Gop Must Do More Than Talk

In a piece that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel, I spoke about Attorney General Holder’s comments on race last month. The crux was that society should continue the dialogue on race because (1) the successes of blacks and minorities in the past 15 years – including increased college enrollment (especially among black women), increased homeownership, and more blacks in the middle class – can directly be correlated with the struggles, policy changes, and way society engaged in racial and cultural conversations during the Civil Rights era; and (2) the success of minorities has benefited society, frankly, not just on moral grounds but also in real economic gain through an increased educational level amongst the public and higher productivity gains in the workplace. And such gains will not continue as they have if society doesn’t invest in further dialogue that increases cohesion amongst various social groups. Sure, at times either side – say, whether pro-Affirmative Action or anti-Affirmative Action – didn’t come close to seeing eye to eye or even “agreeing to disagree” for that matter. Moreover, angst did build up on both sides, to the point that many years later the anti-Affirmative Action crowd feels “lectured to” while the pro-Affirmative Action side feels misheard.

Shelby Steele, a noted Hoover Institution fellow, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that:

Today’s liberalism may stand on decades of failed ideas, but it is failure in the name of American redemption. It remains competitive with — even ascendant over — conservatism because it addresses America’s moral accountability to its past with moral activism. This is the left’s great power, and a good part of the reason Barack Obama is now the president of the United States. No matter his failures — or the fruitlessness of his extravagant and scatter-gun governmental activism — he redeems America of an ugly past. How does conservatism compete with this?

Quite a mouthful, but what is it saying exactly? Basically, that liberalism hasn’t worked, isn’t capable of working, has had the ability to make whites feel remorseful and hopeful that it can work, and gives blacks a vehicle to both make whites acknowledge said remorse and earn something along the way. Steele goes on to say:

What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom.

This comment is highly intriguing. Conservatism was able to neglect Steele “in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom.” Freedom to do what exactly? And if in respect to the past conservatism offered Steele only “human status” – did he really need a political party to confirm that? Minorities don’t ignore the GOP due to a need for liberal redemption; they do so because they see a party that has, for far too long, been oblivious to minorities’ concerns, heritage, ambition, value system, social identity, social hierarchy, and policy interests. I, too, embraced conservatism at one point. I did so because I saw a party that reminded me of my upbringing; valued hard work, had a do-it-yourself mentality, and embraced the notion that tomorrow will be a better day as long as you don’t lose hope. The principles are still with the party – even though I am not – because exhorting principles and acting principled are two different things. When women, blacks and gays look at all that has been achieved in their respective movements – stronger protections in the workplace (e.g, FLMA, support of unions), more equality (though still not enough) and opportunities in education, a seat at the political table (i.e., in Congress and state houses – more democratically elected officials are female and minority), and a seeming realization that most blacks share a similar upbringing to my own – they see a Democratic party far from perfect and, at times itself divisive, but far more receptive to their yearnings for political relevance, and partly responsible for it. So contrary to Mr. Steele’s rationalization of the GOP’s testy relationship with minorities – it’s not a matter of which party has been and will continue to give handouts as much as it is which party has been lending a hand to help.