The New York Times goes after the Congressional Black Caucus and gives us plenty to gag on. What many in the caucus probably see as nothing more than finally gaining enough power to play the game, most progressive good-government types see as selling out. The next generation of black officeholders needs to have a more enlightened view. It’s nice to have corporate powers finally pander to you and your constituents, and it represents progress in a significant way. But the next step in the game is to put your power to better use. Rather than congratulating yourself that you’ve won a place at the trough, look to change the game.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
21 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
.
The partying in Washington continues … coziness with industry. The US Congress run by industry advocates, not by representatives for the people. The US Supreme Court with a political agenda, just look at the 4-5 or 5-4 decisions. The constitution was not written to be determined by a simple majority. SHAME!
While some caucus members still oppose the industry, 13 are co-sponsors of the industry-backed legislation that would ward off tough regulatory restrictions — an alliance that has infuriated consumer advocates.
“It is unfortunate that the members of the black caucus who are supporting this bill did not check with us first,” said Margot Saunders, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. “Because the legislation they are supporting would simply pre-empt state laws that are designed to protect consumers against an industry that rips them off.”
“The Legal Darwinists believed that the judiciary should limit itself to the role of arbiters (referees) to insure that the nation’s superior beings, especially its highest attainment the “corporate person”, should not be unduly constrained by the collective will of the inferior masses in the form of representative government.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."As I was reading the piece I kept finding parts I thought needed to be linked to and commented on but there are just too many. The whole thing is amazing.
And disgusting.
C-SPAN “Book TV” just showed a Sarah Palin book signing. The attendees absolutely love and respect her – and there were lots of them.
We live in a country absolutely packed chuck full of fucking morons. I feel for Obama as he tries to steer the ship of state with all these dimwits tugging at the wheel.
We’ve seen this picture before – when it’s our turn it’s finally time to change the rules. I’ll pass on the moral outrage, thanks.
So, it’s only okay when old white guys do it?
Old, white and Republican, yes.
And male.
Does one applaud a representative of a minority group when he or she gets access to the same kind of corruption as the privileged majority?
There is an entire species of cynicism based on the idea that one does. Sorry, I’m not falling for it.
It’s a rationalization, but it’s not a good one. And there’s nothing new about it.
The rationalization used by the old white guys is actually very similar. True, they can’t claim they come from an oppressed minority, but they can truly say, “Hell, I worked my way up, I bowed and scraped and kissed ass for years, I paid my dues, now I’m entitled to get mine, just like those higher up the food chain already got theres.
I don’t kid myself that that isn’t the way the world works to a large extent, but let’s not get righteous about it, it’s just the same old sociopathy. There is a whole library of books written on why “greed is good” from “The Fable of the Bees” to Ayn Rand and beyond. Enterprise is good, greed really is not.
Nope, but one ought not single them out as if they’re deviating from the standard operating procedures in DC. Use it as an example of how all of DC needs to change? Sure. But expecting them to be the Magical Negros of DC is a non-starter…
My point was more the one Oscar has made so eloquently here, not that they should be applauded.
Icky, but thanks for posting it.
“But the next step in the game is to put your power to better use. Rather than congratulating yourself that you’ve won a place at the trough, look to change the game.”
Indeed. Those savages would do well to follow the manifold of hundreds of years of integrity-filled example set be all of the whites-only caucuses, eh?
(facepalm)
I am not saying anything of the kind.
It’s progress that black lawmakers are courted by corporate America in the sense that it represents an equality of sorts. But it doesn’t mean that black lawmakers are doing the best job of representing their communities by playing this game. They do provide things for their constituents that they are not getting through the legislative process, but the trade-off is that they are too often selling out on the legislative process.
So, I don’t see this as some awful, terrible thing, but as (hopefully) a way station on the way to a better caucus in the future. They shouldn’t be singled out for criticism, but they should not be exempt from criticism either.
I’m pretty results oriented – given what we see here we should take a MUCH harder look at CBC members’ voting records. From what I can tell, there’s a mix of very good voting records and mediocre ones. Those CBC members with mediocre voting records should be marked as corrupt and primaried. Also, we need to take a look at legislation to make sure that powerful CBC members aren’t corrupting legislation to their corporate benefactors. I figure we’ll probably see a mixed record there as well.
Anatomy of a sell-out:
From the Times article:
Who made them exempt from criticism? When did this occur?
Ah yes – not “exempt from criticism”.
You forgot the standard lead-in, of the form “it’s not racist but…”
How about we fix 99.99999% of “the problem”, to wit old christian white men (it’s not racist to criticize, remember?) – and then, if we still have significant problems, we can deal with them.
or, how about members of the CBC use their power to protect their constituents from predatory lending practices? How would that be?
I don’t quite see why the Black Caucus should be singled out as being responsible for having “a more enlightened view.” They hardly stand out in our present system/society as less enlightened or more corrupt than the norm. It would be nice if they adhered to a higher standard, of course, but if there’s a reason to expect them to, I’d be interested in hearing about it.
Well, here’s the thing. There IS a reason to expect them to, and it should not be made meaningless with phrases like “Magic Negro.”
The fact that seems to be forgotten is that a community that is especially disadvantaged, needs especially good leadership. That they rarely get it doesn’t argue against this, it shows all the more that they need it. A leader of such a community should truly understand their problems, be trusted by the people and be able to communicate with them, and, since the problems are many and serious, needs to be selfless, dedicated, and politically astute. That is, if the leader is serious about trying to improve things. Of course this is a very tall order. This may be unrealistic, but it certainly is not illogical. There are all sorts of factors that intervene, even when people have initially good intentions, such as human weakness, burnout, temptation, cynicism, ego, etc. Threat of blackmail may also play a part. “Minorities” have no monopoly on any of this, but it may seem more glaring precisely because more is expected of them. Now, the question is, why should more be expected of them? These things should be expected of all leaders, and are equally rare among all leaders. To this there is only one answer — because the people they represent have even greater needs, which confers upon their leaders even greater responsibilities.
Rush do with this. And can’t wait to see the smooth shiny response Frank Luntz puts out.