At VDare.com, Matthew Richer writes on “Moderate Whites” and the opportunity presented by the ‘race problem.’
Donald Trump is being criticized for his tweets about a recent shooting, in which a cousin of an NBA star was killed in some kind of crossfire incident. He tweeted the following:
“Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!”
Predictably, the left seized on this to castigate Trump. Examples:
That time Donald Trump used Dwyane Wade’s cousin’s murder to campaign for the Black vote. https://t.co/fQPlUuDdEx pic.twitter.com/SjxOqPjshu
— BET (@BET) August 27, 2016
Trump fixed the spelling of Dwyane Wade’s name. Still doesn’t offer condolences. Same self-congratulatory tone.
@realDonaldTrump An absolute disgrace
Honestly, the leftists love this kind of thing; it gives them a chance to gleefully express their moral outrage, and virtue-signal to each other.
In the VDare piece, Richer notes that Trump does not respond in a defensive manner to this kind of thing. He advocates that Trump should react aggressively to the left’s attempts to smear him as a ‘Nazi’, bigot, or whatever else:
“If Trump is to win, therefore, he must employ the language of assault to bypass the Left/MSM narrative and establish himself as the genuine America First candidate.”
Richer says, correctly I think, that recent speeches by Trump addressing black concerns were not so much appeals to the black vote or to blacks as a group, but directed at ‘moderate’ White voters:
”While the black vote is insignificant compared to the white vote, the challenge is that Trump must campaign for the black vote, to some extent, in order to win a significant portion of the white vote.
A great many whites have a strong psychological need to see themselves—or more exactly, to be seen by other whites—as people committed to the well-being of allegedly oppressed minorities.
If a candidate can be depicted as someone insensitive to minority concerns, some whites will not support him—even if they largely agree with the candidate on everything else.”
I realize I am outside the majority, even on the right, when I say that in adopting this kind of strategy, Trump is in fact playing according to the PC rules. He is, in fact, reinforcing the PC ‘narrative’, and because so many on the right (the ‘cuck’ establishment notwithstanding) support him so unconditionally, they will ‘go there’ with him, and nod their heads, and say, yes, he has to do this. If he wants to ‘win’, he has to do this.
All the talk of Trump ‘shattering political correctness’ and refusing to play that game by the left’s rules is just so much talk, if he is to adopt this strategy and follow it.
All the talk of the ‘Overton Window’ being shifted for good by Trump’s bluntness and iconoclastic image may also prove to be illusion based on wishful thinking.
Maybe those younger than 40 or so don’t remember the George W. Bush years, but this is much like what happened when G.W. Bush began to push amnesty and talk of Islam as a ‘Religion of Peace.’ Those who pointed out that this was not what we thought we were voting for were castigated for being ‘purists’ or ‘Bush-haters’ when warning about Bush’s disregard for his ‘base’ and for Americans in general.
Bush pushed amnesty relentlessly and yet the true Bush believers shouted down any conservative who had a problem with that, just as they did with those who objected to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I remember that very well, as it was what drove me away from the GOPe and into blogging. Loyalty to leaders is good — provided they are in the right, but loyalties should be to something more than an individual.
So does Trump ”have to” make speeches about how blacks have ”suffered more than anybody else”, carrying on the rancid ‘Democrats are the Real Racists‘ meme?
If this is for the benefit of the ‘moderate Whites’ (I would call them liberal, if they are more concerned for black interests than their own, but that’s just me), then how long must both political parties and all candidates cater to these people, as well as to the ‘Victimocracy’? Some of us began to hope that Trump would be the one to break the mold and thus pave the way for others to have the courage or the ”permission” to speak up for the rest of us, the majority. So if he is declining that role, preferring instead to continue this charade which is de rigueur as of now, who will ever have the courage and the independence to say ‘No!’ to the whole farce? The longer it continues unopposed the stronger it will become.
I mean, if not now, when? When will it ever be time?
‘Moderate’ Whites who see themselves as protectors or champions of blacks are people who need to have their eyes opened, rather than having their silly ideas reinforced by politicians. They urgently need to see that we (including those same clueless Whites) are under an existential threat. Politicians on both sides who perpetuate their politically correct platitudes and false morality are complicit in what is happening to us.
Vanishing American II 
VA, thanks for this insightful article. It is hard to work through that article to find out what it is saying as it wanders around a bit. It may even contradict itself. Without your help, I would have just passed it by. At one point, it says that Trump benefits by tough phrases repeated by the media and at another that he has to pander as you point out to Moderate Whites who get the vapors over ever holding a Black person accountable.
Of course, as you have pointed out many times, these same types are the ones who diligently study real estate data to avoid their children going to a Black school. Can you really pander to such two faced people? They just see it as weakness to their pretended beliefs. What they really act on is avoiding Blacks in their schools.
Vdare should not be telling Trump to pander to Moderate White sensibilities just after he flipped on amnesty. He has not flipped back fully. In fact, Vdare was undermining Coulter. When Coulter held Trump to account for flip flopping on amnesty, Vdare ran an article saying there was no flip flop. Should they really undercut Coulter when she is trying to get Trump back on track?
I was misled by Vdare by that article. It wasn’t until I read your article on Trump’s flip flop I looked into it more and realized Trump did a major flip flop on amnesty. Coulter was right. Vdare should be helping Coulter and backing her up on Trump’s amnesty flip flop. Telling Trump to pander to Blacks and Moderate Whites is the wrong message at this critical time.
This morning on CNN, a Black attacked Peter Brimelow with the usual names, lumping him into the Alt Right without knowing what Brimelow’s positions are as opposed to anyone else in that group. I think the ship has sailed on trying to pander to Blacks by Vdare or telling Trump to pander to Blacks or Moderate Whites.
Vdare, Trump and our hope is to stick to our message, especially when respectable types like Ann Coulter are holding Trump to account on amnesty flip-flops which come on a regular basis. The Black guy on CNN said our message is we want our own White country. Exactly. In the meantime, we don’t want to make it worse with more pandering. Flip-flopping and pandering go together.
If Vdare wants to hold Trump to his promises after he is elected, they had better stop telling him to pander to moderate Whites and start backing up Coulter and others such as you holding Trump accountable for his flip-flop.
LikeLike
Good piece VA. I totally agree too. The bold statements that Trump made at first are now no where to be found. Immigration being a prime example. He is now advocating the so called ‘touch back’ idea. Coincidentally so did Pence about 10 years ago. He is going to get those ‘criminal aliens’ out of here. Many on the right are convinced it is just strategy to get elected. That he has to in order to win. Sadly too, many on the right are also convinced that ‘we’ can be be united in our ‘conservatism’ (blacks, Hispanics and whites alike). They just need to get the right message by the right messenger.
I get that in order to enact any change you have to win, I am beginning to believe that this is a total fantasy(change that is) but this is the same word game road the right has been down so many times before. Fool me once…
LikeLike
Yes, a good article, as always.
The “whole farce” idea captures a lot. I am deluged with examples of how America is minute by minute riven with utter delusional flapdoodle.
I quoted Jared Taylor’s observation that “Americans are so accustomed to hearing – and repeating – this view that they scarcely bother to think what it means. It means, essentially, that white people, not blacks, are responsible for black behavior. It implies that blacks are helpless and cannot make progress unless whites transform themselves.”
This is the Farsum Summum any every politician worth his or her salt believes they must devise Some Plan for Further Uplift. I agree that it’s wasted on blacks, who just want the boodle that Dems and compliant GOPers shovel their way, and that it makes some sense that what they’re doing is to keep from alarming delicate white sensibilities as you point out.
Another farce is that we are protected by the Constitution. State and federal provisions governing criminal procedure have considerable vitality in my experience though some recent decisions blur the bright line of probable cause that I think should be the sole criterion for arrest absent exigent circumstances. E.g., if the cop makes an illegal stop the subsequent search is still good if the cop made a reasonable mistake (Heien) or an unlawful investigatory stop is not an obstacle to the use of drugs found in a subsequent search if it turns out that there was a valid, pre-existing arrest warrant (Strieff). More to the point, however, there was a massive betrayal in the New Deal where the Commerce Clause became the spear point for every minute and unconstitutional intrusion into areas never contemplated by the Framers and Ratifiers as within the purview of Congress.
Multiculturalism is the stuff of Divine Prescription. Insane spending and monetary fiddling goes unremarked in the presidential debates. Even more insane wars are propagated with still no debate. The “right” of foreigners from the third world to come to the U.S. and foul our nest goes unremarked. And politicians one and all drool and slobber over the idea that it’s only “radical” Islam that’s the cause of our difficulty and if we properly vet adherents of this exceptional, perverted thinking all will be just peachy if we let in millions of “moderate” Muslims who just can’t wait to integrate and cast off shariah law, genital mutilation, and honor killings. “Propositional nation” and “living Constitution” demand passing mention here as does the holiest of propositions of them all, that Israel is our indispensable ally for whom it is vital that we shell out $15B a year in aid and perks.
And, of course, Russia is our mortal enemy and is hell bent on expanding its borders. We know this because the payoff for Russian expansionism is huge increasing Russia’s land area by .038% in the case of Latvia, .002% in the case of S. Ossetia, and .015% in the case of Crimea. I know this because the foreign policy “expert” so religiously consulted by Fox News is convinced that Russia was champing at the bit to acquire Crimea and S. Ossetia and may require a firm NATO response if they indulge this inexplicable, presumably fascist urge to expand.
Feminism is destroying relations between men and women and utterly driving women into a poisonous hysteria in the process. Abortion is killing us demographically. Homosexuals and sadly confused lost souls give new meaning to the word “ludicrous.”
So if Trump wanders into familiar progressive territory on matters of race consider the vast area of other madness that affects our destiny and which he won’t address in a month of Sunday’s. I don’t resent him for what he lacks and am grateful for the important issues that he’s raised, however, it’s clear that we won’t vote our way out of this surreal world we now inhabit (exemplified by Bush 43’s smooching with that Saudi prince and walking hand in hand with him and by the presence in the WH of those two freaks). Only Solzhenitsyn’s pitiless crowbar of events will serve as the instrument to be laid upside the heads of pathetic Westerners.
LikeLike
. . . go unremarked
The foreign policy “expert” is K.T. McFarland.
LikeLike