Prometheus 6

Is this what we really want the nature of our politics to be? Clyburn decides to get in the race because Clinton insults the Civil Rights Movement? You've got to be kidding me. Six of the counties that he represents has a poverty rate double that of the rest of the nation...and he uses the one moment black people in South Carolina have to make their vote count to in effect ask Clinton to apologize?

This isn't about black churches or about shucking and jiving.

Scratch that. This IS about shucking and jiving.

But the wrong kind.  

he uses the one moment black people in South Carolina have to make their vote count to in effect ask Clinton to apologize?

Clyburn? Maybe.

Me, I want them to make their vote count by making it clear anyone who runs a racist campaign will be repudiated. And yes, I can define the racism.

Why do U-People always think everyone is a racist?
Well, everything in America is looked at through, measured in terms of, categorized and stored by race. So we know you have thoughts and opinions about us. Then we look at everything the society produces that depicts us. We consider that to be tangible evidence of the collective attitude. So now we know that the collective opinion of our race is negative.

This is a competitive disadvantage, and when our abilities are immediately discounted to the degree that we can be made to fit people's preconceptions as a tactic, we feel the tactitician and the one who executes the tactic is racist. When the tactic succeeds, we feel those who hold the preconceptions that were played on are racist.

I can't knock your opinion on this not just because it's your opinion and i understand it, but because you don't represent anyone but YOU. If that's what someone has to do to get YOUR vote, then cool.

But what about someone like Clyburn?

I don't give a damn about repudiation. Not in this electoral climate. I can get repudiation when the climate ain't as good.

What about someone like Brazile even?

Jesse and Al don't have constituencies and they trade in this stuff. They do what they do.

But the people who actually have REAL constituencies with REAL needs...and the people who get PAID to do this type of stuff for a living? They should be thinking a couple of steps ahead of the game. And part of that means--and I probably won't accurately convey what I'm trying to explain here--communicating your wishes to the press in a way that indicates you believe you are SERIOUS.

Clyburn and others are communicating their level of seriousness...but they are serious about symbols rather than substance. If they're doing this because on some level they don't think they (or black folk) can actually win, then they need to get out of the game.

I just sent something to Salon magazine about this. We'll see if they bite. 

Let's hope Salon likes it.

For what it's worth, I don't disagree with what you say. I still feel your definition of a constituency is narrow; I don't think a election is the only way to get one, just the only measurable way.

we have to use narrow (and measurable) definitions here in order to modernize black politics. If it isn't narrow we reproduce the broker-dynamic within black political life. and internally this is the biggest problem we have. people claiming to speak for constituencies that can't ever influence their behavior because they aren't "constituencies" in the modern sense. I'm not saying we should only be talking about congressional representatives. as far as I'm concerned an naacp chapter president has a constituency. 

i need to make some changes, but they're supposed to run it tomorrow. 

I'm not saying we should only be talking about congressional representatives. as far as I'm concerned an naacp chapter president has a constituency.

...that, as we have seen, cannot influence his behavior. Unless that constituency is the board...

we have to use narrow (and measurable) definitions here in order to modernize black politics.

I'm going to be honest...I'm not clear on what the intent is in modernizing Black politics. It sounds like an analysis has been done in venues I don't subscribe to. But if eliminating the broker dynamic is a major part of your goal, I believe It's going to take a LOT longer than you'd like.

Black folks need a deep understanding of the system to gain its benefits. You literally can't live long enough to figure it all out yourself. We need reliable brokers. But again, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same things at this point.

Do me a favor; hit me with the link on Salon when your article posts.

Local chapters of the NAACP can and do influence their local presidents. But they, just like other elected representatives, have outside constraints on their activity. Representation isn't sufficient, but it's necessary.

The intent in modernizing black politics is to give the different interests within black political circles more of a venue to express those differences, particularly on matters of policy. This increases popular participation. This SHOULD increase progressive public policy. At the very least it should increase the degree to which black elected officials SPEAK to progressive policy. And here I mean more than "affirmative action" and "anti-racial profiling statutes." what we have now is class politics FRONTING like black politics.

Black folks need a deep understanding of the system to gain its benefits. You literally can't live long enough to figure it all out yourself. We need reliable brokers. But again, I'm not even sure we're talking about the same things at this point.

The way this deep understanding occurs is through popular active participation. And organizing. I believe you linked to Grace Boggs' piece on the distinction between organizing and mobilizing. When popular participation occurs (what SNCC did in the south is an excellent example of this), we don't need brokers. You EARL cannot figure it out by yourself...but you, me, and interested others can do much more work (and get more benefits) than one self-interested unelected broker. Why do you think otherwise?

