Divided

The interplay between race and politics involves a complex dynamic in the US that other countries might find hard to grasp. From time to time, that dynamic explodes like a geyser and preoccupies all political discourse.

Germans, in particular, are puzzled at how neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups could still parade their abhorrent ideas in America. In Germany, strong laws against hate speech and neo-Nazi groups have been enacted, driven by the craving to purge the nation’s psyche of a terrible episode in their history.

In America, the effort to curtail hate speech is hampered by a strong legal institution protecting free speech. This is why, over the last weekend, neo-Nazis in Boston tried to disguise their hateful political inclinations by describing their rally as a celebration of free speech.

Fortunately, the gaggle of neo-Nazi demonstrators were completely swamped by many thousands of counter-protestors denouncing racism. Boston is an enlightened city. The disparity in the sizes of the two demonstrations reassures us that those who uphold racial equality vastly outnumber those who preach racial hatred.

The US is now caught up in yet another tumultuous debate over race. The white supremacist groups have scheduled rallies in several cities the next few days. Counter-protestors, as they have done in Charlottesville last week and Boston more recently, will surely mobilize in their numbers.

Long disdained by mainstream opinion favoring racial harmony, the white nationalists have come out of the shadows. The sort of divisive and amoral politics personified by Trump emboldened them. They are trying to commandeer the conservative base that elected Trump to office and profess to speak for all these angry voters.

Trump’s political base is composed of largely white voters from Middle America. Over the past few years, they have begun to feel disenfranchised and impoverished. They blame free trade for the economic death of many cities like Detroit. They feel threatened by the rise of new, racially diverse elites mainly in the eastern and western coastal areas.

It is not a coincidence that New England in the east and California in the west are bailiwicks of the Democratic Party. The coastal cities are relatively more prosperous, more racially diverse and more liberal in their politics.

In his quest for the presidency, Trump shamelessly pandered to the insecurities of the mainly white populations in regions such as the “Rust Belt” that used to be vigorous industrial areas. He blamed unbridled immigration and free trade arrangements for their plight. He promised a wall on the southern border to keep Hispanics out, promised the abrogation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and more aggressive penalties against trading economies like China. These are the components of his plan to make America “great again.”

He blamed strict environmental regulations that brought poverty to the coal mining areas. For this he withdrew the US from the Paris climate accord. He put an advocate of deregulation in charge of the Environmental Protection Administration.

It seems that the lower Trump’s approval ratings fall, the more intensely he caters to his protectionist base. The more he is unable to push his policies through the Washington gridlock, the more he panders to white supremacists.

These are considerations that caused Trump to equivocate in the aftermath of the violence at Charlottesville. The equivocation enraged those who had thought America had left racial hatred in the past. It enraged the racial minorities who daily confront the realities of racial bigotry.

As Trump’s base of political support narrows even more, he will be more reliant on groups once considered consigned to the fringe: economic nationalists, white supremacists and, yes, the neo-Nazi hate groups. That is a frightening prospect.

As Trump becomes more reliant on communities with regressive views, he will encourage more confrontation in the streets on issues of race. The prospects are not pretty.

EJK

If the US enters a period of tumult arising from polarizing views on race relations, there is every indication that we too are entering a period of polarization over the violence that accompanied President Duterte’s war on drugs.

From the start of his presidency, Duterte has been criticized for the bloody approach he has taken in the campaign against illegal drugs. He has been severely excoriated by human rights groups and the international media. He responded to the mounting criticism by hardening his own position: denouncing human rights advocates, raining expletives on international organizations and foreign governments worried over the rising violence, and encouraging policemen basically to kill more.

For many Filipinos, the violence accompanying police drug raids is considered necessary to contain the scourge – like culling chicken to contain a deadly epidemic. The high job approval ratings Duterte enjoys speak to that – and very likely encourages him to be more unrepentant in his utterances.

When 32 people were killed in the course of comprehensive anti-drug operations in Bulacan last week, Duterte told his policemen he would be happy if they killed as much every night. Successive operations in Manila and elsewhere the days following added to the death toll.

But one death in Caloocan, that of a 17-year old that witnesses claim was taken alive and killed in police custody, might turn out to be the tipping point. The apparent extra-judicial killing, right after Duterte’s “kill, kill, kill” speech, outraged many. Protests have been called to denounce the violence that now appears to be undertaken with impunity by a police force goaded on by the President no less.

Duterte, like Trump, must understand that legitimacy in a democracy ultimately rests on moral ascendancy.