Common Knowledge

Political Posturing

"Order is not pressure which is imposed on society from without, but an equilibrium which is set up from within."

--Jose Ortega y Gasset--

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

--John Adams--

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe."

--Frederick Douglass--

Last week another episode of a war of words between President Hugo Chavez and the Bush Administration erupted. President Chavez called President Bush the “devil” while delivering a speech at the United Nations. Several politicians from the United States responded to President Chavez’s remarks. Congressman Charlie Rangel issued a stinging response to President Chavez’s remarks about President Bush. Congressman Rangel essentially told President Chavez to keep his comments to himself when criticizing an American President in America. This whole episode received a great deal of media attention. The media painted a picture of good versus evil, with the American politicians being the good and President Chavez being the evil. It is this type of knee jerk, superficial media coverage of international affairs that reinforces our country’s reputation as being ignorant of the rest of the world. In my opinion this story was not about good versus evil, it was about scoring political points and attempting to build power. If the media had delved into the political realities for all the political players involved in last weeks verbal sparing, then much of the country could have had a much better understanding of the history and the basis of President Chavez’s inflammatory language and Rep. Rangel’s response.

I will not pretend to be an expert in international politics or economics, but I do know a good old game of political posturing regardless of where, when or in what language it occurs. The truth is that there was no good versus evil angle from last week’s war of words about President Bush. It was all political posturing and seeking to expand political power. The democrats are hoping to take back control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They assume that in order to do that they must appeal to some of “middle” America in order to get enough votes to capture the necessary seats that are the margin of majority in the House and the Senate. They assume that most Americans were too blinded by emotion or a superficial sense of patriotism to look beyond the politically motivated criticism of President Bush by President Chavez. The bottom line is Rep. Rangel as well as a few other prominent democrats were looking to score some easy points with “middle” America for their own political benefit. Maybe it worked? Maybe it did not? But it was to be expected.

The same is truth about President Chavez. It appears that President Chavez is seeking to expand his political base and power. President Chavez was elected back in 1998. He rode into office under the banner of a socialist revolutionary. This is significant because this may in some way explain his chilly relationship with the United States and particularly President Bush. Venezuela is a country with a stratified economy where a significant portion of its population live in abject poverty and the middle class population is small in comparison to its poor and the wealthy class is even smaller. Any nation that has a bunch poor folks, a smaller number of middle class folks, and a few rich folks is a country that is inviting a socialist revolution. There are several countries in Central and South America that have this problem and it is not surprising that there is a lot of pressure from socialist forces in these countries. Yet, Venezuela is a little different from the typical economically stratified Latin American country. It has oil and a lot of it.

President Chavez is in a unique position to build alliances with other nations, especially developing nations, due to the power that an oil producing nation wields in a world where the “big boys” need oil like the human body needs blood. His power base in Venezuela is the poor and the group of people that feel they were powerless before he took office. The United States and especially a conservative administration like the Bush Administration is a natural enemy of a leftist politician that remains in power with the backing of the poor. (Of course President Chavez has some specific personal issues with President Bush since he has charged the Bush Administration with being behind a failed attempt to unlawfully remove him from power in 2002). President Chavez may believe that it is in his political interests to have an antagonistic relationship with the Bush Administration. Maybe he is right? Maybe he is not? Time will answer that question.

But the American mainstream media refuses to acknowledge this possibility. They prefer to paint President Chavez as an autocrat, dictator, and a despot. Maybe he is or maybe he is not, however, that was not the issue last week. Political posturing was the real issue. It is too bad that much of the media did not cover this angle because by just focusing on a simple knee jerk emotional response it continues the stereo type of Americans as being ignorant of the real reasons behind most international disagreements. I can only hope that it is in fact just a stereo type.

The Miseducation about Affirmative Action

“In the state of nature...all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the law.”

--Charles de Montesquieu--

“Equality...is the result of human organization. We are not born equal.”

--Hannah Arendt--

Affirmative action. Depending on who you are talking to those words are either the epitome of fairness of unfairness. However, this article is not about the merits of affirmative action. The purpose of this article is to reintroduce to our community the real affirmative action.

I wrote an article in 2003 about my interpretation of what affirmative action is really designed to accomplish. It was published in the Citizen Newspaper in Chicago. After I wrote the article, I was invited to take part in a panel discussion about affirmative action at the Urban League headquarters in the Bronzeville neighborhood located on the South side of Chicago. I have to admit that I was shocked at what happened at the forum. Although there was a large collection of wisdom gathered in that forum, nearly everyone that spoke on that panel seemed to be under the misguided impression that affirmative action is a policy that exists to “repay” black folks for slavery. That was news to me!

After the forum, I thought to myself “how can we as African-Americans defend a program when we do not know the real purpose of that program?” Then it occurred to me that is why affirmative action is so easily attacked. It has an image problem.

The best way to understand what affirmative action is really about is to look at its origins. Affirmative action started as a prohibition of discrimination against African-Americans in employment opportunities by defense contractors. President Roosevelt issued an executive ordered requiring defense contractors to promise not to discriminate in response to a threat to organize a march on Washington, D.C. by A. Philip Randolph. After successive executive orders affirmative action evolved from a simple prohibition from overt discrimination to a requirement that contractors take affirmative steps to make certain that African-Americans received equal opportunity to a quota system that was encouraged by the Nixon Administration. Affirmative action was never intended to be “pay back” for slavery nor was it ever intended to be a tool for “unqualified” African-Americans to receive college admissions or jobs over “qualified” white males or others.

The advent of the 1980’s saw the rise of Reaganism and the mantra of “reverse racism,” as if racism has or had a natural direction. During this period of time affirmative action was unfairly and incorrectly mislabeled as a misguided program that ultimately lead to the admission or hiring of unqualified or less qualified black folks over white folks. This was and still is a gross distortion of what affirmative action is about.

Today’s affirmative action is all about merit! It is about the merit of the college or job applicant not their parents. What am I talking about? Let me please break it down. Everyone knows that people can inherit wealth because we see it every day. We also know that the wealth that is inherited usually is not earned by the person that inherits it. Therefore, that person’s economic status has nothing to do with how smart, creative or even hard working that person is. It primarily is a product of being born into a wealthy family or to someone that wishes to give them wealth. The same is true for many factors that our society uses to judge college applicants and even factors that lead to building and maintaining wealth. But no one seems to want to discuss this.

Merit is not what your mom or dad did, it is what you do. If you get a high score on a standardized test because you come from a home where you have been sent to good schools, live in a highly competitive and motivated environment, and you parents have money to hire a tutor for you so you can score high on the test, you did not earn those things. Your parents did so that is not your merit. It is theirs. If you have easy access or easier access to jobs or business opportunities because of your parents or the neighborhood that you were born into or because of family connections that is not something that you earned. Your parents or your family earned those perks.

College admission is one of the most heavily debated areas regarding affirmative action. College applicants are judged purely by standardized test scores and high school grades. Yet, no one seems to want to mention that standardized test scores do not do what they are supposed to do and that is predict college success. Therefore, they are useless as an admission tool unless the college’s goal is to admit the wealthy and fortunate born; but opponents of affirmative action still use it as a measuring stick to show that unqualified minorities are being admitted over qualified whites. It seems to me that our society can not possibly determine who is qualified until we first determine what is qualified. In my book it is not what your parents did.

The situation at Duke shines a light on issues of race, class, and the media

                                     "Prejudice is opinion without judgement."

                                                            Voltaire

"The greatest friend of Truth is time, her greatest enemy is Prejudice, and her constant companion Humility."

                                                  Charles Caleb Colton

         First, I must apologize for posting my article so late in the week.  I moved this past weekend and had no access to my blog.  I will endeavor to post my articles on a timelier basis.

         This week I would like to present a different perspective on an old story.  I intentionally wrote this article well after this story was no longer being discussed in the media in order to give a little separation and hopefully a little objectivity. 

         Much has been said about the alleged rape case down in North Carolina that involves several Duke University Lacrosse players.  If you listen to one group of folks the Duke Lacrosse players are guilty as sin, although no jury has been chosen, no statements by either the prosecution or the defense has been given in court, and not an iota of evidence has yet to be presented in court.  If you listen to other folks, the young woman that is the alleged victim is a liar, a tramp, or is suffering from some sort of mental condition.  Which side is correct?  In my book both are wrong. 

         In America we have our system of due process, because it is too easy for the prejudices of the community to inflame passions that make it impossible to render justice without that process.  However, even our due process system still is vulnerable to prejudices that inflame passions that burn away reason, objectiveness, and fairness.  This case is a prime example of how the media affects our system of justice by trying people in the court of public opinion without the protections of our due process system.  This case is also an example of how the fairness of the process is directly proportionate to the amount of resources the accused has access to.

                                                             The Media   

          The back bone of our judicial system is people; or to be more specific people that are ready, willing, and able to serve on a jury.  These same people have to be ready to listen to all of the evidence and testimony presented at trial with an objective mind free of preconceived notions about the accused guilt or innocence.  The moment that any of the jurors prejudge the case or bring their prejudices into the case then our systems does not work very well.  I have tried a number of jury trials.  I have seen this situation up close.  This situation happens too often, since once is too often.  And in my opinion this situation has probably happened more then once in our country's history.

         When the media makes a circus of a case they run the risk of embedding preconceived notions into the minds of people that are the future jurors of that case.  This is true because the 24 hour news cycle requires a lot of repeat or "fluff" coverage where "experts" are interviewed and invited to give their opinions about a criminal case, even when in some cases where no indictment has been issued.  In the Duke case the risk may be a bit slimmer since the case will not likely be tried for at least a few more months, even though it has already been nearly six months since the incident that sparked the allegations occurred.  Yet, there is still a risk that some if not most of the future jurors in the case have already heard the opinions of the media's "experts" regarding the innocence or guilt of the accused and even the alleged victim.             

                                                             A Matter of Money

         There is also the issue of money.  It seems like in every high profile case the prosecutor's office complains how they are at an immense disadvantage because they are opposite a defendant that has more resources than them.  As a criminal defense attorney I always find this complaint very amusing since the vast majority of the times the prosecutor's office has a tremendous advantage in access to resources over the defendant.  And they use it to their advantage without any remorse. The media has touched on how the issue of race and class has affected this case.  This essentially means that had the victim not been black, the accused been white, the prosecutor white that needed black votes, this case may never have gone beyond a simple investigation where no charges were filed.  Some of the media has also discussed how the media coverage and the treatment of the defendants by law enforcement and the justice system may have been different had they have been black and the alleged victim white.  However, to my knowledge the media has not discussed how this case may have progressed if the accused had little or no money.

         It is a sad reality but it is true.  The more money a defendant has the better his/her chances are of being acquitted.  I want to be clear.  I am not trying to insinuate that a rich person can necessarily get away with murder or a serious crime by simply hiring the "best" lawyer money can buy.  No.  I am not making that assertion.  However, I am asserting that the more money a defendant has he/she may have better access to better representation, which could be the difference between being free or incarcerated.  They are dozens of people that are wrongfully accused of a crime that face this reality everyday.  And most of these people do not have the money that the Duke Lacrosse players have so many will either plead guilty to something that they did not do or may be found guilty of something they did not do.  Yet, I do not think this story is likely to be discussed much when and/or if there is a trial in the Duke case.  It is a shame because that is a story worth exploring.

To Thine Own Power Be True

                "Let not thy will roar, when thy power can but whisper."

                                              --Dr. Thomas Fuller--

               "The sole advantage of power is that you can do more good."

                                             --Baltasar Gracian--

         Tomorrow, September 6, 2006, the thirty-six Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation ("CBCF") will begin.  As usual, thousands of people will come from around the country to take part in the issues forums, receptions, and parties.  A good time will be had by most people that attend this conference.  That is the problem.  Every year the CBCF throws a wonderful conference with little or no results that trickle back into our communities across the country.  It is not my intend on this article to bash the Congressional Black Caucus ("CBC") or the CBCF.  I just want to give each and every one of "us," especially members of the CBC something to think about. 

         I think it is time that the CBC start to realize its power.  The CBC must formulate and implement an agenda that is designed to address issues of importance in the African-American community nationally.  Maybe I am blind or just ignorant, but I do not see that happening right now.  There are so many issues of importance to the health and vitality of our community that are affected by federal legislation and/or policy everyday.  Since there are so many I will not even to attempt to draft an exhaustive list of issues.  However, I will name a few.  There are funding issues like maintaining or increasing funding for agencies that enforce the state and federal anti-employment discrimination laws in this country or the agencies that provide start up funding to small minority businesses.  There are the legislative issues regarding equitably realigning the federal sentencing disparity between crack versus powder cocaine or the unreasonable federal law that can rob a student of all federal financial aide for a minor drug offense. (And by the way, I know that the federal sentencing guidelines have been ruled advisory, but many judges still treat them as mandatory.)  There are also issues where there is no legislative or funding solution, but can be tackled through the advocacy of information like some of our bad spending habits as a community, like spending more money as a community on alcohol than on books or spending more money as a community on automobiles than education.  The CBC and the CBCF should be the most powerful political organizations in our community on a national scale. 

         CBC's power is in its numbers.  The CBC is comprised of forty-three members of which forty are members of the House of Representatives, two are delegates in the House, and one is a member of the Senate.  Do you realize how much power a block of forty voting members of the House can wield?  Do you realize how much power one of the most visible and popular members of the Senate can have?  With all due respect to the members of the CBC, which I do hold a great deal of respect for, in my opinion they have not scratched the surface of their power.  A small glimpse of the power is captured in the numbers alone.  The CBC is roughly ten percent of the members of the House.  That may not seem like a lot but when you think about the fact that republicans only hold a thirty seat majority in the House it is very significant.  A block of forty votes one way or the other can make a huge difference for a piece of legislation or a legislative agenda. 

         I think one reason the CBC has not been as power as it can be is partisan politics.  Every member of this Congress's CBC is a democrat.  Therefore they are constantly asked to balance the best interests of their constituents with the best interests of their political party.  That can be a problem at times, because party loyalty is treasured so there are times that the democratic party seems to take the CBC for granted.  I know that the CBC has bucked the party loyalty train a few times, but the CBC must develop more of an independent streak in order to get more respect and to develop better relationships on both sides of the House.  Once the CBC has staked out its own "territory" the Annual Conference can become a celebration of achievement and the launching point to a better future for our community.