[Peace-discuss] Why the Democrats are as they are

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Civil rights matter enormously, and race is top of the list re that. Sure I agree w/ some of his points but not others. Mostly I think the essay is a buncha mental noise signifying not much, don't you?
 --Jenifer

--- On Wed, 6/18/08, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Why the Democrats are as they are
To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 8:42 PM

So you agree with Benn Michaels?


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Hey check out the Demos report card on civil rights in the latest Crisis 
> Magazine (NAACP publication). With one or two exceptions Demos get 
> straight As, Repubs get straight Fs. May not matter to some of those who 
> post to this list, but it definitely matters to ME!!
> 
>  --Jenifer
> 
> --- On *Wed, 6/18/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>     Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why the Democrats are as they are
>     To: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>     Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 11:20 AM
> 
>     Some Democrats are more equal than others:
>     	Race and gender distract from class in US primaries
> 
>     Class is the great unmentionable in the Obama-Clinton campaigns. US
>     progressives 
>     want to diversify the elite across colour, gender and ethnic
background, while 
>     accepting ever greater inequalities of wealth between the elite and
the rest of
> 
>     the nation.
> 
>     By Walter Benn Michaels
> 
>     There have been two defining moments related to race in the Obama
campaign, and
> 
>     more generally in United States progressive politics. The first was in
January 
>     on the night of the Illinois senator’s victory in South Carolina
when, in 
>     response to comments by Bill Clinton about the size of the black vote,
the
>     Obama 
>     crowd started chanting: “Race doesn’t matter.”
> 
>     “There we stood,” said the novelist and Obama activist Ayelet
Waldman,
>     “in the 
>     heart of the old South, where Confederate flags still fly next to
statues of 
>     Governor Benjamin Tillman, who famously bragged about keeping black
people from
> 
>     the polls (‘We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not
ashamed of
>     it’), 
>     chanting race doesn’t matter, race doesn’t matter. White people
and black 
>     people. Latinos and Asians, united in our rejection of politics as
usual.
>     United 
>     in our belief that America can be a different place. United. Not
divided”
>     (1).
> 
>     The second moment was in March when, in response to the controversial
sermons
>     of 
>     his former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, Obama gave his “more
perfect
>     union” 
>     speech, declaring: “Race is an issue this nation cannot afford to
ignore
>     right 
>     now” and inaugurating what many commentators described as a
supposedly 
>     much-needed “national conversation on race”.
> 
>     I say supposedly because Americans love to talk about race and have
been doing 
>     so for centuries, even if today the thing we love most to say is that
>     “Americans 
>     don’t like to talk about race”. What we aren’t so good at
talking about
>     is 
>     class, as Obama himself inadvertently demonstrated when he tried to
talk about 
>     class on 6 April at a closed-door San Francisco fundraiser
(“Bittergate”).
>     He 
>     tried to explain the frustrations of some small-town Pennsylvanians:
“It’s
>     not 
>     surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to
> 
>     people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade
>     sentiment.”
> 
>     ’Change we can believe in’
>     There seems to be an obvious contradiction here. First, the chant of
race 
>     doesn’t matter; then the speech about why race does matter. But
after
>     reflection 
>     the contradiction fades, since the need for the speech, the history of
American
> 
>     racism, is what prompted the promise of the chant: the idea that
electing a 
>     black man would be a major step toward overcoming that history. Which,
of 
>     course, it would.
> 
>     It is the promise of overcoming the long history of racial division,
the
>     promise 
>     of solving in the 21st century what W E B Du Bois (2) described as the

>     overwhelming problem of the 20th century, the problem of the colour
line, that 
>     gives the Obama campaign its significance. The “change we can
believe in”
>     is not 
>     ideological, it’s cultural (Obama and Clinton are ideologically
almost 
>     identical; if people had wanted ideological change, we’d be talking
about
>     John 
>     Edwards). And at the heart of that cultural change is the fact that it
cannot
>     be 
>     proclaimed. It must be embodied, and only a black person can embody
it. We can 
>     elect white people who say that race shouldn’t matter, but only the
election
>     of 
>     a black person can establish that it really doesn’t.
> 
>     So the Obama campaign is and has always been all about race, and
especially 
>     about anti-racism as progressive politics. Whether or not he
ultimately wins, 
>     and especially if he doesn’t, we are still being shown the
“progressive”
>     wing of 
>     the Democratic Party leading Americans toward an increasingly open and
equal 
>     society, for African-Americans and also for Asians and Latinos and
women and
>     gays.
> 
>     But the problem with this picture – a problem that is also a crucial
part of
>     its 
>     attraction – is that it is false. There has been extraordinary,
albeit 
>     incomplete, progress in fighting racism, but the picture is false
because that 
>     progress has not made American society more open or equal. In
fundamental 
>     respects it is less open and equal today than it was in the days of
Jim Crow 
>     when racism was not only prevalent but was state-sponsored.
> 
>     The hallmark of a neo-liberal political economy is rising sensitivity
about 
>     differences of identity – cultural, ethnic, sometimes religious –
and
>     rising 
>     tolerance for differences of wealth and income. Readers who are
familiar with 
>     the jargon of economic inequality will have an immediate sense of what
it means
> 
>     to say that equality in America has declined when I tell you that in
1947, at 
>     the height of Jim Crow and the segregationist laws in the South, the
US Gini 
>     coefficient was .376 and that by 2006, it had risen to .464. Since on
the Gini 
>     scale 0 represents absolute equality (everyone makes the same income
as
>     everyone 
>     else) and 1 represents absolute inequality (one person makes
everything), this 
>     is significant.
> 
>     Back then, the US was in the same league as the countries of western
Europe, 
>     albeit a little more unequal than them; today we’re up there with
Mexico and 
>     China (3). In 1947, the top 20% of the US population made 43% of all
the money 
>     the nation earned. In 2006, after years of struggle against racism,
sexism and 
>     heterosexism, the top 20% make 50.5%. The rich are richer (4).
> 
>     Legitimate the elite
>     So the struggle for racial and sexual equality – the relative
success of
>     which 
>     has been incarnated in the race and gender politics of the Democratic
Party
>     over 
>     the past six months – has not produced greater economic equality,
but been 
>     compatible with much greater economic inequality, and with the
formation of an 
>     increasingly elitist society (5). There is a reason for this. The
battles 
>     against racism and sexism have never been to produce a more equal
society; or
>     to 
>     mitigate, much less eliminate, the difference between the elite and
the rest; 
>     they were meant to diversify and hence legitimate the elite.
> 
>     This is why policies such as affirmative action in university
admissions serve 
>     such a crucial symbolic purpose for liberals (6). They reassure them
that no
>     one 
>     has been excluded from places like Harvard and Yale for reasons of
prejudice or
> 
>     discrimination (the legitimating part) while leaving untouched the
primary 
>     mechanism of exclusion: wealth (the increasing-the-gap between the
rich and 
>     everyone else part). You are, as Richard Kahlenberg put it, “25
times as
>     likely 
>     to run into a rich student as a poor student” at 146 elite colleges,
not
>     because 
>     poor students are discriminated against but because they are poor.
They have
>     not 
>     had the kind of education that makes it plausible for them even to
apply to 
>     elite colleges, much less attend them.
> 
>     What affirmative action tells us is that the problem is racism and the
solution
> 
>     is to make sure the rich kids come in different colours; this solution
looks 
>     attractive long after graduation, when the battle for diversity
continues to be
> 
>     fought among lawyers, professors and journalists – in fact, any
profession
>     with 
>     enough status and income to count as elite. The effort is to enforce a
model of
> 
>     social justice in which proportional representation of race and gender
counts
>     as 
>     success.
> 
>     If what you want is a more diverse elite, electing a black president
is about
>     as 
>     good as it gets. Electing a woman president would be a close second.
But if you
> 
>     want to address the inequalities we have, instead of the inequalities
we like
>     to 
>     think we have (inequalities produced by inherited wealth and poverty);
if you 
>     want a political programme designed to address the inequalities
produced not by
> 
>     racism and sexism, which are only sorting devices, but by
neo-liberalism, which
> 
>     is doing the sorting, neither the black man nor the white woman have
much to
>     offer.
> 
>     They are two Democrats who can’t even bring themselves to
acknowledge
>     publicly, 
>     in their last debate in April, that Americans making between $100,000
and 
>     $200,000 a year hardly qualify as middle class. Clinton committed
herself “to
> 
>     not raising a single tax on middle-class Americans, people making less
than 
>     $250,000 a year” and Obama (who was, as a commentator put it, “a
lot
>     squishier” 
>     about it) also committed himself to not raising taxes on people making
under 
>     $200,000.
> 
>     Root of inequality
>     But only 7% of US households earn more than $150,000; only 18% earn
more than 
>     $100,000; more than 50% earn under $50,000 (7). Once you have
Democrats who 
>     consider people on $200,000 as middle class and in need of tax relief,
you
>     don’t 
>     need Republicans any more. Clinton and Obama are the emblems of a
liberalism 
>     which has made its peace with a political ethics that will combat
racist and 
>     sexist inequalities, while almost ignoring inequalities that stem not
from 
>     discrimination but from exploitation. The candidates’ death match
prominently
> 
>     features charges of racism and sexism.
> 
>     In 1967, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and at the
beginning
> 
>     of the effort to make the rights guaranteed by that act a reality,
Martin
>     Luther 
>     King was already asking “where do we go from here?”
> 
>     King was a great civil rights leader but he was more than that, and
the 
>     questions he wanted to raise were not, as he pointed out, civil rights

