General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPolitical Crossover: The Troubling Emergence of Black Reaganism
--written by Colin Jenkins
(Snip)
"During the 1976 Republican Presidential Primaries, then-candidate Ronald Reagan coined the term "Welfare Queen" as he detailed the story of an African-American woman from Chicago who was arrested after using multiple identities to collect over $150,000 worth of welfare benefits. Reagan's story had a purpose: to establish a connection between the "evils of taxation" and the consequences of "illegitimate" welfare programs that "rewarded laziness," and to relay this to an American electorate poised to identify a scapegoat for what they viewed as a "dying nation." The engine behind this message was the Republican Party's overtly racist "Southern Strategy," which formulated a conscious effort to "appeal to racist whites" who Republicans believed "could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for Blacks." Reagan's implication, while purposely misleading, was ripe for the taking and tapped into America's deep-seated culture of white supremacy, misogyny, and classism – prompting a public discussion over social welfare programs and the need for higher levels of "personal responsibility" from those who relied on such."
(Snip)
"It would seem far-fetched to attempt to establish a connection between the Reaganism of the 1980s and the emerging Black leaders of today. However, in reality, Reaganism never really left - it merely flowed through the pipelines of neoliberalism, gaining a near-omnipresence within America's socio-political structure. Considering its permeation through the 1990s into what was once considered the opposition - the Democratic Party - it only makes sense that this process would eventually reach outlying components of the former center-left. Symbolic victories don't always translate into real change. An Obama presidency, unfortunately, has proven to be no exception. In true Reaganesque fashion, Obama immediately "brought corporate executives into the White House, reached out to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and made compromise his new watchword. He also signed a surprise $858 billion tax cut that would have made Reagan weep with joy, and huddled with Reagan's former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein for lessons learned when the Gipper governed amid economic troubles." Besides appointments and policies, Obama has never shied away from his admiration for the former President. In a January 2011 op-ed in the USA Today, Obama lauded Reagan for "his leadership in the world," his "gift for communicating his vision for America," and his ability to "recognize the American people's hunger for accountability and change." In a 2010 speech, Obama told a newspaper editorial board in Nevada, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not (by tapping into) what people were already feeling, which is - We want clarity, we want optimism."
(Snip)
"The President has called upon his own "biracial" identity many times in an attempt to reach across "racial and cultural divides" and to symbolize America's diversity and multiculturalism. However, as Nangwaya suggests, the way in which he has used these identities since being elected is particularly telling. While he seems to feel comfortable utilizing his "Black side" to lecture Black Americans about so-called "personal responsibility" and their perceived "shortcomings," he never once has utilized his "white side" to lecture white folks about their collective role in perpetuating societal problems like classism, racism and xenophobia. In other words, as Nangwaya asks, why does the President not call on his "white identity" to tell a "largely white graduating class that they should stop blaming immigrants for taking away "their" jobs, or stop blaming social assistance and welfare recipients for high taxes?" Ultimately, by embracing Reaganism, the President has assumed a license to operate under a double-standard while in office; a double-standard that went global in 2009 when he told African nations to "stop blaming colonialism for their problems." As Ta-Nehisi Coates writes , "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this White House has one way of addressing the social ills that afflict Black people - and particularly black youth - and another way of addressing everyone else. I would have a hard time imagining the president telling the women of Barnard that 'there's no longer room for any excuses' - as though they were in the business of making them. Barack Obama is, indeed, the president of 'all America,' but he also is singularly the scold of 'Black America."
(Snip)
"Ultimately, as Obama and the purveyors of "Black Reaganism" have proven, it is not merely racism that creates this unaccountability, it is the tie that binds racism - as well as misogyny, homophobia, jingoism and other oppressive mentalities - to the alienating effects of capitalism, and vice versa. In this sense, it is not Obama who has chosen to be a "good Reaganite" by remaining indifferent to systemic deficiencies that continue to plague the inner-cities and urban ghettoes of America - it is the duty for which he has been chosen to carry out. As Glen Ford from Black Agenda Report concludes: "The Age of Obama, now in its second and final quadrennial, has largely succeeded in divorcing African American politics from the historical Black consensus on social justice, self-determination and peace. What remains is play-acting and role-modeling, an Ebony magazine caricature of politics that leaves the great bulk of Black people with, literally, no avenues of resistance to the savage depredations of capitalism in decline." If Black Power is "a range of political goals designed to counteract racial oppression through changing and establishing social institutions," then "Black Reaganism" is its antithesis - a co-opting of Afrocentric direct action and a rebranding of white privilege and corporate culture. Although many would just as soon move on from "racial politics," with all of its potential downfalls, the fact remains that America's social structure still operates from a foundation built on racial inequity. "Blaming the victim" through hollow calls for "personal responsibility" is not the solution - because one cannot "pull themselves up from their bootstraps" if their bootstraps were taken from them long ago. "
Full article at link...
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/blackreaganism.html
A little dated but an interesting critique...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Jenkins is full of shit, his premises are shaky and half-assed at best, and his reasoning has dozens of gaps...Two years later, there isn't any sign of this so-called Black Reaganism increasing, so he's been proven wrong on that...
If that wasn't enough, he caps it off by citing a nutbar like Glen Ford 
AOR
(692 posts)Jenkins has provided facts and statistics that match the reality on the ground and the complete rightward turn of the Democratic Party into a descent of savage neoliberalism. Your reply - on the other hand - has provided nothing but rank emotion. So thoroughly do some identify with the status quo and the capitalist power structure that they actually take it as a wound upon their own personal identity politics.
Anybody who thinks the neoliberal policies of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the current face of the Democratic party represents, will represent, or is good for the working class, the AA community, and the poor and struggling in this country is so willfully mislead that it is easy to dismiss anything they have to say.
At least the right wing barbarians - that constitute the leadership of the Republican Party - are honest about which side they're on. Better to know where your enemies stand than to get continually stabbed in the back by the enemies, opportunists, and reactionaries in your "own tent."
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)or the dynamics of black politics, Mister I-just-joined-DU-last-month. Because I assure you that you don't fucking know me...
Secondly, his "facts and statistics" are laughably cherry-picked and don't align with current reality. And while I would have happily done so in the past, not every shit take some random no-name blogger pulled out of his ass warrants a full-on demolition (with references) from me -- Because I've been around the block genius, and know every trolling trap in the playbook...
Luckily, this piece is two years old so time has already diluted most of his argument for me...So the onus is on *YOUR* ass to prove why you believe Jenkins' dudebro bullshit is still relevant in 2015...
Good luck -- You'll need it
spanone
(135,959 posts)
AOR
(692 posts)Capitalism and U.S. Imperialism is responsible - directly and indirectly - for the death, oppression, and exploitation of untold millions of people - here and elsewhere - and it gets worse every day. That is objective reality. It does not call for a sales job to convince YOU of anything. Who are you ? You are a bee in hive.
And like I said, your replies on the article have offered shit in the way of analysis on what Jenkins had to say about the neoliberal policies of Obama, the Clintons, and the complicity of the black political elite in the continued destruction of poor AA communities. The facts on the ground speak for themselves. I couldn't give a shit less who you are or who you think you are. I couldn't give a shit less if you're black, brown, purple, blue, green, or white. Which side are you on is all that matters. It's about ruling class and working class. One can't do the bidding of one and hope to protect the interests of the other.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Since she just went someplace I never thought I'd see a DUer go, and need clarification from her before I proceed...
So for now you and the jibberish you're spewing are put on the back burner. Hate to be that way, but you're a low-post nobody (no offense) I've never seen before and you don't matter on this forum so you're not a priority...Sorry, but you gotta pay your dues and that's the way it is...
But I'll make you a deal, since because I'm a leftist I never wanna pass up the chance to educate the ignorant, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the arguments you're trying to make are in good faith -- Re-post this in a few days down in the Afr'Am forum, and I assure you I'll give it my full, 100% attention...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)AOR
(692 posts)I will post it in general discussion. Breaking off into protected groups doesn't advance discussion and it doesn't play well for those seeking unadulterated discussion from all quarters. I have no idea who alerted on your post but it certainly wasn't me. I could care less about fake civility and gentrified manners when it comes to political discussion.
I also don't have to pay shit in the way of "dues" because it's not about me. You are speaking in the tongues of the boss and the ruling class. Somehow you think you are entitled to superior status which is exactly what got us here in the first place as a society.
I have no idea where you stand in regards to capital vs labor because you immediately went on the attack with no analysis whatsoever. You immediately went to playing for superior status and marginalization and have now doubled down on that because someone dared post something that you didn't care for.
The voice of the boss and the ruling class...
"You are a nobody and not worthy of consideration "
"You are not a priority you are a nothing and my "lesser"
"I will educate the ignorant newcomer"
"Don't use that tone with me because I am superior "
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)since you know so damn much about black politics...
Either way, assuming you can last here another month without getting yourself banned, I have no doubt we'll meet again in the future and have an opportunity to fully hash this out...
AOR
(692 posts)because leftist politics is not about you as an individual. Leftist politics is about solidarity in which you seem to be very confused about in your posts. There are very few leftists that don't understand the continued devastation on the ground for struggling workers and the poor of all stripes on Barack Obama's watch. I strongly recommend this most excellent critique of capitalist social relations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027092421
And again I have no idea what you are not getting about the importance in bridging divides - between all races and creeds - among struggling working class people to effect lasting change in social conditions. You claim to "be a leftist." Leftists do not defend neoliberal policy making or capitalist social relations.
" We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism."
-- Fred Hampton
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Wed Aug 19, 2015, 01:04 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
For starters, don't fucking lecture me on what a "good reply" is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7088734
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Nasty personal attack and an attack on the new poster's post count. Over the top rude.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 19, 2015, 01:17 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A needlessly intemperate and insulting post, but aside from the borderline post-count call out, it skirts the edges of acceptable DU conversation.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Actually, I would say he handled it a lot more civilly than called for. The OP and his follow up replies should be taken to task, and, frankly, his "vindictive emotion" reply deserves to be alerted on. Easy vote to leave alone.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just because someone's been here for 11 years doesn't give them carte blanche to be like this.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave Blue_Tires aloooooooooooooooone!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: When someone posts crap like "Black Reaganism" they invite flames.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Paladin
(28,290 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)AOR
(692 posts)you would have to expand on that. Join what ? Leftist politics involves a hell of a lot more than voting in a corrupted political system that serves at the pleasure of capital.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Jenkins has provided facts and statistics..."
You're confusing facts and statistics with editorials and interpretation of statistics... most likely to lend the inherent bias in the OP the thin veneer of objectivity that it lacks.
AOR
(692 posts)because inner city abject poverty in the AA community does not exist at the levels that Jenkins describes. Imao...let me know next time you want to take a trip to Newark or one of hundreds of other depressed urban areas that have been destroyed by capitalist social relations and the continued devastation being wrought by neoliberal policy making of the "New Democratic Party."
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Expect the Black bourgeoisie to be up in arms about it. It collaborates with the oppression of the less fortunate the same way the White bourgeoisie does. Skin color doesn't infer any nobility of thought or caring for the more oppressed.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Ma'am, if you're making a comment in my direction, at least have the courtesy to address me directly...Thanks
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)AOR
(692 posts)but Jenkins firmly understands what class struggle means in capitalist social relations. Much more than can be said for the supporters of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)and I'm unimpressed by Jenkins' blathering about Obama and the purveyors of "Black Reaganism"
AOR
(692 posts)working class politics is not about YOU or what interests YOU as an individual. "Praxis" and "doing something" without a firm understanding about what the struggle is for and what the struggle is against is meaningless and amounts to nothing in regards to lasting and effective change. That is where class analysis comes in. You've not disputed anything that Jenkins said except to put your personal stamp of dislike on the piece.
When critical commentary leads people to see where the foundation of the problem rests that is constructive, powerful, and "doing something." When commentary leads people to think that they could be "doing something" to "solve" the problem without challenging the entire system, that is destructive and reactionary.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)of the "Social Economics Department" there
He then sought to give himself "academic" credentials by "publishing" with AV Akademikerverlag, an outfit that does no editorial work, pays authors no royalties, prints individual book copies only on demand, and is known primarily for having irritated many folk by selling them bound hard copies of bundled Wikipedia articles under misleading titles
Jenkins' babble about "black Reaganites" is entirely uniformed by data: it is a tiny fringe group. Blacks voting for Reagan in 1980 amounted to about 1.4% of the electorate in 1980 and 0.9% of the electorate in 1984; blacks voting for Bush I amounted to about about 1.1% of the electorate in 1988 and about 0.8% of the electorate in 1992. One reason for this low level of support was that Reagan's dog-whistles to America's racists were utterly transparent to anyone paying attention -- as when he wooed Neshoba county (where James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner hade been killed in 1964) with a 1980 speech on "state's rights" (the old code language for segregation). And Reagan's constant apologetics for the right-wing nationalist apartheid government in South Africa didn't help create "black Reaganites." That Jenkins counts the current President among "black Reaganites" merely underscores his ignorance
Your bourgeois political notion, that we can somehow proceed by first getting one's ideas right and then moves into action, stands reality on its head; and it is guaranteed to produce disillusionment and burnout. Instead, ideas must originate from concrete action; and then must be continually formed and re-formed, based on the actual results of action
AOR
(692 posts)you're problem is not with Jenkins... you're problem is with Jenkins describing Obama and Clinton as the neoliberal tools that they are. Your use of the word praxis peeked my curiosity on your posting history. That you even attempt use "bourgeois political notion" in your reply is beyond laughable. You are staunch Barack Obama supporter and you also support Clinton.
Your attempts to paint yourself knowledgeable in leftist political action and what that means is beyond laughable. Kind of like the CPUSA and Sam Webb endorsing Obama and supposed leftists stumping for Hillary Clinton. Yep, that is "praxis" alright. You can't make that shit up.
When the CPUSA endorses Barack Obama as "part of the battle plan"... anyone paying attention to leftist politics knows that the labels are utterly meaningless at this point in history. The sellouts of the working class and labor are wearing many labels and using many flags these days including "Communist", "Socialist", and talking "praxis" while doing the bidding of the ruling class and the status quo.
Here is your idea of "praxis" "struggle4progress."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4645898#4646619
"As a first step, I'd settle for some broad-based popular movements that actually tracked important legislation and regulatory efforts at the state and federal level. And a big increase in citizen attention to local government. And more public attention to what the state and federal courts do in specific cases. And an effective student movement for labor solidarity. And a nationwide network of community activists that tracked corporate influence in their own towns and states."
Yep, that's some real understanding and "praxis" you got going on there "struggle4progress." What part of the capitalist institutions and government - at all levels including local - are thoroughly corrupted by capital and beyond any "possible legislation and regulatory efforts" of "New Leftism" activism don't you understand. What a joke that is. Talk about bourgeois bullshit.
What is being said is that you first need to know what you're doing before you can do something and your posts in this thread reveal you haven't a clue what you're doing. With all the warts of the libertarian socialist critiques of Jenkins and Chomsky they stand far above the idiotic notion that stumping for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as president somehow are representative in any way of leftist political action and "praxis." At least fucking Chomsky, Jenkins, and the libertarian socialists understand where class fits into the picture.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Calling a valid position 'word 'salad' illustrates a dramatic mental laziness.
AOR
(692 posts)and does not deal in reality but rather on emotion to defend Obama and the neoliberal policies of the currently constructed Democratic Party leadership at all costs. Honest analysis is welcome. Worship of personal identities as analysis is not valid. It takes very little investigation to separate the two. It always has a distinct tone that is very easy to decipher.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They were silly when we were told that Gore would be no different than George W. Bush. (Yeah, how did that work out?)
They are silly when we were told that Obama would be no different from McCain or Romney
They are silly when we are told that Hillary is the same as the Republicans.
----------------------------------------------
No Democrats are close to what the Republicans are.
AOR
(692 posts)for an ever increasing amount of the struggling and the poor.
Why We Don't Spend As Much Time Denouncing Republicans As We Do Democrats
By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
http://blackagendareport.com/content/why-we-dont-spend-much-time-denouncing-republicans-we-do-democrats
(Snip)
"We know who and what the Republican party is. Back in the mid 1960s, when Democratic president Lyndon Johnson, under relentless pressure from the Freedom Movement embraced enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the South, Republicans opened their doors wide to welcome the exodus of white supremacist voters and politicians who'd been Democrats until that time. The modern Republican party re-made itself into the permanent white man's party not just in the South, but across the country, the party whose brands are rancid racism, pretentious piety, monstrous misogyny and shameless warmongering."
(Snip)
I"n today's political ecology, the job of Republicans is to provide political camouflage to right wing Democrats like the last two Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama, by moving still further rightward, even past the boundaries of lunacy. When Bill Clinton was busy passing NAFTA and ending welfare as we knew it, both measures tried and failed at by Bush 1, Newt Gingrich provided covering babble about taking poor children from their homes. While Barack Obama offered to put Medicare and social security on the deficit cutting table and enacted a so-called “Affordable Care Act” first passed as an insurance company bailout by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2004, Republicans threaten the piecemeal repeal of Rove V. Wade and cuts to unemployment compensation."
(Snip)
" We at Black Agenda Report spend more time denouncing Democrats because they act like and enable Republicans. We don't spend as much time denouncing the party of white supremacy because Republicans rarely bother to pretend to be anything else. African Americans haven't voted Republican in 50 years. But we're more unemployed than we've been in seventy years, and more imprisoned than we've ever been.
Full article at link...
http://blackagendareport.com/content/why-we-dont-spend-much-time-denouncing-republicans-we-do-democrats-
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do speak for themselves. Gore in the whitehouse and Iraq doesn't happen.
AOR
(692 posts)singing the praises of the Bush administration or Republican Party policy making Steven. Beyond that...a lot of people who once put at least a small token of faith in the Democratic Party - as a vehicle that somewhat represented the demands of the working class - have lost all faith in that stance with the rightward direction of the party. A lot of people have had it with "where else are you going to go." If both parties continue on the current path that leaves millions of struggling people behind there will probably be alternatives that look nothing like the current structure of the two-party political system.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Once again, the far left insists on being purists even in the most ridiculous of circumstances, like when the Social Democrats in Germany in 1933 begged the German Communist Party to unite with them electorally against the Nazis.
I shouldn't expect that the modern version of folks like this will behave in a rational manner in the face of political realities.
AOR
(692 posts)It is certainly not the majority... but it seems an ever increasing amount of the struggling working class and the poor are starting to realize just how exploitative and oppressive capitalism can be and are starting to make that known in numbers. If standing against and fighting against that exploitation - in defense of the commons and the struggling - is "purist" then I guess some of us will have to wear that label proudly. It seems very strange how some find denouncing the rampant inequality, theft, and the destruction and debasement of societies - caused by capitalism - to be a purist pursuit. It would seem the stance to take in the face rampant platitudes and lip-service that have not panned out for the majority.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)The problem is not just that Bernie "subsumes" racism in economic issues but that in the name of pride and dignity there is a movement to disassociate African Americans from economic issues. Even though they aren't the majority on welfare, they are always dogwhistled as taking welfare and "Section 8" - and covert racism becomes the key to cutting those programs.
The Kochs fund the United Negro College Fund and I'm willing to bet they fund a whole lot of black ministers who preach marriage and strong fatherhood. Their classic conservative message is "values". The new anti-abortion message (and ironically for GOP cuts to welfare) and welfare cap message is Democrats are controlling the black population through "programs". And of course Democrats are subverting marriage through support of LGBT rights when there has been such an epic struggle to hold the black family together through mass incarceration, racist police shootings, poverty-related crime rate, and simply getting black men back on board as responsible fathers in this environment. Ministers were central to this effort. Democrats were oblivious to who was funding all that. I think many forgot MLK was a minister as well, and that being a minister is a job/livelihood in a declining field. The ministry is heavily red-mapped.
BTW, that's not limited to African Americans: this is true of rural ministers in general and explains a lot about the values of the South and their seeming inability to vote their interests.
Anyway, I would argue that one way out of this phenomenon is to stop associating welfare with African Americans. It's inaccurate. And the "racism cuts" that follow are devastating to poor people across the board. As we speak, Obama is toying with cutting Community Development Block Grants (yet again) - a major source of funding for local community agencies - in order to shift that money to his Free Community College plan. This is because education, like work, fits Reaganite bootstrap "values". I'm all for free Community College - but why not take that money from the Defense Department? Why do we need to cut money from the poor yet again? It's because those poor might be falsely branded as African Americans.
Both Democrats and the GOP need to start caring about poor white people. With the new turn to "The Social" detached from "The Economic", well-to-do African Americans are announcing they will no longer stick up for those in poverty even if there are African Americans there, too. They will be "sipping on white tears" instead.
AOR
(692 posts)"We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism."
-- Fred Hampton
Not for a minute are actual leftists - of any color or creed - going to entertain as possible the notions or "prescriptions of change" being spewed by the apologists for capitalist social relations and the existence of a ruling class.
