In terms of whether political correctness goes so far as to argue that "everyone is racist" that is to some extent true. The problem is that racism is an ideology and not simply the product of the views of a single individual. Racism is a lasting set of cultural prejudices and stereotypes which mean that discriminatory practices are perpetuated even in conditions where races are legally treated as equal.
nowadays racism is rarely a coherent position which individuals self-consciously derive a sense of self-worth outside of the far right. However the legacies of racism continue to affect us all. The problem for political correctness is how tolerance of lesser degrees of racism risks a slippery slope to tolerance of ideologically more coherent racism, as well as combating racist views which exist in the mainstream of society but are legitimised purely but not being part of a coherent ideology. Trump- whilst not openly nazi in terms of ideological racism- nevertheless legitimises the more incoherent forms, gives them publicity and a politically more respectable authority to present their views. The "Trump brand" means that people feel vindicated in expressing racist views because it has become acceptable for a successful billionaire to express singular statements that are highly prejudicial, stereotypical and discriminatory BUT does not represent a coherent "ideological" racism such as Nazism. Trump is a populist who uses anxieties and fears over racial difference to support his campaign. By doing so he helps bring the more extreme forms of racism into the mainstream by making expressing such views respectable.
Gotta stop here because of assertion: The "Trump brand" means that people feel vindicated in expressing racist views because it has become acceptable for a successful billionaire to express singular statements that are highly prejudicial, stereotypical and discriminatory BUT does not represent a coherent "ideological" racism such as Nazism.
Expressing views on racial differences does not make for racist views. Or, I'd like to see you provide example of expressing racial differences that rise to level of racism. For if this were remotely accurate, then BLM in both name and likely many other expressions would be inherently racist. As I don't believe that, then I'm not going in that direction until, unless I see what you come up with for Trump in equating expressions of racial differences mean manifesting racism. As I do realize you are asserting something slightly different (regarding supporters, more so than Trump), I'd rather make it front and center with examples than making this about "Trump brand."
For the way I interpret what you are getting at, but spun clockwise, is that the Left has stoked fears and anxieties around all identity differences, as a (populist) way to garner votes and attempted to corner all discussions in this vein through the misguided practice of political correctness. Not just in the past few months, but past few decades. And Trump has brought this to a forefront by having the nerve to counter that. Of course that's going to be ugly at times, and going to engage in discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping to counter the Left's ugly version of those traits. There's a bunch of debate points to be had here, some of which when they present Trump would be, IMO, impossible to not see Trump as engaging in high level of prejudice, and likely on occasion, bigotry. At other times, I think it is countering what is the PC understandings and logic of how the discussion must also be framed. This thread's title / main subject being one of those examples. PC rushed to judgment of 'racism' and ran with that for all its worth. Suggesting this is 'textbook version' of racism. Not just the Left, but people on the Right. I am yet to see anyone defend this in a coherent way. Thus, Trump had actually countered this approach before and after his controversial, prejudice remark.
I would consider myself someone who aspires to be politically correct, but the increasing power and influence of the far right means that this is now a largely failed model, particularly because it does not take the concerns regarding free speech into account. Many people who do not support coherent racist ideologies come to the defence of the far-right in the name of free speech and a fair amount of this also gets attention in the press as well because racial anxieties over immigration, crime and terrorism sell newspapers.
The problem is how you draw a line between individuals views, the way mass media can spread such views and how they then play an active role in deterring people's behaviour, political affiliations and voting habits.
Trump is not a Nazi and does not represent the "ideological" coherent racism that is both very terrifying and more obvious. Instead it is a much more incoherent set of starements that exploit people's fears and utilises them to get them to vote. Political correctness has to evolve from simply making expressing racist ideas as taboo- as that is merely a symptom of the problems that creates those fears. Instead we need to actively address the social and economic roots of racial conflict and not allow legitimate concerns to be monopolised by the far right and interpreted in ways in which ethnic groups are scape coated for bigger and more complex problems.
A) Had you said "simply making expressing racial differences as taboo" - I could be a bit more on board with what you are conveying. This notion that it is inherently racism is merely a symptom of the PC failure to have the discussion that would get at the root of more complex problems.
B) I honestly see the Left's attempts to monopolize the discussion and essentially expose everyone (on the Right, but never ever on the left) as inherently racist as way of sidetracking the larger debate that is overdue, but can't be had because seemingly only those on the Left are invited into 'reasonable discussions on actively addressing social and economic roots of racial conflict.' I literally don't see how it is possible for anyone on the Right to have such a discussion in a public way without misappropriated charges of racist / racism being invoked at every possible turn of the discussion.
I recall back in 1991 when fresh out of college, I was working a job in large company that was then starting a "diversity committee" to bring (diversity) awareness to the company through departmental representatives who would meet regularly. Being a Social Work major, this was something I was keenly interested in, but held back because I respected the idea that a longer term employee in the same department would possibly wish to tackle it. I waited a good 4 days and saw no one being interested. So, I told the department manager I was keenly interested. This manager was widely known as very liberal. A successful female manager in the early 1990's. I liked her and was fond of her. But about a day after my request, she pulled me aside and said, "there's no way I can put a white guy on that committee, sorry." That to me, is the epitome of the Left's view on attempting to overcome racial differences and the PC approach to monopolizing how all discussion must appear. The appearance being far more important than content.
C) We've had plenty of time, opportunity and means to address social and economic roots of racial conflict. If electing an African American POTUS hasn't gotten us anywhere closer to significantly addressing those roots, I'm very unclear on what the Left thinks will magically occur under the PC approach to advance the national conversation. And observably, having Obama as POTUS has possibly increased the divide. I very much get that we can scapegoat the 'far right' as to why that is, but I see it more as failure of the PC approach. I honestly believe the collective view (Right, Left, Middle) was that because of the IDENTITY of the current POTUS, that circa 2008 we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief and realize we are now in prime position to address social and economic roots of racial conflict, in a reasonable manner. Circa 2010, I would say we all started to realize that - nope, that reasonable discussion is just as far away as it was before Obama took office. By 2015, I would say everyone paying attention realized it was unlikely to occur under Obama. Instead, anything that came up on the front of racial differences was met with the same misguided approach that PC has brought us via its brand of monopolizing the discussion through appearances and misappropriation of terminology. Such that if anything resembling 'white lives matter equally' came about, it was framed as inherently racist and ignoring of all racial differences in the last 200 years, and ought not to be spoken about. We, of the PC crowd, don't need that type of rhetoric that seeks equality. That's foolish. But hey, we're okay with a 'black lives matter' movement that essentially can say anything / protest violently and if anyone takes issue with this, they of course must be inherently racist.
I honestly think that to be willing to have the mature discussion, and to address the complex issues in a direct, honest, simple way one (or everyone) has to be willing to see both sides of whatever issues are being brought to the table for discussion. An actual racist would not be wanting to do this. Or perhaps more accurate to say, unable to do this in a reasonable manner. The PC approach has, thus far, dissuaded people from looking at both sides without the filter of one side being seen as inherently racist, and the other as inherently oppressed. Seemingly not realizing that what the PC approach is actually trying to do is flip the script on who gets to be inherently racist and who deserves now to be inherently oppressed. And somehow, magically, that will help all work towards equality. I observe that to be failing, abysmally. Trump isn't the answer to overcoming all racial divide, but is a sufficient counter to the misguided approach of political correctness.
If you can't find it in yourself to see both sides of the issue(s) that Trump brings to the table, can't find a way to be direct and honest in discussing Trumps latest remarks, and instead need to scapegoat him / his supporters as engaging in some form of (incoherent) racism, then IMO, you are unable to have the critical thinking discussion that is well underway but easily missed because PC has blinders on, is stuck in (oh let's go with) 1947 and the epitome of identity politics.
