Conservatives and racial/ethnic relations

Significance: The subject of race relations is one of the primary axes whereby American conservatism and liberalism are distinguished. Conservative theorists frequently downplay the significance of race in determining an individual’s opportunities in life. They tend to view racial tensions as a product of misunderstandings or cynical manipulation by self-appointed minority leaders.

The terms “conservative” and “liberal” in US political ideology are somewhat ambiguous, having changed over time. This is especially true with regard to racial issues. Early in the country’s history, “conservatism,” which tends to oppose radical change, could be used in defense of slavery. After the abolition of slavery, some conservatives defended segregation and other racist institutions. Therefore, it should not be surprising that conservatives traditionally have resisted programs to further advance the interests of minorities, such as affirmative action and racial quotas. By the 1990s, however, a combination of societal and cultural changes had brought about a situation in which conservatism was strongly associated with positions once championed by civil rights leaders such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Conservative Philosophy

Modern conservatism, sometimes called “neoconservatism,” emphasizes the rights and interests of individuals over the interests of groups. This fundamental principle was at the center of King’s calls for a “color-blind society.” King sought the elimination of racial discrimination, which was prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s. Conservatism in the late twentieth century embraced that same notion and used it against some of the governmental programs created to advance minority rights. The premier example of this is affirmative action. Although the term applies to a range of programs, in principle, affirmative action targets underrepresented minority groups for jobs, promotions, college admissions, political office, and other social goods. Affirmative action’s goals are advanced through quotas, preferences, set-asides, and special outreach. Conservatism opposes most of these manifestations of affirmative action because they treat individuals according to their race or ethnicity. Although proponents of affirmative action claim that this “reverse” discrimination is necessary to compensate for the legacy of past discrimination, conservatives counter that this is still a form of discrimination and thus is harmful.

The conservatives’ argument against affirmative action presumes that racial discrimination is not a significant factor in contemporary society. It implies that a level playing field has been achieved in economic and social relations. Such beliefs are vigorously challenged by advocates of affirmative action.

Individualism

Conservatives’ attitudes toward discrimination stem in part from conservatism’s philosophy of individualism. Conservatism holds that the interests of the individual should be the most important target of government policy. This contrasts with modern American liberalism, which allows for a greater emphasis on group interests. In other words, conservatives reject the idea of African American interests or Latino interests and, in fact, may reject the popular notion of African American or Latino communities. They believe that all of these are reducible to individuals, each of whom is unique and possesses his or her own set of interests.

Conservatism’s emphasis on individual interests depoliticizes the issue of race. Although certain minority populations experience a higher degree of poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, incarceration, out-of-wedlock births, or other social and economic ills, conservatism prescribes actions that focus on root causes and do not specifically use race as a criteria for assistance. For example, conservatives believe that programs to create job opportunities for minorities living in depressed areas should be available to all unemployed persons in depressed areas, regardless of race. Similarly, policies that happen to affect one minority group more than others—for instance, imposing higher penalties for possession of illegal drugs that are preferred by a particular minority group—should be evaluated on their merits and not according to their relative impact on racial groups.

Overall, conservatism has come to take a rather academic and idealistic view of race. It has largely embraced the principles advocated by the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Conservatism and Race

Although earlier conservative views on race—such as those that defended slavery and segregation—were unlikely to be held by racial minorities, modern conservatism has been espoused by a growing number of African Americans, Latinos, and other minority members. Politically, this fact has been used by white conservatives to defend themselves against charges of racism.

One of the better-known black conservatives is Shelby Steele, of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Steele has written extensively about affirmative action, charging that it has the effect of reinforcing blacks’ exclusion from the American mainstream. He has repeatedly argued that African Americans need to let go of the culture of “racial victimization,” which he views as a self-defeating strategy. He also has decried the “divisive politics” of most of the liberal minority-advocacy groups who claim to speak for African Americans. Steele refers to the leadership of such groups as “the anointed” and argues that they are out of touch with the actual interests and desires of African Americans.

A number of other African American conservatives became highly visible in the late 1980s and 1990s. Among these was Stanley Crouch, who began as a writer on jazz and culture, then increasingly turned to matters of race and politics. Crouch’s views are eclectic, and more than anything, he has earned a reputation as an iconoclast. However, he shares many of modern conservatism’s views about race, especially its skepticism about liberal prescriptions on the subject. Thomas Sowell, an African American economist at Stanford University, takes a conservative view on racial issues, especially as they relate to welfare and economics. Sowell’s work in the mid-1990s sought to explain the importance of ethnicity to socioeconomic outcomes. By using case studies from around the world, Sowell drew distinctions between culture (which is malleable) and race.

The linkage between race and conservatism took another interesting turn in the 1990s with the election of J. C. Watts Jr., to the US Congress. As an African American Republican, Watts was something of an anomaly, and his outspoken conservatism on matters of race earned him considerable publicity. For conservatives, the presence of Watts on their side helped to weaken their opponents’ claims that conservative views on race are racist, or at least ethnocentric. Interestingly, Watts, like many of the conservative theorists listed above, has been criticized by some other African Americans as being somehow untrue to his race. For example, in 1990, the executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Benjamin Hooks, said that “these people have nothing to offer except a conservative viewpoint in black skin.” The notion that the color of one’s skin should be relevant to one’s political ideology riles black conservatives. As Watts has stated, “My father raised me to be a man, not a black man.”

Bibliography

Baker, Houston A., Jr., and Merinda Simmons. The Trouble with Post-Blackness. New York: Columbia UP, 2015. Print.

Crouch, Stanley. Ain’t No Ambulances for No Nigguhs Tonight. New York: R.W. Baron, 1972. Print.

Crouch, Stanley. The All-American Skin Game: Or, the Decoy of Race. New York: Pantheon, 1995. Print.

Sowell, Thomas. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. New York: Basic, 1995.

Steele, Shelby. The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America. New York: HarperPerennial, 1991. Print.

Waldman, Amy. “The GOP’s Great Black Hope.” Washington Monthly 28.10 (1996).

Wilson, William Julius. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Random House, 1996. Print.

Zhang, Ai-min. The Origins of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Hoboken: Taylor, 2014. Print.