Pre-mature Post-Racialism, Or Post-Post-Racialism?

What an interesting perspective Shelby Steele brings to his analysis (in today's Wall Street Journal) of Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court! I know, I know. You've heard it all before; sickened by the endless commentary about Ms. Sotomayor, you're eager to just move on. But I suspect that Mr. Steele's piece will, at least, give you a moment's pause.

Mr. Steele once again† brings us back to his very helpful rubric, that to properly interpret the world of racial politics in America one must understand that such a world is divided into two types of persons, bargainers and challengers. In light of the alleged post-racialism incarnated in Mr. Obama, and that Mr. Obama's nomination of Ms. Sotomayor is anything but post-racial, Shelby Steele makes this fairly damning observation:

But of course "post-racialism" is not a real idea. It is an impression, a chimera that grows out of a very specific racial manipulation that I have called "bargaining." Here the minority makes a bargain with white society: I will not "guilt" you with America's centuries of racism if you will not hold my minority status against me. Whites love this bargain because it allows them to feel above America's racist past and, therefore, immune to charges of racism. By embracing the bargainer they embrace the impression of a world beyond racial division, a world in which whites are innocent and minorities carry no anger. This is the impression that animates bargainers like Mr. Obama or Oprah Winfrey with an irresistible charisma. Even if post-racialism is an obvious illusion -- a bargainer's trick as it were -- whites are flattered by believing in it.

I can't imagine that this sort of commentary sits well with Mr. Steele's peers. One gets the sense that it is rather risky of Mr. Steele to imply that white acceptance of minorities is not essentially authentic -- it is not born of genuine compassion -- but is instead the outcome of a deal where whites regain their sense of moral authority, of being good and fair people.

Nor can I imagine that many folks who pride themselves on being particularly beneficent and sensitive to injustice would appreciate Mr. Steele when he writes about challengers:

Judge Sotomayor is the archetypal challenger. Challengers see the moral authority that comes from their group's historic grievance as an entitlement to immediate parity with whites -- whether or not their group has actually earned this parity through development. If their group is not yet competitive with whites, the moral authority that comes from their grievance should be allowed to compensate for what they lack in development. This creates a terrible corruption in which the group's historic grievance is allowed to count as individual merit. And so a perverse incentive is created: Weakness and victimization are rewarded over development. Better to be a troublemaker than to pursue excellence.

Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions -- universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations -- reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.

Seriously, you should read the entirety of Mr. Steele's essay.



†I've mentioned Mr. Steele's work before, particularly that which is associated with his book, White Guilt. (Also, see here and here, if interested.)