Why Black Americans Think That the Federal Government is Our Friend

While hanging out yesterday at Ace's yesterday as he was flogging racists, I happened to mention that many if not most black Americans view the federal government as beneficial and friendly.  Some other commenters were surprised and I was surprised at their surprise, because it isn't difficult to figure out why this is.  Whether it's the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.

What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black.  And that is what it was supposed to do.

The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs.  Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans.  (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You'll get an earful about her "rights".) 

And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history.

What's needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education--not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government.

Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People--even when that obstacle is American government itself.  Supplying all of one's needs is not government's role.  That's God's purview.

We all remember President Obama's statement containing the assertion that one of the flaws of the US Constitution was that is only contained a  list of "negative rights," meaning negative government "rights."  The idea that a Harvard-trained lawyer thinks that the government has rights or that there was no list of positive responsibilities assigned to government was mockable.  (Hey, you voted for him.)

But what the statement betrayed was a widespread misconception present in those of us who aren't lawyers of any variety of a friendly fed whose role is to insert itself between God and man's liberty and to redistribute wealth (aka stealing).  The notion that the founders "forgot" to address this is hilarious.

So when the Democrats came to full power this year, they began to build on the foundation that Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson laid.  The good news?  Between Socialized Medicine, Cap and Trade, TARP, etc., the federal government's active role in overstepping its bounds--in crippling America--is opening the eyes of Americans of all races.  The bad news: there may not be an America left when the federal locusts finish.

UPDATE: Hi, Glenn's readers!

Comments

[Everlasting Phelps]

Well, you must agree, it was very generous for the feds to remove the impediments that they put up in the first place.

[baldilocks]

Brown, yes (Plessy v. Ferguson). But what others?

[Kwongdzu]

Please don't forget Woodrow Wilson! I had no idea until recently what a total tool he was and how much damage he did. Move over a smidge, FDR and LBJ.

[baldilocks]

True about Wilson but was he a handout King?

[Tully]

Which is worse, the Wilson who set blacks back at least half a century just as they were reaching post-war acceptance through their own efforts, or those in government who keep the poor dependent in perpetuity?

Tough call. Both suck.

[flenser]

Is that my cue?

Here's what I was wondering. You said yesterday:

"For example, many if not most black people think that the federal government is their friend. Do you know why that is? I do. Because of certain things in the past--things related to Jim Crow."

I may be mis-reading you, but it sounds like you're saying that Jim Crow led blacks to trust the government, which obviously sounds odd.

[flenser]

Historically speaking, blacks outside the South were voting Democrat from the late 1920's on.

(Interesting and not commented on enough, IMO. Many American blacks supported the party of Jim Crow)

The northern blacks supported the Dems for reasons of good old fashioned machine politics - the Dems offered them jobs and money.

But why did the southern blacks, when they began to vote in greater numbers after the civil rights era, throw ther support to the party which had been oppressing them? That part I'm not clear about.

Whether it's the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.

True enough, and it explains why blacks support a powerful central government. But looking at the political parties involved with the things mentioned, it's not obvious why blacks settled on the Democrats as the big government party to back. At least up through the Nixon years the GOP was just as avid a fan of big government as the Democrats.

[flenser]

I may be mis-reading you, but it sounds like you're saying that Jim Crow led blacks to trust the government

After rereading yout post I think I see where you're coming from. But see my questions from 5:20.

[baldilocks]

Hi flenser!

Lack of proper education/information, pure and simple. If you aren't taught the proper role of the American government or the principle underlying the Constitution, you'll back whoever is "nicest" to you, gives you the most stuff and does the most things for you. The Democrats figured that out.

When I hear idiots like the president talk about the "original sin" of slavery in the Constitution I get so angry. The Constitution's existence is what handed black slaves their freedom. But I didn't learn that in school. I had to go after that knowledge.

[Ree]

There are three branches of government the 3rd branch Judicial "Supreme Court" There is already a lawsuit in the works for the EPA for threatening new regulations based on that CO2 is dangerous. Stop breathing everyone hold your breath for goodness sakes:)

So I am not all that pessimistic about what can and can't happen. In fact we may all get a civics lesson out of it, and that is a good thing.

The backlash to this so called Progressive Agenda. It's really nothing more than imposing European style Socialism on Americans, is going to be something to behold. We get to re defeat Socialism starting with the November 2nd 2010 elections.

[D]

I am amazed that anyone, let alone blacks would be so willing to accept it when the government approaches and says something like, "I'm here with your government health care plan."

After all, we tried that once, it lasted 40 years.

Oh, it started great, there was a dedicated staff, the care was quality, they received praise for their work, they also received special praise for their, "flair in framing," the message to the potential patients encouraging many to join who would normally have been reluctant.

The terrifying results are considered near genocide in some circles.
David

[Kevin Murphy]

Of course, if one wants to find real Federal horror for blacks, it isn't the mild Plessey one needs to read, but the truly vile Cruikshank.

Basically Cruikshank said that if the KKK wanted to lynch blacks and the state wanted to deprive blacks of most all civil rights, the federal government had no ability to intervene, the Bill of Rights did not apply, and the 14th Amendment was of little effect.

And yet, the District of Columbia used Cruikshank as precedent in fighting for their gun ban in Heller.

[D]

Setting the government up as a charitable false idol destroys the human spirit and that is exactly what has happened.
DKK

[nationalguard]

"...it's not obvious why blacks settled on the Democrats as the big government party to back."

Maybe it's because the GOP since Nixon has pushed a "Southern Strategy," playing on white fears, opposing the expansion of voting rights, blocking affirmative action, encouraging the formation of "Christian" (i.e. white) schools and trying to curb programs that help poor people, many of whom happen to be black. Maybe it's time we abandon this approach.

[ajacksonian]

When it is not taught we forget the very basics given to us as a people, as a society:
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.
It is not called Common Sense without reason, and that opening paragraph is only the beginnings of our perils from government. Yet it also lays out our understanding, then, of what the framework of our liberties are, and that government gets our negative liberties and rights so that we may be safeguarded from them and that they will be used only to protect society. Our positive liberties and rights we retain as individuals and keep in our creation of this thing called society. Government is an organ of society, but it is not the whole of society, and when that organ grows cancerous and desires our positive liberties it puts the entire body at peril.

They stopped teaching that in school, along with much else. Now we are at peril because many want the Punisher to take over our positive liberties so that we may be the servants of government and let society wither and die... taking government with it as the cancerous organ brings down the entire body and itself, together.

[Pierre Legrand]

They stopped teaching that in school, along with much else.

Deliberately stopped teaching that in school. None of this is accidental and no it doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be coordinated...

I am much more pessimistic about all of this than most. I believe we had a window to fight back some years ago. At this point we are on the highway to hell and there isn't much we can do about it. Even many conservatives buy into the left's definitions and premises of life.

[Subsunk]

That's good insight, ma'am. I've often wondered why folks don't change their allegiances even after they find out what they thought was helping them, truly turned out to be hurting them. Why do oil and gas companies give money to Global Warming adherent politicians, and make all those "green-friendly sources of energy" ala BP, commercials? Why do corporations in insurance and Wall Street and the carmaking industries give so much money to Dhimmicratic politicians when those same politicians turn right around in EVERY speech and call them evil and greedy?

When will people wake up and recognize it is foolish to give money to your enemies, because that is, most assuredly, what those politicians are. I guess paying the alligator to eat you last is the only excuse I can come up with.

You are still one of the smartest gals I know, Baldi. You and Grim need to get together for a brainiac conference someday. Well done, my dear.

Subsunk

[mcnorman]

"The bad news: there may not be an America left when the federal locusts finish."

Very true.

Will you be branded a "racist" for stating this?

[baldilocks]

Probably not. :)

[Ken_in_SC]

"..it's not obvious why blacks settled on the Democrats as the big government party to back."

The Democratic Party rejected the elected delegates of several southern states--1n 68 I think--and seated a rival set of delegates who were mostly black. They also set up an affirmative action voting system that gave black delegates more influence in the convention.

That's about the same time the Alabama Democratic party changed it's motto from "White Supremacy for the Right" To "Democrats for the Right". However, I believe the Alabama Democratic ballot symbol is still a white rooster.

[Ken_in_SC]

I am a retired teacher. About what’s taught in school, in South Carolina, there is a state law that requires that on a certain day all social studies teachers teach a unit on the US constitution. This requirement is not enforced in any way and most teachers with which I used to work had never heard of it. It’s not part of the approved curriculum; it’s just a state law. In SC, Republicans make the laws. Democrats make public school curriculum.

[Rich Rostrom]

Flenser: "...blacks outside the South were voting Democrat from the late 1920's on." No, black voters switched to the Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s, not the 1920s. Blacks in Chicago elected Republican Oscar De Priest to the U.S. House in 1928 (the first black Representative outside the South). De Priest was re-elected in 1930 and 1932, and lost narrowly in 1934. The 1st District remained competitive as late as 1946.

"...it's not obvious why blacks settled on the Democrats as the big government party to back."

In 1948-1964, the liberal wing of the Democratic party aggressively championed civil rights. Most Republicans were supportive, but Democrats like Hubert Humphrey led the charge. In the late 1960s, blacks in the South organized "national Democrat" parties in opposition to the existing Dixiecrat organizations, and competed for the national party's recognition.

NationalGuard: 1) The switch of black voters to the Democrats was largely complete before Nixon. 2)
"Affirmative action" as we know it (including racial quotas) was largely created during the Nixon administration. 3) However, Goldwater's ostentatious vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a big factor. (Goldwater himself was a lifelong NAACP member, but he pandered to the racists there.)

[flenser]

"In 1948-1964, the liberal wing of the Democratic party aggressively championed civil rights. Most Republicans were supportive, but Democrats like Hubert Humphrey led the charge."

I don't agree with that description. There were Democrats who supported civil rights, but there were many more who opposed them. The anti civil rights movement was made up almost entirely of Democrats.

"In the late 1960s, blacks in the South organized "national Democrat" parties in opposition to the existing Dixiecrat organizations, and competed for the national party's recognition."

Which does not answer my question about why they did not support the local Republican party rather than join the Democrats.

"The switch of black voters to the Democrats was largely complete before Nixon"

Black voters (the ones who could vote) switched to the Dems long before Nixon. You say the 30's, I say the late 20's. But long before Nixon (or Goldwater) and for reasons having nothing to do with civil rights.

My two observatons remain. 1) Non southern blacks supported the Democratic party, the party of Jim Crow, for several decades. 2) When southern blacks were able to vote, they chose to vote for .... the party which had refused them the right to vote.

Which leads me to conclude that civil rights are not nearly as important a factor in black voting patterns as many people believe.

(And the same principle applies for non blacks, even though we're not discussing them here.)

[negronova]

When I hear idiots like the president talk about the "original sin" of slavery in the Constitution I get so angry.

I guess Condi Rice is an idiot because she has said the same thing. But that's only recently, MANY have said the same thing.

The Constitution's existence is what handed black slaves their freedom.

True, but since slavery existed in the United States when the Constitution was put into place and existed after, other than the person saying the phrase, what's the offense?

When Black Democrats attack Republicans as being racists and/or insensitive and/or tone death, my fellow Republicans rise up and complain and say "NOT SO!!! It's the Democrats who were racists in the past..."

When white AND Black Republicans say the Republican party has a problem, there is either silence or those speaking out get ostracized (think Jack Kemp or Tony Snow as THEY related it).

But even THAT doesn't matter. What matters is this: it is the Democratic party that, on the surface, appears to have trashed the past. It is the Democratic party that nominated a Black person to run for President of the United States AND succeed.

The GOP ran away from its history for short term gain and now "whines" about the long term consequences.

Here's a final bit of rhetorical word play that's factually accurate. In the 1950s, the Black poverty rate was around 65%. Today, it's around 25%.

[negronova]

OH, you forgot to mention Blacks also don't trust the federal government.

Years before Katrina, New Orleans' Black residents complained about The Army Corp of Engineers not doing their job to sure the leveys and a long time theory about the government blowing up the leveys years before Katrina.

Then there is the Tuskegee experiment.

Then there is the "government brought drugs into poor neighborhoods" conspiracy.

Then there is the distrust of the police which goes to the fed level as well.

[flenser]

What matters is this: it is the Democratic party that, on the surface, appears to have trashed the past.

The Democratic Party is as racist as it ever was. It's merely changed its prefered racial scapegoat.

[baldilocks]

And they're still partial to being slave masters.

[negronova]

The Democratic Party is as racist as it ever was.

With a Black President and the first party to have a Black person lead the national party. Remember Ron Brown? OH, and during his run, the racist elements of the DNC went after him and got beat back VERY convincingly by Bill Bradley.

Meanwhile the Young Republicans is lead by Audra Shay.

Too bad there aren't more free Blacks in the GOP like Lenny McAllister