Now Vietnamese-American Republican Anh "Joseph" Cao, who defeated disgraced Rep. William Jefferson in Louisiana, is hinting that he might make an effort to join the CBC. The caucus should let him in, along with anyone else who wants to join. Like Cohen, Cao will be representing a mostly black district. I don't see the CBC as any different from any other Congressional group formed around a specific set of principles, and I understand the CBC's desire to keep itself focused on the unique circumstances and desires of their constituents. But people like Cao should be let in, if only because excluding them causes more problems than it's worth. Those people interested in crafting a policy agenda that caters to the needs of constituents in America's mostly black districts will remain part of the caucus. Those who are just trying to make a point will eventually leave, and once it's clear that anyone who wants to can join, it will cease being an issue worth making a big deal about. And we won't have to listen to Republican histrionics about "reverse racism."Indeed. It's one thing to have a Caucus specifically interested in the welfare of African-Americans. It's another to have a private, race-based, social club. The whole "reverse discrimination" deal has about as much truck with me as Newt Gingrich fear of "gay Nazis." But this fight is stupid on two counts. 1.) As Adam points out, tactically, you have absolutely nothing to gain. 2.) You're just wrong. HBCUs are clearly set up to educate black kids--but they don't bar white kids from coming. They just tell them to expect a heavy dose of Baldwin--as they should.
« The arrogance of Barack Obama | Main | I was supposed to be writing the most beautiful poems » Let him in16 Dec 2008 08:00 am
Cao is the second non-black congressman who represents a majority black district. It looks like Cao is going try to get admitted to the Caucus:
Comments (30)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Coates
I agree with everything you said. This is a problem just waitinig to happen. If Cao isn't allowed into the CBC it will be a rallying cry for the GOP and in reality it makes sense to allow him in anyway since he represents a largely black constituency.
The crazy thing is that I am from Memphis but I totally missed this whole thing between Tinker and Cohen. The fact that you referenced it made me do a little googling and I found an earlier article of yours about it which was good as always but I also found an interesting piece from TPM. You know I think those guys put in good work but this article shows that even the good guys get it wrong at times. Why they thought Tinker who evidently is the black Ann Coulter, would have any resemblence to Obama in terms of support from Jewish people to me can only be explained by the fact that they both have permanent tans.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/nikki-tinker-and-obamas-jew-pr.php
I am still looking for stories about Cohen being rebuffed by the CBC so if you have anything I think it would add to the conversation. I would love to know what reasons if any were given for denying him. I have to admit that I went into my googling session thinking that this was really a non issue. I mistakenly thought that the CBC wouldn't fight a candidate from joining who represented a predominantly black district just because or at least perception wise just because they weren't black. Guess I was wrong after all.
I agree. Either let them in, or set up an Auxillary like the Hispanics have done. But, give the man a chance to serve his constituents.
Actually nevermind. I just found what I was looking for and evidently its all true. Now I think the caveat here is that Cao is also a minority. Perhaps after the media flap they got with Cohen and the fact that it wouldn't be a white man trying to get in, they actually might allow Cao in. But I think what will be interesting is IF Cao is allowed in if he will vote with the CBC on major issues. I would also be interested in knowing how many times Cohen has voted along the same lines as the CBC and how many times he hasn't.
The truth is while I understand why the old guard would want to keep it an all black caucus, this has and will continue to come off just like those exclusive all white country clubs. I think I get the whole "if we let one of them in more will come and soon it won't really be a congressional BLACK caucus" thinking. But to me the focus should be on the constituents and not on the actual representative. Surely they can come up with a formula for the racial composition of a district being a waiver for non black folks being able to join up.
Baldwin?
I'm a white non-American who didn't get that reference. Could someone please explain? (that last sentence has an accidental reference to an Australian who was on the other side of racial politics down under).
Also, anyone here who went to a HBCU and could share on what the experience was like (if you're white) or what you thought about the white people who went there (if you're black)?
kate,
I'm assuming ta-nehisi meant the writer james baldwin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baldwin_(writer)
If they let Cao in, then they have to let Cohen in as well. It will be interesting to see if they bend now. I doubt it. If they won't bend for a fellow Democrat, why would they for a Republican?
I'm not going to pretend like I understand all the personal issues that might preclude the CBC accepting Cao into their caucus, though I suspect party affiliation and the fact that Cao beat one of their members might play as much a role as Cao's skin color in making that call. After all, there's not much expectation that Cao will be anything other than a one-termer, much like Nick Lampson in Texas who held Tom DeLay's old seat. Cao's win was more a statement about Dollar Bill Jefferson having worn out his welcome than anything else. So it's reasonable to look at the CBC's actions--if they decide to exclude him--as a matter of pragmatic politics.
@Incertus
Sure, that he beat one of their own and that he's likely a one termer are certainly reasonable defenses of not letting him into the caucus. But from a purely pragmatic point of view, those legitimate reasons means that the CBC looks more gracious and loses less in allowing him in.
And regardless of how Cao plans to vote, doesn't it seem extremely likely that membership in the CBC will give him more impetus to vote with them and (presumably) in favor of policies that help his constituents?
Maybe there won't be a big fight in the end. First, the CBC has been involved in a lot of philanthropic efforts that target underpriviledged people of all races despite their primary mission to serve the African American community. These are good people with good intentions and I see a lot of members reaching out to Cao. Furthermore, all politics are local. It's not like Cao is going to rise within the Caucus ranks, becoming an advocate or spokesman on national and international issues; he'll be working on issues important to his constituency.
Having said that, does Cao have to actually become a member to work closely with the Caucus? No. And maybe this will be the line of thinking. I'm sure there are members who wish to maintain the African American solidarity of the caucus, not for "discriminatory" reasons, but to ensure the Caucus maintains its focus and strength of message. Solidarity means something. Women banding together enable a powerful message to be delivered about women's rights, same goes for African Americans and other groups with a common purpose. There's nothing wrong with that.
I attended an HBCU and my roommate was a white Aussie. His sister attended too. We were good friends before we enrolled, so it was all good between us. Folks were a little skeptical of him at first, (both of us really). I remember when the dorm manager gave his introductory speech to the dorm residents he emphatically stressed that there would be no weed smoking in the dorms, and he kept looking directly at us as he said it. I was a Black dude with dredlocs and my roommate was white, so he figured we must be Cheech and Chong. But then he got a spot on the football team as the punter (which I thought was hilariously stereotypical), and things were pretty smooth after that. His sister was rather popular. She joined a sorority and was active in campus activities, so she was pretty much completely embraced.
Are there any Republicans in the CBC currently? I think the fact that Cao is a Republican is a more important issue - if all the members are Dmeocrats, it's not inconceivable that CBC meetings would also include party strategizing. Having Cao there would cause some issues, wouldn't it? And if they let him in but exclude him from certain meetings, that would surely cause another uproar - discrimination! etc etc.
Oh never mind - upon consultation with my friend the Google, Republicans have been admitted to CBC before, so I guess party affliation is not such an issue.
Guess I should have looked at that as well, Peter, because I didn't know that either.
Hmm, the stories on when a Republican was a member of CBC don't exactly inspire confidence, though (Rep Gary Franks is the one I've been reading on). Tense relationship etc etc.
I don't know, I don't think it's a good idea to have a Republican in a caucus that in effect - if not in spirit or actual intention - is a Democratic party caucus. Is it too conspiratorial to think that it might actually be dangerous? Cao is a Republican, after all.
Given Cao's district, he has to have been putting in some real attention and showing some real energy on relevant issues. He's likely to be a constructive member of the caucus. The party tension will be a net plus to understanding the issues and figuring out how to get things done.
And yet...
I see a terrible opportunity for silly posturing. I imagine 40 other white reps from saying they want to be belong just to show how they care. Folks who don't want to put in thinking time and working energy, but want something they can say back home.
The (mixed-history) CBC is shooting itself in the foot on this one. I can't believe new chair Barbara Lee would stand for it. What self-respecting civil rights group is gonna turn down a philosophy-majoring, refugee camp-escaping, immigration law-practicing, straight-up hardcore Vietnamese dude... who wants hella bad to join?! That is just dumb. You guys already dropped the ball on the great Shirley Chisholm, don't do it again, please.
To contrast this, the Asian Pacific Caucus needs all the members it can get, and Rep. Becerra (proudly Chicano, proudly representing Koreatown, LA) is one of its most active, and appreciated members. It's about who you're down for, not the color of your skin. But if Cao doesn't know who Baldwin is, that's another story...
aww, my new congressman is making news not quite related to his race or party but still related!
They should let him in. We do have a sizeable Vietnamese population, but we're still a black majority district. (We're also a crazy majority district, but that's another story.) I doubt that we'll keep Cao there for long, anyway -- I know that I'll likely be voting Democrat in the next election.
Who knows, Cao might be switching parties... he just became a Republican after all.
Andrea,
You should look up the situation when black Republicans have either joined or been courted for the Caucus. It wasn't pretty and honestly after doing some googling my good impression of the CBC has taken a major hit. The question I asked is, are the members of the CBC supposed to be looking out for black folks in this country or for black members of Congress. Because if they are truly supposed to be looking out for black folks then a guy who gets elected from a district that is majority black should be allowed into the caucus. Its really that simple IMHO. Unlike the Lieberman situation, if the CBC allows someone in that doesn't carry the water they really can just kick them out. But to exclude them based solely on race which they have done historically is basically the height of irony when you think about why the caucus was formed in the first place.
http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/2008/12/can-we-talk-about-congressional-black.html
There are full members and associate members. Not sure what the difference is but it looks like an associate membership for Cao would be good especially if Democratic strategy is discussed by the full members.
@sgwhiteinfla
Thanks for the link. Read the piece and some the linked articles.
I guess the only thing I would debate is the premise that not allowing non-blacks into the Caucus is "discriminatory" on its face. At least that isn't always true, nor always that simple. I believe there is merit in maintaining solidarity, as I said in my previous post. Just like I don't think it's necessarily "discriminatory" to allow girls into an all boy school, or vice versa, it's not necessarily "discriminatory" to allow non-blacks into the Black Caucus. Now I know that's not a perfect analogy, but both are an effort to maintain a certain dynamic. There is a different dynamic---neither better or worse--between an all black caucus and a mixed race caucus that tackles issues on behalf of the black community. Having said that I do agree that the "working on behalf" part is the principled point, and therefore anyone willing to take up that cause should be admitted. If they don't work out, they can leave. Sounds sensible to me.
In an ideal world I'd love every organization to approach things like ONE does ("The ONE Campaign") where people of all cultures are coming together to attack a specific issue. But I don't think we're there yet (obviously).
Andrea
I think that in the text book definition of discriminatory the CBC is definitely that. Now like you I agree that being discriminatory is not inherently a bad thing. Schools discriminate when they don't allow sexual predators to get a job teaching. But that is a good thing. But I just don't see the need to make being black the first and last requirement to be a part of the CBC. There has to be a way to make exceptions when non blacks are representing a large number of black people. Thats IF the CBC really is about focusing on helping black folks and trying to make sure other legislators are thinking about them when legislation is being considered. But thats just my opinion.
There is a House Native American caucus, which has a ton of members, but only one Indian. If the CBC caucus is used like the NA caucus--rallying votes for important Indian issues--then I don't see a reason for him not to be a part of it. Policies are ostensibly non-partisan, so it might be nice to have his vote now and again.
Cao should switch parties. Like, tomorrow. Either that, or just vote with the Democrats on almost every single issue. Any other course, and his political career in that district is already over.
I guess if he wants in maybe they should let him in, but you know I guess I don't see the urge to have him in.
Yeah he represents a majority black district, but I think he could represent his constituents well regardless. Just listen to them and represent their interests as well as you can while still being whatever kind of Republican you are. I guess I thought the CBC was more about serving black congressmen and any difficulty that still might come in being that. Cao's situation would be different than that.
Also, anyone here who went to a HBCU and could share on what the experience was like (if you're white) or what you thought about the white people who went there (if you're black)?
Reverse racism against whites is not a problem at HBCUs, in my experience. There are two types of whites who attend: those who fit in and those who don't. There are also two types of blacks who attend: those who fit in and those who don't. We should pay more attention to blacks who don't fit in because of "intramural racism". That would tell us more about the dominant culture at HBCUs than assuming that whites will not fit in and that blacks will. In my experience, blacks feel more justified trashing black strangers than white strangers, on the assumption that blacks consitute an in-group. That is a false notion.
Individuals should be treated as individuals, no matter who else attends their chosen institution.
MIT used to (and still may for all I know) had a good solution for this sort of problem in student groups. Groups organized around a nationality or ethnicity had to let anyone join, but they were allowed to limit who was eligible to vote in leadership or budgetary matters.
Basically, outsiders could join, but couldn't take over.
It makes PERFECT SENSE for Cao to join, and its the best thing for his constituents.
Imagine... the representative from NEW ORLEANS, our "chocolate city", not being allowed to join the Congressional Black Caucus. It boggles the mind.
I get the feeling that Cao's republican affiliation is... I have no idea. WHY is this guy republican? He seems to be a recent convert to the Republican cause. I hope he's an independent minded member of the party, although the fact that he isn't distancing himself from GOP leadership is a little troubling.
Cao is new to politics so he doesn't have much of a record, but I'd venture that he's Republican because (1) He's Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese-American community retains a historical attachment to the national security, anti-communist right in this country, for the obvious reasons, and (2) He's to be a devout Catholic. Well, the cold war is over, and as for reason (2) the CBC is filled with members who can reconcile strong religious convictions with participation in the Democratic party, so I'd go as far as to say that letting him in (as an "associate" member or whatever) substantially increases the likelihood of a switch.
It is not unusual for a Southern Democrat to be Pro-Life or Anti-Choice so maybe.
If he actually is a good guy why can't the Republicans have him though? I know "Republicans are bad" is the standard thinking here, but this is starting to sound more like "Republican shall always be bad now and forever." Maybe if they have a *good guy that'll be good for them and everyone. I mean you don't want a one-party system, do you?
*I think they already have several, but for the sake of argument...