Book Review: Blackout by Candace Owens

Preface

I tried enjoying this book...but the reasoning in most chapters is quite problematic and seemingly disingenuous. There are plenty of 3/5 star critiques online that share this sentiment. To avoid repetition, I will thus limit my discussion to some of her most problematic points.

Candace's book details what she sees as inherent, ideological troubles within the Democratic Party. She attempts to provide critical exposé to the sentiments typically espoused by Democrats (she aligns their ideology with those of "The Left"). Each chapter documents a subcategory within the Leftist/Democrat ideology that is both wrongheaded and detrimental to the black community. She lists topics like slavery, and socialism, and even dedicates a chapter to the American media. Synthesizing the evidence of all chapters, she showcases the inefficiency and immorality of the Democrat Party and concludes with a "call to arms," inviting black Americans to vote for Donald J. Trump and "b(l)ackout" of the Democrat party for good.

Review

Upon concluding the book, I was disappointed to find a common, yet serious flaw that overshadowed her entire argument. Simply stated, she erroneously assumes that any reason not to vote Democrat is a reason to vote Republican. The careful reader must dismiss such argumentation with a resounding "no." It is wrongheaded to conflate these two claims. Indeed, this trots out a dichotomy that is neither real nor necessary in a constitutional, multi-party democracy. To fix (or save) her argument, she must at least give reason for accepting this dichotomy OR supply separate reason to vote Republican (and also for Donald J. Trump). By not doing so, readers have no good reason to operate on her assumed dichotomy---at least in the context of this book.

Though some might argue that she escapes this flaw. They might say her argument touts Trump as the best way and not the only way to escape these dangerous democrats. Again, however, a question surfaces. Why is Trump the best over all other candidates? Does this not complicate the argument even more since she must account for all other independent, Democrat, third-party candidates too? And if she does not account for independents, then she must argue for a similar dichotomy like the one above.

Instead she plows right through these considerations and dedicates a mere 13 page defense of Trump. Within this argument, she highlights his temperament (calling him a bull in a China shop - I am puzzled how this helps), labels him boisterous, and quotes parts of his speeches (which he probably did not write). Policy discussions are seriously lacking in her desperately weakened argument and the greater irony is that many of her reasons serve to dissuade many from Trump. Furthermore, there are arguments against voting Republican and good faith dictates a footnote or allusion to such argumentation at least, but this too is lacking.

It is disappointing to witness her overall method and generosity toward her opponents. Such contributes little to the broader discussion. To cut short my lamentation, however, I must digress to the content within her chapters.

Chapter Content

There were a couple of chapter discussions that were simply problematic. For prolixity's sake, I will limit my discussion to a few stand-out ones.

1) Her discussions about feminism exemplify a disingenuous engagement with her opponents. You would be shocked to find that throughout her chapter "On Feminism" she never delves into the "philosophical" differences between certain waves of feminism, never singles out a specific view of feminism to engage with, and does not supply any quotations from the work of modern feminists (she fails to quote any serious academic feminist). The cautious reader turns each page slowly realizing that she doesn't know much about feminism nor its different academic flavors. From what I could collect, Owens' definition of modern feminism is anything that is a "witch hunt against men" (67). Not only is this not modern feminism, but it is also deeply concerning that many agree with her assessment. I was hoping she would quote academic feminists like Virginia Held, Robin Dillon, or even Kimberly Crenshaw just for the sake of worthwhile engagement. Like many cautious readers, I wanted her to "steel-man" (or "steel-woman") her opponent's argument.

To those detractors, I am not a feminist. I have merely engaged with some of my opponents' literature. One should expect the same of Owens, considering she has placed this book within the (strict) discipline of political science. Her methodology in examining feminism is replicated through the book, especially (sadly) with Marxism. To the point, most of her Marxian quotations come from the Communist Manifesto. I quibble with this due to the Communist Manifesto's brevity, spanning a short 100 (and something) page treatise with limited academic discussion. In reality, Marx published 15 complete works that span hundreds of pages. Proper engagement must go beyond the mere ramblings of a manifesto if one seeks to enter into an honest debate against Marx's intellectual tradition.

2) Owen's discussion on slavery demonstrates problematic reasoning. "On Slavery" commences with the claim, "the injustices of slavery ....[has] (highly implausible) lingering effects ... four hundred years later" (239). Once again, the cautious reader requests proof for the claim that antebellum slavery, an inhumane, demeaning, deadly institution, has not spurred any plausible detriment to generations today. Indeed, hundreds of pages of historical analysis would be expected in contemporary scholarship. Instead, however, she spends most of her chapter supplying details on slavery throughout world history and among Native American tribes. The emperor does not have new clothes - this is the old talking point that slavery was around for a long time therefore slavery in America is...expected? Less horrific? Justified? Not important to analyze? Should not be heavily discussed? Really, no one has any idea where this argument goes, except some folks like Owens who argue it. Further, this is a textbook example of a red-herring. The discussion is supposed to be about the impact of slavery in American history upon black folk, not the impact of slavery in the larger scheme of world history.

It is also puzzling why she dismisses the detrimental effects/inherited inequities passed down due to the dark parts of history (even today). There is a considerable debate to be had here as well. Regardless, if she had recognized inherited inequities in her argument this would not undo it. She already notes (astutely) that certain problems exist within the black community. Acknowledging an evil historical influence that (she might say partially) caused such problems does not undermine her ultimate call to vote more in line with your interests and be more personally responsible. DuBois, a brilliant sociologist and black man living in the generation after slavery, was an example of someone who did just that. He acknowledged the deeply, egregious evil of slavery and racism of the white men at that time, refusing to hold back his comments upon its effects and the hypocrisy regarding the American ideals. Yet he also argued for a standard of excellence among the black community. One which he exemplified in his brilliant writing and excellent career. Consider this quote,

"The supplementary truths must never be lost sight of: first, slavery and race-prejudice are potent if not sufficient causes of the Negro's position...[and] while it is a great truth to say that the Negro must strive and strive mightily to help himself, it is equally true that unless his striving be not simply second, but aroused and encouraged...he cannot hope for great success" (403)

Granted her argument is contemporary contra this quote, but the case is still plausibly constructed (and is plausibly made by those in the NAACP, founded by Dubois).

3) She argues that slaves on democratic plantations are somehow comparable to black people continuing to vote democrat. I have heard her explanations and I understand it is a metaphor. However, her analysis massively "cherry-picks" historical evidence. As stated above, there is simply no discussion of Republican policymaking up to the present nor the distinction between abolitionist and non-abolitionist Republicans. More importantly, I do not see the wisdom in telling the very people you desire to persuade that they are systemically endorsing an institution comparable to Antebellum slavery. To tell your target audience that they are still (somehow) slaves is a deeply lofty rhetorical tactic. It is no wonder that many readers slightly to the left of Owens were a bit troubled by the book's implications. I am sure many are confused about why Candace chose this tactic and, as someone (technically, not happily) closer to Owens on the ideological scale, I am puzzled as well.

I must add, however, that this book has some redeeming qualities. These include some very heartening anecdotes about her life lessons, moments of taking personal responsibility, and a great discussion about education. I applaud such moments of moral realizations that drive one toward the pursuit of truth and enjoyed hearing of how she hopes for black Americans to pursue education. This is a point that many, brilliant leaders from the black community have emphasized (see WEB DuBois critique on Booker T. Washington in The Souls of Black Folk for an example). Nonetheless, it is challenging to keep these in mind in light of her former tactics. Even now I struggle whether to address her deep misunderstanding of Marx's political philosophy (it is really bad, as is her poor use of a quotation from Hobbesian philosophy - I could write on this part alone).

I want to conclude the discussion by noting my political affiliation: I do fall on the right side of the political spectrum, though not as far Right as Owens. My overarching concern is that Owens is neither engaging with her opponents nor her tradition. It was very difficult at times to see any connection between her ideas and traditional, philosophical conservatism. She never distinguishes (clearly, at least) between the classical liberalism of John Locke and the conservatism of, say, Edmund Burke. Most of her conservatism sounds like Lockean individualism that is more concerned with self-expression involving personal responsibility, over the burden of tradition and convention (though she is religious). This is essential - the philosophical underpinnings of a view must be thought through to strengthen arguments against our opponents. In another post, I might discuss my concern with her philosophy. However, the brevity of a book review compels me. I hope my review spurs more thoughtful discussion that is more cognizant of reasonable (or unreasonable) argumentation. And most importantly, I hope to encourage you to dive into a pile of books once more!