Liberal Cities and the Black-White Divide
Jeff Alworth
The Bay Area Center for Voting Research, a San Francisco-area research firm, put out a list of the most liberal cities in America (population 100,000+). Portland? Twenty-ninth. For those of you who might have expected a higher showing for "Little Beirut," Puddletown's middling liberal performance may have to do with this:
BACVR researchers found a direct correlation between a city’s political ideology and its racial makeup. “The great political divide in America today is not red vs. blue, north vs. south, costal vs. interior or even rich vs. poor – it is now clearly black vs. white,” said Phil Reiff, a BACVR director.
Although Portland's non-white population is growing, the city remains one of the whitest big cities in the country, at 78%. The study, which ranked 237 cities, found that race was the single largest predictor of political orientation.
The list of America’s most liberal cities reads like a who’s who of prominent African American communities. Gary, Washington D.C., Newark, Flint, Cleveland, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Birmingham have long had prominent black populations. While most black voters have consistently supported Democrats since the 1960s, it is the white liberals that have slowly withered away over the decades, leaving African Americans as the sole standard bearers for the left.
There are a number of interesting implications in the study. In the current political climate, conventional wisdom identifies "values"--code language for religious observance--as the characteristic that distinguishes red and blue. But black liberals are also often "values" voters--and while they tend to agree more with with white evangelicals on social issues, they deviate sharply on issues of fairness and social justice. And when it comes time to cast their votes, they side with Democrats (only 11% voted for Bush last year). Dems, who have been getting hammered on values, might look at their own religious base for direction.
Dems, who won the black vote during the civil rights era, have done far worse than Republicans in recent years in including blacks in leadership positions within the party or including black voters in a dialogue about the party's direction. In an editorial about the findings, study authors hit on this point:
Despite being the core of America’s liberal base, a major split exists between who the nation’s liberals are and who leads them politically. White politicians still control the levers of power within the Democratic Party, and black faces are rare around the decision making tables of America’s liberal advocacy groups.
For years, the Democratic Party has abandoned its liberal base, pursuing "mainstream" (read white, middle- to upper-class) voters. Ironically, they've seen huge attrition in exactly the demographic they've targeted. The lesson, which the GOP has demonstrated in spades, is: tend to your base and build the coalition out from there. And the Democratic base, according to the findings of this study, are black voters.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:20 a.m.
Aug 13, '05
Oh, and I guess it also shows that Howard Dean was exactly on when he called the GOP a "white, Christian party." He was just impolitic enough to actually say it.
Aug 13, '05
Jeff, it depends on what you mean by "liberal base". If you mean the ordinary working people ignored by big money politics, that is a good thing. Some of those folks are skeptical that caucus politics in either party cares more about big donors than about constituents. If that is what you mean, more power to you. Is decent treatment of veterans (past and present) a "liberal" issue? How about quality control to make sure programs for veterans and others are being delivered in all areas of the state in the way the creators of those problems intended? Bush et. al don't seem to care if they money they are spending in Iraq is well spent in ways that could survive an audit. Where do Democrats stand publicly on whether public money is spent wisely?
But how does that translate to other specific issues? Is Sen. Pres. Courtney "liberal" for his work on SB 1 and the future of the crumbling State Hospital? What about tax breaks or SB 1000? Will those in the Rural Caucus who say of some issue of interest to city folks "that doesn't play well in our district" be told they are not liberal? Does that matter if a Democrat can get elected from a rural district?
Most people I know don't fit 20th century labels like that. They look for someone who will pay attention to them and not just pay attention to big donors. That could apply to Paul Hackett or John McCain--and by no stretch of the imagination could McCain be called "liberal" unless campaign finance reform is a "liberal" issue.
Aug 13, '05
Lt,
Well put.
M37 did very mixed in the "black liberals" areas of town. But also to the Latino and Asian-American "liberal" portions of town.
NOTE TO JEFF: NOT JUST USE LINGO AND JARGON FROM STUDIES. THERE ARE OTHER MINORITIES AND ANGLO'S THAT ARE LIBERALS THAT ARE NOT "LIBERAL" TO THE REST OF THE LIBERAL VOTING BLOC BECAUSE OF SINGLE ISSUE/VALUE THAT THEY STRONGLY DISAGREE.
The scope or depth of the "VALUES and or ISSUES" that the voters will vote on. Hence the scale ranging from neo-con to ultra-liberal.
Sometimes "baby steps forward" are better than "gaint leaps backwards."
Aug 14, '05
Does anyone actually know the methodology used for the city rankings?? Why is Vancouver, WA ahead of the ostensibly more conservative Spokane??
My understanding is that the statistics used to determined the rankings were merely the 2004 presidential elections -- hardly a determining factor in a city's "liberal" or "conservative" makeup. Given that nine months has passed since the last election, this "research" is just a snapshot in time, and does not demonstrate the fluidity of the voting populace.
9:38 p.m.
Aug 14, '05
LT and Aaron, I have no idea what you're getting at. You seem to have something to say about the nature of liberalism, but I don't think that's captured in the study's findings. They were merely using a liberal/conserservative filter.
Which brings us to Chris's question on methodology, which I investigated, but didn't find. If you're right, then the study actually measured partisanship, not liberalism. Which, come to think of it, wouldn't be too bad, either.
Aug 15, '05
Interesting post. If I could further piggy-back on the Dean quote, the many colored faces (black, brown, umber, ecru, etc.) that make our country unique don't seem to be gracing the leadership mantle anywhere, much less politics or government. We still live in a very priviliged and fast track society for the eggshell/alabaster set and will probably endure another generation of bias and surface prejudice before we have a racial and ethnic tete-e-tete of substance.
I still believe in Portland...libreral, scary, pc, white..whatever. I'm brown and proud and look forward to seeing some changes in the next few years where diverse local leadership will hold sway.
Aug 15, '05
You seem to have something to say about the nature of liberalism, but I don't think that's captured in the study's findings.
Jeff, I think that is the point. There are lots of people who vote who don't pay attention to studies. For instance, think of when Kevin Mannix had to put his pieces of Measure 40 on the ballot individually and the advertising was to vote yes on all. The voters in their wisdom voted yes on maybe half and no on the rest. How many of those voters who split and voted yes on some of the measures and no on the others would be captured in any study's findings? And how many of those split voters were liberals or care about "the nature of liberalism" esp. if it takes all their energy to make it through the week of work, family, etc.?
As an academic exercise, studies are fine. But they don't explain a lot. S. Salem's old District 31 was once one of the top Republican, well educated, and affluent House districts. I has elected Jim Hill (first black and first Democrat), Rocky Barilla (first Hispanic in Dist. 31 and how many other Hispanics have served in the Oregon legislature?)and Jackie Winters, first black woman and 2nd black state rep. from S. Salem. What would your study say about that?
Too often studies bear no relation to the lives of ordinary people, just as exit polls about "values" or other topics don't really bear any relation to people's lives. Think of all those folks in this state/ country who went to church all those Sundays in October 2004 and then voted for Kerry. But how can that be because "studies have shown that church goers vote Republican"?
Aug 15, '05
"As an academic exercise, studies are fine. But they don't explain a lot."
heh.
6:28 p.m.
Aug 15, '05
LT, not all studies will describe the points you wish. Most of them weren't designed to. This is one. It was fine for what it did describe.
Aug 16, '05
My understanding is that the statistics used to determined the rankings were merely the 2004 presidential elections -- hardly a determining factor in a city's "liberal" or "conservative" makeup.
No kidding, just because a majority of a state votes for a certain person in our electoral system, doesnt technically mean that state leans any particular way. Most educated people dont just vote for the guy in their party because of partisanship. And if they do, they deserve what they get.
Aug 17, '05
I moved to Portland specifically for this "liberalness" you all mention. I did not check my facts too deeply, however, and now I live in the land of the most white people I've ever seen. Hey, at least they are mostly liberal. I'm a black woman involved in politics in Oregon and I get the pleasantly surprised looks when I arrive at meetings and events. But in too many places, I still get looked over, looked at too long, and many other familiar complaints.
I also have faith in this beautiful little city and I look forward to when Portland can diversify without pushing our most colorful citizens further and further north. We'll get there.
Aug 18, '05
Jeff Alworth wrote:
"For years, the Democratic Party has abandoned its liberal base, pursuing "mainstream" (read white, middle- to upper-class) voters. Ironically, they've seen huge attrition in exactly the demographic they've targeted. The lesson, which the GOP has demonstrated in spades, is: tend to your base and build the coalition out from there. And the Democratic base, according to the findings of this study, are black voters."
You are correct in your assertion about the Democratic Party...up to a point.
Actually, according to voter registration trends and election results nationwide, the single largest group of defectors from the Democratic Party has been the working class (some of whom may have been counted in the survey as "middle-class," whatever that means). This also includes rural Democrats as well as most minority ethnic groups.
This trend began with Reagan, when the white liberal leadership of the party allowed him to label liberalism as an evil to be killed off, and then promptly went after organized labor while the liberal elite stood by in complete silence.
No wonder the working class left the party in droves. Democrats were 53% of the voting eletorate in 1980. We have dwindled down to 34% today (GOP numbers have remained relatively flat at 33% in the same time period). Of the ethnic minorities, only African-Americans remain loyal as a voting block, although that number is also slowly shifting away.
Even the liberal elite began referring to themselves as "progressives," (the first time that word was used to describe someone other than a liberal-leaning Republican was when Reagan was President) now that they were free of having to answer to a working-class majority.
Since then, we have occupied the White House for only eight years, we have lost the majority of state governors and state legislatures, and then, of course, there is the Congress.
You are also correct that the Democratic Party needs to tend to it's base. The problem is current Democratic leadership and most armchair political pundits have no clue where that base is. And therin lies the problem.
We talk about "progressive values," whatever that is, while virtually ignoring working-class and ethnic minorities whose brothers and sisters have long ago given up on our predominately white, upper-class trust-fund leadership and their inability to come up with wins. We watch as relatively lilly-white "progressive" cities and communities like Portland, Eugene and Corvallis trash their more conservative yet more ethnically-diverse communities like Independence, Springfield and Madras. And when someone who is not a member of the "Progressive" elite points out this trend, a trend that is there for everyone to see contained in three decades of voter records and newspaper accounts, they are crucified in public forums and dismissed as crackpots.
Will Rogers was correct when he quipped his line about not being a member of any organized political party...he was a Democrat.
Even so, the potential to become the party of the people remains just within reach, as it has for three decades now. If, by tending to our base, you mean the huge untapped majority of rural, ethnic and working-class voters who would vote Democratic if they felt the party truly represented their values, then you are right, we will win and win big.
<h2>If, on the other hand, you mean the "progressive" minority of urban, predominately affluent whites and those few who buy into their political dogma, then we as a party and as liberals in general are certainly doomed to failure...once again.</h2>