Race Matters
As the main character in HBO's The Wire, Baltimore has come to symbolize the seemingly impossible problems facing many inner cities across the nation. Yesterday, in collaboration with John's Hopkins, real life city leaders announced a new program called "More in the Middle" to increase the city's middle class. The program targets improved opportunities for home ownership, education, and employment, using what it deems to be a public-private partnership. These are all familiar themes when we talk about attracting, retaining and growing the middle class, but this program focuses and relies more exclusively on the racial attainment gap in Baltimore. A recent study found that white households had an average of 10 times the net worth of African American families.
This announcement comes on the heels of the city announcing its plan to file suit against Wells Fargo for discriminatory lending practices.
I am heartened by this approach. It's the kind of rhetoric that progressive voices have shied away from and that has been virtually absent in the recent presidential election. As the Baltimore Sun points out, improving opportunities for poorer communities helps the middle class most of all by increasing tax dollars and improving services across the board, not to mention reducing incidence of violent crime.
Many middle class and working class whites, blinded by their racism, abandoned the Democratic Party and its policies that created and sustained the middle class. Chasing those votes, the Democratic Party abandoned those policies or put them so far down the priority list that they were no more than words.
Are whites now willing to support those policies again? And share the benefits with African-Americans, Latinos and women? There has been some movement, but I don't see it happening just yet.
January 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most whites are feeling substantial economic insecurity and are looking for new answers. Health care, fuel and education costs are skyrocketing. With increasing costs, people with good jobs at good wages have less disposable income, regardless of other demographics. Home owners, who had more financial security based on increasing property values, are watching their investments depreciate. With the current administration's policies, these conditions are only getting worse.
Broad support for progressive policies can be built when we stop depending on incremental improvements and start talking about the big picture. There's a vision for shared prosperity and fairness that people can embrace across demographic divides, but it has to go beyond individual programs like regulating mortgages or expanding SCHIP. You need a big, over-arching vision to bring people in first. Then the individual policies, supporting the vision, are much easier to sell.
Somewhere along the line we forgot to tell people about the dreams and ideals of fairness and equality that make liberalism superior to conservatism or pragmatic moderation. But, when presented properly, it's a beautiful, inclusive philosophy.
January 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic that the effort to pump up the disappearing middle class didn't really get going until it became a white people problem too. Ah well, as David points out, it's still the right fight to be in....
January 14, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wishing the African-American women who are now in charge of the city well in their efforts to turn the city around. The tenure of Kurt Schmoke, the first elected African-American mayor of Baltimore, and fellow City College graduate (the third oldest high school in the US) was somewhat disappointing)
January 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh. If you compare a the average household of two 40 year old marrieds with two kids to the average household headed by a single twenty year old and two kids you are going to find a big difference in net worth regardless of race.
What is the point of comparing two populations with very different average age, and family structure?
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
January 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What data supports your assertion that the median, or average, or whatever, black household is headed by a single 20-yr old mother?
The aggregate data for the two populations is disappointing for any reason, and the the large disparity invites an explanation. Care to elaborate on your theory?
January 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well yeah but selected statistics have been known to lie.
The poorest ethnic group that is tallied are American Indians. The life expectancy on some reservations approximates that of many very poor countries.
And when you talk of that the response predicatably is about the Indians receiving nice income from casinos. A blue-eyed, blonde partner of one of my sisters in an apartment is one of those Indians receiving a fat check monthly for being an abused minority.
Maybe it would be best to leave division of people by ethnicity alone for political purposes to the Clintons and Republicans and let real Democrats tackle real problems of discrimination rather than exacerbating them.
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have asserted no such thing. However, similar circumstances are more prevelant in one population than the other. The difference in marriage rates between blacks and whites is well documented.
The meadian age for a white is abour 6 years greater than for a black. That means that population has a greater percentage in the peak earning years of 45 to 55 and a lower percentage in teens and twenties. And more to the point, and additional six years to accumulate net worth.
Census data
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
January 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some good data on net worth by various household demographics. Based on a quick read, did not see a reference definition of the median black or white household (age, # adult earners).
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf
January 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know who they're talking to, but most of the 'white' households I know of are about, oh, one paycheck from proverbial disaster, if that.
Economy's getting tight for a lot of people, white, black, asian, hispanic, or otherwise,
and if the mortgage situation succeeds in falling
fully flat on its' face, we're ALL going to be
stuck applying for food stamps or joining the
Army or something.
January 13, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
terryhallinan
Maybe it would be best to leave division of people by ethnicity alone for political purposes to the Clintons and Republicans and let real Democrats tackle real problems of discrimination rather than exacerbating them.
_________________________
Can you detail what you mean?
January 13, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real Democratic Party has you call it are the white wine spritzer crowd of elitists who smear on the desire of the working class to enter the consumer driven middle class.
At least so far the Clintons are carrying a majority of all Democrats and and in particular working class people.
You might want to read the book "Comeback Cities" which talks about how elistist helped destroy city after city. Then various mayors across the country, for example Kurt Schmoke, abandoned the grandiosity of the elites to improve the lives of everyday urban dwellers. The modle used was the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corp. established by Bobby Kennedy. These efforts try to tackle real problems like jobs, crime, education and transporation.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 13, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure.
When we attended an initial organizing meeting for Obama in Syracuse, NY, I was quite surprised at the diversity of people there from Goldwater Republicans to the Sierra Club organizer, from the expected college students to the less expected working people and the in-between professionals.
There was a delightful "interracial couple" - gawd almighty I hate such misleading terminology but how else to convey meaning - but there was no other indication that race had any part in the attraction to the crowd.
Obama's attraction is not bounded by race or class, gender or economic status. His message is universal but not specific.
We drew away from a very active and attractive group almost, but not entirely, because of his caution on the Iraqi occupation that I consider an abomination, a devastating stain on America and a terrible drain on its moral leadership and even its financial standing in the world. I am more inclined personally to the fiery rhetoric of John Edwards and even Dennis Kucinich. I am less thrilled by the conservatism of Obama but still find the break from the past a wonderful breath of fresh air.
The Republicans even pre-announced in the past their "southern strategy" that made them the majority party that dominated the political scene for the past decades. The appeal to the former Democratic segregationists made the once Solid South for the Democrats an impregnable Republican bastion.
The imaginary interregnum of the Clinton Administration played on the class division through the DLC language without naked appeal to racial division. It is not an accident in my view that Clinton lost the House, decimated the Senate and was followed by the most reactionary ideologue of them all.
Clinton wrote off the working and lower classes with his appeal to the amorphous suffering middle class and attack on welfare. They could follow along or go hang. The new, new Democratic Party would battle the Republicans on their turf. Workers got a smaller share of the pie, giant international corporations shipped out jobs and closed down factories. Trade agreements expanded imports, immigrants displaced workers in this country for the lower wage jobs still available and unions continued their free fall in membership. The chasm between classes turned into a Grand Canyon and even the environment was assaulted with the destruction of the landmark Protection of Species Act.
The Clintons are back at the old stand with the same old message of division.
Now it is gender and race that must divide us. Class division is already so ingrained in the subconscious that even John Edwards is calling out to that amorphous DLC middle class. In plain fact the middle class has been in decline for a very long time while the top 1% of the country is beginning to look like the old robber barons of the 1920's.
The choice for Democrats seems on the way to being reduced to one of division aping the Republican message or one of a universal message of hope and renewal.
The choice, if that in the end is all that is left for us, seems rather clear to me.
I used to just worry about the war with the deaths and disability of untold thousands, the looting of the national wealth, the destruction of the environment, the continuing impoverishment of the working class. The threat from Hillary that strikes at the very heart of what America was once meant to be makes all that seem relatively minor.
Best, Terry
January 13, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great change in the USA will come, if it ever does, when Americans stop talking about race and gender and begin to talk about social class.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 14, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The term "middle class" is so deceiving if taken to mean people who live in a mortgaged house with no savings and who only have their work to sell on the market.
To be truly middle class means to have "layered" property, land, rents, significant incomes from investments, etc.
To live from selling your work to another is to be "working class", even if you can command a high price for it (today).
Most Americans who call themselves middle class are only fooling themselves.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 14, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, I think its a 'feel good' thing, they know they aren't rich but don't see themselves as poor, ergo, 'we must be middle class.' Simply put, they see only 3 classes.
I would use annual income to describe class
and that would add at least two more classes 'upper middle' and lower middle.
Up to 40K Poor
40k to 75k Lower Middle
75k to 150k Middle
150k to 700k Upper Middle
700k up Wealthy
These numbers are, of course, arbitrary.
January 14, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Seaton said:
The great change in the USA will come, if it ever does, when Americans stop talking about race and gender and begin to talk about social class.
-------------
One of the frustrations that many African-Americans experience is the total lack of knowledge that many White Americans have regarding health care, housing, loan etc disparities that exist independent of social class.
I am providing a link to an AMA website that has a program for physicians trying to irradicate racial disparities in health care delivery. The program was instituted after a report by the Institute of Medicine detailing disparities based on race/ethnicity. African-Americans were less likely to receive interventional therapy and bypass procedures for hearts attacks and unstable angina, for example. Social class did not explain the difference in health care delivery. This imbalance was seen despite equal income levels.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18151.html
It may be somehow unpleasant for you and others to have to continue to bear the burden of issues based on race, but for others addressing racial disparities can be a matter of life and death. The solution may be as simple as a checklist used at hospital discharge to verify that a given patient received state of the art interventions and medications for the admitting diagnosis. If some procedure or medication wasn't given, a rationale for the omission could be given. But the initial question based on race has to be asked to address the problem. Different methods used to train physicians to prevent such disparities could be the ultimate result.
It's frustrating when an obvious factor is so easily dismissed by some. Your beliefs should not impact my health care.
January 14, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is dismissing a lower standard of care for African-Americans?
I suppose there can be those accused of willful ignorance rather than plain old ignorance of the matter.
If you are African-American, you have it much better than Native Americans. I don't mean that excuses anything but many are sure that all Native Americans are doing very well from casino income when, in fact, they are the lowest of all in income. The life expectancy on some reservations is comparable to that of the poorest countries on earth.
Bad, bad, bad.
Best, Terry
January 14, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
terryhallinan said:
.........many are sure that all Native Americans are doing very well from casino income
_________
I don't think of casinos when I think of American Indians. I think of reservations, poverty, and a high incidence of diabetes and alcoholism among other things.
My post was to counter the idea that an increase in social class in African-Americans led an increase in receiving state of the art medical care. I was empahsizing that social class alone does not erase receiving less than state of the art care.
I am unaware of data as to whether American Indians of higher income levels also receive less than state of art medical care despite equal insurance and income, but would not be surprised if that were the case.
I wasn't comparing poor African-Americans to poor American Indians. I'm stating that improved social class, insurance, and income in African-Americans does not lead to receiving state of the art therapy at equal levels to Whites at the same social level.
January 14, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know you weren't. I am the blackguard that went far afield.
My point is that when people think of poverty, they think of African-Americans. When they think of Indians - well, you said it all yourself. It ain't necessarily true.
Only a controlled study would tell about the medical care Indians receive but I can tell you Indian women complain mightily about rape of Indian women on reservations not being taken seriously by police. There are some horrendous statistics on the subject.
Best, Terry
January 14, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of differences in household makeup (Black households younger, etc.), the difference in net worth is stark. What I'm saying is, if you factor in age differences or single parenthood, the numbers are still not going to equal out. Or even be close.
The way I've heard this statistic described in the past is in terms of access to startup business capital. For every dollar of startup capital to which a white person has access, a black person has access to 13 cents. That has a huge impact on a person's ability to start a business, and since businesses started on less than $100,000 are far more likely to fail than businesses started on more, it makes a big difference in whether the business is likely to succeed.
Here's a link to an article that talks about the problem. There's a lot more out there too.
http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-24/fairlie.asp
January 14, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
erica said:
Regardless of differences in household makeup (Black households younger, etc.), the difference in net worth is stark.
---------------------------------
For clarity I'm going to refer to the link above
and repeat the statement that the IOM (Institute of Medicine) study found that disparities in heath care persisted even after correcting for income, education, and insurance levels.
It's interesting , as I surf between here and Swampland, there appears to be some inability to understand the impact of what the IOM study found. This was not a class issue! Economics had nothing to do with it. Believe or not there are African-Americans that live well above the poverty line. There are still barriers to full access to state of the art health care despite having the cash. Can I be more clear?
(Perhaps snarky, but this is just downright frustrating)
January 14, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly enough, it's always possible to be more clear, especially when there are a couple of conversations going on at the same time.
The writer of the TPM piece referred to a gap in net worth between white and black americans. Abdul disputed the relevance of this gap, implying that it existed because black households tend to be younger and headed by single parents.
I countered that even if you account for age and single parenthood, the difference in net worth for these groups would still exist. I supported my contention with a link.
:^)
My comment had nothing to do with the discussion you are having about the IOM report. (But I am familiar with the finding that disparities in health care for people of color exist despite corrections for income, education, and insurance levels.)
January 14, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
erica
This is me slowly taking my foot out of my mouth
Sorry I though you were responding to my post
:)
January 14, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. And as I mentioned, you are correct about the finding of racial disparities in health care delivery even after correction for other factors....
