In 1911, President Woodrow Wilson wisely observed:
A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.1
This is still true today, especially concerning African-American history. Since February is celebrated nationally as Black History Month, and since four specific historical inaccuracies related to blacks and politics were prominent throughout Election 2000, this newsletter will review the history of African-American involvement in the political process.
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, & BLACKS
One of the more surprising statistics of Presidential Election 2000 was the cohesiveness of the African-American vote: blacks supported Democrats with a percentage higher than any other voting block. For example, among traditional Democratic constituencies, union members voted for Democrats by a margin of 62 to 34 percent, and homosexuals by a margin of 70 to 25 percent, but African-Americans voted for Democrats by a margin of 90 to 9 percent.2 Judging by such results, one could easily assume that blacks have a long tradition of support for Democrats. Such, however, is not the case.
Historically speaking, political rights were largely unknown for blacks in America until after the Civil War. Slavery had been introduced into America by the Dutch in 1619 and subsequently enforced upon the Colonies by British authorities prior to the American Revolution. The American Revolution marked the first change in the political rights of African-Americans, and many black patriots fought for and achieved their freedom while fighting for the Colonies during the American Revolution.
Although the attitude toward the century-and-a-half institution of slavery began to change during the Revolution (with over half the States abolishing slavery), emancipation still was not available to most blacks in Southern States, even though Free Blacks (as opposed to Slave Blacks) in Southern States did begin to taste some political freedoms not available to them before the Revolution. For example, in Southern States, many Free Blacks gained the right to vote, saw educational opportunities opened to them, and were largely treated the same as whites under the criminal codes3 – franchises not available to Slave Blacks.
The opposition to slavery that first emerged during the American Revolution continued to grow following the Revolution. The pulpit grew louder in its denunciation of slavery, led especially by Quakers, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Unitarians, and Methodists, as well as by prominent political leaders like John Quincy Adams and Daniel Webster. In fact, many Founding Fathers who advocated the abolition of slavery in the 1770s and 1780s were still pursuing that goal half-a-century later.
One such Founder was Rufus King, a signer of the Constitution from Massachusetts. In 1785, King persuaded the Continental Congress to prohibit slavery in all American-held territories, and in 1789, as a member of the first federal Congress, he obtained passage of a measure to prohibit slavery in federally-held territories. Due to these efforts, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa were all admitted as free rather than slave States.4
However, in 1819, the Missouri Compromise was introduced in Congress to alter those 1789 prohibitions. Under that plan, States would be admitted to the Union in pairs – six slave States with six free States. King, still a member of Congress, vigorously opposed the modification of his original plan and fought the admission of any federal territories as slave States.5 Other Founders still alive at that time expressed similar opposition to the Missouri plan.
For example, Elias Boudinot – a president of Congress during the Revolution and, in 1789 as a member of Congress, a supporter of the ban on slavery in federal territories and all new States – warned that if the Missouri Compromise passed, “there is an end to the happiness of the United States.”6 A frail John Adams worried that lifting the slavery prohibition would destroy America;7 and an elderly Jefferson, then living in political retirement, was appalled at the proposal, declaring:
I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands. . . . But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell [announcement of death] of the Union8. . . . In the gloomiest moment of the Revolutionary War, I never had any apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source.9
Notwithstanding this opposition, and because so many of the other Founders who opposed slavery had by then died (e.g., Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, William Livingston, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, James Wilson, etc.), the Missouri Compromise passed.
The issue of slavery became a bright line of demarcation in America, with the abolition movement being countered with equally staunch opposition from the supporters of slavery. Not surprisingly, political movements formed reflecting the opposing views, with measures like the Fugitive Slave Law (allowing slaves who escaped to free States to be brought back into slavery), the Lecompton Constitution (written by pro-slavery forces in Kansas), and the Dred Scott decision (declaring that blacks were property and that Congress could not restrict the spread of slavery) galvanizing the differences between the movements.
Following a vote in Congress to extend slavery into the Northwestern Territory in May, 1854, twenty House Members coalesced themselves into a group they titled “The Republican Party.”10 Its declared purpose was to support the original anti-slavery principles of the federal government. The first Republican Platform (1856) therefore declared:
Resolved. That with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing slavery.11
(Significantly, six of the nine planks in the original 1856 Republican Platform condemned slavery or focused on securing equal civil rights for all.)
Offering Col. John C. Fremont as its first candidate for President, the anti-slavery Republican Fremont lost to pro-slavery Democrat James Buchanan. Two years later, in 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it. Although Lincoln lost that senatorial election, two years later in 1860, he won the presidency against Douglas, and for the first time Republicans became the prominent party in Congress. Under Lincoln’s leadership, the Republican vision of equality moved forward with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, followed by subsequent civil rights bills passed by the Republicans in Congress.
The Republican Platform of 1864 on which Lincoln was re-elected continued its original opposition to slavery, even advocating a constitutional amendment to abolish that evil:
Resolved, that as slavery was the cause and now constitutes the strength of this rebellion, and as it must be always and everywhere hostile to the principles of republican government, justice and the national safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic, and that we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the government, in its own defense, has aimed a death-blow at this gigantic evil. We are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.12
That proposed amendment became reality when, as the Civil War was drawing to a close in 1865, the Republicans enacted the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. However, because Southern Democrats sought to evade the civil rights guarantees intended by the 13th Amendment, Republicans subsequently passed the 14th and 15th Amendments guaranteeing civil rights and securing voting rights for all former slaves.
African-Americans promptly joined themselves to the Republican Party that had secured their freedom, for not only had Republicans fought for the rights of blacks against Democrats but Republicans also offered blacks political opportunities never before available to them. In fact, so strong was the black affiliation with Republicans, that in many of the Southern States following the Civil War, the State Congresses were dominated not only by Republicans but by black Republicans. And numbers of black Republicans were elected to Congress. For example:
In 1869, Hiram Rhodes Revels (1827-1901) from Mississippi became the first black in Congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator, being elected as a Republican to fill the Senate seat previously held by Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Revels later served as the Secretary of State of Mississippi. He was an ordained minister, serving both as a pastor and as a chaplain during the Civil War.13
In 1869, Republican Joseph H. Rainey (1832-1887) from South Carolina became the first black member of the U.S. House of Representatives.14
In 1870, Jefferson Franklin Long (1836-1901) from Georgia was elected to Congress and was also a delegate to the Republican National Convention of 1880.15
In 1871, John Mercer Langston (1829-1897) of Virginia was appointed by Republican President U. S. Grant as a member of the Board of Health of D.C., and in 1876, he was appointed by Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes as U.S. Minister and Consul-General to Haiti. Langston also was a delegate to the Republican National Conventions of 1876 and 1890, and was elected to Congress in 1890.16
In 1873, Robert Smalls (1839-1915) of South Carolina was elected to Congress, having previously served as a Republican member of the South Carolina House and Senate.17
In 1871, Robert Brown Elliott (1842-1884) was elected to the U.S. House after having served as Speaker of the House in South Carolina. Shortly after his election, Elliot faced off in a debate over a civil rights bill against three pro-slavery Democrats: Alexander Hamilton Stephens of Georgia (the Vice-President of the Confederacy elected as a Democrat to Congress after the Civil War), James Beck of Kentucky (elected in 1867), and John Thomas Harris of Virginia (elected in 1871).18 Following an attack by those three Democrats against the civil rights bill, the Republican Elliot rose and responded:
Mr. Speaker . . . it is a matter of regret to me that it is necessary at this day that I should rise in the presence of an American Congress to advocate a bill which simply asserts rights and equal privileges for all classes of American citizens. I regret, sir, that the dark hue of my skin may lend a color to the imputation that I am controlled by motives personal to myself in my advocacy of this great measure of natural justice. Sir, the motive that impels me is restricted by no such narrow boundary but is as broad as the Constitution.19
Elliot then went on to recount how African-Americans had fought for America during the Revolution, during the War of 1812, and during the recent Civil War. He then concluded with this stiff rebuke against the Democrat Stephens:
He [Stephens] offers his government, which he has done his utmost to destroy, a very poor return for its magnanimous treatment, to come here to seek to continue, by the assertion of doctrines obnoxious to the true principles of our government, the burdens and oppressions which rest upon five millions of his countrymen [slaves] who never failed to lift their earnest prayers for the success of this government when the gentleman [Stephens] was asking to break up the Union of these States and to blot the American Republic from the galaxy of nations.20
The fact that, Elliot, a black, was such an accomplished and effective orator incensed the Democrats. As the American Methodist Episcopal Church Review reported:
Mr. Beck of Kentucky, and other Democratic members of the House who had felt the force of Mr. Elliott’s rhetoric to their discomfiture, could not deny the merit of his speeches, so they denied his authorship of them. . . . The charge of non-authorship was made by Democrats upon the general principle that the Negro, of himself, could accomplish nothing of literary excellence.21
The Review also described Elliot’s work among recently-freed slaves:
From county to county he traveled, teaching them the first lessons in self-government. They sat as children at his feet and learned from his lips the principles and deeds of the Republican party which had liberated them and their children from cruel bondage and which was now to give them that silent but potent motive power: the ballot – the safeguard and bulwark of American freedom. . . . Thus early he won for himself their confidence, and for the Republican party [their] love and devotion.22
There were many other notable black Republicans, including John Roy Lynch (1847-1939) of Mississippi. In 1873, Lynch was elected to Congress and was also a delegate to the Republican National Conventions of 1872, 1884, 1888, 1892, and 1900. In fact, Lynch presided over the 1884 National Republican Convention in Chicago. (Interestingly, African-American Sen. Edward Brooke presided over the National Republican Convention in 1968, as did African-American Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr. in 2000. While three African-Americans have presided over Republican National Conventions, only one African-American, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke in 1972, has made it as high as Vice-Chair – not even Co-Chair – of a Democratic National Convention.) In 1889, Republican President Benjamin Harrison appointed Lynch as Auditor of the Treasury for the Navy Department, and in 1901, Republican President William McKinley appointed him Army Paymaster.23
In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce (1841-1898) of Mississippi was elected to the U.S. Senate – the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1881, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.24
In 1875, Charles Edmund Nash (1844-1913) of Louisiana was elected to Congress – the first African-American to represent Louisiana in Congress.25
In 1889, Henry Plummer Cheatham (1857-1935) of North Carolina was elected to Congress and also was a delegate to the Republican National Conventions of 1892 and 1900.26
In 1890, Thomas Ezekiel Miller (1849-1938) of South Carolina was elected to Congress, having previously served in the State House and Senate.27
In 1893, George Washington Murray (1853-1926) of South Carolina was elected to Congress and also was a delegate to several Republican National Conventions.28
In 1966, Republican Edward William Brooke III (1919- ) of Massachusetts became the first black to be elected to the U.S. Senate after the 17th Amendment (providing for the direct election of Senators rather than their appointment by State legislatures), thus making him the first black ever elected to the Senate by popular vote.29
There are many more black Republican officeholders worthy of mention, one of whom is the Hon. Pinckney Benton Stuart Pinchback who, in 1872, served as Governor of Louisiana, becoming the first black Governor of any State.30 Additionally, the first black presidential electors were Republicans and included Robert Meacham, B.F. Randolph, Stephen Swails, and Alonzo Ransier. In fact, black Republican James H. Harris was part of the committee which in 1868 informed U.S. Grant of his nomination for President.31
There are many other examples of how blacks achieved numerous political firsts within the Republican Party; and so great were the gains of blacks in the Republican Party that in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was formed to battle both Republicans and blacks with the declared purpose of breaking down the Republican government and paving the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.32 As a result, blacks were terrorized by murders and public floggings (relief was granted only if blacks promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violations of this oath were punished by death), and Republican officials were attacked both at home and at the office. In fact, in 1866, Democrats, in conjunction with the mayor and the city police, attacked a Republican Convention of blacks and whites in New Orleans where they killed 40 and wounded 150.33
In historical retrospect, the story of the Republican Party is largely of their opposition to slavery and racism while that of the Democratic Party is largely of their support for it. Similarly, African Americans made their most significant political and civil rights progress while affiliated with the Republican Party.
In fact, in the history of Congress, 105 black Americans have been elected – 101 to the House and 4 to the Senate; and of the 4 blacks elected to the Senate, 3 have been Republicans (the lone Democrat was Carol Mosley-Braun, elected in 1992 and defeated in 1998). And even today in 2001, there are 39 black Members of Congress: one Republican and thirty-eight Democrats. The black Republican (one of 271 combined Republicans in the House and the Senate) was elected by his Republican peers to a position of Republican leadership in this Congress; but of the thirty-eight black Democrats (from among the 262 combined Democrats in the House and the Senate), none was elected by his Democratic peers to any leadership position.34
AL GORE, GEORGE BUSH, AND THE THREE-FIFTHS CLAUSE
Judicial appointments were an issue during Presidential Campaign 2000. Bush promised to appoint “strict constructionists” who would support the wording of the Constitution rather than rewrite it, while Gore promised to appoint judges who viewed the Constitution as a living, organic document, reflecting the philosophy set forth by Supreme Court Chief-Justice Charles Evans Hughes who declared, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”35
Gore, trying to capitalize on the differences in their philosophies, and exploiting America’s historical illiteracy, repeatedly warned black voters:
When my opponent, Governor Bush, says he’ll appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Count, I often think of the strictly constructed meaning that was applied when the Constitution was written – how some people (slaves) were considered three-fifths of a human being.36
According to Gore, Bush apparently would appoint racist Justices to the Supreme Court. This is based on Gore’s belief that the three-fifths clause of the Constitution was a pro-slavery provision – a provision declaring blacks to be only three-fifths of a person. Significantly, however, the three-fifths clause was not a pro-slavery clause, and it did not relate to human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery apportionment provision designed to limit pro-slavery Southern representation in Congress.
The Constitution allowed one Representative to Congress for each 30,000 inhabitants in a State. Since slaves accounted for more than half the population in some Southern States, slave-owners in the South therefore wanted to count slaves as if they were free inhabitants, thus potentially doubling the number of their pro-slavery representatives to Congress. The abolitionists from the North strenuously objected to counting the slaves, knowing that the fewer the pro-slavery representatives in Congress, the sooner slavery could be eradicated.
Interestingly, the anti-slavery Founding Fathers, in debating this representation question, actually used many of the South’s own arguments against them. One such example was that of William Paterson of New Jersey, a signer of the Constitution later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington. Adopting the Southern arguments that slaves were property, Paterson argued that since “Negro slaves. . . . are no free agents, have no personal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the contrary, are themselves property, and like other property, entirely at the will of the master,” then those slaves should not be used to calculate representation to Congress because, according to “the true principles of representation,” legislative assemblies were the result of citizens sending representatives as their “substitutes.”37 Since slaves could not attend a meeting of citizens or send a substitute in their stead, they therefore should not be used to allow slave-owners to gain more representatives to Congress.
