>Those suspicious of economic populism are of
>little political consequence, as far as left
>politics are concerned. I have no doubt that
>blacks and latinos would be the first to jump
>on board an economic populist movement which
>white workers were strongly supporting and even
>leading. Only the p-b left and a few middle
>class civil rights types will squawk about some
>issues being demoted in rank. Because blacks
>and latinos are so overwhelmingly working class,
>they will understand that class legislation is
>in their interest, even if it doesn't speak to
>the entirety of their interests. By contrast,
>it seems clear that the present course of
>de facto separation isn't getting them anywhere.
Doug replied: <<Why do you frame this as an either/or thing? Don't you think "race" has something to do with why so many working-class whites vote Republican? If we don't talk about race, will it go away? If you want it to go away, your very talking about it reinforces the concept.>>
One way of characterizing the dispute is: which approach implies the 'either/or' classification. In a nutshell, I would say that the usual way of 'talking about race' implies an either/or approach that goes the other way: class is dispensed in favor of race. This is implicit in elevating race to a rank ahead of, or on a par with, class.
My position is that prioritizing race above class ensures that race concerns will never be served, and that conversely putting class first is the only way to make possible the effective pursuit of fairness.
I'll go out on a bit of a limb, at least on this list, by making a distinction between putting race and class on the same plain, and putting the latter ahead of the former.
My life experience in talking to MANY white, working-class people about politics is that class must come first, with everything else in second place (or less). Nobody can refute this unless they can bring to bear and make better sense of more extensive experience, which only a few people here have, as far as I can see. I'm not saying I accomplished anything as an organizer. I accomplished nothing. But this is what I took from the experience.
My other motivation is in what I think constitutes economic policy that is both effective and politically feasible--universalist policy. The "u" word seemed to arouse a fair amount of rancor, but little substantive reaction, the last time I invoked it.
Nathan said:
> . . .
> But I think he buys into the conventional wisdom that affirmative action
> is the key problem progressives have faced in losing working class white
> voters. Max did not say this but others have argued that affirmative
> action has been supported by upper-income whites against the wishes of
> lower-income whites who often have born the burden of its implementation.
A-A is a "key problem" by my reasoning only if it is elevated above everything else, which it has never been. That there is a class difference among white in support for a-a premised on economic considerations seems beyond dispute (e.g., rich people are content to support the location of scatter-site housing in middle class areas).
> Now there is no question that many working class whites resent affirmative
> action, but the interesting result of both Prop 209 and the Houston
> affirmative action fights were that working class whites were vastly more
> likely to support affirmative action than richer white voters. (I haven't
> seen the exit polls from Washington State). Prop 209 had a increasing rate
> of support based on the income level of the white voter, while the Houston
> initiative was evenly split between low-income whites while upper-income
> whites overwhelmingly supported it.
This is all heartening news, but even if true is not necessarily enough reason to rank race and class equally.
> And my political suspicion is even the moderate opposition of white
> working class voters to affirmative action would disappear in the context
> of stronger class legislation. In the context where the state was
> positively remedying economic inequality, most white working class voters
> are quite capable of recognizing the obligation for remedying issues of
> economic exploitation attribuatable to existing racism or deriving from
> past discrimination.
Exactimundo. Just as in a growing economy it is easier to enhance redistributive measures that do not entail an absolutely lower level of income for the better-off.
I won't rehash the majority-minority part of the discussion, of which Nathan has a rosier view than I, except to concur that it is reasonable to expect black and Latino politicians to be among the first to seek a broader class-based coalition and agenda. They and their constituents have the most to gain. It's better to compete for Miss America than win Miss Black America.
Regarding Latinos, most understand that the Cubans are a bit of a special case, though clearly very important in Florida. But the scuttlebut I get is that a) if the issue of policy towards Castro is off the table, Cuban-Americans tilt Democratic; and b) the younger generations of Cubans are more amenable to liberal appeals than their forebears.
Otherwise Latinos are clearly interested in messages hostile to abortion and partial to the Republican take on family values (as are many African- Americans, especially in the South). All the more reason for Democrats to stop reverting to appeals touting their superior commitment to racial justice which are, at the very least, debatable.
MBS