Professor. Political Analyst. Pundit.

New Audio:  Fauntroy Discusses President Reagan’s Legacy on NPR’s “Tell Me More”

Here is the link to my discussion (with former Reagan appointee Linda Chavez) on NPR's "Tell Me More" with Michel Martin.  We discussed Reagan as we come to his 100th birthday and in the wake of Michael Reagan's column "Ronald Reagan -- Our First Black President?"

Iowa Caucuses Observations

Voters have finally had their say and the presidential race is now underway.  While no one should be surprised that Senator Barack Obama and former Governor Mike Huckabee won their respective party caucuses in Iowa, there are some observations that should be noted as we look to New Hampshire and beyond.  I picked former Senator John Edwards and former Governor Mitt Romney to win their respective party caucuses so, perhaps, the first observation should be that this is not the first time I’ve been wrong, nor will it be the last.

  On the Democratic side, three things stand out.  First, Barack Obama’s comfortable win suggests that his personal charisma and message for change resonated well with Iowans and energized voters all over the state.  Just look at the turnout.  About 212, 000 Democrats turnout for these caucuses, a gigantic increase over the 2004 total of 125,000 caucus-goers.  Further, Obama got an impressive 41 percent of all first-time caucus participants and dominated the support of those between 17 – 29. 

Second, Hilary Clinton did well in Iowa, but not well enough to justify her decision to compete in the Hawkeye state.  She should have followed the advice she received in that infamous May 2007 memorandum that recommended she bypass the state because it didn’t set up well for her.  The campaign played the risk-reward card, trying to knock out Obama early and conserving its resources to the general election.  That didn’t pan out, so she looks more like a loser than really is following Iowa.  This places a premium on a strong finish in New Hampshire. 

Third, it’s difficult to see how John Edwards can pull out the nomination given his lack of fundraising and organization.  While Huckabee was able to pull off Iowa with little money, it’s doubtful that Edwards can do the same in New Hampshire given the strength of his competition.

On the Republican side, Huckabee’s margin of victory may bring down the curtains on the Romney campaign.  Romney was polling even with Huckabee before the Iowa caucuses.  The bump Huckabee will receive, coupled with a resurgent Senator John McCain, leaves very little running room for Romney.  All the pressure now rests on Romney, who is about to go into two states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, that are not well-suited to his candidacy.  Meanwhile, McCain and former Senator Fred Thompson remain viable options for conservative Republicans.

One caveat for the Obama supporters who seek “change”:  Idealism is fine, but bringing about change will require much more than talk and a new president.  All presidents need at least 60 votes in the Senate and a majority of votes in the House of Representatives to get their preferred legislation passed.  Consequently, change is not as easy as just changing presidents.  While congressional public approval numbers hover around 20 percent, more than 90 percent of all members of the House who seek reelection win.  In other words, the public doesn’t vote its feelings about Congress.  This is significant conflict that reveals the schizophrenic nature of American voters.  If voters really want change, then they will have to give Obama a completely new Congress to bring about the change he is proposing.  Maintaining the status quo Congress won’t get the job done.  The electorate will have to be brave enough to vote for change up and down the ballot, not just the top of the ticket if they really want change.

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

Heartland Forum

Later today, the Heartland Presidential Forum will take place in Des Moines, Iowa.  The five participating candidates will be asked to address a number of issues that haven't gotten much play by the mainstream media:  housing, agriculture, immigration, low-wage employment, healthcare, and clean elections.  Yes, housing, immigration, and healthcare have gotten some attention but the discussions have been narrow.  For example, everyone is talking about subprime loans and foreclosures, but I haven't heard much about the creation of lower-cost affordable housing in cities and suburbs.  This is particularly notable when considers that homelessness is on the rise in America, especially in New Orleans, where people with jobs are living under bridges in the Crescent City.

One issue that I hope gets raised is that of the disenfranchisement of ex-felons.  This is a national disgrace.  Many of the disenfranchisement laws date to the post-Reconstruction era when conservatives sought to "redeem" the South and return it to the pre-Reconstruction racial status quo that used all sorts of laws and violence to keep Blacks from participating in the political process.  Over the years, they have been used to substantial numbers of people, mostly Black men, from voter rolls throughout the South.

According to Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, authors of the seminal book on this issue --  Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy -- as of 2004, more than 2 million African Americans are disenfranchised nationally as a result of these laws.   Most of these potential voters are concentrated in the South, where there presence would change the face of presidential elections.

As I note in chapter five of my book Republicans and the Black Vote, in states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote.  The state of Florida had an estimated 827,000 ex-felons who were unable to vote in the 2000 presidential election.  According to one national study, 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 significant in that they could change electoral outcomes.  According to one analysis, the outcome of the 2000 presidential election “would almost certainly have been reversed had voting rights been extended to any category of disenfranchised felons.”  This analysis argues 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.  The analysis argues that 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.  According to one study, researchers found that in nine “swing states” – Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin – the number of disenfranchised felons exceeded the margin of victory.  Given the demography of America’s felon population, it is not unreasonable to assert that in these states where Democrats won, their margins would have been larger were it not for felon disenfranchisement; additionally, Republican margins would have been smaller, including some Republican defeats, if this disenfranchisement did not occur.  A total of 846,486 felons were disenfranchised in Democratic states (those won by Democratic nominee Al Gore), which represented 1.2 percent of all voters; just over 2 million were disenfranchised in Republican states (those won by Republican nominee George W. Bush), representing three percent of all voters.

Let's hope the candidates address this underplayed but very important issue.

Pathetic Propaganda Posing as a Documentary

I recently saw a ridiculous, ignorant, poorly-produced “documentary” that nearly led me to explode. “Emancipation, Revelation, and Revolution” purports to fill the void in Black political discourse by telling the “true” story of the GOP and its position as a salvation for Black America.  In reality, it is propaganda masquerading as an educational documentation of the history of America’s political parties relative to Black America.

Alveda King, a niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was featured in the film and was also one of its apologists.  In response to a comment at a post-screening forum that the film wasn’t balanced, King called it a “balancer” relative to whatever else is in the marketplace of ideas.  Even the film’s producer/director, conservative activist Nina May, didn’t hide the imbalance in the piece and didn’t dispute the contention that the film was political propaganda.

This film is disgraceful.  It’s more one-sided than anything you’ll see on Fox News – prime time or otherwise.  Virtually no dissenting voices; nearly all of the 28 people featured in the film are well known conservatives who are in line with the Republican Party.  No historical context and a slanted view of history that is designed to leave viewers with the belief that a single politically opportunistic telephone call from Senator John Kennedy to Coretta Scott King after the arrest of her husband, Dr. King, was the event that led Black people to vote for Democrats.  History demonstrates otherwise but the film doesn’t deal with any of the real reasons why African Americans left the Republicans.   

The film glosses over or ignores contributing factors such as the Hayes-Tilden Compromise, GOP capitulation to southern conservative “redemption,” the "southern strategy," the embrace of disaffected racist Democrats, opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday bill, constructive engagement in South Africa, vetoing civil rights legislation, and so many other examples where the GOP came up small with Black voters.

The “documentary” also traffics in odd, cheesy subliminal messages.  Ominous background music underscored discussions critical of Democrats, while uplifting music played in the background when praise of the GOP was spoken.  Then, inexplicably, the film pivots into a 15 minute condemnation of same-sex marriage, an issue that ranks low on the list of priorities among African Americans.

In arguing that the Dems were racist and that the GOP has been miscast by the liberal media as the enemy of Black people, “Emancipation, Revelation, and Revolution” completely overlooks the role of ideology in policymaking.  Conservatives have long opposed Black progress. Conservatives opposed Reconstruction and civil rights.  Conservatives pushed the “Lily-White” movement that purged Blacks from leadership of state Republican parties throughout the South.  Conservatives have pushed for the maintenance of a racial status quo that held down Blacks and them blamed them for the lots in life.

Republican activists such as those in this film would rather that Black voters focus on party labels rather than ideology because the GOP is now the home of America’s conservatives and rode to prominence in the 1960s on the strength of conservatives who left the Democratic party and embraced by the Republican Party.

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.

Republican Candidate Forum Observations

I had the pleasure of attending Thursday’s Republican presidential candidate’s forum at Morgan State University.  I also participated in a post forum roundtable that aired on the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS on Friday, September 28.  I spent most of the forum in the media filing center (more on that later) before going to the Murphy Center for the Arts to take in the final moments.

