Conservatives don't value freedom. During the Bush administration, we lost a ton of freedom, especially during the period where the GOP controlled everything. The only thing that temporarily arrested the slide was that Bush managed to piss off SCOTUS enough that they started to say no.
Bush was a moderate, not a conservative. All we get for president are moderates and liberals. That's one of the reasons conservatives are so depressed. Even if McCain or Romney had one we would have had a moderate instead of a liberal.
Conservatives don't value freedom. During the Bush administration, we lost a ton of freedom, especially during the period where the GOP controlled everything.
Obama has kept up most of Bush's war policies except of course that he's replaced waterboarding with execution by drone.
The only thing that temporarily arrested the slide was that Bush managed to piss off SCOTUS enough that they started to say no.
So you're saying Bush actually listened to the SCOTUS?
Have any of Obama's "recess appointments" resigned now that they've been ruled unconstitutional?
Conservatives value certain freedoms like the 2nd amendment, but are pretty hostile towards the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
1st amendment: Freedom of speech and religion. It isn't conservatives who are pushing for speech codes and trying to tell people to do things that violate their religion.
4th amendment: no unreasonable searches and seizures - I haven't noticed either conservatives or liberals doing well on this one. The war on terror under Bush and Obama, the war on drugs, the war on whatever each side considers bad - all seem to make every search and seizure reasonable.
5th amendment; a whole bunch of things which, like the protections of the 4th amendment, seem to be a problem for both sides
14th amendment: For the most part both conservatives and liberals support the 14th amendment with the exception of the part about "equal protection of law". For 100 years after the civil war the Democrats denied equal protection to blacks. Then in the 1960s they joined Republicans in passing the Civil Rights act. Then they decide that equal protection wasn't good enough and started pushing programs that discriminate against whites (and in many cases is against people of Asian ancestry too).
When was the last time federal government spending decreased? When was the last time the amount of regulation in society decreased?
You're mistaken if you think we blame everything on Obama. There is plenty of blame to go around. Nearly all, or perhaps all, presidents of the last 80 years have steadily toward a society of greater government control and less freedom.
Anyone else find it interesting that, in general, red states (Republican) are mostly blue (unhappy) on the map, while blue states (Democrat) are mostly red (happy) on the map?
It should be unsurprising that conservative states are unhappier given that they value freedom and they see freedom shrinking. So much of what they see is good is under attack from the government and from the everpresent media. That's why so many turn to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It's not that they really believe Rush Limbaugh is a genius or that Fox News is "fair and balanced", its just being sick and tired of all the ridicule and nonsense on all the supposedly centrist news outlets.
When was the last time the government moved in a conservative direction (as opposed to merely slowing its march to the left)? It hasn't happened in my lifetime. And given the near monopoly the left has on the mainstream opinion-making I see no hope for it happening anytime soon.
On a side note, that "red-state blue-state" thing is yet another thing to be unhappy about. Blue has traditionally been associated with conservatives while red has been associated with leftists. The reversal is quite confusing.
I'm a conservative and have long thought this would be sensible. It would allow long time friends who live together (why do they have to be involved in a sexual relationship) who never intend to marry anyone and who rely and depend on each other to have their relationship recognized for purposes like income sharing and hospital visits.
Liberals also campaign on fear. The make claims that Republicans will take away their contraception - that Republicans will take away their pension, their health care, that conservatives will push granny in her wheelchair over a cliff. Talk to American voters. They don't vote for liberals because they like them, they vote for liberals because they've been taught to fear Republicans and especially the Tea Party.
What rights of women do American conservatives oppose? They support the right of American women to be born just as much as they support the right of American men to be born.
Most of what I've seen recently presented as anti-women is really just pro-freedom. Sandra Fluke wanted to force other people to pay for her recreational activities. Conservatives said that was ridiculous because it was. It wasn't a matter of women's rights - it was a demand for a government subsidy at the expense of other people.
Conservatives don't oppose the government staying out of the way when gay people hold wedding ceremonies officiated by religious officials as the gay couples make lifetime commitments to each other. What conservatives oppose is the government taking an active role in promoting such things. For example, a gay couple should have the freedom to hold the ceremony, say the vows, and make the commitment. But someone who feels such an event is wrong should have the freedom to refuse to participate
On abortion the answer is simple. They want to ban abortion for the same reason they want to ban other types of murder. You may not agree that abortion is murder, but surely you can see the logic for someone who does think that abortion kills an innocent human.
As for drugs, conservatives are divided. See William F. Buckley and the National Review, for example.
No, American conservatives are very fearful. They fear terrorists, and demand the government protect them, even if that means loss of rights. They fear criminals, and demand guns to defend themselves, even though statistics clearly show that having a gun in your home puts you at greater risk. They fear gays and Muslims and commies and immigrants and regulations. They're not bad people, they just like life as it is, and are fearful of anything that might cause changes in their current life style.
But American liberals are fearful in the same way. Out of fear of those around them they demand those around them be controlled, even if it means loss of rights (such as the right to bear arms and the right to freedom of speech (see speech codes)). Out of fear of consequences for their actions they demand the government insulate them with "free" birth control, "free" health care, "free" income, and "free" whatever else they think of. Out of fear of corportations they demand heavy regulation of every human activity. Out of fear of children they demand the right to kill them before they're born.
Alas, American conservatives are not so different from conservatives anywhere else. Perhaps superficially. Perhaps in a great many ways that really don't matter... no different from driving on the left versus the right side of the road, or in how we dress or the slang we banter about. But it doesn't feel as emotionally satisfying. We want to be part of the superior group... therefore, some other group must be inferior, even if the inferiority is entirely socially constructed. And because we want this, we are eager to overlook similarity. Some people are eager to the point of violent opposition, like you are.
This is true. But in the same way American liberals are not so different from conservatives anywhere else. While there are superficial differences, American liberals also want to be part of the superior group and strive to make some other group inferior even if the infiority is entirely socially constructed and because of that they overlook similarity - some to the point of violent opposition.
So what's the point, that we're all human so TFA is bogus?
And some liberal would point out that they shouldn't be saying such things, then the conservatives would scream freedom of speech.
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech.
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure.
To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is that they get to define what is "construstive criticism" and what is "verbal abuse". To conservatives the most important aspect of freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
One of the top conservative magazines in the country, the National Review, has an editorial policy of supporting drug legalization.
You have a point on gays. That is one of the few areas where conservative rhetoric has been very out of line with the general conservative philosophy. The marriage thing isn't really an issue of freedom - nothing stops gays from having religious ceremonies and making lifetime commitments - it's more an issue of forcing others to agree that gay marriage is good, or at least to pretend to - for example note the recent lawsuits against a photographer and a cakemaker who refused to participate in a gay wedding. However the laws against sodomy were a violation of freedom and too many conservatives supported those laws. (though as a constitutional issue the laws were valid - the Supreme Court unsuprisingly screwed up again - but just because the Constution allows a state to make a law doesn't mean the statue should make that law.)
Well, at least the way I hear it used on the news, American conservatives are very different from Chinese and Russian conservatives. American, Chinese, and Russian conservatives do have something in common - they want to preserve the status quo or even revert in some ways to how things were before. But "how things were before" is very different depending on the country. For an American conservative, the desire is to return to a time of less government intrusion in people's lives. For Chinese and Russian conservatives the desire is to return to a time of much greater government intrusion into people's lives.
Islamic conservatives provide another example of "conservative" that is very different from an American conservative (and actually pretty different from an American liberal too). Although I suppose if you really look at some of the societies the Islamic conservatives are actually very conservative because they are attempting to change (or have recently changed) their countries to be very different from what they were before. For example, women in Iran and Egypt used to walk around with their heads uncovered, now the so-called "conservatives" have forced them to start covering their hair or face harassment.
An American conservatives my be similar to a British conservative - I don't follow British politics much so I can't say for sure, but an American conservatives is very different from many conservatives throughout the world.
I have to admit that a big part of my connservatism comes from fear. I was bullied a lot as a kid. And it wasn't unsual for the bullying to be multiple people against me. Now that I'm an adult, I don't want to be bullied anymore, by anyone. And I especially don't want to be placed in a posiition where I have no recourse against the unreasonable demands of others that are backed up by violence.
The biggest threat I see in this regard is the government. I mean, I need a minimal level of government to enforce the law that says no one else can use force against me. But if the government does just that, then I can just walk away from anyone else who wants to harass me. Microsoft can push a lousy OS, but I don't have to buy it. NBC, CBS, and ABC can produce hours and hours of lousy reality TV programming, but I don't have to watch.
Only the government remains as being able to come to where I live or work, tell me what to do, and use force to back it up. If there is some question about whether what I did is ok, then at best I get a trial where the same poor social skills and poor persuasion skills that made me a victim in school are likely to make me a victim of a lawyer and a jury.
Perhaps one might argue that because we live in a democracy, the laws will be just and good and I shouldn't mind following them. That's true if the laws are minimal. But if the laws are numerous and easily made, they are likely to be based on the whims of the public and whatever mood their in. Part of the reason I didn't fit in at school is that I like different things. Chances are that I won't have the same tastes and passions as the majority of voters. And did I mention my poor persuasive skills? I won't be the one who is able to get a majority of voters to see things my way.
I want a government that will protect my rights and the rights of those around me, and do very little beyond that because whenever the government does more, my freedom to be different diminishes, and the freedom to be different is the very core of all freedoms.
So how does this work in a traditionally free country like America, where conservatives favor freedom of the individual, with its inherent risk that an individual might fail, while the liberals want the government to guarantee the health safety and happiness of every human being and remove all risk from life?
Perhaps it is explained that what the conservatives fear is not risk, but loss of control. American conservatives are afraid to place their fates into the hands of the elected experts on human happiness.
The comedian Doug Stanhope I think summed it up best:
"If God had intended women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them free will and a vagina."
Let's see how that logic works:
If we were meant to kill our children, they would be defensless, we would be strong enough to choke their little necks, they would do things to annoy us, and we would have free will.
A big difference between porn and cleaning toilets is the lasting efffects. I know of porn stars who later committed suicide, or who came to regret having ever done porn (even though it made them very rich). Porn often has a lasting negative effect that can't be matched by cleaning toilets. And of course it is usually younger women - i.e. those most irresponsible and least able to consider the long term consequences of their decisions - that porn producers want.
I have to admit my conservative side and my libertarian side are in conflict on this issue. But as a practical matter, if the government can regulate who you hire, how you pay for health insurance, whether you wear a seat belt in your car, whether you can smoke inside your building, and a million other things, why not porn?
I like the idea someone suggested above. Don't enforce copyright on porn. If people want to do it as a hobby then fine, but remove the profit motive.
The difference is that violent films result from simulations of violence rather than actors and actresses actually being required to perform violence on people they don't actually dislike.
When the creation of child porn requires the participation of children than it should be illegal. It also makes sense to outlaws against distribution of such porn so as to discourage its creation. These aren't limitations on freedom. If your "freedom" requires two people, then both people must consent otherwise one of them is being denied is freedom. And of course children can't consent to porn.
You mean back when schools were required by the government to be segregated? When there were laws banning interracial marriage? When the government used countless ways to keep black and white people apart?
Of course in such a situation the racism would be common in the private sector too.
I don't know the precise annswer to your question, but I have heard of the Harlem Renaissance and the blues clubs. Obviously there were some places that catered to black people despite the racism that the government encouraged.
The free market isn't perfect, but 99% of the time it is better than the government at sorting things out. I do believe race relations in the south wouldn't have become so horrible, and would have improved over time, if the government hadn't been interfering by requiring racism.
There is a possibility that you are correct, that if we stop regulating which kinds of racism are required and which are forbidden that people would return to the racist ways of the past. However American history suggests that when the state takes no official position on racism it tends to go away over time. New Orleans, according to what I've heard, used to be very integrated before the state started imposing segregation laws. There used to be a lo of discrimination against Irish and Italians, but it reduced over time without government help. The most enduring racism occurred when it was required by law. Racism is still required by law but in different ways. The new racist laws have been less harmful than the old racist laws, but they still prevent the kind of trust and sense of fairness that is required for racism to go away.
I'm not sure I understand your question about poor white people.
Slashdot Mirror
Conservatives don't value freedom. During the Bush administration, we lost a ton of freedom, especially during the period where the GOP controlled everything. The only thing that temporarily arrested the slide was that Bush managed to piss off SCOTUS enough that they started to say no.
Bush was a moderate, not a conservative. All we get for president are moderates and liberals. That's one of the reasons conservatives are so depressed. Even if McCain or Romney had one we would have had a moderate instead of a liberal.
Conservatives don't value freedom. During the Bush administration, we lost a ton of freedom, especially during the period where the GOP controlled everything.
Obama has kept up most of Bush's war policies except of course that he's replaced waterboarding with execution by drone.
The only thing that temporarily arrested the slide was that Bush managed to piss off SCOTUS enough that they started to say no.
So you're saying Bush actually listened to the SCOTUS?
Have any of Obama's "recess appointments" resigned now that they've been ruled unconstitutional?
Conservatives value certain freedoms like the 2nd amendment, but are pretty hostile towards the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.
1st amendment: Freedom of speech and religion. It isn't conservatives who are pushing for speech codes and trying to tell people to do things that violate their religion.
4th amendment: no unreasonable searches and seizures - I haven't noticed either conservatives or liberals doing well on this one. The war on terror under Bush and Obama, the war on drugs, the war on whatever each side considers bad - all seem to make every search and seizure reasonable.
5th amendment; a whole bunch of things which, like the protections of the 4th amendment, seem to be a problem for both sides
14th amendment: For the most part both conservatives and liberals support the 14th amendment with the exception of the part about "equal protection of law". For 100 years after the civil war the Democrats denied equal protection to blacks. Then in the 1960s they joined Republicans in passing the Civil Rights act. Then they decide that equal protection wasn't good enough and started pushing programs that discriminate against whites (and in many cases is against people of Asian ancestry too).
When was the last time federal government spending decreased? When was the last time the amount of regulation in society decreased?
You're mistaken if you think we blame everything on Obama. There is plenty of blame to go around. Nearly all, or perhaps all, presidents of the last 80 years have steadily toward a society of greater government control and less freedom.
That makes sense, especially given research that pessimists are generally more realistic in their appraisals.
Anyone else find it interesting that, in general, red states (Republican) are mostly blue (unhappy) on the map, while blue states (Democrat) are mostly red (happy) on the map?
It should be unsurprising that conservative states are unhappier given that they value freedom and they see freedom shrinking. So much of what they see is good is under attack from the government and from the everpresent media. That's why so many turn to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It's not that they really believe Rush Limbaugh is a genius or that Fox News is "fair and balanced", its just being sick and tired of all the ridicule and nonsense on all the supposedly centrist news outlets.
When was the last time the government moved in a conservative direction (as opposed to merely slowing its march to the left)? It hasn't happened in my lifetime. And given the near monopoly the left has on the mainstream opinion-making I see no hope for it happening anytime soon.
On a side note, that "red-state blue-state" thing is yet another thing to be unhappy about. Blue has traditionally been associated with conservatives while red has been associated with leftists. The reversal is quite confusing.
I'm a conservative and have long thought this would be sensible. It would allow long time friends who live together (why do they have to be involved in a sexual relationship) who never intend to marry anyone and who rely and depend on each other to have their relationship recognized for purposes like income sharing and hospital visits.
I'm a conservative and I agree with you on this point.
Liberals also campaign on fear. The make claims that Republicans will take away their contraception - that Republicans will take away their pension, their health care, that conservatives will push granny in her wheelchair over a cliff. Talk to American voters. They don't vote for liberals because they like them, they vote for liberals because they've been taught to fear Republicans and especially the Tea Party.
What rights of women do American conservatives oppose? They support the right of American women to be born just as much as they support the right of American men to be born.
Most of what I've seen recently presented as anti-women is really just pro-freedom. Sandra Fluke wanted to force other people to pay for her recreational activities. Conservatives said that was ridiculous because it was. It wasn't a matter of women's rights - it was a demand for a government subsidy at the expense of other people.
Conservatives don't oppose the government staying out of the way when gay people hold wedding ceremonies officiated by religious officials as the gay couples make lifetime commitments to each other. What conservatives oppose is the government taking an active role in promoting such things. For example, a gay couple should have the freedom to hold the ceremony, say the vows, and make the commitment. But someone who feels such an event is wrong should have the freedom to refuse to participate
On abortion the answer is simple. They want to ban abortion for the same reason they want to ban other types of murder. You may not agree that abortion is murder, but surely you can see the logic for someone who does think that abortion kills an innocent human.
As for drugs, conservatives are divided. See William F. Buckley and the National Review, for example.
No, American conservatives are very fearful. They fear terrorists, and demand the government protect them, even if that means loss of rights. They fear criminals, and demand guns to defend themselves, even though statistics clearly show that having a gun in your home puts you at greater risk. They fear gays and Muslims and commies and immigrants and regulations. They're not bad people, they just like life as it is, and are fearful of anything that might cause changes in their current life style.
But American liberals are fearful in the same way. Out of fear of those around them they demand those around them be controlled, even if it means loss of rights (such as the right to bear arms and the right to freedom of speech (see speech codes)). Out of fear of consequences for their actions they demand the government insulate them with "free" birth control, "free" health care, "free" income, and "free" whatever else they think of. Out of fear of corportations they demand heavy regulation of every human activity. Out of fear of children they demand the right to kill them before they're born.
Alas, American conservatives are not so different from conservatives anywhere else. Perhaps superficially. Perhaps in a great many ways that really don't matter... no different from driving on the left versus the right side of the road, or in how we dress or the slang we banter about. But it doesn't feel as emotionally satisfying. We want to be part of the superior group... therefore, some other group must be inferior, even if the inferiority is entirely socially constructed. And because we want this, we are eager to overlook similarity. Some people are eager to the point of violent opposition, like you are.
This is true. But in the same way American liberals are not so different from conservatives anywhere else. While there are superficial differences, American liberals also want to be part of the superior group and strive to make some other group inferior even if the infiority is entirely socially constructed and because of that they overlook similarity - some to the point of violent opposition.
So what's the point, that we're all human so TFA is bogus?
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech. To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure. To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is that they get to define what is "construstive criticism" and what is "verbal abuse". To conservatives the most important aspect of freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
One of the top conservative magazines in the country, the National Review, has an editorial policy of supporting drug legalization.
You have a point on gays. That is one of the few areas where conservative rhetoric has been very out of line with the general conservative philosophy. The marriage thing isn't really an issue of freedom - nothing stops gays from having religious ceremonies and making lifetime commitments - it's more an issue of forcing others to agree that gay marriage is good, or at least to pretend to - for example note the recent lawsuits against a photographer and a cakemaker who refused to participate in a gay wedding. However the laws against sodomy were a violation of freedom and too many conservatives supported those laws. (though as a constitutional issue the laws were valid - the Supreme Court unsuprisingly screwed up again - but just because the Constution allows a state to make a law doesn't mean the statue should make that law.)
Well, at least the way I hear it used on the news, American conservatives are very different from Chinese and Russian conservatives. American, Chinese, and Russian conservatives do have something in common - they want to preserve the status quo or even revert in some ways to how things were before. But "how things were before" is very different depending on the country. For an American conservative, the desire is to return to a time of less government intrusion in people's lives. For Chinese and Russian conservatives the desire is to return to a time of much greater government intrusion into people's lives.
Islamic conservatives provide another example of "conservative" that is very different from an American conservative (and actually pretty different from an American liberal too). Although I suppose if you really look at some of the societies the Islamic conservatives are actually very conservative because they are attempting to change (or have recently changed) their countries to be very different from what they were before. For example, women in Iran and Egypt used to walk around with their heads uncovered, now the so-called "conservatives" have forced them to start covering their hair or face harassment.
An American conservatives my be similar to a British conservative - I don't follow British politics much so I can't say for sure, but an American conservatives is very different from many conservatives throughout the world.
I have to admit that a big part of my connservatism comes from fear. I was bullied a lot as a kid. And it wasn't unsual for the bullying to be multiple people against me. Now that I'm an adult, I don't want to be bullied anymore, by anyone. And I especially don't want to be placed in a posiition where I have no recourse against the unreasonable demands of others that are backed up by violence.
The biggest threat I see in this regard is the government. I mean, I need a minimal level of government to enforce the law that says no one else can use force against me. But if the government does just that, then I can just walk away from anyone else who wants to harass me. Microsoft can push a lousy OS, but I don't have to buy it. NBC, CBS, and ABC can produce hours and hours of lousy reality TV programming, but I don't have to watch.
Only the government remains as being able to come to where I live or work, tell me what to do, and use force to back it up. If there is some question about whether what I did is ok, then at best I get a trial where the same poor social skills and poor persuasion skills that made me a victim in school are likely to make me a victim of a lawyer and a jury.
Perhaps one might argue that because we live in a democracy, the laws will be just and good and I shouldn't mind following them. That's true if the laws are minimal. But if the laws are numerous and easily made, they are likely to be based on the whims of the public and whatever mood their in. Part of the reason I didn't fit in at school is that I like different things. Chances are that I won't have the same tastes and passions as the majority of voters. And did I mention my poor persuasive skills? I won't be the one who is able to get a majority of voters to see things my way.
I want a government that will protect my rights and the rights of those around me, and do very little beyond that because whenever the government does more, my freedom to be different diminishes, and the freedom to be different is the very core of all freedoms.
So how does this work in a traditionally free country like America, where conservatives favor freedom of the individual, with its inherent risk that an individual might fail, while the liberals want the government to guarantee the health safety and happiness of every human being and remove all risk from life?
Perhaps it is explained that what the conservatives fear is not risk, but loss of control. American conservatives are afraid to place their fates into the hands of the elected experts on human happiness.
The comedian Doug Stanhope I think summed it up best:
"If God had intended women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them free will and a vagina."
Let's see how that logic works:
If we were meant to kill our children, they would be defensless, we would be strong enough to choke their little necks, they would do things to annoy us, and we would have free will.
I think there's a problem with the logic.
A big difference between porn and cleaning toilets is the lasting efffects. I know of porn stars who later committed suicide, or who came to regret having ever done porn (even though it made them very rich). Porn often has a lasting negative effect that can't be matched by cleaning toilets. And of course it is usually younger women - i.e. those most irresponsible and least able to consider the long term consequences of their decisions - that porn producers want.
I have to admit my conservative side and my libertarian side are in conflict on this issue. But as a practical matter, if the government can regulate who you hire, how you pay for health insurance, whether you wear a seat belt in your car, whether you can smoke inside your building, and a million other things, why not porn?
I like the idea someone suggested above. Don't enforce copyright on porn. If people want to do it as a hobby then fine, but remove the profit motive.
The difference is that violent films result from simulations of violence rather than actors and actresses actually being required to perform violence on people they don't actually dislike.
When the creation of child porn requires the participation of children than it should be illegal. It also makes sense to outlaws against distribution of such porn so as to discourage its creation. These aren't limitations on freedom. If your "freedom" requires two people, then both people must consent otherwise one of them is being denied is freedom. And of course children can't consent to porn.
You mean back when schools were required by the government to be segregated? When there were laws banning interracial marriage? When the government used countless ways to keep black and white people apart?
Of course in such a situation the racism would be common in the private sector too.
I don't know the precise annswer to your question, but I have heard of the Harlem Renaissance and the blues clubs. Obviously there were some places that catered to black people despite the racism that the government encouraged.
The free market isn't perfect, but 99% of the time it is better than the government at sorting things out. I do believe race relations in the south wouldn't have become so horrible, and would have improved over time, if the government hadn't been interfering by requiring racism.
There is a possibility that you are correct, that if we stop regulating which kinds of racism are required and which are forbidden that people would return to the racist ways of the past. However American history suggests that when the state takes no official position on racism it tends to go away over time. New Orleans, according to what I've heard, used to be very integrated before the state started imposing segregation laws. There used to be a lo of discrimination against Irish and Italians, but it reduced over time without government help. The most enduring racism occurred when it was required by law. Racism is still required by law but in different ways. The new racist laws have been less harmful than the old racist laws, but they still prevent the kind of trust and sense of fairness that is required for racism to go away. I'm not sure I understand your question about poor white people.