When we witnessed the spectacle of the anti-Obama protesters at the McCain-Palin rallies in 2008, we should have realized they wouldn't go away without a fight. And after Obama won the presidency, well, it was clear that some people had lost their minds. Aggrieved, angry and racist, some working class white folks threw a collective temper tantrum. The mobs of angry unwashed masses assembled, and the result is the Tea Party.
But of course, it isn't quite as simple as that. This lynch mob is a perfect example of top-down, corporate sponsored outrage. Rich benefactors such as the Koch Brothers joined with lobbyists and the Republican Party to help create the Tea Party and harness its energy for their own nefarious purposes. In the end, a "movement" which appears angry and populist is in reality a front group for the worst, most regressive oligarchic policies. And the people who are chosen to do the bidding of these wealthy interests, the candidates for office in this election season, are the most amazing assemblage of crackpots, extremists and white supremacists. They found their opening in the Great Recession the GOP created. Moreover, they capitalized on the missteps of an Obama administration that, however noble its intentions, cozied up too much with Wall Street, failed to attack the jobs problem right away, and wasted too much time appeasing fascists across the aisle who awoke daily praying for the demise of this president. Add to that a half-stepping stimulus program that steered us clear of a depression, but was not nearly enough to get the nation out of the morass.
The Tea Party is not merely a subsidiary of the GOP. It is the GOP. The Tea Party and the Republican Party are one and the same. The Tea Party is the base, and yet the base is all that is left, due to the years of Lee Atwater's race baiting that drove away all the people who are free from mental defect.
Some media outlets have declared the results of this election a foregone conclusion. And while a Republican victory across the nation is a possibility, we really don't know until we know. However, what we do know is that in this campaign season, the Tea Party has scored a victory. Whether they win an election or not, they have succeeded in contaminating the waters. The Tea Party is a corrosive acid that is eating away at the public discourse.
And the spirit of the Tea Party is one which has no shame in its game. It is a hateful and heartless spirit that strives to elevate demagogues, bullies and criminals. In this political environment, some people believe they can say or do whatever comes to mind. One Tea Party group has called for the ouster of a Congressman Keith Ellison not because of his stance on the issues, but because he is a Muslim. Carl Paladino, the Republican gubernatorial candidate from New York, recently went on a homophobic tirade in the wake of gay teen suicides throughout the nation. Sharron Angle, the GOP-Tea Party Senate candidate in Nevada, aired a television ad designed to tap into white racial fears of Latinos.
A volunteer for Tea Party nominee Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) boot stomped the head of a MoveOn protestor outside of a debate. A California man planned an assassination plot on the Tides Foundation and the ACLU because Glenn Beck, the Fox news jester and Tea Party televangelist, demonizes these and other progressive groups on a daily basis. And NPR has received death threats after firing Islamophobic Juan Williams, also a Fox news analyst. Apparently not realizing that he is susceptible to racial profiling, the African-American journalist channeled his inner Teabagger and proclaimed that he is scared of Muslims on a plane.
In my state of Pennsylvania, you can see the harshness of the times. There have been cross burnings in recent months, including two crosses burned on the lawn of a white teenage girl because she invited black friends to her home. And at a parade in Lancaster County a few weeks ago, the crowd greeted a multiracial high school marching band with rocks, taunts and racial epithets. The crowd also sprayed soda on the students, who were from William Penn Senior High School in York, PA, and were black, white and Latino. This is the lynch mob in action. This is the Tea Party. These are the people who beat, punched and kicked civil rights workers at segregated lunch counters in the 50s and 60s, who spat at Negro or "colored" students on their way to school, and blocked the schoolhouse door as the federal government enforced desegregation orders.
And so the spirit of the Tea Party lives on, albeit on borrowed time. With the U.S. poised to become a majority of-color nation in the coming years, the backward racists are outnumbered and will be outvoted through a process of attrition. The Republican Party, now primarily a Southern regional party, will likely implode due to the upcoming civil war that will play out in the former party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass--a party that once boasted 1,500 black political officeholders nationwide during Reconstruction, yet is now the functional equivalent of the Afrikaners' National Party in apartheid South Africa. Nevertheless, for now, we live in a country full of pain and suffering--and hate. These times demand scapegoats, and the Tea Party is more than willing to oblige and hunt them down. We need to be very careful and look out for one another.
October 28, 2010
Why Clarence Thomas owes African-Americans an apology
When Ginni Thomas -- the Tea Partying wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- left Anita Hill a voicemail message asking for an apology, she got it all wrong. It's really Clarence Thomas who owes the apology, to the black community that is.
During his confirmation hearings in 1991, America was introduced to Thomas. And his handlers and boosters created a Horatio Alger, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps story of a black man who emerged from a meager upbringing in Pinpoint, Georgia to become an embodiment of the American dream. We learned that he had Gullah roots. As someone with Gullah ancestry myself via Charleston, South Carolina, I must ask what happened to Thomas to make him run away from his people and forget from whence he came. Justice Thomas is part of the high court's conservative majority (led by Justices Roberts and Scalia), and often is regarded as the most rightward judge among his peers. His record on the bench tells the story:
An originalist, Justice Thomas believes in the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. That is bad news for black folks, and presumably for Thomas as well, given that under that judicial philosophy, he and all other blacks should be in chains on someone's plantation.
Thomas staunchly defended gun rights for African-Americans by cynically making an argument that had hints of Malcolm X or the Black Panther Party. He suggested that black people needed guns to protect themselves from the mob violence of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction. True, but that argument seems misplaced in the realities of present-day black America, when young black men in the cities are shooting each other to death. The staunch second amendment advocate had nothing to say about that.
In Hudson v. McMillian (1992), Thomas dissented from the court's majority opinion which said prisoners were covered by the constitution's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." Consistently, Thomas and Scalia have dissented when the court ruled in favor of prisoners who alleged cruelty, including the case of an inmate who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard, a prisoner who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot sun. Thomas even believed that an inmate who was slammed against a concrete floor, punched and kicked by a guard for filing a grievance did not have his constitutional rights violated.
According to Thomas, such harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote. And while his outrage over the tasering and beating of his suicidal epileptic nephew in a Louisiana hospital was understandable if not laudable, never has he shown any sympathy for the one in nine prison inmates suffering from mental illness. It is understandable that Thomas' former law clerk John Yoo was investigated for writing memos in the Justice Department justifying torture of terror suspects.
