This paradigm prevails, as the allocation of capital to any particular group necessitates the removal of resources from another; creating a circumstance where by the politician is forced to make a calculated determination as to the ultimate political toll he or she may incur as a result of maneuvering within the confines of this precarious arrangement. In light of this reality, only those groups that not only demonstrate the capacity but also the unequivocal resolve to inflict considerable harm to the political standing of the elected official will witness the entertaining of its interests.
In exercising the inherent power encapsulated in this principle, clear delineations with respect to the relationship between the leader as "perpetual agitator" and the governing body as the "target" of this activity must remain perpetually fixed.
Leadership that functions to the extent the would be "agitator" compromises this position by aligning him or herself with the politician in assuming the role of "quasi-advisor" or "aid" to the elected official - a position Sharpton has conceivably embraced within the Obama Administration -has not the leverage to effectively extract from a government what is needed for the people he or she represents.
A purported emancipator who positions him or herself in such a manner cannot truly serve the full interests of the people, as the individual's duplicitous station as "Freedom Fighter" and government operative constitutes an inherent conflict of interest. In such an instance the leader's loyalties are divided between the political figure and the group he or she directs.
The authentic leader - as was the case with respect to both Dr. King and Malcolm X - forges no such relations with nationally elected officials, as such a leader understands, his or her primary function is to inspire political fear among the members of this circle, thus creating the conditions under which the leader's followers may realize their collective ambitions. It was such a relationship between the African-American leadership of the sixties and the elected officials of that time which assisted in ensuring the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A leader's adoption of the position of "political aid" to an elected official representing the very institution that must be lobbied if greater dimensions of social justice are to be procured for a people, suggests that perhaps the interests of that individual lies not squarely with those he or she represents but rather in another area.
An organization's capacity - irrespective of its declared mission - to bring into existence the conditions its members wish to realize is in some measure predicated on the financial status the institution holds. However, while a movement must be supported monetarily, the head of such a campaign must not be a pronounced capitalist. A leader operating under the dual role of "liberator" and ardent capitalist invariably permits his or her desire to experience financial gain to trump the impetus to impose those measures upon the ruling class that would help to ensure the social elevation of his or her followers. The leader in this instance simply works stealthily to realize his or her own financial interests - very often through dealings involving the individual's supposed adversaries - in the name of the cause to which the individual claims to serve.
While Dr. King and Malcolm X understood the need for and practical application of financial resources within the context of a protracted struggle against institutional forces, seemingly in endless supply of such capital, neither leader's legacy bespeaks an ethos wherein financial impropriety resides.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
