Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Cocktail Reception

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, whom I earlier characterized as being the good sort of "affirmative action" pick for the RNC, is blasting GOP efforts at "outreach" towards female and minority voters.
"The problem is that within the operations of the RNC, they don't give a damn. It's all about outreach ... and outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them - 'See, look at us,' " he said.

"And then we go back to same old, same old. There's nothing that is driven down to the state party level, where state chairmen across the country, to the extent they don't appreciate it, are helped to appreciate the importance of African-Americans and women and others coming and being a part of this party, and to the extent that they do appreciate it, are given support and backup to generate their own programs to create this relationship."

"Outreach is a cocktail party. Coalitions ... a relationship. I'm going to look you in the eye. I'm going to be at your table. I'm going to sit and talk to you," said Mr. Steele, who has for the last two years been the chairman of GOPAC, a Republican political action committee.

Bingo. As I observed upon the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's VP nominee, Republicans really seem to think that the only thing women or minorities care about is the face -- they blindly will follow their race or gender cohorts, and nothing else needs to be said. Steele, at least, is fighting back against this notion: he gets that if the GOP is going to make any true inroads with female and minority voters, they need to have a seat at the table, where their problems will be discussed fairly and real solutions will be offered.

There's a valid question as to how RNC selection committee will respond to this sort of rhetoric of course. It's not clear that they really want Blacks and women to have more voice at the table, if their voices will threaten policy or philosophical positions dear to the Party core (they might think that, but assume they can reign Steele in and make it so his changes are cosmetic, at best). And aside from the racial angles, Steele is definitely a relatively moderate candidate to be running, which is a major barrier in a Party that looks poised to make another rightward lurch. Of course, a Steele victory would signal a check on that instinct, which would certainly be positive.

But back to Steele's efforts to bring Blacks and other non-traditional GOP voters into the fold. Again, I'm not saying he'll be successful in his endeavor, even if he reaches out in good faith with full party backing. While a significant part of Black loyalty to the Democratic Party is based off the notion that the GOP is facially inhospitable to them, it's not ridiculous to think that Blacks actually have considered and agree with the Democratic Party when casting their ballots. But I think it's better, all things considered, for Blacks to be voting Democratic because they agree with Democrats, not because they consider the Republican Party to be a racist outpost.

8 comments:

The Gaucho Politico said...

Does this mean you are retracting your views of steele as an affirmative action pick or do you believe he was an affirmative action pick but the RNC was inept enough to pick someone who actually believes in real outreach? I argued originally that labeling him as affirmative action before we see exactly what he wants to do would be jumping the gun. This makes me cautiously optimistic that one of the major political parties in our country will work on being less racist and sexist if only out of political necessity. Of course Steele could be replaced as soon as the gop realizes he actually intends to bring non waspm into the gop.

David Schraub said...

Neither, because I don't find "affirmative action pick" to be derogatory. Steele's race -- and the awareness that comes with -- brings important and useful things to the table which are a component of being a meritorious GOP chair. It's affirmative action in a good way -- in a way that recognized the way that diversity is part of the overall package of merit.

Superdestroyer said...

when you say females, you really mean single females. Republicans get a majority of white, married women votes.

the real question is whether the more conservative party can ever appeal to single women, blacks, or Hispanics and the real answer is no. As long as the Democrats are ready and able to promise more free government stuff than the Republicans, they will get 90% of the black vote, 70% of the Hispanic vote, and 70% of the single female vote.

since those three groups are growing much faster than married white who actually pay most of the taxes, the real question for the Democrats is how can the U.S. function as a first world country and produce the tax revenues necessary to fund the coming huge government states when a majority of Americans are black, Hispanics, or single women and a small portion of the population are married white males?

PG said...

Out of curiosity, what is the conservative stereotype about single white females' consumption of government largesse? Has there finally been an acknowledgment that the majority of welfare recipients prior to the 1996 welfare reform were in fact white?

Superdestroyer said...

PG,

The argument has never been that blacks get more welfare than whites but that blacks are much more likely on a per capita basis to have benefitted from welfare in the 1960's and 1970's.

Remember, one of the claims of the left is that any cut in social welfare spending will adversely impact minorities more than whites. So liberals acknowledge that blacks are more likely to be on welfare than whites.

PG said...

I reiterate my first question: "Out of curiosity, what is the conservative stereotype about single white females' consumption of government largesse?"

Remember, one of the claims of the left is that any cut in social welfare spending will adversely impact minorities more than whites. So liberals acknowledge that blacks are more likely to be on welfare than whites.

First, should I understand that when you say "minorities" you mean "blacks"? because otherwise your statement is incoherent.

Second, your claim makes logical sense only if the sole reason that "any cut in social welfare spending will adversely impact minorities more than whites" is that "blacks are more likely to be on welfare than whites." But that isn't the sole reason.

Superdestroyer said...

Single females of all ethnic or racial groups are more likely to be on welfare and more likely to want a large government to give them benefits. Single females would love healthcare paid for by taxes paid by married middle and upper middle class whites. Single females love having a legal system tilted in their favor. Single females love government pink and white collar jobs more than single males or married people.

Single females are more likely to be teachers, social workers, and other government employees. They will support the political party that promises higher pay without higher output or higher levels of competency.

And yes, Hispanics are more likely to benefit from welfare than white but less likely than blacks.

And since both blacks and Hispanics commit crimes at higher rates than whites, they will support the political party that is seen as easier on crimes.

Now the real quedstion is what can Republicans possibly do to attrack blacks, Hispanics, or single females without abandoning any pretense to being conservative?

The other question that you avoided is how can the U.S. continue to create the wealth needed to support a welfare state when most of the populatin is black, hispanic, or single white females?

PG said...

Now the real quedstion is what can Republicans possibly do to attrack blacks, Hispanics, or single females without abandoning any pretense to being conservative?

It probably would help if self-identified Republicans like yourself weren't so openly contemptuous of "blacks, Hispanics, or single females." That makes individuals who might otherwise sympathize with conservative policies feel repulsed by the us v.s them mentality in which they are the "them."

The other question that you avoided is how can the U.S. continue to create the wealth needed to support a welfare state when most of the populatin is black, hispanic, or single white females?

Is a majority of the black, "Hispanic" and single female population unemployed? Do you believe there to be something inherent to race and gender+marital status that means they cannot do the jobs that white and married people do? What is it that single and married white men are doing that you believe single women and men of color can't do?

I don't live in the world of terror about changes in the ages at which people marry and in white's status as the majority race that you do. It must be quite awful to believe that the U.S. will collapse because more people are single and more people are non-white. No wonder certain Republicans are so panicky and ready to do whatever it takes to block those changes; and thus no wonder that single women and people of color aren't Republican, no matter how sympathetic to conservative policies they otherwise might be.