-Caveat Lector-
February 4, 2001
Ashcroft, Racism and the Democrats
By Ted Glick
John Ashcroft may be Attorney-General, but Senate Democrats are proud
that they have "sent a message" to President-Select Bush and his
Republican partners-in-crime by their 42 votes in opposition, one more
than needed to keep a filibuster going. 42 votes that, on an immediate,
practical level, mean nothing, really.
It's ironic. One plus 41 equals 42.
There was not one--not one!--U.S. Senator willing to support the dozen
or so members of the Congressional Black Caucus who had the courage to
buck the system and challenge the official selection of Bush as
President by the electoral college. If only one had done so, for a brief
period of time, the illegitimacy of the Bush regime would have been
exposed through debate in the halls of Congress. But there was NOT ONE!
There were, however, 41 bullets fired by four, white NYPD police
officers two years ago today at an unarmed African immigrant, Amadou
Diallo, standing in the vestibule of his home in the South Bronx.
One plus 41 equals 42, and here's the real problem: not only is Bush
the President and Ashcroft the Attorney-General and Amadou Diallo dead;
the killers of Diallo were acquited of all charges by a criminal justice
system that, as experienced by black, brown and red people in the United
States, is riddled, cancer-like, with racism. After all, close to three
quarters of the two million people in prison or jail--the highest rate
of any country in the entire world--are black or brown, despite being
about 25% of the population.
Think about it. Especially if you're a white person: think about it,
please.
I've just returned from a rally in the Bronx in front of 1157 Wheeler
Avenue, the late Amadou Diallo's home. There were a number of good
things about the rally, but I and others there were not happy about the
proliferation of Democratic Party politicians who spoke. At one point,
New York City Comptroller and Mayoral candidate Alan Hevesi, an
establishment Democrat from way back, was prevented from speaking by the
boos from the crowd after he said, "Most police are decent people." I
never heard another word that he tried to say over the loudspeaker
before he left the stage about five minutes later.
Most white people, including progressive white people, probably agree
with Hevesi. As experienced by most white people, what Hevesi said is
pretty true. But because of "the wall between," as Anne Braden has
described the wall of racism and white supremacy, there is far too much
white ignorance of how the police and criminal justice system are
experienced by communities of color. It is truly as if we are living in
different countries.
It's really a form of social pathology, this denial of racism. As
another example, here's what nationally-syndicated, liberal columnist
John Farmer had to say about Ashcroft and his racism, in a Jan. 8th
column as carried in the Newark, N.J. Star-Ledger: "Less well-known is
Ashcroft's opposition to a voluntary desegregation of St. Louis schools.
Or his honorary degree from South Carolina's Bob Jones University--a
hotbed of anti-black and anti-Catholic bile. Then there are his
laudatory comments about the Old Confederacy in 'Southern Partisan,' a
magazine nostalgic for the rebel past. None of this warrants labeling
Ashcroft a racist, as some liberals do."
I guess for John Farmer, you're not a racist unless you're a leader of
the Ku Klux Klan, John Birch Society or their ilk. His moderation in
defense of racism is all too typical of those in the corporate media and
those in leadership of the two corporate parties. Which brings me back
to the 42 Senate Democrats who voted against Ashcroft.
There were this many votes primarily because of the groundswell of
independent, grassroots pressure which forced most Senate Democrats to
take the stands which they did. This grassroots movement was composed of
liberal and progressive Democrats and liberal and progressive
independents. Some of these people were at each other's political
throats two months before in bitter debate over whether Nader or Gore
was the correct Presidential choice.
A good chunk--not all, certainly, but a significant percentage--of this
grassroots movement has an understanding on some level about the
pernicious and destructive nature of racism and the need to oppose it.
And it is relatively united on a range of other issues. It is essential
that we actively search for ways to continue working together in the
future, which has to mean that we do so in a way which recognizes both
the commonalities on issues and the differences when it comes to
longer-range political strategy. If we do this, if we do it with
explicit and conscious anti-racism at its center, then there is reason
to believe that these four years under Bush could see the emergence of a
powerful, multi-racial, independent movement
