The GOP mystique: It’s a white thing

[Kristopher]

The GOP mystique: It’s a white thing
By Courtland Milloy, Published: January 3

Watching television coverage of the Republican caucuses in Iowa, I noticed that nearly everybody was white: white people smiling over coffee, white people applauding at candidate forums, white people singing praise songs at church. True, Iowa has so few blacks that it would probably take a hawk’s eye to spot one. But the GOP caucuses could have been held in any state, and the crowd would look the same.

White.

Which made me wonder: In a country as large and diverse as ours, how is it that one of the two major political parties has become, in essence, a white people’s party?

Polls frequently note the overwhelming whiteness of the GOP, but they never quite explain it.

Why is a local columnist writing about the Iowa caucuses? I believe that racial demographics will play a crucial role in the presidential election and that the issue knows no geographical bounds. Read on.

The Pew Research Center did a poll last year that found: “While Republican gains inleaned party identification span nearly all subgroups of whites, they are particularly pronounced among the young and poor.” Another poll found that non-college-educated whites are flocking to the GOP.

But a Gallup poll found that Americans are more likely to blame Republicans than Democrats for the economic crisis, with its high unemployment and rising poverty. It makes no sense to me that the young and poor and working-class would “lean” toward the Republican Party, let along become a member of it. So what is it about being “white” that makes somebody do it?

About 52 percent of white voters identify themselves as Republicans, compared with about 39 percent who say they are Democrats. So clearly not all whites are the same. In Iowa, most white residents claim German ancestry; there are lots of Irish types, too. Does that make a difference?

Looks to me like those who call themselves Republicans have coalesced around nothing more than their whiteness. What else could it be? Certainly not economic self-interest.

Thomas Edsall, a journalism professor at Columbia University, observes that Republican strategists are trying to unify white voters by creating an “us vs. them” racial conflict.

“While the subject of race and of the overwhelmingly white Republican primary electorate are never explicitly discussed by Republican candidates, the issue is subsumed in blatant anti-immigration rhetoric,” Edsall wrote in the New York Times in November.

And, of course, there is that black guy in the White House to blame.

Tuesday, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” which was broadcast from a coffeehouse in Des Moines, one of the guests was Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). It was the usual friendly chitchat, with King coming across as a reasonable man carefully considering which presidential candidate to endorse.

Not mentioned, however, was the role King played in making sure that the audience in the background stayed white. Back in 2010, King said President Obama “has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks . . . on the side that favors the black person.” It was then that white voters in Iowa began shifting to the Republican Party.

In addition, a recent Public Religion Research Institute poll found that 56 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of white evangelicals and 61 percent of those who identified with the tea party believe that discrimination against whites is as much of a problem as bigotry against blacks.

So while Wall Street rips off Main Street, Republicans are going around blaming African Americans and Hispanics (especially undocumented immigrants) for the pain and suffering of whites.

Republicans like to point out that about 90 percent of black voters are Democrats and that some of them don’t advance their beliefs or their interests by supporting the Democratic Party. Many black voters are social and fiscal conservatives, they say. There are black evangelicals; black voters who believe that illegal immigrants are taking American jobs; black voters who are opposed to gay marriage; and so forth. Yet they vote with the more liberal major party.

Part of the reason for that loyalty is that Republicans have a “white strategy,” as Edsall calls it, aimed at defeating Obama in part by disenfranchising black voters.

And then there’s the personal element. When black voters, who overwhelming support the president, hear a NASCAR crowd booing first lady Michelle Obama; Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) making crude comments about the first lady’s body; and conservative commentator Brent Bozell saying on Fox News that Obama looks like a “skinny ghetto crackhead,” it’s no wonder they lean toward the Democrats.

Which leaves me to wonder: How could those friendly-looking folks in Iowa be in a nasty old party like that?

[Reginald Hudlin]

Fear of a black planet. 

If you're already not doing well in an unfair world, imagine a country where white priviliged didn't give you some advantage.  If you see Barack Obama, a member of a small minority, become president, what's going to happen if Latinos become the largest ethnic group in the country? 

[Lion]

Wait until Africa pulls a China/India and has an economic boom. They'll lose it.

[michaelintp]

Fear of a black planet. 

If you're already not doing well in an unfair world, imagine a country where white priviliged didn't give you some advantage.  If you see Barack Obama, a member of a small minority, become president, what's going to happen if Latinos become the largest ethnic grou in the country? 

So long as you're aware that this kind of charged rhetoric goes a long way in fostering an "us vs. them" racial conflict, rather than uniting us, there is nothing more to say.

I have shared this sentiment with you before, Reginald. 

[Reginald Hudlin]

Michael, you're blaming the victim.  Just three years ago, the country united and elected a black man to the presidency.  It was a great moment for the nation, a sign that we had collectively taken a large healthy step forward.

But in the time since then, Republican elected officials...either locally or as Presidential candidates...have said one hateful thing after another. 

And pointing that out is where the problem begins?

Acknowledging a problem is the first step towards solving it. 

The problem isn't white people.  The problem isn't even all Republicans.  But there is a loud and vicious group of Republicans who have no problem using racist rhetoric for political gain.  I don't even know if they believe it...after all, George Wallace only became a race baiter after he lost his first election and he vowed "never to be out-niggered again"....but they use all the same.  Which may be worse.

[michaelintp]

Of course I agree that when real racist rhetoric is used it should be pointed out and condemned.  I support that. 

What troubles me is your and others use of charged rhetoric and overly-general condemnations that seem calculated to divide people.  If that is not your intention, I'm just sharing with you that that is the way it comes across.  Assuming your intention is not to divide people into "us vs them," you should appreciate this feedback. 

[Reginald Hudlin]

Defining what is "Real racist rhetoric" seems to be the issue here.  Do you find  recent statements on race from several of the leading GOP candidates for president as qualifing for that phrase?

[Reginald Hudlin]

Here's a tweet from John Legend who may be expressing it better:

John Legend
The GOP strategy of trying to make working class whites resent working class blacks is tried and true. Hope people can see thru it.

[Reginald Hudlin]

And here's a thoughtful article on the subject from the New York Times:

January 6, 2012
The G.O.P.’s ‘Black People’ Platform
By CHARLES M. BLOW

That didn’t take long.

As we’ve gotten around to casting votes to select a Republican presidential nominee, the antiblack rhetoric has taken center stage.

You just have to love (and despise) this kind of predictability.

On Sunday, Rick “The Rooster” Santorum, campaigning in Iowa, said what sounded like “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” At first, he offered a nondenial that suggested that the comment might have been out of context. Now he’s saying that he didn’t say “black people” at all but that he “started to say a word” and then “sort of mumbled it and changed my thought.”

(Pause as I look askance and hum an incredulous, “Uh huh.”)

Newton Leroy Gingrich has been calling President Obama “the best food stamp president” for months, but after plummeting in the polls and finishing fourth in Iowa, he must have decided that this approach was too subtle. So, on Thursday in New Hampshire, he sharpened the shiv and dug it in deeper, saying, “I’m prepared, if the N.A.A.C.P. invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” On Friday, Gingrich defended himself, as usual, by insisting that exactly what he said wasn’t exactly what he said. He was advocating for African-Americans, not disparaging them.

“Uh huh.”

The comments from Santorum and Gingrich came after a renewed exploration of Ron Paul’s controversial newsletters, one of which said in June 1992 about the Los Angeles riots: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”

Paul has, of course, insisted that he didn’t write or review the newsletters, although they were written under his name, he made money from them and he used to brag about them.

“Uh huh.”

First, some facts. Take the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly known as food stamps. PolitiFact has rated Gingrich’s “food stamp president” charge as only half-true. Yes, participation in the program is at a record high, but Bush-era efforts to increase participation and broaden the program “produced consistent increases in the number of average monthly beneficiaries. The number rose in seven out of the eight years of Bush’s presidency — most of which were years not considered recessionary. All told, the number of recipients rose by a cumulative 63 percent during Bush’s eight-year presidency.”

Now to the singling out of blacks. The largest group of SNAP beneficiaries is by far non-Hispanic whites. However, it is true that the rate of participation is much higher among blacks than whites. Put the emphasis where you wish.

Finally, as to the false dichotomy of “food stamps” versus “paychecks.” First, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, most SNAP participants are either too old or too young to work. Forty-seven percent were under age 18, and 8 percent were 60 or older. Second, “nearly 30 percent of SNAP households had earnings in 2010, and 41 percent of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings.”

But race is usually less about facts than historical mythology, which evokes the black bogyman, who saps the money from the whites who earn it. Ever since blacks first arrived on these shores in chains, they have been perceived as lazy and dependent on whites — first as slaves, and then as “entitled” citizens.

It is the Shackles-to-Bootstraps Doctrine of Self-Defeat that disavows any and all structural inhibitors to success.

The preface of the “Encyclopedia of Black Folklore and Humor” tells a story about the first black captives arriving in the New World and one slave “muttering angrily to himself.” The captain of the boat says to him, “What’s the matter with you? You’ve been in this country for only five minutes and already you’re complaining!”

Folklore or fact, this is the way many have viewed blacks in this country throughout history and even now: with scolding disdain and shocking blindness.

In 1935, W.E.B. DuBois’s “Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880” pointed out that one of the major themes that American children were being taught in textbooks about that period was that “all Negroes were lazy, dishonest and extravagant.”

The themes are eerily resonant of today’s Republican talking points on welfare.

One textbook theme excerpted by Mr. DuBois stated that “legislatures were often at the mercy of Negroes, childishly ignorant, who sold their votes openly, and whose ‘loyalty’ was gained by allowing them to eat, drink and clothe themselves at the state’s expense.”

Another stated that “assistance led many freed men to believe that they need no longer work.”

This tired trope was reprised in 1976. After losing the Iowa caucus to Gerald Ford and heading into the New Hampshire primary, Ronald Reagan glommed onto the idea of the “welfare queen.”

Reagan explained at nearly every stop that there was a woman in Chicago who “has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.”

Coincidence? “Uh huh.”

Racial politics play well for Republicans. Santorum and Paul finished second and third in Iowa. Time will tell if Gingrich rebounds. Playing to racial anxiety and fear isn’t a fluke; it’s a strategy that energizes the Republican base.

Kevin Phillips, who popularized the right’s “Southern Strategy,” was quoted in The New York Times Magazine in May 1970 as saying that “the more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.”

“Uh huh.”

[michaelintp]

Defining what is "Real racist rhetoric" seems to be the issue here.  Do you find  recent statements on race from several of the leading GOP candidates for president as qualifing for that phrase?

On this Forum I have already objected to some of what Gingrich has said (the "Foodstamps President" comments), as you know (yes, I do express criticism of Republican politicians, when warranted, even ones with whom I agree with on many issues).  As to Santorum, there seems to be some dispute as to what Santorum actually said, whether he started to say "lives better" and changed it to "lives ... [mutter mixing better and lives] ... people's lives better."  Though I do understand those who believe they heard him say "blaaii people's lives" and interpreted that as "black people's lives."  So as to that, I understand the concern, but it is ambiguous (because "sounds like" and "said" are not the same thing). I don't know for sure. 

As I told you privately, I have not been following politics that closely over the past six months, instead immersing myself in the contradictory worlds of streaming TV shows (on Netflix) and religious study.  As to politics, I am sick of it all, starting with the state of the nation and, even worse, the state of the world.  My intention is not to get totally sucked into it again, and partisan politics was really not the main thrust of my comment.

The crux of my comment is that the original article posted above made reference to Republican strategists trying to foster an "us vs. them" attitude. My point is that the fostering of "us vs. them" attitudes can be found on the Left and the Right.  On this very Forum I've seen broad condemnatory generalizations and the use of charged negative phrases regarding white people, white fears, white privilege, and so on, that can only produce animosity. To me and (I am sure) to many others this sort of thing goes a long way in fostering "us vs. them" attitudes on the part of everyone listening, rather than bringing people together.  There are ways to object to racially-charged comments or to oppose racism, while at the same time doing so in a manner that is calculated to bring people of all races together.  There is another way, by responding in kind, that is likely to create racially divisive attitudes.  As a self-fulfilling prophecy.   

It bothers me when people on the Right do it, and it bothers me when people on the Left do it.   

Perhaps you are used to associating with folk, both academic and in the media, who commonly use the kind of jargon that strikes me as racially divisive and hostile.  Perhaps some of this jargon seems almost normative at this point. But I'm telling you how it comes across to someone who is not immersed in it (and I don't think my ears are all that aberrant).  I don't believe "us vs. them" (with the "them" being very broadly defined) is really what you wish to promote. I thought it would be worthwhile to point out to you how it does come across to me at times. For you to really think about it.  I feel comfortable doing so because I know you are not a bigot or a person who wishes to foster racial animosity. If I thought you were, I wouldn't be wasting my time. I'm sure the last thing in the world you would want is to inadvertently promote to some listeners a message of racial division and hostility that you yourself don't embrace.

I'm not telling you or anyone else what to say, nor am I dictating how you should say it.  Its a free country.  I'm just sharing with you how, at times, some of it comes across to me.  If you wish to dismiss my subjective emotional reaction to the words as mistaken, that's certainly your right.  If you wish to think about it, "Hmmm, his reaction seems somewhat overly sensitive to me, but if that is the way it comes across to him, maybe that is the way it sounds to others as well" ... that's what I'm hoping for.  I'm just sharing with you my gut emotional reaction to some of the rhetoric. Because one's choice of words can have an effect, and the effect may not always be what you intend.

Anyway, I've really shared all I wish to on this topic.  If I've given you some food for thought, great.

[Reginald Hudlin]

First of all, Santorum's "explanation" was "dog ate my homework" pathetic.  You weren't saying black, you were saying "blah"?  Really? 

And there's how the problem starts.  His decision to fire up his base by initiating an attack on black folks wasn't started by the left.  It was a political calculation.

And when he's called on it, he doesn't have the balls to own it, and instead people who are offended are accused of playing "the race card".  Are there any other cards in that deck?  I've never heard of the "woman card" or the "anti-semite" card.  I guess because those issues are not games. 

I get that there's a lot of people of all races who feel uncomfortable discussing race.  But that shouldn't mean we stick our heads in the sand. It means we need common language and themes to build from.

There's a big difference between the words "racist" and "racial".  Discussing race is not in itself "racist".  Pointing out and denouncing racism is not "racist". 

Among my linguistic bugaboos is the term "racially charged".  I never know what that means.  Is that a way for people to say something is racist but not admit that's what they are doing?  Is that a backhanded way of complaining that someone is being called on their racism?  It's too vague a phrase for me.

[Battle]

First of all, Santorum's "explanation" was "dog ate my homework" pathetic.  You weren't saying black, you were saying "blah"?  Really? 

And there's how the problem starts.  His decision to fire up his base by initiating an attack on black folks wasn't started by the left.  It was a political calculation.

And when he's called on it, he doesn't have the balls to own it, and instead people who are offended are accused of playing "the race card".  Are there any other cards in that deck?  I've never heard of the "woman card" or the "anti-semite" card.  I guess because those issues are not games. 

I get that there's a lot of people of all races who feel uncomfortable discussing race.  But that shouldn't mean we stick our heads in the sand. It means we need common language and themes to build from.

There's a big difference between the words "racist" and "racial".  Discussing race is not in itself "racist".  Pointing out and denouncing racism is not "racist". 

Among my linguistic bugaboos is the term "racially charged".  I never know what that means.  Is that a way for people to say something is racist but not admit that's what they are doing?  Is that a backhanded way of complaining that someone is being called on their racism?  It's too vague a phrase for me.

Thanks, man.   You're my hero.

[michaelintp]

Reginald, the way you are reframing what I'm saying does not capture my core point.

Perhaps this will make it clearer.  If the way a person frames an issue, or the jargon he uses, is likely to create an "us vs. them" attitude, where the "them" are not bigots, racists or the ill-motivated, but rather black people or white people, there is a problem.

[Curtis Metcalf]

Fear of a black planet. 

If you're already not doing well in an unfair world, imagine a country where white priviliged didn't give you some advantage.  If you see Barack Obama, a member of a small minority, become president, what's going to happen if Latinos become the largest ethnic grou in the country? 

So long as you're aware that this kind of charged rhetoric goes a long way in fostering an "us vs. them" racial conflict, rather than uniting us, there is nothing more to say.

I have shared this sentiment with you before, Reginald. 

Michael, what here do you perceive as "charged rhetoric"? I find that I am guessing about which part of it you find so and thought maybe I'd just ask.

[michaelintp]

All of it as a negative description of white people.  I am focusing on the feelings and attiitudes that may be evoked.

My intent here is not to replay past debates regarding the specific terms used.  Been there, done that.  My point here is set forth in my post immediately above.