I just reread Steve's piece and I think he is missing a central part of the psyche of some Trump voters. I was never one but there is a way at looking at this that makes some sense. I do not doubt some of Trump's rise was a racist reaction to Obama. But, I refuse to agree that 60 million Americans are racists. If you believe that true than you have two problems. Firstly, that's a lot of racists to deal with. Second, how to explain that many voted for Obama in the first place?
-
Obama's election gets far too little attention in regards to race relations in America. I am familiar with the many arguments justifiably put forward by those that deny his election proved progress. But this thought denies the monumental threshold that it represented not just for black people, but for many whites as well. I recall feeling great pride that the country elected him. How could anyone not recognize that something had fundamentally changed? It didn't eliminate all our problems. There are always problems. Additionally, it wasn't a fluke. He won twice. His election created a new challenge for those seeking to declare the US a fundamentally racist country. If the fight against racism can be looked at like a climb up a hill, doesn't the country choosing him to be the most powerful person on earth mean we are closer to the top than the bottom?
-
As a motto for progress, "White Privilege" is the worst idea ever conceived. Consider what it does. It assigns an unearned privilege to a person despite what the person thinks or feels. They are born with it. It's labeled an original sin. Sure, the concept does fine in academic circles, where it was born. But, did "I have a Dream" come of scholarship? No, it was an emotional appeal. "...little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." This worked. "White Privilege" does not. To deny progress is to deny the extraordinariness of Obama. If, in 1963, someone told MLK that a black man would be elected president in 2008, what would he say? Those seeking to profit from division, not unity, are winning. A world filled with Sylvester McMonkey McBean's.

Nobody is using the phrase "white privilege" as a "motto for progress."

It is, however, the organizing principle of Trump's base.

stop watching fake news, fool. there is no white privelege. your argument is so easily destroyed by thinking conservative speakers. listen to Ben Shapiro. you will never again use "white privelege" as an argument for anything

Alan, get back to class, you might just learn something there.

I wonder what program upper class white Democrats have to check this mostly IMAGINED WHITE PRIVILEGE . Will they cut back their own high standard of living or just continue to harass and denigrate as benighted , " deplorable " followers of Donald Trump white working class Americans ?
We democratic socialists focus on unjust CLASS privilege .

Stop calling yourself a socialist, you pass up every opportunity you get to support any policy that would help working people because they all come from the Democrats and all you care about is attacking them.

You're a liar and a fraud. You actively oppose improving the lives of working people, and you promote racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and transphobia.

You're not a socialist at all. And the more you yell and scream in support of Trump the more clear it becomes that you're really just a reactionary.

It does seem that the majority of working class Americans - even if they ARE mostly white Christians - have judged the neo-con, pro-war Democratic Party - dominated by belligerent Zionists ( the cabal wants to get us into World War III ) as enemies of the working class. That was the real message of the Bernie Sanders crowds in 2016.
We democratic socialists do not recommend loyalty to Donald Trump or the Trump Junta. We recommend the formation of a Christian Labor Party in the United States - which will work together with socialist humanists for a saner, more just world.

Your use of the plural “we” is hysterical.

There’s no “we.” You’re just a lonely racist loser with a blog. You represent nobody and real socialists want nothing to do with your bigoted pro-Trump garbage.

Nor do you support humanism.

Form whatever party you wish. Leave me the hell out of it.

I supported Sanders during the primary and quite frankly, I wonder if we're even talking about the SAME Bernie Sanders, because I don't see how you could POSSIBLY have extracted that from the same speeches I listened to.

Your political instincts were right to support " socialist " Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party . But true socialists don't end up supporting very PRO-CAPITALIST candidates like " Wall St. Hillary ".
If you think you can REFORM the Democratic Party in accordance with Bernie Sander's PROFESSED ideals, good luck. It is much more likely that the corrupt Democrat Party will " reform " YOU first, your commendable political ideals.
Voting for Hillary is not a step toward any form of " socialism ".
Critical support for Bernie Sanders or other " reformers " UP TO A POINT was OK . I would just not encourage it .
I don't pretend to have a crystal ball that knows THE FUTURE . But the socialist movement has more than a century of experience with " liberal " Democrats . Read the Canton Speech of the American socialist Eugene V. Debs .

“But the socialist movement has more than a century of experience with " liberal " Democrats”

Yep.

Including Germany, 1933, when they were denouncing the other left-of-center parties attempting to stop Hitler because they didn’t meet rigid standards of ideological purity.

You support neither democracy nor socialism.

My blog address was just DETECTED AS SPAM . I just wanted to defend myself against smears in the Zionist controlled mainstream news media.

And again you blame the Jews.

Democratic socialists do not condemn ANY race or ethnic group . ZIONISTS Jews - and the Israel lobby - constitute an anti-working class cabal that is leading this country into nuclear World War III for the glory of " Greater Israel ".
Let the anti-Zionist, SOCIALIST Jews speak for themselves.

You’re not a socialist.

I was a presidential elector for the Socialist Workers Party the same year Bernie Sanders ( 1976, 1980 ) was a presidential elector for this SWP . That is a PUBLIC record in Rhode Island.
[ the SWP since has gone soft on Zionism and has degenerated into a Jack Barnes personality cult. I wish it were not true . But many expelled members testify to the once great Trotskyist party's degeneration. I voted for socialists ( as a critical supporter in 2016 ]
Today I support the formation of a Christian Labor Party.

A concept of "White Privilege" as the ideological basis for political change is doomed to fail in the long-term for many reasons. Firstly, it reduces individuals to a meaningless identity class and assigns traits to them en masse, something oppressed minorities have experienced themselves. What is white anyway? When pressed with intellectually honest questions the defenders will find it difficult to define. There are Southern Europeans that are far less white than Latinos from South America. Defenders will contort their arguments to handle inconsistencies in creative ways. Personally, how is it that a Jew is now considered white? Please describe to me the long-term privilege that Jews have had in the history of the United States? If you begin to cite the relative economic prosperity enjoyed by Jews or their placement at the pinnacle of finance, government, science, arts, etc as symbolic of their whiteness then you are already abandoning a reasoned appreciation for their experiences. Let us also consider the growing power and influence of people from Asia and the Near East. Across the board students from this part of the world are exceeding the academic performance of those with the privilege of being white. There has been an organized effort by top Universities to discriminate against Asian applicants. Is it white privilege if they rightfully fight back? I will point out there is strong opposition from the Left over the concept of white privilege. They argue it distracts from the more fundamental problems of Globalism.
-
As proof of its shaky foundation some will be tempted to discount any reasoned argument with a response that my white privilege voids anything I say. See how easy that is? It requires no deep thought. Just say someone has white privilege and you win the moral argument.
-
Life and history will not proceed that way. We've had a black president. We will someday soon have a Latino president, as well. As individuals of many ethnicities rise and prosper the effectiveness of "White Privilege" as a slogan will morph into something else. As the country gets less white the brand will fade.You see, it's being used now to sell books, elicit clicks and get people to do what I am doing now, post a comment. It is slowing progress, not advancing it. The proof is in something no amount of privilege can control, time.

Is YOUR entitlement, evident in your judging "Right Wing" persons to be not nearly as good as you, then called "Left Wing Entitlement Mentality"?

Wow--we are learning SO MUCH inventing labels and trading insults! This is truly progress for our nation!

Re: "it reduces individuals to a meaningless identity class and assigns traits to them en masse" That is identity politics (a central strategy of the Democrat Party) and stereotyping (a standard way of othering and promoting hate of "those people").

Steve seems to think that if you prefer legal immigration to illegal, that makes you "anti-immigration", thus a racist with "white privilege", thus a hater...

And therefore a worthy object of his own hate. Funny that he doesn't get that makes him a hater.

More background noise from the angriest snowflake on the planet. And the staff at WBUR can't be far behind because they continue to publish this alt-left gibberish. With each article Almond's anger builds. At some point he is going to blow! Will WBUR write about that too? It's coming!

Way to prove the point of the article.

Speaking of snowflakes...

Thank you, Steve, for your recognition of white privilege, for your willingness to admit that it exists, and for your ability to write about it to succinctly. When I participate in mixed-race groups where open and honest dialogue is encouraged, although I remind myself to accept everyone's experience, I still find myself impatient with tales from whites who want sympathy for being "misunderstood" as racists ("I'm really not") who consider themselves victims, or who simply deny that white privilege exists, primarily because if they acknowledge it, it would mean having to question their assumptions about who they are and to change their behavior. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Yes, I agree, there is something going on. And, as I read the piece, as I look at the comments, it seems that any reference to color draws out triggered responses. Is feeling entitled to something and being denied said same thing really a very powerful motivator? I can't help but wonder that you have made a case that it is. Maybe a really clever person can put all the known right, left and center trigger words in a really compelling piece and blow everything up so we can actually get to the bottom of all this.

All this coming from a man that used his white privilege to try and silence the first amndt rights of a black woman. How ironic.

there is no white privelege. anyone who makes a stupid comment , is a RACIST. its very ironic, but true. when you consider race first and foremost when making an argument, YOU. ARE. RACIST. end of story.

Was Mark white or did he just sound white?

Donald Trump is reprehensible. His supporters are unthinking sad sacks. But Steve Almond is the exact representation of the fact that the far left in this country is just as sad and scary as the whack job right. He's an inexhaustible fount of liberal idiocy.

That you think of him as "far left" says a lot more about you than it does about him.

Yeah that’s clever. Can’t you grow up?

