Jesse Jackson |
August 1, 1974
|
|
Jesse Jackson
American civil rights leader; Baptist minister; Founder, Operation PUSH (People United to Serve Humanity)
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Q: Isn't there a real difference between quotas for some and Affirmative Action for all? And the other question: how can we enforce quotas for certain groups without discriminating against others?
A: Okay. Isn't there a real difference between quotas for some and affirmative action for all. Quotas have been the most workable formula for overcoming the historical discrimination. Heretofore, the nation has accepted no official responsibility for the discrimination with a program of compensation. We must not forget that the nation does stand guilty of having enslaved a people on this soil and must assume the responsibility of opening up the doors of opportunity for the persons who were legally locked out, and be willing to do whatever is necessary to give them the opportunity to catch up.
The way that one gets away from what is considered quotas for some and affirmative action for others is by having a full-employment economy where it does not really matter who gets the job, because the quota is absolute. So long as there is unemployment at 4 and 5 percent as a rather chronic level, where some people are deranged enough to think that that amount of unemployment is necessary to stimulate people to work, we will always have the quota-affirmative action dialogue. But as a black people, we must fight for a minimal quota and affirmative action. Historically, we were put with a quota. That quota was zero. We got a quota on baseball managers today. We got a quota on football league quarterbacks. And we got quotas of zero in too many high places. So it is to our distinct advantage to demand, inasmuch as we are naturally capable of doing that which other people do, to have some objective measurement for determining this nation's commitment to overcome its historical discrimination.
Q: Next question is on the Urban League. It says: the Urban League goal is full employment. Is this a realistic goal? What time frame do you envision, and what is the PUSH role in connection with it?
A: Well, the Urban League states for its convention theme full employment, but really this was the theme of the 1946 Congress, a goal of full employment. And the question is not whether or not it is a realistic goal coming from Urban League, but does the Congress intend to be true to the laws of 1946 that is already on its book? The other part of the question is, how much will it cost us for people not to work? How much will it cost us for people not to be educated? How much will it cost us for people not to be healthy? I'll submit that uneducated people cost more to keep up. I submit that unemployed people cost more to keep up. Right now we have the ability - if we redefine work and make the rebuilding of American cities our goal - we could make full employment effective immediately.
Q: Are you striving for minority employment in small businesses as well as the large corporations, or is publicity with regard to unemployment or employment in big business its main attraction?
A: Well, I think we're applying for employment at all levels. First of all, our goal is a full-employment economy. Now whether the government employs us, major business employs us, minor business, or self employment, the goal is full-employment economy. I would suggest that all sectors of the business and governmental community must come together to put forth such a plan. But my chief argument today is: unless there is the will, unless there is the spirit, unless there is the commitment to do it, then we will develop all kinds of reasons on why it can't be done.
Q: What percent of government budgets are designed to help minority business, or what percent of government budgets designed to help minority business actually gets into the hands of minority businessmen?
A: Well, there's evidence that a relatively small percentage of government budgets designed to help minority business gets into the hands of the minority business people. I think that there is, at this point, no national commitment to develop businesses that are led and headed up by persons who are in various ethnic groups who are presently locked out. And some of Watergate reveals that a lot of the money that came in the so-called "Black Capitalism" program was used for political ends; it was used more for payoffs than for development, and that persons almost had to belong to the Republican Reelect President Nixon campaign to get a share of that money. There's hardly any relationship between the building of legitimate businesses who needed the money and where the money actually got to.
Q: What are your thoughts on federal cutbacks to community programs?
A: Well, I think it's horrible. That's the answer to that. And I think it's more, it's clearer every day that the last priority on the nation's agenda is that of poor people. And again, that which made us great in the sight of people the world over is that the very attitude of America relative to poor people. That's what made it great. In many instances, America did not offer help to people, but its attitude offered hope to people. Now in many instances, our money, which is designed to offer help to people, does not gain favor with them because our attitude is so bad they feel hopeless and unenergized. In other words, neither people nor nations can live by bread alone. This nation must develop a new attitude toward all of its people. We cannot have at the top of the nation a leadership whose mind is not broad enough to encompass the nation.
As I often put it, if you give a sergeant an army, he will reduce it to a platoon - size of his mind. If you give a general a platoon he will expand to the size of an army. People make things fit the size of their minds. And we can no longer get trapped with the wealthiest and most able nation in the world, with some of the poorest in spirit and some of the most dispossessed in the mind in high places, though the nation will be poor right down to the level of those in charge.
Q: What effect has Huey Newton and the Panthers had on the black movement in regard to equal employment, poverty programs, et cetera?
A: I think that, perhaps, the greatest contribution that Huey Newton and the Panthers had was to expose a certain police community friction. All of our communities have been under military occupation by the police force for a long time. And there was never a substantial movement to really reveal that. There were a few court cases here and there, but since the Panther-police confrontation, there's a heightened sensitivity in the whole nation to use the military power to suppress people. It has now taken on a more palatable form where people are now suing cities for revenue sharing money to get more blacks in positions of authority, to get more Chicanos in positions of authority in order to reduce the police brutality and also reduce police-community crime, but prior to the Panther-police confrontation, there was just almost no sensitivity. So that has been a very basic and fundamental problem.
Q: And a number of questions on this subject: one, do you feel that the Zebra situation could have been handled better? And if you had been in Mayor Alioto's shoes, how would you have handled the Zebra situation for immediate results?
A: Do you have reference to the rubbing people down in the streets and all that? But first of all, I do not think that we can suspend principles of that magnitude for an issue and the emotions of the moment. I think the precedents are too dangerous. And the precedents threaten too many people. I do not think that the mayor was justified in literally suspending the Constitution. I think he gained political favor, but I think he was unjust in doing so. I think, for example, when there was a case of persons who were described as white doing indiscriminate killings, the white persons of a certain stereotypical image were not stopped and harassed and searched in the street. So I think that was a dimension of race involved.
I must concede, however, that when people become so alienated from the government that they begin to engage in all kinds of bizarre crimes and episodes, it creates very cutting dilemmas. But I certainly think that if we are willing to be patient and to tolerate the president and his men's conduct, and not be willing to suspend the Constitution for one second, how can we act so rapidly and so hasty upon the poor, the impotent and the dispossessed? I think our inconsistency is the kind of contradiction that indicts us.
Q: Last evening you proposed shadow governments at all levels. Are these to operate within or outside of the system? And would you please comment?
A: Well, first of all the concept of shadow governments: In England, when one party loses, the other party doesn't go to sleep for the next four years. It assumes the responsibility of having to enforce the checks and balances. We kind of have the effect that if the Democrats lose, the Republicans just lay dead until for four years later, and vice versa. I think the parties must remain active at all points and times, and be able to demand equal time for the purpose of creating structures of accountability. I'm suggesting that poor people and persons who feel alienated and who may not be so poor, who want greater accountability out of government, must organize statewide organizations. Persons interested in education must assume the responsibility of watching the state board of education, day in and day out. Persons interested in medicine must assume the responsibility of watching AMA and HEW, day in and day out, and right on down in every level of government.
It is that level of people responsibility that will allow elected officials to know that somebody is overlooking their shoulder. So when those of us who vote or don't vote do not accept the notion of eternal vigilance, then the non-work of good people lays the groundwork for the misdeeds of evil people. And that is really what we mean by shadow government.
Q: Please comment on Charles Evers' endorsement of George Wallace for vice president. And why did less than 50 percent of the black voters in Georgia go to the polls in the last election? You can dispute any of these facts.
A: Oh, Charles Evers on endorsing George Wallace for vice president or saying that he could. My position is Brother J. Miller very constitutional. On the other hand, it's moral. But it's constitutional that he had the right to endorse George Wallace, but morally it doesn't make him right because he endorses George Wallace. Furthermore, I think that position is a very unrepresentative position. I think that the press tried to impose his announcement and Mr. Ford's on the rest of the nation. Neither the Urban League nor the NAACP nor any established civil rights organization neither used the congressional black caucus, nor any mayor from any major city in America, neither any church nor any fraternal order has followed suit, but there has been an attempt to magnify that very personal position.
Very frankly, I do not think that the relationship between Evers and Wallace is the case as much as it is, in Evers and some others, are very akin to the Kennedys. And some people are trying to make a Kennedy-Wallace ticket palatable. So if some forces in the black community can make the rest of us buy George Wallace, then Kennedy would be virtually assured of a kind of shoe-in. But I think that the one thing we have learned from the present administration is that we cannot sacrifice character and reputation and symbolism for expediency.
Why did less than 50 percent of the black voters in Georgia go to the polls in the last election? I do not know whether or not that statement is true, but it could very well be. There's an awful great amount of voter apathy around the nation, and there's always a relationship between voter turnout and stimulation and motivation in a given campaign. I do know that in the mayor's election in Georgia, more than 50 percent of the people turned out.
Q: How are you and Mayor Daley getting along, and is Chicago still a good location in which to base your activity?
A: The mayor and I get along just fine. He's moving to a jail and I'm moving towards freedom. All of the people close to him are being indicted and convicted, and they call that cronyism in Chicago. And his sons are up before the grand jury for having gotten insurance tests rigged, and they have major insurance contracts from the city over which the mayor presides, and that's called nepotism. Plus a few weeks ago he had a stroke and has been ill for some weeks now. So we get along just fine.
On the other hand, we are going to run a black man for mayor in Chicago in 1975, and that's where we intend to create an alternative for that kind of conduct. Chicago is absolutely a good base for our operation, because it's the job of doctors to hang around sick people and not well people.
Q: A number of questions regarding the impeachment. One, your feelings on impeachment. Question: Has the House Judiciary Committee been too partisan in your view? And last, in light of our need for a rebirth of spirit, how do you perceive the public proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee, and would televising legislating proceedings generally assist that rebirth?
A: Now on the first question, my feeling about impeachment is that the proceedings ought to continue. I think personally that the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming until, if the president had the interest of the nation at heart rather than his own personal ego, then he would have resigned and spared the nation of the agony. But inasmuch as he has too much personally at stake to make that kind of statesmanlike move, the nation has the obligation to proceed with being true to a judiciary system that makes allowances for impeachment. I do not think that the Judiciary Committee has been too partisan. There were several bipartisan votes, and I would certainly hope that, as opposed to reacting and joining sides for or against, our commitment to justice would overwhelm our very partisan considerations. There are some persons in the room who voted for President Nixon, and don't feel shame or feel embarrassed, just regret that you did it and thank God for having the chance to vote for somebody else again. All of us have made mistakes, sinned, come short of the glory of God. We certainly have come short, feel very short of the glory this time.
I think that when the Supreme Court justice was impeached a few years ago, that the fundamental issue was not just a detailed article, but the sum total of the articles, and the overlapping was it brought shame and disgrace to the courts. So at a moral level, I am as concerned about the sum total of the effect of the president's conduct as I am about any particular article. And as I said a few minutes ago before getting up here, that which frightens me the most today is that as president, Mr. Nixon is in trouble, in trouble with the House, he's in trouble with the Senate, he's in trouble with the courts, he's in trouble with the people. But as commander in chief he is not in trouble. He has a general for his chief of staff. When two admirals went insubordinate, as opposed to court marshaling them, he promoted them. The Pentagon has gotten everything it has wanted. When other budgets have been cut back, the Pentagon's budget has been increased. He finds great favor between Mr. [Alexander] Haig and the Pentagon. And in the name of national security it is not inconceivable to me that before Mr. Nixon walks down the corridors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in ignominious shame and defeat, that he will put us under some kind of martial law, and only eternal vigilance, honesty and an open mind can let us see the negative possibility as well as the positive obligation.
Q: A sobering answer. Dr. Jesse Jackson, executive director, People United to Save Humanity, we have time but for one more question, and at the conclusion of your answer this meeting will stand adjourned. However, before asking it, on behalf of the thousands of members of The Commonwealth Club of California, many of whom are gathered here in the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco to listen to you, and many more of whom will be listening over the radio network, we want to thank you very much for your very stimulating and enlightening speech and your answers to these many questions.
The last question comes in two parts: Is there a viable black candidate for president in 1976, and does Shirley Chisholm have a political future?
A: Well, the answer about Shirley Chisholm is that she does have a political future. She is a congresswoman now, and there's evidence that as long as she runs with her present stance that she will be reelected, and probably would be considered for political offices that entail much more responsibility, except that she is limited by race and sex in a society that penalizes people for being female and being black or brown.
Is there a viable black candidate for president or vice president? There are many viable candidates, black, for president. Edward Brooks, on the Republican side, is as capable as any man living in America this day to be president. On the other side we have distinguished persons such as Bill Clay from Missouri, a credible man with a good record. We have men like Congressman Charlie Rangel, men like Congressman Lou Stokes, men like Mayor Richard Hatcher, or up and coming persons like Julian Vaughn and Vernon Jordan. And the only reason why sharing their name borders on the absurd...it is not because of them, but it is the qualifications that we put upon the candidates of this country. One must be quite middle-aged and rich, by and large, to be president.
I would hope that in a rebirth, that in a reassessing of people in this country, that we would no longer penalize people for being born of the female sex or being born of a particular ethnic group other than white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but rather would deal in ideas, rather than race and sex.
I once heard, while growing up as a child in South Carolina, that little people talk about other people. They're always describing the kind of clothes they wear, the kind of house they live in, the kind of conversation they engage in. Middle-sized people talk about things and places, always dropping names about the places they have been and the things they saw and the clothes they wore. But big people talk about ideas and rise above other people's personal problems and places they have been so as to make other people feel little. They deal in ideas. And there is a certain spirit in Los Angeles, now relative to a Tom Bradley being mayor, a man who is perfectly capable of being president. For among other things in a civilizational crisis, a Tom Bradley has the capacity to look at the whole American house and draw unto him without contempt or resentment America's young people, America's Chicano people, America's Latinos, America's black people, America's white people. He has the capacity to dispense justice without regard to race, color or creed.
And if, indeed, we are sick - and in my judgment we are - we no longer have the option of choosing the race or the sex of a doctor, but whoever is available and has America at heart must be allowed to lead. We can no longer punish a Hank Aaron and not allow him to play baseball because he is a black man. We can no longer persecute the Percy Julians, the scientists, and not allow them to express their scientific genius because they are black. We can no longer punish and ignore the genius and the sheer commitment of a Cesar Chavez because he's Chicano and poor. Rather at this period, the American house with its many rooms must rally to a father figure that has the capacity to love and respect and regard all of the children of that household. Thank you.
Generously funded by:
Tom Campbell
Dee Dee Myers