I remember being more than a little outraged when, in 1994, a very tense and touchy nuclear situation involving North Korea was replaced as the top story by the death of Nicole Simpson. Her death was tragic and certainly due the appropriate mourning and prayers that it got, and perhaps then some because it was such a brutal death and no one should die like she and Ronald Goldman died that night. But the country was on the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a crazy strongman, and CNN was devoting its time to a Ford Bronco moving slowly down an LA freeway. It was surreal and a lot of people made careers, received fame, inked cable television deals, and still haunt cable stations devoted to these kinds of things in an industry that did not even exist before Nicole Simpson's death. Its Los Angeles, everybody has their hand out for their big payday and everyone is just a little weird.
So why am I writing about Michael Jackson? For two reasons. First, I want to document the Los Angeles virus of ready made and shameless fame fanned on by a television news industry that seems perpetually perched in a helicopter in Los Angeles following vans and ambulances while anchors search for something to say like Cronkite used to during space flights, the latter a much more honorable example of bsing that what we see every so often when something happens in L.A.
The new shameless stars from this moment are: Vogue writer Maureen Orth who proclaimed Jackson guilty of drug addiction and child molestation with the certainty of a seer, who was given broad room on Morning Joe on MSNBC by Willie Geist, but short shrift across the hall on Today on NBC by Matt Lauer; former Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, who declared Michael Jackson another Anna Nicole Smith with the studied media stare of a man starved for the media attention that he was now assured of getting. Who knows, this may lead to a cable show!
Los Angeles. This is why I travel east.
The second reason I write about Michael Jackson, knowing full well all of the other things in the news, is that, well, Michael Jackson was special. Not to put his life above Simpson's, but one might consider devoting time to MJ because his death really is about more than just the salaciousness that Orth and Oxman would like to mine from this. It was about, well, among other things, my teenaged years.
Its 1969 and I am a high school freshman heading to the band room after a Friday night football game in Beaumont, Texas. I am a band member and football player, but as a freshman, I am not on varsity, so I got to march and play in the stands with the band. As I walked to the room from the bus, a cute junior twirler whom I had been pining over for weeks, walked up to me and placed a kiss on my cheek. It was dark enough that not everybody saw us, but enough did to totally embarass me as I did not know what to do, I am 14 remember, so I walked on not understanding what I was feeling. Someone walks past my flustered and nervous self with a transister radio that was playing "I Want You Back". She became my "I Want You Back" crush. Forty years later that moment is still part of my youthful memories (by the way later in the fall I offered the twirler an umbrella at a rain game and we stood there with my arm stretched over her shoulder with me still not knowing what to do).
I also remember 1970 when the Osmonds broke out with their imitation of the Jackson 5's hits, and their subsequent shadowing of the Jacksons in everything they did. Jacksons got a cartoon show, Osmonds got a cartoon show. Fights broke out in high schools and junior high schools across the country between white and black kids over who was coolest, the Jacksons or the Osmonds, the controversy every bit as hot as J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO surveillance of the Black Panthers that same year. I went to an all black high school so no fights broke out, over that issue.
As time continued, I started lying about my relations, as every black kid named Jackson must have during that time. I had distant relatives in Indiana, and, well you get the picture.
There was much innocence in these memories, the kind of innocence that is not much attributed to black youth of my generation. Depictions of my group are usually surrounded by civil rights strife (The Learning Tree), or inner city angst (Cooley High, J.T.). Sometimes all we experienced during that time was an occasional hopeless crush on a girl in short blue and gold tights carrying a baton. And the sound track of that period ranged from "I Want You Back" "ABC" "The Love You Save", "I'll Be There", the latter being the number one "phone sing" song that girls, at least in Southeast Texas, asked you to sing for them while on the phone avoiding chemistry homework, which resulted in a C and threats of sanctions from my father. Literally, there was no other music. Except for James Brown, of course.
Others in their mid to late 40s will focus their memories on the CBS label Jacksons which was a five member group of equally sized brothers, minus Jermaine with Randy added to keep the group as a quintet. Those in their early forties and late 30s will remember Michael Jackson, the one man act and Thriller, and Bad as sign post of their teens. But for a 54 year old, the memories focus on the Motown quintet of uneven sized teenagers with high voices. By the time the other iterations of the Jackson phenomon came about, I was listening to jazz, Stevie Wonder, Earth Wind and Fire, and War. As far as I was concerned, at 20 the Jackson 5, or the Jacksons, or whatever they were calling themselves then, were kid stuff.
But they were part of my youth.
Many of the well meaning pundits want to create a Michael Jackson that brought whites and blacks together in the same music like no other artist before him. This is not true. Duke Ellington holds that distinction--white bobby soxers in the 40s bopped to Ellington (and Count Basie for that matter) as much as their kids and grand kids danced to MJ. Music was not nearly as Balkanized as the social commentators, including Michael Eric Dyson (who should know better) claim to remember. Stevie Wonder was a staple on top 40 radio, and does anybody remember a guy named Jimi Hendrix? We need not embellish MJ to make his contributions important. He was just, literally the greatest pop entertainer in Western history (there probably is a superstar in Asia somewhere whose numbers at concerts or someother category of entertainment dwarf MJs because there are more people over there).
We need to learn to appreciate MJ without the embellishments.
Brace yourself, the embellishments aside, there will be, after the initial shock is over, a race to the bottom to remind us all of his dark side. Like Tom Joyner noted, he was like the relative that you were always concerned about. Much of what is hinted at about MJ's life is indeed troubling, but we have been living and wringing our hands over that stuff for years now.
Let the guy rest in peace.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Conservatives Launch Attack on Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor's nomination is on the books, and now the dirt begins. The Right is not going to go down with dignity (though it is important to note that they will go down on this one). The beginning of the fight began with everyone from Rush to the National Review. The NR is relying on an article in the National Journal by Stuart Taylor which resurrected an article (which was really a speech turned into an article for the Berkeley La Raza Law Review) which it claims describes the real Sotomayor.
Here is the article serving as the basis for the attack:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/PDF?handle=hein.journals/berklarlj13&collection=usjournals&id=93&print=8§ioncount=1&ext=.pdf
Here is what NR said today:
NATIONAL JOURNAL’S STUART TAYLOR HAS A GREAT COLUMN ON SECOND CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S SPEECH TURNED LAW-REVIEW ARTICLE IN WHICH SHE EXPRESSES HER “HOPE THAT A WISE LATINA WOMAN WITH THE RICHNESS OF HER EXPERIENCES WOULD MORE OFTEN THAN NOT REACH A BETTER CONCLUSION THAN A WHITE MALE WHO HASN’T LIVED THAT LIFE” WHEN EACH IS ACTING AS A JUDGE “IN DECIDING CASES.” (SOTOMAYOR, “A LATINA JUDGE’S VOICE,” 13 BERKELEY LA RAZA L.J. 87 (2002).)
AS TAYLOR PUTS IT:
SO ACCUSTOMED HAVE WE BECOME TO IDENTITY POLITICS THAT IT BARELY CAUSES A RIPPLE WHEN A HIGHLY TOUTED SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, WHO SITS ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN NEW YORK, HAS SERIOUSLY SUGGESTED THAT LATINA WOMEN LIKE HER MAKE BETTER JUDGES THAN WHITE MALES.ANY PROMINENT WHITE MALE WOULD BE INSTANTLY AND PROPERLY BANISHED FROM POLITE SOCIETY AS A RACIST AND A SEXIST FOR MAKING AN ANALOGOUS CLAIM OF ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPERIORITY OR INFERIORITY.
The language between the "" is accurate as portrayed by the NR. A complete account of what Stuart Taylor had to say can be found at: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php
What the reference (or Taylor's article for that matter) does not represent is that she was conveying a dialogue with retired 2nd circuit judge Miriam Cederbaum about the role that race and gender have in deciding race and gender cases. Cederbaum noted that the seminal race and gender cases were decided by white males, while Sotomayor notes that most of them were argued by the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (touche'). The reference in NR makes it look like she was referring to all cases, and she is not. The editing of her speech from which the article came could have been a little tighter, or the students screwed up the editing of the article. In either case, the points offered by Taylor and the NR are without merit.
How the NR and Taylor could get this so wrong is beyond me (not really). A casual glance at the article will reveal the point she was making. For Taylor to characterize the statement as meaning that "her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist" is unfair, inaccurate, and an attempt to conjure up antipathy from the right. This thing has gone viral, and I can expect my conservative bartender to refer to Taylor's and the NR's take on that article word for word, as will Fox.
I'll have a beer.
