Tracing the Politics of Racial Liberalism

Some say that George Bush’s use of black criminal Willie Horton in his campaign was a cynical exploitation of America’s ingrained anxiety about race.

An article titled “Race,” in the May Atlantic Monthly, does not disagree. But neither are its authors, Thomas B. and Mary D. Edsall, willing to let that political charge go unexamined.

In their sure-to-be controversial, possibly incendiary article, the authors present the tightly woven thesis that race has become the underlying issue in most political debate, whether the ostensible topic is the presidency, taxes, welfare, crime, individual rights or education.

Tapping that issue, they say, has been the key to Republican success since Richard Nixon.

They trace the strategy to 1962, when a major national poll asked: Which political party is “more likely to see to it that Negroes get fair treatment in jobs and housing?” Democrats were identified by 22.7%; 21.3% picked the Republicans.

But that was the last poll in which voters perceived such similarity.

“By 1964 the Democrats had become the party of racial liberalism and the Republicans had become the party of racial conservatism,” the authors write. “It was the first and last presidential election in which racial liberalism was politically advantageous.”

The reasons for that shift are complex, and Atlantic’s husband-and-wife team--he’s a reporter for the Washington Post, she’s his collaborator on book projects--pulls no punches in its analysis.

The fall of Democratic liberalism began with the Watts riots, the Edsalls say. In the wake of that uprising, there was a sudden shift in the 5% to 10% of working-class and lower-middle-class white ethnic voters who can tilt a party from majority to minority.

These voters’ alienation from liberalism was triggered by fears and resentments, real and imagined. They feared black crime. They feared what they perceived as an erosion of values in the underclass. And they resented what they perceived as the preferential treatment of blacks in hiring--especially because such policies had the greatest impact on blue-collar jobs.

Republicans quickly latched on to these concerns, gradually setting the stage for the ‘80s.

“The importance of race in the chain of events that brought Ronald Reagan to the White House . . . cannot be overestimated,” the Edsalls write.

Since then, the debate over race has become increasingly bitter, as economic forces have conspired against the Democrats. As the rich got richer under Reagan, the poor--but also the working class--got poorer.

Yet liberal efforts to redistribute the wealth continually ignored the white middle- and lower-middle class, the Edsalls write.

The bottom fifth of the black community is falling behind the bottom fifth of the white community, they say. But for the last 20 years, the income of the top fifth of black families has been growing at a “significantly faster rate” than the income of the top fifth of white families. These African-Americans tend to buy the conservative platform, and their inclusion in the party serves to undermine the charges of racism rising up from inner-city America.

But the politics of the haves holds little patience for have-nots, who are seen as unworthy of much sympathy, let alone tax support, they write.

Both parties, for instance, have finally embraced education as one solution to the problems of the black underclass. But as increasing numbers of whites continue to flee to the suburbs, their interest in maintaining the schools and other crucial components of the infrastructure declines.

Now 96.7% of white children are educated outside of the decaying urban school systems. And their parents, while beginning to realize the importance of investing in such community services as libraries, roads and schools, are willing to invest only at the local--suburban--level.

So the needs of the inner city increase, as does the resentment of the middle class that sees itself shouldering a disproportionate amount of the bill. The anger of poor African-Americans grows, as does the anxiety of whites struggling to distance themselves from poverty, the Edsalls say. And neither group is loyal to the Democrats.

As the Edsalls see things, only a debacle at the polls or internal insurrection can change the course of the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, it is not only the Democratic party that is hurt but also the people--the underdogs--the party once embraced. As the Democratic coalition and liberalism unravel, the Edsalls explain, America’s rich have claimed the moral, social and economic high ground as their own. In the vacuum left by liberalism, this country’s egalitarian tradition has crumbled, and society has stopped rewarding, and lost respect for, “those who simply work for a living, black and white.”

REQUIRED READING

From the beginning, the Madonna phenomena has owed a lot to devoted gay fans. So it makes sense that Madonna’s most interesting print interview should appear in The Advocate, the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine.

In a two-parter, starting in the May 7 issue, Madonna waxes philosophical about her affinity to the gay community, calls Warren Beatty a wimp (and more), describes her plans to transform Michael Jackson, and talks (usually dirty) about everyone from girlfriend Sandra Bernhard to boyfriend Tony Ward.

* Who can explain why railroads hold such a grip on the imaginations of so many Americans? But they do, and the spring issue of California History, the magazine of the California Historical Society, delivers a trainload of information on railroading in the West. The articles are excellent, but the historical photographs, full-color railroad advertising portfolio and vintage cartoons alone are worth the price of a ticket.

SHREDDER FODDER

It’s a cheap trick for a magazine to urge people not to read it. But the May Spin--”The Cool Issue”--uses the exhortation to make a valid point: “Don’t ever let anybody, including Spin, tell you what’s cool. Because the paradox of cool, more often than not, is this: People who think they are, aren’t. . . . “

The ensuing articles are pretty cool, but the coolest readers will shred this package anyway, because it’s tres cool to shred articles that avoid the contradiction of defining cool by pointing out the inherent paradox in that. Dig?