One only needs to read the article linked above and invert the racial references to realize that if White people conspired to keep a Black elected official from being elected as their representative the word "racist" (or "racism") would soon follow.
Recall during the 2008 Presidential Election I was troubled by the failure to produce the "next logical question" when the issue of race was mentioned in the media, particularly the Black media. Despite listening to a daily review about race and the presidential election on the NPR shows "News and Notes" and "Tell Me More" they only asked the question "Will White America put aside their 'racism' and choose to vote for the Black guy, if they feel he is more qualified than the White guy he is running against?".
I was not bothered by the question for it is indeed a question that needed to be asked.
What I was troubled by is that there was no "intellectual curiosity" that motivated others to ask the next logical question: "If there is such a standard for White people - why then is there no set of questions made of the Black voter and his inclination to vote for the 'Black guy'"?
In the absence of this question Barack Obama received upwards of 96% of the Black vote in America. The last time "White America" had achieved a similar amount unanimity there was a rope, a tree and indeed a Black man in front of them upon who they were voting for. The remaining 4% wanted to shoot him so they could not waste their rope.
The point is that "Equal people are bound to an equal set of expectations".
With the Black voter, however, there must be a different charge placed upon him. The White voter, who is already far more equally distributed between the parties should indeed be asked to weigh his own interests and "vote for the person who best represents these interests". This did happen and thus Barack Obama won the election, ON BALANCE, by the vote of the majority population - which happens not to be Black.
For the Black voter there needs to be a new round of pressure put on him. Not by America which is seeking to have him to stop voting "for his race" just as it asks the White man. Instead there needs to be some sense of INCUMBENCY applied to his choices. Today EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT THAT HAS AT LEAST A 35% BLACK MAJORITY VOTING BASE IS CONTROLLED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This is a statement of fact.
Today there is a heavy amount of Black Voter Nullification in place. Despite this control over these districts and the remaining grievances the Black voter routinely votes to increase the entrenchment of his favored party as it looks past the assaults received from the "local Democrats" and instead focuses his efforts on empowering the "National Democrats".
The roots of this Black Voter Nullification comes from the core differences in the prevailing ideologies.
The conservative is more likely to stake out a particular plot of land and manage that land per his own likely. They are more inclined to circle the wagons and apply pressure to have all who are contained within their circle to live up to the prevailing order. Those who are outsiders are not easily integrated in, especially if they are seen as a challenge to the prevailing order. This is called "intolerance" by the progressive critic.
The progressive, by comparison has a far more expansive viewpoint. From my analysis he seeks a "top down" approach to societal change. Get control of the top run of the hill and then allow the changes that he makes to roll downward toward the local level. He prides himself with tolerance and diversity. Thus my critique of his success at gaining local ground yet failure to implement effective solutions is seen by him as stepping stones toward achieving national alignment and then local benefit as a long term result of it all. Get control of the national economy and as one congressman said "Smooth the rough edges out of capitalism" using various central government redistribution schemes.
It comes as no surprise to any of you who read my views - I PREFER THE CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE.
The fact of the matter is that the avoidance of accountability for the local conditions at present as one seeks forbearance as they pursue a national aggregation of power is a violation of the "bird in hand vs two in a bush" theory. In effect the promises that were made in the run up to power at the local level must now be deferred as the forces remain united in pursuit of the long ball.
Rep Danny Davis' district of Chicago is not the best reference model of the abject failure of this strategy of "looking past local failures" and toward "National Republicans". From my brief research this 7th district is in pretty good shape all things considered. Sadly there are far too many other examples where the point is easily made.
My frustration occurs in that the assumption is made that the combination of "Black" and "Progressive" leadership is sold as the key ingredient for the successful representation of the "Black Best Interests". I stand committed to forcing the operatives to PROVE THIS AS THE CASE. Too many people are content with following their preferences as validated by their popularity within the Black community. The correctness of these views, however, is found in the effective results that they deliver for the community. In as much as these results have been short of where our interests reside - the antics of the machine must be scrutinized by all who place effectiveness over unity as their mission.
I now stand opposed to Racially Gerrymandered Districts.
The migration patters of Black people OUT OF THESE DISTRICTS show the gross disconnect between the perceptions of the best interests of these Black people and the will of our political system to have "Black Faces In High Places". These emigrant Blacks are in fact moving to the places where there actual Best Interests are expressed. The race of the elected representative is of secondary concern.
The Black Reserved Seat Districts simply insure that the programmer of the high powered Geographic Information System that plots out the political maps will develop a grossly contorted shaped district so that enough Black bodies are ensnared within to insure that a Black person is elected.
Think about it - IF, as the article says that PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP is preferred - WHY is the GIS system required to sell this fact to the masses? What about a progressive elected official needs such a handicap to insure his election?
The truth is that RESULTS are the most effective determining factor of the effectiveness of a strategy.
In as much as Chicago as a whole has woeful public schools (I did the research) and despite its high taxes and high cost of living still is not able to field an economic order in which it can address its own affairs internally - there is a need for competition of ideas and methodologies.
The two points that I must make note of about the Black community of today in closing;
- It is the only placed left in America where gross violations of the Civil Rights of Black people go on in abundance in a manner that is unchecked by the national forces of civil rights (per blatant intimidation, assault and murder for the purposes of intimidation)
- It is the only place where those plotting on racially identifiable elected representation can do so in the open without having the usual forces attack them as being "racists"