A hostage situation has emerged on the left. And progressive policies like Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, free public education, a Green New Deal, and even net neutrality, are the captives.
The captors? Bad faith claims of bigotry.
According to an increasingly popular narrative among the center-left, a dispiritingĀ plurality of progressives areĀ āclass reductionistsā āĀ people who believe that economic equality is a cure-all for societalĀ ills, and who, as a result, would neglectĀ policy prescriptions which seek to remedy identity-based disparities.
Of course, race and class are so interwoven thatĀ any political projectĀ that aims to resolve one while ignoring the other does a disservice to both. As Senator Bernie Sanders I-VT,Ā presumptive leader of the progressive movement,Ā put it this spring when I asked him about the never-ending race versus class debates: āItās not either or. Itās never either or. Itās both.ā
The fear that identity-based issuesĀ might be āthrown under the busā in favor of more populist, āuniversalā policies is legitimate: The Democratic Party has certainly done as much in the recent pastĀ for causes less noble than class equality.Ā But the irony is thatĀ anxiety over class reductionism has led some to defensively embrace an equally unproductive and regressive ideology: Race reductionism.
If youāre #online, like I am, youāre probably already familiar with the main argument. It goes something like this: If a policy doesnāt resolve racism āfirst,ā itās at worst racist, and at best, not worth pursuing.
According to one popular iteration of this theme, Medicare For All is presumptively racist and/or sexistĀ because it wonāt eliminate discriminatory point-of-service care, or fully address womenās reproductive needs if itās not thoughtfully designed. Perhaps you remember Rep. James Clyburnās claim that a free college and university plan would ādestroyā historically black colleges and universities. Maybe youāve heard that the minimum wage is āracistā because it āKills Jobs and Doesnāt Help The Poor,āĀ or that itāsĀ an act of privilege to care about Wall Street corruption, because only the wealthy could possibly mind what the banks do with the mortgages and pensions of millions of Americans. Perchance youāve even been pitched on the incredible notion that rooftop solar panels hurt minority communities.
Libertarian journalist Conor Friedersdorf recently entered theĀ fray with a piece titled, āDemocratic Socialism Threatens Minorities.ā His argument? That ātop down socialismā (which progressives want just about as badly as they want top down capitalism) would create a tyranny of the majority and put minorities at risk. Completely ignoring the market failures of our current system, and eliding the widespread prejudice and violence black Americans face under capitalism, he concern-trolls by imagining a world in which black women struggle to find suitable hair products. Of course, this is a world we already live in.
Friedersdorf, though, was merely building an addition on a house of cards first constructed by Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential primary campaign: āIf we broke up the big banks tomorrow,ā she famously asked, āwould that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?ā
It was a daring and adroit deception:Ā Ignore this structural salveĀ that would upset the status quo, she implied, because it wonāt resolveĀ that more personal, more visceral issue which goes straight to the heart of your identity.
Notice thatĀ this trickĀ is aimed at policiesĀ which would threaten significant corporate or entrenched interests: The insurance industry, the banking industry, the energy sector, lenders. As Berkeley Law professor and leading scholar on race Ian Haney-LĆ³pez observed as we discussed the motives behind this framing, mainstream Democrats, like Republicans, āare funded by large donors. Of course theyāre concerned about the interests of the top 1 percent.ā Itās almost as if the real agenda here isnāt ending racism, but deterring well-meaning liberals from policies that would upset the Democratic Partyās financial base.
The cruel irony is that as much as it wouldnāt have ended racism, breaking up the banks, and properly regulating them, would have a positive effect on the economic, and consequently, the social status of black and Hispanic Americans. Banks, left to their own devices, systematically give blacks worse loans with higher interest rates than whites with worse credit histories. Yet there was little talk of those racial impacts when, this spring, 33 Democrats (includingĀ 9 Congressional Black Caucus members) joined with Republicans to roll back protections contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.
African-Americans are disproportionately victimized by predatory lending, and as a result, we were among the worst affected by the 2008 housing crisis (from which the bottom still hasnāt recovered). Of course, the goal of breaking up banks was to avoid a repeat of the collapse which wiped out 40 percent of black wealth ā hardly an incidental issue to African Americans, who rank the economy, jobs, health care and poverty above race relations when asked to rateĀ our chief political concerns.
Rep. Clyburnās claim that free college and university would ākillā historically black colleges is similarly a misdirection. HBCUs are facing a funding squeeze, and might suffer somewhat if tuition paying applicants go elsewhere. But ClyburnāsĀ defense of black institutionsĀ ignores that black students have the most to gain from college debt relief.
Although there is a black/white college graduation gap, black Americans actually apply to and enroll in college at higher rates than white Americans. Why donāt we matriculate? An inability to pay ranks high among reasons. And black students carry a disproportionate amount of scholastic debt ā more than any other group. The idea that free college would hurt HBCUs is intended to suggest itās ābad for blacks,ā and therefore regressive (or even racist). Given that the opposite is true, it would be easyĀ to interpret Clyburnās spin as cynical politicking against the interests of the very community heās presumed to faithfully represent.Ā Affording him the benefit of the doubt earned by his storied legacy of advocacy for the black community, his comments were, at best, a mistake.
Moreover, although immigration is coded as the āHispanicā issue by the media, only 1 in 10 Latinos are undocumented, while 1 in 3 non-elderly Hispanics are uninsured ā thatās the largest uninsured demographic group in the country.
Over-policing is a critical issue, but while approximately 1 in 6 blacks will be incarcerated in our lifetimes, 1 in 4 non-elderly black Americans is uninsured ā thatās compared to 13 percent of non-hispanic white Americans. Even the Black Lives Matter platform, which calls for universal health care, recognizes that health care is not a peripheral issue, but an existential one for black Americans. The reason itās not perceived as a āPOCā issue is a matter of marketing, not substance.
So will Medicare for All cure racism? No. Will it completely eliminate point-of-care discrimination? It wonāt. But neither will doubling down on the status quo. Those who admonish these broad economic policies on the grounds that they wonāt end bigotry rarely, if ever, propose alternatives that will, nor do they suggest reforms to make flawed universal programs more perfect.Ā This fact, more than anything, exposes theĀ bad faithĀ motives of at least some race reductionists.
Our Revolution President and former Bernie Sanders surrogate Nina Turner described race reductionismĀ as āludicrous.ā āIdentity can be used in a positive way to say, āHey: we must recognize that thereās an undergirding concern across all issues in this country,āā for which race is a āmajor variable,ā she told me. āBut it is entirely another different story to say weāre going to use some of the most progressive ideas and advancements in this country and say we canāt do them because they hurt [marginalized people]. To me itās just asinine.ā
Sheās right.
It was not always this way. Before the 1980s, the party of the left was the party of labor, and the civil rights movements of 1950s, ā60s and ā70s were inextricably linked to class. A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin collaborated on the 1966 Freedom Budget For All, which attacked black poverty by addressing its source ā a paucity of well-paying jobs for low-skilled workers. Colloquially described as the March on Washington, the historic rallyāsĀ officialĀ name was The March for Jobs and Freedom. And five years later, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was famously murdered after declaring a war on poverty and U.S. imperialism ā far-reaching and institutionally threatening movementsĀ that implicated not just how resources were distributed across racial lines, but the legitimacy of our capitalist economic system itself.
But those days are behind us, killed by corporate interests who feared the peopleās momentum and derived a strategy to defeat it. Attacks on labor laws gutted unions just as people of color were gaining access toĀ themĀ and reaping incredible benefits from collective action. And following the embarrassing loss of George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election, the Democratic party committed to corporations as a more reliable source of support. After all, with the right staking out their claim as pro-white so clearly, where did the more melanated ābaseā have to go?
When Republicans pivoted to the Southern Strategy in the 1960s ā uniting rich and poor whites on the promise that theyād always have racial superiority ā the Democrats positioned their party as a refuge for everyone else. Identity, consequently, has become centrally important to liberals. Itās not just a useful way to frame experiences which stem from broadly shared characteristics, nor is its political relevance limited to its significant organizing value. Today, identities other than white, cis, straight and male are foundational to the Democratic partyās understanding of itself, and its ability to persist. Like the clumsy signifier āpeople of color,ā the party defines itself via its relationship to a white male status quo. The coalition, by its very nature, depends on it.
No wonder, then, that identity has become such a lighting rod, and why critiques of identity politics are so polarizing.
Just look at presumed 2020 hopeful Sen. Kamala Harrisās recent defense of identity politics at the Netroots conference earlier this month.
Seeming to either misunderstand or ignore the critique of identity politics from the left, she argued that the term āidentity politicsā is used to ādivide and it is used to distract. Its purpose is to minimize and marginalize issues that impact all of us.ā āIt is used to try to shut us up,ā she said.
This is certainly true of the political right, which generally rejects identity politics because acknowledging its validity would require them to admit that identitiesĀ are politicized in response toĀ systemic oppression (which they deny is real), rather than a rejection of individualism.
But the leftās critique of identity politics is not really a critique of identity politics at all, but of the cynical weaponization of identity for political ends. By conflating the two, Harris managed to delegitimizeĀ the leftās critique, and strengthen the Democratic Partyās ability to continue to weaponize identity with impunity ā whether or not that was her intent.
Harris averred that she wouldnāt be dissuaded from talking about immigrant rights, womenās rights, equal justice, or other concerns relating to marginalized groups. Nor should she. But I suspect that this shoring up of identity politics is not just a defense against attacks on substantive equality from the right. Itās preparation for a war against leftist candidates sure to enter the ring in 2020.
The root of why some Democrats have adopted this approach feels obvious. Faced with a challenge from the left, the Democratic Partyās usual tactic of comparing itself favorably to Republicans,Ā doesnāt work. Where the establishment offered a $12 minimum wage in 2016, Bernie Sanders argued that $15 was better. When Hillary Clinton sought to protect the ACA, Bernie Sanders saidĀ it didnāt go far enough.
In her 2017 book āWhat Happened,ā Clinton was explicit about how frustrating she found running against Sanders to be:
Jake Sullivan, my top policy advisor, told me it reminded him of a scene from the 1998 movie Thereās Something About Mary. A deranged hitchhiker says heās come up with a brilliant plan. Instead of the famous āeight-minute absā exercise routine, heās going to market āseven-minute abs.ā Itās the same, just quicker. Then the driver, played by Ben Stiller, says, āWell, why not six-minute abs?ā Thatās what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would propose a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger.
Today, most 2020 hopefuls seem to have responded to the popularity of the progressive movement by simply embracing many of its policy prescriptions. (They kind of have to: Medicare for All has gone from something that Clinton insisted would ānever, everā happen, to a policy which has the backing of a majority of the American public ā including Republicans.)
ButĀ someĀ still employ a mixed strategy, which pairs a shift to the left with an attack on progressivism under the pretext of anti-bigotry. This needs to end, before it ends badly.
Rhiana Gunn-Wright, the policy director for former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, and the brains behind his comprehensive suite of policy proposals, understands this. In a recent interview, she explained that she takes an āintersectionalā approach to policy ā a reference to Columbia University law professor KimberlĆ© CrenshawāsĀ insight that identities intersect, overlap, and diversify the priorities of individuals within broad identity-group categories.
Gunn-Wright believes that āuniversalā programs are rightly criticized when they adopt a rising-tide-raises-all-ships philosophy, which can ignore or reinforce disparities across groups. But she says that policy makers can work to avoid that outcome. āThe analysis of intersectionality was all about how systems are designed with either a deep inattention to all identities or attention to one identity at a time, and therefore ignoring people who lived at the intersections of those identities,ā she told me. But thatās a design problem ā not an argument against broad economic programs.
