Giving Away the Store: The Black Political Class as Bystanders and Looters

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Dr. King once expressed the belief that we might be “integrating into a burning house.” Even that might not be so bad, one supposes, if we were actually fighting the fire. But is America's black political class even committed to fighting the fire at all, to alleviating poverty, to standing up for peace and justice?  Are they only about prolonging their perks and careers? Are they firefighters? Or looters?

Giving Away the Store: The Black Political Class as Bystanders and Looters

by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon

Why does the black political class exist any more? There was once a time when many of its leading members believed, or at least pretended to believe they and their careers existed to give voice to the previously voiceless, to press for the urgent needs and demands of downtrodden masses of their people. Both Detroit and Atlanta elected their first black mayors in 1974, and both city halls have been run by African Americans ever since.

In Atlanta, where the black political class promoted their city as “Black Mecca” during the eighties and nineties, the gap between rich and poor is statistically greater than in any of the nation's twenty largest cities. For the first few years of the 21st century, Atlanta's percentage of black children in poverty was rivaled only by that of pre-Katrina New Orleans. But this is something you'd never guess from the utterances or the priorities of black Atlanta's political leaders.

The black political class that rules Atlanta are entirely focused on their own careers, and pretty much oblivious of black poverty, joblessness and disenfranchisement. Where once they might have raised their voices against the trillions spent on unjust wars abroad, wars even on the African continent itself, that consume wealth which might otherwise be spent on alleviating poverty, on creating housing, jobs and transit, black leaders have censored themselves and made the overwhelming antiwar sentiments of their constituents irrelevant.

In the face of mass black incarceration, much of Georgia's black political class are opportunistically silent. They denounce Newt Gingrich but not Republican Governor Nathan Deal, who openly declares he is implementing the proposals of Gingrich's Right On Crime organization to reduce the amount spent on prisoners, and vastly increase the numbers under various forms of community supervision. When the governor's so-called commission on criminal justice reform proposed to place under additional probationary supervision even those inmates who had completely served their time, there was not a murmur from Georgia's black leaders. Small wonder. Many are expecting patronage contracts and crumbs from expanded “re-entry” programs.

Atlanta's black political class is now poised to surrender control of MARTA, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, which operates subway trains and an extensive bus network worth more than $6 billion dollars. The mostly black taxpayers and voters of Atlanta, and Fulton and Dekalb counties levied a one cent sales tax on themselves a generation ago to pay for MARTA. Outlying counties, all with white majorities at the time, refused to join. Let the central city starve, they reasoned. They didn't want trains and buses full of black faces to enter their fair cities and towns. Suburban and rural Georgia politicians prohibited the new transit agency from receiving gas tax or other state funds, and since everybody knew black Dekalb, Fulton and Atlanta could not be trusted to manage their own funds, required them to split all revenue 50-50 between operating and capital expenses, both restrictions no other transit agency in the nation is under.

Even now, white politicians in outlying counties want transit into Atlanta, but they want it separately from MARTA, as long as Fulton, Dekalb and the city of Atlanta are calling the shots. They have already launched luxury buses under a state agency from Gwinnett and Cobb counties to downtown Atlanta, and denied funding for Clayton County, now majority black, to launch its own bus service. Light rail additions are planned for specific, gentrified parts of Atlanta, but to be paid for by the poorest Atlantans many of whom have no bus service at all.

The solution proposed by Georgia's Republican governor, and endorsed by the entire black Democratic leadership, is a ten-county board, where the Republican governor, along with the state legislature's minority and majority leaders will appoint most of the seats, with the rest going on a one-county-one-vote basis. The trouble is that several of the white outlying counties have only 100 or 200 thousand people. Any two of them can outvote majority black Fulton county's 1.1 million, Dekalb's 700,000 or Atlanta's half million. The new multi-county agency will take over MARTA's $6 billion in assets, along with its ability to receive federal transit funds in the future. Those assets will come under the control of politicians and constituencies who refused for a generation to help build them. State control of Atlanta's transit assets will be a prelude, most believe, to outright privatization, something that local Democrats have just about as bad a record on as Republicans.

It was a black mayor, Bill Campbell, who privatized Atlanta's water system a few years ago, only to have the deal unravel in spectacular fashion. With bright red mud streaming from the taps in the richest, whitest parts of town, Campbell's successor Shirley Franklin had to halt her own plans to privatize garbage collection, fleet maintenance, parks and other city functions. But former mayor Franklin now heads a firm which specializes in privatizing schools and government agencies.

Atlanta's black mayor is on board with giving up black and local control over transit, as are all the visible heads of black Atlanta's legislative delegation and the legislative black caucus. As far as they're concerned, it's a done deal, but not to be talked about much, lest their constituents become aware of the scale of this massive giveaway. So black politicians stand in front of audiences and simply don't talk about it. Corporate TV and radio stations don't mention it, except to say that when it comes on the ballot late this summer, it'll create jobs and relieve traffic congestion. That's it and that's all.

Evidently, Atlanta's black political leaders have more important things to worry about than whether their constituents can get to work or school or medical care. They've got their own careers to look after. They've got campaign funds to raise and contracts to let. And of course, they've got a president to re-elect. After all, he's black. They're black. And the guys running against him are all white racists, who'd put us clear in the back of that bus again. Can't have that. This will be their rallying cry to the black masses ---- stand by the president --- and by the way, re-elect all of us too.

Harry Belafonte often tells the story of one of his last conversations with the late Dr. Martin Luther King, in which King expressed the fear that blacks had struggled mightily only to integrate themselves into a burning house. Even that might be OK, one supposes, if the black leadership class imagined themselves as firefighters, trying to protect the lives and livelihoods of their people. But Atlanta's black political class aren't fighting the fires. They've used their privileged access as mayors, legislators and corporate officials to join the privatizers and looters.

It's time to disown them.

Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report and a member of the state committee of the Georgia Green Party. He lives in Marietta GA, and can be reached at bruce.dixon(at)


The Boule & Affirmative Action over-class?


The civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. had a major effect on American society. Millions of black workers and youth, with the support of tens of millions throughout the country, engaged in the mass struggles that shattered the Jim Crow structure in the South.

Because of the reactionary policies of the AFL-CIO and the pro-Democratic Party orientation in what passed for the American “left,” the leadership of this mass movement remained in the hands of a section of the black clergy.

Ultimately it was diverted into politically safe channels, particularly in the period after King’s assassination in 1968.

Instead of becoming the starting point for a struggle against the capitalist system as a whole, the ending of the government-sanctioned racial oppression in the South became the occasion for a sordid deal between the American ruling class and a privileged layer of the black upper middle class.

The ideological tone for this agreement was set by President Richard Nixon, the originator of affirmative action, who called for the promotion of “black capitalism,” i.e., the cultivation of a small layer in the black population who would be allowed to enter at least the outer precincts of the ruling class.

This policy resulted in black mayors taking office in city after city, in the wake of the mass rioting of the 1960s, and the gradual inclusion of token numbers of African Americans in the corporate, military and government hierarchies. These structures remained intact, with only a little more “diversity.”

Thus President George W. Bush appointed first Colin Powell, then Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

African-Americans served as the chief international representative of American imperialism for eight years, without making US wars any less bloody, or US foreign policy any less predatory and reactionary.

Meanwhile, the mass of black working people, and the working class as a whole, regardless of race, faced declining living standards and worse and worse conditions of life.

The co-opting of a section of the black middle class was itself part of a broader development in which the former middle-class anti-war protesters, academics and intellectuals were, on the basis of identity and life-style politics and various forms of anti-Marxist “left” ideologies, turned away from any even remote class orientation, ending up indifferent and ultimately hostile to the struggles and interests of the working class. The goal was to cultivate a new “left” constituency for American imperialism.

Obama is the apotheosis of this process: a right-wing, militarist, pro-Wall Street African-American president. His elevation to the presidency is not the legacy of decades of civil rights progress, but rather an effort by wealthy corporate interests within the Democratic Party to use the candidate’s skin color to disguise their reactionary policies.


Forty years after the murder of Dr. King, the limitations of his reformist outlook are obvious. Despite the abolition of official segregation in the South, the social conditions of the majority of black working people have not fundamentally altered. Hunger, homelessness, poverty and unemployment are all worse among blacks than among the population as a whole, and worse today than at any time since King’s death. The number of African Americans in US prisons, more than 900,000, is nearly six times the number in jail in 1970.

For the most privileged layer of blacks, the past four decades have brought significant gains. Some 10 percent of black households have incomes over $100,000 a year, a fivefold increase, although that figure hardly represents living in luxury. The number of black millionaires and multimillionaires, while small, has skyrocketed. There are 10,000 black elected officials, an eightfold increase, and Obama—one of the newly minted black millionaires—could well be elected the first African-American president.

This is not the outcome that King would have desired, nor does it represent the strivings of the millions of working people and youth—white as well as black—who joined in or were inspired by the civil rights struggles of the 1960s.

Any of you guys heard of steve cokely


Part 2:

Part 3:

Old CNN Clip:

WOW! A Bilderberg/Trilateral Commission mention from 1988!!

Cokely breaking down a little bit of the illuminati's history

for documentation purposes

As i was posting comments here I received an elert from the NYT which is the mouthpiece for the white house.

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Tuesday, February 21, 2012 -- 10:46 AM EST

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Affirmative Action Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a major case on affirmative action in higher education, adding another potential blockbuster to a docket already studded with them.

The court’s decision in the new case holds the potential to undo an accommodation reached in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger: that public colleges and universities could not use a point system to boost minority enrollment but could take race into account in vaguer way to ensure academic diversity.