Could Obama lose the black vote?

Well, according to Pat Buchanan he could.  I suppose most Americans would mutter something like 'well he would say that, wouldn't he?'  But Buchanan backs his assertion with some uncomfortable facts and figures, well, uncomfortable for the President and for the Democratic party:

In 2007, best year of the Bush era, white households had a median net worth of $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households.
   
By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860. For black households, it had plummeted 83 percent to $2,170, a near wipeout.
   
As Algernon Austin of EPI's Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy put it, "In 2009, for every dollar of wealth the average white household had, black households had two cents."  (My emphasis)

Buchanan reminds us that such 'wealth' as blacks do enjoy is hugely dependent on government employment and the generous terms that go with it:

Not only are African-Americans over-represented among government employees, these jobs are the backbone of the black middle class. For federal pay and benefits have in recent years far outstripped those of the private sector.
   
From 2000 to 2010, the number of federal employees earning over $150,000 increased tenfold. That number doubled in the first two years alone of the Obama administration. The average pay of federal civil servants in 2009, after benefits were factored in, was $123,000, twice the average pay and benefits of $61,000 in the private sector.

To support his contention that blacks have taken a disproportionate number of government jobs, Buchanan offers these statistics:

Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.

Just like 'over here', all those government jobs are bang in the sights of those who are determined to reduce government spending - hence Obama's and the Democrats' fierce, not to say, fanatical, resistance to the whole idea of reducing government expenditure.  All those jobs, particularly those occupied by blacks, were virtually guaranteed votes come election day:

Already, black voices are beginning to blame the black president whom fate has chosen to preside over the downsizing. 
   
Obama, says Princeton professor Cornell West , "lacks backbone." He is a "black mascot of Wall Street and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. ... I don't think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Barack Obama."
  
Incredibly, the question must be asked.
   
Is this Democratic administration about to go to war with its base? Is black America souring on Barack Obama?

Well, on one political hand we must hope that they are, but on the other societal hand, given the racial tensions which still persist in the USA and which are constantly rehearsed by malignant agitators, the ravishing of hard-earned, black, middle-class wealth and status could result in an explosive re-action.  If a man has nothing he might well fight for something, but if he has something and it is taken from him he will fight twice as hard and three times as bitterly.

 

Comments

[dearieme]

I suspect that Blacks in the US will vote for whoever seems likeliest to protect or extend their race privileges.

[Andra]

Historically, American blacks have generally voted Democrat anyway, haven't they?
Do you think Mr Obama's first term would cause them to change their mind?
I'm not so sure. People are more creatures of habit perhaps than you realise.
It would have to be a real protest vote to change this, I believe, and I really can't see that happening.
Still, a week is a long time in politics and there is a long way to go.
The lovely (cough, cough) Ms Pollen might jump on the bandwagon in time to stir them up.
Perhaps if you showed her your sarong ????

[David Duff]

Well, DM, in that they are no different from anyone else, I suppose, but if Buchanan is right I can't see a single reason for an impoverished middle-class black to vote for Obama.

Andra, "Ms. Pollen"?????

[Umbongo]

Obama will take a leaf out of Cameron's electability book. Cameron is/was happy to crap on his natural supporters ie the "non-modern, non-progressive" members of the Conservative Party and the conservative voters in the constituencies because, in his view, they had nowhere else to go. In this he was only partially correct. Unfortunately for Cameron, AFAIAA the consequence was that, as predicted, those voters didn't go anywhere, literally. They stayed at home. Hence (or partially so) Cameron's failure to obtain a majority in the Commons.

Obama might feel the same: what is the alternative for blacks? In this case - unlike that of Cameron - Obama would, I think, be correct. As in the UK, those dependent on the state vote for the statist party. In the US I suspect that the vast majority of black and Latino voters depend on the state either directly - from federally mandated handouts - or indirectly - from jobs (or non-jobs) financed by taxpayers. Accordingly I wouldn't worry DD. Obama and the Democratic party won't lose their core support no matter what Obama actually does (or doesn't do), as long as he can be portrayed as wanting to be Santa Claus (at whitey's expense) he'll be fine.