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?

Gangsta, Minstrel, & House Negro: Race and Obama's Critics on the Left

An observation on the racialized critique of the President from those on the left.  The new left fashion is bashing President Obama, see here, here and here.  It is still two long years away from 2012 and many in the President's own party have started writing him off.  My crystal ball is not working today, so I can't say what will happen in 2012. If I were a betting man, I would bet on the President.  After all, the man did pull the country back from the brink of financial disaster, not to mention other significant accomplishments such as the historic healthcare bill.  And until a serious Republican challenger emerges, Chris Christie?, the odds should favor the Obamas holding on to their current abode for a another four years.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the President and many of us would not be honest if we did not engage in good faith criticism of the President.  But some of the criticisms of President, and I mean to single-out the recent criticism from the left, have a particular racial tincture to them that leaves me quite uncomfortable. These types of critiques rely upon certain familiar racial tropes: the gangsta or thug, the minstrel, and the house negro.  An example of the thug is from comedian Bill Maher's explicitly racial critique, where he complains that the President should be a real black man and start shooting up people.  Recently, Maher followed up his early critique with the following:

"I thought, when we elected the first black president, as a comedian, I thought two years in, I'd be making jokes about what a gangsta he was, you know?" Maher said. Instead, Maher said we've got "President Wayne Brady."

For Bill Maher, Suge Knight is his vision of who Obama should be.  Interestingly, his vision of Obama is actually another racial stereotype, that of the black jester, the minstrel.  While few critics have been as explicitly racial as Maher, many of the left criticisms implicitly rely upon the gangsta/minstrel stereotype: We expected a black gangsta as a President, instead of we got an effete shuckin' and jivin' president.

There is another set of criticism that is less overtly racial but perhaps just as troubling.  In this set of criticisms the President is chided for not being sufficiently progressive.  These writers tend to talk down to the President as if he's a schoolboy who did not learn his lesson.  They remind him that the only reason that he is the first black president is because of them and their good graces.  Otherwise, he'd be another Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.  The President is not viewed as the pragmatic politician/scholar that he is, but like a house negro.  These folks are constantly reminding the President that if he does not behave, they'll return him to the field.

The house negro is both good negro and servant.  You expect the house negro to be a grateful negro because he knows (or should know) that your good grace is the only thing that preventing him from being a field negro.  And if the house negro ever gets out of line, your remind him that he is one step away from the field.  You expect the field negro to lead the revolt, but you expect the house negro to be docile and obedient.

If these critics were coming from the right, many of these same folks would be crying racism because it would politically expedient to do so.  I'm not ready to cry racism, but some of the President's critics need to be more thoughtful; their racial bias is showing.

From the Left: What the Shirley Sherrod Controversy Portends for the Obama Administration on Race

I have nothing to add to the Shirley Sherrod controversy--the African American woman who was unjustly fired from her USDA job and condemned by almost everyone as a consequence of right-wing race-baiting. This courageous and innocent woman has been offered her job back.  Though I don't know that she can ever be made whole for what we have put her through in the last 24 hours.  I do want to explore very briefly what this controversy could mean for the Obama Administration's relationship with black voters, who as everyone knows are stalwarts in this Administration.

If you have not read The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates's strong rebuke of the Administration for its alleged role in bringing about the firing of Ms. Sherrod, you should do so here.  The Obama Administration is increasingly getting push back from black leaders and black intellectuals on the way the Administration handles race and racial equality issues.  I think some of that push back has been unfair because the Administration is in a difficult position and has done a lot, particularly behind the scenes, to promote policies and hire individuals that racial progressives should support.  But sometimes that push back has been warranted as the Administration sometimes appears to be deaf to the needs of communities of color.

So far, I think criticism of the Administration on race from the left has been politically ineffectual. Specifically, the average black person remains a fierce supporter of the President and could not be bothered by the chatter of black elites.  Knowing this, the White House can afford to ignore the critics.  Nevertheless, events such as the Shirley Sherrod controversy, are precisely the types of narratives that will resonate with the black electorate.  If black people feel that innocent hardworking black folks are being sold down the river aided and abetted by the White House they will revolt.  If the President loses the black electorate, the Administration is lost.

I'm sure the White House understands this, which is why we saw that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs apologized to Ms. Sherrod and Ag Sec Vilsack rescinded her firing.  Moreover, they will keep the President as far away from this controversy as possible.  But this story represents a leak in the dam; it may be a small leak, but it is a leak.  It will make it that much harder for the White House to ignore the concerns of racial progressives and it will make the criticisms of black elites that much more effective.

The Obama Presidency as an Extension of the Clinton Presidency?

One of the main arguments in favor of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton when both were competing for the Democratic nomination was that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an extension of the Bill Clinton era, which Obama argued of course, as a negative.  Indeed, some might recall the brouhaha caused by Obama when he suggested that Ronald Reagan was a greater president than Bill Clinton because Reagan transformed the country and Bill Clinton did not.  In addition, though the Obama folks were quite skillful about this, they also suggested that the Clinton presidency was too centrist, that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be similarly centrist and not transformative in a progressive direction, which an Obama presidency would surely be.

As it turns out, the Obama presidency is developing into a centrist affair (I offer this not as judgment but description).  As it also turns out, some are starting to see the Obama presidency as continuous with the Clinton presidency--at least on foreign affairs.  Further, it seems that Bill Clinton himself has been playing an important role in defining the Obama presidency (see here).  And of course, there's the central role that Bill Clinton has played in l'affaire Sestak.  (See here and here.)  Would it not be ironic (deliciously so one suspects for Hillary Clinton supporters), if the Obama presidency becomes truly defined by Bill Clinton and the Clinton presidency?

What Does Obama's Sagging Poll Numbers Mean

The current slippage in the polls is turbulence or more likely a shot across the bow. Bush I and Carter had higher poll numbers at this stage than Obama and we know how they ended up. It is clearly not time to panic but seatbelts should be securely fastened.



The polls are more immediately significant because they are providing the Republicans with both the moxie and more importantly a message for taking on the President. If you're a Democrat would you rather have the Republicans talking about the deficit and the President's "experiment" with our healthcare system or would you rather that they drone on and on about Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment. Would you rather the media focus on Palin's next step or about the public's growing lack of confidence in the Administration's plans for the economy? Where's Rush Limbaugh?

Further, moderate Democrats are now more emboldened to take on the Democratic leadership as well as the administration. If you're a House Democrat in a conservative district you can't count on the President to save you when the polls show that independents are at best split on his policies and even conservative Democrats are starting to abandon him.

The slipping polls are a tax on the President and his administration. He may have to bargain more with the conservatives in his own party. He has to use the bully pulpit more and use up more of his personal capital. He is being forced in a very public way to take ownership of his policies.He may have to trim the ambition of his agenda.

I continue to believe that the President will ultimately be judged on the success or failure of his economic policies. Given that he has been in office for less than six months, he should be given a better chance to prove himself. But this a negative data point and a warning that should be given at least some attention.

Bias in Political Analysis

Ben Smith over at Politico is reporting that Richard Wolffe, the former Newsweek reporter, was given special access by the Obama campaign so that Wolffe could write a book about the campaign. Apparently, this special access was given in return for soft reporting by Wolffe. I don't mind Wolffe or any other reporter having special access to a campaign or president in return for soft coverage as long as the arrangement is disclosed. Mr. Wolffe appeared on MSNBC throughout the campaign and on the pages of Newsweek as an independent analysis but as it turned out, he was far from independent.

Smith is reporting that Wolffe is getting grief for his former pals for holding out on them by saving most (or the best?) of the materials for his book instead of publishing it in Newsweek, which apparently was financing his research. But so far no one is giving Wolffe grief for pretending to be an objective commentator when he was a party to a tacit or explicit quid pro quo--access for soft coverage. Again, I'm not objecting to the arrangement--and apparently this is not at all unusual. However, I think journalists have an obligation to disclose those arrangements so that we the readers and viewers can judge for ourselves as best as we can. When they don't disclose, we should punish them.

Latin@ Justice

This morning, President Obama nominated judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.  And as expected, the blogosphere is abuzz with the choice.  We know much about her story: a newyorican who went to Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former federal prosecutor first appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush.  But the points of agreement end there.  To the critics, she is a judicial activist, incompetent, and unworthy of the nomination; supporters on the left disagree with these attacks.

I do not know enough about Judge Sotomayor and her time on the bench to form an opinion about her judicial temperament or to take guesses about what kind of justice she might be.  But I am glad that President Obama nominated not only a woman, but a woman of color. It is about time.

In thinking about this nomination, I am reminded of Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation hearing, where he analogized the role of the judge to the role of an umpire.  As the nominee explained to the Senate Judiciary committee, “My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” No question, this is what judges should do, what we should expect them to do.  But to say that a justice is no more than an umpire is not to say that all umpires are the same.  As any keen baseball observer will attest, not all umpires are created equal.  When calling balls and strikes, for example, each umpire calls the game differently.  In fact, the strike zone itself is not an objective area, enforced equally by all umpires; rather, the strike zone changes from one umpire to the next, from one batter to another.  Some have broad strike zones; some have narrow ones.

The implication of the analogy should be clear.  As we look ahead to the work of the Court, it should be clear that different voices and perspectives should be represented.  This term alone the Court will decide the scope of two important civil rights statutes, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Could anyone familiar with these landmark laws really argue that the justices will decide these cases on the basis of anything other than ideology and their strategic calculations about how best to see their policy preferences reflected in law? That is, does anybody really – no, really – believe that judicial activism is reserved only for liberal judges? 

Critics usually respond by placing merit and color consciousness in opposition.  That is, Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the Court because she is a Latina and no other reason.  But this argument makes me wonder whether these critics have taken a look at the current composition of the Court, or at past justices.  Just curious: absent the Miers and Carswell nominations, I can’t think of many other instances in modern times when white nominees have been attacked similarly.  Why is it that, knowing very little else, critics assume that a Latina nominee owes her accomplishments to her race and not her hard work and intellect?

After 240 years and 110 justices, the Supreme Court might finally welcome its first Latin@ amongst its members.  For those keeping score at home, this would make it two Blacks justices, three women justices, and one Latin@ justice.  I can only hope there will be many more to come.  About time indeed.