I've spent a lot of time in Black churches, and the one consistent thing is me being surprised. I start to think I understand how the people around me think, then something comes out of someone's mouth that totally undermines my assumptions.
In most political reporting, the Black church comes across as a monolith. While voting habits may have been consistent for a while, based on my experience at least opinions on all kinds of issues are far more all-over-the-map than I encounter in most white churches.
For instance, I know members of the same Black church who are openly opposed to all vaccines and others who are first in line for them and vocally exhort their fellow congregants to do the same. Somehow they stay together in the same building and continue to enjoy each-others' company.
It's fascinating. I have no idea what happens next.
I don’t know if I would classify Black Christians as conservative, but rather, ‘traditional’ is a better understanding. This explains the gap between religious values and voting history. It’s a fact that African Americans hold a traditional view of social issues yet continue to vote Democratic. The farther the Democrat Party get away from these traditional values they can expect continued political hemorrhaging from this traditional and long standing support.
Thanks for posting this, Ryan. As a very liberal Christian and voter I am just coming to terms with the discord between how I view politics and how black people do. My recent book readings of The Religion of Whiteness and Faith Unleavened didn’t really address the nuances your charts display.
And I’m reading a young black immigrant’s work in Medium Digest where he has been reporting that politically black MEN, in particular, are beginning to adopt a different view than amalgamizing into American society. One black leader is saying the most successful minority group is Asians who have a higher average median income per household than even whites. They did this by segregating themselves into China towns and supporting one another. He said it doesn’t make any difference whether Democrats or Republicans are in office they are all old white men and will never work to help black society, they will work to keep themselves in power.
Never trust a White Jesus nor a Democrat nor a Republican may be the new mantra of black society.
It's a shame he got things so wrong when it comes to Asians. Their success is due primarily to high academic expectations for their children, their chosen professions, and family structures. It's mostly first-generation immigrants, from Asia and elsewhere, who reside in their ethnic enclaves because of cultural and language barriers; they support each other because their cultural uniqueness necessitates it. However the second and third generation do the American thing and move out to suburbia where they reside in affluent neighborhoods with Whites and become much more like typical Americans across the board. In other words, you don't look to Asians as a model if you don't want to amalgamize into American society.
Black folks who suggest voluntary racial segregation as a path forward based on the behavior of immigrants seemingly forget that Black folks are quintessentially American who eat American food, enjoy American culture, and speak English. As such we are a subcomponent of the dominant culture and have no practical need to behave as first-generation immigrants.
The information I provided in the post to which you responded came from this gentleman, Luc Olinga, who always writes on black culture. Here is his publication from this morning.
I subscribe to Medium and am familiar with this guy. Although many of his takes sound concocted, I've more or less heard the same thing argued by Black men in other spaces. A lot tends to be missing from their analysis unfortunately.
As a white man I can't present a personal opinion. I'm an ally, but not an ally by way of cultural experience. But I follow black church preaching regularly.
I think you have an error in one sentence in this post: "The Democrat party has moved significantly to the right on social issues"--no, they have moved very far to the left!
I can recall that years ago, Black Americans were described as fiscally liberal, but socially conservative. That may still be mostly true.
It may also be important to remember some history: when they were allowed to vote, Black Americans were solidly Republican from the end of the Civil War until the mid-20th century. They began to move to the Democrats during the New Deal era, and moved much farther after the passage of the Civil Rights Act during LBJ's presidency--which is ironic, since that Act only passed because Republicans in Congress supported it. Johnson couldn't get enough southern Democrats to vote for it. So Black Americans have shifted politically before, and they might do so again. Such shifts do happen, with all people. I am 75 years old and a lifelong student of history. When I was growing up in the 1950s and '60s, the Democrats were the party of the working man. My father was in the UAW. Now, the Democrats still have the union bosses, but most of the rank-and-file of the industrial unions have turned to Trump. In the last election, the Teamsters didn't endorse anyone; the brass still favored the Democrats, but the majority of the membership supported Trump.
And it became increasingly clear from 1964, starting at the RNC that year which featured one of the very few Republicans in Congress that voted against the Act officially becoming the party's presidential nominee, that pro-Civil Rights Republicans were not at all representative of the future of the GOP.
I think you need to do a bit more research. I presume you are referring to Barry Goldwater. Here's what Wikipedia (which is generally not considered a conservative source) has about Goldwater's record on civil rights as a Senator:
"In his first year in the Senate, Goldwater was responsible for the desegregation of the Senate cafeteria after he insisted that his Black legislative assistant, Katherine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee."
"Goldwater voted in favor of both the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but did not vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1960 because he was absent from the chamber while Senate Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel (R–CA) announced that Goldwater would have voted in favor if present.[45][46][47][48] While he did vote in favor of it while in committee, Goldwater reluctantly voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it came to the floor.[49] Later, Goldwater would state that he was mostly in support of the bill, but he disagreed with Titles II and VII, which both dealt with employment, making him imply that the law would end in the government dictating hiring and firing policy for millions of Americans. Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill, with Goldwater being joined by only five other Republican senators in voting against it."
It is also worth noting that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was delayed in passing in the Senate because southern Democrat Senators filibustered it for 60 days!
More research for what reason? You didn't refute anything I stated.
This is what MLK had to say about the issue:
"On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.
The celebration of final enactment of the civil rights bill curdled and soured. Rejoicing was replaced by a deep and frightening concern that the counter-forces to Negro liberation could flagrantly nominate for the highest office in the land one who openly clasped the racist hand of Strom Thurmond."
As Phil says below, I think you mean "The Democrat party has moved significantly to the left."
I made the change about 2 hours ago and the web version reflects that, but for some reason the app doesn't.
I've spent a lot of time in Black churches, and the one consistent thing is me being surprised. I start to think I understand how the people around me think, then something comes out of someone's mouth that totally undermines my assumptions.
In most political reporting, the Black church comes across as a monolith. While voting habits may have been consistent for a while, based on my experience at least opinions on all kinds of issues are far more all-over-the-map than I encounter in most white churches.
For instance, I know members of the same Black church who are openly opposed to all vaccines and others who are first in line for them and vocally exhort their fellow congregants to do the same. Somehow they stay together in the same building and continue to enjoy each-others' company.
It's fascinating. I have no idea what happens next.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VaXlMvAvk
I don’t know if I would classify Black Christians as conservative, but rather, ‘traditional’ is a better understanding. This explains the gap between religious values and voting history. It’s a fact that African Americans hold a traditional view of social issues yet continue to vote Democratic. The farther the Democrat Party get away from these traditional values they can expect continued political hemorrhaging from this traditional and long standing support.
Thanks for posting this, Ryan. As a very liberal Christian and voter I am just coming to terms with the discord between how I view politics and how black people do. My recent book readings of The Religion of Whiteness and Faith Unleavened didn’t really address the nuances your charts display.
And I’m reading a young black immigrant’s work in Medium Digest where he has been reporting that politically black MEN, in particular, are beginning to adopt a different view than amalgamizing into American society. One black leader is saying the most successful minority group is Asians who have a higher average median income per household than even whites. They did this by segregating themselves into China towns and supporting one another. He said it doesn’t make any difference whether Democrats or Republicans are in office they are all old white men and will never work to help black society, they will work to keep themselves in power.
Never trust a White Jesus nor a Democrat nor a Republican may be the new mantra of black society.
It's a shame he got things so wrong when it comes to Asians. Their success is due primarily to high academic expectations for their children, their chosen professions, and family structures. It's mostly first-generation immigrants, from Asia and elsewhere, who reside in their ethnic enclaves because of cultural and language barriers; they support each other because their cultural uniqueness necessitates it. However the second and third generation do the American thing and move out to suburbia where they reside in affluent neighborhoods with Whites and become much more like typical Americans across the board. In other words, you don't look to Asians as a model if you don't want to amalgamize into American society.
Black folks who suggest voluntary racial segregation as a path forward based on the behavior of immigrants seemingly forget that Black folks are quintessentially American who eat American food, enjoy American culture, and speak English. As such we are a subcomponent of the dominant culture and have no practical need to behave as first-generation immigrants.
The information I provided in the post to which you responded came from this gentleman, Luc Olinga, who always writes on black culture. Here is his publication from this morning.
https://medium.com/@lucolinga72/the-3ss-some-black-men-use-against-racism-c066c76bf4f1
I subscribe to Medium and am familiar with this guy. Although many of his takes sound concocted, I've more or less heard the same thing argued by Black men in other spaces. A lot tends to be missing from their analysis unfortunately.
As a white man I can't present a personal opinion. I'm an ally, but not an ally by way of cultural experience. But I follow black church preaching regularly.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/720465480490805
I think you have an error in one sentence in this post: "The Democrat party has moved significantly to the right on social issues"--no, they have moved very far to the left!
I can recall that years ago, Black Americans were described as fiscally liberal, but socially conservative. That may still be mostly true.
It may also be important to remember some history: when they were allowed to vote, Black Americans were solidly Republican from the end of the Civil War until the mid-20th century. They began to move to the Democrats during the New Deal era, and moved much farther after the passage of the Civil Rights Act during LBJ's presidency--which is ironic, since that Act only passed because Republicans in Congress supported it. Johnson couldn't get enough southern Democrats to vote for it. So Black Americans have shifted politically before, and they might do so again. Such shifts do happen, with all people. I am 75 years old and a lifelong student of history. When I was growing up in the 1950s and '60s, the Democrats were the party of the working man. My father was in the UAW. Now, the Democrats still have the union bosses, but most of the rank-and-file of the industrial unions have turned to Trump. In the last election, the Teamsters didn't endorse anyone; the brass still favored the Democrats, but the majority of the membership supported Trump.
Thanks for catching that error, Phil. I made the change.
And it became increasingly clear from 1964, starting at the RNC that year which featured one of the very few Republicans in Congress that voted against the Act officially becoming the party's presidential nominee, that pro-Civil Rights Republicans were not at all representative of the future of the GOP.
I think you need to do a bit more research. I presume you are referring to Barry Goldwater. Here's what Wikipedia (which is generally not considered a conservative source) has about Goldwater's record on civil rights as a Senator:
"In his first year in the Senate, Goldwater was responsible for the desegregation of the Senate cafeteria after he insisted that his Black legislative assistant, Katherine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee."
"Goldwater voted in favor of both the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but did not vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1960 because he was absent from the chamber while Senate Minority Whip Thomas Kuchel (R–CA) announced that Goldwater would have voted in favor if present.[45][46][47][48] While he did vote in favor of it while in committee, Goldwater reluctantly voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it came to the floor.[49] Later, Goldwater would state that he was mostly in support of the bill, but he disagreed with Titles II and VII, which both dealt with employment, making him imply that the law would end in the government dictating hiring and firing policy for millions of Americans. Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill, with Goldwater being joined by only five other Republican senators in voting against it."
It is also worth noting that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was delayed in passing in the Senate because southern Democrat Senators filibustered it for 60 days!
More research for what reason? You didn't refute anything I stated.
This is what MLK had to say about the issue:
"On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
While I had followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I felt that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being President of the United States so threatened the health, morality, and survival of our nation, that I could not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represented.
The celebration of final enactment of the civil rights bill curdled and soured. Rejoicing was replaced by a deep and frightening concern that the counter-forces to Negro liberation could flagrantly nominate for the highest office in the land one who openly clasped the racist hand of Strom Thurmond."
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/publications/autobiography-martin-luther-king-jr/chapter-23-mississippi-challenge
https://www.c-span.org/clip/public-affairs-event/user-clip-joe-biden-eulogizing-strom-thurmond/4859466
https://www.wistv.com/story/1339945/thurmonds-long-reign-a-tribute-to-the-power-of-forgiveness/
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0702/Obama-eulogizes-Sen.-Robert-Byrd-under-West-Virginia-skies
Politicians have a tendency to stick together.
Anyway,, this particular discussion has little to do with Ryan's post, or the general purpose of his Substack. I suggest we drop it.
I agree with Phil.