How the GOP Can Wage Urban Warfare

96 responses so far

• 1 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:34 am

  “These topics could include such issues as transportation, education, gas prices and housing just to name a few. Also, the taskforce could request a panel of urban Republican experts in various fields who could offer some suggestions for improving urban America.”

  Aye, there’s the rub. Charter schools was easy – the concept really grew in Republican ranks in no small way because the Christian home-school movement wanted a way to benefit from tax dollars without subjecting their kids to public school systems which they despised, but it was easy to tie in the obvious potential benefits to those minority kids in poor communities with failing schools whose famlies would be inclined to take advantage of some way out of those schools.

  But transportation? That takes planning and government action – outside of road building, transportation planning is anathema to the majority of the Republican Party. Education? We’ve discussed, although you can also throw vouchers on the table – but most educated blacks realize that voucher programs are only productive for the community as a whole if extra money is poured into the vourchers (as in DC), rather than money being leached from the existing school funding system to fund them. Gas prices? Really? Housing? Like transportation, urban housing involves planning, and to much of the Republican base urban planning = communism. Or is this going to get back to the “ownership society” rhetoric that was part of the inflation of the housing bubble in the last decade?

  The key here isn’t just outreach – the key is whether the Republican base will tolerate a policy of outreach to minorities that involves more than just “bootstraps” rhetoric.

• 2 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:16 am

  The late Jack Kemp was heroic in his attempts to work with the black community to show how Republican economic ideas (enterprise zones, home ownership, welfare reform to encourage work) could help the black community. (Ironically, Bill Clinton would later rip off Kemp’s idea of enterprise zones, and call them “empowerment zones” to conceal their Republican origins.)

  But Jack Kemp worked constantly, for years and years, to assiduously court the black community. He was the only nationally known Republican who did. All the others would do nothing till an election loomed, and then give their inevitable speech at the NAACP. Then they would drop the subject after the election. With them, there was never any follow-through.

  And Jack Kemp never embraced any form of nativism. No Willie Horton ads for him. He was an advocate of liberalized immigration policies, which are anathema to much of the GOP base. He was even an advocate of affirmative action, which even I oppose. On racial issues, Kemp was a true liberal.

  Jack Kemp showed that it is possible to gain the respect of the black community. But by rejecting any form of nativism, and by trying hard to see things from the black perspective. Right now, to the GOP base which has so many white Southerners, that would be a tough sell.

• 3 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:38 am

  Re: Sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:16 am –

  (*SNORT*)

  “[Kemp] was an advocate of liberalized immigration policies, which are anathema to much of the GOP base.”

  The “snort” refers to the disconnect – or rather the failure to understand that there is a disconnect – with appealing to American blacks, particularly American blacks at the lower social/economic rung of the ladder, especially unemployed and underemployed American blacks while at the same time being perceived to encourage (by turning a blind eye) illegal Hispanic immigration which in some part nudges American black unemployment and underemployment up while putting downward pressure on wages across the board – which obviously effects those at the lowest rungs of the social/economic ladder.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “…Jack Kemp never embraced any form of nativism.”

  Again. (*SNORT*) American blacks are NATIVES. (Hell… American Hispanics… American Asians… the word “American” should serve to clue even you in that we’re talking CITIZENS.)

  Sinz. Seriously. I know you won’t concede this and will in fact balk at the very notion, but your comments infer a serious condescension and might be perceived by some (not me… I understand your faulty as opposed to deliberately prejudiced “reasoning”) as racist.

  You seem to lump all of “them” (brown skinned Spanish speaking and black skinned English speaking) in one distinct “blob.”

  No, Sinz! American blacks are AMERICANS! Americans of Hispanic descent are AMERICANS! Illegal aliens of whatever ethnicity, color, or religion are ILLEGAL ALIENS.

  Why in God’s name would you assume that the way to ramp up black support for the GOP is for the GOP to go even FURTHER in the direction of allowing a demographic transformation of this nation that doesn’t benefit blacks OR whites… that doesn’t benefit AMERICANS regardless of color?

  “On racial issues, Kemp was a true liberal.”

  Wrong word. Sinz. You’re equating “liberal” with “good” in terms of a broad range of actual policy issues. And you do this even after noting your (I assume) principled opposition to reverse discrimination which you peg (the late) Kemp as a support of.

  (*HEADACHE*)

  “…rejecting any form of nativism, and by trying hard to see things from the black perspective.”

  (*SIGH*) Again, Sinz, black Americans should be looked upon as “us,” not “them.” Illegal aliens are “them,” not “us.”

  BILL

• 4 Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:53 am

  Investment of time and money in urban based business to mentor successful management, teach business development and employing the forgotten would be the best “in”. All the way around, the GOP needs to re-establish its cred as business folk. We have to be sincere in agreement that race has nothing to do with success – it’s education and exposure to winning strategies, plus a confident mindset. Today in urbaina, exposure to this and the corresponding Republican business figure is virtually non existant.

  Who would count on the base to go in this direction. It is apparant that the base majority would like the next presidential election to in part be a referedum on race. It’s largely because of them, their words and actions, that this outreach is necessary. We certainly can’t send the Young Republican’s out on this task. Just look at information central at foxdotcom . I feel like a minority because I’m not blond.
  This vocal constituency has successfully defined Republicanism as theirs. Plus they’ve had success in communicating if you don’t fit their mold – leave. Reality though, minority voters agree but losing another election is probably the only way that their agendas will be quieted.
  Today the media reports that the first to go in layoffs are mid aged white males. That’s not new. It’s always been the case – fire the most expensive first. The longer employed, the greater your salary plus age often affects productivity. So cost cutting isn’t an issue of color or sex, but yes this does infer that white males are paid more to begin with. I know my city has studies that clearly support this. My point here is that for the next election cycle there will be no shortage of customers for the “entertainers” dictating the platform. There will be gains in popularity for those pitching to the displaced plus the wacko young white males that never fit in to begin with. Throw in a hot female candidate or reporter leading the charge – double yikes.

  Reality, it will take 10 years for efforts to develop a more inclusive and colorful GOP. There is no fast fix but losing my place in the GOP didn’t occur overnight and I would think others could agree that rehabing the party is essential no matter the task.

• 5 DFL // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:12 am

  As a refugee of Prince George’s County, once part of Washington DC’s white suburbs in the 60s and 70s but now with a 70 % black majority, I would maintain that black America will remain in the pockets of the Democratic Party for various reasons. First, whereas the Republican Party is dominated by groups who are antagonistic towards government, blacks tend to consider government not only to be an assistant in navigating through life but as a place of employment. Second, just as Republicans and conservatives tend to revere the historic American nation, blacks tend to be indifferent, if not hostile, to the American heritage due to their status at the lowest levels of the American nation for so long. Blacks are more at home with the Democrats with regards to American heritage questions as it is the Democratic Party that has turned its collective back scornfully on the historic American heritage. Third, when blacks saw their white southern and ethnic northern enemies flock into the Republican Party, they instinctively joined the Democratic opposition. Fourth, as a major bloc in the Democratic Party, blacks have found great status from the elections of thousands of black Democrats to political office to the power blacks have in steering the conversation within the Democratic Party.

  White Republican overtures to blacks have been part of the political landscape during the thirty-plus years of my adulthood. Affirmative action. Enterprise zones. Martin Luther King birthday celebrations. Tax cuts. Protests of the old regime in South Africa. High black appointments in government from Army Chief-of-Staff, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and Supreme Court Justice. None have appeased black voters. Most blacks remain cemented to the Democratic Party. Yes, make all Americans of any race welcome in the Republican Party but it is my experience that 90 % of blacks would rather not have anything to do with the Republican Party because they don’t like Republican political theories and they don’t like the people who make up the Republican Party. It’s a free country.

• 6 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 am

  barker13 asks: ‘Why in God’s name would you assume that the way to ramp up black support for the GOP is for the GOP to go even FURTHER in the direction of allowing a demographic transformation of this nation that doesn’t benefit blacks OR whites… that doesn’t benefit AMERICANS regardless of color?”

  Because all minorities are acutely aware of one thing: If a politician turns on one minority, tomorrow he might turn on another. That’s been the case both in America and elsewhere in the world.

  The idea that opposing Hispanic immigration is going to be popular with blacks is absurd. They know that the type of white socially conservative American who stereotypes Hispanics as drunkards and baby factories and job-stealers, isn’t likely to have a favorable opinion of blacks either.

• 7 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:55 am

  dfl: You left out part of the history of the conservative movement:

  In the 1950s, the National Review editorialized that southern states had a right to choose segregation if they wished.

  In 1964, the GOP Presidential candidate, conservative Barry Goldwater, opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

  Prior to those events, in 1960, Richard Nixon got 40% of the black vote against JFK–quite a showing for a conservative Republican.

  The GOP made a serious mistake in appearing to stand in the way of Federal initiatives to give blacks their civil rights.

  To blacks, “states’ rights” has been a code word for states having the right to discriminate against them

  This unresolved tension between states’ rights and individual civil rights goes all the way back to the founding of our Republic. It’s the part of the “American heritage” that blacks have had the most trouble with.

• 8 palomino // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07 am

  barker: “(*SNORT*)(*SHRUG*)(*SNORT*)(*WINK*)(*SIGH*)(*SHRUG*)(*SNORT*)”

  What can I say, barkman? You nailed it. Insightful as always.

• 9 Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:14 am

  dfl, my black community has benefited little from the government, they and their children don’t have jobs period. My black friends reveal they are sick of the stink of government period – both flavors. The affluence of DC and everyone there, the pink,white, yellow, tan, brown and blacks is something everyone outside of the beltway agrees is plumb disgusting. DC is just not your regular America. I suggest you get out tour reality – everyone is up for a change.

• 10 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:15 am

  Re: Sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:34 am –

  “…all minorities are acutely aware of one thing: If a politician turns on one minority, tomorrow he might turn on another.”

  Folks… out of his own mouth. (*SHRUG*) (Or from his own typing fingers to be literal.)

  Sinz doesn’t see AMERICANS vs. illegal aliens, he sees NON-WHITES.

  (*SHRUG*)

  So much for the Rev. Martin Luther King’s dream, hmm?

  (*SIGH*)

  “The idea that opposing Hispanic immigration is going to be popular with blacks is absurd.”

  (*LOOK OF SHOCK*)

  My God… he’s totally disassociated himself from reality!

  “They know that the type of white socially conservative…”

  “They.” (As in “them people?”) (*SNORT*)

  Fellow conservatives… heck… any American blacks or Americans of Hispanic descent regardless of partisan or ideological self-identification… I apologize for Sinz. The views of Sinz should NOT be taken to represent the color-blind majority of conservative Republicans and conservative “independents.”

  BILL

• 11 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:25 am

  dfl – I agreed with a lot of your comment, but there are a couple caveats:

  “it is the Democratic Party that has turned its collective back scornfully on the historic American heritage”

  Really? Scornfully? I absolutely have no idea where you get this. For example, none of the pictures I’ve seen of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln show them wearing a flag pin on their lapel. I hear Democratic politicians make lauditory references to our founding fathers all the time. I just don’t get this.

  “Affirmative action. Enterprise zones. Martin Luther King birthday celebrations. Tax cuts. Protests of the old regime in South Africa. High black appointments in government from Army Chief-of-Staff, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and Supreme Court Justice.”

  You’re right on the appointments, and thank God for those or the Republican party would really be tarred as racist to the core. But the conservative movement in the 70’s pushed back hard against anti-South Africa protestors. Not to mention fighting across the country to keep MLK day from being a holiday (you realize that the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008 – John McCain – had voted against the MLK holiday when it passed in 1983?). And not being black, I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that there aren’t many blacks today who view the Republican Party as supportive of affirmative action.

  Enterprise zones, tax cuts. I would guess that the overwhealming majority of that small minority of blacks who identify with the GOP do so for issues like these alone. Thus, the GOP path to increased support from the black community appears to be tied directly to improvements in the economic prosperity of individual blacks with respect to the white community.

  Hmm … how to accomplish that … ?

• 12 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:27 am

  Re: Palomino // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:07 am –

  I appreciate your recognition Pony Girl! (*WINK*)

  (Or is it Pony Boy…???)

  Re: Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:53 am –

  “…mentor…”

  (*THUMBS UP*)

  “…the GOP needs to re-establish its cred as business folk.”

  Ditto.

  “We have to be sincere in agreement that race has nothing to do with success…”

  CfC – you see for yourself who here is fixated on race and identity politics and who isn’t. (*SHRUG*)

  “…the base majority would like the next presidential election to in part be a referendum on race.”

  Well… I suppose first you need to identify what you consider “the base.” (Am I part of “the base” in your eyes?) Anyway, I certainly don’t want the next presidential election (nor any election) to be in part a “referendum on race” (whatever that means…).

  “This vocal constituency has successfully defined Republicanism as theirs.”

  Yes. There’s a bit of truth in that. Still, what conservatives such as myself want is to define Republicanism as “ours” – “ours” in the sense of a set of principles and ideals shared because the sharers believe in the ideals and principles in and of themselves, not because the ideals and principles are “color coded.” (*SHRUG*) (Again… it’s folks like Sinz who insist on color coding.) (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 13 DFL // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:34 am

  sinz54, as a politically practical matter, the manner in which the Civil Rights Era controversies broke ended up favoring the Republicans. Yes, the Republicans lost most of their remaining black support just as they were losing Massachusetts Yankees in the 1960s but the GOP gained the votes of tens of millions of southern white and northern ethnic votes in the tumultuous 60s, 70s and 80s paving the way for the Age of Reagan. Kevin Phillips has been proven right and Ken Mehlman has been proven wrong. Where the Republicans must do better, and I think this is the goal of David Frum’s concept here at New Majority, is amongst suburban white voters in places like collar counties of suburban Chicago, the Philadelphia Main Line suburbs, the Northern Virginia counties of the Washington metro area, and Long Island. Furthermore, Republicans have had a white flight of voters in the rural north, even in New England. The days when Republicans routed Democrats in places like New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont are not too long ago.

• 14 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55 am

  Re: Dfl // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:12 am –

  “….whereas the Republican Party is dominated by groups who are antagonistic towards government, blacks tend to consider government not only to be an assistant in navigating through life but as a place of employment.”

  True.

  But how to respond…??? That’s the question. I say via frank discussion… “teaching moments” as the popular vernacular refers to them. (*WINK*)

  At the very least we (meaning conservatives, not “whites”) (*WINK*) need to differentiate between productive and necessary government duties and responsibilities and politicized “make work.”

  (See, Sinz… kinda like SMART people differentiate between AMERICAN CITIZENS and illegal aliens.) (*SMIRK*)

  ” Second, just as Republicans and conservatives tend to revere the historic American nation, blacks tend to be indifferent, if not hostile, to the American heritage due to their status at the lowest levels of the American nation for so long.”

  Well… yeah… partly. But “anti-patriotism” (for lack of a better word or term) has been an education fad since the late ’60’s; it’s universal more than segment related.

  In line with how this topic relates to the immigration debate, we need our educational system to go back to a pro-assimilation agenda… a “pro-America” agenda. Now I’m not saying we whitewash history or ignore elements of ignoble individual and national behavior; what I am saying is that we must place the bad in context of the far greater good. The goal is not a “man in the gray flannel suit” lockstep society complete with “Stepford wives,” but we must stress our commonalities and our unity as Americans and we must revel in the fact that America IS different and in fact “better” in the sense of “That Shining City Upon The Hill.”

  Again… I’m not calling for “homogenizing” ethnic/racial/religious differences out of the mix; positive stereotypes which COME OUT OF REALITY are to be treasured, not despised. I had my first “smear” (bagel and lox) as a college student along with my first falafel and it wasn’t until I was an adult that I had my first “soul” food and attended a “revivalist” black church service. No. All these “spices” help make America America! HOWEVER… this must be realized WITHIN the unique label of “American” and America. In the final analysis, as Ben Franklin said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

  “Blacks are more at home with the Democrats with regards to American heritage questions as it is the Democratic Party that has turned its collective back scornfully on the historic American heritage.”

  And that’s a very, VERY bad thing.

  “…as a major bloc in the Democratic Party, blacks have found great status from the elections of thousands of black Democrats to political office to the power blacks have in steering the conversation within the Democratic Party.”

  This too is true. YET… has the average black American truly benefited from the result of this reality in practice? Washington DC? New Orleans, Louisiana? Although certainly urban political corruption is not only “black” or not only “Democratic,” where it is black and Democratic we need to point this out and offer alternatives.

  (Again… with race – as in all thing – I’m a big believer that “honesty is the best policy.”) (*SHRUG*)

  “Most blacks remain cemented to the Democratic Party.”

  (*SHRUG*) Yep. (Same with Jews.) (*SHRUG*) What the GOP needs to do is convince both groups that they’ve been largely betrayed by the Democratic Party. (Used… misused… manipulated… taken for granted…)

  Good post Dfl!

  BILL

• 15 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:57 am

  Re: Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:14 am –

  (*NOD*) (*SHRUG OF AGREEMENT*)

  BILL

• 16 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:12 pm

  barler13: You should stop shooting from the hip.

  Of course I see all Americans–regardless of race–as AMERICANS.

  But you win at politics by building coalitions. And that means you have to go out there and target specific GROUPS, and deal with the issues THEY care about. Not just the issues YOU care about. If you wait for them to come crawling to you on their hands and knees, you’ll be waiting an awfully long time.

  The Dems won the 2006 and 2008 elections by fielding “Blue Dog” and “Fighting Dem” candidates who could talk the language and address some of the concerns of RedState America. They didn’t just stand there and pontificate about Dem principles. They knew to field pro-gun candidates in pro-gun districts, for example.

  If you want to win any black votes, you have to deal with the issues of concern to blacks.

  Jack Kemp was successful at this, precisely because he did all the things you scorn.

  The rest of the GOP has been unsuccessful at winning a significant percentage of the black vote, and has failed to win more than 30% of the Hispanic vote–precisely because they followed your advice.

• 17 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  balconesfault: As you can see from some of these comments, the GOP has turned inward.

  They are accustomed to the Karl Rove playbook of winning close elections on turnout of the GOP base, which is 98% white married Christians. They ignore the fact that this playbook is becoming increasingly unworkable, as the GOP base’s share of the electorate shrinks.

  States like New Mexico were lost due to Hispanic votes. North Carolina and Indiana were lost due to black votes and the tipping of suburban areas to the Dems. Suburban areas are being lost due to the votes of single women. Hispanics and single women are the fastest growing voting blocs in America.

  And as a result, this is what’s left of the GOP:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram-2008_Electoral_Vote.png

  But as you can see, conservative Republicans, like the ones in this discussion thread we’re having, don’t care to deal with that. They can’t get used to an America in which white married Christians are no longer overwhelmingly dominant.

• 18 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm

  sinz – Rove’s magic, if you call it that – was not only turning out the white married Christian vote … but in turning elections so dirty that a large part of the political center just said “a pox on all their houses” and stayed home.

  That tactic was successful in no small part because Bill Clinton’s Presidency was successful … and thus that political center could feel comfortable in saying “screw the politicians, I’m taking care of my own business”. What Rove counted on was that appealing to racism in the south, anti-abortion and anti-gay fervor in the midwest, and anti-government sentiment in the west, would bring enough people to the polls to win in low-turnout elections.

  The formula would likely have continued to win, had Bush not screwed the pig so badly.

• 19 DFL // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  sinz54, although many neo-conservatives are loath to admit it, the Republican electoral collapse in 2006 and 2008 can largely be laid at the feet of an unpopular, misguided war. This is especially true of 2006. 2008 had the further burden for Republicans of the Wall Street meltdown of September(McCain had a one-two point lead in most polls at the time, remember). The best lesson for Republicans to learn from the Democratic blow-outs of ‘06 and ‘08 is that a large majority of Americans do not think losing 4000 soldiers and blowing $ 1trillion in the Middle East is a wise idea.

  Ronald Reagan won nearly two-thirds of the white vote in 1984. McCain, who had thumbed his nose at much of the Republican base for years on a variety of issues, won only 54 % of the white vote. The biggest problem for Republicans is how to attract a larger share of the white vote. And already, through no work of their own, Obama is beginning to shed white votes because of his radical programs.

  In the end, the Republicans will begin to win again when conservatives become galvanized against Obama and the Democrats, the mushy middle becomes disenchanted with the Obama program, and the Democrats lose their political courage and discipline and begin to fight amongst themselves. This is beginning to occur. Obamas poll numbers are in steep decline. The Rasmusssen poll has had the Republicans at parity or at a 1-3 point lead for over a month.

• 20 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm
  ” The formula would likely have continued to win, had Bush not screwed the pig so badly.”

  …………While I wouldn’t disagree with some of your comments I actually think the portents of Republican decline were there by the late 90’s and I actually put it down the extreme polarization strategies practiced by Atwater, then Gingrich and Rove. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 and patriotic hysteria whipped by Rove and it must be said a very successful GOTV effort in 2004 Bush was was re-elected by only a 3% margin, the smallest for an incumbent since Wilson in 1916. If you look at the house and senate results apart from what I’ll call a patriotic blip in the early 2000’s the Republicans steadily lost seats from the late 90’s and this turned into a cascade in 2006/08………15 senate seats were lost over the last two cycles (inc Arlen) and I actually think the house results are much worse…….Remember house seats are gerrymandered to death and still they lost should have been completely safe havens…….Basically I think the Dems are maxed out on house seats because of gerrymandering although there might be a few more in CA but if the economy is in recovery mode by next summer and with the number of retirements the Dems could pick up another 3-5 seats in the Senate……….The Dems have a couple of vulnerabilities like Dodd but I suspect they’ll make it through

• 21 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  dfl // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm
  “the Republican electoral collapse in 2006 and 2008 can largely be laid at the feet of an unpopular, misguided war”

  …….So why did Bush lose the popular vote in 2000 and despite the patriotic push from a war and a weak opponent only win by 3% in 2004………Look at he map Sinz provided a link too and count up the electoral votes the Dems have a lock on just as the Republicans have a lock on some……..On second thoughts don’t bother as your mind’s already made up as I can see from the fact you’re putting your faith in Rasmussen’s junk polls……We’ll see

• 22 ProfNickD // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  I find this entire argument tedious — it’s the same thing that some elements of the GOP have been arguing for 25 years.

  Black Americans voted for the party of Lincoln until the mid-20th century, when the FDR & the Democrats bought off blacks with welfare.

  Until the welfare state is abolished the GOP will be unable to make inroads into the black community except on narrow local issues — interestingly, on the issue of same-sex marriage there is agreement with the social conservate faction of the GOP and blacks.

  But that’s a pretty obscure issue that very few people really care about.

  The GOP vote share of Blacks will never go beyond 8-10% in Presidential elections no matter what the GOP does.

  The GOP should really go back to its “Reagan roots” — Reagan never won very much of the black vote but he did carry the South, Midwest, West, and even the Northeast solidly because the Reagan message of limited government, strong defense, and traditional values resonated in nearly every part of the country.

  Increasingly, the Northeast is becoming electorally less relevant anyway — over the past 3 Census, including the ‘10 census, the Northeast will have lost something like 40 house districts, meaning also 40 electoral votes to the South. After the ‘10 census FL will be largeer than NY.

  And if that message doesn’t resonate in the Northeast, well, who cares. The Northeast isn’t needed anyway.

• 23 ProfNickD // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  dfl @12:45 is correct — after the nomination of Sarah Palin, McCain was leading Obama, largely because he attracted the white & conservative vote back “home.” Below is a link indicating McCain’s lead, which according to RealClearPoltics poll average, was 2.9 points in early September.:

  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

• 24 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  Re: Sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:12 pm –

  “barler13: You should stop shooting from the hip.”

  Sorry to hit a nerve, Sinz, but when you expose your anatomy… (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 25 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  profnickd: “Until the welfare state is abolished”

  What exactly does this mean?

  Are you in favor of completely eliminating welfare? AFDC? Medicaid? Chips?

  How about Medicare? Social Security?

  When someone talks about “abolishing the welfare state”, I’d like to know what that means to them. I suspect it sounds a lot prettier as ideal when you don’t think through the fallout.

  As a corollary – I always like to ask – what country that is livable spends a smaller portion of its GDP on social assistance programs than the US? I’d like to know if the ideal exists in the real world, or simply as an etheral construct.

• 26 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  profnickd // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm
  ” And if that message doesn’t resonate in the Northeast, well, who cares. The Northeast isn’t needed anyway.”

  ………….After all it’s only the financial, political and along with CA (another Democratic stronghold) the artistic and cultural heart of the country……but heck cut em loose

  ” Until the welfare state is abolished”

  …………Can’t wait until abolishing unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and SS (From which whites have benefitted far more than blacks btw) becomes official Republican policy

• 27 JohnMcC // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  Mr Ivory says: “Imagine a team of urban Republican from around the nation: from the Bronx, Harlem, LosAngeles, Detroit….”

  Mr DFL says: “The biggest problem for Republicans is how to attract a larger share of the white vote.”

  Which is the voice that we expect the Repubs to hear? (Close your books and no looking on your neighbors paper, now!)

• 28 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  dfl // Jul 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm

  ………Before you get too excited…….some numbers from a CBS/NYT poll conducted 7/24-7/28 and released today

  Dems in congress F 47 UF 42 DK 11
  Repubs in congress F 28 UF 61 DK 11

  ……..Good news for Boehner I suppose

• 29 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  profnickd // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  ……….This is a totally meaningless number…..it’s a snapshot not the motion picture

• 30 drhagedorn // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  If the GOP wants to go after the urban voters they might stop talking about rural areas/small town as the “real America”. The American population is becoming more and more urbanized and it is extremely off-putting to imply they are somehow living in “unreal America” or “Unamerica”.

  What are New York , Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, L.A. – Japanese?

  Anderson Cooper asked Sarah Palin’s press woman to explain the basket ball metaphor Sarah Palin used to him, because he only understood about politics and nothing about sports. She would not, and said something to the effect of “the real folks out there…” (I can’t recall the exact words and am too lazy to look it up). While Anderson Cooper as a New Yorker, a gay man, a news guy and a Vanderbildt heir is by no means examplary of America, however he is a real person and a very American persona. There are lots of people out there, who don’t care for sports. Are they unreal, are they not Americans?

  To me it seems, that Republicans have a problem embracing the extreme diversity, that makes the USA so unique. Everytime the “real America” and “unamerican” talking points are used, it alienates people. My guess is, that people that feel alienated by the GOP are not going to listen favourably to any policy the GOP is offering, even though it may be to their advantage.

• 31 DFL // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  One point I agree with ottovbvs is that Bush’s re-election in 2004 was hardly overwhelming and should have been worrisome to Republican strategists. In what would have been one of the great political ironies of our times, a switch of 120,000 votes in Ohio would have made John Kerry president despite Bush’s 2.5 % popular vote advantage. And the Democrats are the one’s hell bent to rid us of the Electoral College! In John Kerry, a senator with a consistent 100 % ADA record for twenty years, a man of left-wing Massachusetts, a man who exemplifies the haughtiness of Beacon Hill and Harvard, was made to order for Republicans. Yet Bush struggled over the finish line. It is true that John Kerry performed well in debates, and, in fact, is the best debater in America(ask Bill Weld or Geroge W. Bush), but something else prevented a Bush landslide.

  Why no Bush blow-out despite a good economy? Partly, due to a war that seemed misguided and too bloody. Bush’s religiousity turned off many voters and, let’s face it, his Texas accent turns off many northerners just as Mario Cuomo’s accent and Ted Kennedy’s accent turns off southerners. You should also add that as America deindustrializes, Republicans are damaged amongst blue collar workers and even the management of industrial companies that are in decline. Maybe Republican worship of absolute free enterprise is not a political winner as some might think except amongst the scholars of the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

• 32 midcon // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  The Pew Charitable Trusts being released this week (http://www.economicmobility.org/)in a study that has tracked more than 5,000 families since 1968, found that no other factor, including parents’ education, employment or marital status, was as important as neighborhood poverty in explaining why black children were so much more likely than whites to lose income as adults. The impact of the neighborhood in which they are raised apparently has been found to be a very significant factor in an individual’s economic mobility. What the study does not identify (because additional study is needed) is which factors in neighborhoods matter most, such as schools, crime or peer groups.

  The report and key findings can be obtained at the above url. The failure of minority families who have attained middle class status to move away from a poor neighborhood significantly affects whether their children will continue their upward mobility or slide back down into poverty.

• 33 ProfNickD // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  re: ottovbvs and balconesfaut,
  When I say “until the welfare state is abolished,” I am in fact saying that (unfortunately) “until Hell freezes over” — meaning that as a practical point there is no way for the GOP to make inroads into the Black vote. The Black vote is simply too closely tied to the welfare state, which the Dems created and most ardently defend.

  Even if the GOP would itself become the “welfare state party” it wouldn’t matter — we already have a a “welfare state party” so why would any voting block (i.e., Blacks) that support it switch?

  re: ottovbvs @ 1:34

  I was careful to say that “electorally” the Northeast isn’t needed for the GOP– which, as a crude political calculation is true. The South will continue to outweigh the Northeast as the Northeast continues to bleed house districts & electoral votes to the South & West.

  I would also argue from another political point: the GOP would have to change its message to accommodate increasingly liberal (and, I would argue, out-of-touch) Northeastern voters. Northeastern states have higher taxes (especially the property tax), more regulations (such as “union shop” laws and very strict environmental laws), and anti-business climate (such as more burdensome unemployment compensation rules).

  But if it did change its message to accommodate these Northeastern voters, then the GOP wouldn’t appeal to Southern and Western low-tax, low-regulation, more business-friendly states — which would lead right back to the electoral issue discussed above, namely, the South (and West) is electorally more important than the North.

• 34 Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  profnickd – in case you didn’t notice the northeast formed a band and connected right along the great lakes out into the hinterlands. I think we needed those electorate votes to get a win – correct?

  Well, you keep on growing all those hot, dry, southern states and we’re just up here wringing our hands waiting for water bottles to fetch 2bucks and49cenz!

• 35 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  profnickd: “When I say “until the welfare state is abolished,” I am in fact saying that (unfortunately) “until Hell freezes over” — meaning that as a practical point there is no way for the GOP to make inroads into the Black vote. The Black vote is simply too closely tied to the welfare state, which the Dems created and most ardently defend.”

  You dodged the question. Let’s not talk “practical point” from an electoral standpoint – but from a functional society standpoint.

  As I said: “What exactly does this mean?

  “Are you in favor of completely eliminating welfare? AFDC? Medicaid? Chips?

  “How about Medicare? Social Security?”

• 36 Spartacus // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:41 pm

  profnickd // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm wrote: “Black Americans voted for the party of Lincoln until the mid-20th century, when the FDR & the Democrats bought off blacks with welfare. Until the welfare state is abolished the GOP will be unable to make inroads into the black community except on narrow local issues . . . ”

  FDR & the Dems bought off a whole lot more than blacks with welfare and the other programs they started. They bought off most of the entire electorate for many years. In fact, the whole nation is so dependent on many of those FDR programs that no viable Republican candidate has ever advocated the abolition of welfare, social security or even medicare. In fact, the only viable presidential candidate to ever speak boldly about radically changing welfare was Democratic candidate Bill Clinton, who may still be the most popular president among blacks. So, I think your view of why blacks strongly favor the Dems is terribly flawed.

  For a much, much better explanation you should revisit Sinz’s post at sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 10:55 am (post #7 above).

  And, as for the current disdain that many minorities have for the GOP, you really only have to consider the current “Birther” movement. No Dems are running around asking for Obama’s birth certificate, but several prominent GOPers are. And, of course, the most vocal and prominent figure on the Right is an avowed Birther.

  If the GOP can’t kill something as ridiculous as the Birther movement before some mainstream person like Matt Lauer starts talking about it, then all this talk about winning blacks with urban renewal plans is sheer lunacy. This is a classic case of not being able to see the forest because of the trees.

• 37 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  dfl // Jul 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm
  “One point I agree with ottovbvs is that Bush’s re-election in 2004 was hardly overwhelming and should have been worrisome to Republican strategists.”

  …………You’re also ignoring 2000 and I’m not replaying did he win arguments here it’s just a fact that Bush did not win the popular vote………it’s demographic and cultural shifts that are driving this as the Senate results show…….it’s 60/40……..the Republicans never had this margin……..the last time the democrats had it they had a bunch of southern senators who ultra conservative and only democrats because of history……now 55 out of 60 Democratic senators are liberal to a man/woman………of course personalities matter to some degree as they always must in politics but these shifts are being driven by demographic/cultural changes and the fact the GOP has ridden into a canyon on a bunch of policy issues.

• 38 Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  I don’t get offended easily, but there’s this tickle in the back of my neck when certain commenters above link African Americans with the welfare state, as if there were a singular group of people to be placated by government handouts, their votes bought using welfare and food stamps, etc.

  I can’t tell you how many primarily white, rural communities I’ve looked at that are considered welfare towns, because that’s where the majority of their funds come from. You wish to attack the good, hard workin’ folks of Middle America as well, or just them urban folk who ain’t your color? BS. There’s plenty of poverty to go round, regardless of color.

  Am I crazy? Am I being too sensitive? Nah…

• 39 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  profnickd // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  ……….The flaw in your argument is that it’s not just the NE…….it’s also the entire west coast and the mid Atlantic that Democrats have essentially established a lock on…… Somewhere on another thread Sinz has provided a link to the electoral map last year and it’s scary reading for Republicans………I also think the Dems are going to get a lock on FL which in many ways is a sort of eastern CA…….the only thing that’s kept a majority or near majority of the hispanic vote in the GOP column has been Cuba….if this ceases to an issue and the hispanic vote essentially starts to look like the hispanic vote in the rest of the country it’s goodbye Florida

• 40 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  Re: Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:06 pm –

  Unfortunately, Oneon, what you obviously mean to be a cry against “racism” and “stereotyping” also amounts to a call for us as a society NOT to place a priority on helping black America integrate fully with white America in terms of social-economic equality.

  I mean… to follow the logic of your argument… you must oppose affirmative action because according to your argument it’s unncecessary?!

  (*SHRUG*)

  Oneon, because I believe your heart’s in the right place I’ll simply reiterate a common theme of mine: “The truth shall set you free!” (Oh, yeah… and let’s not forget “Honesty is the best policy.”)

  BILL

• 41 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:35 pm

  profnickd // Jul 30, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  ……Sorry Sinz’ link is in this thread

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram-2008_Electoral_Vote.png

  ……….Add up the solid blues states and this is the so called Blue Wall

• 42 DFL // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  otto, that Bush ran strong against Gore at a time when the economy was thriving and Clinton’s presidency was popular was a sign that the parties were at about parity. Since the 1984 Reagan landslide, the Republicans have been more damaged by 1) the loss of the Cold War and the heavily armed USSR which now prevents the Republicans from denouncing Democrats for being “soft on communism” , 2) the dominance of the Left over the American culture, from the schools and universities to television and motion pictures, and 3) the acceptance of Democrats of generally low taxes that Reagan pushed through.

• 43 Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  Re: barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  It was a cry against poorly wrought generalizations that I think are broadly incorrect. I don’t think anyone who states this is a racist–just stupid. (Queue Gates argument!)

  You’re right though, I am staunchly against affirmative action. It was probably necessary to jump-start integration, but I think it’s antiquated today.

  I think we should prioritize aid based on socioeconomic conditions, and not necessarily on achieving equality.

  In the end, why do I believe in social safety nets and liberal crap? Two reasons: A) you can work hard all your life, and still get screwed, and B) they stabilize society.

• 44 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  dfl // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:37 pm
  “otto, that Bush ran strong against Gore at a time when the economy was thriving and Clinton’s presidency was popular was a sign that the parties were at about parity.”

  ………..You can argue that……my take is that the Republican erosion started in the late 90’s………I don’t dispute for a moment that there was a shift rightwards from the mid 70’s that lasted for 25 years, I just think the shift back left was starting in the late 90’s……and please give the bleating about university/media brainwashing a rest…..Basically US society is becoming more secular, more tolerant of ethnic and gender diversity, women are much more prominent in society, there are a host of reasons……..As Max Weber pointed out a 100 years ago, modernity results in the increasing rationalization of human activities and that means questioning of conservative ideas…….it’s why the version of conservatism that currently holds sway in the GOP is ultimately doomed

• 45 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm
  “and B) they stabilize society.”

  ……..The technical name is the social contract

• 46 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  Re: Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm –

  “You’re right though, I am staunchly against affirmative action.”

  (*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

  I’m against reverse discrimination. I’m all for “affirmative action” if by “affirmative action” one means we as a society doing what we can to encourage black Americans (primarily) to follow a path that will lead to earn success… just as we want whites to earn success… just as we want men and women of all ethnic/religious backgrounds to earn success.

  “…poorly wrought generalizations that I think are broadly incorrect.”

  Such as?

  Comparing/contrasting intraracial states on a wide variety of social-economic measures my conclusion is that “black America” is generally behind “white America” when it comes to most measures of success and failure.

  I mean… off the top of my head… something like 1 out of 5 black males has served prison time. (Correct me if I’m way off base!) I don’t think the numbers are even close to comparable for white males.

  Take poverty… take illegitimacy (the root cause of much poverty)… take your pick of different issues to focus on. I don’t WANT blacks to be “below” whites. You don’t either I’m sure. (*SHRUG*)

  “I think we should prioritize aid based on socioeconomic conditions, and not necessarily on achieving equality.”

  I’m with you there, but I still say we need to address the special needs of the “black community” as it is defined both by blacks and whites. (*SHRUG*)

  Oh… and getting back to the “aid” itself… yeah… I want to cut welfare and entitlements as much as possible across the board. (You’re aware, may I assume, that Obama and the Dems have basically dismantled the “Clinton” Welfare Reforms of the Gingrichian GOP, right?)

  “In the end, why do I believe in social safety nets and liberal crap? Two reasons: A) you can work hard all your life, and still get screwed, and B) they stabilize society.”

  Ahh… but the devil is in the details. I’m sure we’d be in complete agreement on many cases where if we had the knowledge of specific situations and the power to issue “solutions” by fiat in certain cases we’d provide a “safety net” and in other cases we’d administer a swift kick in the ass.

  (*SHRUG*)

  Again… I keep on pounding this point home… these “abstract” calls for doing this or that in “theory” can only carry a conversation so far. We need to focus on specifics.

  BILL

• 47 Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  Re: barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  And I think we do focus on specifics, as closely as we can, in many cases. This isn’t theory, this is practice. As an example, very few know about how food stamp programs work, but it’s actually an extremely effective federal program that costs the government a tiny amount to run because they utilize a massive network of food pantries to distribute and work the program. Not only is it run well, but the system is means tested and rigorous to the point of requiring only purchase of “real food”.

  Does that mean that people who “deserve a swift kick in the arse” can’t game the system? Of course they can. But that’s worth the price of admission, in my opinion. Better to have a social net that stabilizes society, helps the trod upon and occasionally helps a vagrant, than none at all. I view it the same way as I do our “innocent until proven guilty” legal system. Better to let 9 criminals go free than incarcerate one innocent man. It’s social contract, like Otto slid in earlier. We’ve got to live together and we don’t want bloody revolution (some of us, anyway), so lets help eachother out.

  Allow me to answer your first question though. You do ask where I find poorly wrought generalizations. Well right here:

  “The Black vote is simply too closely tied to the welfare state, which the Dems created and most ardently defend.”

  The commenter is a reasoning individual. I don’t think he intended his comment in any way harmfully. But I think it got a discussion going that smacked of racial bias, as if minorities were at the teat of big government and us hardworking white folk were not using the welfare state. That’s far from the truth. Thus my verbal smackdown above.

• 48 liv&win // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  I know this doesn’t mean anything, but I (white guy) had breakfast with 3 guys (black) from South Central LA this morning. It was interesting…they think Jessie and Al are pimps and MLK was killed by a black power conspiracy. Importantly, the don’t trust the man, especially the policeman. And it doesn’t matter if he be dem or GOP. I got the sense that the best way for the GOP to gain influence was to support black community interest groups, churches, kitchens, housing…all the urban programs with money and logistical support to enhance and improve THEIR ability to serve THEIR community. And that was the final verdict. The urban black (in my very informal survey) want self determination for their community, free from demogues and pimps. They made it clear that we’ll never be brothers, but they displayed the same christian chartity to me that they felt from me.

  I think the GOP should take a really long view (20+ years) and help urban blacks help themselves.

• 49 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:15 pm

  Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm
  “can’t game the system”

  ……..Since you consider my posts inane you might not want a word of support from this quarter…..the reality is systems are being gamed from one end of the country to the other…..whether it’s agribusiness and ag subsidies or hospitals and medicare…….there was an item in this morning’s paper about 260 individuals(ie. doctors) and organizations defrauding Medicare…….any gaming of food stamps pales into insignificance by comparison with commercial fraud by health systems and the Halliburtons of this world

• 50 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  45 ottovbvs at 4:01 pm

  Oneon1isto // Jul 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm
  “and B) they stabilize society.”

  ……..The technical name is the social contract
  **************************
  That’s part of it.

  But from a purely technocratic pov, I think that they also stabilize society – in that they provide ballast.

