Pretty darn good article for an intern. I’m not white but I can say I feel a little bad when I hear how a certain program is going to target black, Native American, Hispanic, and other marginalized communities. I don’t feel bad because I sympathize with white supremacy or have anything but compassion for the plight of all sorts of minority groups, but because I’ve lived around a heck of a lot of white people who have struggled mightily. I work with people like that. Folks who’ve been on welfare or are the first in their family to go to college or have had abuse issues or any of a number of other difficult challenges. When u say for the thousandth time that we
need to target folks by race I know these people hear that they are not valued, because I hear them say it. They have not been floating around in clouds of white privilege. Maybe some people have, but they haven’t and why do we need to insult them? And why do we have to jump through all sorts of rhetorical hoops and disclaimers to say we support them? In short, I agree with the article Marc, nicely done.
I'm very in favor of policies which help historically oppressed communities, but I do find the Biden admin focus on "Asian businesses" along with the rest a bit baffling when (iirc) Asian-Americans actually earn more on average and live longer on average than white Americans. I think we need a much more muscular social policy to push back on anti-Asian racism, but to me that's a bit of a separate concern, and lumping in a demographic group that's recently become extremely successful alongside still-disadvantaged groups when it comes to economic policy strikes me as rather counter-productive.
This is one of the problems with identity politics and prioritizing group identities in general. There are Asian sub-groups whose socio-economic conditions are much worse that average. Cambodians, Hmongs and Laos immigrants in California have all kinds of crime and education problems. The same might be true of Hmong in Minnesota and Pakistanis in NYC. Within the greater African American community, Caribbean immigrants are doing much better than the average Black American and West African immigrants have a median income slightly higher than the average White American (but Somali immigrant incomes are lower than the average Black American). Latino incomes are on a path to catch up with the average American, but Puerto Ricans, especially in NYC, remain one of the most behind ethnic groups in the United States. Why not just help individuals who are struggling, whatever their background? And where racism can be identified as the problem, address the racism?
I probably wasn't clear enough - but I was trying to point out the problems with focusing on ethnicity and race when making policy. The arguments for racial policies often start with "X group is doing badly, let's help them" but lots of sub-groups in X group are actually doing well. I guess you could further sub-divide, but we probably agree that a national policy messaged around supporting Puerto Ricans and Cambodians but not Cubans and Koreans starts to sound a little weird. But that's only one step away from Biden's and Democrat's current messaging
I think this is an artifact of the Sixties, when we set in place the idea of “white” versus “minorities” because that’s how the country was then. The country has progressed, but the law hasn’t caught up. Now have a country where Indian immigrants (who never experienced historical discrimination in this country) are eligible recipients of affirmative action policies.
I actually think the Asian discrimination issue is a surprising turn for the racism in America discussion. I say go for it include every group you can in this discussion and let’s denounce all types. The important thing is to then say now what? How are we going to improve lives? Symbolic v. Practical victories with the emphasis pendulum swinging too far over to the symbolic side lately as Matt pointed out in previous post. Pro Asian business policies may be totally superfluous, though.
Aside from my points above I think we also do need better targeted programs for black communities. If you are looking to lift up a city or district that is almost all black, poor, and with a slew of other problems, I think you need targeted programs to that community. And it probably needs to be federal, the local tax situation is going to be not great. I don’t know what the best programs for lifting this hypothetical (though plenty of examples exist) community, but they probably won’t be universal, won’t directly help white people, but would be really important. I’m not sure voters prioritize this sort of thing and it’s a problem. Segregation still a big problem in this country.
And how would such targeted programs work, in our constitutional system? The United States is not Lebanon, it is not Israel, it is not the old Soviet Union, where people are classified by official ethnic definitions that are marked on passports and marriage records. In the past, we made these distinctions, but now we don’t. I think we don’t want to go back there.
So this is why we have programs that target “disadvantaged communities” which is really targeting geography (with paradoxical results in gentrifying areas). We get away with the political deal called affirmative action, but for how much longer? The chief justice of the Supreme Court has said “the way to stop discrimination by race is to stop discriminating by race” and he will soon have a big say in that question. And it’s uncomfortable logic.
So, yes, do it through philanthropy, which means that people who really care about the people in those communities would have to do so by writing checks. The woke philantrophists would be far better off directing their attentions, honestly, in that way, instead of trying to corrupt our political system and set us all against each other.
I think targeting areas that were redlined and still have above average rates of poverty would not exclusively target things toward Black people or reach all Black people but it would probably do more to reduce racial inequality and injustice than just sweeping programs to assist people in poverty. I think that should be done on top of programs to assist all people in poverty. To the extent that also provides extra help to some non-Black poor people living in poor communities, I think anyone overly concerned about that is largely missing the point. I am personally much less worried about making communities that are poor better resources is going to accelerate gentrification. I think housing scarcity everywhere is the primary driver of gentrification and particularly the pernicious effects of forcing low income renters out of housing. I think increasing housing everywhere including infilling higher income areas with more multifamily housing is likely to reduce residential segregation which remains one of the primary drivers of racial inequality.
Well, no. The redlining argument has always been ridiculous. The causality is backwards: the disadvantaged people who live there now, live there because it's (relatively) cheap, and that's because the redlining (long, long ago) starved the neighborhood's property owners of investment capital. The actual people who were harmed were not these disadvantaged minorities and have little in common with those who live there now (most of them were white working-class people - in New York, the black population was about 6% at the time these maps were active). Very few of them were property owners anyway. You could be a little impertinent and say that the redlining actually helped the disadvantaged people who are there today, because it created blighted neighborhoods that are cheap enough for them to live in. Basically, the redlining argument is nothing but a political grift, a fake criterion that is very obviously an attempt to direct government program money to people based on race - which is illegal, and legally provably so.
That is a strange analysis of the impact of redlining which almost all credible research show dramatically impact wealth disparities between white and Black Americans by restricting home ownership for Black families to areas where a lack of available credit led to reduced property values and concentrations of poverty that led to Black people being segregated into more poorly performing schools and in areas with less infrastructure investment to support employment and with more exposure to pollution while generations of white families were able to take advantage of federally backed mortgage securities to develop intergenerational wealth through homeownership.
But in the process of researching your claim to see if there was any merit, I did come across information that suggests that while redlining did negatively impact wealth for Black families, gentrification has sufficiently relocated Black and other low income residents outside of many historically redlined areas and into lower income suburbs in cities with urban core growth, like Seattle and Denver, or throughout the city in areas like Baltimore. So it appears that actually targeting extra support to census tracts with the lowest level of housing stability as evidenced by eviction rates and/or the lowest per household income would be a better way to target aid to families who were historically impacted by government sanctioned housing discrimination so that was useful research. https://www.urban.org/features/ghosts-housing-discrimination-reach-beyond-redlining
I would call this a parroting of political speech, not credible research. People move around a lot in America. The families who were impacted by redlining in 1950 (mostly, not black) are not around in those areas today. The redlining did not stop them from moving. The people who are there today are not "historically impacted." Their families weren't even there until the 1960's and 1970's (that is, in my lifetime): they were in the rural South and had different problems. They moved into redlined areas because that's where they could find homes to live in. It's too bad that those areas have bad infrastructure and pollution, but the poverty of those who live there today was not caused by this; they were poor when they came. Availability of mortgages and mortgage subsidies in those areas is completely irrelevant because the people who lived there are, and were always, too poor to qualify for them. Redlining has nothing at all to do with school segregation, evictions, unemployment and the other ills. They are ills, but they are caused by something else.
Along these lines, let's retire the phrase "white privilege". We need a different name for the things that white people currently have a disproportionate share of, which we want all people to have access to. There are few white people in the 95% who sees themselves as privileged and the word privilege connotes something that can/should be taken away. There aren't many in the top 5% who see themselves that way either.
I have a different, I think practical, problem with "white privilege". To understand it and agree with it, you either have to: 1) have gone to college and probably recently 2) See yourself as very privileged 3) Have read social justice and anti-racism books 4) already be have fully bought in to the woke progressive platform from some other way.
All that adds up to it's a very "preaching to the choir" kind of messaging. Politics aside, I'd be very, very surprised if there are many 50 year old, low income white people who are persuaded by the slogan to think or behave differently at all. And if you're not persuading people to change, what's the point?
Well, it's class, as in social class. As an immigrant from the UK, the extent to which American politics will bend to try to avoid suggesting that there are class divisions in American society is a consistent wonder to behold.
It's in no small part class, but not entirely class, as you hear plenty of stories about wealthy African-Americans getting pulled over or otherwise having deeply negative interactions with police in ways that just aren't the same for middle-class or even poorer Americans.
You're definitely right about that, but the term I'd use for that is just straight up racism. I feel like using a term like "white privilege" in that context (e.g., a wealthy black man being pulled over because he's driving a fancy sportscar, etc) is sort of deflecting from calling out what is clear racial discrimination.
Yeah, I think "white privilege" here actually shifts blame *away from* the racist cop pulling over the wealthy black guy, to the black guy's white counterpart who's not getting pulled over.
This is still about class though. Class isn't just about money its about social hierarchy and how the people at the top act as gatekeepers. The upper class in Europe absolutely loath 'new money'. These are people who take wealth and privilege for granted; they don't value wealth anymore than a fish values water - until you try to take it from them of course.
Many white lower-middle-class people feel their position in society is precarious and feel threatened by the rise of non-whites into the middle class and react badly as a result. The economic and racial aspects of this are intertwined. Trump panders to this very well. American elites are embarrassed by class and IMO the failure to acknowledge that Dems have a clear issue with appealing to working-class voters that is costing them ALOT of seats and elections is a big problem.
That's so weird to me to constantly hear this, because I thought the entire *point* of talk about "privilege" was to do *precisely* this. "Privilege" is something that everyone has some bits of and lacks other bits of. People are totally used to the idea that someone can have one set of privileges due to their credit card, and someone else can have another set of privileges because of their long-term membership in a club. By talking about "privilege" it became clear that white people have one set of privileges and males have another set and rich people have another set, and *also* that there are some privileges that women have, and members of other racial groups in particular contexts. It's supposed to make clear the intersectional nature of things so that there *isn't* a universal ranking scheme.
But somehow, people have taken this language that was precisely defined *not* to have a single hierarchy, and turned it back into a crude caricature where there is a hierarchy. The fact that "intersectionality" and "privilege" are now seen as precisely the opposite of what they say suggests to me that there is something about public discourse that makes it nearly impossible for a term to keep this better meaning that we all agree we need.
Yeah I guess some of it comes down to the word privilege, how it rolls off your tongue and how it processes in your brain. When I say hey you’re pretty privileged I doubt your brain will jump to hey thanks let’s both be more privileged! You’ll probably be like no I’m not. Also I think peoples negative experiences are a deep part of their identity, to shorthand describe someone by their privileges kinda goes against how they see themselves and is almost negating of the most important parts of their lives.
I think that sounds right. And it's probably at the core of the problem. What we need is terminology that makes it clear that people both have certain unfair advantages while also having certain unfair disadvantages. But people are very aware of the unfair disadvantages they have, and think that it denies that to simultaneously point out the unfair advantages they also have.
Exactly - I think the concept of white privilege is useful and important but that “privilege” is just a terrible word for “basic rights everyone should have,” which is how it’s now being used in the popular discourse.
You can “precisely define” all you want, but that doesn’t mean people outside of your seminar are going to adopt that definition or that usage. In academia you can define terms, you can expect people to read and pay attention to that but out in the wild, people are often going to go with what they think it means, or what most people think it means. This is why progressives are so horrible at messaging—they think they can decide definitions and impose them on people, while conservatives are smart enough to market-test their propaganda terms and adopt things that catch on with their audience.
Yea, "white privilege" is an almost universally counter-productive term. It's vague to the point of near uselessness, but here's the fundamental flaw: The primary historical privilege of being white in America has been full access to a cutthroat competitive free market in which success is in no way guaranteed.
People feel naturally entitled to the rewards of their competitive success in the market. That black people, along with almost everyone else in history, were historically denied access to that market is an injustice, but it doesn't invalidate having succeeded on it's terms. And people who have failed to achieve success in the market are hardly going to feel privileged to have had the hypothetical opportunity.
So, the term “white privilege” never bothered me much, because to me, it was intended to highlight the relative advantages of being white in American society over being black. It is a slight advantage you don’t realize you have. Similar to being right handed and never having to worry about running into an uncomfortable pair of scissors or finding a compatible desk. To me, it never meant being wealthy or even having power. It mostly meant that life is easier as a member of the majority and you do best to recognize that before you lecture a member of the minority about how they don’t understand racism or some such. Aka “check your privilege”- take a moment to do an inventory of your racial advantage and don’t assume you know what it’s like to be a minority. That’s all.
I like the way you describe it. I notice that nobody would take offense at being told that their right-handedness has certain advantages. Yet some of them can get very upset if the only desk remaining is a left-handed one.
I don't deny this meaning, but add that the phrase has also come to express the idea that something a white person has or enjoys, or has a right to, is undeserved and illegitimate. It is a hostile expression, and racially charged.
While I never used it in a hostile way, I agree I have seen it used angrily. And one of the axioms of wokeness is “intent doesn’t matter, impact does,” so I think people who use it in a way that elicits frustration and defensiveness owe it to themselves to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better. I agree with Matt/McGhee that what people are actually trying to describe is the lack of an unfair burden, something everyone deserves, not something that needs to be taken away. So I am ok with retiring the term all together.
"And one of the axioms of wokeness is “intent doesn’t matter, impact does,” so I think people who use it in a way that elicits frustration and defensiveness owe it to themselves to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better."
Say it louder for the people in the back! I cannot agree more on how we (the left) adheres to this way of thinking to justify anti-racism rhetoric and policies, yet ignore it when the results come back and shows that these race-centered rhetoric and policies do not work as well as intended...
That’s a good summary of the intent—but the problem is, most people tend to associate privilege not with being in the majority, but being in an elite minority—being “special.” The problem is that black people are the opposite kind of minority. The original intent of casting the issue as “white privilege” rather than “black disadvantage” was to try to put the onus on white people to deal with racism, which was well meant but ultimately doomed to fail because the framing just doesn’t work.
The problem with thinking in terms of group privilege is there is so much variation at the individual level. Intelligence, attractiveness, physical ability, health, personality traits, disposition all can have significant impacts on ones success. Acting like Lebron has it tough because he’s a black man is mostly crazy. He is a extraordinarily privileged man because he is like 6 std dev above the mean in athleticism (this pays well in America). Making an argument that “at the mean” whites have it better, when so many people don’t live their lives at the mean, is tough.
I think the far more politically palatable framing would be to say that everyone should be privileged. Instead, Democrats constantly talk in terms of taking it away. I understand why but politically I think it’s a big mistake.
Couldn’t agree more - why frame it in the most threatening and negative possible way? More universalist language - something along the lines of “these are rights everyone deserves” or whatever - would just engender so much less backlash. We (progressives) are just shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason by adopting all these terms from academia, where being fresh and edgy is good for your career, and repurposing them wholesale (something messing up the original meanings along the way too!) for politics, which is just a very different game.
And to be clear, I think both white fragility and intersectionality are important ideas and good additions to the discourse. But they are not good political strategy.
No, the more politically palatable framing would be to say that no one should be privileged, and no one should be disadvantaged. There’s no point in privilege if everyone has it.
Essentially yes. But I think of it as raising others up, not taking away something per se. I've thought of white privilege as the many unseen benefits of being in the majority. And since they are unseen to most white people, the idea of taking something away only turns them off.
Unfortunately white people see it as either something to be taken away or something they never had when of course we have. Some of the argument is always 'I'm white and I'm not privileged (whatever there definition of privilege is)" and of course even the most needy of us is privileged in every hiring interaction etc (I'm not gonna whitesplain 'white privilege '). Getting past this defensiveness is normal but with a word that explains 'privilege ' would allow for a discussion that doesn't have to include always as a preface a definition which always sounds to me when I'm doing it like I'm shaking my finger at people. Oh they deserve it but not the way to get votes and let's face it without votes no change in policy can happen.
Not just money. I think a lot of the current agitation re racial justice is due to things like social status, perceived physical attractiveness etc. e.g. black women demanding that cultural norms of beauty be changed so that they are considered more desirable.
But why is that a problem? That is really my question. Why is it a given that if disproportion (by your definition) exists, that it is something that needs to be fixed?
I agree with some of what you say, but in a lower key and for different reasons. Wealth inequality does not bother me, per se. In fact, it is an inevitable result of the capitalist system that has otherwise been so useful in creating progress and wealth for society as a whole. There’s nothing wrong with it that a good progressive taxation system and public investment in human capital like childcare and education couldn’t cure.
There are two ways in which it really bothers me in practice, today. First, it is offensive that wealth gives its holders excessive political rights, when in law we are all equal citizens. Second, wealth inequality has now become so extreme that it is impairing the functioning of the capitalist system to produce prosperity for all its members. I was a Warren supporter for this reason: she, alone, of the candidates, was staying focused on the problem, which is inequality and corruption.
I think that simply disliking that people should be wealthy is hardly an argument for forcing equality through confiscatory taxation. In fact, I'd come back and argue, like a conservative, what justification you’d have for taking people’s rights away to achieve your personal preference? I think the aim of flattening the curve on wealth inequality is perfectly well served by reasonable estate taxes justified as the responsibility of the prosperous to maintain the economic functioning of society. It’s both unnecessary and unwise to use this power to extirpate the prosperous themselves. This kind of thing has a bad historical track record.
I also see the racial wealth gap concept as being essentially useless and divisive. To me the statistics are just an artifact of the way that large numbers of ordinary Americans have been cheated of their share of prosperity that should have been coming to them in a fairer system. The circumstance that many such people are black is of secondary interest to me. Restart the economy for ordinary people, drive to full employment, and progress will be rapid. Let’s focus on that, instead of setting people against each other in a kind of dueling psychodrama.
Dan -- I share your and Carnegie's views on inter-generational wealth transfers (i.e., eliminate them entirely). Best I can tell though inter-generational wealth transfers account for more like 30% of the accumulated wealth in the top 10% in the US. Would be interested if you're seeing that majority figure elsewhere.
You could see this in action with Matt's interview with Melissa Boteach on the Weeds this week.
Four or five times after he would make a point about how helpful a policy would be for people with low/no income, she felt the need to stress how beneficial it was from a racial equity perspective.
I think you believe this occurs for basically the same reasons I do. There is a battle in left leaning elite thought, where one group favors straight up reparations and another group sees this is too unpopular to be feasible. The second group tries to get the first on board a race blind agenda by hammering away with "We don't need to pursue unpopular reparation policies because race neutral ones will disproportionately benefit minorities simply due to age/income demographics.".
It's a good argument, and so central to their internal debates... the redistributive effects are a feature not a bug... they have trouble adjusting their mindset to the unfortunate fact this is not a good argument to use with a large segment of the electorate.
If it was there would be no need for this song and dance, and we could just provide reparations directly.
I think also that Joe’s framing as these policies as pro-minority works too well. Plenty of people on the left believe you will not help black people enough with universalist programs and they aren’t totally wrong. Some really poor black communities are in all practical sense segregated, poor, with poor educational and economic options, often high violent crime rates. I think activists are right to say hey we don’t need a universalist program here we need something targeted and we need to face that voters just don’t really like targeted money that helps only struggling black communities please advocate for us. That is not an altogether irrational place for advocacy. But they should listen to these programs that are universal but touted as pro-black and should be unimpressed. They should want real pro black policies, not necessarily reparations, but something. Liberal politicians have to tout these other programs as pro black because I don’t think they could get real targeted programs that help struggling black schools raise up through the system. Amd
Im not sure there is a great template to help these communities you can just throw money at. You have to try stuff, fail, try again, and keep facing the voters. I still think this is a neglected space that is hard to talk about and not surprising you get rhetorical sleight of hands when trying to address it.
It’s a slight of hand because what the advocates of such policies want to do (direct government resources racially) contravenes the Civil Rights Act and broadly-held American ideas of fairness and justice. The political fact of strong political opposition simply reflects this. It makes things worse for policies that actually help.
There is no barrier to philanthropy being targeted at a racially defined community (as long as they don’t discriminate against persons). Additionally, all you have to convince are program officers, not the American people. So get some private money, do a big push somewhere, try and fail and keep pushing until you know what works and is self-sustaining. When (if) you get there, this might then inform universalist policy that would further help the situation in those communities.
Meanwhile, the majority of black people, who are not members of the disorderly poor, will be well served by universalist programs that support ordinary people such as themselves and many other Americans. It won’t “solve” racism but it will make their lives better, more certainly, than confounding their interests with racially-targeted programs that do not prioritize them or their interests.
The point that greater financial security enables more women and minorities to get away from unpleasant workplaces is a good one, and one I hadn't appreciated before, thanks!
I wonder if this flawed messaging from Biden comes from the fact that "woke capitalists" are disproportionately higher-income and more likely to donate to political candidates? They would also be disproportionately likely to be watching some random speech
I think this is certainly part of it. My pet theory is that it's because college-educated folks (who work on the Biden campaign) know so many woke capitalists, but know very few populists. If you grew up in a coastal city and then went to a good college, how many Medicare-loving pro-lifers are you going to know? Everybody who went to college knows a really tolerant, pretty woke guy who's economically conservative, and I think some of the staffers think about how to convince these guys (who they knew from running in educated circles) rather than the Medicare-loving pro-lifers from places they'd never visit
I've been trying to think think about the causes* and I think it's worth noting that the complaint used to be that campaigns were too cautious and too cautious of older culturally conservative voters (think of Chuck Schumer's imaginary friends). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/19/imaginary-friends'
I remember Mark Schmidt making the comment (probably in the aughts) that he was inclined to defer to the people who actually had to win elections on the best messaging -- at the time that was in response to an online left that wanted politicians to be bolder in their messaging.
The message, again, was that actual politicians had more interest in knowing how to appeal to voters than pundits. So it feels like a shift to have see the complaint being directed at politicians that they are (a) making a mistake in messaging and (b) the mistake is being too cutting-edge.
I feel like that deserves more of an explanation, and I believe that the college-educated bubble is part of it, but I'm not convinced that's a complete explanation.
* In a separate comment I quoted from Brad DeLong's argument for why he thought it was time to "pass the baton" of leadership to a newly energized left https://www.bradford-delong.com/2019/03/passing-the-baton-the-interview.html -- "There are three reasons: a political reason, a policy-implementation reason, and a we've-learned-about-the-world reason:"
I've yet to hear anyone, on the left or the right, articulate a persuasive alternative to the classical liberal goal of a society where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". The criticisms of that ideal from the left seem to be more about implementation than the end goal. To the extent people lose sight of that as the end goal, and get lost in epicycles of how to get there, it's the job of leaders to continually keep the focus on that as the end goal.
So what should Democrats say when they go on black media and are asked specifically about programs to help African Americans? Or when young black voters demand to know how specific policies will help black America in exchange for their votes? Because these outlets exist, these voters exist, and they routinely raise this issue. I don't think the Dems are racializing anything themselves just because, they are responding to some of their voters. This article kind of comes off as "put the considerations of white voters with racial grievances first and foremost" because those are the people that will have most of issue with you talk of racial inequality and an of course unfair amount of power to decide elections. Then somehow black voters support of economic reforms, and Obama's words are used as cover against people calling that out. Many white people would have an issue with Obama talking about not just because of the message, but the messenger. I realize that messaging matters, and maybe as a black person it is frustrating to hear that when the Democratic Party finally starts talking more honestly about race, it is derided as "making everything about race". I accept the unfair position the Dems are in given the rigged electoral system, so they have to win over a certain voter to win elections, I just think wish that the unfairness was pointed out more. Rather than takes that sound a lot like "Dems are screwing up because they are not put the feelings of white people first".
I think being on black media and asked a direct question about which programs help African Americans is a great time to talk about how your race-blind policy proposals help African Americans. But I don't think this should be the national strategy. I don't think it's about putting white people first. It's about winning, which involves not alienating too many populists (many of whom are Black, Latino, Asian, etc.) in your pursuit of the woke capitalist vote or increased Black turnout (which I'm not sure is delivered in this way anyway)
There are things to say but bear in mind that most voters do not (consciously and maybe not at all) vote on the basis is of their personal material interest. People think of themselves as voting for the public interest or at least of a group that they are part of and even at that, not in a transactional relation of "what can you promise me in return for my vote?"
Sorry, but your use of Cory Booker talking about baby bonds kinda makes it seems like you want little mention of it beyond not making it part of the Dems national strategy. Booker spends most of his time push baby bonds as something that will help people of all walks of life, but research shows it can powerful positive effect on black wealth. Seems to me that pointing this out is completely fair. I really don't see the Dems framing their policies as primary about solving racial injustices.
Yes but black media ask questions about target programs too. The Breakfast Club is a popular show that younger black people listen to, and Democratic candidates all went on there to pitch their idea. The candidates were asked about how their policies would help African Americans, and they requested answers beyond universal programs. I don't think discussions of targeted programs can be avoided. Many of the conditions faced by black people are not unique to them, but they often made worse because you have a level of racism amplifying the harm. So the Dems won't be able to hide from the questions about dealing with the racist aspects. Plus, black journalists and pundits are employed in mainstream media too, there is no uniformity in their views, these questions about targeted help are bound to come up.
I am not worried about increasing black turnout, I am potentially making voter apathy more widespread. Voter suppression is real, black voters have to wait in line longer on average than white voters. Black activists put in a lot of effort trying to get black voters to the polls and they will be facing a new wave of voter suppression efforts. Is there any thought about alienating these people? Why go the extra mile for a party that refuses to commit or even address issues you think hurt your community the worst. If voters on the margin matter, are we so sure these people will be willing to do the extra work and stand in line potentially for hours to vote for a party that won't even commit to anything beyond push universal class-based plans.
And which populist are we really concerned about? I don't think leftist Bernie-style supporters will be that alienated that they vote GOP, neither would black populists. Latinos I am not sure, seems more of a mixed bag. I think the risk with discussion race is more concentrated with white people with conservative views on race and racism. When race becomes more salient, you lose these voters the quickest. So while you make say this is about not alienating populists, I think "populist" is doing a lot of work to cover for the fact it is primarily white people with regressive racial views.
I think if you are speaking to black media then it is perfectly reasonable to talk about how this policy will help black voters, in much the same way that if you are talking to local media in a state you talk about what your policies are going to do for the people in that state. But you do not make that a part of your national general messaging. It really is not that complicated or some sort of either/or dilemma.
