I wasn't calling it "explicitly racist", I was calling it "vaguely racist" because, while we all new what they were implying, They didn't come out and say it. Ergo "vaguely racist".
Nobody is talking about "neoconservative demographic shifts" causing problems in cities in this article. The demographic referred to is "poor people".
But please continue being intentionally obtuse for the purpose of calling me a racist.
> I wasn't calling it "explicitly racist", I was calling it "vaguely racist" because, while we all new what they were implying, They didn't come out and say it. Ergo "vaguely racist".
You're saying that "poor people" can't include Caucasians and Asians, then?
Midwesterners are quite notable for being both neoconservatives and poor, along with (generally) being majority-white. He could have easily been referring to them. What made you associate "Poor people" and "Racist"? Poor people are a demographic.
No, they aren't, especially the former.
And economically, they're on average more poor than a lot of areas. See "County Level Poverty." [1] And if you're comparing wages between the two, Midwesterners make significantly less on average than those on the West Coast.
Although I was moreout giving an example and sticking with it for the sake of the main argument to begin with.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
[1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rur...