Garvey's Ghost: Black Talk

Why Why Why?
this post contains some foul language

Discussing the South Carolina Primary, I said that it would be in the best interest of blacks and "liberal" whites to vote for Al Sharpton. My position was that the vote would be a symbolic gesture as to what blacks want from the Democrats or any politician. For Sharpton to come out with a "massive" showing would be a strong message indeed. However, as usual, blacks played themselves.

Cynthia Tucker wrote
But the results of Tuesday's primary tell a very different story: black voters supported John Edwards and John Kerry by much larger margins than Sharpton. Once and for all, political commentators should have learned the lesson that black voters cast their ballots for those who best represent their interests -- just as white voters do.

No, Black voters do not vote thier interests. They, as the Merovingian of The Matrix Reloaded" simply do as they are told. Ms. Tucker continues:

In the Jan. 5 Wall Street Journal, Miller proclaimed: "I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner . . . that Al Sharpton will get almost as many votes as Messrs. Edwards, Clark or Lieberman . . . The last time there was an African-American in the primaries, Jesse Jackson blew everyone away, getting 96 percent of the African-American vote in the South. . . . So get ready to start counting Rev. Sharpton's delegates."


I hope the senator knows some good steak restaurants. Sharpton received 17 percent of the African-American vote in South Carolina; Edwards and Kerry polled 37 percent and 34 percent, respectively.

Miller knew what I know. Black support of a black candidate who speaks to most if not all of thier interests, regardless of electability is important. But Blacks being generally politically naive (I hate to say it, but it is true) did the opposite of what would have been best for them. They voted overwhelmingly for candidates who are most likely going to be nominated anyway regeardless of how blacks vote. What kind of power move is giving your vote to people who don't need it without having a barganing session?

Then I ran across Earl Ofari Hutchison's article over at Alternet. I barely like this man. I've had my issues with him since I ran into his articles over at The Black World Today. As little sense as he makes he manages to get plenty of "left" press. Anyway he states:

He downplayed the racially inflammatory and polarizing issues of police abuse and affirmative action, and stressed greater funding for education and health care and labor protections, and promised to rebuild America's then crumbling industrial infrastructure. It was non-racial, moderately populist, and did not threaten whites.

Well thank you Mr. Hutchison for letting us know that we still quake in our boots when it comes to white approval or disaproval of 'our issues." Perhaps the Patriot Act would no have been passed had whites been made to face the issue of overreaching and unchecked police power. Nooooooo, that's a "black issue" and nothing to be concerned with by whites until they have to take off thier shoes in order to get on a plane.

Meanwhile, the greatest unease about Sharpton has come from Jackson. Though he is careful not to criticize Sharpton by name, he obliquely chided him before the South Carolina primary when he noted that no Democrat could be effective without a real message, money and a campaign infrastructure. Sharpton has made little apparent effort to develop any of Jackson's requisites for a successful campaign. He has built his campaign on appearances on TV talk shows, at campaign debates, at showpiece protest rallies, and by tossing out well-timed media barbs.

No doubt that Sharpton was not up to par on the Money and infastructure, but a large reason for that was running "skurd" black establishment politicians et al. It is now well known that a large portion of his funding is coming from a Republican. Sad that grassroots issues of blacks actually get's funding from white Republicans rather than black Democrats. Many people are now down on Sharpton over the Republican organizer. I say that Sharpton made the best move he could given his determination (however selfish) to put his platform out there. But then again most people never understood why Marcus Garvey met with the Grand Wizard of the KKK either.


Sharpton laid his plan out in extremely clear language:

Sharpton delivered fiery sermons and get-out-and-vote pleas at his stops. His message: Vote for me, and you leverage your vote.


"I am the one you can't lose with," Sharpton told a capacity crowd at the 8:30 a.m. service at First Baptist Church of South Richmond, where Del. Dwight Clinton Jones, D-Richmond, is senior pastor.


Five of the six remaining Democratic candidates running will not get the nomination, Sharpton said. The idea then, he said, is to win delegates so that "even if we don't win, the winner will have to deal with us."


"If we are not represented, we have no leverage," Sharpton said.


Duh.

Again, the point is so simple that it baffles me how we collectively continue to get it wrong. That Sharpton will not win the nomination is not the point. That Sharpton can representively negotiate on issues important to the national black community is the point. If and when the final candidate get's into office, should he or she..well he, fail to deliver on the promises made during "negotiations." We by using a collective voting would be able to put a serious dent into their chances for re-election. Now, the Dems can continue to say, 'Dem Niggas will always do as they're told. What else a Nigga gonna do?"

Links:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/index.html
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773573132&path=!news&s=1045855934842
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17778