The Split Between Black Intellectuals

Have you ever felt stuck between two friends that you respect, but one has a falling out with the other, this is the predicament in which I find myself. I am stuck between two clans that want to achieve social, political, and economic justice for the overarching black-community, but at the same time find themselves using two different approaches.  In this instance, I find myself staunchly in one camp, but at the same time, I don't want to ostracize everyone else that have good points, but doesn't follow the same approach that I abide by.  These two camps are Social-Democratic/Progressive camp and the Neoliberal/Moderate camp.

The progressive camp contains figures such as Dr. Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, while the neoliberal camp contains such figures like Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Rev. Al-Sharpton.  There are other much more complicated figures such as Ibram X, Jesse Jackson, and Eddie Glaude, which we will not be covering in this article, but in future articles.  It is no surprise that Dr. Cornel West and  Tavis Smiley were staunchly critical of President Obama and chastised those such as Al-Sharpton, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, Ta-Nehisi Coates et. al, who refuse to criticize then President Obama based on specific policies that they themselves say they are against.  If you haven't figured it out by now, I am most certainly in the progressive camp, but I will not dismiss the other 'Black Intellectuals even though they follow a staunch neoliberal ideology, as they parade around as progressives, because they often have good things to say on history, certain political and social matters, and a good foundation of the construct of race and the effects it has on society.

On 17 December 2017, Dr. Cornel West wrote an article in the 'Guardian' entitled, "Ta-Nehisi Coates is the neoliberal Face of the Black Freedom Struggle", in which he takes Ta-Nehisi Coates to task about specific statements Coates has written in his book, 'We Were Eight Years in Power', about the presidency of Former President Barack Obama.  As Dr. West states, "Coates and I come from a great tradition of the black freedom struggle. He represents the neoliberal wing that sounds militant about white supremacy, but renders black fightback invisible. This wing reaps the benefits of the neoliberal establishment that rewards silences on issues such as Wall Street greed or Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and people."  In this, Dr. West understands the damaging nature of neo-liberal incrementalism and the nature of truly standing by your beliefs beyond the euphoric symbols you apply to people like Sec. Hillary Clinton or former President Obama.  Coates' text states, "Ossie Davis famously eulogized Malcolm X as ‘our living, Black manhood’ and ‘our own Black shining prince.’ Only one man today could bear those twin honorifics: Barack Obama."   Dr. West correctly points out that Coates' portrays Pres. Obama as a 'deeply moral human-being', but dismisses all the atrocities he is responsible for, such as the '563 drone strikes, the assassination of US citizens with no trial, the 26,171 bombs dropped on Muslim-majority countries in 2016, and the 550 Palestinians killed with US supported planes in 51 days etc.'  Dr. West compounds these facts, by stating that Coates shares a 'myopic' view on certain issues and has a very centrist 'racial tribalism' at the heart of his statements, public or otherwise. The glossing over of poverty, LGBT[QIA+] rights, and the like is very disturbing, because it handles a very narrow worldview, that doesn't address the actual issues in effect not only in the black community, but worldwide.  Ta-Nehisi Coates just addresses the symptoms of the overall bigger problems in society, so it is incumbent on those, who consider themselves writers, philosophers, and most importantly intellectuals to address these problems.  Finally, Dr. West states that these disagreements he has with Coates are 'substantive' and 'serious', it is incumbent on the individual to not take away a sense of 'pettiness' or '[egotism]' from this exchange.  I have one general disagreement with Dr. West's take on Coates, which is the omission that Coates supported Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election.  So, as Dr. West staunchly disagrees with his take on former President Obama, which is warranted, don't gloss over the subtle nuances in positions.  Dr. West has a bad habit of not presenting credit, when credit is warranted, such as not giving Obama credit for Obamacare, which is just expanded private insurance, in which more people are covered, but President Obama is the first President to get healthcare reform, so he shouldn't gloss over that.  But on the fundamental premise that black intellectuals specifically should be very critical of Pres. Obama is correct and Coates should take notes.  The fact that Pres. Obama is the first black president, is why we should be more critical of him, not despite that fact.

On 19 April 2015, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson released an article in the 'The New Republic' entitled, "The Ghost of Cornel West."  In this piece, Dr. Dyson refers to his own personal history with Dr. West, but the established facts in this particular case that Dr. Dyson presents faces several particular problems.  These problems include a lot of whataboutism's, strawman's, and missing the point of the particular critiques of Pres. Obama and his legacy.  In the article that Dr. Dyson has written, he portrays Cornel West as petty egoist, unable to come to turns with what he has become, almost obsessed with celebrity and his own intellectual acuity.  Dr. Dyson fails to accurately display Dr. West's actual argument, when it comes to policy in the Obama administration.  As Dr. Dyson states, "Obama, as alter contends, is more practical, offering Pell grants; the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity of sentences for powdered and crack cocaine; the extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which kept millions of working poor blacks from sliding in to poverty; and the extension of unemployment insurance and food stamps, which helped millions of blacks."  In this sense, Dr. Dyson not only strawman's, but misses the point; the initiatives presented are in a sense neoliberal incrementalism, instead of bold radicalism in which we need to change the country for the better.  Pres. Obama hasn't achieved the goals in which we elected him to accomplish.  Even when, the democrats, received a super-majority in the house of representatives and the senate in 2010, there were still neoliberal watered down proposals like the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare) instead of 'Medicare For All' or a 'Public Option'.  Also, the statement of, "the extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which kept millions of working poor blacks from sliding in to poverty", is a cop out, yes, that helped black people from sliding into poverty, but what people like myself and I presume Dr. Cornel West want, is to effectively end poverty, completely abolishing the practice.  Instead of making very real and poignant criticisms of Dr. West's approach,  Dr. Dyson reduces some of those criticisms moot and proceeds to attack the legacy and career of Dr. West.

On 23 February 2010,  Tavis Smiley and Rev. Al Sharpton had a conversation on Rev. Al Sharpton radio show on how Pres. Obama doesn't really address the crux of black issues in America.  The issues arise from, when president Obama didn't go to Tavis Smiley's event in which Pres. Obama was to announce his run for the presidency.  I deeply admire Tavis' position on worker rights, Wall-Street, and the prison industrial complex, but on that key issue, I wholeheartedly agree with Al-Sharpton, because the whole issue boils down to pettiness and while all the other critiques from Tavis to Pres. Obama, still stand and are much more important than this petty squabble, it seems to me that his distaste for Obama arose from that specific issue rather than a policy one.  I still think it is still important to rely heavily on policy positions, but I also think it is also important to talk about other issues that miss the policy questions.  I am on Tavis' side, so I find it important to critique the left from the left, for whoever engages in intellectual honesty, rather than rudimentary pageantry.

Finally, I think there are many subjects in which both sides agree, but I think the disagreements need to be explored, because on the overall issues, I believe the progressive side is generally correct on the policy positions and the approach.  But people on the progressive side can generally do a better job of presenting these issues in a more constructive and concrete way, where they are not ostracizing other public intellectuals, who may have a good point, when it comes to a variety of  other issues.  While I disagree with the stance of not criticizing Pres. Obama presented by Dr. Dyson and Rev. Sharpton.  I think it is important for, not only public intellectuals, but the broader public to still hear their positions and try to find some common ground with them.