President Barack Obama is scheduled to unveil his agenda for revamping financial regulation later this week. As the economy struggles though a recession created by the banking industry, it's crucial that Obama and his advisers craft a set of rules ensuring that the financial sector strengthens our economy instead of destroying it.
As I explained in my previous diary dealing with the "State of the Dream 2009" report, in this diary, I want to I want focus in on the confluence of several driving dynamics behind the persistence of the deep economic divide between the races. These are:
(1) The pre-existing racial disparities in wealth and income dating back to the pre-Civil Rights Era.
(2) The sharp break between pre-1975 liberal economics and post-1975 conservative economics, after which economic advancement was sharply concentrated amongst the more affluent, and particularly the super-rich.
(3) The concentration of wealth-promoting policies on those who need it least-those who are already among the most affluent of all Americans.
This combination of factors shows that there is a very real, hard-core economic explanation for why blacks (as well as Latinos) have been mired in struggle economically, despite the fact of tremendous efforts over the last four decades. This combination of factors also ties back into conservative ideology, which is directly responsible for closing off opportunities for poor people in general, and for blacks and Latinos in particular.
I think one of the most important findings is that-the idea that the African American community never emerged out of the 2001 recession. As the country was talking about things were going well in 2005, 2006, we saw that African Americans were actually having a decline in the employment rate, a decline in per capita income.
Prompted by Juan Gonzales on the issue of the wealth gap, Muhammad continued:
The overwhelming majority of African Americans and Latinos do not even have a savings enough that would keep them going for three months. And as you see growing unemployment and, what's not talked enough about, underemployment, there is not that safety cushion to help you get through hard times. African Americans only have about 15 percent of the wealth of white Americans. And so, again, African American community, Latino communities, and also just working-class communities as a whole, are in a much more dire situation than I think is truly recognized. And we need some political courage to deal with these issues adequately.
In covering this report, I want to do two things. First, present an overview of the scope of the main findings of the report. That's what I'm going to so in this diary. Second, in a follow-up diary, I want focus in on the confluence of several driving dynamics: (1) The pre-existing racial disparities in wealth and income dating back to the pre-Civil Rights Era. (2) The sharp break between pre-1975 liberal economics and post-1975 conservative economics, after which economic advancement was sharply concentrated amongst the more affluent, and particularly the super-rich. (3) The concentration of wealth-promoting policies on those who need it least-those who are already among the most affluent of all Americans. What this combination of factors shows is that there is a very real, hard-core economic explanation for why blacks (as well as Latinos) have been mired in struggle economically, despite the fact of tremendous efforts over the last four decades. Those explanations also tie back into conservative ideology, which is directly responsible for closing off opportunities for a poor people in general, and blacks and Latinos in particular.
People have noted for some time the curious phenomenae of conservatives attracted to Barack Obama. At Salon, Joe Conasan's article "Why conservatives love Barack Obama" carried the subhead, "Clinton haters who think the Illinois senator can beat Hillary support him now, but their affection will fade if he gets the nomination." The irrational exuberance of Hillary hatred seen before the New Hampshire primary certainly reminds us of how potent a force such hatred remains, not just within the official conservative establishment, but among its Versailles enablers as well. Still, that's only part of the story.
some conservatives, in particular, can't wait to bum rush the current crop of media-anointed black leaders out the door.
"The big losers, two big losers tonight are probably Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton," George Will observed after the Illinois senator swept the Iowa Democratic caucuses last week.
The Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, Mr. Will said, were "representative of those who have a sort of investment in the traditional and, I believe, utterly exhausted narrative about race relations in the United States."
Conservative radio host Bill Bennett said Mr. Obama "has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues. And, this is a breakthrough."
Page's reference to "media-anointed black leaders" is bizarre, of course. Jackson ran for President twice. In the 1988 primaries, he got over 7 million votes, won ten states and went to the convention with over 1,200 delegates. Sharpton ran in 2004, and repeatedly confounded expectations with his cogent arguments in the debates. This comment by Page is indicative of how, even when he's questioning what white conservatives are saying about black political issues at one level, he's buying into their assumptions at another: Jackson and Sharpton don't really represent the black community, according to the subtext that Page has casually endorsed. They are "media-anounted black leaders." (Unlike Obama?)
