American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Playing Race Politics As a Zero-Sum Game

More news stories on Elections

Don Wycliff, Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2009

At least for now, you can drop the epithets—“embattled” and “beleaguered”—and just call him “Sen. Roland Burris.” And barring a decision by that Downstate prosecutor looking into the circumstances of Burris’ appointment by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, it’s likely to remain just “Sen. Roland Burris.”

{snip}

As soon as leaders of Chicago’s black community began standing up and embracing him, all of the Burris-should-resign talk by the likes of Gov. Pat Quinn and Sen. Richard Durbin went silent.

Neither man needed to be reminded twice that his own future electoral prospects, as well as those of the Illinois Democratic Party generally, depend on the enthusiastic support of Chicago’s huge black electorate—and that that support might be seriously endangered if they continued to beat the drums for the removal from office of Burris, the Senate’s only black member.

There’s something deeply satisfying about that: A once-despised and disfranchised group has learned how to wield its electoral power and command respect in the political marketplace.

{snip}

And now, Chicago’s black political establishment, in the name of their constituents, have closed ranks around him.

In a recent discussion on WVON radio, Northeastern Illinois University political scientist Robert Starks observed that the black community has to stand behind the likes of Burris and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger because once such positions are lost to the community, they cannot, as a practical matter, be regained.

{snip}

But should blacks support grievously flawed incumbents like Burris and Stroger for that reason, any more than whites should have supported, say, former Ald. Edward Vrdolyak during his days as leader of the white, anti-Harold Washington opposition of the Council Wars era? “Politics ain’t beanbag,” a Chicago ethnic commentator of an earlier era famously quipped. That holds true in this era as much as in Finley Peter Dunne’s.

But if the game is always played as a cynical, zero-sum, our-loss-is-their-gain affair, can we ever hope to elevate it to something more than mud-wrestling?

Original article

(Posted on March 17, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Question Diversity wrote at 6:11 PM on March 17:

What amazes me is that Illinois’s non-black political elite wanted him to resign in the begin with. They must have the foolish notion that Roland Burris can’t win election to the Senate in his own right in Illinois, which is of course foolish because Illinois is so Chicagograd-heavy and liberal. Also the Dorkpublicans, in Illinois it’s essentially the DuPage County Plutocrats Club, will fold like a cheap deck of cards.

2 — q wrote at 6:41 PM on March 17:

I say keep him in his position and mention his crimes everytime there’s news to report about him.

It’s not going to matter anyway. The country will be at record lows on everything, including ethics, honesty and morality in two years if it still exists in its present form.

3 — sestamibi wrote at 7:13 PM on March 17:

Dennis Hastert would make a great candidate to run against him.

4 — SKIP wrote at 9:20 AM on March 18:

So the blacks in ChiCongo rally around Burris, is this unexpected by anyone here?

5 — Anonymous wrote at 11:17 AM on March 18:

>>>As soon as leaders of Chicago’s black community began standing up and embracing him, all of the Burris-should-resign talk by the likes of Gov. Pat Quinn and Sen. Richard Durbin went silent.

This is the greater point: Blacks supporting blacks (including the likes of Burris) and whites supporting blacks (including the likes of Burris).

6 — A Reader wrote at 12:38 PM on March 18:

That’s the problem with the Democratic Party. The lion share of their constituency is devoid of Western ethic that made America what she is: the greatest country that this planet ever had. For them, right is when they win and wrong is when they lose. Can you imagine what would have happened to all minorities if the white majority subscribed to this kind of tribalism?

It puzzles many why it is so that when a Republican politician gets involved in a conduct of dubious ethicality, he almost always resigns or gets ousted, while the Democratic politicians get away with quite serious wrong doings. The explanation of this paradox lies with different ethical standards of their bases.

An elected official reflects attitudes and mentalities of those who voted him into office. If thieves elected a representative, he wouldn’t lose the next election just because he was caught on stealing. So, don’t expect much integrity from Chicago politicians. Their voters don’t hold them to high moral standards.

7 — Anonymous wrote at 1:54 PM on March 18:

“There’s something deeply satisfying about that: A once-despised and disfranchised group has learned how to wield its electoral power and command respect in the political marketplace.”


There’s only something deeply satisfying about that if you happen to belong to that group. If you happen to belong to ANY OTHER group, it’s not deeply satisfying, it is (or at least it ought to be) deeply DISTURBING.

Because — in the one point the article gets right — politics IS a zero-sum game. There is only so much power to go around, and if one group is increasing their power it can’t help but mean that another group’s power is decreasing. More power for blacks necessarily means, therefore, less power for whites (or vice versa). I wish this were not true — but as far as I can tell, it is.



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search