> "Conservative" isn't a view. It's a movement allegiance. So I don't think that qualifies. I feel the same applies more loosely to Brexit.
People tended to vote for these things because they believed that the policies of the Conservative Party in the 2019 election or the Leave option in the referendum would be the best expression of their values. They were also rejecting the alternatives, such as a centrally-planned economic model including wealth taxes and the nationalisation of companies and utilities or European federalism and supranationalism, because these policies opposed their views. And they were certainly criticized for this decision with the reasoning being that it was the result of them having the wrong sort of views.
> What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism.
Where did racism come from, all of a sudden? That's a very broad smear, and I'd challenge you to provide evidence.
> So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it.
Again, I'm not sure why specifically you're bringing racism into Brexit or the 2019 GE, but you're welcome to substantiate that.
> I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower.
In many parts of the UK, in various professions and walks of life it's just not worth the hassle of letting it be known that you vote Conservative or that you voted Leave. The unions all support Labour, and there is no point in particular in making your life harder by exposing your political alignment if you're working in a blue-collar role in the public sector.
> But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1...
It's hard to tell how much personal bias is involved when allegations of dog-whistling are made, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with Reagan to be able to make an assessment in this case.
> So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep.
I've already given you two particular examples of opinions that people have been unwilling to broadcast; one is that the UK should have a Conservative government (and not a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell) in the 2019 election, and the other is that the UK should leave the EU, and people have been subject to criticism for holding either of those views. The inference in this case that an unwillingness to broadcast the basis or the practical conclusions of one's political ideology would likely be due to a person harboring shameful and unconscionable opinions basically amounts to a form of victim-blaming, and it appears to be ideological rather than based in evidence. I'd encourage you to continue to look into this, if you're interested, because you might end up being surprised.
Racism didn't "come from, all of a sudden". As history demonstrates, racism is an endemic problem in both places. The question isn't "does it exist" it's "how is it being expressed today".
You really seem to be having trouble getting my point about views, so I'll try again. "Party X should be in charge" is not what I'd call a view. It's generally more a tribal affiliation and a placeholder for a basket of actual opinions on specific policies and issues. If "viewpoint diversity" actually matters in a business context, we need to be specific about which views exact views are vital to business success.
And if you are really having trouble understanding how some of the Brexit-related views might be racist, it seems like you aren't trying very hard there either. I was going to Google it for you, but that rarely turns out to be worth my time. So let's try this: you tell me what you searched on when you failed to find the material and I'll suggest some better searches.
You also seemed to miss with the Southern Strategy bit. Lee Atwater isn't accusing anybody of racism. He was a hugely important figure in the Republican party and was one of the architects of Reagan's 1984 campaign. It wasn't an accusation; he was bragging.
Of course, even with open admissions like this, American conservatives will do the same sort of straining-out-gnats-and-swallowing-camels routine you're doing here. "Racism?!? Surely that stopped existing about the time I was born. How dare you accuse us conservatives of doing what we have been doing all along. Where's your evidence?"
It may work to re-convince the true believers, but it has been some years since I found it persuasive, so if you want to keep this dialog up, I'd suggest some other tack.
I wasn't being obtuse, I wanted to give you the opportunity to explain your claims in your own words, because I didn't want to risk misrepresenting you. I also wanted to withhold judgement about your level of knowledge concerning the subject matter.
> The question isn't "does it exist" it's "how is it being expressed today".
I'm glad that you've come out and said that, because it drives right to the heart of the issue. The problem with the proposal to recast racism into the the mould of an immutable characteristic (I would say redenominating is also a good metaphor) is that we have developed a real moral aversion to transferring individual guilt for events permanently onto groups, and for good reason. On a related note, the problem with claims that we can identify racism through the disparate impact of policies on marginalized groups is that it tends to falsely equate correlation with causation, and in practice it tends to be the result of politically-motivated reasoning.
Overall, I think you've perfectly illustrated the problem that the article was pointing to: "anyone who disagrees with my particular set of claims is bad, and anyone who then claims not to be bad is super-bad".
I see you've decided to make up a cartoon version of my views and argue with that. I'll try one more reply, but I'm not optimistic.
I didn't say it was an immutable characteristic. I said it was an endemic problem. I would like it to go away, but we won't get there by pretending it has gone away. We have to make that happen, and that first requires looking honestly at the history and present facts of it.
A positive example here is Germany. They stopped denying they had an antisemitism problem and have worked assiduously to remove it. And plenty of western nations have moved fitfully in the direction of acknowledging previous and current oppression. In the US, both Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement are positive examples there. But in both cases, society gave up before finishing the job (see first and second Nadirs). My proposal: this time let's not let those trying to conserve oppression win.
As with polio, it's perfectly possible to eliminate something endemic. But also as with polio, some people of a conservative bent will try to conserve even the harmful parts of the status quo. (My part of the US was settled by a bunch of Dutch who thought things like vaccines and insurance were refusing to accept God's will, for example. And in the modern era, the US right has caused at least a couple hundred thousand deaths through various pro-Covid actions.) So yes, conservatives trying to conserve harmful things may end up feeling bad about that.
I'm fine with that. I understand that conservatives are used to being coddled by society, and that this is uncomfortable for them. As they say, when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. But my goal here is minimizing actual oppression, and I think that's more important than preserving the very delicate feelings of those who previously got away with not examining the consequences of their politics.
People tended to vote for these things because they believed that the policies of the Conservative Party in the 2019 election or the Leave option in the referendum would be the best expression of their values. They were also rejecting the alternatives, such as a centrally-planned economic model including wealth taxes and the nationalisation of companies and utilities or European federalism and supranationalism, because these policies opposed their views. And they were certainly criticized for this decision with the reasoning being that it was the result of them having the wrong sort of views.
> What's interesting in both case is that both movements absolutely contain rich seams of racism.
Where did racism come from, all of a sudden? That's a very broad smear, and I'd challenge you to provide evidence.
> So if the actual view people are afraid to voice is racism either intent or action, then I would submit that it is in fact good that they are not voicing it.
Again, I'm not sure why specifically you're bringing racism into Brexit or the 2019 GE, but you're welcome to substantiate that.
> I also strongly doubt that many are afraid to voice a view that the correct tax rate for high income earners are 3 points higher or lower.
In many parts of the UK, in various professions and walks of life it's just not worth the hassle of letting it be known that you vote Conservative or that you voted Leave. The unions all support Labour, and there is no point in particular in making your life harder by exposing your political alignment if you're working in a blue-collar role in the public sector.
> But what decades of history teaches is that since overt racism is no longer acceptable, quite a lot of other issues are used as covers for racism. See Lee Atwater's quote here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1...
It's hard to tell how much personal bias is involved when allegations of dog-whistling are made, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with Reagan to be able to make an assessment in this case.
> So I stand by my view that we must look at the specific opinions people are scared to voice and see to what extent they relate to oppressing groups who were previously forced to keep quiet. My bet here is that a lot of what "Conservative voters" happen to be afraid to speak about is the conservation parts of the past that they are rightly ashamed to be honest about wanting to keep.
I've already given you two particular examples of opinions that people have been unwilling to broadcast; one is that the UK should have a Conservative government (and not a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnell) in the 2019 election, and the other is that the UK should leave the EU, and people have been subject to criticism for holding either of those views. The inference in this case that an unwillingness to broadcast the basis or the practical conclusions of one's political ideology would likely be due to a person harboring shameful and unconscionable opinions basically amounts to a form of victim-blaming, and it appears to be ideological rather than based in evidence. I'd encourage you to continue to look into this, if you're interested, because you might end up being surprised.