A Charlatan and a Menace

Black America is not some monolithic entity or voting constituency that can be motivated in total by the same causes and issues. Just like any other race in America, they are subject to what I will call George Carlin’s disease. That is, during one of his bits, Carlin uttered the line, “…if you killed everyone in the world and just left one guy standing, that crazy mother$%#&er would attack the mirror!” That’s just as true among the various sub-groups of Blacks as it is among Whites, Arabs, Asians, etc.

This is why I laugh when some people say that what is missing in the Black community is a leader. Who should that leader be exactly? Should it be Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) whom led an investigation of the CIA’s alleged role in drug trafficking back in the 80’s? Or how about Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr. whom is currently the chairman of GOPAC, which is the premier training organization for Republican candidates across America. Rep. Watts was elected by the good people of Oklahoma 4 times before he retired and moved on to GOPAC. Then there’s the rising star of the Democrat party, former civil rights attorney and newly elected Jr. Senator, Barak Obama. Some are saying that he’s destined to be the first Black president of the United States. Surely he would make a fine leader, hell I’d even vote for him despite Newsmax.com calling him a socialist. But my favorite choice for this illusive title of “Black Leader” is newly appointed Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. There’s not a day that goes by that I’m not praying she runs against HILLARY in 2008.

All four of those individuals are testaments to the possibilities Black people have in America, under the right circumstances. All four of those people could be exemplarily leaders for Black America. However, I think it is safe to say that Dr. Rice and Rep. Watts have a distinctly different agenda and worldview than does Rep. Waters and Jr. Senator Obama. So which side would more benefit “Black America”? Are Blacks better served by more conservative values or by more progressive policies? Are the majority of American Blacks, in actuality, of a more conservative moral stature or are they generally more liberal in areas of ethical behavior? It’s certainly a hard nut to crack and I think it would be an exercise in hubris for any one person to say they represent all Blacks.

That brings me to Jesse Jackson. He is the self-proclaimed leader of the Black Community. He does this by targeting big corporations, accusing them of racism and then demanding rather large reparation as payment for their evil ways. However, as near as I can tell none of the money he’s extorted from corporate America has made its way into the pockets of Black America. From what I understand, the money he receives from these payoffs is used to fund his Rainbow-P.U.S.H. coalition and any number of his private fancies. So if by leader he means corrupt and unaccountable, than he’s a leader in the same vein as many Washington bureaucrats. Bravo.

Normally I can ignore Jackson just as I ignore the likes of Jerry Falwell. Personally I think they are both two sides of the same wooden nickel. But this latest rant from Jackson as reported by Newsmax.com really irritated me:

[President Bush has implemented economic policies that resemble those of the Roman Empire, which forced the baby Jesus into homelessness on the night of his birth, former civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson said in a pre-Christmas rant late Thursday.

"In the last [Bush] budget, we cut housing again, and that was Jesus' dilemma. In Bethlehem, his family ended up homeless," Jackson told MSNBC's Campbell Brown.

"Rome was a wealthy country that left Jesus and Mary and Joseph, in a sense, homeless," he complained. "He was born an at-risk baby."]

I’ll give him points for creativity. It takes a lot to offend me Mr. Jackson, well done.

Aside from the tremendous idiocy of this statement as well as the awe-inspiring lack of historical or theological context, one must ask, “How does this help Black people?” How exactly does a statement such as this serve the Black community? Does Mr. Jackson really believe that comparing the Bush Administrations social-welfare and housing policies to Roman Imperialism will result in some kind boon for the Black community? That group didn’t show embarrassment when WMD couldn’t be found in Iraq, a highly doubt Jackson can shame a more progressive housing policy out of them. Surely he must know that too so one is left asking, “To what end does a purposely malicious statement such as this serve?”

The answer is that is serves Jackson and Jackson alone. It gets him publicity and makes him relevant. Despite not having accomplished much for Black people in the last 20 years, he’s still a top draw in the circus that is mainstream politics. Much like Charlie Rangel, he can get away with spouting all kinds of hatred and nonsense because to call him on it is to brand yourself a racist. Not to mention that he’s a quasi-private citizen, not an elected official. We can’t just throw the bum out lord knows some have tried.

What irks me is that this charlatan of civil rights does more harm to Black people than he does help in any noticeable way. Civil rights, economic equality, equitable suffrage and representation for Black people in America are serious issues that deserve legitimacy in the public forum. I believe when Jackson addresses a national TV audience and goes into his “parody of a Civil Rights Leader” routine by saying things like, “the U.S. appears to be indifferent toward the poor as we seek tax cuts and no-bid contracts for the wealthy; as we engage in wars of choice - driving our nation into isolation," he undermines the actual struggles for parity in the U.S. In short, I think Jackson is a menace to Black people far and wide.

Black politicians and their constituency want to be taken seriously, as they should be. But in terms of marketing, if you want to sell yourselves to the American public at large and give weight to the issues that affect you the most, it would be better to do without the likes of Jackson reducing your message to that of a minstrels act. Much like the Democrat Party at large, you aren’t going to get anywhere insulting your audience. Somewhere in between Dr. Rice and Senator Obama there’s a middle road that right now is congested with people like Jackson. His ilk can only drive the struggle into the ditch.

Whoever leads Black America to the land of milk and honey, liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican or whatever, it shouldn’t be Jesse Jackson. That would be the equivalent of letting Mahmud Zahar, the leader of Hamas, lead B'nai B'rith International.