Talking about Is Obama the End of Black Politics? This is what troubles me.
This exchange between the two Jacksons hinted at a basic generational divide on the question of what black leadership actually means. Black leaders who rose to political power in the years after the civil rights marches came almost entirely from the pulpit and the movement, and they have always defined leadership, in broad terms, as speaking for black Americans. They saw their job, principally, as confronting an inherently racist white establishment, which in terms of sheer career advancement was their only real option anyway. For almost every one of the talented black politicians who came of age in the postwar years, like James Clyburn and Charles Rangel, the pinnacle of power, if you did everything right, lay in one of two offices: City Hall or the House of Representatives. That was as far as you could travel in politics with a mostly black constituency. Until the 1990s, even black politicians with wide support among white voters failed in their attempts to win statewide, with only one exception (Edward Brooke, who was elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 1966). On a national level, only Jesse Jackson was able to garner a respectable number of white votes, muscling open the door through which Obama, 20 years later, would breezily pass.
This newly emerging class of black politicians, however, men (and a few women) closer in age to Obama and Jesse Jr., seek a broader political brief. Comfortable inside the establishment, bred at universities rather than seminaries, they are just as likely to see themselves as ambassadors to the black community as they are to see themselves as spokesmen for it, which often means extolling middle-class values in urban neighborhoods, as Obama did on Father’s Day. Their ambitions range well beyond safely black seats.
Why does this disturb me? Because it was predicted by Martin Luther King Jr. in an essay titled Black Power Defined.
The white establishment is skilled in flattering and cultivating emerging leaders. It presses its own image on them and finally, from imitation of manners, dress and style of living, a deeper strain of corruption develops. This kind of Negro leader acquires the white man's contempt for the ordinary Negro. He is often more at home with the middle-class white than he is among his own people. His language changes, his location changes, his income changes, and ultimately he changes from the representative of the Negro to the white man into the white man's representative to the Negro. The tragedy is that too often he does not recognize what has happened to him.
I am now recalculating the odds in favor of another lost generation. The gut check says they've increased. Because you have responsibility for Black folk being assigned to a cadre of ambitious folk who are specifically stating they are not interested in the job.
When I asked Booker if he considered himself a leader of the black community, he seemed to freeze for a moment. “I’m Popeye,” he replied finally. “I am what I am.” He paused again, then tried to explain.
“I don’t want to be pigeonholed,” he said. “I don’t want people to expect me to speak about those issues.” By this, presumably, he meant issues that revolve around race: profiling by police, incarceration rates, flagging urban economies. “I want people to ask me about nonproliferation. I want them to run to me to speak about the situation in the Middle East.” Since the mayor of Newark is rarely called upon to discuss such topics, I got the feeling that Booker does not see himself staying in his current job for anything close to 20 years. “I don’t want to be the person that’s turned to when CNN talks about black leaders,” he said.
Mayor Booker, you ran for the position of New Black Leader of Newark just as surely as the Moses imagery in John McCain's ad harkens back to slave imagery in Southern minds. Your JOB is to speak about those issues. I understand ambition; I know you git in where you fit in. But I also know Mayor of Newark is a stepping stone for you. That this is not the job you want.
Jesse Jackson Jr. warned his colleagues in the black caucus of the risks of shunning Obama’s candidacy, reminding them of the political aftermath of Jesse Jackson Sr.’s campaigns in the 1980s. Back then, too, most black Congressional Democrats sided with the white presidential candidates, and Jackson carried many of their districts in 1984 and virtually all of them in 1988, driving up voter registration in the process. A result, over the next few election cycles, was a flurry of primary challenges, the retirement or defeat of several incumbents and the arrival in Washington of a new class of black congressmen, including James Clyburn. Jackson’s message was clear: even if Obama lost, there could be a cost for opposing him.
It is so obviously not the end of Black Politics. In a way it validates some of Clarence Thomas' decisions...difference being, he sold out and these gentlemen have bought in. The motivation is strictly personal in both cases. And I don't want these gentlemen to be seen or spoken of as Black leaders, socially or politically, any more than they do themselves.
“If Obama is president, it will no longer be tenable to go to the white community and say you’ve been victimized,” Artur Davis told me. “And I understand the poverty and the condition of black America and the 39 percent unemployment rate in some communities. I understand that. But if you go out to the country and say you’ve been victimized by the white community, while Barack Obama and Michelle and their kids are living in the White House, you will be shut off from having any influence.”
If you can't complain while Barack and Michelle are in the White House, you think you'll be able to complain when they leave?
And suppose (suppose?) white women feel victimized. Will they be able to complain while Barack and Michelle are in the White House?
You know damn well Angry White Men will complain while Barack and Michelle are in the White House.
How about Asians? Can they complain about how racial preferences prevent them from being accepted in the most prestigeous schools in the numbers their test scores justify, while Barack and Michelle are in the White House?
American Indians...will they have to stop complaining how their trust fund was raided while Barack and Michelle are in the White House?
You see, the discussion has nothing to do with Black folks. The people who are in the path of it have no influence to lose, not on the field Davis is playing on. Apparently the generational move is to go for yours.
At least my generation thought we were breaking new ground for Black people and America instead of just ourselves.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Write an editorial
You should seriously consider writing a letter to the New York Times about this. You're a good writer and should be able to put this into a form they'll publish. You make excellent points that I think need to be heard broader than on your blog.
Jeanne
http://www.writeousness.com
http://quakerclass.blogspot.com
Once again, the political
Once again, the political capital of the black electorate is being used by people who are quite open in asserting that it is not their responsibility to address any of the political demands of the black electorate. If Corey Booker, for example, does not want to be the go-to-guy on inner-city issues then perhaps he should have remained in the majority white suburbs where he grew up and launched his political career from whatever political base he could have cobbled together there on his behalf.
I understand that these folks have larger ambitions and they would prefer not to be permanently assigned to the black seat. Their current posture, however, seems disingenuous in the extreme given that their political ascendancy (and celebrity) was made possible because they found more secure footing for their own ambitions among black voters. Now they will use the legitimate aspirational desires of these same voters to move on to higher office while denying any responsibility for addressing issues that have disproportionate effect on African Americans.
It has become commonplace to the point of cliche to talk about the alleged generational divide among blacks on the question of what black leadership means. The existence of this alleged divide is only possible if one assumes that those of us who are consigned to the box labeled "Civil Rights Generation" were always of one mind and one view. We never were. There were always divisions among us over the most pressing questions of the period and that included international affairs as well.
Artur Davis and other aspiring black politicians who share his views appear to be little more than younger versions of those who I have described elsewhere as being "second line inheritors" of the Civil Rights Movement. That is, those who attained political power less as a result of any sacrifices or risk they took but, rather, because they positioned themselves to take advantage of the opportunities created by the sacrifices and risks that others in their generation took. What exactly, for example, did Tom Bradley do or not do to rise to the rank of lieutenant in the notoriously racist Los Angeles Police Department and why did that department's behavior remain essentially unchanged during his four terms as mayor?
These are not radical or extremists questions because they go straight to the heart of this issue. If the Tom Bradleys and Artur Davises do not address the needs of the black electorate then what actual purpose is served by the black electorate in supporting their quests for political office? If electing Obama to the White House means that we get nothing more than a payoff on our aspirational desires and we understand and accept that reality, then we have no further complaint. If, however, we believe that he has a duty to address our issues because we have supported his candidacy then we have every right to make our views known and to demand attention. Every other group in America - business, labor, attorneys, Hispanics, Jews, women, faith-based organizations etc. - will have their hands out because it is the American way. Are we suddenly less American because a black family lives in the White House?
Jeanne: Thank you. I think
Jeanne:
Thank you. I think it would take about two hours to do an editorial quality response if that were all I was doing. It might take a little longer to get the point across without hurting anyone's feelings.
I've come to the conclusion I need to publish in an officially recognized way, training for which is part of the book review surge.
P6 and ptcruiser
Hope you guys don't mind, but I posted P6's post and ptcruiser's response over in another thread at stltoday.com.
I understand Booker's point
I understand Booker's point to the extent that black folks are concerned about international issues, too.
