One of the things I love the most about Daily Kos is the vibrant conversation that often occurs within the comments to rec list diaries. I don't know of anyplace else on the 'Nets where there is the same level of real-time, political discussion.
Some members of this community have been ripping their shirts off for the past several days in response to a pair of rec list diaries that addressed the issue of race as it relates to the "Liberal-Left" and the Democratic Party.
One particular commenter, StuartZ, wrote a series of comments that could've and should've been a diary in itself. Here's my attempt at that diary . . .
DISCLAIMER: I apologize in advance to StuartZ for any "guilt by association" that arises out of this diary because of issues that a number of regular users of this blog might have with my user ID, as a result of previous discussions not directly related to the issue at hand. For the record, I am neither a racist, nor a self-hating black man.
Additionally, although I personally agree with StuartZ in opposition to Tim Wise's ideological "race is everything" analysis, I do think that there's a great need for more better cross-racial dialogue both within the "Liberal-Left" and in America generally. It's just that IMHO, following Tim Wise will not get us there.
Anywhoo, on to the comments . . .
Liberal philosophy (4+ / 0-)
Requires the assumption that using the state to prevail in a cultural war is illiberal, something that's lost on movement rightists.
Anti-discrimination laws are an example of the state acting in the best interests of individuals. "Institutional racism" isn't the Grand Theory of Everything that Wise constructs.
When Wise demands that his agenda be dominant, and that all other issues be debated a priori through his peculiar ideological lens, he's proposing that "institutional racism" --his version of it, and only his -- be cured primarily through state intervention, prompted by mass political activism.
That means the state must also assume a perpetual, identity-based guilt as the primary problem requiring its intervention.
That's fucked up, right there. That means a democratic government has to presume the cultural guilt of its own citizens, which is the equivalent of the authoritarian right's tendency to abuse the Fourth Amendment ("if you haven't done anything wrong, you won't have anything to worry about"). It's profiling, in other words.
Liberals aren't for big government for its own sake, or to fight larger cultural battles for us, we're for a state sufficiently strong to prevail in its adversarial role with respect to big finance and big industry, such that we individuals aren't compelled by those private forces, either. That's liberalism.
Tim Wise isn't a liberal, he's...something else.
by StuartZ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 01:28:35 PM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
*
* [new] It would indeed be fucked up (0+ / 0-)
That means the state must also assume a perpetual, identity-based guilt as the primary problem requiring its intervention.
and I would oppose it if I thought that's what the diarist was advocating. The way that I read the diary, it sounded like the diarist was advocating that we all be more inclusive in our agendas. The example he used was of Social Security. Now I agree that Social Security was a good thing (for those who got it) while at the same time it was discriminatory against black people, obviously a bad thing. I read it as encouraging people to make sure there are minority voices heard whenever we start advocating for changes in policy.
We won. But we're not done. - h/t karateexplosions
by auroraborealis on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 01:39:24 PM PDT
* [new] That's more evidence (4+ / 0-)
. . . the argument [Wise] actually made was this
(1) The New Deal, far from being a comprehensive justice initiative (the mainstream white liberal interpretation) was a highly racially-restricted set of policies and programs.
His premise, that the New Deal was ever supposed to be Tim Wise's notion of a "comprehensive justice initiative" is ridiculous.
The New Deal was meant to A) pull the nation out of the Great Depression, B) prevent another catastrophic economic event from afflicting the country again.
Wise, inevitably, tries to smother the actual liberal agenda, which is far greater and [more] comprehensive than his own, with the blanket of his own crackpot, race-first theories.
Of course, if one posits the New Deal as a "justice initiative," of course it will fail Wise's single-minded test of policy. That's why his agenda is so dangerous for real-live governance.
Was the New Deal supposed to integrate schools, and overturn all Jim Crow laws, too? Of course not, but that doesn't indicate anything of a failure on its own terms. Even so, Wise obviously would oppose the New Deal, because, without being a "comprehensive justice initiative," the single most important judge of policy -- instituting cultural racial inequality redress -- would be lacking for him.
He then goes on to cite only two examples of such policy "failure" as evidence of "a highly racially-restricted set of policies and programs," as if that's the entirety of the New Deal:
"President Roosevelt agreed to restrict most all African Americans from Social Security, by capitulating to southern segregationist demands that domestic workers and agricultural laborers be exempted from the program. Likewise, underwriting criteria in the FHA loan program guaranteed that almost none of the housing being underwritten by preferential government loans would go to black homeowners."
But, of course, that's nowhere close to the totality of the New Deal program!
What, was the fractional reserve system a "racially-restricted set of policies?"
How about Glass-Steagall, the law that was overturned in 1999 that prevented banks from issuing insurance on their own loans? Was that "racially-restricted?"
What about the suspension of the Gold standard for US currency? More inadequate, racially-restricted policy?
Do you imagine that the repeal of Prohibition was up to Wise's agenda standards?
I could go on and on. Social Security, as important as it was and is, was only a part of the New Deal, actually the Second New Deal. Not only that, because of its effects on wages (raising them) across the economy, even if African-Americans were grossly and unfairly denied entry into the pension system itself, that does not mean that this group of workers didn't benefit. The entire economic program benefited everyone, including those specifically disadvantaged by its initial configuration. White hospital employees, in other words, also benefited from the macro-effects of Social Security, even though the program was not open to them initially. Wise fails to view the New Deal through any other perspective than his narrow agenda's.
If Wise were really being honest (because I believe he knows these facts), he would mention that the primary failing of Social Security wasn't its exclusion of African-Americans based on their labor category (sharecropping), he would first point out that women were the real losers, because . . .
"Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.[12]"
. . . and because women were treated as dependents under the first iteration of the Works Progress Administration (WPA).
Wise focuses his criticism on the areas of the New Deal to his ideological liking, as if the point of the whole thing were to satisfy his particular philosophy's demands.
That's what he's advocating. He's specifically demanding that race -- his racial politics, specifically -- be the primary point of activism, regardless of the nature of the problem political activity is supposed to solve. That's insane.
It's not that he's "encouraging people to make sure there are minority voices heard whenever we start advocating for changes in policy." Neither is he saying "Social Security, mostly good when first enacted, not good enough." He's specifically claiming:
unless all of our organizing becomes antiracist in terms of outreach, messaging, strategizing, and implementation, whatever work we're doing, around whatever important issue, will be for naught.
That's a disastrous method of conceiving, promoting or implementing policy. It's dangerously, ideologically wrong.
Tim Wise wouldn't have it any other way, though, which is why his bizarre theories must be rejected by liberals -- as he rejects us.
by StuartZ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:21:45 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/...
. . . and a few hours later . . .
"I know you're not part of the right"
That's correct, I'm a liberal.
"the right insists that before anything be labeled racist, that intent to be and act openly in a racist manner be proven."
Actually, the establishment right insists on variable standards of proof that are, in practice, almost always too high a burden, such that "lack of proof" can be exploited for ideological ends, to paint American reality as they wish it. The partisan right tends to do the same, but for base political purposes.
Liberals insist that base, political and spurious accusations of racism be labeled as such, without regard to the offenses of the right. We also presume the innocence, good conscience and good faith of our neighbors, because we're not sociopaths, like many movement conservatives.
We insist on just proceedings. Broad fairness is a high imperative to us liberals. That's why
"The burden of proof when making accusations of something as serious as racism should be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not the steaming pile of cherry picked circumstantial evidence served up in Tim Wise's White Guilt Opus."
makes so much sense to us.
Perhaps you have a problem with the phrase "reasonable doubt," if so, that does not include the doubts of said movement conservative sociopaths, partisans or those professionals paid to publicly doubt. The operative term is "reasonable," I believe.
"That means that historical patterns of behavior and institutional action that privilege white people can seldom be proven racist - even if the effect/impact is racist."
First of all, I think the word you're looking for is "disadvantage," not "privilege." Privilege is something far different that the experience of ordinary people, even if other sub-groups within regular folks are disadvantaged.
White people as a collective aren't "privileged," any more than sighted people are "privileged," or those with full limb capacity are "privileged." Some groups, African-Americans among them, experience disadvantage. We don't say that men are "privileged" not to be raped every few minutes, and we shouldn't. Not being subject to the crime of rape isn't a special "privilege," not in any sane world.
Privilege is something enjoyed by the very few, not the very many. It's special advantage.
So what you really mean to ask is whether historical patterns of behavior and institutional action that disadvantage black people can often be proven racist. Well, if they're the product of an explicitly racially supremacist ideology, like Apartheid, then that's easy, obviously. If they're the left-over patterns of that supremacist ideology, then maybe, because they may serve other, non-disadvantaging functions.
