Rhetoric vs. Reality
Do Black conservatives overlook racism?
YouTube Description: “In this segment, panelists have a real and honest conversation about racism Black conservatives witness. Can racism be overlooked despite political views?”
Hmm, ‘real and honest’? The description paints a picture of genuine dialogue about witnessing and potentially overlooking racism, but the actual segment analyzed here felt more like a performance rooted in deflection and factual inaccuracies. Can racism truly be ‘overlooked’ if the conversation itself sidesteps honest engagement with the complexities and relies on misinformation?
I am often tempted to dismiss cable news debates as political theater, sound and fury signifying little. In the case of a recent segment from “The Factor Uncensored” featuring Black conservatives defending Donald Trump, I succumbed — not to dismissal, but to dissection. What unfolded was a stark exhibition of rhetorical maneuvering, where factual accuracy became secondary to the performance of unwavering allegiance. Did it help policymaking? No. It was deflection — with intent.
The segment pitted three members of the “Urban Conservatives of America” against Eugene Howard, a former NAACP chapter president, ostensibly to discuss whether Black conservatives must “stomach” racism to support Trump. From the outset, the 3-on-1 dynamic tilted the stage, but the core imbalance lay deeper: in the collision between asserted narratives and verifiable facts.
The conservatives’ central thesis quickly emerged: Judge Trump not by his often-incendiary words, but by his actions and policies, while simultaneously redirecting focus towards perceived hypocrisy and racism from “the left.” As guest Jonathan McCullough put it, “Racism to me is not what someone says. It’s what they do… show me policy that affects or that you can call racism.”
This rhetorical sleight-of-hand — redefining racism solely through policy enactment while ignoring verbal conduct — served as the foundation for their defense. It allowed them to sidestep Trump’s documented history of racially charged remarks, including the very statement about criminal indictments appealing to Black voters that framed the segment.
Get Jerry W Washington, Ed.D.’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The counter-attack swiftly followed: pointing fingers at the left. Guest Rachel Williams cited Joe Biden’s 2019 gaffe — “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids” — as evidence of ignored liberal racism. Yet, this deployment was itself a distortion. As fact-checking confirms, Biden immediately clarified his statement, a crucial context conveniently omitted in the segment to maximize its impact. This wasn’t analysis; it was curated outrage.
The reliance on curated data, or outright misinformation, became a recurring theme. Guest Rachel Williams also claimed Trump had been “great for black people,” citing Black unemployment rates. While the rate did hit a record low under Trump pre-pandemic, it subsequently hit another record low under Biden — a fact conveniently ignored by the conservatives and highlighted by Howard.
To be clear, both sides cherry-picked, but the conservative claim presented a partial truth as the whole story. Similarly, the assertion that Trump “declassified the MLK files, something Barack Obama didn’t do,” crumbles under scrutiny. Both presidents released some relevant files (related to the JFK assassination), and Trump actually delayed the release of others. It’s a narrative constructed for effect, not accuracy.
Perhaps the most glaring factual bankruptcy occurred late in the segment. McCullough claimed Trump “is the first president in modern history to crack the black vote and get majority of the black support.” This is demonstrably false. While Trump did increase his share of the Black vote modestly between 2016 and 2020 (from roughly 8% to 12% nationally, according to Roper Center data), this figure is nowhere near a “majority.”
It’s disinformation presented as triumphant fact. What about the claim that Trump gave “$80 billion” to the Black community? Thrown out without a shred of evidence, it hangs in the air, an assertion substituting for substance.
Against this barrage, Eugene Howard attempted to anchor the debate in policy and symbolic actions he deemed detrimental: the controversies surrounding the Harriet Tubman $20 bill, the removal and reinstatement of Tuskegee Airmen displays, attempts to defund the African American Cultural Museum, and proposed cuts to social safety nets like Medicaid and Medicare under the Trump administration.
These points, largely corroborated by public records and reporting, represented a direct challenge to the “actions, not words” framework. Yet, his points were often met not with counter-evidence, but with deflections (McCullough pivoting to the price of gas) or ad hominem attacks questioning his intellect and authenticity (“All Skinfolk ain’t kinfolk,” “you have to first be an intellectual to be honest”).
The debate, therefore, showcased a dramatic contrast: one side attempting, however combatively, to engage with specific administration actions and their racial implications, while the other primarily engaged in narrative control through redefinition, deflection, cherry-picking, and falsehoods. The invocation of internal community issues, like crime rates, further served as a potential red herring, shifting focus away from the core questions about Trump’s record and rhetoric.
How does such a factually challenged defense persist? The segment suggests the performance wasn’t aimed at persuading skeptics but at reinforcing the beliefs of the already converted. It symbolized a broader political dynamic where loyalty to a figurehead can necessitate constructing an alternative factual reality. The sharp language, the interruptions, the emotional appeals — all contributed to an atmosphere where feeling right trumped being factually correct — a trend I point out over and over.
I find that “The Factor Uncensored” segment delivered a grim verdict on the state of political discourse. It wasn’t a debate seeking truth or shared values, but a performance validating an ideology. What unfolded was less an exchange of ideas and more a meticulously constructed, yet factually fragile, defense built on rhetorical tactics rather than reality — a controlled demolition of nuance, disguised as bold truth-telling. It serves as a potent case study in how allegiance, when prioritized above all else, can render facts irrelevant.
Cementing our post-truth world.