Observations:

• This event was hurt by the absences of the four top-tier candidates.  Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Senator Fred Thompson all cited scheduling conflicts in their decision to skip the forum.  That reason flies in the face of the fact that those forum invitations were issued in March.  Their absence left a decided lack of electricity from the evening.  In some ways it was like watching a concert of preliminary acts with no head liners.  The auditorium was about two-thirds full and about 80% of the accredited media did not bother to attend.

• Mike Huckabee has always struck me as a thoughtful candidate and he distinguished himself from the field offering comments that demonstrated he did research and had some understanding of Black America.  His comments on criminal justice reform showed real common sense.  Typical “tough-on-crime” conservatives address criminal justice in irresponsible sound bites, slogans, and policies: “three strikes”, “do away with parole”, and the “death penalty.”  These sound bites, slogans and policies were more about appearing to be tough on crime than actually doing the hard work of rehabilitation.  Huckabee scored points by noting that 80% of those incarcerated in America are so because of drug or alcohol related crime.  He called for the creation of drug courts and alternatives to incarceration where appropriate.  This doesn’t usually come from conservatives and shows an ability to think for himself in a way that sets him apart for rank-and-file Republicans.

• Sam Brownback indicating that he would issue an apology for slavery and segregation struck me as curious.  He, as president, can issue an executive order or proclamation of some sort, but he would need to go through Congress to give it the full force of the American government.  If there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to end the war in Iraq, then there aren’t likely to be enough votes to overcome what I believe to be a certain filibuster in the Senate on an even more controversial issue.

• Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution gets the gold star of the night for asking the question on D.C. voting representation in Congress.  As a fourth-generation Washingtonian, the nephew of a former D.C. representation to Congress, and someone who has written a book on the subject, I’ve always been disappointed and frustrated by the lack of national interest in an issue so fundamental to democracy.  Our government is spending billions in blood and treasure to ensure a functional representative democracy in Iraq (including that of many Washingtonians), but won’t do anything to mend the crack in the liberty bell that is the status of Americans who happen to live in the District of Columbia.

• Alan Keyes is shameless.

Overall, the event was a success, despite the no-shows, because it featured questions that never would have been asked by other journalists on the major broadcast and cable networks.  The candidates who skipped the event will be fine during the primary election process.  The Republican nominee, likely one of the four, will pay a price in the general election.  The nominee will see the 11% that President Bush received in 2004 will be seen as a lofty goal rather than an expectation.  Given what is going on with the party on immigration and Iraq and their impact on Independents and Latino/a voters, the Republicans are heading for trouble in 2008.

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.

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.

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

Race and Representing Memphis

U.S. Representative Harold Ford's campaign for an open seat in the Senate has received an increasing amount of attention now that Republican fortunes have turned for the worst. However, the far more interesting race is the one to succeed him in representing the ninth congressional district of Tennessee. The election presents a curious choice for some Black Memphians who seek more political power in the hands of African Americans.

On the one hand, they could elect Harold's brother Jake Ford, a patently unqualified African American high school dropout with a G.E.D. so that they can continue a 30-year string of Black representatives for the Memphis-based district. On the other, they could vote for Steve Cohen, the far better qualified candidate who happens to be White. Electing Jake Ford would be a travesty to the political process.

Jake Ford is not the first candidate to try to cash in on his family name; indeed, George Bush is President of the United States in large part, because of his name - names like Kennedy, Kean, Casey, Daley, Landrieu, and Hutchinson are synonymous with politics in many parts of the country. But in this case, Jake Ford is out of bounds and running for a seat for which no one else with his lack of credentials would ever have the audacity to seek. It is hard to argue against local critics who contend that this is nothing more than an attempt to extend the Ford political dynasty at the expense of qualified congressional representation.

Steve Cohen, winner of the Democratic primary, is Ford's biggest obstacle. Cohen is White, Jewish, and reliably progressive with political positions in line with a majority of the district. A Tennessee state senator with nearly 30 years of legislative experience, he is clearly the best candidate for the seat. Indeed, his state senate seat represents many of the same voters as the ninth congressional district. Ford's name recognition, however, cannot be ignored and he must be taken seriously as some wonder if his candidacy could syphon enough votes from Cohen that the Republican candidate may have an outside shot at winning. Wouldn't that be ironic for Black nationalists in the district? By supporting an unqualified candidate because he's Black, they may open the door for someone who will support Bush policies.

