Republican Reformation - The Minority-Majority Approaches

[Benjamin Stewart]

The question was poised by all 3 major Cable News stations shortly after it become clear Obama was the victor of the 2012 election; Will the Republican Party ever again be able to win on the white vote alone?  How drastic does the Rep. rethink need to be?

I personally believe it is unquestionable that the Republican Party is the less minority-friendly party of the two, but 2012 was the failure of Mitt Romney, not Republican ideology.  It's ridiculous the way some liberals paint conservatism to include racism, prejudice and ignorance when it just is not the case.  

Easy way to fix the Republican image?  Run Condoleezza Rice in 2016.  Win or not, she could easily be the face a more open and universally appealing Republican party.

[GM Griffin]

Republicans are all too quick to think in terms of skin color. That's why - right off the bat - they begin hitting around the idea of putting a brownface on the ticket. "That'll solve everything", they seem to think. When it comes to policy, they go for the most expedient solution instantly. "Let's solve the immigration problem after we had our asses handed to us and then they'll like us", they say.

It's much deeper than that and it is something that must be corrected through substantiated policy shifts, tones and attitudes. Latinos by and large do not agree with Republican governance because the economic policies go against their values systems. Sure, you can argue that social conservatism is heavily ingrained in Latino culture, but Latinos do not vote on social issues. Those are first-world problems and until the entire Latino community is integrated fully within American society, they will not be voting as a bloc on issues like gay marriage and abortion. Even better, by the time they do, they will be Americanized enough to not fall victim to right-wing social pandering.

The other big problem is how Republicans discuss matters of race and those from other races. At the micro level, I cringe every time I hear a local conservative begin to discuss race - or even simply an event pertaining to a person of a different race. They don't even know how offensive they are being when they associate concepts such as laziness, criminality and difference with people from other races. If a born and bred whitey can identify these racist statements and be offended by them, then someone to whom it (supposedly) pertains will certainly be able to identify it even easier. Unfortunately, the trend at the upper echelons of the Republican Party hasn't been much better.

It's hard to tell an entire party and many of its supporters to simply stop being racist, but that's the issue at hand here. It may not be overt racism in all cases, but the smell of it is still strong and it's what is sending people of color fleeing in droves from the Republican Party. Fortunately for Democrats, those mouth-breeders who are the local "emissaries" for the Republican Party will continue to scare off the future demography of the United States for many years to come.

[Benjamin Stewart]

I don't disagree that sustained attempts over time to reach new demographics is the REAL solution to the problem, but it isn't realistic.  As much as I would like to believe that the "party" itself will realize the forward progress that needs to be made, I don't think that will ever happen.  They need a candidate to lead them in that direction.

I think Condy Rice would make a good candidate because she is a racial minority yes, but that is absolutely not one of the really major qualifications I considered.  She is experienced, highly intelligent and a good orator.  That combined with a reasonable conservative ideology seems to me at least to equal the perfect individual (Electorally victorious or not) to start the Republican movements that need to happen.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If that is the case you need to state that up front, otherwise, when you push a minority candidate people will assume it is for the color/tokenism rather than that being part of a whole basket of advantages to a particular candidate.

In my preference there wouldn't be this political correctness and party rectal examine with a fine tooth comb looking for every blemish. You are going to have crazies in both party and to hold a whole party responsbile for that or to use guilt by a association is a major detriment to our political process, whether iti s reverend Wright or Joe Arpaio.

Griffin start out good but then he veared off. There is a significnat disadvantage in that the Republcians face a very hostile media and in the Hispanic community that is even worse. I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality. We have to fight back against these perceptions, on all fronts or everything we do will fail.

[Progressive Realist]

I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

The problem with that is simple, it is presumptuous of peoples motives in an insulting fashion. When you start shutting down legimate debate because you wrongly misindentify their motives, you are silencing people in the political process.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

Isn't the statement that only non-whites can speak on racial issues itself a racist statement?

[asexual trans victimologist]

but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

Isn't the statement that only non-whites can speak on racial issues itself a racist statement?

That depends on one's working definition of racism.

[ajb]

I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

The problem with that is simple, it is presumptuous of peoples motives in an insulting fashion. When you start shutting down legimate debate because you wrongly misindentify their motives, you are silencing people in the political process.

The reality is that there's no such thing as neutral, impartial language in which ideas can be conveyed transparently and received by all audiences in the same way. Especially not in political discourse. So it's always a question of who you're appealing to. Republicans have chosen to use language that appeals to some kinds of voters more than to others. Democrats have done the same. If Republicans want to win over groups that they've had trouble with, they might need to re-frame their ideas for those groups.

Nothing strange about that. The only thing that would be strange would be if Republicans were so attached to the language in which their ideas are framed, that they'd rather re-litigate the question of whether or not that language is racist/sexist/whatever than adapt the language in order to win elections.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

The problem with that is simple, it is presumptuous of peoples motives in an insulting fashion. When you start shutting down legimate debate because you wrongly misindentify their motives, you are silencing people in the political process.

The reality is that there's no such thing as neutral, impartial language in which ideas can be conveyed transparently and received by all audiences in the same way. Especially not in political discourse. So it's always a question of who you're appealing to. Republicans have chosen to use language that appeals to some kinds of voters more than to others. Democrats have done the same. If Republicans want to win over groups that they've had trouble with, they might need to re-frame their ideas for those groups.

Nothing strange about that. The only thing that would be strange would be if Republicans were so attached to the language in which their ideas are framed, that they'd rather re-litigate the question of whether or not that language is racist/sexist/whatever than adapt the language in order to win elections.

I have no problem with shifting language. My problem is when legitimate and even better positions and ideas have to be scuttled because of a false narrative. Where the language needs to be changed, change it. But where a position needs to be defended against a false narrative, that should occur as well, rather than abandoning it.

[Benjamin Stewart]

From the beginning I didn't intend to give the impression that simply running a minority candidate would fix the parties problems, merely its IMAGE.  And in a world of mass media and the Daily Me, what you APPEAR to believe is more important than what you may actually believe.

Example:  Barack Obama won the White House in 2008 by saying things like, "change!" and "hope!"  He seemed so Progressive, when really the same policies would have been pushed if Hillary Clinton were President.  I'm by no means insulting the man, I happen to be a supporter, but that's just how 21st politics is done.

In my original post I asserted that an easy fix for the Republican image (IMAGE) would be to run Condy Rice, and I stand by that statement.  Can you really deny that it wouldn't be a step in the right political direction?

[DC Al Fine]

In my original post I asserted that an easy fix for the Republican image (IMAGE) would be to run Condy Rice, and I stand by that statement.  Can you really deny that it wouldn't be a step in the right political direction?

Yes, but Condi has WAY too much baggage, plus Hispanics are far more winnable for the GOP compared to blacks. Martinez, Rubio, or Cruz would be better IMO.

[I'm Not a Witch]

I don't really buy into that whole notion of identity politics. The Republicans did this after Obama's election with Michael Steele running the RNC and ironically got rid of him for Reince Priebus when under Steele's leadership, Republicans took control of the House and under Priebus they lost seats. They also tried it in 2008 with McCain's selection of Palin as VP in hopes of closing the gender gap and getting some disgruntled Hillary voters. As someone who did vote for Hillary, I didn't vote for her because she's a woman; I voted for her because I thought she would be the better President.

I do agree, though, that when we start considering candidates' demographics over their qualifications and experience that is a disservice to democracy, but I don't think it's fair to classify liberals as racist just because Democrats are the minorities party. It's not the skin color of Democratic candidates that gets them elected; it's their ideas. African Americans have been a solid Democratic voting bloc since the passage of the civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Most African Americans (and Native Americans) live in impoverished conditions so naturally they are more susceptible to voting for a party that advocated social welfare programs versus a party that wants to slash government from all areas outside of a woman's womb or in the privacy of one's bedroom. The Republicans' recent hard-line approach on immigration probably explains their dwindling numbers with Latinos. Bush was a "compassionate conservative" and received over 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004. Romney's talk of self-deportation probably did not do him well with Latinos this election. Asian Americans are another quickly growing minority bloc and they generally tend to measure success in terms of high educational attainment, so they probably do not want to support an anti-illectualism party. I don't even have to go into details of the Republicans' problem with women or LGBT voters.

These are just my opinions. Democrats are doing well with minorities not because of the candidates they run but because of their candidates' ideas.

[nclib]

The irony is that while African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, Jews, women, and LGBT Americans, all have different sets of concerns, the GOP has managed to alienate all of them.

[Frodo]

Does anyone here really think that Republicans will actually make a good-faith effort to encourage people from different races (and I am not talking token minority congressmen who can't win among their own brethren) to reconsider their opinions of the GOP?  Especially if it requires sacrifice akin to what Democrats went through after passing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts?  Or after making some noise about reinventing itself, it returns to business-as-usual as the course of least resistance?  

In which case, the Grand Old Party will have an entirely different meaning than that intended by whoever coined it...