Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Pat Buchanan Is Right
He may not have said it delicately enough, but Pat Buchanan was essentially right in pointing out saying that it's not necessarily in a Republican candidate's best interest to attend last week's "black" debate. Talking Points Memo called Buchanan's argument "offensive".
Few people are surprised that Republicans don't attend an organized labor candidate forum -- or that there won't be a "Values Debate" where conservatives entertain the Democratic presidential candidates.
Why weren't the Democrats invited to speak to the NRA? For that matter, why did the Democrats choose to skip the Fox News debate?
The answer is that the different parties, during the primary season, are busy wooing the different parts of their "base." It is unfortunate, but African Americans have become a locked-up constituency of the Democratic base: No Republican president has gotten more than 11 percent of the black vote since Richard Nixon received 30 percent in 1960. While one can certainly blame the GOP for various mis-steps (beginning with Barry Goldwater's declaration that he was "going where the ducks" were -- Southern white voters -- and writing off the black vote in '64), the fact is that black leadership has chosen to declare demonstrate its power solely within the context of the Democratic Party.
Even when a Republican has tried to reach out to the black community -- as George W. Bush did in 2000 -- that overture is rebuffed. Bush went to the NAACP convention, trying to salve hurt feelings derived from Bob Dole's bumbling campaign in 1996. What was the result? The NAACP ran anti-Bush radio ads based on a fake issue (his decision to veto a "hate crimes" bill in Texas). The ads featured Renee Mullins, daughter of James Byrd, a black man dragged to his death by three white rednecks. The woman said that she felt as if she had "lost" her father all over again when Bush vetoed the bill (for reasons that had nothing to do with race). Bush pointed out in a later debate that, under Texas law, two of the men were sentenced to death, so
Because of the NAACP's decision, Bush skipped the annual convention for the first six years of his term. In 2004, Bush ended up being re-elected (and received a small uptick in his percentage of the black vote -- which turned out to be crucial in Ohio).
The point is that, as Buchanan noted, Republicans see going to a venue of a constituency that has chosen to be fully in the pocket of the Democratic Party as a high risk/low reward bet. It makes far more sense for the major candidates to devote more time in the primary season to appear in front of groups that represent parts of their own base. There's no reason for Republicans to change their presidential campaigning behavior until they see a change in black voting patterns.
It doesn't help, by the way, that the moderator was Tavis Smiley: He is perceived by many Republicans to be biased against the GOP -- in much the same way as Democrats see Fox News journalists to be biased against their party.
The full video of Buchanan can be found here.
Labels: black leadership, black vote, debates, GOP 2008 President
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Simply Obama-nable
Scanning the headlines this morning, I came across this link to Ben Smith's blog on Politco.Com. Just when I thought that maybe A Certain Ethnic Candidate might not be as bad as I had originally painted him, he proves my original misgivings to be correct in a recent speech in Milwaukee. In a rambling oration that plays to his (de)base(d), the Junior Senator from Illinois manages to tie every major broad theme of the left liberal Democrats (global warming, Iraq, evil corporate America) to Don Imus, and in turn, Imus' "verbal violence" to the Virginia Tech tragedy. He even managed to throw Dr. King and Selma into the pot, at the end (yes, I listened to the whole thing). How's THAT for multitasking?!
Obama deserved points, I quietly believed last week, for not jumping immediately into the Imus fracas. Some questioned (once again, and stupidly) his "blackness" for not being one of the first so-called "Black Leaders" to jump on the Imus media clusterf--k. I took it as a sign of a candidate showing maturity and thoughtful reticence in not joining a mainstream media feeding frenzy at the first sign of a microphone or camera, like the usual suspects. Then he trotted his two daughters as being "victims" of Imus' march into Poland, er, Rutgers. Stupid though that was, what politician hasn't screamed "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!" at one time or another?
So, to the Debra Dickersons of the World: after listening to the Milwaukee speech, I've come to the conclusion that if Obama's ability to wax histrionically in vague, visceral terms without specific plans for action, yet somehow tying it all back to American Racist calumnies, doesn't prove that Mr. Chocolate Lincoln is truly a "Real Black American Leader," what does?
I find Obama's adoption of Sharpton Lite Rhetoric (plays straight, less feeling) tying Don Imus and race to a deranged killer at Virginia Tech to be sadly amusing, considering that back in his Windy City one of the formerly entrenched stalwarts of old-style race-baiting identity politics, Dorothy Tillman, was defeated yesterday in the aldermanic run-off races. For those not familiar with Chicago politics, think of her as a hat-sporting, somewhat more urbane, less batsh*t-crazy version of Cynthia McKinney. Ms. Tillman's antics during my time in the Greatest City in America (sorry, New Yorkers) included a call for slave reparations and an early 1990s very news-making imitation of Pancho Villa during a public meeting . So even as the Junior Senator adopts a more victimology-tinged hue to his speeches, some Chicagoans have decided that phantasms of white supremacy aren't enough to get support and votes (though the selection of pro-Big Labor candidates in The City That Works still bodes well for Mr. Obama's anti-Walmart thrust).
