Allen Johnson: Why, 24 years later, I remain a man without a party -- and why I like it that way
This week's column.
Like many editorialists, I am an unaffiliated voter. But it has nothing to do with my job.
I have not toed anyone's party line since 1984. That's the year I told the Democrats goodbye and good riddance.
I lived in Forsyth County at the time and found the local Democrats (how do I put this gently?) smug, insufferable and hypocritical. They ran the county as if they owned it and their attitude toward Winston-Salem's substantial -- and politically powerful -- black community was especially galling.
They would designate surrogates in the black community (usually prominent ministers) and regale them with status and recognition. That meant they got to sit at head tables at luncheons and banquets and got to be part of the pomp and circumstance when someone important came to town.
Those ministers in turn would do the Democrats' bidding, mobilizing voters and poll workers to push the right candidates. It was a microcosm, as I saw it, of the party's attitude toward the black community as its most reliable voting bloc and its most taken for granted.
Remember, 45 percent of North Carolina's registered voters are Democrats, versus 34 percent Republican and 21 percent unaffiliated, yet the state tends to support Republican presidents and gave Republican Sen. Jesse Helms one term after another.
This scenario has played over and over, like a well-worn plot. It probably will play out again in November, when John McCain likely will beat either of the Democrats, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, here in November, on the strength of unaffiliated voters and Democratic defections to the GOP.
Democrats purport to be the party of the big tent, which embraces diversity and stands for equal opportunity. And I have no doubt that some of them do.
But when push comes to shove, party loyalty doesn't mean beans to Tar Heel Democrats; otherwise, former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt, an African American with strong credentials, would have beaten Helms at least once in their nationally important campaigns in 1990 and 1996.
But he didn't. And a major reason was white Democrats who deserted Gantt and their own party, for Helms.
Then there's a guy named Eddie Knox.
Knox, like Gantt, was another former Charlotte mayor, and a Democrat, who was stumping around the state in a gubernatorial bid in '84. As editor then of a black weekly, the Winston-Salem Chronicle, I spent an hour with Knox, who came across as progressive and forward-thinking. He was in a contentious race.
I remember black Democrats in Winston-Salem, feuding passionately over which of the front-runners to support in the primary: Rufus Edmisten, Knox or Tom Gilmore. I also remember state Rep. Larry Womble, then a city alderman, proclaiming that we all needed to "eat, sleep and drink Rufus," which seemed neither rhetorically nor dietetically very appealing.
Anyway, Edmisten edged Knox in a run-off (before losing to Republican Jim Martin in the general election). In a huff, Knox switched overnight, and became not only a Republican, but a Helms Republican. It was a dramatic, Incredible Hulk-like transformation, sans the busted britches and gamma rays.
Knox and Helms and Gantt and Forsyth County made it clear to me that parties didn't count for very much, so I decided to choose individual candidates, based on their individual merits (at least as I saw them). I became unaffiliated and over the years have found various Republicans and Democrats to my liking. Either party I can do without.
Of course, the Republicans could have taken advantage of all that unrequited loyalty and offered black voters a viable alternative. Sad to say, they haven't, leaving us two choices: a party that cares too little about black voters and another that hardly seems to care at all.
Meanwhile, Knox was hardly done with his switching parties in 1984.
In 2004 he contributed to the John Edwards' presidential campaign. In 2005 he went Independent. Go figure.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Allen:
What an arrogrant, self centered junk article your have written! Shame on the N&R for allowing you to retain your current position! You continueously disassociate yourself and the N&R with the public, your readers, other than a small percentage of radicals! Garbage!
Posted on April 13, 2008 10:42 PM
Allen, instead of judging candidates as you "see them" and on the basis of their commitment to the interests of black voters, why not adopt my more fair and capacious standard: namely, judging candidates IMPARTIALLY on the basis of their commitment to ALL OF AMERICA? It is only through the adoption of this altruistic standard that we shall overcome the racial and sectarian differences that divide us.
I do give you credit, however, for freeing yourself from the craven tentacles of the Democratic Party.
Posted on April 14, 2008 1:07 AM
Well spoken Brian 444, if we would all become JUST Americans, I think we would all be on the right road. Allen you left out the most important part of black ministers, that little envelope with pictures of presidents in it.
Posted on April 14, 2008 6:08 AM
Actually, I'm thinking about dispensing with my altruism and simply looking out for #1: voting on the basis of which candidates is likely to bother me less with well-intentioned but expensive governmental supervision.
Posted on April 14, 2008 11:10 PM
Brian:
You wrote:
"Allen, instead of judging candidates as you "see them" and on the basis of their commitment to the interests of black voters, why not adopt my more fair and capacious standard: namely, judging candidates IMPARTIALLY on the basis of their commitment to ALL OF AMERICA? It is only through the adoption of this altruistic standard that we shall overcome the racial and sectarian differences that divide us."
But all campaigns focus on the needs and interests of target demographics: independent voters, soccer moms, NASCAR dads, Latino voters, small-town residents. Why shouldn't black voters' interests be considered?
Posted on April 15, 2008 12:08 PM
All voters are self-interested. I vote for the guy who will do the least for me precisely because I calculate that his efforts to help and supervise me are contrary to my interests: more nannying, more taxes, more problems down the road when America can't afford its entitlements for an aging population.
If you're a "black voter," "a soccer mom," or a "NASCAR dad" (I don't really believe in any of these categories), you are, of course, welcome to vote for the candidate who represents your interests as you see them. That's niche politics; Karl Rove is a master at it. The problem, from my ideological perspective, is that this constitutes, explicitly and without apology, candy store politics that asks what your country has done for you (lately). If the soccer moms just got a minivan subsidy, well then as a NASCAR dad, dammit, I want Richard Petty carved on Mount Rushmore. Who's going to make me the best offer, give me the most candy? Politics becomes a bidding war, and the logic of the earmark colonizes a larger and larger share of American government. More taxes, more special interests, more nannying, more government contrary to my interests (as I see them).
Posted on April 16, 2008 12:50 AM
Allen, your comments are refreshing and insightful. Too often we voters affiliate ourselves and support blindly a party vote. As a fiscal conservative and social moderate I have nothing left but prayer as I watch apathy create candidates lacking in depth and responsibility, instead offering Shangri-La without price.
I long for a day that probably never existed, where men and women were honest and said what they meant and meant what they said. It is doubtful that this ideal occurred very frequently, but at least there was a time that we aspired to become such people and expected our leaders to at least espouse and mimic such ideals in hopes of attaining kinship with words such as courage, valor, integrity, loyalty, compassion and last but not least honesty. Of such that we once called patriots, we have relegated to the archives of history as we eulogize living symbols of political astuteness, popularity and the ability to provide effective sound bites and media management. We hunger for free money without regard to our children and their children who will pay the bill for our excesses.
Those that fought for, lived for and died for this great land never claim to be perfect, aspired not to canonization, but by example showed there was greatness to be lived for, to fight for and die for and we the benefactors shall surely be held accountable to the blood that has anointed freedoms banner.
It is we the voter who shall choose what standard of leadership and morality our county accepts and who and what we allow to trample or affirm the sacrifice and blood of those who earned the title of patriot. How we choose reflects our beliefs, standards and aspirations. If we allow party, group or individual to make our mind for us, we choose to allow our representatives the same privilege and surely enslave ourselves and our nation to the shackles of apathy and place our posterity in bondage to our ignorance and greed.
I may not agree with your view of a group whose skin and ancestry represent many things, but I am truly grateful you think and represent yourself and your vote.
Posted on April 16, 2008 2:23 PM