The Pragmatic Tradition of African-American Voters

[YoungDemCA]

Excellent, informative, thought-provoking article. Here are some excerpts:

Clinton’s dominance of the African-American vote has been explained as a residue of the long-standing ties she and her husband have built over decades on the national scene. Sanders’s failure has likewise been attributed to his decades of confinement to the flamboyantly white state of Vermont. Both factors have surely played a role. But there is a larger and more durable force behind the African-American place in the Democratic Party mainstream: a long historical tradition of highly rational electoral pragmatism.

The Democratic primary is a reprise of the classic purity-versus-pragmatism conflicts that periodically break out in both parties. Purists (on the left and the right) cast voting in morally absolute terms. They believe a hidden majority of the electorate shares their preferences, and a sufficiently committed, eloquent, or uncorrupted leader could activate that majority. Sanders is a classic proponent of this worldview. He has portrayed conservatism as simply a false consciousness constructed by big money and a biased news media, and something that would, in an uncorrupted system, be reduced to 10 percent of the public or less. Pragmatists read the electorate much more pessimistically. They recognize that the other side votes, too, and, having lowered expectations of what is possible in the face of a divided country, recognize that progress will be incremental and weighed down by compromise — sometimes with truly odious forces. That is the history of even the most spectacular episodes of progress in American history. Abraham Lincoln, who was holding together a coalition of voters that included supporters of slavery, refused to support abolition until the very end. Franklin Roosevelt needed the votes of southern white supremacists, and had to design social programs to exclude southern black people in order to pass them through Congress.

No community in the United States is more aware of the power of its enemies than African-Americans. For most of American history, the franchise itself was denied to black voters, who leveraged their precious vote for whatever they could. That did not mean holding out for politicians who would treat them as equal human beings, but merely supporting the less-bad party. In the first half of the 19th century, writes Daniel Walker Howe, “wherever black men had the power to do so, they voted overwhelmingly against the Democrats” — despite lacking anything like a racially egalitarian party to support. The emergence of the Republican Party in the middle of the century provided a vehicle for African-Americans to exercise more leverage. When neither party offered any positive inducement, as they deemed to be the case in 1916, black civic leaders stayed neutral.

snip:

...pragmatism inflects the African-American view of how politicians perform in office. Purists see compromise as a sign of moral failure or weakness, an inability to smash a corrupted system. Pragmatists expect political opposition as normal and enduring. A politician who has their best interests in mind and pushes policy in the proper direction is better than the all-too-common alternative. Sanders’s campaign draws much of its strength from the left-wing critique of Barack Obama’s presidency, which it dismisses as largely feeble half-measures. Sanders has attracted Democrats most discontented with Obama’s progress, while Clinton wins those most satisfied, among whom African-Americans are disproportionately represented. Obviously, Obama’s status as the first black president creates a unique bond with black supporters, but much more than racial affinity is at work here.

As Brett Gadsden, a historian and professor of African-American studies at Emory, told me a few months ago over email, “Black voters have always [been] faced with the difficult choice between candidates who have only offered incremental support for their concerns and have been perfectly willing to turn their backs, albeit to slightly different degrees, on black communities when it was politically expedient.” The decision about how to exert leverage (which is necessarily limited within a racially polarized electorate) is difficult, even agonizing. Any political constituency must navigate the twin imperatives of supporting the better (or less bad) party without letting that party take its support completely for granted.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/pragmatic-tradition-of-black-voters.html

[Number23]

1. Only fanatics and extremists take issue with pragmatists

The fact that so many of the "left" and the right have issues with the pragmatism of the black and minority voting public means less than nothing to me.

At the end of the day, minority voters will be the only reason there's not a lunatic in the White House.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. I dont know why people believe what they believe, or do what they do, outside of

their life experiences influencing them.

Some people will ignore what is right in front of them if their emotions take over.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that if Hillary wins the nomination, she may struggle to win the general because of the selfish behavour of many of Bernie's supporters.

I dont know what else to call it other than selfish, I will gladly revise my opinion if someone can explain it better to me.

Explain to me how someone can vote for racism, harm to the environment, breaking up families, and starving the poor, how?

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. They will claim ...

voting for racism, harm to the environment, breaking up families, and starving the poor (which I suspect, largely, has no direct affect on them) they are just simply withhold their vote from a different evil (that they perceive does, directly, affect them, or more).

[steve2470]

6. Fanatics and extremists :)

Those two words seem to describe many of my fellow Bernie supporters, and, indeed, some on DU. I take pride in being a pragmatist. Why joust at windmills and feel good about yourself WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING POSITIVE ACCOMPLISHED ?

I refuse to talk about Obamacare any longer at DU. The pipe dream crowd always talks down to we pragmatists.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Awhile back, I was accused of not being (a) progressive ...

I responded by saying:

(In part) If being a DU:progressive is calling something a plan that starts with, "if only {insert improbable event, or series of improbable events, here} ...

You're damned right I'm not ... and proudly not!

[steve2470]

8. yep I agree! nt

[Coolest Ranger]

3. When certain

people dismiss us they think we're too stupid to read the issues. They think we can't take an objective look at a candidate. They think we don't pay attention to their speeches when they say the same thing over and over again but they never say how they plan to pay for said policies nor will they explain how this will benefit people of color who are never treated as equal. They never tell us what they will do to keep our drinking water safe. They never tell us how they will keep cops from beating our ass. They will never say how they plan on making sure our voting rights will be protected. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Damn skippy! ...

Last edited Thu Apr 7, 2016, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

And, I would hazard the guess that if one were to do a search ... the vast majority of African-Americans posting to the AA Group have said exactly this ... Over and Over, again.

I recall terming my every political vote, in every G/E, and most primaries, as "defensive" votes ... except for my G/E write-in vote for Jesse Jackson in 1984 (which I, now, consider an unsophisticated waste of my vote).

Thank you for post the article.