Will Ethnic Minority Candidates Help The GOP?

A Christian writer today wrote the election results might mean, “Farewell evangelicals, it’s been a good run”.  His take is the Republican Party will not embrace and include the evangelical base with the same enthusiasm again.

I don’t think he is right.  Republicans are casting about for a way to get minority votes without changing the evangelical identity of their Party.

What we can expect from Republican kingmakers is promotion of GOP minority candidates.  But, only minority candidates who conform to the same ideas as the white ones did.  I’ve heard Republican members of Congress and Tea Party spokespersons say precisely this.

Such a strategy would be consistent with how very conservative operatives reason.  “If we don’t like the current reality, let’s manufacture a different reality and call it the real thing.”

In the recent election, about 90 per cent of minority voters chose Democrats.   These minorities disagreed with right wing religion, anti immigrationists, anti social programs and rich pandering. That’s the real reality.

The reality conservative pundits have manufactured for themselves is that minority voters voted for Obama and women candidates only because they identified with them.

In Florida, a black incumbent with ideas from a century ago was defeated.  Florida has a  large minority population. This shows minority voters do not necessarily vote for minority candidates.  These voters are just as sophisticated as any other set of voters.

The Republican Party can win over minorities by being the small government, secular and socially liberal Party of its indigenous origin.


10 Responses

    1. buzz 3:24 “stranger things have happened”

      That’s for sure. Like Nixon opening up China. Something like that will happen with the GOP eventually on gays and abortion. The right personality and the right time and it will be the progressive party again with the Dems running to catch up.

  1. If one of the two national parties could re-invent itself as fiscally conservative, socially moderate; it would sweep every election. Regrettably, the Libertarian party just can’t seem to break the stronghold GOP and DFL have on the country.

    1. Mac 12:39 “If one of the two national parties could re-invent itself as fiscally conservative, socially moderate; it wouold sweep every election.”

      I agree 100%. I’ve never seen any study of this, but if one could look at nonpartisan elections nationwide, that being local Mayors and county officials, I think that’s what you would find across the country. You’d find balanced budgets using increased in taxes/fees, cutbacks in services when justified and acceptance of new social norms as they develop.

      I blame the redistricting of House seats at both the national and state levels for creating a manufactured reality in politics that does not actually exist. The manufactured reality is the majority of the public believes that gay marriage ruins straight marriage, that we can have some rational policy based on the belief that one fertilized cell is a human being, that every government budget and economic problem can be solved by cutting taxes and regulation of any kind, other than those involving women and gays, brings us to socializism.

      To me, one way of interpreting this last election is that the majority does not believe in the manufactured reality but in another one altogether.

    2. entech

      Mac, that raises an interesting point. I am assuming politicians are generally pretty similar. If that terminology were used in a party platform would the words still mean the same, would they mean social moderate to mean what you would mean? Moderate is such an ambiguous, middle of the road term. On the attitudes to gay/lesbian issues what would moderate mean? to some it would mean not stoning them to death to others it would mean equal rights in law but somehow the idea of marriage would be beyond the pale, to me it would mean simply that we are all people and the differences are minor, you are only moderately different from me in height, weight etc. as well as choice of sexual partner (hard to categorise that one, you would have had as much choice in finding the partner that you have as I had with the woman I spent most of my life with – so please, not choice in the insulting sense). Fiscally conservative is another that can be open to interpretation – to some who call themselves Libertarian it could mean minimal government instead of anarcho-captialism to a liberal some social programs without going into debt (too much). Australian discussion has the problem that liberal is also the name of the main conservative party (economic liberalism is different from social liberalism). Would socially moderate equate to socially liberal?

      Just a thought on use and interpretation depending on who is doing the interpretation and what use they would want to be accepted. A couple of other things come to mind:
      Transparency, this seems to be what every opposition party says about the incumbent party, they are not telling the whole story, we stand for transparency (before the election) but (after the election) the requirements of security mean that the price we pay for paper clips is a state secret (perhaps a moderate exaggeration). In Australia and I believe America there are FOI (freedom of Information) laws, it always seems that the reasons for denying access under FOI gradually become tighter.
      Democracy has acquired a certain air of comparative validity, it is all well and good, desirable and real – if the ‘right’ people get elected, and again the definition of right is variable, usually meaning the good ones are the ones I agree with the rest are if not evil at least wrong and possibly wicked. We had a prime minister quite a few years ago who was honest enough to say it out loud, there only two opinions in this house, those that agree with me and those that are wrong.

      Ancient Athens left something to be desired in their idea of democracy, everyone eligible could be there for the vote and have their say but, eligibility did not extend to women, slaves etc., although everything was open and transparent. Undoubtedly there was plotting and scheming behind the scenes, but when it came to the vote thousands of the population were eligible to attend and speak to the parliament. The modern word idiot originally derives from citizens who did not exercise this right. As for transparency the exact cost of the Parthenon was known to anyone interested, the accounts were chiseled into the foundation stones. Interesting what they called democracy is, in modern democratic society, often derided as mob rule.

      1. David 1:27 Interesting about ancient Athens. Even though they excluded women and slaves, the concept was so different from religion, dictatorships and invaders in their collective experience it was amazing.

        In the U. S. we do have freedom of information in various forms. There are open meeting laws which require most meetings to be open to the public and prohibits some private conversations about public business. Then, we have the direct democracy at the state and local level where people can put issues on the ballot to be voted on. It’s all quite disorderly, but works out OK in general.

  2. I also heard a commentary on CNN that said the GOP needs to come to the realization they’re at risk of no longer being a national party: alienating the eastern seaboard, 1/2 or more of all women, most gays, nearly all minorities and immigrants leaves them miles away from achieving a majority vote in all but the most backward states in the country.

Comments are closed.