I agree Joe. This is what drives whites throughout the country to despise Democrats. We must get off racial identity driven politics or the Democratic brand will continue to be toxic everywhere but the faculty lounges and on Rev Sharptons tv show.
The fact that there is such a thing as Rev Sharpton's TV show on an allegedly major network is all the evidence you need for Mr Klein's essential premise here.
I completely agree 100%. I went to public school in Hollis, Queens in the 1970's which had to be the most eclectic mix of ethnicities, religions and economic diversity anywhere in the country. And I was taught believing the goal of America should be a color-blind society where MLKs dream of a nation where every individual would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin would be realized. I still believe that now.
I'm not sure how a majority of Democrats came to believe the opposite - and embrace racial segregation again as they had from the beginning of this country, through the Civil War, and into the 20th century, but they have.
It is tragic to hear so many Democrats maintain that judging people by the amount of melanin in their skin is somehow OK, and in the same breath - in a sick Orwellian way, call-out anyone who doesn't judge people by skin color as racist.
As you note, black population as a percentage of the total population and as voters is pretty close to equal at 12-13%. And, what really matters, representation is that
12.2% of congress is black. In 1965, blacks represented the same share of the electorate but only 1.1% of congress. Do you honestly believe that significant number black professionals and black middle class would have happened without the VRA and other civil rights legislation. So your argument must be that civil rights have achieved critical mass. That nothing happening today could reverse that painful progress. That no movement could take us back again to when America “was great”. I would love to believe we beyond racialism as you say. I guess we’ll see when Floridas new map comes out. But sorry but we’ve seen and heard the dog whistles and explicit calls for 40 years from “conservatives” - the lost causes, welfare queens, Willie Hortons, birthers, Central Park Fivers, Obama ape memes, the commonality amongst our fired generals and admirals, …. fool us once, shame on the racists, fool us twice shame on us.
My argument is that the panoply of equal rights laws and court decisions passed in the 1960s were indeed successful. There would be no black middle or professional class without it. And given that success, there is no need to make racialist distinctions, which distort equal rights.
I totally agree in principle. But as we’ve seen repeatedly in our country’s history, as soon as it appears we are at that successful equal rights horizon, our country backslides as during reconstruction. Already today the governor of Louisiana is attempting to declare a state of emergency to try to stop the primary that is already underway. It sure seems like he wants to make “racialist distinctions” as soon as possible.
Have you looked at the district? Does it seem coherent in any way other than racial composition to you? We are well passed the time of backsliding, at least when it comes to this issue. Integration, happily, is here to stay.
I really hope you are correct and we are beyond backsliding. Thanks for the thoughtful post and opinions on this and other topics. It’s truly appreciated as we need authentic fact based conservative points of view.
You seem to have missed Joe's point that continuing on this path disenfranchises black people who have a differing point of view than progressive Democrats. Well intentioned, maybe, but still morally bankrupt.
Once the travesty of overt government sanctioned racism was removed (Black and white bathrooms, schools, restaurants, etc.) the healing could begin. And at the start, affirmative action was necessary when this country was faced with the massive social change required to achieve the promises of the civil rights movement. But now 60 years later, the law of "diminishing returns" on affirmative action has rendered it so rotten that, it's entire definition has been flipped and come full circle. Where initially AA was meant to open the door towards a color-blind society, has now become one in which there are now doors again that say "black only" (such as in college dorms and graduations).
Joe, it is a tough issue for us southerners who know your logic is strong, but retaining the status quo in fairly distributed representation remains aspirational in the Deep South. Yes, white dem candidates will need to appeal to black voters to win in moderate southern districts. But the number of black members of congress in the southern states with the largest number of citizens of color will surely regress. The South is slowly evolving to mimic the progress in other regions, but it is a long way from your vision of the way forward.
The problem is that Dem candidates keep trying to appeal to "black voters" when they should be appealing to just "voters". Segregation by race is wrong. period.
I find that I agree. Oh, the weeping and the gnashing of teeth and rending of liberal and progressive garments over this. Elections should not have been and should never be "race-normed," as happened with testing, another smelly practice.
Joe, this is why subscribing to your substack is the best news and opinion decision I have made. I have read news articles (some alarming about how the republicans will win on this decision) and not knowing what it really meant. Then you come along and give me a viewpoint I see no one in the opinion world giving. Thank. On a different not would you mind putting your book recommendations some where for us to see. I have read of view of you suggestions and would like to see more. Cheers!
