Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 11, 2009

A BLACK CHAIRMAN ISN'T ENOUGH.... The New York Times has a front-page item this morning on the possibility of the Republican National Committee naming an African American as the party's chairman. As the party hopes to "avoid shrinking into a party of Southern white men in an increasingly diverse country," the selection would seem to have symbolic value, at a minimum.

The six candidates are four white men, including two from the South, and two black men: Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, and J. Kenneth Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state.... Some Republicans argued that electing a black chairman could prove helpful as the party struggles to rebuild.

"Race is not a consideration of why a person should become chairman of the R.N.C., but if the nation can celebrate its first African-American president, I would certainly think the Republican Party could celebrate its first African-American chairman," said Jim Greer, the Florida Republican chairman, who endorsed Mr. Steele last week. "There certainly is an advantage of a credible message of inclusion if you have a minority as chairman."

The presence of Mr. Steele and Mr. Blackwell has added some historical resonance to a contest that is usually viewed as a matter of inside baseball. Party officials said this was the first time two serious black candidates had competed for the Republican chairmanship.

Sure, "historical resonance" is interesting, as far as it goes, but the notion that an African-American chairman "could prove helpful" is much harder to believe.

It's reminiscent of the superficiality of the RNC's new-found interest in technology. Candidates for the RNC chairmanship seem to believe they can create a few Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, and the kids will swoon. Likewise, some in the party seem to think that electing Steele or Blackwell will help make the party appear more inclusive and diverse, and help with minority outreach.

This isn't a strategy for success. For one thing, the modern Republican Party's problems with race are systemic, and won't be resolved by the race of its national party chair. For that matter, the GOP's structural problems -- its ideas are unpopular, its policies have failed, and its agenda is out of sync with the nation's needs -- are so deep, "historical resonance" is largely inconsequential.

But perhaps most importantly, no one should exaggerate the significance of the RNC chair. A couple of years ago, Bush tapped Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, a Cuban-American, as chairman of the RNC. Refresh my memory: did that have any impact whatsoever on outreach to Latino voters? Did it make the party seem more inclusive and diverse?

I don't think so.

Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

Bookmark and Share

Does anyone care who is RNC chair?
I seriously doubt it.
Therefore, I nominate George W. Bush.
He needs the work and is certainly qualified.

Posted by: Leoguy on January 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

The selection of Blackwell or Steele would also signal that the Republicans still think black folks are too stupid to know that neither man has the interest of black folks at heart.

Posted by: jimbo on January 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Race is not a consideration of why a person should become chairman of the R.N.C.

If that were true, Steele would probably be a shoe in. But even that shows what a minor league operation the Republican party has become.

Posted by: Danp on January 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

The GOP has always slandered affirmative action as a program to force the hiring of unqualified women and minorities, simply for the sake of appearances.

Now that they're in trouble and realize their need to reach out to women and minorities, they're pursuing the exact same strategy they've deplored: promoting a Sarah Palin or a Ken Blackwell or a Michael Steele or a Bobby Jindal or an Anh Cao, whether they have qualifications or not, whether they even agree with them or not, simply because they're women and minorities.

There's something almost cargo-cultish about this behavior: they're superficially imitating what they feel has worked for the Democrats, but without any clue of why it's worked for them.

Posted by: low-tech cyclist on January 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Appointing a black man to head the RNC accomplishes very little. It will anger many Southern white Repubs who detest Obama (only one white voter in 10 voted for Obama in Alabama, my home state), and it will do little to gain black votes.

Black people won't be fooled. Only actions that serve their needs and interests will gain their votes. And given the Southern makeup of the Repub pols (many of whom still use code words to get out the white vote), that's not going to happen.

Posted by: kim on January 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

As I recall, the 2000 GOP convention was all about inclusion and was supposed to point the way to a new, diverse GOP. Yep.

While a “choice of color” is more likely better than not, it’s clear that policy changes are what’s important. Who will play the greater role in putting out a new GOP message: the religious Right, the free market Right or the neocon Right? Or, can they tap into other interests and formulate a new or hybrid policy?

Michael Steele and J. Kenneth Blackwell may or may not have the chops to figure out what to do, but then there’s the issue of bringing others along.

Posted by: Keith G on January 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Steele and Blackwell are the "Brothers Brothers"


If anything electing them will turn most black folks AWAY from the Republican party (not that we were heading that way in the first place) not lead them to it.

Posted by: sgwhiteinfla on January 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Excuse me, but isn't this affirmative action ?

Posted by: rbe1 on January 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

This is the same approach they took with Sarah Palin. Put a woman on the ticket, women will come regardless of anything else. Its a remarkably myopic view.

Posted by: Vicki Linton on January 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Excuse me, but isn't this affirmative action ?

Yes, but Sin isn't sin if you're a Republican is the 11th commandment of our national discourse.

While our our current crop of pundits and bloggers have a fascinating mix of skills and backgrounds, at least one of them should be a divorce court judge or a marriage counselor. These are people who have day to day experience of the hyper-emotional irrationality of our discourse. No one is surer of their moral righteousness than an ex-spouse denouncing you for cheating on the same terms of the agreement they are cheating you on.

One thing I'm hoping for from Obama is that he has the necessary skills, not only to reconcile the snarlers and screamers, but to showcase their fanaticism and embarass them for it while still winning the debate.

Our elite politicians used to be very good at that, just like a successful mother of six or more, or a really good grade school teacher.

Posted by: Midland on January 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

This is of a piece with prominent Republicans' recent calls for a re-branding of their party. They seems to believe that their years-long record can be erased with superficial gestures and a few changes of rhetoric.
In this case, the GOP's tried and true Southern Strategy with its decades of fomenting division and thinly veiled appeals to racism won't be undone by the elevation of one person of color to a high position in the party.
The Republicans have come to believe that, no matter what their deeds, their words are all that they should be judged by. They will continue to shrink into the majority unless they understand that it's just the opposite.

Posted by: Reverend Dennis on January 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

I'm amused by the GOP's deliberate cluelessness. Many of them truly feel Obama's success can bemostly attributed to his color, and Hillary's gender is what contributes mostly to her political success - even more than her own polotical "connections." And their denial prohibis them from delving any deeper than that, otherwise they just might find out it was Obama's and Clinton's POLICIES, PLANS, IDEAS & IDEALS that attracted their supporters. In the narrow simplistic view of too many GOPers, Republicans are patriots & "real Americans," (white Christians), leaving the riff-raff and heathens & commies & fags & darkies to fliunder at the hands of the liberal (shudder) Democratic party. They DON'T see this as a problem and they don't understand the their tribal elders who do. And by and large, this is why they failed in 08, and until there's either a fundamental change in the country that makes voters shift right, OR that mentality dies off and the conservatives become more progressive, they will continue to fail for a whle. Ironically, becoming more progressive will make them Democrats which ALSO means they failed but shhhh don't tell them that.

Posted by: slappy magoo on January 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

A lot of their base are white males that are economic populists at heart (Reagan Democrats, non-rich southerners). These voters just don't acknowlege it, because they view their anti-immigration, Luv Jesus (the Ultimate anti-capitalist) and Buy American views not as an economic view but part and parcel of their Fear Of The Other outlook.

OK, they don't label it that way, but that's why they haven't examined it the way all us "The Coming...uh coming, still coming, to be here shortly I'm sure, HEY FINALLY MAYBE...Conservative Crackup" types kept confidently predicting.

That is, their racism feeds their willingness to accept wingnut economic dogma.

With today's economic problems making them suspicious about the entire economic package they've been voting for, and a burgeoning flow of woman and minorities at the top of the GOP, well I gotta wonder how that's actually going to work out. Seems more like it will lead to a bit too much re-examination by the base. They won't vote Democrat, but splinter badly they just might.

Posted by: doesn't matter on January 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

I meant to work in there the example of Bush's attempts over immigration. That went over like a lead balloon with people who still thought he was the second coming, now think about the GOP trying to present that with a non-white male face? Ugh, pitchfork time.