When you say "if the effect/impact is racist," then that's sometimes problematic.
For example, it's reported in the New York Times:
Study Finds Disparities in Mortgages by Race
The analysis, by N.Y.U.’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, illustrates stark racial differences between the New York City neighborhoods where subprime mortgages — which can come with higher interest rates, fees and penalties — were common and those where they were rare. The 10 neighborhoods with the highest rates of mortgages from subprime lenders had black and Hispanic majorities, and the 10 areas with the lowest rates were mainly non-Hispanic white.
The analysis showed that even when median income levels were comparable, home buyers in minority neighborhoods were more likely to get a loan from a subprime lender.
The analysis provides only a limited picture of subprime borrowing in New York City. The data does not include details on borrowers’ assets, down payments or debt loads, all key factors in mortgage lending. And comparing neighborhoods is inexact; the typical borrower in one may differ from a typical borrower in another.
Subprime loans are typically made to borrowers with credit histories that the mortgage industry considers less than prime. They can carry higher interest rates than traditional loans or adjustable rates that can make the mortgage difficult to repay once the interest rate resets. They can also carry higher fees and prepayment penalties and thus are at a high risk for foreclosure.
Subprime lending, which has grown at a rapid pace in recent years, has made it possible for many New Yorkers with modest incomes and poor credit histories to buy homes. At the same time, those loans have brought some borrowers to the brink of financial ruin or cost them their homes.
Some economists and analysts said examining subprime lending by geography and race could be misleading because of the many variables not represented in the data, including the lack of banking services in some minority communities and historical differences in wealth and income among racial and ethnic groups.
So, in this story, you have a phenomenon which is clearly disadvantaging African Americans.
The problem is that there is no evidence of racism. There are no racists to accuse. There is nobody practicing a supremacist ideology that posits black people are worth less, so they should be sold crappier loans. Whatever the individual attitudes of brokers, it's not likely to be the overwhelming case.
It's not that "the effect/impact is racist," it's that the effect/impact is disproportionate by race, which means racial disadvantage.
It's not "institutional action" that prompted sub-prime mortgage brokers to prowl for those in the most likely position to accept sub-prime lending conditions, or to have the least options in terms of available banking services. There were no rules involved, except how market actors usually behave.
That's the problem with asserting a racist "effect/impact," i.e. outcome in an economic system in which the activity that may cause the greatest disparate impact may also be the most rational market response to current conditions. Often these can be self-fulfilling prophecies, as in the case of the "white flight" syndrome decades ago.
It's just not accurate, though, to accuse mortgage brokers trying to snap up as many cheap, high-fee, high-commission sub-prime loans from predictable locations of racism. It's not the "institution" of lending, either -- unless you'd like to name the Federal Reserve for flooring interest rates, and the giant financial companies for selling Collateralized Debt Obligations in droves to foreign debt purchasers as white supremacists.
It's systemic, but it isn't racist. It's disadvantaging, but not privileging. It's disparate, but not inherent.
It's practical. It's how things work. It's the real world. It's the invisible hand that doesn't care for morality or justice, only seeking higher and higher return.
So when well-meaning people try to get to an ideological point where these phenomena can be "proven racist," they'll never succeed. These things truly can't be. They can be proven to be significantly immoral, or unjust in certain situations, but not racist. These are two different qualifiers.
That doesn't mean we can't effect changes, nor improve circumstances, or simply outlaw the kinds of natural market behaviors that create certain types of injustice, or remedy those injustices systemically until remedy is no longer necessary, but it does mean that we can't accuse the mortgage brokerage industry of racism in any meaningful way.
We must be able to separate economic incentives from racial or cultural incentives --because we live in a system of mass, variegated economic incentives-- or we're no longer the reality-based community.
Speaking of "reality-based"
"It seems to me that the appropriate response is not only to self-examine, but to spend lots of time - more than one evening or time on a blog, listening to people of color talk about their experiences, their lives."
"Not instant defensiveness and counter-accusation."
it seems to me as if that's not really a normal response by most human beings to being accused of something morally reprehensible, however commendable it might be to do at any time. Problems will probably not be solved, nor attitudes changed. That's going to be a problem communicating these issues to folks going forward, something that Tim Wise seems not to give a damn about.
Thanks for reading and considering this.
by StuartZ on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 02:21:45 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/...