MichaelFauntroy.com

Seat Burris Now!

Senate Democrats now find themselves in a quandary for which they can only blame themselves.  In what may prove to be an overreaction to the federal corruption indictment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Senate Democrats issued a statement indicating that they would not seat his choice to replace Senator Barack Obama.  The idea behind the statement was to keep Blagojevich from making the selection.  A replacement chosen by the scandal-tainted governor would give Republicans an opportunity to play the Democrats-are-corrupt card, a charge the Senate majority can’t afford going into a new Democratic White House.  But now that Blagojevich has chosen former Illinois Comptroller and Attorney General Roland Burris to succeed President-elect Barack Obama, the Senate has a tough choice to make: stick to their poor decision to not seat someone selected by Blagojevich or deny an obviously qualified replacement because they don’t like the Governor.  For me, this is about Burris, not Blagojevich.  Unless there is something about Burris that renders him unqualified, I say seat Burris now. 

Doing the right thing, in this case, isn’t about race, though that is a legitimate consideration here (Does the overwhelmingly White Senate Democratic caucus really want to deny a qualified African American a seat in their club?).  It’s about due process.  As dirty as Blagojevich seems to be, he is still the sitting governor; it is his pick to make.  He is innocent until proven guilty, a fact that should not be modulated by popularity.  As long as his pick meets the constitutional requirements and passes legitimate political muster, and it appears Burris does, then the Senate should seat him. Senators should not be in the business of picking their colleagues – that is the job of voters and, in this case, their elected representatives.

Moreover, Burris is a caretaker pick.  He’s 71, and while he is a distinguished public servant who has won four statewide races before, he would be tied to his benefactor in a way that makes it unlikely he could win the seat on his own (he would be John McCain to Blagojevich’s George W. Bush).  That’s why I believe Senate Democrats have fumbled their handling of this issue.  Unless there is some evidence that Burris “payed to play”, then there is no reason do deny him the appointment.  Senate Democrats have tainted a number of well-qualified people who could serve with distinction.  They’ve also ensured that the controversy over the governor and Obama’s replacement will rage on into the new year.  The Senate Democrats’ strategy here can’t be confused with smart politics.

Seat Burris.  Move on.  There are bigger fish to fry.

Michael K. Fauntroy is a professor, columnist, and commentator.  He blogs at:  MichaelFauntroy.com.

NYT: Murders by Black Teenagers Rise

Here is a New York Times article that reports on the continuing trend of Black-on-Black crime.  Here are a few graphs from the story:

The murder rate among black teenagers has climbed since 2000 even as murders by young whites have scarcely grown or declined in some places, according to a new report.

The celebrated reduction in murder rates nationally has concealed a “worrisome divergence,” said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University who wrote the report, to be released Monday, with Marc L. Swatt. And there are signs, they said, that the racial gap will grow without countermeasures like restoring police officers in the streets and creating social programs for poor youths.

The main racial difference involves juveniles ages 14 to 17. In 2000, 539 white and 851 black juveniles committed murder, according to an analysis of federal data by the authors. In 2007, the number for whites, 547, had barely changed, while that for blacks was 1,142, up 34 percent.

The increase coincided with a rise in the number of murders involving guns, Dr. Fox said. The number of young blacks who were victims of murder also rose in this period.

Murder rates around the country are far below the record highs of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when a crack epidemic spawned violent turf battles.

Enough of this "Post-Racial" America Stuff

Barack Obama’s historic presidential campaign and pending presidency has catapulted the concept of a “post-racial” America to the top of our politico-socio lexicon. The “post-racial” America, as some have called it, refers to a country that has moved beyond race (in an almost Colbertian way).  It is touted by liberals and conservatives (though for different reasons) as evidence that the country is healing its racial divisions.  It is a concept that is used in polite society to suggest a level of societal sophistication to which we all should aspire, while “focusing on race” or “getting bogged down by race” is the old way of thinking and shows a backward orientation.  Thus, being “post-racial” is the frontier to be embraced and anything short of that is to be belittled.  Celebrating a “post-racial” America is premature and those doing so may well be unwittingly leading a dangerous new attempt to overlook and ignore America’s racial history and avoid public policy approaches to the systematic racial prejudice that still pervades our society.  If we are beyond race, the argument can go, then why do we need new public policy to deal with racial issues?  And if we don’t need new policy, then we probably can do away with the old stuff too!

Let me be clear: I believe the country has come an incredibly long way as it relates to race.  There is no question that African Americans of my vintage do not have to carry the burdens of race in the same ways that our parents and previous generations did.  We do not have to live under the cloak of Jim Crow and threat of racial reprisals for the smallest of issues.  That is a benefit for which we all, regardless of race, should be proud.  We are getting closer to the promise of America that is held up as an example for all the world.  However, getting closer does not mean we can see the finish line from here.  On too many issues, race is still a big problem and electing an African American president doesn’t mean they will magically go away.

Those who see America as “post-racial” may well be guilty of prematurely hoisting the “mission accomplished” banner.  They should be aware of some unfortunate truths that still frame the world in which many Americans still live.  For example, African Americans comprise nearly half of the 2.4 million people incarcerated in the United States, but make up but 12 percent of the total population.  African Americans also suffer from disproportionately high school dropout and poverty rates.

I believe that some of what ails Black America is self-inflicted.  But I also believe that public policy at the local, state, and national levels have contributed mightily to this current state of affairs.  “Post-racial” doesn’t get us any closer to solving these problems; indeed, it can be seen as a polite diversion from a solution.  I think we are better served by having a political discourse that acknowledges, respects, and embraces racial differences.  That is a better alternative than our historical approach – belittle those who look different – or the new view on the horizon – act like we don’t need to talk about race anymore. 

Michael K. Fauntroy is a professor, author, political commentator, and columnist.  He blogs at: MichaelFauntroy.com.

Cheney: We Would Have Invaded Even If We Knew They Didn't Have WMD

Here's a clip from the Tuesday, December 16, 2008 edition of Hardball in which there was a discussion of Vice President Cheney's admission to an ABC News' Jonathan Karl that the Iraq invasion would have occurred even if they knew the truth on WMD.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy