Home Niggardry

I was a touch ill for the past week, which kept me from spitting fire about the campaign for the Democratic nominee for President of these sometimes dis-United States of America. But now, I'm feeling better so it's time to get back in the saddle and...express myself.

The target for today: NAACP chairman, Julian Bond.

Seems that Mr. Bond is calling for the seating of some 156 delegates for the State of Michigan, despite the fact that the Democratic Party ruled that neither Michigan nor Florida delegates would be seated because of those states earlier-than-agreed-on primary ballots. And, coincidentally, each of the then-three first-tier candidates for the nomination agreed, pledging not to campaign in those states.

Senator Clinton wound up taking 55% of the vote in Michigan. As a result, the Michigan Democratic Party said Friday that Clinton will get 73 pledged delegates. Another 55 delegates will be uncommitted since 40 percent of the Democratic voters chose uncommitted, in large measure because Barack Obama and John Edwards had taken their names off the ballot, and many of their supporters voted for uncommitted.

The stakes are exceedingly high as Senators Obama and Clinton compete for the delegates they need to win the party's presidential nomination, a contest which increasingly looks sure to stretch well into the spring.

The eventual winner could be decided at the Democratic National Convention, which makes the question of whether the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated an important strategic point.

Enter Mr. Bond.

According to Essence Magazine's blog, Bond, Mary Frances Berry, the former head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and a Wade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, all worked on a letter to the DNC last weekend, under the guise of protecting "minority enfranchisement" in Michigan. But interestingly, 3 of 4 non-white votes in Michigan went to Mr. Obama, so the minority enfranchisement dog doesn't really hunt.

Worse, the letter on NAACP letterhead was not approved, not even discussed with the Board of Directors for that body.

To quote the blog:

"'At not time did this come before the board, and I don’t believe the board would have sanctioned and allowed this to happen,' one board member was quoted as saying. 'This is a unilateral move and a power play.'

"Another board member says they have received calls from across the national [sic] from state officers threatening to resign, and regular members saying they will tear up their cards and quit the group."

It's no secret that there is a bit of a schism forming between the old guard Black leadership and the younger firebrands who see a time for fresh faces and blood at the top of both the government and the NAACP, but this threatens to be a much more damaging situation long-term for the oldest civil rights organization in the nation. The NAACP already teeters on the edge of irrelevance among both the mainstream and the target constituency, and wading into these political shark-infested waters doesn't help, especially when the move was illegitimate.

But more disturbing is that many black leaders seem to be operating reflexively in supporting the "machine" candidate, Senator Clinton. I believe that many of the endorsements that Senator Clinton got from Black leaders came when the campaign was all set to go to Mrs. Clinton, when it was considered only an eventuality that she would be the eventual nominee.

And now, when many, I'm sure would love to switch up, they can't uncommit because many of their honeypots would be overturned, if the Senator from New York should squeak out the nomination. More ominously, I suspect that many of these leaders fear that a black president will obviate our need for them and their leadership.

Enter Mr Bond again.

There is no question that he has fought for black folks in the past, and his efforts -- and those of many others -- have surely made our lives in this country better over time. No doubt about it. But it seems apparent that not many, except Mr. Obama, his wife and his campaign staff, thought he had a snowball's chance in hell, back before South Carolina. It's the need to validate that 'prevailing wisdom' which is now driving actions by some leaders, and driving them to change the rules in mid-course.

That shouldn't happen. It's bad policy when it's done to minority communities and worse when we do it, because it validates other's doing it.

Note to black leaders: your relevance is not necessarily predicated on who you support for president -- assuming you believe in what you say and didn't endorse out of some feeble attempt at expediency. It is, however, determined in large measure, by your consistency. To decide to advocate a change in the rules mid-course is exactly what we as a people don't need you doing. Let your candidate win or lose on their own record, using the rules that everyone agreed on. Doing otherwise might lead some to assume that you're more worried about "massa's house" than your own. If Senator Clinton -- or Senator Obama for that matter -- doesn't win, can't win, abiding by the rules, they didn't deserve the privilege.

You wanna see your power erode quickly? The best way to do that would be to attempt to tip the balance in a ploy to save your own asses. You can trust that your flocks will no longer be inclined to follow you, and you'll end up exactly where you didn't want to be in the first place.