SLANTING LEFT

Given the news today of a new Gallup poll that suggests Asian Americans are largely left-leaning (as well as secular), Junichi and I decided to "chat" about the findings together.

OW: Were you as surprised as I was by these findings? Let me first say - I think we'd really need to see some disaggregation here by ethnic group, age, geography and immigrant status. But even without that, I would not have thought that Asian Americans would have a higher proportion of self-described liberals than conservatives. Where have they all been hiding?


JS: Well, I am not surprised by the party affiliation data, which I think is the most meaningful survey result. The numbers there largely correlate to my general impression -- today, Asian Americans and Chicano/Latinos lean Democratic, but not remotely as strongly as African Americans.

I think the "Ideological Identification" question, however, sheds more light on how various groups think of the words "liberal," "moderate," and "conservative" -- as opposed to where they actually stand on an ideological spectrum.

Otherwise, how is it possible that the group that votes most consistently for Democrats (African Americans) is not also the group that most consistently identifies as liberal? I realize that Democrats today are hardly a "liberal" party, but they've been more liberal than the Republicans for several decades now.

Here is my theory. (To be clear, I have no data to back this up.) For many in the black community, the word "liberal" has strong associations with white leftists who are pro-choice, pro-union, anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights, anti-war, and pro-drug legalization, to name a few ideological issues. Though they vote for Democrats more than any other group, African American voters aren't very likely to line up with Michael Moore's positions on all social issues and are therefore more likely to identify as "moderate." Plus, the appeal of being conservative, in certain respects, has strong roots in black Christian communities in the South; thus, those self-identified "conservatives" still voted for Obama over McCain.

On the other hand, I suspect Asian Americans, in totality, are more likely to consider the word "conservative" to be one associated with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the religious right. With so few Asian Americans an active part of any fundamentalist, Christian-rooted political movement, the percentage of "conservatives" is low.

In other words, I seriously doubt Asian Americans are more "liberal" than every other group if we look at specific issues. If you polled each group and asked the following specific questions ...

* Do you support a more progressive tax scheme in which Americans who make more than $100,000 will be taxed at a higher rate?
* Do you support lowering jail sentences for drug-related crimes?
* Do you support affirmative action?
* Do you support gay marriage?
* Do you believe the government should more actively regulate industry to lower pollution and other negative environmental externalities?
* Do you support a single-payer health care system?

... I would be shocked if Asian Americans were the group most likely to say yes.

As for disaggregation, I do think you'd see some interesting trends if you were to divide between Asian American ethnic groups, as well as immigrants vs. children of immigrants vs. those whose parents were born here in the United States.

One more thought: this poll reminds me of how the Republican Party needs to fundamentally reinvent itself if it wants to regain the White House and Congress again. During the last decade, the GOP did so much to alienate non-whites and non-Christians from its tent that it needs to figure out how to regain the trust of at least one of the three other major racial groups to stay afloat. It will only get worse as we inch closer to being a country with no majority race.

OW: I think you raise a good point about how the terms themselves should be questioned. This is a point Matt Yglesias raises too - that "liberal" isn't a terribly useful political term anymore.

I'm curious why you think Asian Americans associate "conservative" the far-right icons or movements you mention? Why an aversion there and not with other communities?

Here's a question I posed on Facebook...first, let's assume that this polling pool here is actually quite small since, as my friend Oiyan Poon astutely noted, Gallup spoke with "likely voters" which would tend to constrict the pool of Asian Americans based on citizenship rates. If, as you suggest, the wider AA community is less left-leaning as Gallup indicates...BUT that comprises people in the community who don't vote...do they really matter in terms of the political calculus? In other words, what's the more important statistic? How Asian American "likely voters" vote? Or how the whole of Asian America would theoretically vote...assuming they voted?

JS: I think the word "conservative" has been hijacked today to be synonymous "religious conservative." Much to the lament of secular fiscal conservatives, in 2010, the idea of demonstrating one's conservative credentials largely focuses on positions that sync up with Christian theology.

The majority of African Americans and Chicano/Latinos in the United States are Christian. Hence, those groups don't necessarily run away from the conservative label since some vote consistent with their faith-based principles. But as the Gallup poll shows, Asian Americans are the least likely of all four racial groups to attend any church. Thus, Asian Americans are inherently less likely to identify with a belief system that is rooted in the idea that we live in a "Christian nation."

As for your question about the more important statistic, I think that measuring the opinions of all Asian Americans is the most important. The last half-century of elections has produced just enough wide swings in voter turnout to suggest that we're only one hot issue away from having "unlikely" voters turn out at the polls.

Another thought: I wonder about the potential detrimental effects of this survey if both the Democrats and Republicans think of Asian Americans as a "liberal-leaning" group. Generally speaking, that's not a good thing.

Take gays and lesbians, an obvious "liberal-leaning" group. The Republicans know that there are far too few "Log Cabin Republicans" to cater to that group, in any way. Meanwhile, the Democrats feel little need to prioritize the gay and lesbian community's concerns because, well, who else are they going to vote for? President Obama can afford to delay advancing gay rights because he knows that they're not going to vote for Sarah Palin in 2012.

In contrast, Chicano/Latinos are often seen as a swing demographic. Thus, we see pols like Arnold Schwarzenegger and George W. Bush, when running for office, taking stances that are more immigrant-friendly than the GOP's platform 16 years ago. We see both Bush and Obama appointing Chicano/Latinos to high-profile positions (e.g., Alberto Gonzales, Sonia Sotomayor) in the hopes of locking in the Latino vote.

Both national parties have been ignoring Asian Americans forever. However, there's a strange irony that the more the Asian American community is seen as politically unaffiliated, the more likely their needs will be catered to during future election years.

--O.W.

TRANSGENDER WOMAN APPOINTED TO COMMERCE

Bringing T to the Party

Let me begin this post by (re)stating that I am an advocate for transgender rights. I believe in full equality for all LGBT people and support the inclusion of trans rights in any future gay rights legislation.

As such, I am happy to hear that President Obama made the first presidential appointment of a transgender person by selecting Amanda Simpson (formerly Mitchell Simpson) to join the Commerce Department as a Senior Technical Adviser.

I don't know much about her politics, but I do know she ran, unsuccessfully, as a Democrat for Congress and she sits on the Board of the National Center for Transgender Equality.

More importantly, she'll eventually make it into the history books as a trailblazer in politics, breaking barriers like Keith Ellison, Tammy Baldwin, Shirley Chisholm, and Sandra Day O'Connor did before her.   

*

Now, at the risk of making what appears to be a bad joke, I can't help but confess my difficulty with the fact that Ms. Simpson (or any other M-to-F transgender woman) changed her first name to Amanda.

When I lived in San Francisco, I vaguely recall going to Asia SF and being served by someone who claimed her name was Amanda Reckinwith.  A great drag queen name, to be sure.  But Amanda cannot be the best name for a former defense industry veteran seeking a long future in politics.

I genuinely wonder if she's inviting jokes so she can build a case for a future lawsuit.

The best explanation I can imagine is that she wants to put people at ease and make people laugh by saying, "I used to be a man, but now I'm Amanda."

All I'm saying is, if I were to become a female-to-male transgender man, I wouldn't change my name to Tam Pon.

All I'm saying is, if I chose to pursue a career in valet parking, I wouldn't change my name to Carlotta Tendant.

All I'm saying is, if I chose to get plastic surgery, I wouldn't change my name to Angie O'Plasty.

All I'm saying is, if I were this woman who went into the hospital for a leg operation and instead received a new anus, I wouldn't change my name to Tara Nusphincter.

--Junichi

THE LONG ROAD STAYS LONG

Some quick thoughts this morning.

First, it is really hard to believe it's been an entire year since Obama's election. I'll say this much - in politics (as it is in sports), it's more fun playing offense than defense. The 2010 midterm elections are likely to be a clusterf--- of remarkable proportions but at least we have a year few months before we'll be subjected to how those races will shape up.

Second, the passage of Maine's Prop 1 is dispiriting (not to mention surprising) and suggests that the road ahead is still long. The one bright spot is to note that a 4 point differential is slim enough that you can imagine that as American voters undergo a generational shift, it will shrink year by year.

I thought TNC had some good points to make here. He's interested (in this post) in debating the idea that those voting against gay marriage are not, in fact, bigoted. And Coates turns to the history of the Civil Rights Movement and the tenacity of White voters to hold onto Jim Crow voting practices and suggests that the same "logic" that defended those White voters from accusations of racism is similarly in place regarding anti-gay marriage voters. To wit:

"Hence the notion that those voting against gay marriage, are not actually, in the main, motivated by bigotry, but a belief in tradition and family. But very few people would actually ever describe themselves as bigots. We think we know so much about ourselves. This is a country--like many countries--which is deeply riven by ethnic bias, gender discrimination. And yet we don't seem to know any of the agents of that discrimination."

I would add one thing, because I've been reading Andrew Cherlin's The Marriage Go-Round and that is, when it comes to issues around marriage, Americans are caught up in a way that few other Western nations are. And what it is notably about this debate is that while there's likely a larger number of people opposed to any kind of state-sanctioned homosexual union, it's really the term "marriage" that makes the biggest difference here (and as Cherlin suggests, only here relative to other, similar nations). Therefore (and this is my conclusion, not Cherlin's per se), what would have to change socially is that both/either 1) the definition of marriage expands to include gay couples and/or 2) our premium on marriage subsides. I would suggest both are happening but I'm curious to ponder which (if any) is moving "faster". My guess is the former; I think marriage is still a widely held value and ideal amongst Americans but I think, over time, there has been less and less priority put on the idea that marriage is exclusively a heterosexual institution.

--O.W.

DON'T CRY FOR HIM, ARGENTINA

I don't normally like indulging in schadenfreude but good god, between this and Senator Ensign, it's been a very entertaining last few weeks.

Love the understatement here from the NYT, who said that Sanford's admission is, "considerably dampening his prospects for a national political career."

--O.W.

BEHIND THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR

james gets jimmied
Justine Lai's "Join or Die" series (NSFW)

Artist statement:

"In Join Or Die, I paint myself having sex with the Presidents of the United States in chronological order. I am interested in humanizing and demythologizing the Presidents by addressing their public legacies and private lives. The presidency itself is a seemingly immortal and impenetrable institution; by inserting myself in its timeline, I attempt to locate something intimate and mortal. I use this intimacy to subvert authority, but it demands that I make myself vulnerable along with the Presidents. A power lies in rendering these patriarchal figures the possible object of shame, ridicule and desire, but it is a power that is constantly negotiated.

I approach the spectacle of sex and politics with a certain playfulness. It would be easy to let the images slide into territory that’s strictly pornographic—the lurid and hardcore, the predictably “controversial.” One could also imagine a series preoccupied with wearing its “Fuck the Man” symbolism on its sleeve. But I wish to move beyond these things and make something playful and tender and maybe a little ambiguous, but exuberantly so. This, I feel, is the most humanizing act I can do."

A provocative artistic series to say the least. I do wonder, however, about the assumption that the office of the Presidency is typically seen as (prepare your rimshot): "impenetrable" given the huge wave of best-selling histories of different Presidents that, in my opinion, precisely aim to offer a portrait of them in "intimate and mortal" ways. If anything, Lai's portraits (all except one, perhaps) takes the presidential power dynamic and "humanizes" them only insofar as making the phrase "getting f---ed by the President" into something more literal rather than the common figurative sense.

Of course, for that reason, I get the feeling that the fan favorite among these will likely be the Buchanan portrait where Lai gets to turn the tables by pegging him instead. Of course, there is also a certain irony that it should be Buchanan given 1) the rumors of his sexual orientation and 2) he's reviled as one of the worst Presidents in history, having done his fair share (arguably) of screwing over the nation. Is Lai's portrait some form of creative payback? (If so, one can only imagine what G.W.'s portrait will look like. And now that I've imagined it, I wish I hadn't).

There's also something amusing in realizing how many people will likely relearn their history of Presidential succession once they cease to be able to recognize the obvious ones such as Washington or Lincoln in order to ascertain, "wait, which President was getting his spank on? Was that Grant or Jackson?"

One last thought: Lai doesn't discuss race in her statement but that has to be the (blushing) elephant in the room, no? (I can only imagine the response this series will get from Angry AZN types...and no, I don't mean Phil Yu). Speaking of which...

(Link: Angry Asian Man)

--O.W.

NOT MOS' MOST DEFINING MOMENT

Ta-Nehisi weighs in.

--O.W.

WHAT'S REALLY REAL ABOUT TODAY

I don't know what the future will bring but this is a good start.

--O.W.

PROP 8 BACKLASH...BACKLASH

a smarter campaign
Updated 11/12 - See below.

Apart from Obama's win, the other election story that's been getting heavy play has been dissecting Prop 8, and in particular, the Black vote. Obviously, that was part of the convo with Poplicks' earlier post but there's some new information - and arguments - worth considering.

1) That 70% number being bandied around should have been taken with a greater grain of salt (not the least of all by me). That's what CNN reported but a local, Los Angeles exit poll suggests a far more balanced vote: "another poll by the Center for the Study of L.A. found in Los Angeles, just over half of blacks supported Prop 8." That would put the Black vote closer to the overall result (52/48). At the very least, it suggests that no single demographic was the tipping point.

2) Also, 538.com points out that even if CNN's polls contain some truth, they also show that among first-time voters, Prop 8 would have gone to defeat. This goes directly to the argument that "all those Obama voters got Prop 8 passed". That idea plays well as a media soundbite but it doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny.

3) Speaking of scrutiny, if you can get through the 10,000 words written here, there's an even more thorough numerical debunking on DailyKos. I'll just skip to the conclusion: "Proposition 8 would have still passed by 81,565 votes, if Black voters had done no more than reflect the rest of the state's will on the matter." I didn't realize this was actually in contention - the math isn't that complicated to figure out that Black votes - alone - could not have made the key difference in the election. Whites and Latinos had far more numerical clout.

4) What's interesting is how the perception around the electoral math - right or wrong - has taken a life of its own since those who presume it's true proceed with arguments that seek to explain that 70% figure. Case in point, Jasyme Cannick wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times that explains why she thinks the proposition did poorly amongst African Americans:

"The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1."

I think Cannick makes some excellent points here, not the least of which was the weaknesses of the No on 8 campaign, especially around outreach. In an interview on NPR she did, she pointed out that when she was registering African Americans to vote in neighborhoods like Watts' Jordan Projects, it became apparent to her that the Yes on 8 campaign had found a way to get the word out there but not the No on 8 campaign.

If true, this raises at least two questions: did No on 8 not know how reach this community? Or maybe they just didn't think it would matter and so they didn't try.

This said, there was one thing nagging me in Cannick's argument: she makes a good case for why the campaign failed on outreach but that doesn't address why there'd be so much opposition to gay marriage within the Black community (again, assuming CNN's numbers were vaguely accurate, which they may not be).

What I'm saying is that there's a big difference between a proposition legalizing gay marriage vs. a proposition which rescinds legalization. Polls have consistently showed that while many people are not in favor of legalizing gay marriage an even larger number of people are against the idea of amending the constitution to enforce that. To put it another way, it's one thing to give a right; it's another thing to take it away and Prop 8 was asking people to remove a right.

Indifference alone wouldn't get the latter passed. If you don't care about gay marriage one way or another, why vote for rescinding it? In this case, a "yes" vote meant you were actively deciding, "I don't want gay people to have this right" and Cannick's argument, well-stated as it is elsewhere, doesn't really address this point. The only exception is when she writes:

"black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community."

Somewhere, Ronnie is smiling, about to say, "see, told you!"

Cannick actually elaborates more on this point in that NPR interview, the gist of which is that gay marriage proponents really need to strategize a way to win over people that has to include the recognition of how the church plays a role in the Black community. As I suggested in my original post, the church network turned out to be tremendously effective for the Yes on 8 campaign and Cannick's advice here would align well with the idea that any future organizing will either have to persuade (or on the other hand, stymie) the degree that religious networks become involved.

5) Last thing, but check out this county breakdown comparing Prop 22 (2000) with Prop 8. It's basically a tale of two regions - CA coastal cities were the main swing force - the Bay Area went over more pro-gay marriage while Los Angeles went less anti-gay marriage. However, what was consistent was opposition to gay marriage everywhere else in the state. BUT, even then, support for gay marriage - at worst - was static but otherwise gained elsewhere. That, to me, is a positive sign for the future.

---

11/12 Update: Mark Anthony Neal addresses many of these same issues and, I think, nails some important ideas to move forward with:

"black views on same sex-marriage are more complicated; simply reading black voters as inherently homophobic misses the complexity of an issue that, in black communities, is often tied to the absence of black men as husbands and fathers. Understood in that context, same-sex marriage goes against the belief of many within black communities that black survival is hopelessly tied to traditional marriage patterns. That said, the Black Clergy needs to be accountable for hateful rhetoric directed towards gays, lesbians and transgendered citizens (including a good many in their congregations) and for willful fear-mongering."

"For black communities we need to get past our romantic ties to the traditional nuclear family and the thought that we can only raise productive children if both a man and women are present in a household... Obama himself is evidence of models that don’t privilege the presence of father-figure per se, but rather the presence of many adults engaged in the lives of our children. Quite frankly, black children raised in a gay or lesbian household with engaged adult figures are likely better off than those raised in single-parent households or in heterosexual households where neither parent is up to the challenge of parenting. The point here is that we need to be more sophisticated about how family structures function."

