Ta-Nehisi Coates, writing in the Atlantic, has penned an article that will leave me in a reflective mood for some time.

It’s about race. It’s about culture. It’s about America. And, it is an honest appraisal of our unfinished business as a uniquely American culture — a frank and unflinching glimpse into the inner ticking of an African-American writer who takes a close look at Bill Cosby and the message (and the messengers) of black self-reliance.

I’ve written several times about growing up in the 60’s Deep South, believing that this experience gives a unique perspective on the subject of racism. But, as I mentioned previously, growing up on the white side of the divide, I really have no idea of what it was like for the blacks, and I want to thank Mr. Coates for granting some much needed perspective.

Here are a three excerpts:

the liberal notion that blacks are still, after a century of struggle, victims of pervasive discrimination is the ultimate collective buzz-kill. It effectively means that African Americans must, on some level, accept that their children will be “less than” until some point in the future when white racism miraculously abates. That’s not the sort of future that any black person eagerly awaits […]

Part of what drives Cosby’s activism, and reinforces his message, is the rage that lives in all African Americans, a collective feeling of disgrace that borders on self-hatred. As the comedian Chris Rock put it in one of his infamous routines, “Everything white people don’t like about black people, black people really don’t like about black people …

the “organic” black conservative tradition: conservatives who favor hard work and moral reform over protests and government intervention, but whose black-nationalist leanings make them anathema to the Heritage Foundation and Rush Limbaugh. When political strategists argue that the Republican Party is missing a huge chance to court the black community, they are thinking of this mostly male bloc—the old guy in the barbershop, the grizzled Pop Warner coach, the retired Vietnam vet, the drunk uncle at the family reunion. He votes Democratic, not out of any love for abortion rights or progressive taxation, but because he feels—in fact, he knows—that the modern-day GOP draws on the support of people who hate him. This is the audience that flocks to Cosby: culturally conservative black Americans who are convinced that integration, and to some extent the entire liberal dream, robbed them of their natural defenses.

A couple of points: First, the statement that conservative black men “know” that the GOP draws on the support of people who hate them is a straw man argument. Who are these haters and bigots? Being labeled a racist, bigot, homophobe by liberal writers does not make one a racist, bigot, or homophobe. There is no shortage of liberal bloggers and reporters who love nothing more than the opportunity to label a Republican as a racist. Of course, “gotcha” journalism is not the exclusive arena of liberal writers, but this is one area that truly deserves some introspection.

Because, in the end, it’s not so much a matter of the lack of respect, as Mr. Coates asserts, but rather, a lack of trust. Embracing the likes of Farrakhan and the NOI does nothing to build trust. Nor does the embrace of Black Liberation Theology. I do not trust these particular people, or these particular institutions, nor do I have any use for many of the words and ideas they promote.

The excerpts really don’t do justice to this fine essay. Please read it all. Also, in the vodpod sidebar, please take a look at the video featuring Coates and Bill Cosby.

++++

This is the World Famous Friday Open Thread: a Free Speech Zone.
Comments, questions, linkage, trackbacks, are all welcome.

WFFOT: Be the thread.

From Reuters:

If you are male and a Led Zeppelin fan, chances are you may be leaning toward voting Republican in the U.S. presidential election, according to a survey of rock radio fans released on Wednesday.

The Jacobs Media’s Media/Technology Web Poll IV of more than 27,000 respondents cited stronger than expected interest in the November 2008 election among fans of rock, classic rock, and alternative radio stations.

Why am I not surprised?

This is Communication Breakdown, and Dazed and Confused from 1969.

Gordon James Klingenschmitt, writing at WND, cites his 8 reasons for not voting for John McCain. Gordon is a big fan of Alan Keyes, and plans to write-in Keyes’ name on the ballot for President. Frankly, I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than a write in vote, but it’s Gordon’s vote, and if he wants to waste it, that’s his business. So be it.

I haven’t decided whether or not I’m going to fully support McCain with my time, money, and words. The fact is, McCain hasn’t earned it. I’m concerned about McCain for some of the very same reasons that Gordon cites. He brings some unattractive baggage to the race that should have disqualified him in the primary process. But for several reasons, and a whole lot of dumb luck, McCain survived the Primary, and now stands as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.

Even though I may not fully support him, I’m still going to vote for him. I decided a long time ago that I would vote for the Republican nominee. It is a decision that is completely based upon the issue of National Security. McCain will stay on the offensive in the war against the Mufsidin, while his opponents are arguing about the best way to withdraw and go on defense. Their’s is the proverbial prescription for disaster.

Gordon’s logic is puzzling. If the issues that he claims to care most about are left to the care and governance of the organized effort that strives daily to impose nihilism on the nation (euphemistically called the Democrat Party), then who will be to left to fight the good fight? Do those well-intentioned conservatives who plan on writing in a name on the ballot, or just going fishing on election day, really believe that surrendering the franchise is the way to advance their agenda? Having lost the Congress in the last cycle, losing the Executive this time around will mean losing the Judiciary for another generation as well.

I certainly believe that the social issues are worth fighting for. But, without liberty, they are moot. McCain is not my first choice to lead the Party, but I do respect his ability to make a command decision, delegate authority, and hold his subordinates accountable to task. In wartime, the primary role as CIC makes McCain the superior candidate among those still in the race.

Gordon’s criticism of Janet Folger notwithstanding, I wonder if he read her concluding remark.

First, repent on behalf of our nation; then put your faith to action.

It is important, I think, to understand that the Power to truly change this great Republic isn’t going to come from Washington. D.C. That one salient fact should give hope to believers, as well as the courage to fight on in the cultural struggles. Folger’s edification for Christians to stand and be counted is of great significance, and comes as a reminder to us to stay engaged.

Have faith, Gordon. Stand with us.

h/t DBZ Warrior

UPDATE: James Dobson endorses Huckabee

Decision Week for the Republican Primary has brought some interesting, although not completely unexpected developments with the withdrawal of Romney, the rise of McCain, and the near unanimous chorus in the punditeria that “it’s over.”

Also heard from the the pundit class is that Huckabee has had his 15 minutes, but he must not be the VP choice.

It may come as a surprise to many, but Huck is not running to be McCain’s VP. He hasn’t been running to spoil it for Romney. Or Thompson. Or anyone else.

He’s been running to win. Period.

And, with the time and money short, the delegate math becoming nearly impossible, and the odds growing longer than ever, Huck is facing the hard decision of either withdrawing from the race, or performing a near miracle at C-PAC on Saturday morning.

If there is one candidate in the race, on either side, who has the rhetorical flair to pull it off, it is Mike Huckabee. But what can he say, what words can he employ, what theme can he strike, to win the hearts and minds of the conservative base to become the viable alternative to John McCain?

I can think of only one.

Huckabee can answer, once and for all, the thorn in the side of fiscal conservatism: “Tax Cuts For The Rich.”

If there were any doubt that TCFTR would be a dominant theme in the general election, just listen to Obama’s Super Tuesday Speech. As I listened to the Senator’s list of grievances against the Right, the overblown hysteria about “100 years of war” just made me chuckle. Any Right-brain worth his salt can chew that up for breakfast. In fact, anyone who believes that either of the Donk Senators can compete on the National security field with the Republicans just hasn’t been paying attention. But, the TCFTR language was front and center, brought forth as the proximate cause of every fiscal problem facing the nation. The one thing, that if removed, would allow for the full implementation of every liberal pipe dream ever imagined.

John McCain will not answer it. He believes it. He used the rhetoric of Left to oppose the Tax Reform Act of 2001.

Mitt Romney can’t, nor can Stephen Moore, Arthur Laffer, The CfG, Cato, or anyone else who would attempt a scholarly rebuttal. They’ve all tried and failed. Their words have fallen on deaf ears.

Mike Huckabee can.

The way to respond to a gutteral, populist charge is with a response that is equal parts of emotion and populism, and delivered with conviction. Huckabee can do it with the credibility that will be necessary to make it stick. He is, in fact, the only one who can. And, once successfully countered, it is put to bed, once and for all.

If he does it Saturday morning at C-PAC, then this really can become a two man race.