The Washington Informer 2012 Spelling Bee is Sponsored By
Spelling Bee Menu
Opinion / Editorial (34)
It's no coincidence that in the next few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on a challenge to affirmative action in higher education and also a challenge to the most important provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Historically speaking, such challenges are what's to be expected when Black Americans prove they are more than fit for American citizenship.
For nearly half a century substantial numbers of Black students at and Black graduates of elite White colleges – such as Barack and Michelle Obama – have proven they match their White counterparts in intelligence, ambition, and determination to contribute to the nation. But, still, the anti-affirmative action propaganda is saturated with thinly-disguised assertions of Black inferiority.
And for nearly half a century, Blacks of voting age have shown an expert understanding of how to play the political game and a profound faith in it. They have not indulged in loony conspiracy theories about the presidents whose policies they oppose, nor supported politicians who spout extremist fantasies about the federal government.
Instead, they've become a bedrock of the Democratic Party coalition and are increasingly ratcheting up the rate at which they turn out to vote. But this commitment to the American political tradition has provoked conservatives to increasingly tawdry neo-Jim Crow schemes in the political arena and continual challenges in the courts in order to limit blacks' access to the ballot box.
The part of the Act under challenge is its Section 5, which requires certain jurisdictions to get permission from the Justice Department or a special federal court before changing voting procedures. Congress re-authorized this "pre-clearance" provision along with the entire act in 2006 after extensive testimony showed many of the jurisdictions were still using such tactics as denying petitions for early voting, or reducing the hours for early voting, or moving polling stations to locations likely to reduce the Black turnout.
The challenges to both affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act contend they discriminate against Whites. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia bluntly previewed his opinion during the Court's oral arguments over the latter when he characterized the part of the Act under challenge as "the perpetuation of a racial entitlement" that victimizes Whites.
What both Supreme Court challenges – and Justice Scalia's remark – in their negative way affirm is the fundamental importance of both the policy of affirmative action and the pre-clearance provision of the Voting Rights Act.
They protect Black Americans' right to compete.
Depriving Black Americans of that right was the major purpose of the Supreme Court's 1896 decision in Plessy v Ferguson. That ruling stamped the court's imprimatur on the burgeoning laws and customs stripping Blacks – 90 percent of whom then lived in the South – in ways large and small of their status as American citizens. It directly concerned segregation on public transportation in New Orleans. However, its most powerful impact was to validate depriving Blacks of their access to education and the right to vote.
But there are two things about the Plessy decision even more important than realizing what it did.
One is understanding that the ruling came when American society was in turmoil from the wrenching demands of industrial capitalism and a floodtide of immigration from southern and Eastern Europe of White peoples whom most native-born White Americans considered a lower species of human being.
The second is understanding that Plessy's reasoning was built on pretense – the pretense of the doctrine of "separate but equal."
Its main points were: That separation of the races was the "natural order" of human relations. That Blacks and Whites could prosper under it because Whites, who had used violence to prevent Blacks from voting and seize control of the Southern state governments, would provide Blacks an equitable share of the governmental resources they gave to Whites. And that it was only the rogue Southern Blacks and Black and White "outside agitators" who were unhappy with segregation.
Of course, this was nonsensical thinking. But Plessy took hold among Northern as well as Southern Whites because it was rooted in a vicious anti-Black bigotry – and a fear of competition from Blacks, who had in the decades since the Civil War shown how capable they were of contending for the resources of the society.
To return to the present, a combination of bigotry and pretense and fear of competition is what animates the challenges to both affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. Both challenges are rooted in the 19th- and 20th-centuries racist pathology that, as far as Blacks and Whites are concerned, the "rights" of American citizenship and the resources of American society are a zero-sum game: any exercise by Blacks of their rights as Americans is a threat to the rights – and the privileges which have masqueraded as rights – whites have always enjoyed.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court affirm once again how backward a notion that is?
Lee A. Daniels is a columnist for the National Newspaper Publishers Association. His most recent book is Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America.
