The Congressional Black Corrupticus Strikes Again
"One of most intriguing mysteries here in recent weeks is why members of the Congressional Black Caucus have chosen to buck their party and president in trying to stall financial regulation reform," writes the New York Times' Eric Lipton. "The answer lies at least in part with an aggressive lobbying campaign by a troubled New York City-based radio broadcasting company, Inner City Broadcasting, whose co-founder is a prominent New York politician and businessman, Percy Sutton."
But there is another part of the answer, and I have it.
Lipton's part of the answer puts politely what Irving Levine, a New York City inter-group relations expert, taught me years ago: "All ethnic succession involves sharp polarization, power struggles, accommodations and trade-offs that lead to coalitions and, finally, joint ventures to make money through polite graft."
That part is true, as far as it goes: The Congressional Black Caucus doesn't care a whit about Tim Geithner's financial "reforms" or even about defending the "civil rights" of minority entrepreneurs, as it claims it's doing. No, it's holding reform hostage to secure unrelated protections for one of its big Sugar Daddies. But the gambit only gets worse from there.
In fronting for Sutton, the CBC seems no worse than the Republican "Black Horse Cavalry" of yore (and of two years ago), or than any Democratic Congress, almost ever; it just gives the word "blackmail" a new, unfortunate twist.
This twist has even Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, dancing like a marionette because the Caucus holds the swing votes on his committee, and because Frank's Massachusetts constituents include knee-jerk white liberals who'd be shocked if he stood up to anyone claiming the mantle of civil-rights.
But it's the history of civil rights struggles, and the recent dispossession of so many of blacks by the predations of finance capital, that makes the Caucus members' behavior even sadder than the usual "polite graft." And the 89-year-old Sutton, a cosmopolitan but bitter paladin of inner-city broadcasting, makes the Caucus' intransigence truly sickening.
Elected Manhattan Borough President in the 1970s, Sutton became enraged by what he saw as white Democratic reformers' racist betrayals of his mayoral aspirations. He left politics and made millions partly by programming slick, demagogic racial rants, interrupted by commercials for Visa credit cards on his radio station WLIB in New York.
On the morning talk show, host Clayton Riley was fond of naming white columnists and politicians he disliked and, after a stagey pause, reminding listeners of a certain black general's admonition to "Find the enemy; isolate it; and kill it." One morning I heard Riley call a certain columnist "crypto-fascist slime, asleep at the wheel. Gonna crash! Gonna crash!"
In 1993 the civil-libertarian Nat Hentoff wrote Sutton an open letter in the Village Voice, asking what Sutton thought might happen if a deranged loner took Riley and others on the station seriously. Sutton - who had been Malcolm X's lawyer in his younger years -- never answered Hentoff's letter, his silence betokening a latter-day media mogul's unquenchable, fine-spun rage.
Two months later, Colin Ferguson, a black man who turned out to have been a dedicated listener to WLIB, gunned down white passengers on a Long Island Railroad car during the evening rush hour. That prompted me to recall and re-publish the black poet Julius Lester's warning, when Louis Farrakhan had threatened David Dinkins with death ten years earlier, that
"The time has come to stop making apologies for black America, to stop patronizing black America with that paternalistic brand of understanding which excuses and finds reasons for the obscenities of black hatred.... Farrakhan is subtly but surely creating an atmosphere in America where hatreds of all kinds will be easier to express openly, and one day, in some as yet unknown form, those hatreds will ride commuter trains into the suburbs. By then it will be too late for us all."
Well, you can look up Percy Sutton in my The Closest of Strangers and read about his "hate radio" in the second and third pdfs on this string. But the important question is why the Congressional Black Caucus is stalling any reform of finance capital in order to protect him.
The short answer - over to you and the Times, Eric Lipton -- is that Sutton, who now owns 17 stations in several states, is a big campaign contributor to many of these bozos, including Harlem's Charlie Rangel, a loveable, old-time pol who's ardent in Sutton's defense.
A longer answer, as I showed in Liberal Racism and here -- and as Lani Guinier came around to arguing very clearly last year in the Modern Law Review -- is that "safe" minority districts produce perpetual, possessive incumbents. They trade on skin color as a token of solidarity, but otherwise they demobilize and pacify their constituents on issues that might really get them active and more demanding of change -- and of challengers to the incumbent. These place-holders and ersatz tribunes of the downtrodden prefer money for radio commercials (this is what takes them to Sutton) more than old-fashioned political service-delivery and patronage methods that really organize and turn out masses of voters. Surprise, surprise.
Guinier writes that Mayor David Dinkins was surprised when black City Council members whom he'd thought would support his initiatives for their poor constituents proved more interested in cutting deals with moneyed sources that wanted very different initiatives. Even legislators who postured as militants often aspired, like Sutton, to become establishment insiders, brokers of whatever patronage, real-estate deals, franchises, contracts, zoning variances, and tax breaks they could wrest from the white establishment, only occasionally by charging "racism."
Frankly, I doubt that Dinkins was all that surprised by any of this. He was an early investor in Sutton's Inner City Broadcasting, and he celebrated his mayoral victory in 1989 by saying, "Tonight I stand on the shoulders of Percy Ellis Sutton." He certainly knew the drill of minority advancement through polite graft.
I don't suggest that Dinkins ever liked, much less endorsed, the hatred on WLIB, although he did appear regularly on that station, where Riley - between rants - would interview him as obsequiously as Fox News' Neil Cavuto used to interview George Bush between rants at liberal Democrats such as Senator Dick Durbin.
But neither would I suggest that Sutton and his investors and political dependents are all that keen to reconfigure finance capital, especially those arrangements that, with a little tweaking, benefit them, as they have "leaders" of other rising ethnic groups at the expense of their own poor, trusting, and/or resigned constituents. If the Caucus wanted to hold up the process in order to demand real reform, this would be a different story.
But the story right now is that its behavior stinks, as such congressional behavior always has - only, this time, even more so.

















Yikes! I had no idea.
December 3, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people think black politicians enjoy some special immunity from corruption probes or receive some kind of pass or indulgence? Unless I'm mistaken, misbehaving, graft-prone and corporate-toadying black politicians are called out, pilloried and prosecuted at about triple and quadruple the rate their white counterparts are -- and unlike their white counterparts, they don't survive. They don't go on to become beloved old farts of the power structure or get their tv shows, etc., still sought after for their opinions.
Since Obama got elected, most of the liberal white elected officials on the East Coast have been mugging the White House and the rest of the country for no end of special protections for the corporate interests and moneybags that pay their campaign bills. Nobody blamed liberals for this. Nobody pointed out that poor whites in their districts would be the losers.
We have had for a long, long time now a Congress that is entirely bought and paid for by moneyed interests. True, most black politicians can't get bought by Geico. They have to get bought by native sons who've done well at capitalism's gaming tables.
I just find it hard to believe what drives this screed is a whole lot of concern for black voters.
December 3, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buonasera writes, "We have had for a long, long time now a Congress that is entirely bought and paid for by moneyed interests. True, most black politicians can't get bought by Geico. They have to get bought by native sons who've done well at capitalism's gaming tables."
This is the best summary of my post that I can imagine. The only question remaining would seem to be who is allowed to say such things and who is not. Some of us have long records of saying the same things about people of all colors. Others of us do not. On the link to a string of pdfs which I provided in my post(click on the red words, "this string") read the final item.
December 3, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 17, 2010 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. i agree with you.
children health
January 11, 2011 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 22, 2011 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the response, jim sleeper. I hope you saw my 'bravo' to you in response to your last entry on TPM, encouraging a massive democratic protest against the escalation of the war in Afghanistan to create the political space Obama needs to get out.
Part of my reaction to this post about black politicians is that I do tend to think that criticism of blacks in and out of public life has never gone out of fashion. People are allowed to say it continuously since segregation, anytime they want -- although only recently did people start to say they were being victimized for saying it. I just can't recall who ever has been punished for criticizing black politicians. Except maybe criticism of Obama this year from people like me!
I'm not suggesting black politicians are beyond criticism -- or that they react well to it, or fight fair. But am I wrong to think that if I went on TV and inveighed against Italians who shadow-govern New Jersey's cities with polite graft or Jews who do likewise in and around L.A., or who block good policy in the general American interest because they have a monetary not a constituency-issue they're protecting -- wouldn't that be more of a shocker than what you posted here?
December 3, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Buonasera, I do appreciate your posing the question, but the answer to it is that I've lived through plenty of luridly covered scandals involving people of all colors, and if and when they sought to identify themselves by and trade on their ethno-racial identity, as the Congressional Black Caucus does-- they've always been fair game.'
No small note was taken of Madoff's trading on Jewish communal and charitable loyalties.
A bunch of orthodox rabbis in New Jersey and Brooklyn were arrested a few months ago, in a blaze of media publicity, for having engaged in or facilitated all kinds of financial shenanigans.
I'll never forget that during Ed Koch's last term as New York's mayor, the city was rocked by corruption scandals, virtually all of whose defendants were Jews. Watching the former US attorney Thomas Puccio defending some of them, while the then-US attorney Rudy Giuliani prosecuted them, a famous columnist quipped that natural order seemed to have been reversed: "For once, all the defendants are Jewish, and all the lawyers are Italians."
The Congressional Black Caucus needs a good, swift kick in the tush, as Jews would call it. That's all I have to say about this aspect of it.
December 3, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not saying only black politicians are prosecuted in corruption scandals. I'm wondering when it was covered up or impermissible to say things like "The Congressional Black Caucus needs a good, swift kick in the tush." My recollection is that people have been saying variants of that about the Black Caucus ever since it first got together, for all kinds of reasons. That's all.
Just as an aside, I thought all the fussing about Bernie Madoff as a Jew was absurd. True, many people trusted him as a mensch when they should not have, but it truly never occurred to people other than uninteresting writers that this somehow said anything interesting about Jews. Likewise, the arrested rabbis.
December 3, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perpetual possession? Current CBC members who came to Washington by ousting an incumbent include Charlie Rangel NY), Bobby Rush (IL), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Chaka Fattah (PA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI), Artur Davis (AL), Hank Johnson (GA), and Donna Edwards (MD). This was also the path to power for former Senator Carol Moseley Braun (IL) and the late Representative Harold Washington, who became Mayor of Chicago.
December 3, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here I would encourage reading Guinier's comments about possessive incumbency in the article I linked, and also my own comments (which were celebratory) on the elections of Sheila Jackson lee and Carol Moseley Braun. (Click on the red word "here" above, in the phrase, "Liberal Racism and here.")
Lee was re-elected when the Supreme Court rightly abolished the racially-overdrawn black district that she was representing. After that district was invalidated, she had the courage to face a majority non-black electorate in a new district and to win, anyway -- thereby disproving the CBC's claim that majority-minority districts are a requirement. I think that the piece I've linked makes this point well.
December 4, 2009 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the response. very nice article.
liseli sikiş
December 10, 2010 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tulsa Courthouse
I'll never forget that during Ed Koch's last term as New York's mayor, the city was rocked by corruption scandals, virtually all of whose defendants were Jews. Watching the former US attorney Thomas Puccio defending some of them, while the then-US attorney Rudy Giuliani prosecuted them, a famous columnist quipped that natural order seemed to have been reversed: "For once, all the defendants are Jewish, and all the lawyers are Italians."
December 17, 2010 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Congressional Black Caucus needs a good, swift kick in the tush, as Jews would call it. That's all I have to say about this aspect of it.bathing suits
December 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, most black politicians can't get bought by Geico. They have to get bought by native sons who've done well at capitalism's gaming tables.printed bags custom printed bags
December 23, 2010 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel good, thank you on the article.
seks | sikiş
January 4, 2011 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink