That relationship may be lost for generations, thanks to a campaign by Sen. John McCain that seemed to simply concede the black vote. According to one senior aide, McCain had been polling close to 20 percent of the black vote before the primaries ended. But then his "Forgotten America" tour, which started soon after, never seemed to go anywhere. I knew of only one high-level black adviser or spokesperson on his full-time paid campaign staff. The GOP convention was embarrassingly devoid of people of color -- among more than 2,000 delegates, only 36 were black.
The problem, former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele told the Washington Times last week, is that party officials "don't give a damn." To them, he said, "outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them -- 'See, look at us.' And then we go back to the same old, same old."
"The party has simply not understood the importance of having highly visible black Republican operatives, elected officials and political spokespersons working for it on an ongoing basis," adds an African American who worked for the Republican National Committee during the administration of the first President Bush. "It's not our message as much as it is our messengers that are killing us."
I'd like to see a source on that 20 percent number. I'm not buying McCain getting anywhere close to that in this election. Anyway, it seems what Nelson is talking is diversity. She makes the case that GOP should look for blacks amongst its own and promote them more. Of course this exactly the kind of ID politics that modern Republicans argue against. Frankly, it does make good business sense to me.
I'd expect, over the next 20 years, for these guys to get better at it. The Dems nominated Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, a straight token move. But as I've said before, at least they were trying. From those failed diversity efforts you learn something. Ferraro may have been a token. Hillary Clinton is not. The most important thing, assuming the GOP even cares, is to start walking and keep walking. Black folks were not always property of the Dems. I see no reason why they always would be.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I expected McCain to make a concentrated effort at attracting black voters, but the nomination of Obama made that a poor use of money (whereas the late nomination of Hillary might have made the black vote much more swayable). It's probably a good thing, overall, that there wasn't a big push in that direction this year; given that failure to make significant gains was almost a certainty, a losing effort might have discredited the wisdom of outreach itself.
The Republicans will begin to make inroads among black people when they renounce Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy.
And since the Republican Party has morphed into largely a regional, Southern party.......
I think it was a thread on this blog that we were discussing what seems to be a striking increase in black Republican surrogates this election cycle. Ron Christie, Fred Watkins, Amy Holmes, Michael Steele, Tara Wall, Michelle Barnard... There are a few others who I cannot think of right now. But there does seem to be a deliberate attempt to put many more black faces out there repping the GOP.
I don't find them very convincing and I think they were obviously not especially effective in carving off any of the black vote this cycle, but I wonder how this strategy will look in 4 or 8 years. Its no secret that the modern Republican party built itself on the so-called southern strategy.
Well despite all the talk of a post-racial society, race still exists, especially in the South. Its going to take a lot more than a few black front men to turn the Grand Ole strategy around and frankly, even if they could, I don't see how they can win anything on a National level without that Southern white vote. They need those people and the only thing they really have to sell them is race-based resentment and social conservatism. Even guns have pretty much become irrelevant because, even if they don't realize it yet, the NRA has won that battle pretty decisively.
for all his many faults, w appointed more minorities to visible, meaningful positions than any previous president: Powell, rice, gonzales foremost but also elaine chao, mel martinez, carlos gutierrez, and lower appointments. (I think the press would be making more of Eric Holder's race if not for Powell, Rice, and Gonzales). I think W came to office with the firm intent of expanding the party's appeal, esp to Latinos. But given his failure as a leader, it appears the party hopes to move back to the tried and true "racist" strategy for a while. Actually, I don't expect it to last more than a few election cycles. It's obviously not sustainable in this century. And it's not like dems don't have their racists, as shown in the primaries. Even racists need a paycheck though.
Deleted for trolling. Your personal attacks add nothing to this thread.
The Republicans do make use of identity politics, and it has had disastrous results. Think of the Keyes vs. Obama race in 2004. And Michael Steele as chairman of GOPUS is a great gift to the Democrats. Trust me, I live in Maryland, and the man is a nitwit.
Even highlighting people like Colin Powell and Condi Rice has limited effect, as we have seen. What the Republicans need to do is (1) Consider the ideas and policies the Republicans can offer that would appeal to blacks (2) Learn more about the conservative tradition and beliefs common among African Americans (3) Work on purging from the party everything that smacks of (or even could just be perceived as) closet racism.
I wish I had your optimism, but I'm not sure if the Republicans will get better at courting the black vote within the next 20 years. Michelle Steele's quote has been repeated by a number of Republicans over the years, with the most recent person in my memory being JC Watts. In addition to their indifference, I'm not sure if blacks would even be willing to give the party a second glance as it stands now; this isn't about blacks being the sole property of the Democrats so much as it's about the Republicans doing everything in their power to drive blacks from the Reps in droves. Whether it be a vehement opposition to affirmative action, or ignoring blacks during political campaigns, is there a willingness to even give Republican candidates--any candidate--the benefit of the doubt now? I'm not so sure. Hell, as recently as this election, we saw the Republican candidate and his running mate making obtuse references to "Our America" in attempts to paint Obama as the big, scary "other." We saw crowds at McCain's rallies being blatantly and unapologetically racist. None of that is conducive to the Republicans seriously reaching out to black audiences in the future; even if they do make serious attempts at it, I think it's going to be a LONG time before blacks begin to give the party a second look. There's simply too much to forget and forgive at this point, in my opinion.
Black people are not fools. Which is why Black people, for the overwhelming part, are not Republicans. It's the OPEN HOSTILITY that most Black folks can't get past. It's the how could you sit down at a table with the GOP, a lot of us wonder, as we listen to the likes of Ron Christie, Armstrong Williams, et al. At the end of the day, all you have is some semblance of self-respect. And, being a Black Republican - in their current incarnation, means that you give up that self-respect at the door. Sometimes, listening to those GOP mouthpieces, you have to ask: how much are they paying you? Why do you hate yourself? Why do you hate Black people? The America the GOP wants isn't the America that I want.
You said it yourself, Coates. It's not that Black folks are so ' liberal'. Because, most Black folks, especially middle class Black folks, are socially conservative (with a small c). As you said - Black folks believe the GOP is racist. And, that's something that Black folks just won't 'look past'.
there's a regular poster over at P6, who said something I'll never forget: Until Black Republicans can WIN electorally - in a MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT - it's nothing but a show, and they need not be taken seriously. I agree.
Typo: It should be "Michael" and not "Michelle."
and this is an OT, but related. I do believe, left to his own devices, John McCain could have matched W's 2004 Hispanic numbers. But, he is attached to the GOP, and had to turn on exactly what would have made him appealing to Hispanics.
If the GOP wants a more diverse base, they should adopt policies that benefit a diverse group of people, rather than just the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
What rikyrah said. When proposals like immigration reform not only are anathema to the Republican base, but are shot down in openly racist terms, then it doesn't matter how much "outreach" the party does. They might as well post a "Whites Only" sign on the door.
(Remember the grief McCain took for daring to suggest that immigrants are "also God's children?)
I think brent was referring to Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Forum, who, unlike the other names mentioned, I don't find to be a representative of the GOP, but a very intelligent, independent voice. I don't always find myself agreeing with her, but I do appreciate her insightful analysis of the issues and useful presentation of her point of view.
I agree that the GOP has lost the opportunity it had with McCain to reach out to minority voters. I was never going to vote for McCain against a Democrat myself, but I knew many voters of color who considered doing so early on, based mostly on the "maverick" reputation he had developed from 2000. That good will was lost over the course of the campaign. The fact that, I believe, this squandering of good will leaves the Republicans in the wilderness for the next few elections is probably good for the Democrats. If it causes the Republicans to recognize and reject the divisive racial politics of its past, it is good for the country as a whole.
I Googled this woman to see if I could find out more about her; I'd never heard her name before. So I ended up coming across her personal website, where she had posted this column and had only received three comments as of yesterday. The first one said something along the lines of "when are we going to just have a colorblind society and stop talking about race? That's what we need to do to win, blah blah blah."
All I could think was wow, talk about completely missing her point. I want there to be a strong Republican party that actively courts black people -- why not? Who wouldn't want to get courted by two powerful groups? Black folks could be the new "soccer moms!"
But the idea that the way to solve this problem is to pretend that we live in this colorblind society....the problem with black folks is that we are just too insistent in seeing ourselves as black...augh. Obviously I'm not a blogger, because I'm having trouble even putting into words how infuriating this is.
It's not like I'm saying that there has to be "black" economics and "white" economics -- the economy affects everyone. But I just want there to be a party that acknowledges that I exist, in my blackness and my femaleness, and that doesn't suggest that the highest goal I should want is for my race to be erased. When the national Republican party gets there, I'll be there waiting. Locally, I've certainly voted for Republicans, before so it can be done. But as things are now in the national party? Mm, I don't think so. I have to vote for the party I think doesn't actually HATE me.
And personally, I don't think continued appeals to the social conservative end of things are going to win over black folks...if that was going to work, it would have worked by now.
I think brent was referring to Michelle Bernard of the Independent Women's Forum, who, unlike the other names mentioned, I don't find to be a representative of the GOP, but a very intelligent, independent voice.
Perhaps, but Barnard would and has definitely described herself as a conservative. I agree that she is not representing the GOP exactly. She seemed, in general, to be supporting Obama this past election cycle. But the Independent Women's forum, for which she is a director, is definitely a conservative outfit and, for the most part, they openly support conservative candidates. Most of them, Amy Holmes among them, supported McCain.
Pretty much the only thing that would move significant numbers of blacks to the other side of the aisle is some kind of substantive pro-black policy initiative on par with the passage the Voting and Civil Rights Acts. Recall that the Democrats were generally seen as the more racist party prior to the 60s—the 80+% of the black vote they've picked up since then is largely due to black gratitude for standing up for civil rights legislation and the Great Society. It's difficult to think of anything the GOP could get passed to benefit blacks (even assuming they had the power to do so) that wouldn't royally piss off their white base.
I suppose another option for them would be to wait until people forget about the 60s, but they'd still have to stop talking about suppressing the Detroit vote, the impending Obama dictatorship, and how much better things would have been if Strom had won.
The article strikes me as misguided in its prescriptions, as the Republicans have a much bigger problem with people of color than "lack of outreach" and "not talking to them": namely, that it is a safe haven for racists of various stripes. Worrying about outreach in its current situation is like worrying about a car's paint job when the engine won't even run. The GOP needs to make it clear, both in style and in substance, that racists are no longer welcome, and it needs to do so consistently and for a long period of time to convince people that its racism is in the past (the way Democrats did by supporting civil rights and rejecting the Dixiecrat wing). In essence, they need to disown the Southern Strategy.
The big problem for the GOP is that they've become dependent on that wing of the party for electoral successes, so over the short term such a rejection will be very costly in electoral terms. But if they don't do this, they're dead in the long term, not just because of fast-growing minority populations (Latinos don't like the GOP crypto- and not-so-crypto-racist policies and rhetoric any more than Blacks) but because it aggressucely alienates the young-voter demo, whites included.
Basically, the GOP made a deal with the devil when they welcomed the Dixiecrats into the party. It gave them a generation's worth of dominance at the Presidential level, but now the bill is coming due and the compounded interest looks brutal.
amitav,
I agree that I think this would have been one area where we would have seen progress under GWB if it hadn't been for 1) the disastrous failures of his presidency, 2) the emerging hard right cranks of the GOP, and 3) Katrina.
Generally, I think the one area GWB didn't fall into the extreme right of his party was around issues of race. The most obvious example was his support of immigration reform. His cabinet really has been the most diverse in history, of any president. And he pushed hard for No Child Left Behind, which while the source of much lamenting across the political spectrum, has had the primary effect of forcing the ed system (and even "good schools") to acknowledge black, Latino and white achievement gaps.
Four years ago, people were complaining about the Republican Convention putting a false happy, diverse face on itself. But, for all its shallowness, I thought it was an important step in the right direction - it made much less room for race-baiting within the party and emphasized that "a bigger tent" was at least a value and desire. The value of racial symbolism, and explicit inclusivity, is clearly limited but it is greater than zero. And we've seen how the absence, at this year's convention and campaign, can be so ugly.
Like many of the Republicans' current problems, they won't begin to solve this one without taking a hard look at reality. So long as their attitude is "Blacks and Latinos are socially conservative, but somehow they've been brainwashed by the Democrats. We just have to explain to them that they're really Republicans, and someday they'll get it.", their situation will remain hopeless.
And this isn't a good thing for minorities. Voting blocs that have nowhere else to go get lip service but not much else. Ask the Religious Right about that.
Of course this exactly the kind of ID politics that modern Republicans argue against. Frankly, it does make good business sense to me.
What would make better sense for the Republicans would be changing their policies and stop with the race-baiting. I think, frankly, that the Republicans will do that eventually because the alternative is for them to wither and die as a party. The long-term demographics are against having what amounts to a white-only party, and if the Republicans refuse to evolve, then they'll die and some other party will rise to take their place. How long that will take is a matter of debate.
T-NC, you jump over a point you've made before & that many folks make in this thread, Blacks don't vote GOP because they see the GOP (correctly) as a racist party/ the party of racists.
When (I'm not holding my breath here) Blacks stop seeing them as racists they still won't get 20% of the Black vote though because they will still be the party that is against policies that Black folks (rightly or wrongly) see as benefiting them.
In the long run the GOP as we know it today has no chance at survival. Societies get more & more socially progressive the longer they are around.
If Republicans drop opposition to abortion, start promoting safe sex education in schools, and openly support gay rights, I will consider becoming a Republican. It's just that simple for me. But until that day, no dice.
The horrible impact of this recession - extreme job losses, income stagnation, foreclosures and loss of retirement savings will hit African Americans and Latinos especially hard. And the laissez faire, reverse-Robin Hood policies of the Bush administration and the GOP can be rightly blamed.
Until the GOP can offer real strategies that will help most Americans, not just the top 1%, to get ahead, they really don't have much to say that Blacks, the young or anyone else will want to hear.
Eddy,
What about Rome? They certainly became less socially 'liberal' when Christianity replaced the Roman paganism. There are also plenty of other examples of societies becoming less socially liberal after they Christianized- think about Pacific Island societies, etc. Russia and Eastern Europe today are becoming less socially liberal than they were, in the sense that abortion is more restricted and Christianity has more of a place in public life.
The notion of inevitable historical progress was already pretty silly when Comte and the Enlightenment thinkers came up with it, and after two and a half centuries of being abused by classical liberals, imperialists, anti-imperialists, free-market capitalists, globalists, Bolsheviks, fascists, and Islamists in turn, it looks sillier than ever.
Hello All,
Sorry, but I am a bit late to the conversation, but I am going to try to put into words something that I don't know how to articulate very well. Of course, my point is based on anecdotal evidence, assumptions, and some generalizations as well. But here goes...
The first point I want to make is the issue of diversity. In my experience, liberals tend to think of diversity as a good thing. We want people from different racial/ethnic/religious/cultural backgrounds because they grow up with different experiences and they add something to the dialogue (whether political, scholarly, whatever - this is one of the reasons for Justice O'Connor's decision in Grutter v. University of Michigan). I never feel that conservatives really believe this. It always seems to me that they believe that diversity is just a marketing strategy (I have heard people say that if the Republicans nominate Sec. Condoleeza Rice for President, all the Black people will vote for her, and so on.). So you have examples like Gen. Colin Powell being Secretary of State, but President Bush never actually listening to his advice.
The second issue that I want to bring up is that when Republicans actually do try to get the Black and Latino votes, it usually comes in a wedge issue like gay marriage or school vouchers. They never seem to have anything positive to offer to these communities, they just want them to fight with another Democrat constituency (such as gays, teachers, etc.).
What I don't understand is why Blacks think that Democratic politicians are any better than Republican politicians.
Let's look at Michael Steele's home county. Local Blacks claim it is the richest majority African-American county in the country.
Every county- and state-level elected official from the county is a Democrat--the County Executive, all 9 County Council members, the dog-killing sheriff, the register of wills, all the state delegates, all the state senators--every one is a Democrat.
The majority of those Democrats are Black; and half of the rest are Latino.
So, with an all-emocrat, majority Black government, this ought to be Paradise for Blacks, right?
Well, not quite. The county has one of the highest murder rates in the county. Over the last several years someone has been murdered in the county every 65 hours. The county has more murders than all the other Washington, DC, suburbs combined. And it has more murders than all the rest of Maryland's counties combined (that excludes the city of Baltimore, which is not in a county).
And the county has the second worst schools in the state--second only to Baltimore. Schools where students don't learn and often live in fear, if they don't drop out and get murdered during the school day (the most recent murder victim was a 16 year old found far from any school at 11:20 am).
Nearby jurisdictions with two-party government have far lower crime rate and far better schools.
So, why do the county's Blacks seem so beholden to the Democrats who have given them high crime and lousy schools?
I can only conclude that most of the county's Black voters would rather live in fear of being murdered and raise uneducated children than face the horrible, heretical possibility that a Republican or two-party government might be less corrupt and incompetent than the current all-Democrat, majority Black team.
We want people from different racial/ethnic/religious/cultural backgrounds because they grow up with different experiences and they add something to the dialogue ..... I never feel that conservatives really believe this.
A Republican is someone who can't drive by a treehouse without dreaming of himself sitting in it, and pulling up the ladder.
It always seems to me that they believe that diversity is just a marketing strategy...
What else to expect from a party of shopkeepers? Xenophanes the Pre-Socratic said milennia ago that if horses and cattle made images of their gods, they would all have hooves and horns.
Easy. A politician that TRIES to do something for you is a helluva better than someone that ignores you (let alone tries to run you off). THey're paying attention.
Seriously.
To the black community, Republican policies are the same old policies that held sway since the 1950s--free market this, free market that, only this time it'll work for you. Only idiots would believe that and Republicans are idiots to think that would work for minority communities.
Add to this the race baiting applied to ALL communities of colors. Asian American communities a decade ago were beginning to shift to Republican politics. But the anti-immigration fervor and English-Only policies shifted that straight back (over half the Asian American population are immigrant). Somehow, the Republicans were so color blind that they forgot some of their policies hurt communities that were predisposed to them.
Republicans need to work on nuts and bolts policies that HELP communities of color, and not just parrot old policies. They need to be different from Democratic ones and they need to work.
The otherside of the game is that we as black folks know how socially conservative black folks are.
Were the Republicans in a new incarnation to actually get a critical black mass to follow, we'd have another group of people voting for their social conservative views, but against their own economic interests.
*if we assume that the cut taxes on the wealthy and low/no regulation is what republicans now stand for economically
It's pretty clear that those that are clinging to guns and religion regularly vote against their economic interests, to their detriment. For them, stopping gay marriage is more important than lifting the minimum wage.
@Hector, I should have been much, much more specific. I am talking about modern western societies & obviously there are exceptions to every rule.
"I can only conclude that most of the county's Black voters would rather live in fear of being murdered and raise uneducated children than face the horrible, heretical possibility that a Republican or two-party government might be less corrupt and incompetent than the current all-Democrat, majority Black team."
Oh please! Man, are you for real?
Appealling to blacks is a waste of time and resources for Republicans. In order to appeal to the most liberal group in the U.S., Republicans and conservatgives would have to stop being consevative. The Republicans would lose more white votes than it would gain in black votes. See what happen when President Bush tried to pander to Hispanics. No more Hispanic votes but a lose of white volunteers, donations, and voters.
What the real question should be is what role will blacks have when the Republican Party has completed its collapse and the U.S. is a one party state. Can a group that is 12% of the voters in the one party state have the same influence as being 25% of one party in a two party system.
@ Michael Jackson. "If Republicans drop opposition to abortion, start promoting safe sex education in schools, and openly support gay rights, I will consider becoming a Republican. It's just that simple for me. But until that day, no dice." Good point.
For me, I think this election was extremely helpful, because it made me realize that NEITHER party truly represented my interests. Being Black in a two party system is like choosing between the boyfriend that courts you every once and a while, but ultimately takes you for granted (Democrats), or a boyfriend that blatantly ignores you or when he does give you attention, treats you like you are stupid (Republicans). And just so we can cut the BS, this election has also taught me that the Democrats, as well as the Republicans, have a problem with race baiting and their inherent belief that Black elected officials should take the back seat, so let's not get it twisted. So what to do?
I am utterly turned off by the obsessive focus on issues like gay marriage, abortion, guns, and religion in the public sphere from the Repub party, and weary of the outdated education and civil rights platform (among other issues) from the Dem party. I can't believe this is 2008.
