[Peace-discuss] Why the Democrats are as they are
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Wed Jun 18 23:02:28 CDT 2008
Certainly the cumulant of wealth has to be more skewed unless there is
some sort of intervention.
C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 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