Following up on the Affirmative Action post below, I think it's worth reading William Vogeli's piece, "Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement," which, to my mind, is the most thorough article I've read on the Right and African-Americans, from a conservative perspective. I think the grappling with the legacy of William F. Buckley is especially powerful. Vogeli is a Buckley guy, but he doesn't try to downplay the man's warts:
The single most disturbing thing about Buckley's reactions to the civil rights controversies was the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots. This disparity culminated in a position on violence committed by whites against blacks and civil rights activists that was reliably equivocal. Like the liberals of the 1960s who didn't condone riots in Watts and Detroit but always understood them, Buckley regularly coupled the obligatory criticism of Southern whites' violent acts with a longer and more fervent denunciation of the provocations that elicited them. Thus, "the nation cannot get away with feigning surprise" when a mob of white students attacks a black woman admitted to the University of Alabama by federal court order in 1956. "For in defiance of constitutional practice, with a total disregard of custom and tradition, the Supreme Court, a year ago, illegalized a whole set of deeply-rooted folkways and mores; and now we are engaged in attempting to enforce our law." Thus, the Freedom Riders went into the South to "challenge with language of unconditional surrender" the whites' "deeply felt" beliefs, and were "met, inevitably, by a spastic response. By violence."
What's interesting is Buckley ultimately supported a holiday for MLK, and unlike some his more reprehensible peers, actually grappled with his blind-spot in regards to segregation. Also, Vogeli gets at the essential problem of conservatives and black voters--the dodginess of the "limited government" defense. To oppose Affirmative Action and hate crime legislation from the perspective of limited government is an honest position that probably could be explained to the African-American voter. But it can't be explained when the people who hold that position support other massive intrusions of government--like the drug war,and the expansion of prisons. Unfortunately, that leads to my critique of the article--I didn't see anything on what a conservative pitch to African-Americans would look like. I've said this before--if conservatives want the black vote, it's not enough to outline what your against, you have to say what you're for. I didn't get that from the piece. I still have no idea why any African-American should ultimately support a Republican.
One other thing. For those who wonder why I'm so into this subject, I say the following. I'm a liberal, no doubt. But as a black person--and I guess as a liberal--I've never thought it was a good thing that nine out of ten black people think that basically half the American electorate would like to see them back in chains. I'd much rather that nine out of ten blacks vote Democrat out of a serious committment to liberalism, not because they basically don't have a choice. That sense, that there really is only one electoral option, is not good for black folks, and it's not good for the country at large.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
This is a very good piece.
I think that unfortunately the parties as presently constitued are built around a construction of race that has little do with the realities of black life. With respect to race, both parties are reactionary and offer little demonstrable good for black folks.
That said, I'm at a loss as to how to rectify that point of view. If you are so little regarded, how do you influence either party? In my mind, the central problem with both parties is white folks inside both hold the view that "black interest" or "black progress" is somehow an attack on them, that by doing good for black good there isn't room or time for doing anything for anyone else. I suspect they all think this without even knowing it; their behavior definitely leads one to believe this.
I am deeply unimpressed with the Democratic Party, but what is the alternative? In the absence of a new direction, a new goal, something else...I'm at a loss as to what to do.
If honest libertarians ever gained any real sway in the republican party, that might be a reason to support them. The drug war, and the expansion of police power and the abuse of that power, are serious problems for blacks (and the poor in general).
But, as it stands, the "law and order" republicans continue to push that oppression forward, while the traditionalist closet racists cheer them on. And the evagelicals care more about gays than the poor.
With those groups in control of the GOP, any "small government" talk is blowing smoke.
"I still have no idea why any African-American should ultimately support a Republican."
Although you probably disagree with it, school choice immediately jumps to my mind. Allowing black to escape the decaying public school system would be a huge boost to African American prospects. But I do agree that the Republicans have done a bad job of explain why low taxes and more sensible regulation would create better opportunities for black entrepreneurship.
I would also think religious issues would resonate more among blacks than whites.
Ron Paul tried earlier this year to broaden the appeal of libertarian-conservatism. I think he was the wrong messenger, but I think he tried to present a libertarian case to African-Americans. It causes me no end of fury when Republicans won't even *try* to get black votes.
"That sense, that there really is only one electoral option, is not good for black folks, and it's not good for the country at large."
Jackie Robinson said that it would do no good if our country integrated but our politics remained segregated.
I think the other thing Republicans would have to do to convince Black folks that small government and market forces would be good for black folks would be to acknowledge that those forces often prey on black business and entrepreneurship first to gain a foothold.
It's simply hard to be a fan of those things when you are the first in line to get swallowed up. Some government is necessary to manage oppressive large forces from dominating.
No one ever talks about how there were always limits to our freedoms. That's why their is a balance of power. That's why originally there were not supposed to be monopolies. The founders, probably looking to the excesses of Rome for example, understood that freedom of the powerful could result in no freedom at all for the powerless.
The problem with Republicans is that they have a hard time bringing (admittedly) very nice theories into the real world in a way that assuages understandable black fears and anxieties about being left to the forces of white folks (otherwise known as "the market"). Let's remember that capitalism isn't a given, it to is a construct and those who control the market have not historically looked out for black folks.
Spot on. I've always held (disclosure: I'm a black progressive) that conservatives really need to grapple with the past that is held onto without regards for the implications. They are quick to praise old a Conservative hero but are unwilling to cop to the racial underpinning behind the party's recent past (last 50 years).
If a Republican promised a fixed-term, frankly big-government effort to equip Black Americans with what they need to be successful under capitalism, starting with capital itself, the paeans to capitalism and small government might start to look more attractive. So long as people who labor under the effects of government-abetted disenfranchisement are told that government was only good for oppressing them and can't reasonably be called upon to assist them, it's not likely that too many of them will vote Republican.
A good friend of mine (a Black Republican) once said that if it wasn't for racism, most Black people would be Republicans and I tend to agree with him.
You talk about the Bible bangers in the GOP? There ain't noone who loves Jesus more than Black people. And sad to say it, Black churches are often hotbeds of homophobia which puts them in line with the GOP as well.
School choice? Anecdotal evidence and quick Google search shows that Black folks are down with school choice.
My people are patriotic, religious, thrifty, and hard-working and most Black people I know are cut from the same cloth. But the GOP commitment to using the Southern Strategy of appealing to crackers keeps me (and most other Black people) from giving Republican candidates serious consideration for the most part.
This is going to come across as naive or uninformed, but curiosity begs me to ask it. Why is the drug war a white issue? Why is limited government a white issue? Is there a reason why the black vote won't support a tough on crime approach, too? I just look at the Republican platform, and it seems like there should be a lot of issues you'd expect a 50-50 split (like the rest of life.) Sure, maybe the percentage is off for a couple issues due to regional differences, but abortion, death penalty, taxes, small government, drugs...I just don't see why there would be such a large gap between whites and blacks.
1. because the drug war primarily targets low level black (non-violent) male offenders instead of going after high level offenders (in suburban areas) OR users, further decimating black urban communities. as a result of it over 50% of the incarcerated are black men. these incarcerated men often increase the political strength of rural communities because the incarcerated are usually counted as members of the rural communities for the purpose of political representation (even though they can't vote).
1a. Black people are so tough on crime, they hate it when the police commit it. The GOP is actually NOT tough on crime. they are tough on the types of low level crimes that black men commit, and very very soft on white collar crime, and the types of crimes that law enforcement officials commit in policing black neighborhoods. This actually is NOT hypocritical...but you can see why we might think it was, and not give support to the GOP because of it.
2. Where private institutions differ public institution (simplifying) is in accountability. Public institutions can be held accountable through vote and voice. Further they have mechanisms of transparency. (I'm simplifying of course.) While both private and public institutions racially discriminated (and subjugated) black citizens, blacks have historically been able to use public institutions to serve as a check against private ones. And they have been able to use political power to keep public institutions in check. Again simplifying. Furthermore, private institutions are uniquely unable to provide for the public goods that people on the bottom of the economic and social ladder need.
(I'd reiterate something ta-nehisi noted...the gop isn't really for smaller government as much as it is for less social spending. they not only support a lot of spending for defense they support a lot of spending for prisons, and for policing programs that disproportionately sanction black men and women.)
There is the historical record to consider, but both of these points above speak to contemporary reasons why blacks have been loathe to support the GOP. And they point to two things the GOP could do (but won't) in order to attract enough black voters to win victories at the local, state, and national levels:
1. Get tougher on police, and gjve up the drug war.
Won't happen because the police routinely support the GOP. Similarly the drug war benefits rural GOP constituencies, plus the police.
2. Support affirmative action.
Won't happen because conservatively there are more racist voters in the GOP than there are black people PERIOD. Simple numbers work against this here.
"To oppose Affirmative Action and hate crime legislation from the perspective of limited government is an honest position that probably could be explained to the African-American voter. But it can't be explained when the people who hold that position support other massive intrusions of government--like the drug war,and the expansion of prisons."
To be fair, Buckley and NR have a long-standing (and not necessarily popular) policy of opposing the drug war, precisely on limited government/libertarian grounds.* Generally speaking, the more inclined a conservative is to limited government, the more they oppose the drug war.
Of course, I am one of those conservatives who opposes affirmative action and hate crime legislation, but not the drug war (at least not completely), so I suppose the hypocrisy charge sticks on me. Take it for what it's worth.
*See http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html.
Let me modify my position above from "Support affirmative action" to "either support affirmative action or support civil rights with aggressive legislation."
This distinction probably won't mean much to conservatives but there is a difference between say supporting the use of race in admissions to schools like michigan, and spending government resources to ensure that Denny's doesn't discriminate against customers/employees on the basis of race.
Unfortunately, there's a ratcheting effect when it comes to "tough on crime" and drug laws. It's very cheap to support tougher and tougher drug sanctions and to classify more and more crimes as felonies, but politically it's very risky to support any real reform. Look at how long it took to appreciably shrink the "crack gap" in sentencing. And that minor reform, which is far from complete, took a non-elected commission to make the revised recommendations.
A conservative movement that dedicated itself to clearing unjust obstacles to economic growth in poor communities would get serious consideration from those communities. Instead, the principled arguments seem conveniently self-serving. I love how college Republicans and parents of college-age students get REALLY into the whole content of our character, and not the color of our skin. It's no wonder Black folks are skeptical of conservative arguments.
Actually as an atheist card-carrying ACLU member and lifelong Democrat I think it's precisely because a lot of blacks would be republicans for what I think are "wrong reasons" (i.e. homophobia and other bad ideas that tend to get promoted by conservative churches) that I am glad they are "forced into" voting Democrat. After all, if only one party gives your group's concerns the time of day, shouldn't you try to figure out why that is, exactly?
That said obviously the Democrats could be a lot better. I think that's what's clouding a lot of this discussion is that there really is still a lot of racism in America and Democrats tend to give themselves a pass on racism just because they're liberals, but I still think that beats the Republican assumption that racism can't be a problem because, as Reagan once put it, there was no race problem when I was growing up in my lily-white neighborhood..