This paper says that many black Americans are conservative in their political ideology but given the marriage of conservatism and racism in the Republican Party avoid that party and vote for the Democratic Party. It says that some of the ideas stood for by liberals are revolting to many black conservatives. The question now is how to dissociate the Republican Party from racism so as to make it once more appealing to black conservatives.
Is Liberalism Always Good For Black Folk?
Always Good For Black Folk?
Ozodi Thomas Osuji
In the USA the Democratic Party (America’s
version of liberal party...which is different from the British notion of
liberal party) practically has a lock on black folk’s votes; they typically
obtain upwards of ninety percent of the black vote (Obama obtained 96% of the
black vote). This was not always so.
It was the Republican Party, the Party
of Lincoln that fought slavery and gave black folk emancipation from slavery.
Black folk used to flock to the Republican Party until Roosevelt’s party realignment in the 1930s
and finally after Goldwater’s overt racism in the 1964 Presidential election
(he was opposed to civil rights bills); in the 1964 election black folk flocked
to the Party of Lyndon Johnson (he championed civil rights bills) where they
have remained ever since.
When black folk flocked to the
Democratic Party white folks (in the South) who used to be primarily members of
the Democratic Party flocked to the Republican Party. The two parties are now
realigned, one representing progressivism and the other representing racism. The Republican Party used to be the liberal
progressive party; the Democratic Party used to be the racist party; those
roles have switched parties.
One understands why black folk vote for
the Democratic Party (the Party represents some semblance of fairness in the
land) but the question remains: is it good for black folks to always vote for
To answer this question I have to
explicate what political parties and political ideologies are and how they
operate in America. So bear with me as I do what may seem unnecessary
elaboration of the subject; I like to look at an issue as completely as is
Europe before the 1700s was ruled by
Kings and aristocrats (who claimed divine right to rule the people) so debate
about the nature of political parties was out of the question.
In 1776 Americans separated from their
mother country, England and her king, George 111. Americans opted to be democratic (please
don’t laugh; let us accept America’s rhetoric that it is democratic; America is
a plutocracy). England fought its
thirteen colonies but lost and America emerged an independent country. In 1787
a new federal constitution was written to replace the old Articles of Confederation
under which the colonies had operated. A
new government was formed; Congress was elected and George Washington was
selected the President. Members of
Congress immediately fell into two factions: Federalists and Anti
federalists. These two factions became
the basis of the current two political parties in America.
The Anti-Federalists wanted each state to
be more or less independent of the central government; they wanted America to
still be a confederation of sorts whereby states told the center what it did
and not the other way around (they were and still are characterized by belief
in state rights, a code word for maintaining slavery). The other faction championed a strong federal
government and weak states.
The folks from the East Coast such as
Adams, Hamilton etc. were the leaders of the Federalists faction whereas folks
from southern slave states, such as Thomas Jefferson, were in favor of strong
states (they did not want the central government to interfere in their practice
of slavery). Thus, right from the get go
of the Republic the North East was different from the South.
The federalist and anti-federalist
parties evolved to what we now call the two parties of America. In the 1820s
President Andrew Jackson essentially transformed the anti-federalists to the
Democratic Party. In the 1850s
President Abraham Lincoln transformed the (Whig) federalist’s party to the
Republican Party. Thus, since the 1860s America has had two political Parties:
The Democratic Party (originally in the South) and The Republican Party
(originally in the North East).
In the 1930s President Franklyn Delano
Roosevelt was elected the president of these United States of America. He began
to realign the political parties; the realignment was completed in the 1960s.
Party realignment means rearranging the
focus of the party and who joins it. In
the past the Republican Party fought for what we now call liberal policies and
Democrats were the party of the South, the Dixie party, the party of Jim Crow,
but with the realignment roles were changed. These days the focus of the two
parties have changed: Republicans have embraced the role of championing white
interests and opposing black interests and as would be expected white racists
(especially in the South) flocked to the Republican Party.
When Democrats like LBJ (President
Johnson) tried to extend civil rights to black folks white Southerners in
droves left the Democratic Party of their fathers and joined the Republican
Party of Northerners and transformed it into a racist party. Thus, today the Democratic Party appears to
be concentrated outside the South (where it originated).
The West coast, from California to
Oregon and Washington generally vote Democratic Party; the Northeast generally
votes Democratic Party.
The South and the islands of little
population in the center of the country generally vote Republican. Since most
Americans live on either of the Coasts so the Democratic Party is still strong
despite the fact that in area of land the Republicans are larger (these days
the two areas are called red states and blue states; red for Republican and
blue for Democratic).
America is characterized by the
presence of two large political parties: the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party; third parties occasionally spring up but the political
culture does not encourage them hence tend to die with the death of the strong
personalities that generated them. The two main political parties make life
very difficult for other would be political parties; enormous obstacles are
placed on the path of those trying to form new political parties, such as
obtaining impossible number of signatures of citizens to even register their
Politics is war by peaceful means so the
current two parties see any other party (say, socialist, communist) as a
challenge and fight and destroy them. Such is political realism so let us not
shed tears for these matters.
Although I am not interested in
explicating the role of political parties in the human polity, since political
parties carry political ideologies and we are here dealing with political
ideologies, I am obligated to define political parties, albeit briefly.
Political parties are associations of
men and women with similar political ideology: people who have similar belief
as to how their government and society ought to be organized. Each of us has an
idea as to how he wants his government to be organized. The individual joins
the political party whose ideas of how the human polity ought to be organized
fits his own ideas.
Political ideologies represent certain
philosophical beliefs regarding human nature, and how society ought to be
organized; those beliefs inform the various political parties; thus people
gravitate to political parties/ideologies that fit their perception of social
Political parties compete for political
offices and the one that wins forms the government and tries to get the
government to do those things it believes governments should do.
Since other political parties have
different political ideologies obviously they do not always appreciate what the
party in power does so they oppose it and campaign to win the next election and
dismantle its public polices and replaces them with its own public policies.
These way political parties are at war with each other and the battle continues
As long as human beings are different
and have different perceptions of the role of government they would probably
form different parties to fight and capture the governments.
Political parties articulate their
member’s aspirations, campaign and capture governments and run governments.
Interests groups, unlike political
parties, do not want to form governments but try to influence the government’s
public policies in their favor. Interest group politics though like political
party politics is different in this one instance: it wants to influence
government but not form government; political parties want to form governments.
Since political parties are rooted in
political ideologies, let me spend some time talking about political
A political ideology is a philosophy
(not a science) of how society and its government ought to be organized. Each of us has an idea of what he thinks
human beings ought to be like, how people ought to behave, how societies ought
to be organized and how governments ought to be organized. Please note that I
said how society “ought to be”; what ought to be is not what is.
What is, is in the realm of science
(science studies what is, not what should be); what ought to be is a wish; a
wish is in the realm of beliefs.
Science does not ask the question why,
but how. For example, the question why do people live is not a scientific
question; it is in the realm of philosophy and religion; only the individual
can answer the question why he lives or why he should live (he can always kill
Science answers the question how; we
see a world that exists; why it exists we do not know but we can understand how
it operates. Once we study and
understand how the world operates we can devise technologies to manipulate the
laws of the world and in so doing adapt to it more effectively.
Political ideology is not and cannot be
a science for it represents men’s hopes and wishes of how things ought to be
but not how they are in fact.
Men have different conceptions of who
human beings are (human nature), how society ought to be organized and how
governments ought to be organized. There are infinite political ideologies but
for the sake of simplicity let us discuss the major ones: liberalism,
conservatism, socialism, communism, fascism and also economic ideologies, such
as mercantilism, capitalism and corporatism.
Political liberals have a certain image
of human beings and ideas on how they should be governed. They tend to believe
in the power of the environment; the environment is seen as having great impact
on people’s lives. Your inherited body and your social experience are
environmental forces that you do not have control over. Those two environmental
forces influence you a whole lot. Your inherited body probably affects how
smart or dumb you are; your social experiences probably determine what schools
you attended hence what kind of work you
obtain and your life chances and outcomes.
Liberals see us as victims of our
environment. They therefore want to use the power of government to ameliorate
the effects of environmental forces arrayed against us.
We know that we must go to school to
obtain information with which we obtain jobs. The poor do not have the money to
pay high school feels. Liberals therefore want to enact public policies that
say that society should pay for all children’s school fees.
Liberals want to use the power of
government to give most people advantages that otherwise they do not have.
Liberals want to give all children public education; give all people health
insurance; give the poor subsidized housing and public transportation and so
Simply stated, the liberal wants to use
the government to help the people. This
seems nice, does it not; why would anyone oppose any of these liberal do good
Alas, a government that provides for the
people what they need must be a big and powerful government. Yes, no?
A powerful government may not be good
for your psychological health for it can tell you what to do. After the terrorists 9-11 attacks at New
York, the US government passed the Patriots Act; that legislation enables the
government to actually listen to people’s telephones, routinely read their
emails, know where they go to on the Internet, what books they check out of
libraries etc. Folk’s civil liberties are eroded by big governments.
In the former Soviet Union government
was so powerful that the people had no civil liberties, no civil rights, and no
nothing! The people were slaves of the
monolithic communist government.
The conservative political ideology wants
to conserve what is good in society and limit the size of government so that it
does not overwhelm the people’s civil liberties.
In the 1600s, England was going through
bloody revolutions. The king’s head was chopped off and Oliver Cromwell ruled
as a dictator. There was an intellectual
debate as to the proper role of government.
These debates shape what in the Anglo-Saxon world we now call political
philosophy (add Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics and Machiavelli’s
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) tells us that
man in the state of nature is a predatory animal and the strong enslaved or
killed the weak and a band of the weak killed the strong and thus life was
nasty, brutish and short for all people.
People did not like the general insecurity they lived in and selected
one of them and made him their king and gave him the right to make laws that
protected all of them; the king, Leviathan, monster was authorized to arrest,
try and kill those who oppose his laws; he is to do whatever he does in the
pursuit of giving the people social security.
In pursuit of security, Hobbes tells us, people should have a king;
indeed, an absolute monarch for it takes a strong government to get people not
to harm each other.
Hobbes has a point but his envisaged
government was too powerful for the individual’s good; absolute monarchs do
oppress the people. John Locke (Second
Essay on Government) came along and said that Hobbes is correct; however, the only
way to prevent oppression is to have a clear delineation of the proper function
of government; and give government limited functional areas and leave the
individual to be. Yes, we need
government otherwise we kill each other but we can limit our government to
performing only umpire role, punish those who did not play by the rules but
otherwise not be too powerful. Locke is
associated with the idea of limited, small government.
While the English men were deliberating
on the nature of Government the French were also doing the same. Jean Jacques
Rousseau (Social Contract) in 1760 wrote that everywhere civilized men are
found they live in chains (whereas they are born free). How did this come to
be? He attributed our slavery in society
to the existence of Kings and aristocrats. Thus, he wants us to off the heads
of monarchs and aristocrats so as to regain our will to rule ourselves. You see
the red man, the Indian in America, the noble savage as Rousseau called him,
lived free whereas the so-called civilized people of Europe lived like the
slaves of their kings.
Rousseau’s writing led to the chopping
off of the French King’s head and the chopping of his wife’s head from its
beautiful neck. Let the masses eat cake.
Ideas have power. Rousseau is generally
seen as the pen that brought about the French revolution. Alas, when that revolution began it kind of
went out of Control. In 1789 the French threw out the rascals that lived at
what we now call the Louvre in Paris and at Versailles thirty miles away in the
country side. The Jacobins went crazy
and were guillotining any person seen as having benefited from the ancient
regime. Even mere intellectuals were seen as positing the ideas that supported
the ancient regime and were guillotined.
The Irish man, Edmund Burke, a Tory
member of the English Parliament was horrified by what he saw going on in
France. He wrote a book of reflections on the French revolution, a book that is
now the Conservative bible.
Burke began by telling us that society
evolved over thousands of years. Generally, accepted culture has been tested by
time and seen as useful. Institutions that survive are those that serve some
social good. Now, in the French revolution
the Jacobins simply threw out old institutions regardless of the good they
serve society and the result was chaos, a chaos that only a return to some sort
of monarchy (Napoleon Bonaparte’s interregnum) arrested.
Burke is telling us that there are
things in our world that do us some good and that we should hesitate throwing
them away just because a neurotic like Rousseau said that we could have an
ideal society on earth. Do not throw the
baby away (just because it cries) with the bathwater. Try to figure out what is good in your world
and preserve it and then change what must be changed, for the alternative is
chaos and anarchy, a return to Hobbes state of Nature (that calls for a new
King as the French got in Napoleon and the Russians got in Joseph Stalin).
The political conservative embraces
Locke’s and Burke’s ideas. The
conservative says, in effect, let us have government but a limited government
with carefully delineated roles lest it become too big and destroy our civil
liberties; and let us conserve what is good in our past.
In the context of America,
conservatives define government as only allowed to perform one function: give
the people national security (via strong police, jails, judges, military etc.);
American conservatives do not want government to even provide public education
to the people (they oppose things like health insurance for all, welfare for
the poor etc.).
The American conservative sees the
Christian religion Americans inherited from the Jews as having served them well
in the past and that it should not be thrown out just because scientists (who
tend to be environmentalists, liberals) say that there is no God. As Dostoyevsky said in Brothers
Karamazov, if there is no God and his
heaven and hell, there is no such thing as natural morality and every person
can do whatever he wants to do, even kill people (unless he fears being killed
by those he sets out to kill).
In contemporary America godless folks
do whatever makes them feel good. Why not, they say, there is no God, we are
just animals who live and die; we were evolved like other animals and that is
all there is to us. The earth in time would dry up, the sun would die, the
universe would die and everything would die, so as Horace says let us live
today for tomorrow we die.
Hedonism is the current philosophy of
Godless America. The Conservative says: wait a minute, we are destroying
ourselves by listening to all these seeming rational ideas; regardless of
whether God exists or not religion helps to make society a loveable place, the
alternative is chaos.
Simply stated, Conservatives want to
preserve their religion and morality, even as radical science tells them that
there is no God and that morality does not exist in nature.
Conservatives tend to embrace free
enterprise economy for they think that it is conducive to civil liberties;
liberals tend to embrace mixed economy (capitalism and some government
regulations). The division of conservatives and liberals in America is really
sham; the American is conservative in spirit; liberals are mini conservatives;
they are not bold liberals as in Europe; bold liberals slid into socialism. I
call American Liberals half-hearted conservatives and that accounts for their
tendency to seem wimpy and gutless; they are always responding to what the more
aggressive and warrior like conservative say and do. As Sharon Angle said: they
need to “manup”, man!
Socialism began after the industrial
revolution. James Watt figured out a way
to use steam to run engines and that led to a revolution in how industries are
organized in England. We can now bring thousands of people to work in one place
and give them power to do their work.
The industrial revolution is generally
seen as having begun around 1746. The
industrial revolution changed society more than any other event in human
affairs, now people were brought together to work at factories, factories owned
by individuals (the craftsman is replaced by the factory mass producer with no
attachment to his product). Folks left their villages in England and migrated
to the industrial urban centers to seek work.
They left their yeomanry (and whatever freedom they had) to go become
wage slaves. Folks worked sixteen or
more hours a day and were paid meager wages and worked in incredibly unhygienic
milieu. Even children as young as ten
were working alongside their parents in factories and mines. As a result folk’s
life span was less than forty.
Men of goodwill observed the new
industrial slavery that the age of industry had turned folks. Folks like
Fourier and Proudhon in France and Robert Owen in England spoke out against the
terrible conditions workers worked in.
Fredrick Engle, a rich boy socialist ((his German father had factories in
England) ran into a journalist called Karl Marx (he used to write for American
newspapers) and the two of them formed a holy alliance whereby Engle came up
with the money that Marx lived on so that Marx spent all his days in the
Libraries in London and wrote and wrote until only he can understand what he
wrote (do you understand what the man said in Der Capital).
Socialism and communism simply said
that a few owned the means of production (property) and the many are now like
slaves; it asked for the means of production to be owned by the people.
Marx wrote eloquently about how the
people ought to get together and take over the factories they worked in (see
the Communist Manifesto, 1848) but the fact
was that many of those workers cannot run a mom and pop store even if
you gave it to them for free. Business is a culture, a skill that you can
acquire but may not already have. Marx himself almost starved to death for he
could not feed himself. The point is that in the real world not all people can
People have different skill sets and in
every organization, as Joseph Schumpeter pointed out, those with more
information and skill set rise to the top. (I got up at 5 AM in the morning and
in less than three hours wrote this essay; if it would take you a week to write
a similar essay you and I are not in the same space.) In the real world some
folks have more ability than others and ought to be paid accordingly; it is
nice to talk about paying every person the same pay but the fact is that not
every person is a Steve Jobs and can come up with electronic gismos. If you
disregard peoples different abilities and keep on talking what makes you feel
good, the need to treat all people as the same, such as pay them the same
before you know it you would have killed the goose that laid the golden egg,
killed gifted folk’s incentives and all
live as unproductive Nigerians. Folks will be equal in their poverty; where
there is wealth there is always social stratification.
Karl Marx studied George Hegel’s
philosophy (see the Phenomenology of Spirit, for example). He could not obtain
a job with that abstract nonsense and tried his hands at writing for American
newspapers (as their European reporter). Still fascinated with Hegel’s
historical dialecticism he said that he stood Hegel on his head and wrote what
he called dialectic materialism. He
talked about how history progresses through the clash of economic interests.
In primitive society all were equal.
Then a few strong persons enslaved others and created the first class-based
society and consequent class war. The oppressed naturally hated their
oppressors hence there was conflict. Eventually, the two forces, slave owners
and slaves resolved their conflict in a new society, a synthesis of the old and
the new, the thesis (old) and the challenger (antithesis). As Marx saw it, this is how society
progressed, always through economic wars.
The slave society gave way to the feudal
society and that too saw conflict between feudal lords and the serfs. The
result of that conflict was the emergence of the Bourgeoisie. The bourgeois
class (middle class) in turn is now oppressing the proletariat (landless
workers) and the result would be socialism.
Marx visualized a situation where the
oppressed wage slaves had had enough and rebelled against their work masters.
V.I. Lenin recognized that the masses would have to wait forever if they felt
that they could overthrow their oppressors. As he saw it, an intellectual class
from the bourgeoisie who identified with the masses should organize a political
party and use it as a vanguard to do for the workers what they could not do for
themselves. Left alone the workers could only attain trade union consciousness
and worse many would have false consciousness.
(American policemen are usually
recruited from the poor, the lowest class in society; they are trained and
given guns to control those in their class, their fellow poor folks; they treat
the poor worse that the rich do; they behave as if they are members of the
ruling class even as they would be arrested if they tried to enter the gated
communities of the rich. Further, think about prison guards who beat up on
prisoners; the guards come from the same lumpen proletariat as the prisoners. I
tell you, the masses do not know what is good for them; they do not even know
what their self- interests are; they do not know who is fighting for them...the
recent Occupy Wall Street folks were fighting to make sure that financially
strapped cities do not lay off police officers, firemen and teachers but the
same police were beating up on the occupy folks! False consciousness in the oppressed is very
real, so despite Lenin’s seeming elitism in saying that only the middle class
should lead the poor he makes sense.)
Lenin did exactly what he preached by
forming the Russian Bolshevik Party who in 1917 drove off their rivals,
Kerensky’s Menshevik Party and wrestled power away from them and formed the new
class rulers of Russia. Five years later Lenin died and the brute called Joseph
Stalin took over and transformed his comrades into slaves working for him.
Revolutions almost always degenerate to
dictatorship; see, Fidel Castro is still ruling in Cuba, fifty something years
after he seized “power for the masses”.
The difference between socialism and
communism is semantic. Both want social control of the means of production,
that is, they want social ownership of property. It appears that socialists
want to go about attaining their end through democratic means whereas
communists want a bloody revolution that overthrows the current social order
(economic status quo) and the masses take over the control of society (do the
masses ever take control of society or is it the case that their leaders, such
as Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Mao Test Tung take control and dominate the
Communism emphasized public ownership
of all property whereas socialism appears to accept some social structure where
all are not the same. Both isms still have to figure out a way to accomplish
their goals and not destroy the incentive to work hard hence produce the wealth
to be shared. We all need a world as the
poetic Marx said where every person worked six hours a day, went fishing in the
afternoon, walked in flower gardens in the evening, read poetry at night and
generally lived like the rich. The problem is where the wealth to be
redistributed has to come from. The poor are seldom the generators of wealth.
In every society only a few are smart
and certainly only a few have the ability to come up with ideas that benefit
every person. Not every college freshman could do what Bull Gates and Paul
Allen did: write mathematical equations that resulted in today’s Microsoft
products. Some are innovators and many are consumers; folks have to be rewarded
In a nutshell, fascism is extreme
nationalism. The fascist believes that the nation state produced people and
that people ought to serve it. His nation comes first than the individual’s
welfare. In pursuit of national power and prestige fascist leaders can go to
war and use the individual as fodder to wage such wars. The individual is dispensable in the service
of the fatherland.
Benito Mussolini is generally seen as
the initiator of fascism after the First World War. Adolf Hitler and his national socialists did
the same in Germany.
For our present purposes, fascists want
to make their nations great and do not see anything wrong in using the
individual to attain their goals.
Fascism tends to work in times of
national emergencies when political leaders assume authoritarian and
totalitarian powers and use brute force to secure whatever goals they were
unable to attain in normal democratic dispensations.
This political and economic ideology
essentially marries capitalism with aspects of nationalism. The corporatist
wants to develop his country economically; in his soul he knows that free
enterprise is the engine of growth but free enterprise is slow and he cannot
wait; he wants to develop his country as of yesterday. Thus, he encourages folk
to go into business and goes into cahoots with them and gives them money to
establish their businesses.
Corporatist states use state resources
to develop free enterprise. China is a
case in point. The communist government of Beijing actually supplies those with
skills the resources to go into capitalist enterprises all for the glory of
China. Japan also does that through its powerful ministry of international
business (it targets industries it wants to compete at and gives Japanese money
to go into them and makes the business environment favorable for them, low
taxes etc., and thus in a few years they are as competitive as those in America
Corporatism is obviously very appealing
to third world folks in a hurry to develop their countries.
Mercantilism was the economic ideology
that prevailed when Adam Smith waged war on it. Simply stated, nations saw
themselves as in competition with each other and used the power of the state to
prevent competition. For example, the British Parliament ruled that only
English ships should transport certain goods and that those goods first had to come
to England before they are re-exported to the thirteen colonies in the
Americas! Why not ship tea and rum directly from East India and West India to
Boston, Massachusetts; why first carry them to England, in English ships and
then return them to America? Just
factoring in the cost of transportation alone and you see how expensive
mercantilism made goods and services before the Scottish man, Adam smith wrote
his book, The Wealth of Nations.
Free enterprise economy
The free enterprise economy, aka
capitalism says that individuals are rational actors; they know what is good
for them and no one else can tell them what is good for them (Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill built their libertarian philosophy on that view). People will buy what they want, especially
what gives them pleasure. Therefore, let
the people buy what they desire (demand) and if producers produce what the
people want they would sell them and make profits and if not they would be out
Demand should determine supply is the
idea. The invisible hand of the market
makes sure that goods and services are properly allocated to where they are
demanded. Do not use the power of the
state to decide what is produced and distributed; let all producers/supplies bring their wares
to the market and let folks who want to buy them buy them or else they wasted
their time producing them and lost money.
The market is the most efficient means
of distributing wealth, Mr. Smith said in 1776 and the founders of the American
political economy embraced his economic philosophy, and as they say, the rest
America is the most productive country
on planet earth. Look around you and see
where the goods you use originated. Americans came up with the Telegraph,
Telephone, Electric bulb, improved on Cars that originated in Germany,
Airplanes, Radio, Television, Computer, Internet, Microwave ovum,
Refrigerator...just look around you and see where what you use were invented.
(How come nothing that we use in
today’s world were invented in Africa?
How come Igbos boast to be supermen and yet we do not buy anything that
they contributed to the world of technology? This is amazing, wouldn’t you say
so; we are consumers and not producers!)
So how come Britain and America are the
primary source of innovations? Free enterprise system! As Adam Smith sees it,
it is free enterprise, that is, government’s hands off the economy that
generates wealth for nations; capitalism makes some filthy rich.
Smith was a church man and hoped that
the rich would, through philanthropy, help the poor. The rich in America give
their money to charity work ((Bill Gates and
Warren Buffets made billions and have pooled them together to give to charity);
the rich in Nigeria do not give anything to the poor (Babangida is supposed to
have obtained billions from his job as the president of Nigeria, is he devoting
that money to providing education to his almajiris? No. Nigerian big men know
only how to eat until their stomachs become as large as elephants and then
explode or nature does them a favor and kills them off through heart attacks,
strokes, diabetes etc. Nobody cries when a Nigerian big man dies; in fact,
folks rejoice! I have never seen a more heartless and cruel people as
Nigerians; no wonder they sold their brothers and sisters into slavery and did
not feel bad from doing so!)
Mixed socialist and capitalist
In every competition there will be
winners and losers. In America there are billionaires and there are folks
living on the streets. Is this fine with you?
Moreover, capitalism tends to have
periods of astonishing growth, boom followed by burst (recession, depression),
so should we do something about this situation, as John Maynard Keynes said
that we should (through monetary policy, fiscal policy etc.) or should we leave
the forces of supply and demand, the market to correct whatever goes wrong in
Barack Obama the Liberal spent trillions
of American tax payers dollars (actually, he borrowed them and Americans would
have to pay them back, or America collapses and those she borrowed from jump
out of skyscrapers and die) trying to correct the ginormous mess made by the
money bags of Wall Street, speculators, the lords of junk bonds, derivatives,
traders on inflated real estate value; should he have done so? Should he have
given Detroit (auto industry) billions of dollars to correct their mistake of
building humongous cars in a world where small, fuel efficient cars seem what are
needed? Why not let all these people experience the pain of their mistakes, why
rescue them? (The debate on the proper role of government continues; we are not
about to end the debate here!)
Liberals want to use the state to
ameliorate the negative side effects of capitalism (such as feed the poor)
whereas some conservatives say: let the poor eat cake and starve to death, life
is a struggle and the fittest survive and the weak perish; that is all there is
to life (until the coming revolution in America chops off the heads of the rich
and their agents in Congress and the Supreme Court).
In this brief essay, my goal is not
to give a thorough explication of the political and economic ideologies but to
define them and thereafter proceed to the theme of my essay: is liberalism good
for black folk? If you desire more
information on many aspects of politics please see my book, Nigeria’s political
So, should black folks embrace liberalism
with gusto? I do not think so. I understand why black folk have gravitated
to the Democratic Party but I do not think that aspects of the Democratic
Party’s politics are good for black folk.
I think that aspects of conservatism are good for black folks.
Conservatives tend to be real men; they
are men who have roots in the land. They are men who have worked hard and own
property and know how hard it is to acquire property. They want to protect their properties
(through laws that reduced individual, corporate and property taxes).
Conservatives tend to be adults who know
that society is a social construct that must be maintained with laws and law
enforcement and without those people degenerate to natural state and kill off
each other. In this light, conservatives
support spending on national security (police, courts, judges, jails and
prisons, army, navy, air force, national guard etc.).
Conservatives have a pessimistic view of
human nature and know that if we stopped spending on national security that law
and order would break down and the people return to primitive states. If you
stopped spending on the police, courts and jails folks would loot stores today.
If you stopped spending on the military
and the country becomes weak, given human beings predatory nature, other
nations would take the country over. If America is weak China already has its
eyes on it and would gladly march over and take over (it is already taking it
over economically...go to Wal-Mart).
We are not venting hot air here; we are
not engaging in pure sentimentalism (such as political idealism); we are
engaged in political realism. History and human experience shows us that people
are savages held in check by laws brutally applied (if you want to see what
happens when laws are not applied in a draconian manner go to Nigerian see
folks expect God to correct their mistakes, folks who loot the government’s
treasury while going to church and pretend to pray to their non-existent gods
to save them).
Conservatives tend to be realistic and
unsentimental whereas liberals tend to be sentimental and emotional. Look at
Barack Obama; that man actually thinks that all religions are equal and talks
rubbish about all religions been given equal time. If he were to succeed the
various religions would go to war with each other and kill people and return
society to anarchy.
A human polity must make up its mind on
religious matters. America is a Christian nation; take it or leaves it. On the
other hand, the Middle East is Muslim country; take it or leave it.
The Conservative approach to morality is
realistic. In extant America the feeling, sentimental, namby-pamby crowd has
taken over. They feel the pain of every person and want to rectify that pain.
Thus, homosexuals say that they are pained by being prevented from sticking
their penises into other men’s anuses and liberals do not see that these folks
are sick and want to pass laws to enable them do what they want to do. If
allowed they would soon ask for laws permitting them to have sex with boys
under six years of age, and thereafter to have sex with animals. These people have a death wish, an atavistic
motivation but liberals are now championing their course.
I do not believe that liberals current
attitude to the polity is good for black folks.
Indeed, at the rate at which black men are becoming feminized the black
race is due for extinction. Many black men now see themselves as women for
other men to have sex with them! These
folks have become living dead persons; they are totally emasculated, thanks to
Liberals want to make abortion
available on demand. One of the unspoken matters is the racial genocide going
on in black America; black women have literally stopped producing children,
they abort them.
Considering the growth of contraceptive
pills sooner or later women would have no need for marriage, for marriage
actually is organized sexual behavior.
Young women got pregnant so our ancestors protected them and their
children by requiring men to marry them. As science progresses women would have
no need for husbands; if they want children artificial insemination would
do. If they want to stimulate their
sexual organs other women are more efficient in licking them to orgasm or
strapping dildos on and sticking them into every orifice in their bodies
(mouth, vagina and anus) so that they feel pleasured (and they want you to
respect them even as they act worse than beasts; they are despicable and
Marriage is an artificial social
construct; our ancestors constructed it as the best way to raise children; as a
manmade institution marriage is currently being deconstructed by feminist Nazis
(who live to have other women suck on them but not to raise children). If the
trend continues in a few hundred years society would have broken down and folks
reverted to living as animals in the wild.
If marriage between man and woman dies all other social institutions
Liberals are part of the social forces
working for the demise of organized society; conservatives consciously or
unconsciously understand what is happening; they know that society is careening
towards Gomorrah and is at the precipice of death hence fight same sex
marriage, abortion on demand, teenage pregnancy, having children out of wedlock
etc. Liberals seem oblivious of the
forces they are unleashing on society, forces likely to destroy society as we
know it (they would say change it for the better).
I am, saying that given where liberals
are taking society to that it is about time black folks say stop to aspects of
the liberal agenda that they do not like.
Of course, black folks should not
embrace Republican Party’s hardly masked racism (much of the opposition to
Obama’s policies, whatever they are) is veiled racism. Republicans have been
around and witnessed budget deficits run up since Ronald Reagan but suddenly
the Tea Party says it is fighting budget deficit, so why didn’t they fight it
when a white man was in the white House?
Of course we should not spend more money
than we take in, as the Tea Party tells us; of course we know that limited
government is correlated with freedom and Liberty, as the old crank, Ron Paul
never ceases telling us; the point is where were these folks when George Bush
went to a preemptive war in Iraq? They
borrowed the money to fight that unnecessary war! No one is deceived; we all
know that the war against Obama is a war against the presence of a black man in
the white house.
Be all those observations as they may,
the fact remains that aspects of American conservatism (minus racism) is good
for the American polity.
Many black folks, me included, are
conservative in political ideology. However, because the Republican Party has
aspects of racism in it we vote Democratic Party. We would rather not join
forces with aspects of the liberal party that to us are disgusting.
True conservatism is for equality of all
people; however, it is based on merit.
Let there be competition and may the best win. But having done that,
true conservatives recognize that if you abandon the losers of society, sooner
or later, they would form parties that would chop off your head. Thus helping the losers of this world is
really realistic self-protection.
True conservatism allows men and women to
run for political offices and elects those deemed well qualified. But true
conservatism is not sentimental and wants to grant women’s every wish. It was marriage that made it possible for men
to stick around and help raise children so true conservatism wants to preserve
marriage despite feminists desire to end marriage and have all women available
to lick their vaginas. Adults know that
you can only have so much sex before you die from it. Every human behavior that promises freedom
also promises slavery and death. Sex must be controlled for women’s good.
Nobody needs the incessant sex that depressed feminists think that they need
(to stimulate themselves out of their existential depression...they are naturally
depressed from perception of life as meaningless and pointless; it is only when
God is accepted that life in body can be given any kind of meaning; seeking
meaning in sex is like seeking joy in alcohol and drugs; sex is meant for
procreation, go ask other animals). Some people go for years without sex.
We need to clarify what conservatism is
and remove racism from it and subsequently have black folks join the political
party that is truly conservative not racist.
I do not believe that many black folks like what the Democratic Party
has become: the party of weirdoes who have never seen any alternative life
style it does not like.
We need to realign the two political
parties and make one truly conservative (which would appeal to black social conservatives
like me) and the other liberal (which no doubt would appeal to the liberals of
this world). This realignment needs to happen or at least a third party needs
to emerge to give folks opportunity to be conservative without being in cahoots
Charles Montesquieu is correct in
seeking a government where powers are divided and the warring parties, each
trying to protect its territory, thus guarantee
lack of tyranny in the Human polity but we must also make sure that the
options (political parties) available to people is not between the angel and
the devil. Rational conservatives do not oppose science and the dangers of
environmental degradation as yokel American conservatives do.
Rational, aka moderate conservatism is
the party that says we need government but let us remember that we formed it to
serve us but not to become our masters. Many black folks are part of such
moderate conservative party in America and everywhere else in the world.
Ozodi Thomas Osuji
April 23, 2012