Explanations And Justifications
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Everyone else has weighed in on Obama’s speech, so I doubt I’ll add anything to what’s already been said, but a few things struck me. First, Yuval Levin is right that the speech reads much better than it sounds, which is the reverse of how Obama’s speeches usually work. When Obama goes into explanatory, rather than hortatory, mode, his speaking style becomes unremarkable–not bad, but not memorable or moving, either. As explanations go, the speech itself was rhetorically brilliant, at least at times, and made the best of a politically treacherous situation that it possibly could have. Besides the frequent reaction that it went on too long, the speech received praise mostly from those who were willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and received scorn from everyone who had already decided at the end of last week that Obama is now radioactive (though apparently it brought John Tabin to the verge of tears). The length is a problem, because that will limit its circulation and its impact, and it will leave the distillation of the speech’s message to intermediaries, who will necessarily simplify what Obama clearly tried to make a very complicated speech. The fact that Obama is even giving a speech like this, while politically necessary, is nonetheless politically damaging, insofar as his campaign has thrived because Obama has been talking about policies that do not polarise voters along racial lines, and he spent a good part of this speech on these very policies, education and affirmative action being the most contentious among them. It is absolutely true, as John McWhorter says, that for Obama to give a speech like this as a black politician was bold and remarkable, but I think it will mostly reassure those who were very ready to be reassured and not many more.
The general audience that will be hearing clips of the speech or reading unfavourably framed citations in various columns may or may not believe that Obama rejects Wright’s more extreme views, but many of them are positively going to dislike the explanation. In our political discourse any attempt to explain something is taken as an attempt to defend and justify it, and it will always be portrayed that way by opponents. That isn’t what Obama was doing, but it won’t matter. A political culture that can build a mass movement around simple and utterly vacuous statements (“change we can believe in” springs to mind) is also one that does not reward candidates who can appreciate the “contradictions” within their controversial associates. Of course, we remember that in the campaign against John Kerry the word “nuance” itself became an insult, as if subtlety and qualification were undesirable, but in a mass media age and in a mass democracy nuance usually creates one of two impressions: dishonesty or confusion. This is one of those impossible situations in which Obama could only have navigated this speech by being highly cerebral, and yet politically it is exactly the wrong moment for him to engage in his “on this hand, on the other hand” reasoning. As appalling as I find this reality, Obama needed to follow his wife’s debate advice (“don’t think, feel”) and instead made an attempt to think his way through a controversy that has stirred visceral reactions.
Especially on second reading, the speech seems to me to engage in the usual Obama moves of acknowledging an opponent’s concerns right before piling on advocacy for his own preferred policies. There’s nothing terribly remarkable about this sort of move, but it is not evidence of someone who can build coalitions across party and ideological lines. Appealing to white working-class voters with something like a “fight the real enemy” appeal to class solidarity against the rich is the sort of thing that will unnerve more voters than it wins over, while the entire section in which he expresses understanding for white resentments against affirmative action, busing and the like will come across to its intended audience as condescension. Whether or not Obama intends to be condescending, the combination of his professorial delivery and analytical style probably reminds working-class voters that he can’t really identify with them and makes it more difficult for them to identify with him. He targets corporations as the villains of the piece, but is himself a half-hearted critic of NAFTA and the very policies that he, the progressive globalist, normally supports, which drives home the impression that he is no more on the side of working-class voters than any other national politician.
Meanwhile, any explanation of the causes of anger, whether you find the description of the causes compelling or not, is likely to go over very badly, again because it will be perceived by many as a justification of anger and thus of extremism. It was, of couse, the ultimate example of Obama’s own lack of awareness or a depressing instance of lame pandering and damage control that he could explain the causes of black and white resentments in America and then turn around and be so utterly party-line in his criticism of Wright’s views of Near East conflicts:
a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
Obviously, he is protecting himself against a larger backlash by taking an utterly conventional and simplistic position on this, in which Israeli policies evidently have nothing to do with Palestinian or Lebanese anger and frustration. (Radical Islam does have a significant and powerful role in organising and directing the anger and frustration created by Israeli actions and policies, and then using those things to launch atrocious attacks on civilians, but its appeal doesn’t come out of nowhere.) In other words, this kind of understanding is sufficient for his community, but it doesn’t apply to other peoples.
