What's the URL?

The last quote is from Jesse Lee Peterson.

Ah .. the 'Rev.' Peterson. Why think and talk at the same time?

Unfortunately, I do know of people (via the internet) who would nod their head in agreement.

In the entire political history of this country black conservatives are the only group of political partisans I am aware of that has been granted political legitimacy despite the fact that their record of electing black candidates to office within predominantly or even substantially black political districts is abysmal. In fact, to go further, opinion poll after opinion poll has shown that their views on a broad variety of public policy issues are not shared by black voters regardless of age, education or income.

I cannot name or call to mind one major or mid-size city in the United States where they have put forth a black Republican candidate who has run a credible race for mayor or city council. They have not managed to elect any blacks to the House of Representatives, state assemblies or state senates. Their most prominent poster child is the Ohio Secretary of State who, as one black Republican told me two weeks ago, is virtually assured the gubernatorial nomination. He did concede, however, that this did not guarantee that the Ohio Secretary would actually be elected governor.

What black conservatives do have at their disposal is the perpetually busy Republican noise machine and a timid press, including the black press, that allows them to slander, libel and scold black voters with impunity; distort the nation's racial history; and, create so-called debilitating pathologies such as "victimology" that only appears to affect African Americans and which, to date, they have not provided one iota of empirical data demonstrating that this alleged social disease has any statistically significant impact on the attitudes and behavior of a significant proportion of black Americans.

I am sure that they will eventually make some inroads into the new black middle class, which has grown increasingly timid and conformist over the years. I don't that the black working class is going to buy even one pint of their bullshit.

Why would a black conservative's "legitimacy" be compromised by his lack of majority appeal to black voters?

Would you apply that criterion to a candidate of any other race?

What we see is an Australian who doesn't even appeal to the majority of Australian Americans, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

DW -

Their legitimacy as conservatives is not in question. What I am questioning is the implication that their political positions and rhetoric actually resonates with any significant portion of the black polity and the legitimacy accorded to them as speaking for anything except their own narrowly defined interests. I find it difficult to believe that you are not acquainted with the wrtings and statements of these partisans. They define themselves as being alternative voices in the black community but they have been unable to persuade any significant segment of the black polity in this country to support them or their candidates for public office whether that candidate was black, white, brown or yellow. They don't have to receive a majority of votes from black voters but the 15 percent that George Bush received last November is nothing to brag about.

I would certainly raise the same question, although with less fervor, if a group of Hispanic or Asian political partisans suddenly appeared on the scene and began scolding Hispanics or Asian voters because they weren't supporting a particular political party.

Why would a black conservative's "legitimacy" be compromised by his lack of majority appeal to black voters?

Would you apply that criterion to a candidate of any other race?

Of course. And by correcting your example I can make the reason clear.

What we see is an Australian who doesn't even appeal to the majority of Australian Americans, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

Should read

What we see is an Australian American who claims to represent Australians Americans, yet doesn't even appeal to the majority of Australian Americans, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

An alternative would be:

What we see is an Australian American who claims to look to the benefit of Australian Americans yet doesn't even appeal to the majority of Australian Americans, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

or better (because I'm abandoning minimalism):

What we see is an Australian American who claims to represent Australians Americans, yet doesn't even appeal to the majority of Australian Americans, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

and anudder...

What we see is an Australian Americans who denies he is an Australian American, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

and

What we see is an Australian Americans who seeks to represent Australian Americans yet assumes the majority of Australian Americans are lazy slackers and shares NONE of their opinions and positions, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

or

What we see is an Australian Americans who seeks to represent Australian Americans yet never speaks to their concerns, instead validating the positions of people openly opposed to the interests of the Australian American communities, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

Totally illegitimate.

Totally.

..and Libertarians are what? And Greens are what? And what are we here? Since when have any real black progressives been elected to office? So long as there is a consistent message which is influential on the political thought of mainstream politics, then the polity is real. c.f. Thomas Paine

The issue is not about the Green Party, Libertarians, Socialist Labor Party, the remaining vestiges of the American Independent Party or what real black progressives have been elected to office. The issue is the unwarranted and unearned credence granted to conservative black Republicans and their vituperative, insulting, condescending remarks about the behavior of black voters.

I don't think that you have a firm grasp of the great rebel and pamphleteer Tom Paine's point in the quotation you cited. Paine was telling those who were locked out of the citadels of power that they could still play an influential role in the political events of their day. Black conservatives and black Republican conservatives are not locked out of power. In fact, many of them - most unlike those who Tom Paine was exhorting - have intentionally chosen to serve the cause of those in power. The fact that they may justify their choice on the basis of their support for free markets etc. doesn't change who they serve.

Blacks who have decided to sit on the Feuillant's side of the aisle are in fact granted an authority and voice far beyond their support within the black community. If you want to argue that their credibility as partisans should not be measured by the level of co-signers they manage to pick up in the black commmunity I would agree with you in principle. Although, only on the condition that they and their supporters have the decency to refrain from demanding a seat at the table under the guise that they represent an alternative voice in the black community.

They cannot have it both ways. If they want a seat at the table then they need to bring more than their appetite into the room. I am for promoting and upholding black people's rights to exercise their democratic (NOTICE THE SMALL LETTER "D") rights without having their intelligence, judgment, or character impugned by arristive Negroes in pursuit of their main chance to reside in the bosom of Mammon or Abraham, whatever their choice might be.

So long as there is a consistent message which is influential on the political thought of mainstream politics, then the polity is real.

In this case, it simply isn't a Black polity.

And as long as the consistent message is "Black folks bear the responsibility for all racism"...and don't try to claim it's other than that...as long as Black Republicans are just scolds and gatekeepers, it will NOT be a Black polity.

PT:

Blacks who have decided to sit on the Feuillant's side of the aisle are in fact granted an authority and voice far beyond their support within the black community.

Name one that's been given authority. Name one whose voice isn't used exclusively to grant that "liberating effect."

P6 -

I don't mean that they have been granted any political authority. Rod Paige, for example, played no role in setting the Bush Administration's educational policies. The word authority was perhaps not the best choice but what I was alluding to is the type of credibility that too often accrues to people, regardless of their political affiliations, if they show up on television more than once a month.

That is the trick, the constant repetition. Any thought that passes through your head frequently enough becomes thinkable.

It's the first step, spreading fertilizer (how appropriate!). Plowing and seeding follow.

Black conservatives are used as a mask for white politicians to spout their right-wing gibberish (which could be interpreted as racist).

We know Jesse Peterson couldn't be elected to any political office. And if he was elected to some minor local position, he would take a drastic pay cut. Therefore, his position as a mouthpiece of the Heritage Foundation allows him to get donations and white conservative politicians to point to him and say, 'see blacks agree with me'. Moderate whites can feel less cautious about voting for a Trent Lott when he has so many black 'supporters'.

Jesse Peterson doesn’t need to represent a large minority of black voters. He needs to provide a cover for white conservative politicians and officials from the charge of racists.

Thanks for the URL. I knew the quote was from Peterson and sho' 'nuf.

I see no reason why Blacks shouldn't try to get at the table of power. If they do so, to benefit themselves and see no bigger responsibility, so be it.

On the other hand, Jesse Peterson is so far off base, that the scorn he gets, to me, is deserved. I didn't hear when he and Dyson went at it, but I read Dyson's reply and I saw Dyson on The O'Reily Factor where O'Reily went after Dyson, though not as hard as he could have. In the end, he said Dyson should take it easy on Peterson because Peterson isn't as articulate as Dyson.

"I see no reason why Blacks shouldn't try to get at the table of power. If they do so, to benefit themselves and see no bigger responsibility, so be it."

If they only want to benefit themselves they should refain from acting like moral shock troops for the Republican Party. The problem is that they want to use black political capital to further their aims and they haven't earned any. There are many, many things that black Republicans could do to win support from black voters but this would require a degree of independence and a sense of vision that extends beyond the horizon of the next presidential election.

To date, black Republicans want to talk the talk but they are too politically lazy to walk the walk. That is, engage black people within their communities and on issues that are of concern to them. In other words, try to organize people. If white Republicans can do it, and if black Republicans believe they are equal to white Republicans, then they can do the same thing. If not, then as the great Ellison described it, they are just buggy-jiving.

If they only want to benefit themselves they should refain from acting like moral shock troops for the Republican Party.

Of course, that fits for Jesse Jackson, Sr and his ties to the Democratic Party.

To date, black Republicans want to talk the talk but they are too politically lazy to walk the walk. That is, engage black people within their communities and on issues that are of concern to them.

Watch Michael Steele. He's going after Black business owners and getting their support. Washington is pushing him to run for senate. If he does, he is going to get a lot of money.

If white Republicans can do it, and if black Republicans believe they are equal to white Republicans, then they can do the same thing.

I agree with that. There are some Black Republicans who do get Black community support.

"Of course, that fits for Jesse Jackson, Sr and his ties to the Democratic Party."

I hate writing this but, no, it doesn't apply to Jesse. Whatever his faults and failings and whatever legitimate grievances many of us have against him for real, not imagined, transgressions he has, in my opinion, paid his dues in this regard. He is, sadly, a man of parts, but he has tried to align himself with the best hopes and impulses of black people and for that I'll cut him a little slack on this tip.

....and

What we see is an Australian American who seeks to represent Australian Americans yet assumes the majority of Australian Americans are lazy slackers and shares NONE of their opinions and positions, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

Totally illegitimate.

That's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks!

Darkstar:

If they only want to benefit themselves they should refain from acting like moral shock troops for the Republican Party.

Of course, that fits for Jesse Jackson, Sr and his ties to the Democratic Party.

You have an example of JJ Sr. acting the way your standard Black Republican acts? I seriously can't think of one.

I can think of things he's done and positions he's taken that annoyed me but I can't think of a single instance where his primary goal was to bend Black folks to meet the Democrat's needs rather than trying to extract value from Democrats for those Black folks in his cohort (whatever you think of that).

can i get that URL? i needs that. (sorry for bringing down the tone of the discussion, but i ain't qualified to talk on politics).

Look for the URL in your mail.

As for qualifications, I'm not a playa I jus' crush a lot...

What we see is an Australian American who claims to represent Australians Americans, yet doesn't even appeal to the majority of Australian Americans, proving that the guy's an illegitimate poseur.

I see what you're saying p6 (and agree with MacLean that it's humorous), but it doesn't engage what the original posting was describing. Here again is the opening quote:

...Today's self-designated "civil rights" leaders are cowards, Adams charges, because they refuse to challenge dysfunctional black behavior. "The battle that really should be going on is against the enemy that looks like you the father who abandons his children or rapes women or sells drugs. Those are the people you need to fight, but you're scared. Because they look like you, you don t want to get your hands bloody."

Nowhere in that quote do we find anyone claiming to represent black people. In fact, the opinion is manifestly at odds with majority black opinion.

So we have a black man expressing an opinion at odds with majority black opinion. There's a huge gap between there and "illegitimate".

Context.

This article doesn't come out of the blue, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.

Yes, it is manefestly at odds with the majority Blackopinion...and it comes from people who have already tried claiming the leadership role.

In today's political environment Martin Luther King, A. Philip Randolph. Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. DuBois, Roy Wilkins, Mary McLeod Bethune, Carter G. Woodson, Frederick Douglass, Paul Robeson, Malcolm X and, perhaps, even the nearly sainted Booker T. Washington would be tagged as "self-designated 'civil rights leaders" by black and white conservatives.

Whenever I read or hear this phrase I am reminded of James G. Spady's acute observation: "it is an historical fact that whenever the oppressor is called upon to define an indigenous product of the oppressed that product loses its functional value."

Black folks are well aware of the great tendency of whites and their black assistants to define, designate and bestow legitimacy upon those whom they feel qualify to be recognized as black leaders.

DW - Let me clue you in here: majority and minority black opinion does not support parents who abandon their children, rapists or drug dealers. This is also true of the so-called "self-designated civil rights leaders." Adams is not expressing an opinion at odds with majority black opinion.

Where Adams and majority black opinion differ is that (1) black folks don't regard Adams as a black leader; (2) The reason why people deal drugs and abandon their children are more complex than simply attributing their behavior to criminal and asocial tendencies; and (3), rape is a societal problem not a black American problem.

You have an example of JJ Sr. acting the way your standard Black Republican acts? I seriously can't think of one.

Jesse Jackson, Sr. had a campaign against beer companies advertising in the Black media. He had other religious leaders in Chicago backing him up. Then Jackson, Sr. dropped his part in the campaign. It was right around the time that his sons were awarded a beer distribution company.

Then there was his "support" of voting rights for D.C. He moved to D.C. just as talk of a shadow senator for D.C. was being pushed. He was elected to the position. This was around the time when some D.C. people thought D.C. voting rights was about to come. Nothing happened and he didn't do a thing as a shadow senator. He left with feet on fire when Jesse Jackson, Jr. won the house seat.

So where's the ranting about how Black folks are stupid for not voting for a party that explicitly denies our issues?

You may have beef with some of Jackson's choices, but you haven't come up with a parallel to Armstrong Patterson.

And by the way, a shadow senator is a powerless symbol. What COULD Jackson have done with the position?

DW - Let me clue you in here: majority and minority black opinion does not support parents who abandon their children, rapists or drug dealers. This is also true of the so-called "self-designated civil rights leaders." Adams is not expressing an opinion at odds with majority black opinion.

Agreed, PT, and if I'd been thinking more clearly, I'd have identified this before posting.

I'm not convinced however that Adams is claiming the title "civil rights leader", and be assured that I'm not designating him as such.

I'm not convinced however that Adams is claiming the title "civil rights leader"

He's not trying to do ANYTHING constructive. He's just a scold.

He's not trying to do ANYTHING constructive. He's just a scold.

Scolds are usually trying to be constructive.

It's a matter of perspective, I guess.

Bullshit! As a parent I occasionally scold my children but I don't think it would be productive if my entire verbal interaction with them consisted of me scolding them. In addition, black people are his peers; they are not his children and there is no reason for him to take an authoritarian approach in his addresses to them. They are not required to do as he says.

You're right, of course. But he could easily construe the increase in his checking account balance as constructive. Only slightly less cynically, his sponsors find his actions to be a good thing.

As a parent I occasionally scold my children but I don't think it would be productive if my entire verbal interaction with them consisted of me scolding them.

That's because you understand parenting pretty well.

If you were arguing that Adams is failing to communicate to black people because he's using poor technique, that might be a valid criticism.

If you're arguing that Adams is scolding black people knowing full well that only white people agree with him while most blacks are pissed off, it still wouldn't directly follow that Adams was a phoney. The simplistic explanation, that Adams believes in his message despite rejection by black people, still seems likely.

I don't know Adams at all, and I'm surely not endorsing his message or methods. I do believe however that being black does not bind a person to any particular ideology or message.

It comes down to this. P6 doesn't have any problem disagreeing with some of my suggestions regarding parents in bad school districts. He expresses rejection of my ideas quite concisely, but he doesn't call me illegitimate. Rather, he suggests that I'm badly informed and my ideas wouldn't work even if he didn't consider them offensive. I'm granted dignity as someone with ideas, even in extreme disagreement.

I suggest that Adams be granted that kind of dignity.

I suggest that Adams be granted that kind of dignity.

If you talked about Black folks the way Adams does, you'd get the same disrespect.

Adams has a serious wannabe HNIC problem. The problem here, DW, is that you keep thinking that Adams has a message. This is a fallacy. What is worse is that he doesn't even have an analysis, agenda or program that he can articulate save for his misguided belief that black people need more moral fiber and prayer.

There is no body of support in the black community for child abandonment, rape or drug dealing. There is no body of support even among black drug dealers for rape or child abandonment. Exhorting black people to stop doing what the vast majority of them don't do makes no sense save, perhaps, for giving him an opportunity to line his pockets and stuff his bank account(s).

Adams reminds me of a minister who I had the misfortune of having to sit through one of sermons several years ago. My wife had persuaded me to attend "Friends and Family Day" at her parents' church and I went against my better judgment. The minister devoted his entire sermon to talking about people leading sinful, immoral lives, loose women (wearing revealing clothes and slouching irresponsible males with droopy pants. I loooked around the church as he spoke and I didn't see one woman with tight-fitting revealing clothes or any men or boys with their pants hanging down. I wondered who in the world he was talking to because none of the people he discussed were sitting in the pews.

I came to the conclusion that the minister really didn't have any other message for his congregation and their friends and family members. He had learned one theme and seemed incapable of finding another. Instead of giving people a message of hope and inspiration on this day he simply scolded people.

Got it, PT.

Now that's a well crafted contrarian case.

I'm not motivated to defend Adams against it. You'll notice that I'm more fascinated by people who profoundly disagree with me than with people who agree. You don't get too far from reality by allowing those who disagree to shape your views of contentious topics. So I'm not particularly motivated to figure out what Adams is about. If he came by p6 and started posting, that could be entertaining.