The GOP is quietly crafting work requirement waivers — for white people


#41

E.g.:

Your mistake is assuming that racism is fundamentally about psychology, rather than about institutional and real-world effects. Even putting aside whether there is psychological racism going on here (and who are we kidding, of course there is), it would still be the case that, even if everyone involved in this were the “least racist ever,” as Trump claims, it would still be racist in its institutional effects. That is: if you have a law that disproportionately favors a privileged group over a minority group, this is racist, regardless of any psychological motives or intent.


#42

No, it specifically is not ‘racism’ if it lacks the psychological motives or intent. Racism has a relatively narrow definition. That is not to say that racism is never a component, nor that the disparities (incidental or intentional) should not be addressed. Ascribing every disparity to racism is going to ossify opinion against you.


#43

This is simply false. Philosophy of racism, and sociology of racism, are enormous topics that cover a huge range of ideas, definitions, and concepts. The totality of a concept, especially one as complicated and fraught as racism, is rarely captured by dictionary.com.


#44

Racism is completely uncomplicated. It’s stupid, but there’s nothing complex about it. It is a very simple concept. The effects of racism are not the racism itself, nor is every example of an effect that has been caused by racism necessarily the result of racism. Otherwise, because there have been racist murders, death would be racist, and I can’t think of anything more egalitarian than death!


#45

No. You don’t know what you’re talking about.


#46

Alright my mistake.

No, because you have to include contributing factor, like geography; where the population is located.

If you make mechanical comparisons and automatically attribute it to prejudice, you’re just making the same mistake in thinking the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did against Sears over concerns of lack of female advancement.

Divergent outcomes can happen without it being prejudicial, or even wrong. That’s the kind of world we live in.


#47

No, because you have to include contributing factor, like geography; where the population is located.

If you make mechanical comparisons and automatically attribute it to prejudice, you’re just making the same mistake in thinking the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did against Sears over concerns of lack of female advancement.

Divergent outcomes can happen without it being prejudicial, or even wrong. That’s the kind of world we live in.

If it wasn’t clear before that the intent is racist, then it certainly is now. After all, the creators of the proposed policy, if they were ignorant of the racist outcomes before, must certainly understand now that this will be the effect. And they obviously don’t care. If you don’t care about racist outcomes, then you’re, prima facie, a racist.


#48

No, that logic doesn’t work.

Having just any policy produce divergent racial outcomes, is not automatically racist.

Again, if all of welfare was predicated on COLA estimates, Blacks would more than likely still get less than whites, because most of them live in the South, and the cost of living is lower there than much of the rest of the country.

No one would be prejudicial, nothing would have been done wrong, and yet, the disparity would still exist.

You can’t call yourself rational and not acknowledge this. Contributing factors matter.


#49

Nothing you’ve said refutes my argument at all. Your first error is in assuming that the disparities in the work requirement waivers are unavoidably skewered in favor of white people. If this were the case, you would be right that no moral blame, or attributions of racism, would be called for; the old Kantian point that morality presupposes real alternatives holds here: one can hardly be blamed for something that can’t be any other way.

But the outcomes here aren’t unavoidable in the slightest. For example, instead of making work requirement waivers only for specific counties that have overwhelming white majorities (and excluding counties with high percentages of black populations), you could make the work requirements based on some state-wide measure that doesn’t privilege rural whites.

Again, the moral logic is completely obvious: if you knowingly create a racist policy, then you’re, prima facie, a racist.


#50

Except it isn’t rural whites at all. It’s Rural counties. We know this, as Rural counties that are also disproportionately black, yet vote red, are also getting this benefit.

Equally, changing the policy simply along racial lines, doesn’t help everyone effected. Everyone in a given county loses out, not just the blacks. So only helping the blacks, doesn’t solve the problem.

Nor does it prevent the Democrats repeating the tactic for their own side when they come to power again.

The true issue is the rewarding of political loyalty. If you don’t approach it from that viewpoint, your not tackling the whole problem, and your solutions will be fragmented at best.


#51

What a compelling argument you offer!


#52

Hi, Pot; he’s Kettle…


#53

This is false. For example, in Kentucky, the first counties that are having the work requirements imposed are the counties with the highest concentrations of black residents. The 8 counties that are being made exempt from work requirements are 90% white.

It’s hard to avoid thinking there’s some bad faith in your refusal to face the racism of this policy.


#54

All counties in Kentucky are predominantly white. You’re not looking far enough south.

Read this, and reflect on it please:

Tennessee has 19 counties that will be getting this waiver, because they are in “economic distress”, and have unemployment rates that are 10% or worse.

Only one of two of the State’s predominantly black counties is on that list. Not because “racist” but because, unemployment is not as high in that county as the rest.

You could say this a weakness of not reaching low enough in unemployment, or in trying to attach the policy to counties rather than metropolitan areas, in order to better target all of the worst off.

In either case, trying to say the motive is race, doesn’t follow. Targeting to reward rural areas, makes more sense as a motive here, as counties are what vote, and rural areas have been far more economically depressed than urban or suburban areas; experiencing basically no economic growth in the past 15 years.


#55

Please read and reflect:

A Washington Post analysis found that while African Americans make up about 23 percent of Medicaid enrollees in Michigan, they would make up just 1.2 percent of the people eligible for an exemption. Meanwhile, 57 percent of Michigan Medicaid enrollees are white, but white residents would make up 85 percent of the population eligible for an exemption.


#56

Not until you respond to mine:

The waiver is directed at places with high unemployment rates.

Which means, you fault the policy for not going low enough in unemployment, or for targeting counties rather than cities.

You have not dealt with this. Whites are 80% of the population in Michigan (and there are no majoritive black counties), thus, county targeting based on economic distress explains the result quite well, because blacks are gathered into urban centers that are performing better than the rural areas.


#57

None of that matters for the avoidable and extreme racial disparities, which are, therefore racist.


#58

Please reflect:

A Washington Post analysis found that while African Americans make up about 23 percent of Medicaid enrollees in Michigan, they would make up just 1.2 percent of the people eligible for an exemption. Meanwhile, 57 percent of Michigan Medicaid enrollees are white, but white residents would make up 85 percent of the population eligible for an exemption.


#59

Oh come on, try to actually give a response here, of course it matters, It’s how the policy was crafted! Targeting counties that are in economic distress.

Why would they do this? Because counties vote, not cities, and rural counties, unlike the urban ones, have failed to experience economic growth.

Remember Anderson, what this policy is; a waiver from work requirements. It’s easier to see how someone might find work in a growing Urban county, than a Rural one that’s been in a recession since 2000.

You started this by claiming race was the motive behind the policy, but we can see just by the simple facts that they could be crafting this with county performance in mind, with no regard given to race.

Black counties in the south are in fact being included in this waiver, but it’s only the rural ones. Rural is the target, because rural people didn’t get the growth, thus there are no jobs or at least far less jobs for them to apply for, to meet a work requirement.


#60

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.