Someone please tell me what friggin' sense it makes to be angry at Blacks for voting for Democrats when it was white Republicans who instituted the Southern Strategy?
In other words, why are Blacks castigated for voting against a party that shunned them?
Why is it that when the history of the party is mentioned, it always stops before the Southern Strategy?
From Tony Snow:
After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can't win elections without appealing to hearts and they can't woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial -- filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the '70s, but no more -- and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.
I asked that of a conservative radio show host. He disconnected me.
An additional quote by Tony Snow:
Consider two recent Republican analogues, Richard Nixon and Pete Wilson. Nixon earned two trips to the Inaugural Ball by adopting a "Southern Strategy" that exploited the enmity between black and white Southerners. He managed to turn the "solid South" from a Democratic into a Republican stronghold, but he also deepened the impression that the GOP was a whites- only party.Posted by at February 1, 2005 09:27 PM | TrackBackAs recently as 1952, 40 percent of blacks voted Republican. That number dwindled to 20 percent by Nixon's first election -- and since has fallen nearer to 10 percent. The decline in black support also has weakened the allegiance of white suburbanites, who like to consider themselves enlightened on the matter of racial comity.
You and others continue to make the mistake of assuming that the Republican Party is irrevocably stained or blessed by their arcane history.
Actually, I don't. That's your mistake. If you've notice, I go off on this rant only when I perceive someone as saying, "Blacks are stupid for not supporting the Republican party" or some variation thereof.
Note my second paragraph:
In other words, why are Blacks castigated for voting against a party that shunned them?
I understand your point of, "The Party is what you make of it." I have no problem with that approach; none.
If more people took the approach of saying, "Look, the GOP messed up in the past, but look at what we are doing now", which is exactly the approach Michael Steele is taking, then I would have no reason to bring up the Southern Strategy.
What I write is not an offensive weapon to strike down support of the Republican party, nor is it a defensive weapon to keep support of the Democratic party, it is a defensive weapon of the opinion that Black antagonism against the Republican party is somewhat justified.
Please note, I don't defend Democrats. Again note, that I don't write that it is silly/wrong/not understandable why some Blacks support Republicans.
But also understand that it appears that those who do remember just a few years ago, are being asked to trust someone/people who may have burned you in the past.
Hillary Clinton seems to have moved to the center on political issues lately. Republican/conservative commentators are busying telling all who will listen that Hillary can't be trusted. Look at what she has done in the past.
Why the difference?
Like I said before, I think Michael Steele is going about things in the right way.
The Party is what you make of it.So what have you made of it, Michael?
No one should expect support when all they do is ask for support and call me stupid for not giving it. And be clear...I'm speaking as a partisan for Black people, not Democrats.
Show me something Republicans have done for Black people, not something done for themselves that accidentally benefitted a couple of us. Show me the kind of pork the rest of the Republican's allies have gotten, not just proposals that never materialize and I'll consider your position.
Posted by: P6 at February 2, 2005 11:01 PMAll the party has done for me is get me invited to swanky affairs and put me in touch with the apparatus. I don't actually have time to make use of the things I actually expect from the party, which are essentially business, political and social connections. At some point, I will be better positioned to make use of those connections, but not for a while.
Understand that what I expect out of the party is not the same as what I expect blackfolks in general want from the party. Then again I cannot and do not expect ordinary blackfolks to do what I would be doing.
My assumption is that ordinary blackfolks are gliding along in the belly of the beast. When the American economy grows at about 3%, so does the African American economy. In actual fact, the African American economy is growing faster, catching up to par, but also some of that is done the way the rest of the wealth creation is done, through the calculated risk of entreprenuership. It is precisely a Republican message that I expect when Bush, as he did tonight, spoke about working to get women and minorities more involved in small business. Basically, Republicans are pro-business, and they will do for small business.
If you are pro-black in that you look at what the average black person is doing, or the majority of whatever black people are doing and you support and defend that, it is a different animal than saying you are pro-black with a specific agenda that you think blacks ought to pursue. I am of the latter persuasion, and what I think blacks ought to pursue is getting a grip on the higher echelons of this society in terms of the unique opportunities that our social capital could get us.
Simply stated, I think the Republicans are the pro-business party, and I think the generational imperative of blacks my age was to achieve success in business. Further, I believe that the Republican party is more pro-business than they are anti-black. So what I expect is the Republican party doesn't have to change much, it has to go ahead about its ordinary routine, and blacks who get with the party will benefit because their self-interest will coincide with the self-interest of the party.
It's just that simple. What Republicans do for black people is what Republicans do for people. All black people have to do is show up where the Republicans are.
Posted by: Cobb at February 3, 2005 03:11 AMFWIW I got this in the mail this morning:
At our January South Central Republican Club Meeting we highlighted members Jim Tetreau & Don Anderson Jr. who founded Strive -- An inner-city campus providing a safe-haven for kids from the street and providing exemplary academic & guidance resources to children, youth and their families. (www.strive-la.org)
Strive received a $250,000 challenge grant to expand both its campus; and academic, social and cultural resources to the children and families Strive serves. The renovation of this existing studio will add 4,000 square feet of classroom and multi-purpose space to the campus.
Simply stated, I think the Republicans are the pro-business party, and I think the generational imperative of blacks my age was to achieve success in business. Further, I believe that the Republican party is more pro-business than they are anti-black. So what I expect is the Republican party doesn't have to change much, it has to go ahead about its ordinary routine, and blacks who get with the party will benefit because their self-interest will coincide with the self-interest of the party.I agree the Republican Party is more pro-business than anti-Black. But they are both. And they are attempting to shape the landscape the landscape such that both agendas are fulfilled.
Now you're saying accept the anti-Black aspect for the sake of the money?
Yes. Just like the Little Rock Nine accepted a high school education aspect despite of the racist hostility of their neighbors. They simply refused to let the bad guys keep all the goods for themselves.
Posted by: Cobb at February 3, 2005 11:39 PMust like the Little Rock Nine accepted a high school education aspect despite of the racist hostility of their neighbors. They simply refused to let the bad guys keep all the goods for themselves.
Great retort.
Posted by: EBrown at February 3, 2005 11:49 PMSo you're equating integrating Little Rock High School with helping people reshape the political and economic landscape to make it even more difficult for Black people? And so that the businesses you're associated with can be more profitable?
Fine. Your choice. But to represent yourself as working for anything but your personal benefit is dishonest.
A while back you said you'd stop writing as a Black Republican and just write as a Republican and asked if your reasons made sense. I said yes in your comments. I wish you'd stuck with it.
You're the one that's so convinced that everything that's good for Republicans is bad for America and black America in particular. I'm not convinced.
I'm convinced that integrating the Republican Party is a direct continuation of the struggle to integrate America. I say the battle for public accomodations is complete, now I'm working on private accomodations. I say that the battle for Civil Rights is done, and now the battle is for social power.
I say the racism of the Republican party is a simple matter to deal with, and that it is nowhere near as complex, pervasive, dangerous or damaging to black America as the racism of the 20th century. I continue to say that the social capital of African America far outweighs the ability for racists to hold us down. I see myself as bold enough to deal with whatever the Republicans dish out and that Republican politics as a means to an end, which is essentially capitalistic.
My political aim is to grease the wheels of a wealthy and powerful black contingent of Americans who are willing to take every advantage that their being American offers. In other words I am trying to step above and beyond the bourgeois permanently, and my public discussion of the ways and means of that is part of my attempt to bring as many people as possible along. In other words I am committed to creating black new money and getting it over the hump to black old money such that something of African America has world class self-determination. If that sounds very much like Booker T. Washington to anybody, I say damn right.
My interpretation of the Democrats is that they are not politically adept and making such priorities theirs. Moreover, I personally find a huge sense of hypocrisy in their approach to the black electorate (which we could go into another time, although I'm sure I could find where I've written about that already). However I recognize that there are still those whose perception of the Republican Party is so tainted that they cannot see the Powells as anything but lawn jockeys. I perceive the Democrat's ideal of black empowerment exemplified in their grandstanding over living wages and their hatred of WalMart. I perceive the Republican ideal of black empowerment exemplified in the principles of the Ownership Society - capitalism for all.
I see a particular danger in black alliances with Democratic and leftist economic policies and principles in light of the fact and growth of the global marketplace. I am convinced that whether or not we open our borders, that the kind of labor that makes up the base of the Democratic party is destined, inevitably to have lower wages. This is a direct result of the kind of actions Bush has initiated in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. As Third World countries come online, they will inevitably work harder for less. No amount of labor organization will be able to artificially raise wages. The American middle class will inevitably earn less and the Third World will inevitably earn more. The only thing that can keep American wages high is the suppression of Third World labor, restraint of trade.
Therefore a global perspective on capital and markets is absolutely crucial. Republicans say start a business. Democrats say organize your labor and demand regulation. The democrats will lose. Funny, I sound like I'm part of the Internationalist vanguard.
I am a black Republican to the extent that my expectations of my political activity are guided by what I interpret to be the generational imperatives of my post-civil rights generation of third gneration college educated African Americans. I figure into the international African diaspora (and surprised most people in my family by marrying an American woman), and at this point in my life, fully intend to get on with international business.
Here's where I hedge. It may very well turn out that Vernon Jordan made the right move and Condi Rice made the wrong move. To the extent that there is African American power in America, real power, I believe in none of the populist politics. But if wealthy and powerful blacks have thus far made the considered decision that Republicans are really holding them back at the top, then I very well may concede and go hang out with whomever is left of Ron Brown's cadre. But if Vernon Jordan is a shareholder in Halliburton, then he's the hypocrite. If Condi Rice is a shareholder in Halliburton, she is not.
This is all about being Jack Johnson. I fight for the prize money. If I have to fight the great white hopes to get to the top, fine. But it seems to me that Democrats only care about Battle Royals. I'm not working for those promotions. Don't tell me about the average black boxer. That was my granddaddy's game.
Posted by: Cobb at February 4, 2005 01:23 AMYou're the one that's so convinced that everything that's good for Republicans is bad for America and black America in particular. I'm not convinced.No, I'm the one convinced I will not support anyone that attacks me.
The Democratic Party is run by rich white guys too. They are just as pro business as Republicans...just different businesses, is all. And you'll have a much easier time getting them to support new businesses than getting the Republican Party to accept Black people as anything but gatekeepers.
You use contacts in business that "happen to be" Republican. Fine. But that's not a political position. And it is wrong (as in incorrect) to present it as one.
Posted by: P6 at February 4, 2005 07:22 AMAs for "generational imperitive," that's the imperitive for the generation (ours) that left all our kids on the floor.
And if you're really old school you'd have more respect for your grandfather's game. It's what got you in the position you're in.
Posted by: P6 at February 4, 2005 07:27 AMSomebody tell me what friggin' sense it makes for black people, African Americans, what have you, to pledge any party loyalty at all.
Which one of them has done anything at all to advance the status of blacks in America since, say somewhere between 1960-1969? (With a slight glancing nod on the side to the Carter Administration of the mid-1970s?)
Posted by: sspsllc at February 19, 2005 04:54 PM
I want to help you understand why these arguments cut no mustard with me. You and others continue to make the mistake of assuming that the Republican Party is irrevocably stained or blessed by their arcane history. The Party is what you make of it.
The new argument I will suggest is that you look at the office of Bull Connor. You would not be wrong by saying that the office of Sheriff of Birmingham Alabama has always represented the most terroristic racist violent offense against black people for hundreds of years. Does that mean that blacks should never ever in a hundred years consider taking that position? What's more important, what the institution has done against blacks in the past, or what blacks could make of it in the future?
You know my answer.
Posted by: Cobb at February 2, 2005 12:59 PM