MichaelFauntroy.com

What Black Republicans Should Do Now

As the author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote, I've been getting  calls asking for my thoughts on the recent decisions by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Senator Fred Thompson to skip Thursday's forum at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD, a historically Black college.  Almost all of the callers want to know what impact, if any, this all will have on the campaigns of the campaigns going forward.  I think the impact will be limited in the primary, but the nominee will have hell to pay in the Black community next November for not showing participating in the forum.  There's an old saying in politics: "Friends come and go; enemies accumulate."  Well, if any of these missing-in-action Republicans get the nomination, then they will learn just how many enemies they have made by stiff arming Black America.

One question that has caught me off-guard in this is: What should Black Republicans do in response to this?  It's a strange position for me, a progressive, to give the advice to Republicans, but I really think it's important for this group of maligned and marginalized activists to get in the game.  Black Republicans have long been seen as unwilling to vocally and aggressively speak out against ridiculous missteps such as this.  There are three steps Black Republicans can take now to move toward credibility in the Black community.  If they are successful in that regard then, perhaps, they will see their fortunes rise within the Black community and in the Grand Old Party.

First, all of the major Black Republican individuals and organizations who believe it fundamentally wrong for these candidates to miss the forum should form an ad hoc coalition to express their outrage and demand change.  Press conferences, letters, interviews, blogs, whatever; just make it plain this is a decision with which you disagree.  That way, even if they don't show, you can face the collective Black community and say: "We tried."  Credibility begins with small steps.  It's time for Black Republicans to get started.

Second, Black Republicans must demand positions of authority within these campaigns.  The Republican nominee will be caught flat-footed if he has no one of substance to go to the Black community.  It may not seem like much now, but the 11 percent of the Black vote that George W. Bush received in 2004 will look very good to the 2008 nominee, given the way Independents and Latino/a voters are likely to break.  The candidates need to know that they are making a mistake in skipping the forum.  Sadly, for them, they don't appear to have anyone in their campaigns who get it.  The calculation that they seem to have made - that there aren't any votes to be had by appearing at the forum or that there may be a hostile crowd - is ridiculous and no one in the campaigns stood up and said so.    Given that invitations went out six months ago, no one, not even Black Republicans, believes the "scheduling conflicts" defense, so the campaigns need to get real and do the right thing.

Third, it's time for Black Republicans to speak out more forcefully on issues that are of importance to African Americans when there is common ground.  The deafening silence by Republicans, Black or otherwise, with regard to the Jena 6, for example, is an area where Black Republicans have dropped the ball. Taking these steps won't guarantee that Black Republicans will begin to win over reluctant converts.

However, doing nothing is a sure-fire way to get nothing. Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote..  He blogs at www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Post-Forum Analysis on the Tavis Smiley Show

I will participate in a post-candidate forum roundtable discussion that will be aired on the Friday, September 28th edition of the Tavis Smiley show.  Ray Suarez, of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and Hazel Trice Edney, editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a federation of more than 200 Black-owned newspapers, and its Website, BlackPressUSA.com.

I'm looking forward to talking with them about the forum, which takes on a particular resonance given the absences of the top four candidates.  This has become a controversy in Black America and serves as yet another brick in the wall that exists between the GOP and African Americans. 

Check your local listing for exact air time in your area.

I've Been Waiting for This

Former Representative J.C. Watts cam out swinging in an interview with ABC News and the targets were members of his own Republican Party who can't seem to get their GPS moving toward Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD for Thursdays presidential candidates forum.

I've been wondering when prominent African American Republicans would speak out, one way or the other, on this.

Watts called the decision by former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Senator John McCain, and former Senator Fred Thompson to skip the nationally televised forum "stupid" and more:

"I think the best that comes out of stupid decisions like this," said former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, is "that African-Americans might say, 'Was it because of my skin color?' Now, maybe it wasn't, but African-Americans do say, 'It crossed my mind.'"

The invitations were extended in March, but the front-runners have claimed scheduling conflicts. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who's weighing getting into the race, called that excuse "baloney" and called the no-shows "fundamentally wrong." On "Good Morning America" today, Gingrich said GOP candidates are making a mistake because "African-Americans have been hurt more by the failures of government" than any other group.

Watts pointed out that some of the candidates with more liberal histories on issues such as guns and abortion have reached out to conservative groups that don't share their views.

Watts should be commended for speaking out on this issue.  African American Republicans have to be sick about defending this party in the face of this furor.  These candidates won't pay much of a price in the primary, but the GOP nominee will be lucky to get more than 6 or 7 percent of the Black vote in November 2008.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote.  He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

With Friends Like These . . .

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaign has been based entirely on the argument that he is best situated to protect America from terrorists around the world.  It's his, and his supporters, most significant point of emphasis and has pushed him to the top of the heap among candidates for the GOP nomination despite a social policy record that would make most liberals blush. It also represents a serious minefield for Giuliani, who is trying to fend off charges that his campaign is based solely on capitalizing on the great publicity he received for his performance in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York.

It's a sensitive issue that can make him look like the most craven of beings, seeking to win the presidency on the backs of emergency responders, who risked their lives and health to help others, and those who perished in the attacks.  Giuliani has always denied that his candidacy is based on September 11th and that he isn't seeking to capitalize on the tragedy.

Well, with friends like these . . .

The Associated Press reported Monday that a Giuliani supporter is hosting a fundraiser with an interesting entry fee:  $9.11. 

A supporter of Rudy Giuliani's is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign.  Abraham Sofaer is having a fundraiser at his Palo Alto, Calif., home on Wednesday, when Giuliani backers across the country are participating in the campaign's national house party night. 

But Sofaer said he had nothing to do with the "$9.11 for Rudy" theme.  "There are some young people who came up with it," Sofaer said when reached by telephone Monday evening. He referred other questions to Giuliani's campaign.  "I'm just providing support for him. He's an old friend of mine," Sofaer said of Giuliani.  Sofaer was a State Department adviser under President Reagan and is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution

Giuliani's campaign had no immediate comment.

According to the invitation, "$9.11 for Rudy" is an "independent, non-denominational grass-roots campaign to raise $10,000 in small increments to show how many individual, everyday Americans support `America's Mayor.'"

This event, in my humble opinion, puts the lie to the notion that Giuliani, and his backers, are trying to squeeze September 11th for all it's worth.  That his campaign hasn't put the kibosh on this ridiculous theme for a fundraiser tells me all I need to know about where September 11th sits on the totem pole that is the Giuliani campaign.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote.  He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com

Jackson Did Obama a Favor

South Carolina’s largest newspaper, The State, reported Wednesday that Rev. Jesse Jackson accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of “acting like he’s White” over what Jackson considered to be a muted response by Obama to the Jena 6 controversy in Louisiana.  Jackson later backed away from the comment, telling the newspaper that he didn’t recall making the statement but, rather, that “he only wanted to point out that Obama had not seized on an opportunity to highlight the disproportionate criminal punishments black youths too often face.”  That is not exactly a denial, so I will take it as confirmation that Jackson made the comment.  In running his mouth as he did, Jackson did Obama a huge favor.

I can’t prove it, but I suspect that the Obama headquarters may not be too upset over all this.  That is because Jackson is considered so anathema to many independent voters, even to many Democrats, his criticism of Obama serves the purpose of burnishing the image of the Illinois Senator.  It goes something like this: “I can’t stand Jackson; Jackson criticized Obama; therefore, Obama must be all right.”

What Jackson and others who are criticizing Obama on this issue seem to forget is that overtly and exclusively Black candidates cannot become president.  Yes, they can win 11 primaries and nearly seven million votes, as Jackson did in 1988, but they can’t win a nomination.  Obama can only be as Black as White America will allow, so don’t expect to see him front-and-center on controversial racial issues.  Be patient with Obama, Black America.  He is walking a tightrope unlike any other presidential candidate in American history.

So, Jesse, charge him with “acting White.”  That only makes him more attractive to the White voters he will need to win the nomination.  Keep up the good work!

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote.  He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com

Republicans Blow Another Opportunity to Reach Black America

Republicans have long attributed their electoral position in Black America to an unfortunate confluence of misunderstandings, liberal media bias, and Black civil rights leaders that “control” the thought processes of Black voters and instruct them to be supplicants to the Democratic Party.  If only Republicans could speak directly to Black voters without the media filter, they contend, Black voters would see that the GOP has a platform that speaks to Black empowerment.  Indeed, the argument goes, once Black voters hear the Republicans speak to them unfiltered, then it is only a matter of time before the GOP begins to win substantial Black support.  There’s only one problem with that argument as it relates to the 2008 Republican presidential nomination fight: Republican candidates are willfully missing an unfiltered, unedited opportunity to speak directly to African Americans.  Their snubbing of minority groups is more evidence that it is not serious about winning Black and Brown votes.

The Public Broadcasting Service announced on February 8, 2007 that it would broadcast two live presidential candidate forums to be moderated by Tavis Smiley, the host of a talk show on the network.  According to the February announcement, the forums were conceived in the wake of the release of Smiley’s book the Covenant with Black America, which speaks to ten of the most significant issues facing Black America.  Upon the book’s publication, the national committees of both major parties pledged that their respective presidential candidates would address the issues raised in the book.

While every Democratic presidential candidate found their way to D.C. for the June forum, it appears that the Republican candidates can’t get their GPS to direct them to Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland for the GOP candidate’s forum scheduled for September 27.  It appears that none of the “top tier” candidates will participate.  Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Senator Fred Thompson  have already declined invitations while Senator John McCain is still unconfirmed.

There is an awful lot of time between early February and late September, so it’s implausible that the Republican candidates were booked when the forum was announced.  The GOP absences from a forum that targets voters they claim to covet can only be seen as proof that their talk and deeds on winning Black votes are moving in opposite directions.

Sadly, this is standard operating procedure for the Republicans and outreach to minority constituencies.  Most major GOP candidates have declined invitations to address the NAACP and the Urban League, as well as appear at a forum televised by Univision.  Univision cancelled it’s forum because of the abysmal Republican response (only Senator John McCain accepted the invitation)  This strategy is insane when you consider that many of the issues that are raised at these events would also be raised in “majority” settings as well.  It’s also arrogant, as it suggests that some voters are unworthy of addressing. 

Yes, the Republicans are in trouble with Black Americans and struggling with Hispanic Americans.  However, thumbing your nose so publicly at these constituencies is politically stupid and represents yet another in the long list of examples that show the GOP is not serious about winning minority voters.  Demographic trends suggest that position will hurt the party in the long run.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently published book Republicans and the Black Vote.  He blogs at www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Jena 6 and the Legacy of Racism

It wasn't until recently that I began to follow the case of the Jena 6.  After watching this video, I find myself surprised by my lack of surprise.  This case is so reminiscent of  the history of racism in small town  America. Those who believe racism to be in remission should take a look at this video and get back to me.  Conservatives like to argue that some African Americans make too much of the random act of White racism.  The problem, however, is when one begins to tally the acts:  they find an inconvenient consistency that can't be ignored. 

The video makes an interesting comparison between this case and the Duke lacrosse case regarding media coverage.  The salacious details of a falsified rape claim garnered continuous worldwide attention, while this case has largely been shutout of the national media.  Please contact CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and PBS and ask them to cover the case of the Jena 6.  It is no less important or emblematic of where we still need to go as a country.

Cornel West, Mos Def, Farai Chideya, and Me (Sort of)

I had the pleasure of appearing on the Black bloggers roundtable on the Wednesday, September 12th edition of News and Notes with Farai Chideya.  Along with writer David Mills, and 2007 Black Weblog Award winner Gina McCauley, I spouted on Eddie Griffin getting booted from a gig for a profane, N-word laden set (as if that's a surprise), Cornel West and Mos Def on Real Time with Bill Maher in which Def stated his belief that Osama bin Laden didn't have anything to do with the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, Oprah's fundraiser for Barack Obama, and the Jena 6 case.

Check it out.

The GOP and Minorities

Andrew Sullivan posted earlier today on the GOP and minorities:

I understand why some disagree with debates focused on one interest group or another. But as a practical matter, the major parties do have to contend with minority voting blocs. It seems to me a sign of considerable vulnerability that the Republicans all refused to debate in front of a gay audience and all but McCain refused to debate for Univision. The signal that the GOP is uninterested in anyone not white is not exactly the way to build a majority party.

While I agree with his overall assessment, I feel compelled to add one group to his list.  GOP candidates have been largely absent from African-American candidate gatherings sponsored by the NAACP and the Urban League.  I can see why Republicans won't appear at Savior's Day at the Nation of Islam or Al Sharpton's National Action Network, but why snub the NAACP and Urban League?  That's just politically stupid.

As someone who follows the party as it relates to African Americans, I find myself wondering why Republicans, given all the demographic change that is taking place in America, is so willing to let its fortunes be decided by its narrow voter focus.  The numbers don't add up for the party going forward and, if current trends continue, Republicans will be a significantly smaller, regional (the South) party in a generation or so.  Why don't they understand that?

By the way Andrew, at what point do all of these "minorities" constitute a "majority"?

Conservatives and Black Voter Disenfranchisement

“I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

 

– Conservative activist Paul Weyrich, at a 1980 training session for Christian conservatives

America is at the dawn of a new political era, pregnant with opportunity and optimism. Control of Congress has shifted and the 2008 presidential election is beginning to take shape. Liberals are on the rise in many unlikely places around the nation and new hope has arisen that some of America’s lingering problems will finally be addressed. Legislative victories, of course, come after electoral ones and while this is the dawn of a new era, old habits die hard. One of America’s oldest habits is Black voter disenfranchisement and, as we move toward a critical election season in which the Black vote will be a deciding factor all over the country, now is the time to focus on this continued electoral assault. Too long ignored by policymakers, this issue lies at the heart of American democracy and leaves a gaping hole in our political existence. Given the closeness of recent presidential elections and prevailing public opinion, Republicans are seeking to win some elections not by expanding their support base but, rather, by constricting access to the ballot box. This key arrow in the conservative political quiver must be stopped.

Voter disenfranchisement laws date back to a larger culture of “civil death” that emerged from Europe and befell miscreants for centuries. Over time, prohibitions on the right to participate in court proceedings, passing on an estate to an heir, or enter into contracts, were all overturned. Voter disenfranchisement was the only remaining vestige of that era. From the application of voter disenfranchisement laws, many of which date back to the post-Reconstruction era to faulty, dysfunctional, or incompetent electoral administration, African Americans and other minorities around the country are having a difficult time voting and being certain that their votes are counted.

That conservatives see the Black vote as a sleeping giant in American politics is proven by the lengths to which they go to lock out of the system as many people as possible. The Republican Party has spent millions in support of purge programs and “electoral integrity” schemes with the only real purpose being to reduce the number of African Americans that vote. This money is spent because the party understands the arithmetic of Black political power and the disproportionate impact African Americans can have in deciding who wins presidential general election states such as Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina. While many attribute the GOP’s rise in the south to Democratic liberalism, no one should overlook the increasing numbers of Black voters that have been stricken from voter rolls throughout the region. It is no coincidence that the Republican rise in the south has occurred at about the same time that the number of Blacks officially disenfranchised has skyrocketed.

The increase in felony convictions over the last generation or so has proven to be an effective way to lock out African American voters. Between 1970 and 2000, the overall number of state and federal prisoners grew by over 600 percent, from fewer than 200,000 to nearly 1.4 million. Nearly five million Americans, two percent of the voting-age population, are prohibited from voting as a result of felony convictions. The laws that created these barriers are undemocratic and antithetical to American ideals, particularly in the case of those who have completed their sentences, parole, or both, and have thus completely “paid their debt to society.”

Racism is the root of felon disenfranchisement laws. Conservatives created these laws in the post-Reconstruction era South in an effort keep African Americans out of the political process as they sought to “redeem” the South in the name of White supremacy. Over time, these laws spread nationwide and 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibited inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felony offense; 36 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole; and 31 of these states exclude felony probationers as well. Three states deny the right to vote to all ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. As the GOP became the home of the conservative movement, Republicans all over the country have continually resisted efforts to overturn these scandalous, undemocratic laws. They often argue that these laws are an appropriate supplement to the incarceration process. The reality is that they understand the numbers which clearly indicate the GOP would have a much more difficult time winning elections around the country, particularly in the South.

These policies conflict with public opinion including a 2001 Demos study, Punishing at the Polls: The Case Against Disenfranchising Citizens With Felony Convictions, found that about 15 percent of respondents supported lifetime disenfranchisement of felons and a 2002 survey found that 80 percent believed that all ex-felons should have the right to vote.

The impact of these laws on African American political participation has been profound. According to the Sentencing Project, in its 2005 report Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, more than 1.4 million African American men, or 13% of Black men, are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average; in six states that deny the vote to ex-offenders, 25 percent of Black men are permanently disenfranchised. Given current incarceration rates, 30 percent of the next generation of Black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of Black men may permanently lose their right to vote. Ex-offenders who have completed their sentences comprise approximately 1.7 million disenfranchised people in the United States.

According to 2004 report by the People for the American Way/National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America, Florida disenfranchised approximately 827,000 ex-felons for the 2000 presidential election. That number is all the more stark when one consider that estimates of felon turnout range from a low of 20.5 percent (for the 1974 congressional elections) to a high of 39 percent (for the 1992 presidential election), with an average estimated felon turnout of about 24 percent in non-presidential year Senate elections and about 35 percent in presidential election years.

While well below general turnout rates, these estimates are enough to change electoral outcomes. Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen, authors of Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy, argue that the outcome of the 2000 presidential election “would almost certainly have been reversed had voting rights been extended to any category of disenfranchised felons.” They concluded that Democratic nominee Al Gore would have one the popular vote by more than one million votes. The disputed election in Florida reveals the impact felon disenfranchisement had on the 2000 contest. Given estimated rates of turnout (27.2 percent) and preference (68.9 percent) for Florida incarcerates, Gore would have carried the state by 80,000 votes and, thereby, the presidency.

The political implications of felon disenfranchisement on the result of the 2000 presidential election were not limited to Florida. In nine states – Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin – the number of disenfranchised felons exceeded the margin of victory. Given the high proportion of African Americans who are convicted felons, it is quite likely that Democrats would dominate America politics were it not for these laws.

These laws have definitive political implications for African Americans and the Republican Party. Criminology research tells us that those incarcerated in America’s prisons tend to be economically poor and disproportionately minority – in other words, likely Democrats. Disenfranchising voters, particularly in closely contested southern states, can remove critical masses of potential Democratic voters from election rolls, thereby giving a significant boost to Republican electoral chances. Given that African Americans are charged and convicted of crimes at disproportionately high rates and their concentration in southern states, this disenfranchisement gives Republicans and unearned advantage.

As a consequence of these political realities, Republicans have no political incentive to overturn these laws and have been the most vocal opponents to laws that would ease restrictions on felon participation in the electoral process. They benefit more than Democrats by the current disenfranchisement laws. Indeed, some Republican officials see politics in the efforts by Democrats to allow felons to have their voting privileges reinstated. According to one Maryland Republican Party official “I see things like that coming up so that a Democratic governor or whomever is really just trying to gain votes, votes that they know they could pretty well count on.” This sort of short-sighted view of the citizenship flies in the face of all that America purports to represent. Those that are convicted of a felony haven’t forfeited their citizenship, so why should they be precluded from voting? The answer virtually always comes down to raw politics. Rather than compete on their merits, conservatives want to reduce the number of voters likely to vote for their opponents. Felon disenfranchisement is a key cog in that strategy.

While the historical genesis of these kinds of laws can be found in the actions of anti-Reconstruction conservative Democrats, Republicans are benefiting from these laws and fight attempts to reverse the status quo on felon disenfranchisement. Contemporary Democrats have been slow to embrace the fundamental illegitimacy of these laws for fear of being charged as “soft on criminals.” They have acted as the political equivalent of Sergeant Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes, knowing nothing while doing less. This isn’t about crime. It’s about fairness and citizenship and representing to the world the very best of America. The time has now come for an organized, protracted, and dedicated effort to end these laws throughout the country. One can only hope that this new political era will challenge old habits and bring about real change.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of Republicans and the Black Vote.