Here is the article serving as the basis for the attack:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/PDF?handle=hein.journals/berklarlj13&collection=usjournals&id=93&print=8§ioncount=1&ext=.pdf
Here is what NR said today:
NATIONAL JOURNAL’S STUART TAYLOR HAS A GREAT COLUMN ON SECOND CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S SPEECH TURNED LAW-REVIEW ARTICLE IN WHICH SHE EXPRESSES HER “HOPE THAT A WISE LATINA WOMAN WITH THE RICHNESS OF HER EXPERIENCES WOULD MORE OFTEN THAN NOT REACH A BETTER CONCLUSION THAN A WHITE MALE WHO HASN’T LIVED THAT LIFE” WHEN EACH IS ACTING AS A JUDGE “IN DECIDING CASES.” (SOTOMAYOR, “A LATINA JUDGE’S VOICE,” 13 BERKELEY LA RAZA L.J. 87 (2002).)
AS TAYLOR PUTS IT:
SO ACCUSTOMED HAVE WE BECOME TO IDENTITY POLITICS THAT IT BARELY CAUSES A RIPPLE WHEN A HIGHLY TOUTED SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE, WHO SITS ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN NEW YORK, HAS SERIOUSLY SUGGESTED THAT LATINA WOMEN LIKE HER MAKE BETTER JUDGES THAN WHITE MALES.ANY PROMINENT WHITE MALE WOULD BE INSTANTLY AND PROPERLY BANISHED FROM POLITE SOCIETY AS A RACIST AND A SEXIST FOR MAKING AN ANALOGOUS CLAIM OF ETHNIC AND GENDER SUPERIORITY OR INFERIORITY.
The language between the "" is accurate as portrayed by the NR. A complete account of what Stuart Taylor had to say can be found at: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php
What the reference (or Taylor's article for that matter) does not represent is that she was conveying a dialogue with retired 2nd circuit judge Miriam Cederbaum about the role that race and gender have in deciding race and gender cases. Cederbaum noted that the seminal race and gender cases were decided by white males, while Sotomayor notes that most of them were argued by the likes of Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (touche'). The reference in NR makes it look like she was referring to all cases, and she is not. The editing of her speech from which the article came could have been a little tighter, or the students screwed up the editing of the article. In either case, the points offered by Taylor and the NR are without merit.
How the NR and Taylor could get this so wrong is beyond me (not really). A casual glance at the article will reveal the point she was making. For Taylor to characterize the statement as meaning that "her basic proposition seems to be that white males (with some exceptions, she noted) are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist" is unfair, inaccurate, and an attempt to conjure up antipathy from the right. This thing has gone viral, and I can expect my conservative bartender to refer to Taylor's and the NR's take on that article word for word, as will Fox.
I'll have a beer.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
March 4, 2009
Message to Black Republicans/Conservatives: Man Up my Brothers (or Woman Up my Sisters)
I missed it!!! Last Saturday night I was busy watching W on pay per view. My usual nightly bachanal of liberal banalities, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow do not air on Saturdays, and I have not yet gotten into the habit of watching D.L. Hughley's comedic experiment on CNN. I like D.L. Hughley, he is among the most articulate commentators on politics and society in the comedic world today, and among black comics, I believe that he is extremely intellectual, well informed and analytical (even more so than Chris Rock, who, though he is probably sharper, funnier and as well informed, is not quite up to Hughley in the "policy wonk" category). But like the Daily Show, I previously could not figure out if Hughley's weekly is a news program or a comedy show. But last Saturday it became a news show--with humor.
What I heard is that Hughley hosted his program with guests Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Chuck D. the leader of Public Enemy. This was certainly quite a combination--the head of a Black Nationalist hip hop group and the black leader of the Republicans, hosted by a black leftist humorist on a news network. The talk turned to Rush Limbaugh, who has created quite a stir over the last few days in his incessant criticism of the Obama Administration, Keynesian economics, and anybody who does not kiss his ring. The exchange went as follows:
HUGHLEY: You know what we do, we talk like we're talking now. You have your view. I have mine. We don't need incendiary rhetoric.
STEELE: Exactly.
HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
STEELE: No, he's not.
HUGHLEY: I will tell you what ...
STEELE: I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
HUGHLEY: You know what? I can appreciate that. But no one will actually decry down some of the things he says. Like when he comes out and says he wants the president to fail. I understand he wants liberalism to fail. Like, I get it's not about the man. But it is still about the idea that he would rather have an idea fail so his idea can move to the forefront. And that would succeed. And that to me is destructive.
STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?
HUGHLEY: You're absolutely -- let me say something. You're absolutely right.
STEELE: So let's put it into context here. Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. He has his an incendiary. Yes, it's ugly.
Chuck D: You do get a sense that he would say anything.
