Why's the idea of a "black conservative/libertarian" such an oxymoron?

[thebluefood]

That's a question I've been wondering for a few years now.

You guys know where I stand politically and I don't plan on changing; but when folks get to know me and they discover my political leanings, they always give me this confused expression. What's the big deal? Yeah, it's not normal, but I can't understand why.

I was raised by conservatives, spent a lot of time around conservatives (black and white), and I'm friends with some conservatives (though not many, oddly enough). Why should my race be linked to my political persuasions? No one flinches if a white person tells you they're a conservative or a liberal.

Apart from it being a social norm, why on earth should I vote Democrat/liberal just because I'm black? If the history of the Democratic Party has taught me anything, it's that I should be running as far away from them as possible (though I'm not calling any Democrats here racists).

I just don't get it. Could someone older and wiser PLEASE explain this to me?

Thank you.

[Hubbs]

I'd say the biggest factor is simply that statistically, it's unusual. Now as to why it's statistically unusual, I'd say that mostly has to do with the disadvantageous position a disproportionate number of black people are still born into. Democrats tend to favor social policies that help to counter those disadvantages more than Republican policies, or at least would seem to counter those disadvantages more.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Many people feel that the Republican Party (conservatives) haven't exactly embraced minorities (and there concerns) so I assume thats why you get the odd looks.

[thebluefood]

Many people feel that the Republican Party (conservatives) haven't exactly embraced minorities (and there concerns) so I assume thats why you get the odd looks.

The way I see it, they've done more for black than the Democrats have ever done; especially when you consider that when the Republicans were first organized, they were made up of former Whigs and New England abolitionists. The party was based on the free enterprise and the freeing of slaves.

Racially speaking, my only concern is that we come to a time where skin color doesn't matter. Where there's no affirmative action or anything of the sort. I just want to be seen as a man. That's all; and quiet honestly, I've seen that more in Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/liberals

I don't vote Republican, but the way I see it, most Republicans don't care that I'm black. They're not going to give me any special consideration or breaks just because of the color of my skin. Maybe that's being mistaken for racism. I just think it's because they don't care. I like that a lot more than making me feel like a victim or singling me out, even if the intentions are good. That's the vibe I get from a lot of Democrats.

I don't know if they're trying to make up for lost time, but it gets kind of annoying, you know?

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

The way I see it, they've done more for black than the Democrats have ever done; especially when you consider that when the Republicans were first organized, they were made up of former Whigs and New England abolitionists. The party was based on the free enterprise and the freeing of slaves.

I believe that those New England abolitionists would today more than likely refer to themselves as Democrats.

But thats just my opinion.

[thebluefood]

I believe that those New England abolitionists would today more than likely refer to themselves as Democrats.

But thats just my opinion.

Perhaps, and that's a legit point.

All I'm going on is what these parties have done. The way I see, most of the oppression and suffering my race has endured can be traced back to the Democratic party. The extension of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, the Klan...all have their roots in the Democratic Party. You can say "yeah, well all that's history," but if we're still being oppressed, and if we're still second class citizens, then it's important to look at the source of this misery.

The record speaks for itself, I'd say.

Once again, Democrats, I'm not saying you're like that or anyone still affiliated with the party is still like that. I just don't line up with you guys politically and (unless you come up with someone who's really amazing), I don't think I could ever vote for one of your own.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Perhaps, and that's a legit point.

All I'm going on is what these parties have done. The way I see, most of the oppression and suffering my race has endured can be traced back to the Democratic party. The extension of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, the Klan...all have their roots in the Democratic Party. You can say "yeah, well all that's history," but if we're still being oppressed, and if we're still second class citizens, then it's important to look at the source of this misery.

The record speaks for itself, I'd say.

And what happened to many of those Democrats (Dixiecrats)?

After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed many of them they became Republicans.

I think you might be getting too caught up in labels without looking a little deeper.

Rather than look at the party title, look more into ideology.

