Black Politics & Neoliberalism In America

Black Politics and the Neoliberal Racial Orderis an essay worth reading and serves here as the primary source quoted.* But don’t be fooled by the Obama and Jay Z quotes in the introduction. The authors go on to explain how “they represent the ascendance of neoliberal values in black politics.”

Photo credit:Pete Souza

To understand that claim, it’s essential to know how neoliberalism influences black politics and manifests itself in American policy. Furthermore, all of us —black, white and every color in between—must comprehend the effect neoliberal policies have on our nation. Only then can we move this nation from Black Lives Matter protests to fair policies that make sense for America.

Neoliberalism: Placing Profits Over People

Neoliberalism is an economic policy model that transfers control of economic factors … to the private sector … from the public sector.*

Neoliberal policies are based on market principles and theory. They serve as the foundation of “reforms” of all kinds. But the transfer of control of government programs and services to the private sector hasn’t served this nation’s people well, or fairly. Privatization has fueled widening inequality.

Neoliberal economic reforms include fiscal policies (particularly taxation policies) that favor capital accumulation. The result has been income redistribution … from the bottom … to the top.*

Although supply-and-demand (market-based, free trade) systems are foundational to private businesses, when neoliberal policies are applied to essential public services it means trusting the private sector to provide public services honestly and equitably. But based on experience, we know corruption and greed takes over. It’s not been fair because “neoliberals aren’t necessarily averse to picking winners and losers in the economy, and often do not oppose measures such as bailouts of major industries” (Investopedia).

Neoliberalism supports fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, privatization, and greatly reduced government spending.*

But when it comes to the “smaller government” demand, we’ve seen that ideology primarily applied to what should be our social safety net.

Neoliberalism, once associated with conservatives like Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, is now associated with Third Way politics, which seeks a middle ground between the ideologies of the left and right.*

Left, Right, or Middle? In policy-making, neoliberalism is neoliberalism. It’s the acceptance of privatization as a way to address problems because trust in government institutions has been intentionally undermined by corruptive political forces.

Neoliberal Values

By their very nature, market-based policies value competition thus putting “the individual” and wealth accumulation first and foremost. In a sense, that negates the whole idea of a government “of, by, and for the People” — effectively neutralizing a sense of mutual societal responsibility. So in a neoliberal world, there is privatization of public services, crippling of or eliminating state services, and favoritism towards globalization.

The end result of applying neoliberal values to government service policies is the removal of government accountability. What’s accomplished? It transfers accountability from public institutions to corporations that are beholding to shareholders —not to the American People.

Remember

Remember subprime loans being called “ghetto loans”? Predatory lending practices? Credit default swaps? The creation of financial instruments of destruction?

… Wall Street investors hedged their bets and reaped huge monetary rewards during the foreclosure crisis, while working-class minorities defaulted on payments and lost their homes and their futures.*

And what about the result of neoliberal ideology combined with racial discrimination in the criminal justice system? Remember history.

After Reconstruction, the criminal justice system became the institution at the heart of Southern efforts to strip African Americans of their citizenship rights.

Today, under the banner of “law and order” … the state and private corporations have profited from incarceration. (Note: Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) has a market value of over $2 billion.)

Prisons partner with Fortune 500 corporations (e.g., IBM, AT&T, and Bank of America) to employ prison labor.*

Remember the War on Drugs?

… the massive levels of incarceration especially of black youth …

[add to that]… the extremely dismal economic opportunities available to most poor black families, and the continued devaluing of black life as unarmed blacks are gunned down by both officers of the state and private citizens …*

Black Politics & The Necessary Revolution in Social Policy

Remember, and think again.

Neoliberalism facilitated a rebirth of two of the Jim Crow flagship elements: race-based crime policies and economic exploitation.*

But with policy-making controlled by moneyed interests, how will we reverse these discriminatory policy trends?

With the convergence of racial, political, and economic unrest, now is the time to insist that political leaders face the truth about their use of neoliberal ideology in the policies they favored. Only then can this country move from protests to better policies — with fairness and equality as guides.

… there has been under neoliberalism a reworking of blacks’ relationship to the economy with disastrous results, particularly for working-class and poor blacks whose very bases for economic success—the public sector and manufacturing— were no longer vehicles for black economic survival, let alone for black economic growth and social mobility.*

A better America requires better leadership on social policies.

Black Politics & The Narrative

Some offer-up a rebirth of family stability as the solution to what ails us. But how does that happen when the prison industry sees human beings as potential revenue and “law and order” policies militarized police departments? Stability isn’t happening. Instead, destabilization has resulted.

And with the election of a black president, much of the country accepted that we were entering a post-racial era.*

If we entered a post-racial era, we weren’t there long. And because President Obama embraced neoliberalism, our nation’s policies —on crime, finance, education, housing, and the development of global monopolies— did not change enough to make progress towards the promise of equal opportunity in America.

The “pull yourself up by the boot-straps” mentality, once a Republican ideology, crossed the political aisle and infected black politics.

Obama’s solution has been to redirect attention to individual choices … According to Obama, government institutions are rarely the source of continuing racial inequalities.

Jay Z has characterized his trajectory as that of the consummate hustler who, through his own hard work, lifted himself out of poverty and into worldwide stardom.

The understanding of the American dream that Obama and Jay Z embrace is one where individuals are, by and large, the sole architects of their fate.

The post-racial narrative is persuasive because it plays to the desires of a citizenry with race fatigue—the large majority of white Americans are convinced that blacks have achieved racial equality …*

That narrative is a barrier to progress. But with the killing of George Floyd caught on tape, the nation saw once again how discrimination becomes deadly. What people can’t easily see is that it’s neoliberal policies throwing the fuel of frustration on the flames of protests.

Civil Rights, Poverty & Economic Justice

Looking back at the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s, it focused not only on blatantly obvious segregation but also on education, employment, and poverty. But in that era, policies changed to benefit the lower and middle-class. Now, the public must see how neoliberal values —competition, individualism, and wealth accumulation— replaced our national values of justice and fairness.

We became a nation of neoliberals!?! Yes? If so, then that explains why we quit addressing poverty through effective government policies. Most developed countries employ effective government solutions to address poverty. Why aren’t we?

“Where poverty is widespread, as most visibly demonstrated by the United States, there has been a failure to institutionalize equality.”

“Compared to other Western industrialized countries, the United States devotes far fewer resources to programs aimed at assisting the economically vulnerable.”

Source: Why is poverty higher in the U.S. than in other countries?

If we have accepted neoliberal values as our guide, then all that matters is our own monetary and material wealth. That mindset doesn’t allow us to consider that economic justice doesn’t mean taking anything from an individual. It only means setting rules that give everyone “a sufficient material foundation” — a fair shot, an opportunity.

Economic justice is a set of moral and ethical principles for building economic institutions, where the ultimate goal is to create an opportunity for each person to establish a sufficient material foundation upon which to have a dignified, productive, and creative life. (Investopedia)

Isn’t it time we replace neoliberal values with true American values?

#####

*Some quotes were altered to fit this format.

We Set Our Course On The Wrong Destination

The Declaration of Independence is seen as our nation’s promise. It contains guiding principles upon which our nation was built. Its words invoked a vision, a place to be created, a destination. Because of it, America became the “separate and equal” sovereign nation it set out to be.

By 1954, it was decided that when it came to public schools “separate but unequal” was our reality. A socioeconomic and racial inequality in America was acknowledged. That fact alone was justification for the writing of federal education law in 1965. And we set our course of action on offering equal access. However, desegregation —a forced attempt to offer that access—overshadowed full implementation of the law.

But equal access alone was never enough; the American standard is one of quality.

So as 1983 rolled around, the National Commission on Excellence in Education openly questioned the quality of our public secondary schools and made the call that we were A Nation at Risk based on eleven “indicators.” The majority of those measures were standardized test scores. The course was set. The destination was higher scores.

At that time, the commission’s analysis of statistics painted a bleak picture. And even though some of us still believe their recommendations were generally in the best interest of improving education, it is the commission’s “final” diagnosis of the quality of education in America that has been a topic of dispute in education circles for 35 years — with good reason.

