Unworthy Schemers, Demographics, and Nothing New Under The Sun
There is nothing new under the sun, sayeth the preacher. Surely he must have been talking of politics and unworthy schemers, for it is doubly true then. Understanding such folks to be “apostles of greed and racial arrogancies” and the truth becomes even more self-evident.
Excuse me, should have said demographics; that’s the more socially lubricated word for sliding racial issues into the discourse at present.
A certain host on a certain show has once again got folks talking about demographics, specifically immigration demographics. The point by point is out there if you so wish to know it. Trying to discuss those comments point by point is, well, pointless, because the game he runs is to not say the very bad thing while intentionally saying it closely enough everyone knows what he means. The unworthy schemer does this so that he can react with righteous indignation the following evening how “they” blew up over him not sayings the thing he didn’t say that way on purpose, which is proved because he didn’t say the exact wording of the very bad thing. This has the multiple purposes of not only filling another segment but also perpetuating his own brand and ethos while generating those hate watches and social media coverage.
And once that dies down, the unworthy schemer can just run the old “I’m just asking questions” hurdy-dur about vaccines to boost yourself back to the top of the Facebook video list. Later, rinse, repeat is the catechism of the unworthy schemers, a ritual designed to keep your outrage moving in a never ending circle.
Thing is, not only should folks know better than to take the bait into the oozing fire swamp of carefully coded and planned teleprompter reading, they should know none of this is original. Media figures using their platforms to insist that demographic changes through immigration are going to ruin the country has been a theme for over 150 years. Fear of demographic change always sold good copy — that’s the thing that mattered in the printed word business before the interwebs for you youngins — to the point that the terminology has remained largely unchanged since. “The great fear of the period that Uncle Sam may be swallowed by foreigners,” proclaims a cartoon from the 1860s. The “right” kind of immigrant brings ‘art’, ‘industry’, ‘capital’, and ‘politics’ to the United States, while the “wrong” kind, here depicted as Asian immigration in the form of a serpent, threatens the West coast with maladies such as ‘small pox’, ‘immorality’ and ‘ruin to white labor’, declares another from the 1880s.
All that fuel burned off in the fires of those proclaiming to be the “real Americans,” the nationalists, the Know-Nothings, the true patriots. Sound familiar? There is nothing new under the sun, especially when it comes to media figures stoking fearmongering about rac-oops, sorry, demographics.
That spiral down to the bottom where the self-proclaimed “real Americans” hold their invitation-only meetings always leads to the same ugly rhetorical places eventually. So, instead of chasing that spiral down the rabbit hole of ignorance and ruin, what is helpful is to pull back to a wider view to maintain perspective, to use a different metric, a different standard of who is and isn’t acting in good faith for the betterment of our country. And it comes from a place some might find off-putting, but I have found comfort in over and over again. One that would be impossible today. The demanders of historical revision have yet to fully cancel FDR, despite the longest serving president giving such folks plenty of ammunition and reason to do so. So before he is, let us ponder one of his better moments of rhetoric.
Ponder, if you will, the social media and press reaction if the President of the United States were to lead the nation in prayer, and publicly call for the defeat of “greed and racial arrogancies.” Imagine the President not only publicly leading the nation in prayer, but having copies of the prayer distributed so the citizenry could pray along. Such a thing really would break the internet.
Yet FDR did that very thing, offering a D-Day prayer in a national radio address since known as “A Mighty Endeavor” to most. It is a singularly excellent piece of American eloquence, prepared by FDR, his daughter Anna, and her husband, John Boettiger, with a quickly modified opening added on at the last moment. The thread of the American serviceman jerked from peace and flung into the horrors of war is contrasted with the need to free humanity. The historical hindsight of freeing humanity while Americans of the wrong descent were hearing the speech in camps. The shame that a still-segregated military carried it out with two classes of soldiers and sailors despite troops of color proving their worth time and time again. Still, the closing is something I reflect on often, and did again recoiling from the Real Americaness Chest Thumping of late:
…we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the scheming of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
The apostles of greed and racial arrogances and hundreds of other bad intentions still threaten our country, but instead of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan those calls are now coming from within our own American house. The threat has, is, and always will be the scheming of the unworthy. These are the standards Americans — not the caustic “real Americans” of the unworthy schemers — should hold folks to when it comes to the greater good of our country, beyond party, or ideology, or politics. Unworthy scheming can co-op any of those things, wearing them as a disguise for whatever ill intentions of self-gain they have.
Unworthy schemers tell us who they are through their actions, their methods, and the people they choose to target. We should believe them when they tell us. We should not be distracted by them waving the flag, or families, or religion, or anything else at us declaring that the real Americans will be on their side. The bravado, and chest thumping, and belittling of anyone who dares not conform to their rehashed and retreaded “revolution” of the already tried should be ignored if not mocked. We should take care to see through the buzzwords of the moment and avatars of the convenient to take note of the same old schemes, same old hatreds, same old fears that lay just beneath the surface of their rhetoric. Folks not willing to let all live in equitable freedom cannot be trusted with any say over anyone’s freedoms. We who truly love our country enough to not use that love as a cudgel to beat everyone in it into conformity must do our best to keep the relative peace invulnerable to such unworthy schemers.
And while many scan the horizons for the next Nazi Germany threatening all mankind, too many miss the unworthy schemers that are right here amongst us. Not guarding beaches that must be stormed to save the world, but hunkered down in buzzword bunkers and waving things like patriotism, and “the way things used to be”, and how “the right people” need to succeed as their weapons. Unworthy schemers who want you to think you should have common cause with them, that they are the righteous ones, that they and they alone are fighting the good fight. And if you won’t join them, join the Real Americans, you are the real true enemy.
What petty little wannabe tyrants they are.
All it takes for those unworthy schemes and schemers to succeed is not recognizing them for what they are, or getting sucked into the pedantry of their minor grievances instead of the totality of their willful disregard for anyone who is not them. Because if you listen to them closely enough, the unworthy schemers always will tell you it is all about them. We should believe them when they do. We should see thorough their buzzwords and phrase of the day and take the totality in their meaning and actions to judge their schemes by. It’s not like they are hiding it.
There is nothing new under the sun. Much less anything original about the unworthy schemers. We should not let them affect our honest toil toward peace, even if it’s just a more peaceful and tolerant discourse.
The idea of great replacement seems to be a fever that never gets extinguished but it does raise itself every few decades or so. Maybe in some parts of the country the fever is always hot. During the Trump years and now, Tom Buchanan ranting about race replacement at the start of the Great Gatsby has been on my mind a lot.
It has been interesting to read places like the Bulwark because it is the home of some sincere small government/libertarian types who constantly learn that a lot of people were only attracted to small government because it screwed over “those people.” But these unworthy schemers might not be appealing to the better angels of our nature but they are appealing to the biases and wants of a large chunk of Americans whether we want to admit it or not. Structural racism doesn’t exist because of a few bad apples. It exists because for hundreds of years, going on to know, lots of white Americans saw the United States as being a country for white people. We were very close to a Herrenvolk democracy for most of our existence and into living memory. A lot of people still want this and a lot of children are possibly still taught this in many places.Report
When I was in school in Baton Rouge in the 1970’s and 1980’s it was still The War of Northern Aggression. Small wonder why white flight occurred when our schools were “desegregated” in 1980 or that our cops were and often still are racist.Report
Broke: Great Replacement
Woke: Emerging Democratic MajorityReport
Eh, I think “The Great Replacement” is similar to “Gentrification!” as a complaint.
It is possible for people moving into a community to change it.
Death Cab for Cutie had a song about it.
The problem is that it’s apparently not possible to complain about change without it being interpreted as racist or whateverist.
