PDA

View Full Version : Do black congressmen still represent black interests?




bobbyw24
10-15-2009, 06:00 PM
All eyes are on Rep. Charlie Rangel again this week as finger-pointing Republicans continue to pursue punishing him for ethics violations. Rangel's own financial shortcomings landed him in this situation. His very own, and well-deserved Ways and Means Committee chairmanship, is at stake. But in a world where perception reins supreme, Rangel's financial woes may likely have far-reaching and negative implications not only for him, but the people he first came to Congress to represent.

Congressman William Clay, Sr. once claimed, "Black people have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests." As a fellow founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), this statement characterized not only Congressman Rangel's political beliefs, but defined his fundamental mission: to represent the underrepresented political interests of black Americans.

But things have changed. Rangel co-founded the CBC with thirteen members in 1971; today, they boast a membership of forty-two. The number of black elected officials at every level of office has increased six-fold during this time and more than ten-fold in some states, according to the last count by the Joint Center of Political and Economic Studies. Once an anomaly, black faces are now relatively commonplace throughout the country's legislative corridors. Normal. Ordinary. Typical. This is supposed to be a good thing, right? A measure of racial progress to be sure?

The problem, though - as some see it - is that when they were few, folks like Rangel were black politicians - politicians whose mission was shaped by their fidelity to the racial group to which they belonged. Now that they are many, some say they have become nothing more than politicians who just so happen to be black, placing their own, personal and primarily financial interests above those to be served. Some would say that the black interests of 1971 have taken a backseat to the personal interests of individual black congressmen and women of this millennium.

For instance, almost one-third of CBC members were considered "underachievers" or "derelict" in a 2006 report by the Black Congressional Monitor, a progressive interest group which tracks the legislative initiatives of black congressmen and women. From stash-of-cash-in-my-fridge William Jefferson, to former Congressman Al Wynn, Bobby Rush and others once criticized for selling their votes to the powerful telecommunications lobby, the group castigated many on the CBC's roster for putting their own interests first. The best interests of their black constituents or civil rights causes came second, they claimed.

The accuracy of such a report is only one thing to consider. More importantly, we must consider the fact that there is a growing perception that today's black politicians aren't the democratic defenders of the race many once saw them as.

This is one of the primary reasons that Congressman Rangel's recent financial mishaps may end up costing more than just one man's position or reputation. Rangel's taxing forgetfulness, alongside media reports framing

http://www.thegrio.com/2009/10/all-eyes-are-on-rep.php

Vessol
10-15-2009, 06:01 PM
Why do we even divide ourselves like this? Meh, white interests, black interests, all nonsense to divide us even further.

youngbuck
10-15-2009, 06:02 PM
Why should black congressmen serve "black" interests? Should white congressmen serve "white" interests? The question is inherently collectivist.

bobbyw24
10-15-2009, 06:04 PM
Why should black congressmen serve "black" interests? Should white congressmen serve "white" interests? The question is inherently collectivist.

No--all Americans in Congress should represent all Americans in their respective districts and American interests.

bobbyw24
10-15-2009, 06:05 PM
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our societ

Cong. Ron Paul 12/24/2002

jmdrake
10-15-2009, 06:08 PM
Charlie Rangle is a NWO tool. He's still pushing for a draft under the lame excuse that it would make rich and powerful less likely to support the war even though the dems own the executive and judicial branch and could end both wars immediately if they wanted to.

That said the "congressional black caucus" was originally against the bailout and only voted for it because of personal lobbying by the presidential nominee Barack Obama. Sure you can be mad at them for caving under pressure, but what's the excuse of white republicans who voted for it like John Cornyn? I still get calls from his "senate election committee" for donations. When will the GOP realize that they will get NO money from me with people like him at the helm? Ok. I'm ranting off topic now.

Regards,

John M. Drake