But, you're right, ptc. If he didn't want to speak for black people, he should've stayed in the white suburbs where he was.
And how is it that all these new "black" leaders don't wanna be pigeonholed. Doesn't that by its very nature mean they aren't the new leaders of the black community. Or is it that white America is in such a hurry to not have to answer for racism? Who asked them to pick out our "leaders" for us?
no1kstate,
no1kstate,
I am less worried about whites trying to pick our leaders than I am about our failure to select more effective leaders who are genuinely committed to serving our interests, which in many important respects, is not that much different from what most folks in this country want at least on the domestic front.
In addition, I don't want to give the impression that someone like Corey Booker is not busting his tail to make Newark a more liveable city.
What are you going to do
What are you going to do when folks misrepresent? Did any single one of the "new jacks" run on an "I'm not the Black representative" platform? Sadly, is this not exactly what Sharpe James said of Booker?
Hell, the only reason this doesn't piss me off about Obama is that he did run on an "I'm not the Black representative" platform.
No problem. Anytime. What i
No problem. Anytime. What i wrote, however, should not seen as a response to P6. I read what he wrote and then I riffed off it. What Br. Wynton calls a "democratic conversation."
Cory Booker, I actually
Cory Booker, I actually like. With the exemption of his whole making kids speak "proper" English thing I heard on Oprah, I actually like him and think he's much better for Neward than James Sharpe.
That said, with all these new leaders, I don't remember blacks nationally showing a preference for any of them. We do vote politically for the most viable candidates who at least won't make things worse. But that's not the same as expecting someone to be an advocate for the community. I think that's the attitude towards Obama. He's black. He's better than the Clintons. The Clintons ran their mouths too much. But he's not an "advocate." You know?
*SIGH*
It's not the end, it's the evolution...
Black politicians:
You understand my complaint
You understand my complaint though, right?
The author of the Times
The author of the Times piece failed to mention Doug Wilder and Carol Moseley Braun. But I do not agree this new generation of Black politicians are 'sellouts', or that their successes signal an end to 'Black' politics.
Elected officials and people seeking public office employ a different calculus than activists, for the former speak to a different audience. Activists' constituencies are comparably narrower in scope and focus. Jesse Jackson, Sr.'s campaigns in '84 and '88 were successful in places like West Virginia because he identified a point at which many White and Black voters found common cause.
Had he attempted to run as The Black Candidate, his candidacy would have never left the ground.
I do believe what we're witnessing with the new jacks is a move away from addressing the underclass. That's what distinguishes many of the previous generation's pols from Obama, et al.. Again, I think the contemporaries are simply adjusting to an emerging real politik amongst Black voters who identify themselves in economic rather than ethnic/racial terms.
Straight up: we're talking
Straight up: we're talking about guys running for office to represent Black people.
Find me one guy in the article who doesn't represent a majority-Black district, city, whatever.
All of them are saying they don't want to be 'pigeon-holed' into dealing with "those issues."
Did I miss anything?
How is this okay, that people elected to represent Black folks declare they don't want to deal with Black folks' issues? Don't talk to me about their ambitions...talk to me about the job they ran to do.
See, P6, folks like MIB
See, P6, folks like MIB clearly refuse to address the issue that when these so-called new black politicians begin running for office that they almost never make the sort of explicit argument to the black electorate that MIB and others who share such views assert. I have never in my life seen or heard of a black politician - even the illustrious Willie L. Brown, Jr. - appear before members of the black electorate and say that they will not focus a lot of attention on the issues and problems of the black underclass.
The reason they don't is because the black middle and professional classes will not vote for any black candidate who makes such a declaration. We will not throw our poorer cousins under the bus no matter how much folks like MIB think we are gearing up for that possibility. If MIB thinks I'm wrong then I would invite that person to post a message over at Jack and Jill Politics declaring that we, blacks who are making it, need to move on and let folks in the ghetto stay in the ghetto. I guarantee you MIB will get flamed.
I agree with you, P6 and
I agree with you, P6 and ptc.
But, as far as MIB, some surveys have shown a trend of African Americans self-identifying based on social class rather than race. That said, yes, I feel we're loathe to leave our less fortunate brethen behind. If for no other reason than that we're judged based on them anyway. So, it's in our interest to improve their lot.
And yeah. One of the reasons Nikki Tinkin or whatever in Tennesse is having to run such an embarrasing, Republican-like campaign is that the white incombant has been good on black issues. It's not skin-color we vote on. It's issues. And if these new black leaders actually said to the electorate they weren't concerned with "black" issues, if they said to the electorate what they're saying to NYTimes, they'd lose.
And, I'm a bit confused. How can they be the new voices of the black community if they're explicit about not speaking for the black community. What do white people take us for? A bunch of monkey idiots? We're not the ones who voted for Bush. Twice.
What do white people take us
There were no white folks making assertions in that article (except Matt Bai...you can't write The Official Recap in America's newspaper of record without making assertions).
"But, as far as MIB, some
"But, as far as MIB, some surveys have shown a trend of African Americans self-identifying based on social class rather than race."
Some surveys may show this trend but there is no survey I know of where a black politician or aspiring black politician publicly announces, prior to being elected, that he or she intends to ignore poor black people or not focus on the problems of the inner-city.
Some surveys may show this
Oh, I absolutely agree.
Yes, P6... I believe you're
Yes, P6... I believe you're not reading the Black voters who are electing these a-racial Black pols to office. There are A LOT of (ostensibly) Black people who'd rather do nothing more than assimiliate into Americana as seemlessly as possible. They reject race as a political reality.
Once again, I do not agree the ascendancy of Obama, Nutter, Fenty, etc., represent the death of 'Black politics' vis-a-vis a voice in public policy. Neither is there a rift among new jacks and Stage I Boomers over who's in charge. Those assumptions are gross oversimplifications of Black real politik. IMO, we're witnessing an expansion of Black voices to include people who derive their identity from economic class.
"I have never in my life seen or heard of a black politician... appear before members of the black electorate and say that they will not focus a lot of attention on the issues and problems of the black underclass."
It's not my contention that there are Black politicians who voice such pronouncements, pt. But they don't have to. They can simply avoid the issue -- as exemplified by some of the pols we're talking about. Judging by the successes among Black voters of the new jacks, I'd say the strategy works.
I believe you're not reading
I understand that.
I deal in physical reality, of which political reality is a small, small subset. And I'm not reporting on what Black folks think here.
I'm asking why is it okay? And does avoiding the issue help the people they are supposed to represent?
If I were to comment on what Black folks think, I'd remind them all pretending race is irrelevant WHILE NO ONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY DOES is at the root of the 'lost generation' problem and call them fools. It's what got us in our current collective condition...being lumped together by the USofA while straddling a class divide that yawns wider in the Black communities than anywhere else.
Artur Davis lives in the heart of ther Confederacy. Who uses loaded terminology like "say you've been victimized" but Conservatives and Confederates? He's into racial harmony (another Confederate term) instead of racial justice
And again,
suppose white women feel victimized. Will they be able to complain while Barack and Michelle are in the White House?
White Men? Asians? American Indians? Latinos? Will they have to stop complaining while Barack and Michelle are in the White House? Why the special condition placed on Black people? And are you defending it or do you just not see it as a special condition placed on Black people?
Who is stupid enough to believe it's Black people's actions that started and perpetuates the racial and political reactions everyone is trying to NOT have fall on them?
All those fools are Black, apparently. Because I'm looking at all these in-groups pulling together to assert their collective rights and I see Black folks trying to disperse.
"Because I'm looking at all
"Because I'm looking at all these in-groups pulling together to assert their collective rights and I see Black folks trying to disperse."
Say it again!
One more thing. If Artur
One more thing. If Artur Davis and other folks want to seek higher political office along routes that are most advantageous to them that is okay. What they cannot be allowed to do is exploit the legitimate and understandable aspirational desires of the black electorate and its political capital for their personal ambitions without delivering tangible benefits to these constituents.
"I deal in physical
"I deal in physical reality..."