Luckily for the Senator this timeless product is still available, even in the 21st Century, for the aspiring African-American fabulist. Just ask Al ...
Labels: Barack Obama, black leadership, Virginia Tech
Monday, March 05, 2007
NAAC(P) -Ya! Wouldn't Wanna Lead Ya!
The reason? Well, if this were a band, it would be that old reliable -- "creative differences":
"I believe that any organization that's going to be effective will only be effective if the board and the CEO are aligned and I don't think we are aligned," Gordon told The Associated Press. "This compromises the ability of the board to be as effective as it can be."When selected in 2005, former Verizon executive Gordon was a surprise choice, coming out of the business community rather than the civil rights and political worlds that previously had produced NAACP leaders.
Julian Bond, chairman of the board of the Baltimore-based National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said Sunday that Gordon tried to quit just six weeks after taking the job in August 2005, but Bond convinced him to stay.
"There were occasions where it seemed just not to be a perfect fit," Bond said. "But he had many, many great qualities, and he exhibited those qualities when he worked for us. I'm
disappointed that it came to this."
Gordon will give up his duties before month's end, Gordon said in a phone interview from Los Angeles, where he attended the NAACP Image Awards Friday.
He was praised from the start as a great choice, but one could see where there could be possible tension:
Black Enterprise wrote that Gordon has "a track record too impressive to ignore."So much for that.
"He was an outstanding corporate executive and a spectacular choice for the NAACP as it goes into next era of leadership," Earl "Butch" Graves, Jr., president of Black Enterprise magazine, said in an interview before Gordon's selection. "It's a good fit in that I think the organization needs to be shaken up."
Graves said Gordon will appeal to younger blacks, many of whom question the relevance of the 96-year-old organization that had a broad impact during the civil rights movement but has lost prominence in recent years.
"They need to reach out to a younger, broader audience who will see the relevance of being associated with this very important civil rights organization," Graves said. "How they design that and how Bruce creates the architecture for that remains to be seen, but I think that's challenge number one."
Tony Lewis, president of Verizon's Washington operation, said Gordon helped Verizon's culture evolve into one that was focused on customer happiness — and loyalty.
"He always said we had to make them trust the brand," Lewis said. Similarly, the NAACP "needs brand. They need to continue to grow with their market base."
Gordon's singular "achievement" -- if it can be called that -- in his tenure was managing to convince President Bush to address the NAACP's annual meeting in 2006 after the White House boycotted -- rightly, in my opinion -- the conference during the previous five years of Bush's term.
Perhaps Gordon was too thin-skinned to run a non-corporate entity. The comment above that he was ready to quit six weeks into his tenure might suggest that. But given the leadership problems that the NAACP has had since Benjamin Hooks ended a 15-year run, it seems that the onus has to be on the organization.
Pardon the bluntness, but the NAACP ain't going to change while Julian Bond still runs the board. He is too dogmatic, too ideologically-fixed, in a 1960s political mindset to allow growth for the group in the 21st century. It was Bond that created much of the conflict between the group and the Bush White House, personalizing policy differences with the Republican Party, not once, but repeatedly.
This tended to put the NAACP president -- whether Gordon or his predecessor Kweisi Mfume -- in the position of trying to smooth things over.
And don't think that Bond doesn't have considerable sway over the other board members. Thus, it's not surprising that the organization president and the board would be out of step.
Now, with Gordon's early departure, the NAACP still -- as Earl Graves, Jr. said -- needs to figure out how to make itself relevant to a younger generation. Bond certainly isn't helping any.
Labels: black leadership, Bruce Gordon, civil rights, Julian Bond, NAACP
Friday, March 02, 2007
Obama & the Black Left
There has been a backlash. While Obama was announcing in Springfield, PBS host Tavis Smiley was honchoing his annual State of the Black Union conference at Hampton University in Virginia. Coverage of the all-day event on C-Span was interrupted for the Obama announcement.That is a great "gotcha."
Smiley said that Obama had called him to apologize for missing the event. The Rev. Al Sharpton scolded Obama for making his announcement before a predominantly white crowd in Springfield, rather than at the forum. He added that he is looking for Obama to explain “what’s his embrace of our agenda.”
Cornel West, the Princeton University professor and black intellectual, said African Americans should ask Obama, “How deep is your love for the people” and “Where is your money coming from?” In the background were a blinding array of banner logos trumpeting the “sponsors” of Smiley’s conference: ExxonMobil, Verizon, Wells-Fargo, McDonald’s, Allstate Insurance, etc.
Labels: Barack Obama, black leadership
