Elections: January 2008 Archives

For decades, advocates for racial equality have been fighting the tides of the new American movement for colorblindness, the idea that if we don’t talk about race, somehow racism and the inequalities which it spawns will magically disappear. The simple and unavoidable truth is that we are always talking about race even when we’re not, and usually it’s a destructive conversation.

Case in point, Barack Obama. As much as he’s tried to avoid talking about it, Obama has been unable to duck the, shall we say commentary on his ethnic background and the color of his skin. At every turn, politicians and pundits have reminded Obama and America of his blackness.

Recently was watching the reunion episode of a fantastic, in-depth look at gender relations on VH1 called I Love NY. For those who missed it, willingly or tragically, the show was born when one of the losing contestants from a show focused on finding the right future baby momma for Flava Flav showed true star potential.

Tiffany Pollard, nicknamed NY on the show, proved she really loved Flav when she sat up all night in his bed in her lingerie while he slept in the arms of two other women next to her. Flav didn't want her, but America did. We watched through two seasons of her search for The One. There was spitting, fighting, screaming, racism, homophobia, high drama. In one scene, a contestant would come across as ignorant and shallow and horrific, and then the next scene would find him vulnerable, lost, lonely. Against my will I started to really wonder - who would be best for NY?

Finally, a couple of weeks ago, there was the reunion show, where she was giggling and happy and living with the man she chose. I commented to the folks I was watching with, "They look so in love."

My sweetie turned and said, none too kindly, "But you know its all scripted, right?"

Oh, yes, right.

The other night I was at dinner with some folks here in Oakland and basically experienced the same exact thing, but unfortunately we were talking about the presidential election, and this time I was the spoiler.

When the talk turned to presidential candidates, I laughed it off cynically, resisted, but before I could help it I was getting into it, really thinking about Obama. I was thinking about Clinton (who most people call Hillary while calling everyone else by their last name for some reason) and Edwards, too. And Romney, Mccain, Huckabee and so on. Policy-wise, I like Edwards.

But Obama...its deep to have an Obama in the race, a glittering young man, an actual black man, shoot - a halfrican mulatto like myself! And a community organizer man who talks about change from the people? Of course I don't agree with all his policies, but when you actually get a dynamic intelligent candidate, its hard not to get sucked in to actually thinking the candidates matter.

The questions were good - Obama's Iowa win was exciting, but is this country ready for a black president? Will it be casual racism or overt racism that stops it? Will it be racism at all? Is the country ready for a woman? What if that woman is super hawkish and pro-Israel? A Mormon? And is Edwards the realest guy out there, the most aligned...or is he the spoiler who is going to hurt Obama's chances? Won't electing a guy named Barack Hussein Obama send the best message to the rest of the world? Even if he doesn't have that much experience? Aren't Obama and Clinton almost exactly the same in their policy proposals?

Then someone said Edwards seemed fake to them and it jolted my reality. 'It's all scripted.' I heard my sweetie's voice in my head, and then I heard myself respond before I could really think...

"Whoever seems fakest is just the worst at acting, and might be our best bet."

The table felt like someone had hit the "pause - hater alert" button, sentences coming to an early end.

"We should hand out an Emmy or an Oscar for best performance at the end of this year, not a presidency."

The table, which included people who love me, got quiet and annoyed. To show any cynicism in the face of our first black president is not popular these days. So I tried to find the root of my hateration.

To get a good reality show, people are put in a situation not unlike an election. A camera is on them at all times, invading their lives, disrupting their patterns. They become what they believe the people on the other side of the camera most want to see, say what they think that audience most wants to hear.

Unfortunately, because money drives both the electoral and entertainment industries, we don't control the real quality of our candidates anymore than we control the quality of our television stations. The input systems are so broken that only the most paid-for programming can survive.

I would be overjoyed, literally way too happy, if folks were as passionate right now about getting an electoral system in which it were possible to elect a great city council, mayor, governor, senator, representative and president as they were about the polls which make us believe we still have a choice in who represents our concerns in this country. I understand that the nuts and bolts of our system don't inspire the passion that debating policy on borders, sexuality, health, all the issues which together create our quality of life. But there is a yellow brick road from campaign financing to felon disenfranchisement to the wizards behind the voting machines of our democratic system. A people's movement that doesn't account for that might as well be clicking their heels.

I see what happens to my heart when I watch Obama gracefully slay the others in the debates. It leaps. I would jump on Oprah's couch if, in her endorsement of Obama, she required that he be the first black presidential candidate to include real electoral reforms as a key component of his platform and made sure that people knew he wouldn't just fight for their love, he'd fight to make sure each one of their votes counted.

In the context of my work, I always seek visions that could overcome struggle. I like visions that seem just beyond reach, that I can sense and taste. And of course, I like to escape to fantasy worlds sometimes, watch 20 contestants vie for one heart, or watch 3 contestants vie for 300 million.

But, we are getting hit hard on all sides: environmental, economic, nuclear, health, education...at a time like this, I don't mind scripts on TV if I can get some real solutions from my government at the local and national level. The worst cynicism comes from dashed hopes. We will have to all fight together to make this election a fair one. Many of us have been scheming for years on how to do just that.

Holla if you hear me.

Joseph Phelan, Miami Workers Center, discusses their work with grassroots organizers to register voters in Black and Latino communities in Miami.

Last Saturday, I hit the streets with members of Low-Income Families Fighting Together and Miami en Acción, two grassroots projects of the Miami Workers Center. We were headed out to encourage occasional voters to participate in the primary elections through the Take Back the Vote campaign (TBV).

Clad in bright orange and yellow shirts, we fanned out from the Miami Workers Center store front office on NW 7th Ave. We carried photocopied voter lists with highlighter-marked names and addresses.

"Our ancestors had to fight for the right to vote," said Ms. Rosalie "Cookie" Whiley, LIFFT Leader and participant in the Take Back the Vote program. "We have to get out there and make sure people vote."

In one week of voter outreach, Take Back the Vote discussed the history of voting rights and voting challenges with over 200 African-American and Latino residents of Liberty City and Wynwood.

"A lot of people are saying that they have to vote, they have a responsibility to vote, their people died for the right to vote," said Aiyeshia Hudson, organizer with the Miami Workers Center, "But a lot of people are still not clear who they should vote for, what are the differences between the candidates. There still is a need for voter education."

The Miami Workers Center projects, LIFFT and Miami en Acción, are known for community organizing campaigns fighting for racial and economic justice such as: Justice for Scotts Carver residents (over 1,100 low-income residents were displaced from their homes through a federal program), saving Roberto Clemente Park, and anti-slumlord organizing. So why would we mobilize to the polls when we fight around building public housing and getting rid of slumlords?

"Politician and ballot referendums are decided by a minority of our city's population because voter turnout is so low. In order to have a real democracy we need to build majority participation in the elections." said Sushma Sheth, Campaign Director for the Miami Workers Center, "Voting is one of many tools we have in the fight for progressive change. We are activists, community leaders, freedom fighters and voters."

Along with encouraging people to the polls, LIFFT and MIA asked people about the issues they face in the community and what they think are some solutions. "This is a chance to meet people and build power in the community by getting them to not only vote but also join the fight," said Sarai Portillo, and organizer with Miami en Acción.

The Take Back the Vote effort is an extension of the voter defense work that we started in 2004. In the month leading up to the 2004 election we won access for independent international elections observers, mobilized residents to patrol voting stations and enforce peoples' right to vote and mobilized the African American community to impact the elections.

Joseph Phelan lives in Miami Florida where he works with the Miami Workers Center. He is also an artist and published writer with pieces appearing in ZNet, Color Lines, Left Turn, and People's Tribune.

For anyone outraged by Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem's opinion piece in the NYTimes last week arguing that Hilary, as a woman, had a harder road to the White House than Barack, simply a Black man, really must check out the video clip.

Princeton U. professor Melissa Harris Lacewell takes Ms. Steinem to task on Democracy Now; rarely have I seen someone's so thoroughly and expertly taken apart. Ms. Lacewell succeeded in making the opinion piece seem ludicrous, Ms. Steinem's second wave feminism offensive and along the way made a pretty good case for Barack Obama. At any rate, get into it - not to be missed.

After reading comments here on Racewire, on Alternet, and Huffington Post about her post about Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, Tammy Johnson responds.

Voting booths and race: I’ll cop to being procedurally wrong in regards to the Iowa Caucus. But I stand by my assertion that white voters felt assured that Obama wouldn’t force their hand on issues of race. And I will go even further and say that it might not just be white folks who need this assurance. Race has been dealt with so badly by mainstream liberals and misused by right-wingers over the last few decades, that the pandering exhausts everyone. But that shouldn’t give Obama or any other candidate a pass when it comes to dealing with blatant racial disparities of crack/cocaine laws or the hypocritical treatment of immigrant workers in this country. Race is on the table in this, and every other election that we have ever had in the US. The only question is: how will we deal with it?

When is the time? The “now is not the time to talk about race” argument never ceases to amaze me. Race is always pushed to the back burner, and this election is no special case. We are repeatedly told that the policy won’t pass if you bring up race, or the issue we are working on won’t gain white sympathy if we bring up race. The stakes are high. But when you consider the racial disparities in just about any issue you can think of, be it employment, housing, health care or education, you realize that the stakes are always high for people of color. The longer we delay the real discussion around structural racism in the US, the worse off our communities are. In fact, there have been more campaigns that prove that ducking the race issue doesn’t work for us than those that prove otherwise. How many racist ballot measures have we defeated in California, Michigan and elsewhere ducking the race issue? Exactly none! Our unwillingness to deal with what’s real is dooming this country to a very bleak future, no matter who the next President is.

Having it both ways: You cannot in one breath say “This Black man is creating an historical moment around race in America!” and then in the next breathe say that it’s not about race. A Black man running for President of the United States is going to face the race issue. And that doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. This is an opportunity to finally engage everybody, not just white people, on how structural racism cripples our society as a whole. Again, I would go one step further and say that EVERY candidate should have to deal with what’s real around race. It’s placed at Obama’s feet because of who he is, just like gender is the issue that Hilary must confront. That may not be fair, but it is certainly an opportunity that is being missed. What is twisted about the public debate is the lack of engagement around race, gender, etc and the policies these people will promote as President. I personally don’t really care if Obama can out-King King with his eloquent speeches. I want to see him out-King Dr. King when it comes to promoting policies that help people of color. What will be Obama’s Civil Rights Act? What is he going to do about immigration?

I Don’t Need Another Hero: This is not the time to get caught up symbolism. We have real problems that require bold and forthright leadership. The mythical perfect moment to talk explicitly about race does not exist. The mythical savior figure who is politically safe enough and universally liked enough to talk about race without jeopardizing his standing is not coming. The work of building a nation that deals fairly and honestly with its race problem must start now. This is a place where we must make the road by walking. And I for one am not waiting any longer.

by Kai Wright

Teams Clinton and Obama agreed this week to move on from their racially loaded fight over the comparative historical import of Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson. But the dustup will hardly be the last in which the politics of personal identity hold sway in 2008.

From race and nationality to gender and sexuality, identity politics will be more overt parts of the 2008 elections than we have seen in generations.

That’s a reality the Democratic Party doesn’t likely cherish. In post-Reagan America, Democrats have proven terribly reluctant to claim their mantle as champions of American plurality. Time and again, the party has chosen to avoid rather than lead the diversity debate.

But unless the Democrats learn that, particularly on such emotional questions, America much prefers a principled stand to a weak-kneed dodge, they’ll turn one of their greatest strengths into a liability.

That’s what they did in 2004. The Democratic establishment cried foul when Republicans loaded state ballots with divisive initiatives on gay rights. Eleven states asked voters to weigh in on same-sex marriage, pumping up the conservative vote and, some argue, costing John Kerry a win—he lost nine of the states, most infamously Ohio.

The problem, however, wasn’t the existence of a debate about gay rights—that’s inevitable as long as gays refuse to cower in the closet—it was national Democrats’ refusal to participate meaningfully in it. At the state level, 94 percent of legislators who voted against the 22 proposed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage won re-election, according to the gay rights group Equality Federation.

The issue will surely return this year, regardless of who each party nominates. Indeed, both of the Democratic front-runners have identifiable records in support of gay rights, if not gay marriage. Nor is it possible to make it through this election without facing the bugaboos of race, gender and nativism, in the form of immigration.

The only question is how the Democrats will deal with these vital issues when they inevitably come up. Will the party articulate a workable vision of a united, modern America? Or, will it triangulate away its convictions?

If Democrats choose the latter strategy, they will again be hung with the bloody rope of identity politics—and we’ll all be worse off for their blunder.

This week Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now broadcast featured a discussion with Reverend Jesse Jackson that focused on race and the primary elections.

Much of the conversation centered on the Reverend’s support of Barack Obama, and the perceived split of support among Black leaders and celebrities for various candidates. But what was really intriguing was Jackson’s take on Obama’s political handling of racial issues and his relation to the civil rights legacy which paved the way for his historical bid for the Presidency.

Death to the scary Black man
Goodman kicked off the sequence with a clip of William Bennett trumpeting the rise of the new Black man via Obama’s Iowa victory.

“97% in fact, Iowa, rural white, farming state. Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, wins this for the Democrats. I have been watching him. I watched him on Meet the Press. I watched him on your show, watched him on all the CNN shows. He never brings race into it. He never plays the race card. Talk about the black community, he has taught the black community you don’t have to act like Jesse Jackson, you don’t have to act like Al Sharpton.”

If you have been around racial politics long enough, you recognize the subtext of this argument. Obama’s not a scary black man. He won’t make white people confront racial inequities, deal with issues of privilege or the structural racism that undergirds this country. You get your chocolate without the calories and perhaps, without the nutrients as well. Reverend Jackson attributes the Iowa victory to the “maturing of America.” I can buy into that thinking up to a point. After all, when white Iowans went into those voting booths they did punch the card for a brother. But was that a calculation that he was a safe bet? It takes me back to that scene in Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, where the Italian, Pino, says of Black celebrities that he really likes, “They’re not really Black.” In the minds of white voters, is Obama really Black?

The Establishment Goes Black?
Reverend Jackson puts Obama’s victory into a larger context of political and social struggle. He rightly runs down the battles that were fought in the streets, the courts, the White House, the jailhouse, the conventions and back rooms for at least four decades prior to the Obama run. What’s noteworthy is that in every battle Jackson describes the push and pull that Blacks had to engage with the establishment (read Democratic Party and it’s leadership) as opposed to the blatantly racist Jim Crow crowd; from MLK’s forcing Johnson’s hand on the Civil Rights Act, to challenging the party’s values when it refused to demand the release of Mandela in apartheid South Africa. It begs the question: Will Obama, the beneficiary of the struggle, push the party on key issues of race? Will he do what Shirley Chisholm was unable to do, and force the party’s platform to reflect the needs of all the people? Will he speak up against three-strikes laws, push for the repeal of welfare reform or stop the unfair the deportation of Haitian immigrants? Or will he play it safe and talk about racial unity with great eloquence, but very little substance? Jackson didn’t go there in his public speculation, but somebody should.

Struggle Continues
Some would say that it’s good that Obama doesn’t address race directly. Here again, Jackson diplomatically puts such thinking into the uniquely American context.

“Well, there’s a sense in which many Americans want to focus on racial reconciliation, and they ignore racial justice and racial equality. And you cannot ultimately get past those concerns…But Barack does not remind America of the unfinished business very much of racial justice, racial equality, but he need not. It’s self-evident that that needs to happen.”

If it is so self-evident, why does the good Reverend then go into detail about what he called “the state of emergency in Black America?” The list of racial wrongs was daunting: Increased incarceration rates, voting rights violations, mortgage foreclosure crisis and the general abandonment of civil rights for Blacks and Latinos. Jackson is right when he says that you can’t take a pass on people’s mental and emotional blocks on race. You have to confront it. Isn’t that exactly what he is doing with his January 22 march on HUD and the housing crisis? Isn’t that what he and countless numbers of civil rights and racial justice leaders have done for decades? Why lower the bar now? Obama may be successful in moving ahead politically by creating an image of being civil-rights-lite, but will communities of color reap the benefits as well? That’s yet to be seen. Meanwhile, I’m off to the next coalition meeting.

Are they really that important?

Like many of us, Kenyon Farrow wants to know what his vote is really worth.

So, if his election may be fraught with such tension, hope, ambivalence or disillusionment for Black people in America, why should I vote? Why should any Black person in America vote?

I don’t honestly know the answer to that question. I don’t know why I do vote most of the time. But I know that there isn’t an easy answer to how the descendants of chattel slaves should position themselves trapped as we are in this strange paradigm. But as much as I feel, in the deepest core of my being, somewhat anxious for Obama and wanting to see him do well, but I am under no delusion that his Presidency (nor Clinton nor Edwards nor any of ‘em) will save any of us.

And so I will watch the Iowa Caucus tonight, and all the other election brouhaha over this year, with a good deal of hopefulness and anxiety, highly skeptical that freedom can ever be found in a ballot box, but knowing full well that budgets, laws, and public policy can shrivel or spread misery.

What do you think about the Iowa Caucus today? Are we looking to these results as indicators for November? Or, are we too cynical to believe that votes in Iowa could be the beginning of something different?