POTF 19 - Nominations

[Lord Thesaurian]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it.

You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

As the late great Paul Harvey always said, “and now you know the rest of the story.”


Well, based on just this post, it seems you share some affinity for the worldview espoused by the US administration responsible for increasing those tensions; namely, the view that organizations like NATO are useless or even tyrannical. I won’t use the words “child-like” to describe that view because, as you are European, I’m sure you have a different perspective that could be more excusable compared to an American that espouses the same limited thinking.

I suppose 30 years of relative peace and prosperity in the West is enough time for some to forget how the world community as we know it was built. “European security” exists as a concept because of projects like NATO, and they’ve been far more successful at achieving their stated goals than your framing would indicate. If Macron wants to play Napoleon and help create a real European Army to counter Russia and fight Islamic terrorism, I think you might be hard pressed to find a random American who disagrees with the principle. I for one would be happy if the concept worked out and US resources could shift more decidedly to Asia. As of now, it appears European leaders are content to continue outsourcing most of their defense to the US, which means NATO is and will continue to be vital to European security for the foreseeable future. Also, blaming the failures (or total lack) of EU migration policy on the US isn’t very compelling.

For the exemplary shown good argumentative style of discourse.

[Flinn]

“Had you not defeated me, I would have placed myself greater than Alexander.”
-Hannibal Barca to Scipio Africanus

Hannibal Barca is unquestionably one of the great battlefield tacticians of all-time. Though he probably should have found a way to besiege Rome after 16 years in Italy, his wins at Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae against a mighty and numerically superior opponent shows evidence of military genius. His victory at Cannae, in particular, is still described today as a tactical masterpiece, and “the perfect battle of annihilation,” both for its foresight and incredible destructiveness. There can be no doubt that the total annihilation of 8 Roman legions -after a perfectly planned encirclement- places Hannibal high among the great captains in military history.

Which only begs the question then, what happened at Zama?

Not counting the strategic picture, most historians will say that Hannibal lost this battle because Massanissa, and at least 6,000 Numidian cavalry, had switched sides. In fact, Polybius tells us that the battle was evenly matched until Massanissa’s cavalry returned in the “nick of time” to overtake Hannibal’s third line. And, in his judgement of Hannibal’s generalship, Polybius reckons that Hannibal -even without cavalry- did everything he could, and that all great generals are right to mistrust fortune.

However, given the power of hindsight, and some imagination, we are able to question Hannibal’s generalship at Zama and offer alternatives.

Battle of Zama, 202 B.C.




Alternative & Mistake: Use of Terrain.

Though its clear by the time of the Battle of Zama -especially after the Battle of the Great Plains- that Carthage had lost control of most Northern Africa, the failure to use local terrain and town centers to greater advantage is inexcusable. At Zama, Hannibal needed to pick his ground much better then he did. No question he was pushed into an early engagement with Scipio, who was ransacking Carthaginian cities, but the failure to use any terrain at all, was uncharacteristically unlike Hannibal, and can be proven to have potentially cost him.

Most sources agree that Hannibal came to Scipio, and despite knowing the exact makeup of Scipio’s army and location -if Polybius’s spy stories are to be believed- there’s no evidence that Hannibal ever considered using terrain or offering any kind of battle that could have negated cavalry, maneuver, or decisive battle. In fact, Polybius writes that Scipio’s forces were conveniently encamped near a water source while Hannibal’s were not. There’s no chance then that Hannibal’s position would be sustainable, which makes it hard believe that his battle plan had seriously considered fighting defensively or using cliffs and hillsides to hide or cover his flanks.

Despite not knowing exactly where Zama occurred, Hannibal was encamped on a hillside, so there is still some possibility that something else was available other than open plains. Carthage was also only 5 days march from Zama, the option to redeploy and refit, or make a fortified stand somewhere else, looks to be available. However, whether these assumptions are accurate or not is irrelevant, was is relevant -and perfectly accurate- is that order of battle is primary determined in part by terrain. If you want Zama to turn out differently, you must fix the terrain.

Alternative: Conclave Trap

If Hannibal’s battle plan was to break up the Roman lines enough for his elite third line to finish the job, then Hannibal third line should have been deployed in an open crescent. A third line deployed in this way -and hidden from view- would have given Hannibal a chance to envelope the Roman army as it surged forward to defeat his weaker troops. While this is a ploy that mirrors Cannae, the difference this time is to take advantage of superior numbers. If Scipio falsely bases the length of his own lines from what’s in front of him -Carthaginian Mercenaries and Citizen Levies- then there’s a chance that Hannibal could expand his third line outwards to envelope the advancing legionaries. In fact, during the actual battle, Scipio needed to form a single line to match the length of Hannibal’s third line, which suggests its numbers were significant and possibly greater than Scipio's own lines. Whether Hannibal had enough men -and confidence- to try envelopment and a sophisticated trap like this is hard to tell. Some historians believe it was Hannibal this time who was afraid of envelopment, given Scipio’s record at Ilipa, the lack of Carthaginian cavalry, the open terrain, and the deployment of three separate lines (a novelty for Hannibal). The very fact that Hannibal kept his third line in reserve for so long offers more questions then answers. However, if Hannibal truly outnumbered Scipio (50,000 vs. 35,000 high estimate), then envelopment with an enlarged battle line seems like a possible alternative.

Conclave Trap:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mistake: Pawn-Sacrifice

No one doubts that elephants were always going to be a pawn sacrifice. Their poor reliability meant they were good for nothing other than to charge. Though we can wonder if they would have been better placed on the wings of Hannibal’s line, its rather doubtful we can find a better tactical alternative. In fact, given the horror and damage they did to Hannibal’s own men, its thinkable that they shouldn’t have been used at all.

That said, Hannibal did essentially use his first two lines as cannon fodder. The plan -which is coherent- was to have the mercenary line, elephants, and his second line of Carthaginian levies, to charge the Roman lines and break up their organization enough to where his elite third line could come in and clean house. While the plan did play into Roman strengths -especially towards frontal assaults-, it was simple to execute, and allowed Hannibal’s third line to act as a bulwark against retreat. Hannibal’s first two lines were of questionable quality, and placing his veterans in the rear made sure they would fight, but to say that half the army (and first two lines) should have been forlorn, and not supported at any point in the battle, is hard to excuse.

Polybius tells us that Hannibal’s veterans stood still as his first two lines engaged with Scipio’s. And despite modest gains, they did not deploy. And when the situation became dire, and his first two lines ended up wavering and retreating into each other, they again did not deploy. Finally, and most crucially, when Scipio was forced to form a single line, which was tough to do because of so many dead bodies, Hannibal’s third line was too far out to prevent this from happening or seize any initiative. Allowing so many fortunate breaks in the battle then, appears to be a questionable mistake, and could have been prevented with adequate support for all lines in Hannibal’s formation.

Alternative: Neutralize Roman Cavalry

I’m not buying yet that Scipio’s army was of significantly greater quality than Hannibal’s. The core of Scipio’s army at Zama was just two legions, made up mostly disgraced remnants from Cannae. In addition, Roman cavalry was the usual crap, and his new Numidian allies were still of unproven loyalty. Hannibal, meanwhile, probably had 12,000 veterans from Italy along with some Macedonians and his own Numidian cavalry. In fact, the difference in cavalry at Zama was probably only 6,000 (Scipio) to 4,000 (Hannibal). And despite this “huge difference maker” (which Alexander would laugh at), Hannibal still fought Scipio to a standstill until he was finally surrounded.

If Hannibal needed to neutralize Roman cavalry to win at Zama, then a change of tactics is to make this a priority. 4,000 vs 6,000 horses does not seem insurmountable, especially with infantry support. Yet, alls were told is that the Carthaginian Cavalry took flight after a brief skirmish, or that Hannibal had purposely planned to lure the Roman cavalry away. We can speculate that Hannibal truly feared becoming encircled -which was one of many possible reasons for a third line- but another option is assigning actual infantry and skirmishers to deal with the cavalry arm. Whatever the correct counter here may be, the simplest way to win the battle of Zama is to neutralize the Roman cavalry.

As for Zama not happening at all, that's obviously preposterous

Probably correct. But starting there and looking at the battle from a fresh light does allow more room for thought. The Elephants look even more suspect in that light. Given the limited evidence its interesting how quickly a conventional wisdom reconstruction can take hold. Say Chaeronea. Of course Alexander led a glorious charge and Phillip had a masterful strategy of fake withdraw. Of the Athenian were dis organized amatures and Demosthenes a coward. Of course the Greeks were in just an 8 deep hoplite like because they were un innovative - but not Philip...

But maybe one might wonder. Why would the Thebans give up the deep phalanx that they had used religiously for a century even to the detriment of wining a battle (Nemia river). Well thay have to make the length of line historians need for their reconstructions. Are the dead of the sacred band really buried under a Macedonian lion? Kinda makes zero sense. Particularity since the number is wrong so either 20% or more of the band ran, counter to the emphatic and universal tradition or it was normally vastly under strength. If is not the sacred band does the monument serve to be a poinrt of where some part of the battle happened. Or what to make of the oft ignored comment preserved in Plutarch (I mean if you can use his Alexander heroics you can't dis the rest of the work) that upon being chided by Demandes Philip halted his drunken arrogance and became still contemplating how close he had come to loosing. Maybe in fact there was no planed retreat. How about just good hoplites (and Athenian hoplites were experienced and trained) doing what they do charge and caring Philips wing back but in the end his men rallied rather than break. Everyone who was at the fight Athens, Thebes, Macedonia, had cavalry but we know exactly zip about it or light infantry (unless of course you want to believe the that Alexander led a cavalry attack strait into the best heavy infantry in Greece which if they had even half the stones of Timoclea would have been suicide).

Also one should perhaps consider the dramatic element. The fate or actions of the Athenians and Thebans was important and it makes scene with the largest and most experienced troops they were certainly going to be the ones to win the battle. But what of the the other allies that day. The Corinthians had not fought a battle since when exactly? The Achaeans seem to have suffered heavy losses more so than even Athens. If they were not on the wings (Athens/Thebes) who knows maybe the center collapsed in reality but that provides no nifty stories of Alexander/Philip/Demosthenes/Chares/Theagenes and his sacred band (of course fallen to a low and not lead by Pelopidas oh the fall of greece how melodramatic)

[mishkin]

It would be a hell (at least for me) to include the points he is responding to, so please check the original post

National Socialism was not a form of conservatism. The fact that both conservatism and National Socialism can be placed on the political right does not mean that they belong to the same school of thought. This is one of the many reasons why the l/r dichotomy (or spectrum as DaVinci would have it) is a fundamentally unreliable way of thinking about history and politics.

We agree that Nazism isn't mainstream conservatism. It’s fascism - extreme right, not conservative.

Previously, you presented a diagram showing how you see the political spectrum, from revolutionism to monarchism:



The Cambridge English Dictionary defines monarchism as:

a person who supports the system of having a king or queen

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium are monarchies. European monarchies remain monarchies under left-wing and right-wing governments. If your diagram was accurate, they'd all be extreme right, which would be absurd.

The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary defines revolutionism as:

revolutionary acts or practices: revolutionary doctrines or principles : advocacy of such doctrines or principles

However, revolutions can be from the right or the left, or not particularly aligned to either. A military coup by right-wing officers is a kind of revolution, it isn't an act of the extreme left. The American Revolution was fought for independence from Britain, it wasn't based on extreme-left politics.

As I see it, the political spectrum runs from Communism to fascism (I use the German terms Social Democrats and Christian Democrats for the centrist views, since we’re talking about Germany):

Communism is an expression of socialism. This is not a disputable point. The references you made to "mainstream socialism" are not relevant because no one is arguing that National Socialism followed, or is representative of, the parliamentary/democratic branch of socialism. On the contrary, the claim has been that it belongs to the revolutionary branch of the ideology.

You argued that the Nazis were socialist, I argued that they weren't. You then argued that they followed revolutionary Marxism, the extreme left. I'm arguing that Nazism is fascism, the extreme right.

The NSDAP's adoption of the Leninist approach to union centralization isn't being presented as evidence that the Nazi Party was communist: it is being used to show that the absence of independent unions does not prove an absence of socialsm.

Both Communists (extreme left) and fascists (extreme right) didn't allow independent trade unions. I showed that there’s a strong historical association between independent trade unions and socialism. I also showed that the Nazis operated a capitalist, not a Communist system.

Your intent was to show that since National Socialism did not belong to your interpretation of "ordinary" socialism, it could not be considered as socialist at all. That line of reasoning has been rebuked.

I showed that the Nazis, through the banning of free trade unions and persecution of trade union members, behaved in a way which conflicts with the idea that they were mainstream socialists. You claimed that they expressed "revolutionary Marxism", I showed that they ran a "basically capitalist" economy - not a Communist one. They weren't mainstream socialists or Communists - and we agree that they weren't mainstream conservatives. That leaves the possibility of the extreme right. They were committed to ethnic nationalism, which is consistent with the view that they were extreme right.

Your mistake is in assuming that the sale of industrial assets, usually to party loyalists or apologists, put those assets outside of the state's control and within the bounds of the free market. VSt. (United Steel), for instance, donated to the Nazi Party prior to the 1933 takeover and was a key supplier of materials and ordinance during the war. The idea that Hitler's "privatization" schemes followed a Reaganite philosophy of limited government free market expansionism is simply false.

It’s normal for a private company to sell goods to the government or to donate to a political party. That doesn't change the fact that the Nazi government privatised enterprises which had been state-run, in the post-Great Depression period when such enterprises were routinely state-run. Of course, the Nazis didn't follow a Reaganite philosophy, Ronald Reagan was a student and then a radio announcer in this period, his brand of conservatism appeared decades later. If not Reagan's philosophy, whose thinking might have influenced the Nazis? In the 1920s, before the Nazis engaged in their privatisation programme, another European government privatised a series of state-run enterprises - the National Fascist Party government in Italy.

Privatization was an important policy in Italy in 1922-1925. The Fascist government was alone in transferring State ownership and services to private firms in the 1920s; no other country in the world would engage in such a policy until Nazi Germany did so between 1934 and 1937. - Germa Bel, From Public to Private: Privatization in 1920s Italy

For Nazism to have resembled extreme conservatism, it would have had to have looked like a form of Bismarckian monarchism - which it most certainly did not.

You are implying that I said that the Nazis represented "extreme conservatism". I said that they're extreme right, not extreme conservative.

To reiterate: the fact that both Nazism and extreme-conservatism belong to the far-right does not mean that both belong to the same school of thought.

Thank you, we agree that Nazism belongs to the far right. We also agree that Nazism isn't the same thing as being on the conservative end of mainstream conservatism. Being a Nazis is diffeerent from being a conservative Republican in the United States, for example, just as being a Communist is different from being on the left of the Democrats. With its ethnic nationalism, Nazism is beyond what’s normal for conservatives.

No one has argued that mobilisation is tantamount to communism. As I stated in my previous reply, Churchill's temporary appropriation of the Empire's market economy for war purposes is not the same as the NSDAP's general appropriation of German society to promote the Nazi revolution. Unlike the English and Americans, the NSDAP were committed collectivists who prioritized group-based solutions and interests over those of the individual.

It doesn’t need to be “the same”. I’ve shown that the Nazis ran their economy in a "basically capitalist" way, similar to that of the Western allies.

This is not a question of left and right: it is a question of whether the NSDAP were socialists.

That's a contradiction: socialism corresponds to left wing politics.

Framing the Second World War as just another aristocratic/imperialist land grab is a mistake. The land and resources which the NSDAP aimed to acquire were not meant to be transferred from one elite to another. The party's economic intentions can be summarized in this way: (1) to reunite the German nation into a single polity; (2) to redistribute eastern lands from Slavic natives to German settlers; (3) to invest the great wealth and assets of Europe into the greater German community with a mind to elevating the German people; (4) to eradicate the so-called "degeneracy" of both international consumerism and international communism; (5) to break free of the external constraints of the international community (autarky) by ensuring the Reich's access to vital strategic resources and arable land.

I didn't say that the Second World War was "just another aristocratic/imperialist land grab", I said that it wasn't a "revolutionary Marxist" project. It had some similarities to imperialist land grabs (I'm not saying that they’re the same). The leaders of European colonising powers wanted to unite their peoples behind them, redistribute land from natives to European settlers and invest the “wealth and assets” of the Americas and Africa, India and Australia into their communities with a view to elevating the wealth of their peoples. We agree that the Nazis wanted to end international communism. I'm not sure what you mean by “international consumerism”; if you mean that they wanted Germany to be self-sufficient, we agree on that.

1. The idea of "class" is not, and has never been, limited to financial/employment status: racialism and in-group cooperation has been heart of social categorization (aka class) dating back to the Israelites' enslavement in Egypt. The NSDAP applied Aryan race theory within a revolutionary Marxist framework to create German National Socialism.

We agree that class isn't limited to financial or employment status and that racism is linked to poverty. Race (or racialism) isn’t “aka” class, this is hand-waving. Class isn’t race, socialist redistribution of wealth isn’t an Aryan state. Carrying a sign saying “Bread and Roses” or doing trade union work isn’t chanting “Blood and Soil” or carrying out the industrialised murder of minorities. The Nazis operated a “basically capitalist” society, not a “revolutionary Marxist” one.

2. Socialism cannot be reduced down to milquetoast statements about "wanting decent treatment for workers"; influential social reformers existed in conservative, liberal and independent organizations (and governments) long before labor movements acquired parliamentary representation. Characterizing great 19th century social reformers like Shaftesbury, Wilberforce, Peel, Lincoln, Alexander II Romanov and Bismarck (all of whom belonged to conservative and/or Christian movements) as "socialists" would be inappropriate.

It's true that there were individual reformers, some motivated by Christianity, before socialist political parties became contenders for government. I haven't characterised the social reformers you listed as socialists, I argued that socialism emerged from opposition to the exploitation of workers and with strong links to the trade union movement.

An economic model planned around, and reliant upon, the idea of an Alexandrian scale conquest which demanded the mobilization of the entire society and insisted on the annihilation/enslavement of entire ethnic groups is not what I would describe as "capitalist".

If you're arguing that the Nazis weren't mainstream conservatives, we agree. Most capitalist societies don’t try to kill or enslave entire ethnic groups, there’s nothing in capitalism which requires this. I’m not suggesting that their capitalism was the cause of their mass murder – that was their authoritarian ethnic nationalism. The Nazis ran a capitalist economy and tried to annihilate/ enslave entire ethnic groups, so they’re not mutually exclusive.

The ideas of collectivism, redistribution and class warfare (that is racial class) were fundamental aspects of National Socialist theory. We know this because, as I have explained, they sought and fought an all encompassing, revolutionary war on the basis of these ideas.

Their ‘collectivism’ was the collectivism of a modern country which wanted to win a world war. The use of collectivism doesn't show that a group are revolutionary Marxists:

Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism - Encyclopedia Britannica,

Their ‘redistribution’ was similar to that of other imperialist European countries - they redistributed land and wealth from other countries to their own. This wasn’t similar to the redistribution through taxation and public spending which people on the left advocate.

Their ethnic nationalism was based on race, Communism is based on class.

You have presented a political spectrum which doesn't work well, as it leads to absurd results, such as classifying constitutional monarchies as extreme right. You have presented the Nazis as socialists when they persecuted socialists, and as "revolutionary Marxists" when they ran a "basically capitalist" economy, following in the example of the fascist government in Italy by privatising state-run enterprises.

Despite our disagreements, it's encouraging to see that we agree on some points, in particular that "Nazism [belongs] to the far-right".

[Abdülmecid I]

President Desi Bouterse of Suriname was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a military court earlier today, after it found him guilty of the murder of 15 political opponents in December 1982 following his military takeover of the country two years prior. Bouterse has always denied his role in the murders, even if accepting political responsability, but evidently the court has judged otherwise.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN1Y327O

What this will mean for the country is uncertain, although it currently seems unlikely the 74-year-old president will actually serve time. Bouterse came to power once more via election in 2010 and is currently serving a second term as President of Suriname. In fact, he wasn't present in the country as the ruling was made public at all, as he is currently away on a state visit to China and is not expected to return before the weekend at the earliest, despite earlier summons by the court that all those charged be present today.. No arrest warrant for the reigning president has been issued yet, nor is one expected to follow shortly, as the President's defence has announced it will appeal the ruling. Should this higher court also find the President guilty while in office, he could theoretically pardon himself as well, provided the ruling judge agrees. If not, he could probably resign temporarily and have his vice-president pardon him.

Nevertheless, that the judgement has occured at all can be considered remarkable in the first place: an extension of the 1992 Amnesty Law in 2012 would have prevented any prosecution for the 1982 murders, had not the military court ruled in 2016 that this would unlawfully impinge on the ongoing legal proceedings that started in 2007. In response to today's ruling, the government of Suriname has called on the people to remain calm.

It is factual to state that views among Democratic voters had been lurching significantly leftward long before Trump. This includes a remarkable liberalization in attitudes toward migration, which, at its extreme end, contains calls for "blanket amnesty" for undocumented migrants.
Liberalization of the Democratic voters:

Commentary by Pew:

I don’t disagree that the Democratic base has moved to the left, as have voters in general. What I’m looking for is the connection to the “radical left wing extremism” that has allegedly pushed White Christian conservatives to embrace Trump, per the initial claim. As I said, there are extremes in any political cleavage. For example, I identify as a conservative, but I consider conservatives who believe the “foreign born population” to be a “status threat to whites” for ideological reasons as extremist as liberals who believe in blanket amnesty, if not more so in light of history. The existence of the latter is not exculpatory to the former.

