Chess vs. Checkers

There are voices, among them a group of African-American pastors representing 34,000 churches, that are not happy with President Obama's choice of Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. My question to them is simple: are you playing chess or checkers, cuz it looks to me like President Obama is busy at chess while y'all are playing checkers. Worse yet, y'all ain't snatch a single piece from your opponent yet, far less get a king. And you trying to talk about the Prez's game? Please!

The National Black Church Initiative, is a group representing 15 denominations and some 15.7 million congregants. Rev Anthony Evans, the organization's leader, expressed disappointment in the nomination, saying “President Obama has intellectually assaulted the collective Black psyche with his pick of another White male who he believes is qualified.  Obama continues overlook qualified, and indeed overly qualified, African American women jurists to serve in the nation’s highest court. This comes despite the fact that African American women have consistently supported him in office" Emphasis mine. [The entire article can be seen here.]

While I certainly understand the frustration, I think the criticism is a little overblown. Obama "intellectually assaulted the collective Black psyche"? Really? That's where we're going with this? I really have to ask: where were these pastors and their millions of congregants (sometimes known as voters) when the President needed them in 2010 and 2014? If we had the President's back so hard, why we ain't show up to vote in the midterms so that he could retain the majority in the Senate and House? Maybe, just maybe, if we had showed up, he'd have the power now to get a more solidly liberal jurist on the bench. While we were playing checkers and worrying about what our next move would be, the president was thinking five or six moves ahead. He knew this was a possibility. We should have too. I guess he should have reminded us in the run up to '10 and again in the run up to '14. But why should he have to? This is our democracy. We know what's at stake. None of this is new. Why somebody gotta tell us what is on the table? It's Thanksgiving. We know the meat is going to be turkey. Well, it's election season, the Supreme Court is in the balance. Take it as a given, like the turkey and the dang green beans. 

As people of color, we are entirely too comfortable making demands of President Obama. What demands do we make of ourselves though? Where were we when the president needed majorities retained in Congress? Did we show up in large numbers or did we, as Democrats are wont to do in off years, stay home eating popcorn hoping someone else would show up and get it done? Who were we waiting for? Godot? He's not coming!

Voting in presidential years is great but the president can do nothing alone. That's how this democracy business works. There are three branches of government which ensures that he/she is unable to act unilaterally. That's a good thing - keeps tyranny at bay I hear - but it means that we have to show up. Every time. 

Without a solid majority or a workable minority and some crossover support, the president is wholly at the mercy of his/her opposition. When we failed to show up at the polls, we left 'our guy' twisting in the wind. I would have thought that the outcome of the 2010 election and the subsequent gridlock would have taught us something. Ha! 2014 rolled around and we did the same darn thing!

We claimed to want what the president was selling, but when the time came to buy, we failed to place an order. How exactly did we think the president was going to deliver if he didn't have the requisite votes? And now we rage when he selects a nominee for SCOTUS who might pass muster with the raging right? What else is he to do, pick someone they can reject out of hand? That's what you do when you're playing checkers folks. The prez is playing chess, so he picks someone many of the Senators have already found more than capable and practically dares them to reject him. Now he can turn to the population and say, "Well, I tried. Maybe they are as unreasonable as you've come to believe."

As for the left, if we don't like Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court that is just too darn bad. Did we vote? Did we call a friend about voting? Did we talk to anybody about GOTV activities? And as far as these pastors are concerned, did they remind their 15.7 million congregants that voting is a solemn responsibility? Did they remind folk of the promises still to be kept? If the answers to these questions are no, no, no and no then please, just hush up. I feel your pain, but I ain't feeling your anger. You ain't earned it. You've got to show up or shut up. That's how it works. You don't get to complain if you didn't do your part trying to affect the outcome.

And setting aside our talk of SCOTUS for a moment, can we just look at the lower court for a second? While we were sleeping, the president has been working assiduously at the business of making the lower courts look more like America. I know! I know! Lower court appointments are neither as visible nor nearly as sexy as a SCOTUS spot, but we do what we can, when and where we can. President Chess Master has done precisely that. Given that most cases never see the inside of the Supreme Court, maybe we're better off with lower court appointments where most of our cases will actually be heard? SCOTUS is nice, but many a consequential decision comes out of those lower courts.

SCOTUS hears about one percent of the cases that apply for hearing. One percent. So if we're more concerned about how seeing a familiar brown face on the bench than we are about the look of the lower court where we are more likely to be heard, we're definitely playing checkers when the president is valiantly trying to teach us how to play chess.

I'm with the President. I wanna play chess. Maybe I'm not ready for Kasparov but at least I'm playing the right game.