“Why the GOP 'REALLY' Can't Win Minorities …”

In an article titled: “Why the GOP Can't Win Minorities …” from the Wall Street Journal written by Shelby Steele, the writer asserts the following in answer to the question:

 "American minorities of color -- especially blacks -- are often born into grievance-focused identities. The idea of grievance will seem to define them in some eternal way, and it will link them atavistically to a community of loved ones. To separate from grievance -- to say simply that one is no longer racially aggrieved -- will surely feel like an act of betrayal that threatens to cut one off from community, family and history. So, paradoxically, a certain chauvinism develops around one's sense of grievance. Today the feeling of being aggrieved by American bigotry is far more a matter of identity than of actual aggrievement"

Fascinating. I’d say that this tidbit has some merit, but misses the bigger picture. Because of the Dixiecrats, and their legacy within a large portion of the base that the Republican party caters to, the GOP is tied to a recent past of opposing civil rights legislation and support of states rights which was code for: “Don’t let them coloreds vote”.

I think the GOP has to better package their message for African Americans if they truly desire their votes, and pick better messengers.

The author further asserts:

“So here stands contemporary American conservatism amidst its cultural liabilities and, now, its electoral failures -- with no mechanism to redeem America of its shames, atavistically resisted by minorities, and vulnerable to stigmatization as a bigoted and imperialistic political orientation. 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?”

I think the writers earlier statement in context with the later makes much more sense and I am more able to agree with the writers sentiment overall. My conservative friends over at “Conservative Black Woman’s” blog, acknowledged the former but ignored the later, which goes to the point of one of the reasons I am not a Republican or a Democrat, each side frames their arguments by ignoring anything to the contrary to their arguments, as opposed to reasoning out the issues by taking into account data that might NOT fit their dogma. Jus saying…

Comments

[Will Staples]

I don't like how the author characterizes liberalism, but I won't rant about that. :P

"Because of the Dixiecrats, and their legacy within a large portion of the base that the Republican party caters to, the GOP is tied to a recent past of opposing civil rights legislation"

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The author seems to think the Republicans are still the party of Barry Goldwater when they're really the party of Strom Thurmond.

[Neil]

Republican leadership has been horrible at marketing to blacks. The ineptitude is staggering, especially when you consider that the party holds the views that most blacks would support: Pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-school choice, etc.

[Will Staples]

When I think about it, I think there's also an economic factor.

The Republicans' main constituency is the rural poor who pay taxes that go to infrastructure and social programs but who don't benefit directly from them. Minorities in America are concentrated in urban areas, which may push many toward the Democratic Party for the same reason as urban whites.