Obviously this is a question that we can only speculate on, but my answer would be “much different in a positive sense.” I’d be inclined to argue:

(1) Viewed strictly from the POV of the black community, the effects of the drug war have been far more significant than the effects of drug use itself.

(2) While decriminalization probably would, in society at large, increase drug use (albeit not as much as many people think) probably not by much at all in poor communities of any race, where (a) drugs are readily already available and cheap, and (b) people in those communities are less deterred by legal prohibition, because they perceive that they have less to lose.

(3) Taking 1 & 2 together, you would have many fewer blacks in jail with little increase in drug use. Moreover, one of the problems now is that when many of these young men get out of jail, they have significant barriers (legal and otherwise) to future success in life. So it’s not just a question of fewer people in jail, but fewer people with criminal records (not to mention the negative effects of the incarceration itself)

(4) Finally, there are negative effects to drug prohibition to black communities beyond the imprisonment of young men, effects which would disappear upon legalization,

In my own case, my increasing skepticism about the government has made me, too, somewhat disenchanted with many of the “liberal” solutions to the problem of race (though I think conservatives massively exaggerate the negative effects of these efforts.) But probably the one thing the government COULD do that would most help the problems of poor black community would be to end the war on drugs.

Not that I”m terribly hopeful that that is likely to happen (understatement).

I also think that racism is still much more prevalent than you do, but I’m not prepared (in terms of time commitment) to seriously address that issue here.

Moreover, if you look at his critique of white America, the complaint isn’t that they aren’t giving the black community enough money, but that white America is actively racist.

A claim that I believe is mostly (white America is not a homegeneous thing) wrong, and mostly irrelevant. There are no legal barriers to African Americans qua African Americans any more, in the first instance, and more than a few of what Obama referred to as “ladders of opportunity.” Secondly, white Americans didn’t like, and were frankly hostile toward, Jews, Catholics, or especially in the American West, Japanese and Chinese but this did not preclude those groups from suceeding in America. As they did, racism became less and less relevant. Difference, and the tension associated, never disappear, but in America, it is money that matters more than anything else. Now one may argue that it is the special burden of black history, especially slavery, that renders those comparisons inapposite, but this sounds faintly of special pleading, and even accepting it for the sake of argument, presents no resolution that can be given to or imposed upon black people from outside themselves and their families and communities.

Continually reminding blacks of the wrongs done to them maintains a sense of black identity, provides followers to the Rev. Wrights of the world, and reinforces white guilt which someone like Obama can exploit, good cop/bad cop fashion, to get his way and reward his followers. That it does not particularly help the majority of black people, whose problems are worse in many respects than forty years ago, seems clear enough.

Now, he means something a little different by that than you do – okay, a lot different (e.g., end the war on drugs)

The “war on drugs” is a disaster in many respects, and I’m not going to defend it. I am unsure of the extent to which the ill effects of the war on drugs can be separated from the harms caused by the use of drugs. If drugs like cocaine and meth were decriminalized tomorrow, how much different would things be in poor black neighborhoods ten years from now? Fewer men would be incarcerated, no doubt, but probably more would be on drugs, and only slightly less useless than if they were immured in one of America’s prison hells.

Now, he means something a little different by that than you do – okay, a lot different (e.g., end the war on drugs) – and it goes along with a lot of counterproductive rage, but it’s still closer in some ways than you might want to think.

Oh, and I really do need an editor. here = hear in the above comment.

Much of that is true (though I’d take some serious issue with your last sentence), but then Obama made precisely those points in the speech.

Of course there is the “appeal. .. made for more money from the government.” Interestingly, I don’t here such an appeal from Rev. Wright. He seems more from the “we can’t expect anything from white America, so we have to do it ourselves” school. Moreover, if you look at his critique of white America, the complaint isn’t that they aren’t giving the black community enough money, but that white America is actively racist. Again, your critique of that approach is well taken (racism is still a big problem, but preaching anger and resentment doesn’t help), but the “appeal for more money” critique has little if anything to do with the reality of Rev. Wright’s preaching.

As for Obama, I didn’t really hear him say that “more money” is the answer, though obviously at some level, even if only in terms of support of current programs, he is implicitly suggesting that it is part of the answer. But all that really says is that he is a pretty mainstream liberal. Which is reason enough for some people not to vote for him, but not exactly news.

Even stipulating that the problems among blacks of rampant illegitimacy, drug abuse, violence, unemployment, etc. are a legacy of slavery – and this strikes this antediluvian conservative as mostly true – white people (and that is what is meant when an appeal is made for more money from the government) can not fix these problems. All we can do is get out of the way. At the risk of sounding callous, but also as someone who has dealt with his own crushing cargo of resentment, something may be someone else’s fault, but it is your responsibility. From the Stoics to Dr. Laura, it is well known, and bears frequent repetition, that how one reacts to the things that happen to him is more important to his happiness and success than the things themselves. By stoking the fires of resentment, Wright magnifies his own importance, and his own ability to gain influence and government money, but he does so at the expense of the welfare of his people. He, and Jackson, and Sharpton, and the whole industry of grievance-mongers, are self-serving, rent-seeking, hatemongers.

