Black Conservatives in Large and Small Caps
by Guest Contributor David Schraub, originally published at The Debate Link
About a year ago, I penned a post entitled “Taking Thomas Seriously“, about the particularly political ideology held by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In it, I noted that both liberals and conservatives misunderstood Thomas’ orientation because they tried to map him onto “standard” (White) political categories. Thomas is a conservative, yes, but specifically he is a Black Conservative, which is a very particular philosophical tradition that does not perfectly align with plain old vanilla White conservatives.
Not all Black conservatives are Black Conservatives (that is, there are conservative Black people, such as Ward Connerly, who I would not identify as part of the Black Conservative tradition), and, more importantly, not all Black Conservatives are conservative (in that, on our “traditional” left/right axis, some would be placed on the left). However, because most people, particularly most Whites, aren’t familiar with Black Conservative ideology, it leads to significant misunderstanding about where its adherents are coming from when they do show up on the national stage. All this is preface to point out that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he who has nearly derailed Obama’s campaign, is a Black Conservative. To be sure, he’s not a conservative (needless to say, capitalization matters in this post). But he’s not a “liberal” either — his political alignment doesn’t comfortably fit onto models premised on White ideological positioning. Black Conservatism, like Black Liberalism, is not wholly divorced from “standard” Conservatism and Liberalism — but at best they intersect at odd angles.
Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America — counting on White people to be moral or “do the right thing” is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can’t be trusted. Every dollar that flows out of the Black community and into the hands of White America is a dollar that is in the control of a group that, at best, has a unique set of interests that can’t be counted on to converge with those of Black people. Contained within this school are thinkers as far-ranging as Derrick Bell, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Clarence Thomas, Huey P. Newton, and Malcolm X. Black groups and leaders who were/are not Black Conservatives include W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King, the NAACP, Thurgood Marshall, and yes, Barack Obama.
Black Conservatism holds obvious parallels with traditional paleo-conservatism (hence the name): the mistrust of outsiders, looking out for one’s own people first (and concurrently, self-reliance over dependency), lack of faith in high-minded moralism and ideology. But since African-Americans are a minority people in the United States, some other qualities are grafted on which are less familiar to majoritarian conservatism: most notably, the nation is considered to be an outsider, making the ideology significantly less inclined towards patriotism than the average White conservative. The “anti-American” elements, normally associated as a far-left belief, actually are a closer relative to conservative xenophobia: the analogy would be White American Conservative: United Nations :: Black American Conservative : United States. Each represents a distant governmental body, run by outsiders, which represents a putative threat to group autonomy. The mistrust of authority, often characterized as a left-belief, becomes a right-ward belief once its conceptualized as mistrust of foreign authority — within their own communities, Black Conservatives often create very rigid hierarchal models (particularly on gender issues). Ultimately, though, what Black Conservatives preach is independence: As Marcus Garvey, an key Black Conservative writer in the early 20th century put it, “No race is free until it has a strong nation of its own; its own system of government and its own order of society. Never give up this idea.”
Virtually all the controversial statements said by Rev. Wright make the most sense as expositions on Black Conservative ideology. His disclaimer of the pursuit of “middle-class-ness” is a term of art; he’s flaming Black people who are more concerned about looking good to White people than they are about insuring the health of their own community — including those who haven’t yet moved up the ladder. His extraordinarily grim predictions about the state of racism in America are textbook Black Conservative arguments, as are his efforts to break down the idea that America is a particularly moral government that can be trusted (rightly, when he notes that America too has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in Latin America and supported it in South Africa; wrongly when he alleges that we infected Black folk with the AIDS virus).
I’m not saying I agree with all of his points — I’m not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I’m not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can’t understand what we’re yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind — they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative political spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can’t be accused of, it’s of being too much of a pessimist.
—
[Editor's Note: This post was sent to Andrew Sullivan and linked to on Sullivan's blog. Some of the readers that migrated over to The Debate Link posted comments that led to an update and a follow up post. We will host the follow up post here tomorrow. The original update is below. - LDP]
UPDATE: Welcome, Andrew Sullivan readers! One thing I wanted to get at in this post, but didn’t get to, was how Wright’s remarks fit into a particular model of Black theology, which I also identify as fundamentally in line with Black Conservatism. Wright’s Jeremiads differ not at all from classic White Evangelism, except in who they condemn.
Ultimately, as I told Andrew, the interplay between Black Conservatism and Liberalism is, I believe, representative of the Janus-face in the Black political psyche. All but the most hardened Black Conservatives would, I believe, admit that they would prefer a world in which racism had ended, where people of all backgrounds could live in trust and harmony. They just think of it as an idyllic fantasy; one that distracts Blacks from the every day need to survive and flourish in a world where the fantasy is not the reality. And Black Liberals, in their more despondent moments, wonder if the Conservatives are right — if their long struggle is ultimately futile; if White people ever will truly accept Blacks as equals, brothers and sisters. Wright is more than Obama’s crazy uncle — he’s the other side of Obama’s message of hope. Obama represents those Blacks who still have faith in the ability of America to ultimately overcome racial stratification. Wright represents those who can no longer believe.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Re misunderstanding Thomas’s orientation because we try to map him onto “standard” (White) political categories:
Here’s what I understand about Thomas’s orientation. If this differs from the standard conservative orientation, I don’t see how:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
The conventional wisdom that Thomas’ votes follow Antonin Scalia’s is reflected by Linda Greenhouse’s observation that Thomas voted with Scalia 91 percent of the time during October Term 2006.
Thomas consistently supports a strict interpretation of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and supports limits on the power of federal government in favor of states’ rights.
Thomas sees manufacturing and agriculture as being outside of the scope of the Commerce Clause, and therefore not subject to federal regulation.
In the cases regarding the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, Thomas often favors police over defendants.
Thomas has argued that the executive branch has broad powers under the constitution.
Thomas believes that the Constitution forbids any consideration of race.
Among others on the Court, Thomas has advocated the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 6:41 am ¶
Jaya wrote:
I see no evidence that Thomas fits into that kind of conservatism you’re talking about. The thought that he is comparable to Malcolm X or Wright is laughable.. since when has he ever sent down a decision that supports the idea “that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions”?
I think your characterization of black conservatism is interesting, and is a new, thought-provoking way to look at the black community, but what you seem to be arguing is that black conservatives, like Garvey and Wright, are seen as radical leftists by mainstream America, even though their ideology is quite conservative. But Clarence Thomas is perceived as a standard right-wing Republican by mainstream America. Couldn’t it be that that is what he is?
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 11:33 am ¶
Monie wrote:
It sounds to me that the author when describing Black conservatism is really outlining Black Nationalism.
Which are two very different things.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 12:08 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
Thanks for pulling the covers off true black conservatism.
Your analysis is an over-simplification because there are many variations and gradations when it comes to black conservatism.
Most black conservatives would not agree with Mr. Wrights conspiracy theories, but if that helps makes him more palatable for you then go ahead.
The anti-americanism component of your analysis is invalid. Please provide a good-faith basis for black conservatives being anti-american. Black conservatism is not anti-american. For example, 2 million or so muslims associated with W.D. Mohammed are not anti-American.
Black conservatives believe in the ideals of this country and believes that most Americans are good people.
You are trying to equate black conservatism with black nationalism with a mix of black liberation theology.
You must understand that there are other strands of black political discourse that remains missing from your explanations.
Also, black conservatism says that we need not explain ourselves to whites or anyone else for that matter because it should be pretty self-evident that conservative values serve us well.
Moreover, most POC are actually conservative particularly 1st generation immigrants. We believe in hard work and doing for self.
The father of black conservatism – Booker T. Washington believed whole-heartedly in this program. All who followed him are his descendants.
The loud black liberal crowd seeks acceptance, which we look upon with contempt.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 12:46 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
So if Thomas is part of a black Conservative movement that self-segregates and implicitly distrusts white institutions and white people individually to an extent, why does he have a white wife and why has he often worked in white organizations and has used his tenure on the court to only uphold the white status quo and even roll back things that assist blacks ? I doubt Reverand Wright supports rolling back civil rights legislation. You can even say that the EEOC which Thomas once headed up was white because it was created by whites, and he seemed to have been put in that institution to help maintain the white status quo while giving the patina of being out to protect and assist minorities by having a black in charge. I can see how he is a Conservative period but a black one, I don’t get it.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 1:04 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
I find that bit about white responses to Black Conservativism interesting.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:
I can’t see how Clarence Thomas can fit into a school of thinkers such as Malcom X, Marcus Garvey and Derrick Bell. Doesn’t his participation in one of America’s most revered institutions mean he wants to operate inside the system? Not only operating in it, but operating in it by perpetuating the most rigid of ideologies underlying the system?
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶
shah8 wrote:
I profoundly do not agree with this post. It mixes up authortarianism, nationalism, and typical minority chauvanism in a pot full of “black-conservatism”.
Look, Malcolm X and Reverend Wright are not conservatives by any real stretch of the imagination. They are many other things, but not conservative, and not black conservatives. Black conservatives lost a great deal of influence during 40s, 50s, and 60s as black people migrated out of the South towards northern jobs. They also lost a great deal of influence because contra to the post, many black people realized that their conservative leaders were, more often than not, quislings who benefited from black isolation–much like Condoleeza Rice’s dad.
Booker T Washington is the true father of mainstream black conservatism and he did alot to establish the politics and conservatism of the black populace until roughly the 1920s. Strains of his ideas–bootstraps, self-reliance, know-your-placism-and-work-with-it, and the like, are apparent in many majority black district’s politics.
Clarence Thomas, is, for all intents an purposes, just another guy who sold his morals for power and glory. He does not actually have an especially coherent theory of law. Consistency in being a wingnut of a suspiciously white frame in minor cases does not a grand legal theory make.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 2:00 pm ¶
David Schraub wrote:
Hey all –
So as you know, this post was originally put up at my blog, The Debate Link, a few months back. Many folks commented, many of whom made the same point re: Thomas as a Black Separatist being kind of bizarre. So I wrote an update a few days later, and that post (I believe) will be put up tomorrow by the kind hosts here.
But if you want a better case of where Thomas falls into what I’m calling “Black Conservatism” (I think Black Nationalism is a branch of it, sure), think of Stokely Carmichael — who was all about working inside the American capitalist system, albeit with a unified front of Black solidarity.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 2:26 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
David, it sounds like what you describe as “Black Conservatism” is your basic ethnic chauvinism. It’s not uncommon, Ron noted that a lot of first-generation immigrants are conservatives (in the American political lexicon) on some issues, though it’s no accident that they start voting for Democrats after an election cycle or two (and it ain’t because they are stupid, lazy, or deluded).
But I think the problem is two-fold. First, Thomas as an example is problematic. Malcolm X as an example is even more so — his thinking evolved over time, and I doubt towards the end of his life he was so wedded to the idea of self-help by itself as a viable strategy. (It’s interesting to see his evolution pre- and post-Hajj).
The second problem is oversimplification (and ignorance of) what the left/right axis we talk about politics with usually means, and just who stood where. Leftists have been consistent in calling not just for integration. but equality of opportunity. White progressives aren’t always perfect here, but it strikes me that supporting the Civil Rights Act was probably more helpful than admonishing black people to be more responsible.
Many of the thinkers you cite — well, I’d just ask what period of their lives you were citing, you know?
The idea of self-reliance is great, but no modern economy can operate that way. It just can’t. And Garvey, well, let’s just say I’d say his view assumes that people, race, and culture are all fixed entities, immutable, and carried physically in your DNA or something. The world just doesn’t wortk like that.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶
Antonio wrote:
I agree with Monie. What’s described in this post sounds more like Black Nationalism.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 9:33 pm ¶
Josh wrote:
Has the author ever read a book on Clarence Thomas? I doubt it because he’s got it all wrong.
CT is largely a conservative in the sense of Edmund Burke. One of his biggest influences is economist Thomas Sowell (who in turn is a conservative in the sense of FA Hayek). If anything, CT is largely libertarian. Many people love to say that he simply mimics Scalia. This couldn’t be more wrong. Just because Scalia runs his mouth more while CT asks fewer questions doesn’t mean he is following Scalia’s lead. Again, has anyone here actually read CT’s opinions? They’re really brilliant. He rules against the government more than any other justice. This is part of his larger coherent ideology which has little to do with race.
And to put CT (emphasis on strict constitutionalism) along side Derrick Bell (one of the fathers of critical legal studies) is just laughable. From the looks of it, the author has read to much CLS because he tries to break everyone down to their race and fails.
Posted 07 Jan 2009 at 9:51 pm ¶
ntamunoza wrote:
Long time lurker first time poster….
The author of the article states that in order to understand Black political thought, one must not impose white standards and paradigms on it, and then he does just that.
He insidiously removes the integral and major shaping component of these political views that drove and motivated everyone he mentions in his article, the component being racism, and anti racism, thereby successfully redefining black social movements and political thoughts in terms people who may not understand the complexity of racism and Black people’s desire to overcome it can understand. Again, successfully superimposing white standards and paradigms unto complex social and political ideas that were shaped and motivated by a strict and fierce desire to overcome oppression and end racism. But from the way the author redefines and oversimplifies Black “liberals” and “conservatives” this major opposition to racism is nowhere to be seen. This is perfectly aligned with the ways in which “standard” “liberal” and “conservative” are understood, because they are not defined according to their orientation to race and racism. In fact, “liberals” are the ones who are usually opposed to social injustices in general (that would be you Rev Wright!).
I actually think the author misunderstood many ideas about Black leaders encouraging self help among the Black population as being similar to “normal” “conservative” ideas about “pulling one up by one’s foot straps”, when in fact many of these leaders were encouraging self love, self respect, autonomy, sovereignty, and most importantly rising out of oppression through unity against disenfranchising elements. You cannot successfully redefine Black “liberals” and “conservatives” by removing their orientation to race and racism and an end to racial and in many cases class oppression. This author’s redefinition seems like just that to me. This article also strikes me as a very Eurocentric view as Black politics are viewed in their relation and orientation to Whiteness, and White political views. Which I find very interesting.
Posted 08 Jan 2009 at 11:54 am ¶