Prometheus 6

I'm skeptical of this "increased income inequality" argument. Sometimes things which are labeled the same, aren't.

The essay itself makes the argument that a family making $225K is not in the same boat as a family making $42K, even though we may call them both "middle class."

The same is true about a "low-income" family in 2008 vs a "low-income" family in 1948. The low-income family in 2008 almost certainly has multiple televisions, is likely to have an air conditioner and an automobile, has a good chance of having a computer, has access to emergency medical care, and is almost certainly not going hungry, although it may have poor nutrition.

The low-income family in 1948 probably didn't even have indoor plumbing, and certainly didn't have a TV or an electric refrigerator.

That's not to say that being low-income in 2008 is an enviable place to be, far from it. But arguably the reason why income inequality is higher now than it was then is because there is less of an imperative need to flatten the income curve. The median is at a vastly higher standard of living than it was 50-60 years ago.

Not being Todd, but to answer your second question, the thrust of the article seems to imply that antiracism is "damaging" because it creates the illusion of progress where it doesn't really exist. Sure, black folks are circulating freely at the highest echelons of society, but they're also being locked up in higher numbers than ever before. Once we get President Obama, people will forevermore be able to dismiss the complaints from poor blacks with the glib response, "Work harder and you can be president, see?" More generally, the fact that some blacks have achieved prominence through antiracist efforts will serve to obscure the tragedy of the poor in America in general. "Antiracism" has been less about unity and more about divide and conquer. Through the guise of equal opportunity we have defanged efforts to achieve some equality of results. And what's worse, the backlash against black equality has created an environment where many poor whites work against their own self-interest to derail progressive causes. Many whites have preferred to let unions wither and die instead of having to stomach the thought of some lazy black person getting a 4 day work week.

That's the argument, from what I can tell. But to me those things, even if true, are irrelevant. It's like saying that food stamps to the poor are bad because they've increased obseity rates. Or that increased life expectancy is bad because it's greatly increased the burden of elder care. Or, washing the baby is bad because, oh noes, we've made the bathwater dirty. Sure, even the best things have unintended consequences. Our response should be to deal with those side effects as they come, not to give up on the whole enterprise. Racism and poverty are BOTH problems. BOTH need to be dealt with.

It's like saying that food stamps to the poor are bad because they've increased obseity rates. Or that increased life expectancy is bad because it's greatly increased the burden of elder care. Or, washing the baby is bad because, oh noes, we've made the bathwater dirty.

Well said, though I doubt neoliberals like Todd and Benn Michaels would appreciate your artistry.

I was hoping he'd come back  so I could make the follow-up point that Black people were part of the wealth rather than possessers of wealth. We weren't even counted in the wealth distribution that he says hasn't changed.

Benn Michaels isn't a neoliberal. Far from it. But the challenge is that there are enough black neoliberals that our own politics has been rendered not QUITE bankrupt but close. And this is where he's right. If you really look at how black working class and poor folk are living it's difficult to say that inequality doesn't matter with a straight face.

If you really look at how black working class and poor folk are living it's difficult to say that inequality doesn't matter with a straight face.

No one here says economic inequality doesn't matter. 

And this is where he's wrong...there's no conflict between being anti-inequality and anti-racist. He's wrong in thinking anti-racism obstructs anti-inequality.

Benn Michaels isn't a neoliberal.

Benn Michael's definition of "liberal" goes bact to the 19th century usage of the term. But that's okay...I can give up the term, but that leave me with "asshole" as the most appropriate term.

that there are enough black neoliberals that our own politics has been rendered not QUITE bankrupt but close.

To be honest I can't think of a single prominent black neoliberal outside of Condoleezza Rice atm, but in any event the reality is that if somebody wants to oppose progressive causes, they will find a reason to do so no matter what. Anti-racism is just a convenient victim. Besides, "scapegoating teh blakcs" is the best trump card of all, it works in all situations.

Here's a little game you might want to play. Think of a problem facing American society today. Any problem, at random. Don't peek ahead. Are you ready? Now, come up with a "logical" way to place the blame for the problem on black folks. Now, for extry credit, google up a corroborating cite for the totally bogus causal link you just made up between blacks and your random-societal-ill. Wasn't that fun? The sad part is it was probably also easy peasy.

Anyway. It's unfortunately not at all surprising that a leftist wants blacks to take a back seat on their own issues until such time that "larger" "mainstream" issues (aka those issues most important to white leftists) are solved. I'm all in favor of spreading the wealth and being a good lefty but I've read this script before and I don't think I want to play the role of "security officer in red shirt."

To be honest I can't think of a single prominent black neoliberal outside of Condoleezza Rice atm

Having given up my understanding of the word "neoliberal" this is speculation, but I believe Spence would count Obama as a Black neoliberal.

To be honest I can't think of a single prominent black neoliberal outside of Condoleezza Rice atm, but in any event the reality is that if somebody wants to oppose progressive causes, they will find a reason to do so no matter what.

You are confusing "neoliberal" with "neoconservative." Rice is a neoconservative, supporting aggressive intervention abroad, not a neoliberal. The most prominent neoliberal of the modern era is Bill Clinton. I would argue that most black elected officials (all of the black mayors), and most black civil rights leaders are neoliberals. They support (by word, deed, and nondeed) the idea that the black poor are poor primarily because of their own behavior and they need discipline. They support (by word, deed, and nondeed) the idea that giving businesses a wide berth will promote liberty and freedom.

Here's a little game you might want to play. Think of a problem facing American society today. Any problem, at random. Don't peek ahead. Are you ready? Now, come up with a "logical" way to place the blame for the problem on black folks. Now, for extry credit, google up a corroborating cite for the totally bogus causal link you just made up between blacks and your random-societal-ill. Wasn't that fun? The sad part is it was probably also easy peasy.

"People" blame social ills on black people. And this is why we can't organize around class issues, because race is the way in which class is lived. Michaels is wrong here. But this is where he's right. What do black elites think? What did Obama think? From his website until this crisis reared his head he expressed strong support for the idea that the free market is what promotes liberty and freedom. From his speeches one would think that black fathers are the ones that require discipline rather than markets. And black people LOVE him, LOVE this message. To the extent that we (black bloggers, blacks in general) wrap the election of Obama up in the language of racial progress, and literally dismiss any (black) critic who seeks to push Obama to the left, we are reproducing neoliberalism within black spaces. And we do that because our own conception of racism ignores class, almost as much as Michaels conception of class inequality ignores race.

Here is a nice definition of neoliberalism by an Australian professor:

Neoliberalism seeks to cut back the role of the state as much as possible while maintaining public guarantees of access to basic health, education and income security.
The core of the neoliberal program is
(i) to remove the state altogether from ‘non-core’ functions such as the provision of infrastructure services
(ii) to minimise the state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through contracting out, voucher schemes and so on
(iii) to reject redistribution of income except insofar as it is implied by the provision of a basic ’safety net’.
With this definition, a reasonably pure form of neoliberalism (except for some subsidies to favored businesses) is embodied in the program of the US Republican Party, and particularly the Contract with America proposed by Gingrich in 1994. The ACT Party in New Zealand also takes a fairly clear neoliberal stance, as do the more ideologically consistent elements of the British Conservative Party and the Australian Liberal Party.

Taken from here.

Clinton's welfare repeal, Hope VI housing policy, the move to referring to school superintendents as "ceos" and the consistent use of business management styles in government, represent (up to now successful) attempts to embed neoliberalism in government.

Thanks for that, Spence.

To the extent that we (black bloggers, blacks in general) wrap the election of Obama up in the language of racial progress, and literally dismiss any (black) critic who seeks to push Obama to the left, we are reproducing neoliberalism within black spaces.

True, and I'm pretty pleased with myself for NOT being part of all that. I understand what's happening in our communities. Obama looks like what we (mentally) middle class types believe should enable our success, and more...he is, indeed, successful. He is the embodiment of Black aspirations, whether or not those aspirations are based in reality.

But this is NOT what Benn Michaels is talking about, not in an article titled Against Diversity. His single correct statement is Obama's victory will be seen as proof of neoliberal principles...by neoliberals. Everything he wrote around that statement is wrong and damaging.

Dr. Spence, I wanted to submit this for your consideration. The full article can be be downloaded if you click the SSRN icon.

my fault doc....i got your email and have the article. i've got some more that i can send to you (or to p6 or others interested) if you holler at me offline.

The download link isn't working for me.

Well and good but nevertheless I'll go over my terms to make sure we're not disagreeing over mere pedantics.

Of course I agree that Clinton is a classic neoliberal but that doesn't disqualify Condoleezza Rice.

a reasonably pure form of neoliberalism (except for some subsidies to favored businesses) is embodied in the program of the US Republican Party, and particularly the Contract with America proposed by Gingrich in 1994.

In other words, according to your own citation, it's entirely possible to be "neoliberal" and "neocon" at the same time. The former basically involves economics, the latter is some wacked out mixture of social conservatism and chickenhawk military adventurism. I stand by my assertion that most black politicians and "leaders" aren't (openly) neoliberal, at least not in the manner that the word is used in US political discourse. In my mind a quick n dirty means to determine if a pol is neoliberal in the USA is, do they support the expansion of NAFTA. Yeppers = neolib.

Condi isn't neocon instead of neoliberal. She's both.

About Obama being a neoliberal. Privately, maybe so. But in terms of his publically stated positions, this doesn't seem very neolib to me. Nor this. I would certainly put him to the left of Clinton. YMMV.

The download link isn't working for me.

If you have NoScript allow scripts for that page. If for some reason it still isn't working try here.

Javascript is always on, all the way live up in here.

When I hit the download link, I get several buttons, and this description:

File name: SSRN-id1278067.pdf ;   Size: 0K 

All the buttons tell me the file isn't there. 

This is probably not the appropriate place to say it, but the other day P6 was unavailable from here. I had just posted two articles, and both it and the account interface at my web host vanished. I ran tracert on both addresses and they were rerouted through Montreal. That would have bothered me less if intrapolitics.org and niggerati.net were not available because they're on the same machine, same IP, same account. I called tech support, spoke to a chipper young lady who looked over my accounts, asked about the derivation of niggerati.net, said something like "this is my kind of site, god forbid someone should be a revolutionary," and when I mentioned a bit of paranoia about one of three addresses at the same IP being gone, said I should send her some of my weed..."we're all liberals here, blah blah..."

The most paranoid-making feature of the discussion that the problem was cleaned up immediately. And I know for a fact DNS corrections do not propagate instantly like that, not when it's, and I quote, a "network fart" in California.

I know I scare the hell out of some folks. And I know how all of that could be done. There's a level where I couldn't give a shit about it because of my practice of never saying anything I will have to retract.  And I realize this may make some folks not want to hang here. But I got the file now, for which I thank you xigxag, and the conversation (on my part) will continue.

Submariner once said my style is "relentless". I once told my ex-fiancee she was relentless...she asked what I meant and I said "Look up 'relent' in the dictionary and understand there's none of that in you." Viewed that way, Submariner is correct.

I think your visitors are aware that there is a high probability that the conversation is being recorded and given current conditions we could be rounded up with the usual suspects.

I stand by my assertion that most black politicians and "leaders" aren't (openly) neoliberal, at least not in the manner that the word is used in US political discourse. In my mind a quick n dirty means to determine if a pol is neoliberal in the USA is, do they support the expansion of NAFTA.

It makes sense that you refer to Rice. I'm not thinking about international policy at all, but domestic policy--which is why I disqualify Rice, and why support for NAFTA is a measure of support for neoliberalism, but one that is not germane to this discussion. I'd argue that domestically neoliberalism is the open ideology that remains hidden. There are "open neoliberals" kind of like there are "open heterosexuals." The article submariner posted is excellent. This from the article:

Until very recently, this dominant view was reinforced daily in the leading newspapers, in the media, and through the voice of our national leaders both on the right and on the left—often in the most unexpected places. “The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production,” presidential candidate Barack Obama tells the New York Times. Obama adds, “I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally.”

As what has happened to P6 recently indicates, times are changing quickly. It's possible that neoliberalism died last week (and that surveillance has increased for purposes of "risk management"). It is also possible that Obama isn't in this place anymore. Certainly he hasn't blamed black fathers for the economic crisis.

Earlier this year I read The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America. It was not a fun read...but, three pages into the pdf it turns out to have been ideal preparation for this discussion.

I meant to add that when I recently tried to access your site while moonlighting at another hospital last week I encountered an alert which said your domain was restricted.

Dayum! I completely missed that book and the review. I thought I had my finger on the pulse of this stuff. Oh well....

(and that surveillance has increased for purposes of "risk management").

Let 'em read. I want the damn country I live in to work for me and mine. And maybe they'll learn something.