By Selwyn Duke

The Associated Press is running an article about black "conservatives" who are considering voting for Barack Obama.  And among these figures is Armstrong Williams and J.C. Watts. 

Williams’ position doesn’t surprise me, as he has always been a nominal thinker and weak sister ideologically.  But I would have hoped that Watts — a man whom I have quoted ("Integrity is what you do when no one is looking") — was made of better stuff.

Writing about this, the AP article tells us:

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the
GOP House leadership, said he’s thinking of voting for Obama. Watts
said he’s still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for
neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to
concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at
least that party reaches out to them.

‘And Obama highlights that
even more,’ Watts said, adding that he expects Obama to take on issues
such as poverty and urban policy. ‘Republicans often seem indifferent
to those things.’

I used to respect Watts, but no more.  His comments not only are silly, they also contradict what he supposedly stood for in office and seem like a very pathetic rationalization.

First, what are traditionalists supposed to do to not be accused of "neglecting" the black community?  Should they relinquish their principles and pander the way leftists do (if so, Watts should be happy with McCain)?   Should they play the race card and advocate bigger government?  Watts echoes the platitude about "reaching out" to the black community, but if this means anything other than trying to articulate the Truth in a way that might win blacks over, it is a proposition to abandon principle.

Then, if Watts’ comment about Republicans being "indifferent to those things [poverty and urban policy]" is not part of his rationalization, it then betrays a complete lack of understanding of the traditionalist philosophy about helping the poor.

Since when do traditionalists, Mr. Watts, gauge indifference to poverty based on  resistance to government action?  Traditionalists have always believed in administering charity privately, and they practice what they preach.  Studies have consistently shown that they donate far more to charity than liberals, and the Catholic Church is the world’s largest provider of aid to the poor next to the U.S. government. 

Then, if Watts really believes  in what he now espouses, why didn’t he support liberal Democrats before?  After all, their ideology was the same; they "reached out" to blacks in the same way and the Republicans weren’t any less "neglectful."  Why, Mr. Watts, did you suddenly have this realization only now, that a black man is running?

The truth is that Watts is blinded by racial patriotism; this is about nothing more.  And, in its name, he’s willing to cast his lot with a de facto socialist, a man who represents everything Watts supposedly stood against.  It really has to make one wonder how much principle Watts ever had in the first place.

Oh, Mr. Watts, remember what you said about integrity?  The voting booth is a place where no one will be looking.

               Protected by Copyright