What Obama Can't Change:

[Sofiyya 1,687]

By JASON L. RILEY

If Barack Obama wins the keys to the White House next month, even nonsupporters will acknowledge the historic significance of his achievement. And America's. But what might an Obama victory mean for African-Americans in particular? Should we expect his administration to play a major role in black group advancement?

For more than a century, black civic leaders have tangled over whether to pursue economic independence or focus their energies on integrating political, corporate and educational institutions. W.E.B. Du Bois, author of the groundbreaking 1903 treatise, "The Souls of Black Folk," argued for the latter, while his contemporary, Booker T. Washington, said "political activity alone" was not the answer. In addition, insisted Washington, "you must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence and character."

Since the 1960s, the black civil-rights leadership has sided with Du Bois. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of black elected officials in the U.S. grew from fewer than 1,500 to more than 9,000. And while impressive socioeconomic progress has been made, wide black-white gaps remain in educational achievement, homeownership rates, labor-force participation, income levels and other measures.

Nor should we conclude that civil-rights laws are responsible for the black progress that has occurred. For example, up until the 1950s, and in an era of open and rampant racial discrimination, the jobless rate for blacks was much lower than today and similar to that of whites in the same age group. In fact, blacks had higher labor-force participation rates than whites in every Census taken between 1890 and 1950. And in the decades preceding the 1960s -- that is, prior to the passage of landmark civil-rights bills and affirmative-action legislation -- there were sharp rises in black educational achievement, both absolutely and relative to whites.

The economist Thomas Sowell has spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. and abroad. And his findings -- in books like "Race and Culture: A World View," "Affirmative Action Around the World" and "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?" -- show that political activity generally has not been a factor in the rise of groups from poverty to prosperity.

Many Germans came to the U.S. as indentured servants during colonial times. And while working to pay off the cost of the voyage they studiously avoided participation in politics. Only after they'd risen economically did Germans begin seeking public office, culminating with the election of presidents Hoover and Eisenhower.

A similar pattern can be found among Chinese populations in southeast Asia, the Caribbean and the U.S. In Argentina, where English minorities have done well financially and played a major role in the development of the economy, they've played almost no role in Argentine politics. And so it goes with Italians in the U.S. and Jews in Britain: In both places economic gains have generally preceded political gains. "Empirically, political activity and political success have been neither necessary nor sufficient for economic advancement," writes Mr. Sowell. "Nor has eager political participation or outstanding success in politics translated into faster group achievement."

Black Americans might keep in mind that in those rare instances where the political success of a minority group has come first, it has often resulted in slower socioeconomic progress. The Irish immigrants who came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century hailed from a country where 80% of the population was rural. Yet they settled in industrial centers like New York, Philadelphia and Boston and took low-skill jobs. Their rise from poverty was especially slow -- as late as 1920, 80% of all Irish women working in America were domestic servants -- despite the fact that Irish-run political organizations dominated many big-city governments.

"The Irish were fiercely loyal to each other, electing, appointing and promoting their own kind," writes Mr. Sowell. "This had little effect on the average Irish American, who began to reach economic prosperity in the 20th century at about the same time when the Irish political machines began to decline."

If elected, Mr. Obama may well turn out to be a competent president, even an admirable one. But history gives us no indication that his political success will translate into black upward mobility. And given Mr. Obama's liberal leanings, there's every reason to believe that current obstacles to black progress will remain in place.

The candidate favors minimum-wage laws, for example, on the assumption that they help lift people out of poverty. But most poor people already earn more than the minimum wage. And most people who earn the minimum wage aren't poor. Minimum-wage laws are more likely to price people out of the labor market, especially younger and less educated workers, a large number of whom happen to be black. Today's economy places a premium on skills. If young people can't get an entry-level job because an artificial federal wage floor has made them too expensive to hire, they can't gain the skills and experience to move up the economic ladder.

To take another example: Mr. Obama opposes educational choice, which will also have a negative impact on poor blacks, who tend to be the ones stuck in America's worst public schools. Mr. Obama opposes school vouchers that would allow low-income black parents to send their children to the type of private school where he sends his own daughters.

In both cases, the only "change" that Mr. Obama would be bringing the Oval Office is the color of the person perpetrating bad policies.

Mr. Riley is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Mr. Riley is a rich man. Of course he will not support Obama.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Warren Buffett is the richest man in the world and he supports Obama.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

thanks for posting the link article VW!!!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

YW!

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

[Niels Bohr 72]

LOL. Well, let me explain Buffet. He knows what will change the economy. As a matter of fact, before you jump. Let me tell you a little bit about Buffet.

Buffet, eventhough is rich, is a philanthropist. He knows how to share his knowledge and advice towards reformation on the economy.

On the other hand, Riley just wants to make sure his investments are still producing high margins. Buffet is above and beyond that. He thinks only about the economy as a whole, not selfish gratitudes such a Riley. That is the difference.

In other words, for those who cannot follow. Buffett knows how to solve problems. Heck, Buffett even announced a few years back that he's leaving his entire wealth to charity after he dies. It was during a philanthropist conference by Buffett and Gates.

Buffet said he's leaving no money for his kids, while Gates said he's leaving only 5% to his kids. My view is towards most rich people, not philanthropists.

Edited October 21, 2008 by consolemaster

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So? Most rich people are philanthropists. It's a wonderful tax shelter!

PS - The Gates had to be shamed into becoming philanthopists.

LOL. Well, let me explain Buffet. He knows what will change the economy. As a matter of fact, before you jump. Let me tell you a little bit about Buffet.

Buffet, eventhough is rich, is a philanthropist. He knows how to share his knowledge and advice towards reformation on the economy.

On the other hand, Riley just wants to make sure his investments are still producing high margins. Buffet is above and beyond that. He thinks only about the economy as a whole, not selfish gratitudes such a Riley. That is the difference.

In other words, for those who cannot follow. Buffett knows how to solve problems. Heck, Buffett even announced a few years back that he's leaving his entire wealth to charity after he dies. It was during a philanthropist conference by Buffett and Gates.

Buffet said he's leaving no money for his kids, while Gates said he's leaving only 5% to his kids. My view is towards most rich people, not philanthropists.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Virtual wife

[Niels Bohr 72]

So? Most rich people are philanthropists. It's a wonderful tax shelter!

PS - The Gates had to be shamed into becoming philanthopists.

LOL. Well, let me explain Buffet. He knows what will change the economy. As a matter of fact, before you jump. Let me tell you a little bit about Buffet.

Buffet, eventhough is rich, is a philanthropist. He knows how to share his knowledge and advice towards reformation on the economy.

On the other hand, Riley just wants to make sure his investments are still producing high margins. Buffet is above and beyond that. He thinks only about the economy as a whole, not selfish gratitudes such a Riley. That is the difference.

In other words, for those who cannot follow. Buffett knows how to solve problems. Heck, Buffett even announced a few years back that he's leaving his entire wealth to charity after he dies. It was during a philanthropist conference by Buffett and Gates.

Buffet said he's leaving no money for his kids, while Gates said he's leaving only 5% to his kids. My view is towards most rich people, not philanthropists.

Most rich people are philanthropist. I don't think so. Then, as an entire country we are all philanthropists.

Boy, if you do like to get technical, you should be able to problem solve using your simple logic of "pro-Americans". ROFL.

I hear the ####### of demonizing another candidate just to level the playing ground. I take that a cheap shot. No wonder there's a lack of Engineers and Medical Doctors, who are born and raised here, that ever graduated. There's a lack of people being able to comprehend the nature of things.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Most rich people are philanthropist. I don't think so. Then, as an entire country we are all philanthropists.

Boy, if you do like to get technical, you should be able to problem solve using your simple logic of "pro-Americans". ROFL.

I hear the ####### of demonizing another candidate just to level the playing ground. I take that a cheap shot. No wonder there's a lack of Engineers and Medical Doctors, who are born and raised here, that ever graduated. There's a lack of people being able to comprehend the nature of things.

The kind of mind you are referring to exists in only 2% of the native born US population. I know this because I am one of them, but I still don't get you sometimes.

[Danno 1,228]

It takes a Generous man to give up all his money... after he's dead.

That we could all be like him

-------

We would have to ask the Obama Nation to tell us how Obama lifted up his Black brothers in his past.

We know he managed to get a butt load of money for various "causes".... what were the results?

What were the stats when he came to office in his state legislature and when he left to Run for President?

I'm bettin there is not much to show, I never heard a peep this who election about his "accomplishments"

But don't let that dampen our dream for 'Change we can believe in".

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It takes a Generous man to give up all his money... after he's dead.

That we could all be like him

-------

We would have to ask the Obama Nation to tell us how Obama lifted up his Black brothers in his past.

We know he managed to get a butt load of money for various "causes".... what were the results?

What were the stats when he came to office in his state legislature and when he left to Run for President?

I'm bettin there is not much to show, I never heard a peep this who election about his "accomplishments"

But don't let that dampen our dream for 'Change we can believe in".

Here's a hint: Barry has a brother in Kenya who lives on $12 a year, supported by his mom and cousin. His bro, who has done well during the Bush years, lives in a Mansion, had a household income of 4.7m last year, and eats lobster and caviar on the campaign trail, hasn't given him a dime.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm bettin there is not much to show, I never heard a peep this who election about his "accomplishments"

It would help if you'd listen. Clearly, your decision was made before the campaign ever started and produced candidates. Don't sit there pretending that you're interested when that's obviously not the case.

[HAL 9000 96]

It takes a Generous man to give up all his money... after he's dead.

That we could all be like him

-------

We would have to ask the Obama Nation to tell us how Obama lifted up his Black brothers in his past.

We know he managed to get a butt load of money for various "causes".... what were the results?

What were the stats when he came to office in his state legislature and when he left to Run for President?

I'm bettin there is not much to show, I never heard a peep this who election about his "accomplishments"

But don't let that dampen our dream for 'Change we can believe in".

Here's a hint: Barry has a brother in Kenya who lives on $12 a year, supported by his mom and cousin. His bro, who has done well during the Bush years, lives in a Mansion, had a household income of 4.7m last year, and eats lobster and caviar on the campaign trail, hasn't given him a dime.

I live 3 blocks from his house. Hardly a mansion.

Wasn't this covered already ad nauseum?

Yes, yes it has.

[SaadBell 0]

The kind of mind you are referring to exists in only 2% of the native born US population. I know this because I am one of them, but I still don't get you sometimes.

You are kidding right??????????????????