
America’s Future Is Texas - dankohn1
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/americas-future-is-texas
======
themgt
_Evan Smith, of the Texas Tribune, has closely followed thirteen legislative
sessions. He noted that, even as Dan Patrick and his Republican allies slashed
government services, they allocated eight hundred million dollars for border
security. “White people are scared of change, believing that what they have is
being taken away from them by people they consider unworthy,” he told me. “But
all they’re doing is poking a bear with a stick. In 2004, the Anglo population
in Texas became a minority. The last majority-Anglo high-school class in Texas
graduated in 2014. There will never be another. The reality is, it’s all over
for the Anglos.”

Texas leads the nation in Latino population growth.

For Wu, the sanctuary-cities bill was the natural culmination of the “bigoted,
racist mentality” that has emerged in Texas, which he calls the epicenter of
the Tea Party. “Trump is simply the most visible manifestation of that
mentality,” he told me. “It’s been percolating up in the Republican Party for
the past decade.”_

I find the way this piece is written really emblematic of the sort of two-
faced and bad faith style for which our urban elites are becoming infamous. We
have a number of things going on in the article, but part of the core point is
stated only partially, which is that due to mass immigration the demographics
of Texas are rapidly changing to "majority-minority" in such a way as to
almost guarantee Democratic victory in the near future.

And yet at the same time, the causes of this rapid demographic change are just
barely hinted at, and mainly to not-so-subtly suggest anyone who opposes the
demographic change or wants to enact policy measures to try to stop the trend
is simply backwards, bigoted and naive to political realities.

Trump is president, the GOP is currently ascendent, the political divide in
the country is about as bad as it's ever been and getting worse, and the New
Yorker is seemingly clueless to the way it's perceived by much of the country
when it puts out a barely read-between-the-lines article whose message is: we
will replace your people via mass immigration and you dumb hicks aren't going
to stop it.

If this becomes a country where saying "it’s all over for the Anglos" is
normalized or even celebrated among urban elites, I seriously worry about our
future for any kind of political peace.

~~~
rayiner
The liberal rhetoric against white people has gotten alarming. Replace
"anglos" in those quotes with another ethnic group and the result would be
scary. Can you imagine a purportedly mainstream person cheering, e.g. the
changing demographics of D.C. (where the black majority is rapidly being
replaced by white gentrifiers) in that tone?

~~~
tptacek
Can you be more specific about the rhetoric you're referring to? "Liberal"
means a lot of things, and the subtext behind different mentions of "white"
people varies a lot too. If you're going to wade into this particular debate,
you should be as clear as you can.

It's especially tricky on this thread, because you seem to be responding to a
quote expressing concern about demographic changes in Texas, which carries a
weird subtext of Latinos and African Americans somehow being responsible for
ensuring that they remain minorities. That can't possibly be what you mean.
So, what do you mean?

~~~
rayiner
In this article I'm talking about the quote generalizing about white people:
"white people are scared of change..." and the callous tone of sentences like
"it's over for anglos."

More generally, my circle of friends skews liberal urban professional. My
Facebook feed is full of griping about "white people" being racist, etc.
Supposedly respectable outlets are tweeting stuff like this:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/Salon/status/871028742294036480](https://mobile.twitter.com/Salon/status/871028742294036480).
Can you imagine Salon tweeting something that started "Memo to black people?"
People callously adopt this disrespectful tone when talking about or writing
about white people that they would not when discussing any other race.

I also agree with the point below about celebrating/ being gleeful about the
demographic changes. It's become acceptable to celebrate America becoming non-
majority white in a way that it wouldn't be acceptable to celebrate DC or
Atlanta becoming non-majority black.

~~~
vinceguidry
> Can you imagine Salon tweeting something that started "Memo to black
> people?" People callously adopt this disrespectful tone when talking about
> or writing about white people that they would not when discussing any other
> race.

I think if you want a public dialogue that's not completely vapid, you're
going to have to accept this kind of double standard. There _is_ a class
divide here in the US, and that divide squares up precisely with race.
Speaking to one side of a class divide in a certain way becomes more or less
acceptable over time.

I mean, like it or not, white people have built up generational wealth on the
backs of black people. This continued long after slavery ended and we
subconsciously will do everything we can to maintain that wealth. This tone
might look and feel disrespectful, but what it is is a memo to white people
that if they don't wake up, they're going to lose it.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There is a class divide here in the US, and that divide squares up precisely
> with race.

No, it doesn't. Race is a social divide which correlates with, but does not
align perfectly with, class which is also a social divide.

~~~
vinceguidry
I don't understand your distinction or the underlying mental model you're
using. I don't think of race as a social divide, rather as something that
you're born with and can't escape. A social divide _can_ crop up around it,
but race in and of itself does not necessarily have to create a divide.

For example, in ancient Rome slavery was widespread, but there was no skin
color distinction. Slaves differed from free mostly by clothing. Once they
were free, they could change clothes and change their lives. That didn't
happen in the US, and as a result skin color discrimination often got written
right into the legal code. Such a thing would have been impractical in many
regimes in which slavery was practiced.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I don't think of race as a social divide, rather as something that you're
> born with and can't escape.

Race is a social construct, not a biological fact. (This is evidenced by the
fact that racial identities shift, both “organically” and as the result of
deliberate societal engineering; the effort in revolutionary México typified
by _La Raza Cósmica_ is an example of a (significant in effect, though
incompletely successful) attempt at the latter.

Now, it's true that both of these processes tend to be slow, and the context
of race in which you were born is likely (providing you don't move to a
different part of the world) to be the one in which you live your whole life,
or at least the variation will be small, but that's not because race is
inherent, just that the socisl attribution of race evolved slowly most of the
time.

> A social divide can crop up around it, but race in and of itself does not
> necessarily have to create a divide.

Racial identity is always a social divide; it may or may not be a significant
social divide _in general_ , in specific, concrete terms in the modern US,
however, it's the second most significant such divide, behind that of economic
class.

~~~
angersock
>* Race is a social construct, not a biological fact.*

Odd, given the known epidemiology of sickle-cell anemia and other known issues
like the alcohol flush reaction (Asian glow).

------
matt_wulfeck
> _We’re forming a patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations that is
> eroding the Texas model.” He warned that the “Texas miracle” could become a
> “California nightmare.”_

There's a reason this resonates with voters. As a California resident I can't
stand these things. The desire to legislate everything to a centralized and
partisan ideal. So many rules and so many laws.

And because of the same gerrymandering that the article complains about giving
Republican majority in Texas, there will be nothing new here.

~~~
microcolonel
You're saying, from _California_ , that _Texas_ has the overwhelming desire to
legislate everything?

~~~
vinceguidry
No, he said that over-legislation was one of the things he hates about
California. And then he says that Democrats in California are pulling the same
gerrymandering shenanigans that they did in Texas.

~~~
CalChris
In fact, California did the opposite and voters passed a nonpartisan election
commission.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistri...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission)

------
dtornabene
Going to put this at the top first, we'll see if it has any effect...

Alot of the toplevel replies to this are so tone deaf and ignorant its mind
blowing. For starters, the author is a native texan, as am I, and grew up not
far from where I was born and partially raised. He's well known for his work,
so the sighing and gnashing of teeth about "liberal New Yorker..." is just
dead wrong. He lives in Austin, as well, so this wasn't filed from the fever
swamp imagination of Brooklyn (or whatever ppl visualize when they complain of
NY).

Its also important to note, guessing that many people didn't bother to read
such a long piece, that it dwells almost exclusively on _Republican_ politics
in the state. And not from some inherently antagonistic place. One of the main
interlocutors is Joe Straus, a jewish republican, who is regularly targeted
for replacement by his more radical ostensible colleagues for....wait for
it.....being a Jew in a position of power in Texas. Pretty sure this is so
well known there was a Daily show bit about some years ago.

The title is also quite apt. The condition of Texas demographics, not just
along lines of race but urban/rural, income, education is also representative
of the country at large. As is the vituperative nature of hyper-partisanship.
Many of the points the author raises are similarly covered by other Texan
journalists, like CD Hooks at the Texas Observer (who is excellent btw). And
while other people are savaging Evan Smith here in the thread (wrongly) as
some kind of anti-white race warrior, you could do far far worse than his work
as well. I was born here (I'm here now, actually) I went to college here. I
have family in Texas going back over a 130 years. This is a good piece,
covering an especially bad period in Texas politics(the most recent lege
session has been almost univserally savaged as reactionary, racist as hell and
utterly broken). I hope if anyone bothers to find this comment and is actually
interested in Texas and the state of its politics they'll give it a read.

------
paradite
Okay. Here's something that may or may not be relevant.

I'm a non-native English speaker who have been learning and speaking English
professionally for 8 years and I had no problems reading BBC or CNN. However,
this article was just beyond me. I struggle to understand many long and
convoluted sentence with words that I had never seen before.

I don't know if this is a pattern associated with this particular press or
not, but I really couldn't bother reading this beyond the first few
paragraphs.

~~~
Kluny
No, you're not alone. The New Yorker is famous for using big words to try to
sound smart.

These two sentences, for example:

> Fairly considered, the Texas legislature is more functional than the United
> States Congress, and more genteel than the House of Commons. But a recurrent
> crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed the state’s reputation for
> aggressive know-nothingism and proudly retrograde politics.

As far as I can tell, even though they are in the same paragraph and nominally
about the same topic, and joined together with that "But", they have nothing
to do with each other. To me it looks incoherent.

~~~
greeneggs
Honestly, to me it makes complete sense in context. I'm sorry you were
confused.

It is funny that in your example of "using big words to try to sound smart,"
the biggest word used is "know-nothingism."

But seriously, is it bad that a non-native speaker who is comfortable reading
CNN has trouble with the New Yorker? I'd never heard the too-many-big-words
criticism of the New Yorker before, but CNN is certainly the direct opposite.

~~~
cholantesh
And 'know-nothingism' has a specific historical meaning, one that makes
perfect sense in this context.

>is it bad that a non-native speaker who is comfortable reading CNN has
trouble with the New Yorker

Not especially - they have different audiences: CNN targets a wide demographic
and the NYer targets older, affluent liberals, who tend to have advanced
levels of education. And I'd argue that even their readership might find some
of the stylistic choices made in the NYer annoying - eg: spelling out
numerical amounts rather than using Arabic numbers.

------
jasonrhaas
Basically this article is a boring recount of the history of politics in
Texas. Everyone needs a mantra I guess, Texas has its own thing, like putting
the Texas flag everywhere for example. In Boston and MA, they are obsessed
with their sports teams, in Texas they are obsessed with Texas.

~~~
hkmurakami
Boston is also characterized by its lack of interest in becoming a truly
international city. The prefer to be regional and provincial. I respect them
for rebuffing the Olympics.

------
Simulacra
Duplicate.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14692859)

------
Pxtl
The downvoters have really come out of the woodwork on this thread to protect
the idea that it's okay for the Texan Republican party to gerrymander itself
into permanent majority, drive elections off of social wedge-issues instead of
real policy, and to use anti-science rhetoric to abandon any sane
environmental policy.

~~~
cholantesh
Really makes you question their commitment to free speech.

~~~
Pxtl
I don't doubt their commitment to free speech. HN does not owe anybody a
megaphone. I doubt their commitment to rational thought, to democratic
representation, to a long-term functionally-habitable planet. But not to free
speech.

------
nvahalik
You may all go to hell... I'll be here in Texas.

~~~
bdcravens
The downvotes obviously don't know the original quote:

"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas" \- Davy Crockett when he lost
his congressional bid in Tennessee (the exact circumstances of this quote
vary, made a bit more grandiose over the years)

~~~
smt88
I knew it. I downvoted because it didn't contribute to the discussion.

~~~
bdcravens
That makes sense, and I agree. That said, it does seem extremely jarring if
one doesn't know the context.

------
dtornabene
Pretty sad as well that this is now flagged or throttled off of the front page
(and three following pages as well). Its a good piece.

------
Pxtl
_sigh_ , and now I miss Molly Ivins again.

------
cpr
The usual wide-eyed New Yorker "ain't no one here but us liberals" tone, where
simply listing the actions of the other side is assumed to elicit shock and
horror. A bit tiring.

~~~
joobus
And the name-calling as evidence and proof of superiority:

> Texas is as politically divided as the rest of the U.S., but a recurrent
> crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed its reputation for proud know-
> nothingism and retrograde thinking.

The author is proudly preaching to the liberal New Yorker's choir.

~~~
rndmize
When I see articles discussing how Texas has sizable influence on textbook
content and their Board of Education pushing for creationist or anti-evolution
content to be taught; or when I hear Alex Jones is promoting some new
conspiracy theory; or that the actual Governor of Texas has called out the
state troopers to keep an eye on the Army's Jade Helm training exercises...

Look, maybe the sources I rely on are biased, but I never hear about stuff
like this from other states. When your governor starts buying into conspiracy
theory material, and _acting_ on it, I start to feel that "know-nothingism and
retrograde thinking" may actually fall a bit short.

------
xname2
Why is the assumption that replacing whites with Hispanics is good for the
country? Seriously.

~~~
lubujackson
I will respond seriously. Firsf of all, it has nothing to do with "replacing"
and everything to do with "accepting them also". Despite rose-colored glasses,
America has a long tradition of despising every wave of immigrants that has
come to the country. From the "dumb Pollacks" and the "dirty Italians" to the
"lazy Hispanics" and "terrorist Muslims", Americans have always looked at
immigration with fondness from afar and revulsion up close.

Over time, that "otherness" has always baked itself into the fabric of our
country over a couple generations, but there are some particular challenges
for this wave. Mainly skin color and strong religious differences (for
Muslims).

The whole "Spanish language everywhere!" problem is generational. First wave
Italians didn't speak English either, but their children did.

So I think the anti-immigration vibe is nothing new and part of the process.
Liberals might be making things harder by pushing for cultural
preservation/independence rather than (through indifference) encouraging
assimilation. I don't think supporting different cultures living side by side
ever works out long term. If we either side can stop being so extreme in their
approach, maybe we can continue our national process of assimilation and
(begrudgedly) open arms to immigrants.

~~~
xname2
When I said "replacing", I meant the proportion, i.e. majority/ minority
change, as the article suggested.

I think you understated the similarities between Americans and Irishs /
Italians, and understated the differences between Americans and Hispanics /
Muslims. Not sure whether you did this intentionally, but it is so obvious
that Americans / Irishs / Italians are part of western culture, they have
differences, but they belong to one big group. On the other hand, Southern
American / Middle East belong to non-western culture. The latter is even
worse, it is anti-western culture. When you look at the countries, US / UK /
EU countries are similar, but Southern America countries are different from US
/ UK / EU countries, and Middle East countries are extremely different. Did
you intentionally blind yourself?

Also, we lived in a different time with two important changes: 1. welfare
state. 2. far-left ideology (multiculturalism, post-modernism, etc.) becomes
norm

~~~
tptacek
What shared heritage do the Irish and Italians have that the Irish don't also
share with the (overwhelmingly Catholic) Mexicans? They don't eat the same
food. They don't speak the same language (in a linguistic sense, Mexicans have
more kinship with most of Europe than the Irish, who preserve a Gaelic
tradition as well). They don't listen to the same music. They don't live in
the same places. They don't grow up hearing the same stories --- outside of
the biblical stories that they share with the Mexicans. They don't have the
same kinds of governments.

Apart from a shared complexion --- a complexion, by the way, that we used to
_dispute_ was "white" in the case of Italians --- what ties a Irishman to an
Italian?

~~~
xname2
Are you trying to tell me "western culture" or "western civilization" is a
fake concept? If you don't see Ireland and Italian belongs to one group, and
Mexico belongs to another, I don't see how we can communicate. Our worldview
is just too different.

~~~
tptacek
I feel like the questions I just posed left you a whole lot of room to rebut
me specifically. Can you do so?

~~~
xname2
You want me to tell you what is western culture ?

~~~
tptacek
As I said above, I would like you to spell out what elements of culture
Italians share with Irishmen, but not with Mexicans.

~~~
xname2
They do not exist. You win.

~~~
tptacek
Then what are you referring to when you talk about "western culture"?

------
meddlepal
America's future is splitting apart into several geographic and autonomous
regions with a centralized military.

~~~
eo3x0
That's a great idea. We should call them States.

~~~
meddlepal
I was thinking more like regions composing several states. As a New Englander
like hell I want people south of NY making political decisions for me. I don't
feel a strong association or any affection for the South, Midwest or West.
They're places with their own problems none of which I care about.

~~~
throwaway91111
Heh, in my experience most of new england geographically feels that way about
Boston. People can feel disillusioned, alienated, and isolated at any level.
There's no natural state size.

~~~
meddlepal
Totally agree that Boston dominates New England. As someone who grew up and
lived outside of the Boston metro people __always __complained about Boston 's
dominance of local and regional politics. That said, there is a very strongly
shared cultural identity throughout Massachusetts and New England that unites
us far more than the cultural and linguistic identity that exists between more
geographically distant areas.

The only thing I can tell you that I have in common with the average Georgian
or Texan is that we probably both speak English, enjoy hot dogs, and watching
Football and Baseball. That's not much of a strong reason for us to both be in
a strong political, economic and militaristic union.

~~~
kirse
_The only thing I can tell you that I have in common with the average Georgian
or Texan is that we probably both speak English, enjoy hot dogs, and watching
Football and Baseball. That 's not much of a strong reason for us to both be
in a strong political, economic and militaristic union._

You're right, those aren't strong reasons at all because they're entirely
self-centered. Here's a hint -- our union wasn't founded and littered with
blood and bodies on the basis of trying to make sure everyone had the highest
possible match percentage on eHarmony.

------
briandear
Doesn’t anyone ever complain about “left wing zealots?” The Berkeley
government is filled with them but publications such as the New Yorker rarely
bat an eye.

Texas does have Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee who famously inquired about
the flag on Mars the astronauts left as well as being the worst boss in
Washington among congressional staffers – yet the New Yorker wrings their
hands about “right wing zealots.”

Ignorance ought to be condemned regardless of political party.

~~~
coldtea
The conservative side is today associated with blue colar jobs and the poor
(especially white poor).

People doing journalism, especially in large cities like NY, would not want to
be seen dead among those people.

~~~
robotresearcher
And yet somehow I see stories in the media about the working poor, coal
communities, rural medicaid recipients, etc, pretty much every single day.

~~~
coldtea
Those with old-school leftist leanings will report ON them, but not OF their
opinions (except to sneer them, from the viewpoint of "I know what's best for
you").

Others, who have left such old-style leftist leanings behind, will just sneer
at them or report what they know: their urban upper/middle class echo bubble
and white people's problems (of which, high on the list is a paternalistic
concern for the lives of non-whites).

~~~
robotresearcher
NPR had an entire show about coal-country, where apart from some setup, the
whole thing was local people speaking for themselves, about their personal
concerns. Their own voices.

It was a interesting show, and the opposite of sneering.

~~~
coldtea
NPR is not the New Yorker or tons of other similar outlets (including most
major newspapers)...

~~~
robotresearcher
Do you find any sneering in this New Yorker piece?

[http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-
lives-...](http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-lives-of-
poor-white-people)

