Obama plans on running. One of my colleagues sends me an article. Turns out he doesn’t exactly move “civil rights leaders”. Now I put the term in quote because while the article talks about civil rights leaders in the aggregate it only quotes a few.
While this type of article is usually written to fill space rather than impart insight, there is likely something here. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others have a vested interest in maintaining their status as black brokers…hence the talk about “taking the black vote for granted”. And to be fair even though I am very excited about the possibility of Obama running, he is light in the ass on policy prescriptions. I’m not just talking about Affirmative Action or racial profiling, I’m talking about the tax code, the environment, etc. etc.
But this position along with the few posts that Temple3 has begun to write on the subject, have me thinking about practical ways that black people can take back their political agency from brokers on the one hand, and white supremacists on the other. And the term “open source black politics” came to mind.
The foundation of democratic politics is transparency, accountability, and agency. The black leadership model as currently posited exhibits none of these traits. No transparency–all the deals are backdoor and privatized. No way of removing a black leader like Sharpton from his post (or even if he was elected, uncovering his deals because of the lack of transparency), so there is no accountability. And even the language of “a black vote” combined with a general unwillingness to compete over offices at any level, translate into a lack of agency.
People should have the power and the ability to aggregate at whatever level they see fit, along any axis that works for them. They should have the ability to not only elect individuals, but to examine their deeds and to hold them accountable. Finally they should have the space to debate, to propose, and to develop consensus.
Black Power in the 21st Century must emanate from open source politics. If it doesn’t start from pre-existing social networks that can be easily activated using present day technology and politics, then we may as well be talking about the Second Coming.
It occurred to me that aside from the question of transparency, these individuals are not the leaders of particularly effective organizations. In other words, how many active members do they have? Are the members benefitting from a higher level of transparency than outsiders? What are the benefits of belonging to their organizations.
The broader question of transparency suggests an insider-outsider dynamic. I don’t believe that if led a national organization I’d be all that forthcoming about all of the work…but I would feel compelled to share with my membership.
I believe in this instance, that the members are as wanting for information as the “outsiders.” In all fairness, it’s a guess – but part of the basis for that supposition is that the membership has not grown considerably over time.
I won’t even discuss the relationships with NYPD and federal law enforcement.
Open-source politics…love that term.
A question that I have is how much do you think that the desire for Obama to run has to do with the fact that G.W. Bush has been an extremely poor executive and the image of the President of the United States of America needs a makeover? Few can doubt that there is a crisis of public confidence in the current occupier of the White House similar to when Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter lived there. Obama seems to have the qualities that Richard Neustadt described as essential for a President: “a sense of purpose, a feel for power, and a source of confidence.” And Obama comes the closest to JFK in terms of bringing a refreshing image to the role of President.
you talking about NAN and operation rainbow push? they are effective at doing what they do–provide a convenient shell for their heads, but that’s about it.
transparency doesn’t imply insider/outsider as much as it implies represented/representative. if you are my representative then every activity you engage in (that emanates from that relationship) i should know about and see the outcome of. i should know where you are getting your money from. i should know what votes you cast in committee. and this information shouldn’t be hard to get.
baltimore (and hopkins specifically) has videocameras all over. i don’t have a problem with them watching us….as long as we can watch them. when my maternal grandmother was still with us, but in a nursing home, she had a cable channel she could turn to which would show her everyone that entered into the building. how much more ethical would the nypd be if they had cameras in their cars and on their beats, and in their jails?
i think the response obama has gotten since he’s been in office, combined with the anemic choices of both parties (edwards being the exception), has led him to run.
You use the term “open source” and I believe it to be a euphemism for “free thinking”….it appears you are reluctant to state the need for people of color to migrate back to the republican spectrum…it’s not about kowtowing to conservatives…it’s about not being taken for granted. You have mentioned that you disagree with my politics but it DOES make sense for Black folk to have a sizable presence in BOTH parties (or god forbid start a alternative party)…..voting in the 90 percentile range for Dems is just foolish at this stage in the game….I moved to the right for strategic purposes and to debunk stereotypes….it would be nice for more Blacks to consider this.
I used open source intentionally, not as a euphemism. Your post indicates an interest in outcomes (in this case “migrating back to the Republican spectrum”). I have no predetermined outcome in mind–although I’m pretty far to the left. Rather I believe that if we were to use open-source methods of networking and generating new ideas, we’d generate as many different local ways of building power as there are black communities. And wherever we get through that route standard notions of political parties won’t really matter much.
I believe that where we agree is in our shared desire for black people to take control of their own destiny. Where we differ is that I believe that black people already know how to get there. We vote 90% democratic for example NOT because we are bamboozled, but because we have a very good idea of which party is less likely to harm us.
To be fair about NAN, the Rainbow Coalition, et al., they’re NGOs whose financial records are publicly available and organizations with whom anybody can get involved.
If I understand your use of ‘open source’ correctly, it requires an identifiable entity establish its proprietorship of the ‘Black license’ (for lack of a better term) for assignment to use, modify, etc., subject to the licensor’s permission. Isn’t this type of thinking autocratic by definition and the type of attitude you’re attempting to remedy?
Could you expand on that latter point? This is not what i had in mind at all…I don’t think it requires an identifiable entity, but I’d be interested in knowing why you think that way.
Typically, ‘open source’ describes a core, but incomplete framework that’s freely distributed for others to interpret and complete as desired. The term originated with software designers, IIRC, brainstorming ways to maximize development of their programs. In short, their solution was to license source code to would-be developers. Linus Torvadis does this with Linux.
So, to wrest the Black agency (?) from the likes of (insert your high profile Black activist’s name here) using open source methodology, someone, somewhere would first create a basic construct of Black polity that would be then adopted by vendors looking to access or utilize Black politics for their own purposes. Just as I might try to secure license to Microsoft’s Windows Mobile code if I wanted to develop and/or sell software for mobile devices.
By ‘identifiable entity’ I didn’t mean ‘recognizable’ vis-a-vis celebrity; just a certain person or group. Neither did I intend to suggest only 1 version of ‘Black’ could function. In fact, several variations on ‘Black’ can be created and exist simutaneously. My concern here is with the propriety of a ‘Black test’ of someone’s design that would be applied to anyone.
Ok. So I create black group A in baltimore, and use various tools to both make the activities of black baltimore “leaders” more transparent, and to offer a local alternative. The tools themselves are not proprietary, in that anyone can use them, and their findings are made as public as can possibly be–you don’t have to be in black group A to get the information. Nor do you have to be in black group A to implement the new ideas.
I do think there are a number of challenges to overcome in this endeavor, as politics is about struggle.
Your concern, as I understand it, is replacing one centralized mode of blackness that privileges a group of individuals with another. I don’t see that happening here.
open source business models would be very helpful, as well…,
i used the term open source black politics, just but my use of “politics” is inclusive. we need open source black economics, andculture as well. In fact, rather than privileging one of them as Cruse tried to do, I would say they can all (and perhaps should) occur simultaneously.
Open Source is a good term. I think that the previous organizations (NAACP and Rainbow PUSH) were open source initially. Initially, they were open to “ALL” for the betterment of the Blacks in this country. What “SEEMS” to be the problem is that access to the “source” code is no longer “FREE”. You must pay to play in the “NEW” so-called black organizations.
If I had a problem with the Chicago Police, I could not go “DIRECTLY” to Rev. Jackson. To gain access to Obama, I would not be able to go “DIRECTLY” to him either. Open and Free Access to the top brass, if you will, is what would make things transparent.
PUSH does do some good things in Chicago, but I think some of the external things that Rev. Jackson jumps into are not worth it, in my opinion. I can’t speak on Sharpton’s Action Network. All I know about that is what I hear on his radio show.
As for Obama running for president, he’d not be as accessible as he is now, which is feeble in itself. Personally, I don’t he’d win but that’s another post.
“So I create black group A in Baltimore, and use various tools to both make the activities of black Baltimore ‘leaders’ more transparent, and to offer a local alternative.”
Not exactly. The value of open source development applicable to politics is the definition (or perhaps, re-definition) of a creed or polity, in this case ‘black politics’ however defined by group A. But group A’s blueprint as intentionally distributed is raw; incomplete. The remaining template would be left for others — including black Baltimore ‘leaders’ — to adopt and modify to completion as they so desire. ‘Open’ in open source describes not only access (the pre-condition to transparency) but action; the licensee’s not bound to honor directions or goals specified by the licensor.
A reverse merger, coup, and leveraged acquisition are strategies better suited for coercing institutional/agency accountability in the manner you seek.
Open source is still the perfect language. Someone with a different set of beliefs–or even beliefs diametrically opposed to group A–can take the tools and do whatever they want with them AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRANSPARENT. For me generating and regenerating transparency is an action in and of itself. What happens afterward IS on the licensor.
Which is why I responded to Dburt the way I did. He has an end goal in mind that does imply some type of coup or reverse merger. I just have a process of getting things done. Group A does not have to replace NAACP, or take its place (whatever that place may be). It can only last as long as it takes to conduct a specific task.
I read the definition of open source culture and this fits exactly. We aren’t taking anything over, although as this philosophy grants more power to individuals (and to collectives) i think this will happen “naturally.”