Monday, November 8, 2010

Standing for Truth, Justice and the American Way

I would like to extend a warm welcome to readers from GrannyStandingforTruth and The Legal Schnauzer. I am humbled and honored to be a member of your blog roll. Let us march on until victory is won.

It's time to be Bold.
the reality is that Democrats lost not because they went too far but because they haven't gone far enough. A big part of why Democrats lost Tuesday is that they haven't accomplished enough to energize and motivate all of the new voters that came out in massive numbers for them in 2008 -- groups like African Americans, Latinos and young people. While many of these groups still strongly support Democrats when polled, it's clear that they did not vote or volunteer for Democratic campaigns in the same numbers or with the same enthusiasm seen in 2008.

Here we go. They are already hoping to get rid of them daggum gerrymandered minority (black folks) voting districts.
But I am in favor of redistricting in Alabama. I hope that the redistricting will abolish long held minority majority voting blocks. Most of you are wondering "What the HECK?!?!?!" Here is why:

Propping up minority majority voting blocks or districts are enabling the continued subjugation of one party or another, based soley on RACE, not political preference. While this practice may benefit the scale of minority representation by ensuring a black candidates electability, it also serves to de-value the voting blocks power of prescence. It is no big secret, those "safe Dem districts" do not recieve party wide attention or power, as they are not seen as a potential threat of losing them. In simple terms, "Why give concessions or put emphasis to district 7 funding if it is going to be a safe Dem vote no matter what?"

The continuation of minority majority voting blocks also acts to dumb down the political integrity of the voters contained within. If all they (we) know is to vote how we are told to vote, then the individual candidates qualifications and relation to voter means nothing. In simple terms, voters in minority majority blocks were told, "Vote for Sparks, not Davis". I do not believe voters in the minority majority districts even questioned "why?", but went along with it just because it is the way it has been done forever. And most certainly, the better candidate for Governor might not have seen his chance at becoming elected.

Minority Majority blocks are not only taken for granted, but they are used and abused as a tool for marginalization. If the powers to be say, "we support gambling", then it is certain that the minority majority blocks will support gambling, "just because".

On top of that, I do not think that successful and qualified black candidates will have any problem at all gaining nomination nowadays. The old arguement for minority majority districts was that they were needed to ensure black represenation of interest. For a long time, it was necessarily practiced and gave a positive result. However, with the softening of racial factors in society and the advancement of professional class of African Americans, the practice of developing minority majority voting blocks is no longer needed and only provides to hinder the integrity of the African American vote.

This is an honest opinion, and one I hold to be very true.

Well it may be an honest opinion, but the rhetoric is very untrue. Let's go back to
WHY there are minority voting districts in the first place. It certainly was not tell them black dummy's how to vote.

Prior to the Civil War, African Americans were almost totally disenfranchised throughout the states. Latino voters faced similar barriers to voting in Texas and other parts of the Southwest., as did Native American and Asian American voters in the West. Even after enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, in 1870, which gave all men, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude the right to vote, many states continued to use various methods to prevent people of color from voting, including literacy tests, poll taxes, the disenfranchisement of former inmates, intimidation, threats, and even violence. Also, until 1965, federal laws did not challenge the authority of states and localities to establish and administer their own voting requirements.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to address these issues. It prohibits discrimination based on race, and requires certain jurisdictions to provide bilingual assistance to language minority voters. Section 2 of the Act, which bars the use of voting practices or procedures that discriminate against minority voters, has been used successfully to attack discrimination in voting including restrictive voter registration requirements, districting plans that dilute minority voting strength, discriminatory annexations, and the location of polling places at sites inaccessible to minority voters.

Section 5 of the Act requires federal "preclearance" before covered jurisdictions (i.e., specified jurisdictions with a history of practices that restrict minority voting rights) may make changes in existing voting practices or procedures. The Act also provides the Department of Justice with the authority to appoint federal observers and examiners to monitor elections to ensure that they are conducted fairly. Initial enforcement efforts targeted, among other things, literacy tests, poll taxes, and discriminatory registration practices.

