Blacks And President Obama: End the Love Affair?

Houston-based writer Michael Arceneaux urges blacks to end their love affair with President Obama. In an article published by The Root, Arceneaux contends that blacks treat Obama like a "boyfriend," rather than a president. He urges blacks to become more critical of Obama's policies and to accept reasonable arguments from other blacks who criticize the president.

Black support for Obama remains relatively high. While the overall public support for Obama has fallen below 40 percent (a number which shows erosion of happiness among Democrats), black approval ratings for Obama remain around 85%. Nevertheless, despite these high approval ratings, the economic conditions within communities of color are quite dreadful.

The recession has wiped out all of the gains in black wealth over the last 20 years, and black unemployment is about 3 times the rate for whites. Yet, Obama has agreed to a debt-ceiling compromise that will reduce government spending and make an economic recovery even more difficult.

Furthermore, while Obama frequently talks about the plight of the "middle class," he rarely mentions the poor or working poor in his speeches. When Obama wants to talk about unemployment and jobs, he travels to Ohio, but he does not go to East St. Louis or SE Washington, DC to hold a similar conversation. Although the disappearance of jobs in the industrial Midwest has definitely affected blacks, black urban poverty is a different social structure than poverty in the rust belt (see update below this blog post).

In the past, I watched with amazement the emotional reaction that Obama generated in people. I often described myself as a "designated driver," or someone who approached him soberly as a politician -- rather than a larger-than-life symbol of greatness and progress. When other blacks, however, criticized Obama, they often received condemnation. Persons ranging from Revered Wright, Tavis Smiley, Maya Angelou and Cornell West have received fervent criticism from blacks for either taking issue with President Obama or, as in the case of Angelou, supporting his competitor Hillary Clinton.

I believe that Obama raises a lot of complex issues for blacks. First, he is a symbolic figure of racial progress; accordingly, blacks feel happy about his presidency. Second, he is also often a victim of racism, which causes blacks to act defensively on his behalf (even exaggerating some claims in my opinion).

Despite these facts, racial allegiances should not cloud blacks' judgment about social and economic betterment. The fact that Obama is a symbol of progress means very little for persons who live daily in poverty, crime-ridden neighborhoods and whose children attend the most neglected schools in the nation. Moreover, defending Obama against racism from rightwing bigots will not change these substantive conditions of inequality.

So, I recommend a more sophisticated usage of race politics by blacks. Race remains important in American society -- as a battery of social statistics reveals. But an amorphous sense of racial pride should not render blacks silent in the face of policies that ignore their most pressing interests.

Unless blacks begin to treat Obama as a politician, then he will have no incentive to change his approach on issues related to race and poverty. If he can maintain nearly unanimous support among blacks simply by being a symbol of racial progress, then he need not take any political risks in order to deliver concrete -- rather than symbolic -- change.

UPDATE

I discovered an interesting proposal by Senator Gillibrand that addresses one of the issues discussed in this blog post: urban poverty. Gillibrand has proposed the Urban Jobs Act, which, if passed, would allocate money to help "at-risk" youth in Americas large cities obtain jobs. Gillibrand cites statistics showing the extremely high unemployment rates among black and Latino youths. The article does not mention whether President Obama supports the legislation. It also does not indicate that he had anything to do with proposing it.

Are Liberals Fed Up With President Obama?

A pair of news articles portray growing discontent with President Obama among liberals. First, Politico reports that the Congressional Black Caucus -- the most liberal coalition in Congress -- believes that the Obama Administration has snubbed the group. One incident reported in the article describes conflict between Obama and Representative John Conyers (a senior black member of Congress). Conyers has voiced deep criticism of Obama on healthcare and Afghanistan. According to Politico, President Obama called Conyers and told him that his critiques were "demeaning."

President Obama's response to Conyers has ruffled some feathers:

That report [regarding Conyers and Obama] didn’t sit well with many African-American lawmakers, aides and lobbyists, who revere Conyers as an elder statesman.

"Conyers has been in Congress longer than Barack Obama could spell," said a black strategist close to both the White House and Congress. "If he’s making a complaint, it’s a shot across the bow, and you might want to pay attention to that."

Some of the battles, however, sound like "turf warfare." For example, CBC members complain that Obama met with Ben Jealous (head of the NAACP) and Reverend Al Sharpton although they are still waiting to meet with the President.

Perhaps that meeting with Jealous and Sharpton has translated into political support. Recently, Jealous and Sharpton both passionately defended Obama against criticism by some black politicians who say that he is not doing enough to address the concerns of poor people and blacks.

Coincidentally, these are the exact same allegations that Sharpton has made repeatedly against other presidents and politicians -- including Democrats. Now, Sharpton argues that it is ridiculous to expect Obama to push a "black agenda." It is probably immature to expect any president to advance something narrowly described as a "black agenda." But promoting equal economic opportunity and equality are not "black agendas"; these are universal concerns that liberals expect Democrats to pursue.

A second article, in USA Today, suggests that Obama is losing his liberal base. Although liberals still support Obama in great numbers, there are growing signs of discontent. On issues ranging from national security to healthcare reform, Obama has faced conflict with progressives.

Donna Brazile, an Obama supporter, says that: "The energized base which transformed the nation and elected our first black president [is] now disengaged. . . If this was September, I would hit the panic button." Although liberals have criticized the President, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the notion that Obama has taken liberals for granted is "silly." Note to Gibbs: The flip dismissal of liberal concerns will not do much to alleviate existing tensions.

Racial Exhaustion in the New York Times

Ross Douthat's op-ed on race, published in the New York Times, reads like a piece of science fiction. Although Douthat makes well worn arguments about the perils of affirmative action, his ultimate conclusion that class-based measures should replace race in social policy rests on a description of America's near future that is utter fantasy.

Racial Exhaustion
Douthat frames his essay around Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in a 2006 case that upheld the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. Near the end of the opinion, O'Connor expresses a hope that in 25 years, affirmative action would be unnecessary. Douthat agrees with O'Connor's sentiment.

But that decision was not the first time the Supreme Court fantasized about the diminishing need for race-based public policy. The first judicial expression of this mistaken view occurred in an 1883 opinion that invalidated the first federal statute banning racial discrimination in places of public accommodation. In the face of dramatic racial inequality, the Court opined that ongoing measures to address racial inequality were no longer necessary and that these provisions were simply handouts that made blacks the "special favorites of the law."

Similarly, immediately after the Civil War, conservative members of Congress contested policies designed to provide food, shelter, and protection to the former slaves on the grounds that the war and the abolition of slavery had ended the nation's racial issues and that these policies harmed whites and made blacks lazy. Racial exhaustion rhetoric (see my recent law review article on the subject) has existed throughout the history of the United States. It is unclear why Douthat believes his plea for the end of race-based measures sits outside of this long history of racial denial.

Obama's and Sotomayor's America
Douthat notes that some critics have argued that Sonia Sotomayor's treatment by conservatives proves the salience of race in the United States. In response, Douthat asserts that:

[T]he [Republican] senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama.

And just where are all of these budding black presidents and wise Latina Supreme Court justices? According to Douthat, they are the inevitable consequence of population increases among persons of color and the likely nonwhite "national majority" by 2042. Numbers alone, however, do not translate into material well being or even political power (just ask South Africans -- or poor Latinos in Texas). And having a black President and a Latina on the Supreme Court does not mean that race has become socially irrelevant. Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, is one of the richest persons in the world. Under Douthat's individualized approach to the question of inequality, women of color should have indisputable economic power. Instead, they are the poorest segment of the United States population.

Furthermore, Sotomayor and Obama both benefited from affirmative action. According to Douthat, however, their great success disproves, rather than proves, the necessity of race-based affirmative action.

Race "or" Class
Douthat makes a valid point regarding the importance of class-based remedies. But the class proponents (Douthat is not the first) never justify their "either/or" formulation. Most sociological data on the subject, however, indicate that race and class both shape the experiences of the nation's poor persons of color. And while they would certainly benefit from economic policies (see William Julius Wilson's "When Work Disappears") the persistence of poverty among persons of color results from more than race or class alone.

The proponents of the class approach also ignore the significant public hostility to anti-poverty policies and the fact that "programs for the poor" often morph into "programs for lazy and undeserving blacks and Latinos" in public discourse. According to very popular political rhetoric, undeserving black and Latino "subprime" mortgage-holders singlehandedly caused the global economic and financial crisis. Also, "welfare" supposedly ruins the economy because it leads black women to have more children than they can afford, mistakenly believing that an extra 100 bucks a month is worth the hassle. Although most women who receive welfare are white, they are largely invisible in conservative discourse.

Even in the area of public education, where class-based policies could have a tremendous impact, the political will for egalitarian measures is not strong enough. For example, despite the inequities that result from using property taxes to fund public schools, most states continue to utilize this approach, which the Supreme Court validated in 1973.

The conditions in public schools also counsel against an approach that attempts to separate race from class. Public schools have become highly "resegregated" in the last decade. Schools that have largely black and Latino student populations are also "poverty schools," while schools with predominately white student populations are likely middle-class and higher-income schools. The race-poverty schools are grossly underfunded, are revolving doors for teachers, and they rank at the bottom in most measures of pupil success (This has nothing to do with the availability of affirmative action -- as conservatives falsely argue). Due to racial residential segregation, poor students of color are more likely than poor whites to attend poverty schools.

Nevertheless, in 2007, the Court invalidated policies in two school districts, which sought to remedy the harmful effects of resegregation. The majority held that the school assignment policies, which included an innocuous racial "tie-breaker" -- if a long list of other measures failed -- were too broad. The four most conservative justices argued that states did not even have a "compelling interest" in remedying racial isolation in public schools (despite all of the problems that correlate with it). The problem of racially isolated poverty schools is much more severe in "liberal" states in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast -- despite those states having large populations of persons of color.

Conclusion
Although Douthat probably formed his views on the subject of race before Obama's election, he seems to read too much into the historical fact of the nation's first black president. He also fails to consider the substantive and political limits of a class-based approach to equality. Douthat also exaggerates the relevance of increasing numbers of persons of color to their overall well being. Accordingly, Douthat's vision of America's near future remains simply that: a vision.

THIS IS NOT CHANGE

As much as some political commentators try to dismiss the role of race (and gender) in the 2008 presidential election, the facts say otherwise. Obama won the election on the strength of women, black and Latino voters. McCain won a majority of white votes nationally, as has every other Republican candidate starting with the 1968 election.

During his campaign, Obama tried to downplay and market his race simultaneously. He ran as the "historic" candidate, which subtly referenced his racial background. He also ran as the post-racial candidate, in order to avoid being racialized and dismissed as the "black" candidate. Despite its sometimes subtle presence, race played a very powerful role in Obama's candidacy, message and election victory.

Although Obama relied upon identity politics for his electoral success, the White House is instructing GLBT, Latino and women's groups to kill the identity talk. Several GLBT, Latino and women's civil rights groups have urged the president to pick a candidate who will enhance the Court's diversity. No openly gay or Latino person has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Only two women (both white) have occupied a seat on the Court. And two black men have also served on the Court.

I agree that the candidate should not look like a "token" hire, but there are many persons of color, women, and GLBT lawyers who would make excellent Supreme Court justices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering diversity as a factor among evenly talented candidates. Reagan appointed the first woman, and gender played an explicit role in the selection process. Bush I appointed the second black justice only after the first black justice retired. Perhaps that was a mere coincidence.

Despite this history, White House officials sound more like Republicans picking a justice than Democrats. They are falling for the utterly hypocritical, ahistorical, and self-serving conservative rhetoric that condemns the consideration of ideology in the appointments process. Apparently, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia are coincidentally conservative.

Now the White House is doing its best to toss aside the very identity-based movements and politics that won the election for Obama. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that: "I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help. . . .I think in many ways lobbying can – and will –be counterproductive." Of course, Gibbs never identifies the dangers the groups create by stating their preference for diversity. Also, it seems odd that Gibbs would disparage "special interest" groups, when labor, civil rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, glbt, and many other "interest groups" are essential components of the Democratic Party. Without their support, neither Obama nor Gibbs would have a job at the White House.

This is not change.

Pass the Smelling Salts: A Racial Divide Exists in the USA

Despite the incessant post-racial discourse of the last year, a recent poll by the New York Times suggests that a strong racial divide persists concerning social and political issues. For example, Obama's approval rating among blacks is 80%, while it is 49% among whites. 21% of whites have an unfavorable view of Obama; the unfavorable number among blacks is too tiny to measure. The Washington Examiner has more analysis and details.

A few comments
First, these numbers are somewhat misleading because they do not control for party affiliation. Most blacks are Democrats, and Obama's support among Democrats who are not black is very strong as well. Some liberal bloggers are using this fact to ridicule the Washington Examiner article, but this criticism does not change that fact that on many important social and political issues, a true racial divide exists. A similar pattern exists with gender as well.

Second, blacks are typically very cynical about politics and politicians, but Obama has certainly changed that. I am concerned, however, that blacks seem unwilling to accept a nuanced view of Obama. Any criticism seems to result in a smackdown (ask Tavis Smiley). I passionately believe that "approving" everything a president does will not advance racial justice, even if the president is black. Apparently, people have not learned to distinguish race from political ideology. While the two concepts are related, they are not the same.

More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?

Yesterday, Michael Steele's Washington Times interview caused even yours truly -- a staunch progressive -- to take notice. Steele's plan to market conservative ideology to black and Latino urbanites intrigued me, but it also left me doubting that he could accomplish this mission. Although many blacks embrace some socially conservative agendas (e.g., soft on gay rights), the vast majority of blacks have preferred Democratic candidates over Republicans since FDR.

Black Voters' Candidate Preference
I have always believed that if Steele (or anyone else with a magic wand) could make the GOP more moderate and take the party closer to its "Rockefeller Republican" days, then he could perhaps modestly broaden the party's base. The Republican Party was not always synonymous with social conservatism, and the Democratic Party did not begin to monopolize black votes until the 1930s. The Republican Party sided with slaves over slaveowners, fought to establish racial equality after the end of the Civil War, and embraced civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

The Democratic Party, by contrast, supported slavery and excluded blacks from participating in politics through a host of legislative schemes (not to mention violence and intimidation). And historically, the Democrats, not the Republicans, have led the country into expensive and deadly wars.

Large numbers of blacks moved away from the Republican Party to support FDR, who attracted over 70 percent of the black vote in 1936. Most Democratic presidential candidates have earned the same or a greater percentage of black votes since that time. There was one exception: Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower received nearly 40 percent of the black vote in his first election. Adlai Stevenson, his Democratic opponent, decided to run with a segregationist in order to win white votes in the South. The plan worked - but it cost him black support.

Despite the Roosevelt revolution, around 30 percent of black voters continued to support Republican candidates until 1964, the year Johnson sponsored important civil rights legislation. Since that time, no Republican presidential candidate has earned over 15 percent of black votes. McCain only received 4 percent. He also received only small percentages of Latino and Asian-American votes.

White Voting Patterns, the Southern Strategy and Social Conservatism
After Southern whites fled the Democratic Party in the 1960s, the GOP became increasingly more dependent upon socially conservative voters to win elections. By the time Ronald Reagan defeated Gerald Ford, the moderate wing of the Republican Party had lost much of its influence in defining the party's national political agenda. The party decided to supplant the moderates in order to capture the South's abundant electoral votes.

The "Southern strategy" produced amazing results for the GOP. Bill Clinton is the only two-term Democratic president since Truman. And until Obama's victory, Clinton and Carter were the only two Democrats to win the presidency since 1964. Furthermore, after 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white votes. Obama did not reverse this trend -- despite the dreamy rhetoric among many pundits which suggests that his election demolished race-based political cleavages.

Advice for Steele: Be Consistent About Governmental Intervention and About "Equality"
Obama's election, party loyalty, and deep distrust of the GOP make Steele's effort to lure persons of color a difficult, if not impossible, task. It would take a great deal of courage, innovation, and reformulation of ideology in order to accomplish modestly this goal.

In order to do this, Steele will likely need to convince Republicans to challenge their rhetoric that seeks to reduce deep social problems to individual pathology. This is a favorite trump card. Every group has "bad" apples - but unless conservatives believe that the majority of blacks and Latinos are bad apples (which is a conversation stopper), then they must remain open to other explanations for and solutions to prolonged inequity across social groups. Conservatives often blame the government for incentivizing people to choose poverty (and this still passes the laugh test), but this is just the extreme opposite of the notion that only governmental solutions can work. Room exists for both approaches.

Governmental Intervention
While many conservatives passionately reject any role for government in reducing class and other types of inequity, they readily invite the government into areas of other people's lives in order to regulate personal choices that seem patently inappropriate for governmental intrusion (and certainly inappropriate for a governmental veto). Many social conservatives, for example, vehemently insist that the government alone should decide the conditions under which a woman terminates a pregnancy. They also want the government to dictate whether or not terminally ill patients continue to receive life-sustaining medical treatment against their family members' or their own wishes. Conservatives have supported making criminals out of people who consent to intimate relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex. And they believe that government-waged "wars" can reduce or rid society of drugs, kidnappings, sexual predators, violence, and terrorism.

If the government can accomplish all of these things better than "the people," then just maybe the government can do a few things to create conditions in which all people can have economic autonomy and opportunity. Favoring governmental intervention in order to police people, rather than to foster individual autonomy seems far removed from conservatism.

Social Equality
If Republicans want to broaden their base, they could fill the hole left by Democrats, who have not proposed solutions for substantive inequality -- by which I mean, actually doing something about the conditions of inequality such as poverty, homelessness, unequal schools, etc., rather than simply cheering the party's "diversity."

Conservative discourse already espouses the virtues of equality. When conservatives oppose affirmative action, for example, they do so by invoking the language of "equality." Conservatives presumably value racial equality so greatly that they view university admissions policies that dole out a few "points" to students of color in their applications as being the moral equivalent of the brutal regime of Jim Crow. If this is true, then this principle should lead them to at least the same degree of outrage concerning the detrimental effects of sending black, Latino and many poor white kids to vastly underfunded or racially isolated "poverty schools" (where a majority of the students qualify for "free lunch").

Blaming the children and their families for being locked into these suboptimal conditions contradicts conservative opposition to affirmative action. Instead of telling whites who challenge affirmative action to "suck it up" or accusing them of promoting socialism, conservatives criticize the government for treating people differently (even if only to a small degree).

Final Word
Unless conservatives begin to demand equality of opportunity in all settings and consistently remain open to the possibility of governmental and private solutions, then they will fail to expand their base to include people of color. Of course, I cannot demand that Republicans do these things when the "liberal" party has failed to do so or has done so inconsistently. But it's fun to dream. Also, unless the GOP can top the Democrats, then many people of color will just stay with the familiar.

So, Steele: if you can fit my long rant into a neat conservative package, put a ribbon on it, and sell it to Republicans, then you will have in fact done something "off the hook." Apparently, a "new school" of Republicans catapulted Steele to leadership. Maybe this will give him a chance to shake things up. Good luck!

Man of Steele: RNC Chair Serves Major "Swagger" During Recent Interview

It's hard not to notice RNC Chair Michael Steele's recent interview with The Washington Times. Steele makes some very heavy promises about his plans to revitalize the Republican Party, which several commentators have dismissed as irrelevant. Some of Steele's ideas seem highly ambitious if not utterly impossible (e.g., luring black voters during the Obama era), but he earns points for his surprising "swagger" and for setting an "off the hook" (his words, not mine) agenda.

Here are some interesting clips from The Washington Times interview with Michael Steele:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics. . . .

The RNC's first black chairman [says that he] will “surprise everyone” when updating the party's image using the Internet and advertisements on radio, on television and in print. . . .

"There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort" zones. . . ."We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.” [Editor's Note: Steele, please let me know how that plan goes!]

"Dissed" by Karl Rove?

At the end of 2006. . .[Karl] Rove nixed a growing movement among RNC members . . . to elect Mr. Steele as their next chairman.

Mr. Rove subsequently left the White House. . .and with President Bush on his way out of the Oval Office, the RNC was free to choose its own chairman instead of rubber-stamping the choice of a Republican White House. [Editor's Note: Is the author a little upset with Rove's prior decision?]

While other former top Bush White House and campaign officials sent congratulations on his election . . . Mr. Rove neither phoned nor wrote his congratulations, Mr. Steele told The Times.

Steele tells detractors to "stuff it."

Top party officials and officeholders have suggested that Mr. Steele name as deputy chairman someone who can run the national committee's vast operations in fundraising, communications, candidate recruitment and training, and voter identification and targeting. [Editor's Note: Overseer? Spy?]

“I can run this organization just fine,” Mr. Steele told The Times. “There will be no deputy chairman, period.”

Still, the talk among some prominent senior Republicans was that Mr. Steele would need someone with “more experience” to provide guidance and organization. . . . . “People who said I can't make the trains run on time never gave a reason. I say to them, 'Stuff it.'"

“The idea I am somehow going to handicap myself before I begin is nuts. I am not going to buy into this mind-set among a few people who probably have never run anything but their mouths.” [Editor's Note: LOL]

My Non-Republican Take: The Dissenting Justice likes "from the hip" commentary (I even liked Howard Dean), so Steele earns big points for this interview. But be careful, Mr. Steele. People do not like losing power or being told to "stuff it." You do not have the same freedom as some loudmouth cantankerous blogger. Finally, the "change" theme is apparently everywhere!

Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?

When blacks fell in love with Obama, I listened to the more common explanations (e.g., viable candidate after Iowa or anger with Bill and Hillary), but I also wondered whether other factors that did not relate to his intellect and leadership could have also shaped his vast appeal. Specifically, I suspected that his traditional family status (along with appearance, education, class, etc.) privileged him and drew blacks to his campaign. So, I innocently started a thread on an academic bulletin board that asked the following question: "If Barack Obama were black and gay, would blacks remain as extremely excited about and protective of him?" One law professor, who was clearly overflowing with hope that day, asserted that being gay would not negatively affect Obama's candidacy and that America was ready for "James Baldwin as president."

In response, I argued that the professor's assertion denied the pervasiveness of homophobia among blacks and its negative impact upon black gays and lesbians. In addition, the professor's statement ignored the difficulty gays and lesbians experience when they seek political support from voters and lawmakers to secure basic rights to equality and liberty. Furthermore, I reminded my inspired colleague that while Obama had officially stated that he did not approve of same-sex marriage, he proudly allowed his wife to campaign on his behalf, and he valiantly defended her against rightwing attacks. By contrast, if Obama were gay, he clearly could not oppose same-sex marriage for political reasons, but then present his "husband" and kids to the public for campaign purposes (a popular tradition among heterosexual candidates). Finally, if merely supporting pro-gay issues could have harmed Obama's campaign, then being gay would certainly have jeopardized it. This final rebuttal ended the vigorous exchange with my colleague (who, to clarify, does not teach at American University). Today, I have decided to revisit my earlier question in light of Obama's sweeping victory and the pride it has generated among blacks and due to the recent controversy surrounding California black voters' opposition to same-sex marriage.

Although many commentators have argued that Obama's political success represents a monumental shift to the left among the nation's electorate, I have disputed this view (see links following this blog post). The recent passage of socially conservative legislation in several states has validated my belief that many voters who chose Obama did so to punish Republicans for the nation's poor economic conditions, not because they now suddenly support leftist agendas. For instance, voters in California, one of the bluest states, approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in heterosexual terms. Obama, however, won California by an excess of 20 points.

Although a majority or near-majority of voters in all racial groups supported Proposition 8, critics, especially white gays and lesbians, have isolated heterosexual blacks for public condemnation due to their disproportionate level of support for the measure (assuming the accuracy of exit polls). 70% of blacks voted for Proposition 8, while just around 50% (or above) of all other racial groups endorsed the ban. Blaming blacks for the passage of the amendment, however, ignores polling data which demonstrate that the provision would still have passed even if blacks as a group had simply ignored the measure (i.e., declined to vote "yes" or "no").

Although blaming blacks for the passage of Proposition 8 is a severely flawed argument, blacks who approved the measure deserve criticism for a legitimate reason. By supporting anti-gay legislation heterosexual blacks harm blacks who are gay or lesbian, and they join forces with conservatives who seek to weaken civil rights for all vulnerable groups.

Black Opposition to Gay Rights Harms Black Gays and Lesbians
Although white gays and lesbians have been among the most passionate critics of blacks who supported the ban, the most likely victims of black homophobia are other blacks. Homophobia alienates blacks from families and friends and interferes with necessary political organizing. The dangerously sluggish response by black political and religious leaders to AIDS and HIV resulted, in part, from pervasive homophobia that receives tepid criticism (if any). In this setting, silence truly equals death. Blacks' collective reaction to a severe and deadly health crisis pales in comparison to their fervent criticism of Don Imus and their overwhelming enthusiasm for Obama. I am not condemning blacks' responses to Imus or Obama (although I thought the energy spent on Imus could have been used for more pressing causes), but a deadly health crisis among blacks should receive as much attention as a big-haired, unfunny shock jock.

Black Opposition to Gay Rights Legitimizes Conservative Legal Arguments That Harm Blacks and Other Vulnerable Groups

In addition to threatening the well being of black gays and lesbians, when blacks endorse anti-gay legislation, they help legitimize legal arguments that justify the mistreatment of all vulnerable groups -- including blacks. For example, blacks frequently explain their opposition to gay rights on the grounds that being gay or lesbian is a "choice" or "behavior," but that people lack control over their race, which they see as a biological imposition, rather than conduct. Many gays and lesbians, however, believe that their sexual orientation is neither chosen nor something that they can easily control. Most heterosexuals also believe they had little choice in their sexual orientation.

The Danger of Denying Legal Protection for "Chosen" Behavior
Even if gays and lesbians "choose" their status, this should not preclude civil rights protection. People of color and other vulnerable groups have often suffered mistreatment based on chosen behavior, and progressive lawyers continue to advocate that courts abandon a rhetoric of "choice" in antidiscrimination law. Nonetheless, employers have fired black women for wearing their hair in braids, while black men have lost their jobs for sporting goatees (both of which are fairly prevalent grooming styles among blacks). Also, police have arrested or harassed black men because of the way they dress. They have also harassed and subjected Latino and Asian-American people to mistreatment for their clothing as well. Flying while Arab is the new driving while black.

Latinos have lost their jobs because they dared to speak Spanish at work, which violated the employer's "English-only" rules, but some courts have validated these rules as being nonracial. Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that that a prosecutor did not engage in racial discrimination when he excluded all bilingual Spanish-English speakers from participating on a jury in a criminal trial with a Latino defendant. All of the excluded jurors were themselves Latino. The prosecutor's "excuse" -- that he feared the excluded individuals would not listen to the court translator because they already understood Spanish -- failed to pass the laugh test. Instead, it was (to borrow from Obama) simply "more of the same." Nevertheless, the Court found that the prosecutor had engaged in language-based, rather than racial, discrimination. The Court has not held that language-based discrimination violates the constitution.

In one of the cases where the court held that the employer did not violate antidiscrimination laws when it fired a black woman for wearing braids, the court concluded that because 1970s model Bo Derek wore braids, the employer's decision could not have related to race. Moreover, the Supreme Court has gutted the Americans With Disabilities Act by interpreting the statute to exclude protection for individuals who have a disability that medical treatment can control or diminish. In other words, if a person chooses not to correct or mitigate a disability through medical treatment (a high bar for poor people without health insurance), then discriminatory treatment against them is perfectly legal.

Existing Law Already Protects Chosen Behavior
Permitting discrimination against people due to behavioral or chosen statuses is not only irrational and harmful to people of color, but it would require the repeal of many civil rights statutes and an amendment deleting religious freedom from the constitution. Currently, state and federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, religious affiliation, membership in a labor union, current or prior military status, marital status, disability, citizenship status, and many other categories that are behavioral or voluntary.

State and federal law also create very important procedural rights for people who can no longer pay their mortgages. Federal law creates certain rights for people who attempt to borrow money from banks. And constitutional law protects an individual's choice to utilize contraception, to abort a pregnancy, or to refuse medical treatment. Oregon and Washington have given patients the right to seek life-ending medical treatment under certain circumstances. Finally, statutory and constitutional law throughout the country protects freedom of speech, which is inherently behavioral and voluntary. Racist Californians can legally call black people the n-word with impunity, but two black women cannot marry each other. And I thought we had come so far.

Ironically, many blacks also justify their opposition to pro-gay legislation by citing to religious values, but federal and state law prohibit discrimination against them on the basis of their religious status. People, however, "choose" their faith and can opt out of religion. Also, many elements of religion (e.g., praying, dressing, church attendance, and singing) are behavioral, but they still receive protection under statutory and constitutional law.

Why Call It "Marriage"?
Some blacks say that they support "gay rights," but they must stop short of supporting legal recognition of gay "marriage." Personally, I believe that same-sex marriage is a moderate-to-conservative political movement because it privileges "traditional" family arrangements over nontraditional ones. But the denial of same-sex marriage implicates very important questions of equal protection and due process. Creating a different name for a legal relationship just for gay people does not provide them with equal protection; instead, it gives them "different" and uneven protection simply because many heterosexuals cannot stomach equal access to marriage.

