Paul Krugman: "It's not about economics. It's about race."

[Cyrano]

Whatever you believe, you can't ignore Paul Krugman, NY Times columnist, New York University Professor, and Nobel Laureate.

Krugman doesn't believe this election is about economics. He believes it's about race.

“Ultimately, it’s about race,” he told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “You cannot understand anything that’s happening in this election and US politics without seeing it as — unfortunately, a fairly large fraction of Americans who don’t like the fact that we’re becoming a multiracial, multicultural country.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/paul-krugman-destroys-the-media-myth-that-trump-voters-have-economic-anxiety-its-about-race/

I couldn't agree with him more.

Edit: spelling correction

[CTyankee]

2. Dr. K goes to the heart of the matter. Good for him.

[Cyrano]

3. As we all know, the parties changed roles in the 1960s

Southern Dems became Republicans because Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

And then Richard Nixon came along with his "Southern Strategy" and solidified the South as a bastion of "white power and voters."

Not a whole lot has changed since except that racism has gained strength in parts of the country outside the South.

Eight years of Obama has been just too much for the bigots.

Now, they see a chance to win back the White House from the Dems, (also called racial epithets by Republicans that I won't repeat here.)

The economy and employment has improved in the past eight years under Obama. But the hatred has festered because there's been a black man in the White House.

Trump has given voice to the bigots. And that's the only reason this is a close race. I believe (hope) Hillary will triumph.

But if Trump wins or steals it, this will become a very ugly country in which to dwell.

However, Paul Krugman is right on. This election is about race. Nothing else.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

35. this, sadly.

Accurate.

[mnhtnbb]

4. It's about white male supremacy--not just race.

Trump's motto of "make America great again" is code for a return to the origins. What did "all men are created equal" mean when it was written?
'All men' were white men of property. It did not mean all mankind--did not include women--and certainly did not include people of color.

It's not a coincidence that known white male supremacists are backing Trump. They get it. They understand what he means.

[volstork]

6. Agreed

Just like Bill Clinton said over the weekend (paraphrasing):
"'Make America great again.' It helps to be a white Southern male, but we all know what that means."

[CrispyQ]

37. This. ^^^

What did "all men are created equal" mean when it was written?
'All men' were white men of property. It did not mean all mankind--did not include women--and certainly did not include people of color.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Many of us people of color tried to explain this to

those Bernie Sanders' supporters who argue for economic equality over race.

It has always been about race, and some how, some way, we as a society must come to terms with this fact. Denial will not solve this problem. Downplaying and obfuscation will not make it go away.

Let's start being honest and face this head on.

Kudos to Krugman for being honest and courageous enough to tell the truth.

[Ken Burch]

11. I get it that the Sanders campaign didn't sound antiracist enough.

A lot of us were pressing the campaign on that AS SANDERS SUPPORTERS.

But it remains unfair and untrue to claim that the Sanders campaign and supporters actually dismissed race as an issue.
None of us believe now, if we ever did believe, that economics matters MORE than race, or that the fight against racism should be set aside in the name of economic justice.

We don't believe that. I seriously doubt that any of us ever did.

It's that just that racism isn't the ONLY issue. And that racism can't be truly defeated by addressing it in isolation from everything else.
What is so terrible, what is so intolerable, about saying that? Why can't it be accepted that a person can think that and still get it that institutional racism needs to be addressed YESTERDAY?

The vast majority of us supported and still support BLM and what it stands for from the start and, joined in the calls for police reform and criminal justice reform.

And we never argued that economic justice measures should be colorblind, should be set up on the assumption that the effects of racism no longer exist.

At most, we said that BOTH racism and economic injustice matter, that it's not possible to erase the effects of institutional bigotry without putting checks on corporate power and redirecting at least some wealth from the bottom to the top. Who would actually disagree with that?

I agree that the campaign did not communicate its strong antiracist message effectively enough, but it was never true that we didn't get it that racism was a massive issue. It is. And none of us ever called for a colorblind approach to economic justice.

Can the claim that Sanders supporters themselves didn't care and didn't get it FINALLY be put to rest?

We cared then. We got it then. We listened and changed the campaign message dramatically in response. And the candidate we supported wasn't nominated, so what's the point of continuing to attack us on this now?

Can't we all agree that we're together on this now and that shortcomings of the Sanders campaign no longer matter?

Or at least, can this kind of post, the kind where Sanders supporters get talked to as if none of us listened and we're still the enemy please stop?

Asking people to listen and change is fine. Pretending they didn't listen and never changed when they clearly did is unfair and serves no purpose.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Thank you for your response. I think it's a fair assessment. One thing...

I knew that I would get accused of lumping ALL Sanders' supporters together, so I was careful in how I worded my post.

Here's what I wrote:

Many of us people of color tried to explain this to those Bernie Sanders' supporters who argue for economic equality over race.

I assumed that the qualifier "those" signified ONLY ***those*** Bernie supporters who were definitely not aligned with us on this issue. And let's be honest, there were plenty of ***these*** supporters. Trust me. There were many of us blacks here in DU and elsewhere who got shut down for making this argument.

Bottom line: Krugman is being incredibly honest and courageous in his piece, so I do appreciate that.

And I do appreciate you and others who are on the same page. I think we're on the same team, so that's great.

[Ken Burch]

18. Thanks for your response as well.

I get it that bad things were said and significant mistakes made during the primaries. But the primaries are OVER now (and frankly, I suspect that a lot of the people who claimed to be Sanders supporters online were either Trump surrogates, or Rand Paul wreckers, or trolls who were enticed to post what they did and to claim to be who they said they were for the price of two months worth of Hot Pockets) so I'm going to react strongly to anything that sounds like it's trying to dredge up old attack lines from that period. Glad to find out that that wasn't your intent.

We are pretty much united on this point now. Can we work from the assumption that people from both campaigns can be trusted to get it and to care? Trust, the benefit of the doubt, and mutual respect are crucial if we are to stop Hair Drumpf from completing his Gambling Hall Putsch.

That is all I'm saying.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. I think the only way we are able to work together and honestly get things done is that people are

honest. Yes, we all now are one united front and that's great, but I think that on this issue of race, there are so many people who are dishonest and/or in denial. Even people on this thread. I'm still seeing many in denial who cannot come to terms with the significance of race in this country and that doesn't do our cause any good.

Krugman has re-opened the dialogue and provided a great opportunity to confront the issue head-on.

'Tis all I'm saying.

[Ken Burch]

20. OK.

Let's not only discuss race, let's unite to defeat institutional racism.

Yesterday.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Institutional racism would not exist were it not for racism, in essence. I agree that's important.

[Ken Burch]

30. Yeah, that pretty much follows.

There's grassroots racism(the origins of which and the causes for the continuation of which are still open questions), and there's institutional racism(which I think exists, at least in part, because it preserves the power of the institution over all those the institution seeks to dominate).

[JanMichael]

23. That does not mean Economic Equality is a bad thing though, or does it to you? nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. Where did I state or even imply that? I didn't. The argument is that race considerations should be

tantamount. It is racism that came first--not economic inequality. It is precisely because there is hatred based on race that there is economic inequality. Many black professionals (and other persons of color) STILL experience racism regardless of their level of education or how much they make. Me walking down the street in sweats, coming from the gym--I'll STILL get followed and harassed despite the fact that I have two Masters degrees and a Ph.D.

We cannot fully eradicate economic inequality UNTIL we start getting honest about what causes it: RACISM!!

Krugman is right. He is 100% right.

Please listen to people of color and stop being so hostile. LISTEN!!!!!

[JanMichael]

31. Who is being hostile (all caps?)? Me? Really (all caps?) nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Stick to the topic. Can you address the issue and not deflect?

[JanMichael]

36. You made a personal comment that I was being "so hostile".

Then threw in all caps which is so cool. Exaggerate much?

Who is deflecting?

[Yavin4]

25. Exactly. Racism in America is the primary reason why we don't have Europe's social safety net.

Take away the corporate money, the lobbyists, the Republicans, the media, etc., and we still won't have single payer because non-White people would get the same benefits.

[AngryAmish]

7. I think all sides are on agreement on this topic.

The age of policy is over. We are a multicultural society and in those societies the parties ape the races of their members. The Republican are the white party. And they are the enemy of everyone else.

[Cyrano]

8. Your post seems to indicate that all Dems are white voters

Sorry, but I can't agree.

Many millions of white men and women support Hillary. It is my belief that the majority of whites are not racists.

All the proof that's needed is two-term President Obama.

And if he could run again he'd win a landslide of voters or every race.

[Skittles]

9. oh don't you know?

stereotyping sucks, unless the subject is white folk or LEO

[AngryAmish]

10. The Republican are the white party.

This is the message now and going forward.

Sure some of the whites in academia, fortune 100/tech and media are Democrats, the majority of white people who identify as white are Republican.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Honestly, the majority of white voters did not vote for Barack Obama. Not in 2008 and not in 2012.

However, Democratic candidates have not garnered the majority of white votes since Bill Clinton at least.

It look a coalition of liberal and moderate whites, along with blacks, Hispanics and other cultural and ethnic groups to put Obama over the top.

[Dawson Leery]

12. Race/Gender/Ethnic background/Religion.

I have overhead so many(especially older white men) talk about how bad cities are, vilify women, demonize minority religions, complain that today's kids are weak and stupid, etc...how the "old school" was better (i.e segregation/women as second class citizens, you could beat your kid for any reason, and prayer was mandatory). This is what it comes down to.

[Ken Burch]

13. And that is horrible. And it's older RIGHT WING white men doing that.

Not economic justice supporters and not the Sanders campaign.

When will the attacks on that campaign on that issue stop? The day after Bernie's funeral?

Everyone who supported both Clinton AND Bernie agrees that institutional bigotry is a massive issue.

[Dawson Leery]

15. What did I say? You can tell the right wingers from the nones by

the coded language.

[davidn3600]

16. America has always been mutli-racial, multi-national, and multi-cultural

There is no "American" person in the full sense of the word. The only people native to this land are Native American Indians. Everyone else came to this land in one way or another at some point in time from all over the world. So American culture is extremely young and gone through evolution with different types of people and immigrants over a long period of time.

I've talked a long time here and elsewhere on my beliefs on multiculturalism. I'm not necessarily against the concept, I just don't believe it will work because it doesn't take into account a need for social cohesion. Today's progressives want a "salad bowl" society instead of a "melting pot." That's the problem.
If our society constantly puts people into categories and allow self-segregation, we will never conquer racism. It will always be a problem due to social identity and intragroup discrimination.

In a "salad bowl" society, you will always have one culture trying to be better than the others. It's human nature.

[kwassa]

22. I disagree with you beliefs in a number of ways:

There is an American in the traditional sense of the word, and that is a white male of Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage. They were predominant in the first two centuries of this country. The heritage was primarily British, to be specific, and others were expected to assimilate to that heritage.

We certainly have had, much more recently, a great deal of immigration from non-white people of the world, after our racist immigration laws were amended, so the complexion of the country is changing.

I am a public school art teacher in a huge school system in the suburbs of DC. My town has been rated the most diverse in the US. There is no salad bowl, because the immigrants are spread out all over the place and mix with other immigrants from all over the world, as well as native born Americans. It is indeed a melting pot, it is socially cohesive, it is doing what it is doing without consultation about anyone's theories about what it should be doing. I know many inter-ethnic and interracial couples, and their kids, and I am in an interracial marriage myself. It is utterly and completely common now.

Your salad bowl worries are completely unfounded.

Edit to add: Culture is dynamic, not static. Our culture is continually changing. Our core values are not. The influx from outside strengthens us, as we draw from the most ambitious risk-takers of the world. This is a very good thing, not a bad thing.

[The2ndWheel]

24. What is diversity?

Is 10 groups of 10 people doing things 10 different ways diversity? Is taking those same 100 people and putting them in 1 group and doing everything 1 way diversity?

If you have 10 countries, and there's no immigration between them, that's still diverse, from a certain angle. If you have 10 countries, and everyone moves here and there, that's also diverse from another angle.

Just like arbitrary lines on a map, we get stuck on saying something is good or bad based on what we like, which is also arbitrary.

[FigTree]

21. It has been since the first minute after the 2008 election.nt.

[Whiskeytide]

28. I can't understand how some here don't get the direct line ...

... between institutional racism and economic disparity. The two concepts are so interrelated that it's almost silly to try and distinguish them.

Economic disparity for PoC amplifies institutional racism - reducing opportunities. It really is just that simple. Education and opportunity are - long term - the best tools for fighting institutional racism.

Economic disparity for whites gives individual racism a foothold by creating a scapegoat upon which to blame your economic woes. "Entitlement" programs would not be as despised by some whites if they were doing ok financially themselves. Immigrants would not be so resented if they were not perceived by some whites as taking jobs and "free loading" on tax dollars. Individual racism then props up institutional racism with the concept of "I'm losing my status". The MSM and talk radio have been seeding this idea for decades. Don't for a minute think that those in control of such media didn't map it out this way.

Krugman may be right that racism is driving the decision of many voters in this election overtly. But without economic disparity to fuel that bigoted fire, its impact would - I think - be much less frightening.

[lark]

29. Hmm, I think it's more complicated than that.

What he's running on is race, and that's the backbone of his supporters, racists who have fallen behind economically. I also believe Drumpf is a confirmed racist, that's why he had to pay fines 39 times in NY for not renting to blacks. However, he's running to enrich himself, selling out the world to Russia in exchange for them forgiving his huge personal debts with them. He said he had enormous opportunity from the shrub depression in buying up under valued property and think he wants to do it again. He's run himself into the ground financially and is telling a lie a minute to try and trick us into the largest shift of money ever, from us to him.

[Hamlette]

32. When we learned whites would be a minority in the next few years, many whites freaked

Louis CK did a great bit about this. They know how horribly minorities have been treated in this country and expect they won't be treated well. No wonder they are freaked. If someone told you that you would wake up tomorrow as a hated minority, you might be striking out too.

This is what Trump and Brexit is all about. I'm afraid there will be more.

[Hekate]

33. Kick