United Liberty

In honor of February being Black History Month, I thought it might be informative to look at one aspect of the history of blacks in America; namely, the history of blacks and the Republican Party. Though black voters in America have in recent decades become a monolithic voting block for the Democrat Party, such has not always been the case. In fact, I think it would come as a great surprise for many blacks today to learn that not only have Republicans not always been thought of as their political enemies, they once had a political and ideological alliance. Even today these two groups agree on a wide range of issues, from educational choice and traditional marriage, to the importance of religion, specifically Christianity, to our history and culture.

On March 20, 1854, a group of people opposed to the Democrats’ policies supporting slavery met in Ripon, Wisconsin with the express purpose of organizing to end the moral evil of slavery. Just ten days later, on March 30th, President Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a law which authorized the expansion of slavery into U.S. territories. As a result, these anti-slavery members of the Whig and Free-Soil Democrats would form the Republican Party, and within a few short years had established a major power base in the northeastern and Midwestern states.

In 1856, the Republican Party held its first national nominating convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it nominated John C. Freemont as their presidential candidate. Freemont ran under the slogan “Free soil, free silver, free men, Fremont”. He would lose that election to Democrat James Buchanan after Democrats warned the election of the anti-slavery Freemont would lead to civil war, but despite the loss in the 1856 election, the Republicans had established themselves as a major party, and would win the presidency just four years later with Abraham Lincoln.

In a pair of interviews last month, Big Boi, on half of the Atlanta hip-hop group Outkast, explained that he wasn’t a fan of President Barack Obama and noted that he voted for Gary Johnson, a third-party candidate, in the 2012 election.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, he further elucidated his political views. Noting that “you can’t judge a book by its cover,” Big Boi said, “I’m a libertarian — liberty, justice for all; liberty for all. I’m really pro-people, pro-freedom”:

How many people like Big Boi have been labeled simply because they’re black? The message of liberty resonates. Dismissing somone, just because of their skin color, as an Obama supporter is pretty dumb and, sadly, it’s an attitude that the freedom movement has to move past to broaden the reach of our message.

As a result of the Trayvon Martin shooting, the topic of racism has, unfortunately, been given new life in American politics and culture. As the shooting became a prominent fixture in the news, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and even President Barack Obama jumped into the fray by making statements that pinned the incident as racially motivated. Others have used it to attack the Second Amendment and gun owners.

But in a video at Reason, Kennedy, a former MTV personality, is setting the record straight, noting that race relations are better, according to poll data, and incidents involving gun violence are actually on the decline:

Janeane Garofalo doesn’t think Herman Cain is a bonafide conservative.  The actress and activist alleges that he’s either being paid to run, or is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.  After all, he’s a black man.

Garofalo also said successful businessman Herman Cain is either being paid to run or is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because he is a “person of color” running as a Republican in the party’s presidential primary.

“[He’s] in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly. [In] the last 30 years the Republican party has been moving more and more to the right, but also race-baiting more. Gay-baiting more. Religion-baiting more,” Garofalo said.

[…]

“He’s a businessman,” she said sarcastically. “Who ever pays him. And there may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome. There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome in there because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican party or the conservative movement or the Tea Party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry with the oppressors. Is it Stockholm syndrome or does somebody pay them?”

Just curious Janeane, but what inherent racism is that?  That a black man shouldn’t think for himself?  That a black man can’t decide his own positions and find that the Democratic Party is a poor match for him?

Garofalo also trotted out her conspiracy theories that clearly mark her as an outright freaking lunatic.

Garofalo also had some conspiracy theories as to who may be putting Cain up to this.

Two years into the presidency of Barack Obama, I still hear the old “racist” label as a knee jerk reaction to any opposition to the President’s proposals, efforts, or agenda.  Let’s be honest folks, it’s time to put that crap away.  All it’s doing is making it impossible to have an adult conversation about issues because one side keeps putting its fingers in its ears and screams “lalalalalalala” at every possible moment.

Is there racism?  Yes.  Are there some who oppose President Obama purely on his race?  Most likely.  But that’s not the majority of people.  President Obama’s approval ratings, according to Gallup, was only at 46%.  That’s it.  Remember that Obama won with almost 53% of the popular vote.  Translation?  Some people who did support the President no longer find his policies so palatable.

Unfortunately, there are some out there that seem to act like this really means that an additional 7% of the American public spontaneously became racist or something, when that’s not at all what happened.  Truth be told, they’re actually hurting future black candidates when they accuse opponents of racism.

No one likes being called a racist, except for some racists.  People will go out of their way to avoid it many times.  For some, that will including even anaction that’s somewhat racist: not voting for a black candidate because he’s a black candidate.

The reason this may happen is pretty simple.  People like being free to criticize the government, and by extension they want to criticize the people we elect to run the government.  It’s just how things are.  However, with this trotting out calls of “racism” every time there’s opposition to one of the President’s plans, some are just going to decide to not vote for the black candidate next time.

I find stuff from all over the place.  Occasionally, someone will email me something.  Other times, someone will post something on Facebook.  That happened today when I found this article at Big Journalism written by Dana Loesch.  The Loesch’s piece indicated something pretty bad from Alternet, but surely she was blowing it out of proportion, right?  After all, I see that pretty regularly from the right.

It ain’t the case this time.

After clicking the link to Alternet’s piece, I found this:

In the immortal words of Megatron in Transformers: The Movie, Herman Cain’s speech at CPAC really is bad comedy. As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.

When race minstrelsy was America’s most popular form of mass entertainment, black actors would often have to pretend to be white men, who then in turn would put on the cork to play the role of the “black” coon, Sambo, or Jumping Jim Crow. Adding insult to injury, in a truly perverse and twisted example of the power of American white supremacy black vaudevillians would often pretend to be white in order to denigrate black people for the pleasures of the white gaze.

Herman Cain–an ironic name if ever, and one more suited to a tragic figure in a Harlem Renaissance era novella–is not “blackening twice” as some race minstrels chose to do.

Holy crap.

It went on to say:

I’m not sure how anyone who either has lived in, visited or read about southern history or civil rights will not find themselves nodding their heads as they read this:

Rand Paul is not as politically unsophisticated as the media, tea party organizers and Republican strategists would like you to believe.

In the hours after his victory in a Republican senate primary, Paul did not let it slip accidentally during an NPR interview that he opposed aspects of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it certainly was no fluke that later in the day on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show he repeated his “libertarian” philosophies supporting a business owner’s right to discriminate racially.

While he wasn’t quite George Wallace standing on Jefferson Davis’ gold star and proclaiming “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” Paul still played defiantly to his angry base of tea partiers.

They’re taking their country back. How far back? Apparently the goal is 1963, a year before the federal government made it illegal for restaurants, hotels, department stores, etc., to deny African-Americans service.

Paul, a doctor, is not stupid, nor is he a political novice. No way. He’s the son of an Air Force surgeon who is a political veteran. Paul was born and educated in the South. He’s been a player in the Kentucky political scene since at least 1994, when he founded the Kentucky Taxpayers United.

Paul knew what he was doing. He executed a calculated, bold, political-branding move.