Tim Scott: Why are Republicans accused of racism? Because we’re silent on racism

[Indy Texas]

Well, Donald Trump is “like King,” and he’s exactly who Republicans want. So...

same party base nominated Romney and McCain.

Also the media is to blame for Trump as much as the base is. They promoted him non stop gave him all that free media and in today world thats a huge reason why people win

Mitt Romney practically got down on his knees to thank Trump for his endorsement in 2012.

He also ran one of the most virulently anti-immigrant campaigns as of that date - lest we forget his vow to make the Hispanics "self-deport."

Ugh that comment was taken completely out of context

He clearly stated what that meant was that he would cut of government benefits from illegal immigrants and enforce e verify so they don’t get jobs either . That proposal is not only responable it’s also completely correct.


Also on legal immigration he proposed this :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/06/22/mitt-romneys-immigration-plan-the-full-text/?utm_term=.47359fc1707c

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The liberal media parroted the Obama campaign and called him anti immigrant which was totally false . He was very pro legal immigrant especially high skilled ones . Yes he was tough on illegal immigration but that doesn’t make someone anti immigrant

Stop pretending your party likes "high-skilled" immigrants.

Look at what Republicans do to high-skilled immigrants who try to join their party:

Muslim vice-chair of Texas county GOP survives effort to oust him over his religion

Shifting our immigration policy to more high-skilled immigrants is just going to mean more South Asians and East Asians. Your party doesn't like them either.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well, Donald Trump is “like King,” and he’s exactly who Republicans want. So...

same party base nominated Romney and McCain.

Also the media is to blame for Trump as much as the base is. They promoted him non stop gave him all that free media and in today world thats a huge reason why people win

Mitt Romney practically got down on his knees to thank Trump for his endorsement in 2012.

He also ran one of the most virulently anti-immigrant campaigns as of that date - lest we forget his vow to make the Hispanics "self-deport."

Ugh that comment was taken completely out of context

He clearly stated what that meant was that he would cut of government benefits from illegal immigrants and enforce e verify so they don’t get jobs either . That proposal is not only responable it’s also completely correct.


Also on legal immigration he proposed this :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/06/22/mitt-romneys-immigration-plan-the-full-text/?utm_term=.47359fc1707c

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The liberal media parroted the Obama campaign and called him anti immigrant which was totally false . He was very pro legal immigrant especially high skilled ones . Yes he was tough on illegal immigration but that doesn’t make someone anti immigrant

Stop pretending your party likes "high-skilled" immigrants.

Look at what Republicans do to high-skilled immigrants who try to join their party:

Muslim vice-chair of Texas county GOP survives effort to oust him over his religion

Shifting our immigration policy to more high-skilled immigrants is just going to mean more South Asians and East Asians. Your party doesn't like them either.

Guess what the result of the vote was to expel the gu . Yah I thought so



Also I mentioned the high skill portion to counter the claim Romney was anti immigrant.
The fact is he is anti illegal immigrant and pro legal immigrant and if anyone believes that means someone is anti immigrant than guess what , than that person believes illegals should get Better treatment than legal immigrats and that is an insult to people who went through the legal process

[Indy Texas]

Well, Donald Trump is “like King,” and he’s exactly who Republicans want. So...

same party base nominated Romney and McCain.

Also the media is to blame for Trump as much as the base is. They promoted him non stop gave him all that free media and in today world thats a huge reason why people win

Mitt Romney practically got down on his knees to thank Trump for his endorsement in 2012.

He also ran one of the most virulently anti-immigrant campaigns as of that date - lest we forget his vow to make the Hispanics "self-deport."

Ugh that comment was taken completely out of context

He clearly stated what that meant was that he would cut of government benefits from illegal immigrants and enforce e verify so they don’t get jobs either . That proposal is not only responable it’s also completely correct.


Also on legal immigration he proposed this :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/06/22/mitt-romneys-immigration-plan-the-full-text/?utm_term=.47359fc1707c

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The liberal media parroted the Obama campaign and called him anti immigrant which was totally false . He was very pro legal immigrant especially high skilled ones . Yes he was tough on illegal immigration but that doesn’t make someone anti immigrant

Stop pretending your party likes "high-skilled" immigrants.

Look at what Republicans do to high-skilled immigrants who try to join their party:

Muslim vice-chair of Texas county GOP survives effort to oust him over his religion

Shifting our immigration policy to more high-skilled immigrants is just going to mean more South Asians and East Asians. Your party doesn't like them either.

Guess what the result of the vote was to expel the gu . Yah I thought so



Also I mentioned the high skill portion to counter the claim Romney was anti immigrant.
The fact is he is anti illegal immigrant and pro legal immigrant and if anyone believes that means someone is anti immigrant than guess what , than that person believes illegals should get Better treatment than legal immigrats and that is an insult to people who went through the legal process

"Our party went so far as to hold a formal vote on whether or not to throw someone out of the party for being Muslim. But only 26% of the people voted to do so! Take THAT libtards!"

Your party continues to operate under the delusion that if we had "merit-based" immigration we'd have this flood of white Norwegians and Germans banging down the doors to come live here.

Does Melania Trump doing illegal modeling work on her visa back in the '90s fall under your category of illegals getting better treatment?

[Bojack Horseman]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Well, Donald Trump is “like King,” and he’s exactly who Republicans want. So...

same party base nominated Romney and McCain.

Also the media is to blame for Trump as much as the base is. They promoted him non stop gave him all that free media and in today world thats a huge reason why people win

Mitt Romney practically got down on his knees to thank Trump for his endorsement in 2012.

He also ran one of the most virulently anti-immigrant campaigns as of that date - lest we forget his vow to make the Hispanics "self-deport."

Ugh that comment was taken completely out of context

He clearly stated what that meant was that he would cut of government benefits from illegal immigrants and enforce e verify so they don’t get jobs either . That proposal is not only responable it’s also completely correct.


Also on legal immigration he proposed this :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/06/22/mitt-romneys-immigration-plan-the-full-text/?utm_term=.47359fc1707c

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The liberal media parroted the Obama campaign and called him anti immigrant which was totally false . He was very pro legal immigrant especially high skilled ones . Yes he was tough on illegal immigration but that doesn’t make someone anti immigrant

Stop pretending your party likes "high-skilled" immigrants.

Look at what Republicans do to high-skilled immigrants who try to join their party:

Muslim vice-chair of Texas county GOP survives effort to oust him over his religion

Shifting our immigration policy to more high-skilled immigrants is just going to mean more South Asians and East Asians. Your party doesn't like them either.

Guess what the result of the vote was to expel the gu . Yah I thought so



Also I mentioned the high skill portion to counter the claim Romney was anti immigrant.
The fact is he is anti illegal immigrant and pro legal immigrant and if anyone believes that means someone is anti immigrant than guess what , than that person believes illegals should get Better treatment than legal immigrats and that is an insult to people who went through the legal process

"Our party went so far as to hold a formal vote on whether or not to throw someone out of the party for being Muslim. But only 26% of the people voted to do so! Take THAT libtards!"

Your party continues to operate under the delusion that if we had "merit-based" immigration we'd have this flood of white Norwegians and Germans banging down the doors to come live here.

Does Melania Trump doing illegal modeling work on her visa back in the '90s fall under your category of illegals getting better treatment?

First of all I was clearly clearly talking about Mitt Romney in the post and responding to your post about Romney’s so called anti immigrant campaign


Second of all that means 74% voted not to expel

[Frodo]

And why are Republicans silent on racism?  Because the scum (and their descendants) that this man:



attracted to the party as part of his Southern Strategy have now taken over the asylum.  Predictably and inevitably.  That 35% of the overall population who are Trump's diehard bitter-ender base are their base as well.  I am amazed they have the courage even to mouth words of condemnation, even if it is just for appearances.

So don't just blame Trump for the moral rot of the Republican Party -it started decades earlier.    

[Suburbia]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

Although the Republican Party is horrible, the Democratic Party is not any better. He'd be better off as a black Independent who still has conservative views.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

If a Republican had something about a Democrat you would have been all over them

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

the Democratic Party is moving in the direction of sociaism , while he is a solid Reaganite.


The fact is there needs to be a third party and in my opinion they should start with the goal of denying either party a majority in the house.

[AtorBoltox]

The Republican Party isn't silent on racism- they vocally approve of it

[ProudModerate2]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

I guess bronz means "free enterprise" with tariffs, and "respect of US soldiers" except for those that were captured.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

Perhaps.  But the Democratic Party has a significantly different worldview than Tim Scott does.

Tim Scott is an Evngelical Christian who has chosen to conform himself to God's Word, as opposed to his political party., at more cost to himself than many pols.  He's one of my faves.

[Badger]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

Perhaps.  But the Democratic Party has a significantly different worldview than Tim Scott does.

Tim Scott is an Evngelical Christian who has chosen to conform himself to my personal interpretation of God's Word, which I seek to incorporate into public policy whereever possible as opposed to his political party., at more cost to himself than many pols.  He's one of my faves.

Corrected

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

Perhaps.  But the Democratic Party has a significantly different worldview than Tim Scott does.

Tim Scott is an Evngelical Christian who has chosen to conform himself to my personal interpretation of God's Word, which I seek to incorporate into public policy whereever possible as opposed to his political party., at more cost to himself than many pols.  He's one of my faves.

Corrected

I had it right the first time.

All public policy is based on something.  The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion; it doesn't prohibit public policy from aligning with any particular religion.  That a public policy may be Scripturally correct and permissable does not make it Unconstitutional.

But, yes, I will continue to work to see my vision enacted into public policy.  Just like everyone else here does.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

the Democratic Party is moving in the direction of sociaism , while he is a solid Reaganite.


The fact is there needs to be a third party and in my opinion they should start with the goal of denying either party a majority in the house.

The Democratic Party isn't moving towards socialism lol. Anyways, I wasn't saying that Tim Scott should become a Democrat. I was just correcting bronz4141.

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

Perhaps.  But the Democratic Party has a significantly different worldview than Tim Scott does.

Tim Scott is an Evngelical Christian who has chosen to conform himself to God's Word, as opposed to his political party., at more cost to himself than many pols.  He's one of my faves.

I wasn't saying that Tim Scott should become a Democrat. I was just addressing bronz4141's statement about my political party.

[Rookie Yinzer]

The Republican isn't silent on racism- they vocally approve of it

[Famous Mortimer]

Neither Steve King nor the Republican Party as a whole have advocated for racist policies in the last 40 or so years.

They have never advocated for discriminating against non-white citizens on the basis of race.

In fact, many members of the Republican Party have acquiesced to supporting affirmative action, which actively discriminates against whites in favor of non-whites, at almost no benefit to the Republican Party.

Beyond just policy, in terms of tone, the Republican Party is groveling in terms of how it talks to minorities, how it begs them to like them. Look at how Trump always talks about the Black unemployment rate and the Hispanic unemployment rate but never the white unemployment rate.

What exactly does Tim Scott want the Republicans do to combat racism more?

[Suburbia]

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.

This statement is 100% false.

Obama and the Democrats voted in 2007 in the Bush era against pay raise and funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Republicans have been silent on the issue for race for two major reasons. 1. Political expediency and 2. Fear.

Since the 1960's, Republicans have banked on Democrats being the party more for minorities and improving the lot of minorities and thus by extension making the Republicans the "lesser of two evils" and also default party for Southern whites over the course of the last severak decades. So if you start shifting your rhetoric and saying using things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make the case for protecting minorities, or doing what say Rand Paul does in terms of supporting restoring felon voting rights, the strategies presume that this will cost far more in terms of racist white votes then it will gain in minority voting for Republicans. Historically, they like to point to examples like Eisenhower or Ford where such efforts were disappointing in the results, compared to say Nixon or Reagan who achieved far more success employing dog whistle strategies. This positive feedback loop perpetuated this line of thinking, that really was born in reaction to the disappointment on the part of GOP activist/strategist base following the 1956 elections when a solid majority of blacks still voted Democratic against Ike, even with a Segregationist on the Dem ticket.

2. The other one is mostly fear of it backfiring or being taken out of context. Republicans are typically afraid to talk to blacks and black voters and thus you rarely see them address groups like the NAACP, with the exception once again of Rand Paul whose more libertarian social policies on prison. crime and drugs, not to mention foreign policy align rather well with the issues facing minority communities (Then they look at the economic dogma and say no thank you, but that is beside the point).

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Neither Steve King nor the Republican Party as a whole have advocated for racist policies in the last 40 or so years.

They have never advocated for discriminating against non-white citizens on the basis of race.

In fact, many members of the Republican Party have acquiesced to supporting affirmative action, which actively discriminates against whites in favor of non-whites, at almost no benefit to the Republican Party.

Beyond just policy, in terms of tone, the Republican Party is groveling in terms of how it talks to minorities, how it begs them to like them. Look at how Trump always talks about the Black unemployment rate and the Hispanic unemployment rate but never the white unemployment rate.

What exactly does Tim Scott want the Republicans do to combat racism more?

I would suggest that one thing the GOP could do is support reinstatement of the Voting Rights Act.  Blacks have good reason to believe that the Southern White Establishment is not going to be fair in terms of their voting rights.  Another thing they can do is drop their voter fraud and voter id initiatives; these are issues designed to stack the deck against blacks and Democrats.  As for Voter ID laws, a poll tax by any other name is still a poll tax.

As for Affirmative Action:  I am 62 years old, so I've seen things in the workplace that should never happen.  I remember at a social gathering, my friend's brother-in-law, who was an Exec VP of a major bank for Personnel (he recruited and hired managers) had his marching orders; he was only to hire black and Hispanic candidates for these jobs if there resumes were so overwhelmingly good that he could not avoid it.  This was the 1970s, but it was also New York, and not Mississippi, or even Florida.  Affirmative Action exists because Corporate America wouldn't be fair in hiring until they were forced to; it was the least worst way to ensure meaningful minority entry into Corporate America (as opposed to tokenism). 

America has changed attitudinally and demographically, and such attitudes won't be as easily tolerated today, but some of the old thinking dies hard.  I cannot say for certain that America would just keep being fair if there were no Affirmative Action mandates requiring them to be.  Affirmative Action DOES take factors, other than ability and credentials, into account, and that is less than perfect, but no one has come up with a better way to right the greater wrong, for the most part.

[Badger]

Republicans have been silent on the issue for race for two major reasons. 1. Political expediency and 2. Fear.

Since the 1960's, Republicans have banked on Democrats being the party more for minorities and improving the lot of minorities and thus by extension making the Republicans the "lesser of two evils" and also default party for Southern whites over the course of the last decade. So if you start shifting your rhetoric and saying using things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make the case for protecting minorities, or doing what say Rand Paul does in terms of supporting restoring felon voting rights, the strategies presume that this will cost far more in terms of racist white votes then it will gain in minority voting for Republicans. Historically, they like to point to examples like Eisenhower or Ford where such efforts were disappointing in the results, compared to say Nixon or Reagan who achieved far more success employing dog whistle strategies. This positive feedback loop perpetuated this line of thinking, that really was born in reaction to the disappointment on the part of GOP activist/strategist base following the 1956 elections when a solid majority of blacks still voted Democratic against Ike, even with a Segregationist on the Dem ticket.

2. The other one is mostly fear of it backfiring or being taken out of context. Republicans are typically afraid to talk to blacks and black voters and thus you rarely see them address groups like the NAACP, with the exception once again of Rand Paul whose more libertarian social policies on prison. crime and drugs, not to mention foreign policy align rather well with the issues facing minority communities (Then they look at the economic dogma and say no thank you, but that is beside the point).

Reason number two is beyond silly. Practically admits outright that trying to sell the GOP platform to a gathered group of African-Americans is going to result in overt hostility. At best it assumes there will be audible groans are catcalls from a restrained audience, or worst some weird racist narrative that the blacks will bum rush the stage or something.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Republicans have been silent on the issue for race for two major reasons. 1. Political expediency and 2. Fear.

Since the 1960's, Republicans have banked on Democrats being the party more for minorities and improving the lot of minorities and thus by extension making the Republicans the "lesser of two evils" and also default party for Southern whites over the course of the last decade. So if you start shifting your rhetoric and saying using things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make the case for protecting minorities, or doing what say Rand Paul does in terms of supporting restoring felon voting rights, the strategies presume that this will cost far more in terms of racist white votes then it will gain in minority voting for Republicans. Historically, they like to point to examples like Eisenhower or Ford where such efforts were disappointing in the results, compared to say Nixon or Reagan who achieved far more success employing dog whistle strategies. This positive feedback loop perpetuated this line of thinking, that really was born in reaction to the disappointment on the part of GOP activist/strategist base following the 1956 elections when a solid majority of blacks still voted Democratic against Ike, even with a Segregationist on the Dem ticket.

2. The other one is mostly fear of it backfiring or being taken out of context. Republicans are typically afraid to talk to blacks and black voters and thus you rarely see them address groups like the NAACP, with the exception once again of Rand Paul whose more libertarian social policies on prison. crime and drugs, not to mention foreign policy align rather well with the issues facing minority communities (Then they look at the economic dogma and say no thank you, but that is beside the point).

Reason number two is beyond silly. Practically admits outright that trying to sell the GOP platform to a gathered group of African-Americans is going to result in overt hostility. At best it assumes there will be audible groans are catcalls from a restrained audience, or worst some weird racist narrative that the blacks will bum rush the stage or something.

In the past, that might be so.  Nowadays, the possibility of Maxine Waters  (or someone as unrestrained as that) interrupting the speaker, making a scene, etc. is real, and presents the speaker with a no-win situation that could have been avoided.

The NAACP is, pretty much, an extension of the Democratic Party these days.  I'm not saying this as a knock, but it's not the non-partisan organization it once was.  Of course our ideological politics represent a massive departure from the past as well, so this factor was inevitable. 

My advice for Republicans is simply this:  Drop the Voter ID initiatives, drop the opposition to former felons voting, drop the opposition to the Voting Rights Act, and talk to black audiences focusing on agreement.  This can be done once the GOP stops being on the wrong side of what blacks rightly view as "survival issues", issues vital to their ability to participate in the political system and defend their rights (something they rightfully don't take for granted).

Blacks, on the average, are more churchgoing than the average American.  They are more entrepreneurial than the average American.  Many blacks vote Democratic even though they may well agree with the GOP on social issues (abortion, secularism) and some aspects of economics (business regulation) because they view Republicans as hostile to their very participation in politics.  If THAT perception were overcome (which would take real work but it could be done), I believe that the GOP could, ultimately, end up with 25% of the black vote.  I certainly thing that LOCAL Republicans could gain a greater share of the black vote.  Such a shift in attitudes would, I believe, be healthy in that it would allow more people to be voting on issues, and it would result in greater reconciliation between blacks and the Republicans which are, for many blacks, the dominant party in their state/region. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Non of the moderating of GOP image is gonna work on the part of Latinos and Blacks due to migration of Ethnics to Sunbelt stack. Like CO, NV and Ca. Due to loss of manufacturing in the heartland.

CA is milea away from heartland in terms of job growth which is 2 2% compared to 4% in Sunbelt

[Badger]

Republicans have been silent on the issue for race for two major reasons. 1. Political expediency and 2. Fear.

Since the 1960's, Republicans have banked on Democrats being the party more for minorities and improving the lot of minorities and thus by extension making the Republicans the "lesser of two evils" and also default party for Southern whites over the course of the last decade. So if you start shifting your rhetoric and saying using things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make the case for protecting minorities, or doing what say Rand Paul does in terms of supporting restoring felon voting rights, the strategies presume that this will cost far more in terms of racist white votes then it will gain in minority voting for Republicans. Historically, they like to point to examples like Eisenhower or Ford where such efforts were disappointing in the results, compared to say Nixon or Reagan who achieved far more success employing dog whistle strategies. This positive feedback loop perpetuated this line of thinking, that really was born in reaction to the disappointment on the part of GOP activist/strategist base following the 1956 elections when a solid majority of blacks still voted Democratic against Ike, even with a Segregationist on the Dem ticket.

2. The other one is mostly fear of it backfiring or being taken out of context. Republicans are typically afraid to talk to blacks and black voters and thus you rarely see them address groups like the NAACP, with the exception once again of Rand Paul whose more libertarian social policies on prison. crime and drugs, not to mention foreign policy align rather well with the issues facing minority communities (Then they look at the economic dogma and say no thank you, but that is beside the point).

Reason number two is beyond silly. Practically admits outright that trying to sell the GOP platform to a gathered group of African-Americans is going to result in overt hostility. At best it assumes there will be audible groans are catcalls from a restrained audience, or worst some weird racist narrative that the blacks will bum rush the stage or something.

In the past, that might be so.  Nowadays, the possibility of Maxine Waters  (or someone as unrestrained as that) interrupting the speaker, making a scene, etc. is real, and presents the speaker with a no-win situation that could have been avoided.

The NAACP is, pretty much, an extension of the Democratic Party these days.  I'm not saying this as a knock, but it's not the non-partisan organization it once was.  Of course our ideological politics represent a massive departure from the past as well, so this factor was inevitable. 

My advice for Republicans is simply this:  Drop the Voter ID initiatives, drop the opposition to former felons voting, drop the opposition to the Voting Rights Act, and talk to black audiences focusing on agreement.  This can be done once the GOP stops being on the wrong side of what blacks rightly view as "survival issues", issues vital to their ability to participate in the political system and defend their rights (something they rightfully don't take for granted).

Blacks, on the average, are more churchgoing than the average American.  They are more entrepreneurial than the average American.  Many blacks vote Democratic even though they may well agree with the GOP on social issues (abortion, secularism) and some aspects of economics (business regulation) because they view Republicans as hostile to their very participation in politics.  If THAT perception were overcome (which would take real work but it could be done), I believe that the GOP could, ultimately, end up with 25% of the black vote.  I certainly thing that LOCAL Republicans could gain a greater share of the black vote.  Such a shift in attitudes would, I believe, be healthy in that it would allow more people to be voting on issues, and it would result in greater reconciliation between blacks and the Republicans which are, for many blacks, the dominant party in their state/region. 

Hate to say it, but the image of blacks being social conservatives at heart just because rates of church-going are relatively larger the whites has always proven to be a myth. Abortion tends to be an economic issue 2 people who exercise that right, not a morality issue. After Americans 10 do suffer that short end of the economic stick more than whites, and accordingly polls show that support for legalized abortion equivalent or greater then whites. Likewise, African-American aversion towards interracial marriage and gay rights pretty much evaporated since Obama came out in support.

In short, the type of African-Americans you describe are exactly those 5 to 10% who regularly still vote Republican, but that's about the extent of it. Doubling down on such issues has been attempted, and failed. Republicans know this, and realize that given a choice between modifying their dickensian economic policies, for letting up on voter suppression laws which are crucial towards maintaining power and importance swing States as well as nationally, they will gladly follow their current practice of doubling down on the white power vote.