![]()
“When you've got coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong, what do you do? You integrate it with cream. But if you pour too much cream in it, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot; it becomes cool. It used to be strong; it becomes weak. It used to wake you up; now it puts you to sleep.”
Minister Malcolm X; WUST radio interview; 1963.
![]()
When Malcolm X was a member of the Nation of Islam, he was opposed to forced integration. The NOI positions surprised much of “white America” – not simply in the context of civil rights, but due to their core belief that everyone in the universe had a deep-seated desire to be just like them. Older forum members will recall the response when the May 31, 1963 edition of LIFE magazine hit the stands: the feature article, by Gordon Parks, was titled, “Black Muslim's Cry Grows Louder: 'The White Devil's Day is Almost Over'.”
Inside, there was also an article, “Angry Spokesman Malcolm X Tells Off Whites.” It reinforced the American public's perceptions of Malcolm, who had come to national attention four years earlier, when CBS ran a “special report” on the NOI. This program, produced by Mike Wallace and Louis Lomax, had actually changed Malcolm's mind about white journalists. He found Wallace to be open-minded, and eager to discuss topics including how the Dead Sea Scrolls should change the way people viewed Christianity.
Yet, even after leaving the NOI, Malcolm understood that black people in America had to organize within their own communities, before being able to join together with white progressives on equal footing. He recognized that without that type of unity coming first, that outside forces could create divisions between groups that should be working towards common goals.
![]()
I think that we can apply Malcolm's lesson about coffee to events in the current socio-political landscape. Too often, in areas where progressive and liberal people should be creating a united front, there are divisions. In general, a “united front” requires the maturity to focus on common interests, rather than on what separates us. Part of that, as Malcolm noted, was due to the fact that not all groups were on equal footing. Or anything close to equal footing. Thus, a group with more financial resources might well have undue influence on issues which should not be decided entirely on dollars and cents.
The other factor, of course, is when outside influences infiltrate an organization, with goals of passing on information to their own group, and/or disrupting the targeted organization. Again, older forum members remember everything from FBI Director Hoover's tactics in the 1960s, to the manner in which Richard Nixon's campaigns were run. And while these are high-profile examples, they were (and are) an absolute minority of the cases of infiltration, spying, and disruption of groups.
It was easier then, as it is now, for one's enemies to carry out such tactics, when there is unequal footing among groups; when there are suspicions between various people over others' motives; and when there are strong emotions attached to those values that are not among the unifying factors of a potential coalition.
![]()
I believe that these dynamics apply well to the current divides within the Democratic Party. I think there is evidence of them at the national level, state levels; county/city/local levels; and even, believe it or not, on internet discussion forums geared towards Democrats.
I think there are four general sub-groups within the Democratic Party: in order, from left to right, the progressives, the liberals, the moderates, and the conservatives. Now, obviously, a person can hold a range of opinions that spans these sub-groups; hence,they are indeed general. More, the misuse of these terms can cause confusion. There are many people who believe that the “media” is “liberal.” (Last week, an old friend from college told me that CNN was “leftist.” Not only was it easy for me to debunk such a notion, but he had absolutely zero evidence to support that claim. Yet, he went away believing that CNN is “leftist.”)
In the national party, it seems safe to say that the conservative and moderate Democrats have more financial resources, including access to media. The overwhelming majority of elected democrats in Washington are conservatives and moderates. These numbers are disproportionate to their actual numbers among non-national Democrats. It is the un-level ground of financial resources, including media access, that results in this.
There are some good liberals who advance in both politics and the media. It is more difficult for a progressive to do so. Too often, progressives and liberals are pressured to join forces with conservative Democrats – in both state and national elections – although the conservative and moderate Democrats rarely feel any sense of obligation to join with progressives and liberals. The playing field isn't level.
More, progressives are pressured to not join forces with our friends and allies to the left of the Democratic Party, unless it is to ask for money and votes in support of conservative/moderate causes. We have been told that something the Green Party, for example, is in part financed by republican forces seeking to divide the Democratic vote. Now, this is no doubt true, but it only reinforces half of the dynamics which Malcolm spoke of. It should never be used as an excuse for the Democratic Party to move away from “green” values, or to try to divide the Democratic Left from their family, friends, and natural neighborhoods.
Without question, it is that moving away from traditional Democratic values that has resulted in so many Democrats in Washington, DC, and even in state government, to be indistinguishable from their “moderate” republican cohorts. And that is something that should be unacceptable to any Democrat with a social conscience.
This is why, I think, that progressives and many liberals making up the Democratic Left, are more focused on huddling among themselves these days, rather than giving unquestioned support to the current administration and other moderate and conservative Democratic politicians.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
