The Future is Now: California's Multiracial Challenge to America

Sixty years ago, Carey McWilliams, the well-traveled writer/activist and soon to be editor of The Nation, described California as "our nation's racial frontier." As the West Coast's multiracial makeup posed new problems and challenges, it also offered America "one more chance, perhaps a last chance, to establish the principle of racial equality." In this regard, it blessed California's residents and observers with "a ringside seat in the great theatre of the future."

In stunning fashion, the California Democratic primary signaled that the future has arrived with dramatic implications for the entire nation. There has never been an important election like this where a candidate failed to win African Americans and whites but won overall-as Clinton did in California. Once again, California flipped the script. Latinos and Asians carried Hillary to victory in California on their backs and quite likely salvaged her entire campaign. The national media has now come around to the idea of Latinos as a "sleeping giant," and the Clinton strategists deserve credit for their attentiveness to the Latino vote. While I am not holding my breath waiting for the media to overcome decades of ignorance of and marginalization of Asian Americans, the Clinton campaign has undoubtedly benefited from the significant involvement of Asian American donors, staffers, and volunteers.

This is a turning point in U.S. political history: no serious candidate for the presidency from here on out can ignore the mandate to build a multiracial coalition. Obama built an impressive biracial coalition in California, winning overwhelmingly among African Americans and splitting the white vote equally. As a result, California may help forestall the media's misguided obsession with Obama's failure to overcome the black/white racial divide. Obama may have lost, but it was not because of the "Bradley effect." Still, his defeat exposed the inadequacy of biracial thinking in the face of a multiracial reality.

Unfortunately, the pundits have already seized upon an equally divisive and reductionist theme. Interethnic relations are no longer a sideshow, but our understanding of them is severely limited. Everyone following the campaign has now read Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen's remark, "The Hispanic voter--and I want to say this very carefully--has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Also surfacing less noticeably in places like online forums was the assertion that racial prejudice inhibits Asian Americans from voting for Blacks.

While prejudice and narrow-mindedness circulates in various forms within sectors of the Latino and Asian populations, crude thinking can blind us to the less sensational but more significant reasons why Clinton prevailed. She had built up a huge lead and enjoyed immense name recognition, which translated into a huge lead in absentee voting. In many places, Obama has overcome these obstacles with an excellent ground game that has attracted and energized new voters. Local observers, however, have remarked that his campaign lacked either the time or proper strategy to develop effective grassroots outreach to Latinos and Asians in California.

More than being pushed away from Obama, Asian and Latino voters were pulled to Clinton. It was during Bill Clinton's terms in office that Democrats solidified Latino and Asian "bloc votes" by paying some attention to their concerns, giving ethnic leaders a modicum of access to the party machinery, and distributing some symbolic spoils of victory. Jeff Chang helps us to understand the appeal of such "interest group" recognition to "emergent" minority groups. Hillary's campaign has elevated this recognition, such that the Asian and Latino "blocs" are now crucial to her traditional political strategy -- one that seeks to build a coalition by appealing to the self-interests of multiple constituencies, including gays and lesbians, seniors, environmentalists, and of course women as "the largest interest group." No doubt if she wins the nomination, she will hold out the promise of patronage and appointments to attempt to bring blacks as an "interest group" back into the fold.

But if Clinton's multicultural strategy is unprecedented, Obama's effort to transcend "minority" politics is historic. Casting Obama as a "colorblind" politician, the pundits and his left skeptics have largely missed the significance of what he represents. Getting "beyond race" today is not about ignoring the problem of racism or moderating ones politics to appease whites. Instead, it means thinking about America as a multiracial nation that dispels old notions of both white normativity and majority/minority identities. Culturally and demographically, millions of Americans -- especially youth -- already live in a world where that notion of white majority has been displaced by a multiethnic reality. Obama is helping us to envision what a new majority will look like politically.

For this reason, the Obama campaign is the only one with movement building potential and why we all have a stake in its efforts to build a multiracial coalition on new ground. Following the dictates of pollsters and consultants, traditional Democrats carve us all up into "interest groups," so they can push the hot buttons that reinforce our sense of victimization and vilify the other side. Obama has learned -- both from his study of what historian Charles Payne has called the black freedom struggle's "organizing tradition" and from his experience organizing against the depths of despair in Chicago's deindustrialized South Side -- that such an approach is not only ineffective but also spiritually bankrupt. If you are just a "minority leader," then you're not really a leader at all. If you are only fighting for your "fair share" of the riches controlled by those in power, you'll never address the root causes of oppression. Above all is the sense that none of us can be free in America or face the global crises of our lifetime until we change the whole country. That is why Obama has the "audacity" to think he is the best person to lead the entire nation.

It is clear from the California result that we will now be witness to a paradigm shifting clash between two consciously multiracial organizing strategies. Clinton's appeal is to give all minorities a seat at the table and a share of the pie. Obama challenges us to see ourselves instead as a collective majority. The fact that black voters have switched nearly wholesale from Clinton to Obama is far more noteworthy than the pundits acknowledge, signaling trouble not only for Hillary but for all black politicians who have pledged allegiance to the Democratic machine. Now we will see the degree to which Latinos and Asians will forego the certainties Clinton promises to embrace the challenge and hope Obama offers.

There is no reason to predict what will happen with the rest of the campaign. The choice is clear. This is a moment when critical ideas and actions will prove decisive not only to the future of the Democratic Party but also the fate of the whole nation.

Scott Kurashige is an associate professor at the University of Michigan and author of The Shifting Grounds of Race: Black and Japanese Americans in the Making of Multiethnic Los Angeles (Princeton University Press, 2008).

Comments

[NABNYC]

I would say that Asian-American support for Hillary Clinton just reflects the fact that they tend to be a bit more conservative, a bit more affluent, more professional. And they fully embrace racism against black people. No surprise there.

The Hispanic support for Hillary Clinton is primarily based upon her campaign propaganda which has convinced them that she will tear down the borders and allow anyone from Mexico to move to California. Which is what the corporations want so they can throw even more Americans out of work.

Here's the thing: voting by race-based decision-making is generally short-sighted and ineffective. A vote for Condi Rice for President would not likely lift up the black community.

People need to vote their class and economic interests. Hillary Clinton is devoted to the idea of politicians accepting enormous bribes from anyone. Her husband has spent his post white house years collecting millions of dollars from both foreign and domestic business interests who presumably want to influence (bribe) his wife. If you support a corrupt candidate and a corrupt system of politics, you just end up with a rotten government, just like we've got right now.

If all the money is given to Halliburton and none for the schools, will the Asian-American students somehow be exempt from the devastation? Of course not. Corruption in the government means that our tax money is stolen by the politicians and their wealthy friends.

I'm already tired of the racial analysis of voting patterns. It's silly, it's meaningless, and suggesting politicians should pander to groups based on race won't get any of the citizens a better government. End the corruption, end the bribes, and maybe we can get a government that will actually work for the people.

[Hellooo]

Many of the people willing to vote or who actually voted for Obama lost their votes due to a "tricky" ballot. Blacks have voted for whites for as long as we have had the vote. Why is it not the time to vote for a qualified black/white person. Perhaps it is more significant and about time for Whites to vote for a qualified black/white person. This person seems to have intelligence, good judgement, education, energy and organization. Why would anybody not vote for him?

[Nommo]

TIMEATELL (See profile | I'm a fan of TIMEATELL)
Why are Black voters a threat to the future of American democracy? Please explain.

They have, traditionally, blamed Black people for everything that they have determined to be wrong with America. The question is not when has the electorate not engaged in identity politics? White voters have traditionally not voted for non-white candidates and are getting bent out of shape because it seems that a lot of Black people have decided to vote for Obama?

I wish every Black person would vote for Obama just because. Stop worrying about all these other "groups" and how they vote as they will vote in their own interests which are generally not those of Black people. They will vote against themselves thinking that they are keeping Black people in check. Are Black people not allowed such indulgences?

Screw it, vote for Obama just because.

[Atticus]

Obama is a magnificent speaker, but I have an underlining fear that he is all puffery and no substance. I think he strikes a lot of folks that way..

[TIMEATELL]

If you REALLY want to learn more about Barack, I would advise you to read his "Blueprint For Change."

[riconap]

Obama is drawing voters who always have and always will vote for the Democratic candidate; African Americans, Liberals, the upscale educated and youth. Clinton on the other hand has attracted voters who in the past two elections, voted for Bush; middle class women, blue collar workers, Catholics and Latinos. The parochial base does not win the election, these fringe voters do!

[Myrrhis]

Do not count on my vote, rico. As much as the idea of being the equivalent of a Nader-voter in the coming election is abhorent to me, the process by which the nominee is chosen at the convention will definately shape whether I vote Democrat this election, or any election.

We have seen a few articles here on HuffPost that deal with the issue of super delegates deciding the nominee. If it truly comes down to that . . . as much as it is against my nature . . . I cannot support a party that would wrest control from its members. What sort of outdated paternalism is that??

[riconap]

Fair enough Myrrhis. I agree that the candidate who captures the most voted delegates AND the larger popular vote is the one that the Super-delegates should support. Remember that both of theses candidates, as well as those that dropped out earlier, were fully aware of the potential role of the Super-delegates and therefore should not complain if they are on the losing side of the proposition if the above described scenario is played out.

[TIMEATELL]

I wouldn't categorize middle class women and blue-collar workers as fringe voters. That's the heart of the Democratic party.

[havisham]

I disagree with the idea that a "colorblind" campaign is not about making someone like Obama look safe for liberal white people. For Obama, being "beyond race" means not campaigning to end the death penalty even though most people on death row are racial minorities, and most of them are African-American.

[LeonBNJ]

Perhaps a critical issue is immigration and citizenship. Many Asians and Latinos believe Hillary Clinton due to Bill as President offered little resistance to illegal immigration and expanded legal immigration by Asians, to make up for generations of highly restricted past policies.
Many Blacks have deep problems with illegal immigration, of such persons taking the lower level jobs they once had a better chance for. Like many Americans, Blacks also see immigrants as people to wait their turn for opportunity, they they still haven't had their's yet and they have been Americans for 15 generations or more. They resent illegals getting protections of the law, health care and so on why they are still fighting racism.
Many of us would love a more 'multicultural' canidate, but sometimes history is still deeply embeded in Americans and will vote their feelings.

[WorkingClass]

This is just another post about race. I am a worker. Workers are all races, genders, ages and religions. Workers are the super duper giant interest group. We are 80% of the people of this country and our interests are being ignored. When we no longer allow our rulers to divide us we will govern this country according to our own needs.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, there's always the possibility that CA will increase their sales tax, which will destroy the state economy, and there'll be a big famine, and the US economy will crash as a result, and then everyone will move home...or, the entire landmass that is CA could simply slide into the ocean...or, or, they'll all grow up and learn to see past skin color, and dispense with for-profit hyphenated-american politics. Hold your breath for that....I know I will! LOLOL

[elion10]

Do you think that balcks are voting for Barrack because he appeals to their national sense that we are all of one race?

I think not. I think they are voting for Barrack because he is great candidate and he is black.

I think whites vote for him because he's a great candidate, who they don't think of as "black."

[TIMEATELL]

"Obama has learned -- both from his study of what historian Charles Payne has called the black freedom struggle's "organizing tradition" and from his experience organizing against the depths of despair in Chicago's deindustrialized South Side -- that such an approach is not only ineffective but also spiritually bankrupt. If you are just a "minority leader," then you're not really a leader at all. If you are only fighting for your "fair share" of the riches controlled by those in power, you'll never address the root causes of oppression."

Don't mean to nitpick, but I disagree with this statement. I've done community organizing. In some cases, you are the minority leader, but it depends on the issue. Some issues are specific to a certain race, gender, social class, labor class, religion, sexual orientation, neighborhood etc. As a presidential candidate, Obama is organizing around a host of issues that impact everyone in this country. As such, he can't afford to be the "minority leader" and still win this election, or in other words, resolve the issues.

