When speaking to journalist David Halberstam in 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. affirmed his pivot towards a more socialist idea for America.
“For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of society, a little change here, a little change there. Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values.”
King no longer believed in the idea, theory, or application of capitalism. It was, as Malcolm X said, a bloodsucking disease.
In 1953, King wrote a letter to his then girlfriend Coretta Scott where he said that “capitalism has outlived its usefulness…it has brought about a system that takes necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes.”
King noted that he’s much more socialist in his economic approach than capitalistic.
He was, by definition, a socialist. He believed in wealth redistribution for the health of his own people, and for the rest of the nation.
Since his death, we’ve crafted a meek image of Dr. King.
This caricature of King is not only wrong, its dangerous.
Because capitalism is how we capitulate against redistribution, we send it through the lens of chaos.
We cannot afford free tuition to public colleges because it would throw our economy into turmoil. Guaranteed healthcare isn’t feasible because our politics will not allow it.
That’s why our belief in Dr. King’s dream may be fraudulent. He believed in this idea of equality because it was righteous and daring. King knew that in order for black people to obtain some form of the American dream, it had to start with economic parity for black people.
Justice for the Poor
In 1968, King started the Poor People’s Campaign. It was a demand for the government to secure America’s poor with jobs, health care, and basic human rights. Collectivism in America’s capitol, King brought despair to our doorstep.
Unfortunately King was assassinated before the Poor People’s Campaign could be fulfilled. Since that time in 1968, we’re still awaiting economic and social justice for the poor.
If we’re to believe in economic retribution for the poor, we are forced to place our faith in King’s thought that there is no place for pragmatism in politics when it comes to servicing the economic disenfranchised.
Through his own words, our society is deserving of a reconstruction; a revolution of values. Anything less is not only uncivilized, its feeble and fearful.
With a part of King’s dream in mind, black voters flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012 to elect, and re-elect, President Barack Obama. Described in the New York Times as the realization of King’s dream, Obama’s presidency is symbolic in nature but empty in progress.
King’s image serving as a backdrop and guide, Obama walks by Dr. King’s bust everyday as he heads into the Oval Office.
But according to the numbers, Obama has been guided by being politically sensible instead of the fierceness of King’s dream.
From 2008 to 2013, the poverty rate in America rose more than a full percentage point from 13.2 percent to 14.5 percent. Those numbers have declined recently as the economy has improved. For black people living in poverty, Obama’s record is paltry. The rate for black people living in poverty increased under Obama to almost 30 percent as recent as 2013.
Under Obama, African-Americans have lost ground on income. According to politifact.com, “Inflation-adjusted incomes have worsened during Obama’s tenure…”
While black people haven’t gained any ground economically under Obama, the financial issues facing black people–and poor people in general–didn’t start under him and will not end there either.
Black wealth is virtually non-existent and middle-class black kids see downward mobility as adults.
These statistics show just how bad some have it economically, and the numbers prove that its not likely to improve with our current political structure.
Illogical political optimism
Donald Trump has clumsily tapped into American despair and awakened a sector of our country that we pretend no longer exists.
Same goes for Bernie Sanders; the socialist turned Democrat running for president.
So far, Hillary Clinton has put the screws to him with black voters. Exit polling for Florida’s primary last week showed that Clinton attained 81 percent of the black vote while Sanders got just 18 percent.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton/Photo courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel
She did even better with black men as she received almost 85 percent of their vote.
Black voters in Alabama were nearly unanimous in their support for Clinton as they handed her 91 percent of their support. Exit polling showed that in Alabama, Clinton claimed 93 percent of the vote from black women.
In all other southern states where exit polling data is available, Clinton has baked Sanders with black voters. She’s received no less than 80 percent of support from the black community.
Under President Bill Clinton, blacks had a mixed bag of economic results. For poor people, their situation either remained the same or worsened under Clinton.
With his signature on the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, Bill Clinton effectively sent more people into poverty. The bill was meant to reduce the number of people on welfare and eventually transition them into jobs.
That worked for some but it failed even more. Nearly 50 million Americans live below the poverty line with the percentage of minorities outflanking white Americans who live this hell everyday.
What’s significant about that number is it wouldn’t have been so high if America’s social safety net wasn’t successfully eroded.
According to information presented by thenation.com, “before “reform,” cash assistance reached 68 percent of eligible poor households, that figure had dropped to 26 percent by 2013.” An ostensibly good number, but the devil is in the details.
Because welfare reform was turned into a block grant program, the federal government washed its hands of the responsibility and pushed it along to the states.
States are then given loose guidelines to follow, and in turn, may make it harder for needy families to attain eligibility. This is especially true for conservative states.
The amount of “welfare money” received by families that make it onto the rolls has been severely reduced as well. So not only are many poor people who may use the assistance not eligible for welfare, once allowed into the program, monthly payments received may be as low as $217 per month.
How’s that for a safety net?
So with little to nothing gained economically under Obama, and more people pushed into poverty under Clinton, why are black voters still performing as a monolith politically?
Our best interests aren’t served by one candidate, and we have evidence that our health financially is partly tied to how we vote.
Political delusions
To tackle America’s student loan debt crisis, or at least help future students, Bernie Sanders is pitching to make public colleges and universities tuition free. Met with disbelief, many black voters believe that Sanders will not have the political capital to get an idea as radical as “free college” pushed through Congress.
Preferring a more pragmatic approach, or simply seeing what President Obama faced over eight years from the opposition, black voters seemed to choose the safe approach.
Black voters, liberal or not, are generally conservative when it comes to social issues and can be that way when it comes to money, too.
Prior to entering the contest, Sanders likely knew that he couldn’t overcome Clinton’s stronghold on black voters, but he wasn’t expecting to be taken apart by them either.
Sanders has also rightfully criticized the president on certain issues like Obama’s support of Wall Street.
Clinton pivots to his right by claiming that Sanders isn’t a real Democrat if he consistently criticizes Obama, and she has the support of many black voters because she worked under the president.
She also wants to continue Obama’s legacy and Sanders wants a “course correction” after eight years of an Obama White House.
That does him no favors with the black community; a legion of individuals who collectively supported Obama in 2008 and 2012.
But this is all superficial as it doesn’t address issues afflicting black voters.
In the idea of what we pretend to believe in–like Dr. King’s dream of economic justice for the poor–it does not come through practicality. If we are to use politics as a lever to enter the realm of simply addressing issues of the poor, then we have to ensure that whatever policy options we support aren’t utilitarian.
In a recent survey by News One in 2012, readers were asked about reparations and what it should involve if they were ever paid. 40 percent of those polled said that reparations are not wanted “in any shape or form.”
A YouGov.com poll taken in 2014 had slightly better results. 63 percent of black Americans surveyed believe that reparations should come in the form of education and job training programs.
Still–nothing free or unearned is what we continue to believe. As recent as 2012, a Salvation Army report showed that 43 percent of Americans believe that if the poor wanted a job, one could be found.
Our attitudes towards those living in economic blight is offensive to say the least. So what’s to say how we feel about democratic social programs intended to lift the poor out of, you know, poverty?
Economic socialism that we didn’t work for, don’t deserve, and didn’t earn.
A revolution of ideas we cannot afford and a reconstruction of our value system we are not ready for is what we believe in politically. Moderation is how we atone for financially rattling generations of poor black and brown people.
So our politics will continue to be fragile and docile, because with a new system of ideas, we would be too radical to survive.
It’s likely why a Clinton presidency will be lifted by black voters. We may be too afraid to believe in our own worth.
-JH
The post With black wealth in peril, why are black voters standing behind one candidate? appeared first on Jason Henry Project.