I think there is a bit of a problem with trying to assess this. The Republican party (and especially the Tea Party) base is probably prone to rhetoric that is culturally insensitive, not because they wish ill against any specific groups, but because they (as a group) don’t really know any better. As an example, some people use the phrase “Jew him down on price” without even thinking about it as a slur. To them, it is simply a common phrase among the people that they deal with.
I AM NOT saying that this is an acceptable excuse for using culturally insensitive rhetoric, but a politician risks alienating his/her supporters if they start going all Politically Correct on them. I personally think just about every Hitler reference in the last couple years should have been met head on with a heavy dose of just who Hitler was and how REAL people REALLY suffered as a result.
Add to that, the fact that the entire GOP seems to have turned into a bunch of 14yo drama queens throwing out every dog-whistle-word they can think of because their knickers are in a knot (I’m so sick of it).
I doubt very much that the drama queens really realize just how bad they sound to people who consider the content of what they’re saying. And, since they can’t hear their own rantings for what they are, they certainly aren’t going to be prone to correcting their own or anyone else’s rants.
Here’s an example. If stuffed monkeys show up at official events (like happened during the 2008 election cycle), the organizers do not permit people to carry them into the event and/or confiscate them as unacceptable. The same should be done to every sign with the image of the President altered to look like Hitler.
I’m not saying that the government should make any rules about this, I’m saying that the RNC, as an organization, should take the stand that such actions are degrading to our national political discourse.
I’d be willing to bet that IF the RNC did this at even one event, you’d see an official Tea Party political party spin off within 30 days.
The woman was Gayle Quinnell. After the incident, reporters interviewed her (transcript). You can almost feel sorry for her. The reporters essentially handed her a shovel and asked for a demonstration of her ability to dig a hole and she happily did it.
The right to vote whether or not one has a drivers license. The encouragement of organizations which register under-represented voting blocks. Investigation into racially discriminatory lending practices. etc.
Basically any civil rights issue on which there is significant support on both sides, you will find the Democrats on the side of minority rights, and the Republicans on the opposite side. That doesn’t make one side right and the other wrong, but it’s clear which side would be more welcoming to minorities and which would be more welcoming to those who dislike minorities.
The question is essentially like asking “What is the McDonald’s corporation doing to combat unhealthy eating habits?”
If they could be successful while actually ostracizing racists, they would. But they need them, so they make some weak noise in general and react with purpose only to extremely eye catching aspects that reveal the truth.
I may be the only one who feels this way, but as much as I disagreed with various aspects of Bush’s response to 9/11, I always felt that he made it a point to reach out to the Muslim community, and to emphasize that our issue was with extremism and not Islam. This was crucial, as far as I’m concerned, because in the absence of such constant reassurance, the natural reaction of most people would be to start hating Muslims.
In fact, I feel that that’s happened since Obama took office. I’ve been in the military since 2002, and I felt like for the first 7 years, we were constantly being beaten over the head with this “Muslims good, extremists bad” message. It was part of our cultural sensitivity training, a healthy part of pre-deployment briefings, and in general, anyone expressing a rabid anti-Muslim viewpoint was quick corrected. Hearts and minds and all that. Since Obama isn’t constantly trying to sell the war on terror to us, that message has been lost, and a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment is making its way to the surface in my coworkers.
Where am I going with this? If you have policies that you claim are not anti-Minority, but that end up hurting minorities anyway, you need to engage in a constant PR war to convince everyone that you’re not pursuing those policies in bad faith. Off the top of my head, Republicans are against: all forms of welfare and/or health care assistance for the poor (largely minorities), amnesty or support for illegal immigrants (mostly Hispanic) or immigration reform (they took our jobs), affirmative action, outsourcing, etc.
With every single one of those issues, there’s a standard talking point. “I’m not against gays, I just don’t think they should get married.” “I’ve got nothing against Mexicans, I just think they should come here legally.” “I have black friends, but we shouldn’t be throwing welfare money at people in the projects who don’t want to work.” Almost universally I find these arguments unconvincing. I’ll even grant that people think they believe them, but I still believe there’s an undercurrent of racism there.
I found Bush’s PR efforts convincing. I truly believe that he had nothing against Muslims, Afghanis, or Iraqis. I think he was doing what he thought was best for the country.
I don’t find most Republican’s PR efforts convincing. I think, by and large, they oppose serious efforts at immigration reform because they don’t like Mexicans. I think, by and large, they don’t like welfare because they think that their tax dollars are going to black people. I think the Republican party can put its fingers in its ears and pretend that its members don’t have these thoughts, but is that really good enough? Shouldn’t they be doing more?
I heard that before. But most people in the country are white. Is the percentage of people on social assistance higher among whites as a population than minorities?
It’s true that they’re mostly white, but minorities are disproportionately represented. I had actually written “mostly minorities” the first time around, but I checked myself and changed it to “largely,” which still probably wasn’t the right word.
In any case, if you gave 100 Republicans a box of crayons and asked them to draw you a “welfare mom,” I’m guessing not too many would pull out the peach crayon.
No, it’s considerably lower. It’s still incorrect to say “people on welfare are largely minorities”, though. Indeed, that sort of stereotype just made it easier for Republicans to retrench welfare programs. St. Ronnie’s “welfare queen” vacillated between being hypothetical and being a vlack woman from the South Side.
He did, yes. You could even argue he overdid it, and certainly some Republicans were not happy with his emphasis on this point. For that matter Bush also appointed the first and second black Secretaries of State.
There are no more important issues than equity in the system.
As much as I wish it were not true, racism is still entrenched in the system.
It will be until economic models are balanced and xenophobic responses to immigration are significantly diminished.
Much as I have seen the role of science eroded in the public mind, and superstitious nonsense promoted to a virtual state religion, I have also seen a retreat from the ideal of “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
It is a disturbing trend that should be addressed by the people in power.
As a Democrat, I don’t see them trying anything to discourage racists. In fact, I see them encouraging them. The responses in this thread by conservatives do not seem promising
See the Democratic party makes statements like this when they come across bigots in their ranks.
[QUOTE=State Democratic party chairman]
Mark Clayton is associated with a known hate group in Washington, D.C., and the Tennessee Democratic Party disavows his candidacy, will not do anything to promote or support him in any way, and urges Democrats to write-in a candidate of their choice in November
[/QUOTE]
So when they took a look at this candidate they essentially said ‘we’d rather let the Republicans win than support this guy.’
We have any examples of Republican party chairs taking a similar action?
Well, many of the old farts would pull that crayon out of the box & complain about the “PC nonsense” that made the Crayola company change the name of the Flesh crayon to Peach. Then they’d pick another one to do their art.
The Republican party has been running on racism since they began the Southern Strategy. A “black” president just energized the base. Not all Republicans are racists–but most of them keep quiet about the matter. Votes are votes…
Let’s look at the Republican Platform: This nation was created to give expression, validity and purpose to our spiritual heritage—the supreme worth of the individual. In such a nation—a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal—racial discrimination has no place. It can hardly be reconciled with a Constitution that guarantees equal protection under law to all persons. In a deeper sense, too, it is immoral and unjust. As to those matters within reach of political action and leadership, we pledge ourselves unreservedly to its eradication.
Equality under law promises more than the equal right to vote and transcends mere relief from discrimination by government. It becomes a reality only when all persons have equal opportunity, without distinction of race, religion, color or national origin, to acquire the essentials of life—housing, education and employment. The Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln—from its very beginning has striven to make this promise a reality. It is today, as it was then, unequivocally dedicated to making the greatest amount of progress toward the objective. Emphasis added. Strong words. Of course that was penned for the 1960 Republican convention. Still, it’s an interesting baseline.
More recently: No qualified person should be denied the opportunity to serve on the federal bench due to race, ethnicity, religion or sex. In affirming Article VI of the Constitution – that no religious test shall ever be required for any office – we insist that the Senate should never inquire into a nominee’s religious convictions and we condemn the opposition, by some members of the Democratic Party, to recent judicial nominees because of their ethnicity or religion. Interesting unsubstantiated claim. Individual rights — and the responsibilities that go with them — are the foundation of a free society. From the time of Lincoln, equality of individuals has been a corner-stone of the Republican Party. Our commitment to equal opportunity extends from landmark school-choice legislation for the students of Washington D.C. to historic appointments at the highest levels of government. We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes. We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance. As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Precisely because we oppose discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides, whether in education or in corporate boardrooms. The government should not make contracts on this basis, and neither should corporations. We support efforts to help low-income individuals get a fair shot based on their potential and merit, and we affirm the common-sense approach of the Chief Justice of the United States: that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating. So Republicans oppose affirmative action. That’s from the 2008 platform.
