Today I was in a meeting when my mind wondered and then an interesting thought came to me.
I keep harping on the fact that public "Black conservative" commentators, present mostly negative about the Black community and hardly ever anything positive.
In doing so, there is always the tearing down of "Black leaders" and it seems to go hand in hand with the effort to "build themselves" up.
From the bits and pieces I saw of Tavis Smiley's "Black Summit", it appeared to be more of an affirmation of what can be done. From what I saw of Jesse Lee Peterson's summit on CSPAN, it was nothing but a full frontal attack on "Black leadership". In fact, one Black conservative noted the "attack mode".
Just recently I attended a “Black Conservative” forum in Washington, D.C.. I was expecting or really hoping for inspiration, some direction and good networking opportunities. As I sat, watched & listened I was disappointed as I saw “Brothers” that I highly respect slump to what I considered to be pitiful mediocrity. It would be one thing if this were a unique instance, but on a regular basis now I am seeing black conservatives become something that I do not find particularly attractive. And I know that if I am struggling with it, those outside the fold are finding it even harder to want to join us.I believe that it might be a case of abused child syndrome. You have a child raised in a home where one or both parents are alcoholics, and abusive. The child grows up swearing it will never grow up to be like that, then fast forward 20-30 years and they have become exactly what they hated. Black conservatives appear to be headed in that direction.
[Side note 1: Alvin Williams didn't show up for the event. This caused Jesse Lee Peterson to call the man many names, none of which dealt with being a child of God.
Side note 2: I have an "internet history" with the commentator that I referenced and it is not pretty. In the past I've found him to be intellectually dishonest. He was a member of the "Black conservative" email list that I was on. ]
Cobb, who I have much respect for, has stated that he attacks the NAACP because they "suck the air out of the room".
I disagree. They provide nothing to public discourse. For example, they provide no new information on vouchers and they sway no opinions on the matter. They don't suck up the air. They are inert.
But my wandering mind brought to light something of which I have a strong dislike: Building yourself up by tearing down someone or something else.
Then, temple3 stated something that I have been mulling over for some time now. If "Black conservatives" have not been able to sway more people in their direction, maybe it is because they "tear down" others to "raise themselves up".
I've noticed that liberals get the "feeling thing" and "utopian thing" going, even if the logic behind their ideas quickly breaks down. But, they are going for something affirmative. Of course, this breaks down lately as many have seemed to lose their damned minds. But I think the generalization holds somewhat.
Maybe on that last part I'm wrong, but if I am, I'm not far off. You see, it's the same thing J.C. Watts said when he was in office about Republicans attitudes towards Blacks. He said, paraphrasing, that Republicans tell Blacks what they are against, but what are Republicans FOR?
See, a positive affirmation. Yeah, that's what's missing.
I just had a thought...
A few months back, I read my first and only article on the Project 21 website. The article was about Africa and all that Africans have not done to address issues on the ground there. The author talked about several different countries and several situations - but NEVER mentioned the complicity of the US and EUROPE...and never mentioned the Western sponsored assassinations on the continent. When I countered with specific examples, he responded that he didn't have the space in the article to address these issues...and I just laughed because I knew it was a lie...that was some weak stuff...but I knew he didn't dare write the real deal - how could he...if that were done across the site, funding would dry up...so, it's easier to just lie and assume people don't know anything or call you on it.
Conservatives won't be able to build a movement for Black people because they are too deeply tied to white dollars - this is exactly the same failing of the liberals...indeed, you have seen the enemy and it is you...ain't mirrors funny.
Seriously though, I believe the black community could benefit from an injection of intellectual rigor on both sides. Sadly, however, it is not forthcoming because most of these folks are hacks...well, I can only speak for the mental midgets on the left side of white folks' aisle...
I read on one of the blog's where that Jesse Lee person referred to blacks folks who refer to themselves as African American as un-American. big deal. The US has been directed by all manner of anti-Black folks. What manner of mental deficiency allows someone like Jesse Lee to say some dumb stuff like that - and who is that supposed to appeal to. You all have your hands full. I say if you want to clean house, get rid of all the folks who don't money from white folks first...then define the terms and uses to which all resources will be put - under a transparent, collective plan...no bucks for Armstrong and bucks for Jesse Lee and bucks for so and so...clean it up...but not Enron/Halliburton style. Do it Fannie Lou style. Keep it real.