In another case dealing with the death penalty, Thomas concluded in a concurring opinion that a defendant's childhood misfortunes or poverty should have no bearing in a case. And he sided with the minority when the court's struck down random drug searches by police at highway checkpoints because they violate the right to privacy.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE AT THEGRIO.COM
During his confirmation hearings in 1991, America was introduced to Thomas. And his handlers and boosters created a Horatio Alger, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps story of a black man who emerged from a meager upbringing in Pinpoint, Georgia to become an embodiment of the American dream. We learned that he had Gullah roots. As someone with Gullah ancestry myself via Charleston, South Carolina, I must ask what happened to Thomas to make him run away from his people and forget from whence he came. Justice Thomas is part of the high court's conservative majority (led by Justices Roberts and Scalia), and often is regarded as the most rightward judge among his peers. His record on the bench tells the story:
An originalist, Justice Thomas believes in the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. That is bad news for black folks, and presumably for Thomas as well, given that under that judicial philosophy, he and all other blacks should be in chains on someone's plantation.
Thomas staunchly defended gun rights for African-Americans by cynically making an argument that had hints of Malcolm X or the Black Panther Party. He suggested that black people needed guns to protect themselves from the mob violence of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction. True, but that argument seems misplaced in the realities of present-day black America, when young black men in the cities are shooting each other to death. The staunch second amendment advocate had nothing to say about that.
In Hudson v. McMillian (1992), Thomas dissented from the court's majority opinion which said prisoners were covered by the constitution's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." Consistently, Thomas and Scalia have dissented when the court ruled in favor of prisoners who alleged cruelty, including the case of an inmate who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard, a prisoner who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot sun. Thomas even believed that an inmate who was slammed against a concrete floor, punched and kicked by a guard for filing a grievance did not have his constitutional rights violated.
According to Thomas, such harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote. And while his outrage over the tasering and beating of his suicidal epileptic nephew in a Louisiana hospital was understandable if not laudable, never has he shown any sympathy for the one in nine prison inmates suffering from mental illness. It is understandable that Thomas' former law clerk John Yoo was investigated for writing memos in the Justice Department justifying torture of terror suspects.
In another case dealing with the death penalty, Thomas concluded in a concurring opinion that a defendant's childhood misfortunes or poverty should have no bearing in a case. And he sided with the minority when the court's struck down random drug searches by police at highway checkpoints because they violate the right to privacy.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE AT THEGRIO.COM
October 23, 2010
Why Would the ADL Honor Rupert Murdoch?
It is a valid question that demands answers. Why would a prominent civil rights organization -- one which is supposedly dedicated to fighting bigotry and discrimination -- present an award to a man whose cable network profits from race-baiting and hatred?
On October 13, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the nation's foremost Jewish civil rights organization, presented an award to media magnate Rupert Murdoch "for his stalwart support of Israel and his commitment to promoting respect and speaking out against anti-Semitism," according to a press release on the organization's website.
In his acceptance speech, Murdoch -- who of course is the CEO of News Corp, parent of Fox News -- spoke of the "soft war" against Israel, and the "ongoing war against the Jews." Perhaps the most eye-opening part of Rupert Murdoch's speech was his assertion about the source of most of today's worst anti-Semitism: the Left.
The same day, the ADL released its own blacklist of sorts, what it calls the "Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups In America." These are generally progressive peace activist groups, and civil rights and human rights organizations that are critical of Israeli government policy, and advocate for Palestinian self-determination. They include groups such as US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Council on American-Islamic Relations. Also on the list is Jewish Voice For Peace, which is "the only national Jewish organization that provides a voice for Jews and allies who believe that peace in the Middle East will be achieved through justice and full equality for both Palestinians and Israelis."
Now, no part of the political spectrum has a monopoly on bigotry and intolerance. And as the Southern Poverty Law Center notes, there is some anti-Semitism on the far-left, and some critics of Israel cross the line into anti-Semitism. However, criticism of Israel does not typically equal anti-Semitism, and many critics of Israel are unfairly labeled as bigots. It seems that Mr. Murdoch is painting in rather broad brushstrokes in his condemnation of the left. And he is a hypocrite as well, given the virulent anti-Semitism that viewers will find on Fox News.
As Media Matters recently reported, Fox News has an anti-Semitism problem. Fox host Glenn Beck promoted the racist book The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling, a Nazi sympathizer who praised Hitler, called "Colored people" savages, and blamed Germany's anti-Semitism on "revolutionary Russian Jews." According to Media Matters, Beck also cited an anti-Semitic smear of George Soros, and promoted Secrets of the Federal Reserve, a book by the anti-Semitic and white supremacist conspiracy theorist Eustace Mullins.
In addition, Beck has hosted and associated with other controversial leaders on the right, including Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, and Michael Hill of the League of the South. Even the ADL has said that David Barton, a so-called historian promoted by Beck, has spoken to groups affiliated with the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement.
Moreover, Beck recently defended Ohio congressional candidate Rich Iott's right to wear a Nazi uniform, comparing it to "good cop bad cop" or "cowboys and Indians."
So, what's really going on here?
First, the ADL apparently has decided to eschew its glorious past and become a rigid single-issue organization. It has cast its lot with the neocon crowd in America who want to characterize all legitimate critics of Israel -- including progressive Jews who also believe in Palestinian rights -- as anti-Semites. The goal is to shut off all debate on the Mideast crisis. And he ADL puts itself in lockstep with a hard-right government in Israel that would erode the rights of Jew and Arab alike -- with efforts by the ultra-orthodox to define who is or is not a Jew; enforced gender segregation on public streets, a law requiring Arab and other non-Jewish Israelis to pledge loyalty to a "Jewish and democratic" state, and legislation that would criminalize minority political opposition and human rights organizations who assist refugees.
Second, Rupert Murdoch has deep pockets, and I suppose the ADL will benefit from that reality. But they must hold their nose and look the other way as Murdoch's Fox News serves as the official network of the Tea Party, which the ADL itself says is a recruiting ground for white supremacists. And Murdoch has given $1 million apiece to the Republican Governors' Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, doing his part to further the corporate purchase of American politics and foreign influence over elections, not to mention the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
Only two months ago, the ADL was embroiled in controversy when it spoke out against the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. That move did much to damage its reputation and integrity as an advocate for civil rights and religious freedoms. And now, it seems the ADL has learned very little from that episode, as it just honored Rupert Murdoch of all people. The organization founded nearly a century ago following the lynching of Leo Frank has come a long way, but not in a good way.
Two questions remain: Will the ADL demand that Murdoch return his award? And will Murdoch repudiate the anti-Semitism of Glenn Beck and his own Fox News network?
On October 13, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the nation's foremost Jewish civil rights organization, presented an award to media magnate Rupert Murdoch "for his stalwart support of Israel and his commitment to promoting respect and speaking out against anti-Semitism," according to a press release on the organization's website.
In his acceptance speech, Murdoch -- who of course is the CEO of News Corp, parent of Fox News -- spoke of the "soft war" against Israel, and the "ongoing war against the Jews." Perhaps the most eye-opening part of Rupert Murdoch's speech was his assertion about the source of most of today's worst anti-Semitism: the Left.
Tonight I'd like to speak about two things that worry me most.
First is the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society -- especially in Europe.
Second is how violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel's greatest ally distancing herself from the Jewish state.
Now, when Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.
Now it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.
The same day, the ADL released its own blacklist of sorts, what it calls the "Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups In America." These are generally progressive peace activist groups, and civil rights and human rights organizations that are critical of Israeli government policy, and advocate for Palestinian self-determination. They include groups such as US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Council on American-Islamic Relations. Also on the list is Jewish Voice For Peace, which is "the only national Jewish organization that provides a voice for Jews and allies who believe that peace in the Middle East will be achieved through justice and full equality for both Palestinians and Israelis."
Now, no part of the political spectrum has a monopoly on bigotry and intolerance. And as the Southern Poverty Law Center notes, there is some anti-Semitism on the far-left, and some critics of Israel cross the line into anti-Semitism. However, criticism of Israel does not typically equal anti-Semitism, and many critics of Israel are unfairly labeled as bigots. It seems that Mr. Murdoch is painting in rather broad brushstrokes in his condemnation of the left. And he is a hypocrite as well, given the virulent anti-Semitism that viewers will find on Fox News.
As Media Matters recently reported, Fox News has an anti-Semitism problem. Fox host Glenn Beck promoted the racist book The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling, a Nazi sympathizer who praised Hitler, called "Colored people" savages, and blamed Germany's anti-Semitism on "revolutionary Russian Jews." According to Media Matters, Beck also cited an anti-Semitic smear of George Soros, and promoted Secrets of the Federal Reserve, a book by the anti-Semitic and white supremacist conspiracy theorist Eustace Mullins.
In addition, Beck has hosted and associated with other controversial leaders on the right, including Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Roy Beck of NumbersUSA, and Michael Hill of the League of the South. Even the ADL has said that David Barton, a so-called historian promoted by Beck, has spoken to groups affiliated with the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement.
Moreover, Beck recently defended Ohio congressional candidate Rich Iott's right to wear a Nazi uniform, comparing it to "good cop bad cop" or "cowboys and Indians."
So, what's really going on here?
First, the ADL apparently has decided to eschew its glorious past and become a rigid single-issue organization. It has cast its lot with the neocon crowd in America who want to characterize all legitimate critics of Israel -- including progressive Jews who also believe in Palestinian rights -- as anti-Semites. The goal is to shut off all debate on the Mideast crisis. And he ADL puts itself in lockstep with a hard-right government in Israel that would erode the rights of Jew and Arab alike -- with efforts by the ultra-orthodox to define who is or is not a Jew; enforced gender segregation on public streets, a law requiring Arab and other non-Jewish Israelis to pledge loyalty to a "Jewish and democratic" state, and legislation that would criminalize minority political opposition and human rights organizations who assist refugees.
Second, Rupert Murdoch has deep pockets, and I suppose the ADL will benefit from that reality. But they must hold their nose and look the other way as Murdoch's Fox News serves as the official network of the Tea Party, which the ADL itself says is a recruiting ground for white supremacists. And Murdoch has given $1 million apiece to the Republican Governors' Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, doing his part to further the corporate purchase of American politics and foreign influence over elections, not to mention the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.
Only two months ago, the ADL was embroiled in controversy when it spoke out against the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan. That move did much to damage its reputation and integrity as an advocate for civil rights and religious freedoms. And now, it seems the ADL has learned very little from that episode, as it just honored Rupert Murdoch of all people. The organization founded nearly a century ago following the lynching of Leo Frank has come a long way, but not in a good way.
Two questions remain: Will the ADL demand that Murdoch return his award? And will Murdoch repudiate the anti-Semitism of Glenn Beck and his own Fox News network?
October 18, 2010
Jobs are a cure for depression
Unemployment is a mental health issue, and we must address it.
Clinical depression affects nearly one in 10 Americans, according to a recent survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And unemployment is the biggest risk factor causing depression. While 6 percent of people with jobs exhibit signs of depression, 21 percent of unemployed people have symptoms, the survey revealed.
This may be why blacks and Hispanics and other people of color are more likely to become depressed than whites, since people of color have much higher unemployment rates.
Given the strong correlation between unemployment and depression, it stands to reason that tough economic times will only worsen this major health problem in America.
Although the official unemployment stands at 9.6 percent, the real rate is likely much higher, since official statistics do not include people who are underemployed or have given up all hopes of finding a job. A record 20 million-plus were on unemployment at some time in 2009. What’s more, almost 7 million people were counted as long-term unemployed in June — 46 percent of the total — the worst since 1948.
With five applicants for every job, and a loss of 10 million jobs in the United States, almost everyone knows someone who is jobless, and the toll that it is taking on them and their families.
As someone who was without work for a year during this recession, I can attest to the effect that it can have on one’s mental state, outlook on life and sense of self-worth.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers and commentators have made light of the problems of the unemployed by telling them they are lazy and spoiled. But that helps neither their job prospects nor their mental state.
If America wants to get serious about stemming the tide of depression and unemployment, we must get our priorities in order. That means more funding for mental health care, and a government commitment to creating jobs for everyone.
(From the Progressive)
Clinical depression affects nearly one in 10 Americans, according to a recent survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And unemployment is the biggest risk factor causing depression. While 6 percent of people with jobs exhibit signs of depression, 21 percent of unemployed people have symptoms, the survey revealed.
This may be why blacks and Hispanics and other people of color are more likely to become depressed than whites, since people of color have much higher unemployment rates.
Given the strong correlation between unemployment and depression, it stands to reason that tough economic times will only worsen this major health problem in America.
Although the official unemployment stands at 9.6 percent, the real rate is likely much higher, since official statistics do not include people who are underemployed or have given up all hopes of finding a job. A record 20 million-plus were on unemployment at some time in 2009. What’s more, almost 7 million people were counted as long-term unemployed in June — 46 percent of the total — the worst since 1948.
With five applicants for every job, and a loss of 10 million jobs in the United States, almost everyone knows someone who is jobless, and the toll that it is taking on them and their families.
As someone who was without work for a year during this recession, I can attest to the effect that it can have on one’s mental state, outlook on life and sense of self-worth.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers and commentators have made light of the problems of the unemployed by telling them they are lazy and spoiled. But that helps neither their job prospects nor their mental state.
If America wants to get serious about stemming the tide of depression and unemployment, we must get our priorities in order. That means more funding for mental health care, and a government commitment to creating jobs for everyone.
(From the Progressive)
October 16, 2010
Paladino's intolerance par for the course on campaign trail
This week, Republican New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino showed us exactly how despicable he can be when he unleashed his bigotry and intolerance against the gay community. On Monday, which was National Coming Out Day, this Tea Party favorite told NBC's Today that he stood by his controversial remarks against homosexuality and gay marriage the day before at a Brooklyn synagogue. And these statements should tell the voters of New York that this man is not suitable for public office.
On Sunday, Paladino spoke before a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders, decrying the ways in which people are "brainwashed" about gay issues. "That's not how God created us," Paladino said of being gay, "and that's not the example that we should be showing our children." He criticized his opponent, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for taking his daughter to a gay pride parade, saying "that's not the example we should be showing our children."
"I don't think it's proper for them to go there and watch a couple of grown men grind against each other. I don't think that's proper, I think it's disgusting," Paladino said. "I just think that my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option. It isn't," he added.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
On Sunday, Paladino spoke before a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders, decrying the ways in which people are "brainwashed" about gay issues. "That's not how God created us," Paladino said of being gay, "and that's not the example that we should be showing our children." He criticized his opponent, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, for taking his daughter to a gay pride parade, saying "that's not the example we should be showing our children."
"I don't think it's proper for them to go there and watch a couple of grown men grind against each other. I don't think that's proper, I think it's disgusting," Paladino said. "I just think that my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option. It isn't," he added.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
When the Poor Conspire to Keep Themselves Poor
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
So the poor are conspiring with the wealthy, against their own self-interests, to keep themselves in poverty. How is it that economic inequality makes the poor more conservative and in opposition to government programs that are designed to fight inequality?
A new study by Nathan J. Kelly and Peter K. Enns suggests that income inequality is a self-perpetuating phenomenon. Based on responses to survey questions from 1952 to 2006, the authors concluded that as the gap between the haves and the have nots widens, public opinion moves towards a conservative mindset of smaller government. Meanwhile, as the wealth gap narrows, there is a more liberal attitude among rich and poor alike.
Oddly, according to the authors, despite all of this, poorer people are more acutely aware of increases in inequality. Kelly and Enns suggest that the elites are controlling actors in the distribution game, and can play a role in shaping public opinion by distracting and manipulating the masses. They also speculate that media and the nature of media coverage play a role. For example, during economic boom times the press covers stories emphasizing individualism, which will boost public antipathy towards welfare. And in hard times the media tend to report on the problems people are facing, and the role of government in solving these problems. I think there is some validity to this theory, given the popularity of welfare reform and dismantling the social safety net during the economic expansion of the Clinton years, and widespread support for health care reform and unemployment insurance under today's Great Recession.
This study is a good starting point in helping us understand the obstacles to forming a progressive-led movement for economic justice in America -- a fight against the cancer of neoliberal privatization of the public sphere, and a move towards social democracy, if you will.
Many people placed their hopes on the Obama presidency to bring about this new era of economic redistribution. Although the history still has yet to be written on the Obama presidency, it looks as if the second coming of F.D.R. ain't gonna happen just yet. There are very good intentions in this administration, mixed with conflicting allegiances and amateurism. Its flawed notion of bipartisanship was doomed to failure under the current troubling political landscape, one in which the opposing team is an unsavory assortment of neo-Nazis, the Klan, Christian Taliban and swamp-running hillbilly lynch mobs on their best days.
The ever-looming presence of Wall Street in the politics of this country -- and in this administration in particular -- has put the proverbial cold water on attempts to fundamentally change America's economic pie. Not only do we need to reassess the way the slices are doled out and the sizes of the slices, but we also need to change the recipe itself. When the president placed key neoliberal Clintonistas and Goldman Sachs enablers in his inner circle -- you know, the people who paved the way for the Great Recession -- he signaled he had no intention of rocking the boat. He decided against the "radical revolution of values" demanded by Martin Luther King, the man he so admired.
Job creation was not taken seriously, and stimulus funding was half-hearted. And health care reform was Rahm Emanuel's opportunity to cut deals with lobbyists and give away the store. Boldness of ideas was eschewed in favor of technocratic aloofness, and scolding the base for not beholding with awe this White House's missteps, triangulations and policy dilutions. Granted, inheriting a dysfunctional economy explains many of Obama's challenges, but does not explain away the self-inflicted wounds of this administration.
Crises demand far more than tweaking and nibbling at the edges. Obama squandered a unique opportunity, not realizing that you don't bring a spatula to a gunfight. He refused to do the class warfare thing and place blame where blame rests -- Wall Street elites that have hollowed out working class and poor Americans (there is only a token vestige of a middle class left). In the process, he gave a football stadium-sized opening for Republican gangsterism to thrive. The teabagged GOP has crafted a narrative of hate and anger, built on an infrastructure of corporate-sponsored, ersatz populism. Some white working-class and poor Americans are drawn to this phony movement the way they have acted against their interests time and again. But they need to be shown another way out.
With that said, President Obama is the best hope for progressives right now, and will continue to be until he isn't. Hope is not all lost, though. After all, President Obama is dismantling his privileged white-male roundtable and bringing in Elizabeth Warren. But at the same time, he still seems to want to protect the vested moneyed interests by lifting the ban on deep water oil drilling, and falling short of halting all foreclosures, opting to study the issue instead. And this president has accomplished more than many -- but then again, the expectations were high, and rarely have the stakes been higher.
To its credit, this White House is railing against the buying of democracy, which we have seen recently with Rupert Murdoch purchasing the Republican Party, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce apparently using foreign funding to buy the 2010 elections. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows unlimited money to influence politics on the grounds that corporations are people too, and deserving of free speech protection. But as Justice Stevens warned in his dissent:
It is this type of corruption of democracy that twists the system and causes the poor to act against their own interests. And this is one of the myriad issues that a progressive movement must tackle, whether or not the president chooses to. It is said there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. Well, there are permanent values, and it takes a movement to articulate and sustain those values. Progressives can demand that Obama adhere to certain principles if he wants their support.
But a president does not a movement make, and we're learning that now. That's the job of the people.
So the poor are conspiring with the wealthy, against their own self-interests, to keep themselves in poverty. How is it that economic inequality makes the poor more conservative and in opposition to government programs that are designed to fight inequality?
A new study by Nathan J. Kelly and Peter K. Enns suggests that income inequality is a self-perpetuating phenomenon. Based on responses to survey questions from 1952 to 2006, the authors concluded that as the gap between the haves and the have nots widens, public opinion moves towards a conservative mindset of smaller government. Meanwhile, as the wealth gap narrows, there is a more liberal attitude among rich and poor alike.
Oddly, according to the authors, despite all of this, poorer people are more acutely aware of increases in inequality. Kelly and Enns suggest that the elites are controlling actors in the distribution game, and can play a role in shaping public opinion by distracting and manipulating the masses. They also speculate that media and the nature of media coverage play a role. For example, during economic boom times the press covers stories emphasizing individualism, which will boost public antipathy towards welfare. And in hard times the media tend to report on the problems people are facing, and the role of government in solving these problems. I think there is some validity to this theory, given the popularity of welfare reform and dismantling the social safety net during the economic expansion of the Clinton years, and widespread support for health care reform and unemployment insurance under today's Great Recession.
This study is a good starting point in helping us understand the obstacles to forming a progressive-led movement for economic justice in America -- a fight against the cancer of neoliberal privatization of the public sphere, and a move towards social democracy, if you will.
Many people placed their hopes on the Obama presidency to bring about this new era of economic redistribution. Although the history still has yet to be written on the Obama presidency, it looks as if the second coming of F.D.R. ain't gonna happen just yet. There are very good intentions in this administration, mixed with conflicting allegiances and amateurism. Its flawed notion of bipartisanship was doomed to failure under the current troubling political landscape, one in which the opposing team is an unsavory assortment of neo-Nazis, the Klan, Christian Taliban and swamp-running hillbilly lynch mobs on their best days.
The ever-looming presence of Wall Street in the politics of this country -- and in this administration in particular -- has put the proverbial cold water on attempts to fundamentally change America's economic pie. Not only do we need to reassess the way the slices are doled out and the sizes of the slices, but we also need to change the recipe itself. When the president placed key neoliberal Clintonistas and Goldman Sachs enablers in his inner circle -- you know, the people who paved the way for the Great Recession -- he signaled he had no intention of rocking the boat. He decided against the "radical revolution of values" demanded by Martin Luther King, the man he so admired.
Job creation was not taken seriously, and stimulus funding was half-hearted. And health care reform was Rahm Emanuel's opportunity to cut deals with lobbyists and give away the store. Boldness of ideas was eschewed in favor of technocratic aloofness, and scolding the base for not beholding with awe this White House's missteps, triangulations and policy dilutions. Granted, inheriting a dysfunctional economy explains many of Obama's challenges, but does not explain away the self-inflicted wounds of this administration.
Crises demand far more than tweaking and nibbling at the edges. Obama squandered a unique opportunity, not realizing that you don't bring a spatula to a gunfight. He refused to do the class warfare thing and place blame where blame rests -- Wall Street elites that have hollowed out working class and poor Americans (there is only a token vestige of a middle class left). In the process, he gave a football stadium-sized opening for Republican gangsterism to thrive. The teabagged GOP has crafted a narrative of hate and anger, built on an infrastructure of corporate-sponsored, ersatz populism. Some white working-class and poor Americans are drawn to this phony movement the way they have acted against their interests time and again. But they need to be shown another way out.
With that said, President Obama is the best hope for progressives right now, and will continue to be until he isn't. Hope is not all lost, though. After all, President Obama is dismantling his privileged white-male roundtable and bringing in Elizabeth Warren. But at the same time, he still seems to want to protect the vested moneyed interests by lifting the ban on deep water oil drilling, and falling short of halting all foreclosures, opting to study the issue instead. And this president has accomplished more than many -- but then again, the expectations were high, and rarely have the stakes been higher.
To its credit, this White House is railing against the buying of democracy, which we have seen recently with Rupert Murdoch purchasing the Republican Party, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce apparently using foreign funding to buy the 2010 elections. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows unlimited money to influence politics on the grounds that corporations are people too, and deserving of free speech protection. But as Justice Stevens warned in his dissent:
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
It is this type of corruption of democracy that twists the system and causes the poor to act against their own interests. And this is one of the myriad issues that a progressive movement must tackle, whether or not the president chooses to. It is said there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. Well, there are permanent values, and it takes a movement to articulate and sustain those values. Progressives can demand that Obama adhere to certain principles if he wants their support.
But a president does not a movement make, and we're learning that now. That's the job of the people.
October 12, 2010
Black farmers bear the brunt of GOP obstructionism
The Republicans-- whether in Congress, Fox News, the Tea Party or elsewhere-- seem to operate at their best, or should I say worst, when they create an enemy. And most of the time, except for the days when they are picking on Muslims, mosques, Mexicans and gay marriage, their designated enemy is black America.
And now, they've decided to go after the black farmer. So, exactly what have black farmers done, you ask? They were victims of discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so they sued and won a $1.25 billion settlement. Another $3.4 billion settled claims that the Interior Department mismanaged Native American trust funds. Now, some GOP lawmakers charge that many of these aggrieved black farmers aren't really farmers at all.
Reps. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) have alleged that the settlement with the black farmers was a big scam. Bachmann said the deal was rife with "massive and widespread fraud and abuse," while King said "I think they have turned a blind eye to the fraud and corruption here." These legislators are calling for Congressional investigations into the matter.
But the "concern" of these lawmakers is a reflection of racial politics more than anything else. To justify the probe, they claim that 94,000 claims were filed, although there are only 33,000 black farmers in the U.S., according to Census data. Out of thousands of claims, only three were found to be false. Furthermore, each claim has to be verified by a court-appointed arbitrator. In addition, as the National Black Farmers Association notes, the claims include those who were farmers as well as those who attempted to become farmers.
"Everyone that steps to the microphone says they support the black farmers," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association. "But they can't put aside their political bickering so the black farmers can get on with their lives."
The original class-action lawsuit, Pigford v. Glickman (Pigford I), claimed that the USDA discriminated against black farmers by not providing them with loans and grants provided to whites. The case settled in 1999, but was resettled in 2010 under Pigford II, in order to incorporate tens of thousands of late filers.
Congress is supposed to appropriate the funds for the settlement, and a bill passed in the House, but the funding has been stalled in the Senate amid supposed concerns by Republicans about adding to the federal deficit.
And not surprisingly, groups such as the National and Legal Policy Center a conservative front group that is funded by right wing philanthropy to go after liberal politicians and spread conspiracy theories the settlement a shakedown.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has criticized Republicans for their obstructionist tactics, and politicizing what should be a noncontroversial, bipartisan issue. "If Republicans are fundamentally opposed to ending this injustice for black farmers and Native American trust account holders, they should at least have the courage to say so and stop playing games with this critical issue," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Sen. Reid.
But this is an election year, and for the Tea Party-dominated Republicans, beating up on black folks is their bread and butter. The fact is that they object to any programs that would be of benefit to African-Americans. The GOP's decades-old Southern Strategy -- which solidified white Southern support for the Republicans -- was based on opposition to social programs on the grounds that they would benefit people of color. And earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh characterized President Obama's health care reform bill as "reparations" and a "civil rights bill." Limbaugh's not so subtle point here was to feed into the racial anxieties of whites by suggesting that the nation's first black president is handing out slavery reparations or preferential treatment to black people.
Over the past several years, conservatives have attempted to promote a twisted and dishonest narrative that paints African-Americans as the new racists, and whites as the victims of reverse discrimination. The Bush administration fired prosecutors who refused to pursue nonexistent voter fraud cases in black and Latino areas. Conservative media outlets waged a war against the community group ACORN and former green jobs czar Van Jones, and they engaged in a smear campaign against black USDA official Shirley Sherrod. And to this day Republicans are fixated on sketchy claims that the New Black Panther Party intimidated white voters in Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008.
It is difficult to believe that these Republicans would raise such a fuss if these farmers seeking justice were white. Meanwhile, no one characterizes the $76 billion in federal farm subsidies for corn doled out since 1995 -- to produce the sodas and sugary foods that wreck America's health -- as a shakedown. No concerns about the deficit there. Republicans need to leave the black farmers alone and give them the money they deserve.
Tea Party Diversity Effort is a Public Relations Scam
Diversity in the Tea Party? Now, that's a contradiction in terms. FreedomWorks -- a corporate lobbying group behind the Tea Party movement -- has announced that it has launched an outreach effort to minority groups including African-Americans, Latinos and Jews. The outreach and advertising campaign, called DiverseTea, is a response to claims, substantiated claims I might add, that the Tea Party is racist.
"I really get a little tired of diversity talk from liberals," said FreedomWorks chair Dick Armey.
People of color and other minorities need membership in the Tea Party like they needed membership in the White Citizens' Council during Jim Crow. And the notion of Tea Party diversity is just as implausible. Some organizations simply were not meant for inclusion. DiverseTea is merely a public relations stunt, an effort to broaden the appeal among white moderates of a faux grassroots movement backed by rightwing philanthropy. In other words, this is a prime example of window dressing -- with expensive white sheets.
On its website, DiverseTea says that government has gotten too big, and they are opposed to "bailouts of the irresponsible" and "federal bureaucrats taking over our health care," adding:
But the populist-sounding rhetoric belies the insidious roots of the Tea Party movement.
FreedomWorks is an organization that engages in "astroturfing" -- the creation of an artificial grassroots movement by powerful lobbyists and corporations. Among its clients are life insurance companies, Big Oil and the pharmaceutical industry, for whom it seeks deregulation and the status quo. A vocal opponent of health reform, FreedomWorks was behind the angry town hall meetings since 2009. The group worked with BP, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Conservative Union, among others, to create fake "grassroots" support for more offshore oil drilling.
FreedomWorks is funded in part by the billionaire Charles and David Koch, brothers and oil magnates who dabble in ultra-conservative politics because "this right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves." Bringing down the Obama administration is what they're all about, and their pet projects reflect this reality. They started another astroturf group called Americans for Prosperity, which opposes health care reform, the stimulus and environmental regulation, and helped bring down green jobs czar Van Jones. Americans for Prosperity has received funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which supports the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, and bankrolled Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action crusade and the infamous book The Bell Curve.
DiverseTea is not a new phenomenon in the effort to whitewash and sugarcoat intolerant causes. The Tea Party tried to put on its happy diversity face with UNI-TEA, which has been a flop -- although I'm sure Uncle Ruckus is a fan. And the anti-immigrant organization FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) created You Don't Speak For Me, a Hispanic anti-immigrant front group, and its defunct African-American counterpart Choose Black America. FAIR, which drafted the infamous Arizona law SB 1070, has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The law was signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who proclaimed "I love them [Latinos] from the bottom of my heart." FAIR has received funding from the white supremacist and pro-eugenics Pioneer Fund, which supports studies linking race, genetics and intelligence. And even as Tea Party now represents the energy of the Republican Party, the homophobic GOP claims to make overtures to gay Republicans, another oxymoron. This, as it has alienated the LGBT community, Muslims, Arabs, Latinos, blacks and anyone who is not a straight, white conservative Christian fundamentalist.
For further proof that diversity and tea don't mix, one need only observe the movement's standard bearers who aspire to political office. For example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul argued that the federal government should allow private businesses to discriminate against blacks. Delaware Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell said she wouldn't have lied to Hitler to save Jews from the Nazis. Ken Buck, the Tea Party senatorial candidate from Colorado, opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He also believes that the military should not allow the openly gay to serve, and should be as homogeneous as possible. Meanwhile, New York Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino wants to house welfare recipients in prison, where they would receive job training and learn personal hygiene. He likes to send racist and sexist emails, including a video of African tribesmen called "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," which is popular on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront.
Similarly, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who has positioned himself as a Tea Party mover and shaker, demonstrated his contempt for diversity when he said that openly gay people and sexually active single women should not be allowed to teach in the classroom.
The only visible minority outreach efforts by the Tea Party seem to involve acts of outright racial animosity and intolerance. In Harris County, Texas, a Tea Party organization is suppressing the minority vote by lodging unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud against voter registration groups, referring to the headquarters of one such group as the "New Black Panthers' office."
When I look at the current crop of Tea Party faithful, I draw parallels with the Southern segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s. They would be right at home busting up heads at a lunch counter sit in, or hurling racial epithets at some black student being escorted to school by the National Guard. Not unlike their forebears, the Tea Partiers reflect the sentiments of the angry lynch mob-- lacking any coherent philosophy other than jingoism, raw anger, their hatred of the "other," and a desire to return to the good ol' days, which were not so good for those other people. And like the rabble-rousers of Jim Crow fame, they do the dirty work at the behest of oligarchs such as the Koch brothers, who find them useful if not entertaining.
Real diversity means inclusion and tolerance of different viewpoints, backgrounds, orientations and lifestyles, not tokenism. So, if you are a diverse applicant for admission to the Tea Party gang, know what you're dealing with. Better yet, know your enemy. Your work is cut out for you.
"I really get a little tired of diversity talk from liberals," said FreedomWorks chair Dick Armey.
People of color and other minorities need membership in the Tea Party like they needed membership in the White Citizens' Council during Jim Crow. And the notion of Tea Party diversity is just as implausible. Some organizations simply were not meant for inclusion. DiverseTea is merely a public relations stunt, an effort to broaden the appeal among white moderates of a faux grassroots movement backed by rightwing philanthropy. In other words, this is a prime example of window dressing -- with expensive white sheets.
On its website, DiverseTea says that government has gotten too big, and they are opposed to "bailouts of the irresponsible" and "federal bureaucrats taking over our health care," adding:
We are black, brown, and white. We are Jew and gentile. We are from different communities, various backgrounds, and all races, colors, and creeds. We will Take America Back, not from Democrats or Republicans, but from an arrogant political class that puts its interests before those of all Americans.
But the populist-sounding rhetoric belies the insidious roots of the Tea Party movement.
FreedomWorks is an organization that engages in "astroturfing" -- the creation of an artificial grassroots movement by powerful lobbyists and corporations. Among its clients are life insurance companies, Big Oil and the pharmaceutical industry, for whom it seeks deregulation and the status quo. A vocal opponent of health reform, FreedomWorks was behind the angry town hall meetings since 2009. The group worked with BP, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Conservative Union, among others, to create fake "grassroots" support for more offshore oil drilling.
FreedomWorks is funded in part by the billionaire Charles and David Koch, brothers and oil magnates who dabble in ultra-conservative politics because "this right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves." Bringing down the Obama administration is what they're all about, and their pet projects reflect this reality. They started another astroturf group called Americans for Prosperity, which opposes health care reform, the stimulus and environmental regulation, and helped bring down green jobs czar Van Jones. Americans for Prosperity has received funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which supports the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, and bankrolled Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action crusade and the infamous book The Bell Curve.
DiverseTea is not a new phenomenon in the effort to whitewash and sugarcoat intolerant causes. The Tea Party tried to put on its happy diversity face with UNI-TEA, which has been a flop -- although I'm sure Uncle Ruckus is a fan. And the anti-immigrant organization FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) created You Don't Speak For Me, a Hispanic anti-immigrant front group, and its defunct African-American counterpart Choose Black America. FAIR, which drafted the infamous Arizona law SB 1070, has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The law was signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who proclaimed "I love them [Latinos] from the bottom of my heart." FAIR has received funding from the white supremacist and pro-eugenics Pioneer Fund, which supports studies linking race, genetics and intelligence. And even as Tea Party now represents the energy of the Republican Party, the homophobic GOP claims to make overtures to gay Republicans, another oxymoron. This, as it has alienated the LGBT community, Muslims, Arabs, Latinos, blacks and anyone who is not a straight, white conservative Christian fundamentalist.
For further proof that diversity and tea don't mix, one need only observe the movement's standard bearers who aspire to political office. For example, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul argued that the federal government should allow private businesses to discriminate against blacks. Delaware Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell said she wouldn't have lied to Hitler to save Jews from the Nazis. Ken Buck, the Tea Party senatorial candidate from Colorado, opposes abortion even in the case of rape and incest. He also believes that the military should not allow the openly gay to serve, and should be as homogeneous as possible. Meanwhile, New York Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino wants to house welfare recipients in prison, where they would receive job training and learn personal hygiene. He likes to send racist and sexist emails, including a video of African tribesmen called "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," which is popular on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront.
Similarly, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), who has positioned himself as a Tea Party mover and shaker, demonstrated his contempt for diversity when he said that openly gay people and sexually active single women should not be allowed to teach in the classroom.
The only visible minority outreach efforts by the Tea Party seem to involve acts of outright racial animosity and intolerance. In Harris County, Texas, a Tea Party organization is suppressing the minority vote by lodging unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud against voter registration groups, referring to the headquarters of one such group as the "New Black Panthers' office."
When I look at the current crop of Tea Party faithful, I draw parallels with the Southern segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s. They would be right at home busting up heads at a lunch counter sit in, or hurling racial epithets at some black student being escorted to school by the National Guard. Not unlike their forebears, the Tea Partiers reflect the sentiments of the angry lynch mob-- lacking any coherent philosophy other than jingoism, raw anger, their hatred of the "other," and a desire to return to the good ol' days, which were not so good for those other people. And like the rabble-rousers of Jim Crow fame, they do the dirty work at the behest of oligarchs such as the Koch brothers, who find them useful if not entertaining.
Real diversity means inclusion and tolerance of different viewpoints, backgrounds, orientations and lifestyles, not tokenism. So, if you are a diverse applicant for admission to the Tea Party gang, know what you're dealing with. Better yet, know your enemy. Your work is cut out for you.
October 1, 2010
Can an anti-gay black pastor become Chicago's next mayor?
With the decision by Mayor Richard M. Daley not to seek reelection in Chicago next year, the potential field of candidates who hope to replace him could make for an interesting campaign. Congressmen Danny Davis and Luis Gutierrez are testing the waters for a City Hall bid, and former Senator Carol Moseley Braun is a part of the field as well. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is considered damaged by personal scandal and alleged ties to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is all but certain to throw his hat in the race as well.
This is the first wide open mayoral race in Chicago in years, and the best chance to elect a black mayor since Harold Washington died in 1987-- provided the black vote is not divided. The Chicago City Council's black caucus will decide on a consensus candidate, and one of the people on their short list is State Senator James Meeks.
Meeks is chair of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, and chair of the Illinois Senate's education committee. He also serves on the board of directors of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. And as head pastor of the 20,000 member Salem Baptist Church -- with a formidable political base, money, and an unparalleled ability to register voters in Cook County -- he is being taken seriously for the city's chief executive spot. Meeks, 54, is the favorite of the city's black ministers, according to a recent straw poll. Meanwhile, he came in second to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart in a Chicago Sun-Times poll.
Meeks' career has been marked by fire, confrontation and controversy. For example, from the pulpit he once called Mayor Daley a "slave master," and referred to black ministers and elected officials as "house n-----s." Some in Chicago's political community are concerned about the use of his mega-church as a power base. Rep. Jackson, Cook County commissioner Deborah Sims, state representative David Miller, Ninth Ward Alderman Anthony Beale are all members of Meeks' church.
In addition, he has drawn attention for the alliances he has made. In 2006 Meeks ran as an independent for governor and courted the white evangelical vote. Last year Meeks joined the Republicans to support school vouchers to allow inner city public school students to attend private schools. He characterized the public schools as an "apartheid" system. The state senator has led a boycott of the Chicago public schools, a failing system with only a 55 percent high school graduation rate.
While education is his signature issue and would serve as an asset to his mayoral campaign, Meeks' stance on gay rights could jeopardize his prospects. A social conservative who opposes abortion and gay marriage, Meeks had already infuriated the gay community and civil rights groups before officially announced his candidacy.
CLICK HERE AT THE GRIO FOR MORE
This is the first wide open mayoral race in Chicago in years, and the best chance to elect a black mayor since Harold Washington died in 1987-- provided the black vote is not divided. The Chicago City Council's black caucus will decide on a consensus candidate, and one of the people on their short list is State Senator James Meeks.
Meeks is chair of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, and chair of the Illinois Senate's education committee. He also serves on the board of directors of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. And as head pastor of the 20,000 member Salem Baptist Church -- with a formidable political base, money, and an unparalleled ability to register voters in Cook County -- he is being taken seriously for the city's chief executive spot. Meeks, 54, is the favorite of the city's black ministers, according to a recent straw poll. Meanwhile, he came in second to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart in a Chicago Sun-Times poll.
Meeks' career has been marked by fire, confrontation and controversy. For example, from the pulpit he once called Mayor Daley a "slave master," and referred to black ministers and elected officials as "house n-----s." Some in Chicago's political community are concerned about the use of his mega-church as a power base. Rep. Jackson, Cook County commissioner Deborah Sims, state representative David Miller, Ninth Ward Alderman Anthony Beale are all members of Meeks' church.
In addition, he has drawn attention for the alliances he has made. In 2006 Meeks ran as an independent for governor and courted the white evangelical vote. Last year Meeks joined the Republicans to support school vouchers to allow inner city public school students to attend private schools. He characterized the public schools as an "apartheid" system. The state senator has led a boycott of the Chicago public schools, a failing system with only a 55 percent high school graduation rate.
While education is his signature issue and would serve as an asset to his mayoral campaign, Meeks' stance on gay rights could jeopardize his prospects. A social conservative who opposes abortion and gay marriage, Meeks had already infuriated the gay community and civil rights groups before officially announced his candidacy.
CLICK HERE AT THE GRIO FOR MORE
The Bishop Has No Clothes
Just about everyone knows about the problems facing Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church. Specifically, there are the four young men who allege that the prominent Atlanta-area pastor coerced them into a sexual relationship, and possibly more waiting in the wings. They claim that Long used his status to seduce them with money, clothes, bling, cars, foreign trips, access to celebrities and the like. The men allege that they called Long "dad" or "daddy," which sounds awfully cultish. One of the plaintiffs even claims that he was 14 when his relationship with Long started, which brings up issues of child abuse and statutory rape.
These accusations will be addressed in court, and who knows, maybe there will be a quiet out-of-court settlement. To be sure, this is not the first religious leader to face accusations of sexual and professional misconduct and abuse of authority, nor the last. Similarly, the Bishop is not the first homophobic preacher to be outed as a gay man.
But Bishop Long's sexual orientation ultimately is not the subject of this commentary, although it provides some valuable context. Now, if these accusations are true, then Bishop Long is at least guilty of hypocrisy and self-hatred. And if the charges are not true, he is still an anti-gay minister who has damaged many people. Either way, he is a prosperity preacher who preys on the black community and shames the legacy of the civil rights movement. And that's most of what we need to know.
When the Southern Poverty Law Center decides to write an intelligence report about you, you know you've done something wrong. SPLC calls Bishop Long "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement." In one sermon, he says to gays and lesbians, "God says you deserve death!" The message of "hate the sin and the sinner" are strong words in a religion that is supposed to teach love, healing and redemption.
Long believes that homosexuality is spiritual abortion, "a manifestation of a fallen man." He believes that if black gays and lesbians feel alienated and abandoned by the black church, the problem is not intolerance against them but their own sins. But before these people go to Hell as he contends they are, Long is trying to cure gays and lesbians (except himself, we can assume). And his church bookstore sells the works of authors such as the homophobic James Dobson of Focus on the Family -- no friend of the black community.
And Long's misappropriation of the King legacy is shameful. Coretta Scott King's funeral was held at New Birth in 2006 rather than at Ebenezer Baptist Church, the King family's church. Civil rights giants Harry Belafonte and then-NAACP-chair Julian Bond were so mortified by this fact that they boycotted the funeral. After all, Mrs. King was a supporter of gay marriage, and she called it a civil rights issue. The late Yolanda King, the oldest child, took after her mother in that regard, but Bernice King, the youngest child in the King family, called Long her "new father" and symbolically passed a torch to him.
To add to the insult, Bernice King and Long participated in a march to Dr. King's gravesite to support a national constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. In 2004, Long and others successfully pushed for a similar amendment to the Georgia state constitution. And it should be noted that Alveda King, Dr. King's niece, is herself a homophobic minister who exploited her uncle's name at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, an event replete with aggrieved white supremacists, Obama-haters and gun-enthusiasts. "Homosexuality cannot be elevated to the civil rights issue," Alveda King said in a 1998 speech. "The civil rights movement was born from the Bible. God hates homosexuality."
Bishop Eddie Long is a prosperity-oriented minister, adhering to a theology that essentially says God will financially hook up the believers. Some would call it a false gospel, given Jesus' targeting of the money changers, and his proclamation that it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Others would call it pimping.
Long's New Birth megachurch has a membership of about 25,000 and sits on 240 acres in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia, Georgia. The nonprofit religious "charity" he started in 1997 has served him well -- a $1.4-million, 20-acre home with nine bathrooms, a $350,000 Bentley, and a $3 million salary over three years, not to mention all of the expensive jewelry. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) launched an investigation into the finances and tax-exempt status of six megachurches, including New Birth, and Creflo Dollar's World Changers International Church. Due to the recession, New Birth had to cut back on its $250,000 Easter Sunday service last year, and that is not a misprint. Tithes and membership dropped 20 percent, given that it is hard to be about prosperity when you are poor and hurting, and black folks have been hit harder than most in this recession.
And as Wall Street bankers, megachurch preachers and other prosperity pimps live like lottery winners, people in America are suffering. The Census Bureau recently reported that poverty is higher than it was 10 years ago, with nearly 15 percent of Americans in poverty. The gap between rich and poor has tripled in three decades, and is the highest it has been since the 1920s. Meanwhile, unemployment is entrenched and not going anywhere anytime soon.
Surely, Bishop Long and his supporters would maintain that his reputation is being dragged through the mud. But his reputation was already muddied via his homophobia and corrupt bling theology. Rather, Long should worry far more about what Dr. King would say about him.
Although King fought against and even disobeyed unjust laws, Long supports them. Dr. King decried the triple evils of racism, materialism and militarism, and called for a radical revolution of values, from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. Figures such as King and Malcolm X walked the talk by fighting for the people -- and for causes greater than their personal bank account -- through great personal sacrifice and a modest existence. Remember that Dr. King donated all of his $54,000 Nobel Peace Prize money to the civil rights movement. I dare say it would be hard to find many leaders today -- black or otherwise -- who would follow in the footsteps of this great man. How many of them would lift a finger to help the downtrodden?
Meanwhile, Bishop Eddie Long just wants to get paid and beat the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)