Is White Supremacy an Issue Worth Government and Political Attention?

-

Hate crimes increased by 17% in 2017, an unprecedented rise worth government attention.
On both sides of the political aisle, it’s important to have a boogeyman. For example, an issue that the other side brings up must be dismissed outright as nothing but a made-up boogeyman. There’s no actual problem in your side, be it Democratic or Republican. What’s really happening is that the other side is trying to make an issue out of nothing. This is a tactic used frequently in discussions of US government to divert attention from certain issues to others that are believed to be real problems. Ann Coulter, for instance, knows exactly how to employ it. In her recent article entitled White Supremacists Ate My Homework, she illustrates this strategy on the topic of modern white supremacy, an issue of growing concern in modern politics and government. Her points are twofold. Firstly, she argues that modern white supremacy is a non-issue cooked up by angry Democrats out to harm Republicans. Second, she argues that the reverse is true; that supposed racism against white people is the true problem. 

Coulter utilizes the boogeyman tactic to showcase her first point. She argues that “apart from a few crackpots -- whom I assume exist in a country of 320 million people -- there are no ‘white supremacists.’” She goes on to claim that the issue is nothing but a “fantasy the left developed to explain its sick preoccupation with white people” and a “manufactured crisis.” Immediately Coulter attempts to reduce the problem into non-existence with her argument of relative population. If there are so many people in the United States, why should we care if a small portion has crazy ideas or does harmful things? 

While convincing on its surface, this logic falls flat when one applies it to any number of other issues. For instance, why should we care about the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center? After all, according to Coulter’s numbers, the people killed in the attack (2,996) only amount to 0.0009% of the total population. Or how about school shootings, or terrorism in general, which have a low number of deaths compared to the total population? Or perhaps we should let those with AIDS die, due to them making up only 0.3% of the population? To argue this case with numbers reflects a lack of empathy with those affected by these issues. Sure, the people who die from AIDS may be a relatively small portion of the population, but nobody should have to suffer through it. In the same way, even if we believe that white supremacist ideology only exists in a few, insane people, those with empathy agree that nobody should be killed or discriminated against by these people. Furthermore, if a growing number of people are being harmed by them, then perhaps the government should attempt to fix the problem. 

Still, with only a finite amount of time and money to dedicate to causes, governments must divide their resources with care. Yet, choosing where to do this is not an exact science. For example, should the government dedicate its resources to fighting diseases or terrorism? But, one need not attempt to rhetorically minimize the devastating effects of diseases like cancer to argue for greater anti-terrorism efforts. On the scourge of white supremacy, however, one metric that supports the idea that it is worth paying attention to is the rising number of hate crimes in the US. 

According to the FBI, hate crimes increased 17% from 2016 to the end of 2017, with 59.6% targeted due to their ethnicity. These are alarming statistics worth paying attention to and analyzing. Even if one disputes their cause, the trend must be taken seriously by the government to prevent further harm. Perhaps Coulter has some arguments or data to counter these numbers, though? Sadly, she fails to provide any. Her only argument is that “in my life, I've encountered a number of white people -- some of them are my best friends. I've never heard any of them suggest that whites should rule over other races.” I need not illustrate that such an anecdote is not evidence worth considering. 

What is particularly baffling about Coulter’s piece is her next point, however. She proceeds to lay out specific instances in which, she claims, anti-white or anti-male bias occurs. For example, she argues that a recent hire on the editorial team of The New York Times, who made comments that Coulter takes issue with, showcases the problem. 

What is striking about these examples is how anecdotal they are. To believe that a woman’s tweets about white people, or a commercial by Gillette, are in any way a greater issue than a rise in hate crimes is puzzling. Furthermore, why doesn’t Coulter apply the same logic she used to dismiss white supremacy with these anecdotes? Why not argue that, with a population of 320 million people, there are bound to be crackpots who say unsavory things and companies that make disagreeable commercials? 

Coulter’s arguments don’t make much sense and fall flat with only the bare minimum of scrutiny. She fails to argue why the issue of modern white supremacy is a non-issue for the US government by utilizing a slew of anecdotes and faulty logic.



Citations:



http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-01-16.html - White Supremacists Ate My Homework by Ann Coulter

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Globalism Be a Dirty Word?

-
Image
Alex Jones, a far-right conspiratorial political pundit, is a frequent detractor of globalism. This belief is often repeated across the Republican party, and even with some Democrats. There is a dirty word going around the Republican party and even some parts of the Democratic party: globalism. Republicans in Congress frequently disavow so-called “globalist policies” implemented by Democratic politicians, and those of the far right paint their enemies with the often-anti-Semitic pejorative of “globalist”. But globalism should not be looked at with such disdain. In fact, the U.S. government would do good to implement true globalist policies for the benefit of the U.S. and the world.  First, we should define what we mean by “globalism”. The term refers to a perspective of national policymaking that considers its effect on a global scale. For instance, when a country is having economic issues that could be partly allayed by tariffs on global imports, a country would consider suc
Read more

The Government is Fine, You Aren't

-
Image
Ask any citizen of the United States, either on the left or right of the political spectrum, to lay out their list of government grievances, and you’ll soon realize that the list is almost unending. Indeed, it is practically a national pastime to blame the U.S. government for our multitude of problems. Healthcare, immigration, climate change, etc. are all issues current and past governments have floundered to address. Yet, while it may be common to use this line of thinking, it masks a deeper and more vexing issue underneath: that if the American public really wanted to solve these problems, they could. Indeed, the frequent adjustment of our founding document gives a clue of the potential for radical change in the United States. Furthermore, the public has never had more power when it comes to directly changing their situation through election of officials. When it comes to discussions of governance, the public often looks to the Constitution for guidance. It is the refere
Read more

Does Age Matter in Politics?

-
Image
The members of the recent 116th Congress are the most diverse yet in race, gender, and age. With the recent influx of fresh faces to Congress after the 2018 midterm elections, it was refreshing to see a diverse crowd. Yet, one aspect of this diversity could pose a strategic problem: age. Frank Bruni, a columnist for The New York Times, argues in a recent piece entitled In Defense of the Gerontocracy that age is a factor to be considered in the current US Congress and, more specifically, that older congresspersons are a vital component. Indeed, it is a common theme of critique to denounce one's position of power based simply on that person’s age, and Bruni submits that it happens all too often towards older congressmen. Whether power is rejected on the belief that the person is either too young or too old to hold it skillfully, these beliefs about age can cloud or hamper our political thinking. Bruni points out that older members of Congress have been in politics long enough t
Read more