Race Men
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 01.14.04
Where have you gone, Joe Lieberman?
At one point in time--say, seven years ago--Joe Lieberman was one of the few leading Democrats (Bill Clinton was another) to talk a new politics of race. His early backing of civil rights in the 1960s demonstrated his commitment to African American equality, and he was supportive of many paleoliberal remedies for black marginalization. But what set Lieberman apart was his emphasis on the importance of rescuing the black family to improve the plight of African Americans; and on the way in which affirmative action was undermining the principle of individual equality of opportunity in favor of group rights. He spoke difficult truths to black and white audiences alike. And he was, like Clinton and the old Al Gore, an important figure in the newly honest discussion of race in this country.
In 1995, for example, Lieberman opined, "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended, because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don't think it is fair to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans. For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby discriminate against another group on the basis of race."
But in Sunday's Iowa Black and Brown Forum, the new Lieberman stepped forward. What was once a distinctive voice is now indistinguishable from the other Democrats who have abandoned the Clinton position. Howard Dean, after all, has said that all opposition to affirmative action is motivated by racism. In the debate, when asked to name the biggest challenge America's minority communities face today, Dean didn't mention illegitimacy, crime, drugs, education, family structure. Instead he said: "I think the biggest challenge is to help white audiences understand the plight of minority populations when it comes to race." John Kerry, when asked to explain high rates of unemployment for minorities, placed the cause entirely at the foot of the government: "Let me just say to you, look, the reason that exists is because we have an indifference, a casual indifference in the leadership of our country that ignores the fact that we have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America; that we adults in the United States are literally abandoning millions of children every single day; that we have too much willingness to send people to prison rather than invest $10,000 a year in Head Start, Early Start, Smart Start... " And none of the other candidates has even raised the issue of Al Sharpton's record of race-baiting. Listening to them you get the impression that black and brown Americans are entirely unable to fend for themselves, and have no problems that aren't caused by whites. This is not to say that there isn't some truth in what the candidates said, but that its one-sidedness is part of the problem, not the solution.
On Sunday, Lieberman was no better or worse than any of his rivals in this regard. But since he was once such a courageous leader on race, it is particularly depressing to see him capitulate so completely to a racial policy that is essentially unreconstructed paleoliberalism. I'd hoped for more. Here are two snippets of dialogue from that debate, with my comments:
HOLT: What is the single most important thing, in your judgment, that we need to do--we, president, Congress, this country--to make--and it builds on the question that was asked earlier by the panelist--to make a real difference with respect to the prison rates, the dropout rates, the drug abuse, the sort of abandonment of young people in America?
LIEBERMAN: Thanks for the question, John.
You know, poverty in America is a scandal. There are 35 million people in poverty. In the years of the Bush administration, three years, 3 million more people have fallen out of the middle class into poverty. Nine million children don't have health insurance.
So it's hard to choose exactly what--the one thing to do. But I'd say education.
Let me give you a stunningly painful number, that the average African-American, Hispanic-American student graduating from high school is four years behind grade level of the other students.
And that's the failure of our system. You know, this year, we're going to celebrate the 50th anniversary, May 17th, of Brown vs. The Board of Education, the end of racial segregation formally, but truly not the end of racial segregation in our schools.
There are many problems with America's education of minority kids, but the idea of voluntary racial segregation in schools as the fundamental problem is a bizarre one. By far the biggest predictor of child success is family and community support--not majority-black or majority-white schools. Black kids are behind their white peers as early as kindergarten because of the disadvantages of their family background and the failures of their parents and peers to support and encourage them. Ignoring this, and resorting to a 1960s argument about segregation is pure denial.
What else does Lieberman support to improve the scores of minority children?
So I would make it a top priority: fully fund special education; invest in the so-called "No Child Left Behind"; fully fund it. Start school--have a universal pre-kindergarten program for all of America's children. And then take it right through--not K-12, but pre-K to 16 to graduate to college.
More money. That's his solution. To be fair, he does support the Bush-Kennedy No Child Left Behind Act, but he doesn't explain why standards are important or even mention the importance of hard work or cultural change in the African American community to make scholarship and success less stigmatized. Again: It's all government's fault. Blacks need do nothing but blame the system and ask for more funding. This is the most conservative Democratic candidate? There's more:
We're all for affirmative action. We all oppose the Bush administration and this terrible position they took on the University of Michigan.
Hmm. In 1996, Lieberman supported California's anti-affirmative action initiative, Proposition 209. "Looking at the civil rights initiative in California, I can't see how I could be opposed to it," Lieberman said at the time. "It basically is a statement of American values. It takes the language and the values underlying the civil rights acts Congress has passed and says not only should we not discriminate against somebody, we shouldn't discriminate in favor of somebody based on the group they represent." What made him change his mind? He has never fully explained. His epiphany came when he was selected to be the vice-presidential nominee in 2000. On the eve of the convention, Lieberman issued a statement: "I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action and I will support affirmative action." Why had he shifted? No real explanation was given. None was really necessary, was it? And none of this is explained today.
But the biggest surprise was Lieberman's response to a direct question about whether he supported the reparations movement to pay today's African Americans a monetary compensation for slavery, from the pockets of every non-black in America. To the tape:
RATCLIFFE: If elected, would you support--would you propose or back legislation in support of reparations? And if so, what would it look like?
LIEBERMAN: Here's what I've said. When Congressman Conyers introduced that legislation, I said I thought it was a good idea and that I would support it. And the legislation was really intended to go beyond the specific question of reparations and to go back to the history of slavery, the greatest indictment, the greatest breach of the American promise that we find in the Declaration that all of us were endowed by our creator with those rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We ought to bring that out again and talk about it, and then talk about what we can do about it. My own guess is that this is going to be more future-oriented in terms of response, and by that I mean, to turn around some of the abandonment of people that's gone on under this Bush administration--as I've said before, fully fund education, raise people up in that way.
From once being skeptical of affirmative action, from criticizing aspects of black urban culture (especially the violence celebrated in gangsta rap), from backing welfare reform and experimental school vouchers, Lieberman now not only backs affirmative action but calls "reparations" and the entire ideology behind reparations a "good idea." Yes, he then goes on to imply he wouldn't support direct cash payments to aggrieved descendants of slaves. But it's very artfully couched so that the audience doesn't get in any way offended. He also pivots to blame the Bush administration for its "abandonment of people." Yet on school vouchers and No Child Left Behind, the senator actually supports large parts of the Bush agenda.
Last week, this magazine endorsed Joe Lieberman because he represented, in part, a continuation of the more centrist Democratic Party represented by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. A critical part of that new approach was a refusal to go back to the failed paleoliberal bromides on race, to address the real problems of affirmative action, to grapple with tough issues like the celebration of violence in the hip-hop community and the need for more active fathers in black children's lives. But that part of the New Democrat agenda is dead. Al Gore buried it in 2000. Joe Lieberman threw dirt on the coffin Sunday night. On race, this is Al Sharpton's party now. And Joe Lieberman is only eager to go along.
Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at TNR.
RELATED LINKS
Joe Lieberman
The editors debate TNR's Lieberman endorsement.
The Wonk
Michelle Cottle makes the case for John Edwards.
Old Faithful
Michael Crowley makes the case for Dick Gephardt.
Credible Threat
J. Peter Scoblic makes the case for Wesley Clark.
Moral Center
Jonathan Cohn makes the case for Howard Dean.
Our Choice
For Joe Lieberman and a renewed Democratic Party.
Animal House
The press showed up for Iowa's debate smelling blood, but Howard Dean left them disappointed once again.
Party Politics
Howard Dean's nationwide house party campaign, held December 30, showcased both the strengths and the limits of the Dean movement.
Loose Talk
The failure to secure loose nukes is partly about money, but mostly about botched diplomacy.
Back Peddling
The Democrats are pushing yesterday's failed policies. But how much damage can they do?
Copyright 2003, The New Republic |