I have always suspected that racists didn't like being called out for their racism. Now I have proof.
When I told MSNBC's Thomas Roberts on May 14 that the Tea Party was "the Taliban wing of American politics," a firestorm erupted. Arguing the IRS was correct to target them for extra scrutiny, I also said "Here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political" and therefore worthy of IRS concern.
I was not prepared for the slew of angry emails, including two from self-identified Black people (your worst nightmare, one said) I received. Many of them suggested I leave the country, reminiscent of the "Go back to Africa" chants racist crowds of Whites shouted at Black protestors in my youth.
One said my advanced age – I am 73 – meant I would not be around to make such mischief much longer, and I should prepare for that quick eventuality.
A few suggested my employer fire me, not knowing that I retired from that job a year ago. Several of the messages were badly written with misspelled words, including one from a relative by marriage – you can't choose your in-laws – reading "Your calling folks Talabans borders on Traitorism."
This same correspondent noted I had been "head of the most classic Racist group in our country," referring to the NAACP, whose board I chaired for 11 years. Others characterized the NAACP, the nation's oldest civil rights group, interracial in membership and dedicated to racial integration since 1909, in the same way.
After an exchange of messages with some of them, trying to convince them that while I opposed it, I didn't condemn every member of the Tea Party, the interactions became more civil and less hostile. Some even wished me well.
But to a person they rejected the labels "racism" and "racist," even as I thought I had proved that the Tea Party has had racist, anti-Semitic and nativist elements from its beginning until today.
One source is a study conducted for the NAACP by the Institute for Research and Education for Human Rights. Their study, called Tea Party Nationalism, found "Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identify and other so-called social issues. In these ranks, an abiding obsession with Barack Obama's birth certificate is often a stand-in for the belief that the first black president of the United States s not a "real American."
It says Tea Party organizations have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots and "hard-core white nationalists have been attracted" to Tea Party protests.
The link between the Tea Party and the Taliban was made by a prominent Republican office holder.
In 2008, the Washington Post reported that former chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee and present day Congressman Pete Sessions likened the GOP House minority to the Taliban, saying, "Insurgency, we understand perhaps a bit more because of the Taliban."
Just as my arguments failed to convince my correspondents, so apparently does the actual evidence.
Not the ugly racist signs and placards displayed at Tea Party rallies, not the shouts of the "n" word aimed at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, not the spittle hurled at civil rights icon and Congressman John Lewis, not the racists expelled from the Tea Party for their venom, not the association of many members with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a lineal descendant of the White Citizen Council, not the anti-gay slurs aimed at former Congressman Barney Frank (d-Mass.), not the members whose racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia should be an embarrassment – not all or any of this could get them to acknowledge the label "racist."
My Black correspondents even claimed that their race prohibited them from being racists, as if skin color was a proscription against ignorance. And many of my presumably non-Black correspondents accused me of being a racist, so my race apparently offered me no protection from this evil.
What is the lesson here?
That the label "racist" has become so toxic almost everyone rejects it? That the toxicity makes the label unacceptable but its actual practice is still tolerable for many?
Or that it is a defense against itself? As the relative-I-try-not-to-claim wrote, "I don't know any white people who hate blacks like you advocate blacks should hate whites."
Or only that while the United States has made much progress in race relations, we still have a long, long way to go?
Julian Bond is Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP and a Professor at American University in Washington.
Two weeks ago, President Obama met with three African presidents—Koroma (Sierra Leone), Sall (Senegal), Banda (Malawi), and Prime Minister of Cape Verde Jose Maria Pereira Neves. This was the White House's way of rewarding these leaders for their examples of good governance. Receiving an invitation to the White House is one of the most sought after invitations in the world, especially for foreign leaders.
African leaders constantly complain about how they are negatively portrayed in the U.S. media, about how Blacks don't invest in Africa, and about how there seems to be a disconnect between Africans and American Blacks.
My response has always been quite simple – It's your fault!
Let me break it down based on the itinerary for the delegation that met with Obama two weeks ago. In most cases, the State Department takes the lead in setting up the program for foreign leaders, but they are free to add their own program in addition to State's program if they so desire.
While in Washington, each leader participated in numerous meetings and events to strengthen bilateral cooperation on a range of shared priorities. Joint events included a dinner hosted by the Corporate Council on Africa (CCA) to discuss trade and investment opportunities with representatives from U.S. businesses; a public discussion on democratization in Africa at the United States Institute for Peace (USIP); an economic and development roundtable with U.S. government officials; and a meeting with Secretary of Defense Hagel to discuss cooperation on shared regional security and peacekeeping objectives in Africa.
Notice anything interesting here? Let me help you. Dinner hosted by CCA—mostly Fortune 500 companies (White-run companies). Many Africans accuse "corporate America" of only using Africa for their natural resources—well duh, you invited them to your country; a discussion on democracy at USIP. I have tried, to no avail, to get Howard University interested in engaging with African heads of state, but they have shown absolutely no interest. I think I can get a meeting with Obama easier than I can get a meeting with the president of Howard University. Meetings with government officials (i.e. White officials, other than former Ambassador Johnny Carson). Meeting with Secretary of Defense Hagel.
So, I guess these African leaders couldn't find any Black NGOs to meet with or maybe their White lobbyists would not give them permission to meet with successful minority businessmen like David Steward, CEO of World Wide Technology in St. Louis–a $ 5 billion privately held firm.
Maybe their White lobbyist wouldn't give them permission to meet with the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), a federation of 200 Black-owned newspapers in the U.S., or give a speech at a Black university.
So, to my African heads of state, if you are looking for positive media coverage from the U.S., then sit with our Black media and tell them your story. If you are looking for investment in your country, then invest some time by meeting with Black businessmen when you come to our country. Ifif you want Americans, especially Blacks to tour your countries, then take a tour of our communities when you are in the U.S. So, stop complaining and be what you are looking for.
Africa has a lot to offer as far as investment opportunities, tourism, and even education; but Africa has not made its case to the American people. Until they do, they will continue to be like the tinkling cymbal or the sounding brass, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached through his Web site, www.raynardjackson.com. You can also follow him on Twitter at raynard1223
Unemployment rates were "little changed" in March 2013 – they were either holding steady or dropping by a tenth of a percentage point or so. The unemployment rate dropped from 7.7 to 7.6 percent representing a steady, if painstakingly slow, decrease. This declining unemployment rate was reported with some circumspection because even as the rate dropped, nearly half a million people left the labor market, presumably because they could not find work. Further, in March, the economy generated a scant 88,000 jobs, fewer than in any of the prior nine months. An economy that many enjoy, describing as "recovering," has not yet recovered enough to generate enough jobs to keep up with population increases.
Of course, there are variations in the unemployment rate, which is 6.7 percent for Whites, but 13.3 percent for African Americans. Hidden unemployment pushes the actual White rate up to 13.8 percent and the Black rate to 24.2 percent. More than 4.6 million Americans have been out of work for more than 27 weeks.
I parse these numbers on the first Friday of each month and note the vacillations in these rates. In the past four years, we have seen a downward drift in rates, but it neither been as rapid or as inclusive as we might like. We know that, in spite of talk of economic recovery, job creation is stagnant, not keeping up with increases in the population. In no month have we created the 300,000 jobs we need to "catch up" and push unemployment rates down.
We should pay attention to unemployment vacillations, but we might also consider the human cost of unemployment. Those who are unemployed experience malaise, displacement, and often depression. This malaise, or worse, affects dynamics in families, workplaces, and communities.
Some workers exhale when they dodge the bullet of a layoff. Next, they inhale when they realize that, thanks to layoffs, their workload will increase. In families and communities, the unemployment of just one person has a series of unintended costs for those close to them.
Speaking to the National Association of Black Social Workers conference last week, I reminded them that social workers are among those who bear the burden of unemployment. These committed public servants work with the threat of layoffs in their worksites, given sequestration and state budget cuts. Yet they are also challenged to advise those who have experienced the fate they may have to grapple with themselves. As employment is cut among social workers, others are forced to take on larger caseloads. Unless some of these social workers are superhuman, there will be clients who will slip between the cracks.
Heretofore, we have mostly looked at unemployment data as a reflection of the number of jobs our economy generates. We've also looked at those who hold them, those who lose them, and what this means in terms of poverty, education, and community health. We could expand our understanding of the employment situation if we looked at those who bear its burden.
There are politicians who rail that people are unemployed because they are lazy. The fact is people are unemployed because the economy is not generating enough jobs. The French philosopher, Albert Camus, mused, "Without work all life is rotten." Everybody wants to be useful; and until "use" is defined as something other than paid employment, many will feel marginalized because of their vocation situation.
When unemployed, people hear about our "recovering" economy. They wonder what is wrong with them. We all need to wonder what is wrong with an economy that generates such unemployment. We need to wonder about an economy that has soaring stock prices and robust corporate profits, while so many individuals are struggling financially. We need to do more to include those at the margins into the vitality of our "recovering" economy. And we need to understand that if one in four African Americans and one is six of the overall population, experiences unemployment, this is not a personal problem, but a societal one. Will our society fix it, or let it roll? And who pays?
Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer. She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.
Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline
In her March 18 story, Dorothy Rowley correctly highlighted how inadequate public school policies on truancy and discipline are helping place young black males in the school-to-prison pipeline. But [an individual], whom Ms. Rowley quoted, was seriously wrong to claim that 'for-profit' public charter schools are part of "a dangerous mix that is a direct attack on our little black boys."
Every chartered public school in the District of Columbia is, by law, not-for-profit. And D.C.'s charters serve a higher share of African-American students than the city's traditional school system. The key to ending the school-to-prison pipeline is high-school graduation and college. Some 77 percent of D.C. charter high school students graduate on time – a critical component of college acceptance – compared to 56 percent in the city's regular public high schools.
The District's chartered public schools, which are tuition-free and open to all D.C.-resident students, have taken pioneering steps to help make college affordable for boys of color. Some 195 students at District charters such as Friendship Collegiate Academy, Thurgood Marshall Academy and Maya Angelou PCS recently earned DC Achievers Scholarships, which pay up to $55,000 in tuition and other supports. D.C.'s chartered public schools are building a school-to-college pipeline.
Ramona H. Edelin, Ph.D.
Executive Director
DC Association of Chartered Public Schools
Washington, D.C.
Keeping Dreams Alive!
So many of our young people who have talent never get the positive re-enforcement they need and desire in order to feel confident enough to pursue their dreams. Those dreams quickly become passing thoughts for them as they search endlessly throughout their lives trying to find themselves.
Michelle Phipps-Evans article, "The Emergence of a Young Artist" in the March 21, 2013 edition, about the seven-year-old artist Aqeel Qasir was very healing to me. Many years ago, I once thought of myself as a young artist at the age of 10, but unlike Master Qasir, I didn't have the support of my family or friends. To others my talent for art was looked upon as just a childhood notion for passing the time away, and not to be taken seriously as a career possibility.
As I grew into manhood I struggled, not knowing who I was or what path I should take. It wasn't until some 20 years later while I was sitting at my part-time job doodling on a piece of paper that it occurred to me – "this is what I am suppose to be doing." From that day forward I started reconnecting with the creative spirit that lives in me. Today, my life has meaning and direction.
After reading the article I just had to share my story with you and let you know how important supportive family and friends, and especially a newspaper like The Washington Informer can be to a young creative person. Hopefully someday a mature, master artist, Aqeel Qasir will look back on this article and smile.
Vincent L. Stafford
Suitland, Md.
