BLACK GOVERNORS: MAYBE NOT SO RARE AFTER 2018

In 2018, the United States has its most intriguing, and important, mid-term elections in years. The big storyline resides in Democratic efforts to take control of the House of Representatives, potentially setting

Photo Credit: CNN.com

the stage for impeaching President Donald Trump.  But, in the states, an historic circumstance has developed that could equal the House races in long term political significance. Three black candidates – two men and one woman – stand as Democratic nominees for governorships. In a nation that has elected only two African American governors, that circumstance makes this a remarkable moment in the country’s 242-year history – even if none of them win.  What does this mean in the era of Donald Trump and the rise of white nationalism?  Is this a backlash against Trump? Can black candidates win statewide office in this environment?   

The Candidates

Stacey Abrams of Georgia – We devoted an earlier post to her candidacy, so we’ll limit our comments now to the fact her race against Republican Brian Kemp remains a tossup. The latest polling shows a dead heat.

Andrew Gillum of Florida – Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, shocked his state and the nation by winning the August 28 primary over better-known, better-financed candidates. He defeated onetime Congresswoman Gwen Graham, the daughter of former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham, and billionaire real estate developer Jeff Greene. Like Abrams, Gillum ran a decidedly progressive campaign, winning backing from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, despite attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention as a Hillary Clinton delegate. Gillum advocates a single payer health care system, LGBTQ rights, and stronger gun safety regulations. The early polling shows him essentially even with Republican Ron DeSantis, a Trump-backed Congressman who threw the race into early turmoil by admonishing voters not to “monkey up” Florida by electing Gillum.

Ben Jealous of Maryland – Because Abrams and Gillum are running in southern states, Jealous, former president of the NAACP, hasn’t gotten as much attention.  Maryland, decidedly blue at the presidential and senatorial levels, has an incumbent Republican governor, Larry Hogan, who’s far ahead of Jealous in early polling and fundraising. Jealous has some catching up to do but, because Maryland usually leans Democratic, he may still have a chance.

The History

History doesn’t favor any of these three candidates. Four blacks have served as governors of American states, only two of them elected in their own right. Doug Wilder became the country’s first elected black governor when he won in Virginia in 1989. State law limited him to one term. Deval Patrick won the Massachusetts governor’s office in 2006 and reelection in 2010. He retired after two terms. Patrick gets mentioned as a possibility for national office but, so far, he hasn’t pursued the idea.

Two other African Americans have served as governors upon being elevated from lieutenant governorships.  Pinckney Pinchback filled the Louisiana governor’s chair for about a month -- December 9, 1872, to January 13, 1873. David Paterson occupied the New York governor’s office between March 17, 2008, and December 31, 2010. He’d been New York’s Lt. Governor before Elliot Spitzer’s scandal-induced resignation.

This dearth of black governors, and the fact only six African Americans have ever been popularly elected to United States Senate seats, demonstrates the difficulty African Americans have had in winning statewide office. Blacks regularly get elected to House seats, and not just in black majority districts.  But, statewide races remain a tough nut to crack. The 2018 races in Georgia, Florida, and Maryland offer hope, but not guarantees, of electoral success this year.

The Problem and the Opportunity

White racism might seem an easy explanation for the difficulty African American candidates have had in winning statewide races. Many white voters just won’t vote for a black candidate, this theory goes, a notion perhaps undermined by Barack Obama’s election to the Presidency. Gerrymandering a state by packing black voters into compact districts, thereby making black victories easier, isn’t possible. No doubt the white racism problem partly explains what’s happened, but like most things in American politics, a more complex story tells the entire tale. Fund raising difficulties, especially lack of access to big-money donors, limited ideological and cultural appeal across a broad electorate, and low voter turnout in minority areas, especially in non-presidential years, probably all contribute.

This year, none of those factors need impede Abrams, Gillum, or Jealous.  Abrams, in particular, has already shown considerable prowess in raising money through small donations, especially online. Gillum’s primary win got him an immediate fund raising boost, with about two million dollars pouring in over just a few days. Presumably, Gillum now has a much better fund raising list. Jealous hasn’t done as well at fund raising. He had $9 million less than his GOP opponent two months from the election. Still, he’s patterned his campaign after Sanders and presumably knows the small donor fundraising techniques.

The gubernatorial opportunities presented in the 2018 elections give black Americans a chance at becoming more fully invested in American democracy.  Those opportunities, however, illustrate two things African Americans and progressives must do to take full advantage: (1) contribute to candidates of their choice and (2) vote. It’s really not much more complicated.     

THE SERENA WILLIAMS FIRESTORM: INJUSTICE, INSOLENCE, OR PRECURSOR TO MORE GREATNESS?

Two of us (Henry and Rob) are tennis players and fans.  One of us (Woodson) is not.  It probably shouldn’t surprise, therefore, we had somewhat different reactions to the Serena Williams controversy that overshadowed Naomi Osaka’s 6-2, 6-4 defeat of Williams in the women’s final of the United States Open.

What Happened

Even those who missed (by accident or design) the match have probably heard about what happened. With Williams down a set, trying to mount a comeback and send the match into a deciding third set, umpire Carlos Ramos assessed Williams a code violation for receiving instruction from her coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, who was sitting in the stands.

Williams demanded an apology from Ramos, shouting she would “rather lose” than cheat. Williams had already smashed a racket at the end of a previous game, another “code” violation. The “verbal abuse” Williams hurled at Ramos resulted in a third violation and a one game penalty, leaving Osaka in position to claim her first grand slam title. Tennis officials fined Williams $17,000.

he aftermath has been all about whether this incident illustrated sexism in the sport.  More than one observer noted male players, like John McEnroe, made tirades against umpires their stock in trade, all the while avoiding penalties of the sort Ramos handed Williams. Former American star Andy Roddick tweeted that he did things much worse than Williams and never received a game penalty.

Many commentators, especially women, defended Williams, arguing everyone ignores the coaching rule, smashed rackets happen in tennis, and penalizing a player an entire game in a grand slam final really amounts to an official making the match about him, not the players.  Suggestions of racism abounded, including concerns about “angry black woman” stereotypes. Osaka’s Haitian—Japanese heritage, however, seemingly made arguing Ramos targeted a woman of color more difficult.

Henry & Rob’s Take

The incident raised questions about player behavior and institutional issues concerning how the sport treats different players. Just what is the place of outward displays of negative emotions in tennis matches?  Is Billie Jean King right in saying women who stand up to umpires get viewed negatively when men who do the same thing don’t. Although we subscribe to the Spock philosophy of restraint, we recognize releasing pent up emotions generated at the highest level of a sport as intense as professional tennis might enhance performance, McEnroe perhaps being a prime example.

Then there’s the matter of “coaching,” the rule that resulted in the first code violation. Williams claimed she didn’t get coaching from the stands. The television coverage suggested she didn’t even see the motions her coach admittedly made.  Did that justify her subsequent outbursts? Must players limit expression of their disappointments and disagreements, no matter the stakes or the stage?

 

Williams was thoughtful and caring toward Osaka after the

match, pulling us both to admiration for Williams. She understood her outburst, even if justified,   dimmed the luster of what should have been Osaka’s moment in the sun. In fact, it’s entirely possible real tennis fans will soon forget the disappointment of how this match, a classic confrontation between an unmatched champion – Serena Williams has won 23 grand slam titles – and a rising star, ended. The nearly 37-year old Williams may not have much time left at the top, but she’s already signaled she’s planning on playing next year. Remember, she’s only a year clear of giving birth, then fighting for her life due to blood clots. This U.S. Open debacle will only fuel her intense competitive fire. She and Osaka will battle again.  As tennis fans, we can hardly wait.

Woodson’s View

I am not a tennis fan. I almost never watch the game. I first learned of what happened in the championship match the next day.  A church elder alluded to Serena’s behavior in arguing church leaders must maintain their composure, even in the face of difficulties and disappointment. He said church leaders shouldn’t behave as Serena did when pressure arrives. I am not convinced the analogy works. Church leaders are, by definition, leaders. Though well known, at the end of the day, Serena Williams is an athlete.

I have long admired Serena and her family for their

dedication to each other and to their craft as a means of escaping the mean streets of Compton, California.  But, I have never viewed Serena as anything more than a great athlete and, as far as I know, a great person with many of the flaws most of the rest of us suffer with, including the capacity to  lose our cool from time to time. Serena proved the obvious. She is not perfect. The umpire did the same. He is not perfect. So what else is new?

Was this evidence of sexism or racism in our society? Is Ramos representative of a culture of sexism or racism in tennis? Perhaps, but we don’t have to go to these lengths to find indications of either in society. Plenty of evidence of both exists that’s much less subject to dispute.

To both players, I say “great game.” Getting to the finals of a grand slam tournament required a level of excellence most people only dream of achieving in their chosen professions.  Let the rest of us work as hard at our craft as these two women have at theirs.