The Impossible Dream
Interesting piece by Shelby Steele on why African-Americans don't support conservatives. I've always felt this is a disaster for America. (And not because of who gets voted in--imagine that doesn't change.) It's not just bad for Republicans, or blacks, but also for Democrats and whites. All of them are bent in bad directions by this phenomenon.
Conservatives may have a lot to offer minorities, but it's simply a message that African-Americans can't seem to hear. Will this ever change? Not any time soon, but I still believe candidates should try to talk about it, and listen as well. If a change is gonna come, that's the way to start.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:25 AM
6 Comments:
"conservatism has no way to show itself redeemed of America's bigoted past, no way like the Great Society to engineer a grand display of its innocence, and no way to show deference to minorities for the oppression they endured. Thus it seems to be in league with that oppression."
Two more problems: (1) most racists self-identify as conservatives; and (2) some prominent media conservatives play the reverse-racism oppressed-white-male-victim game in a way that reminds many black people of the historical rallying cries of racists. I would submit that these are not wholly coincidental.
Point 1 is irrelevant, wrong and intellectually dishonest. There are very few out-and-out racists around these day and both sides explicitly abjure racism. Just because some insignificantly small number of people are racists doesn't mean that's the position of either side--classic guilt by association. Furthermore, of what racism I do see, I find more of it on the left. In fact, one of the reasons I don't consider myself part of the left any more is their racialized way of looking at the world and their willingness to support and agree with outrageous pronouncements about race and ethnicity as long as it comes from the right group, and can be dressed up as speaking truth to power. (And I don't think there's much argument that much of the worst and most notorious Jew-haters in the world these days have the support of, and are on, the left.)
On point 2, whether or not a lot of conservatives say they're not being treated fairly due to their skin color (and whether or not they're correct), who cares? This has nothing to do with finding the best solutions to the problems minorities face and, in any case, isn't nearly as devastating as the left's equivalent argument: that the system is racist and rigged against you so you don't really have a chance unless the government intervenes. If the Left, rather than discuss the merits of which sides' proposals work better, wants to portray the right as hateful because of what they claim the Right believes, then all this will end up meaning is the minorities the Left cliams to help will suffer more than they need to, since they've shut themselves off from useful ideas for non-rational reasons.
I thought that was the good thing about Steele's essay--he gets behind the reason why we have this tragic situation.
"There are very few out-and-out racists around these days"
I like a simple haircut, and it started seeming stupid to pay for it when I could buy clippers that would pay for themselves after 3 or 4 cuts. But I never did anything about it until just before the 2006 World Series, when my Rush-loving barber asked me if I was rooting for the Cardinals or the Tigers. I told him I could never root for the Cards after they did a mocking rendition of Jose Reyes' "Ole, ole, ole" song in their locker room after eliminating the Mets. He nodded and replied, leaning in to whisper in my ear "that was those black players. The white players wouldn't do that." Actually it turned out to have been a (white) former-Met relief pitcher who was doing it. But I cut my own hair now.
Later that year I was being driven to the airport with my friend by her regular cab driver, who had right-wing talk radio on for the ride. He was looking for vacation ideas, and I suggested Barbados. He said "nah, too many blacks."
Pretty weak tea, eh? So what that both were conservatives? That is an insignificantly small number of out-and-out racists, who displayed racism on utterly trivial subjects. Unless, of course, you happen to be black. Then, when I tell those stories you might nod along, accepting them as additional confirmation that of course what you heard in the right wing media that sounded like apologism and cover for racism in fact does attract and give comfort to just such beliefs.
This is about perceptions, which Steele certainly grasps but your arguments do not. Most black people would consider my examples neither irrelevant, wrong, nor intellectually dishonest. And until the right learns to deal with that perception problem, their conventions will continue to look like casting calls for Big Love.
I don't think that's Steele's argument. He is saying (and I agree) that conservative principles could serve minorities well, and the reason they can't hear that message is for symbolic reasons that don't really hold up to analysis. If they could get beyond their suspicion, and break out of their old assumptions, it wouldn't just be good for Republicans, it would be good for everyone. (Therefore, to make excuses for their continued support of Democrats doesn't help them.)
As for personal stories of racism, it's more a class thing. The upper classes may have veiled racism in their very politics, but open declarations that you hear on the street (whether or not it fairly expresses their true feelings) often come from the blue collar side, who vote Democrat just like they vote Republican.
I don't think we're that far apart on what he was arguing -- and we're in agreement that it would be a good thing for black people to be open to conservative ideas that may (or may not) be in their personal best interest. "More ideas is good" ain't that tough a sell, frankly. But the key part I still think you're missing, that is best expressed by my original quote from him, is that it really is going to remain about perception unless and until the right does something about that perception. When some of your leading talking heads can hop from arguments that sound like thinly-veiled racism (to a black listener) to libertarian economic principles and back, it taints the latter arguments by association. But Steele can't go that far, and can't make the association with the media angle, because the last time he did, he wound up having to grovel for forgiveness.
America contains sizeable miorities of people who hold odious beliefs. Racists, sexists, anti-semites, etc. Some would add the extreme edges of the abortion debate as well.
But every American has a right to vote, and the parties are caught between the "big tent" desire to scoop up as many votes as possible, and adhering to basic principles of their political philospohy.
Democrat leaders were embarrassed after the greater percentage support Republicans gave the Civil Rights act in the early 60s (here are the figures:
History of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - from Wikipedia
* The Original House Version: 290-130
* The Senate Version: 73-27
* The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:
* Democratic Party: 153-96
* Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:
* Democratic Party: 46-22
* Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
* Democratic Party: 153-91
* Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:
The Original House Version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87
* Southern Republicans: 0-10
* Northern Democrats: 145-9
* Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate Version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-21
* Southern Republicans: 0-1
* Northern Democrats: 46-1
* Northern Republicans: 27-5
They determined to become the party af the black minority, and purged racists from their ranks. Republicans, though pricipally anti-racist (see Eisenhower, etc.), were able to pick up essentially low hanging votes just by not being Democrats. This has, of course, led to the perception problem.
I had hoped the Republicans could become the party in favor of regulated, welcoming immigration, for the betterment of the country (whether a guest worker policy or some other method to provide an escape for the oppressed masses of Central and South America). Unfortunately, the Republicans who forsaw the political advanatges of this (imho logical and prinicipled approach, liek George Bush), were too weak to lead the party in this direction, and the party has not been able to saddle the Democrats with an anti-immigrant taint. Both parties are generally populist on the matter.
i would note that I think there is a danger thatthe democrats are begining to attract more anti-semites. It's a tricky road to oppose Israel's position in the mideast, without attracting votes from Americans who don't like Jews anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home