The GOP’s Race Problem
In 1944 the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal acutely subverted a classic paradigm in American political culture: the so-called “Negro problem.” As Myrdal pointed out in his work, An American Dilemma, there really is no “Negro problem” in America. There is a white problem. White people in America systemically prevented people of African descent from fulfilling what most Americans honestly referred to as the American dream. In 1944, with segregation in full effect and blacks disfranchised across the South, Myrdal offered a powerful case for integration that would be used in the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
While so much progress has been achieved over the last 50 years in solving what Myrdal correcting identified as the “white problem” with black people, there are still vestiges of this sorry past. Here in Knoxville the Ku Klux Klan showed up a year ago to “protest” against what they described as a “hate crime” when five African Americans brutally raped and murdered a young white couple. While the murder was shocking there was no indication that the perpetrators had any racial animus. It was little more than drugs and robbery that led to this crime. But the Klan still made its case.
In this political season there have been numerous comments regarding Barack Obama that have edged toward – and sometimes gone over – any acceptable boundary of racial discourse.
But the flier sent out by the Chaffey Community Republican Women’s Club in Southern California goes into the ranks of infamy. Ostensibly a riff on Obama’s comment about not looking like the other people on the dollar bills, Club President Diane Fedele made fake “Obama Bucks” food stamps with stereotypically black food like fried chicken, watermelon, ribs and Kool-Aid. I can’t honestly say that I’ve seen a more racist image on an official party document since, well, the 19th century. The flier openly hearkens to minstrelsy imagery.
Of course, back in those days it was the Democrats who proudly declared themselves to be the “White Man’s Party.” In 1868, Horatio Seymour and Frank Blair ran the most explicitly white supremacist Presidential campaign in US history, openly cheerleading Ku Klux Klan attacks against black Republicans in the South.
Since the 1930s – and since 1964 in particular – African Americans have moved en masse to the Democratic Party. Noting the declining percentage of Americans of European ancestry, Republican leaders have courted racial and ethnic minorities for years. In 2004, Karl Rove successfully encouraged 11% of African Americans to vote for George W. Bush – mostly because of a shared religious conservatism.
Images like this completely undermine such efforts to broaden the GOP’s reach. That a President of an official Women’s Republican Club would feel it even remotely appropriate to put such a flier out reveals an ugly contempt for non-whites at the rotten core of the modern Republican Party.
Barack Obama didn’t need racist antics like this flier to win nearly 100% of African American votes this fall. Black conservatives have embraced Obama for his example of self-help if not for his politics. And non-conservative blacks needed little convincing to support the first African American with a real shot at the White House.
But this flier – like the vicious anti-Mexican rhetoric during the immigration debates – has served to whiten the Republican Party at the very moment when America’s demographics have made an all-white party impossible to compete. If the Republican Party is serious about broadening its appeal, it needs to make a public example of people like Linda Fedele and expel them permanently from all Republican events. The price of ignoring this sort of outrage is political oblivion of the sort nobody will lament.
64 Responses to “The GOP’s Race Problem”
The Dems _gained_ the black vote in the 1930s. Beginning around that time and onward, the Jewish vote, too? Why? What did they suffer?
I agree — even if its true which is debatable it doesn't make the GOP ad less offensive.
If 10% of African-Americans vote for the GOP that could still make a difference in a close race. If the above ad circulated among that group, don't you think it would turn off even that 10%?
My point is that they are not only failing to lure minorities into the party, but actively taking steps to turn them away- and at the same time turning off white progressives and moderates. Talk about low IQ's- now that doesn't seem exceptionally bright now does it?
DLS- but the administration that actually cut back welfare was a Democratic one- Bill Clinton's- blacks still stayed with the party and even called Clinton the first black president.
Look at Congress- there's a reason that the GOP doesnt' need a black caucus. Black voters see the Democrats backing black candidates and those candidates rising to positions of power in Washington and as mayors and governors. Did you ever think you'd see Democrats choosing the little-known Obama over the Clintons??
Rico : “they just don't want to deal with poor folks anymore. That, in a nutshell, is why the GOP is getting killed among those minorities.”
They don't have much of a track record with the middle class anymore either. Advocating for only for 5% of America is bound to catch up with you eventually.
JSpencer: They don't have much of a track record with the middle class anymore either. Advocating for only 5% of America is bound to catch up with you eventually.
I tried to keep my comment short, but point taken. I left a lot of things I could have said unsaid. But I have to say, it really ruffles my feathers when someone claims they are somehow in possession of THE FACTS, and everyone that disagrees are idiots, even though they present not a single shred of documentation to back up their claims. That, among debating circles, is called an “appeal to authority”, and it's very transparent. But not only did AsherJ do that, he coupled it with another popular technique: dissembling. He tried to make a tangential issue (in this case race) the central one, which is economics. And that's what the ad in question did as well.
Sometimes I don't know what to think. I mentioned before that my reaction to McCain's original “celebrity” ad really pissed me off. I calmed down when it became apparent that the racial connotations I saw in it were not generally appreciated. Following that I suggested that maybe everyone needs to calm down. Then this “watermelon” graphic surfaced and the connotations became all too real again. It is a blatant attempt to tie black folks to poor folks, as if they were one and the same. And that is very indicative of the GOP's basic problem. IMO, they want it both ways — they want to play one marginal group against the others so they don' t have to address the truly fundamental problem that makes it all work: income inequality.
AsherJ, it seems to me that you're making what amounts to an economic argument and interpreting it in terms of race. To the extent I can follow your reasoning you're saying that blacks and hispanics won't vote for the GOP because the Dems offer them more free stuff. By and large, though, they're not getting “free stuff” because they're black or hispanic, but because they're poor. If too many of them weren't poor the argument would fall apart, wouldn't it?
No. One does not need to be poor to take free stuff when it's offered. The people offering free stuff are, themselves, largely white. Affirmative action is an example of transferring social resources from whites to blacks. Again, let me be clear, I am not condemning resource transfer as some absolute moral bad but noting that it is threatening to create a permanent one-party system.
So how do you get poor people off the “free stuff” train? Or do you simply shut the train down? The problem I see with the GOP is precisely that: they want to shut the “free stuff” train down. They don't have much interest in reforming it, they just don't want to deal with poor folks anymore. That, in a nutshell, is why the GOP is getting killed among those minorities.
No, the GOP will get killed because they will always be outbid by Democrats. As I noted above, one does not need to be poor to take free stuff when it's offered to them. Yes, the middleclass and the upper classes do not want to deal with the poor anymore. The upper classes do this by buying expensive high-rise condos or residences in posh neighborhoods and sending their children to expensive private schools, and the middle classes do this by moving to the suburbs, exurbs or small cities and sending their kids to high quality public schools. Both methods are de facto segregation and both are used equally by white Democrats and Republicans, although Democrats throw in childlessness to ameliorate the burden.
The segregation is hugely expensive to the respective populations and is ANOTHER form of resource transfer, despite the fact that there is no actual transfer of funds.
Even among blacks and hispanics (and other minorities) there is a certain amount of friction
In Compton, 56 percent of the residents are now Hispanic, and within two generations hispanics will now probably be about twice as numerous as blacks. And hispanics, unlike whites, have no evolved moral feelings of guilt over slavery, while having a friendly govenment sitting just south of the border to run to if confrontations get dicey. Blacks are gonna get overrun by hispanics big time. However, whites will always lead the coalition that is the Democratic Party and so when election time comes the groups will run to the polls and vote to get more resources from whites.
The GOP lost the black vote many years ago when they decided to pursue the “southern strategy”. They had a realistic shot at a sizeable segment of the hispanic vote until they decided to go all out demonizing illegal immigrants themselves rather than addressing the issue of why they were coming here in the first place. So now, thanks to the GOP's efforts (and again, especially within the “underclass”), blacks, hispanics, and to a certain extent every other minority, have more in common with each other than with the white segment of the “underclass”
You are reversing cause and effect. The southern strategy relied on the reality that whites need to have communities that are probably 90 percent NAM (non-asian minorities), or more, in order to thrive and that the GOP offered a break from the explicit segregation of the old democrats. Basically, the southern strategy acknowledges that blacks are full members of society and deserve the rule of law, but taht whites need to be in communities where they can pursue their common interests that are radically different from blacks. It was a moral means to a practical compromise. Also, the hispanic population in America is getting less and less european; cubans are about 85 percent european ancestry, while migrant farm labor coming from the south is now about 70 to 80 percent amerindian ancestry. The difference between those to specific groups is about 10 to 12 IQ points.
The amerindian population produces huge numbers of individuals who lack the cognitive capacity for anything beyond directed manual labor. The cuban population is little different from the average immigrant coming from Spain today. Given that huge segments of the amerindian population is capable of little beyond directed, manual labor it means that they're going to need a social infrastructure run for them by other ethnic groups in perpetuity, aka a transfer of social resources. Therefore, they'll vote with the group that promises them bigger transfers.
Worse, it seems to me the GOP is counting on that friction to benefit from the white “underclass” vote.
There is no white underclass. Yes, there are whites who are poor, but they are a fragmented, isolated lot who have zero group identity. “Underclass” is an actual identity for groups of people. Don't confuse “redneck” with “underclass” because they operate in completely different fashions. Yes, you can mock that southern redneck who makes 30 grand/year framing houses. But he has an IQ of 95, is married, has kids from that marriage, pays his taxes, has a long-standing place in society and doesn't break the law. The recent amerindian migrant has an IQ of of 80 (remember we're comparing whites and amerindians from the bottom half of their respective curves), is functionally illiterate, comes from a society that is corrupt in every nook and cranny, can barely read in his own language, has a cultural allegience to a different country and likely has kids outside of marriage (the hispanic illegitimacy rate is 55 percent and climbing, and is skewed toward amerindian hispanics rather than euro hispanics, see above).
But the fact is, it's usually the GOP that emphasizes identity politics wedge issues rather than trying to seriously address them.
Excepting a small segment of the population, politics IS about identity, about heuristics, about intuitive social knowledge and belonging. Most people like the cognitive capacity to rationally analyze huge, complex, interrelated batteries of policy, and even fewer have the time. The lower the IQ of any given demographic the more likely it is to vote based on “identity” lines.
So again the question goes back to… what do we do about poor folks?
Many of our metropolitan areas are reaching carrying capacity, the Malthusian limit, so any additional individual is going to severely impact the potential for other additional individuals. There is a zero-sum game for population growth; growth in one demographic will necessarily lead to decline in another demographic. I live in Seattle, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, and 90 percent of my friends and acquaintances are Democrats. Your average middling Democrat voter is no bleeding heart, despite what blowhards like Rush Limbaugh might say. Most Democrats I know want licenses for breeding.
What you're going to start seeing is a push for selective population control.
Eugenics, soft, and it will be supported by lots of voters who usual go Democrat.
Rico, I would challenge you with the same challenge that I presented to others: give me a set of policies that the GOP could propose that would make them seriously competitive with blacks and hispanics.
If you cannot do this then I assume you are conceding the point that the GOP cannot ever win these demographics and that any electoral strategy must consist of getting 70 plus percent of the non-jewish white vote.
One more thing: when the GOP has managed to get small increases in black votes it has done so by appealing to fundamentalist religious fervor in the black community, mainly revolving around abortion.
Amusingly, it's hideous for the GOP to appeal to religious fervor among whites, but leftists make an exception for the GOP doing so to blacks. Black religious fundamentalist: good. White religious fundamentalism: bad.
Hilarious.
Asher
back up the claim that leftists make an exception when the GOP appeals to blacks???
@kritt11
back up the claim that leftists make an exception when the GOP appeals to blacks???
Did you even read my post? If so, then you'd know that I already addressed this. What blacks the GOP does manage to get, they do so by appealing to “fundamentalist” reasons like abortion and gay marriage. So, when Democrats tell Republicans that they have a moral duty to woo the black vote what they are implying is that it is laudable to push abortion and gay marriage to appeal to black fundamentalists, but then they turn around and mock white fundamentalists.
Look, you people are not even serious. The point is that the GOP has aboslutely no reason to appeal to black voters at all, and you all here have admitted as such.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Describing Republican supply side economics as capitalism is definitely a sign of someone drinking the kool-aid (no chicken, ribs or required). It turns the free market on its head and rewards mediocrity. Unless you understand the fungible nature of money you are a “slave” to the magic tricks of the Republican party. In other words, you are a tool. But hey, that is your choice. Just don't expect me to buy into your insanity.
You see, unlike McCain who sold his soul when he kissed Falwell's ring, I will not sacrifice what I know is right to please or pander to the moronic elements. No matter the cost.
We watch the Republican President beg congress to vote for the largest corporate welfare package ever and then listen to McCain calling Obama socialist?
Sir, you are definitely free to ignore reality all you wish. Just don't expect the rest of us too also.
I disagree with your premise that Democrats are implying that
it is laudable to woo blacks on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.
Are you saying that those are the only two issues that they can appeal to blacks with??
Republicans accuse Democrats of pandering to blacks, but when African-Americans watch how they run their campaigns they realize they have no choice. If I were African-American I would never vote for a party that put out this kind of racist garbage.
I disagree with your premise that Democrats are implying that it is laudable to woo blacks on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.
Of course not. Democrats aren't seriously suggesting that the GOP even try and win black votes, my conversation with you demonstrates this amply. You, and everyone else, here knows damn well that the GOP has no shot of winning anymore than a sliver of black voters.
Are you saying that those are the only two issues that they can appeal to blacks with??
Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner!!!!!! Yes, what few votes the GOP does get, it does so by appealing to black religious fundamentalists on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. It's probably been decades since black voters voted for the GOP for any other issues than strict social conservative ones.
So, if you tell the GOP it has a moral duty to try and appeal to blacks, you are telling the GOP to appeal to oppositions to gay marraige and abortion. To say one is to say the other.
Republicans accuse Democrats of pandering to blacks,
I don't actually see that much talk about this phenomena, at least no widespread analysis. But “pander” is rather soft-pedaling it. Blacks are bought, pure and simple.
If I were African-American I would never vote for a party that put out this kind of racist garbage.
I already addressed this very specifically and at length. This particular event has aboslutely no effect on electoral politics. Blacks aren't going to vote for the GOP anyway because the Democrat Party offers them more free stuff. And whites who are at least open to voting for the GOP are not going to change their vote based on this event.
It's irrelevant, but it does allow white Democrats to get their panties in a bunch and congratulate each other on how more enlightened they are than are people in the other party.
It's just hypocrisy and silly gamesmanship.
When I say hypocrisy, I mean that no one really believes that there are any sets of policy arrangements that will lure black voters to the GOP.
You are all just engaged in preening, moral posturing.