Guess who's coming to dinner? Black conservatives, the Big Tent, and Slick Willy Jr.
By BlackRepub Posted in Archived — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I think my chosen user name makes it fairly obvious that I am not just any Republican, but a Republican who is African-American. And while we can talk about the need to end identity politics, we simply are not there right now. I think one of the things we must target therefore, is what appeals to the key demographics we are trying to appeal to. Karl Rove talked recently about the need to campaign in communities that we have not been successful in, specifically the Black and Latino communities. For all of the things I criticize the Bush administration for, they have had the most genuine interest in minority outreach of any administration, Democrat or Republican, which is the reason why my very first vote for President in my life (I’m only 23) was for President George W. Bush. However, as the demographics of the Party change, we need to expand our base, and my biggest fear is that we would abandon the Bush doctrine of diversity in the Cabinet and in the team, as it was one of the best points for recruiting (ie look how many Black and Hispanic people Bush has in his cabinet and in his inner circle-that’s more than any President combines, and yes that includes the first “Black President”).
I have many Black Republican friends, and I will say that the logic that I have heard from them in selecting a Presidential candidate is frightening. It is not only the way that Bush’s Cabinet looked, but the way that it acted which made its appeal high for African-Americans. As almost everyone that’s been blogging here for more than an hour knows, I am fully behind the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Unfortunately the Black conservatives that I know are going for the second coming of Slick Willy, by a large margin. Before you celebrate Anteater and the rest, the reasons why that Black conservatives are supporting Huck are the reasons that you would not want anyone to be espousing about your guy. Every Black conservative that likes Huck says the reason why they like him is because he sounds just like a Democrat, which would be an advantage to recruiting more African-Americans to the Republican table.
This is no more than scary, but downright appalling in my eyes to take the Republican Party and try to seek it to become the other nanny state party with a neo-conservative bent. While I am somewhat of a neo-con,(though I am rehabbing from that, but still not ready to throw away the Department of Education) Huckabee is the worst kind of attempt at a neo-conservative, giving us a bad name by getting the government in all the wrong parts of our lives. I have explained time and time again that the Huckster’s policies towards African-Americans are exactly the same as any Democrats, and he is nothing more than Zell that plays bass. While many African-Americans are extremely conservative Democrats socially, they already have a Democratic Party to vote for to be nanny stated. Huckabee supports affirmative action, talks about the great injustice of cocaine vs. crack drug sentencing, and talks a lot about how the government continues to hold Blacks down. When he talks to African-Americans, he is the same kind of sniveling populist that he is when he talks to every one else.
Based all of this, I offered my conservative friends another choice-Mitt Romney. The reaction was more than hostile, it was the reaction that I’ve gotten from some of my evangelical friends about Mitt Romney. “I can’t support a Mormon-their church was hostile to Blacks up until 1978.” Yes, the Mormon church has a racial history they should not be proud of-but so does the rest of America, and we should still be more than proud to call ourselves Americans. Not only that but the fact that George Romney refused to endorse Goldwater in 1964 based on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act says a lot about where the Romney’s stood on the topic of race relations. I explained George Romney’s tireless efforts in the Civil Rights movement (surprise-another Republican who supported Civil Rights, just like all of our party did) and his commitment to working with Martin Luther King Jr., and still they say Huckabee is our man because he’s just like the Democrats.
Folks, I know that in the end these are good people, and they will support Mitt when he wins the nomination, but the fact of the matter is, the very thought of Slick Willy’s appeal is frightening for those of us that want to expand the conservative movement. We will win over other people by offering a clear choice, not by offering the same soup warmed over with another name. Campbell’s soup is still Campbell’s no matter what container you put it in. I personally prefer Progresso, which is why Mitt’s my man. We must broaden the tent, but not at the cost of the conservative movement as a whole, but me must use conservative ideas to bring about new conservatives, not by becoming like the enemy. We can now return to our regularly scheduled primary infighting.
We keep running into that same problem that some want us to try and out-Democrat the Democrats. I agree that it is a losing strategy. As you well point out, they have the the brand recognition and the marketing chain to go along with it.
You make some broad comments about Huck's issues as it relates to the African-American community, such as:
1) His support for affirmative action
2) Injustices related to crack/cocaine sentencing
3) Government "holding blacks down"
Do you have any citations for these comments? I have not heard Huck state any of this, and I follow him fairly closely.
Thanks!
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Of the Tavis Smiley debate-its all in there. He panders to Blacks just like he does to everyone else.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
I think, in this season of resurgent populism, that we should all encourage our Republican fellows to dust off and re-read Ms. Schlaffly's again-timely book A Choice Not an Echo (forgive me if I have shorthanded the title). We seem to have forgotten one of the crucial things that led to Reagan and the building Republican coalition - Reagan didn't try to sell a "moderated" socialism - a Democrat-lite platform. He stood behind positions that were opposed to liberalism's slide to socialism. And he won. Republicans were victorious in 1994 because we enunciated clear choices between very different positions. We all need to be disabused of the notion that we can (or should) win elections by promisng policies we don't believe in simply because we think that's what people want. Mrs. Schlaffly carried that water decades ago and her words appear as relevant today as they were then.
... has given up any chance it had at making significant inroads to the latino community when it went down the Tancredo road. That goose is cooked. The past year has probably closed that door for an entire generation.
GWB was more far-sighted on that issue: he saw the potential future the GOP could have if it aligned with the hard-working, self-reliant Latino community. But that is over.
As for the rest of BR's post, it much less about making the GOP black-friendly (a difficult but not impossible mission) than it was about crapping on Huck, so my guess is that he is more interested in the latter than the former.
Gar
As is you your inability to read. Did you read anything in my post, or are all of you Huckabots the same. This post was not about Huck as much as it was about offering a choice, not an echo to quote Schafly saying that it is a bad premise to try and bring Blacks into the Party as Democrat-lite. But I'm glad you feel I have no interest in bringing Blacks into the party-I've written countless diaries on the matter, but hey, what do I know-I've only been here 2 and a half years and I clearly have a lot to learn from you.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
It's interesting how you lump Latinos all in the same borg-like group think zomby cliche. I know plenty of conservative Latinos who are red, white and blue through and through. They are no more for amnesty than I am, and that's saying something. From the Latino folks I know, it's apparent to me their overwhelming disgust at line cutters. They aren't conditionally pro-America first, they are through and through Americans.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
And it's a valid point. I read some analysis recently--I wish I had saved it, but I didn't--that said Hispanic support for the GOP candidates has dropped drastically since 2004 (aka Bush). Except for McCain, that is. His rhetoric is very different from the other candidates', even when their proposed policies are similar. That's part of his problem with a lot of conservatives--he sounds soft on the issue (compared to Tancredo, he definitely is) where the others sound tough, even though they really aren't far apart.
Of course, I'm not talking about Hispanic conservatives who are against McCain because of the Bush-McCain plan being too easy on illegals. I'm talking about the independents and conservative Democrats. I'm sure most legal immigrants from anywhere are against "amnesty," but there is a lot of nasty rhetoric that gets thrown around that turns ME off (and I'm not even Hispanic)--not necessarily from the candidates, but from some of their noisier supporters. It's not helpful at all, and it's frankly disgraceful (and insulting to me as a fellow Republican) when I see people who call themselves Republicans saying things like "wetbacks" and "messicans" (I'm not exaggerating). Of course, we don't see that here at Red State, but it's all over the blogosphere, including at some of the bigger blogs. Remember when Linda Chavez wrote about some of the racist rhetoric from SOME people, and everyone was furious about it? Remember how people then told her in her comments at Townhall to "go back to Mexico"--and worse? And then there's groups like VDare and the Minutemen who have attracted all sorts of filth (real racists/white supremacists).
I can't say I blame Hispanics for not wanting to vote Republican this time around, after the loud verbal beatings they've been taking as a group over the last couple of years. I'll bet your conservative all-American Latino friends aren't too fond of their ideological allies saying crap like "wetbacks," either.
It's sad, but I think we have lost those Hispanic swing votes for a while. It's like BlackRepub said--we conservatives may lament identity politics, but it's still there and it must be addressed intelligently.
Sorry, but I've not seen BlackRepub "crapping on Huck" anywhere. He's been one of the strongest positive advocates for Mitt Romney around, without having to attack other candidates.
Your guess is wrong.
You state "And while we can talk about the need to end identity politics, we simply are not there right now."
It is this kind of rhetoric that keeps this country divided, and it's by your choice. How long must we be held hostage by (insert your racially biased concern here)-Americans?
This is America. Not Africa-America, not Mexico-America or any other kind of x_America. I am an American. Would you prefer that I refer myself as a White-American in the future?
and not only because I concur with you on all points.