An observation about differing senses of political entitlement

[Empowerer]

It is very interesting to see so many Democrats so upset that things aren't going their way. It's a frustrating feeling to sense that their political leadership is not listening to them or is taking them for granted. But i see a marked difference in the way different segments of the base are reacting to the latest controversy . . . a difference that has been apparent for some time.

Several months ago, I made the following observation about the reaction among many progressives to the tax cut deal:

Black folks are used to being disappointed in the political arena. We're used to having our desires compromised and being told to be content with half (or more often, a fourth) of a loaf. And we're accustomed to being expected to hold our fire and not attack Democratic leadership because they're our best hope.

Since President Obama's election, our expectations have continued to be tempered and we're consistently told not to demand that he go out of his way for black folks since that might alienate independent white voters. So even though the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites, God forbid the President take any action targeted to black workers. Although our urban community infrastructure desperately needs revitalization, we can't talk about it in those terms and must always talk about roads and bridges whenever we mention parks and community centers. And while the President met early and often with industry leaders, he was in office for more than a year before he met with the leaders of the nation's top civil rights organizations. When some of us suggested the need for a "Black Agenda," we were shushed down before we could get both words out, even though few people seem as uncomfortable about the Administration's "Women's Agenda." But none of this caused black folk to scream or yell or call him a sellout or threaten to find a primary opponent. We just kept plugging along, offering our support, defending him against the vicious attacks he's been forced to endure, and turned out to vote in the mid-term in impressive numbers and trying to make the most out of the current political structure and opportunities.

So it's interesting to me to see some white progressives this angry - so angry they're lashing out, threatening, name-calling, attacking and generally having a full-blown temper tantrum because the President didn't do what they think he should have done and give them what they believe they deserve in this instance.

There is clearly a considerable difference in the degree of entitlement between these two groups. Black voters, based on a long history, don't have a strong sense of entitlement in the political arena. On the other hand, many white voters, probably based also on a long history, seem to have an extremely strong and ingrained sense of entitlement and feel perfectly deserving of smacking down any politician who does not give them exactly what they want when they want it.

A fascinating phenomenon.

I see the same phenomenon occurring now in the reaction to the debt ceiling deal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x552907

[Armstead]

1. To be honest that's reverse racism and totally off base

I don't even know where to start, so I won't even try

[Empowerer]

3. What is racist about it?

Certainly you're not throwing around unfounded accusations of racism?

[Armstead]

As I said, I don't know where to start...

If I were to try to respond fully it would be a very long post....and I don't have the energy to engage in it right now.

But for a start, it strikes me as a form of racism to ascribe a particular form of behavior to a broad category of "white progressives." As if being white is the defining characteristic, without acknowledging that individuals differ within racial categories.

If someone were to post such negative generalizations and stereotypes about all African Americans, you would likely and correctly find that offensive and racist.

That's scratching the surface, but I hope it answers your question in a general way.

[Empowerer]

8. I didn't attribute any behavior to ALL white people

I did not say that all white progressives do or think anything. I specifically referred to "some white progressives." Unless you really believe that NO white progressive takes the approach I describe, you cannot argue with my point.

It's interesting that in politics, it's seen as perfectly acceptable to analyze and discuss the behavior of particular groups. We have endless polling and dissection of how black people vote and why, how Hispanics vote and why, how women vote and why, etc. Yet, when people try to discuss the political behavior of white folks, we get smacked down with accusations of "reverse racism." There are many reasons for this, including the sense that majority groups often feel that they aren't a racially-identifiable group - they're just "people" - while various minorities are looked at as racially identifiable subsets.

Moreover, while you may see my observation as a "negative generalization," I am simply pointing to a fact and offered no value judgment one way or another. It is indeed true that some white progressives have a completely different reaction to what they see as political disenfranchisement, which I believe to be based upon their experience, not any inherent racial characteristic. I also believe that black voters tend to have a different reaction, which is also based upon THEIR experience, not any inherent racial characteristic.

Pointing out differences that are based upon experience - even when that experience has been affected by their race - is not racist. In fact, it is simply an effort to help people better understand how our experiences and perspectives are shaped by this country's racial dynamics. Pretending that doesn't exist is, in my view, far more detrimental to crossing the racial divide than openly discussing them will ever be.

[Armstead]

11. Will reply later

I meant what I said about not having the energy for this right now, but I don't want to give you short shrift.

So I'll pass on this for now, and will reply tomorrow or as soon as I have the time and energy for something more thorough than I am capable of at the moment.

