In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Republicans continue to ignore voters of color

Jill

The major Republican candidates are all blowing off a debate at Morgan State, a traditionally black college in Maryland. This isn’t the first time they’ve snubbed black voters — only Tancredo bothered to show up to the NAACP GOP Presidential Forum (all of the Democratic candidates came to their forum).

Cornel West nails it:

The GOP debate in Baltimore at Morgan State University, led and moderated by Tavis Smiley, and currently being snubbed by the leading candidates, is a pivotal moment in this election. It is a litmus test for a Republican Party that, in the past, has run away from black voters and only selectively interacted with Hispanic citizens.

At this moment in American history, it is clear that either the Republican Party wisely embraces people of color, or it chooses to be a losing political party in the future. The courage and vision of Tavis Smiley, and his often overlooked but historic Covenant movement, has put the limelight on this dilemma of the Republican Party.

We shall see which choice the Republican Party makes in regard to people of color in particular, but most importantly to their future as a party in the American democratic experiment.

Republicans threw people of color under the truck a few decades ago with their Southern Strategy and their ongoing race-baiting — “welfare queens,” illegal immigrants, scary Arabs, uppity blacks, “litters” of brown and black children, “hip-hop culture,” the War on Drugs, and undeserving affirmative action candidates taking your kid’s seat at Harvard. Democrats aren’t exactly a dream party either, but they’re better. At least they’re recognizing that black and brown Americans make up a powerful voting block.

11 thoughts on Republicans continue to ignore voters of color

  1. If I remember correctly, didn’t the all but one of the GOP candidates also pass on the opportunity to be part of a Spanish-language debate, so it was canceled?

    That’s what Jon Stewart reported, anyway.

  2. Having read the post below this one, this was pretty funny.

    Democrats: Please ignore a huge voting block that never votes for you anyway.

    Republicans: How dare you ignore a huge voting block that never votes for you anyway?

    I do actually agree with you though. It would be nice to have a candidate able to engage with the black community even if it was an unpleasant round of questioning.

  3. Republicans have no hope to win over voters of color, simply because Democrats promise so many race-based benefits, including endorsing institutional racism in college admissions and government contracts. If Republicans refuse to stoop to that level of racism, good for them.

  4. Yes, Observer, “voters of color” are just coddled and spoiled in this country, while poor oppressed white people can’t catch a break.

    And if racists just happen to vote Republican, that’s not the party’s fault, right? I mean, it’s not like they’re pandering to racists or anything.

  5. Republicans have appointed far more people of color and women to high posts than Democrats ever did. Part of the reason why Civil Rights Act took so long to be passed was determined opposition by Southern Democrats. While I understand it is uncool to know history in the US, I’d have thought it was different on a feminist site.

  6. No, Farhat, it is cool to know history, especially that great part of history known as party re-alignment. Watch out for that.

    I know that the GOP claims to be the party of Lincoln and all that, so maybe if that were really the case, they would bother to show up. At any rate, especially on those feminist sites that try to be conscious of racial politics in this country, dude, that dog won’t hunt.

  7. Part of the reason why Civil Rights Act took so long to be passed was determined opposition by Southern Democrats.

    And see if you can guess which party most of those Southern Democrats ended up switching to…

  8. I think Brother Cornel “describes it” is a tad more accurate than “nails it.”

    Don’t get me wrong, I agree with Brother Cornell on the larger (rather obvious) point – republican racism! egads! – it’s just that, being mired as I am in certain largely theoretical problems of black intrapolitics, I just can’t get past that big, wet kiss for Tavis: “The courage and vision of Tavis Smiley, and his often overlooked but historic Covenant movement…”

    huh!?

    In a post that was about 8 sentences long, blowing Tavis just takes way too much / prominent real estate for my taste, but them’s the perils of giving those group blog logins away like candy, I guess. That bit about historic import brings to mind Black Agenda Report’s coverage of Tavis’ earlier democratic event:

    Tavis Smiley’s presidential forum, before a black audience, with questions by black journalists, focusing on the issues ignored or bypassed in the mainstream media, but vitally important to the African America community, was billed as a historic occasion. But what we got was something else — a game show format, driven by shallow sound bytes, all of it summed up for us by the same Republican pollster who gave us the “Contract For America” and the “death tax.” Tavis Smiley’s presidential forum shows what we get when we confuse black celebrity with black leadership, and marketing with journalism.

    […] it wasn’t a debate. Not at all. No point and counterpoint, no follow-up questions or rebuttals. After nearly half an hour of overlong Negro Introductions and perorations about the event’s historic importance candidates were allowed no more than 60 or 70 seconds per question, sometimes as little as 40 or 45 seconds. Within this format sound bytes often triumphed over substance. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a difficult question about black women and AIDS with a pandering line about how if AIDS were the number one cause of death among white woman it would be dealt with differently, a mumbled sentence or two in the middle and another flourish about dealing with AIDS the way they used to when it was a gay man’s disease in the golden age of her hubby’s presidency. Time’s up. Next contestant, next question. It was closer to being a game show than a presidential debate. Senator Chris Dodd accurately gauged the mood of the affair, volunteering to take “Global Warming for $600!”

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=273&Itemid=33

    James Baldwin is credited with once having quipped that one should never come between another black man and his hustle in a room full of white people, so I guess that means I have to admit that 300 words from Cornel beats a 1000 from John Ridley or whole book by Michael Eric Dyson.

  9. I agree with you Sina. And my two cents is this: The GOP needs to stand up and accept that many voters of color and other minorities in this country are going to ask them the tough questions because of their ignorant President, lack of action on behalf of minorities, and many other reasons. It’s much easier for the GOP to just blow off this small group (as they did the debate on LOGO), because their base won’t care anyway. These actions won’t change unless whites and especially white males begin to speak out.

    As far as voters of color being “coddled and spoiled” in this country, as Bitter Scribe stated above, I think not. Politicians, especially Republicans could give a shit about Blacks, immigrants, gays, etc., etc., etc. Their decisions are made based on what best aligns with the Caucasian male’s interest and what will reap them the most economic benefits.

    As a Morgan State Alum., I can say that this is very discouraging and only affirms my beliefs (some of which, are stated above).

  10. Pingback: Republicans and Minorities « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Comments are currently closed.