Thats what I did.:2cents:

[thebluefood]

And what happened to many of those Democrats (Dixiecrats)?

After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed many of them they became Republicans.

Oh, of course. I never said the Republicans have a clean record. I'm sure there's some nasty cases of overt racism in their history. I'm not by any means a Republican.

But, I think there's a difference between overt racism and not pandering. Pandering is the vibe I'm getting from the Democrats. They go out of their way to make themselves out to be the good guys and paint the Republicans as racist. I'm not buying it.

But, that's just from my perspective as a libertarian. My views are a little extreme from the perspective of both parties and I have been fortunate enough to live in a middle class family (never enduring the sting of poverty).

[Baculus]

I think it's due to the fact that some (well, many) white conservatives have opposed legislation and social justice efforts which positively affect black Americans. After all, when was the last time Rush Limbaugh showed any interest in issues which affect the black community, other than outright mockery from him? Or the sort of mockery you get from Glenn Beck, who wonders why black Americans are so "hung up on" race. That, and to be honest, some people view conservative blacks as being "self-haters" for this reason, since they agree with people that really don't seem to have the best interests of blacks at heart.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 07:03 AM ----------

But, I think there's a difference between overt racism and not pandering. Pandering is the vibe I'm getting from the Democrats. They go out of their way to make themselves out to be the good guys and paint the Republicans as racist. I'm not buying it.

Two responses:

The Democratic have the largest group of black elected officials in this country, which means that these elected officials represent their (black) consitituents. So I have to wonder, what do you mean by "pandering"? It's also possible that, being the bleeding heart liberals that they are, white liberals support causes -- educational, economic, civil libertarian -- which align with the interests of blacks.

But, that's just from my perspective as a libertarian. My views are a little extreme from the perspective of both parties and I have been fortunate enough to live in a middle class family (never enduring the sting of poverty).

As least you are honest about that, but I have to wonder to what has influenced your views on this issue. Because your post tells me that you are pretty much repeating the same sort of view -- "liberals just pander to blacks" -- that is a standard, boiler-plate response from the Right on this issue.

[mojobo]

I can only take a guess but I think a lot of it had to do with the solidarity that was necessary for black people throughout American history. Throughout history there have been so many common obstacles in overcoming discrimination that it sort of united black people as a whole in terms of political will. I think Democrats made a stronger political push to embrace them in the early 60s and the solidarity caused a winner take all for the Democrats and they haven't switched back ever since. Obviously the election of Obama was extremely inspirational to many black people who never thought that they would see a black president in their lifetime which furthers the ties to the Democratic party.

I think its often overlooked the roll that black people play in the conservative/libertarian side. One of the main reasons I'm so fiscally conservative is that I read a book by Thomas Sowell in one of my classes. It was way over my head but once we talked about the principles I started to go back and see a lot of his speeches and debates on youtube which really challenged the way I thought. If you look at the leadership roll that blacks have played in the Republican party people like Colin Powell, Michael Steele, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas all served very high ranking rolls. You can make the argument that not all have been very good, but the fact remains that Republicans put their faith in black people to lead in the recent past.

[Baculus]

All I'm going on is what these parties have done. The way I see, most of the oppression and suffering my race has endured can be traced back to the Democratic party. The extension of slavery, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws, the Klan...all have their roots in the Democratic Party. You can say "yeah, well all that's history," but if we're still being oppressed, and if we're still second class citizens, then it's important to look at the source of this misery.

Do you realize that (1) the Democrats split into a north and south branch during the 1860s, and (2) the legislation you mentioned was mostly sectionalist (southern) in nature? Also, the Democratic party, like the Republican party of today, has changed since the 19th century. As another thread on this board asked, is the GOP really the party of Lincoln, or, for that matter, the party of Teddy Roosevelt? Is the Democratic party really the party of Strom Thurmond, or did Dixiecrats like Thurmond, especially due to the1964 Civil Rights act and the Southern Strategy, join the GOP?

Which party really resembles the Democratic party of the mid-19th century?

The record speaks for itself, I'd say.

