Real and Ersatz Citizens

Matthew Yglesias raises a very important issue in his latest post:

Julian Sanchez notes that the putatively "real" portions of America -- which, as another commenter pointed out, are less the South than the midwest -- also just happen to be the whitest portions of America. I'm quite sure that when people engage in this real America / fake America discourse they're not consciously trying to say that African-Americans and Latinos are less authentically American than are white folks, but at the same time it's clear that this notion is subconsciously informing their thinking. It's like Josh Marshall hobbyhorse about Democratic "dependence" on the black vote. Not a racist thing to say per se, but something whose logic seems to imply that it's cheating to rely on the votes of these pseudo-Americans. You hear similar things in other contexts where the point is clearly ethnic. Québec separatists, for example, are known to get upset that their last secession referendum failed narrowly enough that the federalist side was depending on the votes of Anglo-Quebeckers to win. The point being that, in their eyes at least, the issue was the sentiments of the real -- i.e., Francophone -- Québecois and not those of English-speakers and First Nations who just happen to live within Québec's borders. Similarly, the tradition in Israel is that things need to pass the Knesset not with a majority, but with a Jewish majority, i.e., without "dependence" on the votes of the Arab parties.

The key thing that separates the examples of Quebec and Israel from the United States, though, is that American citizenship is at least putatively defined on other than ethnic foundations. Israel has never made any bones about its being a state by Jews for Jews, nor have Quebecois nativists ever gone out of their way to hide their tribalist outlook (though in both cases, the ethnic essentialism has long been a black mark held against them by outsiders); as such, it is rather more disturbing to see so many prominent Americans thinking in terms that only the likes of Pat Buchanan and David Duke dare to voice openly within the United States.

PS: There's something else about the American case that is particularly disturbing - unlike Jewishness or being Francophone, one can't change one's race (unless one is Michael Jackson, that is). It's one thing to define "Americanness" in cultural terms, but to use racial terminology is to put things in such a manner as to irremediably alienate a large and growing portion of the population from the rest.

Comments

[gene berman]

I disagree with the essential point raised by Yglesias, though I would agree that it has long been an essential argument of the left and the Democrats. In other words, it's not so much that the public-at-large does not consider black citizens to be "Americans" as it is that the left has, for many years, played to the acceptance in the minds of such citizens that they were not so regarded, especially by most on the "other side." The Democrats have maintained the endorsement of policies favorable to the black minority continuously since at least the thirties and, consequently, have gained an almost regular preponderance of their votes, in spite of the fact that the picture of just how blacks are regarded (or treated) by members of the respective parties is far from clear-cut.

If anything, Republicans suffer simply because their normal approach to most matters is conservative, i.e., tending less to "do" something. In my own experience, the incidence of generally bigoted individuals seems fairly dispersed across the ordinary political divide. And, in attracting the bloc votes of less thoughtful black voters to the "racial" politics of affirmative action, etc and in adopting campaign tactics making false accusations of "suppressing the black vote," the Democrats do whatever they are able to perpetuate the view of blacks that they are perceived as an "other." And, of course, the more that such view persists, the more likely it is to cause those among the Republicans who might have been relatively free of racial prejudices (the great majority) to become somewhat persuaded that such blacks are indeed, inherently inimical.

Having said all that, I don't see this as a problem specifically with blacks. Except to the much greater degree that they may be liable to follow leaders espousing disastrous programs and policies, they're just like the rest of the electorate.

[razib]

much of the pacific northwest is *very* white. it is BOTH red & blue depending on whether you are urban or rural.

[Abiola Lapite]

I think the thing with the Pacific Northwest is that the whole Seattle thing (Microsoft, cappucinos, grunge, etc) tends to overshadow the rest of the region, so when people think of "cosmopolitan bicoastal elites", Oregon and Washington State tend to get lumped in with California - just like upstate New York and New Hampshire are mentally written of as "Northeastern liberal."

[mike]

Gene,

I agree with some portion of your "theory", however, I am not so sure when you say things like:

"If anything, Republicans suffer simply because their normal approach to most matters is conservative, i.e., tending less to "do" something. In my own experience, the incidence of generally bigoted individuals seems fairly dispersed across the ordinary political divide".

