The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which bills itself as the “conscience of the Congress,” is one of the most powerful caucuses in Congress. While many will differ on precisely what parameters translate into “powerful,” none can deny a clear element of clout and visibility the CBC has on Capitol Hill. Members of the caucus have histories of activism unparalleled by other legislators and, for nearly 50 years, they have taken unpopular stances, not only for interests of African Americans, but for the good of the entire country.
Within the 115th Congress, the CBC has a historic membership of 49 U.S. representatives and two U.S. senators. Collectively, they represent 78 million Americans comprising 24 percent of the total U.S. population. About 17 million of those constituents are African Americans who makes up 41 percent of the total U.S. African American population. In addition, the CBC represents almost a fourth of the House Democratic Caucus.
{mosads}The CBC was founded in 1971, and since that time it has pushed into the mainstream by earning seniority and serving as chairpersons or ranking members of key congressional committees, with subsequent re-elections ensured by majority-minority districts. Yet, while their voices and antics have been seemingly effective throughout the years, their efficacy in furthering the substantive and enduring legislative goals of their largely African American constituency has been questioned.
This month, according to Politico, four sources close to the Congressional Black Caucus have said the group feels that President Trump has done nothing to help advance their goals since the executive board met with him back in March. Therefore, they don’t believe meeting with him now would amount to much more than a photo-op for the president. This rationale is at best questionable.
First, did the Congressional Black Caucus earnestly expect President Trump to advance its goals? Second, what led the officers of the CBC to believe that Trump would take their causes seriously? Third, is Trump’s demeanor sufficient reason to decline meeting with the president of the Unites States?
I suppose one can reasonably understand the CBC’s position for not meeting with President Trump, given his “skinny” budget proposal cuts to many programs championed by CBC members and their constituents, his opposition to ObamaCare and to many more programs, and his penchant for bending the truth. However, this still leaves me with my first point.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon refused to meet with the CBC and, upset by that refusal, the caucus publicly boycotted the State of the Union address that year. That action subsequently led to Nixon agreeing to meet with the caucus. Since that time, the CBC has masterfully used such tactics to gain national attention, obtain high level meetings, and raise the conscience of the country.
Yet, this current refusal to continue to meet with President Trump is perplexing, as members of the caucus must resolve critical issues, including imbalances in the criminal justice system, discriminatory voter suppression, affordable healthcare and elimination of racial health disparities, promotion of U.S. foreign policy initiatives in Africa and other countries, expansion of access to pre-kindergarten through post-secondary education, and increasing support for historically black colleges and universities.
The question thus begs, what then, is the strategy in this Trump era? The CBC must continue to be engaged, above all. It certainly has dealt with Republican presidents before, yet this administration seems to present some impasse. Many liberals and some African Americans will suggest that another meeting with the president is futile. But imagine if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders had refused to meet with President Johnson for a second, third, and fourth time?
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently wrote a letter to President Trump, saying, “The CBC, and the millions of people we represent, have a lot to lose under your administration.” Richmond continued, “I fail to see how a social gathering would benefit the policies we advocate for.” But in my view, the caucus needs a gathering with Trump to discuss, debate, and vocalize its issues.
Dealing with this White House and administration may be a challenge, but it is no excuse not to meet. Dare I say, it is their duty to meet with the president and to continue the good fight for the districts and communities they represent because Rep. Richmond is correct — the millions of people they represent have a lot to lose.
Working with this White House is not easy, but not engaging on behalf of fragile communities is more painful to the communities that the Congressional Black Caucus represents. Perhaps this is a strategy to give up Beltway politics and endorse a more grassroots progressive activism. But I doubt it, and it won’t work.
Cynicism aside, the Congressional Black Caucus is essential. Its voice in the legislative process is critical, and many of its constituents living on the margins find solace in that voice. As former Rep. William Clay Sr. (D-Mo.) declared when the CBC was founded, “Black people have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies…just permanent interests.” Even in this Trump era, the caucus must live by this edict.
Quardricos Bernard Driskell is a healthcare lobbyist with 10 years of government relations experience. He is an adjunct professor of religion and politics at the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management. Follow him on Twitter @Q_Driskell4.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.