I proudly voted for President Barack Obama, but not because of any policy or agenda item.
Of late, I have been pronouncing this fact - both loudly and proudly. And I find the act to be quite liberating, even empowering.
Why?
Because acknowledging that I supported the first Black president for purely cultural reasons (remember I believe cultural sensibilities can be more powerful than political ideologies) keeps the responsibility on me, to be an agent of change.
It forces me to accept the reality that my work in supporting Street organizations (Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings etc…) to make peace and become community builders; my work in promoting financial literacy, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation; my work in fighting felon disenfranchisement; and my work on behalf of a ‘United States of Africa’ - is my work not his.
President Obama actually motivates me to do what he can’t, or won’t, from within my own sphere of influence.
Of late, I have been struck by an increasing minority of Obama supporters – within his Black and Left base - who seem to be slowly realizing and paying attention to what President Obama actually says and does, rather than how he says and does it.
An example is the murmuring among some over President Barack Obama’s answer to BET’s Andre Showell about Black unemployment at his April 29, 2009 national press conference.
Here is that portion (as rendered by the Los Angeles Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/transcript/):
President Obama: Andre Showell? There you go.
Andre Showell: Thank you, Mr. President. As the entire nation tries to climb out of this deep recession, in communities of color, the circumstances are far worse. The black unemployment rate, as you know, is in the double digits. And in New York City, for example, the black unemployment rate for men is near 50 percent. My question to you tonight is given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specific policies can you point to that will target these communities and what’s the timetable for us to see tangible results?
President Obama: Well, keep in mind that every step we’re taking is designed to help all people. But folks who are most vulnerable are most likely to be helped because they need the most help.
So when we passed the Recovery Act, for example, and we put in place provisions that would extend unemployment insurance or allow you to keep your health insurance even if you’ve lost your job, that probably disproportionately impacted those communities that had lost their jobs. And unfortunately, the African American community and the Latino community are probably over-represented in those ranks.
When we put in place additional dollars for community health centers to ensure that people are still getting the help that they need, or we expand health insurance to millions more children through the children’s health insurance program, again, those probably disproportionately impact African American and Latino families simply because they’re the ones who are most vulnerable. They have got higher rates of uninsured in their communities.
So my general approach is that if the economy is strong, that will lift all boats as long as it is also supported by, for example, strategies around college affordability and job training, tax cuts for working families as opposed to the wealthiest that level the playing field and ensure bottom-up economic growth.
And I’m confident that that will help the African American community live out the American dream at the same time that it’s helping communities all across the country.
The above exchange has some Black intellectuals, activists and political analysts who supported Obama, disappointed, with some even angered.
I don’t know why.
The same is true of President Obama’s decision to not send a delegation to the UN Conference On Racism In Geneva. Some of the same opinion leaders seem shocked by this.
I don’t know why.
The answer that President Obama gave BET is the same kind of answer he has been giving ever since he emerged onto the scene – moderate, but honest.
“There is no Black America, no White America, only one America!” is what I remember of his famous 2004 Democratic party convention speech.
Have those supporters who have been upset or disappointed with President Obama of late, really been listening to him?
Do they not recall his moderate words after Hurricane Katrina, the Sean Bell killing, and the Jena 6 incident for instance?
President Obama’s decision to not send a delegation to the 2009 follow-up to the UN Conference On Racism in Durban in 2001 is largely a result of the strength of the Israeli lobby (which successfully pressured the administration), and the relative weakness of the progressive movement (which seems more interested in rhetoric, books and documentaries these days than in mobilization and organization) and the virtual non-existence of a Black nationalist and Pan-Africanist lobby.
But these two recent moments – Geneva and the April 29th press conference - reveal the obvious reality that President Obama’s support by his Black and Left base was unconditional and never tied to policy.
When was Candidate Obama ever told by his supporters that votes and financial support for him were conditional on his willingness to send a U.S. delegation to Geneva, or to have townhall meetings and advance specific pieces of legislation regarding Black male unemployment?
On the latter point, how hard would it have been to demand of Candidate Obama, that as a President Obama, he must at least do what U.S. Senator Charles Schumer – who is White – has done, convene an urgent forum on the crisis of Black male unemployment?
You can hear Senator Schumer’s riveting 2007 hearing (held under the auspices of the Joint Economic Committee) at the following link (to his credit, Senator Obama sent a public letter of support on this issue to the hearing):
http://www.jec.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.HearingsCalendar&ContentRecord_id=7E728436-7E9C-9AF9-7061-00CA0C098FF7
All of this brings us to President Obama’s most recent moment of triangulation par excellence.
At the very same moment that the Left and media were enamored or fixated on President Obama’s announcement that he was going after tax havens abused by the rich and wealthy multi-national corporations, the Obama administration was leaking to The Wall Street Journal (the paper of record for the rich and wealthy multi-national corporations) details of its sweeping new plan to end erroneous payments, waste and fraud in government social safety net programs aimed at the poor and middle class.
Here is what The Wall Street Journal wrote in its May 5, 2009 edition in an article entitled, “Budget Targets Fraud and Errors in Social Programs:”
“President Barack Obama’s detailed budget will include a ramped-up effort to put thousands more budgetary cops on the beat to crack down on fraud and error in politically sensitive social programs.
The budget, scheduled for release Thursday, will include funds for what the White House is calling a ‘program integrity’ initiative, enough to fund 1,100 field officers in the Social Security Administration, and for the Department of Labor to interview 188,000 unemployment-insurance recipients over the next fiscal year, a senior budget office official said Monday.
Other efforts are planned for Medicare and Medicaid. That’s in addition to 2,300 additional full-time Internal Revenue Service workers.”
The program sounds fine on principle, as it is estimated that each year, as much as $3.6 billion in unemployment benefits are paid out, erroneously.
But just imagine if a waste-in-government obsessed Republican had announced that the Department of Labor would be conducting interviews with 188,000 unemployment-insurance recipients (The Journal describes it as: “in-person interviews with unemployment-insurance claimants to review eligibility and refer them to employment centers. The budget request should fund 188,000 interviews in hopes of saving $44 million”); hiring an additional 1,100 field officers to verify the integrity of Social Security; and bringing on an additional 2,300 full time IRS agents - not to mention forthcoming actions focused on Medicaid and Medicare?
No doubt, cries of privacy violations, police state tactics, and a war on the poor would surely be heard by all.
On a Black Democratic President’s plans to enhance social safety net ‘program integrity,’ the silence, so far, is deafening.
The most influential analysts on the left that would be decrying Republican efforts and motives can only be found commenting on how skillfully President Obama is maneuvering. In The Wall Street Journal article we read:
“If only a Republican like Richard Nixon could be the first president to go to China, only a Democrat like Mr. Obama could persuade Democrats to cut payments for unemployment and disability, said Isabel Sawhill, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution.
‘When Republicans talk about program integrity, Democrats worry it’s just a smokescreen for cutting programs. When Democrats do it, it looks a lot more credible,’ she said.”
Words like this bring back memories that it was a Democratic President - not Republican – who signed the Crime Bill, promoted the ‘mending’ of affirmative action, and ushered in Welfare reform.
How soon we forget that under President Bill Clinton more Black men were incarcerated than during the terms of President H.W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan, combined.
I, for one, applaud what I call President Obama’s tactical sagacity, and his consistency.
He campaigned on cutting waste in government programs and on ending loopholes for the rich. Again, he is nothing but consistent.
In addition, President Obama’s moderation and triangulation embodies the gauntlet that every President lays down to any interest group, lobby, or community. It is best represented by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (whose history Obama studies carefully) who told Civil Rights Leader A. Phillip Randolph that while he agreed with his agenda, intellectual agreement was not enough for him to change policy. Reportedly, Roosevelt told Randolph that he and the civil rights leaders would have to make him change policy. Presidents must be forced to do what is right, not just told.
I believe that in so many words, President Obama is ‘telling’ Blacks, Progressives and Liberals that they will have to force him to do what they want. His stance will either expose their current weaknesses to mobilize people or influence the public debate and votes, or it will inspire them to step their game up and be more effective.
Yes, it is now becoming clear what a 65% plus approval rating means. It means you can take policy steps that your base doesn’t like without being confronted by a loyal opposition. It means you can triangulate – maybe even better than the G.O.A.T. (Greatest Of All-Time) of political base abuse, President Bill Clinton.
Perhaps ‘Vic From Huntsville, Alabama,’ a listener-commentator on “The Cedric Muhammad and Black Coffee Program” (http://www.cedricmuhammad.com/showarchives/) said it best when he opined on the May 6, 2009 show, “If you don’t expect anything, you won’t be disappointed. The goal was to get him in office. That’s the same goal every four years. It’s like math, when you have variables your constants don’t matter. That’s all our support means to the Democrats.”
President Obama understands this – but will his base on the political Left?
Cedric Muhammad
May 7, 2009
My sentiments exactly!
This essay is one of the reasons that Cedric is pound-for-pound THE best political economist around. This essay has all of the following elements, it’s nuanced, relevant, creates rigor (stretches the reader mentally) and free of most of the jargon that tend to make articles like this difficult to read if one does not have a political and economic background. After reading most of the essay, a Nas lyric came to mind…”we are the slave and the master, what you lookin’ for, you the question and the answer”. The question isn’t “Why isn’t Obama doing…?”, but rather, “What are YOU doing….?”.
Well said. “My work not his.”
The reported exchange between FDR and A. Phillip Randolph should be referenced the next time Assata Shakur comes up in conversation.
Your ability to “read” the unsaid and unseen is admirable. shortsightedness of the public is not surprising, the media has dumbed people up.
Your cultural and triangulation argument is well made. I too see the long term economic benefits of this strategies.
Do you ever submit anything to the Huffington Post? You should. Great job!
Well said Brother Cedric, I think your 100% correct are your view that President Obama while he want to help the Black community it will take our unity to make him do what is needed to be done if we’re every going to improve ourselves.
Blacks will demand nothing therefor they will get nothing!!!!
Very well said!
Very few progressive groups held President Obama accountable prior to the election; so why now expect him to do anything that we deem necessary to improve our situation in America. This is espcially true for African Americans. We wanted him to win so badly that few of us questioned him with our concerns. During the campaign season it was near impossible to criticize him without being excoriated by friends and family.
I maintain that the radical change that is needed for African Americans will not come directly from the ballot box. It comes from direct action in the form of protest as was done during the 1960’s. Recall the film footage where folks were treated in inhumane ways in order to vote, sit at a lunch counter, attend a decent school, etc. A nation that treats anyone like that is one that holds deep contempt and resentment for those people. Those feelings do not go away very easily even with a Black man in the White House.
We have NOT arrived with the election of Barak Obama. However we have obtained a very powerful symbol in a first Black family. At some point we as a people have to move beyond accepting only symbols as a way of empowering ourselves. In order to improve the quality of our lives we have to do as Mr. Muhammed states, demand that something substantive be done to improve our lot in this country. I too believe as he that President Obama wants us to demand those things.
Obama is a Leo. And Leos are great leaders. But sometimes you have to “make them” change policy.
Whatever the reasoning behind the vote…despite the universal acceptance, acknowledgement and yes, applause, President Obama has the presence of a leader, in that I mean he encourages you to ’show’ & ‘prove’ on your own personal accountability as well as his own. He inspires me to continue my efforts to encourage others to self-sufficiency and to assist others to do the same. Old School Talk…Creating Illusions & Causing Effects.
Thank you Cedric for this very powerful article. Its about time everyone realises that they are responsible for the overall development of their communities. Just beacuse we have elected leaders to represent us in high offices doesn’t not mean that we should sit back and just wait for thigs to happen. Im looking at all this from an African perspective where we have suffered greatly by putting all our hopes in the shoulders of corrupt leaders who have failed to implement good policies and strategies as a result of greed and selfishness. America is a very fortunate country, you have systems which work, great leaders who are put to task for their time in office, made to account for their actions…… i am absorbing the instances where Barracks supporters have been disappointed by his decisions (as illustrated in this article) and just like Cedric, I dont understand why they are disappointed. He as a leader is representing the interests of all Americans and not just one community. In my opinion you are all fortunate to have such a leader who cares and wants you to be a part of your nations development. He encourages everyone to go back to the basic and assess their imput to development of themselves, their families, their societies….I only have one question for all Americans in evaluating all this .. are you the cause of the problem, part of the problem or the solution to the problem?
I have a comment but I need your email address to forward it as an email attachment. My style is an expository argument with pertinent information only.
Peace, Ronald
Dear Cedric, If you can grant my request I would appreciate it. Thank you. -Ronald
May 22, 2009
As I read Obama’s Triangulates While His Base Only Murmurs, by Cedric Muhammad, I find myself extremely perplexed. My first question, if one knows the meaning of culture how can one assume culture can override political ideologies. It is true that politics is an aspect of culture, however politics has the power to direct the path of culture
For example, the morality of Christianity and its love of humanity did not stop Christians from oppressing Africans into chattel slavery. And later the North and South had to fight a four-year bloody war to discontinue chattel slavery, due to the advent of industrialization. It should be also noted that cultural behavior could change irrespective of morality as economic pressures take hold. This shows the force of politics and the agency of economics to direct culture.
In using Obama’s answer to Andre Showall’s question as his of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will administer only 1.6 billion dollars for infilstructure improvement and it will be put into the hands of big business, who will take their profits off the top. It does give workers extensions on their unemployment insurance, Medicaid and Medicare, but this doesn’t give them a solid public works project, which can remain viable until the economy picks up again. However, this still falls very short of giving workers national health insurance, which would cost the government approximately $1,259 billion. As things stand with the Recovery Act, we can only stay in place and descend further as the economy erodes.
I’m also amazed as to why Cedric never mentioned Obama’s facilitation of Bush’s programs of TARP: Trouble Asset Relief Program and TALF: Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. These two programs have started out costing the taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And let me say this, I never saw one banker force Bush or Obama into creating these programs.
And I must go further because Treasury Secretary Geithner personally announced he was making a capital infusion of over two trillion dollars into the coffers of the largest banks. As I recall, the public or Congress was never asked whether they were in consent. Mind you, if a capitalist enterprise is too big to fail it has extreme authority; one could say oligarchic position.
What Cedric is doing is blaming the victim; Black leadership does not wheel enough power to achieve their goals. If Cedric looked closer he would see that no citizen group sets policy in this country, only the legislature and the executive. Cedric goes further in bearing his naiveté when he assumes that the Israeli lobby forced the U.S. to do their bidding. One has to take note that the U.S. gives Israel five billion dollars a year – free. Remember the old saying, “he who pays the piper calls the tunes”.
Obama’s refusal to attend the Conference Against Racism and Zionism is merely a continuation of a long standing support for Israel no intention of paying reparation to African-Americans.
Obama continues to overlook the Bush Administration’s misdeeds. He refuses to indict the mandate to torture, wire-tapping, renditioning and the superimposing of our Bill of Rights with the USA Patriot Act and several others that have followed it. This too violates our Constitution. Lets take this a further there is no two party system here it is one party with two branches of the Capitalist party.
The 2008 campaign did not have any alternative parties to participate in the debates. The electoral system is controlled by the Republican and Democratic parties – who else? At this point Cedric can’t you see that Obama is a mouthpiece for the ruling elite – “come on smell the coffee”?
Critique posed by: Ronald Crenshaw
E-mail: reddog_15@netzero.com
I think Cedric has raised a very interesting question. I’m curious to know if he believes the expectation level(s) held by Obama’s political base have been affected(raised/lowered/the same) by the legacies of three or four presidents that preceded Obama (and how).