The Real Problem With Romney’s Wealth

Mitt Romney’s recent release of his tax federal tax filings reveals a real problem for him and the Republican Party. It’s not just the amount of his vast wealth, or his former Swiss bank account, or his money stashed away in the Cayman Islands. The problem is that these three elements combine to reinforce the narrative that Romney is the living embodiment of a political-economic nexus that creates few winners and an increasing number of losers. He is the fat cat who is so despised by many Americans. The fact that he is still the likely nominee, with his moderate record, a healthcare plan that is the basis of the national reform law hated by most Republicans, and a religion many fundamentalist Christian conservatives view as a cult, shows just how desperate the Grand Old Party is to unseat President Barack Obama.

There is a difference between capitalism and vulture capitalism. Romney is on the wrong side of the divide and reasonable people can see the difference. Romney’s brand of capitalism has helped to create a chasm between people and the country and is more responsible for the job loss, growing inequality, and societal anger. And yet, the Republican establishment is bending over backwards to help ensure he overcomes Newt Gingrich’s onslaught.

His campaign and likely nomination will make it far more difficult for Republicans to make the argument that they have the ideas and positions that will create real opportunity for Americans. They have never been the party of regular, working class people, notwithstanding their mendacious rhetoric and their policies. American voters, who need a reality check on what “middle-class” really means, will not need much priming to be reminded that the Republican nominee is an ultra rich guy who sees more than $300,000 in speaking fees as “not much” money.

His belated response to all the talk about his taxes – own his success and highlight his charitable donations – is too late to help. Saying “yeah, I’m rich” is not the way to win friends and influence people. But it is completely in line with Republican orthodoxy.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University. He specializes in party politics and African American politics. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

New Video: Michael Fauntroy Comments on New Hampshire Primary

Happy again to go on CTV News. This time, we talked about the New Hampshire primary.

New Video: Michael Fauntroy Comments on Race in the GOP Nomination Fight

Here is a clip of me on WUSA-9 in Washington, DC discussing race in the GOP nomination fight.

Michael Fauntroy Reflects on Romney’s Caucus Win and GOP Voter ID Hypocrisy

There is no way to spin it. The Iowa caucus results cannot be seen by Governor Mitt Romney and his supporters as anything other than disappointing. He has been running for the nomination for half a decade and he got the same percentage in 2012 that he got in 2008. This is made worse by the quality of the 2012 Republican field which, to be charitable, is not impressive. Romney’s showing is hardly what momentum is made of. Romney will ultimately be fine. He has the money, the organization, and the good fortune to be in a race with others who are either unelectable, uninspiring, and unorganized. While Sen. Rick Santorum appears to be emerging as the conservative alternative to Romney, I cannot yet see a scenario in which he beats Romney for the nomination. Santorum is to Romney what Pat Buchanan was to Sen. Bob Dole: a hard base candidate who cannot win the support of others.

One observation that I thing has been flying under the radar: The Republican Party of Iowa did not verify identification of caucus goers. This flies in the face of the wave of voter ID bills being pushed around the country by Republicans to hold down Democratic votes. Hypocrisy knows no shame.

Michael Fauntroy.com
MKFauntroy
Dr. Michael K. Fauntroy

New Audio: Michael Fauntroy Previews the 2012 Iowa Caucuses on Minnesota Public Radio

It’s always good to be on Minnesota Public Radio’s “Midmorning” with Kerri Miller. This time, Steve Kornacki of Salon and I preview the 2012 Iowa caucuses. We also responded to listener calls.

New Video: Michael Fauntroy on CTV to Discuss the Iowa Caucuses

I appeared on CTV News in Toronto, Canada to discuss the Iowa Caucuses. Canadians are paying close attention to the election and I was happy to contribute to CTV’s coverage.

New Audio: Michael Fauntroy on NPR’s “Tell Me More”

I had the pleasure of discussing the week’s politics with Kevin Williamson, deputy managing editor of the National Review on NPR’s “Tell Me More” with Michel Martin. We discussed Ron Paul’s racist newsletters, the Iowa caucuses, and the state of the GOP nomination fight.

Michael Fauntroy’s Updated YouTube Channel

I have recently added a bunch of new video to my YouTube channel. Please check it out when you get a minute!

Herman Cain’s Legacy

Here are some thoughts on Herman Cain and what his candidacy means for Black conservatives.

Really Funny: Trump Says He Could Win Significant Portion of Black Vote

Donald Trump appeared on Greta van Susteren’s Fox News show and dropped a whopper: He could do “very well” among Black voters (you may recall him saying earlier in 2011 that he as a “great relationship with the Blacks”). Trump is delusion on so many levels. Anyway, here is my video commentary on Trump’s comments.

New Audio: Michael Fauntroy Talks GOP Politics on Tavis Smiley’s Radio Show

It’s always to be good on Tavis Smiley’s radio show. This time we talked Herman Cain, GOP presidential politics, and looked forward to project how my support African Americans will give the GOP presidential nominee.

Feel free to share the link with your friends.

Grading Obama: Michael K. Fauntroy

Alexander Heffner’s Grading Obama series published in The Root is an interesting read. He asks a collection of Black academics the same questions and their responses reveal a surprisingly mixed view of President Obama’s first term. As an academic, associate professor of public policy at George Mason University, I want in the conversation. Below are my responses to Heffner’s questions. I encourage other academics, especially political scientists, to join in the conversation with their own responses.

Question 1: What were your expectations of President Obama’s administration as that of the nation’s first black commander-in-chief? Does he embody today whatever you saw in him during the campaign?

Michael K. Fauntroy:  I didn’t have super high expectations and he has turned out to be who I thought he was. I watched his campaign – primary and general – carefully and concluded that he would be very similar to past presidents in that his talk about change was insufficiently specific. He has stayed true to his campaign but because many people were so happy to have someone other than George W. Bush, the reality of his political philosophy was somewhat obscured. He is a neoliberal and smartly allowed voters to apply their own hopes and aspirations upon him without having to really demonstrate who he was or what he was about.

Candidate Obama played cute in dealing with the obvious distinguishing characteristic, his race. On the one hand, he downplayed race (“there is no Black America or White America, there are the United States of America!”) which comforted nervous Whites. On the other, he played “wink-and-nod” with African Americans which left most Blacks accepting the “he’s got to play the game” logic without holding him accountable on the issues as other groups of Americans have.

Question 2: Do you believe that Obama has adequately fought for the nation’s black communities?

MKF: No. His first big opportunity was the 2009 economic stimulus package and he didn’t deliver. According to a 2010 report by the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University studying the first year of stimulus spending, African Americans own about 5.2% of all businesses, but received 1.1% of all federally contracted stimulus funds in the first year of the law. Those needing the most help got the least.

More stylistically, fighting for a group of citizens begins with making their plight known to everyone else. Black people have disproportionately been on the short end of the sub-mortgage crisis, the criminal justice system, and many other policy areas. I would like for him to make visible the suffering that many Black people are living under these days. That’s a start. And enough of this “Black men have to step up and be there for their children” stuff. I want my president to focus more on policy than anything else.

While President Obama is not responsible for the growth in economic disparity between African Americans and Whites, he doesn’t appear to have done much to reverse it.

Question 3: What was your reaction to Obama’s rousing “stop crying” speech to the Congressional Black Caucus?

MKF: I thought it was insulting. I get it that he thinks the CBC should be quiet and just do what he needs done, but that’s not enough for the people CBC members represent. CBC members represent constituencies in some cases with the highest unemployment, incarceration, and health problems and the lowest educational attainment. These members are on the front lines and hear from their voters all the time about what’s going on.

Lastly, he would not have dared to come out of his mouth like that to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, or any number of other organizations.

Question 4: Do you believe that Obama has made marked strides toward a “postracial” America?

MKF: Yes and no. His campaign and election obviously serve as important mileposts in the movement toward a more just racial society. His presidency has forced the country to expand its view of Black people generally and Black men in particular. For that he should be commended.

However, his unwillingness to use his bully pulpit to educate the country on racial issues and how corrosive they are to the nation as a whole, has been frustrating to me. He has a legitimacy that no other person in the history of this nation has (with the possible exception of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and has chosen to leave it on the table. I’m reminded of the “race speech” he gave during the campaign. While I saw it as rhetorical cotton candy for the consumption of nervous White suburban voters, he scored well with a full range of Americans. To my knowledge, he hasn’t really spent much time on it since, other than to say he can’t focus just on Black people because he is the president of everyone. It should be noted, however, that there is a lot of space between focusing only on Black people, on the one hand, and ignoring Black needs, on the other.

This speaks to my biggest frustration with the President. He has so much potential to permanently change the structure of racism in America but hasn’t done much with it. I am still hopeful he will.

Question 5: In what areas of public policy, if any, do you believe Obama has most neglected the concerns of black Americans?

MKF: I acknowledge he has a lot of things on his plate, but I think American criminal justice system is an abomination and is destabilizing Black communities all over the country. Black women have fewer men to choose from, too many of our children are fatherless, and men are released from prison without any real prospect for rehabilitation. While he can’t fix every aspect of this problem, much of this is on the states in our federal system, he can do something. I hope he will.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of numerous books and articles on race and politics. He earned a doctorate at Howard University and an undergraduate degree from Hampton University, both in political science. He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

Cain, Coulter, and Irresponsible Race Talk

The revelation that Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, as CEO of the National Restaurant Association, engaged in behavior that led the organization to enter into financial settlements (including non-disclosure agreements) with two employees has left a wake of collateral damage and irresponsible race.

The most notable damage has been done to Cain’s campaign. While I never thought he had a serious chance of winning the Grand Old Party’s presidential nomination, this pretty much seals the deal. Unworkable tax plans, a narrow world view, and, now, a history of contractually-acknowledged questionable sexual behavior towards women is not the making of a winning politician in a party that has become, for some, a magnet for racial hostility.

