On a side note, does anyone know an alternative expression to "wokeness" or misusing "CRT" to describe the legitimate part of what conservatives mean when they use those terms? I hate to use those terms since (1) conservatives created them to wield unfairly and (2) because of (1), they sometimes communicate things I don't mean.
I think you are missing the appeal of the concept of Privilege. You keep making the strong point that the DEI/privilege approach to issues around race in this country is inferior to a more economic approach. Yes, strong point that I am not going to rehash.
But why don't you steel man the privilege point? WHY is it that it is so appealing to some people?
I think that it is appealing because is a good theory, in the ways that we judge theories. It is simple (i.e., parsimonious) while still having great explanatory power. It seems to be broadly applicable. And there doesn't seem to be much evidence against it.
Obviously, it doesn't profess to be the only issue, so there's room for other things. But it gets us pretty far.
The concept of privilege seems to work well for racial issues. It works well for class. It works well for gender. Sexual orientation. ELL status. Immigrant status. It's a concept that really can be broadly applied
So, it's easy to build (lefty) coalitions around it. It's tempting to talk about because it seems to explain so much of what we see.
Now, I know that you are not suggesting that it is wrong. Rather, you keep pointing out that evangelizing this theory and making it the center of an even broader discourse is not EFFECTIVE, politically. And you make that point well.
But rather than simply yelling/snapping/whining, "Stop doing that," it might be more effective to meet those you presumably wish to convince where they are more carefully (i.e., with care) help them to get where you want them to be (i.e., a place where you think they actually more will progress on their goals -- goals that you generally believe in).
A different way to look at this is: the concept of privilege works very well for those issues because it’s a good vehicle for expressing anger and condemnation. Which makes it very hard for it to be effective politically.
I'm afraid that you've missed my point, and are therefore simply repeating Matt's oft repeated point.
I am not in any way suggesting that this idea of privilege is effective, politically. Nor do I think that Matt needs any help in explaining why it is in not effective, politically.
Rather, I am pointing to what would be effective in convincing people not to use it in political (or potentially political) contexts. Matt makes clear over and over again that his BIG point is that we should do what is effective. And Matt's repeated complaining about in the ineffectiveness of what he seems to term this DEI approach to stuff around race in American is not effective at getting people to stop doing it.
So, in order to reach those people better (I was suggesting), he might consider understanding why it is such an attractive theory.
Now, you can mock these people, call them stupid or pejoratively call them emotional. But I don't think that's going to help, either -- even were it true.
Instead, as I keep saying, try to steel man the argument you disagree with, and then address them on those terms.
Okay, I’ll leave aside the question of effectiveness, and try to say it in another way.
Privilege, in the way we are speaking of it, is to declare something that someone has is, by definition, unmerited. Logically it can (and should) be taken away. In practice this makes no distinction between things that are rights, and things that are not rights. All is stated to be unmerited, by labeling it privilege. This conceptually gives power to the labeler, by nullifying the value of the person who is being so labeled.
I suppose that I am saying that the concept of privilege that we are working with, is *in itself* an expression of anger and hostility. It may be useful or not useful to frame a perception of the world, but that utility will be perceived by the user, in proportion to the need to conceptualize anger. The idea grows from a philosophy whose concern is criticism and power, and so works well for someone who feels the need to criticize and gain power. Which is to say, those who feel themselves to be marginalized or undervalued or disrespected in some way.
In this frame of mind, the question of common goals becomes simply beside the point. The goals are not important, the anger is what is important.
You might agree that a prerequisite of the engagement you are talking about, is for all parties to stop talking about “privilege.” But that would require giving up the entrenched anger that drives this world view. Nobody can make anybody do this. They have to handle their own anger.
I don’t want to sound completely hopeless. People can change their minds and emotions based on what others are saying. It may be that by initiating engagement, I can influence someone in a way that helps them handle their anger. But in the end they have to want that.
No, that is NOT what the concept of Privilege is based upon. That's just not accurate. It is NOT about whether these Privileges are merited. It seems that you are trying to fit some perceptions of anger into this idea, rather than examining the idea on its own...ummm....merits.
1) Yes, some people who talk of Privilege do so from a position of anger, but some do not. Of course, I've seen no breakdown of how many are in which group, but in my experience most are NOT doing so out of anger -- even if it is often out of frustration. Yes, protesters can seem angry, but if you think that all POC or other minorities (or women) point to inequalities simply out of anger....well, you are trodding some dangerous ground. The tropes of "angry black man" and "angry black woman" have been used to fight progress and efforts towards equality for a long time. We have angry feminists and "femminazi" and all that.
Injustice can be met with compassion, frustration and even calm. It does not HAVE to be anger. I really wonder why some people insist otherwise.
2) The concept of Privilege is not about merit, anger or resentment. It's about recognizing important differences in our we are perceived, the opportunities we are afforded and the obstacles we face. Yes, these differences DO make some people angry, but it's the differences that lead to the anger (in this cases), not the anger that leads to the recognition.
The concept of Privilege does NOT say that the Privileged do not merit their Privileges. Rather, it says that *they*do*not*merit*them*more*than*the*unprivileged. Thus, while you may hear that as "And you don't merit that," it is (at least) equally valid to hear it as "and I merit that, too."
And if you really listen to what they are saying, on a particular basis, it usually does NOT say "no one should get that." Rather, it says "everyone should get that."
So, let's look at an example in the news that totally supports my point: swim caps for olympic swimmers. FINA (the international swimming association. swimming in french is something like "nager.") recently said that this floppy swim cap that was designed for black/african hair was not allowable. White people with long hair can wear swim caps that are well suited to them, but those caps don't work well for black people with long hair, even though black people's hair is far more sensitive to water. The decades of appropriate swim caps being available to white people is a Privilege. No one is saying that they shouldn't have them. Rather, people are saying that black people should ALSO have access to appropriate swim caps.
The big systemic privilege stuff is of that nature, more or less. The stuff that applies super broadly is of that nature. Not that the Privileged don't merit it, but rather that the non-Privileged equally merit it and therefore should have it, too.
So, you're wrong on the merit part.
3) No, I would NOT agree that a prerequisite of ANYTHING is that "all parties stop talking about 'privilege.'" I would NOT agree the only way we can ever move forward is for every person on this Earth to make sure that the tender sensibilities of the Privileged never have to consider the idea that they are advantaged by layers of inequities that they -- perhaps unwittingly -- perpetuate. That's a risible notion.
I might agree that SOME parties should stop using the term, yes. I would agree that it is a concept that is going to be better received in some areas than others. As Matt keeps pointing out, Elizabeth Warren can get away with talking about certain ideas because she is in Massachusetts. That might cost her some support in two-way races, but her state is liberal enough that it does not put her any danger. On the other hand, there are politicians and is and activists in other areas for whom her approach is really not advisable.
4) The most powerful force in America these days seems to be some combination of white rage and white fragility. If we are going to talk about anger management, as you seem to want to, we should consider that larger context.
As Matt pointed out, MLK did not achieve his victories by sucking up to white people's insecurities. He did not try to make them comfortable. His direct action, his form of non-violence was not about letting white people off. It was not about making them all comfortable. He was INCREDIBLY hated my large portions of America.
No, I do no think that showing anger is an effective strategy. But being inspired by our anger can help to keep us going. That's a difficult line to walk, no doubt. Handing one's anger, a concept you raised, is a constant challenge for people who defend the status quo and those would change it.
But, again, if you see recognition of inequality as being inevitably and inextricably built of anger? That makes me wonder.
5) Trying to close this circle, why is it that when people say "I want some of that, too," you only hear "You don't deserve that"? Why is it when people say, "I deserve that as much as you," you only hear "you don't deserve that?" I don't hear that.
It seems to me rather pat to to say that the term “privilege” is only about recognizing “important differences.” The idea that selected classifications (and not others) create meaningful distinctions is a deeply political stance that is arguable. If it simply means the unprivileged deserve anything defined as privilege as well, then those are not privileges, they are something else. They might be rights (like being fairly considered for a mortgage) or else they might simply be distinctions (like owning a house). I’d like to see people have an easier time affording their homes, especially working-class people who have a hard time making rent in today’s market. But this doesn’t have anything to do with the idea that a white homeowner is “privileged” because they had a down payment and a mortgage that others don’t.
In plain English, the word privileged is not the same as fortunate or favored. It is not the same as “here but for the grace of God go I.” Someone who went to a fine college because of family influence and graduated without loans because they had a trust fund, is privileged. They didn’t do anything to merit or deserve it, and it’s something meaningful that was handed to them without effort, that few other people have. Someone who gets admission on the same terms as everyone else, and a scholarship in fair competition with everyone else, and who as a result has a college degree when other people don’t, is not privileged. It’s not remotely the same. The latter deserves a degree of respect that the other does not. This is what “privileged” actually means, in plain English, and no amount of (what I would call) Orwellian revisionism is going to change that.
Consider the example you give. In this, there are three parties. A swimmer who needs a certain type of bathing cap. An organization that (perhaps unreasonably) denies her that kind of cap. And another swimmer, who has a legal cap that works for her. When the moral conflict is between the first two parties, why would you choose to centering on the uninvolved third party by tagging her with the term “privilege” simply because there is a racial difference between the two swimmers? If the swimmers were both white, but with different types of hair, would you say that one of them was “privileged”?
To be provocative, I could further point out that many swimmers shave their heads to gain an advantage, and that this is well within the black swimmer’s realm of agency. Doing so might be very effective as a protest. The white swimmer might well join her, out of solidarity, with no idea of “privilege” in mind. The latter adds nothing except guilt, which in my view, is what it is intended to convey. As you know, I feel it is a form of aggression.
I don’t know that you understand how condescending it is to use the phrases “white rage” and “white fragility”. Like the word “privilege”, in practice they replace thought and engagement with dismissal. They convey a pretension of superiority, in refusal to allow what might be really motivating the people you don’t like, to think, say, and do the things they do. It asserts that this can only be for bad and stupid reasons. It’s an irony that, having argued that it’s wrong to discredit black people’s opinions on account of anger and sensitivity to slight (which it is), you then proceed to discredit white people’s opinions and actions on those very same grounds. Can you understand why some might see these phrases as expressions of mere bias, or even bigotry?
1) I don't understand what you think a "right" is. Do you mean a legally enforceable right? Or are you talking about some that lacks any enforcement in any context whatsoever? What makes that a right?
2) Having the downpayment for a house can be a result of a long string of privileges. You seem to want to start the considerations very late in the process. It easier for me and my wife to build up a down payment for our last two homes, for many many reasons. And they resulted from our respective privileges. Unearned, fortunate events, forces and advantage that have helped each of us to accomplish what we have.
3) It's great that you think that language doesn't change or that terms cannot be adapted to new uses that are related to their own. But you insistence that the concept of Privilege that we are talking about should be limited to the old plain meaning of the word is not only obstinate, but is actually without intellectual support. You would need to do quite a lot of research to confirm that YOUR sense of the meaning of the word was matched by all others in order to reasonably insist that this usage of the word is at odds with historical usage of the word. I get that it is a stretch for you, but perhaps you could take part in a mutual effort at communication and understanding what others are trying to say. But, maybe not.
4) Your breakdown of my example shows that you REALLY do not understand the concept of Privilege. No one BLAMES the Privileged for their Privilege. Rather, they are asked to consider its nature and source, and the impact it has on various opposites for others. Let me say that again: asking someone to "check your privilege" is not about blame at all. It's about asking people to be thoughtful and considerate of the circumstances of others, as well as their own. Now, if the Privileged feel guilty for this introspection, that is really a result of they increased awareness of THEIR relationship to society (or whatever institutions maintained that privilege). And that actually is between them and the institutions.
5) Nothing on god's green earth could both demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of Privilege and embody Privilege itself any better than belief that the Privileged should not be cognizant of their Privilege and that their Privilege is really a matter to be hashed out between the institutions and the unPrivileged. Wow, man. Just wow.
6) Please, tell me about all the female swimmers who shave their heads to gain an advantage. The summer olympics are coming up and I will keep my eye out the female medal winning woman with shaved heads.
7) Please tell me more about the obligations the unprivileged to alter their bodies and physical appearances in order to draw attention to blatantly discriminatory decisions by the institutions that control important parts of their lives. And, of course, please explain how that is not just another avenue for Privilege by the Privileged to have everything easier.
8) Why do you think that white rage doesn't exist? Or is it simply that mentioning it is the problem? You are entirely comfortable painting others with this Anger brush, but you don't like the idea that ANY white people exhibit a rage that is tied to their perception of race and their race's place in our society? I said that white rage is powerful, but did not say how prevalent it is or who feels it. But you paint everyone who uses the term "Privilege" as angry. Now, I would never suggest that none of the people who use that term are angry. Rather, I point out that mere use of the term is not a sign of anger and that it does not necessary flow out of anger. I have never, not once in my life, dismissed anyone's arguments by labeling them some result of "white rage" or "white fragility." Nonetheless, you somehow feel that I am condescending simply because I acknowledge that these do exist and have influence? It's is simply amazing how well you prove my point.
9) Last, do you know the term, "Born on third base"? Do you know Molly Ivins expression, "Born on third base and thought he hit a triple"? You say that the scholarship competition is fair, but you ignore all the contributors to and enablers of the high school student's accomplishments that were unearned. You start you consideration so late in the process so that you can claim some outcome that is laundered of a past of privilege. But neonatal environment matters. And everything after that. It doesn't begin simply with the scholarship application.
Excellent piece Matthew. The only thing I will add is that it's not just conservatives that seem to pick and choose MLK quotes. Throughout the discourse over the excesses of the DEI industrial complex, many anti-woke liberals (at least I think they are liberals, they never talk about anything other than wokeness so it's tough to say) also really focus on King's supposed "colorblindness." They seem to be arguing for "colorblindness" now and that would be the solution to racial conflict. You make a great point that "colorblindness" is the end goal, but King argued that much needs to be done to realize that goal. It's like arguing about what the shipping lanes should look like on the Elon Sea and the Bezos Ocean before Mars has even been terraformed.
