Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrese | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting that support for nationalism is still popular with the older generations alongside their support for diversity, even after nationalism has been co-opted by groups hostile to diversity.

The younger generations see "I support the USA" as "I support the policies of the current administration", simply because that's how said supporters often identify themselves.

I think if you asked the younger generations if they still believed in the principles of freedom and democracy that the US represents that they would be largely in favor of that stance, but feel that the current government is not upholding those ideals in a way that they approve of.

View on HN

With all due respect, I did not vote for the president but now find myself more aligned with the Republicans than any 2020 Democrat. Its a smear that they are anti-Diversity. A lot of the young men I know feel disenfranchised in a system that does not value them even though they are not in any positions of power. All are sympathetic to historical injustices and see the President doing things like First Step Act and Opportunity Zones as legislation that disproportionately benefits minority groups, but does not detract from other groups. I think he's brash and unpolite, but a lot of people I know see this as fighting back against an onslaught that is one-sided and doesn't get called out.

If you think that the way the president primarily is affecting minority groups is via First Step Act and Opportunity Zones, then you are either confused or willfully ignorant. His "me first" M.O. is based on stoking racial grievances and animosity in his base. His actual economic policies align exactly with the "swamp": funnel money to the wealthy. It sounds to me, frankly, that you are simply seeing what you want to see.

I'd love to engage in any debate because ultimately I think that having diverse viewpoints ultimately leads to the most ideal solution. And not just Diversity of background, but diversity of bias is also important. I think the single most important thing being accomplished at the moment is the rebuilding of the middle class through bringing manufacturing back. It hasn't happened on a large scale yet, but I'm optimistic that the next year will see a big uptick. Building the middle class will be the best way to close the racial wealth gap. I also live in an urban area in a gentrifying neighborhood and it looks like some millenials are opting to settle. I think this is great for integration as well as minorities moving to the suburbs. I also saw research recently that has shown that gentrification has led to incomes in the area increasing at rates that beat the national average which is also promising.

EDIT: Why was this comment downvoted without a reply? I want to spark a discussion.

> bringing manufacturing back

heh.

> Its a smear that they are anti-diversity.

No it's not. Many prominent figures in the GOP have courted openly racist views over the years.

Some highlights:

Rep Steve King, who has a very long history of espousing racist views, openly questioned why "White Nationalism" is now an offensive term.[0] Do you believe that the concept of white nationalism or any of its ancillary movements to be offensive?

Deceased GOP strategist Tom Hofeller was an architect behind current efforts to gerrymander voting districts throughout the US, and his daughter handed over a hard drive containing documents he wrote that described in detail efforts to take voting strength away from voters of color by implementing a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

How can the desire to take voting power away from non-whites be construed as anything other than racist? The GOP is clearly threatened by the minority vote and have taken dramatic steps behind the scenes to remove them from the voting population[1].

> A lot of the young men I know feel disenfranchised in a system that does not value them even though they are not in any positions of power.

And how exactly does the GOP plan to deal with this? Bernie's Green New Deal guarantees thousands of jobs because the progressive movement sees stagnation among the youth. The GOP just cuts taxes and claims everyone wins when that's far from the reality.

0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/us/politics/steve-king-of...

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/us/north-carolina-gerryma...

There's plenty of racism to go around in all major political parties. "Super-predators" anyone?

> efforts to take voting strength away from voters of color by implementing a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

It seems totally rational and fair that people be asked about their citizenship on a census.

> There's plenty of racism to go around in all major political parties. "Super-predators" anyone?

That was 30 years ago, and the history of that phrase was used against Hillary to great effect in 2016. What a fallacious claim to equate a statement made 30 years ago to multiple, repeated instances of racism on the right. Nobody on the left is defending the use of that term today.

> It seems totally rational and fair that people be asked about their citizenship on a census.

There's a very strong legal argument that the explicit goals for adding the citizenship question makes it unconstitutional.

Hofeller wrote in confidential memos that his daughter released stating that the explicit goal of adding the question was to scare members of the Latino community into not answering the question, given the current administration's crackdown on immigration. This directly contradicts the mandate laid out in the Constitution which clearly states that the Census is to be filled out by everyone living in the US, not just citizens.

By designing a question to explicitly suppress participation in certain communities, the motives to which were leaked by Hofeller's daughter, the administration could in no way argue that it had a legitimate legislative reason to add the question to the census, which is exactly why they stopped pursuing it.

