The Republican Party has learned that Steve King is a racist because he said, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Despite the fact that this “awakening” came roughly two decades after it was clear to objective observers, the Republicans are actually getting some good press. They shouldn’t. The Republicans have been a racist party for as long as I’ve been alive.

Ben Shapiro: Synecdoche of Republican Party Thinking

Let’s start with the “cool kids’ philosopher” (CKP), Ben Shapiro. Back on 12 March 2017, Steve King tweeted, “[Geert] Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” It was widely attacked for its obvious racism. But the CKP had other ideas, Media Accuse Rep Steve King (R-IA) Of Racism. They’re Lying. Read His Actual Words. He claimed, “It could be argued that King was stating that multiculturalism, combined with high levels of immigration from non-Western cultures, shapes destiny.” (Note the weasel opening clause!)

But last week, the CKP posted an update. In it he wrote, “In light of [King’s recent pro-white-supremist] statements, this article gave far too generous an interpretation of King’s words.”

Shapiro is one step up from most Republicans in one way: he’ll admit to error if it is the only option. In my experience, articles like this one are usually simply taken down by Republicans and their apologists.

Pausible Deniability

But this isn’t saying much because Shapiro’s threshold for admitting any failure of the American right is ridiculously high. It’s also idiosyncratic. I can well understand King’s anger at all of this. After everything he’s said and done over the years, it was the magic of “white supremacist [shouldn’t be] offensive” that did it? Really?!

(A large part of the reason the Republicans turned on King is also due to his poor showing in the 2018 election. In fact, I suspect that Ben Shapiro would still be defending him if King hadn’t only barely won re-election in a heavily Republican district.)

The Republicans have long been the party of plausible deniability. And that’s what’s going on here. As long as they could continue to — as with Ben Shapiro — find an alternate reading for King’s clearly racist statements, they did. It’s the basis for the whole party.

That’s why they can claim that the 2018 tax cut was for the middle class, even though almost 70 percent of the cuts went to the upper class — after all, over 30 percent went to the rest (half of that went to the upper-middle class). And it only gets worse over time.

A Little History

It’s understandable why Republicans would act like this. For my entire lifetime, Republicans have been a racist party. In the 1964 presidential election, Barry Goldwater ran by appealing to southern racists who did not want to integrate. He lost, but the party fixed on this direction. And over the next decade and a half, all of the southern racists who had been in the Democratic Party rushed to join the Republicans. (This fact is ignored by people like Dinesh D’Souza in their farcical arguments that Democrats are the real racists.)

Then, we got Ronald Reagan — the man who got Americans to embrace their racism. His 1980 campaign is well remembered for his “states’ rights” speech in Mississippi near where 3 civil rights workers were lynched in 1964.[1] Then we got Bush with his Willie Horton ad. And on and on up until Trump who doesn’t even try to hide his bigotry and hatred.

If it weren’t for the effectiveness of racist appeals to voters, Republicans would be a tiny party because most of their votes come from people who only benefit from their relative standing compared to minority group members. So clearly, Republicans are going to be sensitive to claims of racism.

Our Useless Definition of Racism

In America, we usually define racism in the most useless way: using forbidden words. So Steve King is not a racist because of his beliefs, but because he said white supremacy shouldn’t be considered a bad thing.

Similarly, people of the left were very excited that a recording of Trump using the n-word might come out. They were excited not because they thought it was important. We all know that Trump is a bigot. We were excited because we knew that this would strip away a major part of his support. He would have lost his plausible deniability.

So What?

This whole brouhaha about Steve King is meaningless. It is just another obvious example of the Republican Party trying to keep up appearances. And our society goes along with it. As long as Trump doesn’t say forbidden words, the media will not call him a racist — even when he’s praising neo-Nazis. If King censure shows anything, it is just how far off the rails the Republican Party has gone in its racist fundamentals.

Let’s not get caught up in what a bad guy Steve King is. He always has been. In saying white supremacy isn’t a bad thing, King showed how Racist his party is and how fluid their definition of it is.

[1] There is an amusing article in RedState that claims liberals are all wrong about this. But all it does is nitpick the claim, noting, for instance, that he didn’t give the speech where the civil rights workers were murdered, but a whole 7 miles away at the state fair. Also: “states’ rights” wasn’t even an applause line. My, that is a compelling argument!

We all know that undocumented immigrants commit less serious crime than native-born Americans. We know it from tons of articles like this one in The Washington Post, Two Charts Demolish the Notion That Immigrants Here Illegally Commit More Crime. Nonetheless, conservatives treat this the same way they do global warming by claiming that “we just don’t know!” But we do. There is no question. But fighting about this is a real problem.

When we bring up the fact that statistically undocumented immigrants commit less crime than natives, we are accepting the racist framing of the conservatives. We are implicitly claiming that if immigrants committed less crime the conservatives would be right to be concerned. We would, in other words, be treating immigrants as a monolith — as though individuals were simply representatives of their demographic.

I have no memory of anyone on the left bringing up low crime rates among undocumented immigrants as a reason for accepting them. So it isn’t like leftists are out in the world pushing this point. Instead, our acceptance of immigrants is based on humanism, inclusivity, and egalitarianism. Conservatives are, in general, against these things. More important in modern America, conservative politicians can demagogue the fear that conservatives naturally have of outsiders.

Fighting Racism With Racism?

But this puts leftists who wish to support immigrants into a difficult situation. Conservatives bring up the subject. They state what they “know” in their gut (which isn’t true): immigrants commit more crime. And leftists almost automatically correct this error: no, immigrants commit less crime as demonstrated by studies in Cato Institute, Criminology Journal, and Justice Quarterly.

It doesn’t matter. As in the link at the top, people like Tucker Carlson just ignore them. I hear conservatives repeat this nonsense as much today as I did a decade ago. No amount of data will change it because they “know” that it is true. And even if it weren’t true, they don’t care. They hate immigrants. It’s obvious today as the Trump administration tries to reduce the amount of legal immigration. But back in 2013, I wrote Conservatives Hate All Immigration. Nothing has changed except that Trump has uncovered the true nature of American conservatism.

What Can We Do?

But we can’t just refuse to engage with conservatives over this nonsense. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who are not part of the racist right who do not know this. These are the people who aren’t in favor of a wall but still think there is a security crisis on the border — that’s 12 percent of Americans!

I really don’t have a good answer for this. When your opponent won’t accept facts and has no shame, it puts you in a difficult position.

But I do know how I’ll counter this in the future. I’ll say, “The data is unequivocal: undocumented immigrants commit significantly less violent crime and overwhelmingly less property crime. But that isn’t the issue. That’s a racist way to look at it. I certainly wouldn’t tar you as a violent criminal just because some Americans are. So why do you want to do this to immigrants?”

Yeah, I understand: that kind of aggressive argumentation doesn’t work. But I wouldn’t be saying it for the bigot in front of me. They are hopeless. I’d be saying it for any reasonable people who might be listening. Slowly, these people might learn that immigrants commit less crime and that immigrants are individuals and not just representatives of their demographic.

I didn’t notice much thoughtful reaction to Trump’s speech last night. There was, of course, Lindsey Graham saying that Trump was very presidential. And there were lots of normal people making reasonable comments. But I didn’t see much analysis. And I think I understand why: there was nothing to analyze.

A good example of this comes from Matthew Yglesias, The Real Crisis Is That Trump Has No Idea What He’s Doing. It ends with, “Repudiation at the polls clearly hasn’t caused Trump to rethink anything about this disastrous approach, so we’re now all just left to hope for the best over the next two years. With luck, at some point, we’ll have a functioning government again.”

Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. And so he just falls back into repeating his usual talking points. The only difference was that there were several minutes of him demagoguing a couple of stories where immigrants killed Americans. I’m really not sure it will move public opinion — at least after it is widely reported tomorrow that his speech was filled with deception and performed by a squinting man with barely suppressed rage. I’m sure it was a big hit with the base, however.

Beyond Outrage?

But this is what our nation has come to. It’s hard to get outraged by what Trump did last night given that he (with almost complete support from Republicans) does every day. What is there to say that hasn’t been said countless times before? If people support Trump, there really isn’t anything that he could do that would change that.

Well… There was this article in The New York Times, A Florida Town Grapples With a Shutdown After a Hurricane. This town is in the panhandle of Florida — you know: Alabama. So it’s filled with Trump supporters. And this is best summed up by Crystal Minton, a prison secretary, and single mother, “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this. I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

It’s a remarkable statement. Were the good things the hurting of the right people? Who are these people who need hurting? They clearly aren’t the ones with real power over her. I assume they are brown people — especially from other countries.

