|
September 26, 2007
"collective slap in the face"?
I have not been taking the Republican debates as seriously as I perhaps should. Something about the lineup and the forum has struck me as ridiculous from the start, and it annoys me that these debates are being held so long before the election that no one will remember them. Notwithstanding my concerns, I agreed to cover tomorrow night's GOP debate at Morgan State University in Maryland. Naturally, I assumed that all or most of the candidates would be there. So it was a bit of a shocker to read this editorial by Robert Cox: One by one, the four leading candidates for the Republican nomination for president have announced they will not participate. This is not only a strategic mistake for these campaigns but also a major embarrassment for the Republican Party.It's not just Kanye West. Here's Bob Herbert, writing in yesterday's New York Times: I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I'd really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.So, it turns out that what I'm supposed to cover is a slap in the face to black voters. I should try to keep my sense of humor, I guess. Hey, it's more than the gay voters got, which was a big fat zero. (Bear in mind that Bush got 25% of the gay vote, which was considerably more than the black vote.) Joe Gandelman criticizes the GOP as the "no show" party, and notes they're running away from the Latino vote as well. Maybe the message is "when you're slapped in the face, you'll take it, and like it!" I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it's always bad politics to appear to insult any group of people. On the other hand, identity politics can get crazy in a way that even single issue politics can't. To illustrate, suppose the NRA hosted a debate, and billed it as a focus on issues of interest to gun owners. Candidates who failed to show could fairly be judged as unfriendly to the NRA's goals. Similarly, if a major anti-abortion or anti-immigration organization held a debate, one could judge the candidates' position on those issues. But when you move from there to a larger organization said to be speaking for a group of people sharing characteristics which are not inherently political, who gets to say what those positions should be, and who gets to speak for whom? If the N.O.W. hosted a debate, and Republicans failed to show, would they be slapping all women in the face? Or only supporters of N.O.W.? It gets complicated. But all of these concerns aside, I think that from a political perspective, it is very poor judgment on the part of Republicans to not attend tomorrow night. Quite astutely, James Joyner criticizes the Republicans as too cowardly to make a principled argument against identity politics: citing "scheduling conflicts" is a rather lame way of excusing these snubs. The Democratic candidates all managed to fit it into their schedule with far less advanced notice; indeed, this date was selected after agreement of all the major Republican candidates (except perhaps Thompson, who wasn't officially in the race at the time). It would have been far better to take the stand that they're only going to debate American issues, not "hypenated American" issues. Simply rejecting the whole notion of segmenting the debates as if there are presidents of Gay America or Black America or White America would have been a far more courageous position -- and one consistent with Republican principles.Back to Robert Cox: Broadcast live nationally on PBS-owned stations, as well as live and on tape delay on PBS affiliates and on NPR, the All-American Forum represents a unique opportunity for Republicans to do something they have claimed to want for many years -- a chance to speak directly with black Americans -- and all Americans for that matter -- on issues of race without the filter of self-appointed black leaders or black organizations beholden to the Democratic Party.It should be interesting. posted by Eric on 09.26.07 at 08:45 AM
Comments
A mistake, I agree. But not a big one. They are not showing up because they are afraid, they are not showing up because it really doesn't matter. If I (as a candidate) was to show up, I think I would say something along the lines of "The reason many of my competitors didn't show up is because they figured, "Why bother? They won't vote for me or my party anyway." Until the Black Voting Block shows that it isn't a Democratic Plantation, I think it is quite understandable for the GOP to ignore it. Bush made a real and sustained effort to peel off some, but got less then nothing to show for it. Smashmaster · September 26, 2007 12:04 PM It makes sense for Republicans to debate in front of an audience that is likely to vote Republican; the question then is _which_ Republican will the audience vote for. It makes little sense to debate in front of an audience this is extremely unlikely to vote for _any_ Republican. Too much downside risk, very little potential gain. Art · September 26, 2007 12:50 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"He just manages to find the buttons to push."
"collective slap in the face"? Too Much Liberty Language tools The Elements Bought And Paid For Does it take a "real man" to change a tire? (Puh-leez!) Don't be a wuss over Clinton's puss! gays, haircuts, nooses. some denial required. my preference is your choice!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
From what I have seen of Republicans participating in forums that are allegedly focused on 'black' issues, it seems that they are only there to serve as punching bags. Recall Bush visiting the NAACP. Not only are they treated rudely, but with open contempt and hostility. It looks to me as though black 'leaders' are not interested in dialog, but concern themselves exclusively to a 'what can you do for me' attitude. While there are some blacks that are true leaders, they are marginalized and treated with contempt by the spokesmen for the community. People like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and others deserve to be heard, but are routinely trashed by the black 'leadership' - Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the the rest of the hustlers.
I'm sure all these Republican candidates would be intensely interested in genuine dialog with the black community, but I certainly haven't seen the slightest indication that the black community is interested in reciprocating in any meaningful way. Until they are, it's all just a big waste of time, and I don't blame the candidates for saying, 'Thanks, but no thanks.'
Too me, the attitude of what I perceive to be the majority of black Americans was summed up by a lady caught up in Katrina in New Orleans. 'I want to know what they're going to do for me.' she wailed on CNN. It apparently never crossed her mind, either before or after the event,to ask, 'What can I do for myself?'
To perpetuate the condemnation of an entire class of people to this sort of helpless dependence is unconscionable, but that is precisely what is being demanded by those who continually push for attendance to the so-called 'black issues'. There are genuine black issues that should be addressed - black on black crime, high violent crime rates, low graduation rates, out of wedlock children and the attendant fatherless homes and more - but not many people are very interested in talking about them.