I haven't decided who is worse

The reporters who think it's front page news that blacks disagree, or the blacks who think that the very existence of an Obama administration would be a setback for "The Black Agenda." There are many, many, many things wrong with this theory--the first of which being, from what I can tell, "The Black Agenda" is basically "A Black Middle Class College Professor Agenda." I've only seen one issue emerge from this debate--Affirmative Action. Nothing about the kids failing out of school. Nothing about the (slight) uptick in teen pregnancy. Nothing about wealth creation. Nothing about drug policy. I have no clue what makes these people so maniacally focused on this one issue, like the whole of black America hinges on their kids getting into Berkeley. Give me a break.

But there's more. I've generally been very dismissive of this notion of white guilt, but when I read stories like this I think Shelby Steele is only 75 percent wrong as opposed to 95 percent:

"I worry that there is a segment of the population that might be harder to reach, average citizens who will say: 'Come on. We might have a black president, so we must be over it,' " said Mr. Harrison, 59, a sociologist at Howard University and a consultant for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies here.

No disrespect to Dr. Harrison, but I got a sick feeling in my stomach when I read that quote. I've talked about this before, but there's something deeply emasculating, weak, and cowardly in this notion that if white people don't recognize, black people are done for. I have my doubts about whether that's true, but more importantly, it's a stupid message to pass on to a generation of black kids. I have no idea, given the history of this country, how anyone could tell their children that their live hinge on white beneficence.

I make no brief for separatism--quite the opposite; any considered study of humanity reveals all people to be single-mindedly self-interested. The only way to enroll whites into any sort of "Black Agenda" is to appeal to a mutual self-interest. In other words, A "Black Agenda" has to be flush with an "American Agenda." The whole point of Barack is that that's exactly what's possible. You don't have to black to think that the War on Drugs is a bad use of tax dollars. You don't have to be black to see that, in order to compete, America needs as many educated citizens as possible.

Beyond aesthetics there's the simple fact that the "White Sympathy" strategy as executed by the heirs of MLK, has been a dismal failure feeding the careers of demagouges, and leaving the rest of us to carry the weight. It's not like these guys have spent the 80s and 90s effectively pushing any policies. Moreover, what is the alternative? Elect John McCain and keep guilting white folks? Do these people really think that would be more effective than a Democratic White House and Congress? Or is it something deeper. Is it a fear of what lies ahead, a comfort with the old fights, a certainty in duking it out with the acolytes of Jesse Helms. No matter if it's an unwinnable fight. It's the fight you know. Are we talking about a  fear of thinking forward, of no longer having the crutch of the past? Certainly there are principled reasons for blacks to oppose Obama. But fear of white ambivalence shouldn't be one of them. We really should be used to white ambivalence, by now.

Comments

Spot on, as always.

Posted by Whitey | August 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Three e's in Berkeley

Posted by pedant | August 26, 2008 12:17 PM

Well, let's look at it this way. Back in the early 60s, what was it that made so many whites support the idea of civil rights legislation? Was the argument anything more than just a moral imperative?

Posted by Steve | August 26, 2008 12:18 PM

One quick note:

Beyond aesthetics there's the simple fact that the "White Sympathy" strategy as executed by the heirs of MLK, has been a dismal failure feeding the careers of demagouges, and leaving the rest of us to carry the weight. It's not like these guys have spent the 80s and 90s effectively pushing any policies.

To be fair to Jesse Jackson and his allies, they made a genuine, serious attempt at building a multiracial, largely working-class coalition in the 1980s -- the Rainbow Coalition, which grew out of Jesse's '84 and '88 Presidential campaigns. One of the reasons it failed, however, was elite (and mainly white, elite) resistance inside the Democratic Party, which couldn't stand the thought of all these assorted DFH's and black people and other troublemakers taking over their party. Thus, the DLC, and triangulation and the "3rd Way."

As to why Jesse reached a truce with the Dems after that, I don't really know. Maybe he figured it was the best that could be hoped for, that there was no alternative if you wanted to defeat the GOP, as you point out about this year's election. The point is that there was something good and real there, and that Jesse's generation was responsible for building it. It fell apart, but he and they deserve credit for having built it.

Posted by Pesto | August 26, 2008 12:19 PM

"Blacks Debate Civil Rights Risk in Civil Rights Triumph."

Racism _already doesn't exist_ to the vast majority of whites, even the most well-intentioned. Racism is a sad historical fact, but it's simply not a real force any longer. So (setting aside the revolting idea that blacks should plead for white beneficence) relying on 'white guilt' isn't just craven and feeble, it's depending on something that's nonexistent as a political force.

