Should GOP no-shows mean an automatic vote for Democrats?
Here is an excerpt from Roland Martin’s piece on Republican no-shows at Black/Hispanic sponsored presidential debates:
“Oh, yes, I know. Democrats have a stranglehold on the black vote, receiving upward of 90 percent in national elections. A significant part of that is a result of the party seeing blacks as the backbone of the party. But the reality is that when you have only one party that truly makes a play for those voters, of course you will see such disparities!”
I agree with Martin’s piece and echoed the same sentiment in a recent post (”Polichickens“). Any party that consistently refuses to face its biggest critics lacks the characteristics that I am looking for in a president.
However, there is some inconsistency that I have noticed in these justified public scornings of Republicans. While it is very true that the Democratic party has consistently made the effort get the Black vote, they have done a terrible job at EARNING our vote. Just take a quick look nationwide at mostly Black districts. While many of these areas will typically have a person of color (who is usually a Democrat) as their elected representative, what is also just as typical is that most of these same districts FOR YEARS (even decades) continue to have the same problems (high unemployment, poverty, crime, under performing schools, local government corruption).
Recently, the website blackagendareport.com released a list of Black members of congress they felt “… deserve the highest status in the Honor Society for righteous service to their constituents.” On top of that list was Congresswoman Barbara Lee–representing the 9th district in California. Oakland is one of those cities in her district. Ron Dellums, who is also Black is the mayor of Oakland. Anybody who is familiar with the city of Oakland will tell you that her “stellar service” somehow gets lost in translation on the street as failing schools, high crime rate, poverty, etc. has been the norm in that city (and that is with the combined “benefit” of having a Black mayor). You can also look at other mostly-Democratic controlled areas such as New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Los Angeles–you name ‘em! Ask yourselves “How has the Black community in these areas being fairing under Democratic leadership?”
Racism can no longer be the excuse used by Democrats in explaining the failures within their own districts. If they lack the ability to squash systematic racism WITHIN THEIR OWN DISTRICTS, they they have just given us a reason not to be reelected.
While I applaud Tavis Smiley’s efforts with his “Covenant with Black America” and his attempts to bring all sides to the table, I have yet to see him or Roland Martin embark on a similar campaign (that includes multiple interviews, press releases and commentaries–not just a quick side comment) holding Democrats in contempt for not “showing up” in the Black community. Having a party peppered with Black faces is not enough.
(Independent candidates or not voting at all are quickly becoming my two voting choices next election cycle.)
To answer the main question posed, no. To suggest otherwise is to paint Af-Ams as a monolith of thought and action.
But it is painfully evident that the GOP has abandoned the ‘Black’ voter. A close analysis of voters — regardless of class or party affiliation — in typical campaigns indicates ‘yea’ votes for an individual candidate is mostly a reflection of his ability to identify with voters. So in fact they do earn votes, if by no other reason than they project a persona to which voters respond.
It is also evident that the consensus in these districts don’t necessarily agree with your summation of conditions as ‘failing’, and therefore re-affirm incumbents, if not parties. Elected officials — whether they be executives (mayors) or legislators — only possess relative and limited authorities for change; they are neither omniscent nor omnipotent. They are obliged to manage by consensus. Such realities dictate the limitations of politics and government for addressing socioeconomic challenges. I believe most voters, Black, White, or Polkadot, understand as much instinctively.
Comment by MIB | September 28, 2007
So in fact they do earn votes, if by no other reason than they project a persona to which voters respond.
You are right. Too bad that the ability to sound like a Black preacher or an old church momma has done squat.
That is not “earning”. That is called manipulation and exploitation.
“…whether they be executives (mayors) or legislators — only possess relative and limited authorities for change; they are neither omniscent nor omnipotent. They are obliged to manage by consensus.”
To a certain extent, you are correct. However if you were to look at past election campaigns of both state and local officials, what is the one tag line that gets repeated?
“Vote for change!”
Individual candidates will in turn define “change’ by introducing a number of initiatives that they promise will work if elected. However once these individual do become elected and programs and such are implemented and fail to produce significant results, racism and those darn Republicans become convenient scapegoats. What I feel weakens your argument here is that Democrats have had DECADES in most cases to right any type of systematic wrongs within their own districts. If this was a recent phenomena, then there would be no argument from me. Yes, local elected officials do have a limited form of power, but they do hold a significant form of it. If this is not the case, then we should make this into a dictatorship and stop playing around.
For example, part of what contributes to high unemployment within districts with a large percentage of Blacks/Hispanics is crime. Cities/towns that have a proven track record of being tough on crime in many cases become easy magnets for small and large businesses (there are other factors as well. This is just one of them). Otherwise, they are left in the dust like New Orleans who heavily relies on tourism for city revenue. Local elected officials that do not use their “limited power” to improve the quality of education of its schools instead of merely meeting union demands for teacher’s salaries every time a strike comes up do so at peril of the city. Poorly educated citizens do not attract new business.
Comment by Duane | September 28, 2007
“Too bad that the ability to sound like a Black preacher or an old church mama has done squat.”
What I wrote about voters responding principally to a candidate’s persona applies across lines of race, wealth, religion, or gender, and regardless of party. There’s a point where it could be construed as pandering, but it’s a legitimate political tactic. Everybody does it.
Similarly, every insurgent candidate for public office runs on a platform of reform.
Campaigning is a wholly separate affair from the business of legislating, adjudicating, or administering, given the specifics of the office. Certainly, you’re sophisticated enough to realize the most sincere reformer will have to compromise some of his positions in order to be successful to any degree. Again… politics is the art of compromise. Most voters, I believe, understand this as a fact of life.
The bottom line is Republican candidates aren’t going to be successful campaigning for ‘Black’ voters by avoiding them. Voters aren’t likely to elect candidates who don’t engage them, no matter how poorly they may rate present conditions.
Comment by MIB | September 28, 2007
Certainly, you’re sophisticated enough to realize the most sincere reformer will have to compromise some of his positions in order to be successful to any degree. Again… politics is the art of compromise. Most voters, I believe, understand this as a fact of life
Compromise or a total abandonment of the core principals he/says they use as the bedrock of their administration? Take the poor quality of schools in these areas for example. In most cases you have both a Democratic mayor and a teacher’s union that has supported Democrats for years (yes, I understand that unions are not publically elected) . Both may disagree on some points, but both will regularly bang the beggar’s cup for ‘just a little bit more money’ to improve schools. Again, this has been the same story for years with public schools in mostly Black/Hispanic areas still ranking last in national standings. Yes, compromise is part of the process, but it also indicates that opposing sides eventually will walk away having at least some of their demands met. When you have public schools in these areas continuously sliding down in quality for decades, it becomes very clear that quality education is not high on the demand sheet for either side. You can apply the same to any of the other issues mentioned.
Comment by Duane | September 28, 2007
OK, let’s take public schools as an issue. And for the sake of argument, the candidate we’re talking about runs for mayor on a campaign pledge to improve schools.
The first reality that confronts our hypothetical mayor is he’s got little or no legal authority over his city’s public school system; neither the superintendent nor the school board members are under the jurisdiction of his office. The mayor’s basically limited to articulating a plan for reforming the school system’s administration — which would ultimately be subject to a voter referendum — and facilitating its capitalization. Then again, there are probably high-performing public schools as there are under-performing schools. Any plan the mayor puts forth will have to balance the priorities of one group against those of other groups, and again, it would have to pass political muster with voters, the city council, and the school board.
At some point, the mayor’s term will face the prospects of a new mayorial election. Presuming Mayor Smith pledged to improve the schools, and presented a plan that was subsequently altered by political realities resulting in a continuation of the status quo, would it be correct to deny him re-election on this one issue?
