During the flight back from a business trip I got a chance to read the latest edition of "Foreign Policy" magazine. There was an article that focused on the "anti-capitalist / anti-business / anti-free market" indoctrination that school students in France and Germany are exposed to and how the United States is so often the target of such attacks. Upon my completion of the article I had the opinion that if you crossed out "France and Germany" and substituted the words, thoughts and actions of the Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chasers here in America that dominate Black political discourse there would be little difference between these two indoctrination operations.
As such upon driving home from the airport, listening to the radio I was none too surprised to hear that US Representative Albert Wynn of Maryland had lost his seat in the "Black general election" that was held in Maryland on Tuesday - also known as the Democratic Primary for the rest of the voters in Maryland. The radio reporter had commented that Wynn was punished for not being "left enough" and for supporting the Bush Administration too often. "George W. Bush" clearly a cuss word in the majority Black, solidly Democratic congressional district that was up for grabs.
I was most amazed that the victor in the battle, Donna Edwards campaigned with the message of "change". What I struggle with is the notion of "change" that she had promoted. "Change from what to what"? The net result is that this county has changed from one liberal Democrat over to a more extreme liberal Democrat.
In reading the goals as spoken by Rep Wynn I was reminded about the Foreign Policy magazine article that I had just read:
U.S. Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.), elected to Congress in 1992 as the nation's first representative of a majority-black suburban district, often argues that the best way to bring more constituents into the aspiring middle class is to promote small business and create jobs
It's why he hosts an annual job fair and another for local contractors who want business with the federal government. It's also why he says he voted in 2005 to repeal the estate tax and became a surprising advocate for casinos in Annapolis in 2003, thinking they would create more jobs than slot machines would.
From personal experience with Black politics it is clear to me that one man's economic opportunity in opening up the "Georgia Aquarium", for example, is another man's protest that the homeless people who frequent the area will be driven away as undesirables. The fact that the project would eventually lead to exponential job growth, a revitalization of the immediate area was of no consequence because, once again "the homeless" did not get any of these particular jobs and they are not presentable enough to sit in one of the new restaurants, bars or cafes that have popped up as a sign of life in this once underdeveloped area. Such as life when dealing with certain operatives.
For me as a Black man, attempting to understand the outright "voter nullification" that is going on across the nation among Black people who are resentful of the lack of development and opportunity in their own communities while coveting that which is going on in someone else's community - it is quite frustrating to me for certain people who are able to eschew the COSTS of the policies that they support and those which turn out to be quite poplar WITHIN the Black community. It is clearly the case that the COSTS of these policies is reflected in the ongoing grievances that many of these people face.
As the FP article states - there is a greater affinity for society/socialist based solutions to unemployment and needs among the "unfortunate". With their perverted logic the theory is that the corporations are the ones that created the poverty both while they were present in town - thus creating income imbalance and when they departed town - thus leaving the masses to strong alone. Either way you slice it - it is the corporation that did it both coming and going. It is the government program and regulations that are seen as the great fix to it all.
I am not surprised that Mr. Wynn's activities to produce jobs and employment in his district in Maryland was turned against him as a negative. This type of engagement is seen as "getting too comfortable with big business". In many Democratic or Black circles if you are not attacking businesses rather than complementing them - you are indeed out of tune with the masses.
In his 15 years in the House, Wynn's supporters say, he has been a vigorous voice for traditional Democratic causes, particularly raising the minimum wage, union protections for federal workers and proposals to expand health insurance for low-income children, vetoed by President Bush last year.
For reference - the above items represent Mr Wynn's "loyalty" to the Democratic party. These points are ordinarily good enough to rest upon.
But Wynn has also shown a willingness to step away from his party on some key issues, particularly, he has said, when driven by his philosophy on small and minority business, leading him to votes that have created an opening for challengers
Wynn's detractors say he votes too often with Republicans for a representative from an overwhelmingly Democratic district, which comprises portions of Prince George's and Montgomery counties.
This last point is CRITICAL to our discussion.
When a constituency has gone to indexing their judgments of their representative based on MEASURABLE PROPERTIES that are in line with their goals (ie: Has Educational Performance Increase, Is Crime Down, etc) over to "DID YOU VOTE IN LINE WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR DID YOU VOTE WITH THE ENEMY".....you know that all is lost in this particular constituency. They have SOLD OUT and LOST THEIR SOUL. Gone is the independent judgment of "What are our collective goals and are we achieving them". Instead they have bought into the partisan jousting match and this has superseded their real best interests.