I had a nice coffee-and-chat with a Mayoral candidate over the weekend whose name I won’t reveal because I didn’t ask him for permission to quote him or even to paraphrase his remarks.
I asked why he thought there were so many Black people in prison, and he said he couldn’t rule out “structural racism” as the cause. He said that any people who suffer socio-economically are more likely to turn toward crime because they have nothing to lose.
I replied that I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Many immigrant groups to the U.S. arrive here poor and downtrodden without turning to crime. I mentioned East Asians, Indians, Pakistanis, and my own ancestors, Jews, as examples. I could have included others, including Black Africans and Muslims. We don’t see these groups resorting to crime, violence and dysfunction. They understand the way up and out: Arrive in America. Keep your family, your community and your values intact. Work hard. Raise your kids right. Then the second generation prospers, and subsequent generations can go on to great success. So why do we see such a prevalence of crime and dysfunction coming out of the Black community?
The candidate really couldn’t answer. He said he’s still pondering these things over in his mind.
Is it “racist” for me to ask such questions? The prevalence of crime in the Black community isn’t my “opinion,” it’s fact. Every statistical breakdown of crime in America shows a lopsided percentage of Black people. Leftwing “progressives” and their allies in the media cite this as evidence of structural racism and/or racial profiling. But I think reasonable people know better. If there are more Black people in jail than any other race, it can only be because Black people commit an inordinate amount of crime, relative to their percentage of the population.
I found the candidate’s statement that he’s still working this out in his mind perplexing. What’s to work out? It seems pretty straightforward to me. I asked if he would ever speak forcefully to the Black community and ask them to hold themselves accountable for the behavior that emerges from their community. He replied that he does hold the community accountable, but he tries to balance it with compassion. To which I replied, “The two concepts cancel each other out, rendering your message incoherent. Each person will hear what he wants to hear, with the result that nothing ever changes because truth is never spoken.”
The candidate heard me and I heard him. Our conversation was frank, and always polite and respectful. But neither of us was moved to change our view. Which is okay. That’s how democracy works. I ended by expressing to the candidate that if he is elected mayor—which he very well may be, since Barbara Lee is sinking in the polls—I hope he will speak truth to the Black community and remind them that not all their problems are due to racism. I reminded him that Barack Obama has been quite blunt in his remarks that the Black community should stop blaming outside forces and accept responsibility for their own actions. He said that some people are critical of Obama for this reason. Yes, I suppose that’s true, but it does not refute Obama’s eloquent, important message.
I think the candidate’s thinking on this topic is muddled, the inevitable result of him still trying to figure this stuff out. If he’s elected, he’s doing to have to figure it out, and fast. Oakland deserves no less.
Despite my doubts, I’m going to vote for him. Of all the announced candidates he’s best suited, temperamentally and intellectually, to be Mayor. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” the old saying goes. The candidate is a genuinely fine man, with a great heart. The fact that he took the time to meet with me, when he’s so busy running for office and I’m just an old guy with a blog, impressed me a great deal. His thinking continues to evolve in—I sincerely hope and trust—the right direction. Electing him to high office can only bring him maturity and wisdom, two qualities that have been sorely lacking in Oakland leadership for years.
Steve Heimoff