Re point 1 in my most recent post: This is from a newspaper editorial, not the speech directly, but:

“He talked about the need for whites to recognize the lingering problem of racial discrimination – and for blacks to embrace the ‘quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help.’”

I mean, come on, in terms of what you are calling for … give the man some credit for that.

(1) I think the speech made at least a few gestures in the direction you are asking for. Not enough from your perspective, but heck, he IS a liberal after all (not that that’s a bad thing from MY perspective, despite my increasing divergence from orthodox liberalism), no one is denying that.

(2) A lot of what you are asking for is divorced from politics. Obama is, after all, running for president. It is reasonable, then for him to focus upon what government can (and cannot do). I’m not sure what point there would be in, say, him telling white people that moral renewal is needed in the black community.

(3) Obviously I’m speculating about Rev. Wright’s other sermons But I’m not sure that the limited clips that we saw justify your “socialism is the answer, white racism is the primary cause” conclusion. In any event, I think that his criticisms of successful blacks leaving the community at least offer a hint that he is aware that a big part of the answer has to come from inside the community. And I’m sure that you are aware that blaming racism is not only consistent with calls for self help, but they go hand in hand. The “we can’t expect to get much help from racist whites, we need to help ourselves” is not exactly a rare POV among leaders in the African American community, though ironically that POV has often been associated with what are regarded as some of the more radical leaders of the African American community.

I think your description of an unintended byproduct of desegregation has some truth to it. I also would go further and acknowledge that behaviors useful for survival and maintaining dignity under conditions of racist oppression may be pathological in conditions of freedom and inequality. For example, passive aggressive laziness obviously would frustrate the interests of plantation owners once upon a time. There is still a kind of Robin Hood respect for get-rich-quick-schemers and blacks that don’t “suck up to” whites in most black communities.

I think the sources of black social decline since the Sixties are manifold: the sexual revolution, the bad incentives of welfare, pathological attitudes derived from slavery, the role model issue, unrealistic hopes of parity, affirmative action, the failure of whites to exert continuing moral and cultural leadership, etc. But I think the solution has to be some kind of moral renwal and acknowledgement of the facts by whites. Obama’s talk was essentially highfalutin recitation of the pieties of Rev. Wright: socialism is the answer, white racism is the primary cause.

And forgive the typos above; I’m lousy at editing my blog comments.

But let’s talk about what Mr. Roach calls a “black behavior problem. It’s true that white liberals tend to dance comfortably around this issue, but, ironically, many black leaders, most likely Rev. Wright included, would agree that that is part of the problem (while probably calling it something a little different). They would disagree with Mr. Roach, though, about how big a portion of the problem it is, its causes, and its cures. But I expect (based upon familiarity of people with Rev. Wright’s world view) that his sermons also contained some searing criticism of aspects of black culture. Of course, for very understandable reasons, that may not be the face that is shown most often to the white community. But thaty doesn’t make it any less true.

But there is an irony here. Now, my position (again, stating the position, not proving it) that much if not all of that “behavioral” problem is a legacy of racism. Mr. Roach’s rejoinder (one of them, anyway), most likely would be “haha, then why have the problems gotten worse post desegragation?”

The answer, which Rev. Wright and smart liberals recognize, is an ironic unintentional by product of desegregation. There is tons and tons of research from all ideological perspectives that suggests that communities of all races containing a mix of poor people and middle class people are much more successful than communities consisting of only poor people. The reason is pretty clear – having positive role models in a community – examples of people who have succeeded through hard work, etc. – is a key factor in building successful communities.

Desegregation, while on the whole a very good and necessary thing, had the perverse effect of taking successful blacks out of the communities. What was left were communities, still de facto segregated (for whatever reason; the reason doesn’t matter for this analysis) with no successful role models. And any such community, regardless of the racial makeup, is going to be damaged by that.

So what’s the solution? Heck if I know. Obviously at least part of the solution does have to come from inside the community. And I frankly doubt that Rev. Wright would disagree with that. My guess is that the REAL difference between Rev. Wright and, say, Bill Cosby, on THAT score at least, is who the audience for that message should be. Rev. Wright, understandably, probably doesn’t see much benefit in telling whites about dysfunctional black communities.

One more little point. One thing that people jumped on Wright for was his criticism of blacks who made good and left the community. Such criticism was devoid of context. What Wright was saying was simply this: that for damaged inner city communities to succeed, they need successful people to stay in and support the community. Say what you will about such an exhortation, it actually is very much of a piece with Mr. Roach’s argument.

I responded to his second comment (I thought pretty effectively, but YMMV).

I didn’t respond to his first comment because it represents a view of race which, though I profoundly disagree with, is pretty difficult to engage in the context of a blog comment thread. I’m also increasingly convinced that dialog on race is in many instances impossible, not because of bad faith, but because of the divergence of underlying assumptions that people (on all sides) bring to the debate.

Mr. Nostack did respond to Mr. Roach’s first post; his responses, while I agree with them, illustrate the difficulty of complex engagement of Mr. Roach’s ideas in the limited format of a blog comment.