[ Edited to fix some glaring mistakes ]
In this blog entry that I made, Cobb and P6 launched into an interesting discussion concerning politics and self interest.
It's wrong for me to ever try to be concise in evaluating anything that Cobb writes, but I think this sums up his view of the Republican party: "The Party is what you make of it. ... Republican party doesn't have to change much, it has to go ahead about its ordinary routine, and blacks who get with the party will benefit because their self-interest will coincide with the self-interest of the party"
I think this sums up P6's response to Cobb accurately: "I agree the Republican Party is more pro-business than anti-Black. But they are both. And they are attempting to shape the landscape the landscape such that both agendas are fulfilled.
"Now you're saying accept the anti-Black aspect for the sake of the money?"
When I was living in the Maryland side of the D.C. suburbs, a private organization sent out teams of Black people and white people to apply for an apartment lease. The published results of the test pointed to discrimination by some of the apartment managers.
Around this time, the Republicans won control of the House of Representatives. Newt Gingrich said that the EEOC would face a cut in funding. When this brought a lot of heat, he backed off and said that the EEOC will receive an increase in funding. However, the EEOC would not be allowed to do testing like that done by the private organization. I thought that it was interesting that during this time, the EEOC was receiving more age discrimination complaints than racial discrimination complaints.
Later, when the Republican party gained control of both halves of congress, Sen. Phil Gramm became the head of the banking committee. He made it clear that he wanted to change the rules concerning the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA required banks to service loans in the same area that they have bank branches.
Black activists believed that the CRA helped the underserved minority areas that banks may have had branches. One person I know who worked in a bank in the Chicago area, told me that bank executives didn't want to open branches in Black areas. When they were compelled to do so, they opened a branch in a run down office. Additionally, the branch did not provide the full range of services that other branches provided. That branch turned out to generate much more business than the executives anticipated. They then opened another branch in the area, in an office that was up to the standards of other bank branches.
I go into that to lend some support to the idea that P6 is making, or at least the point that I believe he is making.
The two examples I gave may point to an anti-Black bias. But, I can also point to the support for giving government money to Black religious organizations or the support for small business that may show a support for Black business and the Black community.
Frankly, I think they both make excellent points. From my experiences, I find some of the race related aspects coming from some people within the Republican party to be a bit much. But I find some of the Democratic party positions one that will harm me, and others, in the long run. For example, the willingness to raise taxes is something that I can't support.
However, I address each individual politician on their individual merits. For example, when Robert Ehrlich ran against Kathleen Townsend, I voted for Ehrlich, the Republican, because I knew Townsend would propose raising taxes and the Democratic state house would willingly respond. I also knew that Ehrlich would create a better climate for business in the less than business friendly state of Maryland.
It helped that his running mate was Michael Steele who both said would play a big role in the administration. Michael Steele, amoung other things, is heading reforming the Minority Business Enterprise set aside program. (A post on that is coming later).
Since Ehrlich has gained office, he raised taxes for people who take advantage of individual resources, only he called it usage fees instead of taxes. He has not raised general taxes. He has also increased the amount of funding given to HBCUs in the state of Maryland. He is pushing for reform of sentencing so that drug abusers get treatment instead of jail time.
He's a Republican, but in this individual case, he doesn't appear anti-Black. In fact, I'd say he's not anti-Black and he is pro-business.
I'll contrast that to Ellen Sauerbry. When she ran for governor, she accepted an invitation to speak to a Black group. After her advisor told her that she risks getting her base mad, she decided not to speak to the group. Even though she ran against Paris "Spenddenning" Glendenning, I pulled the lever for Glendenning because she gave me no indication that she would be, at least, race neutral or non-racist.
I look at the individual politician. I try to avoid looking at the party. On the local level, that's very easy. But when it is on the national level, the consideration of party may become an issue if I get the idea that the politician is just going to follow the party line just to get along and get ahead. Then, I consider if that person may have the strength of conviction to vote in my self interests even when it's against the party norms.
So, I see nothing wrong with Cobb's point of view. And I see nothing wrong with P6's dislike of Cobb's view.
When Cobb wrote,
"If you are pro-black in that you look at what the average black person is doing, or the majority of whatever black people are doing and you support and defend that, it is a different animal than saying you are pro-black with a specific agenda that you think blacks ought to pursue. I am of the latter persuasion, and what I think blacks ought to pursue is getting a grip on the higher echelons of this society in terms of the unique opportunities that our social capital could get us",
But being the realist that I am, I look at the average group and I look at what we should be doing, and go from there. In fact, when the "political elites" say "we" should be doing this, supporting this, or thinking like this, and it's something I agree with, I generally respond, "I agree. So, what are you doing to get this to the masses instead of pontificating among the elite?" This, I think, is where the "Black right" camp falls behind the "Black left" camp. The "Black left" camp appears to be speaking TO the Black community, though they treat the Black community as if we are all in despair. The "Black right" appears to be speaking AT the Black community, as though the Black community is lying around doing nothing.
Look, we know that most Blacks have no problem with the idea of starting a business or making money. We know that most Blacks will support the idea of Black churches helping out in the community. We know that most Blacks will support the idea of locking up criminals, as long as the justice system is fair. We know that most Blacks will support the police if they police are not behaving in an antagonistic manner.
That's not Republican. That's not Democratic. A Republican who supports those ideals can get a substantial number of Black votes. But that Republican has to make it clear he's not anti-Black.
Politics is a game of "feel" and Republican politicians don't have a problem getting white voters to "feel" comfortable with them. They do have a problem getting Black voters to "feel" comfortable with them.
J.C. Watts said that the Republican party has a problem with image and getting its ideas across to the Black community. Black Republicans giving the impression that Black voters are stupid for voting Democratic, doesn't help the image. Black Republicans giving the history of Republican support for "civil rights" throughout their history, while ignoring the Southern Strategy or saying that Goldwater's anti-civil rights bill support was principled and not racist, doesn't help the image. The Republicans apparently staunch support for the confederate flag, doesn't help the image.
Some ignore the image, some don't. I have no problem with anyone ignoring the image and doing their thing. Just don't insult the Black masses in the process. (Not saying that Cobb does that).
Change the image or at least greatly modify the image and watch what happens. I think Michael Steele understands.
Posted by at February 6, 2005 06:11 PM | TrackBackHow is it possible that a party determined to appease racists could make a latino the top cop in the nation?
because he's so demonstrably debased and amoral that he sanctioned the use of torture?
as for Powell, because he was the PR cleaner on My Lai?
Rice...., well, she referred to Dubya as her husband - that kind of speaks for itself.
name a single, long-term, serious minded black power broker within the GOP political apparatus, and I'll concede the point to you. Otherwise, the long-established tradition of keeping a token crew of house kneegrows whose contortionistic dissimulation and self-debasement is so great that they can abide Conservative Citizens Council *bedfellows* prevails.
The GOP is hoovering up Jesse Lee Petersons left and right...., the intellectual and critical heir to George Schuyler is nowhere in sight.
Posted by: cnulan at February 7, 2005 03:19 PMI'd have to say Michael Steele, who spoke at the Republican convention last year. He's better placed to do big things in the party than Condi was when she spoke. But that is the sad truth about the jackleg crew, too bad McWhorter's not a political wonk...
On the other hand, if we start hearing anything out of this new initiative, you will have people like Fred Price deliver the smackdown to the part-time ministers. Price runs a big church with lots of Old School professionals, and they won't put up with jacklegs.
Let's also not forget that the brother at Faithful Central was on Wal-Mart's side of the equation in Inglewood last year.
The question is, which way does TD Jakes go? BTW I watched him for the first time in my life last week. I see why he is who he is. That man has the touch.
Posted by: Cobb at February 7, 2005 03:33 PMImage works with white party support. whites exposed to compassionate images of republicans are much more likely to support them.
blacks? doesn't matter a whit.
I've got to do my homework on Michael Steele, and, I'd be curious to know about Fred Price's constituents' political leanings...., that is, if there are any demographic concentrations along party lines in his church.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the mystery bar chart maps to Price's congregation.
That would be goodness in my book.
Anyway, I may have to retract my comment about there being no heir in sight to Schuyler. If the CB at VC keep serving up heaping helpings of jes grew, why there's no telling what'll come of it...,
I propose that one plank in the conservative black platform meriting ruthless interrogation is this practice Spence spoke to of political deracialization. IMO - it's a cosmetic accomodation to the lowest common denominators -and it should be abandoned forthwith.
Anyone failing to come to grips with the objective reality that our shared American way of life IS our polity - is perhaps undeserving of participation in the polity. Those people need to be shunned. I'm coming to see more clearly the potential power of social capital and its possible uses in this regard.
It is precisely polarization along trivial fault lines that will ensure American failure in the quest for hegemony. At the end of the day, the mainstream electorate will have to come to grips with and solve
Baldwin's Hard Problem if we are to assume the mantle of global hegemon.
I'd say that Baldwin's Hard Problem would be to tell the outsider what he's doing in the ghetto, and welcome him with open arms. I'm definitely going to use that. Whoo! Deep.
Please try to be clear, dear James, through the storm which rages about your youthful head today, about the reality which lies behind the words acceptance and integration, There is no reason for you to try to become like white people and there is no basis whatever for their impertinent assumption that they must accept you. The really terrible thing, old buddy, is that you must accept them. And I mean that very seriously. You must accept them and accept them with love. For these innocent people have no other hope. They are, in effect, still trapped in a history which they do not understand; and until they understand it, they cannot be released from it.
and also, specifically about the outsider
He was forced, little by little, against his will, to realize that in running the dangers of Harlem he had not been testing his manhood or heightening his sense of life. He had merely been taking refuge in the outward adventure in order to avoid the clash and tension of the adventure proceeding inexorably within.
And that's why nobody should be hating on hiphoppers who sell to suburban kids.
Posted by: Cobb at February 7, 2005 07:33 PMThe GOP is hoovering up Jesse Lee Petersons left and right
The biggest mistake Black Republicans could do would be to "allow" Jesse Lee Peterson to become the face of Black conservatives.
On Cobb's comments on L.A., the West Coast seems to be the incubator for a lot of things that go country-wide. That's one thing I think I would like to see spread from L.A.
"How is it possible that a party determined to appease racists could make a latino the top cop in the nation? It simply does not compute."
Cobb, are you seriously writing this? I know you are a student of history and cannot be saying that there haven't been people of color who were more than willing to serve the interests of racists, and racists who were more than willing to use those persons to forward there own agenda.
Yes, I think many latinos are smart enough to note that putting one pro torture latino in one position isn't actually the same as being pro latino.
Also, I think we can all ask the tough questions- such as when private institutions turn down the kids most in need, and they have to go back to defunded public schools, what do we do then?
Posted by: animeg3282 at February 8, 2005 11:22 AMI'm seriously writing this.
I understand the extent to which certain things which eventually trickle down to blackfolks are suddenly devalued by racists. I'm sure you'll find no racist whites wearing Timberland boots or rockin' Hilfiger, but devaluing the office of AG?
It seams to me you can't have it both ways. Did Clinton hire Hazel O'Leary to do his dirty work in the DOE in pursuit of a racist agenda, or is that something only Republican presidents do? You have no idea how paranoid you sound. Speaking of which, just for the example I surely have forgotten, who was the black man appointed to a high political office in the Jim Crow South to further the white racist political agenda? Or perhaps the precedent was during slavery times. When exactly did this sort of reverse appeasement gain favor with America's racists? That's history I missed.
As for the who narrative of 'corporate lawyering' with Judge Gonzales, I don't buy it for a minute. I'm really not going to dignify that kind of willful blindness. This is just more anti-Iraq reactionary politics. Tell you what, I'm going to take a reactionary line on this too. Democrats are just too racist to believe that a Hispanic is capable of seeing flaws and omissions in their great white Geneva Convention.
Posted by: Cobb at February 8, 2005 11:55 AM"The administration certainly has its far Right ideologues—the Washington Post’s recent profile of Alberto Gonzales, whose memos are literally written for him by Cheney aide David Addington, provides striking evidence. But the Bush administration still seems more embarrassed than proud of its most authoritarian aspects. Gonzales takes some pains to present himself as an opponent of torture; hypocrisy in this realm is perhaps preferable to open contempt for international law and the Bill of Rights"
Hunger for Dictatorship in the current American Conservative
That Washington Post profile of Gonzalez may be worth tracking down. IMO - Gonzalez is a piece of work more extreme than Ashcroft. He's sliding into office on a racial stealth glide...,
Posted by: cnulan at February 8, 2005 09:21 PM"Democrats are just too racist to believe that a Hispanic is capable of seeing flaws and omissions in their great white Geneva Convention."
Believe what you you wish.
Look, I don't think that Bush or anyone I can think of in his administration is a racist. At least not in the conventional use of the term (think Bull Conner or my high school counselor). There may be some who view some of their policies as racist, but I usually don't take the term that far. A little to ambiguous and I like concretes.
My point was that you can't be denying that the powerful (even when held by racists) will stifle their prejudices when necessary to continue holding power. Come on brother, I know you know, we live in a age when racism is a little more subtle than during Jim Crow, so stop throwing up the straw men...they're flammable.
Posted by: wcole at February 9, 2005 01:53 AMOf course there were blacks in the south who were appointed by Jim Crowites to keep the peace. Check the records.
Begin with the blacks that COULD vote. Move from there to the black preachers. Read the white press and note who they refer to when they talk about "responsible negroes."
And of course, don't forget about Booker T. Washington who noted that "lynching means progress."
Posted by: Lester Spence at February 9, 2005 09:29 AM
I think you've nailed it. Let me add a few things.
Republicans are doing their damnedest to get closer to people on the ground. Here in Los Angeles, they are trying to identify all of the precint captains, people who run voting stations and all manner of the machinery of voting. I think they understand two things. One, as you say, they have an enormous hurdle to overcome with respect to their anti-black reputation. I keep getting the impression, when I speak to or watch white Republicans, that they have a kind of 'shellshocked whitey' face. Like, 'what did I do?'. I'm not convinced that the majority of republicans are going to go the extra mile to make themselves 'conscious' for the sake of votes. They're going to shout 'All Aboard!' in one dialect and then the train leaves the station. If blacks are heading in that direction, then get on the train, or walk. But don't necessarily expect a written invitation on kinte cloth.
The other thing they understand is that when it comes to local issues, they have the upper hand. Democrats have failed and they have had the grip. Voters will come around to support vouchers sooner or later, it's almost inevitable. Teachers unions are going down. So long as schools don't improve drastically, Republicans are going to eventually get their chance to fix things.
Let me say something about P6's 'gatekeepers' because I think it's important. A lot has been said about the 'window dressing' of the Powells and Rice, and I get really tired of hearing it. How is it possible that a party determined to appease racists could make a latino the top cop in the nation? It simply does not compute. Nobody knows, today, where Mike Espy is. He's in the same netherworld as JC Watts. And we could go right down the line..
..distracted...
Posted by: Cobb at February 7, 2005 12:01 PM