MichaelFauntroy.com

A Black Governor for Massachusetts?

With all the attention given to the gubernatorial bids of prominent African American Republicans Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swann in Ohio and Pennsylvania,  respectively,  you would think they were the only Black major party nominees for state chief executive positions but they aren’t. Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial nominee Deval Patrick, who has been lost in much of the national attention on Black candidates for statewide office around the country, may well be more likely to win his state’s top position than either Blackwell or Swann. 

Patrick, a former assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Clinton administration, won his party’s convention endorsement last month and leads in the race to win the September primary.  He also looks strong for the general election, as he leads Lt. Governor Kerry Healey by 20 percentage points in the most recent Rasmussen poll.  Healey, running with the endorsement of outgoing Governor Mitt Romney, is struggling as a Republican in a Democratic state and with the national mood toward Republicans; President Bush stands at 32 percent approval in the Bay State.  The political tide is turning in favor of Democrats around the nation and Patrick is poised to ride the wave to the governorship.

The race could be a dream matchup for political junkies: an African American man versus a Republican woman.  It could be a contest that confounds prognosticators and pollsters alike.  Could Democratic women be attracted by the notion of electing the first woman as governor of Massachusetts?  Could Republican men be turned off by the possibility of a woman as governor and instead vote for a Democratic man who is also Black?

Massachusetts, particularly its capital city of Boston, has at times had a complicated racial history so a Patrick victory in November would represent a tremendous milestone in American politics.  In the mid-1970s, Boston was the epicenter of White riots and violence following a federal court ruling mandating busing as a means of desegregating the city’s public schools.  Many remember the famous photograph of a Black man in a three-piece suit being held by one White rioter as another White rioter jammed an American-flag draped flagpole in the Black man’s chest.  The image came to characterize racial animosities in Boston and led many to conclude that the city and, by extension the state, could not reconcile itself with the changing winds of race relations.  Now, this same state may elect an African American to its highest office.  That would be progress, indeed.

Republicans, in their public courtship of Black voters, recently have lobbed the charge that the Democrats take African Americans for granted.  The charge is designed to divert attention from the Grand Old Party’s abysmal record with African Americans and its inability to attract voters with its own program.  So, in addition to being history making, a Patrick victory would go a long way toward helping Democrats rebut their Republican critics.  The Democrats’ response would be all the sweeter if favored Black Republican statewide candidates such as Blackwell and Swann, and Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele all lose.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
July 18, 2006

Crack Cocaine's Legacy Lives (and Dies) in D.C.

It’s been 20 years since crack cocaine hit Washington, D.C.  The drug driven violence and family destruction it spawned sent the city on a spiral the city is only now beginning to recover from.  But given the recent spasm of violent crimes in the city, now may be the time to ask:  Is it possible that the recent crime wave in Washington, D.C. is the legacy of crack cocaine?  After all, it is instructive to note that a child born in 1986 to a crack-addicted mother is now 20 years old and possibly the product of two decades of dysfunctional upbringing.  This child might have likely had previous scrapes with the law, low educational achievement, and a heartlessness that comes from not having strong, loving parents.  Given this and other realities of the late-1980s, I would not be surprised if there was a link between the crack era and now.

Now, I am not saying that all of those who have recently committed these murders and robberies were born to crack-addicted mothers.  People who come from two parent households also can become killers, so it would be irresponsible to blame it all on crack cocaine.  I am simply saying that young people that are raised in dysfunctional environments too often become dangerous adults – the kind that have few choices beyond criminality.

With more than a dozen murders in as many days and widely reported robberies and assaults on the national Mall, some people are throwing up their hands in anguish and asking: “How can this happen here?”  After all, the city has been on an upswing in recent years, as downtown development and gentrification have sent property values through the roof and as expensive condominiums seem to appear overnight, changing the racial and economic makeup of several neighborhoods at the snap of a finger.  Many poor people in the city, coincidently those more predisposed to commit crime, have been forced out of the city by skyrocketing rents and the conversion of their apartment buildings into condominiums.  Those who have to ask how this can happen must not have been around in the mid-1980's as crack cocaine and the violence it spawned washed over the city like an unstoppable wave.

From 1985, the last “pre-crack” year, to 1991, the number of people killed in the District grew from 148 to 482, a three-fold increase.  The result of this drug-driven violence was an enormous increase in the District’s budget for police and corrections, which grew 61.5 percent in a decade.  This increase syphoned off money that was intended for school construction, road repair, and recreation programs, among other vital initiatives.  It also had a chilling effect in neighborhoods as many District residents lived in fear during those days with thousands choosing to move to the suburbs.  Middle-class flight and declining city revenues during this era exposed governmental inefficiency that cost the city millions and rendered it unable to provide the resources necessary to deal with this new and devastating problem.

There are a number of hard questions that must be asked as it relates to this latest crime wave.  But the answers to those questions may be rooted in a crime wave that began 20 summers ago.  The policy makers downtown should know this and craft policies that focus more on neighborhood development than downtown development.  The events of the last few weeks may be revealing a reality that some may have forgotten in all of the city’s recent prosperity: new buildings are fine, but they mean nothing if people live in fear.

As a fourth generation Washingtonian, I’ve seen this movie before and hope it ends differently.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
July 17, 2006

Michael Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Home Rule or House Rule?  Congress and the Erosion of Local Governance in the District of Columbia.

Compassion Fatigue and New Orleans

The pain was blinding.  It was like I had been hit in the gut with a bat.  I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.  My mind was racing, trying to find a way to respond to what I heard without exploding in shock and anger.  It took me a while to figure it out, but it’s clear to me now: there are people in our midst who couldn’t care less about those in New Orleans who are trying to rebuild their lives.  For me, this was a shocking realization.

It all started at a dinner party when someone bellowed: “I’m sick of the people in New Orleans whining!”  The speaker set off a barrage of comments from others that also reflected what I concluded was an astounding compassion fatigue for those victimized by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:  “Why don’t they just get over it and move on?”  “Immigrants come to this country with nothing and make a life for themselves, why can’t they do the same in New Orleans?”  “It’s their fault, not the government’s, if they didn’t buy insurance.”  “The government can’t do everything.”  “It’s been six months already.” 

Some of the attendees, mostly White conservatives with a healthy number of moderates and liberals, expressed their feelings with a disdain for those in New Orleans, which troubled me because they never mentioned the rest of the Gulf Coast.  They, and others, are no doubt comforted by their own existence far removed from the devastation and are comfortable in the belief that television is providing them all they need to know.  Sometimes, however, a little knowledge is dangerous.  People who’ve been to New Orleans tell me that the images we see on the news do not come close to telling the story of just how widespread the devastation is or how most of the Crescent City is as bad off now as it was shortly after the water receded from the homes and streets.

Those who are now critical of the “whiners” on the Gulf Coast need to come to grips with a simple reality: those most devastated by Katrina and Rita can’t easily rebuild because they don’t have the money.  It seems like a reasonable proposition, but I offer the following data because some critics can’t seem to grasp it.  According to the Census Bureau data, the median family income in Orleans Parish is $27,133.  That figure is $5,000 below the statewide median and $14,000 below the national median.  An astounding 21 percent of households in Orleans Parish (one out of every five) have an annual income of less than $10,000 and they make up the overwhelming majority of those in the nearly 39 percent of all households in Orleans Parish with annual incomes of less than $20,000.  Nearly 28 percent of all people in Orleans Parish live below the federal poverty threshold.  That figure is eight percentage points above the rest of the state and more than twice the national average.  Of course, the poverty figures tell us only part of the story because it has long been established that the federal income cutoff undercounts poverty.

Those of you out there who can’t seem to understand why people aren’t just “moving on” should consider these facts while you criticize those who didn’t have insurance for their homes.  With that income, where do you think insurance fits in with food and utilities, transportation, housing, and day-to-day living costs?

Blaming the victims won’t rebuild New Orleans, but money will and those who are sick of the “whiners” should know this – and get out their checkbooks.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
April 4, 2006

Would a Smaller Congressional Black Caucus Increase Black Political Power?

No group has benefitted greater from the creation of minority-majority U.S. congressional districts than the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).  The 41 House members in CBC is its largest ever, a veritable explosion from a generation ago when fewer than 20 African Americans roamed the House as Representatives.  That growth is a source of pride for many who want greater representation of Black interests.  But what do we have to show for this larger CBC?  If you are interested in the expansion of Black interests in public policy, then the answer to that question is simple: not much.  I’m so disappointed in the CBC that I now believe a smaller CBC would be better able to pursue Black interests than the group we have now.  This is certainly an instance where the adage “less is more” can actually work for Black America.

Currently, all of the African American House members are Democrats in a House of Representatives that has been solidly Republican for more than a decade.  While its historic and notable that there are more African Americans in the House than ever, it is also lamentable that they have no control or power over the legislative process and cannot, therefore, advance Black interests.  Because Republicans appear to be unable or unwilling to find African Americans that can run and win House seats and Democrats will likely continue their lock on the Black vote, the status quo is likely to continue until Democrats win back control of the House.

This raises a question for those interested in Black political empowerment in the House: Does the growth in Black House membership contribute to continued Republican House control, thereby stifling  the advancement of Black interests?  If so, then is now the time to consider ending, or at least revisiting, the requirement for the creation of minority-majority districts?  For me, the answer to both questions is yes, particularly if fewer Black members meant Democratic control of the House.  From a Black political empowerment perspective, Democratic control would make Charlie Rangel chairman of the Ways and Means committee and in charge of writing the nation’s tax policy.  It would likely make John Conyers chair of the Judiciary committee, giving him control of one of the major mechanisms for writing criminal justice policy, perhaps leading to an end or reduction of racially disparate sentencing and mandatory minimums.  It would also elevate a number of African Americans to important subcommittee chairs, advancing their power in the chamber.  Collectively, this would serve as a platform to advance Black political interests.  For those reasons alone, I think thinning the ranks of the Congressional Black Caucus would actually advance the cause of Black political empowerment.  For me, it’s about quality of representation, not quantity of representation.

I readily admit that the number of Blacks in the House is not the sole contributor to a Republican majority.  White racial conservatism is as much a problem as majority-minority districts.  The fact that there are still so many Whites who won’t support Black candidates under any circumstances is a scar on America’s body politic.  Whites who don’t like Black people began leaving the increasingly-Black Democratic party in the 1960's, and their obstinance is important as well.  However, it is worth noting that the GOP has been a 20-year advocate of minority-majority districts; they understood what such districts could mean for their side.

While I don’t know the magic number in terms of the appropriate percentage of minorities in minority-majority districts (there may not be one), it seems to me that reducing the number of or percentage of African Americans in minority-majority districts could help bring about a Democratic majority.  The placement of some African American voters in Republican districts could help jeopardize the security of GOP candidates, potentially putting some districts in play for Democratic pickups.

Admittedly, reducing the number of African Americans in the House is controversial and, if viewed from any other perspective beyond Black empowerment, opens the door for the kind of racism that is too prevalent in American politics.  However, the cold reality of politics is that it is more difficult to advance Black interests, or any group’s interests for that matter, from the legislative minority.  The only way to remedy this with regard to Black people, is to get a Democratic majority.  If that requires thinning the ranks of the CBC, then so be it.  Black people have chosen to cast their collective political bucket with the Democrats.  They should then be willing to do what is necessary to ensure a Democratic majority and a chance at real Black power in Congress.  It’s a small price to pay to put African Americans in real power positions in the House and advance Black interests.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, December 1, 2005

It's Time for the GOP to Take Responsibility for its Actions

At some point, one must take responsibility for one’s actions.  It’s the right thing to do, shows the maturity that comes with leadership, and sets a tone of integrity that others will respect and seek to emulate.  That message needs to be conveyed to Republicans in Washington, D.C. and around the country who appear unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their role in the various messes that characterize our current government.  They are delusional about their role in making the U.S. the world’s diplomatic and foreign policy laughingstock, vaporizing the federal budget surplus, and otherwise screwing up oversight of governmental operations.  All this while seeming to engage in a contest to steal the most money, accept the most bribes, or engage in the most corruption.  Running the government into the ground is something for which they must take responsibility.

Republicans do not appear to know that they have controlled the White House for 17 of the last 25 years or that they have controlled the House of Representatives for the last 11 years and the Senate nearly as long.  They promised integrity, leadership and, so far, have not lived up to their expectations they set with the promises they made.  They promised a quick incursion in Iraq yet, nearly three years later, there is no end in sight for a war that has been poorly prosecuted by the Republican civilian leadership.  They promised fiscal discipline and gave us profligate spending and irresponsible tax cuts that will take a generation to overcome.  Indeed, they passed the budgets and appropriated the funds that have us in the fiscal pickle we now face.  But all they seem to do is blame the “liberal media,” “obstructionist Democrats,” “secular humanists,” and “liberal academics” for their political troubles.  The GOP blame game is so phony because these roadblocks, to the extent that they exist, don’t prevent the GOP from moving forward with its agenda.  Only they have the votes in Congress.  So it is the GOP that must take responsibility for “judicial activism” as Republican presidents have nominated the overwhelming majority of federal judges.

Congressional Republicans have proven to be better at rhetorical bomb throwing–as they did in the throughout the 1980s and early 1990s–than governmental managers and overseers.  As they have become increasing drunk with their power, they have engaged in the very corruption that they accused Democrats of when the Democrats controlled Congress.  The recent guilty plea in U.S. federal court by Republican Randy “Duke” Cunningham to charges of tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud is a case in point.  Cunningham, who resigned immediately after his guilty plea, admitted to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering federal business to defense contractors. 

Cunningham joins a long list of prominent Republicans such as Representative and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Representative Bob Ney, Michael Scanlon, Jack Abramoff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Karl Rove, Ohio Governor Bob Taft, and former Illinois Governor George Ryan who are either under investigation or indictment.  Their alleged actions reek of the corruption that comes with being besotted with power.  It’s something with which the GOP has to contend, particularly as it faces an increasingly angry electorate in next year’s election.

Republicans have a great deal of work to do to show the voters that they deserve to control Congress.  They can begin the process by doing a better job of taking responsibility for their actions.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, November 30, 2005