For me - a Black man, who's mission is to turn an investigative eye upon my own people in order to understand the foundations of the problems that we face as a people and to promote some comprehensive ideas about how to address them - the man named "Senator Ted Kennedy" stands as a key target of mine. For me as a "Black man on a mission" to drive for a more INDEPENDENT, SELF-SUFFICIENT and CULTURALLY GUIDED BLACK COMMUNITY - Ted Kennedy, his policies and his rationale is a direct threat to the attainment of such a status in Black America or for any Black population anywhere around the world.
Fundamental to Ted Kennedy's threat is his core belief that in TRANSFERRING BURDEN from the backs of the individual and transferring it to the STATE and/or to a CORPORATE ENTITY that he is in fact HELPING to make his subject's lives easier. As we make a LONG TERM evaluation of this man's ideology in the real world we find that NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
Mr. Kennedy and his ideological soul mates are inclined to see an individual who is living "pay check to pay check" and listen in on the grievances that they face as they struggle to make ends meet. They no doubt have to spend MORE TIME at laboring in order to earn a marginal amount more just to survive. The solutions that the Kennedy-types are inclined to support are rooted in INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. One thing is for sure - THE POOR GUY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO A THING MORE TO RECEIVE THE BENEFIT THAT THE KENNEDY-TYPES HOPE TO ORCHESTRATE. They are going to introduce POLICIES that focus upon the entities that operate within the lives of the working poor - the employers, the governments, the insurance companies, the banks, the retail establishments and also their "neighbors across the tracks" - the WEALTHY that have abundance of the resource that the working poor has not - MONEY.
While Mr. Kennedy and his Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive Fundamentalist Racism Chaser cohorts in these policies will claim VICTORY in having relieved the financial pressures from the backs of the working poor - they will miss the fact that there was no REENGINEERING of the daily processes as lead by the "working poor" to either increase the worth of their unit of labor or reduce the expenses within their budget. There was no talk about how an enterprising retail establishment vying for the business of the working poor might come into the community and market goods at a lower price and thus stretch out their dollar. There was no consideration of the household organization - where, for example, married couples that stay together and both work - tend to fare far better than does a single head of household who has to work and juggle childcare responsibilities. Nope - all of these points and more were glossed over in favor of a government based solution that mainly drew upon the entities that had resources being forced to transfer more benefit to the working poor and at the same time bear more risk.
Again I must reference the recent US Census projections about the shift in population out of the "Ted Kennedy Northern" states down to the "Less Regulated" States in the South. As long as we have an ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY the negative targets of Kennedy's attacks will ALWAYS migrate to less hostile environments. There will be a long term net loss for the working poor in these economically engineered areas and their needs will simply intensify as less entities are left around to absorb the redistributive force of the "Ted Kennedy-type" policies.
It is with this insight of how macro-economics works when plotted over time that I review Ted and Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. I don't know Barack Obama beyond his speeches. I have taken several "Who's Your Candidate" battery of questions in the past year. Nearly every single one of them have Barack Obama clustered in with John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. I know John Edwards to be a populist ambulance chaser. I know Dennis Kucinich to be an extreme left wing operative who is greatly irrelevant. I make an inference to Mr. Obama by the company that he keeps. Throw Ted Kennedy into the mix and the blow against Obama becomes mortal from my viewpoint.
Mr. Obama has little to offer the Black community that is left behind after the macroeconomic cycle of relocation takes place away from the policies that he and Ted Kennedy will likely impose on the front end for temporary benefit. Mr. Obama has shown that on the subject of illegal immigration he is unwilling to "attack" the group of individual Hispanics that broke our laws in favor of the Black laborer who is being summarily displaced as they file into this country. Mr. Obama's response in this instance will be to attack the ENTITY rather than the INDIVIDUAL. He surely would make a rhetoric speech pointing to the EMPLOYERS that are hiring these illegals and how sanction should be placed against them for "exploiting" these workers. In the wake of all of this banter - the interests of the Black laborer will take a back seat. There will be a "government program" proposed to help them rather than a serious look at how all of the policies have fused to create the conditions that the working poor now face.
Again I only know Barack Obama from his feel good speeches. They actually have a the reverse effect on me than they do on most. I am not looking to be "inspired" by a president. I consume audio from plenty of subject matter experts that are relevant to me. I want a president who can both LEAD and MANAGE. A man who has the propensity to demonize one side of the issue, calling their desire to protect their own financial interests "selfish and mean spirit" is not a leader but an ideologue. In this country we are quickly assuming the disposition of a "Democratic Socialist" nation where the majority can vote their way into another man's private property and wealth. For me - the beliefs that I have crafted for so many years trumps any goals of seeing a Black man in the White House. I would like to see a Black president - just not this one - who is so favored by Ted Kennedy - a man who is such a threat to my racial interests.
4 comments:
I'm not sure if you got the memo, but Black Nationalism played out as a viable economic strategy many, many years ago... not that most Af-Ams supported it whenever it has popped up on the political landscape.
There's a major difference between self-direction and your call for, "an independent, self-sufficient and culturally guided Black community" (???). Over the course of history, Af-Ams, for better or worse, have seen themselves as Americans first. For this reason, Af-Am politics has been mostly focused on ensuring the American franchise covers Af-Ams. Talk as much as you'd like about Socialism, redistribution and other rhetorical pablum, but the fact remains today American gov't -- whether on the local, state, or Federal level -- enables a net flow of wealth out of predominantly 'Black' communities, and away from Af-Am people. The dynamic represents Af-Ams are a politically marginalized people, which means the mechanism of gov't isn't fully operating on our behalf.
Whereas egalitarianism is central to Liberalism and liberals -- and Sen. Kennedy is a liberal Democrat, it makes perfect sense for him to advocate the State redirect a more equitable portion of resources back to Af-Ams and predominantly Af-Am communities. That qualify him not a "threat", but a guardian (or better, trustee) of Af-Am political interests.
[quote]American gov't -- whether on the local, state, or Federal level -- enables a net flow of wealth out of predominantly 'Black' communities, and away from Af-Am people.[/quote]
I would love more than anything else that you have ever posted on this blog for you to be able to PROVE THIS POINT that you make above.
Then we can do a comparative study with out people's who are able to RETAIN their own wealth and even extract wealth from others. When you tell me what the government has done to BENEFIT them - I'll be on the same page with you.
You have the floor.
MIB:
Kennedy's MO is simple.
Just as his brother Robert said upon losing the Oregon Democratic Primary "Let's face it - I appeal most to those who have problems. Maybe we should have moved a ghetto to Oregon prior to the election then I would have won".
For the Kennedy klan it is more about the execution of their own ideological agenda than they are concerned about permanently FIXING the subjects of their benefit. Each program, each policy that Black Americans accept from these Quasi-Socialists - another building block of our own cultural soul is taken away.
Mine in NOT a message of "Black Nationalism". You don't see me wearing the typical garb or putting my fist in the air.
Mine is a BASIC message of first "RACIAL DIGNITY" - where we seek to reclaim and maintain a certain minimal amount of honor among us. This might be something as small as the adoption of the consciousness that we will NEVER accept something outright - only via an EXCHANGE.
Next it is a message of CULTURAL REFORM. Start with the GOALS and then reverse engineer the steps to get there, enforcing behavior among those who are WITH US (this will not and never be "all Blacks").
We need A PURPOSEFUL EMPLOYMENT to reactivate us - like Marcus Garvey successfully did.
The Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive Fundamentalist Racism Chaser is content with BLACK PEOPLE RECEIVING all that we need - THE SOURCE and the TERMS OF EXCHANGE be damned.
This is NOT a strategy for GROWTH. It can NEVER be maintained permanently.
You're all over the map with your response. So I'll address one item at a time.
The last time I checked, most Af-Ams today live in communities that have not coordinated any appreciable industrial activity, or are home to natural resources (i.e.; mineral deposits, unimproved land, vegetation, water, etc.). Not only have Af-Ams not formed many proprietary institutions of sizeable import, we remain underrepresented in America's executive ranks. Because of this condition predominantly Af-Am communities end up importing virtually everything needed for sustenance and wealth building -- food, energy... even jobs -- from the outside. So, I'm a little curious how, without much in the form of indigenous capital, Af-Am neighborhoods are supposed to function exclusive of the rest of America.
It's also odd that you protest against Socialism while promoting a variation on the theme. Black Nationalism isn't defined by militant behavior and wearing dashikis; it's structured upon the idea of Blacks as a class retaining (economic) privileges for themselves -- which exemplifies Socialism (!).
I'll not bother discussing your concept of Black culture as dysfunctional, for it is bogus on its face. But you should know one legitimate (implicit) function of government is to protect the wealth of its constituents, which also suggests redistribution
of some kind is a constant government activity. It's therefore consistent for a Sen. Kennedy to argue the State redirect capital in a manner more economically just to Af-Am communities.
Post a Comment