Posted by: Temple3 at June 17, 2005 09:28 PMOn Black conservatives, I'll let someone who wears the label define it, because in today's political context, some people who label themselves conservative, seem not to be by the "standard" definition. Look at Jeb Bush using the government to intrude in nasty family business, then using the government, again, to punish the lawful husband for doing what, by law, he is allowed to do, even if the husband is shady.
That said, it is imperative for conservatives to EXPLAIN why black folks should support initiatives which keep cities and schools underfunded.
Or at least explain why what is stated, is stated inaccurately. I've seen some explainations. It's one that I think dodges the point. I meant to put it in the post, I'll make another entry.
Another question...are any black conservatives actively seeking to build a viable constituency - beyond a church framework?
I have no clue. If so, I would think that it's all under the covers, not subversive under the covers, just doing things in a normal day to day manner.
Seriously though, I believe the black community could benefit from an injection of intellectual rigor on both sides.
I agree. I seriously question if the public Black conservative commentators are striving for the same thing or if they want something else.
A couple things.
First is that you're going to have to recognize that politics is, by definition, divisive. It's all about getting the upper hand by putting the other man down, just like you're doing to black conservatives.
Secondly, you have to realize that black conservatives today might be all they'll ever be, which is a minority within minority. I know them to be a lot more diverse than anybody is likely to give them credit for, but that's beside the point. Or maybe it is the point. Black conservatives are who they are because the ideas of conservatism appeal to them. Simple. Plain.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE MAJORITY OF BLACK PEOPLE THINK, or what they do, or what their interests are. Black conservatives are going to do whay they do and they're not going away. This is what I think keeps irking progressives and liberals - that the black conservatives for which they can imagine no sensible raison d'etre, continue to persist. And we don't shutup either. The main argument against our ideas and policies is that 'that doesn't work for xxx black people', with the presumption that xxx will always be the soul, the core of African America.
Thirdly. There is nothing so hypocritical as a black liberal with a degree from a predominantly white college blasting black conservatives for taking money from white think tanks.
Fourthly, there's a huge amount of black activism for Republicans in California. There are grass roots meetings and there are black Republican candidates from black communities that get on ballots, and there are little old black ladies that make phone calls and volunteer. They're not hard to find.
Fifthly, it takes more effort to renew you car registration than to register Republican. The intellectual rigor which is going to satisfy people like us is not forthcoming. Don't expect it. There's no intellectual rigor in American politics, period. People noodle over an issue and vote with their gut. So what? Ideologues are always dissatisfied with the masses. Nothing new here.
Remember the idiot who always gets on the evening news, the least educated black person any reporter could find? How often do you think that person has been a Republican? You are going to have to get used to stupid Republicans. We're used to you.
Posted by: Cobb at June 18, 2005 01:39 AMCobb:
That's helpful and illuminating. I certainly appreciate the context you provided concerning California.
I agree with most of your points, but I don't find that the decision of a seventeen year-old youth to attend a state school is analagous to that of a grown-axx man or woman taking loot from folks whose interests are diametrically opposed to xxx black people. I think the essence of your point, and it is well taken, is that conservatives (right or wrong) don't make decisions based on the needs, opinions, beliefs, or whatever else of black folks. Of course, the same cannot be said of their white financiers. And you are no doubt correct that conservatives will not go away - they'll be here as long as their sponsors are here.
Posted by: Temple3 at June 18, 2005 07:25 AMCobb, you ain't gettin' it.
Straight up and to the point: If "Black conservatives" are about doing what they say they are about, then there are better ways of making the point than the way the current group of public "Black conservatives" are doing it.
I'd be stupid to assume there will be a total "shift" to one side of the spectrum. I'd also be stupid to assume there will be no more than what's there now.
