Go here to see Shelby Steele's deconstruction of Barack Obama and his presidency. I disagree with him on several points.
First, Steele likens Obama to an emperor with no clothes. It's an inappropriate parable. After a campaign that lasted 1.5 years, the American people had ample time to learn about all the candidates. Obama campaigned on reforming health care. He did so. Throughout the campaign, Obama said Afghanistan is where we should have focused our resources all along. We are now doing so.
Second, Steele claims "Obama's economic thinking (or lack thereof) adds up to a kind of rudderless cowboyism combined with wishful thinking." Obama has assembled one of the more remarkable economic teams of this generation or any other. That they come to different conclusions than Professor Steele would like is not an indication of a lack of economic thinking. Obama's first economic priority was to stabilize the economy. People would not be investing in the stock market (from a low of 6,500 to 10,500 today) the way they currently are if the economy were not on more solid footing. Certainly, more has to be done to address unemployment, recession was never cured immediately. Steele must have forgotten the recession of 1979-1982. Reagan didn't cure his recession his first year in office either, yet Reagan is so often held up as the lodestar for conservative activists like Steele. Selective memory does not beget good arguments.
Third, Steele claims that Obama has an "inner emptiness." Apparently, Reagan "individuated." Again, he cites Reagan as the exemplar of such behavior because "he took principled positions throughout his long career that jeopardized his popularity." I'm not sure how this doesn't apply to Obama too. Defending health care reform in the teeth of unified Republican opposition and selective logrolled Democratic opposition definitely decreased Obama's political capital and increased the chances that the GOP can recapture the House.
Obama didn't have to tackle health care. He could have ignored the issue, which would only make things worse in the long-term. Or, like Bush, he could have worsened the problem by adding an unfunded prescription drug benefit on to Medicare. Principled is doing things that aren't always popular. None of the following are (were) popular: accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, arguing on behalf of climate change legislation, health care legislation, the troop surge to Afghanistan, yet Obama pushes(d) because they are right.
Fourth, the comparisons to Tiger Woods and Bill Cosby are inappropriate. Their misdeeds are personal. Any that Obama would commit would be national and permanent. It's an insult to the president to draw comparisons down and instead of in a lateral manner to other presidents.
Finally, Steele can make good points, witness his earlier article on why the GOP can't win with minority.
Showing posts with label Shelby Steele. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shelby Steele. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Arguing with Shelby Steele on Racial Inequality
Conservative author Shelby Steele in the Washington Post opinion section tackled the ever-controversial topic of affirmative action and persistent racial inequality in the article “Affirmative Action Is Just a Distraction.”
In a nutshell, he argues that persistent racial inequality today between whites and African Americans is primarily a result of black underdevelopment rather than racism.
Moreover, Steele asserts that:
Let me break down where I think Steele makes a good point—and where he and traditionally, most American conservatives, miss the mark.
Shelby Steele makes a good point:
• I believe Steele is right when he argues that the problem—or rather, the cause of the problem of inequality—is underdevelopment rather than discrimination.
I think Steele might be onto something when he argues that the problem of racial inequality isn’t as simple and reducible to white racism anymore. In my own experience as an Asian-American and an immigrant, much of my own personal setbacks personally, professionally and academically were not a direct result or byproduct of white racism but primarily is a result of being in unfamiliar territory where I did not know the rules of the game and I did not have mentors to help guide me on strategies how to advance.
Being thrown in unfamiliar turf (such as college or the Washington, DC white-collar workforce) where many of the players were white, upper middle class and above, and American-born does put me at a disadvantage. But the fact is, I was able to gain entry into that turf and get a chance to play. I see some validity in Steele’s point that although a minority in the white, white-collar world, white racism did not hold me back from entry into that world. How far I could advance in that turf is a mixture of a function of my own personal drive, ambition, skills and network. And yes, racism may play a key role in determining who gets to break into the upper echelons of management. But right now, I don’t see white racism as a factor in determining how far I can advance in my field as much as I see social class and how well my early education, college and being middle class has prepared me to enter the professional workforce.
Shelby Steele misses the mark:
• I believe Steele misses the mark in his prescription on how best to tackle black (and other racial) underdevelopment. He argues that a change in culture among African Americans is the best road to development. A cultural change that leads to changes in behavior that deal with child-rearing, marriage and family, a focus on academic rigor, a greater appreciation of entrepreneurship, and a focus on individual development as the best road to group development.
This is where Steele’s argument gets a bit hazy. He posits certain factors as all missing from the culture of those who are underdeveloped—the prescription, therefore, is to inject these elements into the underdeveloped culture and watch family, entrepreneurship, and academic achievement grow. And oh yeah, it’s primarily blacks’ (and other marginalized groups) responsibility to change their culture. In one fell swoop, therefore, he absolves white America of having any role or responsibility in the uplift of their fellow Americans of color in the social and economic margins.
The problem I have with Steele’s culturally-based argument is that if you break it down to matters of public policy and how laws are implemented, government programs and resources are allocated, and the role of private citizens in making this happen all of Steele’s prescriptions boils down to a lot of feel good conservative rhetoric that lectures people on their supposed personal shortcomings—and not much else.
Furthermore, his singular focus on group responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps neglects the fact that persistent inequality is an American problem. In my opinion, Steele is far too eager in absolving white America of wrongdoing or moral culpability in matters of racial inequality and overlooks the idea that in a society we are all in the same boat.
The Persistence of Class
Where Steele and many pundits see racial inequality I actually see class. Historically, there have always been two schools of thought as to how an underclass should best to deal with the problem of inequality in capitalist economies: (1) for those at the bottom to learn how to play the capitalist game, to advance as individuals up the socioeconomic ladder and perhaps lead the way for other members of their group to advance as well; (2) for those at the bottom to challenge elite dominance through political activism, legislation and to transform capitalist society to be more equitable in distributing power, wealth and the rewards of society to the poor and working class.
Personally I do not see an inherent contradiction between these two strategies as methods to advance politically, socially and economically for marginalized groups. By that I mean an individual can be academically-inclined, aspire for professional success, and attain wealth in this society. At the same time, he or she can support political causes and activism whose aim is to advance class-based issues such as improving education for poor and working class students, providing meaningful healthcare to the uninsured, affordable housing, etc.
Steele and most conservative commentators see issues of inequality solely through the lens of individual effort and personal responsibility. They imply through their morally-laced arguments that if you are at the bottom of society and are not a member of the middle to upper class there must be something wrong with you and how you approach the problem of living in the complex, post-industrial America of the 21st century.
The way I see it, class is a natural byproduct of capitalist economies. There is a need for garbagemen, janitors, and service industry workers in this economy as there will be a need for doctors, lawyers, corporate executives and white collar professionals. The basic problem that Steele and other conservative commentators do not address is a question of fairness—is it fundamentally fair that the schools that service industry workers children go to, the housing and neighborhoods available to them, are inherently inferior and sub-standard in quality compared to the schools that the middle and upper classes’ children go to? Is it fair for the those who can afford to have excellent health and dental care while those who cannot afford have to do without? Is it fair for the children of professionals to have natural advantages in the quality of education they receive and preparation for life compared to the children of service industry and blue-collar workers?
Steele’s prescription is for minorities at the bottom to aspire to become middle and upper middle class, to take on the values and trappings of success as it is defined by those at the top. If your life sucks as a working class person, Steele and other conservatives argue that what you need to do is to aspire to be upper middle class where life sucks less.
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that. What I am doing is to pose the question: why does life, opportunity, and other aspects of modern living have to suck for working class people? Wouldn’t a public policy and strategy that lifts all boats so it sucks less for marginalized groups make a lot more sense?
Where Does this Leave Affirmative Action?
By this time you probably would have guessed that although I come from quite the opposite political perspective from Shelby Steele, I actually agree with his assertion that the affirmative action debate in its current form is increasingly becoming irrelevant.
I am a proponent of injecting the notion of social and economic class and fairness in the equation of asking the question of what do we as a society do about inequality? I would argue that inequality is an American phenomenon – not just a black and white issue. If you actually look at the statistics, most poor and working class people in America are white. Addressing inequality has to do not just with ushering members of the poor and working class up the socioeconomic ladder without questioning the fundamental fairness of a social and economic structure where the fruits of society are only enjoyed by those at the top. I would argue that tackling inequality also has to do with how society allocates the rewards and resources at its disposal for the common good.
In a nutshell, he argues that persistent racial inequality today between whites and African Americans is primarily a result of black underdevelopment rather than racism.
Today's "black" problem is underdevelopment, not discrimination. Success in modernity will demand profound cultural changes -- changes in child-rearing, a restoration of marriage and family, a focus on academic rigor, a greater appreciation of entrepreneurialism and an embrace of individual development as the best road to group development.
Moreover, Steele asserts that:
“this underdevelopment is primarily a black responsibility. And yet it is -- as historically unfair as it may be, as much as it seems to blame the victim. In human affairs we are responsible not just for our "just" fate, but also for our existential fate.
But continuing black underdevelopment will flush both races out of their postures and make most discussions of race in America, outside a context of development, irrelevant.”
Let me break down where I think Steele makes a good point—and where he and traditionally, most American conservatives, miss the mark.
Shelby Steele makes a good point:
• I believe Steele is right when he argues that the problem—or rather, the cause of the problem of inequality—is underdevelopment rather than discrimination.
I think Steele might be onto something when he argues that the problem of racial inequality isn’t as simple and reducible to white racism anymore. In my own experience as an Asian-American and an immigrant, much of my own personal setbacks personally, professionally and academically were not a direct result or byproduct of white racism but primarily is a result of being in unfamiliar territory where I did not know the rules of the game and I did not have mentors to help guide me on strategies how to advance.
Being thrown in unfamiliar turf (such as college or the Washington, DC white-collar workforce) where many of the players were white, upper middle class and above, and American-born does put me at a disadvantage. But the fact is, I was able to gain entry into that turf and get a chance to play. I see some validity in Steele’s point that although a minority in the white, white-collar world, white racism did not hold me back from entry into that world. How far I could advance in that turf is a mixture of a function of my own personal drive, ambition, skills and network. And yes, racism may play a key role in determining who gets to break into the upper echelons of management. But right now, I don’t see white racism as a factor in determining how far I can advance in my field as much as I see social class and how well my early education, college and being middle class has prepared me to enter the professional workforce.
Shelby Steele misses the mark:
• I believe Steele misses the mark in his prescription on how best to tackle black (and other racial) underdevelopment. He argues that a change in culture among African Americans is the best road to development. A cultural change that leads to changes in behavior that deal with child-rearing, marriage and family, a focus on academic rigor, a greater appreciation of entrepreneurship, and a focus on individual development as the best road to group development.
This is where Steele’s argument gets a bit hazy. He posits certain factors as all missing from the culture of those who are underdeveloped—the prescription, therefore, is to inject these elements into the underdeveloped culture and watch family, entrepreneurship, and academic achievement grow. And oh yeah, it’s primarily blacks’ (and other marginalized groups) responsibility to change their culture. In one fell swoop, therefore, he absolves white America of having any role or responsibility in the uplift of their fellow Americans of color in the social and economic margins.
The problem I have with Steele’s culturally-based argument is that if you break it down to matters of public policy and how laws are implemented, government programs and resources are allocated, and the role of private citizens in making this happen all of Steele’s prescriptions boils down to a lot of feel good conservative rhetoric that lectures people on their supposed personal shortcomings—and not much else.
Furthermore, his singular focus on group responsibility to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps neglects the fact that persistent inequality is an American problem. In my opinion, Steele is far too eager in absolving white America of wrongdoing or moral culpability in matters of racial inequality and overlooks the idea that in a society we are all in the same boat.
The Persistence of Class
Where Steele and many pundits see racial inequality I actually see class. Historically, there have always been two schools of thought as to how an underclass should best to deal with the problem of inequality in capitalist economies: (1) for those at the bottom to learn how to play the capitalist game, to advance as individuals up the socioeconomic ladder and perhaps lead the way for other members of their group to advance as well; (2) for those at the bottom to challenge elite dominance through political activism, legislation and to transform capitalist society to be more equitable in distributing power, wealth and the rewards of society to the poor and working class.
Personally I do not see an inherent contradiction between these two strategies as methods to advance politically, socially and economically for marginalized groups. By that I mean an individual can be academically-inclined, aspire for professional success, and attain wealth in this society. At the same time, he or she can support political causes and activism whose aim is to advance class-based issues such as improving education for poor and working class students, providing meaningful healthcare to the uninsured, affordable housing, etc.
Steele and most conservative commentators see issues of inequality solely through the lens of individual effort and personal responsibility. They imply through their morally-laced arguments that if you are at the bottom of society and are not a member of the middle to upper class there must be something wrong with you and how you approach the problem of living in the complex, post-industrial America of the 21st century.
The way I see it, class is a natural byproduct of capitalist economies. There is a need for garbagemen, janitors, and service industry workers in this economy as there will be a need for doctors, lawyers, corporate executives and white collar professionals. The basic problem that Steele and other conservative commentators do not address is a question of fairness—is it fundamentally fair that the schools that service industry workers children go to, the housing and neighborhoods available to them, are inherently inferior and sub-standard in quality compared to the schools that the middle and upper classes’ children go to? Is it fair for the those who can afford to have excellent health and dental care while those who cannot afford have to do without? Is it fair for the children of professionals to have natural advantages in the quality of education they receive and preparation for life compared to the children of service industry and blue-collar workers?
Steele’s prescription is for minorities at the bottom to aspire to become middle and upper middle class, to take on the values and trappings of success as it is defined by those at the top. If your life sucks as a working class person, Steele and other conservatives argue that what you need to do is to aspire to be upper middle class where life sucks less.
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that. What I am doing is to pose the question: why does life, opportunity, and other aspects of modern living have to suck for working class people? Wouldn’t a public policy and strategy that lifts all boats so it sucks less for marginalized groups make a lot more sense?
Where Does this Leave Affirmative Action?
By this time you probably would have guessed that although I come from quite the opposite political perspective from Shelby Steele, I actually agree with his assertion that the affirmative action debate in its current form is increasingly becoming irrelevant.
I am a proponent of injecting the notion of social and economic class and fairness in the equation of asking the question of what do we as a society do about inequality? I would argue that inequality is an American phenomenon – not just a black and white issue. If you actually look at the statistics, most poor and working class people in America are white. Addressing inequality has to do not just with ushering members of the poor and working class up the socioeconomic ladder without questioning the fundamental fairness of a social and economic structure where the fruits of society are only enjoyed by those at the top. I would argue that tackling inequality also has to do with how society allocates the rewards and resources at its disposal for the common good.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Another Look At Shelby Steele's Comments on Obama
I usually don't agree with Shelby Steele, but he may have been slightly on to something with his analysis of Barack Obama.
Watch the Entire Segment from his C-Span Book Reading and Question & Answer for "A Bound Man".
Friday, July 11, 2008
Dear Senator Obama, watch out for snakes.
Dear Senator Obama,
Just in case you didn't know, there are a lot of snakes in the grass. Maybe you need some reminding.
I'll begin the list of snakes that are to be trusted at your peril. These are folks that mean you harm, and don't wish you well.
I won't get them all. I'm sure that Mirror On America posters will be able to add to it.
The Mirror-On-America-Snakes-Can't-Be-Trusted List:
1. Bill and Hillary Clinton - they aren't your friends. They haven't even moved into detente with you. Assume at all times that they are NEVER to be trusted, and are working behind the scenes at every moment to undermine you. Period.
2. Anyone who worked for Hillary Clinton - yes, I know you hired some of those folks. Do it at your peril. Trust them at your folly. But, when they sell you out, don't say you weren't warned.
3. Anyone who was in Camp Clinton that works at Fox Noise - whatever commentary they would say isn't worth spit, and you best believe it's not going to be for your benefit.
4. Harold Ford, Jr. - The Dark Sith loathes you. And, I can count on one hand the number of times he's been complimentary towards you during this campaign season. Don't ever turn your back on him, and don't remotely believe he's a surrogate FOR you.
5. Joan Walsh - Anyone who runs a site that actually CALLED you 'UPPITY' - that just about says it all.
6. All the feministas for Hillary who were yelling sexism 24/7 for the last month on any television show they could find...you know the bunch I'm talking about. They've been awfully silent about the attacks on Michelle...so, only 'some' women are worth defending to them.
7. The old Civil Rights Establishment - pick and choose. You don't know what's going to happen with this group.
8. The Half of the Congessional Black Caucus that supported Hillpatine - STAY AWAY from those Negroes. Don't even return their phone calls.
9. Shelby Steele - this could be for most of the Black Conservatives, but Steele deserves special notice. He's lost his mind during this campaign, turning his back on his writings of the past 15 years because of you.
Now, I'm opening it up to Mirror On America....tell me of the snakes you see out there.
Just in case you didn't know, there are a lot of snakes in the grass. Maybe you need some reminding.
I'll begin the list of snakes that are to be trusted at your peril. These are folks that mean you harm, and don't wish you well.
I won't get them all. I'm sure that Mirror On America posters will be able to add to it.
The Mirror-On-America-Snakes-Can't-Be-Trusted List:
1. Bill and Hillary Clinton - they aren't your friends. They haven't even moved into detente with you. Assume at all times that they are NEVER to be trusted, and are working behind the scenes at every moment to undermine you. Period.
2. Anyone who worked for Hillary Clinton - yes, I know you hired some of those folks. Do it at your peril. Trust them at your folly. But, when they sell you out, don't say you weren't warned.
3. Anyone who was in Camp Clinton that works at Fox Noise - whatever commentary they would say isn't worth spit, and you best believe it's not going to be for your benefit.
4. Harold Ford, Jr. - The Dark Sith loathes you. And, I can count on one hand the number of times he's been complimentary towards you during this campaign season. Don't ever turn your back on him, and don't remotely believe he's a surrogate FOR you.
5. Joan Walsh - Anyone who runs a site that actually CALLED you 'UPPITY' - that just about says it all.
6. All the feministas for Hillary who were yelling sexism 24/7 for the last month on any television show they could find...you know the bunch I'm talking about. They've been awfully silent about the attacks on Michelle...so, only 'some' women are worth defending to them.
7. The old Civil Rights Establishment - pick and choose. You don't know what's going to happen with this group.
8. The Half of the Congessional Black Caucus that supported Hillpatine - STAY AWAY from those Negroes. Don't even return their phone calls.
9. Shelby Steele - this could be for most of the Black Conservatives, but Steele deserves special notice. He's lost his mind during this campaign, turning his back on his writings of the past 15 years because of you.
Now, I'm opening it up to Mirror On America....tell me of the snakes you see out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
