by baldilocks

What have Republicans/conservatives done for black Americans? I hear that question constantly when I disclose that I am a conservative.

Implied in the question is that a political party must “do something” for blacks. Not merely the usual “something” that a government entity does for all of its constituents, e.g. provide utilities, regulate commerce, etc., but something special.

That word ‘special’ has taken on a new meaning in recent years and I think that it applies to the special items that liberals/leftists believe that the government should provide for the ‘special’ people, the “congenitally retarded” folk.

Yes, we are a ‘special’ people–with ‘special’ needs– and require special handling: special education and special employment. You can’t expect black people to live up to the standards of ‘normal’ people. Like paraplegics or the blind or the deaf or those with Down syndrome, singular accommodations must be made for the great handicap of being born with black skin. To liberals/leftists, black people are a crippled class that can never be made whole just as long as they can never be made not-black. What’s this notion called?

Racism.

And if anyone tries to treat us as full, competent adults, the liberals/leftists will scream in righteous anger and protest about the unfairness of it all. And if some of us “handicapped” verbally express the desire to be treated like fully competent adults and act in a way that demonstrates that desire, we are deemed as traitors by those who share the same racial makeup, but who buy into the ‘handicap’ philosophy.

Yes, we are “traitors,” because if some of us refuse to take advantage of the special needs offered and succeed anyway, the vast majority of America will begin to think that we don’t really require the “handicap slot.”

The vast majority of Americans will begin to think that we’re not really inferior after all.

And we can’t have that, can we?

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 tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

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!

I know someone who is environmentally conscious, minority-empowering, and socially aware who also happens to be extremely conservative. Her “bleeding heart” has been tempered by reality. She knows there are problems that need to be addressed but she’s not so naive to believe the gut response for action is the right way to address most situations. I know all of these things because she married me a quarter century ago. I also know she’s not an anomaly.

My wife had been a lifelong Republican up until recently when she realized that the GOP is the slightly-less-big-government alternative to the Democratic Party. We both gave the Tea Party a shot and helped get as many conservatives elected as possible in recent years, but the Tea Party’s influence is waning with the Establishment solidifying its power over the party that once belonged to Coolidge and Reagan. That’s why we became Federalists.

For conservatism and/or classical liberalism to break through the stranglehold the Establishment’s Democratic-Republicans have over DC, we’ll need to embrace a more intellectual tone and understanding of several issues that are normally associated with liberals. We need more small-government-loving, freedom-defending conservatives in office and we need them there quickly, but conservatives can’t do it alone. It’s time to start recruiting people who are conservatives at heart but who believe their only option to promote the issues important to them is through the Democratic Party.

Here are three issues normally considered to be liberal beacons that conservatives can and should commandeer:

Save the environment… locally

There was some excitement among conservatives when new EPA chief Scott Pruitt started espousing Federalism in the government’s approach to the environment. In reality, he didn’t go quite far enough since he was promoting cooperative Federalism. What we really need is dual Federalism at the EPA where the state and local governments focus on their own areas while the EPA itself fades into nothingness; they should be cut to the point of only handling interstate challenges where the actions of one state have an impact on another. These cases are few and far between.

Those who believe that saving the environment is important almost always lean towards the Democratic Party. What these people don’t realize is that the environmental plans pushed forth by the Democratic Party are generally ineffective and invariably wasteful of time, money, and resources. The conservative/Federalist methodology to clean up the planet should focus on the local environment. Instead of spending billions on decrees from Paris, environmentalists should be mobilizing their local communities to promote recycling programs, clean-up initiatives of local water supplies, and energy awareness campaigns. Instead of laying down rules from DC, the states should be making decisions about what’s best for their own land, air, and bodies of water. After all, they know their own environment better than any Washington bureaucrat.

When environmentalists are shown the benefits  working within their own areas of influence rather than allowing the federal government to dictate, many of them will come to the conclusion they’re not wasteful Democrats. They’re small-government Federalists.

Empower minorities… with equality

Let’s face it. Affirmative Action is a broken notion. It may have been necessary at one point, but today the best way to empower minorities is to make sure they have equal footing. Every American citizen should be just that: an American citizen. Race should play no part in whether someone should be given government assistance for education, priority for employment mandated by DC, or special treatment through government programs.

Many in the Republican Party, in an effort to attract more minorities, are embracing ideas that support or resemble the tenets of Affirmative Action. When then-candidate Trump went after Justice Antonin Scalia for telling the truth about Affirmative Action’s effects on minorities, we saw the playbook that the future administration and his party would be using. They worry that if they don’t keep entitlements and programs that benefit minorities in place, they’ll lose elections.

As a minority, I know I’m not alone in not wanting a “helping hand” from the government because of my race. I don’t need it and to insinuate that I do is an insult. There’s a difference between fighting discrimination and elevating people based upon their race: one protects minorities while the other hampers them (even if it doesn’t seem like it at the time). Neither discrimination nor Affirmative Action have a place in this country anymore. Instead, we need to allow all races the equal footing they deserve to find success the American way.

The strategy the GOP is using to push left in regards to minorities is a losing play in the long term. Democrats will rebound with minorities in the coming elections because they’ll go even further to the left by giving primacy to minorities. The proper conservative message isn’t to say, “here’s more for you and your race.” It should be, “here’s equal footing, now go make it happen.” There will always be those who want any advantage they can get and chances are they’ll always be Democrats no matter how far left the GOP goes. What we’ve seen is that the message of true equality resonates much better with a good portion of minorities who would never be Republicans but who aren’t interested in what the Democrats are selling them.

Support social programs… through private organizations

When the topic of “social programs” is brought up, it’s common for people to divide along party lines. Democrats generally want more social programs while Republicans generally want fewer. To the Democrats, they’re essential. To the Republicans, they’re a waste. In a way, they’re both right. In another way, they’re both very wrong.

While there are some social programs that are absolutely not necessary, some are truly essential for the well-being of many Americans as the Democrats contend. On the other hand, they’re also a burden on taxpayers; many should be eliminated as the Republicans contend. The reality is that the vast majority of them should be transitioned to the public sector.

Republican politicians will argue that they’ve been saying that for some time and they’re correct. The problem is that they’ve done absolutely nothing to push this concept forward since the mid-1980s. Yes, they say it. No, they don’t do it. They don’t even try. It’s just part of their campaign spiel.

Fiscal and social conservative citizens and even a very small handful of lawmakers realize that privatizing most of these programs will have three effects: the burden will shift from taxpayers to fundraising (forced funding versus voluntary funding), community-based initiatives with centralized oversight and assistance (dual federalism in action in the private sector) will reduce corruption, and the overall effectiveness of the programs will generally improve. There will be some failures. There will be some corruption. Both will be reduced compared to what we’re seeing from DC-run social programs today.

There are more conservatives in America who don’t realize they’re conservative because they’ve fallen for the false narratives of both major parties. The Democrats keep saying “if you believe in this, you’re a liberal,” while the Republicans generally agree. If we expand upon the message that small-government Federalism is a better fit for addressing many issues associated with liberalism, we’ll find that more people realize they were conservatives all along.

I was taking a quick peek at Glenn Reynolds site when I saw a hilarious image from Iowntheworld:

I immediately tweeted it out which drew this response from RightWingWatchMA (The national Right Wing Watch is Norman Lear’s Group:

You’ll note I grabbed this from tweetdeck vs a basic tweet, it will become apparent later why.

One he mentioned me we started to exchange tweets until I asked the 64,000 question:

And that’s when the fun began, I asked it again

and again

and again

I pressed and pressed and finally he blocked me which is why you can’t see his replies in my timeline.

But by then it was time for supper so I tweeted out stuff about Romano’s Market and good meat since regardless of what side you are on everyone likes a good meal, so the final tweet of the exchange was…

Despite the happy ending I’m still blocked but this shows you how afraid our friends on the left are of this question…

….and they ought to be.

FYI: You will note that I didn’t say “Former Obama Administration Official Elizabeth Warren” in the tweet, this was due to the 140 character limit. And Kudos for Who Harmony for actually answering the question.

Update: the person from Right Wing Watch MA comments below saying he has no affiliation with the national group, I thought that statement should be in the main part of the post.

As for the rest I challenge people to read the tweets and the post and make up their own mind. If Right Wing Watch MA wants to call me racist for pointing out the double standards and the lefts fear over affirmative action, I don’t care as all the left seems to be able to do is cry “racist” or “sexist” when losing an argument.

I trust my the judgement of my readers, that’s why his comment is up and unedited.

It looks like the Senate Campaign in Massachusetts has a parallel with one of my favorite computer games is Sid Meier’s Colonization.

In Colonization there is a unit called the “converted native” This unit is generated by putting a Missionary into an Indian village and over time said missionary produces a converted native. (You can also get two converted natives if you get the founding father Juan de Sepulveda). A converted native provides one more resource than a free colonist when producing crops, wood or minerals but one less any product from a building (From a Weaver’s shop to a Church) and both produce less than a specialist.

The converted native can be transformed into a “specialist” either through education (placement in a schoolhouse) or by visiting an Indian village and learning a specific skill that said village specializes from a seasoned scout to an expert fir trapper et/al. As described by a site that I think takes things much too seriously:

Essentially, assimilation occurs through Western education, which removes all visual identifiers that this unit used to be Native

Apparently this process takes still takes place as evidenced by Former Obama Administration Official Elizabeth Warren (via Hotair)

as the Herald notes, she was listed as a minority professor in the Association of American Law Schools’ annual directory from 1986 to 1995. She joined Harvard Law as a visiting professor in 1992 and became a full-time prof there in 1995,

And the Volokh Conspiracy notes something even more interesting

But it gets even more interesting: once Warren joined the Harvard faculty, she dropped off the list of minority law faculty. Now that’s passing strange. When the AALS directory form came around before Warren arrived at Harvard, she was proud enough of her Native American ancestry to ask that she be listed among the minority law professors. (Or, in the unlikely even that she just allowed law school administrators to fill out the forms for her without reviewing them, they were aware that she claimed such ancestry, and she didn’t object when she was listed.) Once she arrived at Harvard, however, she no longer chose to be listed as a minority law professor.

So apparently arrival at Harvard has the same effect in real live as education has in Sid Meier’s Colonization

Left Prof Warren 1986-1995 Right Warren at Harvard post 1995

As you might guess the Senator Scott Brown campaign jumped all over this:

“This story raises serious questions about Elizabeth Warren’s credibility. The record now shows Prof. Warren did claim to be a ‘minority,’ and that she attempted to mislead the public about these facts when she was first asked about the issue last week,” said Brown spokesman Jim Barnett. “Prof. Warren needs to come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record.”

Ever Since this story came out there has been a twitter hashtag #ElizabethWarrenIndianNames (my favorite is Jim Geraghty on twitter’s “Dances with occupiers”) but after seeing the reaction of the Warren Campaign I think a more appropriate name might be “Plays the Victim”.

Once again, the qualifications and ability of a woman are being called into question by Scott Brown who did the same thing with the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. It’s outrageous.”

So let’s get this straight, Elizabeth Warren claims minority status when it is of use and drops it when it is no longer convenient. Scott Brown’s campaign calls her on it and that makes him a sexist.

I suspect the people of Massachusetts won’t find that very senatorial but if I’m the Warren campaign I’d be more worried about the reaction of the average voter struggling to find work or get their children accepted at prestigious colleges to her affirmative action claim.

Update: For some reason my uploads of images are failing and the images I had in the post have vanished. Working on it.