Here's the situation. There are troubles in the Black community that need to be addressed. From my standpoint, the comment you made right here is a problem: First is that you're going to have to recognize that politics is, by definition, divisive.
Look, this situation ain't about politics, it's about solutions and getting things done. The fact that the public "Black conservatives" are treating it as politics means they ain't about getting things done.
I don't expect "Black conservatives" to go away, no do I want "Black conservatives" to go away. You know what? I take that back. I DO want Black conservatives to go away and Black liberals to go away. I want people doing things to make things better.
Enough of the bullshit.
Here is where my arrogance and cockyness kicks in to high gear.
If you can't deal with me then you can't deal with what's coming up. I'm cynical about politics and I'm media savvy. I'm seeing young heads coming up who are just as cynical and are getting their education about the media.
They are going to call "Black conservatives" and "Black liberals" on the collective bullshit, like I do, and say both of you ain't worth a damn.
Deal with it.
Cobb, you ain't gettin' it.
Straight up and to the point: If "Black conservatives" are about doing what they say they are about, then there are better ways of making the point than the way the current group of public "Black conservatives" are doing it.
I'd be stupid to assume there will be a total "shift" to one side of the spectrum. I'd also be stupid to assume there will be no more than what's there now.
Here's the situation. There are troubles in the Black community that need to be addressed. From my standpoint, the comment you made right here is a problem: First is that you're going to have to recognize that politics is, by definition, divisive.
Look, this situation ain't about politics, it's about solutions and getting things done. The fact that the public "Black conservatives" are treating it as politics means they ain't about getting things done.
I don't expect "Black conservatives" to go away, no do I want "Black conservatives" to go away. You know what? I take that back. I DO want Black conservatives to go away and Black liberals to go away. I want people doing things to make things better.
Enough of the bullshit.
Here is where my arrogance and cockyness kicks in to high gear.
If you can't deal with me then you can't deal with what's coming up. I'm cynical about politics and I'm media savvy. I'm seeing young heads coming up who are just as cynical and are getting their education about the media.
They are going to call "Black conservatives" and "Black liberals" on the collective bullshit, like I do, and say both of you ain't worth a damn.
Deal with it.
A few years ago, I asked a Black Republican in the D.C. area why it was that Black Republicans didn't buy any boothes at "Black Expos" like the the Democrats, Urban League, NAACP, and other such organizations did. I asked the question after he had finished saying something along the lines of Blacks being "mislead" by "Black leaders."
I asked because I wanted to know where Black GOPers were, in the community, to get their view of the world out.
He just looked at me.
I've seen Armstrong Williams at such an event in D.C., and he was talking with people who supported and didn't support him.
Fast forward to a few years ago. Michael Steele is now the Maryland state Republican chairman and he has a weekly radio show on Radio One's Baltimore talk station WOLB. I called into the show and mentioned the conversation I had with a Black Republican. I then told him that I've had other such conversations or email with other Black Republicans and/or Black conservatives, only to be met with the same thing: silence or hemming and hawing.
I stated that if more Black Republicans were like him, admitting when the GOP made mistakes and putting forth a positive view, without being so overwhelmingly negative, there would be a different dialog.
He thanked me and agreed but said that "we" needed to be more open to different ideas but that it is hard to be open when the ideas are part of attacks.
I ain't shuttin' up either.
I don't know how much gets done by 'getting out the vote'. Who voted to create Silicon Valley? One of the problems with black grass roots politics is that it doesn't do anything to bring black constituencies closer to the machine.
When I went to Tolliver's barbershop several weeks ago, one of the men there said that Hahn had appointed several black deputy mayors and that a Villaraigosa win should make the black voters think twice. But I STILL don't know who those deputy mayors were, or what they do. And there is nothing I've ever seen in black grass roots politics that helps blackfolks understand patronage.
Political patronage is real and I say one of the only ways blacks are going to get into it is by going Republican. A Republican organizer will tell you straight up, if you don't bring votes and/or money to the party, the party don't care about you. But black voters have turned out to vote for Democrat candidates without ever getting any patronage. Democrats hand out fake love and rhetorical patronage. And stupid radical fronters like the Black Commentator rollover and show their belly on command when Howard Dean says anything about racial issues to white audiences. What kind of patronage is that? It's bogus, and liberals have been sucking on that dry tit for a generation.
