Black Conservatives and Bro. Joseph C. phillips

[AKA2D '91]

Originally posted by NuThetaNupe

Anyways, I am personnally tired of hearing about Bush's poll numbers being so low. The majority of Americans voted for the man and now you all have to deal with him.

Exactly. I wonder what the victims of Katrina who supported him think of Bush now?

[Rudey]

The religious right only started voting Republican since Reagan. Those same voters loved Carter.

It is currently pushing the Republican party into lavish and disgusting spending coupled with the business of charity, a business our government has no reason to be in.

The Republican party was created on a platform on policy integration - most notably anti-slavery. "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont." Right now, to win votes, it has taken on a large religious constituency.

Summation: The religious right/"evangelicals" is mainly a "liberal" group that has a long history with Dems.

Here is an article on black relations and the Republican party:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=57085

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/o...19gates.html?hp

GUEST COLUMNIST

Swallowing the Elephant
By HENRY LOUIS GATES Jr.

Published: September 19, 2004



he moment when the Republican Party lost black America can be given a date: Oct. 26, 1960. Martin Luther King Jr., arrested in Georgia during a sit-in, had been transferred to a maximum-security prison and sentenced to four months on the chain gang, without bail. As The Times reported, John F. Kennedy called Coretta King, expressing his concern. Richard Nixon didn't.

Advertisement


"It took courage to call my daughter-in-law at a time like this," King's father said about Kennedy at a church rally. "I've got all my votes and I've got a suitcase, and I'm going to take them up there and dump them in his lap." In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower had received nearly 40 percent of the black vote. (I myself sported an "I Like Ike" button in first grade.) In 1960, Nixon received 32 percent. A few years later, as the civil-rights era heated up and the G.O.P. pursued its "Southern strategy," blacks effectively became a one-party constituency.

But at what cost? Speaking to a National Urban League audience in July, President Bush quoted an Illinois legislator's piquant remark that "blacks are gagging on the donkey but not yet ready to swallow the elephant," and went on to pose a series of questions that black people themselves have been asking: "Does the Democrat party take African-American voters for granted? Is it a good thing for the African-American community to be represented mainly by one political party? How is it possible to gain political leverage if the party is never forced to compete?"

Of course, such questions have an unspoken corollary: Why support a party that has written you off?

Some black Republicans will tell you that however important the legal reforms of the civil-rights era had been 40 years ago, blacks today will be well served by the party of school reform and faith-based programs, the party of the so-called ownership society. "These are going to be the pillars of the black community," Condoleezza Rice told me. "In my little community in Birmingham, Alabama, in the 50's and 60's, there were black-owned businesses everywhere, and everybody owned their own homes. That made our community strong. We've got to get back to that."

Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political strategist, says the Republicans' low levels of black support are unhealthy for the party - once the party of Lincoln, after all - and for the African-American community. Part of what's gone wrong, he told me, is that Republicans don't advertise in black media markets. "If the conversation in the community is predominantly Democrat, and we don't make the argument on urban radio and we don't pay attention to the African-American newspapers, and if we don't campaign in the community, then why are we surprised when people don't hear our arguments and don't vote for our candidates?"

What's more, many blacks are evangelical Protestants, and tend to be more conservative than their white counterparts on "social" issues like gay rights and capital punishment. "The Democratic Party is not 90 percent more black friendly than we are," Rove exclaims.

Why, then, are blacks such down-the-line Democrats? My Harvard colleague Michael Dawson, a descendant of a black Democratic congressman from Chicago, agrees with Rove that black people are socially conservative. But the issues they vote on are racial and, especially, economic.

When it comes to race, he points out, parties have multilevel strategies. Republicans can appeal to white moderates by signaling a measure of compassion about problems of race. "On the other hand," Dawson observes, "you can go into places such as Florida and try systematically to disenfranchise poor black votes."

The real watershed, in his view, was the 1980 election. Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford tried to build up, and win over, a black middle class; the Reagan team figured they could do better by shutting out the black political establishment and mobilizing white conservatives. "Black elites were shocked to find out that with Reagan and his advisers, there were no longer 'good Negroes' and 'bad Negroes,' " Dawson says.

What the big-tent rhetoric ignores is that a more "black friendly" G.O.P. might pay a price in white support. "The Republicans would lose more white votes than they would gain black votes," Dawson says. And so blacks, as a one-party constituency in a two-party system, get sidelined.

It isn't that the candidates won't call. It's just that they're calling collect.



Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a guest columnist through September. Thomas L. Friedman is on book leave.

-Rudey

[TonyB06]

Originally posted by Wolfman
As much as I am uncomfortable with some right wingers, the steady drum beat of "victimization" talk of many traditional black leaders is hard to take also. We desperately need more vociferous conservative and moderate black voices in our political discourse. We need this to help keep our "leadership" honest so that we can have a broader base upon which to envision solutions to our ills and our future development.

I agree with the tenor of Wolfman's post. Whatever people think of Jesse Jackson (my presumption, not Wolfman's) and others sometimes identified as leaders of the "victimization" movement (not my characterization), they have a credibility that resonates still with many black people because they were there, putting it (and their lives) on the line in the middle of the fight, when Black conservatives/moderates were nowhere to be found. Much of the resultant legislation of the 60s/70s came out of these efforts and helped many AfAms feel like they could at least get a foothold on the American dream.

It will take years of "traction"--- both symbolically, and more importantly, tangible ideas that translate into policy initiatives that black people see as credible/embraceable before Republicans can legitimately begin to fight for the black vote in numbers they say they want.

As long as Republicans are seen as a haven for gaffes, like the recent Bill Bennett kill black babies thing, they will lose the symbolism/credibility fight before they even start. Political symbolism (a good faith showing of intention) opens the door for AfAms, or anybody for that matter, to begin taking your policy prescriptions at face value. A good fight about political ideas is always good, but Repubs/conservatives have much more "groundwork" to do to create a climate where this "idea fight" can take place vis-a-vis black folk.

(Notice I haven't said a word about the Democrats. They are fresh out of ideas too, but benefit, IMO, because of the "history of hostility" AfAms have toward Repubs for reasons previously mentioned.)

I also agree with the Henry Louis Gates Jr. column. It's on point.

[Wolfman]

The problem with Republican conservatives and the Black community, to me, is one of lack of understanding of our sociocultural ethos and the particular political calculus that spells the profile of many African Americans. For instance, Bill Clinton gets it and "we" gush over Bill, even though he basically highjacked Newt Gingriches' 'Contract for America' and really pushed much of what was programmatically significant about it into reality legislatively, when it was to his benefit politically.

And as much as I feel the present Bush administration is in disarray and we are seeing the outcomes of some bad policy decisions and the result of political hybris, the Democratic Party lacks backbone and intellectual capital and is not worthy to lead in any manner at present. Where does that lead us? Je ne sais pas! But we've got to become more sophisticated consumers politically on a national level, while we must hold our African American politicians to a higher standard. We want more than platitudes or promises of more money. We need more progressives and people with a background in the Civil Rights Movement to stand up like Bill Cosby, and we need more thinkers of the same ilk as Orlando Patterson of Harvard, who give us a full-orbed accounting of where we've come from, our challenges from within and without, and solutions which call us to sacrifice for the common good of our people.

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die"

[NuThetaNupe]

"The problem with Republican conservatives and the Black community, to me, is one of lack of understanding of our sociocultural ethos and the particular political calculus that spells the profile of many African Americans. For instance, Bill Clinton gets it and "we" gush over Bill, even though he basically highjacked Newt Gingriches' 'Contract for America' and really pushed much of what was programmatically significant about it into reality legislatively, when it was to his benefit politically. "

I couldn't have said that in better words Wolfman! What we need are new leaders for African Americans. I know that Jesse Jackson, Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton are considered leaders, but I by no means think they are sufficient leaders for African Americans. Only time we seem to ever hear from any of them is if some major tragedy or crisis has happened affecting the african american community.

As a young adult, recent college graduate, and currently pursuing my master's degree, it amazes me that the conservatives control the republican party and the liberals control the democratic party. My friends and myself continually find ourselves frustrated with both political parties, but we would never resort to siding with the conservatives. if we did that would mean going back to caucasian men running the country and holding back minorities and women.

[Wolfman]

NuThetaNupe-

D'accord! We have to remember what leadership is really about. It's more than being a cheerleader or a rousing speaker; it's also about achieving positive ongoing results as the institutional setting also. Far too often our institutions are plagued by corruption, mismanagement, fiscal malfeasance and dictatorial managerial styles that are centered on control for the benefit of the "leader." Leadership is about serving for the good of the people. Dr. King set a good example in his arena.

One relatively unsung role model is the former Gov. of Virginia, L. Douglas Wilder (an Omega man). He ran a tight ship as governor. During his tenure VA was one of the best run states in the nation. Gov. Wilder advocated for all the things we say we believe in but first and foremost he knew he had to do his job. Eminent political scientist Prof. Larry Sabato of UVA said that Wilder is the greatest living governor of VA. Here's the kicker: Before he ran (and was elected!) Mayor of Richmond, he was also interested in serving as president of his Alma Mater, Virginia Union University. He let it be known that if he was chosen to assume this position of leadership, he would "clean house" and make this an efficient, well-run, successful institution. Well, those in power at Virginia Union balked. They didn't want this to occur due to well-entrenched interests. Lesson:We can decry what the "white man" and white conservatives are doing to us all we want but we have to get our houses in order!

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

[NuThetaNupe]

Sounds like this former Governor from VA was a real class act. What is he doing now? (Just Curious, I have never heard of this guy...probably because I am from Ohio)

i agree that we need someone who is going to be able to do the job and do it the best way. I definitely don't think we should just settle for anything.

[Wolfman]

As stated in the previous post, L. Douglas Wilder is presently the Mayor of Richmond,VA, the capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have to expect tangible excellence from our "leaders" and hold them accountable to this standard.

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

[AKA_Monet]

All yah all have some spinning to do...

A lot of this is spin...

And you can think the "spin stops here" and chit...

But in the end, it does not EVEN MATTER...

You all will prick yourselves and everyone around has been asleep...

And like a thief in the night, our who utamaawazo has been taken out from under us and we then might realize that we are no better than our ancestors as slaves...

I ain't waitin' till massa sez he's redy...

My Glock won't allow me to do that, now...

[06pilot]

If you think about it, black America and conservative america have a lot in common. We are both very spiritual. Conservatives believe in small owned businesses and belive federal govt should stay out of the way. Blacks believe in black owned businesses which are usuallly small owned . Blacks also dont want the government teling running their lives.

The difference comes when you starttalking about civil rights and thats bigone. Most conservatives believe in the comcept of puling ones self up by his own bootstraps. They look at federal programs such as welfare and affirmative action as the federal govt taking care of one sect of america and leaving another out. They dont fully understand the whole concept of these programs and most are not open minded enough to try.

I think we more black conservatives need to come forth. I also think we need more blacks in the Republican party becuase we need to be a viable force in both major political parties in order to effect change in the way America views African Americans. We need to inflitrate the GOP just like we did the Democratic establishment during FDR's time.

[AKA2D '91]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
Constructing A Memorial. Deconstructing Race
Bro. JOSEPH C. PHILLIPS:
(January 26, 2006)

Not too long ago, I wrote about the ongoing effort to build a [memorial for
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the mall in Washington D.C. Since that
writing quite a bit of progress has been made. The senate recently
approved $10 million to begin groundbreaking for the memorial, the Walt
Disney Company has made a sizable donation and George Lucas stepped to the
plate with a personal check for $1 million adding his name to the growing
list of large individual donors that already includes Tommy Hilfiger, and
Bill and Donna Marriott.

Noticeably absent from the list of donors are names like Bill Cosby, Oprah
Winfrey, Bob Johnson, Russell Simmons, Spike Lee, Sean Combs, Al Sharpton,
Jesse Jackson and others.

I am normally the first to support everyone's right to live life as they
wish without fear of an admonition from other members of the "group." For
instance, there is no earthly reason all black folks should be required to
vote for the same candidate, root for the same sports team, or like the
same kind of music. Still, I would be dishonest if I said the absence of
so many prominent black individuals on the role of financial supporters
didn't give me (as Gwen McCrae sang), "a funky sensation." When Tommy
Hilfiger and George Lucas are writing checks in an effort to establish a
memorial for Dr. King while Cosby and Winfrey stand on the sidelines and
watch, something is askew.

I want to make it explicitly clear that I am not calling anyone out or
questioning anyone's philanthropic spirit. The generosity of the Cosbys
and Winfrey is unquestioned. Their charitable spirits have touched
thousands across the country. And when all is said and done, it is their
money. They worked hard for it and they are free to do with it what they
please.

Yet, that funky sensation remains. Are there, in fact, causes that a person
by nature of being black (or any ethnic group for that matter) has a
responsibility to support in the name of "the community"? If left up to
me, all black people in America would donate to sickle cell research, black
cultural institutions like The African American Museum and of course the
building of the King memorial. Yet, I find it a bit of a fascist notion
that one person or group of people can decide how others should spend their
money. Besides, ultimately sickle cell, museums and the memorial are
merely my personal interests, a reflection of my values and preferences
rather than some moral or legal obligation to which all black people should
be bound. I may do better to seek out those that share my beliefs rather
than those that share my race. I suppose one can't have it both ways.
Either we are going to embrace our individualism and the freedom to abandon
the construct of race or we are going to remain in its grasp, always
beholden to someone else's definition of our ethnic selves and by extension
the collective ownership of our time and resources.

Remember that it was Dr. King's call to move beyond race and embrace the
substance of our characters that made him not simply a black hero, but an
American hero. His work uplifted all Americans and built bridges that
transcended race. Dr. King was a man all Americans should celebrate and
any monument ought to rise above expectations built on artificial
constructs and reflect the financial support of a cross section of
Americans.

As of this writing, the foundation needs another $4 million for government
matching funds to kick in. We have momentum and with the continued work of
a lot of people of various races and with shared values, the King memorial
will become a reality.

For more information on the King Memorial go to www.buildthedream.org

Joseph C. Phillips is an actor/writer based in Los Angeles. His column
appears regularly in several newspapers and he is a regular commentator on
News and Notes with Ed Gordon on NPR and has a book due out from Running
Press in April. Contact him at: Joseph@josephcphillips.com

[06pilot]

Way to go AKA2D' 91. I totally agree.

[darling1]

sounds contradictory to me. he's telling people how to spend their money, but he ISNT?

[AKA_Monet]

As far as funding capital campaigns go...

You can just tell the the "endowment administrators" who are usually friends of the "big money people" are NOT friends with the likes of Oprah or Cosby...

Their contact with the publicists and arrangements for making large sum--non-taxable without question giving blank checks to such a capital improvement project may have NEVER gotten to the desks of Oprah or Cosby.

Or maybe these folks missed the fiscal years of apportionment at Harpo, Inc. or whatever Cosby's foundation is called...

I am actively involved in non-profits and I can see from a mile away that the organization implementing the King memorial campaign has yet to know any African American donors or cannot think of any of them who would be willing to donate for reasons previously stated... Dare I say institutionalized racism...

Or, maybe I am wrong... Some of Oprah's foundation guidelines and board of trustees/directors may have just place the King memorial adverstisements for the capital improvement project into the "round file"... So that's why Oprah failed to make a contribution.

But if that were the case, then it sounds like a set up to me to embarass African Americans with philanthropic capability to honor a very famous contributor to the culture of America... Meaning, let these caucasian folks prop money up first because we are beginning the "white-washing" and "deconvoluting" of MLK so that he is acceptable to "Amerikkklan" society for history books...

But that's just my opinion...

[The Cushite]

Wolfman,
I think your point about Clinton is overlooked by most black people. Mandatory Sentencing came in under Clinton, Welfare reform came in under clinton, The Faith based initiative came in under Clinton. I think Clinton is a master Politician in that he used his "charisma" ( I always call him "Pimpin' ain't dead" Clinton) to really serve the interests of "middle America" (which is really a loaded term for rich Americans and those who aspire to be rich). America uses this greed (read as ambition) to really dupe many middle and working class people into believing in political values that really serve to keep them middle and working class as opposed to actually rising up the socio-economic ladder.

Though I am critical of traditional liberal political philosophy, I don't think the answer lies in conservative politics either. Simply put, at it's core, conservative politics assumes 2 things :
1. That all American Social relations are just as is and therefore,
2. Those who are disadvantaged or marginalized in our society are so because they deserve it, or those who are prosperous in our society deserve their prosperity.

I think that these two factors ignore basic concepts in studying social relationships like history, values, and economics. For Blacks to believe that traditional conservative politics (not "values" but "politics") have some solution to our disproportionate suffering I think shows a lack of understanding of where conservatives are comming from and what they are implying with their rhetoric. Conservative politics preaches that black people are not disciplined enough, not moral enough, not smart enough to succeed in America today, and this is why they find themselves at the bottom of so many socio-economic indicators. I always asks those who claim conservative politics as the answer to the plight of black folks how do they explain the disproportionate poverty and suffering of our people, and inevitably it becomes a question of morality. (I have already hashed put my reasons for disagreeing with that notion in earlier posts).

Simply put, a change in morality , or at least banking on a change in morality, I don't think is a good political/ social philosopy. I am reading Mysticism and Social Change: the Social Witness of Howard Thurman By Emory Prof. Alton Pollard and he notes that Thurman believed that society would change if people embrace an encounter with the "Ultimate" (read God) and from that encounter vowed to live better lives. This in turn would lead to more loving and just social relations, that would in turn transform communities and society. While I agree with the Spiritual and religious ethos of this philosophy, I think that socially and politically, it leaves too much to chance. Religious and Spiritual experience is so subjective and random, that it is no guarentee that people will want to experience it, or even if they do, who's to say that they will leave from it with a desire to do anything socially, politically, or economically different? I have the same issues with the morality schtick as I like to call it. Yes, as spiritual people, we want, and need for people to be more just , moral, and loving in their relationships. But is this sound social policy? Can we fully expect to legislate morality? While I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be considerable debate and conscience raising in our community about our moral selves, the government shouldn't be relying on it as it's chief means to address issues of inequality and discrimination.

The thing that frustrates me the most is that most political conservatives don't come off to me as any more moral or religious that any other poeple. They use morality in order to pacify some and justify vast, immoral disparities in health, wealth, and justice in our society. How come no one ever questions the morality of a society that has a wealth gap the size of America? How come no one ever questions the morality of having $46 billion? What has anyone done in this society to justify having that much money (especially when there are so many in this society that can not meet basic needs)? And do we, as a country founded supposedly on "Christian Principles", exemplify those principles when we justify vast inequalities like we do in the name of "deservedness"? Who derserves to be poor and treated as sub-human? What Would Jesus Do?

Blackwatch!!!!!!