Voter Suppression – An Alternate Perspective

Lately, the airwaves have been filled with accusations of GOP voter suppression. Certain states are pushing laws requiring onerous ID requirements, registration requirements and deadlines that are supposedly aimed at stopping minorities, specifically blacks, from voting. The argument is that blacks are disproportionately poor, so any additional requirements are more difficult for blacks to meet. Such accusations have created a firestorm for the left; they are claiming that such efforts are reminiscent of the poll taxes and Black Codes of the early 19th century.

Obviously any effort to suppress a group’s vote instead of earning it is unacceptable and indefensible; however, TOC would like to offer some counter arguments to the conversation.

First, if it is true to say that onerous registration and ID requirements disenfranchise the poor and are racist because blacks are disproportionately poor, is it not fairer to say that such laws disenfranchise the poor? In other words, who is more disenfranchised, the black middle class man who has a passport or the poor white elderly woman who does not drive anymore? The answer is clear, so is the left saying that no blacks are in the middle class? Why call these policies racist when the term anti-poor would be more fitting? All societies have rich and poor, that has a limited taboo. Saying a policy is racist stirs up the emotional pain and stigma from a dark era in our country. It unearths a deep distrust in the black community, but is it a fair accusation, or is it manipulative in order to gain political power? The charge of racism is a very powerful one. The Fed recently announced it would buy a massive amount of securities and would work to keep interest rates low. Blacks are relatively more dependent on fixed incomes (social security, for example) and are less likely to be in a position to benefit directly from the Fed’s purchasing program (invested in a financial services companies or financial securities, for example). Since blacks could be disproportionately negatively affected from the Fed’s actions, does that make the Fed racist?
Second, what is more damaging, voter apathy or voter suppression? The voter turnout for blacks in the 2008 election was a relatively high 65%, compared to prior years (according to the Pew Research Center). That rate is an improvement against the 60% figure for 2004 and the 54% figure for 2000 (according to the Census Bureau). While this rate has been increasing over the last three elections, it still leaves a lot to be desired. If this data is correct, in an election where the first black president was to be elected, blacks still failed to vote at an equivalent rate as whites (66% according to the Pew Research Center). Of course, there is a large effort every election cycle to mobilize black voters, but as TOC discussed in a previous entry, a voter that is not taking the effort to become aware of the issues and forming an opinion on his own or her own is not actually voting. That person is just ceding his or her vote over to whoever is pushing that person to register in the first place. We do not just need more than 65% of our people voting in every election, including local elections and off-year elections, we need many more people engaged with issues and challenging politicians. Not getting engaged due to lack of resources is one thing, but TOC finds it hard to believe that 35% of all voting-age blacks lack the resources to vote and lack the resources to be informed.

TOC presents the above counterpoints as further consideration to the charges of voter suppression; however, TOC does believe that conservatives must do far more to gain the vote of blacks. The struggle of the black Conservative and black Republican is to do just that. While it remains unclear to me personally whether or not there is a systematic effort to prevent blacks from voting in the next election, TOC remains resilient that conservatism is best for blacks in the long run. The challenge is to communicate this message clearly and effectively. One thing is certainly clear, until the other side is forced to clearly explain how its programs and ideology will close the gaps between blacks and other groups in this country, we will never have the dialogue necessary to close those gaps. The other side does not need to do such if it can wield accusations of racism (merited or unmerited).

Let us all do everything to make sure this conversation takes place.

Who is Artur Davis?

This article is written in anticipation of MOU’s fundraising event on September 19. The headliner is Artur Davis, a new member of the Republican Party and a solid African-American leader. These words are meant to ensure everyone has an understanding of who Davis is in order to appreciate the decisions he has made.

When Christopher Arps, founder of Move-On-Up, first announced that Artur Davis would be the headliner for the major MOU event for CBC week, TOC admits that he was not terribly familiar with Davis’s history. I knew that Davis had recently switched parties (from Democrat to Republican) and was considering returning to politics in Virginia, but I was not aware of much more than that. I have to admit that I was a bit cynical at first when Davis switched parties. Was this the African-American version of Arlen Specter, the US Senator from Pennsylvania that switched sides just to save his career? Further research provided a much different picture, a picture of a man that stands on principles and a story that gives a microcosm of what is wrong with politics, but also, a glimpse of what true leadership looks like.

Davis is a graduate of the Harvard Law School. After graduating and servings as a US attorney, he ran for US Congress in Alabama’s 7th Congressional District and lost in 2000. He ran again in 2002 and won the seat. He would go on to win the seat again in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections. It was Davis that was an early endorser of Barack Obama for President – even before the Iowa primary, before a majority of the CBC membership jumped on the endorsement bandwagon and before Barack Obama was even considered a viable pick to beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Davis clearly felt that Obama was endorsable based on principle, not the usual quid pro quo that comes in politics. During this time, Davis also saw his stature in the US House rise, gaining several key appointments and assignments. He also played a pivotal role in the 2008 National Convention, providing the seconding speech for then-Senator Obama’s nomination for President. Davis’s star was rising in the Democratic Party, and many began to compare his path to that of Obama.

While it is clear that Davis’s previous politics did not line up with those of the conservative, it is clear that he was driven by his principles. These principles sometimes are a double-edged sword. They can bring fortune as well as attack and scorn. After the election of the President, that is exactly what happened. What makes Davis special is that he never abandoned his principles, even when doing so would have been beneficial to his campaign.

After the inauguration of President Obama, Davis decided to not support the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Davis had no other possible motivations for doing this other than his principles, his belief that supporting the bill would not be beneficial to the people of the 7th Congressional District of Alabama or the country as a whole. This created a rift between him and his party. Of course, this is the same party that “promotes” diversity of thought and states that it is for the African-American. If that is the case, why was this particular African-American not allowed to vote his conscious? He had no other reason to vote against the bill, as it would not have been beneficial for him politically. Davis’s troubles with the Democratic Party continued when he announced his candidacy for Governor of Alabama. Davis was abandoned by the Democratic Party as they backed the more liberal Ron Sparks for the Democratic nomination. This point is critical: The Democratic Party, which is supposedly the party of civil rights, chose to abandon the capable Davis, an African-American, for Ron Sparks, a white man. Imagine how strong of a symbol it would have been for an African-American hold the same office as the avid racist George Wallace. The party was willing to give up supporting an African-American to hold that position in order to enforce unquestioned loyalty to party. For me, this alone proves that the Democratic Party manipulates race and racial disparities for its gain. The hypocrisy of not supporting Davis in such a symbolic endeavor because he did not “fall in line” is incredible.

Davis, after his defeat by Sparks for the nomination, announced he was switching parties and retiring. That is another shame in all of this. Just as I covered in a previous post, Democrats have no problem ending the political careers of prominent African-American up-and-comers that do not fall completely “in-line.” How could this even stand when Democrats make all of their claims of being the party for African-Americans? In that previous discussion, I discussed another moderate Democrat, Harold Ford Jr. from Tennessee who moved to New York and floated the idea of running for Kirsten Gillibrand’s US Senate seat. Due to his lack of complete support for the pro-choice position of the party, he received no support from the Obama White House (which instead made it clear they would support Gillibrand).

Principles are doing what you feel is right, even if doing so will not benefit you personally. That is the story of Davis (and of Ford, Jr.). The party that claims it promotes African-Americans now has lost one of its best future leaders and has forced another one to watch from the sidelines. As a conservative, TOC is more than pleased to see Davis, a man of integrity, move to the right side of the aisle. Davis has played with the idea of getting back into politics and was a big hit at the 2012 RNC. TOC had two opportunities to hear him speak there and was deeply moved. Now that I know the story of Davis, I feel blessed that he is still involved and look forward to following his journey from this point forward.