Tim Scott: Why are Republicans accused of racism? Because we’re silent on racism (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 01:14:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Tim Scott: Why are Republicans accused of racism? Because we’re silent on racism (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Tim Scott: Why are Republicans accused of racism? Because we’re silent on racism  (Read 3098 times)
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« on: January 11, 2019, 11:42:02 PM »

Well, Donald Trump is “like King,” and he’s exactly who Republicans want. So...

same party base nominated Romney and McCain.

Also the media is to blame for Trump as much as the base is. They promoted him non stop gave him all that free media and in today world thats a huge reason why people win

Not in the least the same Bass. The GOP has fundamentally changed for the worst right down to the soul.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2019, 10:18:52 PM »

If Tim Scott had any brains in his head he'd be a Democrat. Steve King/Trumpian racial politics will become the new norm. As America becomes less white, the Republican Party will have to win a bigger share of the white vote to stay relevant. That means they'll become more extreme, more racist, and more openly and overtly expressing white supremacist views.

The Democratic Party doesn't believe in the things he believes in, free enterprise, respect of U.S. soldiers with better pay, etc.
This statement is 100% false.

Perhaps.  But the Democratic Party has a significantly different worldview than Tim Scott does.

Tim Scott is an Evngelical Christian who has chosen to conform himself to my personal interpretation of God's Word, which I seek to incorporate into public policy whereever possible as opposed to his political party., at more cost to himself than many pols.  He's one of my faves.

Corrected
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2019, 09:14:48 AM »

Republicans have been silent on the issue for race for two major reasons. 1. Political expediency and 2. Fear.

Since the 1960's, Republicans have banked on Democrats being the party more for minorities and improving the lot of minorities and thus by extension making the Republicans the "lesser of two evils" and also default party for Southern whites over the course of the last decade. So if you start shifting your rhetoric and saying using things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make the case for protecting minorities, or doing what say Rand Paul does in terms of supporting restoring felon voting rights, the strategies presume that this will cost far more in terms of racist white votes then it will gain in minority voting for Republicans. Historically, they like to point to examples like Eisenhower or Ford where such efforts were disappointing in the results, compared to say Nixon or Reagan who achieved far more success employing dog whistle strategies. This positive feedback loop perpetuated this line of thinking, that really was born in reaction to the disappointment on the part of GOP activist/strategist base following the 1956 elections when a solid majority of blacks still voted Democratic against Ike, even with a Segregationist on the Dem ticket.

2. The other one is mostly fear of it backfiring or being taken out of context. Republicans are typically afraid to talk to blacks and black voters and thus you rarely see them address groups like the NAACP, with the exception once again of Rand Paul whose more libertarian social policies on prison. crime and drugs, not to mention foreign policy align rather well with the issues facing minority communities (Then they look at the economic dogma and say no thank you, but that is beside the point).



Reason number two is beyond silly. Practically admits outright that trying to sell the GOP platform to a gathered group of African-Americans is going to result in overt hostility. At best it assumes there will be audible groans are catcalls from a restrained audience, or worst some weird racist narrative that the blacks will bum rush the stage or something.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,329
United States


« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2019, 03:43:52 PM »

Republicans have been silent on the issue for race for two major reasons. 1. Political expediency and 2. Fear.

Since the 1960's, Republicans have banked on Democrats being the party more for minorities and improving the lot of minorities and thus by extension making the Republicans the "lesser of two evils" and also default party for Southern whites over the course of the last decade. So if you start shifting your rhetoric and saying using things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make the case for protecting minorities, or doing what say Rand Paul does in terms of supporting restoring felon voting rights, the strategies presume that this will cost far more in terms of racist white votes then it will gain in minority voting for Republicans. Historically, they like to point to examples like Eisenhower or Ford where such efforts were disappointing in the results, compared to say Nixon or Reagan who achieved far more success employing dog whistle strategies. This positive feedback loop perpetuated this line of thinking, that really was born in reaction to the disappointment on the part of GOP activist/strategist base following the 1956 elections when a solid majority of blacks still voted Democratic against Ike, even with a Segregationist on the Dem ticket.

2. The other one is mostly fear of it backfiring or being taken out of context. Republicans are typically afraid to talk to blacks and black voters and thus you rarely see them address groups like the NAACP, with the exception once again of Rand Paul whose more libertarian social policies on prison. crime and drugs, not to mention foreign policy align rather well with the issues facing minority communities (Then they look at the economic dogma and say no thank you, but that is beside the point).



Reason number two is beyond silly. Practically admits outright that trying to sell the GOP platform to a gathered group of African-Americans is going to result in overt hostility. At best it assumes there will be audible groans are catcalls from a restrained audience, or worst some weird racist narrative that the blacks will bum rush the stage or something.

In the past, that might be so.  Nowadays, the possibility of Maxine Waters  (or someone as unrestrained as that) interrupting the speaker, making a scene, etc. is real, and presents the speaker with a no-win situation that could have been avoided.

The NAACP is, pretty much, an extension of the Democratic Party these days.  I'm not saying this as a knock, but it's not the non-partisan organization it once was.  Of course our ideological politics represent a massive departure from the past as well, so this factor was inevitable. 

My advice for Republicans is simply this:  Drop the Voter ID initiatives, drop the opposition to former felons voting, drop the opposition to the Voting Rights Act, and talk to black audiences focusing on agreement.  This can be done once the GOP stops being on the wrong side of what blacks rightly view as "survival issues", issues vital to their ability to participate in the political system and defend their rights (something they rightfully don't take for granted).

Blacks, on the average, are more churchgoing than the average American.  They are more entrepreneurial than the average American.  Many blacks vote Democratic even though they may well agree with the GOP on social issues (abortion, secularism) and some aspects of economics (business regulation) because they view Republicans as hostile to their very participation in politics.  If THAT perception were overcome (which would take real work but it could be done), I believe that the GOP could, ultimately, end up with 25% of the black vote.  I certainly thing that LOCAL Republicans could gain a greater share of the black vote.  Such a shift in attitudes would, I believe, be healthy in that it would allow more people to be voting on issues, and it would result in greater reconciliation between blacks and the Republicans which are, for many blacks, the dominant party in their state/region. 



Hate to say it, but the image of blacks being social conservatives at heart just because rates of church-going are relatively larger the whites has always proven to be a myth. Abortion tends to be an economic issue 2 people who exercise that right, not a morality issue. After Americans 10 do suffer that short end of the economic stick more than whites, and accordingly polls show that support for legalized abortion equivalent or greater then whites. Likewise, African-American aversion towards interracial marriage and gay rights pretty much evaporated since Obama came out in support.

In short, the type of African-Americans you describe are exactly those 5 to 10% who regularly still vote Republican, but that's about the extent of it. Doubling down on such issues has been attempted, and failed. Republicans know this, and realize that given a choice between modifying their dickensian economic policies, for letting up on voter suppression laws which are crucial towards maintaining power and importance swing States as well as nationally, they will gladly follow their current practice of doubling down on the white power vote.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 13 queries.