Once again, Democrats, I'm not saying you're like that or anyone still affiliated with the party is still like that. I just don't line up with you guys politically and (unless you come up with someone who's really amazing), I don't think I could ever vote for one of your own.

[thebluefood]

I appreciate your response, Baculus

First, I have to ask "what are the interests of 'black community'?" I'm a black person, but I don't really have any political aspirations that are tied to my race. There's far too much emphasis put on that idea for my tastes. I try not to see race at all, but character; individual aspects. That's what turns me off about Democrats and that's what I love about libertarianism. Democrats (and Republicans, to a degree) see people as groups...demographics. I see people as they are, individuals. My aspirations, political and otherwise, are focused on the individual. The community as a whole is important as well, but to quote an old saying: "how can you take the spec out of your brother's eye when there's a plank in yours?"

I can tell you this, the whole idea of "self-hatred" is a load of garbage. That's an idea that a lot of people, black and white, use to discredit black conservatives. I can't speak for all, but I can say there's no such feeling in me. I'm proud of who I am, but I refuse to be lead in one direction or another just because it's a social norm or because someone tells me that they have my "best interest in mind." I have my best interest in mind. Not a politician, not a "leader of the black community." Me (and perhaps my friends and family). That's it.

The Democrats do have a lot of black candidates, but I feel that many blacks have been conditioned from a young age to see the "D" as a symbol for "good" and an "R" as a symbol for bad without really knowing anything about the party platform. I'm not sure why this is, but that seems to be the case, and that extends to politicians. Sure, the Democrats have a lot of black elected officials; but look who's heading up the RNC.

I will say this: I do believe a lot of "bleeding heart" liberals have good intentions. I believe most of them really do want to help out the downtrodden and I do appreciate it; but all the good intentions in the world doesn't mean a bloody thing if the results don't show anything for it.

Politicians can only do so much. In the end, it is up to the individual, and the people he or she lives around, to pull themselves up and take the initiative. That's something that members of my family have been doing for generations and we were able to pull ourselves out from the bonds of slavery to great accomplishments and respectability, especially in the Washington, D.C. area (look up James Wormley and Emma Thomas if you've got the chance).

[joeknows]

i think it has more to do with the fact that statistically blacks are not quite the economic power that whites are. and it is widely believed <and i agree> that republicans tend to cater to the more financially gifted people of our society.

i dont understand why southerners <poorer states> vote republican because i feel that they are voting against their own interests.... black or white.

[Baculus]

I appreciate your response, Baculus

First, I have to ask "what are the interests of 'black community'?"

Improving education and economic growth are probably two of the prime ones, as well as judicial equality. But I don't want to preach to you -- I would recommend talking to your friends and family to hear their views on this issue.

I'm a black person, but I don't really have any political aspirations that are tied to my race. There's far too much emphasis put on that idea for my tastes. I try not to see race at all, but character; individual aspects.

I am also an individualist, but I don't think we should ignore community or group issues. In traditional conservative Burkean terms, this would be called the "social fabric" of society: that is, when one "thread" unwinds, in this case, the interests and plight of blacks, then it can affect all of us as a whole. It's the "organic view of society," vs. the atomistic view of pure individualism.

That's what turns me off about Democrats and that's what I love about libertarianism.

Perhaps you don't understand Democrats very well, but most of them also also individualistic. But they also understand that humans are social beings, which is why we root for a football team and post on Internet forums to talk with others.

Democrats (and Republicans, to a degree) see people as groups...demographics. I see people as they are, individuals. My aspirations, political and otherwise, are focused on the individual. The community as a whole is important as well, but to quote an old saying: "how can you take the spec out of your brother's eye when there's a plank in yours?"

I think you are missing the big picture if you don't think larger social issues also affect you. "No man is an island [unto itself]" is also another saying.

The right for women and minorities to vote didn't happen by magic: People stood together for social causes and to enact change.

