There was a lot of talk after Barack Obama was elected President that America had entered a “post-racial” period.
You don’t hear that “post-racial” talk much anymore.
Witness the reaction this week when twenty prominent African American ministers formally announced their support for Mayor Thomas Menino’s re-election.
There was predictable grumbling, mostly from Mayor Menino’s opponent, City Councilman Michael Flaherty. A Flaherty campaign spokesperson said, tartly, “They’ll have their endorsements and we’ll have ours.”
But that’s politics and Boston politics to boot.
Another and more interesting way to understand the relationship between Boston politicians and Boston’s African Americans is through an excellent piece by WBUR’s Bianca Vazquez Toness which aired earlier this month.
She makes the case that while no elected official can be elected without the “black” vote, since one in four Boston voters is black, it is a big mis-reading to think that black Bostonians vote as a bloc.
We’ll discuss the layers and implications on this week’s Radio Boston and we hope you’ll weigh in.
Thanks for listening… Jane.
In your Friday show I hope that you clarify the role that a minister/priest can play in a election while his church remains a non-profit. It’s legal, but walks close to the line, because the church itself cannot endorse a political candidate and remain a non-profit.
Most ministers/priests in the country don’t endorse in any formal way. I’m not sure why some choose to do so, because their flock is usually divided on the candidates.
Wow! This is perhaps the most racist show I have ever heard on WBUR or NPR. Steeped in the politics of race and race hatred, some of these ministers are a big part of the problem in current Boston society, as opposed to part of the solution of the timely problems we all face in this community. It explains a lot about the irrational, simmering anger and hostility which is palpable in the Black community, despite the ascendancy of a Black man to the preseidency of the country and another to the governor’s office of Massachusetts. If these men are preaching venom of race politics from their pulpits, I am delighted that they are unable to reach consensus, based on that paradigm.
I find it troubling that RB chose to focus on ministers – unelected and often, as in the case of Eugene Rivers with small congregations, when the title of the broadcast “African-American Endorsements in the Mayor’s Race” promised a broader look at the broader community of color. What of the women leaders of this city?? Sheriff Cabral, State Reps like Linda Dorcena Forry! These younger black ELECTED officials who actually answer to a constituency at the ballot box every other year. Their endorsements of Menino sent a strong message that was echoed again in September primary: the communities of color are with Menino by a wide margin.
RB fell into the media trap once again of ignoring the actual elected leaders of our community and choosing to instead confer a disproportionate amount of power on these men of the clergy who have never won an election in their lives. What of it producers?? Why do you ignore our elected leaders?
Ella,
We knew from the start this week that we wanted to focus on ministerial endorsements. I think the more broad title, “African-American Endorsements in the Mayor’s Race,” came about when we determined we wanted to turn a corner and talk about the Banner.
I think your comment echoes an important point we tried to make with this program: these ministers are not elected, and they are precluded from making endorsements in their official capacities as church leaders. How powerful are they in swaying votes? How powerful SHOULD they be? We asked a number of tough questions to our guests today along these lines.
You ask: “why do you ignore our elected leaders?” Of the two you mentioned, Linda Dorcena Forry has been on RB twice, and Andrea Cabral is someone we’ve tried to get on the program more than a few times, but her schedule has not allowed for it.
If you think we’re missing someone, or just want to talk this out further, I invite your call, 358-0607. I’ll be back in the office Monday.
Thanks for listening, and thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks Mr.Rugusea,
I must have missed the interviews with my state rep. I think you do a good job, I just get frustrated with the media who forget that the voters have spoken on who their real leaders are. Thanks for all that you do.
I can’t believe what I’m hearing here today. Suggesting both that blacks should vote with one voice and that churches have any role to play in government elections seems both undemocratic and contrary to American ideals. People (of any race) should vote as free thinking individuals and not be manipulated by religious leaders on questions of politics.
Campaigning from the pulpit puts in danger a church’s non-profit status under IRC 501(c)(3). The Internal Revenue Service has stepped up its enforcement efforts on this issue over the last several years and issued new guidelines designed to help all non-profits -but particularly houses of worship- avoid jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. I suspect that this show exposed certain vulnerabilities in this regard. Even if a pastor does not expressly tell his flock to support a particular candidate, a pastor’s endorsement of a particular candidate brings with it the weight of the pastor’s position and authority at his church. There often is, therefore, little difference in the risk to a church’s tax-exempt status between telling parishioners on Sunday morning to cast their votes for a certain candidate and endorsing a particular candidate.
Pretty incredible and irrelevant nonsense from your guests on Friday’s show.
First, ministers should stay out of politics, except to encourage their church members to vote in large numbers – as the members see fit. Politicians will then work to earn the votes of the African American community, instead of taking the voters for granted because they’ve thrown down a few coins to so-called “leaders” who endorse them.
Second, you cannot dismiss the separation of church and state guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment by simplistic references to America’s racist past, as your guests did, or naked assertions that the role that churches may have played during slavery and immediately thereafter, trumps the law today. The First Amendment both protects their right to practice religion as they see fit and protects my right not to support their ideology with my tax dollars. If they have a problem with that, they can give up their tax exemption and pay taxes to the community.
Finally, and most importantly, these ministers could benefit from learning how to listen, instead of running off from the mouth and interrupting listeners with whom they disagree.