A reader asked what the difference was between black conservatives and black liberals. The answer may be obvious to most of us but less so to those who don’t follow politics or engage in daily online discussions as we do at LBC.
Last year Roger Clegg, a former contributor to National Review Online and Vice President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, sent me a copy of an article he’d written for The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, titled Black Culture And Black Conservative Thought: Toward An Anthology. Divided into four parts, the article examines the goals of race relations, the role of “black culture” in achieving the goals, the suggestion that an anthology of “conservative black thought” would be a valuable contribution to racial progress, and a review of a book called Dimensions of Black Conservatism in the United States.
One of the most controversial arguments Clegg makes is that black culture itself, not racism and discrimination, is the underlying reason for “white bias and disproportionate underachievement” of blacks in school and the workplace. Such talk evokes untold outrage among blacks, especially coming from a white man, but Clegg qualifies his statement. He’s referring specifically to disproportionately high illegitimacy rates, crime, substance abuse, and “anti-intellectualism.” These things affect society as a whole, but the operative word here is disproportionately. Relative to the general population, social pathologies impact a larger number of blacks and impact them to a greater degree.
Many times and in many ways, I write about the same things on this blog. In fact, when I used to write my column (the blog took over), I often addressed these subjects. (Are you new to the blog? If so, you probably didn’t know I used to write a regular, bi-weekly column. See this archive.) From these articles the angry e-mails flowed.
Whenever unpleasant facts are presented, whether the subject is blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, criminals (including illegal aliens), etc., the reaction is always defensive. “Racist” and “homophobe” often follow criticism of certain behavior. One of the reasons I write what I write and say what I say is that I am not afraid of angry people. As long as truth emerges, I consider myself a mere messenger, expendable for a greater good.
Clegg discusses the “rich tradition of black conservative thought,” including the work of Booker T. Washington. Washington’s nemesis, so to speak, W.E.B. Du Bois, also had conservative leanings. Clegg writes:
Du Bois had no patience with what lawyers now call the “disparate impact” approach to civil rights: the notion that nondiscriminatory standards somehow become discriminatory if they disproportionately affect racial minorities. So long as you did not use race, Du Bois urged that we “[d]raw lines of crime, of incompetence, of vice, as tightly and uncompromisingly as you will, for these things must be proscribed….” Nor is his book consistent with today’s affirmative action because he yearned for “a morning when men ask of the workman, not ‘Is he white?’ but ‘Can he work?’ When men ask artists, not ‘Are they black?’ but ‘Do they know?’”
Certain blacks have convinced themselves and will try to convince anyone who’ll listen that the scourge of racism is a hovering dark cloud forever impeding the black man’s success. I know people on and offline who think and talk this way, to varying degrees. The underlying message is the same: whites will not “allow” blacks to achieve. A perfect example is Tavis Smiley’s “State of the Black Union.” Twenty minutes into the video, I already know where it’s going. But I will continue to watch and listen. Begrudgingly.
Clegg also suggests that a compilation of black conservative writing would be worthwhile. The book would include sections on family, law and crime, education, work and the economy, pride and faith, and emphasize that marriage is good and promiscuity and illegitimacy are bad. (Good and bad? Who are you to judge?!) The book must also contain the message that crime is “inexcusable” and academic achievement and plain old hard work is essential for black progress.
He lists a number of blacks who are conservatives or have expressed conservative ideals, such as Clarence Thomas, Glenn Loury, Ward Connerly, Malcolm X, Star Parker, John McWhorter, Ralph Ellison, Orlando Patterson and Debra Dickerson. There are many others.
The final section of Clegg’s article is a review of Dimensions of Black Conservatism in the United States. Clegg said he had high hopes that the book would be similar to the one he suggested. While it discusses some of the above-mentioned writers’ work, it does so disparagingly. Clegg writes:
[T]he essays in the book generally treat black conservatism as dangerous and pathological and do not define or analyze it honestly. Of course if one defines conservatism as simply favoring the political status quo — as some of the contributors do — then it is not surprising that there have been few black conservatives during much of American history, when the status quo meant slavery and segregation. Indeed, if favoring the political status quo is part of what conservatism connotes, that interpretation would explain why so many blacks shy away from anything labeled conservative.
But we “black conservatives” know what we stand for has nothing to do with preserving human subjugation and racism and everything to do with being responsible for our own behavior and striving to be men and women of high character no matter what we face.
Clegg says that Dimensions is “relentless in criticizing black conservatives,” but notes one exception. A writer named Sherri Smith gives the matter a more evenhanded treatment. Here is where we get to the meat of what separates the black conservative from the black liberal. The concept of self-help is prevalent in conservative thought. Smith writes that conservatives also believe the individual is not created by his race category, that America is a land of opportunity, that whites are not an omniscient power, that knowledge comes from individual reasoning rather than collective awareness, etc.
Smith’s conclusion provides the most direct “points of contrast” between black conservatives and liberals I’ve read in awhile:
We (black conservatives) seize opportunities whereas they (civil rights advocates and black nationalists) fear opportunities. We prepare for success but they resent it. We prefer for African Americans (Ed. note: Ugh!) to be winners; they encourage us to be losers….We reject victim status; those leaders encourage a victim status. We are independent thinkers who recognize the humanity of whites; they are slaves who believe whites and white racism to be omnipotent. Finally, we fight for intellectual, cultural, and political freedom; they fear this freedom and fight against it.
Although very broad and general, this kernel of truth is what separates the black conservative from his liberal counterpart. Roger Clegg sent this article many months ago, but I didn’t have time to read it. I found it a few days ago buried under other papers and decided to read it. I hadn’t planned on blogging about it, but after receiving the e-mail from a curious new reader, I knew I had to.
In the tradition of Booker T. Washington and all the black conservatives who came before me, I proudly count myself among their number.
