No Love for Black Conservatives

As of this writing, Michael Steele, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, has today been elected the first black Republican National Committee Chairman. Already, the mainstream media and liberal politicians are putting out hit pieces on him, and are suggesting that the Republican Party is “pandering” to the “African-American” community (whatever that means, as I consider myself an American who just happens to be black, though I’m more German/Irish than African). It is odd that I don’t recall the same folks saying that Obama’s candidacy was pandering to African Americans. And I further recall that there was elation over the progress that blacks have made when Obama won the Democratic nomination. But now there is none of the same over an exceptionally talented and clearly qualified black man who won the RNC Chair? Oh, I get it. He’s not a liberal so he doesn’t count, and neither does any other black conservative such as myself. I guess we haven’t “come far enough” for them.

Just a couple of weeks ago, civil rights leader Dr. Benjamin Hooks was interviewed on Dan Rather’s weekly show, Dan Rather Reports. When asked about Obama and potential Supreme Court appointments, Hooks said that we need a black man on the Supreme Court who would speak for black people. Dan Rather reminded Hooks that Clarence Thomas was a black Supreme Court Justice, but Hooks’ riposte was that Thomas didn’t count because he was a conservative. Hmmm… even black civil rights leaders don’t approve of black conservatives. Of course, Dan Rather did not challenge Hooks any further, but the obvious question is what would a Supreme Court Justice do that would specifically speak for black Americans without speaking for all Americans? To my knowledge blacks have achieved full civil rights at the level of the highest court in the land, so there is nothing I can think of, given my limited knowledge, that blacks as a group are lacking which wouldn’t apply to every other American. So I must be missing something.

What I don’t think many of us understand is that there are many forms of slavery or servitude other than the traditional plantation view to which we have become accustomed. There is also ideological slavery, whereby as a people we line ourselves up en masse behind one political party that is not necessarily in our best interests. It can certainly be argued that Obama garnered 95% of the black vote nationally due to its historical nature, but overall the country voted for Obama 56% to 44% for McCain. There is huge statistical significance in the disparity of this vote. The black vote was not even close to national statistics, so ostensibly the landslide vote in the black community was race-based, party-based, or some combination of the two (and potentially others not considered here). As an undergraduate mathematics major, I am struck that this combination of factors was able to produce a 39% point swing, and I don’t believe it bodes well for blacks. If race was the larger factor, then we pulled the lever for Obama with little faith that our country would vote for a black man and found out afterwards that it would. If party was the larger factor, then we have arguably, in effect, become slaves to the Democratic Party.

The lack of faith in our electorate is certainly a forgivable and understandable reason for the black statistical vote, but it potentially indicates that while we expect colorblindness from others, we were not ready to deliver the same as a group by simply voting for who we thought was the best candidate. In the latter case of us voting for the Democratic Party as a whole, I believe the issue is that blacks are rallying around a party that is often in conflict with our traditional values brought about by a deep Christian faith that has sustained us as a people over the past four hundred years. What we don’t understand is that we’re buying into a philosophy of progressive liberalism, which is about more and bigger government that saps our progress as a people by offering us (and everyone else) dependence on government instead of self-reliance and a level playing field. This is a party that is largely for abortion with no restrictions, even to the point of death for a baby that has the audacity of hope to survive a late term abortion. This is a party that does not uphold the sanctity of traditional marriage, but encourages other arrangements as equivalent. This is a party that does not believe in protecting our borders, which hurts our national security and allows undocumented workers to siphon public services from low wage blacks. What’s worse, this party demonizes blacks that don’t fall into line (such as the aforementioned Michael Steele). If that isn’t slavery, I don’t know what is.

How soon we have forgotten the Republican Party, whose principles of limited government, freedom, liberty, and self-reliance for all brought us out of the previous slavery we knew all too well, only to have to have us fall into another type of our own free will within a generation.
share on: facebook

Helping My Liberal Friends to Understand the Conservative View – Part 1 of 3

Since joining FaceBook, it has become clear to my growing number of FaceBook friends who have either kept up with me over the years or with whom I am just now re-connecting after many years, that I am a conservative. I wanted to take this opportunity to represent what it means for me to be a conservative, and why I’m not as radical as some might think, particularly since I am not an Obama supporter on the basis of his liberal policies. What I ask, my dear liberal friends, is that you simply try to understand my worldview, even though you may not agree with it. My hope is simply that you will see it as well-reasoned and thoughtful, in a spirit of love and humility with no malice towards anyone. I ask for no more.

I think the first thing to understand about the conservative view is that universally we believe moral law and moral obligations, though they are abstract entities, are real and are objective as opposed to subjective. This is consistent with the view that there is objective reality, and that our intellects allow us to gain access to that reality (contra Kant, et al.). Objective reality exists whether we are here to experience it or not. In other words, there are abstract entities that are transcendent and eternal, which do not change over time. This all leads to the belief in a necessary, eternal being that is not contingent as is our universe, but has always existed. There has always been something and never has there been a time when there was nothing. That something that has always been is the necessary, self-existent being who is the creator of our universe.

So what does this all mean? Essentially that there is a creator who has gifted us with an intelligible universe that faithfully observes mathematical and physical laws, and who has endowed us with the intellect to be able to make sense of these laws so that we can explore and enjoy the earth on which we live and the vastness of the universe. Concomitant with this intellect is free will which can be used for good or evil. Something inside each of use innately knows right from wrong, good from bad, because that is how we were created.

The belief in a creator is fundamental to the founding of our Republic, as specified in the Declaration of Independence which holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, amongst those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without a creator, there simply is no objective standard on which to base morality, and thus society would be otherwise based on social contracts (a la Rousseau) that may be forced on the minority by the majority. But what is interesting here is that with no objective morality, there is no moral imperative to regulate any type of behavior. That is why I wonder how an atheist would ponder the rightness or wrongness of something stolen from him, because logically, there would be no right and wrong. He would be “justified” only in simply following his instincts to claim his property by either intimidation or physically force if necessary.

Many liberals are opposed to conservatives because we believe in an objective morality that they say we want to “impose” on them, and that we have no right to do so. But have they stopped to think that they live in a society where morals are enforced on a daily basis by the laws of the land? Every society is imposing morality of some sort on every one of its citizens, so it really is a question of what morals are being enforced, not if they are. Otherwise, if there was no moral code, we would live in a purely Darwinian system of survival of the fittest, just as we see in the animal world. So my assertion is that for those who don’t believe in objective morality, the only thing that would be logically consistent would be to entirely give up all government and all laws in favor of a purely Darwinian system. In actuality, there would be a benefit because natural selection would be able to present itself in full force, winnowing out the weakest amongst us allowing only the fittest to survive. The human race would have upward genetic mobility instead of a genetic code that is deteriorating due to a lack of natural selection daily and hourly scrutinizing who will survive and who won’t. But of course, we have already seen where this type of thinking leads, and since I don’t buy into the Darwinian paradigm as it currently stands anyway, I will leave it there.

To close out the first of this three part series, what I’m fundamentally trying to establish is something pointed out by Ronald Reagan, which is the gradual fraying of our country’s moral and economic fabric. As we move further and further away from the principles of our country’s founding fathers and the belief in objective morality, we slide further towards socialism, with the expectation that government will solve all of our problems because we can’t solve those problems ourselves through capitalism and free enterprise. Conservatives believe in a society of liberty and freedom, and that foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will. However, it is up to us to use that free will in a manner that best upholds objective moral laws and obligations, knowing that we are fallen and that we will always be at war with the evil in each of our hearts.
share on: facebook

Addendum to My Global Warming Post

One thing I neglected to mention in my previous post is the concept I have coined "means to end thinking". I will discuss this as a specific topic in more detail in a future post, but for now my point is that while those peddling the global warming hysteria may indeed mean well, I believe they see no problem with inflating the issue because the means, taking sweeping actions in all haste to become carbon neutral, justifies the end, which is saving the planet. In other words, it doesn't matter what means you use to get to some well-intentioned goal, what matters is the end goal. I believe this dangerous thinking, because there is the presumption that even if the case may be grossly overstated yet the end result is achieved, then we're all better off regardless. The problem with this thinking is the dramatic impact such means may have on the global economy. Stifling economic growth through byzantine regulations will certainly have its own unintended consequences, and will be a harsh reality imposed on real people in the present based on a virtual future predicted by a computer model. Something does not compute here.
share on: facebook

Let’s Cool Down the Hysteria over Global Warming

I first want to assert that despite the disparity of viewpoints on global warming, I believe there is an element that most participating in the debate have in common. That something is the desire to be responsible stewards of the earth so that future generations can thrive on this one and only earth we call home. If we are to continue to flourish as a species, this means continued use of the natural resources the earth has to offer, some of which are renewable, and some of which are not. As imperfect creatures with limited albeit growing knowledge, we will always struggle to meet the ever increasing resource demands of a rapidly growing world population. Yet we have discovered that long term sustainability is critical to the future, which requires as minimal an impact on the environment as possible, judicious use of non-renewable resources, and maximum use of renewable resources.

My main grievance with the subject of global warming is the mass hysteria and fear mongering surrounding it, and the utter lack of balance and legitimate debate in terms of defining precisely what global warming is, what its causes are, and what its potential dangers may be. What many don’t understand is that long term warming and cooling trends have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, and that it is only very recently and for a very short period of time on the geological time scale that homo sapiens sapiens has graced the earth with his intellect and capacity to impact the environment through the building of advanced civilizations and supporting industries. Thus, I am a bit skeptical that in 200 years or so of carbon-based industrial output, human activity has become the primary cause of global warming, or has even contributed greatly.

Former Vice President Al Gore has claimed that the “science is settled” on global warming, but this violates an important principle of scientific theories. Scientific theories are provisional, and are constantly subjected to falsification. This couldn’t be more applicable than in the case of global warming, which is largely predicted by computer models that have serious limitations due to the sheer complexity of the climate system. With such complexity, given the everyday uncertainty we experience with weekly weather predictions, is it wise for us to put complete faith in some computer models that are projecting increased temperatures and rising oceans fifty to one hundred years into the future? I would not until there is more data and more open debate. Regardless, I will put my faith in the good earth that has been responding to climate change for millions of years, and also the brilliant minds working on promising technologies that will allow society and industry to have as little impact on the earth as possible so it can continue to do its job of supporting life. So there is no need for panic even if the direst predictions prove to have merit, and it turns out that man is not the main cause of global warming.

Thus, my suggestion is that we cool down the hysteria and exercise common sense. The fact is we don’t know for certain to what degree human activity contributes to global warming. What we do know is that regardless of the cause, we need to be the best stewards of the earth that we can in order to assure future survival, to the best that we know how. I emphasize the best that we know how because we are imperfect beings that will always be limited in knowledge compared to what can be known about the universe. Introducing carbon taxes and carbon offsets would be inane given our current understanding, would be ridiculously complicated, and would only benefit those that administer them and make money off the transactions. Few would win in this shell game while most everyone forced to play would lose liberty and freedom.

We should diligently work towards solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy that provide the least impact to the environment, simply because it is the right thing to do both individually and corporately, and not because government bureaucrats are buying into doom and gloom fifty years from now if we don’t. Private industry based on market forces should drive this innovation with encouragement and support from government, but without productivity sapping mandates and needless meddling. It will take time over the next couple of decades for new technologies to mature both technically and economically to the point that they can carry the load for home and industrial energy generation. So in the short term we need to increase domestic exploration for petroleum and natural gas. With respect to transportation, we must begin the transition to natural gas and renewable alcohol-based fuels in order to power cars, trucks, and aircraft, which will considerably cut down on CO2 emissions.

In the end analysis, what allows societies to continue and to thrive in concert with the earth are the day to day individual and corporate decisions that build up to a collective result. Yielding that power to centralized government with the expectation that a few can direct and control desired outcomes has always failed in the forms of socialism and communism. We cannot effectively meet the challenges of today and tomorrow any other way than a free market system with limited government and sensible regulations, and an informed populous that works together to achieve great ends.

References:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=369494
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84421
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
share on: facebook

Gay Marriage and California's Proposition 8

Few things get me as riled up as being called an African-American (I am a black American of mixed ancestry), and moreover, being marginalized by the mainstream media since I am a black conservative who is not the unthinking acolyte of the Democratic Party they prefer. I’m so sorry to disappoint. But that discussion is for another day, as the next thing on my list is the notion that I am also a religious bigot for having voted in favor of California’s Proposition 8.

It deeply offends me that the issue of gay marriage would in any way be compared to the civil rights movement that gave blacks the long overdue freedoms we enjoy today. Over the course of almost 400 years my ancestors were subject to unspeakable brutality and almost complete exclusion from the everyday lives that white Americans enjoyed. Today all Americans, both gay and straight, have equal protections under the law in terms of their ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. So I would strongly disagree with those that have termed being gay “the new black.” Thankfully no gay person as a matter of course has to live in fear of being beaten without provocation, hung by lynch mobs, having their houses burned down by hooded night riders, or being denied a meal at their local restaurant. We have indeed come a long way as a country. Thus it is not my belief that gays are being denied a civil right since traditional marriage has been defined as exclusively between a man and a woman.

My bold assertion is that the issue of gay marriage is a societal one, and not one of civil rights. I say this because marriage itself is not a right in the first place, whether gay or straight. Traditional marriage is an institution, which has been considered a sacred commitment between a man and a woman for millennia. The relation between man and woman is clearly the natural order that allows for the continuation of our species, and is also devoid of the inevitable conflicts of polygamy or concubinage, which have arguably been around as long as marriage (of which the Bible describes but does not condone, contrary to popular belief). Marriage has also been considered a stabilizing force in society, which is precisely why it has been encouraged by governments over the centuries as an institution to be upheld.

Now proponents of gay marriage will argue that marriage should be defined as a lifelong commitment to a loving relationship, and that this commitment is equivalent regardless of the sexual orientation of the parties involved. But from a human physiology perspective, it is obvious there is no equivalence due to the inability of same sex couples to naturally procreate (miracles of modern science notwithstanding). What is equally important and of even greater impact is the societal aspect of redefining marriage. If the definition of marriage were to be expanded to include gay marriage, then it would have to be sufficiently flexible to include any and all possible arrangements of loving, committed relationships that must include those that are polygamous as well as incestuous. It would be unconscionable to allow gay marriage on the grounds of civil rights and then deny the same rights to those who feel their legitimately consenting relationships are also equivalent to traditional marriage.

In order to make the civil case for gay marriage, it is often argued that being gay has a genetic component, which is a topic currently under heated scientific debate. We may never know for sure to what degree this may be the case, but what we do know is that the practice of gay relationships is based on conscious behavior, unlike the purely genetic basis for skin color. So if the issue continues to be fought on the grounds of civil rights, then it opens the door to virtually any group of people declaring themselves to be a minority that can legitimately claim certain civil rights. Add a genetic component or propensity, and conscious behavior becomes a nonfactor giving way to genetic determinism. Is society ready to offer minority status and concomitant protections based on what genes may cause us to do?

Fundamentally, the issue before us is societal as well as behavioral, in that we must decide if marriage will be redefined to include any and all arrangements amongst consenting adults that are committed to lifelong loving relationships as normative. If we open marriage up to interpretation, then let’s be fair and allow legitimate parties to decide if they wish to declare their arrangement as marriage. Clearly, I am not in favor of this approach, as my goal is to point out that a culture which wholeheartedly discards long held and well-reasoned societal norms forged over centuries, in the misguided spirit of relativism and inclusivism, is on a slippery slope that descends into irrelevance and ultimately ruin from within. I am not saying that the redefinition of marriage accomplishes this end, but would be a major step towards a culture increasingly devoid of the requisite norms that buttress all great societies.
share on: facebook