Further exploiting the absurdity of the Southern reasoning, other anti-slavery Founders argued that if slaves were nothing more than property but still were to be counted for the purpose of congressional representation, then livestock in the North should also be included as the basis of calculating Northern representation. For example, according to the records of the Constitutional Convention:
Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [signer of the Declaration from Massachusetts] thought property not the rule of representation. Why then should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?38
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a signer both of the Declaration and the Constitution, agreed:
Are they [slaves] admitted as citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an equality with white citizens? Are they [slaves] admitted as property? Then why is not other property admitted into computation?39
The anti-slavery leaders fully wanted Free Blacks to be counted, but not slaves, since counting slaves would increase the influence of slave-owners. Furthermore, Benjamin Rush of Pennsylvania, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a co-founder with Benjamin Franklin of America’s first abolition society, argued that if only Free Blacks were counted, it would have the “excellent effect of inducing the colonies to discourage slavery and to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.”40
When the issue finally came to a vote at the Constitutional Convention, slave-owners proposed that slaves be counted as full persons for purposes of representation. The motion lost, with only the most strident slave-owning States supporting the measure.41 With it clear that slaves would not be used as the means of doubling Southern representation, Benjamin Harrison, a slave-owner in Virginia, proposed a compromise, suggesting that two slaves be counted as one freeman.42 The slave States, however, rejected this proposal, wanting all slaves fully counted.43 The final compromise was that only sixty percent – that is, three-fifths – of slaves would be counted to calculate the number of Southern representatives to Congress.44
Yet, even though this measure reduced the number of slave-holding representatives to Congress, it was still seen as unfair by many in the North. In fact, the Massachusetts legislature passed a resolution objecting to the three-fifths clause because, in slave-holding States, “a planter possessing fifty slaves may be considered as having thirty votes, while a farmer of Massachusetts, having equal or greater property, is confined to a single vote.”45 Clearly, the three-fifths clause was only a ratio used to calculate the amount of representation and had nothing to do with the worth of any individual.
Based, therefore, on the self-evident historical records, two prominent professors summarize the meaning of the three-fifths clause:
[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks – and there were many, North as well as South – counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? Thomas West, Professor of Politics 46
It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. Walter Williams, African-American Professor47
Many of today’s leaders, both black and white, tend to misrepresent the meaning of the three-fifths clause. Al Gore’s invoking the three-fifths clause against George Bush is proof of this fact, and even Jesse Jackson makes the same uninformed claim. In the Shadow Convention of Los Angeles in August, 2000, Jackson complained: “There was a lot of talk a few weeks ago [at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia] about the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. In that Constitution. . . . African-Americans were considered three-fifths of a human being.”48
Those who make this claim would profit from a study of Frederick Douglass, the great black leader and abolitionist. Douglass said that after his escape from slavery, he initially believed (like Gore and Jackson) that the Constitution was pro-slavery. As he explained:
Brought directly, when I escaped from slavery, into contact with a class of abolitionists regarding the Constitution as a slaveholding instrument . . . it is not strange that I assumed the Constitution to be just what their interpretation made it.49
However, when Douglass became a writer and a spokesman for the abolition movement, he found that accuracy and truth were important, and so, as he explained:
My new circumstances compelled me to re-think the whole subject, and to study, with some care. . . . By such a course of thought and reading, I was conducted to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States50 . . . not only contained no guarantees in favor of slavery, but, on the contrary, was in its letter and spirit an anti-slavery instrument.51
How could Douglass say this? Had he not read the three-fifths clause? Yes, he had; and based on his own study of the facts, Douglass learned to praise the three-fifths clause as an anti-slavery provision. Gore, Jackson, and others could learn an accurate view of history and the Constitution from the example of great black leaders like Frederick Douglass!
AL GORE, GEORGE BUSH, AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS AND VOTING RIGHTS ACTS OF THE 1960S
When blacks were interviewed following Election 2000, many explained that they had supported Gore for fear that if Bush were elected President, he would take away the right of blacks to vote – a charge circulated by Gore supporters. The basis for this charge is the fact that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 will be up for renewal under the next President, and – according to current folklore – Republicans are racists who oppose civil rights; why – as the argument goes – they even opposed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s and certainly would continue to oppose them today! Actually, historical facts prove just the opposite.
The first civil rights act was that of 1866, passed by Republicans in Congress, making it illegal to deprive a person of civil rights because of race, color, or previous servitude. Subsequent civil rights laws were passed by Republicans in 1870, 1871, and 1875 to allow the national government in Washington, D.C. to protect black Americans from white-dominated Democrat Southern State governments. However, it was nearly a century later before similar additional civil rights laws were passed.
Why the delay? As explained by Professor Robert D. Lovey, author of A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States of America, “the nationalization of black civil rights came to a complete end in 1892 when the Democrats gained control of the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since the Civil War. By 1894, this Democratic Congress had succeeded in repealing most of the civil rights laws that had been enacted during the post-Civil War period, most importantly the provisions that had to do with voting rights. This wholesale removal of protections left the black citizen in the South almost completely at the mercy of Southern State governments, and the result was a rash of State laws protecting the right of white citizens to segregate themselves from black citizens in many aspects of social and political life.”52
African-Americans, therefore, being the victims of Democratic-sponsored racism and segregation, continued their loyalty to Republicans well into the 20th century. In fact, in the 1932 presidential election, incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover received more than three-fourths of the black vote over his Democratic challenger Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Roosevelt, however, won the election; but because civil rights bills were widely opposed by Southern Democrats, and because Southern Democrats had been a key constituency in his victories, Roosevelt chose not to introduce civil rights bills. He did use executive orders to help further some civil rights, and he also established a Civil Rights Section in the Justice Department; he even directed much of the spending of the “New Deal” programs toward blacks. As a result, black voters slowly began to switch from the Republicans to the Democrats. As one civil rights historian explains, “In the years following the New Deal, the Democratic Party found it best to win black votes with economic benefits rather than by advancing the cause of black civil rights.”53
Following President Roosevelt, Democrat President Harry S. Truman did propose a civil rights bill, but it was not passed; and its introduction effectively ruined Truman’s relationship with Southern Democrats in Congress.
Even though Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower knew that it would be difficult to change the Southern Democrat’s belief in racial segregation, he determined to eliminate racial discrimination in all areas under his authority. He therefore issued executive orders halting segregation practices in the District of Columbia, in the military, and in the federal bureaucracy. Furthermore, Eisenhower was the first president to appoint a black, Frederic Morrow, to an executive position on the White House staff. Eisenhower consequently received significant support from black voters in his reelection to the presidency in 1956. In 1960, he introduced a civil rights bill, but it was promptly blocked by the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although a Republican Senator and the Republican Attorney General proposed compromise language, it, too, was rejected by the Democrats.54
When Democratic President John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960, he was less willing than Eisenhower to utilize executive orders to promote civil rights. In fact, Kennedy delayed for more than a year the signing of an executive order to integrate public housing. But following the violent racial discord in Birmingham in 1963, Kennedy finally sent a major civil rights bill to Congress and then aggressively worked for its passage, but was assassinated before he could see its success. To achieve passage of the measure, Democrat successor Lyndon Johnson resurrected the compromise language proposed by Republicans under Eisenhower in 1960, thus breaking a Southern Democratic filibuster of the civil rights bill and allowing Johnson to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.55
While these two important civil rights acts were signed into law under a Democratic President, it was the Republicans in Congress who made possible the passage of these Acts, for even though the Democrats controlled both Houses by wide margins, they still could not garner enough of their own votes to pass the bills. In fact, in the House, only 61% of the Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act (152 for, 96 against) while 80% of Republicans voted for it (138 for, 38 against).56 In the Senate, only 69% of Democrats voted for the Act (46 for, 21 against) while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against).57 The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong, cohesive support of the Republicans. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Sen. Al Gore, Sr., who voted with the Southern Democrats against civil rights whenever the occasion arose.58
One other important civil rights note is that after the Democrats regained control of the federal and of many State governments in the 1880s and 1890s, they instituted what became known as “white primaries” to keep blacks from being placed on the ballot.59 Democrats also developed poll taxes to keep blacks from voting because, according to prominent Democrat leader A.W. Terrell, the 15th Amendment guaranteeing black voting rights was “the political blunder of the century.”60
As confirmed by Encyclopaedia Britannica, “the Democrats amended their State constitutions or drafted new ones to include various disfranchising devices. When payment of the poll tax was made a prerequisite to voting, impoverished blacks and often poor whites, unable to afford the tax, were denied the right to vote.”61 How effective were the Democratic poll taxes in keeping blacks from voting? In Texas alone, 100,000 blacks had voted before the poll tax was instituted but only 5,000 afterwards.62
While an attempt was made in 1943 in Congress to repeal the poll tax instituted by Southern Democrats, the repeal failed, with the floor of Congress becoming the site of ugly racist rhetoric.63 It was not until 1966 that the poll tax was ended, and it had only been in 1944 that the “white primaries” had finally ceased.
