Very interesting article The white people’s party Here’s a safe political prediction. Even if Democrats’ wildest dreams come true, even if they win next year’s presidential election, President George W. Bush will win a solid majority of white people’s votes. How do I know that? Because Republicans always win the white vote for president. The last time Democrats carried a majority of the white vote was in 1964, when this was a vastly different world. Most black people in the South then still weren’t allowed to vote, and most people living today hadn’t yet been born. Though their leaders would deny this publicly, that’s when the deal went down and the Republican Party became the white people’s party, and has been so ever since. Republicans won’t say this, of course, because overt racism is no longer socially acceptable, at least among voters who bathe regularly. But if you want to really understand how politics works in this country, you have to understand this. That doesn’t mean all Republican voters are racist or fully aware of what is happening. They aren’t. But the naked truth is that theirs is, again, partly by accident, mostly by design, the white people’s party. How did this all happen? Republicans always have been mostly the party of the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots," at least since Abraham Lincoln was shot. But for a long time, because of Lincoln and the virulent racism of Southern Democrats, Republicans competed for what black votes there were. That all changed for good in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson committed his party to the support of civil rights for African-Americans. Barry Goldwater, that year’s Republican presidential candidate, opposed a major civil rights bill. Immediately, blacks deserted his party forever. And the Deep South became Republican. Long-term, that was the shrewdest political bargain in history. Republicans now command a huge bloc of electoral votes almost automatically. Virulent racism is out. Subtle understanding is in. In terms of domestic policy the GOP’s main purpose, never publicly stated, is to make white, middle-class citizens feel comfortable and secure. And many, probably most of American whites feel most comfortable when they are away from blacks. Want proof? The higher the black population of a state, the more likely its white residents are to vote Republican. In states like Vermont and Washington, where there are few African-Americans, more whites voted for Gore than Bush. But in Mississippi and Alabama, which have the nation’s highest black percentages, Gore got less than one out of every four white votes. This pattern has persisted for many years. Yes, the last Republican convention had blacks and Hispanics prominently on display as window dressing. But that is all that they were, other than a way to make socially aware voters feel better about the Republicans. When Election Day came, Al Gore won the virtually unanimous support of African-American voters everywhere in the country. He also won something like three-quarters of the Hispanic vote, except for Florida’s Cubans, and high percentages of other minorities. Bush won white voters by a closer margin, something like 52 percent to 45 percent. Whites, however, make up such an overwhelming majority of voters that Bush ran almost even in the popular vote, getting him close enough to "win" the election. Incidentally, all this had very little to do with Bush and Gore themselves. The same thing happens every election, with variations only in how large a minority of whites vote Democratic — and whether minorities care enough to vote. Gore also lost the white vote in Michigan, by the way. But it was close enough that minorities made the difference. Eventually, however, the population experts tell us that whites will be in a minority. Does this mean that, long-term, the white people’s party is doomed to failure? Maybe — and maybe not. Everything depends on how we define "white people." Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Birmingham Temple, likes to observe that "before World War II, I wasn’t sure I was ‘white.’ Now, I am." There are even a few blacks who qualify as token white people, like Colin and Condoleeza; highly educated ones, who have higher-status jobs and behave in a middle-class way. Even now, a small number of these are opting to become Republican, mainly as a career move; Jeffrey Collins, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, is an example. But these are at best curiosities, with little or no measurable political clout. The real future battleground will be the rapidly swelling Hispanic population. Within a few decades, they are likely to be key to political power in this nation. Getting fluent in Spanish, therefore, wouldn’t be a bad idea. Incidentally, Bush already is. California earthquake: Politically, the only thing anyone is paying attention to these days is the recall mess in California, which is to democracy what a train wreck is to transportation. Most people clearly believe Gov. Gray Davis, re-elected only a few months ago, is an appalling failure. If so, he should resign, or the Legislature should toss him, and the lieutenant governor replace him. Instead, the state has opted for something like anarchy. They’re having an Oct. 7 referendum where voters will be asked if they want to kick him out, and at the same time choose one of more than 100 candidates to replace him. This will be highly expensive, but the result is already clear. Davis, of course, will lose his job. Given the chance, voters will usually say "no" to any politician. When they have to decide whether Brand X or Brand Y can do a better job, that’s something different. That’s called democracy. But this is about frustration and entertainment. So Davis will be dispatched, and Californians will almost certainly elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. Acting is a major industry, and he has enormous name recognition. They elected Ronald Reagan, after all. Will any of the coverage focus on whether he has any ability to do the job? Let’s see. by Jack Lessenberry http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=5284
the article doesn't say that. he says some blacks qualify as token white by their status. I find that statement unnecessary and pejorative, and thought it diminished his point and made him seem more shrill and less reasonable. but regarding the message of the article: it says that whites vote overwhelmingly in the Republican party for president since 1964, the year in which the Democratic party split because of its support for civil rights, and that since that bellweather event, blacks have largely voted for the Democratic nominee while whites have voted largely for the Republican nominee
I don't know if the original statement is true, but your's is not. Let's say the split is 70% white and 30% minority. If the white majority is closely split, say 55-45 (or closer), and the minority is highly split, say 80-20, then Democrats could win.
I suppose the only acceptable profiling these days would be towards the Republican party; if so, color this hispanic white. Hmm, looks like I'm a "coconut", white on the inside, brown on the outside.
I was going to point that out, and also the conclusion supposes that all demographics contribute the same percentage of their population base to the voting group. That may be true, I don't know, but unless giddy knows differently it was a faulty basis for conclusion. That said, I don't know how to take this overall argument, or what it means. Among the things I would be interested in learning are how large the margin is, has been, etc. WHat the trend has been among other demographics, and similar.
Another view... Rice proves diversity exists -- even among conservatives Gregory Kane -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally published Aug 9, 2003 DALLAS - Those at the National Association of Black Journalists who stood and gave National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a standing ovation Thursday were few and far between in the Landmark Ballroom of this city's downtown Hyatt Regency Hotel. Rice strode into the ballroom after Gwen Ifill of PBS introduced her. There were no boos, catcalls or jeers as the audience applauded, but there wasn't the thunderous, almost unanimous standing ovation given another NABJ speaker seven years ago. It was in 1996 that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan spoke at the NABJ convention in Nashville, Tenn. Farrakhan graciously accepted his welcome - worthy of a conquering hero - and then proceeded to excoriate his worshipers as a bunch of spineless wusses. The cause of his dudgeon was his curious belief that black journalists should stop being journalists and act as his press agents simply because they're black. But don't think the conventioneers turned ice-cold and gave Farrakhan no applause when he was done. The streak of masochism among some black folks runs much too deep for that. Many in the audience gave the Nation of Islam leader a standing ovation as volcanic as the one he received when he entered the hall. There are several reasons for the different receptions given the two. Farrakhan is the fiery black nationalist leader constantly challenging racism and white supremacy of both the real and perceived variety. His "blackness" is never challenged within Afro-America. Rice is the deliberate and erudite black conservative. She works in the administration of a white, conservative Republican president. No black woman before her has attained a position as high as national security adviser. That achievement garners more contempt than respect among some in black America. For some African-Americans - this didn't seem to apply to many at this convention, thank heavens - Rice is one of those who is painted with the less-than-endearing terms that are reserved for black conservatives - among them, sellout and traitor. Some have even questioned how "black" Rice is. Heaven knows what folks have to do to qualify as "black." Apparently being born in segregationist Alabama in 1954 and enduring the horrors of racism doesn't get Rice enough points to join the "black" club. "Like many of you," Rice said late in her address Thursday, "I grew up around the home-grown terrorists of the 1960s. The bombing of the church in Birmingham in 1963 is one that will forever be in my memory, because one of the little girls who died was a friend of mine. Forty years removed from that tragedy, I can honestly say that Denise McNair and the others didn't die in vain." Ummm. Sounds black enough to me, but the "blackologists" proliferating in Afro-America won't be satisfied. They're probably the same ones who believe former heavyweight boxing champion Joe Frazier, who grew up poor and fighting racism in South Carolina, wasn't black enough, while fervently believing that former champ Muhammad Ali was. Maybe it's Rice's patriotism and unswerving loyalty to America that has the blackologists scampering around with their noses out of joint. The national security adviser's speech was peppered with references to America as a land where freedom and opportunity reign. Rice said that President Bush was trying to create in the Middle East "a balance of power that favors freedom." True, Rice on this day sounded as if she were giving a campaign speech for Bush. In addition to extolling America as a free country - and it is - Rice put in plugs for the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Such support is what, in the eyes of the blackologists, makes her a sell-out. If she is, so were the blacks who fought for this country in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, the Spanish-American War, both world wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war and those now fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can throw in the Buffalo Soldiers, who fought valiantly in the Indian wars. But if those soldiers and their exploits were left out of the history books, it would be the blackologists who would scream racism and bloody murder. If Bush had no blacks in his Cabinet - instead of Rice as the first African-American national security adviser and Colin Powell as the first African-American secretary of state - the blackologists would moan that Bush wasn't practicing diversity. Diversity isn't just for liberal whites who want to promote or hire liberal blacks. Conservatives - they come in all races, since ideas themselves have neither color nor ethnicity - have a right to have a crack at diversity. It would just be nice if African-Americans in a conservative administration didn't have to pass the black test. http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.kane09aug09,0,5332468.column
Well you're correct that it's divisive at least. But to pretend that such a charge cannot be leveled at the party that willingly made Willie Horton a household name is foolish. Further, I don't know how you can do so in the face of empirical evidence: in voting patterns: suburban whites tend to favor republicans, blacks abhor them. That's for a reason, you know. People generally vote their own interest.
"overwhelmingly" was probably a bad word how about "decisively"? Bush lost every group except whites. Lost blacks and hispanics big time. Won big among white men. About broke even on white women. I'm sure the numbers are out there, although I haven't seen them in a while. there is nothing new in the observation that white men are the core of the Republican party, and the continuing status of guys like Trent Lott in the party, and the loss of the ONLY black congressman because he could see he had no future speak volumes.
Posted by Zion: He is??? Fluent? I haven´t heard him speak spanish, but come on. He´s hardly fluent in english. Maybe that was harsch but is he really fluent in spanish??
If a party consistently getting more votes of a race makes those who vote for that party racist, wouldn't that make Democrats far more racist as the splits are much wider among minorities supporting democrats than whites supporting republicans?
Oversimplification of cause/effect their pard. No offense, but taken any statistics classes? 1) A key requirement to your hypothesis would be 'all other factors (other than race) are equal'. They are not. Differences in voting could also correlate with other sociodemographic factors, no? 2) Further, to make the leap that this voting then implies that the motivation is to make 'white, middle-class citizens feel comfortable and secure' (obviously at the expense of minorities) comical. More may just be concerned with keeping the government out of their bank accounts. Others may be Republican because of the religious right, or because they want a stronger military. There are many other issues to contrast the parties. - - - And just because we here have to read crap like 'And many, probably most of American whites feel most comfortable when they are away from blacks.', I'll mention that my wife and I were a little disappointed in our neighborhood until some black neighbors moved in.
You are right. A better name than "the white people´s party" would be "the oppressor´s party". White men have most of the power and wealth. They vote for "their" party to keep it that way.
As opposed to having the Democratic Party, where white men have most of the power and wealth - with minorities in bottom tertiary positions - voting to keep the status quo... By this line of reasoning, at least one party is quite a bit less duplicitous for whom they really serve.
We're a capitalist and democratic society. You can't just "keep" yourself rich and in power without working for it. "white people are oppressors" <---winning slogan for the Democrats! take it away, Al Sharpton!
That´s what I was saying. If a minority of the people have a majority of the wealth and power. They keep things that way by oppressing the rest. They do all they can to not make it look like that, but that´s still what it is.
