[Marxism] Blacks, Latinos and the Democratic Primaries -- a Bureau of Electoral Cretinism special report

[Joaquin Bustelo]

Louis writes: "On domestic issues, she is slightly to the left of Obama and
on foreign policy, he is slightly to her left. In any case, socialists would
view these differences as negligible."

On domestic *positions* I'm not sure she is slightly to the left -- the
freezing interest rates on mortgages for five years notwithstanding, since
this is a clearly unconstitutional measure unless government compensation is
paid to those due the additional interest payments. A bailout to holders of
mortgages and mortgage-backed securities is likely the real form of this
"freezing."

The biggest clear difference I see is on immigration. Clinton is on record
for an enforcement-first plan with conditions, triggers and so on; against
drivers licenses for the undocumented; and is careful to avoid saying a path
to *citizenship,*  saying only *legalization,* which could only mean guest
worker. She hasn't made any commitment as to when that immigration reform
would take place, but some in her camp, like Rahm Emmanuel, say it is a
second-term issue. Obama has promised to make it a first year issue. 

Those differences don't sound "negligible" but the reality is that Obama
needs to put the most pro-immigrant face possible on his campaign to compete
against Hillary, who is well-known and has a base of established support
from politicians and poverticians in the Latino community. All Hillary has
to do is remain sufficiently vague in explaining what she is for.

How his position would morph in the fall campaign --if he gets that far,
which right now is a fairly long but not impossible shot-- remains to be
seen. I would not be surprised to hear from Obama that his "path to
citizenship" for the undocumented isn't the standard five years, but ten,
fifteen or more years of indentured servitude as a "guest worker," i.e., as
close to what Hillary is ALREADY saying as makes no difference. 

Also, note what Obama doesn't promise on drivers licenses. He doesn't
promise to repeal the part of the Clinton welfare reform that made handing
over your Social Security number mandatory to get a drivers license, which
is the mechanism that has denied drivers licenses to the undocumented. And
he doesn't promise to repeal the real ID act that beginning this year will
turn drivers licenses into an internal passport. 

This means these would be a special "illegals only" and "no good as federal
ID" permits to drive, in other words, a made-to-order ID card saying "kick
me" and a centralized database that can serve as a pickup list for la migra.

And notice what else the Democrats aren't saying. The Bush administration is
sitting on nearly two million applications for citizenship, and announcing
to the world that they're not going to process them by the time of the
elections. The reason for the delay is blatant, obvious: these are 3/4th
Democratic votes. But in the well-established tradition of Gore in Florida
in 2000, the Democrat Party is not lifting a finger to defend the voting
rights of Blacks and Latinos. Not even Obama is raising it.

*  *  *

So much for positions. Now for realities. I've asked a couple of dozen
teenagers --my kids and some of their friends-- who they're for.
Overwhelmingly, they say Obama. And when asked why, they say, because he's
Black.

That may seem like an apolitical or guilty-liberal answer, but I don't think
so. "Black" is a political brand which a much clearer identity in the
political consumer's mind than either Democrat, Republican or even Green for
that matter. Being "Black," my conversations have revealed, is identified
with various things. It means, in the first place, being an outsider. It
means equality, an end to discrimination. It means giving a helping hand to
the disadvantaged. It means and end to wars abroad. It means respecting
every person's worth, including by their having access to doctors when
they're sick.

Now, a lot of these kids are in or come from a Quaker school. This is not a
random sample, never mind a statistically significant one. But it seems to
me that is the real reason many people --and especially young people-- are
voting for Obama. Not because of his Democrat positions, but because he's
Black. Party identification in this country is so weak (especially, as Louis
points out, after decades of Democrats acting like moderate Republicans),
that Obama being Black overwhelms it.

And it seems to me his message has been brilliantly tailored to take
advantage of this brand identity -- including his pitch that he's running to
unite all the people, not to represent just the Blacks on whatever. I mean,
if a white person said that, that he or she is running for all the people
and not the Blacks, everyone would take that as racist code for "vote for
the white candidate." In this case it isn't racist, but it is racialized,
racial-differentiated code meaning vote for the Black cnadidate, not the
white one. And with his stance around immigration, he's trying to morph it
into, vote for the candidate of color, not the white one.

So I think in *social* terms, in what he represents for people, Obama is WAY
TO THE LEFT of Hillary. Nobody's is voting for Obama because his health
reform scheme is 2% less comprehensive (on paper) than Hillary's paper plan.
They're voting for Obama because they think or hope he means it, as opposed
to voting for another white politician who have a long track record of lying
about this sort of thing, especially politicians named Clinton. And Obama's
whole "change" mantra is meant to re-enforce that.

NB When I say he is way to the left, I'm talking about socially, i.e., how
he is perceived, not his stated positions, much less his real intentions.

Joaquin