My daughter told me that her high school English teacher asked the class for their views on race. Of course not a single student dared to speak up. High school students have many flaws, but they aren’t stupid. Just to be clear, she goes to a very liberal high school. Those who haven’t been paying attention to social trends over the past 50 years might wonder why extremely liberal students would be afraid to talk about race. Let me put it this way, would it have made sense for Chinese students to speak up in 1967, if the teacher asked for an airing of views on the good and bad points of Mao’s ideas?
I was reminded of this recently when reading a post by Noah Smith, who lacks the good sense of the students in my daughter’s class. That’s right, he waded right in:
These days American public discourse tends to feel like a giant continuous race war. Well, I guess we had that “national conversation about race” that Bill Clinton always said we needed. Oops. But anyway, I guess I might as well wade in.
The right’s way of talking – and thinking – about race is just totally poisonous. . . . So it is basically now impossible to talk to people on the right about race in a rational way.
Well if a “rational way” is how they talk about race at Salon.com, then I have to agree with Noah. So since I’m on the right, I won’t attempt to talk about race. Instead I’ll talk about talking about race.
Let me start by conceding that there is a tiny grain of truth in Noah’s claim. Of course not everyone on the right is racist, but there are probably many more racists (or at least white racists—which are the only kind that matter if you are on the left) on the right than on the left. And yes, I do see lots of right-wingers who “don’t get it.” But in fact it’s not just people on the right who have trouble talking about race, it’s all Americans. The Chinese Cultural Revolution reference was not intended to be hyperbole, I honestly think it fits America circa 2016. When it comes to talking about race, the entire country is deranged. (Probably including me.) Heck, I’d add sex and gender to the list. A conversation about race? I’d rather recommend Americans have a conversation with their spouses about their deepest hidden resentments, that would be more productive.
Sometimes I read thoughtful progressives who are obviously very bright, and then when they switch over to talking about race their IQ seems to immediately plunge by 30 points. I think to myself, “surely they can’t be this stupid, perhaps they are just trying to feel more righteous.” Noah confirms this suspicion:
Declaiming against “structural racism” feels good. Racism is generally recognized as being a bad thing, and declaiming against bad things makes one feel righteous (I certainly feel that way). It also allows one to link up with like-minded people, making you feel like you have an army on your side and are not just shouting into a wilderness.
Well thanks for clearing that up! I mean, who would have guessed that motive after seeing Smith insinuate that Garett Jones was being racist when he entitled an academic paper “The Hive Mind”? That’s right, the title of one of the most well received social science books of 2015 is actually a dog whistle to anti-Asian racists, so subtle that the Asian editors of the journal he first published it in didn’t notice.
OK, enough fun and games. The rest of his post is sort of intelligent and thoughtful, at least mostly. Noah tries to warn leftists that if they constantly attack moderate white people for being a part of structural racism, then the whites will be turned off, and become more right wing—the only group that isn’t telling them they are racist. That’s actually a good point, although I’m not sure one needs a PhD to figure it out. Indeed I think it’s good for both the left and the right if there are fewer white racists in America. That’s right, the Trump phenomenon is not good for the right. Unfortunately Noah won’t be able to escape the “structural lunacy” of the left, on the issue of race. He’s unwilling to call out the radical left, and insists on treating them as well-meaning folk who have just gone a bit too far. Their own worst enemies. But Noah doesn’t realize that they are not his friends, in their view he’s also part of the problem. You and I may view Noah Smith as a liberal, but to the modern left he’s a white male with reactionary views on economics. Yes, he’s liberal on race, but so am I. Do you think they view me as one of them?
Noah Smith has lots of good qualities. He’s highly intelligent, and willing to say what he thinks. But that quality will eventually get him into the same hot water as a Scott Aaronson or a Larry Summers or any number of other well-meaning people. You might think that you’re safe, because you are one of the “good guys.” Your motives are pure. But views that seem reasonable today will at some point be hopelessly reactionary. It’s only a matter of time before Noah gets into trouble. (Nothing new here, this phenomenon goes back to at least the French Revolution.)
PS. Here’s a thought. Instead of having a conversation about race, which will solve nothing, let’s have a conversation about the various societal problems that indirectly exacerbate racial tensions. Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther King turned his attention toward issues such as the Vietnam War, and poverty reduction.
PPS. Ask my wife (who was a victim of some “macroaggressions” during the Cultural Revolution) what American PCism reminds her of.
PPPS. Smith says we should be polite to those with whom we disagree:
In case you hadn’t guessed, I’m not a big fan of this aspect of the culture of economics. And the reason is not just that it results in more offensiveness than necessary (thus tarnishing our reputation among non-economists). It’s also that the fetishization of offensiveness reduces the quality of our economics. All too often we use offensiveness as a signal of the intellectual quality of an argument, but it’s a false signal.
So I hope my right-wing readers were not offended by Noah Smith calling you all racist, it was just a false signal of his intellectual quality.