Democrat’s Race Problem?

Here’s something from Mellifluence that caught my eye :

Frankly, I don’t see why more minorities don’t support the Republican Party. After all, the appear more diverse than the Democrats. When you think of prominent minority Republicans, who do you think of? Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas… until recently, J.C. Watts. There’s even talk that Bush would try to get a conservative Latino on the Supreme Court. Now, quickly, think of prominent Democrat minorities… um… there was Jocelyn Elders, that guy Bill Clinton was friends with, and well…. Even the Presidential candidates who are minorities are seen more as distractions and laughingstocks.

Quick, name a single Republican in the Congressional Black Caucus. That’s right, there aren’t any. Okay, how about Republicans in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? Nope, none there either.

But that’s not all. Of the eight members of congress who are “Asian Pacific Americans”, once again there are no Republicans. And when you look at the memberships of the Congressional Native American Caucus and the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, only about 25%-28% of the members are Republicans. You’d think with the Republicans as the majority party in both houses of Congress, if they really gave a shit about minorities, that number would be at least a little higher.

To be fair, 65 of the 68 members of one important caucus are Republicans. That’s the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. Apparently, the only time GOP Congressmen can get motivated about minority issues is when they’re discussing ways to kick them out of the country.

I’ll be the first to admit that the Democratic party has a tendency to take minorities for granted, but at least they’re addressing some of the issues that are important to minority communities? What’s the equivalent on the GOP side? Well, when they’re not making excuses for a racist “slip of the tongue” by one of their peers, they’re destroying social services that primarily help poor non-white people. Sure, Republicans like George Bush can talk a good game about “compassion”, but their actions speak louder than their words.


posted by greg on October 28, 2003 @ 1:24 am

10 comments

  1. how could anyone watch the way sharpton and mosley-braun handle themselves in these debates and say they are a joke? they change the dynamic of the debate entirely! could you imagine if they and kucinich were not on stage? do you think dean would feel as comfortable with his supposed anti-war stance? do you think kerry wouldve voted against the 87 bil?

    as someone who supports kucinich, i have to say the two most succinct, clear, intelligent speakers are the two of color. and one is (*GASP*) a woman!

    this guy must not be watching the same debates i am.

    or is he speaking not about the candidates but about how the democrats view them? hmmm…

    Comment by josh — October 28, 2003 @ 8:29 am

  2. I’d also add that more minorities don’t support the republicans because they know, in spite of the dems taking them for granted, that they have it better under dems’ policies than under republican policies, and this is not something that’s really open to debate. It’s a historical bloody fact. Besides, I think Earnest would agree that politics isn’t just about having your ass kissed, it’s about real, actual policies, and the groups in questions know that Dems’ default position is to support them.

    Do you really think that the Republicans appointing several prominent Black people to high positions actually indicates anything other than misdirection? Colin Powell isn’t even consulted on routine diplomatic issues, and is routinely belittled or outright contradicted by the rest of Bush’s white house. Condi is utterly ignored (or she’s incompetent at her job. Either way, things sure seem to get fucked up with her in charge). I think Minorities know that Republicans are merely appointing these people so liberals and Minorities will feel less threatened by their policies.

    In fact, I’m sure that’s what’s going on. It means nothing that they make minority appointments when they don’t ever actually elect any minority candidates.

    To continue, that Latino judge candidate situation was a ploy. He was an arch conservative with amazingly radical views, who refused to discuss his politics as pertaining to his rulings, a fucking consitutional requirement of potential federal judges, regardless of what republicans say. Republicans, I am convinced, only nominated him because they knew based on his politics that he could never get the appointment. They know for a fact that their right wing thuggery isn’t going to fly with most people. They know that the true agenda of modern republicanism freaks people out. But they know how to work the ref. So they nominate a Latin Judge whose beliefs would freak people out regardless of his race. but this time, when the dems filibuster, as we all know the would since this guys’ politics were so utterly to the right of normal sanity that they have no choice, the Republicans suddenly have a chance to claim that the dems, rather that being opposed in principle, are in fact being racists.

    If you actually believe that race and not ideology motivated the dems to lock that nomination, and if you actually think the republicans weren’t deliberately creating a situation in which they could test out their new “Democrats are bigots” meme, then I have a bridge in your new home town I’d like to sell you.

