Mr. Joseph C. Phillips: Author, Activist, and Common Man
On October 29, the Wabash Conservative Union will be proud to host one of the nation’s most active thinkers and writers, Mr. Joseph C. Phillips. Mr. Phillips will be delivering a lecture entitled “He Talk Like a White Boy”, based on his nationally bestselling book of the same name. In his lecture, as in his book, he will investigate the problem of institutionalized and socialized racism and the politics thereof, racial diversity in society and academia, and what it means to understand one’s identity. Although on his website, www.josephcphillips.com, he never claims to be an expert on any of these topics, a genuine authenticity felt throughout all of his work lends well to his credibility of being worthy of a good listen on all of these topics.
Mr. Phillips is well-known for being versed in all manner of issues outside of politics and race as well. Having once been a Hollywood actor (starring as Lt. Martin Kendall on The
Cosby Show), he has a particular taste for movie and television analysis, and being—though perhaps in his own mind—a master chef, he entertains a penchant for sharing recipes. By and large, the evening is sure to be both highly thought-provoking and enjoyable. We invite you, in the words of his website banner, to “take your shoes off and make yourself comfortable… [and] talk some more about movies, television, cooking, books, or politics.”
But Phillips does not just talk and entertain, falling prey to the common temptation of spewing largely vomitous matter in an age of blogs and Twitter. As a man whose eloquence and performance is bolstered by uncommon insight, when Phillips talks, people listen. He has gained wide credibility for his work, especially his moving book, He Talk Like a White Boy, as already mentioned, as a nationally syndicated author of his column, “The Way I See It”, and frequent guest of conservative radio talk shows across the nation, such as News and Notes with Ed Gordon , a popular NPR show. His essays have been published in Newsweek , USA Today, BET.com, and the Indianapolis Recorder, among others.
His deadly combination of skill and credibility make him an ideal candidate to speak at Wabash. Here, we fancy ourselves to demand words backed by substance. We are pleased when speakers display exceptional speaking ability and moral conviction, but our aspirations toward deeper, probing thought empower us to quickly identify pithy words and hollow character when we see it.
And here at the Conservative Union, we’ve done our homework. We’ve found a philosophy rich with authenticity in Phillips’s work, one that strives to approach every topic from an honest, well-researched perspective. We trust that in his lecture he will deliver on a conviction we’ve found as a common thread in his published work. “[Word and deed] must be grounded not in legalese or political correctness, but in the terra firma of moral correctness,” he says in his June 29, 2009, column “Becoming Post Racial”. This is a high statement coming from an actor and merely self-made author, columnist, and activist. We are excited to test Phillips on his word.
Testing our guests is also something we value at Wabash. There is little so invigorating as catching a speaker in some minor contradiction, or in some counterpoint they perchance overlooked. As with every guest lecturer hosted by the Conservative Union, after Phillips’s talk will be an opportunity for the audience to engage him in vigorous discussion. These discussion periods are often the highlight of the event, the chance for Wabash wisecrack (or not so wise-crack) to catch the speaker stumbling and send him out confounded by some brilliant new idea. Opponents of our guest lecturers often attempt to achieve this, and we welcome all audience participation. But be warned: although there is no such thing as a dumb question, there do exist petty interjections that serve only to embarrass the dignity of the entire audience.
Of course, petty or not, Phillips will likely welcome all critique or question with thoughtful consideration. At least in print, Phillips strives to maintain a civil, although at times heated, conversation with his audience, both supporters and critics alike. On his website are listed 265 frequent comments and commonly asked questions, ranging from “What is your opinion on Oprah?” to “I think you are out of touch with the black community”, and “Do you feel that you have contributed to the demise of the Republican Party?” Although Phillips takes these all in stride, giving detailed responses to each, he is very clear about his beliefs and never afraid to defend them.
This is what I find most engaging about Phillips. Beyond his idealism and aim for authenticity, it his willingness to go out on a limb, even if alone, that draws my respect for him. There are too few public thinkers like him willing to broadcast and hold to strong personal convictions on important issues. Consider, for instance, his stance regarding nationalized healthcare. In his October 19 column, “What is Pornographic? What is Hip?”, he likens leftist ambitions to pass a single-payer, universal healthcare bill to the perversion of pornography: “It is the ambition of the left to establish a whole new set of rights – rights not found in nature or revealed by nature’s God,” he says, sentiments which Phoenix staff writer Jason Allen shares also in his piece “How’s This a Right?” But Phillips continues, increasing the volume of his gutsy claim: “Rather, they are theproduct of the anointed and all too ambiguous progressive vision… Certainly there is nothing obscene about the desire to educate children, aid the
poor or ensure that the sick receive care. But to devise laws and policy based on ambitious, ambiguous and often arbitrary descriptives is, well, downright pornographic.” Statements like this are certainly worthy of the highest form of Wabash thought.
Or consider his words regarding the present situation of race in America, as featured in his August 24 column, “Town Halls on Race”: “No, we are not fearful of race; what we are is reluctant to move our discussions of race beyond the narrow confines of black grievance and white guilt… In the pursuit of a magical “level playing field” this generation continues to lay the veneer of race over every discussion of policy. The result is a continuing dialogue filled with terms like disparate impact and psycho-historical effect. These are all just variations on the same misguided attempt to assign worth to skin color. We talk all the time but never learn the lesson that before men can be equal men must first be free – free of judgments based on their race or ethnicity.”
In light of such outspokenness, it is easy to imagine sharp criticism from the left, the right, and the black community everywhere in between. Americans in black communities of all camps have at times been taken aback by his sometimes traitorously-seeming work, as in his October 14 column, “Racial Schizophrenia”: “I am only surprised that it took the left the better part of a year before they began to play the race game in earnest… Race provides them with a sense of security; they believe that through race they are able to keep their emotional and moral equilibrium. And because the left is emotionally tied to race it is a potent political weapon the use of which power seekers and power keepers will not soon relinquish.” Phillips pulls no punches, writing as he sees things no matter what the issue, and no matter who the audience.
However, it is this disregard for his audience that has some critics questioning his effectiveness to persuade and hold weight in the political arena. Publishers Weekly writes of his book and column, “[Phillips is] acute on the absurdity of racial perceptions, as when he gets scripts that call for “an African-American neurosurgeon with street smarts.” But his political essays often read like blog entries, heavy on outrage and rhetoric (the latter
sometimes snappy), and feather-light on nuance and evidence (the latter sometimes dubious). They may draw cheers from those who share his faith in G.W. Bush, but won’t persuade those who don’t.” I humbly agree. Though his remarks reflect considerable insight, it is a warranted critique that Phillips’s aggressive attitude on occasion clouds his meaning. But though his vigorous form of debate can be problematic for a confused audience, it can be rallying to those eager to be inspired critical engagement and wrestling with truth. Indeed, Phillips’s approach would fit well with the type of spirited parliamentary debate which staff writer Alex Robbins discusses in his article, “You Lie! The Case for Politically Incorrect Debate”.
Yet where he alienates, Phillips resolves, consistently returning to values shared by all members of his audience. He Talk Like a White Boy, his most prominent work thus far, reveals a down-to-earth author struggling with the same conflicts present across the entire spectrum of humanity. He addresses a highly personal struggle with identity, faith, and purpose. This is evident as a common thread all throughout his work, as Publishers Weekly states further on in their review, “Phillips’s opinions (e.g., on faith, character and the pitfalls of affirmative action) may be the driving force behind his writing, but it’s his lived experience that is likely to persuade readers of all colors—black, white, red or blue—that he has something to say.”
Yes, he is outspoken, and yes, he holds strong—if not polarizing— convictions. But above
all else, Joseph Phillips strives in his work and daily life to maintain a genuine authenticity with those around him. As any Rhetoric major might attest, this is the defining quality of a dynamic speaker. And as any member of the Wabash community might agree, it is authenticity and a common drive towards a common purpose—figuring out the complex
puzzles of this complex life—that holds Wabash together.
The Wabash Conservative Union therefore warmly invites you to join with us and Mr. Phillips for what promises to be a stirring and thought provoking probe into a few of these
puzzles.
Related posts:
