Racism in Congress: The Black Caucus

by | Dec 23, 2002

In expressing “outrage” over Senator Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond and his segregationist vision, the Congressional Black Caucus was calling the kettle black. Every member of the “Black Caucus” should follow Lott’s lead and resign from Congress for helping to turn Thurmond’s despicable vision into reality. < ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” […]

In expressing “outrage” over Senator Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond and his segregationist vision, the Congressional Black Caucus was calling the kettle black. Every member of the “Black Caucus” should follow Lott’s lead and resign from Congress for helping to turn Thurmond’s despicable vision into reality.

< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” />

Why do 38 Congressmen racially segregate themselves into the “Black Caucus,” which shamelessly calls itself “the premier power group in the U.S. House of Representatives”? Because they are racist.

The Web site of the Congressional Black Caucus says the CBC has sought “to achieve pride of race,” as if an individual should be racially prejudiced in favor of himself and claim credit for the virtues of his ancestors. The CBC describes itself as “a group exclusively devoted to promoting the black interest,” as if an individual’s interests are based on his race, and as if the government should be promoting the interests of groups instead of protecting the rights of individuals. The Caucus derides “white dominated special interest groups” while praising “black organizations,” “black communities,” and “America’s black race.” Apparently, these latter collectives somehow are not special-interest groups, but racially elite “power groups.”

In modern history, racism has gone hand-in-hand with another form of collectivism: socialism. The National Socialists–i.e., Nazis–required citizens to document their Aryan pedigree; the Soviet Socialists required citizens to document that their ancestors had not owned property, thereby proving their proletarian pedigree. The Soviets held further that the proletarians’ ideas would be inherited by their descendants. The fact that Jews and other racial minorities were persecuted by both the Nazis and Soviets needs no elaboration. The ethnic and religious persecution by Middle-East dictatorships such as Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia goes hand-in-hand with those regimes’ nationalizations of oil properties and government-run economies. In contrast, capitalism has always eroded racism. England, when it was the most capitalist nation in Europe, had the least amount of racism. In America, the more capitalist North overcame the racist South.

In her 1963 essay, “Racism,” Ayn Rand wrote, “Like every form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned.” In particular, racism is “a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).” As a racist expects the collective race to give him unearned pride and self-esteem, so a socialist expects the collective society to give him unearned wealth. Socialism claims that every individual–along with his property–belongs to the collective, and the wealth of the collective is for all to share in. In contrast, a capitalist knows he must earn his own way, and he must judge others accurately. Capitalism makes racism unprofitable for the racist: If a business refuses to buy from the best supplier simply because of race, that business suffers a terrible competitive disadvantage.

It is thus no wonder that racism and socialism go hand-in-hand in the Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC favors further socialization of health care and further government subsidies for housing, “minority business,” and “workers.” Moreover, Caucus members support subsidies for farmers in Africa and the Caribbean, and for “people of color around the globe.” Aside from the injustice of forcing American taxpayers to support some global collective, why do Black Caucus members focus on Africa and the Caribbean, and on “people of color”? The sickening answer is obvious.

If anyone wonders why so many black individuals born in America still wallow in poverty and crime while wave after wave of destitute, non-English-speaking refugees from all over the globe–from Eastern Europe to Korea to Viet Nam to Africa–escape to America and quickly thrive, one need look no further than the fact that many American blacks accept the anti-individualist, racist ideas of the Black Caucus and other so-called “black leaders.” If you think like a socialist, who waits for the group to think and produce for him, you will remain poor like a socialist. And if you think like a racist, who expects his skin color or blood to do all the thinking he needs, you will never experience genuine pride.

Freedom, which individuals enjoy in America, will not give you happiness. Freedom lets you pursue your happiness by thinking as an independent individual.

Two hundred years from now, no history textbook will mention the Trent Lott incident or even Trent Lott. But the textbooks will contain statements such as this: “Even as late as the 21st century, brazen racism was entrenched in American government. There was even a gang of Congressmen that called itself ‘The Congressional Black Caucus!'”

Ron Pisaturo is a writer and philosopher. He has written a screenplay, The Merchant of Mars. Ronald Pisaturo is the author of A Validation of Knowledge, The Longevity Argument, The Merchant of Mars, and Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers

Memorial Day: What We Owe Our Soldiers

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest