I used read about the ostracism of black Republicans with a great deal of skepticism. When I would hear them applauded for standing up for Republican values in the face of black opposition, sometimes called racist, I would poo on that. How could anyone dare suggest that being a black Republican in black Democratic territory was as dangerous to blackfolks as being black in white territory? Perish the thought.
That thought doesn't perish. As crusty as I am getting in my age, I'm certainly a whole lot more sensitive to this than I had been in the past, not simply because I myself am Republican but for the sakes of others not quite as hardheaded as I. Today held an object lesson in that.
I rejoined the fray at the NAPA meeting this morning where James A. Spencer , a businessman from Inglewood and new friend, was the man on the spot. He has just won the primary to represent the Republican challenger for the 25th State Senatorial District, which includes, Inglewood, Palos Verdes, Hawthorne and several other communities. While I had promised to spend a bit more time in the old 'hood through my participation in the National Alliance for Positive Action, I've scaled back on that for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, I couldn't miss this opportunity to speak and hear what's spoken about the resurgence of Republicanism in blacks in LA. This is as good a referendum as any. The seat, currently held by Ed Vincent, former multi-term mayor of Inglewood and full-time pol, is now challenged by another black man. Spencer plans to throw the bum out. Of course, he'll have to convince voters and he got his first chance today to answer the perennial question:
How can you be a black Republican?
I think Spencer handled himself well and has begun to bridge the gap between talking strictly in the abstract and dealing with policy and political dollars. His focus is on local politics. Some of the members of the audience wanted him to go to Haiti. Some members of the audience's first words out of their mouths was George Bush. Others wanted to talk about Iraq, Clinton, Trent Lott, The Federalist Papers and just about everything but the 25th State Senatorial District. That figures because most of us wouldn't recognize the shape of it if we saw it on a map.
"This is what you ought to be about." is what I keep hearing. The double standards and prejudices are clear. To be a black republican, or anything not taken for granted as black, there are certain litmus tests presented. It's not catastrophic and nobody is going to lose any sleep over here, but what I saw and what I think it's reasonable to expect from black audiences is no benefit of the doubt. That's not much of a hurdle to overcome, but it certainly is disrespectful.
I look forward to the at large election which will determine the fate of Spencer in his contest against Vincent. The new dynamic is afoot.
Spencer promises to stay in touch with the community. He wants to reduce the time of all legislators spent in Sacramento. Too much time to debate, he thinks. Not enough time spent with the people. His priorities are Economic Development. Every dollar that comes into the community should have 50 cents go to local labor. His second priority is 'mis'Education, and his third is gang intervention.
UPDATE: Arnold is talking about this same part-time legislature idea.
Posted by mbowen at March 20, 2004 02:48 PM | TrackBackHe was talking about the 13 billion dollar education bond measure (R I believe) that had just passed in the same election. When it means construction contracts for schools, he is adamant about making sure that some of the current gangbangers are called ex-gangbangers now construction contractors.
He easily got everyone in the room to agree that the public schools were a mess, and he asks, when the 25th district is 61% registered Democrat and now run by a Democrat, why blame Republicans? The answer from the crowd, when not muted mutterings had something to do with because Trent Lott said he wants to go back to Jim Crow or well, we're already signed up to work for Kerry.
Spencer, to his credit brings up the matter of term limits. What black politicians have been able to do successfully is move from city council, to school board, to state assembly, to state senate, to county offices, etc etc. The black Democrats are, by and large, career politicians, and it was something of a miracle that Nate Holden wasn't elected this time around. He's been around since I was in highschool.
Black Republicans are running against Black Democrat incumbents. It's a new day.
Posted by: Cobb at March 21, 2004 06:52 PMI think that your response points out the most important things, Michael: politicians, of any party, need to do a better job of framing the issues and moving away from some concept of lock-step, mindless affiliation with a party. Your Republican guy as a ways to go, in my opinion.
For example, I think he is moving in the right direction when outlining problems with schools. If the communities agree, that is obviously a point where he can put a stake in the ground and challenge the incombent to respond or better.
If, however, he takes a defensive stance and raises the point that the district is mostly Democrats and the elected official is a Democrat so why blame the Republicans, he is falling back into the same trap. Plus, based on what was presented, it is still not clear which Parties policies are responsible for poor public schools.
If this area of LA is typical of places around the Country, the Republicans are more in favor of vouchers and other means of paying for education outside the traditional public schools and less prone to make the investments necessary to change the public schools. (And, of course, some of the ills of the public schools are associated with a kind of paternalism that is often associated with Democrats.) Given the real scenario, I don't think either party's platforms are worth shouting about. That means it comes down to specifics of the candidates and not the party machines.
The economic development question is a classic: however, you mentioned labor in your original post and it is significant to understand that Contractors getting the jobs do not necessarily mean labor provided by targeted local citizens.
On the surface, who would not like to see individuals move from gang-banging to productive societal roles and entrepreneural effots? That is not a Republican or Democrat platform difference.
So where does the gangbanger start? At the top with ownership of the construction contractor business or as a laborer? For my money, I would want to see programs that focussed on the "soldiers" and moved them into the labor markets. This would include skills education that prepares them for productive work and moving up the chain.
I don't know if I'd favor a policy that was centered on preparing gangbanger leaders for leadership and ownership of construction companies. There seems to be a great deal of risk in that sort of venture (think Mafia in certain industries and unions).
Finally, term limits: self-serving for challengers to bring up term limits; I'd much rather build a sophisticated electorate who decided, based on analysis of the issues, who should represent them. I care less if the guy has been around for 30 years: is he doing the job? Does he have the juice?
Posted by: Ward Bell at March 22, 2004 08:48 AMExcellant guys,politics 101,therin lies a primer for urban renewal.Definition of isanity ;doing things the same way but expecting different results
tootsie
His direction was clear although his program was not. Right now all he has to do is grab votes, and it's hard to know how specific he needs to be. Spencer is promising to take the people with him to Sacramento. His watchword is Accountability, and that's a refreshing thing to hear. So that's where my interest is.
When he talks about gangs, he says he doesn't even want to use the term 'gangbanger'. He calls them 'miseducated youth' and his number two priority is to improve the quality of education in his district. Vouchers never came up in the conversation, nor did much else specific about his program, which was much of my point. People were so freaked out about him being a black Republican that he had this extra barrier to jump.
He also spoke about being a charter member of his Neighborhood Watch and that he lives in a place where he can trust his neighbors when he goes away on business. He wants to extend that kind of trust. He's not getting it because he's Republican.
Posted by: cobb at March 22, 2004 10:10 AMWe've come back to the start: apparently, the audience was not politically sophisticated; it could not discern whether the brother had their best interests in mind.
I don't really put it all at the feet of the electorate: the brother has to lay out his program so clear and so tight that the naysayers cannot find an opening.
"Benefit of the doubt?" Hell, no. You have to earn respect and trust if you want the votes. A bit of a catch 22, but that is how it is when you declare your party affiliation and it doesn't happen to be the one that folks respond positively to -- today.
Maybe the strategy is to run as an independent?
Posted by: Ward Bell at March 22, 2004 02:02 PM
Maybe the question Lester raises about "political sophistication" comes into play in the context of this issue? Is the lack of benefit of the doubt a sign of a lack of political sophistication? Or is it something else?
In the over-arching scheme of things, would the average citizen of the 25th benefit more from the election of the Republican than the re-election of the Democrat?
I'm not certain that I understand the stance on Economic Development: from where do the dollars come that he is talking about and of that stream, how many now are earmarked for local labor? Where should the other 50 cents go?
Posted by: Ward Bell at March 20, 2004 09:42 PM