Invitations to the Dance

In this chapter, I argue that the impact of the Obama presidency is best gauged not by examining shortfalls in Obama’s overt advocacy for race conscious policies but, rather, by examining what Obama did to assert that Black representatives should be more concerned about the enactment of legislation that advances Black progress than about credit claiming via overt advocacy. To illustrate, I examine select public speeches by Obama, White House documents, and press accounts to outline the Obama administration’s engagement with the Congressional Black Caucus and other elites over Black unemployment. Subsequent political clashes showcased Black dismay that a Black executive had not delivered tangible race-specific benefits, White fear that a Black president would practice racial favoritism, and an intergovernmental struggle between the executive and legislative branches over who should control employment policy. These clashes best illustrate how the “inclusionary dilemma” required Obama to utilize a complex engagement strategy with Black Americans to navigate Black dismay about job creation and to outline his socio-cultural-economic policy agenda. In the conclusion, I discuss how Obama used his final days in office to prepare the Obama coalition for the Trump presidency and to warn Black voters and Black elites about privileging style over substance.

Incorporation is Not Enough: The Agenda Influence of Black Lawmakers in Congressional Committees

Traditionally, scholars argue that the committee structure is central to the policymaking process in congress, and that those that wield the gavel in committees enjoy a great deal of influence over the legislative agenda. The most recent iterations of Congress are more diverse than ever before. With 55 members—of whom, five chair full committees and 28 sit atop subcommittees—the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is in a place to wield a significant leverage over the legislative agenda in the 116th Congress. However, noticeable proportional gains in minority membership in Congress have yet to produce sizable policy gains for the communities they represent. An examination of bill sponsorship from the 103rd–112th congresses reveals underlying institutional forces—i.e., marginalization and negative agenda setting—leave Black lawmakers at a distinct disadvantage compared to their non-black counterparts. Bills in policy areas targeted by the CBC are subject to disproportionate winnowing in congressional committees. Unfortunately, a number of institutional resources often found to increase a bill's prospects—including placements and leadership on committees with jurisdiction over policy areas of interest—are relatively ineffective for CBC members looking to forward those key issues onto the legislative agenda.

Killing America’s Children

This chapter examines Turkey’s role in the US heroin epidemic of the late 1960s and early 1970s and explains how this issue complicated American attitudes and policies toward Ankara. It focuses on the nature of the epidemic and the misunderstanding, generated in part by popular films, regarding Turkey’s responsibility. It elaborates on the drug policy of the Nixon administration, as well as Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit’s decision to renew poppy cultivation and the bitter American response, including measures to punish Turkey. It examines the involvement of key political figures, such as Representative Lester Wolff, Senator Walter Mondale, and Charles Rangel, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, in the movement toward embargo.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) is a Congressional Member Organization, namely a coalition of members of Congress that includes representatives and senators who have Hispanic descent. Originally nonpartisan and today composed of only members of the Democratic Party, this group aims to give voice to and advance the interests of the Hispanic population of the United States in the context of the national legislature. The creation of the caucus as a legislative service organization in 1976, reflected the increasing relevance, enfranchisement, and incorporation of Hispanics into the political life of the United States; it was then celebrated by analysts and activists as an important event in the process of the representation of a demographic group that had been politically marginalized for most of the 20th century. In subsequent years, however, the caucus faced difficulties in striving to take coordinated and noteworthy legislative action and failed to attract much scholarly attention. Analysts who compared the Congressional Hispanic Caucus with the previously created Congressional Black Caucus, for example, often underlined the heterogeneity of the CHC membership, its lower level of cohesion, and its low legislative success record. Nevertheless, this has been changing recently: a new generation of scholars is introducing different perspectives to study the activities of minority congresspersons. The new wave of studies has revealed more complex ways to assess the importance of the work that the caucus and its members do. Beyond the record of modest legislative achievements, it is clear that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has been able to lobby presidents to appoint Hispanics to executive positions and has exerted influence in some immigration debates and bills. Furthermore, it has advanced the institutionalization of initiatives to educate Hispanic leaders (through the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, CHCI) and provided coalitional support to newly elected Hispanic congresspersons. Overall, the caucus has contributed to the fundamental task of advancing legislative agendas that reflect the interests of Hispanics in the Congress.