I think that is cutting them some slack. Especially if ur opinion is that the general attitude of the democratic party, via their messages and program, has lead to an alienation of the black vote and viewing of black electorate as inherently inimical (from the republican’s view). I think sir, that u've got it wrong there. The "cause and effect" mechanism does apply, but in the opposite direction. Long before the Democratic Party was "reformed", thanx to Kennedy, there were people whose sole motivation was the opposition to freedom of blacks. They called home, any party that served or was sympathetic to their cause. After the Democratic Party reform, they naturally fell into the hands of the republicans. I am sure you know this history quite well, the final unification achieved by the Regan administration. Of course there are bigots in each party, but the difference here, is when one party consciously reaches out to a base that makes no bones about their racial intolerance. This is part of the republican "policy". Little surprise then that blacks call the democratic party home. Yes, they may not have fulfilled their promises, but they don't offer refuge to bigots. So you should give a little more credit to the black electorate; a majority understand what the stakes are whenever they cast their votes.

[gene berman]

Mike:

If you intend to point out that the view I've expressed is not dominant, I already knew that. And if you were merely trying to explain why black voters are so overwhelmingly in the Democrat camp, those reasons are obvious, as well. But that is not quite the same as offering a validtion of the idea that one or another party is "good" for the interests of a particular group.

The discussion was of the tendency--the prevalence--for certain population segments (in this case black) to be seen as "other." There are many reasons for such views and these can be argued between people or even within the confines of individual consciences and minds. But the one we are dealing with is artificially created by representations of political parties. Your own preference, as expressed,
is a most excellent example. Your distaste for the Republicans owes to the fact that it has become "home" to the "Dixiecrats," former (and even including some would-be) oppressors. But what you refuse to observe is that, short of some legal disenfranchisement of such people, they will vote somewhere. And, though these might actually wish for a home espousing their particular racial politics, there is no such home, so they choose the "next-best" alternative, which simply happens to be the aracial offering of the Republicans. It is the Democrat party which offers specifically group-oriented appeals; by choosing this course nearly universally, blacks themselves perpetute their "otherness," not only among the bigoted, whose minds can be presumed pre-closed, but also among those less affected, more naturally desirous of a "fair shake" for everyone. Real racists rejoice--not that they have found a home consistent with their beliefs but that those they despise and seek to diminish and marginalize appear to validate their opinions and to segregate themselves politically along racial lines.

It is simply a datum of history that the black population came to identify with the Democratic party--seemingly the party of the "working class"--after a history of connection to the Republicans. In so doing, they allied themselves with the prevailing opinion which viewed socialism as the goal. But, more recently, and for a variety of reasons, socialism has lost very much of its former appeal and its representative party no longer has its once-clear majority in mainstream opinion and there has been more or less steady disaffection from those ranks. So, in the minds of many, the black "bloc" voters further alienate themselves; first, by subscribing to frankly "race-based politics and, secondly, by stubbornly sticking to econom

[gene berman]

Mike:

If you intend to point out that the view I've expressed is not dominant, I already knew that. And if you were merely trying to explain why black voters are so overwhelmingly in the Democrat camp, those reasons are obvious, as well. But that is not quite the same as offering a validtion of the idea that one or another party is "good" for the interests of a particular group.

The discussion was of the tendency--the prevalence--for certain population segments (in this case black) to be seen as "other." There are many reasons for such views and these can be argued between people or even within the confines of individual consciences and minds. But the one we are dealing with is artificially created by representations of political parties. Your own preference, as expressed, is a most excellent example. Your distaste for the Republicans owes to the fact that it has become "home" to the "Dixiecrats," former (and even including some would-be) oppressors. But what you refuse to observe is that, short of disenfranchisement of such people, they will vote somewhere. And, though these might actually wish a home espousing their racial politics, there is no such, so they choose the "next-best", which happens to be the aracial offering of the Republicans. It is the Democrat party which offers specifically group-oriented appeals; by choosing this course nearly universally, blacks themselves perpetute their "otherness," not only among the bigoted, whose minds can be presumed closed, but also among those less affected, more naturally desirous of a "fair shake" for everyone. Real racists rejoice--not that they have found a home consistent with their beliefs but that those they despise and seek to diminish and marginalize appear to validate their opinions and to segregate themselves politically along racial lines.

It is simply a datum of history that the black population came to identify with the Democrat party--seemingly that of the "working class"--after a history of connection to Republicans. In so doing, they allied with prevailing opinion-- which viewed socialism as the goal. But, more recently, and for a variety of reasons, socialism has lost very much of its former appeal, its representative party no longer has its once-clear majority in mainstream opinion, and there has been more or less steady disaffection from those ranks. So, in the minds of many, the black "bloc" voters further alienate themselves; first, by subscribing to frankly "race-based" politics and, secondly, by stubbornly sticking to economic prescriptions now far more correctly seen as inimical to prosperity and progress.