Posted on 03/16/2009 4:14:41 AM PDT by RangerM
Today conservatism is stigmatized in our culture as an antiminority political philosophy. In certain quarters, conservatism is simply racism by another name. And minorities who openly identify themselves as conservatives are still novelties, fish out of water.
Yet there is now the feeling that without an appeal to minorities, conservatism is at risk of marginalization. The recent election revealed a Republican Party -- largely white, male and Southern -- seemingly on its way to becoming a "regional" party. Still, an appeal targeted just at minorities -- reeking as it surely would of identity politics -- is anathema to most conservatives. Can't it be assumed, they would argue, that support of classic principles -- individual freedom and equality under the law -- constitutes support of minorities? And, given the fact that blacks and Hispanics often poll more conservatively than whites on most social issues, shouldn't there be an easy simpatico between these minorities and political conservatism?
{more at link}
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
That isn’t the case jveritas, Republicans used to receive the majority of the Black Vote until Nixon’s Southern Strategy.”
That isn’t accurate at all, in 1964 republicans got 6% of the black vote.
“After leaning Republican following the Civil War, blacks first swung to the Democrats with the advent of the New Deal. However, Eisenhower got 39 percent of the vote in 1956. Richard Nixon received 32 percent of the black vote in 1960. The Republican share of the black vote in 1964? Six percent. A Republican presidential candidate hasn’t gotten above 15 percent since then. What happened in the short four years between 1960 and 1964? Well, in short, two names — Barry Goldwater and Martin Luther King, Jr.
In 1960, King refrained from endorsing anyone for president. King had a gut reaction that John F. Kennedy was marginally better on civil rights; Kennedy had called King’s wife Coretta while King languished in a Georgia jail. Meanwhile, Bobby Kennedy worked on the judge to allow King to post a bond. Nonetheless, King felt it better for the cause to stay neutral. His father, Martin Luther King, Sr., originally endorsed Nixon, but switched to Kennedy after his son was released from jail two weeks before the election.
King’s neutrality changed dramatically by 1964. King declared that though Barry Goldwater was not racist, his positions gave aid and comfort to racists:
I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
Servant Cross, You are correct on the first point, I did in fact do what I argue against, a mistake on my part. My point was that the sterotypes exist and simply wishing them away won’t change them. It takes overt action to change perceptions.
re: MrB’s point about women, that is a good observation on his part, the question, how do you appeal to both.
I go back to my yet un-posted response re: the contract with America. You give them a real choice, something clear, concise and specific. Right now the brutal truth is we lack that message beyond those already highly invested. You don’t convert people speaking to those already converted, you must find a vehicle that makes the message easy to understand to those on the outside looking in.
It may not have worked with Blacks but it did with Hispanics, it was worth the effort in votes.
Instead of wringing our hands over getting the minority vote we need to focus on the majority vote. Yeah, if that means white people so be it. If we get a majority of the majority we can rescind the Great Society mentality. It just takes a few politicians with the nerve to put the minorities back in the margins
What we need is a renewed effort to educate on the destructiveness of "liberalism", tell me this;Why has there not been a serious and concerted effort to perform an exhaustive study on the long term effects of the "War on Poverty"? Its a glaring and shockingly short sighted oversight by the conservative movement.
The things I`ve personally see would be enough to turn some opinions, it would help if we have more than anecdotal evidence to back us up. Giving up is tantamount to a death sentence for our Republic,or a way of ensuring a civil war that would at best leave a fragmented and crippled shadow of the formerly greatest nation on earth.
A majority of the whites who vote democrat do so because of welfare or government entitlements. This issue is not only among blacks or hispanics.
Thanks for dispelling the notion ansel12, my error.
That does show were the divergence began, Goldwater is the beginning of Conservatism, King thought it empowered racists, and here we are..damn.
I am certain many people (white or black) vote to receive welfare. But, I think you are missing the bigger picture the author tries to address. Since living on welfare, is not the same as living in splendor, why do so many blacks accept it?
The mere fact of accepting welfare, relegates a person to the lowest levels of society. While I agree that getting a "free lunch" can be enticing, the cost of the "free lunch" in social status is significant. So, something else must be contributing to the extreme level of support the left receives from blacks.
Oh, we could demagogue. We could say that the white liberal is keepin you down. He’s lyin to you. He’s got you on his plantation. He’s from the devil, and he’s from the father of lies.
We just have to get some people who’ll speak the truth. And, from another article I read this morning, I gotta think the 400 FBI files the Clintons squirreled away is what did in the Contract With America republicans.
“We could say that the white liberal is keepin you down. He’s lyin to you. He’s got you on his plantation. He’s from the devil, and he’s from the father of lies.”
Would that be demagoging?
It would be the truth, for sure.
Here is a link to the quick fact check data from the Census bureau for 2007. I’m not sure what the data would show when eliminating those under 18 for each ethnic group.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Exactly right. The left relegates them to a lower social status through their policies then blames it all on a "racist America." The Republican party is put up as the cause of their plight. This is similar to what is seen throughout the Middle East. Tyrannical despots repress their citizens and lay the blame on Israel and America. For groups wanting to be victims a convenient villain is a good thing to have as it excuses your own irresponsible behaviors such as illiteracy, drug abuse, illegitimate child birth, etc.
“That does show were the divergence began, Goldwater is the beginning of Conservatism, King thought it empowered racists, and here we are..damn.”
By having to look that up I was a little surprised too, it was disappointing to see the New Deal shift and then that extraordinary and disturbing, almost cult like effect of King.
Yes, it is. Thanks for posting. I forwarded it on to several people I know.
So we both agree.
What is wrong with pointing this out, continually, time and again, instead of being backed into the corner by the same old driveby media lies and dem distortions?
The longest journey begins with a single step. We need to at least try.
"Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other -- two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior."
What kills me is Bobby Kennedy tapped King’s phones, and yet the Dhimmis were the “saviours” of Black America.
It’s crazy, and instructive as to the effects of controlling public school textbooks.
This is excellent as well!
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why+MLK+was+a+Republican
Its "conservatives" like you that make our battle that much more of an uphill one,but that`s ok,its the conservative credo that I may not agree with what you`re saying,but I`ll defend your right to say it,it`d just be nice if you could back it up with facts. For a little academic honesty,try posting all the stats on every group.
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.