Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- Khurram0
WALTER BENN MICHAELS
AGAINST DIVERSITYThe importance of race and gender in the current us presidential campaign has, of course, been a function of the salience of racism and sexism—which is to say, discrimination—in American society; a fact that was emphasized by post-primary stories like the New York Times’s ‘Age Becomes the New Race and Gender’.1 It is no doubt difficult to see ageism as a precise equivalent—after all, part of what is wrong with racism and sexism is that they supposedly perpetuate false stereotypes whereas, as someone who has just turned 60, I can attest that a certain number of the stereotypes that constitute ageism are true. But the very implausibility of the idea that the main problem with being old is the prejudice against your infirmities, rather than the infirmities themselves, suggests just how powerful discrimination has become as the model of injustice in America; and so how central overcoming it is to our model of justice.
From this standpoint, the contest between Obama and Clinton was a triumph, displaying, as it did, both the great strides made toward the goal of overcoming racism and sexism, and the great distance still to go towards that goal. It made it possible, in other words, to conceive of America as a society headed in the right direction but with a long road to travel. The attraction of this vision—not only to Americans but around the world—is obvious. The problem is that it is false. The us today is certainly a less discriminatory society than it was before the Civil Rights movement and the rise of feminism; but it is not a more just, open and equal society. On the contrary: it is no more just, it is less open and it is much less equal.
In 1947—seven years before the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, sixteen years before the publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique—the top fifth of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of the money earned in the us. Today that same quintile gets 50.5 per cent. In 1947, the bottom fifth of wage-earners got 5 per cent of total income; today it gets 3.4 per cent. After half a century of anti-racism and feminism, the us today is a less equal society than was the racist, sexist society of Jim Crow. Furthermore, virtually all the growth in inequality has taken place since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965—which means not only that the successes of the struggle against discrimination have failed to alleviate inequality, but that they have been compatible with a radical expansion of it. Indeed, they have helped to enable the increasing gulf between rich and poor.
Why? Because it is exploitation, not discrimination, that is the primary producer of inequality today. It is neoliberalism, not racism or sexism (or homophobia or ageism) that creates the inequalities that matter most in American society; racism and sexism are just sorting devices. In fact, one of the great discoveries of neoliberalism is that they are not very efficient sorting devices, economically speaking. If, for example, you are looking to promote someone as Head of Sales in your company and you are choosing between a straight white male and a black lesbian, and the latter is in fact a better salesperson than the former, racism, sexism and homophobia may tell you to choose the straight white male but capitalism tells you to go with the black lesbian. Which is to say that, even though some capitalists may be racist, sexist and homophobic, capitalism itself is not.
This is also why the real (albeit very partial) victories over racism and sexism represented by the Clinton and Obama campaigns are not victories over neoliberalism but victories for neoliberalism: victories for a commitment to justice that has no argument with inequality as long as its beneficiaries are as racially and sexually diverse as its victims. That is the meaning of phrases like the ‘glass ceiling’ and of every statistic showing how women make less than men or African-Americans less than whites. It is not that the statistics are false; it is that making these markers the privileged object of grievance entails thinking that, if only more women could crash through the glass ceiling and earn the kind of money rich men make, or if only blacks were as well paid as whites, America would be closer to a just society.
It is the increasing gap between rich and poor that constitutes the inequality, and rearranging the race and gender of those who succeed leaves that gap untouched. In actually existing neoliberalism, blacks and women are still disproportionately represented both in the bottom quintile—too many—and in the top quintile—too few—of American incomes. In the neoliberal utopia that the Obama campaign embodies, blacks would be 13.2 per cent of the (numerous) poor and 13.2 per cent of the (far fewer) rich; women would be 50.3 per cent of both. For neoliberals, what makes this a utopia is that discrimination would play no role in administering the inequality; what makes the utopia neoliberal is that the inequality would remain intact.
Worse: it is not just that the inequality remains intact but also—since it is no longer produced by discrimination—that it gets legitimated. Apparently American liberals feel a lot better about a world in which the top 20 per cent are getting richer at the expense of everyone else, as long as that top 20 per cent includes a proportionate number of women and African-Americans. In this respect, the ability of the Obama campaign to make us feel pretty good about ourselves while at the same time leaving our wealth untouched, is striking—as emblematized in his tax proposals which are designed to ask more of the ‘well-off’, but not of ‘the middle class’. Who are the well-off? ‘I generally define well-off’, says Obama’s website, ‘as people who are making $250,000 a year or more’. Which means that people making, say, $225,000 (who are in the 97th percentile of American incomes) are middle class; and that they deserve to be taxed in the same way as those in the 50th percentile, making $49,000. The headline of the website on which this appears is ‘I’m Asking You to Believe’. But asking the 40 per cent of Americans who live on under $42,000 to believe that they belong to the same middle class as the approximately 15 per cent who make $100,000–$250,000 may be asking too much. It is, however, what the Democratic Party has been asking them to believe for the last twenty years. Economic inequality did not grow as fast under the Clinton Administrations as it did under both the Bushes, but it grew. In 1992, when Clinton was elected, the bottom quintile made 3.8 per cent, the top quintile 46.9 per cent of all money earned; in 2000, at the end of his second term, the bottom quintile made 3.6 per cent, the top quintile 49.8 per cent.
The point, then, is that the nomination of Obama is great news for American liberals, who love equality when it comes to race and gender, but are not so keen when it comes to money. Liberals are the people who believe that American universities and colleges have become more open because, although they are increasingly and almost exclusively populated by rich kids, more of these today are rich kids of colour. (Obama’s popularity on college campuses is no accident—he is diversity’s pin-up.) And having helped keep the poor out of college and thus made sure they remain poor, liberals are now eager to point out that white voters with only a high-school education (the very people who do not go to Harvard) are disproportionately sceptical of Obama; they are happy to deplore the ignorant racism of people whom they have kept ignorant, and whose racism they have thus enforced. The Obama candidacy is great news, in other words, for a liberalism that is every bit as elitist as its conservative critics say—although not, of course, quite as elitist as the conservative critics themselves.
There is a real difference between Obama and McCain. But it is the difference between a neoliberalism of the centre and a neoliberalism of the right. Whoever wins, American inequality will be left essentially untouched. It is important to remember just how great that inequality is. A standard measure of economic inequality is through the Gini coefficient, where 0 represents perfect equality (everybody makes the same), and 1 perfect inequality (one person makes everything). The Gini coefficient for the us in 2006 was 0.470 (back in 1968 it was 0.386). That of Germany today is 0.283, that of France, 0.327. Americans still love to talk about the American Dream—as, in fact, do Europeans. But the Dream has never been less of a reality than it is today. Not just because inequality is so high, but also because social mobility is so low; indeed, lower than in both France and Germany. Anyone born poor in Chicago has a better chance of achieving the American Dream by learning German and moving to Berlin than by staying at home.
Whether debates about race and gender in American politics involve self-congratulation, for all the progress the us has made, or self-flagellation over the journey still to go, or for that matter arguing over whether racism or sexism is worse, the main point is that the debate itself is essentially empty. Of course discrimination is wrong: no one in mainstream American politics today will defend it, and no neoliberal who understands the entailments of neoliberalism will do so either. But it is not discrimination that has produced the almost unprecedented levels of inequality Americans face today; it is capitalism.
Put that way, however, it is clear that the characterization of the race–gender debate as ‘empty’ needs to be qualified. For the answer to the question, ‘Why do American liberals carry on about racism and sexism when they should be carrying on about capitalism?’, is pretty obvious: they carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism. Either because they genuinely do think that inequality is fine as long as it is not a function of discrimination (in which case, they are neoliberals of the right). Or because they think that fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at least a step in the direction of real equality (in which case, they are neoliberals of the left). Given these options, perhaps the neoliberals of the right are in a stronger position—the economic history of the last thirty years suggests that diversified elites do even better than undiversified ones. But of course, these are not the only possible choices.
- although not, of course, quite as elitist as the conservative critics themselves.********
- although not, of course, quite as elitist as the conservative critics themselves.
- tommyo0
TBO,
How do you feel about the electoral college then? Seems like Alexander Hamiltons argument is that ultimately chosen people who are more educated about the candidates are deemed more fit to choose the president? The funny thing about both Jeffersons argument as well as an issue peppered throughout Hamiltons Federalist Paper is that they agreed that a corruption of power, innate in mankind, was a concern. Not surprisingly I completely agree with Jefferson.
Seems like the electoral college, while I hardly ever hear anyone gripe about the outcome of an election because of that system, kind of circumvents what is now a pretty well educated population. Is it obsolete? Just kind of seems like a system that creates apathy among the people. What say you mister poly-sci?
- TheBlueOne0
Tommy, I'm kinda up in the air about the electoral college. I think a bigger hamper on the actual expression on the people's will in government is the freezing of the proportion of the House of Representatives in 1911. It no longer represents what it should Constitutionally...from wikipedia:
"Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state, however, is entitled to at least one Representative.
The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."[2] Congress has regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth; but Congress fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.[1] The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census."We need to expand the House of Representatives to reflect actual population and get actual representation again.
- Oh, and the politization of redistricting sucks too...TheBlueOne
- ukit0
Let's make DC a state!
- and Puerto Rico, the f*cking shirtail riders, piss@ants********
- lets not go that far...robotron3k
- and Puerto Rico, the f*cking shirtail riders, piss@ants
- TheBlueOne0
As far as I understand it, in the balance between the Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian stances the branches were to have varying degree of influence from the Public Will. The Senate, not so much, the House of Reps a whole lot, the Executive some but filtered through the Electoral College, and the Judicial really none at all, at least on the Supreme Court level (but then again Judicial Review is another issue entirely). It's fairly elegant and matched against the needs of the post-colonial era. It's changed over time - and not really for the better, although Judicial Review is arguably an improvement. Maybe. I'd argue that the Executive has actually more influence from the general population despite the electoral college (thanks to a concern and weight put on polls and so forth) and the Legislature has become more distant from real world public influence (see recent vote on bailing out wall street e.g.)
- tommyo0
Interesting. Yeah I have heard people talking about increasing the number of House seats, I didn't know that they capped it in 1911. So in essence the Public Will in actuality is pretty limited now with the House becoming more unresponsive to the people, and the Electoral College being an intermediary between us and the elected. Again, I hardly hear about the electoral college except when tied to sentiments of voter apathy. I thought more people would have been more vocal about it because of the Gore loss seeing as popular vote was on his side.
- Well, Gore wasn't the first. There was some historical precedent there...TheBlueOne
- Also..the founders expected a large number of competing parties, not just two...TheBlueOne
- ..and some hated the idea of parties in the first place..but that's waaaay too idealistic..TheBlueOne
- Yeah I figured Gore wasn't the first. But just the fact that it happened post-internet, easy access to information andtommyo
- communication. I just thought I would have heard more about it at the time.tommyo
- ********0
http://www.theroot.com/id/48361?…
It Takes Green to Go GreenAre liberal environmental policies hurting poor black communities? Conservatives think so!
Environmentalists and their liberal backers are also blocking the construction of new coal-fired power plants that produce electricity. Plans for 59 coal-based power plants were canceled in 2007, and plans for 50 others are now being challenged.
All this leads to higher energy prices and pain in the pocketbooks of those who can least afford it—poor, black people living in struggling neighborhoods.
According to the Census Bureau's 2007 American Community Survey, the annual median black household income was $34,001 and $40,766 for Hispanics—well below the $50,740 national median. Additionally, 24.7 percent of blacks and 20.7 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty. As energy prices climb, they lose a higher percentage of their take-home pay to increased energy costs—leaving less for things such as savings, education and health care.
Seeking empathy may be asking too much.
- found this while searching for some content for the 'global warming thread'********
- Yeah, those conservatives are always looking out for the poor black communities.joeth
- The Green Collar Economy - by a black author... http://www.amazon.co…joeth
- found this while searching for some content for the 'global warming thread'
- TheBlueOne0
Tommy, if this stuff really interests you may I suggest two books:
- Purchased. I love my Amazon Prime.tommyo
- Ha! Well, in that case I hope you do enjoy them! I feel responsible now...TheBlueOne
- You better. With all the Revolutionary knowledge I just hope I don't start sporting a wig and a 3 corner hat.tommyo
- tommyo0
btw, seeing as you know much more than I do about government. Would you think that the founding fathers would be proud or pissed about government today? Seeing as the nation has changed a lot in all areas of life since the framers outlined the roles of government, also the world politics are different as well with the UN and trade policies etc etc. Do you think they'd approve of the changes of government considering it in context of all the other changes? Just wondering about your opinion. I have one but I also haven't read many of the articles and papers from the framers, I just have a limited knowledge of the spirit of the constitution and it seems like gov today is pretty far from what they intended. But I'm not sure if they expected the boundaries to change slightly with time either.
- I think they'd be amazed it really did last this long.TheBlueOne
- The founders were also far more worldy and cynical than their mythologized. Which is a good thing.TheBlueOne
- After you read those books we'll talk...curious to see your thoughts afterwards.TheBlueOne
- rebel aristocrats with slaves: lets be honest.********
- I think that's a very narrow view with no respect for context capsize..TheBlueOne
- ..although factually accurate. But it's a hindsight judgement.TheBlueOne
- narrow, maybe,but nonetheless true.********
- context is by and large excuses shortcomings. You cannot espouse slavery and liberty in the same breath w/o deserving opprobrium.********
- opprobrium. They knew more than most the economic necessity of slavery to their way of life.********
- that way of life was threatened not by a slave insurrection but by their masters in Whitehall.********
- You might find War for America by Piers Mackesy interesting.********
- hindsight? well yes, but why pretend slavery then was any different than now? Especially in view of "inalienable rights"?********
- hallelujah0
In an interview broadcast yesterday on NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams asked Palin whether she felt abortion clinic bombers were terrorists.
Palin resisted the suggestion that if Ayers was a "domestic terrorist" — a standard line in her campaign addresses — then so were conservative religious activists who bombed abortion clinics.
"I don’t know if you’re going to use the word ‘terrorist’ there," she said.
- eye for an eye is in the bible********
- Good luck in 2012 Sarah dear.Mimio
- eye for an eye is in the bible
- ukit0
A Pittsburgh police commander says a volunteer for the McCain campaign who reported being robbed and attacked near a bank ATM in Bloomfield has confessed to making up the story. Police say charges will be filed.
- HA HA!********
- I hate to say I told you so....but...TheBlueOne
- OK...I won't say it...TheBlueOne
- Oh shit! haha. Yeah dude if this is true then she needs to go to jail.tommyo
- HA HA!
- SteveJobs0
anyone know where i can find a list of well-known gop's who are voting for obama?
Here are a few plucked from CNN headlines:
Former Reagan adviser Ken Adelman
Former Secretary of StateColin Powell
Former George W. Bush press secretary Scott McClellan- JazXukit
- http://www.republica…Mimio
- thank you sir!SteveJobs
- JazX!? owwwwwwwwww********
- monkeyshine0
A nice dose of humanity in all the ugliness:
- TheBlueOne0
Interesting that you're seeing a split in the GOP - between the true Corporate/Conservative GOP and the Culture Warrior GOP. McCain was the candidate of neither so he hasn't earned the loyalty of all these guys defecting to Obama, but Palin is firing up the Culture Wars...more God, Guns and No Gays. The GOP won alot of elections with these two joined, but it's fracturing now. Each side is running away form the other as fast as it can...
- interesting analysismonkeyshine
- Totally agree. I think the Repub party is definitely split between emotional Republicans and true conservatives.tommyo
- split you say? It's the same way Dems vote for fiscal (union, etc.) issues and not social ones********
- ukit0
Yea, it will be fun to watch the infighting begin if McCain loses. Thing is, the God Guns and Gays wing of the party is not nearly big enough to win a national election on it's own...and Palin has become a laughingstock to most of the country but the base loves her. Will be interesting to see what happens.
- It'll be a battle royale between Palin and Huckabee to be the spokesperson for that wing of the party,,,TheBlueOne
- and every 4 years they lose a little more impact.monkeyshine
- And they've been used enough anyway...even with a majority they never got the abortion or prayer in school issues addressed...TheBlueOne
- ..they were used by the corporate GOP and they're waking up to that factTheBlueOne
- That part of America will never ever go away..it's influence waxes and wanes, but it's always been there.TheBlueOne
- maybe not but the old school bigotry is dying off...it is in part generational...least in this country.monkeyshine
- ukit0
Hmmm.... http://joinrudy2012.com/
- hallelujah0
I hope the old style republicans can seize the party back, otherwise this country will destroy itself
- autoflavour0
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/s…
republicans just change the rules.. new york is the catalyst.
- Ramanisky20
Part 1
Part2
- they make so uncomfortableRamanisky2
- they have ZERO rapport with one another, they seem like total strangers and just so uncomfortable throughout the interview.threadpost
- throughout the entire interview. so cold, contrived and out of touch.threadpost