But race is a purely political construct. A distinct subset of American (and perhaps, global) politics, to boot. And politics is about the distribution of resources. Therefore, the primary obligation of each politician to his constituency -- regardless of its demographics -- is to provide access to the system whereby resources can be controlled. Black people have access -- in fact, we've got more access than ever before. (Whether we have sufficient access is another matter.) I can't place enough emphasis on how it's incumbent upon Black voters to exercise their franchise. At the same time, it's self-evident that when and where Blacks are electing pols who avoid 'Black issues', such voters have different priorities.
Is it 'okay'? I don't see it as a question of propriety or integrity. I agree that for a Black pol to conspicuously dodge racial matters appears, at the very least, cynical. But I can't help from thinking most of what is commonly referenced as 'Black politics' really has nothing to do one identifying themselves as Black, and therefore represents a psychological trap of sorts. The smartest move may be not to play along.
But race is a purely
Yet you discuss participating in Black politics as a "psychological trap."
"Smartest" gauged by maximum personal benefit, right? That makes Clarence Thomas fucking brilliant.
Making the commentary these gentlemen make is NOT abstaining from race politics. It is, in fact, playing a very specific race-political role.
"Making the commentary these
"Making the commentary these gentlemen make is NOT abstaining from race politics. It is, in fact, playing a very specific race-political role."
One more time!
I Forgot To Add
"What they cannot be allowed to do is exploit the legitimate and understandable aspirational desires of the black electorate and its political capital for their personal ambitions without delivering tangible benefits to these constituents."
And part of their aspirational desires, as demonstrated by how they expend their political capital, is that they want to see their poorer "cousins" given an opportunity to rise from generations of poverty that is largely due to decades of overt and covert racial discrimination and the expropriation and diversion of the value of the taxes, fees etc. that African Americans, as a group, have paid for generations.
There were no white folks
Sure, but I've heard that idea all throughout the mainstream media.
And, personally, I take issue with the idea that the best way to advance myself is to pretend I have no race. Not only is it not true that I have not race, it's patently unjust. Everyone else gets to have some sort of cultural/ethnic pride. Why not African Americans? Just because it makes everyone else uncomfortable? Just because it makes everyone else question their own accomplishments knowing that those achievements came at the expense of oppression? Tough.
It's like the difference between racial harmony and racial justice that P6 mentions. What white people want is for African Americans to quit complaining. What black people want is an end to racism. And once our blackness does not work against us, we'll quit complaining.
It's intellectually dishonest to act as though race has no reality beyond personal imagination.
"Everyone else gets to have
"Everyone else gets to have some sort of cultural/ethnic pride. Why not African Americans? Just because it makes everyone else uncomfortable?"
no1kstate -
You should have been around back in the day when some black people, not all or most, began talking about learning Swahili. You would have thought they had proposed building a fleet of space ships to take black people to another planet given the hysterical and derisive response from some whites and black Anglo-Saxons.
Hujambo! Habari gani. I took
Hujambo! Habari gani.
I took 3 semesters of Swahili and that's just about all I remember clearly.
But yeah. People get so hysterical, it would be funny if some new oppression weren't so close behind. I just get frustrated with having to adjust to other people's fears and politics. It was fine in high school when I wanted to get enough scholarship money to pay for college. It's just tired now.
That's what's so frustrating about the notion of an end to "black politics." I've heard it described as "grievance politics." But how is that mainstream America, white America, gets to describe our politics and determine when it ends? Do they not see the inherent white supremacy in that?
I mean really. They do this, and meanwhile mock us for naming their white supremacy as just that.
"Do they not see the
"Do they not see the inherent white supremacy in that?"
I think we need to give up the prospect of getting them to see anything at all. I suspect that is how so many of our ancestors were able to survive and not go crazy prior to the legal abolishment of state sanctioned racial segregation. I know that my paternal and maternal grandparents and their brothers and sisters steadfastly refused to discuss these issues with whites period. Even ones they were convinced were not racists.
"Do they not see the
I think those that look do see it. But consider there are systems integral to this society that assume Black people are lesser, flawed. And since most people really don't look outside their circle I don't think most white folks (that would be 51-85% of them) care one way or the other about Black folk. They just want the society they depend on to keep working dependably.
Well, I know appealing to
Well, I know appealing to white America's sense of morality won't work. Obviously, they don't see. And don't want to. For me, the issue isn't so much getting them to see. But the notion that the blind should lead the seeing.
So what's left? For the sake of survival, it's fine to have some black politicians playing the game and winning. Everyone has "people on the inside," as it were. And Obama may indeed be playing the game. His record on issues important to the black community is much more substantial than his rhetoric.
That said. We still need the agitators. Full disclosure, I have chronic fatigue syndrome, so my contribution to the cause is limited for the time being. Otherwise, I'd be kinda like a younger, more radical version of the Representative from DC. Or maybe a 21st century Ella Barker. I'll just "play the game" long enough and well enough to get my doctorates. I don't think I'd go into politics, though. I'd rather be outside the system ala MLK.
We all know of the necessity of being bi-cultural. The Black community is concerned with things like foreign relations and taxes and other issues not labeled "black." So, to some extent, the move into mainstream politics makes sense. However, they can't leave the Community, especially those members that make up their constituency behind.
In other news, I'm pleased to announce that my greataunt, who previously declined to tell much of family history because there were some things we wouldn't want to know, has had a change of heart. Just today, she told that having grown up with a white family, my great-grandfather didn't understand why everyone was so shook up about integration. The idea that whites were superior to blacks was ludicrous to him. The family he lived with treated him like they treated their white sons.
Except for dinner when he had to eat at the nigger table by himself in the kitchen. He left the family when he was 23 even though they begged him to stay and offered to build him a house on their land. Now, this is at the beginning of the 1900s. His mother had him living with and working for the white family to help support his family after his father had left them. Not even my greataunt knew about the nigger table until my great-grandfather was about to die and so decided to tell his children those stories he had protected them from. After having read Slavery by Another Name, you can imagine what I'm thinking.
"Yet you discuss
"Yet you discuss participating in Black politics as a 'psychological trap'."
In the context of what passes for Black politics, yes. You'd be hard-pressed to locate a post-80s Black politician who's had success espousing progressive rhetoric in predominantly Black districts. But let's not mistake style for substance. Any of these politicians can campaign one way and govern another.
I didn't say race wasn't real. I said it was a political construct. And like all constructs, there are rules involved; some of which can be bent, and others ignored. Certainly you understand Black public officials have to negotiate a far more intricate landscape of (sometimes) competiting interests than activists, just to get in position to help anyone. The fact of the matter is as no1kstate alluded -- politicians and activists have different roles to play. Both are needed. Both have their place.
I didn't say race wasn't
Nope. Race comes prior to all politics. That's your error, reducing it to politics. and your other error is reducing politics to a job.
Again, I'm talking physical facts, not spinning a plausible story.
We'll have to disagree here,
We'll have to disagree here, P6.
I believe this is an example of you wanting to have things one way. But it's the other way (h/t: Marlo Stanfield).
"You'd be hard-pressed to
"You'd be hard-pressed to locate a post-80s Black politician who's had success espousing progressive rhetoric in predominantly Black districts."
Please explain what you mean here. I don't know of any black politicians representing predominantly black districts who have had success declaring their intentions to abandon the core interests and concerns of the black electorate. Albert Wynn was perceived as having done so and he was soundly defeated in the primary by Donna Edwards.
We'll have to disagree here,
If you want to base your position on error, you can, of course.
You're wrong. You can't point out anything I've said here that's not a physical fact. You don't want to deal with it, is all.
On the other hand, too many humans overlook the physical facts that don't agree with their outlook. THAT is definitely something I want one way when it is the other way.
You give hat tips to fictional drug dealers for supporting your argument?
Okay then. We agree to disagree.
"Albert Wynn was perceived
"Albert Wynn was perceived as having [abandoned core interests of Black constituents] and he was soundly defeated in the primary by Donna Edwards."
pt, that's not why Wynn lost. Edwards aggressively lobbied White voters added to the district when its boundaries were redrawn.
"pt, that's not why Wynn
"pt, that's not why Wynn lost."
Wynn lost support from all major sectors of his constituency.
The point being Wynn's
The point being Wynn's 'constituency' changed with the redrawing of the district's boundaries. Significantly. Ms. Edwards subtly framed him as The Black Guy.