Not a dilemma? So there is no possible way for Fox News to weaponize a comment made to black media, or the mainstream media to pick up on it and ask about it themselves, or they run into a black person outside of black media, or black communities that ask them directly. The Dems hardly have it as part of the national messaging strategy, not even black candidates. Not like Cory Booker went to Iowa championing baby bonds are some pro-black economic project. Warnock ran on multi-culturalism, not blackness. They simply give an honest answer when asked, and occasionally highlight it as a positive effect of their policy. Sure, talk to different audiences in different ways, but I think it is a stretch to demand that every time a Democrat opens their mouth they make the calculation that white people might get pissed off at what they say. I mean Obama showed Trayvon Martin's family affection, and that pissed some people off. I think it is fair to ask where the line is on these requests to drop race.
I just told you where the lines is: when you talk to black media and are asked questions respond to them like you would the local Iowan who wants to know your position on corn subsidies talking about the stuff that effects their community. Otherwise, don't. There is no dilemma because Fox News will weaponize anything said, even if that means taking things out of context, so don't worry about that.
Yes - I think Democrats have to get over their fear of Fox News and treat it as something they basically can't control. Unless every Democrat/left activist across the country never says anything controversial ever (which won't happen), Fox News will always be able to grab some sound bite and weaponize it, so we should ease up on the "don't say it out loud or Fox News will use it!" stuff. But *also*, you can't say "well Fox News will always screw us so might as well talk in the most woke ways possible"... not everyone is paying attention to Fox News and the talking points it spawns, and you want to tailor your message to your target audience even if there's spillover. So for a general audience on a network news program, talk about how it helps every poor American, for a black audience, talk about how because poverty is more of an issue for black people, it'll have a real impact in the black community, etc.
It's hard to get around the basic self-interest of voters in all of this. When I heard Trump talking about preserving coal mining jobs in West Virginia I have to admit i didn't care an awful lot. Environmental issues aside, the messaging was his priority would be people who aren't me. I think when a voter hears a politician talk about a person "that isn't them" there's a risk that the politician will lose support, and politics is about balancing those risks across all potential voters.
The point of Marc's post, I believe, was to argue that those risks are best balanced by emphasizing race less when talking progressive economic policies, because it maximizes the number of voters who think 'hey this gal or guy is talking about me"
Also, I think you might be overweighting the role of Fox - virtually any day that I look at the NYTimes they are discussing, analyzing and promoting the racial equity aspect of political platforms. If Biden says he's going to do something on behalf of Black voters I will certainly hear about it in the NYTimes first.
Fox News is a major propaganda machine of the right. The talking points that are crafted get adopted by Republican politicians, and then these politicians are welcome on all sorts of news outlets that gettable voters for the Dems watch. I am not concerned with Fox News, I am more pointing out that anything a Dem says on black media outlets can become topics on mainstream outlets through Fox.
Advocating race-neutral policies is not “prioritizing white voters with racial grievances.” It is making a statement that in our public life we are all equal citizens who are worthy to be addressed as such. This is a basic concept of fairness as held by the great majority of Americans, of all races. It is a dilemma to try to advocate zero-sum policies for Black people and expect the 5x majority to go along with it. The answer to that dilemma is: stop doing that.
Partially thought-out response. There's an old adage, "you can't manage what you don't measure." One reason to say, "we propose this race neutral policy, and one measure of it's success will be reducing the racial wealth gap" is to include that as part of the measurement / management of the program.
Of course, there are better and worse ways to say that, but in theory, there would be a parallel structure to, "we're raising the cigarette tax to reduce teen smoking." The tax is universal, but one measure of success is to track teen smoking.
"I accept the unfair position the Dems are in given the rigged electoral system, so they have to win over a certain voter to win elections, I just think wish that the unfairness was pointed out more."
It is pointed out *constantly*, and it gets used as an excuse to not win elections. The Dems are at a disadvantage due to geography, but their choices are to whine about it and underperform/lose or adapt to the system and win. The latter is far, far more effective at helping actual human beings.
I agree. One argument I made, talking with somebody who thought Warren spent too much time talking about trans issues was, "Democratic politicians need to be able to comfortably give a good answer when asked about (e.g., trans issues or the racial wealth gap) and that the only way to get comfortable is reps. It needs to be something that they talk about enough that it doesn't feel awkward when they are in a situation that requires a specific answer."
That doesn't tell you how much to foreground those issues, or how to frame them, but if you cordon off discussion of (the racial wealth gap) to only certain settings then politicians will inevitably sound stilted and awkward when they try to talk about it.
I think the thing you really want to avoid is something like where Kristen Gillibrand got a question from a white woman in Ohio about "white privilege" and used that to launch into a consciousness-raising exercise on the subject of white privilege. Plus then on a nationally televised debate stage Gillibrand actually sold herself as somebody who could explain white privilege to white woman. Kinda missed that the woman probably wanted to hear about how you were going to help her with her problems not some insights on CRT101. Also not surprising the Gillibrand campaign flamed out.
But Gillibrand's answer was great! That was one of the positive memories of the primaries for me. I admit, I didn't watch the clip, I just saw it quoted, but I remember seeing the clip of Warren talking about abortion in a way that challenged the person asking the question but did so in a way that was very respectful (and, I thought, showed her experience as a teacher).
Everyone remembers Bill Clinton saying, "I feel your pain" as an example of not answering the literal question that was asked (about the budget deficit) and instead responding to the deeper concern, ("how can you fix what's wrong") but go back and watch, for example, his appearance on Arsenio Hall and you see him talking all sorts of tricky questions -- including talking about Race in a way that acknowledges the difficulties and doesn't try to dodge the question.
So what should democrats say? Not sure. I can tell you what my practice is when talking about race in public—-I shut up. There’s no right way to discuss. It is so personal to peoples identity it’s hard not to get in an argument even with those you agree with. I think Obama really handled it well, so I don’t know if it’s totally fair to say that people pointing to his example are using him as a shield for white people, though I’m sure that happens too. If guys have large targeted program just for black people, go for it and promote it. If you have a more universal program that will help black people, let them know. But if it isnt REALLY a pro-Black program, you kinda need to let everyone else know it’s here to help them too or you risk alienating them. I dunno, in reality it’s a balance I guess, in my view.
If the context is appropriate, emphasizing how tax or immigration reform, a higher minimum wage, or a revenue neutral tax on net CO2 emissions will help a particular group is fine.
Of course it is. But talking about any of the above will excite some voters and risk alienating others, while the time spent is a missed opportunity to talk about issues that will increase support from other, other voters.
To me the point is not "don't talk about something unless it applies to everyone". The goal is balance these tradeoffs if you want to get elected. So if someone supports Biden and the policies his administration might implement, they should encourage him to get the messaging right so that his chance of re-election and support is also maximized.
I’m a little skeptical that progressive donors are the ones driving this. In my experience as a fundraiser for progressive orgs, most of our donors are old school liberals and very much into class based politics and/or 60s style racial equality; they care about racism among other issues, but they’re not driving the “white privilege“ talk. I think it’s much more the Millennial and Gen Z staffers, as well as pressure from Twitter and the media, that pushes political candidates in this direction. Tl;dr: It’s not the donors, it’s Twitter.
I think campaigns wildly overestimate that. Anyone with access to my ActBlue data can pretty quickly figure out that I’m a centrist. That includes the primary candidates
I gave to. As soon as Biden won I started getting an avalanche of emails under the heading of Elizabeth Warren and others that simply assumed I must be progressive. Needless to say these weren’t very effective with me. Seriously how hard would it have been to have Klobuchar donors get emails from Klobuchar?
My admittedly anecdotal point was that maybe we have not tested that proposition recently. Since all the marketing is to the progressives we don't know who would more money with more targeted marketing- obviously if you market to progressives, that is who will give. The post primary would have been a great opportunity to do a randomized control trial. The DNC knew which candidates people had given money to the primary. Would have been interesting to see which group had the bigger post-primary yield conditional on appealing to their actual views, not their presumptively progressive views.
If good politicians like Obama know this and act accordingly, why exactly do other ambitious politicians like the bulk of the 2020 Democratic field not do the same?
How much of this is just timing? Obama is often credited with using social media for his 2008 campaign ( I remember reading undergrad articles about the promise of social media and activism in politics[lol] which would always cite the 08 campaign).
It seems now that candidates are just trying to tread water in the deluge and speed of social media.
How different would Obama if he was an upstart senator in 2020? How much more likely would Obama's staffers and advisers be obsessed with how #abolishice is trending on twitter or who dunked on who?
My guess is you HAVE to go viral. Biden has the luxury of being boring, he’s got that Obama proximity bump and name recognition and people just kinda like him. But Cory booker? He sounded way more practical in street fight when he was earlier in his career and made a hard left turn to run for president. He’s very smart and I think a good orator and when he gets going his voice is like BLAM. But if he didn’t jump into Medicare for all and green new deal and decriminilizing border crossing amd talking about race in a certain way I think he prob felt and was told he had no chance, and he still didn’t do great. Biden is a little unique because I think people believe in his goodness in their gut, im not sure what the next presidential primary will look like. I think dems on the internet are a wee bit less terrified of being slaughtered by a mob for being just slightly moderate though, so I think that’s a step in the right direction let’s see how it goes.
Likely their staffs, and the donors large and small that they wat and need, have an overly large influence on their thinking and messaging. And those staffs and donors are more enthusiastic about racial issues than their voters. So the feedback they get is their staffs telling them what a great idea it is and their donors responding with more donations when the message is framed this way.
Donor influence makes a fair amount of sense. Staff I'm more questionable about, politicians have their own egos and will more likely surround themselves with people who agree with their positions, but you need the initial push to embrace this world view.
The most pessimistic view of this issue is that wokies don't make race neutral arguments because they don't actually want to help the white poor and working class. This may not be true across the board, but often enough the woke left adopts a tone of condescension and even contempt towards less affluent whites. If a desire to feel superior is what's actually driving them, the careful reasoning in Marc's admirable article isn't going to sway them.
Another great note, Marc. I don't disagree at all with the major thrust of your argument, but I would note that this is an argument that Bernie made explicitly when he was running against Clinton in 2016 and his failure to decisively break through with communities of color (and particularly older Black voters) was widely cited as a primary factor in his primary loss. This ultimately led to his conversion to, as you so aptly phrase it, a 'begrudgingly woke' message in the 2020 race. Now I know that there were other factors that hurt Bernie in 2016 (chiefly the failure to have focused sufficiently on the technical and logistical minutiae of the primary in the sunup to the race), but in your view why didn't his relatively race neutral, class forward message stand him in better stead against Biden?
To be completely honest, I just don't think a left candidate was going to win this particular primary. Every Democrat wanted to beat Trump, and most of them thought moderates would be better at uniting the country. Whatever fluctuations in the vote that are affected by race-talk or wokeness are going to be overshadowed when most Democrats are going to vote for a moderate candidate to beat a Republican they consider especially bad
Bernie *was* unexpectedly successful in 2016 right? IIRC he didn’t expect to make a serious contest of it at the start, just wanted to push the party left. But then he did so well he actually tried to win.
Important point. On the whole I think the problem was that Bernie was simply too far left. To some extent the problem was economic issues but more importantly nonracial cultural. The (large) segment of the black Community that votes for moderates is churchgoing cultural conservatives. I have to think more about the issue by issue comparison but Biden gives off more of that vibe than Sanders does.
I also think Black voters are deeply pragmatic (by necessity - they have a lot to lose) and Bernie was far enough left that he seemed like a pretty pie in the sky candidate. We forget now, but Hillary was very much the safe bet! And if you recall, Obama himself had a hard time winning over Black voters until he proved he could over white Midwesterners by winning the Iowa Caucus. Only then did Black voters swing to him in huge numbers.
Thanks - This is an excellent point. And certainly would explain why he was unable to break through decisively in the Black community in the primaries. It still doesn't explain why he wasn't able to sway a larger number of Marc's 'populists' to his side.
From what I heard, many older Black voters felt a strong appreciation for Biden that he was willing to “take a back seat to a Black man” and serve as Obama’s Vice. They also pegged him as most likely to win over White moderates, and their top priority was getting Trump out.
I would say a bit too far left for the white populists also. Who would be a good test case - Democratic politician who is populist but feels culturally traditional. Manchin maybe, or is he not populist enough economically? Sherrod Brown? Other thoughts?
Sherrod Brown is really interesting in this context because he actually explored a run in 2020, but got out early because he didn’t feel like he had a ‘lane’ that would get him the win. He also runs on a class first message and while he is progressive versus both the country and the party, he isn’t as far left as Bernie or Warren.
I also think that Biden benefitted a lot from being the “do over” candidate. A lot of rank-and-file dems probably basically just connected at the level of “Hey, Obama was a great president, let’s just do more of that and maybe we can finally forget about this little four-year nightmare.”
If we accept Marc's post as basically true, it doesn't mean that politicians with more race-neutral messaging will always win. Bernie's appeal, both in terms of style and substance was unique i 2016 and it didn't work for everyone and how woke or anti-woke it was was only one factor.
Maybe the better support for Marc's argument with respect to Bernie is that begrudgingly woke Bernie did worse in the primaries than not-particularly woke Bernie had
Yeah, this right here. Bernie 2016 was winning with leftists for sure, but he was also winning large portions of the Democratic electorate in places like West Virginia. If we're being honest, part of Obama's appeal in 2008 was that he wasn't Hillary either! Not saying it's fair to her or fair to women in general, but the fact that Democratic donors didn't recognize this heading into 2016 and tried to "clear the field" for Hillary was a huge misstep with far-reaching consequences.
I'm not sure how much *donors* tried to "clear the field" for Clinton. It's rather, once she declared she was running, most politicians with an interest in future runs thought it was better to just sit it out rather than be branded "loser". When a juggernaut runs, the field usually clears itself (except for the occasional upstart with not much to lose, like Bill Bradley, Barack Obama, or Bernie Sanders).
Fair enough... maybe it's better to say it was a combination of those factors. One of Bernie's major arguments in 2016 was "the system was rigged" against him, and he was able to make this by playing up the establishment support for Hillary. I personally believe he took this way too far (say what you will about her performance, but Hillary still won way more primary voters than Bernie) and I know too many Bernie supporters who refuse to admit that he lost, fair and square.
I also firmly believe that Bernie himself took the wrong lessons from his performance in 2016. There was never any massive constituency for his ideas, just a very loud one. Had it been about *his ideas* and not *him*, he would've been better served throwing his support behind Elizabeth Warren.
Now, as Matt has pointed out on numerous occasions, Bernie is a savvy enough politician to accept a partial victory that improves the status quo. I wish more of his supporters would appreciate that Biden is easily enacting the most liberal agenda since FDR (maybe ever?). Don't be a Nader and claim that anything less than 100% of what you want is acceptable.
This goes back to my point above. While there is ample evidence that the Dems were going to use the Superdelegates to end Bernie’s run if he was ahead at the convention, the reality is that Bernie didn’t staff up early enough and do the work required to actually turn his support into a win. The New York Primary is a great example of this: it is not an open primary and the deadline to register to vote in the Democratic Primary is months before the primary is held. So he had a lot of support in a delegate rich state that were unable to vote for him. The Dem elite didn’t need to put the knife in; the chimeric nature of his campaign in the early going did it for him.
It’s maybe true that *part of* Obama’s appeal was that he wasn’t Hillary, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Obama is an incredibly talented, charismatic, appealing politician - probably the best political candidate the Dems will ever have in my lifetime. I say that as someone who would probably have been a fairly enthusiastic Clinton supporter (though I hated how hawkish she was) in 2008 had Obama not come along.
But the truth is: Everything -is- about race in US politics. It is easy for white people to say they support a supposed race-neutral policy. But once they get tiniest initial whiff it will shift resources a disproportionate amount towards brown and black communities, forget about it.
You aren't going to sneak this one by centuries of white supremacy culture. You try, you might win but you will never get the policy. Might as well make it clear that centuries of history mean no US public policy will ever be race-neutral or race-blind policy.
Whatever black and brown community voting behavior might be-at-the-margins, doesn't change what the overall communities' voting behaviors are. Better to be honest, up-front, helping maintain enthusiasm and increase voting rate of -the-overall- black and brown communities. It has the benefit of at least as good a path to victory and a much much much more likely path to get the policies, once you win. Also, more honest. Less of playing the sneak. Less feeling/need for politician/pundit to take shower 5 times a day.
The problem is (and the evidence in Marc's post shows) that race-explicit messaging actually depressed support for Democrats in communities of color.
Anyways, you're just asserting things without any evidence or support for them. That doesn't seem like an effective way to get a point across or make an argument.
The links in Marc's 3rd paragraph showing very large vote swings in favor of Trump in immigrant and Latino neighborhoods in particular, plus smaller swings in Black neighborhoods. It's also inferred from all of the polling data in the article and in the links that that may be the reason for those swings. Supporting evidence was the electoral success of Obama versus the failure of Clinton, and the success of Biden versus the field.
Anyways - none of that is conclusive 100%, but it builds a strong case in my mind, especially when compared to expectations, i.e. in 2016 whenn Trump was the R candidate, most progressive were convinced that Latino and Black voter support for Republicans would crater to record low levels, when it fact it ticked upwards in both 2016 and especially 2020
There was no large swings in raw numbers. The numbers were small because Ds get 85-95 percent black vote and 60-70 Latino overall. There weren't even large marginal swings. These 'swings' at this level are hard to measure and fell well within historic variation and ability to measure.
The margin I want to work is marginally larger voting rates by these communities.
There was a 23 point shift in Miami, and similar swings in the Rio Grande Valley. Many immigrant precincts near my old neighborhood in LA moved 20 points as well, and the NYTimes map on immigrant precinct voting patterns showed 5-20 percent moves in big cities around the country in the same kinds of neighborhoods.
This in an era where the conventional wisdom is that swing voters are rare and people are locked into their partisan tribe. If Democrats were to absorb another 5 point minority-voter shift against them nationwide the party would take devastating losses in 2024. I'm not a democratic strategist, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't hand-wave those shifts away.
Another thing with immigrant neighborhoods - all the historical evidence, and the current shifts among Latino and Asian voters, points to immigrants assimilating to the majority population of the areas they live in. In Los Angeles maybe that does mean more D voters. But in rural Texas, it may well just mean more R voters. I'm not nearly as confident that minority neighborhoods of 1st or 2nd generation immigrants are going to turn out for Ds if they increase their turnout.
The nationwide patterns were well within historic variations and not near the high water mark Rs reached in the past. Black and Latino communities continue to vote 90, 80, 70, 60% D with no consistent indication that is changing - no matter how much lefty white men cherry pick subsets of data subsets of just the last election. The rate of voting in these communities lag white community rates - especially for Latino voters. "Let's stroke white people and deny the lived reality of black and Latino communities" is not the way to correct that.
I recall a comment by David Shor that politicians may have less power over this than they would like. He cited Corbyn in the UK as somebody who clearly wanted to make the Labor party more of a working-class party and who, nevertheless saw the education gap grow. . . .
Did Corbyn want to push Labor in a more working-class direction? I thought he was the leader of the educated-and-far-left wing of Labor and he ended up tanking Labor with less educated voters. I guess educated-but-far-left people *say* they want to lead working-class parties (but won't compromise on culture/social issues, so it doesn't work)
This is exactly that zero-sun thinking that poisons both ends of the racial devide. You're never going to bridge the devide by arguing that the only path to equity is to redistribute wealth from white people to bipoc.
White people have disproportionate wealth because they have had historical access to the free market that was denied to members of racial minorites. Ensuring market access regardless of heritage is overwhelmingly popular and will close the equity gap over time without enflaming racial resentments.
~95% of economists support the idea that government should have the power to re-distribute wealth. You seem to have an unsophisticated view of how markets work - or how 'free' or rational they might be - always leading to the outcome a moral proper-values society wants.
So, yes, many people share this sort of zero sum view where wealth is just sort of a fixed thing... that... exists. And "free" markets are this snake oil that the "elites" pedal in order to extract the rightful wealth of the masses and consolidate it in their own pockets.
This idea is bad and wrong and not one that anyone should promote political ideas based upon.
But the point of the article is that both messages are accurate, yet one polls better. Expanding various programs helps poor people. Expanding them helps people of [insert race or ethnicity] (assuming they are disproportionately poor).
There's polling - there is election victory - then there is legislating. Pretending race isn't a problem and pretending "Everybody loves race-blind things" rather then the truth: "White people love to proclaim their love of raee-blind things - including how wonderfully race blind they and the world is right now!" isn't going to get us where we need to be.
You assume you will be able to sneak this by the white 'populists' while not losing the enthusiasm of your most dependable voting communities. I am 98% confident you are wrong on both counts.
So if you talk about a redistributive policy in terms of it being a universal benefit, white "populists" will see that it will in fact disproportionately help minorities... but minorities themselves won't see that?
Nope. Everybody will see it. But pretending otherwise (which will be combined with working against their other policy priorities - say, police reform) to stroke/try-but-fail-to-trick white supremacy voters will kill their (as a community) enthusiasm for voting. Also, they see that even if a candidate wins pretending with a 'color-blind' message - because that candidate was so depended on the Big Lie of color-blindness, you won't get the actual policy when the policy voting happens.
Biden didn't get any 'white populist' votes. He got just enough enthusiasm from D's core voters by giving their concerns just enough attention... Plus just enough minority-white votes of the minority of the white community not wedded to white supremacy.
That is the coalition we should build on by appealing to (and giving control of party to) D's core voting communities. The trick-white-people route, run by white D's who are not the party's heart-and-soul, is a political and moral dead-end.
"It is easy for white people to say they support a supposed race-neutral policy. But once they get tiniest initial whiff it will shift resources a disproportionate amount towards brown and black communities, forget about it."
First, "white people" aren't monolithic - 41% voted for Biden, are they also against redistributive policies? Also, your solution to white people being turned off by a "let's give poor people money" policy having a whiff of shifting resources toward BIPOC communities is to shove it in their faces?
"centuries of history mean no US public policy will ever be race-neutral or race-blind policy"
You're saying that, for example, the tax rate for each bracket is set with the *aim* of helping or harming certain ethnic groups based on how many fall into each bracket? That tax credits for renewable energy are *first and foremost* about shuttling resources to certain races that tend to buy electric cars or install solar panels? That changes in air pollution regulations are *primarily* about helping/harming people of certain races that live near source of pollution? Interesting that you think race is everyone's overriding goal to the exclustion of fiscal policy, climate change, and public health.
If your goal is to heighten awareness of race and intensify conflict along racial lines, that's gross and isn't going to go anywhere good. I also don't know what you expect to happen if you do that in a country where 67% of voters are white.
My goal is to increase the support, enthusiasm, and voting rates of people in black, brown, and Asian communities. Team them with the minority white support (with these minority whites playing supporting roles in general) to get the kind of victory that will lead to public policies -almost- as good as any other affluent Western European democracy.
Stroking white people and denying reality will leave public policy about where it is. Probably it will also embolden/encourage more Jan 6th's every time suppressed reality breaks through to white gang thugs, because they see they are coddled by police and courts during and after each.
I just don't get the math here - you're saying that emphasizing the racial angle of progressive policies will activate black/brown voters, but not activate racist white voters? Why would that be the case?
Fair enough, I see the logic. I would still worry about reduced turnout among non-racist white voters who don't get that universal policies would help them too because the Democrats frame them as being aimed at minorities.
It makes sense because 1) Obama was black yet won. Nothing centers race in the message of US politics than being black. None of us can avoid that. No matter how you want to characterize his message as 'universalism.' 2) ACA didn't have the impact it could have because the states with largest black and brown populations didn't do Medicaid expansion. The energy behind making ACA a weak program to start with, then it made weaker as years have gone on, is race-based.
Everything about US public policy is about race. That statement is close enough to true - that for all practical purposes it is true. Pretending otherwise in the face of a white Americas able to elect Trump twice in landslides is either denial or attempted gaslighting of Olympian proportions.
58% of whites voted for Trump in 2020; going back the last few presidential elections that number is 57%, 58%, 55%, 58%, 54%. In other words, white people voted for him at about the same rates as other Republicans. Maybe people have party and policy preferences independent of race or something?
I'll listen to people who claim "Of course race is central to our politics. But it will be a political loser to point that out." I think they are wrong and will probably eventually lose their soul should they go that way.
But "Class is more important than race in US politics" deserves nothing but an eye-roll.
Marc, this was great, thank you! I will say, one thing I think people might under-appreciate is how deeply and sincerely people in the lower left boxes feel that achieving racial equity is a moral imperative. And I know you are saying “hey, if you feel that strongly about it, play the political game better!” And I agree! But they feel *so* strongly that treating it like a game is *also* immoral. The fact that there are so many people in the top left box is a moral problem, and they feel like acquiescing to them is akin to abetting racism. They are ok with pissing them off because they think they need to be shamed into conversion. And the lower left dominate the Democratic leadership right now. So before we can make this case to play the game better (or “pander” as Matt argued this week), we have to make the case to the Democratic Party influencers that being in the top left box is not an inexcusable moral failing.
Or maybe I’ve just got the order of operation of persuasion wrong.
As a parallel, imagine telling pro-life advocates that if they want to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, they should really avoid the abortion thing since it’s so divisive and just focus on cutting government spending since that’s more popular. I think you’d get crickets.
Pretty darn good article for an intern. I’m not white but I can say I feel a little bad when I hear how a certain program is going to target black, Native American, Hispanic, and other marginalized communities. I don’t feel bad because I sympathize with white supremacy or have anything but compassion for the plight of all sorts of minority groups, but because I’ve lived around a heck of a lot of white people who have struggled mightily. I work with people like that. Folks who’ve been on welfare or are the first in their family to go to college or have had abuse issues or any of a number of other difficult challenges. When u say for the thousandth time that we
need to target folks by race I know these people hear that they are not valued, because I hear them say it. They have not been floating around in clouds of white privilege. Maybe some people have, but they haven’t and why do we need to insult them? And why do we have to jump through all sorts of rhetorical hoops and disclaimers to say we support them? In short, I agree with the article Marc, nicely done.
I'm very in favor of policies which help historically oppressed communities, but I do find the Biden admin focus on "Asian businesses" along with the rest a bit baffling when (iirc) Asian-Americans actually earn more on average and live longer on average than white Americans. I think we need a much more muscular social policy to push back on anti-Asian racism, but to me that's a bit of a separate concern, and lumping in a demographic group that's recently become extremely successful alongside still-disadvantaged groups when it comes to economic policy strikes me as rather counter-productive.
This is one of the problems with identity politics and prioritizing group identities in general. There are Asian sub-groups whose socio-economic conditions are much worse that average. Cambodians, Hmongs and Laos immigrants in California have all kinds of crime and education problems. The same might be true of Hmong in Minnesota and Pakistanis in NYC. Within the greater African American community, Caribbean immigrants are doing much better than the average Black American and West African immigrants have a median income slightly higher than the average White American (but Somali immigrant incomes are lower than the average Black American). Latino incomes are on a path to catch up with the average American, but Puerto Ricans, especially in NYC, remain one of the most behind ethnic groups in the United States. Why not just help individuals who are struggling, whatever their background? And where racism can be identified as the problem, address the racism?
I probably wasn't clear enough - but I was trying to point out the problems with focusing on ethnicity and race when making policy. The arguments for racial policies often start with "X group is doing badly, let's help them" but lots of sub-groups in X group are actually doing well. I guess you could further sub-divide, but we probably agree that a national policy messaged around supporting Puerto Ricans and Cambodians but not Cubans and Koreans starts to sound a little weird. But that's only one step away from Biden's and Democrat's current messaging
I think this is an artifact of the Sixties, when we set in place the idea of “white” versus “minorities” because that’s how the country was then. The country has progressed, but the law hasn’t caught up. Now have a country where Indian immigrants (who never experienced historical discrimination in this country) are eligible recipients of affirmative action policies.
I actually think the Asian discrimination issue is a surprising turn for the racism in America discussion. I say go for it include every group you can in this discussion and let’s denounce all types. The important thing is to then say now what? How are we going to improve lives? Symbolic v. Practical victories with the emphasis pendulum swinging too far over to the symbolic side lately as Matt pointed out in previous post. Pro Asian business policies may be totally superfluous, though.
Aside from my points above I think we also do need better targeted programs for black communities. If you are looking to lift up a city or district that is almost all black, poor, and with a slew of other problems, I think you need targeted programs to that community. And it probably needs to be federal, the local tax situation is going to be not great. I don’t know what the best programs for lifting this hypothetical (though plenty of examples exist) community, but they probably won’t be universal, won’t directly help white people, but would be really important. I’m not sure voters prioritize this sort of thing and it’s a problem. Segregation still a big problem in this country.
And how would such targeted programs work, in our constitutional system? The United States is not Lebanon, it is not Israel, it is not the old Soviet Union, where people are classified by official ethnic definitions that are marked on passports and marriage records. In the past, we made these distinctions, but now we don’t. I think we don’t want to go back there.
So this is why we have programs that target “disadvantaged communities” which is really targeting geography (with paradoxical results in gentrifying areas). We get away with the political deal called affirmative action, but for how much longer? The chief justice of the Supreme Court has said “the way to stop discrimination by race is to stop discriminating by race” and he will soon have a big say in that question. And it’s uncomfortable logic.
So, yes, do it through philanthropy, which means that people who really care about the people in those communities would have to do so by writing checks. The woke philantrophists would be far better off directing their attentions, honestly, in that way, instead of trying to corrupt our political system and set us all against each other.
I think targeting areas that were redlined and still have above average rates of poverty would not exclusively target things toward Black people or reach all Black people but it would probably do more to reduce racial inequality and injustice than just sweeping programs to assist people in poverty. I think that should be done on top of programs to assist all people in poverty. To the extent that also provides extra help to some non-Black poor people living in poor communities, I think anyone overly concerned about that is largely missing the point. I am personally much less worried about making communities that are poor better resources is going to accelerate gentrification. I think housing scarcity everywhere is the primary driver of gentrification and particularly the pernicious effects of forcing low income renters out of housing. I think increasing housing everywhere including infilling higher income areas with more multifamily housing is likely to reduce residential segregation which remains one of the primary drivers of racial inequality.
Well, no. The redlining argument has always been ridiculous. The causality is backwards: the disadvantaged people who live there now, live there because it's (relatively) cheap, and that's because the redlining (long, long ago) starved the neighborhood's property owners of investment capital. The actual people who were harmed were not these disadvantaged minorities and have little in common with those who live there now (most of them were white working-class people - in New York, the black population was about 6% at the time these maps were active). Very few of them were property owners anyway. You could be a little impertinent and say that the redlining actually helped the disadvantaged people who are there today, because it created blighted neighborhoods that are cheap enough for them to live in. Basically, the redlining argument is nothing but a political grift, a fake criterion that is very obviously an attempt to direct government program money to people based on race - which is illegal, and legally provably so.
That is a strange analysis of the impact of redlining which almost all credible research show dramatically impact wealth disparities between white and Black Americans by restricting home ownership for Black families to areas where a lack of available credit led to reduced property values and concentrations of poverty that led to Black people being segregated into more poorly performing schools and in areas with less infrastructure investment to support employment and with more exposure to pollution while generations of white families were able to take advantage of federally backed mortgage securities to develop intergenerational wealth through homeownership.
But in the process of researching your claim to see if there was any merit, I did come across information that suggests that while redlining did negatively impact wealth for Black families, gentrification has sufficiently relocated Black and other low income residents outside of many historically redlined areas and into lower income suburbs in cities with urban core growth, like Seattle and Denver, or throughout the city in areas like Baltimore. So it appears that actually targeting extra support to census tracts with the lowest level of housing stability as evidenced by eviction rates and/or the lowest per household income would be a better way to target aid to families who were historically impacted by government sanctioned housing discrimination so that was useful research. https://www.urban.org/features/ghosts-housing-discrimination-reach-beyond-redlining
I would call this a parroting of political speech, not credible research. People move around a lot in America. The families who were impacted by redlining in 1950 (mostly, not black) are not around in those areas today. The redlining did not stop them from moving. The people who are there today are not "historically impacted." Their families weren't even there until the 1960's and 1970's (that is, in my lifetime): they were in the rural South and had different problems. They moved into redlined areas because that's where they could find homes to live in. It's too bad that those areas have bad infrastructure and pollution, but the poverty of those who live there today was not caused by this; they were poor when they came. Availability of mortgages and mortgage subsidies in those areas is completely irrelevant because the people who lived there are, and were always, too poor to qualify for them. Redlining has nothing at all to do with school segregation, evictions, unemployment and the other ills. They are ills, but they are caused by something else.
Along these lines, let's retire the phrase "white privilege". We need a different name for the things that white people currently have a disproportionate share of, which we want all people to have access to. There are few white people in the 95% who sees themselves as privileged and the word privilege connotes something that can/should be taken away. There aren't many in the top 5% who see themselves that way either.
I have a different, I think practical, problem with "white privilege". To understand it and agree with it, you either have to: 1) have gone to college and probably recently 2) See yourself as very privileged 3) Have read social justice and anti-racism books 4) already be have fully bought in to the woke progressive platform from some other way.
All that adds up to it's a very "preaching to the choir" kind of messaging. Politics aside, I'd be very, very surprised if there are many 50 year old, low income white people who are persuaded by the slogan to think or behave differently at all. And if you're not persuading people to change, what's the point?
Well, it's class, as in social class. As an immigrant from the UK, the extent to which American politics will bend to try to avoid suggesting that there are class divisions in American society is a consistent wonder to behold.
It's in no small part class, but not entirely class, as you hear plenty of stories about wealthy African-Americans getting pulled over or otherwise having deeply negative interactions with police in ways that just aren't the same for middle-class or even poorer Americans.
You're definitely right about that, but the term I'd use for that is just straight up racism. I feel like using a term like "white privilege" in that context (e.g., a wealthy black man being pulled over because he's driving a fancy sportscar, etc) is sort of deflecting from calling out what is clear racial discrimination.
Yeah, I think "white privilege" here actually shifts blame *away from* the racist cop pulling over the wealthy black guy, to the black guy's white counterpart who's not getting pulled over.
This is still about class though. Class isn't just about money its about social hierarchy and how the people at the top act as gatekeepers. The upper class in Europe absolutely loath 'new money'. These are people who take wealth and privilege for granted; they don't value wealth anymore than a fish values water - until you try to take it from them of course.
Many white lower-middle-class people feel their position in society is precarious and feel threatened by the rise of non-whites into the middle class and react badly as a result. The economic and racial aspects of this are intertwined. Trump panders to this very well. American elites are embarrassed by class and IMO the failure to acknowledge that Dems have a clear issue with appealing to working-class voters that is costing them ALOT of seats and elections is a big problem.
*middle-class or even poorer white Americans, that is.
As a fellow UK immigrant I strongly agree!
That's so weird to me to constantly hear this, because I thought the entire *point* of talk about "privilege" was to do *precisely* this. "Privilege" is something that everyone has some bits of and lacks other bits of. People are totally used to the idea that someone can have one set of privileges due to their credit card, and someone else can have another set of privileges because of their long-term membership in a club. By talking about "privilege" it became clear that white people have one set of privileges and males have another set and rich people have another set, and *also* that there are some privileges that women have, and members of other racial groups in particular contexts. It's supposed to make clear the intersectional nature of things so that there *isn't* a universal ranking scheme.
But somehow, people have taken this language that was precisely defined *not* to have a single hierarchy, and turned it back into a crude caricature where there is a hierarchy. The fact that "intersectionality" and "privilege" are now seen as precisely the opposite of what they say suggests to me that there is something about public discourse that makes it nearly impossible for a term to keep this better meaning that we all agree we need.
Yeah I guess some of it comes down to the word privilege, how it rolls off your tongue and how it processes in your brain. When I say hey you’re pretty privileged I doubt your brain will jump to hey thanks let’s both be more privileged! You’ll probably be like no I’m not. Also I think peoples negative experiences are a deep part of their identity, to shorthand describe someone by their privileges kinda goes against how they see themselves and is almost negating of the most important parts of their lives.
I think that sounds right. And it's probably at the core of the problem. What we need is terminology that makes it clear that people both have certain unfair advantages while also having certain unfair disadvantages. But people are very aware of the unfair disadvantages they have, and think that it denies that to simultaneously point out the unfair advantages they also have.
Exactly - I think the concept of white privilege is useful and important but that “privilege” is just a terrible word for “basic rights everyone should have,” which is how it’s now being used in the popular discourse.
You can “precisely define” all you want, but that doesn’t mean people outside of your seminar are going to adopt that definition or that usage. In academia you can define terms, you can expect people to read and pay attention to that but out in the wild, people are often going to go with what they think it means, or what most people think it means. This is why progressives are so horrible at messaging—they think they can decide definitions and impose them on people, while conservatives are smart enough to market-test their propaganda terms and adopt things that catch on with their audience.
Yea, "white privilege" is an almost universally counter-productive term. It's vague to the point of near uselessness, but here's the fundamental flaw: The primary historical privilege of being white in America has been full access to a cutthroat competitive free market in which success is in no way guaranteed.
People feel naturally entitled to the rewards of their competitive success in the market. That black people, along with almost everyone else in history, were historically denied access to that market is an injustice, but it doesn't invalidate having succeeded on it's terms. And people who have failed to achieve success in the market are hardly going to feel privileged to have had the hypothetical opportunity.
All that Frederick Douglass asked for on behalf of black people is exactly that right.
So, the term “white privilege” never bothered me much, because to me, it was intended to highlight the relative advantages of being white in American society over being black. It is a slight advantage you don’t realize you have. Similar to being right handed and never having to worry about running into an uncomfortable pair of scissors or finding a compatible desk. To me, it never meant being wealthy or even having power. It mostly meant that life is easier as a member of the majority and you do best to recognize that before you lecture a member of the minority about how they don’t understand racism or some such. Aka “check your privilege”- take a moment to do an inventory of your racial advantage and don’t assume you know what it’s like to be a minority. That’s all.
I like the way you describe it. I notice that nobody would take offense at being told that their right-handedness has certain advantages. Yet some of them can get very upset if the only desk remaining is a left-handed one.
I don't deny this meaning, but add that the phrase has also come to express the idea that something a white person has or enjoys, or has a right to, is undeserved and illegitimate. It is a hostile expression, and racially charged.
While I never used it in a hostile way, I agree I have seen it used angrily. And one of the axioms of wokeness is “intent doesn’t matter, impact does,” so I think people who use it in a way that elicits frustration and defensiveness owe it to themselves to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better. I agree with Matt/McGhee that what people are actually trying to describe is the lack of an unfair burden, something everyone deserves, not something that needs to be taken away. So I am ok with retiring the term all together.
"And one of the axioms of wokeness is “intent doesn’t matter, impact does,” so I think people who use it in a way that elicits frustration and defensiveness owe it to themselves to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better."
Say it louder for the people in the back! I cannot agree more on how we (the left) adheres to this way of thinking to justify anti-racism rhetoric and policies, yet ignore it when the results come back and shows that these race-centered rhetoric and policies do not work as well as intended...
That’s a good summary of the intent—but the problem is, most people tend to associate privilege not with being in the majority, but being in an elite minority—being “special.” The problem is that black people are the opposite kind of minority. The original intent of casting the issue as “white privilege” rather than “black disadvantage” was to try to put the onus on white people to deal with racism, which was well meant but ultimately doomed to fail because the framing just doesn’t work.
The problem with thinking in terms of group privilege is there is so much variation at the individual level. Intelligence, attractiveness, physical ability, health, personality traits, disposition all can have significant impacts on ones success. Acting like Lebron has it tough because he’s a black man is mostly crazy. He is a extraordinarily privileged man because he is like 6 std dev above the mean in athleticism (this pays well in America). Making an argument that “at the mean” whites have it better, when so many people don’t live their lives at the mean, is tough.
> the word privilege connotes something that can/should be taken away
But it should be taken away — not by making white people worse off, but by improving the lives of nonwhite people so that privilege no longer exists
I think the far more politically palatable framing would be to say that everyone should be privileged. Instead, Democrats constantly talk in terms of taking it away. I understand why but politically I think it’s a big mistake.
Couldn’t agree more - why frame it in the most threatening and negative possible way? More universalist language - something along the lines of “these are rights everyone deserves” or whatever - would just engender so much less backlash. We (progressives) are just shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason by adopting all these terms from academia, where being fresh and edgy is good for your career, and repurposing them wholesale (something messing up the original meanings along the way too!) for politics, which is just a very different game.
And to be clear, I think both white fragility and intersectionality are important ideas and good additions to the discourse. But they are not good political strategy.
No, the more politically palatable framing would be to say that no one should be privileged, and no one should be disadvantaged. There’s no point in privilege if everyone has it.
Problem is, the people who use "white privilege" so readily are usually using it to redefine (and delegitimize) people's rights.
Essentially yes. But I think of it as raising others up, not taking away something per se. I've thought of white privilege as the many unseen benefits of being in the majority. And since they are unseen to most white people, the idea of taking something away only turns them off.
Unfortunately white people see it as either something to be taken away or something they never had when of course we have. Some of the argument is always 'I'm white and I'm not privileged (whatever there definition of privilege is)" and of course even the most needy of us is privileged in every hiring interaction etc (I'm not gonna whitesplain 'white privilege '). Getting past this defensiveness is normal but with a word that explains 'privilege ' would allow for a discussion that doesn't have to include always as a preface a definition which always sounds to me when I'm doing it like I'm shaking my finger at people. Oh they deserve it but not the way to get votes and let's face it without votes no change in policy can happen.
Not just money. I think a lot of the current agitation re racial justice is due to things like social status, perceived physical attractiveness etc. e.g. black women demanding that cultural norms of beauty be changed so that they are considered more desirable.
Why is it "disproportionate"? By what definition?
I think the simple definition is that it is disproportionate when x% of the population has x+y% of some resource.
But why is that a problem? That is really my question. Why is it a given that if disproportion (by your definition) exists, that it is something that needs to be fixed?
I agree with some of what you say, but in a lower key and for different reasons. Wealth inequality does not bother me, per se. In fact, it is an inevitable result of the capitalist system that has otherwise been so useful in creating progress and wealth for society as a whole. There’s nothing wrong with it that a good progressive taxation system and public investment in human capital like childcare and education couldn’t cure.
There are two ways in which it really bothers me in practice, today. First, it is offensive that wealth gives its holders excessive political rights, when in law we are all equal citizens. Second, wealth inequality has now become so extreme that it is impairing the functioning of the capitalist system to produce prosperity for all its members. I was a Warren supporter for this reason: she, alone, of the candidates, was staying focused on the problem, which is inequality and corruption.
I think that simply disliking that people should be wealthy is hardly an argument for forcing equality through confiscatory taxation. In fact, I'd come back and argue, like a conservative, what justification you’d have for taking people’s rights away to achieve your personal preference? I think the aim of flattening the curve on wealth inequality is perfectly well served by reasonable estate taxes justified as the responsibility of the prosperous to maintain the economic functioning of society. It’s both unnecessary and unwise to use this power to extirpate the prosperous themselves. This kind of thing has a bad historical track record.
I also see the racial wealth gap concept as being essentially useless and divisive. To me the statistics are just an artifact of the way that large numbers of ordinary Americans have been cheated of their share of prosperity that should have been coming to them in a fairer system. The circumstance that many such people are black is of secondary interest to me. Restart the economy for ordinary people, drive to full employment, and progress will be rapid. Let’s focus on that, instead of setting people against each other in a kind of dueling psychodrama.
Dan -- I share your and Carnegie's views on inter-generational wealth transfers (i.e., eliminate them entirely). Best I can tell though inter-generational wealth transfers account for more like 30% of the accumulated wealth in the top 10% in the US. Would be interested if you're seeing that majority figure elsewhere.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/how-does-intergenerational-wealth-transmission-affect-wealth-concentration-20180601.htm
You could see this in action with Matt's interview with Melissa Boteach on the Weeds this week.
Four or five times after he would make a point about how helpful a policy would be for people with low/no income, she felt the need to stress how beneficial it was from a racial equity perspective.
I think you believe this occurs for basically the same reasons I do. There is a battle in left leaning elite thought, where one group favors straight up reparations and another group sees this is too unpopular to be feasible. The second group tries to get the first on board a race blind agenda by hammering away with "We don't need to pursue unpopular reparation policies because race neutral ones will disproportionately benefit minorities simply due to age/income demographics.".
It's a good argument, and so central to their internal debates... the redistributive effects are a feature not a bug... they have trouble adjusting their mindset to the unfortunate fact this is not a good argument to use with a large segment of the electorate.
If it was there would be no need for this song and dance, and we could just provide reparations directly.
I think also that Joe’s framing as these policies as pro-minority works too well. Plenty of people on the left believe you will not help black people enough with universalist programs and they aren’t totally wrong. Some really poor black communities are in all practical sense segregated, poor, with poor educational and economic options, often high violent crime rates. I think activists are right to say hey we don’t need a universalist program here we need something targeted and we need to face that voters just don’t really like targeted money that helps only struggling black communities please advocate for us. That is not an altogether irrational place for advocacy. But they should listen to these programs that are universal but touted as pro-black and should be unimpressed. They should want real pro black policies, not necessarily reparations, but something. Liberal politicians have to tout these other programs as pro black because I don’t think they could get real targeted programs that help struggling black schools raise up through the system. Amd
Im not sure there is a great template to help these communities you can just throw money at. You have to try stuff, fail, try again, and keep facing the voters. I still think this is a neglected space that is hard to talk about and not surprising you get rhetorical sleight of hands when trying to address it.
It’s a slight of hand because what the advocates of such policies want to do (direct government resources racially) contravenes the Civil Rights Act and broadly-held American ideas of fairness and justice. The political fact of strong political opposition simply reflects this. It makes things worse for policies that actually help.
There is no barrier to philanthropy being targeted at a racially defined community (as long as they don’t discriminate against persons). Additionally, all you have to convince are program officers, not the American people. So get some private money, do a big push somewhere, try and fail and keep pushing until you know what works and is self-sustaining. When (if) you get there, this might then inform universalist policy that would further help the situation in those communities.
Meanwhile, the majority of black people, who are not members of the disorderly poor, will be well served by universalist programs that support ordinary people such as themselves and many other Americans. It won’t “solve” racism but it will make their lives better, more certainly, than confounding their interests with racially-targeted programs that do not prioritize them or their interests.
The point that greater financial security enables more women and minorities to get away from unpleasant workplaces is a good one, and one I hadn't appreciated before, thanks!
I wonder if this flawed messaging from Biden comes from the fact that "woke capitalists" are disproportionately higher-income and more likely to donate to political candidates? They would also be disproportionately likely to be watching some random speech
I think this is certainly part of it. My pet theory is that it's because college-educated folks (who work on the Biden campaign) know so many woke capitalists, but know very few populists. If you grew up in a coastal city and then went to a good college, how many Medicare-loving pro-lifers are you going to know? Everybody who went to college knows a really tolerant, pretty woke guy who's economically conservative, and I think some of the staffers think about how to convince these guys (who they knew from running in educated circles) rather than the Medicare-loving pro-lifers from places they'd never visit
I think this is correct
I've been trying to think think about the causes* and I think it's worth noting that the complaint used to be that campaigns were too cautious and too cautious of older culturally conservative voters (think of Chuck Schumer's imaginary friends). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/19/imaginary-friends'
I remember Mark Schmidt making the comment (probably in the aughts) that he was inclined to defer to the people who actually had to win elections on the best messaging -- at the time that was in response to an online left that wanted politicians to be bolder in their messaging.
Similarly, see Matt Yglesias's coining, "the pundit's fallacy" -- https://archive.thinkprogress.org/the-pundits-fallacy-9ee33c511a40/
The message, again, was that actual politicians had more interest in knowing how to appeal to voters than pundits. So it feels like a shift to have see the complaint being directed at politicians that they are (a) making a mistake in messaging and (b) the mistake is being too cutting-edge.
I feel like that deserves more of an explanation, and I believe that the college-educated bubble is part of it, but I'm not convinced that's a complete explanation.
* In a separate comment I quoted from Brad DeLong's argument for why he thought it was time to "pass the baton" of leadership to a newly energized left https://www.bradford-delong.com/2019/03/passing-the-baton-the-interview.html -- "There are three reasons: a political reason, a policy-implementation reason, and a we've-learned-about-the-world reason:"
It's more that the woke capitalists make up a large percentage of his young college educated staffers.
I've yet to hear anyone, on the left or the right, articulate a persuasive alternative to the classical liberal goal of a society where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". The criticisms of that ideal from the left seem to be more about implementation than the end goal. To the extent people lose sight of that as the end goal, and get lost in epicycles of how to get there, it's the job of leaders to continually keep the focus on that as the end goal.
So what should Democrats say when they go on black media and are asked specifically about programs to help African Americans? Or when young black voters demand to know how specific policies will help black America in exchange for their votes? Because these outlets exist, these voters exist, and they routinely raise this issue. I don't think the Dems are racializing anything themselves just because, they are responding to some of their voters. This article kind of comes off as "put the considerations of white voters with racial grievances first and foremost" because those are the people that will have most of issue with you talk of racial inequality and an of course unfair amount of power to decide elections. Then somehow black voters support of economic reforms, and Obama's words are used as cover against people calling that out. Many white people would have an issue with Obama talking about not just because of the message, but the messenger. I realize that messaging matters, and maybe as a black person it is frustrating to hear that when the Democratic Party finally starts talking more honestly about race, it is derided as "making everything about race". I accept the unfair position the Dems are in given the rigged electoral system, so they have to win over a certain voter to win elections, I just think wish that the unfairness was pointed out more. Rather than takes that sound a lot like "Dems are screwing up because they are not put the feelings of white people first".
I think being on black media and asked a direct question about which programs help African Americans is a great time to talk about how your race-blind policy proposals help African Americans. But I don't think this should be the national strategy. I don't think it's about putting white people first. It's about winning, which involves not alienating too many populists (many of whom are Black, Latino, Asian, etc.) in your pursuit of the woke capitalist vote or increased Black turnout (which I'm not sure is delivered in this way anyway)
There are things to say but bear in mind that most voters do not (consciously and maybe not at all) vote on the basis is of their personal material interest. People think of themselves as voting for the public interest or at least of a group that they are part of and even at that, not in a transactional relation of "what can you promise me in return for my vote?"
Sorry, but your use of Cory Booker talking about baby bonds kinda makes it seems like you want little mention of it beyond not making it part of the Dems national strategy. Booker spends most of his time push baby bonds as something that will help people of all walks of life, but research shows it can powerful positive effect on black wealth. Seems to me that pointing this out is completely fair. I really don't see the Dems framing their policies as primary about solving racial injustices.
Yes but black media ask questions about target programs too. The Breakfast Club is a popular show that younger black people listen to, and Democratic candidates all went on there to pitch their idea. The candidates were asked about how their policies would help African Americans, and they requested answers beyond universal programs. I don't think discussions of targeted programs can be avoided. Many of the conditions faced by black people are not unique to them, but they often made worse because you have a level of racism amplifying the harm. So the Dems won't be able to hide from the questions about dealing with the racist aspects. Plus, black journalists and pundits are employed in mainstream media too, there is no uniformity in their views, these questions about targeted help are bound to come up.
I am not worried about increasing black turnout, I am potentially making voter apathy more widespread. Voter suppression is real, black voters have to wait in line longer on average than white voters. Black activists put in a lot of effort trying to get black voters to the polls and they will be facing a new wave of voter suppression efforts. Is there any thought about alienating these people? Why go the extra mile for a party that refuses to commit or even address issues you think hurt your community the worst. If voters on the margin matter, are we so sure these people will be willing to do the extra work and stand in line potentially for hours to vote for a party that won't even commit to anything beyond push universal class-based plans.
And which populist are we really concerned about? I don't think leftist Bernie-style supporters will be that alienated that they vote GOP, neither would black populists. Latinos I am not sure, seems more of a mixed bag. I think the risk with discussion race is more concentrated with white people with conservative views on race and racism. When race becomes more salient, you lose these voters the quickest. So while you make say this is about not alienating populists, I think "populist" is doing a lot of work to cover for the fact it is primarily white people with regressive racial views.
Thank you for the response though.
Can't they just say, "This will help black people by doing XYZ. By the way, it will help white people too." ?
I think if you are speaking to black media then it is perfectly reasonable to talk about how this policy will help black voters, in much the same way that if you are talking to local media in a state you talk about what your policies are going to do for the people in that state. But you do not make that a part of your national general messaging. It really is not that complicated or some sort of either/or dilemma.
Not a dilemma? So there is no possible way for Fox News to weaponize a comment made to black media, or the mainstream media to pick up on it and ask about it themselves, or they run into a black person outside of black media, or black communities that ask them directly. The Dems hardly have it as part of the national messaging strategy, not even black candidates. Not like Cory Booker went to Iowa championing baby bonds are some pro-black economic project. Warnock ran on multi-culturalism, not blackness. They simply give an honest answer when asked, and occasionally highlight it as a positive effect of their policy. Sure, talk to different audiences in different ways, but I think it is a stretch to demand that every time a Democrat opens their mouth they make the calculation that white people might get pissed off at what they say. I mean Obama showed Trayvon Martin's family affection, and that pissed some people off. I think it is fair to ask where the line is on these requests to drop race.
I just told you where the lines is: when you talk to black media and are asked questions respond to them like you would the local Iowan who wants to know your position on corn subsidies talking about the stuff that effects their community. Otherwise, don't. There is no dilemma because Fox News will weaponize anything said, even if that means taking things out of context, so don't worry about that.
Yes - I think Democrats have to get over their fear of Fox News and treat it as something they basically can't control. Unless every Democrat/left activist across the country never says anything controversial ever (which won't happen), Fox News will always be able to grab some sound bite and weaponize it, so we should ease up on the "don't say it out loud or Fox News will use it!" stuff. But *also*, you can't say "well Fox News will always screw us so might as well talk in the most woke ways possible"... not everyone is paying attention to Fox News and the talking points it spawns, and you want to tailor your message to your target audience even if there's spillover. So for a general audience on a network news program, talk about how it helps every poor American, for a black audience, talk about how because poverty is more of an issue for black people, it'll have a real impact in the black community, etc.
It's hard to get around the basic self-interest of voters in all of this. When I heard Trump talking about preserving coal mining jobs in West Virginia I have to admit i didn't care an awful lot. Environmental issues aside, the messaging was his priority would be people who aren't me. I think when a voter hears a politician talk about a person "that isn't them" there's a risk that the politician will lose support, and politics is about balancing those risks across all potential voters.
The point of Marc's post, I believe, was to argue that those risks are best balanced by emphasizing race less when talking progressive economic policies, because it maximizes the number of voters who think 'hey this gal or guy is talking about me"
Also, I think you might be overweighting the role of Fox - virtually any day that I look at the NYTimes they are discussing, analyzing and promoting the racial equity aspect of political platforms. If Biden says he's going to do something on behalf of Black voters I will certainly hear about it in the NYTimes first.
Talking to the self-interest of different kinds of voters is what a good politician does.
Why are you worrying about Fox News? People who have Fox News hooked up to them on an IV are not gettable votes for the Dems.
Fox News is a major propaganda machine of the right. The talking points that are crafted get adopted by Republican politicians, and then these politicians are welcome on all sorts of news outlets that gettable voters for the Dems watch. I am not concerned with Fox News, I am more pointing out that anything a Dem says on black media outlets can become topics on mainstream outlets through Fox.
Advocating race-neutral policies is not “prioritizing white voters with racial grievances.” It is making a statement that in our public life we are all equal citizens who are worthy to be addressed as such. This is a basic concept of fairness as held by the great majority of Americans, of all races. It is a dilemma to try to advocate zero-sum policies for Black people and expect the 5x majority to go along with it. The answer to that dilemma is: stop doing that.
Partially thought-out response. There's an old adage, "you can't manage what you don't measure." One reason to say, "we propose this race neutral policy, and one measure of it's success will be reducing the racial wealth gap" is to include that as part of the measurement / management of the program.
Of course, there are better and worse ways to say that, but in theory, there would be a parallel structure to, "we're raising the cigarette tax to reduce teen smoking." The tax is universal, but one measure of success is to track teen smoking.
"I accept the unfair position the Dems are in given the rigged electoral system, so they have to win over a certain voter to win elections, I just think wish that the unfairness was pointed out more."
It is pointed out *constantly*, and it gets used as an excuse to not win elections. The Dems are at a disadvantage due to geography, but their choices are to whine about it and underperform/lose or adapt to the system and win. The latter is far, far more effective at helping actual human beings.
I agree. One argument I made, talking with somebody who thought Warren spent too much time talking about trans issues was, "Democratic politicians need to be able to comfortably give a good answer when asked about (e.g., trans issues or the racial wealth gap) and that the only way to get comfortable is reps. It needs to be something that they talk about enough that it doesn't feel awkward when they are in a situation that requires a specific answer."
That doesn't tell you how much to foreground those issues, or how to frame them, but if you cordon off discussion of (the racial wealth gap) to only certain settings then politicians will inevitably sound stilted and awkward when they try to talk about it.
I think the thing you really want to avoid is something like where Kristen Gillibrand got a question from a white woman in Ohio about "white privilege" and used that to launch into a consciousness-raising exercise on the subject of white privilege. Plus then on a nationally televised debate stage Gillibrand actually sold herself as somebody who could explain white privilege to white woman. Kinda missed that the woman probably wanted to hear about how you were going to help her with her problems not some insights on CRT101. Also not surprising the Gillibrand campaign flamed out.
But Gillibrand's answer was great! That was one of the positive memories of the primaries for me. I admit, I didn't watch the clip, I just saw it quoted, but I remember seeing the clip of Warren talking about abortion in a way that challenged the person asking the question but did so in a way that was very respectful (and, I thought, showed her experience as a teacher).
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1217520072022872065
Look, I don't pretend to a political strategist. I don't know if Gilibrand's answer helped her. But I would say (a) your characterization of her campaign doesn't quite match what I was reading -- https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kirsten-gillibrand-is-2020s-misfit/ (b) her campaign was always a long-shot and, to some extent, if she stuck to advocating safe, boring Democractic positions she got lost in the crowd -- https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-running-to-win-women-didnt-work-for-gillibrand/ (c) I do think it's useful to politicians to have good answers to tricky questions and I thought her answer was good.
Everyone remembers Bill Clinton saying, "I feel your pain" as an example of not answering the literal question that was asked (about the budget deficit) and instead responding to the deeper concern, ("how can you fix what's wrong") but go back and watch, for example, his appearance on Arsenio Hall and you see him talking all sorts of tricky questions -- including talking about Race in a way that acknowledges the difficulties and doesn't try to dodge the question.
“...the rigged electoral system...”
You sound like Trump.
So what should democrats say? Not sure. I can tell you what my practice is when talking about race in public—-I shut up. There’s no right way to discuss. It is so personal to peoples identity it’s hard not to get in an argument even with those you agree with. I think Obama really handled it well, so I don’t know if it’s totally fair to say that people pointing to his example are using him as a shield for white people, though I’m sure that happens too. If guys have large targeted program just for black people, go for it and promote it. If you have a more universal program that will help black people, let them know. But if it isnt REALLY a pro-Black program, you kinda need to let everyone else know it’s here to help them too or you risk alienating them. I dunno, in reality it’s a balance I guess, in my view.
If the context is appropriate, emphasizing how tax or immigration reform, a higher minimum wage, or a revenue neutral tax on net CO2 emissions will help a particular group is fine.
Of course it is. But talking about any of the above will excite some voters and risk alienating others, while the time spent is a missed opportunity to talk about issues that will increase support from other, other voters.
To me the point is not "don't talk about something unless it applies to everyone". The goal is balance these tradeoffs if you want to get elected. So if someone supports Biden and the policies his administration might implement, they should encourage him to get the messaging right so that his chance of re-election and support is also maximized.
Thanks Marc! Great take.
Some liberal politicians are too focused on displays of righteousness for the benefit of their friends on twitter.
I’m a little skeptical that progressive donors are the ones driving this. In my experience as a fundraiser for progressive orgs, most of our donors are old school liberals and very much into class based politics and/or 60s style racial equality; they care about racism among other issues, but they’re not driving the “white privilege“ talk. I think it’s much more the Millennial and Gen Z staffers, as well as pressure from Twitter and the media, that pushes political candidates in this direction. Tl;dr: It’s not the donors, it’s Twitter.
I think campaigns wildly overestimate that. Anyone with access to my ActBlue data can pretty quickly figure out that I’m a centrist. That includes the primary candidates
I gave to. As soon as Biden won I started getting an avalanche of emails under the heading of Elizabeth Warren and others that simply assumed I must be progressive. Needless to say these weren’t very effective with me. Seriously how hard would it have been to have Klobuchar donors get emails from Klobuchar?
My admittedly anecdotal point was that maybe we have not tested that proposition recently. Since all the marketing is to the progressives we don't know who would more money with more targeted marketing- obviously if you market to progressives, that is who will give. The post primary would have been a great opportunity to do a randomized control trial. The DNC knew which candidates people had given money to the primary. Would have been interesting to see which group had the bigger post-primary yield conditional on appealing to their actual views, not their presumptively progressive views.
If good politicians like Obama know this and act accordingly, why exactly do other ambitious politicians like the bulk of the 2020 Democratic field not do the same?
What's the root cause?
I'd imagine that the root cause of it, frankly, is that their strategists and comms teams are Extremely Online.
Root cause: catering to the noisy instead of the numerous.
How much of this is just timing? Obama is often credited with using social media for his 2008 campaign ( I remember reading undergrad articles about the promise of social media and activism in politics[lol] which would always cite the 08 campaign).
It seems now that candidates are just trying to tread water in the deluge and speed of social media.
How different would Obama if he was an upstart senator in 2020? How much more likely would Obama's staffers and advisers be obsessed with how #abolishice is trending on twitter or who dunked on who?
My guess is you HAVE to go viral. Biden has the luxury of being boring, he’s got that Obama proximity bump and name recognition and people just kinda like him. But Cory booker? He sounded way more practical in street fight when he was earlier in his career and made a hard left turn to run for president. He’s very smart and I think a good orator and when he gets going his voice is like BLAM. But if he didn’t jump into Medicare for all and green new deal and decriminilizing border crossing amd talking about race in a certain way I think he prob felt and was told he had no chance, and he still didn’t do great. Biden is a little unique because I think people believe in his goodness in their gut, im not sure what the next presidential primary will look like. I think dems on the internet are a wee bit less terrified of being slaughtered by a mob for being just slightly moderate though, so I think that’s a step in the right direction let’s see how it goes.
Too many campaigns pivoting to video.
Man you’re campaign went straight to AUDIO. https://youtu.be/lRRYLlXHkGs
He also could have ran on his charter school bonafides! Popular with both conservatives and black voters.
Likely their staffs, and the donors large and small that they wat and need, have an overly large influence on their thinking and messaging. And those staffs and donors are more enthusiastic about racial issues than their voters. So the feedback they get is their staffs telling them what a great idea it is and their donors responding with more donations when the message is framed this way.
Donor influence makes a fair amount of sense. Staff I'm more questionable about, politicians have their own egos and will more likely surround themselves with people who agree with their positions, but you need the initial push to embrace this world view.
Great article Marc!
The most pessimistic view of this issue is that wokies don't make race neutral arguments because they don't actually want to help the white poor and working class. This may not be true across the board, but often enough the woke left adopts a tone of condescension and even contempt towards less affluent whites. If a desire to feel superior is what's actually driving them, the careful reasoning in Marc's admirable article isn't going to sway them.
It's the wokies who adopt a ton of condescension you say. Cool, cool...
Another great note, Marc. I don't disagree at all with the major thrust of your argument, but I would note that this is an argument that Bernie made explicitly when he was running against Clinton in 2016 and his failure to decisively break through with communities of color (and particularly older Black voters) was widely cited as a primary factor in his primary loss. This ultimately led to his conversion to, as you so aptly phrase it, a 'begrudgingly woke' message in the 2020 race. Now I know that there were other factors that hurt Bernie in 2016 (chiefly the failure to have focused sufficiently on the technical and logistical minutiae of the primary in the sunup to the race), but in your view why didn't his relatively race neutral, class forward message stand him in better stead against Biden?
I'll 100% back the argument that Bernie 2020 was a significantly weaker national candidate than Bernie 2016 for exactly this reason.
To be completely honest, I just don't think a left candidate was going to win this particular primary. Every Democrat wanted to beat Trump, and most of them thought moderates would be better at uniting the country. Whatever fluctuations in the vote that are affected by race-talk or wokeness are going to be overshadowed when most Democrats are going to vote for a moderate candidate to beat a Republican they consider especially bad
Bernie *was* unexpectedly successful in 2016 right? IIRC he didn’t expect to make a serious contest of it at the start, just wanted to push the party left. But then he did so well he actually tried to win.
Important point. On the whole I think the problem was that Bernie was simply too far left. To some extent the problem was economic issues but more importantly nonracial cultural. The (large) segment of the black Community that votes for moderates is churchgoing cultural conservatives. I have to think more about the issue by issue comparison but Biden gives off more of that vibe than Sanders does.
I also think Black voters are deeply pragmatic (by necessity - they have a lot to lose) and Bernie was far enough left that he seemed like a pretty pie in the sky candidate. We forget now, but Hillary was very much the safe bet! And if you recall, Obama himself had a hard time winning over Black voters until he proved he could over white Midwesterners by winning the Iowa Caucus. Only then did Black voters swing to him in huge numbers.
I also would like to caveat this by mentioning that, like any group, Black voters are not a monolith. But we’re talking in broad strokes here.
Thanks - This is an excellent point. And certainly would explain why he was unable to break through decisively in the Black community in the primaries. It still doesn't explain why he wasn't able to sway a larger number of Marc's 'populists' to his side.
From what I heard, many older Black voters felt a strong appreciation for Biden that he was willing to “take a back seat to a Black man” and serve as Obama’s Vice. They also pegged him as most likely to win over White moderates, and their top priority was getting Trump out.
I would say a bit too far left for the white populists also. Who would be a good test case - Democratic politician who is populist but feels culturally traditional. Manchin maybe, or is he not populist enough economically? Sherrod Brown? Other thoughts?
Sherrod Brown is really interesting in this context because he actually explored a run in 2020, but got out early because he didn’t feel like he had a ‘lane’ that would get him the win. He also runs on a class first message and while he is progressive versus both the country and the party, he isn’t as far left as Bernie or Warren.
I also think that Biden benefitted a lot from being the “do over” candidate. A lot of rank-and-file dems probably basically just connected at the level of “Hey, Obama was a great president, let’s just do more of that and maybe we can finally forget about this little four-year nightmare.”
If we accept Marc's post as basically true, it doesn't mean that politicians with more race-neutral messaging will always win. Bernie's appeal, both in terms of style and substance was unique i 2016 and it didn't work for everyone and how woke or anti-woke it was was only one factor.
Maybe the better support for Marc's argument with respect to Bernie is that begrudgingly woke Bernie did worse in the primaries than not-particularly woke Bernie had
Yeah, this right here. Bernie 2016 was winning with leftists for sure, but he was also winning large portions of the Democratic electorate in places like West Virginia. If we're being honest, part of Obama's appeal in 2008 was that he wasn't Hillary either! Not saying it's fair to her or fair to women in general, but the fact that Democratic donors didn't recognize this heading into 2016 and tried to "clear the field" for Hillary was a huge misstep with far-reaching consequences.
I'm not sure how much *donors* tried to "clear the field" for Clinton. It's rather, once she declared she was running, most politicians with an interest in future runs thought it was better to just sit it out rather than be branded "loser". When a juggernaut runs, the field usually clears itself (except for the occasional upstart with not much to lose, like Bill Bradley, Barack Obama, or Bernie Sanders).
Fair enough... maybe it's better to say it was a combination of those factors. One of Bernie's major arguments in 2016 was "the system was rigged" against him, and he was able to make this by playing up the establishment support for Hillary. I personally believe he took this way too far (say what you will about her performance, but Hillary still won way more primary voters than Bernie) and I know too many Bernie supporters who refuse to admit that he lost, fair and square.
I also firmly believe that Bernie himself took the wrong lessons from his performance in 2016. There was never any massive constituency for his ideas, just a very loud one. Had it been about *his ideas* and not *him*, he would've been better served throwing his support behind Elizabeth Warren.
Now, as Matt has pointed out on numerous occasions, Bernie is a savvy enough politician to accept a partial victory that improves the status quo. I wish more of his supporters would appreciate that Biden is easily enacting the most liberal agenda since FDR (maybe ever?). Don't be a Nader and claim that anything less than 100% of what you want is acceptable.
This goes back to my point above. While there is ample evidence that the Dems were going to use the Superdelegates to end Bernie’s run if he was ahead at the convention, the reality is that Bernie didn’t staff up early enough and do the work required to actually turn his support into a win. The New York Primary is a great example of this: it is not an open primary and the deadline to register to vote in the Democratic Primary is months before the primary is held. So he had a lot of support in a delegate rich state that were unable to vote for him. The Dem elite didn’t need to put the knife in; the chimeric nature of his campaign in the early going did it for him.
It’s maybe true that *part of* Obama’s appeal was that he wasn’t Hillary, but I think it’s pretty obvious that Obama is an incredibly talented, charismatic, appealing politician - probably the best political candidate the Dems will ever have in my lifetime. I say that as someone who would probably have been a fairly enthusiastic Clinton supporter (though I hated how hawkish she was) in 2008 had Obama not come along.
Surprise! All lives matter, particularly to those whose lives they happen to be.
But the truth is: Everything -is- about race in US politics. It is easy for white people to say they support a supposed race-neutral policy. But once they get tiniest initial whiff it will shift resources a disproportionate amount towards brown and black communities, forget about it.
You aren't going to sneak this one by centuries of white supremacy culture. You try, you might win but you will never get the policy. Might as well make it clear that centuries of history mean no US public policy will ever be race-neutral or race-blind policy.
Whatever black and brown community voting behavior might be-at-the-margins, doesn't change what the overall communities' voting behaviors are. Better to be honest, up-front, helping maintain enthusiasm and increase voting rate of -the-overall- black and brown communities. It has the benefit of at least as good a path to victory and a much much much more likely path to get the policies, once you win. Also, more honest. Less of playing the sneak. Less feeling/need for politician/pundit to take shower 5 times a day.
The problem is (and the evidence in Marc's post shows) that race-explicit messaging actually depressed support for Democrats in communities of color.
Anyways, you're just asserting things without any evidence or support for them. That doesn't seem like an effective way to get a point across or make an argument.
I don't see the evidence that race-explicit messaging decreased black and brown turn-out. Where do you see that?
The links in Marc's 3rd paragraph showing very large vote swings in favor of Trump in immigrant and Latino neighborhoods in particular, plus smaller swings in Black neighborhoods. It's also inferred from all of the polling data in the article and in the links that that may be the reason for those swings. Supporting evidence was the electoral success of Obama versus the failure of Clinton, and the success of Biden versus the field.
Anyways - none of that is conclusive 100%, but it builds a strong case in my mind, especially when compared to expectations, i.e. in 2016 whenn Trump was the R candidate, most progressive were convinced that Latino and Black voter support for Republicans would crater to record low levels, when it fact it ticked upwards in both 2016 and especially 2020
There was no large swings in raw numbers. The numbers were small because Ds get 85-95 percent black vote and 60-70 Latino overall. There weren't even large marginal swings. These 'swings' at this level are hard to measure and fell well within historic variation and ability to measure.
The margin I want to work is marginally larger voting rates by these communities.
There was a 23 point shift in Miami, and similar swings in the Rio Grande Valley. Many immigrant precincts near my old neighborhood in LA moved 20 points as well, and the NYTimes map on immigrant precinct voting patterns showed 5-20 percent moves in big cities around the country in the same kinds of neighborhoods.
This in an era where the conventional wisdom is that swing voters are rare and people are locked into their partisan tribe. If Democrats were to absorb another 5 point minority-voter shift against them nationwide the party would take devastating losses in 2024. I'm not a democratic strategist, but if I was, I certainly wouldn't hand-wave those shifts away.
Another thing with immigrant neighborhoods - all the historical evidence, and the current shifts among Latino and Asian voters, points to immigrants assimilating to the majority population of the areas they live in. In Los Angeles maybe that does mean more D voters. But in rural Texas, it may well just mean more R voters. I'm not nearly as confident that minority neighborhoods of 1st or 2nd generation immigrants are going to turn out for Ds if they increase their turnout.
The nationwide patterns were well within historic variations and not near the high water mark Rs reached in the past. Black and Latino communities continue to vote 90, 80, 70, 60% D with no consistent indication that is changing - no matter how much lefty white men cherry pick subsets of data subsets of just the last election. The rate of voting in these communities lag white community rates - especially for Latino voters. "Let's stroke white people and deny the lived reality of black and Latino communities" is not the way to correct that.
I recall a comment by David Shor that politicians may have less power over this than they would like. He cited Corbyn in the UK as somebody who clearly wanted to make the Labor party more of a working-class party and who, nevertheless saw the education gap grow. . . .
Did Corbyn want to push Labor in a more working-class direction? I thought he was the leader of the educated-and-far-left wing of Labor and he ended up tanking Labor with less educated voters. I guess educated-but-far-left people *say* they want to lead working-class parties (but won't compromise on culture/social issues, so it doesn't work)
This is exactly that zero-sun thinking that poisons both ends of the racial devide. You're never going to bridge the devide by arguing that the only path to equity is to redistribute wealth from white people to bipoc.
White people have disproportionate wealth because they have had historical access to the free market that was denied to members of racial minorites. Ensuring market access regardless of heritage is overwhelmingly popular and will close the equity gap over time without enflaming racial resentments.
~95% of economists support the idea that government should have the power to re-distribute wealth. You seem to have an unsophisticated view of how markets work - or how 'free' or rational they might be - always leading to the outcome a moral proper-values society wants.
So, yes, many people share this sort of zero sum view where wealth is just sort of a fixed thing... that... exists. And "free" markets are this snake oil that the "elites" pedal in order to extract the rightful wealth of the masses and consolidate it in their own pockets.
This idea is bad and wrong and not one that anyone should promote political ideas based upon.
But the point of the article is that both messages are accurate, yet one polls better. Expanding various programs helps poor people. Expanding them helps people of [insert race or ethnicity] (assuming they are disproportionately poor).
There's polling - there is election victory - then there is legislating. Pretending race isn't a problem and pretending "Everybody loves race-blind things" rather then the truth: "White people love to proclaim their love of raee-blind things - including how wonderfully race blind they and the world is right now!" isn't going to get us where we need to be.
You assume you will be able to sneak this by the white 'populists' while not losing the enthusiasm of your most dependable voting communities. I am 98% confident you are wrong on both counts.
So if you talk about a redistributive policy in terms of it being a universal benefit, white "populists" will see that it will in fact disproportionately help minorities... but minorities themselves won't see that?
Nope. Everybody will see it. But pretending otherwise (which will be combined with working against their other policy priorities - say, police reform) to stroke/try-but-fail-to-trick white supremacy voters will kill their (as a community) enthusiasm for voting. Also, they see that even if a candidate wins pretending with a 'color-blind' message - because that candidate was so depended on the Big Lie of color-blindness, you won't get the actual policy when the policy voting happens.
Biden didn't get any 'white populist' votes. He got just enough enthusiasm from D's core voters by giving their concerns just enough attention... Plus just enough minority-white votes of the minority of the white community not wedded to white supremacy.
That is the coalition we should build on by appealing to (and giving control of party to) D's core voting communities. The trick-white-people route, run by white D's who are not the party's heart-and-soul, is a political and moral dead-end.
Really not a fan of this take.
"It is easy for white people to say they support a supposed race-neutral policy. But once they get tiniest initial whiff it will shift resources a disproportionate amount towards brown and black communities, forget about it."
First, "white people" aren't monolithic - 41% voted for Biden, are they also against redistributive policies? Also, your solution to white people being turned off by a "let's give poor people money" policy having a whiff of shifting resources toward BIPOC communities is to shove it in their faces?
"centuries of history mean no US public policy will ever be race-neutral or race-blind policy"
You're saying that, for example, the tax rate for each bracket is set with the *aim* of helping or harming certain ethnic groups based on how many fall into each bracket? That tax credits for renewable energy are *first and foremost* about shuttling resources to certain races that tend to buy electric cars or install solar panels? That changes in air pollution regulations are *primarily* about helping/harming people of certain races that live near source of pollution? Interesting that you think race is everyone's overriding goal to the exclustion of fiscal policy, climate change, and public health.
If your goal is to heighten awareness of race and intensify conflict along racial lines, that's gross and isn't going to go anywhere good. I also don't know what you expect to happen if you do that in a country where 67% of voters are white.
My goal is to increase the support, enthusiasm, and voting rates of people in black, brown, and Asian communities. Team them with the minority white support (with these minority whites playing supporting roles in general) to get the kind of victory that will lead to public policies -almost- as good as any other affluent Western European democracy.
Stroking white people and denying reality will leave public policy about where it is. Probably it will also embolden/encourage more Jan 6th's every time suppressed reality breaks through to white gang thugs, because they see they are coddled by police and courts during and after each.
I just don't get the math here - you're saying that emphasizing the racial angle of progressive policies will activate black/brown voters, but not activate racist white voters? Why would that be the case?
My math includes side: pool of untapped black and brown and voters is larger than the untapped pool of committed white supremacy voters.
Fair enough, I see the logic. I would still worry about reduced turnout among non-racist white voters who don't get that universal policies would help them too because the Democrats frame them as being aimed at minorities.
It makes sense because 1) Obama was black yet won. Nothing centers race in the message of US politics than being black. None of us can avoid that. No matter how you want to characterize his message as 'universalism.' 2) ACA didn't have the impact it could have because the states with largest black and brown populations didn't do Medicaid expansion. The energy behind making ACA a weak program to start with, then it made weaker as years have gone on, is race-based.
Everything about US public policy is about race. That statement is close enough to true - that for all practical purposes it is true. Pretending otherwise in the face of a white Americas able to elect Trump twice in landslides is either denial or attempted gaslighting of Olympian proportions.
It's one thing to say "The politics will fail."
It is another thing to deny reality.
58% of whites voted for Trump in 2020; going back the last few presidential elections that number is 57%, 58%, 55%, 58%, 54%. In other words, white people voted for him at about the same rates as other Republicans. Maybe people have party and policy preferences independent of race or something?
I'll listen to people who claim "Of course race is central to our politics. But it will be a political loser to point that out." I think they are wrong and will probably eventually lose their soul should they go that way.
But "Class is more important than race in US politics" deserves nothing but an eye-roll.
Marc, I think you are ready to graduate from intern to resident.
Marc, this was great, thank you! I will say, one thing I think people might under-appreciate is how deeply and sincerely people in the lower left boxes feel that achieving racial equity is a moral imperative. And I know you are saying “hey, if you feel that strongly about it, play the political game better!” And I agree! But they feel *so* strongly that treating it like a game is *also* immoral. The fact that there are so many people in the top left box is a moral problem, and they feel like acquiescing to them is akin to abetting racism. They are ok with pissing them off because they think they need to be shamed into conversion. And the lower left dominate the Democratic leadership right now. So before we can make this case to play the game better (or “pander” as Matt argued this week), we have to make the case to the Democratic Party influencers that being in the top left box is not an inexcusable moral failing.
Or maybe I’ve just got the order of operation of persuasion wrong.
As a parallel, imagine telling pro-life advocates that if they want to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, they should really avoid the abortion thing since it’s so divisive and just focus on cutting government spending since that’s more popular. I think you’d get crickets.
This is exactly my take on what’s happening - but you’ve articulated it so much better than I ever have, even in my own head. Thank you!