Posted by: doesn't mattera on January 11, 2009 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans are blinded by their own worldview, i.e., it's all about image, symbolism and not substance. Republican efforts to create an image of inclusion were never more ludicrous than their 2004 national convention, which featured lots of black faces dancing on TV, almost a minstrel show, but when the camera showed the delegates there was nary a black face among the aging, coiffed, overweight sign wielders. Republican inclusion is a joke, and no black man/woman, no matter how talented politically, is going to get any traction in the GOP for the foreseeable future.

Even J.C. Watts and Colin Powell have taken seats in the back of the Republican bus. Blackwell and Steele are no more interested in bringing black folks into the party than is George W. Bush.

Posted by: rich on January 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know anything about the other 4 guys - but I do know that both Blackwell and Steele are incredibly dirty and sleazy dirty tricks type players. The fact that they are being seriously considered says a lot about the integrity of the Republican party.

Posted by: Ethel-To-Tilly on January 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

I just wish people here wouldn't link Steele and Blackwell so easily. Steele is a pathetic bumbler, but I've always considered Ken Blackwell one of the more dangerous politicians in America. He didn't do too well against Strickland, but his skill is not elections but behind the scenes manipulation. He is quite unscrupulous, as shown by his actions in 2004 (I've never argued whether that election was 'stolen,' or the one in 2000, because it is as irrelevant as acknowledging that Richard Nixon "really' defeated JFK).

He ties the Republican party even closer to the religious right -- it might have only been Strickland's ministerial background that kept this from being more effective in 2006 -- and he's shown that he sees winning more important than honesty -- remember how his campaign tried to bring forth the story that Strickland was gay?

And his 'religiosity' has little of the weakness of Palin's. Sarah Smiles can always be made ridiculous through Muthee -- not just a 'witch-hunter' but anti-Semitic and theocratic, listen to the whole speech if you haven't had the chance. (And, of course, the various complications of her personal and family life and her record of inaction on the relevant problems as Mayor of the "Meth Capitol of Alaska" and as Governor of the "Domestic Abuse Capitol of America" will eventually shove her into irrelevancy as even the most blind Christians start questioning her sincerity.)

But Blackwell's ties are with Rod Parsley and Bill Gothard, and both are a lot more dangerous, if only because they are less obviously so. A quick glance is all you need to realize how crazy Hagee is, for example, or Muthee. But I think most people have forgotten -- if they even noticed -- that when McCain dumped Hagee for his extremism, he dumped Parsley as well. And Gothard's "Cult of Character" seems very innocuous until you take a close look and see that it is in fact a form of "Christian Maoism" where 'privacy is unnecessary for the man of character' and 'one's neighbors should help keep one on the correct path.'

(And I've heard nothing 'negative' -- in 'Christian eyes' -- about Blackwell's personal or family life.)

All of which, and the Republican Party, will be an irrelevant 'sideshow' if Obama is successful. If he is seen even as 'slowing the disaster' and 'starting the turnaround' Republicans are going to be as irrelevent as they were in 1934. (Even more so, because there is going to be no parallel to the group of "Dixiecrats' for the Republicans to ally with.)

But if things are even worse than they seem, and the fundamental problems are so deep that Obama does not, more importantly is not seen to, turn things around, that's when people like Blackwell and Palin become serious threats. When 'sensible and reasonable' solutions don't work fast enough, that's when people turn to quacks.

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) on January 11, 2009 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

they're pursuing the exact same strategy they've deplored: promoting a Sarah Palin or a Ken Blackwell or a Michael Steele or a Bobby Jindal or an Anh Cao ...

I'm still withholding judgment on Ahn Cao. He voted with the Democrats on the Lily Ledbetter bill, so he doesn't seem to be a party hack (yet). Given that Louisiana Democrats let William Jefferson run again even after finding the bribe money in his freezer, Cao may have run more in opposition to his corrupt local Democrats than against Democratic national policies.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on January 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Steele and Blackwell are both notorious uncle tomes in the antebellum sense of the word. If they're serious,they should recruit Armstrong Williams or Alan Keyes. At least they actually have had an original idea between them.

Posted by: Winkandanod on January 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I have no idea how the GOP gets the notion that black votes are even on the table. Black people who vote Democrat do so for one reason, the Democrats promise them more free goodies paid for by white taxpayers. This creates and equal and opposite effect of white voters voting GOP to reduce the massive transfer of social resources from whites to blacks. Since the Democrats will always be willing to, and have the ability to, outbid the GOP for black votes, it is silly for the GOP to even try.

No, if the GOP cannot win 70 percent of the white vote it will become nationally non-competitive.

Amusingly, if every abortion since Roe had not happened the Democrats would probably have, at least, another net 10 million votes. After all, individuals who are aborted come from demographics that are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. I suspect that there is a high likelihood that in a couple of election cycles the GOP will go from an anti-abortion party to an aggressively pro-abortion party.

Socially, I have found lots of support for government actively prodding poor and low-IQ women (read: minorities) into sterilization or abortion. And I live in Seattle, where nearly all my social contacts are Democrats. I suspect that the GOP is entirely capable of recapturing the white, urban and suburban, educated middle-class, provided they focus on protecting the middle-class from all the social chaos and disorder in chronically poor demographics.

Policies that help the middle-class are bad for the poor, and policies that help the poor are bad for the middle-class, so what the middle-class needs is a war on the poor.

Posted by: Asher on January 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

On one hand, the repubs should be commended for even realizing they have a race problem. Low praise, but still.
OTOH, this could blow up like a trick cigar if Blackwell or Steele are viewed as a Stepin Fetchit figure, while the southern white guys (who will continue to pull the strings) slap each other on the back for their cleverness.

It's not too difficult to imagine the repubs choosing either Blackwell or Steele. Imagining them taking marching orders from either is something else.

Posted by: JoeW on January 11, 2009 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

This is the same sort of thinking that made J.C. Watts the only Republican outside of whoever happened to be running for president and vice president who you absolutely knew would always be a prime time speaker at the party convention. They think their problems with minorities can be fixed by having front men rather than by having different policies.

Posted by: Hyde on January 11, 2009 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

There seems to still be the illusion in the GOP that their problem is one of PR. It's not, guys, and I don't mind trying to help you out because if you realized what your problem is, you would change to something that would be beneficial to our country.

Your problem is that your programs, your ideals, your attitudes are inimicable to the well-being of most Americans. You place the financial well-being of a few people above the physical well-being of the vast majority of the country. You can't deal with reality and don't even begin to understand how the physical world works. Science is totally opaque to you. For you, the politicization of every branch of the government was not only accepted, but regarded as a positive benefit. For you the only function of reality and everything else is to be somehow manipulated for your immediate benefit.

Trying to "put lipstick on a pig" just doesn't work anymore. PR has been used so much that it has lost most of its utility and from now on, people are going to look at the reality behind the advertisements. If you change so that your programs IN FACT are beneficial, then you will do much better and so will this country. But if you continue trying to distort the perception of reality to make a bad program look good, then you will go absolutely no where.

Posted by: Texas Aggie on January 11, 2009 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP's erring propensity to shoot itself in the foot is highlighted by the fact that anyone takes Steele's candidacy seriously. When Steele ran for the Maryland governorship he campaigned strongly on school choice. This sent middle-class, white suburbanites fleeing to the Democrats, because what "school choice" means is flooding functional suburban school districts with high-crime, low-IQ minority students.

The GOP can only win if it crafts its message to advance the objective, material class-interests of a majority of the population. Baubles like school-choice will attract no one, except utopian idealists, and, potentially, repel groups who are potential GOP voters.

Posted by: Asher on January 11, 2009 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

This is what happens when race is your main criterion for choosing someone. Blackwell is incompetent, unethical, and a wingnut. A lot of funny business went on here in Ohio while he was secretary of state, to wit: owning stock in Deibold as they were bidding on a contract for voting machines. Purchasing voting machines that were insecure and couldn't count right (they found a machine during this election in Dayton that lost votes for reasons they couldn't explain.). He's a meany. The color of his skin is irrelevant to these facts, except to the Repubs.

So, as a yellow dog Democrat, I say go ahead, pick him as the chair of the RNC. You're already on the edge of the abyss, might as well have him push you right over that edge. He most assuredly does not solve any of the problems of the Republican party.

Posted by: Tina on January 11, 2009 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Let's face it: the Republican Party has outlived any usefulness. We are witnessing its death throes.

Posted by: Miande on January 11, 2009 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if they're going to blame everything on black people anyway ...

Posted by: The Answer WAS Orange on January 11, 2009 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

A black RNC chairman?

But, how will he get into the country club to see the other members?

These guys just don't think things through, do they?

Posted by: biggerbox on January 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Having a quota minority as head of the Repubican Party just shows what a demographic trap that conservatives are in. They are a minority party but any move to change loses more support than it gains.

Intead of having an obvious affirmative action pick as head of the party, they should find someone who has been successful at the state and local level instead of an obviously unquality quota black like Michael Steele.

Posted by: superdestroyer on January 11, 2009 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the GOP should care about black voters at all, given that black voters will never vote for the GOP in any appreciable numbers. Blacks will always vote for whichever party gives them ever-larger transfers of social resources from whites, and this will always be the Democrat party.

No, the GOP needs to focus on getting 70 percent of the white vote, and that is a possible scenario, if the GOP quits messing around and actually crafts a set of policies that appeals to the naked self-interest of the white middle-class.

Posted by: Asher on January 11, 2009 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, BLACKwell and Steel are just a couple of NINO's. Everybody knows they have a complex and are just looking for the approval of all those racist Repukes. I think the only reason they don't nominate Robert Byrd (former officer in the kkk) is because the kkk is too liberal for these bastards. They should all die in pools of blood after getting run over by garbage trucks (in the words of Sam Kinneson.) Fuck em all.

Posted by: Fingers on January 11, 2009 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Appointing a black man to head the RNC accomplishes very little. It will anger many Southern white Repubs who detest Obama (only one white voter in 10 voted for Obama in Alabama, my home state), and it will do little to gain black votes. Black people won't be fooled.

Indeed. But I think the plan is to be able to say, "We had two black guys running, so we're all square now, right, black voters?"

Posted by: shortstop on January 11, 2009 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

'Asher' is trying very hard to get a rise, but it's clear that the importance of not feeding the trolls has been learned well by serious blog readers, here.

Congratulations, all! It's sometimes hard not to respond, but we must persevere.

Posted by: PQuincy on January 11, 2009 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Um, you misunderstand the definition of "troll". A troll is smoeone who doesn't believe what they themselves are saying. I have no interest in getting a "rise" out of anyone.

When blacks make a sizable portion of a state's population that has a strong effect on white voting patterns. If you take the top 25 states of black residents as a percentage of the population there is a tendency for whites to vote more GOP as blacks become a greater percentage of the population. I believe the r-square is an astonishing .72.

Why? Well, because the existence of a sizable percentage of blacks in a community is an objective detriment to the existence of whites in that community. This is because blacks have an average IQ one standard deviation below whites, ahve a much higher propensity toward agression and violence, and reach peak sexual maturity around 20 months earlier than whites; whites, in turn, reach sexual maturity earlier than asians.

The facts are clear that whites of all political persuasions begin leaving a community whenever that community reaches somewhere around 15 percent non-asian minorities.

This is why there is a strong correlation between the percentage of citizens of a state who are black and the propensity of whites in that state to vote GOP.

Posted by: Asher on January 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

One more thing.

There is no such thing as racism. No, I'm not saying that the US is "no longer racist", but that the entire so-called phenomenon is no more real than medieval alchemy. So-called racism is nothing more than male sexual competition. The, very, left-wing Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal studied Jim Crow laws extensively and found that they existed for one purpose: to keep black men from having sex with white women.

In fact, the concerns that prompted Jim Crow laws have been entirely born out, since black men have sex with white women at at least an order of magnitude greater than white men and black women. Yes, southerners correctly deduced that inter-racial sexuality would mainly consist of black men taking sexual access to white women away from white men.

