Friday, January 21, 2011

OBAMA'S SELECTION OF NEW CHIEF OF STAFF

The fact that President Obama selected as his new chief of staff a person with banking interests goes against the perception that he has strong socialist leanings. William Daley used to be commerce secretary, which also suggests that Obama is a good ole capitalist after all.

Part and parcel of his choice anticipates not only the creation of new jobs to undergird and grow our economy, but also to increase our competitive advantage in the world market. What this divulges is his support for the hackneyed system of rivalry, rather than anything really new: like the forging of international enterprise collaboration or the effort to stabilize floundering economies in the Second and Third Worlds.

Obama has consistently backpedaled from his “redistribution of wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber on the 2008 presidential campaign trail. One cannot help but get the feeling that he never actually held the view à la Martin Luther King, Jr. that what we need in America is a revolution of values and a radical redistribution of wealth in this country. Instead Obama has, by his selection, kowtowed once again to corporate interests, which inevitably lead to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This increasing chasm also will result in the strangulation of the middle class, an effect that contradicts his purported goal of buttressing and bolstering that shrinking social class.

The banking industry was the culprit that took the American economy over the cliff in the first place. So why is Obama inviting one of its leaders and a Chicago associate to play John to his Jesus, so to speak? What is needed in this country is a concerted effort to bring about full employment, not further steeping ourselves amid the mire of laissez-faire capitalism. At this juncture, the mere appearance of camaraderie with the banking establishment is ill-advised. Hence, Obama’s boldness in this regard reflects a disturbing comfort with business as usual. The palsy-walsy nature of his selection processes resembles the customary good ole boys’ network.

The economic situation in this country is still dire, and very little is being said about the devastating effects it is having upon the middle and lower classes. People’s lifestyles are drastically changing: those living from paycheck to paycheck are forced to live desperately, while solutions to the crisis are not being attended to in recognition of that fact. How can we expect folks who are under the iron feet of foreclosure, family dislocation, and homelessness to remain upstanding citizens with a zeal for or trust in our allegedly empathetic democratic republic, while a minority of people have their jobs saved, get hefty bonuses, and make more money in a year than most make in a lifetime? It is grossly unfair, hypocritical, immoral, and unethical!

Bailing out, subsidizing, and stimulating big business has certainly not trickled down to reinvigorate the economy, put people back to work, and help people to earn a sustainable and livable income. Attending to the least of these should be the president’s and government’s number one priority. But what kind of lobbying power do the poor or the indigent have compared with the ubiquity of lobbyists paid by big business? Paying lip service to job creation without putting forth a feasible and effective process to accomplish it is what many low-income people have been experiencing from time immemorial. Obama’s promise of a new day in Washington, D.C., Is now falling even more so upon deaf ears.

Obama needs to hear the words of that great socialist and pacifist of yesteryear, Eugene V. Debs, echoing down through the twentieth into the twenty-first century: “While there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is one man in prison, I am not free.” If the members of the current administration who are responsible for fostering the long-awaited economic recovery can similarly place their feet in the shoes of the disadvantaged and otherwise oppressed, then, perhaps, we could begin to usher in the beloved community at last!

Thursday, January 20, 2011

FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT

The celerity or alacrity with which Governor Terry Branstad rescinded former Governor Chet Culver’s restoration of voting rights for felons on his inaugural day, demonstrates both fear and animus on the part of the new Governor and his henchmen, namely Secretary of State Albrecht, that defy levelheaded rationality. The adverse racial impact of this rescission is unconscionable—given that Iowa is the top state that disproportionately incarcerates African-Americans and that a quarter of the felons in the state are African-American! Based on these facts alone, the action by Branstad is racist and, thereby, unconstitutional.

Of course, racial discrimination’s burden of proof is made so deliberately insurmountable, that it is ostensibly ridiculous even to make the effort. Perhaps, something can be said about the speed of his action that calls into question his intentions; however, racial discrimination does not singularly point to a person, but, rather, to structures, processes, and policies that have racially disparate effects. In other words, whether or not Branstad is a racist is beside the point; what matters is whether the disproportionate number of ex-felons who will not be able to vote is against the state’s compelling interests with regard to race. The racial impact of his rescissory action is clearly egregious and the style likewise malevolent, but in the final analysis, opponents will have to hang their hat, so to speak, on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

When a citizen is unable to vote, especially one who is a member of an underrepresented category of people, that person is denied equal protection, fairness, and equity under the law—which breaches the Fourteenth Amendment. Because one has committed a felony should not mean that person should lose any citizenship rights. A criminal act has little to do with civil liberties and even less to do with suffrage. The withdrawal of the franchise is a deliberate attempt to wield more power by allowing persons characterized as evil to be further humiliated and treated as less than human beings. No one should be allowed to forfeit the right to vote regardless of the heinousness of the crime committed, for it removes another protection from a full-fledged citizen of the United States. It flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the vote from anyone who is a citizen, with special reference to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Clearly, the denial to ex-felons in Iowa violates this law, for a disproportion of ex-felons is African American! In addition, the stricture that one can only petition for the return of the franchise after all fines and penalties are paid amounts to levying a kind of poll tax upon those who are financially strapped already. Certainly, anything like a poll tax is verboten according to this amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In terms of its racial dimensions, the forfeiture of the ballot for felons and ex-felons disallows them a very significant ally in the battle against further dehumanization. Felons can hardly obtain gainful employment and a decent place to live because they are permanently stigmatized. Denying the right to vote adds insult to injury and relegates them to second class citizenship reminiscent of the early three-fifths rule and the infamous Dred Scott decision. Fortunately, well-meaning people over the past century and a half have recognized the folly of such policies and procedures. Notwithstanding this realization, we find ourselves still battling against the unspeakable elephant in the room, namely racism.

I call upon all people of good will who enjoy representative democracy openly and in unison to demand Branstad reverse his racially tendentious rescission with all deliberate speed!

Friday, January 14, 2011

MALCOM X & MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

Since my adolescent years, I have undergone persistent criticism over my obvious stronger affinity towards Dr. King than towards Minister Malcolm. Those intermittent attacks upon my intelligence and character, I deemed to derive from impassioned ignorance more than anything else. Sadly, the supporters of Malcolm were most often completely bereft of knowledge about King, save for the ubiquitous “I Have a Dream” mantra that media brokers, political pundits, civic leaders, and the hoi polloi could barely stomach. No one seemed to want to hear about the nonviolent warrior who fought against avariciousness and rugged individualism, jumboism, ghettoization, unsafe working conditions, underemployment, the military draft, escalation of the war in Vietnam, and poverty, in addition to racism. King was no pipe dreamer, as many would claim made the Nobel Peace Prize recondite; rather, King was an enlightened patriot and internationalist who ardently sought after the beloved community.

The above notwithstanding, I want to clear up a few things that have been in discussions of Malcolm and Martin since the mid-1960s. The point of contention centers around what would have happened if they ever met. This question is not a moot point, for it is and should be a matter of the historical record. Herein, I make it plain.

King and X met publicly in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 1964. The occasion was to listen in on a congressional debate over the Civil Rights Bill. Many claim that this encounter was the only time the two have set eyes upon each other and physically shook hands. This point of view is highly suspect, for many go on to say that this meeting was the only time they communicated with each other in their entire lives. Such is simply not the case!

Malcolm and Martin communicated with each other as early as the late 1950’s. In this regard, many scholars attest that they never spoke on the phone or wrote a letter and sent it to each other ever. Clearly, assertions like these are completely untrue. Malcolm and Martin did speak on the phone more than once, and correspondence between the two took place with and without an intervening person. A number of these interactions occurred prior to the beginning of extensive wire tapping of both parties. Consequently, there are no records of how they interfaced prior to the middle of the Kennedy administration.

Both men were warm and personable individuals. Although Malcolm was wolnt openly to criticize King during public addresses, whereas King always refused to do so, they clearly had immense respect for each other. After Malcolm left the nation of Islam, he was ever more amenable to reaching out to his non violent brother. As a matter of fact, Malcolm himself was primarily non violent in private, while in the political arena he shouted invective about self defense and confrontation that kept the media spinning scary tales of proposed violence against whites and against law enforcement officers. And the beat of lies drums on!

During the early stages of the Selma campaign Malcolm chatted with Coretta more than once, and left messages for Martin with her. The ease with which Malcolm and Coretta spoke reveals an intimacy between her husband and Malcolm that could only have been developed through direct contact. It is in shame that we cannot fully recover dates, times, and locations of these exchanges!

What must be stated herein is the stark reality of their lives. They were both assassinated during the very prime of their lives. We will never know nor should we ever speculate, what would have happened had they lived. However, it is clear that the divide that separated their rhetoric was appreciably closing as the battle for full human rights continued to be waged.

In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to continue that struggle until victory is won!