I think your comment is missing the point. What doesn’t exist today is legally and politically sanctioned racial bias or discrimination. Racism has pretty much been banished to an individual or personal shortcoming—such personal interactions are almost impossible to police. On the other hand, and more importantly, racism against blacks is no longer sanctioned through accepted legal and institutional arrangements.
I was born in 1949 and personally experienced both de jure and de facto legal discrimination until I graduated from high school in 1967. After that period while I could certainly point to examples of racism it was not legally supported by government and it was definitely not worse than I experienced pre 1967.
Asking a Glenn Loury or Thomas Sowell to provide examples of modern racism totally misses the point—and frankly is a bit reductive. As a social scientist the research question is does racism continue to be a primary determinant of black disadvantage post 1968? This of course is the issue. If the social and economic fortunes of the black lower classes declined after 1968 (which it they did) it is difficult to ascribe these negative outcomes primarily or even nominally to institutional racism. .
Charles I just listened again to your post on Black Republicans. First, no serious black scholar or analyst that I am aware of attributes anything positive to Jim Crow.
The point that I think needs to be emphasized is what happened to blacks pre and post 1968–this is the demarcation for the anti poverty programs of the Great Society. It is not unreasonable to do an interrupted time series analysis that looks at marriage rates, out of wed lock births, and labor market participation. There is considerable data to support this type of analysis for blacks.
Broadly speaking what we see is that after 1968, black marriage rates decline, out of wedlock births rise dramatically and labor force participation drops. The significance here is that it is harder to claim that racial discrimination was greater post 1968 than it was pre 1968.
Therefore, the source of these deteriorating economic and social conditions must be found someplace other than racism (or systemic or institutional racism). Observing and stating this obvious point does not mean that racism has disappeared but it does mean that some other factors must be at work to explain the social and economic declines observed among blacks post 1968.
Second most of the current group of black heterodox thinkers on race from Stanley Crouch to Thomas Sowell to Glen Loury to John McWhorter to younger folks like Coleman Hughes and Kmele Foster don’t reject the existence of racism but question the continuing use of racism to explain all negative group differences (disparities if you will) between blacks and whites (and increasingly Asians).
They suggest the need for a more nuanced social analysis around race. For example, the whole BLM movement was centered on the narrative that police officers were disproportionately killing unarmed blacks. Research shows (see Roland Fryer: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf) that this claim is at best a myth at worst an unsupported fallacy.
Moreover, these black public intellectuals argue that the continued focus on race to explain any and all group disparities has led to an unhealthy introduction of identity politics; and, ironically, a reassertion of many of the racist tenets the passage of the civil rights laws were intended to dethrone by many black and white progressive liberals. For example, to argue that one wants to achieve a public policy that is color blind as most proponents of pre 1968 civil rights asserted is now considered racist or rightwing by black and white progressive liberals.
Third, I don’t know how carefully Stanley has read Thomas Sowell, Glen Loury, or any of the current group of black heterodox thinkers. The positions he seems to ascribe to them do not seem consistent with what I have read or seen based on interviews and public presentations of their work. Thomas Sowell is a brilliant sophisticated political economist whose social and economic views are not reflexively conservative or liberal.
Finally, I agree with you that one should not conflate the views of a Candace Owen’s or even a Larry Elder with the thinking of such intellectuals as Sowell, Crouch or Loury. But it is important to underscore that black center right thought is varied, nuanced and creative. The commonality is that it provides a counterpoint to the orthodox views of liberal black Democratic progressives. Given this, while I see a Candace Owens as an intellectual lightweight she is still legitimately one of those blacks who are challenging liberal progressive orthodoxy.
Charles on your conversation with Stanley you attempt to differentiate between the political philosophy of modern black Republicans vs those of older pre- 1968 Black Republicans. The problem is that the examples you cite as modern black Republicans are not Republicans. Thomas Sowell for instance was previously registered as a Democrat and is now a registered independent. Stanley Crouch was never a registered Republican. Glen Loury has explicitly said he is not a Republican. You two are making the same error as many white liberals—categorizing any black person who questions or critiques the dominant Democrat progressive liberal line as a right wing Republican. These black public intellectuals express heterodox views on race and politics that cannot always easily be characterized.
While many of their views may be rightfully considered center-right or conservative they are not partisan. As I mentioned in my earlier comment William Julius Wilson the sociologist is often classified as a black conservative but he is another black heterodox thinker on race issues who considers himself a social democrat. There also are several other black public intellectuals—John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster—who are incorrectly labeled right wing Republicans because of their heterodox views on race.
The challenge is that while you examples of the political philosophy of a handful of Black Republicans—Arthur Fletcher is most notable—you have no real example of post 1968 black Republicans. Instead, you are imposing the partisan Republican label on any black who expresses heterodox or conservative views on race or other social issues.
The assertion that blacks were primarily Republican voters until the party nominated Goldwater for president which blacks saw as a betrayal because the candidate voted against 1964 Civil Rights act is a myth. The shift of blacks from Republican to Democrat occurred around 1944 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/ID_Black_Line.png). In 1944, only 40 % of blacks were registered Republicans. That share fell dramatically to a low of roughly 10% by 1968.
This translated into the presidential vote with the highest share of black votes going to a Republican presidential candidate in 1954 with Eisenhower receiving roughly 40% of the black vote. After 1954, Nixon received about 15% of the black vote in 1968. The Republicans share of black presidential votes has continued to decline. So the real change in the party affiliation of blacks occurred after 1944. This suggests not so much an ideological change in black Republicans, but more likely reflects a contrast between the existing Republican governing philosophy and the change in the Democrats governing vision.
The New Deal Democrats that have dominated the governing philosophy of modern Democrats moved toward an activist approach to government—especially in their embrace of economic redistribution. Stated less artfully, Democrats were willing to buy votes by black and white by providing government largess.
However, another important factor that pushed blacks toward the Democratic Party was black migration from the rural south to urban areas of the north and mid-west. In the big northern and midwestern cities, such as NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago or Detroit, municipal and state governments were dominated by Democratic Party machines. Economic and political opportunities were distributed through membership in the dominant Democratic Party. So it is not surprising to see black party affiliation shift from Republican to Democrat,
Given these trends, it is not entirely obvious that there has been a dramatic ideological or philosophical change in the economic, social or political thought of modern black Republicans relative to their predecessors. For example, most progressive liberal black Republicans eventually joined the Democratic Party after 1968. Therefore, the remaining black Republicans reflected the dominant views of the general Republican Party—economically conservative and socially moderate to conservative.
Over time the Republican Party had become more socially and culturally conservative and many black Republicans have followed suit. So post 1968 black Republicans are a different group compared to their predecessors in the party. These newer and younger black Republicans share the party’s general distrust of government intervention and social engineering.
Thus most of the pre-1968 older black Republicans had become black progressive Democrats and embraced most of the income redistribution strategies embodied in the Great Society programs including affirmative action and ever growing social welfare. Blacks who remained or who joined the Party post 1968 did not share older (or more precisely former) black Republicans support for anti- poverty and social welfare especially race based programs.
These “new” Republicans recognized that the promises of the Great Society programs and the continued focus on civil rights were not achieving results for the black lower classes. Given the observable shortcomings of the Great Society interventions and civil rights agenda several black intellectuals—Thomas Sowell, Glen Loury, Stanley Crouch, William Julius Wilson among others —started expressing heterodox views that questioned the efficacy of the progressive liberal change project.
It is important to note that not all black critics of the progressive liberal project shared the same ideological vision. (For example, Wilson is a social democrat who advocates for universal rather than race targeted change efforts.) The common thread seems to be suspicions that race targeted income redistribution and welfare anti poverty strategies have not worked—at least not for the black lower working class. There has been particular enmity toward affirmative action which several of these emerging black heterodox thinkers see as a socially and politically divisive program primarily benefiting black elites.
So it is probably true that pre 1968 black Republicans embraced a different ideological and political agenda than black post 1968 black Republicans. The pre 1968 black political project was focused on achieving black civil and voting rights and ending Jim Crow. By the early 1970s these goals had been achieved—legal institutional discrimination had been abolished. The successes though primarily benefited members of the black elite.
However, post 1968, there were no longer legal barriers to black social, economic and political participation in the life of the nation. The problem was that the continued emphasis on civil rights and the embrace of the Great Society anti poverty programs was not producing material benefits for the black poor and working class. Indeed the material situation for the black lower classes seem to actually get worse. As a result, younger black Republicans started to consider more heterodox thinking than their older party predecessors.
Important point of clarification: Glenn Loury is NOWHERE near Byron Donalds.
More importantly, as recently as a month or two ago, Loury publicly stated that he is NOT a Republican OR a Trump supporter. (He said this in one of his book tour interviews.)
He won't say WHO he voted for last time, but makes it clear he didn't vote for Trump. I suspect he's one of those voters who wrote in somebody out of protest. (Fwiw, I never understood the point of that.)
I don't buy that. If he voted for Trump, why would he unequivocally say he didn't?
Some people think their vote is a private matter. I think Glenn is one of those people.
I haven't seen him openly advocate for any candidate since he rooted for Hillary against Obama in '08.
Glenn has irritated me on multiple occasions. But it's not because I think he's a fake.
For example, he backed off--all the way off--that trash documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis; and basically threw the producers under the bus, and gave their nemesis, Keith Ellison, a full episode to clap back.
He's not a full-on believer in free market capitalism. His takes on Israel-Gaza are far from Republican as well.
This AEI conference brought together a range of black conservative thought.
https://www.aei.org/old-parkland-conference/?mkt_tok=NDc1LVBCUS05NzEAAAGUktJkdIkXc_K8xpUctjLD_maT1tkecGm9ep13eieRVFGGm1twx9551dXJ-1BHJdUde77fyHLfp4kAt_XtPlrhNb_IH_hxGk5_ncdBcz5z6fTP7A&mkt_tok=NDc1LVBCUS05NzEAAAGUktJkdIkXc_K8xpUctjLD_maT1tkecGm9ep13eieRVFGGm1twx9551dXJ-1BHJdUde77fyHLfp4kAt_XtPlrhNb_IH_hxGk5_ncdBcz5z6fTP7A
I think your comment is missing the point. What doesn’t exist today is legally and politically sanctioned racial bias or discrimination. Racism has pretty much been banished to an individual or personal shortcoming—such personal interactions are almost impossible to police. On the other hand, and more importantly, racism against blacks is no longer sanctioned through accepted legal and institutional arrangements.
I was born in 1949 and personally experienced both de jure and de facto legal discrimination until I graduated from high school in 1967. After that period while I could certainly point to examples of racism it was not legally supported by government and it was definitely not worse than I experienced pre 1967.
Asking a Glenn Loury or Thomas Sowell to provide examples of modern racism totally misses the point—and frankly is a bit reductive. As a social scientist the research question is does racism continue to be a primary determinant of black disadvantage post 1968? This of course is the issue. If the social and economic fortunes of the black lower classes declined after 1968 (which it they did) it is difficult to ascribe these negative outcomes primarily or even nominally to institutional racism. .
Charles I just listened again to your post on Black Republicans. First, no serious black scholar or analyst that I am aware of attributes anything positive to Jim Crow.
The point that I think needs to be emphasized is what happened to blacks pre and post 1968–this is the demarcation for the anti poverty programs of the Great Society. It is not unreasonable to do an interrupted time series analysis that looks at marriage rates, out of wed lock births, and labor market participation. There is considerable data to support this type of analysis for blacks.
Broadly speaking what we see is that after 1968, black marriage rates decline, out of wedlock births rise dramatically and labor force participation drops. The significance here is that it is harder to claim that racial discrimination was greater post 1968 than it was pre 1968.
Therefore, the source of these deteriorating economic and social conditions must be found someplace other than racism (or systemic or institutional racism). Observing and stating this obvious point does not mean that racism has disappeared but it does mean that some other factors must be at work to explain the social and economic declines observed among blacks post 1968.
Second most of the current group of black heterodox thinkers on race from Stanley Crouch to Thomas Sowell to Glen Loury to John McWhorter to younger folks like Coleman Hughes and Kmele Foster don’t reject the existence of racism but question the continuing use of racism to explain all negative group differences (disparities if you will) between blacks and whites (and increasingly Asians).
They suggest the need for a more nuanced social analysis around race. For example, the whole BLM movement was centered on the narrative that police officers were disproportionately killing unarmed blacks. Research shows (see Roland Fryer: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf) that this claim is at best a myth at worst an unsupported fallacy.
Moreover, these black public intellectuals argue that the continued focus on race to explain any and all group disparities has led to an unhealthy introduction of identity politics; and, ironically, a reassertion of many of the racist tenets the passage of the civil rights laws were intended to dethrone by many black and white progressive liberals. For example, to argue that one wants to achieve a public policy that is color blind as most proponents of pre 1968 civil rights asserted is now considered racist or rightwing by black and white progressive liberals.
Third, I don’t know how carefully Stanley has read Thomas Sowell, Glen Loury, or any of the current group of black heterodox thinkers. The positions he seems to ascribe to them do not seem consistent with what I have read or seen based on interviews and public presentations of their work. Thomas Sowell is a brilliant sophisticated political economist whose social and economic views are not reflexively conservative or liberal.
Finally, I agree with you that one should not conflate the views of a Candace Owen’s or even a Larry Elder with the thinking of such intellectuals as Sowell, Crouch or Loury. But it is important to underscore that black center right thought is varied, nuanced and creative. The commonality is that it provides a counterpoint to the orthodox views of liberal black Democratic progressives. Given this, while I see a Candace Owens as an intellectual lightweight she is still legitimately one of those blacks who are challenging liberal progressive orthodoxy.
Charles on your conversation with Stanley you attempt to differentiate between the political philosophy of modern black Republicans vs those of older pre- 1968 Black Republicans. The problem is that the examples you cite as modern black Republicans are not Republicans. Thomas Sowell for instance was previously registered as a Democrat and is now a registered independent. Stanley Crouch was never a registered Republican. Glen Loury has explicitly said he is not a Republican. You two are making the same error as many white liberals—categorizing any black person who questions or critiques the dominant Democrat progressive liberal line as a right wing Republican. These black public intellectuals express heterodox views on race and politics that cannot always easily be characterized.
While many of their views may be rightfully considered center-right or conservative they are not partisan. As I mentioned in my earlier comment William Julius Wilson the sociologist is often classified as a black conservative but he is another black heterodox thinker on race issues who considers himself a social democrat. There also are several other black public intellectuals—John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, Kmele Foster—who are incorrectly labeled right wing Republicans because of their heterodox views on race.
The challenge is that while you examples of the political philosophy of a handful of Black Republicans—Arthur Fletcher is most notable—you have no real example of post 1968 black Republicans. Instead, you are imposing the partisan Republican label on any black who expresses heterodox or conservative views on race or other social issues.
The assertion that blacks were primarily Republican voters until the party nominated Goldwater for president which blacks saw as a betrayal because the candidate voted against 1964 Civil Rights act is a myth. The shift of blacks from Republican to Democrat occurred around 1944 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/ID_Black_Line.png). In 1944, only 40 % of blacks were registered Republicans. That share fell dramatically to a low of roughly 10% by 1968.
This translated into the presidential vote with the highest share of black votes going to a Republican presidential candidate in 1954 with Eisenhower receiving roughly 40% of the black vote. After 1954, Nixon received about 15% of the black vote in 1968. The Republicans share of black presidential votes has continued to decline. So the real change in the party affiliation of blacks occurred after 1944. This suggests not so much an ideological change in black Republicans, but more likely reflects a contrast between the existing Republican governing philosophy and the change in the Democrats governing vision.
The New Deal Democrats that have dominated the governing philosophy of modern Democrats moved toward an activist approach to government—especially in their embrace of economic redistribution. Stated less artfully, Democrats were willing to buy votes by black and white by providing government largess.
However, another important factor that pushed blacks toward the Democratic Party was black migration from the rural south to urban areas of the north and mid-west. In the big northern and midwestern cities, such as NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago or Detroit, municipal and state governments were dominated by Democratic Party machines. Economic and political opportunities were distributed through membership in the dominant Democratic Party. So it is not surprising to see black party affiliation shift from Republican to Democrat,
Given these trends, it is not entirely obvious that there has been a dramatic ideological or philosophical change in the economic, social or political thought of modern black Republicans relative to their predecessors. For example, most progressive liberal black Republicans eventually joined the Democratic Party after 1968. Therefore, the remaining black Republicans reflected the dominant views of the general Republican Party—economically conservative and socially moderate to conservative.
Over time the Republican Party had become more socially and culturally conservative and many black Republicans have followed suit. So post 1968 black Republicans are a different group compared to their predecessors in the party. These newer and younger black Republicans share the party’s general distrust of government intervention and social engineering.
Thus most of the pre-1968 older black Republicans had become black progressive Democrats and embraced most of the income redistribution strategies embodied in the Great Society programs including affirmative action and ever growing social welfare. Blacks who remained or who joined the Party post 1968 did not share older (or more precisely former) black Republicans support for anti- poverty and social welfare especially race based programs.
These “new” Republicans recognized that the promises of the Great Society programs and the continued focus on civil rights were not achieving results for the black lower classes. Given the observable shortcomings of the Great Society interventions and civil rights agenda several black intellectuals—Thomas Sowell, Glen Loury, Stanley Crouch, William Julius Wilson among others —started expressing heterodox views that questioned the efficacy of the progressive liberal change project.
It is important to note that not all black critics of the progressive liberal project shared the same ideological vision. (For example, Wilson is a social democrat who advocates for universal rather than race targeted change efforts.) The common thread seems to be suspicions that race targeted income redistribution and welfare anti poverty strategies have not worked—at least not for the black lower working class. There has been particular enmity toward affirmative action which several of these emerging black heterodox thinkers see as a socially and politically divisive program primarily benefiting black elites.
So it is probably true that pre 1968 black Republicans embraced a different ideological and political agenda than black post 1968 black Republicans. The pre 1968 black political project was focused on achieving black civil and voting rights and ending Jim Crow. By the early 1970s these goals had been achieved—legal institutional discrimination had been abolished. The successes though primarily benefited members of the black elite.
However, post 1968, there were no longer legal barriers to black social, economic and political participation in the life of the nation. The problem was that the continued emphasis on civil rights and the embrace of the Great Society anti poverty programs was not producing material benefits for the black poor and working class. Indeed the material situation for the black lower classes seem to actually get worse. As a result, younger black Republicans started to consider more heterodox thinking than their older party predecessors.
Important point of clarification: Glenn Loury is NOWHERE near Byron Donalds.
More importantly, as recently as a month or two ago, Loury publicly stated that he is NOT a Republican OR a Trump supporter. (He said this in one of his book tour interviews.)
Conservative (philosophically), yes. Republican, no.
Now? Good question.
He won't say WHO he voted for last time, but makes it clear he didn't vote for Trump. I suspect he's one of those voters who wrote in somebody out of protest. (Fwiw, I never understood the point of that.)
I don't buy that. If he voted for Trump, why would he unequivocally say he didn't?
Some people think their vote is a private matter. I think Glenn is one of those people.
I haven't seen him openly advocate for any candidate since he rooted for Hillary against Obama in '08.
Glenn has irritated me on multiple occasions. But it's not because I think he's a fake.
For example, he backed off--all the way off--that trash documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis; and basically threw the producers under the bus, and gave their nemesis, Keith Ellison, a full episode to clap back.
He's not a full-on believer in free market capitalism. His takes on Israel-Gaza are far from Republican as well.
Closet Republicans don't behave this way.