police reports, perjury, theft, extortion, and as Amp mentions, assault, kidnapping, and possibly murder. But because a white woman playing the long grift and occasionally snatching children didn’t tick any self-serving boxes for Reagan or send out the right dogwhistle, his handlers chose to amend the truth to fit the myth he was content to sell — lazy and conniving black women milking The System for baubles.
Also, while Linda Taylor was white (although she sometimes pretended to be black, NDN, Latina, and Jewish) and the majority of her fraud was committed in Michigan, Reagan deliberately omitted her ethnicity and made mention of Chicago’s south side.
That seems like a smoking gun. FWIW, based on the way people were talking about her, I had assumed she was black up until this point. Obviously that doesn’t mean that individual people who point to her as an example of why welfare is bad can’t be free of racial bias (as much as that’s even possible for ANYONE), but is shows what the political strategists were trying to do.
When Reagan was talking about her on the campaign trail she was in the public domain because of the reporting of the Chicago Tribune. The reporting indicated that she was black.
This is about as far from a smoking gun as you can get. In fact, choosing not to mention her ethnicity would more accurately be called an attempt to deemphasize the racial aspects. Less charitably it could be construed as trying to inject race into the story only as a subtext, i.e., a dogwhistle rather than doing so overtly.
It’s certainly possible that Reagan or his campaign staff culled through a number of anecdotes – lurid stories but statistically rare stories – and decided to push this one because they knew that Linda would be seen as black and this would play to racist Americans. It may even be likely, depending on how cynical I feel on any given day. But where is the evidence that they rejected stories that were just as good or even better, but lacked the racial angle?
Would that have been a bad thing? Given how wildly atypical Linda Taylor was, I would say deliberately deemphasizing the racial aspect would have been the responsible and correct thing to do. Instead, Reagan
alwaysoften use some reference to make it clear she was Black, when he simply could have chosen to not mention it.Also, it’s not as if Reagan’s “welfare queen” demagoguery stood alone; on the contrary, it’s part of a pattern. By the time Reagan was running for President, there was a well-established strategy among Republicans of using somewhat veiled racial references to stir up white resentment and votes. (See Lee Atwater; see Willy Horton; see this ad from this October.)
The problem with the whole “dog whistle” analysis is that it becomes a retroactive uncontrollable say-so fight about who gets to call something racist.
So you get the question “Was something racist?”
And the answer is “well, it wasn’t necessarily racist itself. But it was used by some people in a manner that appealed to other people, and those other people were racist, so the original people are racist, in which case the thing itself is racist.”
One might ask: in the minds of you folks, what is actual deniability? What would you accept? I can rarely figure it out.
It seems, sometimes, that in order to avoid the “racism by dog whistle” you’d have to ensure that there was nobody who WAS racist who was interested in your argument. Which doesn’t seem to be a valid reason.
*blink*
This is not an argument, but…like, I’m finding this whole conversation weird, because when I learned about dog whistling, the rhetoric around welfare queens was literally the example case, as it was considered so severe and so obvious that it was easy to explain.
I don’t see any way such arguments are avoidable, unless we simply never acknowledge racism at all, or only acknowledge it when it’s wearing a white hood and burning crosses on someone’s lawn.
Yes, yes, yes!
Isn’t that the point of invalidating the concepts of dog whistles and plausible deniability?
Neither do I.
However, I think it’s reasonable to demand that there’s at least some obligation to identify where those boundaries lie, so that people can attempt to avoid them, and/or dispute their location. The wonkier and more diffuse the accusation gets (and therefore the more difficult to defend) the more reasonable that is.
“Dog whistling” is one of those things where it can be very difficult to distinguish between, say,
-Appealing to a bunch of folks with XXX viewpoints, and
-Designing your language specifically to appeal to a bunch of folks with XXX viewpoints, and
-Actually holding XXX viewpoint yourself.
So when Jake snarks at plausible deniability and Patrick snarks at coding for racism, it makes me wonder: if Jake thinks something is racist, what convinces him he’s wrong? What makes the snark stop? If patrick thinks something is coding, what convinces him he’s wrong?
…because otherwise this enters into a lot of the Kafkaesque arguments that one sees in the SJW arena:
1) A diffuse accusation is made (dog whistling, plausible deniability, etc.)
2) It is difficult to defend. Often, it literally cannot be defended against (such as an accusation involving racist intent.)
3) Nonetheless, the target tries to defend herself. Perhaps she says “Not true.” Or perhaps she says–like I just did–“what the fuck does that even mean? Where are the borders?”
4) At which point, the act of defending herself becomes (in the mind of the accuser) another coin on the scale of doom.
5) Because–of course–questioning the concept of this sort of diffuse accusation is pretty much like a complete denial of racism other than burning crosses. And oftentimes, denying it (or getting angry at the accuser) is seen as yet another indicator.
6) And the more that the target says “what the fuck? This makes no sense!” then the more that the target is demonstrating the characteristic (at least in the minds of the accuser,) and the guiltier they get.
Because,
No.
For chrissake.
People who oppose that viewpoint are doing so because they think it’s too extreme and ill defined and dangerous, especially in the hands of SJW zealots like you. Not because they think that racists all wear white hoods.
Do you really think that I am advocating for “pretending racism doesn’t exist unless it’s burning a cross on someone’s lawn?” If so, please spell it out for all to see, so then we can have a credibility determination and move on.
Proof that it’s not racist? I mean, really, that’s the wrong question. The question should be, “Why does Jake think example X is a racist dog whistle?” I can tell you why I think something is a racist dog whistle, I can’t tell you what would change my mind due to it’s ability to explain away or contradict the evidence that has led me to believe that example X is a racist dog whistle.
Do you or do you not think that the Welfare Queens With Cadillacs trope is a racist dog whistle?
I believe it is due to decades of experience with people going on and on about Welfare Queens With Cadillacs while integrating some blatantly racist talk in their diatribe.
So if you, in conversation, bring up Welfare Queens With Cadillacs I will either disregard what you’re saying or I will say, “That’s a racist thing to say.” Neither of those actions says that you are a proud and out racist nor do either of those actions require you to defend yourself. If you believe I’ve incorrectly called you a racist by calling out your language, you may wonder why I would think that Welfare Queens With Cadillacs is racist and I will be happy to tell you. Perhaps you have a rock solid defense of the term as not racist. If so, I’d have to reconsider my postion. If not, I would hope you would reconsider yours.
This is what SJW zealots do. We point out racism (and other bigotries) when we see it. In our better moments we are willing to be shown when we’re in error. You are not pointing out why I’m in error. You are merely telling me that calling out plausible deniability and dog whistles is out of bounds in social interaction.
I’m not saying that’s your intention, I’m saying that’s the effect of your advocacy. If you take away the ability to say, “Hey! That’s something that’s been used to drum up racist resentment for decades,” because there’s the slimmest of slim possibilities that it isn’t so, you take away the ability to confront racism unless it’s presented by the fine folks in white hoods.
Right.
Which is what, exactly? Or even generally?
Well, that’s one question. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere arguing over which one is “right” so moving on…
OK. that wasn’t a fair question. I’ll try again: Can you tell me some general criteria for determining whether something is a racist dog whistle, or a set of rules?
Depends on what definition of the trope you’re using.
The modern one is more akin to generic “overuse of welfare, lying to get benefits, and pretending to be worse than you are to get extra help.” Smartphones, large TVs , and such, not Cadillacs. And at last in my experience that’s classist, not racist.
The one which starts with “black” welfare queens or “inner city” welfare queens usually is racist. Though sometimes the underlying welfare arguments are what they are, whether strong or weak, irrespective of the racism.
The ones which start just with “welfare queens” is neither obviously racist or obviously not.
A lot of people who are racist are also, as it happens, in favor of a more capitalist approach towards welfare.
However, a lot of people who promote a capitalist approach towards welfare (and certainly those who honestly believe that the problems exceed the benefits) are not racist.
Both of those groups speak negatively about welfare queens.
Personally I don’t think it’s my obligation to be responsible for what other people say. Nor is it my duty to avoid potentially offending a SJW by using a term that some other people have associated, in their minds, with racist thoughts.
At which point eventually you’ll end up explaining that you think it’s racist for ME to say because some other people said the same thing and they were racist, so you have made a racist association in your mind .
Which: So what? A lot of unpleasant people say a lot of things. On all sides and on all viewpoints, mind you. Some of them are relevant, or useful, and/or true. You can go about avoiding all of them if you’d like, but I prefer to acknowledge that I am not them, and you are not them.
If you don’t feel inclined to defend yourself when someone comments “that’s a racist thing to say,” then you’re in a very small minority.
If you don’t realize how much of a minority you’re in, you’re foolish.
Well, I might. But I might also put you in the “don’t give a shit” category. Or, to use your words, I might “disragard what you are saying,” and conclude that your opinion and commentary is irrelevant.
Well, shit. If you would actually explain what I would have to do to qualify, then I might. (Or, at least, I’d be able to demonstrate if I thought you set the bar unreasonably high. Like, say, the fact that I have to have a “rock solid” defense: do you think you have a “rock solid” offense?)
Sure. I consider things all the time. Sometimes I change my views. Sometimes that change is in a liberal direction and sometimes (Puppies…) I start out sympathetic to liberals and end up opposing them.
Well, yes. What makes a SJW zealot as opposed to a normal person is that you’re unusually inclined to see it, whether or not it exists.
Ah. So I have to point it out.
How?
Presumably you won’t allow me to say “that isn’t what I mean” because I suspect it isn’t acceptable evidence.
And you probably wouldn’t allow me to say (about a friend) “that isn’t what she meant, or thinks.” Same reason.
How about “I don’t think that’s racist?” No?
This is where a definition would help.
Er, actually, that is not at all what I have said.
Well, that’s a pretty crucial change that is obscured here.
First it was
Now it’s
That’s something that’s been used to drum up racist resentment for decades,
which ain’t the same thing.
It’s all in the words, right? I mean, I think so. I have no idea if you ALSO think it’s racist to talk about welfare abuse generally, or to give anecdotes about such abuse, or to argue against expanding benefits, and so on. Certainly some folks think that. Are you one of them?
But in any case: your advocacy sits poorly with people like me, who are generally liberal (I’m in favor of expanding welfare benefits; more food stamps for everyone!) but who don’t toe the line w/r/t SJW thought processes, and who, each time we have to listen to some SJW lecture us, are just a little closer to the “fuck those folks” side.
So somebody needs to march up to me wearing a white hood in order for me to deem something racist regardless of my experience. This is precisely what we mean when we say that what you’re advocating for winds up meaning that we must ignore racism until there’s a cross burning on a lawn.
How is it that 3 decades of “Welfare Queen” being understood to have strong racial connotations is not a valid thing to call out as a racist dog whistle? I get that it isn’t in your experience. Your experience is unique. When, as Harlequin pointed out earlier, “Welfare Queen” is the primary example of a dog whistle, you may want to reconsider your experience in light of new evidence. Or not, depends on what your objective is. You’ve effectively ended the possibility of discussion on this by telling me that the history of a term can tell us nothing about its meaning. Okay, then, you do your thing.
So far you seem to have the quote right. You asked. I answered. But then….
Darn. There go my high hopes.
And this is precisely what I mean when I posit that your analysis is fucking ludicrous, because it continues to take things that I have said (such as “neither obviously racist or obviously not”) and turn it into things merely because you find them more convenient to argue with (white hoods and cross burning, “must ignore racism,” yadda yadda.)
Again: what you claim that I am saying, and what I am actually saying, ain’t the same. They aren’t even close.
As a demonstrator, can you please tell me where I have said–now or ever, in any thread or posting anywhere online–that “the history of a term can tell us nothing about its meaning?” Nothing? Not to be confused with “the history of a term is not the only guide to its meaning” or “the history of a term’s use by person A is not often the best guide to its meaning when used by Person B.”
No. You can’t.
Know why?
because I HAVE NOT EVER SAID THAT, BECAUSE IT IS A STUPID GODDAMN CONCEPT.
Yes. I think that if you return to your echo chamber, it may be best.
That is where you ignore the decades long, commonly acknowledged definition of the term. That is where you, in essence if not in literally written words, tell us that the history of the term tells us nothing of its meaning.
You somehow manage – I’m sure not for the purpose of winning an argument at any cost- to accept that “inner city” is a racist dog whistle but deny that “welfare queens” is a racist dog whistle. I’m not certain, but I think that “welfare queen” has a longer history as a racist dog whistle than “inner city” does.
You are, quite simply, dishonest. It’s one of your more common tactics (along with goal post moving and burying your opponent in a blizzard of tangential questions). The insults don’t really distract from your dishonesty here.
It’s possible, you know, that Reagan was just an innocent guy who kept accidentally blundering into situations that appealed to racists.
More accurately: This is where I tell you that in my experience, (a) the meaning of the term has changed from the meaning which it might have had 30+ years ago–that is a long time. And that over that time frame, the use of the term appears to have expanded into other folks who might reasonably oppose certain welfare issues. And that as a result, you can’t actually identify the term as automatically problematic, much less racist, merely because you assert that it was originally racist when used by the long-dead staffers of a long-dead president of another era.
You seem not a not-idiotic dude, insofar as you seem to be able to type online.
You then seem like an utterly strange person, who is unable to distinguish between what I say and what you think you wish I said, so you could argue with it.
Perhaps you would be so kind, then, as to explain whether you think that these two statements are the same:
1) History may be relevant, but is not necessarily the best way to determine proper usage of a word, much less the intended meaning of a current speaker.
and
2) History of a term tells us nothing of its meaning
It is apparently difficult to understand for you, but I am saying what I mean and what I believe to be true.
(And it’s interesting, mind you, how you can continue to repeat all of the “you think racism is all crosses and KKK” in the very same thread where you approvingly note the “inner city” link. Want to explain that?)
“inner city” and “ghetto” haven’t lost their racial connotations. Opposition to welfare, however, has. At least in my experience. At least in my opinion.
If by “has a longer history” you mean “was first put in use longer ago,” then I would agree.
For fuck’s sake. I understand you can have a difference of opinion: I think you are wrong but I don’t think you are (at least with respect to how a word should be interpreted) deliberately misrepresenting things.
But there is only one of us who is consistently–deliberately–misstating what the other one says. Turning repeated “this is what I mean” statements on their head, into something else. That’s dishonesty. And it ain’t me doing it.
Being an asshole doesn’t really add to the insults, here, either.
Be brave. Use blockquotes. Then you will actually be forced to read what i actually am saying (not what you think that you want me to be saying for the convenience of your argument.) Then we can spend less time trying to get you to stop misrepresenting and misquoting me (odd how you blame these tangents on me.)
mythago,
Yes on race but (largely) false on class. Beware of claims that the White Working Class has abandoned the Democratic Party since 1964. They are largely false, with one notable exception: Obama.
As for Reagan. See here:
http://andrewgelman.com/2012/06/08/stop-me-before-i-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa/
I’ll just note that I’ve used block quotes in 7 of my 8 comments (now, 8 of 9!) in this thread and let you get back to your obfuscation & insults. Have a good time with it!
To elaborate on my comment above, take the most commonly assumed target for the Reagan welfare-queen dog-whistle: Southern Working Class (as defined by income) Whites.
Here’s Paul Krugman summing up the scholar I reference above (Andrew Gelman). Note: this is 2007, pre-Obama.
So who bought into this rhetoric? The RICH! Specifically, SOUTHERN Rich People. Paul Krugman again:
Lefties have been picking on the wrong class this whole time.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/bubba-isnt-who-you-think/?_r=0
Speaking as a moderator: I’m REALLY unhappy with how this thread has gone.
