Talk:Black conservatism in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlup.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Uncle Ruckus

Why was Uncle Ruckus removed from fictional Blalck conservatives?

I removed him once again because he in no way reflects real blacks of any kind (much less conservatives) and is nothing more than a racist stereotype (to say the least) of black conservatives.75.81.204.244 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He's a bit of a straw conservative, a satire, and not a realstic character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And Dr. Hibbert is on the list for what reason? I don't recall him ever making any statements about his political beliefs. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple episodes of the Simpsons have indicated that Dr. Hibbert is a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.75 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Seperate article

This page was split off from the main Black conservatism article in November 2008.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a link to the original article? Or should it be left as is Seanwarner86 (talk) Good Night and Good Luck 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tavis Smiley? Seriously?

The citation provided [1] that supposedly justifies his inclusion on a list of black conservatives simply states that he was a moderator at a Republican presidential debate; the article actually states his criticism of GOP candidates that wouldn't show up. He also moderated a Democratic presidential debate [2] and authored a book called Hard Left: Straight Talk about the Wrongs of the Right. Can anyone provide proof that he's actually a conservative? Eco84 | Talk 08:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I already removed it.

Seanwarner86 (talk) Good Night and Good Luck 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Names

Should there be a disclaimer telling people not to add names without giving sources? This has been a significant problem with the article and it would not only add to the accuracy but also make it easier to determine what information should be removed. Plus I personally feel it would release some burden off those who write for this page Seanwarner86 (talk)Good Night and Good Luck 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New title

The new title does not fit since most blacks were members of the Republican Party during the late 19th century. Anyways, Republicanism in the United States does not refer to Republican Party membership, and is therefore not a descriptive title. I am in favor of the former title Black conservatism in the United States.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that sounds reasonable. They're really more "conservatives" than they are "Republicans".Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I third that. Republicanism was in no way necessarily synonymous with conservativism until the past few decades, and this article is about blacks conservatives. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Why? Because it's POV. Former U.S. Senator Edward Brooke was considered a moderate by some and a liberal by others. I think it should just be Republicanism.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edward Brooke

Brooke was a supporter of Nelson Rockefeller's bid over Richard Nixon for the 1968 Presidential nomination. His work in the Senate favored liberal issues. He was a Pro-Choice Republican. It is wrong that he be included in this article. He was not a conservative, just a Republican. Skopelos-Slim (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tim Scott and Allen West -- will they be added in January?

This page needs updating. Tim Scott in South Carolina, and Allen West in Florida, were elected last night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.51.6 (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some Perspective

This part of the article I think is poorly written and needs to be rewritten:

Blacks started to shift in significant numbers to the Democrats with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt,[7] whose New Deal particularly benefited economically disadvantaged minority communities (not true - actually some New Deal programs discriminated against blacks and other minorities) and helped forge the New Deal coalition which dominated American politics for the next 30 years, and continued with the election of John F. Kennedy.

Is it true or not true? If it isn't then the sentence should be discarded and reworded.BigMac 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

19th Century Radical Republicans and Conservatism

This article lists many 19th Century Radical Republicans, who were considered by their contemporaries to be dangerously leftwing Jacobins, as Black Conservatives. I think there is great confusion in using Republican and Conservative interchangeably, since Radical Republicans were by 19th century on the far left of their spectrum. Even as late as the 1950s, Russel Kirk in his classic history of Conservatism, considered Abolitionists and Radical Republicans to be Jacobins and not conservatives. Reading through the Talk Archive, it seems that the original article name Black Republicans, created problems, but I think Black Conservatism does as well. --Gary123 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Cite Note 2

The article linked to citation 2, in which this article claims the Economist called Sowell's exclusion from Ebony's list "spiteful", is talking about Clarence Thomas, not Thomas Sowell. May I recommend it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:2C00:70E3:940D:598B:8FB0 (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous Article

The article assumes that the default position of blacks in the United States is unquestioningly Democratic, or left leaning. It cites supposed "Republican" blacks with the flimsiest of evidence; some rapper went to a WH dinner in the 1980s etc. It fails to make the distinction (in reality the polarization) between historical Republicanism and modern Conservatism, citing radical Republican blacks from the 19th century as if they were trailblazers for modern-day Conservatives, when even the slightest understanding of the issues and historical evidence shows how ludicrously false this assertion to be. Truly one of the worst, and most deceptive Wikipedia articles today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.57.221 (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Black Republicans in the USA

This article was originally entitled Black Republicanism in the United States, thus it made sense to include the history of Black Radical Republican Reconstructionists from the 1800s. However in 2010, User:William S. Saturn changed the name to Black Conservatism, despite failing to reach a consensus on the talk page. Black Radical Republicans were not considered conservative in their time, nor are they recognized to be conservative today. So either this article should be rewritten to only discuss conservatives or we should return it to its' original name. I think this is the only legitimate way the history of Radical Reconstruction can be incorporated into this article, unless someone can produce NPOV Academic sources arguing for the conservative nature of Radical Reconstruction. If necessary perhaps we could fork two articles one on Black Conservatism and the other specifically on the history of Black involvement in and support for the US Republican Party. --Gary123 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Black conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928060002/http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153 to http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=153#2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080411030528/http://people-press.org:80/reports/display.php3?PageID=750 to http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517083240/http://people-press.org:80/reports/display.php3?PageID=757 to http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=757

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Music1201 (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Black conservatism in the United States → African-American conservatism – More appropriate name in line with African-American liberalism Leutha (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Last time I checked a lot of black conservative don't like the term "African-American" which is primarily associated with liberal ideology. Google tends [3] seems to indicate that "Black Conservatism" is the common name rather than african-american. Google Books gets 6000 hits for "black conservatism", but only 850 hits for "african-american conservatism". Google scholar [4] [5] is similarly stacked 750 to 47. The WP:COMMONNAME is clear here.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Leutha: In fact, the google trends [6], Google Books [7] [8], and Google scholar [9] [10] all conclusively indicate that African-American liberalism should actually be moved to Black liberalism, therefore a move justified by WP:CONSISTENCY (as suggested by the OP) seems not only wholly inappropriate, but in fact misguided, as the consistency argument should go the other way.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and agree with moving African-American liberalism instead. Vastly more hits on Google for "black conservatism" (22k for '"black conservatism" America') than "African-American conservatism" (~90 hits). —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I moved it already. I can't really see anyone disagreeing based on the magnitude of the evidence.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720024316/http://www.wvon.com/personalities/ to http://www.wvon.com/personalities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

In the "Timeline" section, it claims to state events that shaped black conservatism in the U.S. It also cites black elected officials that were elected as Republicans during Reconstruction, the association between "republican" and "conservative" being the only reason they are listed here. I suggest whoever created that article read up on the history of the Republican Party, and that most black Republicans elected during the 19th century were most definitely not conservative. MB298 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with this point. I removed Charles Henry Langston from the list for this very reason - on his own page it discusses his inclusion within the Republican Party but makes no mention of any elements that would fit him within "American Conservatism". Would be helpful I think to disaggregate Conservatism and Republicanism for the purposes of this page because if Langston is included, then individuals like Douglass would also incorrectly be included. Peacekeepurwar (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Michigan Section

I added Bill Lucas, conservative Democratic Sheriff of Wayne County who switched to the Republican Party to run for Governor in 1986. I have removed David Clarke as, last time I checked Milwaukee is part of Wisconsin, not Michigan and I'll let someone else build a Wisconsin section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.225.180 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828042127/http://www.voteboulware.com/ to http://www.voteboulware.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901105635/http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/General_Russell_Honore_To_Run_Vs_David_Vitter_In_Louisiana_US_Race__9439.asp to http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Louisiana/Politics/General_Russell_Honore_To_Run_Vs_David_Vitter_In_Louisiana_US_Race__9439.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622012547/http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Karl_Malone.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Karl_Malone.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312170453/http://www.flgov.com/meet-the-lt-governor/ to http://www.flgov.com/meet-the-lt-governor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090729093106/http://www.ng.mil/ngbgomo/library/bio/1711.htm to http://www.ng.mil/ngbGomo/library/bio/1711.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130705175629/http://theconnection.wbur.org/2004/06/02/the-new-black-republicans to http://theconnection.wbur.org/2004/06/02/the-new-black-republicans

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

James Weldon Johnson

It appears that James Weldon Johnson was a supporter of Booker T. Washington throughout his life, but there are elements of Johnson that make him more liberal than Conservative, such as serving within the Roosevelt administration who arguably had at least as many liberal elements as conservative elements. For factual accuracy perhaps it would be wise to refrain from listing individuals like Johnson who have such mixed history Peacekeepurwar (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Major issues

There are some major issues with this page. They include the following:

• The page mentions dozens of black Republicans, but contains no indication of whether those black Republicans are actually conservatives. This is a major, major concern. The article is entitled "Black conservatism in the United States". "Republican" and "conservative" are not interchangeable terms. Right now, a more accurate title for this page would be: "A few paragraphs of text about black conservatism, combined with long lists of black Republicans who may or may not be conservatives";

• The "Timeline of events" section is completely unsourced;

• The "Timeline of events" section is highly misleading. It claims to be "timeline of significant events in African American history which have shaped the conservative movement in the United States". In actuality, it is a simply a timeline of Republican presidential administrations' appointments of black Americans to leadership roles. It should either (a) be re-titled and re-described; (b) be deleted; or (c) be worked on a great deal so that it actually becomes what it is supposed to be;

• The "Timeline of events" section and the "Politicians" section are excessively detailed;

• The "Politicians" section and the "Other people" section are almost entirely unsourced;

• The "history" section could use expansion from someone with expert-level knowledge of black conservatism; and

• More sources are needed throughout the text.

Lots of work to be done here. I am willing to do some of it, but not all. If other editors do not display interest in improving the page, some of the material (particularly the unsourced material) is going to have to go.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Some other problems (though I don't have sources to hand to tackle them):

• There's a mention that nearly 30% of blacks identify as conservative or lean conservative. There's nothing about whether any studies have drilled into this - for example are there blacks whose position on the core issues would mean they would invariably be classified as conservative but they don't self-identify with this?
• Equally there's very little about why there's such a mismatch between the 30% conservative lean and the much lower Republican vote. Where do other blacks go? Is there a strong black Democrat conservative trend? Are there noticeable third parties taking their votes? Are they more likely to not vote at all?
• The Timeline has next to no significant events on it beyond a list of office holders. There's nothing about black conservative movements or the intellectual debates or big events from the Civil Rights to Black Lives Matter and what effect they've had on the development of black conservatism.

Timrollpickering (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

New section on individual perspectives?

I've been reading some interesting literature on some prolific black conservatives, including this profile of Clarence Thomas in the New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/clarence-thomass-radical-vision-of-race), and this book by Shelby Steele (White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era). It would be nice for a change instead of lists of people, polls, and timelines in this article, we get an actual fleshing out, or at least an attempt at fleshing out the basis and reasoning behind conservatism in the black community, particularly on race relations. It may just be of my interest, but I believe it's worth including because it's such a small and scattered topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1jake312 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Are the Hodgetwins worth adding?

They are a prominent African-American Conservative channel on youtube. They could be a simple addition although I would admit their lack of news exposure likely means they are not able to have a full page of their own.Bgrus22 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I created their page Hodgetwins.--Ethan Wood Snr (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer as to whether they should be added is "Yeaaaaaaaaah" (couldn't resist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5205:A800:C8A2:ED3E:E92D:F319 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the Nation of Islam, Malcom X, Marcus Garvey,

By and large, there is a huge misunderstanding in this article.

Most Black Americans are comparatively conservative when you compare their policy views with liberal white Americans and conservative white Americans.

The reason why black conservatives vote for the democratic party is because of the underlying coalition the republican party is made of.

You also have two types of Black Republicans

Race-CONSCIOUS Black Republicans, generally speaking, want to change the party to make it less hostile to Black people (read: racist) to win over the many, many Black conservatives who currently vote for Democrats.

and

Race-BLIND Black Republicans, though, as the label suggests, are invested in a kind of colorblind politics and are much more white-facing. They get institutional support from the party, bigger platforms, and they say the things about Black people that white Republicans want to say.

they both arrive to the same policy decisions but for very different reasons.

You have to realize that black conservatism is an ideology, for instance, Candace Owens is a token member of "white" conservatism or race-blind conservatism. Her base of power is almost exclusively white people. Whereas most would agree that the Nation of Islam is a conservative group with a black agenda.

The most significant factor for whether a black person will vote republican or democrat, is how central "blackness" is central to their identity. the less it is the more likely they will affiliate with the GOP.

a great podcast that explains this: https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=761532953:761773661

Deleting unnecessary blog section

Given the lack of citations, links, or indication of notability, is the blog section of this article really necessary? Given WP:DOAL, this list doesn't seem notable and just clutters the page. Please feel free to roll back and add citations if anyone thinks I'm being unfair. -LatakiaHill (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I support that edit LatakiaHill. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Questionable edits

Hello @Kitchee476,

Could you please explain your edits? They seem to be in good faith but quite a few seem to be random. I noticed certain {citations needed} tags being removed without citations being added. A name or two removed as well, if I'm not mistaken. Please provide a brief edit summary before publishing your changes. Mooonswimmer 18:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

The names I removed have either been already included earlier in the article or have no articles attached to them. I removed the citation needed tags as all of their articles state that they are Republicans. Hope that is ok. Kitchee476 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Happy editing! Mooonswimmer 19:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Republican =/= conservative, at least not for earlier historical periods. They need to be verifiably black and verifiably conservative for inclusion in this article. I am re-adding the cn tags. If there are citations you can add to make the tags unnecessary, please add them. Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Now Kitchee476 you have reverted all my edits with no explained edit summary. Was this an error? Please self-revert so I don't have to do this again, and then maybe discuss this here so we can get consensus. Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Another plea to Kitchee476 to let the community reach a consensus here instead of reverting. Edits such as these "Republicans in the 90's are Conservatives" are not adequate. If we literally have no source saying he's conservative and nothing in his article indicating it, it's WP:SYNTH to include these people here. Considering that the conservative movement still considers many elected GOP officials "Republican in Name Only" in 2022, it's a stretch including any GOP member now conservative, but in the 1990s there were still many liberal Republicans. Verifiability is a key plank of Wikipedia, and these edits fail that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Also 1983 is not in the 1990s. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)