Young Voters, the GOP, and Race

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arugments in Ricci v. DeStefano, an affirmative action case involving firefighters in New Haven. Beyond the policy arguments, Kristen gives us some more numbers and insight on race, a topic that is near and dear to my heart. -Matt Moon

Last week, I took a look at two issues where young voters tend to diverge with older voters. Traditional Republican messaging about the gay marriage and the perils of big government is quite different from the ways young voters tend to look at the issues and if the Republican Party wants to prevent a generation of voters from becoming solidly Democratic, they should assess both the policies and messages that are used to reach out to younger voters.

But beyond these two topics, the Republican Party is facing changing demographic forces that present a challenge to its long term growth. This is not a new notion, and I am obliged to give credit where due: Ruy Teixeira and John Judis' 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority looked at political and population trends and predicted that in 2008 these trends would come together produce a Democratic majority.

While I haven't looked extensively at whether or not Teixeira and Judis' predictions have come to pass (2008 Democratic victory aside), I can certainly agree that the racial makeup of young voters supports their conclusion. In short, young voters are less likely to be white than voters overall and are becoming increasingly more diverse. While 77% of voters overall in 2004 were white, only 68% of voters under age 30 were white. By 2008, that number was only 62%. Both African-Americans and Hispanics were found in higher proportions among young voters. In 2004, African-Americans made up 15% of young voters while making up 11% of voters overall; 13% of voters 18-29 were Hispanic compared to 8% of voters overall. By 2008 those numbers had increased, with African-Americans comprising 18% of voters 18-29 and with Hispanics comprising 14%.

So what does this mean for a Republican Party that has been branded (fairly or unfairly) as a party of "old white guys"? Put simply, the party cannot survive with this label attached. The recent demographic changes in the United States have been extraordinary; between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, the number of Hispanics in the United States increased from 22.4 million to 35.3 million, and increase of over 58%. In 1980, 80% of the population identified as white (non-Hispanic); by 2000, that number had fallen to 69% of the population. These changes have expressed themselves in the demographic makeup of the younger voting cohort. With future generations of voters less and less likely to be made up of overwhelming proportions white non-Hispanics, the issue of expanding the Republican Party's appeal to younger voters is inextricably linked with the issue of expanding the party's appeal to minority communities.

In addition to the makeup of the voters themselves, today's young voters have grown up in a society that handles race in a dramatically different way than previous generations. Take for instance college campuses across the United States. In October 1985, there were some 10,846,000 Americans enrolled in college, 9,323,000 of which were white and just over 1,000,000 were African-American. Hispanics made up 579,000 of those enrolled in college as well. By the 2000 Census, those numbers had exploded; just over 17.4 million Americans were enrolled in college and of those, about 11.6 million were white non-Hispanic, while another 1.9 million were Hispanic and 2.2 million were African American. While college enrollment overall was up by 62% in 2000 over 1985, enrollment among Hispanics had more than tripled and more than doubled for African-Americans.

Universities across the United States today boast more diverse student bodies than in decades prior and students in those institutions are far more likely to interact with people of other races and cultures than previous generations. A party that appears to be uninterested in the concerns of (or votes of) African-Americans or Hispanics does not only risk forfeiting a growing segment of the population (and educated population) as a whole. But as white students attend schools and universities with more diverse student populations, the needs and concerns of the African-American and Hispanic communities will not be the abstract concerns of a group of citizens with which they have little contact; quite the contrary, a generation more accustomed to a multicultural America will be likely to find a racially homogenous party to be out of touch. So long as the Republican Party appears inattentive to the needs and desires of minority communities, the Republican Party can be almost certain to retain its minority party status.

President George W. Bush appointed numerous African-Americans to his cabinet during his eight years in the White House - National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell to name some of the most prominent appointees. Yet despite the prominent placement of African-Americans in the Bush cabinet, no gains were made among African-American voters. The impact of the election of former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, an African-American, to the leadership of the Republican Party has yet to be seen. Indeed, Steele was largely derided early in his term for such statements as his expressed desire to take conservative principles and "to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings".

African-Americans and Hispanics need to be given reasons to believe that their concerns are being legitimately heard and addressed by the Republican Party. Republicans have had a great deal of success with the Hispanic vote in Florida (particularly the Cuban community) in the past in part as a result of the Republican Party's tough stance on Cuba. In the 2000 campaign,80% of Cubans in the state of Florida voted for George W. Bush, proving a key component of the victory in that state where a margin of 537 votes ostensibly handed Bush the Presidency. By authentically addressing a concern of a portion of the Hispanic community, Republicans helped to develop a credible base of support.

Yet the Republican Party continues to stumble in terms of its handling of the Hispanic and African-American communities. For instance, in late December 2008, candidate for RNC Chair Chip Saltsman, the former campaign manager for the Huckabee presidential campaign, distributed a CD of songs including a track entitled "Barack the Magic Negro", prompting outrage and a rather public and embarrassing moment for the Republican Party. Perhaps even more surprising, some leaders within the Republican Party rushed to Saltsman's aid as POLITICO ran a story with the headline "'Magic Negro' flap might help Saltsman".

Just a troubling is the perception that the GOP ignores minority communities; in 2007, the four major contenders for the Republican presidential nomination declined to attend a forum on issues relevant to the African-American community, and Univision had to cancel a discussion it planned when only McCain agreed to attend.

This incident is to say nothing of the damage to the Republican Party's standing among Hispanics that occurred as a result of the immigration debate that flared in the Summer of 2007; according to a Pew Research Center study, while in July of 2006 Democrats enjoyed only a 21 point party identification advantage among Hispanics, by December of 2007 that had widened out to a 34 point Democratic advantage, alongside a sharp increase in the importance of the immigration issue among Hispanics. In 2004, Bush lost Hispanic voter 44-53, a 9 point margin, yet by 2008, McCain lost Hispanics to Obama by a 36 point margin, garnering 31% of the Hispanic vote compared to the 67% that voted for Obama.Younger voters are more comfortable with immigration reform than are older voters. In a May 2008 New Models study, age was a significant factor in terms of belief in the statement "Illegal immigration is significantly hurting the country". While a majority of young voters still believe the statement (51%), there is a softening of opinion among young voters compared to the overall (62%) and particularly compared to older voting groups. Furthermore, in a Spring 2008 Harvard Institute of Politics study of 18-24 year olds, when presented with an immigration reform proposal that would give "illegal immigrants now living in the U.S. the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements", 46% of the respondents in the Harvard study supported the proposal while 30% opposed it and 24% neither supported nor opposed. This is not to say younger voters are not concerned about illegal immigration, but rather that they are likely to be more open to reform.

The importance of addressing the needs of minority groups is clear. As a younger and more diverse cohort seeks a party to identify with, the Republican Party must authentically address issues of concern to minority communities. As African-Americans and Hispanics seek opportunities for socioeconomic mobility, efforts such as those to reform education and improve opportunities for small business should be promoted. These policies, such as efforts to improve teacher quality and to reduce needless regulation and taxes on small businesses, would not be a stretch for Republicans to support and speak to the concerns of minority communities.

Moving forward, in order to remain a party that is acceptable for young voters, the Republican Party must shed its image as the party of "old white guys". This includes a change in tone and messaging from those who are the face of the party (in an official or unofficial capacity) as well as an emphasis on policies that have proven, positive outcomes for minority communities. America is quickly becoming an increasingly diverse nation, and the Republican Party must evolve its message and agenda to address these changes in order to have relevance with young voters.

(cross posted at Pollster.com)

 

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Old ideas... old ideas.

why not support community banks? Hell, even Friedman was in favor of that one!

no, instead you're just mindlessly repeating standard GOP talking points.

Response to Rising Tide

Rising Tide -

I believe I'm a bit confused.  I'm not sure which talking points I'm repeating...I'm interested in showing why the GOP needs to make a concerted effort to reach young voters and why being a relevant party to minority communities is an essential piece of that effort.  I don't think I covered community banks...

If you could clarify, that'd be great!

I understand that your expertise is in polling, not economics

but what policy prescriptions you were identifying seemed... very much what the Republicans have been saying to Blacks for a while...

1. Fewer restrictions on small businesses (this is NOT the problem. the problem is obscene costs for health care)

2. Better Schools (fine if you can do it, but you have been saying it for a while, and nobody seems very interested)

In response, I'd like to offer new ideas:

1. Rehabilitation for Felons, which gives a 6 to 1 return on investment, and combined with some job-seeking help, may provide jobs for the millions of African Americans who have a criminal record.

2. Community banking and community currencies:

http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/publications/essay_currency.html

The beauty of both of these is that they can be implemented on a small scale, before winning governmental seats, on a "proof of concept" basis.

