The Inherent Dishonesty of Black Conservatism

[EndDomination]

I've spent the last few weeks reading the works of some popular Black conservative pundits, academics, and writers, especially Thomas Sowell (Intellectuals and Society, Black Rednecks, White Liberals, and Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective), William T. Coleman Jr., and Clarence Thomas (Supreme Discomfort and Why Federalism Matters).
What I've found is that throughout their writing, especially Thomas Sowell's and Clarence Thomas', there is an inherent dishonesty, especially in regard to their "logical conclusions." Removing a politicised bias from my readings, I oft-find a wealth of evidence presented early in their writings, and a brilliantly deluded avoidance of a logical conclusion at the end of the presentation. Take Sowell's discussion of Dunbar High School and the academic success of the Black students at said school. Even though he mentions the extremely over-educated teachers at the school, the clear bias toward high-achieving Black students at said school, and the problem with defining "middle-class," he still argues that it is not the resources of the school (by mentioning pure funding) that make a difference, or the high-poverty demographic of the school that makes the difference, but the inherent "victimhood" of the students themselves, that causes the largest issue (as well as liberal integrationism and the change from public schooling with choice, into neighborhood schooling).

William T. Coleman is far less guilty of twisting the facts, but is instead guilty of applying his own life of perseverance, as the mold and standard for forced equality within the United States. Owing to his extraordinary academic achievement from elementary school through graduate school, it would seem he would have an understanding of the systemic limitations of Black success on a large scale. Quite frankly, there are barriers outside of pure ability that stop many Black kids from repeatedly graduating at the top of their class and runnings headfirst through every racist obstacle in their path. The special circumstances that tied your bootstraps to your hands are not present in the vast majority of the population, brilliance be damned. Coleman's very real understanding of race as a legal barrier still holds through, leading me to feel he is far more honest, even if still a bit deluded, than the others mentioned. Yet his belief that "if I can do it, you can do it" is crippling, because it as much a fallacy in argument as it is in real-time application.

Clarence Thomas is an extreme; the perspective he presents is embarrassingly blind of both the realities of his political and judicial position as it relates to his race, and of the very circumstances that allow him to be a sitting SCOTUS justice. Put in perspective, his idea of "originalism" would shatter the road paved over the course of 150+ years of Black progress, as well as of Black freedom in the United States period. His adherence to originalism ignores sociological evidence compiled over decades, but reaches the point of delusion and historical revisionism making the US apartheid state appear to have been a utopian state.

I don't find their opposition to Left of neo-liberal politics to be the sole issue, I've heard some nonsense arguments about Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and WEB Dubois being inherently conservative (which falls within the category of brazen lies), but the dishonesty of some of the most well-known Black conservatives is disheartening. It seems their positions come more from omission or ignoring of some aspect of the world around them, and less from any analytical basis.

 

[Eastwoodjones]

I haven't read these books but I'll try and check them out. What I do know about conservatism in general is that it seems to over emphasize and almost deify the individual, to the point that they become blind to the power of the collective. Conservatives came unglued at President Obama's "you didnt build that" speech, when we all kmw that small business wouldn't exist without the collective work of society.

When black conservatives invoke the bootstrap theology, they are guilty of missing out on some of the advantages, and blind luck that so many have. In the process of emphasizing individual effort, you as a result downplay the effect of outside forces. You can argue away any individual disadvantage blacks have, but when you start to stack them up, as with descendants of slaves living in the deep south, it gets hard to ignore the systematic oppression they face. I think this is what they miss, in order to be "academic" they take isolated instances and explore them one at a time, and in the process doesn't look too bad, but what afflicts so many blacks is the cumulative effect of all these things, stacked up over generations.

The only redeeming feature I see in conservatism is the devotion to individual effort, and belief that we dont need a great white savior, c00ning aside. It provides a balance to those who say we can't save ourselves.

 

[The Odum of Ala Igbo]

I've spent the last few weeks reading the works of some popular Black conservative pundits, academics, and writers, especially Thomas Sowell (Intellectuals and Society, Black Rednecks, White Liberals, and Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective), William T. Coleman Jr., and Clarence Thomas (Supreme Discomfort and Why Federalism Matters).
What I've found is that throughout their writing, especially Thomas Sowell's and Clarence Thomas', there is an inherent dishonesty, especially in regard to their "logical conclusions." Removing a politicised bias from my readings, I oft-find a wealth of evidence presented early in their writings, and a brilliantly deluded avoidance of a logical conclusion at the end of the presentation. Take Sowell's discussion of Dunbar High School and the academic success of the Black students at said school. Even though he mentions the extremely over-educated teachers at the school, the clear bias toward high-achieving Black students at said school, and the problem with defining "middle-class," he still argues that it is not the resources of the school (by mentioning pure funding) that make a difference, or the high-poverty demographic of the school that makes the difference, but the inherent "victimhood" of the students themselves, that causes the largest issue (as well as liberal integrationism and the change from public schooling with choice, into neighborhood schooling).

William T. Coleman is far less guilty of twisting the facts, but is instead guilty of applying his own life of perseverance, as the mold and standard for forced equality within the United States. Owing to his extraordinary academic achievement from elementary school through graduate school, it would seem he would have an understanding of the systemic limitations of Black success on a large scale. Quite frankly, there are barriers outside of pure ability that stop many Black kids from repeatedly graduating at the top of their class and runnings headfirst through every racist obstacle in their path. The special circumstances that tied your bootstraps to your hands are not present in the vast majority of the population, brilliance be damned. Coleman's very real understanding of race as a legal barrier still holds through, leading me to feel he is far more honest, even if still a bit deluded, than the others mentioned. Yet his belief that "if I can do it, you can do it" is crippling, because it as much a fallacy in argument as it is in real-time application.

Clarence Thomas is an extreme; the perspective he presents is embarrassingly blind of both the realities of his political and judicial position as it relates to his race, and of the very circumstances that allow him to be a sitting SCOTUS justice. Put in perspective, his idea of "originalism" would shatter the road paved over the course of 150+ years of Black progress, as well as of Black freedom in the United States period. His adherence to originalism ignores sociological evidence compiled over decades, but reaches the point of delusion and historical revisionism making the US apartheid state appear to have been a utopian state.

I don't find their opposition to Left of neo-liberal politics to be the sole issue, I've heard some nonsense arguments about Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and WEB Dubois being inherently conservative (which falls within the category of brazen lies), but the dishonesty of some of the most well-known Black conservatives is disheartening. It seems their positions come more from omission or ignoring of some aspect of the world around them, and less from any analytical basis.

Your assessment is spot-on. But why are they blind to the world? White sexual access? White material access?

 

[Pirius Black]

I find that they are under the delusion that sheer will and belief can overcome systemic disadvantages. I also find that more often than not, as you pointed out, that they are self referring when it comes pointing out how one can overcome a "victim mentality. " However Black Conservatives are in the same trap as their liberal compatriots, were they successful due solely to their own efforts or were they pushed forward because of someone else's agenda?

 

[David_TheMan]

I don't find that they are blind or inherently dishonest in the slightest.

I think, especially in the case of Sowell, its you OP who is being dishonest. He argument is never really in attacking the students, its in attacking the modern liberal who excuses poor academic performance today of black students as being because of "racism" when clearly its not racism, its the mindset of the students today, because in more objectively and openly racists times in the past, black students achieved more academically with less money, less resources, and less white "support". That was his argument. I also think its wrong for you to attempt to disregard middle class blacks as if we don't exist as well or need to be thrown off the table to talk about "real" blacks or something of that ilk. That said reading Black Rednecks and White Liberals, myself I can say off the bat you are delibrately lying about Sowell's stance and if you read it, you know you are as well.

As for Clarance Thomas, his originalism is not for the benefit of blacks who want appeasement and support of whites, its strictly about the power of the federal government and checking it. Now that said I think in some cases he is too deferential to the state, but with that said I understand where he is coming from, he is more apt to put the onus of law creation on the legislature, where it belongs, than to try to write new law via judicial opinion, and while that might leave some made at the slow pace of progress, I think the greater view is that it provides and maintains a very needed delegation of powers that each branch is supposed to have. So for that alone I tend to understand where he is coming from, even if I disagree with his ruling, it makes rational sense, than say the rulings of the Hugo Black court, where they created law out of thin air.

That said, I think this notion that people who disagree with you are inherently dishonest or have ulterior motives, especially black conservatives reeks of white liberal racism, in that it pre-supposes that blacks can't be intellectually honest and conservative with regard to the power of government or economically want a free market. I rarely see this view fired back on black liberals like a Micheal Eric Dyson, but too often its a manner of attack only addressed at those blacks who aren't on the neo-lib plantation so to speak, even a liberal communist like Cornell West who is now the punching bag or white and black neo-liberals for his attack on Obama's corporatist leanings.

=====

I write all this not defending their conservativism, because I'm not one myself, but in simply stating that we should be honest and actually address the arguments they actually present or the rationale they use for their decisions.

I think Walter Williams identifies as a conservative as well, but he is far more consistant in his statements and argumentations than Sowell or Thomas. I haven't read any works by Coleman, so I will say nothing of him.

 

[AlainLocke]

Your assessment is spot-on. But why are they blind to the world? White sexual access? White material access?

Black conservatives are blind to the world the same reason why White people are...they believe that everything they every achieved in life is due to their superiority...

Neo-Liberal Conservatism boils down to the superiority of the individual over the collective.

Black conservatives see the masses of a Black people as crabs in the barrel that an individual Black needs to escape...

Their whole idea is...If all the crabs escape the barrel there will be no more crabs in the barrel...

The barrel is society....the crabs individuals...but when they pull on a crab trying to escape the barrel...they work as a collective...


Neo-liberal Conservatives for some reason think human beings are more capable than they actually are...


When are entire evolution has been predicated on cooperation...

People that don't cooperate die...

The reason why people with personality disorders like antisocial personality disorder, or borderline personality are so vulnerable and likely to be in prison or impoverished is because they can't cooperate with people...

A neo-liberal conservative sees things like society and culture as a hinderance to the progression of humanity...therefore they'll do anything to get rid of it...


Now a Black neo-liberal conservative sees shyt the same way...but they wanna get rid of the stench of failure that they believe Black people have due to our failings as individuals by liberating ourselves from ourselves...

 

[AlainLocke]

I don't find their opposition to Left of neo-liberal politics to be the sole issue, I've heard some nonsense arguments about Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and WEB Dubois being inherently conservative (which falls within the category of brazen lies), but the dishonesty of some of the most well-known Black conservatives is disheartening. It seems their positions come more from omission or ignoring of some aspect of the world around them, and less from any analytical basis.

Malcolm X before he went to Mecca was a conservative but he wasn't neo-liberal...dude was a right nationalist along with the rest of the NOI...

I find Americans have a hard time looking outside of Center-Right neo-liberalism....and it really fukks up Black politics since there is no such thing as Black Political Theory...because due our geographically location we are cut off from the rest of the world and the revolutions in the 3rd world during the 60s...we really didn't carry any of that shyt over after Malcolm and BPP died...

We became straight up liberals...and now our politics is dead....


MLK was definitely a leftist and Malcolm X was left nationalist after Mecca and WEB Dubois was a left-liberal to full blown socialist...


I don't see how WEB Dubois could classified as a conservative when he hated the guts of Marcus Garvey and Booker T. Washington...but who are conservatives

Like I don't get Black conservatives whatsoever...

 

[David_TheMan]

Black conservatives are blind to the world the same reason why White people are...they believe that everything they every achieved in life is due to their superiority...

Neo-Liberal Conservatism boils down to the superiority of the individual over the collective.

Black conservatives see the masses of a Black people as crabs in the barrel that an individual Black needs to escape...

Their whole idea is...If all the crabs escape the barrel there will be no more crabs in the barrel...

The barrel is society....the crabs individuals...but when they pull on a crab trying to escape the barrel...they work as a collective...


Neo-liberal Conservatives for some reason think human beings are more capable than they actually are...


When are entire evolution has been predicated on cooperation...

People that don't cooperate die...

The reason why people with personality disorders like antisocial personality disorder, or borderline personality are so vulnerable and likely to be in prison or impoverished is because they can't cooperate with people...

A neo-liberal conservative sees things like society and culture as a hinderance to the progression of humanity...therefore they'll do anything to get rid of it...


Now a Black neo-liberal conservative sees shyt the same way...but they wanna get rid of the stench of failure that they believe Black people have due to our failings as individuals by liberating ourselves from ourselves...

How are black conservatives blind to the world?
What black conservative said they are solely successful because of their personal superiority?
How can you claim black conservatives see the world as ___________ when there would be different blacks under that label who have mutually exclusive political views and world views, Walter Williams and thomas sowell disagree on the very nature of the government, both would probably disagree with Clarence Thomas on the role of government, yet you link them all under one broad brush and one world view. This is the height of intellectual laziness.
I find very few human beings, conservatives, liberals, neocons, neolibers, paleocons, miniarchists, and anarchists that don't think or believe society is built on cooperation with your fellow man.

All this to say is your post is full of blanket statements with no support of your declarations, paired with strawman arguments about what you think those who aren't liberal think, instead of reading what they think and actually presenting a critique with intellectual effort and honesty.

 

[EndDomination]

I haven't read these books but I'll try and check them out. What I do know about conservatism in general is that it seems to over emphasize and almost deify the individual, to the point that they become blind to the power of the collective. Conservatives came unglued at President Obama's "you didnt build that" speech, when we all kmw that small business wouldn't exist without the collective work of society.

When black conservatives invoke the bootstrap theology, they are guilty of missing out on some of the advantages, and blind luck that so many have. In the process of emphasizing individual effort, you as a result downplay the effect of outside forces. You can argue away any individual disadvantage blacks have, but when you start to stack them up, as with descendants of slaves living in the deep south, it gets hard to ignore the systematic oppression they face. I think this is what they miss, in order to be "academic" they take isolated instances and explore them one at a time, and in the process doesn't look too bad, but what afflicts so many blacks is the cumulative effect of all these things, stacked up over generations.

The only redeeming feature I see in conservatism is the devotion to individual effort, and belief that we dont need a great white savior, c00ning aside. It provides a balance to those who say we can't save ourselves.

This is exactly it, the peakness of American conservatism in a kind of hyper-libertarianism where one can surpass human limits for the sake of capital, as exemplified by Ayn Rand's numerous protagonists. I think its fitting that she's the oft-cited inspiration for much of modern American "conservatism" (which I'm focusing as the GOP/Tea Party, neo-fascist alt-right, as well as the large "C" Conservatisms whose focus on "traditionalism" shares similarities with the older "Conservatives" who were monarchical.
You're right on the last point, I want more unilateral change brought about, but the conservative theology is off.

 

[EndDomination]

Your assessment is spot-on. But why are they blind to the world? White sexual access? White material access?

Part of it seems to be the inability to see past their own ability and "privileges" whether its resources and social capital, educational opportunity, or sheer intellect. Its bolstered naturally in this country, "hard work" achieves great things, and when you have access to these resources, your hard work goes much further, and your mistakes stop your fall from being as deep.

 

[EndDomination]

I find that they are under the delusion that sheer will and belief can overcome systemic disadvantages. I also find that more often than not, as you pointed out, that they are self referring when it comes pointing out how one can overcome a "victim mentality. " However Black Conservatives are in the same trap as their liberal compatriots, were they successful due solely to their own efforts or were they pushed forward because of someone else's agenda?

I daresay their liberal counterparts are oft-assisted by Leftist movements, at the very least, they push for some social crusade that is at least palatable. Both become tools of a specific agenda, though conservative agendas are more harmful to Black people as a whole than White agendas (I'm noting increased policing and militarization efforts, removal of social programmes that aid the impoverished and those in urban areas, push to have less access to healthcare for women, removal of voting rights aimed at people of color, etc.)

 

[Pirius Black]

I daresay their liberal counterparts are oft-assisted by Leftist movements, at the very least, they push for some social crusade that is at least palatable. Both become tools of a specific agenda, though conservative agendas are more harmful to Black people as a whole than White agendas (I'm noting increased policing and militarization efforts, removal of social programmes that aid the impoverished and those in urban areas, push to have less access to healthcare for women, removal of voting rights aimed at people of color, etc.)

I find the negro whisperers of both stripes equally irritating. The Left's Whisperers are loath to point out black shortcomings while that is all black conservatives do. It is an interesting juxtaposition of arguments. But the conservative agenda is more harmful overall. Which is interesting because our people are deeply conservative in alot og ways but can see the dishonesty in the conservative agenda. Black Conservatives sometimes point out the failings of the system but more often than not they gloss over them, pointing to themselves as exceptions. But there has always been black exceptional people in America and the dishonesty comes in when they point out the exceptions and use them to chastise black people as a whole.

 

[David_TheMan]

This is exactly it, the peakness of American conservatism in a kind of hyper-libertarianism where one can surpass human limits for the sake of capital, as exemplified by Ayn Rand's numerous protagonists. I think its fitting that she's the oft-cited inspiration for much of modern American "conservatism" (which I'm focusing as the GOP/Tea Party, neo-fascist alt-right, as well as the large "C" Conservatisms whose focus on "traditionalism" shares similarities with the older "Conservatives" who were monarchical.
You're right on the last point, I want more unilateral change brought about, but the conservative theology is off.

Ayn Rand isn't at the heart of the modern american conservative.
Also Ayn Rand is an objectivist, not a libertarian, she disliked libertarianism and wrote against it, check out the writing between her and Murray Rothbard.
Conservatism is about tradition, but thats more of its fascist leanings which again show its not libertarian in origin.

Neoconservatism is nothing more than repackaged fascism of the 1920s under muscelini.

 

[EndDomination]

I don't find that they are blind or inherently dishonest in the slightest.

I think, especially in the case of Sowell, its you OP who is being dishonest. He argument is never really in attacking the students, its in attacking the modern liberal who excuses poor academic performance today of black students as being because of "racism" when clearly its not racism, its the mindset of the students today, because in more objectively and openly racists times in the past, black students achieved more academically with less money, less resources, and less white "support". That was his argument. I also think its wrong for you to attempt to disregard middle class blacks as if we don't exist as well or need to be thrown off the table to talk about "real" blacks or something of that ilk. That said reading Black Rednecks and White Liberals, myself I can say off the bat you are delibrately lying about Sowell's stance and if you read it, you know you are as well.

As for Clarance Thomas, his originalism is not for the benefit of blacks who want appeasement and support of whites, its strictly about the power of the federal government and checking it. Now that said I think in some cases he is too deferential to the state, but with that said I understand where he is coming from, he is more apt to put the onus of law creation on the legislature, where it belongs, than to try to write new law via judicial opinion, and while that might leave some made at the slow pace of progress, I think the greater view is that it provides and maintains a very needed delegation of powers that each branch is supposed to have. So for that alone I tend to understand where he is coming from, even if I disagree with his ruling, it makes rational sense, than say the rulings of the Hugo Black court, where they created law out of thin air.

That said, I think this notion that people who disagree with you are inherently dishonest or have ulterior motives, especially black conservatives reeks of white liberal racism, in that it pre-supposes that blacks can't be intellectually honest and conservative with regard to the power of government or economically want a free market. I rarely see this view fired back on black liberals like a Micheal Eric Dyson, but too often its a manner of attack only addressed at those blacks who aren't on the neo-lib plantation so to speak, even a liberal communist like Cornell West who is now the punching bag or white and black neo-liberals for his attack on Obama's corporatist leanings.

=====

I write all this not defending their conservativism, because I'm not one myself, but in simply stating that we should be honest and actually address the arguments they actually present or the rationale they use for their decisions.

I think Walter Williams identifies as a conservative as well, but he is far more consistant in his statements and argumentations than Sowell or Thomas. I haven't read any works by Coleman, so I will say nothing of him.

Let me start from the beginning: I am a middle-class Black person, the progeny of three generations of Black families who were the very grouping of people he's talking about; those who rose above an excelled, obtained education nearly impossible but very few to gain, and lived lives at standards well-above their fellow Black men and women. I read the entirety of the passage, as well as his argument in defense of some portions of the Bell Curve, and Intellectuals and Society. I'm saying his analysis, which appears to be dual-layered, allows for an examination of the reasoning behind this "mindset" and the evidence he provides shows that there is far more to the equation that "culture" and "mindset" babied and fed by the liberal elites who need a crusade. That's where the inherent dishonesty is, that he has the ability, the logical skills, and the awareness of these "other" variables, and while he'll mention their source, or the variable explicitly, and then reach a different conclusion. I'm sure if you've read the first chapter of Intellectuals and Society, you're well aware of the poorly placed argument about Communist ideals and labour which start the chapter out. He sets up a straw-man and then burns it down, while the evidence he provides in Basic Economics provides amble material for a separate conclusion.
I take issue with your vesting more power in the legislature, this is coming from my examination of both Justice Taney, Justice Marshall, and Justice Brandeis, even Justice Scalia; all of whom practiced a pure form of statecraft through judicial opinions, this is oft-needed, legislative powers allow too much of a bias balancing act.
Its not their disagreeance alone that causes me issue, its the conclusions they come to. Unfortunately this post was not nearly as long as I'd prefer, it would take me weeks of writing to fully flesh out my issues, step-by-step.

 

[EndDomination]

Black conservatives are blind to the world the same reason why White people are...they believe that everything they every achieved in life is due to their superiority...

Neo-Liberal Conservatism boils down to the superiority of the individual over the collective.

Black conservatives see the masses of a Black people as crabs in the barrel that an individual Black needs to escape...

Their whole idea is...If all the crabs escape the barrel there will be no more crabs in the barrel...

The barrel is society....the crabs individuals...but when they pull on a crab trying to escape the barrel...they work as a collective...


Neo-liberal Conservatives for some reason think human beings are more capable than they actually are...


When are entire evolution has been predicated on cooperation...

People that don't cooperate die...

The reason why people with personality disorders like antisocial personality disorder, or borderline personality are so vulnerable and likely to be in prison or impoverished is because they can't cooperate with people...

A neo-liberal conservative sees things like society and culture as a hinderance to the progression of humanity...therefore they'll do anything to get rid of it...


Now a Black neo-liberal conservative sees shyt the same way...but they wanna get rid of the stench of failure that they believe Black people have due to our failings as individuals by liberating ourselves from ourselves...

This is pretty on point. I would also point to an interesting conservative dislike of Sociology, which can give incredibly damning evidence for the ridiculousness of bootstrappery, and associated ideas. This is not to say all conservatives dislike Sociology, just that there is a much more vocal opposition to many of the fields widespread conclusions coming from the Right, and conservative administrations within the US have dealt a great deal of damage to the field. I have to find what I believe was either a WashPo or NYT article that talked about this indepth.