I'm surprised to find myself disagreeing with Lindsey's latest at @NiskanenCenter. Importantly, he pretty much accepts the slate of antiracist diagnoses, but argues we should address Black disadvantage obliquely with popular race neutral policies. THREAD
.@lindsey_brink argues that antiracist rhetoric is too zero-sum, too intent on white privilege. He presses the case for a positive sum framing. As it happens, I agree, and @hmcghee's the Sum of Us is an excellent case for a positive sum antiracism. 2/n
But note it is "positive sum antiracism," not "positive sum non-racism." Lindsey errs for two reasons: 1) there are intrinsically zero-sum racialized status contests, and 2) the popularity of Black disadvantage-dissolving policies is politically dynamic. 3/n
The problem here is that our first African American President religiously avoided racial controversy, pursued a positive sum healthcare reform, and still provoked a racist Tea Party movement, massive resistance GOP Senate, and a racist backlash in the form of Trump. 4/n
Similarly, the social status of whites as the dominant and majority race is under real threat from brown and Black immigrants. This simply *must* be met head on with a cultural antiracism. But that antiracism can be positive sum! 5/n
Second point. @lindsey_brink cites popular policies that could dissolve Black disadvantage while also benefiting many whites: abundant housing, more generous welfare, etc. @hmcghee's whole book is about popular positive sum policies that *become* racialized and lose support. 6/n
Just as Nixon originally supported a UBI, when the rubber meets the political road these positive sum race-neutral policies will *become* racialized, and if we fastidiously avoid talking about race ourselves, the only salient racial talking point is the dog whistle. 7/n
But @hmcghee correctly insists that these policies *do* advantage whites. A positive sum antiracism describes the benefits *for everyone* when we don't let ourselves get hoodwinked by racist framing. This doesn't mean we have to frame things *only* in terms of helping Blacks. 8/n
Even for the highest status whites, I believe in the long term we all stand to gain by ending racism. The vision of a society in which the full productive powers of all are developed & free to flourish is a profound expression of the liberal idea of a harmony of interests. 9/n
.@lindsey_brink is always worth reading in full. I reiterate that he is onto something by pressing positive-sumness. But our history gives ample evidence that facially race-blind approaches will be warped by racist narratives either to Black disadvantage or to dead end. 11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I keep coming across this and I worry it's the latest iteration of "Let's not talk about race," which has historically given cover for ... not addressing racial inequality.
I'm in no position to question the research quality, and I don't. And yet here is a short THREAD.
The paper presents a racial justice framing for a handful of issues and compares their support against these framings: race-neutral, class, and racial justice + class.
So far so good, but what if in the real world there *is no such thing as a race-neutral framing?* 2/6
Suppose Democrats align to "stop making it all about race" as my white mother used to say. Well, Republicans *will* make it about race, by deploying either the dog whistle rhetoric of "welfare queens," "super predators," etc or the overt racism Trump dusted off. 3/6
Very interesting stuff! I will quickly live tweet this. The headline result is that @emilyekins and @AlexNowrasteh find similar results to Gallup's tracking poll, finding increasing support for immigration since about 2010. 1/n
This is mostly from Democrats, though note that despite increasing(ly loud) overt racism from the GOP, Republicans have not gotten more restrictionist over the past 20 years. @POTUS take note: embrace immigration! You have stable support from Democrats. 2/n
I'm here to tell you that "racist beliefs" and a "sincere interest in controlling the border" are, uh, not mutually exclusive. Turns out you can have a sincere racist interest in controlling the border! 3/n
Adam Smith's sympathetic method and "impartial spectator" can be an antidote to the Millsian epistemology of ignorance. Where the Rawlsian veil of ignorance abstracts away critical info, Smith's sympathetic method explicitly reaches out to pull more information in. 1/6
The impartiality of the "inhabitant of the breast" is constructed asymptotically by "entering into" the feelings & circumstances of the other, engaging in a kind of reflective equilibrium with one's own thoughts & iterating outward, reaching beyond one's own culture. 2/6
Amartya Sen calls this "open impartiality" to contrast with the "closed impartiality" of contractarian traditions that tend to smuggle in dominant group biases. Smith's open impartiality takes place in *realized* social contexts, rather than ideal-theoretic just institutions. 3/6
1. Starting with something recent. Confronting Inequality, by Jonathan Ostry, Prakash Loungani, and Andrew Berg. There is, over the long term, probably an *inverse* correlation between inequality and economic growth. We can foster *durable* growth with egalitarian policies.
2. Rule of the Clan, by Mark Weiner. Individual freedom is made possible in significant part by the anonymity and rule of law of modern, bureaucratic states.
The article is short on specifics, but that's probably for the best. I tend to think of this project as one of mutual, suspicious recognition, where one ensemble of *mostly* acceptable policies encounters the other ensemble of mostly tolerable policies in legislative compromise.
Much of the progress in forming a liberal-socialist coalition on specific policy areas can come from socialists and liberals reaching the same reforms but formulating them in their own respective rhetoric. And possibly gaining greater appreciation for the resources of the other.
On the Panpsychist podcast one of the hosts asks about the ethics of sex work. Manne gives an answer about the difficulty of living as a woman under patriarchy with fraught options. 1/
This is a good answer as far as it goes, but the book is about male entitlement. The more interesting question about sex work is does it imply an objectionable entitlement to sex? This seems like a hard problem for Manne's framework, especially considering male sex workers. 2/
Similarly, Manne sends a footnoted "pace Srinivasan" to @amiasrinivasan's truly outstanding essay on the question "Does anyone have a right to sex?" I would love to read Manne's considerations on it. 3/ lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/…