I still think it's just as well Bush stays away from the NAACP. But that's because I want him to lose. Steve Gilliard, being more honorable than I, explains why it's stupid…and hence, right up l'il Georgie's alley.
Yes, Bush does own the NAACP a visit. Whether they like him or not. Regardless of what some white conservatives want to believe, the secular heart of the black community lies within the NAACP and Urban League. To not speak to the NAACP is a slap in the face to the entire black community. While I personally think the NAACP represents much of the worst of the bougie black mentality, that doesn't mean I don't get or like the obvious insult George Bush issued this week.If you do not talk to the NAACP, you do not talk to black America. Conservative blacks have no traction and no respect within the wider black community. [P6: slight exception: it's Black Conservatives©, not conservative Blacks, who have no traction.]
What whites don't get is that while black social life is conservative, it is tempered with a measure of social justice.
…Bush misses the point. The NAACP can no more be divorced from the black church than heat from summer. The same people who support the black church support the NAACP. You cannot insult or demean one without doing the same to the other. You can't refuse to speak to the NAACP and then expect to go to black chruches and be received well. It can't happen. There is no workaround. Either you show proper respect towards the NAACP or you are insulting the entire community. The black church is the core of black social and political life, the NAACP is the secular heart of black America. They are extremely close to each other. Bush cannot work his evangelical movement contacts to reach black voters after this.
Insult the institution, insult the community
Posted by P6 at July 14, 2004 06:14 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5490
Comments
This Brit is confused. NAACP seems to be slagging off Bush every 2 minutes and supporting Kerry when it is meant to be a non-partisan/tax free organisation rather like some of our ethnic minority charities over here.
So why should Bush go to NAACP when all they do is slag him off, use pictures of him when he DID attend in an anti Bush ad and so on. He would have to be a glutton for punishment would he not?
I'm doing American History at uni and so far all the stories ref slavery. Jim Crow etc seem to be linked to the Democrat Party. Why is this? If the Democrats seem to be the party that did not help the ethnic minority then why do they vote for Kerry et al? I've got Clinton to study next semester so THAT's going to be intersting to say the least....
Posted by Dave T at July 14, 2004 04:50 PMDave,
We have a 2-party system here, but that system is dynamic and the principles of the two parties changed in the 60s as it relates to Black Americans. Try researching the Nixon Southern Strategy to get some more info on how and why those principles changed, keeping in mind the fact that social justice is one of the most important values of Black people, and most of us feel we vote on this issue alone for the sake of our own survival.
Additionally, NAACP did not begin attacking Bush unprovoked. It is true that he started with an uphill battle with Blacks, because of the way in which he won the election (ie disenfranchisement), but he completely dropped the ball with Black relations, and has instead chosen to be petty about the results of 3.5 years of neglect to 13% of this country's populace.
Posted by Chrissy at July 14, 2004 06:41 PMSecular Black thought and Religous Black experience are tempered with rationalism that was meted out in the fires and fists of the civil rights era. Common sense and a connection to vital spiritual source are inherent there. The spiritual quality of courage is secular and divine in the same instance.Moral authority can be defined within both spheres of thought when it is part of realization. The spiritual gift of enlightenment and the secular gift of recognition probably have the same kind of energy in metaphysical measure or even in the brainwave response frequencies for these upper thought processes. And every person is capable of this in both terms so the universal theme is shared in those terms. Some would call this linguistic interpretation. Metaphysically the aspects are a source of electric personal power. A true vibe. The next stage is address these terms metaspiritually. There are some who already have (Maya).
There is respect for both sides of the black culture equation via shared experience and triumph. Bush's Pickering appointment was a slap to face of any reasonable exchange. The two sides of the culture coin, secular/spiritual and inspired/spiritual were shortchanged in one move. Toss the value coin it in the air and call it- Heads I win, tails- "you won't fool me again".
With him or against him. He was the one who set those terms. He'll find out how few are with him. A penny for your thoughts, unless it's GWB because that would be a true shortchanged situation.
Posted by Mr.Murder at July 15, 2004 07:53 AMThe NAACP is functionally today an adjunct of the Democratic Party, run by professional Democratic politicians like Julian Bond, whose personal animus to Bush predates the 2000 election.
For Bush to speak to that group is from a strictly political standpoint, a counterproductive waste of time....unless his goal is to provide damaging film clips and scare quotes for John Kerry's campaign commercials. Even the NEA, which will provide between 20-25 % of the delegates at the Democratic Convention later this month, makes a greater p.r. effort to at least *appear* to outsiders as non-partisan.
That is not to say Bush should not campaign in the black community but that he should seek organizational venues to speak at that are less ridiculously and overtly one-sided and hostile.
Posted by mark safranski at July 15, 2004 02:46 PMYou know what Mark? That last qualification means he shouldn't bother to speak to Black folks outside Project 21 meetings.
Posted by P6 at July 15, 2004 07:32 PM"You know what Mark? That last qualification means he shouldn't bother to speak to Black folks outside Project 21 meetings"
Indeed.
The purpose of politics most of the time, is outreach. During election season the purpose is to win by swiftly persuading 51 % of the voters to vote for you.
At this point in time, serious outreach to the black community by the GOP needs to be done outside of campaign season on issues where the GOP and the Black community have converging interests - schools, capital for start-up businesses, immigration reform, removing artificial barriers to entry in the job market, Congressional redistricting - etc. With positive achievements comes credibility to get a fair hearing later on. More Jack Kemp and less Richard Nixon.
The GOP is not going to change it's core Free-market oriented philosophy and more than the Black community will abandon social justice but a working relationship can be built, over time, that may give both sides options they currently lack.
Except for particular strategic races where an incumbent Democratic has severely annoyed Black voters, most GOP candidates are better off right now using scarce campaign resources and finite time to target more " winnable " demographic segments of the electorate. That's simply the reality that Republicans do better amongst organized labor members than African-Americans.
Posted by mark safranski at July 16, 2004 01:53 PMFree market- oxymoron. Contradicting terms.
Corporate giveaways are at an all time high. They don't pay taxes either.Not the top third of them.
There are no true republicans. Just as there are no true democrats as they have taken up many of the fiscal approaches to starve out programs with successful track records to concede to republicans under poorly managed budgets.
Quite an impressive platform to run on.
Posted by Mr.Murder at July 17, 2004 05:31 AMMr. M:
Absolutely the case, and something I'mm be getting into as time passes.
Posted by P6 at July 17, 2004 09:13 AM