"White progressives who sought to defeat Proposition 8 would do well to be a little more self-critical of the privilege that undergirds some of their politics. Debates about same-sex marriage, however important they are, are debates that only a privileged few can really be engaged in. The struggle for them is to better align these debates with the material realities of the working poor and the working class, communities for which the time to protest anything is at a premium...It is incumbent upon white progressives to get better at finding common ground with black communities, beyond the dated liberal agenda that brought us together in the first place."

As always, Mark is the M.A.N.

--O.W.

WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN AMERICA

a staircase built for one
Now that the glow of last week's election has ever-so faded, it's worth taking stock of exactly "what this all means." Let's first start by noting that, previous to the election, one major concern amongst progressives was that more liberal humanist types - to say nothing of the hyperbole-addicted punditry - would perhaps mistakenly construe Obama's then-possible election as a repudiation of America's shameful legacy of race.

As if on cue, the day after the election brought an avalanche of superlatives and overbaked rhetoric that made it sound as if, with a single election, America had managed to overcome the racial divisions of the last 400 years. I was especially aghast at the ways in which the election was portrayed as the validation of the Civil Rights Movement...as if the elevation of a single Black leader was what getting rid of Jim Crow was about.

I trust that at least some amongst you were skeptical of this logic from the start but it was surreal, laughable and tragic that the very next day, some genius at CNN (possibly the same one who thought holograms were a good idea) put up a viewer poll about, "Do we still need affirmative action?"

Wait...what?

Last I checked, affirmative action wasn't about trying to get a Black person elected President. It was meant to address centuries of systemic, institutionalized racial inequality. Obama's election is not proof that such institutionalized racism has been eliminated. One person rising above limitations doesn't suggest the absence of limitations. Only a complete fool would assume that Obama's victory represents something truly, paradigm-shifting about American racial inequality.

Consider two things:

1) Obama lost the white vote. Yeah - newsflash to everyone: Obama lost the white vote. Timothy Noah breaks down the numbers in today's Slate: White voters, nationally, went 43% for Obama compared to McCain's 55%. That's 50% higher than Obama's overall national lead over McCain.

Let's put it another way - if the election were in the hands of White America, McCain/Palin would planning their transition team right now, not Obama. Sober up on that for a moment, especially those liberal whites who've been patting themselves on the back.

It is true that Obama did do well amongst white voters compared to previous Democratic candidates; in the last 40 years, only Jimmy Carter did better but even he couldn't get over 50%. This raises Noah's other point: no white majority has voted for a Democratic president since Johnson in '64 (and his election was largely a product of JFK's assassination the year prior). Consistently and overwhelmingly, Democratic candidates cannot depend on majority white support and the conventional wisdom suggests this is at least due in part to the bitterness of Southern Dixiecrats forced by a Democratic administration (Johnson) to abandon Jim Crow. To put it another way, the dismantling of some forms of institutionalized racism (separate drinking fountains for example) has cost the Democratic party a majority of the national  White vote for the last 40+ years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, in the deep South, his margin of loss was as great as 6 to 1. 

I want to very carefully note that I'm not suggesting race is the only meaningful factor to weigh here. This is something else that's annoying in the current, "America isn't racist!" rhetoric - it actually assumes that race was the overwhelming issue in this election which is absurd. People vote for myriad reasons, race only being one possible factor. That's why it's naive to think that Obama's election represents some kind of mandate on social relations. After all, when whites went 60/40 for Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988, does that mean Whites were anti-Greek that year? Of course not.

Moreover, even if we were to accept that race played a major role in this election, the more accurate narrative to follow isn't about the redemption of White America over its racist past but rather, it's about the transformation of America, writ large. It's demographic change that mattered in 2008, not wholesale changes in attitudes. We are a far more diverse society than we have been in the past. Equally, if not important, is where those diverse voters ended up - states like Virginia and North Carolina especially have experienced significant demographic change over the last decade; their populations skew younger, more Latinos, better educated, etc. Those are also demographics that tend to lean Democratic.

Both nationally and in the "swing states," what we saw was the pooling of those different demographics into a voting bloc that was stronger than the white majority that went for McCain. Again: Whites didn't win it for Obama. They just weren't a big enough voting bloc to lose it for him. If Obama's victory says anything about America, it's not that we're "over" the colorline that has dominated our society. It's that our demographic changes managed to weaken the impact of that colorline last week. But as the warning goes: past results are no guarantee of future returns. One only has to compare the relative hopes of 1964 with what happened four years later.

As for my second point:

Obama's election was an incredible symbolic moment. I don't doubt this at all and I've been swept up in it too. Just the image of the Obamas as the new First Family is so incredibly profound, I still haven't taken it completely in yet.

However, Obama's victory doesn't remotely speak to the condition of poor, urban schools. It won't prevent Brown and Black bodies from disproportionately filling our prisons. It won't magically undo over half a century of preferential mortgage lending to White home buyers or empower families of color to begin building their own wealth. This is how racism is lived in America; it's not just about the dearth of non-white political leadership. It's about fundamentally different and unequal life chances based around race. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how Obama's election speaks directly to those material inequalities. Or why we'd think his Presidency would lead to improvements in those areas without specific policies designed to address them?

Obama's victory says nothing, does nothing about this fact of institutional racism in America. White privilege does not disappear simply because a Black man sits in the Oval Office. We are still the same stratified society we were last week. And last year. And last decade. And last...you get the picture.

If anything, the fear is that Obama's election actually sets the path to progress back since some liberal whites may feel it less urgent to pursue racial equality now that they can celebrate their "courage" for voting for a Black man. Only the next few years will tell what progress can be achieved. Unfortunately, iif we know anything about times of economic turmoil, it's the potential for racial scapegoats to come into play.

It wasn't easy to get Obama elected; his level of organization has been marveled over. But really, getting him elected was simple work compared to actually bringing about the social change many have portended his election represents. That hard work has always been there and will continue to be, regardless of the President's skin color.

--O.W.

THE FLIRTIN' 16TH!

what's up with Florida's 16th?
From one sex scandal, to another, reminding everyone that embarrassing, unprofessional personal behavior amongst politicians is a bipartisan, um, affair.

Q: $121,000? *whistle* Mahoney should have gotten a referral from Spitzer and saved some money.

Lastly, for those keeping score:

ABC: 2
National Enquirer: 1

--O.W.

UNSORTING AMERICA

By the way, if people are interested in looking at how current politics play out beyond just the election, it's worth taking a look at Bill Bishop's "Big Sort blog" on Slate.com. Whether you agree with some of his analysis or not, it's at least food for thought in thinking about how our current political season reflects possible shifts in our social organization as a nation.

One of the more interesting points he has to make - and this is central in his book too - is that the current election is showing signs that we are becoming more partisan than ever. Just because the Democrats have picked up more support in the last four years doesn't represent a fundamental reshuffling of our political allegiances. More specifically, Bishop is arguing that what we've seen is the disappearance of true independents - more than ever, he argues, Americans are aligned into a two-party system, with fewer and fewer deviations from the party ticket (uh, PUMAs aside I suppose).

--O.W.

WHO KNEW THE INTERIOR DEPT KNEW HOW TO PARTY?

woo hoo! let's talk about forestry management, yeah!
"Wide-Ranging Ethics Scandal Emerges at Interior Dept."

Some gems from this investigation:

“A culture of ethical failure”

"a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."

"officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game."

"several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.”"

"The culture of the organization “appeared to be devoid of both the ethical standards and internal controls sufficient to protect the integrity of this vital revenue-producing program."

Message to the Dems: Jump. On. This. You. Fools.

--O.W.

LET CALIFORNIA RING VIDEO

I'm absolutely in favor of protecting the rights of gay marriage in California but I can't say I find this video very compelling in order to get the message across. For one, the soft-focus and sepia-tone convey a tone that's less "civil rights" and more "personal hygiene". Second, the "barriers" presented to the bride-to-be seem largely comical rather than serious; it's not until the last frame or two that anything more somber sets in. Third, I'm not sure who the target demographic for this ad is meant to be but everything about the wedding bespeaks an upper middle class sensibility that may limit its ability to craft empathy. Fourth, the commercial suggests that it's random forces - a broken door knob, poorly parked cars, a clumsy aunt - who are standing in the way of people getting married. That's not the situation facing gay/lesbian couples - they have real people, real organized movements, real politicians, media figures, religious leaders, etc. standing in the way. It's not by accident; the opposition is deliberate, well-funded, and highly motivated.

That opposition has no qualms in playing dirty. So why is Let California Ring playing things so...tame?

--O.W.

BLAME IT ON THE HAIR

no "private taping" jokes please

Wait, wait, wait...let me get this right. You are contemplating running for the President of the United States (or at least, the Democratic nomination). You know you are about to be immersed in one of the most media saturated, tabloid hungry spectacles possible in modern politics. Oh, and your wife is dealing with cancer.

And in the midst of this, you, John Edwards, decide it's a good idea to start up an affair with your campaign videographer?

Provided, there have been many Presidents who've dallied but what kind of political incompetent would make a run for President, knowing the potential harm that such public knowledge could incur? I'm genuinely embarrassed for folks who backed Edwards in the nom race - talk about a horse pulling up lame! In all fairness though, when we ask about what kind of man conducts an affair with an ailing spouse at home, we already know.

Of course, maybe Edwards trusted the discretion of his partner and surely, there are many a public leader with such confidants. But of course, Edwards didn't count on the crack investigative team behind the National Enquirer. Who says journalism is dead?

Also: Edwards first mistake was the affair. He only compounded it by lying when confronted. He should have learned from Rick Ross' lessons.

Wild guess: we won't be seeing much of John at the convention.

--O.W.

THE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL "RACE"

This isn't particularly surprising but despite Obama-mania, a recent NYT/CBS poll discovered, lo and behold, we still live in a racially divided society. One conclusion drawn here is that:

"Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations."

The upside is that progressives don't have to be so paranoid. The fear had been that an Obama presidency would be treated as "proof" that racism is over but it seems that our fair nation is pretty much in the same place it was eight years ago when it comes to divergent opinions regarding race and privilege.

Some interesting political notes: Whites are on the fence around Obama but Blacks are pretty clear: McCain gets no love (a tiny 5% favorable rating compared to 57% unfavorable). I was doing some of the math here too: Whites favor McCain over Obama 46-37% (not including "undecided") but Obama leads McCain in the same poll by 45 to 39%. The only explanation is that even Whites are less enthused about Obama compared to other groups, Obama must be earning enough support from "everyone else" to take a decent lead over McCain at this point.

--O.W.

CHOICE FOR A NEW GENERATION

--O.W.

RACHEL RAY: DUNKIN' FOR TERRORISM?

What.

The.

F---.

Rachel Ray accused by Michelle Malkin of promoting terrorism.

Malkin couldn't self-parody herself any better than she is now. Somewhere, Ann Coulter is probably trying to figure out if the Neelys are secretly Muslim.

Dunkin' Donuts took a cowardly way out. Their response should have been: "Ms. Malkin - relax and have a donut!"

--O.W.

FIRST POISONING, NOW PENISES

It doesn't pay to be a Russian dissident...

--O.W.

ARIZONA BLUES

hey, where's his American flag pin?
I know Arizona is like the new Mississippi when it comes to retrograde racial politics...it's hard to fathom how a state would take pride in voting down MLK Day but AZ manages somehow. Still, this new legislation passing through their state house is astonishing:

"Arizona schools whose courses "denigrate American values and the teachings of Western civilization" could lose state funding under the terms of legislation approved Wednesday by a House panel.

SB1108 also would bar teaching practices that "overtly encourage dissent" from those values, including democracy, capitalism, pluralism and religious tolerance. Schools would have to surrender teaching materials to the state superintendent of public instruction, who could withhold state aid from districts that broke the law.

Another section of the bill would bar public schools, community colleges and universities from allowing organizations to operate on campus if it is "based in whole or in part on race-based criteria," a provision Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said is aimed at MEChA, the Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, a student group."

This passed out of committee 9-6 and is now headed towards a full legislative vote. Maybe I'm naive but even for AZ, I can't see the whole house going for this, especially in an election year. Somewhere, McCain is slapping his forehead, counting all the Latino votes he's losing behind this.

By the way, given that "Hispanic" isn't technically a racial category under the U.S. Census, I'm not sure how this bill would be able to go after a group like MEChA (though I suppose, African and Asian American groups might have problems). And let's not even mention the obvious First Amendment issues.

--O.W.

SHORT CUTS

Horton's a pro-lifer? (NPR's Morning Edition)

Cal Poly Obispo's deal to build engineering campus in Saudi Arabia allows women to be excluded? (NPR's All Things Considered)

If most of the MIT students from the real story behind 21 were Asian, how come the main leads are now White? (Reappropriate.com)

WTF? I'm speechless. (Feministing.com)

Just because I like the name of the blog. (Disgrasian)

--O.W.

THE R-WORD

the last good racist?
Former Village Voice/Time Magazine writer Ta-Nehisi Coates recently voiced something that has been bothering me for a while now. Writing in Slate about Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Obama's success is largely due to race, Coates notes how despite a plethora of unambiguously racist comments - from Don Imus to James Watson to Michael Richards - this seems insufficient to actually sustain a charge that speakers of such invectives are, in fact, racist.

In other words, one can spew racist comments with aplomb but god forbid anyone should actually be described as a racist in the process. Coates writes:

"The bar for racism has been raised so high that one need be a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party to qualify. Had John McCain said that Hillary Clinton was only competitive in the presidential race because she was a woman, there'd be no dispute over whether the comment was sexist. And yet when the equivalent is said about a black person, it's not only not racist, but any criticism of the statement is interpreted as an act of character assassination. "If anybody is going to apologize," Ferraro told MSNBC, "they should apologize to me for calling me a racist."

Coates goes on to suggest that, ironically, this has come about partially through the success of the Civil Rights Movement:

"In some measure, the narrowing of racism is an unfortunate relic of the civil rights movement, when activists got mileage out of dehumanizing racists and portraying them as ultra-violent Southern troglodytes. Whites may have been horrified by the fire hoses and police dogs turned on children, but they could rest easy knowing that neither they nor anyone they'd ever met would do such a thing."

As Coates concludes, with some sarcasm: "All of this leaves me wondering, Who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist?"

This raises a question of language and whether or not nomenclature is getting in the way of more substantive progress? On the one hand, I wholly understand where Coates is coming from. The racist apologists are a curious, thriving breed amongst talking heads - people who will insist that someone couldn't possibly be a racist because [insert boiilerplate defense of your choice] and in the process, they can actual detour the focus on hand from the content and implication of a particular racist act and instead, push all the focus onto some arbitrary litmus test for "are they a racist?"

I believe this is partially what Stanford's Richard Thompson Ford was referring to in his recent interview on KPCC's Airtalk: "How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse." The gist of the argument is that "the race card" is a distraction and that people get so caught up with slapping on or slapping away the R-label, that the actual issues around racism and its deleterious effects are going ignored.

Ford promotes this idea of "racism without racists" and I admit: there is something alluring here. As I discuss in my classes on social problems when we talk about racial inequality, one of the things that makes systemic, institutional racism so insidious - not to mention resilient - is that it doesn't require the active, conscious participation of people committed to racist action. Rather, by simply maintaining the status quo, inequalities built into our institutions and social structures are allowed to survive and perpetuate. Hence, racist outcomes can occur despite the best intentions and interracial cordiality of the people behind them. That's the essence of racism without racists.

Without intending to, I think Coates actually echoes this point when he writes: "most racism—indeed, the worst racism—is quaint and banal. There's nothing sensationalistic about redlining or job discrimination."

Indeed, the kind of racism highlights is some of the most damaging because it goes beyond individualized exchanges of racism and gets at actions which affects huge portions of the public, often times hiding their racist intent from plain view but whose impact can be measured quite easily, whether it's the disproportionate amount of people of color in poverty - especially women of color - or the over-reprsentation of young men of color in the prison system. Surely there were some outright - perhaps even self-affirmed - racists responsible but more likely, it's entire systems of social organization that create those outcomes, many of which operate quite efficiently to maintain and perpetuate racial inequality without ever needing a Grand Wizard of Oz pulling chains behind the curtain.

The thing with "racism without racists" that bothers me a little however is that though it directs attention back to systemic forms of discrimination, it also feels like some semantic hair splitting. The loan officer who regularly denies business loans to applicants from poor neighborhoods of color - maybe he's not racist in the Bull Connor sense of the term but if the action and outcome are clearly racialized, what is the rhetorical gap between saying, "your actions are racist" vs "you personally are racist"? In other words, is it so important to people that we distinguish between the racism of their actions vs. the racism of their "being"?

---

This all said...I have another rhetorical hair-split question to ask: I don't believe that race alone explains Obama's appeal; it's not as if Democratic and independent voters were waiting for the first Black man to run for office so they could throw their lot behind him.

However, isn't it rather reasonable to claim that Obama's Blackness is at least partially behind his appeal to many? Especially many people of color? Let's be absolutely clear: I'm not suggesting that the mere fact of his Blackness is the sole, deciding factor. I am suggesting that race is hardly irrelevant to his appeal however.

This isn't an attempt to address Ferraro's particular comments one way or another. Rather, I'm trying to decipher the ways in which race does or does not factor into Obama's ability to make this run for President. I think it's a definite liability with some voters but just as notably, I think it's also an asset too with other constituencies.

