Is Obama paying back David Paterson?

There has been a minor dust up regarding President Obama urging Gov Paterson of NY not to seek reelection. We saw Michael Steele make the assertion that it was "curious" on why the White House would ask New York Gov. David Paterson (D) not to run for reelection in 2010.

"I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for reelection,"
...
"It raises a curious point for me. I think Gov. Paterson's numbers are about the same as [New Jersey] Gov. [Jon] Corzine's. The president is with Gov. Corzine."

The implication here is that Obama is paying back Gov Paterson for not choosing Caroline Kennedy to replace Sen Hillary Clinton. This is the argument made forcefully by Professor Darren Hutchinson at Dissenting Justice here and here. I disagree with Professor Hutchinsons analysis on several points. He makes the link between Corzine just as Steele does but this is a bad comparison as steve benen points out.

First, Corzine and Paterson are not exactly in the same boat, and the comparison is silly. Corzine is running this year; polls show him trailing but closing the gap; and there wasn't a stronger candidate last year, waiting in the wings. Paterson is up next year; polls show him with almost comically low approval ratings; and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) is strongly favored by voters, both among Democrats and among voters in general.

Professor Hutchinson makes several other points involving the role that race plays here. I am not going to deny that patterson's opponents may be racially motivated. i dont have evidence either way. What i could say is that it places the president in an awkward position when Gov Paterson runs and gets trounced by Cuomo. He has to either support one of the only black governors in the country in a losing bid risking charges of racial bias or he has to back cuomo instigating charges such as the ones that prof. hutchinson makes, favoritism for elites, pay for play etc. It is better for Obama to try and head off this type of choice.

Developing a deeper bench of african american candidates is an important goal. backing a losing candidate because he is black is not. paterson running creates a mess and its not something obama will want to deal with. obama has shown himself to be adverse to these types of complications. he wants the safe noncontroversial candidate ala joe lieberman over lamont.

The point is that i think there are very compelling reasons for Obama to urge Paterson not to run that have nothing to do with the Kennedy appointment fiasco. the world wont end if paterson runs but it will make obama's life more difficult.

Read more...

Race and Colorblindness

I have been extremely busy but David has a link and post up on racial views of children that have implications for the way we treat race in society and i wanted to discuss it.

It is a very good piece, particularly because it explodes a lot of myths. One is that diverse schools are not a panacea that will lead to cross-racial friendship and understanding. Apparently not: students in integrated schools still tend to self-segregate dramatically. Of course, they do that in segregated schools too -- the article claims that only 8% of White kids and 15% of Black kids have a "best friend" of the opposite race -- but integrated schools don't seem to help.

Second, the article takes aim at what I have elsewhere called colorphobia: the fear of race as a conceptual category. The article opens by noting the failure of a study which sought to measure the effect of multicultural and egalitarian messaging by parents to young children. The problem was that the parents resisted engaging in specific race-talk as required by the study parameters. Some dropped out entirely, others just didn't say anything beyond extremely vague bromides like "everyone is equal". And, unsurprisingly, this had very little effect on the attitudes of young children.

The first step in treating a problem is admitting that you have a problem. This post goes directly to the heart of a major problem in contemporary politics and American Society--the failure to acknowledge race as a legitimate factor in decisions. The recent trend among conservatives and the public at large seems to be in favor of a colorblind system akin to that exacted in france where race and ethnicity data wasnt even collected until recently.

We see strains of this thought most often in reverse discrimination cases where the majority is discriminated against. Personally im not really in favor of protecting the majority with the 14th Amendment in the way that prevents all considerations of race. reading the 14th Amendment to prevent racial considerations is a way to prevent direct action aimed at eliminating systematic discrimination. While it makes sense in theory to treat equally qualified people with no regard for skin color in truth there is no complete equality in two candidates. Each will be better than the other at certain things and racial diversity itself has value.

The study David cites shows that children who are not given serious information on race pick up the generally negative and seperational tendencies of our society at large. By not recognizing that the differences need to be addressed and not papered over we are locking in the traditional systematic views that regard racial differences as being important. It typifies the problems of the colorblind system. Existing problems cannot be ignored and they dont work themselves out.

