Among the least persuasive writers on contemporary politics, for me, is Ta-Nehisi Coates. Mind you, I often agree with him, but only because I agreed with him before reading him. If I go into a piece of his with a different perspective, nothing he says has an effect on me.
Now, if I were intellectually stubborn, the sort of person who rarely changes his mind, that would be a statement about me, not Coates. In fact, I’m always changing my mind. Nearly every day my views are shifting, sometimes only slightly, sometimes a lot. When I go back and read what I wrote several years ago, my first instinct is to grab an editor’s pen. Maybe I’m too susceptible to persuasion.
But not by Coates. The thing is, he seldom makes arguments in the sense I understand that term. There isn’t extended reasoning through assumptions and implications or careful sifting through evidence to see which hypotheses are supported or disconfirmed. No, he offers an articulate, finely honed expression of his worldview, and that’s it. He is obviously a man of vast talents, but he uses them the same way much less refined thinkers simply bloviate.
But that raises the question, why is he so influential? Why does he reach so many people? What’s his secret?
No doubt there are multiple aspects to this, but here’s one that just dawned on me. Those who respond to Coates are not looking for argumentation—they’re looking for interpretation.
The demand for someone like Coates reflects the broad influence that what might be called interpretivism has had on American political culture. This current emerged a few decades ago from literature, cultural studies and related academic home ports. Its method was an application of the interpretive act of criticism. A critic “reads”, which is to say interprets, a work of art or some other cultural product, and readers gravitate toward critics whose interpretations provide a sense of heightened awareness or insight into the object of criticism. There’s nothing wrong with this. I read criticism all the time to deepen my engagement with music, art, film and fiction.
But criticism jumped channel and entered the political realm. Now events like elections, wars, ecological crises and economic disruptions are interpreted according to the same standards developed for portraits and poetry. And maybe there is good in that too, except that theories about why social, economic or political events occur are subject to analytical support or disconfirmation in a way that works of art are not. How should we hear The Rite of Spring in the twenty-first century? Colonial or pre-postcolonial? Racist or deracializing? These are meaningful questions, and thoughtful criticism can help us explore them more deeply, but neither evidence nor reasoning can resolve them. If you want to know why the US election last year turned out the way it did, however, reasoning and evidence are the way to go.
Coates is an interpreter. His latest piece in the Atlantic, The First White President, reads the election the way a film critic would read a film. There are references to factual events, like quotes taken from the campaign trail, but they serve the same function that references to camera angles serve for a critic interpreting the latest from Darren Aronofsky. In the end, Coates wants to convey his sense of what the election means, that it is a reflection of the deep racism that was, is and will continue to be the core truth of America. If anything was different, it was that eight years of a black president ratcheted up the racism and allowed a sociopathic white extremist to prevail. Post-election concern for the well-being of the white working class by white pundits is itself a further reflection of this truth, a turning away from the ugly reality of bigotry. This is a reading of the election as a cultural artifact.
The problem, of course, is that much about the election is subject to social science investigation. We have opinion polling and the factual record of specific campaign strategies and tactics. We have a variety of models that predict voting behavior—testable models. If you go through Coates’ article, you’ll find statements (especially sweeping generalizations) that are dubious in light of the evidence or even flatly refutable. This isn’t because Coates isn’t well informed or unable to examine the data, but because he is applying the method of cultural interpretation, not evaluating hypotheses.
In the end, Coates is expressing how the election feels to him, and that’s OK. But his feelings tell us little about why Trump, and not somebody else, is sitting in the oval office. Is there massive racism in America? Yes. Could someone like Trump be elected president if racism were not so widespread? Almost certainly not. But like the man says, racism has been a major factor in every election, yet they don’t all come out the same. It looks like other factors were at work too, especially since Obama outperformed Clinton across most demographics. Time to get deeper into the data.
I like Coates more and more. I still don’t agree with him on things, but he represents a viewpoint that I otherwise would not be exposed to, and one that isn’t centered in complete fabrication of an alternate reality from whole cloth.
He looks at the same world I do, and sees different things because he’s reading different stuff than I am and also he walks around every day in a different colored skin than I do.
His Black Panther is pretty awesome too.
Also, he’s a commentator, not really an academic.
If you want an academic, you need someone else.
Umm, seems to me this is exactly what happened in this election(and every election since the Civil Rights Act.
“In the end, Coates wants to convey his sense of what the election means, that it is a reflection of the deep racism that was, is and will continue to be the core truth of America. If anything was different, it was that eight years of a black president ratcheted up the racism and allowed a sociopathic white extremist to prevail. Post-election concern for the well-being of the white working class by white pundits is itself a further reflection of this truth, a turning away from the ugly reality of bigotry.”
And I totally agree with his take on this white working class populist garbage. Refresh my memory, when was the last time a Rep Pres and Congress helped the white working class? Or the working class? Or the non 1%?
Yet somehow they appeal to the white working class?
I do have some issues with this article, or at least questions I’d like to direct to him:
1. Are white people entitled to vote, and should they vote what they believe to be their interest? This leaves aside what is actually in their interest, I have a very different opinion of what is in the interests of all Americans than the Republican party does, but they manage to “convince” or “hoodwink” a lot of people into voting for them. Low information voters are bad, but should they be illegal? TNC has brought up reparations before (part of his beef with Sanders), so what are other acceptable alternatives? Should white voting power be artificially reduced? (BTW I’m actually kind of sliding in his direction on reparations, it’s clear that at minimum we need a truth and reconciliation commission).
2. I’d like to see actual numbers somewhere in the article on white turnout. There’s an implication that racism drove up turnout, but I don’t think that is a very solid claim. Almost as many people voted in 2008 as in 2016, even with a growing population. There’s analysis on who did better with whom, but not much on turnout, and the common knowledge seems to be that Republicans don’t have a GOTV strategy.
3. Based on the article, should we conclude that Democrats should or must only run non-white candidates? From the article’s tone, Sanders is “too white” (not a particular surprise given there are more POCs in my home city of 60k than there are in all of Vermont). Is that only important for the presidential seat? Is it enough to have the presidency and have only stronghold state governments, a minority of senators, and a tiny sliver of the house? Can a Democratic party that is able to appeal to and serve their constituencies nationwide pursue a progressive agenda, or is it just Democrats in Name Only (leaving aside the “hoodwinking” implication).
I pay no attention to his reparations thoughts, never going to happen and is really a waste of time.
I am not trying to discourage white people from voting, I am trying to encourage Dems to understand why white working class people overwhelmingly vote Rep. You cannot win with those people, so you win with non racist whites and people of color who believe in you policies.
And you drive turnout by appealing to them, and calling the Reps out for their racism. Not to alienate them, but to activate your base.
Personally, I think every Dem Pres ticket should have one person of color. But I am not willing to accept a candidate as a token, but as a qualified asset.
Lots of reason Trump won; Russians; Comey;Clinton baggage; Clinton campaign erros(GA?, AZ? Seriously?); Berniebros; Voter suppression.
I believe a person of color in the VP slot would have turned the election.
“The thing is, he seldom makes arguments in the sense I understand that term. ”
You could say the same about Jonathon Smith and “A Modest Proposal” or something less directly satiricall “Gullivers Travels”.This doesn’t make them non-political tracts. There may be no book that makes a coherent political argument in a more incoherent argumentative form than Catch-22. Yet I would argue it is political from top to bottom.
Laying out a lived life, whether fictional or autobiographical, has proven over time to move more action than any works from avowed political “scientists” making “empirical” arguments.
Coasts is influential because he pens for public consumption what most anti-racist’s already believe but need somebody else to confirm.
Coates appeals to the emotions just as the right wing National Review does… the only difference is who’s emotions they are appealing to and with which pieces of information and adjectives applied.
Political appeal is the art of emotional persuasion. It is indeed an interpretation by the artist of what they view, how they view it from this angle or that, the colors they use, and strokes of the brush.
Peter Dorman thinks it was or used to be something else. It has always been the art of emotional appeal for support of a cause or belief or whatever the objectives of the artist.. .
Watch Bone Spurs’ speech last night. I would suggest no more than 15 seconds at a time in order to protect your brain cells. Then tell me Coates is wrong about him and the entire GOP. Creedence showed Bone Spurs what he was decades ago.
“Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they’re red, white and blue
And when the band plays “Hail to the chief”
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son, son
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no
Yeah, yeah
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, “How much should we give?”
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! y’all
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no military son, son
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, one
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one, no no no
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate son, no no no”
Last night he waved the flag, criticizing Americans for using free speech. Meanwhile, he makes no mention of his war record, which consisted of Bone Spurs and pointing the cannon at everyone but himself.
And the part about the taxman is just too accurate. Fogerty was a psychic.