Well, of course, "less."
No reasonable person can deny that there have been enormous strides. Overt, formally sanctioned legal racism is effectively gone now, though I would claim that there are many laws still on the books that perpetuate the consequences of former policy. And I am of the school of thought that believes that the primary problem continues to be white racism, despite attempts to equate “black/brown pride” with it, and all of the “Imagine if
whites had [done/said this/that] instead of [a racial minority]” talk. I’ll elaborate more on that at the end of this post.
What concerns me, but is not surprising in that it exists, is the prevalence of white populism, which is an outgrowth of what’s known as “angry white male syndrome.” The foundations of this belief are generally present in the mindsets of social conservatives.
I want to make it emphatically clear that I am not saying or suggesting that the majority of social conservatives are Klan members or anything so vile. I’m instead saying that the shared angry white male syndrome of many social conservatives and overt racists is the foundation for racist and bigoted attitudes and beliefs, which is why it’s more difficult for a socially leftist person to be a racist in the vein of white nationalism and associated movements.
The reason that white racism naturally meshes with the conservative mindset is because the conservative has notions of equality of opportunity existing in the U.S., despite the fact that if pushed, they will generally admit that free-market capitalism does
not exist, which should actually be a major clue that the statist interventionism that characterizes U.S. economic history has not produced moral outcomes. So the conservative sees racial minorities “unfairly getting a leg up,” thanks to social welfare and affirmative action programs, and is indignant. Why is it that others should receive extra benefits merely by virtue of their race, when whites who work just as hard as everyone else are relegated to an underclass position because of whatever the sins of their long-dead ancestors might have been? That is a form of reverse racism! That was exactly what was supposed to have been eradicated. It’s only natural that white social conservatives will be resentful, and non-white social conservatives sympathetic to that resentment.
Now, humans have a tendency to conceive of things in terms of generalities, since we can’t reasonably account for every minor exception to rules, and will look to what’s regularly the norm instead of occasional deviations. As a result, since most recipients of welfare are thought to be racial minorities (though that’s not necessarily true; more whites receive welfare than blacks simply because there are more of them), and since most recipients of affirmative action are racial minorities (alongside females, and while that’s a separate topic, the angry white male conceives of them similarly), their race and color becomes a convenient mechanism for quickly and effectively categorizing them, since they are
generally composed of racial minorities, the conservative believes.
And since the users of “nanny state” programs are simply obtaining rewards without having worked for them (with the conservative belief in equality of opportunity always central, since this entire mindset is dependent upon it), they are engaging in immoral behavior. From an initial point of equality, they have actually descended into
inferiority, since they are the ones that lack responsibility and self-discipline, and are instead reliant on free handouts from the nanny state that they did not work to receive. And the race categorization mechanism means that these immoral people are associated with racial minorities.
This is a subconscious thought process, but its evolution into a conscious thought process (i.e. racial minorities clearly use these programs more than whites, and are generally more immoral than whites as a result) breeds further mental inquiry (perhaps these racial minorities have an inherent disposition to be dependent on whites, since they cannot be self-reliant), and possibly serves as a springboard to white nationalism, a doctrine of white racial supremacy. Here is an example of angry white male syndrome taken to the extreme of full-fledged white populism:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Stormfront
The tea party crowd are comprised of ordinary White Americans, just as White Nationalists are. Culturally and traditionally, they're basically the same as White Nationalists - both rooted in the earlier paleo-conservative value system. The only difference might be that the neo-conservatives seem to think they can manipulate the tea partiers much more easily than they can manipulate White Nationalists. Of course, from the liberal side, the only thing they can throw out is the "race card," so therefore they will keep using the label of "racist" against the tea partiers. "Racist" is really the only rhetorical weapon the liberals have in their arsenal, and since they disingenuously overuse that label as much as they do, even that is starting to lose its power.
Instead of mindlessly throwing around labels like "racist," liberals might actually have to make real, genuine arguments in the future - something they've proven incapable of doing. They've come to rely so much on calling people "racist" to get their way, they use it mostly as a crutch these days.
As we can see, the foundations for white populism do exist in the social conservative mindset, though the transformation to explicitly racist beliefs is relatively uncommon. But the common resentment can be seen:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Stormfront
I think that the slander "racist" is thrown around indiscriminately, against anyone who is white who organizes against the government.
In your own post, you made the statement that since 90% of the Tea Partiers were white, it must evidence that they are racists. Its a fraudulent association. If there was an organization that is 90% of Black, or 90% Mestizo, or 90% Jewish, or even a 90% Non-White, regardless of background, would you use that as evidence that said organization is racist. If your answer is no, then its hypocrisy.
As an aside, the CNN poll states that the Tea Partier movement is 80% white, 10% hispanic, 2% Black, 8% other. And of course these are self-identifications. There is no reason to assume these percentages are in line with true racial background.
Basically, the Tea Partiers just want to be left alone by the government, and I don't think they have much more ideology than that. Less Government, Less Taxes, Less Bureacracy, less government Social Engineering, thats the tea partier goal. Because, this is in direct contradiction of the Multicults program, more government to make more social Engineering, enforced by thugs with guns and billy clubs at any expense, the Tea Partiers are on the firing line. However the Multicult can't just come out and say, "you want too much freedom, you want too much liberty" they instead call them Racists. And Academia, supports this by defining Racist as anyone who doesn't want to be socially engineered.
The people on SF who call themselves WN, for the most part, just want to be left alone by the government, they don't want to be social engineered either. However, because social engineering is painful and oppressive, many people are radicallized and pushed into a rage, and basically provoked into being "mean". And then of course the Multicult points to the result while ignoring the cause.