It’ll Still be Politics as Usual Under Obama

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

A black president – it happened. Anyone who didn’t feel a twinge of emotion as Barack and his beautiful family came out to greet the crowds in that Chicago park officially has a heart of stone. In many ways it was a profound moment in history: the end to the centuries of white supremacism that has moved from slavery to Jim Crow to the still-existing economic exploitation – progress within what was all along referred to as “civilization.”

There on stage was the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world, the son of a Kenyan farmer and a single white mother from Kansas, beaming from ear to ear. It was as improbable as it was moving. And we should never forget the slaves who revolted against their masters and the civil rights activists who were shot dead in the 1960s; it was their sacrifices that furrowed the rocky path to this epochal moment. It was imagining their incredulity at such progress that really made the loins quiver on that night.

But Obama’s got a lot on his shoulders now. If you hear his supporters talking about his presidency, you might be forgiven for thinking Obama was the messiah, the untouchable Second Coming of Christ, who will cleanse us from the sulphureous scent of Hades, or George W. Bush, as he is more commonly known around the world.

And it’s a nice change for a world that has become accustomed to being ruled by nutcases. When Bush was elected I was 17, so most of my adult life has been lived with the most powerful man in the world as an unadulterated force for violence and pain. Whatever Obama becomes, at least he’s not mad, or stupid.

But I’m not holding out much hope about the next four years. Not because of Obama. I think he is probably an upright, nice guy. Certainly his writing seems to be sensitive and thoughtful. But what people don’t seem to understand as they undertake the flights of hope-infused rhetoric is that the president, while powerful, is often merely a vector in a vast tapestry of powerful forces that govern government policy. No matter how good, nice or genial he is, he is being pushed by decidedly malicious influences from all sides.

Most crucially, state power is nearly indistinguishable from big-business interest, limiting what a democratically elected leader can do. Essentially they are beholden to what Noam Chomsky has called “private tyrannies”: corporations and big money. They are private tyrannies because they have no democratic input and are driven by one sole motivation: profit.

This was revealed in stark terms with the financial bailout of the world’s biggest investment banks, where money was redistributed upward with no stipulations that the capital be used for loans, resulting in vast amounts going to shareholders, not the attested “stimulus.”

But while this was a particularly egregious case that has admittedly elected anger across the political spectrum, the same thing happens all the time behind closed doors. It’s how state capitalism works. There is a revolving door between big business and government in policy-formation and personnel. Dick Cheney went from the board of Halliburton to the executive branch of government like an oily fish, and will probably go back the other way. And look who benefited in Iraq.

Every superpower through history has sought to dominate lesser powers and make them pliant to their own economic interests. This has happened whether the superpower has been communist, socialist, capitalist, Nazi, whatever. The common denominator to all superpowers is that they have extraordinary amounts of power, and power by its nature will try to dominate. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides expressed this timeless maxim most baldly in his History of the Peloponnesian War. “Since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,” said the Athenians to the Melians. “While the strong do what they can, the weak must suffer what they will.”

That fundamental dynamic has not altered since his time and probably never will. So essentially in the two-party system the individual leader is irrelevant to the real big picture. Be it Barack Obama, or Tony Blair or George W. Bush, the empire and power structure will continue to run unimpeded, with only variations in style. Political scientist Robert A. Dahl famously called this system polyarchy: a competitive elite ruling the rest of us.

That doesn’t mean that Barack Obama has tweaked his opinions to get into office, it means he couldn’t have gotten there if he believed anything different. As Comment Factory writer Laurence Witherington pointed out, it’s hypocritical of people to say that Obama is going against his principles; in fact, Obama has been consistent in his support of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the war in Lebanon in 2006.

And there’s more too. If we can stretch our memories, we should remember that Obama suggested he would bomb the sovereign nation of Pakistan during his primary campaign, he has said he is against Iran enriching uranium even for energy purposes even though Israel is not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and he has proposed a surge in Afghanistan. He has also most egregiously gone in front of the vile outfit AIPAC and said Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, a position even hardened Likudniks like Ariel Sharon would gasp at.

Real change this election season didn’t begin and end with Obama. The Green Party had the first all-people-of-color ticket in history, as well as the first all-female ticket too. But how many people have heard of presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney or vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente? They were given a complete media blackout because they posed a real threat to the corporatocracy that runs American politics. The change they proposed wasn’t a cosmetic retouching of an imperial system, but the overhaul of a democratic system, which is saturated in private dollars that aren’t given altruistically by lobbyists, but are seen as an investment, like treating the federal government as a hedge fund.

Ralph Nader was another who provided a real alternative, but was ignored. Without the corporate backing he received one percent of the vote.

Maligned by both the “left” and “right” in the U.S. mainstream, he is one of the most principled individuals in politics. Here is his verdict on Obama: “Well, obviously we all congratulate Barack Obama. We wish him well.”

But the precursor to his election has not been very encouraging, and he has repeatedly taken up the positions of the corporate supremacists, not just his latest vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, but a whole string of votes and policy positions. He opposes single-payer health insurance. Well, the HMOs and the insurance companies do, too. He wants a bigger military budget. So does the military-industrial complex. His idea of a living wage on his Web site is $9.50 an hour by 2011. That would make it less than it was in 1968, adjusted for inflation.

He matched McCain in the third debate — belligerency for belligerency — toward Russia, toward Iran, more soldiers in Afghanistan, supporting the Israeli military repression and occupation and blockade of Gaza and the West Bank. And virtually nothing about 100 million poor people in this country. That’s why I really fault him; that he played the Clinton linguistic game by talking constantly about the middle class and not mentioning the word “poor.”

And we expect more of him. And I don’t think he has a public philosophy of where corporations must operate in this country. How? Under what rule of law? Under what regulation? Under what vulnerability to litigation in the courts? He’s proud of tort reform, supports the nuclear industry, supports the coal industry. So we’re really talking about just more of the same, in terms of the corporate domination of Washington.

I detected no concern, no quaking of concern, among the drug industry, oil, gas industry, nuclear, coal industry, Wall Street, over his probable election in the last few weeks. Usually, when they’re really worried about a politician, they will issue warnings. But Barack Obama has raised far more money than John McCain from Wall Street interests, corporate interests and, above all, corporate lawyers. And the question to be asked is, why are they investing so much in Barack Obama? Because they believe he’s their man. So, prepare to be disappointed, but keep your hope up.

Until people like Nader, and Bob Barr on the other side, are able to stretch the narrow political spectrum in the U.S., and likewise around the world, we will never be able to hope for change and not in the back of our minds think that in fact nothing ever changes.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Elephants in the Room: Hip-Hop Republicans Speak Out

By JERRY LAGUERRE, Editor

The term Hip-Hop Republican is one some would consider the definitive oxymoron. Hip-Hop is young, urban and cutting edge. The Republican Party … not so much. So upon first hearing the term several months ago on CNN.com, I almost fell off my chair. Were these people for real or was this some Saturday Night Live spoof?

Sure enough, it was real. It was as if I discovered that unicorns or mermaids existed. I had to find out who they were and how on earth could they infuse the message of hip-hop with the ideals of the Republican Party.

I honestly do subscribe to the theory of never judging a book by its cover. But to be perfectly honest, I have to admit sometimes I slip and find myself prejudging. However, it’s at those moments that something happens that will remind me why I should never, EVER jump to conclusions.

There are about 500 strong (with an age range from about 20-45) who associate with this movement in some form, gathered largely through social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. With their numbers growing and their philosophy and message gaining respect, Hip-Hop Republicanism seems to be just scratching the surface of its potential.

My initial reaction as a young black Democrat is something that the people of the Hip-Hop Republican movement deal with on a regular basis.

“They think we’re frauds. They think there’s no way you can be a true hip-hop head and a Republican,” said Lenny McAllister, a 36-year-old community volunteer from North Carolina who is firmly entrenched in Republican activism and a contributor to hiphoprepublican.com.

After talking with Lenny about the blog, I understood that it was more than just a term, more than just music. The ideology of Hip-Hop Republicanism goes way beyond beats, rhymes and traditional Republican themes. It speaks more to how the Hip-Hop generation views the world.
“They view race differently. They view gender differently. They view limitations differently. They view the box as being something you can regularly jump in and out of it. You don’t have certain rules that other generations felt themselves having,” McAllister explained. “As a matter of fact you look at the youth generation throughout American history, it was generally those movements, especially the last 75 years that changed the dynamic of how America engaged.”

