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.
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.
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 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'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".
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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'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".
Thanks Marc! Great take.
Some liberal politicians are too focused on displays of righteousness for the benefit of their friends on twitter.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.