A Black ministers group is supporting Ford by trading in racism and narrow-minded political ignorance to oppose a qualified candidate in favor of someone who shouldn't even be in the race. They and others who support Ford on the notion that the district must be represented by an African American are taking racial solidarity in an unfortunate direction and miss an important point: double-standards almost always come back to haunt. Don't they understand that if Whites took the same position around the country that they take, then the Barack Obama's of the world never win?

While I understand and support increasing the number of African American elected officials around the country, I can't help but wonder what damage to cross-racial political alliances would be done if Ford were to win. Hopefully, voters will do the right thing and reward someone worthy of the honor of representing them in Congress.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
September 30, 2006

The GOP’s Black History

Black History month is upon us and the Republicans will likely use this as an opportunity to ramp up their efforts to win more Black votes.  Demographic changes and increasingly tight presidential elections have put the GOP in a position where it needs more Black votes to maintain its electoral dominance.  Consequently, the party has begun to invest more resources–both real and rhetorical–to support this mission.  It won’t be easy and it will require more than platitudes about important Blacks in the GOP.  Indeed, acknowledging the contributions of Blacks in American history is pretty easy for the party.  The hard part for the GOP will be acknowledging its own role in the political history of African Americans. 

While the Republican Party is rightfully acknowledged as the leading advocate of Black equality during the Abolition movement and Reconstruction-era, it is its own history with Black America that will make it difficult for it to overcome its current problems in the Black community.  From the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877, to the Lily-White Movement, to the GOP’s 1960s embrace of racial conservatives who opposed Black civil rights, to the “Southern Strategy,” to Reagan-era dismantling of federal civil rights enforcement mechanisms, to opposition of affirmative action, to Jesse Helms’ “quota” ad versus Harvey Gantt, the GOP has established a long and distinguished record of turning away from its historic role in advocating Black equality.

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 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 African Americans.  Some even implicitly criticize Black voters for not being more open to supporting the GOP.  Some suggest that, given current political trends, the GOP should simply throw up its collective hands and spend no additional time or resources seeking Black votes. 

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 their center and center-left supporters.  Taking the steps necessary to get large numbers of African American votes, after all, would alienate white conservatives.  Such cynicism is heightened by the fact that GOP pronouncements wanting African American votes are not aimed at Black America, but rather at middle-class suburban voters who agree with Republican economics but don't feel comfortable voting for a party that has a reputation for apathy–or worse–toward African Americans and other minorities.  The argument could be that the Republicans prefer to have issues on which to abuse Democrats as opposed to actually overturning controversial policies like affirmative action, gay marriage, abortion, and school prayer in order to get more Black votes.

GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman has made it a point to publicize the Republican party’s efforts to win more than their traditionally minuscule support from Black voters.  He has made high profile speeches to Black audiences in which he has said: “give us a chance and we’ll give you a choice.”  Well, if he wants the chance, he’ll have to overcome a long and negative history in the Black community to give African Americans a choice.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
January 24, 2006

Race and the Republicans

Virginia Senator George Allen and Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele represent the Republican Party’s racial quandary:  How do you make a party more palatable to African Americans when the party and some of its leaders have histories that show sympathy to racists or have supporters that use race to make positive assertions that are not true?  On the one hand is Allen, whose unfortunate affection for the confederacy and all it represents dates to his teen years.  On the other hand is Steele, seeking to become the first African American elected to the Senate from Maryland.  Their ability to effectively deal with this quandary will determine just how successful the party will be in wooing minority voters going forward. 

Allen is under a deluge of pressure to respond to allegation that he has been too cozy with racism in his earlier days and what, if any, residual prejudice may still exist in him.  Herein lies the problem for his campaign: Every day he spends responding to and defending himself against his distant past is a day that he can’t spend addressing his recent past – his support for the Bush administration and conservatism in a state that is not as “red” as it used to be.  His campaign is stuck in deep water now and his head is above water only because his opponent, nominal Democrat Jim Webb, is weak and has his own problems as he responds to opinions he expressed 20 years ago about women in the military.

While Allen’s problems are somewhat self-inflicted, Steele is being done in by those who purport to be supporters.  The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) ran a radio advertisement in the Baltimore media market that stated Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican and that Democrats were responsible for the creation of the Ku Klux Klan.  Steele should be commended for calling on the NBRA to stop running the ad, but the damage may have been done.

