The Letters Column
by BAR Executive Editor Glen
Ford
Obama-Mania vs. The Issues
The Russell and Andy Show
Are Anti-War Democrats Serious?
BAR Editor Margaret Kimberley's column, Freedom
Rider, will return next week.
Obama-mania, a
corporate media-stoked frenzy that has next to nothing to do with Black
politics, has nevertheless provided BAR with a wealth of opportunities to
explore issues previously ignored, fudged or mangled by both the Illinois
Senator and his media cheerleaders. Our answer to an Obama-mania bereft of
issues, was to provoke an Issues-mania featuring Obama as a Black non-leader
and phony progressive.
"If Obama
is not a creature of Black politics, then whose creature is he?"
For nearly two
years, Barack Obama's handlers attempted to present him as a kind of walking,
glad-handing, smiling Rorschach Test - an irresistible invitation for various
audiences to conduct their own, entirely subjective, wishful evaluations of the
man. It was an easy game to play: make up your own Obama. However, the farce
wore thin as the time neared for the senator to offer himself as a serious
presidential candidate. Speak, Obama, speak, roared the crowds! Tell us your
plans!
Having no choice
at this stage of the game, Obama proceeded to deliver mush, pablum, and worse.
Granted, this was nothing unusual in a Democratic presidential field dominated
by members of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the party's corporate
bagmen and bagwomen. But the media had already made Obama's name a household
word, and his two years as an intriguing enigma had whetted the public's
appetite for his utterances on the issues. What say you on the war, Obama? On
health care? After all, the people had been led to believe this was a "new"
type of politician - and a unique brand of Black man, one that masses of white
people could accept. Hallelujah!
The unintended
result was that when Obama-the-candidate finally came forward with "policy"
statements - albeit nonsense scripted in the bowels of the corporate DLC - the issues
of the Iraq war and national health care shared the media spotlight formerly
reserved for Obama's "appeal" and persona. When an enigma reveals himself,
well, that's news. When a Black political chameleon is compelled by the
campaign process to show his true, corporate colors, it unleashes a wide range
of discussion: Just what is a "progressive," these days? Certainly, not Barack
Obama, an imperialist at heart who offers George Bush at least another year or
two to wage war in Iraq, while warning Iraqis that they can expect no more
American "coddling" (see BAR, "Barack Obama and the Winds of War:
Turning Right," November
28, 2006).
"Just what
is a ‘progressive,' these days? Certainly, not Barack Obama."
Obama eagerly joined the corporate assault on language,
itself, claiming his DLC-inspired, incredibly vague health care plan is
"universal" when, in reality, the only thing universal about it is that
everyone will have to dig in their pockets to pay money they don't have, as
with state mandated car insurance. Everyone - that is, except pharmaceutical
and insurance companies. On this litmus test of progressiveness, Obama fails
miserably. (See BAR, "Barack Obama: Hypocrisy on Health Care," January
31, 2007.)
Most urgently,
Obama's corporate media anointment has brought to the forefront the question:
Who and What is a "Black leader"? Certainly, Black people did not - could not -
elevate an obscure Illinois state senator to national prominence in the space
of two years. If he is not a creature of Black politics, then whose creature is
he? And if he rejects race-conscious solutions to race-based problems,
where does he fit among the historical pantheon of genuine, politically
indigenous Black leadership whose mission has been to address the woefully
unfinished business of race in America? Or is his candidacy "a palliative - a soothing potion that...serves
as an historical benchmark showing how far ‘America' - meaning white America -
has come?" (See BAR, "Barack Obama: The Mania and the Mirage," January
24, 2007.) If so, then one must conclude that Obama is The Great Diversion,
whose ascent to prominence as a Black individual is meant to signal the
end of the national debate on race - an end to Black struggle in the United
States.
Black leadership,
with all its collective failings, must come to grips with the Obama phenomenon
- the most dramatic and threatening (white) corporate intervention to date in
African American politics. Indeed, Obama-mania (the phenomenon, not the man) is
designed to call into question the very existence of a Black polity; to deny
the validity of a unique African American world view rooted in historical and
current conditions; to negate a Black Political Consensus on social and
economic justice, peace, and people's right to self-determination. If this
fundamentally racist project - one that predates, but is now centered on Barack
Obama - succeeds, then there is no rationale for "Black leadership" in any of
its manifestations. (See"Does the Congressional Black Caucus Really Represent Black America?" in this issue of BAR.) And, if Black
political coherence is shattered, progressivism has no center, and no future,
in the United States.
"Obama-mania calls into question the very existence of a Black
polity."
There is cause for
hope - but not the empty, consultant-crafted, good-feeling-for-no-damn-reason
sloganizing of Obama's campaign book, The Audacity of Hope. (See Paul
Street, "Obama's Audacious Deference to Power," BAR, January
31, 2007, and Kevin Alexander Gray, "A Valley of Buzzwords: Obama's
Soulless Book," BAR, in this issue.)
Hope is justified by the fact that two-thirds of the
Congressional Black Caucus are also members of the Out of Iraq
Congressional Caucus (see BAR, "Rep. Maxine Waters: Clinton and Obama Will
Have to 'Prove Themselves' on Iraq," January
24, 2007) - a reflection, albeit inadequate, of the peace imperative at the
heart of the Black Political Consensus.
There is some hope in the unwillingness, to date, of much
of recognized Black leadership to join an Obama parade filled with floats that
are advertisements for corporate public policies inimical to Black interests.
(Of course, some of these African American notables' reticence is rooted in
allegiance to another corporate candidate, nearly identical to Obama in all but
color and gender: Hillary Clinton.)
However, the greatest danger to the coherence of the Black
polity and, therefore, to American progressivism in general, resides in the
atavistic, reflexive response among substantial sections of the African American
public to the prospect of Black faces in high places - any Black face.
Which brings us to the first letter of this column:
Crabs in a Barrel
"Am I missing something or do I detect a bit of
anger/hate of Sen. Obama by you? Do you think you can do a better job? Have you
ever tried? Are we supposed to be a bunch of crabs in a bucket toward Sen.
Obama? I will keep your article and refer to it often."
The letter was unsigned, but was likely sent by a person too
young to remember that the correct phrasing of the age-old admonition against
Blacks thwarting the upward mobility of other Blacks is, "like crabs in a
barrel" - not a bucket. No matter.
We expect to hear such sentiments following every BAR rebuke
of a Black public personality. Typically, the writer doesn't bother to counter
the facts on which the rebuke is based, as if crab metaphors and laments about
some fabled lack of Black "unity" are enough. The truth is, African Americans
have long exhibited a remarkable degree of unity - a political behavioral
characteristic that is the envy of much of the African Diaspora. So strong is
the African American desire for unified action, each apparent breach of group
solidarity is felt as a collective pain.
The imperative to unity is the product of the same conditions
that forged the historical Black Political Consensus: a racist government and
society that claimed the whole country as a white man's domain. African
Americans were to be rendered immobile and nearly invisible - except for
purposes of entertainment or ritual violence, such as massed lynchings. The
logical Black response to institutional racist oppression, was (and remains) to
internalize and champion progressive values. Confronted by a white society that
labored mightily to suppress every manifestation of Black personhood, it was
equally logical that African Americans would celebrate each Black success
story, as a collective victory. We even celebrated Black gangsters, as evidence
that the descendants of slaves could be as wicked and dangerous as their white
counterparts - and some of us still do.
"It was logical that African Americans would celebrate
each Black success story, as a collective victory."
As a matter of course, Blacks applauded every electoral
victory or political appointment of fellow African Americans, understanding
that such individual advances represented cracks in the wall of American
apartheid.
Then came the Black Freedom Movement, the death of Jim Crow,
and the concentration of Black numbers in the cities. African Americans could
elect mayors and congresspersons beholden to their interests. In this
new world of emancipated Black pluralities and majorities, it was now necessary
to wage public, intra-Black struggle over how best to advance the
people's welfare. Having achieved legal citizenship rights and a critical mass
in urban centers, the challenge became one of self-determination: How should
African Americans consolidate their political power to effectuate their
collective will, nationally, regionally and locally - presumably, based on the
principles embodied in the historically progressive Black Political Consensus?
However, it would take a political-cultural sea change for
Blacks to make the leap from the Jim Crow era, with its reflexive support for any
Black face aspiring to high office, to a new stage in which the debate centers
on issues and strategies relevant to the needs of the Black community as a
whole.
Many did not make that leap, and remain mired in an
uncritical Jim Crow mentality. Our "crabs in a bucket/barrel" letter writer is
one among millions who continue to equate Black progress with individual
mobility. They ask nothing of Barack Obama, and he, in turn, intends to give
them nothing.
Michael Hureaux, a former New Yorker who currently teaches
high school in an alternative inner city program in Seattle, has wrestled with
this core Black dilemma for decades:
"Dug your column on Obama, there's
much mysticism and emotional dreck to work through on this one. One of my
colleagues insists he'll be murdered if he takes office, I maintain that it's
in the interest of the hup ho to keep him alive, as there's nothing the empire
loves more than having Black people front for their mayhem. They've
managed to keep Powell and Rice alive, so they'll keep Obama alive. There
are suckers born every minute, and Obama's good for reeling in a ton of them,
for all the reasons you allude to.
"Everybody knows he's their boy."
"Compare and contrast also the
media response to him. When I was a small boy, the news stories at
Newsweek read "What does the Negro want?" during the days of
the Civl Rights Insurgency, which in time shifted over to "What
does Jesse want?" back when the so-called Rainbow Coalition still had some
grassroots momentum in the early eighties. Now it's Obama and "Could
he be our next president?" Nobody's asking what he wants, are they?
Because they know he wants to get along with the bastards that run this
country, that he doesn't represent a groundswell of any enduring political
importance, and that he's their boy.
"So, man, do we have our work cut
out for us or what? In any event, it will be somewhat easier having
analysis of your sort of strengths to fall back on. It's all
uphill from here."
From Mexico City, an African American exp-patriot named
Wallace writes:
"Once again the writers at BAR have
exposed a phony. Obama is to the Democrats what Colin Powell was for the
Republicans. A safe negro who will serve white America materially and will
allow Blacks to think that they too really have a chance at enjoying full
citizenship. Of course this is nothing but a sham. Besides, our people did not
put him in a position to become senator; he was hand picked! Unfortunately we
are so hungry for acceptance that any high positon attained by one of us
is considered an accomplishment. Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza
collard greens are nothing to be proud about. They all knowingly serve
international white corporate and police power."
Dimitri Krallis, a professor of history at Vancouver,
Canada's Simon Fraser University, thought there was still hope for Obama.
"While I agree with most of your
assessments on Obama, I would not be surprised if on the Universal healthcare
issue he comes out on the side of reason.... It seems that even in some parts of
the corporate world there is support building on this so it may be that the
fashionable thing to do would be for him to talk about it. Would it be honest,
probably no, but would it serve our interests (I should not use the our term as
I only passed through the US for 6 years and now live in Canada)? Probably.
"On militarism and American jingoism, I am afraid you are so right."
Prof. Krallis' letter arrived before Obama had made public
his views on health care - a sham plan that bears no resemblance to
universality, affordability, or equity. It will also not stand up to
progressive scrutiny in the Democratic primaries - that is, if Obama really
intends to go the distance.
A Kenyan Ashamed of Obama
Much has been read into Obama's paternal Kenyan lineage. Dr. Kweli Nzito, a
Florida-based educator who hails from Kenya, has read it all, and is not
impressed.
"A very incisive analysis of Obama,
reflecting the power of the White establishment to add plenty of color
(literally) and hype on nothing. As part Kenyan, he shames me.
History has never run short of the likes of him. In my own country
Kenya, during the struggle against British colonialism the so-called "Home
Guards" were Kenyans who blew the whistle on underground freedom fighters.
They were, so to speak, home made traitors just like Condi Rice and Obama."
Conversely, Lulu, another writer from Africa, is proud of
the Illinois senator.
"Your article bothered me because here is a young, extremely intelligent,
African American man who has a real shot in the white house and I don't want to
see people pre-judging him. Let him have his chance and I have a strong faith
that he'll lead America to a new (more positive) direction.
"If Barack Obama runs for president and wins, maybe people like me will start to
believe that there is justice and equality in America. I am pretty sure it'll
even influence the young black kids in some inner city streets when they
see black man raised by a single mom sitting in the Oval office.
"I am an African immigrant by the way, and I am grateful to my fellow African
Americans because if it wasn't for what they and their older generations went
through, I wouldn't enjoy the rights and freedoms I have today. So, I guess I
am just being supportive.
"Bottom line is, I am 29 years old, and I want to see (in my lifetime) a US
government run by a black man and Barack Obama is a perfect choice and I know
he'll be a great president. You are accusing him of shifting to the Right, may
there shouldn't be a Left. America needs to be united and become one."
Sounds like the young man buys into the whole corporate
media package.
