If Conservatives Listen to Shelby Steele, They Will Never Win Support From People of Color

Steele's Arguments
Shelby Steele has written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal which purports to explain why the Republican Party cannot make inroads among persons of color. According to Steele, conservatives (whom Steele conflates with Republicans) do not appeal to people of color because Democrats have seduced them with a mutated form of liberalism that rejects individualism and replaces it with a politics of redemption.

Steele argues that "redemptive liberalism" attracts persons of color because it offers "moral accountability" for the nation's history of racism. Steele argues that liberals have used this moral trope to justify "social engineering," achieved through activism around particular causes like "integration" and "diversity." Conservatives, by contrast, would rather "ensure individual freedom" and leave the rest to the "invisible hand."

Steele argues that conservatives' focus on individualism, discipline and market principles alienates people of color for a couple of reasons. First, individualism and limited government are wholly inadequate vehicles for constructing a narrative of moral accountability. Second, people of color expect "moral activism" because they -- "especially blacks . . . are often born into grievance-focused identities." Whereas moral political activism appeals to a grievance-based culture, the "invisible hand" does not.

Problems With Steele's Arguments
Steele's arguments are troubling on many levels. I will now turn to some of the weaknesses in his essay.

Internally Inconsistent. Steele argues that persons of color have a "grievance identity," which he portrays as antithetical to conservatism. But Steele also observes that "blacks and Hispanics often poll more conservatively than whites on most social issues," which he says should make them attractive candidates for the Republican Party. Steele's observation concerning the embrace of social conservatism among persons of color is correct, but this fact undermines his simplistic effort to link Democratic support among persons of color with a grievance culture. Instead, the situation is far more complex.

Voters of all races are complicated. They often make compromises and prioritize among many issues. Civil rights concerns appeal to persons of color because they believe that remedying ongoing and past discrimination is an important function of government. Steele, however, reduces this belief in and desire for concrete solutions to a pie in the sky fantasy concerning American innocence and morality. Opinion polls, however, tend to show that people of color -- especially blacks -- have a far more cynical attitude concerning the status of race relations and the prospect for racial change.

Conservatism Is Contradictory. While conservatives espouse the virtues of limited government, they often embrace governmental intervention into some of the most personal areas of our lives, including pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation, marriage, and consumption of "obscene" materials like pornography and even "sex toys." They also support very strict restraints on liberty by expanding the criminal law, promoting heavy sentencing, and condoning highly permissive policing methods that invade personal privacy and autonomy. The "invisible hand" is only selectively invisible, and quite often, the results of conservative-sponsored governmental intervention has a disparate impact on persons of color. These policies, not a grievance culture, explain the inability of the GOP to appeal to many persons of color.

Steele's Claims Are Ahistorical. Steele argues that the 1960s civil rights legislation, busing, and Great Society programs form the redemptive glue that keeps people of color locked in the Democratic Party. But Steele's analysis could benefit from a richer appreciation of history -- and from a more deliberate effort to distinguish among different racial groups.

Blacks, for example, began voting for Democrats in great numbers in 1936, when Roosevelt received almost 80 percent of black votes. The only interruption in this pattern occurred when Dwight Eisenhower received 40 percent of black votes; his opponent, Adlai Stevenson, chose a southern segregationist as a running mate. The pattern has spiked in recent years (even before Obama) even though civil rights concerns have not dominated the Democratic Party's agenda. Bill Clinton dared to tinker with "welfare as we know it," but he maintained popularity among blacks, even though welfare is a New Deal/Great Society prized jewel.

Other groups of persons of color tend to vote for Democrats even though they do not fit neatly within the "redemptive" model Steele portrays. The busing controversy, for example, did not implicate Asian Americans as it did blacks and Latinos. And much of the civil rights legislation responded directly to black social movements. But a majority of Asian Americans vote for Democrats. On the issue of internment of Japanese Americans, a Democrat (FDR) issued the executive orders permitting the practice, and a Republican (Reagan) signed the reparations legislation into law.

Among Latinos, Cuban-Americans have voted for Republicans because the Republican Party has utilized governmental power to penalize Cuba. The "invisible hand' does not exist in this context, and Republicans have gained tremendously from governmental restraints on trade with and travel to Cuba. Perhaps what Steele calls a system of grievance and redemption is really old-fashioned political patronage, in which both parties engage.

Final Thoughts. I do not believe in an "us/them" dichotomy. Many essays on this blog, for example, criticize liberals and defend Republicans (even though I am a progressive). Only nonpartisan scrutiny of the nation's problems will produce workable solutions. Steele's essay is explicitly partisan.

