Are Republicans the party of White People?

As we discussed previously and on multiple occasions the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States, sent some conservative whites into paroxysms of rage or valleys of despair. Now obviously not all of this was racially based but a great deal of it was, with the comments and snarks by people like Sununu, Palin, Nugent, and more recently South Carolina GOP Executive Director Todd Kincannon.

The main issue that some people seem to have is that despite the fact that overall Romney won a majority of the white vote of both genders (59% overall, 62% of white men and 56% of white women) that simply wasn't enough to give Romney a victory, let alone a decisive one. Some folks just can't wrap their heads around why that happened. The reasons will still be debated and discussed for quite some time but they include at least three salient points:

• The country has become more diverse. The white vote in 2012 was just not as large a portion of the electorate as it was in 2004 or in 2008, let alone 1996 or 1992.
• Many white voters who came out for Republicans in 2008 did not show up in 2012.
• The Republican party has become overly identified with a particular form of social conservatism and radical free market theory that remains quite popular in the South but is not easy to sell in the Northeast or to a lesser extent in the Midwest, and is virtually impossible to win with in California.

Recently, The New Republic magazine produced a cover story by New York Times Book Review Editor Sam Tanenhaus (he's also an author) that basically argued that Republicans (since at least the sixties) explicitly became the "party of white people" and have worked that particular mojo for about all it's worth. You can read the whole article here.

"Who needs Manhattan when we can get the electoral votes of eleven Southern states?" Kevin Phillips, the prophet of "the emerging Republican majority," asked in 1968, when he was piecing together Richard Nixon's electoral map. The eleven states, he meant, of the Old Confederacy. "Put those together with the Farm Belt and the Rocky Mountains, and we don't need the big cities. We don't even want them. Sure, Hubert [Humphrey] will carry Riverside Drive in November. La-de-dah. What will he do in Oklahoma?"

Forty-five years later, the GOP safely has Oklahoma, and Dixie, too. But Phillips's Sunbelt strategy was built for a different time, and a different America. Many have noted Mitt Romney's failure to collect a single vote in 91 precincts in New York City and 59 precincts in Philadelphia. More telling is his defeat in eleven more of the nation's 15 largest cities. Not just Chicago and Columbus, but also Indianapolis, San Diego, Houston, even Dallas—this last a reason the GOP fears that, within a generation Texas will become a swing state. Remove Texas from the vast, lightly populated Republican expanse west of the Mississippi, and the remaining 13 states yield fewer electoral votes than the West Coast triad of California, Oregon, and Washington. If those trends continue, the GOP could find itself unable to count on a single state that has as many as 20 electoral votes.It won't do to blame it all on Romney. No doubt he was a weak candidate, but he was the best the party could muster, as the GOP's leaders insisted till the end, many of them convinced he would win, possibly in a landslide.

Neither can Romney be blamed for the party's whiter-shade-of-pale legislative Rotary Club: the four Republicans among the record 20 women in the Senate, the absence of Republicans among the 42 African Americans in the House (and the GOP's absence as well among the six new members who are openly gay or lesbian). These are remarkable totals in a two-party system, and they reflect not only a failure of strategy or "outreach," but also a history of long-standing indifference, at times outright hostility, to the nation's diverse constituencies—blacks, women, Latinos, Asians, gays.

But that history, with its repeated instances of racialist political strategy dating back many decades, only partially accounts for the party's electoral woes. The true problem, as yet unaddressed by any Republican standard-bearer, originates in the ideology of modern conservatism. When the intellectual authors of the modern right created its doctrines in the 1950s, they drew on nineteenth-century political thought, borrowing explicitly from the great apologists for slavery, above all, the intellectually fierce South Carolinian John C. Calhoun. This is not to say conservatives today share Calhoun's ideas about race. It is to say instead that the Calhoun revival, based on his complex theories of constitutional democracy, became the justification for conservative politicians to resist, ignore, or even overturn the will of the electoral majority.

So what's going to happen with the Republican Party going forward? Are things quite as dire as Tanenhaus would make them seem? Is Tanenhaus doing a little premature spiking of the football and touchdown dance? Well maybe. Look, the Republicans have lost four out of the last six Presidential elections. They would be foolish not to examine why. And the 2012 loss is going to sting them for a while because not only did they lose (again) to a racially different incumbent presiding over a sluggish economy, they did virtually everything but take out signs saying "Don't vote for that (insert racial slur of choice)! "and they still lost decisively. Republican operatives or media personalities attacked President Obama's parents in the nastiest and ugliest of ways but it just didn't get the job done. The electorate is just not what it was in the good old days. Certain tricks just won't work any more. The Republican party needs to do some soul searching and some addition by subtraction. This probably explains the slow thaw on immigration reform. I am sure that over time we shall see similar overtures made on abortion, contraception and gay marriage. There is some evidence that younger voters are less open to the current Republican message. Republicans will need to change that to remain competitive going forward. Hoping that President Obama messes up for the next four years might be gratifying but is not really a political strategy.

On the other hand, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Whites are still the overwhelming majority in this country and will continue to be so for quite some time. Republicans maintain control of the House of Representatives and are the majority of governors. So obviously many people think that some Republicans are doing a good job. No one knows what will happen going forward but we do know that President Obama (absent some very unlikely turn of events) will not be on the ballot in 2016. A more charismatic and less ideologically rigid Republican candidate could very easily win in 2016. I have no idea who that person might be. By 2016 there will have been more Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, voting rights, and racial discrimination cases. These decisions could theoretically move more white voters to vote Republican. Or there could be millions more Hispanic voters that might vote Democratic. The Republican Party is stuck between the frying pan and the fire. Does it more explicitly embrace a grievance based white nationalism and try to get its base out?  It could do that but then lose almost everyone else. Or it could become Democratic-lite and try to sell a message of limited government, low taxes and free markets (without any ugly racial overtones) to a changing demographic. However so far it hasn't had success doing that with Hispanics, Asians or Blacks. "Limited government" often has racialized meaning to different groups of people. It's very difficult to have a racially neutral discussion about "states rights", "negative rights", "rugged individualism" or several other tropes of Republican belief.
What to do, what to do...

Questions

1) Do you think the Republican Party is the party of Whites?

2) If so how can this change? Should it change? What's wrong with looking out for "white interests"?

3) Can Republicans win back the Senate and the Presidency or are they a dying party?

4) Will the Republican party split between the social conservatives and economic conservatives?

More Racial Politics: Is it Better to Look Like You or Work For You?

 Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.

California’s latest Supreme Court news has sparked a debate that some colleagues and I’ve been having for years.  Governor Jerry Brown’s decision to nominate Goodwin Liu has become a controversial decision. Many feel that Brown passed over several Latino and African American candidates to nominate Liu, an Asian who by all accounts is a liberal and strong supporter of civil rights.  So we find ourselves asking the question again.  Which is more important: that you have a person that looks like you in a position of importance or you have a person who will work for you in a position of importance?

Now clearly I understand that these two things are not mutually exclusive.  I believe we would all agree that having someone with a similar racial and/or ethnic background who also has a point of view that runs parallel with the majority of folks within that same background would be preferable.  However, I fear those days may be behind us.  I hate to be cynical – no, I don’t – but am I the only one who believes that someone like Thurgood Marshall, an “Anomaly,” a champion of civil and individual rights, State accountability, and Federal oversight, would not get the support of a Senate comprised of Tea Partiers? 

We can never see past the choices we don’t understand. 

Since this Neo-esque “Anomaly” only comes around when it is time for the Source to reload the Matrix, we are left with a choice: which is more important, the person or the work they do?  A case can be made for either side.  Since Obama’s inauguration, I’ve had to challenge myself and my positions on this issues.  I like to think of it as growth, maybe it’s bias; hell, maybe it’s both.  What I do know is that I often find myself conflicted.  On one hand, diversity adds value to all aspects of life.  It is very possible for a white male to grow up with very limited access to other races and cultures, informing his political opinions and positions.  And while he may bring value to a discussion, I do believe there is legitimate concern if everyone involved within his decision making circle all come from that exact same background.  So while I understand the political fallout from Justices Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina” comments, I disagree with her detractors.   I do expect a Latina to bring a perspective her colleagues may not have; I expect the same from a White Male.  Clearly, there’s value in having diversity introspectively; there is also value in the extrospective.  Seeing people that look like you in various places of success and authority is a vital piece of any culture.  Not only does it support one’s need to be accepted and respected, it also makes the impossible seem possible; this is especially true for those who aspire to reach heights previously not open or available to them.  Prior to President Obama’s inauguration, the vast majority of African Americans never imagined that anyone other than a White Male would be president in their lifetime.  It was literally an image that we could not view because it was one we had never seen.  All that to say, I believe the Hispanic and African American citizens in California have a point, I do believe you need to see a face that looks like yours in power positions.

However, does this accurately illustrate the willingness of our leaders to work on the behalf of the Black community?  I’m not convinced it does.  As we’ve seen with the nomination of Clarence Thomas, simply putting a black face on the bench doesn’t mean you are reaching out to the black community.   Prior to joining the blog, several of us debated – ad nauseam – several political issues.  Who did more for the African American community, Clinton or Bush?  Arguments were made for both sides of the aisle: Clinton’s Administration saw the first female U.S. Secretary of State and the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government, Clinton, at the time, had the most diverse cabinet in history, and more African Americans appointed to the federal bench than any other President.  Conversely, Bush’s Administration (II) topped Clinton in high-ranking diversity of cabinet.  Bush was ground breaking in his appointments of the first African American Secretary of state, serving not only as the highest-ranking African American but also the highest-ranking African American female in the history of the U.S. government.  He nominated the first Hispanic Attorney General in addition to filling three of the four highest-ranking positions with minorities.  However, when asked, the Black community supports Clinton over Bush in a landslide.

No, you’ve already made the choice. Now you have to understand it

I think the Black community must be very careful with their requests.  Sometimes you actually get what you are demanding; and it ain’t always good.  The Janitor and I were conversing with friends of ours on a similar topic.  If, for example, Alan Keys was elected the first Black president, shouldn’t we cheer for that breakthrough equally as loud as we did for Obama?  Despite Keys’ clear Grand Canyon type gap in political points of view from the large majority of Black folks, shouldn’t we celebrate the accomplishment of an African American kicking through the glass ceiling?    Not to my surprise, many of my friends said “No.”  With the Key's example, the ascension of the first Black Man to the position of President of the United States would not trump the fact that his political views were completely opposite of 90% of the Black community.  So why then do we turn around and put that type of pressure on our government executives?  We’re okay with equating who our Presidents and Governors select for a given position with their support of the Black community.  Doesn’t that seem a tad bit hypocritical?    

I digress…

This is simple political arithmetic.  President Bush (the First) put a Black man on the SCOTUS.  President Obama put the first Hispanic female on the SCOTUS; yet he is criticized for not “looking out” for the black community.  Question!  Whose nominee would you say has the best interest of the Black community (and other non-white citizens) at heart?   My blog partner, The Janitor, said: “…the most important aspect of any judge you can nominate is not the color of their skin but rather it is the judicial ideology that they subscribe to.  A progressive Latino, White, or Asian can do just as much to champion the progressive agenda in the courts as a Black judge.”  I believe this to be true.  It makes sense.  Should we start to focus more on the policies of the individual instead of their racial makeup?  What is the break-even point?  Is it acceptable to have zero representation if your needs are being met?  After all, many landmark civil right issues were passed without Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and others in the White House, Congress, or SCOTUS.  While it is important to have diversity, diversity of thought, and a makeup in leadership that reflects the makeup of the country, it is also important that those who make up the leadership actually work on issues that are important to the Black community - YOUR community.  In today's America, can this be accomplished without people who look like you speaking for you?  I don't know. 

If you can’t get both, which is more important: someone that shares a racial and/or ethnic background with you, or someone who will fight to improve your quality of life?

Should we criticize a government chief executive (president or governor) on their political nominations based solely on race?

Allen West and Black Conservatives

You may have heard about the tiff between Representative Allen West (R-Florida) and Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.(D-Florida) If not you can read about it here.  In short , DWS criticized West's support for Medicare cuts, given the high number of seniors living in his district and West went ballistic, firing off this email.

From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!
I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior......which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.
You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!
Steadfast and Loyal
Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

Now this is pretty pathetic because it shows among other things that West is incapable of taking criticism without reacting personally. It was pretty over the top behavior for someone who is supposed to be a cool calm leader. But ok. Congress has seen worse. But West wasn't done of course. He went on the Mark Levin radio show where he saw fit to drop these words of wisdom.

The thing that really most aggravates me is that there's this double standard in that the people on the hard left can continue to attack conservatives -- and especially minority conservatives and female conservatives. But yet when all of a sudden you stand up and say you will not tolerate this any more, then they claim to be a victim, which I find to be absolutely laughable...People who are black conservatives — I grew up in the inner city, strong values, came from a strong military family and background — (and) what we do is we totally invalidate the liberal social welfare policies and programs...“I’m a threat because I’m the guy that got off of their 21st Century plantation. And they cannot afford to have a strong voice such as mine out there reverberating and resonating across this country. And even more so, they’re not used to anyone that says ‘I’m going to fight back against you.’ That is absolutely reprehensible to them.

Whoa....wait a minute there Nat Turner.
Aren't the defining characteristics of Black conservatives supposed to be personal responsibility and a belief that racism either no longer exists or is so small as to be not worth bothering about? I mean that isn't what we hear all day every day from such conservative icons as Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Ken Hamblin, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell and others?
Hmm. Ok I guess I get it now. I really do.

• If you have to wait six years for a promotion that whites get in three...
• If you have discovered that you earn less than some whites with worse education....
• If you constantly have your work checked and double checked for mistakes you never made..
• If you have a sneaking suspicion that you're never in the room when the really important decisions are made at work...
• If you can't get a business loan despite having a great plan, great credit and great assets but see that whites get one despite having less of these requirements
• If you are stopped and harassed by the police because the car you drive is too nice...
• If it takes you a year or more to find work after being laid off because interviewers have a different response to seeing you in person than hearing you on the phone...
• If homes for sale or rent are suddenly "taken" when you show up to look at them
• If you are turned away from a club or restaurant because there are already enough people that look like you inside
• If you are a little irritated and concerned about pictures of the President as a pimp, a witchdoctor or an ape being seen as humorous by certain elements in society
• If you move into a neighborhood and like mushrooms "For sale" signs start popping up
• If you are driving with a white friend and are stopped by the police because they are concerned for the white friend's safety...

then obviously you just need to work harder my friend and stop whining. Being Black has NOTHING to do with your issues. Man up!!! Stop being a crybaby!!!!

But if you are a Black Conservative and someone disagrees with you, well OBVIOUSLY they're only doing it because you're Black. Those racist so-and-so's!!!! The nerve of them slavemasters!!!! And you should definitely go ahead and use offensive and charged references to lynchings and plantations.  Let the chips fall where they may because simply disagreeing with your ideas is JUST LIKE whipping escaped slaves. Oh the humanity!!!!

Whether it's Herman Cain claiming Jon Stewart mocked him because he's Black or Clarence Thomas referring to "high tech lynchings" or the ubiquitous black conservative references to "democratic plantations" or comparing some social program or discussion as being just like slavery, black conservatives too often use racially charged language both as a sword to attack their rivals and as a shield to prevent legitimate debate. Most disgustingly the ONLY time Black conservatives ever even appear to consider the possibility that racism still exists is when someone criticizes them or opposes them politically. Victimology powers! Activate!!!!!

And I hate to break it to West or Cain or any of the other clowns that traffic in this stuff but guess what? Your family wasn't the only black family to deal with slavery, segregation, discrimination, etc. Millions of other black families throughout the diaspora did as well. So let's stop pretending like you did everything by yourself. Black people in 2011 America are in a better position than we were in 1951 America precisely because many Black (and other) people struggled and died.

And that brings me to the final point. Look I myself have some conservative ideas on some issues. There are indeed honorable conservatives of all backgrounds. I think they're wrong on most things but people can agree to disagree. 

The problem with Professional Black Conservatives is that they are usually used (or in some cases disgustingly eager) to give cover to the most rancid reactionary right wing views, often (IMO) because they have personal issues to work through. Many Professional Black Conservatives have little interest in attracting black people to the conservative side of the aisle. Rather their primary concern appears to be buck dancing for white conservatives and assuring these white conservatives that racism is long gone. Making comparisons to slavery on EVERY FREAKING ISSUE that comes up or running for martyr status anytime someone offers criticism won't attract black people to your cause. It would work just as well as a Jewish conservative constantly telling Jews that supporting (insert social program or idea here) is like taking the fast train to Auschwitz or that Jewish liberals are like kapos at Treblinka while Jewish conservatives have escaped the Democratic death camp. It insults my intelligence and makes me very angry....

