Prometheus 6

I understand your analysis of West's and Malveaux's concerns. I think you're being too fair to them. The question you posit (that you say W and M meant to) is valid. But if this was what W and M were implying, I don't think that they were holding this to the Party but squarely on the shoulder's of Obama.

I think that the concerns that they, and others in the same vein of thinking, express have not been presented as a challenge to the Party but to Obama.

A candidate whose listed top-priority is civil rights. A platform which approaches a broad list of issues (environmentalism/conservation, healthcare) with a (new) focus on city infrastructure.

As an aside (but one too tempting), what would be on the list of a Prometheus 6 presidential ticket to offer to Black people?

bleh: I looked where their words were pointing and told you what I saw. They do point their argument at Obama but that's an unfortunate side effect of flipping between the collective and the specific. You might be surprised at the amount of effort I put into finding the appropriate level of abstraction when I write.

I don't deny that there's some ass covering involved but that's politics.

sky

what would be on the list of a Prometheus 6 presidential ticket to offer to Black people?

If you start with the Presidential campaign it's too late to get it right. And remember, it's not going to be decided on issues.

I would like to say what the Democrats need is a story that recognizes Black people...this Borosage-designed narrative does not...and gives them a reason to say, "yeah, that's what I would do." The second would be a lot easier with the first in place.

Yes, I can be more specific about the problem in the narrative. It probably should be a post.

Yes, I can be more specific about the problem in the narrative. It probably should be a post.

preferably contrasting with some other identity-group.

I agree that in the broad-strokes the 'election isn't decided on the issues,' but that's precisely because issues-voters (blacks, feminists, rich people, the religious right, etc) are accounted for already and the two political parties have assembled coalitions that roughly split the issues-voting population.

Most of the other groups seem pretty a-historical by the time they get into the mainstream. I imagine that's a strategy, because narrative-wise, once you get a victory, the narrative has to change so that the victory was always pre-ordained and on the side of Good--all that Overton window shit.

But all these groups (on both sides) have had a lot of difficulty (with the exception of Gay rights, I suppose) getting real narrative-level shifts for some time.

I posted the following at Coates' spot on Atlantic.com:

Good piece, Br. Coates! I am older than Malveaux and West, which entitles me, I suppose, to assert that I have been black longer than either of them. I think both of them are simply limousine liberals in black face. The amount of concern they express about the black electorate is, in my opinion, directly proportional to the amount of notoriety they can generate to support their own self-aggrandizement.

Whenever I hear Dr. Malveaux going on about the black community I have to shake my head and laugh. This is a person who I know for a fact refused to walk precincts to register voters in the predominantly black section of San Francisco (her hometown) known as Bayview-Hunters Point because she considered it undignified for someone with a doctorate degree to do. We do not need the Drs. Malveauxs and Wests of this world to serve as gatekeepers and guardians of black authenticity.

that's precisely because issues-voters (blacks, feminists, rich people, the religious right, etc) are accounted for already and the two political parties have assembled coalitions that roughly split the issues-voting population.

And who is actually pursuing issues of concern to Black people? Who, for a really blatant example, is pushing to use the education techniques we know are effective rather than dangling new carrots in pursuit of the same old results?

But all these groups (on both sides) have had a lot of difficulty (with the exception of Gay rights, I suppose) getting real narrative-level shifts for some time.

They have the handicap of trying to maintain and build on the narratives they're already invested in while the ground moves beneath their feet. It's like trying to apply flame retardant in the middle of an inferno.

I think, more or less, what Obama stands for is what black people can acheive when they're given the same opportunities as white people. If Barack had grown up in a black neighborhood, he would not be where he is today.

they had the perfect venue, Obama-hater extraodinaire Tavis

They tore into Obama. But I have to admit, I didn't think much of it until Palin mentioned sufrage in her speech. Then I thought, and Obama couldn't mention MLK, Jr's speech?

I didn't think much of it until Palin mentioned sufrage in her speech. Then I thought, and Obama couldn't mention MLK, Jr's speech?

And Palin endorses policies that are antithetical to the autonomy of women. So what's in a name? Conservatives vigorously embrace MLK yet pursue prescriptions that are deleterious to blacks. Clarence Thomas was the epitome of black male defiance during his confirmation hearings and has done much to dismantle even the most modest programs designed to redress racial inequities. Puhleeze!

"...what is the Democratic Party offering to Black people beyond symbolism?" Nothing!

"I would like to say what the Democrats need is a story that recognizes Black people..." Do you think that story would truly address the real needs of the Black community?

"If Barack had grown up in a black neighborhood, he would not be where he is today." I think the sad implications of this reality of American society are quite damning for Black America.

I agree that identity politics has always been the road to the presidency, at least for whites. I think Blacks have always voted issues and for candidates who we thought would best deliver on promises made to us. Until now we really haven’t had the luxury of identity politics.

"I would like to say what the Democrats need is a story that recognizes Black people..." Do you think that story would truly address the real needs of the Black community?

Interesting.

The short answer is, it will if it does. People reason forward from their narratives  of identity. A correct narrative helps, a false one is an obstacle.

A narrative that recognizes Black folks would hold the truth to be true. It would say things like "the nation was wrong, and had to learn and still has more to learn" rather than things like "look how good we are, though we were never as bad as all that."

Or should it say “the nation IS wrong, and needs to learn a lot more” and is the nation advanced enough to hold the truth to be true? That is, is this nation mature enough hear that truth?

“the nation IS wrong, and needs to learn a lot more”

I think that's a thing like "the nation was wrong, and had to learn and still has more to learn."

That is, is this nation mature enough hear that truth?

We're talking white folks, and white Democrats in particular. 

Some are ready. Those can get more folks ready. Just not at this moment, during a Presidential campaign.

Besides, you don't want to wait for folks to be ready for the truth. You want this to be done by next election, which means you MUST start to get folks ready.

Some are ready. Those can get more folks ready. Just not at this moment, during a Presidential campaign.

This is an important point to keep in mind. The train has already left that particular station. You have to wait for the next one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/rnc-video-diary-black-rep_b_123477.html