It occurs to me that there’s nothing more useless in the world than a journalist or a historian who fails to follow the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable that truth may be.
Good for you.
That said, I would have to caution you on your conclusions. We agree that these “new generation racists” (the term “alt-right” has been incorrectly laid on so many people over the last two years that it’s lost meaning) are an abomination — — however, they remain marginalized in our society which has almost universally rejected racism over the last two generations. (I think one can comfortably conclude that if 90%+ of white voters would vote for a black person for President, then racism is marginalized.)
President Trump, for his part, has obscured the racist underpinnings of his immigration policy by arguing that it’s an issue of national security.
It’s essential here to point out that a policy that affects RACE is not necessarily racIST. There’s no question that Trump’s ideas on immigration disproportionally impact various races and religions differently; however, you cannot conclude a person’s motivation from his actions when other explanations exist. That’s dishonest reasoning.
Understanding how the Klan normalized and obscured their racist ideas to such profound effect — thanks in no small part to the WKKK and the role of women — allows us to draw a clear throughline to the present day, a moment when the majority of white females who voted, pulled the lever for a candidate who pandered to, and was backed by, white supremacists. ‘
Same problem. You’re attempting to draw conclusions about the process from the outcome.
Suppose you were on a jury. The prosecution makes its case, and rests. The defense attorney stands up to make his/her case for the defendant, but instead the jury leaps to its feet and says “no need, we’ve heard enough, we’re ready to vote.”
That’s essentially what you’re doing in the above two paragraphs.