It is also worth noting that radicals don't actually have to attain institutional control in order to provoke a reaction: they need only create the illusion that their proposals/threats are credible. At the time of the 2016 election, concerns about migratory trends among conservatives were not only borne out by the long term data, they were also being aggravated the European Union's very visible open-border policies (both internally and externally). These policies provided living examples of how established authorities in peer societies (which were often cited by leftists as being more ideal) could adopt extremist positions.

This is a slippery slope argument. I don’t disagree with the idea that White Christian conservatives fear mongered a slippery slope argument based on perceived threats to white majority status, or that this is why statistically they voted for Trump. Extreme ideology and policies actually happening under the Trump Admin, backed by his voters/supporters, cannot logically be caused by the conceptual existence of extreme policy and ideology within the left side of the spectrum, which is what the initial claim was. Hillary Clinton is not a left wing extremist, nor were her policy positions, any more than were Obama’s.

I didn't "reject" the entire study: I claimed that the methodology it used to determine "racial resentment" was highly questionable. Even the authors acknowledged the "ongoing discussion about the empirical validity of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments" in the abstract.

From p. 530:

The study categorized respondents who disagreed with typical progressive axioms on the impact and scope of race in the US as being "racially resentful". This is an inaccurate characterization.

I don’t object to your semantic preference for the term “white in-group bias.” I’m not sure how that indicates any aspect of the study to be based on “flimsy progressive standards.”

Opposition to white nationalism (alt-right) is much stronger among non-whites (particularly African Americans) than it is among whites.


This is a trend which can be inferred (to some extent) by projections of the 2016 election result when controlling for race.

Why is opposition to right wing extremism an example of left wing extremism? As for African Americans, it’s hardly surprising they are strongly opposed to the alt-right, given the latter’s beliefs about African Americans and people of color, let alone historical experience.

In terms of policy proposals, you can look at Booker's plan to establish of an office to combat white nationalism, Buttigieg's $1 bn. funding pledge to counteract supremacist violence or Harris' "red flag" firearm suggestions. You might also consider Biden's immediate reference to Charlottesville in his campaign launch video as an attempt to build a coalition of voters in opposition to the alt-right.

Why is opposing white nationalism and considering it a domestic terrorist threat an example of left wing extremism? The FBI, for example, has been battling white nationalist/supremacist extremism for decades. The DHS considers it a domestic terror threat equivalent to Islamic terrorism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...olence/598501/

There's a decent piece in the Atlantic about the rise of activism in the Democratic Party post 2010:

The issue isn't so much about specific policies (the legalization of homosexual marriage notwithstanding) as it is about the effect of left wing activism on cultural narratives. The rapid emergence, promotion and influence of progressive/post-modernist theories about "white privilege", gender roles, the traditional family, policing and sexual orientation (to name but a few) were interpreted by religious conservatives as an existential challenge to established hierarchies and social structures. This feeling was aggravated by the growth of "cancel-culture" and "purity tests" which sought to shame people for promoting traditional views.

Why is legalizing gay marriage extremist? Why is seeking to reduce police violence extremist? Why is protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation extremist? More slippery slope arguments? The fact that certain extremists find those things to be extremist does not make them so. These are all issues that were addressed under the Obama Admin, which we’ve just established was politically and ideologically moderate. Obama himself, as the patron saint of the American Left, cautioned against the more reflexive fringe group think aspects of “woke” culture therein.

A University of Pennsylvania study explains the impact this had on the election in terms of "perceived status threat":

It went on explain why this is "connect[ed] to demographic" change:

So far you’ve made the case that the White Christian conservatives who became Trump voters were motivated by white identity politics and the perceived status threat to the historical white racial majority in the US posed by immigrants. What I’m not seeing is actual evidence that “left wing extremism” pushed said voters to behave this way, nor anything that conflicts with the findings of or terminology used by the study you initially took issue with. Based on what you’ve laid out, I’d be curious to see where exactly you depart from the traditional left wing narrative that Trump support is motivated by white racial resentment, or as you put it, white in-group bias.