The Republican party has very few black members. I’ve also sometimes heard the sentiment that blacks voting Republican are voting against their own self interest.
I’ve been curious for a while about why that is. I mean, speaking as a Republican who’s very unhappy with his party right now I see lots of reasons in general to be critical of the party, but I never got the reason why mostly white people are in it. And sense, for a while anyway, Republicans had a decent percentage of Hispanics, I think what drives away black voters must be different than what’s driving away Hispanic voters. But at any rate, I would like to focus just on blacks and their problems with the GOP.
OK, first of all, take out the racist Republicans and only focus on the party platform and policy. The only thing I can think of is most Republicans objects to affirmative action, especially quotas, set-asides, and point systems. Is that the only thing that black people see as being against their interests? I don’t think it is, I’m sure there has to be more, but I don’t know what else policy-wise.
So enlighten me. Other than being anti affirmative action, what else policy wise could be seen as anti-black?
Is this possible? You could have great policy ideas but if people feel that it’s a party that caters to racists, they’re not likely to feel welcome. Every time I have to hear some Republican brag about how they’re the “Party of Lincoln”, I can help but think “Yeah, but much more recently you’re the party of the Southern Strategy”.
Historically, for about a hundred years the Republicans were the **pro-**black party, in a sense. From before the Civil War to shortly before the Civil Rights movement, opposition to slavery, support for Reconstruction, etc., was politically grounded in the Republican Party.
Then some high-ranking Democrats pushed for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed it, and anti-integrationists left the Democratic Party in droves. The political balance on racial issues between the two parties was effectively reversed.
Nowadays both parties are pretty generally agreed officially that racial integration and equality are good things, but the Republican Party still has more residual opposition to them among its membership than the Democratic Party does. The segregationist image still lingers in popular perceptions of Republican ideology, especially among blacks.
Republicans also tend to be more ideologically opposed to domestic spending for social programs such as Head Start, housing assistance, welfare, and various urban antipoverty measures. This has a disproportionate impact on blacks, who are disproportionately likely to be urban and poor, so they favor the more liberal social policies of Democrats.
Ultimately, this is it. Democrats tend to favor programs that have obvious benefits for the black population (e.g. welfare). Republicans argue that these programs are ultimately more destructive, and so they oppose these programs. Regardless of which side is right or wrong, it’s not hard to see how the Republican stance would tend to be perceived as being disfavorable toward blacks.
They also have traditionally used dog whistle terms like “welfare,” “culture” and “street crime” to scapegoat black people as the problem that the Republicans will rescue white America from.
Most recently, we’ve seen the barely veiled racist crusade against ACORN and all the coded language and scapegoating over the housing crash, and we’ve seen the stark naked racism of the birthers, the demonization of Reverend Wright as the archetypal black boogeyman and any number of other comments and allegations made against the current President. It’s no secret that the teabagger movement, and far right, Palin/Beck type Republicans are motivated to a significant degree by racism, and the mainstream of the GOP has not made attempt at all to offer black voters a reason to embrace them (especially at a time when they finally have a black President). Their big message (as always) is that they want to cut taxes for rich white people. What’s to like about them?
I would add one thing to Kimstu’s very fine answer. In 2010, more African Americans are in part of the prison system than were enslaved in 1850. This has happened recently, and largely independently from other demographic trends, such as poverty and crime rates. The causes of racially disparate and high rates of incarceration are more complex than one party’s policies, but many blame the politics championed by folsk like Lee Atwater. With Willie Horton and “crack babies,” the GOP championed higher rates of imprisonment and policies like a 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
I’ve never thought terms like welfare as code. But then again maybe it’s because growing up my mother was on welfare…and in fact now she gets food stamps. And I see plenty of white people at the store use food stamps and I’ve known white people on welfare. And even if more blacks than whites are on welfare I don’t see how being against the program is automatically racist.
As for culture and street crime, I usually only hear those words about places with lots of violence going on. Again, if those places are predominantly minority I don’t see talking about a culture of violence or street crime is automatically racist.
It’s not automatic for everybody, but that is indeed the intention when conservative politicians and right wing media pundits do it. Ronald Reagan’s construct of the mythical “welfare queen” was not exactly subtle.
Thanks, y’all. Another thing I forgot to mention is that Republicans tend to be more socially conservative, so on average they have a more negative view of certain non-traditional social or cultural phenomena like rap music and single motherhood that are disproportionately associated with black people. This contributes to the “Republicans are anti-black” perception.
It isn’t “crime,” it’s a focus on crime being committed by black men in urban areas, as in the case of the outsized concern about crack cocaine use disproportionate to anything else, except the skin color of the average user. And isn’t “welfare,” it’s fear of “welfare queens,” who live in the inner city, don’t work, and pop out kids to get more money. Even though, even before welfare reform, the vast majority of those on welfare work.
In short, it isn’t the issues themselves, about which reasonable people can disagree. Its the GOP’s treatment of the issues using racialized stereotypes and championing policies that have little relationship to some consistent principle (such as reduced spending, or reducing the incidence of crime), but plenty of relationship to racial groups.
It’s not as simple as “absentee fathers.” That’s an example of the attempt to simply paint black people as morally inferior and deny that social/economic pressures have anything to do with it.
Sure. Blacks think that poverty is a bad thing too, for that matter. The point is just that Republicans are perceived as more likely to respond to such problematic social issues with harsh disapproval and punitive measures, rather than constructive (and/or costly) efforts at amelioration.
Good point. One important difference, however: country music is usually more overtly patriotic and/or religious than rap music, which for many conservatives automatically earns it more “moral wholesomeness” points.
Slightly off topic, but bringing up music reminds me of a time in the 80’s when I went with my then best friend to a camp which was run by his Pentecostal church. They had services and in one of them the minister was discouraging rock music the kids listen too, but then he said that he got on the case of the parents who mostly listen to country and how that’s just as bad.
Anyway, we return you to your regularly scheduled SDMB thread.
Exactly, they’re never willing to address such symtoms of economic and social problems as being addressable by anything but moral scolding (and threats to take away health care and food programs for those fatherless kids).
Anyone remember the late Jack Kemp, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under George H. W. Bush? He’s the last national Republican figure I can think of who was known specifically for his focus on solutions to urban/poverty/crime issues. (Am I missing some more recent figure? none occurs to me.)
Kemp may not have had any major game-changing policy successes, but he certainly fostered a credible association of Republicanism with active promotion of social welfare. Since then, as Dio notes, the public face of Republicanism on these issues has been mostly some form of “moral scolding”, along with tax cuts.
Kemp was a self-identified “bleeding-heart conservative”, and what Republican would even dream of adopting such a label today? George W. Bush tried a step in that direction with the “compassionate conservative” notion, but circumstances changed and he ended up firmly entrenched in the “neoconservative war President” persona instead.