Thank you for the article, Mr. Klein. I feel all mucked up inside about this democracy. Like a lot of good people, I swore an oath to the Constitution. Then I listened to Professor Vance and Professor Reich. They were both sad as I was, learning about what SCOTUS did. I remember my parents during the Watergate scandal. They would say this too shall pass. Our economy is in a mess and gasoline is way too high. I’m praying for this country today and night. I liked what King Charles 3 said in his speech. It’s important that we continue on with our pro- democracy agenda.
Another great post, Joe. That Democrats as a complete party remain incapable of understanding that they have a lane as wide as a Southern California freeway to a durable majority available to them, if they would only jettison the torrent of terrible ideas emanating from the Regressives, is the mystery of our political age. It could not be more obvious. But instead, they languish with an approval rating comparable to Trump’s — to TRUMP’S, for God’s sake — and leave voters forced to contemplate which horrifically bad choice to pick in the next election.
You are correct that thanks to the civil rights movement and the VRA, Blacks have made great social and economic progress, culminating in a Black middle and professional class. That progress coincided with the election of vastly more Blacks to political office than at any prior time in our history, thanks again to the VRA. But despite that progress, disparities between Black and White wealth and home ownership remain enormous, as this report documents, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but-so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/,
and a reminder that the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" remains an elusive aspiration in the tangible lives of millions of Black Americans. The roots of this continuing disparity are complex and have persisted despite the increase in Black political representation and power that has been achieved since and because of the VRA. But it is fair to assume, or at least ask, would the socio-economic gains of Black Americans have been nearly as great but for their greater representation in the halls of power made possible by the VRA? It is hard to argue with the logic of the Supreme Court decision that the principle of human equality and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection command that race play no role in government decision-making, including districting. At the same time, the elimination of majority-minority districts that will be an inevitable political consequence of the decision almost guarantees a significant decline in Black Congressional representation. Will this mean that less heed will now be paid to the social and economic concerns of Black communities, and to policies aimed at narrowing the still vast racial wealth gap? A sociological premise of the Court's decision is that racism, even in its subtle forms, is effectively a thing of the past. With its ruling eliminating the use of race in districting absent intentional discrimination, and the drop in Black political representation that is sure to follow, we are about to find out if that belief is correct.
Again, the disparities in wealth are almost entirely attributable to the disparity in home ownership, a lagging indicator. 50% of black families have incomes in the top three quintiles—that is, middle class or higher. The disparity in home ownership may have something to do with the 70% out of wedlock birth in the black community. I’d also suspect that the white underclass—the 30% who have children out of wedlock—has a very low home ownership rate (unless inherited). You simply cannot assume racism as the sole cause. Liberals, addle-pated by guilt, simply refuse to look at the whole picture. And one final thing: the civil rights legislation aided the empowerment of the black community, which was devastated in the 1960s by drugs, rampant commercialism and a welfare system that rewarded irresponsibility. But the moral and spiritual intelligence of the community has enabled it to recover. That is the main source of black success.
According to the Brookings analysis I cited, the continuing and actually growing racial wealth gap is due to the intergenerational "systemic compounding of wealth....In other words, wealth begets wealth. Past and present discrimination in critical markets—including housing, banking, taxation, higher education, and more—result in lower average wealth for Black families." The report concludes that "in lieu of significant policy changes that impact wealth accumulation and distribution, racial inequality will likely continue to grow." Will those necessary policy changes now be less likely with less Black representation in government institutions due to the VRA decision? It's an important question with large societal implications -the answer to which will only learn over time.
That is nonsense. It flies against logic--and against the integrated neighborhoods I've lived in most of my life. The state oversteps when it means to engineer financial equity. It can insure equality of opportunity. Nothing more.
Integrated neighborhoods are the ideal and it's wonderful you've lived in one most of your life. But while American neighborhoods are becoming more racially diverse, as of 2019, 81% of metropolitan regions were more segregated than in 1990. And logic as well as history suggests residential segregation drives unequal access to resources. Indeed, Black communities often experience 3 times higher poverty rates and lower home values than white neighborhoods. We are in agreement on the priority of equality of opportunity over outcome, but persisting racial segregation and disparity of resources presents obvious obstacles to equal opportunity for many Blacks, which opportunity-creating public policy can help to overcome. But will the loss of Black representation in government sure to come from the VRA decision itself become an obstacle to Black advancement?
Why do blacks have such a significant underclass? A culture of poverty, first identified by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965. Remember, all you have to do to escape poverty is three things: graduate high school, work a steady job and don't have children until you're married. It's called the Success Sequence. The data, affirmed by liberal and conservative academics, have held true since the mid-1970s.
Do you concede that 200 hundred years of systemic racial discrimination and segregation contributed to that culture of poverty? Do you not agree that smart public policy, aimed at creating educational and economic opportunity, can help Blacks to break out of that debilitating culture.? The Success Sequence is clearly a path, but doing the three things it requires isn't often as easy as you seem to make it sound in Black and other poor communities that lack resources, good schools and good jobs, not to mention the kind of intergenerational wealth and networking connections that benefit so many in the White population. If you believe as I do that the Black underclass is in significant part the product of the systemic racial discrimination of the past, and that there are things that government can do (along with private efforts) to shrink it, then, to bring this back to the VRA decision, it's hard to see how the destruction of minority political representation that it's almost certain to bring about will be a positive step toward a brighter future for the Black underclass.
All well and good, although the simplistic progressive-bashing is a bit tiresome. But this decision will be judged not on its theoretical improvement or harm to the American polity, but on whether it provides Blacks with a share of representatives proportional to their share of the population. If the rejiggering of congressional districts allowed by this decision results in a loss of Black representatives to Congress, if we regress to pre-1965 numbers, then Mr. Klein's high-sounding defense of the decision amounts to nothing more than an endorsement of Jim Crow era voting laws, since this decision is the last action necessary to complete the conservative majority's project of repealing the voting rights act.
Your insistence on identity politics is a depressing reminder of how far away from the American mainstream--and basic principles of equality--Democrats have wandered.
I clearly did not "insist" on identity politics. If you read what I said, I simply made the point that, regardless of the predictions, pro and con, of the consequences of the decision, its actual effect, measured by how it affects Black representation in Congress, will be its measure. I doubt that many people will see this as a laudable step in moving toward a race-blind society if the result is to eliminate Black representation in government. Also, your and the Court's position would have more force if the decision didn't actually make racial gerrymandering much easier to do. Plaintiffs challenging maps under Section 2 must now prove discriminatory intent, not merely discriminatory effect — something Congress did not write into the law and that is extremely difficult to demonstrate. You might have mentioned this before condemning Kagan's dissent. She had a valid point. I think it beyond foolish to think that state legislatures will not jump at the chance now given them to redraw maps to intentionally eliminate Black districts, and then challenge anyone to distinguish intent to racially discriminate from intent to gain political advantage, which the SCOTUS has said is perfectly OK. The answer to all this is to eliminate gerrymandering, not to eliminate efforts to mitigate its effect on equal protection in voting rights just because they use race-based methods. With respect, I think you miss the forest for the trees.
You certainly did insist on racialism, in this way: Your concern for the size of "Black representation in Congress." That should not be a meaningful indicator of anything anymore. When you make distinctions according to race, for whatever reason, you're playing a bigot's game. If the people of a well-defined community like, say, Harlem, decide not to be represented by a black person that's up to them. Same goes for the people of Michigan who may elect a black man, John James, as their governor. An awful lot of white people, including me, voted twice for Barack Obama. We need to get past primordial, and I believe false, categorization of people according to skin color. And I very clearly indicated my opposition to gerrymandering of any kind.
I guess I have not been clear. The issue I have been trying to get across to you is two-fold: First, as a matter of practical politics, the view of the Callais decision as good or bad will be judged on its actual effects on Black communities' representation in Congress. It is, after all, a decision interpreting the Voting Rights Act, which Congress enacted to insure that Blacks' votes were not diluted or erased by gerrymandering or other artificial barriers. If they want to vote for a white candidate, great. Neither the Act or anything else is stopping them. But you need to recognize the political and election realities that shut Blacks out from a share of government commensurate with their share of the voting public and denied them their chosen representatives. If Black representation in Congress is not a meaningful or valid indicator of anything anymore, what is? What then do find objectionable about the Jim Crow approach to Black voters and voting? If the Callais case results in the eradication of half the Black members Congress, you won't be eradicating racialism, you will be fostering it by allowing blatant racial criteria for forming congressional districts to be disguised as mere partisan gerrymandering. We do not live in a post-racial society, and providing a means to prevent the deliberate exclusion of racial groups from government is not racialism.
Second, the decision itself actually fosters racialism. In effect, the SCOTUS has said that racial discrimination in redistricting is fine, as long as you have a partisan - not a racial - reason. I have no issue with the overarching goal of creating a race-blind, or race-indifferent society. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. But this decision doesn't advance that cause one iota. Again, the issue is practical. The case is like Citizens United in its fantasy version of human nature, like declaring that money has no influence on legislators unless you clearly set out a quid pro quo. And in Callais they make the equally ludicrous assertion that disparate racial effects on voting rights are perfectly OK if your object was political advantage rather that racial discrimination. How you now distinguish between the two, with the criteria of clear racial effect made irrelevant, is beyond me.
If you want to explain to me how this case will actually serve the cause of eliminating racialism, I'm all ears. But what I saw in your column was a disconnect between your praise of the Callais decision as some blow struck against progressive racialism and the actual ruling itself.
Racialism isn't progressive. It is racist. You're going to have to come to terms with that...especially if you want to speak to white--and Latino, and Asian--working class Americans. That is, if you want to win elections...and if you want to think more clearly and honestly, and hopefully.
I was not talking about racialism, or racism per se, but what I took to be the point of your column, which was the notion that the Callais case was some advance in the fight against racialism. I took issue with that notion, and explained why. I'm not going to repeat myself since you apparently have no interest in discussing the actual ruling. You want to talk generally about racialism, or racism, and how you have to speak about these issues to minorities. I'm actually in sympathy with your views on that. I seriously dislike, even hate, racialism, racism and identity politics. But I hate even more the MAGA, GOP and SCOTUS racist attacks on the rights, dignity and voting rights and power of Blacks and other minorities. The Callais case does not advance us in a direction away from race-based discrimination. By changing the legal standard for determining whether a redistricting action violates the equal protection clause from actual disparate effect to one of intent, regardless of effect, the ruling provides a smoke screen for invidious racial discrimination in voting rights. That is my issue. If you think I have misread or misinterpreted the Callais case, then I would be pleased to be corrected. Otherwise we have nothing to argue about. We can declare victory and go home.
For you to believe that 60 years after the Civil Rights act, the only thing preventing a return to the "Jim Crow" era is heavy-handed government led affirmative action, you would have to believe there has not been an iota of change in the entire America psyche towards race. And that is demonstrably false. In fact, given the massive numbers of citizens from different cultures, races and religions, America in 2026 is arguably the least racist nation in the world.
"What led them to vote for Trump in the first place, if not the Democrats’ willingness to bend the law for perceived racial advantage?" Surely this was one of the factors but not the only one. There were many such targets for the malinformation industry: democratic voter fraud, immigrant replacement theory, cultural wars, a Black president who was "born in Kenya", femnazis, libtards, etc. We are a country divided by the pool of news and information in which we choose to swim. The pool of information or the pool of propaganda. Trump is like a small pox pustule, a symptom of but not the underlying disease.
Nice column. Lots of meat to digest and even debate. But I do get put off by the incessant schnoring you append at the end. For the record, I'm a paid subscriber and don't see myself quitting soon, but I suspect you get along quite well without collecting the odd 80 scoots a year your solicitations produce. A little unseemly for my taste.
But you do good work. I think this particular issue is a bit more complex than you seem to, but it's too late to argue. Be well
So well stated, Joe and I agree. I also agree with Gerard Smith's comment! "Two great things happened this week. The speech to Congress by King Charles the 3rd and this weeks column by Joe Klein."
Many third, fourth, and beyond generation of Americans of all ethnicities are largely spoiled and have no comparative reference what is it to be American and all the opportunities here, and then lazily invoke these old illiberal Dem tropes. Excelling past them are immigrants who follow the simple graduate high school, work, wait to have kids formula. And they sacrifice the immediate gratifications of consumerism to excel in the long game which is the American dream. A compulsory national service for all young citizens would be a curative jolt.
I agree Joe. This is what drives whites throughout the country to despise Democrats. We must get off racial identity driven politics or the Democratic brand will continue to be toxic everywhere but the faculty lounges and on Rev Sharptons tv show.
The fact that there is such a thing as Rev Sharpton's TV show on an allegedly major network is all the evidence you need for Mr Klein's essential premise here.
Two great things happened this week. The speech to Congress by King Charles the 3rd and this weeks column by Joe Klein.
I completely agree 100%. I went to public school in Hollis, Queens in the 1970's which had to be the most eclectic mix of ethnicities, religions and economic diversity anywhere in the country. And I was taught believing the goal of America should be a color-blind society where MLKs dream of a nation where every individual would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin would be realized. I still believe that now.
I'm not sure how a majority of Democrats came to believe the opposite - and embrace racial segregation again as they had from the beginning of this country, through the Civil War, and into the 20th century, but they have.
It is tragic to hear so many Democrats maintain that judging people by the amount of melanin in their skin is somehow OK, and in the same breath - in a sick Orwellian way, call-out anyone who doesn't judge people by skin color as racist.
I stand with you on this brother, and I will happily give this piece to many. … WELL DONE…and I usually disagree with you. Thank you
As you note, black population as a percentage of the total population and as voters is pretty close to equal at 12-13%. And, what really matters, representation is that
12.2% of congress is black. In 1965, blacks represented the same share of the electorate but only 1.1% of congress. Do you honestly believe that significant number black professionals and black middle class would have happened without the VRA and other civil rights legislation. So your argument must be that civil rights have achieved critical mass. That nothing happening today could reverse that painful progress. That no movement could take us back again to when America “was great”. I would love to believe we beyond racialism as you say. I guess we’ll see when Floridas new map comes out. But sorry but we’ve seen and heard the dog whistles and explicit calls for 40 years from “conservatives” - the lost causes, welfare queens, Willie Hortons, birthers, Central Park Fivers, Obama ape memes, the commonality amongst our fired generals and admirals, …. fool us once, shame on the racists, fool us twice shame on us.
My argument is that the panoply of equal rights laws and court decisions passed in the 1960s were indeed successful. There would be no black middle or professional class without it. And given that success, there is no need to make racialist distinctions, which distort equal rights.
I totally agree in principle. But as we’ve seen repeatedly in our country’s history, as soon as it appears we are at that successful equal rights horizon, our country backslides as during reconstruction. Already today the governor of Louisiana is attempting to declare a state of emergency to try to stop the primary that is already underway. It sure seems like he wants to make “racialist distinctions” as soon as possible.
Have you looked at the district? Does it seem coherent in any way other than racial composition to you? We are well passed the time of backsliding, at least when it comes to this issue. Integration, happily, is here to stay.
I really hope you are correct and we are beyond backsliding. Thanks for the thoughtful post and opinions on this and other topics. It’s truly appreciated as we need authentic fact based conservative points of view.
You seem to have missed Joe's point that continuing on this path disenfranchises black people who have a differing point of view than progressive Democrats. Well intentioned, maybe, but still morally bankrupt.
Once the travesty of overt government sanctioned racism was removed (Black and white bathrooms, schools, restaurants, etc.) the healing could begin. And at the start, affirmative action was necessary when this country was faced with the massive social change required to achieve the promises of the civil rights movement. But now 60 years later, the law of "diminishing returns" on affirmative action has rendered it so rotten that, it's entire definition has been flipped and come full circle. Where initially AA was meant to open the door towards a color-blind society, has now become one in which there are now doors again that say "black only" (such as in college dorms and graduations).
Joe, it is a tough issue for us southerners who know your logic is strong, but retaining the status quo in fairly distributed representation remains aspirational in the Deep South. Yes, white dem candidates will need to appeal to black voters to win in moderate southern districts. But the number of black members of congress in the southern states with the largest number of citizens of color will surely regress. The South is slowly evolving to mimic the progress in other regions, but it is a long way from your vision of the way forward.
The problem is that Dem candidates keep trying to appeal to "black voters" when they should be appealing to just "voters". Segregation by race is wrong. period.
I find that I agree. Oh, the weeping and the gnashing of teeth and rending of liberal and progressive garments over this. Elections should not have been and should never be "race-normed," as happened with testing, another smelly practice.
Joe, this is why subscribing to your substack is the best news and opinion decision I have made. I have read news articles (some alarming about how the republicans will win on this decision) and not knowing what it really meant. Then you come along and give me a viewpoint I see no one in the opinion world giving. Thank. On a different not would you mind putting your book recommendations some where for us to see. I have read of view of you suggestions and would like to see more. Cheers!
Thank you for the article, Mr. Klein. I feel all mucked up inside about this democracy. Like a lot of good people, I swore an oath to the Constitution. Then I listened to Professor Vance and Professor Reich. They were both sad as I was, learning about what SCOTUS did. I remember my parents during the Watergate scandal. They would say this too shall pass. Our economy is in a mess and gasoline is way too high. I’m praying for this country today and night. I liked what King Charles 3 said in his speech. It’s important that we continue on with our pro- democracy agenda.
Another great post, Joe. That Democrats as a complete party remain incapable of understanding that they have a lane as wide as a Southern California freeway to a durable majority available to them, if they would only jettison the torrent of terrible ideas emanating from the Regressives, is the mystery of our political age. It could not be more obvious. But instead, they languish with an approval rating comparable to Trump’s — to TRUMP’S, for God’s sake — and leave voters forced to contemplate which horrifically bad choice to pick in the next election.
You are correct that thanks to the civil rights movement and the VRA, Blacks have made great social and economic progress, culminating in a Black middle and professional class. That progress coincided with the election of vastly more Blacks to political office than at any prior time in our history, thanks again to the VRA. But despite that progress, disparities between Black and White wealth and home ownership remain enormous, as this report documents, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-wealth-is-increasing-but-so-is-the-racial-wealth-gap/,
and a reminder that the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" remains an elusive aspiration in the tangible lives of millions of Black Americans. The roots of this continuing disparity are complex and have persisted despite the increase in Black political representation and power that has been achieved since and because of the VRA. But it is fair to assume, or at least ask, would the socio-economic gains of Black Americans have been nearly as great but for their greater representation in the halls of power made possible by the VRA? It is hard to argue with the logic of the Supreme Court decision that the principle of human equality and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection command that race play no role in government decision-making, including districting. At the same time, the elimination of majority-minority districts that will be an inevitable political consequence of the decision almost guarantees a significant decline in Black Congressional representation. Will this mean that less heed will now be paid to the social and economic concerns of Black communities, and to policies aimed at narrowing the still vast racial wealth gap? A sociological premise of the Court's decision is that racism, even in its subtle forms, is effectively a thing of the past. With its ruling eliminating the use of race in districting absent intentional discrimination, and the drop in Black political representation that is sure to follow, we are about to find out if that belief is correct.
Again, the disparities in wealth are almost entirely attributable to the disparity in home ownership, a lagging indicator. 50% of black families have incomes in the top three quintiles—that is, middle class or higher. The disparity in home ownership may have something to do with the 70% out of wedlock birth in the black community. I’d also suspect that the white underclass—the 30% who have children out of wedlock—has a very low home ownership rate (unless inherited). You simply cannot assume racism as the sole cause. Liberals, addle-pated by guilt, simply refuse to look at the whole picture. And one final thing: the civil rights legislation aided the empowerment of the black community, which was devastated in the 1960s by drugs, rampant commercialism and a welfare system that rewarded irresponsibility. But the moral and spiritual intelligence of the community has enabled it to recover. That is the main source of black success.
According to the Brookings analysis I cited, the continuing and actually growing racial wealth gap is due to the intergenerational "systemic compounding of wealth....In other words, wealth begets wealth. Past and present discrimination in critical markets—including housing, banking, taxation, higher education, and more—result in lower average wealth for Black families." The report concludes that "in lieu of significant policy changes that impact wealth accumulation and distribution, racial inequality will likely continue to grow." Will those necessary policy changes now be less likely with less Black representation in government institutions due to the VRA decision? It's an important question with large societal implications -the answer to which will only learn over time.
That is nonsense. It flies against logic--and against the integrated neighborhoods I've lived in most of my life. The state oversteps when it means to engineer financial equity. It can insure equality of opportunity. Nothing more.
Integrated neighborhoods are the ideal and it's wonderful you've lived in one most of your life. But while American neighborhoods are becoming more racially diverse, as of 2019, 81% of metropolitan regions were more segregated than in 1990. And logic as well as history suggests residential segregation drives unequal access to resources. Indeed, Black communities often experience 3 times higher poverty rates and lower home values than white neighborhoods. We are in agreement on the priority of equality of opportunity over outcome, but persisting racial segregation and disparity of resources presents obvious obstacles to equal opportunity for many Blacks, which opportunity-creating public policy can help to overcome. But will the loss of Black representation in government sure to come from the VRA decision itself become an obstacle to Black advancement?
Why do blacks have such a significant underclass? A culture of poverty, first identified by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1965. Remember, all you have to do to escape poverty is three things: graduate high school, work a steady job and don't have children until you're married. It's called the Success Sequence. The data, affirmed by liberal and conservative academics, have held true since the mid-1970s.
Do you concede that 200 hundred years of systemic racial discrimination and segregation contributed to that culture of poverty? Do you not agree that smart public policy, aimed at creating educational and economic opportunity, can help Blacks to break out of that debilitating culture.? The Success Sequence is clearly a path, but doing the three things it requires isn't often as easy as you seem to make it sound in Black and other poor communities that lack resources, good schools and good jobs, not to mention the kind of intergenerational wealth and networking connections that benefit so many in the White population. If you believe as I do that the Black underclass is in significant part the product of the systemic racial discrimination of the past, and that there are things that government can do (along with private efforts) to shrink it, then, to bring this back to the VRA decision, it's hard to see how the destruction of minority political representation that it's almost certain to bring about will be a positive step toward a brighter future for the Black underclass.
All well and good, although the simplistic progressive-bashing is a bit tiresome. But this decision will be judged not on its theoretical improvement or harm to the American polity, but on whether it provides Blacks with a share of representatives proportional to their share of the population. If the rejiggering of congressional districts allowed by this decision results in a loss of Black representatives to Congress, if we regress to pre-1965 numbers, then Mr. Klein's high-sounding defense of the decision amounts to nothing more than an endorsement of Jim Crow era voting laws, since this decision is the last action necessary to complete the conservative majority's project of repealing the voting rights act.
Your insistence on identity politics is a depressing reminder of how far away from the American mainstream--and basic principles of equality--Democrats have wandered.
I clearly did not "insist" on identity politics. If you read what I said, I simply made the point that, regardless of the predictions, pro and con, of the consequences of the decision, its actual effect, measured by how it affects Black representation in Congress, will be its measure. I doubt that many people will see this as a laudable step in moving toward a race-blind society if the result is to eliminate Black representation in government. Also, your and the Court's position would have more force if the decision didn't actually make racial gerrymandering much easier to do. Plaintiffs challenging maps under Section 2 must now prove discriminatory intent, not merely discriminatory effect — something Congress did not write into the law and that is extremely difficult to demonstrate. You might have mentioned this before condemning Kagan's dissent. She had a valid point. I think it beyond foolish to think that state legislatures will not jump at the chance now given them to redraw maps to intentionally eliminate Black districts, and then challenge anyone to distinguish intent to racially discriminate from intent to gain political advantage, which the SCOTUS has said is perfectly OK. The answer to all this is to eliminate gerrymandering, not to eliminate efforts to mitigate its effect on equal protection in voting rights just because they use race-based methods. With respect, I think you miss the forest for the trees.
You certainly did insist on racialism, in this way: Your concern for the size of "Black representation in Congress." That should not be a meaningful indicator of anything anymore. When you make distinctions according to race, for whatever reason, you're playing a bigot's game. If the people of a well-defined community like, say, Harlem, decide not to be represented by a black person that's up to them. Same goes for the people of Michigan who may elect a black man, John James, as their governor. An awful lot of white people, including me, voted twice for Barack Obama. We need to get past primordial, and I believe false, categorization of people according to skin color. And I very clearly indicated my opposition to gerrymandering of any kind.
I guess I have not been clear. The issue I have been trying to get across to you is two-fold: First, as a matter of practical politics, the view of the Callais decision as good or bad will be judged on its actual effects on Black communities' representation in Congress. It is, after all, a decision interpreting the Voting Rights Act, which Congress enacted to insure that Blacks' votes were not diluted or erased by gerrymandering or other artificial barriers. If they want to vote for a white candidate, great. Neither the Act or anything else is stopping them. But you need to recognize the political and election realities that shut Blacks out from a share of government commensurate with their share of the voting public and denied them their chosen representatives. If Black representation in Congress is not a meaningful or valid indicator of anything anymore, what is? What then do find objectionable about the Jim Crow approach to Black voters and voting? If the Callais case results in the eradication of half the Black members Congress, you won't be eradicating racialism, you will be fostering it by allowing blatant racial criteria for forming congressional districts to be disguised as mere partisan gerrymandering. We do not live in a post-racial society, and providing a means to prevent the deliberate exclusion of racial groups from government is not racialism.
Second, the decision itself actually fosters racialism. In effect, the SCOTUS has said that racial discrimination in redistricting is fine, as long as you have a partisan - not a racial - reason. I have no issue with the overarching goal of creating a race-blind, or race-indifferent society. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. But this decision doesn't advance that cause one iota. Again, the issue is practical. The case is like Citizens United in its fantasy version of human nature, like declaring that money has no influence on legislators unless you clearly set out a quid pro quo. And in Callais they make the equally ludicrous assertion that disparate racial effects on voting rights are perfectly OK if your object was political advantage rather that racial discrimination. How you now distinguish between the two, with the criteria of clear racial effect made irrelevant, is beyond me.
If you want to explain to me how this case will actually serve the cause of eliminating racialism, I'm all ears. But what I saw in your column was a disconnect between your praise of the Callais decision as some blow struck against progressive racialism and the actual ruling itself.
Racialism isn't progressive. It is racist. You're going to have to come to terms with that...especially if you want to speak to white--and Latino, and Asian--working class Americans. That is, if you want to win elections...and if you want to think more clearly and honestly, and hopefully.
I was not talking about racialism, or racism per se, but what I took to be the point of your column, which was the notion that the Callais case was some advance in the fight against racialism. I took issue with that notion, and explained why. I'm not going to repeat myself since you apparently have no interest in discussing the actual ruling. You want to talk generally about racialism, or racism, and how you have to speak about these issues to minorities. I'm actually in sympathy with your views on that. I seriously dislike, even hate, racialism, racism and identity politics. But I hate even more the MAGA, GOP and SCOTUS racist attacks on the rights, dignity and voting rights and power of Blacks and other minorities. The Callais case does not advance us in a direction away from race-based discrimination. By changing the legal standard for determining whether a redistricting action violates the equal protection clause from actual disparate effect to one of intent, regardless of effect, the ruling provides a smoke screen for invidious racial discrimination in voting rights. That is my issue. If you think I have misread or misinterpreted the Callais case, then I would be pleased to be corrected. Otherwise we have nothing to argue about. We can declare victory and go home.
For you to believe that 60 years after the Civil Rights act, the only thing preventing a return to the "Jim Crow" era is heavy-handed government led affirmative action, you would have to believe there has not been an iota of change in the entire America psyche towards race. And that is demonstrably false. In fact, given the massive numbers of citizens from different cultures, races and religions, America in 2026 is arguably the least racist nation in the world.
"What led them to vote for Trump in the first place, if not the Democrats’ willingness to bend the law for perceived racial advantage?" Surely this was one of the factors but not the only one. There were many such targets for the malinformation industry: democratic voter fraud, immigrant replacement theory, cultural wars, a Black president who was "born in Kenya", femnazis, libtards, etc. We are a country divided by the pool of news and information in which we choose to swim. The pool of information or the pool of propaganda. Trump is like a small pox pustule, a symptom of but not the underlying disease.
You're right. It was a lot of factors. But race was, and is, central to the whole complex of identity issues that sunk the Democrats.
Nice column. Lots of meat to digest and even debate. But I do get put off by the incessant schnoring you append at the end. For the record, I'm a paid subscriber and don't see myself quitting soon, but I suspect you get along quite well without collecting the odd 80 scoots a year your solicitations produce. A little unseemly for my taste.
But you do good work. I think this particular issue is a bit more complex than you seem to, but it's too late to argue. Be well
So well stated, Joe and I agree. I also agree with Gerard Smith's comment! "Two great things happened this week. The speech to Congress by King Charles the 3rd and this weeks column by Joe Klein."
Many third, fourth, and beyond generation of Americans of all ethnicities are largely spoiled and have no comparative reference what is it to be American and all the opportunities here, and then lazily invoke these old illiberal Dem tropes. Excelling past them are immigrants who follow the simple graduate high school, work, wait to have kids formula. And they sacrifice the immediate gratifications of consumerism to excel in the long game which is the American dream. A compulsory national service for all young citizens would be a curative jolt.