When three black men as diverse as Chuck D, D.L. Hughley, and Michael Steele sit together and engage in spirited and respectful banter, agreeing on the basics, though not the specifics, we have reason to celebrate.
Two days later, Rush Limbaugh responded:
RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.
And now (drum roll please), Michael Steele's response:
I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking said. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.
I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh. No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.
Hm.
I watch only one conservative commentator on television. Most mornings are taken up prior to my workout with the conservative ramblings of Joe Scarborough and his sidekick Pat Buchanan. Mika Brzesinski , Zbigniev's daughter and a solid liberal journalist, is his co-host and Scarborough has the good sense and taste to pepper the program with a good mix of liberal and conservative commentators--so much so that one feels after having watched an hour or so of the program that one has enjoyed a full course meal, or an evening of lively debate at a Cambridge University discussion group. The program is that good. While acknowledging that Rush is his good friend, Scarborough and his gang that morning (no Buchanan) parodied Steele unmercifully as not being a MAN. See video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/michael-steele-gets-repea_n_171750.html
When a black man gets parodied by a mix of conservative and liberal white political pundits for not standing up like a man to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we have a problem.
Its a problem of Steele's own making.
If the Republican Party is going to ever become serious about attracting and maintaining its people of color, then leaders like Blackwell must stop prancing around this problem inside the party, speak up and condemn these statements and divisive actions once and for all.
--Yvonne Davis, Black Republican and Columnist, the Huffington Post
Davis is referring to the sorry spectacle that involved Chris Saltsman, a candidate for RNC national chair, circulating as part of his Christmas greeting to committee members a recording of a parody song, "Barack, the Magic Negro". The typical ploy of apologists for this kind of behavior is to point to some similar lapse on the part of someone on the left or, even better, in the Democratic Party. Heck, some might even break out old Richard Pryor albums to prove Saltsman is no backwoods redneck. But among serious people, this is just another example of the fact that the GOP has a lot of backwoods rednecks in its midst that the GOP has failed to root out. Part of the reason why it has failed to do so is because of several psychological factors ranging from complete indifference, naivete', or just outright racism. And yes, there are folks like that in the Democratic Party as well (this point is included to avoid the inevitable sidetracking that occurs when one talks about racism in the Republican Party with Black Republicans). But one does not expect this from any black man:
Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president...
I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.
That's from Ken Blackwell, a black man and a former Secretary of State for Ohio and candidate, at the time, for chair of the RNC.
This is shocking and discouraging. It does not have to be. As a liberal Democrat who sees a need (especially after that white liberal temper tantrum we experienced last spring) for black participation in both parties, I am disappointed in both Blackwell and Steele. But moreso, I am disappointed in Black Republicans (with the exception of Yvonne Davis). Among that community are people that I know and respect who do not agree with me on a number of issues. But among my closest friends and acquaintances of the Conservative/Republican stripe, each of them believes in the basics of black dignity. There are exceptions among Black Republicans generally, but I do not associate with those exceptions if I know them, and most likely will not if I do not know them but meet them in the future.
A man has his limits.
But what makes the whole matter sad is that Black Republicans (BRs) with all of their personal pride and black dignity shoot themselves in the foot for not speaking up against this kind of crap. We have Steele totally destroying a wonderful moment last Saturday with a hat in his hand (or is it handkerchief in his hand) apology to a blowhard--so much so that white conservative television commentators are laughing. And Blackwell failing to stand up against this magic Negro mess is beyond the pale (no pun intended).
None of the following issues have anything to do with black consciousness: school vouchers, gay marriage, private sector vs. public sector solutions to economic problems, aggressive militarism vs. diplomacy, unilateralism vs. multilateralism, tax cuts vs. Keynesian economics, green vs. productive sector approach to the environment, regulation vs. de-regulation, federalism vs. centralized approaches to some problems, prayer in school vs. prohibiting prayer in school, Ten Commandments in the public square vs. No Ten Commandments, or any other religious display in the public square. If black conservatives want to disagree with me on any of these issues, fine. I will work for my position as a believing liberal and have a beer with my conservative black friends after a good day of debate.
I believe most black people feel the same way, especially those whom I know harbor conservative ideas on most of the above issues but vote Democratic everytime. What they say is that Black Republicans are sell outs. This is not true, but it is hard for me to make the argument, even to a black conservative that does not know he/she is conservative and votes Democratic, that BRs are not sellouts with examples like the ones discussed here happening way too often.
The best way for BRs to capture the imagination of conservative Black America is to do more than say that the Republicans are different from the Party that opposed civil rights (in fact, the Rockefeller wing of the party supported civil rights in the 60s). And please, BRs must drop the party of Lincoln business. I hope the battle against slavery has nothing to do with today.
BRs have to show that conservatism and Black Consciousness are not in conflict. Under no measure can anyone claim that this has been done so far. But it is not too late. And it is easy to do.
So here it is, my unsolicited advice to BRs: Simply follow the example of Yvonne Davis. Next time Rush tries to put someone in their place, or somebody like Saltsman tries to get away with some silly mess, very publicly tell them to go to hell, and not to even think about getting mad. Say this in large numbers. Write about it and have shouting matches at the next county Republican luncheon. It worked on Ferraro, and all of the other white Dems who could not imagine supporting a black candidate last year, it will most certainly work in your party.
It might mean a slower track in your party, but what does that tell you? Obama spent a whole year dissing the establishment in the Democratic Party and became President. If you are telling me that the only way to get ahead in the GOP is to not get mad at stuff, well, again, what does that tell you?
In the end, if you man up, you might get beat up, but there will be genuine respect from the community. And with that respect, there will be some votes.
And finally a two party system in the Black Community! Now that's a good thing.
Message to Black Republicans/Conservatives: Man Up my Brothers (or Woman Up my Sisters)
I missed it!!! Last Saturday night I was busy watching W on pay per view. My usual nightly bachanal of liberal banalities, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow do not air on Saturdays, and I have not yet gotten into the habit of watching D.L. Hughley's comedic experiment on CNN. I like D.L. Hughley, he is among the most articulate commentators on politics and society in the comedic world today, and among black comics, I believe that he is extremely intellectual, well informed and analytical (even more so than Chris Rock, who, though he is probably sharper, funnier and as well informed, is not quite up to Hughley in the "policy wonk" category). But like the Daily Show, I previously could not figure out if Hughley's weekly is a news program or a comedy show. But last Saturday it became a news show--with humor.
What I heard is that Hughley hosted his program with guests Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Chuck D. the leader of Public Enemy. This was certainly quite a combination--the head of a Black Nationalist hip hop group and the black leader of the Republicans, hosted by a black leftist humorist on a news network. The talk turned to Rush Limbaugh, who has created quite a stir over the last few days in his incessant criticism of the Obama Administration, Keynesian economics, and anybody who does not kiss his ring. The exchange went as follows:
HUGHLEY: You know what we do, we talk like we're talking now. You have your view. I have mine. We don't need incendiary rhetoric.
STEELE: Exactly.
HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
STEELE: No, he's not.
HUGHLEY: I will tell you what ...
STEELE: I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
HUGHLEY: You know what? I can appreciate that. But no one will actually decry down some of the things he says. Like when he comes out and says he wants the president to fail. I understand he wants liberalism to fail. Like, I get it's not about the man. But it is still about the idea that he would rather have an idea fail so his idea can move to the forefront. And that would succeed. And that to me is destructive.
STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?
HUGHLEY: You're absolutely -- let me say something. You're absolutely right.
STEELE: So let's put it into context here. Let's put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. He has his an incendiary. Yes, it's ugly.
Chuck D: You do get a sense that he would say anything.
When three black men as diverse as Chuck D, D.L. Hughley, and Michael Steele sit together and engage in spirited and respectful banter, agreeing on the basics, though not the specifics, we have reason to celebrate.
Two days later, Rush Limbaugh responded:
RUSH: Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.
And now (drum roll please), Michael Steele's response:
I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking said. It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.
I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh. No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything.
Hm.
I watch only one conservative commentator on television. Most mornings are taken up prior to my workout with the conservative ramblings of Joe Scarborough and his sidekick Pat Buchanan. Mika Brzesinski , Zbigniev's daughter and a solid liberal journalist, is his co-host and Scarborough has the good sense and taste to pepper the program with a good mix of liberal and conservative commentators--so much so that one feels after having watched an hour or so of the program that one has enjoyed a full course meal, or an evening of lively debate at a Cambridge University discussion group. The program is that good. While acknowledging that Rush is his good friend, Scarborough and his gang that morning (no Buchanan) parodied Steele unmercifully as not being a MAN. See video.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/michael-steele-gets-repea_n_171750.html
When a black man gets parodied by a mix of conservative and liberal white political pundits for not standing up like a man to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, we have a problem.
Its a problem of Steele's own making.
If the Republican Party is going to ever become serious about attracting and maintaining its people of color, then leaders like Blackwell must stop prancing around this problem inside the party, speak up and condemn these statements and divisive actions once and for all.
--Yvonne Davis, Black Republican and Columnist, the Huffington Post
Davis is referring to the sorry spectacle that involved Chris Saltsman, a candidate for RNC national chair, circulating as part of his Christmas greeting to committee members a recording of a parody song, "Barack, the Magic Negro". The typical ploy of apologists for this kind of behavior is to point to some similar lapse on the part of someone on the left or, even better, in the Democratic Party. Heck, some might even break out old Richard Pryor albums to prove Saltsman is no backwoods redneck. But among serious people, this is just another example of the fact that the GOP has a lot of backwoods rednecks in its midst that the GOP has failed to root out. Part of the reason why it has failed to do so is because of several psychological factors ranging from complete indifference, naivete', or just outright racism. And yes, there are folks like that in the Democratic Party as well (this point is included to avoid the inevitable sidetracking that occurs when one talks about racism in the Republican Party with Black Republicans). But one does not expect this from any black man:
Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president...
I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people.
That's from Ken Blackwell, a black man and a former Secretary of State for Ohio and candidate, at the time, for chair of the RNC.
This is shocking and discouraging. It does not have to be. As a liberal Democrat who sees a need (especially after that white liberal temper tantrum we experienced last spring) for black participation in both parties, I am disappointed in both Blackwell and Steele. But moreso, I am disappointed in Black Republicans (with the exception of Yvonne Davis). Among that community are people that I know and respect who do not agree with me on a number of issues. But among my closest friends and acquaintances of the Conservative/Republican stripe, each of them believes in the basics of black dignity. There are exceptions among Black Republicans generally, but I do not associate with those exceptions if I know them, and most likely will not if I do not know them but meet them in the future.
A man has his limits.
But what makes the whole matter sad is that Black Republicans (BRs) with all of their personal pride and black dignity shoot themselves in the foot for not speaking up against this kind of crap. We have Steele totally destroying a wonderful moment last Saturday with a hat in his hand (or is it handkerchief in his hand) apology to a blowhard--so much so that white conservative television commentators are laughing. And Blackwell failing to stand up against this magic Negro mess is beyond the pale (no pun intended).
None of the following issues have anything to do with black consciousness: school vouchers, gay marriage, private sector vs. public sector solutions to economic problems, aggressive militarism vs. diplomacy, unilateralism vs. multilateralism, tax cuts vs. Keynesian economics, green vs. productive sector approach to the environment, regulation vs. de-regulation, federalism vs. centralized approaches to some problems, prayer in school vs. prohibiting prayer in school, Ten Commandments in the public square vs. No Ten Commandments, or any other religious display in the public square. If black conservatives want to disagree with me on any of these issues, fine. I will work for my position as a believing liberal and have a beer with my conservative black friends after a good day of debate.
I believe most black people feel the same way, especially those whom I know harbor conservative ideas on most of the above issues but vote Democratic everytime. What they say is that Black Republicans are sell outs. This is not true, but it is hard for me to make the argument, even to a black conservative that does not know he/she is conservative and votes Democratic, that BRs are not sellouts with examples like the ones discussed here happening way too often.
The best way for BRs to capture the imagination of conservative Black America is to do more than say that the Republicans are different from the Party that opposed civil rights (in fact, the Rockefeller wing of the party supported civil rights in the 60s). And please, BRs must drop the party of Lincoln business. I hope the battle against slavery has nothing to do with today.
BRs have to show that conservatism and Black Consciousness are not in conflict. Under no measure can anyone claim that this has been done so far. But it is not too late. And it is easy to do.
So here it is, my unsolicited advice to BRs: Simply follow the example of Yvonne Davis. Next time Rush tries to put someone in their place, or somebody like Saltsman tries to get away with some silly mess, very publicly tell them to go to hell, and not to even think about getting mad. Say this in large numbers. Write about it and have shouting matches at the next county Republican luncheon. It worked on Ferraro, and all of the other white Dems who could not imagine supporting a black candidate last year, it will most certainly work in your party.
It might mean a slower track in your party, but what does that tell you? Obama spent a whole year dissing the establishment in the Democratic Party and became President. If you are telling me that the only way to get ahead in the GOP is to not get mad at stuff, well, again, what does that tell you?
In the end, if you man up, you might get beat up, but there will be genuine respect from the community. And with that respect, there will be some votes.
And finally a two party system in the Black Community! Now that's a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)