I understand and recognize that a lot of 'carbon copy conservatives' are doing the exact same thing. It's the same intra-racial hateration we all know, except now it's making some money. And all the bustas hate it.
I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about policy. But y'all aint doing jack. It's IMPOSSIBLE to find a coherent thread title at P6. At least when Republicans talk about abortion, they say it straight up front, this is the Abortion issue. I have a progressive streak that wants to see a black policy agenda wiki, and I know when a black Republican invited everyone to participate everybody fronted. STUPID. So the evidence is all around us that there are plenty people who prefer posing to composing. And so it doesn't surprise me at all (especially when I hear liberal hate on Nader) that the bulk of democracy is voting out of spite rather than engagement in substantive public policy. Still, you have to make distinction between online activists, machine people, policy wonks and the voting public.
The other reason I'm not going to get bent out of shape about policy is that I know where money can make a difference and where it can't. Of course it makes a difference in education, and the difference that the government is ever going to kick in to reform public schools is never going to be enough to do what private schools do. Given that fact, which is as fundamental as 'the rich get richer' I have no idea why liberals squawk so much when the question of vouchers is brought up. I swear if I hear the term 'underfunded' again, I'm going to puke. Get your own damned money and build your own goddam commie school. You're so keen on picking pockets for the public, see how much charter change you chumps can chase.
The GOP changes when I step in and bend it to my will. I will earn my spot by twisting the ladders I climb on the inside. All the punks throwing rocks from across the street never penetrate the shields.
I leave with this. Back around 1985, I went to TSU for a conference. I saw several things there that I will never forget. The first was a black sales engineer from IBM with a beard. The second was 25k black people at a football game getting drunk in the stands with no police in sight. The third was the dynamics of southern colorstruck bs that left foine dark girls on the wall and pimple-faced short light skinned girls sweating from all the attention.
At some point you have to tell brothers who are ignoring the fine dark women that they are straight trippin', and leave them to their fate. To hell with black liberals and your vegan fellow travelers.
Posted by: Cobb at June 18, 2005 10:44 PMI don't know how much gets done by 'getting out the vote'.
Agreed.
Political patronage is real and I say one of the only ways blacks are going to get into it is by going Republican.
That's what some are thinking and I see no logical reason not to suspect why this may be true. But then, right now poeple in Maryland are sweating Michael Steele as being THE Republican candidate and it's all good that he happens to be Black.
Fine. No qualms. But there is another Black Republican who has already declared to be in the race and he's getting no love or notice. He announced on WEAA, Morgan University's Black public radio station. He also ran against Pipken for the right to run against Mikulski last year. He's having trouble.
Steele has worked in the trenches, and that's good. But the numbers on the last election indicate that Steele brought no increased Black support of the ticket. In Maryland, it seemed that Black Democrats stayed home since they got pimp smacked by KKT.
But black voters have turned out to vote for Democrat candidates without ever getting any patronage. Democrats hand out fake love and rhetorical patronage.
True. And I've been saying the same thing and since you gave me a spot on Vision Circle, I've blogged the same thing. Given how the Maryland senate race is going to turn out, I suspect I will be doing a lot more.
I understand and recognize that a lot of 'carbon copy conservatives' are doing the exact same thing. It's the same intra-racial hateration we all know, except now it's making some money. And all the bustas hate it.
When Jackson does it, doesn't the "opposition" cry foul and hate? And Republicans appearing to pay off Sharpton is no big deal, right?
But y'all aint doing jack.
I guess I'm forced to say, again, that I'm not a Democrat. I guess if you criticize a party, no matter how many facts you use to back it up, people make assumptions of your party affiliation.
Still, you have to make distinction between online activists, machine people, policy wonks and the voting public.
I do. Do you wonder why, after leaving the House, Watts never wrote about the successes he had on "behalf of Black people"? If he "couldn't get it published in the MSM", why not a special article for Project 21 or Townhall.com or Black conservatieve.net or any of the Black publications? What better way to show case results than Watts? Then to end up with "What have the Dems done"?
Right now, Al Sharpton is doing more on the national level to separate Blacks from the Democratic party than are Black Republicans.
I swear if I hear the term 'underfunded' again, I'm going to puke. Get your own damned money and build your own goddam commie school.
As some who are fortunate to live in areas where charter schools are allowed, are doing. Except the "commie" slander doesn't apply.
mo lata
Posted by: DarkStar at June 19, 2005 12:43 PMWait!
Am I the only one dumbstruck by the analogy Cobb drew between the GOP and foine dark girls?
The third was the dynamics of southern colorstruck bs that left foine dark girls on the wall and pimple-faced short light skinned girls sweating from all the attention.At some point you have to tell brothers who are ignoring the fine dark women that they are straight trippin', and leave them to their fate.
GOP and Wallflowers I can see...,
oh yeah, why the liberals gotta be short, yalla, and pimpley-faced?
Here's where the dynamic referred to here comes to the fore. Rather than being a person who votes Republican, or Democrat...party id is the adjective...this discussion makes it appear at least as if party id becomes the noun. A Republican is now a way of being rather than a (sometimes) political affiliation. The same for "black conservative." At the point that these identities are assumed everything degenerates into set-claiming. I didn't think it was a coincidence at all that the example NR used to talk about ontological blackness was black support for the Democratic Party.
I remember when we brought Spike Lee up a little after School Daze. I'd just pledged, and he was talking about how the Alphas had just killed a pledge at Morehouse, and how the fraternities should be banned. Some of us (by "us" i mean those in fraternities and sororities) were upset by his comments. Me? I wasn't pressed. Let him do what he does. And move on.
Posted by: Lester Spence at June 19, 2005 02:05 PMOK, Les hits a point that I've been maranading in for a bit now.
Rather than being a person who votes Republican, or Democrat...party id is the adjective...this discussion makes it appear at least as if party id becomes the noun. A Republican is now a way of being rather than a (sometimes) political affiliation. The same for "black conservative." At the point that these identities are assumed everything degenerates into set-claiming. I didn't think it was a coincidence at all that the example NR used to talk about ontological blackness was black support for the Democratic Party.
It's looking more and more like I will not ever define a party to belong to, just because I will then feel compelled to "defend MY party" even if it is wrong.
I'll state, yet again, that I don't think the "liberal vs. conservative" thing is something that Black America can afford to be a part of.
Posted by: DarkStar at June 20, 2005 08:40 PMI don't think we can afford to be a part of any of these dichotomies. Aside from the archaic reference to commie schools, there is little talk of that...capitalism vs. communism? Next. City vs. country? Next. Blood vs. Crip??? And here we are again on the verge of a discussion about the nature of blackness...
If we can't all BE, then the "thing" supposedly eliminates Brother X opens the entire community up to this dichotomy game. If a "real black man" can't be a Republican, then it's over - because the point is not that a black man can join the Republicans - it's that he can bend those in the party to do his bidding - same criteria for the dismalcrats - otherwise, what's the point?
EB
I asked the question a few posts back about the definition of a black conservative - and I asked in all seriousness because I don't know anyone, personally, who qualifies as such (ie. synonymous with Armstrong Williams, Ward Connerly, etc.).
At root, though, my question is what are Black conservatives seeking to conserve? Is this principally about social conservatism - because I belief aside from the sh**ty politics of dismalcrats and poverty pimps + many CRO's the issues of most blacks and most conservatives are at odds.
That said, it is imperative for conservatives to EXPLAIN why black folks should support initiatives which keep cities and schools underfunded...If, as you say, conservatives are spending their time bashing liberal black leaders, then it leads to me think they are simply paid to provide a service for white folks. Black conservatives can say things white folks think, but cannot say in public without consequences.
Another question...are any black conservatives actively seeking to build a viable constituency - beyond a church framework? I have no idea - again, because I don't have an organic relationship with these folks. Your insights and comments are appreciated.
Posted by: Temple3 at June 17, 2005 08:53 PM