To My Father-in-Law Who Wants to Disown Me for Voting for Romney

The following is a partially redacted copy of an email I sent to my father in law a couple of days ago in response to my wife freaking out because he'd apparently disowned me after learning that I'd voted for Romney, and reading a number of things that I'd posted on my blog. It's a bit long, and I realize that most Freepers will disagree with me on a number of items in the body of the email, but I thought it would be interesting to those looking for ways that for the conservative movement to appeal to other demographics. Much of my argument comes from the perspective of someone concerned about the health and well-being of black people, poor people, etc. I'd be curious to hear how people react to some of the ways in which I try to show that conservatism would be better for black people than progressivism.

1. I included some of the personal stuff (names redacted) to emphasize the degree to which my father in law, who has known me for 15 years, and has no complaints with me whatsoever outside of politics, is willing to create a dissension in my family over this. It's indicative of how totalitarian the left/progressive mindset really is; they are utterly intolerant of differing opinions.

2. One of the few rays of hope coming out of the 2012 election, in my opinion, was the Pew exit poll data that showed that nearly 20% of black men aged 18-29 voted for Romney over Obama. I would think that group might be receptive to the kinds of arguments that I put in this email.

I hope this email finds you in good health and spirits. Give my regards to [my brother in law].

I've been informed by [my wife] that you are concerned and maybe even upset about my political beliefs, and I wanted to write you this email to try to at least open up a dialogue about some of the issues that are of concern to you.

I want to say first of all that I plead with you from deeply within my heart to never let any issue that you might have with me come between you and [my wife] and [my son]. Before I was born, my maternal grandmother passed away, and my mother became ostracized from her father, especially after he remarried. Because of that I was denied the opportunity to form a relationship with my grandfather. In fact, I didn't meet him until I was 13 years old, and given the history and the estrangement from my mother, who I was naturally protective of, I never had a strong connection to him. To this day, I have always felt the loss of that very deeply, in fact, more so as I've grown older. I was very close to my paternal grandparents, I learned so many things about myself and the world from them that I could not have learned from my parents. I can only imagine how much I missed by not having my maternal grandfather in my life. It's a part of my heritage that was just lost to me. I believe that it was a great loss to him as well. I remember going to his funeral as an adult. In attendance were his wife and her daughter, my mom and her sister, and my dad and me. After all of those years away from us, we were still the great majority of those closest to him. How sad for him that he spent half of his life apart and estranged from us.

So, my first priority will always be that [my son] have as much interaction as possible with his maternal grandparents. I will do everything in my power to make sure that he doesn't experience the hole in his family that I experienced in mine. I want him to experience all of his grandparents as much as possible for as long as he is fortunate enough to have them. I have felt incredibly blessed that he has had the opportunity to spend so much time with [my son] over this past year. I think she is an absolutely amazing grandmother and caretaker. She speaks to him in the kindest, softest tones, and she is tireless in providing stimulating and exciting activities for him. She has done an absolutely wonderful job in taking care of him, and he absolutely adores her. She has also been a very welcome presence in our home, cooking up delicious Ibo food, and helping us to cope with the transition to parenthood. Thank you for whatever role you've played in allowing her to be here with us for such an extended period of time. It is greatly appreciated. I can't wait until you have the opportunity to finally meet [your grandson] -- I think that you will surely agree with the rest of us that we have a very special, amazing child who has come to join us in our lives.

I would also like to preface this conversation by saying that I greatly enjoy political discussion and debate, and there may be times when my positions might veer onto the contrarian side of things more because of my desire for there to be a lively exchange of ideas than because of what my true beliefs might be. That is not to say that I do not hold strong opinions. It's just that I also get a bit bored with "preaching to the choir" type discussions, so I often take a "devil's advocate" opinion, and then I might even convince myself if I do it often or for long enough! In that light also, let me state that I'm always open to be proven or convinced wrong, and I relish any opportunity to have my perspective expanded by constructively engaging with those who disagree with what I'm saying. If I ever come off as maybe too strongly opinionated, or arrogant in my beliefs, then I do apologize, because I acknowledge that to often be my style of interaction, to my detriment at times.

And I would also urge you also at the outset to consider who I have been and continue to be as a person, besides of whatever political debates and discussions I might engage in: I'm a person who greatly values family. I guarantee you that if you were to ask every single member of my extended family (and there are quite a few!), you would not find a single one to speak badly of me, and each of them would testify that when I was called upon to provide support, I was always there. Always. I always prioritize family above all else in my life. I'm also a person who values education and learning. Obviously, I have two graduate degrees from one of the best research universities in the world, but besides that I also read constantly about all kinds of topics. If you have an issue with my political beliefs, I guarantee you that you will not find in any instance that my beliefs are based on ignorance. I would put my knowledge of the facts as they relate to politics, public policy, political economy, etc., up against anyone. I value health: I seek out the healthiest foods for myself and my family, and I try to get out and exercise on a daily basis, often with [my son] and other family members in tow. [My son] has been to more beautiful outdoor places in Southern California in his short life than the average adult has in theirs! I value hard work: I've had a paying job almost continuously since I was nine years old, and I never call in sick, have never been fired, and have always fulfilled my job duties responsibly. The last couple of years have been among the most productive of my life.

