MichaelFauntroy.com

Subpoena Fight is About Respect

Respect. It is a word that is bandied about in all areas of American life from sports to religion to pop culture. Everyone wants it and those who do not get their requisite share can not wait to payback those who fail to show it. In politics, respect is almost everything. It allows opponents to set aside their differences and work together to solve problems, even those that previously seemed intractable. Sadly, the absence of respect is an unfortunate byproduct of American politics and explains many of the silly fights that plague governments at all levels. The longer adversaries show disrespect to their opponents, the less likely things can get done. That’s why the standoff over whether White House officials will testify under oath and in public over their roles in the firing of U.S. Attorneys threatens to intensify into something that could plague the Bush administration as much as Iraq.

The fact is that the George Bush does not respect Congress. He didn’t respect Congress when Republicans were in charge and certainly hasn’t changed now that Democrats are in the majority. He governs as if Congress is a contemptible nuisance that exists simply to nitpick at his preferences. He has little patience for a co-equal branch of government that has the temerity to question his authority or wisdom. That was fine from a political strategy perspective when the Republicans were in charge of Congress because they did not want to give Democrats the satisfaction that would come with real governmental oversight. The problem for the administration now, however, is that it can not steamroller or ignore the Democrats the way it did with the Republicans. While House and Senate Republicans spent the entire Bush administration with their eyes and ears closed, rarely raising their collective voice beyond a whisper when it disagreed with the White House, the Democrats have very little to lose by asking hard questions and insisting on answers. This is so even if subpoenas have to be issued to ensure that the truth is revealed. The ability of a subpoena to focus ones thinking would not be necessary if people did not lie, but as we have seen throughout history, most recently with investigation of the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative, sometimes the threat of jail is required to get to the truth.

The Democrats should settle for nothing less than full, public hearings, under oath, to find out if Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys were fired because they showed insufficient fealty to the White House. Bush defenders are quick to point out that these public officials serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired for any reasons. Both points are true, but so is something else: just because you can fire someone for any reason doesn’t mean that you should fire someone for any reason. If it turns out that these attorneys were fired because they "over prosecuted" Republicans or "under prosecuted" Democrats, then it’s not a stretch to charge that the White House was trying to monkey around with the justice system. That is unacceptable and should be punished.

The Bush administration, through incompetence, heavy handedness, and arrogance, has lost any claim to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the White House is standing on political quicksand in its refusal to come clean on the process they undertook to remove U.S. Attorneys, all of whom were highly rated. While it is too early to know where this all will lead, the Bush Administration is becoming quite Nixonian in its relationship with the truth and lack of respect for the rule of law.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D., March 23, 2007

What Obama’s Candidacy Will Mean for Black America

Now that Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy is official, the puditocracy and bloggerazzi will examine his life to find out if he has what it takes to be the leader of the free world.  Questions, intelligent and otherwise, will be asked and, in some instances, lies will be printed as fact.  Some will wonder whether Obama can bridge America’s racial divide and win over enough Whites to be a serious threat to win the nomination.  Others will want to know if his relative inexperience will be a net positive or negative.  Still others will want to know why he is raining on Hillary Clinton’s parade.  All of these are legitimate and reasonable questions.  However, the most interesting question to me is what his candidacy will mean for Black America.  Obama’s candidacy, for all its promise, will prove to be an uncomfortable test for African Americans because it will force Blacks to accept someone who is so different from the civil rights-based Black politics to which they are so accustomed.

Don’t get me wrong.  I believe that Barack Obama, politically and socially, sits firmly in the mainstream of Black America.  I also believe that the overwhelming majority of Black America will rally around Obama once they get to know him.  Universal health care, technological improvements for poor and rural communities, reforming the political system to make it fairer, energy independence, and ending the war in Iraq are all ideas that will play well in Black America.  My point is that Obama, thankfully, represents a different picture of blackness.  He is a worldly, well educated Black man married to a strong, well educated Black professional woman.  Most rank-and-file Black people haven’t had the variety of experiences that characterize Obama’s life.

The extent to which Obama’s candidacy is resonating with White America is amazing and seems to represent a sincere desire for something new and better in our politics.  It also reveals a willingness among White voters to embrace someone who has Black skin, but is not seen as overtly Black – a sure disqualifier in American politics.  Consequently, Obama will have to campaign in a deracialized way that doesn’t scare Whites.  That, of course, means that Black America will have to share him with the rest of the country in ways that may make some will make Blacks uncomfortable.  This also represents the compromise that Blacks and Whites will have to make:  Whites will enthusiastically support a Black candidate that is not “too Black,” while many in Black America will have to support a Black candidate that some may see as not “Black enough.”

There is no doubt that the sea of White faces that greeted Obama as he launched his campaign made some Blacks wonder how committed he is to Black people and why he didn’t announce in his own home city of Chicago.  The fact is that his campaign would have been dead-in-the-water had he announced on the south side of Chicago because the crowd would have been overwhelmingly Black, which would have scared many Whites around the country who are just getting to know Obama.  That is an unfortunate and inconvenient truth that represents the tightrope Obama must walk as he seeks to straddle and battle his way to the White House.

These are some of the racial dilemmas that Obama’s candidacy presents.  Let’s hope that all parties are up to the task of dealing with them honestly and fairly.  This is a unique opportunity for the country to take a big step toward embodying many of the ideals that we seek to project to the world.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.,
February 11, 2007

Is He Black Enough

The latest turn in the Barack Obama for president circus is a sideshow focusing on how well he will do with African American voters.  The assumption is that African Americans will overwhelmingly rally around Obama just because he is Black.  Of course, any evidence to the contrary is a story worth covering and the coyness with which some prominent African American leaders have responded to queries about their support or endorsements of Obama has caused a mini fury.  The media’s fixation on this issue centers on one question: Is Barack Obama Black enough to win the lion’s share of Black votes?  While the “Black enough” question is silly and can be seen as an insult to African Americans because it suggests that only certain kinds of Blacks can represent other African Americans, the truth is that it may be a legitimate concern for the top tier Democratic candidates.  If Obama can’t nail down his “base,” then he can’t be a serious contender.

Many Black leaders are being evasive about endorsing Obama.  They don’t want to be accused of simply “going with the Black guy.”  They may also have legitimate concerns about Obama and his lack of experience.  Some may also have a stronger feeling about another candidate such as senator Hilary Clinton or former senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, both of whom have serious ties to the Black community.  Of course, there are some Black leaders who are turned off by Obama’s educational pedigree and multi-racial background and, thusly, don’t think he can aggressively represent Black interests.  For them, Columbia and Harvard universities are not the stuff of “real” Blacks.

This isn’t the first time Obama has had to deal with questions about his political-racial purity.  During his first run for Congress in 2000, his opponent, incumbent Representative Bobby Rush, employed a well-worn tactic among entrenched Black incumbents: He suggested that his opponent wasn’t “Black enough” to represent the voters of the district.  Rush won and Obama continued to serve in the state senate.

Other Black candidates have used this unseemly tactic against fellow African Americans.  Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry used it against Patricia Roberts Harris in his successful 1982 reelection campaign.  Congressman Earl Hilliard tried it also, albeit unsuccessfully, in his 2002 race against Artur Davis.  This “Blacker-than-thou” politics plays on social class, is fraught with danger, and is the unfortunate by-product of the quest to keep power and influence by any means.  While unfortunate, it is no surprise that questions are now being asked about Obama.

There is a curious irony to the “Black enough” whispering that the nationalist wing of Black America has to confront.  If Obama isn’t Black enough, then who is among the announced candidates?  Hillary Clinton?  Tom Vilsack?  Joe Biden?  Chris Dodd?  This is where things get tricky because the only candidate who has given much voice to the kinds of issues of particular interest to African Americans is a White man:  Edwards.  He may well be the candidate who best represents Black interests.  Wouldn’t that be ironic?  And wouldn’t that pose problems for Black America?

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.

New Book Available -- Republicans and the Black Vote

My newest book, Republicans and the Black Vote, is now available and I encourage you to get a copy.  This is academic publishing, so you don't have to worry about me getting rich!!  You can get it at the usual places, including online sites such as Amazon and from the publisher, Lynne Rienner (www.rienner.com). 

Following is a description, comments by those who have read the book, and a chapter listing.

Description--

Republicans and the Black Vote examines the complicated relationship between a political party and a constituency from which it receives little support.  The book relies on interviews and a review of the historical record to explain the GOPs early lock on Black voters, how they lost Black support, how policy positions and political symbolism combine to repel Black voters, and how the party can overcome its current position in the Black community.

The relationship between African Americans and the Republican Party garners attention every national election cycle and raises a number of concerns.  Many analysts wonder why the Grand Old Party (GOP) has been unable to gain a significant foothold in the Black community.  Still others want to know how the GOP found itself in its current predicament with a formerly support constituency.  Some even implicitly criticize Black voters for not being more open to supporting the GOP.  Still others, given current political trends, suggest that the GOP should simply throw up its collective hands and spend no additional time or resources seeking Black votes and focus more attention, instead, on Hispanic voters.  And then there are the cynics who wonder, GOP pronouncements notwithstanding, if Republicans really want Black votes or just want to appear to want Black votes to show racial moderation center and center-left voters.

However, the nation’s changing demography and more closely contested national elections are among the factors that  are forcing the GOP to reach out and gain support in previously untapped voter reservoirs.  Failing this outreach, the party risks losing its current position in American politics and the GOP’s most untapped voter reservoir is the African American community.  This is particularly notable when one considers that President Bush did better with gay voters in 2004 than African American voters, 25 percent to 11 percent, respectively.

Comments--

"Tackling a topic that has not received nearly as much attention as it merits, Fauntroy's timely work provides a comprehensive overview of the GOP in relationship not only to black voters, but to racial politics writ large."
—Linda Faye Williams, University of Maryland

"A comprehensive and much-needed analysis of party identification among African Americans since passage of the 15th and 19th Amendments.... Fauntroy does a great job assessing the obstacles plaguing the Republican Party."
—Maruice Mangum, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

---

The Republican Party once enjoyed nearly unanimous support among African American voters; today, it can hardly maintain a foothold in the black community. Exploring how and why this shift occurred, as well as recent efforts to reverse it, Michael Fauntroy meticulously navigates the policy choices and political strategies that have driven a wedge between the GOP and its formerly stalwart constituents.

Contents--

• Afros and Elephants: An Introduction to a Political Paradox.
• The GOP's Early Lock on Black Votes.
• The Republicans Fall Out of Favor.
• Efforts to Regain and Retain African American Support.
• Public Policies Speak Louder Than Words.
• GOP Political Symbolism Angers African Americans.
• An Ongoing Quest for Black Votes?

Republicans and the Black Vote

A significant story line for the 2008 Republican presidential machine will be the relationship between Republicans and Black voters.  This is a relationship that garners attention every national election cycle and raises a number of concerns.  Many analysts wonder why the Grand Old Party (GOP) has been unable to gain a significant foothold in the Black community.  Still others want to know how the GOP found itself in its current predicament with a formerly supportive constituency.  Some even implicitly criticize Black voters for not being more open to supporting the GOP.  Still others, given current political trends, suggest that the GOP should simply throw up its collective hands and spend no additional time or resources seeking Black votes and focus more attention, instead, on Hispanic voters.  And then there are the cynics who wonder, GOP pronouncements notwithstanding, if Republicans really want Black votes or just want to appear to want Black votes to show racial moderation to centrist voters.

Be that as it may, the nation’s changing demography and more closely contested national elections are among the factors that  are forcing the GOP to reach out and gain support in previously untapped voter reservoirs with African Americans at the top of the list.  This is particularly notable when one considers that President Bush did better with gay voters in 2004 than African American voters, 25 percent to 11 percent, respectively.  While there was not much about which to be optimistic for the GOP as it relates to Black voters, the fact is that the party must do better with this constituency or run the risk of extinction.

The research I conducted for my book – Republicans and the Black Vote – leads me to three conclusions.  First, the historical relationship between the Republican party and the Black community, while significant, important, notable, and critical to African American political, social, and economic development during the Reconstruction era, is often overstated.  Republican activists and others who laud the GOPs early support for African American interests are correct in noting the role of the “Party of Lincoln” in Black political development.  These same activists and others are mistaken when they try to portray this effort as unanimous within the party and long lasting.  A review of the historical record shows that the party began retreating from its commitments to African Americans within a generation of the party’s founding, particularly with the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877.  From that point, over the objections of a small, but important faction of “Radical” Republicans, the party began to compete with the Democratic party for the southern conservative and racist vote. 

These efforts set in motion a multi-generational period in which the party, in some parts of the country, marginalized and demonized Black America to win elections.  The “Lily-White Movement” is one of the darkest, and under-examined, eras of American Republicanism.  That a party would systematically purge voters, particularly those as loyal to the GOP as post-Reconstruction era Blacks, can only be seen as an attempt to repudiate the liberal social policy positions on which the Republican Party was founded.  That repudiation, with decreasing amounts of opposition, continues to this day.

Second, many African American GOP activists do not understand the link between ideology and voter support.  If they did, then perhaps they would call for the party to moderate some of its policy positions to win Black votes.  Republicans want African American votes; they just do not want to moderate their positions to achieve them.  Every Black Republican I interviewed rejected the notion that the party needs to moderate its positions to win more Black votes.  This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Black vote.  African Americans, when taken in total, vote and support policies that are left of center; in fact, their support for the GOP has been strongest when the party was to the left of the Democrats.  The party lost support as it moved right ideologically.  Given the position of the Black community on the full range of public policy issues, it’s difficult to see how the GOP can win more Black votes without moderating its positions; indeed, the GOP has moved away from Black people.

Third, the political paradox in which the GOP finds itself still exists calls into question just how far it will go to win more Black support.  The over-reliance of the Republican Party on White voters is still required, given the inability of the party to make significant inroads in the Black and Hispanic communities.  This paradox, coupled with contemporary dominance of national politics, may make it irresistible for some Republican activists to change their strategic focus by seeking more Black voters, particularly if this shift alienates White voters who respond favorably to racial stereotyping and symbolism that denigrates African Americans and their policy interests.

After writing the book, I have come to believe that the Republican Party does not have much of a clue as to how to deal with African Americans.  On the one hand, they profess to want Black votes; on the other, they offer little of substance.  This kind of confusion will, no doubt, continue the Republicans on the track toward oblivion in the Black community.  That’s too bad, but true and they only have themselves to blame.  Criticizing Black leaders and the media won’t make the GOP more attractive to African Americans – consistent support for public policy that helps improve the general condition of African Americans is the only answer.

A party’s future is often formed by its past.  The more recent the past, the more relevant it is in determining where a party is heading.  The Democratic Party was able to overcome the racist past characterized by its southern conservatism.  It’s opposition to civil rights during the Civil War and Reconstruction eras ultimately gave way to a more enlightened and progressive approach to Black America.  It took time.  It wasn’t easy.  But, ultimately, the party went from near unanimous opposition in the African American community during the 1870s to near unanimous support more than a century later.  There are some who argue that passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 – two important steps in facilitating Black support – actually opened the door for southern conservatives to march out and join the GOP, subsequently leading to the diminution of the Democrats’ political dominance. 

The Republican Party has a multi-generational history of purging, demonizing, and opposing African American political empowerment.  This, coupled with the use of negative political symbolism, covert racism, and public policy that some African Americans believed to be aimed at the Black community have constructed brick after brick in a political wall between the party and African Americans may take as long to tear down as it did to build.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
January 2, 2007