Black and Republican?

Here’s an interesting piece from Opinionjournal.com by Ted Hayes, who’s a black homeless advocate here in Los Angeles. He actually lives among the homeless, while working with them. So, it would be pretty damn hard to accuse him of living in his master’s house.

Prejudice
Black Republicans should be able to live without fear.

BY TED HAYES
Monday, January 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo–the list of slurs is long.

But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique, progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who call the Dome Village home are being “evicted” from privately owned property after 12 1/2 years–apparently on account of my political beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of President Bush.

Here’s how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address a local Republican Women’s Club; my landlord read an article in the local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330. Shocked, I inquired as to the seriousness of the change, and the property owner blurted out that the cause of our “eviction” was “because you are Republican.” He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.

And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and tolerance.

Private property should be protected, of course, and I have no intention of causing any trouble for this property owner as we part ways. Whatever he does with his valuable land–it is only a few blocks from the Staples Center–is no concern of mine, and I will not go to court.

Still, I cannot help but be saddened by the whole business. When I founded the Dome Village 12 years ago, we had an understanding that he could ask for his property back at any time for any reason, and I would say “absolutely” without hesitation. Still, his reason was prejudice against Republicans.

We see this across the country. Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland and a Republican candidate for the Senate, has been crudely disparaged on racial grounds. A prominent leftist Web site, for instance, depicted him as “Sambo,” among other aspersions. When Condoleezza Rice was nominated as secretary of state, she faced similar treatment: editorial cartoons depicting her as a racial caricature, personalities calling her “Aunt Jemima” on liberal talk radio, and so forth. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell and other black conservatives regularly face similar smears.

These conservatives are attacked not because of the validity or judicious consideration of their views but because those views are supposedly heterodox for American blacks. Yet it is my opinion that many black people in the U.S. are politically and philosophically conservative–and many are in fact actually closeted Republicans, fearful of persecution by friends, business associates, society clubs, schoolmates and even churches.

It is time for American blacks to have a conversation about the phenomenon of Democrats persecuting black Republicans. Why is this happening? What is it that the Democrats don’t want black folks to understand about Republicans? What is it that the Democrats don’t want black folks to know about Democrats? And how is it that we have come to this point–after having endured so much–where we have ourselves curtailed the freedom of political expression through the threat of retaliatory consequences?


Also, here’s a link to a radio interview with Ted Hayes, wherein he blasts Jesse Jackson for being a con-man who made his living off of keeping blacks in a victimhood mentality. (The interview is about halfway down the page.)

http://www.kfi640.com/johnziegler.html

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
White conservatives don’t care about the poor, or the downtrodden, or whatever – couldn’t be that they think other policies are in everyone’s best interests

Professor X wrote:

Let’s discuss some of these policies that are in everyone’s best interest and don’t give the lower class the shaft. Are there any off the top of you head that are in everyone’s best interest but only garner negative attention from blacks as far as black conservatives?[/quote]

Tax cuts on investment that spur economic growth and create jobs. School vouchers. Welfare reform. Etc.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Maybe some of the black Republicans are just looking for something – anything – to change a cultural paradigm that has produced these results:

‘Marriage Is for White People’

Professor X wrote:

I am a little unclear as to why you posted this. Are you honestly about to pretend that divorces are on the rise…only in the black community? Not only that, but marriage has very little to do with the act of taking responsibility for and taking care of the kids that result from a sex act. I think a kid who has a “seperated” family but has the support of both parents is in a completely different situation than the kid who doesn’t know who his father is.

I mean, this article is so one sided it isn’t even funny. One of my assistants, who is WHITE, just got a divorce a year ago. I have to listen to her go on and on about how her husband won’t show up for scheduled visits on time and other problems. But this is just a “black problem”?

There are no doubt problems in the black community, but how the hell did you come to the conclusion that it is the black conservatives that are effectively changing the situation or are the only ones who want positive change?

Could you please show how black concervatives are changing the culture for the better and black “liberals” are not?[/quote]

No, you missed my point. The black community in America suffers from proportionately worse rates of divorce and illegitimacy – both in comparison to whites and in comparison to Hispanics (both native-born and immigrant populations). This is certainly not a genetic problem. Your point about your white assistant is an interesting anecdote, but speaks nothing at all to any cultural factors that play into these differentials.

Also, I didn’t say black conservatives were effectively changing the situation – to do that, they would need to be given a chance. What they are doing is providing an alternative view on the problem, and a set of alternative solutions – not a bad idea when almost half a century of “feel good” programs have created this mess.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
White conservatives don’t care about the poor, or the downtrodden, or whatever – couldn’t be that they think other policies are in everyone’s best interests

Professor X wrote:

Let’s discuss some of these policies that are in everyone’s best interest and don’t give the lower class the shaft. Are there any off the top of you head that are in everyone’s best interest but only garner negative attention from blacks as far as black conservatives?

Tax cuts on investment that spur economic growth and create jobs. School vouchers. Welfare reform. Etc.[/quote]

I cannot believe poor people don’t understand school choice will benefit them the most.

Rich people can already afford private schools. If they can get the government to pay for it they will take it but it makes no difference.

Poor people cannot afford private schools and their kids are often stuck in bad public schools. Why don’t they vote for people that want to change this?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
White conservatives don’t care about the poor, or the downtrodden, or whatever – couldn’t be that they think other policies are in everyone’s best interests

Professor X wrote:

Let’s discuss some of these policies that are in everyone’s best interest and don’t give the lower class the shaft. Are there any off the top of you head that are in everyone’s best interest but only garner negative attention from blacks as far as black conservatives?

Tax cuts on investment that spur economic growth and create jobs. School vouchers. Welfare reform. Etc.[/quote]

There is much debate on whether tax cuts on big business mean better higher paying jobs for the lower class. How does that positively affect those who have a primary problem of lesser education and a poorer environment to raise future generations? What reforms are being proposed for welfare?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, I didn’t say black conservatives were effectively changing the situation – to do that, they would need to be given a chance. What they are doing is providing an alternative view on the problem, and a set of alternative solutions – not a bad idea when almost half a century of “feel good” programs have created this mess.
[/quote]

What is the alternative view and what are the alternative solutions? I haven’t seen one at all. Obviously, the lower class would experience more social problems than others. That points more to financial problems and status in America rather than some primary racial issue. That means to fix that, you work at increasing social programs that will eventually lead to more education and higher paying jobs.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot believe poor people don’t understand school choice will benefit them the most.

Rich people can already afford private schools. If they can get the government to pay for it they will take it but it makes no difference.

Poor people cannot afford private schools and their kids are often stuck in bad public schools. Why don’t they vote for people that want to change this?[/quote]

From what I understand about school vouchers, I am not against it. I also don’t know anyone personally who is against it.

I had to do some research on school vouchers because I hadn’t read up on it before. One of the major problems of instituting such a program is the fact that some poorer families don’t even have the means to transport their kids to private schools even if they wanted to. Another factor is the actual cost of some of these schools. My uncle refused to send his daughter to a public school. She went to a private school all of her life and is now a biology major at the same college I attended. I have no doubt that he is not opposed to “school vouchers”, however, I can see why some lower class families might be.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/

The main issue being raised by those opposed to school vouchers is the seperation of church and state. It appears that the original concept involved nearly all the families receiving the tax-supported state tuition scholarships attending Catholic schools in Cleveland.

This article brings a very good argument against vouchers and many of these I do agree with as I didn’t know the religious and racial motivations behind many of those who want school vouchers.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/nov96/molnar.html

If this was a pure effort without some agenda to promote either specific religions or the seperation of races, it would have more support. I am surprised that none of these issues are mentioned when others are berated for being against school vouchers.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot believe poor people don’t understand school choice will benefit them the most.

Rich people can already afford private schools. If they can get the government to pay for it they will take it but it makes no difference.

Poor people cannot afford private schools and their kids are often stuck in bad public schools. Why don’t they vote for people that want to change this?

From what I understand about school vouchers, I am not against it. I also don’t know anyone personally who is against it.[/quote]

In general most Democrats oppose school choice and most Republicans favor it.

I have some issues with it myself because there are a few nutty schools that are out there.

In general I think the more choices the better in this case and the Republicans have been pushing for more choice and the Democrats have been opposing it.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
White conservatives don’t care about the poor, or the downtrodden, or whatever – couldn’t be that they think other policies are in everyone’s best interests

Professor X wrote:

Let’s discuss some of these policies that are in everyone’s best interest and don’t give the lower class the shaft. Are there any off the top of you head that are in everyone’s best interest but only garner negative attention from blacks as far as black conservatives?

BostonBarrister wrote:

Tax cuts on investment that spur economic growth and create jobs. School vouchers. Welfare reform. Etc.

Professor X wrote:

There is much debate on whether tax cuts on big business mean better higher paying jobs for the lower class. How does that positively affect those who have a primary problem of lesser education and a poorer environment to raise future generations? What reforms are being proposed for welfare?[/quote]

They mean more jobs, period – which is a pretty big consideration when you’re looking at the unemployment numbers for those with less than a high-school education.

The primary problem of lesser education is best addressed during the education process – thus the school vouchers. Those workers who need more training face some unique and difficult hurdles that aren’t necessarily adequately or directly addressed by either conservative or liberal programs. (see this post: danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: The trouble with job retraining )

Welfare reform was more of an historical example – particularly the caterwauling that was heard on the left concerning how it was going to starve children and punish the poor. The results over the last decade have been encouraging, though it obviously wasn’t a panacea for all the problems facing the underclass. There are currently smaller reforms being proposed, most notably in work requirements and in eligibility standards as I recall, but nothing along the lines of the comprehensive reform of the middle 90s.

However, if you begin to debate the policies, perhaps you can acknowledge the point that some people can see them as solutions and improvements for the underclass, black and otherwise, and as improvements over the current system. Especially in comparison to the status quo, or the idea that problems such as education differentials can be fixed by higher spending alone (thus giving us the wonderful DC public schools, with the highest per pupil spending in the country).

Separation of church and state failed as an argument on the national level. The USSC shot it down, with good reason. There is no honest way to distinguish a college student taking a Pell Grant and going to Notre Dame from a parent taking a voucher to pay for St. Francis High School. As long as the choice lies with the consumer and not with the government, there is no government action to further religion.

Now vouchers are being attacked at the state levels via an interesting interpretation of certain state constitutional provisions. I believe FL just had a case in which its supreme court found some problems. Some history: Around the end of the 19th century, there was a lot of anti-Catholic/anti-immigrant hostility, and the result was that many states passed so-called “Blaine Amendments”. You can read more on their use against voucher programs generally here: http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=45

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I had to do some research on school vouchers because I hadn’t read up on it before. One of the major problems of instituting such a program is the fact that some poorer families don’t even have the means to transport their kids to private schools even if they wanted to. Another factor is the actual cost of some of these schools. My uncle refused to send his daughter to a public school. She went to a private school all of her life and is now a biology major at the same college I attended. I have no doubt that he is not opposed to “school vouchers”, however, I can see why some lower class families might be.[/quote]

Interesting problems, that I’m sure are too real for some people. Though the voucher programs, in areas where they are tried, tend to have waiting lists rather than a bunch of people complaining that they don’t help.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This article brings a very good argument against vouchers and many of these I do agree with as I didn’t know the religious and racial motivations behind many of those who want school vouchers.
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/nov96/molnar.html[/quote]

You really think so? Wow - I thought it did a terrible job of explaining the anti-voucher argument.

The mere fact that some people may want a voucher system for religious reasons does not undermine the entire pro-voucher approach. If private schools - even ones with a religious bent - provide better education than public schools, and ostensibly the state wants the highest quality of education available for its children, then there is a larger, argument to deal with.

This tract is mostly ad hominem. Allowing people to ‘opt out’ of public schools because of the rotten state of public education is not an establishment of religion any more than tax exemptions for relgious institutions is an establishment of religion.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot believe poor people don’t understand school choice will benefit them the most.

Rich people can already afford private schools. If they can get the government to pay for it they will take it but it makes no difference.

Poor people cannot afford private schools and their kids are often stuck in bad public schools. Why don’t they vote for people that want to change this?

From what I understand about school vouchers, I am not against it. I also don’t know anyone personally who is against it.

In general most Democrats oppose school choice and most Republicans favor it.

I have some issues with it myself because there are a few nutty schools that are out there.

In general I think the more choices the better in this case and the Republicans have been pushing for more choice and the Democrats have been opposing it.[/quote]

If there was actually more choice, as well as easy and safe public ways to get poor inner city kids to distant private schools and back home without them getting killed (or, in the south, lynched), then I guarantee more would be more for it across the board. It is the reasons like accessibility, range of choice and overall knowledge of opportunities that breeds distrust of that type of system.

You can’t deny those as major factors in assuming why some are against the idea.

This thread seems rather unfortunate.

When it comes to the story of the person being evicted because of his political leanings, I think that should make everyone take a step back.

What the hell is wrong with the country?

Why has politics evolved into something that is so divisive and leads to such conflicts, just based on a perceived stance?

It also saddens me that people feel there is a need to analyze differences based on race to such a level. Honestly, if you truly believe that people are people, it doesn’t even matter what races fall into what behaviors.

People, being people, face situations and make judgments based on those situations. Once you can accept that people are people, then you can start looking for explanations that do not involve skin tone.

For example, marriage as an institution has been weakening in general. Society has changed, the realities of life have changed, and marriage doesn’t fit into those realities as it once did.

Again, people, both black and white, make decisions based on the situations they find themselves in. More and more people, regardless of skin tone, find that marriage isn’t offering them solutions to their needs, so they don’t choose to get married.

This is the society that money and consumerism built. This type of change is one of the prices we pay for putting profits and posessions above all else in terms of national priority.

I’m not claiming this is wrong, but it is certainly plain to see that changing the nature of our work and the demands of all participants that families will have to adapt as well.

Why all the effort to judge those that don’t conform to past ideals as acting improperly in some way? People always act in their own interest, based on the options available to them…

They always will.

[quote]vroom wrote:
For example, marriage as an institution has been weakening in general. Society has changed, the realities of life have changed, and marriage doesn’t fit into those realities as it once did.

Again, people, both black and white, make decisions based on the situations they find themselves in. More and more people, regardless of skin tone, find that marriage isn’t offering them solutions to their needs, so they don’t choose to get married.

This is the society that money and consumerism built. This type of change is one of the prices we pay for putting profits and posessions above all else in terms of national priority.

I’m not claiming this is wrong, but it is certainly plain to see that changing the nature of our work and the demands of all participants that families will have to adapt as well.

Why all the effort to judge those that don’t conform to past ideals as acting improperly in some way? People always act in their own interest, based on the options available to them…

They always will.[/quote]

I agree with this completely. I am not married. I may or may not get married. Most of the women I run into are not “exceptional”. They are not “motivated”. They are not “above average”. I would have to drop my own standards just to get with one of them and, without a pre-nupt, put everything I own at risk. I have no doubt that there are exceptional women out there, and some may even be on this site, but I refuse to put what I have worked for in jeopardy just for ass that I can get anyway.

That has NOTHING to do with race and everything to do with what I see in my head as my overall goal in life…along with the fact that there are so many crappy women out there who aren’t exactly all that decent themselves.

I am a little surprised that this was even presented as a “black problem”. I just don’t understand that mentality. People who think like this are divisive. There is no wonder there is so much conflict in this country. As long as I am a “black” man before I am a man, it will continue to be that way.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

If there was actually more choice, as well as easy and safe public ways to get poor inner city kids to distant private schools and back home without them getting killed (or, in the south, lynched…[/quote]

I’m sorry, maybe I have not been paying as good attention as I should. When was the last time a black person was “lynched” in the south?

A name and a date is what I’m looking for.

Thank you

BB,

Agreed, and in order to reverse this “mess” there needs to be a dramatic overhaul of the entire system.

As we both know, this will not be forthcoming based upon the hate mongering perpetrated by various racists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. There are others as well.

[quote]
vroom wrote:
For example, marriage as an institution has been weakening in general. Society has changed, the realities of life have changed, and marriage doesn’t fit into those realities as it once did.

Again, people, both black and white, make decisions based on the situations they find themselves in. More and more people, regardless of skin tone, find that marriage isn’t offering them solutions to their needs, so they don’t choose to get married.

This is the society that money and consumerism built. This type of change is one of the prices we pay for putting profits and posessions above all else in terms of national priority.

I’m not claiming this is wrong, but it is certainly plain to see that changing the nature of our work and the demands of all participants that families will have to adapt as well.

Why all the effort to judge those that don’t conform to past ideals as acting improperly in some way? People always act in their own interest, based on the options available to them…

They always will.

Professor X wrote:
I agree with this completely. I am not married. I may or may not get married. Most of the women I run into are not “exceptional”. They are not “motivated”. They are not “above average”. I would have to drop my own standards just to get with one of them and, without a pre-nupt, put everything I own at risk. I have no doubt that there are exceptional women out there, and some may even be on this site, but I refuse to put what I have worked for in jeopardy just for ass that I can get anyway.

That has NOTHING to do with race and everything to do with what I see in my head as my overall goal in life…along with the fact that there are so many crappy women out there who aren’t exactly all that decent themselves.

I am a little surprised that this was even presented as a “black problem”. I just don’t understand that mentality. People who think like this are divisive. There is no wonder there is so much conflict in this country. As long as I am a “black” man before I am a man, it will continue to be that way.[/quote]

That was the whole original point of this thread, BTW. That a “black conservative” shouldn’t be treated differently – and worse – than any other conservative.

At any rate, it wasn’t presented as a “black problem.” It is a problem that is more acute in the African-American community (though not equally - from what I’ve read, it is more acute in native black cultural groups than in immigrant groups). It is definitely getting worse in all groups – I believe the acceleration rate may even be worse in the white underclass than in any other group.

But that misses the entire point. The point of the article was that blacks, as a group, face a problem – the declining marriage rate – that affects them more than other subgroups, and that there are specific cultural impediments to fixing this problem. And the problem is not marriage per se, but the corrolaries that go with a declining marriage rate - increasing out-of-wedlock births, single-parent households, lack of male role models (different but highly corollary to single-parent households), and what those correlate to in terms of the children who grow up with those disadvantages.

I’m sorry the two-page article did not get into the underlying ideas, but I think you are aware of them.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I refuse to put what I have worked for in jeopardy just for ass that I can get anyway.[/quote]

Well…at least you’re a classy guy.

:slight_smile: