Is Obama Right For Saying "I Can't Do Nuthin Fo Ya Man" To The Congressional Black Caucus?

Straight from Flava Flavs play book, the Obama administration is saying, "I can't do nuthin fo ya, man" to the Congressional Black Caucus (aka CBC). What began as a friendly partisan request for the release of stimulus funds directed toward minority businesses and their constituents is now morphing into an outright clamorous demand right before our eyes. During recent interviews with the CBC, you sense the unease that many of these politicians have about escalating this issue. Whereas some are definitely eager to hit Obama where it hurts, the majority seems cautious and a bit nervous about picking this fight. President Obama is still very popular among their constituents.

As of November 2009, the unemployment rate for Whites and Blacks were 9.3% and 15.6%, respectively. For Black women and men it was 11.7% and 16.9%, respectively. See the chart at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm.  Some believe this to be double and even triple in some of the CBC’s districts.

President Obama wants to address the economic woes of all of Main Street. The CBC claims that the economic woes of Blacks and other minorities represent something more like Back Street as opposed to Main Street. They say that they need to target economic stimulus dollars to stabilize this section of the United States.

Knowing politics as I do, you get what you want when you have the leverage. When you don’t have leverage, you get ignored and marginalized. For example, consider the few hold-outs over the healthcare legislation. They used the threat of a nay vote to get what they wanted and ultimately trumped the will of the majority of the Senate. God knows what other concessions they were able to get for other pieces of legislation not currently in the lime-light. Being loyal does gain you some leverage, but not as much as holding out on close important votes.

The CBC has leverage if they so choose to use it. There are a slew of votes coming down the chute that will need their support. They certainly could be the sticks in the mud if they have the balls (for lack of a better word) to stand firm on their convictions. It has been a while since they have asserted themselves in a major way. Mostly the CBC focuses on safe low hanging fruit, nothing too controversial or costly.

I have to be honest, I agree with the Obama administration on this issue. But it’s not likely for the same reasons the administration is making this stand. I'm sure his inner circle has advised him that African Americans are his most loyal constituents and have traditionally supported the Democrat in big numbers whether there was a quid pro quo or not. And that showing any direct support of African Americans would give the opposition proof to support their assertions that he is the "Black President". And that any preferential treatment should first be directed toward those "independent" voters. You know those folks that drive mini-vans, live in the suburbs, enjoy Starbucks joe on the regular, and flip-flop voting for Democrats and Republicans. Yeah, they'll make the real difference in the 2010 and 2012 election.

I think the CBC’s initiative is the wrong move because the money needs to go where folks know how to leverage it. The Bush and Obama administrations were thinking this when the stimulus money was directed to Wall Street. Although the intent was to prop up our financial system, the issue with that distribution choice is that only flimsy strings were attached. Now that the financial system seems to be regaining its balance and the smoke is clearing, we can all see that Wall Street did exactly what it does well. They made money. Why anyone would think that Wall Street would be the knights in shining armor riding in to save the day on their white horses is a mystery to me. Financial institutions are all about the Benjamins, baby.

Surely, the lesson has been learned and the next round of stimulus won’t be as much of a gift as the first. So in that frame of thinking, the right way to go is to put stimulus funds in the hands of those who can properly leverage it. That group of people is a much ethnically broader spectrum than either the Starbucks independents or the CBC constituents. That group understands money and would make the right decisions to get the economy going and lower unemployment rates.

Funneling money down the chute specifically for Blacks and minorities will neither get the economy going nor lower the unemployment rates in the long run. Just like the failure of most social programs and social spending, such an approach will only temporarily sustain Black folks and minority businesses until the money runs out. Don’t get me wrong, there will be a few that game the system and walk away in good shape. But this is not the case for the vast majority who will find themselves still in a vulnerable situation when it’s all said and done.

Really, if the CBC wants to reduce the unemployment rate among minorities, they’d stop with aid and assistance program mentality that only prolongs problems instead of solving them. Where are the "keep families together" bills and "equal education for all" bills? What about the "endangered species" bill for Black and Latino men to address the incarceration and murder rates impacting these groups or the "go to high school...go to college" bills giving poor people education and financial support? How about the “minority business incubator” bills that groom and support entrepreneurs and small business owners?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the CBC isn't an important and essential group. But they do focus a whole lot on the low hanging fruit. It would be good if they shift their focus to more important issues affecting the Black community. They have the leverage to do it. But that's a blog for another day.

Why are African Americans opposed to gay marriage?

I recently read a blog on the Huffington Post by Sam Fulwood called Why Are Some Black Folks So Upset Over Gays Getting Married? Please check it out at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-fulwood/why-are-some-black-folks_b_375885.html. The author, Sam, is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.


Immediately, it struck me that gay people are dealing with various forms of prejudice and discrimination sort of like what women, African Americans, Hispanics, Chinese, and countless other minorities experienced in America. Clearly, gays aren't being routinely terrorized by hate groups, but state and local legislative bodies are passing laws that are discriminatory toward gays. Is it questionable that a legislative body would pass laws that discriminate?  Remember, it wasn’t too long ago that interracial marriage was illegal. 

Maybe here is where I should state that I am African American, heterosexual, married with kids, and a proud Christian of the Church of God in Christ denomination (a rather conservative Christian group). And maybe that is why my heart and compassion extends to the gay population surrounding marriage. It's a choice between two consenting adults. It's a choice that doesn't harm anyone else. It's a choice that other U.S. citizens enjoy. So why shouldn’t gay Americans have equal protection under the law?

As I discussed this with my wife who also is a proclaimed heterosexual, married, African American Christian, we seem to have two different perspectives. She says that the Bible says that gay behavior is a sin and that's why it shouldn't be legal. Period!

I said that my Christian beliefs and morals should not determine whether gay marriage should be legal. If gay people want to get married, that's between the couple and God. But as a matter of equality, I cannot think of a reason why it should not be legal for gays to marry.

Is the Bible really the best source for determining the legality of social norms? The Bible made plenty of other social rules that no longer apply in today's society. Slavery and women rights immediately come to mind. Should we not then re-animate the legality of slavery and strip women of their rights?

I assert that if African Americans are thinking like my wife on this topic, then they too are substituting Christian morality for legality. One’s morals whether based on one’s Christian beliefs or not should not determine right and wrong behavior for someone else. Instead, one’s morals should be their personal guiding principles.

Sam Fulwood article points out how some Christian leaders once understood that Civil Rights for one translated into Civil Rights for all.  But if God gave us free choice to choose right or wrong, then why is it appropriate for us to take away choice from others? By doing this, are we not putting ourselves above God as judges?  Surely, that is not a place for man.