Now, as a staunch supporter of the rule of law, I oppose the Jim Crow method of addressing this very real social problem. But that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

In a related note, white men in turn take away asian women from asian men. The most recent figure I heard was that there are about 700 thousand more married asian females than married asian males in the US. This is a big problem for asian males. It's also a big problem for the US, as there is about a 20 point IQ difference between asaian and black males and IQ directly affects human capital on which a country can rely. At some point a person with a low enough IQ is not capable of meaningfully contributing to an advanced post-industrial society, and they are simply being carried by the rest of the society.

Given that it appears as if around 25 percent of blacks are functionally unemployable it would seem as if this IQ number is 80.

Posted by: Asher on January 12, 2009 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

This is nonsense BLACKS WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN. NEVER!! It is the most monolithic voting block in the country. The Repubs are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they do the people who are elected or appointed (Steele, Blackwell, Rice, Powell) are castigated as uncle toms and Stepin Fetchit. If they don't the Repubs are castigated as being non inclusive. The dems own the black vote. Problem for the blacks is that as the Hispanic population rises, fueled by a likely amnesty from the incoming administration, blacks are likely to have even less attention from the political party that they have staked their lives in. Nobody hands out the golden crumbs better than the dems. And, of course the bigger your voting bloc the more crumbs the dems will throw you. One voting bloc is growing at an ever increasing rate and it ain't the black voting bloc.

Posted by: baldwin on January 12, 2009 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

At least the Republicans have the *chance* of attracting Latinos, whom they've been beating up on for only about a decade.

But blacks? The GOP has been giving blacks the finger for forty years. The idea that a black RNC chair could make any difference is laughable.

Posted by: Nancy Irving on January 12, 2009 at 6:57 AM | PERMALINK

It doesn't matter who the RNC chair is. The rank and file of the party are going to revolt and burn the house down. While Democrats are promising interventions overseas and trillion dollar deficits as far as they eye can see, the next William Jennings Bryan will come from the Republican Party. Trust me on this.

The problem with Bryan, of course, is that he lost. However, the Republican Party will become populist.

Jeb Bush was, in retrostpect, smart not to run. The rank and file of my party are not going to smile on the Mitch McConnells of this world for much longer. Republicans will run against a Democratic Party that has been in bed with Wall Street and Washington, and win on that.

You watch. The Obama Administration will have to jump in bed with the financiers that got Barack to the White House. It won't be pretty. Like making sausages. There will come a time when being the Out of Power party will be good.

Posted by: section9 on January 12, 2009 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

@Nancy irving

At least the Republicans have the *chance* of attracting Latinos, whom they've been beating up on for only about a decade.

No, hispanics are the same as blacks, in that, as a group, they have much lower average IQs, and more tendency toward violence and aggression. But the gap isn't quite as large as between blacks and whites. And just like blacks there is a large percentage of hispanics that is, because of their genes, incapable of contributing to an advanced post-industrial society, they will have to be carried by whites.

Hispanics will vote in exactly the same way that blacks do: whichever party promises them the most free stuff provided by whites.

Posted by: Asher on January 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Virginia Postrel, then of Reason Magazine, wrote an article in January 1999 "Party Poopers: Why the Republicans Deserved to Lose." Nothing has changed in ten years, except that the GOP has added military failure and economic disaster to the list. Her prediction that the GOP had lost its grip on the Solid South was correct after a fashion; currently the Solid South has a death grip on the GOP.
Here's the link:

Posted by: Mandy Cat on January 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

“[Obama pollster] Cornell Belcher’s polling and decades of political-science research showed that white voters held certain stereotypes about black politicians— namely, that they were more likely to raise taxes and redistribute wealth, were weak on crime, and favored heavy government spending to help the poor (read: minorities like them).”

- Mark Ambinder, The Atlantic

Of course, black voters do intensely like tax and spend policies and weak on crime policies, and black politicians meet that demand. The "stereotypes" are actually just observations of hard facts.

The political goal of black people is to transfer as much social resources from white people as is possible. White people who live in states with large black populations know this and vote accordingly.

Posted by: Asher on January 12, 2009 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK



Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM

buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly