I’m snatching the following quote from Adolph Reed’s important work Stirrings in the Jug:
Encouraging popular participation is the only effective possibility for reinvigorating a progressive movement in black political life because people respond by organizing themselves when offered concrete visions that connect with their lives as they experience them, not to ideological abstractions or generic agendas that perfume narrow class programs. (pp. 50, 51)
Adolph’s academic work can be remarkably obtuse, and I’ve been meaning to ask him why the hell he makes his work so difficult to understand, but this volume is ESSENTIAL for anyone seeking to understand the current political context as well as the historical trajectory of black american political development. With that said, check out this story. One of the things that Reed calls for in remaking black politics is a renewed focus on representative-constituency relationships. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a host of other folk don’t fit in here because while they may CLAIM constituents, these constituents can’t vote them out of office nor objectively examine their political behavior (because most of it occurs behind closed doors).Clyburn DOES fit this role…but why is he seeking to withhold his support in this instance? It isn’t because black people want him to make a different call. It isn’t because he thinks that one candidate may be particularly bad for black people, policy wise. It is because one of the candidates offended his historical sensibility by insulting the civil rights legacy.You’ve got to be kidding me.This is the type of thing we’ve got to get away from with the quickness. And publicly condemn those who would make such weighty decisions on such petty concerns.
What issues are Clyburn’s constituents using to evaluate his performance? I’m betting that he’s running for re-election unopposed. As the only African-American member of the South Carolina congressional delegation, is he seen more as a civil rights symbol than an agent of positive change in his constituents’ lives? Clybrun may have more in common than Jackson/Sharpton than one would think.
By the way, this summer you commented that you would never vote for Hilary Clinton. I disagreed at the time, but I now share that sentiment.
All of your questions are excellent (and thanks for stopping by). Most congressional representatives have weak or no opposition. This is probably more true of black representatives of districts like Clyburn’s. He’s pretty much in there until he decides to give it up. And this does make him similar to Jesse or Sharpton.
BUT…the thing is that he DOES have to run. Even if there is no opposition he has to run. And his votes HAVE TO BE RECORDED. Not only his votes, but his presence even. If he’s absent that shows up. If he doesn’t go to meetings that shows up.
This makes him more accountable than either Jackson or Sharpton.
Why’d you change your mind about Clinton?
Nice commentary in salon.com. In a perfect world Clyburn would lead a neutral CBC in defining a comprehensive stimulus package/sub-prime mortgage solution. The CBC would hold a press conference asking for commitments from all Democratic presidential candidates. In the general election candidates run on the package.
Unfortunately, we don’t ask anything of our leadership, other than symbolism. It’s depressing. If Clyburn’s not showing up for meetings or votes, I’m not sure anyone will call him on it.
If the Democrats nominate Clinton, I’ll have to vote for her. It’s just that I’m so tired of both of them whining all the time.
To me, Rep. Clyburn’s decision is easy to understand.
For him to endorse any candidate at this time, given his position in the House, Democratic Party, and CBC, would be inappropriate. Not unethical, and certainly not illegal… just inappropriate. It’s not his responsibility to publicly endorse candidates, especially when he places himself at risk of sabotaging whatever leverage he may have on a given political issue, or alienating peers in Congress or his constituents..
There’s no doubt in my mind Clyburn found Sen. Clinton’s rhetoric over the top on a personal level. It may have been the tipping point in a decision not to give an endorsement, or at minimum, not one for Clinton. That’s his prerogative, however. All things considered, I believe Clyburn handled things deftly, for Clinton definitely put him in an awkward position.
Clyburn’s an elected official. Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, OTOH, are best defined as lobbyists. Effective politics involve both lobbyists and elected officials hacking out compromises on various issues. Both roles have their respective agendas and resources.
MIB you are (understandably) wrong on a couple of points.
Clyburn can, just as other political officials, make endorsements. In Detroit for example both former mayor Dennis Archer and current congressional representative John Conyers have endorsed Obama. In NYC, rep. Rangel (sp?) has endorsed Clinton. He loses about as much in making a poor endorsement (that is, in endorsing a loser) that he would lose in NOT making an endorsement and garnering the wrath of the eventual winner (in the case of a close election). I am not suggesting that he HAD to make an endorsement. What I am suggesting is that if he WERE to make an endorsement, he should do so over issues of substance rather than symbols.
Neither Jackson nor Sharpton can be defined (even “best defined”) as lobbyists. They are best defined as patronage seekers, or as political brokers. As brokers they do have a role to play. But that role is both outmoded and harmful, as that role decreases the possibility of black popular democratic discourse.
Good Doctor, what’s permissable and what’s appropriate aren’t always the same thing.
Dennis Archer is a private citizen now. He’s free to endorse anyone without political repercussion. Similarly Reps. Conyers and Rangel have a little less latitude to make such a gesture than a private citizen, but more than a leader of the Democrats in Congress. Rep. Clyburn is the Majority Whip; the #3 official in the House of Representatives. Like Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer, Clyburn wouldn’t dare endorse any candidate so early in what’s shaping up to be a very competitive nomination process, less he risk alienating House Democrats he’ll have to work with. The decision is good, sound politics.
Second… it’s a free country. People are free to endorse whomever they want for whatever reason they want. Accordingly, you and I are individually free to reject the endorsement for whatever reason we choose. You should have a little more faith in the ability of people to think for themselves.
Lobbyists are in fact brokers. To their clients, they broker access to legislators and executives. To legislators, they deliver campaign financing and/or votes. Lobbyists are a legitimate and fundamental part of modern American politics. To deny Jackson (and to a lesser extent, Sharpton) don’t function in this role, that it’s not effective, or that lobbying is, “… outmoded and harmful…”, suggests a rather horrific political naivete — to put it mildly.
Put the Haterade jug down.
MIB you are making a case for why he shouldn’t make an endorsement.
I am making a case for the circumstances under which he SHOULD make an endorsement. Given the current context he shouldn’t have threatened to make an endorsement for symbolic purposes.
A couple of points here. Clyburn isn’t a private individual, he is a representative with a constituency. He has an obligation to consider them when making decisions in his public capacity as a representative. Further in as much as he claims the civil rights mantle of Dr. King and others, he has an obligation to increase the range of democratic discourse. Him threatening to make an endorsement over symbolic issues does not open up space for debate about substantive issues of poverty–the types of issues King organized around at his death. And this obligation is independent of whether individuals do or do not take his advice when making their decisions in the voting booth.
Lobbyists work for firms that have legal obligations to their clients. Clients have the capacity to observe the behavior of the lobbyists they hire. They have the capacity to fire the lobbyists and hire new ones if they choose. They have the capacity to task the lobbyist to change his/her negotiating behavior. Their behavior is regulated by federal, state, and local governments.
Now we can casually make claims like “Jackson and Sharpton are lobbyists” or “are just like lobbyists.” But at some point you’ve got to get down to the details. So how EXACTLY do either Sharpton or Jackson fit the description I’ve noted above?
The Problem with Black Politics http://t.co/HimSx9IN
From the Archives: The Problem with Black Politics http://t.co/HimNZzzD