When reading the alt-right threads on nettime I have long had the suspicion that we may be engaged in a little beltway politics—politics meaningful within a minor sphere, but not of the greatest consequence outside that sphere. I have lived in Trump country (rural central New York and the Florida panhandle) for a while now. I have had extended conversations with Trump voters and observe how they behave in real space. Not a lot happening here with the alt-right. The over the age of 40 voters (the category most likely to vote and do so consistently) do not seem to be very digitally inclined. Partly because of a lack of interest, and partly because of the cost. Data plans are expensive and satellite internet is even worse. Their preference is for talk and text. Even email is often an imposition. I cannot speak with any certainty, but my impression is that those who support Trump and associated populist ideas were not inspired by an alt-right troll on 4chan working his meme machine to serve the God Emperor. They wouldn’t even know what 4chan or internet “free speech” sites are. Rather, I believe it comes from ideological predispositions passed through the generations dating back to the 19th and 18th centuries. For example the first Bundy uprising was over a century in the making stemming from disputes between ranchers and the government regarding regulation of public land. The key institution for ideological distribution and political organization is the church. This institution may not be a very useful a place to examine and explain the motivations of the secular libertarians, but it is very useful in explaining the motivations of many of the core of Trump voters. White evangelicals and LDS have taken the moral majority turn of the 80s and have ever since believed that they serve God through political participation. After nearly 40 years of frustration, they have accepted the Trumpian/Faustian bargain of surrendering their principles for power. In exchange for voter loyalty and for acting as an alibi for his new-found piety, Trump rewards them by legitimizing their particularized sexist and racist prejudices and transforms them into public policy. However, a generational split is emerging (particularly among southern Baptists—membership 15 million—almost all Trump voters) in which younger people want to introduce more tolerance into the church (such as battered wives should not be required to stay with the abusive spouse—really, not being sarcastic) and want to separate themselves from Trump and what they perceive as his hypocrisy and immorality. In that split is a real chance to disrupt that voting bloc, and deal a real blow to the republican base that holds the US hostage by just returning the evangelicals to the pre-80s position that truly religious people should be outside corrupt political process, so one should not vote. Finally, let’s not forget all the snail mail (that’s right, snail mail) sent to them by the NRA and the network of right wing think tanks and political action committees.
>From my point of view, if the goal is to understand the primary configurations >of the American right so as to more efficiently disrupt or reroute its current >political tendency, the alt-right is somewhat of a luxury (although it is a >fascinating cultural studies exercise in examining fringe subcultures). The >heavily capitalized right-wing think networks and especially the churches >(southern Baptists, LDS, and American Catholics are over 100 million people >with the vast majority being US citizens), where so much on-the-ground >organization happens, seem to be the places to infiltrate and disrupt. >Breaking large blocs of millions of voters (social conservatives in this case) >would seem to be a better strategy than focusing on alt-right cartoons and >other conservative stereotypes that number at best in the tens of thousands, >and, as we have seen, are not very well organized and certainly not united. >This is the flipside of the coin of Brian’s more positive approach of >constructing more and better counter institutions and organizations (which we >do also need). The one immediate problem is the one alt-right personality, Steven Miller, who is in the White House and seems to have some influence over immigration policy. A vast coalition has answered the tactical call to confound his policies and the most extreme have been stopped or modified (although the residual damage has been profound for thousands of people). It appears to me that most of this pressure was applied through old-fashioned organization that is the property of no particular political affiliation. As long as national politics with its parallel companion electoral politics continues to be the dominant form of organizational conflict, the best thing digital media can do is develop the most nuanced means for identifying voters and their motivations. However, my amateur, impressionistic, qualitative sociology may be incorrect. I am happy to be proven wrong. So if there are any social statisticians or demographers lurking out there, please speak up. I fear we desperately need to get a valid and reliable sense of proportionality. Steve PS Anyone want to come with me to the next Southern Baptist convention?
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
