How is it that Black mayors in St. Louis don’t get a second chance to course-correct while mediocre white mayors get multiple chances.

The first two Black mayors were male. Freeman Bosley, Jr. and Clarence Harmon were both one-termers, both allegedly cursed. Two quite different administrations, yet the outcome was the same. How is it that Black mayors in St. Louis don’t get a second chance to course-correct while mediocre white mayors get multiple chances. I’m thinking about Vince Schoemehl who was given three chances and Francis Slay who received four chances. These two hardly went down in history as the greatest mayors.

A contrasting, curse-free picture of Black mayors exists down the highway where all mayors face term limits, regardless of race or gender. Kansas City elected its first Black mayor in 1991—Emmanuel Cleaver. Then came Sly James followed by Quinton Lucas, the youngest mayor to hold that office at 35 years old, who is halfway into his second term. All three are quite different people running different kinds of administrations. While the city has its share of urban challenges, it has continued to grow and flourish. Kansas City is now the largest city in the state, while St. Louis loses population.

This scenario should intrigue any critically thinking person. What’s even more intriguing is the two cities’ demographics. In Kansas City, whites are about 55 percent of the population and Black folks are a little over 25 percent. St. Louis is predominantly people of color with whites hovering at 46 percent.

What the white, corporate and civic power structure in St. Louis has successfully done is to create a false narrative about Black leadership that is persistently negative. The white, mainstream media is eager to amplify any mistakes, magnify missteps and lie if necessary.

The conclusion will always be that Black people are incapable of leading. It must be genetics because look, they can’t hold office beyond one term. It is a racist narrative that both whites and Black people will internalize, then start to parrot as fact, because it’s been beaten into their psyche for years.

The difference between St. Louis and Kansas City is not so much about bad, Black leadership but more a lack of a forward-thinking vision by the white establishment. A refusal to share power. A refusal to be held accountable by non-whites. A refusal to step beyond the southern, patriarchal structure that acknowledges the rights and liberties of all–regardless of race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

This is why the country is in the take-back mode, rolling back the laws and policies that respect and protect all human beings. St. Louis is happy to jump on the MAGA bandwagon that goes backwards. Take back the police department, take back women’s right to choose, take back livable wages, take back the freedom of a wrongfully convicted Black man. Take, take, take.

Once you look at the situation from all angles, then it becomes painfully clear where Missouri is trying to go with the upcoming mayoral election. It’s the place where Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney took us in the Dred and Harriett Scott decision. Black people are “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”  We can see from the current attitudes, practices and laws that women are also included in the no-respect category.

The St. Louis General Election on April 8 is a consequential one, but we should not be myopic in our views. It’s not just about one mayor. We have to change the political, economic and social factors that shapes the city’s soul, its life force. Please join me in refusing to go back to 1857.