My Interview With Ward Connerly
At the recent Santa Barbara retreat for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, I had the pleasure of meeting Ward Connerly.
I have long admired Mr. Connerly for his strong principled stands. He is a black conservative that truly wants all people to be treated equally. He has been vilified by liberals, being called every name in the book. As a Jewish republican, I know what it is like for simply existing, and thinking for myself.
I worked to help pass Proposition 209, which Ward Connerly promoted. Proposition 209 is just another attempt to move America towards a colorblind society.
With that, I bring the wisdom of Ward Connerly.
1) How does a black boy growing up in America when you did turn out to be not only a republican, but a passionate one advocating conservative governance?
Much of who I am is based on how I was raised by my maternal grandmother, an aunt and an uncle (by marriage). All three had very fundamental values about life - self reliance, limited government, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, and other values typically associated with governance. What I was taught was not unusual for “black” kids. The difference is that I was able to escape the culture that betrayed what I was taught - what we commonly call “victimology.” Most blacks were unable to escape that influence, which was so prevalent in the late 60s, 70s and early 80s.
2) What is the status of race relations in America? Are they better than 30 years ago, worse, or the same?
“Race relations” are mixed, but mostly we have reasons to be optimistic. Society as a whole is moving inexorably toward ridding itself with its preoccupation with race - skin color and other physical attributes of race. More Americans are dating and marrying across racial lines, blacks are advancing rapidly in all sectors of American life, and other indicia of progress may be cited. On the other hand, those who have built their professional lives around the issue of race and many of those who are socially invested in race-consciousness are unable to abandon their dedication to this issue. Thus, they delay and frustrate further progress. But, their numbers are shrinking and soon only the die-hards will remain.
3) Americans know about racial and ethnic bigotry, but rarely does ideological bigotry get attention. Have you ever been subjected to it, and if so, in what forms?
Of course, I have. When the media characterizes me as a “black conservative,” hidden in that characterization is often a pejorative perspective. Many institutions of American life have negative views about “black conservatives.” We are presumed to be “Uncle Toms,” unable to form independent thoughts of our own and inordinantly influenced by whites. In fact, implicit in your first question was the perspective that to be “black” and conservative is a real novelty. While you seemingly have a positive view of that identity, many do not. Thus, the ideological bigotry.
4) What does our government do right, and what does it need to do better, and what would make it better so people can start believing in their government again?
I am not a fan of much of what our government does today. There is more being done wrong than at any time in my life. The fact that I had to think so long about this question is instructive to me. My garbage is picked up on time and the government deposits my tax payments swiftly, usually, but other than that, I am hard-pressed to mention many accomplishments of our government at any level. This is not to suggest that there is nothing done right, but that that which is being done right is often too rare to mention. The best way for the American people to start believing in their government again is to reduce its size - it is too big and too intrusive. Smaller government would enable us to focus more clearly on that which is being done and to better appreciate good service when it is found.
5) Our country is incredibly polarized. Outside of another 9/11, is it even possible to unite Americans? What common goals and values do we share?
There is nothing inherently wrong with “polarization.” It depends on what we are polarized about and how we handle our differences. The fundamental problem is that we are polarized about fundamental values. When that happens, it is extremely difficult to unite and to form a national consensus about anything. For example, Senator Obama offers himself as a “uniter.” Yet, I predict that our country will be more polarized than before he takes office, assuming that he does, because his fundamental views about the role of government, immigrations, affirmative action, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues are at variance with a significant slice of the American electorate. Currently, we share few civic values and that fact does not portend good things for our nation’s future.
6) Who are your three favorite American political leaders of all time? What about world leaders?
Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King, Jr. (although a “movement” leader, he was nonetheless “political”) and Abraham Lincoln.
7) How do republicans address the affirmative action issue when the result is often accusations of bigotry? How can we win the public relations battle on this issue?
As with any other issue, do and say what is right. Equal treatment under the law is a foundational principle. With regard to such principles, it is my view that one should never be guided by public relations concerns or what others call you when defending such principles. Fear of social ostracism often triggers one’s vulnerability to such ostracism. On the other hand, when one doesn’t give a damn about criticism for one’s views, the criticism is of no moment.
8.) Who are rising stars in the republican party that America should be placing on their radar for the near future?
Bill Crist of Florida, Mitt Romney (although defeated in the primaries, his star has not dimmed but is shining brighter).
9) If you had 5 minutes to speak to President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you ask them or say to them?
Mr. President, I believe you are a very decent man who loves his country and had high hopes for uniting the American people. Fate dealt you a bad hand on September 11, 2001. It seems to me, however, that an opportunity to unite the American people on a longer-lasting basis was lost by not addressing the issue of race preferences and telling us what we have in common; namely, the principle of equal treatment under the law. This failure was in evidence throughout your terms in office. Addressing this issue could have left you with a significant legacy.
10) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Ward Connerly the person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?
I would want them to know of my profound love for my country and my fellow Americans. I would want them to know how strongly I felt about the principle of equal treatment before the law, that I fought for that principle when others advised “cooling it,” that I consider that principle the glue that binds us all. I would hope the history books would say “he was a true warrior for freedom and equality.”
I would like to thank Ward Connerly for his time, and his thoughtfulness. With good men like him leading the way, America one day will be that colorblind society that he longs to see.
eric
July 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
He’s a very interesting character. You really do get some impressive interviews, Tygrrrr. I respectfully disagree with Connerly on AA, but I vehemently and angrily disagreed with Prop 54. Thank God it didn’t pass. How NOT attaining data on demographics is a good idea is beyond me. At the time, Ward was tarred as promoting a “racist agenda” but I didn’t think it was so much “racist” as just plain stupid; stifling sociological and biological research. It was anti-science. Dangerously ignorant. You can say what you want about his opinions on race and equality - he is at least consistent, unlike many of his supporters and detractors - but Prop 54 could not be viewed as anything but an insidious plot to remove data from the public sphere in order to make it impossible to deal, or not deal, with issues involving race, class, education, disease, crime, housing, public services, etc. It was extremely irresponsible. I wish he would renounce that effort and apologize for being so very terribly wrong.
JMJ
July 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I am making a rare appearance on my own blog today because Proposition 54 was one of the RARE times where I was persuaded to switch sides.
At first I was for it, but then the American Medical Association pointed out that black men are much more likely than white men to die of heart disease. It was absolutely essential to me that we find out why.
Now the AMA could have been used by others as a clever back door regarding affirmative action, but that was less relevant to me than stopping a killer.
Whether it be the War on Terror or curing heart disease, saving lives has to come first.
So I voted against Prop 54, although I agree with Ward most of the time.
eric
P.S. Shameless plug…my show on Blogtalkradio tonight is 7:30-9:30pm PST, 10:30pm-12:30am EST.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Good man. Whatever your politics, we should all desire knowledge. Be that knowledge about terrorism or disease, science or demographics, stifling knowledge will never lead to anything good.
I’ll be calling tonight, if I may! But I have to warn you - my wife is up in Jersey visiting relatives, so I may be a little off my rocker… (more than the usual!)
JMJ
July 9th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I think the original reason was to prevent the state of California from using racial classifications in places of business.
But Erics learning what he did from the AMA makes it a proposition that could use a little tweaking
July 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
If I recall, the prop’s proponents did try to seek some kind of medical exclusion, but there was no way to sync that with the reality of the prop - that the state could not collect racial data. There was no way to fix that prop. And so, I concluded, that the proponents seemed to be willing to forego attaining vital knowledge for the sake of filling the knowledge-vacuum with political agenda. I find that malevolent.
Just the same, to this day I’ve never had a problem with Connerly - I actually do concede much of his arguments and disagree only in the secondary (for all you football fans out there) - with the exception of Prop 54. That prop was so wrong, I just can’t get over it. It just thoroughly disappointed me. I thought Connerly was an independent thinker - until then.
On the other hand… Connerly, despite his “conservative” reputation, is really a libertarian more than anything else and so considering that I suppose he could say that his Prop 54 position was based on his understanding of the limitations of a truly constitutional government he’d have a point…
BUT…
The California Constitution instructs the state to support to one extent or another education, medical research, and housing, let alone law enforcement and representation and such. The Prop was unconstitutional. If the state makes no effort to support these public sectors, or if they are hampered in the collection of public and constitutionally available information relative to these sectors, the constitution of California is negated - violated. I’m glad the voters kept this from the courts, because if it did get to the courts the matter would have suffered further politization, to all our detriment.
JMJ
July 9th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Tyg,
I’m a year older than Ward and have followed most of his career. There are issues where we have disagreement, but that is life and he is a fine individual.
I can some what understand you feelings as a Conservative Jew. One of my dearest friends, also a conservative Jew, is not welcome in the homes of some of relatives for that very reason. He once mentioned Ted Kennedy in a negative light and an Aunt literally threw him out of her house.
I helped with the Michael Steele campaign for Senate (from MD) in 2006. That really outstanding Conservative (who happens to be Black) was called every name in the book by Whites and Black’s alike simply because he was running on the Republican ticket. Even major newspapers called him, Oreo, Uncle Tom, Minstrel Man, and others!
This crap has got to end somewhere.
The Watch Dog
http://www.MindlessAndSpineless.com
July 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
[...] Eric the Tygrrrr has a great interview with Ward Connerly. Go, read. [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
The Morning Scramble/Open Thread Thursday - 7/10/2008…
It’s Thursday; the Scramble might be longer than usual, but it’s still Open Thread Thursday (as if I get people to play)…
Stephan Tawney has an update on the “shocking” news for flyers from yesterday;……
July 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The following comments are from Ward Connerly himself. They arrived in my email inbox this morning after I requested an interview with him for my new radio show.
“Eric,
Jen will arrange an interview if you wish. I must, however, respond to the commentary about Proposition 54 and you may post this.
This business of classifying the human species into five “food groups” - black, Latino, white, Asian and Native American - is “stupid,” to borrow the characterization of one of those who commented about the interview. It relies on the odios “one-drop” rule that served as the basis of slave ownership. It conjures up Hitlerism and the idea of racial purity. How any rational being can support racial classifications is beyond me. Those who opposed Proposition 54 because of its medical effects are disingenuous, with all due respect, because 54 contained an explicit exemption for medical research and health care. That rationale was a canard initially invoked by Cruz Bustamante and the CTA to frighten the voters. It was an effective strategy but a dishonest one because of the exemption which I cite. Moreover, to argue that the government should have the power to gather data in the interest of “sociological research” is to essentially justify any level of governmental intrusion into the private lives of Americans - and I respectfully oppose expansive government. Finally, what is a “black” person? Or, a “Latino?” Or “white?” If one cannot satisfactorily answer those questions, one is admitting that this body of research is relying on very flawed data.and of what purpose are conclusions based on such flawed data? I had more many medical experts advise me that the AMA was all screwed up and was being political than there were those who supported their position - they were trying to get a bill through the Legislature and were playing politics. Significantly, the AMA did not contribute one penny to the defeat of Prop 54. Admit that I was wrong or misguided about 54? To the contrary, I have never been more right about anything in my life and I would sponsor it again in a heartbeat if I thought that I could cut through the nonsense that contributed to its demise last time. It was not defeated by rational thinking, but by fear and lies.
Best,
Ward”
I personally was unaware that there was a medical exclusion on Proposition 54. All I can say is that I was young at the time, and this is another example of why it is vital to do homework before voting on anything.
I think the world of Ward, and wish I had paid better attention.
eric