‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 > 
 
   
 

#134- Beyond the Politics of Race A Conversation with Coleman Hughes

 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  586
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 13:18
 
bbearren - 09 August 2018 11:20 AM

I get the impression that TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher wasn’t around during this era: “The civil rights movement (also known as the African-American civil rights movement, American civil rights movement and other terms) was a decades-long movement with the goal of securing legal rights for African Americans that other Americans already held. With roots starting in the Reconstruction era during the late 19th century, the movement resulted in the largest legislative impacts after the direct actions and grassroots protests organized from the mid-1950s until 1968. Encompassing strategies, various groups, and organized social movements to accomplish the goals of ending legalized racial segregation and discrimination in the United States, the movement, using major nonviolent campaigns, eventually secured new recognition in federal law and federal protection of all Americans.”

In my experience the success of these nonviolent campaigns was that the violence erupting from whites in resistance to them was extremely discomforting to whites heretofore ignorant of the reality of systemic and systematic segregation, discrimination and disenfranchisement.  Civil Rights protests of Birmingham, AlabamaViolent racism during peaceful protests in the Civil Rights MovementSelma to Montgomery March.

bbearren - 08 August 2018 04:34 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 08 August 2018 03:15 PM

I think we can agree that these setbacks for blacks are appalling, and that they show we still have a ways to go.  Not only is there pushback within the system; there are plenty of people in it willing to do the pushing.  But at least those voter ID laws are being challenged, and in some cases overturned.

The trend, however, is in the opposite direction.  “Thirty-two states — a figure that has been steadily rising — now have some form of voter ID laws, based on a count by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The number of states with the strictest laws is rising as well: Voters in seven states will be required to show photo identification in order to cast their ballots this year. In 2012, only four states required it.”

“States have also rolled back practices that were put in place to make voting easier. Since 2010, early voting, an option in most states, has been reduced in Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.”

After the 2010 election, state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.

Overall, 23 states have new restrictions in effect since then — 13 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements), 11 have laws making it harder for citizens to register, six cut back on early voting days and hours, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.

In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Those 14 states were: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In 2017, legislatures in Arkansas and in North Dakota passed voter ID bills, which governors in each state signed, and Missouri implemented a restrictive law that was passed by ballot initiative in 2016. Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and New Hampshire have also enacted more restrictions this year, in addition to laws that were on the books for previous elections.”

Racism is a scourge on both races, for blacks worse for sure, but one on whites too.

I’m not a member of the “Yes, but …” camp.  Racism is not a “scourge” on those whites who promote and encourage continuing discrimination, who teach it to their children; it is a source of pride.

Let me also make a distinction between disenfranchisement and voter suppression. ... What’s going on now is mostly a matter of suppression — and for a lot of people, it’s making it close to impossible to vote,” said Harvard Kennedy School Professor Alex Keyssar.

A simple question which should not be difficult to answer: is there a group benignly immune to this tactic of voter suppression, and if so, who might comprise such a group?

Since your point is made in a thread about racism and blacks, I think it bears pointing out that voter ID laws are not intrinsically discriminatory against blacks; they target the poor, which includes blacks. 

Last time I checked, whites on welfare outnumber blacks 3 to 1.  Assuming that this represents more or less the racial demographics of the poor, and assuming that poor blacks have no more trouble securing the ID than poor whites, voter ID laws differentially impact poor whites, and that they are somehow about suppressing the rights of blacks per se seems like little more than hyperventilation.  They are, as far as I can tell, unnecessary, and they are Republican attempts to weaken a staunchly Democratic base.  But that base includes but is not limited to blacks.  Poor whites belong there too, and unless I’m mistaken about the demographics here, they are the bigger losers under these laws simply because there are more of them to lose.  Voter ID laws screw the poor, and the blacks are getting screwed not because they are black but because they are poor as well.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.  But not what Harvard professors say, not clips form the media, but facts and figures from something like the Statistical Abstract of the United States or the Census Bureau about the racial distribution of the poor.  Then offer some reasonable argument about how having some kind of official ID is a prohibitive burden for blacks but not whites and go from there.  Or just reiterate that the laws are unnecessary, as they are.  But so far I don’t see how this has much to do with suppressing or disenfranchising blacks—except, again, in so far as their belong to the broader class of the poor.

Also, it’s unclear to me just how effective Republicans think these laws are going to be.  Anyone on Medicaid or who receives welfare benefits should have little trouble securing ID.  Also, one obvious remedy to counter these laws is to compel government services to offer said ID—something Democrats could push for and Republicans could hardly object to, given than it gives them precisely what they are asking for: IDs for voters and a [sic] secure voting system.  The laws are clearly unnecessary and probably unfair; they shouldn’t be passed.  But dealing with them when they are doesn’t seem like that big a deal either. 

 

[ Edited: 09 August 2018 13:20 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:29
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM
bbearren - 09 August 2018 11:20 AM

A simple question which should not be difficult to answer: is there a group benignly immune to this tactic of voter suppression, and if so, who might comprise such a group?

Since your point is made in a thread about racism and blacks, I think it bears pointing out that voter ID laws are not intrinsically discriminatory against blacks; they target the poor, which includes blacks.

4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “But the totality of the circumstances — North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature’s knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so — cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used [the 2013 law] to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.”

And I have some tables for you, but I’ll have to break it up into a few more posts due to limitations on file sizes.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  586
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:40
 
bbearren - 09 August 2018 02:29 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM
bbearren - 09 August 2018 11:20 AM

A simple question which should not be difficult to answer: is there a group benignly immune to this tactic of voter suppression, and if so, who might comprise such a group?

Since your point is made in a thread about racism and blacks, I think it bears pointing out that voter ID laws are not intrinsically discriminatory against blacks; they target the poor, which includes blacks.

4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “But the totality of the circumstances — North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature’s knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so — cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used [the 2013 law] to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.”

And I have some tables for you, but I’ll have to break it up into a few more posts due to limitations on file sizes.

This is interesting, but I caution you.  The legal basis for overturning the voter ID law has to focus on a legal cause of action, in this case racial discrimination.  This doesn’t mean that the broader impact of the law isn’t on the poor, and that blacks will be affected only in so far as they are poor.  It only means that targeting the poor cannot be a basis for overturning the ID laws—i.e. there are no non-discriminatory laws protecting the poor.  But there are for race, thus the opinion will be crafted to address the race problem, not the poverty problem.  For there can be no other basis for overturning it, save direct violation of voting rights, which these ID laws carefully avoid.  I think what you’re reading here is a function of how the legal system works, not evidence that that laws don’t target the poor first and through that mechanism blacks as well.  For instance, no middle class black will be affected by these laws because they all have ID, or near effortless access to it (say, if they don’t drive).

[ Edited: 09 August 2018 18:08 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:52
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, analyzed working-age, non-college educated adult beneficiaries of more than a dozen government benefits, including food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, tax credits, home energy assistance, school lunch programs, and Social Security.

One possibility is that white Americans are better positioned to know all the government benefits that are available to them, Shapiro said. Whites also benefit more from the Social Security system than minorities, both because they may have paid more into it and they are an older population, he said.”

In the attached chart, 24% of whites were below the poverty rate before assistance, while 43% of blacks were below the poverty rate before assistance.  After assistance, 14% of whites were still in poverty, 24% of blacks were still in poverty.

Image Attachments
 
assistance.PNG
 
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:54
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

AMERICANS WITH PHOTO ID: A Breakdown of Demographic Characteristics by Vanessa M. Perez, Ph.D.

 

 

 

Image Attachments
 
Individuals_with_confirmed_ID_by_ethnicity.PNG
 
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:55
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

AMERICANS WITH PHOTO ID: A Breakdown of Demographic Characteristics by Vanessa M. Perez, Ph.D.

 

Image Attachments
 
White_Individuals_with_Drivers_License_or_Passport_by_Household_Income.PNG
 
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:56
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

AMERICANS WITH PHOTO ID: A Breakdown of Demographic Characteristics by Vanessa M. Perez, Ph.D.

 

Image Attachments
 
Black_Individuals_with_Drivers_License_or_Passport_by_Income.PNG
 
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  586
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:58
 
bbearren - 09 August 2018 02:52 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, analyzed working-age, non-college educated adult beneficiaries of more than a dozen government benefits, including food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, tax credits, home energy assistance, school lunch programs, and Social Security.

One possibility is that white Americans are better positioned to know all the government benefits that are available to them, Shapiro said. Whites also benefit more from the Social Security system than minorities, both because they may have paid more into it and they are an older population, he said.”

In the attached chart, 24% of whites were below the poverty rate before assistance, while 43% of blacks were below the poverty rate before assistance.  After assistance, 14% of whites were still in poverty, 24% of blacks were still in poverty.

Poverty rates only suggest which proportion of blacks relative to blacks in general will be affected by the law, not how many blacks relative to whites will be affected.  To know the second, raw numbers about the demographics of the poor are necessary.  Welfare enrollment would be a good place to start for that.

Look, I don’t have time right now, but I’m hardly going to put the entire burden of my ignorance on you.  I have the most recent STAT ABS US, so I’ll check the welfare rolls enrollment and raw Census data tomorrow. 

 

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 14:58
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

AMERICANS WITH PHOTO ID: A Breakdown of Demographic Characteristics by Vanessa M. Perez, Ph.D.

 

Image Attachments
 
Individuals_with_Drivers_License_or_Passport_by_Ethnicity.PNG
 
 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 15:04
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 02:40 PM
bbearren - 09 August 2018 02:29 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM
bbearren - 09 August 2018 11:20 AM

A simple question which should not be difficult to answer: is there a group benignly immune to this tactic of voter suppression, and if so, who might comprise such a group?

Since your point is made in a thread about racism and blacks, I think it bears pointing out that voter ID laws are not intrinsically discriminatory against blacks; they target the poor, which includes blacks.

4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “But the totality of the circumstances — North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature’s knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so — cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used [the 2013 law] to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.”

And I have some tables for you, but I’ll have to break it up into a few more posts due to limitations on file sizes.

This is interesting, but I caution you.  The legal basis for overturning the voter ID law has to focus on a legal cause of action, in this case racial discrimination.

I thought you would go there.  You’re forgetting this:

bbearren - 08 August 2018 02:55 PM

As the Two-Way reported then, “The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature ‘requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices’ — then, data in hand, ‘enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.’ “

The court wrote that the changes to the voting process “target African Americans with almost surgical precision,” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

“... data on the use, by race,” not by income.  Interesting.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 15:13
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 02:58 PM
bbearren - 09 August 2018 02:52 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 01:18 PM

If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.  I’d genuinely like to see it.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, analyzed working-age, non-college educated adult beneficiaries of more than a dozen government benefits, including food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, tax credits, home energy assistance, school lunch programs, and Social Security.

One possibility is that white Americans are better positioned to know all the government benefits that are available to them, Shapiro said. Whites also benefit more from the Social Security system than minorities, both because they may have paid more into it and they are an older population, he said.”

In the attached chart, 24% of whites were below the poverty rate before assistance, while 43% of blacks were below the poverty rate before assistance.  After assistance, 14% of whites were still in poverty, 24% of blacks were still in poverty.

Poverty rates only suggest which proportion of blacks relative to blacks in general will be affected by the law, not how many blacks relative to whites will be affected.  To know the second, raw numbers about the demographics of the poor are necessary.  Welfare enrollment would be a good place to start for that.

Look, I don’t have time right now, but I’m hardly going to put the entire burden of my ignorance on you.  I have the most recent STAT ABS US, so I’ll check the welfare rolls enrollment and raw Census data tomorrow.

Whites outnumber blacks by population at almost 6 to 1, 76.6% to 13.4%.  Raw numbers are not particularly germane to the discussion.  Rates give a much more meaningful picture.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  586
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 16:02
 

Whites outnumber blacks by population at almost 6 to 1, 76.6% to 13.4%.  Raw numbers are not particularly germane to the discussion.  Rates give a much more meaningful picture.

You obviously don’t work with statistics for a living. Or in health care.

Raw numbers are the only thing germane to this discussion.  It doesn’t matter what proportion of blacks are affected relative to the total number of blacks, or what proportion of whites are affected relative to the total number of whites, much less the proportion of either to the population as whole.  To determine whether more blacks or more whites are impacted by voter ID laws, one only needs to look at the people affected.  One doesn’t target “proportions of populations” with policies, or with remedies; one targets individuals.  And more white individuals are going to be affected by these laws than blacks. 

Unless, of course, these poor whites aren’t the right “proportion” of the population to merit at least equal consideration….

In any case, nurse your illusions if you wish, but I checked.  In 2013 (the data from the latest STAT ABS US), there were 29,936,000 whites below the poverty line and 11,041 blacks.  So assuming that poor blacks and whites have the same access to ID, a disproportionate number of white individuals will be impacted by these laws.  You can lessen this impact all you like by massaging irrelevant “proportions of population,” but that’s just the facts Jack.

And your tables on percentage with ID support these facts.  Naturally a greater percentage of blacks will have no ID because a greater percentage of blacks are poor.  But the lack of IDs for whites scale with their representation in poverty, suggesting that ID problems for poor whites and ID problems for poor blacks are more or less equal.

Your citation from the Court of Appeals less relevant than you think, and in any case it’s only one state in 32, and it falls under the logic I’ve already described.  One can target a subset of a target population (the staunchly Democratic poor) “with almost surgical precision” and still disproportionately affect whites, as the voter ID laws do.  And again, the Court of Appeals will not have anything to say about the whites affected because whites are not a protected class by race.  Blacks are, so naturally a ruling tailored to protect a protected class is going to focus on that impact that the laws have on the protected class.  Again, poor whites are not a protected class, but poor blacks are.

Look, Republicans are might be evil, but they are not all stupid.  They want as much bang for their buck as they can get.  I doubt they are sitting in back rooms plotting to suppress blacks per se when there are probably three times as many white votes to suppress.  They want to suppress votes.  Suppressing black votes might be frosting on the cake, but if you gave them a choice between which demographic had to be given up if they had to give up whites or blacks, they’re probably going to give up blacks.  Because there are more whites.  They don’t care if those whites are a “smaller proportion of the population.”  Individuals vote, not proportions.

I have ask: what is this fetish on the left that you have to be black to be screwed in this country? Is it so hard to admit that white people are just as fucked by these laws—and by the plain numbers, more of them are?

 

[ Edited: 09 August 2018 18:11 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2018 18:24
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 04:02 PM

Whites outnumber blacks by population at almost 6 to 1, 76.6% to 13.4%.  Raw numbers are not particularly germane to the discussion.  Rates give a much more meaningful picture.

You obviously don’t work with statistics for a living. Or in health care.

Raw numbers are the only thing germane to this discussion.  It doesn’t matter what proportion of blacks are affected relative to the total number of blacks, or what proportion of whites are affected relative to the total number of whites.  To determine whether more blacks or more whites are impacted by voter ID laws, one only needs to look at the people affected.  One doesn’t target “proportions of populations” with policies, or with remedies; one targets individuals.  And more white individuals are going to be affected by these laws than blacks.

The white to black population ratio nationwide is almost 6 to 1.

North Carolina demographics.

White — 70.8%
Black — 22.2%

That’s a tad over 3 to 1.

“The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature ‘requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices’ — then, data in hand, ‘enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.’ “

The court wrote that the changes to the voting process “target African Americans with almost surgical precision,” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  586
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
09 August 2018 19:58
 
bbearren - 09 August 2018 06:24 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 04:02 PM

Whites outnumber blacks by population at almost 6 to 1, 76.6% to 13.4%.  Raw numbers are not particularly germane to the discussion.  Rates give a much more meaningful picture.

You obviously don’t work with statistics for a living. Or in health care.

Raw numbers are the only thing germane to this discussion.  It doesn’t matter what proportion of blacks are affected relative to the total number of blacks, or what proportion of whites are affected relative to the total number of whites.  To determine whether more blacks or more whites are impacted by voter ID laws, one only needs to look at the people affected.  One doesn’t target “proportions of populations” with policies, or with remedies; one targets individuals.  And more white individuals are going to be affected by these laws than blacks.

The white to black population ratio nationwide is almost 6 to 1.

North Carolina demographics.

White — 70.8%
Black — 22.2%

That’s a tad over 3 to 1.

“The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature ‘requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices’ — then, data in hand, ‘enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.’ “

The court wrote that the changes to the voting process “target African Americans with almost surgical precision,” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist.”

This will be my last post in this conversation.

At the risk of repeating myself, North Carolina is one state; you have yet to show it’s representative of the other 32.  So far you haven’t even tried.  The relevant impact of these laws is on individuals; their representativeness as a proportion of their racial demographic, or as a proportion of the population as a whole, is irrelevant.  The proportions don’t matter, least of all to them.  Republicans are trying to suppress Democratic votes; for the most part their motives are partisan, not racist, though most certainly racism is in there too.  The net effect of this partisan vote suppression falls almost exclusively on the poor, and among the poor most heavily on whites because more white voters lack the necessary ID than black voters, simply because there a more or them.  This is going to vary state by state, district by district, but overall that is the net effect.  You have yet to show any evidence otherwise, and you keep repeating the same points, and those without any kind of contextualizing argument.  If I’m interested at some future point, I think I can explore this issue more productively on my own.

Best wishes, and see you around the board.

 

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3579
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 August 2018 06:37
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 09 August 2018 07:58 PM

This will be my last post in this conversation.

You obviously weren’t around during the civil rights era.

Why did the Democrats Lose the South?

Why Did Democrats Lose the White South?

Civil Rights Act Leaves Deep Mark On the American Political Landscape

The long goodbye

When the focus is anti-black, whites caught in the cross-fire are acceptable collateral damage.

 
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 >