RISE MAGAZINE: PRESIDENT TRUMP

RISE MAGAZINE

President Trump: A new era

undergroundvoices.co

2

RISE Magazine

The Underground is a multicultural student-run media site devoted to telling the untold stories within the Penn State community. We seek to foster the multicultural student voice through creating an open forum of discussion and promoting diversity and community involvement.

RISE Magazine is the magazine of The Underground, a student-run news media publication for students at Penn State.

In addition to the magazine, RISE is online 24/7 with music, arts, and culture content. rise.undergroundvoices.co RISE Magazine | January 2017

RISE is the magazine companion and a colorful display of what The Underground strives to be – a space for inspiration, creation and advocacy among students at Penn State.

We’ve called the magazine RISE after American writer Maya Angelou’s famous poem Still I Rise, a declaration of triumph over adversity.

This poem serves as a reminder of our commitment to social justice and community. The only way to overcome hate, oppression and injustice is if we rise – together, unified and with strength.

RISE Magazine

3

CONTENTS RISE MAGAZINE

5 What’s in a vote?

Does your vote matter? We think so.

6 2016 election in photos Check out some of our favorite photos from election season on campus.

8 inaugurations around the world

»» p.12

See how countries worldwide celebrate the entrance of a new leader.

9 Thanks, obama.

Thanks, Obama. Thank you for ultimately inspiring me to work in the public sector, stand for justice, and seek equality in all aspects of life.

12 the gilded age and white supremacy »» p.18

»» p.6

We are entering a new Gilded Age. How do we stop it? End white supremacy.

18 trump, the minority vote and the future of the republican party With Donald Trump, the GOP doubled down on a losing strategy, and they’ll pay the price for it going forward.

20 white people, now more than ever we need to work for racial justice Trump’s election is our fault, and we need to do something about it. »» p.9

RISE Magazine | January

2017

4

RISE Magazine

Right now, in this moment, we are entering a new era. An era of vast unknown, following one of the most divisive elections in history. As we prepare for what lies ahead, we must always remember to RISE. Hate cannot win. Hate will not win.

The only thing that can overcome hate is love.

Let’s come together in love and RISE together.

We will win.

-

Adriana Lacy Editor in Chief, The Underground

RISE Magazine | January 2017

RISE Magazine

5

WHAT’S IN A VOTE?

BY NATHAN GOLDEN If you live in Pennsylvania, there is about 1/150,000,000 ( 1 out of 150 million) that your vote will determine the next President of the United States.

83% of us believe all gun purchases should go through acriminal background check. Yet, I could drive to Virginiga and buy a gun, no questions asked.

If you live in New York, there is a better chance of you winning the lottery 6,000 times in a row than you determining the next Commander in Chief.

63% of Republican milennials believe marijuana should be legalized. Bernie Sanders was the only candidate to agree.

Do I have you convinced yet?

Me neither.

Figures like these make a voter participation rate of 54% in 2012 seem less surprising.

But college aged voters are turning out at an even lower rate of38%. And this means our ideas might go underrepresented. This is espcially bad becuase milennials are more likely to wake amore fair and just society than our predecessors.

73% of all milennials believe the government should provide retirement security for seniors. But Soccial Security is on pace to run out of money by 2037 if nothing is done.

69% of us believe abortion should be a woman’s decision. Meanwhile, all 13 Republican PresidentialCandidates are vowing to defund Planned Parenthood.

Noteable outlets that lean left include: The New York Times, MSNBC, and The Washington Post.

Be pround and encourage your friends to vote too. If we want our politicans to reflect the ideology of millennials we have to vote for the ones who align with our fundamental beliefs.

Our generation has the powerto create the equitable world that we believe in. Many of us dream of world peace, the end of absolute poverty and a more green future.

That all starts with a vote.

We’ll turn our Facebook pictures pink, but will we show up and vote for what we believe?

These numbers show that neglecting to vote has a real cost.

Before you vote, you should become as informed as you possibly can on the issues and your own beliefs. Some personal favorites for unbiased political journalism are The Economist, 538, and Politico. All three have Twitter account that make it easy to stay up to date on current issues and where politicans stand on them.

Becuase we don’t vote, our politicians are less likely to represent us. It’snot jst theory, it’s the current reality.

It should also be noted that many news outlets are known for a bias. Media that typically lean to the right include: Fox News,

In fact, a 2014 survey found that the number one issue that milennialscare about is equality.

The National Review, and The Blaze.

RISE Magazine | January

2017

6

RISE Magazine

2016 E LECTION IN PHOTOS BY: ADRIANA LACY

D

B

O

emocratic vice-presidential ull-Moose Party creates a wall range is the New Black Star candidate Tim Kaine takes demonstration on Old Main Matt McGory visits the PA the stage after student Ricardo Law in support of Presidential Democratic Coordinated Campaign Louis Rojas introduced him. candidiate Donald Trump.

Office to help with Hillary Cinton campaig efforts.

C

V

C

hris Baker, director of comolunteers at the PA hris Baker shares his argumunications for the Penn Democratc Coordinated ment during the Bull-Moose State’s Bull-Moose Party protests Campaign Office call, email, and Party and Students for Hillary outside of the HUB ahead of Tim text citiens to remind them to go election debate.

Kaine’s visit. out and vote.

RISE Magazine | January 2017

RISE Magazine

7

S

tudents showcase their politcal ties in a humorous fashion on election day.

S

tudents watch their phones and laptops for election updates during the Political Science Department Election Night Watch Party in Heritage Hall.

A

large crowd gathers outside of Old Main during the #NotMyPresident Protest following the election of Donald Trump.

S

tudents march to Old Main to start the #NotMyPresident Protest following the election of Donald Trump.

S

Hall.

M

tudents cast their votes for the 2016 Election in Alumni

embers of the Bull-Moose Party join together for prayer following the election of Donald Trump.

S

t u d e nt s d i s p l ay p ro test signs at the #NotMyPresident Protest following the election of Donald Trump.

P

A Senator Bob Casey joins visits the Penn State College Democrats as they table in the HUB-Robeson Center.

B

ull-Moose Party members gathered in the Willard Building the day after Donald Trump is delcared President of the United States.

RISE Magazine | January

2017

8

RISE Magazine

P R ESI DENTIAL INAUGUR AT I O N S A R O UN D T H E W O R L D

BBY: CAITRIONA PEARSON countries? Here, we will examine the process in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and France.

The short answer is no, with much of the difference attributable to the fact that New Zealand and the United Kingdom have parliamentary, rather than presidential, systems of government.

In less than ten days, millions of Americans, along with countless others around the world, will tune in to watch President-elect Donald Trump participate in the Presidential Inauguration, a largely ceremonial day which has come to symbolize the peaceful transfer of power that has acted as the foundation of American democracy. The President-elect will be sworn in by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, formally transitioning him to the office of the presidency. Like much of the presidential campaign itself, news stations, journalists and photographers from around the world will descend on Capitol Hill in hopes of capturing every word of Trump’s oath live for their audience.

While the inauguration itself will certainly dominate the news cycle, little time has been dedicated examining the manner in which this process is fundamentally distinct from most others around the world. This is largely to be expected, given that most mainstream media outlets in the U.S. will not even report on inaugurations taking place outside of the United States.

So, the question begs to be asked: Is the way in which the United States inaugurates their President similar to the way in which it is done in other Anglophobe and European

In New Zealand, where I was raised, the “inauguration” of an incoming Prime Minister takes place in private, with little-to-no access given to the press. New Zealand’s history, being a former British colony, means that the Queen of England remains the permanent head of state in the country, while the government’s chief executive, the Prime Minister, must be sworn in by the monarchy; this swearing in is often done by the Queen’s representative in New Zealand, known as the Governor General, rather than the Queen herself.

In similar fashion, newly-elected Prime Ministers in the United Kingdom must ask the Queen for permission to form a new or existing government. If the Prime Minister under the current ruling party fails to form a majority in parliament following a general election, they must then go to Buckingham palace and inform the Queen that they no longer have the ability to form a government.

They must then recommend to the Queen someone within parliament who can lead a government, contingent upon their ability to form a majority coalition; the Queen will then invite this individual to Buckingham Palace, so that they can personally tell the Queen that their party has built enough support within parliament to form a majority. Several days later the new Prime Minister will visit Buckingham Palace again to be officially sworn in by the Queen in a long and very pomp private ceremony.

RISE Magazine | January 2017

Whilst leaders in New Zealand and the UK must be sworn in by the monarchy, no such official inauguration proceedings occur in France. In the case where a new individual assumes the office of president, prior to the formal inauguration ceremony, the president-elect meets with the outgoing president for a “conversation” in which the codes for the French nuclear arsenal are exchanged.

Following the exchange, the incoming president will then be formally inaugurated in a ceremony in which the president of the Constitutional Council reads the official results of the presidential election.

Thus, the inauguration of a newly-elected President in the United States is quite different when compared to the rest of the world.

Unlike these countries examined here, the President must take an oath in front of thousands of people in Washington D.C., and to millions more watching around the world.

Like everything else surrounding the U.S. presidential election, the ceremony is far larger and more publicized. The inauguration ceremony will begin on January 20th at 9:30 a.m., while the swearing in is projected to occur at noon.

RISE Magazine

9

THANKS, OBAMA.

BY:BY: CANDICE CRUTCHFIELD

Photo Credit: History Channel The recent gruesome election, unexpected events, unexplained results and political moves will surely go down in history. Likewise, so will the powerful story of the last eight years in American politics.

It is with deep sadness that I come to terms with the fact that in just a few short days, our President Barack Obama will leave behind a legacy that has shaped our country. A man of such poise, intellect, unmatched speaking ability, and valor, President Obama has proved to be an invaluable contributor to our country and the world. In the face of hardship and uncertainty about what the next person in power may do, it is both important and necessary to acknowledge and thank the man who has made a substantial impact on my life. I remember the life changing moment as if it happened yesterday — In 2012, President Obama visited a complex in Woodbridge Virginia, just a few miles away from my home. Speaking about serving a second term and the importance of voting,

he captured the hearts of everyone in the crowd. Skipping school to see him in person, I immediately had flashbacks to the moment he made history.

Just four years earlier I had suited up in layers of warm clothing, venturing out into the below-freezing weather to serve as an eyewitness to the historical inauguration.

Joined alongside what felt like billions of people, I watched as Barack Obama took an oath and became the first Black president of our nation. Four years later, he stood a few feet in front of me, addressing an audience with smiles and inspiring words. The greatest moment was when my mom yelled, “love you, Barack,” in which he looked in our direction, responding, “I love you back.” To be so undeservingly close to a great change maker — I will never be able to put those feelings into words. I’m often reminded of the many events that have taken place since the moment that President Obama, Michelle, and his beautiful daughters took to the stage on his first

election night. Seen during the election season, people who once spoke of kindness began to share words of negativity because “America elected a n****.” Unfortunately, with Barack Obama’s presidency came misconceptions, a wave of racism, hatred, and disdain from various communities, both domestic and abroad.

After election day, my teacher used an entire class period to cry in front of the chalkboard because “It’s all downhill from here.” I walked through the hallways as other students commented, “he only won because he’s black.” Some students were able to leave class early because what they referred to as a “controversial election” was too much to handle.

My gut still drops as I remember the moments of hoping, pleading, and praying that nothing would happen to him as he greeted millions during the first and second inaugural parade. I also remember watching the tears stream down my Grandmother’s face as she spoke about listening to the first Black President speak in Selma, Alabama, the city where Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, and others sacrificed so much just 51 years earlier.

It would be a severe injustice to speak about our President without acknowledging the successes that have stemmed from his presidency. We cannot overlook the fact that nearly every American has access to affordable healthcare. We must not forget the moment of joy experienced when America realized marriage equality, enabling many of my friends to marry their significant others.

Obama’s presidency introduced a dedication to our climate, highlighting the harmful changes that will continue to occur if action isn’t taken. We could talk about the passing of the fair sentencing act, repealing the don’t

RISE Magazine | January

2017

10

RISE Magazine

ask don’t tell policy or even the continued fight against poverty. The list truly goes on and on.

So thanks, Obama.

Thank you for a white house full of love and free of scandal.

Thank you for reminding us that there is still good in the world.

Thank you for ultimately inspiring me to work in the public sector, stand for justice, and seek equality in all aspects of life.

Whether it was singing Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together” at the Apollo Theater, passing legislation, or telling a typical dad joke at the yearly turkey pardon, President Obama undoubtedly filled the last 8 years with some of the most amazing moments.

A wise, 44th President of the United States once said, “Your voice can change the world” and he couldn’t be more right.

President Barack Obama’s voice, leadership, and actions changed the world. I hope to one day be half as great as him.

Thanks, Obama.

Photo Credit: biography.com

RISE Magazine | January 2017

12

RISE Magazine

WE ARE ENTERING A NEW GILDED AGE.

HOW TO STOP IT?

END WHITE SUPREMACY. BY: ETHAN PAUL

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want… grab them by the pu**y. You can do anything.”

Donald J. Trump Credit: AP/LM Otero RISE Magazine | January 2017

RISE Magazine The 2016 presidential election has left the American electorate more divided, reflexively hostile, and broken than at any point since the internal strife caused by the Vietnam War. The most obvious factor provoking this division is Donald Trump’s decision to run a campaign inherently rooted in fact less and bigoted claims denigrating minorities, women, and the vulnerable. Trump initially announced his candidacy by claiming that immigrants crossing the Mexican border brought with them drugs, crime, and an intent to rape American women, thus supporting his call for the building of an ineffectual and expensive wall across the U.S.-Mexico border. After hiring Stephen Bannon, the former CEO of the altright website Breitbart and now Trump’s Chief White House Strategist, Trump announced that he would implement a complete and unconstitutional ban on Muslim’s entering the United States. Many of these outwardly fascistic and nationalistic policies were supposedly justified by Trump labeling himself the “Law and Order” candidate, a phrase that has historically been associated with police forces targeting and abusing certain African-American and minority communities. A month before the election, a video was leaked in which Trump can be heard bragging about his inability to control his sexual advances toward women, saying that he is “automatically attracted to beautiful- I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss.

