Thursday, February 23, 2017

the false promise of black political representation (REDUX from 6/12/15)


theatlantic |  The recent unrest in Baltimore, Ferguson, and other cities is puzzling in one important respect. Unlike in earlier eras, when African Americans’ political exclusion drove them to protest, blacks today are as likely to vote as whites and are well represented at all levels of government. The mayor of Baltimore and a majority of its city council are black. So are forty-five members of Congress—an all-time high. And, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, so is the current occupant of the White House. Why all the turmoil, then, at a time when blacks—finally—seem to be enjoying the fruits of American democracy?


One answer is that the appearance of black political clout is deceiving. Despite their gains in participation and representation, blacks continue to fare worse than whites in converting their policy preferences into law. This poor performance is more revealing than statistics on turnout or black electoral success. And even though its causes remain mysterious, it is very much a rationale for frustration with the status quo. 

In a recent study, I analyzed group political power at the federal and state levels. At the federal level, I relied on a remarkable database compiled by Princeton political scientist Martin Gilens. It includes responses to thousands of survey questions from the last few decades. Crucially, it also tracks whether each policy referred to by a question was adopted by the federal government over the next four years. At the state level, I measured people’s ideologies using exit polls that asked whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative. And I assessed state laws using an index of overall policy liberalism created by another pair of scholars. 

At both levels, I found that blacks hold much less sway than whites. For example, a federal policy with no white support has only a 10 percent chance of being enacted, while one with universal white support has a 60 percent shot of adoption. But while a proposal with no black support has a 40 percent chance of becoming law, one enjoying unanimous approval has only a 30 percent probability of enactment. In other words, as support for a policy rises within the black community, the odds of it being achieved actually decline.  

Likewise, whether most black voters are conservative or liberal, state legislative outcomes barely budge. But vary the views of white voters to an equivalent degree, and a state’s policies go from looking like Alabama’s to resembling Michigan’s, even controlling for black and white population size.

The story is similar for several other groups. The more that women, the poor, or Hispanics support a federal policy, the less likely the policy is to be enacted. Strikingly, as women move from universal opposition to a proposal to universal support, its odds of adoption plummet from 75 percent to 10 percent. Changes in the ideology of female or poor voters also have no effect on state legislative outcomes (although shifts in the views of Hispanic voters do). In contrast, both federal and state laws are acutely sensitive to the preferences of whites, men, and the rich.

18 comments:

Ed Dunn said...

Could be that black leadership have nothing close that resemble ALEC or the Bilderberg Group.

ken said...

"At both levels, I found that blacks hold much less sway than whites. For example, a federal policy with no white support has only a 10 percent chance of being enacted, while one with universal white support has a 60 percent shot of adoption. But while a proposal with no black support has a 40 percent chance of becoming law, one enjoying unanimous approval has only a 30 percent probability of enactment. In other words, as support for a policy rises within the black community, the odds of it being achieved actually decline."

It would be more informative if the author could give us specific examples of these issues. Demonstrate the policy that had no black support and universal white support that became law, or vice versa give an example of a law or bill that has a racial divide like this author is leading us to believe exists where the bill has universal support of one race and total opposition by another race.

And then early in his paper he says: "blacks today are as likely to vote as whites and are well represented at all levels of government. The mayor of Baltimore and a majority of its city council are black. So are forty-five members of Congress—an all-time high. And, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, so is the current occupant of the White House. Why all the turmoil, then, at a time when blacks—finally—seem to be enjoying the fruits of American democracy?

And later he offers us a solution to all this equal representation not ending up with the results he wants: "These hypotheses point to an agenda of sorts for those who are troubled by the power imbalances of modern American politics. Automatic voter registration and other electoral reforms might broaden political participation. Reducing income inequality, and introducing public financing or more vigorous campaign-finance regulation, could lessen the impact of money on politics."



Another person trying to create wider racial divides to promote his issues about income inequality.

Ed Dunn said...

"Demonstrate the policy that had no black support and universal white support that became law" - welfare reform, three strikes law, etc. and on the other side - ObamaCare mandates and gun control.

CNu said...

It's so much worse than that Ed.

I believe I mentioned that I attended a Boule centennial function last weekend, at least that's what prompted that pair of videos about the Boule. This week, I picked up a copy of E. Franklin Frazier's 1955 classic Black Bourgeoisie from the library. If you haven't done so already, this book is required reading. Nothing has changed in 60 years with regard to the utter frivolousness of the monied black elite.

Taking the Boule as an example, if there are 5000 of them scattered across every major American city, and they comprise the top of the pyramid, then we know beyond any shadow of a doubt precisely why we can't have anything or do anything when it comes to political and economic organization in America.

Vic78 said...

The people that write for the Atlantic suck. If the mayor and city council are black, why are black folks catching hell from a police force that works for the mayor and city council? What are the Black Congressional Caucus doing and what have they done since winning their first elections?

My answer is that the majority of black politicians don't give a fuck about black folks. Baltimore's mayor has been trying to gentrify the city for a while now(she doesn't have a clue on taking advantages of being in Baltimore). The CBC voted for those "tough on crime" bills.

Fuck the Atlantic. They're doing everyone a disservice with this shit. Does anyone there take policy seriously? Do they have any solutions or do they want to find new ways to cry about white people?

ken said...

Three strikes law is a state law, and I couldn't find anybody breaking support for the law along racial lines. Welfare has always had more white beneficiaries than black beneficiaries, and I suspect you would find whites that were in opposition to welfare. I would also like to see what elements of welfare reform the opposition was having a problem with, or was it just the concept alone. We've had gun control for a very long time now, and again I am challenged finding numbers that break this down to one race against gun control and one race for it. And finally, Obamacare mandates, I can't believe anyone is going to find support from one group or another universally supporting forcing someone to purchase a product or be fined.


This really is just a liberal tying to bolster his issues by making it about race.

CNu said...

Once we accept that from the level of the negroe elite, with their 110 year old national network now numbering the 5000 richest negroes in America, right on down through every negroe politician, pundit, preacher, and poverty pimp - not a single one of them cares a whit about black folks. From there, we have a foundation on which to build at least in theory if not in practice.

The anti-ghetto doesn't start with the wretched ratchet least of these. The anti-ghetto starts with the negroe elite who collaborate in maintaining and worsening status quo conditions.

I'm axe you a hard kwestin Vic. Did Hitler weaken or strengthen the Jews?

CNu said...

No black support and universal white support - Voter ID, restrictive voting dates, polling places, etc..., redistricting, the entire architecture of ongoing GOP efforts to diminish or deny the franchise to black folks.

ken said...

None of these have universal white support. I admit I can't understand how it is you have to have an ID to drink, to fly in an airplane, or whenever the police ask for identification, but somehow it is overwhelming to ask someone to have an official state ID to vote. I believe if I state this "narrow minded racist" belief in a public square, I would get an argument from a white person just as often as a black person. Redistricting is practiced by blacks and whites whoever is in power. You still got nothing that shows this is anything more than just another attempt to cry about some liberal policies not being accepted by the public and using race to shame the public for their choices.

Why doesn't this author wonder when he says..."blacks today are as likely to vote as whites and are well represented at all levels of government. The mayor of Baltimore and a majority of its city council are black. So are forty-five members of Congress—an all-time high. And, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, so is the current occupant of the White House."



... what patterns make him believe automatic voter registration and broader voter participation is going to somehow have reduce income inequality, or stiffer campaign regulation or public financing of campaigns will take money out of politics. Really, when has government money intervention reduced money being spent on anything. The disconnects are all over. I have no doubt if the democrats decide Ms. Clinton is their candidate of choice, this author will robotically pull the level for her not even questioning or maybe even sweeping her campaign financing abuse of the current laws under the table to get her elected.


Is it really that hard to see through the agenda here?

Constructive_Feedback said...

So Brother CNu:

With the NUL "State Of Black America Report 2015" documenting that Black people are SUPERIOR to White folks in one category ("Voter Participation") can we agree that the DESIRE of the "White Right Wing" to keep Black Progressives from voting - REAL OR IMAGINED - IS NOT a threat that is ACTIONABLE today?

Can we agree that when EVERYONE is asked for Photo ID but the "Colonized Negro' AGREES to pretend that PHOTO ID is a RACIAL ATTRIBUTE and when he agrees to walk into court with a neck brace for show - THERE IS A LOSS OF THE NEGRO'S DIGNITY as "Progressives" stand tall?

RESTRICTIVE VOTING DATES? (Early voting). You mean just as voting was a 1 day event prior to the "2000 Presidential Election' fiasco but then when EARLY VOTING policies that went as many as 32 days in advance were trimmed down to 14 or 21 days - A RACIST SET BACK was amassed?

POLING PLACES? - In St Louis or Atlanta, with "Favorable People" running all of the election administration - ANY CHANGE IN POLLING PLACES that confuses BLACK PEOPLE are done at the hands of administrators that BLACK OFFICIALS PUT INTO POWER. Can we conclude that A BLACK PERSON IN POWER CAN 'SUPPRESS THE BLACK VOTE' AS EQUALLY AS A WHITE PERSON?

Constructive_Feedback said...

THE FRAUDULENT SUPPOSITION OF THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE IS:

1) They See No "BLACK POWER" other than that which can be amassed through AMERICAN POLITICS

***** If wealthy mean with POWER seek to use their money to influence AMERICAN ELECTIONS then this points to the presences of some APOLITICAL CHANNELS to power AND since there is only "One Man One Vote" in America - this attempt to "BUY AMERICAN ELECTIONS" is really ONLY an attempt to USE PROPAGANDA TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE TO THINK and then ACT in a certain way.

WHY THEN DO WE LIMIT OUR INSPECTION of this INFLUENCE TO "POLITICS"? Its it as logical to inspect Consumer Decisions? One's perceptions of crime threats? How a race of people can be manipulated into believing that THE POLICE are the greater KILLERS than the people who matriculated through their own community?

2) (ONCE AGAIN) The Atlantic gives a narrative of "BLACK PEOPLE STILL HAVE NO POWER" (in this Racist American System)

They are TOO CORRUPT to look at this from a BLACK INVESTMENT PROTECTION perspective:
"After 50 years of INVESTING HIS VALUABLES into VOTING FOR HIS SALVATION (The "Bayard Rustin 'Vote For Your Salvation Scheme') NOT ONLY does the Colonized Americanized So-Called Negro LACK POWER, in the under-developed condition of his own communities - HE IS NOT ASKING FOR HIS MONEY BACK from the forces who worked as his investment advisers, selling him on the promise.


BROTHER ED AND BROTHER CNU - As YOU ponder into the future and consider your retirement nest egg - and some Negro came to you with a business card that said "UTOPIA SOCIETY INVESTMENTS" - would THIS NAME not cause you to rip up the card and throw him out of your presence? Or would you buy into his strategy with the hopes of tripling your money if you help fund his plan to defeat your enemy?
http://mediaassets.commercialappeal.com/photo/2014/03/21/62795_t607_appcrop_3541846_ver1.0_640_480.JPG

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother Ed:

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY "PUBLIC POLICY THAT HAD NO BLACK SUPPORT", BUT WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED ANYWAY?


The GREATER DAMAGE TO THE NEGRO has come from the scheme that told Black Americans to TAKE CONTROL OVER:
* The City Council Seat
* The Mayo t r's seat
* The Majority on the City Council
* The School Board Seat
* The School Board Presidency
* The Police Chief
* The District Attorney
* The Public Defender's office
* The Local Judges
* The Chief Jailer (Sheriff)
* The State House & Senate Representative's seat
* The US House Of Representative's seat


AND AFTER THE BLACK RANK & FILE did their part in BUYING INTO THIS SCHEME that was to provide uplift - after the seats that "The White Oppressor" used to use to transact their supremacy over Black people were filled by "Favorable People In Power" and yet the Colonized Negro STILL did not experience ORGANIC UPLIFT - the Embedded Confidence Men were able to still talk about an AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE GUARANTEED - and thus trick the Negro into walking past these local seats of power and consummate this SOCIAL JUSTICE at the NATIONAL LEVEL.

Thus, Brother Ed - the REAL QUESTION that you should be asking is: "IS THE AMERICANIZED NEGRO'S CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT MERELY A TRINKET THAT IS OF GREAT USE FOR THE POST-RACIAL PROGRESSIVE FUNDAMENTALISTS TO GAIN POWER AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, AS THEY KNOW THAT THE NEGRO WOULD RATHER 'FIGHT THE WHITE RIGHT WING ENEMY' FOR THE PROMISE OF EQUALITY, RATHER THAN SET UP THE INSTITUTIONS IN HIS OWN COMMUNITY THAT WOULD ALLOW HIS PEOPLE TO BE TRANSFORMED AS THEY MATRICULATE THROUGH THESE STRUCTURES"?


I ask you, brother, Identify the INVESTMENT ADVISERS who are looking at the investment portfolio and are recommending that the NEGRO NOT MAKE ANY MORE INVESTMENTS INTO "AMERICAN POLITICS" but instead diversify into non-political vehicles that will allow him to retain more of his own consciousness that can't be exploited by politics.

Constructive_Feedback said...

My dear friend Vic78.

Notice your shift in argument.

You say that "Black people are being beat down at the hands of a Black establishment POWER" and yet you RETURN TO FOCUSING ON THE BLACK ESTABLISHMENT.


TURN YOUR ARGUMENT INTO ONE OF "INVESTMENT" and not "CONSUMERISM".

If you INVESTED into the promise that a "New Sheriff In Town" would fortify your UPLIFT. This INVESTMENT being your "Spiritual HOPE FOR BETTER DAYS" while "The Vote" as merely an exchange of currency...............
You attached your COMMUNITY PRIDE to this new Sheriff and were interviewed on TV with massive jubilation.

Yet you find that NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
WHY ON EARTH would you focus on THE NEW ESTABLISHMENT?


Do you see any GRASS ROOTS INITIATIVES that call for THE REGULATION of the voices that have influence into the Black community to manipulate the people sentiment? (Not government regulation but Black institutional regulation) This so that the Negro is not tricked again?

CNu said...

lol, your agenda is conspicuous as always. With regard to the author, he's up against something Kahnemanian - and that's a fact.

Your binary befuddlement, bad faith rhetoric, and faux reasonableness don't disguise the acrid stench and special partisanship of everybody operating under the socially and fiscally conservative banner.

CNu said...

Where are Raul and Fidel Castro when the mentholated American negroes need them?

CNu said...

Read the Black Bourgeoisie and get back to me when you drop the distorting lens of black "community" which you yourself have repeatedly admitted is false. All your rhetoric and any possibility of logic are fatally distorted by your insistence on the existence of this mythical unicorn. There is only America and its institutions and as go black folk, so goes America. Everything else is conversation....,

CNu said...

Ken Hamm Jr. and his sidekick Constructive Hammbone went to screeching and squawking with the quickness on this topic. Priceless how buybull buddies slobber and drool over the prospect of black hearts and minds in Chrysjeebus...,

Vic78 said...

What the hell are you talking about? What you're saying isn't making any sense right now.