The Democratic primary contest for U.S. Representative from Brooklyn’s 11th Congressional District presents an unprecedented opportunity for the voters of this historically and ethnically diverse district to demonstrate political acumen and sophistication.
With a population of 654,000, the district comprises 60 percent Blacks, 20 percent Whites, 12 percent Hispanics, 4 percent Asians and 4 percent other ethnicities. The minorities, mostly Caribbean Americans and other immigrants, make up 80 percent of the district.
The 11th District includes Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill and Kensington all predominantly white neighborhoods, as well as the overwhelmingly Black communities of Brownsville, Crown Heights, East Flatbush, Prospect Height, and Ditmas Park.
Over the next three months, voters will be courted by many candidates who are vying to replace the retiring incumbent, Congressman Major Owens, who was elected in 1984. This seat is historic because it was created pursuant to the Voting Rights Act [Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote that intruded in matters previously reserved to the individual states. The Act, adopted initially in 1965 and extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, is generally considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress.]
As the campaign unfolds, voters will be inundated by politics. Nevertheless, they must pare through the opaqueness of the electioneering to make an informed choice.
Regardless of their frustrations or how difficult the choice is, they must vote. The no-vote factor has affected the Caribbean-American community for decades and thus must end for its consequences are extremely devastating and unbearable for our community.
The franchise of the vote is the most potent weapon with which “we the people” have been endowed by the constitution. Its exercise is therefore a non-negotiable civic and constitutional duty that must not be casually discarded.
It must be exercised faithfully and diligently for the greater good of our community and the full empowerment of our people. The correlation between the vote and effective representation is a dynamic that is not yet fully understood by our community. We are still to be conditioned to the fundamental concept of the political culture, which is “when you vote and vote overwhelmingly, you earn respect.”
Politicians deliver in primary areas where voter turnout is assuredly high and certain. They demonstrate the greatest respect for primary voting communities and provide exceptional representation and services. This is the essence of politics and the unambiguous message that must permeate the Caribbean-American voting populace.
Leaders have a duty to help to cultivate a voting population that is more analytical, independent-minded and politically incisive. This paradigm shift must be an energizing force that drives renewal in our community. However, this revival will only be realized when political leaders introduce new ideas and take risks, adequately address voters’ concerns, promulgate an agenda that is innovative, progressive and pragmatic, honor their promises and help bring about tangible improvements in the society.
The stakes in the 11th District election are high and of historic importance. It places three broadly qualified African-American candidates against a well financed white (Jewish) contender.
The Black candidates are City Councilmember Yvette Clark, State Senator Carl Andrews, and Chris Owens, the son of the incumbent and a corporate executive. New York City Councilmember David Yassky is the Jewish candidate. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have worked for David Yassky as his policy advisor since 2004 but demitted office on March 31, 2006. I resigned to move on to opportunity that can better facilitate my continued growth and development.)
There is a pervasive trepidation in the society about the non-effectiveness of elected representation in the Black community. It is the apprehension that continues to fuel the sentiment that some leaders have become so entrenched in office that they display signs of disengagement from the genuine interests of the people.
The consequences of this malignancy are demonstrated in complacency and apathy, which have a corrosive effect on our body politics.
The ballyhoo generated by David Yassky’s candidature has thrust him into a virtually untenable position and threatens to fracture the Brooklyn Democratic Party. He is contesting an election in and overwhelmingly Black populated “Voting Rights District.” Such districts were specifically created by congress to facilitate increased minority representation by allowing minorities to elect their own representatives. These districts, which exist throughout the country, are protected by federal law – the Voting Rights Act. This Act safeguards minorities’ rights to equal election representation and prohibits measures that abridge minority voting rights.
The Voting Rights Act was enacted in August 1965 under sunset provisions and extended in 1970, 1975 and 1982. Some provisions are due for reauthorization in 2007.
The legislative intent of the Voting Rights Act therefore gives context to sustain objections to Yassky’s candidature in this race.
Moreover, the consequence of increasing minority representation that guided the creation of the district, as well as the inherent protections enshrined by the law, ought to be enough of a disincentive to rolling back these significant minority gains. New York State has 31 members in the U.S. House of Representatives. Of the 31 members, only four are Black: Congressmen Major Owens, the incumbent in the 11th district; Ed Towns of the 10th district in Brooklyn; Gregory Meeks of the 6th district in Queens; and Charlie Rangel of the 15th district in Manhattan. It is therefore indisputable that a Yassky victory would further decrease Black congressional representation in New York and the rest of the nation.
Let me be very clear. This issue is not Yassky’s race. It is his attempt to use financial superiority to stampede his way to the U.S. House of Representatives via a Voting Rights District. No progressive Democrat who is committed to the philosophical ideal of racial equality and equitable representation in government, which is a foundational principle of the American polity, should want to bear the historic burden of curtailing Black representation in Congress.
There is therefore ubiquitous sentiment in the community that, given the totality of the circumstances that surround Yassky’s candidacy and the divisive milieu in which it is unfolding, there is a good historical and political basis for the indignation his candidacy has provoked. Many Black leaders liken his actions to Steve Solars’ 1992 attempt to steal the minority 12th Congressional District seat. (He was crushed by Congresswoman Nydia M. Velázquez.)
The sentiment is sustained by a serious perception that the Yassky’s campaign is alien in structure and geography to the Black community. Black leaders contend that heretofore, in exploring the viability of his candidacy; Yaskky demonstrated no direct interest in the development or empowerment of the communities in the 11th district, and did not advance an agenda in the City Council that includes their interest. Critics also feel that thus far he has failed to provide credible answers to questions about his motivations.
This omission continues to fuel speculation that his candidature is completely driven by the racial calculation that the four Black candidates will divide the minority vote and guarantee him a victory primarily from among the 21 percent Whites in the district. Although the use or misuse of race for electoral aggrandizement is a pernicious practice, it is a significant factor in this election and one that Yassky must address. Moreover, this argument becomes preponderant when one considers the fact that Yassky never lived in the district until he moved there last December, perhaps to appease critics.
He cannot be oblivious to the reality that a Congressman Yassky in the 11th district will, from current indications, infuriate Black leaders and inspire them to unite and field a single candidate against him in the next election. In addition, there is enormous fear in the Black community that a Congressman Yassky, elected without the Black vote, will have little political incentive to embrace agenda that is inclusive of their interests.
Yassky himself should be very concerned that his candidacy has exacerbated racial insecurities and that this anxiety will inevitably burgeon into the Democratic Party and the wider society to sow seeds of mistrust and fear. Many feel that the top echelon of the Brooklyn Democratic organization has failed to provide leadership and that a sinister agenda is afoot. Obviously, the entire political leadership as well as Yassky must have contemplated the distinct possibility that this contentious and quixotic enterprise could engender racial issues nationally. This places the spotlight on the leadership of the Brooklyn Democratic Party. County leader Veto Lopez cannot remain neutral; he must take a stand and endorse a candidate. Black-elected and community leaders are observing his actions in this race keenly and will judge him by his deeds.
There is unanimity of opinion in the Black community both in Brooklyn and nationally that David Yassky’s candidacy threatens to roll back the level of Black representation in Congress. As the election campaign intensifies, the congressional Black Caucus will inevitably make its views known and Black leaders in Washington, D.C. will demonstrate their resistance to what local leaders view as Yassky’s attempt to emasculate Black congressional representation. Thus, the race could be easily transformed into a fractious debate in the Democratic Party on whether or not only Blacks can provide effective representation for Black communities. In this context, the election could then be a referendum on politicians who pay lip service to the ideals of equitable political representation for minorities, shared political power and homogenous voting and political rights.
No one is questioning David Yassky’s qualifications as a candidate. He has impressive credentials and a notable legislative record. Additionally, he is young and charismatic. Ideally, he has excellent qualifications for a candidate. However, to do so in a manifestly Black district that was created pursuant to and protected by the Voting Rights Act is counterintuitive and regressive.
There are many qualified, appealing minority candidates in this race who are from the district. They are currently adumbrating their platform to voters in preparation for a full-scale campaign. Ultimately, though, at some point each of them will have to, in the best interest of the community, assess their standing and viability in the election and act in a unifying way to eschew rancor and dissonance. There are unquestionably too many Black candidates in the race.
Assemblyman Nick Perry deserves significant credit for withdrawing from the race and endorsing Yvette Clarke, having made an objective assessment of his prospect of winning in a five-way race. In so doing he has demonstrated enormous leadership and has put the interest of the community first. This is the essence of selfless, mature leadership, a quality some of the other candidates must emulate and exude.
A key determinant in exercising such magnanimity is the money factor. Current filings with the Federal Elections Commission show Yassky out-fundraising all of the other candidates combined, rising over one million dollars to date. This is an area in which Black candidates require great resuscitation and urgent capacity building beyond traditional realms. The campaign has just begun and there is ample time and ability to raise the requisite funds.
May the campaign be inspiring, informative and uplifting to the voters. May the best candidate win and may the best interest of the community remain paramount.
