Printable View
Post Obama's election victory some commentators adduce it to a growing demographic shift in the US with the growth of ethnic minorities supporting the Democrats. This article from the UK's Royal Society of Arts' journal offers an interesting analysis of the possible political direction of the US in coming decades.
The author is a professor of science and law at University of California, Berkeley
http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/jou.../americas-race
The only interesting thing in this paper is the use of the concept of 'race' (and it derivatives, such as 'pan-racial'), which is never explained, never justified and which adds confusion whenever it appears. Race is a bogus concept, it has no basis in science, and its only use in culture has been to emphasise that there is a Master Race and that the rest are inferior, and there no prizes for guessing what the Master Race looks like.
To sub-divide, as Taeku Lee does, voters in terms of 'Asian Americans' and 'Latinos' as if they were 'racial' groups begs the question how Chinese and Japanese Americans see themselves; they might consider themselves to be Americans, but to say 'well, you are all from Asia so basically you are the same' is insulting and wrong.
If you want a clear demonstration of how useless it is to use 'race' as a tool in analysis, one that is functionally illterate and intellectually insulting, there is this sentence from late on in the paper:
This seemingly begs the question of why the Democratic party has been circumspect about embarking on a full-throttle campaign to consolidate a pan-racial base of African Americans, Asians, Latinos, Jews, LGBTs and the white working class.
So there you have it, LGBT is not only a racial category, so too is 'white working class'.
If there is a demographic analysis of the 2012 election to be done, this is not it.
I think the paper spends too much of its focus on the impact of race in the 2012 election but at the core of those events there were signals not just the racial make-up of the US was changing, but so where the attitudes of younger voters and women of all races.
The Republican general election coalition that emerged in the late 60's fueled on fear and anger at the changing of the status quo, whether it be civil rights, women's rights, the anti-war movement etcetera. This provided the Republican party a base which had very dueling economic goals, that forged it's bond based on social issues which were often wedge issues.
This caused the collapse of the New Deal coalition which had forge its foundation based on shared economic interests but conflicting social goals. Liberals and socially conservatives (southern segregationists) lived uncomfortably but effectively under one tent.
Nixon and the Reagan to a greater degree struck a cord with dog whistle racism, sexism, fear of gays by making strong alliances with the emerging political power of the Christian right.
The problem is that this coalition is aging at the same time the GOP through the Tea Party has dialed up their stances on women's rights, LGBT rights, taken harden stances on imigration (which is a negative dog whistle to Hispanic Americans) and raising new attacks on the poorest Americans under the benign name of entitlement reform. Their appeal rather than Democratic appeal found itself with the walls closing in with the popularity of their positions now being limited to an aging group of Americans national and being stuck in regional areas with vast geography but sparse population centers.
The democrats meanwhile while far from ideal on issues concerning immigration, LGBT, women's rights, protection of social services and a basic belief that the tax code unduly favored the 1%, found a candidate that in National elections that could drive a greater turnout of their coalition. And not to be under estimated the newer generation of voters do not share the old fears of LGBT, women attaining equal rights and the right of choice.
And it can't be under estimated that in addition to the social issues that drove the large numbers of from diverse groups with different wedge issues, I like to think that there was an over riding sense amongst a majority of the people that economic game plan of steady deregulation, privatization and tax policy that favored the 1% have been a failed experiment that has created a wealth gap not seen since the late 1920's.
But to a point the paper is right that America is no longer a country ruled by white men but it is folly not to understand that electoral success in the US in national elections has historical been achieved by creating coalitions with unique interest and characteristics that found enough of their interests answered by a political ideology to vote for the candidates even though they did not share every view of the candidate or goals of fellow constituents.
Look no further than the Reagan Revolution, Nixon's Silent Majority or perhaps the most conflicted of all coalitions the New Deal Coalition which lasted from 1932 - 1968.
Just my take
PS- The effect seen in 2008 and 2012 may well be because of the added focus that National elections have, which drives turn out. And the Obama team also must be credited with having an outstanding ability to drive turnout. The trick at this point is of course to be able to translate the GOV efforts that bring people of color, younger voters and the LGBT community out in the numbers they went to the polls in during the national election cycles of 08 and 12.
Until we see that happen, this isn't as much a sea change in the direction of America as it will be a practice in prolonged gridlock.
'People of color' -was there ever a more inept, meaningless phrase in the English language?Quote:
Originally Posted by fivekatz
I agree with Stavros that the concept of race, deep down, is a bad one. But many people use this cncept as a way of identitfying themselves.Racists do of course - talking quite spuriously of the Jewish race for instance - but also other groups - including those who've been the victims of racism. As for people of color - it is yet another attempt to find a euphemism that covers the wide range of ethnicities whose roots are non-European or white anglo saxon. Wasn't so long ago that respectable papers in the US and UK called black people "negroes' But quite rightly the black community objected to that.
Courtesy and respectfulness demands that we talk to and off each other in terms that generally acceptable to this or that group, surely? In the UK Afro-Caribbean seems to be a perfectly acceptable phrase. In the US I am not sure what is the current acceptable description. is it not people of color?
You might just as well object to the use of the word gay - because it was once widely used with an utterly different meaning.
I am not sure how far people attach labels to themselves, or accept the labes others invent, until they rebel and insist on some other temporary ID -surely all labels are designed to separate people, on the assumption that some people are inferior/superior, don't belong, are in some way disadvantaged -collapsing something as complex as American society into 'identifiable' blocs of voters seems to me to be part of a problem that is extended to other countries; just as calling people 'Gay' is as meaningless as calling them 'Latino'. Why not just call them Americans? We have the same problem in the UK when people who are British are suddenly described as being 'Pakistani' because they have broken the law, as if that was the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
People participate in communities that are often extremely fuzzy at the edges but nevertheless identifiable. E.g. there is indeed an LGBT community with somewhat common social and political concerns. Because each such community has somewhat identifiably coherent social and political concerns, a political strategy (for good or ill) may target the group via addressing those particular concerns. IMO fivekatz's use of the current labels was neither overly ambiguous nor offensive.
The origins of "people of color" being used in polite conversation in the US is unknown to me. But it appears it was found to preferable to phrases such as non-white or minority.
The relevance of the phrase it that it allows one to describe the different groups of non-whites, who while they undoubtedly have unique characteristics and interests, they have all historically been subject to some level of discrimination due to their "non-white anglo" status.
Stavros I certainly applaud your thoughts when you state ..."Why not just call them Americans?" They are after all Americans. But to believe that race, sexual orientation and gender are transparent in American life is not realistic.
In 2012 the GOP took extraordinary steps in a number of states to attempt to surpress the votes of Americans based on race and age. The Dems took extraordinary efforts to get out the vote in the face of the surpression efforts. They did this because members of these groups may have different circumstances and different goals but they also have mutually shared interests.
Those efforts happened because changing demographics do matter in national elections in the US and frankly the last two elections suggest that the GOP will need to focus more on their fiscal policy message and how it translate into economic equity for all, rather than inspiring a large turnout amongst their so called core voters with "dog whistle" wedge issues aimed at certain Americans.
And whether you wish to find other ways to describe non-white, non-hetero, poor people and women who wish choice, they have become a coalition formed not so much by the Dems as by the GOPs policy pronouncements towards them.
Just my take
I admit to being a bit obsessed with language, although race to me is gibberish from whichever angle it is approached. It was interesting watching the documentary on drugs in America, The House I Live In, to hear David Simon, the Baltimore crime journalist who created both Homicide: Life on the Streets, and The Wire, argue that drugs in America was class-based.
If we must break down people into manageable categories, social groupings seem to me to have a more secure basis in reality -it also makes a category like 'Black American' or 'Latino' more flexible, because you can then sub-divide what appears to be a single bloc, and delineate differences that exist within those alleged 'communities', differences of income, of aspiration, of politics, etc. It eliminates 'race' as a workable concept, repacing it with something easy to understand.
The curious aspect of US politics is that the demographic shift is being used to explain Obama's election victories, yet the Senate and the House have not changed markedly over the last 30 or so years, yet that is where the battles over policy take place. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can take back control of the House in the mid-term elections, which is why the behaviour of the GOP over the next 18 months could reveal how far this party is so badly divided even 'loyal Republicans' desert it. But I am not sure it will happen; either the boundaries of districts need to change for change to take place, or for everything to remain the same.
There actual were what they call coattails for other Dems in Obama's 2008 election and again in 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
In some ways the 2012 Democratic gains were muted by the results in the House where gerrymandering reduced the number of seats the House GOP lost, but they did lose seats. In the Senate the Democrats had many more seats up for election than the GOP did, yet the Democrats actually increased their majority from 2010.
The "Obama" effect is turnout. A good part of that turnout factor is that Americans pay more attention to Presidential Elections. But it is worth noting that Obama's team has been very good at GOV. Much of the "Obama Coalition" did not vote in the 2010 mid-terms and Romney's internal polling was so off that he actual taught he would win on eve of this last election because they assumed the turnout would be like 2010 rather than 2008.
There actually have been some radical swings in the make-up of Congress over the last 30 years. In 1983 the Democrats had a vise grip on both houses. The GOP has gained control of both chambers, lost control of the Senate a few times during that time and the House was taken by the Democrats from 2006-2010.
As the 2014 mid-terms take place a number of things will come into play but turnover certainly is going to be one factor. The gerrymandering will help the GOP cause and the events of the next two years will play a big role.
But one thing that I think can be drawn from recent elections is that in National elections some of the very tactics that fueled the Reagan Revolution are now dead weight as younger Americans tend to view race, women's rights and sexual orientation differently than their elders.
It is just going to get to be real hard to win a national election being against gay rights, demonizing poor people and immigrants, that climate change is hoax and even trickle down economics is going to get to be a hard sell.
The dark side of America that Lee Atwater and Karl Rove tapped so well is getting older and a new generation of voters don't bristle over Adam and Steve like the elders...and many believe that the deck is being stack against meritocracy to favor those who have already achieved advantage.
BTW I agree that African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. have unique cultures and unique issues and in fact aren't 100% of any political persuasion. And yes much of the criminalization of drugs in the US is class based and at the core of class based issues in the US is the issue of race.
While Obama's proclamations about there "not being red states and blue states, a white America, a black America..." are nobel thoughts and worthy of our continuing the journey towards that end, race, gender, religion and sexual orientation still loom over our Republic and reveal themselves in ways that conflict with utopian self-image Americans sometimes have of our nation as a beckon of democracy and equality.
I agree with your analysis, fivekatz -but does this mean that the Democrats will regain control of both Senate and the House? This to me is the key issue on which the argument about the 'demographic shift' will manifest itself, institutionally.
Hard to say. In the Senate there is still the question whether the Senate will modify the rules so that the filibuster actual becomes a talking filibuster where the individuals holding up legislation must be present and going on record. Right now the rules allow for the minority to call for cloture without debate and that requires the majority to have 60 votes for the bill to even move forward. The GOP used this method a record 300 times in the two years of the last congress with little accountability from the average American for the obstruction. Now while filibuster is hardwired into the basic structure of the federal government, it is safe to assume that if the process were less opaque, GOP senators would be less willing to us it. I seriously doubt that the GOP would have killed a bill that was designed to provide jobs relief for returning Afgan-Iraq vets if not for the cloak of cloture prior to debate by example. The rules change has been tabled but left open until later this month. So it is a wait and see factor. Without that change it is hard to see much change because I doubt the Dems could command as 60 seat super majority in 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The House is a different animal. A lot of districts are safe due to the gerrymandering that 2010 census and the GOP being the majority party in so many states. But the Tea Party is a wild card, putting up candidates that are so extreme and the House taking positions that all but true Tea Party believers may have trouble supporting in 2014.
The Dems would have to pick up 13 seats in 2014 to take a majority in the House. With National election turnout they were only able to pick up 9 seats.
Whether the shifts in the American electorate will swing so far in a mere two years that mid year elections will reject the conservative social agenda is yet to be seen but the shifts in the populace are clear and if the GOP uses the same wedge issues that served them so well in the last part of the 20th Century and the the start of this century, parts of what the media calls "red states" will turn blue or swing. Texas is a most notable example because of its size.
Events have a funny way of playing out and making these kind of forecasts moot. GW Bush was well on his way to being a one term President after only a few months in office when the events of 9/11 changed everything.
A fair analysis, thank you fivekatz.
Here it might also be mentioned that the Boehner is manipulating the House by never allowing anything to come to a vote unless the GOP can pass it without bipartisan help. This effectively reduces the Congress to a 100% republican body (shutting out all democratic input). This reduction also effectively increases the tea party power, which is why nothing gets done. This bit of two-edged trickery is known has the Hastert rule; though it is not a rule of the House but rather a strategy the GOP employs whenever they're in control of the House (at least since Hastert invented the strategy under Bush One).Quote:
The House is a different animal. A lot of districts are safe due to the gerrymandering that 2010 census and the GOP being the majority party in so many states. But the Tea Party is a wild card, putting up candidates that are so extreme and the House taking positions that all but true Tea Party believers may have trouble supporting in 2014.
A VG point Trish. The Hastert Rule may become more distasteful to the Speaker in this next term as it was when it came to the vote on taxes we just went through. It must be said that the Obama administration did not always do a great job framing arguments during the first term. In part because IMO Obama really did believe in a post-partisan America and therefore he was reluctant to use the bully pulpit in an aggressive way to paint his opponents in a bad light.
An thoughts on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that there can be a post-partisan era without the spirited "battle" must be gone by now. While the vast majority of the GOP would love to dismantle Medicare and Social Security they also know that these are relatively toxic issues that they want to force the WH and Dems to take the lead on, hence the desire to use the debt ceiling and possible default as a hammer on the President.
My feeling is that while Obama rightfully so has great fear of taking the US and possible the rest of the world into another recession caused by the lack of confidence a government shut down would create and will make some concessions, he also knows that he is (as was Clinton in 1994) on the right side of this issue. The concessions IMO will not be enough for the Speaker to be able to get the necessary 217 in his own caucus (too many Tea Baggers). So he will find himself once again going to the floor with a bill requiring Dem support IMO.
A big part of the GOPs support are seniors and they just can't be seen as shut down the government and destroying the credit of the USA so they can get dramatic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. So while some of the more unhinged in the GOP may not care, enough will IMO that the Hasert rule will once again be over looked.
Just as a follow-up, today Eric Kantor announced bring a bill to the floor of the House extending the debt ceiling for three months. He is doing so IMO he recognizes that using the debt ceiling as a hostage in negotiations for spend cuts is a political loser for the GOP.
But as he does this he knows he is going to have to get some Dem votes to get it to pass. It appears that the Hasert rule may be fading, which is a good thing.
IMO we are better served when the both political parties have a variety of policy thought in their caucus, the lock step nature of the GOP caucus since Newt has not been good for the US.
More diverse thinking within the caucus, returning the filibuster to a function where people would have to be seen and heard rather than a procedural function in the dark (used over 300 times in the last congress) would go far to make the government function better.
I think that the Tea Party's extreme take on so many issues could be a catalyst for breaking the Hasert rule and in fact move us a little more towards that post-partsain era that Obama naively thought he could accomplish in his first term.