>     questions. They were, he told the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, 
>     “questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution
of
>     wealth”.
> 
>     There were then, as there are now, more poor white people than poor
black
>     people 
>     in the US, and King was acutely aware of that. He was aware that
anti-racism
>     was 
>     not a solution to economic inequality because racism was not the cause
of 
>     economic inequality, and he realised that any challenge to the actual
cause, 
>     “the capitalistic economy”, would produce “fierce opposition”..
> 
>     King did not live to lead that challenge and the fierce opposition he
expected 
>     never developed because the challenge never did. Instead, not only the

>     anti-racism of the civil rights movement but also the rise of
feminism, of gay 
>     rights and of all the new social movements proved to be entirely
compatible
>     with 
>     the capitalistic economy King hoped to oppose.
> 
>     It is possible but unlikely that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton might
some day
> 
>     take up King’s challenge. Neo-liberalism likes race and gender, and
the race
>     and 
>     gender candidates seem to like neo-liberalism.
> 
>     ______________________________________________
>     Walter Benn Michaels is professor at the University of Illinois,
Chicago, and 
>     author of The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity
and
>     Ignore 
>     Inequality, Metropolitan, New York, 2006
> 
>     (1) http://my.barackobama.com/page/comm ...
> 
>     (2) William Edward Burghardt Du Bois (1868-1963), the black civil
rights
>     leader, 
>     Pan-Africanist historian and writer who became a naturalised citizen
of Ghana
>     in 
>     1963.
> 
>     (3) France is .383, Germany is .283, Sweden is .250.
> 
>     (4) Social mobility in the US has declined. In a recent study for the
Pew 
>     Foundation, Isabel Sawhill and John E. Morton report that by some
measurements 
>     the US is actually a less mobile society than Canada, France, Germany
and most 
>     Scandinavian countries; http://www.economicmobility.org/ass .... They
suggest 
>     that if you want to pursue the American dream today, you need to learn
German 
>     and move to Berlin.
> 
>     (5) See Serge Halimi, “US: Republican deficits”, Le Monde
diplomatique,
>     English 
>     edition, November 2006.
> 
>     (6) See John D Skrentny, “US: whose land of opportunity?” and
Christopher 
>     Newfield, “Education for sale in the land of the free”, Le Monde
>     diplomatique, 
>     English edition, May 2007 and September 2007.
> 
>     (7) American Census Bureau; http://factfinder.census.gov
> 
>     <http://mondediplo.com/2008/06/05equality>
>     _______________________________________________


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080618/9fc7fbd1/attachment.htm