In a previous post we briefly talked about race relations on each side of the Atlantic and we noted a difference in attitude with regards to indirect discrimination, which highlights a hypocrisy between a formal ‘official equality’, and de facto inequality. In this post, I wish to broaden the focus to other types of anti-discrimination law, before moving onto the recent change of mood music (Brexit and Trump), before moving the discussion on to a consideration of immigration rates.
I wish to draw a parallel between the integration of minorities into civil society after the Second Wold War on both sides of the Atlantic. In the case of the United Kingdom largely driven by a shortage of labour post-Second Wold War which opened the door to the colonies, and in the case of United Sates it was the efforts of Civil Rights movement which lead to the dismantling of the Jim Crow form of race caste system.
You have various proto-racisms in the pre-modern period, it was not until a combination of Darwinism, Eugenics, Imperialism that gave birth to Social Darwinism that racism became wedded with that of nationalism. After the Second World War nationalism became decoupled from that of race, for obvious reasons, where a common set of values, in the context of the cold war – freedom and markets, formally determined whether you were inside the tent or outside.
The different fates of the United States and Europe after the Second World War, the former whose interior escaped large-scale destruction determined attitudes towards levels of immigration and from where. In 1952 the United States lifted up the drawbridge as the United Kingdom lowered hers in 1948 and encouraged immigration from the Empire. As segregation broke down in the United States, and new arrivals from the West Indies in the UK, there was a whitelash from supremacists on both sides of the Atlantic.
There was a particular famous speech in the UK, ‘Rivers of Blood’ by Enoch Powell in, that referenced the situations on both sides of the Atlantic. Speaking in 1968, Birmingham, UK (from whence I originally hail):
As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
Elsewhere in the speech he cited one of his constituents who stated fearfully: “In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man” …you know… and not the other way around. 1968 was a watershed moment in the UK, for a Race Relations Act came into force with some teeth, but its importance: ‘was not act but attitude’. New acts followed and in 1976 indirect discrimination became outlawed, and in 2000 an amendment extended the scope of the act to cover public bodies, including the Police.
In the UK, the focus is on the impact on the victim(s) and not the mental state of the discriminator, this is hardcoded in statute. In contrast, in the United States (and Canada) it is a matter of Jurisprudence and guidance around interpreting discrimination hold’s the discriminator’s subjective motivation as central in weighing whether indirect discrimination is itself culpable or not. This provides cover for those who officially adopt a colour neutral language but whose action is such that it disadvantages minorities, aka policies around ‘law and order’, ‘war on drugs’.
Take home points from this is the contrasting attitudes towards handling race relations on both sides of the Atlantic in response to influx of those who were previously formally segregated, particularly with respect to how to handle indirect discrimination and systematic discrimination in public institutions. So whilst formally the system is open to all races and creeds, de facto there are barriers which stop people taking advantage of this fact.
In the run-up to the election, there was a narrative that Trump’s appeal was confined to a narrow base of the Tea Party, which was opposed to the broad-base of the Clinton support. In the aftermath of the result, a tension between Bill Clinton and the campaign chief came to light, with Bill arguing to push to target the white, uneducated vote but which were written off by the campaign manager as a waste of time. This coupled with Hilary’s ‘deplorables’ comment draws into focus the limits of Clinton’s base. Trump, whilst losing the popular vote, was successful in reaching out beyond his supposed base in order to secure the Presidency. What explains his success in reaching beyond his supposed base of white supremacists?
Two dominate explanations have appeared to explain his success, on the one hand, he tapped into the economic anxieties, on the other, he tapped into the rich vein of racism. Mehdi Hasan draws attention to a tendency amongst some commentators to explain away racist incidents as a displaced representative of economic anxieties. In this, they share the mistake of classical Marxists, who see racism as epiphenomena – its the economy stoopid! To the extent that explanations which fail to account for racism as an independent variable, Mehdi is right to criticize.
The so-called ‘soft racism’, those individuals who on the surface tolerate minorities but harbour resentment towards them was a key to his support. On this point, I agree with Zizek, who argues that one of the many striking things about the election was a change in what is and is not acceptable to say in public discourse. There was a certain segment of the American population who, vicariously, approves some of the things that he says but who have the option to be able to maintain face by condemning some of the more directly abusive, white supremacist supporters. Zizek draws attention to the fact that political identification probably occurs in this scenario. Trump by giving voice to my repressed views overcomes a sense of alienation that I might otherwise have harboured against a billionaire candidate who lives on another planet. Conversely, the sense of alienation that some feel towards Hillary and other champion’s of diversity stems from the fact that they feel ‘oppressed’, by having to repress thoughts and feelings which conflict with political correctness.
Trump as a ‘radical law and order’ candidate represents an intensification of an electoral strategy which has pedigree on the side of both parties. One of the major boons won in the Civil Rights movement was the social stigma attached to racism. Reagan manufactured consent by outsourcing racism to the criminal justice system, with the result as we all know of the explosion of incarceration levels of young black men. In so doing they took them out of labor and voting pools. Bill Clinton continued this trend, introducing mandatory minimum sentences, continuing to encourage the war on drugs by providing additional funding for police who prioritize drug crime etc… when Bill argued with Hillary’s campaign manager about targeting white votes in key battleground states, let us be in no doubt what this would mean in practice.
The fact that Trump attracted more minority voters than Mitt Romey, I think suggests that his anti-establishment appeal is more than that of racism alone. Minorities are more likely to be a victim of crime and are also susceptible to law and order message, albeit in a different sense. Appeals to Nationalism potentially broaden his appeal, albeit in an ambiguous way. For there is a deliberate courting of those who link nationality with that of race, this is done in a way that is more extreme than what has happened in recent history. Where previously coded messages, ‘law and order’, were aimed at so-called ‘soft racism’, now they are also aimed at more explicitly the ‘hard racism’ of overtly white supremacists.
The best analysis I have read which attempts to take on board racism as an independent variable along with that of economic factors is by Adam Kotsko. Trump voters…
“They are contesting the way that specifically economic benefits are parcelled out on racial and national grounds… Trump supporters do not want the state to preserve the level playing field within its own economy and be open to international competition from without. They want the state to directly pick economic winners and losers on racial and national grounds.”
“Under neoliberalism, national and sub-national groupings are very explicitly placed in competition with each other. Free trade produces a “level playing field” so that cheap Chinese labor can compete directly with expensive American labor, for instance. Within each country, a formal colorblindness prevents reserving jobs for particular racial groups, at least de jure if not always de facto, leading to a similar “level playing field.”
In conclusion, the argument that I am making shares superficial similarities with those who claim that ‘economic anxieties’ underpin Trump’s appeal, in the sense that I also try to consider economic factors. Where I differ is that I view race relations as being baked in with that of economic factors when trying to explain the form of consent that is manufactured in an election. Colourblindness started off as a way to weasel around the Constitutions protections against discrimination After the Civil Rights movement colourblindess was the result of the stigma attached to racism. Whilst white nationalists have become more visible as the result of the campaign and Trump’s subsequent election, I claim that their prominence can be attributed to their effective use of new media, more than the breadth of their support. Relatively marginal parts of Trump’s coalition are magnified given how close the election was. I claim that the bulk of his support consist of ‘colour indifferent’, those who do not think of themselves as racist but are vulnerable to coded messages surrounding law and order. That is not to say that with a new permissive environment that composition of his base of support can change.
In his 1935-6 lecture ‘Basic questions of Metaphysics’, Heidegger does not seek to replace science, or indeed even to reform it. He wants science to avoid a metaphysical pitfall. He relates a story, via Plato, of a philosopher who is so fixated at looking at the heavens, that to the amusement of the watching maids , he falls down a well. It seems as if science has well and truly overcome this risk, it focuses on the ‘here-below’. Today’s scientist would have identified the well and steered clear of it. We moderns are defined by our aversion to metaphysics.
The constant gentle lapping of waves on sand, interrupted by a becoming of a high pitched whine of insects, like bandsaw on wood, joining the rumble of the motor boat that masks the yelps of the collapsing water skier, on top of the skipping sound as speed boat whines and bounces across the surface of the lake, the gentle lapping becomes a clapping, intermingled with the buzz of seaplanes whose flight path mimics that of a small bird, whilst tilting like a whale getting a better view of a passing boat. The crescendo falls and the lapping re-asserts itself for a time, only for it to arise anew.
In response to Marco Fante’s comment made on Richard Murphy’s blog, I pulled together the stats that express the ratio of average hours worked for each percentage point of unemployment in the UK.