By David Futrelle
The most heartening thing in the news today — I mean, aside from ex-Trumper Sam Nunberg’s live TV meltdown — is this story by Mimi Montgomery in Washingtonian magazine about the sad plight of right wingers in D.C., none of whom are apparently able to find anyone who wants to get into their pants.
Yep. In these politically fraught times, it seems no sensible person wants to have anything to do (in bed or out) with those who like, much less work for, that orange thing in the White House.
In a city as overwhelmingly Democratic as DC, the combination of lingering anger over Hillary Clinton‘s loss and President Trump‘s existence makes it tricky for conservatives to date across party lines.
“A lot of times you’ll connect with someone [on an app] and they’ll Google you, find out you worked for Trump’s campaign, and then it’s pretty much all downhill from there,” says a Trump Administration official.
Aww. Let me play you a little song:
But actual White House staffers aren’t the only ones suffering:
People who work in right-wing media say they don’t have it any better.
“The political divide has gotten so wide that a lot of younger liberals don’t have any interest in meeting conservatives,” says a reporter at a conservative media company. Working for a right-wing publication is such an obstacle to dating in DC, he doesn’t put his employer on any dating apps and avoids talking about it until meeting someone face-to-face, he says.
Maybe this will cheer you up a little bit:
No matter how hard they may try to hide their perverse political proclivities, there are always clues. One self-described “moderate conservative” tells Washingtonian that he
once brought a woman back to his place, and while checking out his bookshelf, she noticed some books by conservative thinkers, he says. “She was like, ‘Oh no. First question: Did you vote for Trump?’,” the reporter says. He told her no, but that he was conservative. “She was like ‘I have to get out of here. I can’t see you,’ and left.”
Let’s listen to the song that’s already playing in your head:
While conservatives complain that all the liberal hotties lump Trump true-believers in with “principled” conservatives, one progressive woman assured the Washingtonian she’s perfectly capable of distinguishing between dudes who want “lower marginal tax rates” and those who believe no “woman should have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.”
Generally, it’s not that hard to tell.
Most of the self-identifying progressives I talked with said they could tell how far right a man or woman leaned based on their dating-app photos—”Make America Great Again” hats are an obvious tell, but some also listed photos of US flag paraphernalia, hunting gear, or fratty beach parties as turn-offs.
But sometimes stealth conservatives can slip past liberal filters.
When she first moved to DC, a former Obama White House staffer who now works at the Aspen Institute was set up on a date with a Republican who worked on Capitol Hill. “We had a really nice time, but at the end of the date, he told me he didn’t believe in global warming,” she says. “I started laughing, because I’m from Colorado and didn’t realize people actually didn’t believe in global warming. But he was serious.”
They didn’t go out again.
Evidently, it’s those on the left who are doing most of the rejecting.
Republicans say it’s liberals who are more likely to turn down someone across the aisle. “Democrats are usually more vocal” about their opposition, the Trump staffer says, and therefore quicker to demonize all conservatives.
“I feel like they look at me and are like, here’s a tall white dude with brown hair wearing loafers, and he probably has a picture of Reagan and the NRA in his bedroom or something,” says one of the reporters from the conservative media company. “I just think they have a very hyperbolic view of what a conservative is.”
Yeah, I don’t think that’s it. I think the problem is that you are all fucking terrible. (And probably terrible at fucking to boot.)
I think “human rights” is pretty clear, as an American. When we start talking about the other “rights” we don’t put “human” in front. It’s why whichever asshole that was decided to start calling himself a men’s human rights activist – different connotation than a rights activist.
@WWTH
The politicians and pundits probably should be aware of it. But I’ve met my share of Republicans and former Republicans who are regularly unaware of it. Like my ex. And doubtless many of his friends. Over the 10 years we were together, as I educated myself by reading lots of informative blogs (such as this one!), I would bring home my new understanding of racist dog whistles, etc and most recently point to this multigenerational political strategy being carried to its logical endpoint with the election of Trump, and it would all be new to him! Unheard of! I’m accusing the Republican political apparatus in the manner of any conspiracy theorist!
Especially since he’s been unaware of such shenanigans (and clearly his perception defines objective reality). We got into a really ugly fight about the Civil War several years ago. He’s Mr Libertarian fiscal conservative and social liberal and doesn’t like being lumped in with all the actual racists and didn’t actually vote for Trump but couldn’t make himself vote for Clinton either. He’s convinced Clinton lost at least in part because of the substantial number of women voters who newly care about the second amendment (!).
We visited friends of his right after Sandy Hook, and I was pretty emotionally distraught and launched into an attack on our host in terms of what limits would you accept on your 2A rights? Which, of course, was never answered. So I was pretty rude, I admit. But I was horrified when our hostess a few days later complacently commented that it was the terrible price we pay for our necessary freedoms, but she was okay with it. I am still dismayed by that all these years later, and my not-yet-ex assured me that she was likely bullshitting me because they took me into dislike. Nope. I took her at her word and still do.
I am so glad I don’t have to constantly push back against regurgitated conservative talking points or deal with any of his terrible friends anymore. But there are plenty of conservative voters who are convinced that they’re not racist, their party is not racist, and it’s just the lefties exaggerating yet again. And same for misogyny and all the other hate bundled together in an easy-to-digest pill with a taxes-and-trade plausible deniability coating.
ps, Hello!
Just on the topic of rights, one of the podcasts I listen to (I think it was an interview on Sam Seder’s podcast, but I can’t recall who the guest was), noted that the American reverence for their Constitution really doesn’t have a precedent anywhere else. Britain doesn’t have a written constitution. France’s constitution has been amended 24 times since 1958, the last time in 2008. Canada’s patriation of our constitution in 1982 represented a major overhaul and despite it not having changed since then, there have been several failed accords put forward to amend it. Regardless, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms draws heavily from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, incorporating much of the same language such as “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person,” which is established in Article 3 of the UDHR and Section 7 of the CCRF.
I bring this up because it strikes me that the trend for a lot of these American quote-unquote “constitution lovers” is how to use it as a cudgel against those they don’t like. It’s never invoked to remind people of the basic dignity of one’s fellow citizens, it’s always “constitution says I can carry a bazooka, kick out teh illegalz and troll normies top kek.”
“Dignity” is just one of those words that really needs to appear more in “rights” conversations in general, human rights in particular. It appears 4 times in the UDHR, notably in the Preamble and Article 1. It doesn’t appear once in either the US or Canada’s constitutions and I think it should.
(Although as an aside, now is the worst time to have a Constitutional Convention. Electorally destroy the Republican Party first, then do that.)
It should. Then again, any constitution that talks about rights without mentioning the concomitant duties involved is inherently flawed. Rules merchants will take the piss. <= hobbyhorse number 2 of mine. I'll not rant, promise.
@EJ
First, I’m glad you’re back.
Second, I have a question.
Could you explain this? I’m also from Germany and I would hate accidental misunderstandings like that. I’ve been thinking about it, but I can’t figure out what you mean. So it could be something I’ve missed all this time and in that case I’d really like to remedy that. How do Americans use the word “rights” in a very different way from how Who? and I would use it?
Edit: Oh, no. Why am I on moderation? What did I do? I wasn’t aware I did anything so offensive! Have I missed being called out on something and didn’t apologize? What happened?
@solecism, hello and welcome! You’re really spot-on with your comment, thank you for posting it. A dog-whistle can be silent for a supporter of a thing; people have all sorts of reasons for supporting something awful. If there’s one thing people are good at, it’s selectively ignoring and being unaware of things that make them uncomfortable or look bad.
That said, those “dog-whistle” points do resonate. They almost mean what you want them to mean. “Cutting welfare” can absolutely mean explicit racism to the person hearing it – or it can be interpreted as “just saving money” by someone who hasn’t really thought very hard about who the cuts would hurt disproportionally.
I have to wonder if it’s that incuriousity that’s is the problem. People, comfortable in their own world, with their own understanding, and not interested in pushing their own boundaries. “Cutting welfare isn’t racist, white people use welfare too”, as if that made their argument better.
Sorry, I done me a ramble. Thanks for the comment, and welcome again!
I would definitely have vehemently denied that I was racist back when I was a conservative: not to try and seduce you into hearing out any racism of mine, but because I genuinely thought that I wasn’t racist. Racism was for Klanners and Nazis.
@LittleLurker
I doubt you did anything to be put in moderation. Probably a different email address or typed your name a bit differently. Any change gets you auto-moderated.
On to your question, EJ(TOO) is referring to how USians like to talk about their “rights” a lot but they’re not referring to basic human rights but the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. constitution. These are really less rights and more privileges, and they certainly don’t take all people into consideration, as women, slaves, and people who weren’t land owners were not considered in these rights.
Edit: And also they’re usually talking about their “right” to hate speech, which is not protected and their “right” to arm themselves regardless of whether they’re part of a well-regulated militia, which is also not protected but somehow the whole damn country thinks it is.
Edit 2: Welcome back! Good to see you. 🙂
EJ and others:
Huh? I thought Human rights were a technical term, that was understood everywhere. (Not definte everwhere the same, but a technical term)
It means that people have rights, that they have regardless who they are.
I focused on those right that I focused on, because I thought they were the most simple and the once that have to be establish before peaceful coexistant is posible.
I am talking about the normal use of the word.
I think that the big problem with the republicans is that inocent people are afraid with good reason, that they whole party wants to murder them or their friends, or do other bad thinks to them.
And my english may be simple, but I understand those big words.
If somethink wasn’t understandable tell me, I will try to clerify.
Yeah, I didn’t feel like it was my place to comment but that was really unnecessary, EJ. I get what you were trying to do but really if you feel like you’re not being understood just adjust your writing style appropriately without calling attention to it. The use of the phrase “simple English” here, while technically correct, is rather patronizing. So is the use of simpler language when there hasn’t been a misunderstanding. People can generally understand a second/third/fourth/etc. language better than they can construct a sentence in it, so don’t assume that someone who writes in a certain way needs things simplified for them.
@Scildfreja – Thanks for the welcome!
I think incuriosity is a factor, as well as just a general sense of comfort (ie, privilege and entrenched worldview) that must not be disturbed. I mean, there’s a certain rationality to it. Better to believe the just-world fallacy and that those people deserve their hardships and I deserve my unequal share than to confront head-on that the system is fucked up and unjust, and what am I going to do about it/how can I be okay being complicit with it? There’s a reason that the Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas are such a small group. Except, of course, in real life, there is no obligatory revelation and consequent choice to be complicit or walk away. Oh sweet ignorance and the incuriosity that protects it so well.
Oh man, they’re whining at people who turn them down, too. Bruh, if you know your views repulse women, maybe that’s a you problem.
http://straightwhiteboystexting.org/image/171275510936
If someone wants to know what I think of when I talk about human rights (basicly what most Germans think of) here is a link to the German Grundgesetz (our Constitution). Articles 1-19 are about Basic Human rights. (This is the offical translation)
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html
Note Article 1 can’t be chanced under no circumstances.
While they are original a defence against the state (have a bigger impact than that since then), they are concerned about people with less power.
Also note their is a consens that even if some rights were formalated as only citizenrights through Article 2(1) that non Germans have those rights also.
Note the right to bear arms is not a part of it, their are laws against hate speach in Germany.
I will post more about Human Rights in Germany if there is interest, but please understand, that this is a big topic and I could write days about it, so I will not start about everythink.
In Denmark, the ruling politicians (in and out of government) are currently talking about scrapping Danish adherence to the UN Human Rights Charter, so they can more easily discriminate against muslims, “immigrants” and the poor. Not even being hyperbolic, the Minister of Integration (Yes, that is her title) and even the largest “opposition” party are discussing the annoyance that fundamental and universal Human Rights are to their policy proposals.
