Harry Reid's Views on Race

NOTE: A day after this post, Reid appeared on Meet the Press to deny the Sun-Times report that he believes - or told Gov. Blagojevich - that he believed top Illinois African American leaders were "unelectable." I'm glad Reid did this, and in the spirit of "innocent till proven guilty" and in light of what I originally noted was his stellar legislative record on race issues, I am inclined to believe him. That said, it doesn't negate the fundamental point of the original post, which is that in political circles, black candidates are often billed as politically inferior or "unelectable," - and that such latent racism is considered mundane. We need to get over that racism, and if this Reid controversy - whether rooted in fact or rooted in Blagojevich spin - helped forward the dialogue on that racism, then it's a good thing.

If you believe what the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting today*, then its fair to ask whether Harry Reid (D-NV) has some very disturbing - and very disturbingly outdated - views on race and politics:

Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn't want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.

Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis -- both Democratic congressmen from Illinois -- and against Jones -- the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama -- because he did not believe the three men were electable.

Jackson, Davis and Jones are three top African American leaders in Illinois - they are each eminently qualified and have lots of experience winning elections. And yet according to the Sun-Times, Reid believes they are unelectable, while insisting that two non-black candidates are more electable. Sure, you can make individual arguments against each of those candidates - just like racially motivated employers can make individual arguments about why they fired this or that African American employee. But (if this story is correct) what gives away Reid's broader and more disturbing views on race as a whole - what tells us that this is less about individuals and more about an overarching view that black heritage is synonymous with inability to be elected - is his inclusion of Tammy Duckworth in the "electable" category.

This isn't to say that Madigan or Duckworth aren't "electable." In fact, the story really has nothing to do with them - it has to do with Reid pushing the idea that if you are a black person, you are a less politically attractive candidate to the Washington Democratic Establishment based on the discredited fallacy that if you are black and have won elections you are still less able to win elections than non-blacks who have never won elections.

Of course, winning elected office as an African American poses unique challenges. Racism remains alive and well in America - and especially in politics, where self-fulfilling ideologies (ie. if you are black you can't win) keep minority or female candidates down, and preserve the largely white male power structure inside the Beltway.

But as everyone from Barack Obama to Deval Patrick has shown, those challenges can be overcome. And what's so absurd about Reid's apparent view is that it is being expressed about an appointment to fill the seat of Obama - an African American who won statewide in Illinois - just after Obama won the presidency. It kinda makes you wonder if Reid would have told Illinois Democratic leaders back in 2004 not to back Obama for Senate because he was supposedly "unelectable."

Make no mistake about it - whether the Sun-Times story is accurate or not (and I sure hope it isn't), the undeniable fact is that the image of African Americans as inferior political candidates remains widespread in Washington's political circles even after the 2008 election, and such views are a more subtle form of racism than overt hatemongering.

Let's be real clear: Nothing in Reid's career suggests he dislikes African Americans or thinks they are inferior humans - but alleged moves like this (which are widespread throughout politics) suggests he believes African Americans are inherently inferior political candidates. That may be because he thinks America is a racist country, but his reasoning - however benevolent or not - matters far less than the expression of his belief - in this case, allegedly using his power to try to shove aside the major African American candidates because they are supposedly "unelectable." By allegedly lining up the Democratic Establishment against these candidates (and thus aligning money and infrastructure against them), he is indeed creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that actually makes these African Americans less electable.

The reason this Sun-Times story hasn't generated more news actually confirms the prevalence of these troubling views on race and politics. It's not newsy that a top Democratic official thinks the major black candidates are inferior to the major white candidates in a Senate race because that's how it's always been. Indeed, in many ways, the Democratic Establishment remains decidedly Old School in the worst sense of the term, too often seeing diversity - whether racial or gender - as a political liability rather than a strength. It may be the 21st century, but often the ugly ghosts of the 19th century still haunt the party.

*Let me add that I'm still hoping Reid issues a statement explaining how this story is wrong, or the Sun-Times retracts it.

Comments

[edwcorey]

And after all, white guys have been doing such a marvelous job of governing, keeping the economy thriving, taking care of federal emergencies, waging wars, maintaining high ethical standards.....

[kps888]

All this hubub is over a conversation that may or may not have taken place? Why don't we wait to find out what actually happened?

[JimR]

I hope Harry Reid proves to be unelectable when he runs for another term.

[rudiy]

How come no comment on why Rush refused to back Obama in 2004 and instead backed a white guy, but now says if an African American is not appointed it is racism?
Reid never said no African American is acceptable but electability is an issue and Burris has not showed himself to be electable. He will have a Blago tail and we all know as with McCain there will be an age issue in 2010.

[LetMeUnderstandThis]

If they conversation took place it will be on the FBI tapes, be patient for the full story.

[sol 0303]

I actually believe what the Sun Times is reporting. Here's why:

Assuming what Fitzgerald has got on the tapes is true (part of the contents has
already been released, btw). In one of the conversations, Blago says something
like (paraphrased): "I'm getting pressure not to appoint [Senate Candidate 5]....."
And now we all know that Senate Candidate 5 was JJ Jnr.

Where was Blago getting this pressure from? I doubt he was getting it from BO.
Harry Reid can deny all he wants, but this seems to confirm the pressure was
probably from Harry Reid. Time will tell.

And I believe Rush got wind of this, hence his statements at the Press Conference.

[bill76]

The Clintons privately thought Obama was "unelectable." They can play buddy-buddy now, but I for one will never forget that.

[BCubedReg]

Yes, Hillary Clinton said in the primaries to Bill Richardson "he can't win" when refering to PE Obama. Mrs. Clinton was trying to elict Bill Richardson's endorsement.

[pollyx]

Right on, David! Unless these "unelectable" candidates are Candidates 4, 5 and 6, why not consider them?

[diogenes1967]

Thank you David Sirota, especially for that last paragraph that shows the fragility of the various coalitions currently under the tent of the Democratic Party. The passing of Proposition 8 in California, the choice of Rick warren for the inaugural invocation and the Reid/Blagojevich story are mere symptoms of the same disease: the Democratic Party needs the combined votes from these coalitions to win. Then the concerns and policies that may best benefit these vote getters are neglected. This pattern was very observable in the Clinton Administration but everyone was so caught up with Clinton being the first Blk. president that few seem to realize it.

[vinny]

Race is really a side issue. A more fundamental question is why Reid inserted himself into process of selecting a state senator in the first place. What does Reid know about the interests of Illinois? Reid is a senator from Nevada, representing Nevada's interests, and moreover holds a position of power in the Senate. Making unsolicited phone calls to governors to "share his thoughts" about who would make a more "successful" senator is clearly a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Nothing in the constitution or Senate rules prescribes this as a duty of the majority leader.

[vjoseph]

I don't know how often I have to remind you, but Reid is the Senate Democrat Leader, hence he has a vested interest in who gets seated

[diogenes1967]

I agree with you, race is very much a side issue. That is a state rep. to the United States senate and not a "state senator" and I agree that it's an interesting question.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Maybe ANYONE selected by Blago would be "unelectable" on the next cycle?

[vinny]

Electable or not, Illinois deserves full representation.

[vjoseph]

They don't deserve a selection made under suspicion. That pick is tainted no matter what

[Badger84]

Thanks David. In early '08, I was shocked to hear African-American opinion makers express the view that Obama was not electable. I was looking for opportunities to support his candidacy since 2004. Part of it was idealism; another was a desire to end the politics of cynicism. We still have a long way to go.

[ThoughtAboutIt]

How can you examine Harry Reid's motives and not even mention that his religeon officially viewed blacks are inferior until the Carter administration? Blacks were barred entry into Mormon Temples (and priesthood) until the late 70s.

In addition, the percentage of African Americans in Nevada is about 8% but Illinois has almost twice the percentage (15%) though both are relatively small minorities.

Nevada
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/32000.html

Illinois
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000.html

[diogenes1967]

So much for the black/Mormon political alliance, I guess.

[JohnDewey]

Not to mention the fact that the LDS only began allowing African-Americans in order to prevent loss of federal funds, specifically education $$$. Of course, the LDS is a revisionist institution, so just as they now deny that polygamy was central to Joseph Smith's theology, they also deny ever preaching that Blacks were the, "Children of Ham," and out of g-d's favour.

I don't know how racist Reid is, but I do know that he was raised to believe in and follow a racist institution.

[steamboat]

And the Baptist, Catholic, and other (the white) churches barred blacks from their congregation until the 1970's. So why did you convieniently forget to mention that?

[steamboat]

PS: Barred in the south.

[easarsfield]

And one other thing.

Some of us Democrats have been a little hypocritical, in the sense that we laugh at McCain for appointing Sarah Palin in attempts to shore up women votes, and criticize conservatives pushing for Blackwell for RNC Chairman. How are we any better when we think that Obama's replacement needs to fill a non-existent diversity quota?

[easarsfield]

I firmly believe that Reid did not make these comments, he's not stupid. He knows that the feds have obviously been tapping Blago's phone lines, why would he lie? Blago on the other hand - holy cow you can't trust anything that guy says or does!

I for one am tired of all this talk of race. I'm tired of people like Bobby Rush who act like minority candidates deserves a priority over whites, this is divisive politics. What happened to judging people by character and qualifications, not by the color of their skin? I'm tired of people whining about how their aren't any blacks in the senate and therefore, our new senator should be African American. THIS SENATOR WILL REPRESENT IL, NOT AFRICAN AMERICANS. I'm not saying that our new senator shouldn't be aa, I just believe that we in IL deserve the person that will best represent our interests in the senate and should be judged accordingly.

It's obvious that Blago wanted to appoint an African American. But out of all the names of aa's that have been thrown around, I believe that there is a reason that Burris wasn't on anyone's shortlists. We in IL are getting the short end of the stick.