What have the Democrats done for blacks?
Truly, this election cycle it's far easier to address why not Trump and the GOP than it is to speak to why Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.
I don't know why this question keeps coming up, perhaps because it's a question for which extant history is convoluted to say the least, thereby offering ample fodder for a host of lines of argumentation using facts that are facts and that are equally incredulous to many Americans. For example, there's the curious passing of the Civil Rights Act and the fact that a Democratic President got it passed, and, yes,
I'm well aware that he did so with more GOP votes than Democrat votes. The fact remains that up until the 1960s, blacks were as reliably Republican as they are Democrat today.
Thinking about "what happened" to the GOP and it's strong black support, the answers seems pretty simple to me:
- Eisenhower won on his personal charisma, but the rest of the GOP lost in Congress.
- Democrats knew they were up for a loss in 1960 if they couldn't capture black votes, so they got Kennedy to announce that he'd push for civil rights legislation, which, frankly he was more indifferent about than for or against.
- Johnson got the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts passed, even though he was dyed in the wool racist. For the Democrats of the day, it was a beautiful implementation of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." That didn't really change much about the Democratic party -- many of the claims the GOP make today would have been spot on in the 1970s and 1980s.
- Reagan also won and he too was no friend of blacks even though he was a Republican.
- Bill Clinton was the Democrat that is when it became that the Democratic party became the right party for blacks
Between Reagan and Clinton, the racists who remained in the Democratic party began their exodus landing in the GOP, "pulled" by Reagan and "pushed out" by Clinton. Today, we have Trump and his racist remarks and so on. Additionally, the GOP is chock full of the one group of whites who are least amenable to black advancement: working class whites, most especially white males in that segment of the population.
There's nothing shocking about why there's animosity between the two groups: in many cases they are direct competitors for the same low skill jobs, and the whites in that strata see blacks getting affirmative action (AA) when they cannot. They also see blacks who maximize the benefit of AA stepping past them on the socioeconomic ladder, the steps of that ladder, in their fathers' and grandfathers' days, quite simply were not accessible to blacks. Thus back then even if the working class whites didn't move up the ladder, they weren't at the very bottom of it.
Next we got the "
Bible thumping" Bush who with his throngs of evangelicals telling anyone whom they could what one should and should not do or believe because the
Bible says so. Well, blacks knew from years of oppression by Southern Baptists and the like exactly what that portended and they wanted no part of it. That wing of the GOP is still "there" and strong. Then along comes Trump who from day one of his candidacy opts to play to the sentiments of working class whites with his hardline message toward immigrants. Now there are two major segments of the GOP that oppose the very things that low income blacks rely upon: abortions, because one of the few free forms of entertainment is sex, and assurances that as blacks they will be assured a shot at job and college admission opportunities. Then you have GOP leaders and grassroots members denying that AA is designed and intended to ensure opportunity access at a class level and the deal is sealed.
Blacks end up looking at the GOP and seeing threats coming from multiple angles and nothing in the GOP keeping those segments at bay. At that point, the question of "what have you to lose" is easily answered: distance from straight up racists and whatever they happen want, blacks' ability to get an abortion if they need to, acceptance to a good college if they do reasonably well in high school, the freedom of not being told what they should or should not think/do. Blacks aren't about to join a party in which reside the very racists who would just as soon undo the gains of Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
Interestingly enough, as go evangelicals, blacks as individuals are theologically in lock-step with them, but they aren't keen on legislating Biblical proscriptions even as they will in general and if at all possible/practical accede to what the
Bible tells them to do. Blacks have 250+ years of being forced to do and not do. That's why they oppose evangelically driven legislation. Not because they think having abortions is a good thing. Not because they are keen on gays.
Another problem, a very big one, is that Trump talks about black people to white people, not to black people, and he does it in what seem to be among the most lily white places left in the U.S. WTF? Who does that...and why, for Christ's sake? When did happen in the past? When Southern white racists talked to each other about blacks and then when out and lynched them. If Trump has something to say about black folks, he needs to go say it before them so they can look him in the eye and gauge his sincerity level.
That Trump has lieds and prevaricated his way to the nomination doesn't help, particularly when the thing to do in order to truly be something different from what everyone is used would have been to tell the straight up truth and let the chips fall where they may. I happen to think it's a damn shame he didn't for had he, he'd be having no issues now, but "too much water is under the bridge now;" the trust has been broken. Trump didn't have to say crap like "58% of your teens are unemployed" when the official figure is 14%.
You know why? Because 100% of black parents know whether their teen is looking for work and can't find it; therefore the 15% that is the published figure is plenty bad enough. No need to embellish. That's another thing blacks aren't keen on. Blacks have had some 250+ years of rosy outlooks and overly grand promises that never panned out. Donald "It's all going grand, believe me" Trump, when he pushes the limits of credibility does not look or sound any different to black ears. Believe me, black folks are far happier with the modest truth than with the grand lies and false prophecies. (In that regard, I guess I'm black too because I don't need that crap either.)
Lastly on this line of thought, for blacks, it comes down to the "devil you know" vs. the "devil you don't who can't tell the truth to save his or your life."
Looking at things with a more empirical eye:
- UNDER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, MINORITIES MAKE ECONOMIC GAINS - AND SO DO WHITES
Using data from the U.S. Census to track annual changes in income, poverty, and unemployment over the past five decades, we asked how each of America’s major ethnic groups has fared under Democratic or Republican presidents. Our findings are striking. When Republicans are in the White House, minorities generally lose ground. But Democratic presidents have presided over steady and substantial improvements for communities of color – and the nation as a whole.
Economic outcomes clearly diverge under Democratic versus Republican presidents – especially for African Americans.
- Under Democratic presidents, black families’ incomes grew on average $895 dollars annually, but grew only by $142 dollars under Republicans. The black unemployment rate fell by a net 7.9 percentage points across the 26 years of Democratic leadership, but went up by a net of 13.7 points during 28 years of Republican presidencies. Across the years of Democratic leadership, black poverty declined by a net of 23.6 percentage points, but grew by three points when Republicans held the White House
Could the Trends be Coincidental?
Like all social scientists, we probed our data to see if the racial and ethnic trends might be explained away by other factors. Perhaps Democratic presidents have gotten lucky and presided over expanding economies, while Republican leaders have happened to win office in depressed times. Three different sets of analyses suggest that this is not the case:
- Partisan differences persist after one takes into account the overall state of the economy or other longer-term trends in U.S. well-being. Controlling for inflation and changes in the gross national product, and considering other factors like oil prices and the proportion of adults in the work force, we find similarly large gains for minorities under Democrats and equally sharp losses under Republicans.
- The partisan trends are remarkably consistent over many years. Black incomes grew in 77% of the years that Democrats held the presidency; black poverty declined in 88% of those years; and black unemployment fell in 71% of those years. In sharp contrast, blacks more often than not lost under Republican administrations.
- The longer Democratic administrations are in office, the more they appear to be able to help African Americans and other minorities experience economic gains, while the longer Republican administrations hold office, the more the fortunes of these groups suffer.
It is not just that Democrats inherit good economies and Republicans are bequeathed bad economies. Everything points to a real and substantial partisan divergence.
- Under Democrats, blacks gain ever more political power.
