Race and the Politics of Poverty

The New Republic's John Judis has an instructive piece on race in American politics today. This part about how Obama can overcome racial resentment has some bearing on the poverty and inequality debate.

Can Obama surmount these obstacles? If the strong version of Mendelberg's thesis is correct, then the very fact that Obama is African American will undercut any appeals to racial fears or resentments. And, if elections were held in the manner of the Iowa caucus, where voters publicly debate their positions and where Obama won substantial white working class support, then Mendelberg's stronger thesis might well prove true. But elections are held in the privacy of a voting booth, where a voter can give voice to fears and resentments without danger of being heard. Obama may be able to sway some white voters to his side by drawing attention to race, but probably not enough to fully compensate for the disadvantage he faces.

If addressing racial resentments directly is not the answer, what is? As Mendelberg also suggests, it's changing the subject--doing what the Republicans of the 1870s and the Democrats of the 1990s did. This year, that means diverting voters' attention from the politics of race to the plight of the economy and the continuing quagmire in Iraq.

In the end, the lesson of political psychology for Democrats is not to avoid nominating black candidates. It is simply to understand that America's racial history continues to influence the calculations of voters--sometimes near the forefronts of their minds, sometimes in the deep recesses of their unconscious. For liberals, acknowledging these obstacles is the first step to blunting them.

Similarly, just having the discussion about "the poor" and what their obligations are is a minefield. Like clockwork the conversation turns to how to motivate poor people to become less dependent. Government programs are put on defense. Why? The reality is, a huge population believes in the racist and individualistic idea that the poor are shiftless, and there are limits to the utility of calling out racism and selfishness for what it is. Changing the subject to the economy, opportunity and security for all, and/or national solidarity are necessary and complimentary ways to go.

There are justifiable fears that those frames, however, are too narrow. Every frame should be examined for what it includes and excludes. If it excludes policy that's desired and viable, it's not worth it. But what viable policies would be excluded? Policies that are perceived as too targeted might not fit, but these are the same policies that frames being used now have failed to move on the national stage.

I would concede that the poverty frame is more inclusive behind the scenes. Targeted programs are viable if the action stays where a poverty frame may still do some good. Indeed, many targeted programs by their very nature are small enough to not require national mobiliatization and persuasion. This is where the anti-poverty world is at its best- this is what it was built to do.

Certain popular programs also don't seem to need to be reframed. SCHIP and the minimum wage, for example, can receive national attention and be extremely popular. Last year, when these policies were more or less the Democratic domestic agenda, no real attempt to reframe the debate proved necessary.

But in general, the poverty frame is far more exclusive on the national stage. Policy will not reach scale unless inequality and poverty become national issues once again. But if we bring social problems into the light of day, we have to grapple with the racial divide and American individualism- two extremely powerful ideas that militate towards retrenchment and perserving the status quo, and that the poverty frame reinforces.

Like Obama on race, we will have to change the subject so we're not talking about individualism or race. It's probably no secret that I like FDR and Obama's language the best but there are many other options.