Limitless

LOURY: I say we, Black Americans in the 21st century, have boundless opportunity. I say we are by far the richest and most powerful large population of African descent on the planet. I say that the advent of an African-American middle class, which has taken place over the last half-century and more, is a world historic event. I say that the success of the civil rights movement, not only in law but in the transformation of attitude, and custom, and norm in American life, is virtually without historical precedent. And so I say the glass is way, way, way more than half full here.
Freakonomics Radio, Episode 588: Confessions of a Black Conservative

It's a common Conservative argument, and none of it is false. Except perhaps for the "boundless opportunity" part; I do think that Conservatives tend to believe in a world where opportunities are literally limitless, which I find flies in the face of reality, let alone people's lives experiences. But the flip side of it, as I see it, is that the argument is effectively this: "Because you've been given so much, the fact that it's demonstrably less than what was promised, and what others have been given, doesn't matter. That the deal is good means that whether or not it feels fair is completely irrelevant." And I suspect that this is why it so often falls on deaf ears.

There's also an aspect of Conservative orthodoxy that comes across as hypocritical. Glenn Loury notes that he longs "for the simpler days of a church-based, Christian-animated, pro-American [...] take on African-American participation in the American enterprise." But if others should seen the glass as "way, way, way more than half full," then why doesn't Mr. Loury? Why is he justified in wanting the "take on African-American participation in the American enterprise" to be different, when Black Live Matter or the Social Justice movement aren't? If progressives should look at where things are and be satisfied with that, why shouldn't he? The argument isn't over whether or not there is work to be done, its who should do the work. And, generally speaking, the argument is always that the other side of the political spectrum should put in the effort.

I'm repeating myself here, but I found myself wanting to put the same question to Glenn Loury that I want to put to David Brooks. If this bygone time that you speak of was go great, and carried such obvious benefits for the people most in need of them, why were its norms and preferences left behind? If boundless opportunities" are simply available for the taking, why is no-one taking them? I know what I think the answer to be; the simple expectation that mainstream American society doesn't want the competition. For the person who believes the effort to pick up a $20 bill on the pavement will be wasted, ignoring the money (or convincing themselves that it's counterfeit) is rational. Simply asserting that it's irrational is not enough, the fact that the piece of paper on the concrete is worth the effort it takes to obtain it must be demonstrated, repeatedly and consistently. And it's understood that this works. For all that people point out that Black American youth are hesitant to invest in academics, they readily invest in athletics, putting a remarkable amount of effort into competing for the vanishingly small number of well-paying professional sports jobs that the nation offers. And no affirmative action was needed there. The same with music; finding someone who thinks that they're going to be the next Tupac Shakur or Queen Latifa is easy. And one can make the case that well-paying jobs in corporate America or academia are much easier to come by. So why do people see obstacles down one path that they don't see down the other? It's a worthwhile question to answer, if we want people to climb close enough to the glass ceiling to push it aside.