March 21, 2008

Book Review - All Things Being Equal: Instigating Opportunity in an Inequitable Time, Edited by Brian D. Smedley & Alan Jenkins



By David A. Love
Published By The Black Commentator
March 20, 2008
 
In this so-called land of equality and opportunity, it seems, some people are more equal than others. Although it has been over half a century since the historic Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, America retains huge reserves of inequality of opportunity. The poor and people of color find themselves on the losing end of this proposition.

Upward mobility is a seemingly impossible dream for many. Wage gaps based on gender and race persist, and millions of people lack health insurance. The public education system is failing substantial numbers of our children. Institutional discrimination shows no signs of abating. And the criminal justice system rejects rehabilitation in favor of mass incarceration.

Alan Jenkins and Brian D. Smedley of The Opportunity Agenda have edited an outstanding book which gets to the heart of what is hurting America, and what has to be done in order to get the country on the right track. All Things Being Equal: Instigating Opportunity in an Inequitable Time (New Press, 246 pp.) brings together a number of thoughtful essayists who provide strategies and solutions for instigating opportunity in this country.

The editors team up with civil rights lawyer Bill Lann Lee for an introductory chapter on the scope of the problem. In a chapter on economic inequality, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute discusses the correlation between wealth, income and opportunity across generations. A nation with less mobility than other advanced nations, the United States can and must do more to strengthen the social safety net, and remove the barriers that perpetuate economic injustice.

Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond examines educational quality and equality, with an emphasis on the problem of broken schools, lack of access to qualified teachers, and instructional and resource disparities for students of color. Philip Tegeler, executive director of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) discusses housing mobility, and the role of holistic public policy alternatives that maximize opportunities in employment, education, services, safety and health through physical location.

Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project analyzes America’s incarceration boom, and solutions that will allow us to take a different approach to criminal justice policy, and expand opportunity by reducing the imprisonment of vulnerable populations.

Other topics covered in the book include healthcare inequality (Brian D. Smedley); discrimination in the marketplace, including persistent patterns of discrimination in housing, lending and employment (Margery Austin Turner of The Urban Institute and Carla Herbig of the U.S. Department of Justice) and educational opportunity for immigrant communities (UCLA sociology professors Edward E. Telles and Vilma Ortiz).

The contributors to this book dare to broach some of the nation’s most complicated and weighty social issues, an ambitious undertaking to say the least. Ultimately, they succeed in connecting the dots, in demonstrating the ways in which these problems are interrelated, and more importantly, are holding back the nation and stifling progress for large segments of the population. A common thread which binds the chapters together is public policy - the role of public policy in creating systemic inequality of opportunity, and the need for leadership in creating restorative public policy that upholds human rights in America.

All Things Being Equal is thorough yet not overbearing, scholarly and informative yet down to earth and accessible. It is required reading for people who are concerned about the worsening conditions of society, and who seek thoughtful, innovative and creative solutions for an unequal nation.

Obama Race Speech Analysis By 14 BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board Members



Published By The Black Commentator

March 20, 2008

Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, March 18, 2008 was notworthy. What follows is the commentary and analysis of 10 members of the BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board.

Bill Fletcher, Jr.

Senator Obama offered a brilliant and inspiring address which was, nevertheless, a bit problematic. On the one hand, he spoke to the people of the United States about race in a manner that has only occasionally taken place (such as during the Jesse Jackson campaigns). He spoke as someone from both inside and outside the African American experience and was completely unapologetic about the rage that we feel, as a people, for the injustices that we have suffered over the centuries.

Yet Senator Obama, at one and the same time, attributes much of the anger of Rev. Wright to the past, as if Rev. Wright is stuck in a time warp, rather than the fact that Rev. Wright's anger about the domestic and foreign policies of the USA are well rooted--and documented--in the current reality of the USA.

Senator Obama's address offers the vision of hope and change, which are critical for all those engaged in the struggle for social justice. He correctly identifies that this is not the same country that it was 50 or 100 years ago. He also correctly identifies that race still matters in the conditions of African Americans. He also insists that the issues facing African Americans must be joined with the issues facing other oppressed people, including but not limited to white working people, and not reserved for us alone. In that sense he suggests the importance of the links among those who have found themselves under the heal of this system.

For a mainstream politician running for the Presidency, and particularly for an African American running for the Presidency, this was a critical speech to give. It was essential that he not walk away from, or disown Rev. Wright. At the same time, when we live in a society that is so much in denial of the actual conditions of the oppressed both inside and outside our borders; that has come to accept torture; that often cannot comprehend the tragedy facing the Palestinians; that was angry about, yet threw up its hands in the face of the Katrina disaster (and the government's lack of response); that witnesses major banks and corporations disembowel communities and face few consequences, the anger that was displayed by Rev. Wright should not have surprised anyone. It is both anger AND hope that are critical for a genuine movement that wishes to transform this country. The anger of a Rev. Wright is not a throw-back, but is a reality check.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Bill Fletcher, Jr. is Executive Editor of The Black Commentator. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

William L. (Bill) Strickland

My first reaction to the smear campaign against Barack Obama kicked off by Fox News’s guilt-by-association tarring of Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was smugly racial. After all, they had attacked Reverend Wright for being “unpatriotic” and “un-American”, but they had not dared to say that what Wright had said was untrue, that America is run by rich white people, that Hillary Clinton didn't know what it meant to be black and that America was founded on racism.

But after reading Obama’s speech, two time-distant recollections triggered another thought about America’s problem which goes far deeper than right-wing race-mongering.

The first recollection was of Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men” where prosecuting attorney, Tom Cruise makes a demand saying: “I want the truth!” and Jack thunders back: “You can't handle the truth!” The second memory was of a question posed in the post WW II era either by the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre or the Algerian writer Albert Camus. One of them asked: “Can a system condemn itself?”

That is, I think the real issue: Can America face the truth about itself and its History? Reverend Wright is doubtful and Obama is hopeful, but forty years ago another truth-telling black man, also speaking in a church, called America the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” His name was Martin Luther King, Jr. and he too, like Reverend Wright and Obama, was pilloried for telling the truth about his country.

But if the truth is un-American, one may rightly ask: Can America be changed. Obama hopes so.

We shall see…

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Willian L. (Bill) Strickland - Teaches political science in the W.E.B. Du Bois Department of Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is also the Director of the Du Bois Papers Collection. The Du Bois Papers are housed at the University of Massachusetts library, which is named in honor of this prominent African American intellectual and Massachusetts native. Professor Strickland is a founding member of the independent black think tank in Atlanta the Institute of the Black World (IBW), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Strickland was a consultant to both series of the prize-winning documentary on the civil rights movement, Eyes on the Prize (PBS Mini Series Boxed Set), and the senior consultant on the PBS documentary, The American Experience: Malcolm X: Make It Plain. He also wrote the companion book Malcolm X: Make It Plain. Most recently, Professor Strickland was a consultant on the Louis Massiah film on W.E.B. Du Bois - W.E.B. Du Bois: A Biography in Four Voices. Click here to contact Mr. Strickland.

Ethel Long-Scott

Justice - It’s in the Details

The speech on race in America that Barack Obama gave in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 was moving and sounded wonderful, as full of hope and the possibility of change as most of his speeches. But it did nothing to unravel the central contradiction of Mr. Obama’s candidacy. That contradiction is rooted in the fact that America has always needed a class of workers who are kept downtrodden and in poverty to make its economy work. That is a fact that has not changed, and none of the remaining presidential candidates are dealing with it.

In the beginning it was slavery that provided that group of second class workers, who toiled away at vital jobs in unspeakably inhumane conditions for no pay at all. Later, when the nation’s hardest, least desirable but still essential jobs were being done by newly arrived immigrants – of all colors – racism still locked most African Americans into virtual slavery even after the institution of slavery was officially ended.

Today the fundamentally inhumane contradiction of the American economy is that it doesn’t need American workers anymore – of any color. Companies move jobs to wherever in the world labor is cheapest – or replace human workers entirely with computerized control systems. A handful of big, privately owned global corporations control the economy and get our country to make policies that support their profits by making lavish campaign contributions to both the Democrats and the Republicans.

As a result America, like much of the world, faces a growing polarization of wealth and poverty. In that reality of harsh global capitalism, the new racism is poverty. A new class of dispossessed is growing in America, people of all colors pushed out of the opportunities for good educations, good jobs, good health, good housing. We are becoming more of a police state as this impoverished low-wage and no-wage class is seen as potentially explosive and must be held in check.

As poverty has spread to broader and broader sections of our society, there has been a steady push to put in place a system of laws to contain not African Americans, but the impoverished. Managing and controlling the new class of dispossessed is the new paradigm of policing and incarceration. The main agenda for global corporations is to continue to automate production, eliminate jobs, lower wages and cut benefits, so poverty and homelessness will continue to grow. This has already made our nation the world’s leading prison nation. This travesty is driven by the market economy and global capitalism more than racism.

Mr. Obama’s address failed to address any of this, just as his campaign speeches fail to address it. But his former pastor, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was trying to raise some of these issues as he advised his congregation not to get so lost in their “middleclassness” that they failed to reach out to those in poverty. Mr. Obama said, “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change.”

And America certainly has changed, in that it has allowed a certain number of African Americans, like our present secretary of state, and our former secretary of state, and Mr. Obama, among others, to join the privileged class. But the profound mistake of Mr. Obama’s speeches is that he speaks as if our economic system isn’t static in its irrepressible need to push a high proportion of its people to the economic bottom, where they can be exploited cheaply for whatever contributions they can make, and pushed out of the economic system entirely – discarded, thrown away – if they cannot be exploited further.

While it is clear that a disproportionate number of African Americans are tortured by inadequate health care; poor housing, inadequate educations, abusive criminal justice, unemployment and high crime, much of this today is because they live in poverty. And in the global capitalism of today these conditions now exist for countless numbers of other Americans, white, Asian, Latino and others.

In Mr. Obama’s Democratic Party, the last two candidates standing represent the longings of historically oppressed groups. Early in the election season both major political parties faced a decline in interest in politics. Both desperately needed new faces in order to enthuse new voters and siphon off some of the discontent with the increasingly corporate direction of our country. Many workers believe that the Democratic Party is going to protect them from escalating job loss and home loss, growing denial of health care and escalating poverty. Nothing Mr. Obama has said so far indicates that he has a program to do that.

Mr. Obama’s speech on race discussed at length the personal impact of historical racism. American workers, whether employed or unemployed, don’t have an organization to protect them from the personal impact of being pushed toward poverty by corporate actions and national economic policy. The major political parties have shown that their main interest is in following the money, and in staying away from where the money isn’t. The new class of poor and working people desperately need an independent politics dedicated to improving their lives. For instance the vast productive power of this largely automated economy could end poverty and homelessness tomorrow, if only the “we the people” controlled it. But that of course would not serve the upper class agenda he now represents. While he was once a community organizer in poor neighborhoods, powerful forces have rallied around him as a presidential candidate.

Besides the unprecedented millions that both the Democratic Candidates have garnered in this election plenty have documented who are the global leaders that serve as part of Obama's top advisors and they include, Zbigniew Brzezinsk, Dennis Ross who advised Clinton and both Bushes, Anthony Lake, a big proponent and supporter of World Bank and IMF roles as well as generals. We can conclude that while major party politicians can talk about change, they are not likely to fight for the kinds of changes that would really end poverty. To do that, we the people must organize with new ideas and a new vision of justice. In the face of the growing encroachment on rights and democracy we, the people must gain the political power to direct society's resources so we can end the problems of poverty, national & women’s oppression, and this outrageous war. A new society is not only possible, but necessary.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Ethel Long-Scott - Executive Director of the Women's Economic Agenda Project, (WEAP). She is known nationally and internationally for devoting her life to the education and leadership of people at the losing end of society, especially women of color. She is dedicated to economic security and justice and believes that the US is engaged in a relentless war against workers and the poor. Click here to contact Ms. Long-Scott.

Jeanne Woods

I welcome Obama's principled and eloquent response to the "Rev. Wright" controversy. This provided an unprecedented teaching moment for the country, an opportunity for him to address directly the issues of racism in the American polity, and, more subtley, the polarizing tactics of the corporate media. While I do not share his opinion that Rev. Wright's views are "distorted", I think he handled the question of their relationship - and by extension his relationship with the Black community - with integrity. It is unfortunate that, as Blackness is apparently equated with lack of patriotism, he felt it necessary to reaffirm his committment to the fight against "radical Islam." On the whole, however, it was a brilliant exercise of statesmanship.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Jeanne Woods, JD - Visiting professor at the University of Maryland School of Law from the College of Law at Loyola University, New Orleans. Click here to contact Ms. Woods.

James Jennings

Obama's speech was timely, to say the least. I see it as a defining moment for Obama as a candidate, where he had to 'come clean' regarding race in U.S. society. It elevates his statesmanship above the other candidates. Whether or not this makes him more electable...well, we shall see.

He raised the issue about the 'elephant in the room' that the mainstream media has not really raised, except in silly, ahistorical, and ultimately, meaningless ways. His speech is important on several fronts. First, it shows a candidate (finally....)who is not afraid to talk about race - and class - in U.S. society in an open, and substantive, way.

The speech is important (and historical) because it helps to neutralize right wing propaganda aimed at exploiting race as a divisivie mechanism to obfuscate discussions about class issues in U.S. society. And, the speech is also important because it challenges right wing media and its propaganda machine in utilizing its definition of 'patriotism' as a litmus test for support.

If patriotism does not allow communication and debate about the various racial and ethinic experiences in this nation, then it is an incomplete patriotrism. After this speech, patriotism should be viewed as a space for debate about racial, class, and historical issues, rather than simplistically, a space to pledge blind allegiance to a preconceived notion of America, - no questions asked...

The limitation of the speech is that class issues are raised as important, but little discourse about how we can discuss such, within a context of the nation's racial history, and racial alienation among many in this society. Alas, raising this issue as natinonal, indeed international, may be the first step in responding to the latter.

If this nation is true to its values, then this one speech should move us forward in talking with, and mobilizing, each other. Of course, talk is always cheap...from talk, we need to move towards substantive programs and policies that ensure that every person in U.S. society can have access to, and enjoy, a decent standard of living for him/her, and his/her family, as well as the neighbors in our neighborhood, and other neighborhoods.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member James Jennings, PhD - Professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University. Click here to contact Dr. Jennings.

Lenore J. Daniels

Will the Republican candidate John McCain have to deliver a speech of explanation and apology for the endorsement he sought from Rev. John Hegee, who has made a career denouncing certain groups of Americans?

Would Sen. Obama have had to distance himself from his pastor of 20 years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright if he were not an African American running for the presidency?

Rev. Wright’s views have not “denigrated both the greatness and goodness of our nation.” Look at the U.S. domestic and foreign policies of the last 40 years. These policies have not benefited the masses of Black, Brown, Red, and poor whites nor have they benefited the Caribbean, Latin American, African, and Middle-Eastern nations.

If all of our stories are to be heard, then Rev. Wright’s story needs hearing too. Racism is “endemic” in this country. It rests at the foundation of this nation. Ask the Native Americans!

What of Black Americans who have asked for reparations and have been mocked. What of the “incendiary” language and “distorted” Americans hold toward other nations of color - other nations with material resources that Americans feel it is their right to take? I am afraid that any of us who speak on these issues will be equally vilified and silenced (as we have been the last forty years).

If we speak on the issues of gentrification, poverty, failed schools, and out sourced jobs. Would Rev. Martin Luther King have to apologize for his “Beyond Vietnam,” Riverside speech if he were alive today?

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Lenore Jean Daniels, PhD - A writer, for over thirty years, of commentary, resistance criticism and cultural theory, and short stories with a Marxist sensibility to the impact of cultural narrative violence and its antithesis, resistance narratives. With entrenched dedication to justice and equality, she has served as a coordinator of student and community resistance projects that encourage the Black Feminist idea of an equalitarian community and facilitator of student-teacher communities behind the walls of academia for the last twenty years. Dr. Daniels holds a PhD in Modern American Literatures, with a specialty in Cultural Theory (race, gender, class narratives) from Loyola University, Chicago. Click here to contact Dr. Daniels.

David A. Love

Obama Spoke The Truth

In his Philadelphia address, Senator Barack Obama spoke the truth. And he has taken us where no major political figure has dared to take us in decades. Obama had a clear choice: either respond to the attacks against him, out of cold political cynicism, desperation and blind ambition - and throw his pastor and mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright off the cliff (not to mention the African American community, in the process) - or speak from the heart and make it plain. He chose the latter.

And he provided what this campaign season had been lacking - a sense of context on the issue of race. Members of the conservative punditoracy, the talking heads who are dependent upon the 24-hour news cycle, the 30-second sound byte and the sensationalism of reality-show faux-journalism, never have visited a Black church. Rather than sensitize themselves to the inconvenient realities of racism, they, in their discomfort and false outrage, demanded Dr. Wright’s head on a platter. The senator refused to participate in the Willie Hortonization of Rev. Wright, or the demonization of a rich legacy of political expression in the Black church.

But more importantly, Obama redirected the current discussion away from the unhelpful distractions, the scapegoating and the smokescreens, and towards the larger fundamentals of inequality and power in America. He addressed the legacy of oppression that people of color face, and the economic deprivation that many whites experience, all against the backdrop of corporate greed and a devotion to business as usual among the political elites. This is just the beginning of a conversation that is needed in this country. Obama is challenging the people to take advantage of a window of opportunity, and to try a refreshingly new and different approach to this American experiment.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member David A. Love - A lawyer and prisoners’ rights advocate based in Philadelphia, and a contributor to the Progressive Media Project, McClatchy-Tribune News Service and In These Times. Additionally, he contributed to the book, States of Confinement: Policing, Detention, and Prisons (St. Martin's Press, 2000). Love, a former Amnesty International UK spokesperson, organized the first national police brutality conference as a staff member with the Center for Constitutional Rights, and served as a law clerk to two Black federal judges. His blog is davidalove.com. Click here to contact Mr. Love.

Jamala Rogers

Most black folks are attracted to—even if superficially—anyone who speaks truth to power, who can “tell the truth and shame the devil.” I have yet to find a black person to wholly condemn the sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Our lives, our voices are muted or silenced every day in so many ways. Even our joys and successes are eclipsed by louder voices and more powerful images that propel the perceived worst of a people into the public domain. This often results in our blanket condemnation of one another without looking at the historical roots of our oppression. Or working harder to prove we are worthy of being US citizens and the rights that come with such a privilege originally conceived only for white men.

The presidential race has become a metaphor for race relations in this country: women (Hillary Clinton) and people of color (Barack Obama) duking it out while white men (John McCain) continuing their game plan. The issues I want to hear about are still going on with no response from the presidential candidates. I want to know about my $30 billion given to bail out Bear Stearns. I want to know about my $500 billions being pumped into the illegal Iraqi War. I want to know when I’m gonna get affordable health care. I want to know…

I’m still waiting for wholesale public condemnations of pedophile Catholic priests, of racist segregationists like Strom Thurmond, of US policy to prop up South Africa’s P. W. Botha and apartheid, of drug head Rush Limbaugh, of drugs and guns runner Ollie North, of co-conspirator burglar Richard Nixon, and on and on. White men’s actions, which have destroyed lives both literally and figuratively, can also guarantee them a coveted place in history.

Dr. Rev. Floyd Flake likened Obama’s speech on race to Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous “I have a dream” speech. Its eloquence and insights are undeniable even if it failed to tackle the role of profit as a motivating reason for the ruling class to maintain racial divisions. The question that remains is whether Obama’s goal of opening up space for substantive dialogue about race will end up in America’s graveyard of missed opportunities.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Jamala Rogers - Leader of the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis and the Black Radical Congress National Organizer. Click here to contact Ms. Rogers.

Steven Pitts

When I first heard of the criticisms of Pastor Wright and the pressure on Obama to denounce Wright, I was angry…Angry at the subconscious (and from some, very conscious) attack on Black America…Angry that yet another Black man in the public eye would be forced to don “the Mask” and deny the legitimacy of his community in order to placate the mainstream. Obama’s speech was masterful…not perfect, but masterful. He stood his ground and defended the Black community’s sensibilities in ways which have rarely been done by mainstream politicians. But he went beyond that and empathized with the white working class, rooted their anger in their insecurity, and placed blame for racial divisions on cynical politicians and media.

But the power of a speech lies not its words nor its deliverer. The power of a speech lies in the strength of the movement that inspires the speech and is inspired by the speech. Without such a movement, the spoken words are like the sound of a tree falling in a forest when no one is around. The challenge for Black progressives (and all progressives) has been to use this moment and the incredible energy unleashed by the Obama candidacy to build a movement for social change that will make a lasting mark on U.S. society.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Steven Pitts, PhD - Labor Policy Specialist at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. Click here to contact Dr. Pitts.

Carl Bloice

A friend wrote to me right after the speech: "What if we actually end up with a president who is capable of drawing lessons from history and conveying them to the nation he leads?" In that sense Barack Obama's address was unprecedented; as a document is will be studied and debated long after this election is over, regardless of who ends up in the White House.

One does not have to agree with everything he said – or have his world outlook - to recognize that the oration is a thoughtful, eloquent and perceptive exploration of the subject of race in U.S. society today. It is an expression of his faith and a plea against the cynicism and divisiveness that has become so ingrained in the nation's politics.

I am not a member of his political party and no not share its positions on many critical issues facing us but I would be more than surprised and pleased if the other prominent politicians exhibited such responsible thinking and understanding.

There are some gaps in the content of the speech and a couple of unfortunate formulations. However, I am certain that many people, across the racial spectrum, will be moved and encouraged by his social optimism, especially among the younger generations. And if the young man's outlook furthers a wide and meaningful discussion of the issues it will be all to the good.

We face a serious crisis in this country. One can only hope that in the coming months the political campaigns take up seriously the problems weighing down on the insecure and the angry, the people who are being left out and victimized that Obama describes and speak out forthrightly in their interest and against those who seek power through foreign and domestic policies that serve only to secure wealth and privilege. That is my hope.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Carl Bloice - A writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union. Click here to contact Mr. Bloice.

Larry Pinkney

My response to Barack Obama's March 18, 2008, so-called "Race Speech" is best summed up in the statement by former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney ('A Discussion Of Race Worth Having'). It addresses the root causes and systemic nature of racism in the United States. Cynthia McKinney, as a well honed and highly experienced Black American woman from the deep south who was born and raised in this nation, is eminently qualified to address this matter from and at its very core. Specifically with regard to the Obama speech, Mckinney said the following:

I am glad that candidate Obama mentioned the existing racial disparities in education, income, wealth, jobs, government services, imprisonment, and opportunity. Now it is time to address the public policies necessary to
resolve these disparities. Now it is time to have the discussion on how we are going to come together and put policies in effect that will provide real hope and real opportunity to all in this country.

To narrow the gap between the ideals of our founding fathers and the realities faced by too many in our country today: That must be the role of public policy at this critical moment in our country today.

I welcome a real discussion of race in this country and a resolve to end the long-standing disparities that continue to spoil the greatness of our country.

I welcome a real discussion of all the issues that face our country today and the real public policy options that exist to resolve them. That must be the measure of this campaign season. For many voters, this important
discussion has been too vague or completely non-existent. Now is the time to talk about the concrete measures that will move our country forward: on race, war, climate change, the economy, health care, and education. Our votes and our political engagement must be about ensuring that fairness truly for all is embodied in "liberty and justice for all."

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Larry Pinkney - A veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book) Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.

Leith Mullings

Barack Obama’s speech was both masterful and courageous. It had the potential to open up the “Conversation on Race” that never happened during the Clinton administration. Acknowledging the elephant in the room - that the US state was built on the enslaved labor of Africans and African Americans - Obama anchored the conversation to the promise, not the reality, of the U.S. Constitution, framing his political campaign within the context of the broader struggle to realize democratic values. Though there were limitations, particularly noteworthy was Obama’s skillful weaving of issues of race and class.

Understanding that race is a relationship of power and privilege, Obama asserted that racial scapegoating is predicated on a zero sum game; that buying into whiteness has prevented white Americans from dealing with such critical issues such as the need for universal health care and the precipitously increasing disparities in wealth, in which the top one percent owns a greater net wealth than the bottom 90 percent of all households.

He correctly framed white supremacy and racism not as static, but as dynamic and changing over time. However, this did not happen on its own, but was a result of a long freedom struggle waged by millions of African Americans, including Jeremiah Wright. Obama should have been explicit about those difficult struggles deep in our historical memories: the lynchings, burnings, fire hoses and police dogs.

The speech was courageous because, within the limitations of U.S. electoral politics, Obama made the uncommon decision to say what he thinks, to speak truth to power and to let the chips fall where they may. But will white America hear? The right wing is desperately looking for anything to trash this historic speech. The measure of Obama’s success will be determined by his ability to create, build and galvanize a grassroots mass movement that links anti-racism to the practical tasks of governing. Such a movement will have to bypass the media, pundits, and politicians who manufacture consent that prevents the majority of Euro-Americans from acting in their own interests.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Leith Mullings, PhD - Presidential professor of anthropology and Director of the program in medical anthropology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Click here to contact Dr. Mullings.

Martin Kilson

As I watched the excerpts of Senator Barack Obama's “Speech on Race” on the PBS Television's “News Hour” during early evening March 18, 2008, my first thought was that perhaps only an African American historic leadership personality could make such a speech. African American historic leadership figures such as Frederick Douglass, AME Bishop Henry McNeal Turner, Sojourner Truth, W.E.B. DuBois, James Weldon Johnson, Rev. Martin Luther King, and Fanny Lou Hammer. Why did I think this? Because Obama's “Speech on Race” was a tale of America's most unique moral conundrum.

The moral-conundrum of a hopeful and buoyant 18th century experiment in democracy that simultaneously strangled itself, as it were. Strangled itself via the enslavement of Black people , on the one hand, and via the post-Civil War era century-long denial of equal-rights to Black people, on the other hand.

In some deep existential sense, then, only an African-American historic leadership personality could relate this awful tale. And relate it above all in the mode of Christian social-gospel humanism, the finest feature of Christian tradition that also defined other African-American historic leadership personalities like Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and Rev. Martin Luther King. A political leadership discourse-mode that does not seek to condemn per se, and does not seek cheap everyday American oneupmanship political-edge purposes.

Rather, Obama's “Speech on Race” related the tale of America's unique moral conundrum so as to carry all Americans' spirits and vision (White, Black, Latino, Native American, Asian, Arab American, etc.) on to a higher, superior level of national and human possibilities. A level of national and human possibilities that, somewhere in the not-too-distant future, will enable us Americans to flush-out the corporatist-greed riddled, industrial-military complex driven, and corrupt political-oligarchy features thwarting our democracy here in 21st century American life.

This, then, is what made Obama's “Speech on Race” an awe-inspiring American event. The speech was a masterwork thanks to its moral candor, at the center of which was and-had-to-be Obama's condemnation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's error in letting his activist-Christian discourse (liberation theology) run wild on certain occasions, not tempering it with a greater humanist-Christian ethos.

At the same time, Obama faced the deep moral and systemic rawness of our country's racial legacy, what he called “the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through—a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.” He continued thus: “And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.”

At this point Obama turned pithily to the words of William Faulkner: “The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past.” Then, with incredible oratorical savvy, Obama says both that “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country” and informing America's citizenry today how past-and-present intertwine still, here in the 21st century, shaping what we are and thereby telling us where we must still travel. As he put it:

...We do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed then, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students. Legalized discrimination—where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property...- meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities. ...This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.

What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

As I said above, Obama's “Speech on Race” was a masterwork of American leadership discourse. It relates the tale of America's unique moral conundrum, elevating all Americans' spirits and vision on to a higher level of national and human possibilities. I daresay that nothing associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign can give us such an awesome event and experience as Barack Obama's “Speech on Race” - a quintessential American literary text that it will surely be recognized as, along with Rev. Martin Luther King's 1963 March-on-Washington address.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Martin Kilson, PhD - Was appointed in 1962 as the first African American to teach in Harvard College and in 1969 he was the first African American tenured at Harvard. He retired in 2003 as Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government, Emeritus. His publications include: Political Change in a West African State (Harvard University Press, 1966); Key Issues in the Afro-American Experience (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970); New States in the Modern World (Harvard University Press, 1975); The African Diaspora: Interpretive Essays (Harvard University Press, 1976); The Making of Black Intellectuals: Studies on the African American Intelligentsia (Forthcoming. University of MIssouri Press); and The Transformation of the African American Intelligentsia, 1900-2008 (Forthcoming). Click here to contact Dr. Kilson.

Emira Woods

The Obama speech is in a word, powerful! Obama skillfully tackles what is in many ways a "third rail" issue in U.S. politics - race. In a country that a few short years ago walked out of the U.N. Summit on racism, and later failed miserably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seemed like race and justice were too far from the mainstream discourse to be addressed openly and honestly. Like the high power third rail in the railway track, politicians and co-workers alike feared the consequences of touching issues of race. Obama's speech changes all that. He elevates this pivotal issue at a critical moment. Obama gives a striking call to action, encouraging this generation to do its part - "on the streets and in the courts" to "narrow the gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of our time." Regardless of who wins in November, Obama's speech forces people in red State, blue States, and countries around the world to critical examine personal, systemic, and deeply entrenched racism and commit themselves to live the change we all can believe in.

Obama actually did a one-two punch in powerful speeches this week. Tuesday's speech on race was followed the next day by Obama's most comprehensive speech on foreign policy to date. Wednesday's speech, on the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war, not only clearly laid out a plan for getting troops out of Iraq, but focused on the need for decreasing militarism and increasing diplomacy and development around the world. Obama also made a clear call for the end to nuclear proliferation, distinguishing himself from the other candidates.

Taken together, these speeches give great insight into the vision and values of a possible Obama presidency. The real test, however, will be the power of a newly energized movement of new, young, and more progressive voters to demand that Obama's powerful rhetoric is translated into actual policies that can bring the better world we all believe in.

BlackCommentator Editorial Board Member Emira Woods - Co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies (Woods is from Liberia and brings an international viewpoint). Click here to contact Ms. Woods.

March 13, 2008

The Clinton Monster, Unleashed



By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
March 13, 2008

In desperation, some people will say and do anything to get a vote.

Under the military principle of scorched earth, an advancing army will proceed to destroy anything of use to its enemy, including infrastructure, land and natural resources, food supply, transportation, what have you.

Observing Hillary Clinton and her conduct in the presidential race against Barack Obama, I cannot help but make comparisons with a scorched earth strategy. Clinton, it seems, has concluded that if she is going down, she is taking everyone down with her. Not only is she destroying her party’s chances of victory in the White House, more importantly, she is killing the best opportunity of a progressive-led governing coalition this nation has seen in generations.

In a prior commentary, “Clintons, Your Black Pass Is Hereby Revoked,” I decried the use of the race card by Hillary and Bill Clinton in South Carolina and the early primary season. But since that time - with Obama as the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination - the Clinton camp has become even more guileful and grimier in its tactics. Machiavelli would be proud. Karl Rove is somewhere blushing.

As Senator Clinton said of the attack, “Well, now the fun part starts.” Her goal, of course, is to do anything that will mess up her rival, politically disfigure him, assassinate his character, and render him unusable damaged goods.

And she will throw Obama under the bus, to be sure. But so, too, will she sacrifice the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the poor, labor, people of color, the folks she and her husband eschewed while in the White House, and as leaders of the conservative, corporatist Democratic Leadership Council. Evidence of the Clinton “kitchen sink” strategy abounds:

  • There was the talk from the Clinton camp of Obama being unfit for presidency because of his youthful drug use.
  • There was the photo of him dressed in traditional Kenyan clothing during his visit to Africa, allegedly leaked by a Clinton staffer. And there were the suggestions that Obama is a Muslim, an attempt by the Clinton campaign to tap into and capitalize on this nation’s anti-Muslim sentiment.
  • At the time of the South Carolina primary, President Clinton, acting as his wife’s hatchet man, compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. The statement, designed to peg Obama as a Black candidate with no widespread appeal, was made at the suggestion of Clinton campaign manager Mark Penn.
  • Senator Clinton has heaped praise on Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, and touted his qualifications for president, while denigrating Obama, the probable Democratic nominee. Stating that she and McCain are qualified and have the experience to be president, but Obama is not, suggests either that Clinton would endorse McCain over Obama, or she is trying out for the GOP vice presidential spot. Meanwhile, President Clinton suggested that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be “unstoppable,” with frontrunner Obama, of course, at the bottom.

A cornerstone of the Clintonian narrative is that she possesses the requisite experience, that she will be ready for the job on “day one,” ready for the emergency phone call at 3 A.M. (as if a president does not rely on an army of advisors – and who wears a business suit to bed?). On the one hand, she provides scant evidence of the vast experience she claims to possess, particularly in the area of foreign policy. On the other hand, to be sure, Clinton does have experience of a different kind, albeit not the type she would care to publicize. For example:

  • Sen. Clinton endorsed the disastrous, deadly and costly Iraq war, a cynical move to bolster her national security image. A gender card carrying, faux feminist who will cry when her career is at stake, she has not shed a tear for the multitudes of widows and orphans created by this war, or the thousands upon thousands of women and children who were killed in this war.
  • With a lifetime of commitment to serving corporations, she is the leading recipient of lobbyist money of any presidential candidate.
  • Poor when they came to the White House in 1993, the Clintons have amassed great wealth through public service and associations with sketchy individuals. Sen. Clinton lent her campaign $5 million of her own money. They are reluctant to disclose their tax returns, or reveal the list of contributors to the Clinton Presidential Library.
  • As first lady, Clinton was put in charge of healthcare reform, an abysmal failure. Arrogant, secretive and unwilling to be a team player who works well with others, she refused to allow potential political allies into the process. This allowed foes to paint healthcare reform as socialized medicine, dead on arrival.
  • With their approval of the welfare reform bill in 1996, under the GOP Contract With America, the Clintons betrayed and alienated Marian Wright Edelman, their friend at the Children’s Defense Fund. Her husband Peter Edelman, who at that time was a senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned from his position. “His goal was re-election at all costs,” Mr. Edelman wrote of Bill Clinton. “Whatever his rationalizations, he was at bottom interested only in himself. His political approach was not to calculate the risks but to take no risks at all.” Edelman elaborated: “He has tended generally to make things worse for the politically powerless. …His penchant for elevating shadow over substance has hurt poor children.”

There is a consensus that, barring some unlikely and unforeseeable circumstances, Clinton mathematically cannot overtake Obama in pledged delegates and win the nomination, even with a Michigan and Florida revote. Her only pathway to the nomination is through thievery, that is, destroying Obama, and strong-arming the super-delegates into throwing their support behind her second-place candidacy in the dead of night.

The party elders may try to convince themselves that when this happens, all of the Democratic constituents will come together and rally behind the nominee, Hillary Clinton. Guess again. Obama - who has drawn millions of new people into the process, including independents, Democrats, Republicans and young people - is the stronger candidate against McCain in the general election. These Obama supporters, who, if organized, could form the basis of a new grassroots multiracial movement in this nation, will not roll over for the establishment this time around. Nor will the specter of a new McBush administration scare them into voting for the evil of two lessers.

And African Americans - who have rejected the Clintons’ racialized politics, never to return to the fold - will see once again that when Black folks get into the game, they are told they are not ready, that they are unqualified, and must take a back seat. Suddenly, the rules are changed.

Deprived of its core, this would signal the death of the Democratic Party, as people finally realize that the two major parties, siding with the establishment and entrenched corporate power, represent a difference without a distinction.

Ultimately, under this scenario, Clinton will emerge as a candidate with high negatives, an inherently defective product and damaged brand name, with half of the population who simply will not vote for her. Combined with a Republican base energized to defeat her, she would lose the general election in a landslide, and rightly so.

The vetted, tested and entrenched Clinton not only mocks Obama’s positive message of change and hope, of people working together to get things done, of divesting ourselves of the old ways and doing things differently. She also stands diametrically opposed to what Obama represents in this campaign, and disregards and dismisses his supporters, and the promise they represent.

The Clintons have created a monster this election season, out of their arrogance, their sense of entitlement, their lust for power for power’s sake, and their insistence on dynastic succession. Had Obama lost 11 straight contests, he would be a footnote in political history. Clinton remains in the race because the Clintons are the establishment, they own the party, they hold onto politicians in their hip pocket. And in a cynical power play, they would patronizingly offer the Black frontrunner and likely nominee the VP slot.

Progressives were fooled once by the Clintons, but woe upon us if we let it happen again.

March 7, 2008

In the land of the free, every hundredth American is behind bars


By David A. Love

Published by the Progressive Media Project

March 4, 2008


We are locking too many people up in the land of the free.


For the first time in the United States, more than one in 100 adults is a prisoner. This is news that should concern all of us.

The United States has the dubious honor of locking up more people than any other nation. Today, we have 2.3 million people behind bars, according to a recent report released by the Pew Center on the States.


That's more people than China, which has 1.5 million prisoners, and Russia, which has 890,000. And it’s more than Iran.


Contrast the United States with Germany, which has an incarceration rate of 93 people per 100,000 adults. Our rate is eight times that.


We’re paying a grave cost for this splurge on prison cells.


First is the price to the human beings who are needlessly penned up for long sentences — and to their families.


And second is the price to our state governments, which are starving for cash right now.


Last year, the states spent a total of $49 billion on corrections — 6.8 percent of general funds, or 1 of every 15 dollars — up from $12 billion in 1987, adjusted for inflation. Prison growth, fueled by staff overtime and inmate health-care costs, outpaced increases in spending for education and Medicaid.


Thirteen states spend more than $1 billion a year on corrections, with California at the top with an $8.8 billion expenditure last year. By 2011, according to Pew, continued growth in prisons will cost the states an additional $25 billion.

The racial inequities in America's prison boom are clear. While 1 in 106 white men are behind bars, 1 in 36 Hispanic men and 1 in 15 black men are incarcerated.

If you’re a black woman, you are three and a half times more likely to be incarcerated than if you’re a white woman.

This incarceration boom does not correspond to a crime boom. Rather, it reflects bad policy priorities, including three-strikes laws and other draconian sentencing.


And these policies aren’t working. More than half of released offenders are back in prison within three years, whether for violating the terms of their release or for committing a new offense.


"For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn't been a clear and convincing return for public safety," according to Adam Gelb, director of Pew's Public Safety Performance Project.


We must find more effective, more sensible and less expensive ways to address crime, and build up individuals, families and communities in the process.


Investing in education, jobs, drug treatment and recidivism programs would be a good start. And bipartisan efforts in areas such as community supervision of nonviolent and lower-risk offenders could empty prison beds and create productive taxpaying citizens.

If we don’t do this, we will increasingly be a nation of prisoners and prison guards.

March 6, 2008

The End of the American Empire: Rotting From Within and Without

By David A. Love
Published by The Black Commentator
Color of Law column
March 8, 2008


The day of the dollar is over. The euro is in, and the world is making it increasingly clear that it will no longer participate in propping up
U.S. hegemony. Amid a weakening dollar and rising oil prices, OPEC considers dropping its ties to the American currency. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - who said the “empire of the dollar is crashing,” and is providing 112 million gallons of oil to poor American families who cannot afford to heat their homes - and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - who called the dollar “a worthless piece of paper” - have concluded that they do not need the dollar, and agreed to set up a joint Iranian-Venezuelan bank. Meanwhile, China - which holds over $1 trillion of U.S. debt - must decide whether it is time to cut and run.

And European and Canadian tourists visit the U.S. and spend as if they’ve traveled to an underdeveloped nation.

The idea of an America that controls the world, and exploits the world, economically, militarily, culturally and politically, is one that is best relegated to the dustbin of history. Accordingly, we should celebrate all efforts to bring about the demise of that concept, so that the international community can breathe more freely, and so that America may gain a sense of humility and justice.

It seems fitting that we have Bush himself to thank for precipitating this decline. In seven years, through his antidemocratic policies, a crippling and senseless war in Iraq, and the human rights abuse commonly known as the war on terror, he has single-handedly accomplished what no other before him has done: bring down the U.S. before the eyes of the world.

As is the case with all declining empires, the rot is both internal and external. In ancient Rome, like modern-day America, military spending, contracting out government services, corruption, and enormous wealth inequality ultimately did them in.

As the self-described world police officer, snooping into other people’s business with over 700 overseas military bases in over 130 countries, America is bleeding money and fuelling resentment. Many U.S. citizens, uninformed and uneducated with regard to its country’s exploits around the world, are apt to believe Bush when he tells us “they hate us for our freedom.” Outsourcing much of its dirty work to Blackwater, Halliburton and other private corporate contractors, America chooses to rape and pillage Iraq in high-tech fashion, outside the reach of the Constitution. War profiteering is conducted under the guise of defending freedom and democracy.

Today, with corporations given free rein through a deliberate policy of tax breaks, deregulation and upward wealth transfer - not to mention the job outsourcing and downward push on wages brought about by globalization – bestow economic benefits for a few robber barons and empty hands for the rest of us are the logical result.

Americans always were told that they lived in the greatest country on Earth, a model egalitarian society. But a report by The Pew Charitable Trusts sheds light on the fallacy of the so-called American Dream. According to the report, America is less upwardly-mobile than Canada, Denmark or Finland. In the land of opportunity, your birth, more than in other countries, determines how you will end up. The wealthiest among us are likely to remain wealthy, and the poorest are also likely to remain poor. While only one-third can be considered upwardly mobile, the rest are either treading water or falling behind. And one-third of Americans are downwardly mobile, earning less than their parents and slipping down the income ladder.

Not surprisingly, as the proverbial canary in the coalmine, African Americans are particularly vulnerable. Only 31 percent of Blacks born to middle-income parents make more than their parents, compared with 68 percent of Whites. And nearly half of Blacks whose parents were middle income end up in poverty, compared with 16 percent of Whites.

And as the Children’s Defense Fund recently reported, prison is the only universally guaranteed program for youth, as the U.S. prepares its poor children, disproportionately Black and Brown boys, for a life behind bars. With a cut-rate education system, few opportunities and an environment of violence and deprivation, many children are programmed for a cradle to prison pipeline. One child in six lives in poverty, and over 9.4 million children are without health insurance. One-third of Latino babies and one-half of Black babies are born into poverty, and one-quarter of Latino children and one-third of Black children are poor. With $100 billion spent on the Iraq War each year, a total of $450 billion so far, a mere $75 billion a year would eradicate poverty in America. Repealing the tax cuts for the richest one percent would provide $57 billion. But do we have the will, in a nation that refuses to do anything unless someone makes a profit from it?

Instead of focusing on the real problems, we allow the distractions to drive the debate. Rather than point the finger at a predatory economic system that is eating its people alive - and causing millions to lose their jobs and homes - many find convenient scapegoats, including Mexican immigrants, the LGBT community, beneficiaries of affirmative action and the Muslim world. The scapegoat industry is a full employment program for such caustic talking heads as Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other standard bearers for intolerance and hatred. What if the Angry White Men, for once in their lives, actually acted in the true interests of all and broke bread with the rest of us, including the angry people of color who also want a better life, and know that something is wrong with America?

Nothing will or should save the American empire, but perhaps Americans can save themselves and make the nation something it never was - fair and just, truly equal, and respectful of the world. What we need is Dr. King’s “radical revolution of values,” in which the U.S. becomes a “person-oriented” society rather than a “thing-oriented” society. Now let’s get to work and make that happen.