May 19, 2004
BUSH'S COUSIN:
Black Gloom Rising (Richard Muhammad, May 13, 2004, AlterNet)
[T]here's a growing sentiment among a lot of blacks across the country that unequivocal support should not be given to the presumed Democratic Party presidential nominee for nothing. Front-line activists are frustrated because black needs aren't being met and people want to do something about it, says David Covin, president of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. Democrats will lose if black voters aren't energized, he adds.And unless John Kerry acts soon, black voter enthusiasm for him will wane. Al Gore won 90 percent of the black vote in 2000 and black voters could determine who wins Arkansas, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana this year. Bush got about nine percent of black votes in 2000, the worst GOP presidential showing since Barry Goldwater's 1964 stand with segregationists on states' rights. [...]
"What good does it do to have George Bush's cousin in the White House? I don't know what 'Anybody but Bush' means,'" says Dr. Conrad Worrill, of the National Black United Front, which is organizing and promoting the ndabas. Worrill insists that John Kerry at least endorse H.R. 40, a proposed measure sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) calling for a study of reparations. The bill has languished in congressional committee for a decade. Worrill won't go so far as to say blacks should boycott Kerry or sit out the election, but his terse "Blacks should vote their conscience" is a non-endorsement of the candidate.
Kerry has said he opposes reparations, but supports affirmative action. Worry about his appeal to African-Americans is seeping out from mainstream Democrats.
"It surfaced recently in off-the-record conversations between reporters and some key black Democrats who question whether the party's presumptive presidential nominee is doing enough to energize black voters," wrote DeWayne Wickham, a USA Today columnist, in a May 6 column. "Kerry's closest campaign advisers, these Democrats say, are lily white -- a charge that Kerry's supporters dispute. For weeks now, the Kerry campaign has tried -- and failed -- to put this matter to rest. In March, the Massachusetts senator met with the Congressional Black Caucus and assured its members that they would have input in, and access to, his campaign, the group's chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., told me." [...]
"Kerry will get the majority of the black vote, but the question is how large the turnout will be," says Covin, of the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. With black concerns absent from public discourse, Kerry should be pushed to clearly state his positions on racial issues, or else it will affect voter turnout, Covin adds. Black turnout has generally been higher than white turnout since about 1982, noted Covin. Democrats have received the benefits of that turnout, but like Kerry, they've always worried about alienating white voters as well, Covin says. "Democrats are afraid to scare white folks but no Democratic candidate has won a majority of white votes since 1964. They can forget it," he says.
The great danger isn't losing the white vote, which Democrats may never get 40% of again, but losing the Latino vote. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 19, 2004 8:52 AM
Well, it's good to see black leaders try to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire, but settling for an endorsement of a proposed study that will never get through the Republican House is settling too cheap.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 19, 2004 9:26 AMDo they think a Democrat Congress would pass reperations? The Greens might with all the money coming from business and industry.
Posted by: Genecis at May 19, 2004 11:03 AMThe important thing to take from this is that even the Dems realize that the white vote is what matters -- though their situation vis-a-vis blacks makes things difficult.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 19, 2004 11:07 AMPaul --
What makes you say that "even the Dems realize that the white vote is what matters?"
Posted by: MG at May 19, 2004 11:16 AMI mean that a white vote, amazing though it may be, is equal to any other; and that whites still constitute a huge majority of the voting public. So the Democrats cannot afford to alienate whites.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 19, 2004 11:22 AM1) Anyone who's lived in the poorer sections of LA should know that "Blacks & Mexicans" act like natural enemies to begin with, never mind that they're now in direct competition for "biggest minority" (with biggest clout for Special Minority Privileges -- ah, the Zero-Sum Game...)
2) Historically, Democrats are the party of Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Lynchings, and White Supremacy since the Republicans started as an anti-slavery party in the 1850's. Yet blacks vote Democrat like trained animals. What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by: Ken at May 19, 2004 12:29 PMYet blacks vote Democrat like trained animals. What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing. They're voting for what they perceive to be their interests. Democrats offer tax goodies; the GOP offers capital gains taxes. Which do you think appeals more to the average black voter? Which do you think will not only get his support but also give him the incentive to vote? That's the way politics work.
The GOP needs to do a better job of explaining how tax goodies mean "depend on the man" and cap gains mean "more and better jobs" so you can support yourself without assistance.
Posted by: JackSheet at May 19, 2004 1:36 PM"the GOP offers capital gains taxes."
Actually, the Dems are the ones who offer such taxes, in the mistaken belief of their supporters that what doesn't hurt them directly is somehow a benefit, a thinly disguised base appeal to resentment, envy and jealousy. The GOP promotes such tax cuts in the belief that most people will use the extra wisely enough it will benefit even those who aren't the recipients, by reinvestment, increased hiring or just buying more services provided by non-recipients.
"some key black Democrats who question whether the party's presumptive presidential nominee is doing enough to energize black voters"
Give me a break. The guy can poop any party he goes to. He not only has no Elvis in him, he is the anti-Elvis. Energize black voters? Hah!
Winter book says Bush runs way ahead of 2000 form in the Black community, because he is not an unknown commodity and because he is a lot blacked than Kerry is.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 19, 2004 10:08 PMRobert Schwarz:sez:
"Bush runs way ahead of 2000 form in the Black community, because he is not an unknown commodity"
Exactly! Four years ago Gore, Jackson and the NAACP pulled out all the stops with scare ads implying that if Bush was elected lynching would be coming back within a month of his inauguration.
Now that he's been around for four years and the sky hasn't fallen in it'll be a lot harder to repeat that trick.
Posted by: ralph phelan at May 19, 2004 10:50 PM