We don’t often sense the importance of a Presidential election at the time it occurs. After the fact, we make observations, with historical hindsight. The 1980 election brought a new attitude ending a downward slide in the American body-politic that started in the late 60’s and early 70’s with Viet Nam and Watergate. The 1932 election brought a fundamental change in the role Americans expected their government to play in guaranteeing the prosperity of its citizens. But these elections did not appear to bring a historical impact with them at the time they occurred. If Condoleezza Rice runs for President and captures the Republican nomination, her candidacy will change the United States. Her victory would be even more transformative.
The United States culture has always offered the idea that anyone can achieve the “American Dream” of attaining success and prosperity, with equal opportunities for all Americans. But for one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, American blacks had every reason to doubt such an idea ever pertained to them. Blacks faced institutionalized discrimination and overt racism that mocked the American ideal of equal opportunity.
During my lifetime, that has changed. I will not try to say that racism has disappeared as a factor in American society. Human nature probably makes such a development impossible. But racism is no longer acceptable in mainstream American society. By the time of the 1960’s, malicious racism began to be challenged. Fewer and fewer people would accept the idea that blacks were inherently inferior to whites and therefore deserved second class status. It took a little longer for non-malicious racism to disappear as an acceptable mainstream attitude. I remember asking my grandmother about her perception of blacks. She didn’t believe blacks were inferior. But she told me they were not ready to take on responsibilities. Though I doubt she would see this as a racist attitude—she would consider herself to be observing reality—this generalization about an entire racial group served as a non-malicious racism that still permeated society even as the more overt, malicious racism faded.
Over the last half century, the situation has transformed. Race is no longer a bar to success. Hard work, education and demonstrated competence are rewarded, according to the Martin Luther King Jr. dream, by the “content of character,” not the “color of skin.” I have worked under a number of black supervisors, people who demonstrated the same variety of competence and incompetence as white supervisors I have worked with! Their personalities were also as varied as their white counterparts. Am I trying to say that racism is completely removed from the workplace? No. But it is not acceptable by mainstream society. There are legal remedies for those who have been victimized by racism. So blacks can gain responsible positions in the workplace. Condoleezza Rice is dramatic proof of this development.
If Condoleezza Rice runs for President, she will be one of the most talented human beings to stand for the Presidency in over the last fifty years, maybe longer. I did not need any qualifiers. I didn’t need to say most talented woman, or most talented black. Her achievements demonstrate talent across a spectrum of pursuits: skipping two grades on her way to graduating high school at fifteen, teaching awards for her tenure as a professor of political science, Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs for President George Bush Sr. as the Iron Curtain disintegrated, Provost at Stanford from 1993 to 1999, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State for the younger President Bush, as well as playing piano at concert-level competence, authoring or co-authoring several books and even tackling competitive figure-skating. She was identified at an early age as having a genius IQ. Her story is the dramatic demonstration of how race perceptions, and gender perceptions, have changed in this country. Fifty years ago, such an adult individual would not have these opportunities to excel. But as a child fifty years ago, with a supportive family that valued education and cultivated her extraordinary gifts, Condoleezza Rice did excel.
If she was a Democratic candidate, her candidacy would be potentially transformative. (She changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in the early 1980s after becoming disenchanted with the Jimmy Carter foreign policy of the late 1970s.) But the fact she is a Republican guarantees how fundamentally transformative her candidacy would be. This is because blacks have been largely convinced that the Republican Party is a party of hostility toward blacks, a party of white domination over blacks. This is puzzling, because liberal Republicans helped push civil rights legislation that paved the way for much of the social progress made, while southern Democrats fought these changes every step of the way. Some of those Democrats admittedly became Republicans, and this might be the origin of the confusion. Whatever the reason, most blacks seem to have accepted this notion of Republican hostility, and have voted overwhelmingly Democratic in recent Presidential elections.
In the past, it may well be that blacks needed liberals to be their advocates as progress toward equality of opportunity for all races was made. But at the present, I don’t believe current Democratic leadership serves blacks well at all. If I was black, I would be angry—not at Republicans, but at what at best is ignorant condescension, and at worst cynical manipulation by the liberal power structure. And this power-structure consists of blacks as well as whites.
Senator Hillary Clinton, a possible opponent for Secretary of State Rice, recently told a black audience that the House of Representatives was being run like a “plantation.” I see more “plantation”-style handling of blacks coming from the Democratic leadership. They disempower blacks by addressing them as victims of the system, insisting that only Democrats can protect them. They deemphasize the power individuals can seize by embracing education and taking personal responsibility for their success. They argue against the empowering concept that anyone in our society can succeed, that race is no barrier anymore. By convincing blacks they remain victims, in need of special treatment, Democrats can retain their power by promising to dole out government trinkets of special treatment as long as blacks keep voting them in. It doesn’t seem to matter that some of these benefits hurt blacks, like the welfare system, that devalued black males to nothing but sperm donors to single black mothers, tearing apart black family structures.
The Democratic/liberal power structure thrives because these poor, disempowered victims keep returning them to power. If blacks became successful, they wouldn’t need these benevolent protectors. They could consider voting for someone else. So Democrats must sell this continuing illusion of victimhood to keep their power. They need the disempowered blacks to stay on the Democratic/liberal plantation, waiting for the handouts from the government controlled by Democrats. And when black culture glorifies criminals instead of successful blacks like Condoleezza Rice, and derides getting an education as “acting white” instead of the key to prosperity, the Democratic/liberal power structure defends the elevation of these destructive ideas as some sort of expression of black identity. These same destructive ideas then serve to keep blacks from success, mired in their victim status, needing protection. Yes; if I was black, I would be angry. I would want to be empowered, not sold the demeaning idea that I will always be a victim.
I read recently about a young black athlete attending our local high school with potentially elite athletic abilities. When he was a freshman, his grades fell to the extent that he was ruled academically ineligible to participate in sports. There are two ways he and his parents could have addressed this. The Democratic/liberal knee-jerk mantras would be proclaiming that this was another case of a black being victimized by a white-dominated society, forcing the poor boy to “act white” against the pressures of his peers, demeaning him by pointing out his academic failures, and perpetuating the racism of American society for another generation. Or, the parents could provide the empowering leadership that this boy owns his future, and that he needed to take responsibility for his performance. His mother not only took the second route, but she forced her son to sit in the stands and watch every sporting event he was ineligible to participate in. This made a strong impression on the young man. He is now a senior, with a scholarship to a major university, and with national recognition for his athletic prowess. But even with this, he is reportedly working on maintaining his academics so he does not fall into academic probation at the university level. This young man has learned the power of taking responsibility and rejecting victimhood. Which political party would have been more likely to counsel the approach of the young man’s parents three years ago?
At a more group level, we have the situation surrounding the California high school graduation test. Students are not allowed to get high school diplomas without passing this test. Many students and their “protectors” are proclaiming this test is unfair, that students are being victimized out of their high school diplomas by such a draconian review of four years of study. My daughter, who is a sophomore in high school, just took this test. There is little doubt she will pass it easily, two years early. She is quite certain her brother, in sixth grade, would also be able to pass this test. Here’s an idea for the people upset about the test—stop being a victim and do what is necessary to pass it! Would the Democratic/liberal power structure be likely to make that kind of suggestion, or would they say “you poor victim of racially and ethnically insensitive America, for your votes, we will protect you.” Shouldn’t they point out that not having basic skills required for a high school diploma will hamper their chances of prosperity? No, because hampered, “victimized” minorities make more reliable voters. Yes, if I was a minority, I would be very angry!
These Democratic/liberal leaders are vicious in their attacks on blacks who break ranks. One of the most racist comments made publicly in recent years was made by left-wing black Harry Belafonte in reference to a Republican black, Colin Powell. Belafonte called former Secretary of State Powell a “house nigger.” If a white had made this remark, he would have been condemned in every mainstream forum in the country, especially if the remark had been directed against a liberal black. But since Colin Powell is a Republican, he is apparently fair game for this sort of smear. All his great accomplishments, as a military man who rose to the top of the American military hierarchy to participate in one of the most successful military operations in American history, a man who was Secretary of State, who has been discussed as a possible Presidential candidate—all of this was reduced to a denigrating slave metaphor by one of his own race because Colin Powell dared to step off the Democratic/liberal plantation and place his talents in the service of Republicans. Yes, if I was black, I would be truly angry. And I would be asking—which political party is really looking to promote talented blacks into key positions in the power structure?
If Condoleezza Rice runs for President, her candidacy will attack the Democratic base right at its most taken-for-granted faction. Blacks have certainly wanted to see one of their own become President of the United States. Such an attainment would indeed establish that this is a new era for race relations in America. That she would be Republican will challenge every assumption the Democrats have relied on to keep blacks voting for them. Maybe Republicans aren’t oppressors—maybe they offer real opportunities for blacks. Maybe Republican principles of encouraging hard work and education instead of reliance on handouts and special treatment for perpetual victims have some merit. Will blacks go to the polls and vote against one of their own just because she is a Republican? They won’t without taking a very close look at Secretary of State Rice. Some will vote for her—some won’t. But Democrats will not be able to take black voters for granted.
A Condoleezza Rice candidacy will transform the current political landscape. Democrats will be required to shop real ideas in the marketplace of political agendas and philosophies instead of just arguing for power based on their alleged status as protectors of victims, and distributors of government trinkets to them. Blacks will stop voting for Democrats as a taken-for-granted bloc, and will give fair consideration to Republican candidates and principles. This cannot help but be healthy for the political atmosphere of the United States. If Condoleezza Rice runs, I will give serious consideration to voting for her, and contributing to her campaign. From what I know about her right now, I would be proud to call her my country’s President, a President for all the people.
Richard Warren Field is the author of the upcoming novel, The Swords of Faith. For more information, go to RichardWarrenField.com.
We invite your comments.
If you wish to duplicate any of this material, please review our terms and conditions for the use of materials from this site.