Lott's statement, coupled with the grassroots conservatives who stood by his statement is a dagger in the back of we few American black conservatives ... who desire to move more and more American blacks towards our philosophies.Only if you feel the need to seperate black conservatives from conservatives and only if you take his statement to its literal extreme and assume that he specifically meant only the segregationist aspect of Thurmond's platform and further assume, out of context, that Lott's true intent was to send a message about segregation to the world rather than tittilate an old man. Only by ignoring Thurmond's 50+ year history as a legislator and ignoring the countries 50+ year history of change and force his statement into the long gone context of 1948 does it take on the weight you perceive it to. There in the world of "if", "could have", "would have" and "might have" his remarks would be a cesspool of bigotry. Meanwhile, back in the here and now......it's merely a lame perception that liberals hoped would take. It did.
Statements like Lott's unravel our efforts and make the damage harder and harder to recover from.
If your agenda is to convert liberal blacks into conservative blacks rather than promote conservatism for its own sake then you're right.
What Lott said was absolutely stupid.
Yes, it was incredibly stupid. For him not to know, in the here and now, that it would be taken and stretched to its furthest possible logical meaning, pulled out of its context and stripped of its intent in order to reforge it into a tool to vilify him, weaken the Republican majority in Congress and reinforce the artificial divide between individual black self interests and conservative philosophy was very stupid of him.
Good riddance to Lott, a stupid man.
Welcome to the consequences of our actions, the consequences of deferring to liberal character assassination;
Conservatives are more vulnerable to PC blacklisting/blackmailing ("Santorum, you're on deck!").
The Repulican base of voters is less sure there's a difference between "Trent Lotts" and "Robert Byrds".
Some black conservatives have lost sight of their self interests and are more worried about whether white Republicans will embarrass them.
Black liberals think they have won something.
You don't think Political Correctness is something to worry about, eh? I think it's a powerful tool. It accomplished everything I just listed. Hitler used it to consolidate his power quite effectively. It was arguably one of his most effective tools. The Nazi Party made it Politically Incorrect to be a Jew, to do business with a Jew, to help a Jew, to associate with a Jew in any way. This accomplished two things. It made it possible to confiscate all the wealth possessed by Jews and more importantly (to him) it galvanized a sense of nationalism and unity around a perceived sense of racial and moral superiority that he was then able to direct at will towards any aim of his choosing.
As a black conservative you probably have a sharper picture in your mind of the role blacks have in the liberal agenda than I do. Dismiss Political Correctness at your peril. Consider who takes delight in using that tool and what their agenda is.
Whose interests do you really want to protect and promote, rdb3? rdb3's or blacks? I'm sure you have a good idea who rdb3 is, do you know who "blacks" are? What "blacks" are? American blacks, Namibian blacks? City blacks, country blacks? Conservative blacks, liberal blacks? White collar blacks, blue collar blacks, welfare blacks? Rich blacks, poor blacks, good blacks, bad blacks, educated blacks, uneducated blacks, spiritual blacks, hedonist blacks, dark blacks, light blacks, 100% blacks, half blacks, one quarter, three quarter blacks? Blacks who like tofu, line dancing, bungee jumping, car jacking, stock trading, tournament bowling, giant reefers, 3-piece suits, whiskey sours....? Which blacks? Every black?
What are blacks?
Who all, exactly, qualifies as black? More importantly, how many of them do you care about? All of them? Only them? What about white blacks? After all, politically speaking, Bubba's black now. How long before liberal politicians start designating more pasty white white people as black? Liberals have already succeeded in labeling conservatives as black they just don't use that word. Try "homophobe", "Christian fundamentalist", "NRA gun nut", "capitalist pig environment rapers" for a few. Welcome to your new blackness.
If you're worried about whether conservative whites are going to act like people you'd like to know or whether black people you'd like to know are going to ostracize you for your politics or whether black people as a whole are going to open their eyes, see the liberal shackles on their ankles and shake them off then you will be distracted from your most necessary task, preserving and protecting rdb3's individual sovereignty and using it to pursue your liberty and happiness. The more you succeed in that the more those who see themselves in you, in some way, will emulate you. The more you succeed the more we all succeed in securing individual liberty.
In essence, where does your political strength lie? In conservatism or black conservatism? On the battlefield you watch the back of the guy next to you even if the stupid SOB was tapping your wife back home. You deal with that another time, not to your enemies delight. If you want to help "blacks" become sovereign individuals then help conservatives kill liberalism. If we don't then the difference between being black or white will be about as significant as the difference between being the lead mule or the one behind it. That won't really matter to me because they don't harnass dead mules!
And today was a good day...