Third Way: Leftist Perspectives on Colorblindness

While liberals are in theory open to different kinds of ideas in search of pragmatic, immediate solutions, leftists would be more likely to hold firm to a principle or to advocate a rethinking of political discourse, such as focusing strictly on class as the best way to create a more equal and just society, as a colorblind leftist may prefer, or rejecting contemporary understandings of what racism means and how best to defeat it, as a color-conscious leftist would be inclined to do.

Leftists seek to change things on a more fundamental level. While many would be open to race-conscious measures, the common denominator is that everything ultimately boils down to class conflict and the need to address the plight of working people under a capitalist system. This kind of emphasis can also be more unifying for those in a lower socio-economic stratum, which includes many racial and ethnic identities.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. exemplified this through his work on the “Poor People’s Campaign.” Likewise, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin was extremely to the left when it came to economic ideas, yet critical of race-conscious initiatives like affirmative action.

Regardless, leftists think beyond the parameters of the status quo, reevaluating the commonly accepted ideas surrounding the pursuit of equality. They argue for fundamental change, whether it be the way we talk about class, the way we talk about race, or both.

Professor Ibram X. Kendi seeks to redefine our approach to race and racism. He distinguishes between two, and only two, categories people could fall under. One could either be racist, or antiracist. A racist, he explains, is “one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea.” An antiracist, on the other hand, is “one who is supporting an antiracist policy through their actions or expressing an antiracist idea.”

Crucially, according to Kendi’s theory, there is no such thing as a colorblind “nonracist” or a “race-neutral” policy. Systems and laws either contribute towards racial equity or contribute to racial inequity, and that is it. While certainly this is a more systematic way of thinking, Kendi makes sure to clarify that terms such as “institutional racism” and “systemic racism” are unnecessary, since “racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.” The racist seeks to perpetuate it. The antiracist strives to dismantle it.

Since “discrimination” can be used to create racial equity, it is not “inherently racist,” Kendi argues. “If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.”

Hence, Kendi’s justification for a quote that is infamous in right-leaning, “colorblind” circles: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”

Finally, in line with the idea that policies can only be anti-racist or racist, and never neutral, he notes how doing nothing about the climate is racist, since climate change, perpetuated by white countries in the global north, is impacting non-white countries in the south.

While Kendi offers clearer principles in combating racism, some leftists feel that an overemphasis on identity stifles leftists and left-wing policy.

Professor Adolph Reed, Jr. maintains that Barack Obama’s image was more important than his actual policy, to the detriment of leftist activism. His election to the presidency carried “significance above whatever Obama stood for or would do.”

Moreover, his fiscal policy and aggressive foreign policy “have only more tightly sealed the American left’s coffin by nailing it shut from the inside.” For the left, he concludes, “no politically effective force exists.” Instead, it is time “to begin trying to create a new one.”

Sometimes emphasizing race can lead to hollow identity politics that doesn’t create real change. At times people of color more generally have felt, consistent with a leftist ideology, that class-based measures may be a better approach than race-based initiatives — or at least just as important.

Bert Corona, a Mexican-American labor and civil rights activist, emphasizes this kind of outlook. Mario T. Garcia’s biography of Corona, Memories of Chicano History: The Life and Narrative of Bert Corona, details Corona’s point of view: “the additional dualities of being Mexican-American and being working class are in fact two sides of the same coin. Most Mexican-Americans in the United States have been part of the working class.” For Mexican-Americans, it may have made the most sense to pursue class-based policy.

Historian David Montgomery, meanwhile, expressed his admiration for “the way Corona's memories and career demolish the whole attempt of historians to argue that ethnicity was more important than class, or vice versa.”

For various races and ethnicities, it may not be as compelling to be in favor of race-conscious initiatives if leftist policies could do the trick in uplifting the lower classes and ensuring rights for workers. But journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones argues that we need to make sure not to overlook African-Americans, who descend from slaves. Instead of pursuing “diversity” as an end or colorblindness, Americans need race-conscious initiatives that focus on negating the effects of racism on those whose ancestors were slaves.

The idea of colorblindness was never about merely ending consideration of race, Hannah-Jones argues, but rather it was historically intended to counteract segregation and racism both in theory and reality. By stripping the fight against racism from its context, contemporary colorblindness advocates make it seem like race is not a construct resulting from historical discrimination but rather merely the color of your skin. Progressives even fell for this bait, she asserts, by promoting “diversity” as an end without emphasizing the need to counteract the effects of historical discrimination.

We “must shift our language,” Hannah-Jones explains, and “focus on the specific redress for descendants of slavery.” This is not explicitly race-conscious, but nor does it kowtow to the doctrine of “colorblindness.” In doing so, civil rights advocates may be able to work around the legal barriers of reactionary laws and judgments in pursuit of an equal and just society.

Leftist perspectives on colorblindness focus on redefining and rethinking the current political atmosphere as it pertains to discussion of race. Analyzing leftist thought on this issue proves useful in understanding varying, strong ideas with a common denominator of achieving class and/or racial equality, even if one may disagree with the ultimate conclusion of a given philosophy.