Conservatives have become bystanders in racial discourse because
we have consciously chosen that path. We don’t have to make the same mistake
going forward.
Jamelle Bouie believes Donald Trump’s victory ended the
‘racial détente’ that has presided over American politics for decades. In an
insightful response, David Marcus agrees with Bouie, and blames
“minorities and progressives” for embracing privilege theory and systemic
racism:
As these theories took hold,
every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively
make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with
the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of
have? Many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be
called racist, because, in fact, that was happening.
While this analysis contains much truth, it
doesn’t explain why so many minorities embraced an idea that the data suggest they don’t even believe in. Many
probably liked the détente, and disagree with the current regime. But their
views were, and are, not accounted for.
Conservatives Ignore Race to Their Detriment
Conservatives deserve some of the blame for
this outcome. Because we rarely address racial issues, we allow the extreme
left to monopolize the debate. Note Marcus’s argument: racial discourse in
America has suffered because of liberal theories promoted by liberals.
Conservatives played no meaningful role as these changes occurred.
This framing is sad but true. But it’s
important to note that conservatives have become bystanders in racial dialogues
because we have consciously chosen that path. We don’t have to make the same
mistake going forward.
As a minority and a conservative, I partly
understand our stance. We like to think of ourselves as a coalition built on
principles: small government, religious freedom, the right to bear arms, the
rule of law, and so on. We like to think that these principles apply to
everyone, that America’s history of racism corrupted these universal ideals,
and that the best way to correct for our history is to downplay the importance
of race.
We are especially reluctant to engage on
race because doing so tends to lead to identity politics, the antithesis of an
ideas-based movement. Jonah Goldberg articulated the conservative position in a
recent interview: “I’m against identity politics full stop, which means I’m
against white identity politics at least as much as I’m against minority
identity politics.”
We Can’t Avoid Racial Identity Politics In America
While this sentiment might make sense in
the abstract, in practice it is delusional. You simply cannot avoid racial
identity politics in America. It is too ingrained in our history and will occur
whether we like it or not. Conservatives should assume that everything in
American politics will become racialized.
Conservative rhetoric and policies that
ignore this tendency are as inert as liberal rhetoric and policies that ignore
supply and demand. Conservatives who get upset when our allegedly universal
beliefs become racialized are like liberals who get upset when rent controls
fail. I would say to both groups: Why would you expect anything else?
Perhaps it would be nice if we could make
arguments without addressing race. But that’s not the country we live in. By
refusing to engage proactively, we make identity politics worse than it
otherwise would have been, and many minorities tragically end up believing
conservative ideas aren’t for them.
My Childhood Shaped My Understanding Of Guns
Here’s a personal story to illustrate
this point. I was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and lived there until I was 12.
Outside of tourist areas, and especially in Kingston, Jamaica is a high-crime
country. My family was robbed at gunpoint twice. The first time I was just over
three years old and I don’t remember what happened. But my parents do: my mom
was afraid of getting raped, and my dad will never forget the feeling of a gun
against his temple.
I vividly remember the second incident,
when I was around six years old. My parents were hosting a small party with
friends from the Jamaican-Indian community. As I played inside with the kids,
my mom and her friend burst into the room, started removing and then hiding
their jewelry: an armed man had entered our house and demanded money. I can
still picture the look of terror on their faces. My mom told us to get under
the bed, and we squeezed together in the back corner. That night, my brother,
my parents and I slept in one bed because we were too scared to be alone.
Less than one month later, my father bought
a gun. One of his good friends at the time, a black Jamaican police officer,
pushed him to get one, recommended the Colt 38 Police Special, and helped him
with the paperwork. My father had a gun of some form for the next 23 years,
almost until the day he left Jamaica in August 2010. In fact, he technically
still owns one and will probably reclaim it if he ever returns.
We Can’t Ignore America’s Messy Racial History
So when I think of gun ownership, I think
of my family. I think of other Jamaican-Indians who owned guns. I think of the
time I accompanied my dad as he practiced shooting his. I get why so many
Americans treasure their Second Amendment rights. As far as I’m concerned, the
desire to protect yourself and your family, and to procure a weapon to do so,
is universal. I suspect that people in all cultures can relate to this idea. To
this Jamindican (Jamaican-Indian-American) at least, there is nothing
intrinsically racial about wanting to own a gun.
But some South Asian-Americans I know
believe otherwise. They think guns are just white people. I beg, beseech, and
plead with my fellow conservatives to recognize that their attitude isn’t crazy
or unreasonable. Rather, it’s a symptom of America’s toxic racial history. In
America, unlike many other countries, beliefs that should not be cast in racial
terms will be. Conservative ideas are not as widely adopted as they should be
because we ignore this fact.
Heck, even I can see where my friends are
coming from. In my mind, I picture NRA rallies and their leaders. And despite
what I intellectually believe, I viscerally feel I wouldn’t be welcome. And if
a minority like me—who supports the 2nd Amendment and whose father owned a
gun—is wary, you’ll have no chance convincing some of my friends. You can say
that I’m being irrational and unfair. But you can also say that gun rights
groups should anticipate this reaction and spend more effort on minority
outreach.
We Should Diversify the Conservative Movement
Which brings us to one way conservatives
can make progress on race: conservative institutions can take the lead in
diversifying the conservative movement. While the left undoubtedly race baits,
conservative institutions have made it easier by abandoning the topic
altogether. America’s liberals do not control the diversity budget for the NRA,
National Review, AEI, the Acton Institute and The Federalist. If we
claim to value civic institutions and lament their decline, we must embrace them as
both a cause of and solution to conservatives’ problems with minorities.
Our national
inclination to split along racial lines will continue unless we fight it.
I know conservatives get uncomfortable
around questions of minority outreach and diversity. But that’s the problem.
Our national inclination to split along racial lines will continue unless we
fight it.
When it comes to racial diversity,
conservative institutions should embrace the same mindset and attitude we have
towards the media and ideological diversity. Conservatives often make three
points: first, that the uniform liberalness of the mainstream media undermines
its credibility, even if it is unintentional and not driven by conscious
malice. Second, the media themselves must work to correct the imbalance—it’s
their job. And third, as so much in life, the first step is admitting they have
a problem. Few things frustrate us more than the media’s pretending otherwise.
These arguments apply to conservative
institutions and race: their uniform whiteness weakens them and undermines
their credibility. It’s their job to address it. And they must first admit that
their lack of racial diversity is a problem.
We Need to Include More Minority Voices
After we agree on these points, then we can
discuss the best ways to achieve our goal. The specific approach will
necessarily vary from case to case. Some institutions may want to hold events
in minority venues. Others might decide to select minority spokespersons. But
these tactical decisions are less important than accepting they have a problem.
Conservative
institutions have no choice but to consciously and deliberately engage with
minorities.
Imagine conservative institutions had
adopted this mindset years ago. Perhaps then the face of anti-illegal
immigration would have included the 52 percent of Hispanics, the 57
percent of Asian-Americans, and the 50 percent of African-Americans who support
enforcement rather legalization. Consider how these debates would have played
out if everyone knew that 35% of Hispanics want to decrease immigration,
and that both working-class blacks and whites oppose illegal immigration.
What if white evangelicals had worked
harder to racially diversify, and could count among their supporters the 52% of African-Americans who are worried about
religious liberty? In this world, liberals would have found it much harder to
carelessly analogize Jim Crow to religious freedom laws. And American evangelism
probably would not seem so white. You could argue that such
efforts are what God wants Christians to do.
This Doesn’t Just Hurt Republicans—It Hurts
Minorities
Last April, T.P. Carney described Republicans’ continued
inability to win African-Americans voters. As happens so often in such
analyses, Carney described it as a Republican problem: it’s so sad that
Republicans can’t win the votes of people who already agree with them.
Yes, it is sad for Republicans. But it’s
even more sad for the African-Americans who are neglected by both parties. It’s
sad for pro-life Hispanics. It’s sad for my mom, whose social conservatism and
disdain for illegal immigration will also be neglected. It’s sad for me. It’s
sad for our country.
American conservatism will not become more
racially diverse just with heroic exhortations about our principles. In a
country fraught with racial strife, conservative institutions have no choice
but to consciously and deliberately engage with minorities. This approach would
show that we accept responsibility for our predicament, that we recognize we
can’t simply blame others for it, and that we believe we have the power to change
it. If nothing else, it would be the conservative way to respond.
Prajwal
Kulkarni works at software company and lives in Denver, Colorado. He blogs
and tweets
about science and religion.
