Should a white guy get to join the black caucus?

Commenter Scipione ask whether Steve Cohen--who reps a majority black district--should be able to join the CBC:

I was wondering if I could get your take on Lacy Clay's comments when he decided not to allow Congressman Cohen join the CBC:

"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept -- there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."

Obviously, on its face, Clay's logic is silly and Cohen should be allowed in the CBC. In fact, given his circumstance, I almost think he should sue them. Clay thinks he's punishing Cohen, but more likely he's punishing the black people who sent Cohen to Congress. That said, Clay's statement really is only shocking because we view black America through the prism of some old noble savage-type shit. The expectation, post-Martin Luther King, was that black folks should--and would--always and forever occupy the moral high ground.

But most of the people who benefited from the Civil Rights Movement weren't any more moral than the white people they wanted to compete with. They just wanted the right to get a better job and live in a bigger house. Nothing wrong with that. But we really shouldn't be shocked when black politicos, act in the same stupid provincial manner as other white ethnic politicos. There is a great saying about black America, power and the moral high ground--black folks only problem with slavery is that they were the slaves.

Comments

"That said, Clay's statement really is only shocking because we view black America through the prism of some old noble savage-type shit. The expectation, post-Martin Luther King, was that black folks should--and would--always and forever occupy the moral high ground. "

That and then also that a large, maybe the biggest part of the appeal to "White America" during the kumbaya phase of the CRM was explicitly moral, so there is a tendency to hold people to an unfair (double) standard. Come to think of it, lots of the isuues even today are framed in moral terms - racial justice, fairness, etc - so maybe we are stuck with this Pharisee fault-finding for a while.

Posted by Jim | August 8, 2008 11:23 AM

Sounds incredibly silly to deny Cohen's constituents the inside track of... what is the CBC expected to do? What is its charter? What are the membership benefits?
Reminds one of Groucho's joke about the clubs that would accept him...

Posted by the puzzled one | August 8, 2008 11:24 AM

Shhhh! We're supposed to keep that quiet.

But seriously, this is ridiculous. Cohen should have been accepted into the CBC. It's only hurting his constituents.

Posted by shani-o | August 8, 2008 11:25 AM

Smart post, T-N. It's worth remembering in this context that Rosa Parks wasn't the first black woman to refuse to sit in the back of the bus -- there was another, younger black woman, who happened to have an illegitimate kid (back when that was still somewhat scandalous) -- but MLK & Co. smartly employed Rosa Parks as the face of that particular struggle, because she had the dignity without the baggage.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2008 11:28 AM

Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

Nor, God forbid, will we allow white America to be as concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population as we are.

Posted by professordarkheart | August 8, 2008 11:29 AM

And, when every white Dem in Congress is in the CBC, who do you think will be deciding what issues are important to black people? White people.

Posted by bperk | August 8, 2008 11:38 AM

It was an obvious attempt by Cohen to discredit the foundation of the CBC. And it worked.

Posted by Michael O'Neill | August 8, 2008 11:43 AM

It's not surprising but it is disgusting and Clay along with all of the CBC who support this stance should be called on it. Black people don't have a monopoly on caring about the welfare of black people, they way many of them behave I would be afraid if they did.

Posted by Karl | August 8, 2008 11:53 AM

what is the CBC expected to do? What is its charter?

From the source of all knowledge and truth, Wikipedia:
The Caucus describes its goals as "positively influencing the course of events pertinent to African-Americans and others of similar experience and situation," and "achieving greater equity for persons of African descent in the design and content of domestic and international programs and services."

The CBC encapsulates these goals in the following priorities: Closing the achievement and opportunity gaps in education, assuring quality health care for every American, focusing on employment and economic security, ensuring justice for all, retirement security for all Americans, and increasing equity in foreign policy.

Sounds similar to the Progressive Caucus...
I wonder, though, if the raison d'etre of having a kind of all-black Progressive Caucus is to provide an opportunity for black Reps to cultivate an image/symbology of black power-brokers providing for the black community as opposed to white Reps whose motives might be questioned. Would such a strategy be legitimate?

Or, perhaps, as Ta-Nehisi thinks, the answer is simpler: pure, unadulterated politics--a way for Reps to be personally credited with any policy gains that could benefit them.

Posted by Scipione | August 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Count me as a white dude who disagrees with you Ta-Nehisi.

I haven't read the charter or anything, but I'm pretty sure the CBC exists for African-American members of Congress, not for any member of Congress with a largely African-American constituency.

Should we kick out current CBC members -- I think there are a few -- who represent more whites than blacks? For that matter, maybe Olympia Snowe should join the Senate Democratic caucus because registered D's (I believe) outnumber registered R's in Maine.

You can argue that the CBC represents the worst of identity politics, that it is foundationally flawed and ill-suited to a more multicultural, less ghettoized (if you'll pardon the expression) politics. But as currently constituted, it's for black members of Congress and Steve Cohen isn't black.

I'd add finally that this somewhat parochial Congressional-ego issue should be looked at within the context of a more important issue -- the packing of African-Americans into congressional districts to virtually ensure the election of a black representative (Steve Cohen being the exception, he having won a 5-way primary).

The creation of majority-minority districts (and the proliferation of them after the 1990 census, I believe) is what has increased CBC's membership and clout. There's an interesting argument to be had about whether progressive goals and the interests of the black community -- and, no, they're not necessarily one and the same -- are better served with a populous CBC operating in a political environment where it's hard to win a Democratic majority. Or would the CBC agenda have more legs if CBC members were fewer because their constituents were "unpacked" and spread out to add more Democratic strength to other districts?

As a white liberal, I come down in favor of the latter, but I can certainly see both sides of the argument. Is there some intrinsic and quantifiable value to having a black member represent the black community? But then are we saying Steve Cohen simply cannot, because of the color of his skin, represent his constituents as ably as Lacy Clay? Is the converse then true? Then, oops, what does that say about the Democratic nominee for president?

The election of a President Obama, I believe, will influence this debate in a significant way. Won't resolve it necessarily but will bring the uncomfortable issues to the fore.

Sorry for the long comment. T-N, great to have you blogging here. The Atlantic is lucky to have you.

Posted by Bart Acocella | August 8, 2008 12:00 PM

But we really shouldn't be shocked when black politicos, act in the same stupid provincial manner as other white ethnic politicos.

Maybe we shouldn't be shocked, but we can certainly be disappointed and demand better conduct.

(Also, you can't really compare this to white ethnic politicians. If a white politician said that a black member couldn't join a congressional congress until he could change the color of his skin, he/she would be dead. Now, I get that those two situations aren't really compable, but that's my point.)

Posted by J Mann | August 8, 2008 12:05 PM

And, when every white Dem in Congress is in the CBC, who do you think will be deciding what issues are important to black people? White people.

If said white people have been elected by said black people to represent them in Congress, isn't that kind of their job?

The stated goal of a congressional caucus is to "pursue common legislative objectives." If the "black" in CBC refers to its membership, rather than to its legislative objectives, then how are they performing that role? The fact that the CBC's PAC donated to Cohen's vile primary challenger Nikki Tinker (despite the fact that it's pretty much verboten for members of Congress to campaign against their party colleagues) is all the evidence one ought to need to see that the only "black community" whose interests they're serving is the one in Congress.

They should just rename it the "Congressional Black Club." It's not that it would be inherently bad to have such a club, it's just that they shouldn't be pretending to be working on behalf of anyone but their members.

Posted by professordarkheart | August 8, 2008 12:09 PM

Having one Jewish guy who is popular with his black constituents isn't going to hurt the CBC. The CBC has bigger problems, such as becoming economically much more conservative than actual African-American voters on average, such as trying to get rid of the estate tax.

Posted by Reality Man | August 8, 2008 1:27 PM

"But we really shouldn't be shocked when black politicos, act in the same stupid provincial manner as other white ethnic politicos."

That said, the CBC women manage to live up to the hype.

Posted by Quixote | August 8, 2008 1:51 PM

Gotta agree with Bart. The very purpose of the CBC is to give minority members of Congress some clout and an area to raise issues that may or may not be of primary concern to their constituents (if they are a majority white), but are definitely of interest to the members of colors.

I've dealt with Clay a good amount and I've always respected him as a fair-minded individual who is trying to both ensure good governance as well as further the rights of African-Americans. If you have a problem with the CBC's policy goals, that's understandable. but I don't think it's narrow minded to exclude a white person from an organization expressly created for politicans of color. If Cohen wants to pursue policy that is advantageous to his minority constituents, I'm sure Clay and the CBC will be all too happy to work with him on that, let's not pretend he's the victim of some major slight because he's not part of the club.

Posted by SpottieOttieDopaliscious | August 8, 2008 2:30 PM

So far as I can tell, Cohen represents the 12th blackest Congressional district in the country. He represents more black voters than most of the black members of Congress. He is the only non-black to represent a majority-black district, and only two other non-black Congressmen--Bob Brady in Pennsylvania and John Barrow in Georgia--represent districts that are more than 40% black. And he's now received what must have been a majority of the district's black votes in a primary election against a legitimate black candidate who had significant institutional black (and non-black) support.

In sum, I think the guy has earned the right to be an honorary brother. Maybe after his win by a narrow plurality in 2006 it was understandable to want to keep him out, and of course the CBC is within its rights to continue to do so, but the smart thing to do would be to invite him to join. Aside from any benefit to the people of Cohen's district (I don't know enough about the CBC to know what this might be), it would send a message that black politicians and black America appreciate white politicians who truly want to represent the interests of black people.

Posted by Dave | August 8, 2008 3:30 PM

Maybe Cohen should just join the Congressional Jewish Caucus instead. If the black Congressmen don't want him, maybe his fellow tribesmen will.

Posted by Juan | August 8, 2008 3:53 PM

The last comment was really stupid. He wants to join the CBC because most of his constiuancy is BLACK. Duh! He is trying to address the concern of the people he represents, rather than people of his own religion. It is ironic that Jews get accused of helping their own too much, but when they try to help others they are told to stick with their own. Pathetic.

Posted by jane doe | August 8, 2008 4:05 PM

"It is ironic that Jews get accused of helping their own too much, but when they try to help others they are told to stick with their own. Pathetic."

Straight up!

It blows my mind, when formerly oppressed and maligned groups turn around and do the same thing to others. Can we please just act right people!

Posted by Karl | August 8, 2008 4:52 PM

But we really shouldn't be shocked when black politicos, act in the same stupid provincial manner as other white ethnic politicos.

who's surprised? i think that since your line of work leads you to spend most of your time reading / watching etc. the media and analyzing it, you tend to think about and respond to what is said in that world the most. naturally. but i think that world is pretty different from society in general. i don't know.. i'm not black, or white, but i'd take as obvious the point that you often seem to go to a lot of trouble to make, and usually very effectively do - that black people are like, people, about whom the common stereotypes say precious little.

i guess it's important work though, if they are common, which would indicate that maybe the media isn't as unrepresentative as it seems to me. I just feel like usually they are like "Lewis Hamilton / Tiger Woods / [famous black/half-black success] is so polite and intelligent!" almost like it's surprising, and i just dont know what the fuck they're talking about. Like the fact that it opposes some ancient narrative that was made-up to begin with is 'another wrinkle' in the drama they have to try so hard to weave in their business. Am I reading too much into it, since most writers would gush weirdly about any famous person?

Anyway I think your logic is sound as to why they should let him in - they are merely representing their constituents, and cohen's are mostly black - but, I guess they feel their club is supposed to represent and showcase black people who have gotten to Congress. Whatever.

-sv

Posted by sv | August 8, 2008 5:18 PM

I think it's been a long time since the average American imputed an inherent nobility or grace to African American leaders. They imputed that to MLK and Rosa Parks, but since then, not so much. From Jesse Jackson shaking the money tree for his organization and his kids, to Al Sharpton's antics, and so on, to Charlie Rangel hogging four rent-controlled apartments for his own use, etc., the bloom has been off the rose for a long time.

Posted by Fred | August 8, 2008 8:38 PM

The trouble with the Congressional Black Caucus is that for years it served as a substitute for its members truly integrating the Democratic caucus.

Now, with James Clyburn, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, Bennie Thompson and other CBC members holding real power posts, the caucus is effectively reduced to being a fundraising/patronage machine. See Matt Bai's article in the New York Times Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/magazine/10politics-t.html?ref=magazine

Posted by allbetsareoff | August 8, 2008 8:55 PM

I suppose it is all political and self-serving, but let's not pretend for a moment that the CBC wouldn't receive oodles of more press coverage and attention with the addition of a white dude.

Whether this is potentially a good thing politically, for me, is overshadowed by the fundamental wrongness of this situation. Black people are ignored until they get a suitable white dude on board. Just the way it works. (And, again, whether it is good or bad, see Bill Clinton for evidence of this conclusion). Depressing, but real.

I think that in this case, the CBC really means, black congress people. I'm fine with that. Black voters still means "Democrats."

Posted by abject funk | August 8, 2008 9:51 PM

I liked your line 'There is a great saying about black America, power and the moral high ground--black folks only problem with slavery is that they were the slaves. ' - did you see Jonetta Rose Barras' apology?

http://www.examiner.com/a-1519737~Apology_accepted___and_offered.html

"During my radical, clenched-fist days, when I was rattling on about the injustices of the system and the treatment of my ancestors as slaves, my mother stopped me cold.

“Our people weren’t slaves,” she said. “We owned slaves.”"

-dave.s.

Posted by dave.s. | August 10, 2008 6:28 PM