Today, I was appalled, but sadly not surprised to read an op-ed in the New York Times from Adolph L. Reed Jr., a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Its title “The Puzzle of Black Republican” is the typical liberal response to black conservatives; dripping with racism, contempt, and lies. He spouts the usual leftist tripe of referring to Clarence Thomas as “an archconservative” and claims there is “thinly veiled racism” in the Tea Party.
I penned a response to Professor Reed and you can read it below:
I am writing this email in response to your op-ed that ran in the New York Times on December 19th. It appears that you have used your op-ed to denounce the appointment of Senator Tim Scott in South Carolina. As a black Republican, it saddens me that you believe this to be a token appointment and your apparent belief that black people can’t come to being Republicans unless they are pawns of some kind.
While Mr. Scott’s politics differ from the majority of black people in America, that is not the fault of Mr. Scott. The Republican Party has a number of capable black individuals whom your side chooses to ignore so they can advance this narrative that Democrats are good and Republicans aren’t. The fact is that your assertion of “thinly veiled racism” in the Tea Party is a massive ruse designed to distract from the fact that half the country doesn’t like the policies of this president, and it’s not because of his skin color. Calling whites “racist” is just a way for Democrats to advance bad ideas without having to defend the merits of those ideas. It also lulls people into the idea
that if Obama were 100% as opposed to only being half white that everyone would love a national takeover of healthcare. The defeat of a similar proposal in 1993 under the white president Bill Clinton busts up that myth.
Of course, your definition of racism is a bit odd since you seem to think that black people can only advance through government and not through their own merits. You list a number of black Republicans that were “deployed to undermine black interests”, as if recognizing the limits on the government and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution is racist. Like so many other people, you seem to hide behind “blacks can’t do it without the government” and actually hinder black progress. When progress is tied to government,
there isn’t a lot of progress to speak of, as indicated by a record number of people of all races on government handouts after spending the equivalent of the entire national debt on the “War on Poverty.” I submit that policies advocated by people like Mr. Scott would do more to help black people because it would remove government obstacles to entrepreneurship, education, and would be a source of empowerment because people can tap their own skills and resources or be aided by friends, family, and community rather than
government agents, who get paid even if aid isn’t rendered.
If you want a symbol of “thinly veiled racism” then take note of the fact that while you point out that black Republicans are elected by majority-white constituencies, black Democrats are elected by majority-black constituencies. Why can’t black Democrats be elected by majority-white constituencies? Who are the “thinly veiled racists” in that case?
You don’t give the Republicans enough credit for attempting to get minority support. While they do a lousy job of making their case, they are not anti-black and should be given credit for blacks and other minorities who vote for them on the basis of ideas. While blacks will not likely vote for Mr. Scott (who will not run for a full term until 2016), it will not be because he or other Republicans do or say things hostile to them, it will merely be perceived that way because too many black people have your view point instead of looking at people of all races who rose to where they are without government handouts, like Barack Obama for instance.
I think that if Republicans make a better case for their ideas and black people actually open up to the idea, they could actually find they are a better match for each other than any of them know.