Home is Where the Heart(ache) Is

I do not pretend to fully understand the subprime mortgage crisis or the current financial turmoil that has gripped the country and the world. Questions arise nonetheless.

I do not know exactly where I stand with respect to political framing. Some scholars and politicians are wedded to the idea of universal framing, policies framed as aiming to help entire populations. Others, however, are inclined to employ the targeted approach, frame issues as helping particular populations because of historical legacies of engendered disadvantage. Again, I am not exactly sure where I stand as I see the merits of both. First, the culture of the United States, for better or for worse, is one of the rugged individual, the hard worker, the self disciplined entrepreneur. Of course this is the narrative that we tell ourselves (or rather are told) though we know America is not, in any way, a meritocracy. The framing of critical issues, given these hagiographical tales of America, needs to be done in such a way that it convinces politicians to sign their John Hancocks boldly on the dotted line. On the other hand, universal policies, history has shown, have yielded disparate results. Affirmative Action is one of many great examples: helped some minorities, not all (main beneficiaries being middle class Blacks and White women—not a criticism, just fact).

So, why this discussion about framing? The answer: the current financial crisis and the subsequent repercussions of the subprime lending fiasco, have left minorities in even greater precarious positions, as made even more explicit by today’s New York Times article—“Minorities Affected Most as New York Foreclosures Rise.” Sociologists Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro’s book, Black Wealth, White Wealth, outlined the differences between Blacks and Whites with respect to wealth. Blacks may frequent the various “highest income earners” lists (although most are athletes and actors which is a different blog for a different day), but they are almost absent from Forbes “Wealthiest People” list. Remember what Chris Rock said, “Shaq is rich. The white man who signs his check is wealthy.” There is a gulf of difference between being rich and wealthy as wealth symbolizes the transmission of advantage, privilege, and (it almost goes without saying) capital of all kinds that serve as shield to the effects of crises like the one we are experiencing now. Take home ownership as one example of the difference: a PEW study show that “as of 2008, 74.9% of whites owned homes, compared with 59.1% of Asians, 48.9% of Hispanics and 47.5% of blacks.”

Recent reports have shown that minorities are the hardest hit by the current economic climate, losing homes at rates far greater than comparable whites. Quoting the New York Times article, “the hardest blows rain down on the backbone of minority neighborhoods: the black middle class. In New York City, for example, black households making more than $68,000 a year are almost five times as likely to hold high-interest subprime mortgages as are whites of similar—or even lower—incomes.” I do not necessarily agree that the black middle class represent the backbone of minority neighborhoods, but the statistics are alarming. Blacks, because of the cumulative advantage gap (tied to wealth and capital), are not able to withstand current condition the same was as comparable whites.

I begin with political framing because, as it stands now, the Obama administration has taken a more universal stance in their negotiations with the banks. The issue of targeting specific populations who inherited the lasting legacy of redlining, housing covenants, and preferential lending, has not come up in these public conversations. Admittedly, I have not I read the executive documents outlining the exact plan? I just want to know if the $50 billion carrot the Obama Administration has in front of banks for lowering mortgage payments is also taking these external factors into consideration. I am all for helping all but sometimes we hurt some in doing so.