July 16, 2004
A House Divided
John Kerry addressed the 95th annual NAACP convention Thursday and used the opportunity to contrast himself with the president - the simple difference between being there and not being there, along with the deeper significance of our representatives working to find common ground.
When you’re president, you need to talk to all the people – and that’s exactly what I intend to do. I will be a president who truly is a uniter, not one who seeks to divide our nation by race, riches or any other label.
President Bush refused an invitation to speak to our nation's oldest civil rights organization for the fourth year in a row. Bush campaigned in 2000 as a compassionate conservative and a Washington outsider who would seek to unite the country rather than divide it further with partisan politics, yet when faced with a perfect opportunity to demonstrate this, he allowed a grudge to override his campaign sense instead.
Certainly, the vast majority of African American voters are Democrats. Yes, the NAACP has been highly critical of this administration and has called Bush's presidency illegitimate. This would only add to the impact of his appearance, though. As long as he came with a genuine effort to reconcile differences, whatever alleged political trap that may have been laid would be rendered ineffective, if not offensive.
His campaign officials have promised they are going to compete for Black voters and Bush is scheduled to speak with the Urban League, but to have ignored the NAACP throughout his term appears uniquely inconsiderate. President Bush has reconciled with President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany, two of his most bitter opponents to our invasion of Iraq, yet he can't bring himself to face the NAACP?
For Kerry, it's obviously not a bold move to speak to the NAACP. An equal move on his part might be speaking to the US Chamber of Commerce whose president, Tom Donohue, had threatened if Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate, the organization would abandon neutrality and fight against the Democratic ticket. This doesn't take away from the political worth of accentuating the point, though: George Bush may say he wants to unite America but his actions aren't in line.
Kerry, on the other hand, has shown he can gain support both ends of the political spectrum on issues he is generally perceived to be weak such as business and national security. Kerry has managed to get support from the business community. A group of executives endorsed Kerry earlier this month, and he has already gained the support of Warren Buffet, the nation's second richest man who has been lauded for his investment savvy. Kerry has done this while still maintaining a connection with labor. Kerry has shown steadfast support of organized labor even though it was an affront to his own party and it denied him the chance to speak to the US Conference of Mayors. And the Florida Professional Firefighters have endorsed Kerry adding to his labor support while highlighting the first responder aspect of homeland security. His other positions on national security have been bolstered by support from a group of prominent retired admirals and generals, including two former Joint Chiefs chairmen and Wesley Clark, of course.
Bush may claim to be a uniter but Kerry's actions speak stronger. He can attack Kerry's credibility but his own is on the line. And he may hide from his most vigilant detractors but Kerry will be there to point it out.
Posted by Joseph Briggs at July 16, 2004 09:09 AMVery strong and insightful juxsaposition, Joseph!
As I am very aware of the Bush/NAACP flap, I’m irked that I would need to go specifically looking for such information on these Kerry endorsements, had it not been for your post.
As a Black man, I think I can add some further insight. Just as Bush managed in his visit to Britain, France and other angry allies abroad recently, he avoids the NAACP convention for a significant reason.
He most likely would get booed, and the hostile and vocal crowd would make for very bad news footage and soundbites.
The reputation of Black audiences such as New York’s Harlem Apollo, are not folklore. The reception that would’ve met Bush, could not be considered a violation of civility, but the demonstrative nature of our culture.
Apparently, the White House has been given assurances no such behavior will be displayed when he speaks before another Black organization, the Urban League.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 16, 2004 10:31 PMIf you are correct Bert (and I have no way of knowing if you are) that Bush would have been booed at the NCAAP convention, then it is a good thing he did not go. You can say its culture, but I do think there is a certain level of respect that should go with hosting the president of the United States at your convention, ESPECIALLY if you invite him there.
For example, at Georgetown Law we hosted a panel debate about Guantanamo last year, in which we had some important people from both the right and the left speaking (no one as important as the president of the united states!), and several of our fellow students boooed them and hissed at the conservatives on the panel. A lot of us, including those who disagreed with the conservatives on the panel (I did, because it was Guantanamo and I am a civil libertarian), were sickened and ashamed by the actions of our fellow classmates. We invited these people to talk to us, we thus had a responsibility to treat them with respect. If the NCAAP is incapable of treating the president of the United States with at least the decency to listen to his remarks without booing him, then frankly, they need to grow up before they can host a speaker from the other side of hte political spectrum.
Again, I have NO idea if they would have booed him or not, but I take issue with the comment that anyone’s culture justifies booing invited guests.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at July 17, 2004 10:24 AMThanks, Bert. I think booing is perfectly natural in politics though I can imagine how the media would react. I always enjoy watching Britain’s House of Commons debates. Raucous crowds are good as long as everyone remains civil. As I say in the article, I think this would add to the wealth of political currency Bush could gain from it if he had the savvy to pull it off. I think it could be great footage. But I realize I expect too much in hoping to see such bravery in American politics.
The fact that Bush’s press team has been hyper-efficient at travelling the media path of least resistance demonstrates a fundamental lack of courage. I’m getting tired of seeing intellectual pipsqueaks like George W and Arnold become so prominent in politics. They don’t have to be on par with Noam Chomsky but they should at least be able to confront adversarial debate with more than canned talking points. If Bush can’t face a politically hostile crowd like the NAACP then how are we supposed to be confident in his abilities as a “war president?” We need leaders, not figureheads.
Bush’s brashness and denial with Iraq fits the personality type. He definitely appears to have self-esteem issues. “Bring ‘em on,” and the gaudy air craft carrier landing are glaring examples of the “ain’t skeerd” hubris that comes from an immense ego and no confidence.
I guess we just can’t expect too much from the leader of the free world these days.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 17, 2004 10:25 AMMisha, I think vocal dissent is healthy. It’s pain to the body politic. Pain is important because it’s a signal that something is wrong. Absolute politeness is a form of political leprosy where we no longer feel those parts of us that are getting cut off.
Vocal dissent contributes to confidence in the political system. Not the opposite as this administration would have us believe. It shows the system can survive dissent. It shows the people’s voice can be heard. It can show that politicians listen.
Now, I don’t know to what extent the NAACP might have jeered the president but I don’t think they would have been so bad as to just boo him off stage. After all, you have to let him say something to boo and hiss at.
It’s not about maturity, it’s about feedback. Why do you think they love having all those planned standing ovations during the State of the Union address? Should we view applause as lack of maturity? I don’t think we should have one without the other.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 17, 2004 10:55 AMVocal dissent is making a strong point- asking the tough question- standing up for what you believe in. It is not disrespecting someone who you invite into your own house. Rather than “Absolute politeness”, I think our politics today suffers from a lack of real, serious debate about the issues. Everything has been reduced to boos and cheers. This is the attitude I see from far too many people these days:
If someone you like stands up, you cheer him, no matter what he says. if someone you dont like, you boo him, no matter what he says. Heck, you might not even let him say anything before starting to boo. Because, after all, everyone knows the other side is evil.
Dissent and political discourse is about ideas, debate and getting to a better country through this exchange. it is not about showing how much you dislike a person that you invited to speak to you by booing really loudly and not allowing him/her to make their point.
I have spent the last couple years of my life at largely leftist institutions that often show little respect for the other viewpoint. Booing IS dissent, but it is a knee-jerk, 7-year old, type of dissent. It is a form of expression is completely counterproductive to the spirit of debate that is central to a healthy democracy.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at July 17, 2004 11:16 AMMisha,
Joe’s point about Britain’s House Of Commons debate and the country’s parliamentary system, is significant in this debate.
PM Tony Blair’s approval numbers plummented long before Bush’s fall, as a result of the Brit’s direct and open system of discourse - and, accountability.
You accused me of using Black culture to justify a disrespectful act such as booing, yet, therefore you proclaim your ideal of civility, sacrosanct. Yes, I believe a NAACP crowd booing the President is disrespectful of the office. I was merely pointing out the likelihood it would happen.
Vocal dissent is making a strong point- asking the tough question- standing up for what you believe in.
I am in total agreement with you here, Misha. However, like leading Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, this President has been intentionally shielded from this kind of vocal (and, respectful) dissent. Can you point to any of the less than 20 Presidential press conferences, where such discourse has taken place?
Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. were not necessarily popular in the Black community, however I don’t recall them ever facing a hostile NAACP audience. I’d bet, if Bush was having to answer the hard, tough questions and being held accountable, the less likely he’d hear the boo birds.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 17, 2004 06:31 PMI’ve heard it said recently that when Bush spoke to the NAACP while running for president in 2000, he was received with respect and civility. His reception was not as enthusiastic as Gore’s, but he was not booed.
I think the dispute with the NAACP has to do with inflammatory remarks made by some in the leadership of the organization, particularly Julian Bond.
I doubt the Bush lost many votes by becoming the first sitting president since Hoover to not attend an NAACP convention, but it’s pretty certain that his actions didn’t gain him any votes either.
Posted by: Jerome Guerra at July 18, 2004 12:08 AMMisha—while I take your point, I doubt that is the reason Bush refuses to show up (read my article on the same subject to the right), he refuses to show up simply because he couldn’t handle it, if he were to be booed! And his puppet masters know it. He would never survive politics British style; he has not the intelligence or the wits to think in his feet. If the conventions’ members started booing Bush, he would undoubtedly become flustered and embarrass himself profoundly (not as if he doesn’t already), but that is the hat you wear are leader of ALL of America citizens not just those who agree with your viewpoint. Europeans used to call those people who surround themselves with lackeys, ignore the common man, and claim a mandate to rule from God Monarchs!
As Americans we have a right and obligation to voice our displeasure with our leadership. Our President is not to be worship, nor is his office; he serves at our pleasure. And the Office of President of the United States belongs to the people of this nation and not to the man who occupies the Oval Office. It is his responsibly as the current occupant of the Oval Office to be responsive to ALL of the people, not just his now infamous base.
Listen guys, I am not defending Bush- heck, I do not like Bush. All I am saying is that I have been a member of a community (Two different universities) that booed speakers and I was ashamed for my fellow classmates for the disrespect they showed to people we invited into our house. That was my only point- sorry if it was misunderstood.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at July 18, 2004 03:29 PMV. Edward, you hit the nail on the head. Nothing would increase the quality of our leaders like a British-style weekly question period.
