The Progressive Netroots Doesn’t Seem To Get It
Tweet
We’re less than 2 months away from election day and folks in the “netroots” are just now realizing the importance of getting the black vote out? It seems it doesn’t matter who is in the driver’s seat, there is a culture of not getting it that envelops the left and dooms the Democratic party. Democratic candidates always suddenly discover the black vote in the final days of the election, and magically show up at black churches.
Consider this: the black vote is as vitally important to the Democratic party as the religious far right is to the Republicans. Without each block, neither party is nationally viable. Now, look at the work Bush has done in contrast to his father, and what the prospective ’08 Republicans are doing: they court the base, early. Bush has the religious right in the bank, and the Republican candidate who can woo the most of them will have a significant leg up going into the 2008 primaries. This isn’t something you poll on, but a gut decision. It should come to pols and political observers like breathing air. But still, Democrats keep waking up in September/October without the base of their party engaged and motivated.
It would be nice if we quit hitting our heads against the wall and wonder why we’re bleeding. It would be nice.
18 Responses to “The Progressive Netroots Doesn’t Seem To Get It”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
This recent polling data tells me that voters have a clear perspective on the war in Iraq…perhaps more cogent than either Party. They feel it is being handled poorly, they know what a civil war looks like, they believe Congress has failed to do its part in guiding and overseeing the executive branch, and they realize that the notion of exporting democracy to the Middle East is a Bush Doctrine that fails to recognize the realities in the region. Finally, they believe that Middle East stability is important and that a withdrawal that leaves Iraq in chaos may well be detrimental to the United States.
That, my friends, is one spot on analysis and suggests that voters have discerned fact from fiction with an impressive demonstration of acuity. Perhaps both parties will someday learn that the truth is, in the final analysis, the most powerful campaign strategy available. Don’t hold your breath.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
“Consider this: the black vote is as vitally important to the Democratic party …”
Which is why it was totally unnecesary to have any blacks, or any one of color, at the recent blogger meeting with Clinton.
Not really following your logic here, Oliver.
I have to second frame’s perspective. Surely if Dems think “the black vote” is an important part of their coalition, they’d actually invite them to sit at the power table and help devise strategy.
You put too much faith into the black voter block. The only reason why the so-called “religious right” came out to vote is because of specific issues on the ballot. Until the Dems realize that is what they have to do, then they can forget the “black vote”
Frame: If Bill Clinton had any sort of race problem, you might have a point. He’s the best pol on race issues in maybe 40 years. And its not necessary to have black people to address racial concerns (that’s kind of my point).
Ian: My “faith” in the black voter bloc has kept the Dems as a viable poltiical party, just like how screaming “abortion” and getting the religious far right riled up has kept the GOP as a national party. They’ve just done a better job of firing up their base because they don’t suddenly discover them on the eve of election day.
While I agree with that sentiment, the exact opposite is one of the basic tenants of the Democratic party as it exists today. After all, what other justification is there for affirmative action? Minority voting districts? Chastizing Republicans for not having a black member of the Congress?
“And its not necessary to have black people to address racial concerns (that’s kind of my point).”
Yes, of course, because the issues facing the black community are always at the forefront of white people’s minds. Makes sense.
You know what? I’ve changed my mind. We should just let straight white men make all the decisions for everybody. Afterall, you don’t actually need black people, or women or gay people or anyone else to address the issues that concern them. A room full of straight white guys should be enough to figure it all out. Why through out human history you can see that people of color and women have had no greater champions than straight white guys. Yup, they’ve made all the right calls for everybody.
Farris: Affirmative action is there because the playing field is not remotely level, and there aren’t other efforts being used to do so. I wish for the day when we don’t need it any more. It’s also symptomatic of the GOP hostility to race that they can’t attract any significant black candidates. If they gave up the Southern Strategy, they would profit, but then they would alienate the base racist vote.
Frameone: Who would you prefer to rely on in a race-related issue: Bill Clinton and Al Gore; or Clarence Thomas, JC Watts and Michael Steele?
As a black man I can tell you I’d much more trust VP Gore. That’s my point. I’m not saying black voices should be excluded – and they weren’t at this meeting – but to automatically condemn someone because there didn’t happen to be “X” amount of people of “X” race/gender/sexual persuasion is ridiculuous.
“Frameone: Who would you prefer to rely on in a race-related issue: Bill Clinton and Al Gore; or Clarence Thomas, JC Watts and Michael Steele?”
I think that goes without saying but that also isn’t the point. Do I think that a group of white progressives in a room are going to do as good a job of addressing and responding to the issues of the black community as a room full of black and white progressives?
You complain that Dems always come late to the party with regards to mobilizing the black vote. I wouldn’t be surprised if the outreach/get out the vote committee was all white. Would you be?
I don’t get it Oliver, you criticize Republicans as being racists, yet you chastise black Republicans?
Is there anything the Republican party can do right in your mind?
Frameone: A lot of white music executives are really good at getting black people to buy music. I don’t care who’s getting people out to vote (D) as long as they’re getting them out to vote (D). Getting out black voters is the issue, not just hiring people because they’re black. Sure, ideally there are blacks involved, but blacks and latinos and white people and asians and whoever should be involved in ALL aspects of the Democratic party, not just shunted down to the “minority” office.
Ian: of course Republicans can’d do anything right. That’s why I’m a Democrat.
“Getting out black voters is the issue, not just hiring people because they’re black.”
Um, Oliver, that’s not what I was saying. You wrote:
Now maybe if the “netroots” had some people of color at the table with Clinton, or maybe, and here I’m speculating, there were more people of color running campaigns or organizing the Dem get out the vote effort, then you wouldn’t need to lament the last minute nature of the Dem outreach effort.
It isn’t about hiring people just because they’re black or whatever color. It’s about hiring people with the priorities that the party needs to improve its campaign strategies and coordination.
If you want to make mobilizing the black community a priority, hire the people who know that community best. I bet you anything that person isn’t going to be white.
“Democratic candidates always suddenly discover the black vote in the final days of the election …”
And let me ask you for a point of clarification. By ‘Democratic candidates’ are you referring to ALL dem candidates or just the white ones?
“Is there anything the Republican party can do right in your mind?”
Well, they scare people pretty good.
maybe they’re just not calling you because you’re such a sickening fat fuck.
people who appear to accumulate tart-smelling cheese in the crevices they can’t reach with a brush on a curved stick poll badly.
and here I’m speculating, there were more people of color running campaigns or organizing the Dem get out the vote effort, then you wouldn’t need to lament the last minute nature of the Dem outreach effort.
It isn’t about hiring people just because they’re black or whatever color. It’s about hiring people with the priorities that the party needs to improve its campaign strategies and coordination.
Actually fraemone, every campaign I’ve seen or been a part of has almost always hired an African American to handle field ops. It is one of the basic tenents of Dem party politics especially when your target consists of massive urban areas.
Oliver’s point about neglecting Black communities is well taken. They do usually wait until the last month of the campaign to make overtures. However, that’s a strategy decision, marshalling your resources in the best way. I learned that engaging the leadership early is best, however. You don’t have to marshall tons of resources to go out and talk to people, make them feel important, that your campaign isn’t going to play favorites with GOTV $$ outlay. It is a lesson that hasn’t been heeded by many others.
“…every campaign I’ve seen or been a part of has almost always hired an African American to handle field ops.”
Which I would expect which is why I was only speculating. What’s interesting though is that according to Oliver’s logic there’s no need to hire blacks to do field ops in the black community. Indeed, as he puts it, that’s the kind of race based policy that keeps causing Dems to lose elections. That just doesn’t make any sense.