About a year ago, I penned a post entitled “Taking Thomas Seriously”, about the particularly political ideology held by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In it, I noted that both liberals and conservatives misunderstood Thomas’ orientation because the tried to map him onto “standard” (White) political categories. Thomas is a conservative, yes, but specifically he is a Black Conservative, which is a very particular philosophical tradition that does not perfectly align with plain old vanilla White conservatives.

Not all Black conservatives are Black Conservatives (that is, there are conservative Black people, such as Ward Connerly, who I would not identify as part of the Black Conservative tradition), and, more importantly, not all Black Conservatives are conservative (in that, on our “traditional” left/right axis, some would be placed on the left). However, because most people, particularly most Whites, aren’t familiar with Black Conservative ideology, it leads to significant misunderstanding about where its adherents are coming from when they do show up on the national stage. All this is preface to point out that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he who has nearly derailed Obama’s campaign, is a Black Conservative. To be sure, he’s not a conservative (needless to say, capitalization matters in this post). But he’s not a “liberal” either — his political alignment doesn’t comfortably fit onto models premised on White ideological positioning. Black Conservatism, like Black Liberalism, is not wholly divorced from “standard” Conservatism and Liberalism — but at best they intersect at odd angles.

Read the rest of the post here

David Schraub, Assistant Editor
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 The Moderate Voice
Sort by:   newest | oldest

But how does Clarence Thomas fall under this definition of Black Conservatism. Thomas doesn’t believe racism is hopelessly dominant in society. He believes racism is just a mirage, actually.


I just thought that was assumed. He always spoke of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps, and that remedies to racism were worst than racism itself.


elrod: if I understand it correctly, that last part is Thomas’ belief- that remedies to racism are worse than racism itself (or perhaps more correct to say that the remedies that are imposed actually make the problem worse instead of better.)

That’s different (quite a bit different, actually) than believing that racism is a mirage. I think that’s the disconnect that a lot of conservatives never noticed- that Thomas wasn’t ‘on their side’ in believing that racism wasn’t a big deal. Instead, he very much believes it’s a big deal but feels that policies like affirmative action make it worse instead of better. Even though it’s unfair, he feels (I think) that blacks just have to accept the inequity that forces them to work harder to achieve the same results, because any attempt to level the playing field just confirms the racist’s belief that blacks can’t compete without assistance.


I think I understand the distinction between a Black Conservative and a conservative who is black.

What troubles me about Thomas, though, is that he is a very angry conservative, no matter which brand of conservatism he embraces. This level of emotion in a judge at any level of the court system raises questions about his ability to absorb and contemplate opposing arguments.and the consequences, in the real world, of a judicial decision.

Give me the pragmatism of O”Connor any day of the week, no matter to which party, ideology. or sub-group a judge belongs.. It takes a big dose of dispasionate thinking to arrive at decisions that serve the country, instead of furthering the private ideals of a judge. Clarence Thomas appears to be fighting a very personal battle, and that troubles me a great deal.


I find it odd that the wirter at TMV who supports racial quotas, race based reparations, raced based social engineerings, and separate and unequal treatment based upon race is using the phrase “black conservatives” when he really means black nationalist or black racists.

It is like the post modern progressives and look through history and whatever they do not like, they assign to either Republicans or conservatives.