What I learned at yKos Part I: My question for Howard Dean.

So, I'm sure this seems somewhat belated to many of you but I've decided to finally post a series of diaries about my impressions, musings, and the wealth of information that I acquired at the phenomenal event known as Yearly Kos.  Anyone who was there knows it's really impossible to fit everything into a single diary.

It's taken me a little while to get this all in order mostly because I got married at the beginning of July, which has kept me a little busy.  In fact, I was going write a diary about the wedding before any of this.  But I'm switching things up a little because I wanted to write about the things that happened in Vegas in semi-chronological order and Bush's appearance yesterday at the NAACP Convention seems like a good occasion to kick things off.  Because the first session I went to at the conference was the Black Caucus.

I should start by saying that I just spent my honeymoon in Hawai'i (no sign of pyrrho, tho) and I was on a complete political hiatus.  I'm coming back into things just as Bush's first ever veto strikes another too-boneheaded-to-be-believed blow against science (did I mention I'm a scientist?  Look for Part II of this series) and Iraq continues its escalating, bloody, horrible slide into chaos.  

I mean, I guess that part about Iraq was to be expected, but I think some part of you always hopes certain things really will go away if you just ignore them.

But, I digress.

So, the Yearly KOS Black (African-American as it appeared in the program and as I have yet to hear anyone colloquially say) Caucus.  Baratunde and Sunqueen212 did a great job of talking about the discussion that we had, between probably around 15-20 people.  More than half of the people in the room probably self-identify as black/African-American, myself included.  Some people there said they were surprised at how many people were present.  I was actually very surprised at how few.  I have always been impressed, actually, by the number of strong black voices around Daily KOS and sort of assumed many would be in attendance at the first Yearly Kos conference.  I don't know why there was this discrepancy - maybe I overestimated the number of black Kossacks, or maybe many just didn't come to the Caucus (I can think of at least a couple people for whom that was the case); maybe many didn't come to the conference at all, possibly connected with one of the topics we discussed: access.  Probably it was some combination of various factors.

There was a lot of excellent discussion about the national political conversation and how to make it so that more black people become a part of it and feel involved in it.  To a large extent, I think it's pretty obvious that we're not, at least not at the levels that a functional democracy would demand.

But that hasn't stopped black people from voting overwhelmingly Democratic for decades, a point that I will come back to.

Now let's fast forward a couple days to the night of the Mark Warner party.  I didn't go.  I was hanging out at Maryscott's party in Circus Circus with several others.  Advisorjim and a friend had come from the Warner party, where the friend had had an experience the rest of us thought was genuinely hilarious.  She had met a person at Yearly KOS, a black guy.  Who was a Republican(?!?).  From Kansas(double-?!?).  He turned out to be interested in recruiting bloggers to speak at his nonpartisan think tank.

Well, many of us, myself included, thought this guy's very existence, and at Yearly Kos, no less, was unbelievably funny.  What are the odds??  I mean, as Mozh pointed out, Bush's approval among blacks has even been reported as low as the 2% range.  It's basically this guy and Condi Rice. (That's assuming, perhaps wrongly, that this guy approves of Bush.  As we know, many Republicans now don't  </Wetoldyouso&gt).  Advisorjim -who is every bit as funny in person, btw- pointed out that it was kind of like meeting the Loch Ness Monster; you just wanted to see if you could wave your hand through him to make sure he was real.

After this conversation, though my sides hurt from laughing, I started feeling guilty, and now feel like I owe this guy an apology.  My guilt may have been just from laughing at someone else's expense (which I try not to do, and had just done, loudly and publicly), but it was probably more than that.  I'm a black American who prides herself on her self-determination, and here I was laughing at this other guy because he failed to fit the mold I set up in my head. (Later, I found out he had been at the Black Caucus too!)

That said, I really couldn't come up with any other plausible reason why I shouldn't find the idea of a black person willing to declare themselves a Republican in 2006 to be patently ridiculous.  The reasons to NOT be a black Republican are obvious, huge, and numerous.  But should all black Americans just be assumed to be Democrats because of that?  

I mean, (and I understand fully that this is endemic in all demographics right now and is our main problem as a party, see Part IV of this series) I'm pretty sick of "Democrat" being the default option, how about you?  The only way I see to fix this is (and was also the consensus at the black Caucus) to have a better national conversation with better input from black America.  Unfortunately, black America at large has been estranged from having real input in the party for some time and I think it's going to take even more effort than for many groups for a large number of black people to become active participants.  And, as was previously noted by baratunde, sound bites from the `black leadership' probably isn't going to cut it, because the so-called leadership is increasingly disconnected from the views held by many black Americans.

As we know, Bush yesterday decided to actually visit the NAACP.  When I saw this on the front page of the NYT online I was shocked and immediately went to dKOS where I found blksista's excellent diary and ensuing discussion.  I assume the fact that this is his first visit ever as sitting president, and is such a transparent, desperate pandering tactic were main reasons for the front page-worthiness, since he didn't say anything that remarkable and clearly wasn't going to sway anyone in that audience.  But he did, as is his wont, spew forth a bunch of rhetoric (read: lies) that sounds good --

"For too long, my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party"

-- until you realize it doesn't mean anything.  

But I feel a great sense that the Democratic Party continues campaigning with `black groups' on nothing really more than broad, empty rhetoric about how race relations need to be better, and can be better, with Democrats.  In essence, and this has come up before, we assume we'll get the "African-American vote" no matter what.  We need to be pointing out how core party issues like poverty, education, and healthcare are as tied to black Americans as they are to all Americans.  And more importantly, we need to make an invitation to black America to help make progress on these issues.

Back at Yearly Kos, the day after the Warner party was the day of Howard Dean's speech.  I had a question for him, nervously prepared and written down as he was talking.  I stood up quickly when his speech ended.  He took four questions.  I was fifth in line.  My question was going to be, in a nutshell, the following:

What is the Democratic Party doing, specifically, to bring a significant number of black, and really, any minority voices into the conversation we're having about where the Democratic Party is going to take our country and how we're going to get there?

Black America is often talked about, in election years talked to, and seldomly talked with.   And it's important to remember that despite the casual generalizations rampant on dKOS and everywhere else, black America is no more a homogeneous group of people than any other group of people is.   Every person is an individual and because of that, we need to hear from as many people as possible to really make sound policy and move this country forward.  We need the stories from every American, no matter the color, that we can find to build a cohesive movement and fix this mess.  Which of course includes black America: poor and black, rich and black, professional and black, blue-collar and black, black Dems, black independents, and even, yes, black Republicans in Kansas.  Until every American is able and willing to add their voice to the collective conversation, we won't be able to bridge the racial divide, or any other divide for that matter.

As a party, we need to (as rserven pointed out in baratunde's diary) have outreach for this kind of thing.  Dean has done and continues to do a remarkable job in opening up the national dialogue to unprecedented levels, but the party still lacks infrastructure for this specific kind of outreach, something we all need to care about.  Black America is a huge part of the Democratic Party.  And as a party, we are only as strong as we are united.... but there is no true unity unless there is understanding.

After Yearly KOS, it's impossible to feel totally defeated about the state of things.  Really, we've come so far.  If the energy I felt there was any indication, we really can make it the rest of the way.  Anybody else out there have thoughts? (Anybody else out there? :-) )

So, the first thing I learned at Yearly Kos, or at least, the first thing that became cemented in my mind was that conversation is key.  And we have to, HAVE TO, expand the dialogue into places no dialogue has gone before to really make progress.

•  The only reason bush went to the NAACP...

  was because he knew that voters rights bill was going to be renewed and wanted to collect some badly needed goodwill brownie points by injecting himself into the publicity.

  Photo-Op plain and simple. Trust me, he has already gone back to ignoring you.

  by 7Seven7 on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:38:58 PM PDT

  •  Oh believe me, I know

    I feel like the greater issue is to make sure that the Dems don't ignore us until they/we need a photo op too.

    by demandcaring on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

•  Hey everybody!

  It's good to be back!  I couldn't find a place for it but Sunqueen212 also mad the important point at the conference that we're not doing anything to thwart the serious inroads Republicans have made into black churches, effectively turning pulpits into megaphones for their crap policy.

  by demandcaring on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:39:38 PM PDT

  •  Congrats

    It seems like loads of Koslings have gotten married these last few months.  Congrats on your nuptials.

    by fabooj on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:46:31 PM PDT

    •  Thank you! n/t

      by demandcaring on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:17:18 PM PDT

  •  Good to see you back.

    Congrats on the wedding. :)

    From my point of view, the black/democrat alignment has been natural not because the democrats cater to the black community but because democrats focus on equality, social and economic justice, and taking care of all Americans.  These are not to me issues of race; it is about keeping America strong.  The issues seem racial because minorities suffer most every time we fail to uphod these ideals.

    As for the churches, it's a natural progression from the church takeover from the last 30 years.  I think the battle is being fought, but I also feel like we're winning for the first time in a long time.

    by Webster on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 01:29:27 PM PDT

    •  Webster! Hey!

      I agree with you as far as your statements about the issues, but my main point is not that the Dems need to "cater to the black community" but rather that the black community is largely composed of Democrats... and that treating blacks as 'other' only serves to fractionate our party.  

      The issues do seem racial because minorities suffer heavily when we fail to uphold these ideals.  But the issues are made even more racial when we fail to listen, work with, and consult minorities in our own party as to how to solve them --- instead trying to divine with no real interaction what the "black community" wants.

      by demandcaring on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 02:08:50 PM PDT

      •  Well put

        I agree and have nothing to add.  Don't be shocked.  :)

        by Webster on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 02:46:55 PM PDT

•  Nice diary

  I'm still bummed I missed the caucus at YK.  You brought up great points, points that are always talked around.  Shannika had posted a diary a couple of years ago stating that Democrats need to start including blacks in the political process at ALL times, not just during election times.  She laid it out.  Read the comments, over and over and over again it was "But how do we reach the black community?" or "What do they want?"  Sigh.  Whenever these discussions pop up, I'm like "You know those neighborhoods you never venture into because they're 'sketchy'?  Visit them!  Volunteer!  Go to a church!"  But round and round it goes.

  by fabooj on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 12:45:50 PM PDT

  •  Hey, thanks!

    And I was sorry I didn't get a chance to meet you at YK!  People kept saying, oh fabooj is here, but I don't think I even caught a glimpse. :-)  Did get mistaken for you once, though, actually!

    But yeah, seriously.  It really feels like both sides of the aisle really think of the 'black community' as a prop during election year, as unmistakably 'other.'  Visit!  Volunteer!  Venture into 'sketchy' places sometimes!  Have some conversations!  Can't be said often enough.

    by demandcaring on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 01:05:09 PM PDT

•  Your diary fascinated me

  and I wanted to comment. Have left it open for days, to do just that. Two bits, somewhat unrelated below.

  I'd love to see more commentary identified as from black, hispanic, asian, or any other ethnic group here.

  When Dean was running, I talked to the guy who was scheduling his phone calls to house parties. "Would you get someone of color speaking on these calls?" I asked. "Why expect people of color to vote for Dean, if we don't even include  speakers?" Seemingly this was "new thinking" at the time.

  All obvious sentiments, I suppose, but here you are saying at least part of that.

  by AllisonInSeattle on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:53:47 PM PDT

  •  I'm very flattered

    that you would take the time, especially after a couple days, to comment!

    To respond to your comment, yes, I agree with both of the positions you  state --- I'd love more visible active minority involvement at dKos and in general in the party and, also, I think it's obvious that we need to start actively trying to involve more minorities in this process to achieve that.  

    The fact that this is "new thinking" just goes to show the rather pitiful lack of cohesiveness we have had as a party.  

    Hopefully we'll work on it!

    Thanks again for the comment!

    by demandcaring on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:12:12 PM PDT

    •  Your replies are so great!

      Really. All of them, it's so neat to see.

      As a white person, I'd say:

      The fact that this is "new thinking" just goes to show the rather pitiful...

      ...amount of awareness most white people have on these issues even, even! at this late date. Never ceases to boggle my mind.

      Did you see some of those "race or racism" diaries? After a couple days, I thought, "Let's do one that focuses on the positive, on what one culture has to offer." I was sure it would set the ball rolling in that direction -- praise of what our different subcultures have to offer. Instead mine turned into, at least in part, a discussion of restaurants (sigh, grr) and ethnic food.

      I thought it woudl inspire deep discussion, to be followed by others similar. Yeahwell.

      At the time I was reading "The End of Blackness" by Debra Dickerson. Have you seen it, or articles by her? A friend was reading it, and I was amazed by a glance, enough to get the book. In a nutshell I find her theory to be, "Blacks need to forget what whites think of them, and just... define themselves on their own terms, and succeed." She says that some younger blacks don't see themselves as victims, and some other folks don't find that PC.

      Her ideas on victim-ness are interesting concepts to revisit now...as I look at the Middle East, and see a culture that's vested in perpetual victim-hood really wreaking havoc around itself, in part because of refusing to ever believe they're not victims. (Not saying that's what's happening, just that's how it appears to me.)

      May've gone around the corner, past the first light, and over the small hill in this reply, which is probably why it took me so long to write anything, suspicion that would happen. Apologies if too off-topic.

      by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:13:10 AM PDT

      •  Thanks!

        Wow, you've touched on a lot of points there:

        I haven't read though I have heard of Debra Dickerson.    This culture of victimhood thing seems to be getting a lot of play.  I'm of two minds about the statement "Blacks need to...define themselves on their own terms..." not because I think it's not true, but because I think that we have and are...

        My take on it is that blackness in this country has been defined as a list of things you cannot be.  We have struggled, and survived, succeeding at excellence in the things that were left, and occasionally excelling in something traditionally forbidden.  It's not so much victimhood I think that drives the separation of blacks and whites in our culture.  It's also that there's a very real sense of pride and privacy about the things that make black culture what it is.  It's not so much "you oppressed us so now we hate you and you can never make it up to us" (though there is some of that) but it's also "you oppressed us which clearly shows that a) you are not us, and b) you will never understand how great we really are because you don't value or understand the things we value and understand."  

        Which is as counter-productive to subcultural unity as the oppression itself, but is an obvious, understandable human reaction.

        So it's not just an outside-looking-in thing, it's that plus a so-what-we're-oppressed--- we-don't-want-to-be-like-you-anyway thing, which is a very real dichotomy.  Oppression can be a very cohesive bond.  Read my other diary about this for some more of my insights.  And I think that it's that bond that drives different groups in the Middle East.  No matter who's being oppressed at any given time, both opressor and oppressed claim ethnic, moral, or righteous superiority.  It's no different here.

        Well that's my 3 and a half cents, anyway.

        by demandcaring on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:45:57 AM PDT