Why do Native Americans go for Democrats?

[ncjake]

I have been wondering about this. I know it was a Democrat that moved all the Indians to Oklahoma, but I don't think that has anything to do with it

[7,052,770]

I have been wondering about this. I know it was a Democrat that moved all the Indians to Oklahoma, but I don't think that has anything to do with it

Yeah, that was over 100 years ago.  And it was both parties.

[zachman]

Its probably because they support affirmitive action, and broader government services.

[dazzleman]

People who have some type of a grievance against society tend to vote Democratic.  That is why feminist women, gays, blacks and American Indians favor Democrats.  Jews tend to vote Democratic because they feel a special obligation to those who are on the margins of society because of their own history of oppression.

Those who have been relatively happy with their place in society tend to vote Republican.  That would include white males, those with traditional values, and women who are indifferent or hostile to feminism.

The Democrats will always offer more sympathy to those who feel they have been wronged, and like to keep that sense of historical wrong going for as long as possible in order to obtain votes.

[Nation]

That argument would hold water dazzle, except there are MANY people who are perfectly happy with their place in society who vote Democratic.

[MarkDel]

Of this Nation,

Yes, but that doesn't make what Dazzleman said wrong, it just means that not everyone fits into his equation. I would argue that he's right more often than not.

You said there are many people who are perfectly happy with THEIR place in society who vote Democratic. I don't think they really are happy at all. The people you refer to either suffer from some twisted sense of guilt over their good fortune in life, or they have some ideological grievance with the foundation of American society itself. Either way, the defining emotion of modern day Democrats is ANGER...though this was clearly not always the case. In fact, one could argue that from FDR to JFK that the Democratic Party was the symbol of hope and all that's positive about America, but since Vietnam and Watergate, the Democrats and Republicans have traded roles...with the Democrats now representing the negative, glass is half empty view of America.

[Nation]

In fact, one could argue that from FDR to JFK that the Democratic Party was the symbol of hope and all that's positive about America, but since Vietnam and Watergate, the Democrats and Republicans have traded roles...with the Democrats now representing the negative, glass is half empty view of America.

Was this the case while Clinton was in office? That's not a rhetorical question, btw.

[MarkDel]

Of this Nation,

Yes, I still think it was true during the Clinton years. The Democrats were still very negative about the US domestically as well as its role in the world throughout the 1990's. The Republicans were ridiculously negative about CLINTON, but not about the country.

Look at how the Democratic Party seized on the Timothy McVeigh case to politicize the existence of militia groups in the United States. That's why it's so funny to listen to Democrats complain about Bush making too big a deal about International Islamic Terrorism...in the 1990's, Democrats were acting like militia groups were going to overrun the nation if we weren't careful, and how it was a sign that this nation is still hopelessly racist.

All throughout the 1990's during the Clinton era, all we heard over and over again was how racist we are, and how sexist we are, and how homophobic we are, and how intolerant the political right is. And when it came to foreign policy, the talk was about abolishing the CIA because they were an evil entity which interfered with the freedom of other nations, etc, etc, etc...

The Democrats may have been positive about Clinton, but they sure as hell were not positive in their view of the United States.

[minionofmidas]

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I have a problem with that definition of positive and negative.
Somebody who points out the faults remaining in his own country and tries or lobbies to rectify them is hardly negative.
And somebody who pastes them over with jingoistic overpatriotism, says those who're still worse off (but not as badly as before) should shut up about it is the opposite of positive.
I'm not saying that this is an exact description of today's Democrats and Republicans. More like: "You find people like that in the Dems, people like this in the Reps"

[minionofmidas]

Oh, and, back to the subject...
Most Reservation Native Americans have very traditional values. Many reservation communities also have strong ties to the US military and the American Legion.
And turnout amid the largest and poorest Reservation Indian communities, such as Sioux and Navajos, has long been abysmal, though it has been picking up of late (helping Tim Johnson to reelection and almost propelling George Cordova into the House, btw).
Hopi traditionalists still don't as a rule vote. Not on anything. They hold the entire concept of voting to be wrong...
If you take a look at their economic situation and compare their voting patterns to Blacks or even Mexicans, the thing you have to wonder about is why don't vote even more Democratic.
An attempt at an answer is given above.

[MarkDel]

Lewis,

You have the slightest (maybe) of points in what you said. However, the real question is one of EMPHASIS, hence my comment about seeing things half empty as opposed to half full. Democrats during the FDR to JFK era also saw things wrong with the country and sought, successfully I might add, to rectify those problems. But while they worked to advance social justice, they never spent ENDLESS time emphasizing the negative. The message was always to build towards a positive future...forget the mistakes or ills of the past...let's move on and build a better country...FDR's New Deal...JFK with the Civil Rights movement and the Space Program. Everything was about finding COMMON ground between people and working TOGETHER towards a common future. Now all Democrats talk about is what's WRONG with the country without offering a positive alternative. They look back to stress the negatives even though they are no longer negatives, or marginal issues at best. And when they do offer an alternative, what is it...DIVERSITY...let's bring people together by STRESSING THEIR DIFFERENCES...yeah, that's worked soooo well for us.

