REPUBLICANISM AND RACISM

There was a debate for the Rep nomination two nights ago at a black college. Only four very minor candidates showed up. This was a loud message for blacks that they have been finally, and completely, written off by the Reps.

ya think?

Can anyone figure out that decision?

That the four of them just don't give a **** is clear. And they'll each make the trek to Brown University long before they order up a steak at Sylvia's restaurant. Perhaps they've concluded, what with Hillary and Obama running, that the african american community isn't going to come out for them anyway, so why bother pandering or even pretending to care.

But is it worse than that? Did they not attend out of some trepidation that their appearance there would alienate some of their base, the more seriously radical sorts who are important in primaries particularly?

It ain't terribly complicated, far as I'm concerned. They made a coldly calculated decision weighing potential risk with potential benefit, and from what they figured it would benefit them better politically if they didn't show. I say I hope the numbers prove their brainstorming to be wrong, and by the way f*ck them very much.

Well, it is Justice Clarence "Legman" Thomas who's calling liberals worse than lynch mobs (or Republicans).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/09/29/ST2007092900506.html?hpid=topnews

Word is there are screams coming from Thurgood Marshall's grave.

Screams, and sobs of bottomless grief.

snood
Yes, I understand that. My confusion concerns the specifics of those calculations. I assume the four campaigns made a mutual agreement to avoid the event but beyond that, I can't quite figure out what is going on.

Specifics? What do you mean? I can't figure what you find so hard to understand.

To attend would seem an overall plus to each of those four campaigns. To ignore the event is bound to lose each of them at least some votes from the african american community and from others.

So it seems a losing proposition for them to not be there. Where is the gain? They must see one.

Again - they figured that the votes they secure by this show of "solidarity" with those who would approve of such a snub, outweighed whatever meager support they could gain. I see no ambiguity here.

I don't know that anyone is necessarily calculating the effect on racist or crypto-racist voters--not the candidates, at least. I do suspect that people in their campaigns who make decisions may well, and probably do have that in mind. However, it is worth noting that there are blacks who vote Republican, and are likely to do so based upon personal conviction, and who are therefore considered reliable support by Republican campaign strategists. There are the "Log Cabin Republicans," who are gay, largely gay men, who support Republicans for ideological reasons, usually associated with their socio-economic status, and who do so despite the refusal of Republican candidates to support even a modest homosexual agenda. I suspect that Republican strategists count on a certain core vote from blacks and homosexuals, or Hispanics or women, or any other group to which the Democrats have traditionally appealed successfully--that core vote based on socio-economic status--and that they don't intend to waste time and effort appealing to the rest of the black, or Hispanic, or homosexual communities, especially if it might alienate other constituencies such as racists, crypto-racists, homophobes or fundamentalist and charismatic Christians, who may be any of the above.

I disagree with Snood to the effect that i never think such things are simple; but i do think that the result of the planning of campaign managers tends to send out a simple and obvious message.

Well, I don't "know" that any of the candidates themselves considered the racists they might assuage with this latest snub, but I suspect since all of them are educated and reasonably intelligent men, they might.

I can understand why you say "these things are never simple". I just wouldn't want anyone to miss the obvious - they didn't care about the votes they might lose, because they didn't think it would matter in the balance.

set

Yeah, that's about as close as I can get to it too. Clearly, they've estimated, correctly or not, that the electoral damage won't be significant.

But it does work in opposition to the efforts of some decades of strategy to move more of the black vote over to Republican.

I haven't been following what these four, at this point in their campaigns, are saying about immigration policy. But if it is equally stupid-seeming (as regards the latino vote) then perhaps we would have to conclude that they are targeting, in running for nomination, a portion of the party which is measurably racist.

Can you be specific about what tangible steps Republicans have made on a national scale to move blacks to vote republican?

Duh...I just went back and read Krugman's piece that leads this thread. I don't know any other way to understand this than something damned close to what he suggests.

My remarks about black Republicans and the "Log Cabin" Republicans (gay men) is that they are moved to support Republican candidates for reasons of their socio-economic situation, without regard to whether or not the Party attempts to cater to their agendas, and perhaps even despite the insensitivity, indifference, or even expressed hostility of representatives of the Party. Whether or not any particular candidate is racist, elitist, sexist or a homophobe, none of us are capable of saying with any certitude. I rather suspect that they all are, to one extent or another--but the issue of to whom they do or don't pander is going to be worked out by their campaign management team. I suspect that you'd need to have a candidate who sought to overrule such policy through conviction to get a change in those attitudes. I think it is unlikely that any of the Republican candidates are very worried about the issue.

Most recently, they've used the religious/family values/anti-abortion issues to tempt the church-going portion of the black community away from dems. That's a happy fit with another demographic but they've put considerable organizing/liason work into this. Let me see what else I can find for you.

But here's something from Brad Delong I've just found. He's quoting Bruce Bartlett writing at Townhall... increase the black vote through racism.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/07/the-buried-past.html

This is relatively recent of course. Part of Mehlman's strategy in this was to try and paint the Dem party as the racist party. Two recurring themes to this campaign were the historical racism of the Dems (see the Delong piece) and also by pushing the notion that affirmative action had the consequence and intent of keeping blacks down. Foxfyre and Just Wonders posts here were echoes of that campaign. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080601165_pf.html

I suggest that the insensitivity of the Republicans to the destruction and killing in Iraq is a form of racism. I have never heard where a Republican has been sincerely bothered by what is going on in that country vis-a-vis its people and cities. Just consider the recent bloodless Rep proposal that we think about withdrawal 16 months from now, when Bush leaves office.

RACE AND RELIGION
Blackout And Brownout
Roughly one-third of the U.S. population -- 100 million people -- is composed of minorities, "reflecting the continuing evolution of an American national identity that transcends ethnic and religious boundaries." But as America moves toward greater diversity, many conservatives are resisting this change, advocating instead for religious and ethnic homogeneity. After top GOP presidential candidates skipped a minority-focused debate last week, the media asked if conservatives were "writing off many black voters." But snubbing the debate is just the tip of the iceberg, as many conservatives have been actively preaching intolerance for several years. While there are certainly conservatives who value religious and cultural diversity, a sizeable portion of the right wing has engaged in a shameful "pattern" of marginalizing Americans of different races, ethnicities, and religions. "No one should be elected president of this country in 2008 if they think that along the way they can ignore people of color," said talk show host Tavis Smiley. "If you want to be president of all America, you need to speak to all Americans."

'OUTRAGED' AND 'EMBARRASSED': Last week, Smiley moderated a Republican presidential forum, where candidates -- for the first time -- answered questions from "a panel exclusively comprised of journalists of color." The event was mired in controversy, however, as the four Republican frontrunners -- former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson -- skipped the debate due to "scheduling conflicts." (Giuliani, for example, held a $2,300 per plate fundraiser with actress and model Bo Derek.) The conservatives are "trying to go through this entire primary process and never have to address voters of color and never queried journalists of color," Smiley said. Other candidates were upset by the poor showing. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed," and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) felt "outraged." The Washington Times opined that "some run-of-the mill fund-raiser" should not be "more important...than building up their relationships with black and Hispanic voters." Former congressman J.C. Watts called the move "stupid." President Bush appeared to condone the snub, saying general election candidates should reach out to people of color, while giving primary candidates a pass. This marks the third minority-focused debate that conservative front-runners have ditched, also missing a gay issues and Spanish-language debate. The Spanish-language forum was scrapped completely after only McCain agreed to participate. In fact, conservatives are being increasingly identified by Hispanics "with pushes to crack down on border enforcement and illegal immigrants already in this country." Presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), for example, has suggested mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

MARGINALIZING ISLAM: As conservatives rally behind Bush's war on terror policies, their rhetoric demonizing Islam has been ratcheting up. Recently, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, stated, "Unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country." King also alleged that Muslims are "an enemy living amongst us." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he worried that presidential candidates "don't use the term 'Islamist extremism' or 'Islamist terrorism' in the debates." "I can't imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist," said Giuliani. Tancredo has even suggested bombing Mecca. Such rhetoric is self-defeating, as former CentCom Commander Gen. John Abizaid argued. "The battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people," he stated. In fact, a recent World Public Opinion poll showed that "more than 70 percent of Egyptians, Pakistanis, Indonesians and Moroccans believe the United States is trying to weaken and divide the Islamic world."

PANDERING TO RELIGIOUS HOMOGENEITY: This weekend, McCain suggested having a religious litmus test for presidential candidates. "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith," said McCain, adding that the "number one issue" for Americans should be whether the President will carry on the "Judeo Christian principled tradition." Former Bush White House aide David Kuo said McCain was "pandering to what he thinks the Christian conservative community wants to hear." But McCain's desire for homogeneity echoes the comments of many conservatives in Congress. In Dec. 2006, after Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was elected as the first Muslim congressman, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) warned that "American citizens" need to "wake up" or "there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office." And after the first Hindu prayer was delivered in Congress, Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID) stated, "We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now." High-ranking conservatives have supported religious homogeneity through their courtship of right-wing Christian activists like the late Jerry Falwell, who also believes the U.S. is a "Christian nation." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich cited the opportunity "to convert all of America" at Falwell's Liberty University.

--Americanprogressaction.com