QUESTIONS:

What's your take?

Was West out of line?

Is it possible for everyone (black/white/left/right) to tone down and/or remove slavery metaphors and comparisons from modern political debate?

TV, Politics, and Al Sharpton

Yesterday I was channel surfing and I stop on MSNBC which I haven't watched in a long time and who do I see on my TV screen... Motherfreaking Al Sharpton. Like dude was in an anchor chair and giving me the news.

I was confused. I thought I had been bamboozled. I was waiting for the cameraman the director anyone in the control room with knowledge of the board to switch the shot but it never happened. I mean Al was giving me the news, his opinion, and commentary and I was just so beside myself I couldn't even pick my up my bottom lip.

So what did I do. I took to twitter to see if anybody else was seeing what I was seeing. After a series of tweets no one responded. Then I went twitter stalking people I don't know but find interesting (don't judge me) and found this:

I never thought I'd see the day al sharpton became relevant. but here it is. here it is. I am so humbled by this startling change of events.

less than a minute ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry Favorite Retweet Reply

fooler initiative
metroadlib

I haaaaaatttttte that al sharpton INSISTS on giving me liffffffffeeeeeeee these days.....this ASSHOLE just played "He's Got the Whole World"

less than a minute ago via UberSocial for BlackBerry Favorite Retweet Reply

fooler initiative
metroadlib

This is somebody I find smart and absolutely hilarious telling me via twitter that Al Sharpton is giving her life. For real though. I mean that's how you really really feel about life. Okay so let me give the Rev a shot.

I still wasn't sold and explained why to the other members of Urban Politico via email. They will tell you how they feel in the comments. My position though is that Al Sharpton is being played for ratings. I work in TV so I know a little something about "the book" as it's called. Matter of fact we're in one right now.

Let me break it down; ratings periods are the months of November, February, May and July. The July book is the least important. November sweeps (interchangeable with ratings) is when all the juicy stuff happens on your favorite TV shows following the late September early October premiere. If you kill in November you're going to get more advertisers, be able to charge more for advertisments, and basically make the network, and all involved a lot of money and very happy. November sweeps also ends right around Thanksgiving before people realize family is more important than the tube.

In February TV once again gets good following all the re-runs played during the holidays. This follows a period of stupid, insanely high TV watching known as the Superbowl. TV gets a little boring around spring break but come May it heats back up with the season finales that keep you wanting more. Oprah's 25th season was centered around this cycle. July sweeps are for those summer shows to break ground and decide if networks want to keep them going. Think USA.

So this is where Al Sharpton fits in. He's being tried on by MSNBC and so far people are biting. According to TVNewser on mediabistro.com:

"Sharpton has hosted the 6pm show for the last two weeks. This past week, the hour was second, to Fox News in A25-54 viewers Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday."

Sharpton's show -- which does not have a name -- coming in second to FOX in the most key of key demographics is no laughing matter. It is a tremendous accomplishment. Therefore I will assume Sharpton will be here to stay at 6 p.m. on MSNBC. His trial run this July will set up the network to really give him a great show by the time November hits and the election campaign process truly begins. Sharpton's presence on the network adds to its diversity as Tamron Hall is the only other Black host and Rachel Maddow brings the nerdy lesbian crowd (that is not meant to be offensive just a statement of fact) keeping true to the network's slogan of Lean Forward.

Sharpton's placement also gets the NAACP off of MSNBC's back after that whole rant of cable networks not giving Black politico's a primetime spot. Additionally, since Sharpton has the inside track to President Obama on Black issues -- specifically unemployment and education in the Black community -- he can actually break news as he sees fit and possibly, just maybe, snag that primetime cable interview with the President that won't have the racist undertones and blatant disrespect as Obama's interview on O'Reilly.

Sharpton's placement for ratings, for the election, for diversifying the network is a win-win for everybody involved right. Wrong. You may not see it but I see it as a position of temporary permanence. If Obama wins in 2012 Sharpton on MSNBC can last another four years. If Obama loses Sharpton may keep his show to maintain the "black opinion" or be deemed null and void now that a White man is back in the White House and America goes back to ignoring its flagrant problem with race. I see more of the latter happening than the former but we'll just have to wait and see now won't we.

But beyond this, Al Sharpton is not a journalist. Like not at all. Like not even a little bit. That's my biggest problem with his placement. I mean as a producer I can make anybody look good and they don't even have to be on camera. You call me The Storyteller but really I'm a puppet master. I pick the stories, I order them in the way I want them to be told, I choose the graphics, the video, the soundbites, and set up the live interviews conducted on air. I do all of that for my anchors in Jacksonville, Florida. Imagine what the producers behind Sharpton do to keep him looking good and insure their job security, a promotion, and maybe even a raise. (Yall know journalism doesn't pay)

But these grievances aside I tuned in to some of Sharpton's show Tuesday evening just to see what it was all about.

First thing I noticed is that his accent is thick and it's not distinctly Brooklyn even though that's where he was born. That's not a bad thing but if you notice most newscasters have a neutral tone so as to appeal to all. But I told myself, "Storyteller stop being critical and just watch the damn news."

So I did. His graphics on the show aren't of the flashy variety found on Hardball With Chris Matthews. He doesn't have a set he has a desk so the powers that be are still trying him out. That aside the content was pretty good. The phrasing was catching i.e. "Cut, Cap and Crack Up."

He delivered facts but when it was time for his live interview with Republican Representative Mo Brooks a Tea Party freshman from Alabama I began to take issue. Not so much with Sharpton but with whoever set up the interview. It seemed they chose the most conservative Representative they could find to make Sharpton appear extremely left on his politics therefore reinforcing the theory of cognitive dissonance to make any extreme conservative side with the extremely conservative politician instead of listening to the facts and forging their own opinion and vice versa for the liberals that can't see right.

Secondly, Representative Brooks was blatantly disrespectful questioning Sharpton's mental state so as to not answer a question on tax cuts. Rude, unruly, and possibly a tinge of another R word that we can get into later.

Following this live interview with Representative Brooks, Sharpton then talked to former Clinton Administration member Robert Reich.

The format of Sharpton's show is just like any other primetime commentary show. There are the topics of the day laid out in the headlines. The interviews that turn into tame arguments and serious discussions compared to the type of physical altercations you see on reality television; Basketball Wives anyone. There's the playing to the core demographic which are liberals and mixing in some colored flavor. (Yes I went there)

The show is good, but that doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden tuning into Al at 6 either. The show is good but as I explained earlier any producer worth their salt, and in New York you are definitely worth your salt, can make a personality look good. And yes it's sad to say that I think Al is only a personality MSNBC is trying out on its network because of the current conditions of our country; here comes that R word.

Racism has always made headlines in this country. So what better way to increase ratings than to play on race and racism. What better person to play this game than the man who's made a career out of fighting racial injustices no matter how minute. I don't want to discredit Al Sharpton's activism and all that he's done to push the dreams of slain civil rights leaders forward, however as the tweets above show, Al Sharpton's relevance and credibility have been on shaky ground. Now with the first Black president getting more hate than a little bit, Black people finding themselves in an all out depression instead of a jobless recovery, and the Tea Party people using Herman Cain and Michael Steele as puppets, what Sharpton has to say is way more important now than it was a decade ago.

I appreciate MSNBC capitalizing off of the times, inciting fury and infusing race into the political discourse. I admire them for thinking outside the box and putting Al Sharpton in the position he's in. But because it's all so calculated he will surely end up on Bill O'Reilly's Pinhead list faster than he can create his own Worst Persons. His appointment is populist instead of substantive, it is reactionary instead of groundbreaking, and I have the strange suspicion that it will be temporary instead of permanent. Because of that I would so much rather see an actual journalist with experience, talent, and the command of facts on any and all issues in Sharpton's seat, than a pawn for Comcast (which owns NBC/Universal and therefore MSNBC) to capitalize off of.

But hey. What do I know. I'm just a local news producer trying to make it big. And trust if Al Sharpton wanted me to produce for him I'd do it in a minute even if I knew I'd be looking for another job in 12 months. This is the TV business. Nothing lasts forever. Just ask Keith Olbermann.

Questions:

What do you think of Al Sharpton's placement behind the anchor desk on MSNBC?

Do you think his appointment will be temporary or permanent like the 20 years Chris Matthews has been with the network?

If Obama is not re-elected do you think Sharpton will once again fade into obscurity his 15 minutes of fame over once again?

Affirmative Action in Michigan

In 2006 Michigan voters, via a voter's referendum, constitutionally banned public sector affirmative action for race and gender in education, employment and contracting. This meant that race or gender could officially no longer be taken in account when deciding who was accepted to a given school, which company won the bid for a state or local contract, or who got hired to a public sector job. This referendum was named Proposition 2 and passed easily by a 58-42 margin. The impact of this was mixed to say the least, as there is a Federal Executive Order 11246 ,which under certain circumstances requires federal contractors (ie. public universities) to have affirmative action programs or goals. 

But honestly few people in Michigan cared too much about the impact on employment or contracting so much as they did about the impact on education. Proposition 2 was passed as a reaction to two cases involving the University of Michigan and two different plaintiffs,  Jennifer Gratz (pictured above with Ward Connerly) and Barbara Grutter, who upon being denied admission to the undergrad program and the law school program respectively, threw the mother of all temper tantrums and literally decided to make a federal case out of it. Ultimately Gratz won her case and Grutter lost, for reasons which I am sure The Janitor can explain in great detail. Basically the Supreme Court decided that the undergrad affirmative action admissions policy was too strict and too close to a quota while the law school admissions policy was more narrowly structured, although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that she did not expect that the law school's policy would be necessary 25 years from her decision approving it.

A 50% win wasn't good enough for Grutter and especially Gratz so in short order they hooked up with Ward Connerly, a man who proves that yes you can still make a living as a token minority, and convinced the majority of Michigan voters to alter our constitution to make it crystal clear that public sector affirmative action wasn't allowed any more, no way no how. Period.

Now here's where it gets kind of tricky. The other side (i.e. the good guys) decided to fight this ban in court. Although it was a long shot and I wasn't totally convinced of the validity of the legal arguments, to many's surprise, recently they actually won in federal court-The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court said Proposal 2, which was [passed] by a 58-42 percentage margin, is unconstitutional because it restructured Michigan’s political process in a way that placed special burdens on minorities that deprived them of equal protection under the law.“The majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities,” Judge R. Guy Cole said in an opinion joined by Judge Martha Daughtrey. Judge Julia Gibbons dissented, saying she didn’t think Proposal 2 impermissibly restructured the political process.Cole and Daughtrey were appointed by President Bill Clinton. Gibbons was appointed by George W. Bush.Attorney Washington said Michigan colleges and universities provide preferential treatment to a variety of groups, including veterans, the poor and students from rural areas. He said Proposal 2 discriminated against blacks, Latinos and native Americans.Today’s decision is the latest development in a long and bitter battle over race admission policies in Michigan colleges and universities.