Im sure there is a ton of literature on this out there but i just wanted to make the colorblind legal connection explicit

Read more...

Ricci and the Courts Race Neutral Desires

By now im sure those who read this are well aware that the SCOTUS reversed the lower courts decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The Ricci decision couldnt have been all that surprising given the result of the Seattle Schools Cases. Its clear that at this point in time a majority of the court is of the belief that racism has been largely solved in this country, at least as it pertains to overt acts of discrimination in employment. Ricci sits squarely at the center of the conservative view that race conscious measures are simply not acceptable.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion holds that an employer may not use race-conscious measures to try to avoid "disparate impact" liability under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act unless it "can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute." cite link

The problem of course is deciding what "a strong bases in evidence means". The Court shifts the traditional burden from one on employers to show they weren't discriminatory to a new burden on those who fear disparate impact suits to explain why the disparate impact arose. Marcia McCormick, who blogs at Workplace Prof Blog explains

The majority’s legal analysis starts from this premise: The City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race, and that this was express race based decision making which Title VII prohibits. Considering the race-based effects of the testing and rejecting the test on that ground was taking an adverse action because of an individual’s race. . . .

As a doctrinal matter, I think that the initial premise is troubling. To say that concern over the possibility of a discriminatory effect is itself a discriminatory motive seems to create a terrible theory of discrimination, a moral equivalence, that automatically pits groups against one another in competition for jobs. It’s also an implicit rejection of the basis for the Court’s early decisions on Title VII, that discrimination in employment was common, that absent some other good explanation for an adverse action, discrimination was a reasonable explanation for it, and that without incentives, employers would not have to look critically at what was really required to perform a job and whether this individual could do that. Instead, they could rely on old proxies for fitness without examining them critically. Now it seems that the Court is concluding that discrimination is rare and assertions of discrimination are suspect, and that the continued lack of attainment by people of color (and women, likely) is because of limitations in those people, not obstacles in the system. (emphasis added)

This is a very old fight. The question of whether the problem between races in our society is in the people or structural. Liberals find the problem to be structural, poor education, lack of a nurturing environment etc. The difference is that the conservatives now have a majority of the Court. The conservatives now have the ability to impress the ideology -- the theory of race -- that they hold onto reality. As much as i would love to believe that we are beyond race and that everyone has an equal start at this point in time that is simply not the case.

The failure to accept that there are structural inequities that have created minority underclasses and that creating this underclass is a negative for America is problem. Conservatives have a view that everyone operates as individuals and that the creation of the poor minority underclass has no effect on them or their lives or the greater future of America. This clearly isnt true.

Simply put, to maximize the potential of the American population we cannot allow a permanent poor minority underclass. Its a waste of talent and resources. As a country we need doctors, nurses, scientists etc and we need more and more brain power to compete in a global economy. What sense does it make to restrict actions in such a way as to prevent us from closing achievement gaps and increasing equality in our society?

I would prefer to carry out most of affirmative actionesque policies on an economic basis but its not always going to be convenient or helpful to do so. Cases of employment discrimination where minorities arent able to advance because of ostensibly neutral tests that create disparate impacts are such instances. If you have a test that consistently allows white people to advance over minorities by huge margins there are only a couple of possibilities for this. One is that the white people are simply better for that job. another is that there is something in the test that is advantaging whites. If whites were consistently better for the job wouldnt we need to specifically target the minorities to rectify what was making them so much worse on the test? Conservative reasoning about race conscious policy would seem to suggest that we cant. We should continue to let the minorities fail to advance and the whites to succeed and that no problems come from this. The SCOTUS probably agrees with that right now.

Read more...

A Scary New Other

Hilzoy has a post up at the Washington Monthly that reflects on the changes in race relations since the 80's and early 90's. There is a great deal of interesting things to discuss but what id like to talk about is the significance of pop culture and media on the racial dynamic. As a young person i feel justified in expounding on some of the assertions that Hilzoy, and the writers she cites, make.

The first idea put forth for why race relations have cooled is by Josh Marshall who writes,

"American mass culture found a more useful scary other: Arabs and Muslims. That's a key thing that isn't pretty but I think is also true."

Its one of those observations that if you ever want to know who the American enemy is you must simply look to Hollywood. During the days of the cold war the enemy was often a communist or soviet. Then as the geopolitical game changed we saw the increasing use of the arab terrorist as a villain. The use of brown skinned people is a familiar film device,

Parenti (1992) points out that according to the genre traditions, the hero is traditionally a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male who is saving the Western civilization from threats to its structures and way of life. The antagonist is usually a foreigner, and often his skin color is darker than the skin color of the white protagonist. Parenti (1992) lists Native Americans, black Africans, African-Americans, Russians, Arabs, alien monsters and evil cosmic powers as familiar Hollywood villains. As a character the villain is typically depicted as devil, subhuman, sadistic, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, and of an anti-Judeo-Christian religion (Welsh, 2000; Parenti, 1992; Schatz, 1994).

The villain in action movies is commonly something that people fear. Seeing that fear defeated by the hero is a way to assure the audience of the Wests supperiority and provide hope that good (us) will always triumph over evil (other). Noting this its not surprising to see a new film come out where the villain is actually a bank. Arabs took on a larger role as the other in the white American consciousness.

While arabs were becoming villains on the big screen African Americans were increasingly becoming the protagonists on the small screen. Hilzoy uses The Cosby Show as an example. While i think that might work for some i think my best example is actually Will Smith's Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I remember watching Will and the Banks family engaging in the typical family drama sitcom. It never really made an impact on me that they were Black and that Black people living the lifestyle they lived was something extremely rare.

The importance of portraying Black people as no different than white people is important and should not be understated. By placing Black people into the dominant social narrative television helped to break down any perception in younger viewers that Black people were anything other than regular Americans. As Hilzoy writes,

The general point, though, is: I think that things are very, very different now. A white kid who's now twenty would not have gone to a grade school with no black kids, as I did. She might have gone to a college where people of different ethnicities tended to eat at different tables, but the simple fact that the number of non-whites is vastly higher than it was would have to make interaction a lot more common, and thus no big deal. And black kids who go to Ivy league schools, or end up in investment banks, have many more role models to look to, and so have less need to invent ways of being who they are in those worlds entirely from scratch

I assume that in my life im going to encounter Black people in all different walks of life. Some will be much smarter than i am so more gifted athletically some wealthier. They will be doctors and lawyers and judges, business people. Maybe i'll get to meet the one who is going to be President for the next four years. The point is that as a 20 something i expect to encounter a high number of Black people in positions not available to them during even my father's lifetime. I just assume that not only will they be there but that they should, that it is normal.

Read more...

"Barack the Magic Negro"

I am not sure how many people have seen the movie Holiday Inn with Bing Crosby. It is famous for the song White Christmas. It also famous for a different song, Abraham. to give you an idea of this song and scene here is a review of the dvd,

Still, there are a few duds, the most notorious being a shockingly dated minstrel-show ode to Abraham Lincoln. As Crosby and Reynolds sing "Abraham" in blackface, Holiday Inn's African-American mammy (Louise Beavers) serenades her two small children in the kitchen: "When black folks lived in slavery / Who was it set the darkie free? / Abraham! Abraham!" The scene is a jaw-dropper, alright, but at least it's memorable.

It was that scene which put in a mind to discuss the recent racial flap. Racial discussions are always difficult because of the heated passions they arouse. The controversy surrounding the offensive song "Barack, the Magic Negro" has generated similar passions on both sides of the fight. "Magic Negro" is really a cringe worthy phrase on par with the Abraham number from Holiday Inn. Everyone is well aware that it is not ok to go around referring to african americans as "negros" just as its not ok to go around performing in black face for minstrel shows.. Those who do are trying to make a point that our society has become to "politically correct". This is not one of those phrases that straddles the border between ok and not ok. Negro is as dated as black face.

"Magic Negro" might as well be replaced by what it really means, Uncle Tom. In the outrage over the distribution of the song many people have not looked at exactly where the phrase comes from. It is a cinematic terms for a kind, older, non-sexualized black man who plays a mentor role to a white protagonist. Think Will Smith's character in "The Legend of Bagger Vance". There is no legitimate defense of the phrase applied to barack obama. To label him thusly as the right does is deeply offensive to blacks and whites a like.

Would these same people be happy to have a song written about their wives calling them a "happy whore"? no. That would be completely out of bounds and offensive. Each of the labels Uncle Tom, Magic Negro, Happy Whore are all offensive to those who are characterized as such and should not be allowed. Its not funny. That RNC chair candidate Chip Saltsman thought that not only was it funny but that it was a great Christmas gift says a lot about where the Republican Party is.

"I think most people recognize political satire when they see it," Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. "I think RNC members understand that."

The republican party is facing the challenge of covering up their lily white party. As the NYT reported when discussing this story,

The dispute illustrates a larger Republican challenge in the months ahead: how to oppose the first black president without seeming antiblack. There are no black Republicans in Congress, and a party spokesman could name only 2 blacks among the 168 members of the national committee. Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, resigned from an all-white country club in preparing for his campaign to be party chairman.

There is a deeply unsettling racist tinge to the republican party right now. Im not sure if this is a symptom or a cause of their relegation to a southern party but if they hope to grow back to a national party they need to rethink their racial attitude. Otherwise they risk looking just as dated as the black face minstrel show from Holiday Inn.

Read more...

Todd Incident Reveals Media's Race Beliefs

If we have learned one thing from this election cycle it is that race has not gone away. the racial fault lines of our country have simply been covered over with a thin veneer of media and societal denial. Race is an important topic for discussion in this country and it needs to be addressed. One of the areas of particular importance is in the media. the coverage different events receive based on the color of the protagonist or antagonist in the story.

From The Debate Link

As the echo of Ashley Todd's false claim of being assaulted by a Black Obama supporter fades into the political background, I found in interesting to observe how the incident was racialized. There did not seem to be any doubt amongst the commentariat that this was an effort to spark a racial response in the electorate. But Ms. Todd's actions were not seen as a signifier or example of White character as a whole. Her accusation was not something "they" (White people) do. It was a "callback" to a bygone era, or it was an aberration from general White practice.

Contrast that to how, for example, the fictive claims in the Duke Lacrosse case, or Tawana Brawley, were treated. They were racialized as well, but unlike Ms. Todd they were used to make broad, sweeping statements about what "they" (Black people) do with regards to putative racism -- namely, just make stuff up. It was not seen as exceptional, or aberrational. It was a valid measuring stick from which to look at all claims of racialized White-on-Black violence.

The instinct, I feel, in Ms. Todd's case was the proper one. Take note of how race is being used by the perpetrator of the fraud to create a certain reaction, and condemn those who exploit that sentiment without proper verification. But don't impute the event wholesale onto the entire race. White folks do not want Ms. Todd's frame-up to become the standard by which we are measured. But fair is fair -- if we want the benefit of the doubt, we have to give it when faced with parallel situations on the other side of the racial divide.

Pay close attention to the discussion going on in countdown. Fast froward to the 2:05 mark to hear the historical argument straight from Eugene Robinson.



One of the reasons that this became so linked to the historical acts is that it fit the narrative too perfectly. It was readily apparent to anyone who read to kill a mockingbird in high school. Of course in real life there were precious few people willing to stand on the side of african americans accused of such crimes. Instead there would be lynchings, mob "justice".

When David makes the comparison between this case and the Duke Lacrosse case he is revealing one of the major racial faults in the country. White people really dont see racism as such a societal problem anymore while african americans do. A Gallup survey from July found

About two-thirds of white Americans (63%) say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way society treats blacks, while more than one-third of black Americans (35%) say the same.

Gallup dug deeper into race relations in August with a poll that found 51% of whites ,59% of Hispanics, and the vast majority of blacks 78% view racism as widespread against blacks in the United States. These numbers, as striking as they are barely scratch the surface. Looking at four issues in particular the divide is clear,

On all four issues, blacks are more likely than whites and Hispanics to see racial discrimination as a major factor. In fact, a majority of blacks say racial discrimination is a major reason each problem is occurring.

Among Blacks the percentages of those who thought racism was a major problem was 64% for education, 71% for income levels, 57% for life expectancy, 80% in prison rates. If you throw in the people who thought it was a minor factor you get 89% education, 92 income level, 85 life expectancy and 91 percent of blacks who think racism is a problem in prison rates. Compare this to whites where only 32% 35% 25% and 44% found racism to be a major problem. Aggregated the number of whites who perceive racism as a problem climbs to 68 76 62 and 77 for the four categories. The numbers are clear, whites dont think racism is as big an issue as blacks. There was of course big split in partisan id with dems perceiving more racism indys less and republicans the least. this corresponds with the higher levels of african americans in the dem party.

The reason that these numbers matter is that the people who control the media and determine story lines cover things generally from a white perspective. The white narrative is the dominant one in the media. The media is aware that black people perceive high levels of racism and this conflicts with their own views that there is much less racism and that where it does exist it is less of a problem. Thus they will tend to discount black claims of racism just as the villagers did in the boy who cried wolf.

I agree with David that we should not generalize from one incident and apply that broad brush to the larger racial groups. Race is a nuanced an volatile issue. the media's handling of it is a disaster in that it generally discounts black and liberal views on the racial issues in this country. Black people perceive racism in this country and instead of simply dismissing the claims and assuming the voting rights act took care of it the issue should be addressed head on and the concerns evaluated. that is the only way to move forward.

Read more...

Obama and the End of Black Politics

One of the undercurrents of this election cycle has been the effect of the Obama candidacy on Black oriented politics. A larger discussion of the tension and political dynamics occurring in the African American community has been written by Matt Bai in the New York Times. The main argument of the piece is that there is a transition happening in the type of African Americans that are entering politics. Bai discusses this transition from Civil Rights era to Boomer and Post-Boomer era politicians. The ultimate question is whether the Obama candidacy signals the coming end of Black Politics.

The first thing to understand about the article is that it does not answer its own question explicitly. It hints at answer from Bai’s point of view but never comes out and says, “Obama is ending Black Politics and here’s why”. The closest the article comes to a thesis is this paragraph

The generational transition that is reordering black politics didn’t start this year. It has been happening, gradually and quietly, for at least a decade, as younger African-Americans, Barack Obama among them, have challenged their elders in traditionally black districts. What this year’s Democratic nomination fight did was to accelerate that transition and thrust it into the open as never before, exposing and intensifying friction that was already there. For a lot of younger African-Americans, the resistance of the civil rights generation to Obama’s candidacy signified the failure of their parents to come to terms, at the dusk of their lives, with the success of their own struggle — to embrace the idea that black politics might now be disappearing into American politics in the same way that the Irish and Italian machines long ago joined the political mainstream.

Bai is positing that the young Pols being elected are not interested in fighting only for the interests of the African American community. He employs interview with many of the highest profile African American politicians both young and old to illustrate the different views in the community. I get the feeling that Bai does believe that Black Politics is ending – or at least on its way to ending. I think he is wrong.

While I agree that the younger generation of AA Pols is looking to do more than represent AA I do not believe that you can connect the desires of the younger generation to the desires of the community at large. There are a number of instances in Bai’s article where Black Politics is shown to be going strong rather than fading away. The first of these is the well publicized story of John Lewis.

Lewis was in anguish over the primaries. He had endorsed his friend Hillary Clinton, but his constituents had gone heavily for Obama, and he was beginning to waver. As Clyburn remembered it, Lewis told his old friend sadly that after all these years, they were finally going to see history yield to the forces they had unleashed. “And I’m on the wrong side,” Lewis said. (Later, after weeks of public vacillating, he would switch his allegiance.)

This is not the best characterization of Lewis’ position. He was in a real bind because the voters of his district were going to go overwhelmingly for Obama. During the Primary Obama was receiving votes from AA at a 9-1 ratio and several AA Pols who had backed Clinton were afraid that they would have to face consequences for this. Bai point this out later

Jesse Jackson Jr. warned his colleagues in the black caucus of the risks of shunning Obama’s candidacy, reminding them of the political aftermath of Jesse Jackson Sr.’s campaigns in the 1980s. Back then, too, most black Congressional Democrats sided with the white presidential candidates, and Jackson carried many of their districts in 1984 and virtually all of them in 1988, driving up voter registration in the process. A result, over the next few election cycles, was a flurry of primary challenges, the retirement or defeat of several incumbents and the arrival in Washington of a new class of black congressmen, including James Clyburn. Jackson’s message was clear: even if Obama lost, there could be a cost for opposing him.

This raises the question of how Black centered politics can be on the way out when politicians are forced to support to back a candidate because of race or risk losing their job. I say because of race for two reasons. The first is that it is undeniable that Obama received many votes in the AA community because of the color of his skin. Maybe not a majority but to win 90% against a fellow democrat like Hillary Clinton says that there is some pro-Obama bias. For example, in Georgia, 21% of respondents said race was important and Obama won 72% of those people. 51% of the Georgia electorate was AA. Its clear Obama gained votes here because of his race.

The second reason I say that Lewis was being forced to get behind Obama due to race is the way this threat was delivered. It just does not have the feel of something racially neutral. The last time there was an AA man running for President and the reps failed to back that AA pol they were booted? Does not backing Obama automatically cancel out the years of legislative work done on behalf of the community? It shouldn’t. The way that this has all been discussed has made the point that it is about race. There is simply the expectation that Black pols should back black pols. This is fueled by incidents like when the Congressional Black caucus backs William Jefferson, the black representative accused of stuffing a freezer with cash bribes. Bai’s interview with the Mayor of Philadelphia Michael Nutter discusses the perception that AA will or should always back AA,

I asked Nutter if he found it insulting to have me come barging into his office, demanding to know why he didn’t pick the black guy.
“It’s not insulting,” he answered. “It’s presumptuous. It demonstrates a continuation of this notion that the African-American community, unlike any other, is completely monolithic, that everyone in the African-American community does the same thing in lockstep, in contrast to any other group. I mean, I don’t remember seeing John Kerry on TV and anybody saying to him, ‘I can’t believe you’re not for Hillary Clinton.’ Why?”

Nutter is totally right. However, if we are moving beyond Black Politics this expectation of support should be decreasing not only among those elected but those voting. Without voter support for moving to a more inclusive AA politician Black Politics is not going anywhere. The expectation that AA pols have a special duty to their AA constituents is still prevalent. Bai highlights this in an anecdote featuring Duval Patrick,

After a black child was shot and killed in Boston last year, Patrick told me, he sent a note to the family and prepared to attend the funeral service, but relatives held a news conference at which they criticized him for not coming by to pay his respects. (Patrick later grew close to the family.) I remarked that it was usually the city’s mayor who was expected to comfort victims of urban crime.

“Yes, but it’s not good enough for me to have the reaction that you just did, to say I’m the governor, not the mayor,” Patrick told me. “They expect more.” In other words, he was expected not only to be a governor but also to fill the traditional role of the black politician — that of spokesman, minister and conduit to the white establishment.

So while some leaders are looking for more than representing one segment of their community the people they represent are not necessarily ready for them to move on. Evidence suggests that many are not moving into the post racial utopia that many are predicting on the horizon. In a diary entitled, No Negro Left Behind Brown Man ATL discusses his own experiences as an AA who has witnessed members of the AA community attack Obama for not truly representing AA in America.

Is criticism that takes any of us to task for our weaknesses only to be administered by bona fide, certified 100% black leaders?

Barack Obama has been lambasted by by black preachers, black community leaders, and a lot of the same black men who believe that Oprah Winfrey is their mortal enemy. My own co-worker, a well educated black man from Alabama, was so incensed at Obama's Father's Day speech, even though he didn't hear or read it in its entirety, he vowed not only to revoke his support of Obama - he swore he would "get a Vote for McCain sign" and parade it through black neighborhoods "his damn self".

Bai discusses what is going on in AA centered orgs both online and off. If we were truly moving away from Black Politics were the concerns of AA come first we would not expect to see groups forming with the intent to represent AA interests in the style or heritage of the 60’s civil rights struggle. This is not the case as illustrated both by the N.A.A.C.P and Bai’s description of the “Afrosphere”. Of all the things that appear in the article the “black roots” illustrate how Black Politics is not going away but simply evolving. Not into a post-racial model but into something designed to help AA in this century.

As in the liberal online community at large, there is not a lot of ideological coherence among the emerging “black roots.” There is no clear action plan for how to bridge the divide between middle-class black families and the millions left behind, aside from the same basic antiwar, anticorporate ethos that permeates the rest of the digital left. But there is a strong sense that the leaders of the civil rights generation need some kind of retirement plan, and soon. “Victims don’t make things happen,” says Rucker, who previously worked for MoveOn. “Things are changing from where they were 30 years ago. The fights are changing. And you have an infrastructure that’s not producing results. Look at the incarceration rates, the difference between whites and blacks. What are the old organizations accomplishing?”

The challenges facing AA going forward are different from the ones that they faced during the 60’s. Should we really expect that the same orgs and tactics used then would endure unchanged forever? What we are seeing is that some people are uncertain about the new direction that Black Politics is taking. It is unfamiliar territory and they worry that as AA politicians move upward into positions where they must represent more than just AA issues that the AA communities that nurtured and fought for them will be left behind. This fear is also impacted by the increasing population of and Hispanic/Latino peoples who compete in many ways for many of the same resources and services as the poorer AA communities.

Several black operatives and politicians with whom I spoke worried, eloquently, that an Obama presidency might actually leave black Americans less well represented in Washington rather than more so — that, in fact, the end of black politics, if that is what we are witnessing, might also mean the precipitous decline of black influence.

I do not see it happening. If AA politicians are not representing the AA people in their districts as those voters feel they should they will get voted out. Until the AA community itself is willing to let go of AA centered policy Black Politics will not fade away it will simply continue to evolve in order to face the new challenges. AA have a unique history among minority groups in this country. They have been maintained as the ‘other’ for hundreds of years in American culture. The civil rights era was not so long ago that those who experienced that struggle are still around. Some of them even blog about their experiences, like MB. The journey from second class citizens to political leaders has not been a quick one.

Consider the relatively few AA pols who have been elected to statewide offices. The number is very small and it seems a little presumptuous to assume that as soon as AA take their first major steps towards consistent statewide election that the institution and culture they have built to protect and help their communities will collapse as white people refuse to accept that AA still suffer from disadvantages. This is the assumption being made by some as explained by Artur Davis,

Just talking about such disparities as systemic problems could be harder for an African-American president — for any African-American, really — than it was before. “If Obama is president, it will no longer be tenable to go to the white community and say you’ve been victimized,” Artur Davis told me. “And I understand the poverty and the condition of black America and the 39 percent unemployment rate in some communities. I understand that. But if you go out to the country and say you’ve been victimized by the white community, while Barack Obama and Michelle and their kids are living in the White House, you will be shut off from having any influence.”

Black politics is evolving to address a new stage in the struggle for AA. Artur Davis is describing a problem that AA could hardly envision only a couple years ago, what to do if a AA is elected president? What we see now is not the end of Black Politics but its growing pains in response to new challenges. AA face inferior schools, an absence of employers, a dearth of affordable housing and major inequities in the justice system. As long as these still exist there will be AA political orgs designed to fight them. We will see new methods for new challenges, instead of marches for equal rights-- SAT prep classes for an equal chance at college. New AA pols will come from universities across the country bringing new experiences and new ideas about what it means to be an AA in America and that will change the politics of the AA community. Obama is not ushering in an end to Black Politics only helping to catalyze its evolution.

Read more...