Some statements made by politicians are just gaffes.  We are all human, no matter how polished of a politician some of us may be.  Obama’s 57 states statement and Joe Biden’s misstep of asking North Carolina to help win the campaign (while stumping in Virginia) are all such blunders that were mostly ignored by the media and rightfully so.

Some statements are reflective of candidates’ views on policy or politics, that, when taken out of context by the media (either right-wing conservative talk shows or “main-stream” network or cable news), seem to show that the candidate is reckless or dangerously out of touch.  Mitt Romney’s “I like to fire people” and “I am not concerned about the very poor” or President Obama’s “You didn’t build that” are examples.  Of course, Romney either cares about the poor or is not stupid enough to admit he does not.  Also, it should be clear that Romney believes everyone should be accountable for his or her work (or lack thereof), and it is good for the “buyer” of someone’s services (either customers in the private sector or taxpayers in the public sector) to be able to choose to look elsewhere if needs are not being met.  Similarly, President Obama was saying the public infrastructure used to move goods to and from a business, the education system used to educate skilled workers that a business needs and any other value-adds provided by the public sector are necessary for businesses to thrive.  Of course, entrepreneurs built their businesses and deserve rewards, but they have an advantage in being in America with all of our structural advantages over nations like, say, Zimbabwe (doubters should try starting a new software business in Harare).

An objective citizen should not want to focus on the extreme views from out-of-context statements.  TOC disagrees with President Obama on many things, but he does not want to disagree with Obama on a position Obama clearly is not taking.  We need a debate on the level of government’s involvement in private enterprise, but it does no good if positions are misrepresented.  The same goes for the role of government in charity and provision of individual needs.  Mitt Romney made it clear that he wanted to focus on policies to help the middle class and that he felt the “safety net” for the poor is “fine” (and he would consider strengthening it if needed).  Arguing that Romney wants poor people to starve is a stretch; misrepresenting his position takes away an opportunity to have substantive debate.

Some statements are reflective of candidates’ views on policy or political approach without any misrepresentation and are dangerously out of touch or are very questionable.  We recently saw two examples with Vice President Joe Biden and US Senate nominee Todd Akin.  When Joe Biden mentioned that Mitt Romney wanted to put “y’all back in chains,” it revealed, at best, insensitivity towards a race Democrats take for granted.  For those who disagree, consider how often Biden has insulted the LGBT community or the Latino community.  One would expect Biden’s “innocent gaffes” to be spread across different groups if they truly were oversights.  Clearly, these gaffes are calculated; otherwise, how could a near-billion dollar campaign allow them to happen by accident?  Perhaps they are meant to be a distraction.  If so, it is appalling that the Obama campaign wants to distract from material issues and uses such divisiveness.  Perhaps they indicate Biden’s lack of sensitivity for African-Americans –similar to his opinion on Obama’s candidacy in 2007.  If so, someone must hold him responsible for such words.   Perhaps it is an attempt to excite the emotions of African-Americans with allusions to slavery by using subliminal messaging.  If so, shame on this campaign for stoking such emotions and cheapening that history for votes.  Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments are just as bad, but they raise a key question:  How can someone with these views become a major party nominee for US Senate?  Contrast the decision to choose Paul Ryan, a conservative with the skills to communicate the virtues of conservatism, to Akin, with his irresponsibility in speaking to abortion limits for rape victims.  Regardless of one’s opinion on abortion, the term “legitimate rape” is unacceptable to women, husbands of wives, or fathers of daughters.  These words are indicative of Akin’s indefensible feelings.

This view, or some indication of such, should have been exposed during the nomination process.  Akin clearly was hidden in a bubble, which allowed his politics to go unchallenged or unchecked.

Bubbles limit our society’s ability to come to common ground and lead to the polarization we see today.  Of course, Akin had clearly trapped himself in a bubble, but was there not also a similar bubble that Biden saw?  Perhaps Biden sees African-Americans as trapped in the past (with everyone else moving on) and that they will vote based on an evil that ended 150 years ago in lieu of effective policy. That belief would be despicable, but what other conclusion should one draw?

In closing, TOC returns to something he sees as very important.  African-American conservatives have the challenge of winning over more African-Americans.  Plus, there are too few to hide in bubbles – we will always have to defend our positions at family events and in our communities.  We cannot rely on “what is good for the country” arguments since so many African-Americans are struggling.  I will not care about China overtaking the US in GDP in 2017 if I cannot feed my kids today.  Explaining the virtues of conservatism is tough, but we know EVERYONE benefits by limiting the role of government in our lives.  At least, let’s challenge the other side to elevate the conversation and explain why their approach is better.  Let’s make sure the debate is based on the merit of arguments and not on cheap plays to emotions.  Most importantly, let’s continue to challenge all African-Americans and not let them hide in bubbles either.

TOC used to critique conservatives for the apparent worship of President Reagan until just recently. Ronald Reagan was the dream of conservatives – one who truly believed in the power of the private sector while having the charisma to draw people to the concept.  This characteristic seems to be in short supply for recent GOP leadership.  Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee for President, has seemed defensive when talking about his wealth and success.  As TOC has said before (see Regretfully Rich), the fact that Romney is rich should be compelling – not repugnant.  We have someone in Romney that has turned failing companies into juggernauts.  That is far more fascinating than someone who can slow-jam the news.  Fortunately with his VP choice of Paul Ryan, Romney seems fully dedicated to addressing the need to embrace conservatism in the general election rather than shy away from it.  Ryan has a history of being tirelessly dedicated to fiscal conservatism and limited government.

Like Reagan 32 years ago, Ryan and Romney must now explain how limiting government and cutting taxes is not just “helping the rich,” but putting money in the private sector so that the private sector can produce value.  Government has never created anything on its own other than services the Constitution mandates.

To a passive citizen, such may be counterintuitive.  For some, the poor should be helped by the largest entity in our society (government).  For some, Barack Obama needs to take from the “evil” rich people to fund government.  For some, we need to take better care of the environment, so it makes sense to allow the government to force citizens to buy clean-burning ethanol.  Clearly, we need to put more money into our education system when we have schools that do not graduate half of their students.  Last but not least, when we are running budget deficits consistently over $1T, the rich should pay their “fair share,” and it is certainly not fair that the ultra-rich pay lower tax rates than the “working man.”

Ryan and Romney must explain the error in this logic.  Yes, you can give to the poor, but you risk creating a cradle-to-grave welfare system that destroys incentive for people to unlock their potential and contribute to (not take from) society.  Yes, you can take from the “evil” rich and give to government, but that means you are taking money from some that have a proven track record of creating value from resources and giving those resources to a less-productive government.  We hear all the time that we need to raise taxes to build roads and bridges and fix schools.  Why is it that “bridges are falling apart” and we are falling behind the world in education while spending has been increasing every since 1965?  What has all this money been spent on?  Who knows, but TOC does know that government is failing to deliver the things we all agree it needs to deliver, but not because of a lack of spending.  Nobody wants a dirty environment, but forcing people to buy ethanol leads to overconsumption that increases corn prices and hurts the poor but does nothing to improve the environment overall.  Perhaps we need to consider a voucher system so we can have competition in order to force schools systems to improve themselves.  Consider Detroit Public Schools (DPS) as an example of why pouring money into a system alone does not work since you do not compel the administrators to make improvements.  At DPS, kids and teachers have suffered as administrators robbed and plundered.  If a poor, inner-city mother does not like the toy she buys from Wal-Mart, she can take it back, but if her child is not getting educated, what recourse does she have?  All of this is in light of Democrats demanding the rich pay their fair share.  Turning back to “Regretfully Rich”, the argument that “rich man pays lower tax rate than not-rich man” does not take into account that a) the capital gains tax is assessed on money you invest after you have already paid income taxes –for example, if you earn $100,000 on a $1M dollar investment, you may already have given the government another $1M in income taxes to earn the $1M to invest – and b) when you increase the capital gains tax, the rich will not just continue to behave the same.  They will decrease certain activities, leading to less investment in businesses while the additional money seized by government will be spent on who-knows-what (for doubters, please walk me through a business case for the $840B investment known as the stimulus – the next time TOC sees that business case will be the first time).

We as black conservatives face a similar challenge as Romney and Ryan – leading other blacks to the virtues of conservatism.  Democrats approach blacks with a simplistic argument that the government is here to help you and you need help (with the implicit message that blacks are not capable of across-the-board success given the right resources).  As evidence, it took President Obama almost four years to create some bureaucracy, via executive order, to “help” black students.  On the other hand, it took Obama just a few months in office to expand entitlements, such as lengthening unemployment to 99 weeks.

The biggest, but most immediate hurdle we have is explaining to blacks that conservatism is not “racist” as the Democrats have pushed for generations.  The argument that smaller government is racist because shrinking government will disenfranchise blacks is a racist statement itself.  Again, there is an implicit message that blacks inherently need government to survive – this is offensive and unacceptable.  The conservative message of giving our children school choice so they can receive an education, kick the need of government assistance, invest in themselves and – eventually – thrive in a small-government environment (not suffer from it) is a central part of the black conservative’s vision.

TOC hopes more of us continue to accept this challenge.