City-data poll - Mayor of Atlanta (Franklin, White: construction, closing, tax)

[amd1588]

I think what the author is referring to, is that the experiment was in the deception to the Black "underclass" that bourgeois electoral politics was the way to solve the ills of the community en mass. The experiment was when the Black business-church class of Atlanta redirected the Black movement from one of direct-action to one of electoral politics. Remember Maynard Jackson's slogan? "Vote for me, I'll set you free!"

[south-to-west]

On a final note, I find it absolutely incredulous that so many folks single out the fiscal woes of the City of Atlanta, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the fiscal woes of the State of Georgia. Are people not aware that the State is knee-deep in fiscal mismanagement? Have folks not heard of the accounting scandal at GDOT? Are people aware that the State had massive layoffs and furloughs this past year?

One of the issues that have harmed Atlanta's fiscal health is the fact that so much of the city's infrastructure and services are supported by only 10% of the Region's population while it serves the other 90%. You have folks that live just outside of the city limits that use Atlanta's roads, require the services of Atlanta's police and fire protection while they're at work or frequenting the nightlife inside of the city, but yet pay proportionally less for those services than actual City residents.

[ericsonga]

I know I'm going to be slammed on here, because my location in the right hand of this says Lawrenceville. That's ok, I don't really know any of you anyway. I have had the pleasure of meeting both Kasim Reed and Mary Norwood. Both are very intelligent and affable. If I were an Atlanta voter, I would vote for Norwood. It has nothing to do with race. Reed seems highly intelligent and capable. I honestly think if he gets elected, and he most likely will, he will be a more than qualified mayor. However, what worried me most, is not only being part of 'the machine' but more that I have heard several times that he is more interested in furthering a career than actually trying to help Atlanta. Both candidates have made promises, they all do and will continue to do. However, I think that Norwood has more heart into it. If you speak to her, as I was able to do at a fundraising party thrown by a friend of mine's home, you can truly see how much she loves this city. Even long before she was on city council she has actively tried to enrich the city through charities and social work in all corners of the city. She is one of the hardest working people I have ever met.

I know I only live in Gwinnett, therefore my opinion is just that. But the next mayor of Atlanta really needs to bring the region together as a whole. The only way we can further Atlanta is by coordinating with the entire metro.

Also, if you were at Atlanta Pride this past weekend (if you didn't go, you really missed out), you would have seen all three mayoral candidates had a plethora of people and floats supporting them. However, only two candidates actually walked to parade; Norwood and Borders. To me, that really says something about both women. Not only is the gay vote very strong and important in Atlanta, it says something to just show up. Don't send people through and expect them to sway someone. Spend your time with the people and they will vote for you...

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by south-to-west

On a final note, I find it absolutely incredulous that so many folks single out the fiscal woes of the City of Atlanta, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the fiscal woes of the State of Georgia. Are people not aware that the State is knee-deep in fiscal mismanagement? Have folks not heard of the accounting scandal at GDOT? Are people aware that the State had massive layoffs and furloughs this past year?

Well we are discussing the the next mayor of the city and that problem is central to who is the best candidate.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by amd1588

I think what the author is referring to, is that the experiment was in the deception to the Black "underclass" that bourgeois electoral politics was the way to solve the ills of the community en mass. The experiment was when the Black business-church class of Atlanta redirected the Black movement from one of direct-action to one of electoral politics. Remember Maynard Jackson's slogan? "Vote for me, I'll set you free!"

...and Mayor Sam Massell's slogan "Atlanta is too young to die..." At the time of Jackson's start as mayor, middle-class whites fled the city; thus severely diminishing the City's tax base.

I would also argue that the shift from direct-action to electoral politics was the next step in the Civil Rights Movement. Nonviolent civil disobedience gave us the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act--removing a lot of the legal barriers that crippled African Americans. The next logical step was to take advantage of these new opportunities through mainstream political participation.

The woes caused by centuries of oppression and slavery cannot be cured overnight and will take some time. While America has made a lot of progress in race relations, overcoming the more clandestine institutional and psychological barriers that still hamper elements of the black community will require time, patients, and effort on the part of all Americans.

[amd1588]

If you think bourgeois electoral politics was the next "step" in the "Civil Rights" Movement, then you and I share profound differences in just what the problems of that era were. It was only Blacks in the South who didn't have voting "privileges," by that time, half of America's African population had migrated to other regions of the country. Even in those places, of course, there was civil unrest, more so even than in the South. So if voting privileges was the pinnacle of the Black Free Movement, and most in the North already had that, then what were they fighting for?

[amd1588]

Also nonviolent "civil disobedience" didn't give us the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 64' and 65'.... The urban uprisings did.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by amd1588

If you think bourgeois electoral politics was the next "step" in the "Civil Rights" Movement, then you and I share profound differences in just what the problems of that era were. It was only Blacks in the South who didn't have voting "privileges," by that time, half of America's African population had migrated to other regions of the country. Even in those places, of course, there was civil unrest, more so even than in the South. So if voting privileges was the pinnacle of the Black Free Movement, and most in the North already had that, then what were they fighting for?

I never said black bourgeois electoral politics. Also I've never heard of the Black Free Movement.

The North was a different animal in that while you had no discrimination at the polling place, there were still barriers to progress inflicted upon the black community like rampant housing and job discrimination, poor services, poor schools, and discrimination in various Northern institutions of higher learning.

Participation in the mainstream political process was exactly a goal of the Civil Rights Movement as we live in a constitutional republic where citizens can flex their power and influence at the polling place. It's a right that we take for granted, but in reality, it's a right that many paid for in blood.

Why wouldn't political and economic self-empowerment be a goal? I mean it was a main goal of our Founding Fathers, so what would make African Americans different?

[bizchick86]

This is almost sounding like a Black Consciousness vs. Civil Rights discussion when it really encompasses both.

Having grown up by parents who were part of the former movement and been raised in a church that focuses on Black Liberation Theology, I can assure you that without the Civil Rights movement Black Power wouldn't have even been a possibility. As black folks we need any form of action we can get to empower our people. The problem is when we pit movements against the other as if they are not all needed.

Economic power, political involvement, and activism are all necessary for our improvement as a race.

Going back to the discussion, I haven't studied either candidate closely as I'm not a resident of the City of Atlanta. From what people are saying Mary Norwood is a bit more clueless about the city's functioning, while the biggest complaint against Kasim is him being within the "machine." I don't see how that is particularly bad if he can improve the city. Incompetence cannot simply be reversed, however.

Complaints about blacks not improving under Black mayors are disingenuous. That reminds me of the argument Republicans have tried to use about Blacks being predominately Democratic, as if suddenly voting Republican (the party of tea-baggers, masters of using racial codes to further their agenda, and authors of the Bell Curve, the book reviving scientific racism) is somehow better! Under one party, it is more likely for us to have a voice, influence, and power to improve than the other as there is a history of that happening in one and not the other. Pretty simple concept that some can't grasp for some reason.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by amd1588

Also nonviolent "civil disobedience" didn't give us the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 64' and 65'.... The urban uprisings did.

Yeah because the Selma-to-Montgomery march and the March on Washington were examples of urban uprisings...