Opinion / Editorial (32)
Carlos Amador emigrated with his family from Mexico in 1999 at age 14. He lived in the United States as an undocumented immigrant for almost 13 years until he recently received conditional permanent residency. Higher education for someone like him seemed like an impossible dream when Carlos finished high school. But he was determined to make it happen. As he pursued his undergraduate degree, he would go straight from working alongside his parents cleaning houses in upscale Southern California neighborhoods to his classes, never giving up. Carlos now holds his master's degree in social welfare from the University of California-Los Angeles. All along the way he has been a leader in the undocumented immigrant youth movement and one of its most outspoken voices for change. Today, Carlos is both the project coordinator of the Dream Resource Center at UCLA and one of the co-chairs of the board of the United We Dream Network, the largest national network of immigrant youths.
The courageous self-declared "Undocumented and Unafraid" students in the United We Dream Network risk deportation as they organize and speak out tirelessly so they and others can have the right to a college education and to live and work with dignity in the country that is their home. Their efforts led to a major victory with the Obama administration's June announcement that it would stop deporting young undocumented immigrants age 30 or younger without criminal records who came to the United States before age 16, have lived here for at least five years, and are students, high school graduates, or military veterans in good standing.
Catherine Eusebio, who spoke alongside Carlos, repeated that determination. She came to the United States from the Philippines with her family when she was 4 years old. Today, Catherine is a graduate of the University of California-Berkeley with a degree in political science.
Five years ago as a high school senior desperate to go on to college, she suddenly became aware that she had spent her childhood growing up in California devoted to studying hard and doing well in school but that didn't matter to many adults in power: "This was in 2007 when the Congress was taking up immigration reform, and so I saw this contrast: I worked really, really hard to get to where I am so I could go to college, and then Congress is saying that these people don't belong here, that they're illegal, that we should deport them . . . I didn't understand, as someone who was very young, and suddenly being accused or made to feel like I didn't belong in America . . ."
Carlos and Catherine and their youth network participants inspired us all. They and the students they work with are a testimony to the difference one person can make, no matter how young or old. The members of the United We Dream Network have never had the right to vote. However many political people who are afraid of the enormous potential power of young people of all backgrounds who do have the right to vote have made young people one of their targets in voter suppression efforts that threaten voting rights and democratic processes across our country. States are adding new photo ID and residency laws and laws restricting early voting and pre-registration that all make it harder for young people to vote—including college students who may carry college IDs that are no longer allowed, or who may need to vote in the state where they attend school but are not considered "residents" under new restrictions, or in their home state on a day other than Election Day.
We can't allow these negative undemocratic efforts to succeed. Young people and all of us need to speak out loudly against voter suppression in every form. Young people also can help with voter registration, get out the vote campaigns, poll watching, and other parts of the electoral process. They and all of us must be committed to using the power we have and never let hurdles and negative policies passively shape our lives. Like Carlos and Catherine and all their courageous Dream partners, we too can and must be agents of change.
Marian Wright Edelman is president of the Children's Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.childrensdefense.org.
D.C. Delegates Continue to Fight
Great to see our delegates to the National Democratic Convention still pushing for D.C. Statehood for citizens of the District of Columbia ["D.C. Delegates Push Agenda despite DNC Snub" September 6, 2012].
As we all know the District is changing, and with the influx of new residents, I have a strange feeling that our fight will soon be won. Congress and the powers that be can no longer use the excuse that the District is a majority one party, which I believe is a code for majority black, and therefore did not deserve to have status as a state because it would add an additional Democratic senator.
Hopefully, our new residents will join the fight for full citizenship and help to put pressure on Congress for Statehood for the District of Columbia no matter what their party affiliation. Hopefully, Statehood is as important to our new residents as it has been to those of us who have been fighting this battle for years.
Kenneth Davis
Washington, D.C.
HIV/AIDS Doesn't Discriminate
That was a great article written by Freddie Allen in your September 6th issue, "Straight Black Men Ignored in AIDS Initiatives." The most dramatic statement to me in the article was the one you highlighted by Dwayne Morrow, "What we don't want 10 years from now, if there is still an HIV/AIDS epidemic, we don't want to find heterosexual Black men facing the same epidemic that White gay men were in the '80s."
If you know anything about the AIDS epidemic, that statement can be so real. I have heard some people say the media is now trying to make AIDS a black disease, or they are inflating the numbers to spread panic in the black community, or they are saying these things to make black churches look bad. All that stuff is just talk, the real issue is that AIDS is a disease, and if you are not informed, educated and careful you can be infected regardless of your gender or race.
Raymond Stevens
Alexandria, Va.
Fathers Make the Difference in Children's Lives
The front-page photograph on your August 30, 2012 issue, of Ward 5 Council member Kenyan McDuffie walking his daughters to school on opening day was one of the best photographs I've seen in your paper in some time.
My reason for saying this is that it brought back so many memories of when my daughters were young and I would walk them to school. As a single parent, I took a very active and supportive role in the education of my daughters. I believe parents, especially the fathers, should be very visible in the educational process of their children.
When fathers are involved everyone seems to be more attentive – the administration, the teachers and the students. I will never forget the look in my daughters' eyes when I would help out in their classrooms doing whatever the teacher asked me to do. It showed them that what they do everyday is important and that their father would take a day off from work to be involved in what they do. My daughters are both college graduates and I hope that when they have children of their own, they will be involved in their children's education like I was with theirs.
Robert Bailey
Washington, D.C.
Lessons Learned from Art
Kudos to the Washington Informer for your insightful story on Willard Wigan. The story by Barrington Salmon published in your August 30 edition was a truly wonderful read.
While Wigan is not a household name in this part of the world, his work appears to be extraordinary. Our children could learn a lot from his victory over the odds and his unwillingness to fall victim to ignorance and racism. I'm sorry I missed the opening at the Parish Gallery but I'll be sure to visit the exhibit before it leaves the District.
Robert Mallory
Hyattsville, Md.
The 2012 political season is in full throttle toward the November 6h national elections. The Democrats and the Republicans have determined their respective national standard bearers and delineated their issue platforms and public policy agenda and priorities. Black Americans, Latino Americans, and millions of other Americans who are eligible and registered to vote will determine not only the future of the United States for the next four years, but also the future of America's standing in the world community.
Obama-Biden verses Romney-Ryan will be the ultimate political contest between the forces of progress and the forces of backwardness. But even amid the multitude of negative radio and television ads that attempt to attack the character and integrity of candidates for high office and service to the nation, caution should be put in place to avoid being turned-off or cynically alienated from the important civic and moral responsibility to stand up, speak out and vote.
In particular, I am appealing to Black Americans and others of good will and judgment to not fall prey to the revived campaigns of voter suppression in many of the crucial swing states. We need a record Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) effort across the nation. There are some mischief-makers who are trying to suggest that Black Americans should not be enthusiastic about voting in 2012 because of the persistence of poverty and unemployment, as well as the disproportionate incarceration in our communities. These real matters, however, are exactly why we should have the highest voter turnout ever.
There is another matter that I feel obligated to lift up at this time and it is the issue of the steady rise in both overt and covert acts, rhetorical statements, and other schemes where the tenets of White supremacy are being openly practiced and advocated to the detriment of Black Americans and others who believe in a pluralistic, racially-diverse democracy. For those of us who have personally witnessed reactionary behavior in response to the long struggle of Black Americans for freedom, justice and equality, this is nothing new. A politrick is a deceptive political tactic that attempts to use positive discourse, phrases or rhetoric to hide the negative intent and consequences of extremist ideological actions.
In 2012 the politricks of racial hatred, division and obfuscation continues to escalate into a counterproductive manifestation of what I call the 'politricks of White supremacy.' In Ohio, state election officials publicly bemoan what they feel is a "contortion of the voting process to accommodate urban voters." That's a politrick to try to justify the suppression of Black American voters and other who are concentrated in the urban centers of Ohio.
When Vice President Biden accurately stated in Virginia: "They want to put y'all back in chains," Republican politicians cried and wept profusely in another glaring politrick maneuver. In Iowa, Hank Williams Jr. sang at the state fair and said to more than 8,000 people, "We've got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S., and we hate him." Williams displayed the politricks of White supremacy to the cheers of the crowd at the fair.
Extremism is on the rise once again across America and sometimes it takes a very violent form such as the Oak Creek suburban community near Milwaukee, where self-avowed White supremacist Wade Michael Page, attacked a peaceful people in a Sikh Temple and killed six of the 10 people that he shot. Thus, this is not just about political campaigns or the tricky tongues of wealthy politicians. This is about life, safety and not being intimidated by those who are determined to retrogress into a society based on inequality, injustice, and racial and political hatred.
We have come too far and already suffered too much to contemplate any notion of going backwards. We will not allow the politricks of the present moment to divert us off course. Nor will allow our consciousness to be dulled by the attempts of the perpetrators of injustice and economic inequality to make some of us believe that the social conditions of Black Americans and others are in a permanent, irreversible state. Change has happened and more change will happen again. Our job and responsibility is to stay focused and keep our eyes and minds on the realizable prize of empowerment, equality and equity. Forward ever, backwards never!
Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. is president of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network and Education Online Services Corporation. He also serves as senior adviser for the Diamond Empowerment Fund and National Director of Occupy the Dream and can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Regular readers of this column know that I am a "born again" baseball fan. I grew up on baseball in New York but lost interest during my teen years. In 2000, I reconnected with baseball through a reintroduction, of sorts, to the work of the late, great Curt Flood, the St. Louis Cardinals outfielder who took on Major League Baseball over their system of indentured servitude called "the reserve clause."
As a resident of the Washington, D.C.-area, I was excited when Major League Baseball returned to the District. Even though I grew up on the NY Mets and remain a Mets fan, I adopted the Washington Nationals as my second team. While the Nationals remain my second team, and as much as I love attending baseball games, I find myself increasingly uneasy with the culture of the games and the atmosphere that is created.
First, Nationals Park is located in an area that has been fundamentally redeveloped, right next to the Anacostia River. It is an impressive but strange social island in the District of Columbia. At game time, masses of White people swarm into the area and into the stadium. Buses drop off loads of people, more than likely traveling from the suburbs. And then, just as quickly, after the game they are gone except those staying around to drink and party.
Second, there is very little that takes place during the games that acknowledges Black people. Don't get me wrong. There are the mandated "Jackie Robinson Day" events that celebrate the desegregation of Major League Baseball. And there are certainly Black people working there, at least at the ticket counters, food service and as ushers. But when you look up at the screens during the breaks between the innings, you rarely see anything that has to do with us. Here's an example. There is an employee of the team who travels around the stadium with a camera team to film human interest moments. There is a contest that he has with three randomly chosen individuals who are all supposed to perform in one way or the other and gain the applause of the crowd, i.e., whoever is the most impressive gets the loudest applause and, therefore, wins. In the years that I have attended Nationals games I can probably count on two hands the number of times that I have seen a Black contestant. Additionally, when the camera focuses on people in the stadium, you rarely see one of us of color.
Another example: The players. The focus of the media is largely on the White players. Consequently, the heroes inevitably are the White players, be they Ryan Zimmerman or Stephen Strasburg, or another Caucasian. Again, don't get me wrong. I think that these guys are outstanding players but there is something about the way that they have been worshiped by Washington, D.C. Nationals media and fans that makes me uneasy. There are plenty of reasons to celebrate these players but what about African American and Latino players?
All of this unfolds in what, at least for the moment, remains a predominantly African American city. Nevertheless, at a Nationals' game it is easy to feel invisible.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, the co-author of Solidarity Divided, and the author of "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty other myths about unions. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
You may have missed this in the news but over the last several months the West African nation of Mali has been unraveling. There is very little attention in the mainstream media and the situation seems to move from bad to worse to insane.
The gist of the situation is that a revolt broke out in the northern part of Mali among the ethnic group known as the Touareg or Azawad. They are a Berber people who live in the Saharan region of Africa. There has been a long-standing ethnic tension in Mali (going back to when Mali became independent of France) and in the aftermath of the overthrow of Col. Qaddafi in Libya, guns began flowing very freely into northern Mali. The government of Mali attempted to stop the rebellion, but suffered a series of military defeats. This, ultimately, led to a military coup against the government of Mali. In the aftermath of ths coup, the country has, in effect, become a divided land with the northern part in the hands of various rebel groups and the southern part under a military dictatorship.
The fact that the rebellion has resulted in various rebel groups operating in the northern part of Mali–rather than a unified movement–set the stage for chaos and a retreat into Muslim fundamentalist irrationalism on the part of some of the forces. For instance, the historic city of Timbuktu has been occupied by fundamentalists who have proceeded, much like the Taliban did in Afghanistan in 2001, to destroy historic sites. Muslim burial grounds, for instance, that date back to the 14th century have been destroyed by these forces allegedly because they represent something contrary to Islam.
While some people will focus on the problem of Muslim fundamentalism in Mali, the major problems revolve around 1) the inability of states created as a result of European colonialism to survive in the current era without an economy that they control and that serves the needs of their people; 2) The lack of popular democracy, and 3) An inability and/or unwillingness to resolve long-standing ethnic issues. With regard to ethnic conflict, there is the specific problem faced by the Touareg. They are found not only in Mali but in several countries in that region. They have raised demands for national equality and national sovereignty. Yet, as with many other ethnic groups, these demands have largely been ignored by the dominant forces in the respective countries leading to slippage into ethnic strife and civil war.
Muslim fundamentalism of the irrationalist sort that we are witnessing in Mali is not only an embarrassment to Muslims, but a criminal enterprise destroying some of the most important historical features of Mali. Yet these forces did not pop out of nowhere. The Libyan revolution and the NATO intervention helped to unleash unintended consequences. It is also the case that some of these same forces have been created or backed by various governments in the region in order to serve as proxy armies to carry out their own objectives.
Mali must be saved and this will necessitate a dynamic role for the African Union, and perhaps the United Nations. It is not a role that should involve the U.S. military, however, which will certainly be the impulse of those forces that see Muslim fundamentalism as the main threat to humanity. Mali must be saved through negotiations and the active role of Mali's neighbors. It cannot be allowed to sink to the levels of another Somalia, a country broken and all but forgotten until yet another disaster unfolds.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, the co-author of Solidarity Divided and the author of the forthcoming "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty other myths about unions. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the cornerstone piece of legislation of the Obama administration. The court found the Obama administration and Congress were constitutionally within their rights but for the wrong reason.
The Obama administrations primary argument in supporting health care reform legislation was that Congress had the power to enact the ACA based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause stating Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." The Court held that the ACA was unconstitutional based upon the Commerce Clause but is constitutional based upon Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, that states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties..."
Politically, the Obama administration argued that the individual mandate of the ACA – requiring everyone to obtain insurance or face a fine – was a penalty, not a tax. They downplayed the tax aspect of the law, even downplaying the word "tax" in the legislation itself. The administration did not want to fall into the conservative trap of being labeled a tax-and-spend liberal administration.
This court's decision provides an interesting conundrum for the administration and the opposition. The administration won in the Supreme Court, but can it now win in court of public opinion? Can the administration construct a narrative that explains to the American people that the ACA is a positive piece of legislation?
According to the Washington Post "A majority of Americans view... the changes enacted in President Obama's health care bill in an unfavorable light...in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 52 percent regard the 'federal law making changes in the health care system' in a negative light." If they don't construct a better narrative they could win the battle and lose the war.
Mitt Ronmey and his conservative cohorts have contributed to this public perception by basing their argument that the ACA was unconstitutional and an overreach by the administration. They argued that this is an intrusion by the government into the lives of average American citizens. They even engaged in the politics of deceit to bolster their arguments. For example, according to Fact Check.org House Republicans have sought "... to repeal what they call "Obamacare: A budget-busting, job-killing health care law."
Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a "small" or "minimal" impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.
The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect "will probably be small."
This is a great victory for the Obama administration and the American people. Republican State Attorney Generals and Republican governors colluded with GOP members of Congress and other conservatives to challenge the Obama administration in the highest court in the land. It was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, who sided with more liberal justices and handed the administration the victory. President Obama went up against the entire Republican and conservative onslaught – and won.
It is imperative that the American people connect the dots. Sen. Minority Leader McConnell (R-Kentucky) said more than two years ago that his primary objective was to see to it that Barack Obama is a one-term president. The Republicans refusal to work with the administration on "the people's business" has done this country a great disservice.
People need to ask themselves, "Where would this country be if Republicans had worked with President Obama by finding common ground instead of holding their ground for the sake of bigoted obstructionist political ideology?"
The administration won the health care battle in the court of law. Can they win in the court of public opinion?
Wilmer Leon is the producer/ host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon," and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University. Go to his Prescription @ Face Book.com He can be reached at www.wilmerleon.com or by email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . www.twitter.com/drwleon
Ai-Jen Poo, a powerful and passionate advocate for the rights of domestic workers, leads the National Domestic Workers Alliance. Who are these folks? They are the private household workers (maids) who propped up inept women in the movie, The Help. They are the home health aides who take care of our elders when they are ill or disabled, bringing them meals, bathing them, and accompanying them to medical appointments. They are the nannies that care for children when parents are working. In some ways, they are a backbone of our economy, and yet they often have neither voice nor money.
I was struck by the situation of domestic workers when I heard Ai-Jen at the National Council for Research on Women's annual conference. While some of us focus mostly on race, she is more likely to focus on class and the many ways that public policy is made from an extremely privileged perspective. The women who stitch together a living by working two and three domestic jobs certainly don't have the time to put their situation in context with public policy. And those who make public policy have only limited exposure to those who have to live it. Ai-Jen and the National Domestic Workers Alliance bridge that gap.
The organization started in 2007, and now has representation in more than 20 states. In New York, NDWA was instrumental in the passage of the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights that went into effect in November 2010. It requires that people who work in other people's homes for 40 hours a week or more (except for relatives and casual employees such as babysitters) must be paid the minimum wage, must receive overtime pay, vacation time, workers' compensation and disability benefits. One might assume that some of these benefits are already written into law, and in some ways they are. But domestic workers are more likely to be treated as casual workers than as professionals, and if they are working full-time, they must be treated as professionals.
Listening to Ai-Jen Poo was like a blast from the past for me. My early academic work focused on private household workers. Although the Minimum Wage Act was passed during the Depression, private household workers and farm workers were excluded form the legislation until 1974. Even then, the law had so many loopholes that few adhered to it. At the same time, failure to abide by the law has tanked many a nominee for a federal appointment. Judge Kimball Wood comes to mind as a capable jurist who was snagged by her failure to take Social Security taxes out of the wages of her full-time housekeeper.
Ai-Jen's presentation reminded me how little has changed for private household workers. There are employers who deduct from low wages if there is breakage in their homes. There are others that may deduct for meals. Without intervention, the majority of 2.5 million workers take care of our most precious assets, our children and our parents, without being paid fairly. They cook our food, and who wants someone who feels that they are being paid unfairly to cook their food? After all, even the private household workers in the pre-civil rights South weren't always benign.
In California, a piece of legislation that is similar to the New York bill is being considered. Indeed, Assembly Bill 889 passed the lower house of the California State legislature, but the California State Senate is dragging its heels. Indeed, some have so distorted the bill that they describe it as "the babysitter law," even though those who do not work full time are specifically excluded from the legislation. Those who oppose the bill talk about their free market rights, but have blinders on when it comes to the rights of others. Unfortunately, while women are the majority of private household workers, it is also women who are the majority of those who hire, and often exploit, them.
It is amazing how stuck the feminist movement has become around issues of women on the bottom. Twenty years ago there were passionate debates about housework pass along and the many ways that the women's movement could be mutually supportive along class lines. Now, though a passionate woman is fighting for domestic workers, she is not often joined by those who have greater voice, more power, and the ability to make a difference.
While domestic workers today are less likely to be African American than Latino, we in the African American community need to remember that the workplace has long been oppressive to those at the bottom. In speaking up for domestic workers, we speak up for our mothers and grandmothers, but also for ourselves, no matter what our economic status.
Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer. She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.
Make the Procurement Change Agents Change
My advocacy days in Indiana were on a roll. Things that Kay and I were learning seasoned us for issues that lie before the Black business community today. One important point was identifying just who allowed the corruption and or discrimination and to counter those efforts.
We busted Huber, Hunt and Nichols for fronting on the construction of the massive new state office building. The State Office Building Commission, which was actually in on the deception, banned them from state projects for five years. That was not a satisfactory punishment in our eyes and we sought justice in other ways. The company was about to receive a contract from the city of St. Louis for a new hockey arena. Our contacts in Missouri approached the mayor of St. Louis and he cancelled the contract. We had authorities of McCormack Place project in Chicago bring them onto the carpet and issued a severe warning to them to not play any games. The word was getting out nationally and the management of HH&N knew they had to make peace.
They appealed to State Rep. Bill Crawford, a strong ally of our local chamber. He held a reception at the Skyline Club with Robert C. Hunt, the CEO of the company, and about 50 Black contractors from Indianapolis. Eventually, general contractor Jimmy Beard went to the microphone and asked the crowd of local Black contractors, "How many of you have ever worked a contract or subcontract for Huber, Hunt and Nichols?" Not one hand went up and the silence was deafening. Hunt was indeed embarrassed in front of Rep. Crawford who represented the Legislative Black Caucus at this historic event.
Shortly after that event, management of HH&N asked ME for a meeting. In that meeting they showed me the work they were doing in Cleveland and Atlanta. Each project had Black project managers and the use of Black contractors was very impressive. I asked, "Why don't you do that here in your hometown?" They replied that Mayor Michael White of Cleveland demanded it and so did Mayor Maynard Jackson of Atlanta. If you want Indiana to change, go change the attitude or position of the governor's office. It became clear to me at that point that these construction companies were following the wishes of their clients. Changes would have to come from the governor's office. HH&N sent a membership check to our chamber a few days after that meeting and we agreed to improve our relationship.
It wasn't long before Indianapolis elected a new mayor, Stephen Goldsmith. He requested a meeting with me and chamber members. At that session, Goldsmith stated that his office would be an ally of our chamber and promised that all city agencies and the Indianapolis Airport Authority would be as diverse as possible. To prove his sincerity, he gave the chamber a contract to audit minority participation at all procurement offices, including the airport. We just had a serious war with that airport but his administration was in charge now and that made a great difference. Mayor Goldsmith was a great leader and helped diversify Indianapolis in ways people could not imagine.
Soon, a new basketball arena was to be built. Funding for it was a mixture of both the city and the state legislature. Rep. Crawford was chair of the Budget Committee. He and the mayor got together and decided to give me, now the National Black Chamber of Commerce, a $100,000 contract to monitor and ensure that the project met its diversity goals. I would actually be working with Huber, Hunt and Nichols. All goals were exceeded and all Black contractors were paid in full and on time. That was my last direct project in Indianapolis. Kay and I left with a smile as we knew our work and struggles had made a positive difference.
Please remember if you have complaints about a state-funded contract, the buck stops at the governor's office. If it is the city, go after the mayor. Federally- funded projects that have a problem are within the purview of your congressional delegation and the president of the United States. If it is in the private sector, the responsibility falls on the chief executive officer (CEO). These are supposed to be the change agents. If they don't change, then change the agents.
Harry Alford is the co-founder, president/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce®. Website: www.nationalbcc.org. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Professor Fredrick Harris has written in his Op Ed, Still Waiting for Our First Black President, "Obama has pursued a racially defused electoral and governing strategy, keeping issues of specific interest to African Americans —off the national agenda." Michael Nutter the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia replied to Harris in the Huffington Post, "Barack Obama...has fought every single day to improve the livelihood and well-being of the African-American community...We have our first black President, his name is President Barack Obama..."
Here's the reality that must be clearly understood: Obama is not the first Black President; he's the first president who is Black. A Black president would have come into office with a "Black agenda." If he were the first Black president he would be using his bully pulpit to champion legislation targeting unemployment in urban areas, poverty, income disparity, and other issues. This in no way should be interpreted to challenge his "Blackness." It's about the agenda, not the man.
If Obama were the first Black president, the prison at Guantanamo Bay would be closed. He would not have signed the 2012 Defense Authorization Act (DAA) allowing for U.S. citizens to be indefinitely detained. His Black Attorney General would not have made the case to assassinate U.S. citizens abroad without judicial review. If Obama were the first Black president, he would not have supported the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
A Black president would have come into office with a historical appreciation of the FBI's COINTELPRO program that led to the attack on the civil liberties and civil rights of many individuals involved in the civil rights movement as well as the CIA's involvement in assassinating other African leaders. A Black president would not want to repeat this history by supporting the DAA, and operating assassination lists.
President Obama is the first president who is Black and as such operates as a functionary of the United States government. A president who is Black focuses on the so-called "war on terror" and "protecting American interests abroad" with no other historical reference to guide him.
Obama's primary focus has been on broader national policies such as the Child Tax Credit, Small Business Jobs Act, and saving the American auto industry. All of these (and other policies) are policies from which African Americans have benefitted but do not specifically target the ills impacting the African American community.
This is not to suggest that Professor Harris' premise is wrong; he's correct. While campaigning for president, Senator Obama did court the Black community for its vote. He did discuss "...racial injustice in front of Black audiences" and he did support "targeted and universal policies to address racial inequality." President Obama has changed his focus because as Rev. Jeremiah Wright so adroitly observed, "he's a politician."
Nutter is wrong to challenge Harris' assessment that President Obama has pursued race neutral politics. Obama has, as stated by Harris, "pursued a racially defused electoral and governing strategy..." According to the Washington Post, "Lawmakers (CBC) have met with the administration three times this year (2011) seeking support for programs that specifically address the black community, but President Obama has not backed their proposals... The caucus chairman (Cleaver)...slammed the deal negotiated by the administration to raise the national debt ceiling and cut government spending as a "Satan sandwich" that unfairly harms African Americans."
In theory, Nutter is correct when he writes, "Throughout the past three years, President Obama has been focused on building an economy that is built to last. And in spite of the obstacles, the economy is making progress and each month, more and more Americans, and African Americans are getting back to work."
The reality is that while the unemployment rate for the country is 8.2 percent; the official unemployment rate for African Americans is double that at 16.6 percent. The president's efforts will not address chronic income disparity or the wealth gap.
What too many in the Black community refuse to accept is as Harris wrote, "If he won't do it (support Black interests) on his own, Obama will have to be pressured to act and to keep the few promises he made to black America in 2008. This is not a failure of Obama; it's the failure of the community to move from the politics of personality to the politics of policy. Obama's not the first Black President; he's the first President who is Black."
Wilmer Leon is the producer/ host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon," and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University. Go to his Prescription @ Face Book.com He can be reached at www.wilmerleon.com or by email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . www.twitter.com/drwleon.
Featured Poll
ADVERTISMENT
ADVERTISMENT
ADVERTISMENT