In all likelihood, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president. He will be the first black man in history with a legitimate, decent shot at being the leader of the free world. His candidacy will cause turnout among black Americans to go off the charts and more blacks - in raw numbers and in percentages - will vote than ever before in American history (we’ve seen the early rumblings of this in the primary process, but I think that America at large just has no idea how strong this thing will be in a general election).
In an environment like that, where the vast majority of blacks engaged in politics are moving forward you have a miniscule few who for whatever the reason (I tend to think its for them to adopt a contrarian pose) will vote Republican. As a result, they are outliers within their own race and essentially position themselves against the tide of black history. The tried and true response of black conservatives is to look at themselves as some kind of hero or martyrs. The larger conservative movement, unable to attract a sizable percentage of black votes, trumpets these kinds of stories again and again. Like this blog post from the hard-right Human Events:
Blacks who will vote for McCain this fall are some of the most courageous people on the planet, because of the extreme social scorn they will face from their left-wing black counterparts.
It takes courage to challenge the dominant social order. It took courage for Elia Kazan to battle pro-Communist sentiment in the 1950s. It took courage for Martin Luther King to fight Jim Crow in the 1960s. It took courage for Ronald Reagan to confront institutionalized liberalism in the 1980s. Likewise, it will take courage for black Republicans like [Michael] Steele to combat “Obama-ism” in the late-2000s.
Of course, a black person supporting McCain is not courageous at all. If you want to truly compare it to the 1960s its the equivalent of seeing Bull Connor sic dogs on people and saying “Hey guys, let’s cool it on all this civil rights stuff, we may upset some people.”
The funny thing is, its not even a conservative vs liberal thing. On a whole, black Americans are far more conservative socially than your average Democrat. The story the media refuses to cover beyond spectacle is the churchgoing socially conservative socially active black Americans that are the bedrock of the Democratic party. The problem for the press and the right is that those same socially conservative voters are by and large economic moderates to liberals. They don’t think that they should be distracted by politician’s latest song and dance on a social issue they’ll drop like a hot potato the day after they’re elected (ie George W. Bush and gay marriage) but instead they think that sane economics helps lead to cures for social ills (tax cuts for Paris Hilton don’t help teen pregnancy rates, but perhaps better funding for education does).
On paper, many of these voters should be Republican voters, and the few who are are overrepresented in the media (CNN seems to have a neverending supply of black conservatives) and for their contrarianism are paid handsomely. While they collect this money for espousing a minority of a minority opinion they treat any and all backlash as a sign of superiority. They see themselves as martyrs, but the only thing they do is prop up policies hurting black America that the vast majority of black America has rejected.
Neither side of the idealogical divide has an awesome record on racial issues, but only on the left would it even be plausible for a black candidate to be a presidential contender. Only on the left are their elected leaders at the federal level who are black. There is a reason for that, a reason why the party of the southern strategy and Macaca makes blacks sick to the stomach.
And a reason why black conservatives who help to prop up barriers to progress aren’t martyrs but fools.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1460906593/bctid1506007178
On-topic video.
I forget who first said what I am about to write, might well have been Lower Manhattanite of Group News Blog. If I am wrong on this, please correct me.
Louis Farrakhan is definitely Black, of course. And is awfully conservative both socially and even politically: calling for the death penalty for rapists, pro-commerce, no-nonsense brutal approach to community order. But Farrakhan is not a “Black conservative” because, for his many, many faults, he recognizes and condemns racism as a pervasive, destructive reality in this country’s history, culture and politics to this day. So by definition he cannot be a “Black conservative.”
And a reason why black conservatives who help to prop up barriers to progress aren’t martyrs but fools.
I think that’s a completely reasonable sentiment.
In similar circumstances, I’ve been upset with Jews that describe “jews on the other side of the issue” as self-loathing, or even anti-semitic. And upset with radical feminists that describe other feminists or women who disagree with them as “anti-feminists, misogynists, and self-loathing.”
I’ve seen African American bloggers, and what strikes me as really weird, young white bloggers refer to African Americans that disagree with them as well, Uncle Toms, and use that language directly, or in so many words, “a joke, nodding to their white superiors, ….” (I’ve seen Bill Cosby, and lately Juan Williams described in this way.) (I find it very ironic that self described young white liberal progressive academics can describe older African Americans that lived through the civil rights movement as a joke, nodding to their white superiors, lazy, …. it makes me proud that these bloggers and professors are in our post-racial era, and happy they are just not bigots like so many others that they eagerly distinguish themselves from.)
I think it’s reasonable (and sometimes mistaken) for all these people to consider the people that disagree with them to be foolish. I consider it dangerous, dehumanizing, and silencing for any of these groups to describe folks that disagree with them as “anti-”, or “misogynist”, or “anti-semitic”, or “Uncle Toms”.
Anyway, sorry to lecture.
Anyone know the accurate quote (by Thurgood Marshall?) who tagged Clarence Thomas (though we may see Freudian origins too, as revealed in his autobiography) as someone who didn’t want to line up with liberals but saw the advantages of standing in the “shorter line?” I.e., the conservative one. A conservative black pol is certainly going to call attention to himself, likely get media attention, be catered to by white cons and likely get offered positions he wouldn’t qualify for otherwise.
Lot of temptations there.
Jerry,
Those black conservatives are fools because they toe the line against their self-interest. They are “toms” because they go against the interest of their people. They are sell outs because they do it for personal gain, which may or may not offset the damage they have done.
Your analogies to jews and others are weak ones.
Oliver — This is kind of off-topic, but I was wondering what you thought… This is the first time that I’ve seen anyone predict that the AA vote will increase significantly. Two questions:
1. Isn’t it already really high, like 90%? How can it increase enough to make a big impact?
2. Will polls leading up to Election Day show this increase in voting intention? If they do, then won’t that drive more whites to vote against the black candidate? Perhaps African-Americans will conceal their voting intentions from pollsters? Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.
BTW, great blog. I always check in and love the content. Even the Jessica Alba stuff. (OK, especially the Jessica Alba stuff.)
Voting on the basis of color is always suspect morally.
I think it would be insane for all blacks to vote in a a block for any candidate. There must always be blacks that cote according to a fixed set of values and principles.
We should all respect that fundamental aspect of democracy. Vote for the candidate that demonstrates a believe in the principles wou hold most dear… irrespective of color, religious affiliation or gender.
Those aspects of a person temper they views but they don’t determine them.
(Vote Obama 2008… the best candidate for America’s future)
I happen to believe that people have the right to exercise their right to vote any way, and, for whatever reason they so choose.
Further, they are entitled to exercise that right without being slandered as fools, traitors, racists, et al. by those who wrongly elevate themselves to the role of an all-knowing minor deity.
In other words, mind your own damned vote!
I think the 90% number is the percentage of black voters going for Obama in the primaries. I’m not sure what black voter turnout is versus general turnout in the general election, but I’m basing my prediction on the fact that the election of Obama would be a seminal moment in America’s black history probably only behind the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act. It is huge, and I think we are going to see black voters who finally get off the stick and get in the game. In some places like the south it will be a wash because of increased turnout among racist-leaning folks against Obama. But in places like Michigan, Ohio and Florida it could turn out to be decisive. I would compare it to the religious right in 2004 feeling a sense of galactic destiny to vote for Bush — but even more intense.
You would have to search hard to find a black person 18 or over who doesn’t want to make that vote.
Race and racism has been an ongoing topic throughout the primary but the unmentioned aspect is Mr Obama’s near lock on the African American demographic.
I don’t see how this can be explained by anything other than a type of Black racism. In a nutshell Blacks appear to be taking race into account when forming their preference, otherwise the Obama / Clinton split would be closer in this demographic.
Why do you appear to discredit freethough and sanction Black on White racism?
“I think it would be insane for all blacks to vote in a a block for any candidate. There must always be blacks that cote according to a fixed set of values and principles”.
I daresay that in most instances in which blacks vote as a bloc, the candidates they vote for are white.
Why do you appear to discredit freethough and sanction Black on White racism?
I always think it’s funny when people call a black person who hews to another orthodoxy “free thinking”. It’s a variation on the attitude of the author of the blog post Oliver cites.
“…otherwise the Obama / Clinton split would be closer in this demographic”.
The split in the opinion polls was much closer before the Clinton race-baiting began. In fact, she led Obama among blacks.
Do you also think it’s insane for 80% of Southern whites to vote in a bloc for Republican candidates?
I don’t see how this can be explained by anything other than a type of Black racism.
So the last three hundred years of white people voting for white presidents, what do you call those?
Don’t answer all at once, now.
You are right on the larger point but probably wrong on expecting a huge increase in the African-American vote in terms of percentage.
The increase in African-American vote in the Dem primaries, where it is very significant, is lower than the increase among young voters (18-24) and affluent voters (100K+). According to Ron Brownstein (A Party Transformed, National Journal, 2/29/08) “The African-American percentage of the vote, somewhat surprisingly, has spiked in just a few states (primarily Delaware and South Carolina); in most places, the increases have been small, and in five states, black voters’ share has actually declined as other groups have surged.” He wrote his piece at the end of February so it misses TX, OH and MS but it captures 18 states for which exit polls are available from both 2004 and 2008.
Even if the A-A vote increases in the general substantially more than it has in the primary, it could very well be offset by increases in the white and Hispanic vote. In states outside the South, the “black vote” tends to range from 10-17% of the total vote and it would be almost inconceivable to have a 50% increase in the percentage unless a substantial portion of white people stay home.
When the WaPo blog examined the hypothetical results of a surge in African-American voting this is what they wrote. “Obama’s argument that he could increase the black vote by at least 30 percent in some states would be very difficult, if not impossible. For example, a 30 percent increase in the black vote in Mississippi would require 74 percent of black residents to turn out and vote, virtually unprecedented in recent American elections.”
Who are all of the Republicans who switched to Democrat in the primaries to vote for Obama going to vote for in the General?
Those black conservatives are fools because they toe the line against their self-interest. They are “toms” because they go against the interest of their people.
First of all, you argue that they toe the line against their own self interest and then say they go against the interests of their own people? You don’t think that conflicts from time to time? Second, in what way exactly? Oliver is prone to these sweeping statements like “policies that hurt black America” but I never see specifics. Such sophistry is nothing but identity politics wrapped in pretend analysis. I thought that America was the land of the individual? Now somebody is not allowed to have an ideology that is supposedly against the “interests of their own people?”
What if a black voter determines that allowing the tax cuts in place to expire in 2010 is against his own self-interests and the interests of his “his people” and determines that Obama (who wants to roll back the whole package) isn’t the candidate for him? He’s an Uncle Tom as a result?
I’m not a politician, so I have nothing to worry about when I say that a good percentage of African-American voters are drones. They vote Democrat because that’s how they’ve always voted and how their parents have voted, etc. Now before you start lashing out and calling me a racist (which I am sure many of you will do anyway because you lack critical thinking skills, so enjoy), the same exact thing goes for a large segment of Americans that vote Republican who would largely be white. In fact, I would say that a majority of all Americans that vote, couldn’t tell you exactly why they voted for a particular candidate other than they were Democrats or Republicans. It’s funny because I am sure we’ve all experienced telling a person point by point what a candidates believes or what they want to do and we’ve found somebody who realizes that those views are in direct contradiction to what they believe.
I’m not going to get into a whole debate on what is better for black Americans because unlike some people who condescend to people with quips about what’s best for “their people”, I realize that individuals can think for themselves. But seriously, can’t a person vote for who they want without being smeared because it doesn’t adhere to the majority?
The issue isn’t that they are smeared for having the conservative position — the issue is that they self-promote as “independent thinkers” when they are really just toeing another party line and are condescending about it.
Just because you are part of a tenth don’t make you talented.
I would compare it to the religious right in 2004 feeling a sense of galactic destiny to vote for Bush — but even more intense.
Except without the morning-after “fuck you.”
“For example, a 30 percent increase in the black vote in Mississippi would require 74 percent of black residents to turn out and vote, virtually unprecedented in recent American elections.”
Um, you know what’s also “virtually unprecedented” in recent American elections?
A black candidate for president from one of the two major parties. I’m just saying. I liked John Kerry and all but comparing the relative meaning of him (or Clinton, or Gore, or Carter, etc.) to Obama for black Americans is like comparing the Flash to Superman. Flash is cool and all, but he’s no Superman.
Jay,
If you want to have a civil discussion, I can do that, but I don’t respond well to condescension.
Black people vote their interests more than any constituency in America. That means they don’t vote for politicians who marginalize them, and use them as scapegoats. That’s why Billary lost their overwhelming lead with black voters. When you have a pair of racebaiting democrats who are willing to marginalize a black politician as the “Black Politician”, and marginalize the worth of the black electorate by discounting states that have a large black democratic turnouts, why should blacks vote for such a candidate?
Obama is really the only alternative. On republicans, spare me. If you can’t see last 7 years of republican rule why any rational black person would not vote republican, I don’t think I can convince you.
On toms and sellouts, I’ve give you two examples: Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly. Try to explain to me why these two fellows are merely free thinkers.
If you want to truly compare it to the 1960s its the equivalent of seeing Bull Connor sic dogs on people and saying “Hey guys, let’s cool it on all this civil rights stuff, we may upset some people.”
More like saying “Gee, Sheriff, can I help you with those dogs?”
* * *
I know this is old news to everyone but the Republicans (who seem to be in a permanent state of denial), but racists are the absolute heart of the GOP base. The sort of people who assume all the blacks they see are irredeemably irresponsible and/or stupid, probably don’t see that as racism; more likely it seems so natural to them that they don’t even think about it unless someone points it out.(1) But when those people vote, they vote as Rs.
(1) Eg, Geoff Davis wasn’t lying when he said he didn’t mean anything by that “That boy’s finger doesn’t need to be on the button” line, any more than a fish would be lying if he told you he didn’t understands what it means to be wet.
That means they don’t vote for politicians who marginalize them, and use them as scapegoats.
You mean like the “first Black President”, Bill Clinton?
On republicans, spare me. If you can’t see last 7 years of republican rule why any rational black person would not vote republican, I don’t think I can convince you.
You know, comments like this are worthless. It’s like me saying, “If you can’t see why any rational person that likes football isn’t a Redskins fan, I don’t think I can convince you.” It’s on par with the “they vote against their own self interest” drivel. I know several black people who voted for President Bush in 2004. Yet you’re saying they’re not rational, free thinking people simply because of that. And you’re complaining about condescension?
On toms and sellouts, I’ve give you two examples: Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly. Try to explain to me why these two fellows are merely free thinkers.
I’m not the one rendering conclusions about them. You’re the one calling them Uncle Tom’s and sellouts. You explain why they are.
Let me take it a step further. Bush received 11% of the black vote in 2004. That means that approximately, 1.6 million black Americans voted for Bush in 2004.
Are they all irrational people? Are they not free thinking people?
I don’t think they’re all irrational people, but I need proof that they’re all any more free-thinking than black Democrats.
I know several black people who voted for President Bush in 2004. Yet you’re saying they’re not rational, free thinking
People who voted for Bush in 2004 are not rational, free thinking people. Color has nothing to do with that.
On republicans, spare me. If you can’t see last 7 years of republican rule why any rational black person would not vote republican, I don’t think I can convince you.
Should a black person be judged sole on their race then? Is nothing else about them worth noting OTHER than their skin tone?
For example, here are two people who have profited handsomely under the Bush administration. They invested heavily in defense contractors, or they are already wealthy and benefited from Bush’s tax cuts, or any other host of reasons that they have personally done well while Bush was president. In all ways identical except one’s “white” and teh other “black”.
It’s understandable why the white would be a Republican, but if the black is they’re clearly not “free thinking” and are voting against their own interest?
(dang, got my italics tags reversed)
Sean,
The latter, I would call a sellout.
Let me put it this way, given a choice between a white candidate and Farrakhan, would the white voter preference for the white candidate be racist or narrowminded? If Farrakhan gave a white Pastor a $200k contract to endorse him, what would a white person call that white Pastor?
Jay,
Calling my comments worthless is a good way to be ignored.
I’d call them both Republicans. What am I missing here?
Caged Lion, so you’re saying a person should be judged soley on their race, all other aspects of them being irrelevant?
A black person votes for the Democrat because the Democrat as president will do things that benefit the black voter, and that’s fine.
A black person votes for the Republican because the Republican as president will do things that benefit the black voter, and that makes the black voter a sellout.
It that what you’re saying?
I’m not saying this is the same voter. One can be a welfare mom who needs Head Start and food stamps (most likely to get help from Democrats) and the other can be a wealthy CEO (most likely to get help from Republicans).
The point is, they are both voting for the person who would benefit them more personally. Would you really argue that that makes one of them a sellout and the other not?
That’s sort of an extreme comparison, on both ends. Most blacks who vote for Republicans don’t need food stamps, and probably doesn’t absolutely need Head Start. Most black Republicans are not CEOs. As a black man, My primary reason for voting for Democrats is the protection of civil rights laws. Beyond that. I also believe in abortion rights and gay rights,for example, which probably puts me in the minority among other blacks. But 9 out of 10 of us are still voting Democratic. What’s the most common concern? I think it’s the protection of civil rights.
Whoops, I meant “Most blacks who vote for Democrats”, of course.
Caged Lion, so you’re saying a person should be judged soley on their race, all other aspects of them being irrelevant?
A black person votes for the Democrat because the Democrat as president will do things that benefit the black voter, and that’s fine.
A black person votes for the Republican because the Republican as president will do things that benefit the black voter, and that makes the black voter a sellout.
It that what you’re saying?
Definition of sellout: Someone who denies truth for profit. Notice: no race reference in there, just in case you’re squeemish.
By that definition, every Black Republican and most Black Conservatives are sellouts. For that matter, most Republican politicians and party officials of any stripe are sellouts.
Definition of sellout: Someone who denies truth for profit.
Not to sound too philosophical about it, but what do you mean by “truth”? What is “truth”?
Are you saying anyone who votes in their own economic self-interest is a sellout because they’ve cast their vote based on how much they get economically? To avoid being a sellout I have to vote for the person who would COST me the most?
That makes no sense to me.
My overall point has nothing to do specifically with being african american or white. It has to do with being a minority in a nation that is at best apathetic and at worst openly hostile to your group, and by extension yourself.
Ask a white Zimbabwean, a white Bolivian, a chinese Malaysian, and an arab Isreali whether or not identity politics come before the more mundane political issues of the day. When politicians are willing to scapegoat you, and then build policy and protocol around a dark picture of you, bread and butter issues have to take a back seat.
Black americans don’t have the luxury to argue philosophical points about fairness and policy. In the 21st century it is still about survival. Even the most braindead and bought among us figured that out after Katrina, when Bush’s approval rating went to 2%.
It’s all well and good that one politician supports a certain capital gains policy or favors some Iranian engagement strategy. But what good does that do me as a black man, if I can be strip-searched for jay walking in the wrong suburb, be given a subprime loan when my credit says otherwise, or have my children sent to federal prison for the most petty of “crimes”. What good is “mundane” policy when, when my life is in immediate danger, my government won’t lift a finger to help? Or when my franchise is in danger, the Attorney General looks the other way?
Black Republicans are the equivalent of jewish nazis. I’m sure there were jews who supported the nazis to the end because they got a nice contract at some point. I’m sure there was a jew who liked the nazis’ stance on taxes or education and couldn’t let principle get in the way of “cheap identity politics”.
“Are you saying anyone who votes in their own economic self-interest is a sellout because they’ve cast their vote based on how much they get economically?”
Context, Context, context. Economic gain at what cost?
When Ward Connerly helped to dismantle affirmative action, the cost for blacks was high, even though Mr. Connerly gained economically.
Oops, I mean “let ‘cheap identity politics’ get in the way of principle.”
*rolls eyes* Boy way to reinforce the stereotype of elitist liberals guys! Debating, with straight faces, the extent to which someone is a bad person based on their skin color combined with their voting preference. Whats a good phrase to describe that.. preening arrogance, maybe?
Are you saying anyone who votes in their own economic self-interest is a sellout because they’ve cast their vote based on how much they get economically? To avoid being a sellout I have to vote for the person who would COST me the most?
That makes no sense to me.
Fortunately I didn’t say that.
Not to sound too philosophical about it, but what do you mean by “truth”? What is “truth”?
You sound too philosophical about it.
If you REALLY don’t know what truth is, you’re too dangerous to walk the earth freely. And if you DO know what truth is, you’re a hypocrite.
Debating, with straight faces, the extent to which someone is a bad person based on their skin color combined with their voting preference. Whats a good phrase to describe that.. preening arrogance, maybe?
Again, I haven’t done that.
While you’re working the vocabulary, what’s a good phrase for someone whose maximum economic benefit is derived by denying there’s even any such thing as truth?
No race reference, please.
“I don’t see how this can be explained by anything other than a type of Black racism. In a nutshell Blacks appear to be taking race into account when forming their preference, otherwise the Obama / Clinton split would be closer in this demographic.”
This is a fairly bold assertion on your part. What data do you have to support your contention that the percentage of votes by the black electorate should be more closely apportioned between Obama and Clinton? What is this supposition based on?
There is no black racism operating here even if a significant percentage of black voters are voting for Obama because he is black. This type of voting behavior is a time honored tradition in American politics. Italians, Jews, Poles, Lithuanians, Scandinavians, Catholics, WASP, the Irish, white Southerners etc. have always voted in large numbers for candidates who reflect their specific cultural, ethnic, religious or regional heritage.
Black voters are no different save for their well documented willingness to give their votes to non-black candidates who support their interests. Non-black voters, by and large, have not demonstrated a similar attitude toward black candidates.
Calling my comments worthless is a good way to be ignored.
I called one of your comments worthless because it didn’t contribute anything. It was meaningless and I showed you why.
When Ward Connerly helped to dismantle affirmative action, the cost for blacks was high, even though Mr. Connerly gained economically.
How? In the immediate aftermath of ending affirmative action in California for college admissions, minority enrollment plunged due largely to the notion that minorities believed their chance of getting into schools was reduced because of the new policy. However, since 2001, minority enrollment has been on the rise in California, despite Prop 209. Affirmative action used correctly, should be based upon economic factors, not race and gender.
It’s all well and good that one politician supports a certain capital gains policy or favors some Iranian engagement strategy. But what good does that do me as a black man, if I can be strip-searched for jay walking in the wrong suburb, be given a subprime loan when my credit says otherwise, or have my children sent to federal prison for the most petty of “crimes”. What good is “mundane” policy when, when my life is in immediate danger, my government won’t lift a finger to help?
And what exactly have Democrats done to remedy these problems? The “first black President” opposed changes to federal sentences for crack cocaine in 1995 even though the US Sentencing Commission recommended it. Even last year, Congress had the chance to do something about that problem and they didn’t. The Congress controlled by Democrats that is. As for given subprime loans when your credit says otherwise, I’d like to see some evidence that is taking place. Credit scores are not the only factor in determining what kind of loan somebody receives. That being said, what’s going to make things worse is Congress promising to “crack down” on lenders due to the subprime mess. All that will do is lead to tightened lending standards for obtaining loans which will hurt minorities more than help them.
Jay:
Affirmative action used correctly, should be based upon economic factors, not race and gender.
Why? How do you reverse exclusion based on a given quality other than by inclusion based on that same quality?
As for given subprime loans when your credit says otherwise, I’d like to see some evidence that is taking place.
Here you go.
P6, your example shows somebody citing ways to cut corners to get a loan approved that otherwise would not. Caged Lion is claiming that somebody who should be approved for a conventional 30 year fixed mortgage is instead only being approved for a sub-prime morgage due to race.
“But even when income and credit risk are equal to white borrowers, black borrowers are 31% to 34% more likely to receive higher rate subprime loans than whites, according to a 2006 study by the Center for Responsible Lending.”
Google is your friend: “subprime blacks discrimination”
The evidence is there for anyone who wants to find it.
Oh. Sorry.
Wall Street Journal authoritative enough?
Jay has left the building.