You can't really talk about white guilt as a political strategy until you understand what racism means to whites. And then you'll see that this is worse than cowardly and emasculating, it's cowardly, emasculating, and completely worthless.

Posted by gussie | August 26, 2008 12:21 PM

gussie, an American -- and in particular a white American -- saying he's not racist is like a fish saying he's not wet.

Posted by Pesto | August 26, 2008 12:25 PM

I kind of get what your saying but it seems a bit all over the place. What is really so wrong and off base about that quote, blacks have all the reason to be mindful of stalled progress; jim crow and reconstruction anyone? I've read you rail against white guilt/sympathy a number of times and I don't get it. You seem to conflate the acknowledgment of white privilege and the benefits that come along with that by whites with sympathy. Even worse you seem to imply that the the meager benefits gained via affirmative action proportionally add up to the reverse of white privilege. Also, why do you always point to Ivy leagues in these discussions, what about all the state schools that have benefited from AA? Is that type of one-sided analogy any different from the folks who point to welfare queens when they argue against public assistance? I see nothing wrong with addressing structural and cultural privilege skewed towards whites for various reasons, race being central. Would you deny that this is the case? I agree with the points that dropout rates, teen pregnancy etc should be folded into a larger American agenda no doubt but that doesn't dismiss the need to acknowledge and keep track of the role of privilege as well. As proven by the rise of Obama and others these agendas are merging into a broader American agenda, maybe not as quickly and as intellectually concise as you would hope but it is happening so what's you beef?

Posted by Karl | August 26, 2008 12:33 PM

"We really should be used to white ambivilance, by now."

Great line...

Although I'm a vocal supporter, the tragedy of affirmative action as regards universities - and for that matter busing - is that for years it became the focus of social policy while two generations of inner-city youth were relegated to schools that were getting worse, not better, in preparing them for college. And, if my home of Oakland is any measure, there's nothing on the table that addresses the needs of the kids in these schools. To be honest, although I know it's a Trojan Horse, I'm on the verge of supporting school vouchers just to shake the system up and see what happens. It's hard to imagine it getting worse.

Posted by brucds | August 26, 2008 12:38 PM

"Racism is a sad historical fact, but it's simply not a real force any longer..."

I guess we could quibble as to what you mean by "real." But wow, that is very, very wrong.

Posted by Stacy | August 26, 2008 12:44 PM

brucds, if you want to help primary and secondary education in California, repeal Prop 13 and equalize school funding across districts.

Get folks in Piedmont who own houses worth $1.5 million to pay their fair share of taxes, and then take some of the money they put into the bird-call team at Piedmont High and send it to Oakland Tech.

Not that that's gonna happen, but that's the basic solution none the less. Other tinkering isn't going to add up to much until you deal with the funding problem.

Posted by Pesto | August 26, 2008 12:46 PM

" I have no idea, given the history of this country, how anyone could tell their children that their live hinge on white beneficence."

But on the other side of that coin, there's still the issue of reaching the people (both black and white) that still see things in terms of separation. I think that could be what Harrison is trying to get at. It's not that blacks depend on whites for everything, it's more that if people slip back into those old ways of thinking then the whole project will have been for nothing. The country will have gained absolutely nothing, except some short-term relief of injustice that will fade away at the first economic downturn, if people still think of blacks and whites as separate from each other.

Yes, whites do need to recognize that injustice has been done and is still being done. But that's just one step. It's not an end in itself.

Posted by Tel | August 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Yer writing for the friggin' ATLANTIC, for crying our loud. The spell checker is yer friend. And I do not have any ambivalence about that.

Posted by the puzzled one | August 26, 2008 12:49 PM

I agree with you on the facts, Pesto, but not on the perception. And this is all about perception. Racism has been defined so dysfunctionally (well, or maybe the definition is completely functional ... ) that it's almost impossible to have a real discussion.

I'm not sure how most blacks might define racism, but I suspect it's pretty different from the common white definition.

Racism is burning crosses. I don't burn crosses. Hence I'm not racist. Racism is saying 'nigger'. I don't say 'nigger'. Hence I'm not racism. Racism is evil. I am not evil. Hence, I cannot be racist.

Racism is often defined as such a heinous belief and behavior that we can't discuss -actual- racism without sparking crazy defensiveness, and the whole discussion spinning into nonsense.

That's what I'm getting at. If anyone thinks, 'oh, once Obama is president, whites will think that the long struggle for racial equality is over,' I'm trying to say, 'um, they -already- think that, because 'racism' to them isn't the subtle stuff like discussing Michelle Obama's speech -without- mentioning her race, but it's only things like hanging a noose on someone's door.'

Before we meaningfully discuss the impact of an Obama presidency on whites and white racism, we've gotta have some clue what that -means-.

Posted by gussie | August 26, 2008 1:01 PM

the puzzled one,

to be fair, matt was the original TYPO king.

Posted by jay | August 26, 2008 1:16 PM

*The only way to enroll whites into any sort of "Black Agenda" is to appeal to a mutual self-interest. In other words, A "Black Agenda" has to be flush with an "American Agenda."*

I believe the unstated subtext here is that this "American Agenda" might not be good for partisan politics.

Democrats clearly own the "Black Agenda". Affirmative action and talk of racism by Republicans is a useful scare tactic to get the black vote. (In much the same way, abortion is a useful scare tactic to get feminist votes for dems and evangelical votes for reps.)

The problem is that an "American Agenda" is not clearly owned by the Democrats. Fixing schools is clearly part of the American Agenda, but what if the Republicans can do it better (via school vouchers, for instance)? Wealth creation might lead to a generation of black small business owners who wind up voting Rep (their personal self interest).

The "Black Agenda" is a safe win for the left. The "American Agenda" is risky when viewed through the lens of partisan politics.

Posted by Ninja Zombie | August 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Pesto:

statements like: "an American -- and in particular a white American -- saying he's not racist is like a fish saying he's not wet."

is the type of massive over generalization far too often thoughtlessly thrown out there with no real consideration of how patently ridiculous or destructive it is. I mean it completely dilutes the impact and significance of what racism is and what it means to be on both the giving and receiving ends of racism. It paints all black folk as victims and all white folk as destined to be evildoers no matter how hard they try. In the face of that type of reality why should either side of the scenario make any effort to do anything different? It is i.m.o. a primary driver in this whole idea of "the race card" which once upon a time i though was ridiculous and now i just think is kind of sad...

Posted by Green | August 26, 2008 1:20 PM

Pesto, everybody is racist in America. Whites are just generally speaking the rich folks.

Posted by bakum | August 26, 2008 1:25 PM

Okay, I agree with that gussie. I posted my quip before reading your longer discussion of American racism on the Juan Williams thread, so I didn't understand where you were coming from on this.

I'd only add to your comments that the tussle is going to be over whether Obama's victory creates an unprecedented opportunity to deal with racism, or the confirmation of the (misguided) belief that racism was "solved" at some point in the past. Getting people to redefine racism will be part of that debate.

Posted by Pesto | August 26, 2008 1:26 PM

Pesto,

Perhaps I'm misrembering, but I thought that Jesse won at most 30% of the primary vote, and sort of faded from serious contention by midway through Bush Sr's presidency. His politics were simply too far to the left for the Democratic party to support. He may have had aspirations toward building a new coalition, but he lacked the electoral clout to see them realized.

This was not an "elite" rejection of Jackson. It was the same political reality that every Democrat save the nominee encounters in the primaries. Jackson simply was not as popular as he thought he would be.

Obama, by contrast, has mobilized a majority of Democrats, and the difference is that his message, and his politics, resonate across a broader group than Jackson's did. Their coalitions draw from the same demographics (broadly, black voters and affluent liberals), but Obama's coalition is simply larger.

Posted by heedless | August 26, 2008 1:33 PM

And with regards to what ails the inner city schools, having come up through them in the 80's and 90's, my personal experience is that yeah more funding would have been nice, but really for all the things my education was and wasn't, the only thing I can think of that would have made my experience significantly better with better funding is reducing the ridiculously large class sizes.
Far bigger issues to me were the general lack of parental involvement, and the total bureaucratic inefficiency of the school system. I mean rarely did a year go by where I didn't have a teacher who just straight up didn't teach. And I was usually in one variation or another of the "gifted" tracks, where presumably they were putting their best.

Posted by Green | August 26, 2008 1:34 PM

Michelle Obama's speech was tempered with proving sameness. An indication, I believe, that there are still people who need to be convinced of her and her husband's humanity. The civil rights crowd isn't far off with their concerns that Obama, if elected (and I do hope he gets elected), will be, in part, a comforting symbol for some that racial inequalities do not exist.
I'm not from the civil rights crowd, and I do not agree with this notion of a "Black Agenda," but I think that it's a rational fear to have.

Posted by BelleIsa | August 26, 2008 1:38 PM

The time my white-ass self has spent feeling guilty about race is equal to the time my Catholic-ass self has felt guilty about losing my virginity before marriage. Which is to say approximately 4 minutes 36 seconds.

In short: Guilt has no long-term sustainability as a tactic to change people's behavior.

Posted by zacksback | August 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Guilt leads to Resentment,

Resentment leads to Fear,

And Fear leads to ... the Republican Party.

White Guilt has been a boon for the Republican Party.

Posted by Shine | August 26, 2008 2:07 PM

Beyond aesthetics there's the simple fact that the "White Sympathy" strategy as executed by the heirs of MLK, has been a dismal failure feeding the careers of demagouges, and leaving the rest of us to carry the weight.

I would point out that during the 80's and 90's no one was sympathetic to anyone but the well-off anyways. Those were not good decades for sympathy, unless you were a foreigner living in a far away country that no one knew anything about. (And thus, those foreigners could have all virtuous behaviour projected upon them.)

Obama getting elected would mark a milestone of a sort in black assimilation. (Black people: only allowed to immigrate to Real America in 1965!) Arguments about racism will lose a certain amount of punch no matter what. At which point the full weight of the 'poor people suck, who cares?' arguments will fall on the head of blacks. Particularly since there will be a tiny part of the upper-class that is black and tiny part of the middle-class (whatever the hell is left of it) that is black. The ever-vaster sea of the underclass is still not considered a worthy object of sympathy.

In the short run, it's a bit of a net loss, for arguing that blacks are currently ill-treated as a class. It's in the long term that it's a win, particularly since in the long term, the boomers and their parents will pass away, and having a black president will negate arguments about supposed inferiority to the point that it won't occur to anyone to think of them.

So I can see the guy's point.

max
['Change implies movement implies change.']

Posted by max | August 26, 2008 3:13 PM

Why and what about is Shelby Steele 95 (or 75) percent wrong?

Posted by $9,000,000,000 Write Off | August 26, 2008 4:43 PM

People who talk about a "Black Agenda" fall into two groups:
- racists on the far right, who think all blacks are alike.
- those on the far left (also racist, although they will loudly deny it), who believe that all Blacks think alike and have the same agenda.

Those of us anywhere near the middle (and that's a really, really broadly defined middle) realize that blacks as a group are no more monolithic than any other large group. And thus have a wide variety of agendas, opinions, priorities, experiences, etc. Too bad the idiots make better media copy.

Posted by wj | August 26, 2008 5:15 PM

I've only seen one issue emerge from this debate--Affirmative Action. Nothing about the kids failing out of school. Nothing about the (slight) uptick in teen pregnancy. Nothing about wealth creation. Nothing about drug policy. I have no clue what makes these people so maniacally focused on this one issue, like the whole of black America hinges on their kids getting into Berkeley. Give me a break.

First off, I think you have a very limited definition of Affirmative Action. AA not only applies to targeted recruitment programs in education. Its also corporate diversity programs and governement contracts. Both of these are critical building blocks to the economic development of black middle class families. Call me liberal but I believe that middle class values and low unemployement are more effective at combatting dropout rates, teen pregnancies, drug dealing, etc. Don't mistake the symptoms for the root cause.

Also, AA at Ivy Leagues is important. As much as people hate to admit it, the Ivy League alumni networks dominate positions of power in business and government globally. All of our presidents since Reagan have gone to either Harvard or Yale. The president sets the nation's priorities. Its important to have someone in those alumni networks to accelerate their chances of a minority being on the ticket.

Posted by John Henry | August 26, 2008 7:38 PM

Pesto - I'm all for more equitable funding, but I doubt that simply pouring more money into, say, Castlemont High School as it is would turn things around. That said, the reality is that schools like Castlemont and Fremont High need considerably more money than Piedmont High to serve their students adequately. I don't know the solution, but I don't trust the nostrums of the NEA or the AFT or the school administrators (all of whom operate as job trusts more than problem-solvers) any more than I trust glib proposals out of the CATO institute. This is a deep crisis and years of "progressive" politicos in Oakland have let it fester. It makes me sick. Proposition 13 has been a disaster and needs repeal, but leveling Piedmont isn't a solution to the bulk of the problems that exist within Oakland's schools.

Posted by brucds | August 26, 2008 8:39 PM