Conservative, n.A statesman who is enamored of ex- isting evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. —Ambrose Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary preface The Problem of Definition A conservative Latino man, a black conser- vative woman, and a gay Christian conservative . this may sound like a set-up for an off-color joke, but members of such a diverse contingent could easily pass one another on Capitol Hill, gather for a roundtable discussion at a public policy think tank, or be seated together at a dinner gala sponsored by the Republican National Committee. Such occur- rences happen frequently among the individuals I have labeled “multi- cultural conservatives.”I admit that even this tag began as something of a joke during a dinner party given by a close friend. I was regaling the company with stories and anecdotes uncovered while doing preliminary research for this book and was delighted by their confused and often horrified expressions. Seeking to get off another zinger at the expense of my erstwhile companions, I hit upon the idea of describing the existence of African American, Latino, homosexual, and women conservatives as “multicultural”—a term generally reserved by common affirmation for leftists and liberals. This does not mean that women and minority con- servatives embrace multiculturalism as an ethic and a philosophy. They do not. The phrase seemed, however, a perfect (if controversial) way to ix Preface designate what they have brought to the post–World War II conservative movement. The other segment of this book’s title is derived, of course, from the 1967 film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Sidney Poitier. Poitier’s character, John Prentice, is a distinguished and accomplished doctor spe- cializing in the treatment of tropical diseases who falls in love with the young, white daughter of a crusading liberal newspaper publisher. Re- leased in the same year as the Supreme Court’s Loving decision, which barred states from prohibiting interracial marriages, the film chronicles the attempts by both families to accept the impending union.While notable for its depiction of interracial love and intimacy, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner nonetheless fails to address the dynamics of entrenched racial prej- udice and foregrounds class (his prominence, her wealth) to make the pos- sibility of marriage palatable.As the producer Stanley Kramer asserted, Dr. Prentice’s status was essential, since neither the woman nor her parents would have been interested in a garage attendant.1 Hence, the standards it erects for peaceful integration and interracial marriage are deep and wide. Such standards also reflect, at least in part, the positions currently adopted by those women and minority conservatives who believe in the redemp- tive possibilities of assimilation, individualism, and character—a topic to which I devote a good deal of attention in the following pages. Having settled on a playful but hopefully thought-provoking title, as I began to write this book I was immediately confronted with the prob- lem of definition. Exactly what, after all, is a conservative in the context of a nation that lacks the basic ingredients of an organic conservative tra- dition? As Louis Hartz insisted, there is only one definitive political tra- dition in the United States, and it is decidedly liberal. In his seminal analysis of the connections between social structure and ideology, Hartz maintained that the absence of a feudal heritage and an anti-industrial Right led naturally to the triumph of bourgeois Lockean liberalism that equated the acquisition of private property with the pursuit of happi- ness.Without a landed aristocracy to overthrow or a landless mob to si- lence, liberalism reigned supreme and formed the foundation of Ameri- can political culture.2 Many self-proclaimed conservatives, however, re- main undaunted by such critiques.According to Russell Kirk, to cite just one prominent example, this lack of historical foundation is unimpor- tant, since conservatism is neither a political system nor an ideology. In- stead, it is a worldview and a style of thought about society and human nature. In an attempt to circumvent Hartz, Kirk claims that American x Preface conservatism is rooted not so much in distinct social and economic structures of the nation as in the realm of ideas. In his introduction to The Portable Conservative Reader, Kirk ventures a basic outline of six foundational principles.The first principle is a belief in a transcendent moral order, be it God or natural law, through which “we ought to try and conform the ways of society”; the second, closely related, is the principle of social continuity, that is, the vision of the “body social” as a “kind of spiritual corporation.”Third is the principle of prescription, or the willingness to cherish “the wisdom of our ancestors.”The individ- ual is foolish, as Edmund Burke once famously asserted, but the species is wise. Prudence is the fourth guiding principle of conservatism. It encour- ages the consideration of the probable, long-term consequences that lurk behind any public measure. Thus are conservatives ever on guard against the doctrine of unintended consequences. Variety comes in fifth on Kirk’s list.As distinguished from the artificial egalitarianism of radical systems, variety seeks “the preservation of a healthy diversity” by accepting the necessity of “orders and classes, differ- ences in material conditions, and many sorts of inequalities.”And, last but not least, there is imperfectability: the knowledge that human nature suf- fers from certain innate faults.These deep flaws in our nature ensure that the radical dream of a perfectly just and completely equal social order is hopelessly utopian and doomed to failure.“All that we reasonably can ex- pect,” Kirk summarizes, “is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering continue to lurk.”Which is all well and fine as long as you are not the long-suffering party.3 While some may dispute aspects of Kirk’s definition—religious con- servatives might make additions, libertarians subtractions—it nonetheless suffices as a good basis for discussion. For my part, I find Kirk’s descrip- tion a little too rosy. It skirts first and foremost the embrace of liberal in- dividualism and unfettered capitalism so common to American political thought overall and among the majority of contemporary conservatives. Kirk also obscures the ways in which the American conservative tradi- tion, especially its southern branch, was historically structured by the de- fense of slavery as an organic social institution, which positioned the male slave owner as paternalistically in charge of his extended house- hold. In the process, white women and enslaved men and women were reduced to the status of children and property.4 The right to own slaves as property, moreover, was premised, among other things, on the doc- trine of States’ Rights, which accelerated the fall of Reconstruction and xi Preface which would become particularly pernicious during the battles over fed- eral civil rights legislation. In 1956, for instance, one hundred senators and congressional repre- sentatives from eleven southern states signed the “Southern Manifesto,” proclaiming the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling an abuse of federal judicial power.“This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is de- stroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside agitators are threatening immediate and revolu- tionary changes.5 The species is not always wise and is certainly not consistently prudent, particularly when nettlesome issues such as race and gender come into play. Given the extent to which the conservative tradition in America was shaped by racialist and outright racist doctrines, by heterosexual-patriar- chal notions of gender and family,and by xenophobic influences, the exis- tence of African American, Latino, women, and homosexual conservatives is that much more fascinating. Fighting for inclusion in the mainstream of the conservative move- ment, they have been amply confronted by the legacy of exclusion. At the same time, as I attempt to demonstrate, multicultural conservatism is structured by a series of positions and ideologies that strike me as inter- nally consistent and, at times, even profound. In presenting themselves as public intellectuals and prophets to the nation, multicultural conserva- tives have sought to alter the course of American conservatism as well as the public discourse around issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual- ity.While their philosophies are in keeping with some of the definitions of conservatism I have cited, women and minority conservatives have also drawn on the intellectual and political traditions of the communities that shaped them. In the process, they have taught the old dog of conser- vatism some new tricks. Throughout, I use a variety of terminologies to describe multicultural conservatives. Most conventionally, I refer to them as “minority” conser- vatives.Although a number of scholars have raised questions as to the ap- xii Preface propriateness of this term, it is nonetheless a convenient catchall for con- servatives who are also African American, Latino, and homosexual. I also frequently use the phrase “women and minority” conservatives.This too is by way of convention and is not meant to imply that women and minor- ity are mutually exclusive; there are a good many women conservatives who are black, Latino, or Asian. I have also employed the alternative desig- nations “black,”“African American,” and “Afro-American,” as well as “gay and lesbian” and “homosexual,” and “Hispanic” and “Latino.”This vari- ance is primarily the result of variance in the language of multicultural conservatives.