Skip to main content

View Diary: The Washington Post Asks "Why Aren't Blacks Embracing Occupy Wall Street?" (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The polling data I have read (7+ / 0-)

    seems to indicate that generally POC are generally more supportive of OWS than white people.

    Personally, I would be less interested in the polls than in the crosstabs of those polls.

    I think the article was stupid and served no good purpose but chauncey asks some good questions and poses some decent hypothesis.

    •  I have several issues with the article (7+ / 0-)

      (a) It has the smell of the so-called "talented 10" where w eare supposed to look to "black leaders" to tell us what we think rather than actually bothering to ask black people what they think. Its an issue I often have with the "black leadership" of this site. I put that in quotes because on policy questions or specifici questions like this we needed to accorded the same respect as white people rather that what I feel to be the racist meme that if you ask a few anecdotal questions of a few- that's enough to tell you what black people think. Its insulting.

      (b) I suspected that the polling data would say the opposite because if it didn't (and I can't imagine it hasn't come up in polls) I can't imagine a writer leaving it out unless it was contra to the conclusion that the writer was trying to push.

      (c) They aren't interested in the deeper point of "do they agree on issues" this is once again a telegraphed strategy to control what OWS is about. So of course, they aren't going to tell you that whatever htey think of OWS they agree on the issues being raised by OWS. This is about the elite trying to kill any backlash against the elite

      (d) In short, the point as I keep saying is co optation. black people here are supposed to be a monlith that hte Democratic party is supposed to control as represented by identity politics through Obama.

      THe idea that we may have complex views in which some support Obama, and some don't , and yet on the policy we agree even if not with Obama, is not something you are supposed to arrive at. to prevent you from arriving at that overlap of interests, they co opt you into the identity:

      As I noted several weeks ago, WH-aligned groups such as the Center for American Progress have made explicitly clear that they are going to try to convert OWS into a vote-producing arm for the Obama 2012 campaign, and that’s what “Occupy Congress” is designed to achieve. I believed then and — having spent the last few weeks talking with many OWS protesters around the country — believe even more so now that these efforts will inevitably fail: those who have animated the Occupy movement are not motivated by partisan allegiance or an overarching desire to devote themselves to one of the two parties. In fact, one of the original Occupy groups — as opposed to partisan organizations swooping in to exploit it — has announced its own D.C. occupation to, in part, “demonstrate the failure of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress to represent the views of the majority of people.”

      I have discussed with you on specific policy how that worked out with the public option

      Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:

      * Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.

      * 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

      * Quality of healthcare will be better 12 months from now: 35 percent strongly disagree. 11.6 percent strongly agree. 29.9 percent put themselves in the middle.

      * Believe the amount of money spent on healthcare will be less 12 months from now: 52 percent strongly disagree, 13 percent strongly agree.

      * 23 percent believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now.

      so,how are they able to get away with it? co optation. By limiting our choice in the meda and the fight for ideas to whatever the Democrats or GOP disputes, we are limited to whatever they say is ont he table. So even if 90 percent of us agreed or 100 percent it would not matter. this is the game being played. This is why we are not  a democracy and not even a representative one for reasons I won't get into other than to say the structure of the house and senate are designe to prevent representation.

      The Democrat-GOP partisan frame controls what is acceptable debate. OWS threatens that. Remember before this "economic policy' was austerity and the need to cut the social insurance safety net. I believe the principle reason that the super congress failed is not as the front page here claims- extremism-, but because the face of the public debate was shifted to the left by OWS. but for ows, I don't think the super congress would have failed.

    •  by the way , I also gave another (6+ / 0-)

      example of how circumventing the dc bubble to go directly to the public is an effective strategy

      DADT repeal. At one point, they wre trying to push that until after 2012. Remember the letter from DC insider HRC?

      That was shifted when Get Equal booed the President and placed pressure on other Politicians. This reshaped the debate.

      That's what OWS is doing. So they are trying to co opt it and stop it because unlike the social issues, which neither party sees as truly buttering their bread, the economic issues are key to their grip on power.

      • mentioned the Talented Tenth (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Richard Lyon, bruh1, Larsstephens

        of course even the Talented Tenth in its' present day form (the CBC, President Obama, black academics, Benjamin Jealous and the NAACP, black ministers) isn't even monolithic.

        And some of the black Talented Tenth would be complicit in the financial crisis in black communities (including those that would be members of the 1%) as it serves them to deflect that issue and create a racial wedge to take the heat off of them.

        •  That last sentence is the point I make (6+ / 0-)

          about relying on racial identity as a barometer of whether someone is for you or against you

          Clarence Thomas and I are the same race, but the only think that Uncle tom and I share is race.

          I am very cognizant- always- of the limits of using skin color to tell me who is on my side of the issues. I saw that mistake made with Sharpe James in Newark and Marion barry when I lived in DC. I will be damned if i am going to make that mistake again.

          that's why I am very clear I am going to treat Obama like any other politican. No worse. No better. But sure as hell am not going to give him a pass for being brown like me.

          Part of that I think for some AAs down south, if I had to guess is rooted in religion as the search for messiah. I can't prove that because no one would poll on the subject, but i got to think that your description that there was this similar faith in clinton rises from identity politics- whether race or political party affiliation.

          This is why I wrote this diary a few months back although I never completed the series:

          Oprah projects through pop culture – “Anyone can be Oprah.”  The American dream of limitless resources must be true for people of color because Oprah exists. She embodies the post-racial politics of Neoliberalism.

          •  I lived in DC from 87-89 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larsstephens, bruh1

            and saw the same thing with Barry.

            Was born and raised in Detroit and saw the same thing with Coleman Young and watched the same from a distance with Kwame Kilpatrick.

            But after awhile, black folks in Detroit weren't buying the racial bullshit that KK attempted to push.

            •  And, just to be clear here (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wu ming, Pandoras Box, Chitown Kev

              This is not unique to African Americans

              I saw the same shit with Reagan Democrats, when their dumb asses vote against their own interests by voting for Reagan based on racial identity politics (remember the Southern strategy was all about that- race, guns and defense).  Taxes were slipped in there not to get rid of the social safety net (as the Reagan Democrat saw it), but to get rid of it for the brown people who were using their tax dollars (even if we weren't and even if more whites were using than blacks).

              Reagan Democrats were in fact my first real exposure to identity politics being so powerful that people will ignore everything else in favor of it.

              The racial identity politics of being black and used by pols really did not hit home for me until Marion Barry, and the later examples.

              I agree that it wears off-, but what ends up happening , at least in Newark, for example, is that a more conservative democrat replaces them, but I am not sure if that happend in DC or not. that's a special case because of the screwed up way Congress controls the city.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site