I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want… grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

It has yet to be seen whether Trump will act on any of this rhetoric as President, but it is obvious that the seeds of distrust and division he has already sowed among portions of the American electorate will take years, if not decades, to even begin the process of healing. However, while Trump has successfully managed, for his own benefit, to divide Americans against themselves along social and racial lines, long-running economic and political trends speak to the existence of much deeper and starker divisions along lines of class, divisions that should seemingly make Americans far more unified in their interests than the nature of this election

cycle purports. Below, I will outline trends in economic and political life, pointing to the relatively silent development of a new, aristocratic elite who, if their power and status continues to grow unchecked, will have the ability to dominate, control, and dictate every aspect of American life, inevitably leading us into a dangerous New Gilded Age. I will also outline certain trends that led to the election of Donald Trump, particularly the renewed vitality of white-nationalism and internalized white supremacy, manifested in the rise of the alt-right, forces that, if also left unchecked and allowed to fester, will act as a “wedge” limiting all forms of cooperation and collective action between whites and non-whites against this new, corrosive aristocracy.

[Break] Over the past five decades, the U.S. economy has seen historic levels of economic growth, with the U.S. producing and owning far more today, around $18 trillion and over $88 trillion, respectively, than any other country at any other time in human history. On their face, however, these statistics fail to communicate the extent to which the fruits of this growth have been purposefully constrained to and limited for the use of the few.

Income inequality, the gap in incomes (which includes all means of wealth generation, primarily pay roll wages and capital gains) between the rich and the poor, had previously peaked in the early 1930’s, but retreated in the post-World War II era, making way for a new era of relatively equal prosperity and economic condition for most, but not all, Americans: between 1948 and 1973, hourly wages of non-management workers increased at a rate of 91%, largely in line with a 97% growth in productivity, with the wealthiest 10% of households, representing around 16 million families, consistently earning no more than 33% of all income generated (a historic low), according to a 2016 study by the economist Emmanuel Saez. After 1979, however, inequality began to increase dramatically, with the wages of non-management workers only increasing by 9%, despite a 74% growth in productivity, with the wealthiest 10% today earning more than half of all income generated, at 50.5%. Most of these gains at the top have

13

been concentrated among the wealthiest 1%, or the 1.6 million households that earn more than $443,000 annually, with their income share increasing from 9% of all income in 1970 to nearly a quarter of all income, 23.5%, in 2007. While the earnings of this group have increased by 94.5% between 1993 and 2015, earnings of the bottom 99% only increased by a mere 14.3%, implying that the top 1% “captured 52% of the overall economic growth of real incomes per family over the period”.

Growth in wealthy inequality between the average American and the extremely has been even more dramatic over this period.

According to a different 2016 study by Saez, the wealthiest 10% of households, again about 16 million families, increased their share of national wealth from 63% in the mid1980’s to 77.2%, today. Like income, growth in the share of the wealthiest 1%, again about 1.6 million families, have accounted for most of the gains in the top 10%, increasing from under 25% of national wealth in 1979 to 41.8% today. However, almost all of the wealth increases for the top 1% can be

RISE Magazine | January

2017

14

RISE Magazine

attributed still to gains made by the top .1% or about 160,000 families, which now own 22% of all national wealth; this is the same share held by the bottom 90% of Americans, or about 144 million families. And yet, the wealthiest .01%, representing 16,000 families, account for over half of the wealth of the top .1%, owning 11.2% of all national wealth. By comparison, the bottom 80% and 60% of households, representing a significant majority of American families, own less than 15% and 2.5% of all national wealth today, respectively.

If the status quo remains, these gaps between the wealthy and everyone else will surely continue to grow, and the freedom of nearly all Americans will be contingent upon the will of a small group of extremely wealthy, and hopelessly out-of-touch, families. Making these trends even more pressing is the fact that that most low-skilled American jobs are expected to be automated completely over the next few decades, raising a question as to whether low-skilled Americans will have reasonable access to any employment opportunities. Thus, if systemic changes are not made soon, most preferably in the form of efforts to

limit and redistribute the wealthy’s economic power, these technological changes may permanently entrench the existing positions of power in a manner that will may future change difficult to ever realize.

These hopes for bringing systemic change to the American economic system would be far more likely in our present divided social climate if the political system were effectively empowered and designed to regulate and redistribute the clear excesses of the free market. Unfortunately, our modern campaign finance and lobbying systems ensure that interests empowered by the market will be able to protect their positions by having an overwhelming influence over the direction of public policy. Elected officials have increasingly come to rely on outside funding in order to retain their office, with the cost of winning a House election more than doubling between 1968 and 2010, from $715,401 to $1,434,760, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, while outside spending on a candidate’s behalf totaled over $700 million in all 2016 Congressional races. Reflecting the extent to which these increases in campaign cost hamstring the ability of politicians to

Photo Credit:: Julie Dermansky

RISE Magazine | January 2017

focus on legislation, an internal Congressional document provided to the Huffington Post found that incoming freshman Congressman could expect to spend 40-60% of their time in Washington D.C. on the phone fundraising. Moreover, the public-watchdog group Open Secrets has found that the sources of this money are overwhelmingly wealthy, as only .66% of the U.S. adult population giving more than $200 to a candidate or PAC in 2016, yet those donations accounted for over 70% of all raised. Another landmark 2012 study, produced by Princeton political scientist Martin Gilens, found that the preferences of the wealthiest Americans were the only preferences ultimately reflected in public policy, while the preferences of the middle and working classes had comparatively little impact.