Needless to say Miss Jennifer wasn't too happy about this turn of events:

Gratz, however, said the majority opinion is “ludicrous and illogical.”
“This court is saying that we place a burden on minorities by treating them equally with non-minorities…that we have to treat people unequally in order to treat them equally,” Gratz said, “That is insane.”

And Michigan, which is now under Republican management, has promised to appeal.

But Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said this afternoon the decision will be appealed to the full 6th U.S. Circuit, and that, in the mean time, Proposal 2 will remain in effect.
"MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law," Schuette said in a statement. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law."

Article

Court Decision

I think that Grutter's and Gratz's arguments were ultimately unconvincing because there were several white people that had received admission to the law school or undergraduate program that had less competitive scores or grades than they did. In addition as supporters of affirmative action court pointed out there were several other categories of students who received diversity points in the admission process (geographical/poverty/veterans) besides just racial minorities. However I also must confess a slight bias against affirmative action in so-called objective criteria (i.e. grades/tests) while having a HUGE bias for it where the criteria aren't objective (real life/the workplace). In the workplace I've just seen and experienced too many instances where it's not what you know but who you know, who you are, how people respond and relate to you. I've seen whites with high school degrees making the same or more money than blacks with college degrees. I've seen whites picked out and groomed for promotion by white managers while blacks languish in the same area for years.  In virtually every organization I've been in the further up the chain you go the fewer and fewer black people you see. There I think some form of affirmative action is not only a good thing but required.

However one can make a convincing argument that because of historical and ongoing segregation, discrimination and consumption and endorsements of racist beliefs that blacks are still suffering from a disbelief in their own abilities and that this shows up in tests and grades. If this is really the case then it is incumbent upon society to provide some form of corrective to this reality.

Although I find this argument to have merit I don't think that Gratz or more importantly the Supreme Court will. Honestly I think this is just a road bump to the Supreme Court allowing Proposition 2 to stand. It's a huge step from saying that you can allow affirmative action to you must allow affirmative action.

QUESTIONS:

What's your take?

Do the voters of Michigan have the right to ban state public sector affirmative action?

Do you think affirmative action is a winner politically?

Do you find the Court of Appeals' reasoning valid?

It's All About States' Rights

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction."
- Republican front runner Mitt Romney, GOP New Hampshire Debate, June 13, 2011

If the recent Republican debate in New Hampshire was any indicator, we suspect that you're going to hear the phrase "States' Rights" quite often between now and next year's election.  During the debate, all 7 of the candidates on stage echoed similar statements like the one from Romney quoted above.  And this probably comes at no surprise since conservative candidates have been advocating for "States' Rights" for quite some time. There is a common belief among conservatives/Republicans that Federal government is inherently bad, but that State government is somehow inherently good.  But why is that?  Where did this notion come from?  Is it a valid argument?  What does this "States' Rights" phrase really mean and how has it affected our day to day lives over the years?  We take a more in depth look at these questions after the jump:


The Law:
In the United States of America, our government is split between two sovereigns: one at the Federal level and one at the State level.  The Federal government represents the unified interest of the entire country, whereas each State government, of course, represents only itself.  The Constitution dictates that our Federal government is a government of limited powers, meaning that each action that it takes or law that it writes must be tied to a specific provision in the Constitution; if it's not spelled out in the Constitution, then it cannot act.  The States, on the other hand, are governments of almost unlimited powers, meaning that they can take whatever actions they want and write whatever laws they want, so long as those actions or laws are not specifically reserved for the Federal government in the Constitution or prohibited by the Constitution itself.  This concept is embodied in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and forms the basis for the common phrase "States' Rights." As a final point on the law, the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, foresaw that there may come a time when the two governments may bump heads.  In such an event, the 2 governments need to know which of them has the last word.  Thanks to the Founding Fathers, we have an answer to that question: The Supremacy Clause.  It is a clause in the Constitution that basically says that whenever there's a conflict between the two governments, Federal law trumps State law every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The History:
Knowing the basic legal framework of our 2 governments is all fine and dandy, but this doesn't tell us how the issue of States' Rights has played out in real life.  What many Republican Presidential Candidates conveniently gloss over is that the States' Rights issue first became controversial during slavery.  Many school kids are taught every year that the United States fought the Civil War because some people in our great nation recognized (and rightfully so) that slavery was immoral.   While there were some White citizens who did feel that way back in the 1800's, the majority of them actually did not care about Black people having equal rights.  Even Abraham Lincoln, who is celebrated as the man who "freed the slaves," drew a fine line in the sand between (A) freeing slaves and (B) actually accepting Black people as equals.

The true reason that we fought the civil war was far less noble than what many of our middle-school history books commonly report.  The full story is that we fought the civil war in part because (1) the U.S. acknowledged the tremendous loss of revenue that would be realized if the Southern States seceded from the U.S., but (2) the main issue that pushed everything over the edge and into war was the Rights of the States to do whatever they wanted to do (in this case - allow slavery) within their own borders WITHOUT the pesky Federal government telling them that they couldn't do it.  In other words, it was a battle over States' Rights.

Some States, primarily in the South, felt that their citizens should be able to own slaves.  The Federal government disagreed.  As a result, a war ensued and, after the Southern States were defeated, the Federal government crafted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution (known as the Reconstruction Amendments) in order to force the States to shape up and fly right from that day forward.  This sentiment is plainly evidenced in the language of the Amendments themselves, which are framed in the negative against the States (eg. "No State Shall...").  And this worked...for a while.

Shortly after the Civil War, however, the Southern States began to enact what would later become known as "Jim Crow" laws.  These were laws which basically separated the White citizens from the Non-White citizens in all public aspects of life: separate restaurants, separate drinking fountains, separate entrances to public establishments, etc.  These were STATE laws (not to be confused with Federal laws) that basically made Blacks and other minorities second-class citizens.

At some point during the 1950's and 60's (aka, the "Civil Rights Era") America, as a nation, came to the general consensus that racial segregation was no longer acceptable within a society that claimed to be civilized.  This consensus was sparked by the Federal Supreme Court decisions against segregation (Brown v. Board of Education) that were handed down by the Warren Court in the 1950's, and it culminated with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s march on Washington and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Despite this national consensus at the Federal level, some of the Southern States argued that it would be a violation of States' Rights to force racial integration in their schools and public establishments.   George Wallace, the Governor of the State of Alabama, famously delivered the message "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" during his inaugural address in 1963. Governor Wallace and other State governors and elected State officials consistently framed the issue of segregation as a "States' Rights" issue, arguing that the Federal government had no right to force its policy of racial equality onto the States even though the 14th Amendment clearly stated then, as it does today, that:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

States' Rights Today
Returning full circle to Romney's quote above, we can see that the Republicans continue to embrace the notion that more powers should be stripped from the Federal government and given to the States.  This may sound like a great idea for conservatives because most conservatives tend to be in the majority (aka White) and would likely stand to benefit from such measures.  However, for those people who happen to be minorities in this country, history has shown us time and time again that minority interests are not served by allowing elected officials at the State level of government to rule as they see fit without regard for the Constitutional rights of all people and not just those in the majority.  The Constitutional rights of the people must be enforced and protected by the Federal government, despite State interests to the contrary.

By way of example, abortion is legal in this country because the Supreme Court (aka the Federal government) has ruled that the States are not allowed to infringe upon a woman's 14th Amendment right to privacy; no State is allowed to make a law that would bring back Jim Crow lunch counters because the Federal government has declared such an act would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act of '64; and States are not allowed to refuse the right to vote to certain minorities because the 15th Amendment strictly prohibits the States from taking such action.  These are but a few examples of how States' Rights must yield to Federal interests.

When people like Mitt Romney talk about increasing States' Rights, they are pandering to a crowd that would like to see less Federal government regulation.  In theory, limited Federal government is a good idea because it allows the States to govern themselves at the local level and solve their own problems.  In practice, limited Federal government allows the States to get away with whatever it is their respective leaders feel like getting away with, which blindly assumes that State officials will do what is in the best interest of all people, and not just those who look as they do or agree with their particular ideology.  As history has taught us, such assumptions are often misplaced.

School Integration-What's in it for you???

People moving out/People moving in

Why/Because of the color of their skin

Run,Run,Run but you sure can't hide

Ball of Confusion-The Temptations

As you may have heard, Detroit has lost a lot of people.

The census report states that Detroit is currently home to about 713,000 people.  This means that Detroit stands to lose revenue sharing funds from the State of Michigan as well as from the Federal government. Detroit will also (unless the state legislature rewrites the laws) lose the ability to levy an income tax on non-Detroit workers or add fees to utilities bills or several other Detroit-specific actions. The reasons for the increasing population decline are myriad but are mostly centered on such issues as 1) crime 2) poor public schools 3) high taxes and high insurance costs 4) lack of job opportunity 5) older housing stock.

Of course the local political establishment demanded a recount but it’s rather unlikely to get one or reach the magic ceiling of 750,000 residents, which allow it access to all the items mentioned in the above paragraph. That’s all neither here nor there. Anyone paying attention locally would have seen this coming a long time ago. What IS interesting though is that unlike the initial wave of departures in the fifties or the accelerated exodus in the sixties or seventies, those leaving Detroit in waves now are mostly Black people. In fact proportionately so many Black people left the city that Detroit’s proportion of citizens who are white may have increased.  Again, there are still more reports to be released.

This Black hegira has had some positive and negative results. South East Michigan (Metro Detroit) is no longer the most segregated area in the nation.

We’re number 4. Whoopie. Believe it or not, 3 of the 10 most segregated census tracts are found in Michigan.

Not Mississippi. Not Alabama.

Michigan.

That’s the positive side (the slight decline in segregation) -if you consider integration to automatically be a good thing. This also might mean that in the suburbs at least both major political parties might have to start competing for black swing voters, which could mean a slight decline in race-baiting or in being taken for granted.

The negative side though is that the arrival of large numbers of Black students in suburban public schools has led to increased white parental removal of their students from those schools.  Some white parents are sending their children to public schools further away; some are choosing private schools, charter schools or home schooling.  Although most people are too polite to say why openly, bottom line is that when they have any sort of choice, many whites simply do not want their children attending primary schools with large or even noticeable numbers of blacks.  There is a tipping point and it seems to be somewhere between 5-10% Black enrollment.

Because the housing market is so depressed it gave many Black Detroiters who were so inclined the ability to move to the inner ring of suburbs around Detroit. Many whites can not afford to move out yet but if past events are any predictor of future ones, in roughly a decade or two some of these formerly majority white suburbs will be majority black. With a few notable and laudable exceptions the public schools in Detroit are to the point where one local columnist mused that one way to fix the public schools would be to outlaw private schools, on the assumption that if the better off were forced to attend, then something more would be done.

The trend is particularly notable in Macomb County, which led the state in increase in black population, and where one in 10 students takes advantage of schools of choice, often to study in classrooms that are whiter than their neighborhoods.
The result for many of the more than 13,000 Macomb County students now taking advantage of schools of choice programs is daytime segregation and nighttime integration, said Jason Booza, a demographer at Wayne State University who has studied the racial and spatial dynamics of Metro Detroit for a decade.
"It's the continuing self-segregation of groups," said Booza, an assistant professor of family medicine at Wayne State University. "It's a pattern we've seen in Detroit for 100 years."
The connection between race and schools of choice is a hot potato among educators, who maintain that parents make choices based on quality of education, not the color of their children's classmates.
Kurt Metzger isn't so sure. "This is totally about race," said Metzger, a demographer and director of Data Driven Detroit. "There is a tipping point. When schools reach a certain percentage of African-American (students), whites start looking elsewhere."

Metzger, who has studied the racial makeup of schools, believes schools are not comfortable talking about the racial component of schools of choice.

"I believe the white population is much more willing to stay in schools with an increasing Asian population or a Latino population (than an African-American population)," Metzger said. "You hear code words: It's getting rougher, or the quality has gone down."

In the past, white residents uncomfortable with black neighbors sold their homes, Metzger said. Because of declining home prices, many can't move now — but they can move their children.

The impact is an increasing disparity between rich white districts and poor black districts. As students pull out of increasingly minority districts and take their state aid with them, the schools are forced to cut more programs, making more students decide to leave.

"It's institutional racism, and we need to talk about it," Metzger said. "We can't keep closing our eyes." 

Full Article

         

Again, with the exception of comment boards or when they are among an entirely same-race group, many whites are not willing to speak candidly about WHY they don't want their children going to school with Black children. This is something that needs to be addressed honestly. The other thing that needs to be discussed is how long can this game of musical chairs continue. One can not force someone else to like you but de facto segregation also has larger costs for everyone.

QUESTIONS

So what do you think? What does integration mean to you? Is integration automatically a good thing? Is it important to you?  Do you respect someone who tells you upfront that they don't like you or would you rather people hid their feelings behind politeness or passive aggressive behavior? How do you manage the inherent conflict between freedom and equality? What is the solution to the achievement gap in schools?

Mouth Meet Foot: WNBA/Former Rutgers Player Cappie Pondexter Disses Japan

You might recall the Don Imus controversy some years back where your boy Imus lost his natural mind and said that the Rutgers women's basketball squad were some "nappy headed ho's."  There was a national outcry.  Imus lost his job for a few weeks.  Sharpton marched.  The Rutgers coach co-signed.  And, not to be left out, Cappie Pondexter had this to say:

"I am confident that Coach Stringer and the Rutgers Women's Basketball team will handle this situation with class as always. Coach Stringer does a fantastic job in adverse situations. I know that the state of New Jersey, the university, family and friends will refuse to let this ignorance soil their achievements. These young women played their hearts out during the NCAA tournament and I thought they represented Rutgers University with the utmost class!
"Imus' racial comments are unacceptable and inappropriate. The fact that this is not the first time that improper comments were made concerning Black athletes shows where Imus stands. Not only were the comments racist, they were also misogynistic. Therefore, I do not feel that an apology or the two week suspension is ample punishment. It is my understanding that his show is supposed to be comedic. Who does this humor?
Nonetheless, I believe that MSNBC/CBS will make the right decision." 

Just so we're clear, those kind of comments are "unnacceptable," and any apology or two week suspension for those kind of comments is not "ample punishment."  Got it.  Just wanted to be clear on that point.   And for the record, I agree with that general sentiment that was expressed here against Imus.  Of course, we didn't need all the glamor, glitz, fan fair and other oportunistic side effects that tend to come along with a public denouncement of this calliber, but nevertheless the underlying point made here at the end of the day against Imus was a legitimate one.  If only this story stopped here...but unfortunatley it doesn't.

Cappie Pondexter.  Open Mouth.  Insure Foot.  Close Mouth.

A New York Liberty guard and former Rutgers star, Pondexter, 28, saw the images and was inspired to send a text message on Twitter: “What if God was tired of the way they treated their own people in there own country! Idk guys he makes no mistakes.”

For good measure — and perhaps egged on by her Twitter followers — she also texted: “u just never knw! They did pearl harbor so u can’t expect anything less.”

On Monday, apparently after being told that she had offended a nation and embarrassed herself, her league and her team, Pondexter issued the obligatory apology.

She said she was sorry.

“I wanna apologize to anyone I may hurt or offended during this tragic time,” the Twitter message said. “I didn’t realize that my words could be interpreted in the manner which they were.

“The least thing I wanted was to hurt or offend anyone so again I truly apologize. If you’ve lost respect for me that’s totally fine but please don’t let me or my words lose the respect of u the WNBA and what it stands for.” 

- NY Times, March 15, 2011

I just have one question for Pondexter:   What the HECK was you thinking???

Not only did you disrespect an entire nation of people who are going through one helluva crisis right now, but you also managed to discredit yourself, Coach Stringer, Al Sharpton and anybody else who co-signed to the comments you made regarding Don Imus.  There are certain people who spend their entire existence looking for any modicum of illegitimacy in anybody who dares to stand up and tell them that they can't be as racist as they want to be in public, and by adding yourself onto the list of racially insensitive people you have now successfully given them ammunition to discredit anybody else who stands up for the cause in the future.  Congratulations.  And the icing on the cake:  it wasn't even necessary for you to comment on Japan in the first place!  All of a sudden you're the Secretary of State now?  Again, what the HECK was you thinking???

And to add insult to injury, Cappie Pondexter did NOT recieve any suspension whatsoever, let alone the two weeks suspension that she said was not enough for Don Imus.

Here's a tip: the next time a country gets hit by multiple natural disasters, nuclear meltdowns and loses over 4,000 human lives and you get the urge to comment on it, do us all a favor:  don't.



Questions:
What the heck was Cappie Pondexter thinking?
Is there a racial double standard here?
What should happen to public figures who make offensive comments?
Does Cappie Pondexter have any credibility to ever call out another "Don Imus"-type event?