Accounts of mass incarceration are beginning to resemble the historiography surrounding Reconstruction. One line of thought focuses on the conservative plan for mass incarceration. There has subsequently been a second, revisionist response that focus on liberals. And there has also been a third line of post-revisionist scholarship that is skeptical of both accounts (Eric Foner, “Reconstruction Revisited,” Reviews in American History, 1982; The glaring difference is that Reconstruction historiography was based on prevailing accounts that excoriated liberals while the revisionist accounts focused on conservatives). Michael Javen Fortner represents this third wave that complicates one-dimensional accounts of the carceral state.

Unlike the 1940s, when white liberals and African-Americans agreed that structural conditions and rehabilitation should be the primary focus when it comes to drug policy, a schism emerged after the emergence of heroin, the rise of middle-class Harlemites, and the growing disregard for the white gaze. Previously overshadowed by black radicals and liberal congressmen, this burgeoning black silent majority wrested discursive control away and shifted the focus to punishment, partly because of the policy failures established by reformers and also because of the electoral concerns of Nelson Rockefeller. Fortner discredits different notions of determinism, whether it be the claim that all African-Americans necessarily operated under the guise of a “linked fate,” all whites operated under the proviso of a racial backlash, or that politics is wholly determined by macro-economics. Fortner provides a counter-narrative that suggests middle-class Harlemites and suburban whites operated in terms more aligned with local dynamics of class than national narratives of race.

It is hard not to applaud Fortner’s effort to “redeem the agency of black people.” He also points to the cautionary rejoinder to avoid reading the intent of policy solely from the consequences of policy. Whether it is in regards to the racialized consequences of Rockefeller drug policies or his failure to win the Republican presidential nomination, it is always helpful to be reminded of the problems associated with retrospective analyses. Also, whereas most accounts of the intersectionality of race and class emphasize the additive oppression of such combination, Fortner provocatively unpacks how intersectionality can conflict in ways that deprioritize race for class. Those caught in the web of strict drug policies might find that their neighbor who shares the same race is their biggest opponent, while the people that they have the least in common with might be their biggest ally. In that regard, Fortner’s account could be read as a rebuke to W.E.B. DuBois’ famous quotation that the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line. When it comes to the black silent majority, class trumped race.

Fortner however gives short shrift to blacks not in the silent majority and conservative Republicans. The high salience of concern for crime amongst Harlemites and the opposing voting patterns of local black politicians beg for an explanation that extends beyond Fortner’s claim that legislators were simply more optimistic and liberal. If the black silent majority were as concerned about crime as Fortner suggests, why was there no electoral backlash? It is unclear why the electoral importance of the black silent majority only emerges on the gubernatorial and national level but not on the local level. Lisa Miller has investigated very similar groups in Pennsylvania and makes a point of how evidence of a highly punitive public is often decoupled from the rest of the comments offered. According to Miller, the actual interests of these groups can be distorted depending on which level of government they are addressing: “diversity of perspective is lost at the state and national levels, where policy frames reflect more simplistic narratives” (The Perils of Federalism, 2008). In regards to conservative Republicans, to what degree was Rockefeller’s drug plan a product of intra-party infighting or cross-sectional coalition building? If Rockefeller’s revisions to his drug plan was more “to woo vacillating Republicans” than him “casting his lots with African American voters,” then that reduces the role of the black silent majority in “shifting the discursive terrain” from one of causation to that of correlation.

This last point relates to some of the controversy surrounding this book. Many have accused Fortner of blaming the victim. Fortner would have been better served if he tempered his criticisms of racial backlash theory in a more immanent fashion. In so doing, it would have encouraged accounts of synthesis instead of forcing to pick between the two. Instead of situating the punitive turn of the black silent majority in regards to their concern about the white gaze, he could have foregrounded an account of the declining role of the welfare state and how that contributed to the constrained spectrum of choices that the black silent majority had.

With that said, there is nevertheless a concern that these issues regarding scale might obscure another significant point, which is what the very existence of such voices that he calls the black silent majority signify. Much of the criticism levied against Fortner is similar to those of Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? They both point to how groups find common cause with those whose long term interests fundamentally conflict. Gun control and abortion are to Frank’s white working class what crime and drugs are to Fortner’s black silent majority. They both provide evidence as to why neither class nor race can adequately be addressed comprehensively and how each can serve to inhibit the other.

Both also note how the conservative turn within the Democratic Party had as much to do with its own failings as it was the expedient appeal of Republican Party. This reminds me of a quote from Carl Schurz following the Civil War: “Nothing renders society more restless than a social revolution but half accomplished. … All classes are intensely dissatisfied. … This state of uncertainty impedes all successful working of the social forces” (Carl Schurz, Reports on the Condition of the South, 2006). Fortner’s account shows the claustrophobic impact of a “revolution but half accomplished” and how the allure of political expediency can further obscure and embed the color line. Michelle Alexander made a similar point. Racism is not simply a result of white supremacy; it is also reinforced by “black support for harsh responses to urban crime—support born of desperation and legitimate concern over the unraveling of basic security in inner-city communities” (Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow, 2012). Those in the black silent majority that Fortner describe are not ignorant of the structural concerns of racism nor are they interested in maintaining such structures; but he nevertheless shows how those in the know can nevertheless act as if they do not. This reluctant conservatism works to the advantage of genuine conservatives and will eventually lead to the comeuppance of the reluctant, but such lessons are derived only after the fact. Political expediency can obscure long-term structural concerns to the point of subversion.

Fortner’s account is hence less of a repudiation of Du Bois’ famous maxim as it is a resignation to the political inexpediency of race. The distinctive class analysis that the concept black silent majority implies is illustrative of how hard it is to tackle the color line in part because there are many politically salient issues lying in its way that are too tempting for some to pass up. The color line is partly reinforced by those trying to distance themselves from that line. The indelible nature of racism is thus not something biological, but a socio-political construction that is constantly being reconstructed not only by agents who directly benefit, but also by those who think they can benefit as well, if only temporarily so.

This tragedy is farcical if paired along with Frank’s account, but the indictment of comeuppance is perhaps worse for Harlemites because of an expectation that they should be more aware of their racial self-interest than white Kansans and their economic self-interest. Regardless of the nature of class inequality and racial discrimination, Fortner’s point is how such debates are framed around the politics of the possible, which is predicated on the failures of the past, the pressing concerns of the present, and the cynicism of the future. In this regard, I would argue that Fortner is less concerned with redeeming the agency of black people as he is about contextualizing the choices provided to black people given such dire circumstances. It is less a project of redemption as it is an account of travestied emancipation. Fortner puts in the forefront what has lurked in the background and in so doing has exposed an uncomfortable truth or overstated the case, or perhaps done a bit of both. Whatever the case may be, it is an account to be reckoned with.