Free at Last? No!

A lot of liberal commentators have begun to argue that subordinated people are now "free," thanks to Obama's election and the new vast liberal center that propelled him to victory. People who occupy positions of relative social and economic privilege, versus those who experience subordination and discrimination, will likely interpret differently the meaning of the election. Tellingly, I have not seen many women, people of color, or gays and lesbians advocating the view that the political ideology of the country has lurched to the left. While Obama's victory definitely thrills most black people, blacks and whites have a different view of his success. To use King's metaphor, whites apparently believe that we have finally reached the mountaintop; blacks, however, believe that we can finally start climbing.

While many pundits argue that Obama's victories in Virginia, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina indicate a radical political realignment, these arguments neglect to examine the fine print of the election returns in those states. First, his victories in those states were extremely close. He won Virginia and Florida, for example, by just 3 points, and North Carolina and Indiana by only a hair. Shift 1.5 % of the votes in Virginia and Florida to the GOP and those states become tied. North Carolina and Indiana would become deadlocked by an even smaller degree of movement. Also, Florida has been relatively more purple than other southern states, having voted for Carter, Clinton and maybe even Gore (depending upon how you count the chads and butterfly ballots). Kerry lost Florida to Bush by 5 points, far less than the other regions of the Deep South.

In their collective rush to portray this election as indicative of an ideological revolution, most commentators fail to mention that Obama did not win a majority of white votes nationally; no Democrat has managed to accomplish this feat since 1964. Even in many so-called blue states, a majority or near majority of white voters have voted for Republicans in recent elections, including this one (see this article: link). Accordingly, if blacks and Latinos do not widely vote, if white women retain their electoral flexibility (or "purpleness"), or if white professionals have a more attractive Republican option, then the country could easily go red again.

Finally, many commentators mention Obama's appeal among highly educated professionals. They argue that a coalition of younger, wealthier, educated elites and persons of color can dictate national politics in this new ideological era. This style of argumentation emerged during the Democratic primaries. But the assumption that highly educated people are inevitably liberal betrays history. Most educated progressives want to believe that education causes people to embrace liberal agendas and that perhaps, finally, most voters have now learned that the liberal label works best. But while polling data indicate that educated people tend to support hot-button liberal causes (pro-choice, gay rights, etc.), their approval dissipates on matters that are not merely symbolic to them.

Consider the subject of same-sex marriage -- which true-blue Californians just voted to prohibit. Many young educated liberals support the legality of same-sex marriage, but unless they intend to marry someone of the same sex, their connection to the issue is largely symbolic. Voting in favor of this issue, however, permits them to express their support for gay rights concerns.

By contrast, consider the utter lack of attention paid by Democratic candidates to the issue of resegregation and funding inequality in America's public school systems among Democrats. According to substantial education data (I strongly recommend the work of Professor Gary Orfield), densely blue, liberal, highly educated, professionally populated, Obama-supporting parts of the country (the upper-Midwest, Northeast, West Coast) have the most segregated and unevenly funded public school districts in the nation. Not only are these schools relatively more segregated than those in the Deep South, the level of racial isolation in them actually mirrors the degree of segregation in the South a decade after the celebrated Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Black and Latino students in these school districts also live in concentrated poverty neighborhoods that lack jobs and stability, and many of the schools are vastly underfunded, have teachers with fewer credentials of those who work in wealthier districts, and enroll students who routinely underperform on standardized measures of academic achievement.

Obama's campaign did not specifically address issues of concentrated poverty and racial isolation. Instead, most of his economic policy statements focused on helping the generic "middle-class." Also, it is very hard for Democrats in these resegregated jurisdictions to blame the "evil" Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld monster for this problem. Most blue-state local governments refuse to abandon property tax-based school funding. Liberal, upper-class parents flock to the suburbs where states have built public schools to facilitate their avoidance of inner city school systems. And these parents often resist efforts to equalize school funding or to integrate high-performing schools by expanding poor children's access to those institutions.

While Democrats celebrate the role that Northern Virginia liberals played in Obama's victory, many of these highly educated professionals (along with those in Montgomery County, Maryland) work in Washington, D.C. but reside in the suburbs in order to escape the substandard, underfunded, and largely black and poor school system in Washington, DC. Coastal and Midwestern liberals instinctively demonize and dismiss red-state southern whites. Yet, they often refuse to scrutinize how their own jurisdictions create policies that reinforce invidious patterns of social advantage and disadvantage.

I believe that Democrats should celebrate "our" electoral victory. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking that change is now easy because this trivializes the experiences of people who live in conditions of vast inequality, and it cheapens the hard work of people who have dedicated their lives to advocating social justice. Despite this week's Democrat sweep, voters in several states gave "reality checks" to liberals. In Florida, California, Arizona and Arkansas they stripped gay people of equal protection and liberty. In Nebraska, they banned affirmative action, and they barely failed to do so in Colorado. These votes do not prove that a new-left generation has arrived. On the contrary, they look like "more of the same."

Related articles on Dissenting Justice:

Separate and Unequal Public Schools: "Liberal" Blue States Have Worse Records Than "Dixie"

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

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

The prestigious Field Poll has released polling data which reveal that support for Proposition 8, which would amend the California constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, has grown substantially since the summer. According to the latest poll, 44% of voters support the measure; 49% oppose it; and 7% are undecided. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5%, which basically makes the contest a dead heat.

The closeness of the vote on Proposition 8 differs dramatically from the state's presidential contest. A Field Poll released earlier this week gives Obama a whopping 22-point lead over McCain in California. This enormous advantage for Obama, however, has not translated into similar success for opponents of Proposition 8, despite the fact that the Democratic presidential candidate himself opposes the measure.

In an earlier blog post, I argued that Democrats who believe that a November Democratic Sweep would represent a dramatic shift in the nation's political ideology are deluding themselves. In addition to the quality and skillfulness of Democratic candidates, the party's success stems, in large part, from GOP exhaustion, the declining economy, the poor state of the war, and the historically low approval ratings for President Bush. The fact that California, a pretty safe state for liberal candidates, might pass an anti-gay constitutional amendment demonstrates that social conservatism remains attractive for a significant portion of the electorate, even though many of those same voters support Obama's candidacy. For more on this subject, see: "Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S. Liberals."

My fellow Democrats need to discard their mistaken belief that a seismic shift in the nation's general ideology has occurred. With all of the irrational exuberance safely behind them, they can use their immense talents to develop strategies to persuade a center-right American public to embrace center-left political agendas. The steamroller approach that some Democrats now advocate (see, e.g., HuffingtonPost essay urging Democrats to ignore the GOP and my pointed response) will only invite a serious electoral backlash -- just as the GOP's excesses during the last 8 years have now created.

Lunacy from HuffingtonPost: Jesse Berney Says Democrats Should Ignore the GOP in January!

Moments like today help me appreciate the danger of having the suffix "wing" attached to your ideological preference (despite having previously described myself a leftwing progressive). Jesse Berney, an outspoken Clinton and now Obama supporter, has a piece of advice for Democrats, which he has posted on Arriana Huffington's blog: ignore the GOP! Berney says that the Democrats should do the exact opposite of what Obama has promised in his campaign (unity and change) because Republicans (all of them?) have attempted to demonize Obama as a radical, socialist, buddy of terrorists, etc. For this reason "bipartisanship is not an option for them." According to Berney, if the Democrats sweep the election -- whether or not they reach 60 in the Senate -- they should dismiss Republicans as irrelevant:

Democrats should just ignore them.

Ignore Republicans in Congress. Ignore their silly amendments, ignore their calls for hearings, ignore the speeches they give, and ignore them when they complain about being ignored.

Ignore their right-wing echo chamber. Ignore Rush Limbaugh and Matt
Drudge and Fox News and their newspapers and blogs. Ignore it when the
mainstream media amplifies them.

Ignore the daily talking points and the noise. Ignore the inevitable anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Ignore the horse race as their contenders jockey for position in 2012.

Ignore them all and just... govern.

If things go well on Tuesday, we'll have a Democrat in the White House and big Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. Even if we don't reach the magic number in the Senate, we can probably get 60 votes on major issues when we need them.

That means President Obama can set a bold, progressive agenda and Congress can pass it with little or no fuss.

Interesting. I think I should start an official rolling tally of the number of white liberal guys who have convinced themselves that conservatism and the GOP have died. Apparently, they mistakenly believe that the mere fact that the U.S. will likely elect a black Democratic president proves that left liberalism has swept the nation. For most of the year, I was one of the few liberals who questioned the popular view among liberals (especially academics) that electing Obama would represent a triumph over all manner of evil -- especially racism. The recent wave of liberal euphoria and political fantasies demonstrates that this contrarian conversation must continue and must get louder.

In many ways, Obama's victory would represent a symbolic advancement in race relations. And while I believe that symbols can inspire action, the fact that people agree on a symbol does not guarantee their unified political action (or any action at all). I just read a post on the blog Open Left which announces that a Field Poll shows Obama up by 22 in California. Despite this O-surge in the Bear State, Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative, has a strong chance of passing. This indicates to me that the blue revolution is largely an electoral victory, not a demand for comprehensive ideological changes.

The Democrats' probable victory results in large part from Bush/GOP exhaustion. Standing alone, it does not translate into the implementation of a leftist social or economic agenda, and it does not guarantee that a majority of the population would support such a platform. Berney's advice, if followed, would likely cause a 2010 repeat of the Newt Gingrich revolution that punished perceived liberal excess of the Clinton administration -- despite Clinton's fairly centrist (and even conservative) leanings. The liberal hype and gloating which gave us Gingrich pales in comparison to what is happening today.

More Progressives Question Liberals' Euphoria

I guess having your ideas validated provides an emotional boost -- even for staunch dissenters. Accordingly, I was pleasantly surprised to find this essay by Joshua Frank, a co-founder of the website Dissident Voice (I just added its feed -- see links in left column). Frank offers yet another wake-up call to liberals and progressives who seem seduced into believing that the Democrats' electoral success (as measured by pre-election polls) indicates that the country has slain social conservatism and that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid national government will usher in a dramatically egalitarian society that does not discriminate against gays and lesbians, contains no racially identifiable poverty, that fiercely combats sexism and patriarchy, and where economic justice rules. The essay has some rich moments, like this one, which make it a good read:

What makes the Democrats believe that they even deserve [progressives']
support now? President Bush has indeed been bad, but his most egregious policies
were upheld and supported by the majority of Democrats. They gave Bush the green
light to whack Saddam while they controlled the Senate. They supported the
PATRIOT Act (Obama voted for its reconfirmation), the War on Terror, Bush’s
increased Pentagon budget, a no-strings Wall Street bailout and two awful
Supreme Court confirmations. You may also remember that two years ago we ushered Democrats back into office with the belief that they might actually fight Bush on Iraq. Instead we’ve had nothing but complicity, with Democrats time
and again supporting increased war funds.

I hope I’m not alone in saying that we deserve more than lofty rhetoric about “action” and “hope.” We deserve a program for real progressive change — the kind Democrats and Barack Obama will not bring as long as we give them our unconditional support.

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

The most recent polls have shown increasing support among Californians for the passage of Proposition 8, which would amend the state's constitution and define marriage in heterosexual terms. Indeed, many gay rights advocates now fear that the initiative will pass, reversing a recent California Supreme Court ruling which holds that the prohibition of same-sex marriage denies equal protection to gays and lesbians.

In a recent blog post, I analyzed a California anti-gay group's effort to mobilize black opposition to same-sex marriage in order to strengthen support for the initiative. The organization believes that higher-than-normal black participation in the election, due to Obama's candidacy, could provide crucial votes for the measure. While this strategy cynically attempts to exploit homophobia among blacks in order to constitutionalize bigotry, the closeness of the vote shows that it might prove successful. Although I have not seen any recent polls which provide a racial breakdown of the support for Proposition 8, earlier studies have shown that in every state, blacks oppose same-sex marriage more than the general population.

The contentious California battle over same-sex marriage also demonstrates that, despite their renewed electoral power, Democrats remain divided over many issues. Although the potential for a Democratic sweep has caused many liberal commentators to opine about the "death" of social conservatism, California proves that their exuberance is misguided. Obama, like Democrats before him, will win California by a very large margin. Although U.S. culture often exaggerates the extent of California's liberalism, the state, by and large, is blue territory. And while Californians in the past have voted to prohibit affirmative action and bilingual education, it has been somewhat more progressive on issues of sexual orientation. The closeness of the polls on Proposition 8 suggest that Democrats, even in one of the bluer states, remain split over social issues.

If Californians reject same-sex marriage, this could indicate that voters there and in other parts of the country do not support issues they perceive as too liberal. Thus, the fight over Proposition 8 validates the concerns of some Democrats (myself included -- see this and this) who disagree with the idea that the party's electoral success proves that the country has shifted dramatically to the left and that social conservatism has become a relic of the past. Instead, Democrats have benefited from the ineptness of the Bush administration, the crisis in the economy (which is not completely the fault of Bush), and McCain's poorly run campaign.

Until Lehman Bros. collapsed, McCain and Obama were tied in most polls; some of them actually had McCain in the lead. The ensuing crisis on Wall Street caused many voters to shift to the Democratic ticket, following the same historical pattern of punishing the incumbent party for the nation's economic woes. The swing voters have turned to the Democrats to fix the economy -- not because they want them to implement a far left social agenda (just for the record, I consider myself far to the left of most Americans, including most Democrats). California's same-sex marriage debate should serve as a wake-up call for those liberals who continue to celebrate the defeat of U.S. conservatism.

If Obama wins, as most polls predict he will, and if Democrats expand their control in Congress, the party will have to govern a country that remains center/center-right. This will undoubtedly require compromise and caution. Many Democrats, however, have acted as if a new liberal utopia has arrived, now that we have slain the Bush-Cheney dragon. A sober assessment of the political landscape, however, tells a different story.

A Sober Look at a Democratic Sweep

(New York Times photo)

The prospect of a Democratic sweep in Novemember has both parties running madly. The Republicans fear this outcome, while the Democrats are salivating. In a prior blog post, I argued that even if the Democrats win the White House and expand their control in Congress, the political ideology of the country would prevent them from moving too far to the left (unlees they want a midterm rebellion).

Now, apparently sanity has captured other Democrats. The New York Times has published an article on the political constraints that would limit the Democrats, even if they controlled all of the national government. In particular, the presence of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress might preclude a wide ideological shift. The article quotes former Vice President Walter Mondale, who served in the Carter administration when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. Mondale discusses the difficulty of passing a liberal legislative agenda, even with Democratic dominance. The article does not report Carter's opinion on this matter, although presumably the reporter sought his opinion. It is worth a read, if merely for some balance during this time of melodrama.