One reason that Michael Eric Dyson's critique struck me as weird is his insistence that Obama have a particular "Black People Policy." I've thought about this some, and come to the conclusion that that would be both bad politics, and perhaps even a bad idea. Dyson argued that black people suffer from some particular ailment that Obama's "rising boats" formula doesn't address. If that is indeed the case, then I'm open to the critique. But I didn't really hear in his criticism exactly what that ailment was. From what I can tell black people generally suffer from what most Americans suffer from--but times ten. Frankly, I'm beginning to even doubt that statement. In other words, is it our demographic makeup, race aside? Or is it our blackness? I don't know.
But more than that, I think if you supported Obama because you thought he'd have a specific "Black People Policy," you weren't really paying much attention to his speeches, and you clearly didn't read the section on race in his second book. I'm not even convinced that I want a president with a "Black People Policy." I definitely want one who's going to explore the wealth gap. I definitely want one who's going to make education a priority. But I'm straining to think of specific issues, which only afflict blacks, that I want Obama to address.
I hate writing this--it's such a sinister frame, and it distorts how black voters actually think about issues. It flattens us out--like we don't care about the economy, or foreign policy. I guess I can only speak for myself. I voted for Obama because of the speech he gave today, because I think he is the best soldier for our side that I've seen, because he has a deliberative mind, because he can walk and chew gum, because he is ruthless politician.
I can tell you without a moment's pause that if he were white, I'd have voted for him in the primaries over Hillary Clinton in a minute. That's a preposterous statement, I know. Were he white, he probably wouldn't be who he is. But my point is that my thinking about his blackness, while fun, didn't have a direct bearing on my thinking about his foreign policy.
I get Glenn Greenwald's critique on civil liberties. I get Andrew's critique on DADT and gay marriage. I get Dayo Olapade's critique of the Office of Urban Policy. But it's really tough to evaluate the claim that Obama won't say Martin Luther King's name. What is that? How do you even begin to seriously address it?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Exactly. That's an unserious critique that doesn't even deserve a serious response. The guy was quoting the Koran today. Our President, BHO, was quoting the Koran. In Egypt. And Dyson thinks he's afraid to say MLK's name?
That hadn't occurred to me, but it does highlight the silliness, doesn't it?
TNC I think you just took a very long route to say that Mike Dyson is full of shit. Your version is obviously better and more eloquent but I think it still comes to the same conclusion. He is trying to sell books not take care of black folks. Just like his idiotic analogy of black people being helped disproportionately when Pres Obama allocates money for education and and infrastructure because we are disproportionately below the poverty line and live disproportionately in poor neighborhoods to giving a cancer patient a fucking aspirin. I can't tell you how much listening to that clown pissed me off because I know there are black folks who actually think he knows what the hell he is talking about.
Notice not one time did he come up with an actual "black policy" that he wanted to see President Obama tackle out of all of his ranting chocked full of big ass words.
People like Dyson have made a career of pushing the edge.
Now that the edge has been extended, he's still seeking the edge for its own sake, not connecting with reality in any pertinent way.
I think the point is that anti [insert social problem] policies haven't always been helpful to black people at least not to the degree which one would hope. George Lipsitz called it the possessive investment in whiteness. So, people say Affirmative Action should be class based and not racial when white women have benefited from it and therefore white people have more than other races. They don't actually want to address how race, racism, and education or hiring policies interact. They see it as an anti poverty measure and thus obfuscate some of the point.
That's just one example but the point is this a rising tide argument hasn't worked in the past and anyone who understand institutional racism would not be surprise by this outcome. If the system is racist then how will the outcomes change unless people are actively trying not to get that result? I believe that was Dyson's point.
Right, so what's the specific policy Dyson mentioned that Obama isn't addressing. What is exact program he should be undertaking. We need actionable intelligence, solid thinking, hyperlinked arguments.
When you read Glenn Greenwald on Obama's national security policy, he doesn't say "Yeah, he hasn't been very nice to Muslims." He has a detailed critique of specific policy--like state secrets, indefinite detention etc. What is the SPECIFIC critique of Obama on race.
Actually, that is where I part with Dyson's argument. At this point, I think the role of the federal government is limited and really the work is at the state level. So a specifically policy that Obama has to tackle? Nothing comes to me at this point. But I think attacking the rhetoric of a "rising tide" has merit. This is how our current situation and the income inequality was served to us, a la Reaganomics but that didn't pan out.
Fair enough. I could see that.
The rising tide/universal programs argument is a serious one--many folks trumpet the New Deal, but it created a white middle class while excluding almost all people of color from the housing, educational and other programs that we paid taxes for, but were either explicitly or implicitly barred from. In other words, the GI bill sent white guys to college, but since most colleges didn't accept people of color, it didn't matter that the GI bill would pay for us to go to school.
So there's a targeted universalism--make sure there's a rising tide to lift all boats, and making sure we patch up all boats, not steal the black folks' planks to patch the white folks' boats.
So the attack on the rising tide argument is a powerful, forward looking one that more folks need to make.
the rest of his stuff is gunk. like other folks have said, what's his agenda? and if he has one, how high up is Obama calling him on that agenda?
One thing is true--Michael Eric Dyson and his crew make me wish Jesse Jackson would re-emerge--at least he ran for office, and left campaign structures behind to elect mayors in NYC and governors in VA. After Michael, Tavis, Cornel and the crew run through there's not much left behind.
This is the part that really irritates me about Dyson, as well. Discourses about race that deal with policy questions need to be able to link race with economics, institutions, etc., and then come up with at least some specific analysis, and better yet recommendations. Everything about Dyson seems annoyingly vague. Compare Dyson, for example, to Adolph Reed. Now Reed's boundless pessimism and reflexive anti-Obama stance can be frustrating, but nobody could doubt that he could come up with exactly the critique and recommendations you're asking for, TNC. Unfortunately he's not mainstream media's idea of a Charismatic Race Man(tm), so he doesn't get a lot of air time.
Reed, Bruce Dixon and Dr. Ron Walters- They'd give you so many specifics in 2 minutes, your head would spin. But, as you say, they speak of substance, not in fancy lyrics of 3 dollar words. They are serious folks who have looked at plans - in depth - and have no compunction about talking about them, but can't get them on tv if you put a gun to someone's head, because Dyson is more entertaining.
Coates,
It's possible to disagree with Dyson's approach without missing the point that he's accurately making... that if the structures of racism created or played a prominent role in creating the current status quo (wide gaps of socioeconomic equality), wouldn't giving everyone a boost up just preserve essentially the status quo... with 'everyone' being a bit better off?
There is some merit to Dyson's argument. If the goal is to correct the inequities built into the system over 400 years of inequality, there has to be a targeted effort aimed at the victimized group. It's irresponsible and somewhat hypocritical that we can all acknowledge that payment to Japanese citizens interned in WWII is an appropriate payment to correct a civil and economic wrong, and yet some targeted programs to eliminate the social inequity of institutionalized racism is somehow off the table. This argument is valid without regard to the color of the current President. I suspect what has Dyson's underwear bunched up is that the "rising tide" argument is being made by a man who identifies as African American.
And while I'm at it, let me throw out an idea for government assisted assistance. How about a reinvigorated enterprise zone program (much on the order of what Clinton started) targeted specifically at urban American cities where many African descendants live? The money funding such a venture and the aim of the program would be to foster seed capital for minority business... think grant oriented. If necessary, the administration could survey the landscape for types of business that meet the President's agenda (service industry, green jobs, environmentally friendly, etc).
I can't see how an urban agenda targeted in places where minorities live is any bit more problematic for the "whole" than so-called green jobs targeted to states in the "heartland," where few African descendants (i.e. African Americans) live.
I am white. My president is black. He is my president. He understands that.
We are nowhere near the summum buonum of a post-racial society. But we are, I believe, perhaps as close as we can possibly be, at this point in our history, to having a post-racial president. We certainly have never been so near to having one.
It may be because of his unique ethnic heritage. It may be because he's just so much wiser than most of us. But it may actually be true -- I think it is -- that BHO does not see himself as a black president. He is the POTUS. For everyone. That's the change. That's what is new. Dyson is a piece of the past.
preach it. Dyson is a clown. Sad but true.
Dyson got rich and famous on the book and talk show circuit during the Bush administration bashing the bushies as one of the leading authorities of the "black condition". He was never serious or very interesting, just loud, good at over using vocabulary to seem smarter than a room and slickly explotive in a Jesse and Rev. Al kinda way. Obama has sucked all his air up and now Dyson has to attack windmills in the hope that someone will listen. Its a toddler's temper tantrum.
The first time I heard the video it made me angry, the second time I just laughed. The Beyonce say my name riff was just so stooopid especially considering today's speech.
This is about much more than Dyson "pushing the edge" or trying to sell books, although surely it is about those things too. Dyson is one of many people who have become media personalities as a result of the strong belief -- though not always conscious -- that "black freedom struggle," to use TNC's words from an earlier post, is the fundamental political problem of this country. Dyson exists not merely to "educate" people about this problem, but to shame people into listening him talk about it.
The Obama presidency does not mean that struggle is over, but it means something different now, and people are forced to fight for their turf. Dyson's biggest problem with Obama -- and indeed, why Obama poses a big problem for Dyson's livelihood -- is that Obama's rhetoric does not put black people in America at the very center of America's moral struggle with itself. Dyson says whatever problems Mexican-Americans have, or Arab-Americans have, we need a special place to talk about the problems of African-Americans, and until those problems are solved, no problems have been solved. I think Obama disagrees.
I've always liked MED but when I saw this video yesterday it made seriously rethink what about him I like. This is harsh but I watched that vid and saw a high-falutin' mistrel show.
minstrel*
I agree that Dyson's frame is messed up. MOre than messed up, it's counterproductive for the reasons TNC outlines here.
But there are some federal policies that Obama could spend more effort (and political capital) to fix, policies that affect black Americans directly.
One is criminal sentencing guidelines. Especially when it comes to federal drug policy. Obama has made some moves toward changing the war on drugs, but not nearly enough.
Reforming the justice system and ending the war on drugs would certainly help black Americans disproportionately since they suffer the most under the current system. But it isn't really a racial issue because it would be good to do those things anyway irrespective of race. Our current attitudes towards crime are wasteful and destructive to society as a whole.
I'd disagree with your definition of a "racial issue." To me, the disproportionate effect that federal drug statutes have on black Americans makes those policies a textbook case of what we mean by "racial issue."
This is not intended as a critique. I agree with the reference to federal drug policy. Just seems to me that thus far in the 4+ months of his presidency, the POTUS has done first what he told us he would do first when he ran for election.
Economy, Iraq, repositioning in Afghanistan, health care. He has prioritized. And unlike previous presidents, as he begins to move to get things done, he has not thus far consumed his own political capital. Indeed he has accrued more. That capital will be useful when he moves to other issues.
If, on the other hand, he had moved on criminal sentencing guidelines first, would that have been the DODT of the Obama first year? We could not afford that risk.
Uhmmm... I have actually thought of the reform of the justice system as something Obama must know too well as one of 5-6 big problems in America. It has really huge implications as a humanitarian, economic and social problem. What is it not out front? Is it possible that Obama thinks that bringing this up front so "soon" would be politically costly, would hinder other items on the agenda or even be unachievable? The question marks are honest, I am not trying to make a point but to ask a question.
Also, and this goes for gay issues too: It is legitimate for a politician to ask himself those questions. It doesn't mean that we in the outside have to buy any lame answer they gave us that hides the real answer to said questions.
Way too far. You might not like the content of what Dyson has to say (I agree with the bulk of the commenters that it's pretty ridiculous) but calling it a "minstrel show" is just way, way off the mark. It's also unnecessarily inflammatory.
Couldn't agree more. Discrimination is problem faced only by blacks(well, and other minorities) but I cannot think of any good policies the federal government could implement that could help. Blatant, outright racial discrimination can be outlawed, and it has been. But I think that the problem of racism as it manifests in more subtle but still pernicious forms is largely outside the scope of government policy.
I'm not even convinced that I want a president with a "Black People Policy."
TNC- LOL!! you got that right. That dude would not have gotten out of Iowa with a Black People Policy.
Good use of "My President is Black," TNC. Dyson must object to Jay-Z's complete inability to say "King." He says "Martin Luther walked," which might mean the German Reformer for all we know. But I guess his Black Maybach Policy gets a thumbs-up.
I don't want a "black president".
I want a President who happens to be (insert ethnic background here).
First and foremost President Obama is the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. The same goes for any past or future President.
That doesn't mean black folks can't take some extra pride in having him as Prez. Personally, I like to emphasize his Chicago and Irish backgrounds. Give me a few hours and more than a few Guinness with him and I'll have him singing Irish folks songs with tears in his eyes.
Remember how often he emphasized the word "united" in his speeches?
It's like the way Lincoln emphasized the word "people" in the phrase "Government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE, shall not perish from the earth.
He is no more the President of "black America" than George W Bush was the President of "White America".
Like it or not we are all in this thing we call America together.
I have no use for Dyson or for any of the race pimps. By the way I consider many of the white "conservatives" to be equally "race pimpish" as some of their black pimp brethen. Equal opportunity pimping. If Limbaugh didn't play to the fears of a subset of "white America" he would have little audience.
You have a black president. Just as much (probably more) as his Chicago background has influenced who he is, so has his identity as a mixed race black man. That's just the way it is.
Also, it's particularly ironic hearing white people stress how Obama is the president of the United States not black America and how he should govern for the good of all people when most black people (and I wager most other minorities) are well aware that most of our previous presidents have not been so "colorblind" in their stewardship of the U.S. government.
I'm not saying that I want Obama to show preference to black citizens or that I think he will. I'm just saying, the irony is hard to ignore.
NO, I don't have a "black president". He didn't portray himself as that and I don't think he sees himself as that. If he begins to think of himself as "the Black President" he will likely fail.
One of my black friends, you know us white devils always claim to have one or two, does a hilarious impersonation of Obama's Victory speech in Grant Park on election night. Let's just say it is more Cleavon Little or Richard Pryor than Barack Obama. The fact is America elected Obama because, to quote some comedy skit I recall, "he's just white enough". By that I mean he doesn't fit any of the stereotypes of black America that white devils have. Outside maybe that whole basketball thing he has going on.
With the exception of Colin Powell who grew up in a diverse neighborhood in NYC with Jamaican parents I'm not sure that the first President who happens to be black could have come from anything, but an unusual background. Think about it. Your first "black President" has no "black American" relatives except the two he fathered.
I understand that he is black and he is President, but I don't think they go together. I personally find the arguments that he is not black or "black enough" silly. Believe me if a 25 year old Barack Obama wanted to date the average white girl or above average white girl her family would likely consider him plenty black.
I understand your point about "irony", but that's just the way it is. I also think I have some understanding of "white privilege". The day my Irish born dad got off the potato boat in NYC in the 50's he was considered more of an American than blacks who were born here.
I don't claim to know how much the various parts of his background, racial or otherwise, have impacted the man. My guess is he identifies more by "class" than race, but I could be wrong. The President has such a unique racial and cultural background that I think even he probably doesn't completely understand himself. Few of us do.
What's the impact of Hawaii on him?
What's the impact of Michelle?
What's the impact of Harvard?
What's the impact of his community organizing?
What's the impact of Chicago?
What's the impact of being tall?
What's the impact of not knowing his dad?
What's the impact of his mom's wanderlust?
What's the impact of the values and beliefs of his grandparents?
I have a President who happens to be black.
President Obama couldn't get elected or govern as "the black President".
Let Tavis Smiley,Dyson etc fight over who gets to be the leader of "black America". I think they will be disappointed to find out that "black America" is much more diverse than they want it to be.
Yes, I know there are many contradictions in what I have typed.
Life is nothing if not ambiguous. Just be glad I said that instead of saying "life ain't black or white".
I didn't say that Obama was "the black president", I said that he is a black president. Note the difference between definite and indefinite articles used. Even though you would like to think of him as a president who happens to be black, he's not. He is in fact a black, mixed race president. And I'm confident in calling him black because he has publicly identified himself as such, a black mixed-race man.
Being black is a part of who he is, it's not just a happenstance. And you know what, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! He can be both a black man and the U.S. president at the same time. "Look Ma, no conflict of interest".
And you know it's funny (irritating) that you "understand white privilege" enough to recognize the unfairness of it, but you respond simply with, "that's the way it is". See, me, I respond to the unfairness of the current racial system with a desire to change it, not just accept it. But I'm sure that's because I'm on the other side of that whole white privilege thing.
BTW, I didn't refer to you as a white devil. Just because I have an opinion on this matter contrary to yours and told you so, doesn't mean that I think all white people are evil. In fact, some of my best friends are white.
Look up the definition of the word "sarcasm".
Sincerely,
The White Devil
PS
I'm glad some of your friends are white devils too.
It's a lovely sunny day here in Chicago. One disadvantage of being this white devil is having to avoid the sun. So like George W Bush being rejected by the University of Texas Law School life is not completely unfair.
You really need to stop being so irate, irishpirate, it's bad for your blood pressure.
I'M NOT IRATE!!!!
also my blood pressure is fine. 120/80 or better. Total cholesterol of 145. The benefits of being a regular blood donor is that I get my vitals and cholesterol tested every two months or so.
Toodles.
Really? W fooled me, then. So did all those other white presidents who were in charge during slavery and before blacks could vote. Oh yeah, and that phrase, "People" as in "of", "for" and "by", didn't always include women, either. Hmmmm....
I'm white, and I think it's a great and significant thing that we've elected a black man to the presidency, but I voted for him because he's smart as hell and knows how to get things done. I would have voted for him if he were black, white, or green with purple polka dots.
I think that, like any president people voted for in the past because he gave them hope, Obama has expectations of being more than he's going to end up being no matter what. Black people want him to be more in tune with them, and talk more about issues that really affect them. LGBT people want him to live up to the dream we all had. And so on. And we're really upset when we find that our image of him isn't matching reality.
At the end of the day, though, he's still better than anyone we've had before, and I think that's going to be enough. We just hurt harder when he falls short of our dreams for who we wanted him to be. For myself, I never want to feel the sense of betrayal I felt from Clinton when he signed DOMA
And of course, Dyson is inflammatory. It's her persona. He's pretty much expected to be inflammatory in order to get noticed and compete with people like Sharpton and Jackson. I think it's clear he's trying to play in that arena, and this is the sort of personality required of him. It gets him noticed and applauded. He becomes known as an iconoclast, which is a good way to get attention. Camille Paglia does the same thing. She says patently absurd things because saying contentious in public is part of her media personality. Same goes for Dyson.
We don't need a Black People's Policy
We don't need a president addressing "the Moslem People" - there is something silly and unseemly about it. It flies in the face of the notion that all are judged as individuals (here and abroad)
In foreign policy we judge regimes. We don't have "german" policy. Once we were rid of the Nazis, we embraced and tried to rehabilitate the Germans, though they mostly rehabilitated themselves.
God help us if things ever get so silly we have such policies. and no "women's" policy, we have equal protection under the law. I'd rather see the govenment enforce the laws we already have (and we have plenty) than create new laws and "policies". Let's scrap affirmative action while we're at it. It is silly
One thing piques my curiosity--so are you saying, then, that terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and those who perpetrated the 9/11 bombings should be treated in the same way?
And insofar as regimes are concerned, are you saying that we should treat all regimes who flaunt human rights the same way, without favor?
And how does the innocent civilian individual who dies as collateral damage in war figure into this level playing field?
And do you actually believe everyone even in our country is given equal protection under the law or equal opportunity under the law? On what do you base this idea?
One of the aspects of Obama's genius as a politician is his ability to make everyone feel like he respects and understands them, whatever their identification class or race wise, or what country they live in or religion they practice. So, call me hokey, but to me that's part of what makes him a great American leader for our current times.
This idea that Obama is somehow afraid to identify as black by saying MLK's name is just ridiculous. Does Obama get any credit for his unprecedented prime time speech about race during the election? I don't get the sense that people like Dyson will ever think Obama is "black enough." If he had said MLK's name during that speech, there would soon be something else to complain about. I remember the inauguration having Rev. Lowery speak, and Aretha Franklin sing in that fabulous hat, and Elizabeth Alexander read her poem. I think there was more celebration of black culture and history on stage than there would have been if Hillary Clinton had won.
I didn't personally think that black people voted for Obama thinking he was going to solve all of black America's issues as a top priority, but what do I know? It was interesting to see you lay it out here. What are the "black issues" that aren't also going to help other minorities and/or poor people? Do middle or upper class blacks need special programs or public policy? The only issue I can think of that seems to affect black Americans disproportionately someone mentioned above and I do think it is significant - criminal sentencing. And, also, as we have addressed recently in this blog elsewhere, the terrible frequency of innocent blacks being killed by police. But, it's not realistic to think that these would be some of the first issues Obama tackles in year one as president. I see this happening down the road. He was elected to a four year term after all and I, for one, am praying for eight.
But, see, I respect Greenwald, because he came with an ISSUE. I respect Sullivan, because he has a whole list of ISSUES to confront Obama about. I respect Olapade because - once again - here is an ISSUE.
What I didn't respect about Dyson and so many of those ' We will hold Barack Obama accountable', is that if I asked them for 5 issues that they believe pertained to BLACK PEOPLE MORE THAN THE GENERAL WHITE POPULATION, they would go ' um...um..um..'
I have said many times that I believe a whole lot of what this President can do, CAN be resolved with the ' rainbow' approach.
But, there are certain issues that pertain to BLACK FOLK, and I expect a BLACK MAN to address them.
1. Prison Industrial Complex
2. Slave Labor in the Prisons
3. HIV/AIDS in the Black community - if the face of HIV/AIDS in America is BLACK, then WHY don't the FEDERAL DOLLARS go to those agencies that SERVE THAT COMMUNITY?
4. Education and funding for HBCU's.
5. Access to capital- the systemic racism.
6. What's the point of doing construction in the stimulus, if it has been the construction unions that have been historically and systematically racist against Blacks joining them.
See? Six points in a little over a minute.
THAT is the problem with the ' We're going to hold Barack Obama Accountable' crowd.....where is a page listing those issues?
The one specifically Black issue that came to mind for me was police brutality.
He isnt and probably wont be addressing that (sadly, troublingly) however.
I agree. I forgot this one. He doesn't have to address it, as long as HOLDER begins to hold federal grand juries on these cases.
Well that would kinda be a hard one to tackle anyway as its usually moreso a local issue. But one place I do think he will help is rebuilding the Civil Rights division of the DOJ. So if someone takes a brutality claim to the federal level it will be more likely that it gets looked at seriously.
Sorry to do this twice--would that we could erase our own entries, but I want you to understand this as a response to your post:
What advocacy is there for these issues, especially the prison issue?
What is already being done (didn't Clinton begin to address access to capital? also, while I found his book pedestrian, do you know what Van Jones is up to in the Obama administration and what the likelihood of any enactment of establishing a "green-collar economy" in black communities as part of Obama's energy plans?)?
I don't understand what you mean by advocacy. But, the Prison Industrial Complex issue of of JUSTICE. That folks are getting rich off of young Black men (and increasingly women), who are being thrown into the judicial system, more often than not, for NON-violent offenses. It is decimating the Black community, and yes, I expect a BLACK MAN who is President, to address differently than a White man who can hide behind his delusions of being ' tough on crime'.
I am in complete agreement with your point, but what I don't know is whether there are advocacy groups within government, the media, the blogosphere also making noise and doing something about it.
(Adding to sgwhiteinfla's comment) One thing Obama could do that would specifically help all minorities in this country and that would probably fly under most media radar is beef up (in funding, staff, and mission) all sections of the civil rights division of the DOJ to enforce the numerous anti-discimination laws that are already on the books.
We already have these laws and they cover most every area of life: employment, education, housing, access to credit, and voting. But most of the previous administrations (particularly Republican administrations) have made it a point to neglect or underfund civil rights enforcement or staff the division with people who are actually opposed to civil rights enforcement.
Racial discrimination is the one thing (unequivocally) that minority citizens face that white citizens don't and where racially targeted policy is obviously warranted.
Thanks, I found this list illuminating. One of the reasons I come here.
Nodding head in agreement.
What advocacy is there for these issues, especially the prison issue?
What is already being done (didn't Clinton begin to address access to capital? also, while I found his book pedestrian, do you know what Van Jones is up to in the Obama administration and what the likelihood of any enactment of establishing a "green-collar economy" in black communities as part of Obama's energy plans?)?
I think it would be one thing to have a "Black People Policy"; it's an entirely different thing to call it that (or even have such a notion leaked to the press). Despite the historical injustices specially done to black people in this country, it's still something like 88% non-black, and most are probably not too keen on the Federal Government undertaking such a program.
Someone mentioned police brutality as a potential issue--I think that's legit as long as you frame it as the DOJ looking at civil rights violations by local police. If you call it "We need to stop the police from going after black people," that's going to run into problems.
Finally, I don't see Obama ever having such a special policy. Not only would it be very politically disruptive, but it would screw the chances of future candidates of color. Let's face it, Obama got a lot of the non-black vote because he convinced people that he would look out for the interests of all Americans, and not just people who look like him. If Obama went down this road, no white would ever vote for an Asian candidate or a Hispanic candidate, much less another black one.
Someone mentioned police brutality as a potential issue--I think that's legit as long as you frame it as the DOJ looking at civil rights violations by local police. If you call it "We need to stop the police from going after black people," that's going to run into problems.
It IS a civil rights issue. It's an issue of police terrorism of Black citizens. If the police would actually take care of Pookie and Ray Ray, that would be one thing. But, it's the fact that a random Black man, law-abiding and going about his business - the one thing he doesn't want to have - is any sort of confrontation with the police -not because it could land him in jail, but because it could land him in the MORGUE. When White folks, average everyday White folks, can express such a concern for themselves, then I'll take them seriously. Until then, it's about Black folks getting EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW, like the citizens that they are of this country.
Finally, I don't see Obama ever having such a special policy. Not only would it be very politically disruptive, but it would screw the chances of future candidates of color. Let's face it, Obama got a lot of the non-black vote because he convinced people that he would look out for the interests of all Americans, and not just people who look like him
So, protecting the civil rights of Black folks is a ' special policy'. It would be ' politically disruptive', because it would, gasp, force the police to actually do their jobs, instead of being able to run roughshod over Black folk?
Uh huh.
I think what threads like this show is just how far removed the concerns and conversations of everyday Black folk are from the mainstream, even amongst our supposed political allies.
Also, I have to humbly disagree with two people I highly respect on this: my 50-Yard Line steppin' partner Rikyrah and fellow yac sipper, sgwhiteinfla. While there are many critiques that can be leveled at Dyson and 'Black Leadership', IMO, the notion that they have no list of 'Black policies/issues' is wrong. Hell, they actually catch more grief for ONLY having a list of issues and not 'doing' anything about them.
You can watch Tavis' State of the Black Union (and yes, Rikyrah, I know how you feel about Tavis (-:) or pick up the annual Urban League report from any of the past 5-10 years and you'll see a list similar to the one Rikyrah banged out up top.
Much like Rikyrah, I fully expect Barack Obama, a man who built the start his political career on the backs of lower middle class Black folks, to still remember and address what their everyday concerns are. I don't think you can name any other voting bloc who would not demand the same.
Glad you brought that up b/c when he was butting heads with Tavis, Obama defended himself by challenging him to find any policy in his Contract With Black America (or whatever) that he had not addressed previously, in either word or deed.
Now whether the words are leading to deeds is a relevant criticism, but for someone so nice with the words, for MED to go after him over the rhetoric he chooses or does not choose is a prime example of breaking a major Sun Tzu rule: avoiding fighting the opponent on his home field, whenever possible.