25 Quotes from Black Conservatives

[_bcspace]

25) "A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -- Larry Elder

24) "I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally; however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person." -- Tim Scott

23) "Good manners will open doors that the best education cannot." -- Clarence Thomas

22) "They say African Americans. I say black people. I’ve only been to Africa once. I’ve been in America all my life!" -- Herman Cain

21) "As the old saying goes, 'money is power' and the more money the government takes, the more power it has over individuals." -- Angela McGlowan

20) "The government is not your salvation. The government is not your road to prosperity. Hard work, education will take you far beyond what any government program can ever promise." -- Mia Love

19) "Liberals worry that what's best for the individual might not be better for the public at large. But that philosophy assumes something vicious about each and every one of us. It assumes we only care about ourselves." -- Allen West

18) "Self esteem comes from achievements. Not from lax standards and false praise." -- Condi Rice

17) "If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it." -- Ward Connerly

16) "There is a simple maxim that I use to express this situation, 'when tolerance becomes a one way street, it leads to cultural suicide.'" -- Allen West

15) "Toure, I’ve seen hate up close. I know what it looks like. I’ve felt its hands on my skin, seen the look in its eyes, felt the burn of its words. It is deliberate and it is real. Racism is not disliking our black President because of his socialist leanings. Racism is the scar I carried near my lip for decades after one particularly harsh punch in the mouth from a kid screaming 'N*GGER!' at me while swinging away. Racism is that guy in the diner, the hoses and dogs turned on folks from my grandparents’ generation just looking to drink at a decent water fountain. When you accuse a person of racism, THAT is the legacy of hate you are laying at their feet. It’s every bit as heinous as accusing someone of being a child molester arbitrarily. When you accuse Mitt Romney and other conservatives like me of being racist based on no other proof besides the fact that we vehemently disagree with this President and his policies, you dilute the history and experiences of people like me. You cheapen that word – n*gger. You rob it of its true horror – a horror we should never forget or take for granted. Not only that, Toure; but you cheapen yourself. You make it clear to blacks like me that you, indeed have no clue in hell what real racism is or where it can be found." -- Kira Davis

14) "The right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do." -- Michael Steele

13) "If you are explaining, you are losing." -- J.C. Watts

12) “When caring for your neighbor becomes a compulsory obligation imposed by government instead of voluntary, charity turns to confiscation and freedom to achieve to involuntary servitude. To liberals, compassion seems to be defined by how many people are dependent on the government; to conservatives, it’s defined by how many people no longer need help. One promotes dependence, the other freedom, responsibility and achievement.” -- Star Parker

11) “Since the social victim has been oppressed by society, he comes to feel that his individual life will be improved more by changes in society than by his own initiative. Without realizing it, he makes society rather than himself the agent of change. The power he finds in his victimization may lead him to collective action against society, but it also encourages passivity within the sphere of his personal life.” -- Shelby Steele

10) "Good motives aside, white condescension does more damage than good. White condescension says to a black child, 'The rules used by other ethnic groups don’t apply to you. Forget about work hard, get an education, posses good values. No, for you, we’ll alter the rules by lowering the standards and expecting less.’ Expect less, get less.” -- Larry Elder

9) "I don't believe in quotas. America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights." -- Clarence Thomas

8) "The best way to help your neighbor is not to live off your neighbor." -- AlfonZo Rachel

7) "They said that I had sold out and (am an) Uncle Tom. And I said well, they deserve to have that view. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps." -- J.C. Watts

6) "The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling." -- Thomas Sowell

5) "It’s often said that the Democrats fight 'for the little guy.' That’s true: liberals fight to make sure the little guy stays little! Think about it. What if all the little guys were to prosper and become big guys? Then what? Who would liberals pretend to fight for? If the bamboozlers fight for anything, it’s to ensure that the little guy stays angry at those nasty conservatives who are holding him down." -- Angela McGlowan

4) "We might think of dollars as being 'certificates of performance.' The better I serve my fellow man, and the higher the value he places on that service, the more certificates of performance he gives me. The more certificates I earn, the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That’s the morality of the market. In order for one to have a claim on what his fellow man produces, he must first serve him." -- Walter Williams

3) "We've become a culture where earning money doesn't entitle you to it, but wanting it does. That is the essence of redistribution." -- Ken Blackwell

2) "Here’s Williams’ roadmap out of poverty: Complete high school; get a job, any kind of a job; get married before having children; and be a law-abiding citizen. Among both black and white Americans so described, the poverty rate is in the single digits." -- Walter Williams

1) "Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large." -- Thomas Sowell

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/01/29/25-great-quotes-from-black-conservatives-n1500015

[_Droopy]

This is one of those fascinating posts that is met with ear-jarring peels of silence.

It happens now and then, and always, it seems, related to similar issues.

[_beastie]

On the thread "The Problem with Black Folks", droopy said the following:
Post subject: Re: The problem with black folks...
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:39 pm

Blah, blah, blah and, if I may say so myself, blah.

The following is among the best explications of the relationship of early modern conservatism to the early civil rights movement I've found, and contains the nuance, required intellectual background, and intellectual honesty that Beastie et al refuse steadfastly to bring to the table of discussion.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

viewtopic.php?p=704392#p704392

The article that he admired, and said I would refuse to bring to the table of discussion, had, in fact, already been linked to and heavily cited by….beastie. Me. This is what I said about the article:
Post subject: Re: The problem with black folks...
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:23 pm

http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

by the way, this linked article is excellent and as balanced as I've ever seen on the subject.

viewtopic.php?p=702847#p702847
I then quoted half the article.

What does droopy hope to gain by refusing to admit his error?
Time to man up, Droopy.

[_Droopy]

I'm a bit perplexed as to exactly you want me to admit to. Is it that you want me to say that you linked to the article and posted a substantial portion of it? Is that what this is all about?

[_Droopy]

OK, yes, you linked to it and posted some of it. You also subjected it to a bit of quote mining, yes, and I admit I missed that because I was concentrating on the substance of your argument regarding conservatives and racism which I consider to be philosophically and historically inane.

OK?

[_beastie]

OK, yes, you linked to it and posted some of it. You also subjected it to a bit of quote mining, yes, and I admit I missed that because I was concentrating on the substance of your argument regarding conservatives and racism which I consider to be philosophically and historically inane.

OK?

lol

I didn't "quote mine" it. I quoted half the entire article.

[Guest]

OK, yes, you linked to it and posted some of it. You also subjected it to a bit of quote mining, yes, and I admit I missed that because I was concentrating on the substance of your argument regarding conservatives and racism which I consider to be philosophically and historically inane.

OK?

lol

I didn't "quote mine" it. I quoted half the entire article.

In which case, you really shouldn't have used it, because it does not, in the main, support any of your major contentions about the early conservative movement and its relationship to racial issues of the time, and has no bearing of the conservatism since the mid-sixties (nor is it the only commentary of the subject, as the many links I've posted on these several threads make clear).

[_beastie]

This what droopy thinks quote-mining looks like.

It's really funny to listen to some of you act as if you (or rather, your right-wing media conglomerates) have ferreted out some deeply hidden historical fact that should upend everything. What you're really revealing is your own ignorance on the topic. None of this is new or surprising to anyone with even a modicum amount of curiosity and/or education about the civil rights movement. Yet people like Rand Paul lecture the students of Howard as if he can school them on real history. It's a hoot, but also kind of sad. Because, in the larger picture (and I mean outside this little board where I enjoy watching droopy and his ilk blow regular gaskets), I agree with Brackite. It is important to the health of our country that we have two healthy, functioning parties. And right now the republican party is failing.

But back to the dispute at hand - let's take William Buckley as an example. He is a good example in many ways. While there is no doubt that the modern republican party has become home to a certain racist portion of the population who once made their homes with Southern Democrats, there is a much larger coalition that opposed the civil rights movement for other reasons, but which still translated into being on the wrong end of history, as Buckley himself later admitted.

Quote:
Asked by Time in 2004 whether he regretted any positions he had taken in the past, Buckley said simply, "Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."


http://www.claremont.org/publications/c ... detail.asp

by the way, this linked article is excellent and as balanced as I've ever seen on the subject.

The problem with Buckley is that he made statements, sometimes at different points in his life, that can be taken to be totally opposed to racism, or tolerant of racism. This section of the linked article deals with this dilemma, and it is instructive for conservatives in general, not just Buckley.

Quote:
Liberals and Conservatives

It would be unfair to leave the impression that conservatism was uniquely preoccupied with its own agenda as the civil rights cause was gaining salience. Liberals, too, had other fish to fry, such as consolidating and expanding the New Deal, prosecuting the containment doctrine against the Soviet Union, and forestalling any second act to McCarthyism. Adlai Stevenson won two Democratic presidential nominations, and numberless admirers among liberals, despite: selecting an Alabama segregationist, John Sparkman, to be his running mate in 1952; opposing (more forcefully than did President Eisenhower) any federal role in integrating Southern schools in 1956; and denouncing "the reckless assertions that the South is a prison, in which half the people are prisoners and the other half are wardens."

One difference between Eisenhower-era liberals and conservatives is that the former kept their distance from the civil rights movement for practical reasons while the latter did so for principled ones. Democrats would imperil their chances for a majority in the Electoral College and Congress without the Solid South, a reality that constrained both FDR and JFK. Legend has Lyndon Johnson turning to an aide after signing the Civil Rights Act and saying that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation. Johnson was the least politically naïve man in America, of course; he looked forward to an election victory and beyond it to forging a Great Society coalition that would secure Democratic victories without the New Deal coalition's reliance on the South. Nevertheless, none of this was assured, and liberals have been nearly as reluctant as conservatives to praise the big political risk Johnson took for the sake of a deep moral conviction.

Having embraced the destruction of Jim Crow and the broader cause of promoting black progress, liberals' belief in the federal government's plenary power facilitated their support for any measure that would, or might, promote civil rights. Conservatives opposed to racial discrimination, however, had few obvious ways to act on that belief without abandoning their long, twilight struggle to re-confine the federal government within its historically defined riverbanks after the New Deal had demolished all the levees. Perlstein portrays Goldwater, a member of the NAACP who had fought against segregation in the Phoenix public schools while on the city council, as anguished by the choice between a moral and a constitutional imperative confronting him in the vote on the civil rights bill.

William Buckley's writings, by contrast, leave the impression that he found the choice between civil rights and the Constitution of limited, enumerated powers regrettable but not especially difficult. (It's worth noting that Buckley's father, born in 1881, grew up in Texas, while his mother was born in 1895 and raised in New Orleans. The "cultural coordinates of our household were Southern," Buckley wrote in his mother's obituary.) If the conservative understanding of constitutional government meant that segregation would persist for decades...then segregation would persist. Conservatives "know that some problems are insoluble," Buckley wrote in 1961. "Should we resort to convulsive measures that do violence to the traditions of our system in order to remove the forms of segregation in the South?" he asked. "I say no." Instead, Buckley expressed the hope that when Negroes have finally realized their long dream of attaining to the status of the white man, the white man will still be free; and that depends, in part, on the moderation of those whose inclination it is to build a superstate that will give them Instant Integration.

Forty years later Buckley and Michael Kinsley shared a series of email exchanges with the readers of Slate. The discussion turned to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, about which Kinsley offered the opinion "that using the power of the government to tell people whom they must do business with really is a major imposition on private freedom.... There's no question the imposition is justified—and has been hugely successful—in rectifying the historical injustice to African-Americans." Buckley, in a formulation John Kerry would have done well not to borrow, responded: "I'd have voted against the bill, but if it were out there today, I'd vote for it, precisely for the reason you gave."

In other words, convulsive measures to overturn segregation were necessary. But then again perhaps not, since Buckley immediately goes on to tell Kinsley, "I'd vote with trepidation, however, for the obvious reason that successful results cannot necessarily legitimize the means by which they were brought about." The desegregation omelet was worth making, but the limited government eggs might or might not have been worth breaking.

Buckley had his reasons, then, for opposing the civil rights movement. Even though he ultimately came to regard that movement's initial and unassailable goal—the end of second-class citizenship in both its petty and vicious aspects—as the more compelling imperative, it was always a close call. Buckley never retracted his limited-government arguments against the civil rights agenda, nor did he relinquish the hope that civil rights could be advanced in ways that impinged only slightly on the conservative project of restoring the founders' republic.

Worse than Missing in Action
The constitutional principles at the heart of this project were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic, and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

Exhibit A, quoted triumphantly by Paul Krugman in his new book The Conscience of a Liberal, was a 1957 National Review editorial Buckley wrote, "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, Buckley said that the "central question" is neither "parliamentary" nor one "that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal." Rather, it is "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominant numerically?"

And? "The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In other words, the South "perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own," an intention Buckley approves:
If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

Buckley's subsequent treatment of civil rights issues was more circumspect. In 1957 he regarded the whites' civilization as more advanced both subjectively and objectively. The South perceives important differences between white and black culture, and the white community is the advanced race and what blacks would bring about is atavistic.

Later, Buckley emphasized only the subjective element. Abandoning the argument that whites were objectively more civilized, however, sometimes led to expressions of solicitude for Southern whites who were conspicuously uncivilized. A 1961 editorial beseeches readers to try to understand those whites who responded to the provocation posed by the Northern "Freedom Riders" by beating the crap out of a few of them. "Jim Crow at the bus stations strikes us as unnecessary, and even wrong," Buckley said, but this is "irrelevant" because it "does not strike the average white Southerner as wrong."
That is what they feel, and they feel that their life is for them to structure; that the Negro has grown up under generally benevolent circumstances, considering where he started and how far he had to go; that he is making progress; that the coexistence of that progress and the Southern way of life demand, for the time being, separation.

This was indeed what the South felt, or at least what it said it felt during the early years of the civil rights movement. Buckley's characterization resembles that of the "Southern Manifesto," signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South. The Manifesto charged the Supreme Court's Brown decision with destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

It's hard for modern readers to decide whether cynicism, or delusion, explains such an assessment.

The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots. This disparity culminated in a position on violence committed by whites against blacks and civil rights activists that was reliably equivocal. Like the liberals of the 1960s who didn't condone riots in Watts and Detroit but always understood them, Buckley regularly coupled the obligatory criticism of Southern whites' violent acts with a longer and more fervent denunciation of the provocations that elicited them. Thus, "the nation cannot get away with feigning surprise" when a mob of white students attacks a black woman admitted to the University of Alabama by federal court order in 1956. "For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court, a year ago, illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores; and now we are engaged in attempting to enforce our law." Thus, the Freedom Riders went into the South to "challenge with language of unconditional surrender" the whites' "deeply felt" beliefs, and were "met, inevitably, by a spastic response. By violence."


It's an article worth reading for anyone interested in a deeper analysis of the issue than droopy's cartoonish rhetoric. It also demonstrates some of the difficulties conservatives face in trying their minority outreach. The students of Howard are far more aware of this history than buffoons like droopy assume them to be.

viewtopic.php?p=702847#p702847

[_beastie]

In which case, you rally shouldn't have used it, because it does not, in the main, support any of your major contentions about the early conservative movement and its relationship to racial issues of the time, and has no bearing of the conservatism since the mid-sixties.

You still haven't read my posts, have you? You have no idea WHAT I'm arguing.

[_beastie]

Here is what I want you to admit.

You don't really read the replies people on the other side of an argument make to you. Perhaps you read a line or two, but then you simply launch into your canned diatribe. You don't really try to engage in the ideas of the other side.

I have had this suspicion for a very long time, but this glaring, blatant, and, for you, embarrassing display provided absolute proof.