"A liberal is a person who talks about how bad segregated trains are. Yet rides in the whites-only section."
Langston Hughes' definition of a liberal.
Right after the Wisconsin debate during the democratic primary, a
columnist called to ask my impression of John Kerry. Well, first
I said the cracker's crazy. When the question of race and what he
would do to improve the status of racial minorities was asked, Kerry
fired off his standard campaign line about being a prosecutor and
hiring black prosecutors and wanting to have more programs to help
"at-risk" inner city kids. I went on to say; this placing an "at-risk"
label on all things black is a problem in and of itself. At risk
from what or whom? Prosecutors? Then I got a little more
real. I told her that what immediately popped into my head after
hearing Kerry was - he locked up niggers, he hired niggers to lock up
niggers and if elected he would have programs to help at-risk niggers.
That being said, it's still safe to say that most blacks see Kerry as a
typical, patrician, northern, liberal democrat. And they never
trusted Bush even before he stole Florida. So, in this election,
for the average black voter, that's the political calculus. Their
political demand is simple -- get Bush out of office.
But then, I live in a red state --- so what does it matter?
The democrats long ago ceded the south, where 59% or so of all black
voters live, to the republicans. And that abandonment is a
rejection of the civil rights agenda. Some insiders even
suggested during the primaries, that the party aim its' future hopes
and resources on the southwest and the Latino vote. So, when the
democrats whine about possible republican suppression of the black
vote, I usually reply that democrats are doing a pretty good job
themselves.
What's more, Georgia's Zell Miller is no aberration. He is a DLC
(Democratic Leadership Council) "republicrat" or as Jesse Jackson Sr.
would say, he a member of the "Democratic Leisure Class." Jesse
Jr. calls it the "Democratic Legacy of the Confederacy." The DLC
agenda mirrors the republican's "Southern Strategy" of reaching out and
serving the interest of white, male voters at the expense of all
others.
And Miller isn't the only southern democrat to reject Kerry. Inez
Tenenbaum, currently state superintendent of education, like Miller and
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is a DLC democrat running a
"republican-lite" campaign. Tenenbaum, running to replace
retiring South Carolina Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, said that she
would rather not campaign with Kerry.
In her comments to the South Carolina Democratic Party Convention on
May 1, 2004, she boasted, "South Carolina has a proud tradition of
independence. We believe what we believe, and we do so without
apology. We understand that independence is strength -- the
strength to resist the call of the herd, to follow our own path, and to
pursue our own dreams." Is she speaking here of the
Confederacy?
The DLC agenda is even manifest in democratic campaigning. In
2002, South Carolina democratic senatorial candidate Alex Sanders lost
to republican Lindsey Graham by 112,000 votes and former democratic
governor Jim Hodges lost to republican Mark Sanford by 64,000.
And in 2000, Bush purportedly beat Al Gore by 220,000 votes. In
the 2002 gubernatorial elections, less than 50% (282,210) of the total
(571,157) black registered voters went to the polls and a significant
number voted republican. Here's the point. Tenenbaum has
opted to diss a pool of 380,000 eligible, unregistered blacks and
288,947 registered, non-voting blacks - close to 700,000 non-voting,
eligible African Americans - in the faint hope of picking up 250,000
conservative white, male voters. Additionally, since 2002, 50,000
new black voters have been added to the rolls. Tenenbaum's gambit is
predicated on the notion that blacks have no insult level and nowhere
else to be excepting with the democrats. Still, beyond the ploy
being insulting, it's also a bad campaign strategy.
The Safe States Approach
The safe states strategy emerged prior to the Green Party Convention
and was adopted by some anti- Nader progressives a few of whom once
supported him. It supposedly hinges on the Green Party focusing
its' organizing efforts in solidly "blue" or "red" states avoiding
"battleground" states so as not to open itself up to charges of aiding
in a republican victory.
Many people who I consider earnest in their support of a just social
agenda, are in the "anybody but Bush" camp. They have settled on
what they consider practical -- John Kerry. This group includes
many of the rock artist performing with "Vote for Change," many ex-
Nader supporters and even a good number of chronic
contrarians. Most of these folks don't think Kerry is gonna
radically change anything and you often hear "we have to organize for
November 3rd, regardless of who wins the election." Many, like
Noam Chomsky believe there is a difference between the two
candidates. But the first order of business is to get rid of
George Bush and his band of neo-cons. And, the "ABBers" add into
the equation that should Kerry win then maybe the rest of the world,
especially the Europeans, will think America has repudiated Bush and
the policy of preemption.
Obviously, the safe states approach gives Kerry a tepid
endorsement. But in fairness, while the Green Party and the
strategy are often mentioned in the same breathe, to my understanding,
it is not an official position of the party even in the face of the not
so thoughtful remark by GP VP nominee Pat LaMarche, in which she said
she would not commit to voting for herself and [David] Cobb in November
-"If Bush has got 11 percent of the vote in Maine come November 2."