[Armstead]

6. Double post

[EffieBlack]

4. For someone who claimed that "blaming racism for everything"

makes it harder to address "REAL" racism when it occurs, you're awfully quick to call someone else a racist when they say something you apparently don't agree with.

There's absolutely nothing "racist" about the OP - it's just merely stating a fact that many of us have observed.

[Armstead]

7. Please see my post above

[Whisp]

9. there is no such thing as reverse racism

you'd have to be white and have generations of family of slaves, you'd have to not been able to drink at certain fountains, be declined jobs and security, etc etc etc etc +10000. that is Such a bullshit statement.

[iamthebandfanman]

15. ummm

if theres one thing i know about bigotry, its not racist.

any race can be a bigot.

its the human component that makes it possible, not the skin ;)

[Whisp]

20. certainly can't argue with that

but what I meant was different

[treestar]

2. Very True

These white progressives need to get real. The President is not their servant. He needs support in order to have political capital. All the crap about holding feet to the fire is just crap. It only helps Republicans.

People act like spoiled children. They will hold their breath until they turn blue. Just kicking themselves in the foot to harm the Democrats, which always helps the Republicans.

[EffieBlack]

5. Great post

I admire your bravery - got your helmet on? :-)

[zalinda]

10. Now, any one who is not 'over the moon' about Obama

thinks they are entitled? Apparently, black voters aren't that concerned and white voters want Obama to obey their demands? How is this not racist? I will inform those black leaders who are not thrilled with Obama, that they are now white, and have a strong sense of entitlement. I'm sure that they will thank you.

zalinda

[EffieBlack]

12. Did you even read the post?

Or did you just see "Obama," "black" and "white" and go into a knee-jerk reaction that has no connection to either the OP or reality?

[zalinda]

18. Yes, I read the post.

"So it's interesting to me to see some white progressives this angry - so angry they're lashing out, threatening, name-calling, attacking and generally having a full-blown temper tantrum because the President didn't do what they think he should have done and give them what they believe they deserve in this instance.

There is clearly a considerable difference in the degree of entitlement between these two groups. Black voters, based on a long history, don't have a strong sense of entitlement in the political arena. On the other hand, many white voters, probably based also on a long history, seem to have an extremely strong and ingrained sense of entitlement and feel perfectly deserving of smacking down any politician who does not give them exactly what they want when they want it."



What this says to me is that the white progressives that are angry are feeling this way because of some sort of entitlement. While the black folk are oh so patient, because they have always been disappointed. Generalize much?

The poor, whether black, brown or white have been lied to constantly, or have been ignored completely. In this country, the middle class is the only group that is spoken about. It has only been the rich that have prospered in this country in the last 30 years. Since the 60's, many more black have made it to middle class than ever before, because of affirmative action. The poor white and browns did not get that advantage.

To make this a race issue, which it seems that any time a criticism of Obama comes up, it is brought up, is a low blow. You know it's not true, but it never fails to raise it's ugly head, no matter what form it takes. It is again trying to belittle people who have a beef with Obama, if they are white. I actually hoped there would be more from this President, but he has turned out to be exactly like any other 'new' dem. Poor people are dying out here, and he keeps turning to the right for ideas. Ideas that haven't worked for 30 years. Where is the lefty in his administration? He chose them. He has also chosen his advisers, where is the lefty? We know that the right is only concerned about the rich and big business, so where is the compassion for the poor?

The OP is another straw man argument, designed to take the heat off of Obama's big blunder of the debt ceiling negotiation. He got what he wanted, he has gotten what he has wanted in every negotiation. Face up to it, Obama just isn't into people who can't give him big bucks. No amount of 'slight of hand' is going to make people who care about the poor, stop 'bashing' Obama. We 'bash' Obama because we care about this country. He is heading in the wrong direction, and I and any one else who cares about this country will keep calling him out, until he makes a left turn. Hell, we'd even give him kudos if he even gave the slightest effort to turning left.

zalinda

[Empowerer]

21. Interesting - to what do you attribute the different reactions

between many white progressives and African Americans?

I'm very interested in your perspective.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Many of my Black family members and friends have mentioned this phenomenon....

In much starker way than you have expressed it.....

FDR is the class "real" Democratic standard bearer of a "great" President,
but yet, he was also the President who negotiated and agreed with the
dixiecrats not to allow African-Americans the same access to
social security as he did the white populace.

Until the New Deal, blacks had shown their traditional loyalty to the party of Abraham Lincoln by voting overwhelmingly Republican. By the end of Roosevelt's first administration, however, one of the most dramatic voter shifts in American history had occurred. In 1936, some 75 percent of black voters supported the Democrats. Blacks turned to Roosevelt, in part, because his spending programs gave them a measure of relief from the Depression and, in part, because the GOP had done little to repay their earlier support.

Still, Roosevelt's record on civil rights was modest at best. Instead of using New Deal programs to promote civil rights, the administration consistently bowed to discrimination. In order to pass major New Deal legislation, Roosevelt needed the support of southern Democrats. Time and time again, he backed away from equal rights to avoid antagonizing southern whites; although, his wife, Eleanor, did take a public stand in support of civil rights.

Most New Deal programs discriminated against blacks. The NRA, for example, not only offered whites the first crack at jobs, but authorized separate and lower pay scales for blacks. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) refused to guarantee mortgages for blacks who tried to buy in white neighborhoods, and the CCC maintained segregated camps. Furthermore, the Social Security Act excluded those job categories blacks traditionally filled.

The story in agriculture was particularly grim. Since 40 percent of all black workers made their living as sharecroppers and tenant farmers, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) acreage reduction hit blacks hard. White landlords could make more money by leaving land untilled than by putting land back into production. As a result, the AAA's policies forced more than 100,000 blacks off the land in 1933 and 1934. Even more galling to black leaders, the president failed to support an anti-lynching bill and a bill to abolish the poll tax. Roosevelt feared that conservative southern Democrats, who had seniority in Congress and controlled many committee chairmanships, would block his bills if he tried to fight them on the race question.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=477

And yet, African-Americans still call him great, and still voted for him
in those states that allowed us the vote.

It's all very ironic and quite sad, in terms of what is there
that folks don't want to see. Entitlement doesn't make one a racist,
it only makes them feel like their opinions are more valid than any other,
when that's not really true.

[EffieBlack]

16. The same think happened with JFK

Blacks had such hope for his Administration but were often disappointed with his reluctance to push for civil right, his appointment of racist federal judges, his foot dragging on bringing minorities into his administration, etc.

[bhikkhu]

14. Perhaps you have a point, but there are still other perspectives

Mine from youth in the 70's has revolved around the environment as a primary concern. Carter wasn't bad on that, but since then there hasn't been one president who gave much of a hoot about environmental issues. Clinton might have, in principle, but in practice there was more destruction in his years - because of the "good" economy - than in any other similar period. 40 years, mostly watching things go downhill.

Yet I've been engaged in politics anyway, even knowing that to most people every other issue takes precedence. I can say, however, that when something like the debt deal goes down, with all the huge fuss and big compromises, perhaps I am less impressed at the anger of different groups who had to give up a little bit of something or other - I know exactly what its like, and no big expectations at this point.

I still try to look at the bright side of things, like the current hard times. There is a beautiful little valley north of here that had been staked for a subdivision, with a big map up on a sign announcing lot sales and the build schedule; sales hit the wall in mid '08, and the thresh-hold to lay road wasn't reached. Now its still a beautiful little valley, the sign blew down, and all the stakes are lost in the tall grass.

[last_texas_dem]

17. I haven't observed this tendency.

Generally, black voters seem just as likely as white voters to question and exhibit frustration with political leaders, especially ones they trusted and feel betrayed by. It does seem like black voters tend to be slightly more likely to be cynical about politics and politicians altogether, but I don't consider *not* being cynical to be the same thing as being "entitled."

[Empowerer]

19. To be clear, I'm not talking about being cynical v. not cynical

This isn't about feelings, it's about reactions.

I'm not saying African Americans aren't frustrated or that we are less frustrated than whites. I'm saying that African Americans as a constituency are more accustomed to being disappointed and frustrated and tend to respond very differently than some white progressives are responding to their recent frustrations and disappointments with Obama.

Blacks aren't pretending to be happy with the way things are going. Many are speaking out very clearly about this. But with few exceptions (e.g. Cornel West), you're not seeing angry lashes out at the President, accusations that he is a sellout, corporatist, ignorant, incompetent, demands that he be primaried, etc. From the black community. You would be hard-pressed to find a rash of these kind of comments we regularly see on DU posted on African-American websites, printed in black newspapers or uttered by African-American commentators on the airwaves.

We tend to be much more measured in our criticism of our "family members.". And by that, I don't mean other blacks - I mean political leaders that we support. We're not pushovers and we make our views plain, but we don't attack and demean them when they don't do what we want them to do.

Bill Clinton pissed us off regularly on several issues. But black folk never threw him under the bus and we were the first to step up and fight like hell for him when we thought he was wrongly attacked.

