Liberals use identity politics to make economic issues "white issues". Why?

[THEANGEL&THEGAMBLER]

http://thesouthlawn.org/2015/07/01/making-black-lives-matter-to-liberals/

If this sounds absurd that’s because it is. Women and people of color care a lotabout wealth inequality and so-called “class issues,” the cornerstone of Sanders’ presidential campaign. So much so that the polling is unambiguous — those so-called “Bernie Sanders” issues are prioritized by women and people of coloragain and again.

Given that black people and other people of color are the most likely to consider themselves working class rather than middle class, this makes sense. And since the working class is disproportionately female and nonwhite — and since workers tend to be pretty smart about what is and is not in their material interest — this should not be a surprise.

So why is The New York Times and other liberal media outlets trying so hard to convince us otherwise?

This is because the issues that compel voters of color are those economic concerns that Sanders has made the cornerstone of his campaign. As Seth Ackerman points out in his breakdown of recent polling results, black voters are nearly four times more likely to list economic concerns as being of most importance to them than than they are to list the issues surrounding race relations and the justice system that have animated the Black Lives Matter protests. Matt Bruenig at Demos reaches a similar conclusion for black and latino voters. Given this evidence, perhaps the real divide is between what working people of color actually want and what wealthy white liberals say they should want? Because while it seems fine to Walsh that black people think of themselves uniformly along racial lines, it seems to really vex her and other liberals that black people might think of themselves as being part of a class.

Doing so, of course, might make them a little less #ReadyForHillary.

While these appeals target Bernie Sanders and his nascent run for the presidency, this is not really about him. It is, rather, about the ways in which liberals try to separate oppressed communities from a redistributionist politics that would disproportionately be to their material gain. These authors — like the leadership of the Democratic Party — seek to replace a materialist politics with one of rhetoric and affectation that would do little to threaten the structures that sustain racism, sexism, and class exploitation.

After all, which is more threatening to capitalism? Hillary Clinton wearing a Black Lives Matter T-shirt or a massive capital gains tax-hike? It all smacks of the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was labeled “America’s First Black President“ for being able to play a saxophone and having Toni Morrison speak at his first inaugural. Clinton doubtless played this up quite a bit himself as it was an effective way of masking his demolition of the social welfare state through the odiously-named Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, as well as the fact that he built his first campaign for president around dog-whistle politics andexecuting a mentally disabled black man.

For all the overheated concern about the need for Sanders to make Black Lives Matter, it seems that the voices of those black lives matters very little to those who are desperately attempting to claim the mantle of “ally.” The issues that matter to them the most have been suddenly labeled as “white issues,” even though the socioeconomic destruction of America’s working class — accelerated under President Obama — has hit black Americans harder than any other group, particularly black women.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Yes, liberals do try to play on disparities in occupation, academics, and economic status outcomes as something that was caused by racist white males, and still being caused by racist white males. They do this to get votes so they can further their own career and economic status. They've been doing this bullshyt ever since the 1960s, and funny enough these disparities in outcome still exist today.

-Thomas Sowell ethering a dumbass feminist using the same arguments liberals make today, 30 years ago.

 

[neph27]

disparities in occupation, academics, and economic status outcomes as something being caused by racist white males

That isn't a thing? Do racist white males not contribute to disparities in the aforementioned areas?

 

[AJaRuleStan]

That isn't a thing? Do racist white males not contribute to disparities in the aforementioned areas?

No. Economic inputs are never equal, so disparities in inputs cause disparities in outcomes which lead to disparities income. For example, if majority of the tech, science, and math fields(inputs) are dominated by Asians, and not Blacks do you expect to see equality when measuring both groups income? Of-course not, that would be illogical.

The liberals don't test for that though, they just look at some statistics and if they find some disparity between groups, they just assume it's due to discrimination fueled by white racism. It's a good angle to get votes, and it has obviously been working for the left ever since the 1960s.

 

[neph27]

No. Economic inputs are never equal, so disparities in inputs cause disparities in outcomes which lead to disparities income. For example, if majority of the tech, science, and math fields(inputs) are dominated by Asians, and not Blacks do you expect to see equality when measuring both groups income? Of-course not, that would be illogical.

The liberals don't test for that though, they just look at some statistics and if they find some disparity between groups, they just assume it's due to discrimination fueled by white racism. It's a good angle to get votes, and it has obviously been working for the left ever since the 1960s.

I think it's more nuanced then you're making it out to be. I don't think liberals look at "some statistics" and find "some disparity" and with no logical reasonin whatsoever, say "it must be Discrimination!"

Racist white males and their fears/ownership of property greatly contributed to housing discrimination which greatly contributes to educational inequality in underfunded areas which contributed to a wealth disparity/income inequality

I don't think racist white males is the absolute either, sure there are a number of factors that weigh in, but there is plenty in the world that ISO caused by racist policies.

You really don't think racism contributes AT ALL to these things? Like, not even a little bit?

 

[AJaRuleStan]

I think it's more nuanced then you're making it out to be. I don't think liberals look at "some statistics" and find "some disparity" and with no logical reasonin whatsoever, say "it must be Discrimination!"

You may think they don't use such poor logic, but what evidence do you have on the contrary to show that they in fact don't?

Racist white males and their fears/ownership of property greatly contributed to housing discrimination which greatly contributes to educational inequality in underfunded areas which contributed to a wealth disparity/income inequality

Before I perform the task to determine the validity about racist housing practices, is the base premise of your argument regarding blacks do worse than Whites or Asians academically because of lower funding/spending in black schools even valid? There is decades of evidence from the desegregation busing that started in 50s/60s that show no real educational benefits have occurred by sending blacks to schools in affluent white neighborhoods. "In 1978, a proponent of busing, Nancy St. John, studied 100 cases of urban busing from the North and did not find what she had been looking for: she found no cases in which significant black academic improvement occurred.".

Than we have research done by Abigail Thernstrom which shows that some of the most heavily financed schools are doing miserably. Even spending $17,000 per pupil, Cambridge, Massachusetts was still left with a huge gap between the test scores of its black and white students. In fact, black students in Cambridge scored lower than other black students in nearby communities with less than half as much spending per pupil.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The evidence over the years even going back to late 1800s with the all black HS in DC, Dunbar Highschool, makes it quite clear that differences in school spending is irrelevant when it comes to explaining the difference in academic outcomes.

I don't think racist white males is the absolute either, sure there are a number of factors that weigh in, but there is plenty in the world that ISO caused by racist policies.

Cite me the evidence that makes it clear that a significant cause in disparities in income between blacks and Asians for example is not due to difference of input, but due to white racism with a time span between now and the 1970s, I suppose.

You really don't think racism contributes AT ALL to these things? Like, not even a little bit?

In the context of our discussion, racism has contributed in the disparities of outcome for Blacks to the same degree in which it has for Asian Americans. And remember, Asians are out-achieving whites in education and income.