Is Trump America's "first white president"? Credit: Mike Theiler/CNP
In a widely-circulated essay for the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates describes Donald Trump as America’s “first white President”. He is, of course, the forty-fourth white President, but the essence of Coates’ argument is that Trump has made a special point of succeeding the first President who wasn’t white:
“Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America’s first white president.”
However, Coates doesn’t just condemn the racial politics of Trumpism, he argues that this is what got Trump elected. He specifically rejects the counter-narrative, which is that Trump voters were simply pushing back against an out-of-touch (and mostly white) establishment:
“The scope of Trump’s commitment to whiteness is matched only by the depth of popular disbelief in the power of whiteness… In this rendition, Donald Trump is not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a backlash against contempt for white working-class people.”
But how can Coates be so certain that it was white entitlement rather than anti-elitism that delivered the shock result? Writing in the American Conservative, Musa Al-Gharbi argues that the psephological evidence points in the other direction:
“We’ll set aside the fact that many of the white voters who proved most decisive for Trump’s election actually voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It turns out that Trump did not mobilize or energize whites towards the ballot box either: their participation rate was roughly equivalent to 2012 (and lower than in 2008).”
If Trump was playing the race card, it didn’t work:
“…whites actually made up a smaller share of the electorate than they did in previous cycles, while Hispanics, Asians and racial ‘others’ comprised larger shares than they had in 2012 or 2008.
“This wouldn’t, in itself, be a problem for Coates’ argument had Trump won some kind of unprecedented share of the whites who did turn out to vote. He did not. Trump didn’t even exceed Romney’s 2012 numbers with whites overall. However, he did outperform his predecessor with blacks and Hispanics.”
Note that Al-Gharbi is emphatically not denying the influence of racism on voting patterns:
“Was race a critical factor in the 2016 election? Undoubtedly. But this can be said of virtually every cycle in American history—including the 2008 and 2012 races which resulted in the election and re-election of Barack Obama.”
Whites who previously voted for Obama in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania didn’t need to turn racist to see the appeal of Trump. He was, like Obama before him, the more anti-establishment of the two candidates on offer. Indeed, Hillary Clinton (who is just as white, and much less orange, than the man who beat her) is the epitome of out-of-touch elitism, which is why she lost. Those who swung the election were voting against her and what she most visibly represents, not against (the memory of) Obama and what he most visibly represents.
If the Democrats had had the guts to go with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, Trump would not be President now. Or, if the US constitution had allowed Barrack Obama to run for a third term, Trump would not be President now.
But what explains the thirst for populist or merely reformist candidates? Why are voters so hungry for change?
In many US ‘heartland’ communities the sense of decline is palpable. In all sorts of ways – economic, social and cultural – life is not as good as it used to be. The radical left, to whom everything is a zero-sum game, characterise this unhappiness as resentment at the loss of ‘privilege’ or even ‘supremacy’.
In reality, the decline that drives populism is absolute not relative. The opioid epidemic ravaging flyover country does not depend on there being less addiction elsewhere. Widespread family breakdown among poorer Americans would not be more bearable if it were just as widespread among richer Americans. The loss of community institutions in the heartland was not caused by a surge of social capital in the coastal cities.
When people respond to a message like ‘Make America Great Again’, most of them just want their lives to be great again.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_ 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNot surprised. My wife was a member of UNISON but when she needed support against management they were completely useless. Unfortunately, all too often the Unions are run by careerist political agitators who are not primarily interested in protecting individual members but advancing some political agenda. This is, unfortunately, the fault of the members for not voting in sensible representatives as the political agitators are usually voted in by a tiny portion of the membership.
In my long-gone days as a Unison member, there simply were no “sensible representatives” on the ballot. Just the usual extremists.
Honestly, I may be blowing my own trumpet here, but if I had charge of that place the problem would be solved in two minutes. The students running this campaign would be expelled and any staff supporting them would be down the labour exchange. Yes, it would create a massive confrontation, but so what? These people are like the Joker in Batman — they can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. So sooner or later, they’re going to have to be fronted up by someone.
It appears that ‘fronting up’ is no longer possible in any institution because only cowards are employed by those institutions ie individuals who are compliant by nature and unable to stand up for anything !! too harsh ??
Probably not.
Yes,certainly as far as the Sussex Vice Chancellor,Adam Tickell is concerned. He’s been publicly very supportive,unlike eg. Cambridge’sToombs,fortunately soon departing.
Appalling. The Uni should expel the “activists” responsible immediately, and the Union’s members should urgently call a general meeting to sack the Executive at Sussex.
It is a sad world in which we now live when terms such as “epidemic of male violence” and “institutional transphobia” can be used without any form of qualification. Such flippant use makes them become an undebatable fact for many people, and things are clearly not so binary or so black and white, neither of which terms being appropriate in such a comment in these modern times.
I think a baffling thing is that Transwomen are mostly fully endowed heterosexual men who expect born women (both straight and lesbian) to consider them as potential sexual partners.
I’ve been told that a lesbian who rejects the possibility of having a sexual relationship with a Transwoman is automatically branded a Transphobe. Presumably why the lesbian feminists (whom some accuse of being anti-men) are especially vilified.
If it’s transphobic to choose a sexual partner on the basis of their sex (as opposed to gender, if I’m following the argument) 98% of the population must be guilty.
And heterosexual men and women are normally attracted to ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ characteristics in their partners; it’s not just about genitalia (though they are assumed). So most straight women like manly men, and most men like womanly women?
So are Transpeople accidentally or deliberately ruling themselves out of the dating game? And is this a contributing factor in the increasingly angry behaviour of some Trans Activists?
Yes, I find this baffling too. If you go back 15 or 20 years or more, and for a long time before that, people understood the concept of transvestites, i.e. heterosexual men who had a kink for dressing as women but had no real desire to live as women. Many of them would have entered into traditional relationships with women, or at least tried (my God, those women must have been so tolerant). So common was this perception that it was a staple of British comedy. Nowadays, the word transvestite is deemed unacceptable, but I wonder how many trans women are actually just heterosexual men with this particular kink? This is an important question, especially when it comes to issues such as trans women (i.e. genetically male) being housed in female prisons or allowed into female changing rooms or women’s refuges. I accept that some trans women may be genuine – I certainly get that impression from the articles on this site by Debbie Hayton. But in all the debate about trans issues, it seems that any suggestion that trans women might be transvestites or heterosexual men with a kink is verboten.
Re your comment about “Transpeople accidentally or deliberately ruling themselves out of the dating game”, Julie Birchill wrote an article recently where she described trans women as “incels in wigs”. It made me laugh, not just because of her usual acerbic style but because there is a grain of truth in it.
Most adult transitions by men can be put down to autogynephilia
All?
I was under the impression that hate speech was now a criminal offence. Why aren’t these extremists charged, prosecuted and fined. How long is the government going to drag its heels over this lunacy?
Being a “radical” feminist or, indeed, a woman, is not a protected characteristic.
So feminists have spent a lifetime peddling hatred of men and getting their prejudices enshrined into law and embedded into every possible aspect of life and language.
Now they don’t like it when someone even more deranged than themselves starts peddling hatred of feminists and getting their prejudices enshrined into law and embedded into every possible aspect of life and language.
You have to admit that’s quite funny.
Sensible people see this as like the Iran-Iraq War: we want both sides to lose.
the sons have returned to devour Saturn
and you cant spell Saturn without trans, well technically there is a left over U but they just chop of the bits that don’t matter to them anyway
Oh please. Gonna need some sources about all the herds of violent feminists running around hurting men because looking at stats it’s still all men murdering women..
the trans movement is derived of feminism, these “transwomen” ( trans being a prefix which means: not a) are the political children and inheritors of feminism, they even wear alot of the same dresses. What should be really concerning is what will be the movement that follows Trans, something claiming to be even more marginalised, even more entitled with greater delusions and immune to shame. i cant imagine it, hopefully i wont live to see it , or maybe reality will reassert itself in these peoples lives.
Nonsense. The ‘trans’ movement is completely antithetical to feminism.
No, the feminist movement is closely tied to the trans idelogues and the vast majority of women’s organisations are pro-trans. The young feminists are stridently pro-trans “rights” or rather privilege. This is something gender critical feminists have to own. I am a GC feminist myself.
The issues he’s expressing are related to free speech, viewpoints, tolerance and balance in gender issues. But since you had to jump onto the physical violence bandwagon you’re just demonstrating and amplifying what is wrong with feminism, selective arguments.
If you are genuinely interested in where these kinds of tactics came from, read Christina Hoff Sommers “Who stole feminism”.
Faux outrage, playing the victim, vicarious oppression, creating a climate in which opposition gets you damned, colonising the moral high ground, taking over and distorting language – it’s all there and more.
I’m afraid that in the short time that I’ve been on this site thse reactions seem to be common, in fact I knew that they would be here as soon as I read the article. It’s just ad hominem insults and no arguement – it’s really quite shameful.
Linda – actually neither yourself nor Mathilda have presented any kind of argument or evidence relevant to the topic being discussed. So this is rather the pot calling the kettle black
Ad feminam, surely?
I quite agree, it was quite civilised at the beginning, as many things are, until they, inevitably, are not. Which is not a sleight to the writers, most of whom are thoughtful and fair. But I do not think I will be renewing my subscription
Looking at the stats it’s men murdering men but the feminists never mention that because they’re really misandrists.
We don’t mention it because it is irrelevant. Feminism is about women.
Quite so. At the annual grand assembly of the Secret Council of Men last week, all of us blokes, worldwide, agreed we weren’t killing enough women and we should all redouble our efforts. Because that’s what men are about, isn’t it?
But what did you mean by “women”?
Do you also condemn all 1.5bn Muslims around the world on the basis of the violent actions of a tiny minority of extremist Islamists?
Sad that UnHerd is attracting such brainless bigots.
I agree with you. Carl Trueman addresses this in his book, ‘The rise and triumph of the self.’
Well said Mathilda. Comment seems totally unwilling to parse the difference between gains to all our benefit derived from feminism over a century, and the hijacking of it or any movement by fringes. An oddly resentful stance that seems to equate reasonable gains for women as blanket hatred of men.
I view this in WW II terms: the French Resistance temporarily side with French Communists against the Nazis. These two groups are natural enemies, but are able to put that aside for the moment to defeat the even greater enemy. Once the greater enemy is defeated, the Resistance and the Communists can attack each other, as in the old days.
For those who require a legend:
French Resistance=Libertarian, free-thinking people who accept reality, i.e. there are 2 biological genders, sexes, whatever you want to call it (though ALL people should be treated with respect);
Communists=the left, people who were “radical feminists” and other combinations and permutations before they were cancelled by the mob. Bari Weiss is a good example of this.
Nazis=the woke. Those who have an extreme, religious belief in their extreme causes.
As a moment of comic relief, Rachel Paris does a very funny routine on feminism, concluding that the last tenet of feminism is “a hatred of all men.” Funny? Or funny because it’s true?
Same thing in China with the Kuomintang and the Communists pausing their civil war in the 30’s and 40’s in order to deal with the Japanese.
Or as the saying is, ‘Karma’s a Bit* ch’
Feminists are concerned with promoting the interests of women. Men are an irrelevance. You can’t cope with that, can you? That’s what this is all about.
Except you will achieve nothing without the active support of the other 50% of society.
Sadly your Guardian-style bigotry and intolerance, and your self-declared victimhood have deprived you of reason.
I wish you were not always so bitter about women, Jon. Surely one hopes to find, among both men and women, individuals who are kind, decent, loving, honest and morally responsible. There are good and bad men. There are good and bad women. I say that as an old 70s feminist. All I wanted back then was to be allowed to do my job on the same terms as the men. Is that unreasonable?
Indeed.
They wanted transsectionalism and identity politics, well now they have it.
In spades…
Hoisted on their own intolerant petards
You want both sides to lose? You see this as just a women’s problem? You are an idiot.
It’s unsurprising to find the misogynists here in the comments, but depressing all the same.
Listen, ye men of sore feelings. We feminists are well aware that not all men are baddies. You don’t need to remind us about it. We’ve got husbands and friends and fathers and sons etc. What do you actually think feminism is? It’s not actually about hating you, though I know this may come as a shock. It’s usually about smashing restrictions imposed by gender stereotypes, asking for violence against and harassment of women to stop and putting in place measures to prevent it, and basic stuff like equal pay for equal work. Surely you men folk can handle these simple requests, big and strong as you are. Thanks.
It’s generally the usual suspects who leap on the ‘all feminists hate men and are unreasonable and strident’ bandwagon. They will not be swayed by logic.
I await the University’s decision to derecognise this disreputable trade union.
I await them getting more hardline, woke crazies, to then replace them.
These mad folk are not just some spontaneously arisen group – they are a product of the Soros Global Elite, who formed them over 70 years with the goal of destroying the West. About 1950 it became apparent Communism was never going to take over the West, and so it had to be killed off from the inside. These are that mechanism.
First they captured the Academic, Liberal, Education industry (really goes back to the ‘Frankfurt School of thought). Then they took the Teacher training and by that eventually captured the school system. Now the products of these twisted, Neo-Marxist Post Modernist education fill the desks of every government agency and corporate office, and are like the Zombie Apocalypse….They are everywhere, and out to get you, and there are less routs to get away from their clutches every day….
That their destroying of Liberal Capitalism will destroy them too, they just are too ignorant of reality to understand.
Is there an epidemic of male violence? I’m not denying it exists, but is it an epidemic?
Pretty much every man I know has beren beaten up at some point in their lives, it is kind of part of being a male really, and by that it has some qualities of being an epidemic.
But what are you going to do? It is in the genes really, on the Y chromosome throughout the animal kingdom.
I am against this zero tolerance against Bullying as it is just not normal. Youth need some degree of bullying to learn reality, how it is out there, and how to cope, it is a mechanism in our development. One that I think parents who put a complete stop to end up harming their child’s development by – like any excessive parenting leaves the kid weaker in the long run. They produce the weak, entitled, angry, weirdos like the students here – unable to handle anything outside of their tiny life experiences, and outraged by everything except their own mindset..
That’s what I was thinking, not sure epidemic is the right word.
Great article, Joan. Looks like the Sussex University branch of UCU is run by four men. Now there’s a surprise!
The executive committee is made up of 10 men and 5 women.
Quite true. A quick look at the biographies of the Equalities reps on the UCU Sussex executive committee provides these two gems:
Samuel Solomon:“My next large critical research project is on the relations between typesetting/printing labour and English-language LGBTQ+ literary production in the late twentieth century. An article from this project, focusing on the writing of Marxist-feminist organizer, typesetter, and poet Karen Brodine, was published in GLQ.”
Arabella Stanger: “My work reaches across dance, theatre and performance studies, with an emphasis on the exploration of performance as sociopolitical practice. I am particularly interested in thinking at the intersection of materialist thought, critical race theory and indigenous studies for theorising the ways bodies move: from the choreographic practice of dance artists to what might be termed the choreographics of the everyday.”
Enough said regarding Stock’s chances of getting support from her Union when you read stuff like this.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of visiting their website. My view of stuff like this is unprintable. At least the VC of Sussex has stood up for Professor Stock.
To be fair your first example – and this I speak as a fairly mainstream Tory utterly appalled by the treatment of Professor Stock – while Samuel Solomon undoubtedly wears his left-wing-ness on his sleeve, there’s no hint of wokery in his self-description. For all we know, he may be on Professor Stock’s side in all this. Moreover, I consider the history of gay activism in the print industry to be a legitimate subject of study in a university; even from a hard left perspective – I’m glad that academia has people like Terry Eagleton in it.
It may be that Solomon will turn out to be the wokest witch-hunter in the world, in which case I will duly wind my neck in. I just wanted to point out that his being so isn’t established by the passage you quote. No disrespect intended. Your second example is on point anyway
Incidentally, I rather liked how we’re described in passing ‘this wretched island.’ Nice to see how far the ratchet’s moved since we were merely a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” in the days of the referendum.
It’s familiar to feminists because they pretty much wrote the play book. For those who haven’t seen it in action, Christina Hoff Sommers “Who stole feminism” is still worth a read, even if now a little dated.
The debate is over. The activists have said so, and given it takes two to tango, they must be right.
All that’s left to do is regulate these failed institutions, the universities and associated unions, both, to protect free speech.
As Thatcher did to the unions generally in the 1980s, so here. Get on with it.
All sounds like early 1930s Germany but the other way round. The 4th Reich was quite clever using a rainbow flag but now, like the Labour Party, they turn on each other. 90%+ don’t give them a second thought as their pride becomes their fall.
–
–
What goes around comes around. The sensible response to both Sussex and Stock is to want both sides to lose.