-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/03/ta-nehisi-coates-on-why-black-people-wont-join-the-republican-party/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
___________________________________
As an independent, someone who considers myself conservative and has in the past voted for both political parties, I would have to agree 'small government ideology' is one of the 3 main pillars of the Republican party. If you note, education, abortion, global warming, illegal immigration, poverty and the breakdown of the conventional family are issues FOR ALL Americans. Republicans don't divide themselves into groups based on race, gender or sexual orientation. These groups exist within the Democrat party. Republicans can be better identified as all or one of:
a)Social Conservatives(i.e. Evangelical Christians and pro-life) b)Free market entrepeneurs and capitalists and c)small government/low taxes. The differences are ideological and not based on your racial or sexual identity. Therefore, problems are not addressed on the basis of black, women's or gay issues, but in the context of 'What is the government's role?' and 'What is the right or responsibility of the individual?'
I am sorry to say, but I feel many black Americans are missing an amazing opportunity within the Republican Party to engage in such a debate by counting them out as rich, white and racist. The Democrat Party and the politics of victimization have led many blacks to believe that the only party that can help them is them.
To me, Democrats say, 'we can fix your problems for you...we'll just tax the successful and give you what you need.' Thereby, keeping groups and individuals dependent on government.
To me, Republicans say, 'I will help you, but you must also help yourself.'
For an independent, successful woman, from an immigrant background, this core belief resonates with me.
There is much to disagree with in the Republican Party and many times I have voted the other way.
There are hardliners in both parties, but blacks are doing themselves a disservice, and they are missing an opportunity to find like minded individuals who may agree with them on many levels but just differ on how to get there and how much to spend.
In short, NOT ALL REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL. It's a shock, I know.
For me personally, rings true and it was how I was raised
Somewhere between a third and two-thirds of the problems within the black community arose out of some segment of the black community.
The government can help on crime, drugs, health care (to a small extent), etc. It can't help on family stability or parents raising their children, nor should it. Republicans/conservatives (and I identify more as the latter than the former) realize that government exists to provide for the GENERAL welfare of the population.
The democratic party sells itself as the end all, cure all; they'll take on all of society's problems and fix them all, regardless of the cost. The Republicans will provide you with what you need to exist safely and securely, but they won't interject themselves into every problem found in every social group.
And that's where they lose a lot of African Americans, because-and this is an unfortunate reality-some segments (I hesitate to say "a majority") of the African American populace can't see the larger picture or the world beyond themselves; they only see what they need individually. Worse, they want it given to them by the government.
As for the party that believes in small government and big business ... you haven't been that in years.... In recent years, the republican party just seems like bitter racists who refused to see that the world has changed around them. By the way, you talk about handouts and how people should be ashamed in receiving them but you have no problem when these corporations get billions and billions of dollars in government funds (corporate welfare)
What's interesting is that in least in my own conversations with my own African-American colleagues, most of them *would* vote for John McCain if Hillary were nominated or at least strongly consider it, if that were to occur through e.g. continued race-baiting, pushing superdelegates to overturn Obama as leader in pledged delegates, or do any stupidity with MI/FL.
This would not amount to an endorsement of McCain per se, but it would represent a loud and clear message to the Democratic Party that we as a people will never accept the hate campaign that has been waged against a Black candidate like this, and that if they think they can take us for granted, they're dead wrong and will pay a price.
McCain is a Republican, but he's at least somewhat more reform-minded than other Republicans, even pressing for moderate Supreme Court justices (calling Alito "too conservative" for example)-- IOW, acceptable if not preferred.
Besides, McCain is so old that he'd be a one-termer, with his actions checked by a Democratic Congress, and leaving the field open for Obama in 2012.
And it would be far more important to send a thundering message to the Democrats that they cannot treat us like dirt, especially not after all we've done for them, and that they will pay a horrific price for it.
Sometimes, I guess, protest votes have importance.
Personally, I'll do even more. If there's any BS pulled against Obama-- including Hillary's frustration campaign to damage Obama in the general election, since even her campaign is realizing that he's the likely nominee-- I'll join the millions of other Black Americans and other Americans who will be participating in peaceful protests and a general strike against this sham of a democracy that is currently running the USA.
As our ancestors have shown, you get nothing unless you are willing to fight, and fight hard. That must be our duty and our mission for our people, and disenfranchised people throughout the world.
-Hurricane Katrina.
The Republicans had control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of this country.
When the Terry Schivo situation occured, the Republicans had the attitude of, "We've got to do something!"
Then came Hurricane Katrina.
The federal government knew that Katrina would hit land, but what did the Department of Homeland Security do?
NOTHING!
The Republican government did nothing and LET people die.
The Republican government had to be SHAMED into action.
President Bush had to be SHAMED to come to New Orleanes.
Other countries pitched in and sent help and supplies because of the rank incompetence of the Republican government.
The Republican party is not interested in having a debate with black Americans.
Not when their attitude is "Fuck them niggers."
When there was a chance to discuss race in the Republican debates, only Tom Tancredo (sp?) showed up.
"Fuck them niggers."
No, the federal government-BOTH parties-dropped the ball. Unless the country reverted to a single-party government in the summer of 2005.....
Black Americans don't want to hear what the Republican Party has to say, because it may require some work on their part. Again, it's the "me first" mentality that's become prevalent in African American society.
You can point to examples all day of when the Republicans have supposedly thrown blacks under the bus, but you'll miss the point.
Actions speak louder than words. In addition, all those stupid talking heads (Fox News, the radio hosts) that they have in their party and the legacy of Reagan don't help.
I have a really strong opinion of my own in this respect however I will join the convo a lil later.
Everything Admiral Komack has spoken is truth. You're missing the point by a mile. I don't think you'll ever see the point but you can prove us wrong!
D~
Black Americans were Republicans; until segregationist white conservatives and Dixiecrats were welcomed into the Republican fold. That's when we left and became Democrats.
So the idea that Black Americans don't want to hear what the RP has to say, is simply false. Their actions spoke louder than any words they could ever have said.
Has the party changed? Yes and no. The segregationists are either dead or close to it. But their adult children still remain. Does the party recognize Black Americans as a unique constituency, worthy of speaking to and hearing from? A few in the Party do, must most are either indifferent, resentful or downright hostile. A handful are tyring to reach out to African Americans, but for the most part, the majority of the outreach consists of simply bashing Democrats and telling us how stupid we are for being so loyal (yet they'd have no problem with us being stupid for them).
In short, the GOP doesn't particularly want our collective patronage. They want a few barking lap dogs that will be gratuitously contemptuous of the Black masses, and they want a little window dressing so as not to be so obvious about their true feelings for us.
But talk about a slap in the face and the irony is McCain just fired an aide for pushing the Rev. Wright tapes on YouTube. Read the following.
March 20, 2008
Clinton surrogate says issues over Wright remain
Posted: 01:45 PM ET
.
WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the uproar has unfolded over Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Clinton campaign has remained tight-lipped on the issue.
Top advisors to the campaign and Clinton herself have repeatedly refused to comment on the controversy, even as polls indicate the issue may be hurting the Illinois senator politically.
But Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and prominent surrogate of the New York senator, tackles the issue head on in a posting published Wednesday afternoon on the liberal Web site Huffington Post.
In the brief posting, Davis calls Obama's speech on the issue Tuesday "brilliant," but he says the Illinois senator has yet to answer two questions on the controversy that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain "will insist be answered in the fall."
Davis writes:
1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?
2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?
Davis, who often appears on CNN to promote Clinton's candidacy, also says he hopes his message "gets to someone in the Obama campaign — or to a reporter traveling with the Senator — who can persuade Senator Obama to answer them directly."
Second, as we continue to hear the drumbeat of "race", look at who the drummers are. It's Clinton surrogates (media included) who began and continue to beat that drum.
Thanks for linking this. I take issue with the idea that Republicans are anti-government about everything. There is nothing small government about regulating women's health. There is nothing small government about a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. There is nothing small government the Iraq war and what it will cost us, monetarily. There is nothing small government about trying to remake the Middle-East in the image of Jeffersonian democracy. There is nothing small government about No Child Left Behind. There was nothing small government, as someone mentioned, about attempting to overule the courts in the matter of Terri Schiavo. There is nothing small government about bailing out failing investment banks. There is nothing small government about mandating abstinence only.
Black people who look around and see Republicans using government to all of these ends, and then watch what happend in the wake of Katrina, are right to be suspicious when Republicans claim that no government resources should be used to help a community, which for decades was literally the victim of government policy. Rhetoric about "helping yourself" is just that--rhetoric. The actions tell the story.
The ReThugs do think "F--- them Niggers" when they think about us.
OTOH, they need House Negroes like Ward Connerly and Shelby Steele to make them look like they're diverse and all-inclusive. Only the House Negroes are falling for it.
I'm reading "SellOut" by Randall Kennedy, and he argues that the history of Uncle Ruckus turning in the slaves attempting to escape was not because Ruckus liked being a House Negro, but because Ruckus knew those uneducated slaves didn't have a clue how they were going to survive if they got away from Massa.
To which, this has to be the first book I've read where the author wants us to think about the House Negro in a different context, and I'm finding myself shouting, "Get the Cheney out of here!" as I'm reading. Startled a guy sitting next to me on the Blue Line this morning, too.
I'm flinging that book to the curb and will wait for Ta-Henisi's book. She's keeping it real.
__________________________________
Cameron, you nailed it. The GOP basically told Tavis and African-Americans thinking about the ReThug party to go Cheney themselves. So, there's no reason why African-Americans should ever consider the Republican Party for squat.
Shoot, if you watched Tavis' minstrel show back in February, former Lt. Gov Mike Steele basically dissed his party for failing to show up at Morgan State and talk about how they would have included Blacks in their visions for President.
They missed their "MLK/RFK" moment and will pay for it as long as their party exists.
Their attitude has, and always will be, "F-- them Niggers".
_
Government is an aid, not a crutch. And black folk shouldn't treat it as a crutch. That's for other people, and for corporations. They can get away with it. We can't.
Gotta be like the vietnamese, the chinese, the albanians, the somali and (yes, even... yes, especially) the illegals on this one -- in my opinion. The group's resources going back to the group should take precedence on depending upon the government to make things right.
Our community's biggest problem has come from mistrusting each other within the community; and stabbing one another in the back within the community; taking advantage of our black neighbor, our black relative within the community. Reflecting upon this, perhaps the biggest reason -- the absolute biggest reason -- all along as to why I personally despise how Hillary is running her campaign is less about her methods, may be that I have seen her bullshit mirrored too often within the black community. And those tactics fail the group as a whole even as it enriches the few. Meanwhile, those who are enriched believe (like Hillary) that they deserve to be enriched at the expense of those they fuck over.
Things aren't so different. It's all one beast. We need to be our own beast. Remember when the majority of businesses in black neighborhoods... actually had homes in black neighborhoods? were actually black?
I ask because is that on us, or is that on purpose?
If that's so, it's because Democrats let them.
I remember the Reagan years, even though I was a middle schooler. It blew my mind even then that Democrats had a MAJORITY, but all the blame was placed on Reagan for what occurred during those years. I went along with it, because I grew up in a household where I could study maps of the precinct, the district, and all the other campaign stuff my father would lay out as an active party member doing his part for the party within the community. I went along with it, but it never really made sense to me.
Fast forward to the Clinton years. Clinton fails on some major issues he should have had help from the majority Democrat Congress..... and the Republicans mount a strong Contract with America and win. So it becomes the Republicans fault all over again, in spite of those earliest years when the majority Democrats in Congress should have helped Clinton. I didn't think about the problem because I was still the 'good Democrat'.
But I'm thinking about it now.
Now Democrats have a numerical majority, with the nation's first (white) female Speaker of the House. It's groovy. The nation made a statement on the Bush years and on the Iraq war through the Democrat party. That's fine. What's been accomplished?
Apparently, the official word is that it's still Republicans fault. I'm through with that, Anonymous. Democrats need to stop blaming the other guy; just as Republicans need to stop blaming Democrats. Everybody needs to move past that, past partisan blame.
There's a real issue at blame here, and it may not have anything to do with party affiliation. THAT'S what needs to be rooted out.
Thank you for coming in. I have a lot of thoughts on what you've posted in response to replies. But I'm glad you've made it here. Perhaps you can do more guest blogs on occasion? It's not for me to ask, though. It's just nice to see folks come in who have been featured.
Sincerely,
Nita
You are a liberal(or I guess it's progressive now) who just happens to be black. Are all blacks as liberal as you? Maybe, maybe not. Some may be pro-life, some may support the war, some may be against gay marriage, may own a gun, support school choice, are anti-illegal immigration or own a small business. Do they truly feel comfortable being Democrats?
How do individuals who happen to be black feel about the issues that confront us? I don't know.
There only seems to be 'the black community.'
Individuals can be intimidated into going along with the 'black community' or risk being labeled a 'sell out', 'uncle Tom' 'House Negro' etc, simply because they may disagree with the 'black community.'
The Democrat Party does not promote individualism, nor tolerate dissent or independent thought. It airs the grievances and makes concessions to various groups of 'victims'. The party is bound by 'victimhood' and the promise of rescue by the elites in power, both black and white.
Blacks should be free to choose, liberal, conservative, or independent, free from fear of intimidation by the 'black community.'
Has the Democrat party truly served everyone so well as to deserve you unwaivering support?
And how will you feel if Hillary becomes the nominee?
But, at the same time, can anyone say what the DNC has done for blacks, other than lie for votes, and, then have the gall of the tag teaming Clinton's to tell you that you aren't smart enough to pick the right candidate in a primary?
This country needs a viable third party, the two dinosaurs GOP and DNC are totally out of touch with the real needs of real Americans.
Peace.
WTF!
But New Orleans was corrupt before Katrina. Poor Ray Nagin had to switch parties -- from Republican to Democrat -- in order to be electable enough to sweep out the corruption within New Orleans' deeply Democrat political system. And from what I remember, Nagin was succeeding, pre-Katrina. Nagin was succeeding. Bush and Chertoff and crew screwed up Katrina. Screwed it up monumentally. Did it intentionally. But so did the Democrats, pre-Katrina, because backstabbing and taking for one's self was more important than taking care of the community's needs present and future.
I am not going to be pulled into partisan games (if I can help it) of demonizing people based on the letter behind their name, anymore.
And symphony, I agree with you about manipulation.
@ronnie b, you're right, Republicans don't want us, are not looking to kiss our ass in the same way Republicans kissed the ass of (and outright lied to) evangelicals, and if we arrived at the gate many would gleefully ignore us while taking our votes. oh well. that doesn't mean going back to the Democrats.
@ angela, i saw that about mccain. the fact remains that the mccain aide did it in the first place. it's not acceptable from hillary. it's not acceptable from mccain. mccain doesn't get to be the 'good guy' by sacrificing members of his own campaign in order to big up himself.
he pulled the same shit on that dj who mocked obama's middle name (the dj claims that mccain's campaign encouraged him, before mccain used the opportunity to backstab him). he's as bad as hillary. mccain is just allowed to get away with it. and that ain't right.
" What other information is given about the security breach? who took the information, and why? someone planning to protest, or someone planning to kill him"?
-----------------------------------
That's what I'm talking about! You know "Sean Hannity had on his web-site that he believed someone would assassinate Barack"! He has now taken it down! This is outrage!
If nothing else, they've prevented the Republicans form having a completely free hand in this country. If the DEMS had done nothing at all, a lot of us wouldn't even be here talking about who we are and aren't going to vote for, beacuse a lot of us wouldn't have the right to vote. It would have been taken away- again.
Folks are talking about security breaches against Clinton back in the 92 race because someone was trying to find information about what he was doing in the 60s. That kind of information. So we'll still need to see if it's about planning something for the future; or attacking Obama through his past. Also, who those two aids were double-agenting for also needs to be revealed. That information was important to someone.
You can bet someone paid for the breach. Who's trying to go out like Nixon? because whoever did it needs to be barred from politics for life. Who's going to be our Bernstein and Woodard?
also, at Free Republic they've got a photo of Clinton and Pastor Wright from the 90s, and they think the Clintons orchestrated this shit in spite of knowing Pastor Wright and his message and not having a problem with it then.... in order to hurt Obama. Echoes of Rezko. But who knows. Anybody can get invited to the white house, as Poppy Bush found out when it came to Eazy.
(and now I'm thinking of the tragedy of DMX's XXL interview) What are Democrats doing to ensure that people's rights are resecured once they've paid their debt to society? why should permanent disenfranchisement for felony offenses be a state issue, and less important than stupid flag burning?
When it happened to Bill Clinton back in 1992---Bush Sr. was in office! This crap makes you wonder!
"You can bet someone paid for the breach. Who's trying to go out like Nixon? because whoever did it needs to be barred from politics for life".
What if...
When Governor Blanco sent the disaster declaration to the White House on August 26, 2005, it was incumbent on the federal government to act.
When the federal government got that disaster declaration, it was their responsibilty to act, and they did not.
The federal governmet had to be SHAMED into acting.
And since the Bush Administration were staffing those organizations
that would deal with the disaster and its aftermath (Department of Homeland Security/yeah, Brownie, Chertoff, I'm talking about YOU), yeah, I'm blaming the Republicans.
-Nita, I believe that Nagin, Blanco, et al are not blameless concerning Hurricane Katrina.
My point is state resources couldn't handle the enormity of the disaster, the governor sent out the disaster declaration...the federal government was supposed to respond...and nothing happended, and people died because of that lack of response.
Once Obama is completely raked through the coals (which is the plan) by either McCain and/or Clinton, the nomination will go to Clinton.
Obviously MANY people will not be voting for Massa's wife Missus Clinton, so McCain will win.
McCain is ancient quite frankly so obviously he will pick a young/youngish running mate. Would not be surprised if for some reason he doesn't complete his term (bad health, etc). So the Republic VP will be come President and voila the right will have the person they wanted in the first place in office.
So be sure to pay attention to who McCain picks as his running mate....
___________
Nita @2:22, you gave me the words for what I was feeling. Plus, hillary (and black folks who do the same thing...) think nobody sees that shit.
I see it, it's the 'crab in a barrel' mentality that my daddy always talked about.
Now as for FEMA and New Orleans, Bush appointed dude who ran the Arabian Horse Association to run FEMA.
What the hell did he know from emergencies?!?!
I would like to beg your pardon. It’s this type of thinking - AAs want to live off the government - that makes me want to puke. I could never be a part of that type of thinking. All we want is respect and a government that provides for us in a fair, just and civil manner just as it would and does for white Americans. These provisions are unspoken but understood. AAs want a government that is not full of representatives that have and would deny us the right to vote, deny equal funding to our school systems, deny basic rights and through our legal and judicial system devise elaborate schemes to maintain the status quo. All while focusing their attention and the nation’s resources on personal and special interests that serve only a small percentage - really you stupid mofo, do I need to go any further!
I have some conservative views; however, I can’t ever see myself joining a party where it has been made clear I am not wanted or needed. I also can’t see myself a part of a party that includes Pat Buchanan and George Bush and Lord knows how many other segregationists and racists.
IMO the AAs who are currently associated with the Republican Party are for a couple of reasons:
1) Financial reasons – There are some AAs who have achieved a level of success that requires that they support the policies of the Republicans that benefit them financially, even though the very members of their party inserted the road blocks that would attempt to deny them the success they achieved.
2) Superiority Vindication – They have a need to be included and not viewed as a typical AA given that they have found a way succeed in spite of policies that would have denied them. It’s the old I’m not like them. The need to be accepted and deemed superior for their achievements.
It’s a sad and sick affair.
Sarah Palin is a figure head too although I doubt she knows it .
Reality CHECK REPUBLICANS
WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK, ME AND A LOT OTHER NON-BLACKS VOTED FOR HIM BECAUSE HE REPRESENTED CHANGE. IN FACT, HE SPENT A LOT OF THE YEAR TRYING TO CATCH UP TO HILLARY CLINTON WHO WAS GETTING THE BLACK VOTE IN JULY IF YOU REMEMBER .
I agree with your theory. I've thought all through this campaign about why the Republicans would offer the choices they did and decide on an embattled, old McCain.
At first, I thought they probably just let him have it so he could have his last change when they knew they weren't going to win.
Your theory is plausible though.