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.

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.

The Economy, Recession and Ordinary Folks

Check out The Boom Was a Bust For Ordinary People, by Barbara Ehrenreich from this Sunday's Washington Post:

For years now, that strange stimulus-crazed beast, the economy, has been going its own way, increasingly disconnected from the toils and troubles of ordinary Americans...

So thoroughly is the economy decoupled from ordinary experience that according to a CNN poll, 57 percent of Americans thought we were already in a recession a month ago. Economists may complain that this is only because the public is ignorant of the technical definition of a recession, which specifies at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth. But most of the public employs the more colloquial definition of a recession, which is hard times. And -- far removed from whatever happens on Wall Street, the Nikkei, Dax, or the curiously named FTSE -- most Americans have been living in their own personal recession for years.

The economy, for example, has been expanding, at least until now, and growth is supposed to guarantee general well-being. As long as the gross domestic product grows, World Money Watch's Web site assures us, "so will business, jobs and personal income."

But hellooo, we've had brisk growth for the past few years, as the president has tirelessly reminded us, only without those promised increases in personal income, at least not for the poor and the middle class. According to a study just released by the Economic Policy Institute, real wages actually fell last year. Growth, some of the economists are conceding in perplexity, has been "decoupled" from widely shared prosperity....

Whether you like Ehrenreich or her politics or not, you can't deny that her diagnosis of our ailing economy and the insecure state of working and middle class people is right on target. While so-called experts are debating whether or not the U.S. is officially in a recession, many people haven't noticed a debate was ongoing because they are already living in a state of hard times.
Ehrenreich's prescription is government intervention:

Government intervention, whether short-term or long-term, needs to get to the heart of this problem by offering a hand to the poor and the unemployed. Until the House capitulated to Bush two weeks ago, Democrats seemed to be standing solidly behind a stimulus package that would include an increase in food-stamp allotments and an extension of unemployment benefits, both of which are screamingly obvious measures. Current unemployment benefits last just 26 weeks in most states and end up covering only a third of people who are laid off. Food stamps are in even shabbier shape, with an allotment amounting to about $1 per meal. Nothing could be more stimulating than putting money in the hands of those who will spend it quickly.

But you can't jump-start a car that lacks a working battery. We need less titillating talk about "stimulus" and more commitment to some fundamental repairs -- higher wages, a real safety net and a return to progressive taxation among them. The challenge isn't just to prop up stock prices but to rebuild an economy in which everyone shares the good times -- and no one is consigned to a permanent recession.

This is the point where Ehrenreich might lose some of people who, otherwise, would agree with everything else she says. (See comments section here). While some might agree that the country is experiencing hard times, they are fundamentally opposed to government intervention. Some commenters even go as far as to red-bait Ehrenreich with the boogaboo S-word--Socialism--in an attempt to discredit her and her powerful essay.

I say enough with ridiculous red-baiting. If you agree with Ehrenreich's diagnosis but fundamentally disagree with her prescription what would you offer as a solution?

Cross posted in An Ordinary Person.

New Magazine on Poverty and Inequality

Hat tip to the Education and Class blog for this information.

Stanford University's Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality is publishing a new magazine devoted to socio-economic issues. Pathways Magazine: A Magazine on Poverty, Inequality, and Social Policy was just published and there you will find articles by John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton on how they would alleviate poverty. Rebecca Blank writes an article comparing and critiquing the candidates’ platforms.

Particularly telling is this quote from Rebecca Blank's article:

How do the candidates stack up on their antipoverty proposals? If you’re a Republican, there’s really only one candidate who expresses consistent concern with these issues. That’s John McCain. For the other Republicans, poor Americans appear to be out of sight, out of mind, and off the agenda.

The magazine is available for free can be downloaded in PDF Format for no charge.

The Racialicious blog breaks down the candidate comparisons point by point.

Holding Their Ground in Columbia Heights

Long before Columbia Heights became one of the hottest development sites, before its Metro station opened and before D.C. officials announced a $149 million plan to build a neighborhood mall with a Target and other big-box stores, Maria Zuniga lived at 1458 Columbia Road NW.

So did Maria Salgado and Maria Rivas and Maria Guevara and Maria Gavidia and Maria Herrera and Maria Amaya.

They and about 40 other immigrant households were residing in a building that a District housing inspector labeled in January 1999 "a danger to the health and safety of persons in or about the premises." There were roaches and rodents, and cold water flowed from the hot-water tap.

The tenants also faced threats from a landlord and manager trying to empty the building to convert it to condominiums. But the residents -- urban pioneers from villages in El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia and Ecuador -- had another plan. With an army of volunteers, they wrote a new ending to the gentrification story: 1458 Columbia Road did indeed go condo, but these low-income tenants managed to buy their building. In a neighborhood of $450,000 condos, they found a way to provide homes for families earning $24,000 to $40,000 a year.

Full article here from the Washington Post

Liberal Arts Dude sez:

After all the horror stories about the nationwide housing crisis I thought this story of immigrants winning affordable housing for themselves in high-priced Washington DC was a major victory for these working-class folks. Columbia Heights is just a stone's throw away from where I live and I am glad to see that there will be an oasis of affordable housing units as a result of their efforts.

Some of the comments were pretty ignorant and mean-spirited and targeted the ethnicity of the subjects of the article. For the life of me I don't understand the vitriol. What I see is a shining example of working-class people who by organizing and sticking to their guns accomplished something remarkable in advocating for themselves.

E is for Empowerment II

Here is part I.

There’s a great article over at Alternet called “Americans Don’t Believe in the American Dream.” It’s worth checking out. Here’s a short excerpt which drives home its main point:

The American Dream is Dead, gone along with the era of good union jobs, comprehensive employer benefits and real upward mobility, and most working people are fully aware of the fact. That's the takeaway from the latest installment of the American Dream Survey, a study of working Americans' views of the political-economy released in late September.

The Alternet article laments the death of the American Dream—what now? What should be done about it? What does “doing something about it” mean in the context of a rapidly deindustrializing economy, a widening inequality between social classes, and job insecurity?

In the context of politics does that mean voting for Democrats in elections? Does that mean voting for the “right” kind of Democrats over “wrong” kinds? Does that mean reviving the labor movement and working through unions to advocate for better working conditions, pay and benefits? Other than getting all worked up, what can ordinary people do?

I am increasingly intrigued by unconventional solutions to inequality being put forth by a new generation of activist voices—in particular, African American conservatives. For them, the key to competing in a global economy is to play the capitalist game right back—but for the benefit of your population. If your population is being left behind, why not start your own businesses and corporations? Why not circulate the money within your community and help it develop jobs and growth and to keep the benefits circulating within that sphere? This is what successful ethnic minorities such as Jews, Korean-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans have done. Why not emulate them?

I won’t get in anyone’s way if they want to start their own business or if they want to play the capitalist game for the benefit of their community. I see the validity of the conservative argument where everybody will have a chance to rise up socially and economically if the population were to invest in their own communities and have the wealth circulating among themselves so that everybody benefits. If that is what floats your boat then I say more power. I will not stand in your way. I’m all for economic empowerment.

But what does that mean for the rest of us? Entrepreneurship isn’t for everyone and not everybody is inclined to aspire to be a business owner. In the context of an America that is rapidly becoming polarized socially and economically one logical avenue to empowerment to workers appears to be through their sheer numbers and potential influence as voters and as citizens. This means political empowerment.

I make it no secret where I stand on this issue: I favor political empowerment for working and middle class people along class lines. And I see no contradiction between advocating for political empowerment along class lines for people like me and those who wish to gain economic empowerment through establishing their own businesses within their communities.

The real question is: once you have political empowerment—what then? What types of issues and policies will you advocate? If you are suspicious of those who claim they represent the “little guy” on ideological grounds, then this is a fair question to ask. I come from the point of view of being one of the “little guys” who senses there is something deeply wrong with inequality in American society and would like it to change. How to go about doing it? Let's talk.

On Class-Based Politics

Greetings readers of Mirror on America! My bio at the About the Bloggers page tells a little bit about me. I am a long-time reader of Mirror on America and an admirer of the writings of the Angry Independent and the various contributors of this blog. When AI offered the opportunity to have more co-bloggers participate in the blog, I jumped at the chance. I also operate my own blog called An Ordinary Person and Politics in America where I deal with politics from the standpoint of an ordinary person living in the US.

I was wondering how best to introduce myself to the readers of this blog. I figured since it is about politics I might as well do it with an illustration of the basics of my own political beliefs. Below is one of the pieces that I originally wrote for An Ordinary Person which is about a political argument that I had with a dinner guest about a couple of years back. The conversation was illuminating to me in not only defining clearly what I really do believe, but to clear up any misunderstandings I had with my friend (and myself) on what I do not.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Class-Based Politics

Yesterday I had an interesting exchange of ideas with a dinner guest. The conversation turned to politics, particularly the state of politics in American society. We both agreed that the Democrats are doing a terrible job against the Republicans. Where we diverged are our ideas of what will make it better. My friend is a Democrat by affiliation.

According to him, what needs to happen is for Democrats to get their act together and beat the Republicans. I diverged from him when I said that I have totally abandoned the Democratic party as representing my interests as an ordinary, working person. I told him that the Democratic party in the past decade has veered to the right in matters of economics that there is virtually no difference anymore between Democrats and Republicans who espouse a pro-business, corporate-dominated agenda based on free market ideology. Democrats, for all intents and purposes, now espouse the same things as Republicans in matters of economic policy (no matter what rhetorical style they use in appealing to the public).

I told him that what is needed is class-based politics where working people are organized politically to fight for their own interests.

This is when the discussion turned interesting. It turns out my friend disagrees with me. What surprised me is that his disagreement was based on him defending the idea of the US political and economic system as being primarily created for the benefit of business. Furthermore, to challenge it is tantamount to espousing Socialism or Communism. Basically he made several points:

• What is good for business is ultimately, good for workers

• The US is a capitalist country

• In Socialist economies people become lazy and complacent. They develop a tendency to over-rely on government handouts and not make any independent moves to improve their lot in life.

• Capitalism is ultimately better for workers than Socialism. Socialism doesn’t work.

• The US system of political democracy allows for representation of all points of views, even workers. There is no need to change the system.

What I said in response ultimately boiled down to:

• There is something wrong with the inequities that currently exist in American society. The skyrocketing cost of higher education, crumbling public schools, the persistence of racial and class inequality, the inequities of a for-profit-based healthcare system, etc.

• The American capitalist system works primarily to the advantage of and for the benefit of corporations and the rich. If you have money you will have access to the best this country has to offer. If you don’t you don’t.

• The Democratic party is not addressing these issues in any substantive way. The interests of ordinary people simply aren’t a priority for the Democrats. The Republicans at least are honest and upfront about their pro-business, pro-free market agenda.

• What is needed is a political party of, for and by working people to fight for their interests in the political arena.

Mind you I said nothing about Socialism or that the capitalist system is inherently evil. It was he who offered the “Socialism is bad” counter argument to what I was saying.

Just to clear things up here is what I believe:

• I believe in democracy. I believe in democratic participation. I am not out to “change the system” from its current model to a Socialist or a Communist model.

• However, I believe that the two-party political system is too narrowly focused and too dominated by pro-business and free market interests to represent the interests and concerns of working and middle class people.

• I also believe that the two-party system is rigged by the two major parties to keep out any outsiders who will challenge the dominance of the two major parties.

• I am perfectly willing to work within the confines of the US political and economic system.

• However, I also believe that the interests of ordinary, working people are not properly represented in the US political and economic system.

• The capitalist class is for its own interests, period—whatever makes them the most profit. They will choose the bottom line over the interests of working people when these interests clash 100% of the time.

• The business class and millionaires are overwhelmingly represented in positions of power and influence in this country. Working people are not. In order for things to get better for working people, this needs to change.

The first step to change is for working people to organize themselves into a political party which will fight for their interests in the US political system. Notice I say nothing about overthrowing the system or the government. What I actually advocate is a more active role in participating in the system to make sure the interests of working people get their proper due.