Out of the Republican closet: Black Like Me
Reginald Bohannon is a Republican.
That in and of itself is not remarkable. But what is unusual–although certainly not unheard of–is that he is a black Republican, raised in a culture in which 90-95% of the ethnic group to which he belongs is Democrat, and in a family with a politically active Democrat mother.
Not altogether unlike myself, actually, come to think of it (although I’m not a Republican; I’m an Independent).
And, in another similarity, Bohannon has written about his “change” experience, in a book entitled Coming Out of the Republican Closet: Coming to Terms With Being Black, Patriotic, and Conservative (it could be subtitled: not an oxymoron.)
Here’s a recent interview with Mr. Bohannon. His “coming out of the closet” metaphor is especially apt, I believe. It’s one that has come up quite often on threads on this blog that discuss the experience “changers” have had (see this, for example).
As you all no doubt know, “coming out” is a phrase that previously had been used primarily to describe the experience of gays who’d been hiding their sexual identities for fear of discrimination and recrimination, and who finally decide they can no longer live the secret life. They tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may; sometimes they fall hard and painfully.
Before my own change experience, I would not have believed in any possible comparison to the experience of gays; I actually might even have considered it preposterous if someone had asserted discrimination from liberals because of “turning” in a conservative–or a neocon–direction.
But now I’m a believer. Personal experience, and being the recipient of emails from all over the world describing the phenomenon, have convinced me. And yet I still feel some amount of shock at the depth and breadth of it all. I like to think–and really, I know, since I always had a few conservative friends–that in my liberal days I would never have had this reaction to a “changer.” After all, doesn’t it seem especially antithetical to the openmindedness and respect for opinions of others that liberals profess to feel?
But, as I’ve written before, a political identity is much more than that: it often becomes a moral and personal identity, and there are groupthink aspects that lead to ostracism of the apostate. Zell Miller likens political identity to a birthmark, and in a way it is.
In his interview, Bohannon discusses the tagline to his book, “Not wanting to disappoint his family and bring ill-repute on them, Bohannon chose to keep his political viewpoints to himself.” He feared name-calling and anger directed not only at him, but at his family.
But over time he gained the courage of his convictions, bolstered by the history of the Republican party’s support of freedom for blacks during and after the Civil War. An especially interesting aspect of his position is that he believes black people to actually already be more conservative on many issues than they themselves know. He sees himself as a person willing to point this out and make it easier for more of them to cross over into formerly-dreaded Republicanism. Bohannon sees the scarcity of blacks in the Republican Party as a function of lack of education as to what Republicans really stand for–now, and historically–and an incorrect perception of the Party as racist.
Bohannon says:
…it takes some intelligence to be a black Republican because you have to do your homework. …To be a Democrat, you just have to join the Party that your family belongs to and you don’t have to learn anything at all.
No, it’s not true that black Democrats–or Jewish Democrats, or any other ethnic or socioeconomic group that’s predominantly and overwhelmingly Democratic, for that matter–are unintelligent. Not at all, and I would strongly quarrel with Bohannon’s use of the word.
But I do identify with Bohannon’s larger message–which is that, as I grew more interested in reading about political events, both domestic and international, as well as historical–I grew away from the Democratic Party and more to the right.
That certainly is not an inevitability; I know that some people go in the opposite direction. But, as I’ve written here, it appears to be a trend. Reginald Bohannon is part of it–and, if he has his way, more black people will join him.
Adam, an important thing to remember about classic conservatism is that it seeks to preserve values and not necessarily institutions. Peter Viereck has pointed this out in his classic book, The Unadjusted Man.
There is no inherent resistance to “change” qua change in conservative thought. Not to worry though, many self identified conservatives are not well schooled in the intellectual underpinnings of conservatism.
I’ve come from the opposite side, with a family that would vote for Hitler if he was a Republican. I can certainly sympathize with keeping one’s politics to one’s self to avoid family conflict. But I do think that one’s initial background shapes how one thinks about issues, even if one changes his mind about particular stands.
One has only to experience the recent spate of comments to see how rabidly the supposed “liberals” denounce any deviation from the party line. I have never experienced the vehement denial of the validity of my opinion from a conservative friend, even when I diverge wildly from “conservative” thought.
I’ve had vigorous discussions about the NSA wiretapping and phone records issues with a relative who’s more conservative than I on the issue, but I’ve never been called a “moron” for disagreeing.
Great commentary, Neo. Political socialization has been an interest of mine for years. Not the kind where someone simply trades one totalitarian viewpoint for another, but the more subtle changes brought on by life experiences and an individual’s inner dialog of particularizing and generalizing in a continuous process.
Not surprisingly, most of my close friends did some wandering in the wilderness before coming up with a set of values and world views they were comfortable with.
When I read the article you cite, I knew exactly what your next major post would be. Thanks again, you blog is a great resource that I send to those still wandering.
That Human Events page sends Mozilla into spasms. I stopped the browser, and hit view source. I then copied the text into an html editor so I could read it.
Bohannon said, “… it takes some intelligence to be a black Republican because you have to do your homework. … To be a Democrat, you just have to join the Party that your family belongs to and you don’t have to learn anything at all.”
To which you responded that members of the ethnic groups that are Democratic should not be consider unintelligent.
That’s not what he said. While it may be true that many black Democrats are, in fact, intelligent, it is also true that they are not required to use that intelligence. Democrats in my day were smart, well-informed people. Not any more. Democrats demand total loyalty and devotion to the faith. Please remember that this is a political party that stresses how a person feels, even if that trumps common sense, historical reality, or any other hard facts. If conservatives argue with facts and logic, the typical counter-argument is that the conservative is (1) evil, (2) stupid, or (3) doesn’t understand the big picture: the Democrats are the good guys because they are looking after the little guys.
By the way, I am also a person that didn’t leave the Democratic Party: it left me. In giving up my support for the Democrats (until they come to their senses), family and friends treat me as an apostate.
“That Human Events page sends Mozilla into spasms. I stopped the browser, and hit view source. I then copied the text into an html editor so I could read it.”
What version of Mozilla are you running? I run Firefox 1.5.0.4 and the page came up fine?
Back to topic – I’m trying to understand why blacks would vote for a political party that basically tells them “you are too weak and stupid to survive without us”. Just as I cannot understand why Jews vote for(and fiscally support) a party that doesn’t condemn the people chanting “Destroy Israel”.
Guy:
Indeed. Even though 60% of blacks support school vouchers, Democrats and their supporters in teachers’ unions continually block efforts to provide them. Most black men die before attaining the age of 65, so Social Security doesn’t benefit them at all, yet it’s a stick that’s used to bludgeon black voters to vote Democrat in every election cycle, and Democrats cheer their “success” at blocking reform in the SOTU speech.
I’ve never understood it, other than to accept what Bohannon says about “joining the party your family belongs to.”
“When the Democrats are, in your mind, little different from our Eternal Enemy, the Islamocommunofaggonazis, then there must be some sinister reason why good folks who side with evil.”
Please understand, I am in no way saying that every single Democrat is Anti-semitic, I’m just wondering why the Democratic Party hasn’t come out loudly, publicly against the anti-semitic slogans that are coming out of the far-left.
Okay, so that didn’t work — Conned/Spanky is baaacck.
Would it be too much to hope that nobody try to “reason” with a known troll that likes to bait people with phrases like “our Eternal Enemy, the Islamocommunofaggonazis”?
“that nobody try to “reason” with a known troll”
Known to regular posters perhaps. 🙂
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a few posts.
And, here’s Fudd right on schedule, registering his IP and IP range.
On Topic: Many of my Jewish friends have been voting Republican for years and just not talking about it or have made a point of voting for moderate Dem’s for local offices.
And, a black friend in LA who was a “No War but the class war” guy in the 70’s actually registered Republican and has finally won over his brother and a sister.
“Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes
(Turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-Changes
Don’t want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes
(Turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-Changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I can’t trace time
David Bowie
check the entries at this site, http://zombietime.com/ I’m trying to find the ones that really astounded me, but you might want to just peruse the site.
I stumbled across that site and saw banners that I thought belonged more at a Neo-Nazi rally than any protest by “Leftists” in Berkley, CA.
As the angled blade of the National Razor is raised to the top of its slide, the victims in the tumbrel are made ready for their short journey. Like sheep, they lay their heads in the lunette.
On topic: The photos on zombietime are of left radicals representing several different strains of radical left wing American politics. Having reviewed the entire set, I was able to identify several from the SDS 60’s. Most are old Trots and CPUSA. Two have run, many times, for local offices as Democrats, P&F and Greens. Looking up the names in political donation records I find many instances of donations to the Kerry campaign by people with the same names.
Ah, Fudd, I think your strawman is on fire.
Man, this detrollification is great!
The problem with liberalism is that it’s more like a way of life or narrow religion than a set of political beliefs any more. Disagree with liberals on any part of the dogma, such as vegetarianism, pacifism, ane even keeping your head attached to your shoulders if you are a Jew and it’s over!
I just want to say how _satisfying_ it is to not have to read “confuded” or his various sock puppets.
Neo, you may be hinting what I suspect: Democratic Party thought is both ahistorical, especially American, and deliberately stupid in foreign affairs. For the latter point, some neo con pundits preach that Democrats can’t/won’t live in the real international world. That’s tantamount to national suicide. I find it terribly frightening to have one major political party–America does require two– so crippled.
Interesting article. First time posting a comment. As an immigrant from Mexico and a conservative I really identify with this experience.
Democrats in my day were smart, well-informed people. Not any more.
I think that’s close to the heart of the matter. The Democrat Party of today is not the same party as it was when Truman was President. Maybe not even when JFK was. I think it’s been hijacked by the left.
More than a few people say that when they changed parties, that they didn’t leave the party, but that the party left them.
Another factor explaining people’s unwillingness to change might be the degree of emotional attachment. If I’m extremely emotionally attached to a party and its beliefs, then anything that comes along to say that those beliefs just might not be valid any more, says in effect that there’s something wrong with me. Since that clearly can’t be the case, the other guy must be wrong.
I cannot imagine how much peer pressure is put on a member of a prominent black democratic party family in the US, to remain among the faithful. Most universities in North America have unfortunately been taken over by the same type of groupthink pressure to conform.
What a criminal thing to do to the minds of college age kids, just when they should be feeling the freedom of stretching their mental wings.
A lot of these newly awakened folks made the change because of 9/11 and resurgent feelings of nationalism in the US at that time. Should it really take something that drastic to make a person start to see more clearly and independently?
With individual exceptions noted, I do not think the left and the right are equally scornful of someone who doesn’t belong to “the tribe.”
On the right: if a lefty engages in reasoned discourse, he or she will be respected.
On the left: a righty equates to an unethical person, and thus can never be respected.
This is the difference: While a lefty can show themselves(to the right) to be reasonable and sincere, a righty can only be ethical(to the left) if they join the left.
Wasp,
I had Firefox set to block Haloscan without knowing. Thanks for the help.
As for the Black conservative experience, there is the old accusation that the slave who leaves the plantation must be severely punished by the owner and even by the other slaves. I cannot understand the viewpoint that if a Black does not think like other Blacks, he is a traitor. If a white holds that view, methinks he may be tinted by racism.
Wasp,
I had Firefox set to block Haloscan without knowing. Thanks for the help.
As for the Black conservative experience, there is the old accusation that the slave who leaves the plantation must be severely punished by the owner and even by the other slaves. I cannot understand the viewpoint that if a Black does not think like other Blacks, he is a traitor. If a white holds that view, methinks he may be tinted by racism.
I have always been conservative. Well I’m male, white and middle class so maybe that’s not much of a surprise. But when I was younger I never thought to ask my parents what their views were. I just gravitated toward what fit my thinking. As it turns out my father is so far left we don’t talk politics because all we do is fight. My mother is fairly centrist although I think she votes mostly Republican. My sister had a Howard Dean poster in her window the last Presidential election. I didn’t say anything to her about it. So much for family politics.
BTW. Thanks for the post. I hope you don’t mind but I printed a copy to give to a friend. It turns out this friend is black and considers himself a Democrat. But he owns his own business, is fairly fiscally conservative, supports the war in Iraq, and opposes abortion and gay marriage. I keep telling him, “I don’t know what Democratic party you belong to, but it ain’t the one I see on TV.” I think he’ll enjoy the post. Thanks again.
My grandmother was a lifelong democrat, her uncle (who raised her) was active in the local democrat party. He was an elected official (city council).
Today she (and her uncle) would be hard line conservatives. Depending on how you look at it, she fortunatly died during Clintons early years and never saw our current state. She was highly dissapointed by the likes of Carter, Johnson, and finally clinton (though she only saw the first few years of him, I’m happy she never saw our current state though would have preferred her to live).
At the time of her politically active time they were for getting rid of Jim Crow laws (all be equal – no affirmative action either), low taxes, small govt, and with a strong military to protect our interests. Simply put – like lots of other depression/WWII era people more interested in what you can do as a person and the govt leave you the heck alone.
Even then this was more of a non-northern classic liberal. The seeds of what we see today were from the north east US (again, amusingly enough for both democrats and republicans).
Of course, this isn’t really what the republicans are today either. I don’t think there are any viable parties that think as such – the libertarians are too openminded. They are infested with nutbars.
As for the original post, I’ve never understood why the general Black populace follows the dems. I’ve seen quite a few very smart, very well read Black people argue that even though from the time of Lincoln on forward that the majority of race equality laws are passed by Republican presidents and congress (Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan) and were voted against by the Democrates that the republicans only voted for it because the Real Democrates (who didn’t seem to vote as they were afraid) forced them too. If those people had thier way the Black would still be slaves.
Over all the dems have talked a really good line but never followed it up. They usually blame republicans who usually vote for the measure with the dems giving a “no” (and, again, the blame for the failure is on the republicans even though they voted for it).
“I find it terribly frightening to have one major political party–America does require two– so crippled.”
I would not say it was frightening, but I do find it frustrating. I always tell people I am conservative, not Republican, because I would vote for a Democrat if they were conservative. Unfortunately, THAT is becoming an oxymoron nowadays.
Many Republicans have ticked me off with various policy stands, but what do I do? What is my alternative? I cannot imagine turning over control to the nutcases running the Democratic party nowadays.
That I do not have any viable alternative right now is a real aggravation.
The day the Democratic Party can no longer count on garnering automatically 90% of the Black vote is the day it is not a major poltiical party anymore.
Some Democrats confuse me… I grew up in Central Colorado were, just outside Leadville, there is a very large mine that was constructed in the 1920’s. Prior to the “tourism industry”, mining was Colorado’s major industry. Mining employed lots of people, paid very well, provided great benefits and you’d think served the “public good” very well.
In the 1970’s the political left declared war on the mining industry. They were very successful as mining is virtually illeagal in Colorado. Today the big mine above Leadville is closed. All the great jobs with great benefits were eliminated. The economy cratered…
The tourism industry came to the Colorado mountains. We found ourselves saddled with places like Vail, Aspen, and Telluride. These are very, very expensive places where only the very wealthy can afford to live.
Construction stepped in to fill the employment needs of the local population. Construction in the 1970’s & 80’s paid well, offered good benefits. Wages weren’t as good as mining, but belts tightned and the locals learned to serve the wealthy.
Then came the undocumented… Houses still need to be built, but now the going rate for general construction labor is (last I heard) $10 a day. Yes, you read this correctly, $10 a day.
The other day I was driving down the road and listening to the radio. Some guy claiming to represent the Colorado Democratic Party was screaming that anyone who is opposed to absolutely open borders was a racist.
So, it occured to me that the Democratic Party was successful destroying those jobs that mining industry created that they’ve now delcared war on those jobs the construction industry created…
The interesting thing is that the new residents of places like Aspen, Vail and Telluride seem to be politically very, very left.
One of the old locals still living in Leadville described it as “We’re not nearly as good at being servants as the illeagals. We have recourse for abuse and won’t work for $10 a day.”
When I do gome home to visit. I find that the central Colorado mountain communities are becoming 2 class societies; the very rich and the very poor. Today there is no middle class in Vail, Aspen, and Telluride and this is now spreading to other communities….
What really confuses me is that after watching the political left destroy entire communities there are still some who vote Democrat believing that “it’s the Democrats that take care of the little guy.”
I have to throw a couple of things in the mix here regarding blacks and the Democratic party.
First, historically, we know the Republican party was the anti-slavery and black civil rights party. However, during the 1920s the Republicans took a wrong turn with the KKK, at least in Indiana. The scandal there in 1925 (give or take a year) led to the tarring of the entire Indiana Republican party. Even though the KKK was still tied to the Democrats in the South, I wonder what impact that had with Northern blacks.
Second, the 1964 Civil Rights Act which the Democrats still take credit for even though Republicans voted overwhelmingly for the act, while the Democrat votes for it were less in terms of percentage representation in both houses. LBJ thanked the Republicans and excoriated his party for their voting.
Yet, the Republican party is still attacked as being against it. I am aware of the Dixiecrat movement to the Republicans, but then there is Robert Byrd who is given a free pass for his KKK roll.
Do you think this legacy is still paying dividends for the Democrats or is it still “the little guy” party schtick that gives them the vote?
Perhaps the Libertarians and the Democrats will unite, and then split again, with the loons from both parties going one direction and the moderates from both parties going the other.
It makes little sense in a country where the general population is very evenly split, that we have one segment of the population, the black community, voting 9 to 1 for one political party. I agree with Bohannon–I think there are many blacks still voting for Democrats who are really conservative by nature. They attend church, oppose abortion, respect traditional family values, oppose gay marriage, support the military, etc. As someone commented above, if the Republican Party is successful at moving their 10% of support to something like 25% or more(and believe me, Ken Mehlman is working on it), the Democrats will have a very hard time winning national elections. More importantly, Republican support in the black community might reap real advances and benefits for an often ignored population group. There was an interesting article in the USA Today last week that described Ken Blackwell, the black Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio, and his efforts at reaching out to Democratic religious groups in Ohio, and their positive response to him. One minister, who had voted for Kerry in ’04, commented that Blackwell had “closed the deal” for him after hearing him speak. Those kind of comments have to strike fear into the Democratic Leadership in Ohio, and around the country.
BTW, neo-neocon, I am the DBrooks whose comment at Dean’s World you referenced in one of your posts. That post led me here, and I have enjoyed reading your site.
Ken Mehlman, Lynn Swann, Michael Steele, Keith Butler…
It’s starting, and once it gets rolling the Dems are toast.
Not that that is necessarily a good thing- a bipartisan system needs two healthy parties. Perhaps one of them just shouldn’t be “Democrat”. Survival of the fittest.
Let’s see… basically Bohanan’s argument boils down to the following:
(1) The GOP is conservative
(2) The Church plays a big role in black life
(3) Teachings of the Church are often conservative
(4) So, blacks are actually conservative and “belong” in the GOP.
The problem with this argument is that while the Church may be an important part of African-American life and culture, it is not the only one. African-Americans have been in the forefront of change in this country. Conservatism, by its very nature, tends to oppose change, because it seeks to conserve, which is the opposite of change.
For a good summation of the early history of American Conservatism this http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200510260817.asp is a valuable resource. It is especially valuable for its’ citation of Geo. H. Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America
Thing is, the resistance to change in values is also a problem. Values shouldn’t be casually discarded, as the left demands of its constituents, but they also shouldn’t be clung to when they have been clearly proven false, as conservatives frequently do.
No worries though, as the closed-minded conservatives are being drawn away by the closed-minded liberals in the Democratic party, while the Dems are driving out all their open-minded liberals and forcing them to join the open-minded conservatives in the Republican party.
The balance of power is shifting; soon it will no longer be Dems on the left and Reps on the right, but rather closed-minded Dems vs. open-minded Reps.
kivino: “While it may be true that many black Democrats are, in fact, intelligent, it is also true that they are not required to use that intelligence. Democrats in my day were smart, well-informed people. Not any more. Democrats demand total loyalty and devotion to the faith.”
The Party of Liberals left me, too.
Liberals of today are not Classical Liberals. They are very much the opposite. How did this happen? One important and perhaps necessary component: American Communists became Democrats by intent in order to conrol the Democratic Party, starting in about 1984. Voila!
The Communists also became University Professors by intent. Voila!
Word meanings can change by propagandistic fiat, which falsely presume to carry the same meaning they did prior. Voila!
Moreover, the allegedly qualitatively different “freedom” of “postmodern” fiat allows word games to attempt to impose definitions on facts and realities:
“African-Americans have been in the forefront of change in this country. Conservatism, by its very nature, tends to oppose change, because it seeks to conserve, which is the opposite of change.”
Adam | 07.01.06 – 7:47 am | #
Right, Adam. Voila!
Please, Adam , get a grip. You are indulging in well-recognized ancient “philosophical” mistakes. Such as “armchair” Idealism. This indulgence is what in fact is retro or reactionary. It is not “progressive”, touche’. It also has led to the “validity” of what is instead Anti-Science, ‘proving” Global Warming Alarmism, for example.
Philosophy 101 used to teach the fallacy of this kind of “logic”. Voila!
Ancient and well-discredited Relativism combines[!] with Idealism to constitute post-modern “enlightenment”, which is actually enlightenment’s opposite, chaotic Subjectivism, which logically implies that we shouldn’t even be able to understand what other people say, or even what we ourselves say. Words cannot have meanings, under the obviously self-contradictory presuppositions of post-modernism [also Malignant Narcissism], which would logically imply that post-modernism cannot have presuppositions. Voila!
“Free at last” to judge people not by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin.
Faux Liberalism is now racist, sexist, antisemitic, anti-capitalist, Marxist, anti-first and second Amendment, anti-individual, pro-socialist/communist, cultural creationist, anti-scientific, anti-survivalist, and indeed a virtual cult of death-worshippers and enablers of other death-worshippers.
Through well-known psychological mechanisms, and their manipulation by propagandist [in effect, Communistic in nature and tactics] “strategists”, it has become exactly what it says it opposes. Winning is its only goal, where essentially, the means, control, becomes the ends, control – mostly thought and word meaning control. Other interest group goals are at base only proxies for further control.
I also saw the ironic Communist 1984 mov
[con’t – sorry, I forgot about haloscan’s limits]
movement and tactic happen. The evidence just keeps on-a-coming of what I say has happened and is what is continuing to happen.
In a way we were lucky Osama attacked when he did. 9/11/01 producded a focus issue which could not be denied by any sane person. It outed Faux LIberals quite nicely, as we have seen, perhaps just in time. Essentially Faux Liberals lack the creative free-thought life force Classical Liberals saw in individuals, in contrast to the holy Central Governments of Faux Liberals [which cannot possibly have any basis except raw power = control].
So Faux LIberals responded to the Islamofascist intent to kill or enslave us all, by instead trying to blame Bush and win control of our government – a totally dysfunctional response to a real threat.
It is no surprise that Faux Liberals, therefore, cannot face reality at all, and fear it, including their own existence. Individuals are not the source of power, so why should they think they have any? Groupism and Big Daddy Central Governmentalism must save them.
So Faux Liberals are fellows with death worshipping Islamofascist sadomasochists, who will be happy to oblige the Faux Liberals’ death wish. Classical Liberals do not control the Democratic Party. They should leave it as neo, kevino, and I did, probably all of us by disavowing “Liberalism” as it’s now defined in practice.
OSO, great example of Liberal “help”, helping themselves, that is.
[Other great posts.]
OK, here’s a good one — