At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Black and Right: Forgotten Black Conservative, George S. Schuyler

posted by Jack Kerwick

That black Americans constitute the most reliable of Democratic voting blocs no one who knows anything at all about American politics would think to deny. 

On average, the Democratic Party receives the support of nine out of every ten blacks.  In the last presidential election, the Democratic challenger elicited over 95% of the black vote.

There are, however, black conservatives—however small a percentage of the black population they may be.  Some of them are so well known that they need no introduction.

There is, though, one black conservative with whose name, chances are, relatively few of us are aware.  This is a pity—to say nothing of a scandal—for George Samuel Schuyler was among the most impassioned and intelligent writers—black, white, or other—to which twentieth centuryAmerica had given rise.


For roughly half-of-a-century, from the 1920’s to his death in the 1970’s, Schuyler wrote for several publications, from the iconoclastic H.L. Mencken’s American Mercury to the Pittsburg Courier—the second largest “negro” newspaper in the country.  It was at the Courier that Schuyler served as assistant editor from 1922 to 1964.

Though he wrote for popular consumption, Schuyler was remarkably conversant in a plethora of literature.  In his autobiography, Black and Conservative—which even the black leftist academic Cornel West acknowledges as a “minor” classic in African American letters—Schuyler relays the laborious efforts he made to read all of Marx’s works, for instance. 


Indeed, Schuyler was as well read as he was prolific an author.  A distinguished member of the black cognoscenti who tirelessly argued on behalf of the legal and civil equality of blacks, Schuyler’s was among the most influential of black voices during the middle of the last century. He was regularly sought after to appear on radio and television where he would routinely decimate his opponents in panel discussions over the issues—typically racially related—of the day. 

So why is it that, in spite of the prominence that he once enjoyed, Schuyler is no longer mentioned these days?

One obvious reason, of course, is that Schuyler was a conservative.  And he was a black conservative.  But to know only this isn’t to know the full story.


You see, unlike most of today’s conservatives, black or white, Schuyler relished in taking a wrecking ball to just those persons and ideas that our generation has elevated into sacred cows.

For example, while few of our contemporaries who crave the company of “respectable society” would dare to publicly criticize Malcolm X or, more crucially, Martin Luther King, Jr., Schuyler repeatedly took both men to task.

He was particularly unyielding when it came to Malcolm, who he had debated on several occasions.

In 1973, eight years after Malcolm’s murder, Schuyler penned a piece entitled, “Malcolm X: Better to Memorialize Benedict Arnold.”  In it, he said of Malcolm that he was “a bold, outspoken, ignorant man of no occupation,” one of the many “mediocrities, criminals, plotters, and poseurs” that constitute “the past generation of…black ‘leaders’” who have been “afflicting the nation [.]”


But Schuyler wasn’t just insulting the memory of a dead man.  He confronted Malcolm face to face while the former was alive and “was initially astonished by his wide ignorance.”  Schuyler explains that when Malcolm “launched into an excoriation of white people in the name of Islam, I called his attention to the fact that the majority of Moslems were whites [.]”  Malcolm, he continued, was no better prepared to reply to this revelation than he was Schuyler’s assertion that Moslems were more involved in the African slave trade than were Europeans. “He was surprised to learn this,” Schuyler recalled.  

Schuyler also informed Malcolm that the Nation of Islam’s “anti-white” and “anti-Christian” ideology aside, American blacks are “the healthiest” and “the wealthiest” blacks anywhere in the world.  They “have the most property” and are “the best educated” and “best informed group of Negroes” on the planet.  This includes, Schuyler was quick to note, all of those blacks from “the Muslim countries.”


Neither was Schuyler a fan of Martin Luther King, Jr.

When it was announced that King would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Schuyler was critical. In his article, “King: No Help to Peace,” he declared unabashedly that “neither directly nor indirectly has Dr. King made a contribution to the world (or even domestic) peace.”  Alluding to King’s alleged communist ties, Schuyler added: “Methinks the Lenin Prize would have been more appropriate for him [.]”

Schuyler stated: “Dr. King’s principal contribution to world peace has been to roam the country like some sable typhoid-Mary, infecting the mentally disturbed with the perversion of Christian doctrine, and grabbing lecture fees from the shallow-pated.”

Most tellingly, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was still a bill, Schuyler came out as one of its most formidable opponents.


In “The Case Against the Civil Rights Bill,” Schuyler asserted that all such civil rights laws “are another typically American attempt to use the force of law to compel the public to drastically change it [sic] attitude to and treatment of a racial group, the so-called Negro [.]”

Although Schuyler finds this attitude to be “morally wrong, nonsensical, unfair, un-Christian and cruelly unjust,” the fact is that “it remains the majority attitude” (emphasis original).  Still, since 1865, he says, there have occurred “marked changes” in this arena, constructive changes, and “civil rights laws, state or federal, have had little to do with it [.]”

While by every conceivable standard, black Americans have made strides—irrespective of whatever civil rights legislation may have been on the books—more remarkable than any to which any other group can lay claim, “the principal case against a federal Civil Rights law is the dangerous purpose it may serve.” 


Such a law is but “another encroachment by the central government on the federalized structure of our society.”  What this means is that “armed with this law…to improve the lot of a tenth of the population, the way will be opened to enslave the rest of the populace.”  Schuyler denies that he is being hyperbolic on this score.  “Under such a law the individual everywhere is told what he must do and what he cannot do, regardless of the laws and ordinances of his state or community.” This can only be read as “a blow at the very basis of American society,” a society “founded on state sovereignty and individual liberty and preference.” 

Schuyler insisted on being even more graphic: “We are fifty separate countries, as it were, joined together for mutual advantage, security, advancement, and protection.  It was never intended that we should be bossed by a monarch, elected on born.  When this happens, the United States as a free land will cease to exist.”

Among the heroes of the past to whom we should turn as we approach this next election and reckon with those who would deprive of us of our liberty, George Samuel Schuyler must be placed at the top of the list.

originally published at American Thinker


Byron York’s Analysis of Romney Dismantled

posted by Jack Kerwick

Byron York is perplexed by what he perceives to be the glaring discrepancy between the Mitt Romney of the GOP primary season and the Mitt Romney who is the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee.

Borrowing from the Star Wars mythos, York refers to the first Mitt as “the Death Star.”  In the primaries, Romney spared neither expense nor opportunity to eviscerate his opponents.  Though his ruthlessness vis-à-vis his rivals generally and Newt Gingrich particularly was off-putting to some of the party faithful, the optimists among them viewed it as a potentially promising sign of Romney’s ability to reckon with “the Obama killing machine,” as York puts it, that was waiting in the wings.   


Thus far, however, the second Mitt has dashed these expectations. York writes:

“Now, the general election campaign is here, and the talk is of the Obama killing machine, not the Romney death star.  By most accounts, the Romney campaign is not displaying the super-aggressive effectiveness it showed in the primaries.”

York identifies five reasons to account for this seemingly enigmatic phenomenon.

The first pertains to what he summarily calls “the facts”—i.e. Romney’s business record and taxes.  Simply put, while these were not an issue with Republican voters, they do matter with Democrats and independents.  This,York thinks, explains the effectiveness of President Obama’s relentless campaign against Romney’s time at Bain Capital.


The second reason for the lackluster performance of the second Mitt is “the media.”  Even in this age of “the new media,” the majority of the most influential media outlets remain under the dominance of Democratic-friendly journalists and commentators. So, while Romney had very little media scrutiny with which to contend during the primaries, he is bound to receive the lion’s share of it now that he is the Republican presidential nominee.

Third, both Romney aides as well as some Democrats—like James Carville—believe that the pro-Obama SuperPACs have so far managed to more effectively direct the course of the campaign.    

Fourth, campaign finance laws prevent Romney from spending one penny of the money that he has raised for the general election until the commencement of the Republican National Convention on August 27.  Hence, Obama—who didn’t have any competitors in a primary race—has been able to far and away outspend his rival.


The fifth and final reason that explains Romney’s lack of aggressiveness is his “complaining.”  The second Mitt ought to take the advice that the first Mitt offered to Newt Gingrich when the latter complained loudly about the negative attacks with which Mitt bombard him: “Just take it and hit back harder—that was the way they saw it,” as York says.  He concludes: “Romney is far more self-controlled than Gingrich, but the effect is the same; he’s whining about the other guy treating him badly.”

York’s analysis is not implausible, but, ultimately, it is wanting.  Let’s look at reasons (1)-(5).

Obama’s attacks against Romney’s business record and taxes have not been terribly effective at all.  Granted, they have had Romney on the defensive, but the thing of it is, the former governor of Massachusetts has had no small measure of support from a number of the least likely people—namely, Democrats, and prominent Democrats at that.  From former President Bill Clinton to former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, to present Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to Newark Mayor Cory Booker, distinguished voices from the President’s own party have publicly denounced his attacks against Bain Capital and Romney’s record while presiding over it.


As for the media,York’s judgment is not wide of the mark.  Still, it overlooks the significant fact that even those who are otherwise Democratic sympathizers have taken their fellow partisans to task for the Bain Capital attacks.  CNN’s Candy Crawley and David Gergen are two examples.  ABC’s George Stephanopoulos is another.

For sure, there is anything but a level playing field for Republicans and Democrats when it comes to media coverage.  However, if media hostility toward Romney is a factor at all in accounting for his tame treatment of Obama, it shouldn’t be exaggerated. As the aforementioned examples establish, reasonably fair coverage is not impossible for a Republican to secure.

Maybe the Obama SuperPACs have been more “effective” than the Romney SuperPACs and maybe they haven’t been.  But if they have been, asYorkapparently believes, then this raises but another question: Why?  To this question, we will turn momentarily.


That Obama is outspending Romney in some places due to the restrictions that campaign finance laws impose upon the latter needn’t have anything to do with the problem under discussion—i.e. Romney’s lack of aggression.

First of all, though money is important in a campaign, as we saw in the 2008 GOP primaries, the guy with the most money—in that case, Romney—can’t always buy the prize.

Second, if it is Romney’s lack of aggression that we seek to explain, then it doesn’t matter who is spending what.  The real question should be: what is Romney doing with the money that he is spending?

Finally, Romney’s “complaining” or “whining” is irrelevant. 

For one, all politicians tend to cry foul when they are being assaulted by their opponents. In doing so, they hope to present themselves as the good guys and their attackers as the bad guys.  Furthermore, no one cares whether Romney is complaining or not. People no more care about this than they would care that he is spending his time playing chess or swimming. 


What they care about is that he is not spending his time hitting Obama as forcefully as Obama has been hitting him.

So, we are back to square one.

But, in all honesty, to some of us, there is nothing in the least mysterious about Romney’s refusal to unleash the same fury on Obama that he released on his fellow Republicans. 

We may call it the John McCain Syndrome (JMS).

Recall that the same things that York, myself, and others now say about Romney were said four years ago about 2008 Republican nominee, McCain: the Arizona Senator could be ruthless, even contemptible, toward other Republicans, but toward Democrats, especially his opponent, Senator Obama, he was remarkably restrained, even unduly deferential at times.


Yet McCain’s rival then is Romney’s rival now. 

To put it more clearly, then as now, it is a black politician against whom Republicans have to do battle. 

In 2008, it was a young black man who aspired to be the country’s “first black president.”

In 2012, it is America’s “first black president.”

And it is a black politician who has proven himself time and time again eager to play the race card in order to advance his interests.

Does Byron York, or any American who has been alive longer than five minutes, genuinely think that the paralyzing fear of being accused of “racism” doesn’t figure substantially in explaining Romney’s and the Republicans’ aversion to coming at Obama with guns blazing?   


A couple of months ago there was some talk about a Romney SuperPAC that was considering reintroducing America to Obama’s one-time “spiritual mentor,” as Obama characterized his pastor of over twenty years, Jeremiah Wright.  In light of the fact that this issue, courtesy of the media and McCain, was never explored to the extent that it should have been, and the fact that it now assumes new significance in view of Obama’s conduct since assuming the office of the presidency, the ad would have been highly germane to this election.

But as McCain ran from the topic four years ago, so too was Romney quick to renounce just the possibility of such an advertisement.

Until Romney relieves himself of the fear of being branded with the dreaded “R” word, he will not display the same aggression that he exhibited during the primaries.

This is what is missing fromYork’s analysis.

originally published at American Thinker



Campaign Against Chick-Fil-A is War on Christianity

posted by Jack Kerwick

The phenomenally successful restaurant franchise Chick-Fil-A is once again at the center of national controversy. And, once again, it is a controversy generated by those who waste not a moment to equate opposition to so-called “same sex marriage” with “hate.”

A couple of weeks ago, Chick-Fil-A’s CEO, Dan Cathy, told Online Baptist Press that his restaurant was committed to advancing the well being of “the family—the biblical definition of the family unit.”  He continued: “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.” For this, Cathy said that he gives “God thanks [.]”

He also mentioned that he prays that we are not “inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”  Such an attitude, Cathy asserts, is unduly “prideful” and “arrogant.”


In response to Cathy’s remarks, mayors from American’s metropolises have “disinvited” Chick-Fil-A from opening any new restaurants in their cities. For example, former White House Chief of Staff to Barack Obama and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated: “Chick-Fil-A’s values are notChicago’s values. They [Chick-Fil-A] disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.”

Considering that Chicago has been a killing field under his watch, Mayor Emanuel’s remarks may very well have done more than anything else could have to help make Chick-Fil-A even more successful than it already is. 

In all seriousness, though, we need to really observe what is happening here.

As Dan Cathy says, Chick-Fil-A is a family-owned business. More specifically, it is a Christian family-owned business.  And although he is reluctant to characterize his business in terms of Christianity—only individuals can have a relationship with Christ, corporations can’t—the fact of the matter is that Chick-Fil-A is designed to resolutely affirm what can only be described as Christian values. 


The most salient of such signs is its decision to do business only six days of every week: every Sunday Chick-Fil-A is closed.

But it also routinely—incessantly—sponsors all manner of family-friendly events, and donates substantial sums of money to the most deserving of charities.

In short, Chick-Fil-A most definitely is a Christian organization.

This is why it continually comes under attack by those who are determined to insure that the voice of anything that can remotely be construed as a traditional form of Christianity is silenced.  Cathy’s latest comments are but a pretext for what amounts to nothing more or less than a relentless campaign by radical leftist forces to relegate the Christian to the periphery of the culture.


If we think about it for more than the length of a standard sound bite, we will discover that this verdict is inescapable.

Think about what Cathy is not saying.  He is not saying that Chick-Fil-A refuses to serve homosexuals. He is not even saying that his business would refuse to hire homosexuals.  He hasn’t said anything even close to this.

Chick-Fil-A does indeed engage in discriminatory hiring practices.  Yet there is one simple criterion that it employs, and it hasn’t a thing to do with sexuality (or race, gender, etc.).  Being a dutiful Chick-Fil-A customer, I have gotten to know some of its managers over the last so many years, and they have all told me the same thing: all members of the Chick-Fil-A staff must be able to provide excellent customer service. 


What this in turn means is that they must not only be efficient in providing customers with the goods that they purchase; they must do so with a smile.

In other words, applicants must either possess a cheery disposition at the time of being hired, or they must possess the will to acquire such a disposition during on-the-job training.   

In terms of hospitality, there is no fast food restaurant on the planet quite like Chick-Fil-A.   To this, everyone who has ever eaten there, regardless of their opinion regarding the quality of its food, can readily attest.

Chick-Fil-A supplies people—its customers, its employees, and untold legions of human beings who have been the beneficiaries of its charitable activities—a service that is immeasurable in worth.  Without exaggeration, it can be said that Chick-Fil-A has gone a great distance in helping the lives that it has touched achieve what, as Aristotle long ago recognized, all of us ultimately want: happiness.


Chick-Fil-A is a character molding institution insofar as it aspires to cultivate within its employees those habits that have traditionally been recognized as human excellences or virtues.  The staff at the organization that the Cathy family founded promotes diligence, conscientiousness, humility, generosity, and hospitality.

And it even encourages—by way of its observance of the Christian Sabbath and the innumerable events that it sponsors on behalf of families and local communities—the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

This is the organization that Chick-Fil-A’s enemies relentlessly smear as a promoter of “hate.”  We must be clear, for clarity concerning the nature of Chick-Fil-A provides us in spades with clarity concerning the nature of its nemeses.


That the campaign against Chick-Fil-A is part and parcel of a much wider campaign against traditional Christianity becomes obvious once we consider that Cathy’s position on so-called “same sex marriage” is no different than that taken by the entire world up until yesterday, as far as history is measured.  Even our “transformative” President, that “world-historical,” “multi-cultural” figure himself, Barack Obama, subscribed, or claimed to subscribe, to the same exact position as Cathy’s up until just a couple of months ago.

Here is what we must grasp: if Cathy is “homophobic” because he does not support “gay marriage” or even homosexual activity, then what his enemies are actually charging is that traditional Christianity, from biblical days up until just a few decades ago, is “homophobic.”


More simply put, the God of the Bible is a moral degenerate, for the God that is depicted from Genesis through Revelations is an unreconstructed “homophobe.”

If Cathy and most of the two billion people who constitute the Christian world are “homophobes,” it is because the God who they aspire to honor was a “homophobe” first.

Admittedly, no text or tradition is self-interpreting.  Cathy and those of his theological ilk—i.e. most of his contemporaries and all of his predecessors of the last couple of millennia—may be mistaken in how they read Christianity.  But if this is so, then it is incumbent upon his critics to point out to him the error of his ways.

This they haven’t done.

Yet even if they could prove that Cathy and the overwhelming majority of human beings who have ever lived were incorrect, this would most definitely not justify the allegations of “hatred” and “homophobia” that Chick-Fil-A’s enemies insist on substituting for rational and civil argument.    








The Main Problem with Nolan’s Batman

posted by Jack Kerwick

Chalk up another summer for the genre of the superhero film.  The latest—and most anticipated—is the third and, supposedly, final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy: The Dark Knight Rises.

Being a committed superhero fan from way back, I admit to having something of an emotional interest invested in seeing to it that these cinematic adaptations of iconic comic book characters remain faithful to the traditional lore. 

It is this desire that accounts for why I despised all four chapters of the first Batman franchise just as much as I loved Nolan’s reimagining of the Dark Knight.

I remember seeing Tim Burton’s Batman on the night that it first opened back in the summer of 1989.  Michael Keaton portrayed the hero and Jack Nicholson his arch nemesis, the infamous “Joker.”  The movie was a phenomenal financial and critical success.


Though the best of the series that it spawned, I hated it.

And I hated it for a variety of reasons.

As of now, there are at least three things that I can recall vividly: Batman killed criminals without hesitation; among the criminals that he killed was “the Clown Prince of crime,” the Joker; and his unfailingly loyal butler, Alfred, took it upon himself to disclose his master’s duel identity to his love interest, Kim Basinger’s Vickie Vale.

For those of you who are in the least familiar with the history of Batman, I needn’t explain any further why a Batman fan would find all of this utterly unacceptable. Besides, inasmuch as it stands in glaring contrast to the 1990’s non-canonical depiction, Christopher Nolan’s conception of Gotham City’s caped crusader illuminates these inadequacies of its predecessor and more.


Bruce Wayne is a mega-billionaire whose parents were gunned down, before his very eyes, by a mugger when he was but a child.  The Waynes’ trusted butler raises him, supplying him with all of the love and emotional support that one would expect from a father.  Still, Bruce is forever traumatized by his parents’ slaying.  He is obsessed with it, and it is this obsession that all but compels him to devote all of his energies into transforming his whole person—mind and body—into the perfect weapon with which to combat evil.

Repeat: Batman is a hero, yes, but he is concerned first and foremost with fighting evil—not inspiring goodness. 

In Batman Begins, Nolan seems to get this.  It is in the first of the trilogy that Bruce Wayne resolves to become Batman so as to serve as a symbol—a symbol of fear: as Batman, he hopes to instill dread into the hearts of the lawless. 


Here, Nolan is consistent with the Batman mythos.  But by the time the most recent film comes to a close, he seems to have forgotten this, for it is here that Batman reveals that all along the idea behind the cape and cowl has been to inspire others to heroism.

Sorry, but this doesn’t wash.

Superman is a figure who is self-consciously committed to inspiring the good in others.  With his bright, flashy colors—and, crucially, bare face—he intends to be a symbol of hope, truth, and justice, a light in an otherwise dim world.  Thus, it is not for nothing that parallels between the Man of Steel and Jesus have been drawn for decades.

In other words, if Bruce Wayne sought to make others heroic through the symbol of The Batman, then he should not have chosen to dress as a creepy, nocturnal creature like a bat!


No, Batman may very well inspire goodness. And he may be pleased that he is able to do so. But this is not what he sets out to do.

He sets out to battle evil.  In fact, this may be too strong a characterization of his intentions, for Bruce Wayne’s decision to become Batman is just barely a choice.

He is driven to it.

Batman is a hero, but he is a tragic hero.  He doesn’t enjoy his life.  But he can’t have it any other way.  He refrains from killing his rivals, not because he has the least bit of compassion for them—he doesn’t—but because he is perpetually haunted by the fear that unless he draws that line for himself, he will become them.

Nolan brilliantly executes a happy ending for Batman. Yet this is a mistake, for in so doing, he fundamentally transforms the character into something that it isn’t.

We may as well arrange for Romeo and Juliet to go riding off into the sunset together.   






Previous Posts

"United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror:" A Review
When Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson claimed that Islam and the American Constitution are incompatible, he immediately found himself buried by an avalanche of criticism. Neither the tone nor the substance of the lion’s share of ...

posted 9:40:13pm Oct. 06, 2015 | read full post »

Ben Carson, Islam, and "Progressive" Bigotry
I don’t think that there is any activity that more powerfully reveals the human being’s intellectual and moral defects than that of politics. This is especially the case when it comes to the one time— presidential elections—when ...

posted 10:59:28pm Sep. 21, 2015 | read full post »

The Philosophy, and Theology, of "Breaking Bad"
Walter Hartwell White, an (exceedingly) overqualified middle-aged high school chemistry teacher, despite never having smoked, is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer on his 50th birthday. Sorely lacking the financial resources to see to it that ...

posted 10:35:57pm Sep. 17, 2015 | read full post »

Hey Jonah, hey Ben: What IS a "Conservative?"
Regarding Donald Trump’s domination of the GOP presidential contest, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg has recently remarked: “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out.” In ...

posted 7:52:08am Sep. 10, 2015 | read full post »

Trump's Loyalty Pledge and the Curse of Rand Paul
GOP loyalists may have finally gotten their wish. Since Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign, Republican politicians and their apologists on Fox News and in some quarters of “conservative” talk radio have been laboring ...

posted 11:20:46pm Sep. 04, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.