Time To Disband The Congressional Black Caucus?

Just another thought:

If the Black Caucus announced that they were opening up their membership to everyone "who wanted to help with the issues facing black Americans", is there anyone who wouldn't join -- or at least feel compelled to join?

Imagine the congressman that didn't join:

News reporter: Congressman Andyouare, you have not joined the CBC, is that because you dislike black people?
Congressman AYA: Uh, no, not at all, I just--
News reporter: Then why don't you join?
Congressman AYA: Well, uh, I...

Every single congress person would have to join! Or at least 90 percent of them would feel that way. The CBC would have a membership of 400 plus. It would rob the CBC of its identity. It would become redundant.

 

It's not a club. It's a political caucus. There are women's caucuses for women, hispanic caucuses for hispanics, gay caucuses for the gays. They all discriminate in some form or another, whether it's by race, sexual orientation, gender or ethnicity. And for solid political reasons.

If the guy wants to address his constituents concerns, perhaps he should go talk to his constituents, particularly since they're an overwhleming majority of his district.

 

If the CBC is true to their mission they should let him in. Otherwise it reeks of hypocriscy.

Its strange in this day and age that skin color is the sole criteria for entry into the CBC.

Taken from CBC site - their stated mission:

While the CBC has been primarily focused on the concerns of African Americans, the Caucus has also been at the forefront of legislative campaigns for human and civil rights for all citizens.





The CBC Today
Currently, there are 43 members of the CBC. CBC Members are advocates for the human family nationally and internationally and have played a significant role as local and regional activists as well. African American members have worked diligently to be the conscience of the Congress, but because all politics are ultimately local, they also provide dedicated and focused service to the citizens and Congressional districts that have elected them.

The vision of the founding members of the CBC to "promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens," continues to be a beacon and focal point for the legislative work and political activities of the Congressional Black Caucus today.

 

Based on this line of reasoning, should men be allowed into the women's caucus and straights into the guy caucus? If that's the case, then the original reasons for furthering the groups' unique interests are diluted.

Just out of curiosity, did the CBC issue a statement explaining why they wouldn't let the guy join?

 

I'd like to make a few points about the original post:
1. The premise that anyone does, or should, live in a "color blind" world has been very thoroughly debunked. That is why it's so funny when Colbert does his own color blind schtick on his show.

2. I don't think the congressman's or the CBC's positions have been adequately stated. I don't think the CBC would agree that they are denying membership to the man solely because of his race.

3. Finally, I will play the hypothetical and accept your argument that the CBC is denying membership to people based solely on their race (and not, say, based on differing political views their group holds with the perspective member). If this were to be the case, then it doesn't logically follow that the remedy to the matter would be to disband the group.

 

Read the article Football posted.

Stephen Cohen wasn't refused admission to CBC. He never asked to join. And why would he want to if he thought there was chance he might cause a shitstorm and alienate his constituents?

God, Tancredo is one ignorant slilmeball.

 

Separation of Church and state ring a bell?

 

The problem with that comparison is are there any districts anywhere in the US where a politician's constituency would be overwhelmingly gay or overwhelmingly female? I would think the female population of any district would be roughly 50 percent and even in areas with the highest concentrations of gays, I doubt they would ever reach an overwhelming majority.

 

Because they don't want to get played for a soundbite by a lunatic presidential candidate seeking to tie down the Open Bigot wing of his party?
"Because Tancredo's behind it" is good reason enough for me to support the CBC's decision.

 

That wasn't my point. I'm asking whether caucuses should be obliged to admit outsiders,- as a matter of principal--irrespective of the constituents the politicans represents.

And FB's point is well taken. Why would Cohen want to align himself with a wingnut like Tancredo?