Analysis: More Than Diversity In The GOP , The Black Communtiy Should Drop Racially Gerrymandered Districts

The prospect of Tim Scott (R-SC) of South Carolina being elected to the US Congress as a Republican from this Southern state is a greater threat to the status quo than is the presence of a Black man as President of the United States represents.  Those who have a vested interest in showing how much America has NOT CHANGED her ways have a greater vested interest in pointing out the exceptions which justify continued sanction and regulation than they do in pointing to the Black man in the White House.

The Black Establishment and Democratic Party depends upon a lily White Republican party to buttress their contention that Section 5 of the "Voting Rights Act" is still needed to draw out districts were a Black elected official is able to win.

Black Community - like it or not - I am watching you.
I am watching what makes you tick.
Over the years I have learned several things:

1. There is a key difference between those that can articulate the "struggle" with the INTENTION of obtaining our community's "Permanent Interests" and those who are willing to open their mind to all of the options necessary to actually obtain these "Permanent Interests"
2. What is "popular" among Black America is not indicative of what is "effective" at achieving our Permanent Interests
3. Some people prefer the UNITY in perpetual struggle per their desire for the power that this unity brings them personally.  This desired faux-unity  is greater than their willingness to allow a framework by which disagreements can be tolerated amongst people who have honest disagreements on strategy
4. No Black Man today can survive with the "Black on his hide" left intact when he disagrees with the prevailing thoughts that have been pontificated by the Black Establishment

Number one above all of these other elements however, is:

#5  If you desire to be LIKED and "Get In Where You Fit In" more than you like going against the grain of what "Black People In Good Standing" are "EXPECTED" to think then this is not the job for you.  Not wanting to suffer an attack from he "Attack Sheep Dogs" you are suggested to keep your mouth shut and go along in agreement that some amorphous, external force has caused all that ails a 20 year old Black male who was born in 1990 instead of 1890.

My Justification For The Elimination Of Majority-Minority Gerrymandered Voting Districts

Dovetailing from my foundational observation that "popularity does not equal effectiveness" is the fact that a popularly elected official does not equate to the delivery of our community's permanent interests. There is abundant evidence that a 50 year run of control over certain districts has still not allowed them to turn the corner as they are now fully functioning in the interests of the people within who promote the policy preferences and the representative that will carry it forth into the legislature.

As I have observed the character of those whom I call the "Black Flight Progressive" I note that in their quest to acquire their permanent interests - they have moved amongst their ideological adversaries, leaving the place where they were a part of the movement that hung up the "mission accomplished" signs a few years prior.  This is evidence that there is an abstraction between a governing theories & the individuals put in place to execute them and the actual attainment of your interests.  Them being:

• Safe Streets
• Quality Education
• Thriving Local Economy / Residential Environment

The "Black Flight Progressive" is able to consume these attributes while never having to reconcile the gross distortion of terms that his actions represent.

It stands to reason that if the "Black Flight Progressive" is able to identify where his interests are met (outside of areas where his ideology is in control) then the voting district drawing process can be logically said to be separate and distinct from the community members actually obtaining their  interests.

Let's be honest folks. 
These districts are not drawn to elect a "Black person" into Congress.
These districts are drawn to elect a "Progressive who is Black" into power.   From personal experience (when it is "just between us chickens") some of the biggest advocates for "Diversity" are also some of the biggest racially prejudiced people around.  They use the quest for "Diversity" to disarm their adversaries, putting them on trial and asking them to live up to the social contract that they jointly share.  Often they have no interests, for example in obtaining "Ideological Diversity" within the Black community - for the sake of diversity.  When they are the ones that need to be tolerant - they know the pitfalls of allowing "the adversary"(Black Conservatives) into the inner circle, potentially allowing them to expose the schemes that take place (See former Black Republican US Rep and "Congressional Black Caucus Member" Gary Franks as a reference)

I can live with this truth about the motivations of some people who use the Trojan Horse of "Diversity" because I know what I am dealing with.

These "Majority-Progressive Minority" districts are drawn to insure that the Democratic Party - the entity by which Black People have chosen to express their Political Advocacy is given a political boundary that most favors an appointment of one of their own - a Black Progressive Democrat.  Is there any surprise that these districts have elected just this?  The one exception is the House district that enshrines the city of Memphis TN.  In this highly contested battle, former Mayor Willie Herenton is reminding his White Jewish competitor and fellow Progressive Democrat that this district was drawn to have a Black person representing it.

The Black Flight Progressive Is Emblematic Of The Problems With Gerrymandered Districts

From first hand experience (or via reading the accounts in a newspaper) I see that certain Blacks "who can" are exiting those among these districts that are dysfunctional and counter to their interests. (Again - I am not saying that all racially gerrymandered districts are dysfunction.  And certainly not because they are controlled by Black people)  

Often as the racial balance of the district is compromised - the district is redrawn yet again - ensnaring the Blacks who departed back into the district in order to achieve the necessary headcount for the "right person" to win the seat.

In summary - my argument is that there is little correlation between the Black Progressive who holds the seat, his personal POPULARITY and that of his governing theories among the people and the actual attainment of the Permanent Interests for the community while this person is in power.  The "Black Positions" (as Alabama's Joe Reed calls them) are borne out of those which EFFECTIVELY accomplish our Permanent Interests.  

Failure to grasp this fundamental element will have our communities stuck where we are today: Always struggling.  Pursuing policies that are intended to bring us benefit while the theories upon which they are based left unchallenged because they enjoy popular standing.   Where is the independent, scientific measurement of their efficacy?

In as much as the members of the district can convince themselves that this person represents their interests and is constantly "struggling" to obtain it - they will continue to vote for this person, hoping that one day their dreams will come true.  Their vote becomes the expression of their "racial interests".

Score one for the Democratic Party for they are the primary beneficiary of this hijacked Black consciousness.


Non-Racially Gerrymandered Districts

In Georgia there is one time that we see Black Progressive Democrats teaming with White Conservative Republicans - REDISTRICTING.

Both of these operatives know that the more that Blacks are gerrymandered into a single district this means that a "hyper-White" district is left on the outside of this amoeba shaped "Majority-Minority" district.  The complement of a district that a Black Progressive is sure to win is the district(s) that a White Conservative is sure to win that is left in its wake.   (And I was just told that "Every time 'White Republicans' are happy - it comes at the expense of the happiness of Black people.  This is clearly evidence of an exception).

Likewise the "White Progressive Democrats" in this situation stand opposed to their "Democrat who is Black" brothers and oppose these hyper-Black/White districts.   The "White Progressive Democrat" realizes that more of them are elected in highly diverse districts.  This diversity counters the power that an aggregated White Conservative district wields against the possibility of them being elected.

Does anyone see the irony here?   If the Progressive sees the danger of the extreme concentration of conservatives and attacks this proposition - why don't we hear him also specifically condemn highly concentrated Progressive districts?  (As If I need to ask this question.)

In summary these gerrymandered districts produce FUNDAMENTALISTS on the right and the left.

We need to have districts that are drawn in a different manner.  One which forces those who are interested in holding office to play toward the presentation of reasonable solutions rather than energizing the people on both extremes to retain individuals that have long outlived their usefulness or who live for nothing else but to be an iconoclast.  I can think of several "Civil Rights Movement operatives who posing as elected officials" that need to be turned out of office and freed up to talk about what they did "back in the day" to adoring crowds at the "King Center" or "Grant Park".

Regarding this plans impact on the Black Power Establishment - they are already pushing integrationalist policies. Their economic redistributionalist polices at present demand that their neighbors outside of their political boundaries share per the "social contract" that they have conjured up. 

Why not allow the districts to be recast in a more locally cohesive manner?  These two distinct groups of people who are now united into one district are now forced to align their local governance preferences with reasonable management of the common financial resources.

With more ownership and connectivity on both sides per this alignment- and a mandate that everyone inside of their respective districts are equal - they will be forced to come up with a reasonable compromise. Today they are split into two separate districts and the district representatives are sent to the state or federal legislature to attack each other through the proxy of political party division.  Bring the management and conflict resolution back to the local level.

We have ample evidence that the present system is failing to deliver the needed governance and leadership direction to many people.  It gives people the false notion that they can "vote" their problems away.

In forcing the extremists to have to be appealing to a broader section of clear thinking community members it is my opinion that better outcomes can be obtained in general.