There are many negative things you can say about US Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee and the Grand Old Party’s (GOP) de facto intellectual leader. However, you have to admit that he is a very articulate guy, an expert at sounding as if he knows what he is talking about.
So it is comical, in a way, to see Ryan trying to explain away some recent remarks in which he attributed persistent poverty to a “culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working.” He was, he says, simply being “inarticulate.” How could anyone suggest that it was a racial dog-whistle? Why, he even cited the work of serious scholars — people like Charles Murray, most famous for arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Oh, wait.
Just to be clear, there is no evidence that Ryan is personally a racist, and his dog-whistle may not even have been deliberate. However, it doesn’t matter. He said what he said because that is the kind of thing conservatives say to each other all the time. Why do they say such things? Because US conservatism is still, after all these years, largely driven by claims that liberals are taking away your hard-earned money and giving it to “Those People.”
Indeed, race is the Rosetta stone that makes sense of many otherwise incomprehensible aspects of US politics.
Americans are told, for example, that conservatives are against big government and high spending. Yet even as Republican governors and state legislatures block the expansion of Medicaid, the GOP angrily denounces modest cost-saving measures for Medicare. How can this contradiction be explained? Well, what do many Medicaid recipients look like — and I am talking about the color of their skin, not the content of their character — and how does that compare with the typical Medicare beneficiary? Mystery solved.
Or Americans are told that conservatives, the Tea Party in particular, oppose handouts because they believe in personal responsibility, in a society in which people must bear the consequences of their actions. Yet it is hard to find angry Tea Party denunciations of huge Wall Street bailouts, of huge bonuses paid to executives who were saved from disaster by US government backing and guarantees. Instead, all the movement’s passion, starting with Rick Santelli’s famous rant on CNBC, has been directed against any hint of financial relief for low-income borrowers. What is it about these borrowers that makes them such targets of ire? You know the answer.
One odd consequence of the still-racialized politics is that conservatives are still, in effect, mobilizing against the “bums on welfare” even though both the bums and the welfare are long gone or never existed. Santelli’s fury was directed against mortgage relief that never actually happened. Right-wingers rage against tales of food-stamp abuse that almost always turn out to be false or at least greatly exaggerated. And Ryan’s “black-men-don’t-want-to-work” theory of poverty is decades out of date.
In the 1970s it was still possible to claim in good faith that there was plenty of opportunity in the US and that poverty persisted only because of cultural breakdown among African-Americans. Back then, after all, blue-collar jobs still paid well and unemployment was low. The reality was that opportunity was much more limited than affluent Americans imagined; as the sociologist William Julius Wilson has documented, the flight of industry from urban centers meant that minority workers could not get to those good jobs, and the supposed cultural causes of poverty were actually effects of that lack of opportunity. Still, you could understand why many observers failed to see this.