“a majority-minority America”

“Minority” was a euphemism to begin with; when it becomes flatly untrue it’s reeeally an awkward usage. Why not say what is meant: ‘a minority-white America”?

Posted by Nell on 28 October 02008 @ 5pm

I’m using the accepted shorthand, Nell. Much like “African-American,” it’s an odd construct (there are no “African-Irish” or “African-Ecuadorian”), but outside of the context of a post on linguistics, it’s generally simpler to use the accepted phrase. The difficulty with “minority-white” is that the prospect of whites as a minority isn’t likely—whites will remain a plurality (that is, not a minority) for the foreseeable future in the United States. What I’m trying to get at is the notion of whites not comprising a majority, but also not being a minority, while the collective minorities constitute a majority, if one accepts a “white/not white” dichotomy.

So, yeah, not easy stuff. Hence “majority-minority.”

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 October 02008 @ 9pm

Hey- everyone will be happy when we live in a socialist utopia. Those taxes that will be going up soon will come from all colors and races; sounds fair to me. Better yet, it looks like we will be a one party country, and the Republican party might just fade… or who knows, maybe get legislated into oblivion. A new Fairness Doctrine might muzzle those shrill voices on talk radio like Hannity and Limbaugh. We can also be glad that people who work for our local governments will help keep watch over people like that plumber in Ohio, digging into their personal info and holding it over their head; we’ll definitely have a much more peaceful existence when we don’t have to listen to dissension from anyone.

Posted by tomr on 28 October 02008 @ 10pm

Uh, Tom? Everything you’re saying applies just as well to the Bush administration. Except for the tax increase, hence the $10.5T national debt.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 28 October 02008 @ 11pm

Maybe Obama will get it right. Bush just doesn’t get the whole socialist thing- except the socializing of the banking system! Too many Republicans beat the “cut taxes” drum (Gilmore) and then forget that to maintain balance they have to cut spending. Also, Bush never had a filibuster proof Congress; the issues our country has rest squarely on the shoulders of politicians on both sides of the aisle. I’d be surprised if you felt that single party control over our government is a good thing and I’d be curious to see your thoughts on the pros and cons of that likely scenario.

Posted by tomr on 28 October 02008 @ 11pm

I find it fascinating how Republicans and conservatives keep declaring how bad things are going to be if Democrats take the presidency or expand their hold on Congress, yet completely ignore the fact that it is entirely because of their behavior the past eight years that Americans have abandoned them and are shooing in their opponents.

Posted by Will on 29 October 02008 @ 12am

I’d be surprised if you felt that single party control over our government is a good thing and I’d be curious to see your thoughts on the pros and cons of that likely scenario.

Heck no. I’ve often said that I prefer a Democratic president, a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate. (Being elected statewide has a moderating effect on Republicans that helps to cause them to act as a brake on Democrats’ agenda without being a roadblock.) Clinton did little of note from ‘93-’94, but got a lot more done with Congress after the Republicans took over.

But Republicans have given Americans no reasons whatsoever to return them to power. There’s just no sense in griping about divided government now. Republicans need a few years in the wilderness to come to their senses, to stop being the party of Terry Schiavo and start being the party of fiscal restraint.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 29 October 02008 @ 8am

Well said- I agree.

Posted by tomr on 29 October 02008 @ 8am

For whatever it’s worth, I want to say that I’m with Waldo here. I’d love a government divided, where a minority party held one of the legislative houses (preferably the senate for the same reasons Waldo states). We need something to act as a moderating force on the Democrats’ spending (just as we needed something to act as a moderating force on the Republicans’ spending).

The problem is that the Republicans aren’t the party of fiscal conservatism. There is no party of fiscal conservatism. This should scare the crap out of all of us. Instead, the Republicans care more about stopping the expansion of civil liberties, complicating the legal system to make abortions less available, and military adventures, with maybe a tax cut to boot. No, this is not the minority party we need. And thus, the Republicans get a time-out. I hope they find a way to build a coalition to get them elected without having to pander to the far right and the racists, one that cares about limited government and fiscal constraint. I hope they poach some of the more center-right Democratic legislators by coming back to the middle. None of this will happen until they realize that neoconservatism and theocratic rhetoric is no longer viable as part of a national coalition.

Posted by Ben C. on 29 October 02008 @ 10pm

Fair enough, Waldo. Taking your points into account, I’d go for nonwhite-majority America as more accurate and less euphemistic.

All of the constructs discussed, as you note, are white-centric and depend on a white-nonwhite dichotomy. Maybe Obama’s election and politics in the next thirty years will make progress in dissolving that perspective.

Posted by Nell on 30 October 02008 @ 11am

Why don’t you tell all of those non-whites in the Republican party that they are racists.

You are truly holier than thou. Don’t you see how condescending and racist you are by your broad stereotypes and presumptions?

Is it guilt, ignorance, or just plain political blindness?

You are too smart/smug by 50%.

Enjoy the kool-aid drinking.

Posted by Watts on 3 November 02008 @ 12am

Watts,

“Why don’t you tell all of those non-whites in the Republican party that they are racists.”

Because I never said that they’re racists. I never said Republicans in general are racists. I didn’t say these things, because I don’t believe them. In fact, I write “the far right and the racists.” Two different demographic groups, each one separate from Republicans at large. If you want to pretend there haven’t been significant incidences of Republicans race baiting in the past decade or two, we can discuss that, but we’re not gonna get anywhere with a discussion if you keep trying to play the victim when I’m not even attacking you or the Republicans at large.

You write, “Don’t you see how condescending and racist you are by your broad stereotypes and presumptions?” No, I don’t. What race am I racist against, and from what words of mine did you draw that conclusion? Am I condescending? No, I don’t think it’s condescension to hope and wish that my political opponents jettison the worst of their party and become better and more powerful for it. But it’s a matter of semantics. I’m wishing for the best for the Republicans and the nation, and if that makes me condescending, I’ll gladly wear that label.

Posted by Ben C. on 3 November 02008 @ 12pm