Recently, there was a mayoral primary for the city in which I live. The Democratic candidates were an incumbent white male and a black female alderwoman. There was no Republican primary because Republicans do not run in predominantly black neighborhoods, historically, Republicans garner less than 10% of the black vote nationally and around 5% locally. Regardless, while listening to the alderwoman on her radio talk show it was evident that her belief was that since the black population exceeded the white population she should win the election, she was trounced 2 to 1, but that is not the point. I noticed she had the same mentality as Al Sharpton during the Democratic Primaries in 2003. He bragged about receiving 38% of the vote in Maryland, yet spending considerably less than his opponents. He received similar numbers in most Southern States and was clearly catering to the black vote with no message for white Americans. Both Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun's campaigns focused on black churches and black constituents. Yet, there are African-Americans like Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois that transcend racial lines and crossover with a message for all voters.

Things to consider:
Mind-set of Civil Rights Era politicians
Mind-set of Post-Civil Rights Era politicians
Tyranny of the white majority
Selling out for personal success
African-American opinion of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell

Questions for debate:
Does Rep. Ford and Sen. Obama represent a 'changing of the guard' in the way that African-Americans think or approach the problems of society?

Are African-American politicians of the Civil Rights Era so divisive that they are unable to grasp the power necessary to address the issues that plague their communities?

Do African-American politicians need to forsake their people in order to be victorious during elections?

I would agree that their is a growing difference between younger black voters and how they view the world today--but I don't see any massive shift to the right. While conservatism among blacks will probably increase as the numbers of the middle class grows in their communities i would hesitate to count them as defininetly to become future Republicans.
I would probably place their numbers more solidly in the Independent catagory and more along the lines of the growing number of voters who will hold their vote dependent on the current situation. Want my vote? They will ask, what are you going to do for me?
Will their be some--yes and probably sooner than the Dems think.

I like Ford a lot but he is a Dem who has to get elected in the South and acts accordingly by being somewhat more of a conservative Democrat--Obama? not sure about him yet. Have to see him in action.


Are African-American politicians of the Civil Rights Era so divisive that they are unable to grasp the power necessary to address the issues that plague their communities?

I believe that is a loaded and biased question. While the Dems do indeed have a less than stellar past in regards to race relations it is the Republicans who have played the white card most consistently since at least '65. It has been the conservatives who up until the 90s made use of the Willie Horton tactics and Black Welfare Queen propaganda. Civil rights era blacks remember all to well who tried to prevent them from being treated fairly at all. I would argue that up until the slap at trent lott the right has failed miserably to show the Black community ANY reason to vote to the right. It has been the Dems who have held the line on Affirmitive Action the conservative argument of " you cant depend on the government.......pull yourself up by your bootstraps.............small government argument rings somewhat hollow. While I agree that the time of AA is fast falling behind What has the right offered the black community?
NADA.
Younger blacks are removed from the timeline enough that memories of the 60s rights movements are now something for the classroom or stories by their elders and do not hold the same impact as their parents.
but still I fail to see anything from the right which is supposed to draw them over.
The only reason the right is courting the Black and Latino vote is because without a good peice of it they will lose ground to the Dems who traditionally win their votes--I am sure both communities can see clearly that their vote is a commodity they can broker to either party. They would be wise to use it as such and make both parties work hard for their vote.

This question has no hidden agenda and I am not biased in asking it. As a white voter, a black politician loses my vote when their sole purpose of running is to address the needs of their community or they run just based on ethnicity. This alienates white voters and divides the populace along racial lines. Addressing the needs of the black community is a valid reason to seek office, but does the messenger's divisiveness distort the message and turn it into an Us vs. Them election?


I do not dispute what you are saying, but it still leaves the question unanswered; are Civil Rights Era politicians too divisive to win an election when they must capture a percentage of the white vote? Must they 'sell out' to get that vote? Will they alienate their base if they try to get the white vote? Is the election of Obama a harbinger of a new approach to politics by African-Americans?