Category Archives: black American

Race is a lie …

I know I am beautiful and love my phenotype and genotype.   I love the skin I was born in.  It makes me unique.  I honor my lineage, appreciating my parents, grandparents, and great grand-parents.  I try my best to maintain my household, to keep my son safe and hopefully teach him the things necessary for him to survive this Matrix.  I don’t run away from my Caribbean culture and am always ready to embrace someone whose own lineage parallels mine.

I am not, however, a race.  The notion that people are permanently lumped together based on the color of their skin runs counter to human behavior.  Humans are always touted as tribal, social.  Academics will tell me that genetics meeting environment spawns various racial groups and the desire to create collectives for security and economic purposes.  I beg to differ.

Similar looking people who develop language and customs do so for temporary strategic reasons.  Maintaining and expanding my household today as well as 140 years ago in the Caribbean and 500 years ago in Africa required entering into security agreements with neighbors to ensure a prosperous hunt.  Maintaining order required agreement as to how disagreements would be settled.  But no household wanted to be blindly allied with an association of households based on skin color where the well-being of the household would be negatively affected.

This notion of a mass collective, of a nation-state, is derived from a few individuals wishing to use masses of people, whose lineages run closely together, as a platform for expanding their own vision.  The masses when successfully programmed to abide by rules, mores, and values published by a visionary few are enabled to bear the brunt of the cost of the visionary’s programs of expansion including the execution of war and trade.

Race is but one of the collective creation mechanisms used to help expand the wants and desires of the visionary few.  For example, as Europeans expanded into the western hemisphere, it was the construction and deployment of the race mechanism that facilitated the recruitment of people needed to colonize the Americas.  The masses paid the taxes, mined the gold mines, planted the tobacco plantations, and cleared the land of inhabitants generating benefits that flowed mostly to political, military, government, and commercial elites.  In exchange the masses took as payment access to credit and land upon which to settle.

Collectives, races are organized for a purpose.  Masses of Europeans were organized to conquer a land.  What are masses of African descendants in America organized to do?

In the American political economy today, “blacks” are organized to help extend the political visions of the leaders of America’s political parties.  Aiding in the organization are America’s black political elite who yearn for the prestige, power, and pensions the political industry offers.  The black political elite mines the black vote and brings masses of black voters to the polling places.  In exchange for their votes, “blacks” hope to receive programs that grant access to credit, employment opportunities, educational opportunities, and affordable housing.

The model is basically the same mass exploitative model used on those earlier masses of Europeans that colonized the Americas.  The difference is that while those Europeans, as a collective, were granted access to wealth creating/capital accumulation opportunities, Africans, as a collective, have been offered what I term “renewable wardship”, where the safety nets negotiated by the black political elite are only as good as the legislation that renews the availability every budget season of these social safety nets.  In other words, the European or white exploitative model offered access to liberty after an indentured period while the African or black exploitative model has offered offered continuous wage slavery where today masses of blacks are still relying on the benevolence of government.

The exploitative model, where blacks are massed and seduced for their votes in return for political packages that offer no capital return, does nothing for the uplift of the individual.  He or she is kept in constant beggar mode, petitioning government to pursue policies such as “closing the digital divide” or “closing the wealth gap” or “raising the minimum wage”; policies that government was not designed to implement.

The visionaries, the black political elite, are doing well off of this model where race is manipulated and operationalized to facilitate that black political elite’s ability to offer up masses as coal for America’s political engine, having no concern for the erosion it brings to self-determination and consciousness.

Race is a tool.  Race is a plantation that limits and enslaves.  Race is a lie ….

Can Blacks hold Democrats in Maryland hostage in November 2020? They should try …

Black Maryland’s numerical clout …

Approximately 3,954,027 voters are registered to vote in Maryland. With a black population hovering around 30% of the Free State, if we used that percentage to determine the number of black registered voters in Maryland, we come up with approximately 1,186,208.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton received approximately 740,000 more votes in Maryland than Donald Trump picking up ten electoral college votes in the process.  If black Maryland voters, 90% of whom vote Democratic, had decided to either stay home or vote “down ballot” on other issues, Mr Trump might have left Maryland with ten extra electors.

More importantly, the black community in Maryland may have been in a position in the 2018 midterms to bargain for more political packages, whether in the form of grants, contracts, or social services.  Putting the fear into Democratic leadership about the extent to which black votes mattered may have resulted in a better benefit exchange for the vote.

But is the political will there?

This type of button-holing may be tough to sell to black voters.  There may be the fear that Democrats, whether in the state house or the Congress, may harbor resentment against that type of bold behavior and punish blacks in the process by cutting or eliminating programs.  Not a politically cool place to be in.

On the other hand a less cool place to be in is where blacks are incurring the ravages of gentrification.  For example, The Baltimore Fishbowl, citing data from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, reported that the city of Baltimore experienced the fifth highest rate of gentrification, falling behind New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia.

Gentrification goes beyond just seeing new white faces in a predominantly black neighborhood.  The higher rents and increased property taxes while easily absorbed by new white neighbors may only serve to increase the burden of living experienced by incumbent residents.

In addition to black residents being forced to leave their homes or neighborhoods due to increased rents or property taxes, those who stay in neighborhoods not yet touched by gentrification may be living in deplorable conditions due to a failure of the city to provide adequate services.  Reporter turned candidate for Congress, Kimberly Klacik, raised these issues in her reporting on Baltimore and has successfully turned her reporting into a platform for a run against former congressman Kweisi Mfume.

Changing the electoral mindset …

It is time for blacks in Maryland and nationwide to reverse this mindset.  Fear of political reprisal from the Democratic elite needs to be replaced by a boldness to demand a redirection of public capital and resources into black communities, including black owned banks and businesses.  Holding back the vote during primary season and focusing on down ballot local issues may send Congressional Democrats the message that ignoring the black community by failing to meet its capital needs can be very costly.

Democrats are hypocritical when criticizing political action committees

The eye-catcher …

After a long week of work, impeachment acquittal votes, and the jobs report, I came home last night prepared to chill out and maybe watch a little television.  My mother, the family’s original political analyst, shot me out a text asking if I was watching the Democratic debates.  I thanked her for letting me know then switched to ABC to check it out.

The last debate prior to the New Hampshire primary and the first one post the U.S. Senate’s acquittal of President Donald J. Trump, I expected the debaters to get in a few zings on Mr. Trump.  The debaters had to bring him up since the Democratic Party will need the candidates to spearhead the campaign not only against Mr Trump but against Republican senators up for re-election this fall who voted to acquit the President.

I also heard the unsurprising attack on corporate donations to campaigns.  U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, went all in on former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg, former businessman Tom Steyer, and former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, for, in Mr Buttigieg’s case, accepting donations from billionaires, and Messrs Steyer and Bloomberg, for attempting to buy elections with their wealth.  Mrs Warren and Mr Sanders reminded Americans that they were not going to be on the dole for donations from corporate PACs.

Two strategic takeaways.  First, will candidates want to continuously expend energy talking about a failure to pass articles of impeachment against Donald Trump when energy should be spent crystallizing the policy differences between candidates?  Second, are these candidates being disingenuous with Democratic voters when they criticize the existing campaign donation mechanism?

Wasting energy talking about impeachment …

Voters do not have long memories.  While Democrats are still fuming that the President survived impeachment due to votes along party lines, the more important independent vote will need to be swayed by a more effectual campaign tactic.  Mr Trump still has robust jobs numbers and stock market valuation increases to work with.  This week’s 225,000 increase in non-farm payrolls capped off a victory lap for the President and even though talk of recession persists, if he can positively spin his achievements on the economy, enough independents may decide to ignore his behavior and vote with their pocketbooks.  Talking about a failed removal attempt won’t outweigh stock market numbers sitting in the positive zone.

Nor will black voters, a block that Democrats constantly harp on as important, be swayed by calls for impeachment.  In the bigger scheme, beyond the emotion of getting rid of someone deemed as rude and bigoted, the type of person blacks are well equipped to handle due to historical experience to deal with, a focus on impeachment is more evidence that the Democratic Party is further de-emphasizing the immediate and medium range needs of blacks in America.  Independent thinking blacks, already questioning the allegiance their community has to the Democratic Party, need concrete political packages to stay on board.  I don’t see the Democrats delivering that at all.

The political markets are like any capital market. PACs are their private equity firms ….

The attempts on the part of Mr Sanders and Mrs Warren to create a negative view of political action committees and the donations they generate show a continuous practice of poorly educating constituents about how the politics matrix works.  Political action committees are the private equity firm equivalents for political markets.  They pick candidates they believe can help provide returns on and to the public policy positions that PACs take.

While they cannot manage a candidate’s campaign, a PAC can indirectly influence where that candidate should deploy political capital by providing the public with messages that influence voters to contact and persuade candidates to consider positions important to PACs. Like a private equity firm, PACs influence how well candidates perform in providing the products they should be good at providing: messaging and political packages.

A well informed voter will appreciate that this PAC apparatus is an organic outgrowth of the unique American political economy.  Democracy has created a market for votes and like any market there will be information seekers on the lookout for the best investment toward which capital should be deployed.  What candidates who disparage the model tell me is that they may not be viable enough to attract funding from information seekers such as PACs and prefer to hide that lack of viability by making the tired arguments about how bad taking PAC money is.

Conclusion….

So far Democratic candidate tactics for winning the presidency do not look effectual.  Talking about impeachment signals to black voters in particular that a party that wastes time on non-relevant issues or tactics should not be getting their vote.  Their views on campaign financing tells independent voters that they are disconnected from the realities of how markets for anything in America, including votes, actually work.

Whether Iowa is the first or last during primary season makes no difference to black political capital…

Aimee Allison, founder and president of the advocacy group She The People, wrote an interesting piece for The Hill.com where she asserts that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary have an unsubstantiated influence on the Democratic Party’s choice for a nominee.  Ms Allison states the following:

“The Democratic Party’s decision to allow Iowa and New Hampshire to dominate the nominating process for president is hurting the party’s ability to win. Women and candidates of color have been harmed by the myth of ‘electability’ and whiteness of early states deemed vitality important to attracting donors, endorsements and volunteers to win.”

Ms. Allison goes on to argue that instead of focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire, the state of Nevada should be setting the tone for the selection of a Democratic candidate to beat President Donald Trump. Ms Allison states that:

“For that reason, Nevada should be top of mind right now for everyone from pundits to donors to voters who want to know who can gain the momentum needed to take the White House. Women of color are a fundamental pillar of the national party’s base, a quarter of all Democrats nationwide, and a similar 26 percent of the Democratic electorate in Nevada. The state was pivotal in the 2008 and 2016 presidential primaries, but it should have even more sway as such a clear mirror of Democratic demographics nationwide.”

The problem I have with the analysis is that Ms Allison assumes that black voters will tag along with the “people of color” posse in Nevada because of the state’s more diverse make up when compared to the whiter states of Iowa and New Hampshire.  The “people of color” label severely dilutes the historical concerns of blacks given that the other major groups within the people of color spectrum, Asians and Latinos, do not share the black experience of racial discrimination.  Rather, blacks may view these groups as current and definitely future competitors for capital, employment, and credit access especially as the Asian and Latino populations increase.

In addition, to make Nevada’s “people of color” choice have a greater impact on black voting, “people of color” in Nevada will have to communicate to blacks in other states the reasons for following their lead.  I think that the “people of color” reasoning will fall on deaf ears, particularly in the states of Georgia and Maryland.  Blacks in Nevada make up approximately 8.93% of that state’s population. When you throw in other races and ethnic groups, the total “people of color” population in Nevada amounts to approximately 28.99%.

Blacks in Georgia make up approximately 31.6% of the Peach State’s population while blacks in Maryland make up approximately 29.78% of the Free State’s population.  I don’t see black Georgians living in Albany, Atlanta, or Columbus, where their economies are driven by agriculture, fintech, and logistics, or blacks in Annapolis, Baltimore, or Prince George’s County, where their economies are driven by federal government employment, finance, and international trade, being influenced by a smaller black or “people of color” population living in Nevada, a state driven by tourism that imports just about all of its food or other resources.

Bottom line, blacks will look at their immediate household needs and local political economy environment when determining which candidate for president will provide the political packages that brings them any relief.  They will not follow the lead of Nevada based on its supposed diversity.

 

Why I align with BLEXIT …

BLEXIT is a movement that asks black Americans to think critically about their relationship with the Democratic Party.  The movement’s primary premise is that the Democratic Party has taken the black voter for granted, offering nothing of substance in exchange for the decades of significant support the black electorate has provided to Democrats.

Like most blacks I have been put off for years by the brush off Democrats impose on blacks especially during and after election season.  You always know when it is election season when a politician of the white, Democratic hue drops by a black church in search of good optics, electoral support, and donations.  You have to wait two, four, or six years before most of them come around and visit again.

The usual push back from Democrats is, “If you blacks leave us, who are you going to turn to? The Republicans? The GOP hasn’t done anything for you.”  Of course the GOP has not done anything for blacks.  Blacks haven’t received anything from the GOP because blacks haven’t offered a vote in exchange for anything from the GOP.  That is how politics works.  Besides being a blood sport, politics is about an exchange.  If blacks want something from the GOP, they will have to offer the vote or some other thing of value, i.e. donations, in exchange for a political package.

But the aversion blacks display to the Republicans should now be spread to the Democratic Party.  The Democrats and the Republicans have a duopoly on the electoral process having secured their positions as the two most dominant parties and grantors of political packages in America’s politics industry.  They have successfully kept third parties from mounting significant challenges to their market dominance, but as in any consumer society, the rational move for black voters should be to play off the two competitors against each other.  Make the parties compete for the vote and donations.

With 13% of America’s population, BLEXIT has to take on more meaning than just walking away from the Democrats.  BLEXIT should be about holding the vote back until one party decides to offer something of greater value that the other party cannot match.  Effective BLEXIT will require rank and file voters and black political leadership to design a strategy and implement tactics that keeps blacks relevant in a changing political environment.

It is doable, and my intent over the next few weeks is to demonstrate how it is doable.

Sanders, Biden lead in Iowa. Is Buttigieg a buy?

Biden, Sanders nipping at the heels …

The latest Real Clear Politics poll has former U.S. vice-president Joe Biden garnering 20.7% of the nod among likely voters in the Iowa caucus.  U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders is nipping at Mr. Biden’s heels with 20.3% of likely caucus participants supporting the independent senator from Vermont.

While Mr. Sanders continues to draw on the support he had during the 2016 campaign for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Biden has been able to maintain his front-runner status based on a more centrist approach to policy and political capital built up among black voters given his eight years as vice-president in the Barack Obama administration.

Buttigieg rising …

Meanwhile, Real Clear Politics polling data sees former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg still in the hunt polling at 18.7%. A relative unknown two years ago, Mr. Buttigieg has been able to leverage, according to Axios, $2.3 million in television advertisements, 100 staff on the ground, and 20 field offices in Iowa to put him in striking distance of a win in Iowa.

Mr. Buttigieg’s third place status behind Messrs Biden and Sanders exposes his unknown factor.  He has done well nationally given that he was not known outside of South Bend until recently.  Whether he can raise his media profile in the next three weeks enough to get him over the top remains to be seen.  Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders receive much more mentions from media, thus taking up needed oxygen for Mr. Buttigieg’s campaign to fuel itself on.

In addition to media, the philosophical space that Mr. Buttigieg seems more inclined to occupy has been taken up by Mr. Biden.  Mr. Biden moved to the middle immediately on his decision to run, his centrist approach being of no surprise to many observers.  Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, has stuck with his progressive policy rhetoric, positions that have endeared him to voters occupying the far left including a significant number of young and college-aged voters.

Mr. Buttigieg, while recognized as a moderate, cannot dominate the middle among Iowa voters and will seem less than genuine should he move left.

What may also be weighing on Mr. Buttigieg’s ability to leap ahead of Messrs Biden and Sanders is the view of black Americans toward his candidacy.  Although blacks are waning demographically, they still comprise a significant voting block within the Democratic Party.  Mr. Buttigieg has very little support among black voters and expression of this lack of support will manifest itself on 29 February when voters go to the South Carolina primary.  The specter of this onslaught may be looming over the polls in Iowa as Iowans who are more concerned about selecting the candidate best situated to beat Donald Trump decide to make a perceived securer choice in either Mr. Biden or Mr. Sanders.

The prediction markets …

The political prediction markets are giving Mr. Sanders the highest probability of winning one day after the last debate prior to the Iowa caucus.  PredictIt is pricing an affirmative on a Sanders’ victory at $.46 while pricing an affirmative on a Biden victory at $.32. Mr. Buttigieg’s chances at victory as determined in the prediction markets looks more in line with his poll numbers where PredictIt is pricing his chances of winning at $.17.

Is Buttigieg a buy?

Locking in Mr. Buttigieg at $.17 with the hope of a 500% return on the chances of a Buttigieg win would require two things.  First, Mr. Buttigieg will have to increase his media exposure by continuing to message via broadcast media, social media, and newspapers.  Second, he would need monumental gaffes on the part of both Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders.  While Mr. Biden is known historically for misspeaking, Mr. Sanders has been very disciplined in his messaging.  This week’s allegations that Mr. Sanders shared with Senator Elizabeth Warren in 2018 his doubts about a woman beating Mr. Trump in 2020 seems not to have had much of an impact on his campaign.

What could cause some disruption in the Biden campaign is any testimony offered during the Senate’s removal trial of Mr. Trump where such testimony describes any impropriety on the part of Mr. Biden in his son’s service on an energy company’s board in Ukraine.  Even so, we believe that such testimony would only serve to secure Mr. Sanders’ lead.

Conclusion

We don’t see Mr. Buttigieg winning Iowa.  Iowans want to increase the chances of selecting a candidate that can go toe to toe with the President.  While the payoff would be substantial, the chances of a Biden or Sanders fall in Iowa are not high enough.

Towards a political strategy of increasing black sovereignty …

How white capital spreads like a virus …

I don’t think that one need go through a winding, mundane academic discourse for why blacks in the American jurisdiction need to pursue sovereignty.  Everyday, American social culture tells blacks living in the American jurisdiction that we do not belong here.  Socially, blacks have been lumped into a generic “people of color” box, on the false pretense that non-whites share the negative effects of systemic racism; that we are all in the same boat sitting in steerage while whites enjoy the privilege of capital accumulation, access to credit, better jobs, and higher income.  America’s political left argues that this unequal treatment calls for public and social policy that should somehow put whites and non-whites in equal positions economically and politically.

Members of the Left that take this position lack an appreciation for how much time and man has not changed.  Europeans came to North America, the Caribbean, and South America under a charter from monarchs that, in a nutshell, required exploitation of the land and people found in these places.  Monarchs wanted to expand their national power and enrich their coffers in order to finance the competition they experienced between each other.  They borrowed gold from wealthy members of their respective societies and encouraged their surplus labor with promises of religious freedom, greater incomes, and landownership of their own, to help conquer these new worlds.  By these initiatives, western culture would spread and flourish with non-Europeans being either absorbed as best they could or eliminated.

Non-Europeans were never meant to be included in the governance of these new lands or in the distribution of natural resources i.e. land, minerals, etc., that accompanied conquest.  Blacks were brought to the western hemisphere as chattel slaves, the tools that would plant and harvest the tobacco and cotton plantations of the American south and the sugar plantations of the Caribbean.

And like a virus, this occupation by capital of non-white spaces continues in the form of gentrification, where generous monetary policies by America’s central bank inflated assets already held mostly by American descendants of Europeans which provided the collateral that backed the loans that were used to buy homes under stress in black neighborhoods.  Americans of European descent no longer need to use armed force to wrest land from non-whites.  Central banks now aid Europeans with capital to spread their influence.

Reparations won’t happen …

For the past two or three years, a movement of American descendants of slaves (ADOS) has been advocating for government policy that delivers on past promises by the United States government to provide slaves with land as recompense for physical bondage.  ADOS believes that providing a direct capital infusion to descendants of black American slaves is the best approach to closing the wealth gap between whites and blacks while compensating blacks for the labor stolen from them and used to build the American economy.

Politically, ADOS doesn’t have a chance.  There is no definitive support in either chamber of Congress for any reparations initiative.  The only black American in the race for the Democratic nomination for president, U.S. Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, has not made reparations a campaign narrative. Given his standing in the polls, he does not have the political capital to offer a policy proposal on the matter.  Without a champion in the executive or the Congress providing stewardship for policy or legislation, reparations will not happen.

The current system poses an existential threat to blacks …

After 500 years in the western hemisphere, if blacks are still fighting to close a capital gap that eliminates the buffer between blacks and devastating unemployment, homelessness, and bankruptcies, then it is time to shift paradigms and create a new political economy.  Civil rights violations stemming from race discrimination. Lack of jobs stemming from race discrimination. Poor education funding resulting from racial discrimination. These issues should be non-existent where blacks are not subject to policies and laws designed by whites for the benefit of whites.

It is time for blacks living in the American jurisdiction to pursue public policy and law that generates a parallel political economy where law, technology, and politics converge to provide blacks with a sovereignty that better ensures their survival.