Black Racial Favoritism Thrives in "Post-Racial" America

A group known as the Black Leadership Forum has released a memo urging black voters in Atlanta to unite around African-American mayoral candidate Lisa Borders in order to block the election of white candidate Mary Norwood.

The memo reads, "For the last 25 years Atlanta has represented the breakthrough for black political empowerment in the South... In order to defeat a Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout."

Atlanta's population is 57% black and 38% white. No white candidate has mounted a serious campaign for the office of mayor since 1973.

The Wall Street Journal's article quotes a prominent African-American political scientist who defends the Black Leadership Forum's memo. Bob Holmes, a Clark Atlanta University professor who serves as the editor of a publication titled The Status of Black Atlanta, calls the attempt to protect black political clout in Atlanta "inevitable."

The Obstacles of Being a White Candidate in a Majority-Black District
This latest example of overtly racial political campaigning underscores the obstacles white candidates face when running for office in majority-black areas.

There are only two white members of the U.S. Congress who represent majority-black districts. One of them is Steve Cohen, who in 2006 became the first white congressman elected to represent Memphis, TN since 1974. Since taking office in 2007, Cohen has worked to represent the interests of his black constituents.

Cohen attempted to join the Congressional Black Caucus, an organization with the stated goal of "positively influencing the course of events pertinent to African-Americans." Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership and specifically prohibit any discrimination, Cohen was denied membership because of the color of his skin. Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo. explained why the CBC rebuffed Cohen:

"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood."

Undeterred, Cohen went on to introduce a resolution formally apologizing for slavery in the United States. This conciliatory jesture didn't stop Cohen's black 2008 challenger from running television ads linking him to the Ku Klux Klan. Memphis's Black Ministerial Association backed the challenger, Nikki Tinker. One minister expressed what was likely the opinion of many members of the group when he said of Cohen, "He's not black, and he can't represent me, that's just the bottom line."

Cohen prevailed, but in 2010 he'll face a more formidable black opponent in Memphis mayor Willie Herenton. Although Cohen is the incumbent, Herenton has "deeper roots" among African-American voters and is thus widely viewed as the favorite.

The Obstacles of Being a White Candidate in a Minority-White Country
In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama defeated John McCain 96% to 3% among black voters. In the months prior to the election, the media obsessed over whether Obama would be harmed by the "Bradley effect" - the groundless belief that a large number of the white people who publicly profess to support the black candidate will secretly vote for the white candidate when they enter the election booth. In contrast, little attention was given to the demonstrative evidence that blacks preferred Obama over Hillary Clinton and John McCain because Obama is black.

Some white liberals acknowledged that blacks supported Obama because of his race, but they justified this racial favoritism by noting the historic nature of the 2008 election. According to this line of thought, the fact that blacks have been voting for white presidential candidates for over a hundred years is evidence that they'll continue to support white candidates in the future. It's not worth discussing blacks' racial favoritism in the current election because it's not something that will be repeated in future elections. Once the first black president has taken office, America will become post-racial, and blacks will evaluate subsequent candidates without regard to their race.

The black racial solidarity on display in Atlanta and Memphis calls into question the belief that Obama's victory ushered in a post-racial era. It seems there was nothing unique about the incredible level of support Obama received from the black community in 2008. Future black presidential candidates will likely enjoy similar levels of absolute support.

If the election of a black candidate signifies black political empowerment, then that candidate's subsequent unseating by a white challenger naturally signifies black powerlessness. A large number of blacks will rally around a black candidate to prevent what they see as the loss of black political clout.

Once whites are a numerical minority in the United States, it will become increasingly difficult for white candidates to be democratically elected at the national level. There will eventually be a point where whites are simply unable to acquire the votes necessary to win the presidency. The fear is that from that moment forward, the United States could come to resemble present-day South Africa, and whites would be powerless to stop it. If this isn't the future whites want, they should take a lesson from the Black Leadership Forum and work to protect their own political clout.

New York Times: Save the Planet by Having Fewer White Babies

According to a recent article in the New York Times, the most effective way for an American woman to lower her carbon footprint is by not reproducing. The Times reports that having children is the surest way to negate other energy-saving behaviors and send your carbon footprint soaring:

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.

"Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle."

Since whites are the only people who take environmental sustainability and the dangers of climate change seriously, it goes without saying that this hypothetical American woman is white. But in case any of the white NYT readers didn't realize the article was directed at them, a picture of a pregnant white belly accompanied the article.



It may seem ironic that articles encouraging population reduction are being aimed at white women, given that white Americans have the lowest fertility rate of all races. The white fertility rate is only 1.86, which is below replacement level; the Hispanic fertility rate is 60% higher, at 2.99.

Due to continued immigration and differential fertility rates, it's estimated the Hispanic population in this country will triple by 2050. During that time, the total American population is expected to soar to 420 million, even as the white population decreases. This chart from NumbersUSA shows that immigration is fueling America's population growth.



Importing millions of highly-fertile immigrants from the developing world will increase our country's carbon footprint much, much more than convincing whites (who are already reproducing at below replacement levels) to have fewer children will reduce it. This is just common sense.

If we were serious about reducing our country's total carbon footprint, we would restrict immigration and exhort Hispanics and other fecund minorities to lower their fertility rate to replacement level.

That liberals can simultaneously advocate for population reduction measures and massive immigration from the Third World may seem perplexing. These two seemingly contradictory views can be reconciled by realizing that the liberals' true goal is not to reduce the carbon footprint, but to reduce the white genetic footprint.


Update: This is not a strictly American phenomenon. In the UK, the Muslim population is growing an astonishing 10 times faster than the rest of society. Like in America, the white population is reproducing at below replacement levels, and immigration is fueling the population growth. Yet when The Daily Mail urged its readers to save the world by having fewer children, this is the picture they chose to use:

Obama Administration to Require White Communities to Build Low-Cost Housing for Minorities

In an agreement that will have "a sweeping effect on communities nationwide," Westchester County officials have agreed to spend more than $50 million "to create affordable housing in overwhelmingly white communities and aggressively market it to non-whites in the county and in neighboring New York City."

The agreement settles a lawsuit filed against the county by an organization called the Anti-Discrimination Center. County officials had fought the lawsuit for three years, but settled because of what County executive Andrew Spano calls "a historic shift of philosophy" by federal housing officials.

Under the Obama administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is intent on integrating the most racially segregated neighborhoods in not just Westchester County but across the country. HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims says the Westchester County settlement "can serve as a model for building strong, inclusive sustainable communities in suburban areas across the entire United States."

So what's in store for Westchester and other suburban counties across the country?

For one thing, higher crime.

For years the federal government has been tearing down public housing projects in inner cities and giving the displaced residents Section 8 vouchers which allow them to rent housing in upscale suburban neighborhoods. According to an article last summer in The Atlantic, police have discovered there is a "near-perfect" match between Section 8 rentals and incidents of violent crime.

Second, lower levels of civic health.

In what was the largest study ever conducted on civic engagement in America, Robert Putnam, a liberal Harvard University professor, found that "all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings." Specifically, Putnam found that "the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings."

Although all the research indicates otherwise, racial diversity is still regarded as a civic strength. Treacly "fair housing" radio ads recently produced by the National Fair Housing Alliance tout racial and ethnic diversity as the key to happiness, success in the global marketplace and, not least, an interesting life.

And, as reported on this blog last month, Money Magazine's recently released list of the 100 "Best Places to Live" in America arbitrarily excluded towns that are more than 95% white from consideration. According to Money, towns that don't have their share of drive-by shootings and psychotic Haitian immigrants who go around beheading people are sad, unsuccessful, and boring places.

The whole country's about to get a lot more exciting.