Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Breaking Mad - The Republican Party is addicted to whiteness.
#1
Long read.  interesting how the GOP turned to the white vote and can't let it go.

https://newrepublic.com/article/133884/breaking-mad


Quote:Imagine an autopsy that concludes the cause of death was a drug overdose. After the funeral, distraught family members assemble to talk about how they could have prevented such a senseless tragedy. Then, after brief reflection, they all decide to start mainlining heroin.



That, in a nutshell, is the history of the Republican Party over the past half-century.

The GOP is addicted to whiteness, a psychological drug it started ingesting in the early 1960s with the encouragement of Goldwater conservatives, who argued that the party could win over the traditionally Democratic white South by resisting the civil rights movement. Richard Nixon was one of the Republicans who initially had trepidations. “If Goldwater wins his fight,” he told Ebony magazine in 1962, “our party would eventually become the first major all-white political party. And that isn’t good. That would be a violation of GOP principles.”

Nixon was right. But like most party leaders, he soon came around to the Southern Strategy, crafting a set of coded appeals to white resentment that helped him win the White House in 1968 and 1972. If Goldwater was the GOP’s original dealer, Nixon was its first full-blown junkie.




Like any decent recreational drug, whiteness initially made the Republican Party feel good. It fueled a swing to the right that picked up many disaffected whites unhappy with the Democrats’ embrace of civil rights. Following Nixon, it powered the national victories of Ronald Reagan and the George Bushes. But over time, the very drug that made the Republican Party so powerful slowly started to kill it.

The way Barack Obama won in 2008 left Republicans feeling jittery about the future. Obama’s victorious coalition was built not only on a record turnout of African American voters, but also on overwhelming support from Latinos, Asian Americans, and other nonwhites. He won three big Southern states—Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida—without pandering to conservative whites. And the groups that fueled his victory were increasing rapidly as a share of the electorate.

Yet even as Republican leaders recognized the damage whiteness was doing to the party, they couldn’t give it up. They’d grown so accustomed to relying on the stuff that it was impossible to imagine life without it. Sure, they made a few half-hearted attempts to kick the habit. They tried reaching out to minorities—think Jack Kemp’s “enterprise zones” for distressed urban neighborhoods, or George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives, which channeled federal funds to black churches. And they held up a succession of figures—from Alan Keyes and J.C. Watts to Herman Cain and Ben Carson—as model black Republicans. But such efforts always carried a whiff of desperation. The party wasn’t changing its core policies and messages. It was just slapping a “postracial” patina over its fundamental whiteness.

Not long after Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus convened party notables to conduct what was informally described as an “autopsy.” The resulting set of recommendations had a bland and euphemistic title: “Growth and Opportunity Project.” But the autopsy itself was unusually blunt: The GOP lost the 2012 presidential election because it had alienated young people and nonwhites. And in the future, the party’s whiteness would “tilt the playing field even more in the Democratic direction.” Between 1980 and 2012, the autopsy noted, the white share of the electorate had plunged from 88 percent to 72 percent—a trend that would only accelerate.

The autopsy paid special attention to Hispanic voters, whom Romney had turned off in droves by championing “self-deportation.” The RNC urged a dramatic remedy: Get behind comprehensive immigration reform.

Instead, Republicans responded by doing the exact opposite. After a brief interlude in 2013, when Senate Republicans in the so-called Gang of Eight joined Democratic colleagues to try and forge an immigration deal, the party faced a grassroots revolt and backed away from reform, stifling the measure in the House of Representatives.


The most notable about-face came from the senator who seemed to embody the party’s best hope for recovery. Young, Latino, and wired into popular culture, Marco Rubio helped negotiate the original immigration deal, then distanced himself from the measure after being stung by blistering nativist attacks from right-wing sites likeBreitbart, which ran scare items claiming that undocumented migrants would be given free cell phones (dubbed “MarcoPhones”). Yet Rubio’s willingness to betray immigration reform didn’t help him with white voters: When he ran for president, many conservatives shunned him.

Rubio’s dilemma over immigration was a microcosm of the Republican Party’s larger problem with race. Any move to make the party more inclusive precipitates an uproar from its overwhelmingly white base, which remains committed to stopping the very demographic changes the party needs to embrace. So rather than conquer its addiction to whiteness, the GOP has responded to the dwindling supply of white voters by shooting up even faster, desperate to enjoy the high while it still lasts. The party’s first response to Obama was the rise of the Tea Party, a nakedly nativist appeal to white unity. Now Republicans have doubled down by turning to Donald Trump, a presidential nominee far more openly racist than any national politician since the heyday of George Wallace.

Consider how much worse the GOP’s whiteness addiction has grown in just the past four years. Mitt Romney was a powder-cocaine Republican, a socially acceptable xenophobe offering a high that made whites feel like masters of the universe: Still in charge here! Trump, by contrast, is dealing meth—a trailer-park drug you take when you’ve given up hope and just want to get rip-roaring stoned. Compared to the country-club slickness of Romney’s cocaine conservatism, Trump’s meth-head politics are at least more honest. Instead of Nixonian euphemisms about law and order, or Reaganite winks about welfare queens, Trump offers the intoxicating thrill of telling protesters and immigrants—them—to get the hell out. It’s an intense high. And the aftermath will be tooth-rottingly ugly.



One reason Republicans so fiercely resist change is that they’ve developed a complicated mythology of denial that winds around to a skewed conclusion: The party doesn’t need to focus on nonwhite voters, because the realproblem is that white conservatives are sitting out elections. After Romney’s loss, this thinking was given its most sophisticated form by Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics, who argued that the defeat was the result of five to seven million “missing white voters.”

As political scientist Ruy Teixeira has shown, Trende’s theory rests on shaky ground, since voting by nonwhites declined in 2012 at roughly the same rate as voting by whites. Besides, the true “missing” voters are Asian Americans and Latinos, who go to the polls at a lower rate than whites or blacks (though Trump’s presence on the ballot could change that in November).

But as dubious as Trende’s notion of missing white voters may be, it speaks to a powerful longing in the Republican Party to avoid changing its core policies to appeal to a broader swath of American voters. When the GOP autopsy was released in March 2013, it immediately received a harsh rebuke from talk radio’s kingpin of whiteness. “They think they’ve gotta rebrand, and it’s all predictable,” Rush Limbaugh toldhis millions of listeners. “They gotta reach out to minorities, they gotta moderate their tone here and moderate their tone there. Nonsense. The Republican Party lost because it’s not conservative. It didn’t get its base out in the 2012 election.”

Versions of the “missing white voters” theory were put forward by both of the leading Republican candidates this year. Ted Cruz claimed that he would get millions of votes from evangelical conservatives who felt betrayed by mainstream Republicans. Trump, meanwhile, has boasted that he will attract the support of vast numbers of disaffected voters, most of them working-class whites. Cruz’s claim was soundly debunked during the primaries; Trump’s has yet to be tested beyond the narrow bounds of the GOP base.

More recently, Limbaugh has been spinning a whole new take on the mythology of Republican denial: the idea that minorities actually adore Trump. This theory ignores every national poll, focusing instead on the backing Trump received from the vanishingly few nonwhite voters during the GOP primaries. But that’s enough for Limbaugh. So the RNC wants to build a broad coalition? “Guess who’s doing it?” Limbaugh proclaimed in March. “Donald Trump is doing it! Donald Trump has put together a coalition—whether he knows it or not, whether he intended to or not—he’s put together a coalition that’s exactly what the Republican Party says that it needs to win!”

It’s well known that Limbaugh once wrestled with OxyContin abuse. But his suggestion that Trump will help the Republican Party gain nonwhite voters sounds like the product of far more powerful hallucinogens. That’s the way of addiction, though. Come November, Republicans may discover that it’s too late to give up on whiteness. Because this time, it won’t just cost them an election. It may finally kill the party.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#2
[Image: canadian-eh.jpg]


[Image: 1b8.png]
#3
What an amazingly racist article. Not surprised seeing who posted it.
[Image: giphy.gif]
#4
yeah stopped reading when it said the GOP refused civil rights lol
#5
(06-18-2016, 08:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What an amazingly racist article. Not surprised seeing who posted it.

The New Republic is racist?

Oh...crap.  Sorry, I didn't realize no one would only read the headline.  My bad.

I thought it might be interesting given the historical context it gives.

But...racist.  Sure.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#6
(06-18-2016, 09:04 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: yeah stopped reading when it said the GOP refused civil rights lol

Well we've tried to teach you before but you don't believe anything except your own biases.

Wanna show again how Johnson didn't fight for the Civil Rights Act?  Or did you getting you hind end handed to to you before end that folly?
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#7
(06-18-2016, 09:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well we've tried to teach you before but you don't believe anything except your own biases.

Wanna show again how Johnson didn't fight for the Civil Rights Act?  Or did you getting you hind end handed to to you before end that folly?

Lol it's you who don't understand.  LBJ was horrible on civil rights 
#8
(06-18-2016, 09:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol it's you who don't understand.  LBJ was horrible on civil rights 

Your honor I rest my case.

"Ty" knows all and no "facts" are gonna change his mind.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#9
I'm surprised libs still trust email chains from Hillary
--------------------------------------------------------





#10
The article misspelled "greatness"







Ninja
#11
Dems hate the fact that the GOP spearheaded the Civil Rights movement and they continue to do so today. To them the answer was then and the answer is now to keep them subservient. They difference is that now days they hold their votes hostage by giving them free stuff and telling them it's what is best for them.
[Image: bfine-guns2.png]

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
#12
(06-19-2016, 05:59 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'm surprised libs still trust email chains from Hillary

If WikiLeaks ever releases what they claim to have, that may change.
They could be full of it though.


http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/17/guccifer-2-0-claims-responsibility-for-dnc-hack/
#13
(06-19-2016, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dems hate the fact that the GOP spearheaded the Civil Rights movement and they continue to do so today. To them the answer was then and the answer is now to keep them subservient. They difference is that now days they hold their votes hostage by giving them free stuff and telling them it's what is best for  them.

And the GOP hated that the Dems were responsible for the CRA and started relying on the white vote and never changed.

Oh, and Reagan started giving away free phones.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#14
(06-19-2016, 09:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: And the GOP hated that the Dems were responsible for the CRA and started relying on the white vote and never changed.

Oh, and Reagan started giving away free phones.

Thanks, I didn't know that.
Please accept this Frankie Goes to Hollywood T-shirt as payment.

[Image: frankie.gif]
#15
(06-18-2016, 09:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: The New Republic is racist?

Oh...crap.  Sorry, I didn't realize no one would only read the headline.  My bad.

I thought it might be interesting given the historical context it gives.

But...racist.  Sure.

Actually, I tried reading the article. AFter a couple paragraphs when it became clear that the author believes "whiteness" is inherently bad, I stopped reading. So, maybe I shouldn't have called the WHOLE article racist, but the parts that I read were, so I just figured the rest was equally as racist.
[Image: giphy.gif]
#16
(06-20-2016, 11:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, I tried reading the article. AFter a couple paragraphs when it became clear that the author believes "whiteness" is inherently bad, I stopped reading. So, maybe I shouldn't have called the WHOLE article racist, but the parts that I read were, so I just figured the rest was equally as racist.

Then you read it wrong.

It never said white people were bad.  It said that the GOP's strategy of relying on the white vote to win is no longer workable and that even though they know it they still have candidates running with it.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
#17
(06-20-2016, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: Then you read it wrong.

It never said white people were bad.  It said that the GOP's strategy of relying on the white vote to win is no longer workable and that even though they know it they still have candidates running with it.

It's possible I may have read it wrong, but then again, comparing "whiteness" to drug use doesn't sound like anything but racism, IMO.

If the author's point was to suggest that relying on the "white vote", then he sure did start his article off in as horrible a manner as possible.
[Image: giphy.gif]
#18
(06-20-2016, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's possible I may have read it wrong, but then again, comparing "whiteness" to drug use doesn't sound like anything but racism, IMO.

If the author's point was to suggest that relying on the "white vote", then he sure did start his article off in as horrible a manner as possible.

It may be a bit of hyperbole...but his point was they can't quit it (like a drug) and their usage is getting worse over the decades.

Even without the analogy it's a good point.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)