The Strange Case Of Charlie Rangel

The Strange Case Of Charlie Rangel
By Jason Johnson | Published  11/24/2010 

Americans are not shocked when politicians get in trouble for breaking the law. In fact we almost expect it, laugh about it and only get concerned when those violations are so egregious that they can’t be chalked up to usual levels of greed.

When former Congressman William Jefferson was caught hiding over $80,000 in bribe money in a freezer back in ’09 that didn’t go over to well. Nobody can find a way to explain that one. When Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson and his wife were caught trying to hide over $70K in her bra and trying to flush checks down the toilet that wasn’t a good look either.

But when we have such obvious cases of public graft and corruption it makes the Charlie Rangel case even harder to understand.

Rangel was convicted last week by the House Ethics committee of 11 ethics charges. Rangel, who was once head of the powerful Ways and Means committee, is an old dog in the House of Representatives and pulls more weight than an F-150 truck with fresh tires. He’s been representing the 15th district in New York City since 1971 and thus has seen corruption scandals come and go in his time and has always come out of things with his nose clean; at least until now.

The strange thing is that there are conflicting reports about the crimes that Rangel has committed during his time in office and while many of them clearly smell questionable, do they rise to the level of punishment that he is likely to receive very soon on the House floor?

Of the 11 ethics violations, the most sensational have to do with apartments, letter head and nepotism. For years Rangel has rented four apartments in new York for vastly less than their market value, with estimates that he is paying anywhere from 20K to 30K less a year than the market rate for those homes. He’s been using a storage space in the House of Representatives parking lot to store his Mercedez Benz without paying for it, and has supposedly used Congressional letterhead to solicit funds for private foundations, his policy center at City College in New York and other legacy enhancing pursuits.

Likely his most inexcusable crime is paying his son’s Internet company $80,000 to produce PAC Web sites that were clearly thrown together just to cover up the transfer or money. The sites had spelling errors and were estimated to demonstrate about $100 in actual work. So this should be an open and shut case right? Wrong.

The lead attorney for the House Ethics committee said during hearings last week that “I see no evidence of corruption.” In fact, he went further to say that while Rangel was clearly sloppy and should’ve been more careful he couldn’t really find any evidence that the Congressman had directly profited from any of his actions. Now off the bat I can say that saving $30K a year on apartments is profiting personally, but I think it is telling that the man responsible for leading the charge on a committee that is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans couldn’t find anything worth really investigating.

What is even more curious is that same prosecutor two days later suggested to the committee that Rangel be censured by the House of Representatives – one of the harshest penalties that a sitting official can be hit with. It amounts to having to stand in front of your peers, TV cameras, God and everybody while all of your crimes are read to the public. It’s certainly better than losing your job, but 11 counts of malfeasance rubbed in your face isn’t a fun way to spend the afternoon either.

I think the lesson here, however, is this: Clearly we are seeing the beginning of a purge in Congress. After the 2010 mid-term elections, African Americans in the House are losing committee seats and chairmanships right and left. Powerful members of the old guard, such as Rangel and soon to be tried Maxine Waters, are being put out to pasture or at least reigned in before the Republicans can truly run roughshod over the place for the next two years.

While Rangel did some either “sloppy” or “greedy” things, the fact remains that the committee has only seen fit to make him pay back $17K in restitution. If that’s all you owe after 11 counts of ethics violations either you’re the dumbest corrupt politician in America or your trial was about something else other than your supposed “crimes”. I’ll take a rent cheat over $76,000 in a Wonderbra anyday.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

If You Aren’t A Victim, You Can Still Bear Witness!

If You Aren’t A Victim, You Can Still Bear Witness!

By Jason Johnson 

4/8/2010

If you aren’t a victim, you can still bear witness!

I was never moved when I saw those old Sally Struthers ads telling me I should support a kid in Africa. First, I was pretty young at the time, and second, it all seemed so far away. These were kids like me struggling in another country and I just didn’t see much of a connection.

Of course, I am a lot older and a bit more socially conscious now. I, like most adults, recognize that you don’t have to suffer the way others do – or even have direct experience with tragedy or trauma – to make a difference. That’s why we should all, victims or not, actively participate in Sexual Assault Awareness month this April.

We hear so much about sexual assaults and violence that we’re desensitized to it. Americans are all too aware of the rate of sexual assault in this country without even being reminded of the statistics. The question is what, especially during this month, can anyone do about it?

Just as is the case with child labor, racism and spousal abuse, no one out there is in favor of sexual assault. Most people, however, believe that it is good enough if you’re not directly contributing to violence perpetuated upon another person. Given that one in five young women in this country are victims of sexual assault at some point in their lives, and one in eight men, simply not engaging in violence doesn’t mean you can’t take an active role this month. Those of us who aren’t abusers and haven’t been abused ourselves often miss out on one of the critical roles that we can play in saving and rescuing the lives of those who have been victimized in the most unspeakable fashion: Bearing witness.

Only about one in 10 victims of sexual abuse ever report their assault to anyone, and the average age for reporting sexual violence is 9 years old. The more troubling statistic, however, is that the average victim of sexual violence tells at least three people before they are advised or taken to a health or legal authority.

All too many times, we become confidants to those who have suffered and help them keep their secrets, attempting to counsel them on our own rather than take the tough choice and suggest, cajole and sometimes take it upon ourselves to tell family, authorities or the police. If you don’t bear witness to their pain and do all that you can to help them get help, you’re essentially helping to protect whatever monster attacked them in the first place. A harsh claim I know, but ultimately when we fail to help those in need all we’re really doing is protecting the man or woman who assaulted them. You in your complacency become as much their protector as anyone.

Let April be the month where you become a strong witness and a support network for someone you know has been a victim of a sexual crime. Become a part of someone’s healing process. Expose a family secret, take a friend to a therapist or pastor, or better yet, slip them this column as a way to open up doors of communication.

This April can be the beginning of a healing process for millions of men, women, boys and girls across this nation who have been victims of an unspeakable crime. We can all make sure that it never again takes three tries for the voice of a victim to be heard

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

***W.E. A.L.L. B.E. Radio Special***
Beyond The Mask: Uncovering The Truth About Domestic Violence 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2010/03/11/tha-artivist-presentswe-all-be-radio

Mid-South Men's Forum Preview Show:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2010/01/07/tha-artivist-presentswe-all-be-radio

Differences Aside, New ‘Men’s Forum’ Ready To Tackle Solutions:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/2010/01/differences-aside-new-mens-forum-ready.html


April 13, 2008~The State Of Black America Part One*

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/04/13/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

April 20, 2008~The State Of Black America Part Two

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/04/20/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

April 27, 2008~The State Of Black America Part Three

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/04/27/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

W.E. A.L.L. B.E. News & Radio Special: Yes He Did...So Now What??? Defining The Obama Presidency...
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/11/16/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

N-Word MADNESS!!!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/07/28/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-A-LL-BE-News-Radio

Saving Black Boys...Raising Black Men
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2008/08/10/Tha-Artivist-PresentsWE-ALL-BE-News-Radio

Justice Thomas, Your Wife Is On The Docket

Justice Thomas, Your Wife Is On The Docket

The Bonds Between Husbands And Wives Will Always Affect How These Men And Women Behave In Their Public Lives. That Is Why I’m Perfectly Comfortable With Suggesting That Clarence Thomas Remove Himself From Several Supreme Court Cases In The Coming Term.

By Jason Johnson

Published on 03/25/2010

Everyone would like to believe that even if your boss’s wife doesn’t like you that it wouldn’t affect your performance evaluation. We also want to believe that if our best friend’s husband owns a struggling Ford dealership that she won’t be mad when we drive up in a new Hyundai. But deep down, we all know this is not the case. The bonds between husbands and wives will always affect how these men and women behave in their public lives. That is why I’m perfectly comfortable with suggesting that Clarence Thomas remove himself from several Supreme Court cases in the coming term.

Last week it was announced that Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, Justice Thomas’ wife, was starting her own official offshoot of the Tea Party movement called “Liberty Central Inc.” The conservative group will help get the country back on track, and away from the brink of tyranny, by raising a lot of money from conservative activists and sharing information on how the Obama administration is out of control. Virginia Thomas has a history of conservative activism for many years. So while this is not a radical change for her, the creation of such a public group creates a huge conflict of interest for her husband.

During the last State of the Union address President Obama publicly chastised the Supreme Court for their ruling in the “Citizens United” case. In “Citizens United” the Court ruled that private businesses and organizations could now spend unlimited amounts of money during political campaigns. And now Justice Thomas’s wife is starting an organization that will be able to raise unlimited funds to promote their cause without having to reveal any of the donors or the size of their contributions. Thomas is a conservative, and he ruled on this case prior to his wife’s new political adventure.

There is, however, no doubt that Virginia Thomas running an organization with a “Tea Party” agenda associates Justice Thomas with policies and potential rulings that bring his objectivity into question. When his wife’s organization is dependent on the ability to raise and spend funds without limitation do you think that Thomas will rule objectively when Citizens United is eventually challenged? Or rule objectively on any other case dealing with their political agenda? In recent years, conservatives on the court have demonstrated a willingness to skirt the spirit of conflict of interest.

During the Bush vs. Gore recount case in 2000, Justice Antonin Scalia conveniently forgot to mention that TWO of his sons were working for law firms that represented the Bush administration. He claimed that since they weren’t directly involved in Bush vs. Gore he felt no need to share that information. Nice cover, but that didn’t pass the smell test with many appeals judges who felt Scalia was not being forthcoming with the public or the court.

During that same case, Justice Thomas’s wife, Virginia, was working for the pro-Bush conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation and was soliciting resumes from Republican Congressional staffers for ‘transition jobs’ with the new administration. Somehow this too was deemed OK and Thomas chose not to remove himself from the case.

Any suggestion – whether through sons, daughters or wives – that the justices can be influenced by outside sources should be removed so as to at least maintain the image that the court is impartial. Yes, this may put a slight burden on the spouses of Justices, but that’s a small public price to pay for the private influence they all exhibit on American’s lives.

If Virginia Thomas is really that desperate to take a stand on an issue, she should take a hint from Michelle Obama. I am sure that the most important issue to the First Lady is not childhood obesity, but she’s become a champion of an issue that in no way can negatively impact her husband’s professional duties. Virginia Thomas, you should be taking notes.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Reflections On Tea Time

 Reflections On Tea Time

By Jason Johnson

Published on 04/23/2009

A week ago I ventured to one of the various “Tea Parties” that sprung up across America on Tax Day.

While I expected a great deal of justifiable anger and bashing of the new president, what I didn’t expect was such a dearth of knowledge about American history and politics. I applaud any Americans that want to peacefully but forcefully critique their government, but these Tea Parties aren’t about making change as much as they are about citizen anger being used to promote a corporate agenda.

The “Tea Party” concept had been ‘brewing’ in America for several weeks heading into the first tax day of the Obama administration, and literally boiled over across about 10 major cities from early morning till evening. Americans are justifiably and understandably angry. The nation is facing a long and potentially transformative economic crisis. The tea party I attended on a rainy and blustery day in downtown Cleveland was reflective of a wide swath of America. So long as that wide swath was mostly over the age of 45, Caucasian and didn’t vote for the sitting president. For an event that was advertised as a ‘non-partisan’ appeal to change the nature of tax laws in America, there were surprisingly few Democrats, or Green Party activists, although there were a number of Libertarians. There was not one bill mentioned; no specific tax pinpointed. In fact, there was very little in the way of actual policy being discussed by speakers or protesters. All of this under the guise of the “Boston Tea Party,” which makes one question the degree to which anyone there actually knew the historical facts behind the name they were appropriating.

Most of us who can remember grade school history classes know the basics of the “Boston Tea Party” story. On a cold day in November, American citizens, dressed up like Indians to hide their identities, broke onto ships in the Boston Harbor and dumped thousands of pounds of tea into the water as protest against the taxes levied upon them by the British Empire. This version of the story has a nice “Anti-Government Tax” spin to it, even though that is not the real motivation behind the Tea Party. The only eyewitness account of the event was by George Hewes, an unknown shoemaker from Boston, who’s story was discovered and recounted in several books in the two plus centuries since the event. To hear George tell it, this protest wasn’t so much about taxes on the people as it was about tax breaks for big corporations. Hewes clearly stated: “The (East India) Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America...” Basically, the East Indian company, one of the largest corporations in the world at the time, had been given huge tax breaks by the government and using those discounts to undersell small business people, putting folks out of work. In today’s world, a Boston Tea Party would be a group of laid off Circuit City employees dressing up like Mexican migrant workers, breaking into Wal-Mart and trashing the electronics section.