I should add that the worst part of the speech was the pairing of his grandmother with Wright. If Obama’s loyalty to Wright is admirable in light of the political risk involved, his use of his grandmother in the speech was just as awful and unnecessary. Of course he isn’t going to disown his grandmother, and no one would have expected him to, and comparing the two was completely inappropriate.
Filed under: politics
25 Responses to “Explanations And Justifications”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
On the contrary, the reference to his grandmother was the best and most courageous part of the speech, at least in written form. Perhaps this resonates with me because my grandfather was part of the Ku Klux Klan. He was a wonderful, loving man and I adored him, but he held (perhaps less tenaciously than some) views which I abhor. And until today, the official conversation about race in this country couldn’t really address the contradiction.
This is, in essence, the problem Obama has with Wright, and presenting it in a family context highlights how terribly sensitive the issue is, and helps personalize it for millions of people who might have a grandfather like mine, or a pastor like Obama’s.
It is true that a man of Obama’s intelligence could have framed this in a way that did not involve his own family’s dirty laundry. But the fact this was unnecessary highlights just how brave it was.
I agree, though, that it’s probably too nuanced for the general election.
Since you and I are in pretty much agreement that this whole thing never really affected our personal opinions except more or less to gauge his reaction, I was wondering your opinion. At what point do we enter Kitty Dukakis territory? You know, the point where the person who brings the issue is considered a jerk. I can’t imagine we are far from it. The Clinton campaign is perfectly willing to let the media run with it, but they aren’t even acknowledging it officially, let alone throwing into stump matters.
Daniel, you are a conservative. You are also a bright guy. I am surprised to see your take on this is so anodyne and sympathetic.
The racial problem in this country is a black behavior problem. There’s lots of earnest discussions about it, and liberals mostly blame “hidden racism,” but this is the essential reality. No liberal will admit this, and that’s whyt it’s an intellectually bankrupt philosophy. This behavior problem is the reason whites move to suburbs. It’s the reason blacks die so frequently in shootouts. It’s the reason blacks do worse in school, save less, have worse credit, and make neighborhoods less pleasant places to be. Some of this might be endemic, but black America, working with the same raw material, was not always this screwed up.
Yes, of course, there are many exceptions to this rule. There are decent, humane, polite, Christian, and civilized black people. But they are not so numerous as they should be (or once were) and, most important, they tend to make excuses for their less well behaved brothers and sisters. In positions of leadership, their pandering is immense. Notice Obama asks much of white America–support for affirmative action, understanding of Wright and his raucous church–but only asks blacks to believe that this terrible weight of oppression can be lifted by supporting him and his run-of-the-mill liberal program, uniting with whites to go after evil corporations.
Jeremiah Wright denies this black behavior problem exists and projects the various deficiencies, disorders, and hatreds of the black community on whites. He has to justify this rampant all-consuming hatred–hatred he foments every Sunday–with something, so he creates and recreates a bogeyman: the legions of white racists who continue to hold down black people. There is much smoke here, but almost no fire.
Barack says, in effect, Wright’s is a correct analysis of the problem. Blacks at worst exacerbate or contribute to their own racism-caused problems. But he also says there’s hope for change through something he wants us to forget we’ve been trying for thirty years: liberal government programs and white acknowledgement of their current and past racist actions, including such egregious sins as his grandmother being scared of thuggish young black men.
Now, contrary to some conservatives, I see no reason to make light of the horror that was slavery or the injustice that was segregation and Jim Crow. Not only were these programs mean-spirited and unnecessary, but they definitely poisoned race relations at the time and into the middle of the 20th Century. But, by appealing to American standards of legal equality, fair play, Christian decency, and our common destiny as a people, the early civil rights movement succeeded and rightfully so. White Americans are not only no longer racist in any real sense, but have gone to an extreme level of self-loathing and suicidal individualism that denies any rights to whites as a group to remain intact as a viable voice in our national culture, let alone any right to retain their historical role as cultural and moral standard-setters.
After this movement succeeded, some blacks did well, but as a group the black community has regressed. Crime, illegitimacy, and standards on every level are lower than they were in the fifties. Look at any photograph of the original lunch counter protesters: these were decent looking, well dressed, attractive people who had a great deal of dignity. Now look at a fool like Wright.
You talk about how the speech is brilliant or effective or “reads better than it sounds.” How about this elephant in the room: the speech is duplicitous and evidences moral idiocy. The speech gives Wright a pass he doesn’t deserve. The speech fails to explain the obviously intelligent and sensitive Obama’s own decision to hang around someone as phenomenally out of touch with reality as Rev. God Damn America. The speech fails to explain why Obama dishonored his mother and grandparents by hanging around people so venemous about whites as a group.
Wright is a black Joseph Goebbels, and such fraudulent hateful people populate too many black churches from coast to coast. This is not a generational thing; this is making a group that has the potential to do better constantly seek the solution in a phantom menace: the invidious, hidden racism that supposedly animates white America.
You say, “Obama needed to follow his wife’s debate advice (â€don’t think, feelâ€) and instead made an attempt to think his way through a controversy that has stirred visceral reactions.” No he doesn’t. He needs to speak the truth. There are several possibilities, but the most likely seems “I basically agree with Wright, but he takes things too far sometimes. Vote for me is the way out of this mutually suspicious racial stand-off that we have.” This truth, of course, would not “explain away” Wright’s excesses, nor further his political viability, but it seems no truthful account of his lunacy and Obama’s tacit endorsement of it until today could.
Roach,
You’re living in a dream world. Joseph Goebbels. Really? Your whole analysis is a symptom of a sickness.
Regarding matters of fact: Obama notes that several aspects of black culture, as it presently exists in America, need to change.
Regarding matters of social theory: it’s possible for a society to have enormous amounts of racial prejudice without being de jure racist.
Regarding matters of self-expression–and I don’t want to get into this too in-depth because I’d get angry and harsh Mr. Larison’s zen–it is possible to regard slavery as something a little weightier than “mean-spirited and unnecessary.”
Three words: God Damn America.
The questions here are whether a presidential candidate should be held accountable for every intemperate thing one of his close associates says, and if so, what is an appropriate response.
My answers are: “probably not,” and “condemn the man’s views, but there’s no need to demonize the man himself.” YMMV.
As for Wright’s language, I agree completely: jeremiads have no place in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
(I do not want to play a game of “gotcha” here, in part because it proves nothing and also because I do not know your political or religious views, but I do want to note that Pat Robertson rejoiced in the 9/11 attacks as God’s retribution on a degenerate people, and yet Bush consults with him frequently on the Middle East and other social issues. So, if Obama has explaining to do, so do a lot of leading Republicans. Preachers calling down God’s wrath on a godless America is a pretty common thing among some very conservative denominations with a lot of political influence.)
You know, I understand much of the conservative reaction to Obama, while not sharing it (I have my own reasons for being only a lukewarm supporter of Obama, and they mirror some of Daniel’s concerns, but I don’t even begain to share the views of, say, Mr. Roach).
But I think there is an interesting disconnect, illustrated in part by Mr. Roach’s last post. One of the things that seems to get many conservatives outraged about Wright (and Obama by extension, though calmer heads such as Daniel justifiably give Obama something of a pass here) is the “anti-Americanism.”
But here’s the thing. The paleo right seems to me to be just about as outraged about America as it is as the angriest black nationalist (not saying Wright is one, but for illustration’s sake).
Now most paleos would probably make certain distinctions here (see, e.g., Daniel’s recent posts regarding patriotism), and argue that their extreme disenchantment with the government and the culture does not preclude a deep love of “the land” and, perhaps, an ideal, historical America that they would like to return to.
And that’s fair enough; my own disenchantment from our government, and aspects of our culture, doesn’t preclude a deep love of the land and (most of) the ideals that this country was founded on. But that’s true generally of many angry non-conservatives (the “left”, and people who self identify as libertarian). And if you look at Wright’s remarks in context, his “God Damn America” comments were made in terms of a critique of actions which the government had taken (actions which non-interventionist conservatives also take serious issue with).
Bottom line, I guess, is that, coming from the paleos, at least, that particular critique seems a little hollow.
Obama’s speech was a tour de force.
I don’t buy his politics. He’s an internationalist and a left-liberal big-government, social-program guy. Roach makes, but overstates, a reasonable point that the self-inflicted wounds of blacks (as well as their offenses against the rest of us )are often ignored in favor of an anachronistic blame-Whitey approach.
However, the level of discourse and the rhetorical skill displayed were remarkable for an American politician. I wouldn’t have been for free silver in 1896, but Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” was a great speech.
I doubt the man will be a great President, and he might not even bee a good one, but if he wins, he should be a most interesting one. After Chimphitler and Elvis, that could be some comfort.
Oops, forgot the HTML to close the italics. Sorry.
I do notice that no-one really responded to Roach’s comments.
rast,
I responded to his second comment (I thought pretty effectively, but YMMV).
I didn’t respond to his first comment because it represents a view of race which, though I profoundly disagree with, is pretty difficult to engage in the context of a blog comment thread. I’m also increasingly convinced that dialog on race is in many instances impossible, not because of bad faith, but because of the divergence of underlying assumptions that people (on all sides) bring to the debate.
Mr. Nostack did respond to Mr. Roach’s first post; his responses, while I agree with them, illustrate the difficulty of complex engagement of Mr. Roach’s ideas in the limited format of a blog comment.
Okay, let me dip my toe in. Obviously in a blog post it’s impossible to even begin to detail the shared assumptions that seperate myself from Mr. Roach with regard to the issue of race. Let’s start with the fact that racism (not terribly hidden) is indeed a big part of the continuing problem, and that there are other factors (the war on drugs being a huge one) that, while not necessarily racially motivated, are imposed from outside the black community. But those aren’t arguments, they are conclusions, and even if I had the time and space to do them justice here, I most likely wouldn’t present anything that Mr. Roach hasn’t heard before.
But let’s talk about what Mr. Roach calls a “black behavior problem. It’s true that white liberals tend to dance comfortably around this issue, but, ironically, many black leaders, most likely Rev. Wright included, would agree that that is part of the problem (while probably calling it something a little different). They would disagree with Mr. Roach, though, about how big a portion of the problem it is, its causes, and its cures. But I expect (based upon familiarity of people with Rev. Wright’s world view) that his sermons also contained some searing criticism of aspects of black culture. Of course, for very understandable reasons, that may not be the face that is shown most often to the white community. But thaty doesn’t make it any less true.
But there is an irony here. Now, my position (again, stating the position, not proving it) that much if not all of that “behavioral” problem is a legacy of racism. Mr. Roach’s rejoinder (one of them, anyway), most likely would be “haha, then why have the problems gotten worse post desegragation?”
The answer, which Rev. Wright and smart liberals recognize, is an ironic unintentional by product of desegregation. There is tons and tons of research from all ideological perspectives that suggests that communities of all races containing a mix of poor people and middle class people are much more successful than communities consisting of only poor people. The reason is pretty clear – having positive role models in a community – examples of people who have succeeded through hard work, etc. – is a key factor in building successful communities.
Desegregation, while on the whole a very good and necessary thing, had the perverse effect of taking successful blacks out of the communities. What was left were communities, still de facto segregated (for whatever reason; the reason doesn’t matter for this analysis) with no successful role models. And any such community, regardless of the racial makeup, is going to be damaged by that.
So what’s the solution? Heck if I know. Obviously at least part of the solution does have to come from inside the community. And I frankly doubt that Rev. Wright would disagree with that. My guess is that the REAL difference between Rev. Wright and, say, Bill Cosby, on THAT score at least, is who the audience for that message should be. Rev. Wright, understandably, probably doesn’t see much benefit in telling whites about dysfunctional black communities.
One more little point. One thing that people jumped on Wright for was his criticism of blacks who made good and left the community. Such criticism was devoid of context. What Wright was saying was simply this: that for damaged inner city communities to succeed, they need successful people to stay in and support the community. Say what you will about such an exhortation, it actually is very much of a piece with Mr. Roach’s argument.
Or at least that’s part of the answer. But that just goes back to what I said a couple posts ago – even my rather long comment barely scratched the surface of one aspect of my disagreement with Mr. Roach. Any aregument between us, given our very different assumptions, is almost certain to degenerate (at best) into a mere battle of dueling assertions.
And forgive the typos above; I’m lousy at editing my blog comments.
LMaggiti, good and nuanced stuff. I don’t disagree with all of it. I think lot of black preachers do look at the community, the need for role models, and the need for moral renewal. I’d be interested in seeing anything of Wright’s that didn’t involve the flattering bogey man of white racism, invidious discrimination, and looney conspiracies.
I think your description of an unintended byproduct of desegregation has some truth to it. I also would go further and acknowledge that behaviors useful for survival and maintaining dignity under conditions of racist oppression may be pathological in conditions of freedom and inequality. For example, passive aggressive laziness obviously would frustrate the interests of plantation owners once upon a time. There is still a kind of Robin Hood respect for get-rich-quick-schemers and blacks that don’t “suck up to” whites in most black communities.
I think the sources of black social decline since the Sixties are manifold: the sexual revolution, the bad incentives of welfare, pathological attitudes derived from slavery, the role model issue, unrealistic hopes of parity, affirmative action, the failure of whites to exert continuing moral and cultural leadership, etc. But I think the solution has to be some kind of moral renwal and acknowledgement of the facts by whites. Obama’s talk was essentially highfalutin recitation of the pieties of Rev. Wright: socialism is the answer, white racism is the primary cause.
Well again I don’t have the time or space to explore all of our differences on these issues, though I do think we’ve managed to have a more productive discussion on the topic than I thought likely. A few brief parting comments:
(1) I think the speech made at least a few gestures in the direction you are asking for. Not enough from your perspective, but heck, he IS a liberal after all (not that that’s a bad thing from MY perspective, despite my increasing divergence from orthodox liberalism), no one is denying that.
(2) A lot of what you are asking for is divorced from politics. Obama is, after all, running for president. It is reasonable, then for him to focus upon what government can (and cannot do). I’m not sure what point there would be in, say, him telling white people that moral renewal is needed in the black community.
(3) Obviously I’m speculating about Rev. Wright’s other sermons But I’m not sure that the limited clips that we saw justify your “socialism is the answer, white racism is the primary cause” conclusion. In any event, I think that his criticisms of successful blacks leaving the community at least offer a hint that he is aware that a big part of the answer has to come from inside the community. And I’m sure that you are aware that blaming racism is not only consistent with calls for self help, but they go hand in hand. The “we can’t expect to get much help from racist whites, we need to help ourselves” is not exactly a rare POV among leaders in the African American community, though ironically that POV has often been associated with what are regarded as some of the more radical leaders of the African American community.
Mr. Roach,
Re point 1 in my most recent post: This is from a newspaper editorial, not the speech directly, but:
“He talked about the need for whites to recognize the lingering problem of racial discrimination – and for blacks to embrace the ‘quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help.’”
I mean, come on, in terms of what you are calling for … give the man some credit for that.
I’ve been trying to find some documentation to support my assumptions about Dr. Wright’s “self Help” preaching. And, sure enough, it does seem like that’s a big part of his preaching. I still haven’t found a nice pithy link or quote, though ironically what I have found tends to be on sites critical of Rev. Wright, along the lines of “yes, preaching self help is a big part of black liberation theology, and that’s a good thing, but there are other problems.”
To the extent that Rev. Wright calls for self-help, it’s wonderful, and he deserves credit. So, for that matter, does the oft-maligned Minister Farrakhan. However, in so far as he uses a past history of slavery and legal discrimination to stoke resentment and rage, he deserves every bit of opprobrium cast his way these past two weeks, and more, as he is acting in a way that is an offense against not only the Christian virtues of forgiveness, love, and charity, but in a way that is counterproductive for those in his flock who take it to heart.
Even stipulating that the problems among blacks of rampant illegitimacy, drug abuse, violence, unemployment, etc. are a legacy of slavery – and this strikes this antediluvian conservative as mostly true – white people (and that is what is meant when an appeal is made for more money from the government) can not fix these problems. All we can do is get out of the way. At the risk of sounding callous, but also as someone who has dealt with his own crushing cargo of resentment, something may be someone else’s fault, but it is your responsibility. From the Stoics to Dr. Laura, it is well known, and bears frequent repetition, that how one reacts to the things that happen to him is more important to his happiness and success than the things themselves. By stoking the fires of resentment, Wright magnifies his own importance, and his own ability to gain influence and government money, but he does so at the expense of the welfare of his people. He, and Jackson, and Sharpton, and the whole industry of grievance-mongers, are self-serving, rent-seeking, hatemongers.
cyrus,
Much of that is true (though I’d take some serious issue with your last sentence), but then Obama made precisely those points in the speech.
Of course there is the “appeal. .. made for more money from the government.” Interestingly, I don’t here such an appeal from Rev. Wright. He seems more from the “we can’t expect anything from white America, so we have to do it ourselves” school. Moreover, if you look at his critique of white America, the complaint isn’t that they aren’t giving the black community enough money, but that white America is actively racist. Again, your critique of that approach is well taken (racism is still a big problem, but preaching anger and resentment doesn’t help), but the “appeal for more money” critique has little if anything to do with the reality of Rev. Wright’s preaching.
As for Obama, I didn’t really hear him say that “more money” is the answer, though obviously at some level, even if only in terms of support of current programs, he is implicitly suggesting that it is part of the answer. But all that really says is that he is a pretty mainstream liberal. Which is reason enough for some people not to vote for him, but not exactly news.
And one thing that seems missing from a lot of these debates, something that fuels much of the current anger, is the drug war and its absolutely devastating effects on black communities. Those people who think the drug war is a good thing are going to be quick to blame the black community itself for this. But those of us who think that the drug war is a calamity will understandably feel otherwise.
Oh, and I really do need an editor. here = hear in the above comment.
cyrus,
Or, to put it another way, ironically a large part of what Wright seems to saying be is exactly what you are saying – white America should “get out of the way.”
Now, he means something a little different by that than you do – okay, a lot different (e.g., end the war on drugs) – and it goes along with a lot of counterproductive rage, but it’s still closer in some ways than you might want to think.
A claim that I believe is mostly (white America is not a homegeneous thing) wrong, and mostly irrelevant. There are no legal barriers to African Americans qua African Americans any more, in the first instance, and more than a few of what Obama referred to as “ladders of opportunity.” Secondly, white Americans didn’t like, and were frankly hostile toward, Jews, Catholics, or especially in the American West, Japanese and Chinese but this did not preclude those groups from suceeding in America. As they did, racism became less and less relevant. Difference, and the tension associated, never disappear, but in America, it is money that matters more than anything else. Now one may argue that it is the special burden of black history, especially slavery, that renders those comparisons inapposite, but this sounds faintly of special pleading, and even accepting it for the sake of argument, presents no resolution that can be given to or imposed upon black people from outside themselves and their families and communities.
Continually reminding blacks of the wrongs done to them maintains a sense of black identity, provides followers to the Rev. Wrights of the world, and reinforces white guilt which someone like Obama can exploit, good cop/bad cop fashion, to get his way and reward his followers. That it does not particularly help the majority of black people, whose problems are worse in many respects than forty years ago, seems clear enough.
The “war on drugs” is a disaster in many respects, and I’m not going to defend it. I am unsure of the extent to which the ill effects of the war on drugs can be separated from the harms caused by the use of drugs. If drugs like cocaine and meth were decriminalized tomorrow, how much different would things be in poor black neighborhoods ten years from now? Fewer men would be incarcerated, no doubt, but probably more would be on drugs, and only slightly less useless than if they were immured in one of America’s prison hells.
If drugs like cocaine and meth were decriminalized tomorrow, how much different would things be in poor black neighborhoods ten years from now? Fewer men would be incarcerated, no doubt, but probably more would be on drugs, and only slightly less useless than if they were immured in one of America’s prison hells.
Obviously this is a question that we can only speculate on, but my answer would be “much different in a positive sense.” I’d be inclined to argue:
(1) Viewed strictly from the POV of the black community, the effects of the drug war have been far more significant than the effects of drug use itself.
(2) While decriminalization probably would, in society at large, increase drug use (albeit not as much as many people think) probably not by much at all in poor communities of any race, where (a) drugs are readily already available and cheap, and (b) people in those communities are less deterred by legal prohibition, because they perceive that they have less to lose.
(3) Taking 1 & 2 together, you would have many fewer blacks in jail with little increase in drug use. Moreover, one of the problems now is that when many of these young men get out of jail, they have significant barriers (legal and otherwise) to future success in life. So it’s not just a question of fewer people in jail, but fewer people with criminal records (not to mention the negative effects of the incarceration itself)
(4) Finally, there are negative effects to drug prohibition to black communities beyond the imprisonment of young men, effects which would disappear upon legalization,
In my own case, my increasing skepticism about the government has made me, too, somewhat disenchanted with many of the “liberal” solutions to the problem of race (though I think conservatives massively exaggerate the negative effects of these efforts.) But probably the one thing the government COULD do that would most help the problems of poor black community would be to end the war on drugs.
Not that I”m terribly hopeful that that is likely to happen (understatement).
I also think that racism is still much more prevalent than you do, but I’m not prepared (in terms of time commitment) to seriously address that issue here.
I think “racism,” by at least some of the current definitions, is nearly universal. I don’t accept the premise of “whiteness studies” that racism is strictly the preserve of whites, as I think it’s dishonest and question begging. Defined at the most basic level as the ascription to individuals of perceived group characteristics, or more strictly as a degree of inter-group distrust or animosity, I believe racism is about as common as breathing. Given that, it is not a sufficient explanation, in the absence of institutional, legal, or customary instruments of oppression, to account for the condition of a population.