Posted on October 14, 2009

Do Black Congressmen Still Represent Black Interests?

Charlton McIlwain, The Grio, October 9, 2009

All eyes are on Rep. Charlie Rangel again this week as finger-pointing Republicans continue to pursue punishing him for ethics violations. {snip} Rangel’s financial woes may likely have far-reaching and negative implications not only for him, but the people he first came to Congress to represent.

Congressman William Clay, Sr. once claimed, “Black people have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” As a fellow founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), this statement characterized not only Congressman Rangel’s political beliefs, but defined his fundamental mission: to represent the underrepresented political interests of black Americans.


The problem, though–as some see it–is that when they were few, folks like Rangel were black politicians–politicians whose mission was shaped by their fidelity to the racial group to which they belonged. Now that they are many, some say they have become nothing more than politicians who just so happen to be black, placing their own, personal and primarily financial interests above those to be served. Some would say that the black interests of 1971 have taken a backseat to the personal interests of individual black congressmen and women of this millennium.

For instance, almost one-third of CBC members were considered “underachievers” or “derelict” in a 2006 report by the Black Congressional Monitor, a progressive interest group which tracks the legislative initiatives of black congressmen and women. From stash-of-cash-in-my-fridge William Jefferson, to former Congressman Al Wynn, Bobby Rush and others once criticized for selling their votes to the powerful telecommunications lobby, the group castigated many on the CBC’s roster for putting their own interests first. The best interests of their black constituents or civil rights causes came second, they claimed.

The accuracy of such a report is only one thing to consider. More importantly, we must consider the fact that there is a growing perception that today’s black politicians aren’t the democratic defenders of the race many once saw them as.


Once there is widespread perception that black representatives are no different than typical politicians, it’s only a hop, skip and a jump to the conclusion that black politicians no longer serve the purpose they once did of safeguarding black interests. Add to this the fact that over the past decade or so, many black politicians who rely on white voters’ support have gone out of their way to make the case that they can represent whites’ interests, despite the fact that they are black. {snip}

In concert with other factors, on one hand Rangel’s financial woes erode the perception of legitimacy regarding the special representative function of black representatives in today’s legislative landscape. On the other, we’ve seen the transformation of the black politician from a mere local, race-constrained representative, to one who could be president. Together, these realities seem to powerfully undermine the underlying principle–that blacks can best, and therefore should, represent other blacks–behind using racial gerrymandering as a tool to increase black representation.

Republicans have opposed the practice of drawing seats to secure the adequate numerical representation of blacks and other people of color for years. But the most recent debates questioning the principle behind the practice have taken place among Democrats. One was the fight that erupted in 2006, when Brooklyn City Councilman David Yassky ran for retiring Congressman Major Owens’ seat (one of the original gerrymandered safe black districts). The other began in the same year when Steve Cohen–a White Jewish man–successfully challenged a number of black hopefuls for the Tennessee congressional seat vacated by Harold Ford, Jr. The same debate, over the same seat, continues at this moment as a new black prospect–former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton–seeks to correct what he sees as the district’s racial wrongs.

In the mounting debate over and undermining of the principle of racial gerrymandering, Republicans will likely see a golden opportunity to justify diluting the concentrations of blacks and other minorities in the looming redistricting battles soon to occur as we approach the end of the decade. This would be a blow to the principle of equal representation, as some of us interpret it.

{snip} [Be] careful when you claim to–quite literally–represent the race, because you might do so in ways you never intended.

Comments are closed.