Super-predators is the most obvious and famous example that comes to mind (one you're quick to dismiss), but do you really think there isn't racism on the left? Many would say that the objectification, tokenization and gamification the left does with minorities is racist. In fact, as non-white minority that's exactly how I feel.

> This directly contradicts the mandate laid out in the Constitution which clearly states that the Census is to be filled out by everyone living in the US, not just citizens.

It's absolutely absurd to suggest counting the number of citizens is racist. Not everyone has to answer yes to that question, thus sticking with the constitutional goal of accurately surveying the populace. Do you really not see any value in a country knowing how many citizens it has?

I'm not dismissing that term, which was undoubtedly racist and reflected the poor race relations of the democratic party back then. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't individuals who may express racist views, I have no way of knowing that.

What I do know is that racial division has been a hallmark of this administration, from equating white supremacist protesters (one of whom literally murdered a protester, btw) with counter protesters in Charlottesville, which the president did.

Nor am I suggesting that counting the number of citizens is racist. When a high-level GOP party operative writes to other members of the party that they need to implement the question in order to suppress the count of minority members in the US, you can't argue that you're trying to get an accurate count of people living in the US.

I'm not suggesting that this was implied somehow, Hofeller explicitly stated this in his memos. He wanted to scare Latinos into not filling out the census and put it writing. How is that not racist? This was one of the most powerful GOP strategists in the country putting this idea out among party officials.

> How is that not racist?

I would argue that not including the citizenship question is racist. It makes logical sense to include it, to do otherwise is to manipulate the results based on race.

> He wanted to scare Latinos into not filling out the census and put it writing.

Again, I say this as a minority. It doesn't feel great to be used as a pawn. As a citizen I would have absolutely no problem answering that question. Many, many Latinos would also be ok with it, so putting words in their mouth is an example of racism coming from the Left.

> I would argue that not including the citizenship question is racist.

Well, the current administration abandoned this effort after the memos were leaked because they knew this argument wouldn't hold up in court. And it no way holds up here. You choose to willfully ignore the fact that the genesis of this question by the GOP was explicitly to keep Latinos on the sidelines.

> Again, I say this as a minority.

Asserting your identity as if that adds credence to your argument while ignoring the simple fact that it's illogical doesn't help you in any way. It doesn't matter what you look like or where you're from, you're argument is still illogical.

> Many, many Latinos would also be ok with it, so putting words in their mouth is an example of racism coming from the Left.

You literally just put words in the mouths of Latinos at the beginning of that sentence only to accuse the left of doing so. The census in its current form doesn't have any questions designed to keep minority members of the community from participating, can you provide a reason why the census in its current form is racist?

>Do you really not see any value in a country knowing how many citizens it has?

There is definitely value in that, but the Census' primary goal is to count everyone. And the experts in the Census Bureau believed the citizenship question would harm that count. That's a non-starter.

> Many would say that the objectification, tokenization and gamification the left does with minorities is racist.

Insofar as bigotry is proposed as a cause for something—a way you're suggesting a person or group thinks about the world, that leads them to the actions they choose—then I would suggest that such modelling only works to the degree that said behavior doesn't have a clear game-theoretic justification.

Or, less-flowery: if making some particular choice would help you win—in fact, would help anyone win—then that choice probably wasn't motivated by racism.

Or, by analogy: if an AI with no understanding of humans but a perfect understanding of strategy would do it, it's probably not racist.

You're discounting people's perception of others and themselves. Nobody wants to be "the token". It starts creating the perception that all people of that demographic exist in the workplace due to lowered barriers and thus are not as good. It's not entirely beneficial.

The problem is that the President cultivates groups that are nativist. Any good that some of his policies may do will not earn him any credibility if he wipes it away by minimizing the problematic nature of those that seek to use his voice as an amplification for their narratives.

Unfortunately Trump seem incapable of cutting loose anyone who is willing to praise him unrestrainedly. So he ends up endorsing groups directly or indirectly over Twitter via re-tweet that are toxic or praising Putin/Kim Jong Un since they restrict their criticism to the USA as a country rather than him personally.

I'm a lifelong Republican, but voted 3rd party last election and set to again, despite agreeing with many actual policy positions this admin takes. I (and many others) can't be party to his antics as they will smear the whole conservative world view for a generation with the slime of his self-interest.

> voted 3rd party

So you're planning to have no effect on the outcome of the election?

I'm having the effect of not proactively promoting policies/behaviors that don't represent my PoV. Why reward behavior that I find reprehensible?

Also, if we keep allowing that false dichotomy to dictate our votes we will be eternally trapped in 2-party hell. There is a possible outcome where other parties become viable, but first we must kill with fire the idea that we must always vote in a binary fashion.

