We’ve been trying to refrain from writing about politics until 2012 actually arrives, but Herman Cain is rapidly pushing himself up the priority list.

His platform is essentially all the Republican talking points from the last few years – less regulation of business (yes, even in these times), religion as a base for public life, military might makes right, the whole bit. However, most people aren’t talking about Cain’s stance on the issues these days.

At this point, four different women have come forward, alleging sexual harassment from Cain. The most recent woman, Sharon Bialek, has come forward publicly, with Gloria Alred, to make her case.

Predictably, Republicans are minimizing the allegations – however, they chose to do this in the strangest way possible. Apparently, they thought it would be a good idea to resurrect the “high tech lynching” slogan from the Clarence Thomas years – just as the the Anita Hill 20 Years Later conference reminded us of how race and gender matters tend to explode. (To their “credit,” so far the Republican establishment is backing race over gender – the fourth accuser is a white woman, and they are still throwing her under the bus for trying to tarnish Cain’s reputation. That could be it’s own commentary, but I’m leaving that alone for now.)

Floor is yours.

I also need to mention that New York City is Haudenosaunee territory and home to many other First Nations. Waiting to see if that’s been mentioned anywhere. (Author’s note: Manhattan “proper” is home to to the Lenape who were defrauded of the island by the Dutch in 1626 – see more from Tequila Sovereign).

Not that I’m surprised that this was a misstep in organizing against Wall Street or really any organizing that happens when the “left” decides that it’s going to “take back America for the people” (which people?!). This is part of a much larger issue, and in fact there is so much nationalistic, patriotic language of imperialism wrapped up in these types of campaigns that it’s no wonder people can’t see the erasure of existence of the First Peoples of THIS territory that happens when we get all high and mighty with the pro-America agendas, and forget our OWN complicity and accountability to the way things are today – not just the corporations and the state.

Let me be clear. I’m not against ending capitalism and I’m not against people organizing to hold big corporations accountable for the extreme damage they are causing.  Yes, we need to end globalization. What I am saying is that I have all kinds of problems when to get to “ending capitalism” we step on other people’s rights – and in this case erode Indigenous rights – to make the point. I’m not saying people did it intentionally but that doesn’t even matter – good intentions are not enough and good intentions obviously can have adverse affects. This is such a played out old record too, walking on other people’s backs to get to a mystical land of equity.  Is it really just and equitable when specific people continue to be oppressed to get there? And it doesn’t have to be done! We don’t need more occupation – we need decolonization and it’s everyone’s responsibility to participate in that because COLONIALISM AFFECTS EVERYONE. EVERYONE! Colonialism also leads to capitalism, globalization, and industrialization. How can we truly end capitalism without ending colonialism? How does doing things in the name of “America” which was created by the imposition of hierarchies of class, race, ability, gender, and sexuality help that?

I can’t get on board with the nationalism of  an “American” (or now “Canadian!”) revolution – I just can’t.  There has been too much genocide and violence for the United States and Canada to be founded and to continue to exist as nation states.  I think John Paul Montano, Anishnaabe writer captured it quite well in his “Open Letter to Occupy Wall Street Activists”:

I hope you would make mention of the fact that the very land upon which you are protesting does not belong to you – that you are guests upon that stolen indigenous land. I had hoped mention would be made of the indigenous nation whose land that is. I had hoped that you would address the centuries-long history that we indigenous peoples of this continent have endured being subject to the countless ‘-isms’ of do-gooders claiming to be building a “more just society,” a “better world,” a “land of freedom” on top of our indigenous societies, on our indigenous lands, while destroying and/or ignoring our ways of life. I had hoped that you would acknowledge that, since you are settlers on indigenous land, you need and want our indigenous consent to your building anything on our land – never mind an entire society.

I will leave you with this new art piece from Erin Konsmo (also pictured above), our fabulous intern at The Native Youth Sexual Health Network she created on “OCCUPY: THE GAME OF COLONIALISM”.  Hopefully you get the picture now.

With all of the jokes about “Birthers” and Donald Trump’s toupee as well as the leftysphere excoriating the mainstream media for not taking Trump to task for his antics, Jack and Jill Politics’ Baratunde Thurston breaks down what we lost due to Trump’s BS.

Transcript after the jump.

It’s been a very difficult morning for me. Got the news that President Obama released his long-form birth certificate due to the increasing media circus surrounding claims that he is not one of us. That he is not an American. And it comes at a very interesting time for many reasons, one of which is, it’s April 27 2011 and this just happened. So that’s really interesting to me. Also because I’m reading, right now, a book by Manning Marable called Malcolm X a life of reinvention and he unearths a lot of amazing detail and correspondence around this exceptional American. But through this book you also get a window into the civil rights movement throughout this country’s history – especially the 40s 50s and 60s and you are reminded if you read this book or see a documentary special or know anything about the complete history of the United States, you’re reminded of the extraordinary level of sacrifice that has been involved in allowing all Americans to exist as, be treated as, participate as Americans. To be that which they are took a lot of work. A lot of tears, a lot of pain, a lot of death.

There were people who dropped out of their ordinary lives, sacrificed their personal safety, their reputation, their ability to earn money, to intervene on behalf of those who they also saw as American. They got on buses and Freedom Rides. They sat in, they died in waves and waves of domestic terrorism so that someone like me could go to a voting booth and not be asked by some racist poll worker to pay a tax or prove that my grandfather wasn’t a slave or pass a literacy test that got increasingly difficult the more I passed it. And today, the President of the United States had to prove that he was an American, to the satisfaction of the 75 percent of Iowa republicans who doubt that or the 43 percent of National Republicans who believe that or the one heinous low-class individual who took credit for it after: Donald Trump.

A man who was given every advantage – who inherited millions and lost it all twice but had that opportunity because no one’s ever had to ask him to prove anything. A man who lacks intelligence, compassion, common sense, respect, decency, or an understanding of WHAT THE FUCK it means to be an American that he would come out moments after the President of the United States – and I stress that: the President – released his long-form birth certificate – and Donald Trump comes out moments later and says, “I’m really proud of myself – but it shouldn’t have taken so long. I wanna see the birth certificate for myself. I want to test it for authenticity. I don’t want the press asking me about birth certificates anymore.”

I find it hard to summarize in mere words the amount of pain and rage this incident has caused. It’s humiliating – not just to Barack Obama, not just to the office of the President, not just to Black Americans who died and those who supported our quest for freedom. It’s embarrassing to the entire nation that we would sit and let this nation. We have all been debased by this incident. By a charlatan, by a con man, by a mere promoter of himself. And for him to take credit for this, and for him to revel in it, and yet not be satisfied makes him no better than a Klansman. No better than a Bull Connor. No better than an anonymous, privileged white man in the 1950s who, regardless of his position in society, knew his position was higher than that of a common nigger. And that is what the fuck Donald Trump has done to the President of the United States. To the office of the President of the United States. To me. And to you.

I am disgusted. I have cried, because I know my own ancestors paid a very high price, and never would have imagined that we might have the President that we do, but certainly, part of their joy in the ancestral, celestial skies right now has been greatly diminished by what has happened here today. I hope that eventually, not just in the post-mortal world of karma and spiritual justice, Mr. Trump pays an exceptional price. I hope that price comes during his life. To then be able to walk around, a super-free, super-white, super-privileged man lording over all who would pay attention – which is far too many – at what you have done has got to cost you something in this life, as well.

I don’t wanna hear about The Apprentice. I don’t wanna hear about your new cologne. I don’t wanna hear about the new tower you’re building in whatever fuckin’ town. That cologne smells of racism. That tower is built on the blood of disrespected slaves and freedom fighters, and that show is merely a showcase for the dishonor you have brought among anyone who would call themselves an American.

My name is Baratunde Thurston. I’m heartbroken over this.

Condoleezza Rice is an intriguing figure to watch as she moves across the national stage.

She held two of the highest offices in the United States – National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.

She is a Republican, yet she doesn’t shy away from talking about race, as is the custom for many members of the party.

She was a young prodigy, gifted in the arts and sports, but chose a life immersed in public policy.

Her new book, Extraordinary, Ordinary People: A Memoir of Family traces her life, beginning with her Grandfather Albert Robinson Ray III, then the lives of her mother and father, then her own life, growing up in the segregated South.  Her story flips between idyllic childhood memories of church picnics and piano lessons and terrifying memories of bombings and explosions, Rice chronicles the contradictions of the living in the land of the free, and still living with the legacy of what she terms “America’s birth defect.”Rice begins discussing race in the United States on page two, which sets the tone for the rest of the memoir.  An ever present force, race is something to be understood and grappled with time and time again.  She tries to paint a picture of life during that era, noting:

Certainly, in any confrontation with a white person in Alabama, you were bound to lose.  But my parents believed that could could alter that equation through education, hard work, perfectly spoken English, and an appreciation for “the finer things” in “their” culture.  If you were twice as good as they were, “they might not like you but “they” had to respect one.  One could find space for a fulfilling and productive life.  There was nothing worse than being a hapless victim of circumstances.

While doing the book rounds, she was cornered by one news caster who asked her to back up and explain what she meant by “twice as good.”  I can’t find the clip now, but the interviewer seemed amazed at this turn of phrase, this implicit acceptance of the idea that in order to go half as far as a white person, a black person had to be twice as good as everything.  If I remember correctly, Rice just smiled and explained the history of the adage – without bothering to explain how the policy is still in effect today.

Still, Rice refers to that adage, as well as a “no victims, no excuses,” mantra that permeates her story. Despite those convictions, Rice’s reflections on growing up are at times horrifying, when one realizes exactly how the threat of violence was always present in daily life.  A simple car breakdown experienced by her father and uncles turned into a harrowing race to have the car fixed after a passing police officer said “you boys had better have your black asses out of here before I come back.” The story of Rice’s birth reveals a story of how public hospitals were segregated. Not only were patients denied private rooms, all black patients were forced down into the basement, where they stood shoulder to shoulder with patients who had other, potentially communicable, illnesses.  Selecting a football team to root for was complicated by Birmingham’s refusal to allow integrated teams, the Redskin’s racist policies, ultimately choosing the Cleveland Browns. Joining the high school band provided an avenue to participation in black public life, when movie theaters and concert halls were closed to black patrons.  A youth-to-youth religious exchange program revealed fifty-four sticks of dynamite stashed under a local synagogue. The only restaurant available to African-Americans in Birmingham was next to a funeral parlor.  Roadtrips were carefully planned, as there were no hotels that accepted black travelers until you crossed the Mason Dixon line. One of Rice’s schoolmates was killed in the bombing of the 16th street Baptist Church.

Even a trip to see Santa Claus for Christmas turned into a racially charged moment, when Condoleezza’s father, John Rice, noticed that Santa would put the white children in line on his knee, but hold the black children away from him.  Rice remembers:

“If he does that to Condoleezza,” Daddy said to Mother, “I’m going to pull all of that stuff off him and expose him as just another cracker.”  I fearfully went forward, not knowing what to expect.  Perhaps Santa felt those vibes from my father because he put me on his knee, listened to my list, and said “Merry Christmas!”  All’s well that ends well.  But I never forgot how racially charged that moment felt around, of all things, Santa Claus.

However, Rice often points out how history is complicated, and many times inexplicable.  Why did a white man take in her homeless grandfather and raise him as one of the family? Why did Virginia Durr, a white woman, risk her life to stand up against segregationists? How did Jewish families influence the civil rights movement?  Why did physicians, like Dr. Sheffield and Dr. Carmichael, risk their practices and work after hours to provide medical care to blacks in Birmingham?

Doing the right thing, while noble in hindsight, is not always a clear path.  Rice notes that her father, and many members of her church did not participate in the marches nor in acts of civil disobedience.  She points out that blacks in Birmingham had no place to go to escape the violence – and one neighbor’s act of courage could spark a wave of bombings, white “night riders” and visits from the Ku Klux Klan, who did not bother to distinguish between targets.  She also notes that King’s strategy, in its day, was heavily controversial.  Rice’s father did not believe in nonviolence in the face of violence, and felt that being on the streets would have signed his own death sentence.  Rice’s father also disagreed with some of the tactics of rebellion:

Out of frustration with the slow response to the protests, Martin Luther King and the movement preachers called children into the streets on May 2 for what became known as the “Children’s Crusade.”  Some of my friends were involved.  James Stewart, George Hunter III (called “Third”), Raymond Goolsby, and Ricky Hall, all students of my father, were told to go out front first and distract the police.  Others were to follow and get as close to city hall as they could before being stopped.  As they approached city hall from Sixteenth Street Baptist Church Bull Connor yelled over the bullhorn, “Do you have a permit?”  When they said that they didn’t, he opened paddy wagons filled with police who arrerested the kidss.  When the kids kept coming and Connor could not stem the tide of protestors, he called in police dogs and turned fire hoses on the marchers.  These young kids had been led straight into the teeth of Bull Connor’s henchmen.  The rightness of their cause aside, my father was appalled at what he saw as endangering innocent children.

Outside of marches and protests, Rice’s narrative deftly weaves the threat of violence into the narrative in a way that recreates the trauma of that era. Reading Rice’s words, I remember how sanitized the version of history we are taught in textbooks really is.  I recently visited the Northwest African American Museum, and was drawn to a vintage TV set displaying news coverage from various marches and protests.  One stood out in particular: a group of attractive white kids, dressed as if they were going to American Bandstand dancing, laughing, and chanting.  Their chant? “2-4-6-8, we don’t want to integrate!” It is often noted that “bad things” happened to black people.  The names of those who perpetuated those “bad things” are often lost to history.

But Extraordinary, Ordinary people doesn’t just look at race.  It also explains some of the influences on Rice’s foreign policy strategy and why she identifies strongly as a Republican.

Reading through her stories, I was stuck by one passage in particular:

[O]ne of my most vivid childhood memories is the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962.  We were glued to the set every evening during the thirteen-day standoff.  It was a very scary time.  We’d never bothered with a bomb shelter in the house, even at the height of the Cold War.  But some of our friends did have them, fully stocked with provisions to survive a nuclear exchange. [...]

But the standoff in Cuba was no drill.  Because the missiles were deployed just ninety miles from the Florida coast, the newscasters reported, probably incorrectly, that Birmingham was in range.  They showed big arrows pointing right at us.  I could tell that my father was worried, and I realized this was something my parents couldn’t save me from.  It was the first time I remember feeling truly vulnerable.

Daddy explained our country had never last a war, and he was sure we weren’t going to lose this one. He was nevertheless visibly relieved when the Soviet ships turned around, ending the crisis. The whole episode had a surprisingly strong impact on me. I once told an audience of Cuban Americans that Fidel Castro had put the United States at risk in allowing those missiles to be deployed.  “He should pay for it until he dies,” I said.  Even I was surprised by the rawness of that comment.

When I read that passage, I almost dropped the book.

One of the main areas of contention for me, with Rice, is her perpetuation of neo-colonialist policies around the globe.  Her memoir reveals why she is a hawk, not a dove, starting with this passage. Indeed, it helped to clarify many of her decisions.  After the missile crisis ended , she became interested in Soviet politics, learned Russian, traveled to Europe, and wrote her dissertation on the politics of Czechoslovakia. She was also heavily involved in White House politics, relating a tale of how she had to juggle two powers from Russia in a time of crisis, without lending the opinion that the US endorsed either.  But still, questions remained.  When I interviewed Dr. Rice on the Dyson show, I was trying to figure out how to cram all the questions into the fifteen allotted minutes – if I could jump back in time and ask one more question, I would have asked how her experience with domestic terrorism here in the States shaped her idea that an aggressive show of force was the correct policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I’m not sure if the answer she would have supplied would have been different than the answer she gave me, but I would have been interested to see how the reframing might have impacted the question.

Her views on national security also speak to why she identities as a Republican.  Originally, her family had been Republican since 1952, back when the Democrats (many of whom were former Dixiecrats) ruled the South and championed the continuation of racist policies.  Rice recounts the story of her mother and father taking the poll test, with her light-skinned mother being asked who the first president of the United States was, and her darker skinned father being asked to correctly identify the number of beans in a jar.  However, the Republican party was looking to rebuild, and allowed blacks to register to vote, which is why her father was a faithful Republican.  Rice explains that Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy strategy was part of the reason she returned to the Republican party, but then explained:

Many years later, when I was asked about my decision to become a Republican, I first explained quite honestly that the choice reflected my disgust with Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy and my attraction to Ronald Reagan’s worldview.  But, pressed about the domestic agenda of the two parties, I gave an answer that came directly from my experience with the many forms racism can take.  “I would rather be ignored than patronized,” I said, pointing to the tendency of the Democratic Party to talk about “women, minorities, and the poor.” I hated identity politics and the self-satisfied people who assumed that they were free of prejudice when, in fact, they too could not see beyond color to the individual.

The fact is, race is a constant factor in American life.  Yet reacting to every incident, real or imagined, is crippling, tiring, and ultimately counterproductive.  I’d grown up in a family that believed you might not control your circumstances but you could control your reaction to them.  There was no room for being a victim or depending on “the white man” to take care of you.  That self-sufficiency is the ethos passed down by my ancestors on both sides of the family, and I have internalized it thoroughly.  Despite the gross inequalities my ancestors faced, there has been progress and race is no longer determinative of how far one can go.  That said, America is not color-blind and likely never will be.  Race is ever present, like a birth defect you learn to live with, but can never cure.

Rice has some complex politics.  She supports affirmative action, yet recoils from what appears to be dependency on the government, and has more than a little disdain for identity politics .  Interestingly enough, these seeming contradictions come to a head when she becomes Provost at Stanford University. She recounts how requesting all departments to trim their budgets by 10% led to a racially-charged showdown:

Predictably, the pushback came from those who felt privileged and untouchable for political reasons: groups in Student Affairs where my colleague, the Vice Provost Mary Edmonds, had proposed major cuts.  The ethnic centers (Asian American, African American, Chicano, and Native American) were the most offended.  The protests heated up, and they called a town hall-style meeting and asked me to attend.  I had a faculty dinner that night, which would make me a bit late, but Chip had gone ahead to assess the situation.  As I walked from the Faculty Club toward Cubberly Hall, where the meeting was being held, Chip met me halfway.  “There’s a huge and angry crowd,” he said.

“Okay, I thought there would be.”  I took a deep breath and walked in.

The president of Standford’s Black Student Union was serving as moderator.  After a few strong words about how marginalized and victimized the ethnic students were feeling, he handed me the microphone.  I resisted the temptation to say that I thought marginalization was a peculiar term for students who’d been given the chance at a Stanford education. Instead, I plowed into a presentation of the financial situation, saying that I’d asked the Physics Department for the same budget analysis.  Everyone had to contribute.

During the question-and-answer session, a young blond woman who was apparently Native American yelled rhetorically, “The problem is, you just don’t care enough for the plight of minorities.” I waited while the audience erupted in cheers.  Then, out of nowhere – not really having thought it through – I said, “You don’t have the standing to question my commitment to minorities.  I’ve been black all of my life, and that is far longer than you are old.” The buzzing told me I hit a nerve.  The young woman sat down.  I said a few words more and prepared to leave.  But as I was turning away, the moderator decided that he would have the last word. I went back and took the microphone from him. “When you are provost, you can have the last word,” I said.  Then I left, feeling that I had established necessary boundaries.

Rice dealt with yet another racially charged situation, Rice chose to let go of the most senior Latina administrator at Stanford University, Cecilia Burciaga.  Rice mentions her reluctance to do so, considering Burciaga was the affirmative action officer on campus, and was involved in Rice’s hiring. Still, Rice decided to cut her from the staff to save faculty positions and the academic program. The Chicano students rallied, setting up a tent city, and “four young women started a hunger strike.”  The protest went on for more than a week, but Rice wasn’t having any lip:

Several faculty members took the floor to bemoan the sacrifice the hunger strikers were making.  “Don’t you feel bad that our children are sleeping on the quad and not eating?” one person asked. I was always struck by how students suddenly became “children” in these circumstances.

“I am sleeping and eating just fine,” I said. “They can stay out there until hell freezes over. My decisions stand.”

Later on, a détente was reached by creating a new major called Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity.  However, Rice reflected on the moments wondering if she had been too rough with the students. After a faculty spokesman told the student newspaper that she’d “treated the students as if [she] were negotiating with the Russians,” she sought council from her father.  Her father reminded Rice of why it was important for students to find their political voices in the university space, and reminded her the students were quite young.  Rice reflects:

I realized Daddy was right.  In the classroom, I was always careful not to put a student down for a comment, no matter how inappropriate.  To do so is to freeze the rest of the students, who will fear humiliation.  The power relationship is unequal, and the students feel it. I decided to try to remember that in my encounters with them as provost.  In any case, I had established a pretty tough line.  Maybe it was time to back off.

All in all, Extraordinary, Ordinary people is a fascinating read. Unfortunately, it ends as Rice heads toward the G.W. Bush White House – outside of a few stories peppered into the narrative, there is no explanations of her tactics and ideas around September 11th and its aftermath.  It will be of interest to those fascinated by Condoleezza Rice, but ultimately leaves the reader with more questions than answers.

Related: My Interview with Condoleezza Rice on the Michael Eric Dyson Show

Earlier: Looking at Sarah, Somehow Seeing Condi

Last night was rough. I helpeed emcee at Busboys and Poets for Free Speech TV.  (Many thanks to Marc Steiner, for allowing me to be a part of his show!)  It was a very tough evening for a lot of reasons, but it was a good conversation. (Clips are here and here, for those interested.)

However, Busboys emptied out by 11 PM, with a lot of demoralized people cutting off the coverage and heading home. Happily, my last vote for Congressional representation wasn’t in vain – O’Malley defeated Ehrlich and Barbara Milkuski stomped the competition in Maryland. I was going to open the thread for election results and discussion, but then I caught this other headline:

Bush NBC Interview: Being Called A Racist By Kanye West The Worst Moment Of My Presidency

O_o

MATT LAUER: You remember what he said?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, I do. He called me a racist.

MATT LAUER: Well, what he said, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: That’s — “he’s a racist.” And I didn’t appreciate it then. I don’t appreciate it now. It’s one thing to say, “I don’t appreciate the way he’s handled his business.” It’s another thing to say, “This man’s a racist.” I resent it, it’s not true, and it was one of the most disgusting moments in my Presidency. [...]

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes. My record was strong I felt when it came to race relations and giving people a chance. And– it was a disgusting moment.

Y’all, I can’t. Floor is yours.

Under the diversity banner and strategy, what you get is a lot of white organizations “reaching out” to communities of color, to get communities of color to carry out the agenda of these white organizations with all their white leadership have developed. — Rinku Sen, Facing Race Plenary Session

Dear readers, those of you who have been with us for a few years know about the long standing issues I have with the American political machine. Politics is intricately tied to movements for social justice, so it cannot be ignored completely – but it definitely feels like a shell game.

There is a post I need to write about Maria Teresa Kumar’s comments at Facing Race, particularly the part where she explains why people of color need to engage in political organization and action. (Kumar runs Voto Latino with Rosario Dawson.) There is a post I need to write about a panel at Blogging While Brown where Gina talked about how conservatives invest in their bloggers as part of their community, which is a benefit liberal bloggers do not receive.

We are long overdue for some discussions on the intersections between politics and social justice. However, I find myself declining to participate in a lot of political discourse. Part of that is just me – I grew up in Silver Spring, MD, right outside of Washington, DC and the gaps between Washington (where those with power and influence work and play) and DC (where normal folks try to live in the shadow of this power) are in my face all day, every day.

But the other reason why I generally avoid politics is best summed up with Danielle Belton’s post on Representative James Clyburn’s black blogger press junket:

In a fiery presser on Capitol Hill Thursday where he at times seemed visibly frustrated, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn blasted members of the Democratic base who were withdrawing support, money during the Midterm elections. He said those Liberal and progressive critics who get stuck on things like the health care bill not being exactly what they wanted lose sight of the long battle.

See, this is why I’m a registered Independent voter.

Danielle was kind enough to forward me the email to the political blog party, and I debated going. Now, the last time I stuck my toe into one of these type events, and posted what I felt was a fairly neutral discussion, I got all kinds of blowback, and I think the poor friend who invited me was totally embarrassed that I didn’t play right. So I tend to leave these kinds of things alone.

And yet, comments like this tend to rub me the wrong way:

Clyburn argued that Liberals need to have the long-view.

“(President Lyndon) Johnson said a half a loaf is better than no loaf at all,” Clyburn said.

In 1964, Johnson was up for election against Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, a hardline, anti-civil rights conservative from Arizona. With the help of activists and supporters, Johnson won the campaign, Democrats took majorities in Congress. With their wins came the passage of a multitude of bills that helped the African American community and poor people — from the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the Great Society Plan — the latter of which that would go on to be expanded under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

I think a lot of us have been eating off these half loaves of bread for some time. And while it is generally better to have half a loaf than none at all, one has to wonder why everyone else in the breadline seems to be entitled to a full loaf. Some of us are *always* asked to take our half, in hopes that the folks who have full loaves will eventually share. And as we wait for our share, we are still supposed to be good little soldiers for the party, turning out our pockets and bringing full throated support, in order to get half-baked results.

And this is the part I can’t get behind. It isn’t about this one issue. There is a very long history of marginalized communities getting shafted by those claiming to work in their best interests. That’s why I liked Rinku’s quote at the top of the post – this kind of outreach is very one sided. There is always this onus on the people to change their behavior. Clyburn says:

“There are 41 African Americans in our caucus and you don’t get to 218 (a majority vote in Congress) without us. We’re busting out butts out there to get to 218,” he said. “We passed the black farmer’s bill five times! We passed the damn bill! But (the CBC) ain’t in the Senate. Y’all ought to be camped out at the Senate, but you keep coming around here asking what are you doing? What are you doing?”

So, say we go and camp out at the Senate. Then what? Do we get the full loaf of bread because there’s a Democratic majority? Oh wait. So we have a majority, we still can’t get what we want, and we’re supposed to…keep going? Is the ultimate goal to completely disenfranchise Republicans and to fill every seat with a Democrat? I mean, we could try that – but would anything really change? Or would we shift to blaming the lobbyists? Or the Blue Dogs?

Politics is a tool of change. It is not the end result or the end goal. And I think that’s where I keep choking. So, I have a lot more to think about and a lot more to write. And I’m still struggling with how much political content we want to keep on the blog. Racist shenanigans will always have a place, but is it time for Racialicious to actively engage with politics? (Or, more realistically, to open the floor to those like Maria Teresa who want to advocate?)

To be honest, we aren’t a bipartisan blog by any means. Most of the folks writing here are liberal, and while we have a handful of conservative commenters, the whole site swings way liberal. (And to be honest, I don’t know how y’all conservatives hang.)

However, I wouldn’t want our site to become overly political in that way. We’re already extremely polarizing, and I don’t see the need to add that particular bit to our activism stew. And we aren’t becoming a booster club for the Democrats by any means, which will piss off the party-faithful. And, to be quite honest, there is a lot of conservative thought within minority communities that we haven’t really explored. I’m not talking about Malkin-esque delusions, but the more day to day stuff.

Just looking at the comments to the article we linked to on No Wedding, No Womb reveals that we have folks who are ready to dismantle the entire hetero-patriarchal system and folks who quote the Moynihan report like it’s holy scripture.

This should not be a surprise – after all, we are not monolithic.

But as Arturo and I are reworking site and content to reflect a different type of mix, what role should politics play?

Kill the phony mean before it kills you. That the truth is probably somewhere in the middle… that if both sides think you are biased against them it probably means you’re playing it straight… that the extremes on both sides are equally extreme, deluded and irresponsible— these practices have rotted out, and the sooner they are done away with, the better footing political journalism will be on. Just as it should be routine for reporters to ask themselves, “am I showing undue favoritism here, am I slanting my account?” it should be routine to ask, “am I creating a false symmetry here, am I positing a phony mean?”

— Jay Rosen

This is mayhem and foolishness!
—Niecy Nash

So let me get this straight.

Joe Biden will go on record saying that both he and Barack Obama do not believe the Tea Party is a racist organization.

However, the Obama Administration will not go to bat for Shirley Sherrod, who shared a story about overcoming racial bias, which was manipulated into a false charge of racism.

The NAACP straight up condemned Sherrod (who was speaking at one of their events!) before all the facts were on the table, leading to a semi-apology from the organization. Which means that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was first at bat for white folks unjustly smited by years of black oppression.

Meanwhile, the NAACP was already on the offensive since it had lobbed bombs at the Tea Party, alleging it was a racist organization.

The Tea Party and various conservative outlets responded with an “I know you are but what am I” play, complete with “playing race card” reference.

Then, some fool named Mark Williams thought that was his cue, so he decided to let his racist flag fly with every anti-black stereotype in the book, pretending he was “satirizing” the NAACP.

The Tea Party Federation responded by removing Williams from his post, but other members of the Tea Party Express continue to allege that the NAACP are the “real racists”.

And amid all of this, more emails were published from the now-defunct journolist, advocating charging Republicans with racism as a political strategy to deflect from the attention given to Jeremiah Wright during one segment of the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Where do we even start?

While I would have loved to give each of these topics their own, thorough discussion, time is just not permitting for us to do so. Arturo is on the way to Comic Con; I’m knee-deep in three major assignments. However, briefly, I did want to at least broach some of these major issues.

On Shirley Sherrod

Ta-Nehisi, in his comments section, summarizes exactly how I feel in three short paragraphs:

In the video Sherrod talks about her family and friends were repeatedly victimized by racial violence and how she carried that into her career to the point of almost not helping a white farmer in trouble. But when she saw the white farmer was being ripped off by a white lawyer, who she’d referred him to, she saw that it wasn’t about black v. white but rich v. poor. She ultimately was able to save the guy’s farm.

Now. You can quibble with that analysis. What you can not say is that this is evidence of racism, and the Obama administration’s willingness to bow before that claim–within days of defending the Tea Party against charges of racism–is, to me, sickening. Its utter cowardice. Complete cowardice.

The White House claims it wasn’t their doing. Fine. Apologize and give her a job back. Man the fuck up.

But I’ll make another point in three words: Free Eric Holder!

Seriously, what the hell is this steaming pile of racial injustice? The administration is trying to put it all on the director of Agriculture, but has not yet made a statement about their feelings on the situation, letting the silence speak volumes.

And don’t get me started on the NAACP right now. For real y’all? Did we really just throw a black woman under the bus? Is this a part of this new strategy change? Clearly, it’s time to start pushing back on some of these PR emails I received.

On the Tea Party

The Tea Party may not be an inherently racist organization, but they sure are quick to look the other way when some racist shit happens. Feigning innocence is not the way to go, particularly not in organizations that value diversity. Having black participants in the tea party does not absolve the entire group from racist actions. Also, the definition of racism appears to be way off. Sarah Palin wrote on her facebook page:

His words rang especially true in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 presidential election. It seemed that with the election of our first black president, our country had become a new “post-racial” society. As one writer in the Washington Post stated: “[Barack Obama’s] election isn’t just about a black president. It’s about a new America. The days of confrontational identity politics have come to an end.” [...]

The only purpose of such an unfair accusation of racism is to dissuade good Americans from joining the Tea Party movement or listening to the common sense message of Tea Party Americans who simply want government to abide by our Constitution, live within its means, and not borrow and spend away our children’s futures. Red and yellow, black and white, this message is precious in all our sights. All decent Americans abhor racism. No one wants to be associated with any organization that is in any way racist in sentiment or origin. I certainly don’t want to be. Thankfully, the Tea Party movement is not racist or motivated by racism. It is motivated by love of country and all that is good and honest about our proud and diverse nation.

Like President Reagan, Tea Party Americans believe that “the glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past.” Isn’t it time we put aside the divisive politics of the past once and for all and celebrate the fact that neither race nor gender is any longer a barrier to achieving success in America – even in achieving the highest office in the land?

I just spent a few beautiful Alaskan days with some beautiful Americans in my husband’s birthplace – they are Todd’s family and they are Yupik Eskimo. In the decades that our families have blended, I have never heard one proud, patriotic member judge another member based on skin color. Both Todd and I were raised to measure a person according to their capacity and willingness to love, work, forgive, contribute, and show good character. We’re joined by the vast majority of Americans in this belief whereby we measure a man by his character, not his color. Because of amazing efforts and accomplishments by those who came before my generation, it is foreign to us to consider condemning or condoning anyone’s actions based on race or gender. Being with our diverse family in a melting pot that is a Native village just days ago reminded me of that.

So to leave that remote village and return back to “modern civilization” only to hear of the NAACP’s resolution today suggesting that we Tea Party Americans don’t respect equality makes me sad for those who choose to divide these great United States. It is time to end the divisive politics.

If only people who took the time to learn all the proper words to sound like they were interested in combating racism were actually interested in solving the problem rather than avoiding blame…

On Journolist

This one doesn’t seem like it fits with the other, more overt examples, but it is important to highlight how conversations about race and framed and presented. I’ve been frustrated for a while about how the media handles race related issues. Basically, all the articles and TV segments are a variation on: is this racist? check yes or no…

However, it really, really sucks to see people who are supposedly on your team defending or upholding that stance.

I’ve been lightly following the fall out from Journalist and the ensuing drama around the nature of such a list and if it amounts to a liberal conspiracy. After checking the latest installment on the Daily Caller, this section in particular is getting under my skin (indent added for clarity):

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

Now, the Daily Caller is willing to publish a lot of “we aren’t racist, y’all are the real racists!” madness, so they aren’t a great source for any kind of serious racial analysis. But what troubles me is the actual content of the emails – that racism, and charges of racism, can be used as a powerplay to reframe the conversation, and is not an actual conversation in its own right.

Worse, this comes from Spencer Ackerman, someone I actually like, and think he generally gets the main concepts when we talk about race in society.

(I could be biased, however – we did munch on testicles together, along with Megan, Kay, and Ann.)

But I couldn’t help reading that passage and feeling somewhat smacked in the face.

The whole charge of “playing the race card” drives me up a wall because it is normally used to stop conversations about racism, and it implies that people of color view racism as some kind of trump card to whip out. I’m always amazed when people act like being a person of color is like the ultimate get over, that I can throw down the racial big joker (after all, aren’t we playing spades?) and doors magically fly open due to me being black AND female.

Racism is not a game.

And it just gets under my skin when a group of journalists – white journalists at that*, particularly if journolist mirrored the composition of newsrooms – can get together and decide that calling someone racist would make them sputtering and defensive, and that’s the end of it. No larger mission of exposing how racism intersects with American political life, it’s all about Brand Obama and what tools are in the arsenal.

Now, a lot of the Wright coverage was sadly lacking racial analysis. There was much discussion about “reverse racism” and hate speech from Wright, but far less conversation about why Wright’s comments resonated with people. I always think about this one moment of realness:

HUCKABEE: I don’t think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it’s not October. It’s March. And I don’t believe that by the time we get to October this is going to be the defining issue of the campaign and the reason that people vote.

And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It’s the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else’s shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head, going, “Boy, there is some deep resentment there.”

I wasn’t surprised that there was relatively little discussion in the mainstream media of Huckabee’s comments, or an analysis of or Wright’s statements in historical context to help parse out the facts from exaggeration and motivations from malicious intent. But it is interesting to see what kind of stories are advanced, and become part of the news narrative, and which ones are quickly swallowed in the cycle. I know we generally lean way liberal on this site, and I can see the context for Spencer’s statements and what he was trying to accomplish, but damn. No wonder race is covered the way it is in the media – there is far too much political maneuvering, and not enough understanding of the basic issues.

*Ta-Nehisi Coates has copped to being a member of Journolist, and the Nation’s Richard Kim is included in some of the other referenced conversations. However, none of those people were quoted commenting on using racism to defuse the Wright situation. That could be Daily Caller editing; not many people have access to the full archive, since it was a closed list.

Edited To Add: When I first read Palin’s missive, this part:

I just spent a few beautiful Alaskan days with some beautiful Americans in my husband’s birthplace – they are Todd’s family and they are Yupik Eskimo. In the decades that our families have blended, I have never heard one proud, patriotic member judge another member based on skin color. Both Todd and I were raised to measure a person according to their capacity and willingness to love, work, forgive, contribute, and show good character. We’re joined by the vast majority of Americans in this belief whereby we measure a man by his character, not his color. Because of amazing efforts and accomplishments by those who came before my generation, it is foreign to us to consider condemning or condoning anyone’s actions based on race or gender. Being with our diverse family in a melting pot that is a Native village just days ago reminded me of that.

Made me want to break out a bingo card. If someone wants to whip one up, special to Palin, I’d be happy to post it.

(TRIGGER WARNING)

Well, this is a fine way for me to commemorate Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

I survived a young Black man raping me when I was five years old, and I’ve been subjected to decades of the stereotype of the Black male rapist and the racism behind it.  So, this cartoon triply triggered my reaction.

I rubbed my hands.  I walked away.  I wanted to cry but couldn’t because I was at work when I clicked on the link.  I shook inside, back to that frightened little girl who couldn’t possibly tell my mom the truth about what happened.  (I eventually did, about a decade later.)  I didn’t want to reflect on my experience—not like this.

But there it all was, splayed on my screen, demanding some sort of order, some sort of reason for it all.  To deal with it. Again.

As does the cartoon itself. Why this scenario? Why these stereotypes? Why all the justifications—again? (Yes, the poster said it can’t be racist because the woman is green.)

I’d love to say this cartoon was aimed at me, a Black woman who survived a rape, but I may be a side audience for this.  This cartoon’s intended audience is for people intent on holding onto their unchallenged notion of all Black men—as both capable and very willing to rape, even symbolically.  And their victims are always stereotyped as that embodiment of all that is ideally and virtuously feminine in the US, white women. Even symbolically, such as the paragon of US freedom and rights, the Statue of Liberty.  So, this cartoon is the wet dream—and dog whistle—to those folks who need to believe that a single Black man being president is using that power to rape “their” beloved country and the rights and entitlements this country (ostensibly) offers. (And for those who want to jump on this post and argue about Obama’s blackness…I’m not going to even let you finish. He identifies as a Black man—go read his memoir Dreams of My Father.  Our opinions about it are really, truly, honest-to-bloody-goodness moot.  And tired, as far as I’m concerned.  But, if you really insist on arguing about how which race he should identity with, I recommend not derailing this thread with that urgency and go argue directly with the man about himself.  You know where he lives.)

And before you say, “Are you codedly trying to say ‘whites’?”  No, I’m not.  I do think the cartoon’s main goal and audience is whites and their conditioned-to-the-point-of-visceral fears of Black ravishment, but having worked at this blog and just living life for a while, I know that fear also deeply resides in some people of color.  As I said at the beginning, I still struggle with it.

Oh yeah, this cartoon is ridiculously racist—and dare I say it?—felt inevitable.  When suggesting FLOTUS Obama and he were Black and/or Muslim militants bent on destroying this country didn’t quite do it, when suggesting that Obama was a psychopathic “socialist” bent on destroying this country didn’t quite do it, the old-new visual thing is giving Obama the Willie Horton treatment.  Everything old is new again…

But what really got my side-eye going was AlterNet’s  accompanying article to the cartoon, where I originally saw the cartoon.   Once again, it’s another progressive dismissal of racism and racists as “something” thought/said/done by “them” over “there.”  Of course, the post’s intent (sigh) is calling out the blatantly viciously anti-Black bigotry while offering some sort of “compassion” to those “afflicted” with the “racist condition.” Well, sort of.

Racism is their illness. It comes in many forms and varieties, but racism is nonetheless a sickness of the mind and of the soul. To understand their illness we must categorize and study it. In the genealogy of white racism there are the deniers; those who just don’t see people of color as equals (we are quite literally invisible to many of them); those who are angry and resentful; those who traffic in the soft-bigotry of low expectations; and the willfully ignorant. The Right-wing populists and their enablers (with their know-nothing ethos) have members that are sick in all of these ways. In total, the idea of a Black man in the White House sickens them on an existential, psychological, and spiritual level. For Black Conservatives who defend the Tea Baggers, their sickness is a profound one that is one part racial Stockholm syndrome enabled by a deeply internalized white racism.

However, calling out racism as a “mental illness” both enables the racism and is ableist to those with differing mental and physical capabilities than the “able-bodied.”   Using that language:

1. States that racism and racists are utterly irrational people beyond the understanding of “sound-minded” people, thus placing “them”—and anyone dealing with mental or bodily conditions–beyond the realm of “us,” beyond the realm of fully participating humanity.
2. Using the metaphor of mental illness for racism also follows the questionable current trend of justifying socially unacceptable behavior by “medicalizing” it.
3. Combined with calling racists views as “dumb” and “stupid,” conflates mental illness with a lack of intelligence and, more subtly, educational levels. Again, the implication is “those low-information folks” (to borrow Chris Matthews’ words) are so beneath ‘us’ bachelor-degree-and-beyond people because ‘they’ just don’t have the minds to get an education.  And how ‘crazy’ is that, yes?” People dealing with mental illnesses don’t lack critical thinking skills or formal educations–and quite a few are brilliant scholarly thinkers–and mental illness is more than just “not being able to think.” And we’ve all heard the phrase “an educated fool,” yes?
4. Conflates progressivism—in this case anti-racism—with a “proper” mental state that all should strive obtain, which reinforces the “us” over “them” superior-identity complex that too many non-lefties complain about when working with left-leaning people.  And it excludes the notion that those with mental and physical disabilities are capable of holding a political belief, let alone are capable of working on anti-racism.
5. Elides the fact that progressive people of many bodily and mental capabilities are capable of thinking/saying/doing some deeply racist shit—and, yes, actually think/say/do some deeply racist shit.  In that alone, the “us” and “them” dichotomy in the AlterNet post is rather disingenuous.

Is it great that Alternet called out the cartoon? Absolutely. However, using justifications and other forms of bigotry to do it just isn’t the best method, regardless of intention.  Something about an eye for an eye….

Editor’s Note – Please read the piece carefully – and thoroughly – before commenting. – LDP

After reading an article recently claiming that Tea Party demonstrators, angered over the healthcare bill, were shouting out “nigger” at members of the Black Congressional Caucus, as a Black American, I felt compelled to weigh in. For the past two years, politicians, journalists, bloggers, and political pundits have debated the merits of whether demonstrations against Barack Obama are racially motivated. The fodder was fueled on at least two occasions when former President Jimmy Carter stated that an overwhelming portion of the bitter outcry is racially inclined. With all due respect, Jimmy Carter needs to go back to selling peanuts. Speaking out against a person of color does not make one a racist. Just as speaking out against a woman doesn’t make you sexist, nor does raging against Islam’s radical ideas make you xenophobic.

It’s time for us Black people to stop crying racism every time someone says something mildly critical. We cannot continue to blame “the white man” for our own mishaps and misfortunes, no matter how seemingly institutionalized it appears. Shame on you. What evidence do you have to suggest that well-meaning, hard working, God fearing white Americans revolting against every priority, policy, and decision of this administration are projecting racial animosity? Of course there are a couple of isolated incidents out there, but those incidents aren’t proof in and of themselves, unless there is a significant enough body of examples to suggest a trend or pattern of abuse exists.

Look, I remember all the “misunderstandings” that happened before the election just like everyone else. I remember when McCain ousted a campaign official in Virginia for writing that “if Obama were elected he’d hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the “Negro National Anthem…” But, it’s Virginia, folks. What does one expect?

Yes, I do remember when the president of a Republican women’s club in San Bernardino County, CA resigned after sending out that newsletter with Obama’s face on a fake food-stamp coupon surrounded by ribs, watermelon, and fried chicken. What’s so racist about that? Everybody knows that we love watermelon.

But, that stuff was during the campaign when tempers flared high and people often made misguided comments in the heat of battle. What about since the election you ask? Oh, I knew you were gonna bring that up. When that aide to state Senator Diane Black of Tennessee, sent an e-mail to staffers showing the first 43 commanders-in-chief in presidential poses, while displaying Obama’s image with enormous white cartoonish eyes on a black background, she was just poking a little political fun. She didn’t mean anything by it. You know how you sometimes turn people into cartoons to make them seem juvenile, shiftless, or idiotic. Yes, like in old Amos and Andy photos. I mean, no, not like that at all. Like a cartoon. Stop trying to twist up my words and make everything about race.

What’s that? Oh, the incident involving the vice chairman of the Collin County Republican party in Texas who sent an email to local Republican clubs calling a proposed $50 fire arms tax “another terrific idea from the black house and its minions”? She was just angry over Obama trying to stifle our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. How is that about race?

What? Last June South Carolina Republican activist Rusty DePass compared an escaped gorilla from the Columbia Zoo to Michelle Obama’s ancestors? Well, that was way out of line. I hope that guy apologized for being so insensitive. But that was just an isolated incident. Huh? You say that wasn’t the only incident? The New York Post editorial cartoon with the police shooting a gorilla and saying “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill” is sort of similar. But, not really. That was just a coincidence because that escaped gorilla in South Carolina was in the news that week and the cartoonist was merely connecting two separate national stories and making a clever reference. That’s not racial, that’s funny.

