Sunday, October 25, 2009

Democrats Indenture Blacks To The Party

It's a simple fact we all know--African Americans vote heavily Democratic. Although not intractable, this pattern will change very little over the next few decades. Most conservatives also know that in the South, this meant that blacks had to change party loyalty in order to reap the "benefits" of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Those benefits have included the breakdown of the black family, the entitlement mindset, and perpetual reliance on public welfare programs. Yet the Democrats argue that blacks vote Democrat because they love the Democratic Party, plain and simple.

That argument has just been tested in Kinston, North Carolina. And I can only conclude that the Democratic Party loves black folks only if they're Democrats. Otherwise, they would begin to lose their electoral advantage in largely black districts. So much of the litigation over the "right of blacks to be fairly represented" was based on the concept that in Southern districts which are largely or at least majority white, nonpartisan elections would weaken the ability of black candidates to win elections. But now we come to Kinston, where the population is nearly two-thirds black, and where the whites tend largely to be liberal Democrats while a high number of blacks tend to be conservative.

Clearly, that means that the playing field is very level, and the traditional Democrat argument doesn't work. But now that concept has been tested, and the Obama administration has come down on the side of "we need Democrats, and we really don't care if they're black or not." Last year, the good citizens of Kinston decided that good government was more important than parties, and overwhelmingly voted to take all the positions of power locally out of the party structure and make them entirely nonpartisan. This nonpartisanship is very common in most other states. In California, for instance, over 90% of cities elect their councils, mayors and commissions with a prohibition of any mention of political affiliation.

Eric Holder's Justice Department saw a major danger beginning to brew. If nonpartisan offices could be filled by blacks in fair elections, why would they need the Democratic Party? Although the local elections might be nonpartisan, this is the usual way that future candidates for partisan offices first earn their stripes. What if those black mayors, councilmen and commissioners became highly-respected and well-known successes, and then, God forbid, turned out to be Republicans when they ran for higher office?

So Holder intervened. The official position of Obama's Justice Department is that partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their candidates of choice (and then identified those candidates as Democrats who are almost exclusively black). In a masterpiece of divination, Holder opined that "white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want." Of course, what he really meant, was that they could elect Democrats, and their status as black was important only so long as it maintained Democrat majorities.

The Washington Times reports that Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision 'racial as well as partisan.'" He went on to say: "On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election. That's un-American."

Wondering which Justice Department lawyer wrote this brilliant opinion? It's the same political hack appointee who dismissed the voting rights cases against the New Black Panther Party thugs in Philadelphia. The votes of the citizens of Kinston, who number 23,000, have been nullified by a vile race-baiting political appointee whose primary concern is keeping blacks on the Democrat plantation. By the way, two-thirds of Kinston's citizens are black, so it is nearly inevitable that whether the office is non-partisan or partisan, a black (or a white liberal) will be elected to the office. Holder doesn't care about blacks, he just wants guaranteed black Democrats. And he's taking no chances.

Recognizing that black private businesses and local "superstars" have included many conservatives, Obama and Holder do not want to risk good government in which the popular mayor or councilman turns out to be a Republican. Party affiliation has kept local Republicans basically out of the running simply because of 40 years of force of habit. But when asked, the locals will tell you that partisan voting is an impediment to advancement since the voters all pretty much know each other and are familiar with their views, and are just as likely to vote for a Republican as a Democrat if that party affiliation is not the ultimate determinant. But that is a trend which the Chicago South Side Democrat crooks cannot risk.

"Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party," says the Washington Times. "He said the ruling was based on what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor." Which, of course, makes absolutely no sense unless you read between the lines to recognize that the Department is saying that there are no universal electoral rules, but only those that guarantee that in favored jurisdictions black Democrats only will be elected. If the most popular nonpartisan candidate in an election is elected solely on that popularity, then isn't it entirely irrelevant if he or she turns out to be a black Republican in a future run for higher office? The voters got what and whom they wanted, so Holder's and Miyar's argument makes no sense whatsoever.

White voters in Kinston tend to vote more heavily than blacks (pretty much a nationwide fact), and the same white voters who fell in love with Barack Obama also led the charge for nonpartisan local elections. Yet in the actual election, black voters outnumbered whites, and both Obama and nonpartisan elections won by a hefty margin of almost 2 to 1. The measure and Obama won in seven of the city's nine black-majority precincts and both of its white precincts. Isn't that making a choice, Mr. Holder? It just wasn't your choice. With Obama's numbers dropping like a stone along with that of his Democrat Congress, they can ill afford to have blacks vote for Republicans who were originally nonpartisan local elected candidates.

So how did Holder get away with this (for now)? It's a holdover from the bad old days. What Holder described was the situation where racist white Democrats kept blacks out of the voting booths, resulting in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Kinston is in one of the areas that was required to get the approval of the Justice Department before making any changes to voting procedures (there are 12,000 of those jurisdictions, all located in the formerly racist parts of the South). The requirement is probably unconstitutional, but in any event, it has long outlived its purpose and usefulness. A move to allow that provision to die a natural death was narrowly defeated three years ago (exactly forty years after its original passage), mostly because of inaction on the part of the Bush administration.

Kinston City Council Member Joseph Tyson, who is a Democrat who favors retaining partisan elections still had some unkind words to say about the Justice Department decision. He said: "Unfortunately, I'm very disappointed with the apathy that we have in Kinston among Afro-American voters. I see no connection between nonpartisanship and the decline of the Democratic Party. If we Afro-Americans don't vote, that's our fault, not something that should interest the Justice Department."

What bothers Holder more than anything else is the fact that almost all municipal elections throughout North Carolina are nonpartisan, they just don't happen to be among the 12,000 districts over which the Department has dictatorial control. And though other largely black North Carolina districts remain semi-solidly Democrat, some have wandered off the plantation and gone Republican. Obama and Holder can't do anything about that, and as far as they are concerned, one black Republican is one too many. They aren't going to let that happen anywhere that they can control essentially without any legal restraint. All politics are local, and by God, they're going to keep those politics Democrat.


StanH said...

An instructive tale of liberal democrats and their lust for power. It blows my mind the devotion that black America has for democrats – the democrat party is not their friend! What Holder and Barry did was liken to the Jim Crow South, keeping the black man down. The amazing thing it’s being imposed by two black men, …WTF.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: The Founding Fathers warned early of what might happen when voters discovered that they could vote themselves largess from the public treasury. The blacks in these voting districts have been told their entire lives that they will get no public assistance and Jim Crow will be restored if the Republicans ever gain power in their districts. Yet they still chose by a heavy margin to have nonpartisan elections. The blacks aren't the problem, it's the Democratic Party.

FB Hink said...

When Bush 41 appointed Clarence Thomas you would have thought that liberals would have rejoiced but no, Thomas was branded an Uncle Tom. When Reagan brought Colin Powel into his administration, and later Bush 43 made him Secretary of State, Powel was an Uncle Tom. When Powel endorsed Obama, he was finally one of them.

Great article, LawHawk.

LawHawkSF said...

FB Hink: To the plantation mentality of the leftist Democrats, the only good black is a Democrat black. All others are "not authentic." The recent action by the Obama/Holder Justice Department in North Carolina has a parallel in the 19th century--The Fugitive Slave Act.

One of the earliest agenda items that should be on the next Republican Congress's list is the death and burial of the outdated "supervision" provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's a perfect example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. If the power to "review" had been given to the courts instead of the political executive branch, the whole thing would have been easily dismissed years ago.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight, Obama loves the little children of the world. As long as they're Democrats. The Obama agenda (as well as that of the entire left wing of the Democratic Party)is to keep everyone in perpetual childhood and dependency. Blacks are particularly susceptible to the plan because they've been made somewhat unwilling wards of the government since Lyndon Johnson's administration. Non-partisanship is a start, but there's a long way to go to break that chain of dependency.

AndrewPrice said...

Interesting article Lawhawk. It's amazing that they can justify this to themselves. You can rest assured that if a Republican proposed this, they would be calling for investigations into the evil racism of the Justice Department.

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: The Founders hated the idea of "faction" (what we call "parties" today). But even they ultimately realized that on a national scale, it was simply going to happen. But at the municipal and county levels, nonpartisanship has been a complete success in large portions of the country. But as the Founders recognized the right of the people to form parties, the gummint should also recognize the right of the people to avoid parties in their elections. What the Founders tried to avoid, the Democrats work hard to perpetuate.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: Proportionality and fairness are simply not issues for the Chicago Machine. Both parties have been guilty of trying to move the goal lines over the years, and the Democrats have been better at it. But this administration has raised dirty, partisan politics to an all-new level.

Writer X said...

While Kinston is a small town, I wonder how many of its citizens will be willing to vote for Obama (or maybe even North Carolina as a whole) in the next administration, especially since his own administration went against the will of the people? Yet another example of the sheer hypocrisy of the Obama administration.

Interesting post, LawHawk!

Writer X said...

meant to say "next election," not next administration.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: I'm willing to bet that he'll lose a large number of those voters. People who are willing to push for a nonpartisan, fair government are not prone to taking being pushed around. This may be a small lesson to Obama that the black vote will not remain monolithic.

Tennessee Jed said...

I am never, ever disappointed with your writing, Hawk. The hubris involved here on the part of Holder is extraordinary. The whole sordid episode reminds me of a book I read a few years back which I readily recommend to Commenterama readers. It is by the noted economist and columnist Thomas Sowell and the title is "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." I always find Sowell enlightening.

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: Thanks again for your encouragement. I find Sowell to be that perfect blend of the intellectual and plain-spoken. A man with an immense command of the English language who never sounds as if he's talking down to people when he lays out his principles. Like you, I am also a big admirer of the man.

Post a Comment