The Atlantic - Latest Comments in A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

NoahB — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:45:15 -0000

Affirmative action is a pretty lousy policy. Most disadvantages black people face boil down to, or are enabled by, ongoing segregation in housing and schools. Affirmative action attempts to rectify these problems by doling out jobs and or college slots after the initial inequality has already been accomplished. In other words, it's kind of a band-aid that is meant to allow us to not deal with the real problems (because dealing with the real problems (for example, funding all schools equally) would be very contentious and expensive.)

So, yeah, getting rid of affirmative action would be good -- if it were replaced with a policy that actually addressed the problems in some

straight-forward way. If you've got a gaping chest wound, putting a band-aid on it is fairly useless — but if the band-aid was all you had, and the doctor told you that the cure was to tear it off, you'd be justified in thinking that he was, perhaps, not acting in good faith.

As far as politics goes...The assumption of the "Obama should reach out to the racists" argument seems to be that there is nothing the man could do which would alienate black voters. Certainly, Obama will win a majority of African-American votes at this point under almost any conceivable scenario. But he's not looking to win just a majority. He's based his strategy on getting unprecedented black turnout and winning about 95% of it. If he decides to pander to racist shitheads, maybe he'll convert a few. But it seems unlikely that there are that many racist shitheads who will vote for him under any circumstance, whereas pandering to racist shitheads would certainly carry a risk of depressing his black vote. To me, it's just not clear that the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.

Especially since, as Ta-Nehishi points out, pandering to racist shitheads is kind of morally deplorable.

And to respond to frankie d -- no one is irredeemable, and I don't think avowed racists are any more evil than the rest of us (all of us being sinners and shitheads, etc.) But politics isn't about redemption, and voting for a black man because you think he'll keep the black man down (which seems to be the logic of this argument) seems, (A) unlikely and (B) not especially transformative.

On the contrary, I think the best thing Barack Obama can do to change people's perceptions of race in this country is to win without the knee-jerk, Sister Souljah pandering that Democratic candidates are (in)famous for. But that's just me....

That was way too long. Luckily nobody's reading this thread at this point anyway, though.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

frankie d — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:28:00 -0000

i guess it would be fair to say that i do have a certain faith in what might be unreconstructed racists. or at least people who many might see in that light.

i guess my life experience has led me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that many people who might appear to be beyond hope are in fact at least amenable to reason and open to influences you might be shocked at.

some of my earliest memories are of my truck driver father - who later became involved with his union - hanging out and playing poker with white guys who all lived in the segregated, notoriously hostile parts of the detroit suburbs. the places they now call reagan democrat country. it always struck me as kinda odd, that my black-as-night dad would end up playing poker with and smoking cigars with and being buddies with guys who would accurately be defined as rednecks, but there it was. did they do and say things away from my dad's

presence that might be construed as racist?

i'd bet they did.

but they were all buddies and friends and when push came to shove in the tough world of union politics, they always had his back.

later, either by design or happenstance, i often found myself in similar circumstances. i cannot tell you how many times i would end up being the sole african-american in a group of folks, when someone would start to tell a "n---r" joke, realize that i was in their presence and stop in the middle of the word, with the "ni..."hanging out there, all by its lonesome.

lots of these folks were my friends, people i liked and trusted and while i certainly was uneasy about their occasional slips, i always imagined that those slipups were by no means a true measure of their whole.

candidly, i've said things i'm not proud of - either because of anger or drink or a combination of both - and i certainly would not want to be defined by those horrible slips.

so, yes, without question, i DO have faith in many americans who some might view as unnreconstructed racists.

now, i aint no fool, and if i see that someone really and truly has ill will and intentions towards me solely based on the color of my skin, then i will respond accordingly. typically in kind.

but i will need to see that type of intransigence first hand in order to dismiss someone as being without the possibility of redemption.

living, literally from one coast to the other, often as the only african-american in my professional and/or personal circle, i've learned that it is a huge error to simply assume, absent cold, hard, rock-solid proof, that just about anyone is beyond reach.

obama has to have that same type of optimisim and he has to make the best effort he can to reach that type of voter.

i think he will attempt to do so, and i do think he is capable of doing so.

he simply has to be bold enough to make the effort. and frankly, if he does not do so, he will not win.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:51:55 -0000

It was addressed to Frankie, Daniel, whose view I do respect even if I strenuously--and perhaps unfairly angrily--disagree.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

frankie d — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:32:30 -0000

i think the beauty of beinart's suggestion is that obama could make this appeal and NOT compromise his views.

if you listen to his comments on affirmative action, they appear to embrace, on some level at least, class-based affirmative action.

i see nothing wrong, inherently, with offering policies that are consistent with your views, even if they appeal to racists.

(and i have to say that i strongly disagree with the characterization of people as racists even if they hold views that may reveal some racist sentiment. people are much too complex.)

and, as noted, i think that obama must make a strongly emotional appeal to white voters and affirmative action is certainly an issue that would allow him to make that sort of emotional appeal.

voters make decisions based on those sorts of emotional appeals and then they find facts that support that initial emotional decision.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Daniel Litt — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:45:26 -0000

"Your faith in unreconstructed racists speaks volumes. That you guys hedge when confronted with antisemitsm says even more."

I'm not sure if this was addressed at my comments, since I didn't address the antisemitism issue at all. There's no question that the situations are exactly analogous from a philosophical perspective--changing policy to appeal to antisemites is no more or less reprehensible than doing so to appeal to racists.

That said, the pragmatic implications, in both cases, are very large. The Implicit Associations Test reveals statistically significant anti-African American biases in 80% of whites and Asian-Americans. This is a remarkably large percentage, and, I think, a real concern in this election. I have no idea what the number is for antisemites--if it's comparable, that should certainly be a huge concern for any future Jewish candidates for president.

Ideally, Obama would be able to assuage biases about race without compromising his principles, and, as J Mann has observed, he seems to be attempting this. And I, personally, would be appalled if he came out against race-based AA purely out of political expedience (as I noted above, I support race-based AA). But from a cold-blooded, cynical point of view, it might be that some policy along the lines that Beinart proposes would help Obama win the election. (At what cost?)

If Obama loses the election because of racism, that would be reprehensible (just as it would be if a Jewish candidate lost because of antisemitism). It's not obvious that Beinart's plan would help Obama at all. But if Obama were to value winning more than running a principled campaign--which Beinart seems to do--this tack would certainly be something he should look into.

Daniel Litt

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

J Mann — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:08:38 -0000

I don't know about jews, but the dominant myth (it may even be true) about J.F.K. was that he knew he needed to reassure voters who might be a little but not irretrievably anti-Catholic-biased.

A serious Jewish candidate for president might be well-advised to give a few speeches about how Israel's interests can't drive foriegn policy, to reassure people who are a little antisemitic, but not irretrievably so, that she will govern with America's interests in mind, not Israel's.

Of course, Obama is already doing that -- he makes sure he gives a certain number of speeches about how he has both white Kansas roots and black Kenyan ones, and about the need for more responsibility in rap lyrics or whatever.

What Beinart is proposing is that Obama adopt a concrete policy stand specifically to reassure racists -- that would be closer to suggesting that a Jewish candidate promise to cut military aid to Israel unless they start reducing the settlements, or a Catholic candidate announce that he will oppose prayer in school. You might think that the policy is good or bad, but adopting a real policy to cater to bigots is offensive.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

frankie d — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:54:21 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

it's not okay.

it's not cool.

but unfortunately it is what may be necessary in order to appeal to a certain class of voter.

trust me, i'd prefer being able to handle the matter differently, but racial politics in this country are played by an entirely different set of rules.

i'm just acknowledging the existence of and the fact that i'm willing to play within those rules. unfair rules.

when i did trials in front of racist judges, i'd rail against him or her outside the presence of the jury and then play nice once they brought the jury back into the courtroom.

it pissed me off to have to compete in a totally unfair environment, and i let the judge know that i understood how he was screwing my client, but then i just went ahead and did the best i could do. considering the constraints.

i see obama having to do the same type of thing in this election.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:46:14 -0000

You didn't lose last time because of race-based demagoguery. You lost because of gay-bashing and abortion. Are you ready to say fuck the gays, too? What about the pro-choicers? Want to throw them under too? Where is the line?

This "blame the blacks" argument is so tired, and is as old as Andrew Johnson. The worst part about it is that there isn't one shred of evidence that it will work. I have no interest in siding with a party that is mostly interested in me as bargaining chip. Your faith in unreconstructed racists speaks volumes. That you guys hedge when confronted with antisemitsm says even more.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Daniel Litt — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:46:02 -0000

Re: TNC

Again, this depends on whether you're coming at this from a philosophical or pragmatic point of view. From a philosophical point of view, it would be reprehensible for Obama to espouse a position in which he does not believe. From a pragmatic one, it might make sense.

The operative word, I think, is "might." In my previous comment, I argued that given subconscious racial biases that seem to be extremely prevalent, forcing people to think about race (possibly, by espousing class-based rather than race-based affirmative action) could have a positive effect, by reducing the manifestation of these unconscious biases. Again, there's a good deal of literature that indicates that bringing these sorts of evaluations into the conscious realm (rather than the unconscious one) reduces bias. You make the point that this sort of policy argument would dismay black voters, and you're probably correct. But again, if we're arguing in the pragmatic realm, the question is not "do we offend black voters?" but rather "is the net gain positive?" The answer isn't obvious, but it's worth considering.

That said, I think that the sort of unconscious racial bias elicited by the Implicit Associations Test I mentioned is one of the strongest arguments for race-based affirmative action. So if you buy the pragmatic argument, the philosophical objections become much stronger.

My point here is not to espouse a particular policy for the Obama campaign--I just think that the issue is much more complicated than it seems at first glance.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Breukelyne — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:43:19 -0000

Re. whether or not racists can be convinced to change their mind...

It's worth looking back at someone who was an influential black politician in the mind of the young Barack Obama: Harold Washington.

The charismatic first black mayor of Chicago, he dealt with strong racism while running for office and then dealt with racist gridlock from the white insider politicians of Chicago for years after he became mayor.

"This American Life" did an episode on it. Interesting stuff. Worth a listen.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=84

What I found really interesting was the bit where they interview Chicagoans today, those who openly admit they are prejudiced, and weren't comfortable with Harold Washington because he was black. And how their opinion of him changed after a few years of him in office. Some of these same people who didn't want a black man to be their mayor because he was black are now supporting Barack Obama for president.

Which is to say: even though human beings are capable of changing their attitudes through life education, you CANNOT convince a racist to change their mind by directly attempting to. Not in 4 months of an election with advertising, not in a confrontational and fact-based conversation one-on-one... not in hardly any way. It's not realistic. Rationality is simply not the point. It's futile to think it would be.

People will change their own minds on their own terms, if they ever do. That's just what it is.

It's an irony that the best way to get people to accept the idea that a black man can be president... is to elect a black man president.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

dSmith — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:32:54 -0000

There are excellent arguments for both race and class based AA. Probably either way the results will be about the same.

I'm 51. I'm tired of losing elections because of racial demagoguery. If switching to class based AA will peel off enough of the bigot vote to ensure liberals in both the Congress and the White House, I say fuck principle.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:23:55 -0000

But see Frankie, that last part is what galls me. If you would not do it on the basis of antisemitism, what makes doing it on the basis of racism OK? Why is that cool? I think Jewish voters recoil in horror at such a tactic. How could you, in all justice, ask black voters not to do the same.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

frankie d — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:57:58 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

i think you miss an essential point.

yes, there are white voters who make decisions based on racist sentiments.

and i assume that if they tell a pollster such information then they are truly serious about using racist sentiments to inform their decisions.

but my experience has been that most of those same white folks CAN be appealed to and persuaded.

that the percentage of those voters who are irredeemably racist is quite small.

it is a difficult sale, no doubt, but it can be done.

a bit of my own personal history...

i represented african-american defendants in courtrooms where everyone else was white.

there was me, my black client, a black baliff and a roomful of white folks.

now, the judge would typically be difficult, if not impossible, to deal with.

but, if i could get my black client in front of a jury and find the emotional appeal that would resonate with that all-white jury, i could be successful.

now, i never had any doubt that a good percentage of those 12 white folks on a jury may have said and done some things that some might characterize as racist, but i also knew that those actions and words were not the sum total of that person.

that yes, there may have been a racist compartment that opened up at times to roar like a wounded beast -forgive the mixed metaphor - but that person likely had another side that was open to certain types of appeals.

it was my job to figure out what kind of appeal those jurors needed, in order to move and vote in my client's favor.

i believe that obama needs to do exactly that with the millions of white voters who may be on the fence. they may respond to racist stimuli, they may have responded to racist stimuli in the past, but given the right appeal, they might be open to voting for obama.

and i do not consider those people to be racist.

(for a cinematic illustration of this complexity, i'd recommend viewing "blue collar" a movie from the '70's starring richard pryor and yaphett kotto and harvey keitel. that movie beautifully illustrates the kind of complexity i'm talking about here. you have characters doing and saying things that are clearly racist, but in no way would i actually define those characters as racist.)

i think it is certainly possible that obama could successfully make such an appeal and i see beinart's advice as an example of what might be possible.

and i agree that beinart would not ask the same of jews but that is another, more complex issue that would require a separate discussion.

for black folks, life ain't fair here in america.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

rickhavoc — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:30:20 -0000

"even antisemites can be wooed"

We were married by a Reform rabbi in Long Island. A very Reform rabbi. A Nazi. -- Woody Allen

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:25:45 -0000

Whatever. We've played that roll in elections since the days of Andrew Johnson up through Sista Souljah. And you guys are putting a lot of faith in admitted racists. Don't forget--We're not talking about white people who aren't voting for Obama. We're talking about white people who've told posters that they aren't voting for him BECAUSE he's black. Get somebody else be the whipping boy. We're tired. If fear of "racial redistributionism" (whatever that is) is most important thing to you, at this moment in history, then we've truly earned what's coming down the pipe. In a democracy, the people get the leadership they deserve.

P.S. Forgive my anger. I don't have the luxury of being philosophical here. We are talking about my neighbors, and my relatives. Again I say, there is absolutely no way Beinart would ask the same of Jews if the issue were antisemitism. And he'd be a good man for that.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Doctor Jay — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:15:38 -0000

There's a solid political point lurking in here that Frankie D has touched on. I don't know about Beinarts suggestions or rhetoric in particular, but here's something to think about.

We've just been through 8 years of a crony-centric administration. Helping your friends and shutting out your enemies was business as usual.

So, let's say you're a rural white (who stayed rural, unlike me). How do you know that Obama won't do the same thing, that's what politicians do, right? And there's an obvious, to your mind, marker for who his friends will be. Urbanites, black people, big donors, etc. Where do you fit in?

If he can *show* them (not tell) how he's going to help them, they might feel a lot better. But it's politics, it has to strike the right note. Clinton could get away with "I feel your pain".

I won't deny that they might have some racist attitudes. I found, via the Harvard Implicit Associations test(shout @Daniel Litt), that I do.

But that's not the sum of their political or personal moral universe. It's certainly not mine.

I think they need a little reassurance about what would be better for them if he were elected. And it needs to be shown to them that its a priority, not just lip service. A little drama is good, especially a quarrel with someone, it drives the news cycle.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

frankie d — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:50:05 -0000

i have to say that i'm thoroughly surprised and disappointed in the lack of depth that TNC shows in his discussion of these issues.

he's shocked...just shocked that there is gambling...er...politics going on in this campaign.

yes, the move that beinart suggests is nakedly political.

no, one cannot, in this country, discuss comparable issues concerning jews in the same way and escape with one's scalp.

no, it certainly isn't fair at all.

but it could be extraordinarily effective, as a tactic.

i guess my long years of standing in courtrooms and watching my african-american clients get royally screwed while my white clients walked on the same allegations and charges has made me a bit more cynical on these issues, but... get real.

this is america.

america deals with african-americans, in all respects, in very different and unique ways.

that is just the way it is.

bemoaning that fact gets one nowhere.

looking for and embracing methods that allow african-american political candidates to speak to the larger white voting population is what is important.

as beinart states, correctly, in my view, if obama wants to win this election, he is going to have to figure out a way to talk openly and directly to the larger white voting population about racial issues.

engaging in discussions about emotionally-charged issues, in ways that benefit him - instead of allowing those issues to pummel him - so that he can make an emotional appeal to those voters is probably THE best way to do that.

frankly, i think matt and TNC are just dead wrong on this issue and need to accept the reality of american political life. and if you have any doubt about american political life over the last few decades, just review the last 40 years of the national political dialogue and do your research on lee atwater.

but TNC is, as another poster noted, a mere youngblood, and i think needs a bit more seasoning on these and lots of other issues.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Daniel Litt — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:18:25 -0000

More quantitative (and qualitative) information on the research referenced above can be found at

http://www.projectimplicit.net/generalinfo.php

It's quite interesting.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Daniel Litt — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:15:26 -0000

First of all, I just want to say that this is an excellent blog.

While I agree with you that, from a principled point of view, wooing racists by appealing to their racism (rather than trying to eliminate it) is both wrong and counterproductive, let me play the devils advocate for a bit. In particular, a good deal of research

(for example, see the Implicit Association Test at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ )

demonstrates that the vast majority of Americans--including African Americans--have some implicit biases against African Americans in some senses. These biases, in general, disappear or are lessened when individuals are forced to *think* about the issues at hand, rather than just reacting quickly. In this sense, Obama talking about race--in a conciliatory, carefully rational fashion--could help him from a pragmatic point of view, regardless of the consequences in a philosophical sense.

So from a purely psychological point of view, Beinart might be correct. That said, if Obama doesn't actually support Beinart's proposed policies, I think that coming out in favor of them would be (by definiton) dishonest.

Daniel Litt

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

J Mann — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:55:28 -0000

I said this before, but I like it, so I'll say it again.

Some racists hate black people. There is nothing that Obama can do about them in the short term, except make it clear that they are despicable and shameful.

Other racists don't hate black people, but they make stereotypical assumptions about them. If there is a white working class voter out there thinking "Obama won't do anything for me, because he's black and all black politicians are just out to help black Americans," that voter is (1) wrong, (2) racist, and (3) arguably reachable.

The thing is, Obama is already reaching out to all these people. He makes sure that there are lots of white people and not too many minorities in his photo ops, for f's sake! So, it might be a little too late to argue that Beinart is wrong to argue that Obama should pander to racists, when Obama is going out of his way to show racists that many of their assumptions about him are wrong.

The bigger question is whether race-based AA is a good policy or not. If it is, then scrapping it to show what a good guy Obama is probably doesn't make sense.

Re: A Better Class of Punditry Pt. 3

Pesto — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:32:22 -0000

This is the historic nature of the Obama campaign in action. Once the gentlemen's agreement about race (white Presidents only, thank you!) has been upset, all the derivative agreements about what's acceptable in political discourse are also called into question.

Obama is very, very likely to be the next President, and that's a pretty destabilizing thought for the Beinerts of the world. Beinert and the eunuchocracy of DC will, doubtless, break their arms patting themselves on the back for being part of the generation that made America a post-racist society -- the proof being Obama's win over McCain. In fact, in their twisted world view, they'll probably give themselves the credit for the (alleged) transformation of society. But in the mean time, they're trying to deal as best they can with instability in their little world.