Wait a minute. When US Rep Lynn Jenkins of Kansas said last summer that the Republican Party was looking for “a great white hope” to lead the party into the future, she later denied any racial intent. What I think she meant was she wanted to find a clean-cut, charismatic, well-spoken candidate to do what Obama had done for the Democrats. She wasn’t necessarily insinuating that the candidate has to be white. I know it sounds akin to the racial fears of white America when Blacks began to dominate in the sport of boxing during the early 20th century, but that was almost 100 years ago. Whites no longer see Blacks as a threat to their careers, leisure, and lifestyles.

Okay, stop. I don’t really care if there are more examples. None of these necessarily prove that the uproar against Obama’s presidency is about race, only that Americans are dissatisfied with the current state of the union. And, who can blame them. We are starting to get way too close to giving Blacks preferential treatment, letting Mexicans into the country illegally, and allowing Muslims free reign to do what they want. If anyone is racist, it’s Obama, just as Glenn Beck stated. Obama “has a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture…” Glenn you da’ man. You nailed it, buddy; Beck was simply telling the truth and tapping into the insecurities of many Americans, not just whites. He was simply calling a spade a spade. But, I guess with all the emphasis on diversity, political correctness, and multiculturalism, it’s not okay to call Blacks, Mexicans, or Muslims racists. We need to start stop whining, take responsibility for our actions, and stop blaming white people for all of our problems.

Look, it’s ridiculous that 1.4 million African American men (13 percent) have currently or permanently lost their right to vote as a result of a felony conviction. But, if we stop engaging in illegal activities, law enforcement wouldn’t have to infiltrate our neighborhoods or streets, and we’d stay out of prison. Sure a Maryland study showed, for example, that Black and white drivers violate traffic codes at equal rates, yet approximately 72% of motorist stopped and then arrested are Black. Or the study on the New Jersey turnpike that found only 13.5 percent of cars on the road had a Black driver or passenger, yet 73.2 percent of motorists stopped and the arrested were Black. But, that is just two studies, which is not representative of a social epidemic. If we stop breaking the law, the police will not be suspicious of us.

It’s simple, folks. Get a good job, work hard, buy a home, and you can live the American dream just like white Americans. Okay, I understand that African Americans are more likely to be told that housing in predominately white neighborhoods is not available or they are directed to predominately Black neighborhoods, but that is only because the realtors think we will be more comfortable around other Black people. That’s not racist, that’s trying to help Blacks feel more welcome by putting us around our own kind. It’s really not that difficult to purchase a home. Just because in 2002, African Americans had a median net worth of $5,998, compared to $88,651 for whites , doesn’t mean we can’t save up for a down payment, realty fees, closing costs, and monthly mortgage payments. Anyway, that statistic was like eight years ago. We have to be up to around $5,999 or $6,000 by now. Come on. We have a Black president. Show some pride, people.

If we would pay more attention in school, we would be more successful later in life. Okay, I’m a realistic guy. I understand that at the age of three, only 45 percent of African American children are enrolled in early childhood education. But the other 55 percent have no excuse for not succeeding. It’s not just about being in school anyway, it’s about what you do when you get there. Nearly 20 percent of black students are held back at least once, while only 9 percent of white students have repeated a grade. That’s because the white kids pay way more attention than we do. White kids are meticulous, relating culturally to characters in history books, feeling comfortable with the teacher’s vernacular, and connecting to the literature written by predominately white American and British authors. Okay, well, maybe we have a legitimate reason for not being as successful in the liberal arts, but we have no excuse in math and science. Numbers are the same everywhere, and the elements of the periodic table or the classification of stars are not culturally biased. Larger class size, under-qualified teachers, and a lack of educational resources are also not justification for not learning. Let go of the excuses people, they are only there to placate you and hinder your intellectual growth and feeling of connectedness to the educational system.

And, don’t get me started on healthcare. That’s how this whole silly argument got started in the first place. I understand that Black infants are nearly two-and-one-half times more likely than white infants to die before their first birthday. Even Cuban babies have a better chance of surviving than Black children in the US. But, we are survivors. That is how we made it out of slavery and through Jim Crow with our forty acres intact. Sure two-thirds of new AIDS cases among teens are Black, Blacks are three times more likely to be hospitalized than whites, and 30 percent more likely to die from cancer than whites. But, access to affordable healthcare will only make us more co-dependent on the American government. So, I for one am supportive of the protests against recently passed Obamacare, even if protesters are carrying around signs with pictures of Obama dressed like an African witch doctor, which may seem to have coincidental racial undertones, but it’s not racial. After all, the healthcare debate, just like all other Obama policies, have nothing to do with race.

I’d be willing to bet my life on it.

Get ready for reason #573 why The Wire was the best television show of the aughts. In the wake of Scott Brown’s upset in the Massachusetts special election for the U.S. Senate, I’ve been thinking a lot about the cycle of politics. I’ve been a pretty steady proponent of the politics of idealism and, borrowing from Tony Kushner, the ethical responsibility to hope, but the aftermath of Martha Coakley’s defeat may test my resolve. Where can I find the blueprint for my incipient cynicism? The Wire, of course!

The Wire’s central thesis was simple: short-term politics and the quest for power kills long-term progress and social justice. From gangs to government, the media to schools, the same rule applies. Everyone, sadly, violates the rule. They think about themselves and the system never gets fixed. This is the fundamental cynicism of The Wire: it perfectly diagnoses how groups and institutions kill hope.

But it appears Washington has few Wire fans.

Democrats are already backing away from healthcare reform, declaring it over, and plotting to effectively kill reform by promising to wait to seat Brown. Majority leaders Pelosi and Reid are pledging to press on, but it’s uncertain whether they hold the party together for the 15-20 day window before Brown has to be seated.

Why back away from reform? In fact, the way to political viability and social justice is to pass legislation, and there’s a clear path to (pseudo)-victory. In order to avoid a replay of 1992 — which has been the mantra since negotiations began last year — Democrats have to act. In fact, had they acted faster and more decisively last year, they probably could have avoided this whole mess (Maybe. Unemployment, after all, is high. This is complicated argument and besides the point anyway).

But each legislator is acting in self-interest and self-preservation. Conservative Dems think they can avoid the Republican tidal wave in the fall by doing nothing on healthcare (do no harm by doing nothing). Liberal Dems want to “kill the bill” out of principle and spite.

What The Wire Tells Us About How Promising Politicians Fail Society

This is the kind of short-term thinking and power plays The Wire dramatized so astutely.

In the first part of the series, we get to know Democratic Mayor Royce (top, above), an embattled politician beset by crime and struggling schools. What’s his solution? Instead of striving for real reform, he asks bureaucrats to cook the books. Raise the crime stats artificially — as opposed to investing in lengthy, slow, deep police work and building community relationships — to improve his chances at reelection. Mayor Royce is weak and calculating, just like Democrats now.

The Wire gives us a great (white) hope in Democrat Thomas Carcetti (bottom, above). The outsider Carcetti promises to fully fund the police and encourage smart police work. No more cooking the books solely to produce the right crime numbers for reelection. No more focusing on political self-preservation: do instead what’s good for the people of Baltimore.

In many ways, Carcetti is the Obama to Royce’s Bush. Where Royce is an ideological vacuum, Carcetti is impassioned and principled. He promises a new politics and real results.

Yet by the end of the series, Carcetti has become Royce, obsessed with reelection and cooking the books. Naturally so: he wants to get elected to do more, but, paradoxically, in order to do more you have to do something first.

How Real Democrats Are Imitating HBO’s Flawed Democrats

I won’t argue that Obama has lost his conviction, but he certainly has lost his way. His inability to argue for real reform (half the stimulus in tax cuts; inadequately advocating for real Democratic principles in healthcare reform, like the public option) worsened what would’ve been a bad year already for his party. Sure, he has no control over Congress, but he set the tone. Meanwhile, legislators, already programmed for self-preservation, dragged their feet on reform, enervating the public, making Washington seem inefficient, out-of-touch and bloated.

They’re still doing it. The only reason to kill health reform is a silly plea to save themselves in the fall. Except, like in The Wire, the actual solution is to do the job right. It’s hard at first but pays off later.

If the Democrats squander a golden opportunity — again — over their chronic short-sightedness, not only will they doom themselves, they will also squander all the hope and idealism that brought them there in the first place.

The Wire Predicts a Post-Idealist Politics, or How Milennials Will Become Boomers

It’s a historical cliche (and probably only half-factual) that the Boomers became politically hardened and cynical after the hope and idealism of the sixties gave way to the deaths of Bobby Kennedy and MLK, the election of Nixon in 1968 and reelection in 1972. Among friends, I’ve quietly criticized such bitterness (the kind of bitterness at the root of Clinton’s triangulation in the 1990s) as short-sighted.

But I’m starting to feel the pangs of mounting cynicism. I’d chock it up to political maturation, but I don’t want to. Is it inevitable that the heights of optimism (2008) give way to startling disappointment (2009) and the eventual return of the status quo (2010)? That certainly isn’t my preferred view of history. Still, I can already see the throngs of young idealists who voted for Obama in 2008 turning into hardened realists. For some, this is a good thing; it’s about experience. Life is cruel, after all. But as Boomer politics shows us, it doesn’t necessarily lead to better policy (has there been any Democratic legislation as meaningful as that of 1960s? Welfare reform? DoMA? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Clinton’s “realistic” politics were hardly progressive).

Once again, The Wire offers no solutions, only a clear narrative of the problem. In some ways, it is extremely hopeful: if we know what’s wrong we can fix it. That’s how I interpreted it.

As real life begins to mimic art (again), though, I’m starting to think maybe The Wire was right. By the last episode, the police have solved the big case and broken the drug ring, but little else has changed. Politicians are still the same. Deals are made in exclusive rooms on the waterfront. Drugs still pollute the streets (no more Hamsterdam!).

The Wire ends with plus ça change. It’s too premature to see if history (1992) will repeat itself this year, but it may just. The people, many of them Democrats, who say “America is fundamentally conservative” may just win.

Are they just being real or have they simply lost hope?

Over the weekend, the news broke that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made some ill-advised comments during the campaign in 2008:

Reid apologized to Obama and a handful of black political leaders after a new book reported that he was favorably impressed by Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and, in a private conversation, described the Illinois senator as a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Obama, who tries to steer clear of the political thicket of race and politics, accepted the apology and said he wanted to close the book on the episode. Republicans were eager to keep it open Sunday, comparing Reid’s remarks to those that cost Trent Lott the Senate leadership in 2002 and questioning why there was different reaction now.

Things I hate about this controversy:

1. The tit-for-tat mindset is clearly at play.  Obviously, each comment had different intentions and meanings. (Adam over at Tapped explains this well.)  However;

2. Anyone who is surprised at racist comments from democrats hasn’t been paying attention.  Yes, the comment was racist – and true, which sucks.  It’s clear that many of our lawmakers know exactly how racist our nation is – and are willing to verbalize how they can use racism to their advantage.  No one is on that white guilt shit – there have been too many statements about Obama that reveal the general perception of blacks in the United States.  It makes it all the more frustrating that people feel the need to pretend that the people who shepard our laws into existence are not racist when clearly they are.   It’s just part of the spin game.

3. I hate The Politico for this:

Democrats are preparing to throw the race card back in the laps of Republicans as part of a counter attack designed to help save Harry Reid’s political career.

4. I’ve read entirely too many articles saying “GOP Chairman Michael Steele, who is black…” like we don’t already fucking know.

5. As far as I am concerned, this is all a bunch of bullshit, because as soon as someone figures out what is going to happen to Reid, people are going to keep pretending that race isn’t still an issue in America, when we know it is.

I ranted a bit on Jezebel; drop your thoughts in the comments.

Oh brother.  Via Andrew Sullivan, there’s a new political ad out with an obnoxiously familiar message:

The video features various people saying “I guess I’m a racist” and puts up a statistic from the Rassumen reports, stating that 12% of voters believe that opponents of Barack Obama’s health care plan are racist.  This poll was released on September 16th, 2009, less than a week following Joe Wilson’s “You Lie” public outburst.  They conveniently forget to mention this in the video.   They also quote Carter and show a cute image of a mother and baby -”I guess we’re racist!”

The piece goes on to say “If people are racist for opposing Obama’s health care plan, I guess a lot of people in this country are racist.”

Yeah, no shit.  That dynamic existed before any of these health care debates, or this election for that matter.

This ad is apparently running on Fox News (though I have only seen it online) and even features a Congressional Representative -Rob Schaaf of Missouri.

Andrew Sullivan writes:

It’s an effective ad against something of a straw man. I really haven’t heard anyone say that opposition to, say, the public option is rooted in racism. Maybe someone has, but it’s not exactly a meme. Conflating wider worries about the intensity of vaguely articulated loathing of Obama as racially tinged with specific worries about health insurance reform is, however, a useful piece of sophism.

That it is, but it also worries me because it follows the pattern of people hiding behind the mantle of oppression by claiming that they are suffering for speaking their minds.  We already saw this play out with the term political correctness – could racism be next?

In a post called “Penny-Pinching Jews and South Carolina Republicans,” Jeff Goldberg points to an editorial by two South Carolina Republicans defending Sen. Jim DeMint’s opposition to opening the federal spigot for his state.

Recently your newspaper published a letter from state Rep. Bakari Sellers attacking U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and his opposition to congressional earmarks.

There is a saying that the Jews who are wealthy got that way not by watching dollars, but instead by taking care of the pennies and the dollars taking care of themselves. By not using earmarks to fund projects for South Carolina and instead using actual bills, DeMint is watching our nation’s pennies and trying to preserve our country’s wealth and our economy’s viability to give all an opportunity to succeed.

To which one of Goldberg’s readers responded:

Perhaps I’m seeing something that isn’t there, but I inferred from the title of this post a suggestion of anti-Semitic bigotry on the part of the two county Republican chairmen.

First, I think there is a difference between stereotypes to be disparaged and stereotypes to be emulated. The chairmen were guilty of the latter. Second, I’ve lived 2/3 of my life in the South/Southwest and the rest in the Northeast. I’ve the noticed that the attitudes about Jews in either place to be remarkably different. In New York, a Jew is some jerk who is dating his sister or a weirdly dressed guy who’s probably hoarding diamonds. In the S/SW and probably in most of the Midwest, a Jew is David or Solomon or Daniel or Jesus or James or Paul.

Ah, yes! Those good stereotypes that we should emulate! They’re always tossed into the bin of “bad” and “racist,” which just isn’t right. Unlike “bad stereotypes,” the good ones are dehumanizing and condescending, but in a well-intentioned sort of way!

The stereotype of the money-hungry Jew has had a pretty good run (Shakespeare!), as stereotypes tend to, what with their being logical fallacies that can’t be disproven. This one really picked up traction in the olden days, back when Europe’s Christians believed that money-lending was a sin. Europe’s Jews were relegated to the bottom of the social ladder because they didn’t believe in salvation through Christ. They were blamed for everything from witchcraft to killing Christian babies to spreading the Black Death, and massacred in violent pogroms. (This suggests that stereotypes are so long-lived because the dangerous stupidity of racists has no apparent ceiling.) Since they were barred from other kinds of labor and had no religious compunctions against it, many Jewish men ended up taking work as money-lenders — which being sinful and all, was held up by Europe’s Christians as another example of Jewish iniquity and duplicity.

(This is textbook racism:  a complicated feedback loop of dehumanization used to justify cruelty toward a given group. Por ejemplo: “Blacks are dumb and lazy! We better own, beat, terrorize and rape them, keep them from reading and codify their inferiority into law! By the way, did you know that those Negroes can’t read or advocate for their own humanity? Idiots.”)

Hitler rose to power in part on the idea that there was a secret cabal of shady Jewish bankers wreaking pecuniary havoc on the wider world — a notion that Germans were primed to receive after centuries of European folklore posited the wickedness of Jews as a given. That idea remains a tentpole of global antisemitism.

In trying to flip the script, those two S.C. Republicans miss the point that their “compliment” starts from a position that the money-hungry, penny-pinching Jew stereotype is true and valid.Trying to untether that stereotype from this history, as the guy defending these two Republicans does, takes a lot of arrogance, ignorance  or both.

If you scratch down just below the surface, you’ll find this kind of Othering in all “good stereotypes.” The well-worn trope about black men being strong and athletic with huge dicks is supposed to be some kind of compliment, even as it directly recalls the myth of violent, animalistic black male sexuality to which so much of America’s long history of racist terrorism has been a response. The “positive stereotype” of the smart Asian is based on the old idea of Asian folks as crafty, untrustworthy possessors of secret knowledge — an idea whose assumed validity makes it easier to round folks up en masse during wartime and shove them into detention camps.

But those two South Carolinians and their defender at Goldblog weren’t trying to conjure up all that historical ugliness. They’re just some down-home guys, regular schmoes who can’t be bogged down with all that reading and the assumption of basic human dignity of folks who aren’t like them. I mean that in a good way, of course.

–
Photo from Wikimedia Commons

It’s all over the news lately: an elaborate sting operation by conservative activists.  A man and a woman go into an ACORN office, and ask about how to get affordable housing and file taxes properly.  The woman says she’s a sex worker.  The ACORN representatives give a variety of advice.  Up to this point, I don’t see anything really wrong with what they’re doing.  But then the man starts talking about his plan of bringing a group of underage girls, 13 years old, 14 years old, from El Salvador to “turn tricks” in the house.  And in the videos shown, the ACORN representatives keep on giving him advice.

I went to the sources and actually read through some transcripts.  As an example, see Page 22 of the Baltimore one.  It’s just as damning as the right-wingers are saying.

I’m glad that ACORN is firing everyone who took the bait, but I don’t think the accountability ends there.  They need to have a consistent anti-human trafficking policy.  Apparently some ACORN offices either threw them out or laughed them out (the “pimp” does look rather laughable) but way too many of them them took him seriously.  I believe ACORN’s statement about their need for reforms and review is not “caving in”, it’s an important process of accountability.

A lot of people on the left don’t want to talk about this issue.  I get a feeling of closing ranks.  After all, ACORN has done many, many good things for low-income communities.  They work with people on the margins of society that no one else will work with.  It’s a difficult balance.  Low-income people who work in illegal activities should NOT be cut off and isolated… but activities that savagely victimize other people shouldn’t be supported, either. I would never say that drug-dealing and sex work are “victimless” crimes; that would be a stupid statement because there are very few activities that are truly victimless, either legal or illegal.  Selling cigarettes is legal, for example, but not victimless.

But I refuse to believe that there is any kind of gray area when it comes to child prostitution.

It’s a serious problem in Atlanta.

NOW PBS REPORT:

A 2005 report from the Mayor’s office [PDF] offers these alarming findings:
- African American girls are disproportionately affected, with 90% of cases reported to the Center to End Adolescent Sexual Exploitation in 2004 coming from this population.
- Anecdotal evidence suggests that the average age of the affected girls is 14, with some as young as 10 and 11 reported.
- There is only one safe house east of the Mississippi River specifically for girls who have been sexually exploited – it is <a href=”http://www.juvenilejusticefund.org/programs/cease/angelashouse.aspx”>Angela’s House</a> in Georgia and can only accommodate six girls at a time.

From a local article:

Hooray! Atlanta is in the running to be No. 1! Let’s have a parade.

Uh, maybe not. Our city has earned a distinction, but it’s hardly one we crave. According to the FBI, Atlanta is among 14 cities vying for child prostitution capital of America. We’re up there with such hot destinations as Tampa, Miami and Washington, D.C.

[...]

FBI Special Agent Steve Emmett says there’s a problem with Brazilian girls being brought to Atlanta to service Hispanic day laborers. But most of the exploited children are homegrown.

Nationally, “200,000 to 300,000 children are believed to be at-risk for sexual exploitation,” according to “Hidden in Plain View,” a study of Atlanta’s problem. Other cities, such as Las Vegas, have estimated their number of child prostitutes in the 400-500 range.

“Hundreds?” muses Cathey Steinberg of Atlanta’s Juvenile Justice Fund. “Oh, absolutely. I call it an epidemic.”

About a dozen girls each month go through the Atlanta juvenile court system as victims of sexual exploitation. Typically, they’re 10 to 14 years old, and the average age is getting younger. Contributing factors aren’t a surprise: broken homes, physical and sexual abuse, runaways, poverty, housing instability and emotional problems. Few girls seek out prostitution, but the pimps know how to spot kids in distress.

What’s Atlanta’s big draw for pedo-pervs? One important factor is bustling Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. A 2003 federal law provides for up to 30-year sentences to people who jaunt to a foreign land, say Costa Rica or Thailand, for a kid tryst. A session with a teen or pre-teen inside the United States generally comes under state laws, however, which seldom match the threat of the federal penalties. Georgia in 2001 made pimping children a felony — previously, it was $50 misdemeanor. That has put some pimps away but hasn’t deterred the business, law enforcement officials say.

This is a horrendous problem, and the statistics here show that children of color are the most affected and most victimized.  There are many contributing factors and many, many people to blame.  The pimps, to start off with.  Everyone who enables the pimps, including their friends and relatives and money launderers. The criminal justice system that treats the victims as criminals. Self-righteous prostitute-haters that believe impoverished, abused children should be punished for their “choices” instead of helped… and vote to keep the current system going.  Regular bystanders, like me, that don’t contribute to the victimization but don’t know how to stand against it effectively.

The right-wing anger around the ACORN sting comes from a place of racism more than a place of sympathy.  A huge theme in their commentary is that “their tax money” would be hypothetically going to “illegal immigrant prostitutes”. But I’m not a right-winger, and I’m angry too, not about my tax money, but about a cultural habit spread through all levels of American society that includes enabling victimizers and rapists.

I don’t want to make this a debate about sex work (even though it might end up that way).  I used to work in the sex industry (I waitressed in a strip club), but I’m neither pro- nor anti-industry.  I’ll support anything that <i>works</i>, on the ground, no matter what theoretical framework it comes from.  To place this issue in another perspective, I’ll mention the Southern Poverty Law Center’s campaign against legal immigrant exploitation.  Here’s one positive recent step in that campaign:

The Southern Poverty Law Center praised Congress on Thursday for protecting immigrant workers by passing a human trafficking bill that allows unscrupulous labor recruiters to be prosecuted for fraud, but said more reform is needed to protect these workers from exploitation.

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 would allow foreign labor recruiters to be prosecuted for fraud when they lure workers to the United States with false promises.

Though H-2 programs are euphemistically called “Guest Worker” programs, it’s often much more like near slavery or indentured servitude.  It’s a form of trafficking that’s 100% legal and enabled by corporate-friendly U.S. law.  Nobody wanted to <i>see</i> its abuses except for a few legal activists and immigrant self-advocates.

Though child prostitution is already illegal, current measures against it are obviously not working.  What are some political measures that can be taken to fight it?  How can we support prostituted children, native and immigrant, with non-punitive services?  What should those ACORN employees known to have said and done instead?  And how can we support the good work that ACORN does while still holding them accountable on this issue?

(Image Credit: User CJaye on NowPublic)

Over the weekend, I received the following email from Green For All:

Late last night, Van Jones resigned from his position with the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Many of us are left with pain and anger after seeing a leader of integrity, vision, and commitment targeted by hateful personal attacks. Van stepped down in service to our movement. He felt that fighting the attacks would draw attention to him and detract from our mission.

Now, our challenge is to turn our disappointment and anger into action and renewed resolve for our common goals.

Like the great social justice movements of the 20th century, our movement for an inclusive green economy is based in the most fundamental American values: equality, justice, and opportunity for all.

That’s why our opponents reduced the debate to fear, hatred, and division. They cannot win a debate about values. They cannot win a debate about solutions.

Our allies and friends may be redirected by these attacks, and focus on the rants of those who fear our vision. For Green For All, our struggle must be defined by the issues our opponents refuse to debate: ending global warming; lifting people out of poverty; restoring the economy; and bringing health to our communities. These are the challenges that matter the most.

Parnee over at Gawker has a good summary on why Jones was singled out:

[F]or both his activism and his charm he was rewarded with a White House job with the Council on Environmental Quality. He was tasked with making sure stimulus money for green jobs actually went to green jobs. And he’s a great person to have in this administration—he is a genuine environmentalist and the only special interest he’s beholden to is poor people. He is the sort of person we were all praying Obama would bring with him to DC, instead of Larry Summers.

And that is one of the reasons he is now being ritually and savagely demonized.

To understand why and how he’s being demonized, we have to look at the way information and misinformation makes it way from crazy blogs to crazy pundits to crazy citizens to, suddenly, the non-crazy regular media.

The “why” is simple: he is a genuine left-wing liberal with a White House job. He is black. He used to be radical, and probably still has radical sympathies (you know, caring about poor black people and all that). He is, in other words, fucking terrifying, if you frame his story right.

Parnee goes on to explain that Van Jones’ platform isn’t even being considered by his opponents. It’s all about his past – and specifically, as a Communist addition to Obama’s cabinet. (Which I am sure Jones found an interesting charge as he was clear about being a Marxist.) It was a blatant political play, and Jones stepped down.

This saddens me for many reasons, but most notably for the fact that someone with a good vision, a commitment to ending poverty, and ideas on how to shift environmentalism away from consumption and toward community based initiatives was targeted specifically to score points against Obama. It’s disgusting.

In Jones’ own words:

“I didn’t start out as an environmentalist. I started out helping urban kids in trouble and I burned out, going to way too many funerals and court cases that turned out badly,” Jones said in an interview. “I was just trying to get my own health back.”

“I went to these retreat Centers in Marin County, and it was a different world. They had all this organic food and solar panels and hybrid cars, and I was like — why don’t they have this in my neighborhood?” Jones said. “I thought, if we had these kind of jobs and services in Oakland, we’d probably have less violence. So I came up with a slogan: Green jobs, not jails.”

So here I was, blissfully disconnected from politics for the week, working on upcoming content for September, when Anna from Jezebel emails me this:

The fine Real Americans at the Free Republic have found Obama’s achilles heel: his Long Dark Staff of White Insecurity.

hoosiermama:
The only other thing that hit me was that Sinclair said BO was not circumcised. When my son was born in a hospital that was done as a matter of routine without even consulting us. Would the same be for Hawaii? OTOH People born at home or in some other cultures are not circumcised.

thecodont:
A relative of mine was born (in a hospital) a couple of years after BO’s alleged birth date. He was circumcised also (as a matter of routine, not according to any family request). [...]

MHGinTN:
You might want to make that call to a Canadian hospital …

MHGinTN:
No…it would have been in Kenya….not Canada.

They really want to perform a dick check on the President.

See, I was just going to ignore this, figuring that foolishness of this caliber just could not continue.

But then again, that’s what I thought about the birthers.

UPDATE: There is a guy with a gun outside of Obama’s town hall. This shit is getting ridiculous. Gawker has details:

MSNBC just aired video of a man with a pistol strapped to his leg waiting for Barack Obama to arrive at a townhall in New Hampshire.

The man is carrying a sign that says, “It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.” That’s a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It was a favorite slogan of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was wearing a T-shirt when he was arrested with a picture of Lincoln on the front and a tree dripping with blood on the back.

Now, this guy is carrying a legal weapon, says NBC News’ Ron Allen. The local chief of police has no objections. Open carriage of licensed handguns is legal in New Hampshire, and the man is standing on the private property of a nearby church (!) that has no problem with an armed man hanging around.

—-

I live in Georgia’s 4th District, and I just attended Representative Hank Johnson’s healthcare town hall meeting. The event drew thousands of people. Our group got there an hour early, but even with that lead time, there was obviously no chance of getting inside.

So we stood outside with signs: large, simple, direct, polite signs. We got some good attention and maybe some media coverage.

Judging from the signs in the incredibly long line, supporters of healthcare reform outnumbered opponents by a lot, maybe 4 to 1. The 4th District is majority African-American and overwhelmingly Democratic. It was almost a sure bet that many healthcare opponents drove into the district from much further away. I saw a lot of exurb county license plates in the parking lot.

There were a few weird screamers. Someone yelled “YOU’RE NAZIS” at us. Another man yelled “you want to send all our money to Kenya!” However, there were so many supporters that the really rude people never achieved critical mass, and the atmosphere outside remained calm.

There was heavy security, and apparently the rules for the town hall were very strict and carefully explained at the beginning. People who yelled or were disruptive would be escorted out. I can’t wait to read a summary to see how the town hall worked out.

It was certainly nothing like the mass chaos at the town hall in St. Louis that made national news. In this event, a black conservative named Kenneth Gladney claims to have been attacked and racially insulted by (black) SEIU union activists. Depending on your point of view, Gladney could be a a brave martyr or a scam artist… or perhaps just a regular person in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s a difficult situation to get a hold on.

Going back to local Atlanta news, there’s been a lot of local coverage on how Rep. David Scott, of the neighboring 13th District, supposedly “lost his temper” or “went berserk” at a non-healthcare town hall when he was asked a healthcare reform question. I saw the video clip in question, and I don’t believe he really loses his temper. And I’m not saying this because I like David Scott, because I can’t stand him. I think his political career is full of soft corruption, and he’s nowhere near the caliber of, say, John Lewis. But in this case Scott is right. The media coverage surrounding the video clip was ridiculous and racist. Whatever the man’s faults, he’s a slick politician… he wouldn’t freak out in front of a camera. If he was white, the headlines would have said “angry words” at the most, not “loses his temper”.

Here’s what he has to say in his defense:

“The first question that comes out of his mouth, ‘Why did you vote for this?’” Scott said. “Wait a minute — I didn’t vote for anything. We haven’t had it to vote on.”

What you didn’t see in our original report was the three minutes Scott spent answering the doctor’s question before he raised his voice.

Watson asked Scott, “In hindsight, seeing those clips, did you lose your temper?”

“No, I did not lose my temper. I was very firm and I talked very firm — and if you looked at that, my words were there. I didn’t bite my tongue about it. I was very, very disturbed with him,” Scott said.

But Scott is even more disturbed about mail he has received in the days since the story aired.

Scott held up a sheet of paper to Watson that had a picture of President Obama on it, his face made to look like the joker in Batman, a swastika on his forehead. Then he read what it said.

“They address it to n—– David Scott, ‘You were, you are, and you shall forever be, a n—–’,” Scott said, reading from the letter. “I got this in the mail today. Somewhere underneath this, bubbling up, is the ugly viscissitudes [sic, because 11alive.com hasn't discovered spellchecking] of racism. We should be proud we have an African American president and celebrating him willing to take on the difficult issue of healthcare, an issue that reflects 19 percent of our economy. Here we are in Congress trying to grapple with an almost impossible task — almost two improbables together, bring the cost of healthcare down while expanding the coverage of it. That is a difficult assignment and it should not be relegated to these mobs of people who will come and hijack a meeting, and you expect me not to stand up to that and not to show that we’re not intimidated?”

Scott is hosting a health fair and healthcare forum at which he will do questions and answers on the topic of healthcare reform.

It will be held on Saturday from 10 am to 2 pm at Mundy’s Mill High School in Jonesboro.

Thank goodness my Rep, Hank Johnson, will never be accused of losing his temper, despite incontrovertible blackness. Maybe it’s all the “Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō”s he undoubtedly recites… he projects an almost supernatural (though slightly gawky) aura of calmness. If he’s ever accused of “going berserk”, I’ll know the time of white exurban riots will be upon us.

Reuters recently published a pieced entitled “Reggaeton fever shakes up Cuba’s culture” the article cites an now infamous (in reggaeton circles anyway) quote by Juventud Rebelde that calls reggaeton a “reflection of ‘neoliberal thinking’.”

I think the development and growth of reggaeton in Cuba has been fascinating (if you are interested check out Geoff Baker’s work) and illuminates much about the ways in which different musical forms/genres circulate as cultural and ideological commodities.

The idea of reggaeton being a product of neoliberalism is intriguing. Clearly the flows of neoliberal capital and its circuits facilitated the spread of technologies and people that enabled the different permutations of reggaeton within the   Caribbean, the Americas, and globally.

More than anything else, I wonder what seeing reggaeton as a neoliberal commidity says about how Cuban authorities think about the neocolonial relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico and the forces of diaspora (not only between Puerto Rico and the U.S., but broadly speaking) in forging reggaeton, essentially outside of the Cuban nation (and well any nation really). Reggaeton is largely positioned as outside of the Cuban nation, seen as an import from the yanquis via Puerto Rico, which is why Cuban Culture Minister Abel Prieto is quoted in the Reuters piece as saying that reggaeton needs to be “pushed away.” Reggaeton is agringado, a corrupting influence on Cuba’s revolutionary ideals.

While reggaeton is (often mis)understood as a Puerto Rican, or even an American phenomenon, the more authorities and cultural brokers attempt to place reggaeton within some kind of national frame the more obvious it becomes that reggaeton exist in between and outside of national boundaries.

Maybe that is what makes reggaeton so threatening, what incites all these national panics? Well, besides sex and race, but of course those things are tied up within the nation too…

Now I’m just ranting though….thoughts?

To understand civil rights, you must understand how it feels…to be trapped in someone else’s stereotype.” – Deval Patrick

During the year of 2008, people loved to talk about change, normally as a positive outcome righting a wrong or correcting a historical slight.

However, change never comes easily. Friction always occurs between the different groups who are advocating for their view of the world to become the dominant one. In The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, Gwen Ifill probes deeply into the causes and creation of political friction, dubbing the phenomenon “sandpaper politics” and documenting the lives and stories of those African American politicians who found a way to live through the heaviest friction point and manage come out polished and battle ready.

The Breakthrough’s title is a bit misleading. Ifill’s book isn’t really about Obama – it is the story of a generation in flux, an exploration of the rise of post-civil rights black leadership using Obama’s amazing political journey as a symbol of the shifting power dynamic. While telling Obama’s story, she also interviews dozens of young black leaders on the cusp of their own breakthroughs while navigating the tricky realm of crossover politics.

The new groups of young black politicians are a small piece of a larger division in black political thought. Termed “the post civil rights generation,” the new generation of up and coming leaders has different memories of America. Instead of sit-ins, soda fountains, and overt forms of racism like segregation, we now have multiculturalism, hip-hop, and covert forms of racism.
The Civil Rights Generation ushered in a completely different world for their children to grow up – one in which we would never know what is was like to be denied a seat at a lunch counter or forbidden from applying for certain jobs due to the color of our skin. They braved all types of horrors in order for us to be where we are today.

As Ifill writes,

Breaking through has its costs. John Lewis was hit in the head with a break at Selma. Vernon Jordan was shot. And families play a price as well: Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife and children were threatened, and shortly after [Deval] Patrick moved into the corner office on Beacon Hill, his wife, Diane, dropped out of public sight to receive treatment for depression. (p. 195)

Earlier in the book, Ifill referred to the high cost of ambition for black leaders, grimly counting off the death toll – Malcom, Marvin, and Medgar were all murdered at the heights of their careers, before any of them had reached the age of forty. A grim reality of working and agitating for change is having that reality hanging over head and knowing that we are just a slim 40 years from when this type of violence against civil rights leaders was common place.

However, the major theme of The Breakthrough is overwhelming optimism in the face of difficult odds.

Cory Booker, the subject of chapter seven and mayor of Newark, New Jersey, summarizes the attitudes of many young black politicos when he says,

“My parents used to tell me as a young kid that we were a country that was formed in perfect ideals but a savagely imperfect reality,” Cory Booker said. “You had people that were enslaved and in chains seeing the most horrible and heinous realities, but yet, somehow, they saw freedom and they saw liberty.” (p. 144)

The Post Civil Rights Generation is still coming into its own. Jesse Jackson Jr. spoke to Gwen Ifill about “the movement in the black community towards accountable leadership” – a marked change away from media domination and sound bytes (characterized by the tactics of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) and towards measured results, community involvement, and follow through.

Bakari Sellers (son of civil rights leader Cleveland Sellers) confirmed that we are rapidly learning about the modern convergence of race, class, and gender. “The struggle has changed,” Sellers informs Ifill. “If you’re poor and black in South Carolina or poor and white in South Carolina, you face basically the same issues.”

Indeed, the struggle has changed a bit from the days of marches and fire hoses. Cornell Belcher, an Obama pollster was almost moved to tears as he explained:

“Here you are in South Carolina, three blocks from where the Confederate flag is still flying in front of the state capitol and all the history that has held in that state,” Belcher, who is black told me later. “And you have a group of young white people shouting, ‘Race doesn’t matter.’ Now, do they think there is no racism? No. But were they screaming and shouting the world they wanted to exist? Yeah. That is powerful and profound and very different.” (p. 159)

While Belcher is incredulous at the swiftness of change, The Breakthrough often reminds us of how some parts of the process haven’t changed much at all. Ifill’s writing is informed by the intrinsic understanding that comes when one has to be twice as good to go half as far; and provides examples as to when if all other factors are equal, black candidates still find themselves holding the short straw. She interviewed Natalie Davis, a white contender for the US Senate in 1996. The Alabama native pulled no punches.

“In the general election, for a Democrat to beat a Republican, a Democrat has to get about 40 percent of the white vote,” says Davis. “I do not know how you get there. If you’re white, I don’t even know how you get there. If you’re black, it’s that much more difficult. (p. 107)

For the post Civil Rights generation Artur Davis, this perception is a surmountable obstacle. His optimism has put him on a path to run for governor in 2010. However, older politicos are more weary of his chances. Alabama state representative John Knight admired Davis’ ambitions but noted “I would say, realistically, that this is Alabama.”

Pointing out that often the ideas and prejudices that color politics are often left unspoken, Ifill makes a point to mention,

The only thing more politically debilitating than the “black enough” question is the “too black” question. The latter is seldom asked out loud, and it is never asked by black people. It is, however, the question that can cost mainstream black candidates an election. (p. 172)

Later in the breakthrough, Ifill spends a significant chunk of time with the relationship of Barack Obama and Reverend Wright, parsing out how Obama’s association with right became a nightmare for his campaign. As a candidate seeking the Presidency on a platform of unity, Wright’s words and actions began to push Obama into “too black” (or as others note, too angry) territory.

Ifill also painstakingly describes the balancing acts that black candidates have to walk, being accessible enough to other blacks while not alienating white voters. Ifill spoke to David Paterson, the governor of New York about some of the emotional tight ropes black politicians walk.
Once Clinton conceded, [David] Paterson embraced Obama with the understanding that, in many ways, both men were playing the same game – trying to meet expectations and test that never face white candidates.

“In my short time – and I know I am just sipping at what Barack Obama has to go through gallons of every day, Paterson told me, “the energy that takes away from your effort is immense.” (p. 119)

Internal divisions within the black community also fall under Ifill’s laser focus. In “The Politics of Identity”, she devotes an entire chapter to the amorphous concept of blackness and the reality of black politicians who must prove time and time again that they fit some arbitrary determination of “black enough.” Ifill introduces the historical root of this internal conflict:

Governors, mayors, and lawmakers of all stripes I spoke with have been confronted with the question – especially early in their careers and especially if they were new to the game. Even Walter White, the founder of the NAACP, who campaigned against lynching and in favor of equality in education, was deemed inauthentic in some quarters because of his fair skin. (p. 159)

She also examines the demands placed on black candidates by their black constituencies. After noting “when race was a factor [in community issues], [Deval] Patrick was a factor,” Ifill spends some time describing the heavy burden of expectation black communities place on their elected officials:

In late 2007, when thirteen year old Steven Odom, a black boy, was shot to death on his way home from playing basketball, all eyes turned to Partick. Why hadn’t he stopped the violence? Why hadn’t he paid prompt respects to the boy’s mother? No one had asked this of previous governors. The difference was that Partick was being held to a new standard, one dictated by race. (p. 201)

In addition to the needs of their community, black upstart politicians also have to contend with Civil Rights era leaders, who are often still active within their communities and are reluctant to pass the baton to the next generation. This also leads to friction, as one of the biggest differences between the Civil Rights generation and the post Civil Rights generation is the attitude toward paying dues. While leaders like Obama, Patrick, and Booker often want to step up and start assuming responsibility, older leaders often push back, requesting that these new leaders need to temper their ambitions.

“Here’s the catch,” the younger [Steve] Adubato told [Gwen Ifill]. I don’t believe that Cory [Booker] has ever really mastered, or understands there is a need to master, showing the proper respect. Touching the right bases. Frankly, kissing the right asses to put himself to put himself in a position where he could, if not ameliorate, just minimize some of that negativity.” (p. 152)

Members of the post civil rights generation chafe at this idea, about needing to bow to legacy and establishment, instead aching to create a new way forward. Part of the reason for the age based gap is the understanding of the evolution of race and racism. For example, while Booker concedes there are “persistent and insidious divisions between black and white” that still plagues society, he ultimately believes that a comprehensive strategy to beat racism will involve a united coalition:
Racism is not a black problem,” he adds. “It’s not a white problem. It’s our problem. I think that’s the kind of dialogue we’re looking for on race.”

Ifill notes that an “eager and growing audience among citizens of every race ready to embrace the notion that the end of race based politics is near.” Indeed, much of this friction Ifill describes is just a part of the changing times.

In addition to racial coverage, Ifill takes a chapter to quickly cover “The Race-Gender Clash.” Courageously wading back into the superficially hashed out race-versus-gender meme that fluttered around the primaries and spilled over into the election, Ifill grabs polling data to note:

In exit poll after exit poll during the primaries, voters who said race mattered voted against Obama, while voters who said gender mattered voted for Clinton. In a conservative state such as Kentucky, where Clinton hoped to do well, more than one in five voters in the preelection survey viewed Obama’s race as a negative. When asked about gender, however, 63 percent said it didn’t matter and 11 percent said they viewed it as a positive. (p. 76)

(It should also be noted that earlier in “The Race-Gender Clash” chapter, Ifill quotes Donna Brazile saying “We spent precious time debating race versus gender, as if racism and sexism are not both toxic.”)

The Breakthrough reads like a serious of well reported newspaper articles. However, Ifill rarely inserts herself in the narrative, which is unfortunate. While the book is written loosely in the first person, she rarely dedicates space to herself and her story.

For example, when discussing the stigma candidates face for having a little too much education, she explores the idea of “talking white,” an accusation that lands with a sting for many educated blacks as it is a backhanded slap suggesting that they have been accused of that as well. Ifill notes this dynamic, and adds a small sentence about how she too has had this accusation leveled against her. Ifill also provides a memory of attending a Gridiron Club organization where she, Donna Brazile, and Vernon Jordan were the only blacks in the room. She writes,

When these clubs were created we were expected to be serving, not dining. Even now, I’d bet most people in that room possessed not a single black friend. And if they did, it was likely to be Vernon or Donna or me. (p. 65)

These tantalizing glimpses of Ifill’s life provide some excellent background for her discussion of change and politics. As a person reporting on the front lines of race and politics for so long, The Breakthrough would have been enhanced by a little more reflection from the author. While Ifill’s role and training for the last thirty or so odd years requires this objective eye toward the world, there are a few places in the book that could have benefited from a personal narrative to illustrate her point.

Another element missing in the book is moving the racial discussion a little beyond the black and white binary. This is difficult, because our country was founded in this way, that blacks are the underclass and whites are the ruling class. However, part of the change that post Civil Rights leaders are ushering in is the idea of multiracial coalitions. It is not until the end of the book that Ifill ponders the role of other races in these new developments.

We know that race pride helped fuel black turnout, but less explored is the question of how the white voters who control the franchise went from resistance to acceptance in a single generation. How were Latino voters moved to speak so forcefully on Election day, delivering two thirds of their votes to Obama? (p. 237)

Asian Americans also voted overwhelmingly for Obama, providing him with 62% of the vote. However, this oversight in the book accurately reflects exactly how large of a change has occurred in the last forty years – something that many leaders of the new school understand. While it would have been beneficial to see some further racial analysis, particularly dealing with the perception that Obama would privilege blacks above all other races if elected, it is understandable that it is omitted. Perhaps in another ten or so years, we will have a book that accurately depicts the full racial landscape in America – as for right now, we are all just trying to keep up with all the changes.

Ifill’s work is a good starting point for racial discussions in America which tend to languish outside of community focused discussions. Often, people are communicating across a gulf of understanding, without shared reference points to guide the way. The Breakthrough provides a thorough accounting of black political upheaval in the last 40 years and delves into some very unpleasant realities.

The Breakthrough’s conclusion is forward thinking, and in line with the aims of the post-civil rights generation when she writes:

[T]here is little question that we in this country may be reaching the end of the “firsts.” Perhaps breakthroughs are on the verge of becoming enough of a part of the national political landscape that at some point we will cease noticing them all together. (p. 246)