Also, endorsing "some" rights for gays and lesbians, but declining to support marriage is an argument for partial justice. This country's history of race relations, however, should deter any black person from embracing as pernicious a concept as partial justice. After abolition, white racists said that the nation had done enough to remedy slavery, and they challenged any further protection and assistance for the newly freed slaves. After Republicans used their political muscle to enshrine the concept of "equal protection of the laws" in the constitution, racists then opposed voting rights. After blacks received the right to vote, opponents engaged in or turned a blind eye to racial terrorism that made this right useless in much of the South until the 1960s. When the Supreme Court finally held in 1954 that racial segregation was illegal in public schools, southern opponents organized "massive resistance" to prevent the ruling from having any tangible impact. Every time the country has managed to move forward on questions of race, opponents have tried to limit or reverse that progress. One does not have to equate "black" and "gay" experience in order to appreciate the irony of blacks having a "fear of too much justice" (to quote the late Justice William Brennan, one of my favorite jurists).

Supporting Gay Rights Does not Require Blacks to Equate Race and Sexual Orientation
Finally, blacks often state that they reject gay rights because gay people do not have the same experiences as blacks (because sexual orientation is chosen, can be hidden, etc.). But this argument wrongfully assumes that people should or must have the same experiences in order to qualify for civil rights protection. The same laws that prohibit racial discrimination protect Oprah Winfrey and Rodney King, despite their disparate experiences. Laws that ban discrimination on the basis of national origin protect the Irish and Africans. These laws protect blacks who can "pass" and those who cannot. Today, blacks are not slaves, but they have not rejected civil rights as unnecessary simply because they do not have the same experiences as slaves. After slavery ended and states enacted "Black Codes," Congress responded by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and later ushering the Fourteenth Amendment through the ratification process. Opponents said that the Black Codes were not the same as slavery, even though they were clearly designed to keep blacks as low as slaves.

Legislators enact civil rights statutes in order to remedy and prevent a variety of social harms. These laws work best when they are flexible enough to respond to the many ways in which people experience discrimination and to deal with the reality that discrimination often morphs into different forms.

Conclusion
Although I have criticized California white gays and lesbians for inappropriately blaming blacks for the passage of Proposition 8, I understand their anger. They must feel demoralized by the decision of a majority of voters in their state to strip them of a hard-fought constitutional right. And while I think it is naive to suggest that blacks should automatically support all progressive (or superficially progressive) causes due to their own experiences with marginalization, I believe that blacks must ultimately resist social conservatism or they lend credibility to arguments that harm blacks as well. Long before Californians used the initiative process to ban same-sex marriage, they had already banned affirmative action, bilingual education, and the extension of public healthcare to undocumented individuals (including children).

Rather than joining conservative movements that seek to constitutionalize bigotry and inequality, blacks and gays should form coalitions to strengthen equality and liberty for all vulnerable people. This will only happen when both groups deal with their respective homophobia and racism and when they decide to fight for the progressive changes that Obama's candidacy symbolizes for so many voters. Until Americans make social justice a high priority, Obama's change slogan will go down in history as a theme that successfully united people around his candidacy, but which failed to deliver meaningful change to subordinate classes.

Related articles on Dissenting Justice:

(1) Race and Same-Sex Marriage Issues

Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry

Black Californians and Proposition 8: Is White Gay Anger Justifiable?

(2) Election Does Not Mean Left-Wing Shift

2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But
Melodrama

Blacks Less Optimistic About a Coming Liberal Utopia

A Sober Look at a Democratic Sweep

Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S. Liberals

Strong Support for California Anti-Gay Measure Proves That Many Blue-State Voters Embrace Red Agendas

Black Californians and Proposition 8: Is White Gay Anger Justifiable?

Many California gays and lesbians have voiced anger toward black voters who supported Proposition 8. The measure amended California’s constitution to define marriage in heterosexual terms and reversed a state supreme court ruling which held that prohibiting same-sex marriage denied equal protection to gays and lesbians.

According to exit polls, the measure passed by a vote of 52-48. President-elect Barack Obama, however, won the state by a 20-point margin. 70% of black voters supported the ban. The disproportionate black support for Proposition 8 has led many people to target black voters for criticism. A standard line of critique condemns blacks for favoring a law that discriminates against another vulnerable social group. Holding aside the merits of engaging in such a line of analysis (I have made similar arguments in the past), the exit polls do not provide a rational basis for isolating black voters for disdain. The fact that white gays and lesbians have chosen to fixate upon blacks suggests that their criticism stems from strained relations between white gays and blacks and from distorted expectations about the commitment of blacks to liberal issues.

Although black voters supported Proposition 8 more than any other racial group, polling data do not justify isolating them for a public scolding. First, a majority of voters across the state supported the ban, so targeting one particular group at all is unwarranted. Nevertheless, blacks have received the bulk of public criticism for supporting Proposition 8, even though a majority or near-majority of every other racial group in the state also voted for the measure. 49% of whites, 53% of Latinos, and 49% of Asian Americans voted for Proposition 8. And, except for Asian Americans, these groups represent a much larger share of the California electorate than blacks. In fact, if the share of black votes for the amendment were subtracted from the total number of votes, the measure would still have passed due to the volume of support among other racial groups..

The public outcry likely stems from already strained relations between white gays and lesbians and blacks and from a misunderstanding of blacks’ commitment to progressive and liberal causes. White gay racism and homophobia among black heterosexuals prevent these groups from forming meaningful political alliances. The immediate victims of this problem are black gays and lesbians, who have frequently described their isolation from both communities. While black homophobia is inexcusable and ultimately detrimental to blacks (see Same-Sex Marriage and Racial Justice), blacks and gays will only form viable coalitions if both groups begin to engage in healthy self-criticism and to seek avenues for inter-group understanding. Black gays and lesbians could facilitate this reflection and outreach. According to media accounts, however, the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 failed to draw upon the important resources of black gay and lesbian activists in order to persuade blacks to vote against the measure. The lack of diversity among mainstream gay and lesbian organizations probably explains their failure to engage in necessary community-based advocacy. By contrast, when Senator Obama sought to draw angry (and potentially racially biased) white women back to the Democratic ticket after the divisive primaries, he dispatched prominent female political leaders, including Hillary Clinton, to do the job. Targeted campaigning is a basic dimension of effective political strategies.

Finally, the public criticism of black voters likely rests upon a gross misunderstanding of their political ideology. While black voters tend to support liberal political candidates, they often compromise and prioritize their values to do so. Blacks (and Latinos) are more religious than most voters, and many of them embrace social conservatism; they are anti-choice, anti-gay, and they believe in traditional family relations. Blacks support Democrats, however, due to the party’s relatively stronger record on race-based civil rights and economic justice. As a community, blacks view these issues as more central to their well being than the passage of socially conservative agendas. White evangelicals, by contrast, tend to place social conservatism above economic issues, which explains why they widely embrace Republican candidates. Many other social groups vote in this manner. A large number of white women, for example, support conservative Republicans, and a significant number of white gays and lesbians vote for Democratic candidates but oppose liberal causes such as affirmative action. The passage of Proposition 8 in deeply blue California proves that the recent Democratic surge does not represent an extreme change in the nation's political ideology. Even blue-state voters remain committed to socially conservative politics.

Until white gays and lesbians and black heterosexuals develop sustained political ties and mutual support, they will continue to clash on important social issues. Their respective racism and homophobia, however, form powerful barriers to their political collaboration. Black gay and lesbian political groups, which tend to lack the funding of mainstream organizations, could help to expand black support for pro-gay initiatives. Singling out black heterosexuals for public rebuke, however, will only exacerbate the already delicate relationship between blacks and gays.

Related articles on Dissenting Justice:

Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry

Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S. Liberals

Strong Support for California Anti-Gay Measure Proves That Many Blue-State Voters Embrace Red Agendas

Waiting at the Alter: Proposition 8 Will Likely Pass, Despite Obama Landslide

In a night that initially looked like it would bring a liberal sweep, California voters have demonstrated that the fight for equality has only entered a new phase for social movement actors. And I say -- let's fight!

With 90% of precincts counted, Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to define marriage in heterosexual terms, leads by 4 points. While Democrats and younger voters were largely against the measure, 70% of blacks and about 59% of Latinos voted for it. Prior to the election, advocates of Proposition 8 said that they believed higher turnout among blacks and Latinos could help them secure passage of the law. Catholics also strongly supported the measure.

The support of the anti-gay initiative among traditional Democrats proves that Obama's election does not reflect a tremendous ideological shift in the nation. Even in deeply blue California, where Obama won by over 20% of the vote, voters decided to reverse a liberal Supreme Court ruling on gay rights and deny gays and lesbians equal opportunity to marry. I devoted a series of prior blog entries to this subject (see links listed below).

Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S. Liberals

Strong Support for California Anti-Gay Measure Proves That Many Blue-State Voters Embrace Red Agendas

Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry

Blacks Less Optimistic About a Coming Liberal Utopia

In a series a blog posts, I have criticized the idea that Obama's election and the expansion of Democratic control in Congress means that the nation has swung to the left and that the Democrats can use their power to implement a very liberal agenda (see these links: Democrats and Social Conservatism; Sober Look at a Democratic Sweep; and 2008 Is Not 1964). This argument overlooks: (1) the lack of a coherent liberal ideology among the new "Obama Generation" of voters; (2) the fact that McCain led Obama in many polls prior to the Wall Street implosion; (3) that Democrats have only won three presidential elections since 1964; (4) that even in blue states, like California, Democrats still embrace socially conservative agendas; and (5) many new Democrats in Congress will come from conservative states and have run on conservative political platforms.

I have also observed that most of the commentators I have noticed announcing the death of old white male heterosexual power are members of that very demographic. Women, people of color, gays and lesbians, and the poor are far more guarded about the prospect for sweeping change in the lives of disadvantaged people. A couple of news articles confirm (at least anecdotally) that people of color remain cautious in their optimism surrounding the election; many of them do not even want to allow themselves to believe that Obama will win, despite his lead in the polls. They certainly have not predicted that the nation has fundamentally rejected conservatism. For further analysis, see the following articles: New York Times and Dallas Morning News.

Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court invalidated a state law that prohibited same-sex marriage. Applying state constitutional law, the 4-3 ruling held that the law unjustifiably denied equal protection to gays and lesbians. In November, voters in California will consider a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, which would effectively overrule the court's decision.



Recently, a group pushing for the amendment extended gratitude to Senator Barack Obama as it mobilized voters to support the initiative. Although Senator Obama opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposes the ballot initiative and supports the California Supreme Court decision, a "spinderella" move that Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton both made during the Democratic primaries. Senator John McCain opposes same-sex marriage as well, but in 2004 he also opposed a Bush-sponsored U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. McCain argued that the proposed amendment was "un-Republican" because it would interfere with state autonomy. McCain, however, supports the California initiative. Both presidential candidates are spinning and tip-toeing on the issue because they want to maximize their appeal to moderate and independent voters, but they also must hold on to support from core groups within their respective parties.



Although Obama opposes the California ballot initiative, Project Marriage, an organization that favors the measure, believes his candidacy could help its cause. The organization hopes that Obama will bring out enough black socially conservative and evangelical voters who, though Democrats, are pro-life, antigay, and committed to conservative religious values. Black religious conservatives, unlike white evangelicals, tend to vote for Democrats, due to the party's more liberal record on civil rights in modern U.S. history. But conservative organizations have successfully exploited social conservatism among blacks to advance discriminatory agendas, particularly in the area of gay rights. This has created some highly unusual political coalitions. One black minister from Chicago, for instance, boldly proclaimed that he would march with the Ku Klux Klan in order to protest the legalization of same-sex marriage (yes - this really happened).



Conservative groups also mobilized black opposition to gay rights in order to secure the passage of anti-gay legislation in Ohio and Colorado during the late-1990s. In Colorado, one conservative group released a video called "Gay Rights, Special Rights," which visually contrasted scantly clothed participants in gay and lesbian festivals and the thousands of people who attended the March on Washington. The group sought to portray gays and lesbians as a bunch of privileged, promiscuous, party-goers, who do not need "special" civil rights protection. But if we used this same logic and looked at imagery from Freaknic (an annual party sponsored by black fraternities, known for having heaps of alcohol and "hook-ups") and the March on Washington, then one could legitimately conclude that today's blacks do not deserve civil rights.



Opinion polls show that all racial groups oppose same-sex marriage. So singling out blacks for condemnation on this issue, as some liberal commentators have done, applies a double-standard. But black alignment with conservative political organizations produces specific harms for black people, which makes black homophobia a self-defeating and ultimately dangerous political strategy.



First, when blacks help to legalize anti-gay discrimination they directly harm gays and lesbians who are also black, including many vocal supporters of racial justice. Also, black alignment with conservative political organizations in opposition to gay rights, emboldens social movement organizations that also resist laws and policies that would empower communities of color and strengthen the enforcement of race-based civil rights. Furthermore, the effort to constitutionalize discrimination against disparaged social groups and to restrain their liberty should trouble all blacks, given the roles that legally sanctioned inequality and repression, including sexual abuse and stigmatization, have played in the nation's history of racial oppression. When blacks approve anti-gay discrimination and the denial of liberty to gays and lesbians, they condone the very style of legal power that was employed to harm and which continues to harm blacks and other people of color.



My argument does not seek to equate homophobia and racism (a misguided analogy that gay rights advocates frequently invoke), but rather to demonstrate that they both constitute gross departures from the norms of equal protection and due process that are central to any progressive and anti-racist understanding of the constitution. Because anti-gay laws and policies undermine and erode these norms, black homophobia is inevitably anti-black.



I would also add that when Democratic politicians (regardless of race) oppose same-sex marriage, they too legitimize discrimination. Accordingly, liberal activists should hold them accountable for their positions, rather than giving them a free pass to abandon their constituents. The left, including the loudly anti-Republican and proudly liberal crowds at Daily Kos, HuffingtonPost, and MoveOn have been noticeably silent regarding Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage and his conservative stances on other issues (such as his support of the death penalty as punishment for rape and his recently articulated belief that the Second Amendment protects an individual -- rather than just a state -- right to bear arms). Obama's election will only bring symbolic progress if, as president, he readily abandons or fails to take on progressive concerns. And he will undoubtedly toss aside progressive issues if the left does not engage in any meaningful analysis and dissent. The right holds its governmental leaders accountable, and it often forces Republicans to embrace conservative values (hence McCain picking the solidly pro-life Palin). Democrats on the other hand have earned an often-deserved reputation for being "weak," precisely because they fail to defend liberal values against intense political opposition.



I am not sure that California blacks will provide enough swing votes to secure passage of the proposed amendment, but if religious Latinos, another group that conservative organizations often exploit, join blacks in supporting the amendment, then the strategy might succeed. Persons of color need to realize that their support of discrimination against other vulnerable groups weakens an already fragile and dwindling societal commitment to civil rights agendas, and it harms blacks who themselves are gay or lesbian. Thus, their actions ultimately have a detrimental effect on the very communities they claim to serve.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:



The Fallacy of Obama's "Diversity" Defense: Rick Warren's Views Already Have a Place at the Table



Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone



New Obama Drama: GLBT Groups Upset That Rev. Rick Warren Speaking at Inauguration



Reactions to Reverend Rick Warren from My Blogger Buddies



Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Hold Your Breath



Stonewalling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell? No Action Until 2010



Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?



Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State



Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay?



Black Californians and Proposition 8: Is White Gay Anger Justifiable?

Sinister Minister? Race, Wright and Obama

Many liberal pundits have begun to analyze the racial issues involved in Wright-Gate. Frank Rich of the N.Y. Times has a very extensive analysis that represents the general racial critique among mainstream liberals. Here's my take......
_______________


Rich, I agree that race has shaped the public's response to Wright, but I have a few comments on your essay. First, you dismiss the 20-year association, but it matters. And it's more than a mere association. He performed the Obamas' wedding, baptized the kids, was a spiritual advisor, etc. That makes a huge difference (but race still matters).

Second, Obama has subtly manipulated race himself, which makes the Wright situation more explosive for him. Obama has run as a "post-racial" candidate (i.e., not Sharpton or Jackson). He has distanced himself from blacks in terms of politics and policy; he is a "safe" black. At the same time, Obama has "dabbled" in blackness to win black support. According to many accounts, he attended Wright's church in order to establish black, upper-class liberal credentials. With respect to his campaign, he describes it as "historic" (translation: I am black). In black churches he speaks in a folksy diction in order to appear "authentic" (a very problematic concept). His surrogates prepare "racism" talking points to agitate black and white-progressive opposition to the Clintons and to shut down any critique of him. But to remain "balanced," he peppers his speeches in front of black audiences with "personal responsibility" statements.

Given Obama's own manipulation of race, Wright presents a bigger problem for him than we have seen with other ministers. Wright proves that the post-racial, "I don't think of you as black," candidate associates with the "stuck in the past" black "racial victim" minister. He has congregated with Jesse and Sharpton's "brother." Whites are now questioning and reconsidering their support for him. Although the need to run as a post-racial black derives from racism, Obama has to stick with it or risk coming across as a "typical" politician.

Finally, Republican ministers are not political liabilities to Republicans because the party caters to racists, sexists, and homophobes. Its members do not disagree in spirit with the wild comments of neocon ministers. Although most elite Republican would never speak in crude language as Hagee, they are united in their social conservatism. They differ only in degree and rhetoric. Democrats, however, are not really committed to leftwing race politics. The difference is not simply one of degree and rhetoric. Obama's recently declining support means that white Democrats are equally as responsible as white Republicans for the existence of his racial bind. Because virtually all of Obama's white support was educated and upper-class, participants in this "white flight" are not necessarily poor and rural. Instead, they are likely include members of Obama's core base of middle-to-upper-class white liberals. Although upper-class whites have accused poor whites of opposing Obama due to racism, it is clear that white Democrats, regardless of class, want a safe post-racial candidate and are concerned about Obama's connection to Wright. So, even though the Wright "problem" stems from racism, white Democratic elites helped create it, not just rabidly racist Republicans and Reagan Democrats.