It hardly matters. Her big mistake was to believe that Trump (or any Republican) would ever do what was in her interest. One good thing about Trump is that he’s laid the game bare. He doesn’t speak in subtext. And he doesn’t have any problem screwing over his own voters.

What’s sad is that even if people like Ms Minton do figure out that they’ve been conned, they will continue to vote Republican. They will learn not to vote for Trump (at least for a while) but will continue to vote for Republicans with the same policy.

Our Useless Media

Most of the writing about Trump’s predictable performance last night has been focused on the networks’ choice to air this garbage. As has been widely noted, the networks gave air time for a presidential speech on immigration to Bush in 2006 and Trump in 2019. But they denied it to Obama in 2014. Oh my! I wonder why?!

Most people claim that the networks were “played” by Trump. For example, Media Matters reported, The Networks Got Played. Ten years ago, I would have agreed. Now I don’t think so.

The people at the networks may think of themselves as liberal, but they are exactly the kind of people who benefit from Republican policy. The anchors and executives (the people with power) are all millionaires. They’ve done well by Trump’s tax cut. They may prefer a less-chaotic Republican, but Trump is delivering for them.

Systemic Failure

All of this — Trump, Republicans, the media — come down to systemic problems in this country. We have a president who was “elected” by a minority. We have Republicans throughout the nation in charge because of gerrymandering. The Supreme Court is conservative because norms are no longer followed and our entire system of government apparently depends critically on them. It’s all a mess.

The only good thing I can say is that as the country gets more and more unequal, it will become more and more likely that the people will rise up. But until them, at least half the nation will be looking for a president who will hurt “the right people.”

Steve Pearlstein is the author of Can American Capitalism Survive? — a liberal capitalist. Bhaskar Sunkara is the editor and publisher of Jacobin — a socialist. Vox decided to print a “debate” between them, Is America’s Future Capitalist or Socialist?

I don’t think much of it because Pearlstein and Sunkara get into the weeds of some issues and as a result, the “debate” is about one-tenth as long as it should be. The condescending tone of Pearlstein is also annoying, but that is not worthy of discussion — only to notice the way that these apologists always take this tone as a way to dismiss the idea that any systems besides capitalism are impossible. It’s their one-two punch: (1) Socialism can’t work; (2) Stalin! (They never grapple with any socialist systems that have worked.)

Stop Saying the Rich Will Care About the Poor Because they Care About Women!

But I was most struck with what seems to be the core of Pearlstein’s argument: we can save capitalism by reinstating norms. He points to the #MeToo movement. This is beyond ridiculous. Pearlstein has his head so far up his apologetics that he can’t see the truth.

I don’t know why capitalism’s apologists always fall for this. Let’s go over it again. LGBT rights were able to make headway because rich people are sometimes gay and rich people have friends and children who are gay. What’s more, LGBT rights cost the rich nothing.

The same is true of women. The rich have no problem with giving women equal rights. One way or another, they have gained their wealth through a system that benefits them at the cost of most women (and lots of other people). But they’ve got their money now! And they know their daughters will too. Mainstream feminism doesn’t pose any threat to their wealth.

Poor People Are Different

None of this calculus applies to poor people. To begin with, rich people don’t have poor children. They don’t have poor friends.

But most of all: helping poor people will require that the economy become more egalitarian. That is: it will cost them money — directly. And that’s in an absolute sense and a relative sense. I suspect if it were just absolute and the relative difference were the same, many rich people would go for it.

As a result, we will never undo, “Greed is good” — as Pearlstein fantasizes. Whatever happened to “Power concedes nothing without a demand”? How exactly do we move forward on norms by asking politely? Especially in the modern context where rich people live in different worlds than the rest of us? Twitter memes?!

The Post-World War II Delusion

Pearlstein also relies on the idea that norms after World War II stopped capitalists from abusing their power. He dismisses the fact that it had much to do with unionization. I have one immediate question, “Then why were these same ‘enlightened’ capitalists so keen on ramming through the Taft–Hartley Act in 1947?” I don’t believe that needs an answer.

But also, how is it that people take a 25-year-long period and turn it into some natural state? The century before was horrible. The five-decade-long period since has gotten worse and worse. And remember, all during that time, the rich were doing everything they could to change the system. The rich never saw it as anything but temporary.

And that period after WWII when businesses did take a broader view of their mission was a fluke. That’s not the way things normally work.

Can you imagine the rich ever agreeing to even a 5 percent increase in taxes? Even if a credible case could be made that it would postpone a violent revolution? I can’t. And so I can’t imagine the rich ever agreeing to economic democracy.

What Prevents Real Change

This all leads me to some uncomfortable thoughts about political change. It’s not like we live in a democracy — or a democratic republic. As long as we don’t have economic democracy, we wouldn’t have political democracy. And without that, there is no clear way to get economic democracy.

Centuries of legal opinion make private property a given that most people can’t even imagine questioning. (Note: not personal property.) It’s very much like the centuries where poor people didn’t question the Divine Right of Kings. Now they don’t question the Divine Right of Private Property.

Going even further, the vast majority of poor people think of the standing police force and army as something meant to protect them when that is just a pretense.

Pearlstein claims that the first order of business is to get “money out of politics.” Oh yes! That will save us! (Corporate and union, because they are the same thing!) Then only the rich and well-connected will be able to win elected office. Bravo! (Pearlstein didn’t mention publicly-funded elections, so I assume he’s not for them and just has this idea if you get money out of politics the rich won’t be able to bend it to their will.)

We Are Doomed

Ultimately, I’m a pessimist. But it’s not irrational. Humans are horrible. The only thing that keeps me humble is the fact that I struggle. If I were rich, I’m sure I would have created an impenetrable philosophical system that told me it was right to be able to buy truffles while others starved.

I am certain that America will continue its decline to the point that it puts someone like Trump in charge full-time. What I can’t imagine is how this mess of a nation becomes better for more than a couple of years at a time.

No amount of hoping will save us from the toxic system that our country is based on.

There is a time in any nonfiction writer’s life when they get good enough to use [sic]. And do they use it! It’s such a wonderfully passive-aggressive way to attack other writers. Generally, such writers eventually move past that point and never use it as a weapon. But they also learn that it is almost never necessary — especially on the internet.

Based on how most people use [sic], they must think that it means, “This is wrong.” But that is not it at all. Indeed, while it often does highlight errors, that is not its purpose.

What Is [sic]?

[sic] is short for sic erat scriptum. According to Google Translate, this means “thus it is written.” But it is better to think of as “literally” or “as written.”

And that’s all that [sic] means: the words before are meant as written. So I could write, “I’m felling spacd ot toda [sic].” And this is one of its most appropriate uses: to call attention to your bad humor attempts.

Traditionally, [sic] was used to indicate that anything in quoted text that might confuse the reader is there intentionally. So in quoting Shakespeare, I might write, “And all clouds that lowr’d vpon [sic] our houfe [sic].”[1]

Clearly, in this case, the [sic] is alerting to the user to the oddness. But more than that, it is saying, “This is how it is actually printed; I didn’t screw up.” And that’s very important because I’ve seen typos in quotes that writers introduced. I’ve done it myself when transcribing text.

Fix Errors in Quotations

But here’s the thing: [sic] is not meant to call attention to errors. And it is perfectly okay to fix any obvious errors and typos.

I hear people objecting. “What?! How dare you change another writer’s prose! You monster!”

There are several things wrong with this. First, only do this when it is clear. I’m sure you’ve seen things I’ve written here like, “He went to a a store.” Is there any doubt I meant to write, “He went to a store”?

Another issue is that editors and typesetters often put errors into a writer’s work. And that was even truer before writers and publishers had computers.

Only the worst pedants will complain unless you somehow change the quotation in a fundamental way.

But if it bothers you, put the changes inside square brackets.

Never Use [sic] as a Weapon

Fowler’s entry on [sic] is more of a rant condemning the use of it as a weapon. And rightly so! This usage is totally unacceptable.

And in the age of the internet, [sic] is almost never necessary because the reader already knows that any quotes are not transcribed. They are rather copied-and-pasted. So it is exactly what was written.

I suspect we will eventually get to the point were [sic] is primarily used as I first did in this article: to point out something the writer is saying.

But my main point is this: don’t be a jerk. In the end, you will only look small to the people who matter.

Afterword

You should probably be able to guess, given the intensity of this article, that I am a former sinner. So don’t take my hectoring personally. It’s more self-criticism than anything.

[1] I don’t know enough about printing to say if any of this is actually different in substance. But it clearly is typographically, so if you require it, imagine I am writing about changes in printing.