"Macked by Slick Willy" - The 1st Black Presidentby EyecaloneI have a revelation to make. Former United States President, Bill Clinton, is not black! I know it’s hard to believe for some of you, and I know I’m late – this needed to be dealt with during the 90’s while he was still in office (but this site wasn’t around then), but I’m simply tired of hearing it. I don’t know how many comedians and prominent personalities I’ve heard allude to Clinton’s “blackness”, presumably because of his public affinity for black folks, his appointment of African-Americans and other people of color to some prominent government positions during his administration, and the complete disdain that most of the Republican party seemed to have for him – but this nonsense has to stop. The final straw for me came October 18th when former U.S. President Bill Clinton, a.k.a. “Slick Willy”, became the first non-black inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame, in the hall’s short 10 year history. All this hoopla and confusion over Mr. Clinton’s racial persuasion made me wonder what exactly was so great about his time in office and what exactly had he done to/for black and brown people that caused us to fall in love with him? When you review the facts you can come to few other conclusions than, that the vast majority of the African-American community has been “Macked” by Slick Willy. The legendary pimp “Goldie”, of black exploitation film folklore, couldn’t have done it better. I have to give credit where credit is due. Bill Clinton was a savvy and charismatic politician. Even if you understood his political and social agenda, he was a hard guy to hate, unlike our current President Select George Bush Jr. On top of that he was a Democrat, and everybody knows about African-Americans and their inexplicable allegiance to the Democratic Party, voting for Democratic candidates at above an 80 percent clip in most elections. Most times going to the election booth is an exercise in rote memorization, although on many of the fundamental issues that affect people of color the most, the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the right that now they are often barely distinguishable from the Republicans.
That was $35 thousand right?
[35 cash money]
As Bill Clinton left office, many credited him with producing a “booming economy”. Even more fundamental than the questions of legitimacy and accounting fraud that the current American economic situation lead us to ask, is another question. “When the economy was “booming”, whom exactly was it “booming” for? The news and mainstream press tell a story of increased prosperity for the American masses, the numbers tell a different story. The truth is that the chief beneficiaries of the stock market boom of the 1990s were those who made up the top 1 percent of stockholders. In 1998 they owned almost half of all stock value while less than half of US households held stock in any form, including retirement funds. The bottom 80 percent of stockholders owned just four percent of stock value. For the middle 20 percent of households the average value of their stockholdings grew by $5,500 and non-stock assets (typically the family home) by $8,500 during the 1990s, while household debt increased nearly $12,000. At the height of the 1990s boom, US society was more economically polarized than at any time in the previous two decades. In fact, by 2000, the Census Bureau report on household income in the US showed that income inequality was at a post-World War II high. By the year 2000 the annual income of the top fifth of US families had risen to 10 times the income of families in the bottom fifth. That year nearly half the total income—49.7 percent—went to the top 20 percent of households and just 3.6 percent to the bottom 20 percent. The richest 5 percent of US households—those making over $145,500—raked in 21.9 percent of all income, well above the 17.5 percent share recorded in 1967. During this late 1990s the growth of real wages of American workers continued to slow while productivity increased sharply. Meanwhile the pay of chief executive officers rose 36 percent in 1998 alone, meaning the average corporate head earned 419 times the pay of a typical factory worker. Just to maintain their previous level of income, poor families with children were working almost three more full-time weeks in 1998 than in 1989. Families as a whole worked an average of 82.6 weeks per year in 1998, up from 68.3 weeks in 1969, with much of the increased weeks resulting from increased working hours for women. These are figures for all Americans, but judging by the economic situation of large percentages of people of color in this country, I doubt the outlook would be more positive if we were to statistically isolate them for African-Americans. “I just can't get it in my head, how a bitch can walk the street every night - I mean even in the rain, and take a chance on getting robbed or maybe sent to jail, or maybe even getting her arm broke by some sadistic fool out the suburbs. And then she gets all that money and gives it to some dude. I mean I just can't figure that shit out.” [the game is strong] Oh I ain't talking about me! I'm talking about them other cats! Astounding economic inequality aside. Let us look at some other “progressive” developments under the regime of Slick Willy. What about low-income housing and assistance programs for the poor? Don’t worry Slick Willy’s got just the thing for that, baby. How about the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and an expansion of the Prison industrial complex. When former President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he was embraced by some as a moderate change from the previous twelve years of “tough on crime” Republican administrations. Now, after his eight years in office, criminal justice statistics show that it was actually Slick Willy who implemented arguably the most punitive platform on crime in the last two decades. Policies passed during the Clinton Administration resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history! In President Clinton's first-term (1992-1996), 148,000 more state and federal prisoners were added than under President Reagan's first term (1980-1984), and 34,000 more than were added under President Bush's four-year term (1988-1992). Throughout its tenure, the Clinton administration consistently supported increased penalties and additional prison construction. By signing the Violent Crime Control Act and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Slick Willy provided increased prison construction funds to the states, in addition to the fact he had already helped shift funds from higher education to corrections. In 1995, state expenditures for prison construction grew by $926 million, while expenditures for university construction fell by an almost equivalent $954 million. That year, more was actually spent by states around the country building prisons ($2.6 billion) than building universities ($2.5 billion). By the end of the Slick Willy error there were more people working in the criminal justice system than are working in community and social service occupations (like employment, vocational, mental health and substance abuse counseling). Not surprisingly, these are the occupations that are most likely to be geared towards preventing crime. As it now stands, the U.S. federal, state and adult correctional population is over 6.5 million people (more than 2 million of them physically behind bars). Everyone is affected by the America’s quadrupling of the prison population, however, the African American community has borne the brunt of the nation's incarceration boom. From 1980 to 1992, the African American incarceration rate increased by an average of 138.4 per 100,000 per year. Despite a more than doubling of the African American incarceration rate in the 12 years prior to President Clinton's term in office, the African American incarceration rate continued to increase by an average rate of 100.4 per 100,000 per year under Clinton. In total, between 1980 and 1999, the incarceration rate for African Americans more than tripled from 1156 per 100,000, to 3,620 per 100,000. Despite his rhetoric, Clinton by supporting a host of old legislation and creating new laws that were also ineffective, cruel, and draconian, has been a driving force behind the criminal justice system’s attack on people of color and the poor. When the U.S. Sentencing Commission, supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, called for a change that would reduce the sentencing disparity, between crack and powder cocaine (currently to receive a maximum sentence for cocaine possession under current federal law, one must possess 100 times more powdered cocaine than crack cocaine, a disparity that falls squarely on the backs of those who live in poor minority communities where crack cocaine is more prevalent), it was President Clinton’s Justice Department who rejected the recommendation. It was also President Clinton’s pen that signed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which has nothing to do with “terrorism” in it’s commonly recognized context, but has everything to do with blocking the right of people on death row to have their cases reviewed even if new evidence or prosecutorial misconduct has been discovered, since it severely restricts the right of death row inmates to file federal habeas corpus petitions. Not surprisingly, most people on death row, whether guilty or innocent, end up there because they cannot afford adequate, dedicated, or qualified legal representation. Also to nobody’s surprise, people of color (especially African-Americans) convicted of crimes punishable by death are sentenced to death at a far higher rate than Caucasians, and are far more likely to be sentenced to death in cases where the victim was a Caucasian. “Let me tell you something. You listen to me and you listen to me closely. I don’t give a shit about what happened to you! Now I want you to get yourself together, get back out there, and get me my money! Now I don’t care how long it takes, you get out there, and GET IT! …. NOW GET!” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) that was dreamt up by past Republican administrations, was actually passed by Congress and signed by Clinton. This act was filled with vindictive measures aimed at the poor. Among other things, it set a five-year lifetime limit for cash assistance and gave the states power to adopt stringent restrictions in several other areas. Another key part of the Act, was the imposition for the first time of lifetime limits on welfare. Once a welfare mother uses up this lifetime limit, set at five years by the federal government, she and her children can never again receive federal cash benefits, no matter how desperate their condition and no matter what happens to the overall economy. Besides this lifetime limit, a second limit of two years was established, by which time adults in receipt of welfare benefits had either to find a job or be enrolled in intensive job-training in order to remain eligible. Since most states were given a year to adopt their own regulations implementing the two-year limit, the effect of the work requirement was to force all those adults receiving welfare benefits in 1996 to enter the labor market by the third year anniversary of the bill's passage, August 1999. Millions of welfare recipients, mainly those with the least prospects of finding decent jobs, now face complete cutoff of cash assistance, and utter destitution. Considering the recent state of the economy and the fact that the fundamentals of a “market” (capitalist) economy dictate that a significant part of the population remain unemployed in order to hold wages in check, I am not exactly sure where all these people are supposed to find work. Common sense should tell you that due to the shortage of entry-level jobs and the low pay associated with them, it would be impossible for hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients to lift themselves out of poverty once they were removed from the program. Furthermore, the overall effect of pushing millions of people into competition for low-wage jobs will be to further depress wages. A recent study by the Preamble Center for Public Policy (entitled Welfare Reform—The Jobs Aren’t There), citing the Midwestern states of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, noted that the odds against a typical welfare recipient landing a job that paid enough to lift her family out of poverty were 97 to 1. The situation in other parts of the country could be even worse. Cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was nearly terminated by the 1996 legislation. Even the Food Stamp Program, which was not supposed to be affected by welfare reform, was cut back sharply. In 1993, some 85 out of 100 poor children received Food Stamps, and this figure rose to 88 out of 100 in 1995. In 1998, by contrast, only 72 out of every 100 poor children received Food Stamps. Recent studies released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also found worsening conditions for the poorest 20 percent of female-headed families. Other reports by organizations such as The Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies (FPWA) make the point that since the federal welfare reform act of 1996 the reduction in welfare rolls has been greater than the reduction of poverty. But hey baby, according to Slick Willy, “welfare reform” is a success. And if your goal is to shrink the welfare roles regardless of the fate of those formerly receiving assistance and creates a larger pool of cheap and desperate labor for big business, then I guess it is a success Like prison, “welfare reform” affects everybody and yes, I know the majority of people on welfare are Caucasian. However, the “reform” and/or destruction of social programs such as welfare is an issue that affects a disproportionate percentage of people of color, particularly African-Americans, so the Clinton administration’s actions surrounding the issue should be of particular importance to the African-American community. “Everything is gonna be alright. I’m gonna be everything to you. I’m gonna be your father, I’ll be your friend, I’m gonna be your lover, … but you gotta believe in me. You gotta believe that everything I tell you to do is for the best. For the both of us alright” Enough about Bill Clinton’s local pimpin’ exploits because Slick Willy is an international player. He pimps his unquestioned and uncritical support by people of color domestically and internationally, and they demand nothing in return. Take for example the case of Chiquita Banana, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Clinton Administration, which should be of particular interest to African-Americans of Caribbean heritage. Under the "Lome Convention" the European Union (EU) used to agree to buy 8% of it's bananas from former colonies in the Caribbean. These banana sales were crucial to the livelihoods of 200,000 people in these countries where unemployment rates were 30-50%. In the Windward Island nations of St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 94% of all banana exports used to go to the EU and bananas accounted for 63% to 91% of all export earnings. The Chiquita Company is a U.S. company that owns banana plantations in Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama where thousands of underpaid workers are exposed to dangerous pesticides and unions are banned. At the time Chiquita supplied 50% of the EU's banana imports each year, but wanted an even larger market share. Chiquita GROWS NO BANANAS in the US, but after receiving a $500,000 donation from Chiquita to the Democratic Party the Clinton administration, filed a complaint with the WTO on behalf of Chiquita. The WTO ruled in favor of the U.S. and Chiquita. The EU initially refused to comply with the WTO ruling, Chiquita then donated $350,000 to the Republican Party and the Republican-dominated Congress prepared legislation to impose tariffs on goods imported from the EU as punishment for refusing to comply with the WTO's ruling. Eventually the European Union acquiesced. The havoc that this single decision will reek on many of the Banana exporting Caribbean islands is astounding but it doesn’t seem to affect African-Americans love affair with Slick Willy, or his “honorary Negro” status. I guess Pretty Tony said it best (in the black exploitation film, The Mack) -“when I get a bitch, I got a bitch! [Right on] Along with Slick Willy’s Caribbean pimpin’ operation he showed his love for his fellow blacks by “stepping up his game” in Africa. Under Clinton the U.S House of Representatives passed the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which in Clinton’s words, was supposed to inaugurate "a dynamic new Africa ... making dramatic strides toward democracy and prosperity." Unfortunately, their was and is nothing new or dynamic about legislation such as this, or the recently created New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). At the core of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act was the hope and intention of the continued subjugation of African economies and hopes for self-determination, to the demands and interest of international finance (bankers, corporate interest, etc) in the powerful capitalist nations. AGOA promised African economies general duty and quota free access for African products in the American market, particularly for African textiles and apparels. In reality the American government would grant access only to goods that it decides may not negatively affect American producers (in the long-term tariff duties were supposed to come down any way, and quotas were to be removed, as part of WTO rules). Also only those products and apparel using fabric and yarns produced from America will have easy access to the US market. Textile products made from yarn and fabric from African countries and other areas will be subject to severe constraints. It also contained provisions that required US raw materials to be used, which would work against the ability of African countries to develop, either individually or together, their own domestic raw materials base to textiles, and therefore undermining the development of integrated textile industry in Africa. Moreover, importing US raw materials for use in textile production may turn out to be expensive in view of transport and other costs. In addition, the act called for (1) elimination of barriers to all US trade and investment in Africa, including a demand for American firms to be given equal treatment as African firms, as well as for high standards of intellectual property protection as contained in “agreements” existing in the WTO, (2) pursuit of further privatization, removing government subsidies and price controls, (3) not to engage in any act that undermines US national security and foreign policy interests. Demands such as these are nothing more than a continuation and extension of the economic model of neo-colonialism, put forth by the structural adjustment programs imposed by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These austerity packages demand that Africa's economies, development, and immense natural wealth be entirely subordinated to meeting astronomical debt payments on hundreds of billions of dollars “owed” to Wall Street and other world banking centers. Debt repayment condemns millions to death from starvation and disease while leaving the continent's infrastructure in a state of collapse. The net effect of these policies will be the bankrupting of African manufacturing and agriculture and the further impoverishment of the vast majority of Africa's population, combined with substantial profits for the multinationals and the enrichment of a thin layer of the African ruling classes. "You really don’t understand do you? Hey man don’t you understand that in order to make this thing work, we have to get rid of the pimps, the pushers, and the prostitutes and then start over again clean." From what I’ve seen, I’m ready to nominate Slick Willy for playa of the year. He has certainly laid his Mack game down heavy in the black community. Maybe that’s why the African-American community has been so thoroughly duped by lip service, prominent public appearances and appointments, and an office on Harlem’s 125th (although Clinton certainly hasn’t used it much). Or maybe it’s not so much that Clinton’s game is strong, but that politically people of all races don’t recognize the game, or haven’t been organized and politicized enough to decide to quit. As damaging as a close examination of Clinton’s tenure as U.S. President may be, in all likelihood the results would have been similar with the election of any of the major party (Democrat/Republican) candidates. As things currently stand anyone coming out of either major party has been filtered and pacified enough by the hoeing they had to do to get their parties’ nomination, that it is more than safe to assume that they will do NOTHING to seriously challenge the status-quo. Clinton like his Presidential predecessors acts not in the interest of the average American but in the interest of the politically connected ruling class (a.k.a. the corporations and wealthy heads of American capitalism and industry), who finance campaigns, select candidates, and essentially rule this country. Perhaps more than he is an individual, Bill Clinton is part and parcel of a corrupt political system and process that has narrowed the discussion of the most pressing issues facing American society and much of the world, to the doomed, empty, rhetorical drivel of the Republican and Democratic Parties. The majority of the American populace is unable to find expression of their needs or desires in either of these Parties, but in the American single-party plutocracy masquerading as democracy, these are seemingly the only choices. This frustration, disillusionment, and hopelessness has represented itself in consistently low voter turnouts and a withdrawal from the political process. It is my belief, that If people truly desire to be pimped no more, then it will be up to common people to build a new political movement/party that defends human rights, encourages democratic participation, addresses class and racial divisions, and is organized around a principled opposition to private profit being the motivating force behind all productive activity. I’m tired of being a Hoe, are you? [ For those who have never seen the movie or no longer remember, the quotes inserted in bold between the paragraphs are all from the 70's black exploitation film, The Mack ]
Released: October 2002
Suggested Reading: Search and Destroy: African-American Males in the Criminal Justice System by Jerome Miller Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison by Jeffrey Reiman. The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission, edited by Steven Donziger Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis by Christian Parenti THE State of Working America 2000/2001 by Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt Executive Excess 2001 by Institute of Policy Studies Suggested Websites and Links: www.rprogress.org - Redefining Progress www.wsws.org - World Socialist Website www.ufenet.org - United for a Fair Economy www.epinet.org - Economic Policy Institute The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com. |
|
|