I believe in a two-party or multiple-party political system, and for that reason, I hope that a credible second-party emerges (even if it is the GOP). Nonpartisans across the political spectrum must do the necessary work to make political and social progress a possibility.

(Updated/edited for style 3/17)

Sincere or False Outrage? The Obama Administration Smacks Down AIG

The federal government decided to include billions of dollars in earmarks in the recently approved omnibus budget. The federal government decided to give AIG billions of dollars without a sincere effort to regulate executive compensation.

The price of the earmarks dwarfs the value of AIG's bonuses, but the Obama administration told critics of earmarks that the budget was "last year's" business. The banking bailout -- or TARP -- was actually enacted last year, unlike the omnibus budget. As you witness the federal government condemn AIG, consider the source of the outrage.

Prior to his inauguration, President Obama met with Democrats in Congress and threatened to veto any bills that placed tougher restrictions upon the usage of TARP funds. Some Democrats, seeking greater oversight surrounding the distribution and use of TARP assistance, proposed measures that would govern the second distribution of $350 billion in federal funds for the program. Now, the White House worries that voter disenchantment with banks and bailouts will kill public support for the President's other initiatives.

Recently, a Treasury Department official testified before Congress and urged lawmakers not to "micromanage" banks. But now, the Treasury Department is outraged over AIG's bonus structure. Dictating executive compensation probably qualifies as "micromanagement."

Is the federal government's sudden outrage sincere or false?

Update: Obama is trying to negate the bonuses, paid with last year's budget.

Bernanke: Recession Will Be Over in a Few Months

He actually said by the end of this year - but that's only a few months away:

America's recession "probably" will end this year if the government succeeds in bolstering the banking system, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Sunday in a rare television interview.

In carefully hedged remarks in a taped interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," Bernanke seemed to express a bit more optimism that this could be done.

Still, Bernanke stressed — as he did to Congress last month — that the prospects for the recession ending this year and a recovery taking root next year hinge on a difficult task: getting banks to lend more freely again and getting the financial markets to work more normally.

"We've seen some progress in the financial markets, absolutely," Bernanke said. "But until we get that stabilized and working normally, we're not going to see recovery.

"But we do have a plan. We're working on it. And, I do think that we will get it stabilized, and we'll see the recession coming to an end probably this year."

So basically, the "fundamentals" were "sound," but in order to end the recession, we had to dump trillions into the banks so that they could get rid of their bad "assets" and have money left over to spend and lend. Meanwhile, the "people" get thirty bucks a month in tax cuts. But the same players who engaged in the horrific lending and investment practices that caused a lot of this "mess" will still run the show. Great.

John Stewart's thrashing of Jim Cramer does not answer all the important questions. Perhaps he should debate a real economist.

See also: Fundamentals of the Economy Are Sound -- Really?

Fundamentals of the Economy Are Sound -- Really?

During the presidential campaign, Senator John McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. This sent the media and Obama into orbit. Today and earlier this week, however, President Obama and Christina Romer -- Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors -- basically said the same thing. Jake Tapper's Political Punch blog has more details.

Romer, for example said:

"Of course, the fundamentals are sound," Romer said on Meet the Press, "in the sense that the American workers are sound. We have a good capital stock, we have good technology. We know that, temporarily, we're in a mess, right? We have seen huge job loss, we've seen very large falls in GDP. Certainly in the short run, we're in a bad situation."

But Obama beat down McCain as being "out of touch" for making the same comment:

"We just woke up to news of financial disaster, and this morning he said that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong," Obama said on September 15 in Grand Junction, Colo. "Sen. McCain - what economy are you talking about? "What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family? What’s more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your head at the end of the day?"

And earlier last week, Obama himself said that:

"[I]f we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the outstanding companies, workers, all the innovation and dynamism in this economy, then we're going to get through this. And I'm very confident about that."

Even Huffington Post, which beat up McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy were sound last September, has published an article showing the striking similarities between Romer's and McCain's statements. Since the time McCain made his comments, the stock market has plunged, unemployment has soared, foreclosures have climbed to record highs, and GDP is in free fall. But now, the fundamentals of the economy are sound when they were not last Fall. Amazing stuff.

Check out this "just posted" item: Sincere or False Outrage? The Obama Administration Smacks Down AIG

Change = Same?

Today, the Department of Justice announced that it would no longer rely upon a individual's "enemy combatant" status in order to justify indefinite detention by the President. Instead it will advance arguments rooted in the international "law of war" and the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress.

Although discarding the "enemy combatant" label makes for great political soundbite, at present, it does not materially alter the government's treatment of Al Qaeda members and other terrorism suspects, nor has it changed the government's legal position in lawsuits brought by former detainees alleging maltreatment by the government.

The government described its rhetorical shift in a formal statement and in a legal brief submitted in opposition to a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and other officials by former detainees. The plaintiffs allege that they were tortured and deprived of religious freedom. DOJ argues that the individuals have no enforceable rights against the United States and that even if they had such rights, the defendants are immune from liability.

The government will no longer claim broad authority over "enemy combatants," but will instead use a functional test to determine whether it can indefinitely detain suspects and deprive them of rights that they might otherwise possess. A closer look at the criteria, however, shows very little difference between the "new" standard and the old one used by the Bush administration.

The SCOTUS blog has the details:

Here is how [the Bush] Administration defined ["enemy combatant"]: "At a minimum, the President’s power to detain includes the ability to detain as enemy combatant those individuals who were part of, or supporting, forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners and allies. This includes individuals who were part of or directly supporting Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces, that are engaged in hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or allies. This also includes any persons who have committed a belligerent act or supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces."

Here is the definition of detention authority, without the label "enemy combatant," that the Obama Administration outlined Friday: "The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the united States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces."

SCOTUS also sets forth out the "differences" between Bush and Obama on this issue:

First, the new version requires proof of “substantial” support of Taliban or
Al-Qaeda forces, while the former version required proof of “direct” support of such forces.

Second, the new version requires proof of “substantial” support of forces (other than Taliban or Al-Qaeda) engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and its coalition partners, while the former version only required “support.”

And, third, the new version applies to a person who “directly” supported hositilities to aid enemy armed forces, while the former version only required “support” of such hostilities, and did not include the word “armed” as to enemy forces who had been supported.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents plaintiffs in the litigation, does not mince words. CCR argues that DOJ has:

[A]dopted almost the same standard the Bush administration used to detain people
without charge – with one change, the addition of the word “substantially”
before the word “supported.” This is really a case of old wine in new bottles.

This sounds like the "extraordinary rendition"/"rendition" debate.

PS: Bush also advanced arguments based on the law of war and the AUMF. Also, it does not appear that DOJ rejects Bush's argument that Article II confers detention authority upon the President; instead, it seems that it has simply declined to assert this argument.

Third Time's the Charm? Not Really: Another Treasury Nominee Bails Out

A third Treasury Department nominee has dropped out of the process, according to ABC News:

Democratic sources say that H. Rodgin Cohen, a partner in the New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and the leading candidate for Deputy Treasury Secretary, has withdrawn from consideration.

It's the third withdrawal of a top Treasury Department staff pick in less than a week. I reported last week that Cohen was likely to be officially nominated for the Deputy Treasury Secretary position.

Cohen has been a counsel to just about every major player on Wall Street, which perhaps complicated his nomination.

Now, the nomination is off.

I imagine scoring a job at the Treasury Department is losing some its past luster. Just think of the job description: "Extremely long hours, enormous public pressure to succeed, deep uncertainty regarding the potential success of your endeavors, but failure to accomplish your goals would cause a global economic collapse."

EXTREME IRONY ALERT: Rendell Says Steele Is Toast Because Republican Leaders Do Not Want A "Big Tent"

Earlier today I argued that Michael Steele's apologies to social conservatives reveal deep divisions in the Republican Party. Republicans are so divided that they are beating each other up and engaging in the same kind of suicidal behavior (like a rumored no-confidence vote for Steele) that plagued Democrats in the past.

Now, Ed Rendell, the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, has tossed some "bait" towards the Republicans. Rendell says that Steele's "days are numbered" because Republican Party leaders do not "want a big tent." If Republicans take the bait and get even more agitated over Steele and the Democrats, then they will confirm that they are like the fractured DNC of the 1980s.

EXTREME IRONY ALERT: During the Democratic primaries, Rendell -- a former Chair of the DNC -- stated that Barack Obama would have a tough time winning the Pennsylvania primary because "there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American." Pennsylvania has a closed primary (i.e., only Democrats can vote).

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

A Liberal Democrat's Take on Steele's Apologies: Imploding GOP Looks Like Democrats of the Past

More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?

Man of Steele: RNC Chair Serves Major "Swagger" During Recent Interview

From the "Post-Racial" Vault: Slate Magazine Asks Whether Michael Steele Is Barack Obama's "Evil Twin"

A Black Progressive Law Professor Responds to News That Michael Steele Will Lead the GOP