Blackout: The Worst Book I Read in 2022

Candace Owens is not one to cower amidst controversy, neither is she unsuited to fashion tumults after her own causes. For avid supporters, the tenacious disagreeableness of Candace Owens is merely the fruit of an ideological insistency and consistency amidst a public square hostile to her political framework. Surely, such Candace aficionados muse, the conservativism of Candace Owens is a natural catalyst in a society wrought by progressive ideals hostile (the key word) to the interest of America; Candace Owens stands as a wall against the violent immigration of un-American and idiotic triumphs seated within “The Left”.

Her book is comprised of chapters that detail the conservative perspective on separate philosophical, socioeconomic issues in American politics. She has chapters "On Property," "On Education," etc. so that it reads like a less-exhaustive version of John Locke's Two-Treatises of Government. She dives headfirst into the most controversial topics, having discussions that range from socialism to racial issues in hopes of showing how left-leaning Democrats are actually working contrary to the interests of the black community. The point of the book is to offer both a conservative perspective to black voters who are registered Democrat and persuade black voters (and anyone else along for the ride) to "blackout" of the liberal/leftist faction and become conservative (and vote for Trump the Republican).

She places a weighty burden upon herself and maybe the weight of this burden explains her downfall. She seeks to address property theory, Marxism, racial issues, affirmative action, the effects of slavery, the effects of Jim Crow, and many other pressing matters in a measly 300 pages. She is also trying to both convince people to leave the Democratic Party and vote Republican (these are two separate claims). Nonetheless, does she meet the burden? My verdict: absolutely not.

Black democrats should not be persuaded to leave the party and I would urge them to seek better arguments elsewhere. This book rambles like a manifesto, and, to put it bluntly, does not belong in the genre of political science. Overall, if it were incumbent upon me to recommend a non-exemplary work from the contemporary conservative movement – her book would surely make the list. Below I will explain three shortcomings that contribute to her inability to write a coherent case which are summed up as follows: 1) she presents strawmen/caricatures of her opponents' views and thus offers no serious engagement to their ideas. 2) Her arguments are sloppy and, at times, outright contradictory as she allows unargued for assumptions/anecdotes to pervade her book. 3) She fails to connect the ideas in her book to any sort of conservative political philosophy.

Before continuing spelling these out in depth, it must be said that I am strictly concerned with demonstrating shortcomings in her political views, not her personhood (as has become popular in the news). Candace has both a right to be wrong and controversial. Clearly, such wrongness and disagreeableness ought not insulate her from criticism. Even more so, it also ought not license detractors to assassinate her character by ignobly surmising into unstated motivations. Surely, people like Owens are allowed to be dignified individuals even though they are seriously and unequivocally mistaken.

This leads to Owens' first problem. As hinted at above, she does not ascribe charity to the viewpoints of her own political opposition and her arguments possess little professional respect for great intellectual sophistication of those that sternly disagree. The chief way she showcases this is in the failure to properly cite any of her detractor’s views in proper context. She claims to argue against feminism but never distinguishes between the different waves, philosophical flavors, or individual philosophers – never even footnoting her opposition in context. In academia, one would not get past the editors. Yet with Owens, such is commonplace with her unthinkably broad endeavor of covering some of the most complex political topics in a mere 300 pages.

To the point, in one chapter she affirms that Dr. King's dream was realized, and that Democrats were “race-baiting hustlers” akin to the “ravenous wolves” Jesus mentions in the Bible. First of all, it is simply inappropriate and ridiculous to name-call your opponents with no evidence or specific citations of the case. Tangentially, it is theologically confused to assert that people who might support affirmative action or some other, race-based progressive measures fit into this passage. In context, Jesus literally says,

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15, emphasis added)

Why does she feel the need to alienate people who disagree with her? Many Christians support policies such as affirmative action out of conviction to help those who were historically discriminated against get on sound footing. Are these Christians “ravenous wolves” or “race-baiters” because they disagree with Candace Owens’ (ridiculously) short analysis of the impact of Jim Crow and slavery? This details the little respect she has for those who disagree with her.

