The Congressional Black Corrupticus, Yet Again
I'll say this as nicely as I can: The Congressional Black Caucus is a parasite whose movements show vividly what ails the Democratic caucus as a whole. Republicans, of course, are a cancer, but the parasite mattered more after voters removed some of the cancer in 2008 and made Democrats the majority, whetting appetites on that side, not least at the CBC.
Early in December, I posted here a column, "The Congressional Black Corrupticus Strikes Again." The CBC was holding finance-regulation hostage to a favor it demanded for Percy Sutton, a folkloric black pioneer in elective office who died a month later with many accomplishments to his credit but also with many scores settled and an estate enhanced thanks to the CBC.
Typical though the CBC's behavior was of congressional corruption, I argued that the caucus is uniquely wrong to misuse the civil-rights-movement's legacy to feather its nest by screwing its constituents. My post was met with crashing silence, but I learned that some at the New York Times had noted it. To the paper's new reinforcement of my warning, I'd add this: Whether you seek bipartisanship or ideological purity, don't ever let political correctness bar you from telling the truth.
The Times article says:
"But few of these alliances have paid off like the caucus’s connection to rent-to-own stores. Some Democrats in Congress have tried to limit fees charged to consumers who rent televisions or appliances..
I don't think tightening up on RTO stores is a on the top ten list of big issues in this country, and if it was I don't think the Black Caucus could stop it.
The Times piece mentions events sponsored by corporations, internships that resulted that helped young African-Americans and other benefits that went to minority communities. Nothing illegal was documented and no Congressional or FBI investigations are pending. The sums involved are trivial, and mostly go to fund an event or convention, or are gifts to minority communities or schools.
There was no mention of pre-paid jaunts to exotic locales, kickbacks, family members being given cushy sinecures, exclusive seats at football games or free work done on mansions.
There was also no mention of Black Caucus members playing the revolving door game of quitting Congress for high paying jobs in industries they helped while in office, like McCain's financial adviser Phil Gramm or Big Pharma's Billy Tauzin.
From what I know the Black Caucus members did not vote for the 2002 Iraq Use of Force Resolution which allowed Bush to invade Iraq, the most damaging vote in decades, and they have not been bought off by the really big money of war profiteers, the health insurance industry, the drug manufacturers, or Wall Street.
For these reason I think the Black Caucus has probably voted more sensibly on more issues than the rest of the Congress.
Far from showing 'what ails the Democrats, they show more common sense in their public service than many Democrats and almost all Republicans.
February 14, 2010 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A few points:
First, I would advise anyone who reads your comment to read the Times story itself, inked in my post. You pointedly avoid mentioning the difference between what the CBC says its fund-raising goes for and what it does go for.
Second, I don't advise hiding behind the excuse that other groups are even more corrupt, both in terms of the campaign contributions they take and in terms of the damaging votes they cast. The CBC trades explicitly and uniquely on a history of black dispossession and disfranchisement, in ways that mock the poor, powerless blacks who walked trembling with King and other truly noble leaders into sunlit Southern Squares, dressed in their Sunday best, knowing they were going to encounter fire hoses, police dogs, clubbings and arrest.
Third, and flowing from this, the CBC's self-enslavement to a kind of capitalism that has found new ways, besides racism, to oppress and dispossess millions of Americans of all colors is indeed like the self-prostitution of countless people since long before Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor told Jesus that while some would follow him for love, millions would forsake him for worldly gain.
In that sense, there is nothing exceptional about the CBC's betrayal. But when the CBC, unlike your garden-variety Republican or Democrat, turns Martin Luther King, Jr.'s leadership and the self-sacrifice of thousands of unsung black heroes into a mantle that covers its betrayal of what he stood for, that requires a full exposition and discussion, because in this case far more is at stake for the American republic than the dollar value of the corruption.
February 14, 2010 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you have TJKING in your corner Jim.
Congratulations. The guy is a right wing blowhard.
In case you aren't aware of it, it's not Blacks or the Black Caucus that drove this country into the ditch or supported the invasion of Iraq.
And its not loose regulation of RTO stores that broke the banks and sank the economy.
February 14, 2010 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraq War has been an important indicator of what ails our republic, but it is not the only one. As the first of my two posts indicated, the CBC held hostage Barney Frank's bill to regulate finance capital, throwing all of Washington into a state of alarm, until it got the favors it wanted. This was akin to Senator Shelby's putting hold on dozens of Obama appointments until he got what he wanted for his district, but, coming from the CBC, it was even more telling, because it illuminated a lot about how Congress does business -- or, more accurately, a lot about why Congress is paralyzed. You cannot use most CBC members' opposition to the Iraq War (a highly popular stance with their constituents) to excuse its trading on black oppression and the struggles of the civil rights movement to help dig the deep hole Congress is in.
My first post, linked above, makes clear at the outset that I am not being overly moralistic about this; a certain amount of "polite graft" is woven into our kind of system and will never be absent from it. But what we are chronicling here has gong way beyond "polite," and it has to be fleshed out (or flushed) out for what it is. Thorough muckraking, too, is part of governing.
February 14, 2010 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I am such a blowhard Noble one, then maybe you can answer the question I asked you the other day when you claimed that Iraq is no where near a conclusion, but you refuse to address Obama and Biden's statements to the contrary. A blowhard would be someone who comes on here and blows nonsense about Sen. Hayakawa in combat, and when confronted runs away...or blows nonsense about Iraq that even Obama doesn't agree with and then runs away, or blows nonsense at Jim's remark here that if the CBC voted against war they should get a pass at circumventing McCain Feingold or any other type of fleecing of the American public. If you can't respond to Jim's remarks and you won't respond to my remarks, then you are someone who throws grenades and runs for mommy. That's a blowhard. I look forward to a reasoned response here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/10/pentagon_quietly_explores_de-citizenship_of_us_cit/index.php#comment-3790272
February 14, 2010 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but this is nothing but double standard Jim. Plain and simple.
February 14, 2010 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, overall. Here's my take.
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-congressional-black-caucus.html
February 15, 2010 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black corruption in Congress somehow defiles the legacy of Martin Luther King. I don't know how, but it just does. (Forget about Shirley Chisholm!)
If you don't believe this, then read Jim Sleeper's other articles, dammit!
The only thing worse than the Congressional Black Caucus is a Republican.
Either we've entered Bizarro World, or Sleeper is pissed that the CBC is moving against Obama.
February 15, 2010 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blockquote courtesy of Doomer below.
February 15, 2010 6:15 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
Aside from insurance, mortgage loans are the biggest expenses you can have. While getting free insurance quotes can save you a large amount of money, the same can be said for researching mortgage related options.
A HELOC (a Home Equity Line of Credit) is a type of loan , most usually a Second Mortgage, that allows a flexible facility to the mortgage loan holder by allowing them access to the accumulated equity they have in the house in the form of money. A Home Equity Line of Credit functions similarly to a bank overdraft – you can draw upon it (up to a pre arranged limit) easily and only incurrs interest on the amount of money you’ve drawn down if you don't use it you don't pay a cent. This is a great way to make use of the built up equity you have in your home and make use of it right now. due to the fact that you only pay interest on the amount you use, it means you can rapidly pay off whatever you use if you have the means to do so. A HELOC is not intended to be a long term arrangement however and at an pre arranged time your line of credit needs to be settled out. Typically Heloc rates are bigger than regular home mortgage loan but not dramatically so.
April 4, 2011 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
After reading this post, your December piece and the NYT article, I can see why you got silence. The topic doesn't fit neatly into anybody's to do list, but it should.
I'm sure you will have people ask you, "What are you getting at, Jim?" or "Where are you going with this?"...
...or "What is the point, Jim?"
The point is corruption is wrong and corruption that is safely concealed is dangerous,...and worst of all, the people that need the representation, the leadership, and the help of these corrupt people, namely their constituents are getting screwed.
Keep telling the truth. Even if it gets you bumped from a few A-list parties, you're doing the right thing. One of the lessons of the civil rights movement was if you are right and you speak the truth long enough, people will not be able to look away forever.
Good post.
February 14, 2010 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Yes, "corruption is corruption."
If anyone is tempted (like the first commenter above) to assume that I prefer beating up on the CBC while letting off more privileged betrayers of civic republican standards, I ask readers to see the FOURTH pdf on the following string, which I linked in my December post on the CBC.
http://www.jimsleeper.com/articles/signature-pieces/Blacks%20and%20Jews%20%28Leonard%20Jeffries,%20LIRR%20massacre,%20Israel%20Massacre,%20early%201990s.pdf
This string has four short columns of mine -- from The Nation, The New Republic, and the New York Daily News -- the first three on black betrayals of those standards, the fourth, tellingly and pointedly, on a distinctively Jewish betrayal. I am nothing if not consistent on this.
February 14, 2010 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, "Corruption is corruption".
As NCD considers it a defense of his weak position to criticize you for attacking CBC and/or Sutton for who they are but not what they have done, it should be noted you acknowledged Sutton's good deeds. NCD also considers it a defense of his knee jerk response to say I'm a Rightwing blow hard. I am fully capable of expressing admiration for Duke Cunningham's achievements as possibly the greatest flying ace in the Jet age, while at the same time recommending he share adjoining cell blocks with Sutton, Jefferson, Rangel or any other corrupt crook.
If NCD wants to defend graft because they have "D" next to their name, then he is part of the coverup and then who is the blowhard. Americans want politicians that play by the rules. In his world since Barbara Lee was the only one out of 545 legislators that voted against the AUMF on 9-15-01, that she has earned the right to take bribes and skim off the graft in Oakland. I disagree...Corruption is corruption.
February 14, 2010 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see too many Democrats in Congress who feel they're there for self service rather than public service.
A prime example is wannabe Harold Ford; this is a guy looking to get on the gravy train and ride it to power and riches.
February 14, 2010 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let PC deter us from speaking the truth to power either.
Bring down the "conspiracy theory" mechanism the government is plotting to use to censure or worse.
February 14, 2010 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
It has been apparent for a long time that the black caucus was up for sale.
They don't see their horse trading in exchange for legislative support for unethical or corrupt businesses as being anything different than what the white Democrats do on a scale hundreds of times larger than the level they operate on. I don't agree that it's okay in any instance for our elected officials to put themselves up for sale like this, but it is hard to deny their logic.
It seems to me it is more than a tad hypocritical for critics (most of whome are white) to point out the shortcomings of the black caucus as though what they've done is something unusual in Washington. It is a double standard that itself deserves some scrutiny without relieving any of the political whores (black or white) in Washington of criticism. It is literally a case of holding the black caucus to a different standard and that is unfair even if the criticism of corruption generally speaking is not.
If it was any group other than the black caucus the situation wouldn't cause even a ripple in the political waters of Washington---waters the recall a sewer more than any other body of water. For example, what are the Blue Dogs and their caucus all about if not whoring themselves to corporate interests in a manner every bit as corrupt as the black caucus and every bit as opposed to the interests of the people they represent?
Until we start criticizing all the whores in the capitol I think it a bit disingenuous to single out the black whores as though they were any different than the white whores in the capitol who, by the way, rake in a helluva lot more boodle than the black caucus could ever imagine.
February 14, 2010 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb writes, "It seems to me it is more than a tad hypocritical for critics (most of whom are white) to point out the shortcomings of the black caucus as though what they've done is something unusual in Washington."
This, of course, is a point I made clearly in both of my posts. But just in case Oleeb was unable to read them properly, and just in case he has not read the other comments here and is therefore tempted(like the first commenter above) to assume that I prefer beating up on the CBC while letting off more privileged betrayers of civic republican standards, I will ask him to see the FOURTH pdf on the following string, which I linked also in my December post on the CBC.
Tor some people, one simply cannot say this too many times or often enough, because -- for reasons that do not much interest me -- they cannot stop charging "double standard," no matter how often and plainly the truth about double standards is staring them in the face.
http://www.jimsleeper.com/articles/signature-pieces/Blacks%20and%20Jews%20%28Leonard%20Jeffries,%20LIRR%20massacre,%20Israel%20Massacre,%20early%201990s.pdf
This string has four short columns of mine -- from The Nation, The New Republic, and the New York Daily News -- the first three on black betrayals of those standards, the fourth, tellingly and pointedly, on a distinctively Jewish betrayal. I am nothing if not consistent on this.
February 14, 2010 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Jim, what do you suggest we do about these corrupt black congressmen? It's not us wealthy, white "liberal racists" who keep voting for these congressmen. They win elections in their own--mostly poor black--districts. You've long been chastising "liberal racists" for tolerating and making excuses for black corruption. But it's not we "politically correct" white liberals who are voting over and over for these candidates. So who really is most responsible here? White liberals or black voters? It seems from your writing that you are much more concerned about the failings of elite, white liberals. But if you really believe blacks should be held responsible for their actions, what do you have to say about black voting behavior? And what do you suggest we (or they) do about it?
February 15, 2010 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good question...
February 15, 2010 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Jim you are missing my point which is that when you righteiously highlight the black corruption we see in the black caucus it really is unfair since it is the tip of the iceberg. Whites, especially of your generatin I hate to have to point out, seem to think it's perfectly okay to be self righteous about such things whenever black politicians do it even though is pales in comparison to the level and volume of graft and bribery white officials of every ideological stripe engage in. It's the special attention focused on the black politicians that is the problem because what the black polticos engage in is peanuts compared to the rest. I don't like it anymore than anyone else and it's troubling to me that it happens at all, but if the white politician steals a million and goes almost without comment and the black politician steals $500 and it is made into a major issue do you not see the fundamental problem in engaging in this sort of scolding of the black caucus?
February 15, 2010 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
CBC corruption is different from general congressional corruption...how, exactly?
February 14, 2010 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clue me in on this. What is the point of differentiating between the black corruption in Congress and the other corruption. It strikes me as purposely provocative. The title of the post offends me. Was that the come-on? Call me stupid. Call me an asshole. But I think you're trying to manipulate us beyond what should pass as political writing.
February 15, 2010 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clue: read it again, but pay attention to the words, like "uniquely":
The Congressional Black Caucus is a parasite whose movements show vividly what ails the Democratic caucus as a whole...the caucus is uniquely wrong to misuse the civil-rights-movement's legacy to feather its nest by screwing its constituents...
His point couldn't be clearer to me.
February 15, 2010 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should it be the case that you are offended because there is a subgroup of Democratic Congresspersons that has a club interested in racial civil rights and benefits to a racial minority, it's not Mr. Sleeper you should be blaming. He didn't just pick out all the black people in Congress to talk about them. The Congressional Black Caucus is a real entity, so it's not impolite or racist to talk about them, just the opposite, that's by their own doing, their raison d'etre.
February 15, 2010 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for underscoring this point. The Congressional Black Caucus chooses to emphasize and trade upon its blackness, and it does so for painfully obvious and historically well-reasons. But that does not justify everything that it does in the name of redressing past oppression. Some of what it does in fact compounds the historical burden. This is not a problem that some people can recognize.
February 15, 2010 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, I think blacks and Jews are important targets in these matters because they are repositories of hope that "man can do better" than what the cynic says is the best we can do.
So I think the point that really gets to you is the CBC's trading on (and profiting from) the civil rights movement's legacy which was the repository of so much hope for a better country.
How can they dare use such a high-minded cause for such low and greedy purposes?
I think some of what angers people about Israel (and "bad Jews" in general; not that they are synonymous-:) is that they are repositories of a sort of naive, but heartfelt hope for humanity. And when they fail humanity, when their feet are exposed as made of clay, the disappointment is that much greater.
So sure, corruption is corruption and should be exposed. But sometimes it's the "English" one puts on the ball that reveals more, or as much, as the content of the charge posed.
And sometimes, it's the novelty of the angle that draws attention. A corrupt white Republican? Old hat. If you're a Democrat, you almost EXPECT it of them. But a corrupt icon of the civil rights movement? Omigod!
Bottom line, I'm not disputing what you've written here; just rolling it around in my mouth a bit to see how it tastes.
P.S. Having hung around the corner a bit here at tpmcafe, it's interesting to see the formal characteristics of certain arguments crop up again and again and in completely different contexts.
So oleeb's plaint 11:50 could, in essence, be found over and over in the endless Israel-Palestinian threads on this site. Just swap out the names and you've got the same argument.
I think there are about five templates that simply get recycled.
February 15, 2010 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bottom line, I'm not disputing what you've written here; just rolling it around in my mouth a bit to see how it tastes.
I like this line, Tintin . . . good one! And it's exactly how I feel. Except I'd go just a tad further and say something tastes just a little off to me about this. But I'm not quite sure what.
I guess my nose smells two problems . . .
First, part of the problem is that, if we're fully honest with ourselves, we probably know that what's most offensive about the kind of corruption we see in the CBC is that it's so low class. It's the kind of blatant, small-time--even tacky--corruption that results in one being caught with a wad of cash in one's freezer. Most white congresspeople have learned to be a bit more subtle, more respectable, more upper middle class in their corruption. They make laws that help defense contractors or pharmaceutical companies get rich and then they end up with a high-paid job at the company two years after they're out of congress. Or maybe their spouse ends up with the job while they're still in congress. And it's a respectable job with a high six-figure or even seven-figure salary. All legal, all above the board--and generally so much more attractive (and lucrative, mind you) than the wad of cash in the freezer. And, probably as well . . so much more damaging . . .
So that's one problem . . . a double standard which isn't so much a double standard but a certain kind of prejudice against the kind of corruption that one finds among immigrant and other lower class groups who haven't yet become sophisticated enough to know how to angle for the really big money . . .
And then there's the second problem. . . . which is Sleeper's obsession with elite liberals in the press or in academia who out of political correctness--or maybe just out of a sense of decorum--decide not to spend too much time fomenting outrage at the fact that among the underclass one finds . . . can you believe it? . . . pick pockets! I mean, when there's really prejudice out there against the Irish, does it help to go pointing out that some Irish are indeed drunks? It seems like Sleeper wants to keep pointing out that blacks do bad things and should be held responsible for their actions and that "liberal" whites need to stop making excuses for blacks doing bad things and instead climb up on a hill and point out those bad things just like Sleeper does! Well what good does that do really?
I guess I agree with everything Sleeper observes about the CBC--I'm just not convinced that observing it is all that important . . . or really all that helpful. And I guess that's what tastes bad to me.
February 15, 2010 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Astute. I'd have to look at Jim's entire post and the articles behind it to see how much I agree with you, but your comment is thought-provoking, as it often is.
February 15, 2010 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very skillful articulation of bigotry in a public forum: blacks are low-class, tacky, and unsophisticated (i.e., ghetto), while the Irish are "indeed" drunks!
Congratulations on almost getting away with it.
February 15, 2010 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You realize, readytoblow, that there's a great deal of sarcasm in this post?
Also, maybe I should clarify that, had I not been called away to help get dinner on the table, I would have expanded what I wrote a bit. I was thinking of making some comparison between current African-American politics and Tammany Hall or maybe the Chicago Daley machine of the 60s (hence the Irish reference). There's a certain kind of political corruption, I think, that isn't really specific to race or ethnicity, but that seems more to be linked with social class. Jim Sleeper refers to Percy Sutton as "folkloric"--and that word hints at the nature of this kind of corruption. It's a kind of corruption that's centered on the need or the desire to identify with a "big man"--a person from one's own social group who has acquired the trappings of success and who is powerful enough to provide a few favors. Being associated with the "big man" makes one feel important and powerful as well. Half of my relatives are Italian immigrants and I know this mentality well . . . it's the kind of mentality that leads to conversations like this (which I've heard at dinner with my own relatives): "You got a speeding ticket? Well, I know someone who's high up in the state police. I can call him and he'll get it taken care of for you . . . "
This kind of corruption is what I was referring to (with sarcasm) as unattractive low-class corruption. It's blatant, petty, and relatively small ticket. And I was contrasting it (again with a great deal of sarcasm) with "higher-class" corruption that doesn't require the breaking of any laws and is even covered in a thick veneer of respectability, but that ends up making its practitioners and their corporate friends very wealthy. It's the kind of corruption that leads Halliburton to get big, uncontested contracts while Dick Cheney gets ever richer. It's the kind of corruption that I think most respondents to Sleeper's post felt was at least equal in perfidy to the CBC's corruption, which Sleeper seems to be claiming is especially and uniquely bad.
February 16, 2010 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, Thank you for these observations. I agree with much that you say in this comment. In a comment further below, I unburden myself of some of my frustrations with what too many others here have done.
February 15, 2010 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The web's democratic instantanaeity and interactivity has a sad underside that is on display in this therad: People come together behind monikers that disguise their identities and experiences (or, often their lack of the latter), thereby making it seem as if they don't really care to know one other and that they don't need or want to know what has already been written by the writer of the post (who IS identified, however, and does have a readily accessible record of work on the subject at hand).
This asymmetry is not, in fact, democratic, or constructive, and I'm sorry to say that the thread above is a particularly vivid instance of the destructive consequences for public discussion.
I have no way of knowing what some of my critics above actually have experienced or know about politics in black electoral districts or even what they know about my own knowledge of it. Some of them seem to be saying that since they know nothing, I can't know anything, either, and that therefore is hypocritical and arrogant of me to criticize both the common and the unique perfidies of the Congressional Black Caucus. Not knowing much of anything about the subject, which they have nevertheless chosen to comment upon from behind the protection of their fictive identities, these critics offer us little besides their sincere but uninformed moralism.
I, on the other hand, have a Wikipedia page (for Jim Sleeper) and a website (www.jimsleeper.com) which, while currently under repair, works well enough to supply readers with a resume and a section that includes a small sample of my work on racial politics based on my experiences of and within racially charged politics. The democracy and instantaneity of a site such as TPMCafe certainly do make it possible for others to weigh in on the subject without having done any homework or accumulated any experience. But Since they also don't identify themselves or provide any information beyond displays of their own ignorance, the disincentive to interactivity pretty quickly overwhelms the responsibilities of democracy.
February 15, 2010 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! This comment takes the cake for unadulterated narcissism.
Sorry, this isn't a class where people are forced to agree with you or it'll affect their grade. It's a free public forum. Everyone is equal here, a concept you seem to have some trouble with. You're not the only one with a Wikipedia page or with published books or articles.
Your accusation that people didn't do the reading assignment is one of the lamest excuses I've ever seen from a professional; I read this blog, your previous blog, the articles, and explored some other sources, and I am still left with the question: How is the Congressional Black Caucus so much worse than everyone else in Congress? It's a question that requires you to compare offenders and evaluate their offenses. You're supposed to be the expert on the topic, but I'm beginning to suspect it's simply a favorite weapon for bashing liberals. Among other things.
In any case, maybe you're not democratic-minded enough to mingle with the unmatriculated masses; maybe you belong at a members-only blog.
February 15, 2010 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ready, I think you're being unfair and taking effect instead of reasoning this out. Let's look...
Ready: Sorry, this isn't a class where people are forced to agree with you or it'll affect their grade. It's a free public forum. Everyone is equal here, a concept you seem to have some trouble with. You're not the only one with a Wikipedia page or with published books or articles.
TT: Jim doesn't say everyone has to agree with him. He IS asking folks to ask themselves...How much are their comments based on things they KNOW...and how much of their commentary is the perfectly legitimate, but uninformed, opinion proffering that everyone does. Nor is he saying that no one else has a Wiki page or published books relevant to the subject.
Do you and have you?
Tellingly, I'd say, Jim is one of the few bloggers here who is willing, pretty consistently, to get down in the comments and respond, as he's done here. This shows a level of respect for commenters that few others here do. ALL bloggers and commenters prefer it when someone else agrees with them rather than takes them to task. The blogger has put thought into his thesis--generally, but not always more thought than most of the commenters--so he's likely to come back with objections to the objections.
Ready: I am still left with the question: How is the Congressional Black Caucus so much worse than everyone else in Congress? It's a question that requires you to compare offenders and evaluate their offenses.
TT: Here are two quotes from Jim's post. The first one is: "The Congressional Black Caucus is a parasite whose movements show vividly what ails the Democratic caucus as a whole. Republicans, of course, are a cancer, but the parasite mattered more after voters removed some of the cancer in 2008 and made Democrats the majority, whetting appetites on that side, not least at the CBC."
So here, he's NOT saying that CBC is "so much worse"--a cancer is worse than a parasite, at least in my book--but rather that it "mattered more" because it became part of the power structure in 2008. It's not hard to see how someone with power matters more than someone without power. It was effective, not feckless. He purports to show how what ails the CBC ails the Democratic caucus as a whole--but I'm not sure he does.
Here's another quote, not the opening phrase: "Typical though the CBC's behavior was of congressional corruption, I argued that the caucus is uniquely wrong to misuse the civil-rights-movement's legacy to feather its nest by screwing its constituents."
Jim is admitting that, qua corruption, the CBC's corruption is "typical." But he is particularly offended that the heirs and beneficiaries (and, in some cases, former members) of the civil rights movement are using this legacy for personal gain and to screw the very people the movement was meant to protect. It is, he claims, a case of betrayal and thus worthy of condemnation.
Betrayal is a pretty heinous sin (in my book), but I guess it's a judgement call. Maybe betrayal isn't so bad to other people. Maybe this isn't a case of betrayal. But I'm not sure this case can be proven in a way that will satisfy everyone.
But he is NOT saying that, when put side by side with all the awful things Congresspeople have or will do, the CBC is the devil incarnate and "so much worse" than everyone else. He's not really making comparisons here. He's shining a light on THIS piece of corruption which he regards as worthy of exposure for the reasons adduced.
There's an added point here: It's easy to give a free pass to people who have been oppressed. This is reasonable to a point; but there is a point at which this is no longer tenable or justifiable, and a light should be shined on the damage this neglect does to any number of parties.
He also makes a good point when he says that when he condemns X, it doesn't mean he doesn't condemn Y. No blog post is meant to encompass the entire universe of things the blogger is thinking about or condemning. It's one piece. You can only really shine the light on one thing at a time.
We are the ones making the comparison. We're saying, "Jim, with all the troubles in the world, why are you bothering us with this penny ante stuff." In this limited space of a blog post, I think he's made a decent case for his concern. Perhaps more proof would be required to put a lock on it. But I don't think he has to justify this post by showing, for example, that CBC corruption is more important than nuclear proliferation, or even the Iraq War. The Iraq War has been sliced and diced a million times; so has Republican corruption; so has nuclear proliferation; this is a topic that has gotten little exposure from the left and is probably worth thinking about from that point of view alone.
Ready: In any case, maybe you're not democratic-minded enough to mingle with the unmatriculated masses; maybe you belong at a members-only blog.
TT: This bit of sarcasm falls flat when you count the number of times Jim responds to commenters in this relatively short thread. The ratio is pretty good by anyone's standards.
February 16, 2010 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still waiting for the comparison with other congressional caucuses, but all I hear are crickets.
February 16, 2010 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because a comparison wasn't the point of the post.
February 16, 2010 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of this is legit, some of this is not. The ideas and not the identities are what count in my book Jim. I do think you takes your chances when you are out in the open as you are and profering your thoughts and all. My hat is off to you for that and for you civility. You really do a very good job of not flaming even when you've got a right to be mad.
Regarding this topic, there is a wide range of opinion. I am from the school that objects to singling out black politicians for doing what whites do in much greater volume and when the white are causing far more damage to our system overall. That isn't a defense of black corruption at all. It's just an objection to the practice of singling out blacks as though there's anything unusual about the way they operate. My own experience over about 30 years in politics is that whites are quick to make these sorts of judgments about blacks and it is irksome to black pols as well as black citizens who are politically aware. I think they have a damn good point. It makes a whole lot more sense to me to go after the folks who are really the heart and soul of corruption which is white politicians who have sold out to corporate interests and who no longer even pretend to represent the interests of the population in general whether black or white.
February 16, 2010 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Sleeper:
The Iraq War has been an important indicator of what ails our republic, but it is not the only one...what we are chronicling here has gong way beyond "polite," and it has to be fleshed out (or flushed) out for what it is. Thorough muckraking, too, is part of governing.
Jim, you are reminding me of the infamous Captain Queeg of The Caine Mutiny. The ship of our nation is near to foundering in a typhoon brought on by white conservatives, mostly of the Republican variety, yet you and all who think this is a 'big deal' are complaining that (sorry for the bluntness) "some niggah been stealin' some of them strawberries!" Lets have an inquiry about it!
As to the commenter referring to Rep. Jefferson, what Jefferson did was for himself and it did not involve the Black Caucus. There have been any number of Republicans sent to prison for similar offenses.
If all liberals can do is complain about penny-ante legal fund raising by Blacks relating to minutia like RTO regulation you are simply giving aid and comfort to the people who have and continue to do huge, real damage to this country. And they aren't Black.
February 15, 2010 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I can rest the case I made above simply by calling attention to the amply named NobleCommentDecider's comment here. It comes from a locked-in-prison mindset that prevents it from comprehending why a post that is written about one topic does not also, at the same time, cover every other topic I have written about in the past two weeks, including the generic topic of earmarks, the misdirection of the Tea Party movement, the pros and cons of the State of the Union Speech, the dangers inherent in the Supreme Court's ruling against regulations on corporate 'speech," and the recent senatorial election in Massachusetts.
NobleCommentDecider faults the post above for being what it is about and for not being about other things that NobleCommentDecider thinks it should also be about but that other recent post of mine, and not this one, are actually about. Because this is a blogsite, not a book, each post has its own limited purpose and place, and the most that one can ask is that readers take at least some minimal care to contextualize what they are reading before criticizing it for not being about what it is not about and for being about what it is about.
February 15, 2010 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is true and a limitation of this form.
February 16, 2010 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, I don't know if this sheds light on your thesis or is just an interesting sidebar.
Some time ago, I made the acquaintance of a guy who practiced election law. He had done graduate work with a poli-sci professor at Emory who is one half of a pair of twins very well-known in their field. One, or both of them, appeared on Bill Moyers.
He was/is a libertarian, so we didn't agree on much. But our conversation was non-confrontational, and I learned some things from him. One thing was that, at some point, the Republicans realized they would be stuck in a permanent minority (around 45%) if they only relied on their traditional constituencies.
Viguerie, among others, realized they needed to galvanized the so-called "values voters" to get to a majority. They needed that coalition to gain and keep power. This may explain why the Tea Party movement (to the degree it overlaps with the values voters bloc) represents a fissure and a crisis for the Republican Party more than opportunity.
The other thing he said had to do with the South. I don't know if this is true, but it is interesting. The demographics in most of the districts in the south were such that only moderate white men (I guess Republicans) could get elected. Blacks didn't have enough votes; and conservative Republicans didn't have enough votes to get one of theirs elected.
So they made a deal which resulted in some very strangely gerrymandered districts consisting of a majority of blacks in some and a majority of conservative white folk in others. In a sense, if this is true, the CBC made a pact "with the devil" in order to advance the cause of black representation. But it's unclear to me that this deal furthered the cause of the general electorate in terms of greater comity and racial harmony. In a sense, it was/is a form of re-segregation.
February 16, 2010 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tone. Headline that seeks attention. Crass. You could have written this commentary without the excess. You get your point across. But for me, you're a second rate hack of a journalist.
February 16, 2010 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
One African-American political website noted that the NYT article does lack context by not comparing positions taken by White legislators that harm their constituents (Health Care Reform anyone?).
The site does state that the small amount of funding that went to the scholarship fund may be legal, but is hard to defend.
http://www.theroot.com/views/new-york-times-takes-black-caucus-task
Another African-American website points ut that the CBC
_Supported Dollar Bill Jefferson
_Sides with the telecoms on NetNeutrality
_Willingly takes money from coporations working against African-American interests. In fact the fund raising brochures make clear that the bigger the donations, the bigger the access to CBC members.
This website also suggests that a similar light be shone on the CBC's White colleagues by the NYT.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/02/nytimes-skewers-congressional-black-caucus-corruption/
If the CBC is going to be a Civil Rights organization, it has to simply do better. We are not surprised by Baucus, Lieberman, Pryor etc being bought off by insurance companies and BigPharma,
We might expect the CBC to do a little Habitat for Humanity type things in NOLA since the CBC supported Dollar bill. The CBC might also divert more funds to scholarships and Haiti.
The heat gets turned on the CBC because the group says it exists for the African-American community. If the CBC wants to declare itself as a group that exists solely for elected African-American Congressional members, then the CBC can get in the mud with the rest of the money grubbers in Congress.
February 16, 2010 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for checking those sites. I intended to go through a similar exercise myself, but have been too busy to get to it.
There used to be something called CBC Monitor, a wonderful resource put together by Leutisha Stills and colleagues, that would issue a 'Report Card' (pdf) 2-4 times a year, but I don't know if the CBC Monitor folks are still active. It's as though they vanished after throwing a big (and well deserved) virtual celebration over Donna Edwards 2008 primary unseating of CBC member and major corporocrat Al Wynn (MD-4).
At least until summer 2008, CBC Monitor was hosted at the Website Black Agenda Report (BAR), but I don't see any sign of it over there since mid-2008. It looks like this "voxunion" site may have been (or is?) trying to get something going along these lines, but there's nothing there; in addition, there's indication their site has been partially hacked.
I confess to not following politics much lately, due to press of other matters - that includes politics in the African-American community. I was growing concerned in 2008 that a schism might develop among some very good and honorable folks over support (or not) of then-Senator Obama for the Presidency - e.g., the old school Af-Am journalists at BAR were keenly aware and suspicious of Mr. Obama's corporate-friendly side, while a number of Af-Am bloggers (typically younger, I think) saw that no non-corporate candidate stood a chance anyway, and that in their opinion, Mr. Obama was the best choice. All speculation on my part, though.
To me, the (mis)behavior of the CBC, and the presence and health of community groups that monitor it - or lack of same - serve as 'canaries in the coal mine' for warning about the extent and depth of corruption in Congressional politics in general. The absence of CBC Monitor, and the fact that the CBC members are apparently sliding back to their old ways - Wynn's loss to Edwards really rattled them for a moment there - are not good signs for either Af-Am national politics in particular, nor Congressional politics in general.
February 16, 2010 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jack & Jill Politics website does comment on the actions of the CBC from time to time, but obviously this is not enough. Johnson Publishing even at it's height was not really doing political analysis (criticizing politicians that would smile for their pages). Emerge magazine did political analysis, but has folded.
Wingnuts like Limbaugh will have a field day with this report on the CBC, but wingnuts will have a field day with anything that puts African-Americans in a negative light. To be honest, since the wingnuts are going to call you a N no matter what you do as an African-American (see Limbaugh's comments to Michael Steele), wingnut views are not important. You can predict how the wingut is going to characterize the situation.
By not pushing Dollar Bill to the curb, the CBC ceded Jefferson's seat to the GOP.
February 16, 2010 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
advokat stavanger
Marvelous, this content is very much helpful and appreciating . . . . information is efficient and targeting towards complete solution to the problem.
February 5, 2011 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work. fat burning furnace
April 7, 2011 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the information. This is a wonderful post!!
Custom Research Paper
Custom Essay
April 7, 2011 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good information .... Thanks guy...
Custom Term Paper
April 7, 2011 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Puppies for Sale in Pennsylvania
April 11, 2011 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work. Printer Ink
April 18, 2011 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: German Shepherd Puppies for Sale
April 23, 2011 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is an article that gives great insight to foundational elements when it comes to being able to successfully make money on the internet. Megan Faso
April 30, 2011 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us.Great site and a great topic as well i really get amazed to read this. anxiety medications
May 3, 2011 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink