Vision Circle

'Find me an evangelical arguing at any point within the last thirty years that the evangelical Christians should split their vote.'

I thought this point was dubious then I found

'Bill Clinton in 1996 won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. But in 2000, George Bush won the majority of freestyle evangelicals. It shifted by about 10 percent away from Gore towards Bush, which, in an election that close, it was a very important shift. '

located at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vote.html

Evangelicals have a tendency to vote in favor for whichever party courts them be they Dems or Republicans. It's not as black and white as the black vote.

When Dems assume blacks will vote Democratic, they are implicitly assuming that those folks will not be making critical thinking decisions. I liken it to a girl you can call any day, time, or night and get some action, if you catch my drift.

We need to stop this un-think amongst ourselves and stop lambasting each other for divergent political views-categorizing non-Dems as sellouts, Uncle Tom's, and detrimental to our collective struggle.

It just makes us look like idiots.

I'm sick and tired of the egos, foibles, and unrelenting hypocrisy of every single one of these bad actors. There time on the stage has got to end soon.

With the eruption of reverendalgate in full effect, as reported in today's Village Voice, to round out and deepen the crisis of credibility among the eminence gris of civil rights/political/church "leadership", it has become crystal clear that all these old, tired, busters are overdue for retirement.

It's completely conceivable that Mfume -- as a more reconcilatory personality -- step down from the NAACP leadership minus the existence of a full-blown personality clash with Bond and/or other board members as some are insinuating. I believe Armstrong Williams is viewing this event through his own peculiar (and unreliable) lens rather than provide us with a legitimate critique of the organization.

An urban legend has been created that the NAACP is partisan. The hypothesis goes Blacks vote predominantly (and reflexively) Democratic, therefore the organization's vitality is lessened as the DP assumes the minority role in national government. The logic (?) here overlooks the NAACP's mission; the organization's diligence in abiding said mission, and the fact of civil rights as a non-partisan issue.

There are two questions: 1) is the NAACP still formidable, 2) how best to today advocate and/or monitor civil rights? Judging by their efforts of late on items including voter registration and various legal cases, the answer to (1) is a resounding 'yes'. But whether the organization is investigating sufficient methodologies for advancing the cause of civil rights is a legitimate concern. I have my ideas, as I'm sure does the NAACP's executives and active members. I would think Bond, et al, understand as a given the prudence of engaging the WH, regardless of which party's flag is currently flying over 1600 Pennsylvania.

But at what cost?

To me, it would be unconscionable for the NAACP to suborn itself to the unctious tactics waged by the GOP leadership. It appears the Republican concept of civil rights comes down to those rights you can afford pay for.

I forgot to ask what do evangelical Christians and Al Sharpton have to do with the NAACP?

Lester,

I read your BlackSlate article and have a couple of quibbles:

1) The NAACP's 501(c)3 status does not prevent it from owning property. If it so chose, it could be a non-profit developer or could set up a for-profit arm and develop under that entity. Many of the biggest property owners in the US are non-profit organizations: look at churches and hospitals, for example.

2) Local Chapters do focus on local issues and do not always involve National. Clearly, it can be quite beneficial if there is coordination between local chapters and national, but it isn't an absolute requirement.

3) Pell Grants are hardly something you would expect a local chapter to focus on; the fact that National doesn't act as fast as we would like is a function of a mostly volunteer organization.

In the end, it is an institution that needs help from all of us to focus on the real issues. Keep your membership current and get involved locally.

I wish I could've recalled the specific conversation I had with an NAACP exec when I was working on my dissertation six years ago. He noted that while all of the local mandates could be fulfilled without the watchful eye of the Nationals, if some type of direct action was needed it could ONLY occur with approval of Nationals.

Your point on non-profit status is an EXCELLENT one--and I had not considered it before. I wonder why the NAACP has not considered that route--or publicized it if they had?

I threw in Pell Grants just because it was on my mind at the time. I'm going to try to put some columns in the hopper over the break because i'm going weekly soon. Pell Grants are one of the issues I plan to deal with.

"I forgot to ask what do evangelical
Christians and Al Sharpton have to do with
the NAACP?"

Evangelicals depend on donations and massive suspension of disbelief for their continuing survival (and growth), they've grown impressively and considerably across ethnic and cultural lines of demarcation, and, they wield considerable collective political influence and directly and materially impact the communities in which they operate locally.

The NAACP has identical infrastructural dependencies - but hasn't figured out how to grow, wield political influence, cross ethnic or cultural lines of demarcation, or materially impact the communities in which it operates its increasingly geriatric and irrelevant chapters.

I threw the Rev. Al in there just to take a gratuitous swipe at an oxygen thief who's managed to attract and squander public attention without adding any material value.

My political views tend to be malthusianlibertarian. I don't hold with the objectivist pretensions of many who claim to be libertarians and I tend to view fundamentalist objectivismas superstitious drivel and an overt expression of normotic illness.

With my cards now flat out on the table, the subject of which political party warrants the allegiance of black americans can be more easily framed. IMO - neither democrat or republican party presently courts the black vote in terms meant to appeal to blacks as constituents.

Given the prominent role assigned to the big white elephant of racism by republicans who brazenly ride the beast across the red hinterlands of America, and the *strategy* of appeasement of that elephant practiced by the clintonian DLC establishment - here's a novel thought.

Why not let's use the NAACP establishment, badly in need of structural and operational revamping, as the nucleus of a new political party which can pair up with the Deaniac wing of the democrat party and perhaps establish an interpersonal political communion in the next four years that will have to be reckoned with come 2008.