In Defense of Black Republicans

[theworldismine13]

Maya Rupert: In Defense of Black Republicans

The announcement that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will appoint Tim Scott, a black Republican, to complete the remainder of Jim DeMint's term as a Senator, has generated a disturbing reaction.

Despite the fact that Scott will become the only sitting black Senator (since we elected the other one president), there has been a significant amount of commentary on whether Scott's conservative views undermine his blackness and render him a "sell out" or an "Oreo." To be clear, these accusations should not be confused with the perfectly legitimate question of whether appointing a black man that most black people disagree with will help the Republican Party shed its racially uninclusive image. Instead, these attacks question Scott's authenticity as a black man.

This isn't new. High profile black Republicans have often been confronted with such attacks. From Condoleezza Rice to Clarence Thomas, black conservatives often find themselves being race-checked for splitting with the majority of the black community on their political leanings.

It may be a common narrative, but it's incredibly unfair. Moreover, it's dangerous. And not just for black conservatives, but for the liberals who are typically making the claims as well.

Essentially, this argument boils down to an insistence that after having faced racism and systemic racial bias in this country, black people are only allowed to have a certain type of reaction to the oppression we have faced. It implies that it is possible to be black the "wrong way." Attacking black Republicans then, becomes one more way to rob an already marginalized group of entitlement to interpret their own experience.

It is especially distressing that sometimes those leading these attacks are people outside the black community. This is not solely a condemnation of white outrage at the existence of someone like Scott, though I confess I'm uncomfortable with the racial dynamics of white liberals feeling such ownership over the loyalty and allegiance of black voters that the appointment of a black conservative sparks accusations of not being "black enough" from people who are not black at all.

But my frustration is broader than that. In fact, it is broader than frustration over the reaction to black Republicans. It is frustration that those from marginalized communities face unfair attacks any time they veer to the right of the political spectrum.

As I've written elsewhere, those attacks themselves are sometimes the problem, as the term "Uncle Tom" and references to "house versus field slaves" roll off the tongue far too quickly and thoughtlessly whenever this issue comes up, and such racially charged language exacerbates what is already an inappropriate criticism.

But beyond that, the suggestion that people of color, LGBT people, or low-income people cannot vote for Republicans without being condescendingly told they are voting against their own interest is denying them agency because they are a member of an underrepresented group.

When being a part of a marginalized community disentitles people from complexity of thought, it perpetuates the same system of oppression and privilege that made those communities marginalized to begin with. We cannot simultaneously decry the existence of privilege and then exercise it to tell those who have been oppressed how they are allowed to advocate on their own behalf. If we want a meaningful social justice movement aiming at change for those who have been disenfranchised, we have to let go of the idea that we can assume a monolithic voting bloc. Fighting for increased political power for those who have been underrepresented means increased political diversity, and we have to make room for the fact that sometimes progress will bring more black Republicans.

 

[NZA]

i agree that blanket statements of uncle tomism are troubling, i suggest that all people who are about to label another person a tom must present evidence, or at least a well thought out argument, maybe even two witnesses

 

[The Real]

She's got a point about white, liberal condecension. It's wrong to attack someone's Blackness simply due to their political orientation, and especially wrong for white people to do so in most (not all) circumstances.

That being said, Black people can indeed question Black Republicans' commitment to Black issues, which is very different from questioning their Blackness, whenever they want, and criticize them for it. It is a factual statement that Republicans care little about Black people and Black issues, and that most of them support agendas that further disenfranchises Black communities and individuals in many ways, so any Black Republican is going to get scrutiny from Black folks. It's also a factual statement that people can be misled about the means that will get them to the ends they desire, which can be the case with Black Republicans, too, and in that case, there's nothing wrong with correcting them.

Tim Scott is not pro-Black and won't do any good for Black people, so fukk him.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

She's got a point about white, liberal condecension. It's wrong to attack someone's Blackness simply due to their political orientation, and especially wrong for white people to do so in most (not all) circumstances.

That being said, Black people can indeed question Black Republicans' commitment to Black issues, which is very different from questioning their Blackness, whenever they want, and criticize them for it. It is a factual statement that Republicans care little about Black people and Black issues, and that most of them support agendas that further disenfranchises Black communities and individuals in many ways, so any Black Republican is going to get scrutiny from Black folks. It's also a factual statement that people can be misled about the means that will get them to the ends they desire, which can be the case with Black Republicans, too, and in that case, there's nothing wrong with correcting them.

Tim Scott is not pro-Black and won't do any good for Black people, so fukk him.

I think you're being far too kind here. Anti-Black narratives center the republican party. That isnt debatable. This is expressed by the behavior of high profile black republicans, who more often than not adopt and express crude white supremacist oriented views. See: Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, "Reverend" Jesse Lee Peterson, Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, etc. Why is it so rare for a black republican to articulate white racism?

 

[The Real]

I think you're being far too kind here. Anti-Black narratives center the republican party. That isnt debatable. This is expressed by the behavior of high profile black republicans, who more often than not adopt and express crude white supremacist oriented views. See: Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, "Reverend" Jesse Lee Peterson, Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, etc. Why is it so rare for a black republican to articulate white racism?

Well I was trying to walk the line between just calling all Black conservatives bamboozled/Toms on one hand, and just saying it's an open and equal playing field and that Black Republicans on the whole are a legitimate bloc.

I agree fully with everything in your post. I don't think it's debatable that the Republican party is anti-Black, and yes... more anti-Black than the dems.

 

[theworldismine13]

i dont think its debatable that white racists are comfortable in the republican party, but i think its highly debatable whether black people should go along with the democratic policy prescriptions

i think thats where imo black people have gone off the rails, regardless of how racist republicans are it doesnt follow that black people need to ride or die for the democratic party or their policy ideas

we know for sure that tim scott will not be supporting the democratic agenda....but what exactly is this "black agenda" that he is being accused of not supporting and who made this "black agenda"

methinks there is some intellectual stagnation going on here

 

[The Real]

i dont think its debatable that white racists are comfortable in the republican party, but i think its highly debatable whether black people should go along with the democratic policy prescriptions

i think thats where imo black people have gone off the rails, regardless of how racist republicans are it doesnt follow that black people need to ride or die for the democratic party or their policy ideas

we know for sure that tim scott will not be supporting the democratic agenda....but what exactly is this "black agenda" that he is being accused of not supporting and who made this "black agenda"

methinks there is some intellectual stagnation going on here

Fair points, but I think it's not just that the GOP is a haven for racists- it's that those racists have actively managed to direct large aspects of the GOP platform for many decades. Thus, the GOP's standard agenda is itself tainted. It's not a matter of bad apples. Anyone who supports those policies which have contributed to the dereliction of the Black community since Reagan is thus participating in an anti-Black agenda. Tim Scott supports many of those policies.

It's also not a matter of a Black agenda, but of explicit anti-Blackness.

 

[theworldismine13]

Fair points, but I think it's not just that the GOP is a haven for racists- it's that those racists have actively managed to direct large aspects of the GOP platform for many decades. Thus, the GOP's standard agenda is itself tainted. It's not a matter of bad apples. Anyone who supports those policies which have contributed to the dereliction of the Black community since Reagan is thus participating in an anti-Black agenda. Tim Scott supports many of those policies.

It's also not a matter of a Black agenda, but of explicit anti-Blackness.

Yeah but the GOP is an institution just like any other racist american institution and its a totally legit tactic for black people to increase the number of blacks in the GOP just like we fight to get into other racist institutions, just because an institution is racist doesn't mean that the correct strategy is to avoid the institution, that why I wonder who exactly is making this strategy that says we are suppose to have beef with Tim Scott

It seems to me the black agenda would be to have blacks in both parties, and democrats have had policies and that have led to the "dereliction of the black community" so it's the same difference

 

[88m3]

i agree that blanket statements of uncle tomism are troubling, i suggest that all people who are about to label another person a tom must present evidence, or at least a well thought out argument, maybe even two witnesses

male witnesses

 

[CACtain Planet]

She's got a point about white, liberal condecension. It's wrong to attack someone's Blackness simply due to their political orientation, and especially wrong for white people to do so in most (not all) circumstances.

That being said, Black people can indeed question Black Republicans' commitment to Black issues, which is very different from questioning their Blackness, whenever they want, and criticize them for it. It is a factual statement that Republicans care little about Black people and Black issues, and that most of them support agendas that further disenfranchises Black communities and individuals in many ways, so any Black Republican is going to get scrutiny from Black folks. It's also a factual statement that people can be misled about the means that will get them to the ends they desire, which can be the case with Black Republicans, too, and in that case, there's nothing wrong with correcting them.

Tim Scott is not pro-Black and won't do any good for Black people, so fukk him.

And How exactly has the democrats furthered this "black agenda"? Increased food stamps?

 

[The Real]

And How exactly has the democrats furthered this "black agenda"? Increased food stamps?

Why do yall keep referring to a "Black agenda" when I never used that term in my post?

And why do you assume that stating the simple, empirical fact that Republicans are explicitly anti-black means means you're endorsing falling in line with the Democrats?

And yes, Democrats have done more for Black people than Republicans. That doesn't mean Democrats have been great or even good to Black people or that Black people owe them anything.

 

[Serious]

For the most part,, this article raises some valid points. Theoretically individuals shouldn't vow a lifetime allegiance to one political party / philosophy, but rather make wise decisions based on the most fit candidate for office.

Now, due to the powers that "currently" be, it's exceptionally impossible to entrust any faith in the republican constituency. Notice how the dying(literally) rethug party, profoundly protest, against legislation, most beneficial to members of their organization, but due to their party's underlying philosophy, they'd rather alienate themselves.

 

[88m3]

those red states/counties sure are blue

 

[Serious]

those red states/counties sure are blue

 

[theworldismine13]

Why do yall keep referring to a "Black agenda" when I never used that term in my post?

i wasnt talking about you specifically, but you used the term pro-black which i think its interchangeable with the pro "black agenda"

And why do you assume that stating the simple, empirical fact that Republicans are explicitly anti-black means means you're endorsing falling in line with the Democrats?

thats not an assumption, its an observation that ive made about black politics, and the problem is that black politicians and commentators dont make a real analysis about whether policies advocated by democrats are actually good for black people

and im not sure why that is a wrong assumption anyway, there are only 2 parties, so when you say the gop is racist and black people should denounce them, then you are implicitly saying that black people should vote for democrats, unless you explicitly say that you are not endorsing democrats, i think that its totally rational assumption

And yes, Democrats have done more for Black people than Republicans. That doesn't mean Democrats have been great or even good to Black people or that Black people owe them anything.

there are 2 issues with this

1) i assume you are speaking about post 1965
2) personally i think we have reached a point where are goal isnt really to see which party has done more for black people, i think at this point our goal should to be forces in both parties, which will make black people a force generally, so i dont really care which party has done more for black people