Of course, there is no categorically ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer to that question. But I think it’s fairer to explain most voters see politics as a cross-section of any number of complex (and occasionally conflicting) issues rather than an ‘either/or’ proposition. The city’s schools may be in tenuous shape, but its economy is booming. Property taxes may be judged high, but the city delivers a high number of public services. My point being that ‘Black’ voters aren’t radically different from any other group of voters in how they choose elected officials. The aspiring politician’s job — be they Republican, Democrat, or other — is to learn the demands of the electorate and craft a message they’ll find appealing. You can’t do that by avoiding the voters.
But you’ve gone off-topic from your original question. Voters aren’t picking Democrats by default.
Comment by MIB | September 28, 2007
Presuming Mayor Smith pledged to improve the schools, and presented a plan that was subsequently altered by political realities resulting in a continuation of the status quo, would it be correct to deny him re-election on this one issue?
Short answer: Yes. Especially since part of his/her next campaign will be “just give me 4 more years…”
Longer answer: Typically with voters, the buck stops with the mayor as he/she has convinced the city of their ability to work with internal and external forces to produce acceptable results. Again, your argument would make sense if there were substantial gains being made in the school system. This directly applies to parties who have been in control for decades.
But I think it’s fairer to explain most voters see politics as a cross-section of any number of complex (and occasionally conflicting) issues rather than an ‘either/or’ proposition.
I agree. However all of this ‘either/or’ understanding gets lost when defining the performance of the president–past and present–for example. Mind you, the president has even more red tape to deal with than your typical mayor.
Property taxes may be judged high, but the city delivers a high number of public services.
Right. Public services that oftentimes maintain as opposed to producing solid results.
My point being that ‘Black’ voters aren’t radically different from any other group of voters in how they choose elected officials.
I agree.
The aspiring politician’s job — be they Republican, Democrat, or other — is to learn the demands of the electorate and craft a message they’ll find appealing. You can’t do that by avoiding the voters.
Also true.
I would also add that the aspiring politician is not not only craft a message, but effectively perform the duties he/she has sworn to perform. If those duties have not been performed satisfactory, it is the duty of the electorate to find another that will.
But you’ve gone off-topic from your original question. Voters aren’t picking Democrats by default.
The question I posed was an open-ended question. I made no assumptions about Black voters. The question was raised simply because there seems to be more heat being thrown at Republicans for not showing up than already elected Democrats not being able to improve their own jurisdictions with decades worth of opportunity.
Comment by Duane | September 28, 2007
“… typically with voters, the buck stops with the mayor as he/she has convinced the city of their ability to work with internal and external forces to produce acceptable results. Again, your argument would make sense if there were substantial gains being made in the school system. This directly applies to parties who have been in control for decades.”
But Mayor Smith in the above model fulfilled his pledge to the voters.
You asked why voters would re-elect an elected official whose district remain affected by the same social ills. I’ve replied that many voters often consider several intangibles when judging a candidate, including the larger political environment. Reasonable voters can, and do distinguish between an honest failure not of the candidate’s making and political impotence/incompetence.
“However all of this ‘either/or’ understanding gets lost when defining the performance of the president… for example.”
I disagree. For example in the 2004 Presidential election, voters decided to re-elect the incumbent despite evidence of his errors in judgement, abuses of the office of the Presidency, and violations of law.
“I would also add that the aspiring politician is not not only craft a message, but effectively perform the duties he/she has sworn to perform. If those duties have not been performed satisfactory, it is the duty of the electorate to find another that will.”
Aspiring politicians aren’t liable for any oath of office.
“The question was raised simply because there seems to be more heat being thrown at Republicans for not showing up than already elected Democrats not being able to improve their own jurisdictions with decades worth of opportunity.”
That’s because those GOP candidates desirous of the elected offices at stake are obliged to engage the public, not the reverse. When you give a dance, you have to pay the band.
Comment by MIB | September 28, 2007
But Mayor Smith in the above model fulfilled his pledge to the voters.
No he did not if a mayor pledges to do everything he/she can do within their power to improve schools–and school quality continues to slide. After several terms of different mayors under the same party producing the same results, you would think people would get the idea. At some point, even a reasonable voter who understands the political realities a mayor faces would have to consider other options when selecting the next mayor. Unfortunately, sound reason at times is a difficult commodity to find amongst creatures of habit.
I disagree. For example in the 2004 Presidential election, voters decided to re-elect the incumbent despite evidence of his errors in judgement, abuses of the office of the Presidency, and violations of law.
Whether if the issue is poor school performance, poverty, crime or unemployment, the blame by many of these local elected officials oftentimes is pointed directly at the president. This is what I was referring to in my response. Many voters will not take the reasoned approach that you are suggesting here. I believe the main reason why it is so easy to shift the blame to the presidential level is simply because many individuals do not have a clue about the inter-workings of their own local government. Ever been to a school board meeting? How about a city council meeting? Out of a population of thousands, you are lucky to get a handful of citizens who are interested enough to show up. This phenomena is not exclusive to Black communities.
The other issue is how things like abuse, incompetence and shadiness oftentimes is excused by voters. In many of these districts an elected official.
New OrleansLouisiana is a prime example. Cities like Philly, Chicago, D.C. and others have all had their fair share of government funds being mismanaged, shady deals being crafted within local administrations, and failure to properly use city resources to assist its citizens. Yet despite these things, oftentimes the same party is successful plugging another one of its own within office without producing any real rebuke towards the offending official or promise of reform to citizens. Yet only Republicans are the only ones blamed for “the culture of corruption”.But again as you suggested earlier, personality does play a major role in who gets elected. I just believe that in some instances it plays to big of a role.
Comment by Duane | September 29, 2007
“No he did not if a mayor pledges to do everything he/she can do within their power to improve schools–and school quality continues to slide.”
There is no ‘if’, Duane. The mayor in our example did honor his campaign promise as best he could given the powers of his office. That the quality of the schools is judged not to have improved has a lot to do with issues beyond the scope of the mayor’s office, and perhaps outside of government. Then again, his performance relative to the school system’s may be offset by a police department which has reduced the crime rate. Or the city’s fiscal solvency and high credit rating. Voters are going to weigh a slew of factors when deciding to re-elect an incumbent. My gut is voters side with their bank accounts first; if the economy is seen as healthy, then the electorate is less than likely to make a change.
In some of the cities you’ve named, there have been 2-3 generations of Black mayors — and presumably all Democrats. Yet, their individual styles are diverse. Some, like Cory Booker and Adrian Fenty are moderate, politically speaking. Others, like Ron Dellums, are progressives, while still others like John Street (and his likely successor, Mike Nutter) are better described as establishment liberals. The mayor of Chicago is a White man. I’m sure if I searched hard enough I could find the mayorial equivalent of Artur Davis — a Black, political conservative Democrat. No city can possibly be cited for an environment of entrenched corruption and general decay as much as Los Angeles and New York, and they both have had recent histories with Republican mayors. Additionally, in most cities the office of mayor is non-partisan by fiat. Party affiliation is moot. But… I digress.
Your original question was a loaded one; a fallacy couched as an inquiry. Black people do think critically about politics. The reasoning of Black voters, and more specifically, Blacks who vote for Democrats, is as ’sound’ as any other group.
Comment by MIB | September 29, 2007
No city can possibly be cited for an environment of entrenched corruption and general decay as much as Los Angeles and New York, and they both have had recent histories with Republican mayors.
Republicans who have also been part of the declining trend in these cities are also part of the blame. However, a lion share of the blame still falls on the lap of Democrats who regularly get the support of unions and other key groups who claim their main interest is to speak for the underclass. When Democrats repeatedly use this union to convince the public that change is going to happen, and it doesn’t, they are at fault.
Your original question was a loaded one; a fallacy couched as an inquiry.
And just when you were making some interesting points, now you fall back on assumption based on you inability and unwillingness to lay any blame on the party you find worth defending strangely every time a criticism based on decades of evidence is made towards Democrats. The more you keep commenting, the more you prove my point.
My original question was neither loaded or a fallacy. It was a question directed towards those who find it easy to jump on Republicans for not showing up at a debate while only throwing a occasional jab at Democrats for their piss poor job in mostly Black/Hispanic communities. What you want to perceive is up to you.
The reasoning of Black voters, and more specifically, Blacks who vote for Democrats, is as ’sound’ as any other group.
Yep. I’m sure the folks that keep voting for Marion Barry, William Jefferson, Maxine Waters and Ray Nagin also believe as you do.
P.S. Yes Whites have done the same thing.
Comment by Duane | September 29, 2007
“… a lion share of the blame still falls on the lap of Democrats who regularly get the support of unions and other key groups who claim their main interest is to speak for the underclass.”
The business of government is not as simple as you’re suggesting. That elected officials have to make compromises is part of their jobs. Once more, most Black voters are sophisticated enough about politics to understand that such compromises are a given. For example, while a majority of D.C. voters became angered over Marion Barry’s personal antics, they decided his stewardship of D.C. government — limited as it was by the Constitution and city law — was satisfactory, i.e.; financial solvency, employment, etc.. Above all, Barry made himself available to constituents for the bulk of his time as mayor. It’s not like he didn’t face dozens of competitors for the job from within the Democratic Party; insurgent candidates didn’t offer a vision that appealed to voters.
Barry’s no longer the mayor. He’s been succeeded by two other mayors who couldn’t be more different from him in terms of management style and politics. Just as Ray Nagin isn’t the same, politically, as Marc Morial.
“… now you fall back on assumption based on you inability and unwillingness to lay any blame on the party you find worth defending strangely every time a criticism based on decades of evidence is made towards Democrats.”
I’ve assumed nothing. But unlike you, I don’t bother with scapegoating because it’s a cop out for not having viable political ideas.
“My original question was neither loaded or a fallacy.”
Anytime you’ve ‘asked’ a question that presupposes a conclusion (e.g.; ‘failed’ districts), you’ve created a logical fallacy.
Comment by MIB | September 29, 2007
For example, while a majority of D.C. voters became angered over Marion Barry’s personal antics, they decided his stewardship of D.C. government — limited as it was by the Constitution and city law — was satisfactory, i.e.; financial solvency, employment, etc.
That is pure bull and you know it!
Barry played both the race and victim card and won the sympathy vote. Same for all the other politicians I mentioned earlier.
Barry’s no longer the mayor.
But he is now a council member. He knows what to do to get elected. That is called marketing.
I’ve assumed nothing. But unlike you, I don’t bother with scapegoating because it’s a cop out for not having viable political ideas
Scapegoating?? LOL! You are funny.
You are the one here who has having a very difficult time acknowledging the failures of your party. So much so that you have made numerous attempts to portray local elected officials as mere innocent bystandards with no real political power. Now that is really bad.
You brought up the fact that LA has also had Republicans as mayor and I also agreed that they too have become part of the problem if no real change in key areas took place under their administrations. Bring up the Democrat role in this–its spin city. I love it! Do it again!
Anytime you’ve ‘asked’ a question that presupposes a conclusion (e.g.; ‘failed’ districts), you’ve created a logical fallacy.
Again, never presupposed a conclusion. I made it very clear in the post that Republicans were wrong and was avoiding the Black vote. Yet for some reason you felt the need to repeat it. After giving away your bias stance I responded by pointing to Democratic-controlled districts and the issues they claim to so-call ‘address’, widening the definition of “voter abandonment”. You had a hard time looking at that and proceeded to emphasize that local governments have no real power to deal with these issues. Like I said earlier–
Now apparently you felt the need to defend the described target here which leads me to believe that you see some ‘fairness’ in judging the two parties differently: One you let off easy and the other give them hell just for not showing up at a public debate. Democrats have had ample time and resources to right any systematic wrongs they claim hurt the underclass in their own districts, yet according to you they never had any real power in the first place. Wow! I have to remember that one.
Oh well, we can always blame Bush.
The deep hole you have being trying to dig you way out has now bored me. Time to move on.
Comment by Duane | September 29, 2007