The Watts Rebellion: Has Trump Figured Out a Reboot of White Backlash Fifty Years On?

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the Watts rebellion. Usually referred to as the "Watts riots," in terms of importance the uprising in Watts over six days in August of 1965 is on a level with the Whiskey Insurrection or the Haymarket affair, if not more so.

Watts is where the civil rights movement ran aground in the 1960s, black nationalism became au courant and white backlash as the main political force in the country took hold. The politics of Negrophobia, as articulated in Kevin Phillips' seminal The Emerging Republican Majority (1969), recreated the Republic Party, helped elect Ronald Reagan and enshrined neoliberalism as the decades-long paradigm governing the Western world.

There is a decent opinion piece by Jeanne Theoharis, "50 Years Later, We Still Haven’t Learned From Watts," in today's paper which reminds us that racism is not confined to the criminal justice system; rather, it pervades the entire society, thereby maintaining the persistent underdevelopment of black communities that make uprisings in Baltimore and Ferguson inevitable.

The refusal to recognize the black freedom struggle pre-Watts became a way to avoid responsibility for an unjust, unequal city, long highlighted by black Angelenos, and an excuse to demonize them for the outpouring of anger during the uprising.

A similar framing exists today. While recent uprisings in Ferguson, Cleveland and Baltimore have prompted extensive reporting on injustice in law enforcement, municipal policy and the courts, few stories have focused on the groups and people in these cities that have been highlighting these problems for years. 

Such silences are comfortable. It is easier to cast people as “thugs” than to grapple with the ways we as a society haven’t listened and wouldn’t change. It is easier to frame the situation as regrettable but outside our control (the actions of certain bad cops) than to grapple with our responsibility in maintaining an unjust criminal justice system. In doing so, we cast these tragedies as discrete incidents — and escape our larger social responsibility.

This conclusion while not explicitly stated is perfunctorily limned in Jennifer Medina's frontpager, "Watts, 50 Years On, Stands in Contrast to Today’s Conflicts." The jaw-dropper that Medina delivers is that Watts in now 70% Latino:

This is not the same Watts their parents grew up in. While the area remains persistently poor, demographics have transformed it from an African-American enclave to a neighborhood that is more than 70 percent Latino. Many blacks have moved to the suburbs in the Inland Empire and the desert north of Los Angeles. Those changes have brought their own tensions; many black residents talk of feeling pushed out while Latinos have struggled to rise to political leadership.

One glaring blind spot in Kevin Phillips' otherwise downright oracular The Emerging Republican Majority is his failure to foresee the rise of the Latino voter. Latinos now dictate presidential elections in the United States. No Republican can win the White House polling 30% of the Hispanic vote (Mitt Romney won 27%). That is why there was a collective gasp of horror in the corporate suites of the Republican National Committee when Trump kicked off his presidential campaign by tagging Mexican immigrants rapists.

Say what you will about Trump, it should be apparent by now to everyone who follows politics that he has got game. Republicans even with Marco Rubio as the nominee are unlikely to win more than 35% of Latino voters. So Trump immediately attacked them in a bid to coalesce the white working class, ever jealous of its rapidly disappearing prerogatives, around his candidacy, not to mention a number of blacks as well. (Blacks, to risk an overly broad generalization, tend not to be huge fans of Mexican immigrants.) Laura Ingraham promptly declared Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric the coup de main of the GOP contest to date.

What this means in a general election campaign if Trump is the eventual nominee is difficult to suss out. Hillary says she is relying on a strategy of returning the Obama coalition to the polls. The Obama coalition path to victory is juiced turnout among blacks, Latinos, women and youth. Hillary cannot do this. Even if she is paired up against The Donald, I don't see her arousing much enthusiasm among Hispanics; on the other hand, I do see Trump cutting into black support for the Democratic ticket.

Maybe Trump has figured a way to reboot white backlash fifty years after the Watts rebellion.

Democrats Drifting and Headed for Defeat

Democrats are in trouble. To get a feel for how big that trouble is all you need do is watch about ten minutes of Bill Moyers' interview with Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren this past Friday.

Warren was first tapped by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to chair an oversight panel on the implementation of the federal stimulus bill in the wake of the stock market meltdown before being selected by Obama to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau up and running; she then beat Republican Scott Brown in the 2012 Massachusetts senate race. Warren is the only politician that the national Democrats have left to offer as a somewhat credible progressive voice that speaks for the working class.

And that voice, based on the Bill Moyers interview, is pretty weak.

Warren bangs the drum for increasing the federal minimum wage. Moyers says that is all well and good but why is it that the Democrats who control both the Senate and the executive branch can't do anything about it. Might it have something to do with all the corporate money they take?

BILL MOYERS: --that first talk, and the middle class is still struggling. In fact, their income, adjusted for inflation is lower than it was five years ago, and they’ve lost about three percent of their purchasing power since then. Yet stocks are soaring, the economy is expanding, and the benefits are not going to the middle class families. Why can't Washington do better by them? 

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: So I think Washington doesn't do better by them because Washington isn't trying to do better by them. If you look at Washington as a whole, I think this is the fundamental problem in our system right now. Washington works for those who can hire armies of lobbyists, armies of lawyers, and get just the rules they want. It doesn't work so well for American families. 

Look, we know the things we need to do. Raise the minimum wage. Nobody should work full time and still live in poverty. Minimum wage nationally hasn't been raised in over seven years. We need to make sure that we have real rules on equal pay for equal work. We need to lower the interest rate on student loans. 

In every case, we in the United States Senate have a majority. All of the Democrats have voted in favor of this. And occasionally, we even pick up a Republican. The Republicans have filibustered in the Senate. They won't even bring things to a vote in the House of Representatives. This is really a case where one party has said, the usual rules of governing, you know, we'll come together, we'll try to talk about these things, we'll try to work something out, their answer is no, no, no. They're not there to help middle class families. 

BILL MOYERS: But isn’t part of the problem that the Democratic Party is divided between its corporate Democrats, I mean, right now, more corporate and business associations, PACs, Political Action Committees, are contributing to Democrats in seven states, where the race is close this fall, than they are to the Republican challengers. Isn't the Democratic Party so divided between its progressive wing and its corporate wing that it can't really act in concert? 

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: Well, actually, I disagree.

BILL MOYERS: Okay. 

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: Am I unhappy with the influence of money in Washington? You bet I am. But look at these issues. We had every single Democrat who said, it's time to raise the minimum wage. Every single Democrat who said, and listen to this, it is more important to cut the interest rate on student loans than it is to protect tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. Every single Democrat who said, equal pay for equal work matters. I should throw in one more. Every single Democrat who said, your employers, it's none of your employers' business what kind of birth control you're using. So it's-- we've got to build on our successes. And these are successes. Not in the sense that we've gotten them through yet. 

But in the sense that we've pulled together, we've focused on them, and we've said, these are the things that Democrats stand for. We're going to make sure Americans get a fair shot. We're going to get out there and fight for America, and these are ways that we can do it. And we've all stood up behind that. 

BILL MOYERS: But if Democrats really had their act together, if they weren't, as so many people think, apparently feckless, wouldn't that message be in every speech, every ad, every campaign across the country right now? Couldn't, shouldn't they be running a national campaign on raising the minimum wage? Which is supported by 70 percent of the public? 

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: Well, all I can say is we got every Democrat to vote for it. I'm certainly out there talking about it. And I think there are a lot of folks who are talking about it in their races. You know, we need people to get engaged in this election. And to say to those who voted against the minimum wage, you're not representing me. And that means I'm not going to vote for you anymore. 

If that happens in this election in 2014, we start to see real change. I think we've got a lot of Democrats lined up to do this. You know, you ask us to get organized. I do want to be clear. We got this bill out there, we made them vote on it, all of the Democrats lined up for it, and most of us have given speeches across this country on it. 

We need more engagement. Should we find more ways to engage? You bet. That's why I come here and talk to you. It's why I go all around the country when I can. Yes, we need more engagement. But the point is, I know who's standing for working people. It's the Democrats who are voting for the minimum wage, not the Republicans who are blocking it. 

BILL MOYERS: You read the numbers. Three-quarters of Americans don't feel confident their children's lives will be better than theirs. And almost that many say their problems are largely due to Washington's elected officials. So explain to me if 70 percent of the people want the minimum wage, and if three-quarters of the people don't think the future looks very bright, how can there be such a gap between official Washington and the lived experiences of people like your parents? 

