American Welfare

[phantom power]

Digby has been on fire with his posts on the intersection of racisim with people's reactions to Katrina's aftermath. Today, he broadens the scope and talks about the future. I recommend his recent posts for anybody interested in issures of racism and classism in American politics.

Unfortunately, in America (class & race) are inextricably intertwined. You will never be able to separate them because the bedrock value of American "individualism" and the belief that the poor are simply unwilling to work is directly a result of our attitudes about race.

(...)

It comes down to the veto power or dominance of the conservative southern states in electoral politics, just as we see it today. And it is one reason we have been unable to advance liberal government programs short of a national crisis or brief period of consensus --- and win much in the south since 1968.

(...)

Racism informs many Americans' ideas about poverty. It is also one of the darker philosphical underpinnings of our vaunted American individualism. From the beginning we had problems because government programs often had to help blacks as a last resort. It is why today many people believe that welfare has a black face even though far more welfare recipients are white. It is why we have developed the idea that the poor (pictured in our minds' eye as black and brown) are lazy and shiftless rather than unfortunate. (Europe, with its long history of class division doesn't see poverty this way.) It's why certain people made the assumption that the poor and black in New Orleans were all on welfare rather than the truth, which is that many of them are members of the urban working poor.

(...)

The sad fact is that in that great sea of Republican red, there are many whites who would rather do without health care than see money go to pay for programs that they believe benefit blacks to the detriment of whites. Their prejudice overwhelms their economic self-interest and always has. They vote for the party that reinforces their belief that government programs only benefit the undeserving african american poor.

(...)

That is why liberals have to accept that race must be part of the argument. We are making progress. Things are better. But progress requires staying focused on the issue and ensuring that there is no slippage, no matter how difficult and cumbersome this debate feels at times. The liberal agenda depends upon forcing this out of the national bloodstream with each successive generation not only for moral reasons, which I know we all believe, but it also depends upon forcing it out of the bloodstream for practical reasons. Until this knee jerk reaction to black poverty among certain whites (and Pat Buchanan), particularly in the south, is brought to heel we are fighting an uphill battle to muster the consensus we need to create the kind of nation that guarantees its citizens a modern, decent safety net regardless of race or class.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_09_11_digbysblog_archive.html#112655061384794954

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. A question to ponder

This article stated:

"Until this knee jerk reaction to black poverty among certain whites (and Pat Buchanan), particularly in the south, is brought to heel we are fighting an uphill battle to muster the consensus we need to create the kind of nation that guarantees its citizens a modern, decent safety net regardless of race or class."

How can we effect this change? How do we bring it to heel?

[phantom power]

2. I've heard it said that the best way to combat racism...

is to expose it to daylight. Progress got made in the 60s and 70s because enough people would say "Hey, that comment was racist, and it's not OK with me."

Unfortunately, the racists learned to counteract this in at least two ways: the first was the "anti-PC" movement. They would counter-attack "Stop being so PC, lighten up!" The second, even more important, way was the much-discussed use of "code words" used by modern GOP politicians, personalities like Rush, etc. Some clever person came up with the term "dog whistle politics." It allowed the latent racists to continue to express their racism, under the radar.

What does that mean? I think maybe it means we have to keep bringing it up wherever we see it. The use of code-words makes it harder, since it provides a lot more plausible deniability in a conversation. I guess we have to not be afraid of saying "I know what you're really saying." And not backing down when they deny it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

3. Abso - FUCKING - lutely!

"I guess we have to not be afraid of saying "I know what you're really saying." And not backing down when they deny it."

Way, WAY too many whites who don't consider themselves racists don't take issue, EVER, with even the most blatant racist remarks by other whites. They just roll their eyes or change the subject. Without being overly aggressive, one could just say, "Wow, I never expected you to say something so racist", something, ANYTHING, to let them know that you know what they're saying and that you don't approve.

[patdem]

4. I was AMAZED I went to a NYT article and it was linked to an Oprah article

but it delivered an ad for some rich folk kids clothes..and they were ALL WHITE...You know maybe before this happened in NOLA I might have just clicked through, but now it is SO OBVIOUS!

[Karenina]

6. Astute observation.

:kick: for Digby. He REALLY covered ALL the territory.

[Karenina]

5. Very comprehesive piece!

:thumbsup: