ENTER SHELBY STEELE.
Is there a sadder soul in America than Shelby Steele? Whatever interesting observations the man was once capable of making are now so banal that they're the stuff of freshman seminars, and so every few months he appears, carrying water for the conservative cause.
There was the time he said "Obama can't win," based on a binary understanding of black identity, a petty analysis he is still cribbing from even as the first black president is rounding out his first six months in office. There was the day-after election analysis that claimed white people flocked to Obama out of white guilt or the promise of a racial utopia--a fortune cookie argument that ignored any concrete demographic analysis of what happened to the electorate in 2008. Then there was the time he tried to convince conservatives that their problems with race had nothing to do with the Republican Party's shameful history of opposing black rights. But the coup de grace, the saddest moment of Shelby Steele's career, had to be the time George Will damned him with what must have sounded to him like the faintest of praise, by calling him America's "foremost black intellectual." After years of condemning affirmative action, Steele found himself trapped in a checked box of his own divising: Even those who think he is great think so only in relation to his peers as defined by skin color.
So Steele has become worse than predictable. He has become boring. Everything he has to say about Sonia Sotomayor and Obama in The Wall Street Journal today you've heard before, Steele just says it louder, with all the authority of the Republican Party's foremost black intellectual. Steele writes that Sotomayor is not just a "racist," she is possessing of "a Hispanic chauvinism so extreme that it sometimes crosses into outright claims of racial supremacy," before taking that now infamous quote from Sotomayor's 2001 speech out of context--again. What in Sotomayor's judicial record--which Steele hasn't looked at--justifies such a description? Why the infamous Frank Ricci case, in which Sotomayor upheld the law based on precedent, except conservatives didn't like the precedent. Never mind that several Hispanic firefighters were also denied promotion in that case--Steele deals in racial tarot card reading, not facts. The trick is understanding what Steele means when he says "minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance"--this is true, something Steele knows as fact, since no one has ever held a bigger grudge for longer than Shelby Steele, or spent more time justifying the Nixonian grievances of the Republican Party base.
Sotomayor, a nominee with more time on the federal bench than anyone else currently on the Supreme Court at the time they were nominated, is elevated "more for the political currency of [her] gender and ethnicity than for [her] individual merit." Never mind how this concept speaks to Steele's entire career, It should be noted at this moment that Shelby Steele was terribly impressed with Michael Steele who we know was chosen as head of the RNC only because of his record of success in Maryland. Steele concludes that Sotomayor is as doomed as Michelle Obama was after saying she was proud of her country for the first time, which is the kind of cruel fate any public figure would beg for.
The man is like Sisyphus, doomed to roll each conservative talking point up a hill, bullet point by bullet point, for the rest of eternity. Steele has been repeating himself as a farce for years now, and it's simply tragic to watch. The grand unifying theory of his career, that (liberal) black people are too busy being "black" to succeed, was shattered on November 4, 2008, and Steele has spent every day since trying to pick up the shards and put them back together.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (8)
He may be predictable. He may be boring. But in regards to Obama and Sotamayor he's absolutely right.
Posted by: T. AKA Ricky Raw | June 8, 2009 9:39 AM
This post expresses my thinking about Steele (much) better than I could. I read Steele's 1st book, The Content Of Our Character, a couple of years after it came out and thought he had some interesting and insightful things to say, even though much of it made me think "Um, no." It's saddened me to watch him become a parody of himself.
Posted by: JohnM | June 8, 2009 9:57 AM
Is there a sadder soul in America than Shelby Steele?
Harry Stein is running a close second...
Posted by: AJ | June 8, 2009 12:02 PM
As I read Shelby Steele's commentary in the Wall Street Journal this morning, thoughts identical to those expressed by A. Serwer came to my mind. What Steele fails to acknowledge is that, aside from all else, the nominee is an accomplished individual with broad and varied experiences in the law--even if some other arguments which disparage her nomination are true. Except for William Douglas and David Souter, I am unable to think of a nominee to the Court who, as a lawyer, represened society's interests as a prosecutor, corporation's interests as a lawyer for business firms, and then served as both a trial judge and an appellate court judge.
Why, I thought as I read the Journal article, can't Professor Steele acknowledge this list of varied experiences and successes--not to mention her academic achievements which frankly look less impressive when compared with her actual experiences--at least to partially explain her nomination to the Supreme Court? By not acknowledging those successes, Steele inflicts a wound on his own theory and demonstrates that his arguments are, perhaps, not especially relevant.
John McDonald
Posted by: John McDonald | June 8, 2009 12:37 PM
I think Steele has always been predictable, but what surprises me is how lazily dishonest this column is. I mean, he completely altered the meaning of the wise Latina quote with a transparently hacking snipping. It's like he's not even trying anymore.
http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/06/the-tragedy-of-shelby-steele/
Sorry for the link whoring, but I don't want to re-type 1,000 words, or take up that much space here. I gave you the shorter/
Posted by: Brien Jackson | June 8, 2009 12:55 PM
Yes, indeed, boring. Obama has proven that he can win--it's just that he can't govern honestly or effectively to solve our problems or the world's (smelling more like Bush all the time, no puns intended). Sotomayor can be nominated and approved, but she's still the author of repeated racist remarks and will never be trusted by a large portion of the people she has targeted for contempt due to their alleged racial inferiority.
Posted by: Obimayor Sotobama rama rama how am I going to finish this | June 8, 2009 2:52 PM
PM's perspective is so stunningly stupid that it simply reveals that Steele and his ilk will always have a market for their wares, no matter how transparently dishonest.
PM--Sotomayor is not the "author of repeated racist remarks" she is the author of "remarks on race" which is like accusing a solar expert of being a heated speaker. Race is a fact of american life and any jurist of any color who pretends to ignore it is just...well...pretending. Its there, and it will continue to be there as an issue. Its how we deal with it that matters. Show me the proof in a close reading of her 300 some cases that she has sided with "her own race" (because that is what you mean) against "some other race" in any case that came before her? You can't. Even in the Ricci case the co-complainant with the white guy was a *&^^ hispanic. In most bias cases she has come down squarely on the side of the white plaintiff because she felt the law instructed her to do so. Please learn the facts before you embarrass yourself on the internet.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | June 8, 2009 6:14 PM
"Whatever interesting observations..."
Yeah, like you folks have ever had any use for a non-leftist minority who's "left the plantation". Steele is right on, as usual, when ripping the leftist racialists like Sotomayor a new one.
Posted by: A.C. | June 10, 2009 4:14 AM