The more important damage has been done to our already weakened racial discourse. The problem here begins with Cain, who has played cute on race. As a graduate of historically Black Morehouse College, he should know better than to ignore the racism that exists within the ranks of some Tea Party supporters while, out of the other side of his mouth, contend that Black people cannot think for themselves and are brainwashed by a “Democratic plantation.”

The irresponsible race talk is made worse by conservative talking heads who have used Cain’s race to obfuscate the facts in this matter. Ann Coulter is leading the this-is-nothing-more-than-liberal-media-going-after-a-conservative-Black-man. The argument is so weak, than Coulter was reduced to digging up and using Clarence Thomas’ tired “high tech lynching” line; it was a ridiculous then and remains so today. The Irresponsibles, as I call them, are throwing dust in the eyes of the public trying to get people to believe that the issue is Cain’s ideology and race rather than behavior. My answer to those who claim the media never goes after liberal Whites in this way? Bill Clinton.

Coulter, as usual, leads the parade of The Irresponsibles. Her quip that “our Blacks are so much better than their Blacks suggests to me that she views Black people as mere trinkets for conservatives to carry around in their pockets. Are the “better Blacks” on her side of the fence not offended by her continued condescension on race? They need to know that silence is consent.

Ultimately, The Irresponsibles are silent on his behavior – sufficiently egregious in the eyes of NRA lawyers and board members that they had to pay two employees to literally buy their silence – and the issue of sexual harassment in the work place. In being so irresponsible on Cain, they give cover to those who do not want to take workplace harassment seriously. They are so blinded by rigid ideology that they cannot wrap their heads around the facts. The NRA signed an agreement with the accusers. He acknowledged the agreement. While he initially lied about whether there were actual charges, throwing liberal-media-is-out-to-get-me dust in the air, his defense has never been believable. Yet The Irresponsibles continue their march off the cliff of reason and into the valley of ideological lies.

Michael K. Fauntroy is associate professor of public policy at George Mason University where recently convened a national conference on race and public policy. He is also author of Republicans and the Black Vote. He He blogs at MichaelFauntroy.com.

Herman Cain’s (and the GOPs) Confusion About Black Voters

Herman Cain recently gave voice to a tired narrative Republicans offer to explain the Grand Old Party’s pathetic performance with Black voters that is as absurd as the notion that he will win his party’s presidential nomination. Mr. Cain stated in an interview on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer that “many African Americans have been brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view.” This is a decades-old canard that does not hold up to scrutiny and, worse, shows that Republicans, including Mr. Cain, do not understand Black political behavior.

I interviewed dozens of Black Republican activists when researching my book Republicans and the Black Vote and a majority of them cited some form of the notion that Black people were “brainwashed,” “forced,” or otherwise “tricked” in to not voting Republican. It goes something like this: Black liberals like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, among others, have some mystical, magical mind-control over Black people.  These untrustworthy leaders have used their powers for evil, convincing Black people that conservative public policy preferences would hurt Black interests. They, through their White liberal patrons, keep their thumbs on Black voters to keep them beholden to the Democrats.

This, of course, ignores decades of conservative political symbols and policies that have demonized African Americans, undermined Black progress, and repressed Black political participation. It ignores the hostility in some corners of today’s Republican Party toward African Americans. From dismantling federal civil rights enforcement to opposing or vetoing civil rights legislation and from racist incarceration policies to “welfare queens” and from economic policies that encourage the movement overseas of blue collar jobs to opposing increases in the minimum wage, conservatives have almost always been on the other side of the street from Black people. This is not brainwashing. It is an honest assessment of an ideology, practiced by a political party, that is antithetical to the interests of most African Americans.

Black voters are were they have always been: center, center-left. They were with the Republicans when the GOP fought for their interests. They stayed where they were and watched the GOP move away from its long held policy positions. African Americans have been far from brainwashed about the Republicans and, more specifically, conservative ideology. If anything, Black voters have been remarkably consistent: As both parties have shifted positions, it is Black voters who have remained constant. If you give Black voters a reason to support you, Mr. Cain, then I am sure they will. Given where you stand now, however, I’m not optimistic you will get more than token support.

For too long, conservatives have blamed Black leaders for Republican failures with Black voters. Herman Cain’s view suggests that looking inward is something the Republicans are unable, or unwilling, to do. As former U.S. Representative J.C. Watts told me, Republicans simply “don’t get it” on race. And the notion of mind-control just doesn’t wash.

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

George Mason University School of Public Policy Race and Public Policy Conference

I’m very happy to invite you to the first George Mason University race and public policy conference on Monday, October 10th (Columbus Day) on GMU’s Arlington, VA campus. I am convening a group of some of America’s best academics, journalists, practitioners, and others to discuss the ways in which race and public policy intersect. We’ll bring some solutions caused by this intersections and I hope you’ll be able to attend this important conference. It’s free and open to the public. You can find out more by visiting the conference website. We expect C-SPAN to be in the house and audience members will get to query panelists.