I've written here in Cobb that there is a dirty little secret in black politics. Perhaps some of Dean's campaign team has taken an object lesson. Those African Americans who hold out for hope in the world of politics of all places have apparently been placated by Mr. Dean's clever rhetoric.
What is astounding about this sleight of hand is that Dean has gotten away with getting endorsements without having made one documentable campaign promise. Sensible people expect politicians to dissemble, and those things that are sacrificed first are campaign promises. So what kind of fool gives the benefit of the doubt to a politician whose not even willing to make a promise? There is nothing so irresponsible as a man who makes no promises and states no case, something most of us recognized when pressing Clarence Thomas. But if there is, then it is the voter who trusts such a man. Fools following liars.
Let us start with the gushing of the Black Commentator.
Howard Dean’s December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years. Nothing remotely comparable has been said by anyone who might become or who has been President of the United States since Lyndon Johnson’s June 4, 1965 affirmative action address to the graduating class at Howard University.
BC seems to desire nothing more than acceptance of Dean as a mainstream candidate so that his vague histrionics can give air to BC's studied radical notions. BC is clearly anti-corporate, but do they actually expect Dean to endorse that form of economic strategy?
The core of BC's economic mythology is plain.
Negro poverty is not white poverty. Many of its causes and many of its cures are the same. But there are differences – deep, corrosive, obstinate differences – radiating painful roots into the community, and into the family, and the nature of the individual.These differences are not racial differences. They are solely and simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice. They are anguishing to observe. For the Negro they are a constant reminder of oppression.
This is the farce at the heart of Dean's legitimacy in the eyes of the Black Commentator. They refuse to separate economics from racial politics, therefore it is not sufficient that African Americans themselves know the facts of history. There has to be a Great White Father who also sees it that way. Blacks don't recover themselves, they do so under the aegis of a friendly politically revisionist history. This is all Dean delivers: talk and promises to talk.
I said it once, and I'll say it again:
I challenge anyone to show exactly what it is that the Democrats have done for African Americans that they haven't done for everyone else. Whatever you find, I will bet my nickel that it doesn't get any larger than a quarter of a billion in any one program out of the Federal budget. But what the Democrats do that the Republicans don't is insure that they say a lot of nice things about blackfolks. The dirty little secret is that this covers a lot of what the black electorate will settle for. If you ask someone who hates the idea of Black Republicans what it is that the Democrats will give blacks that the Republicans won't, it will all come down to warm and fuzzies. Try it. Get them to name programs when they disagree. Materially, most folks are hard pressed to talk about black patronage in dollars and cents. But they know what kind of rhetoric they like. Ask how much federal money goes to support HBCUs. Nobody knows. Ask what kind of support Affirmative Action should get and you'll hear a litany of legalese words, qualifications, provisos, tests, and other verbal requirements. What a twist of fate! It's not all about the Benjamins.
Check out his speech yourself. At least six paragraphs begin "We're going to talk about..". That wouldn't be so bad if the paragraphs weren't so damned thin. But then again, Dean has to prove himself mainstream, otherwise the formula doesn't work. That means he has to sell out principles for the sake of wide acceptability. I keep telling blackfolks that this is the fundamental problem.
Yet the BC keeps hope alive:
Where does this leave Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich? Exactly as they are, preaching the same social democratic, anti-racist, pro-peace message as before, for as long as their energies can sustain them. Dean’s political leap would not have been possible in the absence of Sharpton’s energetic Black candidacy and Kucinich’s principled, progressive white voice from the Left. At this historic juncture they dare not go anywhere. Dean has picked up the torch that Sharpton and Kucinich have been carrying and they must stay in the race to make sure he doesn’t set it down.
If there is any mark of delusion, there it is plainly and simply. To imagine that Dean couldn't survive without Sharpton and Kucinich makes about as much sense, as my old feminist buddies used to say, as a fish without a bicycle.
I am willing to bet money that this infatuation will be short-lived. It's too bad that the Black Commentator and those who follow this rationale are so soft-headed and willing to compromise. But that is their fate, tied as they are to the ritual of hope and disappointment which is the standard fare of the African American voters and the Democratic Party.
I know George W. Bush's weaknesses, and as a hard headed Republican, I'm not afraid to call him on them because I am vested in his practical success. Practical success is the difference between Cobb and the dreamers over on the Left. Apparently everybody can have a dream. It's just a matter of time before Dean reveals his dreams to America. "I too have a dream", he'll say. I'll hold back my puke until that moment. But it's coming.
I have one last barb to pitch. Where is the Congressional Black Caucus in all this? I haven't been looking, but if their opinion mattered enough, it would make news loud enough to hear. Considering small incidents that make enough news for Jesse Jackson to be mentioned, I'm sure I hear quite enough. And my ears are telling me that the CBC's opinion doesn't matter.
Posted by mbowen at December 14, 2003 01:46 PM | TrackBackI disagree that the Republicans get paid to be racist, or that the white electorate will either. Taxes are an overplayed but tangible pocketbook issue, and if Republicans weren't offering this chicken in every pot, they wouldn't and couldn't get elected consistently on racial platforms.
Even if it were the case, I've already discounted it. So, if all the racists are in the Republican Party what is the single most odious thing they have done and why has no Democrat seen that and attacked it directly? They can't because the defacto racist agenda of the Republican Party is neglectful campaigning. So what? All that ends on the floor of Congress.
Those things that are most materially significant in institutional racism are primarily inertial. Neither party is ready to make it a priority to go after these things.
I knew that wasn't Dean's statement, I simply took it as BC's position. So that Johnson said it is not directly material - it's squishy and it conflates economics and racial history anywhay. That's my point. Unless you are talking about Hardball Zero-Sum Affirmative Action, there are not 'black jobs' out there to be offered by either party. So either the economic policy is coherent and race-blind, as we know everyone believes anyway, or it is straight out racial pork, which no candidate not even Sharpton is going to offer. So why the conflation of the issues? It serves the purpose of warm and fuzzy.
Neither Johnson, nor Dean is talking about enabling Black Capitalism. There's no beef.
Posted by: Cobb at December 14, 2003 04:58 PMI'm trying to get a handle on this statement but it is very difficult. The backward approach:
Who exactly supports "black capitalism?" IIRC Nixon was the bc king, and he discarded the idea in favor of the Southern Strategy. The Democratic Party supports it by fiat I suppose, but I can't remember the last time I heard the GOP talking about it. There is an interesting mirror to crony capitalism in both Sharpton and Jackson's attempt to make loot off of legitimate black middle class suffering...and the people who tend to support this are Democratic elites--who benefit in a couple of problematic ways. Oh. The liquor companies support black capitalism too...but here I'm talking about the superpromoters.
"The defacto racist agenda of the Republican Party is neglectful campaigning." So the GOP's agenda is problematic not because they actively demonize black voters, but because they don't take the time to actively recruit them? I am probably misunderstanding this statement... but it appears to me that the Republicans do both. They don't take time to actively recruit african americans and they actively demonize them in order to recruit working class whites. The DNC plays the punk role by not standing up (until Dean).
"The republicans don't get paid to be racist... neither does the white electorate." I actually didn't say they were racist. I can't tell. I do know that they have effectively used race in order to convince voters that government is wasteful, criminals should be severely punished, and that poverty has a black face and will not be solved by "throwing money at the problem."
Even given all this, I do believe it is incumbent upon African Americans to get in where they fit in. I've even figured out how state's rights can be used to help rather than harm African American life chances. But we can't go into this project blindly.
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 19, 2003 09:38 PM
I think you should re-read the black commentator piece. The poverty stuff? That isn't Dean at all...that's JOHNSON'S HOWARD GRADUATION SPEECH OF 1965!
What is Dean's central argument? That the Southern Strategy is racist...and should be fought head on. My feelings about Dean "getting it" and Dean "having soul" are straightforward and outlined for all to see.
But the rise of the republican party in the modern era is largely due to racial demogoguery by the republicans and to the lack of heart of the democrats. Dean's speech on this issue should be regarded as a positive step forward. And while your point about the democratic party not doing anything unique for blacks is well taken, I'm not sure that's actually the point here. The point is to create a discursive framework by which candidates can honestly talk about the ISSUES rather than scapegoating (or being afraid to defend) black people.
Posted by: Lester Spence at December 14, 2003 04:37 PM