|
|
|
In a transparent bid to boost Republican fortunes
among Blacks, billionaire Bob Johnson attempted earlier this year
to convene a secret meeting of prominent African Americans at
BET headquarters in Washington, DC.
obtained a copy of the invitation to the “retreat,” scheduled
for January 13 and 14 and ostensibly designed “for the purpose
of brainstorming ideas as to how we as African Americans can best
confront the political and demographic realities of the 21st century.”
None of the invitees were told the identity of the others and
the press was scrupulously kept in the dark, but we have learned
enough to report that the mix was high-powered and politically
diverse. (Click here
to view the Johnson invitation letter to the retreat. The page
may load slowly for dial up users due to the large size of the
image.)
The stealth gathering was postponed for lack of
a quorum, but Johnson’s intentions were made clear in his eight
suggested talking-points, not one of which dealt with issues such
as jobs, health care, housing, social security, civil rights or
war and peace. Instead, the BET founder, who was an early backer
of Social Security privatization and organized fellow wealthy
Blacks in support of George Bush’s bid to repeal the Estate Tax,
crafted an agenda designed to peel African Americans away from
the Democratic Party – his clear assignment in Bush’s second term.
“It seems to me he was suggesting more cooperation with Republicans,
or at least, less friendship toward Democrats,” said one invitee,
who asked for anonymity.
With great cynicism but little guile, Johnson taps
into the near-universal desire among Blacks for actions that will
lead to greater operational unity and effectiveness – and attempts
to channel these aspirations in Republican directions. Of the
eight Johnson “questions” listed below, all but three implicitly
urge collaboration with the GOP or a boycott of Democrats. The
remainder – on forming a Black political party, running “favorite
son” candidates, and fundraising over the Internet – are window
dressing to create the impression of a broader agenda.
- Should African Americans continue to vote overwhelmingly
for the Democratic Party?
- Should African Americans, in concert, make overtures
to the Republican Party?
- Should African Americans seek to form an independent
party and vote accordingly?
- Should African American-elected officials be
encouraged to run as favorite sons in national elections?
- Should African Americans holding elected offices
be asked to vote according to a multi-party system by using
their voting power to leverage the Democrats against the Republicans
and the Republicans against the Democrats in the best interest
of African Americans?
- Should African American voters be encouraged
to vote for Republican or Democratic officials based upon the
negotiated agreement with the respective candidates rather than
based on party affiliation?
- Should African Americans demonstrate our political
cohesiveness, and therefore political power, by withholding
votes from a particular candidate in a selected election?
- Should African Americans invest in an Internet-based
fundraising effort to form a totally independent source of political
financing?
Bob Johnson doubtless kept the invitees in the dark
as to each other’s identities, the better to control the direction
of the slanted discourse by curtailing opportunities for pre-meeting
discussions among invitees, such as, What is this guy up to? and,
How was this list put together? or, Why aren’t there any talking
points on the issues?
obtained, from a third party, a copy of NAACP Chairman Julian
Bond’s response to Johnson’s invitation. Bond declined to attend
“for scheduling reasons,” congratulated Johnson for his efforts,
then offered a valuable, point-by-point critique. On the question
of whether Blacks should “continue to vote overwhelmingly for
the Democratic Party,” Bond responded:
”This strikes me as the wrong question – the correct
one is ‘what party should we vote for, and what standards should
we apply to choose the beneficiary of our votes?’ In every election
in my lifetime from Franklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush (with
one exception in 1956) we’ve chosen the Democratic Party by large
majorities. That choice was rationally made between two competing
and general political philosophies – one which promised an aggressive
defense of civil rights and the prospect of economic growth and
security, the other offering the vicissitudes of the marketplace
and less vigorous federal protection of – and in many cases a
retreat from – civil rights. Using that general standard, we’ve
consistently voted for Democrats, and I expect that pattern to
be followed for the foreseeable future. In recent elections, our
choice has also been a matter of the Republican Party repulsing
us rather than the Democratic Party attracting us.”
Bond agreed that Republicans should be rewarded
with votes if they “adopt policies deemed favorable” to Black
interests. “It would be the height of idiocy, however, to suggest
that having given our votes to one party for so long we ought
to give them to the other for no reason except that we could,”
said Bond. “The old mantra, ‘taken for granted by one party; ignored
by the other’ isn’t remedied by giving our votes to a party that
doesn’t make any rational appeal for them.”
The former Georgia state lawmaker engaged all of
Johnson’s questions, and suggested there should be discussion
on subjects such as the lack of urban issues in the recent election
campaign, the folly of holding the first primaries in the unrepresentative
states of New Hampshire and Iowa, and the unfairness of the Electoral
College. But the crucial question, says Bond, is: “Who decides?”
Who decides how monies raised for Black political campaigns are
disbursed? Who decides who is to “negotiate” agreements between
African Americans and the two major parties? Bond has confirmed
the letter
obtained is his. (Click
here to view the letter. The page may load slowly for dial
up users due to the large size of the image.)
When
asked Johnson’s executive assistant, Michelle Curtis, about the
status of the “retreat” we were met with a harsh, “Were you invited?”
Informed that we were not, but that we thought the meeting to
be of interest to the Black public, Curtis stated, repeatedly,
“You weren't invited, so we have nothing to say.” Bob Johnson
has not responded to our inquiries. However, he has done Othello-like
service to George Bush’s state, parroting and even shaping the
Republican political line at critical junctures since the beginning
of Bush’s presidency.
True to his class
Johnson has a history
of rounding up prominent Blacks to provide a veneer of “diversity”
for the most reactionary Republican schemes. In 2001, in search
of federal help in a complicated deal that Johnson hoped would
deliver him a Washington-New York airline route, he became the
Black point-man for Bush’s assault on the Estate Tax – dubbed
the “Death Tax” by Republicans. Johnson gathered the signatures
of a who’s
who of African American wealth, endorsing repeal of a tax
that affected only half of one percent of Black people. Meanwhile,
one hundred fabulously rich white people, including Bill Gates
Sr., warned that repeal of the tax “would enrich the heirs of
America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families
who struggle to make ends meet." Johnson and his rich friends
were unmoved, and stood logic on its head:
“The Estate Tax is particularly unfair to the first
generation of the high net worth African Americans who have accumulated
wealth only recently. These individuals may have family members
and relatives who have not been as fortunate in accumulating assets
who could directly benefit from their share of an estate as heir.
Elimination of the Estate Tax would allow African Americans to
pass the full fruits of their labor to the next generation and
beyond.”
In other words, laissez-fair capitalism for the
Black rich is good for the other, 99.5 percent of Black America.
No wonder Bob Johnson wants to hold narrowly framed meetings about
electoral strategies with Black leadership, rather than discuss
bread and butter issues – he is so far to the right, he’s off
the screen of the Black Political Consensus.
President Bush praised Johnson at the April, 2001
gathering of the U.S. Conference of Mayors: “As Robert Johnson,
of Black Entertainment Television argues, the death tax and double
taxation weighs heavily on minorities who are only beginning to
accumulate wealth" – a line that Johnson crafted in the interest
of himself and his own tiny class. The Estate Tax was effectively
killed.
A Pioneer privatizer
"We're all on the Titanic as it relates
to Social Security and people are telling us it's the safest ship
afloat. But we are heading for a disaster.'' – Bob Johnson
Only hard-core GOP Rightists shrilled like that
in 2002 – back then, the Republican National Committee specifically
forbade its congressional candidates from campaigning on the shaky
ground of Social Security privatization. But Bob Johnson was on
a Bush-mission to spread hysteria and confusion in Black America,
and he performed shamelessly. Johnson was picked
for a slot on Bush’s supposedly bi-partisan Commission to Strengthen
Social Security – as a Democratic member! Thus, Bush got
an African American commissioner who cared nothing for the interests
of the masses of Blacks or Democrats. And he got a mouthpiece
for the evolving GOP Social Security line for Black consumption.
“African Americans who contribute to the Social Security system
and payroll taxes also have one of the highest mortality rates,
so in the end, they may not receive the full benefits of what
they put in Social Security,” said Johnson, a message that would
be repeated on hundreds of Black radio
stations during the 2002 congressional elections.
Yes, Bob Johnson is a true media pioneer – a veteran
polluter of the Black airwaves. His original “Black” rationale
for Social Security privatization is now a centerpiece of White
House propaganda – the context in which his call for a meeting
of Black minds must be viewed.
However, it would be wrong to assume that
Johnson is simply playing at right-wing politics because the Republicans
control the government. He’s been hanging with the troglodytes
since 1979, when he hooked up with John C. Malone, of Tele-Communications Inc. To ease his way into cable franchises
in heavily Black cities, Malone
needed someone to provide African American programming. He bankrolled
Johnson for $500,000 in return for a 35 percent share in their
new baby, BET. (Johnson put up just $15,000 in borrowed money.)
Malone and Johnson have been joined at the wallet ever since;
Malone never gave up his BET stock. When Johnson sold BET to Viacom
for $3 billion in 2000, Malone’s company received $800 million
in Viacom stock.
Johnson’s partner Malone is on the board of the
Cato
Institute – in the Right’s division of labor arrangement,
the point organization on Social Security privatization. This
is the political company Bob Johnson keeps, when he’s not using
his wealth to tease cash-starved Black leadership structures into
paying him undue attention.
A
disruptive bank account
Donna Brazile, head
of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting
Rights Institute, would have attended Johnson’s meeting had
it come off. “Look, on questions of
partisanship, I am a strong and faithful Democrat,” she told . “But,
I welcome a dialogue with those on the other side to see what,
if anything, they are willing to bring to the table. In
the past, they have come up empty handed and with a stick to beat
Democrats down. Now, if Bob wants to have a conversation
with all sides, I am ready, but actions still speak louder than
words.”
It’s not clear if Brazile considers Johnson to be
on “the other side” or not. Indeed, it’s hard not to be at the
center of attention when one comprises half of the total billionaire
population of Black America. Johnson, who is leaving
BET by the end of the year, will certainly enjoy a well-attended
“summit” of his own choosing – whether secret or public – if he
reschedules it wisely. But everyone in attendance should know
what the real agenda is: to lure Blacks into a relationship with
the Republican Party or, failing that, to cause splintering and
confusion in the ranks.
|
|
|
|
|