Down To The Crossroads

For black people in the United States, the recent shift in the alignment of political forces will be of major consequence. Given our nearly overwhelming commitment in the past half century to the Democratic party, especially to its "liberal" wing, the return to power of the "conservative" Republicans will lead to immediate consequences of significant impact for many of us in vital areas of our lives.

Since the decade of the 1930s, following the Great Depression, the United States' political, economic, and social history has been dominated by "liberals" whose actions were guided by a complex of ideas and ideals which championed governmental intervention, especially at the federal level, in virtually all areas of life, in order to achieve concrete historical objectives: a more stable economic order; better working conditions for workers; justice for racially and ethnically oppressed peoples; an economic floor of opportunity and the resulting benefits in education and work; better living conditions for those most in need; improved health care and living conditions for the elderly. On the other hand, during this same period there were those--the "conservatives"--who worked intensely to prevent or limit the realization of each of these objectives.

People of African descent in the U.S. (i.e. black Americans) are intimately familiar with this history, for it has been, in many respects, a "second Reconstruction" for us. Moreover, it is well understood that the "reconstruc tion" would not have taken place were it not for the fact that more liberal forces held power. These were open to the arguments for redress being advanced by blacks, or by others in our behalf. Furthermore, these forces could be moved by organized struggles.

Thus, it is with a sense of this history that many African-Americans view with concern--even fear--the return of the conservatives to political power. For many black Americans, the election of Ronald Reagan and other conservative congresspersons, senators, and state and local officials promises a time of danger and extreme difficulty. When we note the deaths and unexplained absenses of the children in Atlanta and the killing of black men in Buffalo, Nev York, and elsewhere; the clear pattern of the killing of black males by police in cities all over the country; the attacks on black women in Roxbury, Massachusetts; the open activism of the Ku Klux Klan throughout the country; the resurgence of various right-wing groups even to the extent of being elected to political office; the severe economic dislocation experienced by blacks as the economy continues to operate in crisis as a "normal" condition--all of these factors, and more, when combined with the explicit pronouncements of the self proclaimed political conservatives with regard to altering the political, economic, social, and cultural direction of the country and the world, legitimate our concern with regard to our future. The election of Reagan is but the most visible crest of a powerful wave.

This conservative wave is signaled by the goal of gaining control and altering the direction of the nation's political-economy: The federal government must restrict its involvement in the economy and let business "do what it knows best"; i.e. business--the market--must steer the economy. Government involvement in the economy has led to its over-regulation to such an extent that business can no longer function freely. The results, it is claimed, can be seen in the increased costs of doing business and in the higher prices for goods and services. We must, we are told, return to a situation of laissez-faire economics--to free-enterprise capitalism--if we are to enjoy the good life.

Moreover, if the economy is to be controlled, the federal budget must be balanced. Only if this is done will we be able to bring inflation under control. The means for achieving this involve reducing the rate of increase and the absolute amount of government spending in nearly all areas (except, of course, military spending), on the one hand; on the other, it means shifting economic policy to "supply-side" economics on the theory, in part, that an increase in the supply of goods and services will lead to lower prices.

In partial justification it is offered (quietly) that more economic resources in the hands of the more well-off persons and groups in the society will lead to higher investments and, subsequently, more investments on the part of businesses in plants and equipment. This, in turn, will lead to an expanding economy with more jobs and opportunities. Life made better for the "more productive" members of the society will, some argue, lead eventually to the trickling down of the good life to the less well-off.

In terms of the global political-economy, the conservative philosophy means, in the administration's terms, being able to "control events where they happen." In other words, the U.S. must return to a situation of readiness ideologically and militarily whereby the country can again be dominant in world affairs. In many respects this concern on the part of the conservatives is generated by major political-economic imperatives: the situation of crisis in the U.S. and world capitalist economies brought about, in part, by the struggles for independence on the part of many peoples whose domination insured the economic success of the capitalist nations. For it was from these nations of Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean that the "developed" nations extracted unpaid (slave) labor, used the natural resources, and exploited the peoples as markets for their finished products. The rise to, and struggle for, independence on the part of the subjugated peoples of the world has had a powerful impact on the economies of the capitalist nations.

In addition, the United States now has to compete with other countries (Japan, West Germany, France) and, in some cases, accept a position other than first place in the design, production, and marketing of products it once dominated: steel, automobiles, clothing, electronics. In short, the United States has had to come to terms with a much-changed global political-economy no longer under its relative control and, in many cases, much less under its direct influence.

These changes have necessitated a redefinition of the country's future. The shocks and dislocations they have produced have had serious ramifications individually and collectively. The rise of the conservative forces must, therefore, be understood, in part, as a response to these conditions. This is especially visible in the cultural arena as we see the increasing politicization of religion as various groups seek to gain the dominant position from which to decide the values which will govern civil, political, and economic life in the country. Thus the Moral Majority and other groups have become significant political forces aiming at redirecting morality, family life, religious life, even personal choices. These changes, coming as they do on the heels of--and in response to, in part--the cultural inflections of the 1960s and the loss of the Vietnam War, represent a major attempt on the part of many to get control of the historical evolution of the country.

Thus do we come to the crossroads of contemporary U.S. history. It is a time of great challenge and risk. For people of African descent in the United States, it is a time for a serious, critical review of our situation.

I have already made note of the various forms of direct physical assault being made against blacks in several parts of the country. In addition, there is the political situation of benign neglect that can be accounted for only in part as a result of the political successes of the newly elected conservative forces. This situation is characterized largely by the extent to which the agenda to better the condition of blacks and others has been replaced by the agenda of stabilizing the economy, in large part by reducing expenditures on the part of the federal government.

The new agenda for the political-economy portends still other major impacts for people of African descent in terms of its overall economic philosophy. To the extent that the masses of blacks are not persons most well-off in the society, the program of helping those most well-off, on the theory that their prosperity will eventually trickle down to the rest of the society, means that the masses of us will experience severe economic dislocation. Even if the proposed scheme is theoretically correct and works out as planned, the real suffering of millions of less well-off black people will, for a length of time no one can determine, be immense.

Already we have abundant knowledge and living evidence of the devastating effects of poverty on all aspects of life: self-esteem, family life, educational performance and development, the physical development of the very young, the years of advanced age, community life. Thus the years between now and the reaching of the promised material affluence will be devastating. We should, then, expect a dramatic increase in both the rates and the absolute number of occurrences of black-on-black crime and violence of all kinds; suicides; family break-ups; and disruptive, antisocial behavior, both individualized and collective.

Efforts on the part of various organizations and persons to confront these problematic conditions will be increasingly difficult for a number of reasons. One factor will be the greatly increased stratification among African-Americans. This is the result, on the one hand, of successful economic mobility (and all that goes with it) on the part of a significantly increased minority during the past three or four decades. This enhancement of life for recent generations of black Americans has been made possible by both the successful, heroic struggles for freedom and justice waged by thousands of black folk and others, and by the period of relative prosperity and rising standards of living that has been experienced by the general population periodically since World War II.

On the other hand, there are segments of the black population which continue to occupy the lowest levels of the socio-economic pyramid, so much so that poverty (and all that goes with it) has become an intergenerational way of life. Moreover, in every period of economic downturn, these segments of the population are pushed down even further and become even more dependent on governmental support. For example, there are now families that have been consistent "beneficiaries" of the welfare system for more than two generations.

This matter of the class stratification of black America has been of concern for some time to many persons and organizations, particularly those on the Left. The terms and consequences of the discussion are not just theoretical or ideological. What is at stake are questions of leadership, organizational forms, strategies and tactics, goals and objectives, alliances and coalitions, and definitions of group identity.

Yet again we are being confronted with the question, "Who speaks for black people?" But the question is now being seriously debated within the national black population, not just by whites in the media, government, foundations, and labor organizations. Not only are young (and old) radicals and revolutionaries challenging the black establishment organizations (civil rights, religious, professional), but newly arrived, successful, black professionals are voicing their intent to have other voices from black America heard. Differences which once were masked by silence to promote a front of unity are now being actively articulated.

Even within black America, various forces are vying for the position of leadership in order to steer the historical development of our people. To the extent that divisiveness has systematically been seized upon by the strategically minded among those against whom we must struggle, we must expect nothing less than disruption in the present period. Already we can see this as the new forces in power move in various ways to solicit the support of certain black persons and organizations. In a number of cases these overtures will continue to meet with success when made to persons and organizations seeking influence with those in power.

This increased competition among persons and organizations claiming to speak for black America (or segments of it) will be the vocal manifestation of intense ideological, strategic, and tactical struggles. These struggles themselves have a long history, but it is very possible that during the present historical period we will see some of the tendencies represented reappearing in modified form with renewed intensity and qualitatively different bases of support. For example, for the first time in our history the "nationalist" orientation has succeeded in laying the groundwork for a national independent black political party.

Just what the make-up and orientations of the party will be with regard to the many complex issues facing African-Americans is not yet possible to say. The black nationalist tradition has always been pluralistic. The founding of the party was troubled by this pluralism, and its further development will be no less affected. Nonetheless, an independent political party made up of black people, aiming to speak for black people, is coming on the scene and, to the extent that it is a successful venture, it will be a serious threat to the established two-party political structure and practices, especially in terms of the heretofore overwhelming commitment of people of African descent to the Democratic Party.

Yet another consequence of the possible success of an independent black political party might well be to challenge the dominance of the established civil rights organizations as spoke-persons for black America, given their commitments to goals which many nationalists consider life-threatening in terms of racial and ethnic identity. In this regard, the goal of integration is most often attacked as, in reality, a goal of assimilation in which, at worst, blacks are required to reject their race and ethnicity for an impossible and unacceptable utopia (in the most perverse sense) without racial or ethnic identifiability.

Even on the best interpretation, some nationalists argue, the goal should or must be the achievement of a social order within which race and ethnicity (or sex, religion, etc.) will not be the grounds for deciding important social questions (beyond insuring justice and equality for all racial and ethnic groups). Still, pursuit of that goal must not involve racial or ethnic self-denial on the part of people of African descent. Not only is the notion that America is a "melting pot" a lie, it is corrupt as an ideal. Thus the pursuit of goals and objectives shaped by such a notion must be stopped.

One of the troubling complexities within black America is the absence of a consensus regarding the aims and meanings of individual and collective life. On the one hand, there is the ambivalence, characteristic of our experience in the United States, with regard to who we are: Americans; Africans; African-Americans. W.E.B. DuBois spoke of it as the experience of "double consciousness," the experience of "twoness": American, Negro.

The nationalist tradition, at its best, offers resolutions of this problem through affirmations of our racial and ethnic heritage. The consequences of these affirmations are, however, numerous. For some it has meant--and continues to mean--leaving America for Africa or other places. For others it continues to mean varying degrees of separation from non-African peoples. For still others it involves recognizing the racial and ethnic plurality of the U.S. and taking steps to structure the social, political, cultural, and economic institutions and practices of the society in light of it.

Peoples of African descent, and millions of other so-called "minority" peoples, have suffered immensely as a result of the efforts of a minority of the world's peoples, i.e. the non-colored peoples of Europe and elsewhere, to enforce their choices upon the world in the pursuit of an existence structured by these commitments. Black Americans, therefore, ought to assume a major responsibility for questioning them radically. For it does not appear likely that the masses of us will be reaping the harvest of their realization. Instead, it will more likely be on our backs and on the backs of peoples around the world to supply this country with cheap natural resources, cheap labor, and markets for finished products, so that this good life for the well-off minority will be achieved.

If this is the case, then along with a clear conception of who we are and a radical questioning of the fundamental direction of the historical development of the country, an enlarged, international consciousness of our situation ought to emerge. Especially must we see ourselves in terms of the many possible levels and modes of interrelation with black Africa. Not only must we give increasing thought to our racial and ethnic historical and cultural links with the peoples of black Africa, we must, as well, become increasingly aware of the degree to which our own material well-being is affected by their situations. In the area of critical natural resources alone, Africa plays a significant role in the complex schemes of the U.S. and global economies. The high and, in some cases, increasing levels of demand for some of these resources; the fact that they are, in many cases, limited and non-renewable; and the changed political situation in which national governments in the "resource-rich" nations are moving to gain control of their exploitation combine to create a politically and economically charged world situation with potentially explosive tensions. African-Americans must be fully cognizant of this and must be prepared to guard against making political choices, either consciously or out of ignorance, which put us on the side of imperialist actions undertaken by this country and others under the guise of "protecting the free world" or "protecting our way of life."

Let it be clearly understood that this is not a call to blind racial and ethnic allegiance. Africa too has more than its share of injustices perpetrated by Africans against other Africans, and against non-Africans. We must speak forthrightly and openly against such situations. And we must not be unduly encumbered from doing so by false notions of unity or pride. Open self-criticism within the family of African peoples must be promoted if we are to insure that our struggles for liberated, humane existences are properly guided. The recognition of difficulties simply makes apparent to us the areas where more effort, patience, determination, and discipline will be called for in pursuit of our goals.

These qualities will be required of African-Americans in coming to understand who we are in relation to the other "minorities" in the country. For in many ways our conditions and struggles are the same and are directed against the same forces, for many of the same reasons. Thus we have, objectively, the conditions for forming alliances and coalitions in order to wage a common struggle. Here too, however, the differences among the groupings--Native American Indians, Hispanics, and others--are significant. And we have yet to develop the institutions and processes that will allow us to come together to dialogue toward consensus on the basis of both the things we have in common and those about which we differ.

Yet if each of us as a people is to have the liberated existence we desire and all are to achieve it, none of us will be able to do so through our individual efforts alone. Both the achievement and the enjoyment of a life of well-being will significantly affect, and be affected by, others in the body politic. Those of us who have suffered so much from the undemocratic, enforced choices of others blindly--or openly--pursuing their well-being at our expense ought to assume a major responsibility for redirecting the course of evolution of the United States. To say that this task is a major, historic, even revolutionary undertaking would be to offer the understatement of the century. However, I do offer that it is the direction implied in the efforts of peoples of African descent, and others, to realize a humane, liberated existence.

It is to be hoped that the future will not see us struggling for survival as our main effort. However, the decision is not ours alone. We must use all the avenues open to us to see that our agenda for the future of black Americans becomes appropriate to the historical demands that would have us achieve a truly great and humane nation. And for that to be the case, all peoples in the body politic must take responsibility for the making of the United States' history.

Lucius Outlaw was a visiting associate professor of philosophy at Haverford College in Haverford, Pennsylvania when this article appeared.