By David Beilstein
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) announced to a black audience at Howard University it was Democrat’s who were in favour of Jim Crow laws and other segregation restrictions, enforced from on high.
It’s about time. Classical liberals need to dismantle the statist stranglehold Democratic candidates have on the American Negro’s electoral loyalties, especially in the face of ongoing economic impecuniosity. It will take 100 years, perhaps, but it will never happen when libertarians and classical conservatives act like a bunch of chumps in the face of a challenge.
Libertarians and classical conservatives have never really tried to reach out to the black community. Republicans and pop conservatives, likewise, have failed miserably striking a cord with black voters.
Not much can be laid at the foot of paleocons and libertarians, as the G.O.P. has not been an arm of such conservatism for decades.
Still, there is a severe need to reach out and plant classically liberal seeds in the black community outside of election cycles. The promulgation of classical liberalism in in Negro American environs needs to be a full time job, one with a sincerity and muscularity enabling polemical persuasion.
Long have classical liberals and G.O.P. candidates simply taken the cultural premise that progressives are the natural friend of Negro Americans, and Republicans, as it were, natural enemies of “progress” for American Negro communities.
As I have said before, I’ve never been all that pleased with G.O.P. efforts (marketing? campaigning?) in the black community; but I also realise — going back into the 1990’s — progressivism has denuded the resources and behavioural conduct needed for social and economic expansion within the Negro American community.
Some will wonder why I use the term “Negro.”
I do because there was a time in American life when to call a Negro an African would have gotten the offender a punch in the mouth.
Yeah, it was that way once. Also, having Stanley Crouch, Albert Murray, and Ralph Ellison as mentors, I found their arguments for the retainment of the term “Negro” more than persuasive. It’s about American character — the mulatto interchange between a nation of immigrants.
If goes something like this: I believe the black man in America is uniquely American. Be the black man or woman rise from the urban cityscape, or down home in the south, the black American does not have a pinch of African in him other than maudlin — and skin color does not make the perceptions; the personality — the individual, man or woman.
I got sucker-punched into this reality during my first collegiate experience. At that point, little of the Afro-centric notions swirling around my young but fertile mind met reality.
Closer reflection was warranted. I saw Africans from Africa were nothing like Negro Americans. They could not have been more different, culturally or otherwise. There were few commonalities, few like-associations.
Blacks had more in common with snow-white “whites” it turned out. And this did not change when I took a job at Fletcher Allen HealthCare, somewhere north of 1997, where Sudan “Lost Boys” refuges, were indifferent to American Negro culture and attitudes in a myriad ways.
Consequently, if I had a brain (I was confident I did!) I could not for the life of myself ever get to a place where “African-American” made any sense in the context of black Americans born and raised in America.
Sen. Paul continues to impress, and his defense of classical liberalism in the bowels of the black community is another step in the right direction for this young, more pure-form of classical liberalism turning up in the G.O.P.
Pray tell, it continues.