Why Black Americans Think That the Federal Government is Our Friend

Readability

Why Black Americans Think That the Federal Government is Our Friend

[cap­tion id=“attachment_83973” align=“aligncenter” width=“300”]The_Peacemakers_1868 (L,R) Gen­er­als Sher­man and Grant, Pres­i­dent Lin­coln, and Admi­ral Porter. Linked attribution.[/caption]

by baldilocks

Orig­i­nally posted on Decem­ber 10, 2009.

While hang­ing out yes­ter­day at Ace’s yes­ter­day [sic; Decem­ber 9, 2009] as he was flog­ging racists, I hap­pened to men­tion that many if not most black Amer­i­cans view the fed­eral gov­ern­ment as ben­e­fi­cial and friendly. Some other com­menters were sur­prised and I was sur­prised at their sur­prise, because it isn’t dif­fi­cult to fig­ure out why this is. Whether it’s the Eman­ci­pa­tion or the deseg­re­ga­tion of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Vot­ing Rights Acts, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black Amer­i­can as his con­sti­tu­tional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.

What needs to be spelled, how­ever is what the fed­eral gov­ern­ment did in the above-​mentioned areas: it legally removed obsta­cles to the life, lib­erty and pur­suit of hap­pi­ness of Amer­i­cans who are black. And that is what it was sup­posed to do.

The present prob­lem in my unlearned opin­ion is this: the fed­eral gov­ern­ment began over­step­ping its bounds dur­ing the Great Depres­sion and did so most infa­mously in the late six­ties via the Great Soci­ety pro­grams. Doing more that get­ting local racists out of the way, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment sought to and suc­ceeded in mak­ing itself the sup­pli­ers of life, lib­erty and, puta­tively, the hap­pi­ness of many black Amer­i­cans. (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Secu­rity is send­ing the coun­try to finan­cial ruin. You’ll get an ear­ful about her “rights”.)

And even many black Amer­i­cans who do not rely on the fed­eral gov­ern­ment still view the fed as our friend because of that history.

What’s needed in order to change this per­cep­tion is obvi­ous: edu­ca­tion – not a new edu­ca­tion but the old one, one which con­tains an objec­tive expla­na­tion of the role of government.

Sim­ply put, the role of the Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment is to remove obsta­cles to lib­erty of the Peo­ple – even when that obsta­cle is Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment itself. Sup­ply­ing all of one’s needs is not government’s role. That’s God’s purview.

We all remem­ber Pres­i­dent Obama’s state­ment con­tain­ing the asser­tion that one of the flaws of the US Con­sti­tu­tion was that is only con­tained a list of “neg­a­tive rights,” mean­ing neg­a­tive gov­ern­ment “rights.” The idea that a Harvard-​trained lawyer thinks that the gov­ern­ment has rights or that there was no list of pos­i­tive respon­si­bil­i­ties assigned to gov­ern­ment was mock­able. (Hey, you voted for him.)

But what the state­ment betrayed was a wide­spread mis­con­cep­tion present in those of us who aren’t lawyers of any vari­ety of a friendly fed whose role is to insert itself between God and man’s lib­erty and to redis­trib­ute wealth (aka steal­ing). The notion that the founders “for­got” to address this is hilarious.

So when the Democ­rats came to full power [in 2009], they began to build on the foun­da­tion that Demo­c­rat Pres­i­dents Franklin D. Roo­sevelt and Lyn­don B. John­son laid. The good news? Between Social­ized Med­i­cine, Cap and Trade, TARP, etc., the fed­eral government’s active role in over­step­ping its bounds – in crip­pling Amer­ica – is open­ing the eyes of Amer­i­cans of all races. The bad news: there may not be an Amer­ica left when the fed­eral locusts finish.

Juli­ette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was pub­lished in 2012. Her sec­ond novel will be done in 2016. Fol­low her on Twit­ter.

Please con­tribute to Juliette’s JOB: Her new novel, her blog, her Inter­net to keep the lat­ter going and COF­FEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Inde­pen­dent Journalism — -»»baldilocks

The_Peacemakers_1868
(L,R) Generals Sherman and Grant, President Lincoln, and Admiral Porter. Linked attribution.

by baldilocks

Originally posted on December 10, 2009.

While hanging out yesterday at Ace’s yesterday [sic; December 9, 2009] as he was flogging racists, I happened to mention that many if not most black Americans view the federal government as beneficial and friendly.  Some other commenters were surprised and I was surprised at their surprise, because it isn’t difficult to figure out why this is.  Whether it’s the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.

What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black.  And that is what it was supposed to do.

The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs.  Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans.  (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You’ll get an earful about her “rights”.)

And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history.

What’s needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education–not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government.

Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People–even when that obstacle is American government itself.  Supplying all of one’s needs is not government’s role.  That’s God’s purview.

We all remember President Obama’s statement containing the assertion that one of the flaws of the US Constitution was that is only contained a  list of “negative rights,” meaning negative government “rights.”  The idea that a Harvard-trained lawyer thinks that the government has rights or that there was no list of positive responsibilities assigned to government was mockable.  (Hey, you voted for him.)

But what the statement betrayed was a widespread misconception present in those of us who aren’t lawyers of any variety of a friendly fed whose role is to insert itself between God and man’s liberty and to redistribute wealth (aka stealing).  The notion that the founders “forgot” to address this is hilarious.

So when the Democrats came to full power [in 2009], they began to build on the foundation that Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson laid.  The good news?  Between Socialized Medicine, Cap and Trade, TARP, etc., the federal government’s active role in overstepping its bounds–in crippling America–is opening the eyes of Americans of all races.  The bad news: there may not be an America left when the federal locusts finish.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel will be done in 2016. Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>baldilocks