Members of the younger generation (myself included) have little experience with administrations who demonstrate their fealty to the abstract ideals of the USA. We have, with few exceptions, not been led by people who have the US populace -- in contrast to its economy and hegemony -- at the forefront of their minds. NAFTA, and globalization more broadly, and its effects has progressed to the point where the promises of prosperity in the age of unfettered trade should have shown some signs of success at the personal level by now -- and yet, here we are. We see and hear about other parts of the world which are harmed by these policies. The authorities on the matter, however, explain it away by pointing at GDP growth curves. But these great results aren't reflected in our lives: burdened by debt and historically low net worths, we've lost faith in those who came before us who keep telling us it's all part of the game. Not so if we were born 70 years ago.

To a large extent, I'd say that this has resulted in a cynical and rather extreme position of "actions speak louder than words". Those who represent the USA, being elected officials in keeping with the mythos of the modern representative democracy, are doing a poor job of showing their decency, if there is any hidden inside to begin with. The notable exception is of course Bernie Sanders, who, even if somewhat ineffective during his time in office, was and is steadfast, honest, and genuinely caring about the people individually and as a whole. He demonstrates his alignment with the people's needs far more than anyone else in the political field today, even as hamstrung as he was, aside from maybe Elizabeth Warren. The rest are opportunists, lying through their teeth and brushing off serious blemishes on their record to their own detriment. See: Bernie's policy platforms 4 years ago and how much is reflected in nearly all candidates' platforms today.

We're pretty peeved that this blatant deceit is lost on the older generations. From our (my) perspective, the USA has always been shoddy and the people haven't cared about grave injustices as long as their lot in life is stable. Only a few shining stars have risen in those 250-ish years that have made any real progress on ethical issues.

> Not so if we were born 70 years ago.

Really? That means growing up during late 60's, 70's, 80's.

Vietnam, Watergate, trickle-down economics, ...

Being born in 1949, the aftermath of WWII, when the US experienced perhaps its starkest wealth increase on a national and personal level (think American Dream, green lawns, and white picket fences!) and the pathos was high to pursue such ideals, would have still been a boon. Yes one probably would have been drafted into Vietnam but in my view even the national conversation about that war was a healthy one for the country.

Most people born during that time were never drafted. Out of a pool of 27 million eligible men, only 2.2 million (about 8% or 1 out of 12) were ever drafted. And there was of course an easy out: Go to college, which back then, you could pay for with a summer job.

I mostly agree with you, even if this reads like a shortened college essay.

> We're pretty peeved that this blatant deceit is lost on the older generations

My parents are 60-70yo, in the streets for Sanders. I don't think you are the only cynic, far from it, but the real problem is when cynicism breeds obedience. You can't believe your cynicism isn't the result of calculation, can you?

> when cynicism breeds obedience

Is this meant to mean that persistent cynicism becomes closed-mindedness and a disengagement from the root issues? Would you mind expanding?

I believe (to first order) all judgments are based on calculations, but with the caveat of sample bias. So to that end, I have reached this conclusion based on my personal experience with what I've lived and observed. I recognize my limited perspective but cannot comprehend its limits or what lies beyond, but my emotional charge remains fixed to what my experience has shown me so far.

> but feel that the current government is not upholding those ideals in a way they approve of.

In some cases, the government is actively undermining those ideals. We’re separating thousands of young children from their parents and holding them in horrible conditions in some cases. My stomach turns thinking all we’re going to learn about this chapter in American history over the next 10 years because we’re not seeing all of it unfold in real time.

Add to that gerrymandering, political interference to keep our election infrastructure weak after multiple reports of hacking by foreign governments.

Much of this adds up to an existential crisis in democracy that we’re just now waking up to.

> My stomach turns thinking all we’re going to learn about this chapter in American history over the next 10 years because we’re not seeing all of it unfold in real time.

> Much of this adds up to an existential crisis in democracy that we’re just now waking up to.

When do you think it was better in the past?

I'm not arguing that there is a better period in the past than what we're experiencing now. But American history relative to the present has no bearing on the severity of the atrocities we're seeing now, no?

Are you suggesting that what I've outlined above is somehow acceptable because America has always had black marks in the history books?

We had better leaders in the past... We've moved the post too far right.

Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower even from different parties I think all of them were in support of more support for the people, and I'm pretty sure Eisenhower and Roosevelt at least were both for universal healthcare for all, too bad they didn't push for it back then and get it. We wouldn't be having all the fights about healthcare we have today.

Yup, it's crazy how things that used to be bipartisan no-brainers are now these hugely polarizing issues. Freaking Nixon of all people created the EPA, and look what he had to say about pollution pricing:

"We believe that part of the answer lies in pricing energy on the basis of its full costs to society. One reason we use energy so lavishly today is that the price of energy does not include all of the social costs of producing it. The costs incurred in protecting the environment and the health and safety of workers, for example, are part of the real costs of producing energy-but they are not now all included in the price of the product."

The poll mentions "patriotism", not "nationalism", and I think those are two different things. "Nationalism" increasingly refers to an exclusivist mindset, whereas "patriotism" at least used to be more "pride in one's country".

Older people grew up during the Cold War, when the USA perceived itself as a bulwark of freedom and democracy in a world of opaque, totalitarian regimes, and when the country was further ahead than most of the rest of the world in development.

These days, a lot of the rest of the world has caught up, and a lot of younger Americans feel discouraged about the state of democracy in their own country. We aren't at the vanguard of freedom and functional government anymore.

Plus, over the past few decades, "patriotism" has been increasingly associated with flag/anthem worship, military boosting, and a kind of rah-rah "USA! USA!" attitude that has little to do with freedom and democracy. It's been turned into a marketing tool and a cudgel that right-wing political groups have used against their opponents since the Vietnam War.

I don't think this is the case here. I think it means the younger generations are not patriotic - not simply that they don't support the current administration.

As a young American, I would rate my patriotism as 0, because Nationalism is antithetical to the ideas of Liberty and Democracy.

>because Nationalism is antithetical to the ideas of Liberty and Democracy.

What makes you think that, exactly?

Here is some food for thought on that subject http://tagoreweb.in/Render/ShowContent.aspx?ct=Essays&bi=72E...

From your link:

>And I feel tempted to put the same question to our American critics with a slight modification, 'What have you done with the Red Indian and the Negro?' For you have not got over your attitude of caste toward them. You have used violent methods to keep aloof from other races, but until you have solved the question here in America, you have no right to question India.

As far as I know, there are zero laws that are prejudiced towards native Americans or POC and haven't been in decades..

Well, let me give some examples.

Citizenship is used to deny people without it participation in Democracy and deny them certain freedoms, for example.

Borders deny freedom of movement and are currently being used to lock people up (deny them virtually all freedom) for crossing an imaginary line.

Nations create and enforce inequality is basically what it comes down to. They are created and enforced through violence.

Some good points, but I don't think 'nationalism' means what you think it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Well, yeah I'm talking about "nations" but you can't have nationalism without a nation. And you can't have a nation without the idea of citizenship or borders right?

Don't let the wordplay confuse you. There can definitely be nationalism without a nation. One of many examples being Kurdistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan

> Well, yeah I'm talking about "nations" but you can't have nationalism without a nation.

Correct, basically.

> And you can't have a nation without the idea of citizenship or borders right?

Wrong: citizenship and, especially, borders are features of the association with and territorial limits of the jurisdiction of a state.

A nation is an identity group which may or may not have a state, a state is a political unit which may or may not be tightly associated with a nation. The modern nation-state system is one in which there is a norm that states tend to be coextensive with nations, and where that isn't the case either nations try to carve out states or states try to create new national identities.

I’m on the younger side of the millennial group. Freedom and democracy are wonderful in theory but the US has been run by plutocrats since it’s inception. It was literally built on slavery and black people have, today, 10% of the wealth of white people. And you can do anything you want in this wonderful society, so long as you can afford it. And that’s only one group getting screwed over - for 50 years the median purchasing power has held flat or declined. For markets that are easily captured by the bourgeoisie such as healthcare, education, and housing prices have risen to beyond what anyone can reasonably pay. Technocrats are worried that my generation is having fewer children because we’re perpetually in debt and have a hard enough time taking care of ourselves. So you see? The teams have changed, but its the same old game of who’s getting kicked and who’s doing the kicking.

That’s what I think of the uniquely American delusion of freedom and democracy, thanks for asking.

I'm someone who spent their childhood in a newly Communist state.

We got to watch anyone with an education have everything they had stolen, then rewarded with either a bullet to the head or strict fealty to the party line.

Oddly enough, the new commissars seemed quite comfortable in the homes of those they killed.

America, warts and all, has a superior system. That doesn't mean there aren't real problems here. It just means that you haven't experienced a true void of civil law. I do not think you would care for it much.

We will experience it soon unfortunately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com