The political core of the Republican coalition is racism

It's going to be difficult for you all to rework the GOP simply because the party is founded on the Southern white racist backlash against the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 60s. White supremacists who had formerly been Democrats flipped when Johnson enforced desegregation and voting rights. The Republicans then cobbled together interests on religious, class and foreign policy lines which aligned opposition to civil liberties, higher social spending and undermining of "traditional values" around the axis of punishing or deterring deviance by racial minorities, specifically northern urban blacks. From there, the policies followed: Law and order meant locking up African-Americans. Evangelicals worked against abortion, homosexuality, drug use and sexual promiscuity - all of which bigots identify as being big problems emanating from the black community. A strong America meant fighting foreign enemies - particularly communists, who supported civil rights for blacks. The rich favored cutting taxes and social spending, which meant "welfare reform" that punished the urban poor. This worked very well in the face of disorganized Democratic opposition, even surrender in the form of Clintonian "triangulation".

But that's all over now. The GOP is becoming a rump, regional party based in the former slaveholding areas because that is the base. But the appeal of the Southern Strategy is gone. Young people don't dislike Republicans because they are "old white dudes", they dislike them for being reactionary nuts who want to criminalize abortion, hurt the poor, fight unending wars, throw people in jail for smoking pot, and keep gays and lesbians second-class citizens. You're not going to address the issues differently until you face down the base of bigots and reconstitute yourselves as a party of reason, liberty and progress.

Which is ironic

"Young people don't dislike Republicans because they are "old white dudes", they dislike them for being reactionary nuts who want to criminalize abortion, hurt the poor, fight unending wars, throw people in jail for smoking pot, and keep gays and lesbians second-class citizens." - Mithras  

Which is ironic, because the libertarian wing of our party believes the government should stay out of issues like abortion, marijuana, and same-sex relations completely.  This points to the very strange alliance that appears to be rapidly fraying: one side claiming they are for limited government but advocating very strong social activism, and the other side wanting the government to stay out of the picture altogether.

In the Republican primary, the libertarian voice was completely ignored, and every single "credible" Republican veered towards social control.  That is quite possibly one of the biggest reasons why Republican officials seem to have no credibility: they never back up their message of less government, but instead choose to focus it in different ways.  It will be very interesting to see if credible pro-limited government candidates can emerge in upcoming elections.

wrong time for it.

the big evil right now is corporations, specifically the ones with the potential to destroy the entire world...

MAD, anyone?

Bigots associate homosexuality with black people?

I highly doubt that. We have clear data that says black people oppose gay marriage, much more so than any other racial group.

More interesting is the question of whether or not Republicans can appeal to minorities while still promising to cut government spending. Poor people pay little-to-no taxes. So Republican promises to tax cuts don't appeal to poor people. They'd much rather have increased social spending.

But not all black people are poor & not all poor people are black. More important, it is hurtful to encourage dependancy on the government. That's why you're correct that welfare reform was a winning issue. Bill Clinton was even dubbed "the first black president" when he triangulated on this point.

You're completely wrong about abortion, though. Younger generations are more likely to oppose abortion rights:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/magazine/11wwlnlede.t.html

Finally, you gloss over the fact that promiscuity & drugs cause real problems. Have you ever lived with a meth-addict? I have. How do libertarians propose we address hard drug use? The "legalize it, man" position of younger generations only applies to weed.

There are racists in my party. But I refuse to abandon all of my political beliefs just because racists embrace some of them. You oppose the Iraq War, right? Anti-semites also strongly opposed it. But opposing the war doesn't make one an anti-semite.

I'm all in favor of legalizing the hard drugs too.

helps us regulate them, and tax them. both of which are good ideas.

Why not become DemLite on such issues?

I mean, there's absolutely no way that the Dems could maintain their unblemished track record of completely undercutting the GOP in every way on issues like immigration, right? I mean, there's got to be at least one case sometime where they wouldn't do that, right? The GOP should pin its hopes on that one case!

But seriously:

1. While as a purely practical matter Saltsman shouldn't have released the CD, the fact that the song was taken from an LAT article and was a satire just never made it through the haze. The GOP should try to figure out why that was and what they can do about it.

2. The idea that the GOP should give in to support for illegal activity is beyond absurd, and illustrates the depths some of their leaders or wannabes are willing to aspire to.

3. The surveys about these issues are incredibly misleading, such as failing to note all the downsides of "reform". If someone wants to believe a misleading poll asked of uninformed people, should you trust them?