This said then - where exactly is that thin line between over-crediting race or not crediting it enough?

Going back to Slate, I might have to agree with what Mickey Kaus says on the topic.

--O.W.

WRITE YOUR OWN CAPTION

I'm still trying to figure out how that frown is even anatomically possible.


To add: for once, I'd like to NOT see the wife there on some, "you bastard, go twist in the wind alone" tip.

b/w

idle thought but Spitzer's wife looks like Jennifer Aniston + 10 years, no?

--O.W.

A PRINCPLED STAND?

sitting out of the general election?

All Things Considered had an interview today with Mark McKinnon - John McCain's campaign manager - and he told Michele Norris that if Obama becomes the Dem nominee, McKinnon will not manage McCain in the general election. When Norris pressed him to explain why, he said:

"I would be uncomfortable being in a campaign that, inevitably, would be attacking Obama...it would be uncomfortable for me and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

Naive as it may be, I read this is a principled stand on first glance...that McKinnon doesn't want to play a role in tearing down Obama as, presumably, is bound to happen if he and McCain are the two candidates.

I was talking about this with my wife and she had a different take. Given that McKinnon was part of Bush's team in 2000 - when they took down McCain in South Carolina on some incredibly shady, racial smear tactics - and she thinks McKinnon would excuse himself as a way to avoid drawing undue attention to his possible role in that campaign.

Thoughts?

--O.W.

I [HEART] HUCKABEE!

Victory!

Congratulations to Governor Mike Huckabee on winning Iowa's Republican Caucus.

This is great news for those of us who ...

• ... equate gays and lesbians with pedophiles and necrophiliacs
• ... do not believe in evolution
• ... think school shootings are caused by abortion
  
• ... consider environmentalism equivalent to pornography
  

Hooray!

(Seriously, could this not be the best news for the Democrats?)

*

Update 10:12 pm: I'm thrilled that both Edwards and Obama beat Clinton. I prefer Edwards on the issues, but Obama's victory speech was goosebump-inducing good.

Despite the historic win for Obama, here's what I consider the most heart-warming news of the night:

Total Voter Turnout:

356,000

Percentage of total vote:

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

Source: Group News Blog

--Junichi

WHICH WAY YOU LEAN?

No doubt, this sinks my chances at getting nominated to the Supreme Court (that and the fact that I haven't gone to law school).

Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.18

The Political Compass

--O.W.

ON THE EXODUS OF TURD BLOSSOM

Rove. Out.

You might assume that I've been celebrating, or perhaps masturbating to, the news that Karl Rove is leaving the White House at the end of this month.

But you'd be wrong.

In my opinion, free time for Karl Rove is not a good thing.

While he claims he will spend more time with his family -- Karl Rove has a family?!? -- the Architect will undoubtedly be busy calculating which reactionary GOP candidate to prop up in the White House to make his Death Star operational for another eight years.

Plus, if he's not in the Oval Office, he has even more wiggle room to leak the names of undercover operatives, not to mention spread fear, smear the record of veterans, set back gay rights another decade, fix the next election, and snack on puppies.

More importantly, with MC Rove out of DC, the Bush Administration has a better chance of deflecting calls for accountability and avoiding embarrassing subpoenas.

Scariest of all, here's the math for the remaining 17 months of the Bush Administration:

Bush - Bush's Brain = Brainless Bush = Dick Cheney in total control

So there isn't much celebration happening on my end.

You can, however, count on me cheering when I see this ...

or this ...



and maybe this.

--Junichi

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #114

Not the 19 sexiest people alive

This Week's Question:

If you were forced to vote on a 2008 presidential candidate solely based on appearances (e.g., how they dress, their physical appeal, and the image they exude), whom would you support?

--Junichi

BARACK - BE REAL BLACK FOR ME?

One of the more interesting angles of criticism that Barack Obama is enduring at this early point in his (soon to be) Presidential bid is perhaps one that most wouldn't expect: he's not Black enough for some critics.

For background, here's NPR's Mary Curtis summing up some of the key issues. You can also view this NYT article. There's also Debra Dickinson's Salon.com piece, "Colorblind" that flat out says, "Obama isn't Black."

And why isn't the junior senator from Illinois earning his certificate in Official Blackness™? Two primarily reasons: the lesser is that he has a white mother though this probably takes second chair to the bigger reason that's being cited: his father is from Kenya. Ergo, Obama does not trace - in any obvious ways - his roots back through American slavery. By that virtue, Obama is presumed NOT to have an understanding of Blackness in the same way the majority of African Americans do on account of their generational connection to the wages of race, running back 400 years.

This isn't a new issue. As I think I've written about here, tensions between African Americans and West Indian immigrants has risen considerably in many cities, especially in the East, as these two communities have eyed one another warily. To distill the basics of that tension, African Americans see the West Indians are people who didn't have to pay the price for gaining the kind of civil rights and social benefits that are accorded to Black people. West Indians wonder why their American-brethren aren't as well-educated or upwardly mobile as they are. This is glossing over a lot more complexity but it still comes back to the same core points: that for some, Blackness is earned. Merely looking Black isn't enough.

What's ironic about part of this debate though is that, on one hand, the point being made is that Blackness isn't monolithic...except that, in the way that Dickerson frames it, Blackness actually IS kind of monolithic. She writes,

"At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term."

I hear what she's saying here but does that mean that a third-generation Harlemite shares the same perspectives as every other African American (of slave-descent) in every other part of the country? Does the Blackness experienced or internalized by said Harlemite equal that of a Black person from Baldwin Hills? Or Chicago's Southside? Or Hunter's Point? The point here is that you can't have it both ways: either Blackness is a fixed identity (a philosophy that plays all too well into racist hnads) or it's broad enough to include a range of Blackness beyond just the authenticating force of slavery's legacy.

Personally, I think what this points out is that Blackness - as well as anti-Black racism - has at least two distinct dimensions: one is historical and one is experiential. The experiential basically would include anyone "who looks Black," at least, Black enough to suffer from the kinds of anti-Black racism that live within the immediate world of human, social interaction: catching a beatdown from cops, being unable to catch a cab, having people cross the street when they see you strolling, etc. For Black immigrants or children of immigrants, these experiences of racism help shape a shared sense of Blackness with others, regardless of genealogy.

However, there is also the historical element of race that arises from the legacy of slavery, of Jim Crow, of myriad laws and practices that have structured not just day-to-day discrimination, but also become embedded in any number of social institutions as well as within the collective psyche of America itself. This is, I think justifiably, a qualitatively different experience of race. After all, a racialized identity is more than the product of your skin color and hair texture. It's also the product of unique strands of history that cannot and should not be forgotten/glossed over even to forge bonds of solidarity with others who may resemble you on one level, but whose lives and experiences trace through very different times and spaces. To deny this difference is to do violence to the historical memory of America's unique brands of racism.

This all said however, I think it's incredibly shortsighted and parochial - not to mention politically moribund - to force that these distinctions be honored to the point of exclusion. I would think the point here is to use people like Obama to reflect the sprawling diversity of Blackness, as a way of suggesting and showing that there is no monolithic Black experience, that this community is built of myriad histories and peoples and that, to discuss "Black issues" means understanding that complexity rather than simply presuming that there's a single "Black agenda" or "Black point of view."

However, it's one thing to say, "Obama's Blackness is different from my Blackness." It's something else entirely to say, "he's not really Black," especially since, in the eyes of most non-Black Americans, these distinctions are completely meaningless. Call me crazy but my perception is that for the majority of non-Blacks, whether Obama's father was born in Kenya or Kansas makes very little difference.

Dickerson argues that one reason she's upset at Obama's popularity is because she thinks Obama's non-slave-roots gives Whites (liberal and otherwise) a pass on White Guilt since they view Obama as a "different" kind of Black person, one not encumbered with constantly reminding them about what their ancestors did to his ancestors[1].

That's an intriguing idea except that it, in my mind, gives "the average American" far too much credit into actually taking into account national origin when it comes to race. She only need to ask any Asian American or Latino American - whether first or fourth generation - if our experiences with other Americans is any different based on how long our families have been here. (Hint: the answer would, "hell, no.")

Some non-Blacks might see Obama differently from other African Americans but I have a hard time believing this is any more than a relative handful. If Obama were to make any kind of Presidential ticket, I doubt the majority of Blue or Red state voters would see him as the son-of-a-Kenyan-national-and-white-mother rather than, "that Black guy running for Prez/VP." It is, of course, unfortunate that Obama's Blackness will inevitably be an inescapable part of his campaign (just ask Harold Ford...or heck, Tony Dungy or Lovie Smith) but insofar as that's true, it seems highly doubtful that he'll be seen as anything BUT Black to the majority of voters deciding to cast for him or not.

In any case, I wanted to also take time to include the perspective of Joan Morgan, writing on Mark Anthony Neal's blog. Joan is Jamaican-born, South Bronx-raised and she has this to say, especially in regards to Dickerson's article:

"...it should be painfully obvious (and I'm mean painful as in post-verbal-ass-whooping painful) that when it comes to Blackness that African-Americans do not hold the monopoly. Nor do they hold the monopoly on the equally painful legacy of colonialism, slavery and imperialism that descendants of West African slaves have experienced around the globe. Same shit, different boat."

"...when are folks like me, we "Voluntary Immigrants of African Descent" considered Black? Because according to Dickerson and brother man in the barbershop it certainly isn't doesn't happen when I look in the mirror every morning and damn sure see a black face. I don't get that honorary pass every April 15th when I pay my taxes or on the daily as I raise my American born black son."

"When black people immigrate to America we are not at all exempt from the experience of being Black American and not only because we will inevitably be subjected to American racism. We learn your history. We absorb your culture. Some of us even acquire your accents. We do this as a matter of both acclimation and survival because we recognize the potential power we unleash by finding the distinct commonalities between our histories and our culture."

"Because really, the difference between rice and peas and black eye peas is hardly as great she, the barber or anyone else questioning Obama's blackness might think. It's the distance between stops on slave ship."

---

UPDATE: Just to hone in on part of what I'm skeptical about...one of the reasons that's been given for Obama's popularity - specifically amongst White folk - is that his immigrant heritage allows White, whether consciously or unconsciously, a free pass out of White Guilt over slavery. Just to be upfront, I'm already skeptical over whether White Guilt actually exists to begin with; I don't see a host of examples, especially in contemporary times, where a mass of White voters have done much in the name of resolving America's slavery past. In fact, the only people I usually see trotting out the White Guilt thesis is White Supremacists (or at least political conservatives) who argue that the only reason why policies such as Affirmative Action or the Fair Housing Act exist is because White liberals allow White Guilt to influence their actions. There's a grain of logic in there somewhere but to me, that would be called "White Responsibility" or better yet "social justice." But let me not digress.

So, if I understand the argument correctly, here's the thinking of the average Obama supporter (White): "man...that Obama sure is great! He's so articulate, so fresh, so clean. And best of all, because he's a 2nd generation immigrant, when I think of him, I'm not reminded of all the terrible things my ancestors may have done to Kunte Kinte and his people 200 years ago!"

Not being White, I can't speak from personal experience, but does that last thought actually enter into the minds of White people when they think about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or hell, Michael Jordon or Denzel Washington? Just so we're clear, I'm more than willing to believe that any number of racists thoughts may enter one's subconscious when Black and White meet but 1) White Guilt over slavery isn't high up that list and 2) I'm not at all convinced that someone like Obama wouldn't trigger White Guilt (if it exists)



[1] Given Kenya's colonial past with European powers however, who's to say?

--O.W.