As a white male who
never wanted for anything that I could not obtain from my parents in
childhood and employment in adulthood, I have never experienced even a
hint of the hostility that is alleged to be directed at people like me. Working amid a population that is substantially ethnic minority and
low-income, I would have plenty of opportunities to suffer this
persecution if it existed. Perhaps I am not as sensitive as I believe I am, or perhaps,
as I suspect, the persecution of the white, male, and/or affluent is greatly
exaggerated and originates from the margins, rather than the center, of our
society; that it occurs sporadically rather than systemically and exacts
virtually no toll on the average white male socially, politically, or
economically. Of course, personal experience does not necessarily
generalize to society, but a reliable body of evidence has
convinced me that my benign experience is a common
one.
If I relied on
conservative media rather than personal experience and statistical evidence, I
would have a very different impression. Today’s technology enables instances of
discrimination against whites, males, and wealthy people as well as Christians
to be published widely and with great frequency, making such cases appear to be
the rule rather than the exception. To be fair, the same phenomenon
applies to distorted narratives of the left, but these narratives are
told on behalf of groups that have undeniably suffered pervasive discrimination.
Many on the right, however, believe that such persecution has been extinguished or is not significant enough to warrant great public attention.
Instead, they mainly complain of discrimination against those who belong to the
groups that perpetrated (at least in the past) that very persecution. That is,
yes, women and people of color suffered inexcusable discrimination in the past,
but today the appointed advocates of these groups commit the same offense.
A number of deep flaws undermine this narrative. Whereas the progressive agenda targets institutions that have the broadest reach and greatest economic and political power, conservative complaint focuses on institutions that wield cultural, rather than economic or political, power. An example is academia, especially elite academia, an institution that involves a very small segment of the population and, if anything, perpetuates economic inequality, a phenomenon that conservatives tend to celebrate rather than abhor. Of course, conservatives blame “the media” and Hollywood just as much, but these, too, seem to exercise limited power despite their great scope; note that about half of the population supports Republican candidates for public office (even if all else were equal, why would we expect it to be otherwise?), and Republican-majority states enjoy proportionally more electoral votes than Democratic-majority states, a fact that has not changed despite Republicans’ taking the presidency with fewer votes than their opponents twice in recent history, an event that would catalyze the alleged anti-“real American” revolution if anything would.
A number of deep flaws undermine this narrative. Whereas the progressive agenda targets institutions that have the broadest reach and greatest economic and political power, conservative complaint focuses on institutions that wield cultural, rather than economic or political, power. An example is academia, especially elite academia, an institution that involves a very small segment of the population and, if anything, perpetuates economic inequality, a phenomenon that conservatives tend to celebrate rather than abhor. Of course, conservatives blame “the media” and Hollywood just as much, but these, too, seem to exercise limited power despite their great scope; note that about half of the population supports Republican candidates for public office (even if all else were equal, why would we expect it to be otherwise?), and Republican-majority states enjoy proportionally more electoral votes than Democratic-majority states, a fact that has not changed despite Republicans’ taking the presidency with fewer votes than their opponents twice in recent history, an event that would catalyze the alleged anti-“real American” revolution if anything would.
In any case, antipathy toward the rich, white, and/or male does not prevent members of these groups from being disproportionately represented in the highest positions in business and government. If males really operated at a disadvantage in general rather than in limited cases, we would expect more than 20% of federal lawmakers to be women; indeed, we would expect more than 50% to be women. We would similarly expect the ranks of corporate executives to include a majority, rather than a small minority, of women. We would expect women to be paid more than men for the same work; even the most optimistic assessment does not claim that this is true. In addition, we would expect wealthy people, victims of class warfare, to be facing, presently or imminently, an egalitarian revolution; we would not have anticipated the continued concentration of wealth that occurred during the recent liberal Democratic presidency, much less the election of a conservative administration and the reversal of the limited redistributive policies of its predecessor. If searching for evidence of pervasive discrimination against the rich and/or white, we cannot find it where it would seem to hurt the most. The narrow focus of conservative polemics obscures these facts and thereby portrays discrimination against historically privileged groups as pervasive.
Of course, any
unjust discrimination deserves remediation, and instances do occur in which a
person is treated wrongly for being an affluent white male. It would
seem, however, that victims who belong to a historically powerful group can do
much of their own advocacy, in contrast to poor people from historically
persecuted groups who have depended on government to achieve and maintain the
most basic political and economic rights. This does not exonerate those who
really do harbor hostility toward people for being white, male, heterosexual,
or any combination of historically privileged characteristics, but it does make
it curious that so many people consider such hostility to be a serious problem
rather than a mere annoyance.
I do not expect a
victim, or loved one of a victim, to feel this way in a case in which a man is
wrongly accused of rape, or in a case in which a white male who is poor and
disadvantaged but stellar in academic and personal merit is denied a spot in an
elite university in favor of a minority candidate who happens to have the same
or fewer credentials. But if such cases occur relatively infrequently, it would
seem an overreaction for any but the victims and their families to consider
such cases to be a major social problem requiring a high toll from a limited
supply of political energy. Would it not be more appropriate to focus our
attention on helping poor people, who have fewer financial resources with which
to influence politicians, and people of color who, being members of minority
groups, by definition have more opportunities to be discriminated against?
To be sure, some
antipathy exists toward people who have characteristics that traditionally
have imparted privilege. This does not demonstrate, however, that such
characteristics never impart privilege or that they generally subordinate their
possessors. Perhaps they do; perhaps I am blissfully ignorant of the severe
persecution to which I am subject each day that I encounter society and
experience, or think I experience, general civility and kindness as well
as economic security, civil liberty, and political freedom. But if so, I need
more evidence, and even the admitted instances of bias against people who lack
the sympathy of the left—such as conservative academics—do not provide that
evidence. Conservatives, please convince me, and make your case heavier on the
statistic and lighter on the anecdote.