In terms of Dr. King’s dream being fulfilled, are we seriously to believe this because Candace Owens told us so? She presents no argument against contemporary historiography examining the impact of Jim Crow and slavery. She does not engage with any contemporary author in context and lumps them all into one blob of "race-baiters." Her claim that Dr. King's dream has been realized is also strange since, at the same time, she laments that affirmative action goes against the dream of Dr. King. Which one is it? This leads to the second shortcoming involving her poor argumentation. There are plenty of headscratchers due to some seemingly out of place argumentation. Take this quote by Candace for example,

“Liberalism is defined as a political philosophy based on liberty and equality before the law…I will make an argument that liberalism has only ever been practiced by conservatives in this country”

So, pause for a moment, her point is that self-proclaimed conservatives are actually more liberal in political philosophy? While I might agree with this assessment for different reasons (most conservatives don’t realize that they usually quote thinkers, John Locke for example, who are philosophically liberal), this does not make sense amidst her broader argument of getting people to “blackout” of the liberal, Democratic Party and join the (barely) conservative, Republican Party. A more fundamental distinction between liberalism and conservativism involves the role of individualism in the broader societal framework, yet this is disparate, and it is difficult to find meaningful discussion of such. Throughout the book, she seems to speak of certain virtues that she assumes (such as personal responsibility) without providing any argumentation or definition.

I have much appreciation for many of the anecdotes she talks about her life. The problem is, however, that such stories begin to smuggle in values that are not argued for. Her argumentation assumes many values and ideas. Typically, this is fine if you are honest about your presuppositions. But with such honesty, one understands the limitations of their work. Yet she blows past this concern. For example, in her chapter against socialism she dedicates scant discussion on what actually constitutes property. How can you discuss socialism, property, or any other American issue without addressing the philosophical question of property? (Hint: you cannot if you are serious about this stuff). Unstated or unargued for assumptions along with out of place anecdotes are let loose in her book and contribute to her poor argument. Also, the greater irony is that many values she assumes are mostly liberal ideas rather than conservative. This leads to the last shortcoming.

The last shortcoming involves her inability to tie her ideas to true, philosophical conservativism. She seems to be out of touch with the philosophy and has confused it with Republicanism or classical liberalism. She treats conservativism like a "common-sense" dictate that reasonable people in history have always grasped. Take this quote for example,

“Conservativism then is about sense and survival. Leftism is the plaything of a society with too much time on its hands”

Like I said, Candace treats conservativism as common-sense principles that are the obvious, unchanging choice for those wanting to be reasonable. However, Candace overlooks that many of the values we “conserve” today were progressive for their times. She forgets that conservatives have to play around with concepts and divorce from other ones in hopes of better establishing our scruples. That is literally a conservative scruple as conservative philosopher Roger Scruton notes,

“Modern conservativism arose as a defense of the individual against political oppressors, and an endorsement of popular sovereignty” (Scruton – Conservativism: An Introduction to the Great Tradition).

Being a “plaything” of society is at the heart of where conservative comes from. Having the time to reflect upon tradition, society, bottom-up, arose to challenge the prevailing idea of such singular political oppressors and, in the name of such tradition, allow those who disagree to have their own playthings as well. Conservativism embodies the wise notion that, though we have way of “sense and survival,” we might be missing out on other forms that we ought to conserve (and thus reform our own). Therefore, we ought to allow certain views to freely pervade our institutions predicated upon reforming some tradition. As Edmund Burke famously said,

“We must reform in order to conserve.”

Ironically, it is very "not conservative" of Candace Owens to demonize her opponents in the way she does and utilize lofty plantation rhetoric to bully detractors. She needs to establish a conservative philosophy she ascribes to. If she fails to do this, she limits herself to sounding like a manifesto.

Overall, Owen’s disingenuous engagement with her opponents, failure to seriously substantiate her major claims by allowing weighty assumptions/anecdotes, and lack of serious engagement with broader ideals places her book among the worst this year. The irony is that I might agree with some parts (very little) of this book. Yet even in the parts I agree with, they are so poorly argued so as to outshine her main point. Without her ostentatious verbiage and political humor, the book is a poorly written argument for her brand of conservativism.