New Interethnic Conflict Replaces an L.A. History of Biracial Politics : Minorities: The black-white alliance that dominated Los Angeles politics is giving way to emerging groups of Latinos, Asians and blacks.

For the last three decades, the racial politics of Southern California--like much of the nation--revolved around black-white issues. But today this biracial focus is being supplanted by a kaleidoscopic politics reflecting an increasingly diverse population.

The rise of various ethnic groups, predominantly Asian and Latino, foreshadows the end of the traditional biracial alliance among white liberals, downtown corporate interests and blacks that has controlled Los Angeles politics for 20 years. In the process, now dominant Anglo and black elites will be forced to surrender some power to the emerging ethnic groups.

A successful political formula for the 1990s will rely on development of a civic vision encompassing varied minorities. These range from racial minorities such as Latinos and Asians, to a handful of growing “Anglo” groups, including Russian Jews, Israeli Jews and Armenians.

For Los Angeles’ African-Americans, who have gained considerable political power--at least in the city--the changing demography could present a powerful challenge. When Tom Bradley was elected mayor in 1973, said former Deputy Mayor Michael Gage, blacks represented 16% of the city’s population and more than one-fifth of the voters; today, they account for only 12% of the population and 18% of the voters.

County-wide, the relative decline of the black position is more obvious. Blacks, according to projections by the county’s Department of Health Services, are the third largest nonwhite ethnic bloc in Los Angeles, roughly 11% of the population, compared to Asians with more than 12% and Latinos with nearly 34%.

In the 1990s, this process should accelerate. According to county projections, the local black population should remain fairly stagnant--at roughly 1 million. In contrast, Latinos will increase by 1 million and Asians by more than 500,000.

These numbers will, over time, make it particularly difficult for those who rely heavily on a black electoral base. Gage and others even forecast that black representation on the City Council could drop in the 1990s--from the current three to two or even one seat.

“In the 1960s and 1970s, blacks owned the ball in Los Angeles,” said Rev. H.P. Rachal, pastor of the Greater United Baptist Church and a prominent community leader. “Then the Mexicans came in riding our coattails. Then came the Koreans. By the 1990s, we will have a Latino mayor. They’ll control the school district--it will be a war between them and the Asians for power. Blacks will be lost in the shuffle.”

In Los Angeles, such a decline in political power could have long-term economic impact. Like the Irish in eastern cities, blacks here used political prowess to bolster their economic status. In 1980, for example, nearly one-fifth of black workers and managers in Los Angeles worked for the government--roughly three times the percentage for Latinos and Asians. During his years at City Hall, Gage observed a quiet but intensifying struggle over patronage between blacks and the rising nonwhite ethnic groups.

Some, however, downplay interethnic conflict, seeing in the rise of Asian and Latino influence the possibility of a new alliance of “Third World,” nonwhite Angelenos that could dominate the city. Popularized by campus radicals in the 1960s, this ideology is dear to both doctrinaire left-wingers and community organizers in black, Latino and Asian communities; they see racism and economic deprivation as a unifying theme.

Yet economic and cultural differences among the communities make such an alliance improbable. The black and Latino blocs might mutually suffer discrimination and deprivation but do not share the same attitude toward the region’s changing economy and demography.

Many blacks, for example, regard the growing, immigrant-based Latino population as a threat. Recent polls consistently find blacks here more alarmed over immigration--its impact on jobs and availability of social services--than any other major ethnic group. One recent statewide sampling found nearly three in five blacks saying that the state is taking in “too many” immigrants--more than 10% higher than among whites.

This conflict among nonwhites, however, is no one-way affair. The Los Angeles Times Poll showed that Southern California Latinos and Asians are far more likely than whites to think blacks prefer being on welfare to taking a job.

The tensions between nonwhites are perhaps most clear in South-Central Los Angeles, long the center of black life in Southern California. Today, the Broadway shopping district, once a center of black-owned enterprises, is crowded with little Latino-owned stores. Many of the area’s convenience markets and liquor stores are owned by Asian immigrants, something resented within the community.

“As the immigrants come in, the black community becomes the target for their economic advance,” according to Danny Bakewell, head of the Brotherhood Crusade, a South-Central self-help group. “It’s like everyone who pulls themselves up does it to some extent with our bootstraps.”

This is perhaps an inevitable conflict. Immigrant entrepreneurs, often lacking advantages of Anglo businessmen, usually target underdeveloped or less desirable business locales such as South-Central. At the same time, many Asian immigrants--particularly Koreans and Chinese--arrive well-prepared for success in terms of education, as well as an often powerful family and ethnic cohesion.

Although not new, black concerns about Latinos and Asians have been largely unreported. This reflects, in part, a desire by leaders in both communities to prevent, in the words of Sergio Munoz, executive editor of La Opinion, a repetition here of “Miami-type problems.” That Florida city has been wracked by severe conflicts between Latinos and blacks.

But in the more complex ethnic politics of Los Angeles, black and Latino disputes are only one of many reactions to the region’s demographic changes. Many whites, for example, also feel threatened by forces that will make them a minority in the county by the mid-1990s. Racist reactions, long associated with anti-black feelings, now focus on Latinos and Asians.

In cities such as Monterey Park and Westminster, where Asian immigration has been particularly marked, some whites supported local attempts to restrict Asian-language signs and other expressions of non-European culture.

But in the new kaleidoscopic Los Angeles, even conventional images of what is “Anglo” may have changed. Today, Caucasians in Los Angeles increasingly have Middle Eastern and East European antecedents. Southern California’s Jewish and Armenian populations together account for close to 1 million people, a number sure to increase in the 1990s as a result of the Soviet Union’s liberalized emigration policies.

With strong entrepreneurial orientation and short U.S. lineage, these whites could find more common cause with other newcomers than with the Establishment. Jews, according to a Times poll, are twice as likely to view immigrants positively as non-Jewish whites.

Indeed, for all the simmering conflicts, there are already some examples, mostly at the community level, of multi-ethnic coalitions. In South-Central Los Angeles, Latinos and blacks in the Southern California Organizing Committee are working together on housing and other economic issues. Similarly, Asians and Latinos near downtown have organized a common effort against future prison construction in the area. And in Monterey Park, a new generation of political and community leaders is breaking down barriers between long-time Anglo residents and predominately Asian immigrants.

These developments suggest that on a host of issues, including education, community development and environment, there exists common ground for Los Angeles’ myriad ethnic groups. Although few local political leaders now seem to understand this, the future may belong to those who best transcend the old biracial model in favor of new coalitions built on the diversity of the emerging Los Angeles kaleidoscope.