Too Hot For Jacobin
This blog is reserved for postings too boring or lazy even for my blogging at Jacobin. It was started mainly to please Mike Konczal. Posts will be short, slapdash, and ill thought-out.
Friday, January 6, 2017
White Party ID in 2016
Party identification (includes leaners) among non-Hispanic white registered voters in 2016 - from Pew.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Sympathy for the Devil?
Vox’s Dylan
Matthews wants
the media to stop making excuses for Trump supporters. The Trump phenomenon isn’t
about “post-industrial decay,” he writes. It’s not happening because “neoliberal
capitalism is failing.” Such depictions, by Beltway media types on one side and
“leftists and social democrats” on the other, willfully ignore the obvious.
“The press has gotten extremely comfortable with describing
a Trump electorate that simply doesn’t exist,” Matthews says. If you want to
know the Trump supporters’ concerns, you just have to look at what they’re
saying in polls: It’s about racial resentment. It’s about white nationalism. Matthews
has the data to prove it.
For one thing, they’re not working class, or even
economically struggling; “Trump’s supporters are not the wretched of the earth.”
Matthews points out that at the national level the median income of Trump’s primary
voters was higher than Hillary Clinton’s. Support for Trump in polls was
“correlated with” higher income, even among whites. Yet, perversely, the media
has been pumping out feature stories about the fervor for Trump in
hard-scrabble places like Leetonia,
Ohio, or Creston,
Iowa -- places that, statistically, don’t even exist by Matthews’s
calculations.
It’s not that Matthews doesn’t care about real economic
suffering; he’s no conservative. He recognizes that globalization has been hard
on many Americans. He knows that there are poor whites in this country as well
as poor blacks and Latinos. “The government should help people who are
materially struggling,” he writes. “And Hillary Clinton, to her great credit, has
offered programs…that will leave millions of white Trump supporters much better
off.”
But for Matthews, the key point is this: “This isn’t worth
doing to win back their votes; it’s worth doing because it’s the right thing to
do.”
That’s a curious idea. If Matthews supports the Democratic
party’s agenda, why wouldn’t he want it to win back as many Trump votes it can?
How can the Democrats gain the kinds of majorities they need to push through
all the beneficent policies he cites if they fail to win votes away from the
other side? Isn’t that one of the ways parties win elections -- by taking votes
from the other side? In fact, isn’t that why Hillary Clinton’s campaign is now
wooing anti-Trump Republicans?
Obviously Matthews wouldn’t want Democrats to use racist appeals
to win Trump votes, and neither would I. But neither does he claim that
anyone’s calling for such a step. He certainly doesn’t cite anyone who is.
What he does complain about is the “unprecedented outpouring
of sympathy” for Trump voters that he sees in the media: the earnest pleas, often
written by conservatives or Beltway-pundit types, that we should listen to the
concerns of “the
millions of white voters living on the edges of the economy,” the “decent,
sincere people who feel disregarded,” and so on.
Matthews finds these stories exasperating. And you do have
to agree with him when he points out that there was never any comparable litany
of hand-wringing about the “concerns of Mitt Romney voters” or the “interests
of Hillary Clinton supporters.”
But then again, when I look at my Twitter feed, which is
full of elite media types, the main outpouring I see is just the opposite: a
flood of contempt and disgust for Trump supporters, not just for the
irresponsible votes they cast, but for their defective character as a group. Come
to think of it, that might help to explain the rash of sympathetic pieces.
Matthews’s admonition against trying to win back Trump voters
reminds me of one my favorite quotes from the ever-colorful Grover Norquist. In
a 2006 American Prospect roundtable, the conservative
anti-tax impresario was asked about the gay rights issue -- at the time, he was
taking heat from fellow Republicans for his work with gay organizations:
I speak to the Log Cabin Republicans
and work with them on a whole host of issues … The Human Rights Campaign on
certain things … So I get trashed from time to time by some of my friends. I
think it’s a mistake to write off any group.
I was in Romania, they’re having
elections in four weeks, and I was organizing the non-communists. And I had
them write on a blackboard: Who’s Voting for Us, Who’s Voting for Them. And
they had to list [the voter groups and] understand why everybody was [voting
that way].
