“Race-neutral” policies are not necessarily neutral

For the first time since he took office, President Obama met at the White House with a group of black civil rights leaders February 10. The meeting followed by a day a New York Times story headlined “Frustration at Obama’s Nuancd Style on Race.”

After the hour-long meeting, one participant, Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, told New York Times reporter Helene Cooper: “In these times, it didn’t make sense to talk about race-based initiatives.”

Ms. Cooper reported that “as he did today, Mr. Obama has said that broader efforts to help the disadvantaged will also benefit blacks.” (She did not quote the President directly.)

In other words, the administration’s policy is “race neutral.” It’s a policy with some appeal. For the first black U.S. president, it deflects the charge that his very origins will cause him to favor persons of his own race.

But how neutral is neutrality on race?

Mr. Obama would be wise to read a book, “More Than Just Race,” by William Julius Wilson, a professor at the University of Chicago. Mr. Wilson, who is black, used to believe that public policy should always be color blind. His book explains why he no longer thinks so.

Take the implact of globalization, or “complex global economic transformation,” as Mr. Wilson calls it. Economic and political leaders did not make a decision to shape globalization so that, by the massive shift of manufacturing jobs abroad and other means, it would discriminate against many black Americans. But that indeed was and is one of its effects. Mr. Wilson documents the unintended racial consequences in detail. My summary does not do justice to the reality.

At the bottom end of the pay and skill scales, globalization’s increased demand for workers should have been a boon for inner-city blacks, who generally rank low in job skills. However, the urban manufacturing industries that once provided equal job opportunities by the millions have largely moved abroad, thanks to the combination of U.S. free trade and investment policies and the foreign attractions of low wages and weak labor protection laws weakly enforced.

Meanwhile, at the top end of the last century’s expanded U.S. labor market, many better-educated blacks landed good paying suburban jobs, as managers and professionals, for example, thanks to a decline in employment discrimination, They and their kin joined the general exodus of American urbanites into the suburbs.

The blacks who were left behind thereby became more concentrated than ever before in poor communities, more isolated from the rest of America, more embittered by their plight. Black women, who have traditionally held jobs in service industries, were more fortunate. Most service industries can’t escape to other countries.

“The economic predicament of low-skilled black men in the inner city has reached catastrophic proportions,” Mr. Wilson wrote a year ago. Their plight has not diminished since then. It needs to become a priority in the Obama administration.

Print Page Read more!

Extraordinary things possible in no time at all

During the afternoon before President Obama’s address to Congress yesterday, I read a fascinating review of a new John Muir biography in the March 12 New York Review of Books. A particularly fascinating point made by the reviewer was this:

“One of the lessons we all may learn from Muir’s career is that inspiration is a powerful agent of change, and that when the ‘fierce urgency of now’ is upon us, it is essential to make room for, and to ride, the wave of enthusiasm while it lasts. The wave does not last long, but while it does an extraordinary number of good things may be achieved in practically no time at all.”

Is this such a moment in American history? I think so, but only if we make room for it and seize it. But the enthusiasm and hope engendered by the President could well be dissipated by the media’s weird twist on reporting “both sides,” which in today’s crisis they think requires giving equal time to politicians who have a strong partisan interest in having the President fail.

The reviewer of this biography, “A Passion for Nature: The Life of John Muir” (Oxford University Press) by Donald Worster, is Robert Pogue Harrison, professor of Italian literature at Stanford, whose latest book is “Gardens: An Essay on the Human Condition.”

Print Page Read more!

Prejudice against Obama

“The Obama campaign would do well to print signs to post prominently in its offices: ALWAYS SUBTRACT SEVEN PERCENT!”

That advice comes from Andrew Hacker, a political science professor at Queens College, in a September 25 New York Review of Books article titled: “Obama: The Price of Being Black.”

Hacker’s seven percentage point subtraction from pro-Obama poll results is based on the “Bradley effect,” named after Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles who lost his 1982 bid for governor after every poll showed him ahead of his white opponent. Results in other elections indicate that many white voters don’t tell pollsters the truth about their feelings against black candidates.

Senator Barrack Obama faces another little discussed hurdle in his historic race for the White House. In a reversal of the decades-old trend to make the voting franchise universal, Hacker writes,

“…Now strong forces are at work to downsize the electorate, ostensibly to combat fraud and strip the rolls of voters who are ineligible for one reason or another. But the real effect is to make it harder for many black Americans to vote, largely because they are more vulnerable to challenges than other parts of the population.”

Hacker describes in detail how some new state and Federal rules – even “the amiably titled Help America Vote Act” –have the effect of placing a heavier burden on blacks to exercise their right to vote. One of his sources is “Restoring the Right to Vote” by Erika Wood, a 34-page publication of the Brennan Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law, which can be accessed here.

Hacker’s analysis does not mean Obama is bound to lose. It is, however, an alarm bell to unprejudiced whites, among whom a greater get-out-the-vote effort will be needed. At least seven percentage points greater.

Print Page Read more!

Hooked on the Presidency

Looking over the field of men anxious to run for President at the beginning of 1976, James Reston wrote in his New York column: “Once hooked on the Presidency, it is an appetite more addictive than dope.” In “Who’s Hooked?” an op-ed piece that the Times did not print, I diagnosed the media as suffering from the very same addiction.

“Although it is true, as Reston says, that the appetite for the Presidency ‘consumes men as physical as George Wallace of Alabama and as intellectual and promising as Gene McCarthy of Minnesota,’” I wrote, “it also consumes news reporters and dominates their output.”

I marveled at the volumes written and spoken in speculation about election outcomes months before the ballots were printed. Laid end to end, those words “would reach far into outer space, and several times around Mars, where they would have about as much meaning as they have here,” I wrote.

I marveled, too, at the armies of reporters and photographers following Presidential aspirants everywhere. “Partial demobilization of this entourage need not put reporters on unemployment compensation rolls,” I wrote. “They could find productive employment writing about problems – gut problems – that concern people.”

Obviously, that 1976 critique of mine, which I found while cleaning out some old files, holds true for the media today. Why this obsession with the Presidency?

Well, it is, after all, the most powerful job in the United States and the world. Okay, but this is a democracy. The excessive focus on the President adds to that power, and it crowds out other voices.

Just listen to the claims that Presidential candidates make. “Just elect me, and I’ll solve ______[fill in the current problems].” Nonsense, of course. Thank God and the constitution, the President is not all-powerful. Yet through obsessive attention to the Presidency, the media pays little attention to the other power centers that share in national decision-making on matters small and large.

Take trade policy. It is one of the most important issues being debated by John McCain and Barrack Obama. Yet the media generally covers it only superficially, and sometimes sensationally.


Even the late Tim Russert, for all his knowledge of the political scene, was weak in bringing much enlightenment to a complex issue like trade. In fact, he was probably at his weakest in the March debate between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.

He introduced a series of questions on NAFTA not by quoting what Clinton or Barrack had said, but what Al Gore had said back in 1993: “If you don’t like NAFTA and what’s done, we can get out of it in six months.” He then asked: “Will the U.S. President say we are out of NAFTA in six months.”

Russert reformulated the question twice for Clinton (once because he was not satisfied with Clinton’s qualified No) and then once for Obama, to which Obama replied: “I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, [using] the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced….”

(For details, check my March 6 posting “The ‘Opting Out” NAFTA Distraction,” based on the actual transcript.)

Although Russert got his point “buttoned” up to his satisfaction, the hurried exchange did more to confuse than to enlighten the public on NAFTA. That’s par for the course in the media when dealing with trade issues.


Print Page Read more!

The 'Opting Out' NAFTA Distraction

Now that the Democratic debate over NAFTA has burst into an international incident, it is instructive to read how relentlessly NBC Moderator Tim Russert pressed Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama to take a position on “opting out” of NAFTA.

Neither Clinton nor Obama brought up the “opting out” idea. It was Russert who introduced it by quoting this statement that he said Al Gore made to Ross Perot in their 1993 debate: “If you don’t like NAFTA and what’s done, we can get out of it in six months.” Then, given that both candidates had sharply criticized NAFTA in the Ohio campaign, Russert asked: “Will the [next] U.S. President say we are out of NAFTA in six months?”

Senator Clinton quickly responded: “I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you’d have to say to Canada and Mexico that that’s what we’re going to do. But you know, in fairness – “

Russert pressed on, in different words: “You will get out? You will notify Mexico and Canada, NAFTA is gone in six months?”

Clinton: “No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.” She later repeated the same point while renewing her criticism of the absence of labor and environment in NAFTA’s core agreement.

Russert wouldn’t let go. “But let me button this up. Absent the change you’re suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?”

Clinton: "I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will renegotiate."

Then Russert turned to Obama, and after mentioning an AP story about Obama’s supposed ambivalence toward NAFTA, asked: “Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, ‘This has not worked for us; we are out?’”

Obama: “I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually, Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.”

So Tim Russert had his point buttoned up to his satisfaction. But were Obama and Clinton really serious?

Gripped with the same question, diplomats at the Canadian consulate in Chicago thought they would get a candid answer about Obama from someone right there at the University of Chicago: Austan D. Goolsbee, professor of economics and also an advisor to the Obama campaign.

Goolsbee obligingly accepted the invitation to brief the consulate on Obama’s views. Like good diplomats, the Canadian officers took notes, wrote a report, and sent the report to Ottawa. Somehow, it leaked, and its message hit the fan: it soft-pedaled Obama’s tough talk on the campaign trail, specifically claiming that his language was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

At first, Obama denied that the meeting had taken place (Goolsbee did not report it to the campaign, in the naive belief that he was acting only in his role as a professor). But after the Canadian memo made headlines in Canada and the United States, an Obama spokesperson insisted that Obama’s public position on NAFTA is also his private position. Hillary Clinton insisted he was hypocritical and untrustworthy. And by Wednesday this week Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper himself, spoke up publicly, saying that the consulate report was “blatantly unfair” to Obama and his campaign.

That doesn’t end the debate over NAFTA, and shouldn’t. Both Clinton and Obama need intensive briefings to be able to explain their fair trade positions more convincingly.

Especially unimpressive, in my view, was how they both buckled under Tim Russert’s pressure, and embraced the tactic of Presidential wielding the “opting out” threat to quickstart negotiations. That’s a dumb way for a government to deal with neighboring governments, so dumb that it doesn’t happen in real life, much as it may be favored by pundits and reporters keen about “gotcha” questions based on fanciful scenarios.

Final point. Obviously, Clinton and Obama are far from isolationists, opposed to trade. They know that the economic and other interests of the three nations are such that, with or without a renegotiated NAFTA, the United States, Canada, and Mexico absolutely need some kind of a formal trade agreement among them and that the dispute is only about its contents. This fact is so obvious, I guess, that nobody at the Cleveland debate thought to mention it.

Print Page Read more!