(Part 5)
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own. 1 Corinthians 6:19 NIV
Last week, you read Part Four of "Fanning the Flames of the Diabetes Epidemic." Those of you who have followed this column faithfully will be able to understand more clearly and you will learn how to avoid the horrors of this disease. My mother only lived 12 years after her diagnosis. Here is the continuation of her story.
Each week, I've shared how my mother lost both of her legs, had to have kidney dialysis for the last few years of her life; and she had at least seven strokes in 12 years for those who might have missed my previous columns. She was my age, only 61 when she had her first major stroke, which resulted in paralysis; according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), heart disease is the leading cause of death as it pertains to individuals with diabetes, they either expire from heart disease or strokes. My mother ended up in Howard University Hospital, and it was during that particular hospital stay that her diabetes was discovered. Now for the NIH research:
It's a simple problem, old-fashioned soul food diets; far too much fare from fast food restaurants, and a lack of strenuous exercise. How many times have you gorged yourselves after an exhaustive day at work, and then, fallen asleep? We're not treating our bodies like the temples that God has given us!
For adults this lifestyle will no longer work if we want to maintain our health. That type of behavior is reserved exclusively for babies and children. Our weight increases with each meal that's loaded with high sugar content and a variety of unhealthy fats. As a result, we end up buying larger sizes; we don't look well and we certainly don't feel good. How many wardrobe sizes do we have? We continue to purchase clothing to accommodate our bodies as they balloon. And worst of all, our blood sugar goes out of control, our hearts can't withstand the strain, and neither can the rest of our organs.
There are a few exceptions to this rule, some of us have contracted diabetes and we're not overweight, but according to research, it's genetic, and lack of exercise is still problematic.
Look at the stats provided by NIH, diabetes mellitus is one of the most serious health challenges facing the United States. The following statistics illustrate the magnitude of this disease among African Americans.
NIH cites 4.9 million African Americans have diabetes; on average, we are twice as likely to have diabetes as white Americans of similar age; approximately 13 percent of all African Americans have diabetes; African Americans with diabetes are more likely to develop diabetes complications and experience greater disability from the complications than white Americans with diabetes; death rates for people with diabetes are 27 percent higher for African Americans compared with whites; national health surveys during the past 35 years show that the percentage of the African American population diagnosed with diabetes is increasing dramatically.
The surveys show prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes as well as previously diagnosed diabetes. In 1976-80, total diabetes prevalence in African Americans ages 40 to 74 was only 8.9 percent; in 1988-94, total prevalence had increased to 18.2 percent – a doubling of the rate in just 12 years.
Regular physical activity is a protective factor against Type 2 diabetes and, conversely, lack of physical activity is a risk factor for developing diabetes. Researchers suspect that a lack of exercise is one factor contributing to the high rates of diabetes in African Americans.
We can change this trend by improving our diets and through regularly scheduled exercise. (Conclusion Next Week).
Lyndia Grant is a radio talk show host on Radio One Network, WYCB-AM, 1340. Tune in Fridays at 6 p.m. Call 202-518-3192 or send emails to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The District is among several of the nation's urban cities that have seen a decline in violent crime over the past several years. It's a topic of discussion among government officials who have turned to urban researchers to find out who deserves the credit.
Rightfully so, however, there is little if any credit being given to the community-based and nonprofit organizations that are embedded within the communities they serve and where the problems exist. Sure, the police have done their part, sometimes overzealously, and culprits of drugs and guns also took their toll. But for those who answered the call for mentoring and mediation and counseling, the community-based organizations were effective in providing hands-on intervention.
So no, groups like the Alliance of Concerned Men, Concerned Black Men, Peaceoholics and other grassroots community-based programs, locally, aren't being given their due. Rather than get angry about it or sulk because of it, there's a new objective these groups should be focusing on: education. Keeping children out of trouble is proving to be as difficult as getting them to go to school. But youth advocates, returning citizens and others should take that next step and lead the effort to end the city's high truancy rate. They still might not get credit for making sure more students graduate from high school, but they will benefit from their efforts just like the rest of us.
On a recent visit to South Carolina, I was reminded that last November President Obama received 40 percent of the state's vote. There are a number of things that make this fact interesting but one really struck me: No significant funds were spent in South Carolina by anyone to turn out the vote in favor of Obama. The other interesting point is that that 40 percent is repeatedly ignored after Election Day.
The U.S. electoral system is blatantly undemocratic. Think about it for a moment. When it comes to electing the president of the United States it is not one person-one vote. Instead, there is this bizarre institution called the Electoral College. As a result no matter how many votes are cast in Texas or California, for instance, those states receive a set number of electoral votes to cast. These are added up and whoever comes out on top in a particular state gets that state's entire Electoral College allotment. Republicans, by the way, are trying to change that so that states can parcel out their Electoral College votes, not proportionately but according to the manner in which the Republicans have gerrymandered states that they dominate.
What the Electoral College system means, however, is that there are certain states that are considered solidly Democratic or solidly Republican because a majority consistently (or relatively consistently) votes in the direction of one or the other party. South Carolina, in this case, is considered solidly Republican. Because of our voting system that means that those voters who consistently reject the Republican candidates are treated as if they never existed.
Forty percent is an interesting figure. Forty percent of the vote with no outside assistance is an even more interesting figure. That means that conceivably South Carolina, and several other states that are considered solidly Republican, may actually end up in play in upcoming elections but only if a new strategy is implemented. The key elements of such a strategy were summarized in the 1988 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson when he suggested that voters in the South needed to have a voting card in one hand and in the other hand they needed a union card.
Moving states into play will necessitate greater resources at election time, for sure, but the longer term commitment must be to the organizing of workers in the South. What the Republicans are very well aware—which is why they are desperately pushing so-called "right to work" laws—is that the stronger workers are through their unions, they more likely it is that Republicans will lose elections. Why? Because labor unions will be challenging candidates on questions of economic justice and in light of the Republicans consolidating as both the 'non-Black' party as well as the party in favor of economic inequality, labor unions are a direct threat.
If we want to flip the script in future elections in states such as South Carolina not only do serious resources need to be put in at election time, but labor unions need to be built and rebuilt as bases for progress. They are one of the few organizations that brings workers together across racial, ethnic and gender lines. This is also what makes them so dangerous for corporate America and their political allies in the Republican Party.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and the author of "They're Bankrupting Us" – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him at www.billfletcherjr.com
"In Unity There is Strength" -- Aesop's Fable
During the first week of President Obama's second term, I joined a coalition of civil rights leaders in Washington, D.C. to call for immediate action on the urban jobs crisis and a host of other issues adversely affecting communities of color. Standing with National Action Network President, Rev. Al Sharpton; NAACP President, Ben Jealous; National Coalition on Black Civic Participation President, Melanie Campbell and others, we called for swift action on a number of recommendations geared to leveling the playing field and giving a hand up to the thousands of urban Americans who are being left behind by the nation's economic recovery. While each of us in the meeting has made our individual voices heard, we believe our unity gives us greater strength.
This was our second meeting. When we gathered in Washington a little over a month ago, we urged our nation's leaders to commit to economic and educational parity as well as voting rights protections, and criminal justice reforms to strengthen America and improve the lives of the millions of working and middle class citizens we see and serve every day. On Friday, we presented our preliminary recommendations on how best to achieve those goals.
We propose:
Reintroduction and passage of the Urban Jobs Act allocating resources for job training, education, and support services for eligible young adults, including many who have not finished high school, to prepare them for entry into the workforce.
Reintroduce the American Jobs Act, President Obama's proposed package of tax cuts, investments and incentives designed to put American back to work and speed economic growth.
We support the President's recently announced push for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and his call for universal background checks. In addition, we recommend a stronger focus on violence prevention, including investments in programs that create safe spaces for kids after school and improved mental health services and treatment.
We also call for citizens to mobilize around the upcoming February 27th Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states and counties with a history of discriminatory voting practices to undergo Justice Department review of any change to their voting rules. This is especially important in light of the unprecedented voter suppression campaign leading up to the 2012 presidential election.
Finally, we call for reforms of the nation's dysfunctional and discriminatory criminal justice system. As NAACP President Ben Jealous noted, "Study after study has shown that students of color face harsher punishments in school than their White peers, African-American students are arrested far more often than their White classmates, and African-American youth have higher rates of juvenile incarceration and are more likely to be sentenced to adult prison. One in 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised because of a prior criminal conviction. That's a staggering statistic that reveals the desperate need for reform."
We urge the president to address the urban jobs crisis in his upcoming State of the Union address and we call on the leaders in Washington to make economic and educational parity a top priority this year.
Marc H. Morial, former mayor of New Orleans, is president and CEO of the National Urban League.
plu•toc•ra•cy / ploōˈtäkrəsē/ • n. (pl. -cies) an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth. Government by the wealthy.
Before the 2012 presidential campaign, how many of us were familiar with the names Charles, David or William Koch; Sheldon Adelson, Richard DeVos, Alice Walton, Harold Simmons, Foster Friess, Bob Perry, Frank Vandersloot, Bill or Richard Marriott; John Schnatter or any of the other wealthiest Republican donors? Most of us know the connection between John Schnatter and Papa John's Pizza; few of us know the others and what they mean to our future. This lack of knowledge could be costly to us.
These individuals have pursued varied careers, but are united by their condition of great wealth. They're also united with the common purpose of creating a political environment that will protect their great wealth and shape public and political opinion regarding social issues they wish to promote. Common to their value system is the belief that their money and socio-economic position give them the right and authority to greater influence over shaping the direction of the country for us all. While most of us were indignant at the "47% Percent" comments of Mitt Romney, the "makers vs. takers" comments of Paul Ryan or the general disdain of the Republican Party for "the common person," similar sentiments were reflected in the words and deeds of these wealthy Republican donors.
The words of Foster Friess which gave public voice to the Republican "War on Women" was a glaring example. In an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Friess offered a Republican alternative to health insurance provided "birth control." He said that, in his day, women held aspirin between their knees to prevent pregnancy! As a spokesperson and campaign donor of over $1million, he demonstrated his goal of defining the Republican agenda in words and deeds.
There are reasons of friendship that motivate some of the large donations made by individuals on my list. For example, there is a greater likelihood that donations of the Marriott brothers to the Romney campaign were based on friendship rather than another motivation. The fathers of Romney and the Marriotts were close friends. Romney was named to honor J. Willard Marriott. We can't, however, discount the fact that, for these men, friendship and financial interest are held in common. The Marriott brothers are reported to have spent $1.5 million in campaign donations.
On the other hand, the multi- million dollar donations of billionaire casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson, were nearly triple the previous highest amount donated by an individual. In early disclosures filed with the FEC, Adelson, chairman of Las Vegas Sands Corp, and his wife contributed millions of dollars, mostly to Super PACs backing Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and party peers running for seats in the Senate and House. Presumably much of his money went into tax-exempt organizations not required to disclose donors. Early in the process, Adelson told Politico he planned to spend up to $100 million or "whatever it takes" to defeat President Barack Obama. Analysts have surmised that Adelson's motivation for his more than generous donations to Republican interests was to eliminate the potential for Department of Justice scrutiny of his gambling operations in China. By the way, it is said he recouped his campaign spending in one day!
Giving greater scrutiny to the motives of some of the wealthy attempting to reshape the U.S. into their own image, we can't discount more insidious motives for their generosity. A thorough discussion of their motives cannot be accomplished in a single column. In future columns, I will revisit the motives and impact of these U.S. plutocrats. As for us, never forget that to whom we give our money, we also give our power—so spend it wisely.
Dr. E. Faye Williams is Chair of the National Congress of Black Women, www.nationalcongressbw.org. 202/678-6788.