January 14, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course poor African-Americans have it worse than poor white Americans. Insult is added to injury.
But race is used and has always been used in the USA to divide the poor and to keep them from uniting on economic lines.
While acknowledging all the pain you want, I believe that both whites and blacks should move beyond that pain and mutual distrust if they ever want to see improvement in their lot. Only by class unity will there ever be real change. Racism and race politics are the enemy of all the poor people of America, both white and black.
The most subversive thing that could ever be done, something that would blow the whole system apart, would be for poor white Americans and poor black Americans to join together at a grassroots level to demand a free health care system on the European model
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that what you mean is a system of health care that is "universal," meaning "for everyone," and "single-payer," meaning administered by a single entity.
Because to the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "free" health care system, in Europe or anywhere else.
January 14, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
While acknowledging everything you say about the treatment of middle class African-Americans, at this point I am more interested in health care for poor Americans of all colors, because I believe that the real battle is there. Changing that would change the entire political scenario in America from top to bottom.
So it is imperative that the poor of every color join together to demand a national health (AKA "socialized medicine") program for the USA.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 14, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Seaton said:
Of course poor African-Americans have it worse than poor white Americans. Insult is added to injury.
But race is used and has always been used in the USA to divide the poor and to keep them from uniting on economic lines.
------------------------------------
I going to state again that my post was not about poor African-Americans.
I was making the point that middle, upper middle class, upper class African-Americans with good income and insurance plans did not receive the same level of care that whites of equal status. Black people. With money. The IOM study states that class is not responsible for the lower level of health care. Race/ethnicity is a major determinant of the type of health care that you receive. Latinos face the same problem. Asian women are 50% as likely as Caucasian women to get PAP smears.
A colorblind society could produce detriment results that go undetected. Let me give an example. 100 patients are admiited with heart attacks. 85 of the 100 receive proper care (bypass operations, angioplasy, and/or appropriate medications for their disease. One might say 85% is a good batting average for proper treatment. However, suppose the breakdown of the 100 patients is the following:
80 are Caucasian, 20 are African-American
75 of the 80 Caucasians got appropriate therapy (93.75%). !0 of the 20 African-Americans got apprpriate therapy (50%). The colorblind number shows that a total of 85 of 100 patients were properly treated (85%). The truth is that one group was grossly mismanaged, but we wouldn't realize this fact.
If a > than 90% appropriate treatment goal is set by a hospital, we could see the following:
Using the same 100 patients, after the goal is set, 95% were treated appropriately according to a colorblind system. The numbers maight look differently when we take race into account.
All 80 of the Caucasians were treated properly. 15 of the 20 African-Americans were treated properly, "only" 5 were not. 95 patients were treated as they should have been and we have reached our > 90% goal. But the 5 patients not properly treated represent (5/20) a 25% rate of
heart attack mismanagement. One in four were not correctly treated! Missing such important data is a danger impacting the lives of African-American heart attack victims.
I hope my example was clear enough. I hope that you understand poverty was not the issue in the African-American patients. Under-treatment exists even with excellent income and insurance.
Regarding poverty, which has well known impact on health care. It was not responsible for African-Americans with insurance and income receiving poor health care (Obviously). Poverty sucks if you are African-American, American Indian, White, Lation, Asian, etc., BUT race/ethnicity has continued impact on the type of health care a person receives. It cannot be ignored.
January 14, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're certain of that are you?
Poor whites are the single group about which it is just fine to make all manner of humorous jokes.
Most poor people are white. Poor ain't good nowhere.
What has been done in West Virginia by coal mining is a disgrace to the nation that might reasonably be said to exceed that of New Orleans in both damage to the people and environment.
I have personally witnessed very young children slapped around for not working hard enough picking fruit in California.
Does it make any difference what the color of the kid's skin was?
Some are now called "privileged white males."
Best, Terry
January 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
They seem to be in the process of simultaneously alienating both women and blacks, both fundamental constituencies to any Democratic victory. You have to see it to believe it, as they say, "you can't make this stuff up".
Certainly if Obama continues to play the race card he can expect a white backlash in November and normally Hillary could expect a very enthusiastic black turnout if she won the nomination, but if she succeeds in trashing Obama much of the African-American vote may go fishing too. The Republicans must be laughing themselves sick, simply peeing themselves with mirth.
I am beginning to think that the Democratic Party is a figment of Karl Rove's imagination.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink