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 ...
I didn’t know I was making any holier than thou statements. I was trying to lay out facts. You seem rather sensitive to that stuff and quick with the name-calling. I prefer a rational discussion.
You say that a majority of blacks vote for government handouts and there is no way on the planet Republicans can get even 25% of the black vote. I am saying that fatalism in communicating a message to all of America is a bad form of conservatism. Your wish to give up is bad for conservatism and I don’t think those sentiments should be left unchallenged. Conservatives do have a positive message for blacks and hispanics, and making sure that gets communicated is an important task. I don’t believe that quitting is an option, which is what you seem to believe.
There are people (many of them minorities) who eloquently communicate conservative ideals and principles in ways that connect with minorities. I think those voices should be elevated and progress will be made.
You are basically saying in crass generalizations that this is who almost all minority people are so we should just give up on trying to communicate to them. I don’t object to that because it’s racist, I object to it because it is an example of lazy thinking and the kind of thinking that destroys the conservative future.
We could start with the thesis of the article.
1977 CPAC Speech by Governor Ronald Reagan.
Okay, easier said than done. However, President Reagan unashamedly and courageously articulated 'Conservatism' not 'Reaganism'. There will (Hope?) be someone who can pick up this banner and carry it once again in today's world, which is hostile to these ideals. The words he spoke in 1977 are just as true today as they ever were.
I would wager that a good indicator of party choice would be the propensity to buy lottery tickets. It is extremely difficult to recruit emotion-driven individuals without abandoning your principles.
I do not know where he got his statistics but he is wrong and the statistics that he brought is wrong, yes statistics can biased and wrong. The fact is that 13% of the population live in poverty and all of them are all on welfare, hard welfare, and not just indirect welfare, so the number that 2% to 6% live on welfare does not make any sense.
I don't think it's economics at all!
I am an instructor at a university teaching high-level computer certification. Almost all my students work in industry, often making a very good wage. Some of my students are black, and they do better than most whites in the job market. Why? Because employers absolutely LOVE to hire them. It shows that those employers are diverse and non-racist. So all things considered, if the white and black enigneer are the same in all their certifications and experiences, the black person wins the job. The same goes for females. A black, hispanic female engineer with experience and certs--Heaven, to the Human Resources dept!
Now, this doesn't mean that a bunch of whites aren't being employed. There are way too few blacks going through all the hard work and study to be a successful network engineer. So most of these jobs go to whites, or I should say, most of these jobs go to the engineers from the largest demographic group, white males, who seem to be attracted the most to these type jobs. Call us nerds if you will, but there you have it.
Why do they vote, often AGAINST their economic interests?
Because the dems have been successful at telling them what they want to hear: The MAN is keeping you down.
Lately the've been able to modify this to the Republican Man is keeping you down.
Final note: Far more blacks I know are racists (hate or dislike whites and hispanics) than whites, who mostly walk on eggshells to avoid saying anything that will get them fired.
When minorities are programmed to continually revel in self-pity, universal principles mean nothing because it is believed they don't apply and will never apply to them.
Oh,Ronnie,Ronnie....(sniff) We miss you so!
Isn’t that the 64,000 question?
As long as you accept that’s the *only* reason, it kinda makes the search for that answer impossible, no?
Give people more credit, (no pun intended) perhaps there other reasons, self inflicted reasons.
Barack the Magic Negro anyone? Yes I know a black writer from the LA Times wrote it first, but why go there, it only reinforces the stereotype? What’s the upside, there is none, it’s stupid and self defeating.
Thank you and in this Regan’s 1977 CPAC speech we find a response to those who would stereotype blacks as “only” voting for welfare.
“The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: Look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support.” We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs”
Ronald Regan.....
As Rush said:
“Voting has consequences.”
Now they’ll get to see just what the consequences are. Sadly, so will the rest of us that wasn’t fooled.
What Conservatives need is for minorities and others to start taking pride in self sufficiency. We need to convince these people that there is a tremendous amount of satisfaction to be gleaned from making it on your own. Zero is doing his best to indebt us so completely that we lose our freedoms as quickly as possible. He’s hoping that the 2010 election will be too late to reverse all his new Socialist programs. We have a real battle on our hands now. God be with us.
http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/welfare/caseloadwatch.htm
Number of families on welfare has fallen from 5 million in 1994 and leveled off at 2 million in 2004. I didn’t find statistics after that.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
There were 105 million households in the US in the 2000 census. Please tell me again how I am wrong now that I have laid out some sources for you.
I recognize these statistics are for households, not total population. It is probably true that people in poverty have larger households.
The problem with assuming that your 13% in poverty are all on welfare is that it doesn’t take much to get a large family under the federal poverty line. There are many conservative Christians, Amish, Mormons and others that have 6 or more children and do not receive government aid.
A family with 4 children is considered under the federal poverty line if it makes less than 29,500 per year. There are many areas of the country in which one can live well without needing that much cash flow.
A wonderful column in every way except the title. The title is both superficial and unnecessarily predictive. At best, it should read “Why the GOP Hasn’t Won Over Minorities Yet”.
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.