4. Perhaps someone else could take these type of people aside and explain to them how dividing people into "communities" is better left to the Democrats.

5. Perhaps someone else could take these type of people aside and explain to them how the GOP could eviscerate the Dems if they'd simply highlight anti-American bills like this in an effective, aggressive way rather than signing on to them in order to get votes.

Dream a little dream of me

Generally younger voters seem more and more likely to vote for the guy with a plan for helping him get an education rather than the guy who promises to make sure some other guy doesn't get an education.

The argument that says that there are plenty of educations to go around so long as the ineligible (however defined) are excluded seems less and less persuasive to that cohort. Wrapping it in the flag isn't really going to help.

On a different note, if you don't understand the parody FAIL that is Barack the Magic Negro you've got a long way to go.

Look at it this way

The same Dem who has a plan for getting current illegal aliens a uni education is supporting a bill that would take uni educations away from U.S. citizens.

In the case of a moderate Dem, a trial lawyer/police detective type relentlessly questioning them on that bill on video for Youtube would end their political career.

Pass that up the chain.

Gee, why did "Barack the Magic Negro" cause such a stink?

While as a purely practical matter Saltsman shouldn't have released the CD, the fact that the song was taken from an LAT article and was a satire just never made it through the haze. The GOP should try to figure out why that was and what they can do about it.

The fact that you think the GOP needs to "figure out" why "Barack the Magic Negro" cast the party in an apalling light speaks volumes.

NextRightNando: double agent?

I have to wonder: is your real goal to make BHO supporters look too dumb to be able to figure out the point I was making? Read it again and again and again until you understand.

Never Mind, Nando

It's obvious Blather has no idea what you're talking about.

Not only that

but it also appears he has no idea what he is talking about either.

Sadly, more blather.

You consider the DREAM Act anti-American, and something the GOP can eviscerate the Dems with??

from WIKI:

"...The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (The "DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation that was introduced in the US Senate, and the US House of Representatives in March 26, 2009.

This bill would provide certain immigrant students who graduate from US high schools, are of good moral character, arrived in the US as children, and have been in the country continuously for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency.

The students will obtain temporary residency for a lapse of six years. Within the six year period, a qualified student must attend college, and earn a two year degree, or serve in the military for two years in order to earn citizenship after the six years period.

If student does not comply with either his/her college requirement or military service requirement, temporary residency will be taken away and student will be subjected to deportation..."

 

You don't seem to get what Ms. Soltis is saying:  The GOP should be FIGHTING to earn these young people's votes, not calling them anti-American.  But hey, more white power to ya, K?  Let me know how that works out for you..

Some points

1. Stop wasting everyone's time.

2. Wikipedia is not a credible source.

3. Everything the DREAM Act involves is described here.

4. I didn't say the students were anti-American. I said the bill is.

5. If Saltis wants to fight for the "right" of illegal aliens to take college educations from U.S. citizens, then perhaps she's in the wrong country.

 

Even more blather

1.  YOU are wasting everyone's time here.  Take a look at the comments: People are very clear on what you are bringing in here.

2.  I used the WIKI description because it was clear.  What part do you find not "reliable"?

3.  Yes, that link leads to an Anti-DREAM Act propaganda site.  I would trust WIKI far more.

4.  You are saying the intent of the bill, to help certain students get College Educations, is anti-American.  The implication is clear:  certain students are anti-American.

5.  Your premise is bogus and made up.  These students are "taking" nothing from anyone.  Maybe YOU'RE in the wrong country, when you can tell a young man who has served at least two years in the US military defending you he does not have the right to attend a public College.

Can someone else help with these Kossack trolls?

1. Those who are clearly Kossack trolls are supporting Soltis at the same time as childishly smearing me and misrepresenting my statements. Take it FWIW.

2. One problem with WP is that it constantly changes and its authors are unaccountable. The link I provided in my previous comment can't be changed by random people and one will note that "Jim Dandy" didn't point out any problems with the link.

3. There's obviously a difference between saying a program is anti-American and saying those taking part in it are.

4. The two years' of service "Jim Dandy" refers to are part of the bill. I don't want them to serve two years because I want them to self-deport. Further, illegal aliens can't serve in the military unless there's a declared war, something we don't have.

If these trolls are being paid, the only thing whoever's paying them is getting is wasting about ten minutes of my time total; I'll consider that loss a donation.

Think this through

 Let's ponder this seriously, Blather:

1) Democrats win when they make Republicans look like the out-of-touch party of angry white guys;

2) Kristen Soltis draws attention to the problem and suggests ways to improve that image;

3) You come on posting links to anti-Hispanic websites and challenging anyone who suggests that Soltis is suggesting something else, thereby reinforcing the negative image of angry, out-of-touch Republicans, therefore...

4) Are you the troll and are just doing this to make Republicans look bad?

If so, congratulations, you earned your money.  If not, the rest of us are trying to make the party and the nation better, and you should probably recognize that your particular strand of vitriol has been solidly disagreed with by everyone who has chosen to comment on your posts.

Further pondering

BWall has one (1) blog post from five days ago and has no way to differentiate him from the many thousands with similar names and has no link to a website or anything like that. Then, BWall expresses his like for Soltis and his dislike for Palin and agrees with obvious sockpuppets. And, calls those who disagree with him racist and anti-Hispanic. In my experience, that's a reflex shared by cheap labor Republicans and "liberals" and no one else. He pretends to want to make the GOP better, but doesn't specify who he wants to make it "better" for. Ponder away!

As for Soltis, she's taking clearly biased polls at face value and then reselling those polls. Whether she can't figure out what's wrong with those polls or whether she can and doesn't care, that's not a good sign.

As for the links, most of them are to my site. I've been discussing immigration and politics in thousands of entries since 2002. If you find anything I've gotten wrong, let me know and I'll be sure to correct it.

Since this subthread is about a specific bill, why don't you tell us your views on that bill. Do you support allowing former illegal aliens to take college educations from U.S. citizens?

You are right on one thing

 I did just join this site five days ago because I just found it five days ago.  If, in your opinion, that makes me a Kossack, I guess there's probably not much I can do to convince you otherwise.  I do not have an account on Daily Kos or any other websites, and decided to sign up here because this looked like a good place to have productive discussions about the future of the Republican Party.

As to your assertion that I call "those who disagree with [me] racist and anti-Hispanic," that's not correct - there are plenty of people who I disagree with, and not all of them are racist and anti-Hispanic.  You, however, based on your xenophobic postings (I'm referring to your proud history of thousands of entries since 2002), I do believe to be racist and anti-Hispanic.  If you're not, I would love to be corrected.  I'm sure that somewhere in your thousands of entries you have a posting acknowledging the good that Hispanic-Americans do in this country, so please post a link to one of those and prove me wrong.

As to the particular bill that you are referring to, no, I do not believe the DREAM act takes college educations away from U.S. citizens.  Assisting the children of immigrants to attend college, increase their earning potential, and become productive citizens in no way diminishes my college education or the experience of students currently enrolled in college.  As was already pointed out by someone earlier on this thread, there are not a finite number of educations to be had: helping an underrepresented group gain access to education does not cut it off for others.

NextRightNando in a fake moustache?

I'm beginning to wonder. Same passive-aggressive style, same inability to understand basic English sentences, same habit of "getting things wrong", same ability to churn out prose.

And, needless to say, "prove you aren't a racist!" is a trick almost always used by "liberals".

As for the last paragraph of its latest, he spouts the same talking points as the Dems. We aren't talking about the "children of immigrants". We're talking about children (as old as 35 years of age) who are themselves illegal aliens.

More importantly, there actually are only a finite number of college slots available, and only a finite number of discounts and grants available. And, for any college slot or discount, there will always be more U.S. citizens who want that resource. Through extremely simple math, that means that any slot or discount going to a former illegal alien is one that was taken from a U.S. citizen.

Ouch

That hurts.

Whatever

 You apparently aren't particularly interested in conversing about these issues; I'm sorry you feel attacked.  I'm not asking you to prove that you're not a racist, but I was just curious if, out of the thousands of posts that you claim to have written about immigration, you had written anything positive about Hispanic-Americans.  I would still love to see one if you would care to post it.

I suppose rational people can disagree about specific policies, so I don't fault you for disagreeing with the DREAM Act.  I do have to respectfully disagree with you about the nature of post-secondary education: while there are technically a finite number of college slots and grants available, our college, community college, and university system are far from being maxed out, and there are still plenty of spots available for those who want to attend.  I highly doubt that you will lose the chance to go to college because of the DREAM Act.

The reason, I suppose, that I find your whole argument so patently offensive is that the "they are taking away opportunities from those of us who rightly deserve them" strain of thought has been used for so much wrong in our nation's history.  Your thinking reflects the anti-Irish sentiment of the mid-1800s, the anti-African American sentiment of the Jim Crow era, the anti-Chinese sentiment of the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the anti-Japanese sentiment of the 1900s through the internment camp era.  The simple fact is that this nation is a nation of immigrants, and we are at our strongest when we embrace that fact and expand opportunities to help those immigrants access the American dream and make this nation stronger and more productive.  Xenophobic backlash against one particular race does nothing but harm us, and I would hope that we could learn from the darker periods of our history and take a different approach this time.

Hilarious!

In addition to engaging in far-left race baiting, our pretend Republican sure tends to spout stock far-left talking points, such as those used by the NCLR and the Leadership Council on Civil Rights. It's almost like our "Republican" got his comment from the video at that link.

Here are just some of the differences between past and present immigration. And, the incorrect claim that there are college slots for all was recently pushed by another DREAM Act supporter on CNN.

Just to make sure I understand

 You're claiming that the Japanese internment camps were a good thing?  I didn't think that was a far-left talking point, but if that's true, maybe I am a pinko radical.  Last time I checked, though, locking a whole race up based on nothing but racial identity violates due process, which I believe conservatives generally support since its a constitutional right.

We could get into a discussion about the link you posted; however, since you didn't have the courtesy to address anything I brought up and just dismissed everything I wrote as left-wing blather, I don't feel the need to do anything other than affirm again that I disagree with you.  I will not speculate about whether or not you are a troll, because frankly, I don't care: the majority of my party (hopefully) does not think like you claim to think, and we can make significant strides by including people of all races in the American dream that we so fervently value.  Hopefully we can learn from our past history that Americans are at their best when they reject stereotype and allow all people the chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

Give it up

Seriously: no one's buying your smears and your shtick. You'd do better by just admitting who you really are.

(Insert your own ad hominem attack here)

 Courteously,

BWall

You're kidding, right?  Is

You're kidding, right?  Is this tongue in cheek?

1. While as a purely practical matter Saltsman shouldn't have released the CD, the fact that the song was taken from an LAT article and was a satire just never made it through the haze. The GOP should try to figure out why that was and what they can do about it.

Gee, no point in a party leader avoiding the stupidity (incompetence?) of promoting that little ditty, or in avoiding having such people as leaders in the first place.  No, the problem is how to spin this kind of 'humor' better in the future.  Hire better spinmeisters?  Demand the country drop everything to learn the genesis of this charming ditty and enforce 'listening hour' with Rush so all will know it's parody?  It's not like we have any serious issues to pay attention to at election time.

2. The idea that the GOP should give in to support for illegal activity is beyond absurd, and illustrates the depths some of their leaders or wannabes are willing to aspire to.

GOP support for illegal activity is absurd?  Heck, they not only support it, it's a talking point!  You must have missed the torture-is-good chorus, wherein the GOP sings the praises of throwing the rule of law and compliance with our treaties out the window .  In fairness, Obama and most of the Dems are singing from the same hymnal.

Your other points, having to do with illegal immigration, are relevent to the OP.  I live in a border state and have seen polls showing a majority of legal immigrants oppose it as well.  You know who most fervently supports it?  The businesses that hire illegal workers.  You're going to have to take on the business community if you want to seriously address illegal immigration.  Demonizing just the guy who treks across the desert to reach the employer who will hire illegal workers is where the perceived ethnic bias flows from.  Are you willing to put a camera in the face of an exec from Big Ag? 

There are much more important things

There are much more important things that the GOP just lets the Dems walk away with. Part of that involves their friends on cable TV not doing things correctly, and part of it is because r/w bloggers don't know how to do things correctly.

As for the rest of your rant, you do know I've got literally thousands of posts about illegal immigration and politics stretching back to 2002, right? You did check those first before issuing Rant #3, right?

Good work, Soltis

Understanding your analysis is the critical path for long-term GOP/Conservative renewal. Unfortunately, I am more and more convinced we are still several cycles from the message getting through. Here's hoping that work like this will prove an accelerator.

I am black, a libertarian,

I am black, a libertarian, and completely convinced that the Republican party that should be my mainstay has no respect for me or my people. That a few other black people who share my limited government views are active in your party is irrelevant to me.  I can't see their membership in the party of "Barack the Magic Negro" and that stupid picture of young black men fleeing from Obama for trying to make them (GASP) work as anything other than a betrayal. So throwing your Michael Steeles in my face ain't gonna work.

So, convince me.  What are you going to do?  Or better yet, what are you NOT gonna do that can make my world a better place?

Can I ask what exactly

Can I ask what exactly Democrats have ever done for black people? Besides perpetuate the victim mentality, keep them under their thumb as nothing more than a voting bloc and destroying their family unit...how respectful is that coming from the democrats?

It's an image problem

Steve, for the most part, I think you've hit on something pretty important.  From a policy perspective, real conservative principles can do more to empower everyone, including minorities, than welfare principles ever will.  We have one big problem, though, that we have to face in closing that gap.

In the age of the 30-second sound bite, image counts for a lot, and we've bungled that.  Democrats have the first black president; we have Rush Limbaugh saying that Donovan McNabb is only a starting quarterback because he's black and Chip Saltsman playing "Barack the Magic Negro."  We're also losing the image battle for the Hispanic vote as well.  Democrats are perceived as being more tolerant than Republicans are, even though, as you correctly point out, there's not a great deal being done for minorities in the Democratic platform.

How do we rectify this?  One big thing that I think would really help would be to have Republican leaders have the courage to tell Rush et al to shut up when they say things that are offensive.  The perception of Republicans as intolerant bigots is deep set, and it will take people seriously willing to challenge the status quo to change that.   

I want to see your proof on that first...

since conservative principles don't mostly need the levers of government to succeed... why not put them into action FIRST? If you can point to a cleaned up Philly, or Detroit, or some other cesspit of problems, then, man, I'd have to vote for ya.

Field Negros (honorary or not) go out and help the community, they don't whine, "but if you vote for us, we can fix everything!"

No argument here

RisingTide-

I agree with you that we haven't done nearly as well as we should, at least on a governmental level.  Most of the good examples that I've seen have been, as you suggested, on an individual level, and I would argue that service volunteers on both sides of the political aisle use arguably conservative practices (or, at least, what we would like to assert are conservative principles) of education, entrepreneurship, etc.  This is where, ideologically, we disagree with the principles of a pure welfare state: I'm all for helping the poor, but I believe that the government helps people more by encouraging education and work than giving a bi-weekly blank check with no strings attached.  

However, we don't have much in the way of an example where states or cities have successfully used those principles.  That might be because our "conservative rock-star" governors like Palin are neither conservative nor rock stars. 

ain't that the truth!

you want my advice? Do something that's more productive than affirmative action... Hold networking meetings, with down-n-out folks and the businessmen who need talent. Provide a decent place where someone who has been working in the underground economy can actually talk about the skills that they've learned.

I don't see any vestige of the "welfare state" that you're talking about, really. And i've served my country by working with people who had to attend mandatory schooling in order to get job placement help or a welfare check.

I do believe that if you want more conservative black representation, you're better off joining the Democratic party and primarying the hard left. Most cities have enough "brainwashed" who won't consider voting for a Republican of any stripe (and whether or not that's a GOOD electoral strategy, it's still the truth).

Blacks tend to be more conservative AND more liberal than the rest of the population. They're the folks who believe Abortion is wrong, but who would never want to ban it!

macho party believes in locking people up

so you drain the entire black community of young black men...

and then you wonder why there are so many single black moms?

and you somehow think this is a GOOD thing?

what have Democrats done for blacks?

seriously? 

I guess you missed that whole presidential election last November.

Well, besides that.. Democrats don't typically demonize black people as criminals to be feared by white people. That's kind of the SOP for the GOP.

The GOP tried to court blacks by developing this myth that "the Democrats don't help them, they just use them for their votes."  The irony is that blacks saw through the ruse, but the white Republican base swallowed it up as fact

Can I ask what exactly

Can I ask what exactly Democrats have ever done for black people?

Stopped seeing them as "other".

Democrats pander to blacks,

The Democratic Party has brought everyone 8a contracting, affirmative action, racial set asides, quotas.  The Democratic Party also used the voting rights act where blacks are certain to be elected and the Republicans do not even bother to compete.  In addition, blacks are overrepresented in government emoloyment and underrepresented in the private sector. The Democrats have suppport the race based hiring of black government managers. When you read that 70% of blacks support reparations, one should quickly realize that the Republicans have zero chance of appealling to blacks.

Most blacks these days are born to single mothers.  Most blacks have a family member that has a criminal record.  So of course, blacks are going to support the easy on crime, high government benefit programs.

Democrats used "rich" as a dog whislte term for whites.  When President Obama stood in front of an all black crowd in Housotn and said that he would raise taxes on the rich to give more benefits to others, everyone in the crowd knew he was talking about whites.

When you realize that talking about self-reliance is considered racist in the black community, you should realize that the more conservative party will never appeal to blacks,

Wow . . . .

You can almost feel the knuckles scrape along the pavement as you read that.

Yeah, that's not helpful

Exhibit A for why Republicans are losing the battle. 

I think you spend too much

I think you spend too much time watching TV and videos.

Not saying our communities don't have problems.  Sure they do!  But go into any church in the black community and you will meet plenty of honest, hardworking folks.  Hell, go to any town organized enough to have block parties and other community events.  You will find commerce, young brothers and sisters eager to break out in businesses of their own, and lots of people engaged in outreach.

And, believe it or not, most of the mothers, single or otherwise, were in terror of ending up on "the welfare" when I was growing up.  Socially, it was definitely not the place to be.  It's one of the reasons I had a job when I was 13, and one of the reasons why I ended up living and working on my own earlier than ALL of my more affluent white friends.  My mother made it clear that there was NO WAY she was taking care of a "grown-ass" man. 

I am sure you can point to some poll or statistic or another that says I'm wrong.  Because a guy going around asking loaded questions MUST be more informed than I am about what REALLY happens in the community.  Just remember, most poor black people don't consider themselves poor, unless they're all the way in the gutter.

  Can I ask what exactly

 

Can I ask what exactly Democrats have ever done for black people? 

Ummm .. I don't know, how about choosing one of them as the Democratic Candidate for President?

Do you know how many Black delegates were invited to the 2008 GOP Convention that selected John McCain?   Answer: There were just 36 Black delegates at the Republican National Convention, fewer than 2% of the total and a drop of over 60% compared to the 2004 GOP Convention, where 6.7 percent were Black.

By contrast, 24.5 percent of delegates were Black at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, a new record for Black representation.

Steve, you are right, up to a

Steve, you are right, up to a point.  I would think that the Democrats have offered us a great deal that helped a bit in the short term...but in the long term?  Nothing but betrayal really.

I think the Dems mean well, sometimes.  Other times...they sell us out to Unions, lobbyists, etc...especially Teacher's Unions that do NOTHING to give our kids a good education or a brighter future.

All in all, I prefer a few MORE days of mustard and onion sandwiches for dinner, and a few LESS days of shuffling through a useless "education."

I'm one of the lucky ones...I was able to go to a far better school out of my district because my stepfather worked as a janitor there.  Free of tuition!  Now, I had to put with racism (subtle and non-), constant cracks about my stepfather, my (lack of) wealth, etc.  And I'm GLAD I could go to that school.  I'm not even bitter...most of what I put up with was just kids being kids.  But the expanded OPPORTUNITES...couldn't be beat, though I didn't always realize that growing up.

If the Repubicans could offer even this one point, and do so seriously and effectively, you'd have my vote.  I could go so far as to ignore the constant racist garbage that spews from so many "conservative" mouths. 

white flight done sold you out, more than anything else.

Time was, we weren't half so segregated as we are now, because everyone was poor and all the poor lived together.

I dig that we need a better way to integrate schools, now that the whites have fled the city "school district" so that we can't just move the kids around Easily.

What picture are you talking about?

Seriously, I'm not playing dumb. I missed that incident & can't find anything by way of Google.

In answer to your question, I have no idea what we Republicans can (not) do for your vote. The sad truth is that I expect 90+ percent of black people to vote Democrat every year. It's been that way as long as I've been alive & I don't see it changing anytime soon.

The Picture

Ah, it was something I saw on another blog...this was way back, and I have trouble remembering the details.  It may have been on Wonkette.  What I do remember:

It was a photoshop job with a cut-out of Obama from a campaign picture. At the bottom of the page, in quotations,  was something he had said about ensuring jobs to poor minorities.  Behind him, there was a mob of young black men rushing sprinting away from his image.

The context was supposed to be that us lazy brothers don't want to work.

It was something that the website was trying to fan into a big scandal.  It was on the desk of some southern Republican state legislator during an interview, and one of the photographers noticed it and took a picture.  If I recall correctly, the "scandal" had gotten minor local coverage and the website wanted to parade it around a larger audience. 

I wasn't even outraged.  Just par for the course in low-level Southern politics, as far as I am concerned.