    Furthermore the Dems no longer make a habit of cozying up to southern racists. That’s now a republican predilection. The republicans have made it perfectly clear that their party can be a home for unreconstructed southerners and other assorted racists, and whatever their rhetoric, that has to make many people uncomfortable, particularly if you’re a member of a minority that has traditionally had to fear white thuggish racism.

    And before anyone brings up the New Deal Coalition, let me point out right now that the difference between the republicans today, and the dems then, of course, is that when the dems were cozying up to southern racists, the larger goal was implementing the greatest and most successful egalitarian social program and recipe for long term prosperity ever enacted. People might be willing to forgive the dems because, well, FUCKING NEW DEAL POLICIES ACTUALLY FUCKING WORKED, unlike Reagan’s trickle down bullshit, which is hoovernomics with a sunnier face. Also, I’d like to point out that the party was almost torn apart several times because the liberal Dems, meaning the dems with majority control of the party, were passionately committed to civil rights. Yes, that’s right, the dems were the ones who almost imploded over civil rights, not the republicans.

    IN fact, can you think of a single issue now where the republicans would risk implosion to make sure the right thing was done? I think that they have differences, but they all agree that Rich people shouldn’t pay taxes and America is a Christian country, and that alone keep the party together. Plus, and I can’t stress this enough - The republicans have no problems with electing racists, or at least, pandering to racists in order to win elections.

    I think the real question is, how come the dems are held to a higher standard of what can be said in public than the republicans are, and why do republicans even have any minority support?

    Comment by Ross Angeles — October 28, 2003 @ 8:29 am

  3. I was, in fact, talking about the way the minority candidates are viewed by Democrats. I like Carol Mosely-Braun. Her responses are always cogent and concise, but she’s I can count her poll percentage points on a couple fingers. She’s not getting the nomination, and neither is Al Sharpton. Let’s be honest– the person who gets nominated will be an old, white guy.

    Whether the Latino nominee was a ploy or not, the fact remains that he was Latino. My suggestion is that despite there being a larger minority presence in the Democratic Party, as Greg pointed out, minorities *seem* to advance further in the Republican party because Republicans appear to be more willing to accept exceptional minorities. But the challenge is still up there. I can’t think of one minority Democrat from the last decade who is or was a major player on a national front!

    The reason Democrats are held to a higher standard (on certain issues) is that they hold themselves up to those standards. The same dynamic affects Republicans who have to charm their conservative Christian base.

    Comment by Earnest — October 28, 2003 @ 10:04 am

  4. “I can’t think of one minority Democrat from the last decade who is or was a major player on a national front!”

    Is everyone forgetting about Jesse Jackson? Hell, I’d go so far as to say that JJ is one of the main reasons blacks stay in the Democratic fold. He is consistently good at organizing constituents to vote along party lines.

    Comment by Kyle — October 28, 2003 @ 11:39 am

  5. ross brings up the point of the democratic party almost imploding over civil rights. would they do this today? would such a stand on principle be tolerated by the democratic party in 2003?

    would it even be tolerated by bloggers, as it might empower the republican party?

    Comment by josh — October 28, 2003 @ 12:07 pm

  6. I think the Josh kid who has a dirty mought needs to grow up-read his Bible-pay attention to immature words he uses and realize that God sees everything he does and he will be accountable someday for the words used in this rediculous article he wrote.

    Comment by Tiffany — December 4, 2003 @ 2:22 pm

  7. For Josh……….
    FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM, SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.
    John 3:16 in the Bible you should be reading you retard

    Comment by Tiffany — December 4, 2003 @ 2:24 pm

  8. tiffany,
    your remake of “i saw her standing there” sucked. the fact that such abominations exist is proof that there is indeed no god.

    -josh

    p.s. i did not curse in this post at all. and debbie gibson kicks your ass.

    Comment by dirty moght — December 4, 2003 @ 3:11 pm

  9. Debbie rules.

    http://www.ostrichink.com/nov2003/gibson.html

    Comment by Kyle — December 4, 2003 @ 3:49 pm

  10. Um, Josh, can you explain why Tiffany is lecturing you about the Word(tm)? I don’t recall your mentioning the big G in this thread. She is seriously wigging me out. Props to you though.

    At any rate, I’d like to draw Tiffany’s attention to a rhetorical device known as the circular argument vis a vis the Bible.

    Respects,
    R

    Comment by the eligible Ross Lincoln — December 4, 2003 @ 4:45 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.