It is not difficult to imagine how the nature of America’s modern political system which clearly favors the interests of the wealthy, combined with the prospect for continuing increases in economic inequality, could combine to create a powerful and corrosive feedback loop: corporations and individuals “reinvest” many of their earnings into the political system so that they can gain more power over regulations and policies affecting their industry, while those with relatively stagnating or declining earnings are “pricedout” of buying political influence; this, in turn, results in more favorable and profitable policies for the powerful, who then use their increased earnings to buy even more political influence. Thus, America is at a crossroads: reform the political system now, or else face a future where the concentrated wealth of a few will be too much to ever overcome or fight against.

A majority, if not all, Americans should clearly be unified in this fight: regardless of our differences, we all have an incentive to ensure that a small cabal of wealthy individuals are not able to use their stranglehold over America’s economic and political system to dictate the direction of our daily lives. Yet, as previously mentioned, the election of Donald Trump has left us more divided and fractured, along racial and social lines, than ever. The crucial question thus needed to be asked is: Why?

RISE Magazine The answer certainly does not lie in differing economic interests between Clinton and Trump voters, as a significant majority of both voting blocs have not benefited from any of the economic gains made recently. Clinton won 53% and 52% of all individuals making under $30,000 and $50,000 a year, respectively, while Trump won 66% of whites without a college degree, a group that alone has seen their wages decline by nearly 40% since the 1970’s. Reinforcing this contradiction, an analysis produced by the Tax Policy Center found that Donald Trump’s proposed tax plan would overwhelmingly benefit the extremely wealthy: after accounting for increased levels of economic growth, the top .1%, would experience an average tax cut of nearly $1.1 million, representing a 14% increase in post-tax income.

By contrast, households in the middle-fifth and bottom-fifth of the income distribution would only receive an average-tax cut of $1,010 and $110, respectively, representing a mere 1.8% and .80% increase in posttax income. Moreover, the same analysis estimates that these cuts would also result in $7.0 trillion added to the federal debt over the

15

next decade, and over $23 trillion by 2036, meaning they would have to bring along with them substantial decreases in federal expenditures, such as infrastructure or socialsecurity spending, which will disproportionally lower the living standards of average Americans.

That is to say, Trump supporters, in order to protect their race in the societal hierarchy, will sacrifice their class interests; although Obamacare has benefited many Trump supporters, they are willing to risk sacrificing it if it means that whites are made, again, institutionally superior.

If clear differences in economic interests did not ultimately drive Trump’s victory, then what did? The only other viable, and completely obvious, answer is resentment against trends that portend the downfall of white males as the dominant actors in society. This observation borrows from a theory known as “social identity theory”, which argues that “individuals have a natural tendency to associate with similar individuals, and that an inherent desire for self-esteem causes people to perceive their ingroup as superior to outgroups”. In the midst of trends that portend the downfall in superiority of the “ingroup”, individuals basing their identity largely in their inclusion in a dominant group, in this case whites, will search for an outlet, and certain public policies, that seek to protect and reaffirm their group’s superior status.

From this perspective, it is easy to explain why certain Americans who have seen declining or stagnating wages would vote for Trump, even though Hillary Clinton’s platform would be far more beneficial to them on average. That is, many of Trump’s supporters feel that “whiteness,” or the white race, is in relative decline in American political, social and economic life, particularly based around the belief that the rising status of minority groups “threatens” their current place in the institutional hierarchy. This would seemingly explain the success of Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again, as well as the rise in prominence of the “altright”, an online community whose core unifying belief revolve around the downfall of white dominance, something they occasionally refer to as “white genocide”. A large, sprawling amount of data support this assertion, but I will highlight only a few important findings here.

A 2016 Pew Research Center study found that, when asked what issues facing the country were most important, the issue mentioned that best determined whether an individual would feel “warmly” about Trump were: “Growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens U.S. values.” Tied for second, was “Bad for country that blacks, Latinos, Asians will be majority of the population”. These responses can be directly attributed to fear over long-term demographic trends that would seemingly dilute the power of white America, as The Pew Research Center in a 2014 study found that whites accounted for over 80% of the population in 1965, with foreign-born migrants accounting for only 5%; today, those same groups account for 60% and 14% of the population, respectively. These trends are expected to continue unabated, if not grow: by 2065, whites will account for only 45% of the population, with

RISE Magazine | January

2017

16

RISE Magazine

Hispanics accounting for 24%.

A 2011 study, conducted by Stanford University Professor Robb Willer, titled “Threats to Racial Status Promote Tea Party Support Among White Americans,” argued that “various political, economic, and demographic trends and events,” most notably, the election of the first African-American President, help explain varying levels of support for the Tea Party movement.

Respondents in the study were given a set of information, with some respondents receiving a “framing” of this information that was meant to heighten the perceived threat to the relative standing of whites; those respondents, in turn, were found to express greater support and enthusiasm for the Tea Party.

This helps to explain the rise of certain whitenationalist tendencies following the election of Barack Obama, as well as the success of Donald Trump’s own “birther” movement, the goal of which was to effectively delegitimize America’s first African-American president.

Another April 2016 study created a metric measuring “racial resentment,” which the study also refers to as “symbolic racism,” or “a subtle form of racism that blends negative feelings about Blacks, as a group, with traditional American values, specifically individualism.” The study asked questions that were meant to extricate a clear racial bias in the respondent, such as have “African-Americans [since slavery[ gotten what they deserve?”

The metric, based on answers given to these questions, found that “only” 43% of Sanders supporters and 40% of Hillary supporters exhibited high levels of racial-resentment, compared to more than twice that amount, 81%, for Trump supporters. “Racial resentment” connects to the argument made here as it communicates a set of strongly-held beliefs about the nature of the world and African-Americans that reflect the existence, more often in the mind of Trump supporters but also in the mind of liberals, of an inherent and necessary racial hierarchy.And, as already mentioned, nearly all of the policies central to Trump’s campaign sought to deal

with the threats posed by minorities in an often-violent manner that would serve to symbolically and literally heighten the divisions between whites and everyone else.

These policies of violence have precedent in America’s past, with whites often using the state as an authoritative tool to fight against any changes in the existing social and racial hierarchy, exemplified by the end of Reconstruction and Jim Crow Segregation, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and, more recently, the recent shifts in the criminal justice system that have specifically targeted and disproportionately punished African-American men. To be sure, there is more nuance and complexity to Trump’s support than this, and of course some Trump supporters are not outwardly racist: the larger point these observations are making is that, underwriting Trump’s support, is a shared sense that “whiteness” is in relative decline in American political, social, and economic life. Thus, informed by this perspective, there appears to be only one viable policy prescription that can ever hope to get Trump and Clinton’s Americas to unite against the coming waves of concentrated and malignant economic and political power: ending the existence of the internalized white supremacy that pushes whites to feel that any power given to non-white communities inherently threatens their own standing. How can this be done? While this question is beyond the scope of this essay, the answer certainly lies in engagement. A popular theory among social scientists is known as “contact theory,” which states that individuals who have direct contact with groups they otherwise wouldn’t, say whites having contact with Mexican immigrants, often learn that those individuals are not to be feared as being “different,” but are, in reality, just as human as they are. Evidence supporting the viability of this theory can be found in the fact that, according to a 2016 study conducted by David Gallup, individuals that live in diverse neighborhoods, or that are close to the Mexican border, are less, not more, likely to support Trump: Trump’s support is most likely to be found in “white

RISE Magazine | January 2017

enclaves” relatively segregated from the aforementioned demographic changes occurring throughout the country. Thus, increasing levels of direct human contact, although seemingly unattractive in a divided and hostile political climate, is a viable first step to ending engrained white supremacy.

The other far-more-difficult solution may lie in finally passing reparations for AfricanAmericans, a concept that the right, and many on the left, will undoubtedly and naturally attempt to resist, given that both groups express some levels of high racial resentment. While reparations are certainly deserved on their economic merits alone, given the destruction that slavery and Jim Crow discrimination have done to the economic, political, and social life of AfricanAmericans, its economic merits are not necessarily what I am prioritizing in calling for it. Instead, I envision that a world in which reparations are passed is a world where whites have come to grips with the privilege granted to them by America’s past failures and the existence of modern systemic racism, in a manner that ultimately allows them to shed any part of their identity associated with the artificial superiority they attribute to being white. It is only in this world that the American people can form a unified front which can effectively take on the power of the new aristocratic class, reforming both the political system, and in turn the economic system, so that it benefits and enriches all Americans, rather than a select few.

This is the only fight that the American left, particularly the Democratic Party, should take up in the coming years. Any other fight will inevitably run into the same barriers that

RISE Magazine

17

I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

- Donald Trump limited the extent of social advancement and progress in prior eras of progressive reform: resentment among white Americans that universal policies will disproportionately impact and assist minorities, and thus will only serve to weaken their existing place in the societal hierarchy. This is especially true given future demographic trends, which project that whites will gradually come to represent a smaller portion of the country, and thus will be driven even more to maintain their control.

To his credit, Barack Obama briefly highlighted this fact in his Chicago farewell address, saying that “If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle-class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are gonna be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves. If we’re unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants just because they don’t look like us, we will diminish the prospects for our own children.” However, he failed to make this the fundamental message of his speech, acting instead as if race is an issue complementary to, rather than direct cause of, other problems. Moreover, he followed up these comments by saying that “blacks and other minority groups… [need to tie] our own very real struggles for justice to the challenges that a lot of people in this country face… [including] the middle-aged white guy… who has seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change.” By saying this, Obama is making false equivalencies between two fundamentally different issues, that being the historical institutional oppression faced by minorities, due to the direct choices made by whites, and the fear that some whites have shown regarding disruptive systemic change, a fear

directly linked to their internalized belief in a racial hierarchy that no longer appears, to them, to exist. To treat the issues as anything different represents a fundamental misunderstanding of American history, and if the Democratic Party adopts a strategy akin to this thinking, they will inevitably end up appealing to and ultimately appeasing white nationalism, a strategy doomed to fail from the start. The only viable strategy, and the strategy Obama needed to argue for, was to take racism head on.

This fight will not be easy, nor it will it be quick: it will be a slow, decades-long struggle against the forces of basic human nature and tribal instinct. While it may ultimately prove hopeless, it is the only viable solution we have left if America is to fight trends that would result in nearly all Americans being subject to the whims of a small and empowered few. It is the only answer we have left if the Founding Father’s great yet flawed experiment in democracy and freedom for the common man is to ever realize its full potential.

RISE Magazine | January

2017

18

RISE Magazine

TRUMP, THE MINORITY VOTE, AND THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BY: SAM BEEM In October of 2010, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview with The National Journal that, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.”

In 2012, Republicans failed in this respect miserably. The Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney, lost the general election by a total of 126 electoral votes and close to 3.5 million popular votes. This came at a time when President Obama’s approval ratings were in the low 40s just weeks before the election. In the two years preceding the election, the unemployment rate in the US had quivered between 8 to 9%. Despite the brief uptick in approval Obama received from the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in May 2011, the Presidential election of 2012 came at a time when Democrats were vulnerable to lose the White House. But they didn’t even come close.

This happened for a number of reasons. For one, the electoral college heavily favors the Democratic candidate, as larger states (California, New York, Illinois) are almost certain to vote blue. But more importantly, Mitt Romney lost in key demographics, which prevented him from seriously challenging the incumbent president. Romney drew only 44% of the female vote, 27% of the Hispanic vote, and a measly 6% of the African

now make up nearly 37% of the US population, and demographers estimate that number will increase past 50% by the year 2050. In the past, the GOP has been able to get by primarily off of its support from white males. However, the Republican party has lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections (Al Gore won the popular vote despite losing the election), and they are destined to lose more if they do not change their voter base.

This is where things get a little strange. Despite all the talk of rebranding the Republican Party as a party of all people, the RNC has nomAmerican vote. inated the most disliked, divisive candidate for President in modern politiAfter the election, the Republican cal history. The Republican primaries National Committee (RNC) wrote a selected a candidate who generally post-election review, or “autopsy,” scrapped every revision made by the to see in what areas they needed RNC in 2012: Donald Trump. to improve for the next Presidential Election in 2016. In the report, called 538 gives Clinton an 85% chance of The Growth and Opportunity Project, winning the election on Nov. 8, and RNC Chair Reince Priebus right- it’s not difficult to understand why. fully noted that the problem was Currently, Trump is polling at 17% outreach. “We need to campaign among Hispanics, and in August, among Hispanic, black, Asian, and was polling as the fourth-place cangay Americans and demonstrate we didate among African American care about them, too,” Priebus noted voters (behind Libertarian Gary in an ABC News interview. “We must Johnson and Green Party Nominee recruit more candidates who come Jill Stein). Clinton has a slight lead from minority communities.” among white women, a group that has consistently swung Republican The idea of the GOP trying to expand in past elections. upon its primarily white supporters is entirely based in statistics. Minorities In four years, the Republican Party

RISE Magazine | January 2017

RISE Magazine

has lost an election due to lack of the minority vote, analyzed the loss and emphasized the importance of the minority vote, and then nominated a candidate who will likely pull in an even lower proportion of the minority vote than his predecessor. Like in 2012, the Democrats began the election vulnerable to lose the White House. Hillary Clinton is not a well-liked candidate either.

However, the Trump campaign has effectively destroyed any chance of a Republican being sworn in this January.

To understand the situation in its entirety, it is important to note how Trump received the nomination.

There may be a correlation between the global rise of radical conservatism and the popularity of Trump’s positions on immigration and antiterror. However, the main reason for Trump’s popularity is that his platform has had a resounding effect on one demographic in particular: white males with less than a college degree. Unfortunately for Trump supporters, this is a demographic that continues to shrink proportionately in the US. Trump, it seems, has won over this demographic by alienating others. In doing so, he has won the Republican nomination, but lost the presidency.

19

an anomaly. However, for many Republicans, this is simply wishful thinking. “I see a straight line from the announcement of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential nominee to what we see today in Donald Trump,” President Obama said in an interview with New York Magazine, “the emergence of the Freedom Caucus, the tea party, and the shift in the center of gravity for the Republican Party.”

As the President explains, Trump’s authoritarian message has been steadily gaining popularity within the Republican base for a long time, and it is unlikely to go away anytime soon.

As the GOP strays from the majority consensus on social issues, certain sects of the party make it nearly impossible for the President to be a Republican anytime soon. If you are a Republican, the future is bleak (at the federal level, at least). The GOP is in dire need of reform in order to better reach out to minority and women voters. As of right now, that reform seems miles away. Like it or not, “Trumpism” and the ideologically far right are prominent fixtures in the Republican Party. The GOP’s missteps in these elections will haunt them for decades to come.

Trump could also potentially harm his own party on the lower end of the ballot. The Democrats have an everincreasing chance of retaking the Senate, and are likely to put a significant dent in the Republican majority in the House. If you’re a Republican, it’s likely that you are in for a rude awakening come Nov. 8, all across the ballot. The question becomes what the RNC’s reaction will be.

There is a school of thought that the prevalence of “Trumpism” is simply RISE Magazine | January

2017

20

RISE Magazine

White People, Now More Than Ever We Need to Work for Racial Justice

BYBBY: MEGAN FLETCHER

Photo Credit: History Channel After I saw the election results, I was angry like many others. I was feeling scared as a queer person, but I felt anger more than anything else at the fact that Trump didn’t build his campaign on homophobia and transphobia (although that has become one of the byproducts of it); he built his campaign on racism and xenophobia.

And white America, of course, bought into it. 58% of whites voted for Trump, with 63% of white men and 53% of white women favoring him. With Trump’s election, white nationalists are being appointed to his staff, and Neo-Nazis are feeling empowered. Even if Trump doesn’t follow through with many of his campaign promises, it won’t negate the fact that this racist vein of America has awoken and will be leaving casualties across the country.

Even if we’re white and we didn’t vote for Trump, his win is a reminder that we aren’t doing enough. Our white families and peers still bought into his hateful rhetoric and we haven’t done enough to stop it. There is more blood on our hands and we need to take action to reconcile our mistakes.

In the first few days after the election, the one thing I felt like doing the most was yelling at my family members that voted for Trump. They never realized the implications of their decision to reject Hillary Clinton purely on the basis of her emails and Benghazi, when Donald Trump’s list of wrongs is so much longer than hers. They prioritized their bitterness at the progressive agenda supposedly throwing straight white evangelical Christians under the bus in

RISE Magazine | January 2017

favor of a man who wants to create a Muslim registry. It was in their selfishness and ignorance that they allowed this to happen.

But as I thought more about it, I realized I didn’t take the implications of this election seriously either. Both my family and I were opting for the “lesser of two evils.” I could understand why they were frustrated with Hillary because I was frustrated with her too. I got into enough fights with my family members about who the “lesser of two evils” truly was, but I don’t think I ever actually believed that President Trump could be a reality. And because so many of us didn’t think it would be a reality we allowed it to happen.

And now there is new energy to mobilize against Trump and for marginalized groups, which is great, but white people need to work on going back into their communities and actively holding other white people accountable by challenging underlying racist ideology.

I may be angry and feel like yelling at Trump voters for voting for him, but that isn’t going to change anybody’s mind on anything. As a white person I can afford to be angry without suffering the consequences of my race or my anger, and because of that I need to be channeling those emotions into finding ways to change the minds of people in my community.

As some have noted, not all of those whites who voted for Trump

21

RISE Magazine

are hard-line racists; they are people swept up in the institutionalized racism of our country. They are the white moderates Martin Luther King warned us about; they may not consciously try to be racist, but they are nonetheless some of the biggest forces perpetuating racism in the United States. They are poor rural whites or religious whites or some subset of white people who believe power is being taken away from them.

We need to be considering the relationship between white people and the power they feel they are losing. We need to get other white people to understand that in order for there to be true equality, we cannot simply improve conditions for people of color, but also we need to remove the pedestal of white privilege so everybody has equal footing (even though it’s a lot more nuanced than that). We need to be teaching empathy; we need to explain the differences and intersections of racism and classism; we need to help others realize fueling racism in the lower classes only allows the rich white upper class to thrive further.

There are so many things that need to be done in light of this election, and so many ways to approach those problems. We need to be fighting for change on an institutional level, but we also need to be working for change on a more communal and interpersonal level.

I have no idea what that would look like on a broad scale; all I know is that white allies are in the prime place to be directly interrogating other white people on these issues.

Southern Poverty Law Center has a guide on addressing bigotry with family members and peers, for starters, and countless others have written similarly on addressing racism and bigotry in our own communities.

We need to be working with people

of color and other white people to find solutions, but most importantly we need to be forcing ourselves as white people to get out there and do the work fighting for institutional justice for people of color, and teaching others in our communities to be better so we never elect another Trump into office. There is always more to learn, and always more room to improve ourselves and others.

RISE Magazine | January 2017

Photo Credit: History Channel