LBO News from Doug Henwood

Tim Wise’s game

by John Halle

As the mask comes off, revealing the Obama administration’s reactionary face, the spin deployed by its much vaunted media team is beginning to lose its power to confuse and misdirect.  And with this, those whose business model involves selling Obama as a species of “pragmatic liberal” are gradually finding themselves parading their factual bankruptcy and rhetorical dishonesty for all to see.

A recent piece  by Bruce Dixon excellently takes down two of the worst of this variety: MSNBC’s Joy-Ann Reid and Melissa Harris Perry. But it is important to recognize that they are not the only ones who have made careers for themselves in the marketing, sales and distribution of the Obama brand. One of the most successful, and arguably a more effective marketer than the MSNBC cheerleading squad is the self described anti-racist Tim Wise.

Wise would, of course, vehemently object to being characterized as an Obama apologist, though, as we shall see, the ultimate effect of most of his work is to promote a multicultural form of neoliberalism fully consonant with the administration’s views and which thereby strongly serves its political interests.  His real beat is as an “anti-racist educator” with several books to his credit, a full schedule of speaking appearances at university campuses, public high schools and police departments leading racial sensitivity workshops as well as increasingly high profile media appearances including on mainstream national cable outlets.

Being attuned to racial sensitivity is a job Wise takes seriously, as can be seen in Wise’s blog entries and numerous tweets.  A large fraction of these involve policing the left for any claim, phrase, indeed, any word which could be construed as insufficiently informed by the historical injustices and atrocities visited on POCs (to use Wise’s preferred acronym).    Wise does not merely make note of these. Acting as judge and jury, Wise reaches a verdict, imposes a sentence on those he has found guilty, and the sentence is often death.

This is, unfortunately, not an exaggeration.  When those who raised concerns-soon borne out-of the potential of objectively reactionary governance from the Obama administration enabled and aggravated by its deadening effect on mass movements, they were described by Wise as having “become such an encumbrance as to render (them) all but useless to the liberation movement” prospective recipients of “a burning they will richly deserve.”

The hanging judge

This is not the only death threat to be found in Wise’s oeuvre.  Another was addressed to those who “insist they aren’t racist because they have black friends.  I am going to shoot them,” Wise declared. While these were among the more unvarnished instances of eliminationist rhetoric, the violent tone of his discourse suggests that Wise fantasizes his targets being subjected to lynching, or at least necklacing, as poetic justice for what he takes as their complicity in crimes against peoples of color.

That Wise grants himself the authority to judge other’s motives and actions naturally raises the question of what his qualifications are to do so. These are often virtually non-existent with Wise simply inventing facts which are subsequently used to attack, denigrate or belittle.

A recent example found Wise charging Glenn Greenwald with “never hav[ing] sa[id] shit about racial profiling, or surveillance of POC/Muslims.” In reality, Greenwald has a long history of speaking out on this issue-easily obtained by a simple google search, as Greenwald noted in a 100 character rejoinder. This interaction subsequently revealed a third salient feature of Wise: neither a retraction or apology from Wise was extended.  Having mounted his high horse, Wise not only exempts himself from the requirements of factual accuracy but from basic decency.

Wise’s tone and sloppiness might be rationalized as understandable overreactions to right wing provocations until one recognizes that these attacks are not directed towards the right, actual racists or those who promote objectively racist policies.  Rather Wise reserves much of his ire for those whom Obama’s former Press Secretary famously referred to as the “professional left”.  Included among these are left critics of Obama such as Greenwald, Paul Street, and other “barbituate leftists” who “preen as moral superiors because (they’ve) read Bakunin, and Zerzan, and Chomsky, or because (they) once called a cop a pig to his face in Seattle or some such thing.”

The purity of Wise’s animus towards the left was impressively displayed in a recent series of tweets provoked by the NSA disclosures and the Obama administrations efforts to retaliate.  Rather than welcome the revelations, Wise was quick to minimize their importance, basing his dismissal on a transparently absurd claim by Wise that “NO people of color (are) shocked by Snowden’s revelations. None. POC assume this shit. #whiteprivilege lets u ignore till now.” When those who objected to this gross distortion responded, they were red baited as “white Marxists” who fail to appreciate that “white supremacy is the glue that holds the U.S. class system together, and if you don’t KNOW that, yr an idiot.”

These same “white leftists” according to Wise should congratulate themselves “on their irrelevance & wonder why most POC apparently think they r full of crap…” According to Wise, “I’d be effing amazed if any white leftists enamored of Snowden actually new shit about movement building and how its done.” And “Let’s b [sic] clear: Glenn Greenwald was a moderately decent college debater who thinks this is his moment. It isn’t. You nor Snowden r heroes.”

Smearing Snowden & Occupy

This final tweet removed the veil from the game being played by Wise.

As those who have followed the matter are aware, the  “no heroes” designation of Snowden and Greenwald has been a staple of Obama’s apologists, Reid, Harris-Perry, and others, almost certainly circulating a focus group tested talking point devised by White House media specialists.  By blandly parrotting this well worn establishment smear, Wise revealed his membership within this cohort, with the only difference between Wise and the others inhering in Wise’s primary demographic being not the liberal MSNBC left but the radical left associated with Zmag, Democracy Now and the Nation.  For this constituency, full throated defenses of Obama’s policies have long since failed to pass the laugh test.  And so Wise is always careful to note his disagreement with Obama’s policies, his service to the administration deriving from his reliable attacks on the “white privilege” of left critics providing an easy rationalization for complacency and inaction.

Wise’s political services were provided not only in the wake of the Snowden disclosures but, more predictably, in response to the Occupy movement about which Wise has had very little to say.  Wise’s silence was predictable given that OWS seeks to reconstruct a unified movement directed against the plutocratic 1%, unifying rather than dividing, as Wise would, the 99%.   Rather than participate in OWS, Wise contributed to a collection of essays entitled Occupying Privilege in which “readers will learn about white supremacy, media’s spin control, (mis)education, the criminal IN-justice system, cultural appropriation, and racism’s continued impact on people of color and white people.” No mention of Wall Street banks, housing foreclosures overwhelmingly impacting POCs, trillion dollar bailouts,  as this would distract from the question of  “So, um, what the hell is white privilege anyway, and do I have it?” According to Wise, “The short answer is if you’re white, yeah, you do.”  By helping circulate the OWS/white privilege meme, Wise helped develop a much brandished rhetorical bludgeon for the defenders of plutocracy against what was the most successful attack on its foundations in many years.

Not just a potato chip

The above is somewhat misleading in that it suggests that Wise’s central priority is the promotion of the Obama brand.  Rather it should be understood that the main product Wise is selling is himself, specifically his “racial sensitivity” franchise which he has indeed successfully marketed and profited from handsomely, as noted above. There is a connection between these two objectives: in order to be regarded as legitimate by mainstream institutions from which his bread and butter income derives, Wise’s criticisms need to remain within legitimate boundaries, which in practice means narrowly directed towards race.  Attacks against white privilege are, for reasons mentioned above, welcomed by the establishment. In contrast, those directed against the real power in the hands of what is now an increasingly multicultural elite are out of bounds. Wise understands these rules of the game very well, and he plays it expertly.

That said, it should be noted that Wise’s rise to a position of public prominence was crucially aided by the alternative media, especially at the initial stages, most notably by Zmag where Wise first established a media perch some two decades ago.   This brings up the issue of why was a figure who has so consistently expressed his contempt, or at best, a distinct lack of enthusiasm for leftists and core aspects of the left agenda continues to be welcomed by it with open arms.

I won’t attempt to address this here, as the subject is perhaps best left alone, though with the understanding that a similar trajectory was followed by Melissa Harris Perry who began her rise accessing authentic left outlets such as Democracy Now!, Laura Flanders’s GritTV, and The Nation. By this point, neither Wise nor Harris Perry has any need of the ladder which was provided for them, and so both are free to consolidate their positions by joining in establishment attacks on the left agenda.

While it is probably by now too late to matter in their cases, it is encouraging that a first flicker of recognition of the reactionary character of the Wise/Harris Perry brand of multicultural neoliberalism is beginning to be visible.  As it has in many other quarters, the disclosures of Greenwald and Snowden provided the impetus for a broader examination of which side Wise is on.   A good indication unearthed by Doug Henwood was Wise’s having been engaged by Teach for America a group which, as anyone with a minimal political awareness understands, is devoted to the undermining of inner city education and the whole sale layoffs of African American teachers to be replaced by TFA’s overwhelmingly white, underqualified, non-union recruits.

Wise’s having “Stamp(ed) TFA’s Anti-Racist Ghetto Pass” provoked a sharp response from Bruce Dixon at Black Agenda Report who circulated a petition calling for Wise to cancel his scheduled engagement with TFA. Unsurprisingly, Wise has rejected Dixon’s request. More significantly, Dixon went further, raising doubts about Wise’s competence, awareness and, ultimately, underlying agenda: “If this is how ‘anti-racism education’ works—giving cover to organizations and policies that hurt people of color more than anybody else—it might be time to re-think that whole contraption as well.”

From Bruce Dixon’s lips to all of our ears.  It is indeed time to consider what use is served by the “anti-racist education” industry and for one of its main operators, Tim Wise, to find a new, preferably honest, and less destructive line of work.

John Halle is a professor of music at Bard as well as a political writer and activist. 

Fresh audio product

Just uploaded to my radio archives:

June 27, 2013 Rachel Kushner on art, politics, and her novel The Flamethrowers • Mark Mizruchi, author of The Fracturing of the Corporate Eliteon the rot of the managerial class

New college grads: could be worse

It’s become an article of faith lately that there’s little point in going to college—you just end up deep in debt and unemployed. That’s not really true, at least the unemployed part.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York—which has shown an unusual interest in the state of the youth lately, having also developed its own data on student debt—is just out with a presentation on how recent college grads have been faring in the job market. (It’s part of a longer presentation that begins on p. 11 of this PDF.) The soundbite is: they’re not thriving, but things could be a lot worse.

Highlights:

• Recent college grads have an unemployment rate about 2 points below the national average.

• The youngest grads have the highest unemployment rate, but things improve markedly by the age of 25 or so.

• The underemployment rate (the share of college grads holding jobs for which bachelor’s degrees are not required) is high, but—surprisingly—below early 1990s levels and comparable to early 2000s levels. In other words, there’s no unprecedented surge of the college educated young into the latte-serving and pants-folding job categories.

• Earnings for recent grads are higher than those without bachelor’s degrees. This is especially true of those who majored in technical fields like engineering and computer science, but it’s even true for liberal arts majors.

So while it’s not a pretty picture for recent college grads, they’re still better off on average than the un-degreed.

Fresh audio product

Just added to my radio archives:

June 20, 2013 Chase Madar, author of The Passion of Bradley Manning (out in this new edition) on Manning & Edward Snowden • Mark Dery, author of All The Young Dudeson glam rock & straight male sexuality

Is NYC really the city of the 1%?

A column in the weekend Financial Times by Simon Kuper (“Priced out of Paris”) has gotten lots of attention for its claim that the world’s great cities have been grabbed by the 1% to the exclusion of everyone else. For support, Kuper turned to Saskia Sassen, a distinguished Professor of Breathless Generalizations at Columbia, who concludes: “The capture by a very small number of cities of a lot of the excitement and wealth produced by the system – this is a problem.”

Well yeah, but…. I can’t speak about the other cities, but this rather flattens the detail about New York City, the place I know best. Yes, the rich have been running rampant over the place, and in a particularly rich bit of symbolism, it’s been governed by a member of the 1% of the 1% of the 1%, Michael Bloomberg (net worth: $27 billion, which is about half the city’s annual budget), for a dozen years. I even wrote recently about how the elite plans the physical and social environment of New York City very effectively, as it has for many decades (“How the 1 Percent Rules”—not my proposed title, which was “Planning the Imperial City”). But, really, there are a lot of the 99% here too, and it does no one any good to overlook that.

As I wrote back in December 2011 (“NYC: more unequal than Brazil”), for all the glitz, New York City is full of people with very modest incomes. The city’s median income a couple of years ago was $28,213, on a par with Greece. The poorest tenth of the city’s population has a cash income (not counting public benefits) of under $1,000.

What are the rest of us? Chopped liver? One of the crimes of the 1% is effacing the lives of the 99%, and it’s not helpful to repeat this sort of thing uncritically.

Fresh audio product

Just added to my radio archives (click on the date to get to the audio links):

June 13, 2013 Alan Finlayson on the ideology of Bonoism (which is the ideology of hip capitalists) • Betsy Hartmann on the durable toxic appeal of Thomas Malthus

Zizek on the limits of self-organization, etc.

This splendid rant by Slavoj Zizek is from the Subversive Festival, Zagreb, May 15, 2013. I excerpted some bits Zizek delivered during a joint session with Alexis Tsipris, president of Syriza, the Greek left party (which is now a formal party, and not a loose coalition) for my June 6 radio show. For those who don’t want to listen to the whole show, here’s an MP3 of Zizek proclaiming the limits of spontaneous self-organization and autonomous zones, and calls for a reinvention of the state that provides a basic structure to allow social movements to flourish and also allow him to do his crazy philosophy.

Here’s the audio file (length: 6:33):

The full video—which is quite good—is here.

Fresh audio product

Just added to my radio archives:

June 6, 2013 Sungur Savran on the Turkish uprisings • Slavoj Zizek on the limits of spontaneity (excerpt from a conference talk—full video here) • Lee Badgett on LGB poverty (paper here)

Fresh audio product

Now in my radio archives:

May 30, 2013 Harry Browne, author of Frontman: Bono (In the Name of Power), on the dreadfulness that is Paul Hewson • Eamonn Fingleton on how Japan isn’t as bad off as they’d like you to think

Fresh audio product

Just added to my radio archives:

May 23, 2013 David Cay Johnston, columnist for Tax Analysts, on the IRS scandal • Richard Katz, editor of The Oriental Economist Reporton the long Japanese slump and the prospects for Abenomics

Fresh audio content

Just added to my radio archives (click on the date to get the audio links):

May 16, 2013 Barbara Garson, author of Down the Up Escalatoron how people are coping with the Great Recession, its aftermath, and 40 years of general decline (updates to the book here)

 

Deficit emergency over

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest debt and deficit projections for the next ten years are out and there’s no way any honest analyst could read them as anything but the official end to any rational concern about red ink.

Of course, given that the phantasmic plays such a large role in politics, it’s likely that important people will still worry about fiscal ruin. But to the degree that reality exerts even a weak gravitational pull on discourse, it should be harder to generate the sense of emergency that austerians thrive on.

From the CBO’s summary:

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.

Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015.

And a featured graph:

Federal Debt Held by the Public

The graph shows the sharp rise in the debt/GDP ratio that came with the Great Recession is nearly over, and the line is about to go flat—flat at a level well below the now-discredited 90% danger level that Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff got people all worried about until their work was exposed as bogus. According to the spreadsheet that accompanies this release, the CBO projects the 2023 federal debt/GDP ratio to be 73.60%, down from 75.07% today. (You gotta love projections for ten years hence that are carried out to two decimal places.) Over the next 10 years, they project revenues to rise by 1.6 percentage points of GDP, and spending to rise by 1.0 points, for a (rounded) shrinkage in the deficit of 0.5 points. (Before rounding, the decline is 0.547774045234583 points, a hilarious level of precision.) The CBO projects this year’s deficit at 4.0% of GDP, which is very close to the 3.0% that many orthodox analysts regard as trivial.

The spending projections for the next decade are quite austere. Social Security’s share of GDP is slated to rise by 0.4 percentage points, and health spending (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) by 1.0 point, but other major spending categories will decline. Mandatory spending other than Social Security and health will fall by 0.4 points; military spending, by 1.2 points; and civilian discretionary spending (which includes much of the civilizing stuff, like education and environment), by 0.9%. Whether that level of austerity is politically sustainable is an open question—people purport to hate government spending in the abstract, but when it gets down to specifics, the politics get a lot rougher. But these projections are basically what will happen if we continue on the path set by current law.

This being American politics, it’s time to bring the rational, evidence-based portion of this post to a close. Austerians are driven by a mix of irrational anxiety and a desire to take benefits away from all but the rich. Benefits create expectations, and dilute the power of labor market discipline, both of which are potentially explosive. People don’t like to have things taken away from them, so it helps to create a sense of emergency to lubricate the process.

So what will the fiscal sadists do? The CBO itself offers a hint of how to maintain deficit hysteria—the deficit will rise from 2020 to 2023, and could get really bad in the late 2020s (though they don’t provide any numbers). Egads! But the rise in the debt/GDP ratio from 2020 to 2023 is all of 2.2 percentage points, to a level still below today’s—and projections 15 or 20 years into the future are a thin support for drastic action today. (This is further proof of the rule that one should always read the numbers before the prose in official reports like these.) But that doesn’t mean fiscal hawks won’t piss and moan. They will. But their emoting will either have to get even more phantasmic—or more nakedly class war-ish.

If only we could get important people to show this level of long-term anxiety about atmospheric CO2.

Fresh audio product

Just posted to my radio archives:

May 9, 2013 Corey Robin, political scientist at Brooklyn College and author of The Reactionary Mindon how the right thinks (with additional discussion of this essay on Nietzsche, Hayek, etc.)

May 2, 2013 Mark Blyth, author of Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Ideaon just that

April 25, 2013 Alex Vitale on the militarization of police forces • Josh Eidelson on spreading worker actions against Walmart and fast food

Fresh audio product

Just posted to my radio archives:

April 18, 2013 Minqi Li on the Chinese economy • George Ciccariello-Maher, author of We Created Chavez, on the social movements that allowed for Hugo Chavez’ emergence and he in turn stimulated

April 11, 2013 Tom Mills (author of this article) and Richard Seymour (author of this one) on the dreadful Margaret Thatcher

A reminder: sometimes I’m slower updating the web page than I am uploading the audio files. If you want quicker access, subscribe to the podcast. Details on the archive page.

Money porn

Institutional Investor’s alpha is out with its annual ranking (The Rich List) of top hedge fund earners, which always provokes meditation on our upper class. In 2012, the top 25 hedgies collectively earned $14.14 billion. That’s the lowest since 2008, but down only 2% from 2011. It is also equivalent to the collective income of 1.3 million of the poorer households in the U.S.

In the magazine’s telling, this year the markets rewarded “the fearless investor,” who ignored all those macro worries—a crappy U.S. recovery, implosions on the periphery of Europe, etc.—and stayed boldly long. At the top of the list was David Tepper, who made $2.2 billion last year. Tepper, you might be surprised to learn, said a couple of years ago that he was “tired of making money” and wanted to start giving it away. Less surprisingly, Tepper wants to put some of it to work kicking around teachers’ unions and promoting charter schools and vouchers (“Hedge fund manager readies for battle with NJEA to reform NJ schools”). In second place, Ray Dalio at $1.7 billion, less than half what he made as 2011’s #1. Dalio is best known for doing transcendental meditation, and also for cultivating a brutal, chilly, even cult-like atmosphere at his firm, Bridgewater Associates (The Billion-Dollar Aphorisms of Hedge Fund Cult Leader Ray Dalio). Together, Tepper and Dalio earned as much as almost 350,000 poorer households.

In standard theory, income is a reward commensurate with what one produces. What do guys like these produce? Profits for their investors.

technical notes

alpha, the name of II’s magazine, is investment jargon for returns in excess of what can be explained by market averages, adjusted for risk. It’s supposedly the measure of a money manager’s skill, which is not easy to tell statistically from luck.

The income calculation is this: the average income of the poorest 20% of U.S. households was $11,239 in 2011. Divide that into $14.14 billion and you get 1.3 million poorer households.