They had the gypsies voting for the
Communists. And I said, “OK, I get why the Communists are voting for the
Communists, and the Army and the police and the guys with government jobs. But
why the gypsies?” If I were a gypsy I’d want to live outside [even] touchy-feely
U.S. law, much less harsher communist law.
And they said, “Well, the
communists buy them liquor and then they vote for them.”
And I said, “We can do this. George
Washington did this, it’s OK.” And they said, “No, the gypsies are scum and we
won’t talk to them.” And I said, “OK, I guess you’re not getting the gypsy vote
then.”
In politics, you want to have as
few gypsies as possible, as few groups of people who are not voting for you
because you’re not talking to them.
Maybe it’s not surprising that a conservative like Norquist
and a liberal outlet like Vox would
have differing views of politics. What’s surprising is Vox’s preference for the outlook of the Romanian right.
***
But aren’t the Trump voters inseparable from the racist
appeals of Trump himself? That’s what Matthews seems to argue, with the aid of
a raft of studies and data.
In doing so, he sheds useful light on the standard liberal
way of thinking about politics. Matthews seems to take individuals as the elementary
particles of political life. The individual is apparently endowed with a more
or less well-defined set of attitudes on all the major issues of the day. If
you sum up the aggregate of those opinions, what you get is “politics”: election
returns, opinion polls, legislative roll calls, all the quantitative mass
phenomena of national politics. These are just the sum of individual brains.
As for how those opinions got manufactured and sorted into
all those brains, that’s a question for psychology, or history, or economics, not
politics.
You can see this methodology at work in the studies Matthews
cites to make his case. Almost all of them follow the same approach. First, they
measure the attitudes expressed by Trump supporters in multiple-choice polling
questions. Then they compare them to the answers of non-Trump supporters. (Usually
they control for other factors as well.) Whichever issues most sharply distinguish
the Trumpist group from non-Trumpists are assumed to reveal the Trump
supporters’ innermost feelings, hopes, and fears – in short, their motivations.
Individual motivations, it’s assumed, can be inferred from group differences.
In summing up all the correlations and cross-tabs, Matthews
is very clear on this point: “Trump’s voters [are] motivated by genuine political disagreement about race”; “these
people [are] motivated by racial
resentment”; “Trump’s supporters are not, in fact, motivated by economic marginalization.”
I’ve seen most of the studies Matthews links to. As far as I
can tell, none analyzed polling questions that actually asked people what was “motivating”
them. Instead, they used standard polling questions like: What is your
household income? Do you approve of Obama? Should taxes be cut? Should
immigration be reduced? Is black poverty caused by a lack of effort? Actual motivations
were never recorded: they were inferred by researchers, using math, and then
imputed to Trump supporters en bloc.
For example, one of the studies Matthews cites analyzed
questions from the 2016 ANES
pilot survey. According to Matthews, the study concluded that while “support
for Trump is correlated most strongly with party ID, the second biggest factor…was
racial resentment.” The study’s author concluded
that “Trump support isn’t about the economy.”
Meanwhile, the same ANES survey had actually included a battery
of questions that did try to ask
respondents about their motivations. It listed 21 different political issues
and asked: “Which of the following issues are the most important to you in
terms of choosing which political candidate you will support?”
Trump’s three signature racially-coded themes -- immigration,
terrorism, and crime – were among the possible choices; a third of Trump
supporters picked one of those as their top issue. Two-thirds did not. 51% chose
traditional kitchen-table issues like the economy, health care, Social Security,
taxes, or the national debt. Another 8% chose culture-war issues like abortion,
gay rights, or “morality.” And the remaining 8% chose “military strength,”
“foreign policy,” or gun control.
***
Let me be clear. All of the following are true: From the
start, Trump has put naked appeals to racism at the center of his campaign. In
the process, he has magnetized a congeries of alt-right eugenicists,
Confederate flag-wavers, and paranoid Mexican-haters to his cause. And then he went
on to win 52% of the Republican vote in the primaries; he’ll probably win at
least 40% of the popular vote in November.
Those facts aren’t in dispute. The question is what to make
of them. There’s no doubt that the nation’s “white nationalists” provide
disproportionate support to Trump’s racist campaign – and given the campaign’s
tone, it would be very strange if they didn’t. Presumably, the nation’s
socialists also provided “disproportionate” support to the Bernie Sanders
campaign. And that sort of effect seems to account for how all the studies Matthews
cites arrived at their findings, mathematically speaking.
For example, Matthews points to a study by UCLA’s Michael
Tesler who found that “support for Trump in the primaries strongly correlated
with respondents' racial resentment,” and did so more strongly than McCain’s
support in 2008 or Romney’s in 2012. What that means concretely, if you look at
Tesler’s charts,
is that on the one hand Trump did a lot better than Romney and McCain among the
more racially-resentful half of Republicans; but on the other hand, he did equally
well as them among the less racially-resentful
half. From eyeballing Tesler’s charts, it appears that the more racially-resentful
half of Republicans contributed a bit under 50% of Romney and McCain’s primary
support. For Trump, the number was about 60%.
If that difference doesn’t seem all that big, it’s because while
Trump has been very effective at mobilizing the most obsessively racist fraction
of Americans to his cause -- and great at winning Republican votes overall -- he
hasn’t been manufacturing more racists.
Indeed, amid the flood of “explainer” articles reporting the
findings of complicated regression studies on racist attitudes, it’s striking how
rarely you see simple aggregate numbers. The heated polarization of the Obama
and Tea Party era in particular gave rise to an outpouring of intricate studies
on the political correlates of “racial resentment” – dozens of which have been
reported in Vox. Meanwhile, in a
co-authored academic article
published this year, Donald Kinder, the University of Michigan social scientist
who first developed the concept of racial resentment, reported: “Racial
resentment is essentially stationary over the last quarter century, as measured
by the ANES or by the GSS. We detect no sign here that White Americans’ racial
resentments hardened during the Obama Presidency.”
Likewise, Gallup regularly asks the question, “Should
immigration be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?” Anti-immigration
sentiment has been in long-term decline among non-Hispanic whites. In 2002, those
wanting less immigration exceeded those wanting more by 43 percentage points.
This year that number was 22 percentage points.
And that seems to be the case all around the world. Take the
example of France, where the level of racism in political discourse seems to
reach new heights every week and the far-right has been on the ascendant for decades.
Yet, the percentage of the French who say there are “too many immigrants in
France” fell from 75% in 1988 to 50% in 2012. The percentage who think
immigration is a “source of cultural enrichment” rose from 44% in 1992 to 75%
in 2009. The percentage who agree that immigrant workers “should be seen as
being at home here, since they contribute to the French economy” rose from 66%
in 1992 to 84.5% in 2009.
In one sense, these figures -- taken from a comprehensive
2013 study
of long-run French public opinion by a team of political
sociologists led by Vincent Tiberj of the Center for European Studies at Sciences-Po
-- shouldn’t come as a surprise. As the authors note, it’s long been
understood that tolerance rises with education levels, and education levels
have been rising for decades. Older and less-educated groups, in turn, are
affected by the liberalizing cultural climate driven by younger and
more-educated cohorts, albeit with a lag.
Thus, over the long run, each generation tends to express
more tolerant attitudes than the last, and each generation tends to get more tolerant
as it ages. “In all Western countries,” Tiberj says, “electorates are,
generally speaking, more open and more tolerant than they’ve ever been.”
Yet you’d never guess any of that from watching the reactionary
spiral of French political discourse. Tiberj explains
the “paradox” this way:
Historically, France has never been
more tolerant. Yet polarization on cultural values has never been as strong,
either. The explanation is simple: If there’s a rightward shift, it’s above all
a shift in the political debate.
When Mitterrand was reelected in
1988, the electorate still voted according to its socio-economic values. To put
it simply, white-collar professionals voted for the right and workers voted for
the left.
Starting with Nicolas Sarkozy’s [hard-right]
2007 campaign, things changed: voters started to vote according to both their
socio-economic and their cultural values….
[And] while Nicolas Sarkozy didn’t
hesitate to assert a right-wing ideological narrative to push a wedge into the
debate, François Hollande has a lot more trouble with that….
Generally speaking, political discourse
re-shapes the logic of voting: the rightward shift isn’t a demand coming from
the electorate, it’s a result of the political supply… Our study tends to
demonstrate the primordial importance of ideological combat.
Sensational events like riots, scandals, or terrorist
attacks do cause short-run declines in tolerant attitudes, Tiberj finds. Eventually they're forgotten and tolerant attitudes resume their long-run rise. But in the meantime, they can have long-run effects on politics by altering the terms of political debate -- the ideological formulations offered by visible representatives of the left and the right. These are crucial in determining
the tenor of the political discourse. And that tenor, in turn, alters how
individuals understand their own relationship to politics, their own interests
-- even their own “motivations.”
“The same individual can simultaneously present dispositions
to tolerance and to prejudice,” write Tiberj and his co-authors, “with the prevalence
of the one over the other being strongly dependent on the environment, the
information received, and recent events that have made an impression on them.”
***
In one of those journalistic forays to the struggling
pro-Trump hinterland that Matthews finds so annoying, the Guardian’s Paul Lewis and Tom Silverstone recently traveled to West Virginia for a video
reportage on the most pro-Trump county in the state's Republican primaries: McDowell County.
A former coal mining area that lost its mines, McDowell is about as destitute and decrepit as you
might expect.
One man they spoke to, a poor and elderly former coal miner
of 26 years, was a life-long member of the United Mine Workers. “I voted for
that black guy two times,” he says with a laugh. Asked how he’ll vote in
November, he says he’ll vote for Trump. His reason is, “Donald’s going to put
all the coal mines back.”
Historically, being a member of a union – especially a
combative union with an active internal life – is the most important instance of
the kind of external force that Tiberj points to as having the potential to transform how individuals translate their “dispositions to tolerance and to prejudice”
into their political outlook and behavior.
West Virginia’s history is a fine example of this. In the
1920s, when the UMW was weak and declining, the state’s politics were
reactionary, dominated by ruthless coal operators and the Ku Klux Klan. But the
resurgence of the UMW in the 1930s on the back of militant mass strikes transformed
West Virginia politics, integrating its otherwise insular working class tightly
into a national labor-liberal New Deal coalition that depended for its survival
on black workers and black voters.
That’s why in 1964, four months after Lyndon Johnson signed
the Civil Rights Act, West Virginia voted for him against the anti-labor
Goldwater by the sixth-largest margin of any state. It’s why in 1968, when the
Democrat on the ticket was the labor-liberal Hubert Humphrey – a figure who for twenty years had been more visibly committed to the civil rights issue than any other national politician – West Virginia's vote for him was the seventh-largest in the country. (And its vote for George Wallace was far
lower than the other border states.)
And remarkably, that union effect continues today, on a
smaller scale: in 2012 Barack Obama’s deficit among non-college whites in the top half of the racial-resentment scale
was 26 percentage points smaller among those who belonged to unions than those
in non-union households, according to data from the large-sample Cooperative
Congress Election Study.
What’s remarkable about this is that union
membership today is so often a lamentably low-intensity, low-commitment affair. It’s almost surprising to find it having any aggregate effect
at all. And yet by re-shaping the individual’s understanding of the stakes of
politics, being in a union still has a powerful effect on how “dispositions to tolerance and to prejudice” translate into political
behavior.
***
Trump’s voters in November will come in different
varieties. There will be McMansion-dwelling evangelicals in the Atlanta
suburbs. There will be owners of prosperous construction businesses in rural
California. And there will also be voters like that West Virginia ex-coal miner in
the Guardian report.
A charitable reading of Matthews’s piece is that he
merely wants us to keep those first two types in mind, lest we succumb to the
illusion that the Trump phenomenon was all about downtrodden coal miners. A
less charitable reading is that he wants us to forget that it was about that,
too.
Given the long, slow slide in the Democrats’ performance in the House of Representatives, the governors’ mansions and the state legislatures, many will ask what the party could do to strengthen its position. As analysts sift through the returns, Trump’s eye-popping margins among non-college whites will generate a great deal of commentary. (In 2012, Obama lost even whites with a college
degree but without postgraduate training.)
The numbers will be clear: downscale whites are a big pool of untapped votes. Yet if a cordon sanitaire is placed around that demographic
territory and hung with the notorious label, “Trump Vote,” the Democrats will be even more likely to let the party system drift down its current path: into the culture-war
politics of the reactionary Tammany-vs.-Klan 1920s, rather than the class-based politics that
followed.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
An Open Letter to Riss, Care of The Internet (by Daniel Schneidermann)
On Thursday, the well known French media critic Daniel Schneidermann, founder of the left-leaning media critique website "Arrêt Sur Images," published this column at the site.
It takes the form of an open letter to Riss, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist who drew the already notorious cartoon (published Wednesday) depicting Alan Kurdi, the drowned Syrian refugee child, as an adult groping women in the street. Below is a translation.
***
by Daniel Schneidermann
Hey Riss! Can I talk to you for a minute? We don’t know each
other, I don’t have your cell number, or even your publicity department’s. But
since je suis Charlie, I’ll allow
myself to address you as tu, and to
send you a letter, care of The Internet.
Yesterday afternoon, the social networks, buzzing with
outrage as usual, were spreading around this drawing, apparently taken from the
latest Charlie Hebdo, which had come
out that same morning.
The drawing did not especially disturb me. Nor did it make
me laugh. It only brought to mind the spirit of Hara-Kiri [CH’s anarchic
1960s forerunner], the spirit of its Choron-Cavanna-Reiser era,
indiscriminately going after everything that moves -- the cops AND the
protestors, the generals AND the pacifists, the idiots, the government
bureaucrats, the fascists, the academics. And so, why not, the migrants
too, without giving all that much thought to whether we’re talking about the
migrants themselves, or the migrants as les
fachos depict them. Throw it all in, it’s all good for ink.
Yeah but, you see, here on staff, people didn’t take it that
way. The young members (practically zygotes), those for whom the great
Choron-Cavanna-Reiser go-after-everything-that-moves era is just something
they’ve read about in books — you know what? They totally saw a racist drawing.
It should be said that yes, this is a generational issue.
What image do they have of Charlie Hebdo?
A journalistic oddball, the main debate about which is whether or not it’s made up
of Islamophobes. A paper whose content we’ve meticulously combed for traces (or
not) of Islamophpbia. And, recently, a paper known for stints by [Philippe] Val
and [Caroline] Fourest, footsolidiers of French Islamophobia, even though — I
know, I know — they haven’t been there for a while.
Seen from that point of view, nothing differentiates your
drawing, Riss, from a drawing that could be published in Minute or Valeurs Actuelles
[publications aligned with the FN].
Nothing. To see the difference between it and a drawing in Minute or Valeurs Actuelles,
one would have to have a picture of the whole page or the whole issue it was
published in. I’m not going to show all the drawings from the issue. Above the
fateful doodle, another sketches Valls and Taubira [the prime minister and
justice minister]. Below, another mocks the cartoonists themselves. Just as
savagely, throughout the issue, sketches of Bowie, the imam-priest-rabbi trio,
God, Hollande, the cops, Johnny Halliday, Depardieu, the Dakar motor race,
Sarkozy, Juppé, Trump, a pedophile priest, etc., etc. I draw no conclusions.
But this is one of the elements that characterize the “lieu d’énonciation” [a
semiotic term meaning, roughly, the context of the speech-act], which is
important for anyone who wants to make their own judgment on the drawing.
The problem is that this drawing, assiduously propagated by
the very people who want to denounce it, will reach audiences who will never
have access to the whole issue of Charlie
Hebdo. And the same goes for this letter that I’m sending you with my
meager weapons, my words, seeing as how I draw about as well as a saucepan.
It’s a huge problem. We talked about this with Luz [former Charlie cartoonist and survivor of last year’s attack – video of
that interview is here], this terrible risk of misunderstanding,
multipled a hundredfold by the social networks, when he came here to talk
about his lovely book, Catharsis (and was left perplexed by one of your drawings, mashing up Boko Haram sex slaves
with child benefits).
The problem is still there. With no other solution than,
laughably, to patiently explain the lieux
d’énonciation, which I proposed recently in a little book. Patient-explanation-of-the-lieux-d’énonciation.
Just writing those pompous words, I feel how laughable that solution is when
faced with the power of a drawing.
There are things that can be done, however. If you really
tried, you could find ways to signal that the message of your drawing (“don’t hassle me about Aylan, if he’d lived
he would have become a rapist like the others”) does not express your
thought — the author’s — but that of a narrator who might be, for example, a
fat, ugly, racist Archie Bunker[1]
type. A talented and experienced cartoonist like you, if he really wants to, can always signal, if he really does want to do it, this distance between
author and narrator. But he still has think through this distance. And this
distance still has to exist.
