I am channeling my Inner Tom Maguire (yes, the noted Irish socialist) for this next one. The NY Times covers an intellectual scuffle between a Black Marxist professor and some young socialists. The professor would like to see Democrats and socialists display a bit more class solidarity with working class whites; the youngsters think the focus must be kept on race, race and race.
Along the way, [Prof. Reed] acquired the conviction, controversial today, that the left is too focused on race and not enough on class. Lasting victories were achieved, he believed, when working class and poor people of all races fought shoulder to shoulder for their rights.
...
The decision to silence Professor Reed came as Americans debate the role of race and racism in policing, health care, media and corporations. Often pushed aside in that discourse are those leftists and liberals who have argued there is too much focus on race and not enough on class in a deeply unequal society. Professor Reed is part of the class of historians, political scientists and intellectuals who argue that race as a construct is overstated.
Prof. Reed's political strategy:
They readily accept the brute reality of America’s racial history and of racism’s toll. They argue, however, that the problems now bedeviling America — such as wealth inequality, police brutality and mass incarceration — affect Black and brown Americans, but also large numbers of working class and poor white Americans.
The most powerful progressive movements, they say, take root in the fight for universal programs. That was true of the laws that empowered labor organizing and established mass jobs programs during the New Deal, and it’s true of the current struggles for free public college tuition, a higher minimum wage, reworked police forces and single-payer health care.
Those programs would disproportionately help Black, Latino and Native American people, who on average have less family wealth and suffer ill health at rates exceeding that of white Americans, Professor Reed and his allies argue. To fixate on race risks dividing a potentially powerful coalition and playing into the hands of conservatives.
I am not a Marxist (srsly!) but I am very sympathetic to the view expressed by Prof. Reed.
To take the NY Times as an easy example, they routinely describe as a race issue (framed as "Blacks/Hispanics hardest hit") problems that obviously have a partial explanation in economic class.
Eg, job losses as of May - The NY Times looked at if by gender, age, and race. Other outlets noted educational attainment was important too - some blue collar types had essential jobs but most college-educated professionals could work remotely.
Or, hit hard by COVID as of July. Per the Times, key factors included obvious "class" factors such as inability to work remotely, mass transit usage and crowded living quarters. Their takeaway - ethnics hardest hit.
Experts point to circumstances that have made Black and Latino people more likely than white people to be exposed to the virus: Many of them have front-line jobs that keep them from working at home; rely on public transportation; or live in cramped apartments or multigenerational homes.
Its interesting to think about why the Democrats (I'm Boldly Assuming the Times leans left) prefer this framing. My *guess* - for the same reasons working class whites have been drifting right since the Vietnam War, when union guys slugged it out with hippies. College educated whites, the other key part of the Dem coalition, see working class whites as racist, bible-thumping, gun-waving Walmart shoppers. Back in the early 70's, Archie Bunker would have been a union Democrat (later a Reagan Republican).
For a different but equally cynical take, the Democratic Party has an uneasy alliance with working class blacks. The basic arrangement is that in exchange for protection from hate-filled racist Republicans, working class blacks will support a de facto open borders policy which brings in a lot of unskilled competitors for working class jobs. One day this influx of new voters will allow the Democrats to Tax The Rich and provide a generous safety net to, hmm, anyone who can get here? Or will the Democrats decide we need to be More Like Europe (and Japan, and Australia) and adopt stricter immigration controls?
That bridge may be crossed one day. But since the socialist/Democrat agenda also includes billions for student loan relief (VERY friendly to young socialists!) and reparations for blacks (a Never Happen carrot which may dangle for years), their coalition may survive the wage-depressing effects of bringing in new workers for a while.
Well. In 2017 reliably left Peter Beinart described the Dem evolution on immigration more charitably, but admits it is an unsquared circle. His article is well worth reading. He describes the alliance of Big Business and Emerging Democratic Majority theorists at the expense of the working class, and what the Dems might realistically do about it. But they won't be realistic.
ECONOMIC THEORY: This New Republic analysis of the Earned Income Tax Credit is a progressive classic - encouraging people to work increases the labor supply, thereby decreasing wages and acting as Corporate Welfare:
But programs like the EITC are the leaky bucket we should really worry about. Because the credit is conditioned on work, it expands the supply of available labor and increases the power of employers relative to workers. The program thus drives wages down to the extent that a dollar spent on EITC only raises worker wages by around 70 cents, while employers keep the rest, according to research by economist Jesse Rothstein. (Other scholars have reached similar conclusions.) So a substantial chunk of the $60-plus billion spent on the EITC every year really is the type of “corporate welfare” that Sanders rightly decries.
Now do immigration!
Recent Comments