Gonna get Cosby-direct for a minute.
Scott at Blacks for Bush (whose blog motto is "Earning Respect by Becoming Swing Voters!"), left his mission statement in the comments of the post immediately downpage:
Since the Democrats have failed in their mission to respect and protect their strongest supporters and ignored the black vote I have decided to vote for Bush in the following Election. For me the decision is very easy I live in NYC and NY always goes democrat so my vote is effectively useless in a presidential election. Unfortunately the sick feeling I get when I consider voting republican means that I am not a swing voter and thus elected officials ignore my needs. Over the next few months I will be investigating and sharing why Blacks should vote for Bush in 2004."
Okay, I understand this is a possible response. Obviously I've come to a different one and I'm going to explain why, or re-explain. Maybe assemble the explanation is best.
In the USofA, one has power to the degree one has a constituency. The constituency is a group of people with common interests - in sociological terms, an in-group (WARNING: there's a pop-under on the other side of that link). As such, we all belong to multiple constituencies, and I'm not suggesting how anyone should prioritize them. I am saying that everyone generally recognized as being Black has common interests. "Black people" is a natural constituency.
Again, that assertion is not intended to devalue any other constituencies one has. It is intended to insure the Black constituency is not devalued, because its unique issues will not be championed by any other constituency unless it expects to benefit as well, or all its own issues are resolved. And I feel the need to make this point up front because Black folks believe in the American "rugged individual" myth as much as any other American does. That's one reason the "Black people are not a monolith" meme that circulated about a decade ago was so successful at eroding a number of organizations. And historically, Black people often find themselves in a position where their personal well-being could be immediately secured by helping suppress the activism of other Black folks. Honestly, the term "sell-out" has as storied a history as the term "sambo."
This is a symptom of the function Black people perform for the social machine. We're like a capacitor. We gain when there's more juice in the circuit than strictly necessary to operate, and are the first to lose charge when the voltage drops (also known as last hired, first fired). We dampen the oscillations. We are ballast. This is the nature of the relationship between the collective "Black People" to the whole collective "USofA" of which it is a part. Social ostracism, denial of rights every citizen is entitled to, active suppression, all that came about in order to establish that relationship. Changing that relationship should be the overall goal and our actions as a constituency should move us ever further in that direction. And effecting a change requires the constituency to exercise power in its own behalf.
We need to be clear what power is because in my opinion "Black People" don't have but so much of it. The amount of income, wealth we have, the amount we spend and our registered voters are often called power but they are more properly called force…power is directed force. Force disrupts things, power shapes them. This makes power more effective when done right and more dangerous and damaging when done wrong.
A week ago I posted a link to a copy of Black Power Defined by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
When a people are mired in oppression, they realize deliverance only when they have accumulated the power to enforce change. the powerful never lose opportunities – they remain available to them. The powerless, on the other hand, never experience opportunity – it is always arriving at a later time.The nettlesome task of Negroes today is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power so that the government cannot elude our demands. We must develop, from strength, a situation in which the government finds it wise and prudent to collaborate with us. It would be the height of naivety to wait passively until the administration had somehow been infused with such blessings of good will that it implored us for our programs.
We must frankly acknowledge that in past years our creativity and imagination were not employed in learning how to develop power. We found a method in nonviolent protest that worked, and we employed it enthusiastically. We did not have leisure to probe for a deeper understanding of its laws and lines of development. Although our actions were bold and crowned with successes, they were substantially improvised and spontaneous. They attained the goals set for them but carried the blemishes of inexperience.
This is where the civil rights movement stands today. Now we must take the next major step of examining the levers of power which Negroes must grasp to influence the course of events.
It's mandatory reading for Black partisans and should be for "Black People" too because our efforts are still largely limited to this unexamined set of found techniques.
Dr. King says:
In our society power sources can always finally be traced to ideological, economic and political forces.
I note that the Black constituency has little by way of an ideology beyond "We're all equal." Once, years ago, I asked on a Black issues-oriented, and basically Black populated, mailing list if they would be upset by an advance alien race bringing rigorous proof that Black people were superior to white people. As I expected, they tried to flay me. We've focused on proving we are "as good as" that being "as good as" has become the actual goal for those who still think about it.
Our focus on political technique (in which I include judicial approaches) came about because we pretty much had no national economic power. Our local economic power existed because we were an integral part of the communities we lived in. Boycotts work when the target figures they lose more by holding their ground than by yielding somewhat, and the change in the status quo is minimal. That means boycotts (and the less effective protest marches which target morals rather than money) are not likely to force a change in our relationship to the mainstream. We still have no national economic power…we still don't compel consideration of our economic issues, largely because we haven't defined them.
The issues we've actively pursued have been social and legal. The groundwork has been laid to change the nature of the relationship between "Black People" and the greater society.
All that is prologue to considering Scott's mission statement. Because the problem is that relationship. The problem is "Black People" have not really exercised power as a constituency. And no one believes we can—thay feel we're all carrot and no stick. In fact, considerable effort is put into convincing us we have no Black constituency, that we should each melt into the other in-groups we are members of. This would probably help issues, to be honest, but would ultimately leave our unique issues unresolved (and I'm probably not talking about what you think I am).
"Black People" must see they are part of a natural constituency that must exercise power for its own benefit as all other constituencies do. We need to develop that ideology as a guide to what truly is beneficial, but a few facts stand out immediately:
- It would be to our benefit to convince the mainstream the Black constituency is capable of exercising power…of directing our force.
- Republican rhetoric has militated public opinion against "Black People"
- It would be foolish to support someone that has acted against the constituency's interests
- It would be foolish to believe someone would act in a way counter to their track record until they have established a new one. Promises should be watched, but should not motivate.
So I think at this moment, three things can be done:
- Massively repudiate the Republican/Neocon ideology. "Black People" can not only tip the balance, we can do it decisively enough to show we can tip it either way.
- Make it clear it's the Neocon thing currently in place that has to go, and we're taking bids for our votes after that from all comers.
- Start working on that ideology
That first step means I have to reject Scott's approach.
Posted by P6 at June 16, 2004 08:35 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2331
Comments
You'll vote for the other guy because you're ticked off with the democrats? I mean the other guy hasn't anything to do with black issues other than to try and get you to vote for him, but his tax program dumps on all poor, black or anything else, and this war in Iraq just wasn't right, regardless of who was fighting it, and that's the man you'll throw your hat in the ring with? Well, yeah, that's logical, sure enough.
I mean getting out there and maybe working the issues in some way, compelling the democrats to pay more attention or to personally get involved in the political process would in fact be asking a bit much of just about anyone. So that leaves you with what you are willing to do, and that's vote, and I understand that. And that one thing, that one thing that most of us are willing to do, you'll co-opt because you're pissed about the democrats? Yep, makes sense to me, surely does.
You know voting is a private thing, I mean it's between you and the polling station. You removed that, and that's fine as I can tell you right now that for however much I don't like the democrats I'd sooner vote one in for president however much I don't care for the guy all that much over Bush, so we both did it. So all you do here is show how you're disengaged with the process, and most of us are I'll grant that, and willing to cut your nose to spite your face, and that don't make much sense to me but to each his own. A vote for what's there is a vote to keep it, and that ultimately what your vote means however much you may think it'll be lost in the numbers --- sorta like they were the last time, right?
Posted by James at June 17, 2004 02:51 PMVoting for Bush is not voting against black peoples interest. I have detailed a few of the reason why this may be the best time for ever for Black America to vote republican for a change.
I have found the current democratic party working against my interest more that the current republican administration."
Read full Post here...
Scott:
I have found the current democratic party working against my interest more that the current republican administration.
There's a difference between being deprioritized and being targeted, you know.
How about comparing what each party has done FOR Black people's interest? I mean dedicated actions to address issues unique to Black folks, not incidental side effects or empty promises.
Besides which, putting aside those unique issues for the moment, the Bush administration is a disaster across the board. Truth to tell, if they sold out totally to the NAACP and continued with all their other policies, I'd still have to vote against Bush.
I have to ask you what has democratic party done FOR black peoples interest. I mean really during the Clinton Years for example are there three thing democrats did for Black peoples interest that were not incidential side effects.
Did you not say "one has power to the degree one has a constituency" that means you need to be voting based on your constituency. What specific policies does Bush have AGAINST your constituency ? What specific policies does Kerry have FOR your constituency ?
Why are you giving up your power because " the Bush administration is a disaster across the board".
Posted by Scott at June 17, 2004 05:36 PMI think I've been clear I'm not defending Democratic inaction. But will you defend the deliberate targeting of Black people by the Republican platform? Will you deny the targeting exists?
And I don't see voting against Bush as "giving up my power." My personal power is mine, and cannot be relinquished.
A definitive repudiation would establish the Black constituency's power. And yes, his being a disaster is more than enough justification to vote against him.
Posted by P6 at June 17, 2004 07:00 PM