The Black Vote: Taken for granted, ignored, or necessary

The black vote is important because it represents the behavior of a group of people whose voting power had been denied for many years, both by political mandate and by threat of physical violence. However, the black vote is unique because African American voting behavior is intrinsically rooted in the people's history.

Since the Reconstruction, the general behavior of blacks is to vote in block, either for one party or the other. Until Roosevelt came into the presidency and began the New Deal, blacks were committed to the Republican Party.

So what happened? Looking back at the 2008 presidential elections, where blacks voted overwhelmingly Democrat, the question still remains: Just what went wrong or has changed? 

Tonight we'll break it down with a robust panel of guests representative of Democrats, Republican, and Independents. Most notably to present the case for the Republican party, will be Lenny McAllister, the Hip Hop Republican. Central to our discussion is the question: Which party today, best represents the interest of black America? Tonight, our guests will all make their best case for the parties with whom they identify. 

Do join us, feel free to share your opinions, and you be the judge, on Freedom Thru Speech Radio at 8pm EST/7pm CST.  You can listen through the show's platform by clicking here, or you can dial in on our special dial-in number at 914-803-8441.

All the President's Men: Is Reverend Al Sharpton the President's New BFF?

There is this postmodern theorem that states that whatever is considered revolutionary or subversive at the moment will invariably be subsumed into the prevailing power structure to be used toward its own ends. In other words, what is radical and revolutionary and subversive today will eventually yield its countercultural virtues and loyalties to that very thing it wishes so ardently to destroy.

More than a little amused, I have been quietly watching the Reverend Al Sharpton’s flirtations with the Barack Obama administration. Early on in President Obama’s historical campaign, both Sharpton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson tactfully and tactically indicated that they would hang back a bit to determine Obama’s posture toward the African American community.

However, many wondered if more than a little jealously was at play, and Reverend Jackson seemed to make it almost obvious with his remarks that he wanted to “cut [Obama’s] nuts out.” But then he made up for it with the image of tears of supposed joy streaming down his face on election night.

But Sharpton did eventually jump on board, and he campaigned hard for Obama. And when the president finally assumed the office, Sharpton was one of the first he received in the oval office.

And on a later date, as President Obama’s commitment to the African American community and a Black Agenda was being argued, Sharpton emerged from a meeting at the Whitehouse with the president and other black leaders who in their remarks seemed to suggest that President Obama didn’t need a Black Agenda. In facing and taking on the challenges of the nation, he is, in actuality, facing and taking on the challenges of all people to include African Americans.

That seemed like a sharp departure from all of Sharpton’s previous rhetoric. But my eyebrow really went up when Harvard professor and lawyer Charles Ogletree, the president’s former mentor and friend, announced Al Sharpton’s new role as administration ally, President Obama’s voice in the street, “a conduit between the disadvantaged and powerful leaders.” Pretty high-falutin language, huh?

This is problematic because Sharpton’s greatest worth to the African American community is in the role of agitator working from a position outside the power structure to keep it reasonably honest and fair in its dealings with that community.

Never mind the perm and the jogging suits and the big gold medallions of the good old days. No one can whip up an indignant protest like the Reverend Al Sharpton, however self-serving and self-aggrandizing he might seem.

No racist or corrupt politician or government official or police chief or CEO wants to look out their window to see a permed out Al Sharpton marching down the street, bullhorn in hand, leading a crowd of protestors whipped into a frenzy by his rhetoric.

Furthermore, the media loves Reverend Al, and he returns the love every chance he gets.  It seems that he never met a microphone or a television camera he didn’t like. But whatever you might say about him, he does use the media to his greatest advantage in taking on those issues and cases no politician would touch; he has, in many aspects, became the voice of the voiceless.

However, now he gives that all up. At one time he fought against the man; now he is the man’s right hand man in the streets. If you think about it, though, it was a masterful move on the part of President Obama. By courting Reverend Al, he kills two birds with one stone.

On the one hand, by bringing Reverend Al on board, he negates a powerful and potential voice of protest from within the African American community and reduces that community’s ability to hold the administration accountable.

Of course, Tavis Smiley is another voice of powerful and potential protest, but a number of African Americans, if not most, are cynical of Smiley’s motives, and should Smiley get too loud, Obama has Al Sharpton to attempt to keep him in check.

What do you think that whole other Black Agenda Summit hosted by Sharpton was about this weekend? It was to counter the Smiley hosted We Count!: The Black Agenda Is the American Agenda Summit. Reverend Sharpton is already on the job.

You know, I cannot figure out if our Uncle Al has sold out or bought in; I am actively trying to figure that out now. But it appears that for the time being, the revolutionary, subversive Al Sharpton has been thoroughly and completely subsumed.

What do you think of the Reverend Al Sharpton’s new role in the Obama administration? Do you think he is selling out or buying in?


Also see:  It's official, Al Sharpton finally becomes the HNIC: Sharpton touted as Obama's man in the streets!

President Obama, you have our attention; now just give us something to believe in

For the first time in a long time, President Obama had an exceptional week last week. His State of the Union Address seemed to signal a reemergence of the candidate who we campaigned so ardently for and subsequently voted for and expected so much from.

And his verbal beat down of the GOP at the House Republican Retreat in Baltimore on Friday was perhaps enough to reassure those on the left that he is indeed in charge and out front and recapture the support of those skeptical and/or cynical independents and moderates who were beginning to doubt his intestinal fortitude. He met the GOP on their own ground and then masterfully met each of their weak, disingenuous thrusts with a parry until he had seized from them whatever advantage they thought they might have.

Now I am waiting anxiously, if not impatiently, for the second act. President Obama has made this drama interesting again. He has almost reprised his campaign performance that captured the hearts and imaginations of so many. The cast is reassembling backstage, awaiting their stage directions; however, we need to see just a little more. We need something to make us believe.

It is understandable that when a charismatic president with amazingly high approval rating and backed by a solid sixty seat senate majority is not able to push through anything resembling the comprehensive Health Care Reform package as promised, that people will began to get a bit disillusioned and cease to believe.

And when one integral part of the governing body decides against governing, but instead chooses to even go so far as to impede the progress of those attempting to govern, then I am not surprised that some should begin to shake their heads in disbelief, that some should wonder in just what direction the country is going, that some should question just who is in charge. However, if we are to believe, the president and his party must find a way to break this impasse, and they must do so sooner as opposed to later.

But let’s not leave out the mainstream media because they have played a huge role in fostering this growing sentiment of incredulity and distrust. When the media ceases to be a source of credible information and instead becomes just another entertainment outlet, who do we then turn to in order to inform ourselves? Perhaps like most, I have grown tired of having my reality interpreted for me and being told what to believe.

Do you remember back in school when we were assured that the separation of the three branches of government—the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the Legislative Branch—worked to insure that no one branch became too powerful, thus helping protect our freedoms? Or that of the three, the Judicial Branch was the most apolitical?

Well, that bubble has been burst. With the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations are individuals with all the rights there of, it became all but plain that at least two of these branches seem to be in collusion. Or, at the very least, are politically driven. If that is not enough to make one skeptical, to make one cynical, to cause a state of disbelief and outright fear, I certainly cannot figure out what is.

But we move forward now. I think we all get it now. I think we all realize that the actions of the president alone do not ensure success; we must be willing to do our part, to play our roles as assigned to us. We again take our places on stage, and look to the wings for our cue to begin. All we need now is a reason to believe.

President Obama's willingness to get out front and lead will determine how this all ends

Let me say up front, I wouldn’t want to be president. I couldn’t be president. As I watched the coverage leading up to and following the president’s State of the Union Address, it again occurred to me the incredible amount of scrutiny that encapsulates him. Every move he makes, every word he utters is instantly weighed and dissected according to the purposes of whomever is speaking; objectivism in journalism has long ceased to exist if it even ever has.

Nonetheless, the president made a strong showing last night. However, it was not the triumphant speech that I and others like me had hoped to hear. Among other things, he could not inform the American public of the numbers of people finding jobs and returning to work. He could inform the American public that the economy appeared to be righting itself and even of the many successes of the policies he has implemented since in office, but he could not promise or pinpoint an end to the morass.

And most of all, perhaps most importantly of all, he could not inform the public of the implementation of a newly reformed and revamped health care system, insuring everyone had access to adequate medical care, that we had all so hopefully and urgently anticipated.

That being said, I think what President Obama accomplished in the main on last night was to get us almost back to the point where we were at last January when he first took office. It seemed then that coming off the campaign trail, he had an august tailwind behind him, propelling him forward. And with a solid filibuster proof senate, we just knew that perhaps finally things would get better for the country.

But then something curious happened. It seemed he took a step back and delegated his authority to others. We looked for him to be out front, but we could only see those faces who, especially for those who don’t follow politics closely (which is perhaps the majority of Americans), we didn’t know from Adam; most people didn’t even know who Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid was before the push for health care reform began.

Most people only knew that they had invested a tremendous amount of energy and faith in Barack Obama, and he seemed to be letting them down. It was at this point that progressives and others on the left began to get discouraged; it is at this point that his base felt that he was wasting too much energy and political capital in pandering to the right, chasing some elusive ideal of bipartisanship; it is at this point that the country began to appear as if it were spiraling out of control and people became frightened. And we all know that frightened people do not always make the most rational decisions.

Personally I believe that perhaps the bar was set too high for Barack Obama or any other politician for that matter. Personally I believe things got so bad under the last administration that people searched vigorously and expectantly for a miracle, a savior who would come along at just the right time and fix it all with one fell swoop, a wave of the hand and a reassuring wink. After all, in our most popular and enduring theatrical genre, the western, doesn’t some tall, swarthy stranger ride into town at the very last minute and save the day?

But we, along with President Obama, have gotten a hard dose of reality over the past year. We realized the he was not our savior and that change would not come overnight. And he realized that perhaps the complete overhaul of a completely corrupt system and bipartisanship were only chimeras; playing fair and by the rules only works when both sides are in agreement just as to what those rules entail.

So, the speech has been made, and it was a good one, a real hum-dinger, a barn burner. But we already knew the brother could deliver a good speech. We already knew the brother was a master of rhetoric. The proof is in the follow through. Has he gained the ability to distinguish ideal and reality, and has he gained the intestinal fortitude requisite to get out front and lead? That we will find out in the days ahead.

Freedom through Speech Radio: The Barack Obama Scorecard and Call to Service Show

This has been an interesting week to say the least. At the beginning of the week, “Negro” seemed to be the word in the streets. First of all, the inclusion of “Negro” as a choice in the racial identification categories on the upcoming census set all the Negroes a titter and a Twitter.

But before that conversation could even finish, the revelation that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid listed then candidate Obama’s not speaking in the “Negro dialect” as one of his major qualifications for office. Well, this just made Negroes giggle and most could even see the truth in Senator Reid’s statement. It even inspired me to translate my favorite Shakespearean sonnet, Sonnet 29—When in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, into the “Negro dialect.”

However, the Republican Party didn’t see the humor in Senator Reid’s remark. And because they just love Negroes so, they trotted out Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to demand his resignation. I wrote about that here.

However, this argument was not able to get any traction before the news of a catastrophic earthquake devastating Haiti. And the African American community responded tremendously. On Facebook, on Twitter, and through various other mediums, we coalesced to raise a remarkable amount of money in a remarkably short time.

But the question then becomes, what happens when the coverage of the tragedy ceases to dominate the news and moves from the front page to the back page? What will we do then? What will the world do?

Tonight at 8 PM EST on the Blog Talk Radio show I co-host along with OneChele and RiPPa, Freedom through Speech Radio, we will be discussing these issues along with giving a grade to President Obama’s first year as president. Sitting in will be Average Bro from averagebro.com and Thembi Ford from whatwouldthembido.com.

So, stop by, call in, and let your voice be heard. And remember, the most important voice is your voice.

Republicans, thank you for finally showing me how much you care about black folk.

You know, dear reader, I am composing this post with a decided sense of relief. You see, I consider myself a moderate. On some issues I veer left and on others I veer right. For some time now, my political affiliation on my voter’s registration card has been listed as NPA for No Party Affiliation. That way I could reserve the right to vote for a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent or whatever candidate best articulated a platform that most approximated my political beliefs.

That being said, though I have voted for Republican candidates in the past, it has been a while since I have done so. At some point I sensed the Republican political rhetoric to be steering from covertly to blatantly racist, and though I am not overly sensitive when it comes to matters of race, you cannot expect my vote if you cannot respect and acknowledge my humanity. You might hate me in private, but at least put on a good show of it in public.

But that has all come to an end. My suspicions and apprehensions surrounding the seemingly rampant racial rhetoric and racism of the Republican Party have been allayed. The Republican Party has finally shown that they really do care for African Americans.

When Senator Harry Reid’s atrocious remarks during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama was electable as president in the main because of his light complexion and “he had no Negro dialect unless he wanted one ” finally came to light, who had the courage and the temerity to call him out for his lack of forethought and sensitivity but the Republican Party?

Never mind that though we are loath to admit it, Senator Reid told the truth. He just lacked the eloquence of language in which to frame his remarks.

But only the Republican Party could make the connection to then senate majority leader Trent Lott’s 2002 insinuation that we would be a better nation had we elected segregationist Strom Thurmond to the presidency in 1948 thereby evincing an implied support for a racist, white power platform.

Now I can dismiss the Republican silence when conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh unveiled the snappy ditty “Barack the Magic Negro,” and another Republican politician packaged this with other seemingly racist and sexist tunes and circulated the CD among his supporters on the right.

And I can forget the chill that ran down my spine late in this past presidential campaign when presidential candidate John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin decided to appeal to the most base elements of the party and substitute racially explosive and provocative rhetoric for a comprehensive, substantial platform; from where I sat, each cry of “SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST!” sounded an awful like “NIGGER, NIGGER, NIGGER!” but evidently I was mistaken.

And I could have been mistaken when I thought I heard the same sentiments expressed by the whole Tea Party Movement thing. And I could have been mistaken when I thought I heard racial overtones in the inquisition, excuse me, confirmation hearings of Justice Sotomayer.

However, I felt much better when I awoke recently to find my favorite soul brother, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. His song and dance would have been more convincing, though, had he not used the racially insensitive statement, “Honest Injun,” only days previous in communicating the soundness of the Republican Party platform.

Republican Party, I acknowledge your efforts in standing up for me and all other African Americans and you have my deepest and most heartfelt appreciation. Now can you take a timeout from the posturing and jousting with windmills so that you might actually get down to the business of governing.

When black conservatives speak in terms of "they" as opposed to "we," I can only shake my head

Let me preface all that I have to say this morning by point out that I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Nor am I an Independent. In fact, at this time I have no affiliation with or membership in any political party or organization.

I feel that I must begin with that disclaimer because in the past when I have been critical of any party or politician, I have been accused of being decidedly partisan. However, this cannot be further from the truth.

But if I must choose a category, a label, I would more than likely categorize myself as a pragmatist. When making any decision, political or otherwise, I measure the ideal against the reality and seek a solution in the nexus that lies between.

Now, having said that, allow me to begin this exposition. The other evening I had occasion to have dinner with a group of my colleagues, all of whom categorize themselves as conservatives. We get together every now or then just to talk and argue politics and other interesting news stories. The discussions do get heated, but we all manage to leave as friends. And I knew all of the gentleman present except two African Americans gentleman who were guests of one of the usual participants.

But as discussion ensued, something very curious happened. As we argued back and forth, as we conceded certain points while standing firmly behind others, the two African American conservative gentleman refused to concede any point. When the other conservatives reluctantly admitted, with more than a little embarrassment, the specter of racism that has become part and parcel of the conservative movement, they refused to do so. When the other conservatives lamented the lack of a coherent message, platform, or obvious leadership, they actually sneered at them.

If fact, these two African American conservatives were even more dogmatic in their responses than their white colleagues. It is almost as if they had absorbed every talking point from every right wing talk show and were repeating them verbatim. But this is not what disturbed me the most.

I was most dismayed when every time they spoke of African Americans and the African American community, they spoke in terms of “they” as opposed to “we”. In fact, at one point I corrected one of the gentlemen when he used “they,” by asking the question, “Do you mean we?”. But he only continued, this time emphasizing the word “they”. It is almost as if the two gentlemen had divorced themselves from the African American community completely. And they were most strident in their denunciation of that community, so much so that I could see the embarrassment on the other conservatives’ faces.

And don’t get me wrong. The problems in the African American community are myriad; however, I tend to believe these problems have more to do with class than race. But also keep in mind that past racism and discrimination have set the stage, provided the impetus, for many of these problems.

And even further, no political party has effectively addressed these problems. They have instead chose to settle for short term politically expedient balms as opposed to long term fixes.

But it appears that in considering the problems facing the African American community, black conservatives have taken to attacking the people and not the problem, the individuals as opposed to the behaviors. By framing the problems in terms of "they" and not "we", their problems and not our problems, thereby excluding themselves, they reveal a belief in a certain racial transcendence, a post-race America, that evidence does not support.

Certainly, racial transcendence is what we are working toward. Certainly, racial transcendence is at the very root of all African American civil rights efforts. We desire to be recognized and counted as individuals, not as a group. If I might paraphrase MLK, Jr., we desire to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin.

But do you think those disrupting town hall meetings in protest of health care reform, those teabaggers holding up placards of an African American—let’s just suspend the fact that the African American in question is the president of the United States—clad in primitive garb with a bone through his nose, those representing him as a terrorist, those ripping up photographs of Rosa Parks and other icons of the Civil Rights Movement, do so without thought or regard to race?

If so, then why do they choose these particular images? Are there not other images that would better articulate their dissension, their grievances?

Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but when I hear Socialist, when I hear Nazi, when I hear alien, what I really hear is nigger, nigger, nigger; there is more than one way of referring to one by that racial epithet without ever articulating the word.

But let us suspend judgment for a moment. Maybe there is a certain thread of truth in conservatives’ arguments. Maybe the president along with the left is really plotting a Socialist takeover of the government. It is unlikely, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this, and they are protesting out of love for country and nothing more.

Perhaps their solutions to the morass this country this country finds itself in are the best solutions though I still do not know what these solutions are because none have been put forward.

However, as much as I attempt to hear conservatives’ message, as much as I try to measure the reality against the ideal, I cannot hear, I cannot concentrate, I cannot even begin to think or reason above the din of the clamor caused by the ever increasingly racist rhetoric.

And because I am a prideful person, because I insist that in dealing with others they at least recognize and respect my humanity, I cover my ears and turn away. I will not be insulted and degraded to my face.

And also, I recognize the inextricable link between me and all other African Americans regardless of class, regardless of level of education, regardless of any other factor that might distinguish us, and I fully realize that in deploying this racist rhetoric, they are speaking in terms of the collective and not the individual. They are naming each and every one of us, not just a handful of those that seemingly will not conform to societal standards.

They speak in terms of “they” without respect of person or individual, and I refuse to take part in my own degradation by speaking in those exact terms.

Congratulations to President Obama, and my condolences to the right

I know this comes a day late, but yesterday I awoke to learn, as did perhaps the rest of the country, that President Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And like the rest of the country and maybe the world, this really took me by surprise; I didn’t see this one coming. Nevertheless, I do extend to President Obama my hardiest congratulations. And to the right, I extend my sincerest condolences.

At one time, the actions of the right following the election and inauguration of the president surprised me. But little by little, episode by episode, they one-upped themselves on absurdity.

I think my incredulity began right after they announced Sarah Palin as a candidate for vice-president. Even as it became clearer that she lacked even the most basic qualifications for the office, the right solidified in their support of her. And almost as if they were sensing an imminent defeat, as the campaign wore on, the tone became nastier and nastier.

I believe at that time they too could sense the beginning of the end. They too realized just how preposterous her candidacy was, but they obstinately refused to admit such and held on to the very end.

And then following the inauguration, I thought the worst had finally passed. I thought that this country would move forward politically. I thought republicans would gracefully conceded defeat. And for a minute it seemed that they would do so, but then the foolishness began anew with even greater virulence and even greater antipathy.

Instead of getting out front leading, the republicans decided to follow the most obstinate, contentious, and seemingly racist and off kilter elements of the right. And with each new obstructionist tactic, they seemed to sink lower and lower until nothing they did surprised me anymore.

But then not too long ago, a conservative writer wrote a piece suggesting that President Obama’s administration should be deposed via a military coup. The article was subsequently pulled but not before someone was able to take screen shots of it and circulate it around the net. Just the very appearance of such an article suggests how desperate the right is and how far they are willing to go.

Also, implicit in this notion is the fear of what would happen if the President does succeed in his agenda. Such a success could change the paradigm of power in this country. Such a success could mean the diminished power of the upper classes and a resurgence of the middle class which all but perished under the Bush administration.

Thus the celebration when President Obama failed in his attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago. And thus the reaction from the right when President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The recent gathering momentum of the Healthcare Reform effort and President Obama’s securing of the Nobel Peace Prize seem to signal just such impending success. And if Healthcare Reform goes smoothly, it opens the doorway to the success of the rest of his agenda.

But it gets even uglier from here because with every success, the opposition will simply get that much more obstinate and outlandish in its resistance. And in their obstinacy and outlandishness lies the seeds of their undoing. And for that they have my sincerest condolences.

As time moves forward, their position gets that much more untenable. And should Healthcare Reform succeed, should the economy right itself, should Americans go back to work, their attempt to portray President Obama as an incompetent outsider intent on destroying the country from within becomes an even harder sell.

Love/Hate: Desire, President Obama, and the Right

Allow me to begin by setting up this analogy.

For the past three years, I have had a colleague who has openly expressed her absolute and ongoing disdain for me. At first this hurt me; I had no idea what I had done to incur or to incite this level of hatred in someone who I barely knew and who barely knew me, but soon I came to recognize her reaction as simple and pure jealousy. And soon thereafter, I began to recognize it as so much more.

Other colleagues began to question me as to what I had done to her. Evidently I, or her loathing of me, was her main topic of conversation. Colleagues reported to me that it had gotten so bad that they had to insist that she quit speaking of me altogether.

Then, several times I noticed her standing in my doorway, desperately straining to see what I was writing, what was on my computer screen. And several times as I stood in front of my class, out of the corner of my eye I could see a figure standing just within the shadows peering in. I have been told that it was her.

But most recently, a manuscript I placed in another colleague’s box mysteriously disappeared then, just as mysteriously, suddenly re-appeared a couple of days later. We both shrugged it off, but later as we sat listening to the lady in question give an address, we both recognized the argument she was making. It was my argument as contained in the purloined manuscript.

I was told that I should be angry, and perhaps I should or will be later, but instead I was amused a great deal and even a little bit flattered. What I had perceived as jealousy, what I had perceived as hatred, revealed itself in that instance as a certain admiration, a certain longing, a certain yearning. It is a need to possess me, to control me, to have me need her. It is, in a word, desire.

And in contemplating this moment, I somehow drew a parallel in my mind between this situation and the right’s treatment of President Obama. Perhaps I may be mistaken, but I don’t remember seeing such a virulent outpouring of hatred toward any sitting president in my lifetime. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t ever recall there being this many thinly veiled open threats against a sitting president ever.

The right is beside itself with anger, and this anger has enabled the oft fractured and factioned right, even in the absence of a rational, coherent platform or message, to finally coalesce, come together, around something—their supposed abhorrence of all things Obama.

But you know what? I don’t believe we are witnessing the expressions of a long pent up hatred at all; what we are witnessing is a long pent up desire.

Perhaps I could better express my point in this manner: Love and hate are flip sides of the same coin; each supposes an infatuation with or a tenaciously vigorous inclination toward another, an “other.” This infatuation with, this inclination toward, expresses a certain desire, a certain emptiness that can only be filled by possessing the “other,” by controlling the “other,” by being needed by the “other.” It is only through the “other” that we define ourselves, and that we achieve subjecthood.

And this is, in essence, the basis of the right’s relationship with the president. Theoretically, this is, in essence, the root of racism.

So when you see the throngs of people, their face twisted in rage as they scrutinize and protest every action of the president, when you see and hear them enunciate vague but open threats against the president, when you find that they have twisted the truth into half-truths and outright lies, don’t think of it as hatred. Think of it, instead, as a myriad of expressions of passion.

Think of it as them attempting to fill a sordid emptiness. Think of it as a certain admiration, a certain longing, a certain yearning. Think of it as a need to possess him, to control him, to have him need them. Think of it as desire.

Conservatism Is, Conservatism Ain't: Black Folk and the Republican Party

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. –Edmund Burke

On Tuesday, November 6, 1984, I had finally come of age and had the occasion of voting in my first presidential election. I cast my ballot for Ronald Reagan. But before you castigate me or congratulate me, whatever your political leanings may be, please allow me a moment to explain my choice.

I did not make that choice blindly, but I made every plausible effort to assure I made the right choice. Perhaps I was a bit naïve, and certainly I had not yet developed a critical eye, but I read whatever literature I could find, and I spoke with representatives of the various political parties. However, it was the Republicans who presented their ideas most clearly, most concisely.

I don’t ever remember hearing the word conservatism used, but the Republican message of God and family, of working hard to get ahead, of self-determination, of personal responsibility, sounded very familiar to me. These were the same values extolled by my family since my earliest consciousness. So when I entered the voting booth on that day, I pulled the lever for Reagan.

However, over the next few years I did my due diligence to familiarize myself with the party and with the party’s beliefs. And at some point during this period, I even began to refer to myself as a conservative, and consumed a wide range of reading material by conservative thinkers. Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley, and Whittaker Chambers are a few names that come to mind.

I did not agree with everything I read. I did not even understand everything I read. But one thing became abundantly clear: the conservatism I was reading about and the conservatism as it was being practiced were not the same thing. While the intellectuals and thinkers defined conservatism in one manner, bigots interpreted conservatism in another and hijacked it in pursuit of power.

Around the mid 1960’s, those calling themselves conservatives saw an opportunity. With disgruntled southern Democrats upset with Kennedy’s and Johnson’s civil rights stance, they quickly shaped a message which would appeal to the nativists, the racists, the anti-Semites, the anti-communists, and the religious zealots all worried about the subversion of white, Anglo-Saxon Christian culture, and united them against a common foe—liberalism.

The Republican Party effectively became a haven for reactionaries and bigots. They, in Edmund Burkes words, “became bidders at the auction of popularity.”

And this is where conservatism and the Republican Party find themselves now. The two are inextricably entangled in their own past, dependent on racist, discriminatory rhetoric and divisive cultural and social issues to remain in the good graces of its most ardent believers; but as the scales fall from the eyes of the nation, this group is ever-dwindling .

Furthermore, while once conservative ideas and beliefs were articulated by respected intellectuals and thinkers, they are now represented by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber and others of that same ilk.

And when I speak to black Republicans, they always cite those values I articulated earlier—God, family, hard work, self-determination, and personal responsibility—as reasons why they remain in the party as if one must be a conservative and one must be a Republican to also believe in these values. But they seem to blindly not to recognize that the Republican Party and conservatives gave up on that agenda a long time ago.

Every woman or man has the right to believe what they want to believe. Every woman or man has the right to choose to belong to whatever organization they wish to belong to. But in choosing what to believe and who to align themselves with, they also should think critically enough to know when they are being insulted, being denigrated, being debased.

The Right Should Be Disqualified So We Can Move Forward: Game Theory and Bi-partisanship

My knowledge of game theory is cursory at best; however, I believe game theory provides an effective and informative lens through which we might view the current state of politics and the president’s attempts at bi-partisanship. Please forgive my lapses of understanding.

In its most basic, simplistic sense, game theory defines a game as a contest between participants or groups of participants governed by a clearly defined set of rules and acceptable strategies, the end result of which can be defined by a measurable outcome.

The end result may range from a positive sum, in which each participant or group of participants may gain and lose at the same time, or a zero sum, in which one participant or group of participants can win only at the expense of the other.

Of course, children play games all the time. Sports contests are games. And as technology grows and expands, so does the number of available computer and video games. Sometimes human relationships seem to be games. And of course, politics is a game.

These are the rules of politics as I understand them: governmental leaders representing various political ideologies are elected by constituencies most likely informed by similar ideologies and coalesce into coalitions. These coalitions then come to the table with other coalitions holding antithetical views to engage in public conversation and debate around various issues with the majority shaping and controlling the scope of that discourse.

The end result should be positive sum meaning that in the give and take of the game of politics, each side will gain and each side will lose; however, ultimately everybody wins because solid, well-crafted public policy should emerge from honest, rationale debate.

Since about the mid- to late-1960’s, the right has become very adroit at playing the game of politics. Oh, they have played hard and fast with the rules; their actions and assertions have always existed within that ethical gray area and on the very outermost margins of truth, but their strategy has been brilliant nonetheless.

Nixon’s Southern Strategy was brilliantly simplistic, and caught the left by complete surprise. And while President Regan’s ascension was assisted in part by Carter’s ineptitude, the right did a superb job in framing this ineptitude in ways the public could understand.

The first President Bush’s use of Willie Horton bordered on utter deceit, but in the end, it provided the margin of victory that he needed and proved brilliant. And Karl Rove’s mobilization of the right through hot button cultural issues and outright fear tactics was a bit tacky, but it was enough to win the second President Bush successive terms.

But while the right figured out the game and perfected its strategy, that strategy was not based on sound reason and substance, but relied too heavily on legerdemain and subterfuge, and under the weight of crisis, this lack of sound reason and substance and the input of outside interests inimical to the common good became plain, and their house of cards crashed down around them.

For years the right had grown fat and arrogant from winning, but suddenly the parameters of the game changed, and they found themselves on the outside looking in, but instead of regrouping within those parameters, they chose to disregard the rules altogether. And once one side chooses to disregard the rules altogether, the game ceases to be a game as such and descends into bloodsport, an absolute chaotic free for all.

So, to continue the pursuit of bi-partisanship is foolhardy. In order for bi-partisanship to work, both sides must be playing within the parameters of the game. But the right has opted out of the game. The right has gone renegade. And the outcome is no longer a positive sum proposal, but has become zero sum, an all or nothing, win at all cost proposition. Thus, the game has been compromised.

All that remains now is for the president to go ahead and declare the other team as disqualified, and move forward with what he and his team deem as in the best interest of the people.

A Soliloquy for Fools: Thoughts on the President's Address & the Fool Who Yelled Out from the Audience

Let me preface everything I have to say today by stating that I believe neither the democrats nor the republicans have posited a tenable argument in the so called health care debate that has captured our attention as of late. Neither side has turned in a laudable performance.

However, at this point, I believe the advantage must go to the democrats simply because the fact of their seeming timidity, disunity, and lack of a coherent message has been largely obfuscated by the shamefully loathsome behavior of the republicans.

In all their pointed malfeasance, I don’t think the Republican Party has been able to win anyone over; they have only managed to stir up the hornets nest of crazies that are convinced of the divinity of their mission. All they have managed to do is to introduce a new level of confusion and anxiety.

However, I believe President Obama’s speech to have been successful in rearranging the playing field. Given a primetime television and cable audience, he was able to outline his plan, albeit not without a few gaps, and debunk some of the lies of the right. Not only that, he was able set a certain tone. He left the door open for bipartisanship, but also apprised those standing in the way that he would move forward without them.

But I believe the most telling moment of the night came when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson brazenly and all so rudely and disrespectfully yelled out in response to the president’s promise that healthcare coverage would not be extended to illegal aliens, “YOU LIE!”

Oh, but haven’t they gotten beside themselves? Keep in mind that for eight full years, President Bush lied in almost every instance he stood before a microphone. But in all that time, no one yelled out “YOU LIE!”, even when it became plain that his verity was to be questioned.

But this is the sticky part. When Congressman Joe Wilson yelled out “YOU LIE!”, he had to have known it was indeed he who was lying. He had to have known that the various healthcare bill proposals forbade that coverage be extended to illegal aliens. At this point, perhaps, he realized that the nation might be ready to believe the president’s message, and in a last ditch effort, he attempted to insert a bit more misinformation and confusion.

However, his greatest effort may have been his greatest undoing. In his insolent audacity, he revealed his party’s dependence on emotion rather than reason. In violating all established rules of decorum, he revealed the Republican Party’s only message to be a soliloquy for fools in which they are characters on the stage of their own exaggerated efficacy, shouting lines filled with bigotry, with cynicism, with lies and misdirection, and reveling in the applause without realizing only they are clapping.

The Curse of Ham: Why the Right Fears Obama So

Around noon today the president of the United States, the first person of color to ever hold that position, will deliver a televised address to school children around the country. I can only marvel at the educational possibilities this speech presents. In a letter to principals throughout the nation, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan writes,

“This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s schoolchildren about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use the historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong.”

In a perfect world, this would be a moment which brings the nation together. This would be a moment for individuals on the left and the right to say to the world, “This is the fulfillment of the promise of equality inherent in the notion of Democracy. This is the proof that in this country, in our great nation, anyone can be anything if they simply focus and apply themselves.” This could be the proverbial teachable moment.

But instead, the possibility of this moment has been all but rendered impotent by a cynical cabal of self-aggrandizing individuals who claim to speak with the best interests of this country at heart; however, their methods reveal the nefariousness of their motives.

It is out of their own fear that they stoke the flames of fear in others. These are but two things that they fear most:

The Awesome Symbolism Inherent in the Moment

The office of the president does carry an enormous amount of power; however, the greatest virtue of that office perhaps can be found in its symbolism. The office of the president represents the highest achievement in the land.

And though the vast majority of U.S. presidents, with the exception of President Lincoln and President Obama and one or two others I cannot recall, have come from the upper classes, it is a symbol, a tacit promise, that anyone can rise to the very acme of power regardless of class, regardless of religion, and now, regardless of race and gender.

In the past, we recognized that though it might not have been articulated, race and class were real obstacles. But in the last election, those obstacles seem to have been removed. And could you imagine what ideas young African American children or young Hispanic children or young women might get in their heads if they see another minority, an educated, well-spoken person of color, stand before the nation’s school children and address them as their president?

They might be so audacious, so unctuous, as to believe that they too can achieve. And a nation of empowered, focused minority children is a threat to the current power structure.

The Curse of Ham

When President gave his historic race speech in Philadelphia during last year’s election, many thought that by revealing his grandmother’s unconscious racism, he did her a great disservice. However, I interpreted the revelation a bit differently.

I interpreted the revelation as a veiled reminder and message to those virulent racists still clinging so tenaciously but precariously to power that he was raised in their house as one of them. I saw it as a veiled reminder and message that he had seen them at their best, but in the same instance, he had witnessed them at their very worst. It was a veiled reminder and message that he had lived among them just enough time to learn the layout of the house, to learn enough family secrets to be sufficiently dangerous before being finally cast out as an adult bearing the curse of Ham.

Remember, revolution always begins from within. Wasn’t it Moses who proved to be the downfall of the House of Pharaoh after living there as a son all those years?

In closing, I have read the transcript of the speech, and I will be watching with a group of inner-city middle students this afternoon. If I can find the time, I will return this evening with my observations and their reactions.

Do you agree/disagree with my assessment? What do you think is behind the right’s fear? Or is it not fear but downright vindictiveness?

I Woke Up this Morning, and Got Myself a Gun (Pondering My Next Move)

Some time ago I resolved to begin each Monday on a positive note. However, events of this past weekend have pushed me completely in the opposite direction.

The tension out there is getting thick. On Saturday morning, I awoke to find in my local morning paper an article about a local businessman who is absolutely enraged that local authorities will not consent to him hosting a “Leaded Tea Party” over the Labor Day weekend on property owned by his business. [See original post.] Celebrants were to be able to fire weapons on a shooting range he set up on the property.

He has reacted by banning all government personnel from the property and erecting barricades and employing security personnel to enforce the ban. This is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. In fact, I actually expected this kind of reaction in this area sooner. After all, North Florida is but an extension of South Georgia. But I am cautious, perhaps overly so because I know these people are reacting not out of anger but out of fear. Yet, fear can make people react in ways in which they normally would not react and make decisions they will later regret. And with the hysteria stoked by the lies and propaganda from the right, anything is possible.

However, my wife’s reaction to the whole situation is what really disturbs me.

I am baffled by the whole gun culture. There is a segment of this country’s population who has enjoyed a long running love affair with guns that does not make sense. I have tried to explain it, but I honestly cannot. I have an idea that he has something to do with the power a gun suggests.

Though I have never owned a gun, I am more than capable of using one. When I was in the military, I qualified as an expert on a number of weapons—the M-16, the M-60 machine gun, the grenade launcher, the .45 caliber pistol, and the shotgun. However, I believe guns in the home are more trouble than they are actually worth; stories of catastrophes caused by guns in the home abound. And there is no conclusive proof that the presence of a gun in the home increases the safety of the home’s residence.

And my wife is even more strongly anti-gun than I. She vowed long ago that we would never possess a gun. So, imagine my surprise when on Saturday as we stood in the front yard, and I showed her the article alluded to earlier and casually joked that it might be time we armed ourselves.

She looked warily toward our neighbor’s home, the one outside which an oversize Confederate flag flies, and who drives the pick-up truck replete with anti-Obama and anti-Socialist bumper stickers. And then she looked either way up and down our street perhaps remembering that we were one of very few minorities in the area.

And I think I saw just a hint of fear in her eyes when she said, “I think it is definitely something we should talk about.” Her capitulation to the no gun rule by even considering bringing a gun into our home caught me and my children completely by surprise. It is not an overstatement to say we were unsettled by it.

And I did recognize the look of fear in my children’s eyes as they looked first at each other, and then at my wife, and finally at me. And I did recognize a slight twinge of fear of my own as I considered the possibilities and pondered how I might protect them if worse comes to worse.

Later when my wife and I were alone, I thought of broaching the subject with her again just to see if she was indeed serious, but I thought I would wait a while before mentioning it again.

I did not want the two of us to make such a serious decision out of fear. Because I know that fear can make people react in ways in which they normally would not react and make unwise decisions that they will later regret.

But today I think I will stop and price a few guns on the way home just to be on the safe side.

The Problem with Niggers

“In the remotest depth of the European unconscious an inordinately black hollow has been made in which the most immoral impulses, the most shameful desires lie dormant. And as every man climbs up toward whiteness and light, the European has tried to repudiate this uncivilized self, which has attempted to defend itself. When European civilization came into contact with the black world, with those savage peoples, everyone agreed: Those Negroes were the principal of evil.” --Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks

“It’s not the Negro problem. It’s the white problem. I’m black because you think you’re white. You’re the nigger, baby.” --James Baldwin

It’s much too late, and I’m much too tired. Plus, I promised myself I would not do anymore posts like this. I promised myself I would not use that word again. But the events of the past few weeks are tugging at me, pulling me violently from the comfort of my passive aggressive shell, forcing me to act out of character.

Could you please answer a question for me? What would cause supposedly civilized people to conduct themselves as those crowds, those mobs, have conducted themselves recently at the town hall meetings? What would cause people to act in opposition to their own interests? Keep in mind the conservative activist, who just happens to be black, who claims he was attacked by union members, is now seeking donations to help him with his medical bills because—now get this—he was recently laid off and lost his medical insurance. [Click here for full story.]

At first, the racism was only subtle, hinted at. But as time progresses, it becomes clearer and clearer that the right wrestles not so much with presidential policy but with the president himself. Or to be more exact, with the president’s race. Somehow the notion of the nation being lead by a black man and a Latina sitting on the Supreme Court seems cause enough to bring the whole structure crashing to the ground. The right would rather see the country fail than to concede defeat. Consider the following clip taken from a recent episode of the Rachel Maddows Show:

You see America has a problem with niggers. It has had a problem with niggers since its very inception. But it is not the problem what it, the nation, thinks it has.

You see America has never taken the time to examine itself critically. It never has taken the time to hold itself up to the light and search for the rough spots, those rough edges that could use smoothing out. It never has taken the time to measure its ideal against it reality. And it has not has to. It has always had niggers.

It was always able to blame the very worst of itself on niggers. Its most immoral, intolerable fantasies—blame it on the niggers. Its most violent, repulsive impulses—the fault of niggers. Its most rapacious, unspeakable proclivities—again, niggers.

That explains the sudden, violent animus. That explains the years of oppression of black people and brown people and red people and yellow people. That explains the religious intolerance, the continual denial of the basic rights of gays and lesbians. America needs niggers so that it will never have to know or admit the truth[s] about itself.

So, this is what’s at stake. If the president, a black man, succeeds, then American must rethink the way it feels about niggers, the way it sees niggers. If the president succeeds, the whole sordid truth will become known. If a black man succeeds where so many other white men have failed, America will then have face itself, examine itself and its history, and see the truth, the ugly reality of it all.

America will be forced to come to terms with itself, and it will no longer have niggers to blame. And the true nature of niggers will become plain. Dictator. Socialist. Terrorist. Dangerous outsider. Interloper. Racist. Nigger. These accusations against the president are but the deathbed confessions of a dwindling and dying majority.

Waiting on Revolution (Still): Bringing It All Full Circle

All criticism is a[n] autobiography.

--Bernard Shaw

But there is one thing about niggers I do not love

Niggers are scared of revolution.

--The Last Poets

…and now back to the regularly scheduled post.

I’m not sure when I first heard the term post-racial. I’m not sure if it was during the days leading up to the recent presidential election or in the days immediately following. But I wanted to believe, and for a brief moment I did.

However, on the day following the election, I spotted a group of women waving Obama campaign signs on a corner. And as I waited at the stop light, I heard the vilest of epitaphs hurled at these women from the cars of passing drivers, and I knew it was not so.

Regardless of what transpired after the campaign, though, I still marvel at and I am still proud of the amazing amount of energy and pride we exhibited during that campaign. For a brief second, I thought we were on the verge of revolution, but once the excitement and energy of the campaign dissipated, once the jubilation of the inauguration faded away, we all seemed to believe fait accompli and went about our everyday business. But the mission was hardly complete.

We sought change, and we flirted with revolution, but I don’t honestly believe we all had the same definition of change in mind. Many of us looked toward real change—revolution. We looked forward to changing the very nature of politics. We looked forward to leveling the playing field and making democracy work for everyone, not just a select few. We looked forward to everyone who had been denied a voice for so long, finally gaining a voice.

But many of us sought only to change the face and complexion of the man in charge of this whole mess. And that we got. But that change was and is wholly ineffectual. That change was and is only superficial.

We changed the face and complexion of the man in charge, but we overlooked the realities of the institution he took charge of. In our haste to embrace a post-racial society, we failed to realize just how shot through with racism and bigotry that institution was and is.

We campaigned for change, but what we really needed was a revolution.

And now when we really need the excitement and energy of the campaign, everyone seems to be complacent. Everyone seems to be sitting back waiting to see just what he will do next. How he will handle the challenges he faces. How he will respond to the charges made against him.

But in the meantime, the other side has mobilized. The other side has taken to the streets. The most urgent, strident voices to be heard across the political landscape are those attempting to fight back progress, those most resistant to real change.

And it’s time for us to stand up, to beat back those voices, to counter their ugly, vile rhetoric, their lies, with own voices, our own rhetoric, with our truths.

But we remain complacent. We remain silent.

When I was a child growing up during the seventies, I spent a lot of time on college campuses across the country with my mother, who was in graduate school, my aunts and my uncles. I remember the incredible amount of positive energy on those campuses at that time. I remember the conversations that took place. I remember the brothers and sisters first whispering, then shouting, revolution!

But it was not the violent revolution, the violent overthrow that’s often associated with that period, with that movement. It was a revolution of information. It was a revolution of pride. People were being encouraged to educate themselves, to get to know the institutions they were fighting against. People were encouraged to have pride in themselves, to not merely accept the crumbs which fell from the table, but to demand to have their cake and eat it too.

There was the tacit promise that change would eventually come. There was the tacit promise that the world would be made better for young black boys and young black girls in the near future. But as time went on, we ceased demanding a place at the table and simply took the little that was given us. But usually it was too little, too late, and meant only to appease.

I remember one of the leaders of that movement either saying or writing that one day, no one would feel free to call us niggers. And since that time, no one freely has. But we still seem to have not learned that there is more than one way to call a person a nigger, and we are being called out at this very moment.

And I am still waiting for revolution.

Additional reading: Full text and audio of Stokely Carmichael’s speech “Black Power” delivered at the UC Berkeley in 1969. [Click here to read and/or listen.]