Black Dems Must Clean Up Own House

[qanda]

Interesting article from Black Commentator on Blacks and the DLC.


The early concession betrayed the trust of the voters,” said Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., whose Rainbow PUSH Coalition has joined the Green and Libertarian parties and others demanding a vote recount in Ohio. “We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to see that every vote counts and whether Kerry gets the most votes or not, we must break a precedent of fraudulent elections.”

What must be broken is the Democratic Leadership Council’s corporate grip on the party. Two presidential elections in succession, DLC-led tickets have acquiesced to Republican criminality, leaving Black voting rights strewn in the gutter like plastic baubles the morning after a New Orleans Mardi Gras parade. Kerry’s near-instantaneous concession was designed to pre-empt and silence the cries of the wounded so that the DLC might make amends with the Bush Pirates and rejoin the permanent government as a compliant, junior partner. However, history may record that Kerry’s cavalier dismissal of the Democratic base’s deep pain and righteous outrage was the fatal insult. Contempt is no basis for cohabitation. If the DLC’s dead hand cannot be pried from the controls, the national Democratic Party is finished. The troops will disappear, and no amount of 527-type money will buy them back.

Rev. Jackson has good ears, and hears the historical flipping of the script. In the 1980s he wrote key parts of that script in two presidential bids that so alarmed white southern and corporate Democrats they formed the DLC to keep Blacks, labor and other core constituencies in check. A late addition as a senior consultant to Kerry, Jackson’s presence could not alter the essential anti-constituent nature of the campaign. Now the strange bed-fellowship of Greens and Libertarians – “Glibs” – holding high the banner of voting rights has illuminated the wreckage the DLC has purposely made of the Democratic Party coalition. It’s too late for…somebody, but that somebody ain’t Black folks, who must struggle on, as always. “This campaign in Ohio is not so much about Kerry as it is about Fannie Lou Hamer,” said Jackson, on Pacifica’s Democracy Now! “It’s about Medgar Evers. It’s about Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney. It’s about the people's will to democracy. If people can fight for democracy in the Ukraine, we can do that here.”

Asked what John Kerry is “doing with his $51 million” in unspent campaign funds while the “Glibs” wage a costly battle for democracy, Jackson replied: “I do not know.”

(more)

http://www.blackcommentator.com/116/116_cover_black_dems.html

[FrenchieCat]

1. I discount the Black Commentator regularily...

Because I think that he is out of touch with the Black community who is mainly moderate to conservative on social issues and liberal to moderate on economic issues.....and loved Bill Clinton, the original DLCer.

Many don't give a hoot about the DLC vs. the DNC business. The majority want good jobs, a way to pay for affordable education and health care, and most Black activists worth their salt are most likely immersed in local issues, where they can make a real difference, than in this internal party mess.

Although I may sound like I am generalizing (and to some degree, of course I am)...IMO, when I talk about politics to my Black brothers and sisters....many have the attitute that whichever party is elected...the Democrats or the Republicans...they are guaranteed the short end of the stick.

I think that the Black Commentator is telling us more what he thinks...than what the Black Community has on its mind.

In my reading experience of his column, he seems to be very full of himself...

Beyond the content of what he writes, I am also skeptical of this blogger because he felt the need to have named himself after an entire race of people. Although he might think that incorporating his race into his "name" might get Black folks to read his stuff, the majority of his readers are White Liberals.

In short, what I am saying is that he just doesn't speak for me and thousands in the Black Community....especially the Black baby boomers...who make up the disproportionate voting majority of African-American voters.

[msgadget]

3. I'm so surprised, FrenchieCat!

Y'know, what you say must be true because I'm always surprised when someone ISN'T as liberal as I. How self-centered is that? :+

I am left of center on social issues and actually take the time to contemplate some conservative economic policies. That is, I see the harm of an overtly liberal economy though I don't agree with the extremes of the true conservative.

And, let's be honest about something, the 'most' you refer to won't read the Black Commentator and, as you say, don't care about either the DNC or DLC. But, many of us who do more in depth reading think the misguidance of the DLC cost the dems the last two elections. And, I'd been trying in vain to discover that which isn't visible among the members of the CBC and the BC gave me the lowdown. I don't always agree with anyone but I generally come away with something to contemplate when I visit the site.

So, you're REALLY a moderate, FrenchieCat? What's that like? :think:

[FrenchieCat]

4. Actually,

I am not moderate per se. I am as moderate as Barbara Lee. I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election (it's ok...I am in California). I voted for Nader because Gore left me uninspired in 2000. I still wanted Gore to win, but I found him weak kneed and reactionary when it came to dealing with the opposition. He has changed since then, but his timing was off, and timing is everything. Of course after he lost (well he really won) and had nothing more to lose, he became bold and statesman like...But leadership means leading when is makes a difference...not after the fact.

In 2004, I really, really wanted to win this election. I was totally devasted that Bushco. was allowed to steal the election. I mean devasted.

Unfortunately, I found 2004 Kerry to be very similar to 2000 Gore. He has been weak kneed and reactionary. A Politician instead of a leader. It's hard to win elections when you are unprincipled. I had been very impressed with 1971 Kerry. But 2004 Kerry is just another tired policitian who's timing is off.

That's why in 2003, I decided to support whom I did. I didn't want to support anymore politicians...and there actually only 2 non politicians running in 2004; Clark and Sharpton. But my goal was to win, so Sharpton was out. I did my homework very well prior to fully supporting the candidate I did. To date, I have not been disappointed....other than with the fact that I had previously underestimated the power that the media really has over the citizenry of this country. I knew it was powerful, but I didn't quite understand how absolutely and pompously it excerts its control.

The strategy for winning must match the times that we are living in. I personally never believed that John Kerry was the best candidate...nor that his VP choice was a wise one...considering that I, and many others knew what platform the Republicans were going to run on. Since the GOP have the microphones (the media), the bully pulpit (the presidency), and the power to shape events....for Shrum to think that we, the Democrats, could determine what the debate was going to be about in 2004, was bad strategy and a naive notion.

I don't believe that factions within the same party can fight for control and win elections against another party all at the same time. Whether it's the DNC Teddy Kennedy wing of the party or the DLC Clinton wing of the party that wins an election doesn't much matter...

The unfortunate reality is that this country is becoming more moderate. Maybe it has to do with what the media feeds us on a daily basis, or the fact that the pendulum does have a tendency to go back and forth...whatever the case, the reality is that currently we are going back.

IMO, the only way that we can make the pendulum go forward ASAP is to understand where we are at....pick a couple of solid issues to really fight for...like Media and election reform. Have the minority congress really hone into those specific issues like laser beams....and hope that with people power behind them they cannot be denied the ability to make the arguments (Although I dislike Arnuld Gropenator, he makes a valid point of saying that whenever the majority Democratic State legislature tries to stop some reform, he will take it to the people first, and together they will face the lawmakers.) What is stopping our national Democratic members of congress from doing this? If they can focus on those 2 issues mentioned, and really envigorate and move their constituency to action.....reforms would happen. Instead, they are all in disarray all over the place, losing ground on every issue, squabbling amongs themselves and just really not doing much beyond hoping to keep the status quo (and they are not doing that)...that's not much solace for us Democrats.

We have got to win the next election with solid majorities, as that is appears that it is the only way that we can win against the voting machines. Then we can start calling the shots, take back the bully pulpit, put some harness on the runaway Presstitutes, and start making sound policy changes.

Getting back in the driver's seat has got to be step one.....because we can't start forcing the pendulum to swing forward without the majority of the American people on board.

Once we get that pendulum swinging in the right direction again.... there will be hope.

[msgadget]

5. Phew, I knew we were on the same page for the most part

I certainly agree with your assessment of Old Al. The new Mad Al Gore is a man who could've built a base of his own in 2000. Although I accuse Clinton of being too calculating, Gore's refusal to identify with his administration or base made him a less than thrilling candidate. I've come to understand that the distancing wasn't due to the 'scandals' but their very ideologies. A wee little bit of pandering would've given him a wider, less questionable margin of victory. People do not see Clinton for who he really is, they see that good ol' boy, man of the people persona he projects so Al's serious demeanor didn't resonate with them even though he really might've represented them over corporate and political interests.

Nader had the backing of the Greens and ran a very legitimate campaign that year. This year I didn't like his t-shirts, plain and simple. His 'Spoiler' campaign materials were distasteful to me because he proved in more than one essay that he was not the spoiler and even said Gore won that race in one or two. He just walked in late and pretty much alone and ended up causing the dems to show their true colors by fighting to keep him off ballots. This solidified my opposition to the politics of the party. In a true democracy all candidates are on the ballot and get to debate.

While I agree the Democrats must win with a solid majority I think their concentration on winning and solely that was what lost the race in 2004. The Republicans are far more organized and unified as a party and have been working toward this majority for a very long time. They have a strong platform, something I can't say about the Democrats. A Republican Lite candidate wearing the Democratic logo will not defeat them. Ideally, the next Democratic candidate will be a little like Mad Al and come out like s/he's got nothing to lose and go for broke, raise pure hell. I'd rather that than watch someone else struggle to find a middle ground that appeals to the 'swing' voters the press made Kerry work so hard for.

Did you notice how quiet the Democrats were on November 3? It didn't occur to them to independently DO anything about the many reports surrounding the voting process. Since we were unable to hand them an election the problems we experienced in the effort were inconsequential. The DNC and DLC are diluting a party that is historically for the rights of citizens. In their attempts to strategize with the big boys, they forgot that an election is about more than their candidate.

The issues you mention - the press and voting - are really for us to champion. I have very little faith that politicians are up to the task of saving our nation. Until we get rid of lobbyists and corporate influence, we're on our own. The BC author doesn't believe an Independent party will be strong enough to defeat the Republicans but I think he's missing the point. A strong, Independent, progressive movement could well be something the Democrats ends up having to appeal to. The Independents may not be able to win but neither will the Democrats without them.

[Kahuna]

6. I'm a moderate liberal too. Most black folks in my neck of the

woods are moderate liberals. I live in what would be considered one of the most liberal areas of the northeast, in NJ. This liberal utopia that you hear a lot of DUers speak of has never existed during my lifetime. And, I know it did not exist prior to my lifetime, because there was Jim Crow even in the northeast. LBJ would probably be considered the most liberal of the Democratic presidents during my lifetime. But, it was hardly a utopia. He was just doing what was long over due and what was the right thing.

My son, who is 32 yo is more conservative than I am. ???? A lot of young blacks are. You must remember, they grew up during the Reagan era. Whereas, I grew up during JFK, LBJ and Carter.

[msgadget]

7. My real question is, what does 'moderate' signify?

I don't think the old labels apply anymore in either party. Our current prez won as a compassionate conservative yet conservatives don't want to claim him or his policies. Kerry, who voted along the lines of Lieberman, was called a liberal. Dean, a moderate, is considered liberal because he's loud. So, what's a moderate?

Does moderate mean you think there should be some entitlements? That the issue of gay marriage be left up to the states? The current parties are so alike I can't tell where the middle line would be.

What we have is a strong president who does the most unpopular things without apology so I can understand why the younger generation would look to that model for leadership. The Democrats keep running 'nuanced' individuals with similar plans packaged more attractively.

Edit for the smiley (I love these things!): :hi: Kahuna!

[Kahuna]

8. My definition of a "moderate liberal"....

I do believe in some entitlements. I believe in safety nets. I believe in socialized medicine. I think we all pay enough in taxes that we should not have to worry about healthcare expenses.

I believe that food stamps and housing subsidies should be available to families as long as they have a legitimate need.

On the other hand, I believe that welfare reform had become very necessary. Fifteen years ago, I would have said, 'what about the children?' I have lived in the hood all of my life. The longer I lived the more ruined lives I encountered because of families being solely dependent on welfare. Neighborhoods ruined. People not able to go outside for fear of the thug offspring of welfare dependent young mothers.

I have a young cousin who started having children at 14 and had five in a row. Another woman I know, had four kids and was always on the edge of eviction. Having to decide whether to eat, pay utilities or rent.

Since welfare reform, I have seen families lifted out of a cycle of poverty. Some very close to me. Some, who have children and are working at minimum wage are certainly not doing any worse than they were while on welfare. But they may not be doing better. If I had my way, they would be guaranteed, food stamps, housing, medicaid and child care as long as they needed it, while they are working. I think it is important for children to have a sense of pride in seeing their parents work instead of on the dole. We should encourage that. I also know young women who have had children since welfare reform. I don't hear any of them complaining about not being able to have as many kids as they want, and expect the state to pay for them. Not one. And, they manage to take care of their kids. Because they know they have to.

Now, what about the people who are too dumb or addicted to substances? Would I see them or their families starve? Of course I wouldn't. I would have a separate system to deal with the incorrigibles.

Do I believe in college grants? Of course. I believe in anything that will help citizens excel and do better in life. That doesn't mean that I believe college should be paid for 100% by the government. Nothing wrong with people making sacrifices to get what they want. It builds character. What I'm increasingly not particulary for is people expecting handouts who don't need them. So, maybe it's the last statement that defines my "moderation."

As far as gay marraige goes, I believe that it is unconstitutional to ban gays from getting married. And it always has been. Maybe you didn't grow up in the 50s and 60s like I did, when people had no tolerance at all for the gay lifestyle. I remember reading the paper as a kid, and hearing on the news about teachers and other professionals being fired for being gay.

Gay marraige is the fifth rail of American politics right now. We just witnessed how the scumbag in thief, just used the issue to turnout a record number of voters. For that reason, while many Democrats in congress know in their hearts that gay rights is a civil rights issue, they will tread very carefully when it comes to civil unions and marraige. For any politician to endorse gay marraige at a national level, he/she will guarantee that they will not be elected.

This issue is not a state's rights issue. It belongs before the supreme court. Unfortunately, the "progressives" have nailed their own coffins shut on this issue by playing fast and loose with the 2000 election. Bush will undoubtedly get to choose two or three supreme court justices. Maybe four! Thusly guaranteeing that when the issue eventually gets to the bush appointed supreme court, they will shut the door on gay marraige for decades to come.

And notice, the current USSC, keeps turning down gay marriage issues. Likely because they fear that with the current court makeup, they may rule in favor of gays. One more * appointed justice to replace a liberal justice will tip the court to favor conservative causes.

[msgadget]

9. Reasonable, yes. Moderate...?

Kahuna, in the political landscape of 2004 these views aren't moderate, they're like...radical, man. :crazy:

I also believe most Americans are moderate politically. But, Clinton, a moderate, veered sharply right during his tenure and now I equate the term with policies similar to his. And, compared to a neighbor's conservative viewpoints mine stand out as way left. Again, the line shifted and the definitions don't mean the same thing anymore.

I do remember how hard life was for gay Americans, particularly males, even here in the Northeast where it's now hard to imagine. And, I also remember all those Black ministers saying they didn't equate gay rights with civil rights and that they were against gay marriage. In all my years going to church the absolute MOST I heard on the subject was that old tired line about Adam and Steve but that was it. I mean, Kahuna, were there LINES of gay people outside churches that I didn't know about? Did the gay community suddenly have an uprising? I must've missed it. We all have gay family members, workmates, neighbors, friends. As diverse as our community is, there's no reason to make up new reasons to hate one another. But, darned if a little acknowledgment and a chance to be heard (and a microphone) didn't work. The Democrats kept saying, 'ah, don't pay any attention to them, they're just trying to make this a political issue.' but that's ALL they did until Nov. 3 when they cried about how ridiculous it was for people to fall for it!

Please, what do you mean when you say the progressives played fast and loose in 2000? By not fighting for Gore's win and thus losing us the opportunity to support any supremes? I agree.

There are a lot of 'rails' under a conservative majority and welfare is one of them. They actually hiss at the mere thought of welfare for individuals but have no problem financing farm subsidies or corporate welfare. And, moderates are loathe to mention either welfare or taxes. So odd.

Not only do we need to continue helping kids get their degrees, we need to move back to encouraging our kids in all the sciences. You might remember, as I do, when American schools received extra money to expand their science curriculums to compete globally. Because India is graduating slews of computer scientists yearly it seems we're subtly discouraging our children from entering the field. That's not okay.

Another 'liberal' issue I'm interested in is the role of the union in this jobs market. They're fighting to stay alive and though they've been rascally in the past (ever have to get rid of a really bad union employee??) labor has never needed representation more.

And, let me acknowledge right here that since the election the GOP has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at us - Social Security and tax reform, a renewed push for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, new cabinet appointees, that awful omnibus, changing the rules for DeLay, etc., etc. It's been a HELL of a month! I'm an optimist and very anxious to see how the new year plays out. All of us are awake, our elected officials realize that, I think, and the ride will be anything but boring here on out!

[Kahuna]

12. Unfortunately, a lot of really immature people would consider..

my views as conservative. Because I dare to suggest that we do not give out unlimited handouts to folks who otherwise are able to support and help themselves. That's what I think separates me from the hard core "liberals/progressives." I could be wrong. I've never seen a mission statement, so I can only guess based upon tidbits of outrage I've seen here and there. This is why I really don't like labels. Because with labels there are too many interpretations. :shrug:

While I may consider myself a "moderate," conservatives would surely consider me a left wingnut. But I'm not a "nut." I'm practical. If the budget can support the social programs for uplifting disadvantaged folks, I'm all for it. However, I don't think we should run deficits to try to provide for every social program that the mind can imagine. In real life you have to compromise. In real life you don't get everything you want. So, I would say, food stamps, housing assistance, healthcare and child care are the necessities. Everything else is on the table depending on how it would affect the budget. That's where I become moderate.

I think we have to be pragmatic in our approach to social programs. I think Clinton and Gore did that. And they were roundly criticized by the "left." Boo on them.

[msgadget]

16. I like Practical as a label much better.

I think Clinton and Gore were criticized for welfare reform because each state administers it differently. In NJ, your state, it was quite an adjustment for many of the recipients. Women with little or no job skills or experience had to look for work with the specter of a ticking clock overshadowing the search. And, for the first time, benefits would be limited to the kids they had, all future ones would be their responsibility. It felt like something was being taken away but I know a lot of young women excited at the prospect of getting out of the house and neighborhood to work. Unfortunately, the realities of childcare, healthcare, housing and transportation often dispelled the notion of easy Independence.

The one thing I think can change the economic landscape of the country will probably hurt us for awhile and create a whole lotta complaining. I'd very much LOVE for there to be fair trade with an end to cheap labor once and for all. Every worker, everywhere deserves to earn a self-sustaining wage but implementing a policy for it would mean a sharp rise in costs that, I'm sure, lots of people would squawk about. Change is often uncomfortable.

[ecstatic]

10. Wow, I agree with mostly everything you said

I too am a moderate liberal.

I remember bringing up the welfare reform issue and I was flamed mercilessly for it. Welfare needed to be reformed. Now I'm waiting patiently for all the projects in Atlanta to be torn down so that the poorest people are not concentrated in one area.

I'm not sure I agree with you about the college grants thing, though. My parents said college was basically free when they went, and I believe it should be free now. If we have money to waste in Iraq, we have money to educate the public.

[Kahuna]

14. I noticed that a lot of blacks folks I spoke to..

when the welform reform went through, were happy about it. Whereas they, like me, would have said a decade before, "what about the children?'

As far as "free college" goes, it's not and has never been the norm. Your parents are very fortunate to have been able to get it. It was not available for me.

To me if it comes down to free healthcare or free college, healthcare wins.

[msgadget]

15. I read that Jimmy Carter was attacked by his own party

when he wanted to reform welfare .

[msgadget]

2. I'm an Independent who doesn't see positive change

under either political logo. Instead I keep experiencing a deja vu, like we've been here before, know what I mean? We've been threatened before and took action outside the political arena to be heard and to affect change. It's that time again.

It's time for Mr. Jackson to start moving away from the Democrats, who don't appreciate his efforts anyway. If he and others can get enough of an audience we might actually be in a power position again.

[ecstatic]

11. More and more I'm agreeing

It would only be an effective move if the majority of us switched to Independent. Not that there'd be any threat whatsoever of us supporting Republicans, but it just sends a message to the Dems that we see what's going on. We see that neither Gore nor Kerry stood up for all the black voters who were disenfranchised. It pisses me off, and I'm tired of being taken for granted.

[Kahuna]

13. The one advantage I see to registering as independent is..

it would make it harder for repukes to target blacks as a voting block. All politicians pander to independent voters. It would be very confusing for repukes and Democrats if the majority of registered voters are registered as independents. It would force them both the approach us in a more honest manner.

[msgadget]

17. People put WAY too much faith in

politicians. They're not altruistic.