Amiri Baraka wrote a long letter to members of the black left before the June Black Radical Congress Meeting. You can find the entire speech here but I first found out about it over at P6. I can boil down the speech without doing too much damage to the following essential points:
*the Black Left should do all it can to put Obama in office because McCain represents the second coming of the Third Reich.
**the Black Left should organize to create a critical bloc that should hold him accountable, but only AFTER the election.
***third party attempts–Nader, McKinney–are pretty much doomed to failure and represent the black Left’s inability to engage in pragmatic politics instead of doctrinal purity.
I’ve got significant problems with Baraka’s argument. And in the wake of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s gaffe, committed on Fox News of all places, I’ve got a growing problem with Obama. Fortunately I had the opportunity to hash this stuff out on the radio as well as in print. On Friday I was on WCHB in Detroit for an hour, and then later in the afternoon I was on KCRW in Los Angeles. Detroit to Los Angeles in only five hours…
Anyway the KCRW show is here. It’s me, Baraka, Erin Aubry, Joseph Hicks, and Peniel Joseph. It can be exceedingly difficult to moderate a show with five guests and only 40 minutes. Listen to the show for content–if you’ve got the time it’s really worth listening to. But also listen to see how he manages the guests. Originally he was going to choose four guests out of five (I suggested that he keep Erin and Amiri and then pick two out of the rest of us. In hindsight I would’ve suggested he keep Amiri and Peniel and dump Joe) but he went with all five instead.
Peep the way that Amiri uses everything but logic to respond to my central criticism.
At this point I am seriously considering abstaining in the election.
I am also now of the belief that to move the country to the left we’re going to have to in effect jettison the black poor.
Hey Lester.
I’m listening to the radio show now and it’s extremely interesting. Thanks for the link. I have to say that although I do understand where you’re coming from, and have also had some recent discomfort about some of the stands Obama has taken, I tend to side with Amiri Baraka on this one. I thought Erin Aubry probably comes closest to what I would have said if it were me on the show.
Hope all’s well.
One more thing, Lester. And I’m still listening to the show because it’s fascinating. I do think you were absolutely right that Baraka was off the mark in the way he came at you saying you must not live in the ‘hood, etc. That style of argument has always ticked me off and it wasn’t needed to make the points he was trying to make. Essentially it was the “you’re not black enough” run, and that’s tired.
But the points he was making, for the most part, as I said, I think were much more representative of my thinking about the matter.
Doc I listen ,and what amazing is this notion of power,when to leverage it.Baraka’s notion to wait after the election to exert pressure is foolish.It appears to me Bro Baraka is looking for a job
My father hits it. How can you leverage power against someone when they’ve already got the position they needed you for? There will be no serious opposition at least within the party four years down the road. This may be the only shot we get.
Lester,
I hear you about striking while the iron is hot, so to speak. Or while the brother is hot. However you wanna phrase it. But I also believe he is making a lot of moves out of necessity in order to get elected. Barack is treading totally unchartered territory, going where no bro has gone before – and may never go again for who knows how long. He’s gonna make some wrong decisions and he’s bound to be overly cautious and he’s bound to play too far to the right. This won’t be the last time. But in politics, at least as I see it, it’s all about getting elected and doing what’s necessary to bring that about.
As for the leverage issue (I didn’t know tootsie was your dad ’til now), just to present the flip side to your argument, if you want to get skeptical about it, what guarantee is there that Barack will do what he promises even if he does tell the left what they want to hear? Once the man is in, he’s in. Four years guaranteed, and probably eight. At that point, it doesn’t matter that we held his feet to the fire in the weeks leading up to the election if he’s gonna do what he’s gonna do anyway, right?
But personally, I believe that if the brother gets elected he will be very good. Admittedly part of that is gut, and maybe even some of it is wishful, but I believe it. No, he won’t be extraordinarily progressive, nor will he be as openly black as many of us might love to see. He will make his freshman screw-ups, and he will get hammered unmercifully for them, much more so than if he weren’t Barack. But he’s an extremely quick study, and once he steadies himself and gets the lay of the land, he will be very good.
And after 8 years of Bush, a good president is fine with me. He doesn’t have to be the most amazing president of all time, or the most progressive. But he does need to be good and capable – and capable of doing the right thingsat the right time.
Anyway, enough already.
Take care.
We need something other than “capable”. We aren’t talking about a job, but rather a political position. We need someone who will use the mechanisms of government to make our lives better.
To that degree we make a terrible mistake if do anything other than assume that what he is doing is what he IS. Remember Clarence Thomas?
“He’s just doing what he has to do to get in there, and when he gets in there he’ll change!”
Of course Obama isn’t as far right as Thomas is…but the same logic is at work here.
(If we have no standard to judge him…and can’t do anything to keep him from getting elected…what exactly is our point as citizens? simple ratification? what?)
I hear you Lester, but like you say, Barack isn’t Clarence Thomas, Far, far from it. The “high tech lynching” strategy he deployed to evoke sympathy from the black folks he had turned his back on for all those years was far more heinous and sinister than anything Barack has done thus far. Barack has definitely fudged some positions and “redefined” others, etc. But he has never done anything like that.
And I don’t mean to suggest that I only think Barack is merely capable, although that probably is the way I made it sound. Understand, I’m not one of those who say back the brother no matter what because he’s a brother. I think the brother is going to be good, and yes, I also do believe he is going to make our lives better if he is elected. I believe that any politician, I don’t care who, has to play political games to get the office. Because he is who he is, I believe he has to play these game harder than most.
Still, I understand your reservations about the rightward positions he has taken recently, especially since they could reflect where he’s headed once he gets in. Understood. I don’t like some of those positions he’s staked out either. But I do support the majority of what the man is about. Much more so than any other presidential candidate for whom I have ever voted, and I’ve never missed an election in my entire 50 years on this planet. Well, OK, I couldn’t vote on the day I was born, but you get my drift.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that I don’t just believe Barack is someone I need to hold my nose for as I vote. Barack is someone I believe to be a strong candidate. No, I don’t agree with all his positions, and I’m sure there will be more positions I’ll disagree with in the future. But overall I seriously don’t believe the man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I think what’s missing here is a bit of balance. Why does this argument have to be either for government programs OR for personal responsibility? To take this particular example, the reality is black men need to take care of their kids. Whether or not you believe in institutional or personal racism holding “us” back, whether you believe that there needs to be more government support for the the poor, and the rehabilitated, or whether you believe that the government should step in and provide some other service or support for people. The facts of society today are that 2 incomes are better than one for most people, 2 parents are better than one for most people, and having the biological parents of children in the same home are better than not. We cannot escape that reality. In a more progressive (or “better”) society these things would not be true, but as it stands now they are.
No matter what the government does or does not do and no matter what services exist or don’t exist parents have to make sure they provide for, support, and educate their own children. Bottom Line.
Given that, the only problem I have with what Obama said is that he targeted black men instead of all men, especially in light of those numbers you produced earlier. But I’ll turn a blind eye since he was in a black church and for whatever reason black families have this absentee father stigma while others do not.
Aaron i’ve heard this a couple of times. While I understand it…I don’t agree.
You hear balance from a minister….or perhaps a mentor.
The last place we should expect balance is from a government official. Anytime you hear a government official talking about “responsibility” what they are really saying is “we don’t want to be responsible ourselves.” This is backwards. They aren’t elected to be moral leaders, or to tell us how to run our families.
Then you misunderstand. He targets black men on purpose. Because black men represent the absolute perfect target for the neoliberal line…the only purpose for government is to penalize. This line doesn’t work on any other population. Not Enron execs. Not subprime mortgage lenders. No one but black men.
Dr. Spence, that was an interesting program, and I thought that you made some valid points.
I think what’s happening here is that Amiri Baraka has gone full circle, from transactional politics, to the politics of social transformation (CAP/NBPC) back to transactional politics, and those of us who are not on this path are anti-Obama rascals.
I’ll repost some comments I made at Subrealism and add a few others:
(1) As a teenager I sat in Baraka’s Political Liberation Workshop at the first Congress of African Peoples (1970). I was literally in awe of the man.
I’ve been reviewing the documents from that Congress since Baraka wrote that article. Even when we consider the current dynamics, as we must do, most of what Baraka articulated, and many of the resolutions we passed in that workshop are just as valid today as when they were initially produced. Imamu Amiri Baraka’s ever shifting political whims do not invalidate those resolutions one iota.
(2) It’s hard to imagine that Baraka can be more enthused by the potential election of Barack Obama than he was about the election of Kenneth Gibson to be mayor of Newark in 1970.
Gibson’s election was seen by some in almost prophetic terms. Poet and playwright Amiri Baraka wrote, “We will nationalize the city’s institutions, as if it were liberated territory in Zimbabwe or Angola.” Gibson himself said, “Wherever American cities are going, Newark will get there first.” Gibson entered and with his new city council “challenged the corporate sector’s tax arrangements and pushed business interests to take a more active and responsible role in the community”.
By 1974, Gibson had alienated some of his supporters in his efforts to keep businesses from leaving the city. One of them, poet Amira Baraka, labeled him a “neo-colonialist and complained that Gibson was “for the profit of Prudential, Public (private) Service, Port Authority, and other huge corporations that run in and around and through and out of Newark paying little or no taxes” while the residents were ignored. Corporate and state interests had major influence in the city.—Wiki
Why Baraka can’t see those same neo-colonial trappings surrounding Obama is beyond me?
(3) Amiri Baraka himself presided over one of the great missed opportunities of the 1970s—(see: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/gary-declaration-national-black-political-convention-1972) –the failure to develop and sustain the National Black Political Assembly, which was to implement the National Black Political Agenda. And this failure, mind you, was during the high point of Black radical activity in America.
Yet he believes that a weakened Left can exploit a mass of energy which has been set in motion by a presidential candidate’s persona, and draw ”excited masses” towards a diametrically opposed ideological position. That has to be the living embodiment of delusions of grandeur if I’ve ever seen them.
If the Left is to rebuild its base, it will not come via parasitic participation in the Obama campaign. In fact, if Baraka is truly interested in rebuilding the base of Left, the McKinney campaign offers more fertile ground and a far better opportunity. The Imamu Amiri Baraka of the CAP/NBPC days would be able to see this.
I believe that the New Yorker article validates Peniel Joseph’s observation that Barack Obama is a ruthless politician. Not only is Obama a ruthless politician, but he’s a self-proclaimed Afrikan American politician who does have a thorough grasp of the complexities of Black life in America. Even when we consider Obama’s obvious pandering to the center/right of the American body politic, his fragmented analysis of the crisis of Afrikan American families is but one example of his shallow understanding of such very complex issues.
I don’t know if I agree with that though. You’re insinuating mal intent when I don’t think that’s what’s happening. Its a trap, that a lot of people black included (and not just Obama) fall into. Because we hear society say that the problem is with black people and black families etc. They produce their “research” and “evidence” and we (for the most part) believe it. It’s related to what Obama said but I don’t think he is targeting black men knowing that it is the politically expedient thing to do or for the reasons you state above. What would that say about himself?
But I think you have it backwards. Mentor and ministers don’t need to be balanced. They are there precisely to advocate for you to the public, your job or school, or in some cases to god or to help you become the best advocate for yourself. “Don’t stone that adulterer,” “turn the other cheek” etc even though that may be a fair punishment. Government shouldn’t advocate for a particular group in general. Perhaps in this particular instance because what we are talking about here is an injustice (or to some a perceived injustice which is why its even a debate in the first place). But that becomes a slippery slope and I think the reason why we even have debates about reparations, affirmative action and social programs for the underprivileged.
Correction: This segment should have read:
… but he’s a self-proclaimed Afrikan American politician who does NOT have a thorough grasp of the complexities of Black life in America.
Afrikan Americans have the most unique experience in human history. Nothing else really compares.
Surely Barack Obama has done a SWOT analysis and he recognizes this weakness himself. After his crushing defeat by Bobby Rush in a 1999 Congressional primary, Obama responded by re-drawing his Illinois Senate district to make it more ethnically and economically diverse.
[The loss taught Obama a great deal about the components of his natural coalition. According to Dan Shomon, the first poll that Obama conducted revealed that the demographic he could win over most easily was white voters. Obama, who hadn’t shown any particular gift for oratory in the race, now learned to shed his stiff approach to campaigning—described by Preckwinkle as that of an “arrogant academic.” Mikva told me, “The first time I heard him talk to a black church, he was very professorial, more so even than he was in the white community. There was no joking, no self-deprecation, no style. It didn’t go over well at all.”
Emil Jones told me that, after 2000, Obama moved decisively away from being pigeonholed as an inner-city pol. During one debate with Rush, he noted that he and the other candidates were all “progressive, urban Democrats.” Even though he lost, that primary taught him that he might be something more than that. “He learned that for Barack Obama it was not the type of district (Unlike Obama’s State Senate district, where the University of Chicago and the multicultural Hyde Park produced most of the votes, Rush’s congressional district extended deep into black neighborhoods where Obama was unknown) that he was well suited for,” Jones said. “The type of campaign that he had to run to win that district is not Barack Obama. It was a predominantly African-American district. It was a district where you had to campaign solely on those issues. And Barack did not campaign that way, and so as a result he lost. Which was good.” Meaning, it was good for Barack Obama.] — Ryan Lizza
Switching gears, Obama’s recent speech to the NAACP proves the value of criticism and dissent. At least in this speech Obama expanded the field of responsibility to include Wall Street, corporate CEO’s, and the government.
If Jesse Jackson had possessed the boldness to raise his criticism’s publicly, perhaps he would not have been busted trying to whisper behind enemy lines.
I am also now of the belief that to move the country to the left we’re going to have to in effect jettison the black poor.
Left-tending collective organization will have to be a strictly private enterprise…, if it proves viable, it’ll thrive in the market of post-collapse lifestyle models.
If not, it’ll quckly die off…..,
The good news is that monastaries, covents, and other intentional communities, where true left praxis prevails – have flourished for millenia….,
I have to admit I don’t understand the negative reaction to Obama’s call for black men to be responsible. Thirteen years ago, one point three million or so black men gathered at the Mall in DC to hear Min. Farrakhan make much the same point. Black men who have responsibly reared their children have no reason to be ashamed.
Three of my son’s friends have become fathers in the past 2 years (all of them turned 21 this year.) One of them didn’t really even like the young woman who had his baby, and the other two barely get along with the mothers of their children anymore. Not surprisingly, their fathers were not a major presence in their lives. If Obama has no business going there, the rest of us collectively need to.
I don’t think anyone is against responsibility bro. brown,but women ,government,and the church bears some blame also. The role of the family is an important part in this dynamics,father’s are a part of the whole.
Here’s the issue brotherbrown.
The most important and pressing problems we face as Americans are related to energy, education, health, and economic hardship.
None of those problems are caused directly or indirectly by single parenthood.
You take one of those brothers you mention. I’m going to ignore for a second the fact that none of them were particularly attached to the women they had children with. Before birth control became widely available, this was the NORM. There’s nothing new about having a child with someone you don’t particularly care for.
I’m willing to bet that if the brother all of a sudden had an epiphany and married the woman he had the child by, he would STILL be unable to get his child a decent public education, because that requires more house than he has money for. he would still be unable to get his child a decent private education, again because he doesn’t really have the money. and of course he won’t be able to send his child to a decent college. in fact, given the energy issue–which will raise house prices, fuel prices, utilities, and food (because it has to be transported from somewhere), i’m not sure how he’s going to have a roof over his family’s head.
now where in all of this is black parental responsibility?
do you see what I’m talking about? this isn’t some nightmare, this is the new reality. and we need a president who will speak TRUTHFULLY about what this new reality is.
Are you suggesting that politicians need to leave sociological issues to other institutions? I can agree with that. We arrived at this point in the 1980 presidential election when a candidate’s “morality” became a political issue, and we still haven’t quite emerged from that era.
You have to admit that Obama has to walk the finest line of all time in terms of a presidential candidate. I cannot recall guilt-by-association ever being as large a factor in an election as it has been for Obama. Religious affiliation is not a factor for McCain, (did Bill Clinton even go to church?) but Obama has to periodically reiterate that he is not a Muslim, meanwhile his church has “a problem” that gets scrutinized.
Fortunately, the process of getting elected is different than governing.
yes this is right. but i think we’re better off assuming that what we see is really what we get as opposed to believing that once he gets elected he’ll reveal who he “really is.”
“The last place we should expect balance is from a government official. Anytime you hear a government official talking about ‘responsibility’ what they are really saying is ‘we don’t want to be responsible ourselves.'”
This thinking (and the strawman case you build for brotherbrown) explain where you are coming from on the other site.
As you might expect, I agree with Keith and ultimately agree with Baraka regarding making sure Obama is elected. Abstaining from this election is a crime, in my book.
there is no strawman. if there are gaps tell me where they are.
and when that book is published.
It’s a strawman, in my view, because it is constructed to fit your argument and not very nuanced, at that. “Responsibility” is not negated or trumped because of economic adversity and combining the resources of the now-responsible father with the unsupported mother may just address those education needs — public or private. Odds suggest that; your strawman case doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility.
Looks like I’ll be devoting at least a chapter to our conversations over the years! On the positive tip, you make me think — I just rarely end up thinking like you!
ward, you’ve adopted the common sense conception of responsiblity.
the common sense conception of responsibility is an ideological construct that serves a very clear political purpose–to truncate the positive role of government and expand the negative role of government. it has been attached to a wide variety of punitive policies ranging from welfare repeal to three-strikes legislation to no child left behind.
to the extent that this conception of responsibility is NOT your own, then you’re confined in someone else’s trick bag. because you may very well think that you can talk about responsibility and believe that folks should be responsible and at the same time call for government intervention. but this isn’t how it’s worked politically.
give me a citation for the odds ratios. i don’t buy them. i do not believe that two incomes–for the population we’re talking about–can do anything more than stabilize and prevent slippage.
Again, I like talking with you Lester, because you help me to see different dimensions. For example, probably because of your profession, you tend to see constructs through a political lens. And deny the existence of other lens. So, if I accept your ideological construct and the lens you are using, I cannot help but come to the same conclusion you come to.
Problem is, I’m not confined to anyone’s trick bag! I’ve the power to define and to recognize that there are other meanings outside of the diad you would attempt to force on the discussion.
So I can talk about responsibility without claiming or suggesting that unresponsible black fathers are to be blamed for economic hardship — as you did in the other forum. And I can talk about it adjunctively with Government policies directed towards mitigating poverty of economic hardship. They are not mutually exclusive or the zero-sum game you also claimed.
I don’t have citations for you, but I think any reasonable person would agree that two incomes are better than either one seperately and that kids in a two-parent family stand with better odds against a whole host of possibilities — regardless of class, race, or income levels.
Some other time we should talk about what you see as the “negative role of government.”
Of course you can talk about responsibility in a variety of different ways. But your discussion occurs within a political context in which ‘responsibility’ has a very distinct set of political meanings. And any time you mention something remotely LIKE the term “responsibility” in a political context you have to contend with those preexisting meanings. You either acknowledge those pre-existing meanings or you don’t. But your refusal to acknowledge those preexisting meanings does NOT have the effect of erasing those meanings, anymore than my refusal to acknowledge that “race” exists ends up erasing race.
Lakoff and others have argued that a central part of the mission of progressives is to reframe political issues in a way that is more palatable and acceptable to moderates. Part of this mission is reframing what “reponsibility” means.
Br. LKS, I will check out the radio show. I suggest you check out the growing “Obama” section on the Bro-Log. And not vote? Come ON! If only enough people voted for Nader in 2000, your country would be on a different path right now. He didn’t need to win to make a positive impact of growing an opposition party. If I were an American, I’d vote Nader, and if not Nader, McKinney.