Vision Circle

If you were to name the currently sitting national politician most hostile to the interests of black people, who would you name, and based on what action/position?

Historic Republicans who were slow to get it aren't hard to find, but historic Democrats with the same problem are just as easy to find.

Here's the wrench I'm going to throw into this line of thinking which I think will bring us up to contemporary times.

What the Republican Party is doing now is aggressively, but legally, doing as much armtwisting in redistricting as possible. This is especially true in Texas.

If a minority district suddently finds itself Republican where it was Democrat, what are the changes? Secondly, notice that the minority/majority 'differences' are strictly based on the race of the constituency. What exactly are the racial appeals, when it comes down to policy, that political leaders get away with. If they do, is it the racism of the political leader that is your biggest enemy or is it the racism of the new polity that you find yourself immersed in (without having physically moved.)

If you were to name the currently sitting national politician most hostile to the interests of black people, who would you name, and based on what action/position?

To Cobb's masterfully timed and placed point. All-of-em that benefit from disenfranchising redistricting are actively hostile to the interests of black folks.

Redistricting in a nutshell...,

Since G-Dub has the bridge, and he's not lifted a finger to repudiate the southern strategy or its 21st century gerrymander implementing enforcement, I've got to say that G-Dub is hands down the capo di tutti capi of slick, seigneurial violators.

What are we to make of Cynthia McKinney, the lefty who won re-election after Republican efforts to redistrict her into oblivion? Is her election a defacto racial victory over white people?

Near as I can tell, the redisticting plan as implemented by Republicans is to draw a line around black people (as reliably Democrat) and give them their own districts, so that they won't be influencing close elections.

I'm not a fan of partisan redistricting, mostly because I'm not much a fan of incumbents. But whatever the overall desirability of this intention, it surely doesn't result in anything which could be called "disenfranchisement" .... unless you're a Republican black.

The Democrats seek do the same thing with Republican concentrations.

I agree with the executive summary on the link above that the primary aim of redistricting is to protect incumbancy at all costs. That, in combination with the ever increasing cost of campaigns make the races very difficult for ordinary citizens to represent themselves. It is true that we run the serious risk of having a rigged system. But the passage of McCain-Feingold and the backlash against 527s has proved ample evidence to my eyes that the electorate will not stand for it.

Be all that as it may, what I sense in the criticism of Republican directed redistricting is that there exists in all opposition some untried left policy that, if only given the chance, would dramatically lift the boats for blacks.

Perhaps Democrats have only recently become non-racist enough for their liberal ideas to come from behind the condescention of radical chic and actually deliver some worthwhile patronage to black constituents. Hey but that's not my issue. I discount the racism on both sides, and thus have taken away the power of 'we love black people' to focus on more hardball issues - like the kind of permanent economic improvement that is not dependent on the political will of the majority.

Be all that as it may, what I sense in the criticism of Republican directed redistricting is that there exists in all opposition some untried left policy that, if only given the chance, would dramatically lift the boats for blacks.

You don't have to "sense" it Cobb, I plainly stated it;

until that cold day in political hell comes along when the party brain trust repudiates this insufferable element

G-Dub ought simply, plainly, and directly repudiate the manifold "isms" - starting with racism - that inform and lend meaning to the empty lives of a significant percentage of his carefully cultivated constituency. Oh yeah, and go back to enforcing the civil rights protections already on the books, instead of trying to tear these down or constitutionally prohibit them.

No surprises here; He could begin by becoming aware of the current events from his misspent youth. Perhaps Mademoiselle Condi could have tutored him on civil rights along with his private lessons on *foreign* affairs...,

While I agree with you that the republicans are notable plunderers of pork, "worthwhile patronage" was the exact terminology you used, permanent economic improvement independent of the will of the majority is not going to result from any afrostocratic maneuvering you or a handful of others advocate.

Instead, it appears to me that we will continue to require modes of legal redress for the forseeable to tackle issues at the root of the current imbalance, like systematic federally enforced wealth redistribution following WWII by the FHA, the USDA and black farmers, and so on. Any politician not actively supportive of these just corrections of recent imbalances, including so-called centrist democrats opportunistically pandering to the southern strategy element, are actively hostile to the interests of black Americans.

Part of the difficulty that we face in talking about black politics is the diffusion of values within various African American constituencies. I happen to agree that the black farmers were ripped off big time and that they need to get their judgement post haste. But in a list of political priorities, where exactly is that issue? I certainly can't tell. Show me the URL where the priorities are. Tell me the name of the individual or group that has its priorities straight.

Again, I believe these priorities are, by definition going to be more class interested than race interested but that some significant overlap will occur. What annoys me are the periodic inversions of logic that end up more publicized and more damaging to the very idea of black political activism.

For example, John Mack is on the record for more cosmic double jeopardy in the finding of lack of evidence of excessive force on the 'flashlight incident'. Now Stanley Williams is trying to sue the LAPD for 25 million. Williams didn't even bleed.

At any rate, I expect a robust exchange and great variance of opinion, and to the extent that all sorts of African American ways of life are not threatened by dissent, I am no more inclined to lose sleep over failures of political unity than with those in the general American public. Again, there is no MLK today because the predicaments African Americans find themselves in today requires no MLK.

My expectations at the outset were to see a section of the African American polity to find a home in the Republican party. I believe that my goal was 15% by 2010. I'm satisfied thus far.

Cobb, if I thought for even a moment that these people were your people, well I don't know what I would do....,

Frankly, I'm not satisfied with settling for a coalition of the neurologically sick or congenitally chicken-headed filling out the ranks.

Yeah I know. The first draft of my piece on those initiatives was very harsh. I moderated it considerably upon discovering that Rivers had met with the President, as had whatshisface from the Detroit Pistons in a complete attitude turnabout.

I don't know what any rapproachment with the Heritage Foundation would yeild; I'm a lot more favorable to the Manhattan Institute where McWhorter is hanging out.

What I also meant to say is that we are sounding very much like Lani Guinier here. This is what she was grappling with more than a decade ago. There is a myth of monolithic disenfranchisement, and while I fundamentally agree that redistricting must be reformed and stand in favor of proportional representation schemes, there's is a lot of work to be done in generating various black consensuses, which what I think we are supposed to be doing out here on the internet.

The rise of the blogosphere is a very important step in asserting black social power into the contemporary opinionmaking machine.

An aside. Rasheed Wallace (Detroit Pistons) met with Bush. This was not an attitude turnaround. Bush met with the entire team Monday to recognize their achievements as National Champions. Wallace attended the meeting because he HAD to. But he didn't say anything.

Cobb asked me what I thought about Rivers meeting with Bush. I had to think about it a bit.

Not much. If Bush called me and said he wanted to meet with me...I'd go. I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. But I'd still go.

The REAL questions are:

1. What do we talk about?

2. What does he get?

3. WHAT DO I GET??

I don't know what the answers are for Rivers. I do know he's been trying to perfect his pimp game for about six or seven years now.

What I also meant to say is that we are sounding very much like Lani Guinier here.

I had vague recollections of Lani Guinier, but here's an essay written by Lani Guinier. Her position is a little different than I had recalled.

One of the troubling aspects of her argument is the unchallenged acceptance of racially polarized voting. given racially-polarized voting, appears multiple times in this essay. She simply doesn't explore the potential for a black candidate being attractive to white voters.

Secondly, she doesn't supply an analysis of the effects of proportional representation over the traditional American winner takes all system. It is certainly true that minorities get more seats in a proportional system, but it's also true that a lot of those minorities are truly dingbats. We would hear a lot more from the far right, for example, than we do now.

The American system is fundamentally conservative, in the sense of conservative that resists radical immediate change. Even those who want radical immediate change should be fearful that radical immediate change tends not to end up where one had in mind. It's much more vulnerable to demagoguery.

One of the troubling aspects of her argument is the unchallenged acceptance of racially polarized voting. given racially-polarized voting, appears multiple times in this essay. She simply doesn't explore the potential for a black candidate being attractive to white voters.

And why should she? It's a purely hypothetical notion. Had Barack Obama not been running against serial freaks, he wouldn't be considered a magical negro at this moment either. Why don't you open this exploration DW? Putting aside Dr. Guinier's 12 year old essay and fastforwarding to today, how has the intervening decade proven - by a series of contemporary black candidates with chimerical transracial appeal - your idealized notion of a color-blind majority white district electing a black candidate who enjoys broad-based support among a majority-white though racially-diverse constituency? Let's kick that up a notch, and make it a conservative black candidate. I can count on one hand the number of these holding seats in congress. Oops, nope, JCWatts threw in the towel, my bad.

The only one on a national level that comes to my mind is Bill Clinton. But then he was white. What was Willie's special gift? He is genuinely comfortable with black folx, and that's about the size of it. Black's loved him waaaay out of proportion to the patronage he delivered, simply because he wasn't overtly inimical to us. Meanwhile, his administration put more black men on perpetual lockdown in the criminal justice system in the decades old War on Drugs [which is in fact a low intensity War on Blacks] than any other set of administrations combined.

The American system is fundamentally conservative

If by this you mean the American system is fundamentally white-centric, I agree wholeheartedly. We can find numerous examples of white political candidates who were viewed as attractive to black voters, again on nothing more concrete than that they did not express overt aversion to black folx. The hypothetical black candidate with cross-over appeal hasn't really existed. Considering where the economy and the nation are headed, I don't expect that she/he ever will.

And why should she?

Because in a purely racially polarized voting context, with 51% white and 49% black voters, a black candidate with 2% appeal to whites will win the election.

Now of course, the numbers aren't that stark anywhere, but the conclusion applies. A black candidate who is even moderately attractive to whites will disrupt the status quo where a small white majority does not elect black candidates.

It's a purely hypothetical notion.

One name: Colin Powell.

It might be hypothetical to many would-be black candidates, because they're apparently unable to consider a more centrist platform.

Maybe the question is "why are centrist black candidates so rare". Why do we come up empty trying to name the black Bill Clinton, but we have no problem naming the black Pat Buchanan?

DW - you've got to stop dealing in verbal logic hypotheticals. It's so much easier - and I believe more productive - to focus on the facts.

There are no such districts, due in large measure to the historical fact of white flight and self-segregation.

Colin Powell is not now, nor will he be a candidate.

As far as black folks who are popular with whites, Oprah trumps Colin Powell on his very best day. She's infinitely better qualified than Dubya judging from her business successs alone - and - she speaks so well. The fact of the matter is that neither the Big C or the Big O have expressed an interest in soiling themselves in the dirty business of politics. THAT is the paradox I suggest you really need to interogate! Why do these folks refuse the mantle?

As far as black centrist politicians go, in my estimation the majority of the CBC is centrist.

That none of them are self-hating or ignorant enough to cater to the southern strategy demographic in all its present incarnations has nothing to do with being centrist, but it suggests to me why Colin and Oprah will not sacrifice themselves on the alter of personal debasement.

As for black conservative demagogues they are a dime a dozen...., I'm actually far more tolerant of the traditional, protectionist, and arch conservative pov of a Pat Buchanan, than I am of the self-hating and fringe lunatic rantings of a Jesse Lee Peterson.

Harold Ford Jr. is doing his level best to impersonate Bill Clinton. He's a handsome enough young man, perhaps he can do what Bill did and find a rich randy old patron like Pamela Harriman who'll open doors across the spectrum of influence and make his career too. It remains to be seen whether he'll succeed.

If I had my hypothetical druthers, it'd be a black William F. Buckley, passing the Dutchie on the right hand side, suffering no fools, and advocating an uncompromising and internally consistant pov at all times.