Roland Burris wants to keep his political post in the U.S. Senate beyond next year, and he’s making the gestures that a serious Democratic candidate would do in order to gain the support of two factions that have become stalwarts of the party – African-Americans and gay people.
BURRIS ACTUALLY VENTURED outside of his Chatham neighborhood to appear along with other political people in the Gay Pride Parade – which has become an annual tradition in the neighborhood just east of Wrigley Field (not that there was any gay people/Cubs fan conflict on Sunday, the Cubs/Sox matchup took place on the South Side).
For those who think that is a bold statement, it really isn’t.
The parade is little more than any other parade, except that some of the costumes worn by some people both participating and watching may be a little more outlandish than something worn to the “Back to School/End of Summer” parade held every year in Naperville because the locals can’t stand the thought of honoring Labor Day.
Roland likely looked as ridiculous waving to the crowds of more than 400,000 people who gathered along Halsted Street as he did during his cameo in “The Fugitive.” Remember Roland at the St. Patrick’s Day parade of 1993?
THERE’S ALSO A good chance that the people who were paying any attention to participating politicians were more likely to catch a glimpse of Lisa Madigan or Pat Quinn (two candidates whose political chances in the future are a tad more optimistic than Burris’ these days).
But this has become the kind of event where, if a political person doesn’t show up, it comes across as more of a statement than intended.
So Roland, Roland, Roland was out waving to the masses that gathered in Lakeview to make a political statement by doing little more than enjoying a sun-shiny day at a parade.
I don’t know how many people who saw him at the parade on Sunday will actually bother to cast a ballot for him in February come the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But I’m sure it didn’t hurt, particularly since Lakeview is close enough to Chatham that even his struggling campaign could afford to pay the cost of a couple of gallons of gasoline so he could drive up to the North Side neighborhood.
IF ANYTHING, BURRIS’ more bold political action of recent days took place last week when the Senate approved a resolution that offers an apology, of sorts, for the fact that enslavement of Africans was ever considered legal in the United States.
The resolution even offered some legal language that could be construed as an admission that the “Jim Crow” laws that enforced racial segregation throughout the Southern United States were wrong.
But this resolution is intended to be a symbolic statement with no real power.
So Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa (how many of you remember when Harkin seriously thought he was fit to be president of the United States?) included some legal language to indicate that nothing in the resolution should be construed as an endorsement of reparations.
THAT IS WHY the black members of the House of Representatives are now seriously talking of voting against the resolution when it comes up for a vote before their chamber. Some people are trying to claim it is absurd that black people could be against an apology for slavery and segregation.
But this reminds me of a measure I once wrote about in the Illinois House of Representatives. It was a change in state law with regards to interracial adoptions (specifically, white people adopting black children).
The vote itself was something like 109-3, with 6 more voting “present.” It sounds like a non-controversial, overwhelming support measure.
But all of the support came from non-black legislators. The vote among black representatives was 4 for it, 3 against it, and 6 voting “present.” In short, the people who might see the most direct impact from the measure were split, while everybody else just sloughed off the issue.
COULD THAT BE what is happening in the Senate, where most officials are just assuming they should take the symbolic vote and get it over with? But the black politicos whose constituents would be directly impacted are finding the measure to be inadequate?
By the way, what do the black members of the U.S. Senate think? Don’t forget, there’s only one. Roland himself. So he became the voice protecting the interests of those who believe that black people are entitled to some sort of financial compensation for the suffering of their ancestors in this country.
After the measure passed on a “voice vote” (which means everybody officially says “aye” and there’s no actual “yes” or “no” record for the resolution), Burris made a statement saying he does not want the disclaimer about non-endorsement of reparations to be seen as some act preventing the Congress from approving some form of reparations payments in the future.
Roland is the “black caucus” of the U.S. Senate, even though some people are inclined to dismiss that fact as insignificant.
I’M NOT SAYING that Roland’s race ought to be the sole factor taken into consideration when we go to the polling places next year.
But perhaps it is at moments like this that Illinois voters ought to give serious thought to what kind of statement it sends to the rest of the nation if we are so eager to dump the only African-American currently in that congressional chamber.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Roland, Roland, Roland is the prototypical politician in that (http://cbs2chicago.com/local/gay.pride.parade.2.1063041.html) he likes parades.
The “black caucus” of the U.S. Senate wants to make sure that an apology for slavery and segregation (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090618/pl_mcclatchy/3255365) under consideration on Capitol Hill does not permanently cut off the option of financial reparations. Of course, the black caucus these days is little more than Burris himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment