Diversity versus Inequality

[Neo-Scholastic]

The most recent issue of the Chicago Reader has a very insightful interview with the author of “The Trouble with Diversity”. It’s a local story but highly relevant to the recent USA national election, the direction of the Democratic Party and the priorities of political left. Here is the link:

Chicago Reader: The Trouble with Diversity

The author’s main thrust is that by focusing almost on exclusively on identity politics and racism, the Democratic Party has given short-shrift to the exploitation of the poor and lower-middle class people regardless of race or gender. Given the audience of the Reader, Chicago’s hipster North-side liberals, many of progressive assertions go unchallenged. That’s to be expected. At the same time, I think he gives a particularly biting critique of the socio-economic elite’s politically correct virtue-signaling and bossy scolding.

Here are some quotes from the article:

…it's considered a victory if minorities or women become executives at Fortune 500 companies, whether or not workers at those companies are paid a living wage. In other words, liberals are OK with inequality so long as it's diverse inequality.

But you can't build a working-class movement with that kind of campaign, because they're not the victims of discrimination, they're the victims of exploitation. If you keep telling them the problem is discrimination, what you're actually telling them is, "We don't want to get rid of inequality, we want to legitimize it." It's to say, "Look, if you're poor because you're a victim of racism, sexism, homophobia—that's a problem because it's an inequality of opportunity. But if you're not a victim of one of those things, fuck you."

White people are indeed victimized—they're the largest group of poor people, the largest group of people on welfare, and group below the poverty level in this country… But then the response on the so-called left is just to go, "Racists!" That doesn't change people's minds. You're not trying to organize them, you're just scapegoating. Scapegoating people is a bad idea when they're in the majority and you're in the minority. It's one thing if you're scapegoating 10 percent of the population, but you're scapegoating a very large part of the population.

To me, the whole discourse of microaggression and safe spaces is what comes after farce. It's a pantomime performed of theorizing inequality among people who are the beneficiaries of the fundamental inequality and structures of our society. And it's probably more useful to the right than the left. People often say that having faculty and students of people of color is really important because they represent their people. But I don't think there's any poor white person or lower middle-class person who see the rich kids at Harvard and think they're there because they represent me. No, they think, These rich kids get to go to Harvard, and people like me don't. When you see that kind of pantomime on campus, what you see is a fuck-you to everyone else that is suffering.

The above should give you a good flavor of the interview, but I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.

[Crossless2.0]

I read the article and have no serious disagreements with Michaels's thesis. The Democrats long ago effectively ceased being the party of the working class. I've railed about that several times here at AF. Losing sight of bread-and-butter issues has been a disaster for them. And now we have Trump exploiting the breach.

In fairness, however, it's hard to be a party dedicated to viewing labor and economic issues through the prism of class in a country with such confused attitudes toward socialist goals. Many of the same working class people who "should" respond to such an agenda are among the first to have a Pavlovian response when the GOP throws the "class politics" card on the table any time a Democrat mentions raising the tax rates on the wealthiest people, advocating for a living wage, overhauling the banking system, regulating Wall Street investments, etc. The fear of being branded "Leftists" is, I suspect, at the bottom of much of the rightward shift toward neo-liberalism we've seen with the Democrats throughout my lifetime. They consistently fail to frame the issues and therefore spend too much time on the defensive and second-guessing themselves.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it's only Democrats who dabble in identity politics. Many of the so-called Reagan Democrats rallied to the GOP's standards once the Republicans figured out that Jesus (and carefully coded racism) sells on the campaign trail. There are a hell of a lot of Republican voters who are positively hurt by their own party's policies but continue to vote for them because they are socially conservative Christians, and the Republicans do a better job of pandering to them than the Democrats do -- all the while accomplishing squat on their behalf after nearly forty years of promises. On the subject of race, let's never forget where Reagan chose to announce his candidacy.

This shit cuts both ways. The difference is that Democrats pander to groups that traditionally have been marginalized and needed a voice (racial/ethnic minorities, women, the LGBT community) whereas Republicans have pandered to majority groups who want to play the victims of identity wedge issues.

[vorlon13]

What's wrong with diverse inequality ?

[vorlon13]

JFC, my cynicism is a fucking epidemic now . . .

[Faith No More]

So, Chad, do you also agree with the man that wealth inequality is the real problem, or do you just like this article because he scolds the left for playing the race card too much? And what about the part where he calls the election of Donald Trump a catastrophe? Does he make a good point there, too?

[Regina]

I buy it, he has a lot of great points.

I think our standards have been pretty lowered when our view of "progress" is to have a tokenist box ticking quota of "diversity" just for diversity's sake.

The social justice-minded "Left" has become a movement for champagne socialists and ivory tower intellectuals, who bitch about how "oppressed" they are compared to "privileged" people while they're sitting on a college campus getting their higher education. That's the state of the 21st Century Left, and it's not sitting well with a lot of people across The West.

[Whateverist]

The most recent issue of the Chicago Reader has a very insightful interview with the author of “The Trouble with Diversity”. It’s a local story but highly relevant to the recent USA national election, the direction of the Democratic Party and the priorities of political left. Here is the link:

Chicago Reader: The Trouble with Diversity

The author’s main thrust is that by focusing almost on exclusively on identity politics and racism, the Democratic Party has given short-shrift to the exploitation of the poor and lower-middle class people regardless of race or gender. Given the audience of the Reader, Chicago’s hipster North-side liberals, many of progressive assertions go unchallenged. That’s to be expected. At the same time, I think he gives a particularly biting critique of the socio-economic elite’s politically correct virtue-signaling and bossy scolding.

Here are some quotes from the article:

…it's considered a victory if minorities or women become executives at Fortune 500 companies, whether or not workers at those companies are paid a living wage. In other words, liberals are OK with inequality so long as it's diverse inequality.

But you can't build a working-class movement with that kind of campaign, because they're not the victims of discrimination, they're the victims of exploitation. If you keep telling them the problem is discrimination, what you're actually telling them is, "We don't want to get rid of inequality, we want to legitimize it." It's to say, "Look, if you're poor because you're a victim of racism, sexism, homophobia—that's a problem because it's an inequality of opportunity. But if you're not a victim of one of those things, fuck you."

White people are indeed victimized—they're the largest group of poor people, the largest group of people on welfare, and group below the poverty level in this country… But then the response on the so-called left is just to go, "Racists!" That doesn't change people's minds. You're not trying to organize them, you're just scapegoating. Scapegoating people is a bad idea when they're in the majority and you're in the minority. It's one thing if you're scapegoating 10 percent of the population, but you're scapegoating a very large part of the population.

To me, the whole discourse of microaggression and safe spaces is what comes after farce. It's a pantomime performed of theorizing inequality among people who are the beneficiaries of the fundamental inequality and structures of our society. And it's probably more useful to the right than the left. People often say that having faculty and students of people of color is really important because they represent their people. But I don't think there's any poor white person or lower middle-class person who see the rich kids at Harvard and think they're there because they represent me. No, they think, These rich kids get to go to Harvard, and people like me don't. When you see that kind of pantomime on campus, what you see is a fuck-you to everyone else that is suffering.

The above should give you a good flavor of the interview, but I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing.

I agree with the author that class issues revolving around economic inequality should be the central issue for at least one of the major parties, or at least right up there with climate/environmental concerns.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So, Chad, do you also agree with the man that wealth inequality is the real problem, or do you just like this article because he scolds the left for playing the race card too much? And what about the part where he calls the election of Donald Trump a catastrophe? Does he make a good point there, too?

I think it is more important for you to know that I read from sources that challenge my own opinions. I do however question the notion that income inequality and wealth disparity are in and of themselves problematic; although, it seems intuitively true. I haven’t learned enough to form an opinion about it, one way or the other. What I do know is that while some wealthy people will be exploitative, many can be magnanimous, e.x. Bill and Linda Gates Foundation. I do not have the certainty that progressives appear to have that nation states are necessarily better at distributing resources for the public good than markets and private citizens. Centralized economic planning hasn’t had a very good track record. And wealth is created primarily by the private sector but only incidentally from governmental enterprises. If governments created most of the wealth, they wouldn’t need to tax people.

Nevertheless, I agree with the author that worker exploitation is a legitimate state concern and within the scope of governmental authority. It’s one of those issues on which everyone can agree in principle but the devil is in the details. He gives no specifics,other that unionization, so there really isn’t much of anything to discuss.

Likewise, it is clear that he takes for granted that his audience will accept social engineering as generally benign. I wouldn’t start with that assumption; but rather, assume that tinkering with market processes, especially by politicians and “experts” with narrow specialties, will have unintended negative consequences. It seems better, IMHO, to tread lightly and slowly than shoot for sweeping transformations. That rule, to proceed with caution using small steps, also applies to removing market deforming regulations already in place.

With respect to liberals “playing the race card” too much, I think he has a legitimate point. It goes back to the saying that if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Racism and sexism are pernicious social evils, but not every social evil is either racism or sexism. Given the paper’s audience it is not surprising that the author finds no reason to justify his negative opinions about Trump. I do not see any real evidence that he is anything other than bombastic, obnoxious, and vulgar. YMMV, obviously. Nevertheless I often find that the most disturbing flaws of people can be turned to good ends. Everyone who hires a lawyer wants him or her to be the most unreasonable asshole when fighting on their behalf.

[Angrboda]

Meh. Another socialist who thinks markets are the problem. *shocked*

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still reading the interview; it's very interesting. Thanks for posting it, and I'll comment when I've digested it.