[dunn]

Voter Registration Report
for Native Americans in New Mexico (2001)

Tribes Democrats Republicans Greens Other DTS Total
       
Apaches 1,224      244        4        41        192       1,705
Pueblos 9,310      1,157    130     429      1,674   12,700
Navajos 24,304    6,336     73      258      3,672   34,643
       
Total:    34,838     7,737     207   728       5,538   49,048


the source is: NM Bureau of elections

[dunn]

and did you know that till 'the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924' - unlike any other person- an Indian born in US was not a citizen (and could not vote).
unless he was married to a white or serve in the military.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It might be something to do with those evil "schools" they were sent to in the '50's...

[minionofmidas]

and did you know that till 'the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924' - unlike any other person- an Indian born in US was not a citizen (and could not vote).
unless he was married to a white or serve in the military.

Actually there were lots of Indians who had aquired citizenship and could vote before 1924. But these either didn't belong to a clearly demarkable group (and were often mixed bloods anyway) or, like the Narragansett of Rhode Island, disappeared off the official counts of Indians because they were citizens now. Part of the large growth rate of Native Americans in recent censuses is attributable to people of Indian ancestry starting to report as Indians rather than Whites, which is of course pure resented by the "real" Indians...
But Dunn, what's a DTS?

[opebo]

In general, it only makes sense for government-dependent groups to vote for Democrats.  Keep the gravy-train flowing.

[Gustaf]

Lewis,

You have the slightest (maybe) of points in what you said. However, the real question is one of EMPHASIS, hence my comment about seeing things half empty as opposed to half full. Democrats during the FDR to JFK era also saw things wrong with the country and sought, successfully I might add, to rectify those problems. But while they worked to advance social justice, they never spent ENDLESS time emphasizing the negative. The message was always to build towards a positive future...forget the mistakes or ills of the past...let's move on and build a better country...FDR's New Deal...JFK with the Civil Rights movement and the Space Program. Everything was about finding COMMON ground between people and working TOGETHER towards a common future. Now all Democrats talk about is what's WRONG with the country without offering a positive alternative. They look back to stress the negatives even though they are no longer negatives, or marginal issues at best. And when they do offer an alternative, what is it...DIVERSITY...let's bring people together by STRESSING THEIR DIFFERENCES...yeah, that's worked soooo well for us.

It depends on how you view things. You could of course say that the opposition in Nazi-Germany was hopelessly negative and not constructive. It depends on one's out-look, I'd say that it's intelectually dishonest to label someone as negative. I would agree that it makes it harder to win elections though.

[Gustaf]

In general, it only makes sense for government-dependent groups to vote for Democrats.  Keep the gravy-train flowing.

That's assuming that everyone has your amoral view of politics, and that isn't really the case.

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

Please explain to me how it is "intellectually dishonest" to say someone is negative??? Your Nazi Germany analogy is not very useful...it's pyscho babble...what does negative mean???...LOL...kind of like "it depends in your definition of what the word IS is..."

[opebo]

In general, it only makes sense for government-dependent groups to vote for Democrats.  Keep the gravy-train flowing.

That's assuming that everyone has your amoral view of politics, and that isn't really the case.

It is pretty much the case on the left - the poorer people who make up a fair percentage of the Democratic party do vote to get some of the money of the 'rich'.  In other words the Dems buy their votes with redistributionist policies.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Please explain to me how it is "intellectually dishonest" to say someone is negative??? Your Nazi Germany analogy is not very useful...it's pyscho babble...what does negative mean???...LOL...kind of like "it depends in your definition of what the word IS is..."

My point was that if you're very much against something it's natural to be negative. I think you're implying that things aren't that bad, which is a subjective opinion. That's why I find it a little intelectually dishonest. I don't why my Nazi-Germany example is 'psycho babble' I am not even sure exactly what you mean by that.

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

It's pyscho babble because you're essentially arguing with me about what the definition of the word negative is!!!

Yes, being against something CAN lead to a negative attitude towards that issue, but my point is, as I've said several times, more about emphasis and actually seeking to find a positive alternative.

A Democrat in the 1940's saw social ills and wanted to fix them with a better solution. A Democrat in the 1990's saw social ills and wanted to bitch about them to illustrate how awful the US is and how evil Republicans are. That obviously does not apply to ALL Democrats, but it fairly sums up what I mean by the "glass half empty" view versus the "glass half full" view.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

It's pyscho babble because you're essentially arguing with me about what the definition of the word negative is!!!

Yes, being against something CAN lead to a negative attitude towards that issue, but my point is, as I've said several times, more about emphasis and actually seeking to find a positive alternative.

A Democrat in the 1940's saw social ills and wanted to fix them with a better solution. A Democrat in the 1990's saw social ills and wanted to bitch about them to illustrate how awful the US is and how evil Republicans are. That obviously does not apply to ALL Democrats, but it fairly sums up what I mean by the "glass half empty" view versus the "glass half full" view.

But I do think that your view of this as negative is based on the fact that you don't think it's true. Change the US to Nazi-Germany and Republicans to Nazis in that sentence of yours and you might see my point.

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

I do see your point, but it's just not relevant.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

I do see your point, but it's just not relevant.

Why not?