This ad is ridiculous on at least three levels:  First, it states that King was a Republican.  King, according to a biographer and a representative from the King Center, was nonpartisan.  It’s also instructive to note that virtually all of his lieutenants – namely, Walter Fauntroy, Andrew Young, Hosea Williams, and John Lewis – all ran for and won elected office as Democrats.  Second, it suggests that if King were alive today, he’d be a Republican; there is no evidence to support that, particularly given GOP-international policy that acts as if our problems abroad lend themselves to military solutions.  Third, the Klan-Democrat link is misleading.  Yes, many racists and Klan sympathizers of that era were Democrats.  They opposed Republican racial moderation and liberalism.  What’s also true is that those Democrats were also conservatives and it is not a stretch to see that most conservative racist sympathizers of that era would not be Democrats today.  Indeed, segregationists like Strom Thurmond left the Democrats to become Republicans as a protest to Democrats shifting positions on race.  Many of those who left the Democratic Party became Republicans. 

The ultimate problem with the ad, however, is that by going so far overboard in trying to ingratiate Republicans with Black voters, the ad actually reminds people why the party is in such bad shape in Black communities around the nation.  There is a delicious irony in the NBRA running on race as they are: often Black conservatives criticize Democrats who address race-specific issues claiming it gets in the way of the goal for a society that doesn’t deal in race.  So the use of race in an ad smacks of hypocrisy.

Any way you slice it, Republicans like Allen and Steele are now being cut by the double-edged sword that is race in America politics.

Uncomfortable Questions for Black Brooklynites

While much of the nation has been fixated on U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections in Connecticut, Ohio, and Maryland, the campaign to succeed retiring U.S. Representative Major Owens in Brooklyn, New York may be the most important in the nation for the future of race and American politics.  The fight to succeed Owens would ordinarily be a rather mundane affair in this overwhelmingly Democratic district.  But this is no run-of-the-mill campaign because it is less about politics than it is about race.  It threatens to lay bare many of the racial hangups that persist in our politics because the candidate most likely to win, David Yassky, is White.  Normally, that is not a big deal, but in a district with an African American population of about 58 percent, some are scratching their heads in uncomfortable bemusement that he might actually win.  Herein lies the conundrum for some Black activists: What, if anything, should be done to keep Yassky from winning and becoming a true anomaly in American politics: a White person representing a majority-Black constituency?

Yassky, a white New York City Councilman, is in a four-way race with three African Americans to win the party nomination; the nominee will more than likely win the November general election.  The possibility of a Yassky win has angered many African American political activists in the area, some of whom are calling for Yassky to step aside.  The district has been represented by African Americans for nearly 40 years, first by Shirley Chisholm and now by Owens, so Yassky’s candidacy and possible victory is seen by some as a step backward for Black political empowerment. 

Yassky’s critics have bathed him in a blend of thinly-veiled racial angst and withering criticism.  Some have hit out at what they see as his naked ambition; Representative Owens called Yassky a “colonizer.”  This response to Yassky is over the top, petty, and obscures a larger point that Blacks must deal with: If it’s acceptable, in fact encouraged, for an African American to represent majority-White jurisdictions – such as Barack Obama – then it has to be accepted that there will be occasions when White candidates win elections in majority-Black districts.  The position taken by those  calling for Yassky to end his campaign are seeking the enforcement of a double-standard that can actually hurt Black political development.

While the rhetoric coming from some Blacks close to the race is unfortunate, Yassky is not without criticism.  In at least one way, his candidacy reeks of political opportunism – he lived in another congressional district until earlier this year and moved to make the race in the 11th congressional district.  He may have calculated that three reasonably strong Black candidates would split the African American vote and leave a void among the rest of the electorate of Whites, who comprise about 20 percent of the vote, Latinos, who are about 12 percent of the district, and Asians, who represent about 4 percent of the populace.

Yassky’s candidacy is raising a number of difficult questions regarding race and politics.  While it’s always important for African Americans to have viable chances to win elections, the sky won’t fall if David Yassky wins this race.  That, of course, would be far less likely if one of the three other candidates emerged and actually won or decided to honestly assess their campaigns and settle on one candidate to support.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, Ph.D.
September 1, 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