Can the Reverend Rock a Party?

Continued from page 1

While the means Clinton used was a Black woman, his end was to send a message to White America about a Black Man; a President Bill Clinton would not be pandering to Rev. Jesse Jackson. Clinton’s involvement in and the emergence of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) sent another message; the Democratic Party would dramatically weaken the influence that Rev. Jackson and other traditional liberals were having over the party. The DLC embraced and masterfully propagated a centrist agenda that sought to appeal to Reagan Democrats and distance itself from the Teddy Kennedy/Jesse Jackson liberals that had held sway in the party in recent years. The result of Clinton and the DLC’s maneuverings, among other things, was the marginalization of Rev. Jackson within the Democratic Party and the beginning of the end of the covenant. With Clinton at the helm, the Democratic Party seemed to change over night and to most appearances, Rev. Jackson lost his political balance. New York Times Magazine writer George Parker described the process of transition in a recent article when he wrote, " The country seemed to leave Jackson behind: with the Dow Jones soaring, the poor disappearing from view along with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. When welfare reform, the most drastic revision of social policy in decades, was being debated in 1996, Jackson’s voice was strikingly muted."

Indeed, by the end of 1992 Jackson had endured a drop in his popularity and a loss of the most precious of commodities in Black politics: street credibility. Then came President Clinton’s drop in popularity and his less than sterling performance as President from 1992-1994. The floundering first two years of the Clinton presidency found the president in need of traditional Democrats like Rev. Jackson that he had previously discarded. Next came Newt Gingrich whose dramatic arrival on the national political scene as Speaker of the House of Representatives provided an irresistible and vulnerable target for Rev. Jackson’s brilliant philosophical and oratorical barrage. Lastly came the Wall St. Project.

On Jan. 15, 1997 Rev. Jackson established the Wall St. Project as " a wake-up call to the corporate world for inclusion, expansion and opportunity". Building upon a younger Jesse Jackson’s Operation Breadbasket, the Wall St. Project promises to lobby companies to 1) hire and promote minorities 2) name more minorities to corporate boards and 3) award more business to minority companies. Jackson has done all three and in the most high-profile manner imaginable. Attendees at last year’s Wall St. Project read like a who’s who of the upper echelon of America’s power pyramid. Everyone from Donald Trump to Pres. Clinton attended the event as well as the CEOs of AT&T, Goldman Sachs and numerous Fortune 500 companies. New commitments to do business with minority firms were announced and Pres. Clinton unveiled his New Markets Initiatives, which seeks to bring capital into America’s distressed urban and rural areas in a manner akin to the way America has aided developing nations. At the event, President Clinton gave two addresses, the first of which many in attendance believed Jackson, himself, had ghostwritten.

Jackson’s Wall St. Project is an end-run around the dead-end he was provided compliments of the Democratic Party. It is also the beginning of his most recent and maybe most critical transformation. Jackson is no longer simply the "vote- getter" of the Democratic party but has now effectively positioned himself as the unofficial glue binding the public sector, private sector, and the professional class of Black America. And in the most recent phase of his evolution, Jackson is now advocating the development, maintenance and growth of a Black investor class. And he readily admits that his work is in an arena outside of the box of Democratic Party politics and the American political establishment all together. In his new book It's All About The Money co-written by his son Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr, the Reverend depicts his latest work in historical context. He writes, " If I were to compose a four-movement Freedom Symphony, the first movement would be the emancipation of the slaves: a two-hundred year battle, rooted deeply in our Constitution – a season of the walls that limited movement and roofs and artificial ceilings that limited growth. The second movement would be another one-hundred-year struggle to end legal segregation -- more walls and roofs. The third movement would be the enfranchisement of all Americans, eighteen and older, through passage of the Voting Rights Act. The fourth movement –the final stage of the struggle—would be access to capital, to resources to financial leverage—the democratization of capital…You could succeed at all the previous three movements, but if you didn’t succeed at the fourth, you might starve. That’s how crucial; economic emancipation is. People of color and the working poor have won everything they’ve fought for: the right to organize, the right to form unions, and the end of racial and gender barriers as a matter of law. But we’ve not fought the battle for access to and democratization of capital. It’s the ultimate battle. It’s the unfinished business of our struggle to make this a more perfect union for all Americans, in which no one will be left behind."

While many may argue with the historical picture painted by the Reverend, few can argue with the deep truth related to his characterization of the "fourth phase’. Rev. Jackson has clearly tapped into one of the deepest truths of the legacy of slavery: Blacks simply do not have a history of accumulated, invested, compounded and inherited wealth. It is a truth that Democrats and Republicans alike ignore and a truth that Black leaders have wrestled with for generations. By seeking to integrate Blacks into the equity markets and broaden Black financial options beyond debt, Jackson’s strategy could result in an economic growth agenda that accomplishes much of what he promises. But it also puts Jackson at odds with the political party that he has helped to shape. By moving beyond Democratic Party politics and into the private sector, Rev. Jackson’s interest in a Black investor class could cause a major shift in the political terrain of Black America. If the increasing Black investor class were to vote in terms of its own perceived economic interests, it may find little to choose from in the agenda of the Democratic Party. For all of the credit that Democrats take for the booming economy, one hardly ever hears Democrats articulate specific policies that have caused the "boom". Other than President Clinton’s reappointment of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (who was first appointed by Ronald Reagan) Democrats are at a loss to offer anything tangible that the Clinton administration has done to foster economic growth. It is a vulnerability that may be exposed as more and more Blacks seek to accumulate wealth through the financial markets –markets that traditionally move up and down on the rumors and news of pending and real fiscal and monetary policies emanating from the White House, Congress, and the Federal Reserve. As Blacks pay more attention to Wall Street, they may find the Democratic party wanting. None know this better than Jesse Jackson- And he could easily play upon the possible contradictions inherent in an emerging Black investor class that overwhelmingly pledges loyalty to the Democratic Party.

Jackson’s new focus on the Roth IRA and the benefits of capital gains moves him closer toward issues that traditionally have been Republican Party strongholds. It even has brought him closer to supply-sider and 1996 GOP vice-president nominee Jack Kemp who attended last year’s Wall St. Project and whom Jackson warmly refers to as "the ultimate Republican". Even more importantly, as a result of the Wall St. Project, Jackson increasingly finds himself, not only in the company of Black Democrats, but also Black businessmen and women who are Republicans, voting and non-voting Independents, and grassroots community groups; people that Jackson seemed out of touch with the further he became integrated into the Democratic Party power structure. In a paradoxical manner, Jackson’s Wall St. Project, which gives him unparalleled access to men like President Clinton, Alan Greenspan, bankers and Fortune 500 CEOs, has also given him deeper and broader access to the Black electorate.

The challenge now for Rev. Jackson is whether he is willing to leverage his new power base in the best interests of the masses of Black America. The 2000 elections could very well reveal whether Rev. Jackson is up to the challenge. Will he advocate policies that are in the economic best interests of Black America and the Black investor class that are often ignored by the Democratic Party? Will he advocate issues which neither Al Gore or Bill Bradley have spoken to. Or will it be politics as usual for Jackson and the Democratic Party where Jackson delivers votes for the Democratic Presidential nominee and gets little more in return than personal access to the White House? Furthermore, how will Rev. Jackson reconcile his new investor-focused approach with the glaring reality that the Republican Party traditionally has supported fiscal and monetary policies that are in the interests of the investor class while the Democratic Party traditionally has ignored said policies?

The true test of Rev. Jackson’s commitment to the "fourth phase of the Freedom Symphony", could be when the Democratic Presidential nominee selects his running mate. On a Sunday morning television appearance on Meet The Press in October of 1998, Rev. Jackson told the show’s host, Tim Russert, that a Black should be on the presidential ticket of the Democratic Party in the year 2000. No doubt Jackson had Jackson in mind when he spoke -- which for many people would be fine. But what if Jackson is overlooked for the VP slot and no other Black is selected? Will Jackson confront what many would consider to be the latest shrugging off of Blacks perpetrated by the Democratic Party? The issue remains what would Jackson do in such a scenario? Would he be willing to leave the Democratic Party or would he be willing to stay in the party and endorse a candidate from another party as it was rumored he was considering doing in 1992 with Ross Perot? Many do not have faith in Rev. Jackson’s ability to stand-up to the Democratic Party as evidenced by the humiliating experience he suffered from Bill Clinton in 1992. Some have spoken privately of the possibility that in the event he is not placed on the Democratic Party ticket as Vice-President he will accept a cabinet position in return for supporting the Democratic Party nominee. Rumors have circulated of a potential deal between Rev. Jackson and Al Gore whereby Jackson would be nominated for the cabinet position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, with current HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo becoming the Chief of Staff in a Gore administration. But in any event, it is funny how things have changed; the very same Democrats whom ran away from Rev. Jackson in 1992 may now be forced to run toward the new and improved version. If they don’t and Jackson puts his money where his mouth is, he could return the insult he received in 1992 and in the process move Black voters further away from "home". The saga continues…

 For comments Guest contributor Cedric Welch-Muhammad can be reached at Black_Electorate_Communications@compuserve.com

Back to page 1

A NEW MANDATE FOR BLACK LEADERSHIP

Continued from page 1

The appeal of rap music and hip-hop culture can be linked, in part to young Blacks wanting to start their own legitimate businesses and reap the monetary rewards of their talents, as dictated by the marketplace.  For better or worse seeing multimillionaires Master P and Sean "Puffy" Combs listed in Fortune magazine has showed our youth that people like them can succeed financially in this country.  Instead of lamenting the baseness of rap music, progressive Black leadership should be attempting to mentor entrepreneurs like these so that they can grow as responsible citizens and business professionals.

Perhaps the materialistic, bottom line approach of the post- civil rights generation is limited in scope, but "freedom" to a large extent flows from the acquisition and investment of real economic resources.   Case in point is the NAACP's recent campaign to force the major television networks to hire more Blacks.  For all the time and effort expended on this goal, at best the networks will hire a few hundred people, primarily in New York and California.  I argue that Kweisi Mfume's considerable influence and media savvy would have been better served trying to affect the conditions of millions of Black Americans, rather than a visible few.  In this light, I honestly believe that the NAACP should have worked on issues like organizing a national boycott to demand more equitable funding to schools in Black communities, convening a symposium to address the best ways to provide Black communities with computer technology (e.g. stores, internet access, training and actual computers) in order to close the existing "digital divide" or setting up regional workshops to teach community activists and organizers how to raise funds and run for political office.  Moreover, if the NAACP felt so strongly about Black representation in the entertainment industry, rather than again asking the white man to open the door and let a few of us in, Mfume and his people should have met with investors to either help Bob Johnson improve and expand Black Entertainment Television (BET) or finance a new competing Black-owned cable network.

Unfortunately, anytime that the Black leadership is criticized for its oversights, miscalculations or blatant failures, there is an attempt to silence the commentator by calling him or her a conservative, i.e. Uncle Tom.  The conservative label is a smokescreen that marginalizes the dissenter by questioning his/her loyalty to the "race" and in most cases obscures the merits of the criticisms thus discouraging thoughtful public debate of the focal issue.  The Black community is not a monolith and as such Blacks truly interested in change should welcome various viewpoints and opinions in order to find solutions to the complex social and economic predicaments affecting Black America.  To the already cynical, it seems logical to assume that Black leaders who attempt to suppress opposing positions do so because they are more interested in retaining control, than helping Black folks.  Blacks should be wary of Black leaders who endorse a lock-step mentality that does not allow for different ideas or opinions.

Although the mission of the NAACP may be out-dated, it is not malevolent. However, Black people would be better served if they got beyond "race" rhetoric and political labels and started analyzing leaders (Black and white) and policy on a case-by-case basis.   The best advice my father ever gave me was, " Listen to everyone, take what you can from each and discard the rest." Independent political thought by our Black leadership may have been useful several years ago when Republican Newt Gingrich and his marauders introduced the Contract with America, with a key tenet being the "Personal Responsibility Act."   While the legislation may have had racist undertones, Black leaders automatically damned it in its entirety without first scrutinizing it for any points that could have been modified and used by the Black community.  For all practical purposes, Black leaders and politicians should be encouraging Blacks to adopt behavior and practices that would make us more independent of the white power structure.  Malcolm X said, " The logic of the oppressed cannot be the logic of the oppressor, if they are searching for liberation."  Therefore for Black leaders to justify high rates of illegitimate births, drug use, high school drop-outs and imprisonment within the Black community by saying that whites in this country have the same problems is idiotic since the two groups are not now nor have they ever been similarly situated.

Upon closer examination, the spirit of personal responsibility is not new to the Black community.   Without romanticizing the harmful social and economic effects of segregation, at least in the days of Jim Crow, Blacks knew that they could not expect anything from whites and therefore relied on their own efforts.  Within Black communities businesses, schools and other neighborhood organizations were established to provide essential services. Moreover fraternal organizations and churches were there to help people in need.  Maybe most important, families (in the literal and communal sense) took care of their children.  However with the advent of "integration," Blacks abandoned their own entrepreneurial endeavors and institutions for a chance to be included in the white "mainstream."  Rather than improve the circumstances of Blacks, it can be strongly argued that today, post-integration Blacks are in a worse position than their segregated forefathers were.  The failed dreams of integration have left most Blacks unable to enter the "mainstream" and relegated to desolate communities, with no notion of self-reliance, having become wholly dependent on outside support.  Furthermore, Black citizens by and large remain supplicants who must still rely on whites for their financial sustenance.  In hindsight, a better and more prudent course would have been for Civil Rights leaders to have pushed for greater mainstream access while also advocating the retention and expansion of Black-owned entities.

Ultimately personally responsibility as a social precept means that adults are deemed capable of making decisions for themselves and living with the consequences of those decisions.   Similar to the aphorism  "You've got to sleep in the bed that you've made," it is unreasonable to act irresponsibly and then expect the Black community, white liberals or society in general to bail you out.  Personal responsibility does not negate giving help or assistance to needy people, but it does negate enabling adults to abdicate their obligations and behave like guileless children. The present " I am not responsible" philosophy advocated by many so-called Black leaders acknowledges that whites are adamant to maintain the status quo, yet in the next breath suggests that Blacks implore these same whites to better our condition.  The statistics do not substantiate the efficiency of this long-standing, nonsensical mind-set.   At this point in time Blacks comprise of approximately 12% of the population yet they are the majority of those imprisoned in this country; approximately 60% of Black children are now born to unwed mothers (births to Black teenage mothers are still almost twice that of white teenage mothers) ; college enrollment for Black men is significantly lower than for Black women and whites in general; and in many Black communities the life expectancy for young Black men is less than 25 years old. It would seem logical that once we turned inward and got our collective house in order we would be in a better position to know what we as citizens, families, laborers and taxpayers really want and need from the government. Now we seem to require that the government furnish us with everything and have no ready alternative when we are denied.

Contrary to popular belief, the poor are not content being poor, however the answer to eradicating poverty is not the continuance of piecemeal programs.  Throughout the country, there are Black politicians who have been in power from decades, recycling the same old "poverty programs" yet the circumstances of their constituents never radically improves.  Furthermore the true beneficiaries of poverty initiatives overwhelmingly seem to be middle class, Black officials and administrators.   There is no single job-training program, workfare initiative or food handout that will permanently bring the poor from below the poverty line.  If the government, including Black politicians and so-called Black leaders are genuinely interested in empowering the poor, rather than keeping their individual power, they would tackle the problem at its source with bold, innovative efforts in substance abuse prevention housing and education reform.  What is clear however is that as long as there is an "underclass" to advocate for and administer poverty programs to, a sector of middle class Black leaders, bureaucrats and political functionaries will remain employed.

I would describe many within my generation, including myself as neither conservatives nor separatists, but independent-thinking pragmatists. The sin qua non of the Civil Rights Movement was equal access, but people perpetually stuck in survival mode are not able to exercise the myriad of options now afforded them.  The job of Black politicians and so-called leaders therefore is to formulate strategies and policies that make it possible for Black people to decide their own destinies.   Very often however it seems that Black leaders relish their role as the mediator between the "underclass" and the white establishment far too much to relinquish it voluntarily; it is therefore time for the Black community to officially terminate their services.

Lunacy is doing the same thing, the same way, over and over, expecting different results.  Therefore in my estimation, it is lunacy after hundreds of years in this country to continue to entreat whites to recognize our intelligence and humanity as a means of gaining admittance to their world. For the post-civil rights generation, our "inclusion" in the white world has unequivocally convinced many of us that white America is not remotely ready to admit and deal with their deep seated prejudices, the prerequisite to real integration. Therefore in this new century, Black leadership has no other purpose but to prepare Black people to be able to interact with whites on our own terms or be in the position to leave them alone.

For comments, contributing writer L. Yvonne Bynoe can be reached at yvonne_bynoe@hotmail.com

Back to page 1