Jim Sleeper's Liberal Racism shares the strengths and weaknesses of several similar books by apostates from the Left (Norman Podhoretz's
several memoirs, In Defense of Elitism by the late William Henry, How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy by Harry
Stein and Radical Son by David Horowitz all come to mind): he's very good when analyzing the precise problems with modern Liberalism
that drove him to question its orthodoxy, but he falters when it comes time to follow his doubts to their necessary conclusions. One can
sympathize with, or at least understand, all these men's shared reluctance to fully embrace the conservative logic of their own writings, and
their residual need to demonstrate to their old comrades on the Left that drifting Right hasn't made them uncaring, but this hesitancy does
diminish each of their books.In Mr. Sleeper's case, he starts from a very basic and astute observation :
[L]iberal racism patronizes nonwhites by expecting (and getting) less of them than they are fully capable of achieving. Intending to turn
the tables on racist double standards that set the bar much higher for nonwhites, liberal racism ends up perpetuating double standards by
setting the bar so much lower for its intended beneficiaries that it denies them the satisfactions of equal accomplishment and opportunity.
He proceeds to deliver chapter and verse indicating that this is the case : from an excellent demonstration of how the 1964 Voting Rights Act
was perverted into a way of guaranteeing a few seats for black Congressmen; to an explanation of how "root causes" excuses for criminal
behavior and opposition to vigorous law enforcement had helped to make places like New York City more dangerous for blacks, until Rudy
Guliani came along and ignored both; to a devastating indictment of the NY Times and its racial politics, both as it plays out in politically
correct company policy and as it functions to distort the paper's news coverage; to a depiction of how Alex Haley's novel Roots helped
create a false African consciousness in black America, which has gradually created an unhealthy distance between blacks and the Western
values they need to succeed in this culture.
In all of these instances, liberals (black and white) have sought to explain away black underachievment as a phenomenon whose sole cause
is white racism and whose only solution lies in government action (i.e., white benevolence). Even setting aside the question of whether
racism is really this powerful and is still pervasive, framing the situation in this way can only harm blacks : by removing incentives for
self-improvement, since government aid is promised for every ill; by lowering self-esteem, since all progress will be a result of government
(Liberal) intercession; and, by imposing artificial limits, such as the Congressional scheme, which packed gerrymandered districts with black
voters, thereby gaining black Representatives while diminishing black power in all the surrounding districts.
So far, Mr. Sleeper is right on the money. But when he moves beyond the critique he gets himself in trouble, because his stated intent is an
impossibility :
This book's premise is that precisely because the United States is becoming racially, ethnically, and religiously more complex than
institutional color-coding can comprehend, liberals should be working overtime to nurture some shared American principles and bonds
that strengthen national belonging and nourish democratic habits.
He seems oblivious to the fact that the project he's set himself is to make Liberalism into Conservatism. For Liberalism's very raison d'être
is to remove societal inequalities via government action, to force egalitarianism down our throats at the cost of our freedom. You see, the
dirty little secret that Mr. Sleeper does not allow himself to face is that you could just replace "black" with "poor" in the entire prior analysis
and leave most of the rest of his argument unchanged. It is a mere sad circumstance of American history and our unfortunate legacy of
slavery and Jim Crow that so many blacks are part of the underclass. Liberalism may focus on them in particular, but it patronizes, and
thereby debilitates, all of the poor. Liberalism always resorts to government action, always excuses social pathologies as not the fault of the
perpetrators, always blames oppression for inequalities, always asks (and expects) little of those it claims to serve, while promising much.
Small wonder that the epoch of Liberalism (1929-1980, in other words, from the Depression to the election of Ronald Reagan) turned the
poor into dependents of the Welfare State.
That said though, Mr. Sleeper is right when he suggests that the appropriate alternative to this kind of ineffectual patronizing and
counterproductive governmental meddling is a restoration of civil society, of non-governmental social organizations, of family, church,
community, etc., structured around common traditional values and standards of behavior. Central to all of this is a revival of the ethos of
personal responsibility, combined with a sense of communal obligation. We, all of us, need to stop depending on government and seeking
excuses for our own shortcomings. We need to learn once again how to rely on ourselves and how to provide for those around us.
Meanwhile, Liberalism, as Mr. Sleeper says, deserves great credit for its role in the fight against institutionalized racism in America (forty
years ago) , but as he quotes Thurgood Marshall as saying :
The law can open doors and knock down walls, but it cannot build bridges.
For America to fulfill its own purpose, it was vital to include all our citizens in a society of opportunity, to allow them the freedom to make
what they can out of their own lives without any interference due to race, creed, or color. We can, and must, make the law colorblind, so
that each of us is judged only by what Martin Luther King, Jr. called "the content of our character", but as Justice Marshall suggested,
government isn't capable of removing the prejudices in each of our hearts. To achieve that entirely commendable goal we will require a
healthy civil society, one that builds character, one in which we are individually free but mutually dependent and where government is only
a last resort. Unfortunately for Mr. Sleeper, that is all antithetical to Liberalism.
...
