Shortly after Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) announced his campaign for the presidency, The View’s co-host, Joy Behar, let the world know she thinks he’s delusional.
Behar said “[Scott is] one of these guys, like Clarence Thomas, black Republicans, who believes in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, rather than understanding the systemic racism that African Americans face in this country,” She continued, “He doesn’t get it. Neither does Clarence. That’s why they’re Republicans.”
When Senator Scott went on The View on Monday to offer his rebuttal, the conversation seemed to hinge on whether Scott himself is an exception or the rule, when it comes to black success. The View hosts saw him as an exception. He saw himself as the rule. It’s hard to imagine how anyone walked away convinced of anything new.
The combination of Behar’s comments and Scott’s response is instructive when it comes to how we think about racism more generally. Although it might not be a lesson we’re eager to learn.
When Behar made her comments, many people who objected to them—including Scott himself—zeroed in on the fact that an 80-year-old liberal white woman was telling a 57-year-old conservative black man that he didn’t understand racism. Scott called her remarks, “offensive and disgusting and dangerous,” adding, “It is literally the dumbest most offensive thing I’ve witnessed on TV, to hear these millionaire TV personalities telling me how to live my life as a Black man.”
Fair point. And it probably goes without saying that this isn’t the first time a black Republican has been criticized for not having the appropriate opinion when it comes to issues of race. To be sure, there’s enough of a sense of what that “correct” opinion is that at least one organization has made it its mission to push back.
However, the argument over who gets to define racism is only valuable if we think the most important thing is to establish who is supposed to defer to whom. If we care about actually communicating with one another, understanding what’s going on behind the two arguments is far more relevant. So, let’s focus on the more pressing questions.
One of those is: How should we think about the causes of persistent racial inequality? Put differently: Are differences in outcomes between racial groups—in wealth, health, education, etc…— themselves evidence of systemic racism? To Joy Behar, the answer is probably a resounding “yes.” To Tim Scott, it’s probably a hearty “no.” So, now what?
This quickly brings us to another, even more difficult, question—What could cause differences in outcomes if not discrimination?
I can imagine Scott saying success or failure is primarily the result of behaviors, preferences, or choices that orient groups towards or away from desirable economic, health, and life outcomes. And Behar might say, well, any such behavioral differences can themselves be traced to the legacy of racism. Perhaps Scott would concede that point. But he’d likely hold fast to the claim that the mere existence of a disparity doesn’t serve as proof positive of what caused it.
We can push this thinking a little further. Let’s assume that Behar’s position (or what I imagine it to be) is correct. That racial disparities are the result of systemic discrimination, of counterproductive behaviors that are themselves the legacy of racism, or some combination of the two. This leads to another question. What, then, is the “best” way to think about a solution?
To some people, the answer might seem simple. If societal-level racism is the cause of the differences, then it’s society’s job to fix them. To others, however, it’s probably less clear. After all, is such an effort costless? It seems plausible that a solution provided by someone else—the government, in this case—could result in a loss of dignity and sense of agency that shouldn’t be dismissed as irrelevant.
To be clear, when it comes to avoiding the Certainty Trap, the answers actually matter less than the questions. After all, it’s by identifying questions that matter that we start to understand why and how we come to different conclusions.
The Scott v. Behar feud can serve as a reminder that agreement isn’t always the endgame. Sometimes just learning to live with disagreement is enough.
The upshot is this: There’s a world where Senator Scott “gets it” just fine. One where he just doesn’t make the same assumptions Behar does. And while nothing is stopping us from declaring one right and the other wrong, doing so only makes sense when we engage clearly and transparently with the questions that matter most.
Please note that much of the writing on this Substack is either derived from or is related to the manuscript, The Certainty Trap (unpublished). For inquiries about the manuscript, please reach out to me directly.
I think a good analogy could be:
Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory.
I saw some clips from the argument but not the whole discussion. The part I saw was collegial classically partisan. There are two issues, I believe.
First, does institutional racism exist? To me Mr. Scott’s becoming a senator by appointment by Governore Nikki Haly betrays his notion that he is the rule. He and James Clyburn were made exceptions via politics and not by vote. With regard to Rep. Clyburn, I worked to elect a black congressman from a similar region of SC in the 1980’s and 1990’s to no avail. The democratic campaign needed just 10% of the white vote to win but didn’t come close. The racial divide is very deeply rooted in SC.
The DOJ ultimately mandated a gerrymander to get a black congressman elected to a new district that stretches and winds through much of the state. This was an institutional solution to institutional racism.
Second, the ideology portrayed by Mr. Scott is classically trickle down and bootstrap up, which in turn calls for a thinning of the social safety net. This is because he believes that there is no institutional barrier to hold back black and brown Americans.
Although there are a variety of theories on how to forward economic equity, I would argue that institutional racism is a fact and further that Sen Scott and Rep Clyburn are indeed exceptions that demonstrate this fact.
Stan Green