[lbo-talk] Michaels, Against Diversity

[Chris Maisano]

Calling Michaels a "prick" or "assholic" based simply on listening to the interview is total projection. I listened to it too, but I fail to see how either his argument or his comportment on the interview qualifies him to be regarded as such.
 
Alan says: "Why not make the same basic argument by means of the remarkable similarities associated with the disproportionate consequences of neoliberalism for lower income historically oppressed minorities and low income whites? Why not make an argument for class struggle rather than one denigrating the prioritization of race and diversity? Because such an argument gets you fewer readers, is way less sexy and garners you far less renown?"
 
- Michaels argues against the prioritization of race and diversity for the same reasons Reed does: 1) "race" doesn't adequately explain a lot of the ills that prevail in, say, predominantly African-American inner city neighborhoods (and it does nothing to address the fact that the vast majority of the poor are white); 2) you're not going to be able to do much to address those ills unless you organize for universal social programs. Most white people (and lots of socially ascendant people of color) will not want to pay taxes to fund programs that they see as primarily benefiting poor black people. Sad, but true; 3) diversity/multicultural talk more often than not pays little more than lip service to class politics, even within the left (such as it is). It's very good in my view that WBM, Reed, and others are taking whacks at some sacred cows and making the argument that - gasp! - class politics is what makes the left "the left." It's kind of weird to me

 that people are freaking out over this point.  
 
It's also really interesting to see Alan and Shag impute ulterior motives to Michaels for which there really is little to no evidence. Shag acknowledges that it's unfair to characterize his argument as driven by resentment toward rising women and people of color, but does it anyway. Alan claims that WBM's entire critique is premised upon nothing but personal advancement. Perhaps folks are just having trouble acknowledging that WBM's argument has more merit than they'd like it to.