MichaelFauntroy.com

Warning to Democrats: Black Republicans are Organizing

Buoyed by recent media attention and speeches to African American groups by President Bush and other high ranking officials and politicians, African American Republicans are intensifying their efforts to bring more Blacks to the GOP.  New organizations are joining existing groups in this effort.  The most recently formed organization is the National Black Republican Association (NBRA).  It should be closely watched.  While I don’t think it will lead to significant change at the ballot box, just enough votes in just enough places around the country could be problematic for Democrats.  For that reason, I do think liberals and progressives should take note of what’s brewing on the Black Right and avoid the arrogance and condescension that can, all too easily, lead them to ignore what is happening.  To do so might prove costly to a progressive movement that is in trouble at the ballot box and send the Democrats into oblivion.

The NBRA is part of a long lineage of Black conservative organizations and think tanks since the start of the Reagan Revolution that try to influence African American public opinion toward the GOP.  Every few years or so, Black Republicans get together to build an organization they hope will create a wave of support for the GOP in African American communities around the nation.  These regular attempts to grow Black Republicans reflect two realities:  first, there is the continued perception, contrary evidence notwithstanding, that a movement of Black conservatives is ready to be motivated but simply lacks leadership and, second, the organizations that do come along ultimately fail to provide that leadership, are unable to sustain themselves, and fade in significance.

The NBRA had its first formal meetings in mid-August and see their mission in part as serving as a resource in the Black community on Republican ideals and principles.  It’s goal is to increase the number of African Americans who vote Republican and provide networking opportunities for Black Republicans nationwide.  It takes a decidedly different approach from many of its predecessors in that it is focused on building grass roots support, without much interference from Washington elites.  One member told me that the traditional Republican “top-down” approach is a failure and that national Republicans don’t yet understand that Black support for the GOP has to be built, first, at the neighborhood level.

This organization, like so many others before it, has a high hill to climb.  President Bush received 11 percent of the Black vote in 2004; a paltry 2 percentage point increase from 2000.  Black support for GOP House and Senate candidates is, more often than not, in the high single or low double digits.  Things are worse when you consider Black Republican office seekers.  A total of sixty-four African American Republicans captured their party’s nomination for the U.S. House or Senate during the 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional election cycles combined (this figure includes multiple counting for candidates who ran more than one election cycle).  With the exception of now-retired Representative J.C. Watts, most haven’t come close to winning.  Fifty-two of the sixty-four nominees (81%) lost by at least twenty-five percentage points.  Add to this Black opposition to the Iraq War and historically low funding support for these groups and one doesn’t have to make much of a leap to conclude that organizations dedicated to bringing more African Americans to the GOP are spitting in the wind. 

Conversely, though, it this reveals an era that may be pregnant with opportunity for the GOP.  Any increase it gets, as minuscule as it may be, can be spun as an improvement that puts pressure on the Democrats to expend more resources.  Democrats are then forced to pay more attention to its most loyal group of voters–African Americans, which prevents the party from making inroads in other segments of the electorate.

Democrats better focus on what’s going on; failing to do so can ensure minority status in Congress for years to come.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
August 19, 2005

Bush's "Sheehan" Problem

History will record Cindy Sheehan as either the spark that ignited the “bring-the-troops-home” movement or as merely one footnote in a long book on the Iraq War.  That we all now know her name is the fault of President Bush, whose arrogance and ham-handedness has made Sheehan a cause-celebre’ and the darling of the anti-war movement.  The irony here is, of course, that by dissing Sheehan, he may have ignited the anti-war movement and pushed those on the fence to the anti-war side.

Bush could have put this to rest weeks ago by calling Sheehan into his ranch, talking with her about her issue, and sending her on her way.  It would have been a two day story, tops.  Now, Crawford, Texas, is the political equivalent of Mecca, with the anti-war crowd making a pilgrimage to the Bush ranch to support Sheehan and advance its own agenda.  Add to that the candlelight vigils taking place in large and small cities around the country last week and it’s easy to see that Bush mishandled Sheehan and may have unwittingly been the match that lit the spark that ended the Iraq War.  Wouldn’t that be ironic?

Granted, Bush had a tricky decision to make.  He could meet with Sheehan for a second time, which could have sparked other “peace moms and dads” to seek meetings too.  That would have blown his entire vacation and he didn’t want to do that.  Or he could have done what he did, which is to ignore a mother who lost her son and run the risk of creating a media storm that could undo his war.  He chose the latter and it was a mistake.  Everyone who knows him says Bush is a compassionate man.  He may be, but ignoring a mourning mother who has lost her son, is about to lose her husband who wants a divorce, and whose mother just had a stroke is heavy evidence to the contrary.

Of course, hindsight is 20-20, but the choice he made has created “Camp Casey” replete with hoards of peaceniks and the requisite media to document all that is, or isn’t, happening.  That can’t be a visual the Bushies expected and certainly not one they wanted.  Now, the President looks uncaring and aloof to the pain of a mother whose son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, one that Bush says was for a noble cause.

An anti-war march is being planned for September in Washington, D.C.  This is likely to be a significantly covered story anyway.  But the coverage of Cindy Sheehan promises to beat the protest drums from now until the march, giving more publicity and attention to what may now be a massive protest.  Imagine for a second what could be part two of the “Camp Casey” visual: President Bush returns to Washington, D.C. following his five-week-long vacation (memo to Bush’s advisors–it’s a bad idea to have the president out so long when so many people can’t take off that much time without losing their jobs or their homes and are changing their vacation plans due to objectionably high gas prices.  Where’s your compassion meter?) only to have Sheehan go to Washington also and set up camp in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House. 

That would add a new twist to the story and carry it all the way to the march and could mean nearly two months of daily anti-war coverage at the top of the nightly news, which can only hurt Bush’s declining poll numbers.  Many people aren’t pay attention now with the last bit of summer vacation with the kids and the preparation for the back-to-school rush but, everything could change once Labor Day arrives–all because of a grieving mother who just wants a few words with the President.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, August 20, 2005

John Roberts and the Death Penalty

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ recent comments critical of the application of the death penalty led to me wonder what the future of capital punishment could be when John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor, takes his seat on the bench this fall (I know he hasn’t been officially confirmed but there is no doubt in my mind that, barring any unforeseen scandal, he’ll be on the bench  in October).  The Supreme Court is the venue of last resort for wrongly convicted inmates and activists seeking to stay an execution, abolish capital punishment outright, or prevent its expansion.  For death penalty opponents, John Roberts may be a tough pill to swallow.

Some say Roberts’ record is insufficient to make a judgement on how he will vote on capital cases. On one hand, he is a Federalist Society conservative who, in his work in the Reagan Administration, wrote critically of death penalty appeals.  Roberts argued that the lengthy appeals process clogged the federal court system and delayed justice for people in cases throughout the system.  This suggests that he would be supportive of efforts to streamline the appeals process, perhaps by more strictly limiting their number.  This is bad news for wrongly convicted death penalty prisoners.  Conversely, though, Roberts did free legal work for a death row inmate, which suggests a willingness to keep people from being executed.

While noteworthy, I don’t think doing pro bono work for one death row inmate shifts the weight of heavy evidence, circumstantial though it may be, that we are poised to enter an era that takes a less compassionate view and accelerated application of the death penalty.  This is unfortunate because years of exonerations of death row inmates and new technology that can more scientifically prove guilt or innocence has exposed flaws and corruption in our criminal justice system.  It’s not a reach to believe the system has executed innocent people.  Our system is broken and, rather than fix it, we appear ready to push the accelerator even further.

Roberts’ possible position on the death penalty is in substantial contrast with O’Connor, who was often the pivotal vote in 5-4 capital punishment decisions.  She became skeptical of state administration of capital cases and came to be counted on to support barring the execution of mentally retarded killers and those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes.  While she never supported an outright abolition of the death penalty, she did believe there were limits to its application. 

Death penalty cases are a constant fixture of Supreme Court work.  Justices regularly deal with emergency appeals, sometimes filed at the last possible moment.  Recently, the Court has outlawed the death penalty to those who were juveniles at the time of their crime, overturned four death sentences, and ruled it was unconstitutional to force defendants to appear before juries in chains during a trial's penalty phase.  And the future is full of death penalty cases.  The Court will have at least four capital cases on their docket when they return to work in October.  Included among these cases is one that may open the door to new challenges to the death penalty by letting inmates have a new chance to prove their innocence with DNA evidence.

Given the numerous death penalty cases heard by the Court, John Roberts’ confirmation will have a dramatic impact on how the Court rules on capital cases and will mark the beginning of dark days for death penalty opponents.

©  Michael K. Fauntroy, August 10, 2005