My grandparents have long passed on, but they had dreams for us. Although none of our lives are easy or perfect, we have followed path of achievement they told us was possible. This is the American Dream, of course, plus the African-American legacy known as striving. “Striver’s Row” in Harlem, for example, is named for the upwardly-mobile African-Americans who put their cultural stamp on the neighborhood. Harlem has seen a resurgence (not solely among Black residents). But many neighborhoods across America, like the one where my mother lives, have been battered by the economy and the housing crisis.

Next door to my mom’s house is a sad, burnt-out shell of a home. To our relief, it’s scheduled for demolition. (I’ve written more about it here.) As opposed to the well-kept brownstones of Striver’s Row, my mother’s neighborhood probably has more in common with many communities — black and non-black — in our volatile times. The community includes the house-proud and the derelict, unlike previous years where most if not all people lifted themselves to high standards. Of course there are people who are bad actors, but mainly it’s a reflection of people being dealt a bad economic hand.

Nationally, Occupy Wall Street emerged with force, if not always clarity, precisely because so many of us saw our communities, families, and lives going from everyday struggle to outright trauma. The trillion dollar question is: how do we right this ship? And that’s where we get into tricky territory. Last night, our Thanksgiving dinner ended with a bitter fight over how to deal with the problems facing the community. The specifics of the fight were about what happens in Baltimore, but of course the issues apply on a national level. How do you encourage good actors and justly (but not unfairly or hyper-reactively) fight crime? How do you encourage sustainable communities, jobs and enterprise? How do you re-create the American Dream from the American Nightmare?

My family, like many, includes people of varied and sometimes opposing political views. But underneath our self-identification and labels, we have a common goal of making life better. Take my cousin, who was at home out West last night, not in Baltimore. She’s around my age, and has a husband and two kids in grade school. This summer, they all went on an epic road trip. They camped, went fishing, and got their car towed in Philadelphia. Then they stayed with me, and learned that in New York, life comes in small packages. We all squeezed into my apartment and went out to the Brooklyn Museum late at night on First Saturday to see the mummies.

One day, my cousin was talking about raising the kids right; looking out for education and the economy; and mentioned a few times that she saw society from her perspective “as a conservative.” But what she was speaking about didn’t sound to me like conservatism as much as good common sense.

The issues we’re facing in America today are bigger than politics. We’re seeing, and experiencing, a permanent shift in labor patterns that will leave more people episodically employed. For many people out of work today, or even those in the factory or office, the road ahead will be making a quilt of different paying gigs versus having the security blanket of one long-term job with benefits. Long-term labor shifts are changing and will continue to affect our tax rolls, schools, and even our physical and mental health.

The game has changed. As my uncle put it: “I used to feel like I could switch jobs at any minute, because I had confidence that I could learn anything and there would be jobs out there.” He was proven right again and again, working at everything from being a Marine to a fine artist to a telephone lineman to a computer programmer. But today, his kids and so many others face a job market where mobility is trending downward rather than up; where cold job applications meet silence; and where more aggressive means of connecting with work (putting your own portfolio online; networking via Meetup and local groups) absolutely have to be employed.

Our family’s political disagreements mirror those on a national level. That said, we are still striving — still working to make our lives and our communities better. I see more success on the local level than the national in defining how we’re going to move ahead. In my mother’s neighborhood, for example, six years of community action finally produced the funding and plan for a business district redevelopment. We can rise; we can succeed; and we can produce new opportunities. On a good day, I believe that without reservation. Even on a bad day, I believe it can happen in time… if we make it so.

Producer Suzie Lechtenberg at Gainesville, FL, interfaith forum

Traveling through America as I have been for our elections project, I cannot help but look at America in military metaphors, as a soldier who has served a tour of duty and, even amid a momentary respite, cannot help but wonder if rotations to the field will continue indefinitely. The battles are economic, on one level. Jobs and the economy remain the top issues. Neighborhoods rocked by foreclosures are sometimes finding a new equilibrium– even if that equilibrium means learning to live with one or two abandoned houses on a once-full block. America has survived the dizzying economic crash of 2008, but we remain ready to fight for an American Dream that sometimes we can’t even define.

This fall I’ve been able to realize a dream of my own, to put together a team of multimedia journalists to go out and explore America in a time of heavy hearts and stifled aspirations. The project is housed at and shepherded by WNYC with help from American Public Media. Our Pop and Politics midterm election specials will air in October and November, but we are doing the reporting now. Having gone out in Florida, we’re preparing to head to Arizona next.

Florida was full-on. We got to LaGuardia airport in New York at four AM and before 11am we were on the ground in Miami, interviewing the head of Take Back the Land, an organization that places families without homes in abandoned homes. Of course, they do so without the permission of authorities, banks, or many other people. As Max Rameau of TBTL outlined it, the one group of people they did consult was neighbors, many of whom would rather have a formerly homeless family on their block than a place that got broken into or stripped.

We spoke with people whose lives were various refractions of the housing crisis… Ruby, who poured her retirement savings into fixing a home she may lose to foreclosure; and Peter Zalewski, who left the world of business journalism to mine profits from the housing crisis. Now he buys up to 700 “distressed units” at a time, and sells them to buyers at a cost above what he paid the banks, but below market. Among the memorable things he said was that he would love to open the borders wide… that the more non-Americans we had coming in, the better, because they were buying the homes Americans could no longer afford.

Our journeys took us to Gainesville, a college town where a threatened Koran burning turned into a media circus with an upside… an interfaith gathering that brought together people of many backgrounds. We also got to visit Tallevast, a small black town dying a slow death from toxins leached from a plant. Cassandra, below, has given us her perspective as the unofficial town historian.

Some of this material is here on our website already, but all of it will be on our radio shows. It’s hard to run full tilt doing the reporting and to process it at the same time — to process it for broadcast or process it emotionally. This country is in deep, deep cotton. But the people we meet have spirit and heart.

And then after Florida our team returned to New York, and were swept back into the alternate reality of this massive city. New York has certain advantages in this time of need. Because the city is so dense and housing is so scarce, there are fewer abandoned properties than there might be in other cities experiencing the turbulence. It’s not to say New York isn’t hurting, just that the way we are hurting is the way we live: tough, smart, and wise to the game. As I walked through the tony TriBeCa neighborhood in New York, past the actor Harvey Keitel, I took note of the number of empty stores and offices… huge ones. Six thousand square feet! crowed one banner ad across a grimy glass window. (In New York, a single or couple might well live in a place closer to six hundred square feet.)

The trickle-down anxiety of our historical moment affects everything, from how and where we live to our worship and our very life and breath. I look forward to sharing more soon.

A few paragraphs from the President’s prepared remaks (full text linked here):

A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it.That is what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis. Some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement. What happens here has real consequences across our country.

…….

A comprehensive plan to achieve these reforms has passed the House of Representatives. A Senate version is currently being debated, drawing on the ideas of Democrats and Republicans. Both bills represent significant improvement on the flawed rules we have in place today, despite the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape them to their special interests. I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector. And I am here to explain what reform will look like, and why it matters.

First, the bill being considered in the Senate would create what we did not have before: a way to protect the financial system, the broader economy, and American taxpayers in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail. If an ordinary local bank approaches insolvency, we have a process through the FDIC that insures depositors and maintains confidence in the banking system. And it works. Customers and taxpayers are protected and the owners and management lose their equity. But we don’t have any kind of process designed to contain the failure of a Lehman Brothers or any of the largest and most interconnected financial firms in our country.

That’s why, when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen to some of the world’s biggest companies – companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding hundreds of billions of dollars in assets – had to take place in hurried discussions in the middle of the night. That’s why, to save the entire economy from an even worse catastrophe, we had to deploy taxpayer dollars. And although much of that money has now been paid back – and my administration has proposed a fee to be paid by large financial firms to recover the rest – the American people should never have been put in that position in the first place.

It is for this reason that we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and businesses. And from the start, I’ve insisted that the financial industry – and not taxpayers – shoulder the costs in the event that a large financial company should falter. The goal is to make certain that taxpayers are never again on the hook because a firm is deemed “too big to fail.”

Now, there is a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. But what is not legitimate is to suggest that we’re enabling or encouraging future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. That may make for a good sound bite, but it’s not factually accurate. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. Only with reform can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. A vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That’s the truth.

……

And these changes have the added benefit of creating incentives within the industry to ensure that no one company can ever threaten to bring down the whole economy. To that end, the bill would also enact what’s known as the Volcker Rule: which places some limits on the size of banks and the kinds of risks that banking institutions can take. This will not only safeguard our system against crises; this will also make our system stronger and more competitive by instilling confidence here at home and across the globe. Markets depend on that confidence. Part of what led to the turmoil of the past two years was that, in the absence of clear rules and sound practices, people did not trust that our system was one in which it was safe to invest or lend. As we’ve seen, that harms all of us. By enacting these reforms, we’ll help ensure that our financial system – and our economy – continues to be the envy of the world.

Second, reform would bring new transparency to many financial markets. As you know, part of what led to this crisis was firms like AIG and others making huge and risky bets – using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments – in ways that defied accountability, or even common sense. In fact, many practices were so opaque and complex that few within these companies – let alone those charged with oversight – were fully aware of the massive wagers being made. That’s what led Warren Buffett to describe derivatives that were bought and sold with little oversight as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” And that’s why reform will rein in excess and help ensure that these kinds of transactions take place in the light of day.

……
Third, this plan would enact the strongest consumer financial protections ever. This is absolutely necessary. Because this financial crisis wasn’t just the result of decisions made in the executive suites on Wall Street; it was also the result of decisions made around kitchen tables across America, by folks taking on mortgages and credit cards and auto loans. And while it’s true that many Americans took on financial obligations they knew – or should have known – they could not afford, millions of others were, frankly, duped. They were misled by deceptive terms and conditions, buried deep in the fine print.

It’s a line from China Mieville’s speculative fiction novel The Scar, but it could easily describe today’s politics.

President Obama has been described as a socialist and tool of banks and big business; a “racist…who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture” and someone who “hasn’t done much for their [i.e., African-Americans'] bottom line” because “so-called black leaders are much more interested in invitations to the White House…than in raising any kind of ruckus that might benefit people in real trouble.

Underlying much of the recent rhetoric is the race issue…yeah, that one, the one the President doesn’t seem to want to talk about. Some of the President’s opponents have not only asserted that he is a “racist,” but even proclaimed, ludicrously but persistently, that he is not an American citizen. (Others have brought guns to Presidential rallies, something worth mentioning only to banish the obvious thought.) In the State of the Union, the President was happy to talk about jobs (23 mentions), the economy (15 mentions), and energy (15 mentions). He did not utter the words “race,” or “racial,” and the only time he mentioned the word “Black” was in the phrase “Black Tuesday,” referring to the stock market crash of 1929.

In the Presidential race of 2008, President Obama did not truly address race head-on until the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy forced his hand… and then he delivered what is widely considered to be a brilliant, landmark speech. There has not been a corresponding moment yet in this Presidency. If there is one, it might (might) come if African-Americans urge the President to be accountable on economic equality. There has been one White House meeting on race, during the white-out of the Washington “snowpocalypse.” The players for the off-the-record event were the President, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, Marc Morial of the National Urban League, and Reverend Al Sharpton of the National Action Network. (Ninety-seven year old Dorothy Height of the National Council of Negro Women couldn’t make it because of the precipitation.)

The three invitees who were able to pass the clotted roads came out of the White House and faced the press (with, between them, one umbrella and one hat for shelter) and delivered soundbites as the snowflakes turned their dark garments pale. The event vibrated with the unspoken. Rev. Sharpton said: “We do not seek any special kind of edict … from the president because he’s African-American. We expect to be included in the process.” Yet among many African-American political junkies, the conversation was: why were these three organizations deemed to be the messengers representing black interests in the economy? Why not invite some black economists, for one? Economist Dr. Julianne Malveaux, the President of Bennett College, has been writing a series of columns deconstructing the truth behind the unemployment numbers. As she writes, having done some data analysis of the Labor Department’s own figures:

Our unemployment rate is not 9.7 percent, as the overall rate is. It is not the 16.7 percent that is officially reported. According to my own calculations, the black unemployment rate is at least 28.7 percent. Would such a rate be acceptable if “all” Americans were experiencing it?

That brings us to the Black President Trap, the one which has been lying, with serrated teeth, under the brush since before the President was elected. On the one hand, if the President is seen as appealing to African-American interests, he risks alienating white (and non-white, non-black) voters. On the other hand, if he fails to deal with the economic realities of African-Americans, he could set the stage for buyer’s remorse that prompts some people to sit out voting in the next Presidential election.

Let’s go back to the 2008 election and look at the numbers. The popular vote does not determine the Presidency, but it gives us one good metric of voting patterns. So, in 2008, then-Senator Obama got 69.5 million votes; Senator McCain 59.9 million votes. The electoral vote tally was 365 to 173.

What’s interesting is who voted in 2008 versus 2004. As the report by Project Vote put it:

Americans of color in 2008 increased by 21 percent from 2004, based on a review of exit polling and preliminary administrative data. Votes cast by Americans ages 18-29 increased by 9 percent. Votes cast by whites in 2008 declined slightly compared to 2004.

Far more African-Americans voted in this election (16.4 million) than the overall margin of victory (9.6 million)… closer than not to a two-to-one ratio. An estimated ninety-six percent of those black voters voted for Obama. A dispirited African-American electorate could seriously mess a black President’s re-election bid up.

When former Vice President Dick Cheney chortles that “President Obama is going to be a one-term President,” the first scenario that comes to my mind that could achieve that is an absence of black voters at the polls in 2012. Given the lack of credibility of the modern Republican Party in addressing African-American interests or speaking, tonally, to African-American sensibilities (and I think here of the delegates at the 1996 RNC booing General Colin Powell when he dared bring up affirmative action), I cannot envision widespread voting against President Obama if, as anticipated, he runs for re-election. I say “I cannot envision” because things regularly happen in politics that I cannot envision.

What I can envision is an America where, after years of persistent unemployment and a degradation of the quality of life in African-American communities, a lot of potential black voters in 2012 just stay home. Black voters staying home plus an uptick in non-black Americans voting Republican could produce a one-term presidency.

So, what to do? Well, the only defense against an impossible barrage of attacks from different vectors is to attack from different vectors. But the Obama administration has been caught in triage mode, trying to stanch the bleeding from wars and the economy and proposing but not yet executing new initiatives like healthcare. The administration needs to simultaneously act broadly, yet with a clarity of ethics and purpose.

Well, as my one of my friends likes to remind me, blogs are not books. So my next piece will tackle how to spring the “Black President Trap” without getting caught in it…

The idea is to ask: what’s worth more than money? In some cases, like Anna Deavere Smith, it’s mastery of craft and storytelling. In others, it’s adventure (in Antarctica!); service to people who’ve survived the civil war in Sri Lanka; or creating an urban oasis.

I’m limited by the fact that there is no travel budget, so the series has to be where I am: mainly NY, but also, in the coming weeks, DC, Baltimore, Miami, Northern and Southern California, and St. Louis.

I would LOVE suggestions for stories. Email me via the “contact” link on the top right of this website.

Here are the first four episodes of The Value.