Vision Circle

Ah. I had bookmarked the other discussion, and saw it before this, or I would have commented here. I learn. I now bookmark www.visioncircle.org. Thanks for the introduction.

So if we're to switch threads, here's the question from the other one: why does there seem to be no centrist black candidates? Why can we name the black equivalent of Pat Buchanan, but we cannot name the black equivalent of Bill Clinton?

Right off the top, I doubt that we agree on what constitutes a black Pat Buchanan. Care to offer a few examples so that I understand what you're saying?

As far as centrist black candidates, the majority of the CBC is centrist. Let's take Harold Ford Jr and the Rev. Emmanuel Cleaver II as exemplars - you tell me what's not to like about the centrism of either congressman and perhaps we can get to brass tacks.

At the end of the day, I stand by my original assertion. Attractive black candidates abound. America is simply too mentally ill to embrace them. Unless America evolves its collective psyche to the point where it can embrace a black embodiment of its collective political will, imo - it will surely fail to accomplish the global economic hat trick required to sustain its way of life. China, India, and the EU are each bucking for the crown of global hegemon. The rest of the planet is starting to hate America - not for its freedoms, but for its violent, arrogant, and hypocritical rough gangsterism - the clock is ticking and we don't have the wherewithal to whip everybody...,

Right off the top, I doubt that we agree on what constitutes a black Pat Buchanan. Care to offer a few examples so that I understand what you're saying?>/i>

Alan Keyes. Understand, I'm inclined to like black conservatives. But I think this guy represents what I like least about the usual Republican agenda. Just like Pat Buchanan does.

Let's take Harold Ford Jr and the Rev. Emmanuel Cleaver II as exemplars - you tell me what's not to like about the centrism of either congressman and perhaps we can get to brass tacks.

Ok. They're both centrists, in the sense that they're not radicals; neither one is really far from what you'd call "mainstream Democrat". However, by purusing his positions, I'd line Cleaver up with Hillary Clinton rather than Bill.

Ford is more identifiably centrist, in the Clintonian sense of centrist. Do you know, cnulan, if he was elected from a "black district"? Indeed, he seems quite electable from a mixed or even largely white district. It would appear he's only 34.

Would we expect him to assert some leadership over the Democratic party? He'd be far more attractive than Sharpton & Moore.

Alan Keyes. Understand, I'm inclined to like black conservatives. But I think this guy represents what I like least about the usual Republican agenda. Just like Pat Buchanan does.

and what precisely is that? What do you dislike about the usual Republican agenda?

Personally, I find the usual republican effort to court and mollify the demographic heirs of the southern strategy exceedingly distasteful. For me, this fact alone makes the GOP a non-starter. Any group embracing the likes of the Conservative Citizens Council, Dominionist Churches, and a host of other highly dubious knuckle-dragging elements is simply DOA.

Judging from your silence on this point, I'm beginning to question whether you believe these folks, their history, and degenerate effect on the climate of American consciousness is unsuitable at all? P6 has a parable of sorts in which blacks are responsible for the evolution of whites. The unfortunate fact of human psychological evolution is that you can only take a horse to water...,

I'm interested in your use of the term "radical". What is a radical? Given my penchant for questioning the sanity and normalcy of the imaginally, racially titillated American mainstream, my rejection of just-so storytelling and expedient doublespeak, where on your political spectrum do my expressions fall?

Last I knew, neither Sharpton or Moore exert any *leadership* over the democratic party. Former Gov. Howard Dean seems to be shaping up as a different matter altogether. Do you find Dr. Dean non-mainstream? If so, why? What position has he taken that you find at odds with your understanding of reality?

For the 3rd and final time DW, I'll state my contention that the challenge for the American mainstream is not one of finding a black candidate who maps to its unconscious propensities, rather, it's one of becoming sufficiently collectively self-aware that existing highly mainstream politicians won't have to dissimulate in order to be attractive, and mainstream black politicians won't have to be dissimulative contortionists.

What do you dislike about the usual Republican agenda?

Anti-abortion, anti-gay, tending toward theocratic analysis.

Judging from your silence on this point, I'm beginning to question whether you believe these folks, their history, and degenerate effect on the climate of American consciousness is unsuitable at all?

If by "Southern Strategy", you mean the conversion of anti-integration white politicians to the Republican party ca 1970, I find it the least proud behavior of modern Republicans.

If you mean you see it today, well I don't see it so clear. I asked you which Republican was the worst, and you nominated GW Bush. You made this Southern Strategy accusation, but the only example you supplied was "gerrymandering". We discussed gerrymandering later, and I don't find it part of any "Southern Strategy". I find it part of a "pro-incumbent" strategy, and I find it part of a political game played by both sides to isolate concentrations of Republicans or Democrats away from tight districts.

But I'm patient. I don't know exactly what your evidence is for some contemporary Southern Strategy, maybe it's more than gerrymandering.

I'm interested in your use of the term "radical". What is a radical?

Barbara Lee is a radical. Ron Dellums was a radical.

where on your political spectrum do my expressions fall?

You're not simplistic, or if you are, you're not given to simplistic expression of your political views. I haven't, um, located you as yet. How would you describe yourself?

Howard Dean is "far left", but not irrationally so. He's totally unelectable to national office.

I'll state my contention that the challenge for the American mainstream is not one of finding a black candidate who maps to its unconscious propensities

The American mainstream is resistant to being challenged. They basically don't care. They like what they like, and don't like what they don't like, and they feel no pressure to change. Change is caused by people looking to cause such change. Sometimes they succeed.

There does exist a dichotomy. Should the mainstream come to black politicans, or should black politicians come to the mainstream? What we observed was 125 years of the former, in fits and starts to be sure, but this seems to be changing, or at least to have plateaued in a major way.

Finally, a debate I have with Libertarians. Should a candidate vote her conscience, or should a candidate vote for what the people she represents. The problem is that Libertarians are as unelectable as Communists. They say things that most people consider weird. My suggestion to such people, people I agree with on most issues, is to accept that if you're going to represent some body of people, you need to actually represent them. If you're representing Idaho you'd better vote against gun control, regardless of your consicience. This isn't contortion. We don't expect the politician to have no personal views at all, but on at least most major issues, that candidate must appeal to the electorate, or she simply won't be elected in the first place.

I posted earlier, but it got lost. Maybe if you take your time composing, you get logged out.

and what precisely is that? What do you dislike about the usual Republican agenda?

Anti-gay, anti-abortion, and a theocratic analysis.

Judging from your silence on this point, I'm beginning to question whether you believe these folks, their history, and degenerate effect on the climate of American consciousness is unsuitable at all?

You believe things about Republicans cnulan that I haven't seen the evidence for. When asked to name the worst, you nominanted GW Bush, based on your perception that he supports the "Southern Strategy". As evidence for that, you offered gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is part of the political game played by both parties; I don't see where it has much to do with the Southern Strategy.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that the "Southern Strategy" ever was part of the platform of the Republican Party. Like the Democrats, the Republicans will take pretty much anyone willing to call himself a Republican. During the civil rights era, indeed some southern Democrats changed to Republican. To their supreme discredit, the Republican party didn't look too close at these new supporters.

I'm interested in your use of the term "radical". What is a radical?

Barbara Lee is radical. Ron Dellums was radical.

where on your political spectrum do my expressions fall?

I'm not sure. You're not given to expressions which yield quick categorization. How do you describe yourself? Or do you prefer to be discovered?

Though Ed has termed this "Black Intra-Racial Politics" it certainly seems to me to speak to a lot of what we keep circling round and round here in the context of Intra-American politics. Particularly his Bringing It Full Circle summation of the role of "image" and "feeling" in politics.

If by "Southern Strategy", you mean the conversion of anti-integration white politicians to the Republican party ca 1970, I find it the least proud behavior of modern Republicans. If you mean you see it today, well I don't see it so clear.

Again, big props to Ed for pointing out some of the more recent perpetration by knuckle-dragging elements in the republican party. Nowadays, it's hardly fashionable to engage in overt jim crow maneuvering, yet, the levers of systemic beauracracy nevertheless get pulled by politicians motivated by traditional southern cultural values.....,

I asked you which Republican was the worst, and you nominated GW Bush.

Because he (or his administration) is the biggest cog in the GOP apparatus and he accepts and/or panders to knuckle-dragging elements in the GOP. That calls into question his cultural and moral leadership imo. When you asked me to specify individuals who seem most hostile, I intentionally avoided responding "Trent Lott", former Rep. Jesse Helms, Sen. Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and so on, because these individuals are all exemplars of the knuckle-dragging constituencies that the GOP so warmly and fully accomodates.

How would you describe yourself?

As an orthodox christian malthusian libertarian with a hard-science edge...., one who cannot abide dissimulation.

Finally, a debate I have with Libertarians. Should a candidate vote her conscience, or should a candidate vote for what the people she represents. The problem is that Libertarians are as unelectable as Communists. They say things that most people consider weird.

If people were in possession of conscience, there would be no possibility of trickery on the liminal fringes of image or feeling. First, you would have to encounter the nowadays quite rare individual who actually possesses a working conscience. Such a one would say and do things that most people (who typically lack anything even remotely approaching conscience) would consider exceedingly weird.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that the "Southern Strategy" ever was part of the platform of the Republican Party. Like the Democrats, the Republicans will take pretty much anyone willing to call himself a Republican. During the civil rights era, indeed some southern Democrats changed to Republican. To their supreme discredit, the Republican party didn't look too close at these new supporters.

The southern strategy first morphed into Nixonian Law and Order under which dissimulative rubric it stayed for a number of years, and then into the War on Drugs and the burgeoning of the prison industrial complex which reached its apex under Bill Clinton. The U.S. has reached a level of collective cognitive degeneracy, of internal dissimulative falsity, that makes it impossible for policy makers in this country to do the right thing without seeming weird or radical.

I think the real key to a successful national black candidate is to field a candidate who is not (or does not appear to be) parochial. For example, Jesse Jackson's only claim to fame is fighting for black folks' rights. How could his (or Al Sharpton's) prior run for the Presidency possibly be viewed by the majority of voters as anything other than an attempt focused on the narrowest of issues?

This lack of perceived parochialism is exactly what made Colin Powell so attractive for both parties following GWI. He was seen as a man who did not define himself by his color, and therefore a man who would not be defined in such a way by the voters. There will always be a minority of white voters who would never vote for a black candidate regardless of their qualifications, just as there are black voters who will always vote for the black candidate regardless of how crooked they may be. While these voters can't be ingored in their relative impact on electability, neither should they dictate to whom candidacy is extended.

Condi looks great in 2008

A couple quick hits.
1) I suspect that if the Republican party were to lose its libertarian base, I'd bolt.

2) I have just heard a conservative objection ot GWBush on Social Security. I tend to like it and I'm likely to flip on the matter shortly.

3) Don't put Newt Gingrich in there with Phil Gramm and Trent Lott.

4) Pat Buchanan is a lot better critic of the party than leader in it. That's good for America.

5) I don't buy this morphism of the Southern Strategy into more of a strategy than it was. Both parties went after the white racist vote. The republicans won. But as I said in my investigation of Goldwater, there was and still is more than one interpretation of States Rights. You really can't stick Nixon into the same bucket as the rest of them in order to justify general distaste with Republicans.

6) Remember Dirksen.

7) Over here in California, the state that defined the Reagan Revolution, we ultimately got rid of racially antagonistic Republicans like Pete Wilson in favor of healers like Riordan and Schwartzeneggar. Our worst were the likes of Bob Dornan and Bruce Herschenson, strident reactionaries, but I don't think you could ever call them segregationists. You simply can't take what idiots do in Alabama and apply that philosophically post-hoc to the core of the Republican party. There are far too many exceptions and dissenters - like Whitman and Pataki. Phyllis Schafly HATES Pataki and Giuliani too.

The strategy you refer to Dave is called "deracialization". L. Douglas Wilder and Carol Mosely Braun are probably the most successful adopters.

It is not clear though that this strategy will generate success for black candidates as a whole. Largely because the two groups you are comparing (whites who will not vote for blacks ever, blacks who will always vote for blacks) are NOT equivalent. Not only are there far more whites who will not vote for blacks under any circumstances, these whites constitute a greater percentage of white voters, than do blacks. Blacks tend to be very sophisticated voters, and have historically expressed a willingness to vote for people from a variety of backgrounds.

Oh. The other thing I wanted to say was that Alan Keyes is a perfect example of 'black conservative' (as distinct from 'conservative black'). He's more stridently anti-abortion (and anti-gay?) than any national candidate. He can't carry the party anywhere. Hell, he can't even get elected in his home state. Does that suggest that the Republicans are more anti-black than anti-abortion? Ask Keyes.

Based on global experience alone, Colin Powell was/is VASTLY better qualified for the role of Commander in Chief than any of the last 9 officeholders. Coupled with his likeability and credibility, the GOP calculus for fielding a candidate as pathetic as Dubya in Powell's stead begs volumes of questions.

As an intellectually satisfying post hoc rationale, the race parochialism argument has superficial merit. But when compared and contrasted with the fundamental incompetency of Dubya, a form of objective parochialism of the first magnitude, it loses a lot of its persuasive power.

As uncomfortable as my point about the American collective unconscious may be, the role of POTUS has a totemic quality for white Americans that supercedes any consideration of qualifications or merit.

Based on global experience alone, Colin Powell was/is VASTLY better qualified for the role of Commander in Chief than any of the last 9 officeholders. Coupled with his likeability and credibility, the GOP calculus for fielding a candidate as pathetic as Dubya in Powell's stead begs volumes of questions.

As I recall the story cnulan....I recall thinking just what you say. And then I recall Colin Powell explicitly rejecting being considered for the nomination. And I recall feeling disappointed, but after all, it was his choice.

these [racially polarized] whites constitute a greater percentage of white voters, than do blacks

Why do you believe that, Lester? I'm not going to prove you wrong, but your observation is at odds with my personal experience.

I'll agree, my life is not much lived with unemployed, meth snorting whites, and there are plenty of those in the United States of America. Further, not everyone says what they actually think. All caveats aside, the whites I know actually have a preference to vote for a black candidate, so long as that candidate largely agrees with them.

I had to work this out before writing it: the reason they favor a black candididate is that they really, really want to encounter a black person who analyzes politics like they do.

As I recall the story cnulan....I recall thinking just what you say. And then I recall Colin Powell explicitly rejecting being considered for the nomination. And I recall feeling disappointed, but after all, it was his choice.

and the interrogation of precisely why he would make such a choice, given his willingness to continue to serve the country in a role subordinate to a man unsuitable to shine his professional shoes begs volumes and volumes of questions - questions which I gather from your it was his choice comment, you've never really pondered, at all...,

DW - you get a 10 for accurately appraising Powell's qualifications - they're fairly self-evident. You get a -2 for failure to pursue the why and wherefore of Powell's *choice*

I had to work this out before writing it: the reason they favor a black candididate is that they really, really want to encounter a black person who analyzes politics like they do.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
-- Matthew 5:13; Luke 14:34,35

How is government control over women's bodies, which is one of the big points of the Republican party libertarian? Not to mention, how you get libertarian from state mandated religoin, I don't know.

You get a -2 for failure to pursue the why and wherefore of Powell's *choice*

Why do you think he declined, cnulan?

Why do you think he declined, cnulan?

Let's do it socratically dwshelf..,

Starting with Colin Powell the outline....,

Seguing to Colin Powell the biography

Don't want to neglect the committment to public service

1. Powell attained the absolute maximum of access and exposure to elites within the U.S. in all walks of life.

2. His credentials and record were unimpeachable (My Lai allegations notwithstanding, he sailed through confirmation to Secretary of State)

3. He had not lost interest in public service (He served under terrible circumstances in the Bush Administration - with inexperienced Chickenhawks and Oilmen gutting the Armed Services and the Powell doctrine)

4. He was universally well regarded.

Process of elimination leads us to conclude that;

He didn't want the job?

He understood the mainstream mass psyche well enough to anticipate its racialist failings?

He was told by powerholders that he would not be supported and he would be subjected to politics of personal destruction?

Other possibilities?

Lester, while I grant that the "never vote black" number may be numerically larger than the "always vote black" I believe that is simply a factor of the larger overall white population and not necessarilly a mater of percentages. In the end, though, I see the question of percentages as a matter of opinion and ours simply differ. I tend to agree with cnulan, that there is a significant number of white voters who want to vote black (if nothing else, just to proove they aren't racists) but aren't willing to abandon their political positions just to do so.

As for Colin Powell's non-run for office, I seem to remember reading once that a chief reason was out of consideration for his wife, whom I seem to recall has had some mild anxiety issues before and most certainly did not want him campaigning for office.

Dave I appreciate your comments...but we aren't talking about opinions here. Or rather you have an opinion. I'm talking about political science (emphasis on the science) research findings...which are strong and conclusive.

One way to test this out yourself is to write up a fake candidate story...make it look like a real news story, and create two versions. Have one version attached to a black picture, and another version attached to a white version. Ask a number of questions afterward about candidate attractiveness and what not...and I can help you do the statistical analysis.

What I'm saying is that there would be a statistically significant AND SUBSTANTIVELY STRONG difference between the two, if you only survey white respondents.

If you survey black respondents what you're likely to get is a statistically significant BUT SUBSTANTIVELY MINOR difference between the two.

If you don't want to run the numbers yourself check out Keith Reeves work Voting Hopes or Fears?: White Voters, Black Candidates, and Racial Politics in America.

Oh. Colin.

Death threats. Probably not him--he's seen death up close. His wife and kids.

Other possibilities?

He screwed up? He thought it would be better to ease in, but got a bad ride?

I don't know, cnulan. I've not seen any reason to believe however that he didn't make an uncoerced decision.

I don't know, cnulan. I've not seen any reason to believe however that he didn't make an uncoerced decision.

I guess you missed Dr. Spence's post preceeding yours...., and, given the very public political suicide committed by Ross Perot a few years back when he came forward with similar allegations..,

DW, you and I may be irremediably stuck in the twilight zone that pundits call “black paranoia”. Black paranoia is really just what the Black Consensus looks like from inside the bubble of white American racism. Metaphors are dangerous, but bubbles are usually delicate and fragile things. An immense weight of lies and denial are already pressing down on the bubble of white racism and the load is about to get heavier. While African Americans and the rest of humanity outside the bubble are always hoping, praying and working for its collapse, we know not to count on it any time soon. And we know that even paranoiacs have some real enemies.

Lester, I, too, appreciate your considered responses. I'll admit I've not studied the issue and have not read the book you reference. I am not dismissing Dr. Reeves' work out of hand, but neither can I accept it without closer evaluation, as I'm sure we both would agree that one's assumptions can often color both the protocol and analysis of experiments. On the other hand, perhaps you and Dr. Reeves are right and my opinions are such just because I happen to run with a better crowd than average. 8^D

In any event, while I agree that the percentage of blacks elected to government is less then the percentage of the general population, to conclude that proportionally blacks are under represented assumes that only black politicans can represent black people. It just occured as I was writing this, but an interesting effect of integration and growth of the black middle class was to effectively dilute the political influence of blacks as blacks. To conclude, however, that the elected officials representing blacks that live is predominantly white communities represent their black constituency only in so far as they reflect the race of the constiuency seems, to me, somewhat of an unfair assumption.

If I said that black people were on the whole well educated because all of my friends happened to be black phds, I'd be making an understandable, but horribly wrong assumption. That may be what is going on here. The benefit of the scientific method here is that whether you agree with the conclusions or not, the method is something you can evaluate...and the experiment is something you can replicate. I am familiar with Reeves' model, and there are no flaws that I can tell. It is important to add here that I'm not talking about some run of the mill Heritage (or Ford) Foundation hack. Someone like D'Nesh D'Souza with barely an undergraduate degree can game results. The Thernstroms wouldn't know how to test a hypothesis to save their lives.

We're talking about a different animal.

On race and representation. Again, the literature is pretty clear here, though there ARE differences. I can understand not having the time to read political science journals. I AM a political scientist and I don't have the time. But the "unfair assumption" that you note has been tested over and over...and it has been found to have basis in fact. Unfortunate, really.

I certainly hope you didn't get the impression that I was accusing or even suspecting Dr. Reeves of gaming his data. I respect his scholarship and assume his integrity in the absence of any contrary evidence. My only reservation in unquestioningly accepting his findings was that in my admittedly cursory search while I could find many examples of his work being cited and included in course listings, I did not find any reviews of the book referenced. Perhaps that is related to its being published in 1997. Without any disrespect to Dr. Reeves, even in the more traditional "hard" sciences the analysis of experiment results and causality can be easily influenced by the participant. I admit to probably an unfair inate distrust of the scientific certitude in areas of study that rely more on understanding human behavior and therefore place greater emphasis on peer review and repeatability.

Let us assume that Dr. Reeves' work accurately shows the "never black" group represents a higher percentage then the "always black," I still hold to my opinion that this group should largely be a write off. In my area of expertise (technology) we often talk about the change adoption curve. On the left side you have the small percentage (~2.5%) of innovators, those who create the new technology. Following this the early adopters (~13.5%) are those who enthusiactically seek out and integrate the new technology. The next two groups, early majority and late majority (~34% each) are largely differentiated solely upon their willingness to change. Finally you have the laggards (~16%), who will only change when their very survival depends upon it, if then. A technology is generally considered viable and "takes off" once the early adopters have accepted it, so this is often the primary target of start-up businesses.

Extending this analogy to civil rights, especially as it applies to blacks in the US, I see the abolitionists in the 19th century largely in the role of the innovators and the Civil Rights movement in the '50s signaling the final acceptance by the early adopters. The past fifty years have been one of getting the majority on board the train, and while things have not always moved as quickly as one might like, I feel as a country we are probably cutting into the late majority. I see the "never black" cadre as the laggards, and you can never plan any technology change on them.

I also stand by my earlier assertion that there is a distict difference between the perception of a "black candidate" and a "candidate who is black." While the "black candidate" may appeal in predominantly black districts and fail in predominantly white ones, it does not necessarilly follow that the "candidate who is black" need experience the same degree of voter reluctance. I would hazzard a guess that some of the voter reluctance measured by Dr. Reeves was likely due more to assumptions of parochialism on behalf of the notional candidate than on a more traditionally racist basis.

As you noted, for some this idea of a dichotomy between the "black candidate" and "candidate who is black" equates to deracialization. I admit I don't understand the centrality of "blackness" to one's character and being that many "black candidates" seem to feel is essential and would be sacrificed in a "candidate who is black." I suspect it is this perceived betrayal of their own racial identity that drives some to deride Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice or Clarance Thomas as "Uncle Toms" or house negroes or even worse. It is interesting to note, though, that this perceived betrayal of race is not unique to black Americans, in that sometimes more Westernized Taiwanese are sometimes refered to as "bananas" (i.e. yellow on the outside but white on the inside).

But the "unfair assumption" that you note has been tested over and over...and it has been found to have basis in fact. Unfortunate, really.

Would we agree that the assumption in question is that a white candidate does not represent the interests of her black consituants?

If so, what criteria would one use to evaluate the validity of the assumption?

Americans, in that sometimes more Westernized Taiwanese are sometimes refered to as "bananas" (i.e. yellow on the outside but white on the inside).

Maybe, but that would be the kind of thing one might hear in high school, and in a context where racial bonding is the most tempting. Taiwanese Americans who have been in America long enough to speak reasonably good English don't generally feel alienated from white Americans. If anything, there's pressure to "melt in", and the alternative mildly derogagory term, "fobby", is used for people who behave as if they just arrived from China. fob = "Fresh Off the Boat", but it's humorously applied to anyone not born in America.

The real point here is that these terms hold no power over Chinese immigrants.