They benefit from these inequities

Ian Douglas Rushlau of the Daily Kos community discussed racism in America. Yeah, we had another white cop murder a black man. Rushlau quoted Michael Harriot in The Root. He gave several statistics about the uneven treatment of black people. One of them:

The Stanford Open Policing Project—the largest police stop project that ever existed—found that Black people are 2.5 times more likely to be stopped and 4 times more likely to be searched than white drivers even though white drivers were more likely to have contraband.

Rushlau quoted a tweet from Alex P:

murdering a guy over an (alleged) $300 late fee and then spending a million dollars on cop overtime and humvees to put his community in their place

To another quote of Harriott:

Maybe white people genuinely cannot fathom that white supremacy is responsible for these racial incongruities because, by proxy, it would also mean that they benefit from these inequities.

Harriot then discusses polls, such as 2/3 of white people believe a black person has as good a chance as getting a job for which they are qualified. Rushlau said such a number must include a high number of progressives. He expanded on Harriot as he wrote:

That’s because in a structurally racist society, racist views permeate the entire cultural landscape, and so those who hold them can maintain the illusion that they are not benefitting from and contributing to the racist framework. ... There are too many people here who don’t want to think the problem involves them. Too many who don’t want to undertake uncomfortable self-reflection, or face difficult choices. Too many who want to believe the problem is limited to ‘the real racists’, and ‘real racists’ are easy to spot, and ‘real racists’ are thankfully few in number, and of course are not among their friends, family, neighbors (and for goodness sake not to be found among political comrades).

One phrase of this post bothered me: “they benefit from these inequities.” How does a white person benefit from the oppression of a black person? Without that oppression of the other is the white person’s pay going to be any different? Probably not. Is the white person going to be treated any differently by society? Again, probably not (though I have more below). Is the white person going to be worse off because a black person has just as much? No. So how does the white person benefit? Because of the ways of social hierarchy the white person benefits by knowing there is a class of people below themselves in the social hierarchy. Here’s the more below: In a hierarchical society, which America definitely is, someone is in the lowest level. If that level isn’t taken up by black people or people of color, the society will figure out another way someone else, some group of white people, will be put on that lowest level. So yeah, white people benefit. Even if they are oppressed by the wealthy (and I could talk a lot about that is done) there would always be someone lower. Laura Clawson of Kos started a post with:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, far-right activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have quite the scheme going. She takes in dark money contributions to her Tea Party-connected nonprofit, Liberty Central, and organizes Republicans on exactly the kind of issues that often reach the Supreme Court. He sits on the Supreme Court and never recuses himself as justices are called on by federal law to do in certain situations, including ones where their spouses have financial interests.

While court reforms are being talked about Justice Stephen Breyer warned any changes will be seen as political and that would further erode trust in the Court. Laura Clawson responded:

That ship sailed when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held open a seat on the court for nearly a year of then-President Barack Obama’s term to give Republicans a chance to fill it. It sailed again when McConnell then rushed through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett weeks before an election. And it has sailed repeatedly thanks to the actions of the Thomases.

The corruption of Ginni and Clarence Thomas is not a new story. People called it out at least by 2010.

So, no, Justice Breyer, expanding the court—something with lots of historical precedent—or otherwise reforming it would not be what undermined trust by creating the perception of political motivation. You have only to look around you on the court to see what’s done that.

As for that court reform, Clawson reported in another post that Biden has created a commission to study what to do and report back to him in six months. As part of her report she quoted a tweet by Ari Berman:

5 of 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents who initially lost popular vote & confirmed by senators representing minority of Americans. This is why we need to expand/reform the courts.

Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of WV is critical to getting anything through the Senate and he appears to be glorying in the role of the deciding vote. Yes, there is still the filibuster to get rid of and Manchin is the deciding vote for that too. Biden has proposed a huge infrastructure bill that includes a tax increase on corporations. Joan McCarter of Kos reported Manchin has said the hike is too big, though it would still be far lower than before the 2017 tax scam law. Annoyingly, Manchin has been repeating GOP talking points. One of those talking points is from GOP Sen. Roger Wicker of MS. He said that the proposal is horrible because it would raise taxes on the small business job creators. Except it doesn’t. To be affected by the proposal the business would no longer be small. Wrote McCarter:

This opposition from Republicans—and Manchin—to making big multinational corporations pay more in taxes is not about jobs. It's about protecting shareholders, as usual. Now what will create jobs is an ambitious infrastructure plan creating works projects in every state in the country, like Biden's. ... That's what's at stake here. Actual real jobs rebuilding the country, as opposed to the mythical ones corporations are not going to create if they don't have to pay taxes. The Republican line in the sand is bulls---. Manchin reinforcing it as his excuse to oppose this bill is even worse.

In another post McCarter reported on a meeting Biden had with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, telling them he’s open to negotiations, then listening to what they have to say, during and after the meeting. McCarter wrote:

That could be part of Biden's strategy here. On the one hand, demonstrating that he is willing to consider Republican ideas and inviting them to sit down and talk seems a fool's errand. Because they will never agree to help him. So there's the other hand—leading Manchin to the self-realization that he's an idiot. It could work. Because Republicans, however nice Biden is to them, will never help pass this bill. Meanwhile, Biden is maintaining the position that opposing this bill on the basis of that tax increase is politically very dumb for Republicans (and Manchin) because ordinary people are “sick and tired of being fleeced.” Kerry Eleveld has all the recent (and some historical) polling there, demonstrating that for at least the past six years, more than two-thirds of the American voting public has said corporations “don't pay their fair share” in taxes. On Biden's specific plan, 65% say “yes, raise corporate taxes to do that.” Biden is taking that polling, as well as all the other polls, into his Oval Office meetings with Republicans. He's telling them flat-out that “Republican voters agree with what I'm doing.” His team sends that message every chance they get. “If you looked up 'bipartisan' in the dictionary, I think it would say support from Republicans and Democrats,” senior Biden adviser Anita Dunn told reporters this weekend. “It doesn't say the Republicans have to be in Congress.”