Lessons about White Privilege, Social Liberal Backlash, and Trump 2.0

Dec 2016
Every so often, I find stories that shed a little light on some subjects and explain a few mysteries....like why do liberals (wealthier socially liberal types) express concern for oppressed visible minorities (whether genuine or not) but have nothing but scorn for poor white folk who've fallen through the cracks because of deindustrialization of the past 20 or 30 years? Well, it seems that someone has made a study of rich libs and shows that if they take the racial sensitivity seminars they might be a little nicer to black people, but not to white they consider 'unachievers.' :

White privilege lessons are sometimes used to increase awareness of racism. However, little research has investigated the consequences of these lessons. Across 2 studies (N = 1,189), we hypothesized that White privilege lessons may both highlight structural privilege based on race, and simultaneously decrease sympathy for other challenges some White people endure (e.g., poverty)—especially among social liberals who may be particularly receptive to structural explanations of inequality. Indeed, both studies revealed that while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives, reading about White privilege decreased their sympathy for a poor White (vs. Black) person. Moreover, these shifts in sympathy were associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor White person’s plight. We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations.​
If you think about this for a moment, you can see implications of “these shifts of sympathy” for a Democrat Party whose elites and apparatchiks were mostly white, likely to have had “lessons” (literally lessons, so the paper is limited in scope) in white privilege, and who are liberals (but — categorizing crudely — social liberals, like Clinton, etc., and not economic liberals, like Sanders or Warren. Because the authors don’t have the 2020 primaries in mind, they don’t hammer that distinction home as much as they might). In this brief post, I’ll first describe Cooley et al.’s paper as best I can — I do think the abstract, above, communicates the bottom line — and then I’ll speculate freely on those implications. I wish I could write a rigorous post, but I feel it’s important to get this paper “out there” in short order.​
So that's why Hillary Clinton couldn't find Michigan, Kentucky or Ohio on a map during the 2016 Election! And had to blame it all on her former friend - Vladimir....claiming he turned against her and became friends with Donald etc.. If you label them as deplorables in advance, no sense looking for votes there.