The Limits of Race-Neutrality in American Politics

This Washington Post article by Peter Wallsten and Krissah Thompson reminds once again of the limits of race-neutrality, this time in American politics.  The point here is quite simple and not at all novel, where groups are positioned unequally in society "neutral" public policies will impact different groups differently. Depending upon the policy, it might improve the position of some groups, worsen the position of other groups, and have a truly neutral impact on some other groups.   Everybody understands this basic point, which is why all interest groups seek group-specific benefits and not neutral-measures.

This is also why the Obama position that he is the President of the whole country and not just African Americans never made any sense.  You can't ask me to vote for you but then ask me not to ask you for anything specific to my needs.  That is not consent of the governed.  There are limits to group-specific measures (moral, constitutional, political, etc.).  So, the point here is not that group-specific must always trump group-neutrality, but the public position of the Obama administration, no race-specific measures (or as Wallsten and Thompson put it, "race-avoidance strategy") was extreme.  In practice the Obama administration was willing to be race-specific as long as it could do so with little attention and visibility.

The truth is that race-neutral public policy measures--the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats, as a universal strategy, will not work for the black community.  We're not all in the same lake. It might marginally improve the black community's position in some contexts, but it will always leave them quite vulnerable at best.

So, here are two questions: (a) will the Obama administration offer specific race-based public policy measures aimed directly at improving the position of the black and latino communities? (b) will those communities settle for less for the symbolic benefits of reelecting the first black president?

Obama and Black Voters: Beginning of the End?

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart has this post about Representative Maxine Waters asking black voters at a job fair in Detroit the permission to put pressure on the President.  As reported by Capehart, Representative Waters said:

We don’t put pressure on the president. Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because y’all love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud . . . to have a black man [in the White House] . . . First time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us. . . . When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us, and you tell us you're ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation. . . . All I’m saying to you is, we’re politicians. We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.

Caphart reports that she received permission, at least from those at the jobs fair in Detroit.  The President has lost some support from the black community, but not too much.  Are black voters starting to take defect?  Is the high-profile criticisms of the President by Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley starting to soften the President's support in the black community?

UPDATE: See this article in Huffington Post.  There seems to be a concerted effort by black political leaders in Congress to be more vocal and public about their criticism of the President.  It might be that these leaders are feeling increasing pressure from their constituencies and thus pointing the finger at the President.  But this is definitely something to pay attention to.

Two From the Randy Kennedy Department: His New Book and Expelling Clarence Thomas from the Black Community

First, Professor Kennedy's new book, "The Persistence of the Colorline: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency," is out and has been reviewed in the NY Times here.  I can't wait to read it and after I do will post.

Second, Kennedy recently reviewed Toure's book at The Root.com here.  The most arresting paragraph of the review follows a discussion  of whether the black community should police the boundaries of belonging (determine for itself who is or who is not black to belong to the community).  Kennedy says yes and here is his example:

Some folks ought to have their racial credentials lifted. Consider Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- the most vilified black official in American history, a man whose very name has become synonymous with selling out. Many organizations, including scores of law schools, refuse to bestow any semblance of prestige or support through association with him. He is being massively boycotted. And like all boycotts, this one is coercive. It applies pressure to the target.
It also applies pressure to third parties, threatening with disapproval those who might cross the boycotters' picket line. The boycott of Thomas is largely monitored by blacks who detest his reactionary politics and rue his paradoxical success in exploiting black racial loyalism. Remember that but for his appeal for protection against a "high-tech lynching," he would probably have failed to win senatorial confirmation to the seat once occupied by Thurgood Marshall.
Is it right for blacks to cast Thomas from their communion? Is it appropriate to indict him for betrayal? These questions have arisen on numerous occasions. In confronting them now, I conclude that I have erred in the past. Previously I have criticized Thomas' performance as a jurist -- his complacent acceptance of policies that unjustly harm those tragically vulnerable to ingrained prejudices; his naked Republican Party parochialism; and his proud, Palinesque ignorance. But I have also chastised those who labeled him a sellout.
I was a sap. Blacks should ostracize Thomas as persona non grata. Despite his parentage, physiognomy and racial self-identification, he ought to be put outside of respectful affiliation with black folk because of his indifference or hostility to their collective condition. His conduct has been so hurtful to and antagonistic toward the black American community that he ought to be expelled from membership in it.

 This is a tough call for me.  First, is Clarence Thomas the most vilified black official in American history?  Hmm.  Is Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence so outrageous that he should be shunned?  If we boycott Thomas why not boycott Scalia and Roberts?  Should we boycott Thomas because as a black man he ought to know better?  Does that mean that Scalia and Roberts get a free pass.  Randall Kennedy is one of my intellectual role models, but I am not convinced on this one.

African Americans Still Support Obama but Less Enthusiastically

Apropos this post, CNN has a new poll showing that 9 out of 10 Blacks support the President.  But they are less enthusiastic supporters than they were a year ago.