All Episodes
Previous Next
March 3, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
16:15
Primary Elections are Racist
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Are the primaries racist?
Nope.
Okay, I know it's huge to call the primary elections racist.
Not coming from you, Francesca.
That's actually exactly what everyone would expect you to say.
Are you even aware of how much of your own content is focused on race?
I mean, do you even understand how much you personally talk about race?
It seems to be your entire career, and this is just what I could be bothered to go through your back catalogue and pick out in five minutes.
As with the last video I did analyzing Francesca's pathology, I'm going to address her points in a different order to which she presents them because I think it makes it easier to understand exactly where she's coming from.
However, I would recommend you watch the entire video, of course, a link will be in the description, so you can see that I'm not taking her out of context or misrepresenting her arguments.
But to see it, all you have to do is look at two states, Iowa and New Hampshire.
You really do have to beware of snake oil salesmen.
Sorry, saleswomen.
Sorry, salespersons.
They'll tell you that the world is very much like one of those old magic eye pictures, that there is actually a secret reality behind reality.
And the thing with this rather conspiratorial line of thinking is that it completely discounts the idea of free agency.
Again, it can't be that the world is as it is because of the independent choices of individuals without any kind of grand plan.
What you're looking at can't possibly be the result of people simply living in a free society.
No, no.
This system is racist, which means it must have been designed with intent.
You can't be accidentally racist because racism is prejudice.
It requires you to pre-judge people based on a select characteristic.
So for example, in this case, if there is good evidence that in fact black people can make it in the American political system, then we should be really careful before we actually sit there and go, you know what?
The system's racist.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm by no means saying the American system is perfect.
So why don't you tell us exactly how it works Francesca, and then we'll go on to your snake oil.
So if you don't know, every four years before the presidential elections, the Republican and Democratic parties hold primary elections to determine who they think should be president.
The primaries are basically the election before the big election.
Since 1980, every eventual party nominee except Bill Clinton in 1992 has won either the Iowa or New Hampshire primary, and everyone who's won both states has gotten their party's presidential nomination.
There's a lot of evidence that if you don't win at least one of these two primaries, you're basically not going to be president.
Okay, so why is Iowa first and New Hampshire second?
I'm guessing that these states were chosen for distinctly racist reasons.
Specifically, to prevent black candidates from advancing because all of the people in Iowa and New Hampshire are actually remarkably racist, so they won't vote for them.
No one's saying the people of Iowa or New Hampshire are all racist.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm genuinely surprised that that's your position, but I'm glad to hear you say it.
So why exactly is Iowa first?
After 1968, the Democratic Party spread out the primary schedule, and Iowa scheduled theirs first because the Iowa caucus is weird and complicated.
And since New Hampshire had always gone first, suddenly they became number one, number two.
Pretty arbitrary.
Okay, but by saying arbitrary, that means that it wasn't done for racist reasons.
I mean, that's literally what arbitrary means.
But even then, I think it's interesting that you say it was done by the Democrats.
It's weird that they would change the system with the intention of being racist, isn't it, Francesca?
But you said the Iowa caucus is weird and complicated, and I'm gonna guess that something weird and complicated isn't actually arbitrary.
I'm going to guess that there are actual reasons behind this.
You wanted to gloss over and then just tell everyone, well, it's just arbitrary.
There's no reason for it.
You know, I'm just going to go to Google.
Hang on.
So, why is the Iowa caucus first?
I can Google it even if you can't, Francesca.
Hmm.
Maybe I'll look at the Washington Post article.
I mean, it's written by Ezra Klein.
I'm pretty sure he's a really unbiased and reliable source of information.
So let's see why.
I mean, he's interviewing a chap.
So Iowa is not a rich state.
It's not a big state.
It's not a traditionally powerful state.
So how did it get the enormous gift of kicking off the presidential primary process year after year after year?
By accident is the answer.
Oh, okay.
So not a racist reason then.
Not to prevent black people from having a fair shake at the presidential nomination or even in their voting rights.
It's sort of a funny story.
In 1972, the revised Democratic rules coming out of the 68 debacle required that notice be given of caucuses and primaries that would select party delegates.
Prior to that, party bosses could schedule primaries without telling anyone.
But the new rules required a 30-day requirement.
Iowa's system has four parts.
The caucus, then the county convention, then the congressional district conventions, then the state conventions.
So to give a 30-day notice for all of them, Iowa had to start advertising early.
It's not really that arbitrary, is it?
In fact, it's actually really logical and rational.
If you've got a really complicated system and you need lots of notice, it might be wise to go first.
So you have the 30-days notice.
I mean, I don't know, maybe, what do I know?
I'm probably a white supremacist.
As the first two primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire have serious clout.
Why?
Well, it's kind of like a magic trick.
One, simply because their first candidates spent a ton of time and money there.
Okay, so the fact that this is being done sequentially gives us a non-racist reason as to why candidates spend a ton of time and money there.
Two, the media then talks about these states a lot because they're first and candidates are spending a lot of time and money there.
Okay, so again, we don't have a racist reason.
We actually have the reason we had before.
It's sequential.
Three.
Then when a candidate wins one of these states, the media makes a big deal out of it and voters in the rest of the country think, well, here are the serious contenders.
They won a primary.
Okay, setting aside the fact that you have no idea what other people think, let's assume you're right.
The thing is, they don't think that because the media tells them to think that.
They think that because winning elections is what makes you a serious candidate.
And in Iowa, the candidates who won the primary are a woman and a Hispanic man.
I take it you see absolutely no irony at all that in New Hampshire, the two outsiders who won it were white men.
A sane person would look at this and say, well, the US political system probably isn't institutionally racist against non-whites in the same way that it's clearly not institutionally sexist against women.
4.
This inspires voters and donors to give lots of money to those serious contenders.
Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever?
Or is this just your conjecture?
Because if I was going to engage in conjecture, I would suggest that people who are prepared to donate money to political parties already know who they're donating to before the primary caucuses begin.
5.
Abracadabra!
Momentum begets momentum, and Iowa and New Hampshire maintain their magic predictive abilities.
Kind of a shitty magic trick when you can see the string.
The magic trick you're talking about is the inevitable consequence of a sequential system.
So your attempt to prove the institutional racism of a system that twice elected a black man to be el presidente has actually demonstrated that the system is not set up to discriminate based on racial lines, or gender lines for that matter.
Now, again, I'm not saying that there is no racism in the system.
There will, of course, be individuals operating within this system who are racist, and who are sexist and who are whatever.
But apparently these people are not a majority within the system.
These people seem incapable of holding a black person back from the most powerful political office on the planet.
So I guess it's time for Francesca to really break out the snake oil.
If you look at the hours of primary coverage in these two states, you'll notice something missing.
People of colour.
You know what?
I didn't notice that.
But I'm going to take a guess that the reason for this is not the racism of the media.
It's because there are lots and lots and lots of white people there.
A recent census poll states that 87% of Iowa and 91% of New Hampshire identify as white non-Hispanic.
Let me guess, and that's more white people than you are comfortable with.
Which even by US standards is really, really white.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, let's see how you go on to justify this excessive amount of focus on race.
I'm going to guess we're going to need a second bottle of snake oil, aren't we, Francesca?
The entire population of the United States is 62% white non-Hispanic.
So?
So Iowa and New Hampshire just aren't representative of America.
No, they're representative of Iowa and New Hampshire.
They aren't casting other people's votes.
Jesus, this is getting really weird.
I think we're going to need more snake oil.
People of colour are thus disenfranchised by not being represented and by having lots of candidates drop out before they even have a chance to vote.
And voila, textbook institutional racism.
Voila!
Oh, fuck me!
Sorry about that.
Now, Francesca, you haven't demonstrated how anyone's being disenfranchised.
As you have just said, there are non-white people in these states.
They are allowed to vote, so they are not being disenfranchised.
But more importantly, the fact that people in other states might not be able to vote for their first candidate because that candidate has chosen to drop out also affects white people.
This is not racial discrimination, Francesca.
The white people who are not in these states also didn't get to vote for their preferred candidates.
Nobody does if those candidates drop out.
No one's saying the people of Iowa or New Hampshire are all racist, but whether intentional or not, the primary system is an example of institutional racism.
Holy shit, we are going to need a fucking crate load of snake oil to explain this.
Because even though a black man won the presidency and a Latino man won Iowa, the percentage of people of color in those states is so low that the primary system basically lets candidates ignore the concerns of people of color early on, simply because they aren't in those states to voice their concern.
Bloody hell, Francesca.
I'm just going to skip over your mind-reading abilities, because they are, frankly, preternatural.
I cannot understand how you're able to accurately represent what these candidates think merely by the fact that they're talking to white people or non-white people.
That's amazing.
This is like a D ⁇ D paladin detecting evil.
You can just see it.
Unbelievable.
I mean, that's such- that's a gift, Francesca.
I can see why so much of your work is based on race now.
So let me see if I can follow your argument.
You're saying that because there are fewer non-white people in these states, that presidential candidates will ignore the fact that they have to win as many states as possible, including states with higher numbers of non-white people, and can simply say, fuck non-white issues.
Fuck them.
As if this wouldn't be political suicide later on down your campaign.
And as if the people who are running, in this case, Obama and Cruz, aren't also non-white.
But you're also saying that the only way these people can have their voices heard is by living in the state where the primary is taking place.
But more than that, you seem to think that politicians care more about race than they do about policies.
Now, I don't know that they don't, because I'm not a mind reader, but I'm suggesting that they actually talk a lot more about policy than they do race.
Therefore, I'm going to presume that this is what they're interested in.
However, this is clearly something that is a smokescreen.
It's clearly a lie.
How do I know this?
Well, Inquisitor Francesca Ramsey has told me so.
She is able to see into the hearts of these politicians and see them just ignoring minority issues as if minorities do not have these same issues as white people.
And again, it's not just minorities who are being disenfranchised in this way.
Other white people around the country get to be disenfranchised in exactly the same way.
There is no discrimination based on race.
But that would be really inconvenient to frame this as.
So, in fact, we'll say that they're just a bunch of racists.
The whole primary system's racist.
Everything's fucking racist.
That's how Francesca Ramsey is going to rationalize this.
B.
No, forget everything about this.
Forget everything about what you said and the fact that it would be completely working against the individual politicians' own interests to do exactly as you have suggested.
Let's suggest you have identified a problem.
Okay, so what's the solution?
We could have a national primary for our national election, you know, for the biggest job in the nation.
But that makes too much sense.
Holy hell, Francesca, that would be a fucking clusterfuck.
There is a reason you do it sequentially, and it's to make it as easy as possible.
Surely, I mean, well, maybe, I mean, the system could have been set up by a bunch of fucking racist white men with the aim of keeping black and non-white people down.
But I would have thought it's because doing things sequentially is cleaner and simpler and frankly going to be more manageable.
Do you have any other ideas?
I mean, it's a sequential system.
It's probably the easiest way to do it.
Someone has to go first, go.
Or we can at least find more representative states.
According to a recent NPR study, the state whose racial makeup, median age, household income, and religiosity most closely match the national average is Illinois, followed by Kansas.
Right, so that is what it comes down to for you.
You want the aggregate figure of racial demographics in the US, along with age, income, and religiosity, to be the deciding factor, despite the fact these demographics change over time.
Because that really is what this is about, isn't it?
It's about taking the numbers and making them as much the same as possible.
So while no state is perfect...
No state is perfect.
What are you talking about?
Of course, no state is a perfect representation of the average of all of the states in the United States.
I feel like I'm explaining this to a child.
There is no average person.
There is no average state.
Because to get to an average, you have half on one side and half on the other.
Why would you even think to look for such a thing?
If we gotta do this primary state by state, Illinois sounds like a better and more representative choice than continuing to massively disenfranchise people of colour.
Because Iowa needs 30 days' notice, Francesca.
If you had actually taken the time to look at the reason for this, rather than going, well, that's very complicated.
Let's just assume it's arbitrary.
Then you would have the reason why it's not Illinois.
▲
Export Selection