Based on requests in the other thread I was asked to expound on my ideas on this subject. Some of you honestly may not like what I have to say about this topic. But I will explain it and expand what I said in the other thread.
First of all there seems to be a level of arrogance among many people within the "netroots" population. The problem is that a lot of people automatically expect minority constituencies to believe in everything that the predominantly "white netroots" believe in. That is the first miscalculation.
Furthermore, there is a certain "arrogance" among some posters--and with the whole population of the "netroots" in general. I said something to this effect in the earlier thread. There is the presumption that only the "netroots" know what is right--and that everyone else is wrong.
I hate to use the Rudyard Kipling metaphor, but there seems to be an attitude that it is the responsiblity of the "netroots" to "civilize" minority communities; and that, in the end, minority constituencies do not know what is best for them. I will expand on this in the discussion of three black-on-black primaries that occurred ealrier this year, where the "netroots" favored black candidate lost. (Let me clarify one thing; the "netroots" were divided on McKinney, so let me put in that disclaimer). These three primaries revealed some interesting patterns.
The other point that I made is that "white progressives" don't really understand the black community by and large. I don't either per se, but there seems to be a disconnect between white and minority liberals. First of all blacks and other minorities are not as keen on abortion, gay rights, and secularism in comparison to their white counterparts. Religion is important to many minority liberals, while many of their white counterparties look askance when faith is mentioned and/or are downright hostile to any mention of religion. Finally blacks and minorities cannot afford to engage in symboling "sending of messages". They have needs that have to be met now. So that's why, for example, Nader's 2000 campaign had very little support among those of color.
Moving on though, did it ever occur to some people why many Democratic politicians go to black churches during campaigns? That's because the church is important to many blacks. The church, especially the Catholic church, is important to Catholics. Many white liberals don't understand that. The church is a more important civic institution in the lives of minorities than it is for liberal whites. So, when many people here decry the blurring line between the separation of church and state over issues like the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, many blacks and other minorities don't have the same reaction. The key point is not whether you agree or disagree on those issues, but rather that "white" and "minority" liberal viewpoints may not be the same on those issues.
Now I will move onto three recent political contests that highlighted the difference between the "netroots" and minorities. These races highlight the point that I am trying to make.
In July/August there was the McKinney/Johnson primary in Georgia's 4th district, which includes suburban Atlanta. There was a lot of anger among some "progressives" that the voters of GA-4 would eject McKinney. They didn't understand why her constituents, the majority of whom were black, would throw her out office. There was no understanding of their local issues and concerns. There was some level of condascension toward the people who voted for Hank Johnson.
The next black-on-black contested primary was in MD's 4th district. Al Wynn ran against Donna Edwards. (For the record I supported Edwards because of Wynn's vote on the bankruptcy bill). When Wynn eked out a narrow victory there was outrage that the voters "re-elected" him. There was also a lot of people who screamed that the voters were "dumb" for re-electing Wynn. There were comments that Wynn's victory had to be due to "stealing the election". There was a lot of condascension because the primary voters in MD-4 didn't do what the "netroots" wanted.
But the final black-on-black contested primary where it was most flagrant was the recent runoff between William Jefferson and Karen Carter. When Jeffesron won by a landslide there were many offensive and patronizing comments posted by people. Some of these comments bordered on being racist. They were people here lamening how "stupid the voters in LA-2 were" and that they "don't deserve to have the right to vote, let alone a Congressman". Because the final results didn't align up with their ideas of whom the 2nd district of LA should send to Congress, the voters there had to be "stupid" and "dumb". A lot of the comments were dowrnight patronizing and insulting. Again many of there were borderline racist.
I idenitfy with this feeling because I live in Washington, DC. For years and years I'd listen to arrogant white sububanties lecture to me in the most self-righteous of fashions why "DC shouldn't have representation". They would use Marion Barry as an exhibit to show why DC residents couldn't be "trusted with the right to vote". For years and years he was lorded as an example of the "stupidity and ignorance of DC voters". Even today, because he has a city councilman, conservative pundits use him as "evidence" to show why "DC shouldn't have representation". So when people were making such comments when Jefferson defeated Carter I was offended. The logic seemed to be that, as long as minority voters did what the "netroots" wanted, they were a "part of the base". Once they deviated--examples include renominating Wynn and re-electing Jefferson--they were "dumb", "ignorant", "too stupid", and so forth.
Notice some of the rude comemnts that have been posted here about black politicians like Barak Obama, Harold Ford, and Al Wynn. (I will admit that I have been offensive toward Barabra Lee, Maxine Waters, and Cynthia McKinney at times). Do you think that many black voters don't see those comments? As it is the number of blacks in prominent elected positions is still quite low. The attacks on Harold Ford and other "black Democrats" that don't fall in line with what "the netroots" expect them to think or do don't endear them to this community.
I will expand on the issue of Harold Ford, who many people here openly disliked. Here was a man trying to become the first black Senator elected from a southern state. I can't vouch for the entire black community or even a minority of it, but that probably was a source of pride for minorities in TN. They were proud that one of their own was running for the US Senate and honestly didn't care if he was "Republican Lite" because he didn't aggressively support gay marriage or was somewhat religious. The key difference here is that just imagine what blacks might see when they see online "white netroots bloggers" openly hope that Ford would lose a week before the election or saying downright rude things about him. Again I'm not saying that there were not legitimate grievances about Harold Ford, but I would venture to guess that many black voters would have a much different view about his campaign.
Overall, though, the problem is the arrogance that I see among many bloggers here. They automatically assume that their "choices" in primaries should be everyone else's choices. It doesn't work that way. While I didn't want Jefferson re-elected the fact is that the the voters in his district thought differently in the matter. But as soon as they deviated from what the "netroots" wanted they were "dumb and stupid". The problem is that people on the ground, people who live in these communities, often have different views. That doesn't make them "dumb or stupid". The patronizing and condascending rhetoric really is telling.
Again it smacks of the "white man's burden" that I mentioned above. There seems to be an attitude that the "white netroots" know what is best for minority-majority House districts and that somehow, if the voters disagree with them, they are "dumb and stupid". That is downright insulting to those voters. Now I don't know what the exact reasons were; but, in the final vote count, the residents of LA-2 thought that Jefferson would represent New Orelans than Carter. Insulting those voters for their choices isn't going to raise the credibility among those in the "netroots".
People here fail to realize that not all "progressive" issues are "black and minority issues". Blacks and minorites aren't "progressives" first per se. They are more concerned about the issues facing their community. To be blunt many in those communities don't have the narrow litmus tests that many white liberals here have. They can't afford to have them. They are concerned about more concrete issues than abstract concerns that people here have about certain politicians.
Overall, though, the reason why there aren't many black or Latino contributors is because of the fact that the "netroots" expect blacks to follow them without question. They make the false assumption that blacks and minority Democrats are all "progressive" and that "progressive issues" are their issues. That's not always the case. That's why some voters chose Al Wynn and William Jefferson.
Then there were commments posted in the original thread where people stated that many minorites were not accessing Kos becuase they "don't have computers" or "can't type". Now that's very insulting and patronizing. For even in the worst ghettos people do have computers. People do have access to the Internet even in poor neighborhoods, though admittedly not as much. A sidestory: I traveled to Laos in 2001; and, even in poor peoples' shacks, they had computers and TVs. So keep that point in mind.
That is why I think Kos has a dearth of racial diversity. The white "netroots" think they know more than everyone else. There is a lack of understanding of minority communities and their issues. And there often is a presumption that the "netroots" know "what's best" for those communities and district. In sum the condascending and elitist attitude is what alienates minorities from this site.