@Who?: Welcome aboard, tchüss!
Firstly, thank you for calling me out on my language use, kupo and Who? I will do my best to pay more attention to that in future.
Secondly:
The reason I say that discussion of “rights” can be misunderstood is partially covered by what Katamount said, but there’s another aspect to it.
Frequent mentions of “rights”, especially if they’re regarded as a fixed and numbered list rather than an amorphous socially-defined construct, tends to be a distinctive mark of the way that Right-wing Americans discuss politics. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but it can be an indicator of what other beliefs a person holds. The word “freedom” and the terms “male”/”female” instead of “man”/”woman” are similar.
The technical term for this is a “shibboleth.” The word itself is not offensive, but it can act as an indicator that the person holds beliefs which may be offensive.
kupo is right that “human rights” is a slightly different phrase. I haven’t seen it used often enough to know whether it’s a shibboleth of any particular side.
In South Africa, where I was born, the word “responsible” fulfils a similar role. If someone says it, you know they’re probably up to no good.
In Britain, where I currently live, the word “sovereignity” fulfils a similar role with regards to the ongoing car wreck that is Brexit.
I am told, but I am not sure, that the word “independence” works the same way in Poland and the word “community” works the same way in India.
Which shibboleths do Germans use?
(This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t use those words when they’re the right ones, of course; only that it can make an impression that you didn’t intend. Once we know you better then this won’t be a problem.)
@ who?
Hello, and welcome.
I love stuff like this. If no-one objects then I’d be very interested in your comments.
Thanks for posting the link to your constitution. I’ve had some fun seeing if I can spot the influences feeding it. Seems there’s been some cut and pasting from things like the ECHR and the UN Declaration.
I like looking at the evolution of approaches to rights in different countries. England traditionally had the idea of ‘negative freedoms’. That is to say, ‘all things are permissible unless explicitly prohibited’ in contrast to the more Code Napoleon idea of ‘positive freedoms’ (“Here’s a list of what rights you have”). But that’s evolving a bit here. We’ve now incorporated the ECHR into domestic law, so we have gone a bit more ‘list’ based. We were always a signatory to the ECHR (British lawyers drafted it), but there seemed to be a national reluctance to refer to it explicitly. It’s a bit like how we resist putting our constitution in writing.
Perhaps when there’s a spare open thread we could have a proper discussion.
EJ:
No harm done. I was more confused than anythink else.
Your question is a bit dificult to answer because we have a large conservative party that is trying to fight with the ultrarightwing for language. And the conservative party is (if we go with US terms) nearer to the Democrats than the Republicans.
So we have a battle about words like Heimat (home) and Patriotism.
We had also a lengly debate if it is okay to say “I am proud to be German” some time back. Exspecially Heimat is used completly unpolitical often.
Some easy thinks are “Lügenpresse” (goes in the same direction than fake news) or “Systemparteien” (should show that only their party is different), but this is perhaps to direct.
Normally if some say “man wird jawohl noch sagen dürfen, dass…” (translation difficult some would try it with “There’s no law against saying that … “) mean that nothing good is coming now.
About “human rights” I wouldn’t call it shibboleth for either side in Germany. It is perhaps here a marker that the person is accepting of the german state. So not extreme perhaps. The basic idea is everone has certain rights, no mather who they are and the state has to reconise that. (Note human rights play a big role since our highest court does examen if laws are constitutional and there human rights play a big role and there is a European court for Human rights, which is in the media some times)
I only had (and this was at work) the problem that certain people did try to argue that the German staate doesn’t exist, those were very interesting arguments. Now the problems that those people make, are much more known in the general population.
Hello Alan,
only short.
Since Great Britain, France and the USA had a vetoright to the constitution and the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, happened at the same time that Germany worked on the Grundgesetz, the influence is not very suprising.
Thank you for that, Who? I find that very interesting. I’d like to hear more, especially as you seem to be very interested in it.
I’ve never heard of this before, and I am fascinated. How do they justify it? Could you please tell me about it, or link me to something I can read about it?
A short link (I hope Wikipedia is okay):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgerbewegung
(hope that works)
Well the justification is that the either the GG (our constitution) was not ratified and that is the reason that the old German empire does still exist. Alternative through a mistake in the 2+4 treaties (between BRD/DDR and the 4 winners of the Second World War after the German reunion) that did make the BRD not existent. Alternative the mistake happened during the reunion. Now there is no German state and they have found a new one.
Often they use quotes of politians or our highest court which are completly taken out of context.
Anyone bothering them of the new state (that does start with sending them letters) has to risk very draconing punishment. I remember a high fine of course to be paid in gold. When they get into power (not if for them) those bothering them will be of course the first on the wall.
The go from people, that get on your nerves to dangerous. Often there are connections to the far-right.
Thank you for explaining, everyone. And now I finally understand what Tolkien meant by the “shibboleth of Feanor”… 🙂
Something like this maybe? Although these are really obvious ones. And the “Umvolkung” conspiracy theory… Well, the first time I saw that mentioned in comment sections of newspaper articles, I had to re-read it several times. It was just so unbelievable that someone could believe something like it.
Apart from that, you made me think about this. What other words we have that could be shibboleths and/or what words could lead to misunderstandings with English speaking people. It has led to some realizations, although I can only speak from personal and anecdotal experience and Who? might have very different experiences and impressions.
There is a word or concept that I feel is understood and used quite differently in German contexts than in English ones and which still has me worried about being misunderstood at times. That word is – not surprisingly – “race”. It is one of the concepts/words I can use in English and I can follow and understand its use – in part – in English Social Justice discussions, but that I would never ever use the German translation of or consider in any kind of argument I had to make outside those Social Justice contexts. The German words for it are too inextricably linked to the Nazi past and I don’t want to even type them, they make me so uncomfortable.
The concept of people having different races is in a way taboo, as well. I remember in a university course I once had my head bitten off by the teacher for a (thoughtless) question that went like: “So the people suffering disadvantage x under the Nazi regime were not just Jewish people but also Polish and German people?” I (rightly) got told off. There was no such thing as Jewish people or German people or Polish people (the last two only in terms of citizenship) and those were Nazi categorisations. A Jewish person from Germany was to be called a German and not a Jewish person.
For a completely different example, I used to play tabletop RPGs and since there are a lot of good ones only available in English I started looking into those, too, and long before I became aware of Social Justice debates. I noticed then that a lot of the character sheets had a section for “race”. And not only that, they also had a section for “nationality”. So “race” did clearly not refer to a passport here, which was the only way I knew as acceptable when discussing people’s “origins”. I was so naive back then when it came to US society that I was seriously shocked: They couldn’t honestly be asking me to…? My friends and I just looked at each other and quietly chose to ignore that question until another friend who’d spend a year in the US started to do some explaining.
Of course this led to some really bad misunderstandings, too. For example the phrases “color-blind” or “I don’t see race”. From my background (school, family, social circle) these were not only acceptable attitudes, they were the only acceptable attitudes. This was what a decent person did. Everything else made you highly suspicious. And then I discovered that apparently in the US the people using those are basically the other side! That by – proudly and thoughtlessly – using them, I was associating myself with exactly the kind of people and attitudes I despised. Exactly the kind of attitudes I wanted to distance myself from by using those words and that perspective in the first place. I had so much to learn. And now I can see quite clearly why those statements are problematic, but back then? It was like…it almost looked liky self-discrimination to me when people spoke of their race in Social Justice contexts.
I’m still missing a lot of nuance and background in these discussions. I’m trying to learn but it will be a long time of listening for me before I can be somewhat sure that I won’t accidentally commit a faux pas.
There is another word/concept one that is strongly linked to our Nazi history and which used to be very difficult for me at first. (I’m going to try and be really careful here and I hope I don’t offend anyone.) I met and I became friends with an American woman some years ago who – to my complete confusion – described herself as Jewish in a not-exclusively-religious-sense. She explained to me – once I had enough courage to ask – that in the US people do consider themselves Jews without, or not exclusively referring to, following the religion of Judaism. In Germany I had until then always used – when the aspect really had to be mentioned – the phrase “people who belong to the Jewish religion”. Because we had learned very early that this was the only way a person could be Jewish at all. It was a religion, like Christianity. It was definitely not a race, and when you say “kulturell jüdisch” (culturally Jewish) in German that sounds like straight out of a Nazi textbook. But now I had to realize that by trying to avoid Nazi categories we might very well be erasing today’s Jewish people and their culture.
I discussed this once with some fellow students and two professors who work on the Nazi era. I thought maybe it was just me. But they all had the same reaction. The profs had worked in the US of course and they said they knew this was acceptable to say in America and that it was based in fact, but they had to admit that there was no way to properly verbalize this in German without saying something you really don’t want to say at the same time.
See, in my experience, here you can’t actually ask a person if they are Jewish and you definitely under normal circumstances can’t say “x is a Jew” in a conversation, at least not in my social circle. Why? Because everyone will immediately look at you funny and ask: “And that matters because?” By mentioning it, you insinuate that it matters and by doing that you show yourself to think in categories of races or just distinctive “kinds” if people. Nazi categories.
The words themselves are difficult to say, because they are forever associated with death and discrimination and horrible crimes and here I know for a fact I’m not the only one who feels this. And at the same time this is tragic because they are not bad words. Sometimes I worry that by trying not to repeat the Nazis we’re somehow perpetuating their ideas in a way: Like making some words like “Jew” so near taboo in some contexts as if they were bad, as if the concepts themselves were bad and not just the historical associations that everyone here automatically has when they are used. You can see where this runs a huge risk of accidentally being offensive or causing misunderstandings.
To close this little novel – sorry for that, by the way – two relatively easy ones are “Heimat” (Home or Homeland) or being proud to be a German. Heimat is only used by rightwingers and maybe by really old people from really backwater places, while being proud to be a German used to very clearly point towards right wing tendencies.
And I’d love to hear a discussion about human rights/constitutional influences, Who? and Alan.
Edit: I have NO idea why it made everything into a link now and not the foggiest idea of how to fix it… I hate computers.
ETA 2:
I didn’t mean to say we have no racism here. We do. A lot and the fact that it’s apparently kept itself so well hidden until recently is scary. Racists just have different ways to conceptualize or verbalize their “opinions”.
And I forgot to add: Everything that starts with the words “Man wird doch wohl noch mal sagen dürfen…” that is “Well, you gotta be allowed to say/mention….” is a good indication that
a) whatever follows is something you don’t want to hear,
b) should in fact not be allowed to be said and
c) the person saying it is perfectly aware of that.
Thank you for that, LittleLurker. I’m learning a lot. Also, you quoted Tolkien, which means I must now offer you a high-five of nerd solidarity.
It’s interesting that the word “Heimat” is such a shibboleth. I’m currently dating a linguist, and she has used the term in a technical linguistics sense. The word sounds horrible if used in a nationalistic sense.
I’ve only met one member of the German far-Right before. He was in a group I used to play games with. I happened to mention to him that I was taking German lessons (which I am); he remarked that my name is German (which it is) and I explained that my family were originally German (which they are). He got very creepy and tried to explain to me how I was “volksdeutsch” and should be proud of my heritage.
I haven’t seen him again, which is good.
@Who?
I read that and it… ugh. I’m glad that those people are just fringe groups.
@solecism
“…my not-yet-ex assured me that she was likely bullshitting me because they took me into dislike. Nope. I took her at her word and still do.”
Just wanted to say that this is a great call. One of the things I’ve come to understand better is that when someone tells me they’re a shitty person, I should believe them.