African-Americans and the "tea-party" movement

Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page noted that one of the "underappreciated, overlooked" stories coming from last week's election was the number of black candidates who ran as conservative Republicans and even as "tea-party" sympathizers; two even won. ABC News aired a similar story, and my right-wing former colleague Ruth Ann Dailey, who still writes for the Post-Gazette, was giddy that the Democratic Party might finally be losing its stranglehold on black voters.

Don't be fooled one bit, however -- because it won't change a thing. These two new black Congressmen were elected from majority-white districts, which means that, while they may represent their respective districts, they likely didn't have many fellow African-Americans voting for them.

And here's where it's important to understand that, contrary to popular conservative opinion, blacks do not vote for black candidates based simply on color; like everyone else, African-Americans vote their interests, which are rarely -- if ever -- aligned with the conservative political agenda. The black community isn't really enamored with the Democratic Party or doesn't hate the Republican Party, truth be told; it just has a deep contempt for the political right dating back to the 1960s. Keep in mind that the political ancestors of today's conservatives, North and South, opposed the civil-rights movement, and they still have not dealt with the latent racism that even today is considered part-and-parcel of the political right.

And, to a certain extent, conservatives actually understand this. Over the years they have been willing to pay top dollar to African-Americans willing to ally with them and try to sell their program -- not to other African-Americans, mind you, but to white "moderates" not well-versed in history to demonstrate that, well, they don't deserve that reputation of racism. Twelve years ago a right-wing group reached out to me after I wrote an op-ed for the PG that not only espoused a "conservative" position but was also critical of the NAACP, which the right hates with a passion. (I never responded.)

However, just because conservative organizations may hire and promote blacks (ironically, practicing a form of "affirmative action" that they say they oppose) doesn't mean that they have actually repented. One example was the American Enterprise Institute, which had hired African-American economists Glenn Loury and Carter Woodson as fellows; however, they quit in 1996 after Dinesh D'Souza, another fellow, published the book "The End of Racism," which they considered racist in its own right. Black conservatives are often considered by other African-Americans to be "sellouts" because, in practice, they often are; if you see or hear any African-American spouting the conservative line, you can bet that he or she is being paid. Handsomely. (It doesn't matter whether he or she actually believes it, only that he or she says it.)

That's the backdrop of last week's election results -- and why this supposed breakthrough shouldn't be taken all that seriously; African-Americans already know or suspect what's behind it, so don't look for many to cross the line. Former congressman J.C. Watts Jr., who once represented a largely-white Tulsa district and had risen to the No. 4 position in House leadership, eventually understood that; before the 2008 election he announced that he was considering voting for Barack Obama because the Republican Party had ignored black voters and their concerns. Cynicism? Not really, because that history can't be ignored.

And if I needed any more proof ... the racist legacy of the modern conservative movement

About a decade ago during my last dating relationship, my girlfriend's brainy middle son brought home from church some literature from the "Conservative Chronicle" that he said came from "some think tank." I looked it up on the internet, and when I learned who the editor was, a Southern reactionary named Samuel Francis, I decided I wanted nothing to do with it because it came across as borderline racist. (Needless to say, I refused to attend the church as well, and that would eventually doom the relationship.)

Well, it turns out that there was nothing "borderline" about that publication.

Today I learned that the "think tank" that produced it was the Council of Conservative Citizens, a name not as innocuous as it sounds -- it was formerly known as the White Citizens Council, a staunchly segregationist organization that opposed the civil-rights movement in the 1960s. In effect, it operated as a kinder, gentler Ku Klux Klan minus the sheets and secrecy and apparently hasn't changed its views in all that time. Furthermore, it had at least two right-wing now-former Republican politicians -- Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi -- speak at gatherings. (Yes, the same Trent Lott who insinuated that he was hankering for segregation in feting the late Sen. Strom Thurmond during his centennial in 2002.)

I find it interesting that the political right likes to call attention to the historic racism of the Democratic Party and, in its arrogance, have openly wondered why African-Americans don't vote Republican. They conveniently overlook the fact that the Southern racists that gave the national Democratic Party that reputation began migrating to the GOP beginning in the 1960s -- of politicians of that era, only the late North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms was never elected as a Democrat -- and completely sold out to the GOP on a national level during the Reagan years. (Recall that even Ronald Reagan himself ran racist campaigns to appeal to them.)

Basically, the political right ought to stop denying its ties to racist groups, present as well as past. I don't think it's any coincidence that race has become less a factor as the political right has fallen from power, because back in that day the right used it has a divide-and-conquer tactic to achieve and maintain power. But instead of marginalizing its opponents, it ended up marginalizing itself. There's a reason Jesus said, "You reap what you sow."

Some thoughts on black masculinity, part 2

In a previous entry I referred to "fatherlessness" -- that is, not so much not having a literal father around but a lack of established older men around to show boys just how to grow and become centered in their masculinity. One of the major consequences is the high number of illegitimate births in the African-American community, now at around 70 percent nationwide. Most people probably think it's because black males are naturally oversexed and simply looking for an easy lay, which is certainly stressed in parts of hip-hop culture, including what are known as the demeaning "b-" and "h-words" in referring to women -- if that were addressed things might change.

But, upon thinking about it, I'm not sure that such adolescents really want or intend to become playboys or abusers. Rather, many of these boys, without realizing it, have embarked on a fruitless search not for so much sex but intimacy and validation. Work with me here...

As I mentioned before, that lack of guidance starts early with no strong male in the home -- and that leads to something that probably most people don't consider: Boys don't see how a healthy relationship between a man and a woman actually works. Therefore, they don't learn to treat women or girls like queens and princesses. (Remember, this goes back many generations, before the 1960s.)

Let's remember, however, that these boys already have a hole in their soul due to a lack of not only validation from a father or other strong male but also appropriate nurturing, so guess how they often try to fill it?

Often, with girls. Of course, that leads to many boys getting their sexual education from the street.

You see where I'm going with this -- sex in this context represents not so much sport but a salve to, at least in theory, wash away the inner pain they often don't even recognize. Trouble is, of course, that they're so needy themselves they don't have what it takes to satisfy a woman's heart. If she turns up pregnant they may "try to do the right thing" but in many cases, seeing correctly that they're defective, she breaks off the relationship believing that she and the child are actually better off without them. (One reason why simply marrying the child's mother doesn't solve the problem is that the emptiness will still be there after the wedding; about two decades ago I worked with a woman who had two children out of wedlock but refused to marry their father because "I don't want to raise three children.") Repeat numerous times and you have the present situation.

Anyway, this lack of confidence in their own masculinity has other results, too. Most obvious is the violence that often goes on in the street -- members of my own congregation have been shot, some to death, because of someone trying to "be a man" by imposing his will on others, and that doesn't always have to do with dealing drugs. And then, not discussed as often, are secret homosexual relationships between black men (colloquially called being "on the down low") that also can come from not being affirmed by Dad or some other man.

So what to do? I'll give answers -- as well as ask some other pertinent questions -- in an upcoming post.

The unaddressed issue surrounding abortion

Well, another anniversary of Roe v. Wade has come and gone, with more bellyaching from both side about the legality of abortion. One side considers it a necessary medical procedure; the other, where my own sympathies lie, murder.

One thing I can tell you: The abortion issue cannot, and ultimately will not, be addressed unless and until one thing is addressed -- dysfunctional relationships between men and women.

That should be obvious, because pregnancy happens due to sexual contact. And what causes improper sexual contact? Well that's the $64,000 question.

Some would consider an over-sexualized society, where women are objectified and men become predators, the culprit. While I think there's some merit to that, I think the real cause is that men and women don't relate to each other in a healthy manner -- which leads to women "advertising" themselves as playthings and men taking advantage of that.

That happens when girls don't get the nurturing and validation they need from Dad or other strong male figure -- in many situations there's no man around anyway -- so they go through life having no idea what a safe, healthy male looks like. A New York Times story about pregnant 13-year-olds noted that the "fathers" tend to be four our five years older.

On the male side, boys similarly don't learn to treat a woman like a princess because Dad's relationship with Mom is less than ideal, and as a result they get their sexual education from the street.

Much has been made in the "pro-life" world about Planned Parenthood's marketing abortion especially in the African-American community; even my own pastor has labeled that "genocide." With all due respect, I'm not in agreement with his analysis.

In large part because of historic racism black men are often beaten down by life, cherished and respected by no one -- they often don't achieve academically or vocationally in their youth because too often they're seen as troublemakers and don't have access to mentoring. That causes rage, which often leads to resentment toward the world because they can't make heads or tails of life.

And that ultimately leads to the unhealthy relationships with women, who often are willing to have sex with them but have no use for them otherwise. Obviously such men don't make good fathers, so many women who have children out of wedlock get rid of them. One single mother I worked with two decades ago wouldn't marry her children's father because "I don't want to raise three children."

So what does this have to do with abortion? Well, I understand that a majority of aborted black babies are boys. I'm convinced that women have abortions because those children, especially sons, would continually remind them of the bad relationship with the father that created it.

This is just one reason why abortion cannot be dealt with by legislation alone. We can legislate all we want but it won't stop people from having illicit sex and, thus, women and girls from getting pregnant. And appeals for "moral behavior" won't work, either -- instead of simply saying "no," they have to say "yes" to something else.

Exposed: The myth of the black conservative

One thing the candidacy of Barack Obama has done when it comes to race relations is to begin to put to rest the myth of the black conservative.

That became clear when J.C. Watts Jr., the former quarterback at the University of Oklahoma and in the Canadian Football League who later represented Tulsa in Congress and who was considered a rising star in the Republican Party before leaving official Washington in 2003 and even a possible vice-presidential candidate, told the Associated Press that he was toying with supporting Obama because the GOP was not really reaching out to African-Americans.

If Watts didn't know it before, he knows it now: The Republicans -- or perhaps more accurately, the conservatives who have dominated the party since the early 1980s -- from the start never had any intention of doing so. When he was elevated to the No. 4 position in congressional leadership it was only for the sake of putting a black face on their policies, with the real target white "moderates" possibly put off by the overt racism of Southern conservatives, most of who were former Democrats, that had opposed the civil-rights movement.

The modus operandi was simple -- put feelers out to any African-American who seemed at all amenable to modern conservatism, make an outsize offer to join their "club" and pay him or her handsomely (leading to the somewhat accurate charge of "sellout"). But once they got on board, the conservatives often reverted to their race-baiting ways.

One example was at the American Enterprise Institute, which had hired Glenn Loury and Robert Woodson as fellows on that basis. They decided to leave when AEI fellow Dinesh D'Souza published the controversial book "The End of Racism," which they considered racist in its own right, in 1996.

More importantly, conservatives never talk to, let alone work with, African-American leadership to determine the issues people face and how to address them -- and why would they? Their ultimate goal was always domination and capitulation, not cooperation, and in their view the idea that the conservative approach is "wrong" is, somehow, unthinkable. But that's what the black community has always told the political right, which is why 90 percent usually vote Democratic, with that percentage going up this time around. Too bad conservatives haven't gotten the message.

Recently a number of conservatives have suggested that blacks were being racist for their solid support of Obama. They ignore two issues: 1) Until Hillary Clinton began playing the "race card" during the primary season, the black community actually was split because much of its leadership initially supported her; and 2) The black community historically has never supported conservative candidates of any hue or ethnicity. In other words, it's not race that's the defining issue here -- it's ideology.

That reality puts black conservatives in a difficult spot, to put it mildly. Blacks don't take them seriously and the conservative establishment doesn't respect them even with all the money it pays them. Maybe someday black conservatives will learn that they're simply being played -- and some may already have done so.