[zapita]

> For example, defining Democrats by "defund the police", or defining Republicans as the party of "white nationalism".

This is a false equivalence.

On the one hand, the Democratic party has unequivocally rejected “defund the police” on multiple occasions. First in the 2020 primary by electing a presidential candidate who explicitly rejected the slogan, and continues to do so as president; then by excluding it from its platform altogether; and most recently by a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote in the senate to denounce the slogan. So the record is quite clear that Democrats do not in fact stand for “defund the police” beyond a loud minority.

On the other hand, Republican senators have unanimously refused to renew the Voting Rights Act, which until 2006 enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. The VRA is one of the enduring legacies of the civil rights movement and has been a bulwark in protecting Black citizens in particular from disenfranchisement in the southern states. This is evidenced by the fact that, since the VRA has lapsed, virtually all Republican-controlled states have resurrected the same sweeping restrictions on the right to vote that MLK and others marched against. Let’s not even get into the January 6 attack on the capitol which was instigated and carried out by openly white supremacist organizations and which, to this day, the Republican party refuses to denounce, probably because so many of its own leadership is directly implicated.

So, yes, the Republican party is now defined by white nationalism. This is an established fact, and you being uncomfortable with it does not make it less true.

[roenxi]

While I disagree at some level with most of what you've written, I think the most egregious point is that nothing that you wrote is linked to the conclusion you draw.

1) There are reasons other than white nationalism for political parties to play politics with voting laws. It is overwhelmingly likely that these changes target Democrat voters rather than minority voters.

2) If this is the best a party of white nationalists can manage - marginal changes to try and tip tight elections in their favour - then the situation seems to seem very much under control from the perspective of all the non-white non-nationalists. It is hardly a defining policy.

[zapita]

> 1) There are reasons other than white nationalism for political parties to play politics with voting laws.

I referred to a very specific piece of legislation for a reason. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is, to quote Wikipedia, “a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting”. It is the direct result of Martin Luther King Jr marching against Jim Crow laws in the south. Supporting it was a no-brainer Republican policy as recently as 2006 (the last time all its provisions were re-authorized).

In other words, the VRA is no ordinary law: it is the quintessential anti-Jim Crow law. When the modern Republican party took the unprecedented step of removing these protections against Jim Crow laws, they effectively made themselves the champions of Jim Crow - the champions of white nationalism.

> It is overwhelmingly likely that these changes target Democrat voters rather than minority voters.

No, it absolutely is not. Civil rights organization like the NAACP and SPLC systematically challenge these laws on the grounds that they are disguised racial discrimination - and they win. The problem is that the legal process takes too long and enforcement is easily dodged by the states. This is why the VRA was crucial: it required federal pre-approval of voting laws, and allowed proper enforcement against states that persisted in racial discrimination.

This is not only well documented legislative fact, it is actually tought in History class. It is mind-boggling to me that it is even a point of debate. The only excuse for your argument is ignorance.

> 2) If this is the best a party of white nationalists can manage - marginal changes to try and tip tight elections in their favour - then the situation seems to seem very much under control from the perspective of all the non-white non-nationalists. It is hardly a defining policy.

Large scale voter suppression is a serious matter. MLK and countless other Americans shed blood marching to secure the VRA, and now their work is undone. That is a grave threat to our democratic institutions. I am optimistic that the white nationalists will lose, but it will be a difficult and uncertain fight ahead.

But you tell me. Assuming you vote for Republicans: what do you believe they stand for beyond white nationalism? And how do you reconcile your support with their efforts to undo legislation that Martin Luther King Jr fought for?

[roenxi]

> But you tell me. Assuming you vote for Republicans: what do you believe they stand for beyond white nationalism? And how do you reconcile your support with their efforts to undo legislation that Martin Luther King Jr fought for?

I'm not American and there is even a fair chance I wouldn't vote for the Republicans if I were, I'd likely be trying to split the right wing vote for the libertarian party to force the Republicans to adopt more acceptable policies.

Political parties are large and complex beasts. If you want some aspects of the Republicans that could define them, probably the obvious one is a heavy focus on individual identity over group identity when assigning credit/blame. They also tend to adopt more aggressive policies of individual liberty, and are more oriented towards rules and order.

> And how do you reconcile your support with their efforts to undo legislation that Martin Luther King Jr fought for?

They think it is likely to hurt their chances in an election. That is why I'm telling you it isn't white nationalism; white nationalists don't get especially excited about the details around how close elections get decided. If it was white nationalism you'd be leading with policies where they wanted to expel non-white people. Which you aren't so I assume they don't have any that you think would stand up to scrutiny.