cawacko
Well-known member
Interesting insight from Williams on the political battleground that is South Carolina and the fight for black votes. Williams also brings up what the Obama years have meant for blacks in South Carolina.
The Carolina Pander for Black Votes
Clinton and Sanders fight to own the Obama legacy, though it hasn’t improved most black lives
South Carolina is ground zero for the complicated, often ugly and visceral, racial politics that creep their way into presidential campaigns every four years.
In 2000 Republican dirty tricksters used push polling to spread a false rumor that Sen. John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. That same year Mr. McCain called the Confederate flag a “symbol of heritage,” saying it should be up to South Carolinians whether to display it on their statehouse grounds. He later apologized, admitting that he had compromised his principles in an effort to win the state’s primary.
In 2008, after Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Palmetto State, Bill Clinton seemed to suggest that it was only because of race: “ Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88.” Several weeks later Geraldine Ferraro, who backed Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, raised eyebrows. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she told a reporter. “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
This year’s South Carolina primary promises to be the canary in the coal mine for Democrats: Can Hillary hold black voters? Can Bernie steal them away? Mr. Sanders essentially tied Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, where 91% of Democratic caucusgoers were white. He then badly beat her in New Hampshire, where 93% of Democratic primary voters were white. Now South Carolina’s black voters—who made up more than half of turnout in the party’s 2008 primary—are all that stands between Mrs. Clinton and a campaign free fall.
So we are seeing black politicians, intellectuals, activists and media figures practically tripping over themselves to tell black voters how to use this moment of political leverage. The rush of endorsements from the black elite has inevitably led to charges that the candidates are pandering to black Americans. It has also led to a tussle over the mantle of the nation’s top black politician, President Obama.
Last Thursday’s debate between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders turned into an argument over who is closer to the president. To a political pragmatist this is perplexing. Black America has not done very well under President Obama by key measures: persistently high unemployment, high poverty rates, eroding income for the middle class.
For the past seven years Mr. Obama has appeared fearful of focusing policies on helping black Americans, out of concern that his critics might reduce him to “the black president” instead of the president of all Americans. Despite this intentional negligence, Mr. Obama retains a 90% approval rating among black Americans, almost solely because he is the iconic first black president.
Given the intense attacks from his political opponents in Congress, Mr. Obama’s excuse is understandable. Nonetheless, it has left black Americans without the help they hoped for when they gave him their votes in 2008 and 2012. So why are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders battling to claim that they are inheriting President Obama’s policy agenda? It has not delivered for black America—and Bernie and Hillary can’t claim their race as an excuse for inaction.
Mrs. Clinton, as the president’s former secretary of state, appears to be the natural choice for Mr. Obama to embrace. That has opened the door to the president’s black critics, who see in Mr. Sanders an opportunity to condemn both Hillary and the president. Here is where the discourse on race by black liberal elites goes through the looking glass into some tragic, nasty and counterproductive territory.
Prof. Cornel West, who had previously called Mr. Obama the first “niggerized” president and “a person who is afraid and intimidated when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy,” has endorsed Mr. Sanders and introduced him at rallies in South Carolina. “I love Brother Bernie,” Mr. West said last year. “He tells the truth about Wall Street. He really does.” About Mrs. Clinton, he said earlier this year that “the word integrity is not the first thing that comes to mind.”
Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, the foremost advocate of paying blacks for the wrongs of slavery, made waves on the far left this week by announcing that he will vote for Mr. Sanders. This despite the candidate’s opposition to reparations, which Mr. Coates condemned last month: “Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy,” he wrote at the Atlantic. “This is the ‘class first’ approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible.”
Mr. Coates makes the mistake of straying far from political reality. It is the same error committed by the Black Lives Matter protesters, who have disrupted Democratic primary events and even demanded that Mrs. Clinton apologize for the nation’s history of racism.
Yes, the effects of slavery and racial discrimination are still evident in the black community today. But talk of reparations and who is responsible for systemic racism is, at best, an abstraction. Alarmingly, there has been little debate about what actually would help the black community. Protesters are more interested in pie-in-the-sky proposals.
Last summer Mr. Sanders surrendered the microphone when angry young black activists rushed him onstage in Seattle. He immediately began to feature talk about racial injustice in his stump speeches. Lately he has been reminding black voters of his history as an organizer with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and how he marched on Washington with Martin Luther King Jr. Those efforts fell flat this week when Rep. John Lewis, who led the SNCC and marched with Dr. King, played down Mr. Sanders’s involvement by saying, “I never saw him. I never met him.”
For her part, Mrs. Clinton has gone miles from her most honest moment in dealing with the black activists who lack any agenda or understanding of how to produce economic and social progress in black America. It came in a defiant stand last summer, when she was pressed to admit the role she and her husband had played in perpetuating what the activists see as systemic racism in America.
“You can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are going to say, ‘We get it, we get it. We are going to be nicer,’ ” Mrs. Clinton replied. “That’s not enough, at least in my book.”
Yet now Mrs. Clinton is back in posturing mode, as Mr. Sanders draws closer in the polls. She is speaking loudly about black children being poisoned by contaminated drinking water in Flint. She has been campaigning with the mothers of Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, all killed in high-profile confrontations. The use of lethal force by police against young black men was arguably the impetus for the Black Lives Matter movement. With this emotionally charged tactic, Mrs. Clinton, a grandmother herself, is trying to consolidate her support in the African-American community, in South Carolina and nationally.
Meanwhile, the poverty rate for blacks in South Carolina is 28%, tied for the 12th highest in the nation, according to an analysis of Census Bureau figures by the Kaiser Family Foundation. How exactly does posturing and bickering among black elites or this academic discussion about reparations—a total political nonstarter—help poor black families in Charleston and Columbia? It doesn’t.
Only realistic, practicable solutions will help black families realize the American dream. Some ideas, like expanding school choice, demilitarizing the police and putting a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility, will appeal to conservatives. Others, like raising the minimum wage, investing in social-welfare programs and strengthening the Affordable Care Act, will appeal to liberals.
It’s no accident that all of this racially charged political venom is oozing out ahead of the Democratic contest in South Carolina. For seven years, discussion of concrete steps to create more economic and educational opportunity for black Americans was put on hold. The “fierce urgency of now,” to quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is leading the competition for the black vote because so many problems, from family breakdown to the dropout rate, have been unattended.
The real question is whether the politicians will still pay attention once the voting is done.
Mr. Williams, a political analyst for Fox News and columnist for the Hill, is the author of “We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers’ Vision of America,” forthcoming from Crown in April.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-carolina-pander-for-black-votes-1455318585
The Carolina Pander for Black Votes
Clinton and Sanders fight to own the Obama legacy, though it hasn’t improved most black lives
South Carolina is ground zero for the complicated, often ugly and visceral, racial politics that creep their way into presidential campaigns every four years.
In 2000 Republican dirty tricksters used push polling to spread a false rumor that Sen. John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child. That same year Mr. McCain called the Confederate flag a “symbol of heritage,” saying it should be up to South Carolinians whether to display it on their statehouse grounds. He later apologized, admitting that he had compromised his principles in an effort to win the state’s primary.
In 2008, after Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Palmetto State, Bill Clinton seemed to suggest that it was only because of race: “ Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88.” Several weeks later Geraldine Ferraro, who backed Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, raised eyebrows. “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she told a reporter. “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
This year’s South Carolina primary promises to be the canary in the coal mine for Democrats: Can Hillary hold black voters? Can Bernie steal them away? Mr. Sanders essentially tied Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, where 91% of Democratic caucusgoers were white. He then badly beat her in New Hampshire, where 93% of Democratic primary voters were white. Now South Carolina’s black voters—who made up more than half of turnout in the party’s 2008 primary—are all that stands between Mrs. Clinton and a campaign free fall.
So we are seeing black politicians, intellectuals, activists and media figures practically tripping over themselves to tell black voters how to use this moment of political leverage. The rush of endorsements from the black elite has inevitably led to charges that the candidates are pandering to black Americans. It has also led to a tussle over the mantle of the nation’s top black politician, President Obama.
Last Thursday’s debate between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders turned into an argument over who is closer to the president. To a political pragmatist this is perplexing. Black America has not done very well under President Obama by key measures: persistently high unemployment, high poverty rates, eroding income for the middle class.
For the past seven years Mr. Obama has appeared fearful of focusing policies on helping black Americans, out of concern that his critics might reduce him to “the black president” instead of the president of all Americans. Despite this intentional negligence, Mr. Obama retains a 90% approval rating among black Americans, almost solely because he is the iconic first black president.
