Local Racial Politicking: Alive and Well in Atlanta

For this newest entry in our blog, we need look no further than our own fine city of Atlanta, where, this year, a new mayor will be elected in the fall. Some, like me, view this is a chance to get new leadership in the door—to break a power structure that has thrived on cronyism for a long time; to get someone in the mayor’s office who can fix the budget; who can address a recent and disturbing property crime increase; to ensure a water supply for residents, since Lake Lanier is being taken away; and to promote the city in a real way. (The current mayor has been kind of a mixed bag. She’s leaving us all with a faint feeling of disappointment, possibly as a result of very high expectations.)

In fact, things have been trending in the direction of a break from the old guard—which has frightened a group calling itself the “Black Leadership Forum,” which recently disseminated a message written by two Clark Atlanta University political science professors espousing the “Black point of view.” Apparently, the black agenda is—not to put too fine a point on it—all about making sure a white mayoral candidate (of which there is only one) is not elected mayor. Never mind the issues—the important thing is that the mayor is black. Period.

I’m not joking. The link is here.

What’s more, when the authors—the two Clark Atlanta professors—were revealed, they refused to acknowledge that there was anything wrong about what they wrote. Here’s a quote from their joint statement:

The recent suggestion that it is somehow racist to highlight an agenda that promotes the interests of African American voters is patently false. It is a red herring that polarizes debate about electing the most qualified candidate for Atlanta’s next mayor.

The need for African American voter and taxpayer interests to be addressed by all candidates is just as legitimate as it is for candidates to respond to issues raised by the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, Georgia Stand-Up, Central Atlanta Progress or any Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU). . . We stand by our belief that “a black agenda would enable African American interests to be respected by any administration.” The interests of African American voters are just as legitimate as other Atlanta voters, and the notion that we must apologize for highlighting those interests is absurd.

* * *

Dear Esteemed Professors:

I urge you to set aside your vested political interests for a moment for the sake of progressive racial relations, intellectual honesty, and decency. What you have said is tantamount to what a lot of white people said in the ‘50s and ‘60s. It is racism, pure and simple. You may glean this from a simple exercise: substitute the word “white” for the word “black” and the words “Aryan American” for the words “African American” in your message. Read it back. Think hard. Swallow hard. Then apologize.

Here’s an example:

Original:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jackson’s victory in 1973.”

becomes:

“1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a white mayor at all cost. In fact, if a black candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as [analogy fails here—but really gosh darn significant].”

I ask you this: what would your reaction have been to a leaked memo promoting “white interests," a “white mayor at all costs” agenda, and the promotion of a unified “white” front in order to tank any and all black candidates? More than charges of racism, which would be true, wouldn’t the greater charge be that such an agenda misses the point? We’ve got a lot of problems in this city. We don’t need another one—racial tension.

Also, please do not confuse a “black agenda” with your own entrenched political interests—you call the government of the city from 1973 on—and these are your own words—a “Machine.” Well, maybe it’s time for this particular political machine to be traded in—cash for clunkers. It’s time for a new political order in the city, a not exactly post-racial order but one that is not driven by race, but by solutions to problems.

I voted for Barack Obama (who is half-white / half-black) because I felt he was the right leader for our country, at the right time, with the right ideas. Why did you vote for him? Because he is “black?” Do you really think that the election of a white mayor today would return Atlanta to pre-1973 race relations? C’mon. We know what it’s about—power, and the retaining of it. Just be honest.

* * *

Probably the most disturbing thing about this whole affair is that this memorandum was propagated by two professors at a college. These are the people who are supposed to open our kids’ minds? Expose them to new ideas? I urge Clark Atlanta University to suspend both of them post-haste. These are not the kind of mind goblins we should be exposing our young people to.

If It Sounds Like an Evil Villain from a Spy Movie Came Up With the Concept...

... It’s Probably Not True
(Or, Some Misconceptions About Health Care Reform)

To counteract the incredible display of horse manure flying about the airwaves, on tv, and being suggested to you by your friends and neighbors, I put together this list of a few misconceptions about health care reform. Note that I am talking about the general gist of the main bills currently on hold in Congress while our representatives are on vacation or being harangued at town hall meetings. Note also that I don’t necessarily agree with all terms—current terms, that is—of the health care bill(s). In fact, in my most recent post, I suggested a few quick reform measures of my own. Nevertheless, the amount of disinformation being broadcast motivates me—no, compels me—to put together this list.

1. The current health care reform bills will produce a system of socialized medicine in this country.

First—no, they wouldn’t. Socialized medicine is the direct control of the practice of medicine by the government. The government employs virtually all medical providers (doctors, nurses) and hospitals and places of care. All citizens receive health care free of charge unless they elect to pay for it privately. Regardless of what you might think about socialized medicine, that is not what Congress is proposing. The bills before Congress propose to achieve a few core objectives: (i) stop health care insurance companies from being able to cherry-pick their insureds; principally, this means that individual policies would be treated akin to group policies. This is very important, incidentally, to self-employed people and small businesses. It would also mean the elimination of the “preexisting condition” exception from insurance policies. Anyone who has been confronted with this form of denial realizes that this is the correct and humane thing to do; (ii) offer a government-subsidized plan to the working poor and lower middle class families (akin to Medicare); (iii) make—yes, make, as in require—the uninsured get insurance (and objective (ii) is very closely related to this objective). The culmination of all three of these principal goals is intended to produce the goal of universal coverage; viz., everyone can get health insurance of some kind in this country.

Second—every time I hear someone shout out “socialized medicine” with that sort of crazy glint in their eye, I wonder: Do they really know what they’re talking about? I don’t think so. I think it’s like we all accused someone of being a Communist back in the ‘80s. I think really it’s a substitute for “bad.” So, what they’re really saying is—health care reform! Bad!

Well, maybe if it’s the wrong kind of health care reform. And maybe socialized medicine would be bad, though the Brits seem to think it’s okay. In any case, that’s not what we’re getting, so this is a misconception and is FALSE.

2. A faceless government bureaucrat will make your health care decisions for you.

Okay. This one makes me smile a little bit, because, I mean… isn’t a faceless insurance company bureaucrat making your health care decisions for you right now? I know that’s the case for us, where my wife and I were prevented from having our second child for a year and a half because of insurance waiting periods. (Needless to say numerous conversations over the years with … wait for it… faceless insurance company bureaucrats trying to get something covered. If you haven’t experienced this yet, just wait—it’s coming, my friend. Unless, of course, health care is completely reformed). Wouldn’t it at least be better if the faceless bureaucrat were a government employee, theoretically working for you, and also subject to review by Congress and our elected representatives?

Also, of course— and here’s the zinger—uhm, no. A faceless bureaucrat would not be making health care decisions for anyone. The healthcare plan “czar” (is anyone besides me getting a little tired of the use of the word “czar” every time we set up a program where one guy is the head honcho? It’s like appending “-gate” at the end of any supposed scandal. Do they have a special course on hackneyed phrases in journalism school?) would be in charge of approving plans proffered by insurance companies who want to participate in the healthcare exchange. Doctors would be in charge. Or, as I prefer to think about it after spending some time in the hospital with my wife following her c-section, patients are in charge.

3. Health care reform will encourage euthanasia of the elderly.

This falls under the category of “if it sounds crazy, it probably is.” I am continually amazed at the capacity for some people to be so gullible and… ingenuous (as in, innocent… not “ingenious,” as in clever). Look, if it sounds like a concept of an arch villain in a spy movie, it’s not likely to be true, okay? A purpose of health care reform is not to kill elderly people. The fact that this assertion even has to be refuted disgusts me. But thanks to people like Sean Hannity and friends, this disinformation is countenanced and given air time. (Much like the “Obama was not born in Hawaii” claims. Complete and utter garbage.)

I was going to call this the “top five” misconceptions about health reform, but it’s late and I’m tired. There is also a certain level of tolerance I have for mentally engaging with and refuting what, seem to me, to be such blatant errors. Where is our independent media? Oh, wait, that’s right, we lost it when Fox started winning the air wars.

My tolerance level and endurance for this sort of thing is also taxed by an undercurrent of dismay and cynicism. These arguments—these outright lies, really—are not the real powers that need to be fought. These misconceptions are propagated by very powerful interests that stand to lose a great deal with health care reform. Insurance companies, certain health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, basically everyone profiting from skyrocketing health care and treatment costs (sellers, not providers for the most part—hospitals and, for the most part, doctors have not seen lasting prosperity from the massive inflation in health care costs over the last 20 years). My dismay and cynicism arise from the fact that the people fighting this battle on the ground for these powerful interests are harming themselves—they have been manipulated and do not even realize it. It’s truly disgusting. With a little money and an ingenious campaign of disinformation, powerful, fortified interests can manipulate people to fight a battle that harms their own interest.

But that’s the nature of the beast in our current socio-economic-political system. There will be no discussion on the merits. Only a Machiavellian power struggle.

We will see a similar event with the global warming bill—already tremendously watered down. When the time comes, I will fire up the ol’ blog. But for now, I shine my blazing beacon of truth on health care reform! And will continue to do so as long as I can tolerate it.

Peace be with you.