  For example – think about the economic downturn that occurred over the last year. Now – think about our economy if a significant number of social security recipients had had significant portions of their SS funds tied up in stock funds … and had seen their values plummet. It would have been panic – you’d have seen massive drops in spending on services, on consumer goods, certainly on discretionary spending. Ripple effects – closure of restaurants, rents plummeting on retirement complexes, families not sending kids to college because they suddenly have to help grandma pay her bills.

  If there’s no food stamp programs, economic downturns would see rapid closures of supermarkets thoroughout many communities. That ends up hurting the middle class employed who work in those supermarkets. Who cut back their spending on other things, expanding the ring of economic impact. Of course, crime goes up as more become unemployed, and then we need to expand our spending on prisons even more.

• 51 balconesfault // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:20 pm

  liv&win: “I think the GOP should take a really long view (20+ years) and help urban blacks help themselves.”

  But will it be possible to do that, and at the same time demonizing any group like Acorn that works to help organize in the black community?

  Let’s face it – the current right wing jihad against Acorn can’t be doing anything useful for the party in urban areas.

• 52 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:27 pm

  48 liv&win // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  ……….And you don’t think the black community has made huge progress over the last 40 years?…….of course they have…….From my experience of black guys, who basically used to work for me so it may have colored their answers, they don’t have a lot of time for Al or Jesse although they cut Jesse a bit of slack because of the civil rights movement…….all revere MLK and none have ever suggested he was killed by a black power “conspiracy” although I suppose there are black conspiracy theorists just as there are white Kennedy conspiracy theorists…….and whose “the man” Gates?……

• 53 Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:54 pm

  liv&win that’s what I’ve been saying – help them grow their neighborhood businesses…. but what no mention of the drug empire and their pawn status! The biggest resentment is over the fact that their youth are drafted into the street economy but then the users are deemed poor things that rehabbed. Their young are jailed or dead over what the affluent are stuffing up their noses. We need serious drug law changes for many reasons.

  I also very much disliked the blather up above that inferred that blacks are the food stamp clan – yeah right. There is no white trash! Who ever you are, that view just proved you haven’t been into either an urban or rural area in your lifetime.

• 54 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:54 pm
  “There is no white trash! Who ever you are, that view just proved you haven’t been into either an urban or rural area in your lifetime.”

  ………..Of course

  “that’s what I’ve been saying – help them grow their neighborhood businesses….”

  …………The only problem with this approach is you can’t create the level of economic opportunity that’s required by “neighborhood businesses”…….I know it’s better to light a candle than curse the dark but at the end of the day all these guys have got to be absorbed into mainstream commercial and industrial life just like Irish, Poles, and Jews before them………the neighborhood business economy is just not big enough to support this demographic

• 55 Spartacus // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:08 pm

  Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:54 pm

  Blacks are not going to rally to the GOP no matter what programs it advocates as long as the GOP is characterized by the hyperbolic, race-tinged rhetoric that has become too common of late. This is no different that Mayor Guiliani rejecting the $10 million donation from a Saudi prince after he made statements that Guiliani found offensive. It didn’t matter that NY could have used the money, Guiliani rejected it, and many people supported his rejection of it, because he was offeneded by it. Why does anyone think blacks or anyone else are any different?

  This really is not that complicated.

• 56 hhr // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:10 pm

  Frrom RTP -

  For at least fifteen years, David Bositis at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, has been gathering data that shows that young African-Americans are less likely to call themselves Democrats than their parents or older siblings and more likely to identify as independents, though not Republicans. Why is that? There are a number of reasons. They are more likely to be products of the middle class than were their parents. They are following what until recently were similar trends among young voters regardless of race–towards independence rather than strong partisanship.

  The Civil Rights Movement and its immediate aftermath were not lived experiences for them, but rather history and therefore more distant including the grudges arising therefrom. The problems they have seen–especially in the cities–have a lot of Democratic complicity if not authorship written on them. This is not a turn away from government, which is key. Republicans won’t get very far with these voters by saying the key is to have less government. It is a turn to effective or efficient government that is responsive and perceived to be responsive to them. School choice has potential as an issue if it is framed as better schools not less government. Efficient government can be smaller, smarter, closer to the people (i.e. less federal). It can be all the things that I gather Republicans mean when they say “less government.”

  While one can argue for a rational black skepticism about strong government roles, it will be equally easy to argue the converse. Republicans tend to argue in a shorthand that evokes skepticism especially for somewhat older blacks. Against activist judges? Many of the rights gained initially by African-Americans were actualized through judicial action, even fiat. Return to state and local government? It was an interventionist federal government that secured actual voting rights for African-Americans. Original intent of the framers? Let’s not even go there : ) Instead, Republicans need to focus their rhetoric not on the ideological framework, but the outcomes: governments that are responsive to the will of the people within certain bounds that respect equality under the law.

  In the short term, I don’t think there’s much hope of Republicans winning large numbers of African-Americans in the next presidential cycle or two. I think there is hope over the long term. However, we also need to stop writing minority and meaning black. Just thinking in racial and ethnic terms, we can come up with other growing groups. Latinos and Asian-Americans (which by definition are incredibly diverse) are both growing and important “groups.” It’s harder for me to say where one might go in these cases. I think a healthy focus on efficient, responsive and competent government works with any of them. (It seems to me the secret of Republican governors.) However, I suspect the question of how immigration is handled along may be important here.

• 57 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:23 pm

  hhr // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:10 pm
  “For at least fifteen years, David Bositis at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, has been gathering data that shows that young African-Americans are less likely to call themselves Democrats than their parents or older siblings and more likely to identify as independents,”

  …………That would explain why Obama captured the largest share of the black vote in US history (96%)……he also captured the largest share of the youth vote for as long as I can remember……I’ve no idea who RTP are from where you culled this piece of wisdom but Mr Bositis’ data would seem highly questionable to someone as sceptical as me

• 58 hhr // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm

  From – RTP

  There are several programs out there that have a lot of potential to help those who are employable. The Workforce Investment Act does just that. Funds are allocated to the States to implement the program. States keep some of the money at the state level to fund large projects and then push other funds to local workforce regions. The regions generally decide on what sort of things are appropriate to train on and some of the eligibility guidelines. It is a pretty broad program with solid potential. Like most things government, the problem comes in the implementation. Too often those administering the program are not really good helping people with their career goals and they can be a waste of time.

  Can we sum up that the conservative message that will resonate best with minority voters is BETTER government not BIGGER government? Maybe we should start a discussion just on that item.

  Statistically, there is an elevated number of African Americans on the roles of many of the safety net programs (TANF, WIA, Food Stamps — now called SNAP). They have seen the unbelievably bad service from many government programs and fixing that problem will resonate.

• 59 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:59 pm

  hhr // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm
  “From – RTP”

  …….So “WHO” is RTP?…….on the basis of the first piece you culled from there I wouldn’t pay them in rusty buttons…..of course I’m from the business wing of the party

• 60 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:21 pm

  ottovbvs sez: “That would explain why Obama captured the largest share of the black vote in US history ”

  No. The obvious reason why Obama captured 95% of the black vote, is because he’s black himself.

  As I said before, the GOP has no chance of pulling black voters away from the first black President.

  They’ll have to wait till Obama leaves office.

  Which, if present trends continue, will be January 2013.

• 61 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:39 pm

  profnickd writes: “the Reagan message of limited government, strong defense, and traditional values resonated in nearly every part of the country.”

  This isn’t 1980 anymore.

  28 years later, single women are the second fastest growing voting bloc in America. And these single women aren’t nuns in convents with “traditional values.” They have SEX. They have BABIES out of wedlock. Or they have ABORTIONS. And they hear the GOP base telling them things like “You should have kept your legs together” (that’s an exact quote from discussion threads on TownHall.com). Insulting them is no way to win their votes–except the GOP base is so disgusted by their behavior that it doesn’t even want their votes. And these single women have helped tip the suburbs to the Dem Party in recent years. Reagan didn’t have that problem to contend with.

  The fastest growing voting bloc in America today is Hispanics. Back in 1980, white Americans made up some 86% of the electorate; today they’re down to 78%. With the white vote primarily, Reagan might still have won, but it would have been a much closer election. Instead, blacks and single women helped deliver Indiana and North Carolina (two former GOP strongholds) to Obama; Hispanics delivered New Mexico (a former GOP state) to Obama.

  Many Hispanics could be in the GOP camp, as Karl Rove recognized. They’re Catholics. They tend to be socially conservative. Many keep coming to America, risking their lives to cross the plains for even low-wage jobs, suggesting a strong work ethic rather than welfare dependency. Except for one little thing:

  The nativists who are now so powerful in the GOP base don’t want Hispanics. They treat illegal aliens as invaders who should be driven back across the border, rather than as people desperate for work who should pay their debt to society for having violated the law, and THEN given a chance at the American dream. At National Review, Mark Krikorian goes even further. He opposes even LEGAL immigration, arguing that America has too many immigrants (read: too many Hispanics) already. That this kind of nativism has infected the premier conservative journal in America is truly distressing.

  The Pew Survey taken last year, showed that married white Protestants–the bread and butter of the GOP–are now down to only 51% of the American electorate, and that percentage declines every year. By now, or maybe in another couple of years, married white Protestants are going to be a minority group in America.

  Reagan never had to win an election in that environment.
  And the GOP doesn’t know how. It’s caught between the decline of the white voting bloc, and the GOP base’s willingness to lose elections rather than admit that there are other types of people in America besides white married Christians.

• 62 sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:56 pm

  profnickd: I also want to comment on this notion of “traditional values.”

  Traditionally, Americans have always treasured freedom (as symbolized by the American eagle); democracy (going back to Colonial town meetings); personal responsibility; the work ethic; the pioneering spirit (which got us to the Moon and beyond); a sense of fair play; etc. And I think we still do. And if the GOP emphasized THOSE “traditional values,” even minorities like Hispanics would listen.

  But if by traditional values, you mean virginity (a sufficient condition for avoiding abortion, as Kathryn Jean Lopez has advocated), or abstinence from vices like gambling and drinking, I’ve got news for you: Americans were NEVER virgins. Not before the American Revolution, not after it, not in the Wild West, not in 20th century America, not EVER.

  A careful study of marriage and birth records from pre-Revolutionary War colonial America has revealed that some 40% of wives gave birth to their first child less than 5 months after marriage. (Back then, a young man was taught it was his responsibility to care for the mom and child, not skip out on them, as is too often the case today.)

  And Americans were always a lusty people. They didn’t just serve sarsparilla in those Wild West saloons. (And why did a typical Wild West saloon have a second story? What went on up there?) During the Gold Rush, when a prospector struck gold and was suddenly rich and wanted to enjoy himself after so much hard work, what did he spend his newfound wealth on?

  The values I listed, helped make America the envy of the world. But virginity and abstinence from vice weren’t among those values.

  Too bad in school they don’t teach history the way I just did.

• 63 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:21 pm

  ottovbvs sez: “That would explain why Obama captured the largest share of the black vote in US history ”

  “No. The obvious reason why Obama captured 95% of the black vote, is because he’s black himself.”

  ………….Er……that’s what I said……comprehension boot camp again Sinz!

• 64 ottovbvs // Jul 30, 2009 at 9:20 pm

  sinz54 // Jul 30, 2009 at 8:21 pm
  ” Which, if present trends continue, will be January 2013.’

  ……….In your dreams Sinz

• 65 barker13 // Jul 30, 2009 at 11:22 pm

  Re: Liv&win // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm –

  Agreed.

  Re: Cforchange // Jul 30, 2009 at 5:54 pm –

  (*THUMBS UP*)

  Re: Hhr // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm –

  “…BETTER government not BIGGER government…”

  I like that!

  BILL

• 66 balconesfault // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:44 am

  > Re: Hhr // Jul 30, 2009 at 7:50 pm –
  > “…BETTER government not BIGGER government…”
  > I like that!
  > BILL

  Or as someone said recently:

  “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works “

• 67 dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 7:40 am

  Regarding affirmative action, psychological studies have shown that human beings favour the familiar. The exposure effect is part of this. If for whatever reason influential areas of the professional workplace are dominated by whites then they will tend to favour other whites when hiring or promoting. That’s not necessarily racism, it’s the way we’re wired. So it’s reasonable to have some kind of artificial mechanism to rebalance this bias where necessary in my view. Republicans should simply make sure that their institutions and supportive organisations are properly representative of the various ethnic groups and social classes.

• 68 barker13 // Jul 31, 2009 at 8:14 am

  Re: Balconesfault // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:44 am –

  “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.“

  Actually… no. (*SHRUG*)

  That attitude ignores cost/benefit.

  What I want is the least possible government. Oh, sure, redundancies have their place – their limited place – but in short… the more government there is… the more government I (and the rest of you) have to support.

  Hey… going back to our old F-22 discussions… the plane definitely “works” from everything I know and yeah, I suppose if you ignore cost/benefit (or just ignore cost alone!) the “logical” decision is to built not just 200, not just 500, but why not build 1,000?! (Hey… it’s a nice round number, right?)

  Re: Dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 7:40 am –

  “If for whatever reason influential areas of the professional workplace are dominated by whites then they will tend to favour other whites when hiring or promoting. That’s not necessarily racism, it’s the way we’re wired.”

  Hmm… (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)… sounds like racism to me. (*SHRUG*)

  Hey… Dacook… perhaps it’s the way YOU’RE wired; me – I hire or promote the most qualified person who I think will do the best job.

  One very interesting thing to come out of this thread is the apparently color fixation not of the more “conservative” element who post here, but the views of Sinz and now Dacook.

  BILL

• 69 dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 8:24 am

  You’re just being contentious Bill, I just skimmed through the comments, noticed something on affirmative action and thought I’d share some things I’d learned. There’s obviously a difference between conscious discrimination and subconscious bias. It’s in you too Bill, live with it.

• 70 Cforchange // Jul 31, 2009 at 10:13 am

  Spartucus “Blacks are not going to rally to the GOP no matter what programs it advocates as long as the GOP is characterized by the hyperbolic, race-tinged rhetoric that has become too common of late.”

  I totally agree, the common impression about the racial views held by the GOP membership will be the most harmful fallout from all the noise errupting from the party now. This racist tag will stick. If you see my much earlier post – I give this issue top priority and wonder how the Young Republican’s voted in their leader who if nothing else has shown her ignorance and insensitivity to this issue. That’s intolerable.
  THe majority caucasion does not want anyone hurt because of their race, that day has passed.

  Sinz regarding abortion , simply translating “abortionists” and in many cases their respectful mates into votes means that insulting them just isn’t a smart strategy. Plus in the scope of all our national problems, it makes the GOP appear to be incapable of prioritizing vital issues. It totally spins into a party of callous incompetence.

• 71 barker13 // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  Re: Dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 8:24 am –

  “You’re just being contentious Bill…”

  Unfortunately… no.

  You don’t even SEE it. That’s what so amusingly frustrating.

  (*SIGH*)

  “There’s obviously a difference between conscious discrimination and subconscious bias. It’s in you too Bill, live with it.”

  And again… (*SIGH*)… some of us have the intellectual as well as ethical chops to sort the two out and do what’s right.

  ANYWAY… (*SMILE*)

  Hey… where’s Richard Ivory, founder of HipHopRepublican.com and “contributor” of this thread post?

  Kinda hard to engage in “dialog” when one refuses to actually… er… engage.

  (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 72 dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Well Bill I’ll give you one last chance to get off your high horse. Look at your friends and your employees and your wife if you have one and try and think whether any of those people are in your life because you felt you had some common ground with them, a familiar frame of reference. That’s part of what I’m talking about. If you still can’t see it, take it up with the scientific community. I’ve got better things to do with my time.

• 73 ottovbvs // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm
  “I’ve got better things to do with my time.”

  ……………Watching folks attempting to have a serious conversation with Baarking is one of the reasons I drop in here so often…….it’s hilarious
  (*EXIT PURSUED BY BEAR*)

• 74 ottovbvs // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  …….For those more interested in serious stuff and not reality challenged……from today’s Economist

  13:47 GMT +00:00

  Easing up
  Posted by: Economist.com | WASHINGTON
  Categories: Business cycles
  THE Commerce department reported this morning that American output contracted at a 1% annualised pace in the second quarter, less than expected and much less than the 6.4% decline suffered in the fourth quarter. This is the first and preliminary estimate; subsequent revisions will occur. From the second quarter of 2008, the economy shrank by 3.9%.

  Declines in consumption, investment, and exports were offset in part by government spending and a decline in imports. The report would seem to indicate that the recession is close to or at an end. The gutting of inventories over the past half year has set the stage for a rebound in production. Residential investment won’t soon add much to output, but the apparent bottom for sales and declining inventory suggests that it will become less of a drag in the third quarter. Consumption will also be slow to recover, but government spending will continue to ramp up over the next three months.

  All of which points toward a positive growth figure for the third quarter, though not a strong rebound and certainly not a major improvement in labour markets.

  But it’s worth remembering that output declined at a 2.7% pace in the third quarter of last year, a 5.4% pace in the fourth, and a 6.4% pace in the first quarter of this year. That 3.9% year-over-year decline is the worst showing for the American economy since records began in 1947. Considering all of that, this number is a great big green shoot.

• 75 midcon // Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  67 dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 7:40 am

  “So it’s reasonable to have some kind of artificial mechanism to rebalance this bias where necessary in my view. Republicans should simply make sure that their institutions and supportive organisations are properly representative of the various ethnic groups and social classes.”

  But, but, but, but. America (which I assume you are not from based on spelling) really is a melting pot. How many enthnic groups and social classes should we include such an artificial mechanism. I happen to be an American of Irish descent – would I qualify? Do parse it country of origin? Ethnicity? or Continent? Do we include each specific African tribe? What about folks from Afghanistan? Should we divide that up by tribe? How about the Scots and their clans? See that the dilemma. When you include someone in a special class/group, you exclud someone else of another class/group. Which ones do we include and exclude. One of the founding principles of America is the freedom to be what you want regardless of your origin. What you are suggesting is that we structure a society that based specifically on someone’s origin. That’s not America.

• 76 sinz54 // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:21 pm

  dacookson sez: “Regarding affirmative action, psychological studies have shown that human beings favour the familiar.”

  Sure. But black people are no longer “unfamiliar” to today’s Generation Xers. They’re accustomed to growing up in an Internetted, diverse world. So if there’s any “unfamiliarity” to overcome, it’s not based on race anymore–at least not on the coasts. There may be some left in the South, but not elsewhere. Hence I would argue that imposing affirmative action on cosmopolitan New York City or Seattle, makes no sense. (New Yorkers meet all kinds on the subway!)

• 77 dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm

  I agree it’s a minefield. On official forms in Britain I can choose between White British, White European and White Irish for my ethnic group. It’s a mess if you go too far. But then the BBC and some of the other TV channels hire disproportionate numbers of people from minorities so that they’re over represented and this actually works quite well. Because TV is such an important cultural institution I think it pays to have this policy. In France they don’t do this as much, certainly not in newsreading, and they seem to have had more race riots and tensions over the last decade or so.

  Maybe you just do it in a kind of common sense, informal way. Just tell people that next time they hire someone make sure they’re not white. I know that maybe sounds unfair or odd but in some cases I think it’s justified. Do you think if Fox News had a higher proportion of non-white presenters and guests, for example, you’d find that more non-whites become engaged with the channel and it’s conservative/Republican agenda? I think it would personally.

  In British politics, leaders of parties sometimes impose all women shortlists for local party selection of parliamentary candidates. This is rarely popular but really the only way to get a better representation of women in Parliament. The conservatives in the UK have historically opposed this and at one point had more people called David in the conservative parliamentary party than women.

  It can come from the top, from proper leadership, and can avoid getting bogged down in meaningless ethnic labels with a bit of commonsense.

• 78 barker13 // Jul 31, 2009 at 11:48 pm

  Re: Dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 12:43 pm –

  “Well Bill I’ll give you one last chance to get off your high horse.”

  (*SMILE*) Thanks for the offer, but I think I’ll take a rain check. There’s absolutely nothing I wrote that requires backing off from.

  Dacook… (*SIGH*)… you’re on record in favor of reverse racism. I’m against all racism. You’ve written what you’ve written… I’ve written what I’ve written. (*SHRUG*)

  Re: Dacookson // Jul 31, 2009 at 6:55 pm –

  “…a kind of common sense, informal way. Just tell people that next time they hire someone make sure they’re not white. I know that maybe sounds unfair or odd but in some cases I think it’s justified.”

  As I was saying… (*CHUCKLE*)… you’ve written what you’ve written.

  BILL

• 79 sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 9:51 am

  dacookson: I have no problem with private organizations, like Fox News, instituting their own diversity policies for their own public relations.

  I did have a problem when the U.S. Government defined specific minorities (usually the loudest ones politically) as “protected classes,” and then demands that private organizations staff up with more from those particular “protected classes.”

  In America, blacks and Hispanics got this favored treatment. Vietnamese immigrants, Korean immigrants, did not.

• 80 dacookson // Aug 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  sinz I take your views on board. I was actually talking about ‘Republican’ organisations for the purposes of responding to this article so we’re kind of in agreement. Like you say, as a national policy it’s a minefield and the government is safer sticking to enacting positive discrimination in the public sector, the police force etc.

  As for Bill. Being contentious again? Am I noticing a pattern? The first bit of mud being slung my way was the line “One very interesting thing to come out of this thread is the apparently color fixation not of the more “conservative” element who post here, but the views of Sinz and now Dacook“. The article that we’re commenting on is about “reaching out to minorities and urban folks in general“. So there you have it.

  The latest bit of mud is the accusation of ‘reverse racism’. What I’m describing is more commonly known as ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’. This is because the term racism is usually understood to include many more elements than simply favouring one ethnic group over another. For example here’s the Chambers definition.

  racism noun 1 hatred, rivalry or bad feeling between races. 2 belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race or races over others, usually with the implication of a right to be dominant. 3 discriminatory treatment based on such a belief.

  Since I made it pretty clear that I believe a familiarity bias to be a universal human trait, accusations of racism directed at me are unfounded. Then there’s the question of what ‘reverse racism’ even is. The term implies that racism only goes one way (from whites towards people of colour presumably) and that ‘reverse racism’ is the reverse of that. It’s all racism, it doesn’t matter what direction it goes in.

  So what’s the deal Bill? Are you just trying to be insulting or a bit muddled about the concepts? Your comments imply that organisations that are under-represented in terms of ethnicity, gender or class are that way simply because no qualified people from the under-represented groups were available. Either that or you think that a bias or racism is the underlying cause of this and nothing should be done to try to compensate for it.

  My argument in response to this article is that the RNC needs to go beyond a taskforce and ensure that their organisations and those affilliated to it are properly representative. They need to embrace the principle of affirmative action in other words. Then they need to try to persuade Fox News and others to do the same.

• 81 Spartacus // Aug 1, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 9:51 am wrote: “I did have a problem when the U.S. Government defined specific minorities (usually the loudest ones politically) as “protected classes,” and then demands that private organizations staff up with more from those particular “protected classes.” ”

  Ok, now I get. You’re all bent out of shape over issues of race because you simply have no clue what you’re talking about. The U.S. government did not define specific minorities as “protected classes.” It defined specific attributes as protected classes. Those attributes include, race (not specific races, but any race), religion (not specific religions, but any religion), gender (not a specific gender, but any gender), national origin, etc. The law prohibits discrimination against ANYONE based on these attributes. Therefore, Frank Ricci, as a white fireman, is entitled to the same protection under these laws as is anyone else of a different race. The law prohibits discrimination against him based on his race.

  You’re also dead wrong about the U.S. government requiring private organizations to staff up with people of certain races. There are no laws requiring private organizations to staff up with people of certain races, and you cannot produce any evidence of this so-called requirement.

  Being completely impervious to facts, I would not expect any of this information to alter your views, nor would I expect you to respond to this post since you ALWAYS disappear after you’ve been debunked.

  Incidentally, it’s awfully rich of you to be so snide when referring to the political loudness of certain minorities when, but for that loudness, it’s possible that they still wouldn’t have the right to vote.

• 82 hhr // Aug 1, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  The New York Times Magazine has a profile article out on Britain’s, David Cameroon in which he is quoted as saying this concerning his support of affirmative action – “Its not enough just to open the door and say, “You’re very welcome, come on in, please join. Because if people walk in and all they see are a sea of white faces, that is not enough. You’ve actually got to go out and recruit the right people.”

• 83 sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm

  Spartacus:
  I specifically said “demands,” NOT “requires.”

  Don’t you know the difference between a demand and a requirement? The Goverment can never *require* that a company hire black people. But they can sure load the dice.

  I used to work in the aerospace industry. A company that bid on a Government contract and did not demonstrate sufficient commitment to affirmative action lost so-called “brownie points” (that’s what we actually called them)–lose enough of them and you would lose the competition. Our company’s Human Resources Department was constantly on the hook to show a sufficient commitment to “diversity”. Evidently the Government, when awarding contracts, cared as much about a contractor’s “diversity” as they did about the contractor’s competence to do the job.

  As for “protected classes” protecting white people as well as black people, you know as well as I do that this is not how those laws work. You’ve heard of minority set-asides for black-run businesses. Have you ever heard of set-sides for WHITE-run businesses???

  The concept of a racial “protected class” was made with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anyone who claims that this Act was intended to protect white people as well as black people is out of his ever-lovin’ mind. Maybe you weren’t around when that law was passed?

  As long as the economic pie of the U.S. kept increasing, it was possible to undertake affirmative action programs for blacks and Hispanics without discomfiting whites too much. But once the number of jobs starts shrinking, as it does in every recession, you have to start making choices as to whom to lay off. You can either lay off the white guy or the non-white guy. Guess which one they’re going to pick. If they lay off too many white guys, the EEOC won’t say a word. But if they lay off too many black guys, watch out.

  Remember: You’re talking to a guy who worked in private industry since the 1970s, and who had his fill of all this affirmative action garbage long ago.

• 84 sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:49 pm

  Spartacus: I do have a life, you know, and I do have medical problems that require my attention. So I can’t always be here to respond to every one of your rants.

  But I’ve always prided myself on keeping an open mind. I do listen to opposing points of view.

  But so far at least, liberals haven’t come up with one new argument on race in the last 20 years. They’re still spouting the same old, tired nonsense they spouted in the 1960s. And for those of us who lived through all that, it’s long since worn very thin.

  So if you want to recruit more liberals, I suggest you go to the colleges, where we now have young people who are too young to remember anything before 1990. Maybe you can bamboozle them. They didn’t get to witness the failures of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s firsthand, the way I did.

• 85 Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm wrote: “The concept of a racial “protected class” was made with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anyone who claims that this Act was intended to protect white people as well as black people is out of his ever-lovin’ mind.”

  I did not say the Civil Rights Act was enacted to protect white people. It was enacted to protect victims of racial discrimination, almost all of whom were black at the time of the Act’s enactment. So, of course, very few white people benefit from the Act, but that is because comparatively few white people are discriminated against on the basis of race. However, when white people are the victims of racial discrimination they receive the same protections under the Act as persons of any other race. Frank Ricci is the perfect example of this, but you ignored this salient fact. So, you’re simply dead wrong in asserting that the government, through the concept of a “protected class,” gave some special protection or benefit to minorities that it didn’t give to white people. It gave the same protections to white people and they have been suing under the Act for almost as long as minorities.

  You also wrote: “Don’t you know the difference between a demand and a requirement? The Government can never *require* that a company hire black people. But they can sure load the dice.”

  No, I’m not really clear on the difference between a government demand and a government requirement. However, I do know the government neither demands nor requires private companies to hire a specific number of minorities. Racial quotas have been illegal in this country since the Supreme Court’s Bakke ruling in the late ‘70s. If your employer believed it had a racial quota to fill then not only was it dead wrong, it also acted illegally.

  The government does, however, require private companies with whom it contracts to enact affirmative action policies that would help provide the same opportunities (not same outcomes) to minorities as to whites. Most companies fulfill these obligations by demonstrating that that they’ve made some kind of outreach effort to find qualified minority job candidates, which is exactly what the Republican party has been trying to do at least since GWBush came to office in 2000. So if this concept of affirmative outreach to minorities is so offensive, why does the conservative GOP do it?

  As for minority set-asides, you are correct that the federal government sets aside a small percentage (typically around 5%) of a procurement to go to businesses that are small or owned by women, minorities, veterans or the disabled. These set-asides are intended, in part, to help reverse the historical disadvantages these types of companies faced in the government procurement process. People of good will can have an honest debate over whether such set-asides are still necessary, but that honest debate ought to acknowledge that (1) historically, these business often were not allowed to fairly compete against white-owned businesses, and (2) there is/was a legitimate policy objective in creating a multi-faceted supplier base.

• 86 Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:49 pm wrote: “So if you want to recruit more liberals, I suggest you go to the colleges, where we now have young people who are too young to remember anything before 1990. Maybe you can bamboozle them. They didn’t get to witness the failures of liberalism in the 1960s and 1970s firsthand, the way I did.”

  I’m not in the business of recruiting liberals, but if by liberalism’s failure you mean the expansion of civil rights to all Americans, the expansion of college grants and loans so more people can go to college if they desire, the creation of a healthcare program that keeps senior citizens healthy, the enactment of environmental protections and a strong opposition to needless and costly wars like Vietnam and Iraq, then I’m not worried.

  Who wouldn’t prefer that over conservatism’s long uninterrupted track record of being on the wrong side of every single major social issue this country has ever faced (slavery, child labor laws, suffrage for women, civil rights, environmentalism/global warming, stem cell research, gay marriage) combined with the unprecedented deficits and decline in median household incomes that Presidents Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2 produced?

• 87 barker13 // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  Re: Dacookson // Aug 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm –

  “As for Bill. Being contentious again?”

  Hey… let’s start a cheer – you know, like “Let’s Go Mets!” I humbly suggest..

  “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”

  Com’on… let’s practice…

  Dacook writes… “Am I noticing a pattern? The first bit of mud being slung my way…”

  Reply: “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”

  Dacook writes… “The latest bit of mud…”

  Reply: “YOUR OWN WORD! YOUR OWN WORDS! YOUR OWN WORDS!”

  (*WINK*) (See how this works, Dacook?) (*CHUCKLE*)

  Dacook… seriously… you’re boring me. Worse… you’re disappointing me. I truly expected better.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “So what’s the deal Bill?”

  Re-read the thread. (*SHRUG*) My “deal” is pretty clear. I respond to what others actually write in addition to sharing my own personal views.

  (*SHRUG*)

  Again… Dacook… is this REALLY the way you wanna go…??? I get my fair amount of criticism, but certainly even those (who are honest) who tend not to share my ideological/policy views and prescriptions note that I’m a straight shooter who tries to make his positions as clear and precise (specific) as possible; a guy who to ask direct questions and who gives direct answers.

  Anyway… at this point the horse is dead and we’re both way off topic.

  Furthermore… STILL NO RICHARD IVORY…! (*SNORT*)

  Yep… so much for “dialog” and “renewal of the Republican party.” (*SHRUG*)

  BILL

• 88 barker13 // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  Re: Sinz54 // Aug 1, 2009 at 8:40 pm –

  “Have you ever heard of set-sides for WHITE-run businesses???”

  Yeah. (*SHRUG*) White WOMEN-run businesses.

  (*SHRUG*) Sorry… but as I tried to explain to Dacook… I actually DO READ what other posters WRITE.

  (But, hey, Sinz… I get your point and obviously I agree with it; in other words, I acknowledge reality.)

  Re: Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm –

  “Frank Ricci is the perfect example of this…”

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  Spart. Com’on. Be serious. If Sinz was wrong and you were right there never would have been a Ricci case in the first place! (*AMUSED SMIRK*)

  Yes. The High Court held 5-4 that New Haven’s decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  (*SMILE*)… but let’s reiterate… 5-4!

  Please. The fact that Ricci only “won” by one vote in the USSC after getting screwed time and again is if anything further proof of the basic correctness of Sinz’s read on reality in this debate.

  “No, I’m not really clear on the difference between a government demand and a government requirement.”

  (*FALLING TO THE FLOOR LAUGHING*)

  Yes. Yes you are, Spart – admit it. (*CHUCKLE*)

  Again… as with our fellow poster Dragonchick on the Right… I have far too much respect for you to believe for a second that “you’re not clear” on the differences Sinz pointed to. (*SMILE*)

  “…I do know the government neither demands nor requires private companies to hire a specific number of minorities.”

  (*STILL LAUGHING*) (*WIPING TEARS OF MIRTH FROM MY EYES*)

  “…specific…” (*SNORT*) Cute, Spart. While you “win” a debating point on style, as for substance… com’on… you know you’re making a bullshit argument and I know you’re making a bullshit argument.

  (Hey… nice try, though!) (*HIGH FIVE*) (Gold star for effort!)

  “The government does, however, require private companies with whom it contracts to enact affirmative action policies…”

  …which in the real world often degenerate into reverse discrimination.

  (Hey… you’re the one who brought up Ricci!) (*GRIN*)

  Anyway… interesting exchange between you and Sinz. Too bad Richard Ivory couldn’t be bothered to join the dialog.

  BILL

• 89 Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  barker13 // Aug 2, 2009 at 1:54 pm “The fact that Ricci only “won” by one vote in the USSC after getting screwed time and again is if anything further proof of the basic correctness of Sinz’s read on reality in this debate.”

  Not so at all. A fair reading of Sinz’s intial post was that the government had granted SPECIAL benefits to minorities by way of the “protected class” concept. This, of course, is consistent with what appears to be a consistent theme of his that minorities are a favored class in society and that whites are really the group that is disadvantaged and discriminated against. He is wrong, dead wrong, on both points.

  The purpose of the “protected class” concept was never to grant SPECIAL benefits to minorities; it was to prevent discrimination based on race – any race. The fact that pervasive discrimination against blacks was the triggering event in no way implies that minorities received a SPECIAL benefit – unless you believe the natural order of things is to permit discrimination against blacks. If the govt had intended to grant special benefits to minorities it would not have granted whites the right to file discrimination claims based on race. So, on Sinz’s initial point about a govt intention to grant special benefits to minorities, he is wrong and Frank Ricci is only the most recent and prominent example of whites successfully obtaining protected class protection under the Civil Rights Act.

  As for the 5-4 decision in the Ricci case, that in no way substantiates Sinz’s claim that the “protected class” concept was intended to protect only minorities from race discrimination. None of the 4 dissenting justices claimed that Ricci did not have the right to file a race discrimination claim under the Act because he was white, nor did any of them argue that race is not a protected class as far as whites are concerned. The Court has long acknowledged the right of whites to obtain protected class protections, and the Bakke case of 1978 is proof of that.

  The 4 dissenting justices’ main argument in the Ricci case was that the City of New Haven had the right to throw out the test on the belief that the test results may have indicated racial bias against blacks. Look, reasonable people can disagree on whether the test results indicated racial bias, or whether set asides or even affirmative action are good public policy, but it is an indisputable fact that the concept of a “protected class” was never intended to exclude whites. It is also an indisputable fact that whites have successfully brought protected class lawsuits for decades.

  As for your contention that in the real world an affirmative action policy requires quotas, I can only relay my personal experience as well as general observations. I’ve had the occassion to work for and/or with at least 3 government contractors as well as their outside consulting firms and outside legal counsel who developed affirmative action plans. In none of those cases did any of those entities engage in the kind of quota-based conduct Sinz has alleged. It simply is not the practice of corporations, in large part, because it’s illegal, but also because it is rather easy to comply with an affirmative action plan without resorting to that kind of conduct. Are you able to provide a link to a reliable source that shows that companies are using quotas on a pervasive basis?

  As for set-asides for white owned businesses, I don’t think any policy-maker over the last 5 decades has alleged that white-owned businesses were the victims of the kind of discrimination that women, minority, disabled or veteran owned businesses historically suffered. Have whites ever been discriminated against? Of course, but that was not the point Sinz was making, nor is it a point that I ever denied.

  As I implied earlier, once you acknowledge the long-standing discrimination in procurement that benefited whites and hurt minorities, you then have to decide whether there should be any remedy for that. It seems that most conservatives think that it is sufficient to merely stop discrimination from happening on a going forward basis. However, many other people think that if you simply stop it on a going forward basis without doing anything to reverse the effect of the just-ended discrimination, you unintentionally perpetuate the injustice because those minority businesses will not have gained the experience and expertise to now compete on a fair basis.

  Crudely speaking, it’s as if one runner in a race breaks a leg of another runner. The judge can issue a ruling to prevent him from breaking the second leg, but it would still be unfair to force the runner with one broken leg to run against the guy who broke his leg. I say this is a crude analogy because I am not accusing those white-owned businesses who win contracts of “breaking the leg” of minority owned businesses, but white-owned businesses, as a class, did benefit from the historical discrimination suffered by minority owned businesses. So, if you’re going to have a remedy to reverse the effects of this discrimination, it seems to me that set-asides, while imperfect, are probably better than any of the other alternatives.

  Should these set-asides end at some point? Should they end today? If we believe a remedy is still needed, should we develop something completely different? Have some white businesses been denied contracts that went to minority businesses despite the fact that those white businesses never discriminated? I think the answer to each of these questions is “possibly or probably so,” but that doesn’t undermine the fact that there was large-scale discrimination that, absent some remedy for reversing its effects, probably would have been permanently enshrined in this society.

  Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to address each of our main points.

• 90 dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm

  Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves whether your responses to me are logical or match your apparently high opinion of yourself. One pattern I have noticed is that the amount of sense you make seems to enjoy an inverse relationship with the amount of psychotic emoti-words you use.

• 91 barker13 // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  Re: Dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm –

  “Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves…”

  EXACTLY…!

  (*WINK*)

  Glad it’s finally sunk in.

  BILL

• 92 barker13 // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  Re: Spartacus // Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm –

  “Sorry for the lengthy post, but I wanted to address each of our main points.”

  Nothing to be sorry for, Spart. (*SMILE*) I enjoyed reading your response.

  In any case, I leave to you the last (substantive) word.

  (*BOW*)

  If Sinz wants to rejoin the “battle” (which I wouldn’t bet on) I’ll read anything he writes as well.

  Re: Dacookson // Aug 3, 2009 at 2:06 pm –

  “Well Bill, other readers can judge for themselves…”

  EXACTLY…!

  (*WINK*)

  Glad it’s finally sunk in.

  BILL

• 93 sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:50 am

  Spartacus sez: “it’s as if one runner in a race breaks a leg of another runner. The judge can issue a ruling to prevent him from breaking the second leg, but it would still be unfair to force the runner with one broken leg to run against the guy who broke his leg.”

  The problem is, that you’ve replaced discrimination against blacks as a group, with discrimination against whites as a group.

  You’re not just punishing the one runner who broke the leg of the second runner. You are punishing ALL future runners of every race that is ever run, ever again. Any time that second runner competes, you’re demanding that other runners give him a special break.

  I keep trying to explain to you: There are a lot of us who weren’t around in the antebellum South. My ancestors immigrated to America in the first third of the 20th century. They were poor themselves, lived in New York City’s slums. I’m the first generation of my family who went to college. We owned no slaves. We had no KKK members. We didn’t own any businesses at all, so how could we discriminate against blacks or anybody else?

  Yet to you, my family and I are just lumped into “white people,” and you demand that MY FAMILY, and many others like mine, must pay the price for what some OTHER white people may have done to some OTHER black people years ago. The absurdity of rich black businessmen being able to send their kids to college on affirmative-action, whereas some impoverished white kid in West Virginia gets no such favorable treatment, is something you just ignore.

  You insist on seeing the world as WHITES oppressed BLACKS, thus WHITES must pay a price. A racial guilt trip on all white people, regardless of their own personal history or personal conduct.

  You tried that argument on white folks in the 1960s and 1970s. They fled. Literally. White flight, and a political flight to the GOP, was the result.

  Now, deluded that Obama represents a turn to social liberalism, you’re trying to resurrect that same argument.

  And white folks are going to reject it. Again.

• 94 sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:52 am

  Spartacus: One more thing. I am not interested in paying any prices for any discriminations that you may care about.

  You cry crocodile tears over black people, then I suggest YOU take YOUR life savings and donate most of it to charities to help black people.

  Leave me out of it. My family was always poor. They worked very hard, holding two jobs, to send me to college. Yet here you are demanding that we must pay a price for what other people did.

  Go to hell.

• 95 Spartacus // Aug 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm

  sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:50 am

  Not only have you demonstrated that you are impervious to facts, you’ve now demonstrated that you also are not capable of thinking critically.

  First of all, I never alleged that you, your family or any particular whites were guilty of discrimination. In fact, I described my analogy as “crude” expressly because the white businesses who may suffer very well may have never committed any discrimination.

  Affirmative action was never based on the concept that the inidividuals involved were the actual perpetrators or victims of past discrimination. Affirmative action was always a class-based remedy to reverse the effects of class-based discrimination. Consequently, membership in the class is, alone, sufficient to subject a person to the effects of affirmative action irrespective of whether or not the particular person was either a perpetrator or victim of discrimination.

  These are not MY arguments, these are THE arguments regarding affirmative action. No one really cares if you personally don’t like affirmative action or think it’s unfair to you. Your particular circumstance is not relevant when formulating policy on a national level.

• 96 Spartacus // Aug 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  94 sinz54 // Aug 5, 2009 at 9:52 am wrote: “Spartacus: One more thing. I am not interested in paying any prices for any discriminations that you may care about.”

  This is awfully rich coming from a guy who would literally be dead, but for the beneficience of the liberals in his state who demanded healthcare reform.

You must log in to post a comment.