Given the intense attacks from his political opponents in Congress, Mr. Obama’s excuse is understandable. Nonetheless, it has left black Americans without the help they hoped for when they gave him their votes in 2008 and 2012. So why are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders battling to claim that they are inheriting President Obama’s policy agenda? It has not delivered for black America—and Bernie and Hillary can’t claim their race as an excuse for inaction.
Mrs. Clinton, as the president’s former secretary of state, appears to be the natural choice for Mr. Obama to embrace. That has opened the door to the president’s black critics, who see in Mr. Sanders an opportunity to condemn both Hillary and the president. Here is where the discourse on race by black liberal elites goes through the looking glass into some tragic, nasty and counterproductive territory.
Prof. Cornel West, who had previously called Mr. Obama the first “niggerized” president and “a person who is afraid and intimidated when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy,” has endorsed Mr. Sanders and introduced him at rallies in South Carolina. “I love Brother Bernie,” Mr. West said last year. “He tells the truth about Wall Street. He really does.” About Mrs. Clinton, he said earlier this year that “the word integrity is not the first thing that comes to mind.”
Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates, the foremost advocate of paying blacks for the wrongs of slavery, made waves on the far left this week by announcing that he will vote for Mr. Sanders. This despite the candidate’s opposition to reparations, which Mr. Coates condemned last month: “Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy,” he wrote at the Atlantic. “This is the ‘class first’ approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible.”
Mr. Coates makes the mistake of straying far from political reality. It is the same error committed by the Black Lives Matter protesters, who have disrupted Democratic primary events and even demanded that Mrs. Clinton apologize for the nation’s history of racism.
Yes, the effects of slavery and racial discrimination are still evident in the black community today. But talk of reparations and who is responsible for systemic racism is, at best, an abstraction. Alarmingly, there has been little debate about what actually would help the black community. Protesters are more interested in pie-in-the-sky proposals.
Last summer Mr. Sanders surrendered the microphone when angry young black activists rushed him onstage in Seattle. He immediately began to feature talk about racial injustice in his stump speeches. Lately he has been reminding black voters of his history as an organizer with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and how he marched on Washington with Martin Luther King Jr. Those efforts fell flat this week when Rep. John Lewis, who led the SNCC and marched with Dr. King, played down Mr. Sanders’s involvement by saying, “I never saw him. I never met him.”
For her part, Mrs. Clinton has gone miles from her most honest moment in dealing with the black activists who lack any agenda or understanding of how to produce economic and social progress in black America. It came in a defiant stand last summer, when she was pressed to admit the role she and her husband had played in perpetuating what the activists see as systemic racism in America.
“You can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are going to say, ‘We get it, we get it. We are going to be nicer,’ ” Mrs. Clinton replied. “That’s not enough, at least in my book.”
Yet now Mrs. Clinton is back in posturing mode, as Mr. Sanders draws closer in the polls. She is speaking loudly about black children being poisoned by contaminated drinking water in Flint. She has been campaigning with the mothers of Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, all killed in high-profile confrontations. The use of lethal force by police against young black men was arguably the impetus for the Black Lives Matter movement. With this emotionally charged tactic, Mrs. Clinton, a grandmother herself, is trying to consolidate her support in the African-American community, in South Carolina and nationally.
Meanwhile, the poverty rate for blacks in South Carolina is 28%, tied for the 12th highest in the nation, according to an analysis of Census Bureau figures by the Kaiser Family Foundation. How exactly does posturing and bickering among black elites or this academic discussion about reparations—a total political nonstarter—help poor black families in Charleston and Columbia? It doesn’t.
Only realistic, practicable solutions will help black families realize the American dream. Some ideas, like expanding school choice, demilitarizing the police and putting a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility, will appeal to conservatives. Others, like raising the minimum wage, investing in social-welfare programs and strengthening the Affordable Care Act, will appeal to liberals.
It’s no accident that all of this racially charged political venom is oozing out ahead of the Democratic contest in South Carolina. For seven years, discussion of concrete steps to create more economic and educational opportunity for black Americans was put on hold. The “fierce urgency of now,” to quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is leading the competition for the black vote because so many problems, from family breakdown to the dropout rate, have been unattended.
The real question is whether the politicians will still pay attention once the voting is done.
Mr. Williams, a political analyst for Fox News and columnist for the Hill, is the author of “We the People: The Modern-Day Figures Who Have Reshaped and Affirmed the Founding Fathers’ Vision of America,” forthcoming from Crown in April.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-carolina-pander-for-black-votes-1455318585