Well there have been lots of diaries about race in the recent days. And I add to the discussion here about it. A lot of it centers around "white privilege" and I add my contribution. I will be probably be flamed for it, but here I go.
First of all I grew up in Montgomery County, MD, north of DC. Montgomery County is perhaps one of the most wealthiest counties in the United States. Once or twice it has been the wealthiest. It shares the title with Fairfax County in neighboring Virginia and with Fairfield County in Connecticut. So this is my reference point.
I went to high school with very wealthy kids. I have grown up my whole life around rich people. So my definition of "white privilege" comes from this baseline. I went to private college. Although I was fortunate to attend my alma matter, it came with great sacrifice.
My defintiion of white privilege focuses on wealthy whites from New England and other "old money" families who are able to send their children to prep school, boarding school and the best colleges. These are the folks who meet at school and who are then able to connect each other to jobs at places most ordinary people have to work very hard to be considered for.
I went to college with these types of folks. Now I am not going to generalize this crowd. A great deal of them were nice people. There were also some who were complete jerks. Whatever the case it was just that these folks often had access to positions that I didn't have. They had parents who could get them interviews, pushing them ahead of the other applicants. Because of their family's support many of them could take unpaid internships here in DC at prestigious organizations, while I couldn't. This is how I perceive "white privilege."
I think that the discussion is done a disservice when middle class, working class, and poor whites are lumped into this group. For they have none of the benefits that the aformentioned group above receives. They don't have connections. While perhaps they won't be looked on with suspicion at a store or can go into a neighborhood without scrutiny from law enforcement, they also don't get the "preferential treatment" that many people here claim that they receive either. So this distinction has to be made.
ON EDIT: Let me also add that most white people aren't a part of this world. I am talking about the children of Senators and people like the Kennedys. I am talking about the children of CEOs, diplomats, prominent doctors, lawyers, actors, news reporters, other celebrities, and athletes. Their children don't attend the same schools that the rest of us do. They go to special private schools from kindergarten onward where they network with their fellow rich. Then they go private colleges where they end up getting the best internships and jobs out of school. When I think of "white privilege" it is these folks that I am talking about. Most ordinary white people aren't part of this world, nor do they ever come close. I went to school with people like. This is what I mean by privilege by and large.
And now I go into the issues of racial politics and how I believe it effects the Democratic Party. I focus on Affirmative Action and Section 8 housing. First of all there are many working class and poor whites who are "disadvanatged" but they don't have set-asides or preferences. The fact that there seems to be nothing avialble for whites of lesser means concerns me. This is my biggest quibble with Affirmative Action. There are many economically disadvantaged white people. And they deserve help too. I think that when the civil rights movement morphed into demanding racial preference and set-asides, they lost the support of many whites. For it stopped being about equal opprotunity, but guaranteed results or equality of condition.
I can sympathize with working class whites who can't necessarily benefit from affirmative action. This goes back to the threads about white priviledge posted earlier. They aren't the ones whose families send their children to prep and/or boarding school. They don't have wealthy parents who can get them jobs or at least beneficial consideration. And yet they are asked to support affirmative action when they have little "privilege"--or at least as how I see the term "white privilege"--it bothers them. They themselves don't receive any benefit. Why should they be forced to support programs that don't benefit them? This is the key question that many on the left don't want to address. On the one hand there is the reflexive response that these folks must be "racist". The other response is that they have "benefits" due to their race and should have no problem with spots being reserved or special scholarships for the disadvantaged because they are inherently "advantaged." I don't buy any of those two arguments. This is why I think affirmative action should have had a more economic focus than one based on race. Then it is about helping those who are economically disadvantaged across the board, regardless of race, not just minorities. But I know I will get flamed for saying this.
In regard to Section 8 housing I don't think feelings of resentment are unreasonable either. For that program is not about race. Here in DC, last year, I served on a jury trial of a black man who owned a house that his Section 8 tenant didn't pay rent for. We ruled in favor of him--and against the DC housing authority.
But with Section 8 there is a legitimate question of fairness. Just imagine living in a neighborhood where someone--for DC this example works best--where property values have risen the tax assessment. Just imagine that you worked your whole life for a home with your blood, sweat, and tears. Then you look at your neighborhor who gets to live next door to you for a very cheap price--almost free. How does it feel to have to subsidze that person via your tax dollars? That is a legitimate feeling. And I think too many "progressives" are too quicky to judge that homeowner for being "racist" and/or "cold-hearted" because he notices the inherent unfairness in that situation.
Again I think that the problem is that, at some point, the left became more focused with promoting social programs that benefited people based on race instead of economic status. At that point--the 1968 election--they lost the support of many whites, who then fled with the GOP and stayed there, until Clinton ran in 1992.
Where I think many liberal social programs fail is that they are focused too narrowly on race and on the poor. They don't focus on poor whites and the middle class. This is what has made GOP's subtle and over use of racial politics, trying to portray the Democrats as concerned only about the plight of "blacks on welfare", so effective. Thanks to constant use of the Southern strategy over the last 30-40 years, the GOP has sucessfully made the Democrats the "black party". And this has alienated white voter who might consider the Democratic Party brand if they didn't (wrongly) believe that the party was indifferend and/or hostile to their interest and that they party was going to do more for them than simply raise their taxes to support social programs of little benefit to them.
I hope I don't get flamed for this post. But I think I raise a valid point here. I reworded this post slighty from a reply I made in another thread. So if it doesn't flow perfectly that's why.