T Nation

Why Black Conservatives Fail in the Black Community


I came across this interesting article which sums up many feelings of African-Americans in this country. It could also provide some answers to many of you on this board that have questions about this topic. It's kind of long, but if you are able to read it with an OPEN mind, you might see a different viewpoint more clearly.


How Black Conservatives Hurt Their Cause
By James Thindwa
Guest Commentator

I just recently came across conservative commentator Star Parker's January 18 article "The Credibility of Black Conservatism," in Townhall.com, a conservative Web journal. Parker's piece was apparently prompted by the storm then surrounding Armstrong Williams, the discredited black radio and television commentator. Williams, we recall, got in trouble when it was revealed that he received payment from the U.S. Department of Education to plug George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program.

In the interest of disclosure, I am a self-described progressive/leftist. But even though it might seem I do not share much in common with conservatives, I do not subscribe to the proposition that one side of the ideological divide has a monopoly on truth. So, I do often give the conservative side the benefit of the doubt. At least I think many do operate with good motives.

However, as an African, and resident of the (black) south side of Chicago, I have often wondered why the black conservative view has such poor resonance in African American communities. One of the most popular explanations, offered by black conservatives themselves, is that the "liberal media" caters to traditional black leadership at the expense of alternative voices. While there may be a grain of truth to this view, I would like to suggest that the answer is a bit more complex. In fact the "credibility" gap of black conservatives that Ms. Parker laments in her article has many roots.

First, I think tone and language matters. When I heard Star Parker suggest on Fox Television News that New Orleans black residents suffered from a "welfare mentality" I cringed, was angry and overwhelmed with deep emotion. I thought to myself, even if for a moment this were true, it is not the way anyone, black or white should be sounding in a time of such despair for that community. Although it was not readily apparent to me what Parker meant, I know that the term "welfare mentality," used in certain contexts, is a provocative term. And for those among Katrina's victims who work hard and do not receive welfare, I thought it would be particularly offensive.

But it seemed particularly mean-spirited for Parker to say this at such a crisis moment for black Louisianans. This tone, and the reflexive, single-minded identification of black people with "welfare" is not conducive to a healthy dialogue between conservatives and the black community. Surely, Parker cannot think this kind of attitude will move large numbers of black people to her side. Moreover, such harsh words about black people are at once hypocritical and one-sided: How often is "welfare mentality" ascribed to white people on the receiving end of government largess after a disaster? How many times have government emergency services been used to rescue white adventurers stranded on mountain tops or snow slopes while engaging in voluntary activity such as hiking or skiing? But we never hear black conservatives suggest that there is a "welfare mentality" at work there. I think most people would agree that people caught in a natural disaster have a better claim to government services. But, maybe to black conservatives the stranded white adventurer is more deserving, somehow.

Blacks aren't voting liberal-Democratic because they are simply misled by Jesse Jackson and the civil rights leadership, or because they have a "herd mentality" as conservatives often contend. It would be condescending to deny the fact that black people, like any other population group, know and comprehend their self-interest. The black community is voting against what it hears, or does not hear, from black conservatives. Here are some examples:

Minimum Wage and Living Wage: Black conservative opposition to raising the minimum wage and rejection of living wage proposals across the country puts them squarely at odds with the vast majority of black people who are stuck in low-wage jobs. Blacks do not buy the defense that these regulations "stifle" business profitability and undermine job creation. It is hard to convince these black workers when, for example,
Wal-Mart made $10 billion last year in profits and Alice Walton, heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, just purchased a painting for $35 million at a NYC auction! Americans overwhelmingly agree that people who work should not have to be impoverished, that able employers such as Wal-Mart should pay a living wage;

Speaking out against racism: Black conservatives seem unable to instinctively convey revulsion over racism or its vivid manifestations. When a James Byrd is dragged behind a pickup truck, crosses are burned in front of black homes, or a Trent Lott or William Bennett utters racially offensive rants, black conservatives need to be as resolute as Jesse Jackson in criticizing it. The only comments I heard from black conservative leaders after the James Byrd murder was a call to reject the "politicization" of the issue by "liberals" and to reject calls for hate crime legislation. While hate crime legislation is certainly debatable, it shouldn't be the first and only time black conservatives are involved in the conversation. They too, as black people, should share in the revulsion and be front and center in protesting gruesome racial violence. That's where credibility and authenticity comes from. And, here's a secret: Jackson keeps his credibility among many blacks precisely because he speaks out. Black conservatives failure to respond forcefully to such outrages only feeds the suspicion that they have essentially declared racism a thing of the past, that it no longer has urgency. This is a source of the credibility gap that Parker bemoans;

African Americans respect intellectual and political independence: Right or wrong, black conservatives are often seen as defenders of, and apologists for white racism. John McWhorter, an African American scholar at the Manhattan Institute has defended, as have many other black conservatives, William Bennett's recent offensive remarks, dismissing them as just "hypothetical." For many in the black community, conservative commentators who cannot call these offensive remarks what they are lack independence, are morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest. When something so blatantly offensive is uttered by people of such influence as Bennett, black conservatives need to stop the knee-jerk defense and simply call it for what it is. I live in the black community and I know there is universal revulsion over these remarks. Jesse Jackson is not coaching black people to feel offended. Black people know racially offensive stuff when they hear it. Quite frankly, there is no way that black conservatives can make inroads into black communities while giving aid and comfort to such contemptible views;

Affirmative action matters to black people. The knee-jerk references to "merit" and "qualification" made by conservatives every time affirmative action is debated lack credibility, especially now when the Bush administration is stacking government bureaucracies such as FEMA with incompetent friends. In light of such obvious cronyism, opposition to affirmative action is seen merely as a conservative strategy for maintaining white privilege. And please, conservatives should drop the charge that affirmative action "stigmatizes" black people. Racism is what stigmatizes black people. We should not blame the solution. Furthermore, no one should think for one moment that Michael Brown ever felt "stigmatized" by taking a job at FEMA for which he was unqualified;

The environment and workplace safety matters: Environmental racism is a reality. As long as black conservatives are seen as defenders of an unfettered free enterprise system that disregards the environment and public safety, no one in the black community will take them seriously. After all, black communities are disproportionately affected by diseases such as asthma, cancer and heart disease, maladies that have a strong environmental dimension. Black conservatives need to stop apologizing for negligent corporate conduct and support positive action to reduce pollution.
Katrina has deepened black opposition to the Iraq War: Regardless of its merits, the failure of the government to respond to Katrina's victims has deepened black opposition to the Iraq War and exacerbated an already palpable backlash. The most common refrain here in Chicago runs like this: "black kids are dying trying to bring 'democracy' to the Iraqis and our government can't even rescue our people from a flood in New Orleans." Black conservative commentators who uncritically cheerlead for this war are seen as out of touch with the needs of Black America and sharing the "lopsided priorities" of this government;

Health Care for All: By large majorities, blacks want to join the rest of the industrialized countries in having a right to health care. Black conservatism that does not accept this sentiment and seeks to maintain the status quo will flounder;

Historical racism: Any analysis of the present black condition that denies its link to historical racism, seeks to locate the "black problem" wholly within the individual and denies the presence of structural barriers to social and economic mobility will not be taken seriously. Black conservative attacks on government belie the positive and legitimate force that government has been in advancing black interests. Such attacks provoke a well deserved rebuke from black beneficiaries. Black people share an understanding that the federal government, no matter how flawed or inadequate, has been a positive force in their lives, an equalizer that forced open the doors to higher education, gave access to affordable housing, invented Social Security, Medicare and yes, welfare, and has sought justice, albeit belatedly and often inadequately, in defense of black civil rights. The recent conviction of KKK member Edgar Ray Killen in the murders of civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner is a notable example. Obviously, it is legitimate to criticize governmental failure. However, black conservatives too often sound as if government is the enemy of black people, and come perilously close to embracing the radical libertarian premise that people should be left to the vagaries of the marketplace, and everything will be just fine. Black people do not subscribe to this view. The fact is there is no level playing field for everyone and, especially in the current economic climate, it is ever more necessary for the government to assert its role as a counterweight to corporate excesses (have we forgotten the Savings and Loan, Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco Xerox scandals?);

Foreign policy for the people: Black conservatives uncritical support for trade deals such as NAFTA and CAFTA that have played a role in the de-industrialization of American cities will win them no allies in black communities. And black people view with suspicion conservative attacks on leaders such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela that do not acknowledge the source of his popularity: the largest share of the county's oil revenue goes to fight poverty. Black conservative attacks on Chavez fuel suspicion that they only care about protecting American oil interests. And black people remember that during the anti-apartheid struggle, many black conservatives aligned themselves with the white establishment here, which sought to protect white minority interests in South Africa at the expense of blacks. And it is worth noting that in 1986, President Reagan vetoed a strong sanctions regime against South Africa and Dick Cheney, then a member of congress, dismissed Nelson Mandela as "terrorist." The black conservative movement has never tried to disassociate itself from this kind of racial bias in foreign policy. It is truly hard to imagine black Americans flocking to the conservative movement anytime soon, given its attachment to the historically racially insensitive foreign policy establishment.

Racial discrimination is a reality: The wave of successful class-action suits in recent years (against the FBI, Denny's, Wal-Mart, and so on), funding inequities in education, disparities in the criminal justice system (17 black inmates have been released from death row in Illinois, vindicated by DNA evidence), discrimination in employment (ironically, with the exception of Fox News Sunday, Sunday morning TV news programming in the "liberal media" is now off-limits to black commentators and opinion makers), all conspire to undermine black progress. Black conservatism that does not acknowledge this contemporary reality will not attract black followers;

Attacks on black leaders: No matter what they think of Jackson, Sharpton, Representatives Maxine Waters, John Lewis and others, black conservatives vitriolic attacks on the black civil rights leadership will never work. Whatever the merits, when Star Parker, Armstrong Williams, Larry Elder and other conservatives attack black leaders in a personal way (as opposed to reasoned, honest and constructive engagement), they are seen by many black people simply as attack dogs for the white Republican establishment. I have listened with disbelief to language used by black conservative commentators and wondered whether they want a real debate, or just to humiliate the opposition and score points. I've heard Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton described as "race prostitutes," "poverty pimps" and much worse. This kind of language does nothing to advance the debate and only helps galvanize black support for the leaders. Like other communities, black people will rally around their leaders when they are unfairly attacked. As one who has seen how these attacks work I can say: (a) they simply help elevate these leaders in the eyes of black people call it the "Arafat effect"; (b) even if they may have misgivings about their leaders, black people do not believe these to be appropriate or accurate characterizations. I don?t think many black people doubt Jackson's bona fides as a champion for civil rights. Race pimp? Poverty pimp? No matter how meritorious, that won't work. To the contrary, one has to admit there is something quite extraordinary about an Al Sharpton, a child preacher who grew up to become a self-made political actor in the U.S., a leader, and formidable debater and polemicist. People may disagree with him, but the narrative of his personal accomplishment actually validates the possibility of America, the "American Dream," if you will. Isn't this what conservatives should be applauding? How many black youngsters will grow up to become a presidential candidate and eminent leader? (c) The personal nature of the attacks simply re-enforce the suspicion among black people that black conservatives are carrying out someone else's agenda.

Furthermore, respect still matters in black communities, a holdover from Africa, perhaps. But we grow up to respect our elders, even when we disagree with them. Put more plainly, personal attacks against the civil rights leadership will not endear black conservatives to black audiences. They will be rejected.

I have offered these views in the hope that black conservatives who are truly interested in changing the lives of black people for the better take another look at why their ideology has not taken root in the black community. It might comfort some to blame the "liberal media" for ignoring them. But let me suggest that black people have heard the black conservative message. They just don't like what is being said and how it is being said. There are white conservatives who have a long history of antipathy toward black people and they too hate government. But they hate government because they think government does too much for black people. If black conservatives don't distance themselves from such convoluted sentiments, they will be shouting in the wilderness for a long time.


I started to do a point-by-point analysis of this article, but my system crashed and I'm too lazy to do it over (besides that, my wife has things for me to do...). However, this article, while not directly on point, takes on some of the (in my mind, weak) examples brought up in this article, as well as a few more, with a sarcastic tone. The author is admittedly not a progressive liberal, and admittedly white too.

The Happy Warrior
by Mark Steyn


In the mood for a ?national conversation about race?? Me neither. America has many delightful attributes, but the ability to discuss race honestly is not one of them. Instead, it has an ongoing pseudo-discussion of race. You know the sort of thing: A District of Columbia official gets fired for using the word ?niggardly? in a budget meeting; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee complains about the racist nomenclature of hurricanes.

The latter was back in 2003, when Congresswoman Jackson Lee argued that blacks are being discriminated against because hardly any devastatingly destructive meteorological phenomena are given African-American names. The black community can?t relate to some white-bread wind like Hurricane Andrew. Why are there never any Hurricane Leroys? It?s deeply racist and insulting to imply that only forces of nature with effete WASPy appellations are capable of inflicting billions of dollars of coastal damage.

Oddly enough, Hurricane Sheila did not reprise this argument when Karl Rove?s secret Republican wind machine sent the racist Hurricane Katrina zapping in to take out New Orleans. And, as with most of these ?controversies,? Republicans are well advised to steer clear. The guy fired for using the word ?niggardly? was a gay Democrat, and, while one sympathizes with the poor fellow, it?s easiest to chalk up the episode to the internal contradictions of the Rainbow Coalition and leave it at that.

But, even by the pitiful standards of these ersatz scandals, what happened to William Bennett the other day was pathetic. Responding to a call on the subject of abortion to his radio show, Bennett observed:

?It?s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could. If that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.?

Needless to say, by the time assorted Democrat bigwigs and other professional grievance-mongers were e-mailing in their ?outrage? over the second of those three sentences, the third was nowhere in sight. I first heard of the ?scandal? on NPR?s hourly news bulletin, and they too made no mention of the third sentence, preferring to quote the Rev. Jesse Jackson?s criticism of Bennett?s pretensions to ?moral leadership.? Please, no tittering.

But never mind that. Bennett?s point is uncontestable:

Fact: The bulk of crime in virtually every jurisdiction on the planet is committed by young men and teenagers. So, fewer young persons = less crime.

Fact: Given that young black men are significantly overrepresented among the prison population ? a point John Kerry and other Democrats point out incessantly, as though incarceration rates were unrelated to crime-participation rates ? a reduction in black birthrates would affect the statistics far more than a reduction in, say, Asian-American birthrates.

Obviously, it?s unfair to black men to frame the issue in those terms: Not every aborted African American would have grown up to be a criminal. Which, of course, is an argument against abortion: We?re all capable of rising above the disadvantages we?re born into ? as long as we?re born in the first place. More important, even though it?s true that reducing the number of young people reduces the crime rates in your society, if you reduce them too dramatically ? as they?ve done in Europe and Japan ? you?ll wind up with no society. Having children increases the risk they?ll be sticking up the local convenience store in 20 years? time. Not having children increases the risk there?ll be no convenience store in 30 years? time.

So when you set aside moral objections to abortion, the utilitarian approach is a question of balance. Abortion doesn?t fall on all fetuses equally. In China and other Asian cultures, it lowers the pool of girl babies, resulting in very disproportionately male societies. Thus, ?a woman?s right to choose? leaves you with a lot fewer women to choose from. Even in America, not all women exercise their right to choose equally: The abortion rate for black women is four times higher than that for white women. ?A woman?s right to choose? has become, like so many other ?progressive? causes, an issue in which one?s enthusiasm for it is inversely proportional to one?s engagement with it. For middle-class female Democrats, ?a woman?s right to choose? is like ?Free Tibet?: a bumper sticker that appropriates some other crowd?s problem for the purposes of advertising your moral superiority. Ashley Judd and Cameron Diaz can jump up and down demanding their ?right? to ?choice? at the big rally in Washington, but in the less fashionable quartiers of the city they?re not the ones exercising that ?choice,? such as it is.

Bill Bennett explicitly rejected as ?reprehensible? the hypothetical mass abortion of black babies, and the usual charlatans, race-baiters, and shakedown artists jumped all over him. But the statistics suggest that that mass abortion of black babies is actually going on, and their community?s self-appointed spokespersons are largely silent. You can?t blame Howard Dean for preferring to beat up Bill Bennett. Nor can you blame the official racism industry, now so large and lucrative and employing so many highly remunerated panjandrums from the Reverend Jackson down that it has a far greater interest than the Ku Klux Klan in maintaining old-school racism. But even the most cursory glance at the facts suggests an ever wider divergence of interest between two key pillars of what?s left of the Democrats ? the self-congratulatory white liberals and the black-lobby fodder.