After interviewing McAllister, who does a weekly spot on “Fox News Rising” in Charlotte, N.C., and talking to Richard Ivory (who founded the blog about four years ago), I noticed a driving force in both men that proved to me how passionate they were about this cause.

Ivory, 30, founded the site because of former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. While on the campaign trail in 2004, Steele centered his platform on urban issues. He received the backing of Russell Simmons and LL Cool J, and was dubbed a Hip-Hop Republican by The Washington Post. Steele was Ivory’s inspiration and in the years since, Ivory has learned that a number of young African-Americans also back the Republican Party.

“A bright spot for the Republicans is that most African-Americans under the age of 30 agree more on paper with Republican ideals than Democratic ideals,” said Ivory, citing a 30-page report from jointcenter.org, a national political and economic research institution whose work focuses on people of color. Ivory added that the reason why you don’t see more black Republicans is because of the stigma associated with the term, not because of a disagreement with policies.

There are 64,000 registered black Republicans in Florida, according to an Associated Press story published in August, and 3,000 black Republicans registered in Harlem, according to JoLinda Cogen, former Republican district leader.

Turns out black Republicans aren’t as rare as I thought. And even those who aren’t down with the movement are still tipping their caps toward it.

“Actually, most of the venom we receive comes from white liberals,” Ivory said. “The black community may not always agree with you, but they respect you once you’ve explained your opinion. Older black Republicans use to stay quiet. But we’re out constantly spreading our message.”

From being featured in publications such as, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, to radio spots for everything from NPR to Hot 97, a New York City hip-hop station, they seem to be popping up everywhere.

Their goal extends far beyond just letting people know that the Republican Party has a young, black bloc. They want to change the party from the inside.

“(Through our philosophy) we can bring about several changes,” McAllister said. “The diversification of the Republican Party, the inclusion of the Republican Party, the reinvigoration of the Republican Party within the core, energetic youthful voters (and using) free-market values and conservative principles to (address) the urban issues we face today. … (Issues) such as black-on-black crime … black under-education and underemployment in urban America. We can take a new approach and break the trends that we’ve been finding with Democratically-controlled city and state governments for the last 40 years.”

Ivory added that he never understood how some people could blame what they viewed as a white, racist government for their problems, but then look to that same government to fix those problems. “It starts from the community (not government),” said Ivory, who spends a lot of time working with Harlem’s underprivileged.

“Government can’t keep funding the same solution to problems that aren’t getting solved,” Ivory said. “I grew up in Richmond, V.A., and every year it was the same Democrats running the city. … Oftentimes the response is that people are in their situations because of racism and slavery. And I’m like ‘No, it’s not. Because why aren’t you in that situation?’ ”

Ivory and McAllister talk about how desperately change is needed in urban America. So I had to know, would either of these men be voting for Mr. Change, Sen. Obama? After all, they do share a common thread as African-Americans involved with community activism. And both men share an appreciation for the candidate’s charisma and ability to inspire.

“I support Obama historically. … But to me he’s too far left for me to support as a presidential candidate in 2008,” said McAllister, citing Sen. Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, record on abortion and his history of voting “present” over 100 times as a state senator. “If he goes up for reelection in 2012 or loses and runs again in 2012 and he’s more center, it’s a different type of evaluation process.”

“I always look at it as, if I had a daughter who was very ill and there were two doctors, one very charismatic young doctor who has a great medical degree from an Ivy League school … who came out of nowhere and is getting a lot of attention, and another doctor who has been tested and tried based on his experience, who would I choose to save my daughter’s life?” said Ivory, who is backing Sen. John McCain mainly because he believes the primary issue facing America is foreign policy, not the economy.

Ivory pointed out that history has been unkind to many presidents. “Bush initially talked about unilateralism and letting foreign countries be. … Obama may find himself in the same situation as Bush. We may see ourselves in anti-war rallies against Obama.”

Despite backing McCain, both men admitted to feeling conflicted about not voting for Obama because of what his presidency would mean for the country from a historical standpoint. But at the same time, they’ve chosen to vote their conscience, which is something I can’t knock anyone for. I also can’t knock a true grassroots effort because it makes me think of what American politics should be. Hip-Hop Republicans aren’t about assimilation, but diversification.

“The older generation of black Republicans wanted to look like the party. We want the party to look like us,” Ivory explained.

Not only do both men expect the movement to grow, they also see it expanding to where it is a recognized voice among the Republican discourse – despite the party’s current unwillingness to embrace the Hip-Hop Republicans and similar groups – highlighting the party’s historically poor record of reaching out to minorities.

“I can’t even name the minority director for the Republican Party right now. Republican Party outreach to minorities is sad. It’s just a sad, sad story,” Ivory said.

McAllister attributes the problem to the party’s inability to grow their image outside of the ’70s and ’80s – which has put the party in the position it’s in now: staring at the possibility of the Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress. He believes that had the Republicans tried to engage young voters and diversify its image years ago, the brand name wouldn’t be so weak.

So the Hip-Hop Republicans are doing the outreach the party has failed to do. Ivory believes that the reason why Republicans are failing at outreach is not racism, but a lack of understanding in terms of how to go about it.

“They’re just not comfortable talking about [race]. But they have a responsibility to bring in people who are,” Ivory said. He believes the party shouldn’t be afraid of change because it has always been changing throughout its history. His philosophy: Republicans have some core beliefs that unite them, but it’s OK for differences among the group. He went on to talk about the Hip-Hop Republican movement having many different types of Republicans from conservatives to libertarians. And that’s the point – more ideas will result in more solutions.

“(Hip-Hop Republicanism) is not a moniker. It’s not meant to just be cute. It’s meant to show a growing movement of urban Republicans voicing diverse opinions that will impact the Republican Party internally and impact our communities externally,” McAllister added. “This is something that’s not going to go away. And it’s something that’s for the benefit of America. … The message of hip-hop is always about keeping it real and telling the story about what people are going through so that somebody can be the ambassadors to help move people past those challenges.”

With an Obama presidency apparently looming, McAllister stressed the importance of the African-American community not to become complacent. And Ivory believes that an Obama presidency could help strengthen the movement because it would force the party to examine itself and in turn, hopefully become more inclusive.

“There are some people who say a President Obama proves that affirmative-action is not needed. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. … We have black youths that are given up on in the third grade (in our public schools),” McCallister said, adding the fact that despite the growing number of black mayoral and gubernatorial leaders over the last 20 years, the issues in urban America remain the same. “He’s America’s president, not just black America’s president.”

Jerry Laguerre may be reached at TakingBackPolitics@gmail.com.

The Walker Viral Report (Oct. 2, 2008)

Is Obama black enough–Jason Walker thinks so. (Produced by Eugene Mulero)

Problems with Voting “Pro-Race”

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

Be careful what you wish for.

The thing that bothers me the most about this election is the unapologetic “I’m voting for Obama because he’s black” sentiment that seems to be prominent among many African-Americans.

It’s not racist, it’s “pro-race.” If you’re going to accept that, then you can’t point the finger at anyone who says they’re voting for McCain because he’s white.

Caucasians still represent the majority in terms of those who vote. Even if 99% of registered black voters actually came out (stop laughing) and all voted for Obama, he probably would not win by a great margin, if he won at all.

Obama is smart enough not to be counting on black votes to win. He’s focusing his energy on getting votes for his ideas, not the color of his skin. He doesn’t need to pander to the black community. He knows no matter what he does his black constituency is not going anywhere.

Did you ever wonder about that 20-30% that still supports Bush? Those are the people who voted for him for their own biased reasons and make excuses for him no matter what mistakes he makes. Sound familiar?

So don’t say, “people in this country are racist,” if Obama loses. You can’t have it both ways.

Don’t get upset when you find out that he’s not looking out for you any more than any other politician. He isn’t going to win and start crip walking across the stage at his inauguration.

Don’t start feeling strong and getting too cocky either. Obama wouldn’t even be where he is if it wasn’t for the white people who are supporting him. If you alienate those people, you will see his popularity go down.