The interview goes on like that. Finally I had to switch it off. It was too depressing.

Whether Elizabeth Warren is going to run for president is not important. What is important is that the Democratic Party realizes that it has a problem with the informed progressive voters it needs in order to be competitive, and Elizabeth Warren is the party's answer to that problem. She is being sent out on the hustings to keep progressives, the pointy edge of the spear, engaged and on the Democratic Party reservation. Warren is fulfilling a role similar to Dennis Kucinich when he ran for president in the 2004 Democratic primaries. His candidacy was designed to keep progressives from straying over to Ralph Nader.

But Warren's message is too tepid and conflicted. All she can promise is that Democrats will vote on legislation like the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work; she won't say that they will actually pass any of it. Progressives are not going to be motivated to turnout in November.

Obama's turnabout on immigration is going to hurt Democrats with Latinos, who represent the foundation of the party's future growth.

Then there is Obama's announcement to the nation this Wednesday that the Global War on Terror is going to require a sustained commitment; Americans at the same time are being asked to back a new Cold War against Russia. Couple this with the dire condition of the economy -- the official unemployment rate of 6.1 percent is actually closer to the recession-era high of 10 percent if you include the estimated 5.9 million jobless who have given up looking for work -- and you have a guarantee for a low-turnout election, which benefits the Republicans.

No matter how much Dems scream about the GOP bogeymen, this will not motivate enough of their voters to go to the polls. The Democratic Party does not inspire; it is a hollow shell controlled by the same corporate plutocrats who have hollowed out the nation as a whole. Democrats will lose and Republicans will gain. Things are going to go from bad to worse.

Saudis Hijack Arab Spring + Latino Voters in the Belly of the Beast + Disappearance of Newspapers

Some housekeeping for this page on a day when Algeria and South Korea are playing a goal-crazy game in Brazil, take the time to read Vijay Prashad's soccer-oriented "Football in Mosul," which appears on Counterpunch's web site this weekend. This is from the article's last section titled "Saudi Arabia":

The hot desert winds of counter-revolution blew from Saudi Arabia to drag the Arab Spring away from its moment of hope. Bahrain was the first blow, and then Saudi attentions spread across North Africa and into the Levant. Qatari ambitions for the Muslim Brotherhood played their part in knocking off enemies of the House of Saud, but then they had to be dampened. Qatar, the Gulf’s junior player, had to be put in its place. Its principle vehicle – the Muslim Brotherhood – preached a form of Islam that is anathema to the Wahhābiyyah of the Saudis. Saudi money and local Salafis backed Egypt’s Sisi as the Saudi tentacles throttled the Syrian opposition’s many platforms (their Shummar clansman, Ahmad Jabra, was sent to take over the Syrian National Coalition, and their al-Zoubi clansman, Bashar al-Zoubi, took charge of the Saudi-funded but inconsequential Southern Front). The Muslim Brotherhood has gone back to its familiar holes, the liberals took refuge behind the military, and the people…..well. Petro-dollars petrified the Arab Spring. 

Incoherence from Saudi Arabia resulted not only from the contradictions of politics in Syria or Iraq, but also from the deep and important battles within the House of Saud. King Abdullah, ailing and near his end, has sidelined the powerful Sudairi Seven (the Nayefs, the Turkis, the Sultans and of course Bandar bin Sultan) to the advantage of his own lineage. The Sudairis have not taken this lying down. It is said in the Kingdom that they are pushing a hard line for support of the jihadis to corner King Abdallah’s regime into power plays that would benefit them. Start-ups like ISIS relied upon jihadi venture capital from the princes in their private capacity. Such money inflames the region and draws Saudi Arabia – despite official denials – into this or that intrigue that they cannot fully control. Blowback is something that the Saudis know a lot about, from the 1979 Al-Masjid al-Haram seizure in Mecca to the emergence of Osama Bin Laden’s network in the Kingdom. Not developments that they would welcome again. 

Intelligence officials in the Arab world have long speculated that from 2003 al-Duri had taken refuge in Saudi Arabia. He is suspected of being one of the architects of the anti-US insurgency in the “Sunni Triangle,” a fashionable term that makes more sense in the Pentagon and in US think tanks than it does on the ground in Iraq. Al-Duri’s alliance with ISIS gives them the legitimacy of his Ba’athist pedigree in a region that benefitted from the Ba’ath state, and ISIS in turn gives al-Duri the seasoned fighters that he does not otherwise command. It is a unity of convenience, but also an alliance that advances the twisted goals of sections of the Saudi elite. No wonder that the State both said that they do not support ISIS but that they do not want the US to enter the conflict against them. 

The United States has decided not to bomb ISIS positions, but it will send three hundred troops to help with the defense of Baghdad. The US destroyed the Iraqi Army with its bombing runs in 1991, the sanctions regime of the 1990s, the Shock and Awe campaign of 2003, the destruction of the army after 2003 and the prevention of any latitude for the new government to recreate a robust military force. No wonder that the Army simply has not the wherewithal to stand up to the advance of ISIS, not now, not in January in Ramadi and Fallujah. This was in the name of democracy promotion. In that name, the US foisted a Constitution on Iraq, based on which Nouri al-Maliki won two elections. Now, in the name of democracy promotion, the US has asked that he step down as a precondition for aerial strikes. This is an American habit – this or that leader, the US president likes to say, has to go. This is democracy by imperial fiat. 

Iraq trembles for its future, as it has trembled over the past thirty-five years – since Saddam Hussein gleefully heeded the US call to attack Iran in 1980. The boot of imperialism has lain heavy on the neck of Iraq. One sees only the face of the man who has worn that boot (Saddam then, later al-Maliki) – not who has shaped the boot and delivered it to its local satrap.

Two pieces from last week are worth perusing. First, a short article, "Why Hispanics Don’t Have a Larger Political Voice," by Nate Cohn, a new young political reporter for the Gray Lady, fleshes out why Latinos aren't a greater electoral force, at least for now, in the United States:

Hispanics make up about 17 percent of the population of the United States. In the Senate races likely to determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the chamber, Hispanic voters will probably make up less than 3 percent of the electorate. 

The explanation for the gap starts with the most basic rules of voter eligibility. People must be over age 18 to vote, and 28 percent of American Hispanics are under 18, compared with 22 percent of non-Hispanics. Voting-age adults must be United States citizens to vote, yet only 69 percent of adult Hispanics are citizens, compared with 96 percent of adult non-Hispanics.

As a result, only 49 percent of Hispanics are eligible to vote, compared with 74 percent of non-Hispanics. Hispanics make up just 11 percent of the voting-eligible population.

Eligible Hispanics are also less likely to vote than other Americans. A big part of the reason is demographic: Hispanics are younger than other Americans, and voters of all racial and ethnic backgrounds become significantly more likely to vote as they age. In 2012, the turnout rate for potential Hispanic voters was 48 percent, compared with 66.2 percent among blacks and 64.1 percent among whites. The lower Hispanic turnout rate is not as significant a factor as eligibility and geography, but it does further reduce the Hispanic share of the electorate, especially in midterm elections. 

The power of Hispanic voters is further diluted by geography. Hispanics are disproportionately concentrated in large states, like California, Florida and Texas. Incredibly, Hispanics represent an above average share of the population in only nine of the 50 states. There are very few Hispanic voters in most small states, like Wyoming or the Dakotas, and small states are overrepresented in the political process, thanks to the structure of the Senate. Effectively, the Hispanic share of the eligible Senate electorate is just 7.5 percent. 

Finally, Hispanic voters are concentrated in noncompetitive states and districts, diminishing their role in the most important races. This year, Hispanics represent less than 5 percent of eligible voters in nine of the 10 most competitive Senate states, and about 4 percent of eligible voters in those races over all. That means the nation’s 50 million Hispanics have about as much say in this year’s crucial Senate races as do Alaska Natives — Native Americans in Alaska — who happen to represent 13 percent of eligible voters in the Senate’s least populous battleground.

The good news is that the potency of the Hispanic voter will only increase:

In time, the political underrepresentation of Hispanics will end. The Hispanic share of the electorate will steadily increase. Most of today’s Hispanic children were born in the United States; 94 percent are citizens. As they reach voting age, the Hispanic share of eligible voters will begin to catch up with the Hispanic share of the population, although it may take a generation or longer. The Hispanics who are already eligible to vote will become more likely to participate with age.

Finally, last week the Gray Lady's salty dog media columnist David Carr had an excellent piece, "Eric Cantor’s Defeat Exposed a Beltway Journalism Blind Spot," on why the prestige press along and up-and-coming data-heavy Internet outlets were so completely blindsided by the House Majority Leader's epic failure in the Republican primary:

There are a number of dynamics — political, cultural and economic — at work. Congressional races are a mess to cover because there are so many of them, and this year, the House of Representatives is not in play while the Senate most definitely is. The math of covering someone who may become one of only 100 senators is far easier.

The same forces that keep politicians penned up within a few blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue work on journalists as well. No one wants to stray from the white-hot center of power for fear of being stuck in some forsaken locale when something big happens in Washington — which is why it has become one of the most overcovered places on earth. 

That Beltway provincialism is now multiplied by the diminution of nonnational newspapers. The industry as a whole is about half as big as it was in 2007, with regional newspapers suffering acute cutbacks. In just the last year, five reporters with decades of experience have left the Richmond statehouse.

Plenty of reporters are imprisoned in cubes in Washington, but stretched news organizations aren’t eager to spend money on planes, rental cars and hotel rooms so that employees can bring back reports from the hustings. While the Internet has been a boon to modern reporting — All Known Thought One Click Away — it tends to pin journalists at their desks. I was on a panel with Gay Talese some time ago, and he said, “We are outside people,” meaning that we are supposed to leave our offices and hit the streets. But the always-on data stream is hypnotic, giving us the illusion of omniscience.

Data-driven news sites are all the rage, but what happens when newspapers no longer have the money to commission comprehensive, legitimate polls? The quants took a beating on this one, partly because journalists are left to read the same partisan surveys and spotty local reporting as Mr. Cantor’s campaign staff, whose own polling had him up by more than 30 points.

With Latinos Disillusioned, Democrats Headed for a Rout

For those who follow politics, Obama's reelection in 2012 was never seriously in doubt. The reason? Romney was consistently polling lower than McCain's anemic levels of Latino support in 2008. When the dust finally settled on the landslide drubbing the Republicans took in 2012, Hispanic voting was identified as the Holy Grail of future election success.

This past Saturday Charles Blow devoted his column to the growing split between young and old voters. Young people are trending overwhelming Democratic, while the aged, once solidly Democrat because of New Deal and Great Society legacies, now align with the GOP. But what I found interesting about Blow's opinion piece was the data backing up Latinos' electoral clout:

According to a 2011 Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project report, most of the growth in the U.S. population from 2000 to 2010 was due to Hispanics. 

The report found: 

“Since 2000, nearly 6 million more Latinos have become eligible to vote. The bulk of this growth was attributable to the 5 million U.S. born Latino youths nationwide who turned 18 during this past decade. That translates into an additional half-million U.S. born Latinos coming of age each year — a pattern that is certain to persist, and grow, in the coming decades.” 

The wave of demographic change and the liberal leaning of the young can’t be held back indefinitely through obstruction and aggression. A change is coming, and it’s blue.

But what if Hispanics, so discouraged by the rottenness of our duopoly, choose not to turnout? This is the realization that is dawning inside the beltway. Jackie Calmes had an excellent story, "Hopes Frustrated, Many Latinos Reject the Ballot Box Altogether," published Monday which was echoed yesterday from within the beltway by establishment pundit John Harwood.

The thinking goes like this: Obama and the Democratic Party have been successful because they have enjoyed huge advantages over Republicans among the young, women and Hispanics, and they have been successful at motivating these groups to go to the polls. Turnout among these groups always drops off precipitously during midterm elections, while the drop off for older, white voters -- the key GOP demographic -- is not as severe. Couple this normal drop off with the burgeoning disillusionment with Obama among the young and Latinos and you have a recipe for Democratic disaster come November.

What is pathetic and speaks to the hollowness of American democracy, the Republicans -- an absurd concatenation of Copperheaded money-power servants -- will reap huge rewards from the estrangement of core Democratic constituencies.

As of now, it appears that Democratic strategists and camp followers like Harwood are whistling past the graveyard with a tune that says as long as resources are invested in turnout a gigantic electoral rebuke can be avoided. But this is a canard designed to fulfill institutional expectations.

Yes, November is a long way away. But the loss of faith in Obama is real. There is no going back. Democrats are headed for a rout.