Unworthy Schemers, Demographics, and Nothing New Under The Sun

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

55 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw says:

    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

  2. Jaybird says:

    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

    • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

      Keep nailing that Jello to the wall Jaybird. I’m sure it will stick one day.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        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

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

          Crime has been on a 20 year declining slide. Try as the Republican Fever Dream Machine might, they can’t undue that overnight.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

            This is from the FBI report on crime in 2020.

            When data from the first six months of 2020 were compared with data from the first six months of 2019, the number of rape offenses decreased 17.8%, and robbery offenses were down 7.1%. The number of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased 14.8%, and aggravated assault offenses were up 4.6%.

            Granted, the report goes on:

            The overall number of violent crimes decreased in four city population groups. Law enforcement agencies in cities with populations of less than 10,000 reported the largest decrease, 7.2%. Law enforcement agencies in cities with populations of 100,000 to 249,000 reported the smallest decrease, 0.3%.

            Violent crime decreased in three of the four regions of the nation. These crimes were down 4.8% in the Northeast, 1.8% in the Midwest, and 1.1% in the West. However, violent crime increased in the South, 2.5%.

            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

    • Greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

      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

      • Philip H in reply to Greginak says:

        Hence my jello nailing remark . . . .Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Greginak says:

        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

        • dhex in reply to Jaybird says:

          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

          • Jaybird in reply to dhex says:

            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

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

              But do you understand why it is absurd?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                To whom?

                To you? Yes, I absolutely understand why you see it as absurd.Report

              • dhex in reply to Jaybird says:

                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

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to dhex says:

            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

            • Stillwater in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

              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

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                “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

              • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

                “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

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Stillwater says:

                ‘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

              • Stillwater in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                What offends me is being referred to as “thee”. 🙂Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Stillwater says:

                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

              • Stillwater in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Dude, I *already* blame dead white guys for most of the world’s problems. White was cool but Strunk was a dick.Report

              • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

                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

              • Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

                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

              • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                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

              • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

                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

              • InMD in reply to Pinky says:

                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

              • North in reply to InMD says:

                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

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                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

              • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

                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

              • InMD in reply to Philip H says:

                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

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

                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

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

              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

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                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

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                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

              • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                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

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    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

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      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

  4. Jaybird says:

    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

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      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

      • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain says:

        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

        • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy says:

          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

          • Kazzy in reply to Michael Cain says:

            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

            • Michael Cain in reply to Kazzy says:

              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

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      “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