Jason Smith is also on the young side of the spectrum, but
he sees straight through Obama.
"I greatly appreciate your article
on Mr. Obama. You cover every aspect of his personality, campaign and character
that irks me about him. Instead of effecting things with bold policy
initiatives, he sloganeers his way to the next issue. Audacity of Hope
could have been market tested by Nike in a mall and rejected, but it works fine
for him.
"I hope that we have a Democratic
candidate with a willingness to speak out on issues. Obama isn't that
candidate.
"The stakes are much too high."
Another thumbs down on Obama, from Gerard Johnson:
"I certainly agree with the
substance of your piece on Mr. Obama. We must be careful not to be caught up in
the image of the man or woman who seeks to represent our interests; we must
know where they stand on the critical issues facing the national Black
community and all peace loving and progressive peoples. The stakes are much too
high for anything less."
In our January
24 article, "Barack Obama: The Mania and the Mirage," we wrote that the
senator "could easily have made a career on Madison Avenue, where
‘impressions' are the holy grail." BAR reader Timothy Dyer has some experience
in the corporate world.
"Funny thing is that I perfectly
understand his strategy. I spent 15 years as a corporate consultant building
systems of information and records management. I knew my work and I built
excellent systems. I was also dealing with highly neurotic human beings, so I
had a strategy, "A sword cannot cut fog." I became the fog. It worked. The
difference is, I just wanted to build good systems and make a living in a
corrupt and ugly world run and managed by irrational crazy people, without
getting eaten or run over. Mr. Obama wants the Brass Ring (however he defines
it). That makes him dangerous. There is no ‘there' there. That means, like
Billy Clinton, he'll sell anybody out, with a ‘happy face'."
Age of Obama
On January
10, BAR published political scientist Francis A. Kornegay's exploration of
the Obama phenomenon's potential impact on the future of Black politics: "Black
Movement Resurrection in the ‘Age of Obama.'" Dr. Kornegay, a Detroiter and
former aide to Congressman Charles Diggs who is now based at a think tank in
South Africa, believes Obama may have a role to play "within a broader progressive American
pro-democracy movement of renewal, inclusive of a new foreign policy and
national security direction for the country."
Ultimately,
however, "Only an independent black political party movement
operating as a progressive power balancing agent of change at local, state and
national/federal levels can effect such a dual strategy of promoting a black
agenda interactively with a broader progressive program aimed at shifting the
Democratic party's center of gravity more towards the left and away from being,
in essence, simply a ‘Property Party' alternative right-wing faction."
New Yorker Elinor Bowles congratulated Dr. Kornegay:
"Thank you so much for your
wonderful analysis of the complicated and complex situation in which black
Americans (of native descent as well as from other countries) find themselves
today. I haven't read anything so well thought out and so well written in
years. It should be used as a basis for discussion in all types of groups
in the black community as some of us struggle to find a sense of purpose
and direction in these very tortuous times. I found it extremely useful
in my attempts to bring some order to my thinking.
"Your article should be used as a basis for discussion in
all types of groups in the black community."
"The world, and particularly people
of color throughout the world, is in such a dangerous place that it is
important for all of us to try to use all of our thinking capacity to
understand who we are, where we are, where we want to go, and how we might get
there. There are so many divisions among blacks at a time when it is
particularly important for us to have a unity of purpose and perception.
Your article, which touched on so many important issues and ideas, was an
enormous help. It brought some order and also confirmed my anxiety
about the loss of connection among black people and our lack of understanding
of the world that confronts us."
The Russell Simmons and Andy Young Show
A funny thing
happened on the way to a satire. Lots of readers took it seriously.
Our January
17 piece, "Andy Young, Obasanjo Kin, and Russell Simmons to Market
‘Motherland Grillz' in Africa," caused considerable alarm among the readership.
Under the byline of a gentleman named W.E.B. Blingen, the article praised Hip
Hop marketer Simmons and former congressman Andy Young for launching a new line
of clothing and jewelry to Africans. "When the mad backroom skillz of Andy
Young meet Nigerian oil money and the hip-hop marketing savvy of Russell
Simmons, the only question is whether the Motherland is ready," wrote Mr.
Blingen.
A reader whose email moniker is Suga Bee, was upset:
"What the hell is wrong here...?
With all of the money and so-called intelligence that Simmons and the other
people involved in this tragedy and farce possess, are grillz the only thing
that the youth in Africa want or need? How about books and education.