A decade after the release of A Nation at Risk, researchers at the Sandia National Laboratories conducted their own study of elementary and secondary education. The only article about this investigation that the public has some access to is a summary titled “Perspectives on Education in America” (The Journal of Educational Research, Volume 86, Number 5, May/June 1993).

Sandia researchers did their own analysis of U.S. student’s performance on international and national test scores in addition to looking at “the education goals proposed by President [H.W.] Bush and the nation’s Governors.” They wrote that their analysis “focused on popular measures used to discuss the status of education in America.”

They found that in “nearly every” popular measure there was a “steady or slightly improving trend.” These researchers did not interpret this to mean that we don’t need to improve; they questioned the appropriateness of the popular measures, the difficulty of predicting the future educational needs of the country, and they found us “clearly deficient” on some measures they felt were appropriate.

So if left to their own devises, would the Sandia analysts choose different indicators of educational quality and achievement? The country did not ask.

Have our policymakers taken their findings into consideration? The country cannot possibly know.

This group of engineers — admittedly looking at education from an apolitical, outsiders’ view — summarized for us; the challenges we must face, the barriers that can impede educational improvement, and the conflicts they anticipated with the “reforms” being proposed.

Their findings should have been taken as cautionary. But the country did not hear them.The report was suppressed. The report, and the perplexing act of its contents being censored, failed to draw the attention of the media.

This lack of pertinent information has left us drifting along using “questionable measures.” And we lurched forward with full sails into the gusty winds of conflicting reform theories while anchoring them firmly in law — without good reason.

Any comparisons of U.S. scores on international tests should be seen as irrelevant in discussions of reform until the faults in those comparisons are clearly explained to the public.

What there should be no doubt about is that Gerald Bracey was correct in his observation that 20 years after A Nation at Risk, “The various special interest groups in education need[ed] another treatise to rally round. And now they have one. It’s called No Child Left Behind. It’s a weapon of mass destruction, and the target is the public school system. Today, our public schools are truly at risk.”

Now we know the destination set for the nation is privatization of our public schools.

Today, to effectively use history as a guide, we need the unfiltered insight of some of our best and brightest minds. We need the truth.

As the Sandia report quoted Clark Kerr, then President Emeritus of the University of California:

“Seldom in the course of policymaking in the U.S. have so many firm convictions held by so many been based on so little convincing proof.”

And that is now sadly true of the nation as a whole. We set course towards an illusion that raising test scores would produce “excellence.”

Good decisions are based on observation and evidence.

When information is withheld, we are more inclined to choose a course of action that takes us in the wrong direction. And the destination set for us appears to not be the one the American people desire.

Once upon a time, we were on course “To strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the Nation’s elementary and secondary schools.” We are now running full speed ahead towards the alluring but deceptive goal of better test scores.

It is time to write a better passage in this reform saga by starting with the long ago expired and fault-ridden federal education law inappropriately named “No Child Left Behind” and now called the “Every Student Succeeds Act.” To do so responsibly requires we have a true assessment of our education system.

If this country’s leaders sincerely believe in excellent education for all, they will bring the missing Sandia Report up from the depths and welcome re-analysis of both it and A Nation at Risk. Our course in education reform, and our monitoring of it, depends on wise and informed decision-making. Our republic requires it.

(P.S. A version of this blog was originally posted on TruthOut in 2014.)

Assessing the Risk

Is it fair to have said in 1983, and to say now, that we are a nation at risk? My gut tells me yes, forever and always, we should be viewing this republic in that light lest we become complacent. Wait! Too late? … Not really.

The words “rising tide of mediocrity” from Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education report, titled “A Nation at Risk,” lives in infamy to stir a divisive debate. Were those words a fair assessment?

To decide, I reviewed the 11 statistical indicators used by the commission but then I got to thinking; education reports of any true significance to long-term progress (which is what should be part of our concern) tend to run a decade or so behind any given change. And that is when it dawned on me to ask my fellow 1974 graduates what they thought of the education we received in our small, mid-western, blue-collar town.

I posted this on Facebook: “Albion High School (AHS) Graduates: how would you describe our education at AHS? Great/Mediocre/Poor?” Was this scientific? No. Is it significant? You decide.

Those that responded overwhelmingly judged their education in the late 60’s and early 70’s as mediocre leaning towards poor. Was it a “rising tide”? I don’t know. But what I do know is, as expressed in the responses by those that had gone to other schools, our school was “not as challenging as the other schools. I couldn’t believe the difference!”

This was unequal access; it existed then, it exists now.

John W. Gardner, an influential Republican in a Democrat's administration.

John W. Gardner, an influential Republican who served both parties and helped bring to fruition a federal education law under a  Democrat’s administration.

However, if you read down through the responses from my wise classmates, you’ll find that they/we were not fully crippled by the mediocrity of our educational background and we recognize that it took concerted individual effort to overcome the shortcomings of our formal education. Some acknowledged what a privilege it was to come from families that had and valued books and many of those that responded were, one way or another, able to pursue higher education.

I was left wondering about those that did not respond. Did they find support and fill the educational gaps? Did they have talents they never developed to their full potential? How much American talent is lost when mediocre education is accepted anywhere?

 How is this a fair shot?

And why are education pundits, bloggers, leaders, etc. still blaming a report for the take-over of education reform by the education industry? Is that a fair assessment? More importantly, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of children for us to look at and reevaluate our history of education reforms in a positive light?

Take the good; leave the bad behind. Change; improve; make progress

The Crossroads of Opportunity

The modern-day march towards equality has always been — at least partially — about public education.

When educational inequality was studied by James S. Coleman, they used tools —surveys and tests— to determine outcomes. And those that saw equal educational opportunity being established in high-minority and high-poverty schools looked further into the means by which educational quality was being improved.

Since researcher Ronald Edmonds and others made their observations known, no one has been able to definitively dispute them. The correlates for effective schools have been expanded; they have been rewritten and renamed; they have been reorganized and re-researched — and they stand as guiding principles.

Edmonds had followed in the footsteps of the leaders of the community school movement. Father of the concept, Frank Manley, drove the idea as far as he could and handed it over to Frank (Francis) Keppel who wrote the essence of it into law as best he could.

Jefferson's express of the need to educate the common people.

Jefferson’s express of the need to educate the common people.

Now, we stand at a crossroads in education law. What principle will we stand upon in order to do right by the children of this country? Will we side with what has proven itself effective, or go with what so many desperately want to make “work”? Will we repeat mistakes of the past only to discover it leaves children behind? Or will we travel the hard but proven path of equal opportunity?

Does a rising tide lift all boats?

It is only when you stand on the shoulders of giants that you can see what they saw. Understanding the concepts of standards, testing, community education, and the personal and shared responsibility of educating a nation of children is the ladder that can take us high enough to see the best way.

The opportunity we have now is to use the law —the reauthorization of ESEA currently called No Child Left Behind— to put in place the foundational principles of equal educational opportunity, the principles of effective schools.

Part 9 of ten blogs on The Road to Educational Quality and Equality that started with The March Begins.

The Realities of Our Time

“Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words [self-evident truths] with the realities of our time.”  President Obama

Today’s reality is that we cannot see what is coming when we don’t understand where we have been. And it may be self-evident that we are created equal but what is most evident is how unequally we dish out quality education. It isn’t because we cannot; it is because we will not. Face the reality; as a people, we are in chains.

If the president “knows that the path to the middle class goes right through America’s classrooms,” then why does he push to import STEM talent? Does he really not believe in the character of Americans? “Initiative and enterprise,” “hard work and personal responsibility” — give us a break. That’s all we ask, that you give us a break. As one Occupy spokesperson said, “I don’t want a handout, I want a fighting chance.”

The very chain that binds us is inequality — unequal voice in our republican government; unequal educational opportunity; an unequal start in the race of life. The pursuit of happiness is made harder when the man hoping to help bridge our realities and that quest does not understand our educational history.

And education does not top the list of issues that catches the eyes and ears of the public. The man behind the bully pulpit can change that; will he?