But most importantly, for the purpose of this conversation, I am driven in my life by a sense of responsibility and purpose to better the world, especially for the poor and disadvantaged, and particularly those of African descent. We live in a racially mixed development in the midst of a largely black community, and all of the major community leaders in the area are familiar with me and what I have done to better the community on a volunteer basis over the years. I have been elected to various boards and commissions serving the community because of that reputation. I helped win changes to a planned light rail to make it safer for the community, I have been a regular "mentor"/counselor in a program that takes inner-city boys in trouble with the law for an annual camping trip in the local mountains, I've incorporated, obtained tax exemption for or otherwise assisted dozens of organizations that provide services to low-income residents. Within the past two years, through my work challenging the legal and technical adequacy of the environmental reports for development projects, I have won over $50 million in community benefits for low-income people in South Los Angeles. I'm confident that you could not find another black attorney in my age cohort in Los Angeles who has done more to help ameliorate the conditions for low-income black people than I have.

So, regardless of my political beliefs, I remain a family- and community-oriented, health-conscious, educated and learned young(-ish!) professional who works hard everyday to help others. That is who I am, and that will never change. And that is from where my political beliefs spring, however bizarre my conclusions might seem to you right now.

Now, it is true that in the last election cycle I came to the conclusion that I could not vote for Barack Obama, and in fact, that I would vote for his opponent Mitt Romney.

I would be remiss if I didn't start that discussion by reciting the key role that I believe that I played in helping elect Barack Obama. I was one of his first volunteers, knocking doors in South and East Los Angeles on behalf of candidate Obama in the Spring and Summer of 2007. At that time, most blacks I spoke with in South L.A. dismissed the possibility that America would ever elect a black President, and, in any event, were already committed to Hillary's candidacy out of loyalty to her husband (I was out of step with the majority then as now). In East L.A., hardly any Hispanics had ever heard of him, and they were also very committed to Hillary. Obama's strategy, however, was to win in Iowa, thereby proving his appeal to middle (white) America, and then leverage that into the nomination. Hillary's strategy was to let Obama have his little small state caucus wins, and then swamp him on Super Tuesday when 13 states including giants like New York, New Jersey and California would be voting in huge primaries, where her money advantage and name recognition would be decisive. She counted on there being so many delegates awarded on that one day that she would have an insurmountable lead coming out of it, and the contest would be over. The one thing that she didn't put into her calculations, however, was that California was not "winner take all", but instead awarded delegates by Congressional district. So, Obama's "sub-strategy" so to speak was to come out of Super Tuesday with just enough delegates from California such that Hillary's lead would not be insurmountable, and then go back to racking up small state, caucus wins with his superior ground organization.

The key battlegrounds then would be districts in California with relatively equal numbers of blacks and Latinos, where Obama would have a chance. My district was one of the more important such districts, right in the middle of the nation's second largest city. I understood how key my district was going to be, and therefore dedicated six months of my life full-time, without pay, to helping Obama win my Congressional District. There are people in my neighborhood who still refer to me as the "Obama guy" because that's the context in which they first met me. I rose up through the ranks, and by primary day, I was in charge of about 30 precincts. We won my district, which delivered its delegates to Obama, and Super Tuesday turned out just as the Obama campaign had hoped -- Hillary won all of the big states, but she didn't pull out enough delegates to end the contest. In the ensuing weeks and months, the candidates ran close, but Obama always came out with just a few more delegates, and by the end, it was he who held the insurmountable lead.

I say all of that not to tout my horn, but to give you a sense of the feeling of investment that I had in candidate Obama. Having put that much effort into helping him win a crucial set of delegates on a crucial day in the campaign, I wanted to see him do the things that he promised, maybe a bit more intensely than the average voter.

Gradually, however, I watched as Obama failed to deliver on one promise after another. I will recite the major ones here, because the specificity is important. My general inclination has always been to support him; it's the specifics that have turned me away.

Before I go there, I think it's probably appropriate for me to state with clarity my view on the role of race in my perspective on Barack Obama. I will absolutely acknowledge that the fact that Obama is of African descent was a significant factor in my decision to work for and vote in favor of his election. The fact that America has elected its first black President is of great symbolic importance, something that I take great pride in, and something that I believe gives a great deal of inspiration to millions of black people all over the world. But I also believe that as much as race should have properly been taken into account in electing him, I believe equally strongly that there is no role whatsoever for race to play in evaluating his performance. I believe this very strongly, for a number of reasons. Number one, the lack of accountability attached to black politicians generally by blacks who support them based on race is a big reason why many of their constituents often suffer from very poor representation. You can see it cities around the country like Detroit, Compton, Washington, D.C. It's not a problem particular to blacks either -- there are countless examples all over the globe that show that where people support leaders based on ethnic identity, they frequently get nothing (or worse) in return for their support. Failing to hold Obama accountable because of his race also undercuts, in my opinion, the argument for affirmative action. A lot of people agree that it's appropriate to give blacks an extra chance at a job to make up for past discrimination; hardly anyone thinks it's appropriate to then hold that employee to a different standard than other employees because of their race. People often fear that will be the case, but those who support affirmative action generally assert that everyone on the job itself will be held to the same standard, regardless of race. Failing to do so with respect to Obama confirms those fears writ large.

So, at the outset, I'll say that my position is that I supported, worked for and voted for Barack Obama partially because of his race, but that his race plays almost no role whatsoever in my evaluation of his performance.

The first major disappointment I had with Obama had to do with public financing. I think nearly everyone across the political spectrum agrees that probably the biggest problem in American politics is the corrupting influence of money. For me personally, this has always been a huge issue. It's a big part of why I myself have never sought public office, or even desired to work directly for a public official. For the past few decades, one of the only places where there was actually a relatively successful system in place to combat the influence of money was in the U.S. Presidential elections where there was a system of public financing. In order to qualify for public financing, however, candidates had to agree to spending limits. Up until 2008, all candidates had done so since it was established. Obama's speeches and policy positions decried the influence of money in politics, and promised an administration relatively free of its influence. During the primary, John McCain offered to enter into a pledge with the Democrats running that they would each accept the public financing system, so long as the other candidate did. Obama accepted his offer, and they made a pact with each other that if either got the nomination and accepted public financing, the other would as well.

Well, the summer came, and McCain got the Republican nomination and accepted public financing, and Obama got the Democratic nomination, and elected not to. That was the end of the public financing system in the U.S. -- neither candidate accepted it in 2012, and there's zero chance that any candidate will ever again. Big money is back firmly in control of Presidential campaigns in the U.S., and Obama played a big part in making that so.

The next major disappointment was during the financial crisis in the Fall of 2008. With Wall Street teetering on the brink of collapse, the Bush Administration proposed a bailout. On the first vote in the House of Representatives, however, it unexpectedly failed. The "Nays" came mostly from Republicans breaking with their President and Party leadership, but at that time Republicans were in the minority in the House. The marginal votes that put the Nays over the top came from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who were concerned about the lack of protections against foreclosures on distressed homeowners included in the bill. They were demanding that if we were going to bailout Wall Street, they sure as hell better not turn around and foreclose on homeowners behind on their payments without some kind of forebearance (In retrospect their prescience was remarkable). During the ensuing week, Obama returned to Washington from the campaign trail, and put pressure on the black lawmakers who had voted Nay to change their votes (under threat of being 86'd from the White House of the first black President), and also turned down an offer from the Secretary of Treasury to include the foreclosure protections. At the end of the week, the bailout was put back up for a vote and it passed narrowly with the margin of victory being provided by the Black Caucus vote switchers. As a result, millions of homeowners unnecessarily lost their homes, many of them black, and statistically, all of the black wealth generated throughout the 90's and 2000's was wiped out. Our homeownership rate is now where it was 20 years ago, before countless hours were spent by countless people getting blacks into homeownership for the first time in their lives. The Wall Street millionaires and billionaires who caused the calamity lost nothing, and were back to record profits within a year or two. Communities were devastated by blocks full of empty and abandoned homes. I firmly believe to this day that either the banks should've been allowed to go bankrupt or the money should've been loaned to them with the requirement that they forebear on foreclosures until it was paid back, and that if either of those things had happened, the crisis would've been much less severe.

Still I voted for Obama in November 2008, though certainly less enthusiastically than during the primary.

The next major disappointment came in February of 2009. One of the reasons why I was excited about working for candidate Obama in 2007 was that I believed his promise to be a relatively nonpartisan, transcendent sort of leader. His speech at the 2004 Convention famously talked about there being no "liberal America, or conservative America, only the United States of America". But when it came time to put together a "stimulus bill" to address the deepening recession, he rejected input from Republican lawmakers, saying, "I won". The bill itself was not really an economic recovery bill, but instead was a kitchen sink bill full of payoffs to every imaginable Democratic interest group and crony capitalist. More importantly, it proved ineffective. The requirement that projects be "shovel ready" within six months meant that nothing inspiring or meaningful would be built, and all of the corruption and cronyism meant that the economic effect was neutralized. I know of what I speak here because I was directly involved in the discussions at the local level of how the money would be used. Nothing got built that would not have been built otherwise, and even the speeding of timelines was limited by the realities of what it takes to move projects forward in the modern age. It was a unique trillion dollar opportunity to do something substantial to progress our economy and country, and instead, it fell flat. Unemployment went to 10%, millions lost their jobs, 6 million fell into poverty, and we now have our worst poverty rates in many decades. Blacks were hit the hardest, at all levels.

Instead of making further attempts to address the mass and growing unemployment and poverty, President Obama's next move was to introduce a health care bill. Now, I will preface this by saying that I do think that there needed to be changes in our health care system to ensure better access to medical care. In a modern society there is no reason for people to ever get sick and die from preventable causes because of a lack of health care. But I will also say that Obama went about it in a way that I fundamentally disagreed with. In fact, he went about it in a way that candidate Obama fundamentally disagreed with. Here's candidate Obama in a debate with Hillary Clinton during the primary: "we don't want to put in a situation in which on the front end we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and [if they don't] they will be penalized". In fact, he ran a TV attack ad with the following message: "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't." But the health care plan proposed by the White House and adopted in the Congress in 2010 included a mandate requiring that people buy private health care insurance, whether or not they can afford it, with a penalty levied if they failed to do so.

I think with the mandate really cuts against the argument that President Obama has somehow "provided" universal health insurance. I suppose you could argue that the slave master "provides" work, food and housing to the slaves, but it's not really true. Maybe that's an extreme analogy, but if you look at the details, the mandate is not really even part of providing health insurance to those who can't afford it. Before and after the bill was passed, if you were poor in the U.S., you qualified for Medicaid health insurance. The bill expanded Medicaid eligibility. I have no problem with that; it's just a question of how much you can afford to expand given budgetary constraints. But the mandate will more often apply to people who are young, unmarried, no kids, trying to save their money to maybe start a business or buy a house, and calculating that they can take the risk of not needing health insurance for a few years. There were also other possible options for that crowd, such as allowing catastrophic coverage only, so that they'd be at least covered if something really bad happened, but it costing a fraction of a regular health plan. There was also the underlying reality that in America, there has always been a rule requiring emergency rooms to take and treat all comers, regardless of ability to pay.