And therein lies the true problem with the Tea Party protests. I applaud and appreciate any American citizen who wants to criticize the government and hold elected officials accountable. Holding up signs critiquing the fact that Obama has appointed men and women to fix our economy who didn’t have the discipline to pay their own back taxes makes sense to any reasonable person. But you hope that the people out there protesting know for whom and what they are protesting. The Boston Tea Party originally was a group of disgruntled small businessmen who felt the government was selling them out to large corporations. The current Tea Parties are little more than a front for the very same large corporations that are abusing the common man today. The ‘spontaneous’ Tea Parties across America are funded by former Congressman and Lobbyist Dick Armey, Empower America, Fox News and Freedomworks, all organizations that lobby Congress against increasing the minimum wage, expanding healthcare benefits and a whole host of other programs that are essentially the only safety net left for the very people protesting at these rallies. This is not a people’s revolution; this is large corporate interests using the fears and passions of the common man to promote an agenda that ultimately will be their undoing.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

City Of Brotherly Snubs

City Of Brotherly Snubs

 Dr. Jason Johnson

12/22/2010


Barack Obama may have an excellent resume when it comes to attempts at bi-partisanship with the GOP, but he seems to have an entirely different effect on his own party’s unity.

Obama’s become a surprisingly polarizing figure within one of the most unified and consistent bastions of political power in the African-American community: The Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC appears to be going through one of its roughest periods in history and the most recent problems for the august caucus are centered right on the president that so many of them were enamored with just two years ago.

The last year has been one of the roughest for the CBC with problems coming from both the inside and the outside. Within the Democratic party, James Clyburn (D-S.Car.) has been bamboozeled out of a legitimate leadership bid in order to placate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) is being put out to pasture because Democrats don’t have the backbone to stand up to future investigator-in-chief Darryl Issa (R-CA). 

Then from the outside, ethics charges against old stalwarts such as Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Charlie Rangel (D-NY) have hamstrung the caucus’s leadership yet again. In particular Rangel’s rants about Obama not supporting him during his recent trials and tribulations further speaks to the chasm between the main leaders of the CBC and the White House. However, in the face of all of these problems, Chaka Fattah’s (D-Pa.) public break with the CBC last week shows one of the biggest cracks in the foundation of the caucu that the public has ever seen.

The Congressional Black Caucus leadership announced two Friday’s ago that they were against Obama’s tax cut deal with Republicans and that the members would stand firm against it. And then Fattah turned right around last Monday and publicly announced he was backing Obama over the CBC. In political terms, the CBC just got “Punk’D” by one of its own members.

On the surface Congressman Fattah has good reason for his break with the CBC. He represents Philadelphia, where the unemployment rate is 11 percent. Even if he doesn’t like extending Bush’s tax cuts to the rich, he at least doesn’t want thousands of his constituents to miss out on the extension of unemployment benefits that Obama put into the new deal. Of course, that’s not the only reason he’s taking this stand, and in such a public way.

The real reason is because he feels snubbed by the CBC from earlier this year. Fattah wanted to run for a Democratic leadership position on the powerful House Appropriations committee. Unfortunately, he did not have seniority on the committee. While Democrats usually hold to the seniority rule when it comes to leadership appointments on committees Fattah felt, rightly or wrongly, that in the face of the horrible losses in the 2010 mid-term elections that he was the best man for the job, regardless of how long he had been in Congress.

 While few will admit it publicly, the CBC quietly backed senior Democrat on Appropriations Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) for the position, snubbing one of their own for a not only a white member of Congress but one whose abilities are not necessarily any more suited for the battles ahead with Republicans than Fattah. So what does our insulted Congressman do? He publicly backs the president of the United Sates over his own caucus, even though they’re all supposedly on the same team.

The significance of Fattah’s move – and the role Obama plays in it – cannot be understated. Yes, there are many Democrats who were unhappy withmObama’s tax plan, but the CBC Caucus spoke with one voice in their opposition. What’s more, the timing and intensity of Fattah’s break with the organization speaks to just how fractured the Caucus has become and this is before a Republican takeover in 2011 that promises to bring even more intense battles to both chambers.

 It appears as though a generational shift is occurring in the CBC, where older member’s powers may be waning in D.C. younger members are seeking more influence and in the coming months a black Republican might even join from South Carolina. But in the midst of all of this, when siding with the African-American president of the United Sates is the ultimate public snub of the most powerful body of African-American politicians in the country, a brave new era of politics has finally come.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

The 2012 Election Begins Now

 

The 2012 Election Begins Now
 Dr. Jason Johnson
12/31/2010

Now that the dust is settled on the mid-term madness, and Obama has successfully convinced the press that he has his ‘mojo’ back (even if the polls are still catching up) during the “Lame Duck Session” we can begin looking at what really will matter once the ball drops and 2011 begins: The presidential election of 2012. Republicans are already lining up with websites and bus trips through Iowa and while the president must sit back and watch the opposition has to prepare for a creative assault to make any headway in 2012. The catch will be, how will the new congress influence GOP candidate’s presidential ambitions?

The important thing to remember is that whoever the Republican nominee is in 2012 is actually helped or hamstrung by what the Republican Congress is able to do with or against Obama in 2011. This congress comes in with a stark choice: Reject everything the president does and hope the economy boots him out of office, or try to improve the economy with the president and hope a GOP candidate can take more credit than Obama. It is unlikely that House Speaker John Boehner (D-OH) with his orange colored tan and penchant for crying on camera will be as much a foil to Obama as Newt Gingrich was to Bill Clinton. Consequently Republicans are better off trying to stymie the president’s efforts than take control and credit because they lack the congressional leadership personalities to make those kinds of claims. So which GOP contenders can make the most of a Congress that will try to take “Do Nothing-ness” to new heights?

The Republican candidate who can best get political momentum out of a Congress that may have little to show for itself would be an outsider. Someone who is far removed from Washington politics that can portray themselves as a sheriff coming to town to clean up a mess made by Obama. Fortunately for Republicans they have nothing but outsiders at the forefront of the party so this won’t be much of an impediment. But which outsider can make the best case? Who will be making credible speeches in Iowa next summer preparing to make an official announcement in the fall?

The first issue to point out is that the GOP candidate has to be able to win on their own merits. Namely those who are Republicans or plan to vote that way in 2012 should avoid the ‘electable’ candidate at all costs. The man or woman who says vote for them because: “They Can Beat Obama”. That plan didn’t work with John Kerry against Bush and it won’t work in 2012 against Obama. This knocks out cookie cutter candidates like Mitt Romney (The Republican version of Al Gore) or Jeb Bush. Those who have legitimate records to run on or political charisma are Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. And while not in any particular order they might have the best chance to capitalize on the new Republican Congress.

Newt’s masterful running of the GOP House in the 1990’s would give him a foothold by next summer to say that a strong president must be able to get things done with Congress as he did 17 years ago. Boasting a keen mind and a resume of economic success in the 1990’s Gingrich has a credible claim. Mike Huckabee, who in early polls is the only Republican with a consistent lead over Obama in 2012 has the charm and success in Arkansas to say that he can really change Washington D.C. with fiscally conservative policies bolstered by years of executive experience. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty may be the dark horse right now which works in his favor. Little known outside of the GOP he hails from the heartland where he’s seen the recession first hand and has a better handle on how to fix the problems real Americans face. Even Sarah Palin who I don’t believe will mount a credible run for president can make use of a resistant GOP congress by claiming that they, like the American people are stymied by Obama’s liberal agenda.

The real issue heading into the next year won’t be whether or not certain candidates will run, or if they have a chance to succeed. It will be whether or not they can successfully explain or justify their own Congress’s behavior in the coming months in a way that will position them best against Obama in 12 months. And they have to hope that he doesn’t simply outmaneuver them first making his re-election all but assured.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

President Obama Needs A Shutdown, Not A Clinton

 

President Obama Needs A Shutdown, Not A Clinton
By Jason Johnson 

12/16/2010

In the wake of 2010 mid term elections and President Obama’s recent deal with the Republicans on the Bush Tax cuts a curious narrative seems to have occurred in the press. Many have been saying that Obama needs to act more like Bill Clinton.

The storyline is that after Clinton’s 1994 mid-terms he ‘triangulated’— more moving to the center and avoiding liberal hot button issues such as Healthcare and Gays in the Military. The narrative further goes that Obama caves in to Republicans too often, resulting in policies such as the Tax Deal or healthcare that lead to him giving into Republicans, chastising his own base for not having his back and leaving the center annoyed that no real business gets done.

When Obama trotted out Clinton last Friday to justify his tax deal it even further solidified this discussion of Clinton post 1994 as a model for Obama. But let’s be honest, Bill Clinton isn’t a model for the Obama presidency and any suggestion that he is ignores the ineptitude of the early Clinton presidency.

It wasn’t even 20 years ago when Clinton first came into office with only 43 percent of the popular vote, managing to beat George Bush only because Ross Perot peeled off enough Republican and fiscal conservative independent voters to let Clinton slip through. Immediately after getting into office, Clinton pissed off the public and the right by putting in “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” through executive order. No one cared and no one wanted the policy at the time.

He then attempted universal healthcare and when he faced resistance from the GOP and insurers he backed off of the plan entirely. He then put through a crime bill that was a capitulation to the right, gutted welfare to appease right wing critics and generally waffled or caved or quit on most issues in his early presidency.

And let’s not forget President Clinton’s predilection for leaving his friends out in the cold when it got too hot in the kitchen, especially African-American women. Clinton totally sold out assistant attorney general nominee Lani Guiner to the right wing attack dogs and fired Surgeon General Joceyln Elders despite her support for the very policies he lacked the backbone to push through Congress.

Let’s be honest about history. Clinton’s first term was pretty much defined by his capitulation to the right, his penchant for frustrating his own base and his tendency to betray his friends? Does that sound like a formula for President Obama to follow?

The truth for Clinton, as it may one day be for Obama, is that a symbolic victory might turn around his public perception more than a policy one. Clinton was a waffling “Slick Willy” until the government shutdown staring contest with Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. When Republicans in the House refused to pass the federal budget unless Clinton made drastic cuts in social welfare programs, he stood up to them and the government was shut down for weeks, from December in 1995 to mid January of 1996.

While it was non-essential government services (we were all still getting our mail) the public thought that Newt was going too far, sided with Clinton and the rest is history. Bob Dole was tainted by the whole affair weakening his run for president in 1996, where Clinton won re-election but STILL didn’t get 50 percent of the popular vote. He continued to waffle throughout his presidency, get in trouble, but his one major public standoff with the Republicans is remembered almost 20 years later as Clinton’s coming into his own presidency.

President Obama has made plenty of ‘rookie mistakes’ in his first two years in office, but the suggestion that Clinton was a model of presidential leadership is a specious one. Clinton’s presidency wasn’t saved by “triangulation” or moving to the center, he had been doing that all along. Clinton was just as much a back – tracking capitulation waffler then as many see President Obama as today. Clinton lucked out when the Republicans tried to overreach and he took advantage. You aren’t outmaneuvering someone when you simply have an issue fall into your lap.

At some point Obama too will have to make a public stand on some issue that symbolically makes Americans think that he’s got a spine, even if it’s followed by four more years of waffling and caving. Maybe he’ll figure it out and maybe he won’t , but if he’s smart he’ll leave the Clinton revisionist strategy in the past.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

GOP’s Steele In Grips Of ‘WB Syndrome’

GOP’s Steele In Grips Of ‘WB Syndrome’
By Jason Johnson 

1/20/2011
 

Quiz Time: Do you remember “Sister, Sister,” “The Jamie Foxx Show,” and “The Steve Harvey Show?” What do all of these shows have in common?

Each of these shows was part of the now defunct WB network’s television line-up from the mid-90’s. They were all popular African-American sitcoms that were ranked in the top 10 in black households before getting the axe in 1999. Basically the WB used black shows to stabilize the network then dumped them all when things got better. This “WB” syndrome as I like to call it, can also apply to politics, as it perfectly explains the recent plight of former RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

Broadcast television was dominated by NBC in the 1990’s, so when the WB was launched across the nation in 1995 Warner Brothers executives had a novel idea: Why not create programming for a niche African-American audience that was all but ignored by other networks at the time? From this idea shows such as “Jamie Foxx,” “Steve Harvey” and “Sister, Sister” were born to huge ratings and critical acclaim across black America. In fact, it was black programming that kept the WB alive in the ’90’s as most of their other show attempts had failed (Anyone remember Kirk Cameron’s sitcom “Kirk”? Didn’t think so).

Then, in 1999 it all changed. The station had finally stabilized financially and began to focus exclusively on creating and promoting shows targeted at white teens and young adults. Goodbye “The Hugleys”, hello “Dawson’s Creek,” “Smallville,” “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Charmed.”  It didn’t matter that the black shows were successful. Executives at the WB always aspired to grab the white teen audience like Fox and MTV and had no problem using black shows to get there. I call this the “WB syndrome” – throw some blacks in there early on to sell the product then dump them the moment the white audience is secure. You saw the same thing with Jennifer Lopez’ dating life and Timberland boots.

This syndrome explains Michael Steele’s relationship with the Republican Party. After major losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections and a black man in the White House, the Republican Party had to re-invent itself. So they made their first affirmative action hire and elected Steele to be Republican National Committee chairman. Steele, former Lt. Governor of Maryland was great on television and started a drive to attract more minorities and young people to the party.

Of course there were some Republicans that were not comfortable with the idea of being driven to do anything by a black man unless his name was Hoke Colburn. The Republican National Committee voted to limit Steele’s access to party funds, and his occasional gaffes always became a national story. The overly racist Tea Party movement openly snubbed him leading to conservative pundits calling for his ouster in the summer of 2010. By the time the midterm elections of 2010 came about, many big time Republican donors openly refused to give to the party until Steele either resigned or was voted out, leading to the party having over $20 million in debt in early 2011.

Despite all of this, Steele kept winning. Since Steele took over in 2009 Republicans have flipped half a dozen governor’s mansions from blue to red, took senate seats and won the House of Representatives. Yet last week he was voted out in favor of Reince Priebus, the white, 38-year-old former head of the Wisconsin Republican party.

It’s the WB syndrome in politics. The Republican Party is the party of middle aged and old white people and they aspire to compete with Democrats for younger white voters. The leadership has no problem using black faces and candidates to achieve stability as long as it serves their ultimate goal, which was and always will be more white voters. The GOP used Steele to get stabilized then dumped him for a white guy just like the WB dumped The Wayans Brothers the moment they had Ally McBeal.

In order to avoid cancellation, the WB eventually merged with UPN, both stations purged themselves of any remaining minority targeted programs and created the CW. Despite their best efforts to survive on white viewers alone the CW is still firmly planted in last place. With Steele gone the Republican Party is free to even more brazenly and publicly ally itself with the lunatic fringe of the Tea Party and pursue their prized demographic of young white men. But if their television doppelganger is any indicator, this strategy is a ticket to last place in 2012.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Is The Tea Party Movement Lengthening The Recession?

Is The Tea Party Movement Lengthening The Recession? 

Dr. Jason Johnson 

9/9/2010

Last week the new employment news was not great. Unemployment jumped from 9.5 to 9.6 percent, the average unemployed American hasn’t had a job for over 27 weeks and the dreaded “double-dip” recession might be upon us. Of course in the midst of this financial malaise political leaders and pundits are trying to find the culprit. Why is it that we’re still stuck in the mud when it comes to the economy? Who isn’t pulling their weight?

While Bush, Obama, and Goldman Sachs are some of the biggest culprits, I nominate one of the newest antagonists to our nation’s economic growth: The National Tea Party movement.

First, let’s deal with the non-subjective facts. This is the longest recession in American history that was not associated with the Great Depression. As far as most economists are concerned, the recession officially began in 2007 but for normal people it really began sometime in mid-2005. A recession is when the economy begins slowing down, and many in the mid-west and northeastern parts of the country started to feel that slowdown pretty soon after Bush was re-elected. It took another few years before the housing crisis and Wall Street started to hit hotspots like Phoenix Arizona, Austin, Texas and Atlanta.

As far as I’m concerned once people started having to calculate the cost of groceries versus the cost of gas they’d spent to drive to the store we were in a recession.

Much of American economic growth is about attitude. When people are optimistic, they spend money and the economy improves. When they are worried they spend less and the economy tanks. Even when your personal financial situation is good, if you see nothing but screaming angry people on the air, it makes people hesitant to spend.

So Tea Party members with their constant whining about healthcare, the president’s faith and the fact that he’s black have so dominated the press and made public discourse so toxic that they’re bumming out the rest of the nation and further slowing the economy. It’s like when you finally think you’re getting out of a traffic jam only to see the progress is being held up by two guys arguing in the middle of the street holding up traffic. That’s what the Tea Party is doing, holding up economic traffic by monopolizing public discourse on non-essential issues and depressing the public.

And let’s be clear, the Tea Partiers are not your average Americans speaking out for the common man. CBS, New York Times and Gallup polls of their demographics have shown that they are better off than your average American, yet are more pessimistic about the future. The Tea Party movement is composed primarily of white men with college educations over the age of 45. Further, they are more likely than your average American to report their personal financial situation to be ‘good or great’ AND have salaried jobs. These are the same folks who went out and bought SUVs when Bush asked them to stimulate the economy, and spent their ‘tax refund’ checks on new dining room sets. Now they’re hoarding cash, buying up gold from Glenn Beck and pulling out of the economy right and left because they can’t stand the president. And the rest of Americans reeling from the real recession are getting gun shy about spending having seen these people rant and rave for the last 18 months.

When you consider that those who are active in the Tea Party movement are about 4 percent of the U.S. population, that is a fairly significant number of people to have refusing to participate in the economy. No one is happy about this recession, and many in public office are doing whatever they can to get the nation back on its feet. However, we’ll never get there as a nation if those of us who are relatively better off spend our time complaining and tuning out rather than getting involved and spending and engaging.

One has to wonder what would’ve happened if everyone who went to Glenn Beck’s Tea Party event in Washington D.C. had taken all the money they spent flying or driving to D.C. and instead took their families out to dinner at a local restaurant or spent the day at the mall. It’s in all of our power to help dig this economy out of the doldrums, and it’s high time for the Tea Partiers to stop their whining and pick up a shovel like the rest of us. 

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Keith Olbermann And The Death Of The ‘Left’

Keith Olbermann And The Death Of The ‘Left’
Dr. Jason Johnson
1/27/2011

Like many Americans, I was absolutely shocked last week when Keith Olbermann abruptly announced that he was leaving his “Countdown” show on MSNBC. With no advanced warning MSNBC’s highest rated show and most popular personality was leaving the small screen. Olbermann’s departure brings us some serious questions about the future of the MSNBC network but more importantly the future of the progressive left on cable news networks.

“Countdown” with Keith Olbermann premiered on MSNBC eight years ago and had steadily gained in popularity, viewers and influence from day one. Olbermann, who had previous stints at ESPN and MSNBC, seemed to have finally found his niche with a show that was political, witty and the most overused of commentary phrases ‘irreverent’. In all honesty, it was an irreverent show, with Olbermann doing something that no one had ever seen the left do before on a cable news network.

Bill Clinton once lamented that there really wasn’t a “Rush Limbaugh” for the left and he was right. While liberals have done a pretty good job in Hollywood and even on editorial pages in certain big city newspapers, on radio and television they’ve failed miserably. “The Daily Show” and “Colbert Report” are great but the hosts will readily admit these shows are comedy first and news commentary second.

Air America radio died a painful death a few years back after desperately trying to sell liberal talk radio to the masses. Any investor who thought Americans would want to listen to the nasal diatribes of Janene Garofalo and Al Franken deserved to lose their shirt. When it comes to television, Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz have been able to keep themselves alive thus far on MSNBC, but they are really clinging to the anchor of Olbermann’s show, which not only was the ratings leader at MSNBC but transformed the network as a whole.

Why is it that liberals can’t figure out television in the same way the conservative producers have at Fox News?

The formula is simple, but not many people fit the bill. Like them or not, guys such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are funny and creative in their shows. Whether through parody songs or out and out mocking, they give their audience something to laugh about. Olbermann was the only liberal commentator out there who could honestly make you laugh out loud while criticizing Bush for the War on Terror.

Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly know how to brand themselves as regular guys with predictable sketches, and Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” segments were some of the most memorable and relatable elements of his show. Most importantly, a good political commentator has to be willing to fight, to get dirty to speak truth to power and sneer in the face of criticism. Beck has no problem attacking Obama, not just on policy but his character and values. This may not always have been the most polite public discourse, but it’s catharsis for his fans and viewers.

Liberals are constantly frustrated that it seems like their leaders never want to fight. At every turn the Democratic-led Congress caved in to Bush’s war plans, and Obama is quick to capitulate to the right, but not Olbermann. He was the one liberal out there who was funny, passionate, informed and willing to fight. Whether picking a personal fight with Bill-O or counting down the days that Bush failed to end the war in Iraq, “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann was the red meat needed for a liberal crowd that was tired of going vegan when it came to political commentary.

It was Olbermann’s passionate defense of liberal views that finally gave MSNBC an identity, as the anti-Fox News. As his show rose to prominence, MSNBC overtook CNN as the second most watched cable network to Fox News during many time slots. So why drop the man who saved your network, gave it an identity and had your highest ratings?

Perhaps it is because MSNBC is being purchased by Comcast. Perhaps it is because Olbermann was a difficult guy behind the scenes,, or maybe reasons we haven’t heard yet.  Regardless of the reason, the left is now without a spokesperson, again, and no amount of stern lectures from Rachel Maddow or bombast from Ed Schultz can replace the wit, poetry and creativity of Olbermann.

While MSNBC casts itself as the Fox News antidote with their new motto, “Lean Forward,” they apparently weren’t willing to bend over backwards to keep their most talented personality. Proving once again why the conservatives will always win the air wars.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Islam – African-American Style

 

Islam – African-American Style
By Jason Johnson 

01/6/2011

“I will do all I can to break down the wall of political correctness and drive the public debate on Islamic radicalization.”

Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) Dec. 20, 2010

The incoming Republican Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in Congress has thrown down the gauntlet against Islam. The problem is that the “Islam” question in American politics has for too long been muddied by international fears, racism, nationalism and a general lack of education in the American public.

So, when a prominent American politician declares that he’s taking an entire religion and its followers to task, the question is what are Muslim Americans going to do about it?

Over the last decade, whenever there have been political questions about Islam in America, the answers have often come from Muslim immigrants, the nation of Islam or even leaders from abroad; seldom from homegrown African-American Muslims. This is strange considering that African Americans make up over 25 percent of the eight million Muslims living in America today.

In the face of more aggressive Transportation Safety Administration pat downs, (news analyst and commentator) Juan Williams claiming Muslims on airplanes frighten him and other discriminatory acts, African Americans who happen to be Muslim are finally letting their voices be heard. And unlike some other groups, the unique history of African Americans means they aren’t taking “Islmaphobia” lying down.

A clear example of this new discrimination and the voices speaking out against is the case of Basheer Jones, who is about as African, and American, as apple pie and he’s Muslim. Jones, a Morehouse alumni and former Cleveland radio host, planned to put on an end of Ramadan celebration last fall with a business partner at the famed Fox Theatre in Atlanta. The event was to feature poetry, dance and musical acts but was cancelled by Fox at the last minute.

Why?

According to emails sent by employees of the theatre to the businessmen their event “…was a Muslim event and it just falls too close to the anniversary of 9-11!” The story became huge news in Atlanta but received little national attention.

A couple of months later Jones is the spokesperson for the Islamic World Conference to be held on January 14th in Atlanta. The conference is meant to promote the idea that Islam is a religion of peace but with a new twist. The passive voice might be a thing of the past.

“Most media focuses on Muslim immigrants who just want to come here and be accepted, or the nation of Islam that has its own agenda. But Black Americans, we have our own story to tell and we’re not just going to sit back while our rights and dignity are taken away,” said Jones.

Political and religious leaders have been waging war against Islam for almost a decade now and all too often some of this behavior is promoted and tolerated within the African-American community. From barbershops to pulpits to Congressional podiums a sort of “Islamaphobia” has been fomented that does this nation and its future no good.

I am generally loath to use the suffix “phobia” on any word as it suggests an irrational fear of a particular people or idea. There are legitimate reasons for Americans to fear extremists and some of those extremists are Muslim. However, Christian Nationalists groups have been sprouting up all over the United States since the Clinton administration and you didn’t see Republican members of Congress saying they were going to stamp out the radicalized Christians who were involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. When we conflate religion, nation and a race of people no good can come of it for public discourse or American policy.

The Islamic World Conference looks to be quite a show. There will be a showing of the new film “Mooz-Lum” by Qasim Basir, starring Nia Long and Danny Glover. There will be Muslim Ambassadors from South Africa, there will be music, and there will be dance. But most importantly there will be dialogue, and there will be voices from the African-American community that are seldom heard and even fewer times respected.

We are looking at the prospect of a Republican Congress that plans on stirring up whatever hostility they can against the fastest growing faith in the United States. Therefore it is in the best interest of all patriotic Americans to support any attempt to set the dialogue and policy discussion in the right direction. There are a lot more Basheer Joneses than Timothy McVeighs in this country and that’s something we should celebrate no matter what Congressman King wants to promote. 

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Finally Some Work Might Actually Get Done In D.C.

Finally Some Work Might Actually Get Done In D.C.

By Jason Johnson

Published on 11/11/2010

 

Right now there are millions of Democratic and Progressive voters who think that the world is coming to an end. The Republican sweep of government, which was much more substantial than most press reports are truly presenting, has left all too many people thinking that we’ve reached a nadir in American politics.

Believe it or not, the results of Election Tuesday are not entirely bad, unless you are a partisan Democrat. If you’re simply an American citizen, this might be a sign that real progress is going to be made, at least on the national level.

First, let us collectively realize just how deep and substantial the 2010 elections were.

Everyone knows the big news – that Republicans won 55 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them a majority and putting Nancy Pelosi out of a job. Republicans also took eight seats in the Senate, and they likely would have gained more if they hadn’t wasted their nominations on right wing Tea Party candidates such as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or Sharon Angle in Nevada. More importantly Republicans won several governor’s mansions, including solidly blue presidential states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Maine. But likely the most serious change that occurred after Tuesday’s smackdown of the president was the 19 state houses that were overtaken by the Republicans; State Houses that will be responsible for re-drawing Congressional districts in the coming year based on the new census that could affect presidential campaign politics for another decade.

Despite cries from the Democrats, the response of the Republican leadership to last week’s elections has been rather muted. There was a conspicuous lack of crowing and bragging on the part of Republican leadership after the elections, with future Speaker of the House John Boehner and soon to be ex-Republic National Chairman Michael Steele both being extremely humble about the results. When asked what these results meant for the president, Democrats and Steele said that they were a warning sign to both parties. Steele went on to say that if the Republicans failed to go to Washington and fix the economy and do something about the national debt they’d be out of a job in 2012.

Boehner, with an equal amount of unforced humility, has come out and said that even with the election results that the president is still responsible for setting the legislative agenda.

So what does this all mean? Are Republicans suddenly getting humble in the face of their incredible success or are they playing possum before going on a rampage of obstructionism for the next 18 months? I would argue neither. In fact, the 2010 election results all but guarantee that there should be some real positive steps made in regards to the economy in the coming year.

Republicans were swept into office last week in large part due to the anger on the part of many American citizens about the economy and the seeming failure of Obama to appear singularly focused on the issue that mattered to most of the public. It was not, in any shape way or form an endorsement of the Republican Party, or their policies as much as it was a rejection of dithering on the part of Democrats. The Republicans and Democrats know this, and after three massive changes in houses of Congress in 2006, 2008 and 2010 both parties realize that the public is impatient and has no party loyalty when jobs are scarce.

The Republicans have two options. The first is to continue to obstruct the president’s plans hoping this will leave him weakened enough to be defeated in 2012. The weakness in that plan is that this will leave a Republican presidential nominee with nothing to run on as well, and runs the risk of the GOP being kicked out of Congress again just as Steele suggested.

The other option is to put forth aggressive policies targeted at improving the economy in key Midwestern states, take full credit publicly and use those improvements as a launching pad for the myriad GOP candidates who will be coming out of the woodwork next year.  Both the president and Republicans have incentive to improve the economy now, and both run the risk of losing their jobs in two years if they don’t. While they may not want to work together, neither the White House nor Republican goals can be met if they work separately. And that is good news for the American people.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

No ‘Both Sides’ To Tone-Down Rhetoric Call

 No ‘Both Sides’ To Tone-Down Rhetoric Call

 Dr. Jason Johnson

01/13/2011

One of the most interesting phenomena to watch as a political observer in this country are the vacillating narratives that occur when any tragic and unforeseen event happens. After the initial shocking event, you have the main facts that come out, then the right or the left attempts to define the event in terms that are most beneficial to their causes.

This happens with movies, (everyone was trying to explain “300” and “Avatar” as statements about the War in Iraq), sporting events (New Orleans Saints win Super Bowl and thus the Gulf is now fine) and yes, tragedies such as the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford in Arizona last weekend.

 As more facts come out, sometimes the politics are put aside and the event is viewed as an isolated occurrence. This should not be one of those times, Jared Loughner is a murderer spurred on by right wing rhetoric over the last 3 years. Any suggestions otherwise are simply paving the way for the next tragedy.

Last Saturday, Loughner, an emotionally disturbed 22 year old opened fire on a community event sponsored by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, Ariz. He shot 19 people, killed 6 and opened up a wound that has been festering in America for since the election of 2008.

Various web postings by Loughner showed that he thought the government was evil, was engaging in mind control techniques and that he was fiercely against illegal immigration. While there are questions about whether or not he was liberal or conservative, his political leanings nor his mental illness should not diminish the fact that this was a clearly political act.

At first, the left wing pundits went to town on this issue. Blaming the harsh rhetoric of conservatives such as Sarah Palin, who one promoted a poster on her Web site with Giffords on crosshairs as a “targeted” Democrat for her votes on healthcare and immigration. Predictably the right struck back, claiming that none of their rhetoric should be held responsible for violence and playing the “we’re all victims here” game. Within 48 hours, public discourse seems to have settled on a narrative that Loughner was a crazy guy, and that while civility is important we can’t place too much weight on his politics. By the end of the week this will be a mental illness story, which is about the worst thing that could happen.

Loughner is crazy, but he was acting on his political beliefs in a way that has been fostered by the political right of this country since Obama got elected in 2008. When the dust settles in a week they’ll be right back to calling for armed revolution, “re-loading” and “taking their country back” whenever it suits the political needs of Republicans and their Tea Party surrogates. And they’ll deny any responsibility when the next tragedy happens.

A colleague of mine put it perfectly this weekend: this is about the language of legitimacy. It is one thing to say that Obama and Democrats are wrong on the issues, but since 2008 top Republican leaders and candidates have told their supporters that just about everything that Obama has done (including his election) is illegitimate. He’s not a citizen, he wasn’t really elected president, his healthcare plan is unconstitutional, he’s attempting to take over the country, and the list goes on and on.

When a political leader is just wrong, you fight within the law to stop them, but when a political leader is portrayed as illegitimate, then you are within your rights to do anything in your power to topple them. Why not? They aren’t there legally to begin with. This right wing narrative is not being pointed out and it is now and in the future going to open the door to even more violence against the left and the presidency of Barack Obama.  There is no “both sides” to this argument. You didn’t see liberals calling for armed revolution against George Bush, or death threats against Republican Congressmen who tried to privatize Social Security.

I, like all Americans, am saddened by the tragedy of the Tucson shooting and hope that the murderer Loughner is brought to justice. However, if we don’t want to see this happen again, it is time to finally call out the Republican leadership for their tacit promotion of this kind of violence. Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, John Boehner and the rest will not stop using references to revolution and illegitimacy as long as they think it will get them votes. Nevertheless if the public starts to put blood on their hands maybe they’ll think twice the next time they pick up a microphone and talk revolution.

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Count Me Among The Many Touched And Inspired By Dr. Ron Walters

Count Me Among The Many Touched And Inspired By Dr. Ron Walters

Dr. Jason Johnson 

9/17/2010 

On Friday Sept. 10, Dr. Ron Walters, professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland, passed away quietly after a long battle with cancer. While perhaps not nearly as famous to the mainstream as Cornell West, Skip Gates or Michael Eric Dyson, Ron Walters was for many African-American academics, politicians and me personally an inspiration and a shining example of the responsibilities one carries along with their education.

Dr. Walters was born in 1938 and attended Fisk University and received his MA and PhD from American University in 1971. He was without a doubt one of the most prolific and respected writers on race in the United States, with over 100 publications to his name and more awards than even he cared to count. After working at Howard University for over 25 years, he moved 45 minutes up the beltway to run the African American leadership Institute at the University of Maryland before retiring in part due to his cancer battle.

Dr. Walters was a regular on political commentary shows in the ’80’s and ’90’s. He helped create the groundwork for the Congressional Black Caucus and is credited with starting one of the first sit-in protests in the United States in Witchita, Kans. But none of those reasons are why I am writing about Ron Walters today. My reasons are more much simple and less well known, but I think epitomize the impact he had on so many people in his life.

In the summer of 1996, I had pretty much decided that I wanted to run political campaigns as a career. As an undergraduate at the University of Virginia it’s hard not to catch the political bug. And with mentors such as Larry Sabato teaching that “Politics is a Good Thing” and appearing on television every other week, I saw a great career in consulting and punditry ahead of me.

Of course, I never really knew if that work alone would really be satisfying, if just working on campaigns along was enough to have a life that was personally as well as financially fulfilling. That changed when I met Dr. Walters.

That summer I was in the Ralphe Bunche Institute, a program run by the American Political Science Association to encourage minority students to pursue PhD’s especially in the social sciences. I was enjoying my summer but was pretty much unconvinced. At the time academics came off like distant eggheads to me, all theory and no practical knowledge. Walters ended up being one of our speakers and dinner guests at the Bunche Institute and my entire perspective on what you could do with a PhD, and the impact you could have on practical politics was changed.

Probably the most significant public achievement that Dr. Walters had in his career in most people’s minds was being the campaign manager for Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 Democratic nomination campaigns. He was in the thick of both of these races, strategizing, organizing and theorizing ways to make the impossible possible. While no slight to Shirley Chisolm, Jackson ran the first “impossible to ignore” campaign by an African American running for president. He made the possibility of a black president very real to all Americans and people across the globe, and he was able to do that in no small part due to Ron Walters.

I was captivated. For the first time in my life I met a black man who was doing exactly what I wanted to do when I was older; make a way in the academic world and make a difference in real politics. At dinner, Dr. Walters was funny, graceful and spent a lot more time answering questions about the campaign to this little group of college kids than he needed to. I was inspired by not only his commitment to his craft, but to his sense of obligation to inspire and encourage others.

In the harsh years of PhD hazing that followed, my mind would occasionally wander back to Dr. Walters, and I would remember that if he could get a PhD in 1971 there was no way I was going to back down from any challenges I was facing almost 40 years later.

This week at the Congressional Black Caucus Conference I’m sure there will be a panel of people discussing in detail the great impact and value of Ron Walter’s life. While my story may not be as profound as some of those men and women on stage, I will clap as loud as anyone else. In celebration of a life not measured in sound bites or best-sellers but in the thousands of lives he touched and inspired. 

(Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio, where he teaches courses in campaigns and elections, pop culture, and the politics of sports. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu.)

More Jason Johnson On W.E. A.L.L. B.E.:

http://weallbe.blogspot.com/search?q=jason+johnson

Hear Dr. Ronald Walters On W.E. A.L.L. B.E. Radio:

Topic: 2010 State Of The Black Union

“It Ain’t About Tavis, It’s About Us, & It's About Time!”

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/weallbe/2010/02/25/tha-artivist-presentswe-all-be-radio