I think this is the result of decades and decades of experience with being disappointed, which has taught us that the political system is not always going to bend to our will. But we keep plugging along knowing that incremental progress is better than going backward.

Certainly, this is a general assessment and doesn't apply to every single black person. But I do think that, while there may be exceptions, this is a commonly held view and approach in the black community.

[Supersedeas]

37. i see the distinction that you are trying to draw and it has some merit

[Armstead]

22. I would be interested in your opinion of this video and statement

I'm not saying this bolsters or refutes your point, but it does add an interesting dimension. (BTW, I fully agree with them, and think that Lee and Conyers are among the best Democratic representatives we've got. They represent what, in my opinion, President Obama could and should be saying and advocating for just as staunchly as they are.)

A statement by John Conyers of the Up from Poverty Caucus.

http://www.crewof42.com/cbc/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

And a related statement from Rep. Barbara Lee:

Barbara Lee, Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus Hold Press Conference on Impact of Cuts to Vital Human Needs Programs
July 27, 2011
For Immediate Release

Contact:
Ricci Graham, [phone]

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), Founding Co-Chair of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus (COPC), members of the COPC, and representatives from national anti-poverty organizations held a press conference on the impact of debt reduction plans on vital human needs programs for low income and poor communities. Congresswoman Lee highlighted the importance of preserving safety net programs, discussed the latest report on the growing wealth gap between white and minority communities, and encouraged House leadership to extend unemployment benefits for those who have exhausted their 99 weeks by bringing her legislation, H.R. 589, to the floor for a vote. The following are excerpts from Congresswoman Lee’s statement:

“We are gathered here today to talk about the urgent necessity of protecting vital human needs programs from the Speaker’s bill which is just another version of the extreme Republican agenda of cut, cap, and balance – that is, balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. This measure will decimate the vital safety net programs on which Americans living in poverty depend on for their survival.

“The Co-Chairs of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus saw the writing on the wall earlier this summer and sent a letter to the President, the Vice President, and to Congressional leadership calling for them to protect vital human needs programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that serve our most vulnerable from this Republican attack.

“This press conference is a reminder that we are not going to stop demanding that these programs be protected as deals are cut behind closed doors and bills are voted on. We are the voice for the voiceless and we are here today to speak out on this issue.

“Americans are falling by the wayside, and that simply cannot continue – we have a moral obligation to care for our own.”

[Empowerer]

23. Thanks for sharing this and asking for my opinion

I think this helps to illustrate my point. Reps. Lee and Conyers and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been very vocal about their differences with the President on policy and approach. But their tone is very different than many progressives who are so furious with the President.

They are talking about what they disagree with, where they think things should be done differently and offering recommendations. But they are not lashing out at him, calling him a sellout, accusing him of turning his back on them, etc. Nor are they demanding that he be primaried or encouraging their constituents to either not vote or to vote for someone else.

In other words, they are exhibiting exactly the kind of behavior that I described in my post. I think this is because it's not their first time at the rodeo - they are used to advocating on behalf of disenfranchised and underserved people and communities and have never felt that the system always or even usually works for them. So they are not feeling the same sense of being let down that some others who have been better served by the political structure in the past.

Your thoughts?

[sudopod]

24. Wouldn't that really be more of a measure of how minority communities have been beaten down

by decades and centuries of abuse and promises of change by lying politicians, wheras white people are only now getting acquainted (in relative terms)?

Alabama, for example, is about 40% black. Were the Democratic party able to mobilize them, AL would be the bluest state since Vermont went to Smurftown. Why is this not possible?

The answer is apathy. Apathy built over generations of false promises, abuse, intimidation, and voter disenfranchisement. Only now is it spreading to the middle class white liberals who were previously immune, and they haven't yet realized that no one is reading their heart-felt emails.

[EffieBlack]

25. This reminds me a little of the aftermath of the OJ trial

when many white folks were furious, angry, hurt, betrayed at the thought that race played a role in a guilty man going free -

Many black folks thought, "Welcome to OUR world!"

I have a sense of that here.

[Empowerer]

26. There's an element of that, but I think it's more that

African Americans are more realistic in our expectations of politics and politicians. At the same time, many of us continue to believe that we can make progress.

As Al Sharpton said in his 2004 Democratic Convention speech:

But I sat there that morning and listened to Ray {Charles} sing through those speakers, "Oh, beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesty across the fruited plain." And it occurred to me as I heard Ray singing that Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, because Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.

Mr. President, we love America not because all of us have seen the beauty all the time; but we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody!

[sudopod]

27. There's realism, and then there are people who laugh in your face when you promise that

THIS is the year we elect politicians who care. How do you convince people who have given up to get back in the game? Once we can do that we are unstoppable.

[southernyankeebelle]

28. You have a very good point. But none the less I am still upset. I love Obama and

I will vote for him again because he is the only chance we have to do better. I just want him to have more backbone. As a white I support him 100%. I just want him not to sit on the fence and stop appeasing the right because they hate him and we elected him.

[Enrique]

29. you don't speak for all blacks

some blacks are angry at Obama, some blacks support him, some blacks support tea-baggers.

It's a great thing about this country, everyone can think for themselves, regardless of what someone says their race thinks.

[Fire1]

31. Are you black? n/t

[Enrique]

35. are you 1/2 white 1/2 hispanic?

huh? Are you?

[Fire1]

30. On Point! Absolutely correct. n/t

[Fire1]

32. Ya know Empowerer, that same entitlement has them

stretched the fuck out as a result of this recession. We take it in stride b/c we live in a constant state of recession. Always have and we know how to survive under the most adverse circumstances. They don't.

[Number23]

33. I have to say, that when I look at the list of "Liberal Saviors" that are frequently touted on this

web site, it becomes very clear to me that many here simply DO NOT GET IT.

DU's Magic Dem Primary List:

Grayson, Kucininch, Sanders, Wiener, Dean, Nader. Over and over and over again. Grayson, Kucinich, Sanders, Wiener, Dean, Nader.

Kucinich couldn't probably get his own mom to vote for him; Grayson was voted out after engaging in some fairly yucky behavior; Wiener resigned after some fairly yucky behavior; Sanders and Dean are way too damn smart to even consider such stupidness and Nader, well, I'll just leave him alone. And even though I personally believe that Grayson and Weiner will be resurrected (and will be glad if/when that happens) the idea that despite being unable to hold onto their seats they are somehow MORE QUALIFIED to be president than Obama just makes my eyes roll and my jaw drop.

I'm sure it doesn't even RESONATE with many of the people who keep touting this list that it's the same old white, male names over and over and over again. Elizabeth Warren or Hillary are listed on the very rare occasion but Warren has no political experience and is probably MUCH too smart to even want that job, and Hillary has had her chance and lost. These people want to kick out the black guy who has been listed TIME AND AGAIN as one of the most effective and accomplished executives (in only 2.5 years, no less) in the history of the Oval Office with men who have proven time and time again that they couldn't win a presidential election against a dusty broom.

The double talk and double standards are simply breathtaking. Obama votes a way that DU's "liberals" don't like, he's "caving." One of the Magnificent Six does the same thing (the ones that are actually able to vote on anything, that is)? They were "forced to." The only proper response to this idiocy in my opinion is to laugh. Either that or vomit.

[EffieBlack]

38. Very interesting point

[Enrique]

40. notice all the Jews on your list

maybe I'll start an OP saying "I've noticed that certain Obama supporters are irritated by the popularity of Jewish politicians." I'll go on to ignore your actual reasons for not liking those politicians, and insinuate wicked motivations for your dislike of them. No, I wouldn't actually do that. Very few people play that game, fortunately.

[Number23]

41. There would be no need for you to go there

A very large number of people on this very web site were ALL TOO HAPPY to "go there" with Cornel West when he made similar points. They couldn't kick and rec his bigoted idiocy fast enough because he got a few slams on the president in on the side.

And I'd note that no where did I say that I disliked any of those politicians, but I think that point would fly over your head along with the rest of my post.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

44. Aren't Grayson and Weiner the only two Jews on that list?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. +1.

I remember a thread where Kucinich collaborated with Boehner on a particular issue and many DUers were okay with that, but as soon as Obama does it (who has to have a much closer relationship with Boehner), then he's the devil.

[EffieBlack]

47. Oh - but that's different ... n/t

[MNBrewer]

34. B

S

[Enrique]

36. it sounds like you don't like white progressives very much

you should work on that.

[EffieBlack]

39. I don't think it sounds that way at all

Making an observation about how certain voters react to political situations doesn't mean that someone doesn't like those voters. I think she's just stating a fact.

[EffieBlack]

42. Kick

Because this is an interesting discussion.

[MerryBlooms]

43. I get what you're saying.

kick, but since I'm late, a silent rec.

I'll just add - the fear, anger, desperation and disappointment in our system, is palpable these days. I just hope in all the negativity swirling around us, we can find a little empathy and love for each other.

[Empowerer]

46. From your fingers to God's ears . . .