āI think itās very interesting intersectionality has become such a buzzword now, and you can tell alot of people have picked it up without ever reading the black women who created the concept,ā Gunn-Wright said. āI can never imagine KimberlĆ© Crenshaw being like: āYou know what? We definitely should not have single-payer until we figure out race.āā
No identity should ever be sidelined. As Haney-LĆ³pez told me, āthereās a danger to thinking exclusively in race terms. But you kind of want to be balanced about what that danger is and how it relates to dominant political dynamics and what the resolution is, because at the same time that thereās a risk to talking about race, thereās an enormous risk to erasing it.ā Heās right. But while I understand where concerns about āde-centeringā raceĀ are coming from, by definition, there is no fixed ācenterā in intersectionality. Itās not a zero sum game.
āWe think that race, in particular, is a purely social issue and not connected to economics or reproductive justice or criminal justice,ā said Gunn-Wright, arguing that, in fact, both class and race are always part of the equation. āI think identities are incredibly important and shape the way we move throughout the world, and they shape the way that people treat us and the way our government treats us. . . Itās just been deployed in this way that shuts down progress instead of embracing it, and also assumes in a very strange way that black people wouldnāt want this sort of progress, or wouldnāt benefit from it.ā
Dr. TourĆ© Reed, professor of 20th Century U.S. and African American History at Illinois State University, observed that the presumption that black Americans arenāt equally or more invested in economic interventions as white Americans is āpregnant, of course, with class presumptionsā which work well for the black and Latinx professional middle class ā many of whom play a significant role inĀ defining publicĀ narratives via their work in politics or media. Since āthe principal beneficiaries of universal policies would be poor and working class people who would disproportionately be black and brown,ā he told me, ādismissing such policies on the grounds that they arenāt addressing systemic racism is aĀ sleight of hand of sorts.ā
Intersectionality, the ābuzzwordā taken up so faithfully by mainstream Democrats in 2016, requires an acknowledgment that like race and sexual identity, class is a dimension that mediates oneās perspective. That meansĀ the hashtag #trustblackwomen shouldnāt collapse the interests of Oprah, a billionaire, with, well, anyone elseās. Similarly, not all blacks or latinos should be presumed to speak equally to the interests of poor and working class people of color. This is a truth easily internalized when Democrats consider figures like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz. Itās a more difficult reality to swallow when considering one of our own.
None of this is to say that in every scenario, race, gender, sexuality, and class are equal inputs. Affluent black athletes are stillĀ tackled by cops despite their wealth, and black Harvard professors are arrested trying to unlock their own front doors. But the fact that racism hurts even those with economic privilege is not āproofā that class doesnāt matter, as some race reductionists have claimed. Itās simply affirmation that racism matters too.
Consider, for instance, my colleague Zaid Jilaniās review of comprehensive police shooting data in 2015, in which he found that 95 percent of police shootings had occurred in neighborhoods where the household income averaged below $100,000 a year. Remember that Philando Castile was pulled over, in part, because he was flagged for dozens of driving offenses described as ācrimes of povertyā by local public defender Erik Sandvick. Failure to show proof of insurance, driving with a broken taillight ā these are hardly patrician slip ups. If anything is privileged, itās the fiction that thereās no difference between the abuses suffered by wealthy black athletes and working class blacks like Philando Castile. Race can increase your odds of being targeted and abused. Money can help you survive abuse and secure justice ā something which sadly eluded Castile.
āThere is a tendency to reduce issues that have quite a bit to do with the economic opportunities available to all Americans, African Americans among them, and in some instances overrepresented among them, to matters of race,ā explained Dr. Reed, who is currently writing a book on the conservative implications of race reductionism. He pointed to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, as well as the mass incarceration crisis, as examples. āIn both those instances, Flint and the criminal justice system, whites are 40 percent, or near 40 percent, of the victims,ā he said. And thatās an awfully high number for collateral damage.ā He went on: āThereās something systemic at play. But it canāt be reduced, be reducible, to race.ā
About a month ago, in anticipation of writing this, I asked Twitter to remind me of any tweets or articlesĀ that had unfairly framed progressive policies as negative because they would notĀ end bigotry. I expected maybe a dozen responses. But that threadĀ is nowĀ at over 200 posts, and has been retweeted over 2,000 times. The scale of this is unnerving.
Sally Albright, a Democratic Party communications consultant, argues often that free college is āracistā because mostly white people go to college and it reinforces the status quo.
Senior Legal Analyst at Rewire News and popular Twitter personality Imani Gandy suggested to her 124,000 followers that caring about Wall Street is evidence of white privilege, writing: āI would love to wake up in the morning and have my first thought be āI hate Wall Street.ā Thatās the whitest thing Iāve ever heard.ā
In a similar vein, Deray McKesson, popular podcastor, charter school advocate, and Black Lives Matter icon, retweetedĀ a tweet which read:Ā āWall Street didnāt nominate a Sec of Education that believed guns and bibles have more place in schools than LGBT and disabled students,ā implying that because Wall StreetĀ isnātĀ to blame for anti-LGBTĀ policies,Ā the financial industry doesnāt merit critiqueĀ from black and/or LGBT Americans at all.
When someone pointed out that New York Times columnist Charles Blow shouldnāt be uncomfortable with a 50-plus percent tax rate for rich because taxes were even higher in the New Deal era, Blow tweeted back: āYou can feel free to return to the 30s. Wasnāt so great for my folksā ā as though a high tax rate necessitates a return to Jim Crow terrorism.
An anonymous, but popular, Twitter personality disparaged a job guarantee program because black people āhad 100% employment for 250 years,ā meaning slavery, and it ādidnāt helpā racism.
In a Vice article, Monica Potts claims to support single-payer health care while cautioning against Sandersās plan on the basis that it would destroy jobs worked by low income women ā never mind that it would provide those women with health care they disproportionately lack. (Her point that any job-eliminating programs would cause less harm if a strong social safety net were in place is a sound one, but it ignores that Sandersās plan is being proposed in conjunction with exactly the types of social safety net fortifications she seeks.)
Terrell Jermaine Starr, a journalist at The Root with a history of writing articles on the theme of Sandersās alleged black problem,Ā wrote a begrudging acknowledgment of the Senatorās new bill addressing the inequities of cash bail in a piece ungenerously titled: āBernie Sanders Takes on Unjust Cash Bail System, but Still Doesnāt Make Direct Connection to Institutional Racism.ā
Sally Albright distilled the essence of this dominant strain of criticism when she tweeted: āSorry kids, no way around it, if you say a policy āhelps all Americans equally,ā that policy is racist. Structural racism must be addressed.ā
Some of the worst of these interlocutors arenāt mainstream, thank goodness, even though they have significant influence on Twitter. The anonymous Twitter user who argued that we have to maintain capitalism because āEnding capitalism WILL displace people of color. Money is what keeps us in the game,ā or Sally Albrightās tweet that āIncome inequalityā is only a priority for cis white men,ā ultimately donāt matter. But Iām concerned that the growing popularity of this framing will make it that much easier for politicians to exploit the leftās good faith concern about identity-based disparities in order to disperse enthusiasmĀ forĀ policies that seek to transform the economic status quo.
Ending racism is a necessary, critical goal. But that goal should be pursued in tandem with efforts to address the effects of racism. The wage gap, the health care gap, the education gap, the debt gap ā all these disparities would be narrowed by progressive, intersectional economic programs. As popular opinion coalesces aroundĀ these policies, itās crucial that we not let our best impulses be weaponized against our interests, any more than conservatives weaponize the worst impulses of their constituents against theirs.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate