Posted on 07/16/2008 11:41:41 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
I’m only one black American among millions, and I’m no authority on black people, nor do I speak for black people.
But I can provide insight.
Back in 2004, Republicans were trying to appeal to black voters. Newt Gingrich and the rest wanted to secure at least 25 percent of the “black vote.” Dream on! I poured a bucket of water over their piddling flame. Won’t work, I said. I explained my reasoning in “Why Courting the Black Vote Won’t Work,” which was published in the Washington Times.
Unlike some black conservatives and Republicans I know, I don’t think the party should appeal to voters based on skin color. I criticize white Republicans when they do it, and I’m disappointed when right-leaning blacks encourage them to do it.
Earlier this year, I reviewed a book called Wrong on Race, by Bruce Bartlett. He correctly pointed out that most of the raging racists you’ve read about in history books were Democrats and that Republicans were the anti-slavery party. In fact, the GOP was founded on the principle. Republicans supported major civil rights legislation right up through the 1960s, while Democrats filibustered the bills and spoke out against equal rights for all. Republicans still support equal rights for all.
And therein lies the problem.
Knowing history is important, obviously, and all this makes for good reading. But I need to break it you: blacks who vote for Democrats do not care about this history. The only bit of history they care about is the one that provides excuses and finger-pointing opportunities: ancestors in bondage, great-grandparents and grandparents struggling to gain first class citizenship in this country, etc. They don’t care who do did what to or for whom in the past. All they care about is who’s offering them the most goodies today.
Bartlett is on a mission to set the record straight, and from my perspective, he’s accomplished his goal. He has a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, “The GOP Is the Party of Civil Rights.” Bless his heart. An excerpt:
“While Harry Truman deserves great credit for ending racial segregation in the military and the civil service, his efforts to pass civil-rights legislation also died from Southern Democratic opposition despite strong support from Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1947 and 1948. This makes Dwight Eisenhower’s success in passing civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960 all the more remarkable, since Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress.
“Lyndon Johnson consistently opposed civil-rights legislation while he was in Congress, but as president worked hard to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed without the strong support of congressional Republicans, who provided the margin of victory.
“Richard Nixon is said to have developed a “Southern strategy” of using racial code words like “law and order” to gain votes in the South. Yet he did more to desegregate southern schools than any president in history. Nixon also created affirmative action to help break the power of racist labor unions, and minority set-asides for government contracts to aid black entrepreneurs.
“Historically speaking, the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats.”
Bravo, Bruce. But if you or any other white Republican think all these facts will suddenly change black people’s minds, you’re destined to be disappointed. Democrats know they’ve got an eternal lock on 90 percent of the “black vote.” All they have to do is continue to promise black Americans bigger and better government programs and handouts (so-called affirmative action, set-aside contracts, and other entitlements qualify as handouts to me), and encourage them to blame third parties for their troubles. (And I’m talking about blacks as a group here.) No grand theories. Along with reasons I mentioned in that 2004 article (federal government as savior, for example), it is that simple. Only my opinion…
Living up to American ideals like fierce independence, radical liberty, brazen individuality, and an unfettered pursuit of happiness is just too scary and challenging for some people. They’d rather sup from the enabling teat of a system that has contributed to their condition.
Also see Repeating History.
Update: Bruce Bartlett e-mails:
“I think you misunderstand the point of my book to some extent. Of course, no Democrat, black or white, is going to decide to vote Republican because of their party’s racist past. The point of the book was to give Republicans a story to tell to make it easier for them to go into the black community to seek votes. They haven’t tried to do that for a long time. If they do I think they will find many parts of that community receptive to their message. But Republicans have to ask first, they have to learn how to interact with black people and learn about their problems first hand. Once a dialogue has been established, Republicans will learn better how to tailor their message and their policies to better attract black votes. One area I mention in my book where I think the Republican message will be well received is on immigration because blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals.”
I agree that Republicans ought to remind blacks of the Democratic party’s past. Good luck with that. Driving a wedge between blacks and hispanics won’t work, either.
Gimmee_crats
Leshawn knocked the ball out of the park on this one. She’s exactly right.
Hey, I don’t like the idea of playing race-based politics either, but simply abandoning the field to the Democrats because “blacks will never vote Republican” isn’t a whole lot less racist than Democrats pushing Affirmative Action because “blacks can’t succeed without help.”
Every 4 years we hear how this is the year the GOP will reach out to blacks after ignoring yada yada yada. Pllllllease. If the GOP would simply stay conservative, it will get its 10% and pick up more base voters. Every time they waffle to try to get a few extra votes from the other 90% that go democrat, they lose conservative votes both black and white.
That's one of the big time stories of the day the MSM finds almost impossible to discuss.
(But I need to break it you: blacks who vote for Democrats do not care about this history. The only bit of history they care about is the one that provides excuses and finger-pointing opportunities: ancestors in bondage, great-grandparents and grandparents struggling to gain first class citizenship in this country, etc. They don’t care who do did what to or for whom in the past. All they care about is who’s offering them the most goodies today.)
This must presume that these black folks are stupid if this is the reason they vote Democrat.
The Dems are not offering any goodies today, in th past or anytime in the future. What the Dems have offered blacks for the past 40 years, this year and for years to come are programs that keep them mired in poverty, trapped in cities, and given the lowest standard of education oppurtunity.
If someone had given me all of that for the past 40 years and was offering more today I surely would not vote for them.. However blacks as a group will this year and next and on and on do so and vote for the Dems.
There must be some other underlying reason that black folks continue to act not in their own best interest when it comes to voting and supporting a poltiical party.......
LaShawn is correct. Good article from her.
Bartlett however seems to want to enjoin the pander fest. Conservative principles are universal. There are no specialized versions of it based upon special interest groups.
Defining people by race to get their vote is racism.
J C Watts said that this year the Reachout is non-existent.
Yet there is McCain speaking at the NAACP. At least Watts’ comments show that previous efforts were made so the yearly “this is the first time the GOP has reached out yada yada” is simply BS as usual.
In short, many blacks hate whites AND want free government handouts of every sort, and that is exactly what the democrats have to offer.
Of course, if the blacks were informed, they would know that those positions are losers for them in the long run and keeps them down economically, etc.
BTTT
But the left and the liberal black leaders will say that is not reaching out to blacks because he did not offer the same government handouts and thus he is not really speaking to black issues, etc.
All this notwithstanding, I advocate the nomination by the Republican Party of a black conservative VP this year.Assuming that Obama is in fact nominated for POTUS by the DNC next month, that move will have no effect on the 95%+ lock the Democrats will have on the black vote this year. And it is a given that whatever black conservative you name would not have the credentials to have contended for the Republican presidential election with the likes of Mitt Romney.
But I stand by the value of my suggestion.
First because there is in the Constitution an explicit incentive to choose the VP based on the tendency of his identity to help unify the country:The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves Twelfth AmendmentAnd second, because no Republican other than a black will be able to challenge the taboo on criticizing a black Democratic presidential nominee. Even the very paucity of credentials for the black conservative VP nominee would work to the advantage of the Republican ticket, when he points out that Obama's credentials are no better than his - and Obama is contending not for the nominally meaningless VP slot but for the presidency itself.Obama would be unable to avoid engaging the opposing VP nominee - and that is disastrous for any presidential contender. IMHO nominating a black conservative VP candidate would assure the election of the Republican ticket.
You have this as by Bruce Bartlett, but it is in fact by the incomparable LaShawn Barber herself.
“I advocate the nomination by the Republican Party of a black conservative VP this year.”
In general, I like the idea. But the left would say McCain is doing it just to try to get black votes and the left would go after the black VP with everything it has (he better not have any skeletons in his closet). It would be a risky move. It would be risky and may not work.
I actually think a woman VP may be a better choice to try to get more of the woman vote that may go democrat. I am not even sold on this idea, but I would choose it over your idea because (1) blacks vote democrat no matter what and (2) women do not and there are a lot we could pick up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.