So, in the end, of the 45 million people without health insurance, 15 million will be forced to buy it, 15 million will become eligible for Medicaid and 15 million still won't have it for a variety of reasons. It's not even providing universal health coverage, yet the price is a radical and unprecedented expansion of the power and influence of the federal government over the lives of individual Americans. Not worth it in my opinion, though of course, others may and do differ. As of now, not the majority of the country, however. It was also not the majority of the country then either, and that fact is yet another example of President Obama reneging on his commitment to post-partisanship, pushing through an unpopular bill through a series of unprecedented and procedurally questionable legislative maneuvers made necessary by the failure to muster up even a single Republican vote. I was one of the millions of Americans who was shocked and dismayed by the sort of bare-knuckled tactics and brazen ignoring of the will of the people that President Obama and Democrats displayed during that process. Parenthetically, I was also offended when it was falsely claimed that a group of protesters at the Capital used the N-word in reference to John Lewis (the tapes revealed no such event occurred). Falsely claiming racism has to be one of the lowest kinds of smears possible (to his credit, Lewis himself never claimed it happened).

Another major disappointment for me has been in the area of targeted assassinations. Probably candidate Obama's biggest applause line at the several events with him I attended during the 2008 primary was his statement that unlike President Bush's administration, his would be an administration that "did not torture". Now, in the end, three suspected terrorists were "tortured" by the Bush Administration (if you consider pouring water on somebody's face torture . . . I believe it to be borderline, and I've read that the intelligence that ended up leading us to bin Laden started with one of those interrogations). Hundreds of suspected terrorists have been killed under President Obama in drone attacks, including U.S. citizens, and including people who were accused of nothing other than speech. None of them were ever convicted of anything. None of them were on the battlefield in war zones. None of them were actively engaged in acts of terrorism. So, I fail to see why I can be rightfully outraged that three suspected terrorists were waterboarded, and but then expected to simply look the other way when hundreds of suspected terrorists are summarily executed, without any due process of law whatsoever. Including U.S. citizens. Including those suspected of nothing other than speech. Well, I am outraged. Incredibly. We also know that President Obama in fact has a "kill list" where he and he alone gets to decide who of his enemies will be sentenced to die. This is not something that I care to get behind. Read anything by noted constitutional liberties scholar (and leftist) Glenn Greenwald, and you'll discover that on a range of civil liberties questions, Obama's record is significantly worse than Bush's.

Finally, there was illegal immigration. In an interview in early 2012 with Univision television President Obama said that he can’t just “waive away the laws that Congress put in place” and that “the president doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the laws that you’ve passed.’” Yet, last summer he did exactly that, and unconstitutionally set aside the law as it related to potentially millions of illegal aliens. Now, having gone through considerable heartache, expense and time to ensure that [my wife] was always properly in the country, and feeling the disappointment in the fact that were [my brother in law] to ever desire to come to the U.S. based on his relation to [my wife], the wait time is estimated at over 20 years, I take a certain offense to the idea that someone who came here completely illegally will have the opportunity to jump to the front of the line for legal status and even citizenship. In addition, I've seen how devastating the effect of illegal immigration has been on the job market for low-skilled African-American workers such as my uncle XXXX. Blacks have been 100% wiped out of entire industries and job categories that used to form the basis of the black working class: gardening, janitorial services, housekeeping, restaurant workers, seamstresses, domestic help, childcare, construction, light manufacturing, etc. In some formerly black now Hispanic neighborhoods in Los Angeles, blacks have been shot on sight by Hispanics for no other reason than their race. Another amnesty, this one not even done in a constitutional way, will just worsen all of this.

So, as the election grew closer, I had many reasons to question my allegiance to the President.

"Well, why Romney, he'd probably be even worse on most of the same questions, right?", you might ask. Potentially, yes. But it does get more complicated than that. To start, as I saw firsthand for the first time in my life the effects of a serious economic downturn, I began to see the extent to which so much in the lives of those I care about is fundamentally determined by the broader economic circumstances. It's not just the unemployment and the foreclosures, though that is certainly significant enough. But as more people become unemployed and lose their homes, families begin to break up. I've even seen that in my immediate family. And working for a nonprofit, you see grants dry up, and donations decrease. Foundation endowments deflate. Local and state government and public schools see their budgets cut, year after year, laying off staff, reducing services, reducing the school year. And everything builds on everything else: as unemployment and foreclosures cause families to break up, demands on social services rise, even as their budgets decrease. The misery and desperation just builds.

And the job market has affected our family in a real way. Your daughter desperately wants to find a new job and career direction. I would like to find a similar job, but closer to XXXX, so that my parents can see [my son] more often, and we can enjoy more family support. My sister needs to find a new job as well, and has had to move in with my parents. In this current job market, none of us has been able to find anything. Neither has my uncle XXXX, who is out of work and facing homelessness. The story is the same for my sister's ex-husband, and my best friend here in XXXX, and my best friend in the XXXX area, all of whom have been out of work for several years. I could cite countless others facing the same situation. In fact, I can cite very few people that I know who have found a new job in the last few years. Everyone who has a job is staying in it, whether they like it or not, and those that don't, can't find one.

And I've looked at the data statistically, and it's a plain fact that economic growth and unemployment and poverty are all very closely connected. When there's economic growth, the unemployment rate stays low, and poverty decreases. When the economy is stagnant or declining, unemployment goes up, and poverty increases. All of the positive government social programs in the world barely make a dent in comparison to the millions of people going into and out of poverty depending on the state of the economy. A good job trumps any social program in terms of the effect on someone's life. Believe me, I know that as someone who works in a law office that helps people obtain their government benefits: depending on social programs is not a happy existence, no matter how many programs are out there. It's still dependence on a bureaucracy, which is inevitably going to feel inhuman at times.

So, one of the most important questions that I have to consider when evaluating Presidential candidates has to be, "who has the right abilities and plans to get the economy growing?" Obama had a dismal record on the economy and hadn't announced any particularly different plans going forward into the campaign. Romney had a record of success in building a profitable business, and a plan that he claimed would create 12 million jobs. On that basis alone, Romney seemed to be the better bet as far who would get the economy moving.

Sure, you could doubt his "plans", but I've also come to my own conclusions about how public policy affects economic growth, and have determined that in general freer markets tend to produce better economic results. Here are the top ten ranked countries in terms of economic freedom:

All of those countries are relatively prosperous on the world stage, characterized by dynamic, growing economies. Places people want to move to, and live in. At the bottom of the list are countries like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe. Not places that very many people are too excited to move to, or live in. And if you look back through our own history here in the U.S., when there has been governance in Washington characterized by low taxes and less restrictive regulation, we have had more growth, less unemployment and lower levels of poverty. And the same holds true vice-versa, when there have been relatively high taxes, more regulation, there has been less growth, more unemployment and higher levels of poverty. You can compare California and Texas right now, and come to the same conclusion: one state is declining, high unemployment, constant budget cuts, the other state is growing, low unemployment, improving budgets. Guess which?

Yes, of course, there are all kinds of counter-examples and further complications, etc., but the broad picture is that free market economics has worked in the U.S. and around the world to bring about prosperity, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, whereas socialism and its variants have generally resulted in economic stagnation, decline and increasing poverty and misery for the people living under it. Recent events in Southern Europe would indicate that this general rule remains in effect.

So, on the biggest issue in my opinion to be considered, Obama seemed to be wedded to a philosophy that has not worked for him, as it has not worked in most places where it's been tried, whereas Romney was promising to put in place a set of policies that have worked here in the past, and have worked in most places they've been tried.

But of course, the economy is not everything. Foreign policy is the next biggest issue, I think most would agree. If you watched the foreign policy debate between Romney and Obama, there didn't in fact appear to be a great deal of daylight between the two of them, and in fact, throughout U.S. history, foreign policy has often been thought of as a nonpartisan issue. However, I am concerned that Obama does not properly recognize the threat presented by Islamism or radical Islam. As I've studied world history and geopolitics, I've come to the conclusion that there is not a conflict between the West and Islam as some have claimed; there is a conflict between radical Islam and everyone who does not subscribe to it. Whether it's the Boko Haram killing Christians in Nigeria, the conflict in Kashmir with the Hindus, destruction of Buddhist shrines in Afghanistan, conflicts with Philipinos in Mindanao, Russians in Chechnya, Kurds in Iraq, Christians in Sudan, Jews of course in Israel, women, minority sects and others in their own societies, etc., etc., it seems clear that there is a significant, active and influential segment of the Muslim population that subscribes to the same philosophy that I understand motivated Muhammad himself: anyone who refuses to submit to their vision of Islam should be killed, wherever and whenever possible. There's no peace to be made with people like that. I consider this to be the same kind of threat that the Nazi's were (with whom they were allied, not coincidentally) in the early 1930's. They have to be defeated. They will take advantage of any opportunity to build their power, but they will never be our "friends" or "allies". Yet, Obama seems to think otherwise; he makes alliances with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas against our known, reliable allies such as Mubarak and Israel. He allows al Qaeda to operate unimpeded in a number of places like Mali and Libya. They are advancing their interests and positions while he plays around with words, trying to downplay the threat they represent. I don't know that Romney would've done any different, but it's something that concerns me, and in general, Republicans have been less likely to try to make peace with these people who are really our sworn enemies.

Then you have the sort of social/moral issues. In general I usually frown on attempts by politicians to use social issues to get votes. It's usually a method of distracting attention from their failures in the areas that really matter. In the past, Republicans have often been accused of doing that, with some validity. In this election, it seems clear that it was the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign that wanted to shift the focus away from the economy to social issues. Now, on gay marriage, I happen to agree with the Democratic position. I support the right of gay people to get married if they want to, although I do also recall speaking to a group of African-American ministers who were concerned that if gay marriage becomes legal, they would be at risk of losing their tax exemption if they refuse to perform them. I looked at the case law, and I do think that's a valid concern. But that's really more of an issue of religious freedom, and that's why I was also concerned about the targeting of the Catholic Church for refusing to provide certain contraceptives and abortifacients as part of their insurance plans.

I was also not impressed with the hysteria about the "war on women, i.e. Planned Parenthood". I'm not sure that Planned Parenthood should get federal money. If you look at their history, they were founded by eugenicists for the purpose of reducing the population of black people and other "undesirables", and in fact, to this day they disproportionately target their services to black women. In places such as NYC, upwards of 60% of black pregnancies end in abortion. '

In general, I do think abortion is a difficult moral, ethical and legal issue, but I also remember seeing [my son] when he consisted of only a dot on a computer screen, and then he was a blob, and then he was a little tadpole, and then a sea horse and then I heard his heart beat, and then saw his big head and then he was a noticeable bump in [my wife's] stomach and then he kicked and then he kicked me when I poked him, and then he seemed to react to my voice, and then he was placed into my arms after his birth and he seemed to already know me very well, and I him, and at every stage of along the way he was the same exact person, XXXX, a human life, and so I do think life begins precisely at conception, and that it's an innocent and vulnerable life that should be protected in some way by the state, in the same way that a newborn is somewhat protected from abusive or neglectful parents.

So, no, Obama's attempt to make the election about social issues did not swing me to his side.

I will note that there is one area where I very much agree with Obama's policies, and that is in the area of education, with his support for charter schools, teacher accountability, etc., but Romney was equally strong on these issues, and in fact, could point to having improved the Massachusetts public schools to become the best in the country during his tenure as Governor, so that wasn't a factor in favor of Obama as against Romney either.

I'm sure there were other issues as well, but these are the main points that drove me to cast my vote for Romney. Let me be clear, however, that it was not an unenthusiastic vote, for the most part. I didn't think that Romney really believed in a lot of what he was saying, and he certainly lacked the "common touch" that Americans like to see in our Presidents. But we have a two-party system here, so you have to vote for either A or B.

I guess I would be remiss if I don't also address this "birther" question that [my wife] told me you were especially concerned about. Let me state plainly up front: I don't believe that Obama was born in Kenya. I do think that there were legitimate questions raised about his eligibility for the Presidency and the authenticity of his birth documents, and I don't at all appreciate that if he was in fact born in Hawaii, that he played games with releasing the documentation, spending millions on lawsuits fighting public records requests and allowing soldiers questioning orders to go to jail, only to then release it in response to the clown Donald Trump's request. I would also say that I do think it's an issue that doesn't deserve to be ridiculed and viciously attacked. The Constitution is what keeps us free, nothing else. The day that we are ruled by men instead of laws is the day we will cease to be free people. I've dedicated my career to ensuring that everyone has access to the protections provided by the Constitution and the rest of our legal system. One of the requirements of the Constitution is that the President of the United States be a "natural born citizen". His parents can be from anywhere on Earth, but he must be a natural born citizen. One can argue about whether or not this requirement is outdated, or ever made sense in the first place, or the precise interpretation of its meaning, but for now, it's what the Constitution says, so it's the law of the land, and should be taken seriously by all who believe that in the rule of law. If we start to ignore this or that section of the Constitution depending on whether it benefits "our guy" or not, then we are on the slippery slope toward the abovementioned rule of men.

The argument that it was "racism" to raise the issue doesn't hold much water, in my humble opinion. It's forgotten by many that John McCain's status as a natural born citizen was also questioned in 2008. He was born to a military family stationed in Panama. Technically, the argument could be made that because he wasn't born in the U.S proper, he might not be eligible as a natural born citizen. And that argument was made. In the Senate. And McCain presented his birth certificate at a hearing. And a Resolution was passed declaring it to be the understanding of the Senate that children born to military families stationed overseas were eligible for the Presidency under the natural born citizen clause. The sponsors of the Resolution: Senators Clinton and Obama. Obama was never subjected to the level of questioning that McCain was. He never had to submit his birth certificate to any official agency, or have his status considered at a hearing, or have a resolution passed affirming his eligibility, even though he is in fact the first President to have been born to a foreign parent, and there are Supreme Court cases that suggest that that fact alone would've disqualified him, regardless of where he was born. A simple hearing on the merits in any sort of court of law would've ended the question, but it never happened.

To finish, I will say that now that the election is over, I want only the best for President Obama, not because I all of the sudden agree with him on everything, but because he's going to be President for the next four years, which means that my fate is dependent on his success. I hope that his vision of where to take the country turns out to be the right one, that we will once again have a booming economy, with new industries, jobs and career paths opening up, with our enemies overseas defeated and allies emboldened, gas and food prices low, salaries high, etc. I want these things to come to pass over the next four years, so I am rooting for Obama to be successful in bringing them about. On that I imagine we can all agree.

So, this has certainly gotten long. As I said at the beginning, I only hope this to be an invitation to dialogue. If you have any questions or comments about any of the above, please feel more than free to respond via email or give a phone call. I welcome the dialogue truly.

Please excuse the tardiness of this post.

I am the descendant of Southerners who fought for the Union during the Civil War, and unlike most contemporary Southern Republicans, we have identified with that party since Lincoln. Perhaps you can give me some insight into certain things I have been asking for a long time.

I can understand the Black community's obsession with matters of social/racial justice and poverty. What I cannot understand, and what I have never been able to understand, is its total lack of any concern whatsoever on moral issues.

The American Black community is one large split personality: it is Billy Sunday and Karl Marx simultaneously. Theologically it behaves as if it were to the Right of Jerry Falwell, but politically it makes Mao Tse-tung look moderate. How do you explain this? Can it even be explained?

Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement such issues as "gay marriage" and legal abortion on demand weren't even blips on the radar screen. But the Black community behaves as if those issues still didn't exist. It's as if it were forever 1954. I simply don't get this.

Do you think all Republicans are rich? I am what is popularly known as "poor white trash." My ancestors have all been poor. They were Republicans because of the Civil War and the evil of the Democrat party they had to live with. In fact, liberals can't seem to make up their minds as to whether their ultimate enemy is the plutocratic "malefactor of great wealth" or the inbred, retarded trailer park dweller. Surely they don't confuse the two?

I am not a social Darwinist or a Randian. I have remained loyal to the Republican party in part for ancestral reasons but mostly because of its stands on the moral issues that anyone of any income (or no income) can agree on. Yet I note that everyone regards these social issues, which unite people of various ideologies, as "divisive" and as things we'd be better off not thinking about. Even you, in your letter, say that "social issues" are a "distraction." Excuse me? Social conservatives are the least "heartless" and social Darwinistic members of the conservative movement. Would you and their other critics prefer they left the field altogether so that the entire political discourse of the country were limited to economics? Why in the world do you suppose only economics matters?

This highlights another "schizophrenic" (I know, that's not what it means but I use it for the private associations of the term) aspect of the American Black community: on the one hand it is proud of its "non-Western," African heritage; on the other, its philosophy is totally European. For what else are rationalism, humanism, materialism, and their ultimate expression political Leftism, but European to the core? They all originate in the eighteenth century European "enlightenment" and the materialistic philosophies of nineteenth century Europe. Voltaire was not from the "third world." Neither were Comte, Hegel, Marx, Darwin, Wellhausen, or Antonio Gramsci. Yet this is the source of "Black" political philosophy in the United States. What are Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton but Voltaire transferred to 21st century America? What is Jackson's opposition to "Western hegemony" but one gigantic lie? Just what is "African" about any of this? Even Robert Mugabe opposes "gay rights!" Is he a race traitor or an "uncle Tom?" Maybe the "rednecks" got a-hold of him and poisoned his mind?

I just don't understand any of this.

As I said earlier, I am not a social Darwinist. I would be more than happy (and so would many other social conservatives) to compromise on or mitigate the harsher positions of dog-eat-dog capitalism. (Believe it or not, even with our "white skin privelege" poor crackers can be in really desperate financial situations, I assure you; I've been there!) But there is never any offer of dialogue. There is only unremitting hostility from the Black community which goes on praying like Jimmy Swaggert and voting like Kim Il Sung. In fact, the late Ralph David Abernathy has been disowned by the "civil rights" establishment because in later life he joined the Moral Majority. I have read attacks on him that told how he had "changed." Excuse me? Just what in Moral Majority's positions conflicted with his earlier stances? There was no "jim crow" in their platform, or even much of an economic nature at all that I know of, but because he didn't "evolve" to accept abortion and "gay marriage" he's accused of having "changed?" He's an "uncle Tom" now???

All my life I have excused Black political behavior, but I always thought there would come a time when the Left would finally take a position that Blacks (especially church-going Blacks) would refuse to accept. That time has long since come and gone and church-going Blacks are still going along with everything. I have given up. I no longer expect any change of heart.

But just what is it about moral conservatism that Blacks are so opposed to? We're not talking economic, root-hog-or-die, or jim crow. We're talking our alleged "common morality." Do we even share one? Are the masses of Black America, even in the Bible-belt, really such moral nihilists? If so, how long have they been this way? Did they pass their time in the cotton fields having intellectual discussions about the dialectic?

As an Old Southern Republican (and not any Dixiecrat convert from 1964) I used to look up to the American Black community. My positive stereotype was as great as any liberal's. But I must confess to you that that admiration died a long time ago. I honestly believe that if John Brown himself could see the political alliances of his beloved Blacks, he would be a Dixiecrat himself!

Let me close by asking one final question--and do please consider it before simply dismissing me as a "racist crank" (I didn't used to be, believe me). Would any Blacks be open to the idea of a new party that mixed economic liberalism with moral conservatism? This would, after all, negate all the "heartless capitalist" rhetoric one hears as an excuse to remain in the party of Hell. I'm serious! You think such a party couldn't exist? What do you think the Democrat party of Harry Truman was? Or for that matter of William Jennings Bryan? Or look at conservatism outside the United States, especially in traditionally Catholic cultures. It is very different from American market libertarianism. There is no need to insist that economic liberalism and moral conservatism could never work together. That is just an excuse.

The only reason for maintaining this fiction is that one is opposed to moral conservatism in and of itself. Perhaps that's what it is. Perhaps the economic arguments are just a fig leaf, an excuse to keep supporting depravity and nihilism. If that is so, there are penalties to be paid for such attitudes and behaviors . . . and the penalties won't be executed by any "Bible-banging crackers." As surely as G-d exists He will not allow such behavior to continue forever without punishment. If Black America doesn't amend its moral positions it will pay severely one day, and not by any "white backlash" but from G-d Himself--the same G-d so many Blacks worship in a way little different from snake-handling "hillbillies" in West Virginia.

Is there hope for an end to total alliance with moral nihilism? I sincerely hope so. If not, then the die is cast and it's too late to do anything about it.

It is an unfortunate fact that past behaviors by religious people seems to led to the idea among certain segments of the population that they can only be truly safe in a sewer. Those who have wished for such a thing may get it . . . and it's not going to be the nirvana they hoped for. It's going to be Hell.

I think you raise some excellent questions. I actually believe that one of the reasons that the Democratic Party power structure fell in line so quickly behind Barack Obama in the primary against Hillary Clinton was to head off any potential split between black Americans and the Party over any number of growing conflicts, including between black parents and teacher’s unions, black job seekers and global warming extremists, and most maybe most importantly, black church-goers and gay activists.

The election of Barack Obama quashed any chance that any of those conflicts would have any effect in the big picture any time soon. The bond between blacks and the Democratic Party had been welded even further, and there’s very little that the Party could do platform and policy wise that would significantly change that, short of advocating a return to slavery.

So the simple answer to your question of how it is that blacks manage to reconcile very conservative religious beliefs and very liberal politics is race: the great majority of blacks vote on the basis of race, and they perceive that the Democratic Party is for their race, while the Republican Party is against it. It’s really as simple as that. There is a small minority (probably 10-20%) that actually votes based on the actual platforms and agendas of the two parties, but even if half of them agree and vote with the Republican Party, that still leaves just a 5-10% share of the total, which is about what the GOP has gotten over the last several cycles.

Unfortunately, all of the philosophical contradictions that you point out matter not in the least to the average black person who has been taught and strongly believes in one simple rule of politics: Democrats like black people, and Republicans don’t. It’s not rational, or principled, and I’d certainly argue that it’s not a wise posture to adopt, and I’d also argue that it’s at odds with history, and with the facts on the ground, but again, none of that matters either. People believe this to be so, so for all intents and purposes, it is so.

I do believe that blacks by and large are social conservatives. They do go to church, and they do hear conservative religious messages, and they do believe them. But the fact of their racial identity is more important in terms of how they behave politically.

I will confess that in my email to my father in law, I may have downplayed the importance of social issues more so than my actual feelings. This is because all leftists believe very strongly in the argument that Republicans use social issues to convince ignorant poor white people to “vote against their own interests” in supporting the GOP. It strikes at the core of their belief system to point out the obvious fact that it was Democrats who used social issues to distract voters from economic issues in this election.

I do have mixed feelings, however, on social issues as a basis for voting. If there’s a general principle that I subscribe to, it’s that consenting adults should be able to do what they want in a free country so long as it doesn’t directly affect anyone else, but once their “liberties” begin to impact upon the life or liberty of others, there’s a role for the state to step in. With gay marriage you have two consenting adults, and their getting married does not directly affect anyone else. With abortion, you have an innocent victim who cannot defend or speak for itself. They may be equally abhorrent in the eyes of the Church, but in the view of government and morality, I would look at them differently.

I do believe in religious freedom, however, including the right not be forced to provide contraceptives, abortions, gay adoptions, etc., and so there’s another place that I would draw a line that would put me on the side of social conservatives. But for me personally, I just don’t really care what people do with each other sexually so long as it doesn’t affect me personally, and if they want to consummate that activity in state-recognized marriage, again, it doesn’t affect me. In fact, I’d really prefer not to even think about it, to the extent that it involves things that are sexually repulsive to me, and so elevating it as a political issue . . . um, no.

But no I don’t wish for social conservatives to be expelled from the GOP. With the exception of abortion and religious freedom, as stated above, I’d probably be comfortable with the “truce” suggested by Mitch Daniels, including a “punt” on most issues back to the states under principles of federalism. I think the best solution might ultimately be for us to celebrate instead of fight against the fact that federalism allows for there to be some places with very strict social mores encoded into local and state laws, and other places that are far more liberal.

I’m not sure that I would support a socially conservative economically liberal party. I think that combination has traditionally been organized under the banner of “Populism”, which I have a couple of problems with: as noted above, I have a libertarian streak that competes with my social conservatism, and while I believe that government should provide a safety net, I also believe that freer markets = greater total prosperity, which benefits everyone. Again, I’d probably vote for a more federalist approach, where some states would be heavily regulated with generous social programs, other states more free, and then let people “vote with their feet” for what they prefer.

That's not an uncommon response by minority groups: promoting a firm standard of morality within the group, while weakening efforts of the majority to impose standards on the minority.

I doubt it's part of a conscious strategy now. It's something that's so ingrained it's hard to shake. Some people in a minority group can make common cause with their counterparts in other groups, but for others, the opposition between groups is too strong to overcome.

What are Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton but Voltaire transferred to 21st century America? What is Jackson's opposition to "Western hegemony" but one gigantic lie? Just what is "African" about any of this?

Uh, the answers would be ... A) just about anything, B) interest group politics, and C) nothing.

What you're talking about is interest group politics, advancing what one takes to be the interest of one's group. There's a lot of religious rhetoric thrown into the mix, but I don't see any Voltaire or Comte in Jackson or Sharpton.

In the second example, Jesse Jackson and "western hegemony," if he used the phrase it probably didn't come naturally. His opposition to a "Western Civilization" curriculum had to do with getting attention and publicity, and the general philosophy of "more for us."

This isn't so very different from how other groups function. Groups struggle with each other for recognition and respect and use what they have to get it. If you have the Bible or Tolstoi you use that. Otherwise you make do with Rigoberta Menchu.

If you get that 1) it's not about some alien atheistic philosophy but about group striving for advantage, power, and position, and 2) that the policies supported don't always bring the advantages and well-being that they are supposed to, things don't look quite as bleak as you think.

Eventually some people either find different ways to play the game of group competition, or recognize that the game works to their disadvantage and the really important things have to be secured in other ways.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.