Washington Watch
This week, I traveled to Chicago for a two-day reunion of Jesse Jackson’s historic 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns. I was invited to speak on unique contributions he made to America’s foreign policy debates.
What made Jackson different wasn’t just that he was a Black candidate running for president. Rather it was the way he saw the world and the US role in the world.
Jackson was a product of his times, coming of age during a period of profound change in the consciousness of Black Americans. The civil rights movement had created a powerful dynamic of self-liberation. Mass demonstrations and political organization led to passage of impactful legislation promoting civil rights, open housing, and voting rights. Jackson’s campaigns sought to build on these successes by focusing on voter registration and mobilization.
His goal in 1984 was to dramatically increase the number of Black voters across the South and in Northern cities, laying the groundwork to enhance the prospects of Black candidates’ winning elections on the state and local levels. Within a few years’ time, his work bore fruit with Black candidates winning in key races in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia. His efforts also led to Democrats winning six Senate seats in Southern states allowing them to take control of the Senate in 1987. These successes were largely due to the increases in Black voter turnout.
Jackson’s role in shaping the discussion of foreign policy was no less consequential. To understand this, once again, Jackson must be understood in the context of the era in which he was operating.
We were in the midst of the Cold War, which helped define the thinking of many Black Americans. First and foremost, the Vietnam War and its consequences loomed large. Not only was that war disproportionately taking the lives of young poor Black men, who were less able to secure deferments from military service than wealthier young white men. The war also diverted political attention and drained resources from implementing the very civil rights and anti-poverty programmes that the movement had worked so hard to achieve.
This era was also defined by the anti-colonial, “national liberation” struggles in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and, as part of this, the emergence of the non-aligned movement.
These international developments had a powerful impact on shaping the thinking of young Black activists and intellectuals. They saw the connections between their fight against racial oppression at home and the anti-imperialist movements struggling for freedom overseas. It awakened in them a global consciousness that manifested itself in a new cultural identity movement, including an embrace of their African roots and heritage.
While some Black leaders stayed narrowly focused on domestic civil rights concerns, others went full tilt into Cultural Nationalism and identification with anti-colonial struggles. Jackson took a different path. Instead of striking out against “the system,” as other more militant figures had done, he sought to transform the nation’s political culture. He uniquely fused two threads: bringing a new global consciousness into mainstream discourse and connecting it to the civil rights concerns at home. The impact was real.
Because, as he would say, the vast majority of the world’s people weren’t prosperous, white, male, and didn’t speak English, he called for a new foreign policy that recognized the humanity and needs of all. The principles he advanced were: respect for international law and human rights; an end to double standards; support for the self-determination of oppressed and colonized peoples; and investment in economic and human development.
Just a decade and a half after Dr. Martin Luther King had been upbraided for not “staying in his lane” by criticizing the Vietnam War, Jackson and leaders of King’s organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, traveled to Beirut to meet with the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, and denounce the US “no talk” policy with Palestinian leadership. And they spoke with moral authority against Apartheid in South Africa, discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland, and US support for oppressive military regimes in Latin America.
Jackson went further, connecting the mistaken priorities of US foreign policy with neglected domestic needs and the changes taking place in the world. While most Democrats limited their vision of foreign policy to safe areas of discussion: Soviet Union bad, Iran bad, NATO good, Israel good, or staying just one step behind Republicans on issues of security and military expenditures, Jackson’s view of the USA’s and his own role in the world was far more expansive. He traveled to Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa—challenging accepted norms, promoting peace, negotiating prisoner releases, and advancing good will. He understood that, in the end, security wasn’t guaranteed by who had the most bombs, but by working to alleviate injustice and deprivation. When I accompanied him, I could see that he was as at home in Cairo, Kuwait, or Jerusalem as he was in the neighborhoods of Chicago or the impoverished towns of Appalachia.
Because, as he would say, the vast majority of the world’s people weren’t prosperous, white, male, and didn’t speak English, he called for a new foreign policy that recognized the humanity and needs of all. The principles he advanced were: respect for international law and human rights; an end to double standards; support for the self-determination of oppressed and colonized peoples; and investment in economic and human development.
In all of his work, he never struck a note of bitterness or anger. Instead, he presented a principled commitment to justice and peace. This moral challenge and global consciousness made—and still makes—Jesse Jackson‘s contribution unique.
Some excerpts from a speech Jackson delivered in 1979 to the Palestine Human Rights Campaign:
“America must make a radical shift from merely using our military might to be the world’s policeman…Guns are only tangentially attached to formulas for world peace and justice.
“Our nation’s attitude must shift from ‘superiority over’ to ‘equivalency with’…If we must be superior, it must be in productivity and compassion…it must not be in contempt for other people, whether a particular race, religion, or economic class.”
“The foreign policy contribution of Blacks may, paradoxically, be our finest contribution…we were brought here as slaves against our will…[and this] will allow us to identify with the pain and suffering of others around the world and give us a special kinship with and amongst the oppressed of the earth. We are saying to America: Let us, as a nation, join the human family.”