You may also be kissing goodbye to a big chunk of the “white guilt” that the many have been unwittingly benefiting from in this politically correct climate of ours. The pendulum, that has swung as far as to cost people their jobs for making remarks only a handful view as racist, can swing the other way very quickly.

Most of this country’s wealth is still owned by a small group that includes very few minorities, so it doesn’t have to stop at politics either. Affirmative action was established to counteract the same sentiment that is being expressed by many black voters. The other side of the coin is not very pretty. Skin color has as little to do with someone getting hired as ever, but if the field is even then it is always easy to side with your own, black or white. So when you eliminate the motivation to consciously make an unbiased decision you may end up losing much more than you bargained for whether Obama wins or not.

It’s also extremely hypocritical to participate in the same kind of thinking those in power have been admonished for using for so long. Nepotism, favoritism and preference are all in favor of the owners of the wealth. In times like these the ranks tend to close up tight, making it harder for anyone, especially minorities, to get higher paying jobs or even keep the jobs they have. It’s natural to rely on what you’re familiar with when times are tough, and when the wealthy turn to each other that will leave the rest of us out. But remember, it’s not racism, it’s just being “pro-race,” right?

It may be nearly impossible for Obama to improve the black image in this country. African-Americans are still suffering from a syndrome that associates them with every criminal on the evening news and none of the heroes that are profiled on the same programs. There are so many minority leaders at all levels of government and business that no one should need to point to Obama to say “I can make it.” If anything, the odds are more likely for someone to say “I told you so.”

Maybe that’s the real issue. Maybe before the country can be ready for a black president it needs to also be ready for a mediocre black president. I would like to think that successful or not an Obama term would provide evidence that we’ve ascended to a level of equality in this country that we will never relinquish; but that’s only a dream.

If Obama wins he needs to be successful or not only will the country not accept another minority candidate for a while, but African-Americans spirits will be diminished. Some will make the excuse that he was never given a fair chance. Some will bury their heads in the sand and not accept failure. But most will just be let down knowing that they would probably not see another minority-led administration for a long time.

It’s not an easy job. Many great men have had disappointing stints as the head of state. Given our current climate the odds are not very good. The outcome could have a vast effect on the world we live in.

So please, at least read a few articles and come up with a reasonable excuse to vote for Obama. Whether he wins or not, the future of the country may depend on it.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

It’s The Economy, Stupid

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

What a difference $85 billion makes. American International Group, the insurance giant, just got a bailout from the U.S., less than 24 hours after Wall Street was, literally, collapsing. This economic breakdown, or meltdown, may have saved Obama, who has been pumping his populist shtick since last year. Maverick McCain, on the other hand, has said he didn’t understand the economy and his economic adviser, former Sen. Phil Gramm, is the genius who helped get us in this economic mess. Thanks, Phil.

Just a few days ago I was about to write a blog entry for Taking Back Politics explaining why Obama wasn’t going to defeat Maverick in November.

My reason was simple: Obama is black (contrary to what Mr. Matt Kennard thinks).

I’ve been all over this magnificent country, and I’ve met some hardcore racist individuals. In Tennessee, a hillbilly motorist with a sticker of the Confederate flag on his truck tried to run me off the road. In Arkansas, I heard two truck drivers mumble the “n” word when they saw African-American teens at a Travel America stop. And in Arizona – McCain’s home state – I met a girl in the town of Anthem, who wanted to quit high school because a lot of white kids called her ‘nigger’. After researching the problem, I discovered that almost every black kid in Arizona felt the same way.

So, if these white folks are calling black teens ‘niggers,’ why would they vote for Obama? That was my thinking.

But now that AIG took in some serious cash, the campaign has become about-the-economy-stupid.

During a conference call on Monday, Sebastian Mallaby, a senior fellow for international economics with the Council on Foreign Relations, told reporters he thinks voters will blame the Bush Administration for this financial crisis. On Tuesday, Steven Preston, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, called Mallaby’s assertion “totally absurd.”

Yet, Mallaby has a point because when stockholders lose massive amounts of cash (millions, that is) in the stock markets, or homeowners suffer because the housing market collapses, you can expect voters to seek out the candidate who a) was not responsible for their economic problems and b) appears to have the best recipe to help taxpayers.

Obama fits those criteria.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.