I’ll bite and say as a woke-skeptic liberal, my takeaway from King from his whole body of work, not just that one quote (ok, I’m no expert on his whole body of work) was that he was advocating for uplifting of the poor AND challenging people who pass judgment about others based on their race. It is that moral sentiment people are trying to elevate and show that it creates cognitive dissonance with many in vogue DEI efforts (also does little to help toward the goal of redistribution of wealth). There is a middle ground between “colorblind” and “color obsessed”… see it, look for trends, respect differences, but don’t overly generalize or prejudge based on race, even white people. I’d argue we’re trapped in this 50 year purgatory of racial progress bc we still haven’t figured that balance out.
Yes. I agree with you almost completely. I'm also a woke-skeptic liberal and think a lot of DEI stuff is pretty ridiculous. I would be much more sympathetic to the "colorblind" argument if some of these same anti-woke voices actually talked about improving material conditions. McWhorter does occasionally, but few of the others due. Perhaps they are focusing more on it now - I quite Twitter because I decided it wasn't good for my mental health. This is why I find Yglesias so compelling on this issue because he will go beyond just saying how awful woke ideology is and actually say "Hey. here are ways that I think we can achieve what you're looking for without alienating people needlessly." The problem is the GOP isn't so into improving economic outcomes beyond regressive tax cuts and deregulation.
Same all around! Very few voices out there filling this void. Freddie deBoer hits that balance fairly regularly but he’s also a bit extreme on the Marxism.
^*in part. I don’t deny conservative obstruction on expanding healthcare or raising minimum wage are huge barriers too, especially on material equality. But I understand why conservatives distrust the liberal perspective on the nature of racism itself.
Yes on this too. The GOP isn't showing any real interest in moving towards material equality. I do think if the Dems want to win more votes (and weaken the GOP's electoral advantages) they need to abandon a lot of culture war stuff in favor of focusing on bread and butter issues. This will expose the GOP's anti-CRT hysteria for the farce that it is.
MLK was obviously a great man, and his views on class, as well as racial, justice are powerful and compelling. But historically, I'm not sure they mattered, except for retrospective consideration a la this post. Would it have made a difference had he not been assassinated? I'm not sure it would have. His influence was starting to wane, and not only with the general white population, but with the Black one as well. He was increasingly a man out of his time.
I'm not sure MLK or RFK surviving would have been key. What was overwhelmingly key, and horribly tragic, was LBJ going all in on Vietnam. That was the act that defined everything else that followed the great civil rights actions of 1964 and 1965. It sucked the oxygen from all else. And with it, MLK's and RFJ's rhetoric was merely acting at the edges.
When I think of the US's alt-history without Vietnam, I think it could only have been much brighter. Not without massive struggles and dispute, but overall much much better, especially in terms of continued social and economic progress on the domestic front.
Matt, this is an excellent piece. I've mentioned before, I think, the excellent book by Heather McGee, "The Sum of Us," which makes a powerful case for solidarity as a strategy. You quote MLK as saying "every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth,” and I'm struck by the use of the word "dignity." It is used over and over again in speeches by King and Malcom X referenced in "The Sword and the Shield: The Revolutionary Lives of Malcom X and Martin Luther King, Jr." by Peniel Joseph.
King was definitely reading subversive stuff: "2.42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46....4.32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." Acts 2, 4. NIV
"Now obviously in life, it’s perfectly fair to agree with a historical figure about some things and not other things. But what I’m trying to say here is that King’s views on economic justice are not a separate thing from his view of the civil rights situation. It’s in the very same speech that he says the “content of their character” thing that he’s talking about the inadequacy of moving people from ghetto to ghetto and the intolerability of the situation in the northern cities."
The reason why King has the stature he does today while others do not isn't because of his speeches and sermons. It was because he was able to actually accomplish things and make real changes to the greater society. That doesn't magically happen from making and delivering great speeches.
So to understand King, you have to understand that he was a master strategist. As a student of strategy and strategic theory, I consider King to be one of the greatest strategists of the 20th century. No American since, in any strategic venue, has been his equal, and certainly not in the contemporary civil rights community. The ability to effectively employ strategy is what separated him from his peers.
His strategic acumen and genius are too often overlooked by those who would cherry-pick from his speeches or who would assume that everything he said or wanted had equal weight, or use his stature and try to ride on his coattails for their own agenda. It's not just "conservatives" like Cotton doing this. Liberals have been doing it for generations too.
So I think if you look beyond his speeches and what he said he wanted, and look instead at the strategic aspects of his program for change, you'll find he was focused on racial justice and considered that element a prerequisite to a broader program of economic justice. And so that is what he put his actual effort into from a strategic POV. One can't see that aspect by examining speeches.
It was the success of the civil rights movement that allowed him to change his focus to broader economic justice and he had only just begun to shift to that before his life was cut short. There was no one else with his strategic genius to take up the mantle, so that effort failed.
So the key aspects of King really have nothing to do which what modern conservatives or progressives profess to believe, nor does it have much to do with cherry-picking King's ideas and name to try to give legitimacy to contemporary policy initiatives. King was on a different level than that which is why he is such a substantial historical figure.
I think there’s also the issue of opportunity underachievement.
Like for instance: an exemplar public school may not be great, but could any school quality measure really explain why only 5% of students can perform at a grade level?
One topic that I'd like to learn more about (maybe some commenters know?) is MLK's stance on communism/Marxism. I am aware that in the 50s/early 60s, he spoke out against both due to their materialism and godlessness. It seems like, through the 60s, as he was derided as a communist for his advocacy of redistributive policies, he gradually took a more adversarial stance, defending a Christian vision of economic justice/socialism. I'm not sure how he would react to modern Marxists or secular social Democrats. Would anyone more informed than me care to conjecture?
Great article. I like how Matt dispatched conservatives at the beginning and progressives at the end. Conservatism as described here is just a dying ideology, though. The real interesting part is the end where Matt makes the case for moderation versus progressive ideas. He also seems to build the case that Biden's idea (universal child care credit, higher marginal tax rates, less licensing, limited support for protectionism, limited support for closed borders, etc) are completely in my wheelhouse of acceptability, I really like the article, but maybe there's a critique of Matt's viewpoint out there.
The 'unhelpful distancing' is a phrase one of the DEI consultants used and I really like it better than solidarity. Solidarity gets wrapped up in my mind with a lot of failed political movements that were questionable at best, but probable just not very successful. The DEI consultant applied the distancing within 'the struggle', but I like it better if you expand the idea to society. It kind of flips the narrative.
It feels like we've picked the lower hanging fruit of civil rights law, and we're flailing at tougher collective action problems (the issues under the umbrella of systemic racism). Like, how do you reform policing without broad public pressure; and without that pressure, reformers get frustrated with complacency (an "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" posture). This move up a social Maslovian hierarchy seems to apply to climate policy, too. An economic solidarity approach has advantages, though it's also fraught in its own ways - but seems like a useful concrete approach.
You’re mostly right of course but many Black people (and women and others) would argue that shoving concerns about race into the corner tend to lead the bad outcomes. Hence the intersectionality vs thing.
Lots of really good points here, and I love the choice of subject matter, but I feel like MY is missing key parts of MLK's public arguments.
First, he was willing to take on populism directly, as in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail": "First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice."
Second, while MLK didn't use the term "microaggressions," he talked about things that we would call that. He repeatedly refers to "dignity," as in "Birmingham Jail": "a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality . . . who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses." He connects the use of words with the growth of people's fear: "your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness.""
So while I think all the points about MLK's belief in redistribution are excellent and worth shouting from the rooftops, I do not think it's accurate to suggest that MLK was a believer in pure populism (he took on white moderates explicitly), nor does it seem accurate to say that his major works didn't talk about things that today we would call "microaggressions."
I mean populism in the sense that MLK did not come to white moderates with "it's you and us against the elites." That would have been the populist argument.
Instead, he came at them with the explicit antiracist/justice argument: "We must accept the current tension in order to move toward justice."
I don't mean to get bogged down in semantics, but it would be very weird for a reverend to try an anti-elite argument with a bunch of other clergy. The clergy are elites! King had a doctorate!
I am still working on learning more about King and his ideas and how they evolved over time, so forgive me if I am under-informed. That quote gets pulled from LFABJ a lot, but ultimately the whole letter is a loving challenge to these white moderates to join him in Christian brotherhood with their actions, not just their words. I don't think he was rejecting populism per se, he was trying to spotlight a moral inconsistency between the stated intentions of his allies and their actions. Ultimately the letter is actually quite hopeful about the potential of interracial collaboration. The longform piece by Jose Yglesias is actually very interesting as it highlights how MLK was willing to go against his more extremist counterparts in the civil rights movement and pull white poor people into the Poor People's Campaign.
“Taking on white moderates” for their “devotion to order instead of justice” =/= critiquing “populism.” To the contrary, I understand his criticism of white moderates to be rooted in their unwillingness to upset the status who by embracing radical populist solutions like wealth redistribution.
I'm not suggesting that he was "critiquing" populism, just showing that MLK didn't apply the populist framing in all circumstances.
There were plenty of times, such as in his most famous text (as opposed to oration), when MLK made arguments based on appeals to morality and justice with no mention of common cause against the elites.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I agree he used a variety of rhetorical frames and this example of challenging white moderates is one of a number in which he didn’t use a “colorblind” approach.
That said, it’s still populist, to some degree, if you view “white moderates” as part of the elite that needed persuading and, failing that, a political push.
It's important to understand that MLK calling them "moderates" doesn't mean they were moderates. Jews, Methodists, and Presbyterians are the liberals in Birminham. 7 of the 8 were decidely liberal on race issues in Alabama. That's why King had to respond to them.
7 of the 8 what? I take your general point, anyway, and it reinforces mine: King criticizes white moderates (by 1960s standards) because they don’t embrace his populist platform for race and economic justice.
Dr King was responding to a letter written by 8 Alabama religious leaders. In my reader, the Episcopal Bishop was less receptive of the civil rights movement than the others. The others would be have been considered very liberal. King responded with criticism because they DID embrace his platform and they had become concerned that a lot of violence was about to occur. It was a letter to his allies that had gotten cold feet.
'But if you want to understand why racial justice advocates aren’t satisfied with the “judge by the content of character” nostrum, it’s because King’s version of that dream was the endpoint of a program of massive material redistribution to build a radically more egalitarian society.'
I mean, it's true that racial justice advocates aren't satisfied by that, and it's true that many also favour economic redistribution, but I'm really not sure that's the *reason* they're going in the direction they're going. If so, why not just advocate for a radically more egalitarian society in economic terms?
That's not what they're doing, or I think what they would view themselves as doing.
I think there are actually two strains of "racial justice advocates" these days. Obviously, the world doesn't just fall nicely into buckets but I see it like this:
1.) Corporate Woke (Robin Deangelo, IXK, etc. )
2.) Leftist Woke
(forgive the sloppy use of the word woke but we all know what I'm talking about)
They both exist basically on top of each other, so it makes it hard to point at racial justice activism and say it's this or that. We have one group that pumps out Colin Kaepernick ads for Nike and calls it a big game-changer, and another group that would point out that Nike doesn't exactly have a great track record with labor ethics (mostly affecting brown people on the other side of the world). Both groups however share some slightly out-there ideas about how we should discuss race today... So it's easy for anyone to paint anyone as crazy.
The well-off white yuppie millennials want to feel good about themselves, so there is now a market for stroking their egos with a sort of weird guilt porn (see White Fragiliy, Not My Idea) that is both very provocative and can be called "radicalism" but also doesn't propose anything remotely approaching a solution (see Kendi's Dept. of Antiracism). This is where I'd slot in most of the cancel-culture behavior as well... the market of performative activism whips people into doing mean things (go figure).
Then the actual left is so strangely tied up in all this stuff, that they lose credibility. You get people like the members of the squad, who will be dead on about so many of the issues and have potential solutions, but at the same time lean into the divisive and confusing woke politics. I think this really hurts the brand of the left. But hey, it's not like there's a nice little button to push to get everyone's messaging in line haha...
"If so, why not just advocate for a radically more egalitarian society in economic terms?"
Right here you are hitting on a fundamental issue with the American left. They can't make a political calculation to save their lives! Seems pretty simple when it's written out like that but alas...
I just think as long as people who identify as socialists are reading antiracist baby to their kids.... The right wing will have plenty of anecdotes of otherwise smart/well-intentioned lefties doing dumb/anti-intellectual stuff that will scare people away.
A lot of my general ideas about race and class are formed by Heather McGhee's The Sum of Us, and Matt Taibbi's The Divide.
I think the thing about King's thought which you indirectly note a few times, including in the sub-head, is that it was drawing on a very clear tradition, namely radical Christianity. He was a preacher, a doctor of theology and he drew enormously from that well, in his oratory but also in his thinking. He's very much challenging along the same lines along which Jesus is reported to have challenged: what does it mean, to leave your fellow man in the dust? It seems pretty clear that the biblical Jesus would have as a starting point not focusing on someone's skin colour, but that is very clearly only the beginning of a very long list of increasingly difficult moral demands. And it's very obviously that tradition, that belief that inspired Rev King.
And while it's obvious and reasonable why agnostic (or Jewish, or atheist) leftists gloss over that source and focus on what the impact would be of King's approach, I do wonder why self-proclaimed Christian conservatives (like Tom Cotton) don't want to engage with King's thoughts as Christians, given that's the cornerstone of what King was saying (and as you note, he buttressed it with a *lot* of Scripture)
Great article!
I'm sure that David Bernstein did not mean for this, but this article (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/08/racists-and-many-anti-racists-make-the-same-zero-sum-mistake/) seems to make a rhyming point. So does this article by Freddy deBoer (https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/a-materialist-alternative-to-antiracism-33b).
Is this "leftist alternative to 'wokeness'" week?
On a side note, does anyone know an alternative expression to "wokeness" or misusing "CRT" to describe the legitimate part of what conservatives mean when they use those terms? I hate to use those terms since (1) conservatives created them to wield unfairly and (2) because of (1), they sometimes communicate things I don't mean.
Matt’s argument often boils down to “act like a politician not like an activist”
Matt,
I think you are missing the appeal of the concept of Privilege. You keep making the strong point that the DEI/privilege approach to issues around race in this country is inferior to a more economic approach. Yes, strong point that I am not going to rehash.
But why don't you steel man the privilege point? WHY is it that it is so appealing to some people?
I think that it is appealing because is a good theory, in the ways that we judge theories. It is simple (i.e., parsimonious) while still having great explanatory power. It seems to be broadly applicable. And there doesn't seem to be much evidence against it.
Obviously, it doesn't profess to be the only issue, so there's room for other things. But it gets us pretty far.
The concept of privilege seems to work well for racial issues. It works well for class. It works well for gender. Sexual orientation. ELL status. Immigrant status. It's a concept that really can be broadly applied
So, it's easy to build (lefty) coalitions around it. It's tempting to talk about because it seems to explain so much of what we see.
Now, I know that you are not suggesting that it is wrong. Rather, you keep pointing out that evangelizing this theory and making it the center of an even broader discourse is not EFFECTIVE, politically. And you make that point well.
But rather than simply yelling/snapping/whining, "Stop doing that," it might be more effective to meet those you presumably wish to convince where they are more carefully (i.e., with care) help them to get where you want them to be (i.e., a place where you think they actually more will progress on their goals -- goals that you generally believe in).
A different way to look at this is: the concept of privilege works very well for those issues because it’s a good vehicle for expressing anger and condemnation. Which makes it very hard for it to be effective politically.
I'm afraid that you've missed my point, and are therefore simply repeating Matt's oft repeated point.
I am not in any way suggesting that this idea of privilege is effective, politically. Nor do I think that Matt needs any help in explaining why it is in not effective, politically.
Rather, I am pointing to what would be effective in convincing people not to use it in political (or potentially political) contexts. Matt makes clear over and over again that his BIG point is that we should do what is effective. And Matt's repeated complaining about in the ineffectiveness of what he seems to term this DEI approach to stuff around race in American is not effective at getting people to stop doing it.
So, in order to reach those people better (I was suggesting), he might consider understanding why it is such an attractive theory.
Now, you can mock these people, call them stupid or pejoratively call them emotional. But I don't think that's going to help, either -- even were it true.
Instead, as I keep saying, try to steel man the argument you disagree with, and then address them on those terms.
Okay, I’ll leave aside the question of effectiveness, and try to say it in another way.
Privilege, in the way we are speaking of it, is to declare something that someone has is, by definition, unmerited. Logically it can (and should) be taken away. In practice this makes no distinction between things that are rights, and things that are not rights. All is stated to be unmerited, by labeling it privilege. This conceptually gives power to the labeler, by nullifying the value of the person who is being so labeled.
I suppose that I am saying that the concept of privilege that we are working with, is *in itself* an expression of anger and hostility. It may be useful or not useful to frame a perception of the world, but that utility will be perceived by the user, in proportion to the need to conceptualize anger. The idea grows from a philosophy whose concern is criticism and power, and so works well for someone who feels the need to criticize and gain power. Which is to say, those who feel themselves to be marginalized or undervalued or disrespected in some way.
In this frame of mind, the question of common goals becomes simply beside the point. The goals are not important, the anger is what is important.
You might agree that a prerequisite of the engagement you are talking about, is for all parties to stop talking about “privilege.” But that would require giving up the entrenched anger that drives this world view. Nobody can make anybody do this. They have to handle their own anger.
I don’t want to sound completely hopeless. People can change their minds and emotions based on what others are saying. It may be that by initiating engagement, I can influence someone in a way that helps them handle their anger. But in the end they have to want that.
No, that is NOT what the concept of Privilege is based upon. That's just not accurate. It is NOT about whether these Privileges are merited. It seems that you are trying to fit some perceptions of anger into this idea, rather than examining the idea on its own...ummm....merits.
1) Yes, some people who talk of Privilege do so from a position of anger, but some do not. Of course, I've seen no breakdown of how many are in which group, but in my experience most are NOT doing so out of anger -- even if it is often out of frustration. Yes, protesters can seem angry, but if you think that all POC or other minorities (or women) point to inequalities simply out of anger....well, you are trodding some dangerous ground. The tropes of "angry black man" and "angry black woman" have been used to fight progress and efforts towards equality for a long time. We have angry feminists and "femminazi" and all that.
Injustice can be met with compassion, frustration and even calm. It does not HAVE to be anger. I really wonder why some people insist otherwise.
2) The concept of Privilege is not about merit, anger or resentment. It's about recognizing important differences in our we are perceived, the opportunities we are afforded and the obstacles we face. Yes, these differences DO make some people angry, but it's the differences that lead to the anger (in this cases), not the anger that leads to the recognition.
The concept of Privilege does NOT say that the Privileged do not merit their Privileges. Rather, it says that *they*do*not*merit*them*more*than*the*unprivileged. Thus, while you may hear that as "And you don't merit that," it is (at least) equally valid to hear it as "and I merit that, too."
And if you really listen to what they are saying, on a particular basis, it usually does NOT say "no one should get that." Rather, it says "everyone should get that."
So, let's look at an example in the news that totally supports my point: swim caps for olympic swimmers. FINA (the international swimming association. swimming in french is something like "nager.") recently said that this floppy swim cap that was designed for black/african hair was not allowable. White people with long hair can wear swim caps that are well suited to them, but those caps don't work well for black people with long hair, even though black people's hair is far more sensitive to water. The decades of appropriate swim caps being available to white people is a Privilege. No one is saying that they shouldn't have them. Rather, people are saying that black people should ALSO have access to appropriate swim caps.
The big systemic privilege stuff is of that nature, more or less. The stuff that applies super broadly is of that nature. Not that the Privileged don't merit it, but rather that the non-Privileged equally merit it and therefore should have it, too.
So, you're wrong on the merit part.
3) No, I would NOT agree that a prerequisite of ANYTHING is that "all parties stop talking about 'privilege.'" I would NOT agree the only way we can ever move forward is for every person on this Earth to make sure that the tender sensibilities of the Privileged never have to consider the idea that they are advantaged by layers of inequities that they -- perhaps unwittingly -- perpetuate. That's a risible notion.
I might agree that SOME parties should stop using the term, yes. I would agree that it is a concept that is going to be better received in some areas than others. As Matt keeps pointing out, Elizabeth Warren can get away with talking about certain ideas because she is in Massachusetts. That might cost her some support in two-way races, but her state is liberal enough that it does not put her any danger. On the other hand, there are politicians and is and activists in other areas for whom her approach is really not advisable.
4) The most powerful force in America these days seems to be some combination of white rage and white fragility. If we are going to talk about anger management, as you seem to want to, we should consider that larger context.
As Matt pointed out, MLK did not achieve his victories by sucking up to white people's insecurities. He did not try to make them comfortable. His direct action, his form of non-violence was not about letting white people off. It was not about making them all comfortable. He was INCREDIBLY hated my large portions of America.
No, I do no think that showing anger is an effective strategy. But being inspired by our anger can help to keep us going. That's a difficult line to walk, no doubt. Handing one's anger, a concept you raised, is a constant challenge for people who defend the status quo and those would change it.
But, again, if you see recognition of inequality as being inevitably and inextricably built of anger? That makes me wonder.
5) Trying to close this circle, why is it that when people say "I want some of that, too," you only hear "You don't deserve that"? Why is it when people say, "I deserve that as much as you," you only hear "you don't deserve that?" I don't hear that.
It seems to me rather pat to to say that the term “privilege” is only about recognizing “important differences.” The idea that selected classifications (and not others) create meaningful distinctions is a deeply political stance that is arguable. If it simply means the unprivileged deserve anything defined as privilege as well, then those are not privileges, they are something else. They might be rights (like being fairly considered for a mortgage) or else they might simply be distinctions (like owning a house). I’d like to see people have an easier time affording their homes, especially working-class people who have a hard time making rent in today’s market. But this doesn’t have anything to do with the idea that a white homeowner is “privileged” because they had a down payment and a mortgage that others don’t.
In plain English, the word privileged is not the same as fortunate or favored. It is not the same as “here but for the grace of God go I.” Someone who went to a fine college because of family influence and graduated without loans because they had a trust fund, is privileged. They didn’t do anything to merit or deserve it, and it’s something meaningful that was handed to them without effort, that few other people have. Someone who gets admission on the same terms as everyone else, and a scholarship in fair competition with everyone else, and who as a result has a college degree when other people don’t, is not privileged. It’s not remotely the same. The latter deserves a degree of respect that the other does not. This is what “privileged” actually means, in plain English, and no amount of (what I would call) Orwellian revisionism is going to change that.
Consider the example you give. In this, there are three parties. A swimmer who needs a certain type of bathing cap. An organization that (perhaps unreasonably) denies her that kind of cap. And another swimmer, who has a legal cap that works for her. When the moral conflict is between the first two parties, why would you choose to centering on the uninvolved third party by tagging her with the term “privilege” simply because there is a racial difference between the two swimmers? If the swimmers were both white, but with different types of hair, would you say that one of them was “privileged”?
To be provocative, I could further point out that many swimmers shave their heads to gain an advantage, and that this is well within the black swimmer’s realm of agency. Doing so might be very effective as a protest. The white swimmer might well join her, out of solidarity, with no idea of “privilege” in mind. The latter adds nothing except guilt, which in my view, is what it is intended to convey. As you know, I feel it is a form of aggression.
I don’t know that you understand how condescending it is to use the phrases “white rage” and “white fragility”. Like the word “privilege”, in practice they replace thought and engagement with dismissal. They convey a pretension of superiority, in refusal to allow what might be really motivating the people you don’t like, to think, say, and do the things they do. It asserts that this can only be for bad and stupid reasons. It’s an irony that, having argued that it’s wrong to discredit black people’s opinions on account of anger and sensitivity to slight (which it is), you then proceed to discredit white people’s opinions and actions on those very same grounds. Can you understand why some might see these phrases as expressions of mere bias, or even bigotry?
1) I don't understand what you think a "right" is. Do you mean a legally enforceable right? Or are you talking about some that lacks any enforcement in any context whatsoever? What makes that a right?
2) Having the downpayment for a house can be a result of a long string of privileges. You seem to want to start the considerations very late in the process. It easier for me and my wife to build up a down payment for our last two homes, for many many reasons. And they resulted from our respective privileges. Unearned, fortunate events, forces and advantage that have helped each of us to accomplish what we have.
3) It's great that you think that language doesn't change or that terms cannot be adapted to new uses that are related to their own. But you insistence that the concept of Privilege that we are talking about should be limited to the old plain meaning of the word is not only obstinate, but is actually without intellectual support. You would need to do quite a lot of research to confirm that YOUR sense of the meaning of the word was matched by all others in order to reasonably insist that this usage of the word is at odds with historical usage of the word. I get that it is a stretch for you, but perhaps you could take part in a mutual effort at communication and understanding what others are trying to say. But, maybe not.
4) Your breakdown of my example shows that you REALLY do not understand the concept of Privilege. No one BLAMES the Privileged for their Privilege. Rather, they are asked to consider its nature and source, and the impact it has on various opposites for others. Let me say that again: asking someone to "check your privilege" is not about blame at all. It's about asking people to be thoughtful and considerate of the circumstances of others, as well as their own. Now, if the Privileged feel guilty for this introspection, that is really a result of they increased awareness of THEIR relationship to society (or whatever institutions maintained that privilege). And that actually is between them and the institutions.
5) Nothing on god's green earth could both demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of Privilege and embody Privilege itself any better than belief that the Privileged should not be cognizant of their Privilege and that their Privilege is really a matter to be hashed out between the institutions and the unPrivileged. Wow, man. Just wow.
6) Please, tell me about all the female swimmers who shave their heads to gain an advantage. The summer olympics are coming up and I will keep my eye out the female medal winning woman with shaved heads.
7) Please tell me more about the obligations the unprivileged to alter their bodies and physical appearances in order to draw attention to blatantly discriminatory decisions by the institutions that control important parts of their lives. And, of course, please explain how that is not just another avenue for Privilege by the Privileged to have everything easier.
8) Why do you think that white rage doesn't exist? Or is it simply that mentioning it is the problem? You are entirely comfortable painting others with this Anger brush, but you don't like the idea that ANY white people exhibit a rage that is tied to their perception of race and their race's place in our society? I said that white rage is powerful, but did not say how prevalent it is or who feels it. But you paint everyone who uses the term "Privilege" as angry. Now, I would never suggest that none of the people who use that term are angry. Rather, I point out that mere use of the term is not a sign of anger and that it does not necessary flow out of anger. I have never, not once in my life, dismissed anyone's arguments by labeling them some result of "white rage" or "white fragility." Nonetheless, you somehow feel that I am condescending simply because I acknowledge that these do exist and have influence? It's is simply amazing how well you prove my point.
9) Last, do you know the term, "Born on third base"? Do you know Molly Ivins expression, "Born on third base and thought he hit a triple"? You say that the scholarship competition is fair, but you ignore all the contributors to and enablers of the high school student's accomplishments that were unearned. You start you consideration so late in the process so that you can claim some outcome that is laundered of a past of privilege. But neonatal environment matters. And everything after that. It doesn't begin simply with the scholarship application.
Excellent piece Matthew. The only thing I will add is that it's not just conservatives that seem to pick and choose MLK quotes. Throughout the discourse over the excesses of the DEI industrial complex, many anti-woke liberals (at least I think they are liberals, they never talk about anything other than wokeness so it's tough to say) also really focus on King's supposed "colorblindness." They seem to be arguing for "colorblindness" now and that would be the solution to racial conflict. You make a great point that "colorblindness" is the end goal, but King argued that much needs to be done to realize that goal. It's like arguing about what the shipping lanes should look like on the Elon Sea and the Bezos Ocean before Mars has even been terraformed.
I’ll bite and say as a woke-skeptic liberal, my takeaway from King from his whole body of work, not just that one quote (ok, I’m no expert on his whole body of work) was that he was advocating for uplifting of the poor AND challenging people who pass judgment about others based on their race. It is that moral sentiment people are trying to elevate and show that it creates cognitive dissonance with many in vogue DEI efforts (also does little to help toward the goal of redistribution of wealth). There is a middle ground between “colorblind” and “color obsessed”… see it, look for trends, respect differences, but don’t overly generalize or prejudge based on race, even white people. I’d argue we’re trapped in this 50 year purgatory of racial progress bc we still haven’t figured that balance out.
Yes. I agree with you almost completely. I'm also a woke-skeptic liberal and think a lot of DEI stuff is pretty ridiculous. I would be much more sympathetic to the "colorblind" argument if some of these same anti-woke voices actually talked about improving material conditions. McWhorter does occasionally, but few of the others due. Perhaps they are focusing more on it now - I quite Twitter because I decided it wasn't good for my mental health. This is why I find Yglesias so compelling on this issue because he will go beyond just saying how awful woke ideology is and actually say "Hey. here are ways that I think we can achieve what you're looking for without alienating people needlessly." The problem is the GOP isn't so into improving economic outcomes beyond regressive tax cuts and deregulation.
Same all around! Very few voices out there filling this void. Freddie deBoer hits that balance fairly regularly but he’s also a bit extreme on the Marxism.
^*in part. I don’t deny conservative obstruction on expanding healthcare or raising minimum wage are huge barriers too, especially on material equality. But I understand why conservatives distrust the liberal perspective on the nature of racism itself.
Yes on this too. The GOP isn't showing any real interest in moving towards material equality. I do think if the Dems want to win more votes (and weaken the GOP's electoral advantages) they need to abandon a lot of culture war stuff in favor of focusing on bread and butter issues. This will expose the GOP's anti-CRT hysteria for the farce that it is.
I will say that I feel like your comment thread used to be more interesting.
I take that as a microaggression.
MLK was obviously a great man, and his views on class, as well as racial, justice are powerful and compelling. But historically, I'm not sure they mattered, except for retrospective consideration a la this post. Would it have made a difference had he not been assassinated? I'm not sure it would have. His influence was starting to wane, and not only with the general white population, but with the Black one as well. He was increasingly a man out of his time.
I'm not sure MLK or RFK surviving would have been key. What was overwhelmingly key, and horribly tragic, was LBJ going all in on Vietnam. That was the act that defined everything else that followed the great civil rights actions of 1964 and 1965. It sucked the oxygen from all else. And with it, MLK's and RFJ's rhetoric was merely acting at the edges.
When I think of the US's alt-history without Vietnam, I think it could only have been much brighter. Not without massive struggles and dispute, but overall much much better, especially in terms of continued social and economic progress on the domestic front.
Matt, this is an excellent piece. I've mentioned before, I think, the excellent book by Heather McGee, "The Sum of Us," which makes a powerful case for solidarity as a strategy. You quote MLK as saying "every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth,” and I'm struck by the use of the word "dignity." It is used over and over again in speeches by King and Malcom X referenced in "The Sword and the Shield: The Revolutionary Lives of Malcom X and Martin Luther King, Jr." by Peniel Joseph.
King was definitely reading subversive stuff: "2.42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46....4.32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." Acts 2, 4. NIV
"Now obviously in life, it’s perfectly fair to agree with a historical figure about some things and not other things. But what I’m trying to say here is that King’s views on economic justice are not a separate thing from his view of the civil rights situation. It’s in the very same speech that he says the “content of their character” thing that he’s talking about the inadequacy of moving people from ghetto to ghetto and the intolerability of the situation in the northern cities."
The reason why King has the stature he does today while others do not isn't because of his speeches and sermons. It was because he was able to actually accomplish things and make real changes to the greater society. That doesn't magically happen from making and delivering great speeches.
So to understand King, you have to understand that he was a master strategist. As a student of strategy and strategic theory, I consider King to be one of the greatest strategists of the 20th century. No American since, in any strategic venue, has been his equal, and certainly not in the contemporary civil rights community. The ability to effectively employ strategy is what separated him from his peers.
His strategic acumen and genius are too often overlooked by those who would cherry-pick from his speeches or who would assume that everything he said or wanted had equal weight, or use his stature and try to ride on his coattails for their own agenda. It's not just "conservatives" like Cotton doing this. Liberals have been doing it for generations too.
So I think if you look beyond his speeches and what he said he wanted, and look instead at the strategic aspects of his program for change, you'll find he was focused on racial justice and considered that element a prerequisite to a broader program of economic justice. And so that is what he put his actual effort into from a strategic POV. One can't see that aspect by examining speeches.
It was the success of the civil rights movement that allowed him to change his focus to broader economic justice and he had only just begun to shift to that before his life was cut short. There was no one else with his strategic genius to take up the mantle, so that effort failed.
So the key aspects of King really have nothing to do which what modern conservatives or progressives profess to believe, nor does it have much to do with cherry-picking King's ideas and name to try to give legitimacy to contemporary policy initiatives. King was on a different level than that which is why he is such a substantial historical figure.
I think there’s also the issue of opportunity underachievement.
Like for instance: an exemplar public school may not be great, but could any school quality measure really explain why only 5% of students can perform at a grade level?
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/dst2019/pdf/2020016xr4.pdf
I think it’s pretty clear that there are serious other issues at play.
Also
“ into the cannon of national heroes”
How big were the shells that King was slinging?
One topic that I'd like to learn more about (maybe some commenters know?) is MLK's stance on communism/Marxism. I am aware that in the 50s/early 60s, he spoke out against both due to their materialism and godlessness. It seems like, through the 60s, as he was derided as a communist for his advocacy of redistributive policies, he gradually took a more adversarial stance, defending a Christian vision of economic justice/socialism. I'm not sure how he would react to modern Marxists or secular social Democrats. Would anyone more informed than me care to conjecture?
I'm not familiar with the Acton Institute so I'm not sure what their slant is, but this was a thought-provoking take: https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2018/01/15/3-reasons-martin-luther-king-jr-rejected-communism
Great article. I like how Matt dispatched conservatives at the beginning and progressives at the end. Conservatism as described here is just a dying ideology, though. The real interesting part is the end where Matt makes the case for moderation versus progressive ideas. He also seems to build the case that Biden's idea (universal child care credit, higher marginal tax rates, less licensing, limited support for protectionism, limited support for closed borders, etc) are completely in my wheelhouse of acceptability, I really like the article, but maybe there's a critique of Matt's viewpoint out there.
The 'unhelpful distancing' is a phrase one of the DEI consultants used and I really like it better than solidarity. Solidarity gets wrapped up in my mind with a lot of failed political movements that were questionable at best, but probable just not very successful. The DEI consultant applied the distancing within 'the struggle', but I like it better if you expand the idea to society. It kind of flips the narrative.
should have said 'which are completely in my wheelhouse'
It feels like we've picked the lower hanging fruit of civil rights law, and we're flailing at tougher collective action problems (the issues under the umbrella of systemic racism). Like, how do you reform policing without broad public pressure; and without that pressure, reformers get frustrated with complacency (an "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" posture). This move up a social Maslovian hierarchy seems to apply to climate policy, too. An economic solidarity approach has advantages, though it's also fraught in its own ways - but seems like a useful concrete approach.
You’re mostly right of course but many Black people (and women and others) would argue that shoving concerns about race into the corner tend to lead the bad outcomes. Hence the intersectionality vs thing.
Lots of really good points here, and I love the choice of subject matter, but I feel like MY is missing key parts of MLK's public arguments.
First, he was willing to take on populism directly, as in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail": "First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice."
Second, while MLK didn't use the term "microaggressions," he talked about things that we would call that. He repeatedly refers to "dignity," as in "Birmingham Jail": "a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality . . . who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses." He connects the use of words with the growth of people's fear: "your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness.""
So while I think all the points about MLK's belief in redistribution are excellent and worth shouting from the rooftops, I do not think it's accurate to suggest that MLK was a believer in pure populism (he took on white moderates explicitly), nor does it seem accurate to say that his major works didn't talk about things that today we would call "microaggressions."
Did you mean "popularism" instead of "populism"?
I mean populism in the sense that MLK did not come to white moderates with "it's you and us against the elites." That would have been the populist argument.
Instead, he came at them with the explicit antiracist/justice argument: "We must accept the current tension in order to move toward justice."
I don't mean to get bogged down in semantics, but it would be very weird for a reverend to try an anti-elite argument with a bunch of other clergy. The clergy are elites! King had a doctorate!
Yes, exactly!
Sorry, realizing that I probably shouldn't have used quotes. Meant to paraphrase.
I am still working on learning more about King and his ideas and how they evolved over time, so forgive me if I am under-informed. That quote gets pulled from LFABJ a lot, but ultimately the whole letter is a loving challenge to these white moderates to join him in Christian brotherhood with their actions, not just their words. I don't think he was rejecting populism per se, he was trying to spotlight a moral inconsistency between the stated intentions of his allies and their actions. Ultimately the letter is actually quite hopeful about the potential of interracial collaboration. The longform piece by Jose Yglesias is actually very interesting as it highlights how MLK was willing to go against his more extremist counterparts in the civil rights movement and pull white poor people into the Poor People's Campaign.
“Taking on white moderates” for their “devotion to order instead of justice” =/= critiquing “populism.” To the contrary, I understand his criticism of white moderates to be rooted in their unwillingness to upset the status who by embracing radical populist solutions like wealth redistribution.
I'm not suggesting that he was "critiquing" populism, just showing that MLK didn't apply the populist framing in all circumstances.
There were plenty of times, such as in his most famous text (as opposed to oration), when MLK made arguments based on appeals to morality and justice with no mention of common cause against the elites.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I agree he used a variety of rhetorical frames and this example of challenging white moderates is one of a number in which he didn’t use a “colorblind” approach.
That said, it’s still populist, to some degree, if you view “white moderates” as part of the elite that needed persuading and, failing that, a political push.
It's important to understand that MLK calling them "moderates" doesn't mean they were moderates. Jews, Methodists, and Presbyterians are the liberals in Birminham. 7 of the 8 were decidely liberal on race issues in Alabama. That's why King had to respond to them.
7 of the 8 what? I take your general point, anyway, and it reinforces mine: King criticizes white moderates (by 1960s standards) because they don’t embrace his populist platform for race and economic justice.
Dr King was responding to a letter written by 8 Alabama religious leaders. In my reader, the Episcopal Bishop was less receptive of the civil rights movement than the others. The others would be have been considered very liberal. King responded with criticism because they DID embrace his platform and they had become concerned that a lot of violence was about to occur. It was a letter to his allies that had gotten cold feet.
Ah, thanks, I get it now!
I remember reading Howard Thurman and in one section thinking, oh, that's where they got microaggression.
Matt writes:
'But if you want to understand why racial justice advocates aren’t satisfied with the “judge by the content of character” nostrum, it’s because King’s version of that dream was the endpoint of a program of massive material redistribution to build a radically more egalitarian society.'
I mean, it's true that racial justice advocates aren't satisfied by that, and it's true that many also favour economic redistribution, but I'm really not sure that's the *reason* they're going in the direction they're going. If so, why not just advocate for a radically more egalitarian society in economic terms?
That's not what they're doing, or I think what they would view themselves as doing.
I think there are actually two strains of "racial justice advocates" these days. Obviously, the world doesn't just fall nicely into buckets but I see it like this:
1.) Corporate Woke (Robin Deangelo, IXK, etc. )
2.) Leftist Woke
(forgive the sloppy use of the word woke but we all know what I'm talking about)
They both exist basically on top of each other, so it makes it hard to point at racial justice activism and say it's this or that. We have one group that pumps out Colin Kaepernick ads for Nike and calls it a big game-changer, and another group that would point out that Nike doesn't exactly have a great track record with labor ethics (mostly affecting brown people on the other side of the world). Both groups however share some slightly out-there ideas about how we should discuss race today... So it's easy for anyone to paint anyone as crazy.
The well-off white yuppie millennials want to feel good about themselves, so there is now a market for stroking their egos with a sort of weird guilt porn (see White Fragiliy, Not My Idea) that is both very provocative and can be called "radicalism" but also doesn't propose anything remotely approaching a solution (see Kendi's Dept. of Antiracism). This is where I'd slot in most of the cancel-culture behavior as well... the market of performative activism whips people into doing mean things (go figure).
Then the actual left is so strangely tied up in all this stuff, that they lose credibility. You get people like the members of the squad, who will be dead on about so many of the issues and have potential solutions, but at the same time lean into the divisive and confusing woke politics. I think this really hurts the brand of the left. But hey, it's not like there's a nice little button to push to get everyone's messaging in line haha...
"If so, why not just advocate for a radically more egalitarian society in economic terms?"
Right here you are hitting on a fundamental issue with the American left. They can't make a political calculation to save their lives! Seems pretty simple when it's written out like that but alas...
I just think as long as people who identify as socialists are reading antiracist baby to their kids.... The right wing will have plenty of anecdotes of otherwise smart/well-intentioned lefties doing dumb/anti-intellectual stuff that will scare people away.
A lot of my general ideas about race and class are formed by Heather McGhee's The Sum of Us, and Matt Taibbi's The Divide.
I think the thing about King's thought which you indirectly note a few times, including in the sub-head, is that it was drawing on a very clear tradition, namely radical Christianity. He was a preacher, a doctor of theology and he drew enormously from that well, in his oratory but also in his thinking. He's very much challenging along the same lines along which Jesus is reported to have challenged: what does it mean, to leave your fellow man in the dust? It seems pretty clear that the biblical Jesus would have as a starting point not focusing on someone's skin colour, but that is very clearly only the beginning of a very long list of increasingly difficult moral demands. And it's very obviously that tradition, that belief that inspired Rev King.
And while it's obvious and reasonable why agnostic (or Jewish, or atheist) leftists gloss over that source and focus on what the impact would be of King's approach, I do wonder why self-proclaimed Christian conservatives (like Tom Cotton) don't want to engage with King's thoughts as Christians, given that's the cornerstone of what King was saying (and as you note, he buttressed it with a *lot* of Scripture)
Where in scripture does it say we should elect a government that will redistribute wealth?
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth?
Amos, Chapter 2, NIV --
6 This is what the Lord says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not relent.
They sell the innocent for silver,
and the needy for a pair of sandals.
7 They trample on the heads of the poor
as on the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
That sounds like an admonition not to enslave the poor, not for redistributing income.