[Peace-discuss] Why the Democrats are as they are
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Wed Jun 18 22:27:09 CDT 2008
I also think Gini coefficients for wealth rather than income would be better for
the argument. Surely wealth is even more skewed.
E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> The Gini coefficient is more useful if one constructs bootstrap
> confidence intervals and also the Lorenz asymmetry coefficient with its
> confidence intervals. Otherwise it might be misleading to simply
> compare two numbers and say, hey this one is bigger (smaller) than that
> one (therefore something meaningful is occurring).
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>
>> 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>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list