Okay ... I re-read this article - again - because y'all seem to understand what he is talking about. And me ... I seem to continue to end up mired in confusion about his intent.
I can't figure out if what he's talking about would be best served by a PAC, a political party, or some sort of (non-political) Black-focused committee/council/think tank/organization of 'leaders' or "Talented 10th"-type people (for lack of a better description at the moment). These are three entirely different things which would have different directions, focuses and actions ... even if the goal were essentially the same.
But I do know that "The Black Party" sounds totally inappropriate to me for whatever he's talking about ... and throws me off from really getting whatever it is he is trying to say.
I do get (what I think is) his basic premise of the need for direction, organization and mobilization .... and, of course, I couldn't agree more. But, as with the example he himself presented of the organization he tried to start (with Ron Daniels), political actions and non-political efforts cannot/should not try to be lead using the same methods. They can of course be used as a complement to one another when the time and necessity is right for them to interact ... but they need to be understood to be two different things with a focus on accomplishing their individual missions.
The diversity of thought and perspective among our people would dictate that some of us would be attracted to the different methods and directions that each type of these different organization could provide. Dividing our individual strengths and ideas among each of these different operations would, IMO, bring together he kind of strength we need to be able to harness the kind of empowerment that he's talking about.