Significantly, it was not Democrats, but the Republicans, who had long championed the repeal of the poll tax. In fact, as early as 1896, the Republican platform declared:
We demand that every citizen of the United States shall be allowed to cast one free and unrestricted ballot, and that such ballot shall be counted and returned as cast.64
Clearly, then, the charge that Republicans in general, and George Bush in particular, would not extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is completely without any factual basis and relies solely on historical revisionism.
Yet, despite the unequivocal (but often unknown) records of history, today’s blacks often hold an opposite view. As African-American professor Ronald Walters explains in Black Oklahoma Today:
[Blacks] vote their interests and when it appears that a person or party doesn’t particularly like them, they will take their business elsewhere. The “elsewhere” for blacks has generally been with Democrats, largely because of the feeling that, even though Democrats have also done them wrong, they feel that Democrats are less prone to be racist than Republicans.65
However, as black media personality R.D. Davis of Alabama correctly observes, “History tends to unilaterally and falsely depict Republicans as racists when Southern Democrats truly deserved this title.”66
FAMILY VALUES, BLACKS, AND PARTY POLITICS
The history of blacks in the American political process shows that blacks were originally drawn to the Republican Party for its values and made their greatest strides in civil rights and elected representation under the Republican Party, but by economic allurements begun under President Roosevelt, were finally enticed to join the Democratic Party. Notwithstanding their change in party affiliation, the current values of African-Americans not only are generally more conservative than those of whites but are still best represented by the Republican rather than the Democratic Party. For example, recent polls demonstrate that blacks:
- oppose the legalization of marijuana by a margin of 75% to 21% (while whites oppose it by a margin of 73% to 24%);
- support English as the official language by 84% to 15% (whites by 82% to 16%);
- support a constitutional amendment to return prayer to schools by 80% to 17% (whites 71% to 26%);
- oppose same-sex marriages by 71% to 23% (whites 66% to 29%);
- support educational choice by 73% to 24% (whites 57% to 39%);
- support charitable choice by 74% to 24% (whites 51% to 46%); and
- support a flat tax by 51% to 24% (whites 52% to 44%).67
- support the death penalty by 64% to 31% and
- support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by 75% to 24%.68
Ironically, the Democratic Party – as demonstrated both by its platform and by its voting record in Congress – not only opposes school prayer, educational choice, a flat tax, charitable choice, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution but also supports same-sex marriages – all positions opposite to those held by most blacks.
While African-Americans currently have more in common with Republicans than with Democrats, it has been a lack of knowledge of the political history of African-Americans that has allowed the current fallacious misportrayals to be accepted – a fact made clear during Presidential Election 2000.
In short, an historical review of black involvement in the political process demonstrates that: (1) African-Americans made their greatest political advancements in the Republican Party (in fact, while Democrats have talked the talk, Republicans have walked the walk); (2) the three-fifths clause was not a racist, pro-slavery provision in the Constitution but rather was an abolition part of the Constitution; (3) the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s were the product of Republicans, not Democrats, and therefore were not in danger from Republicans in this election; and (4) black values generally continue to be conservative and are best reflected by the values expressed in the Republican rather than the Democratic platform.
Even though it was Democrats who actually committed the racial injustices of which they accuse Republicans, many today believe just the opposite, thus affirming a statement attributed to William James (the father of modern psychology):
There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.
Now, more than ever, President Woodrow Wilson’s declaration is true:
A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.69
[For more information on the struggle for African American Civil Rights see our Setting the Record Straight resource (in DVD, VHS, and Book format); we have also cataloged our Black History resources here]
1. William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, Encyclopedia of Quotations (FAME Pub., Inc., 1996), p. 697.
2. MSNBC Presidential Exit Polls, Nov. 7, 2000.
3. George M. Stroud, Sketch of the Laws Relating to Slavery in the Several States of the United States of America, (Philadelphia: Henry Longstreth, 1856), pp. 171-177. The difference in the treatment of African American and white criminals pertains more to a distinction made between slaves and free blacks than it does to color. In Virginia, 52 out of 68 crimes are treated identically between black and white offenders. These sixteen laws either deal with breaking and entering or sex offenders. In fact, only seven laws for Breaking and Entering treat blacks differently than whites, and the differences in these cases are slight. Likewise, nine laws pertaining to sex offenders only vary in the case of an interracial offense.
4. Robert Ernst, Rufus King, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1968), p. 369; See also Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1927 (USGPO, 1928), s. v. “King, Rufus.”
5. Robert Ernst, p. 369.
6. George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot: Patriot and Statesman 1740-1821, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 290.
7. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1856), Vol. X, pp. 385-386, letter to Thomas Jefferson on December 18, 1819.
8. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Lipscomb, editor (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, pp. 248-250, letter to John Holmes on April 22, 1820.
9. Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Paul Leicester Ford, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), Vol. XII, p. 157, letter to Hugh Nelson on February 7, 1820.
10. Eugene V. Smalley, A Brief History of the Republican Party, From its Organization to the Presidential Campaign of 1884 (New York: John R. Allen, 1885), pp. 25-27.
11. Republican Campaign Edition for the Million Containing the Republican Platform (Boston: John P. Jewett and Co., 1856), p. 4.
12. Smalley, A Brief History of the Republican Party, pp. 86-87.
13. Biographical Directory, s. v. “Revels, Hiram Rhodes.”
14. Id. s. v. “Rainey, Joseph Hayne.”
15. Id. s. v. “Long, Jefferson Franklin.”
16. Id. s. v. “Langston, John Mercer.”
17. Id. s. v. “Smalls, Robert.”
18. Edward A. Johnson, A School History of the Negro Race in American from 1619 to 1890 (Raleigh: Edwards & Broughton, 1891), p. 170.
20. Carter G. Woodson, Negro Orators and Their Orations (Washington, D.C.: The Associated Pub., Inc., 1925), p. 323.
21. African Methodist Episcopal Church Review (Ohio: Theophilus J. Minton) April, 1892, Vol. VIII, No. IV, p. 369, from an Article on Robert Brown Elliot. [http://dbs.ohiohistory.org/africanam/det.cfm?ID2373]
22. Id. p. 364.
23. Biographical Directory, s. v. “Lynch, John Roy.”
24. Id. s. v. “Bruce, Blanche Kelso”
25. Id. s. v. “Nash, Charles Edmund.”
26. Id. s. v. “Cheatham, Henry Plummer.”
27. Id. s. v. “Miller, Thomas Ezekiel.”
28. Id. s. v. “Murray, George Washington.”
29. “Brooke, Edward William III,” [http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000871]
30. Louisiana’s African American Heritage [http://www.crt.state.a.us/crt/ocagno.htm]
31. Black Facts Online [http://www.blackfacts.com/Factdisplay.asp?ID=1029]
32. Smalley, pp. 48-50.
33. Black Facts: July30, 1866; See also “The New Orleans Massacre,” Harper’s Weekly, March 30, 1862, p. 202.
34. Congressional Black Caucus 103rd Congress 93-94 Guide [http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Govern_Political/CBC_Guide.html]
35. Charles Evans Hughes, The Autobiographical Notes of Charles Evans Hughes, David J. Danelski and Joseph S. Tulchin, editors (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 144.
36. Sanfra Sobieraj, “Gore says to ‘Take souls to polls,'” The Advocate (November 5, 2000).
37. Donald L. Robinson, Slavery in the Structure of American Politics, 1765-1820 (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 192.
38 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, p. 201.
39. James Madison, The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America, Gaillart Hint and James Brown Scott, editors (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), p. 239.
40. Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789 (Washington, D.C.: 1906), 6:1105.
41. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. I p. 581.
42. Jefferson Papers, Vol. I, p. 47.
43. The Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. I, p. 596.
44. Id, p. 597.
45. Anti-Slavery 1804 Broadsheet, Vol I. (Boston: June 22, 1804)
46. Principles: A Quarterly Review for Teachers of History and Social Science (Claremont, CA: The Claremont Institute Spring/Summer 1992), Thomas G. West, “Was the American Founding Unjust? The Case of Slavery,” p. 5.
47. Walter E. Williams, “Some Fathers Fought Slavery,” Creators Syndicate, Inc., May 26, 1993.
48. Jesse Jackson in a speech to the Shadow Convention in Los Angeles, August 13th to 17th, 2000 [http://www.shadowconventions.com/losangeles/index.html]
49. Frederick Douglass, My Bondage and My Freedom, (Orton & Mulligan: New York, 1855), p. 392.
51. Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, (New York: Collier Books, reprint 1893 of an 1888 original), p. 705.
52. Dr. Loevy, A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States of America, p. 2. [http://www.coloradocollege.edu/Dept/PS/faculty/loevy/civil%20rights.html]
53. Id. p. 5.
54. Id. pp. 7-10.
55. Id. pp. 14-16.
56. R.D. Davis, Blacks “Gored” By a Lie: Al Gore Sr., the GOP and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (Washington, D.C.: The National Center for Public Policy Research, May 1999), p. 1. [http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDavisGore599.html]
58. Id. p. 3.
59 Loevy, p. 2.
60. Mike Kingston, Sam Attlesey, & Mary G. Crawford, The Texas Almanac’s Political History of Texas (Austin, Texas: EAKIN Press, 1992), p. 186.
61. Encyclopedia Britannica, s. v. “Poll tax.”
62. Kingston, et al., p. 186.
63. Encyclopedia Britannica, s. v. “Poll tax.”
64. Thomas Hudson McKee, The National Conventions and Platforms of All Political Parties1789 to 1905, Convention, Popular and Electoral Vote (New York: Burt Franklin, reprint 1971 of a 1906 original), p. 304.
65. Dr. Ronald Walters, “Raw Republican Racism,” Black Oklahoma Today, October 25, 1999. [http://www.blackoklahoma.com/Articles/columnists/com-ronwalters102599.htm
66. Davis, p. 2.
67. Clark Kent Ervin, “Majority of Blacks are Conservative,” MSNBC Opinions.
69. Federer, p. 697.
To sign up on the WallBuilders email list and receive future information about historical issues and Biblical values in the culture, visit http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTsignup.asp.
by Ludwig von Mises on December 16, 2009
Claims to a definite amount of money, payable and redeemable on demand, against a debtor about whose solvency and willingness to pay there does not prevail the slightest doubt, render to the individual all the services money can render, provided that all parties with whom he could possibly transact business are perfectly familiar with these essential qualities of the claims concerned: daily maturity and undoubted solvency and willingness to pay on the part of the debtor.
We may call such claims money-substitutes, as they can fully replace money in an individual’s or a firm’s cash holding. The technical and legal features of the money-substitutes do not concern catallactics. A money-substitute can be embodied either in a banknote or in a demand deposit with a bank subject to check (“checkbook money” or deposit currency), provided the bank is prepared to exchange the note or the deposit daily free of charge against money proper.
Token coins are also money-substitutes, provided the owner is in a position to exchange them at need against money free of expense and without delay. To achieve this it is not required that the government be bound by law to redeem them. What counts is the fact that these tokens can be really converted free of expense and without delay. If the total amount of token coins issued is kept within reasonable limits, no special provisions on the part of the government are necessary to keep their exchange value at par with their face value. The demand of the public for small change gives everybody the opportunity to exchange them easily against pieces of money. The main thing is that every owner of a money-substitute is perfectly certain that it can, at every instant and free of expense, be exchanged against money.
If the debtor — the government or a bank — keeps against the whole amount of money-substitutes a reserve of money proper, we call the money-substitute a money-certificate. The individual money-certificate is — not necessarily in a legal sense, but always in the catallactic sense — a representative of a corresponding amount of money kept in the reserve.
The issuing of money-certificates does not increase the quantity of things suitable to satisfy the demand for money for cash holding. Changes in the quantity of money-certificates therefore do not alter the supply of money and the money relation. They do not play any role in the determination of the purchasing power of money.
If the money reserve kept by the debtor against the money-substitutes issued is less than the total amount of such substitutes, we call that amount of substitutes which exceeds the reserve fiduciary media. As a rule it is not possible to ascertain whether a concrete specimen of money-substitutes is a money-certificate or a fiduciary medium. A part of the total amount of money-substitutes issued is usually covered by a money reserve held. Thus a part of the total amount of money-substitutes issued is money-certificates, the rest fiduciary media. But this fact can only be recognized by those familiar with the bank’s balance sheets. The individual banknote, deposit, or token coin does not indicate its catallactic character.
The issue of money-certificates does not increase the funds which the bank can employ in the conduct of its lending business. A bank which does not issue fiduciary media can only grant commodity credit, i.e., it can only lend its own funds and the amount of money which its customers have entrusted to it. The issue of fiduciary media enlarges the bank’s funds available for lending beyond these limits. It can now not only grant commodity credit, but also circulation credit, i.e., credit granted out of the issue of fiduciary media.
While the quantity of money-certificates is indifferent, the quantity of fiduciary media is not. The fiduciary media affect the market phenomena in the same way as money does. Changes in their quantity influence the determination of money’s purchasing power and of prices and — temporarily — also of the rate of interest.
Earlier economists applied a different terminology. Many were prepared to call the money-substitutes simply money, as they are fit to render the services money renders. However, this terminology is not expedient. The first purpose of a scientific terminology is to facilitate the analysis of the problems involved. The task of the catallactic theory of money — as differentiated from the legal theory and from the technical disciplines of bank management and accountancy — is the study of the problems of the determination of prices and interest rates. This task requires a sharp distinction between money-certificates and fiduciary media.
Their message is to kill this turkey of a government-takeover of health care. Action is important today because Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted at a floor vote on the Dems’ massive bill this Saturday. Thousands are expected to join in the rally and the march through the House Office Buildings.
The rally/press conference starts at noon on the West Capitol steps where Presidential inauguration ceremonies are held.
HUMAN EVENTS will be there in force tweeting from the scene; follow @jedbabbin for live updates. We’ll bring you full coverage tomorrow.
CBO Analysis Says Repub Healthcare Alternative Reduces Costs
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) last night released a preliminary analysis (pdf) of the Republican alternative health care bill offered in the form of an amendment. The amendment would eliminate Pelosicare bill in its entirety and become the replacement bill.
The CBO and JCT found that the Republican alternative would lower premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without tax increases. The letter confirmed what Republican have been saying all along: their alternatives offer common sense, free market solutions which are always cheaper than leviathan government programs.
“When it comes to reforming health care, controlling skyrocketing costs is the American peoples’ top priority. Now CBO has confirmed that the Republican plan will lower health care costs for American families, and that’s good news for everyone struggling in today’s economy. The choice now could not be clearer: Speaker Pelosi’s plan raises costs. Our plan lowers them,” said Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican Leader.
“Across the country the American people are calling on Washington to pass responsible reform that will lower health care costs. Yesterday, House Republicans answered that call by putting forward common-sense health care legislation that reduces the deficit, lowers premiums, and ensures coverage for those with pre-existing conditions,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Chairman of the House Republican Caucus.
“The Democrats’ 2,000-page plan to give Washington more control via tax increases, mandates, bureaucracies, czars, and government-run insurance will not lower costs. We seek to lower costs by giving Americans more control over how they spend their health care dollars, allowing the purchase of coverage across state lines, ending costly lawsuit abuse, and providing important protections for those with pre-existing conditions,” said Rep. Tom Price, M.D. (R-Ga.), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
The CBO also found that health insurance premiums for many American families will cost nearly $5,000 more under Democrat reforms than they would under the Republican plan.
The CBO estimated that by 2016 the ‘average of the three lowest-cost basic plans’ under the House Democrats’ bill would be $15,000 for a family. Last night the CBO estimated that the Republican alternative bill would lower the cost of premiums for individuals at a rate of up to 8 percent, the small group markets would be lowered by up to 10 percent, and the large group market by up to 3 percent.
According to the CBO, average health care premiums in the individual market would be $11,000 in 2016 under current law. An 8 percent reduction in those costs would mean a premium of $10,120 — nearly $5,000 less expensive than the cheapest Democrat plan. The CBO estimates the least expensive Democrat plan is unlikely to attract many families, which would result in the average premiums costing even more in the Democrats’ government-run exchange.
“With this bill, Republicans are proving you can lower health care costs without raising taxes, without cutting Medicare, without spending over $1 trillion and without putting the federal government in charge of your health care decisions,” said Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), top Republican on the House Ways and Means committee.
CBO and JCT: Pelosicare Raises Taxes by $729.5 Billion
The elections this week in Virginia and New Jersey proved overwhelmingly that Americans are not happy with unemployment, the economy, out of control government spending and debt and taxing and borrowing and spending even more. Apparently, the House Democrat leadership hasn’t yet gotten the message.
They are determined to shove their $1.6 trillion dollar Pelosicare bill through the House this week.
According to reports from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), H.R. 3962, the new Pelosicare bill, will raise taxes a whopping $729.5 billion.
The JCT is nonpartisan committee with a staff of Ph.D. economists, attorneys, and accountants, to assist members of both parties in both houses of Congress on tax legislation. This week they released their official score of Pelosicare. The JCT found that the taxes aimed at “high-income filers,” aka small businesses, would have their taxes raised by $460.5 billion. This is a job killer that is not indexed for inflation, meaning every year this bracket would reach down and grab more people who are lower on the income chain.
The bill mandates that every individual purchase insurance. Those who do not comply will pay a fine. The JCT confirmed that the consequence of not paying the fine could be a jail sentence — all for not purchasing the health insurance your government will be selling. Something’s really wrong with that picture. How is it Constitutional for the government to force you to buy a product, any produce, especially one that they’re selling themselves?
Both the CBO (pdf) as well as the JCT say this mandate would raise $33 billion in taxes.
The bill also mandates that businesses pay 72.5 percent of health insurance (65 percent for couples), hitting small businesses with a job-killing tax of 8 percent if they cannot afford to buy the insurance. This mandate also includes same sex couples. According to the CBO and JCT, these provisions would tax the businesses another $135 billion.
Here’s where it gets sticky. As happened in Tennessee with the fiasco called TennCare, employers who are already buying insurance for their employees will find it less expensive to pay the 8 percent fine. In these tough times is it unrealistic to believe that employers would not cut costs by merely paying the fine and moving their employees to the government-run system. Some estimates say as many as 114 million people will lose their private health insurance as a result.
JCT also scored $56.4 billion in other taxes including corporate reporting ($17.1 billion), worldwide interest penalties ($26.1 billion), treaty withholding ($7.5 billion), and codification of the economic substance doctrine ($5.7 billion).
This “economic substance doctrine” is the Orwellian process by which the IRS can disallow perfectly legal tax deductions if they decide your motive in making a purchase was to lower your taxes.
Flexible Spending Accounts, Medical Savings Accounts, Medical Reimbursement Arrangements and Health Savings accounts would no longer be able to reimburse individuals for purchasing over-the-counter medications. All of the medicines that have been made more readily available by eliminating the requirement for a prescription from your doctor would no longer be a tax deductible purchase. The bill increases penalties on these accounts for non-qualified withdrawals from these accounts from 10 percent to 20 percent. According to the JCT, this would add up to $19.6 billion in taxes.
The bill also caps amounts that can be placed into these accounts annually, so the more than 8 million people also use Health Savings or Flexible Spending accounts as the means to purchase their health insurance coverage would not be able to keep the coverage they have without facing these stiff penalties and tax increases.
The bill also taxes “Cadillac” health plans held by union members. This provision would raise another $2 billion in revenue.
Also found in the bill is the repeal of tax deductions offered to companies that subsidize their retirees’ prescription drug plans. This will tax businesses an additional $3 billion and likely cause some to drop the subsidy from plans offered to retirees.
Pelosicare also hits manufacturers of medical devices such as pacemakers, wheelchairs, hip replacements and heart valves, with an additional $20 billion in taxes. If you want less of something, tax it. The tax will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers resulting in higher prices. Wasn’t this supposed to be about lowering costs?
All of that adds up to new taxes in the amount of $729.5 billion dollars on individuals and America’s businesses, large and small. And these are just the estimates. Never in the history of government-run health programs have they ever been anywhere near the actual cost of the programs.
Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference.
Mises Daily: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 by William L. Anderson
As one who has made a career out of criticizing government and exposing the various predations of government, one would think I would be intelligent and wise enough not to expect that entity we know as “good government.” In fact, given that I am quite familiar with the entire socialist calculation debate and have assigned numerous papers covering that subject to my MBA students, it should have dawned upon me by now that “good government” is an oxymoron at best and a delusional term at worst.
Yet I must admit that whenever I see government doing something that is outrageous or even wasteful or seemingly stupid, my “good government” ideals seem to kick in and I find myself thinking that the powers that be could learn how to do things correctly. At that point, it never occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, the mechanism of action we know as government cannot be operated in a “proper” way at all, because no intellectual device exists that permits us to properly determine just what is “good” or “bad” government.
Not that there is a dearth of true believers. Last year, Paul Krugman waxed eloquent about the goodness of the state (as long as it is run by “good” people), writing,
Before Mr. Obama can make government cool, however, he has to make it good. Indeed, he has to be a goo-goo.
Goo-goo, in case you’re wondering, is a century-old term for “good government” types, reformers opposed to corruption and patronage. Franklin Roosevelt was a goo-goo extraordinaire. He simultaneously made government much bigger and much cleaner. Mr. Obama needs to do the same thing.
However, before one can be a true goo-goo, one must believe in the state. Witness Krugman’s description of the failures of the Bush administration:
Needless to say, the Bush administration offers a spectacular example of non-goo-gooism. But the Bushies didn’t have to worry about governing well and honestly. Even when they failed on the job (as they so often did), they could claim that very failure as vindication of their anti-government ideology, a demonstration that the public sector can’t do anything right.
This is a curious way to describe the failures of government, blaming those malfunctions on the notion that those carrying out their powers really did not believe that their powers were legitimate, and so they failed. I recall many things that Bush and his minions did while they were in office, but I cannot recall any time that anyone in that administration was reluctant to use their powers. Indeed, the Bush administration was extremely abusive during its eight years in power, and I don’t believe that the administration engaged in such behavior because its principals were laissez-faire libertarians, and I do not recall Bush blaming the failures of the government’s pathetic and ill-advised response to disasters like Hurricane Katrina on the illegitimacy of government.
(Granted, I am using logic here, something that generally is missing from Krugman’s column. Instead, we see partisanship and personal invective, combined with the religion of statism, something that really should be beneath a man who has received the academic honors he has garnered in his career. While Krugman has viciously attacked the Austrians in his writings, I cannot recall reading anything by an Austrian, dead or living, that makes the same kind of politically partisan comments that regularly appear in Krugman’s articles and columns.)
Unfortunately, Krugman goes on to claim that FDR created a governing apparatus via the New Deal that wisely and honestly dealt with the economic calamity in a positive way:
F.D.R. managed to navigate treacherous political waters safely, greatly improving government’s reputation even as he vastly expanded it. As a study recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research puts it, “Before 1932, the administration of public relief was widely regarded as politically corrupt,” and the New Deal’s huge relief programs “offered an opportunity for corruption unique in the nation’s history.” Yet “by 1940, charges of corruption and political manipulation had diminished considerably.”
The historical record says something else. James F. Couch and William Shughart in their book, The Political Economy of the New Deal, lay out example after example of the political calculus that was used in determining where New Deal relief money would be spent. They concluded, after examining the spending patterns, that political considerations determined what projects would be funded and how much money would go into them.
In reviewing the book 10 years ago, I noted how the authors pointed out the Works Progress Administration (WPA) pay differentials in different states:
One example [Couch and Shughart] give is the dispersal of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects. Given the supposed “compassionate” nature of the Roosevelt administration, one would think that those in the most dire need would receive the most help. Under the leadership of Roosevelt deputy Harry Hopkins, however, the WPA discriminated among states according to the political needs of the Democratic party, as government dollars were distributed according to their marginal political benefit.
Compensation was tied to area incomes. For example, an “intermediate” WPA worker in Tennessee would earn 23 cents per hour, while his counterpart in New York received $1.57. Skilled laborers working on WPA projects made 31 cents an hour in Tennessee and Alabama and $2.25 in New York. Professional pay was 34 cents per hour in Alabama and $3.03 in Pennsylvania.
Compare the Couch-Shughart study to Krugman’s praise of the WPA:
The Works Progress Administration, in particular, had a powerful, independent “division of progress investigation” devoted to investigating complaints of fraud. This division was so diligent that in 1940, when a Congressional subcommittee investigated the W.P.A., it couldn’t find a single serious irregularity that the division had missed.
F.D.R. also made sure that Congress didn’t stuff stimulus legislation with pork: there were no earmarks in the legislation that provided funding for the W.P.A. and other emergency measures.
According to the very partisan Krugman, government under FDR acted with compassion and worked to meet needs as they existed. According to Couch and Shughart, government acted, well, like government. New Deal money was used to buy votes and to spread political influence.
Krugman also fails to point out that in many cases, WPA workers were forced to register as Democrats and some projects required workers to make financial contributions to the Democratic Party. But since he is a partisan Democrat, I suspect he believes that such a requirement was part of enforcing “good government.”
In other words, any accurate reading of the historical record demonstrates that the New Deal was not the epitome of “goo-gooism,” or whatever Krugman wants to call it. Instead, we find that people in government operated according to the political calculus that both Austrians and public-choice economists have been pointing out for years.
What can be done? To be honest, nothing. There is no way that we can create a government that taxes and spends according to some imaginary formula that “maximizes” the “public good.” These are merely terms created to hide the fact that the only calculus politicians can call upon is based upon political costs and benefits.
Obviously, pointing out that politicians make politically based choices is a no-brainer; even people like Krugman are not oblivious to political corruption. However, so-called progressives believe they have a way to create and maintain “good government”: place more power in the hands of the executive branch of the US government. The executive branch, which would be dominated by “selfless” bureaucrats and “experts,” would allow resources to be directed “properly” by taking the decision-making power from the hands of elected politicians who are prone to corruption and let the people with the best intentions make the important decisions.
However, if there is one thing we have learned from this country’s century-old experiment in giving “independent” bureaucrats more power, it is that the bureaucracies created their own political fiefdoms and the problems and economic dislocations they have forced upon our society are worse than anything even the most corrupt politicians have done.
We are dealing with human nature, and putting on the robes of a selfless bureaucrat does not increase one’s qualifications to run the affairs of others. Furthermore, the notion that experts placed in government are going to run things properly is delusional at best and dangerous at worst.
Take the Federal Reserve, for example. The Fed is a Progressive Era creation, with its vaunted “independence” from whims of politicians. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is a really intelligent person who has operated in the highest academic circles. He was valedictorian of his high-school class, went to Harvard, and received his doctorate from MIT. Bernanke is the epitome of Progressivism and “good government,” and if there is a “goo-goo” in Washington, it is Bernanke.
However, this really intelligent person almost has single-handedly run the US economy into the ground. Granted, it takes a very special person to have this kind of influence, but Bernanke has been up to the task. Now, it would seem to me that Bernanke is exactly the kind of expert we would want working in the temples of government. I don’t detect his taking money on the sly or engaging in the bottom-dwelling quid pro quo actions of many people in government.
In other words, I believe that Bernanke truly believes that he has been doing the right thing. However, the man has been a disaster. He has had the power to act on his belief that the Great Depression came about because Herbert Hoover’s government did not print enough money. The notion that inflation is a positive economic force should be verboten to anyone with a doctorate in economics, but here we see Bernanke as the apostle of inflation, being cheered by other “good government” elites who are either stupid or craven enough to demand the destruction of the US dollar.
The response of the elites has been predictable. The Atlantic magazine, in a recent issue praising Bernanke and other “Brave Thinkers,” sniffed that Bernanke “somehow found time to bear the made-for-TV harangues of financially illiterate members of Congress.” Bernanke’s quote for the article tells the story of the “expert” who is just plain wrong.
There were many people who said, “Let them fail. It’s not a problem. The markets will take care of it.” And I think I knew better than that.
However, it is utterly clear that Bernanke did not know better than the markets. And what were the brilliant things that he did in order to confound those ignorant markets that wanted to liquidate the failing firms? According to the Atlantic,
He dropped target interest rates to near-zero for the first time in history; made trillions of dollars in government cash available to financial institutions; expanded the Fed’s lending and relaxed its collateral requirements; bought up billions of dollars in securities backed by consumer debt and mortgages; prevented the collapse of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac…
This is not brilliance; this is cranking up the printing presses, something that governments have done in Argentina, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia, not to mention Weimar Germany, with predictable results. The problem was that none of the things that Bernanke did addressed any of the real damage done to the structure of production in our economy. He just showered the markets with paper money, and his adoring chorus in the media and academe sang his praises.
I suspect that Bernanke has set an example of “good government” for these elites. First, he “saved” the economy; second, he has had to put up with “non-goo-goos” like Ron Paul, who clearly do not worship the state nor the characters that statism produces.
Those of us who understand that the mechanism of economic calculation is not something that “goo-gooism” can successfully reproduce via simple brilliance certainly won’t be declared heroes by the apostles of statism. Indeed, we are placed in the category of the “financially illiterate” because we understand that sound money is not a hindrance to economic growth or even to economic fairness.
Unfortunately, the “good government” advocates don’t see it that way. Instead, “good government” seems to involve reckless spending by Washington, endless printing at the Fed, and bailout after bailout. After all, the “goo-goos” know best.
By Alex McFarland
Southern Evangelical Seminary President
“Is it true that much of Christianity is based on the ideas of Paul rather than on the original teachings of Jesus? My professor said that for centuries Christianity has been distorted by the church.” I was speaking to a campus Christian group at a secular university on the East coast. Several students in attendance from another college indicated that they had heard this opinion in the classroom as well.
The origin and content of the Gospel message is an important issue. Some assume that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) gives us the summation of Jesus’ teachings. Love your neighbor. Feed the poor. That just about covers it. Skeptics say things like, “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality,” or “Show me where Jesus ever said that women shouldn’t be pastors!”
Before we get to the subject of Paul, let’s think of the biblical content in three ways: there are the Jewish Scriptures (comprising the Old Testament), the actual words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels (all of which are God’s Word because Jesus is Deity), and everything else in the New Testament besides the sayings of Jesus.
Jesus said that He had not come to abolish the teachings of the Old Testament, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:43). In the four Gospels we see that Jesus quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times and taught that the authority of Scripture was timeless (Matthew 24:35; John 10:35). Jesus also promised His disciples that “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26). Thus, Christ affirmed the Old Testament and made provision for creation of the New Testament. Jesus, in effect, has put his seal of approval on the Bible.
Let’s get back to the question of whether or not the apostle Paul “invented” or distorted Christianity. Saul of Tarsus–a passionate persecutor of the church–became Paul the believer about AD 35. The book of Acts (written by Luke) records Paul’s salvation experience in chapters 9, 22, and 26. In his own writings, Paul also explains his conversion to faith (I Corinthians 9:1, 15:3-8, and Galatians 1:11-18). From about AD 48 until his death around AD 68, Paul wrote at least 13 of the New Testament’s books.
The fact that Paul had originally opposed and persecuted the church proves that he could not have “invented” Christianity. Paul’s use of the words “received” and “passed on”–rabbinical terms for the handing down of teachings–is significant in I Corinthians 15:3-8. In relating these facts about Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul is saying that what is presents is existing truth that he himself had received. Scholars recognize that this passage contains an early church creed (or statement of belief) that was recited by believers in the days before the New Testament had been written down. Other Scriptures that preserve the early, verbal Christian creeds include I John 4:2, Philippians 2:6, II Timothy 2:8, and Romans 1:3-4. Another notable passage is I Timothy 3:16. Not only is this a confession of belief, it may have actually been part of a hymn that was sung by early believers.
The point is this: the key teachings of the Gospel (Jesus is the sinless Son of God; He died for our sins and rose again; we receive Him as Savior through repentance and faith) pre-date Paul. Paul taught these things, expounded on these things, and was used by God to write much of the New Testament. But the core of the Gospel was being widely spread even before Paul was a believer. In the final words I Corinthians 15:8, Paul seemed to acknowledge that he was late getting to the party!
Look at Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, found in Acts 2:14-40. Peter presents the core facts of the Gospel, including Jesus’ Deity, death, and resurrection. Peter preaches the same truths again in Acts 3:12-18. In Acts 5:29-33, Peter addressed Jewish leaders, and again gives the key facts of the Christian message. By Acts 5:42, we read, “Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.”
Two important conclusions emerge: first, the early church knew what they believed, and the teachings were effectively passed on and preserved among the people, and second, Paul could not have “invented” Christianity because he was not even a believer until about two years after Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and the subsequent events of Pentecost. The early church and the content of the Gospel are clearly shown to pre-date Paul.
by Gary DeMar, Dec 01, 2009
There’s a scene in the film Malcolm X when Malcolm Little (later to take the name Malcolm X, X standing for his unknown African heritage) is in prison and is introduced to the philosophy of the “Honorable Elijah Muhammad” and the Nation of Islam (N.O.I.) by a fellow prisoner named John Elton Bembry. (Bembry is a composite character who does not appear in the book The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Malcolm’s family members introduced him the tenets of the N.O.I.) Malcolm was wasting his life outside of prison, and he was wasting his life in prison. Bembry saw something in Malcolm, but Malcolm was resistant to change and had no interest in the Nation of Islam until Bembry showed him a dictionary and the definitions of “black” and “white.” It was a strategic move that rattled the former street hustler.
The definition of “black,” as Bembry read from an edition of Webster’s Dictionary, is always negative: “destitute of light, devoid of color, enveloped in darkness, utterly dismal or gloomy, soiled with dirt, foul, sullen, hostile, forbidding, outrageously wicked.” White, on the other hand, is positive: “the color of pure snow, the opposite of black, free from spot or blemish, innocent, pure, without evil intent, harmless, square deal, honest.” Malcolm makes a connection: “This is written by White folks, right?” White is wrong, Black is right, just like the Nation of Islam teaches.
Malcolm Little became Malcolm X and embraced the racist ideology of the (N.O.I.). To Malcolm, the White man is a “blue-eyed Devil.” This was the teaching of the Nation of Islam as articulated by its founder Wallace D. Fard Muhammad and his successor Elijah Muhammad. Race became Malcolm’s entry into the Black community, and he used it well to recruit fellow blacks. But after leaving the N.O.I., he began to change his view of White people. He began to see that not all Whites were devils. As his assassination at the hands of Black men proved, some Blacks are devils.
Malcolm’s break with the N.O.I. did not set well with the organization’s leadership. This included Elijah Muhammad and Louis X, better known as Louis Farrakhan. While in Mecca on a pilgrimage, Malcolm wrote the following to his assistants at the Harlem Mosque:
Never have I witnessed such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races. . . . You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions. . . .
While Malcolm changed his views regarding race, it seems that there are people today who define everything by race. Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are extremist examples of keeping the issue of race front and center in American politics. There are others. But what’s most irritating is the way some people see race in everything and make a point of keeping the wound of racial conflict festering.
At the beginning of this article, I mentioned the dictionary scene in the film Malcolm X. The streetwise Malcolm naively accepts the illogical leap that the definitional meaning of black and its descriptive attributes are applicable to people with dark skin. A dictionary edited by Blacks would have to acknowledge that the definition of “black” is the absence of light. In fact, The Urban Dictionary offers these definitions:
- A color widely defined as the absence of light.
- The darkest shade possible
- The opposite of white . . . best described on the Yin & Yang symbol.
Bembry was poisoning the well by continually stating that these are the White man’s definitions. He had a vested interest in making all aspects of White society and culture, even the standard definition of black, to mean anti-Black person. It’s a common tactic. You can easily win a debate by making an issue “racial.” Conversation over.
Joy Behar, who co-hosts on “The View,” couldn’t help turning “Black Friday” into a racial issue. Whoopi Goldberg opened the show with the declaration that “Today is Black Friday, all day long.” Behar offers this rejoinder: “Isn’t it a little racist to call it Black Friday? . . . [T]here’s a negative connotation to it? Or does it mean something else?” Goldberg, for once, had better sense: “No, it’s like when you make all the money—you’re in the black.” Behar finally gets it: “So it’s positive?” Yes, Joy, it’s positive. Being “in the black” is better than being “in the red.” It won’t be too long before some Native Americans protest that a red should no longer be used to indicate a deficit.
Blacks are not helped by the continued claim that all problems for them are racial. Some are, but many aren’t. Black on Black crime is not the fault of White people. Sky-high out-of-wedlock births are not the fault of Whites. High dropout rates among Blacks are not the fault of Whites. The solution is not to cry “racism” and blame everything on Whites or hundreds of years of oppression. Blacks won’t find their problems solved by appealing to the State. Welfare programs have done a lot to keep Black families down by subsidizing family fragmentation and fostering multi-generational dependency. Black problems aren’t solved by naming streets after Martin Luther King, Jr. The same can be said for the King Holiday and Black History Month. These are liberal crumbs to appease the Black community, but have any of these actions helped Blacks? Guilt-ridden Whites vote for them, and anyone who does not will be labeled, you guessed it, a “racist.”
This is not to say that Blacks should imitate “White culture.” There is nothing inherently good in being White. Whites have similar pathologies. There is no inherently good Black culture. Black is not always beautiful, and, of course, the same can be said for white. There’s a great deal of good in both cultures. Malcolm Little came to his senses in prison. He decided that he was not going to play the victim any longer. The dictionary that put him on the road to racial hatred also liberated him. He studied that dictionary until it became a part of him. But it wasn’t until he abandoned the line that it’s all the White man’s fault that he was truly free.
Some Blacks will say that I don’t know what it’s like growing up Black. There is no doubt about it; I don’t know what it’s like, and I never will. But my lack of Black perspective doesn’t change what is going on in some areas of the Black community. I can’t change what I’m not, but I am responsible to change what I am. There is no one to blame but me. The sooner I realized this, the sooner I took responsibility for my failings.
 The “X” is not the Roman numeral 10. The “X” was a placeholder for a Black person’s unknown African name. His American surname was given to him by his slave master. Cassius Clay became Muhammad Ali, and Lew Alcindor became Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
 For a succinct study of the Nation of Islam history and philosophy, see Richard Abanes, Cults, New Religious Movements, and Your Family: A Guide to Ten Non-Christian Groups out to Convert Your Loved Ones (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), chap. 6.
 The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley (1965), 391.
 There had been a vibrant Black culture in America, even before the end of segregation. See Mark Cauvreau Judge, If It Ain’t Got that Swing: The Rebirth of Grown-Up Culture (Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing Co., 2000).