"Will Democrats Put Blacks on Ice in ’04?": A New View from Northstar

Norhtstar offers another take on the Black vote in 2004. Some of the points are those that were raised earlier by Professor Walters (discussed here). The Northstar editorial grapples direclty with the Party's politics and direction, challenges the DLC, and suggets some unconventional tactics for getting the concerns of Black voters to be seriously addressed by the Party:

Knowing this Black Democrats may have to use the primaries to signal more than their preference for a particular candidate but to also serve notice on the party that their concerns must be at the top of the party’s agenda. This could be done in dramatic fashion by targeting support for Sharpton, Braun or an alternative such as Gov. Dean. It could also be achieved by forcing the candidates to go on record with their positions on key issues such as judicial appointments, sentencing guidelines, health care reform, aid to Africa, and urban environmental policy. And the place to make such a stand is in Iowa or New Hampshire, early enough in the primary calendar so as to afford the candidates little time to waffle heading into the home stretch. Without taking an aggressive posture, Black Democrats may find themselves in the position of casting ballots for a winning candidate in November 2004 who will be hard to distinguish from the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Well, there are many points of controversy raised in the article, which we can debate. The reason I'm posting it is that it contributes a new spin to the general discussion that's been going on about the disaffection/disenfranchisement of Black voters.

What do you think?

And the candidate who has the best chance at beating Bush will win the nomination. Different skin color but same mindset. Send Bush back to Texas.

One way to tell is voting record. Deeds vs rhetoric.

NAACP scorecard


Senator John Edwards (NC) 94% (A)
Congressman Richard Gephardt (MO) 89% (B)
Senator Robert Graham (FL) 97% (A)
Senator John Kerry (MA) 100% (A)
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (OH) 89% (B)
Senator Joe Lieberman (CT) 94% (A)

I dare say the "current occupant" isn't even close!

...and I do think that whomever is the nominee needs to take some serious steps to heal rifts and demonstrate a difference. Not token appointments with no influence, or the wrong influence, but real changes, real power...

the NAACP scorecard is based on votes that were brought before the Congress. How many Black Senators do we have in the current Congress? I.e., if the candidates aren't challenged, who's to say how they'll govern?

Northstar's view of Clinton is not one I completely share. I'd point to bea stats on the growth of the Black middle class and narrowing of the economic disparities between Whites and Blacks. And general sentiment in the late 90s. However, those gains are proving to be short-lived, and when you consider the ways the Clinton Presidency (and the Gingrich Congress was a factor, let's be fair) negatively impacted Black communities, well, you can see how some people think they got a pig in a poke, and don't want to fall for that again.

So at this stage I don't think it's the wisest strategy for Dems to try to convince Black voters that they have already earned their support. come what may. There are pressing concerns to be addressed, and I don't see anything wrong with trying to get the candidates to take positions on those.

On edit: Typos

It tickles me that you feel that the Clinton presidency negatively impacted black communities and that it caused black folks to have some sort of problem.

I have yet to met a black person (who wasn't GOP) who doesn't like Bill Clinton. They'd vote for him again. And they voted for Al Gore overwhelmingly.

unless you qualify it, as I did.

I was saying you could see how some people could see it that way. To be fair and honest, there are positive and negative aspects to any government, including Bill Clinton's.

Do you think the growth in the prinson industrial complex is not some sort of problem for Black folks? Do you think voter disenfranchisement is not some sort of problem? Well, we can point fingers and Jeb and Harris and the Shrub, but the truth is that nationally rates of incarceration grew under Clinton, and it's common knowledge now as it has been for many, many years that Blacks have been disproportainately locked up. Considering the 2000 outcome, there is a lot of disappointment in Gore, in the Congress, and in the Party. Braun, Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton have made an issue of disenfranchisement, and Sharpton's the one clearly parlaying outrage into potential votes. He's so good at it, I dare say, there are millions of people who have no idea that he's not the only candidate making it an issue.

So I do think it's becoming apparent that not every Black liberal/progressive/always-voted-for-a-Democrat Democrat is still in love with Clinton. To quote Northstar:

"It is no secret that centrist Democrats, mainly from the Democratic Leadership Council, would like to keep Blacks, and their issues, hidden from view in order to go after white, suburban voters or “Reagan Democrats.” This strategy was perfected during the Clinton administration when symbolic and sentimental appeals were made to secure Black votes while the floor was yanked beneath Black Americans."

"When the pixie dust of the Clinton years finally loses its hypnotic effect on Black Democrats the realization will set in that white liberals and white conservatives have been peeking from the same closet."

As *I* said, I don't fully agree with that negative assessment of Clinton, but I do see the reasons some people see it that way.

.

Preferably a woman.

Is this some sort of twisted Ice Capades revue?

In this day and age it seems disingenuous to assume all blacks vote alike, any more than all christians vote alike, or all Episcopalians

Oh wait....they do.

Nevermind.

The Insane Clown Posse On Ice Review!

What do they mean by 'on ice?'
It sounds like the clever strategy suggested
is to follow what is in their own best interest.
I say go for it. Democracy begins at home
and all Americans deserve a deal at least as good as what Bush is trying to buy of Iraqis with.

I cannot help but think the Dennis Kucinich's message will
resonate with all working class families, regardless of race.

It really gets my goat to see that a presumably black fellow is espousing things like "Black Democrats may find themselves in the position of casting ballots for a winning candidate in November 2004 who will be hard to distinguish from the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

Oh YES! Dennis Kucinich, just like Bush. John Kerry, his politics are just like Bush's. WTF?

Seems to me that this guy a)assumes all black voters are liberals, and b)need to send some "message" to the Democratic party--which will be okay, you understand, because according to him the Dem is indistinguishable from Bush.

Which is a crock.

Black people are not stupid, geez, and frankly both articles get on my nerves. First the suggestion that MB and Sharpton co-opt each other, and now this one urging black voters to support black candidates, or Howard Dean (and not DK, which is kind of funny, considering how centrist Dean is, which leads me to question this guy's knowledge of things) in order to force behavior from other candidates.

because you're raising some good issues.

Why Dean? To speculate, because he's the so-called insurgent, because he's polling well enough to have a chance at recieving the nomination, because he's been raising a few issues like racial profiling that the other "top tier" White men haven't wanted to touch, because he has a shot in D.C. Or because the DLC has been out to get Dean, and in that context a Dean vote may be understood as anti-DLC and pro big D Democrat.

Why not DK? Well, that's the big question for progressives of all races, isn't it? I agree, the writer is either showing some ignorance, or just capitulating to the way things are (tm). It should be argued and not presumed.

The point about being aggressive in asking questions of esp. the front runners in Iowa and New Hampshire is to get them on record before they have a chance to veer White and totally ignore the leading concerns of Black voters. Such questioning might reveal, for example, that Kerry is miles ahead of Lieberman. But it might not. And if you can't distinguish Kerry from Lieberman on the issues cited by this writer, well, then, it would be hard to make the case that Kerry was easy to distinguish from Bush. Not impossible, but hard. That's the point in asking.

We, you and I and fellow DUers, we probably know the Dems' positions better than this writer, but what about the issues raised? Do you repudiate those? Because in a lot of ways it could just be a matter of perspective, where the glaring differences we see between the candidates aren't so visible to everyday people. And the Party itself, you have to admit, with the way it treats D.C. vs. New Hampshire and Iowa, is not doing to much to shine the spotlight on the concerns of Black voters, particularily in urban areas, which is an aspect of the campaign and DLC strategy that was mentioned.

Only kind of though. It really depends on which day you ask me.

I don't think there are magic special black people buttons that a candidate must push in order to say 'Hey black people, I care about you'. Issues for black people are basically the same as for everyone else--as Northstar even said, I mean, healthcare, stuff like that, not exactly 'black issues'.

BUT--
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to hire some black staffers, meet with black leaders, have town hall meetings in black neighborhoods, etc.

today ;)

funny how reasonable views don't make the headlines

the current leadership of that party has apparently decided that african americans, liberals and other such who have traditionally voted solidly democratic will continue to do so. This is a rather serious misconception on their part. The same sort of wrongheaded assumption that has led From, McAuliffe and company to pursue corporate support, as if the major corporate donors are not very aware that their future lies solidly with the GOP.

Things change, that is the only constant in the universe and ,as the left and the african american are continually ignored or taken for granted as the democrats become increasingly indistinguishable from moderate republicans, the desertion of these voters becomes more and more likely. We already see leftists, though for now mostly white, leaving the party in favor of registering Independant or Green. What is taken for granted is often lost through inattention. Sort of like our democracy.