Wes Moore’s veto of the Maryland reparations commission bill is counter revolutionary

From Our Perspective, Political Analysis

May 26, 2025

Dayvon Love

Director of Public Policy
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle

Gov. Wes Moore’s stated rationale for vetoing SB 587, which would have established a commission to study the viability of and methodology for implementing a reparations policy in Maryland, is that he believes that we don’t need to do any more studies and should take action instead. I agree with that, but my organization presented a reparations proposal to the administration in the summer of 2024 and I was told that the budget deficit would make any move on distribution of resources via a reparations policy a nonviable political option.

The study bill was a compromise based on their feedback about pursuing the kind of bold action that the governor says he wants to enact. The commission would have concrete recommendations for the development of reparations policies in Maryland that would be helpful in pursuing the action that the governor says he supports.

The work that needs to be done in the reparations movement is developing a plan for how to operationalize a reparations policy. It is not as simple as handing out checks. Questions of land/property acquisition, development and investment in Black community-controlled financial institutions and deciding the best mechanisms for the distribution of cash compensation are the types of reparations endeavors that require precise planning and strategy that the commission would be instrumental in figuring out.

At this point, the ball is in his court to offer reparations policies and work with the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland and organizations like my own (Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle) to successfully implement them. Quite frankly, his political integrity and standing amongst the masses of Black people is dependent on whether or not he follows through with his commitment stated in his rationale for vetoing the bill. Meanwhile, we need to urge the Legislative Black Caucus to lead the charge to override the veto in case the governor does not live up to the commitment he has made to take action now.

In Governor Moore’s veto letter he says that his administration has brought a culture of repair and listed some of the administration’s initiatives as evidence of this. He mentions the increase in procurement dollars from state government to Black businesses, support for Black homeownership, increased funding for HBCUs and his administration’s mass pardons for cannabis possession charges. While these are good policy positions, they don’t address the scale and structures of White supremacist violence that reparations policies would address. Additionally, none of these policies were couched in terms of reparations when they were implemented. I believe the governor is committed to advancing policy that is good for Black people. I also believe that he is aware of the way that reparations is generally negatively perceived by White people.

Historical narratives of Black social movements often, erroneously, emphasize efforts to appeal to the benevolence of sympathetic White people. The societal focus on the aspects of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s work that engaged in appeals to White people’s moral consciousness clouds our collective understanding of the work that was most effective in producing any progress that Black people have made. The reality is that the basis of Black people’s capacity for our collective advancement has been militant political and revolutionary activity, rooted in the development of Black sovereignty.

The victory of Black people during the Haitian Revolution against the French and other colonial powers to gain independence inspired armed rebellions of enslaved Africans in the U.S., including Nat Turner, Denmark Vessey and Gabriel Prosser. This combined with Black people’s collective decision to participate as soldiers in the Union Army during the Civil War (that was losing to the Confederate Army up until that point) are the foundational actions taken by Black people that led to the end of chattel slavery.

Dominant historical narratives emphasize stories of an abolitionist movement with sympathetic White people as the basis for ending chattel slavery. While it is true that there were some White people that made meaningful contributions to the pursuit of Black freedom, it is the militant and revolutionary activities that I mentioned earlier that produced political pressure. That pressure was needed to force the American social order to see the end of chattel slavery as a worthwhile concession in the face of the prospect of the destruction of the American social order by militant rebellion.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed for Black people to have greater access to the American mainstream. It was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had an ideological diverse set of proponents, many of whom were revolutionary Black nationalists that believed that seizing power was more important than changing the minds and hearts of White people. To the extent that Black people have political power to pose a threat to the status quo it is through increased access to electoral power made possible by the Voting Rights Act.

Former President Obama and Gov. Wes Moore represent a theory of change that makes appeals to the White supremacist plantation structure of this society central to their strategy for delivering results to our community. In essence, making a more comfortable plantation instead of seeking to destroy the fundamental inequitable structure of this society.

The recent decision by Moore to veto the reparations bill demonstrates the limits of this theory of change. No matter how decent, bright or accomplished a major Black political figure is, if that person is operating from a theory of change that relies on garnering White mainstream support, policy proposals like reparations will never be viable, hence the veto.

I think our community learned the lesson we needed to learn from the Obama presidency, that Black faces in high places does not equate to progress for our community. Especially if that Black face is not committed to militant, revolutionary political warfare against the American plantation. In fact, those Black faces are prone to be counter revolutionary forces in our community.

Wes Moore’s veto of the Maryland reparations commission bill is counter revolutionary

Dayvon Love

Like this post? Share on Social Media

BECOME A SUSTAINER

Stay Connected With LBS