[bmozaffari]

You know, I've been pretty upset with the media's focus on race and their continued assertion that Latinos are not voting for a black candidate because of racial tension, so I leaned towards agreeing with you on that... but I just went over the CNN exit polls once again and noticed something very troubling. CNN has been asking voters how important race was in making their choice. The 10-20% who have called it somewhat or very important have largely been supporting Obama in higher numbers than those who viewed race as "Non Important" in most of the states. Looking at the percentages, it seems fair to assume that these were mostly the African Americans themselves who viewed race as a factor in voting for Obama.

Here is the disturbing part: In California, and as far as I know only in California, viewing race as more important made those voters much less likely to vote for Obama. The 82% claiming race was not important voted 51-42 for Clinton-Obama while the 11% seeing it as one of several factors voted 58-41 and the 6% viewing it as most important voted 64-34.

[TIMEATELL]

Bmozaffari, you should check your facts prior to stating baseless rhetoric. If anyone was a beneficiary of racism, it was Hillary Clinton. According to CNN, 6% of the voters stated race was their most important factor when selecting a candidate. Of the 6%, 64% VOTED FOR HILLARY COMPARED TO 34% FOR OBAMA. Who REALLY benefited from race in California? Get some knowledge bmozaffari.

[TIMEATELL]

Obama may have lost, but it was not because of the "Bradley effect." Still, his defeat exposed the inadequacy of biracial thinking in the face of a multiracial reality.

I agree that it wasn't the "Bradley Effect," but I disagree with your assumption that Obama somehow did not reach out to Asians and Hispanics. I think you underestimate the power of the Clinton name in the Hispanic and Asian communities. Like I said in an earlier post, Hillary was the favorite. Prior to winning any caucus or primary elections, Hillary had the Asian and Hispanic in her pocket. It was an uphill battle for Obama.

[TIMEATELL]

"Obama may have lost, but it was not because of the "Bradley effect." Still, his defeat exposed the inadequacy of biracial thinking in the face of a multiracial reality."

I agree that it wasn't the "Bradley Effect," but I disagree with your assumption that Obama somehow did not reach out to Asians and Hispanics. I think you underestimate the power of the Clinton name in the Hispanic and Asian communities. Like I said in an earlier post, Hillary was the favorite. Prior to winning any caucus or primary elections, Hillary had the Asian and Hispanic vote in her pocket. It was an uphill battle for Obama.

[TIMEATELL]

Correction: Prior to winning any caucus or primary elections, Hillary had just about everyone's vote in her pocket (without regard to race). It was an uphill battle for Obama.

[TIMEATELL]

"In stunning fashion, the California Democratic primary signaled that the future has arrived with dramatic implications for the entire nation. There has never been an important election like this where a candidate failed to win African Americans and whites but won overall-as Clinton did in California."

This is a dangerous statement. First of all, in California, African-Americans make up little less than 7% of the population whereas Asians make up a little more than 11% and Hispanics a little more than 33%. Secondly, it's not too often that Californians have a Democratic primary where there ISN'T a clear Democratic front-runner (nationally). Thirdly, Hillary was favored to win the California primary (Obama was gaining momentum). Finally, you can't disregard the impact of gender, which played a key role in the outcome as well.

[heyjoe]

Interesting. Although I really enjoyed reading this article it must be said that racial prejudice is a big part of what explains why Asians and Hispanics chose not to vote for Barack Obama. I recently watched a PBS presentation where Asians admitted that white skins is superior to black skin. Their communities demonstrate this in every region of America. Hispanics too have begun to form destructive patterns of prejudice against African Americans. Whereas much of what the article highlights is true, a lot of the problem gets down to pure prejudice. We are one nation, one people and we have to move beyond this scourge of racial identity. What should matter is that we are AMERICANS!

[Nezua]

the reason some asians may see white skin as superior to dark (as much of the world sadly does) and the reason "destructive patterns" of prejudice are developed in "hispanic" circles against blacks is the age old specter of white supremacist conditioning and thought, which runs rampant throughout the dominant culture and is reinforced at nearly every turn by media, so its hard to see how its so easy to move beyond the "scourge." especially when comments like this one actually deepen said scourge by throwing out statements such as you do without much thought, context, or conclusion beyond "we are one nation."