I agree with those that say that not all Republicans are racist, but reasons exist for people to think that Republicans don't serve the minority constituency very well, or that they aren't concerned with it. Reagan's opposition to sanctions against South Africa, which was luckily thwarted by congress is one reason. Those kind of policies could make people believe that Republicans are more concerned with corporate profits, than with justice for minorities. It's high profile examples like this that tend overshadow other more unbiased examples.
AB: I don't think poor white voters vote against Republicans for the same reason that black voters do. 1) You introduced economic status into it. Blacks vote Democratic across all economic levels. 2) The appeals to poor white voters are different than those made to black voters. It's not the same thing. As to your question, it doesn't affect my principles at all. I think poor white voters would benefit by electing Republicans, the same way I think black voters-- hell, all voters-- would.
There is an element of the old school addressed in your posts. Generally blacks are more progressive that most give us credit. Cool perspective, you're obviously a smart guy. Although I tend to disagree.
It seems obvious to most of us (i think) that in both parties there is a wide spread of differing opinions (moderate democrat - communist/anarchists; moderate republican - religious right/libertarian anarchists). But the Right has a very vocal contingent who are openly racist like Pat Buchanan and Jerry Faldwell, (and David Duke?). Certainly its not fair to label all Republicans the same, but the perception is not a suprise. At the same time, the Republicans do NOT publicly condemn the Buchanans of their party as RACISTS which undoubtably contributes to the perception that to be Republican is to be racist.
I've had the good fortune of working with a very large number of African American people on elections over the past two years. In both cases, they were essentially 99 percent Democrat. However, I think only the most extreme of them thought Republicans were racist. They didn't like Republicans because they felt their needs were not being addressed. However, their needs were not just "black" needs. Most of the needs they wanted to see addressed were the needs of those who were impoverished. About 14 percent of Americans live below the "official" poverty line which is just over $13,000 for a family of THREE. That line was set in the 1960's. Most researchers believe that the poverty line should be just less than twice that for a family of three, which seems more reasonable. Over 35 percent of Americans are among those considered officially "poor" (approximately $20K or under per family of three). In addition, the percentage of African Americans living among the working poor nearly 50 percent. By contrast, just about 1 percent of Americans are millionaires. Despite that, there is no question, based on policies, that Republicans are more wealth-friendly. Their policies of lowering taxes and cutting services, welfare reform, anti-universal healthcare, etc are troublesome for many poor people. The GOP is seen as not addressing many of the immediate needs of impoverished people. That is just the reality.
Trader, Was about to reply to yours when I read Jeff's. He said everything I'd have said. I should have put it differently. I should have said that the feeling among people of color is that the GOP is unresponsive to issues which matter to them, and that they have reason to feel that way. By the way, Latinos also vote Dem the vast majority of the time. The exception is Cuban-Americans in Florida. Particularly here in Texas demographics are shifting rapidly. Latinos are now the largest ethnic voting bloc in Houston and they vote overwhelmingly Dem when they vote. The exception is when the occasional Latino GOP candidate like Orlando Sanchez runs and the Latino population here is split between voting for a candidate of their race or one whom they believe will be most beneficial to people of their race. In the next mayoral election here, if Gabriel Vasquez gets in (and he probably will), you can expect him to take the majority of Latino votes -- he provides them with a candidate of their race that they can vote for without holding their noses.
Yes it's partly their seeming indifference to racism in this country. A few weeks ago the NAACP had a convention in Houston and according to Kweisi Mfume they have yet to be allowed a meeting with George W Bush to discuss issues important to them. Why can't the oldest civil rights organization in the country get time with the President?
Maybe it is because the NAACP is fairly radical and very anit-republican. I doubt Dubya has had a meeting with the New Black Panther Party for Self-defense either (granted they are quite a bit more extreme). Another reason is that they are advocates ONLY for a minority. I have never understood how such an organization is seen as okay. Shouldn't they be more inclusive, like the National Association for the Advancement of All People. You would never see a NAAWP, a LMV, or a NOM.
The NAACP probably likes the fact that Bush won't listen to them -- it just gives them another reason to complain. Actually when I think about it -- that's about all the NAACP does is complain, blame others and throw out incendiary remarks. It's definitely a tired act that isn't on Bush's radar screen when far more pressing issues demand attention.
So you think an organization that runs an ad accusing him of "killing James Byrd all over again" is worthy of the President's time? Really? Did you ever think that it may say more about the NAACP than it does about Bush? Nah, nevermind.
Yes they should stop complaining. They should also stop blaming others and making incendiary remarks. There is a difference between being constructive and doing the above.
I don't know what ad you're referring to so I can't comment. Yes I think the NAACP and civil rights are worthy of the President's time. REALLY.
Yessa massa. We'z gonna be quiet now. Perhaps if your Republican party constructively addressed the issues of poverty, racism, and disenfranchisement there would be less complaining. Your idea that minorities should just be quiet about issues that concern them is completely idiotic.