If this country ever does have an honest ?national conversation on race,? it will be between these two parties, and the fury of one at the other will be the nearest Sheila Jackson Lee gets to a genuine African-American hurricane.


I basically said the same thing wrt honesty in the race discussion in another thread.

Until that happens, everyone is just hiding behind their own dogma.



Usually I look forward to the posts that you present. I may not always agree with them, but they are at least well thought out. Not so with this one. What does the article that you posted have anything to do with the point of the post? The point of the post was a discussion on why the black community does not trust black conservatives. Your post had nothing to do with that. You are usually much better than this.


Ah, nevermind, you can't help yourself.



The article addressed one of the specific contentions of your article -- specifically the one regarding Bill Bennett. I apologize for not spelling out the relevance, but I blame my wife for making me organize the den/office...

The Bennett example was but one -- I think there could probably be an article written about the debatable contentions made in each, without even going to the reasoning as to what those examples purportedly demonstrate.

As I said above, I thought many of the actual examples offered by the author were poorly reasoned, but perhaps I was missing the point? I really don't know how to address what I consider to be the faulty logic of the reasoning in the article without addressing its individual pieces (which I started to do, but thanks to a system crash no evidence remains).

Was the point just to illustrate what the author is saying is what many people in the black community think about black conservatives? People like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell do an excellent job of defending themselves -- provided people actually listen to/read what they believe, respectively.

The point of the article seemed to be that people didn't view black conservatives as "real blacks" (my characterization) - but the author really didn't explain how anyone could possibly hold conservative positions on any of the issues he was talking about and be acceptable to the black community (provided the black community really thinks along the lines of the article). Stripping it down to its essence, the self-admitted progressive/liberal author was saying that in order to be really accepted by the black community a black conservative needs to give up defending conservative positions -- even the attempt of defending conservative opinions is apparently enough to cause rejection by the community.


Thanks for taking the time to clear your post up. If I responded to some of the other people on here like I did to you, I would get insulted and ridiculed. Thanks for showing some class.

I don't believe that the author was saying that the black conservatives need to give up defending conservative opinions, but rather show that they are not pandering to the white conservative messages at the expense of the black community. The reasons why other black conservatives that do have a good positive message and plans and also can relate to the black community are not heard is because the black conservatives that get brought out as shining examples are suspect at best.

Armstrong Williams is a perfect example. He was paid by the current administration to push the No Child Left Behind program. The fact that he received money for doing this places his credibility in the black community at the low end.

Alan Keyes constantly shows his racial self-hatred every chance he gets. All he ever does is complain about how the black community is doing nothing to help itself. Yet, when he was approached by the black community to support sanctions on South Africa' aparthied regime, he opposed them. He paid his salary out of campaign funds and has flip-flopped on so many issues he has been referred to as the Republican Jesse Jackson. He is an unapologetic opportunist.

Kenneth Blackwell. I lived in Cincinnati, Ohio for 8 years and can tell you that this guy is a certifiable scumbag. Even before the 2004 elections, he took every chance he could to take monies and services earmarked for helping the black community and diverted them for his own personal gain.

These are some of the examples of black conservatives that get put up in the media spotlight as the ones that we should trust. It's like anything else, it only takes a small few to mess it up for the rest of group.

As far as the comment that Bill Bennet said, let's be honest and call it what it was: a freudian slip. He would not have said that statement if he didn't mean it. The fact that he qualified it with his latter statement does not excuse what he said. I am tired of people trying to defend what he said when it shows a perfect example of the hidden racist thoughts of some white conservatives.

The arguement that what he said was taken out of context does not excuse what he said. Period. The message that came out to the black community is that he believes that every black baby will grow up to be a criminal and he wouldn't lose any sleep over black babies being aborted.

As far as having conservative viewpoints on any of the position presented in the article and still be accepted by the black community, it can happen. There are plenty of people in the black community that have conservative viewpoints. What you don't understand is that these viewpoints in the black community aren't the accepted conservative viewpoints established by the people controlling the Republican party.

There is not one black person who is not for lower taxes, better education, smarter government spending, family values, support employment at home first, protect the people, Government for the people, by the people, of the people, etc. The disconnect that the black community sees is that the people in charge are not following their own creed.

In affect, what we see is a Republican ideology that doesn't care about the people at all. We see an ideology that the people are to serve the government, NOT the government should serve the people.

The Democrats are not any better. They have taken the black community base for granted as well. The only difference is that they at least acknowledge what is going on. Doesn't make them better, just different.


Historically, it has made a lot more sense to be liberal. Who has been their friend ? Republicans? Democrats? Blacks will vote for their friends. End of story. Sorry not trying to be racist.


BostonBarrister wrote:


I know that I am slightly off topice, but I have to agree with Al on this one, in that I didn't like the article too well - I thought it was a tad too polemic:

That's kinda crap and has nothing to do with abortion. The decrease in birthrates in Germany and Japan seem to be mostly correlated with the good economic condititions and aging societies.


Now that has really infuriated me: The imbalance in male/female babies is the result of forced policies and patriarchical patterns within society, not "a woman's right to choose". It shows some real cynicism of the author and bad research to write something as stupid as this.

Here some stuff on the "One-Child-Policy" in China:

"Critics of the policy maintain it has led in some case to the killing of female infants because of the traditional preference for boys.

The number of men is thought to outnumber women in China by more than 60 million.

Last week it was reported that Chinese police had detained three officials who caused the death of a baby in central China while enforcing the birth control rules."


"Among those negative effects have been female infanticide in rural areas where there is a strong desire for male heirs, imbalances in the sex ratio that has been estimated to be as much as 122 boys for every 100 girls, soaring rates of female suicide, and human trafficking."


Normally I like your articles, and they often give me an additional perspective in my delusional liberal state of mind, but this one was below your usual standards.

I'm looking forward to the good ones that you'll undoubtedly post, once you've done your chores... :wink:



Not only will blacks vote for their friends, MOST people (black, white asian, latino etc.) will vote for their friends or people that they perceive as having an understanding with them. If that wasn't the case, Bush wouldn't be in office right now. Much of his appeal was that people think they can related to his folksy-down home charm. These are facts that came out in the numerous polls during election time that he appeared to be more approachable and that would more than likely sit down and have a beer with you and watch the game.

Historically, it was those with a sense of social consciousness that have reached out to the black community. Many self-described liberals have never done that. Social consciousness is not the sole domain of liberals. I have talked to just as many conservatives that possess social consciousness as liberals. In fact, if you move from the extreme right and the extreme left and to the middle, you will find a pool of people that have more in common than most realize.

If a black conservative comes out with a message that the black community feels doesn't sell them out to corporate interests, he/she will be supported. Period.


You just threw a titty fit the other day because you felt insulted by one of Hedo's posts. How hypocritical can you be?

Try attacking what I said - not who said it. Because I am honest I am unble to help myself?

Please enlighten me, oh great knower of everything black. You are an embarassment.


Beautifully stated and on point.


What a load of horseshit. The black is no different than the whites. Why must you keep separating things by color? We're not doing laundry here, in case you haven't noticed.

They vote for who they identify with - not who will or will not sell them out to corporate interests. But nice job of making the evil corporation connection. Tell me - what brand of shoes do you wear?


I was just kidding with you, take it easy. Stop being so sensitive. It didn't translate well.

BTW, what does hedo's posts have to do with you? Are you one in the same? If not, then this was an irrelevant statement.

The fact that a ultraconservative white male thinks that I am an embarassment about topics that they could never relate to means pretty much nothing to me. I never put myself as the great knower of everything black (Thanks for the title!), but I am pretty sure I know a hell of alot more about it than you do.

I would have attacked what you said if you actually had said anything of substance. Instead you took the opportunity to ride BB's nuts and throw you little comment about something you said on another post. In other words, you added ZERO value to the topic.

Again, I was just kidding with you but you demonstrated just how far that stick up your ass really sits. Its probably tickling the back of your throat right now.


What world do you operate in that everything is equal and wonderful? Please let us know, because most people would love to go there. The fact that now you want me to remove color from the equation is amazing coming from Mister "I tell the truth". Color has always played a major role in this country up to and including now in 2005. Do us all a favor and stop commenting on things you know nothing about.

BTW, if you would bother to actually read everything I wrote, you will see that I said that people vote for who they identify with. The black community does not, as a whole, identify with corporate conservatives that do not have their interests at heart. You didn't even bother to acknowledge any of these things, you just like to start shit with people.

Your little crack about the brand of shoes I wear is another thinly veiled attempt to marginalize what I said. But to answer your question, I have no idea what brand they are. I buy my shoes based on confort, the style I like and how well they are made. Obviously you don't. However, when you find that mythical no-brand of shoes that fits this critieria, please let me know.


"But to answer your question, I have no idea what brand they are. I buy my shoes based on confort, the style I like and how well they are made. Obviously you don't. However, when you find that mythical no-brand of shoes that fits this critieria, please let me know. "

HAHAHAHA!!! You are a bad liar.


What is any of this supposed to mean? What brand of shoes I wear means what? I am currently wearing Asics in the clinic. They suck but they are all white. I have a pair of Nikes (Nike Free 5.0) that I wear in the gym. What the fuck does this have to do with my ethnicity?



I've got thoughts on your posts above, which perhaps I'll get to type out this weekend. Makkun, I've got a few for you as well. For now though, I'll do my usual routine when I only have a few moments and post this, which is a good editorial that is loosely on topic of the original post, and definitely on topic for the thread:


Left out of party

Blacks, Republicans do need each other

October 20, 2005

Just in time for Halloween, there is something that many African-Americans find truly frightening. It's the Republican Party.

President Bush hasn't helped matters for his party. Bush has never been especially popular with black voters. He kicked off his presidency with many African-Americans assuming ? however incorrectly ? that he had unfairly ascended to the White House by disenfranchising black voters in some Florida counties. From that point, it was all downhill.

The government response to Hurricane Katrina only made matters worse. As did the offensive charge by some, including rapper Kanye West, that "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

In fact, recent public opinion polls find that Bush's approval rating with blacks is floundering somewhere between 12 percent to 14 percent. And as one pollster told The Washington Post, when it comes to approval ratings, 10 percent is "about as low as you can go."

Clearly, there is work to be done in reaching out to black voters and making the case that their interests will be better served if they give the GOP a chance.

African-Americans ought to realize that, while their loyalty to the Democratic Party is commendable, it's also self-destructive. The single best road map for losing political power is to be simultaneously taken for granted by one party and written off by another. Sadly, that seems to be the case with African-Americans. They're taken for granted by Democrats and too often written off by Republicans.

For its part, if it wants to stay relevant in an ever-changing world, the GOP has a responsibility to offer more than pretty words about inclusion and opportunity. It needs to come forward with specific or concrete policies that improve the condition of the African-American community, and tailor a message that is specifically designed to appeal to those voters.

Or does it? Black conservative Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institute doesn't dispute that the Republican Party must do a better job of reaching out to black voters, which he considers crucial. But Steele does challenge the popular assumption of political strategists that the best way to do that is for Bush and other Republicans to tailor a race-specific message specifically aimed at black voters. Instead, Steele argues, the White House and the GOP should simply go to black audiences and talk about a whole range of policy initiatives, including those that may seem to have nothing to do with race.

That makes sense, not just for African-Americans but for other voters as well. We're one country, and one people. We're proud of our differences, but we're linked together by what we have in common. Our leaders should emphasize that every chance they get.


Black people have been taught by their leaders, who get power in exchange for doing this, to whine and riot. Black leaders promise to control their charges in exchange for handouts. Malcolm X, the only leader I admire, said it right when he talked about the black leaders selling their people 'down the river', in exchange for money and power.
Look at Asians -- these people were not loved by 'whitey'. Now they are the highest income group in this land. Look at Arab-Americans and people from India. They come here with nothing and soon own party stores and drive Hummers, because they bust their asses working. Black people, like the native Americans, have been taught by limosine-liberals and power-hungry black libs, to wait for the check in the mail. When a conservative black leader tries to confront this, he gets either apathy or shouted down; damnned shame. This was the decimation of an entire magnificent race.


its sad but i totally agree.