Salutations
Charlie.
[1] A
side note: The French word used here – beauf
(short for beau-frère, or brother-in-law) – refers to a Drunk Uncle/Al
Bundy/Archie Bunker type. It was the name of a character made famous in the
1970s by the cartoonist Cabu, and is now an everyday word in informal French (to
the point that many French people use it without knowing where it came
from). Cabu was also killed last year in the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Saturday, July 25, 2015
I will take the bait
Hillary Clinton is an astute campaigner. In a Facebook
Q&A the other day, she was asked about the Black Lives Matter protestors who
interrupted Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. The moderator asked her the same
question those protestors had posed to her rivals: How would she “begin to
dismantle structural racism in the United States"?
Her answer was deft:
Black lives matter. Everyone in
this country should stand firmly behind that. We need to acknowledge some hard
truths about race and justice in this country, and one of those hard truths is
that that racial inequality is not merely a symptom of economic inequality. Black
people across America still experience racism every day.
Like any good politician, Clinton knows what her audience
wants to hear. She also knows how to put her opponent on the back foot. Because
how could Bernie Sanders respond to that? What's he going to say -- racial
inequality is merely a symptom of
economic inequality? He's not going to say that. Nobody would.
Well, get ready for a hot take, ladies and gentlemen,
because that’s exactly what I’ll say here. Angry responses can be addressed to the
comments box at the bottom.
***
Here’s my question to the angry commenters. If racial
inequality isn’t merely a symptom of economic inequality, what is it a symptom
of?
I already feel like I can hear the answer: it's a symptom of hundreds of years of slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and urban
apartheid.
Yes. But what were slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and urban
apartheid if not extreme forms of economic inequality?
What was the point of England’s colonization of Ireland if not to impose a lucrative “economic inequality” on its victims? Was the urban apartheid of Haussmann’s Paris not the “symptom”
of nineteenth century economic inequality?
And what exactly do you think all those African slaves were doing in the American South?
To quote Barbara Fields:
Probably a majority of American
historians think of slavery in the United States as primarily a system of race
relations—as though the chief business of slavery were the production of white
supremacy rather than the production of cotton, sugar, rice and tobacco. One
historian has gone so far as to call slavery ‘the ultimate segregator’. He does
not ask why Europeans seeking the ‘ultimate’ method of segregating Africans
would go to the trouble and expense of transporting them across the ocean for
that purpose, when they could have achieved the same end so much more simply by
leaving the Africans in Africa.
No one dreams of analyzing the
struggle of the English against the Irish as a problem in race relations, even
though the rationale that the English developed for suppressing the ‘barbarous’
Irish later served nearly word for word as a rationale for suppressing Africans
and indigenous American Indians. Nor does anyone dream of analyzing serfdom in
Russia as primarily a problem of race relations, even though the Russian nobility
invented fictions of their innate, natural superiority over the serfs as
preposterous as any devised by American racists.
It’s true, of course, that racial inequality is due to hundreds
of years of slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, and urban apartheid – to white
supremacy. But to say so is merely to recount how one particular form of economic
inequality came about. Just as the story of English imperialism is merely a
history of how Ireland, even fifty years after winning independence, still found itself the poorest country in all
of capitalist Europe.
***
What Hillary Clinton is really hinting at when she says that
racism can’t be reduced to “economic inequality” is racial animosity. I can’t think of what else she could mean. The
new generation of radicals on Twitter like to talk about “structural” racism or
“institutional” racism – but behind the verbal bravado, what they, too, are really
referring to is racial animosity.
So let’s talk about interpersonal animosity, because it’s
certainly not irrelevant here. That Texas trooper in the Sandra Bland video I
still can’t bring myself to watch – I would be shocked to learn that he’s not a
violent racist. Forget “structural” racism for a minute. Let’s talk about plain
old-fashioned racism. Let’s stipulate the obvious: the archetypal “hick Texas
bigot cop” really doesn’t like black people.
But can that explain why Sandra Bland ended up dead? I
doubt it, because there’s a lot of
people the archetypal hick Texas bigot cop doesn’t like. He hates the
nose-pierced vegans in Austin. He hates the liberal Jewish foundation executives
in New York. He hates the Harvard WASPs
who write about structural racism. He hates Nancy Pelosi.
But none of those groups is likely to turn up dead in his
jail cell – not as likely as a black man or a black woman.
If freedom means anything, it means the freedom to go about
your life without having to worry about all the people who hate you. Because
let’s be honest: lots of people hate each other. Yankees fans hate Red Sox fans. Brocialists hate identitarians. Nancy Pelosi probably hates
that Texas cop just as much he hates her. So do the nose-pierced vegan and the
Harvard WASP.
But the Texas bigot doesn’t have to worry about ending up
dead because some people hate him. Blacks in this country don't enjoy the same luxury. If that’s not due to “economic inequality,” what is it
due to? What could possibly account for that difference?
Is it just a coincidence that the rate of incarceration for
blacks is six times the rate for whites – and
that the rate for whites who didn’t graduate high school is, likewise, six
times the rate for whites who did? Is that not due to economic inequality? Is it a coincidence that the white incarceration rate is almost four times greater in poor Idaho than in rich Connecticut? Or that so far just this year, cops in Oklahoma
(population: 3.9 million) have killed 29 people, 18 of whom were white – more than
the entire English police force (population: 53 million) has killed in the last
decade?
***
The connections between economic stratification and
ascriptive hierarchy, between social structure and subjective affect – these
issues are not new and, believe it or not, Twitter, they weren’t even born in the
antebellum American South.
Here’s Karl Marx in 1870, advising an activist friend in
America about the Irish question:
England now possesses a working
class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish
proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a
competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he
regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a
tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus
strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social,
and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is
much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave
states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own
money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of
the English rulers in Ireland.
This antagonism is artificially
kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in
short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class,
despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class
maintains its power.
As a social theorist, Marx unfortunately lacked the subtlety
of, say, a Hillary Clinton. His simplistic solution was for the Irish to free
themselves from their English landlords in Ireland -- and unite with the English
workers in England.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Sophistry on Greece: An Anthology
1. "The Problem Was That Greece Failed To Implement The Program."
2. "Greece Is Different. Public Debt Was Growing Even In The Good Years."
3. "But Look At How Much Greece Spends On Pensions."
4. "It's Not About Demand. Greece Doesn't Export."
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Here’s my prediction of what happens if Greece votes No
Well, it's not really a prediction, just my best guess about
both sides’ next moves and the considerations they’ll be taking into account. Like
most guesses about the future, it’s probably wrong, but hopefully illuminating.
(If there's a Yes vote, I have no idea what will happen, except that Varoufakis
will resign and the Eurogroup offer will be signed.)
***
Immediately after the No vote, Greece demands that the ECB
restore full liquidity to the banking system (as any normal lender of last
resort is supposed to do). A threat is made -- either publicly stated or
implicit but communicated to the Eurozone authorities -- that if this doesn't happen,
Greece will immediately issue a parallel currency redeemable against future tax
payments.
At that point the ECB has to decide what to do. It won't
make the decision without clear guidance from the political authorities,
because the issuance of a parallel currency is a major step -- albeit
potentially reversible -- towards a Grexit.
So the EU will have to decide which outcome is least
unpalatable to it. Of course, neither is desirable from its point of view. If it complies
and restores ELA, the bank panic ends, cash controls can be lifted, and a calm
atmosphere can proceed in which Syriza can negotiate for a better deal -- now
armed with a democratic mandate and a public admission from the IMF that the
existing deal on the table was not sustainable.
Obviously that would be a terrible outcome from the EU's
perspective. It would be perceived (rightly) as a major political victory for Syriza.
So the EU might refuse to restore bank liquidity. In
that case Greece will issue the parallel currency.
In my view, the best way to do this is in the form of
tradable tax credits redeemable starting in, say, a year. (See here and here.)
A fresh batch of these would be allocated immediately to citizens and
firms. These credits are obviously worth something: every retailer can use them
to pay his VAT, every individual can use them to pay his payroll tax, etc. (Greek businesses have to pay VAT tax every three months, so these credits will come in handy.) Since they're tradable and valuable, Greeks will be willing to buy these credits for
euros, albeit at a discount, mainly reflecting the risk that the drachma will
be introduced at some point and the tax credits redenominated. As a result, the credits would be a form of money whose
supply would be under the Finance Ministry's control. The result, if it works
the way it's supposed to, would be Greece's ability to stimulate aggregate
demand and increase economic output, which it can't do as long as the ECB has a
monopoly over issuance of means of payment. In Milton Friedman’s terminology,
the tax credits would accelerate the velocity of euros inside the Greek banking
system.
There has been some talk about the technical and logistical
difficulties of quickly changing over Greece’s electronic payments system or distributing
currency to ATMs. But as I see it, no such complicated operations are needed.
Greece can mail every household a paper check worth, say, 600 euros of future
tax relief. Individuals can take the check to a currency exchange [SEE UPDATE BELOW], like the
ones at the airport, and exchange it for, say, a 300 euro check, which they can
then deposit at their bank. (Banks are closed for withdrawals but they’re happy
to take deposits!)
At that point, 300 real euros will be transferred in the usual
way, electronically, from the currency exchange’s (Greek) bank to the customer’s (Greek) bank, and 300 euros will be credited to the customer’s account. The individual can spend the money using a debit card -- debit cards are working normally for domestic transactions -- or make (limited) currency withdrawals. Afterward, the currency exchange can sell the tax credits to business and individuals. Again, the point is that the velocity of money is increased, which increases GDP. And Greece can print as many of these credits as it thinks prudent.
So the EU's decision about whether to comply with Syriza's
post-referendum threat will depend on how it views this parallel currency
scenario: is it better or worse, from its point of view, than the
Syriza-negotiating-triumph victory?
Of course, the upside of the parallel currency for the EU is
that it doesn’t hand Syriza a major immediate victory. The obvious downside is
that it would clearly be a big step towards Grexit. Moreover, it's a step
that allows Syriza to keep its promise to voters not to take Greece
out of the eurozone: there would still be euros in Greek bank accounts and the
Bank of Greece would still be hooked up to the Eurosystem payments network.
The EU has put on a brave face about not really caring about
Grexit, but behind the scenes it is deeply divided. Many on the Right, in
Germany and Northern Europe generally, seem OK with the idea. (In fact,
Schaeuble himself recently mentioned the possibility of a parallel currency in
Greece.) But many others, on the center-left and in Southern Europe, privately
view the prospect with horror. Francois Hollande, in particular, is now
panicking. All along he assumed that Germany would never push things this far;
he thought that if he privately and politely urged Berlin to go easy it would listen
to him. Now the masks have come off and France is scrambling. God only knows
what Renzi et al are feeling.
So if the EU takes
this path -- if it denies Greece bank liquidity and forces it to introduce a parallel
currency -- the immediate outcome would be a political crisis within the
Franco-German core the likes of which haven't been seen in many decades.
Even worse is what might happen after the immediate crisis.
If a major expansion of the effective Greek money supply does what one would
expect it to -- stimulates the Greek economy -- this would be a real nightmare
for the Eurozone, for reasons that are too obvious to explain. In many ways, it
would really be the worst of all possible worst-case scenarios, politically speaking. And economically speaking, there is the question of what the markets' reaction would be in Spain, Italy, et
al., which until now have weathered the Greek crisis OK.
Of course, the eurozone could retaliate against Greece and
shut off its access to the payments network, or achieve the same thing by
drastically reducing ELA, thus kicking it out of the euro. Politically speaking, this
would presumably require a unanimous vote of the EU heads of state at the European
Council. (If the ECB took this step over clear French opposition, I think the
European project would be effectively over, at least for many years.)
Obviously it would be terrible for Syriza (and the whole
country) if Greece were forced out of the euro. It would cause an appalling economic
collapse, a visible humanitarian crisis in a NATO country. But in a sense it
would also let Syriza off the hook: Hey, we tried our best to fight austerity within
the euro, the voters agreed with us, and then the evil Europeans kicked us out.
So a lot depends on three things, in ascending order of
importance:
(1) how smoothly Greece can roll out the currency issuance;
(2) how much it would stimulate the economy;
(3) above all, the Europeans' perceptions of (1) and (2).
The risks are high for both sides, but I think Greece is in
a stronger position than most people think. Again, I’m probably wrong.
UPDATE: Actually, this could be done without middlemen. Banks could accept and deal in the credits directly.
UPDATE: Actually, this could be done without middlemen. Banks could accept and deal in the credits directly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)