Debating the Black Agenda…
The controversy between Tavis Smiley and Al Sharpton relative to the efficacy of President Barack Obama responding to “the Black agenda” continues to generate political legs. The rift began when Smiley accused Sharpton of giving President Obama a pass on addressing the Black agenda, during a broadcast of his popular radio show while touting his (Smiley’s) March 20, political national forum. Smiley and others are advocating that the President should be held accountable to “the Black Agenda” by way of negotiating with the Black political leadership.
Sharpton responded angrily to the Tavis attack on his (Sharpton’s) radio talk show, and the rhetorical political battle between the two men was vociferously engaged. In general Sharpton’s articulated position is that the President would hurt his administration, and would also preempt the success of his reelection campaign, should he focus on “the Black Agenda,” as Obama is President of all the people.
Apart from the legitimate question of whether President Barack Obama should focus on the political demands of his strongest constituent group, in the framework of the Black agenda, some suggest that Smiley is attempting to position his group as a new national political leadership vanguard. The Tavis political initiative is be unofficially launched during his March 20, 2010, nationally televised forum on “the Black agenda.”
It remains to seen whether there was in fact a political motive associated with Tavis’s perceived frontal political attack on Sharpton. But, Sharpton was apparently not invited to Smiley’s event initially and the quick witted Sharpton, during a public conversation between the two “leaders,” on the radio airwaves of his (Sharpton’s) show, was able to make a compelling argument that he hadn’t received an invitation from Smiley, to the March 20th event. Tavis, responding to Sharpton’s points, promptly gave Sharpton an invitation over the air and Sharpton immediately declined the invitation stating that he had a prior engagement.
The emotional public airing by Tavis and Rev. Al of their political differences concerning the Black agenda and the role of the first Black American President of the United States is generating much speculation and controversy in Black political circles. According to a Black Republican grassroots activist, Smiley has political leadership ambitions and was persuaded that a successful political hit on Sharpton, would position him and his political initiatives as a viable alternative to the precarious Sharpton political leadership.
Accordingly, Tavis was persuaded that he could succeed in dethroning or marginalizing Sharpton where other “legitimate” leaders, in Brooklyn and Harlem (elected officials and grassroots leaders) have consistently failed.
The popular political commentator and writer, Dr. Boyce Watkins has explored the unfolding internal Black political leadership controversy as a guest on popular TV shows, and radio programs, as well as on his web site applications.
The most recent rendition of the escalating Smiley vs. Sharpton political exercise, was the Sunday April 18, MSNBC, 2 hour primetime special entitled “Debating the Black “Agenda.” The program featured Rev. Al Sharpton, following the closing of his annual convention at the Sheraton Hotel in New York that focused on action plans associated with his Black agenda, going forward. The program was framed with the Smiley and Sharpton political dichotomy relative to holding the president accountable to “the Black agenda.”
While this writer among others applaud the management of MSNBC for indulging the issue of the Black agenda in the context of President Barack Obama, the issue must be explored beyond the political perspectives of the Black Democratic political leadership point of view…
An alternative political perspective concerning African American politics holds that the Black agenda has two basic elements. One
element is a civil rights component, and the other element is the Black political component, which is not distinguished by partisan party politics necessarily. The civil rights agenda and leadership, is primarily comprised of Black elected officials and the orthodox civil rights organizations, while the Black political agenda is inimical to the civil rights leadership, and agenda.
The unelected civil rights leadership orthodoxy was inherited by the African American community, following the successes of the civil rights movement that peeked in the late 1960s and 70s. The proliferation of African American elected officials from the 1970s to the present is the direct result of the success of the civil rights movement and agenda. But the storied civil rights agenda is not synonymous with the Black American agenda. Unfortunately the two agenda’s are often used interchangeably, as in the case of the MSNBC program, “debating the Black agenda.”
African American politics was bifurcated beginning in the mid 1960s with a stark dichotomy between the civil rights movement, and the Black power movement, and it persists today. But the civil rights leadership and agenda continues to dominate Black American politics. However, the heretofore political hegemony that the African American civil rights leadership enjoyed over “Black power” has been forever lost, by way of demographics and political attrition.
The relative agenda of the civil rights leadership orthodoxy has virtually defined African American and Black American politics. But the ever changing Black demographic dynamic is transforming local “Black” communities and its politics. Hence, the civil rights crowed and agenda are no longer relevant to the unfolding Black American community.
As a practical political matter, African Americans currently constitute a growing minority of the emerging Black American community. Migration from continental Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas, has changed the political landscape of the Black community. The new Black American community and its youth may have reached a critical mass, rendering it beyond the political grasp of the traditional civil rights political paradigm, and juxtaposition of “minority” politics.
While Rev. Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN) is an animated political force on the ground, his constituency is comprised of the civil rights crowed, which is virtually void of Black youth, as young Blacks have no political affinity to the civil rights agenda and leadership. In addition, traditional civil rights strategies, tactics, techniques and technology are inconsequential to 21st century Black community politics. The civil rights leadership and agenda are relics of a bygone era, and has a marginal role in Black politics going forward. In fact Rev. Sharpton may very well be the last civil rights leader.
The political monopoly that the civil rights agenda maintained for the past four decades over the politics of the Black community, has been effectively eclipsed by the emerging politics of the more youthful and eclectic Black American demographic. Therefore, Smiley and other new generation Black American leaders would be wise to formulate a 21st political agenda and strategy in order to be politically competitive with other political minority communities. Concomitantly, Smiley and all future Black American leadership aspirants would be well advised to let the civil rights agenda and leadership move forward under its own diminished political inertia.
The Black civil rights leadership archetype may ultimately be ill fated, and its race based political paradigm will be left in the dust of 19th and 20th century African American political history. Moreover, the civil rights agenda as a practical political matter is only pertinent to a “minority” community socio-political sensibility. This African American socio-political sensibility was relevant during days of the civil rights movement only.
The advent of the Obama era has sealed the ultimate fate of the civil rights agenda and leadership in terms of its domination and
definition of Black American politics going forward. During Senator Barack Obama’s successful campaign for president, he skillful navigated his way beyond the political reach of the Black civil rights leadership orthodoxy, and the race based political paradigm. Now, traditional Black political leaders and neo-Black leaders are seeking to negotiate a political relationship with the president, based on race.
Barack Obama, the first Black American President is a classic example of the seriously diminished civil rights leadership and agenda, as it relates to its increasingly marginalized political status. The first Black American president was successfully elected to office without genuflecting to the Black orthodox leadership or subscribing to the civil rights and Black American political agendas. Despite the political machinations of Black elected officials and civil rights leadership, President Obama gained the nomination of his party and was impressively victorious during his election to the presidency.
Now that President Obama is in office, the popular civil rights organizing tactics and strategy are being deployed by the conventional Black leadership in order to advance their respective agendas. Typically, the civil rights political maneuvers include, making political demands, using demonstrations and numbers in the streets, direct action tactics, and manipulating media. Apparently, in media celebrity Smiley’s quest for political leadership stardom, he is deploying classic civil rights organizing tactics, which generate limited outcomes.
On the other hand, although Sharpton’s political leadership may be precarious, his political instincts are sophisticated enough for him to utilize the ebbing civil rights political tide to seemingly negotiate a safe, relevant landing, and made a wise transition in his political rhetoric accordingly.
While the political epitaph of virtually all other Black New York political leaders are in the process of being written, Rev. Sharpton’s fortunes appears to be on the rise. But, the once civil rights boy wander, may represent the last Black leader of the civil rights orthodoxy. The civil rights movement has lost its cutting edge in the Black community, particularly among youth and has undermined its competitive advantage in electoral politics.
The advent of politically correct rhetoric has also compromised the Black American political imperative and minimized its leadership edge by way of a constricted civil right rights agenda. The outcome of their parochial process was the isolation of the Black political elite from the community at large. Hence, there are virtually no new generation Black American civil rights leaders on the horizon.
The competitive political advantage is now swinging to the emerging eclectic Black American demographic, who have no links or affinity to civil rights politics. The civil rights leadership and agenda had little if any impact of the success of President Obama’s nomination and general election campaign, for example. The role of civil rights as defined by 19th and 20th century African American politics is apparently inconsequential to Black American political needs in the second decade of the 21st century.
Apart from the monumental achievements of the civil rights movement, the Black American community is a political weakling as compared to all other political minorities in America. Despite the fact that Black American’s are the oldest, arguably the most numerous, and have the most elected officials. Political leverage in Black America is the weakest proportionally, as compared to Asians, Jews, Latinos, gays, etc. This undeniable fact of Black American life constitutes a fascinating political paradox.
Following the passing of the civil rights and voting rights legislation in 1964 1nd 65 respectively, the civil rights movement was responsible for the election of impressive numbers of Black politicians to state and municipal government, characteristic of the electoral achievements of the 19th century civil rights movement. While the successes of the 20th century civil rights movement remain noteworthy, the civil rights organizing tactics, techniques and strategies are no longer as effective for moving the Black American community from point A to point B.
Today, the civil rights agenda and tactics bring dubious political results for Black folk. But civil rights political weapons are the only arrows in the quiver of these leaders. Strategies that establish political leverage within the emerging Black American community are the way forward, but the inherited traditional leaders don’t seem to have a clue.
Civil rights politics are based on race victimization, and political minority juxtapositions will no longer advance the legitimate political aspirations of 21st century Black America. The sophisticated and skillful way in which President Obama handled the political mined field of race and racism, was a decisive blow to the future relevance and fortunes of civil rights politics.
However, the civil rights leadership may have sealed its own ultimate fate during the late 1970s and 80s when politically correct
rhetoric was promoted. In this context, the word minority became a substitute for the Black, and African American. Subsequently, when these leaders mentioned the phrase Black community, they would qualify it by including Latinos, or by saying Blacks and other minorities.
First the Black American community morphed into the “minority” community, then the phrase Black people was transformed into people of “color.” More recently, political correct rhetoric completely eliminated the term Black community altogether in favor of “communities of color.” And the minority community was expanded to include, people of color, Gays and Lesbians, the LBGT community, and progressive whites.
The end result is that the civil rights agenda minimized and in some instances moved beyond the political imperative of Black folk, and embraced a generalized “social justice” agenda. Hence, Black American’s marginally benefit from civil rights gains, such as Affirmative Action legislation, while white women and others benefit the most comparatively.
Perhaps the inherited civil rights leadership served its purpose well by being responsible for the election hundreds of “people of color” to political office. However, the dawning of the second decade of the 21st century reveals the emergence of a new Black American leadership paradigm.
Spearheaded by the campaign and election of President Barack Obama, the new Black political paradigm exposed the weaknesses associated with the civil rights leadership and agenda. Therefore, Obama was able to leap forged their endorsement and win his party’s nomination, and impressively ascend to the presidency of the United States.
While the election of President Barrack Obama did not usher in a post racial America, his election success apparently confirmed the post civil rights agenda monopoly, as it relates to Black American politics going forward.
