In the comments section of an article by a Latina describing the unwillingness by the GOP to connect with Latino voters, I found an interesting take by "Jamie in Peru" on why the GOP seems unable to attract minority voters:
Another aspect is that many Republicans do not KNOW how to care about races or ethnicity because historically Republicans have stood for more broad-based ideology that was deemed faceless and nameless; while Democrats have been the big tent party attempting to address different issues of different people.
Republicans have posited, “it is not about the people, per se, it is about the beliefs. Beliefs for all people willing to accept them.” Democrats challenge this with the response, “a belief which to Republicans seems neutral but to the rest has been overwhelmingly white and male dominant.”
Thus a dilemma. How can one blame a party for not caring about a segment of people, when they were never taught that this was part of the plan?
If I understand this correctly, Jamie says the Republicans concentrate on "If you believe as we do, then you should be one of us", whereas the Democrats' emphasis is on "you're a part of 'X' segment of society, tell us the concerns of the 'X' segment, and we'll address them as best we can". In other words, it's about the beliefs versus about the people.
The more cynical among us might say the people path is all about getting more votes, and getting and remaining in power - and I'd have to agree that this is at least partly true. After all, how many racist white Democratic politicians witnessed the civil rights struggle of the 60's and saw a burgeoning young source of political power? As I've pointed out before, the Democrats saw which way the political wind was blowing, and embraced it. The Republicans either didn't see which way the wind was blowing, or ignored it.
Perhaps the last two sentences capture the difference between liberals and conservatives in a nutshell: liberals by nature want change, and conservatives by nature want things to stay the same. This would indicate that the Republicans, as literate and intelligent as they surely are, did indeed see the approaching change for what it was, and resisted it with all their might.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Thanks for the "recommendation," Glenn. We'll take it under advisement and have our people get back to yours.
2 - Skeeter Sanders
It's already too late for the Republican Party to save itself by reaching out to nonwhite voters. It crossed the Rubicon -- the point of no return -- when it either actively embraced or gave silent tacit approval to the so-called "Birther" movement against President Obama that insists -- despite overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary -- that Obama is a foreigner who is constitutionally ineligible to hold the presidency.
This movement is inherently motivated by racism, as it made up exclusively of angry, conservative and far-right white people who cannot accept the reality that a 54 percent majority the American people elected a black man to be president of the United States.
The GOP base has shrunk into what the Democratic Party base was during the Civil War era: A base dominated by conservative and far-right white males who hail primarily from the South.
The GOP, therefore, has ceased to be a national party -- and is doomed to political oblivion, much like the Whig Party that the Republicans replaced in the 1870s.
Too bad that today's Republicans are too blinded by their rigid right-wing ideology to realize that.
3 - Doug Hunter
I think you are hitting right at the truth here, Glenn.
4 - Dave Nalle
There's absolutely nothing more offensive and arrogant than Democrats offering their opinions on how to "save" the GOP -- usually by addressing "problems" which would destroy the party's base and drive away most of their constituents, or prejudices which do not exist in the minds of anyone except for dedicated Democrat operatives.
The answer is always that the GOP must become some sort of minor variant of the Democratic Party, with no principles, no new ideas and no future, essentially another Whig Party -- a loyal opposition whose resistance to the establishment is purely symbolic and without substance.
As for this issue of race in the GOP it's born purely of ignorance. African Americans and Hispanics are welcomed in the party, rise rapidly to positions of power and are given preferential treatment as candidates and leaders. While there may be prejudice against ethnic Republicans within their own communities, that prejudice does not exist in the party itself. The real prejudice is from ethnic Democrats against their brothers who espouse conservative principles.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in Florida where there are a LOT of influential hispanic Republicans and it just drives the mostly white Democrats of that state nuts.
BTW, I love the way that Skeeter has played the Birther card, the new meme invented entirely by the Democrats to try once again to paint Republicans as racist, despite the fact that mainstream Republicans were the first and most vocal among those repudiating the Birthers and the fact that most of the Birther activity is from outside the GOP. There's a reason why Birther sounds so much like Bircher.
Dave
5 - Dr Dreadful
@ #1: I thought you weren't a Republican, Clav?
6 - Dr Dreadful
@ #4:
Dave, I think you're missing the point about race and the GOP. Glenn is largely focusing on why the party doesn't attract more minorities, not accusing it of active racism. And I think he has a good point as regards its inflexibility.
7 - Dave Nalle
The guy Jamie who Glenn quotes has part of the idea, he just doesn't understand the implications.
The GOP doesn't care about race. That means they believe everyone should be treated the same. No barriers based on race, no advantages for one race over another. They believe that people are equal. This perspective appeals to those who believe that they should succeed on their own merits and be able to benefit from the proceeds of their hard work.
The Democrats believe in special privileges and considerations for particular groups, favoring them over other groups. This is a philosophy which is inherently bigoted, but which seems very appealing until you end up on the short end of the stick. This philosophy appeals to those who would prefer to have things given to them than to earn them and are willing to take away the property and earnings of others for their own benefit using the force of government, which sadly includes too many Americans of all races.
For anyone who believes in human rights and liberties there is no choice between these two perspectives because one is right and one is wrong and that problem cannot be resolved.
Dave
8 - Clavos
@ #1: I thought you weren't a Republican, Clav?
I'm not, Doc.
Poetic license.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Please note that the point of my article was NOT to attack classic Republican values. America NEEDS the Republicans, if only as a loyal (if hugely outspoken) opposition.
The point of my article was to give a constructive suggestion on how to reinvigorate the Republican party. As it is (as I pointed out this morning in your 'birther' article), over half of all Republicans either do not believe or are not sure whether Obama is a natural-born citizen.
Over half of all Republicans, Dave - so I feel quite justified in saying that your party is far too influenced by extremist pundits, and the 'Republican base' does not now hold to true Republican values, but has moved farther to the extreme right. As a result, in order to become a serious Republican candidate, one must satisfy an increasingly extremist base.
And the proof? Again, over half of ALL Republicans either agree with the birthers or think the birthers might possibly be right.
In comment #7, you listed one of the core values of what the Republican party used to stand for...but you yourself also admitted that much of the 'birther' movement has its roots in racism - and this movement has now shown its influence over half of your party.
The Republicans have a choice - to stick with the increasingly extremist Republican base...or to toss them overboard as one tries to lighten a ship in danger of sinking. Keep them on board and the ship will sink - cut them off and the ship might still make it back to port.
10 - Baronius
I don't know if there's a point to political debate any more. Skeeter says that Republicans are racist because of some crackpots obsessed with a birth certificate. Glenn holds up the idea of treating people differently because of their race, and he isn't labelled a racist. Judge Sotomayor labels people by race, and we're not supposed to believe that she's a racist.
What does racism mean? When did refusal to consider race become racism?
11 - handyguy
Dave's #7 is yet another repetition of his ridiculous assertions about how pure the GOP is and how racist the Democratic party is.
A party consists of its members and leaders, not of your own ideals about its principles [or your conveniently selective history]. If you pick ten current prominent leaders of the GOP, I'll find you at least 10 examples of repellent, misleading, distorted rhetoric designed to divide people against each other.
The religious right, which includes Mark Sanford and others you admire so much, continues to dominate the party's discussion of social issues.
Implying that the Democratic Party, by supporting social programs for the poor, is deliberately fostering dependence to consolidate its power, is a slanderous Big Lie. I am a Democrat. Glenn is a Democrat. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean are Democrats. Not one of us is interested in creating social programs for the cynical purpose of prolonging the financial dependence of the poor. Just not true.
This kind of ideological distortion serves no legitimate purpose. There's plenty of room to discuss the comparative advantages of bigger government/higher taxation and smaller government/lower taxation -- without resorting to lies and distortions.
Do you still remember how to have a reasonable discussion? There is little recent evidence of it.
12 - Baronius
Handy, Dave didn't say that or imply it, at least as far as I can see.
13 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, it's becoming increasingly clear that Handy prefers to make up what I say based on his assumptions, rather than actually responding to me.
Dave
14 - doug
There's more offensive and arrogant than the hyperbole of an Internet blowhard
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
"Some" crackpots? I was wrong above - it's not 54% of all Republicans who stated they either believed the birthers or simply weren't sure one way or the other - it's fifty-EIGHT percent. That's more than 'some' - that's a MAJORITY of Republicans.
The Democratic platform you and Dave are trying to label as 'racist' is Affirmative Action - and if one would listen only to rhetoric, one would have to agree with the Republicans that Affirmative Action is indeed institutionalized racism.
But rhetoric is NOT the same as reality. The anti-Affirmative-Action rhetoric evinces a simplistic world view. Why? One CANNOT simply say to millions of people who've just spent generations under slavery and then Jim Crow, "Okay, the Civil Right Act has passed and you're all equal to everybody else now, so you're on your own!"
That might sound reasonable to Republican ears, but it doesn't work that way. You can't beat down an entire race of people, deny their rights to real freedom and equality for hundreds of years, and then - when they DO finally receive that freedom and equality - expect them to immediately take their place on a level playing field. Human nature simply does NOT work that way.
When a person's hurt and on the ground, a good man helps him up and realizes it will take time before the injured person can heal and function normally. A good man goes out of his way to help the injured person along until that injured person can finally stand on his or her own once more without any help.
We Democrats know that this is the case with minorities - especially African-Americans - and that it takes more than a few decades to heal the wounds suffered from several generations of slavery, Jim Crow, and prejudice.
We Democrats understand this - we get it. Just as importantly, the minorities see that we get it...and that the Republicans don't. That's why minorities are moving more and more into the Big Tent of the Democratic party.
16 - doug
Btw, if everyone was treated the same in the GOP, why would minorities get preferential treatment as candidates and leaders as you stated? Your contradiction sounds like affirmative action
17 - Baronius
Glenn, you judge people on race. You encourage others to do so. You are a racist. There is nothing inherently racist about birthers.
18 - handyguy
I'm certainly not deliberately misquoting or misinterpreting Dave. His comment #7 on this thread is not the first time he has indulged in sweeping generalizations that idealize the GOP and demonize the Democrats. [It's about the 3000th time.]
He has indeed implied, or even stated outright, that the reason blacks vote 90% Democratic is that they are dependent on government handouts.
The GOP doesn't care about race.
There are a few million exceptions to this, so please provide an interpretation of this silly sentence that accounts for, say, Tom Tancredo or Steve King [of Iowa]. A party, I repeat, consists of its members.
Or Glenn Beck, who may not officially represent the party, but probably counts very few Democrats and a lot of Tea Baggers among his followers. And who gleefully called Pres. Obama a racist recently.
19 - Dave Nalle
I'm certainly not deliberately misquoting or misinterpreting Dave.
Whether it's deliberate or unconscious, the fact is that you consistently misrepresent my statements.
His comment #7 on this thread is not the first time he has indulged in sweeping generalizations that idealize the GOP and demonize the Democrats. [It's about the 3000th time.]
What I said is basically the same thing Jamie is quoted as saying in the article, I just say it in more detail and explain the implications. And tell me what about it is not true.
He has indeed implied, or even stated outright, that the reason blacks vote 90% Democratic is that they are dependent on government handouts.
I have NEVER said anything like this. Go back through all my posts and comments and you will not find a statement to this effect in any of them. I have said the same thing on this issue repeatedly and you consistently misrepresent it in this way.
What I have said is that the Democratic party promotes a culture of dependence on government and yes, they target minorities as a constituency, but no more than they target the poor or unionists or others who look for government solutions rather than being self-reliant. This does not mean the same thing as saying that Blacks are dependent on government handouts. They are not as a group. In fact, they are advancing rapidly into the middle class.
But the constituencies the democrats cultivate been trained and conditioned to look to the government to solve their problems, not necessarily through handouts, but through programs and services which they have been told again and again they are entitled to by the democrats.
Do you actually deny this? Do you really want to claim that Democrats don't as a matter of policy look to solve problems through government rather than private and individual initiative?
The GOP doesn't care about race.
There are a few million exceptions to this, so please provide an interpretation of this silly sentence that accounts for, say, Tom Tancredo or Steve King [of Iowa]. A party, I repeat, consists of its members.
A party consists of its principles and some members follow them more than others. Tancredo and King may be nativists and King's also a religious nut, but does the fact that prominent Democrats have advocated a draft and are tax cheats (Rangel) or involved in bribery scandals (Conyers) or openly admit to being socialists (entire Progressive Caucus) mean that all Democrats also hold these views or engage in these activities?
Or Glenn Beck, who may not officially represent the party, but probably counts very few Democrats and a lot of Tea Baggers among his followers. And who gleefully called Pres. Obama a racist recently.
Like many of the more radical Tea Party participants, Beck repeatedly describes himself as an independent, not a Republican, largely because the GOP does not support some of his extreme views.
Dave
20 - Clavos
"Some" crackpots? I was wrong above - it's not 54% of all Republicans who stated they either believed the birthers or simply weren't sure one way or the other - it's fifty-EIGHT percent. That's more than 'some' - that's a MAJORITY of Republicans.
Since you have a specific number, you obviously have a source quoting an unbiased poll taken recently among Republicans, right?
21 - Baronius
"Or Glenn Beck, who may not officially represent the party, but probably counts very few Democrats and a lot of Tea Baggers among his followers. And who gleefully called Pres. Obama a racist recently."
Does calling someone a racist make you a racist?
22 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius @ #10:
You seem to be saying that any approach to the issue which does not involve treating every individual in exactly the same way regardless of circumstances is racist. That's not only an example of the inflexibility I was talking about, it's also at odds with reality.
Go ahead and treat a seventh-generation single white woman from Sioux Falls and a Hispanic father of seven from Los Angeles in exactly the same way if you like. It might fit your principles, but I guarantee you the results will be different.
23 - Bliffle
Regardless of protestations by the republican partisans here, Glenn has made a good point.
These neo-republicans display a refined sense of principle when it hurts other people, but when it comes to their own interests they abandon principle readily.
It is disgusting to observe the readiness with which the neo-reps abandoned republican principles (such as Fiscal Responsibility, reluctance to go to war, etc.) when George W. Bush crooked his finger and beckoned them to a moral slaughter.
And they haven't improved since. Now they are engaged in a partisan anti-Obama jihad, and Dave Nalle is part of the howling mob.
24 - Baronius
Dread, I think you're being disingenuous, and that's not your style. Should I treat them differently because of their sex, or their marital status, or birthplace? Or because of race? Would you treat a Hispanic father of seven from Los Angeles differently than a black father of seven from Los Angeles? If you would, you're a racist. If a law would, it's unconstitutional.
25 - Dave Nalle
Since you have a specific number, you obviously have a source quoting an unbiased poll taken recently among Republicans, right?
He has a source. It's a poll done by the DAily Kos. But he keeps misrepresenting the numbers. The actual number in the poll who believe Obama is not native-born is 28%, not the 58% he cites. That total includes the 30% who responded that they were "unsure".
Dave