I can tell you this, the whole idea of "self-hatred" is a load of garbage. That's an idea that a lot of people, black and white, use to discredit black conservatives. I can't speak for all, but I can say there's no such feeling in me. I'm proud of who I am, but I refuse to be lead in one direction or another just because it's a social norm or because someone tells me that they have my "best interest in mind." I have my best interest in mind. Not a politician, not a "leader of the black community." Me (and perhaps my friends and family). That's it.

The term "self-hatred" doesn't necessarily mean you actually hate yourself, but in the case of black Americans, it refers to individuals who align and vote with a political wing that doesn't seem to care much for them.

You may have your best interests in mind, but I fail to see why you are puzzled to why your interests isn't the same as others. We all don't think solely on self-need (though some may debate that point).

The Democrats do have a lot of black candidates, but I feel that many blacks have been conditioned from a young age to see the "D" as a symbol for "good" and an "R" as a symbol for bad without really knowing anything about the party platform.

Perhaps. But maybe it also had to do with the fact that a lot of white Republicans seem to have a pretty low view of blacks and minority communities in general.

I'm not sure why this is, but that seems to be the case, and that extends to politicians. Sure, the Democrats have a lot of black elected officials; but look who's heading up the RNC.

I hate to say it, but Michael Steele[, whose had virtually all his powers stripped from him, is not a very good example of a politician of any race.

quote]I will say this: I do believe a lot of "bleeding heart" liberals have good intentions. I believe most of them really do want to help out the downtrodden and I do appreciate it; but all the good intentions in the world doesn't mean a bloody thing if the results don't show anything for it.

That's true, but at least the effort is there, and with continued efforts, with tweaking and fixing the methodology and with more black activism, maybe the results will improve.

Politicians can only do so much. In the end, it is up to the individual, and the people he or she lives around, to pull themselves up and take the initiative. That's something that members of my family have been doing for generations and we were able to pull ourselves out from the bonds of slavery to great accomplishments and respectability, especially in the Washington, D.C. area (look up James Wormley and Emma Thomas if you've got the chance).

Sure -- President Obama has said the same exact thing. It sounds like you have a rich and proud family history, and as such you should also appreciate the work that your family has done to help each other and probably the community as well. You are, after all, standing on their shoulders -- on their collective efforts to build their descendants a better future. I am very much into genealogy, which makes me realize that I am just another person in the long line of men and women striving to better the conditions of the next generation. Which, BTW, has sometimes included economic and social struggle often opposed by conservatives.

IMO, we lose something when we only think of the "here and now," and only for ourselves. We are certainly important as individuals, but this nation was built on the joined efforts of all races, and it would be a shame to lose that history and social context to the modern world.

[Seabee1973]

I think it's due to the fact that some (well, many) white conservatives have opposed legislation and social justice efforts which positively affect black Americans. After all, when was the last time Rush Limbaugh showed any interest in issues which affect the black community, other than outright mockery from him? Or the sort of mockery you get from Glenn Beck, who wonders why black Americans are so "hung up on" race. That, and to be honest, some people view conservative blacks as being "self-haters" for this reason, since they agree with people that really don't seem to have the best interests of blacks at heart.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 07:03 AM ----------

Two responses:

The Democratic have the largest group of black elected officials in this country, which means that these elected officials represent their (black) consitituents. So I have to wonder, what do you mean by "pandering"? It's also possible that, being the bleeding heart liberals that they are, white liberals support causes -- educational, economic, civil libertarian -- which align with the interests of blacks.

As least you are honest about that, but I have to wonder to what has influenced your views on this issue. Because your post tells me that you are pretty much repeating the same sort of view -- "liberals just pander to blacks" -- that is a standard, boiler-plate response from the Right on this issue.

Or maybe the democrats are the party of Robert Byrd

[Baculus]

Or maybe the democrats are the party of Robert Byrd

Uh, no. Byrd opposed his own party when he opposed the legislation in '64 and '65. The legislation that Democrat presidents pushed through Congress.

You really like giving shallow, one-line responses, don't cha?

[Burgold]

It's been alluded to already, but I think it's largely a legacy of the Civil Rights movement and what happened in the 1960's and 70's. There was a pretty clear line drawn in this country on the basis of freedom for all versus separate, but equal. The Republicans were on the Separate, but Equal side.

Race isn't as clear an issue these days thankfully and that means you can afford to look at ideologies for different reasons. You can look at their foreign policies, their economic policies, their environmental policies, etc and figure out which makes the better fit. For what it's worth, I don't think that conservatives are more racist than liberals or Repubs moreso than Dems. Each party has its own claim to ignorants. My problem with modern Conservative practice over the last ten years is two fold... it doesn't work and it's destructive.

Can you think of many things that the Bush Administration did with a Republican majority in Congress and a Conservative leaning Supreme Court did right? Did they balance the budget? Did they strengthen the economy? Did they defend our nation? Did they improve our schools? Did they stop abuse and corruption? Did they take care of our vets, first responders, soldiers, marines, sailors and others who have volunteered for this country? etc. etc. etc.

You can make an argument that they did defend the country or at least tried to. In the rest they failed and for the most part Conservatives cheered them on as they were failing and called anyone who disagreed or challenged them anti-American traitors.

[Baculus]

Can you think of many things that the Bush Administration did with a Republican majority in Congress and a Conservative leaning Supreme Court did right? Did they balance the budget? Did they strengthen the economy? Did they defend our nation? Did they improve our schools? Did they stop abuse and corruption? Did they take care of our vets, first responders, soldiers, marines, sailors and others who have volunteered for this country? etc. etc. etc.

These are the questions I posed leading up to this year's Congressional elections: WHY would you vote for the GOP? What have they done to deserve, so soon, a second shot at governance? Why give the GOP at least six years of control (of both the White House and Congress), with no results to show for it, without giving the same chance to the Democrats?

Sadly, no Republicans on this forum ever really stepped up to the plate to give a response. Why? Because I don't they had one. In fact, the GOP itself didn't have an answer, either, because they ran their entire campaign virtually on what they oppose -- Pres. Obama and the Democrats -- instead of what legislation they support.

It is incredulous to see a party with really little demonstrative ability to improve our nation's woes win back power based a virtually non-existent platform, outside of the Reagan Years, Part II. But hey, being against something is apparently good enough for some voters. "You want to stick it to those liberal commies? Sign me up!"

[Thiebear]

I lived with a black man in Fort Riley KS for 2 years. The only difference is he was more religious.

I lived with a black man in Sinop Turkey for a year, we hung out and there was no difference but the .05mm.

perception is the only reason for the differences... 60% of what we think is probably the same.

20 were iffy on

10 we cant believe the other can think that way.

that darn environment of growing up.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Props given to bluefood.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think it's due to the fact that some (well, many) white conservatives have opposed legislation and social justice efforts which positively affect black Americans. After all, when was the last time Rush Limbaugh showed any interest in issues which affect the black community, other than outright mockery from him? Or the sort of mockery you get from Glenn Beck, who wonders why black Americans are so "hung up on" race. That, and to be honest, some people view conservative blacks as being "self-haters" for this reason, since they agree with people that really don't seem to have the best interests of blacks at heart.

---------- Post added December-18th-2010 at 07:03 AM ----------

Two responses:

The Democratic have the largest group of black elected officials in this country, which means that these elected officials represent their (black) consitituents. So I have to wonder, what do you mean by "pandering"? It's also possible that, being the bleeding heart liberals that they are, white liberals support causes -- educational, economic, civil libertarian -- which align with the interests of blacks.

As least you are honest about that, but I have to wonder to what has influenced your views on this issue. Because your post tells me that you are pretty much repeating the same sort of view -- "liberals just pander to blacks" -- that is a standard, boiler-plate response from the Right on this issue.

Bluefood, here you have the mindset displayed that pretty much asnwers your question I think.

Just read the first paragraph...

Its somehow seen as racist to vote against an entitlement (social justice? wtf?) even if that vote is grounded in liberty based principles or in the spirit of avoiding escalation nof our national debt crisis.

They take it down to a ultra-simplistic model of existance of assumptions and false premises. Simply put, they are often so blinded by the good intentions of tgheir ideology that they must assume that if someonbe else doesnt agree with the approach or methods proposed to gain those good intentions, that the oposer can only be one who hates the group who would be benefited.

You wrapped it up nicely earlier by showing than many libs and neo-cons put people into groups rather than seeing each individual as one with value. (I LOL'ed when Bac said he supports individualism....righhhhhht. )

[GibbsFactor]

Check this out. Right here in PG County!

Top priorities that Robert Broadus will bring to Congress:

# Create Jobs & Wealth by encouraging Capitalism

# Uphold Faith & Family through Conservative Values

# Protect Property & Cashflow by ending the IRS

# Respect the Constitution: Republicans ended Slavery

# Replenish the Earth & Subdue it

While we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, the only thing preventing Government from depriving us of these rights is the U.S. Constitution. Our founders saw fit to protect our citizens with a Bill of Rights. To guarantee these rights, I will:

# Uphold & Defend the Constitution against all Enemies

# Preserve Traditional Marriage & Religious Freedom

# Protect Parental Rights to make decisions for their Children

# Promote Safe, Legal Immigration by upholding the Laws

# Defend the Innocent & Save Human Life whenever possible

http://www.justiceandliberty.us/biography.html

[Baculus]

Its somehow seen as racist to vote against an entitlement (social justice? wtf?) even if that vote is grounded in liberty based principles or in the spirit of avoiding escalation nof our national debt crisis.

Why don't you actually stick to what I said, eh? Show me where I said "entitlements." No? I never did? Then don't put words in my mouth.

Also, do you even know what social justice means? A basic Wiki definition: "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being."

I mean, you said it: "WTF"? Equality? Human rights? Can you believe my "liberal arrogance"?!

Wait -- it's better just to boil what I said down to "entitlements."

They take it down to a ultra-simplistic model of existance of assumptions and false premises. Simply put, they are often so blinded by the good intentions of tgheir ideology that they must assume that if someonbe else doesnt agree with the approach or methods proposed to gain those good intentions, that the oposer can only be one who hates the group who would be benefited.

What? Can you paint a less accurate ideological model? Have you ever used the triadic system to create an ideological model, using an agent-obstacle-goal? Because maybe that would help for you to understand the view of some social liberals or those who support positive rights.

You wrapped it up nicely earlier by showing than many libs and neo-cons put people into groups rather than seeing each individual as one with value. (I LOL'ed when Bac said he supports individualism....righhhhhht. )

You can be both an individual and a member of a group, whether it is a religion, a member of a ethnic group, a fan of a football team, a geek on some hobby -- whatever. All the while, being you. Life is full of such dualities if you actually look for it. It is the sort of thesis/anti-thesis that produces the synthesis of society. The member within the group = the whole.

Furthermore, please demonstrate to where I have showed an aversion to individualism. Because the only truely anti-individualistic ideology is fascism (totalitarianism is a form of government), and the burden would be upon you to demonstrate I am a fascist.

[thebluefood]

Improving education and economic growth are probably two of the prime ones, as well as judicial equality. But I don't want to preach to you -- I would recommend talking to your friends and family to hear their views on this issue.

But, I'd expect that to be an issue for all people. All people want a better education system. All people want the economy to grow and for the courts to work properly. Those aren't "black" issues. Those aren't even just American issues. Those are people issues.

I am also an individualist, but I don't think we should ignore community or group issues. In traditional conservative Burkean terms, this would be called the "social fabric" of society: that is, when one "thread" unwinds, in this case, the interests and plight of blacks, then it can affect all of us as a whole. It's the "organic view of society," vs. the atomistic view of pure individualism.

I do agree with you to a point here. Community is important and without a tightly knit community, we'd be worse off than wild animals. At the same time, though, creating that sense of identity and community isn't the government's responsibility. It, once again, falls on the individual members of those communities.

Perhaps you don't understand Democrats very well, but most of them also also individualistic. But they also understand that humans are social beings, which is why we root for a football team and post on Internet forums to talk with others.

I think you are missing the big picture if you don't think larger social issues also affect you. "No man is an island [unto itself]" is also another saying.

The right for women and minorities to vote didn't happen by magic: People stood together for social causes and to enact change.

Agreed, but those movements were started by individuals. What a lot of Democrats/liberals seem to do is be proactive, which can be good, but can also venture into "overbearing" territory. Politicians simply cannot fix the world for us.

The term "self-hatred" doesn't necessarily mean you actually hate yourself, but in the case of black Americans, it refers to individuals who align and vote with a political wing that doesn't seem to care much for them.

You may have your best interests in mind, but I fail to see why you are puzzled to why your interests isn't the same as others. We all don't think solely on self-need (though some may debate that point).

Perhaps. But maybe it also had to do with the fact that a lot of white Republicans seem to have a pretty low view of blacks and minority communities in general.

The thing is, I don't get that impression from the Republicans. I don't think they hate me because I'm black. I think Republicans don't like people who aren't willing to get up and earn their own way. I think Republicans don't like people that believe they are entitled to everything. I don't believe that all (or even most) blacks are that way (from my own experience), but it's an unfortunate stereotype that we need to shake off. A lot of welfare programs, to me, are only making it worse (that is to say, I don't appose all welfare legislation).

I hate to say it, but Michael Steele[, whose had virtually all his powers stripped from him, is not a very good example of a politician of any race.

Well, you've got me there. I've never much cared for him anyway

quote]I will say this: I do believe a lot of "bleeding heart" liberals have good intentions. I believe most of them really do want to help out the downtrodden and I do appreciate it; but all the good intentions in the world doesn't mean a bloody thing if the results don't show anything for it.

That's true, but at least the effort is there, and with continued efforts, with tweaking and fixing the methodology and with more black activism, maybe the results will improve.

Sure -- President Obama has said the same exact thing. It sounds like you have a rich and proud family history, and as such you should also appreciate the work that your family has done to help each other and probably the community as well. You are, after all, standing on their shoulders -- on their collective efforts to build their descendants a better future. I am very much into genealogy, which makes me realize that I am just another person in the long line of men and women striving to better the conditions of the next generation. Which, BTW, has sometimes included economic and social struggle often opposed by conservatives.

IMO, we lose something when we only think of the "here and now," and only for ourselves. We are certainly important as individuals, but this nation was built on the joined efforts of all races, and it would be a shame to lose that history and social context to the modern world.

You bring up good points, Baculus; and believe it or not, we're actually on the same page on a lot of things. My main concern is with the government and their involvement in the affairs of the people. I'm a firm believer in universal liberty; that it's not legislation that gets things going, but the efforts of individuals. It's that spark of ambition that makes things tick. Too much government intrusion, no matter how good the intentions, can stifle that ambition and can slow a nation down.

[DjTj]

You bring up good points, Baculus; and believe it or not, we're actually on the same page on a lot of things. My main concern is with the government and their involvement in the affairs of the people. I'm a firm believer in universal liberty; that it's not legislation that gets things going, but the efforts of individuals. It's that spark of ambition that makes things tick. Too much government intrusion, no matter how good the intentions, can stifle that ambition and can slow a nation down.

The reason that black people, like Jews, immigrants, and other oppressed minorities, are Democrats is because they have realized that they need a strong federal government to protect them. When the descendants of slaves in America relied on local government and individual liberty, they lived under Jim Crow and segregation. They were only liberated by the massive (and maybe unconstitutional) intrusion of the federal government in Brown v. Board, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and other "big government" actions. Immigrants today face the same choice between local governments that seek to discriminate against them and a federal government trying to give them amnesty. Why would these minority groups choose small government when small government has consistently failed them?