Ben Gibbard had to defend his song. It’s not about, you know, immigrants! It’s about, you know, the change that comes when people keep moving into your city and how it makes people feel NIMBY stuff!
The ad he’s referring to can be seen here:
I sympathize with “things are changing and I don’t want them to”.
But they’re going to change.
I suspect we probably need better messaging than “NIMBYs are ignorant at best and evil at worst!”, though.
Even if NIMBYs are ignorant at best and evil at worst.Report
Keep nailing that Jello to the wall Jaybird. I’m sure it will stick one day.Report
If the attitude is “Of *COURSE* it makes sense that we don’t want *OUR* stuff to change!”, then I’m afraid that “racism!” will continue to lose its dissuasive power.
And if “racism!” loses its dissuasive power right as crime starts rising again, we’re going to see a lot more stuff nailed to the wall than Jello.Report
Crime has been on a 20 year declining slide. Try as the Republican Fever Dream Machine might, they can’t undue that overnight.Report
This is from the FBI report on crime in 2020.
Granted, the report goes on:
There seems to be tension here.
The decline seems to be sputtering, at least.
Maybe it’s a blip. Maybe 2020 was a weird year all around and we really can’t compare 2020’s numbers (or 2021’s, for that matter) with 2019’s.
15%. Dang. One hopes that it’s only related to lockdown-related strain and that pressure valve will get released this summer, once everybody is vaccinated and we can get back to normal and 2022’s numbers will fall back into line with 2019.Report
If you look back historically, you may find blips associated with economic down turns . . .Report
Well, that’s only the first six months.
I’m sure that the second six months are only interesting if they have stuff going back down.
Same for the first six months of 2021.
But 2022! Those are going to be the first unqualifiedly interesting numbers since 2019.Report
A little with property crimes, not at all with murders.Report
Great Replacement is to NIMBY as murder is to disorderly conduct. Yeah humans do them so you make a connection but pretty tenuous and obfuscating.Report
Hence my jello nailing remark . . . .Report
Are we discussing numbers or are we discussing how people *FEEL*?
Because if we’re discussing numbers, we can look at demographics and whether we can expect any significant difference in perception to follow the (surely negligible) changes in demographics.
If we’re discussing feelings, I’m afraid that I’m going to go back to how arguments about how “your feelings are not valid, not like the inherent value that my feelings have” don’t work and should probably change if we want a significantly different outcome than the one we’re currently experiencing.
I mean, you understand why gerrymandering is bad, right? Even though the land is contiguous, right?Report
in the sense that the general parameters – i.e. certain kinds of people should live in certain kinds of places and those who do not should not because they will cause harm to the people and cultures already here – tend to rhyme, jaybird is correct.
but i’m pretty sure he also knows why that’s an inflammatory comparison with this site’s social context.Report
I absolutely understand why it’s inflammatory!
I also understand that calling it inflammatory does not solve any of the problems that it points to.Report
But do you understand why it is absurd?Report
To whom?
To you? Yes, I absolutely understand why you see it as absurd.Report
the language used is unfortunately often racialized* and deeply conservative in both contexts.
certain people should live in certain places. this is a very popular point of view, outside of the variables involved. the certains in each case are swappable, depending largely on which donkpublican-ish pov one holds, but such is our modern life.
i find the framing offensive as hell in both contexts. people are not slots in an egg carton, matched by sameness for the sake of culture, be it neighborhood or country.
* e.g. certain kinds of whites can live in certain places in nyc, as the framing goes, like russians can live in one spot, but other kinds of whites are the wrong kind of whites and they can’t. gotta keep to your own kind, i suppose? anyway, it’s a good reason for nyc to allow the building of megatowers and increase available real estate 300-500%, but that ain’t happening anytime soon.Report
The thing about gentrification/replacement is that it’s always the fault of the people living there. Either they’ve made the place attractive by working to improve things, or they’ve made it attractive through neglect.
There’s an inflection point somewhere that allows your community to be static for a while, but no one seems capable of maintaining that for very long.Report
The thing about gentrification/replacement is that it’s always the fault of the people living there.
Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. If you’re being sarcastic, then well played! If not, then I’ll ask you this: do you know of a single place (personal experience) which is more enjoyable/a better living experience for having been gentrified?
“Well, there’s a Starbuck’s on the corner now, so…”Report
For whom?Report
“it’s the fault of the people living there”
Add: it’s indicative of your mind set that you’re challenging me to defend my views but not Oscar lolReport
“The poor people are to blame. It’s their fault they created a community which wealthier people, without a culture of their own, found attractive and wanted to become a part of.”Report
‘Fault’ is me being sarcastic. It’s not their ‘fault’ any more than it’s my ‘fault’ my neighbors love the work I do to make my home more attractive. It’s my ‘fault’ that there are bees all around my house because I like to plant flowers.
If ‘fault’ offends thee, then say that ‘they had a hand in’ whatever made the place more attractive.
The thing is, things that are attractive are, you know, attractive. And that means other people will want to enjoy those attractive things. And since you can not control who moves out of or into a neighborhood, you have to be prepared for the reality that any effort put into making a place attractive will attract people to that place.Report
What offends me is being referred to as “thee”. 🙂Report
Pretty sure Strunk and White say I have to use “thee” if using “Offend” in that manner.
Sorry man, blame the dead white guys.Report
Dude, I *already* blame dead white guys for most of the world’s problems. White was cool but Strunk was a dick.Report
I mean, ‘anywhere in Baltimore’ comes to mind, and quite a few places in DC. But I know that’s not really the PC answer. I think the debate on this issue has become way too NYC-centric, which I guess isn’t surprising given its where so much national media is based.
Controversial opinion: most of these places aren’t nearly as special as people think they are. Further, nowhere is Harlem, except Harlem.Report
I’m thinking about Colorado, InMD. I’ve seen it happen to quite a few small mountain towns. It just strikes me as *really odd* to blame the people who created those cool communities for the subsequent gentrification that’s occurred.Report
Well, I’ll let Oscar answer for that. Though I do think it’s sort of an inevitable aspect of our economic system. That which can be exploited for profit will be.
All I really meant is I think there can be a questionable presumption of culture/community. But your point about mountain towns is very well taken. ‘Gentrification’ on the east coast probably means something totally different than out west. My mind goes right to the disputes over development and ‘urban renewal,’ not small, quaint towns turned into playgrounds for the rich.Report
Those Californians just want better lives for themselves and their families and they enjoy telling frigging everybody about how they paid cash for their house.Report
I also think about Colorado, although different settings. Ride any of the light/commuter rail lines in metro Denver to see gentrification in action. I stand by my long-time description of the rail system, based on where the votes and money came from: the Denver suburbs decided to build a rail system; the hub is at Union Station in Denver because geography made it an obvious choice.
Until recently I lived in Arvada. Every G Line station is seeing a ton of upscale apartments/condos/townhouses going in around it. Shortly before the Covid arrived a group of my former colleagues got together for a beer or three at Union Station, a location nicely central for the lot of us. Most relaxed trip to downtown I ever made in 30+ years.
Now I live in Fort Collins for reasons. The townhouse is 11 minutes driving time from Old Town and all the neat stuff that offers, built in what was a light industrial area that never took off, shorter travel time than much of the previous generation of Fort Collins housing. Furious residential construction adjoining us. In 10 years, when the transit infrastructure catches up to what is happening to the area, prices will double.Report
This is not my area of expertise, but from what I’ve seen of Baltimore, gentrification is either done by bulldozers or by individuals trying to fix up and flip properties. In the latter case, areas only get marginally better, and go from crack houses and bars to crack houses and Starbucks’s.Report
I think that’s about right. But the question was about living experience and it’s definitely improved, just from a very low bar. My brother lived in an area for awhile that had been legitimately dangerous and is now merely sketchy. A former colleague had trouble selling his Canton row house because him and his wife were up against the flippers and they had not upgraded hard enough. Which was funny because walk 6 blocks away after dark and you’re exposing yourself to a pretty high risk of street crime. I’d still never raise a family there.
But these aren’t parts of the city that were totally abandoned and they retained some core night life. I’m sure you could find someone who has been there since the 90s or before that laments the changes. I just don’t think the existence of such people says much about whether there was anything worth preserving.Report
I can’t make up my mind as to which word is more uselessly vague and obscures more than it reveals: neoliberal or gentrification. I’m leaning towards neoliberal but gentrification is a strong contender.Report
Yea, I think it’s so localized that it’s tough to talk about at a national level. Obviously it can be ugly when you get some of these politically connected developers versus long time resident situations. But I also think there’s a natural ebb and flow of desirability that’s impossible control.Report
We moved into Mount Rainier, in the very DC edge of PG County right before the DC real estate bubble burst. The town had been a haven for Senators (and the national and Maryland KKK Grand wizards) for a generation because the Rhode Island Avenue street car ended there (the traffic circle on Route 1 used to be where the street cars turned back) . The Town was on the cusp of gentrification, but the crash brought that to a screeching halt.
During the Great Recession a fair number of Hispanic families moved in on the south side, and a fair number of eclectic white folks fixed up their houses on the north side. When we left 4 years ago we made money on our house – now we can’t actually afford to buy back into the same neighborhood. Neither could any of our former neighbors if they chose to leave.
And that would mean a vibrant multiracial community – full of artists, hippies, scientists and just plain decent folks will eventually whither and die. I don’t see that as progress, no matter how many turn of the last century houses it restores physically.Report
You should see what it looks like over there now. I was in that area back in December and was blown away at the change, especially compared to when I was a student at college park (which itself looks like a different planet).Report
What do you think happens to those people? Did they spring up out of the ground one day and move into the neighborhood to make it the neat place that it is? If they leave, will they simply evaporate?
No, they’ll go somewhere else, and be part of a different community, and maybe that place will become a vibrant, multiracial community.
This is the normal churn of demographics. You can’t cast these places in amber.Report
A bit sarcastic, but also a bit serious.
A neighborhood doesn’t magically start gentrifying one day. It has to have some feature(s) that makes it attractive to incoming money. Often enough the feature(s) are things the current residents lobbied or worked for.
Maybe it’s got a new transit station, maybe it’s a nice new park, maybe it’s an attractive shopping center/street, maybe a bunch of long time residents left and sold their places for relatively cheap. Whatever it is, something made the place attractive to new residents, or got the tax assessors coming by to raise taxes, and that whatever made it more attractive was probably the current residents doing.
Now you have the problem of how do you keep the good things without getting priced out and having the character change?
It’s kinda the same with replacement. You got a community with good jobs that pay well, that is going to attract people who want good jobs that pay well, and they aren’t going to all be white, and they might be willing to work a bit cheaper…
Our sense of fairness says that we should be able to fully enjoy the fruits of our labors, but the universe laughs at our sense of fairness.Report
Well-off people move into less well-off ethnic neighborhoods for the food and the nightlife and the colorful surroundings. Then when they’ve priced out all the people that made it that way, they have to find someplace new.Report
Is that really the main thing motivating migration to lower-income neighbourhoods, or is it cheaper housing in reasonable proximity to high-paying jobs?
Colorful surroundings broke my car windows twice and stole my license plate; these were things I tolerated in exchange for a short commute and low rent.Report
It’s like immigrants. Either they’re on welfare, or they’re taking bad jobs and lowering wages, or they’re hogging the good jobs.Report
You are ignoring the point I’m making. Countries can, if they want, close their borders to immigration. Especially small countries, or those with difficult borders.
Scandinavia essentially has, so despite how attractive the place is, you don’t get a lot of demographic shift.
The US… we remain attractive and our borders are just too big to effectively close, so we get immigration. If we don’t want immigration, we can just tank our economy so hard that we make North Korea look good, and the immigration will grind to a halt.
States and neighborhoods, however, can not control who moves in or out. If your neighborhood is attractive, for whatever reason, people will want to live there. You can’t shut them out.Report
I think that the argument that there are countries that could be destroyed with demographic change is an uncontroversial one.
The controversy is over which countries those are and which countries those are *NOT* (and it’s offensive that you’d even make that comparison).Report
And now, another unworthy schemer has introduced this malevolence into the House of Representatives:
A subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee was meeting to examine the root causes of migration from Central American countries that make up a disproportionate portion of migrants seeking to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. The State Department’s envoy to the region, Ricardo Zúniga, was offering testimony on the subject when Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) was given the floor.
“For many Americans,” Perry began, “what seems to be happening or what they believe right now is happening is, what appears to them is we’re replacing national-born American — native-born Americans to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/14/tucker-carlsons-toxic-replacement-rhetoric-gets-picked-up-house/
This is the current Republican Party. White supremacy, out loud and proud.Report
Agreed.
Which is hugely ironic to me because he really means Native Born White Americans, since clearly he isn’t concerned about replacing native brown and black people.Report
Something crazy. I don’t know if you remember this or not but, back in 2002, a book came out called The Emerging Democratic Majority.
It basically argued that the changing demographics of the country would result in, tah-dah, a Permanent Democratic Majority.
This book was widely hailed in 2002, then widely panned in 2016-2017, and now people are saying “jeez, maybe it was right?” again.
Been thinking about it, lately.Report
Clinton won the national popular vote in 2016 by what, 3M votes? Biden won by 7M, but 40,000 votes in the right three states and Trump would have won. Several states have Democratic majorities in the statewide presidential vote — or at least parity — and lose the state legislatures badly because of gerrymandering, both natural* and not. There’s a difference between a simple majority, and a majority filtered through the EC, two Senators per state, and gerrymandered districts.
* In the example I live closest to, Denver votes about 80% Democratic. It is often pointed out that if Denver were split between two or three Congressional districts, instead of being entirely in a single district, Democrats would win more of Colorado’s House seats. But Denver voters want a Denver Representative, rather than two or three each owing at least as much to suburban voters as they do to Denver.Report
I’m a little confused by the Denver example.
In the Colorado House, it looks like Denver is represented by several districts.
In the US House of Reps, it looks to be more-or-less it’s own district.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that Denver voters want a US Rep who is focused on Denver issues and doesn’t have to split their focus between Denver and its suburbs? Is that correct?
And as a result, Denver is divided for the Colorado House in a way that leads to fewer Democrats holding seats, despite Denver voting overwhelmingly for Democrats?Report
My bad, jumping back and forth between state and federal legislative districts. Replace “state legislatures” in the first paragraph with “US House delegation” and the idea still works.Report
Thanks!
With that in mind, are the interests of Denver voters sufficiently different than the interests of Denver suburbs voters such that their representation should be splintered on the national level?
I guess what I’m asking is are Denver voters being rational in their preference? Or do Denver-ites just perceive themselves as having dramatically different interests than their neighbors?Report
Two opinions. On the one hand, Denver gets along better with its suburbs than other places I have lived. I think there are multiple reasons for that, one biggie being that the Denver Regional Council of Governments started back in the 1950s and a number of things are handled by regional authorities: mass transit, tax funding for museums and such, air quality, a surprising amount of development planning, sports stadiums, etc.
On the other hand, Colorado delegates a lot of decisions to county government and it is the City and County of Denver. Chopping Denver in half and pairing each half with one or more suburban counties might mean that Denver County is not being well-represented. That is, in part, why the rules for our redistricting commission say that splitting counties should be minimized.Report
“My priors were confirmed right up until they weren’t but now they’re confirmed again. Yay for me!”
Politics is like a murmuration of starlings.Report