Will the GOP ever appeal to Minorities?

[Person Man]

Hispanics, socially conservative, economically liberal. Basically populists and this election cycle favored the E liberal side of things. They are more prone to becoming conservative as they age.

true, but younger Hispanics tend to be more liberal than their parents.

Asians, to small of a percentage in the US to have any significant impact any time soon.

they're concentrated in a few states though, where they could have an impact, especially California, New York, New Jersey, the Pacific Northwest, and increasingly Texas and Virginia.

By the third generation, they are no more theologically/culturally/constitutionally conservative than the country as a whole.

[Person Man]

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

[Person Man]

They have their "minorities," most notably evangelicals. If what the question meant was will they ever appeal to black and latinos, all they have to do is change their positions. Unlikely to happen in the short term.

In a way, you are right. If someone told you that they were a Fundamentalist Christian in the late 70s, or saw you be animated by the Holy Spirit in church, they would see you as some sort of strange exotic culture from the Third World or they would at least be tempted to ask you if you normally wear a beard or head scarf.

[Person Man]

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage? 

[Person Man]

They could if they wanted to.  See what Bush did in 2004, after apealing to latinos, he got over 40% of their vote, not bad compared to usual Republican performance. 

The question is if the GOP will want to pursue latinos, my guess is that, at least for the time being, they are too tied down by the tea party to try to pursue them.

The tea party has nothing to do with the GOP appealing to minorities.

Whatever Palin or O'Donnell's numerous flaws, I don't think their anti-elitism is one of them. Sure everyone wants to better themselves and if they have the opportunity to go to Yale or Harvard they would, but at the same time and especially within the GOP, there is a great sense that the people in Washington are out of touch with mainstreet and trapped in the beltway mindset. This has its roots in the Bush Administration and arised first during the immigration debates and then in the Tarp debate. This is why there was a Tea Party to begin with in 2010. And this sort of anti-establishment, anti-blue blood rhetoric has been around for ages and it appeals to working and middle class voters, many of whom didn't go an Ivy League school and thus would have some agreement with the "oh he is just another Yale grad....". That doesn't mean you pass up opportunities to "join the club" if they arise or would prevent their son or daugther from attending such a school, though. Finally, I highly doubt an African American is going to the polls in 2012 to vote straight ticket Democrat because the Republican Presidential candidate expresses a common anti-ivy league sentiment, which depending on their background and occupation, they may even share.

There's several issues of contention with what RC says. First of all, being moderate on immigration may have helped Bush carry Nevada, New Mexico and perhaps in even Colorado in 2004. According to exit polls in those areas, he was amazingly competitive with Hispanics and perhaps that gave him the numbers to sweep those states. These states were won with 51%,50% and 52% of the vote respectively where Hispanics are a big part of he population. McCain, on the other hand, tapped a staunch nativist to be his running mate he lost these states by margins greater than Bush lost California 4 years earler. So maybe the Republican Party has pushed too far on the right on issues regarding their Nationalism...I just don't think they can have more moderate rhetoric and still be Right-Wing Nationalist...especially with so many loose cannons.
Another issue is being anti-educational.  I don't think its anti-intellectual or anti-educational to claim that someone is anti-intellectual or anti-educational because they make it an issue that they went to a Middle-Class, instead of an Upper-Class institution. Maybe some GOP populists are right to distinguish themselves as coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of their alma mater.  This could help open Government to the Middle-Class. Beyond that, we all agree that Cheney was more capable than Bush despite the fact that Bush went to Harvard and Yale and Cheney went to a public school (my school, actually).

In terms of the original question, my guess would be that Karl Rove was probably on to something for the GOP. Basically, the GOP needs to make a commitment to compassionate conservatism, where the nationalist wing of the party bases its values on values it can share with immigrant minorites, such as support for the Religious Right instead of  Nativism and Preemptive War. Huckabee seems to be the strongest candidate for minorites in 2012 in terms of non-economic issues. In terms of economic issues, Karl Rove was probably right again in terms of creating a neoliberal economic structure that allows some pathway for anyone to have access to it. (i.e. giving everyone a stake in a free market economy with easy access to loans).  ..then again, that's good politics, but not good policy.

I find it troubling that people who insist on real border and enforcement and have a problem with Amnesty both on a moral (unfair to those who did it legally and went through hell to do so) and a practical side (encourages more to occur), are automatically labeled as Natavists and racists. Its very effective, if you have a different opinion on those things, to control the debate and define your opponents, if possible.

It is interesting to note that Nevada actually proves the rhetoric over substance point on immigration. Angle ran some poorly thought out ads and suffered for it. While at the same time Heller, Heck, Ensign, Gibbons, and Sandoval are sufficiently strong on immigration and have no problem winning elections (unless of course they have "other" issues like Gibbons and Ensign do ).

Yes.  Think you are right about the elitism thing. On immigration, I think its probably a lot like gay rights. Positions on the issues are relative as to rhetoric. Is a candidate who claims they are pro-gay rights because they believe that gay men should be allowed to have sex with each other more gay rights than a opponent of gay rights who just wants to make sure that courts can't force states to accept gay marriage?

Depending on how that is applied to the immigration arguement that really makes  little or no case for the simple reason is that there isn't a single defined way to apply it in your post and thus can be used for either side. The way I think you want it applied is actually a very damning critique of what I think should occur to attract minorities. A long winded way of calling it tokenism. The problem is, in order to accept that premise, you must first accept the notion that hipanics want an open border, unlimited immigration with no restrictions and immediate amnesty for all illegals in the country. I simply don't think that is the case, though that is what certain pressure groups want, but of course they have alterior motives and aren't just about representing there charge.


A fitting and acceptable "compromise" on immigration in general would be to make legal entry more streamlined, and remove some of the hoops to be jumped through. Its also very ideologically compatible since it attacks the bureaucratic beast. On the flip side a realization that some limits based on economic reality (reducing the ratio of unskilled versus skilled workers for instance), and other factors would be the necessary exchange. Sure, you can educate the unskilled, but even that has limits as well based on time and capacity.

That's what "pushing to the center" would be like for immigration.- Make it safer and easier to come to the United States without neccesarily having "open boarders"...or still staying strong on immigration without  talking about mass deportations or shootings.

[Person Man]

Its not hyperbole. I hear it all of the time from conservatives who believe that illegal immigration should be dealt with by violence. The point is that moral absolutionism does not work with issues like this. The point is that this issue is more than just a bunch of "criminals" commiting illegal acts.