Worked for Watts until he got bored. The concept of black Republicans in Congress is now hypothetical.
So you want others to switch out of opportunism rather than principle? How is this good?
*“As well as,” *not “rather than.” The OP explains why I believe such a switch would also be good for African Americans.
“As well as” principle? How attractive has that been to blacks so far?
Watts tried it and found he was used as a “Front Window Negro”, I believe the term is. You have not explained why any others would think they’d have any more influence, as your fantasy OP suggests - if there were any, that is. Maybe they know better? Is your paternalism getting in the way of your clarity of thought, perhaps?
Jeffords was the turnabout. Or don’t you remember the really vile semi-racist insults thrown at Ben Nighthorse Campbell when he switched back in '94(?). “Ben Turncoat Campbell Speak With Forked Tongue” was one of Patsy Schroder’s “famous” quips from the time.
Fenris
I imagine there are hard feelings whenever someone switches parties. This would have been enormously magnified in the case of Jeffords, who cost the remaining Republicans their chairmanships.
Personally I am not in favor of these opportunistic party switches. And someone who wants to switch should at least wait until the next election or resign (as did Phil Gramm).
I don’t agree that Watts was used for window dressing - he was given a leadership position. I don’t see any reason to believe that he did not have real power as much as anyone else in that position. In a sense I guess you could call it window dressing in that the color of his skin undoubtedly helped him. But to imply that he was solely window dressing would be wrong, pending further evidence.
Whereas racial tolerance is accepted by all major political viewpoints, there are still right/left splits on related issues such as affirmative action and such. These are sometimes portrayed (wrongly, IMO) as tolerance issues. (In fact, referring to people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as civil rights leaders is a misnomer, IMHO).
I’m not familiar with the term, but it sounds right. Naturally the Republicans pushed Watts forward rapidly in their leadership as a way to promote their desire to be an inclusive party.
Still, Watts’s senior position probably gave him more influence than any single Black Congress(wo)man of similar seniority had on the Democrats. Don’t forget, Watts is only one person out of an entire Congress. In fact, it’s hard for me to think of issues where the entire Democratic Black Caucus has had any influence in the last decade.
His, thank you. And what I “thunk” was not what Arnold said, but the fact that pressing for civil rights for racial minorities has* historically been the province of the more liberal party and the acceptance of existing intolerance that of the more conservative one. This was the case with the Republicans advocating it and the Democrats muting the issue in the 1850s and during Reconstruction, and the liberal wing of the Democrats pressing the issue in the late 1940s and 1950s, joined by the more liberal Republicans.
Are Republicans bigots? With a few exceptions, no. But, are they as apt today to press for steps aimed at benefitting racial minorities as are Democrats? If so, I’ve seen little evidence of it.
Maybe the infusion of African Americans, Cuban Americans, and other minorities into their ranks that December’s OP is examining, may tend to leaven the tendency to ethnic laissez-fairism that accompanies social and fiscal conservatism in their apparent makeup today.
Been through that in other threads. He quit in protest over being cut out of major policy decisions, and was quoted as saying so.
Oh yes - there being no remaining black Republicans in Congress, the GOP’s claim to have black influence rests entirely on the shoulders of Rice and Powell, and Powell is debatable.
Don’t forget that Bush got a big education bill passed early in his term. So, I think Rod Paige has considerable influence as well.
There’s also FCC chairman Michael Powell (son of Colin). I’m not sure what exec-branch administrators have to do with the issue of Dems switching parties, though.
Because they’re all they’ve got to support the OP claim, Kimstu.
Our usual suspect hasn’t addressed the primary problem here, also as usual. If the Republicans’ principles, policies, and heritage are failing to attract minority support in significant numbers, as the facts inexorably show, then the answer isn’t to promote unprincipled opportunism instead. All that does is add potentially a few more “front-window Negros” who fool no one but themselves, while intensifying the party’s image as one of unprincipled opportunists. Those voters who are being patronized that way are more adult than the OP gives them credit for.
No, friends, if the party’s principles, policies, and heritage aren’t enough to attract more supporters than they do by themselves, then nothing short of addressing them squarely will have any real effect. That’s true of any party, of course.
To the contrary, for a political party to back off of the principles that it stands for in the name of attracting more voters is to undermine the purpose of its existence. That is the ultimate in opportunism.
The purpose of the “front window Negroes” is a different one. There are some people who believe that Republican policies about matters like affirmative action and welfare etc. are not principles in their own right but derive from genuine racism, i.e. outright antipathy to Black people. The purpose of “window dressing” is to show that people can hold of such principles and still like and respect Black people. Perhaps if this is made clear, such principles can be considered more on their merits, and it is just possible that more blacks might agree with them then you would expect.
Hasn’t worked much yet, that I can see. There is also another angle, however, in that it may be useful for moderate white voters who are uncomfortable voting for “racists” - to the extent that such an image is softened in the eyes of these voters, it can be useful as well.
No, it doesn’t, actually. It does beg the question, however… if what you say is true, then why aren’t African-Americans switching over in droves? Could it be because they still find compelling reasons to stay where they are? Could it be that other African-American Republicans (such as Watts) have experienced problems when they have switched?
I agree with what Elvis said here:
The Republican party wants to attract more African-Americans into its midst, and it hopes to do so by suggesting the political benefits. However, it will continue to fail to do so until it makes some actual, substantive changes of its own ideology.
I believe a switch would give the remaining African Americans in Congress more leverage with the Democrats, in asking for senior positions, particular legislation, etc.
That’s a good question.
I would assume this was the case.
I don’t think so. Republicans provided quite a bit of support for Watts as a member of the leadership and as a party spokesman.
This switch is noteworthy because Louisiana has traditionally been a highly Democratic state.
Here’s a black politician who agrees with the OP.