How can the alt-right fringe movement explain massive mainstream voter turnout?
The New York Times reported on Hillary Clinton’s alt-right speech against Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton delivered a blistering denunciation Thursday of Donald J. Trump’s personal and political history with race, arguing in her most forceful terms yet that a nationalist conservative fringe had engulfed the Republican Party.
In a 31-minute address, building to a controlled simmer, Mrs. Clinton did everything but call Mr. Trump a racist outright — saying he had promoted “racist lie” after “racist lie,” pushed conspiracy theories with “racist undertones” and heartened racists across the country by submitting to an “emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.”
The article adds to the misinformation campaign by listing a bunch of “white nationalists” who try to promote themselves by the alt-right handle.
But there’s no control over who uses the label. If a fringe group happens to share widespread disgust with political correctness or globalism, that doesn’t make opposition to political correctness identical to any other ideas a fringe group might hold.
And Donald Trump did not win the nomination by appealing to a fringe group. He tapped a suppressed group of voters that is quite large.
Trump has no history whatsoever of racial discrimination. At the Democratic National Convention last month, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley fled from the camera rather than cite one single example of anything Trump had said about black people, much less done. Clinton cited a handful of lawsuits by the Department of Justice — a department which recently tried suing Louisiana school districts for helping black students.
Of course, Breitbart.com, which published Pollack’s article, is alt-right. And that means racism!
Yeah, there are disgusting people who claim the label of alt-right. But that has always been true of all labels.
Judging people by labels is often another form of discrimination.