Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The Lessons of History

Every four years Americans wrap themselves into a frenzy regarding the presidential election. In the last eight years, the presidential election has centered around a candidate disliked by at least half his own country and majority of the world, and a candidate liked by a little more than half his home country and majority of the world. In both the 2004 and 2008 elections, money was spent and attention was paid to each of the two political parties and their tickets. The candidates were intensely scrutinized and their backgrounds were poured through immensely. Yet, despite all this attention the nation seems to give presidential elections, the lower ballot elections go largely unmentioned about if not unnoticed altogether.

These lower ballot elections are sometimes just as important-if not more- than the presidential elections. As we see today with the House and Senate trying to reach a conclusion on whether or not to fund the Automotive Industry. In the wake of home foreclosures and financial institutions failing at every turn, citizens truly get a chance to see just how it is the Congressional body that does most of the legislative heavy lifting. Now more than ever, should citizens be paying attention to newly elected Congressmen and women. Candidates such as Steve Driehaus won Ohio's 1st District seat on the back of President-elect Obama.

Congressmen-elect Driehaus ousted an incumbent who had won re-election in six straight elections. He did so on the back of about a 27% African-American voter turnout in his district. Many of those who turned out and voted Driehaus in were undoubtedly looking for change. It must be noted though, that Driehaus is a self professing fiscal conservative who is anti-abortion. With these principles (particularly fiscal conservatism) it is less than likely that Congressman-elect Driehaus will be supportive of any of President-elect Obama's ambitious and expansive spending packages. Without the support of his own party's Congressmen, President-elect Obama will have a hard time getting anything accomplished.

Unfortunately Obama supporters will have no one to blame but themselves. The reason being is that Driehaus never lied about who he was and how he approached politics. His campaign website and literature was very clear about his position. He also played up his party affiliation with Barack Obama as well. And why wouldn't he, there is no logical reason why he shouldn't. But for voters old enough to remember the 1964 election, this has to feel familiar. A great deal of Congressional seats were filled with candidates running on the coattails of Lyndon B. Johnson. These same Democrats fought tooth and nail against many of Johnson's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" legislative agenda items. Voters voted these people in not because they were the candidate that best spoke to their needs, but because there was a "D" after their name.

Malcolm X was quoted as saying "of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research." This statement is as true now as it was he parted his lips to utter it. Students, citizens, and scholars alike need to pay keen attention to coattail politics. This type of politics that all candidates of a given party are greeted as having the same principles, values and ideas. History has shown us that this is not true. One would like to think that voters have come a long way since Johnson's election in 1964. That voters are politically astute enough to not make the same mistake twice. But the ability of voters to learn their lesson from history is probably best summed up by the current commander-in-chief "fool me once,shame on you; fool me... you can't get fooled again".

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Individuals vs. Institutions

Overthrowing a government can be hard work. This doesn't happen often but history has shown us at various points this can be necessary. For most people though, overthrowing the government isn't the objective. Many are satisfied with a few changes to things. However, many have come into prominence as agents of change only to realize the institution ultimately controls the people rather than the people controlling the institution. Sadly this can alter the actions of a person with even the best intentions. Most observers don't necessarily recognize this though. They see a person and judge them on the final outcome as opposed to the factors that made up that result. People often ignore the institution that serves as the invisible hand controlling things.

We can first look at the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King spent much of his adult life working to tear down the walls of segregation. His early work was based in the South where he saw racism at its brutal and most basic level. He thought by appealing to the nation's best qualities he would be able to right the wrongs of injustice. Dr. King used the media to illuminate the violence and terror experienced by southern Blacks in efforts to rally support of northern Whites. He was largely successful at this. His approach resulted in numerous pieces of legislation that struck down legal segregation. When Dr. King turned his sights to the north he realized a different story. His work in the north convinced him that racism was much larger than simply a few heinous people in the South who did not want to intermingle with Blacks, but rather it was an institutional construct that was steeped in capitalism. King soon fell from grace when he began to make these observations public. Ultimately though, King realized that what he was fighting against was less individuals and their practices but the institutions that facilitated those behaviors.

King is not the only figure to recognize this. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said publicly that there is a need for a Palestinian State. He also said neglect to create one would result in Israel engaging in an apartheid comparable to South Africa's. These are stern words and I am sure that Prime Minister Olmert is well aware of the gravity of his statements. However, what he is also well aware of is how unpopular that idea is in context of the people he represents. What he is then left to do, is try and be as fair as possible while understanding the limits and confines his institution puts on his position. Olmert is not the only world leader to make this recognition. Former United States president Jimmy Carter has been quite vocal on his opposition to some aspects of United States foreign policy. Some of these foreign policies Carter himself had tacitly endorsed as president of the United States. Carter has been regarded as an agent for justice and democracy on the world scene, but it was his administration that secretly funded Afghan fighters that were keeping Soviet Union forces out of Afghanistan.

The conflict in Darfur is one that really magnifies the issue of institutions. Journalist Glen Ford wrote about how much attention is given to Darfur as a world crisis and everyone wants to help. He goes on to say what people often ignore is that the country that does the most to "solve" this problem will more than likely reap the benefits of the oil rich region. In this instance we can see that many who are grassroots activist for ending the terror in Darfur aren't interested in the profits that can gained by oil companies. However a by-product of United States intervention is the economic gains that stand to be made. Ideally we would love to see a humanitarian situation be resolved where the United States doesn't gain anything. However, history suggests that while we hold out hope and continue to be optimistic, we should also be cautious and guarded.

This is not to suggest individuals do not have good hearts. This is not even to say that some people don't go into their jobs with good intentions. This is to magnify the fact that when we look at events that take place on the world stage, be they foreign or domestic, it is important we look at the institution operating behind the scenes. Often times, these institutions make it so that no situation is really just black or white. These institutions have specific interest that need to be examined. Sadly more often than not, history teaches us that this interest is money. Most casual observers can recognize that when money is the interest, morals get perverted. As we examine the way we want to see the world, we should concentrate a good deal on the individuals, but a keen eye must be kept on institutions.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

What's the Big Idea

I had a recent conversation with a friend of mine about exchanging ideas. He expressed frustration at the thought that in college people weren't really wrestling with ideas. I thought this to be absurd seeing as though you hear some of the most far reaching theories, idealogies and viewpoints on college campuses. But he reminded me that a few people hold may hold bold and daring views but students in group, don't really wreslte with varying ideas. I didn't and don't necessarily agree with his assertion , but I do feel he underscored a valuable point. In much of our converstaion (espescially regarding politics) we don't really wreslte with varying and competing ideas. There may be language and rhetoric that suggest we debate points, but a close examination shows we may just be going in circles.

With the nation in a valley of excitement, between the election and inaguration of President-elect Obama we can look start there to examine the thought of competing ideas. Many in the media praise the President-elect for forming a team of rivals with his administration appointments thus far. However that can be debated. As Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post Sen. Clinton, much like Robert Gates and Gen. James Jones all think the best way to restore the United States global image is through co-operation with multinational organizations. They aren't opposed to war by any means, but they all feel that the most effective way to cast the United States in the best light would be through what Gerson called "soft diplomacy."

Let me begin with saying I don't necessarily disagree with that foreign policy approach but there is not much in the way of competing ideas. The goal is the same (which is to be expected): how to get the United States back in the world's good graces. The ideas however are also the same. The premise of a team of rivals is to pit people who would have competing ideas against each other in order to come out with the strongest most viable idea. If the conversation starts with people who have the same idea, than there is nothing to be gained because new streams of thought aren't at play.

Further evidence of this is the 2004 Presidential Election. One thing people didn't like was that both candidates from the major parties were Yale graduates who belonged to the Skull and Bones Secret Society. It becomes quite hard to trust that one idea is different from another idea if they both come the same background and ilk. That was one of the reason (among many) that Senator John Kerry lost his Presidential bid. The 2008 Georgia Senate race was so close that it demanded a run-off...between two collegiate fraternity brothers. The Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss decisively defeated the Democrat Jim Martin in the run-off. In an election galvanized around change, the choice many in Georgia had were one Sigma Chi brother or another. This is no disrespect to their organization, but I'm sure their ideas and views are not that far off, despite different party affiliations.

More than advocating for a particular position, I encourage people to challenge their own thoughts and ideas by informing themselves of differing points of view. Sometime that can be difficult because what we think is different could simply be the same thing packaged in a new wrapper. Those who feel socialism is a great idea should read Wealth of Nations (if they already have not) and begin to engage those points and ideas. Likewise those who live to extol the virtues of free-market capitalism might want to spend some time with Marx's Communist Manifesto. No matter what your thoughts are, ideas are only strengthened when they are challenged. Challenging ideas... now that's a big idea.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Progress with a R but Not G

Despite being two weeks removed from the 2008 general election it still seems to be a meaningful talking point for not just so called pundits but everyday people as well. In the spirit of "post-election analysis" we have to look back on all aspects of the election cycle. One of the most glaring things we see that many can be excited about was the treatment of race during this election cycle. President-Elect Obama brought race to the forefront of nearly every conversation about the election. Both the media and citizens alike listened intently for what may be subtle racial jabs, and pointed out the moments when the racism wasn't so subtle. Matt Bai from the New York Times wrote an article pontificating if President-Elect Obama spelled the end of "Black Politics", Gwen Ifill made news for her book about President-Elect Obama and his relation to Black Politics, and since President-Elect Obama's historic victory, Newark mayor Cory Booker has been all over television.

But as the nation gives itself a collective pat on the back for the racial progress exemplified during this election, we have to examine all the forms of diversity that were called into question. Just as this election was historic for racial reasons, there was history on the matter of gender, and in that aspect the United States is woefully not progressive. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a very meaningful and solid campaign garnering what some analyst call the largest popular vote in Democratic primary history (about 18 million votes). Yet the amount of attention paid to Sen. Clinton's historic campaign paled in comparison to the attention given to President-Elect Obama.

There are many reasons for this. Some argue that Sen. Clinton is in some way "hyper-masculine" on account of her hawkish foreign policy, but the more pointed subtle jokes attack her for her pantsuits and short haircut. People attacked her crying as either being too feminine or faking her level of femininity. A fair number of these analyst commenting on her femininity are men. That idea reeks of male arrogance. For a man to try and define a woman's femininity is as absurd as Ralph Nader suggesting Barack Obama may be an "Uncle Tom" for big corporations. Ralph Nader was publicly embarrassed and chastised for his comments but the treatment of Hillary Clinton went (in large part) unchecked. Major media outlets and nationally renowned columnist wondered aloud what an Obama presidency would do for the self-esteem of young Black men. This is a vital thing to examine but yet equal attention wasn't given to what the candidacy of Sen. Clinton meant to young women everywhere.

Obviously Sen. Clinton was not the only women to be on the national stage during this election cycle. The other is Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Gov. Palin is obviously a polarizing figure; those who support her think she's one of the best things to happen to politics. Those who oppose her feel that she is unfit for managing a grocery store let alone a state or country. But one thing remains true, her politics were remarkably consistent with a very famous Republican governor who made his way from the Governor's Mansion to the White House. In 1980 a good looking charismatic, affable man ran for president from the State of California. The man wasn't trained in politics, didn't hold a law degree and didn't graduate from a prestigious northeastern university. He was none other than Ronald Reagan. Reagan had his share of naysayers but none regarded him as a flat out bimbo. In political terms it's hard to argue that Gov. Palin is a master at her craft, but much of the criticism around her both from mainstream media and everyday voters was not so much in regards to her political positions, but more to her character. In an election where so much was made about the nation's diversity and social growth, the rampant sexism seems a bit out of place to say the least.

There are many reasons why this took place. First we can see that yes, the United States is still a sexist place. It is also still a racist place, but that's material for a different day. There is no reason that someone should have to use equal pay as a campaign promise. It is unimaginable that women are getting paid less for equal work, and yet they are. A second point in understanding this unfair treatment is the candidates themselves. President-Elect Obama has a likeability not seen since John F. Kennedy. As such, the women in this election were his opponents and in the media at least, people sought to tear his opponents down regardless of who they were, using any tactic they could come up with. Finally we see that in very real terms, Sen. Clinton leaves alot to be desired when it comes to her campaigning. Her "win at all cost" motif turned off many voters (particularly Black voters) because she would sometimes use what could be perceived as racially divisive tactics to get votes. This behavior helped to hide her story of a woman candidate breaking the “glass ceiling”. As for Gov. Palin she leaves alot to be desired politically. She lacks comprehensive economic solutions, has no serious stance on anything other than abortion and her foreign policy skills are weak to say the least. However these were all women who sought to politically even the playing field in the United States. Regardless of their policy positions, these candidates should have been treated with respect, and acknowledged for what they were doing for women whether you agreed with them or not. They were not. And that shows that the United States has made progress with a R (race) but not G (gender).

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Citizen Change

President-elect Obama has demonstrated that he is more than ready to hit the ground running. The first indicator of this was his selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief-of-staff. Emanuel is a no-nonsense democrat who has a history of having a liberal approach to politics and hard line approach to bipartisanship. By most indications he is bipartisan as long as the other side agrees with him. Another former Clinton aide, John Podesta is co-chairing Obama’s transition team. Podesta has both White house and Washington experience. With this choice Obama is showing that he wants to hit the ground running and make as smooth a transition as possible in the early days of his presidency.

The real question becomes- for those on the left anyway- how progressive is Obama. Republicans cried all during the election season that this man had the most liberal voting record in all the Senate. Author John K. Wilson, a former law school student of Obama’s who wrote a book about Obama’s political rise, said that fact could be quite misleading. He argues that Obama in the United States Senate tended to vote along party lines a majority of the time, however as an executive Obama is more likely to govern center-left. This means Obama is more moderate than his voting record indicates. He is more a pragmatic thinker who will give earnest audience to both sides of the political discussion. Wilson however, thinks the unique thing about an Obama administration is that those on the left that espouse progressive views can finally be heard sincerely.

That is where the challenge is for progressives. President-elect Obama has not display any willingness to make any major moves to the left politically. However, judging by last week’s election that may just be what many of his supporters were asking for. All indicators suggest that Wilson was correct in his assessment that progressives can get the attention of Obama and move him in a way that they want him to go. Every president has particular interest groups that he responds to. This is not new to Washington. Andrew Johnson was influenced by former Confederate officials thus leading to him vetoing several Civil Rights bills and ignoring key phases of Reconstruction, Franklin Roosevelt was moved by progressives to enact the most expansive government programs in the nation’s history. Lyndon B. Johnson’s ear was had by many prominent Civil Rights leaders, and most recently George Bush has been ready, willing and able to give audience to “big business”.

What all this means is that progressives must be pro-active while they have a president who is willing to hear them out. An Obama administration seems the most likely to be attentive to progressives since Lyndon B. Johnson. The key is that progressives approach the administration with clear strategy and attainable goals. Groups with progressive causes need to be ready and able to articulate their needs to a listening Obama Administration and be prepared to show the administration where their help is needed. If they can do this, it seems likely the administration will be an asset to their cause. Evidence of this is when President-elect Obama met with NBA star Baron Davis. Davis who was troubled about the lack of educational opportunities and resources for inner-city kids asked the then Senator would an Obama administration do anything to give these kids a better opportunity. Obama’s told Davis to make sure the inner city children were prepared to take advantage of resources when they came the children’s way.

In all of Obama’s soaring rhetoric there was one phrase that was the key to his engine of change. He would say “we are the change we have been waiting for.” This was not merely a throw away line. Instead it was Obama tapping into his inner Kennedy for a modern day “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” With this line, Obama put the responsibility of change back on the citizens. For those progressives who campaigned relentlessly for Obama during the election season, he was talking to you. Obama knew his administration wouldn’t necessarily introduce sweeping legislation that would delight progressives everywhere, but what he would do is what founder of the Political Education and Action Committee Chigozie Onyema said and “get out of the way” of progressives who were seeking to make meaningful and significant change. That in and of itself is more than George Bush was willing to do in the last eight years. So the onus is on the citizens. Whatever change that does or does not come will be because either the common people of the nation got aggressive and made their demands a reality, or voted in record numbers and then lost interest in civic engagement. Allowing things to remain politics as usual.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

What It All Really Means

The 44th President of the United States of America will have one thing that previous Presidents did not have. A large dose of melanin. Sen. Barack Obama is uniquely different from past Presidents and that will be evident every time someone lays eyes on him, but what is important to note going forward is what his election means to the people of the United States. Sen. Obama went from being just the third elected African-American Senator in the United States since reconstruction, to being the first African-American nominated for president from a major political party. From there he is now the first person of African descent to serve as leader of the free world.

This means many things to many people. Undoubtedly it means a great deal to Black Americans who have occupied any space in the United States. Many Blacks see this not only as Sen. Obama's accomplishment but as something that all Black Americans have accomplished. Many recognize the direct line between prominent and public figures like Frederick Douglass and Barack Obama. Many see that line as having gone through people such as Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Dr. Martin L. King Jr., Stokely Carmichael, and Jesse Jackson to get to this point. In keeping the memory of these giants alive, Black folks have also kept with them memories of Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma. These werent' the only places atrocities were happening, they were just places where the heinous behavior of Whites was caught by the national media. Millions of Black Americans carry with them daily the personal humiliation, terror, fear, anger, and disrespect that a racially prejudice nation exacts on a Black person's life day in and day out.

For them, this election means something much more. The election is confirmation of their humanity. Dr. Gregory Carr of Howard University says that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 never told Black people they can vote, it told White people that the Constitution gives Black Americans the right to vote. This election didn't tell Black Americans that a Black man was qualified to be President, it told White voters that a Black man was qualified. That is why this election becomes so special. It becomes special because it was not only Dr. King's dream, but the dream of the 250,00 others who joined with him on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial that their children be judged by the content of their character. In many ways, Black Americans feel that they (through Sen. Obama) have been judged by the content of their character. When King joined striking sanitation workers in Memphis some of the men protesting wore signs that said "I Am A Man." That was a declaration that for many in this country needed to be made. For hundreds of years the humanity of Black Americans always existed but was not always acknowledged. Just as their humanity came under question so too did their place as Americans. James Baldwin said that Blacks could never commit treason because they were never viewed by Whites as real Americans. Because of this they could not betray something they never really had in the first place. On the heels of this election, many Blacks living in the United States feel a sense of belonging and acceptance for the very first time.

The pride in this election is not exclusive to Black Americans. Many White Americans too feel a sense of pride and accomplishment at the election of a Black President. For many young White Americans they had to live with the humiliation and embarrassment of the behavior of their ancestors. They listened as the stories were retold of the unimaginable horror and terror that White Americans reigned down on Black Americans for centuries, not counting the institutional racism that pervades United States society. Many young White people wanted a chance to carve out their own niche in United States racial history. They wanted an opportunity to show they were better than the past. An opportunity to display the supposed growth and progression of the nation. This opportunity came in the form of Senator Obama. Mr. Obama offered a racial olive branch to Whites who committed such vicious transgression in the past, while seemingly offering a sense of pride and hope in a people long downtrodden in the United States. This perfect combination helped to fulfill Dr. King's unforgettably poignant and memorable words. "The Negro needs the White man to free him from his fears. The White man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt." Blacks used White Iowans and their caucus night election of Barack Obama to free them from their fears, and Whites used a Black Presidential candidate to free them from their guilt.

At any rate in such an historic time the words of many great thinkers and scholars seem appropriate. None seem more appropriate though than the a simple phrase uttered by a music artist not thought to be particularly articulate, philosophical, or political. Young Jeezy sums things up the best by simply stating "my president is Black." That simple sentence means so many things to so many people. Any well reasoned person will see there is plenty of room to criticize President-elect Obama and his policy positions. Also most people recognize that his election will not end the institutional racism of the nation, but for so many older Black people, they can close their eyes knowing that at least one person of African descent was given the opportunity to do something that for them was unheard of. Those people can smile knowing they can leave the nation they have lived in, fought for, fought against, and demanded better from in better condition than they inherited it. The United States is not yet a more perfect union, nor the mythological shining city on a hill, but it is a majority White nation, that calls a Black man with a Muslim sounding name President.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Making REAL Change

With this being the last posting before many people go out and vote on Tuesday November 4th I just wanted to take the opportunity to focus people on a topic that is very important to me. Many people are excited to vote for Sen. Obama or for Sen. McCain, as well they should be, but what's important is that people recognize that all the votes they will cast on Tuesday will be equally important. There will be ballot initiatives in states and municipalities that will have a very real and meaningful impact on people's lives.

Another thing to keep an eye is on the Democratic ticket. There are a number of Democrats that are running lower on the ballot that many people will vote for because they are voting for Obama. The important thing for voters to do is to find out who these Democratic candidates are. In an effort to maintain and expand on a majority in the Senate and House the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) are running a good number of conservative Democratic candidates that some Obama supporters ordinarily wouldn't vote for.

Voters need to be able to harness the energy surrounding this historic election. These feeling aren't necessarily limited to Democratic voters. There is a swirl around the Republican party over the historic nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as a Vice-Presidential candidate. For the first time in its history the Republican party is nominating a woman for the second highest office in this nation. It is imperative that supporters to the McCain-Palin ticket know about district Congressional races and municipality races in order to know if a candidate is speaking to their needs. Republican supporters must recognize whether or a not a candidate is sincerely speaking to their concerns and issues, or is just planning to capitalize off of the huge expected voter turnout.

About four years ago, I saw the huge efforts made by Diddy and others particularly in the hip-hop community with the "Vote or Die" campaign. Though I was happy about their civic engagement I thought they were particularly quiet on lower ballot races that would affect voters' lives just as much as the presidential election. In 2006 (politically referred to as "off-year" or "midterm" election) there was not a mass get out the vote effort though there were important Gubenatorial, Congressional and Senatorial elections that changed the balance of power in both chambers of Congress. In no uncertain terms, be it real or perceived did celebrity activist try to drum up any voter attention to these elections. The get out the vote effort was non existent. This type of fair-weather civic engagement will not create real change. It is important to vote for presidential candidates but citizens must be informed of all their elected representatives in order to properly hold them accountable for the decisions that they make, and the way those decisions affect people's lives.

President George Bush has shown us that perhaps a President can affect everyday citizens lives in ways we never thought a president could, or even in ways that the constitution forbids a president from doing. With that in mind, the efforts to rally citizens to vote in this presidential election is more than justified. Citizens should always look to exercise their civic rights. However when going into the voting booth, exercise not only your right to vote, but your right to be educated. I recognize a vast majority of my readers are college educated, and internet saavy. Many of us also have family members who may be voting for the first time, or out of excitement for the presidential election. It is our job to know all the races and ballot initiatives that will be at stake on November 4th in our particular states, cities, towns, municipalities and/or communities. It is important to a democracy to have an excited voter, it is a necessity of a democracy to have an informed one. Happy Voting!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Beaten at One's Own Game

Rick Perlstein's book Nixonland talks of the atmosphere of the country when Richard Nixon ascended to the highest office in the land. Perlstein talks of the Watts riots and the contentious relationship between pro-war and anti-war activist. Perlstein also looks at the demise of the Republican Party and idea of conservatism after the 1964 election. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater seemed to represent a far extreme idea of conservatism that turned out to be quite unpopular. On the back his landslide victory President Johnson passed three significant pieces of legislation, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The political progress of Black Americans continued to alienate and frustrate many voters that would later be dubbed "the silent majority."

The book's focus was on Nixon and how he was able to use the backlash from of the progressive moments of the 1960's to reestablish conservatism and get himself elected President of the United States. However, Nixon may not have been the best example of the ability to stimulate the majority of Americans. That distinction would go to the man who would be elected president a mere six years after Nixon resigned in disgrace. That man would be none other than Ronald Reagan. Reagan was able to put the bitterness and divisiveness of the previous two decades behind many Americans by emphasizing the good things about the United States and instilling a national pride.

In theme and message, Reagan pardoned Whites from the past injustice against Blacks. He exonerated them from their guilt and put an end to those beating up America for its past transgressions, be them domestic matters of race or abroad with memories of Vietnam. In policy Reagan's campaign used the issues of that time to motivate voters to choose him. He nailed the incumbent on issues like the rising energy cost and the energy supply crisis the nation faced. Reagan also attacked the sitting president and his party on the issue of the nation's reputation with regard to foreign policy. Finally he railed against the country's woeful economic condition (starting to sound familiar). He turned out to be such a transformational figure that a new term was developed for those who crossed party to vote for him; "Reagan Democrats."

Interestingly enough the same issues Reagan campaigned on to create "Reagan Democrats" Sen. Obama is using to mobilize his "Obama Republicans." He has been endorsed by a good number of Republicans none perhaps more prestigious than former Secretary of State and Four Star General Colin Powell. However we see some in the conservative circle crying foul. When Colin Powell endorsed Sen. Obama, Rush Limbaugh called it racially motivated. Limbaugh asked when was the last time Powell endorsed a very liberal white candidate? As I remember Powell admittedly was a LBJ man in 1968, and I don't remember many being considered more liberal than him. Limbaugh goes on to attack on Powell for forsaking the Republican administrations that had elevated him to such high places. Rich Lowry in the New York Post calls Powell's reasons for supporting Obama "lame."

Sen. Obama has been able to excite millions of people across the nation in the idea that "there is more that unites us than divides us." It has worked well for him. It seems straight out of the playbook of Ronald Reagan. His rhetorical and campaign success has also translated into huge campaign finance amounts from a massive reservoir of small donors. Sadly though, we see conservative pundits agitated that Sen. Obama is outspending Sen. McCain 4-1 nationally. With Obama having raised over $600 million dollars some are arguing that Obama is seeking to "buy" the election. This crowd that cries bloody murder now was surprisingly quiet when George Bush outraised both Al Gore and John Kerry. Sen. Obama has apparently learned and mastered the game of presidential politics better than many thought he would. He has used the national sentiment to create a place where “there is no Red America or Blue America but the United States of America.” This place is called "Obamaland" and conservatives hate it. It seemed fine when Nixon had “Nixonland” or Reagan had the “Reagan Revolution.” Perhaps we are seeing a living example of the Mos Def song Mista Nigga. “When theirs start doing it, well its success; when ours start doing it, well its suspect.”

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

View from Behind the Veil

Without a doubt, presidential elections are about using soaring rhetoric that excites the electorate to voting for a given candidate. Sen. Barack Obama has been a master of this. With his amazing oratorical skills the Senator from Illinois has amassed a large amount of followers that seem eager and ready to believe in the “change” Sen. Obama promises. In another meaningful but different way Sen. John McCain has a group of eager and loyal followers who have been moved by his rhetoric. Sadly though, his rhetoric is leading to an all-too-familiar yet unpleasant place for many Americans.

Not too long ago Sen. McCain changed his campaign direction from policy based critiques to character critiques. This has been and continues to be a slippery slope for the Senator from Arizona. Sen. Obama has appeared to lead a rather wholesome and decent life, so any character questions raised tend to come with a form of racist or prejudice overtone. The most serious form of character assassination Sen. McCain has attempted is the idea of guilt by association. By linking Sen. Obama to figures such as Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, Sen. McCain has ginned up such deep passion and emotion that it has turned into hate.

This can be seen in the hanging effigy of Sen. Obama found on the campus of George Fox University (a Christian school no less). The atrocities do not stop there, after the McCain campaign dismissed one blatantly racist rant in a newspaper as essentially insignificant, the Virginia head of the GOP told volunteers to play up Obama’s connections to Osama bin Laden, claiming “both have friends who bombed the pentagon.” Although there is one rally where Sen. McCain recognized the outrageous nature of what was going on and put a stop to it (or one would like to think). When Sen. Obama was called an Arab by one woman, Sen. McCain responded that he was not an Arab but rather a decent family man. I suppose Sen. McCain thinks Arab men cannot be decent family men. Even if this is reading too deep, the tone of this election and the absurdity in the character questioning is getting out of hand.

What makes this uniquely worst than any other presidential campaign character questioning is the issue of race. Consider that on two occasions supporters at rallies have chanted “kill him” when Sen. Obama’s name is mentioned. Most would agree the idea of killing a candidate is very disturbing. This has a unique meaning to many Black Americans who have seen important figures in the community gunned down by assassins’ bullets. Many remember the feeling of hearing that Malcolm X was pronounced dead, or that Dr. King was gunned down in Memphis. Black Americans are not taking kindly to the kind of “hate” tactics and political games being used by the McCain campaign. Rep. John Lewis eloquently articulated this in his writings to Politico.com. Congressman Lewis says that he is “deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign.” Lewis says they are “growing the seeds of hatred and division.” The behavior of McCain supporters are example of that happening.

It is one thing to get your base riled up. It is a completely different thing to have folks wish ill on your political opponent. In Lewis’ statement a reference was made to Alabama segregationist governor George Wallace. Sen. McCain took offense to being compared to the former Alabama Governor. However in the eyes of many Blacks (and I’d like to think many Americans) the reference is appropriate. Neither McCain nor Wallace has explicitly called for direct violence against Black Americans. However, what is being done is creating an environment that becomes blatantly hostile to those who aren’t WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). I hope this wasn’t Sen. McCain’s intention. And I hope it is in the sincerest faith that Sen. McCain just doesn’t understand the severity of he and Sarah Palin’ rhetoric. Perhaps it’s because Sen. McCain isn’t a Black American who has had to ward off explicit and implicit racism in this nation since its inception, that he doesn’t understand the severity of his words. I hope Sen. McCain really didn’t know how hateful people can be if motivated by words. But I feel a need to be cautious with my hope. After all, it is Sen. McCain who warns us to be wary of hope.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

The Darkest Invisible People

Much has been made of the recent Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. Republicans have clamored over how well Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are able to "stay on message" and get their point across to the American people. Democrats have praised Sen. Obama's regality and the way Sen. Biden comes off as a no-nonsense candidate looking to fix things on Main Street. However on the matter of foreign policy one place has been woefully ignored. The continent of Africa has received little to no meaningful attention and a sparse amount of rhetoric. The VP debate got things started when Gwen Ifill asked the question about Darfur. Sen. Biden responded with a suggestion about putting air support in place to cover African Union soldiers doing the peacekeeping work on the ground. This seems like a great suggestion, one that would should be immediately brought to the attention of the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. The ironic thing is, Biden is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He has introduced one piece of legislation on the matter of Darfur. He called for multinational peacekeeping mission with enough size, resource and leadership to protect the civilians of Darfur. The interesting thing is that Sen. Biden is not a multi-national Senator; he is a United States Senator. His proposed legislation has no real effect on other sovereign nations. In breaking down this piece of legislation we see it really holds no water because it doesn't demand anything in the way of specifics from the United States. As a little sidenote there were 39 sponsors of this legislation, none named Obama or McCain.

Sen. Biden is not the only one who has turned a blind eye to crises on the continent. In the same VP debate, Gov. Palin claims that she had Alaskan state money divested from holdings that did business with the Sudanese government. ABCNews found this to be not true. They spoke with a state legislator who said "the [Palin] administration killed our bill." Gov. Palin has long list of issues she has shown herself to be uninformed on, but now we move into the dangerous place of lying about records. Palin's deputy revenue commissioner called the bill "well intentioned" and said it was "noble" but cleared up that "mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination." Clearly there was no long range threat to the citizens of Alaska financial security because the investments could have simply been moved from one holding to another. But apparently when money is involved, morality and Black faces just aren't "a good combination."

The issue of Darfur has essentially served as a one stop shop for matters on the continent of Africa. When addressing foreign policy Sen. Obama made it a point to visit several European nations, even touring parts of Asia on his trip to the Middle East. That is all well respected but when discussing Africa; Darfur seems to be the only place worth mentioning. This seems a bit outlandish considering the human trafficking tragedies that are taking place in Kenya. One would think Kenya would be of particular interest to Sen. Obama considering he has family roots there. He even has a brother still living there. In fact when American writer Jerome Corsi went to Kenya to dig up dirt on Obama, the Kenya government had him deported for what they called "not having a work permit". Here is Kenya looking out for Obama, and yet Obama has failed to at least mention the atrocities in Kenya. Sen. McCain is no better, in fact if anything he is worse. Repeatedly in the most recent debate did Sen. McCain echo how he would never let a Rwanda happen again. Yet right now, Equatorial Guinea is drawing huge oil revenues yet the people there are living in some of the worst poverty of the world. The leader of that country has such distrust in his people that the guards who protect him are from Morocco. Despite all of this Sen. McCain is silent.

McCain talked during the debate about how he stood against his hero Ronald Reagan when Reagan sent troops in to Lebanon. McCain focused on how he was committed to not using troops when the situation wasn't one of direct consequence to U.S. national security. With that I wonder why he was mum on his hero Ronald Reagan's invasion of tiny Grenada. As Reagan and his administration made it seem like Grenada posed a threat to the United States, a vast majority of the world saw it as intervention into a sovereign nation, which happened to be not only Black, but anti-U.S. In that same debate Sen. McCain brought up the United States' failure in Somalia. Many believe this to be the reason the U.S. was inactive in Rwanda. Sen. McCain talked about how the U.S. went to Somalia to be peacekeepers and ended up having casualties. Despite this, the Senator from Arizona continued to echo there will be no more Rwanda. Sadly what the candidates are either unaware of or neglectful to is the horrific transgressions taking place in the Congo. Journalist Glen Ford goes into detail about how in the name of diamonds and other precious minerals, up to five million Congolese have died. For a candidate where foreign policy is supposed to be his strength Sen. McCain is noticeably absent when it comes to international issues regarding Black faces. There is so much left to be desired by the candidates from the major parties and we haven't mentioned Haiti. The United States has had a particularly aggressive and hegemonic position to the island nation since it first threw off the shackles of enslaved oppression.

I recognize that there are a plethora of domestic issues that are of grave concern to many people in the United States during this election season. Homes are being foreclosed on, jobs are being lost by the hundreds of thousands, energy prices are astounding, oh and the collapse of modern capitalism is taking place before our very eyes. With all of these issues I don't expect that foreign affairs will dominate our debates, or campaign speeches. But when there is conversation about foreign policy, the conversation should be about more the European markets, and Middle East battlegrounds. And in this election with so many candidates promising change, it would be nice to have a candidate who changes the United States' national view of African people around the world. But maybe the U.S. can't do that because they could be the ones living in the “Heart of Darkness.”

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Black Athletes Crossing the River Jordan

Charles Barkley famously said "I am not a role model." This came at a time when professional athletes were trending away from social responsibility. For Black athletes Barkley's comments were a departure from social responsibility. Since sports became national phenomena Black athletes have made their voices heard on social and political issues of the day. We can trace this back as far as Moses "Fleetwood" Walker. Walker was the first Black man, to play professional baseball in the United States. Though an extremely talented baseball player Walker was also a scholar having studied at the University of Michigan Law School. After his playing days Walker presented an essay that espoused Marcus Garvey's cries for Black Nationalism and even called for Africa for the Africans as the best way to solve the United State's race problems.

With the topic of race and baseball, the name Jackie Robinson is going to inevitably be mentioned. As race neutral as Robinson sought to stay, even he involved himself in politics and fighting for the poor at the end of his career. However, we can really see Black athletes starting to flex their collective power in the late 1960's. Understanding this may have been one of the most militant periods for Black Americans, we can see how this decade would provide fertile ground for athletic activism. During this period we see the creation of the Negro Economic and Industrial Union. This was an organization started by Jim Brown, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Russell. The purpose of this organization was to provide funding to aspiring Black business who would get denied Bank loans because they were Black.

Funding Black business may have been their intention but one of their greatest moments was standing in solidarity with Muhammad Ali in his 1967 refusal to fight in the Vietnam war. Here today Black politicians are often on the losing end of the "love my country" debate, so it must be easy to imagine the sacrifice stars such as Russell and Abdul-Jabbar were making. Their sacrifice still may not measure up to John Carlos and Tommie Smith's Olympic defiance. While accepting their gold and bronze medals at the 1968 Summer Olympic games, Carlos and Smith walk to the podium without their shoes but with Black socks. As the flag of the United States raised and the star spangled banner played, both men, bowed their heads and raised a clenched fist in the air. They donned Black gloves over their fist. The men made a statement of Black power to protest what was happening in the nation at the time but the men lost all future endorsement deals because of their actions.

This brings us back to Charles Barkley and his good friend Michael Jordan. Both of these men came to fame in the Reagan/Bush era. This is a period when the people of the United States were at their most individualistic. People lost the sense community that tied groups together in the 60's and 70's. This sense of community had been so vital to the Black community in making many of the gains that were made during that time. It appeared that extremely lucrative contracts won out over potential benefit to the collective. The individualist, materialistic approach was brought to a head when Michael Jordan refused to endorse a progressive Black Senate candidate who sought to take the seat from conservative (and in many Blacks opinion openly racist) Jesse Helms. When asked why he wouldn't support Helms' opponent Jordan infamously quipped "republicans buy sneakers too."

Many think today's' athletes to be cut from the same self-serving, money before community ilk as Jordan was. Some cite Lebron James' refusal to sign a petition condemning China for their complicity in the Darfur genocides. People suspect he won't do this because shoe titan Nike does a great deal of business in China, and James signed a $90 million dollar deal to endorse Nike tennis shoes. However what many people aren't aware of is the work athletes like Dikembe Mutombo have done. Mutombo has built and primarily paid for a $29 million dollar hospital in his home of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even more are unaware of pro football player Ed Reed and how his Eye of the Hurricane Foundation has rebuilt houses that were entirely destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, only so the family that was originally living there could return. Reed is doing this at no cost to the victims of the hurricane. What may be most encouraging, is NBA star Baron Davis' response when told that his community and political involvement would cost him corporate sponsorship. Davis replied "who gives a sh*t." To know there are athletes once again recognizing their kinship with the community gives us all hope that Black athletes are on their way to safely crossing the river Jordan.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Ignorance Isn't Bliss

There is a Haitian proverb that says "ignorance doesn't kill you, but it does make you sweat a lot", that has been true for many Americans, and it has been particularly true for Black Americans. We can see this magnified by the demise of the United States economic system. As the financial crisis strangles the American economy, a sizable number of Blacks (college educated and non-college educated) admit to not being intimately familiar with economics. There is no problem with not knowing, the problem comes when people don't actively seek the information.

In a recent conversation I had with a friend, I informed them about a wildly successful Black owned energy company based out of Houston, Texas. Their response was "well how am I supposed to know about that?" That type of thinking is unacceptable. With the Jericho-like falling of United States financial institutions many political conversations are turning into economic dialogues. Sadly, folks are rehashing the infamous John McCain line "admittedly I don't know as much about economics as I should." yet people are not seeking out the information to better inform themselves.

In order to have your own analysis on the financial freefall, one has to evaluate their feelings about government's role in capitalism. Those who feel it is government's job to reign in over-ambitious speculators and investors feel that the government fell asleep at the wheel and allowed Wall St. to get out of control. If you are a strong proponent in government intervention than you probably would be supportive of the $700 billion dollar "bailout". Conservative columnist George Will appearing on ABCNews' "This Week" said that if the government continued to bail out financial companies, than the top executives there should be paid the same as a GS-15 (the highest level salaried civilian government employees). However, there are those who are more of libertarian in their economic views. They feel that governement regulation is one of the things that got us in the financial bind we're in now. These are people like Rep. Ron Paul. Paul believes that the bailout is bad business and that the free market is such a way that it will correct itself.

In order to fully understand the issues we need to familiarize ourselves with the work of companies such as Lehman Bros., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bears Stern. From there we as a people we can make a more informed decision as to what direction we would like to go with our money, if we would like to do business with one of those companies, or if we feel we'd be better suited in trusting our money to a smaller Black-owned company such as Brown Capital Management in Baltimore or Smith, Graham & co. in Houston that has not had some of the problems these major financial institutions are having. But this decision making process starts with us being an informed group of people conscious of what's going on in the world around us.

With the treasury secretary teetering on what some are calling the closest thing to socialism since the New Deal, there is no more important time than now for those in the Black community to inform themselves of the economic makeup of the United States. One probably won't learn overnight the ins and outs of free market enterprise, asset management and financial holdings; but we must familiarize ourselves with at least a pedestrian understanding of the country's financial situation. If for no other reason than because the government may very well be using your money, as a taxpayer, to bailout the struggling financial institutions. If more of the United States economic infrastructure continues to crumble, the Haitian proverb will be the truest words ever spoke for Black Americans because our ignorance may not kill us but it will make us sweat.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/; http://www.browncapital.com/; http://www.smith-graham.com/

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

What Black People Should Do Now

As you read that title please don't think for a moment that I am arrogant enough to believe that I know what all Black people should do now. Rather I just finished a book by the same name written by the late Ralph Wiley and this was my humble way to pay homage to him. Also given the topic at hand I figured the title would be more than appropriate. Generally I like to not only assert a point in my writing but also to inform. This time however, I see it fine time to seize this opportunity to address something of concern to many people. With Sen. Barack Obama's meteoric rise to the Democratic nomination for president of the United States, many young Blacks are interested in politics and social issues in ways not seen since the late 1960's. With this opening I urge all my friends to my political left to act now!

Recently I was listening to the new album by Young Jeezy called "The Recession." The album is littered with tracks discussing the need for fair drug sentencing laws, new economic agendas, and a more humble and diplomatic foreign policy. This may be regular material for rap artist to tackle but the artist in question is the least likeliest to touch on such topics. Although I am admittedly a fan of some of Jeezy's work, I recognize he is not now nor will he ever be an authority on social and political issues. But what his new found interest in more than "hood politics" tells us is that Sen. Obama has gotten his attention. On an appearance on Saturday Night Live Jeezy met Sen. McCain and reportedly asked him "what he was gonna do... people are dying out here?"

One may wonder why such keen attention is paid to an artist like Young Jeezy. Jeezy serves as a metaphor for the everyman of many young Black men in urban America. After talking with several young men from inner city Baltimore, and neighborhoods of Washington D.C. I have found that Jeezy is more than a rapper, he sincerely has his finger on the pulse of urban Black America (translation the hood). This being so we can see that Sen. Obama has engaged and awaken many previously disengaged Blacks to political issues. My friends to the left of me cite Sen. Obama's relatively centrist views and his willingness to conform to mainstream politics as evidence why he should not be considered a serious Black leader. To that point I agree, but what I urge is that my friends speak loud and clear to capture the attention of the previously apathetic public while they have it.

In my travels I came across a quotation from whom I don't remember. It simply said when you have the world's attention, what will you say? That is the question I ask those to the left. There is an opportunity now with the emergence of Sen. Obama to draw serious light to issues that have affected Black Americans that even fellow Blacks have ignored. Now is the time to really galvanize brothers and sisters to seriously involved themselves in meaningful community building efforts in New Orleans, now is the time to awaken an army of sleeping legal giants reminiscent of Charles Houston and Thurgood Marshall to ensure that Marcus Dixon and Genarlow Wilson never have to see someone relive their horrific fate, now is the time for business giants to revisit the idea of Tulsa's Black Wall Street, or Memphis' Peoples Grocery, now is the time to cultivate the Black journalist that will channel the spirit of T. Thomas Fortune and Robert Sengstacke Abbott to ensure that a Black perspective is always present to inform our people of what is going on.

I recognize all the things I call for are in motion. There people doing vital and important work in New Orleans, there are many fighting for Blacks in the courtrooms of the United States everyday, there are business leaders trying to bring quality respectable businesses back into the Black community and there are writers who relentlessly "tell it like it is" often to be ostracized by their own people. But what I would like to stress to my friends on the political left, is that now is the time. We can agree that Sen. Obama is not the answer but what must be acknowledged is that he can deliver an audience that desperately needs to hear your message. Some of the folks you try to address may be so engulfed by what has been termed "Obama-mania" that they may not be ready to grapple with the harsh realities social revolution demand, but there are an abundance of even tempered and well intentioned brothers and sisters that are ready for your message. The people are listening, WHAT WILL YOU SAY?

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Enemies of My Enemy Become My Friends

The United States has long been apart of the vaunted "west". That global superpower that has-depending on how you view world matters- either spread its territorial claim and influence across the world, or been a pillaging and destructive entity forcing its culture onto others they deem not "civilized". Generally the term "the west" references the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands and a few other Western European countries. Recently though global power has been traveling from the west. Those nations are still considered "developed" and deem themselves the class of the world. Yet there is an undercurrent of growth going on where other countries are becoming stronger forces and now stand in direct competition to these western nations, particularly the United States.

Many nations are growing and developing as major players in the world with the help of the United States. Among these nations are India, China, and South Korea. These nations have blossomed and are now players on the world scene. Yet there are other parts of the world that the United States have not been so kind to. Interestingly enough, leaders of some of these nations have had particularly strong ties to Black Americans. History first shows that Kwame Nkrumah used his ivy league education to return to his native Ghana and fight against Britain's occupation of that land. Once he rid the country of British influence he moved markedly away from U.S. ideals of free market enterprise and sought to develop major national infrastructure. One way he aimed to do this was by granting any Black person born in the United States (and the world for that matter) dual citizenship to Ghana as well. Nkrumah encouraged skilled Blacks in the United States who faced oppression and racism to come to Ghana so they could use their talents free from the problems of the racist society.

Nkrumah was heavily watched by U.S. foreign officials and it is believed by many that his overthrow was backed by the U.S. However many Black Americans has also held a fondness or at the least respect for some that the United States declared to be the worst people in the world. In 1977 preacher and activist Andrew Young served as the United States 14th Ambassador to the United Nations. He was forced to resign from that position because he was meeting secretly with officials from the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Meetings were forbidden according to United States foreign policy, yet Young did this anyway. Here we see an example of Blacks who had serious grievance with the United States meeting with those who were supposedly known threats to the U.S. and U.S. interest. This feeling ran so deep among Blacks at the time that even appointed diplomats were willing to mislead the State department to take part in these meetings.

Young also faced controversy when he lauded Cuba and their army's support of Angola. When the minority White army of South Africa attempted to claim land in Angola, Cuba sent troops and helped the Angolans push back the White minority army. Again, the United States had (and still does have) a policy of not engaging Cuba diplomatically so to even throw praise their way got Young in trouble. But it would not be the first nor the last time Cuba would align themselves with Blacks in the U.S. or in the world for that matter. Besides the aforementioned military support in Angola, Cuba has also used its abundance of medical resources to tend (repeatedly) to the nation of Haiti. More famously Cuba played nice with longtime U.S. adversary Russia. In 2005 Cuba offered millions of dollars worth of both personnel, and medicine to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Cuba is not the only nation to take an interest in the plight of Blacks in the United States. Alleged "despot" and United States enemy Hugo Chavez recently provided heat to low income Black Americans in Queens, Harlem, and Chicago back in 2004.

Again the practice is reciprocated by Blacks in the United States. In 1986 Min. Louis Farrahkhan took a trip to Libya to meet with another U.S. enemy Muammar al-Gaddifi. Gaddafi offered Farrahkhan $250,000. The U.S. treasury denied it but in 1997 U.S. Congressman Earl Hilliard from Alabama also visited Libya at a time when diplomatic relations were still forbidden. That brings us to present day, where we see Hugo Chavez, aligning himself with not only Russia but Cuba and South Africa. Much of this unification is strategic for trading purposes and to put products in each others market place. More than that though, we are seeing a rebellion against the United States its philosophy of "western" hegemony. First Cuba and Venezuela merged, seeing a common enemy in the (in their words) facist and imperial policies of the United States. They then saw a kinship in struggle with South Africa that fought off Britian's oppressive apartheid regime for more the 25 years. These nations have since created many tri and multi-lateral arrangments that aim to promote fair-trade, universal balance and above all cooperation. It looks like the United States has done much to unify the world. Sadly for the United States, the world seems to be unifying against the U.S.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Handcuffed by Hypocrisy

Much has been made about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin being John McCain's vice-presidential pick. Many have chimmed in their opinions on how either she is far to inexperienced to be a vice-presidential candidate, let alone a vice-president. Others have argued that she has the executive experience necessary to be ready to handle such a high position. No matter how you see politics, or how you see Sarah Palin as a nominee for vice-president one thing is true. Her place in this election has put the hypocrisy of rhetoric and politics on full blast.

The most obvious example of hyprocrisy is by the conservative values crowd (that trends politically to the right) on the matter of the teenage pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter. Sen. Obama has asked that the Palin's family privacy be respected, proving he has opted for class on the matter. However, there is one thing that must not go unsaid. Gov. Palin's daughter Bristol is no worse than any other young lady who is a pregnant teenager. She is no more a social outcast or misfit than any other young woman to be impregnated during her teenage years. The apparent class that it takes to say that, is something that many on the right have been lacking. They are willing to say Bristol Palin made a mistake, but other young women must have some deplorable moral compass.

For years many conservatives commentators and politicians have made themselves famous by chiding teenage pregnancy in urban (read Black and Latino) communities as evidence of the lowering values of the nation, and poor parenting. Some politicians even believed that out-of-wedlock birth becomes a drain on our economy. Bill O'Reilly in his talking points section criticized Mary Mitchell for race baiting when she noted the hypocrisy to teenage pregnancy. O'Reilly instead suggested that "as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby it is a personal matter. Once the taxpayers do have to support the young family it becomes a public policy matter." O'Reilly's remarks reek of condescension, and sublminally suggest that when White teenagers get pregnant their families can handle the financial burden of a baby, thus making it a private matter. But when Black teenagers get pregnant and need financial assistance from the government they lose all right to privacy.

When examining this issue one may argue that you can not get too caught up in race. The real issue is class. This (like almost every other issue that involves race) means we see race and class going hand in hand. That would mean many White conservatives would lambaste fellow Whites as "poor white trash" . However it is not safe to assume that Blacks with financial means would escape the judgemental wrath of the "values voters". One can safely predict that if Sen. Obama were to run for vice-president, senator, or even congressman with a pregnant teenage daughter he would have to drop out of the race because of all the questions surrounding his and his family's moral standing.

The hypocrisy isn't limited to the commentators, nor is it limited to speculation as to what would happen should the shoe be on the other foot. The hyprocrisy is tangible and legitimate. Take for example Congressman David Dreier who suggest that Bristol Palin's pregnancy shows that her mother is someone who "understands the challenges of the real world." This must be political spin, because I'm sure the countless Black mothers weren't appreciated for their ability to "understand the challenges of the real world" when their teenage daughters got pregnant. This hypocrisy rises to all new levels when you consider that Rep. Dreier voted for the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill. That bill sought to, among other things, discourage teen pregnancy by denying welfare to teen mothers. This behavior and rhetoric is shameful and speaks to the hypocrisy that makes it difficult to take seriously those who argue the nation has lost its moral values. Apparently it has also lost its sense of fairness.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Quiet Rumblings in Pakistan

This week people will pour into Denver by the thousands, to celebrate the ascension of Sen. Barack Obama to the head of his party. On August 28, 2008 he will accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. The very next week Sen. John McCain will be in St. Paul, Minnesota to accept his party’s nomination. Despite all of this, major occurrences are happening in the world around us. Recently controversial and United States supported Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf resigned. This happening in the midst of convention celebrations should not mean it gets lost on us.

This issue is paramount to many in the United States. The first reason this is paramount is because Pakistan has been a supposed ally to the United States. This relationship has seemed to be more in word than deed as many in the Taliban have taken refuge and regrouped along the Pakistani border. The United States has been unhappy with the way that Pakistani officials have not vigorously pursued United States enemy combatants. President Musharraf has gone on record in interviews and in his memoir “In the Line of Fire: A Memoir” saying that the United States essentially bully-ed Pakistan into being an ally. Musharraf claimed that both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell drew a clear line in the sand, and in the case of Armitage even threatened Pakistan if they did not side with the United States.

These are accusations from Musharraf’s point of view. Armitage has categorically denied this and President Bush won’t even address it. But if you look at the behavior of Pakistan it doesn’t seem to be very ally-like, which would lend credence to Musharraf’s claims. Furthermore with Musharraf stepping down, that leaves open a place for a new president, and that process has been a great deal of controversy thus far. A coalition that was a significant portion of the governing body there has split, and now confusion and potential chaos is on the brink. For the first time in recent memory, in a place where the United States has an immense interest, they have vowed to stay hands off and allow the people of Pakistan to work their way through the potential governing issues. Although the United States has said publicly that they will not intervene (diplomatically or otherwise) a casual observer would note that as being inconsistent with recent United States foreign policy.

This comes full circle when you think of the two men vying for the presidency of the United States. McCain has made no qualms about continuing a hawkish foreign policy and going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban. Obama has not been as aggressive but has not ruled out going into Pakistan to fight the Taliban should he feel the Pakistani government is not doing enough. What this could mean is that we could see a situation similar to Iraq playing itself out in Pakistan. There will be a sizable disgruntled population that does not want to see the Unites States there and will take offense to occupation. Despite the United States noblest attempts to justify its presence, it will be seen on a world stage as more invasion even if it is sanctioned by the “candidate of change”.

Pakistan has demonstrated that it is not a state to be taken lightly as they have the same willingness to assassinate their leading political figures just as the United States does (see Benazir Bhutto). What’s more is that Pakistan (unlike Iraq, and probably Iran) actually has nuclear weapons. This is not a state that would take United States intrusion lightly. This issue demands that regardless who the next United States president is, we hold them accountable for their actions and policies, to be sure that we avoid military imperialism in the name of “fighting terrorism”. As the Pakistani people determine their new leadership, the United States should pay close attention. Who they choose as their leader can tell us much about their attitudes and the best way to treat them as partners in the global community.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

The Swinging States

Around this time of year during a presidential election season, people begin to discuss the swing states. A general definition of a swing state is a state that is not overwhelmingly and consistenly won by a particular party. In the two most recent elections swing states have been a major point of interest because they have secured the election for George Bush. In 2004, people protested the election results in Ohio citing the unfair distribution of voting stations based on population. The Ohio results were also called into question because of then Secretary of the State (of Ohio) Ken Blackwell's on the record proclamation that he would do everything in his power to see that George Bush won Ohio. The conflict of interest comes because it is the Secretary of State's job to oversee elections and ensure the fairness of elections. In 2000 Florida was at the center of controversy as the hotly contested election results were taken all the way to the Supreme Court


This election cycle swing states are still expected to play a huge role. Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committe have committed to their "Red to Blue" program which aims to make red states (states that usually vote Republican) blue (states that vote democrat). With this intiative states such as Virginia, Nevada, and Indiana which were won by Bush in both of the past two elections are very much in play. Those states along with Colorado, Montana and to a lesser extent Kansas, Georgia, and Alaska, are all reasonable for Obama. As always places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Missouri and Florida will receive a good deal of resources from both campaigns. This is understandable considering that of the last nine presidential elections the candidate who has won Ohio and Missouri has won the election. Florida has voted in favor of the winner in eight of the last nine presidential elections. Altogether these states are sure to be the center of much conversation in the coming months.

In order to get a grip on the states that may be significant points of interest, you can begin to look at Colorado. Many will say that Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania matter more because of the amount of electoral votes they posses, but those states will be throrougly examined in the coming months. Colorado is a little tougher to figure out. In the past two elections Colorado has voted with the Republican ticket. However, Colorado has a Democrat in the Governor's mansion. Its two senate seats are divided with one held by a Democrat and one held by a Republican. Although a Democrat, Gov. Ritter is known for having a pro-life stance, despite threatening to veto any legistlation that sought to completely ban abortion. The state is the true epitome of a swing state. It has a very "green" record, yet holds the second amendment with the highest regard. It will be difficult to tell who will come out on top in this state.

Virginia is another state that will be under a close eye. All political trends point to Obama taking the commonwealth. Obama will be joined lower down the ballot by a wildly successful former Governor seeking a Senate seat, he (Obama) was endorsed (while the primaries were still up for grabs) by the current Governor and won his primary there by 29 points. Those factors alone would lead someone to think Virginia is his for the taking. The only problem is that Virginia has gone for the Republican candidate in the last nine elections, and is generally thought to be a rather conservative state. Though the state seems to be trending to the center, Sen. McCain positioning himself as the "maverick" and not as an prototypical Republican gives him a better chance to win a state which looks like it should be going for Obama.

The two states examined provide just a glimpse into the endless possibilites swing states hold. Because of these candidates unique appeal to voters of both of the major parties, many more states are in play than normal. Pennsylvania, for example is considered a major swing state this election cycle despite going for the Democratic candidate in the last four election cycles. As the topic of swing states gets mentioned, one thing that creeps into the minds of many is the question of fairness. As previously mentioned Florida and Ohio were the source of a great deal of controversy in 2000 and 2004. Whatever state turns this year's presidential election, let's hope the cloud of controversy avoids it.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Defining Black Politics

In recent days some White writers have sought to define Black politics. The most famous of this was Matthew Bai's piece in Sunday's New York Times Magazine. In the piece Bai discusses the "new Black politics". He cites Sen. Obama and others as a changing of the guard of Black politicians. Bai argues that the new generation of Black politicians, who are the beneficiaries of the struggles of years past, are at odds with those same elders who provided them this opportunity. The article had been throughly and eloquently dissected and dismissed by journalist Glen Ford on Black Agenda Report so my interest is not to seek to discredit Mr. Bai's piece. Instead I question why so many mainstream and "highly respected" news organizations are seeking to define Black politics.

Mr. Ford in his repudiation of Mr. Bai's article cites the absurdity in thinking that Whites know Black generational relationships better than those groups know each other. More than that, what's troubling is that so many Blacks will see Mr. Bai's work published in the New York Times and assume it to be true. Mr. Bai and others have asserted that Sen. Obama's support is not as strong among an older "civil rights" generation of Blacks. This flies in the face of known statistics that more than 90% of Blacks have voted for Senator Obama during the primary season. Mr. Bai is not the only one to have erroneously sought to define Black politics by pitting one generation against another. Jodie Allen, a senior editor at the Pew Research Group did a study to find out who's more in touch with the African American community. The premise of the study pitted Sen. Obama against Civil Rights Veteran Jesse Jackson. The fallacy of the study is the assumption of Black Monolithic views. Black politics is more than just a choice between either Sen. Obama's trans-racial rhetoric and Rev. Jackon's cries of racial injustice.

Jonathan Tilove tries his hand at explaining how Sen. Obama and racial politics will affect racial scholarship. He does better by getting out of his own way as his piece is littered with opinions spanning a decent spectrum of Black thought. He gets input from the quasi-conservative economist Glenn Loury, the completely conservative John McWhorter and the progressive Adolph Reed. The trouble with Tilove's piece is that HE identifies who HE deems to be a "leading race scholar from the left". With no disrespect intended to Dr. Howard Winant, the man who was given the laudable title, but few who know or are familiar with Black politics would be hesistant to call anyone other than Dr. Ron Walters a leading "race scholar from the left".

Though Mr. Tilove lives up to the his journalistic responsibilities by gaining points of view from a wide spectrum of thought, he fails in his intial attempt. He is trying to ultimately define something that he apparently does not have the knowledge or experience to speak on. This has been a recent and recurring problem especially in the mainstream media. As Sen. Obama continues to travel down paths never before traveled it seems many mainstream media outlets have become interested in the Black lived and political experience. The fault is not in the exploration of such topics but rather the definition of these topics. The outlets seem to be dreadfully off base. From CNN and their Black in America series, to Matthew Bai questioning "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?" these media outlets seem to not recognize the enormity of what they are tackling.

The easiest response is because they are not going through the lived experience that makes up Black politics than, they miss the target in trying to define it. I believe though with all of their "resources" and the "committment to diversity" present in various mainstream media outlets that having intelligent qualified African Americans to explore Black politics should not be a problem. Perhaps more than that, the media outlets should reaffirm their positions of journalistic integrity and concentrate rather on the policy matters of the election. With a volatile economy, energy issues, foreign nations aggression, so many uninsured Americans, and the consistently rising cost of food there seem to be plenty of substantial policy issues for these media outlets to concentrate there intellectual resources on. It seems when the media is fascinated by a charming and charismatic Black candidate (Sen. Obama) they try to make up for the decades of neglect it has paid to the Black community, to horrendous results. Black politics do not need to be defined and contrary to many both Black and White, Barack Obama is not the epicenter of it (Black Politics). As long as there has Black Americans trying to make sense of the world around them on the local, statewide, and federal level, there have been and will continue to be Black Politics.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

The Sweet (but inexact) Science

Boxing is often referred to by sports enthusiast as "the sweet science", politics has something of its own science, however it perhaps is much less sweet, and even more inexact. That science is predicting who will be a candidate's running mate. Some pundits and so called experts like to look at what a potential VP can bring to a ticket. Some think that a strong VP choice can cover a candidate's weakness or magnify a strength. Others think a VP choice could move a state from being a swing state to one that's solidly for one candidate. All of those items can be factors in the choosing of a VP this election cycle, and there are interesting and qualified candidates on both sides

The Republican situation is very simple. There is one clear choice and that is Gov. Bobby Jindal. He would be perfect for the Republican ticket. He is young (37 years old) intelligent, and has a good amount of charisma to offset Sen. Obama's candidacy. It is not necessarily in Jindal's or the Republican party's best interest for Jindal to be a VP candidate right now. Jindal's career is mirroring Sen. Obama's back in 2004 and it would actually do more for the candidate to have Sen. Obama win in 2008. Then Gov. Jindal and the Republican party can ride the nation's "wave of diversity" and run in either 2012 or 2016. Either way that leaves Sen. McCain with some familiar choices.

One choice is fmr. Ohio Congressman Rob Portman. Portman seems logical because he has been a longtime ally of McCain's and could prove pivotal in helping a swing state like Ohio go McCain's way. Portman also has served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This would lend credibility on the issue of economics which is one Sen. McCain admittedly doesn't know as much about as he should. Another name that's been thrown around that would help McCain on economics is fmr. Governor Mitt Romney. Romney was a rival of McCain' s in the primary but his fiscal prowess could prove to help the Senator in the general election. There are a few others on the list as names being thrown around for Sen. McCain's running mate including Florida Governor Charlie Crist and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Crist is another ally of Sen. McCain but has questions regarding his personal life that may turn conservative voters off. We'll get back to Gov. Pawlenty later

Sen. Barack Obama is in a unique position. As the first man of African descent to be the Democratic Party's nominee for President his choice has to balance not just policy or geographical differences but it must also be a comfortable choice for whites who are still unwilling to vote for a man of African descent. Some pundits have gone as far as saying that Sen. Obama should choose a "traditional, boring white male politician". With that being seemigly the popular logic, many expect to see Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana named as his running mate. Bayh supported Sen. Clinton in the primary so he would be able to bring back some of her disenchanted base. Also he has served on the Armed Forces committee, so that could speak to the foreign policy credentials that Sen. Obama's critics say he lacks. Furthermore Sen. Bayh is popular in his home state of Indiana, a state that could be pivotal in the 2008 election. Another popular name thrown around is that of Sen. Joseph Biden. Sen. Biden is currently the chair of Senate Foreign Relations committee, and is a veteran of the Senate and Capitol Hill having served on the Hill for 35 years.

There are still wild cards for each candidate. Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic party's nominee for VP in 2000. He is a friend of Sen. McCain and has even gone out campaigning for him. Some speculate that McCain could choose Lieberman because of the appeal he would have to independent voters. To that end Sen. Obama has a very good working relationship with Sen. Chuck Hagel. Sen. Hagel accompanied Obama on parts of his overseas trip. Sen. Hagel also said it is possible he could endorse Obama, but doubts that would happen. Sen. Hagel has been one of the loudest voices of dissent about the war in Iraq from the Republican party. Also, choosing a Republican VP would be consistent with Obama's claims to be above partisan politics. One of the names swirling the fastest on the rumor mill is Va. Governor Tim Kaine. He and Sen. Jim Webb from Va. are supposedly very high on Obama's shortlist. With all of these possibilities it seems a bit ironic that its called a "shortlist" For what its worth I see the VP's being Tim Pawlenty for McCain and Evan Bayh for Obama.

Pawlenty is young, charismatic, has executive experience from servings as Governor of Minnesota, and he is popular in a swing state. Regardless if a McCain/Pawlenty ticket were to win, you can expect to see Pawlenty on the national scene for quite some time. Sen. Bayh wins because he is everything Barack Obama is not without seeming too far off from Obama's message of change. Though it would be very enticing to select Gov. Kaine, the issue of foreign policy may outweigh executive experience. Also with Sen. Bayh, you get both because of his time as Governor of Indiana. Also extra bonuses Obama would get with Bayh, is a moderate midwesterner who President Clinton asked to deliver the keynote address at the 1996 Democratical National Convention.

After all of this reasoning and speculation the VP choices could have nothing to do with region or adding anything new to the ticket. President Bush chose Dick Cheney and Republicans had safely won Wyoming (Cheney's home state) in the two general elections prior to the Bush Administration Politically Bush and Cheney were cut from the same cloth and its not like Cheney added anything new or different from an ideological standpoint. Fmr. President Bill Clinton chose fellow southerner Al Gore as his running mate and he won two consecutive terms in the White House. This just goes to show you that trying to predict a VP choice is simply just for fun. It allows so called pundits and experts to show how right (or wrong) they are at understanding this sweet inexact science we call politics.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The Lesser of Two Evils

Every four years people professing to be pundits pontificate on what we the voting public will do in the fall election. This year has been no different in that department, however the cast of characters has changed some. The historic campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have been well documented. Sen. Obama even earned his party's nomination becoming the first person of African descent to do so. With that he faces Sen. John McCain in the general election. Much of Obama's success can be attributed to his message of change. With the notion of change comes the idea that Sen. Obama will be able to respond to the issues facing the country with an approach that everyday people would come up with. This idea has many thinking of "outside the beltway" solutions to "inside the beltway" problems. However, a radical thought that few have given serious consideration to is perhaps a more impactful change would come from a candidate outside of the two major parties. This is thought to be blasphemy on the surface, but a careful examination of the issues suggest that maybe a third party candidate speaks more directly issues that matter to you the voter.

If you are a free market enthusiast and would like to see capitalism grow and thrive you may think your only horse in this race is John McCain. However, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is for no government intervention in the free marketplace. According to Barr's website the role of government in capitalism is to "protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected". This seems to be on par with McCain but where they differ is Barr advocates for a suspension of business subsidies and the scaling down of the military as ways to cut federal spending. Sen. McCain is not interested in removing business subsidies and it goes without saying that he has no interest in scaling down the military; thus it'll be less than likely that Sen. McCain will take the real steps to cut federal spending as his rhetoric suggest.

Sen. Obama has throughout the primary season called for universal health care. Yet he has been shy to call for the single payer system. He has consistently laid out plans that will more than likely ensure many more Americans health care but would not offer a solution that would provide health care to the 47 million uninsured in the United States today. Cynthia McKinney is in support of the single payer system and wants to move insurance companies out of the health care conversation saying in November of 1999 that health care is a "right not a privilege". She also supports trimming the federal budget by drastically reducing defense spending. Both Sens. Obama and McCain argue they want to rid Washington of lobbyist influence and pork barrel spending. However none of them have proposed increased funding for the Department of Justice's Corporate Crimes division to pursue corporations and lobbyist illegally influencing Washington. Ralph Nader has proposed strengthening this division.

Many well reasoned Americans will look at the evidence presented and find a candidate that speaks to their needs more than the major party candidates. Ultimately the response will be that a third party candidate will never win, so why waste a vote. The main reason a third party candidate never wins is because so many people think of it as a wasted vote. If the people who truly supported the positions of third party candidates actually voted for those candidates the United States would have elected officials that represent more than just Democrats or Republicans. But until the voters assert what power they do have in a democracy, decisions will stay limited to the lesser of two evils.


http://www.runcynthiarun.com/
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
http://www.blogger.com/www.votenader.org

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

To Be Black In America

As CNN gears up for their "Black in America" presentation to take place tonight and tomorrow , I can't help but feel this will be another half-hearted attempt to try to know or understand Black people. Some may applaud CNN for their efforts, but maybe its the cynic in me that sees CNN capitalizing on the popularity and historic (arguably) run of Senator Barack Obama. Some may counter by suggesting that this production has long since been in development with the earliest promotions for it coming as far back as March. However, if we think back to March, Sen. Obama had just broke even in Super Tuesday and was marching toward the nomination.

Regardless of the reason the production itself seems to be lacking. One of the first and most key points to look at is the choice of commentators. There are a few names and faces that are regularly paraded out to translate Black to many White Americans. Many of these people are the same folks who MSNBC, and FoxNews use to try to translate Black culture to White Americans. Such people include the everpresent Cornel West, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Tom Joyner, and Dr. Eddie Glaude. Many of these men are famous precisely for being able to translate Black culture to White audiences. There are many others who would do a better job conveying the emotional, mental, physical and most important spiritual spectrum of Black life to a viewing audience. Some of the others may not be the famous academic types but people who simply call it as they see it.

Ask for example why Bill Rhoden, a sports columinst for the New York Times is never asked to speak at these type of affairs. It would only make sense that if Black Americans are the overwhelming majority of the two largest grossing sports in the United States (70% NFL, 80%NBA) that someone with a level of expertise in sports would be asked to provide their opinions. However many people don't know about Rhoden. Probably because of his suggestion that integration (in sports) did more to harm Black institutions than help. Most in the mainstream won't want to hear this because it threatens racial harmony (translate as White economic triumph). He also referenced athletes as "40 Million Dollar Slaves. He has always been critical of subtle and implied, and often times not-so-subtle and implied racism that is inherent in the United States.

Ask again why you rarely hear from Walter Williams. Williams is a conservative professor from George Mason University. He writes columns and appears as a guest on radio and television shows extolling the virtues of capitalism. He also cites real life examples of how government programs have worked to the detriment of Black Americans. Yet you don't hear from him at these types of forums possibly because he clearly exposes holes in the White Americans theory that they (exercised through the government) are Black people's only salvation. There is extremely little I agree with Dr. Williams about but I do appreciate any man who will call for Black economic independence, and at the least he provides a new viewpoint, that differs from the traditional African American school of thought (whatever that is)

These two brief examples serve only to illustrate how off the mark networks come when trying to broadcast an accurate representation of Black life. The main reason being that Black life is so diverse and all inclusive that it cannot be told through commentators and translators. The best and only teacher of Black life is lived experience. Tonight CNN will try to capture everyday people and use them as the new translators of Black culture. It may even be a valiant attempt but in the end it will fail because Black life is much more than a 30 second soundbite, or a one hour program or even a two day special. To be honest its even much greater than a 617 word Essay. Because Black culture and life cannot be translated, however for what its worth, I think it can be described in one word. BEAUTIFUL

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Before Judging Zimbabwe

Many people have rushed to judgement in the matter of Zimbabwe. Looking at the information being presented its easy to see why. Much of the information many Americans are getting are in simple and non-complex terms. In the narrative we see a good guy, Morgan Tsvangirai, trying to bring "freedom" and "democracy" (holy words in the United States) to a people who suffer under the hand of a despot, Robert Mugabe. That seems to be simple enough. We should probably align our nation's public opinion and resources against the bad guy.

Unfortunately nothing is that simple and much of the United States media(for whatever reason) has decided to not flush out the complete details of the situation in Zimbabwe choosing rather to retell the narrative in efforts to drum up support for Mugabe's opposition. The only problem with this is that the people closest to Mugabe and Zimbabwe refuse to condemn him in the same way much of the Western Media has.

The Washington Post recently did an article looking at Robert Mugabe's relationship with South African president Thabo Mbeki. Throughout the article they reference Mbeki's association with Mugabe as tarnishing a great legacy. As Mbeki tries desperately to convince Mugabe that retirement is both honorable to his legacy and beneficial to his people, many in the west consider Mbeki "dirtying" his own legacy by involving himself with Mugabe. However, it is not so easy for Mbeki to part with his elder as it is for the world to turn their back on Mugabe.

Perhaps it was the refuge that Mugabe allowed Mbeki to take as the Apartheid government of South Africa had exiled members of the ANC. Perhaps it was the raucous reception Mugabe received at Mbeki's inagural in 2004. Perhaps it was Mugabe seizing control of white owned farms in Zimbabwe in efforts to redistribute the wealth to the common people of Zimbabwe. Whatever the reason, and there seem to be quite a few, Mbeki is not yet ready to call Mugabe the terrible tyrant that the American media has already crowned him.

Let me be clear, this is not a piece about why we ought to support Robert Mugabe. Instead it is a call for all Americans to seek out truth that our media does not always present in its entirety (particularly on matters pertaining to Africa). Just as there are quite a few good reasons why some African leaders still support Mugabe, there are also legitimate reasons why he is unfit to continue being the leader of Zimbabwe. What we must do is try to open our minds to various sources of information in order to come away with the most complete story, not just the narrative that our media paints for us.