The comment, which she later recanted, mostly exposed her naïveté
(that's why we call them greens). It also gives a glimpse into
the crisis of conscience, effort and direction that exist not just in
the Green Party but also in the whole of the America left.
Mind you, Nader has every right to run and I agree with him on most
issues. Still, throughout Nader's electoral efforts past and
present, grassroots organizing has been absent. And any
comparison of Nader's travails with the disenfranchisement of voters in
Florida is just absurd. Nader has shown no interest in party or
alliances building. Accordingly, his ballot and ex-supporter
difficulties are a direct consequence of not building anything in the
years leading up to the election. In spite of everything, none of
Nader's difficulties preclude those who want to vote for him from doing
so. They can simply write-in his name.
As Nader was entering the race, he met with members of the
Congressional Black Caucus, who not only rejected him, some also cussed
him out. Nader left the meeting looking a bit shocked. But
what did he expect? Black democrats are obviously more
progressive than white democrats but they are democrats all the
same. As for Nader's relationship with black voters and black
leadership - grassroots or elected, he has no real political
relationship. Blacks habitually vote democratic because most of
their elected officials are democrats. Nader could not have
thought that blacks democrats would reject Kerry for him?
As for David Cobb, the Green Party's presidential candidate, I first
met him for dinner with members of the fledgling South Carolina Green
Party prior to their national convention. He was out in the
states meeting people and building support for his candidacy, as he
should have been - as Nader was not. Cobb talked about being "all
about party building, grassroots organizing and having a national
campaign to the extent of our resources." I suggested that the
Green Party not endorse Nader because he rejected the party until
desperation had set in. And, his [Cobb] campaign should focused
on states where progressives might stand a ghost of a chance of being
heard and pulling themselves together for not just the national, but
the local fights and struggles. Our conversation never explicitly
used the term safe states. The focus was on party building
in the face of what many consider a "critical election."
My comments to Cobb took into account Efia Nwangaza's decision to stand
up against Tenenbaum in the U.S. Senate race, the base of likely
progressive voters in South Carolina and future prospects for
organizing those voters. In the 2004 democratic primary,
Tenenbaum's primary opposition garnered 40,000 votes and in 2000 Nader
received 20,000 votes. Somewhere between those two numbers is the
progressive base in South Carolina. Those are the folks we are
trying to organize into a functioning party to run for local offices,
like school boards, town and city councils, much like the Christian
right took to doing in the eighties.
All Politics are Local
So, back when it became clear that Tenenbaum would be the Democrats'
nominee to replace Hollings and she began her predictable public parade
to the right, my friend, Efia Nwangaza raised with me the possibility
of her being the Green Party candidate for the office.
Nwangaza and I stood side-by-side burning the Confederate and Nazi
flags on Confederate Memorial Day in May 2000. We both want an
end to the drug war and believe that police should be held accountable
for their wrongful actions by citizens review boards. She opposes
the death penalty, supports inmates' rights and the re-enfranchisement
of former felons and believes that prosecutor's have far too much power
in the criminal justice system. She supports the workers' right
to organize and universal health care for all within our borders.
She supports reparations for the current victims and descendants of
those dispossessed by US imperialism and violence. She believes
that US policy towards Haiti and Cuba are racist, illegal and
immoral. She opposes the war on Iraq and seeks a halt to the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by the number one offender
in the world -- the USA.
And what do the two people running against her stand for?
Tenenbaum and republican Jim DeMint both support the Iraqi war.
They both support the death penalty and a constitutional amendment in
support of discrimination in the form of the anti-gay marriage
amendment. And after years of lobbying in support of a woman's
right to choose, Tenenbaum, upon entering the Senate race, tried to
inoculate herself from the liberal label by feigning opposition to what
choice opponents call "partial birth" abortion with a "health of the
mother" exception.
I have no illusions or expectations of DeMint. Despite his
moderate packaging, he is a Lee Atwater/Karl Rove/George Bush
republican reared in the backyard of Bob Jones University. DeMint
won his primary because his party wanted a real republican not an iffy
convert, which is how many in the GOP saw former republican Governor
and ex-democrat David Beasley.
Maybe one day soon the republicans will carve out a slice of the black
vote through their faith-based payoffs (initiatives) to black preachers
and showcase tokens like Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell. Maybe
one day they might even run a black on a statewide ticket here in South
Carolina as was the case in Maryland with Lt. Governor Michael
Steele. But to this day, they are the party of the
neo-Confederates and states' rights - a legacy they have maintained
since they snatched it away from the democrats in the early 60s when
Strom Thurmond switched parties and the "Southern Strategy" was
born. Jim DeMint, will get very few black votes.
Tenenbaum will probably get the lion's share of black votes despite the
obvious lack of evidence that she will represent their interest if she
wins.
Yet to submit to the DLC agenda only pushes blacks further over to the
conservative side of the social issues scale - be it through exploiting
black homophobia - polls show that 69% of black voters oppose gay
marriage but the problems with black homophobia are that it drives
denial about the AIDS crisis in the community and it encourages African
American support of legal discrimination. Or, Tenenbaum's support
of current US foreign policy and wars of support for elite, privilege
capitalism that continues to disproportionately claim the lives and
resources of people of color and the poor. In South Carolina, out
of the 19 soldiers killed in Iraq, 10 or 53% have been black.
Someone once said to me, "Where you sleep is where you're
politics lie." This brings to mind concerns about Tenenbaum via
her husband Sam, who if he isn't a member of AIPAC (American-Israeli
Political Action Committee) will readily admit that he contributed
money to the campaign of Arturo Davis who beat former Congressman Earl
Hilliard of Alabama. Hilliard reaped the wrath of AIPAC for
supporting the human rights of the Palestinian people. In
fairness, Hilliard's local political problems weakened him, making it
easy for AIPAC to pick him off. But other than his support of the
Zionist cause, why else would Sam Tenenbaum cross state lines to
involve himself in Alabama politics? Tenenbaum certainly has the
right to contribute to what he believes in, even across state and
national lines. Still, he fact that AIPAC would attempt to make
examples out of black elected officials who refuse to tow the
pro-Israel line without reservations or objections is both chilling and
insulting. Metaphorically speaking, it's tantamount to whipping
runaway slaves.
AIPAC isn't just about chilling black dissent; it aims to cower all
dissent and criticism on Israel's system of apartheid and its treatment
of the Palestinians. In a column published in several SC papers
Hollings wrote, "With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?
The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel..." Hollings
continued by saying, "Led by [Paul] Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and
Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of
thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread
democracy in the area."
Sam Tenenbaum responded calling the statement anti-Semitic. "Is he
[Hollings] anti-Semitic? No," "Is the statement anti-Semitic? Yes," he
said. Inez remained quiet.
Sam Tenenbaum is a Zionist. I am old school. I believe
Zionism is racism. I expressed my concerns with Inez that she
might support expanding the Middle East ground war into other countries
(such as Syria) of which she responded, "Most people believe I would
support World War III which isn't the case." That is the
most she offered on the subject. And while I don't necessarily
believe in guilt by association, Inez as Senator, with a spouse whose
political leanings are well known should make her feelings on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict just as known to the voters.
There are unresolved problems with education superintendent
Tenenbaum. South Carolina schools ranks near the bottom in most
measures of school and academic performance and in the most recent
nationwide report, the state's average SAT score ranks last among the
50 states. And, she has done little to advance the educational
interest and standing of black students. She found no resources
to help prevent the mostly black Allendale school district from being
taken over by the state, a fate that threatens many other black school
districts. Ironically and significantly, one of those districts
is one of the original districts that preceded the Brown vs. Board of
Education decision.
Additionally, Superintendent Tenenbaum has had nothing to say about
last year's police raid at Strafford High School in Goose Creek, South
Carolina. The raid received national attention as police swooped
down on the school with guns drawn and drug dogs terrorizing 107
students, two-thirds of who were black although blacks only make up
1/4th of the student body. The search yielded nothing and has resulted
in lawsuits and reassignments. Tenenbaum has avoided any mention of
incident.
Regardless of where Tenenbaum is in the polls -- she is currently
trailing DeMint -- progressives would be better off losing with Nwangaza
and the issues we support than losing with Tenenbaum, who is against
most of the things we believe in.
Nationally, the safe states approach isn't a strategy that advances the
progressive movement in a meaningful way toward some ultimate
victory. In military terms, a strategy is an overall plan for the
conduct of the war. With any luck, it's a winning plan. The
safe states approach is a tactic -- a plan to win a particular
battle. It this case, it is intended to neutralize criticism of
Kerry and to put progressives in a neutral place. It's so people
don't feel completely compromised out. They can't really be with
Kerry and for the most part, he and the democrats don't want
them. Especially the anti-war crowd. For some safe staters
it a tactical place to be to preserve credibility when criticizing
Kerry should he be elected and prove to be just as war mongering as
Bush is.
Nevertheless on the local level, in a state like South Carolina where
both the republicans and democrats absolutely ignore, without fear of
consequence, the political and economic needs and aspirations of
hundreds of thousands of black citizens, for those who are serious
about building a third party or identifying the organizers of a new
social movement at the grassroots level, a commitment to what the
Greens are trying to do in South Carolina is a good place to start.
For me, this is a test to see whether the progressive community and the
Green Party in particular, is serious about rebuilding or are they just
a bunch of liberals masquerading as progressives.