What about peace and freedom from their own self-destruction? Is every
black youth an aspiring rap artist? I am ashamed and appalled that our
people in the MotherLand are once again being shamelessly exploited. Simmons,
Young and whoever else is responsible, God is watching and so are those of us
who are horrified by your actions. Diamonds and platinum...partner that
with guns, bullets, death by their own people, ignorance and starvation. Just
what they need...Grillz!"
"Are grillz the only thing that the youth in Africa want or
need?"
BAR Managing Editor Bruce Dixon had to come clean: HE is W.E.B.
Blingen.
"The article in question was a
satire. Although Simmons made a good deal of his millions promoting
scummy rappers and peddling their gear, so far as I know, there is no Afro Phat
or Mutha Phat line of goods, although Simmons DID take a trip to Africa on the
tab of diamond mining interests and does own several jewelry lines, and Andy
Young and his firm ARE involved in all manner of money laundering, influence
peddling, resource snatching schemes, which they often attempt to justify with
words very much like those I put in his mouth in the article. Andy
Young's firm is intimately connected (by marriage and business ties) to the
Obasanjo family of Nigeria, with whom they are as thick as - well - thieves.
That is actually what makes the satire more potent.
"The fact is that it could almost be
true, and as you say, the truth is appalling.
"If I had to write it over again, I would tell the author (W.E.B. Blingen) to
come up with a picture of Andy Young wearing a grill too."
Suga Bee was relieved.
"Thank you for your reply. I was truly upset about
the article. My sister as well as all four of my daughters discussed the
article in depth. Thank you setting the story straight. I have not
been one to step up to the plate but in this instance I definitely would have
joined a rally somewhere. Regards. Live
well and prosper!"
To which Mr. Dixon replied:
"You probably still ought to join a
rally somewhere. The point of it all was not just to have a good laugh,
but that it was and still is entirely plausible, only a baby step away from
being ridiculous but true! There is really plenty to be outraged about.
"Russell Simmons actually HAS made half a billion dollars on this side of the
ocean promoting conspicuous consumption and peddling gear displayed on the
backs and in the mouths of rap 'artists.' He really does have
several jewelry lines and has toured Africa shilling for DeBeers and the
diamond mining interests, coming back to tell black Americans to never mind all
this "blood diamonds" stuff, just keep on buying the bling.
"Andy Young really IS a backroom
dealmaker all over the African continent who claims he is contributing to 'economic development' and is actually facilitating corporate
extraction of resources and money laundering for kleptocratic generals and
heads of state all over Africa.
"Andy Young's business partner at Good Works International really IS related by
marriage to the president of Nigeria, and they are involved in all kinds of
skullduggery. One of their known scams was the creation of the first
Nigerian 'presidential library,' an excuse for the president to
attract $50 million naira in corporate 'donations' the very first
day.
"So you see, all the themes of the story were actually true, with the characters
acting true to form. After you finish laughing, it's also meant to provoke
justified outrage. "
"Andy Young is facilitating corporate extraction of
resources and money laundering for kleptocratic generals and heads of state."
Mistrust of Anti-War Dems' Resolve
Finally, Thomas Muhammad is skeptical about the resolve of
the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to force an end to George Bush's war. Mr.
Thomas was responding to our January 24 article, "Rep. Maxine Waters: Clinton and
Obama Will Have to 'Prove Themselves' on Iraq." He wrote:
"I love both Maxine Waters and
Barbara Lee personally, however, don't you think this position they are now
taking as anti-war folk would have been more powerful had they done so in 2005
when Cindy Sheehan and others organized the largest Anti-War March since the
illegal invasion of Iraq before they took back the congress?
"If memory serves me correctly, they and other congress people were told not to
take part in that march and they obeyed. The only US Congress person to show up
was Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. And for that and other reasons of not bowing
to the powerful in DC, McKinney paid with her seat.
"Frankly, I don't trust Maxine and Barbara on this issue, because as soon as
[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi gives them a call, these two and the rest of that
Democrat gang will do whatever they can to pour water on the anti-war movement.
I'm sorry to say that, but these days it's what I believe.
"I don't think they can help themselves because unfortunately they are a part of
that group who want to be re-elected by any means necessary. It's all about
them and nothing else."
We value our reader's opinions, and apologize for the many
letters that could not be accommodated, for lack of space. Keep writing.
Send comments on this column to Publisher (at)
BlackAgendaReport.com.