During CNN’s Election Night coverage, former Obama adviser Van Jones argued that the 2016 election was “a whitelash against a changing country. It was a whitelash against a black president, in part.”
Jones said, “This was many things. I — this was a rebellion against the elites, true. It was a complete reinvention of politics and polls. It’s true. But it was also something else. We’ve talked about race – we’ve talked about everything but race tonight. … This was a whitelash. This was a whitelash against a changing country. It was a whitelash against a black president, in part. [Van Jones: This Election Was A "Whitelash" In Part by Ian Hanchett; Breitbart.com, November 8, 2016.]I bet this was a factor, though probably a minor one.
Van Jones of course casts it in terms of "hate": white people lashing out in futile rage against "a changing country" and "a black president."
Note the meteorological language there. The country is "changing." Nothing you can do about it! It's like the weather!
Americans know better. The country is changing because of political decisions and executive action (or inaction). With different decisions and a different executive, the changing will stop.
As for negativity towards a black president: Where was that negativity in 2008 and 2012?
I doubt anti-black "hate" was much of a factor. What mattered much more was anti-antiwhite feeling.
How long did we think white people would meekly put up with hearing themselves — their race, their ancestors, their families, their civilization — belittled and insulted in our schools and colleges, on TV and movie screens?
At some point the worm was bound to turn: not with any kind of a "lash," just with a: "Hey, okay, that's enough of that." Not a "whitelash" but an anti-antiwhite shrug of rejection.
Again, I doubt this was a major factor. Talking to people and reading my email this past few weeks, though, it mattered at some level.