Skip to main content

Ever since ConstructiveFeedback has joined Africanamerica.org, the debate over the effectiveness of liberal policies in the black community has been a hot topic.

It goes without saying that 9/10 of people on this site are more liberal than conservative.

Here is my question: What policies do you agree with that are conservative.

What conservative policies do you think are to blacks benefit???
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
What policies do you agree with that are conservative.


Please define what a "Conservative" is?

I don't view myself as a "conservative"

I have stopped calling many of the Blacks who I see as "quasi-socialists" LIBERALS. The word "Liberal" means nothing just as the word "Conservative".

Many of you via your views on free healthcare, the Living Wage and confiscatory taxation on the rich expose yourselves as QUASI-SOCIALISTs rather than liberals.

*******

Also a more probing question, Sweetwuzzy is NOT "What Conservative policies have been good"......The more probing question is:

"Despite the fact that people can claim that a majority of Blacks are "liberal" (making use of your label) can you claim that this perspective has been successful in TRANSFORMING the BLACK COMMUNITY?"


Again - I distinguish between policies that have "changed White folks", punishing anyone who violates the rights of another, absent the previous impunity that some folks operated with. I am speaking of BLACK PEOPLE and our economic, academic, health, safety and CULTURAL standing today.

IS YOUR IDEOLOGY EFFECTIVE IN TRANSFORMING BLACK FOLKS and allowing the maximum amount of people to make use of our new found freedoms in America?
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
Ever since ConstructiveFeedback has joined Africanamerica.org, the debate over the effectiveness of liberal policies in the black community has been a hot topic.

It goes without saying that 9/10 of people on this site are more liberal than conservative.

Here is my question: What policies do you agree with that are conservative.

What conservative policies do you think are to blacks benefit???



Sweetwuzzy,

Every right and political gain that black people have attained in this country has always come from the liberal side of the political spectrum as liberal policies were always inclusive and afforded rights and access to resources to groups that had been historically excluded...from voting rights to affirmative action....the black political majority resided on that end of the philosophical spectrum.......


On the flip side I cannot think of one thing gained from conservatism by blacks due to the fact that the philosophy works to maintain the status quo and retain historical imbalances created by systematic disenfranchisement via slavery and jim crow......I cannot think of one legislative gain that has come from that end of the spectrum...and I damn sure cannot name one black conservative that ever sponsored or supported legislation that was not considered adverse by the black majority.....go figure huh?
quote:
Every right and political gain that black people have attained in this country has always come from the liberal side of the political spectrum as liberal policies were always inclusive and afforded rights and access to resources to groups that had been historically excluded...from voting rights to affirmative action....the black political majority resided on that end of the philosophical spectrum.......


Oh Kevin that was a good one. lol

Please show me the masses of "Black Conservatives" who were protesting WITH THE WHITES to keep the Blacks from sitting at the lunch counter?

Do you see my notion that there are TWO FRONTS in the battle and how in viewing it this way we JUST MIGHT move forward as a people?

CLEARLY there is a battle in America and world wide to have EVERYONE, especially the European, to have his behavior LIMITED within the context of some "constitutional law" that prevents him from trampling on the rights of other people.

Secondly there is an INTERNAL STRUGGLE to have BLACK PEOPLE act in a way that shapes us as a people. This is a struggle to define a FUNCTIONAL CULTURE, that allows Black folks to make use of our freedom and self determination.

I charge that THE SECOND AREA is where Black LIBERALS (your word) has FAILED Black America.

I found it interesting that on Saturday's MMM many of the typical LIBERALS had a conservative bent to their WORDS. Sadly when you add a white man to the mix you see them "lib" up significantly.

Black leaders need to stop throwing away all that they believe when a White person comes along and threatens them with WORDS. Too often they begin to DEFEND AGAINST the words of the White rather than PROMOTING WHAT THEY BELIEVE. It appears that they being to DEFEND "Bad Behavior" rather than focusing on the BLACK STANDARDS, regardless of if they condemn an act just as the white man has condemned it.
quote:
Do you see my notion that there are TWO FRONTS in the battle and how in viewing it this way we JUST MIGHT move forward as a people?


If you trully believe that and I do not believe you do, Why are you continously juxtaposing your arguements with those espoused on this forum. If you are coming in from the North East, and We are coming in from the South West both heading to the center, why do we continue get shot and stabbed in the back by the likes of you and those Negro men and women that think like you. If you were trully operating from a different front then we should not feel the bullets you are shooting at the enemy.

It sounds more like you are fronting than operating from a different front, Fronting for white folk that is!
quote:
why do we continue get shot and stabbed in the back by the likes of you and those Negro men and women that think like you.



MY MAN FAHEEM!!! What's up "MY Brotha"? Long time no hear.


Let me break it down for you and then you can understand where I am coming from.

You see YOU have a little problem with PERSPECTIVE.
You believe that the PERSPECTIVE ON BLACKNESS that you hold is ABSOLUTE and EXCLUSIVE.

This is why I came up with the concept of the "Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive FUNDEMENTALIST".
These are in fact FUNDEMENTALISTS because just as with a "right wing" FUNDEMENTALIST they believe that THEIR WAY is the only way toward salvation.

Speaking for ME PERSONALLY when I debate you and others I am not attacking "Black people". I am attacking YOUR IDEOLOGY. You have so fused YOUR IDEOLOGY with that of BLACKNESS (as a defensive mechanism) that you have been FOOLED into believing that an "ATTACK ON YOU IS AN ATTACK ON BLACKNESS". Now I am sure that you would laugh at the notion of a gathering with Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and Armstrong Williams in which they have accused the BQLF of "attacking Black people" because the frequent attacks by people of this perspective against those who have a perspective that YOU call "Black Conservative".

So I ask YOU (Faheem) to tell me - What of your perspective makes it righteous and just as the only perspective that a Black man can have?

I am sure that you have witness the long running debate between me and my friend Kevin on the subject of Affirmative Action in Education. Kevin's position is that "back in the day" (late 1970s early 1980s) such a program allowed many Blacks to attend school. He uses these statistics to justify that all Blacks should continue to fight for the reestablishment of full blown AA.

I DARE to make the comment that the FACT that TODAY IN THE REAL WORLD that we live in AA policies have taken it on the chin and that WE NEED TO FACTOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS STORNG OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF AA AND THAT IT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY BY A FORCE BEYOND OUR CONTROL AND THUS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON A POLICY WHERE MORE CONTROL OF OUR DESTINY RESIDES INSIDE OUR DOMAIN OF CONTROL.

Now is my position that is AGAINST HIS PRIORITY actual said to be AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE? Do you really, really think so?

Kevin makes his usual deprecating comments against me but I have learned over time that desperate people make desparate comments. I have even offered an alternative that removes the dependency but who's only FLAW (at least in Kevin's mind) is that it PLACES THE BURDEN OF BLACK PROGRESS SQUARELY ON THE BACKS OF BLACK PEOPLE, not expecting Reparation but certainly will make use of it if received.

MY CONTENTION IS that the path way of BEARING THE BULK OF OUR BURDEN WILL ALSO CREATE A CULTURAL FRAMEWORK THAT WE BUILD IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH OUR GOAL Being the sole architects of our construction we will know the structure that is built INSIDE AND OUT - we are the one's who designed it and built it.

I believe my strategy to be more COMPREHENSIVE and ENDURING than what I have heard from Kevin and the REAL WORLD experiences of the past 30 years have shown us with AA.
that is bullschit rhetoric Fine and CF knows he is feeding more of the same...if a negro cannot justify supporting policy that the majority of black people find adverse and cannot explain why the majority is wrong without trying to divert the topic or add unrelated dialogue to his reasoning as a coverup...he is full of schit...period...black conservatives talk allot of rhetoric but do not have any substance....that is why when CF mentioned effectiveness..I talked about rising graduation rates fostered by AA and why would anyone logically work to tun those numbers downward....I get a response talking about K-12 that does not even address falling enrollments NOW or even the issue of black gov't contracting all together......now I want someone to tell me how can someone black support policy that reduces black business contracting opportunity while at the same time organizations like FEMA have 91% of their contracts given to white firms...now if white people paid 91% of the taxes that would be an appropriate number....but instead I have negroes supporting that status quo while telling me some dumb schit about what is good for black people...they can go fuck themselves with that insulting bullschit...there is no logical reason for black people to support ANYTHING that reduces opportunity for black people.......FOR ANY REASON...if it is not a criminal program or anything unlawful or immoral....but when a negro speaks bad of corrective measures that work towards equality, works to destroy them without having anything to replace those programs...they are full of shit..plain and simple....blkCONS try to piss on black people and tell us it is raining...and that will never fly...........never..
quote:
I believe my strategy to be more COMPREHENSIVE and ENDURING than what I have heard from Kevin and the REAL WORLD experiences of the past 30 years have shown us with AA.




rhetoric as opposed to measurements of probable effcetiveness that outperforms AA? which some blacks worked to help destroy? how many people quit their job or sale their car without finding or buying a new one that is AT LEAST as good as the old one? This simple question displays the illogical nature of the blkCON...they perform actions that are measurably detrimental to blacks and do not have schit to replace it with as an alternative...denoting that it was their intentions to reduce black opportunity for racit whites in the first place.........HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE EVER SEEN A BLACK CONSERVATIVE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RESULTANT DROPS IN COLLEGE ENROLLMENT OR GOV'T CONTRACTING AS A RESULT OF AA REPEALS....AND PROMOTED AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD HAVE AT LEAST RAISED GRADUATION AND ENROLLMENT LEVELS TO WHAT THEY WERE?..NO ONE EVEN ASKED THEIR SORRY AZZES FOR AN IMPROVEMENT...WHICH WOULD HAVE REALLY BEEN THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO......
All of this is waaaayyyyy, off

But, CF, you said ...

quote:
Do you see my notion that there are TWO FRONTS in the battle and how in viewing it this way we JUST MIGHT move forward as a people?


As I've opined before, when your signature tag included the Malcolm quote that spoke to our not having to agree on each other's tactics or strategies, only that we have a common outcome; I'm so glad you've abandoned that quote, for I don't believe that you believe this. Faheem, has you pegged.

Now, back to the question at hand ...

Personally, the only "Conservative" policy that I support is rooted in the Republican platform. It has to do with Federalism [i.e., the delineation of federal authority vs State's Rights]. The policy says that, "The government should do for the people, what the people cannot [and will not (added by Kweli4Real)] do for themselves."

I am, at my core, a State's Rightist [with federal oversight], in that I believe that it is a strategy that can best bring about any Black Agenda. We have the numbers to impact in a direct fashion precinct, city, and county-wide, and in some cases state-wide, elections, in those areas that we live. Therefore, we have the numbers to promote our Agenda on these levels. Additionally, and equally as important, our numbers enable us to punish those local/state politicians that betray on vote.

How can this benefit Black folk?

Black folks have the numbers to push the state of X to enact policies to equalize all school district tax funding on a per student basis.

Black folks have the numbers to push the state of Y to enact state-wide anti-discrimination remedial measures.
quote:
I believe my strategy to be more COMPREHENSIVE and ENDURING than what I have heard from Kevin and the REAL WORLD experiences of the past 30 years have shown us with AA.



I wonder what he thinks of whites who run to the government for everything...including putting blacks out of college when they think their slot has been taken at a university when there are lower scoring white students that get in with scores lower than theirs or the blacks they complain against.


Question: CF, do you think black people should go ahead and sue schools nationally when they find that whites with lower scores get in over us? I have a very high GPA and if I were excluded from a school admissions program do you think I should sue to get that lower-scoring white student out of MY slot there at the university?
Kweli4Real:
quote:
I'm so glad you've abandoned that quote, for I don't believe that you believe this. Faheem, has you pegged.


I am happy that I have made you glad for a brief moment but my goal is NOT to make you "happy" it is to CHALLENGE THE ORTHODOXY that is among us as a people.

PRODUCE RESULTS OR STEP ASSIDE.

If I have to "attack" the FUNDEMENTALISTS who stand guard against change IN BLACK PEOPLE and have to subject myself to personal attacks - so be it.

I am not attempting to change the fundementalists. I am attempting to have the BLACK COMMUNITY demand more of their leadership but also have this same community be willing to DO ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR CHANGE.

In my view "THE FUNDEMENTALISTS" who are resistant to change IN BLACK PEOPLE are the "conservatives" in the context of INSIDE OF the Black community.
Renaldo, the most interesting thing about debating with you is you have continued since we first engaged one another to fine tune your arguments which says to me you have continued to bare witness to the weakness of your arguments and continue to seek out ways to make sense of them. Such is the case in this presentation of yours which is not an accurate portrayal of your arguments as recent as last week I am sure but let's look at what you have written. You wrote;

quote:
"AA policies have taken it on the chin and that WE NEED TO FACTOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS STORNG OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF AA AND THAT IT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY BY A FORCE BEYOND OUR CONTROL AND THUS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON A POLICY WHERE MORE CONTROL OF OUR DESTINY RESIDES INSIDE OUR DOMAIN OF CONTROL."


