Gingrich's NAACP, Food Stamp Remarks Stir Controversy

I can't imagine why the idiot might think he offended the African American community. Especially when only a little over 21% of those on food stamps are black

 

I actually agree with Newt here in his frustration over the outrage. The full context of his statement was:


The fact is if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple — food stamps versus paychecks. Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history.

Now there's no neighborhood I know of in America where if you went around and asked people, would you rather your children had food stamps or paychecks, you wouldn't end up with a majority saying they'd rather have a paycheck.

And so I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I'll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African-American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span.

It wasn't an attack on minorities - it was an attack on Obama. I disagree with his premise but it was a pretty standard GOP political attack on the President. Newt believes his policies would be better for minorities - which, factually, have a high rate of being on welfare - than the President's.

That said, here's a good article on the controversy:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-newt-and-the-naacp-anyway.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

The part that I think is important is that Newt talks about this issue often, though in strange ways at times:


Newt’s comments about the poor African Americans hit on a basic theme: that liberal policies have failed to raise them out of poverty and that Newt will explain to them how his Republican policies are preferable. At a dinner in Baltimore this summer, Newt explained to a largely white audience that the Republican message had not reached poor minority communities. “But we have to have the courage to walk into that neighborhood, to talk to that preacher, to visit that small business, to talk to that mother. And we have to have a convincing case that we actually know how to create jobs,” he said. “The morning they believe that, you’re going to see margins in percents you never dreamed of decide there’s a better future…I will bet you there is not a single precinct in this state in which the majority will pick for their children food stamps over paychecks.”

I agree with all of that. The GOP does need to make a better case to minorities of why their economic policies might work for them - instead, they have written off that vote. Similarly, Dems need to better make their case why their policies are good for social conservatives. But everyone just focuses on the friendly vote rather than the hostile vote. The article touches on Newt's problem though, as well:


For all Newt’s apparent bafflement, the reason the NAACP is miffed is clear. Newt is not talking to the black community; he is employing stereotypes about that community to talk to white audiences. (He’s not alone here, the NAACP put out a statement Thursday when Rick Santorum did the exact same thing.) Even if Newt does visit the NAACP, the underlying point is not reaching the black community, it’s about appealing to white voters with a characterization of the black community as dependent on welfare. The NAACP is being used as a foil to appeal to white voters with Republican talking points about welfare, dependency, and the failures of their community.

On one hand, that is a fair criticism. Newt doesn't try to talk to those groups. But as mentioned earlier, that's a standard that no candidate meets. No candidate from either party goes into truly hostile territory where 90% of the people are opposed to you. It sucks, but that's the way it is. So I think it's good that Newt is trying to open that dialogue and create that bridge. But he's only doing it halfway, and that's just not going to work. If he's going to speak like that, he has to go the whole way and actually go into those communities and have the conversations instead of just talking about being willing to do it.

 

While true, the stats are a bit misleading. 21% are also "race unknown". Of the 80% where race is known, it essentially breaks down to:

52% White
33% Black
15% Hispanic

But our population is 63% White, 16% Hispanic, and 12% Black, so that would be your "expected" ratios, if everything were equal. And in the larger context of what he was saying, he was talking about people that don't listen to GOP economic ideas. White people in poverty already listen to GOP ideas and vote Republican. The reason to go into black communities is because there is a high incidence of poverty and GOP has neglected their vote, and he wants to convince that group to listen to GOP ideas. There are plenty of other reason that the black community doesn't vote Republican, but I do appreciate Newt at least trying to make the argument. But here's again where he makes a bad Presidential candidate. These are things you can discuss on a message board or in a think tank, but it's hard in a sound-bite-snippet world of Presidential politics.

 

The point is he is implying that a segment of our population is lazy and only looking for a government handout (from someone who is black like them ("the food stamp president")) instead of a job and being self-sufficient. It’s a dog whistle to the racists and tea party.

 

Major, you have to understand, all Republicans are assumed to be racist until proven otherwise.

 

Nope, the point he was making was he would make the case to the NAACP that just because Obama is black doesn't mean his actions are in your best interests. Obama shouldn't be supported blindly because of his race.

Basically the exact opposite of racism.

 

Democrats and Clinton in particular could (and probably should) say stuff like this because people assume theyd empathize, relate and/or actually "work with" the affected poor, urban communities to find a "solution." Gingrich and other Republicans just sound like grumpy dads, or naive and detached like Haley Barbour: claiming to be friends with that black girl at Ole Miss back in the sixties.

 

Oh, please. This was a major dog whistle. If he truly wanted to make a point about food stamps, there are a lot of ways to go but he chooses to call out the NAACP and goes into a riff about African-Americans. This accomplished two things:

1. It is another example of the we vs. them that has been so prevalent in Repub rhetoric over the last 50 years. Sure, he uses enough weasly words like no neighborhood I know of in America to establish plausible deniability in some minds, but what that phrase really does is set his base against the NAACP and the people they represent because his base has such a warped view of the idea of America. This is the basic message of "those undeserving people take your money." Complete and utter BS and par for the course in the Republican Party Nixon and Reagan built. "We may cut the benefits that you as a deserving, hard-working American receive, but those black people will be hurt more, so it is all good."

Atwater nailed it, which is not surprising as he was one of the primary instigators, but he also underestimated the abstract. When you have a whole culture of mega-churches, talk radio, Fox News, etc. making it clear what the dog whistle words are, it becomes much less abstract than Atwater thought. They've trained the audience and this is exactly what Newt was taking advantage of... whether it was a conscious ploy or whether this is so ingrained in him that it seeps out doesn't really matter. It is what it it and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

2. He also plays on the wingnut meme that African-Americans are being ill-served by their institutions (NAACP) and by extension, the Democratic Party. This is another form of the we vs. them but more nuanced. We're smart enough to think for ourselves while those people are too stupid to do anything but follow the people that want to oppress them. Notice how Newt sets himself up as the champion, willing to walk into the Lion's Den to serve the truth and once again free African-Americans from the oppression, as if the NAACP wants everyone on food stamps? This is an absurd combination of ego and racism wrapped in a pandering package.

And yes, I know Newt. I've met the man twice. When I worked on The Hill, I dated one of his staffers for a bit. When I lived in Georgia for 5 years, he was my congressman. I followed him closely and no other post-1970's politician has so used calculated racial rhetoric so repulsively and taken such delight in doing so.

If you think his words illuminate some great problem in the US, that's fine. Maybe it does. But I would bet both of my daughter's college tuition and my retirement money that his intention was much more base and that any policy questions raised are done so either as an afterthought or as a rationalization.

 

I'll also say that it would be hard for Gingrich to dispassionately discuss food stamps or any government aid program and the reasons we are where we are without confronting the idea that a large group of his base is in the same category as African-Americans. This clearly would not do and is another reason why you see the immediate and intentional tie to African-Americans.

 

He is not trying to open up that dialogue at all. If anything, it is just the opposite.

And really, if you are running for President of the United States, why would you view any group as hostile territory? You're not going to sell out and adopt whatever policy positions they want, but you also shouldn't view them as hostile.

And isn't it interesting that the NAACP is thought of as hostile to Republicans? I think it is more that the modern Republican party is hostile to the NAACP. Is there an equivalent on the Democratic side? Is there a minority group that is hostile to Dems? Maybe Cuban-Americans in Miami, but that is about Castro and warped views of anti-communism more than race. Kind of telling that you can name more than the NAACP on the Repub side huh?

 

It is true that the stingiest welfare state among wealthy nations that we have in America has failed to pull much of the the lower class out of poverty. The reason is because it is so stingy. Free education, child care, health care and higher welfare checks do the trick as seen in Germany and Sweden for instance.

Bare subsistence without child care, and free education and health care for instance is not sufficient to raise the lower class out of poverty. Only the toughest and strongest physically and psychologically of the lower class can do so with bare minimum assistance. Pretty obvious if you don't have blinders.

PS we are not poorer than Western Europe so we can afford it.

 

White males (technically a minority group)? In the last presidential election, McCain took this demo by a huge margin, and that was with the economic collapse. Now, white males don't go 95% for one party consistently like black voters do, but Republicans will generally take this block by a significant 15+ point margin. I believe Obama got 41% of the white male vote, and that was considered a stunning success.

 

He never said either of these things - and if you look at the context of the statement and his statements on this topic in the past, it's clear that's not what his intent was either.

He's saying (right or wrong) that Democrats provide the black community with food stamps - and they should demand more. He's basically saying that Dems aren't serving their interests, and the GOP would by creating jobs. Nowhere is he saying that black people are lazy or that black people want handouts.

Again - the portion of his base that is in that category (poor white people) already votes Republican. He doesn't say he needs to go into those communities and convince them Democrats suck because they already believe that Democrats suck. His whole thing is trying to convince Republicans that they can or need to try win the black vote by showing why Dems don't serve their interests.

Evangelical Christians are probably the best comparison of a group on the other side. They voted 75% for McCain and 80% for Bush.

 

With all due respect Major, I think you are being a bit naive here.

Not only is he saying it, he's implying the "food stamp president" is one of them.

 

No, it is not. He has no interest in reaching out to blacks and the only reason he's talking about how Dems don't represent blacks is to couch the racism while making the Repubs feel better about themselves. The justification and rationalization is that it's not the African-Americans, it's those people at the Democratic Party and their minions at the NAACP who are responsible. In reality, it is the African-Americans and the people who represent them. This is the political equivalent of "I have a black friend."

 

Major

I appreciate you being open minded but this is an obvious dog whistle.

new compassionate conservatism, terrible economy for poor and middle class, less reduce the rich's tax burden.