But first know that no one Black conservative (or White conservative who may have volunteered for Jesse Jackson in their distant past) can speak for all Black conservatives. Just as no one White conservative can speak for all White conservatives.

But still … to attempt to answer your question as to why Obama gets over 90% approval from Blacks in general it is both a belief in the “nanny state” (by no means universal among African-Americans, and probably not even a majority belief, but still a belief that is present) and a since of ethic solidarity. And in many ways, I think the two are related.

Quite frankly, I think many of the criticisms against Obama are “racially-tinged.” Not necessarily racist per se but they often contain code phrases that occasionally have a “racist” history. And while I do think this is mostly — indeed, overwhelmingly — unintentional by Obama’s critics, I do think there are a few who know what they are doing. In essence, yes, I do thik there are some few White conservatives that are playing “the race car” against Obama.

To give you just one example, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard “states’ rights” proclaimed as a rationale against Obama’s policies. But to everyone who heralds the term “states’ rights,” do you know the history of that term?

“States’ rights” was the clarion call of White racists and segregationists as they Black men, women and children as they were marching for the right to vote. Indeed, “states’ rights” was the justification that White lawmakers and the citizens that continually elected them used for enacting poll taxes or other blatantly racially discriminatory methods to prevent them from voting. “States’ rights” was the reason there had — yes HAD — to be a Voting Rights Act; a law that, while it may have it’s flaws (what law of human origin doesn’t?), is a law that protected the constitutional franchise of literally millions of Americans citizens.

“States’ rights” was the reason my grandparents were legally prevented from purchasing property they could afford because of the color of their skin. Indeed, “states’ rights” was the reason my wife’s grandfather was legally prevented from making as much money as his White co-workers for doing the exact same job.

And please note that I am not talking about slavery or the 1800′s or whatnot: That is another example of how “states’ rights” has been used to the explicit detriment of Black people that I will leave for another conversation. I am talking about things that my grandparents, especially my maternal grandparents, and even my parents directly experienced. Indeed, I myself have not been totally immune: de jure abolition did not mean the immediate de facto end.

So when Black Americans hear conservatives and tea-partiers talk about “states’ rights” as an argument against the President, is it any wonder that they would support him more? That they would connect with him more strongly?

I am personally probably more of a federalist than most people here on RedState but even I must wonder about the increasing fascination with “states’ rights.”

Now unless you start thinking I am some “Left-wing socialist welfare recipient” myself, please check my posting history. I was one of the first if not the first person here on RedState to call Barack Obama a Marxist. And I stand behind that description of the President. But just because I agree that he is a socialist does not mean that I agree that he is the “Great Divider.”

Because quite frankly, although he has many faults, Barack Obama is not the Great Divider. Any non-White President — including a President BlackRepub, or President Martin Knight, or President Zootsuit — would cause such consternation and “division.”

Trust me, when President Zootsuit ends all farm subsidies, good old boys like Dale Peterson will be up in arms; saying I don’t understand the values of the “family farm” and how they are the backbone of America.

Indeed, as a relevant sidebar, to every conservative who questions why Blacks continually vote for “big government” and the “nanny state” by electing Democrats, please answer the question why conservatives, who supposedly believe in small government, have continually vote for “big government” and the “nanny state” by electing and supporting Republicans like George W. Bush, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Mitt Romney, and yes, even Sarah Palin?

Because, quite frankly, the reasoning and rationale given by both are remarkably similar.

But back on my main point, for the overwhelmingly vast majority, it is not racist. What it is is simple ignorance: I honestly don’t think that the vast majority of opponents of Barack Obama’s policies are aware of the connotations of many of the words they use. And human nature — being human nature — I don’t think many of them want to be aware: very few people — White, Black, conservative, liberal, whatever — want to take the time or make the effort to know and let alone understand much beyond their own personal history or comfort zone.

Barack Obama is not the “Great Divider”: human nature is. And my trust in the American people is that we will eventually overcome even that.

realize that to them, whoever we may want to define “them” at the moment, you are a special interest yourself.

When you’ve got “good” Republicans like Dale Peterson in Alabama talking about “defending” the family farm and not wasting the “billions of dollars collected to support” them (instead of not taking the money from the taxpayers in the first place and letting the family farm operate in a free market), what’s so “special interest” about anyone else?

First of all, it is greatly overstated that African-Americans are ostracized. Yes, it does happen but I personally find it is much less of an issue than it is made out to be.

But I will say that the real reason that Black conservatives do not vote conservatively is because there really aren’t that many conservatives. Can you honestly say that the last time so-called “conservatives” were in power they did much of anything conservatively?

Speaking only for myself and the small set of Black conservatives I know, the only thing we hear is how bad Obama is (often in terms that are “racially ;oaded,” see above) when the so-called conservatives don’t have a history of doing much better.

As a Black conservative friend of mine said when I first told them about the 9/12 rally in Washington last year, “So where were all these concerned White conservatives when George Bush was destroying the country?”

Just as many middle-class, educated African-Americans simply assume that civil rights and racial preferences are the same; many middle-class, educated Whites simply assume that anti-Black racism was never pervasive in America.

Just recently I was talking with a friend of mine — a middle-class, educated White conservative — about why Black legislators in South Carolina were opposed to a particular voter photo ID bill. When I told him because historically such laws requiring photo IDs were used to deny Blacks the right to vote, he actually asked, “Well why didn’t they [Blacks] vote for Attorney Generals to enforce the laws equitably?”

The obvious answer is: Because Blacks were being denied the right to vote precisely because they were likely to vote for Attorney Generals who would enforce the laws more equitably!

He, an educated and intelligent White conservative, just couldn’t seem to comprehend that there was racist, de jure discrimination that directly affected many of the Black legislators and was a legitimate reason for them to hold the position they held. He had been “indoctrinated” that Jim Crow never really existed or at least that it really wasn’t that bad or widespread

And unless I give you the wrong impression, I (like my conservative friend) also supported the photo voter ID bill. But I recognize the legitimate complaints and fears that such a bill would engender.

Look, I am adamantly opposed to affirmative action. However, I recognize that there is a very legitimate reason that many affirmative action laws were enacted.

Do I think affirmative action laws and programs were the correct solution?

Unlike many of my fellow African-Americans, I would say, “No!”

But do I think there were very real problems that affirmative action was meant to address; indeed, real problems that had to be addressed?

Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I would say, “Yes!”

That is precisely the thing I’ve been trying to state: conservatives (White and Black) have been indoctrinated just as much as liberals (Black and White). With few exceptions, both sides are ignorant and like to remain that way: instead of engaging in intelligent debate, they simply think of the other as “indoctrinated.”

Even here on RedState there was an argument going around that when Strom Thurmond was arguing for “states’ rights” he was not in support of segregation. That is lunacy. Thankfully, there were those here who had lived in the South during that time who could address that fallacy.

As a Black conservative, I probably see and hear from both sides more than most on either side. And the thing that I find most striking — and the thing that neither my White conservative friends not my Black liberal friends want to hear, believe or accept — is that both sides sound an awfully lot alike.

But +90% minority districts that are specifically designed to produce corresponding +70% White districts are not. In that sense, many Republicans were gaming the law themselves.

And I say maybe because Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) and Shawv. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) directly addressed the issue of racial gerrymandering.

And the interesting thing is, I know many even liberal African-Americans who agree with you.

Despite the myths that many Whites and/or conservatives may have, support for affirmative action programs is far from universal within the Black community. Most polls I know say that about a third outright oppose it and another third thinks it must be greatly modified and changed. Interestingly enough, these figures are not much different from the White population.

The problem is, many White conservatives have jumped on the “disparate impact” bandwagon.

True story. I have another White conservative friend who was telling me about a lawsuit against the HCR because it has a tax on tanning salons, which are mostly used by Whites. When he first told me about the lawsuit, I laughed. But he was serious; he thought the lawsuit had merit.

Now just about every tax has some sort of disparate impact (e.g. taxes on cigarettes affect smokers more than non-smokers) and to my knowledge no one is forced to go to a tanning salon (although, being Black I confess that I am only guessing that White people are not forced to go to a tanning salon). If White conservatives like my friend are going to seriously argue that taxing tanning salons is unconstitutional because of a “disparate impact,” then quite frankly they have lost all moral grounds to oppose Black liberals (or any liberals) from opposing “whatever” because it may have a “disparate impact” against them.

And please make no mistake, I think HCR is an abomination. I just think the argument that it is unconstitutional because of a disparate impact affecting tanning salons is utterly silly.

Please note (at the risk of avoiding legal subtleties) I am against “disparate impact” jurisprudence! I think they are silly and, well, unconservative (if I could coin a phrase). And in fact, I think you both agree with me.

My point was, why was my White conservative friend (as well as the White conservatives who were bringing the lawsuit in the first place) suddenly finding merit in them?

That’s the thing. Many of the “foibles” (and I’m being polite here) that the Right justly and accurately ascribes to the Left are the same foibles that the Right themselves exhibit.