Hey people, "white privelege" is just a term that victims use to blame others for their own failures. THAT IS ALL IT IS. i dont care what your opinion is. this is empirical fact. if you use "white privelege" as an argument for your own failures, YOU. ARE. RACIST. end of story

MLK is rolling in his grave. he wanted black and white people to get along, and we do. a black man (well, half black and muslim, but thats another story) made it to the presidency. black people have all the same opportunities as white people. i know this because ive always worked with affluent black individuals. this aint 1950, there are NO MORE road blocks to opportunity, i mean there are no government obstacles like Jim Crow, etc.. STOP CRYING RACISM AND DO SOMETHING WITH YOURSELF

Is Steve a Jew for Jesus...? Why is he invoking Christ when there is no indication Mark is a Christian...? Steve is a reified caricature of a supercilious liberal. His of-a-type rhetoric is partly why 66% of working-class whites voted for Trump. May he always have a platform...

Apparently it’s true that vulagarianism is the new political science.

I don't disagree with what you write. But I think the tone of the article immediately prevents you from being heard by the people who need to listen.

The second you say "White Privilige", a great many listeners will immediately feel that you are calling them racists, right up there with plantation owners of the past or Klan members of the civil rights era. They will then immediately stop listening to you, self justifying their refusal to listen by pigeonholing you as just another person "playing the race card", etc.

I think you're far better off not telling people to check their privilige, not telling people that they're racists, but by saying "look, you have some blind spots. your upbringing has left you blind to certain things you need to learn about".

Perhaps you feel that is too much coddling/too much kid gloves. But if the goal is progress, first you must have people LISTEN to you. The wrong approach may feel better in calling things out for what you believe it to be, but deny you any chance to make headway in correcting the problem.

I don't think he's even attempting to talk to those people at all. He's talking to sympathetic listeners.

The people you're trying to convince for the most part don't even come here. Those who do are only coming here to find opinions they don't like so they can rant about it. If he was kind to them, they wouldn't even bother reading it because they WANT to be offended by him.

Re: "the tone of the article immediately prevents you from being heard" Agreed.

There was a great study--just one, so it might be wrong--that said that an anti-suicide message added to a pro-gun message was more effective on gun-owners than the same message coupled with an anti-gun message. Sort of the difference between saying, "I'm one of you, I get it, but this message is important" vs. "You're stupid and ugly and--oh, by the way--he's some advice from me!"
https://www.tandfonline.com...
https://www.forbes.com/site...

It was apparent to me that Almond's conversation with Mark was an attempt to "prove" his already-made conclusion that Mark must be a "racist and misogynist" since he voted for Trump, so he takes Mark's statement (that American "had failed to secure its borders", per Almond) first as anti-immigration, then as racist, and finally as "so completely divorced from what we tend to think of as rational political thought or behavior."

If Steve's a trained psychologist, he failed to mention it...yet he's happy to give us a full psych profile on Mark--and all Trump-supporters--from a single, short phone call. Steve then has the hypocrisy--assuming he is NOT a person who has accepted Christ as his savior and goes to Bible study a lot--to start telling people who are Christians what Christ "really" said and that they're full of it if they believe or say other than what Almond decrees for them.

As for downtown's "I don't think he's even attempting to talk to those people at all. He's talking to sympathetic listeners", he's right: Almond is trying to spread the hate, not improve the situation. Steve's not trying to communicate with or understand someone he disagrees with. He's trying to belittle him, call him names, justify his own hate, and encourage others to hate.

Nice that WBUR gives him a podium for that.

I suspect Mr. Almond may be correct about his caller Mark. But suspicion is not proof, and even it if were, it's .... disappointing... but I have to conclude that you are Mark are correct, ... the piece doesn't feel like an attempt to communicate or understand, but to trumpet a point of view.

And, OK. I suppose why not. Not everything has to be an attempt to communicate. But god knows we could use more of it. I really don't like the degree of tribalism I see now vs when I was younger.

More liberal hate and Trump Deragement Syndrome. Ho-hum. Clinton said "basket of deplorables" and "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic." Here, Almond is simply using a new acronym--acronyms are often favored by hate groups--unoriginally composed of combining "white privilege" and 'toxic masculinity."

Even with the new acronym, this relabeled hate is not going to help Democrats.

Re: "the central reason he had voted for Trump was because he felt 'condescended to' by the left." And, thanks to people like you, next election it will be because he feels hated by the left.

Thanks, Steve, for demonstrating for us the "toxic liberal" syndrome.
:-)

This sort of feels like half an article. On the Media recently had a full show on this, so maybe it's just me wanting to hear more. Like I think it's not enough to identify this mentality, we need to figure out what to do about it. Seems the best method would be to foster compassion, care about others so they in turn will care about more than themselves.

I don't know that I can agree with every aspect of it, but you are hitting several nails on the head in that diagnosis. Most distressing to me is the focus on the Fourteenth Amendment, as they want to be able to wholesale revoke citizenship from many born here because they don't think it "should have counted".

But I rather suspect a number of people would be less concerned with "anchor babies" born to parents of irish immigrants, or italian immigrants or norweigian immigrants.

I agree, this article speaks poorly of WBUR. What garbage. One of the reasons why I no longer financially support this station.

It speaks to WBUR what garbage is published.

Steve Almond is so right in his analysis. Most white people don't realize the power they have and if they do, they wield it as harshly as they can.