Rage Against the Machine

Revolution is not a onetime event.
--Audre Lorde--

Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one's own person is its ultimate reward.
--Patricia Sampson--

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.
--H. L. Mencken --

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
--William H. Borah--

The revolution is being televised, but no one has taken notice of the true implications! Senator Obama has blazed this unprecedented trail with a theme of change. Maybe he should also include a theme of wake up, because the race between him and Senator Clinton has shined a light for all that are interested to see on one of the problems that our community has faced for the past two decades. It is not racism. It is not an assault on civil rights. It is the stifling of good candidates by machine politics.

Bill Clinton’s remarks in response to the question of why were he and his wife “teaming up” on Senator Obama were insulting. Instead of dealing with the flawed premise that he and his wife had “teamed up” on Senator Obama he chose to dismiss any potential victory by Senator Obama in South Carolina as just a product of black folks voting for a black man. That is insulting, especially since this former President, who had been dubbed the nation’s “first Black President,” had no problems basking in the unwavering support from the black community during his roughest times. Now we are just a bunch of racist, unthinking, monolithic people that can not see beyond color. Wow! Okay, that may be a stretch but there are still some uncomfortable implications in Bill Clinton’s remarks.

If that is not enough, it gets better. Some black folks are coming to Bill Clinton’s aid. And if you have not already guessed, it is the usual list of characters – black preachers and politicians.

I am not the type of person that thinks that all black folks should think alike or that every statement made by a public official should be interpreted the same by all black folks. I think that there may be black folks that were not insulted by Bill Clinton’s remarks. However, it is hard to see how anyone that either heard or read the remarks within the context of the question that had been posed to Bill Clinton would not be a little troubled by the implications.
Bill Clinton did not need to insult an entire community in order to defend his wife or his actions in the primary. All he needed to do was to respond to flawed premise of the question by pointing out that it is not unusual for spouses to be involved in high profile political campaigns. This is particularly true when the spouse happens to be a former President. It is hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Bill Clinton did not know how to truly defend his wife. It seems to me that he took the opportunity to paint Obama as an anomaly and a product of the black vote. I do not think that those comments were misinterpreted or accidental. I think those comments were made in a deliberate attempt to redefine Senator Obama and marginalize him. Yet, now that Bill Clinton has been called on his remarks here comes “the machine to the rescue.”

The machine playbook may have been written and perfected by the old Democratic Party, but it has been used liberally by both parties. The old playbook works in all communities. It works in all sectors of this country. And it has worked without fail within our community for the past forty years to help elect unqualified, uncaring, and unresponsive candidates whose sole priority were to serve the machine.

This playbook has been discussed in books and articles like the American Pharaoh or the articles written in the Chicago Reporter regarding how grants to African-American churches by the city of Chicago have increased as support have increased from those churches. It is an old but successful formula. Get the local politicians and preachers on your side in the African-American community and you can count on the African-American vote regardless of what the candidate’s stances are on the issues. In the case of Bill Clinton’s remarks, they can count on black preachers and politicians giving him a pass for remarks that they would have roasted a republican or non-machine politician. Does that sound familiar?

Look at how the Clintons courted the African-American vote in South Carolina. They leaned on the African-American politicians and they courted the African-American clergy. It is amazing that it did not work, even against as bright, energizing, and qualified a candidate as Barack Obama. For the first time in several generations, the people in the African-American community as well as other communities have disregarded the gatekeepers of the vote and decided for themselves. That is the revolution. Hopefully it will continue through Super Tuesday.

Senator Obama may win his party’s nomination or he may not. That is not the issue. The issue is that we the people in the African-American community and the rest of America need to choose our public officials according to the content of their character instead of who has endorsed them in order to finally break the machine. Once that is done then what started as a trickle of one good candidate may develop into a flood of new, qualified, and responsive candidates in our community and throughout the country. Bring on the revolution!!!

Comments

[rawdawgbuffalo]

why we still on clinton, he no beter han GWB but black folks dont read

[Rhonda]

Wonderful post Bart! I agree that "mainstream" candidates always align themselves with the politicians and clergy in African-American communities as a way to court our vote. Unfortunately many of our politicians and clergy advocate for agendas set by the "mainstream" because it benefits them personally and not necessarily the masses of people who put their trust and faith in them. Bill Clinton exposed the real man in his attack on Barak Obama. We as a people have got to learn to seek our own truth, stand on it, protect it and never be swayed from it. Keep on keeping us informed, my friend!

