MichaelFauntroy.com

A Fly in the Anti-War Ointment

Organizers of the recent anti-war march in Washington, D.C. pulled off a successful event for which they should congratulate themselves.  They far exceeded their goal of 100,000 marchers and the speakers, left, and far-left, all sang from the “get-the-troops-out-now” hymnal in tune and (mostly) on time.  But one thing was missing: significant numbers of minorities, particularly Black people.

While only time will tell if the recent and massive anti-war march has any impact on public opinion or public policy toward Iraq–after all, mass protests are supposed to change the status quo–what can clearly be seen in its aftermath is that the anti-war movement has a problem that must be rectified if it is to become the unifying force that it can: too few of the marchers were people of color.  African Americans were particularly scarce at a gathering to protest a war in which 17 percent of those killed are Black.  And, the march was held in a majority African American city.   The lack of a substantial minority presence in the march is a serious void that weakens the anti-war movement by exposing it as a movement that does not take advantage of all its possible resources.  It also feeds the cynicism that some feel about the movement, particularly in the Black community, where these kinds of events are largely seen as a “White thing.”

The following is only a slight exaggeration: There were more Black people speaking into microphones than listening to what was said.  That represents a comprehensive failure for march organizers and African American activists who are sympathetic to the cause.  The White liberal anti-war march organizers did an abysmal job of coordinating with Black organizations to ensure that their like-minded members knew about the march and were encouraged to participate.  There is no evidence that an aggressive campaign was undertaken to organize Black churches, social groups, fraternities, sororities, or the myriad other organizations to which Black people who oppose the war may belong.  If such an effort did exist, then it was a miserable failure.  This is particularly egregious considering that the march was held on the same weekend as the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual legislative conference–a meeting with a 35-year history of African Americans coming to Washington, D.C. to discuss and strategize on the most important issues of the day.  Also troublesome is the fact that Howard University, the most significant historically Black university in the country, is located less than three miles from the march location.

The Black community and its activist/organizing class also bears great responsibility for their weak turnout.  Virtually every poll taken since President Bush even whispered about going into Iraq has shown Black people more opposed to the war than any other racial group in the country.  Black people represent a large, untapped reservoir of support than can energize the anti-war movement in new ways.  Even if Black activists felt locked out of the organizing process, and I have no reason to believe that they do or were, they should have done a better job in taking their own initiative to organize some of the more than one million African Americans who live in Washington, D.C. and it’s suburbs.  Very few radio stations, newspapers, or other information outlets that target African Americans ran announcements or editorials to encourage Blacks to attend the march.  Given the role of the Internet in spreading information about parties, conspiracy theories, and urban legends, the lack of email circulating in the Black community about the march and its potential to help save Black lives can only charitably be seen as a missed opportunity.  The most strident view is that the poor Black turnout exposed the Black activist community as paper tigers, unable to turn out large numbers of Black people for a cause for which African Americans should be willing to hit the streets.

March organizers should congratulate themselves for the outstanding turnout they were able to generate.  Also, the proceedings went off without violence or the kinds of problems that can mar such a large gathering.  But organizers better find a way to involve more people of color to participate in future events if they really want to spark change and be seen as something other than liberal elitists.  If they don’t, then they run the risk of Kanye West going on television and saying: “White liberals don’t care about Black people.”

© Michael K. Fauntroy, September 25, 2005

So Much for GOP Outreach to Black America

Republicans have long been unpopular among African Americans.  Too often, the GOP purposely played on racial fears and hatred among many White conservatives to win elections.  From the Southern Strategy, to “Welfare Queens,” to opposing a Federal holiday to commemorate the life and work of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to “constructive engagement” in South Africa, and “mandatory minimums” that warehouse Black men in the prison-industrial complex, the GOP has rarely missed an opportunity to turn away from Black America.  Add New Orleans to the long bill of particulars that African Americans have for the GOP and it’s no wonder why Republicans get almost no support in Black America.  The pathetic, disgusting response of the Republican-controlled Federal government will long be remembered in the Black community and will explain why recent Republican outreach efforts to the Black community are now shot to hell, perhaps never to return.

Now I know some will say it’s too early to think about the political implications of New Orleans.  I say politics explains everything and ignoring it is naive.  You better believe that Karl Rove and the political arm of the White House as well as the Republican National Committee are surveying the political damage that is now following the physical and emotional pain caused by Hurricane Katrina.  The Rove gang is building strategies to minimize the damage to President Bush and congressional Republicans while silently heaping as much blame as possible on New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, both Democrats.  I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to blame Bill and Hilary Clinton too–the former first family is the GOP’s default source of criticism.

Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for the last ten years and the Senate nearly as long.  They’ve held the White House for 16 of the last 24 years.  Their budget cuts are partly responsible for the flooding that has submerged New Orleans.  Republicans reduced or stripped altogether money from Federal budgets intended to strengthen the levee system.  The penny wise and pound foolish Congress thought the $14 billion dollar price tag presented years ago by the Army Corps of Engineers and other state and Federal agencies was too high. That figure looks like a bargain now given what it will cost to rebuild New Orleans.  Republicans, no doubt, will point out that the Democrats didn’t do anything about the levees when they were in charge.  That is true, but irrelevant.  The GOP is in charge now and they failed.  They have to take the weight for their failure to act efficiently and compassionately for New Orleans.

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee and leader of recent GOP/Black outreach efforts, may not know it yet, but his job just became impossible.  That’s because what is going on in New Orleans elicits angry and negative responses throughout the Black community.  Some shake their heads in pain after watching for television for hours seeing American citizens stranded for days waiting for their government to help them deal with the greatest, widest, most expensive natural disaster in American history.  Some note the concern they have for friends and family who are trapped and possibly dead.  Others note how a Black mayor wasn’t properly supported when he called for the evacuation of his city.

The most common response, though, is one of anger and disgust about how the Federal government has handled this and is voiced in two questions.  First, how is it that the U.S. government can be so efficient in dealing with crises in other parts of the country (e.g. Florida hurricanes) or the world (e.g. Tsunami response) and leave so many Americans in the lurch, struggling to live?  The second question is more pointed: would the Federal response be the same if New Orleans were two-thirds White and middle-class instead of two-thirds Black and poor?  Conservative protestations aside, the only correct answer is: of course not.  Who among us believes that it would have taken President Bush five days to get to Austin, Texas, San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida, or Phoenix, Arizona?  Who among us believes that White bodies would be allowed to rot in the streets of New Orleans?

Black people are rightly livid with President Bush and the Republicans; only an apologist would argue otherwise.  Bush’s performance through all this has been abysmal, callous, and inept and only feeds the growing belief in some segments of America that he has been a catastrophic failure as president who doesn’t care about the well-being of America’s poor.  A few minutes of Black talk radio, Black Internet sites, and conversations in Black barber shops and hair salons reveals a rage in the Black community that far exceeds what was heard during the Rodney King fiasco, for example.  Indeed, this kind of anger hasn’t been seen since the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Inflaming matters was the disgusting site of President Bush holding a press conference with Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, both Republicans, and Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown.  It was a mutual admiration society as they heaped accolades upon one another.  Bush praised the work of Brown, who has incompetently presided over the worst ever Federal response to a natural disaster.  He also lauded Barbour and Riley for being “leaders.”  Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who can never be expected to express criticism of the President or the party, and Riley, have fallen all over themselves to praise and defend the Federal response.  All this while dead Black people are floating in filthy water throughout New Orleans. 

The Republicans' failure will be duly noted in the Black community.

© Michael K. Fauntroy, September 3, 2005

Looting and Compassionless Conservatives

People who survived Hurricane Katrina are dying in the streets of New Orleans.  They are women and small children, the frail and elderly, and those without their medication.  Human beings are crammed in the Superdome and Convention Center without food or water.  Louis Armstrong International Airport is now a hospital and people are dying there too.  It is quite likely that thousands more will die as federal, state, and local officials underestimated the scope of this tragedy. This is a national disgrace and embarrassment.

And Fox News Channel and conservative bloggers are fixated on looting.  They are nothing more than compassionless conservatives.

I’ve done nearly a 180 degree turn on the looting that’s taking place in New Orleans in the wake of the devastating flooding brought on by Hurricane Katrina.  Originally, two thoughts came to mind:  The first was what a lot of people thought: “I can’t believe my eyes . . . . punish these predators who are stealing.”  The second is something that a lot of Black people undoubtedly felt, but many won’t admit:  “I can’t believe my eyes . . . .  Why are these brothers and sisters stealing like this?  It’s embarrassing.”  Those were my initial thoughts and I was wrong.  The more I thought about what’s going on there and saw and heard first-hand accounts, I realized that my original thoughts were easy and simplistic and didn’t fully take into consideration the needs on the ground.

I’ve come to see that there are two kinds of looters: those who are desperate for basic needs without better alternatives and those driven by opportunism and nihilism.  Those in the first group, about which I’m most concerned, should be given the benefit of the doubt.  They are trying to stay alive.  Those in the second group are disgusting and should be put in jail for a very long time.  Those thieves are stupid–they don’t seem to remember that they don’t have homes to which they can take their stolen electronics.  What's more, they'll have to leave it wherever it is when they evacuate the city. 

I believe that most of the looting is driven more by desperation than rank opportunism and nihilism.  People are in trouble throughout the region and there are no easy answers.  Those who want to use this as an opportunity to bash poor people, particularly poor Black people, would do well to put on their compassionate conservative caps and give the benefit of the doubt to all those driven by desperation in New Orleans and the rest of that region as they deal with something that their worst dreams could not have imagined.  That city is one of the poorest, Blackest cities in the country and is dealing with as large a civilian catastrophe America has seen.  They don’t have the resources and infrastructure to deal with it all and they don’t have a wealthy enough population that could easily go somewhere else.

It’s easy for those of us watching this unfold from the comfort of air-conditioned, middle- and upper-middle-class existences hundreds or thousands of miles away to harshly judge the desperate who are looting.  The video I’ve seen leaves me conflicted:  I'm angry and sad.  But the fact is that there is a level of desperation and stress running through that part of the country that we have never seen.  Desperate times lead people to do things they would never normally do.

Consider this scenario: you are a 30-year-old mother who bottle-feeds a six-month old infant.  You work in a service job at a downtown hotel making barely above minimum wage.  You live paycheck to paycheck and only get paid when you work.  You have no money.  Your home is reduced to rubble.  Your neighbors' homes are similarly destroyed.  Your extended family is homeless.  You have no one to call on to send you money.  And even if you had money, there is no place to use it.  Your entire neighborhood is flooded.  You are indefinitely unemployed.  You are now officially desperate and, oh, by the way, the baby is hungry and the formula was washed away in the flood.  What do you do?  It’s easy for some to say: “I would never loot” or “They’re nothing but common criminals.”  But how do you know what you would do in that situation?

So let’s ease up on those driven by desperation and be tough on those stealing televisions and others who want to simply take advantage of an opportunity.  After all, “but for the grace of God go I.”

©  Michael K. Fauntroy
August 31, 2005

Bush: A Do-Nothing President for the Poor

The abject failure of President George W. Bush’s international policy has longed obscured the damage he and his policies are doing to working Americans.  Backstopped by a media fixated on an overheated housing market and increasing gas prices, many have overlooked other indicators that the Bush economy is creating more space between wealthy and poor.  While his inability, some say unwillingness, to help low-income Americans is no surprise to most.  There are millions of people around the country who have seen their jobs go oversees, access to health care and education limited, and general fiscal well-being decrease or evaporate.  Despite this reality, Bush defenders continue to advocate his economic policy plan.  That’s unfortunate because the facts on the ground clearly indicate that there is a growing segment of America that is in big economic trouble.

The latest evidence of Bush’s failure to look out for those most in need can be seen in Census Bureau data on the 2004 poverty rate.  According to their statistics, the nations poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase.  Overall, there were 37 million people living in poverty, up 1.1 million people from 2003. 

Four consecutive increases in the poverty rate are ridiculous, given that Bush inherited an economy from President Bill Clinton that drove down poverty.  Clinton inherited an economy in far worse shape than current President Bush.  Of course, Bush defenders use the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as a major reason why America’s economy has underperformed.  That is a tired excuse that overlooks bad policies heaped on top of each other that have driven the poor and near-poor into more distress that can be fixed with a poorly conceived tax cuts or slick marketing of occasional good economic news.

Most knowledgeable observers argue that official government poverty statistics actually undercount poverty rates, so it’s safe to say that things are actually worse than reported.  In other words, government-issued poverty data is a minimal indicator.  The rate is much higher in certain groups. Black poverty generally runs three times the White rate.  For example, while more than 20 percent of single mothers with no male in the home live in poverty, more than half of all Black single mothers live in poverty.

Bush’s legacy begins with Iraq.  That’s irrefutable.  But the impact of his domestic policies on the poor and his inability to do anything to help should be as much a part of his legacy as his international policy failures.  Five years into his presidency, there is no evidence that life is getting better for the millions of people at the bottom of America’s economic order.  He is what he is: a president committed to improving America’s corporate bottom line at the expense of workers who  see growth in their costs of living, but not their income.  Bush’s assault on the poor is an embarrassment to all who cling to the notion of compassionate conservatism and should wake up all that believe that corporate welfare and tax cuts will improve the lot of all Americans.

© Michael K. Fauntroy
August 30, 2005