[Victory requires the long view: the values and ideas that must
animate our new fight for racial justice. ]
[[link removed]]

BEYOND RACIAL LIBERALISM  
[[link removed]]


 

Felicia Wong and Kyle Strickland
November 16, 2021
Democracy Journal
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Victory requires the long view: the values and ideas that must
animate our new fight for racial justice. _

March to commemorate the 55th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, Selma,
Alabama, 2020,

 

After living through the terror and suffering caused by a profoundly
racist and nativist President, and following the racial uprisings and
reckoning of 2020, it is maddening that, when it comes to our
political debate around race, it somehow feels like Groundhog Day. It
is not just the weaponization of “critical race theory” by the
right, as astounding and perplexing as that is. It is also the
response of much of the Democratic elite, in the wake of election
losses in Virginia and polling that shows President Joe Biden
underwater. Yet again, we are hearing that in order for Democrats to
win elections and get the squishy “swing vote” middle to turn out
and vote for them, they have to avoid discussing race and immigration.

This is a tired debate. The David Shor version—which has been
shorthanded to mean that Democrats should avoid discussing race and
focus just on what is “popular”—is only the latest. This has
been made manifest by stark political realities: razor-thin margins in
both houses of Congress as well as a rash of polling data showing that
the majority of white Americans are comfortable with racism and
nativism, and even that some voters of color might be trending toward
Trumpism [[link removed]].

But “popularism” is looking in the wrong place for long-term
victory. At a very volatile time, it treats public opinion as static.
It risks white appeasement
[[link removed]],
which has both material and political consequences. The question now
is therefore not how to talk about what is popular today. The question
is, instead, how to move those among the American public who are still
movable—and we know, from recent history, that there are
many—toward more justice. Without this long view, we seriously
underestimate the threat to democracy that the white supremacist
backlash represents. Underestimation will not yield a winning
strategy.

Public opinion in this country has never been the place to start on
matters of racial justice, because it has never been race-forward. In
1942, 93 percent of Americans 
[[link removed]]agreed
that Japanese people living in the United States should be
incarcerated. In 1964, 74 percent of Americans believed 
[[link removed]]that
civil rights demonstrations would hurt the movement for racial
equality. In 1965, almost 70 percent 
[[link removed]]of
Americans were hesitant about the newly passed Civil Rights Act and
wanted to see it enforced moderately.

And, yet, movements have won, and public opinion has shifted. Consider
the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and the
1988 reparations for Japanese Americans who were incarcerated during
WWII. These laws became increasingly part of a new common sense. By
1999, the public saw winning civil rights for Black Americans as one
of the five most important achievements 
[[link removed]]of
the twentieth century for the United States.

The lesson here is that movements have helped outline and hold up a
higher vision for America, and in so doing have been part of creating
a common-sense narrative about racial justice. Today, a new normal for
racial justice requires a path forward for the broad American public.
We certainly live in a time of racial division and virulent racist
backlash. But still, approximately 70 percent of Democrats and a
near-majority of all Americans 
[[link removed]]now believe
that systemic racism causes deep harm. Many people, in the past two
years, have moved toward greater justice and might be willing to do
more to create an economy and a political system that generates racial
equality. But in this time of legislative dysfunction, division, and
disinformation filling social media feeds every day, many Americans do
not have a clear sense of where to go next.

Responding with defensiveness or the “popularist” avoidance is not
a long-term, or frankly even a short-term, strategy. We must lift our
sights beyond taking voters’ temperature and simply responding with
where they are. To thus lead people where we need to go, we must focus
on paradigm shifts, which can change our field of view.

On that, we find reason to hope. As we detail in our recent report
[[link removed]],
the racial justice movement itself—organizers and scholars
alike—is converging on core values that might form the basis of a
new common sense on racial justice: equity, repair and redress, and
freedom and liberation.

These are movement values, and at the same time they are universal.
They require that we acknowledge what the old, ahistoric worldview
never did: that racism shapes our economic rules and institutions. But
they also suggest that better rules and institutions are possible. 

FILLING THE NARRATIVE VACUUM: LIBERALISM’S TWIN FAILURES AND THE
POSSIBILITY OF A NEW PARADIGM

Shaping our politics by setting our sights higher is especially
critical now. That is because ours is a time of racial upheaval and
racial reckoning—and also a time in which Americans lack a clear and
shared view of what racial justice is, and how we can achieve more
equality. The uprisings of 2020 are part of a deeper shifting of
tectonic plates. Our era marks the end for a long-held set of common
beliefs around racial justice.

For much of the twentieth century, Americans of both major parties
held a consensus view around what many call “racial liberalism.”
More equality and more justice for Black Americans and other people of
color would result from anti-discrimination, access to better
education and better jobs, and greater opportunity. But racial
liberalism has proven insufficient to overcome centuries of racial
oppression. Deeply entrenched discrimination remains central to
American life. Across nearly every indicator—income, wealth,
education, health, criminal justice—the material effects of
inequities are often worse 
[[link removed]]for
people of color than for white Americans. This is true even taking
educational attainment into account. A college degree has for decades
been the central goal for liberals, because higher education was
supposed to lead to a better paying job, more economic security,
health, and family well-being. But the data today shows that this has
not panned out. Today, 
[[link removed]]on
average
[[link removed]],
a Black family with a college-educated head-of-household has less
wealth than a white family whose head did not graduate from high
school.

The American promise—work hard, and then gain a fair share of
economic and social security within a private-sector driven
system—has not delivered. These empirical failures have eroded many
Americans’ shared belief in racial liberalism, but have left no
other widely held beliefs in liberalism’s wake. Because this old
paradigm is gone, many Americans have no clear way to make collective
sense of what they see on the news or learn from social media on
everyday matters. This is compounded by a confused and chaotic social
media ecosystem. This both enables and drives confusion and
division—most sharply on issues of race and equity.

As Liliana Mason and colleagues show
[[link removed]],
this dynamic is not merely partisan polarization. Latent racism in
America becomes very frontal particularly when activated by the right
leader, under the right material and social conditions. Simply
ignoring this threat to our democracy is not an option. This requires
filling the vacuum left by the collapse of two paradigms that
dominated the policymaking and popular imagination of the last
generation: neoliberalism and racial liberalism.

HOW WE GOT HERE: LIBERALISM’S TWIN FAILURES

Racial liberalism’s “opportunity and responsibility” view of
racial justice has deep roots. Racial liberalism and neoliberalism
developed symbiotically during the twentieth century. At their core,
both always held an ahistorical understanding of American economic and
political institutions.

Neoliberalism, as it developed in the 1940s and ’50s, held that
markets would bring economic and political freedom, and that our
economy and politics should therefore privilege individual choice and
profit-driven private sector companies. Racial liberalism developed
within this market-based framework, which narrowed our nation’s
approach from a more expansive set of ambitions in the 1960s. By the
late twentieth century, the mainstream American consensus held that
racial equality was primarily about disavowing personal bigotry and
overt discrimination. But this approach largely denied the role of
racialized and unequal structures that perpetuate group domination and
injustice.

Beginning in the late 1940s, neoliberals and racial liberals sought to
graft their views of a good society—property ownership, success in
private business, the “family wage” within a white, heterosexual
traditional family—onto the American-centered liberalism that
emerged in the aftermath of World War II. In this era, neoliberal
economists believed they were fighting for market freedom that would
counter Soviet-style socialism. Notably, though it often goes
unremarked on in the literature, the neoliberals built their thinking
out of a classical liberalism that naturalized and rendered invisible
racial stratification in both the economy and society. The neoliberals
were primarily American, British, and European men whose thinking was
dominated by a fear of World War II’s totalitarianisms. Their enemy
was the state.

And their answer was a free enterprise system. They imagined, and then
built, that system through intellectual networks like the Mont Pelerin
Society; academic centers, including most prominently the economics
departments at the University of Chicago and the University of
Virginia; and political strategies perhaps best exemplified by the
“Powell Memo
[[link removed]],”
written by then-soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in
1971. The free enterprise system required an amassing of political
power
[[link removed]],
which the neoliberals achieved through a fusion of libertarian
economics, socially conservative evangelical Christian politics, a
network of dark money funders, and Republican Party leadership.

Neoliberalism’s anti-government focus put forth several strands of
thinking about race. The first was more subtle with respect to white
racial dominance. Neoliberal arguments from the 1950s and ’60s,
primarily those associated with the Chicago School of economics,
emphasized that only unregulated private corporations could create
economic growth. They held, in Milton Friedman’s famous turn of
phrase
[[link removed]],
that the “social responsibility of business is profit.” Students
of “human capital,” like Gary Becker, argued that the best way to
get rid of racial segregation in the labor market was to “compete
[it] away
[[link removed]].”
These arguments gained real audiences and adherents. Friedman’s
assertion, in _The New York Times Magazine _in 1970, was a “free
market manifesto that changed the world
[[link removed]].”
Becker’s was, in the words of economist Kevin Murphy, a
“discipline-changing insight
[[link removed]].” 
These were the expert intellectual justifications for a pro-business,
anti-labor policy and jurisprudence. Racial inequality would, in this
view, sort itself out. The worst possible evil was the threat the
state posed to economic freedom.

The second strand of neoliberalism’s thinking about race was more
frontal
[[link removed]].
By the 1960s and ’70s, other branches of neoliberalism, especially
the Virginia school of political economy most closely associated with
James Buchanan, developed its anti-government theories of public
bureaucratic rent-seeking and pro-privatization just as school systems
in Virginia closed for years, handing out private school vouchers
rather than integrating Black and white children until the courts
forced them to re-open. The scourge of “big government” was
ostensibly about operational efficiency but was in reality about
so-called “massive resistance” to integration.

This was the mainstream economic context within which the mid-century
civil rights movement came forward as it pursued racial justice for
Black Americans and other people of color.

RACIAL LIBERALISM: PROMISES UNMET

Racial liberalism is less widely discussed these days than
neoliberalism. But it, too, has dominated mainstream thinking about
race and racism through much of the twentieth century. We now know
that almost half a century of policies focused on market opportunity
and asset accumulation did not, in the end, result in widespread
equity or political power for Black Americans or other people of
color—much less liberatory freedom.

Racial liberalism failed. But because no paradigmatic alternative has
taken its place, it still dominates the world we live in today. It
developed in the twentieth century as part of an increasingly powerful
neoliberalism that prioritized individuals and nuclear families over
any other social groupings; that defined success as narrowly economic;
and thereby denied collective action and saw a strong federal
government—meaning competent governance through competent
institutions acting on behalf of the public—as illegitimate.

One way to see the history of American race relations in the twentieth
century is as the tension between racial liberalism’s incrementalism
and other, more radical, strands of the civil rights movement. After
World War II, during which American troops fought in racially
segregated divisions, movement leaders were engaged in a heated
debate. Racial justice leaders in the 1940s had come of age during
a horrific era of terror lynchings 
[[link removed]]and _de
jure _segregation, both levers with which white America maintained
racial dominance. To what degree should anti-lynching and a fight
against racial violence
[[link removed]],
which was seeing success, remain core to the fight for justice?

1954 was, of course, a major turning point: the unanimous, landmark
Supreme Court decision in _Brown v. Board_
[[link removed]]. _Brown _shifted
American thinking about racial justice and changed America itself,
striking down _Plessy v. Ferguson _
[[link removed]](1896)
with the words “the doctrine of ‘separate but equal shall not
stand.’” In part because of the legal triumph of the educational
desegregation approach and in part because of the massive pushback in
response across the American South—and indeed the whole
nation—against desegregation, the dominant civil rights strategy of
the twentieth century focused on access to K–12 schooling, and by
extension on attacking the entire system of racial segregation.

However, because the Court led not with a systemic or economic
critique, but instead focused on the psychological harm to Black
children who lacked access to the schools and other educational
opportunities that white children enjoyed, some critics have
lamented _Brown_’s hegemony. As law professor and civil rights
theorist Lani Guinier argues
[[link removed]],
the focus on the individual and psychological harms downplayed both
the role of economic redistribution and the role of systemic
reproduction of white supremacy. Guinier argued that “_Br__own_’s
legacy is clouded at least in part because post-World War II racial
liberalism influenced the legal engineers to treat the symptoms of
racism, not the disease.” This is in line with the more radical
arguments about systems of change that emerged as part of the civil
rights and Black power movements throughout the 1960s and ’70s.

The full force and power of the civil rights movement ultimately
transformed American society. But the racial justice movement existed
within the larger context of white-dominated politics and an
increasingly narrow liberalism. In this context, and as
neoliberalism’s focus on individual skill-building and government
tax-cutting gained power in the 1970s, economic-focused arguments
around racial equity lost traction. The federal jobs guarantee and
full employment mandates supported by both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
and later Coretta Scott King, and the stark call for redistribution of
both power and wealth that marked Dr. King’s final years, were
smothered by neoliberalism’s economic insistence on the logic of
market competition and its moral insistence on the purity of
individual workers earning their keep.

The years between 1980 and 2016 marked the ascendance, and dominance,
of an individualized, marketized neoliberalism that dictated not only
our economics, but also our racial politics. Ronald Reagan’s was a
dog-whistle approach to race—from the launching of his campaign in
Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were
famously murdered, to a racialized demonization of both taxation and
welfare with his still-infamous, if factually dubious
[[link removed]],
“welfare queens” trope.

The Clinton presidency institutionalized both race neutrality and
neoliberal austerity within the Democratic Party. His symbolic
politics—his overseeing of the execution of Ricky Ray Rector and his
criticism of Black writer and activist Sister Souljah—were designed
to triangulate and speak to “Reagan Democrats.” His policy agenda
focused on both “opportunity” and “responsibility”:
opportunity zones and public school choice, as well as increased
community policing. He signed a host of laws that led to increased
incarceration nationwide, and remains most criticized for the 1996
welfare reform bill, whose work requirements, state block grants, and
immigrant prohibitions radically reduced the number of aid recipients
and pushed low-income women of color, in particular, into long-term
poverty [[link removed]].

Barack Obama’s rise to political power a decade later was, in
historian Nils Gilman’s 
[[link removed]]words,
the “apotheosis” of racial liberalism, “exposing the
contradictions and limitations of that consensus in ways that became
impossible to ignore.” The Obama years were both an end and a
beginning. His election as the nation’s first Black President marked
a sign of racial progress but also set off tremendous racist backlash
that has grown and metastasized.

President Obama took office as Lehman Brothers failed, Wall Street
panicked, and millions of Americans lost their homes and livelihoods.
The long-term effects of the crisis and recession were highly
racialized
[[link removed]].
Black families lost more than a third 
[[link removed]]of
their wealth, and Latinx Americans lost more than 40 percent
[[link removed]].
Yet the consensus approach remained, nonetheless, focused on the
austerity of a “grand bargain” that never materialized. The
brutality of policing and the criminal justice system also became more
visible to the American mainstream in the 2010s. The 2012 killing of
Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman, as
well as the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri, sparked the Black Lives Matter movement. The Obama years
also saw the continued growth of a vicious anti-immigration system,
with some progress for DREAMers (children who were brought to the
United States while young) but also the deportation of nearly three
million immigrants
[[link removed]],
many of whom had no criminal records.

By the time of Donald Trump’s election, mainstream racial liberalism
had settled into a groove. It primarily focused on nondiscrimination
and universalism on the policy side. On the one hand, neither
political party permitted overt bigotry within their establishment
ranks. But on the other hand, the lack of overt bigotry in the
political mainstream and the focus on nondiscrimination did not lead
to materially better outcomes for most people of color.

American liberal politics went off the rails by 2016 in part because
it failed to actually curb racism. The practice of looking the other
way and allowing the dog whistles in fact exacerbated racism and
allowed it to gain real power. The details are familiar:the rise of
the Tea Party as an anti-governmental force; and the rise and
political power of birtherism, which is both anti-Black and
anti-Muslim, nativist as well as racist.

Donald Trump was elected President having run a deliberately
racialized campaign. Trump’s racism—more than any mainstream
national political movement in at least the last 100 years—gained
adherents because of its shock value. Trumpism incited some
particularly vitriolic strands of America’s racist traditions. In
particular, he fused racism and nativism straightforwardly and
unapologetically. He tapped into 
[[link removed]]the
“law and order” strains of anti-Black sentiment among mostly white
voters, attacking Black Lives Matter protests in the wake of police
killings as “symbols of hate.” Trump stoked a range of anti-Latinx
and anti-Asian fears, from labor competition to the feeling that
Asians and Latinx people will be forever “foreign.” Meanwhile, he
exacerbated post–9/11 anti-Muslim hysteria under the guise 
[[link removed]]of
national security.

Trump’s political weaponization of immigration was straightforwardly
racist—for example, through his ongoing, public use of racist slurs
and his hiring of Jeff Sessions, Steve Bannon, and Stephen
Miller—who all encouraged and conferred with white supremacists—as
leaders on immigration policy. Donald Trump no longer holds office,
but his post-liberal racism and nativism continue to animate the
Republican Party.

THREE THEMES FOR A NEW PARADIGM

The possibility for a new paradigm comes, in fact, from the breakdown
of both neoliberalism and racial liberalism. Overt racism and the
silent encouragement of dog-whistle racism have become a norm in one
of our mainstream political parties, and so we can no longer return to
race-neutrality as a goal. Failing to call out dog-whistles only leads
to greater racism. Race-neutrality was never sufficient for so many
people. In today’s racialized politics, it is simply untenable.

The crises and upheavals of the last decade have brought to the fore
new scholarship, a new understanding of our history and our present,
and a newly empowered racial justice community.

The movement today for racial justice and equity is broad. It brings
together scholars, public intellectuals, activists, and historians.
Several lines of thought have coalesced, from economists focusing on
racialized wealth and stratification economics, abolitionist thinkers
focused on an end to the prison industrial complex, and legal scholars
focused on the ways in which American law has legitimated race-based
subordination.A new popular history is part of the scene, bringing
race-forward ideas to mainstream American culture. The National
Memorial for Peace and Justice
[[link removed]] in Alabama, _The New
Jim Crow_ [[link removed]], “The Case for Reparations
[[link removed]],”
and the 1619 Project 
[[link removed]]are
just some of the many projects that have catalyzed new conversations
about the foundations of American history and the ongoing legacy of
slavery and oppression.

What all of these movement thinkers and activists share is a
structural view of change. Their vision moves beyond racial
liberalism, in that they do not simply want greater access to existing
programs. The root of their argument is that the economic system is
predicated on exclusion, and that post-hoc solutions—based on
redistribution after the fact—will not suffice; that today’s
immigration system is based on racial terror; and that the current
voting system deliberately suppresses Black and brown voices.
These movement leaders call for 
[[link removed]]a
fundamental altering of relationships of power. This has begun to
create a political shift, with many grassroots leaders moving beyond
outsider organizing to seek and win elected office.

Together, leaders are building a new vision based on ideas that have
been ever-present in American movements for justice: freedom and
liberation from systems of oppression, the repair and redress of
historical harms, and material equity. These three themes are both
specifically anti-racist and also universal in their values. They
could form the backbone of a new paradigm for racial justice.

* FREEDOM AND LIBERATION: At the core of the movement is the vision
for individual and collective self-determination, free from systemic
oppression. The movement’s notion of freedom is distinctly
non-neoliberal, and is tied to visions of American freedom that
predate the country’s neoliberal shift—positive freedom situated
outside of market exchanges, freedom from oppressive and exclusive
laws and social arrangements. This freedom is about true liberation,
and has deep roots in the abolitionist, civil rights, and women’s
liberation movements.
* REPAIR AND REDRESS: Achieving racial justice requires an honest
reckoning with America’s legacy of white supremacy and violence. It
requires taking concrete, reparative action to redress the legacy of
harm that continues to shape our communities. Drawing on the new
popular history, repair and redress makes central the idea that an
understanding of the past and affirmative actions to repair past
wrongs are necessary for justice.
* MATERIAL EQUITY: Moving beyond the neoliberal worldview that
believed increased access and opportunity to the current system was
sufficient to bring about economic equality, today’s movement
pursues equitable material outcomes and centers racial equity. Yet
today’s activists know that true equity requires more equitable
outcomes, rather than accepting the false promise of “opportunity”
within a system that continues to systematically exclude. It demands
redistribution of resources—especially when wealth for some has been
extracted from many—and a redistribution of decision-making power.

These themes distinguish today’s scholarly and movement thinking
from the failed paradigms of the past. They also demonstrate that the
movement is far deeper than a series of slogans about policing or
immigration enforcement (ICE), which political pundits today worry
about because they are not yet broadly popular.

* Neoliberalism and racial liberalism ignored the past in their
deliberate focus on individual attainment of skills to compete in an
ostensibly fair labor market. The new thinking about racial justice
requires a real reckoning with history both for moral reasons and so
that we can properly understand the specific harms of past policies
and make recompense.
* Neoliberalism—and, to a lesser degree, racial
liberalism—focused on market exchange, material accumulation, and
economic incentives. Neoliberal approaches deliberately placed
decision-making within markets, and outside of politics
[[link removed]].
The new thinking about racial justice focuses on social incentives,
the power and pull of participation, and movements themselves.
* Neoliberalism and racial liberalism were about individual
accomplishment within a constrained, increasingly financialized
capitalism. Politics existed primarily to protect private actors, and
as such was thin and transactional. The new racial justice thinking
focuses on a more balanced form of action and agency: democratic
politics as collective action, collective governance, and collective
self-governance.

The new worldview brings the combined themes of freedom, repair, and
equity together within a story of what America can become.
We _can _have a more equitable, multiracial economy, society, and
democracy. But to get there, we must honestly reckon with the real
cultural, policy, and political reasons that people of color—Black,
brown, Indigenous, Asian—have been subjugated, excluded, and
“othered.” And this also means centering the experiences, the
voices, and ultimately the political power of Black Americans and
other people of color.

Importantly, to get to this kind of politics, we must embrace themes
with deep roots in the racial justice movement. These themes reflect
universal values. Repair and redress are central to faith traditions
worldwide. Equality is a deeply held, if also contested, American
value. Freedom from the market 
[[link removed]]has, contrary to
popular belief, a long American history. As such, it might be possible
to connect what movement leaders are demanding to a broad, strong, and
lasting political movement that has the support of a majority of
Americans.

Paradigm shifts are rare, especially in politics. But they do happen
when the reality of people’s everyday lives becomes radically out of
sync with their understanding of how the world is supposed to work.
Today, the shift beyond neoliberalism in the field of economics is
embraced by major thinkers and funded by large foundations, and it
animates the potential for foundational and historic legislative
efforts by the Biden Administration.

Our charge now is to broaden the paradigm shift that is already
underway, and to show that solving problems with individualized,
marketized, neoliberal solutions does not “compete away” racial
discrimination, but instead compounds white supremacy. The racial
justice movement’s calls for freedom and liberation, repair and
redress, and material equity requires policy solutions that are
systemic and address the rules-based, root causes of racial exclusion.

Those in power must take transformative action and usher in structural
change. And we must also act quickly. It will be critical over the
next several years to use all the tools of government—executive
action; agency tools, including existing departments and regulatory
mechanisms; legislation; and more structural democratic measures, such
as court reform—toward a more racially just economy and democracy.

The only way to achieve the promise of our multiracial democracy is to
not shy away from either “multiracial” or “democracy.” We must
make a convincing argument for both—plainly and out loud. The
alternative is already quite obvious—overt, hate-filled white
nationalism covering for the tax cuts coveted by profit-seeking
multinational corporations and their lobbying firms, and the few
individuals that benefit from them. A new kind of politics will depend
on a new narrative that meets people where they are, and at the same
time points toward a vision of society that imagines and describes
something bigger, more inclusive, and more democratic, going forward.

We are far from understanding all of the political nuances—how to
translate movement ideas more broadly; how to engage the voters who
remain on the partisan edges and might respond to a positive,
race-forward vision; and how to do all of this while growing the power
and membership of race-forward, pro-immigrant organizations. But we
are clear on the fact that the opportunity is now. The movement will
continue to hold the bar high, and to lead the way. It is up to all of
us to meet this moment.

_FELICIA WONG [[link removed]] is
President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute._

_KYLE STRICKLAND
[[link removed]] is deputy
director of the Roosevelt Institute’s Race and Democracy program._

_If you believe that it's important to reinvigorate progressivism for
the 21st century, then we encourage you to subscribe to Democracy: A
Journal of Ideas [[link removed]]. Dedicated to the
belief that ideas matter in politics, every quarterly issue will bring
you the best bold ideas on foreign and domestic issues along with
thought-provoking review essays of the latest and most significant new
books by academics, journalists, and public intellectuals._

* Racial Justice
[[link removed]]
* Liberalism
[[link removed]]
* neo-liberalism
[[link removed]]
* Black Lives Matter
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]