If this was your argument from the start, I do not think anyone here including Kevin would argue with you because this is not an oppositional statement against AA but more of an argument that seek to have us focus on other means of attaining access, but here is the litmus test to see if this is really your position. Do this argument and your position also mean we should not continue to fight for AA and keep it in places where it is already in place and making a difference? Does it mean we should not fight against those who seek to remove AA where ever it is found? This is the difference between us and you Renaldo; we understand that our struggle is not a one dimensional struggle and we do not oppose Black men and women trying to accomplish things in a different manner but this is not how Negro Con men and women operate. You align yourself with the opposition and articulate their thoughts and even adopt their language. So if this is your argument today and hence forth we should not here any arguments against AA from you and more of an argument that states, AA is good and we should fight to keep it in place and since I know we can do more than one thing at a time, here is something else we can do to help our people. Now let's see if you will do that..........
quote:
I am happy that I have made you glad for a brief moment but my goal is NOT to make you "happy" it is to CHALLENGE THE ORTHODOXY that is among us as a people.


Again, your response demonstrates that you've failed to read and/or understand my post. {Kweli4Real shrugs his shoulders and sighs}


quote:
PRODUCE RESULTS OR STEP ASSIDE.


Well ... get ta stepping.

And, don't hijack the thread. Answer the question as posed or start your own thread.

Question repeated:

quote:
Here is my question: What policies do you agree with that are conservative.

What conservative policies do you think are to blacks benefit???
What policies do you agree with that are conservative.

What conservative policies do you think are to blacks benefit???---Sweetwuzzy

We as black people have the wrong focus. Our one single focus over e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g else should be our fight for j-u-s-t-i-c-e!---Fine

I was about to try to answer the two questions, mostly because I usually don't get into the liberal/conservative 'whirlygig'. I thought this time I would try.

Ultimately, however, I agree with 'Fine'.

In the end, the political truth is that matters to both Liberals AND Conservatives, new or used, in the political mix is that African Americans not vote to the benefit of African Americans.

We need to learn to vote for ourselves.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
If this was your argument from the start, I do not think anyone here including Kevin would argue with you because this is not an oppositional statement against AA but more of an argument that seek to have us focus on other means of attaining access, but here is the litmus test to see if this is really your position.


Faheem:

Could you show me where I have EVER said that "I OPPOSE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"?

I have CONSTANTLY said that it is a STRATEGIC MISTAKE to have AA be the CENTERPIECE of the movement to get Black folks educated.

I have scoffed at the "DUAL APPROACH" that many have suggested "repair our public schools and focus on AA". I stated that when given the CHOICE that those who have heavy resentment over what the "White man OWES THEM" will never be able to fully devote the time, resources and committment to what needs to be an INTERNAL, COMMUNITY BASED INITIATIVE when there is an OPTION that has THE WHITE MAN MAKING A CONCESSION. The WHITE MAN ROUTE will always be preferred because ANGER AND OBLIGATION can be stoked more easily than the call for HARD WORK on the inside with the hopes of a future harvest, sight unseen.

This is seen as PUNITIVE against Black people BUT AGAIN - no one will bother to take measure of how PUNITIVE OUR CURRENT POSITION IS TO SO MANY PEOPLE.

I have stated before that some people are more driving by the fact that IF THEY WERE EVER TO HAVE A COURT HEARING AGAINST THE WHITE MAN - THEY WOULD WIN, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

The fact that they MAY NEVER GET THEIR DAY IN COURT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT DEALS WITH THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION at hand.

To do so is to GIVE UP. To FEAR CONFRONTATION. To be scared of the WHite man. To capitulate to his will.

I ASK EVERYONE TO ALLOW THE PAINFUL TRUTH OF WHERE WE STAND AS A PEOPLE to be your guide. Let us PURGE the reactionary positions and try to hold our own destiny as close at hand as possible.

We grow with the effort of MANAGING and controlling our own destiny rather than outsourcing it to some altruistic White liberal.

Fanie Lou Hamer said that she will never again allow another man to ARBITRATE on her behalf when Hubert H. Humprey got her a seat in the grandstands of the Democratic National Convention rather than a seat as a representative as she had driven such a long distance to acquire.
Fannie Lou Hamer on the dangers of allowing someone else to negotiate on your behalf:

quote:
They suggested a compromise which would give the MFDP two seats in exchange for other concessions, and secured the endorsement of Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference for the plan. But when Humphrey outlined the compromise, saying that his position on the ticket was at stake, Hamer, invoking her Christian beliefs, sharply rebuked him:

"Do you mean to tell me that your position is more important than four hundred thousand black people's lives? Senator Humphrey, I know lots of people in Mississippi who have lost their jobs trying to register to vote. I had to leave the plantation where I worked in Sunflower County. Now if you lose this job of Vice-President because you do what is right, because you help the MFDP, everything will be all right. God will take care of you. But if you take [the nomination] this way, why, you will never be able to do any good for civil rights, for poor people, for peace, or any of those things you talk about. Senator Humphrey, I'm going to pray to Jesus for you."

Future negotiations were conducted without Mrs. Hamer, and the compromise was modified such that the Convention would select the two delegates to be seated, for fear the MFDP would appoint Hamer. In the end, the MFDP rejected the compromise, but had changed the debate to the point that the Democratic Party adopted a clause which demanded equality of representation from their states' delegations in 1968.
quote:
WE NEED TO FACTOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS STORNG OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF AA AND THAT IT COULD BE TAKEN AWAY BY A FORCE BEYOND OUR CONTROL AND THUS WE SHOULD FOCUS ON A POLICY WHERE MORE CONTROL OF OUR DESTINY RESIDES INSIDE OUR DOMAIN OF CONTROL.


If we were to tip-toe around the things we need, and address issues in the manner you suggest, we would be viewed as a community with no political backbone.

So we shouldn't push for reparations and AA because of the opposition?! I knew Con's were spineless, but I'd never thought one would come out and say it. I guess you get points for honesty. But let me ask you a question, how do we as a community REACH any goal, if we let WHITES establish a political, economic and social CEILING?

Whites and Con's have one agenda, which is to stall or METER our progress. And what I mean by METER is they decide when, how much, and how long. If we were psychotic enough to let someone METER the progress in our community, what could we point to as a surety that Whites and Con's have the Black Community in its best interest.
Calling AA a strategic mistake is not arguing against it in your eyes? To explain why it is a strategic mistake would mean you will have to argue against it and that goes against any notion that you are not opposing it and trying offer a strategic alternative. The question is can both strategies be executed without condemnation of the other from those working on either side. The answer is yes but this is not how you are presenting it.

It is clear that you think less of our people than I do. I am certain that those amongst us who believe that Black men and women have been wronged and victimized by a system set up to benefit white folk can both fight against the system and work internally to correct problems, every Black organization does this thus I have no idea where you get the notion we can not do two things at one time. One other huge problem with your argument is that it does not address white skin privilege that continue to exist on every level in this nation. You arguments against AA is no different than that of the white girl from Michigan that case went before the Supreme court, She knew as well as you do that white folk are being allowed entry into schools and other programs with lower scores than some of their white counterparts but when the man or woman that was denied entry get upset, they do not go after the white folk they go after the Black folk mainly because like you they believe we do not belong and do not deserve to be in various places but those low scoring whites are ok. Did you ever wonder how low scoring whites get in a school high scoring whites did not? Do you ever wonder why white folk do not argue against that? It is because they have more loyalty that most sick backwards thinking Negro-Cons.
HeruStar:

Go for it MY BROTHER - you keep FIGHTING for "Affirmative Action" and "Reparations".

All that I ask is that - JUST AS I WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING TO STOP YOU from pursuing your agenda items THAT YOU have the same respect for my pathway.

I just heard a "Black talk radio host say - Those who 'go against the grain' are the one's who will always be attacked". He was speaking about people with YOUR ideoligy with respect to America. In fact the same thing is the case with regard to ME with respect to the "Black mainstream ideology". Truely you all have mastered the ways of your oppressors.

I only hope that at some point in time you will have REALITY to be your guidance.

I hope that you will one day place RESULTS over your particular METHODOLOGY that you are fixed upon based on what you believe you are "owed".

I hope that the eventual decline of the United States, as predicted by Noah the African will not have the "defendant" in your legal case to DIE an early death, leaving you with a grievance that is never ajudicated.
Indeed there were "masses" of conservative-like Black folk who opposed the civil rights movement. MLK wrote about the clergymen and other unthinking and fearful need-to-grows who admonished him to stop agitating. Although they did NOT march in protest (after all, no white folks would want them walking or standing next to their lily right/whiteness) they helped to fortify the resistance to civil rights through their cowardice, ignorance, all consuming self-interest, and/or apathy.

As is obvious, Black folks standing in the way of other Black folks' progress is nothing new.

It is impossible to have a valid argument against government "interference", when every stride forward (for the Black collective) was made because of the people's insistence that government respond with appropriate action-- it is important never to confuse the leader and the led. Further, who is the government anyway? It is NOT some living, breathing entity. It is us, them, you, me, those people, and them crazy ones over there, too.
quote:
It is clear that you think less of our people than I do.



Actually Faheem I think MORE OF BLACK PEOPLE than you give me credit for.

I believe that Black people have the ability to make a DECISION TO CHANGE.

In doing so we will see the statistics on how advanced education opens the doors for all, regardless of race. In acknowledging this and with the right message coming from a new brand of leadership our people will begin to make PRIORTY OF EDUCATION above some of the diversions that now take place.

We will formulate a COMPRESHENSIVE strategy to have each of our communities take over the schools in their respective area.

You see - this will take hard work, coordination and an SUSTAINED response from Black people.

I have more confidence in this strategy than I do for the strategy to PROTEST in front of the University of Michigan asking the WHITE FOLKS to let us in so that we can share in the power that - as racists - you and others say they don't want to share in.

I have confidence that the Black community will shift gears once the conscious among us begin to move our hopes and actions INTERNAL to our locus of control.
quote:
Indeed there were "masses" of conservative-like Black folk who opposed the civil rights movement. MLK wrote about the clergymen and other unthinking and fearful need-to-grows who admonished him to stop agitating.


Isome - hold a minute. Just last week I posted an article from Black Commentator which said that the BLACK CHURCH IS NOT CONSERVATIVE. Now you are saying that there are large elements that are?

What do you call the Black woman who knew that "these White folks would kill ya" if you stand up to them and thus didn't want their husbands to go confronting the White folks who were "screwing them" out of their share cropper's money? WHERE THEY "CONSERVATIVE BLACK FEMALES"? They sound just like the preachers that you have depicted.

I just saw the "Autobiography of Mrs. Jane Pittman". Her son came back to town after the Klan ran him away. He begain aggitating for Civil Rights. A White man who often fished with Mrs. Jane told her that he had a contract to kill her son.

She immediately ran to her son and told him to leave town because they were plotting on killing him.

Was Ms Jane Pittman a "Black Conservative" for making the "conservative' choice of safety over confrontation?

What about the inner city Black mother today who has her Black boy remain inside of the house rather than getting caught up in some of the craziness that is going on outside of her house? She doesn't want her son to become front page news so she "cowers" in fear of the Thugs and gang bangers that are among her. Is she a "Black Conseravtive" for not going against this destructive force?

What about the people who are scared of "Snitching" to the police for fear of terrorism by a thug? Are they "Conservatives" as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

Isome - hold a minute. Just last week I posted an article from Black Commentator which said that the BLACK CHURCH IS NOT CONSERVATIVE.


I agree wholeheartedly with bc. The BLack church, by and large, has always espoused Christ's ideology, which is that we are our brothers' keepers --that would be the dreaded socialism to some.

My point remains: there were Black folks who, alongside the Bull Connors and George Wallaces of the day, helped to fortify resistance to civil/equal rights for Black folks because of their conservative-like behavior (born of fear and/or ignorance).

The people opposed to King's (and SNCC and the SCLC) were conservative-like (note the suffix) in their fear... of not being accepted by white folks, so they wanted other Black people to shut up and stay out of sight. Just as importantly, they feared the domestic terrorism of individuals and groups like the KKK and KnightRiders.

Being a conservative, as it is defined today, also involves fear-- they fear their unacknowledged privilege will disappear. There is a reason why so many Dixiecrats converted to republicanism and now call themselves conservatives.
quote:
I agree wholeheartedly with bc. The BLack church, by and large, has always espoused Christ's ideology, which is that we are our brothers' keepers --that would be the dreaded socialism to some.

My point remains: there were Black folks who, alongside the Bull Connors and George Wallaces of the day, helped to fortify resistance to civil/equal rights for Black folks because of their conservative-like behavior (born of fear and/or ignorance).


Isome:

Now I see what I am dealing with - with you.

Despite all of the evidence that I put forth to prove your generalization incorrect - you are going to continue with it.

If Jesus was a socialist (and recall that the White Supremisists made frequent reference to Jesus just as you are doing) then please tell me why totalitarianism seems to follow these type of collectivist goverments around the world? Much worse as the "government" replaces God in the lives of the people these governments often suppress the free practice of religion among their people.

It is clear that you intepret "helping the poor" as a commandment to "have the government to confiscate massively from the rich to help the poor". Please show me in the bible where it commands that the GOVERNMENT be organized to confiscate money from the rich to give to the poor as opposed to THE CHRISTIAN in pursuit of Christian charity in doing the same?

It is LAUGHABLE for you to compare the actions of any "Black Conservative" that you could come up with to the deeds of the Democratic Public Safety Director of Birmingham, Alabama - Bull Conner. It just ain't so. But I do agree that some people on this board are more easily pacified by such statements then others.

*****
Let me ask you Isome - in dealing with the major issues that Black people have TODAY - do you think that it is time to 'GET MORE LIBERAL' or to instill some discipline in more people as one might receive from a boot camp or a traditional "Manhood" cerimony or "Coming of Age" process as other cultures have? (You know the conservative societies that attempt to direct their young people down a certain path).
quote:
Despite all of the evidence that I put forth to prove your generalization incorrect - you are going to continue with it.


You did not put forth any "evidence." The hypothetical scenarios listed had nothing to do impeding the progress of Blacks as a group.

I wouldn't characterize my statement as a generalization. (...generalization of whom?)

quote:
If Jesus was a socialist (and recall that the White Supremisists made frequent reference to Jesus just as you are doing) then please tell me why totalitarianism seems to follow these type of collectivist goverments around the world? Much worse as the "government" replaces God in the lives of the people these governments often suppress the free practice of religion among their people.


You can find the religious fundamentalists in the conservative wing of the Republican party if you're trying to imply that I condone in any way the idea that religion should play a role in government. Please check other conservatives for their "totalitarian tendencies."


quote:
It is clear that you intepret "helping the poor" as a commandment to "have the government to confiscate massively from the rich to help the poor".


You would be wrong then. Helping the less fortunate is something people should do. Apparently your perspective gets skewed when you view the government as something you are not a part of. We all are; it has and is nothing without we the people.


quote:
Please show me in the bible where it commands that the GOVERNMENT be organized to confiscate money from the rich to give to the poor


This question is based on your fallacious conclusion and, as such, will get no further response than this sentence.

quote:
It is LAUGHABLE for you to compare the actions of any "Black Conservative" that you could come up with to the deeds of the Democratic Public Safety Director of Birmingham, Alabama - Bull Conner.


It isn't so laughable because, again, conservative-like behavior (as in fear and ignorance) did almost as much harm as the Bull Connors of the day, sans the violence, yet perhaps unwittingly encouraging the viscious bigot because of their willingness to cow tow and buck dance when whitey said boo!

Present day Black conservatives are the reincarnated chieftains that sold their own to the white man because they were looking for a quick profit. They are the descendants of the cowardly slaves who ratted out John Brown. They are the grandchildren of COINTELPRO provacateurs and infiltrators of Black organizations from the 60's who willingly lied under oath to put Black men in prison for murders they did not commit. They are not new to the Black community in America. They are always among us, and we will continue to work around them, as they will continue to internalize hostility from the broader community and seek pats on the head from white folks for their rugged individualism --a label reserved for need-to-grows who repeat everything white conservatives say.
quote:
Now I see what I am dealing with - with you.

Despite all of the evidence that I put forth to prove your generalization incorrect - you are going to continue with it


Now this has to be a joke coming from you Renaldo. You more so than anyone I have engaged suffer from Cognitive Dissonance and now you are accusing someone else of sticking to their position even after you put forth so-called evidence to the contrary. If it was not so sad I might actually laugh.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Now, back to the question at hand ...

Personally, the only "Conservative" policy that I support is rooted in the Republican platform. It has to do with Federalism [i.e., the delineation of federal authority vs State's Rights]. The policy says that, "The government should do for the people, what the people cannot [and will not (added by Kweli4Real)] do for themselves."

I am, at my core, a State's Rightist [with federal oversight], in that I believe that it is a strategy that can best bring about any Black Agenda. We have the numbers to impact in a direct fashion precinct, city, and county-wide, and in some cases state-wide, elections, in those areas that we live. Therefore, we have the numbers to promote our Agenda on these levels. Additionally, and equally as important, our numbers enable us to punish those local/state politicians that betray on vote.

How can this benefit Black folk?

Black folks have the numbers to push the state of X to enact policies to equalize all school district tax funding on a per student basis.

Black folks have the numbers to push the state of Y to enact state-wide anti-discrimination remedial measures.



Thankyou for answering my question !!!
Smile thanks kiss
quote:
Well the term conservative is vague, but conservative policies would be policies that favor smaller gov., less regulation of businesses ect.



What you call "Smaller Government" I say LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
I am amazed at how the same Kneegrows that blow a gasket over Federal spending in Iraq, Halliburton and other areas that are not in their list of priorities STILL FAVOR POLICIES THAT ADVANCE HIGH FEDERAL TAXATION.

If your priorities at not being met KEEP YOUR MONEY LOCAL and spend it as you please.

BUT IF ONLY THIS WAS THEIR AGENDA. In truth their agenda is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. They need to have high taxes that cross state boundaries with the money flowing likewise because THEIR LOCAL DISTRICTS DO NOT GENERATE THE WEALTH THAT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THIS STANDARD OF LIVING THAT THEY CRAVE.

You see this is another FALSE DICHOTOMY THAT MANY OF YOU OPERATE ON. You spend so much time fighting on NATIONAL POLICY when you need to focus more on LOCAL ECONOMICS to achieve your goals by FUNDING THEM.

**
You say "Less Regulation Of Business" I say - the appropriate level of regulation to balance public interests & safety with the need for STRONG ECONOMIC OUTPUT.

It is no surprise that many of you express a vengeful disposition when it comes to corporations. You also want JOBS in your communities and are at a loss as to why these corporations are not coming to your areas. You have strong support of people who score high on the NAACP legislative report card but these same people fail the report card of the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other entites that represent ENTITIES THAT CREATE JOBS.

One day the link between lack of jobs and anti-business policies that are supported by you will be noted.
quote:
What you call "Smaller Government" I say LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
I am amazed at how the same Kneegrows that blow a gasket over Federal spending in Iraq, Halliburton and other areas that are not in their list of priorities STILL FAVOR POLICIES THAT ADVANCE HIGH FEDERAL TAXATION.


Could it be that spending of tax dollars on other areas, i.e., "non-spending in Iraq, Halliburton and other areas that are not in their list of priorities", is spending that benefit a wider strectrum of tax-payers? For example, spending in Iraq benefits military contractors and big oil; whereas, tax spending on toxic waste clean-up benefits the world. Spending going to Haliburton benefits haliburton executives, [and to a lesser extent] its employees, its share-holders and well again, big oil; whereas, federal spending on universal healthcare would benefit every person who currently is un/under-insured, every person who's job has moved out of the US because their employer no longer wishes to pay for healthcare, or can't compete against companies domiciled in countries that have universal healthcare, like Canada.

Could it be that the vast majority of Americans accept the social contract that accepts taxation, even high taxation, when the dollars are directed towards programs and policies that benefit the American people?

quote:
In truth their agenda is INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. They need to have high taxes that cross state boundaries with the money flowing likewise because THEIR LOCAL DISTRICTS DO NOT GENERATE THE WEALTH THAT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THIS STANDARD OF LIVING THAT THEY CRAVE.


Whom are you speaking of here? It seems that this is the strategy of the current administration. But its not really a RE-distribution. Its more like a channeling of funds. Re-distribution would imply that those that have less would get more and those with more would get less. With this administration, those that have get more, those that don't have not only get less, they no longer have the social safety net to count on.
ConstructiveFeedback,

You are looking waytoo much into my question.

I created this thread to hear what policies liberal minded people on here agreeded with that were conservative. I was curious because most people on here lean completely towards the liberal spectrum, and I believe that most people are more multifaceted than that.

I don't know why you have a problem with the label "conservative." Less government programs is "conservative" or "traditional".
There are several significant things that Conservatives advocate that are good for black people simply because they are good for people. The question then becomes why don't black people want to be people?

1. Support local police.
Police exist because ordinary people can't whoop thugs. Police defend private property for you.

2. Don't trust Government to solve your problems.
Government is clumsy and slow. You can't trust it to do a lot of things right, just a few things. The fewer the better.

3. Business is good.
Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. Capitalism works, gets you paid and sets you free.

4. God is real.
Morality doesn't come from political positions. It comes from religions that have evolved over the centuries.

5. Family is central.
Don't go to work and pretend like your boss is your 'father'. That ain't family. Take care of your real family. Two parents are best.

6. Taxes suck.
You work hard for your money. You should keep it.

7. School choice is good.
You should be able to go to whatever school you want, especially if your public school is failing you.

8. America first.
The first American gets hurt - it's on. Don't mess with this country, or you'll pay the price.

There it is plain and simple. So what excuses can you come up with to pretend like these things don't make sense for blackfolks?
quote:
I don't know why you have a problem with the label "conservative." Less government programs is "conservative" or "traditional".


Let me answer that.

The Conservative label comes with a lot of baggage, just like the Liberal label. This administration has made Liberal a bad word. And, Black folk can't be called Conservative because it implies that they have turned their back on the Black community.

On either score, if it walks like a duck, has webbed feet, a bill, and quacks, it's a duck; regardless of his protestations to the contrary.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×