May 20, 2008
Republicans can’t seem to recruit minoritiesPolitics
This morning Politico.con ran a story highlighting a problem that many of us suspect will keep getting worse before it can hope to get better: There aren’t any minorities running as Republicans in ‘08.
Just a few years after the Republican Party launched a highly publicized diversity effort, the GOP is heading into the 2008 election without a single minority candidate with a plausible chance of winning a campaign for the House, the Senate or governor.
At a time when Democrats are poised to knock down a historic racial barrier with their presidential nominee, the GOP is fielding only a handful of minority candidates for Congress or statehouses — none of whom seem to have a prayer of victory. [Link]
Ouch. Amit Singh isn’t going to like hearing that he “doesn’t have a prayer,” but in my personal opinion (which I believe to be objective in this case) his resume is pretty thin for a candidate vying for a seat that the Democrats have held since 1991. The problem is that Republicans don’t attempt to recruit minorities in any visible way. In fact, when you can hold up Rush Limbaugh as an example of a Republican who sings the praises of a minority Republican as President (he’s a huge Jindal fan), you know you are in trouble.
Jack Kemp, the former Republican congressman and vice presidential nominee, says the culprit is clear: a “pitiful” recruitment effort by his party. “I don’t see much of an outreach,” he said. “I don’t see much of a reason to run.”A former black GOP candidate who declined to be identified by name offered a slightly more charitable explanation. He said the party is so broke and distracted that wooing strong minority candidates is a luxury it simply cannot afford right now. [Link]
And then there are the “defections.” Ashwin Madia, who is running in Minnesota, used to be a Republican in college, but now has a real good shot at being elected to Congress as a Democrat. Another problem is that among Asian American minorities, the majority of Republican inroads are among the first generation immigrant population. Vietnamese Americans for example, usually vote Republican in high percentages because of post-Vietnam War politics. It is doubtful that this trend will hold with their children. Limited exit polling data has shown that young South Asians overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and thus will be more likely to run as a Democrat if they enter politics. No doubt that eight years of Bush probably has something to do with the recruitment efforts in ‘08 as well. Arnold and Newt may be right. Before the Republicans can recruit minorities they may need to change their brand.
abhi on May 20, 2008 10:37 PM in Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
The problem is straightforward: today's Republican party makes peace with bigots and racists.
Before the Civil Rights movement, Southern states were nearly uniformly Democratic, with their elected officials pursuing segregationist policies under the umbrella of State's rights. After LBJ's support of Civil Rights legislation, the Republican party jumped in and grabbed the deeply dissatisfied white vote, locking up the South since.
In broad terms, this is what the Republican party is composed of today: capitalists, evangelicals and racists. Although no one would overtly identify themselves as racist.
Minorities, large numbers of are still closer to the bottom of the economic ladder do not identify with capitalists, may sympathize with the evangelicals, and are frightened by the racists. It isn't surprising that the party has trouble recruiting minorities.
Personally, I relate strongly with the ideal of capitalists. But I am so repulsed by the anti-science bent of evangelicals (evolution, stem cells, etc.) and just thrown aback by the racists, that I cannot possibly imagine joining the party. And I have trouble understanding the motivations of minorities that do.
This is rich. You've got the democrat party running THE MOST racially divisive primary campaign ever. All the black people line up over here and all the white people line up over there. I think you'd better stop worrying about republican outreach and worry about the race war in the democrat party. At least Jindal could get a few rural white votes.
But West Virginia had a lot of bigots and racists (as judged by exit polls) that recently voted Democrat.
The bigots and racists in West Virginia voted for the democratic white candidate, and they voted democratic because they still can't identify with the capitalist values of the republican party, people who have nothing, generally can't relate to people that have too much. And no, Bobby Jindal would not gain a few votes from rural whites because for as much as we don't like to admit it, racists and bigots doesn't tend to differentiate between brown and black the way we do, to them all shades of brown ranging from the lightest to the darkest is still not white.
But a lot of people who had nothing voted for Bush, no? It sure wasn't cause he was smart. They thought they could relate to him an have a beer with him whereas the smarter Al Gore got hosed for the same reason even though his values were more in line with the working class.
Defending the transparently polarizing attempts of Hillary Clinton is beyond me. And it is true that Obama is hoovering up minority votes to the obvious fear of whites in Southern states. CNN is currently reporting Clinton winning with 65% vs 35% for Obama in Kentucky. Whereas Obama is winning Oregon with 61% vs. 39%. Clearly there are Democrats for whom race matters a great deal.
Republicans on the other hand are whole another story. Their Southern Strategy" after LBJ still lives on today.
You mean we'd have an imaginary country :)
I did not defend Hillary Clinton and her shameful tactics of encouraging voters to display their bigotry at the polls, and there will always be people that vote their prejudices rather than reason, and they voted for HRC. The fact the Obama is
the minority vote I think has less to do with racism than it does with representation, African Americans are voting for him overwhelming because for the first time in American history there is a viable African American candidate. I'm sure that any other minority group with a history of underrepresentation would react in much the same fashion. Also, more younger voters have turned out for Obama than they have for any other candidate in this election season, what shall we chalk that up to?That was a campaign run on a platform of fear and in that climate it worked, fear-mongering won out over reason. The public seems to be tired of fear if on were to look at the tactics of the HRC's campaign which don't seem to be working so well at the moment. Or perhaps the fact that he wasn't that smart appealed to the average voter?
The public is never tired of fear. Any politician that doesn't acknowledge that can't win.
And yet she has almost as many total votes as Obama and trounced him in Kentucky tonight. I think the Hillary haters are seeing what they want to see.
It's late, I'm at work, excuse the typos
While I agree with that, it's really the only reason that I can come up with why people follow Obama like the pied piper. He is a junior senator with very little experience, yet when he speaks people tend to listen because his words inspire hope, something even a cynic like myself can appreciate.
Ouch. Amit Singh isn’t going to like hearing that he isn't a minority. :-)
Going back to the topic of the post, there are really only two racial minority groups that have any significant political mass: african americans and hispanics. The history of black disenchantment with Republicans starts and stops in the South. It is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Hispanics are another story. Many chose to immigrate for the capitalistic opportunities presented by America. Many are also deeply religious. Karl Rove and GWB tried their hardest to convince their coalition of capitalists, evangelicals and closet racists to embrace the rising hispanic population into the Republican fold. As we know, they ran right into a wall and exposed deep fissures within the party. The closet racists did not want to hear the arguments of cheaper labor, hard working, tax paying citizens, fellow Christians, etc. They saw the immigrants on their street corners and did not want them there. Not only did the efforts of Rove fail to produce results, they actively undermined the bridges that had been built to the hispanic population.
I'm with Gopal in #2--does anyone really think the Democrats are somehow free of racism themselves? I am as (or more!!) self-interested as/than the next guy, but, really, let's not let idealism cloud our eyes, whatever our political views!
Abhi, are you calling me a hillary hater...ouch, that kinda smarts. I don't hate her or even dislike her, I just don't agree with the tactics her campaign resorted to when she realised she may not be the heir apparent.
15 · rob said
In the absolute sense, your argument is true: of course the Democratic party isn't free of racism. But your argument does not release the Republican party from its embrace of racists. The Southern Strategy of Nixon was explicitly formulated to bring disenchanted whites into the Republican fold. When Reagan spoke of States Rights in Mississippi, it was clear to his white audience where he stood.
1) minorities have trended sharply away from republicans in the past generation. by minorities, i really mean asian americans, who voted majority for bush I in '92 (see 'almanac of american politics'), but shifted to the democrats after that. a few groups, like vietnamese and koreans trend republican, but most other groups are trending democrat.
2) supply is a problem. how are you going to recruit black candidates when 90% of blacks vote democratic? you could nominate them in mostly white districts (jc watts, gary franks), but there aren't many black politicians in mostly white districts by definition. and black republicans in black districts no they'll lose so recruitment is a problem. since latinos are closer to 65-35 dem vs. repub, it's easier to recruit latino politicians who are republican (and cubans, as is well known, tilt republican).
3) i think racism is surely an issue, but the two parties are coalitions. like it or not, "oddballs" are democrats. the republican party has become the white christian party, like it or not. jews vote mostly democratic despite their wealth, but if you look at the survey data jews who follow the christian religion (that is, born jewish, convert to christianity) are much more republican. jews might be white & wealthy, but they're non-christian. so they vote democrat. i think this explains brownz; most of us are not not christian, and so why would we feel comfortable in an operationally christian party? that explains bobby jindal i think, as he is christian. he might not be white, but he is a brother in christ. last time a bobby jindal thread popped up a few christian commenters said they knew plenty of brown republicans in their churches.
Yes, yes--you are right--I'm definitely not trying to (1) excuse the Republicans nor (2) claim that the two parties are equivalent on the racism issue; I am saying that (most of us) need to hold our noses on some aspects of either party, to the extent we affiliate with it.
17 · SweetHomeAmbala said
Well, the point is, we are currently witnessing an example of the southern strategy:
ergo, bubba's jesse jackson comment, which followed a series of racially divisive comments coming from the clinton camp (bob johnson's smear and a drug dealer accusation for example) including a dogwhistle from, bubba himself when he referred to obama as a kid. the point was to get obama to overreact, like al sharpton would, and then label him the "black" candidate, solidify his black base, and lead to a white backlash. it almost worked. in fact, when obama did not overreact, clinton himself (as well as the all to obvious gerry ferraro) went ahead and accused obama of playing the race card on him anyway, which is exactly where he wanted him to be.
of course in all of this there is plausible denial and many of the dogwhstles are in fact legit subjects, but that's the real beauty of the southern strategy, as the quote above indicates. its not obvious, like voter suppression. (in fact, charges of voter suppression are often a reverse southern strategy, as Ramesh Ponnuru reveals. ).
Razib, I don't agree with your #3, specifically the "despite their wealth" part. You're ignoring the wealthy white people in America's cities that vote Democratic. Education has more to do with it than wealth
Sikhs & bayou Punjabi ex-Hindus like Jindal are Scytho-American as are the Scots-Irish by way of the Alani garrisoned in the British Isles 2000 years ago. The Scots-Irish, and by extension Scytho-Americans, have had as many presidents as the Anglo-Americans. So it is fair to say that Amit Singh, as a Scytho-American,is not an under-represented minority. Barack's failure to win in Appalachia is the result of age old Scythian vs. Nubio-Lemurian conflict
Razib, I don't agree with your #3, specifically the "despite their wealth" part. You're ignoring the wealthy white people in America's cities that vote Democratic. Education has more to do with it than wealth
1) generalizations by their nature ignore the variance around the distribution, right?
2) so the key is what is the central tendency?
3) re: wealth & voting behavior, it's actually complicated. e.g.:
Among voters [2006 exit polls] earning less than $100,000 (78 percent of voters), 55 percent said they voted Democratic, 43 percent Republican. Among those earning $100,000 or more, 47 percent voted Democratic and 52 percent Republican.
see andrew gelman's work for how geography confounds the issue. ceteris paribus wealth predicts increasing republican voting patterns. let me bring this home for some readers:
Upper East Side is one of few areas of Manhattan where Republicans constitute more than 20% of the electorate. In the southwestern part of the neighborhood Republican voters equal Democratic voters (only such area in Manhattan), whereas in the rest of the neighborhood Republicans are between 20 and 40% of the registered voters.
The Upper East Side is also notable as a significant location of political fundraising in the United States. Four of the top five zip codes in the nation for political contributions are in Manhattan. The top ZIP Code, 10021, is on the Upper East Side and generated the most money for the 2004 presidential campaigns of both George W. Bush and John Kerry.
a friend of mine likes to joke that red state republicans vote the economic interests of blue state republicans ;-)
When did the GOP launch their "highly publicized diversity effort"?
Even if it goes back to the 1990s, it's still too early to write off the effort as a failure or something that indicates that the GOP is inherently incapable of pushing racial minority candidates.
by the way, thanks Razib for throwing that Upper East Side statistic. Anyone know of any papers that eviscerate the Thomas Frank thesis (voting against one's economic interest)?
26 · No von Mises said
the best paper that eviscerates obama's ignorant-racist-godandgunclinging-bubba condescension, within a month of his typical-white-racist-grandma remark is bartels' 2005 paper.
Anyone know of any papers that eviscerate the Thomas Frank thesis (voting against one's economic interest)?
you don't need a paper. look at the 2004 exit poll for president: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html. jump down to income. here's a sample:
Under $15,000 bush = 36% kerry = 63%
$200,000 or More bush = 63% kerry = 35%
the trend is almost monotonic. frank got confused by the geographic distribution. pundits, not particularly enamored of quantitative data simply ignored stuff they could have looked up in 15 seconds. obviously the regression doesn't work out perfectly, and pooling the whole population ignores substructure across the nation in regards to shifts. see gelman paper above.
That wasn't directed at you. It was just a general comment based on anti-Hillary comments I've seen on websites and in emails.
Hispanics (obviously the largest minority) vote as democrats. I don't know how the Republicans can reach out to them. The Republicans don't need Asians (small population).
30 · Rahul S said
They can follow the democrat practice. Entice them to vote democratic with welfare programs that enslave them for generations.
Chandu writes:>>Entice them to vote democratic with welfare programs that enslave them for generations.
Chandu! People don't say these things out loud...
M. Nam
The Repubs get Hispanics using the Christian/family values thing. Also the small business owner thing. But they do desire affirmative action and increased spending for schools/health to support larger families which puts them outside of the Repub mainstream and within grasp of Dems. It definitely is a numbers game, see how labor unions are against illegals but love their US born children who are a large part of their working class constituency.
31 · Chandu said
They can follow the democrat practice. Entice them to vote democratic with welfare programs that enslave them for generations.
You mean forever.
Bush & Rove had long tried to woo hispanics using abortion, family values, religion, creationism, anti-castoism, and open-borders. Bush was fairly successful with this in Texas but the last issue blew up his plans, even though, for all practical purposes, he remains an open borders guy despite the rhetoric.
Bill O'Reilly is right on one thing. In 50 years or so, the GOP is going to vanish. Mexicans are going to take over, and become Democrats.
One attitude I've found in Americans of all sorts is the point of view that any money one pays as taxes one should see as a direct return or investment in one's self. Sounds complicated, leads to situations as people who refuse to support generalised welfare programs/pension/government insurance because these programs don't directly benefit them. I personally find it rather bizarre and appalling at the same time. Over here, people take it for granted that you pay taxes to benefit for the common good, so that the government can support people in time of need. Most of the quibbling occurs about the amount of money involved, and almost no one, even most libertarians I've come across feel any desire for American situations. Can anyone clarify this for me? Why should you feel that no one else but you should benefit from the taxes that you pay?
I don't think the argument is that the Democrats are free from racism and the Republicans are the only racists on the block. The major difference is that the Democrats have been running (legitimate) POC candidates for a longer period of time, and while they certainly haven't always been the best, the fact that they embrace a platform that includes diversity/civil rights is meaningful and significant.
I actually think there are a lot of POC communities, particularly the politically-moderate church/masjid-going crowd (read: African Americans, Latinos, and Arab American and non-black Muslims), that would break for the traditional "values" of the GOP -- economic moderation, limited government, family values -- if the GOP could just get a handle on its cracked out foreign policy and the racist contingent of the party (which, let's be real, is where many Dixiecrats ended up when they switched parties post-1960s); e.g., Lou Dobbs talking about infestations of Latinos, etc. Frankly, I think a little competition might be better for POC electorates anyway, because (in my opinion) the Dems take them largely for granted, anyway. The only exception to this, in the current race, has been Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton with the Latino vote.
I think the comment re: West Virginia/Kentucky is relatively pointless. These are both states that tend to come out as staunchly Republican in general elections, so it's really not instructive to try to parse out Clinton v. Obama as somehow illustrative of a broader voting trend. West Virginia is also the state whose senior Senator (a Democrat) used to head up the statewide KKK.
It's limited to think that welfare programs, alone, "buy" minority support for programs. As we've already discussed in the past, the majority of people using "social benefit" programs (i.e., TANF, food stamps, etc.) are poor white people. For many people, a single issue can be the issue that changes your party affiliation -- for many POC communities, that issues revolve around diversity and immigration policies.
The one beef I have with welfare is that people abuse the system. If people are working and are still in economic despair, then fine. I don't like it when poor people use welfare money for cigarettes or booze. Pisses me off!!!!!!!!!!!!
I actually think there are a lot of POC communities, particularly the politically-moderate church/masjid-going crowd (read: African Americans, Latinos, and Arab American and non-black Muslims), that would break for the traditional "values" of the GOP -- economic moderation, limited government, family values -- if the GOP could just get a handle on its cracked out foreign policy and the racist contingent of the party (which, let's be real, is where many Dixiecrats ended up when they switched parties post-1960s); e.g., Lou Dobbs talking about infestations of Latinos, etc. Frankly, I think a little competition might be better for POC electorates anyway, because (in my opinion) the Dems take them largely for granted, anyway. The only exception to this, in the current race, has been Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton with the Latino vote.
blacks don't vote their religious conservatism. latinos do have a tendency to vote like thomas frank wants people to vote. a survey i saw of muslim americans shows a "latino" pattern; a tilt toward democrats because of economic liberalism despite social conservatism. i think the data that poor whites still vote for democrats despite their greater religious traditionalism, on the aggregate, than rich whites, suggests that economics is still the major major variable.
this does not deny the salience of cultural issues; but, i wonder if the media elite bias toward cultural liberalism and fiscal moderation has skewed perceptions (democratic party elites support free trade, like republican party elites, it's the masses who oppose this). by this, i mean that affluent democrats don't vote democrat because of pocketbook issues, they can "afford" taxes and what not, they vote democrat because of abortion rights, civil liberties and church-state separation. one might wonder if the assumption that people vote on social issues is simple projection of the media elite's own voting habits (washingtin DC journalists might not be wealthy, but they're not "working class").
>>The one beef I have with welfare is that people abuse the system.
Any Government sponsored system anywhere exists solely to encourage people who can game the system and abuse it.
>>>>If everyone always voted rationally with their own economic best interests first, we'd have a vastly different country.
>>You mean we'd have an imaginary country :)
That's a lot like saying: If everyone posted their views on blogs instead of others' views, then we'd end up with imaginary blogs.
>>Amit Singh isn’t going to like hearing that he “doesn’t have a prayer,”
Being a libertarian, he's probably not going to like even more that he is considered a minority.
M. Nam
38 · Camille said
Bill Clinton won Kentuky and W.Virginia.
razib's post (#40) reminded me of this book, reviewed on a libertarian website (i actually remember taking a class taught by the reviewer, michael munger of duke, who if i recall correctly is a libertarian in the classical sense, i.e. unlike a section of the current so-called pro-corporate/anti-market-competition/pro-warfare state "libertarians"). The book is by Thomas Ferguson and called "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems".
I think the comment re: West Virginia/Kentucky is relatively pointless. These are both states that tend to come out as staunchly Republican in general elections
West Virginia has had Democratic candidate win more than Republican in Presidential elections: 20 out 36, and even post-1968, more times.
However, Kentucky is a traditionally Republican state nowadays (only since 1950s) but Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won there.
Also, California has traditionally been mostly a Republican state, and only in last 4 elections, it has consistently voted for a Democratic candidate in Presidential elections.
45 · Kush Tandon said
Three reasons
(1) Mexicans, (2) Asians, (3) Environmental Nuts. California will never vote Republican in a general election for a long time.
46 · Rahul S said
re: the Southern Strategy and "it's all about coddling racists"; there is an alternative view on what exactly happened in the 1960s that flipped the South from Dem to GOP. Interestingly, Lieberman (D - although some would say 'in name only') has an OpEd on that topic today -
The 60s, many argue, was the birth of Punitive Liberalism. And the South - for whatever set of reasons - is/was generally the most patriotic part of the country and thus the most turned off by such arguments.
37 · Meena said
1. in america, people have traditionally interpreted welfare as a matter of desert and personal responsibility. only those who have paid into the system deserve help in time of their need (that is why medicare is not criticized unlike other govt sponsored programs).
2. there is also the belief that welfare/anti-poverty programs create incentive for people to shirk work. people worry that the system has too many free-riders.
3. then, there is the usual harangue about administrative/bureaucratic competence in delivering these programs.
4. a significant majority believe that government-sponsored programs (eg education, healthcare etc) permit too much intrusion in the private domain and hinder people in making choices about things that matter to them. such people argue that the govt is being paternalist when it decides to solves the problems of citizens.
5. taxes are an unjusitfied burden on people (this one is a little difficult to take seriously). why should the government redistribute someone's hard-earned income.
theda skocpol, a political scientist who sometimes writes about the public's perception of anti-poverty/welfare/redistribution/public policies writes here:
Forget about Hilbama. Jindal is the next great white hope.
c'mon vinod. that's a load of revisionist garbage. perhaps a passive endorsement of Liberal Fascism completes the theory? it's revisionist sophistry masquerading as analysis. what bollocks.
lieberman is an I-CT by the way.
Republicans can't recruit minorities because their underlying tenets stand in contravention to general minority interests.
52 · No von Mises said
it would have been nice to see a substantive response to the policy shifts in the quoted article rather than a directed, personal attack.... too much to ask at times, I suppose. true... he's Ex-Democrat
why is this
in quotes? by putting it in quotes, you are suggesting that the race-based reorganization of political alliances is inaccurate, a false narrative or so disputable that the 'backlash towards Punitive Liberalism' meme becomes plausible. it's an ahistorical premise.
and as for this sentence:
care to support your claim that the South is or was the "patriotic part of the country"? is there a reason why you are using "patriotism" instead of ethno-centric nationalism as a crutch for your argument?
Skocpol's point is an interesting one -- support for high taxes in Scandinavian countries remains rather consistent, at least in part because everyone has access to its attendant social benefits. Gross simplification of course; there's also the notion of 'economic solidarity' (it comes up in academic literature on redistribution in diverse societies, i'm not making this up ;-) ). Crudely speaking, in more diverse societies (specifically where there are diverse groups with limited interaction) economic solidarity is diminished, and one doesn't want one's taxes to "help the other".
The US and Canada have relatively decent notions of economic solidarity across cultural boundaries -- so support for taxes, at current levels, is ok, but often threatened, as Skocpol points out, when programs only clearly benefit one group. In Scandinavian countries, economic solidarity is stronger, due in large part to homogeneity, but also because of benefits even the rich partake in.
There is a bit of US exceptionalism in terms of perceptions (especially academic) when it comes to taxes and redistribution, because of the enduring cultural trope of 'the american dream' and any station in society being open to any individual based on their own effort. How does this help? Well, I'd posit that it allows the US to not rely on higher levels of redistribution to escape significant instability due to high levels of inequality. One of the most self-serving arguments one could make for economic redistribution is, in fact, to reduce the harsher edges of economic inequality is societal stability (ref. World on Fire, Amy Chua). Perhaps unique cultural/historical circumstances permit the US to get by and less competent, and less extensive redistribution and escape the instability other countries would normally face with such gini coefficients. Ie: the US has gini coefficients closer to a lot of unstable developing countries, than Canada or Europe.
err, let me rephrase that last bit:
One of the most self-serving arguments one could make for economic redistribution is that by reducing the harsher edges of pure capitalism (severe economic inequality) one can ensure societal stability -- ie: prevent the masses from looting you (ref. World on Fire, Amy Chua). Perhaps unique cultural/historical circumstances permit the US to get by on less competent, and less extensive redistribution (relative to Europe/Canada/Australia) and escape the instability other countries would normally face with such gini coefficients. To wit, the US has gini coefficients closer to a lot of unstable developing countries (0.45), than Canada or Europe (0.2-0.25).
There we go more of that Republicans are racists BS. BTW, which party has a senator who is a former KKK member, hmm?. Which party supported the KKK terrorizing Southern blacks? and which party was the one that ended slavery?.
Who were the ones that published an offensive cartoon of Bush and Condi Rice? Who called Clarence Thomas an "uncle Tom".
There are a lot of moderate blacks who would vote GOP, but are derided as uncle Toms by the so called "liberal" faction and their voices are not heard. Bush has had more POCs in his cabinet than Bill Clinton. Man you lefties make me sick. You people are just stuck on stupid.
To AnjaliToo,
So blacks breaking 90 to 10 for Obama for no other reason than his skin color is not racist,right?
57 · jackal said
i personally am very sympathetic to this line of argumentation, especially since it shores up support for prudential redistribution.
however, if the general belief in the US is that equal opportunity/level playing field is a constitutional requirement, then the government is obligated to assure that as far as possible (regardless of whether there is a plausible prudential argument from social stability/cohesion/capital).
just want to clarify that the quote from skocpol is a descriptive claim, and probably not a normative prescription she is making. her history of the welfare system in america (rehearsed in several articles online) is a short and coherent read.
59 · DesiDude said
i don't see how tokenism in the bush cabinet shows his solidarity for POC overall, when his policies act against the socioeconomic interests of POC. i think the hispanic community, at least, has shown consistent support for the clintons. perhaps they are better arbiters of their fate and interests than you?
as far as the black question is concerned, given the dynamics of unfair representation and voter suppression in this country, it is not entirely unfair for black people to vote obama. it is a political act with deep resonance. besides, even his detractors will agree that he is a very competent and formidable opponent. given that blacks traditionally vote democrat, and that clinton and obama are not that different on core democratic issues, then choosing obama over clinton for making a political point/correcting a historical injustice is not racism.
and those who deny that clarence thomas has deep-seated psychological issues that seep into his public life, please steal a few pills from limbaugh's medicine cabinent. it won't hurt him any, and it'll probably do you a world of good.
To portmeaneau,
don't see how tokenism in the bush cabinet shows his solidarity for POC overall
Tokenism, huh? Great so what things other than "Tokenism" have the Democrats done for POCs
when his policies act against the socioeconomic interests of POC
And pray, what actions of Bush have hurt the socio-economic interests of of POCs. In fact Clinton, and other democrats have hurt POCs, by encouraging welfare-dependency and leading to missing father syndrome among blacks. Bill Cosby's "pound-cake speech reflects on that. Try reading it.
as far as the black question is concerned, given the dynamics of unfair representation and voter suppression in this country, it is not entirely unfair for black people to vote obama
More leftist moonbattery, what "unfair reprsentation" are you talking about. Blacks have full voting rights since 1865. In fact blacks had equal voting rights long before women did, for example. So in that case, what is wrong with poor white folks to vote Clinton or McCain, as they feel that Republicans or centrist democrats best represent their interests
democrat, and that clinton and obama are not that different on core democratic issues, then choosing obama over clinton for making a political point/correcting a historical injustice is not racism.
Huh, the historical injustices had been erased since 1964 since LBJ signed the civil rights act. In any case voting for a socialist does not correct any "historical injustice"
and those who deny that clarence thomas has deep-seated psychological issues that seep into his public life, please steal a few pills from limbaugh's medicine cabinent. it won't hurt him any, and it'll probably do you a world of good.
Soooo, lets see here racism is fine as long as it is from the left right? Maybe YOU should steal a few pills from the KOs Kommunists and Karl Marx's medicine cabinet. It will do you a lot more good.
And incidentally I am amused that you have not responded to the fact that the Democratic party has a KKK member (Byrd) who just endorsed Obama and he seems fine with it. Happy day KOmmie.
Yawn...isn't "Communism" the right-winger's Godwin's law anyway?
You can blame welfare dependency on LBJ. But you can thank LBJ for allowing us to be here in this country.
To RahulS,
Sure I thank LBJ for signing the civil rights legislation and making life equitable and fair for POCs. But subsequent Dem politicians have squandered the civil rights legacy by encouraging welfare dependency. And if someone like Clarence Thomas calls on folks to shed this mentality, they are called Uncle Toms by the left.
To Meena,
Yaaaawn, just like Fascism and Racism are the left-wingers Godwin's law.
Re: Black voters and "traditional values"
I understand that African Americans do not vote with their church-going values. My comment was that if the Republican Party were a little more clever on its diversity and civil rights policies, they would have an easier time appealing to moderate to conservative POCs, including African American voters. Until Bush's foreign policy, this was also certainly the case for most (non-African American) Muslim voters. My larger point was that the Republican Party, in the name of wedge politics, often takes positions that are "deal breaker" positions for many POC communities.
Re: West Virginia and Kentucky voting patterns
I concede West Virginia (although I do not think the voting habits/patterns in that part of the rust belt are as bellweather or scalable as say, Ohio). And, I stand by my Kentucky comment. I've assumed throughout this conversation that we've been talking about electoral politics from 1970s/80s onward, since that's the last time we saw a massive reorganization of the Republican Party. Of course, at the end of the day, elections are not only about the party, but also about the candidate. It is UNSURPRISING that Bill Clinton carried both states when running against George I. I would be more interested to see how a B. Clinton/Reagan contest would have turned out.
Re: Economics and voting
Poor white people vote Republican, also, especially post-Jimmy Carter. We also know that rich people break for both parties. The economic-interest argument is not sufficient for explaining demographic patterns in presidential elections post-1980.
The GOP has gotten lazy. They haven't laid the foundation for, well, anything these past eight years. Razib's points are well taken (Andrew Stuttaford makes the same points at NRO), but, success has many imitators and if the GOP were more successful (i.e., had governed according to their purported principals and held the line on spending and new entitlement programs) we would likely be seeing different trends.
We better do some good groundwork while we are out of power. Why stay with the GOP when I am so disgusted? Oh, I dunno. I left the Democratic Party, and enchanted with the GOP, and might as well just do my own thing, and hang out until I can find someone I actually want to vote for.
*I wish we would pay more attention to competence in politics instead of a politician who says the perfect things to the base. Anyway, if I were a Dem, I would be happy right now. You have a lefty Dem, a moderate lefty Dem and a conservative Democrat running. Win-win-win.
*I hate that Thomas Frank stuff. People decide what their own interests are, not some sociologist full of bunk about how some economic policies are better for x individual. If I want to vote against ny economic interests, than I guess that's not my priority, eh? Funny how I get to do that in a democracy.
Can you spot the Freudian slip? Disenchanted, not enchanted.
Last correction: Conservative Dem = McCain. Hey, you have some blue dog Dems that are to the right of the guy. Like I said, win-win-win.
*I have to send you some money, right? It's pledge week or something.
53 · HMF said
What are "general minority interests" ? And of those, what are not met with a Republican admin. If not all doesn't many republican values of morality,religion and family values gels with desi culture ? So unless you are poor( which many desis are not unlike AAs and Hispanics ) what is not attractive about Republicans for desis as long as your self-interests are met ?
But I do agree that Republican leanings on whites and race probably puts off minorities who consider themselves as "American" as their white brethren without any of their characterisitics. Now is that the only reason for desi
shunning Republicans ?
Camille @66, check out this talk from New Yorker conference - five foundations of morality, and why liberals often fail to get their message across
Thanks for the link to the lecture -- personally I prefer Lakoff's work for framing the conversation,
personally I prefer Lakoff's work for framing the conversation
just an FYI, my psychologist friends who work in analogies and framing say that lakoff's academic work in this area is crap and not really mainstream (as it, it's lakoff and his former grad students). though of course they agree with the overall slant of his politics....
razib, from an academic perspective your critique is right (and from that same perspective, the lecture BJ shared was really interesting and focused on an entirely different area of morality and how different people define that concept/term for themselves). From a "trade book" perspective, I think his [Lakoff's] work is a good primer on framing. However, like Gladwell's Blink and Levitt's Freakonomics, academically the analysis is not always up to snuff, nor is it necessarily "mainstream." Although cursory and not always entirely accurate, they're interesting introductions for the layperson.
desi dude, i did not want to respond to your #62 just because of the sheer misguidedness of that comment, but here is an article i was reading that is an approximation of the answer that i would give you.
but again, the gem from your post that deserves highlighting is this one:
was prejudice against dalits automatically erased after the indian constitution came into force? several studies show racial prejudice operating in education, workforce etc etc -- but any responsible individual would acknowledge that. since you don't seem to be aware of that or bush's tax cuts that favored the wealthy (generally NOT poc's for a variety of structural reasons that don't exist in your version of america/american history) or his govts. security agenda that may target poc disproportionately or his taking away money from the programs that could have helped the deserving needy to finance an ill-conceived war. or increasing our deficit or creating the atmosphere where oil prices have rises - all of which affect poc and low-income american asymmetrically.
and i am not at all making a case for low-income whites to vote one way or another -- they may choose to vote in their most urgent interests - economic or social or even racist. this is a democracy, and everyone is allowed to make a choice. people will hopefully get the government they deserve.
i've seen some very erudite and educated defenses of conservative policy, but unfortunately comment #62 seems to be rooted in weird fantasy america where (the legacy of) racism and prejudice are eradicated by the stroke of a pen, and the sole cause of welfare dependency is government aid. or where voter suppression after 1865 never occurred.
as far as welfare dependency is concerned, maybe providing real educational support for low-income americans/health care/economic opportunity
Oh yeah. 1865 that magical year when everything changed.
^^Me^^
70 · Bridget Jones said
Could also be the whole evangelical Christian thing. It's not easy to embrace a party that's busy demonizing brown infidels for every problem in the world, when you yourself are brown and an infidel.
If it were simply a matter of "core values," I'd tend to agree with your thinking, but the fact is that the Republican party is all about firing up specific interest groups, and two of the major ones (racist bigots and Christian totalitarians) are inimicable to desis. The idea of Republicans having some monopoly on family values, morality and religion is baseless propaganda. Do you really think that Democrats are immoral, anti-family and anti-religion? Maybe anti-religion-in-the-public-sphere-as-per-the-Constitution, but that's a different story, and one that actually puts them on the same side of members of marginal religions. Republicans are only pro-religion when that religion is a form of Protestant Christianity that is violently opposed to abortion. Likewise, the pro-family label is simply a cypher for a pro-choice agenda. For that matter, the pro-morality nonsense is just a cypher for an anti-gay agenda. So, instead of asking why desis don't go for the family, morality & religion party, ask why they don't go for the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-all-desi-religions party.
Alternatively, it's easier to just ignore the rhetoric and consider the basic issue: the Republican party is the conservative party, and so functions primarily to protect and expand the position of entrenched, powerful groups. Since desis are, by and large, recent immigrants who are not an entrenched, powerful group, the Republicans are not going to advance their interests as such, regardless of any superficial appeal that their rhetoric might have.
I'd add that the handful of desi Republicans I've known have all been drawn to the party because they are staunch fiscal conservatives and adherents of free-trade and globalization, and they fear the tax-and-spend-and-protect Democrats will screw up the world economy. None of them seemed at all interested in the culture war aspects. Which is good on them.
To portmeaneau,
Please don't quote your favorite leftist/socialist media pundit here OK. Slate and the rest of the MSM has been in the tank for Obama so much that is is disgusting. Try reading whats on the other side of the fence for once and see if that makes sense
s prejudice against dalits automatically erased after the indian constitution came into force? several studies show racial prejudice operating in education, workforce etc etc -- but any responsible individual would acknowledge that. since you don't seem to be aware of that or bush's tax cuts that favored the wealthy (generally NOT poc's for a variety of structural reasons that don't exist in your version of america/american history) or his govts. security agenda that may target poc disproportionately or his taking away money from the programs that could have helped the deserving needy to finance an ill-conceived war. or increasing our deficit or creating the atmosphere where oil prices have rises - all of which affect poc and low-income american asymmetrically.
Prejudice against the dalits,huh? let me tell you what, I come from TN and the prejudice against Brahmins and the so-called "upper-castes" is now ingrained in politics and media. Other than JJ, who is the last Brahmin politician that you saw. The ridiculous 69% reservation is not a discrimination against "upper-castes" huh? And BTW, if you look at the recent events in villages, the worst oppressors of dalits are the so-called OBCs. I am very well aware that Bush tax cuts favored the rich,thank you. And why should it not? The top 5% already pay 26% of the income tax revenue in the US. I mean if I work hard and smart why should I be penalized for my success? And the gov't security agenda targets POCs? What planet are you living on? Oil prices have risen as leftist environMENTALS like you have prevented drilling for oil in the US. BTW, have you noticed that oil went for $2.30 to $4.00 after the Democrats got into Congress?
i've seen some very erudite and educated defenses of conservative policy, but unfortunately comment #62 seems to be rooted in weird fantasy america where (the legacy of) racism and prejudice are eradicated by the stroke of a pen, and the sole cause of welfare dependency is government aid. or where voter suppression after 1865 never occurred.
as far as welfare dependency is concerned, maybe providing real educational support for low-income americans/health care/economic opportunity
What do you think Affirmative Action and Section 8 does, lot of opportunity has been provided to AA's to join the American Dream. A lot of them have availed that. Unfortunately a lot of them are stuck with blaming "The Man" and not doing anything to improve their lot. For example, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Don't you think that could be one of the reasons for the underperformance of black students. Or the preponderance of drugs and gangs in inner city schools. People have to make an effort to improve themselves, blaming "racism", "The Man" wont cut it. What fantasy of mine have I put forth. These are facts, not my fantasy. Let me guess, it is you who live in a fantasy, thinking that welfare and Kumbaya will solve everything
59 · DesiDude said
Who were the ones that published an offensive cartoon of Bush and Condi Rice? Who called Clarence Thomas an "uncle Tom".
There are a lot of moderate blacks who would vote GOP, but are derided as uncle Toms by the so called "liberal" faction and their voices are not heard. Bush has had more POCs in his cabinet than Bill Clinton. Man you lefties make me sick. You people are just stuck on stupid.
-I don't think having Colin Powell as a fall guy (for helping Bush II lie about WMDs in Irag) doesn't count.
To AnjaliToo,
So blacks breaking 90 to 10 for Obama for no other reason than his skin color is not racist,right?
Does anyone READ about American history anymore?
Correction: Having Colin Powell as a fall guy...doesn't count.
I'll admit that I don't really understand desi Republicans. Aside from my impression that few of their policies benefit minorites - after anti-abortion campaigning, conservative Christian family values and an anti-science position, what's there to love?
82 · Meena said
$
82 · Meena said
Perhaps free trade brings millions of people to the middle class all over the world. That's a good Republican thing (although I understand why people would be against this).
Yes, but wouldn't the anti-science, overall anti-education stance of the Republican party well, undermine the desi voters?
80 · Huey said
One black author claims that Obama is getting 90% of the black vote because of Michelle. If he married a white girl, blacks would go for Clinton. White people love hime because of his message, and his white background.
85 · Meena said
Republicans are anti-education because more government spending hasn't helped education (No Child Left Behind). Bush spent way more than Clinton, and the results have been poor. Think about it. Why would Oprah spend $40 million dollars for a school in South Africa, rather than the U.S. People value education more in foreign countries than the poor do here. Sad, but true.
I think a better system is where you have a voucher system, which a handful of moderate Republicans would like. Yea, the anti-science turns people off, except Ramesh Ponururu (he even wrote a book about how Stem Cell REsearch is very heinous, unless it doesn't kill an embryo).
85 · Meena said
it should be noted that's there's also an anti-science left: censoring the iq debate and the gender/science debate (larry summers), forcing crackpot feminist (and race-studies) theories on it by trying to apply title 9, environmental terrorism, anti-genetic engineering, animal rights, and pseudosciences like freud and marx that finds it way into postmodern science-studies, and most-importantly, fake science used in courts of law to restrict breast implants. i'm outraged.
88 · Manju said
is your love of large breasts getting in the way evidence-based medicine?
[i'm kidding. not aware of legal rulings on breast implants, will you provide a juicy link? and also, i wonder how much of NSF's budget is going to "pseudosciences like freud and marx that find [their] way into postmodern science-studies. whereas restrictions on stem-cells have a palpable effect -- driving away scientists to europe and putting us behind the competition. universities have a really hard time in making sure their federal money doesn'f finance even a pencil used in a non-kosher project.
i do realize the censuring of academics has a chilling effect on research, but larry summers' effort was very heavy-handed, and i've a feeling his investigatory agenda was clarified/manufactured later only to provide a veneer of credibility to his prejudice. at the same time, i do think that some questions become hard to research because of pc-ness associated with left. larry summers could have been much more nuanced in formulating his argument, so it is not easy to grant him the benefit of doubt.]