Black Power?

Almost two weeks ago I was so stunned by a remark as to be speechless, a state that is quite rare for me. Somebody asked me whom I plan to vote for in the May 13th West Virginia Presidential Primary, to which I responded, "Senator Obama." His face clouded as he told me that he couldn’t vote for the Illinois Senator because "[t]he Blacks have too much power in this country." Too much power? Are you kidding me?

Did he mean political power? No African American has ever been President. Only five African Americans (including Senator Obama) have served in the U.S. Senate. Only two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have been African Americans. Only four African Americans have served as Governors of States. That’s not exactly political power.

Did he mean financial power? In 2001 (the year for which I have the latest figures), the median net worth of a European American ("white") family was $117,722; of an African American family, $18,510. The average stock ownership of a European American family was $50,530; of an African American family, $3,155. I doubt that one could say that African Americans have a stranglehold on the finances of this country.

You understand, of course, that, if I had told him that I plan to vote for Senator Clinton (which I will do in November if she’s the Democratic nominee), his response probably would have been that women have too much power in this country. I suspect that he longs for the "good old days" in West Virginia before African Americans and women achieved all that "power." Ah, yes, those were the days. In West Virginia, African Americans were denied access to restaurants and hotels; African American children attended segregated schools; women were prohibited from serving on juries.

Damnant quod non intelligunt. (They condemn what they do not understand.)

Hillary

I never liked Bill Clinton as a President. I considered him a “Republicrat,” that is, a Republican cleverly disguised as a Democrat. That disguise was stripped from him for all to see when he pardoned union-busting Marc Rich, a fugitive from justice, shortly before he left office. Hillary? I’ve always believed that she’s even more conservative than Bill; after all, she was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College and a “Goldwater Girl.” However, I understand that people can change, so, when it became apparent a couple of years ago that she would run for President, I began defending her against what I considered to be the irrational “Hillary haters.” Now, I simply can’t defend any longer a candidate whose insatiable thirst for power has led her to indefensible personal attacks on Sen. Obama, attacks that are damaging to the Democratic Party. It’s clear to me now that she prefers destruction of the Party’s chances for victory in November to the nomination of Sen. Obama.

Franklin Roosevelt told us that “[t]he only thing that we have to fear is fear itself.” On the other hand, the Republicans thrive on scaring the hell out of us and keeping us scared. The “Unholy Trinity” of Bush, Cheney and Rove have taken this strategy to an extreme by milking 9/11 for all that it’s worth. Fear-mongering is a Republican way of life: “They are coming to get us, so elect us to protect you.” (Then, of course, instead of protecting us by hunting down and bringing to justice those who really did “come to get us” on 9/11, the Republicans invade countries like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11; whom will Bush invade next? Liechtenstein?)

Hillary’s campaign ad in which she asks whom we want to answer the phone at 3 a.m. plays on those same fears, a Republican tactic worthy of Bush, Cheney and Rove, far removed from Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s soothing our fears. Like Republicans Bush, Cheney and Rove, Hillary is trying to scare us into voting for her. She’ll “protect” us because, according to her, she’s ready to serve “from day one,” whereas Sen. Obama would be, as she said in a March 4th, Columbus, Ohio, speech, an “on-the-job trainee.” One Democrat referring to another as an on-the-job trainee? That’s a disgrace! Ready to serve “from day one”? She’s a U.S. Senator, as is Barack Obama, so what’s this “experience” that she keeps talking about? Presumably, she’s referring to her being married to, having lived in the White House with, and having traveled to foreign countries with her husband, the President. Using that logic, Laura Bush would also be ready to serve “from day one” should she run for and be elected President!

If Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, will I vote for her in November? Would I prefer that Sen. Obama be the nominee? An unenthusiastic “yes” to the former--I’m too patriotic to vote for a Republican after the mess they’ve made of our beloved America--and an enthusiastic “yes” to the latter.