[Indigo]

DEVILS ADVOCATE: Should women be insulted when it is purported that Hillary's victory in some states is due to women voters? Didn't Alpha Phi Alpha (a black fraternity)induct Bill Clinton? Didn't black people rave about Bill Clinton and his presidency? If black people were so happy with Bill "back in the day", why is there a sudden change in our tone? Why is there a negative slant on almost EVERY media play involving Hillary? Is there a moral justice when it seems that every comment the Clinton's make against Obama's policy is a personal attack but when the Obama's make a comment against the Clinton's it is all for the sake of good politics and a movement against the machine? At what point does inspirational speech become monotone rhetoric? Why has Obama chosen not to vote (represent the state of Illinois) on MANY issues as a U.S. Senator? I could go on and on but I will leave you with that "food for thought."

[Avgbrother]

Indigo,

I think you are off base on almost every point that you raised. None of the points that you raised are based in facts. First, I have never heard anything about my fraternity (Alpha Phi Alpha) inducting Bill Clinton into the fraternity. The only high profile semi-presidential figure that received that honor was former Vice-President Hubert Humphrey in the 1940s. There has been no credible information that confirms your question. Second, yes; Hillary Clinton has received some negative coverage. However, "every comment the Clinton's make against Obama's policy is a personal attack but when the Obama's make a comment against the Clinton's it is all for the sake of good politics and a movement against the machine" is not even close to accurate. The media has not accused either side of personal attacks since South Carolina. Hillary Clinton's argument that she is the more "experienced" candidate is more of mere words than any speech that Obama has given and few if any news media outlets have called her on that spin. Hillary and Bill's attacks against Obama in New Hampshire and South Carolina were personal. The fairy tale comment was dismissive, while the dismissal of Obama's victory in South Carolina as a product of a black man receiving the black vote was incredibly racially insensitive at best and racist at worst- especially for a Fomer President that enjoyed unwavering support from the African-American community.

If you do not think the comments were at the very least insensitive then let me ask you a question. Why was Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 in states where he captured huge segments of the black vote legitimate, but when Obama did the same it is due to racial voting? Why was Hillary's victories in New Hampshire, Neveda, California, etc where she won by getting the majority of the white female vote, and the hispanic vote legitmate but Obama's victory in South Carolina due to racial voting? Why is Hillary not the white female candidate? It was a personal and low attack by Bill Clinton that ultimately worked to move the vast majority of the Black vote Obama's way. That leads to my third point. Black folks loved the Clintons (and I was not one of them - I voted for him twice but I always recognized that he was not a bad or great president for our community) because we are to in love with the democratic party. Hillary Clinton was competitive within the Black community for votes with Obama until Bill Clinton attacked Obama with his dismissive comments. Fourth, both Hillary and Obama are giving speeches because neither has a wealth of experience in office (Obama has more experience in public office than Hillary). They have way more in common on issues than they disagree. On policy they are nearly the same candidate. Hillary is trying to have it both ways. She wants to run on her husband's record without having the dignity and honesty to say it. And she wants to claim all the positives from Bill's tenure, which there were many, but avoid the negatives, which there were many, from his tenure in office. That is not leadership. That is the same old tricks.

By the way, please get your facts straight because I do not know what you are referiing to when you mention that Obama "has chosen not to vote (represent the state of Illinois) on Many issues as a U.S. Senator." If you mean that he has been absent from the Senate due to the campaign then that criticism cuts towards him, Hillary, and McCain. I hope you are not refering to the "present" votes from when Obama was a State Senator in Illinois Before he became a U.S. Senator. If that is what you are refering to then please quit reading the Clinton press releases. That situation has already been explained. A present vote is when a bill is close to what you want but not there yet. You vote present to keep it from receiving enough votes to pass then force some more negotiations regarding the bill. He placed well over 2,000 votes while a member in the State Senate. He voted present in less than 5% of his votes. There is no indication that he voted "present" more than any other State Senator during his time in the Illnois state senate. By the way, the media that hates Clinton so much took her spin on that non-issue and never researched it for relevance by making a real and fair comparison to the other state senators in Illinois. Maybe you should ask yourself whether the media really is against Clinton or is it just a trick by the Clinton's to look like a victim?

And none of what was mentioned changes the fact that the Clintons are the entrenched machine within the national democratic party and Obama is the challenger. Food for thought.

[regina]

Indigo, Indigo, Indigo....

You are going to have to be more specific in your comments. It is hard to engage in conversation with you regarding your post because your points seem vague and you do not give a source for your accusations. It sounds more like a rant to me and not a reasoned, rational thought out argument. You threw everything in your post but the kitchen sink!! And by the way, your words "I could go on and on", sound ominous; vague, but ominous. What do you mean?? Give me a call, we'll talk.