Payday lenders and other corporations that specialize in predatory lending have only one really useful argument in defending their business practices, and it goes like this: They provide a public service by catering to the “unbanked” and other financially underserved communities–i.e., those discriminated against by white banks that won’t make loans to African Americans. Without payday or other subprime lenders, they argue, many poor minorities would have no way of buying homes or keeping their lights on in an emergency.

It’s a seductive argument, in part because it’s based on a kernel of truth. Black Americans in particular have indeed been shut out of mainstream banks for decades. But as Corbett notes, loans with 300 percent interest rates are hardly a desirable alternative. Nonetheless, the subprime and payday loan industries have been somewhat successful in fending off stricter regulation, in large part because they have recruited African Americans and civil rights groups to make the argument for them.

I can only think of two groups that need a black leader:

a. Journalists who want an easy way to get the “black perspective” on today’s story.

b. People who want approval or forgiveness for something that’s racially questionable, like the way that whenever Leno tells a racial joke, the camera always cuts to Kevin Eubanks laughing.

These roles exist because of a demand for them, and whatever happens in this election, the demand will still exist. In an Obama administration, I expect Leno will still tell racial jokes and cut to Kevin Eubanks to let the white audience know they’re allowed to laugh, and the next celebrity to go on a drunken racist rant that ends up on Youtube will need someone to “accept his apology” just after the check clears. The talking head shows on TV will still need to have someone to represent “the black point of view” in the made-up controversy of the week.