Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Has Deval Patrick been betrayed by his own people?

No, I’m not talking about the Democrats who are pushing for Chris Gabrieli to enter the race, out of an apparent belief that Patrick can’t win. I’m talking about black voters–theoretically Patrick’s natural constituency–who are so racially pessimistic that they believe Patrick has no chance of winning over white voters.

This week’s Bay State Banner, in their "Roving Camera" man-on-the-street section, asks black voters for their thoughts on Patrick’s likelihood of success. Patrick must be chagrined by the responses: one woman says she’s "not sure if Massachusetts is ready for its first African American governor," another says "his chances are pretty slim [because] the state hasn’t changed much when it comes to race relations," and a third proclaims that Patrick "is a political outsider and will have a very difficult time to get the backing he needs from the Democratic political machine. I don’t think he has statewide political clout."

What happened to Patrick’s insistence that Bay Staters should avoid cynicism when it comes to his campaign?

It is quite interesting that the creator of this blog, who has made clear his disdain for Patrick’s platform and who feels that the candidate’s ultra-liberal vision, if implemented, would severely damage the Massachusetts economic and legal system, nevertheless recognizes that there are circumstances under which he could win–and that black liberals, Patrick’s natural base of support, are so cynical about his chances for victory.

Are we witnessing the true depth of racial pessimism in Massachusetts?

Last year Mel King, who launched a high-profile bid to become mayor of Boston in 1983, suggested that Patrick couldn’t win because significant numbers of whites in Massachusetts wouldn’t vote for a black candidate (obviously forgetting Ed Brooke’s success here in the 1960s and 1970s). This analysis ignores the fact that there are plenty of white liberal Democrats who would be more than willing to vote for Patrick, either because he is the "true liberal" in this race or because a vote for a (liberal) black candidate would provide some sort of psychological comfort (Howie Carr, among others, has noted that "white guilt" has played a major role in Patrick’s political success to date).

The "Roving Camera" reaction to Patrick’s candidacy helps explain the demographic "imbalance" at Patrick’s Faneuil Hall rally: attendees were overwhelmingly white suburban liberals, and the crowd was less than 20 percent black. You can clearly see what’s going on: left-wing whites, motivated by either "white guilt" or a desire to see someone more liberal than Tom Reilly as the Democratic standard-bearer, showed up in droves to support Patrick, while left-wing blacks, consumed by cynicism, largely skipped the event.

One can be a staunch critic of Patrick’s platform and also be disturbed on some level by the racial paranoia that has caused his natural constituency to be so skeptical of his odds for success. Did these liberal blacks not see the liberal whites whose hearts gushed for Patrick? Did they not see the enthusiasm on their faces and feel the fervor in their souls? Do they believe that on primary day, there will be some prejudiced poltergeist, some Hail Mary pass of racism, that will make these white liberals get behind Reilly (or, if he’s on the ballot, Gabrieli)?

Patrick was right to be concerned about cynicism in Massachusetts. Such cynicism has already doomed his campaign in the eyes of the folks who should admire him the most.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, one of the state’s most powerful unions backs Reilly.

SECOND UPDATE: Left-wing Congressman Jim McGovern stands strong behind Patrick.

THIRD UPDATE: Some interesting comments from the progressive blog BlueMassGroup.com.