What really tweaks the brain is that Vance is married to an Indian American, and has three children with her. In the service of white supremacy, that does conflict, as shown by the reaction of the rank and file to Usha Vance in the past couple weeks.
Kinda - bigots will more than happily use someone of color (or someone married to someone who is) if that person is willing to say the "right" things. Maybe even espeically so, as they can then point to them as examples of how they couldn't possibly be racist/bigoted. But look at Clarence Thomas. At Mitch McConnell's wife. Belonging to a minority or being married to someone who does is in no way a guarantee. Somehow, this does make sense, somehow opportunity + deep-seated biases mix into the Vances, Thomases, and McConnells we see in action today.
Agree. Moreover it's far from rare for public figures to exhibit dissonance (hypocrisy) between their public statements and actions and private behavior. Go back to our thrid POTUS and that was the case.
Well said. To me, it does seem a natural outgrowth of the earlier version of Vance. His antipathy towards his own people, combined with his obvious and understandable desire to do better than many of his peers (and his early success in bootstrapping his life), led him to Silicon Valley and subsequently politics.
Along the way, “mentors” rewarded him for his antipathy, thus creating a positive feedback loop – and spotlighted a transactional path forward.
Does he know better or at least feel a tweak of moral pain? Yes – I suspect he does, or he did, however the persistence of rewards following his bad behavior overcame any internal struggle…and now look where he is. I suspect the moral conflict is largely gone.
What really tweaks the brain is that Vance is married to an Indian American, and has three children with her. In the service of white supremacy, that does conflict, as shown by the reaction of the rank and file to Usha Vance in the past couple weeks.
Kinda - bigots will more than happily use someone of color (or someone married to someone who is) if that person is willing to say the "right" things. Maybe even espeically so, as they can then point to them as examples of how they couldn't possibly be racist/bigoted. But look at Clarence Thomas. At Mitch McConnell's wife. Belonging to a minority or being married to someone who does is in no way a guarantee. Somehow, this does make sense, somehow opportunity + deep-seated biases mix into the Vances, Thomases, and McConnells we see in action today.
Agree. Moreover it's far from rare for public figures to exhibit dissonance (hypocrisy) between their public statements and actions and private behavior. Go back to our thrid POTUS and that was the case.
Especially like your emphasizing that right wing speech and actions attract big dollars from the right wing wealthy.
That was the lesson for me watching George Santos. I kept wondering, What keeps him going!?
Finally, I had to admit the obvious. When people say and do those awful things, Some billionaire hands them a stuffed envelope.
I think this is where our community of friends and family are most needed, to keep us from being vulnerable to that level of primitive affirmation.
Thanks a lot for this.
Well said. To me, it does seem a natural outgrowth of the earlier version of Vance. His antipathy towards his own people, combined with his obvious and understandable desire to do better than many of his peers (and his early success in bootstrapping his life), led him to Silicon Valley and subsequently politics.
Along the way, “mentors” rewarded him for his antipathy, thus creating a positive feedback loop – and spotlighted a transactional path forward.
Does he know better or at least feel a tweak of moral pain? Yes – I suspect he does, or he did, however the persistence of rewards following his bad behavior overcame any internal struggle…and now look where he is. I suspect the moral conflict is largely gone.