I don't think otherwise. I just note our most effective spokesmen and representatives weren't elected.

i think we've had this discussion before. who would they be?

Anyone pre-1964.

Yes, we've had the discussion before. 

yes.

i'd add one thing i don't think i added in that previous conversation that may be germain. medgar evers was an naacp leader (elected). martin luther king jr. was president of sclc (elected), and also pastor of his church (which is not elected but there are still mechanisms of removal). ella baker and fannie lou hamer are two individuals that fall outside of the model. john lewis and stokely carmichael were both elected officials in sncc. i don't know the background of diane nash and the ones responsible for the sitins, but with the creation of sncc they moved towards democratic accountability, and their politics were all about transparency and mass participation.

adolph reed makes the point that there is nothing to suggest that the victories we had during the civil rights movement could have come no other way (working on the assumption that the pre-64 model WAS largely non-representative).

we're supposed to be installing a copier with serious pdf making abilities. i'll forward you the essay that has helped to shape my thoughts on this issue. like i said at my spot, adolph reed's academic work can be hard to read buit it is important.

I hope the Clinton pay off to Stephanie Tubbs Jones is worth it. If Obama continues do well across the country, and the Clintons continue their smear campaign, a lot of black "politicians" who quickly and prominently jumped on the Clinton bandwagon will be feeling a lot of heat from their constituents. The Clintons managed to demean MLK and Nelson Mandela in one week. That shit's not just going to go away because a few surrogates like Tubbs Jones blame Obama.

adolph reed makes the point that there is nothing to suggest that the victories we had during the civil rights movement could have come no other way

And yet they DID happen as they did. That is a repercussion of the situation Black folks were in, and has repercussions of it own.

Let me lay off this until I get that Reed essay. Until then I'll allow for the possibility Reed has seen something I haven't. 

I hope the Clinton pay off to Stephanie Tubbs Jones is worth it.

Tubbs may see this as her repaying rather than the Clintons paying. You dance with the one what brung you, I understand that...

If Obama continues do well across the country, and the Clintons continue their smear campaign, a lot of black "politicians" who quickly and prominently jumped on the Clinton bandwagon will be feeling a lot of heat from their constituents.

You do get to live with the repercussions, though.

I'll make one more point then I'll wait until you can read the essay.

Just because events happened one way doesn't mean this was the only way they could have happened. if we work on this assumption we end up reifying modes of action instead of understanding them as being the consequence of constraints AND CHOICES. Even during Jim Crow, blacks COULD have acted another way to get the same results. We know they could not have voted formally for example because of racism. But they could have formed organizations that used more formal processes of figuring out what people wanted. I'm pretty sure for example that folks voted the night they decided to boycott in montgomery. that they voted when the question of whther to continue was raised.

What processes kept this from occurring? Montgomery is perfect to understand in some ways because when you actually look at it, the class interests at work are bright as day.

Just because events happened one way doesn't mean this was the only way they could have happened. if we work on this assumption we end up reifying modes of action instead of understanding them as being the consequence of constraints AND CHOICES.

No we don't. We can choose not to.

"It struck us, coming from a president that has stood by and championed so many issues that African Americans cared about -- at first blush it really did hit you the wrong way," Brazile said last night.

Do we have anyone out there who can identify those issues that Bill Clinton (and by implication, Hillary Clinton) championed? I keep reading this claim but no specifics are ever provided. What exactly did they do to become our honorary black couple?

the numbers of black homeowners rose, black jobless rates fell, and black political appointments increased.

and particularly given where we are now we shouldn't exactly ignore those figures.

but i think given where this debate is pitched none of that stuff matters. it's all about what they said, and how they feted black folks and made them feel. think about it. no one in the "we're offended" camp is connecting their racism to clinton's policies in office.

"these comments make sense given his passage of the omnibus crime control act."

"remember what he did to those sisters on welfare? hell yeah his comments make sense now."

when all everyone is talking about is rhetoric i'm not really sure how we should expect this to go anyway. 

the numbers of black homeowners rose,

After years of saving well prior to Clinton's arrival. Paid for with sub-prime mortgages, even when it wasn't necessary.

Not Clinton's fault? Then the increase is not their credit either.

black jobless rates fell,

As a result of the tech boom, actually. Again, this is not a Clinton credit.

and black political appointments increased.

The very folks defending the Clintons' right to use the Southern Strategy. I wonder how that happened?

Given the speculative quotes, I take it the "we're offended" camp is the Clintons'.

...the numbers of black homeowners rose...

I asked the question so I bear the responsibility but the rise in black homeownership was not the result of any changes in federal housing policy or programs offered by the Clinton Administration.

i think my sentiment for the clintons is well known (i don't have any). but unless we're willing to say that things just "up and got better" for reasons totally unrelated to government, we have to give some credit to the clinton administration for the relative success (relative compared to the previous administrations) the black middle class had.

Given the speculative quotes, I take it the "we're offended" camp is the Clintons'.

No. Didn't you link to Oliver Willis? Are his comments outliers? Is Donna Brazile an outlier here? Al Sharpton?

How did the tech boom decrease black jobless rates in places like Detroit? SF I can understand. NYC I can understand. 

unless we're willing to say that things just "up and got better" for reasons totally unrelated to government, we have to give some credit to the clinton administration for the relative success (relative compared to the previous administrations) the black middle class had.

I am NOT willing to say things just "up and got better" because they did NOT for a huge segment of the Black communities. I'm willing to say those that did get ahead worked their asses off for that, and I am NOT willing to give the Clintons an iota of credit for that.

Didn't you link to Oliver Willis? Are his comments outliers? Is Donna Brazile an outlier here? Al Sharpton?

Yeah, but I see complaints about Clinton policies. I don't think you need bitch about his politics if you're bitching about his policies. That's like a couple of kids fighting because they disagree about WHY they both dislike the same thing.

I don't remember anything Al said, but you gotta toss him in there I guess.

How did the tech boom decrease black jobless rates in places like Detroit? SF I can understand. NYC I can understand.

It's our function in this country. We're the capacitors in the economic circuitry. When the economy expands, we get hired. When it contracts, well, first hired, first fired. 

Spence,

The increase in the number of black homeowners was more the result of state and local government action, i.e., state housing finance agencies and local housing programs. The Clinton Administration and Fannie Mae, for example, got a free ride.

Housing for blacks in the penal system certainly went way up during the Clinton years.

I don't mean to make light of Dr. Spence's comments. I think it is important to give credit where credit is due. But I think the Clinton's have garnered far more credit than they deserve from the black community. Moreover, I think bill clinton deserves the lion's share of the credit (blame) for the last eight years of Bush. His self-indulgence poisoned the political atmosphere, and in a perverse way paved the way for Bush's theft of the election from Gore. Gore should have been elected by a substantial majority. Clinton's penis problem sent some folks fleeing to the Republican ranks while others just stayed at home.

PTC, one reason why the number of black homeowners increased in the aggregate is because they had more money to spend and because unemployment went down. Not all of this can be traced to the tech boom, as the types of jobs they generated were targeted (IMO). Further while I'd say states had a little to do with it, I wouldn't put too much on the states here given my impression that the homeowner rates increased across the nation as a whole. State policy may influence rates at the margins, but they can't explain the national rates--too many moving parts.

Ourstorian, even as Clinton played a role in helping black middle and upper income folks make loot he did a job on the black poor. He used black women as a reason to end welfare. And he used black men in his extension of the War on Drugs. Carjacking for example became a federal offense under Clinton's reign.

I am not the one to sing Clinton's praises. I didn't drink the koolaid at any point in his career. And just like I'm arguing we should do with Obama I acknowledged that he was being railroaded with the impeachment proceedings but didn't increase my support for him one bit. 

Dr. Spence,

Like you, I never drank the kool-aid. I'm just amazed at how many folks did, and how many are imbibing Hillary-aid today in some perverted desire to revisit the nineties. But those who want to restore and maintain the Clinton "fairy tale" are in for a tough fight ahead. The road through African America to the white house, a trip that the Clinton's had taken for granted, seems to be under reconstruction.

PTC, one reason why the number of black homeowners increased in the aggregate is because they had more money to spend and because unemployment went down.

Maybe, but one could also argue that the expansion of suburbia, with blacks moving into the homes in the first and second older suburban rings formerly occupied by whites, also was an important factor. In other words, blacks benefited from an economic policy that was designed to replace or make-up for the country's manufacturing decline by expanding its suburbs. Whites moved further away from the cities and blacks (and Hispanics, Pacific Asians etc.) moved into these older suburbs.

I was not suggesting that state governments per se had much influence on housing policy and the rates of homeownership, but state agencies and authorities that provide low interest loans to low wealth individuals and households have a tremendous amount of influence in this area. They sell housing bonds on Wall Street to investors and use the proceeds from these bonds to provide low interest loans to qualified first time homebuyers.