It’s really frustrating to argue with people who just don’t see your point, and because of that seem to be constantly misconstruing your arguments. But I really believe that, nearly all of the time, it’s attributable to bad communication and shifting positions, not to deliberate dishonesty.
Jake: With all respect, I think you were needlessly insulting a couple of times. “Isn’t that the point of invalidating the concepts of dog whistles and plausible deniability?,” in the context of a thread where someone was (seemingly) arguing against the concept of dog whistles, is (or seemed to be) imputing evil motives to someone here in the thread. It’s ambiguous if you meant it that way, but I can see how it could be taken that way. “You are, quite simply, dishonest” is pretty clearly an attack on the person that could have been replaced with a different phrasing, indicating that you think the particular arguments were dishonest, rather than phrasing it in a way that made it sound like a judgement on G&W’s entire character.
G&W: With respect, I can see you’re frustrated (Jake seems very frustrated, too). But your behavior in this thread has in some cases been inexcusable, and in my judgement significantly worse than Jake’s.
Like Jake, you impugned evil motives (“But certainly a lot of this stuff is–and was–inaccurately coded racist by a bunch of people looking for a better way to push their preferred politics. Like, say, what you are doing here.”) – and you did it almost from the start of the thread, and in an unambiguous fashion.
But in addition to that, you’ve engaged in blatant insults and name-calling.
Don’t call other comment writers here “SWJ zealots” – a completely needless insult you brought into things very early in the conversation. Don’t call them “assholes.” These aren’t subtle calls to make. You’re not in a gray area – you’re just name-calling. Avoid phrasings like “be brave, use blockquotes,” which was not only unfair (Jake used blockquotes in almost every response to you in this thread), but blatantly insulting.
If you’re too angry or frustrated not to call people names or use blatant insults, I can understand that. My advice is, wait before posting, even if it means waiting a day or two or more. The thread will be open for new comments for months.
gin-and-whiskey….if I understand you correctly, you acknowledge the existence of dogwhistle politics. So lets start with the biggie: States Rights.
This one goes back to the Civil War. If you claimed you were for States Rights back then every Southerner knew you really supported Slavery. Replace “Slavery” with “Jim Crow” and the same thing occurs in 1964.
Well Reagan went there during the 1980 Presidential election. In the South. This is the context in which “Welfare Queen” exists. Add terms like “Cadillac”, “strapping young buck”, “t-bone steaks”, and imo you pretty much have the 1980 equivalent to “rap music”, “thugs”, and “hoodies”.
Jake is correct.
I agree with you. I was actually thinking about that later on after it was too late to edit and I apologize for writing it that way.
I had no idea it could be understood that way. That’s my error and I apologize for that, too.
I can’t speak for Jake or Patrick, but my view is that, when it comes to dog whistles, there are two separate issues here:
1.) what will convince me that what I though was a dog whistle is, in fact, not a dog whistle
2.) what will convince me that a person using a turn of phrase that I have identified as a dog whistle is not racist
The answer to 1.) is, honestly, once I have been convinced by experience or the assertions of people who I trust that something is a dog whistle, my mind is not likely to be changed. I had a very powerful experience accidentally blowing a dog whistle a few years back. There was a gang shooting in the alley behind my house. When I related the story to parents at my son’s school, several responded as if I had said “Would you care to tell me about YOUR worst experience with a black person.” This was really incongruous, because the gangs around my neighborhood were not black, and these people knew that. I had clearly blown a racist dog whistle. When I related my dog whistle experiences, without names, to mixed groups of friends, the POC could all guess who had responded this way. Racists try to hide their racism from anti-racist whites, but not from POC. So, I have first hand experience of how a dog whistle can summon the slime.
The answer to 2.) is, unless I have other reasons to believe that they are racist, I initially assume good faith. So, have they displayed other red flags for racism? Like, how do they respond when called out on the dog whistle? Do they knee-jerk defend, or are they open to explanations as to why you think that the phrase they used is a dog whistle? Do they ever see racism in other contexts, or are they always the one offering up alternative explanations? Do they have friends who are POC? If they don’t, particularly in a diverse environment, that’s another red flag. Have they done sketchy things in the past, like randomly touching a black person’s hair, make Obama “birth certificate” jokes, or call some African American “very articulate”. One or two other flags (particularly minor ones), and I’ll assume it was a slip. But, if I’m seeing several flags, or repeated patterns, I’m going to assume that, at best, they have serious issues with implicit bias, if not actual, conscious, racist intent.
I think where you determine the tipping point is depends on how common you think racism is.
There’s a high degree of subjectivity here (on what is a dogwhistle). But there is also mountains of data and social research that speak to this subject. I don’t think there is any issue more covered by Social Scientists than American Racism. And much of it is made public. You want to know how many Americans favor laws against Interracial Marriage or the right to a segregated neighborhood, massive mounts of data are available to you at a drop of the hat. You can divide the responses up by race, income, gender, etc.
The metric most relevant to what we are discussing is “racial resentment” or “symbolic racism”. There is no shortage of research demonstrating that this form of racism informs ones views on welfare, ones choice of political party, and ones voting behavior.
kate: touching a black persons hair is racist now? black people have different hair, some people are interested in how different it is, and that being the case is not racist. given that, i don’t see what’s wrong with asking a black friend if you can touch their hair because you’re interested. it’s not like you can do that to random strangers, so some people when they find someone who might be ok with that ask to do so. Just admitting that there are (physical) differences between races and being interested in those doesn’t make you racist.
That example seems completely out of place compared to the others (very articulate, birth certificate jokes).
I think G&W, and i agree with them, disagree with you about how much weight you should place on ‘knee jerk defending themselves’ to being accused of dog-whistling. there’s a huge difference between saying that ‘x is used as a dog whistle’ and saying ‘you are using x to dog whistle’. and when wrongly accused of wrongdoing, it is instinct to defend yourself, and is immensely frustrating for ‘defending yourself is more proof that you’re lying’ to be the case, which just makes it worse.
some racists talk about x, using various euphemisms when doing so. racists talk about many different topics. some of the euphemisms they use are chosen specifically because the euphemism is talking about an actual issue that is linked to the racist point they want to make. often, the racist euphemism is talking about class, since a lot of the problems they have with different races actually stem from class issues. (crime rates for example). should that mean no one is allowed to talk about class anymore?
we seem to be going from racists saying ‘this race is inherently inferior, look at these statistics showing how members of that race do x worse’ to being unable to actually talk about the issues that are the real causes for those disparities because racists decided to talk about some real issues as euphemisms for their actual problems (mainly class issues, but yes also cultural issues and historical reasons).
personally i’m not an american, so i don’t talk about american race issues very much. I’m from the UK, i’m an ex-muslim of bengali descent. the race issues here are very very different to that of the US from what i can tell. when people talk about benefit scroungers and welfare cheats here, they’re actually not talking about a specific race, because there’s plenty of people of all races like that here, and the default image is actually of a white person (google ‘chav’ to see the type probably imagined most of the time).
i have had people accuse me of being a white supremecist for talking about examples of left leaning people being racist (because apparently sometimes white supremecists also point out hypocricy when they see it, so me doing so means i’m a white supremecist), apparently the extent of euphamisms and dog whistles have gotten so out of hand that ‘some racists do x unrelated to being racist, you did x, therefore you are a racist’ seems reasonable.
I have had people call me racist towards muslims (which isn’t a thing) and islamophobic (which is a greatly exagerrated thing) because of talking about issues i have with islam, because some racists also have some problems with islam. Some of the problems racists have with islam are unrelated to racism, and as unbelievable as it is, some are actually correct. if you hate group x, and there is something wrong with a belief shared by group x, you’re probably going to talk about that, on top of the various racist thing you talk about.
just because racists sometimes talk about legitimate issue y, doesn’t mean we should be barred from talking about y for fear of appearing racist.