In 1975, the Voting Rights Act was amended to address the voting rights of language minority groups. Sections 4 and 203 of the Act apply in jurisdictions with significant numbers of voters with limited or no English proficiency and require such jurisdictions to provide voting materials and assistance in relevant languages in addition to English.

You said; On top of that, I do not think that successful and qualified black candidates will have any problem at all gaining nomination nowadays.

Translation; I do not think that a successful and qualifed black candidate will have any problem at all gaining nomination nowadays as long as he's acceptable to the white majority. White privilege and power on display.
It must be remembered that the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white. They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools. The police were drawn from their ranks, and the courts, dependent on their votes, treated them with such leniency as to encourage lawlessness. Their vote selected public officials, and while this had small effect upon the economic situation, it had great effect upon their personal treatment and the deference shown them. White schoolhouses were the best in the community, and conspicuously placed, and they cost anywhere from twice to ten times as much per capita as the colored schools. The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and almost utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule.

You know that gridlock thingy worked well for the gop, so let's pray for gridlock.

Let us pray (figuratively or literally) for gridlock, because all else is disaster. The best outcome that could result from Tuesday’s Democratic debacle is that the Republicans overreach and, in their white nationalist triumphalism, make it impossible for President Obama and congressional Democrats to reach an accommodation with rampaging reaction and racism.

The phony racial narrative of 2008 has been undone with the abrupt termination of the Age of Obama. After two short years, the illusion of a post-racial society has gone the way of all mirages – poof! – and we are forced to behold the United States as it actually exists.

Redeye tiptoeing away from the computer to go pray....


Redeye said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redeye said...

Thank you bluebearcat! I couldn't have said it better myself.

So racism is dead, but, in your book, blacks are too dumb to make electoral decisions for themselves. (0.00 / 0)
Sorry friend, but I have to strongly disagree with you. I have worked on the only campaign that I'm aware of in modern Alabama history where a minority Democratic candidate won in a majority white district. A week ago - once you had the higher turnout of a general election - he got voted out because he was perceived to be, in the words of one constituent I ran into on election day, "just another Democrat n*****."

I think that we need non-partisan commissions in charge of redistricting, but I also think that it's important to ensure some minority representation. It's possible to achieve both and it's possible to do it while utilizing data driven redistricting instead of the horse-trading that goes on today.

Lots of white Democrats want to put an end to minority-majority districts because "cracking" the black vote in our state's urban areas would theoretically throw a lot more Democratic votes into suburban districts that are currently not competitive. There might be circumstances where that's appropriate but I don't believe that it's fair to African-Americans to leave Alabama with a greatly reduced number of African-American leaders in the legislature.

It's also incredibly lazy for progressives to complain about groups like the ADC and New South being the reason for Artur Davis' loss in the governor's race. Barack Obama overcame the opposition of the ADC to win a supermajority of Alabama's black vote. There was nothing preventing Artur Davis from doing the same thing.

Black voters, like any other voters, want engagement from their political candidates. Part of the problem with a lot of white progressives that I have known is that they tend to perceive black voters as a massive bloc that does whatever Joe Reed tells them to do. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like every other community, there are internal divisions and local concerns that drive their voting behavior, especially in primaries. Unlike white Alabamians, black voters tend to make their general election decisions based on economic concerns rather than whatever the wedge issue of the day is. Usually, black voters don't vote for Republicans because a) they don't trust the Republicans to govern in an economically fair manner and b) because Republicans don't ask for their vote.

This is why you can have a rather wide disparity in record and views within the black caucus. You can have consistent progressive champions like Sen. Hank Sanders who has been perhaps the only consistent voice of economic liberalism in the Alabama Senate for a while alongside relatively conservative Senators like James Gordon.