The big lie of the ideological switching in American liberalism

The big switch in de Democratic Party is one of the biggest myths distorting American politics, as a cultural framework; based on the belief that the party abandoned its roots in racial discrimination, for a more inclusive approach. The problem is that it fails to show its case beyond rhetoric, and the fact of white leaders exigences to black people; which paradoxically tends to confirm its classical rooting in political segregation and elitism, as normal.

The so-called switch would be a development, started in the New Deal of Roosvelt, with government interventionism; and ended with the overwhelming vote of black people for John F Kennedy, after the incident with Martin Luther King. But none of both was really related to black people, nor to directly easy our burdens a specific social stratum; but rather —in the case of Roosvelt— to expand government interventionism, profiting from the economic disaster; and —in the case of Kennedy— as an effect of the very punctual circumstance of Luther King, not of his social stratum.

In the first case, the expansion of government interventionism inflates the intellectual elitism in the whole society; producing the originality of the cultural spectrum of black people, under the umbrella of financial stimulation. But this was mostly the inflation —and this artificially— of black intellectualism, with its natural tendencies to liberalism; which did not translate into the betterment of black population, but just a more visibility of its intellectual figures.

If that New Deal had produced any actual results, black people would not have been pushed to the unrest of the sixties; where were confronted by the same Democratic party, just more in the legislative area than the real violence. It was still violent, even if as a response to the violence that black unrest, as an actual war against this specific party; for which was so important the case of Luther King, with the intervention of Kennedy, then presidential candidate.

This last switch was the gratitude of Luther King’s father, not a social consequence of a social change on that party; and the ink between both cases is artificial, created and feed by the white liberal monopoly of the press… on their freedom. Besides that, and because of this virtual monopoly, the political leadership managed to hide the black conservatism; not enough to suffocate it, as it’s impossible due to its cultural nature, but to hide it under its moral narrative.

This is important, as that cultural nature of conservatism is not just black, but the property of any cultural development; aimed at preserving its existential resources —like family—, in the political precariousness of American blackness. Even liberalism is just a form of neo or function conservatism, based on morals as political determinations; just trying to be displacing the ontological functions of culture, since the only real switch we had, in western Modernity.

This is a problem, since relatively young generations has growth in this new epistemological framework of Modernity; and so are reduced to ideological confrontation, without a real philosophical scope on their thoughts. It is not that philosophy were never a popular but a special activity, for which it precisely creates this confrontation; but it’s definitely the only way to overcome its difficulties, as the true nature of the conflict, beyond its rhetorics; as shown in this false ideological switching claimed by American liberalism, just to hide its racism in black masks.