IMHO.

David Shor: “We’ve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing, and even on racial issues or various measures of ‘racial resentment.’” https://t.co/lPi6ugflo7

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 3, 2021

This seems important. "Defund the police" may really have hurt Democrats' standing with nonwhite voters.https://t.co/kxmqvDXO3V pic.twitter.com/tdCAjq3STk

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) March 3, 2021

Two comments on the same article which I was just going to leave here with a brief comment of my own about the myopia of white privilege and the determination to tell people what is best for them, be it from "liberals" or "conservatives." But then I read this post on the way here, and I want to incorporate it by reference (as I used to say when I was a practicing lawyer).  It provides a more nuanced examination of the issue.  And while nuance doesn't play well in public discussions, it's desperately needed here.

For the record, my sympathies in the Niebuhr/Hauerwas argument are with Niebuhr.  His argument is a simple one:  you don't get to decide what sacrifices other people should make in the name of your sense/theory of morality.  I like the example of Thomas More, who stood firm on his sense of morality even though it cost him his life.  But it also cost his family their income.  I don't think Henry VIII provided a generous stipend for them, and even if he did, imagine the impact on you if your father/spouse decided his/her purity of heart was more important than you, on what is, after all, a fairly minor point in the grand scheme of things (I'm not that impressed with More's ethics, if you hadn't guessed. I'm open to disagreement on my position, but I don't see him as an unalloyed saint.  There is actually a good reason Roman Catholic priests don't marry, when you get down to it, although they are the outlier, not the norm, in most religions, and especially in Xianity.  But I digress....)  Niebuhr's argument is fairly simple:  you can't ask another person, much less an entire society, to make a moral sacrifice, when "sacrifice" is pretty much the main schema of moral systems (hence the infamous and ludicrous "trolley car dilemma", but I won't digress again.).  That's a degree of selfishness that is, to put it bluntly:  selfish and, IMHO, immoral.

I'm all for society being moral on matters of individual protection (prohibitions against murder, rape, assault, etc.) and criminal laws, local, national, international, that try to maintain social order based on moral principles (legalized cruelty is to be shunned, not overlooked; for example).  So it's a nuanced discussion, still.  Which is, in part, the problem being identified in that New York Magazine article.  IMHO, anyway.