Re: What about Rome? They certainly became less socially 'liberal' when Christianity replaced the Roman paganism.
I would question that. The Hollywood picture of rampant Roman orgies is really just a myth. Under the late Republican things were a bit libertine, but times changed and the Empire was far more prudish. Augustus, the first Emperor, was famous for his morals legislation and his Family Values campaign -- a sort of ancient precursor to Queen Victoria. The orgies of later emperors were dwelt upon in the ancient histories (Tacitus, Suetonius) precisely because the writers knew they would be shocking to their everyday audience. In fact, I think a case can be made for Christianity absorbing large portions of its sexual mores from late Roman paganism. The Jewish religion after all had some odd taboos about sex (don't we all?) but it was generally a sex-positive religion over all, and remains such. No, I think it was from the Platonic hatred of the body and mistrust of women and the passions that Christianiry got its puritanical dislike of sex and emphasis on celibacy and lifelong virginity.
Ah yes, Michael Steele. How well I remember the way he showed his respect for African-Americans when he ran for governor. You see, he bused in homeless people from NYC, sent them to polls in P.G. county and had them hand out sample ballots that made it appear that he was a Democrat.
No one could have possibly foreseen that treating people like morons would turn them against a political party regardless of the candidate's race!
And now he's whining because the GOP doesn't give a damn and is engaging in tokenism? Excuse me while I R.O.T.F and L.O.L. The problem is the GOP treats anyone who isn't a str8 Caucasian Christian male like shit and as others have already said, if they stop being the party of Let's Crap on Everyone Else, they'll lose a huge chunk of voters. Now it is true that they would be able to replace those voters with people they formerly crapped upon, eventually, but after McPOW showed his underbelly to Das Base I think it safe to say they don't have the balls to run the risk. Furthermore, if Mr. Steele doesn't watch it they'll decide he's just another angry negro and he'll be shown the door.
Creep.
Speaking of creeps, I see this thread has contracted Superdestroyitis. How many posts will it take until we find out that black people are happier among their own kind?
Why would someone like Fred even read TNC? Looking for "proof" that "black people are racist too"?
Minority outreach is the full employment program for black Republicans like Michael Steele.
Agreed.
Blacks are more dependent on transfer payments and affirmative action and will thus continue to vote for the party that promises them more of both -- the Democrats.
In absolute terms, Whites receive more transfer payments. See census
Interesting though. If Republicans were to be serious about rooting out discrimination in the job and capital markets, they'd get more black support. By and large blacks don't want to depend on the government. If they stopped using them as the poster children of welfare (when whites receive more) and affirmative action (when white women benefited more), they might also get more black support.
QFT.
Forgot I'm supposed to delete Fred on sight. My bad. Carry on guys.
In absolute terms, Whites receive more transfer payments.
That becomes even more true if you factor in corporate welfare, which is where the real money is. People who complain about welfare cheats are engaging in that oldest of dodges--scream loudly about a minor crime to distract everyone from seeing the major one you're committing yourself.
At a Presidential level the black vote was 61-79% Democratic in 1952-1960. You have to go back before FDR, as I recall, to get a period when the black vote went Republican.
So from a purely calculating view the chance of getting 39% of the black vote again might not be worth it. Especially as there's not much evidence disillusionment or disdain for the Democratic Party is currently high in the black community.
Still the Republican Party really should listen and respect black voters more even if it won't give any immediate gain. Possibly more attempts at goodwill could help in case the Democrats ever run a bad candidate or help moderate some unpleasantness.
All that said I live in a highly white Democratic town. White Democrats certainly contain a good deal of racists. They had all kinds of signs for Democratic politicians here, but none for Obama. The Democrats here say way more racist things that about any Republican. Democrats will use racism and "otherness" if they think it's to their advantage. They used it against Bobby Jindal and Hillary's people used it against Obama. This is just what political strategists do, they use whatever they think will work no matter how vile.
superdestroyer is right..
they've forever tagged themselves as the party of the angry white male. They will never have any chance at ever being viable among the black community. Being Republican just aint hip hop nor can I ever see it being so. You'll see gays accepted by blacks before you see any large contingent voting for a Republican.
They'll choose a latino to run first, knowing we're a little more pliable than the black vote, plus the right Latino will have no problem getting acceptance by the rabid base.
Jim
Being the party of white married people who work in the private sector makes the Republican Party unsustainable in the long run. It is more likely that Hispanic culture will move closer to black culture than Hispanic culture moving to be more like married whites.
So the real question is how will politics function in the coming one party state. There is no more chance that blacks would vote for a green party to the left of the Democrats than blacks would vote for Republicans. Being black in the U.S. means voting Democrat no matter what.
Remember, Thomas R, that universal black suffrage is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before FDR, maybe you had a "party of Lincoln" vote among those blacks who could vote at all. But after, you had the desegregation of the military (by Truman, a Democrat), the Civil Rights Act (pushed through by Johnson, a Democrat), and the Southern Strategy/embrace of the Dixiecrats (courtesy of Nixon, a Republican). Arguably, the period of most obvious Republican racism coincides with the rise of an increasingly active black electorate. Not a formula for success!
Seems to me that the Democrats have shown what happens when you ignore large sections of the country (Gore, Kerry), as well as how quickly you can reap the rewards of trying to appeal to all voters (2006, 2008, 50-state strategy). Even as Democrats have expanded their tent -- some of the recently elected Democrats from southern and western states are pretty conservative -- the Republicans have driven the less ideologically pure out of theirs. Again, not a winning strategy.
Re: It is more likely that Hispanic culture will move closer to black culture than Hispanic culture moving to be more like married whites.
There's no such thing as a single Hispanic culture. Latin Americans differ from one another considerably just as, say, the Slavic people of Eastern Europe do. In the US (north) Mexican norms often dominate but in some areas large concentrations of other Hispanics people, like the Cubans of Florida, create a rather different local culture.
You mention Ferraro in 1984, twelve years before was Shirley Chisholm, 1972, She pioneered grassroots politics in black and other minority neighborhoods. I am sure netroots are an offspring.
Republicans will never have the sense of where minorities derive their culture. I believe most minority cultures are defined from abject poverty and persecution, for the most part. I think most Republicans (the ones in power) don't have that in their cultural roots. They can't understand what its like, so you wind up with someone without tolerance of other cultures.
Most Americans have some history of poverty and persecution back in their culture somewhere. If things back home had been all wine and roses, they would have stayed.
If poverty and persecution bred tolerance, slums would be among the most peaceful places on earth. We all know that isn't true. Rather, people who've been (or are) on the receiving end are quite likely to hang on for dear life to any power they might accumulate, and also to assume that others will do the same. The ugly racist anecdotes from this election came from poor communities, not rich ones.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 were done under Eisenhower. He appointed Frederic Morrow to the highest position a black person had served up to that point. He also put the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school.
In 1960 Republicans got 32% of the "non-white" vote. Nixon did run that year, but he didn't do the "Southern strategy" until many years later.
The Republican Party, even during Lincoln, is primarily a pro-business party. They might be able to do better with upper-class black voters if they tried harder, but generally they don't do well with voters who make less than $30,000 a year. They've only been able to do somewhat well with whites that poor because of social issues.
Katherine - I was talking about cultural tolerance, economic hardship in close quarters creates other social ills, and is another conversation.
I heard plenty of ugly racist and bigoted comments from lots of "rich" communities. I heard them at the airport waiting lines and at Starbucks, on "christian" talk radio, and even more from the gun show that took place this weekend. Many of those guns sold in the $1500 to $3000 range. I'm reasonably sure that the comments I heard were from folks that vote Republican. By the way, I live in the Pacific Northwest so its not just a southern thing.
Eisenhower saw the patriotism of minorities in WWII and thus was perhaps "enlightened". But I don't place much credit in today's right wing conservatives, whose mouth pieces Bill Kristol, Dick Morris; et al, made plenty of quite divisive comments about Obama, with just that hint of racism included.
Anyway, most of the U.S. is ready to move ahead, that's why Obama won. Collectively, we are finally ready to get past the 26% that still think Bush has been doing the right thing. The other 74% are ready to attempt to fix all this crap we are in. So jump on board or get left behind.
"Black folks were not always property of the Dems. I see no reason why they always would be."
TNC, this is the second time that I have seen you write this without giving the political history behind the migration of blacks from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Frankly, I'm not sure who you are trying to appease/attract when you write this without offering background. Or, maybe you just want to hear what's up.
To put it simply, the Republican Party that blacks were a part of back then is not the same Republican Party that exists today, or for that matter, that has existed in my lifetime. For the most part, the Democratic Party has nurtured this constituency by keeping them included and engaged - proposing policies and solutions that matter to them. And as far as I can see, the Democratic Party does not take us for granted as your comment above seems to suggest.
Of course, because of the fluid nature of life, I will grant you that it is possible that there will come a time when the Democratic Party won't have a 90-odd percent lock on our vote but two things will have to happen simultaneously - the Democrats will have to screw up pretty badly with us and the Republican Party will have to undergo a radical metamorphosis that gets our attention in a big way. The latter will take time and I do not foresee any meaningful erosion of black support from the Democratic Party in the remainder of my lifetime. And because the Republican Party is running scared because of their dwindling base, they are gonna pull some dumb cosmetic shit to lure the black vote, and we're gonna all laugh 'cause we can smell bullsh*t coming from a mile away.
Furthermore, the Democratic Party has modernized it's platform as it continues to take the pulse of what matters to it's key constituents, specifically, and the American people, generally. It's almost like labels don't matter anymore. See, you can be socially conservative and still be a Democrat. Because in the Democratic Party we can disagree and still co-exist. In the Democratic Party, everybody is somebody. The Republican Party - not so much.
I mean, look at DNC Convention, look at how Obama's cabinet is taking shape. We go where people take pains to show that they want us, that they value us. We want to be hang out with people who like us, right?
T.
I wrote about this issue over at my blog.
I think Republicans can make some progress on attracting more blacks and Latinos if they speak out more quickly against the racism and xenophobia that permeates their ranks. However, I think there is too much attention paid to the whole "diversity" issue as far as counting black bodies.
Historically, black people will join instituions and organizations that are overwhelmingly white if we do not have to deal with serious racism or discrimination. We only shun lily white institutions when they make an effort to make us uncomfortable. If Republicans stop their appeals to racism and xenophobia they could make some good gains among blacks and Latinos.
However, there will always be a problem with those minority groups and the Republican party because many of the Republican tenets run counter to minority interests.
While self-reliance is great, black people understand that unless we all start the race at the same point, just telling us to run hard is some bullshit. We recognize that historical injustice means the government needs to take special efforts to help certain communities. The core conservative opposition to government assistance and any policies that take race into consideration will be an issue with minorities as long as we can see white skin being taken into consideration in most of American life.
Anyway, I wrote more about this on my blog. www.ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com
The answer is simple: Look at the conventions. The DNC in Denver looked like New York on a good day. The RNC looked like Idaho (I *heart* potatoes!) on anyday. Can you see the distinction? When the RNC becomes more minority friendly and not give blacks and latinos the back door treatment then maybe(Yes, they'll let you in but not through the front porch- can someone give me the number of minorities in the Republican party who have run as a Pres. candidate? Romney being a Mormon doesn't count). They are going to have to (like others have said) tell the "Birth of a Nation" potential extras "Thanks, but no thanks!" Also seriously fill the primaries with some young blood. Mike Huckabee doesn't count. Give us someone potentially inspiring to demographics other than 48- white men. It's all about image and a couple of policies that look out for the "other". Bush did that for a little with immigration but that got lost in a shuffle. And do I even need to go into the Katrina debacle?
"In the Democratic Party, everybody is somebody. The Republican Party - not so much."
TR: Many of the Republican Governors, etc are socially liberal. A Pro-Choicer like Giuliani failed, but he had a much better shot at getting the nomination than a member of "Democrats for Life of America" would. McCain didn't get to choose a Pro-Choice running-mate, but a Democratic candidate wouldn't have even thought about a Pro-Life one. Not for a second.
Blacks voted Republican from the Civil War up until FDR created the New Deal; Democrats owned the black vote from that point on. It didn't matter to blacks that racist Southern whites also voted Democratic. Pocketbook issues trumped race.
As long as Democrats are willing to take more money from the rich and give it to the poor, and as long as there are more poor than rich blacks and Hispanics, Democrats will continue to own the black and Hispanic votes.