David Paterson’s Dilemma

Black solidarity no longer trumps all.

Gus Savage is not someone who normally springs to my mind. The onetime Chicago congressman lost his seat in 1992 and quickly vanished from the national scene. But as scandal threatens to consume New York Gov. David Paterson, I find myself reflecting on Savage.
Not that Savage has much in common with Paterson. The New York governor is a charming, self-deprecating baby boomer, while Savage, born in 1925, was a raging loose cannon who excelled at the politics of racial polarization. When a young Peace Corps volunteer in then-Zaire accused Savage of fondling her and demanding sex in 1989 (a claim subsequently sustained by the House ethics committee), he denounced the woman as a traitor to the black community. He also attacked the "racist" news media for airing the allegation. In fact, whenever challenged or under attack, Savage blamed racism. The act played well enough in his South Side district that, despite a record of meager accomplishment, his constituents rallied around him time and again. For they were loath to see a strong black man brought low. He won six straight terms, beginning in 1980, and finally lost to Mel Reynolds, a Harvard-educated Rhodes scholar seen as the face of the future.
Paterson, of course, is not accused of sexually harassing anyone. He is alleged to have gone out of his way (and perhaps abused his authority in the process) to protect an aide who, some say, had a habit of manhandling women he was involved with. In another age—in Savage's age—black notables would have automatically rallied around Paterson. They would have dismissed the allegations as nothing more than propaganda from a racist establishment intent on bringing a powerful black man to his knees. That has not happened for several reasons, one being that even those who once considered themselves Paterson's intimates are not sure what to make of the situation. Given the pattern of ever more damning revelations, they are not convinced that he has been totally straight with them—and are unwilling to put themselves on the line for fear his actions may turn out to be worse than he has let on.