Tag Archives: racism

Cultural Revolution?

In a recent newsletter, Paul Krugman compared the Trump administration’s anti-DEI (i.e., pro-racism & misogyny) efforts to China’s cultural revolution under Mao.

Once you’ve seen the parallel between what MAGA is trying to do and China’s Cultural Revolution, the similarities are everywhere. Maoists sent schoolteachers to do farm labor; Trumpists are talking about putting civil servants to work in factories.

The Cultural Revolution was, of course, a huge disaster for China. It inflicted vast suffering on its targets and also devastated the economy. But the Maoists didn’t care. Revenge was their priority, never mind the effects on GDP.

As we’ve seen, China’s efforts failed–albeit not without years of unnecessary suffering. As I’ve previously opined, changing a nation’s culture rarely if ever works. But our would-be king–unhampered by anything suggesting intellect or competent appointees within his “administration,” is certainly trying to fulfill the most ardent wish of his MAGA base–taking American society back to the 1950s (or perhaps before), when women were pushing out babies and doing the dishes in the kitchen, and Black Americans were subject to segregation and confined to subservient positions.

That effort requires eliminating evidence of the worth and competence of women and Blacks. Accordingly, I did a search for federal websites that have been scrubbed of references to the contributions of women and black people.

Here’s what I found.

The Department of Defense undertook a significant purge of DEI-related content, resulting in the removal of profiles and articles about Army Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers, a Black Medal of Honor recipient; the Japanese American 442nd Regimental Combat Team; the Navajo Code Talkers (including profiles of Indigenous veterans; women veterans such as Lisa Jaster, the first female Army Reserve graduate of Ranger School); historical figures like Jackie Robinson, who served in the Army during World War II; the Tuskegee Airmen and Women Airforce Service Pilots; and notable gravesites of Hispanic and Black service members at Arlington National Cemetery.

Some content has been restored following public outcry, but many of those pages remain inaccessible .​

NASA removed profiles of women and people of color from its website. The profile of Rose Ferreira, a Dominican-American intern, was taken down and later reinstated after public backlash. However, the restoration led to harassment directed at Ferreira, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals whose stories were previously celebrated .​

The National Park Service revised its content to align with the administration’s directives. Those erasures included the removal of mentions of transgender individuals from articles about the suffragist movement; changing terminology from “LGBT” to “LGB” and omitting the word “queer;” altering language in articles about the Underground Railroad, including removing a quote and image of Harriet Tubman and the term “slavery.”

The Small Business Administration removed a photograph from its website depicting a diverse group of individuals, including women and people of color, in front of a whiteboard.

Other federal agencies that have complied include the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has removed content related to LGBTQ+ veterans; the Federal Trade Commission, which has deleted over 300 posts, including those reporting on antitrust actions against tech giants; and the State Department, which altered the language in international travel advisories, replacing “LGBTQ+” with “LGB” and omitting references to safety concerns for transgender Americans abroad.

I have no idea how many Americans visit these sites; certainly, the information that has been deleted is widely available elsewhere. (In the age of the Internet, erasure of information previously available is a pipe dream…) That said, these alterations provide additional evidence (as if we needed it) of the central preoccupation of the White Christian Nationalists and other assorted bigots who form the majority of MAGA adherents.

It remains to be seen whether those who supported Trump because he promised to reward their racism–to return them to social dominance– will be steadfast in that support despite the chaos and damage being done to the economy, public health, science, education and the rule of law, among other elements of accelerating collateral damage.

As Krugman admonished readers, looking for rational strategy in Trump’s hysterical assault on DEI and “woke-ism” (aka equality and humanity) is a fool’s errand. “Don’t try to sanewash what’s happening. It’s evil, but it isn’t calculated evil. That is, it’s not a considered political strategy, with a clear end goal. It’s a visceral response from people who, as Thomas Edsall puts it, are addicted to revenge.”

Mao couldn’t change his culture. I don’t think Trump will change America’s, either. But we’ll suffer while he tries.

Comments

Telling It Like It Is

As Americans try to cope with the national lunacy being imposed on us by the cretins in charge of our federal government, two essential elements of our current disaster have become too obvious to ignore.

First, voters did this. Granted, not a majority–most voters cast their ballots for someone other than the cult leader, and a disgraceful number of American citizens didn’t even bother to vote. Trump’s “victory” was razor-thin–but it was a victory, and we are reaping the consequences of that disastrous civic failure.

Second, the overwhelming reason voters supported Trump was racism. Those voters didn’t cast ballots for the destruction of America’s global dominance, or for the evisceration of Medicaid and Social Security; most of them (if they followed actual news and knew what was going on) would oppose measures hobbling the IRS’ ability to audit our billionaire overlords. No–what they wanted, and what the administration is providing, is culture war, an effort to take the United States back to the social arrangements of the 1950s and before, a time when LGBT folks were closeted, no one had even heard the word “trans,” women were in the kitchen, and Black people “knew their place.”

A recent essay from Jennifer Rubin in The Contrarian examined the language MAGA employs in an effort to veil that obvious effort. Prominent, of course, is the administration’s war against “DEI.” (It’s so much nicer to rail against letters of the alphabet than to use the N word…)

As with “CRT,” the MAGA censors, thought police (aimed at rooting out “improper ideology”), Great Replacement paranoids, and outright bigots cannot tell us precisely what “DEI” is—they merely know they are dead set against it. Teaching children to hate America. Making whites feel guilty. Quotas. None of that resembles the “DEI” practices utilized by universities, employers, researchers, and government entities—but that’s irrelevant to them.

Nuanced concepts (e.g., outreach to recruit Americans of all backgrounds, medical trials to ensure women’s physiology is taken into account) do not appeal to people who think Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick epitomize “merit.”

Increasingly “DEI” in the MAGA dictionary has come to mean “Blacks” or “women” or “a convenient scapegoat who represents the ‘other.’” A plane goes down? DEI. A museum pays tribute to the greatness of Jackie Robinson? DEI.

Increasingly, the anti-DEI mission has become an explicit attempt to blame or erase non-whites, females, and other disenfranchised groups. Remember when they used to oppose “canceling” people and policing speech? MAGA ideologues no longer hide their core belief: that white men are inherently qualified, the “true” history of America has been made by white males, and non-white men are to blame for all calamities.

What Rubin correctly calls a “ham-handed effort to bolster white advantage” doesn’t conceal the obvious. The goal is to resegregate America, to return the country to what White Christian Nationalists believe is the proper, “Godly” order of things: dominance of White Christian Males over everyone else. As Rubin notes, if we had any doubts of that goal, Trump’s repeal of LBJ’s Executive Order 11375 gives the game away.

LBJ’s Executive Order “gave the Secretary of Labor the authority to ensure equal opportunity for people of color and women in federal contractors’ recruitment, hiring, training and other employment practices,” The point was simple; if the federal government was contracting with private firms, it had the right to demand that those firms refrain from discriminating. If the composition of the relevant workforce was markedly different from local demographics, that didn’t necessarily preclude contracting, but the business would need to show that it had taken affirmative steps to recruit a more representative workforce.

In other words, the government wasn’t going to use our tax dollars to reward intentional discrimination.

As Rubin points out,

The anti-DEI crusade seems aimed to repeal the fundamental statutory and constitutional protections that prohibit discrimination and give meaning to “All men are created equal.” After all, if the MAGA crowd really wanted to root out unfairness and promote merit they would insist we reject unqualified white appointees and dump legacy admissions at colleges and universities schools. Instead, the anti-DEI crusade aims to bolster white entitlement and eradicate any sense of obligation to right society’s wrongs.

The war against “DEI” and the effort to make “woke” an epithet are intended to cloak MAGA’S racism, misogyny and anti-Semitism with neutral language, to pretend that efforts to address systemic inequalities are the problem, not the inequalities themselves.

Ironically, in voting their fears and bigotries, MAGA folks voted to retreat from the foundational principles that really did make America great.

Comments

Natal Con

At a recent lunch discussion, my friend and sometimes co-author Morton Marcus asked me if I was aware of the “pro natalist” movement gathering steam on the right. I wasn’t.

I was aware of the emergence of the “trad wives”–women who, for whatever reason, are asserting their desire to retreat back to the kitchen and nursery. My superficial understanding of that particular “movement” suggests it’s part of White Christian Nationalism, with its reliance on biblical cherry-picking and–especially– fear of the hated modernity that allows those “others” to claim equal civic status with “Godly” folks. But I hadn’t heard of the natalists.

Morton subsequently sent me a transcript of an interview with a couple named Collins who were attending a convention of natalists. The interviewer began by reminding listeners that both JD Vance and Elon Musk are on record decrying reduced birthrates. Musk–with his 13+ children–has obviously been working against that trend. (Not that he bothers spending much time with most of his offspring, according to interviews with several of them. Evidently the quality of parenting is less important than the quantity…)

The podcast included a clip of comments made by one Charles Haywood at the first Natal Con. Haywood, who made his money as a shampoo magnate, was a sponsor this year. Haywood is heard in that clip saying that “generally, women should not have careers. They should be socially stigmatized if they have careers.” He blames declining birth rates on feminism and the overturning of what he sees as “natural hierarchies of gender and race.”

And there, my friends, you have it.

I have frequently posted my conviction that Trumpism is basically a revolt against equality–against the notion that there are no “natural hierarchies of gender and race.”

I understand why MAGA appeals to mediocre (or worse) White men who resent having to share the civic landscape with women and people of color. I admit to bafflement when it comes to the women who agree with Mrs. Collins that her role in life is to push out as many babies as possible. (I say that as a women who has “pushed out” three of my own–and as the daughter of a woman who insisted that women could–and should–live well-rounded lives that included whatever careers we desired.)

The irony is that the neo-natalists are aiming their criticisms at the wrong culprit. As the podcaster pointed out, the evidence for declining birthrates points not to women’s equality, but to a very different reason. Surveys show that most people continue to want children, but they are increasingly aware of what parenting requires- the ability to provide a stable home, sufficient income, and (usually) a partner.

When a society isn’t providing the social supports that make meeting those requirements possible, prudent people decide to have fewer children, if they have any at all. The lack of government funding for health care, the dearth of affordable housing, the lack of support for good public schools, the high cost and limited availability of child care–all are disincentives for parenthood.

My own grandchildren would add the threat of climate change and our lackluster efforts to address it.

The podcast quoted a scholar who studies this movement and explained its roots: the idea that “our society has become excessively effeminate, weak, compassionate. And what they want to do is breed or elevate an aristocratic class that’s going to be masculine, violent, not necessarily motivated by, let’s call it, empathy.”

The neo-natalists want to restore a “masculine” culture that requires rooting out feminism and multicultural democracy. “Women are to be subordinated to men, largely going to be responsible for managing the household, although with no real particular authority. And of course, they’re going to have an awful lot of children.” And of course, non-White men will be subordinated to their “natural” betters.

If we needed any evidence of how wrongheaded (okay, insane) this belief in a “natural hierarchy” of White men is, we need only look at the “superior” White guys in the Trump administration. It would be hard to assemble a more pathetic, clownish and ignorant group.

The neo-natalists interviewed in this very informative–if nauseating–podcast are enthusiastic Trumpers. They provide additional evidence–as if we needed it–that support for MAGA and Trumpism are today’s eruptions of the oldest American sins: the racism and misogyny of White men who are frantic at their loss of automatic dominance, and angry that they have to compete for status on the basis of actual merit.

I suppose I should thank Morton for the additional evidence of what is really at stake…

Comments

RIP Pax America

It isn’t just the insane tariffs. They are just the coup de grace. As Lawrence Summers posted: the tariffs are to economics what creationism is to biology, astrology is to astronomy, or RFK thought is to vaccine science. In fact, it is likely that their effects will hasten the fall of our mad would-be king, as plutocrats join the millions of ordinary Americans appalled by the wholesale destruction of American governance and the world order. 

But the larger damage has been done, and it is not remediable.

Perhaps the most accurate–and damning–analysis was from The Bulwark.

We cannot overstate what has just happened. It took just 71 days for Donald Trump to wreck the American economy, mortally wound NATO, and destroy the American-led world order.

He did this with the enthusiastic support of the entire Republican party and conservative movement.

He did it with the support of a plurality of American voters.

He did not hide his intentions. He campaigned on them. He made them the central thrust of his election. He told Americans that he would betray our allies and give up our leadership position in the world.

And that is exactly what he’s done. The article quoted Canada’s Prime Minister’s sorrowful eulogy.

The global economy is fundamentally different today than it was yesterday. The system of global trade anchored on the United States, that Canada has relied on since the end of the Second World War—a system that, while not perfect, has helped to deliver prosperity for our country for decades—is over.

Our old relationship of steadily deepening integration with the United States is over.

The eighty-year period when the United States embraced the mantle of global economic leadership—when it forged alliances rooted in trust and mutual respect, and championed the free and open exchange of good and services—is over.

While this is a tragedy, it is also the new reality.

So–how did we get here?

Historians will undoubtedly spend decades looking for answers, and there are certainly lots of contributing factors: lack of civic education, an information environment that facilitates confirmation bias, the ballooning gap between the rich and the rest, the arrogance of the tech “bros”. But while all those elements contributed, my own research tells me that the single most consequential support for Trumpism is America’s entrenched racism.

When I use the word racism, I’m not simply referring to anti-Black animus, although that is indeed its most prominent characteristic. I am using that term to include the other persistent, notable bigotries that continue to be prominent elements of American society : anti-Semitism, raging misogyny…the simmering resentment that all too many Americans harbour for anyone they consider “Other.” 

As Trump and Musk have taken their hatchets to the federal government, they have made no effort to hide their major target: those Others. They have moved to expunge DEI, diversity and “woke-ism” from America’s society– “epithets” that are thinly veiled terms for civic equality and equal rights. 

A plurality of our fellow citizens cast their votes for a President and a political party devoted to White Christian supremacy. It’s doubtful that they intended to destroy Pax Americana, but placing America under a regime of know-nothings, bigots and buffoons could hardly have done otherwise. And as the linked article says, “There is no going back.”

If, tomorrow, Donald Trump revoked his entire regime of tariffs, it would not matter. It might temporarily delay some economic pain, but the rest of the world now understands that it must move forward without America.

If, tomorrow, Donald Trump abandoned his quest to annex Greenland and committed himself to the defense of Ukraine and the perpetuation of NATO, it would not matter. The free world now understands that its long-term security plans must be made with the understanding that America is a potential adversary, not an ally.

This realization may be painful for Americans. But we should know that the rest of the world understands us more clearly than we understand ourselves….

The article’s conclusion is depressing–but realistic.

We have a deeply stupid government—from our economically illiterate president to our craven and foolish secretary of state, from the freelancing billionaire dilettante who is gutting American soft power to the vaccine-denying health secretary who is firing as much talent as he can. From the senior economics advisor who thinks comic books are good investments, to the senators who voted to confirm this cabinet of hacks, to the representatives who stumble over themselves justifying each new inane MAGA pronouncement.

But also, we have the government we deserve.

The American age is over. And it ended because the American people were no longer worthy of it.

RIP.

Comments

Let’s Talk About “Merit”

I don’t think anything has pissed me off more than Donald Trump’s insistence that DEI programs are just an effort to privilege “those people” (insert the object of your bias) over meritorious White guys. As a meme I’ve seen points out, that has it exactly backwards: DEI is an effort to level a very tilted playing field–an effort to combat the longstanding automatic preference given to White guys over more qualified women and minorities.

Study after study confirms that when identical resumes are sent to prospective employers by fictitious applicants–differing only in use of “white sounding” or “black sounding” names–the white sounding applicants get over twice as many interviews.

His pious defense of merit is especially ironic (to put it mildly)  when it is accompanied by Trump’s own incredibly unqualified nominees–a collection of cranks, clowns, conspiracy theorists and sycophants the likes of which no previous President has ever tried to elevate to positions of responsibility. As a friend has noted, in what was a massive understatement, “I’ve seen better cabinets at IKEA.”

For generations, American White guys–more accurately, straight White Christian males–have enjoyed a raft of entirely unmerited advantages.

I will grant that many of the DEI programs have proven to be less than effective, and some have suffered from a surfeit of what we used to call “political correctness.” But they aren’t being attacked for dubious efficacy. If there was any lingering doubt about the profound racism of Trump and MAGA, Trump’s immediate attacks on DEI efforts, and his race to scrub government websites of anything remotely “woke,” should erase it. (No one could ever accuse MAGA folks of being woke–a term that simply means that one has awakened to the existence of structural impediments to civic and economic fairness. They aren’t interested in being fair, or to rewarding individual merit found in women or members of minorities.)

The idea of an actual meritocracy is appealing. But a lot of what we attribute to “merit” is really a leg up, rooted in racial, religious or financial privilege.

The problems with America’s approach to meritocracy implicate–yet again–my two favorite admonitions: “it depends” and “it’s more complicated than that.” We are gradually and reluctantly coming to see, for example, that our definition of what constitutes merit in a given area is often too constricted, and our devices for measuring and determining what constitutes relevant merit may be inadequate.

When I was still teaching, I used to cite the example of an old rule (I’ve long since forgotten which southern state it was from) that restricted entry into local carpenters’ unions to high school graduates who weighed at least 180 pounds. Those requirements kept most Black and female applicants out–in that place at that time, few Blacks graduated from high school, and few women weighed over 180 pounds. The purported justification for the rule was that carpenters needed to be able to read construction plans and needed to be able to pick up at least X number of pounds of materials on the worksite.

But–rather obviously–the best way to determine whether applicants should be admitted to the carpentry trade would be to test them on their ability to read and understand plans and drawings, and to have them demonstrate that they could pick up the necessary weight.

The bottom line is that even seemingly neutral criteria can be–and frequently have been–manipulated so that they are not really neutral.

Those of us who’ve served on university admissions committees know that an applicant’s GPA and test results are necessary but incomplete indicators of whether that applicant will do the academic work required.  We also look for evidence of motivation and discipline.

The definition of merit in a given situation can be complicated. What skills are relevant? What evidence is probative?

One thing has already become obvious: Donald Trump’s criterion for “merit”– being a straight White Christian Nationalist loyal to Donald J. Trump–is inconsistent with the demands of the positions to be filled.

Comments