From Utah, with Love
By George F. Will
Published: Saturday, Sept. 22, 2012, 9:17 p.m.
SALT LAKE CITY
A specter is haunting the Congressional Black Caucus — integration.
It is discomforting enough that the now 43-member CBC has included a Republican since 2011, when Florida's Allen West became the first Republican to join the CBC since 1997. South Carolina's Tim Scott, also black, also came to Congress in 2011 but declined to join.
And soon a second might move in. There goes the neighborhood.
Mia Love, 37, is running against incumbent Democrat Jim Matheson, 52, in a district created when the 2010 census gave a fourth representative to this booming state.
Love is black but Haitian. She was born in Brooklyn in 1975 to immigrants who arrived with $10. On her father's wages as a janitor and a factory worker and her mother's as a housekeeper, she got through the University of Hartford. In Connecticut, she met her husband — he is a Mormon, as she now is and 62 percent of Utahans are.
Fourteen years ago, they moved to this state, where blacks were about 1 percent of the population before Love arrived and had three children. In 2009, she was elected mayor of Saratoga Springs, a suburb of 18,000 that grew 1,700 percent between its incorporation in 1997 and the housing crash in 2008, after which Mayor Love governed like this: When constituents said they needed a library, she found $10,000 and suggested volunteers do the rest: “I intended to see if they really wanted a library.” They have one.
Two-thirds of the voters in the new district have never voted for Matheson, whose home is not in the district. There is, however, no constitutional requirement that a representative live where he runs, and as a sixth-generation Utahan and the son of a popular two-term governor, he has considerable strengths as he seeks a seventh term.
Utah may be the most Republican state and Matheson is one of the Democrat congressmen representing especially Republican districts. But Utah has seemed to like having a token Democrat in its delegation in Washington, where Matheson, after graduating from Harvard, worked for Speaker Tip O'Neill. Matheson is a member of the dwindling Blue Dog caucus of moderate Democrats and voted against ObamaCare, cap-and-trade and the DREAM Act immigration measure for children of illegal immigrants. This year he voted to repeal ObamaCare (previously he voted against that) but has announced he will vote for Barack Obama.
Love is energetic and eclectically principled: If elected, she surely will be the only House member whose Kindle contains works by Frederic Bastiat, the French free-market thinker.
In this, one of the most racially and culturally homogenous states, the only uninteresting thing about Love is that she is black. This is not just progress; it is the destination toward which progress was directed during the brisk march to today's healthy indifference to the fact that Love would be the first black Republican woman ever in the House. Some “stalemate.”
In March 2008, in the speech ostensibly explaining the inexplicable — his 20 years in the pews of the raving Rev. Jeremiah Wright — candidate Barack Obama referred to “a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years.” Hardly.
He was then eight months from winning 43 percent of the white vote — two points more than John Kerry won four years earlier. Obama carried three states — three more than Kerry — of the Confederacy (Florida, Virginia and North Carolina). In states outside the South, Obama received substantially more white votes than any Democrat candidate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 — more than Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton or Al Gore. This is part of the “racial stalemate” in which Mississippi has more black elected officials — not more relative to population; more — than any other state.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.