« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Republicans, Minorities and All the Demographic Hubbub

It’s pretty clear from the post election Conservative fits that the Republican Party is going to fail at capturing minority votes. Just downright fail. As much as I hope against hope the party will alert itself to the growing minority population, we are destined to be old white guys.

I’m not even that old. Middle aged perhaps.

Since the election, I’ve seen much talk about the need to get minority voters to the Republican Party. You’d think, reading my words, that I was the head of the ostrich stuck in the proverbial sand. You’d be wrong.

Sure, I’ve seen rightward posts such as Byron York at the Washington Examiner, “Republicans faced two big problems. The first is that a lot of black voters turned out. The second is that a lot of white voters didn’t.”

To be clear, Byron is one of my favorite writers (and guest on Bill Bennett’s radio show). This is by no means a denigration of Byron. Still he misses the point altogether.

You might even see this discussion at NRO by John Fund, “Now that Florida has been called for Barack Obama by the slimmest of margins, Republicans have to confront the fact that they lost the Sunshine State because of weakness in a key demographic they used to own: Cuban Americans.”

All of this seems fairly logical. I agree with the logic and find nothing inaccurate in either writer’s assessment of the facts. At all.

Still, they completely miss the point. So as to stop being coy, what’s the point?

Minority groups are not statistics. They are not a demographic. They are people.

As noted by Crystal Wright at Conservative Black Chick, “Romney and the RNC spent millions of dollars in advertising to Hispanics, yet he failed to chip away at that voting bloc because people can tell when you don’t really care about their vote.”

This is, no pun intended, a clear crystallization of problem; people can tell when you care about them.

Further stated by Crystal, “A year ago, the RNC hired me to create a black outreach website to attract more blacks to the Republican Party. After near completion of the site in the late spring of 2012, Romney and the RNC killed the project, explaining they didn’t want to launch the site without putting outreach activities behind it. I agreed and recommended a slate of outreach activities such as town hall meetings at historically black colleges and universities in swing states such as Virginia and North Carolina. The RNC’s refused to fund any black outreach activities.”

This, I think, explains much. Why would a minority electorate vote for a party that won’t even try?

If you recall the Republican convention, it was minorities en regalia. It was the Republican party putting on a show. It was, for all intents and purposes, lip service. It was not a very effective display of an inclusive party. It was a front.

While this may ring of cynicism, is this wrong?

The key is to not lose a recent election and go running for the first minority group for solace. To affirm that as Republicans, we are not that bad. We’re not. Still, it appears we’re not that great either.

The one note song of Republicans remains true, we are the party of opportunity. It matters little about your race or enthnicity. It matter what you do. It’s a great message.

If you bother communicating directly to the source.

More pointedly, delivering this message for one very simple reason; it’s the right thing to do. That’s it.

If Republicans look to minorities to win an election, it will never happen. The Democrats have been doing this for decades and have the skill down to a science. Republicans shouldn’t even care if minority outreach affects the party in 2016.

Asking minorities to come to the party is like asking someone to join a family. Do you warm someone to the idea of joining a family by pointing out what a convenient demographic they are? No and that’s laughable.

This seems to be the message of the naval gazing right wing pundits.

You have someone join the family because you enjoy their company. They join the family because they want to be around you.

Would you join a family because you are a handy demographic? Never.

Noted by Condoleezza Rice, “clearly we are losing important segments of that electorate and what we have to do is to appeal to those people not as identity groups but understanding that if you can get the identity issue out of the way then you can appeal on the broader issues that all Americans share a concern for.”

Key within her statement is to stop thinking in terms of identity groups. Sure, we’ve long said this needs to be done. And realistically, to begin outreach, you must reach out to, well,an identity group.

The greater point remains to actually start outreach but to also consider the motive. Are Republicans trying to beef up election numbers? If so, good luck.

To welcome minorities to the party, it has to be more than a numbers game. It has to be the right thing to do. It has to be for reasons of valuing the input and experiences brought to the table.

Simply put, it is about respect.

The Republican Party has done a woefully poor job at this. No wonder minorities don’t much trust Republicans, there is little reason to.

Cross posted at Rightward Journal

COMMENTS

  • SirGladiator

    I agree completely, its absolutely absurd the lack of effort we as a Party put into winning the minority vote. Ironicly, the one time we did put a major effort in at the Presidential level, was Ohio in 2004, and it single handedly won us the election. We worked with black pastors in defense of Marriage, an area of common ground, and we got a much larger share of the black vote than normal (I forget the exact number, but somewhere around 15 percent I think, far better than the 4 percent nationwide in 2008 and 6 percent this year). Imagine that, connecting with voters on issues we agree on, and voters who happen to not be white no less, shocking! Sadly, it actually is shocking, because the higher ups just don’t care. They simply write off the black and hispanic vote, election after election. Bush never did, he won over 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, not because he wanted to, and certainly not because he was awesome, he won it because he knew and cared about Hispanic people, he spoke Spanish regularly, they knew he was someone who saw them as people, not statistics.
    When you get moronic comments from Romney like ‘self-deportation’ and such, I mean, who’s going to self-deport? Nobody. You’re just insulting hispanic people by asking them to self-deport, and insulting the intelligence of anybody who you actually want to believe its ever going to happen. If we’re going to talk about immigration, you can take a hard line or you can take a soft line, but either way how about at least taking a SANE line? Speak to Hispanic people as if they’re people, and as if they have a brain in their heads. Bush never offered amnesty to get those big Hispanic votes, he reached out to them on issues of common ground. We can talk about ‘amnesty’ or ‘pathway to citizenship’ or ‘secure the borders’ or whatever else, but we’ve got to do it in a way that doesn’t insult Hispanics and cause them to ignore anything else we say. Show respect, and reach out on issues we agree on, of which there are VERY many. That’s how we’re going to win the Hispanic vote. And the black vote for that matter, obviously we’re starting with a much lower number there so its going to take longer, but we can win their votes as well if we actually make the effort, don’t insult them, don’t pander to them, just good honest effort to show that you care and that we agree on important issues. Its time to finally do what we’ve known literally for decades needs to be done. We just need somebody to finally do it.

    • $22358617

      The difference is that Bush ran against a couple of boring white guys. If he ran against Obama, his share of the minority vote would’ve been comparable to what Romney got.

      Why doesn’t the GOP spend more on minority outreach? I believe it’s a simple matter of cost versus benefit. Raising the level of black support from 6% to 16% would only net the GOP candidate maybe 1.5% in the overall vote. It would be tremendously expensive and time consuming. It may not even be possible when you’re running against someone like Obama.

      • http://rightwardjournal.com Jeff Swanson

        In a way though, using a cost/benefit analysis model reinforces the point. It is not an immediate return nor should be considered such.

        Your point is very true but to bring minorities to the party, the cost should not matter, If, as we believe, that a minority can flourish within the party, then it should be an investment in their future and would, long term, benefit the party as well.

        the Democrats spent many elections on identity politics and this makes overcoming the liberal grip very hard.

        Still, my point is that irrespective of cost, it should be done.

  • rustyoldgarand

    I agree with this sentiment. If we stop talking like we think minorities vote only based on the color of their (or the president’s) skin, maybe they will stop viewing us as the party of white power? Conservative ideas help minorities by empowering people on all rungs of the social ladder to take control of their own lives. We need to start speaking to minorities as Americans, full stop. No pandering, and no crying about demographic change.

    • mlaforet

      Unfortunately the highly black area in Philadelphia voted solidly for Obama but there are conservative exceptions…Too bad the GOP primaries flushed out Herman Cain. It seems he would have been good.

  • miikeb

    If one looks at the weight of the White vote,
    Since 2000, the total number of white people has declined by 2.7% as a share of the total. (Raw numbers up, but less than Pop Growth.)
    Now the white population is not down across the board, it is down in blue states.
    States that went for Obama have a Mean Fertility rate of 1.79, and an average fertility rate of 1.87. States that went for Romney had a Mean rate of 2.05 and an average rate of 2.03. So Red states are having a lot more babies than Blue States. White Liberals just do not have a lot of babies.

    Now let us define the weight of white voters by % of White Voters * Republican or Democrat share.

    2000T = 81
    2004T = 77
    2008T = 74
    2012T = 72

    2000R = 44.55
    2004R = 44.66
    2008R = 40.7
    2012R = 42.48

    2000D = 34.02
    2004D = 31.57
    2008D = 31.82
    2012D = 28.08

    So while Whites dropped by 2.7% of the population, they dropped as a share of the voters by 9% Partially due to higher minority turnout.
    But Republican weight only dropped by 2.18% which is less than the share of the population, and much less than the total dropoff in white voters.
    In fact the Democratic weight of white voters turned out to have dropped 5.96% which is drastically higher than how far the white population dropped.
    Now this is all to say that white democrats are having less kids, and voting less democratic. The more liberal a state is the lower it’s birth rate is.
    In the long term, it is quite likely that the White population will stabilize with the Hispanic population (The African American population has stayed more or less static since 1860).

    All this also neglects the fact that the white vote has dropped off so sharply because prior to 2008 minority turnout was so low. Not that they have reached their share of the population (72%Turnout vs 72% Population) the decline will be much much less.

    Still it would be a very good thing to increase the GOP’s appeal to Hispanics, and show them that the Republican party is good for them as well as for others. We need to stop threatening to deport them to Mexico, it is a war zone over there, and that should be reason enough to both secure the border and not deport people into Mexico.

    But again right now the Republican party got tagged as the rich white people party, and needs to listen to Jindal and Huckabee and stop selecting candidates that cant relate to anyone.

    Still in 20 years I am convinced this “Hispanic Issue” as seen by the Democrats will go away. Hispanics are no different than Italians were in the early 1900s. They will merge with the current “White” population, celebrate their culture, and see themselves the same as everyone else.

    What is a dying breed is white liberals.

    • mlaforet

      What a thoughtful, encouraging post!

  • Pingback: Wai Youngren

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples