Black Faces in High Places but few anywhere else..
.
One of the Bush administration and his administration apoligist biggest talking points is his appointment of Black faces to high places. Howevever a new study has been released that states clearly "Bush has only Half as many Top Level Blacks as Clinton". Out of the 2800 administration jobs under Bush seven percent (7%) are Black while under Clinton sixteen percent (16%) were Black.
The GAO report, ordered early last year by several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Norton and U. S. Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), showed that the senior executive level of the United States Government was more than 91 percent White, with little hope for change.
Furthermore...
Bush awarded more than half of his political appointments (54 percent) to White men, while Clinton awarded 57 percent of those appointments to women and people of color.
Don't let the numbers above fool you, Clinton still gave 43% of all appointments to white men. Which again confirms much of what has been stated previously about both parties being havens for white privilege.
So now that the record reflects that Bush has appointed and hired far fewer Black folk than Clinton, will the dirty Republicans and the Negro-Cons continue to talk about Black faces in High places after the truth behind those Black faces have been exposed. Time will tell.
posted by Faheem @ 10/28/2004 01:53:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Yes...if you poll black folks and ask them which is more important...black faces in high places...or reduction in black poverty rates, unemployment ect...they would tell you the latter. It is an assault on black intelligence to assume that blacks are happy with putting a few blacks in high overseer positions.
Noah can I ask you a question:
If the federal government at the level that you are speaking of IS A POLITICAL ENTITY and if any president is going to choose people who agree with and will execute HIS BRAND OF POLITICAL POLICIES and if the majority of Black people in this country don't share a REPUBLICAN POLITICAL IDEOLOGY then please tell me why you would expect to have anything near the same levels of Blacks in the Bush Administration than you would with a Democrat?
If anything I should be asking YOU why despite having Blacks vote for Democrats in high proportions as we do ARE THERE NOT MORE BLACKS IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, particularly in high level DECISION MAKING positions?
Even an African dictator who is subject to the threat of coups is not going to populate his staff with enemies. He knows that he will be constantly stabbed in the back and that a ship full of leaks will soon sink.
Tell me a single politician that does not operate on the priciple of LOYALTY?
Or then again I could be just me.
Not sure if you noticed Renaldo but I wrote this piece and to answer your question, I do not expect Bush to appoint as many Blacks as say a Democratic Candidate, in fact I do not have a high expectation for either, However, what I wrote was writting to refute the constant B.S. we here from your kind about Black faces in High Places. This is something that Negro-Cons never fail to mention when they are cheering for Bush.
Furthermore on the issue of DECISION MAKING positions, you know as I do that these individuals are part of a CABINET and nothing they say or do get off the ground without the approval of the HEAD of the CABINET, the President. Your problem is that you believe we have some unreasonable expectation of Democrats like you have for Republicans, thus you asked why Clinton did not appoint Black folk to those DECISION MAKING positions as if we expected this of him. This is your thinking nor ours.
Please follow the bouncing ball Faheem.
First of all I am not a Republican. I am only repulsed by how much the Black Democratic leaders in Civil Rights leader's clothing have COOPTED real Black development and independence movement and folded it into the Democratic party.
[quote]However, what I wrote was writting to refute the constant B.S. we here from your kind about Black faces in High Places. This is something that Negro-Cons never fail to mention when they are cheering for Bush.[/quote]
I am not sure of your point.
If you were to look at it from the concept of the relative translation of political support into administrative positions and power it appears to me that 92% of Blacks being Democrats versus less than 8% being Republican that this is not a good track record for the Democrats.
I am more concerned as to why the local political power gained at the municipal level around the country has not translated into "organic" economic development?
You see that is your problem Renaldo, you honestly believe that white folk put their political affiliations and leanings before race and maintaining white supremacy, I do not believe that. You again assumes that because Black folk vote primarily for Democrats that for some reason that should be reflected in the number of jobs with a Democratic candidate at a rate with a difference equal to the difference between us voting for them versus voting for Republicans. As the article chronicled there were more Black folk working under the Clinton but the number of black folk working under Clinton surely does not reflect the percentage difference between Black folk that voted for Bush and those that voted for Gore nor will it be reflected in a Kerry administration.
If you realized what has been stated before that these two parties are essentially the same and keep the people divided with their 10% difference and this 10% difference is reflected in their hiring practices of Black folk. Their is about a 10% difference between the number of Black folk working in Clinton administration versus the Bush administration, and just so happen Black folk agree with the Democrats overwhelmingly on the 10% difference between the two parties thus in a Democratic administration you see the 10% increase in the presence of Black folk. However barring that 10% difference they are both the same and feel the same about Black folk, do you get that. I do not think it can be made any plainer than how I just broke it down for you. Remove the 10% difference and the Republicans and the Democrats are the same and treat us the same.
[quote]You see that is your problem Renaldo, you honestly believe that white folk put their political affiliations and leanings before race and maintaining white supremacy, I do not believe that.[/quote]
I will assume that you have not read my thoughts that are more fully expressed on other boards on this subject as to the reason that you have so mischaracterized my thoughts.
I have said that with Whites they WILL NOT allow nationalism (the desire to see all Americans be equally fed by sharing their wealth) over racism (the desire to have their race in control). Much of this has to do with the dominant/recessive gene with regard to skin color and what we as humans see as race and culture.
I have pointed out that it is the BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER who is leading his race of Black people with the assumption that he can have a commitment to national standards to trump race.
While this is a worthy challenge to America's ideological goals I have a problem with the lack of the required complementary strategy of insuring that the Black local economic infrastructure is in place to provide where the national government is not. You can go around to various Asian, Hispanic and of course White suburban neighborhoods and witness this function first hand.
Post a Comment
<< Home