The Black Caucus is going through an identity crisis. In recent weeks, leaders of the caucus found themselves defending the need for their group, composed of 41 House Democrats. It also is in the midst of an uneasy generational shift, as the old lions of the civil rights era begin to give way to a younger generation of black politicians who do not want to be pigeonholed by race.
First, we have discussed the youngsters' concern for being pigeonholed by race.
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.
It's as bad concern to raise in connection with the CBC, who for the most part are elected by Black folk, as it is for the Mayor of a pretty Black city.
Now, let's talk about the need for the group. The need for the group is tied up in common interests, and the fact that they are elected by Black folk who, in general, cannot fund them the way some other politicians are by their constituencies. I'm pretty comfortable calling the CBC more of a networking organization as a political one.
A number of them have accrued seniority that requires they be given significant power. I mean they aren't going to challenge the status quo beyond insisting more Black folk get into the game, they aren't going to challenge the rationale or goals implied by our national decisions. I think Charlie Rangel has the most juice and he's seriously not a radical. But that all that power is concentrated in the CBC is nervous-making in some circles because it makes the organization a political force for the first time. I think this would have come to pass whoever was elected...you just may not have heard about it.
Finally, yes, "Obama's election was a sign the country [is] moving beyond it's racially troubled past." But it's not a transformation it's a process...one which knuckledraggers who think they don't have to learn because it changed without them doing a damn thing different can inhibit.
Congressional Black Caucus Assesses Its Role Under a Black President
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — These were supposed to be heady days for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a time of celebration ahead of the inauguration of the first black president.
Instead, the contested appointment of Roland W. Burris to fill the Illinois Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama has added further discomfort to an already rough period for the Black Caucus. The refusal by Senate Democrats to seat Mr. Burris on Tuesday has also splintered the caucus and caused a dust storm of racial politics at a time when many Americans hoped Mr. Obama’s election was a sign that the country was moving beyond its racially troubled past.
For 40 years, the caucus has been the center of black power in Washington, the go-to group for anyone hoping to court the black population and the politicians who represent them. But as Mr. Obama prepares to take office, shifting power to the White House in ways both real and symbolic, caucus members have been wrestling with an unsettling reality: the new president can propel their agenda but he may also diminish their influence.
Some Black Caucus members now rank among the most influential leaders in the House, including Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who is the majority whip, as well as the chairmen of three major committees. Some lawmakers insist the caucus will be more powerful during the Obama presidency.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
The only legitimate public
The only legitimate public strategy for the CBC to use re: Burris is silence. Now I know Bobby Rush has already put people on blast, but I believe that's just him having a Black Panther moment. I'm thinking most of the CBC weren't down with that stunt.
The back story here is the concern of Democrats (and probably more than a few CBC members) whether Burris can hold the seat in 2010. I understand he's a well-liked, and well-respected man, but he has a track record of failure in 'upticket' races. Plus, he's 71 years old. Did I mention that his appointment will be used to smear him (by association) and undermine his effectiveness?
There's also this little detail about the Senate having its own rules, and that for the moment there are no CBC members in the Senate. Again... all they really can do is strike a pose here in the name of racial solidarity, and that's problematic.
I think this is just the NY
I think this is just the NY Times writing copy. The fact that one member of the CBC turned down Blago's offer indicates to me they don't want no part of that stress.
Each body's own rules
MIB, thanks for pointing out that the Senate really doesn't have to listen to the CBC except out of professional courtesy. I'm reminded (sort of) of the 2000 election where everyone was giving Al Gore symbolic and vocal support, even after the Supreme Court decision against him, but it had no effect on the outcome. Anyway, right now the Senate has the gold and makes the rules. Only if there's a black Senator in the CBC can that body (or any other body) really have a voice in the Senate. I suspect they all realize this. Too bad it all has to ride on one person at a time. I compare that with the Senate hovering around 10% women anymore, and the difference that must make in treatment and attitude.
If Burris can't win in the 2010 Democratic Primary, then the
person who DOES win is obviously the stronger Democrat. Folks need to stop pretending that Illinois is a sorta Blue state. We're a blue state. The winner of the Democratic Primary - IFFFFF the State Democratic Party does its job, will win in November.
New Mocha vs Pro Black
First - Oakland is burning in mini riot stage right now over a BART police shooting (Bay Area Rapid Transit - Bay Area wide electric train system for out of area folks) BART has its own private police force one of its officers shot a 22 year old unarmed brother on New Years morning.
2nd - OPD has been out of control in the black community with plenty of beatings, corruption and unarmed shooting so this latest incident is incendiary because of pent up frustration. Conspicuous absence of black political voiced outrage
3rd - Oakland Black politicians regularly campaign on their "blackness" only to disappear racially after getting in office. They are self neutered, afraid to seem too black out of fear of being labeled radical blacks in this police state.
4th - Contrary to prop 209 ( Ca. white voter death of affirmative action ) Black folks need radical black leadership advocates to back civil rights lost over the last 30 year.
5th - case in point - Barbara Lee brave enough to stand up against the post 911 nation in voting against the war but MIA on basic local black issues.
Bonus - Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums stood up to Reagan on Grenada and South Africa but MIA at home
Can Black politicians avert riots?
Sandman, I get your point about Black politicians using Black to get elected and then putting all that on the back burner. But since I was a kid in the '60s I've never understood black rioting against black businesses. I understand that the "pent up frustration" has to go somewhere, but why the self-destruction? Case in point:
“For 40 years, the caucus
“For 40 years, the caucus h, along with other Black “leaders”. MIB is right. All that the CBC can hope for is that Burris keeps his trap shut for the duration of his appointment. But I doubt that he will. I think Burris the most of what he’s got while flashing his wide I’m-so-happy-to-be-here smile. And with supporters like Bobby Rush (another dinosaur who just refuses to sit his ass down) there figures to be a lot of antacids in the near future for the CBC, at least for the next two years as been the center of black power in Washington, the go-to group for anyone hoping to court the black population and the politicians who represent them. But as Mr. Obama prepares to take office, shifting power to the White House in ways both real and symbolic, caucus members have been wrestling with an unsettling reality: the new president can propel their agenda but he may also diminish their influence.” And this is at the heart of the CBC’s crisis.
As for Burris, there isn’t anyone in this town that believes that the appointment of Roland Burris by “Blago” was anything other than his own way of saying “fuck all ya’ll.” Anyone paying attention knows that now happy-to-be Senator Burris won’t hold the seat in re-election and anyone who could is staying as far away from Blagojevich as possible, wisely I think. Now with the beginnings of an impeachment in progress, which I’m sure Blagojevich he knows he’ll be removed, the only real untouchable “fuck you” in Blagojevich’s arsenal was the Senate appointment. Blagojevich just wants to make things as messy as possible for as many people as possible before he’s removed from office. Why else would he appoint a known loser to the Senate? I just can’t wait for all of the tapes to be released.
Get mad @ someone, destroy your own stuff=extra dumb
ProfG
I agree there is no benefit to self destruction, the fact that there is pent up frustration from my observation is because black people "stew" on issues that affect them negatively. Example - instead of organizing as a collective group to pressure city hall regardng constant police abuses, black people complain amongst ourselves without action until something sparks the powder keg. like a film we can collectively react to, an easy rallying or focal point that doesn't need real leadership. Then the fake black political leaders use it as cover to posture as pro black in the media
Profg and Sandman I agree
Profg and Sandman
I agree that our rioting our own communities never helps our cause. I've never understood that. I have always felt that if we got off our ass and focused our collective minds on collective goals, e.g police abuse, then the propensity to destroy our own communities wouldn't be necessary. But I think we as a community have to put an stop to these posturing professional protesters. At some point they must sit. I feel that nothing that we do strategically will ever be right until we do that.
Organization
I have felt for a long time that the black church is the root of mass organizing in our community. If we study MLK there are lessons to learn. With that said I see a profound lack of leadership from the pulpit, petty egos and squabbling stop our pastors from adopting a unified mobilizing force in our community.
One Church here in Oakland has upwards of 13,000 members, add another one with 7,000 members and you have 20,000 black people marching on city hall. I guarantee that plitical change will happen almost over night with just 2 pastors. Also I remember a statistic reported that here in Oakland on any given Monday the combined deposits of black churches in a given area were over $10 Million in tithes, how about 10% of the 10% for a general fund
We regret the error
Nia Sykes, mentioned in my post "Can Black politicians avert riots?" above, has sent a letter to the S.F. Chronicle stating that she was "quoted grossly out of context" and does not condone or advocate violence. I won't try to second-guess her, I'll just take her word for it.
From one of the follow-up articles, it seems that the protest organizers weren't all in agreement about the march, and one organizer thought there should be trained group facilitators in place. That obviously didn't happen.
Soon, I see people I know.
BART Protesters Tell Their Own Story