Who's Talking About Institutional Racism?

[gottaB]

Ranked according to Google hits

1. 503 Howard Dean
   
   
2. 493 Al Sharpton
   
   
3. 200 Wesley Clark
   
   
4. 190 John Kerry
   
   
5. 130 John Edwards
   
   
6. 118 Joe Lieberman
   
   
7. 100 Dennis Kucinich
   
   

Of course, Google and the internet as a whole are not without biases. Al Sharpton undoubtedly has more to say about institutional racism than Howard Dean. Howard Dean, however, has used the term "institutional racism" in his stump speeches and position papers, and has made efforts to explain it.

I believe that the problem of institutional racism is acute and severe. I want to vote for a candidate who will do something about it. What will your candidate do?

[arewethereyet]

1. Google huh ? Lets see how black people feel about it !

I guess some people are just more convincing than others, at least in SC. Rev Al certainly understands it, he's been living it all his life. Senator Edwards, being southern, appears to be able to have blacks believe him when he talks race as well.

Ballot Overall White (58%) Black (42%)

Clark 14% 19% 7%
Dean 9% 10% 8%
Edwards 21% 22% 19%
Kerry 17% 20% 13%
Kucinich 1% 1% 1%
Lieberman 5% 8% 1%
Sharpton 15% 6% 27%
Undecided 18% 14% 24%

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/sc/

[gottaB]

5. Actually, if you look at the differences

Dean, Edwards and Kucinich stand out as being able to appeal to both White and Black voters somewhat equally. Clark, Kerry and Lieberman appear to be much more appealing to White voters than to Black voters, whereas Sharpton appeals more to Black voters than to White voters.

But the issue of popularity or credibility among Black voters isn't quite going to answer my concern. Let me put it this way. What will a vote for Al Sharpton do to address the problem of institutional racism? John Edwards? Explain it to me.

Here's the thing. I believe that realistically one of the most positive achievements Sharpton will be able to claim is if the eventual nominee adopts some of his positions and, with the enthusiastic turnout of Sharpton's supporters, ousts Smirky and puts those policies into action. So a vote for Sharpton would be like empowering him to negotiate those positions and possibly decide which of the leading candidates is most able to advance his agenda.

That would be a reasonable thing to do, vote for Sharpton, if I believed that the differences between the leading candidates were inconsequential, or I if I fully trusted Sharpton's judgement to do the best thing to promote the platform he's running on. That's not quite the case for me, and besides I'm a do-it-yourselfer at heart, even when it comes to being represented. So I want to look at the candidates and see for instance which one is speaking out against institutional racism, proposing solutions, and has the experience and skills necessary to do something about it.

I like what Howard Dean has been saying about racism. I'm also aware of the criticisms that have been leveled against him, and I do have questions about his record, and his lack of experience with diverse constituencies, and his rudeness and arrogance about keeping his foot in his mouth. So if I thought another candidate was making the case as strongly as he is, with the same level of specificity and courage of conviction, and also had the experience, temperment and qualifications to see it through, then I might want to vote for that candidate.

So far I'm still undecided. You hear lots of talk about affirmative action, but it's usually pretty vague. John Edwards has said some promising things, but his commitment to, for instance, eradicating racism in the criminal justice system is nowhere near as strong as Sharpton's or Dean's. Or is it?

Convince me. Which candidate is best positioned to fight institutional racism?

[Edwards4President]

7. Edwards has been fighting racism in the criminal justice system

He has come against mandatory minimums, called for drastic reform in probabtion, parole and rehabilitation systems, and has drawn attention to the racist implications of the powder/crack cocaine sentencing disparities. He has also co-sponsored legislation prohibiting racial profiling.

And then, of course, there's his work on the Judiciary Committee, leading the fight against Bush's bad judges.

He also recognizes that civil rights and race are not discrete issues that should be set apart from other issues. Instead, they impact and are affected by most other issues that Americans care about. That's why his proposals on other issues will also go a long way toward reducing and eliminating the effects of racism. His plans to improved educational opportunities, increase insurance coverage and eliminate racial disparities in health care, his urban and rural agendas, and fight against poverty and predatory lending are second to none.

As an Edwards supporter, I'm biased, but I believe that he has the strongest concrete record and proposals on this issue.

[arewethereyet]

8. what he said

in real world terms and excepting Sharpton, none of the others
a) understand what it really is personally
b) have done as much to combat it

the record is there and he can actually get into the Oval Office and effect some real change.

[Jerseycoa]

2. How do you do that?

So you get the number of hits.

[gottaB]

3. Oh, I'm just reporting what Google reports

You know on the right side of the blue bar, it will say like

"Results 1 - 100 of about 493. Search took 0.28 seconds."

[Edwards4President]

4. Sorry, but that's a weird "poll"

Counting the hits you get by entering "candidate X" and "institutional racism" says absolutely nothing. First, the fact that the two phrases appear in the same site doesn't say much. A story could say, "Candidate X never talks about institutional racism" and turn up as a hit. Second, institutional racism is not the definitive word on race - I never heard Bill Clinton, Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King use the phrase, but that doesn't mean that none of them ever spoke meaningfully on the issue of race.

I can't speak for the other campaigns, but I do know from personal observation that all of the candidates have been talking about race to white audiences, despite Dean's claim to be the only one. John Edwards has been on the forefront of this issue for years and he has been addressing this issue day in and day out, to audiences of all races. But more important, he has been fighting hard for civil rights in the Senate and, in my view, has the most comprehensive set of proposals for advancing the cause of civil rights. His civil rights platform is too extensive to post here, but please check out his website for detailed information: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/civil-rights.asp

As far as I can tell, the only thing that Howard Dean has said he would do to advance civil rights is talk to white people about it. Has he come up with any other solutions? What has he actually done in his public career to combat institutional racism?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. It isn't a weird poll, it's meaningless

The number of google hits will simply give you SOME of the entries on the internet, not even all of them and many will be duplicates.

For example, George Bush got me 44,500 hits with the same criteria

David Horowitz got me 5,190

and David Duke got me over 14,000.

[gottaB]

9. Apology accepted--I never claimed it was a poll

You're almost right. The juxtaposition doesn't say much in and of itself, and you have to actually read some of the links before you realize that Al Sharpton and Howard Dean talk about "institutional racism," whereas John Edwards appears not to.

In the interests of equal time, and fyi: Howard Dean on Civil Rights.

Now, to brass tacks. Here's a site that compares candidate positions on racial profiling.

As a cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, Edwards presumably has his head screwed on straight and means what he says, such as it is. What about Howard Dean? He also supports the End Racial Profiling Act. He calls racial profiling "reprehensible." He wants to withhold federal funds from law enforcement agencies that practice it. He wants it to be treated as discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.

So I see Dean as doing two things: (1) he proposes solutions that are likely to be effective; (2) he uses strong language to argue his position.

I don't think talking to white people about civil rights or racism in particular ought to be trivialized. Poll after poll tells us that African Americans continue to experience racism in their daily lives, while white Americans by and large remain ignorant of the problem. That ignorance is part of the problem, and anything that brings about greater awareness of racism among Whites ought to be applauded by true civil rights advocates.

We all know that as Governor of Vermont, Dean basically did next to nothing to combat institutional racism. Whether or not that should have been part of his job, given the racial demographics of that state, I don't know. On the campaign trail, here are some of the positive things Dean has done:

1. Talked about institutional racism
   
2. Supported affirmative action
   
3. Attended forums hosted by the NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, the Urban League--without any fuss
   
4. Campaigned in the DC primary and spoke out for voting rights
   

What has John Edwards done?

1. Talked about racial prejudice
   
2. Supported affirmative action
   
3. Sided with the NAACP on internet voting in Michigan
   
4. Took an unambiguous position against the Confederate flag
   
5. Supported HBCU's
   

Remember that last one? It's funny how some issues get pushed to the fore, and others never get noticed. Edwards' proposed translation service for emergency rooms was genius, but hasn't recieved much traction. Dean has a *lot* to say about ending racial disparities in health care, but not even Al Sharpton would want to debate him on that topic.

Dean should be commended for bringing institutional racism to the attention of white audiences, for engendering a more sophisticated discourse about race, and preparing voters to accept and fight for his extensive, comprehensive platform for advancing civil rights.

Snarky? Well, I'm sarcastic. I've liked some things Edwards has said, but I don't believe his civil rights platform is either the most comprehensive or the most progressive. It's not all bad, though. If you wanted to get detailed here, you might yet convince me.

Oh, and as for "institutional racism," it's not the phrasology that matters, but the meaning that's being conveyed. Here's WJC defining three types of racism:

One, it is racist to affirmatively discriminate against someone on the basis of race, to deny them some opportunity for which they are otherwise qualified or should be considered, simply be cause of their race. That’s racism.

Second, it’s racist to act or refrain to act in ways that will cause harm to people, either physical or emotional, simply because of their race.

And thirdly, there is a sort of subtle form of racism that we all have to be careful about, and that is to have presumptions about what kind of people you are dealing with, what they think, what they feel, and what they are likely to do based solely on the color of their skin and absent any evidence to the contrary. And that sort of subtle form of racism, I think, still permeates a lot of our social intercourse in America and keeps barriers up between our people.

That third definition is not quite a textbook definition of institutional racism--no, it would have to include something about power and social institutions. But Clinton was hardly naive on that score, so some have taken that third definition to mean he was talking about institional racism. His administration's record would seem to bear that out.

I'm sleepy. If you have some insights or detailed info to share about Edwards' positions on institutional racism, please do so. I'll bookmark this and check back tomorrow.

[Edwards4President]

10. More on John Edwards

You're right that John Edwards has done all of these things, but he's gone even further.

1. He filed a brief in the University of Michigan affirmative action case urging the Court to uphold affirmative action
2. He has gone out on a limb time and time again leading the fight against bad judges;
3. Fights predatory lending, payday lending and credit card abuses that target minorities
4. Fights racial disparities in health care
5. Has a far-reaching economic plan to address poverty and economic conditions that disproportionately and negatively impact minorities
6. Has a comprehensive urban agenda that works toward correcting many of the effects of institutional racism - creating jobs, improving housing conditions, helping create and build wealth, improving the quality of life, etc.

You seem to be hung up on the phrase "institutional racism." Using those words does not in and of itself make one better than anyone else on the issue. Institutional racism manifests itself in many different ways. Just talking about institutional racism without actually addressing its real effects is hollow. John Edwards has a strong record on dealing with these issues. In fact, Howard Dean even praised him for it, for example, complimenting him on his predatory lending platform.

You're right that we shouldn't get too caught up in the phraseology - we need to be looking at what they're actually doing.

[gottaB]

11. #3--Predatory Lending

That's a good selling point for Edwards. Clark, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, Lieberman and Sharpton are all on record against predatory lending, but Edwards has shown leadership on this issue.

Clark also proposes more support for lending institutions that serve minority communities. Edwards is more specific, proposing to double CDFI funding.

On the related issue of affordable housing, Dean has a strong record.

Well, thanks for answering my question. You've convinced me that John Edwards has good ideas for tackling institutional racism in the area of consumer credit and home mortgages.

(on edit: when's that espresso going to kick in?)

[AP]

12. Weighted averages? Dean is mentioned ten times more on the internet that

anyone else.

[AP]

13. Aslo, funny thing about talking about Dean and INSTITUTIONAL racism,

is that any time anyone tries to talk about INSTITUTIONAL racism in relation to Dean or the nature of his policies, you are instantly accused of calling Dean personally racist.

Just last night in a thread about Dean' anecdote about solving the problem of anti-white male gender discrimination, I was told by a supporter that Dean HAS to frame racism in terms that make white men think Dean's always looking out for them first because, to do otherwise, white men would think they're being accused of racism.

In other words, with Dean. talking about instiutional racism bleeds over into accusing white men of being personally racist.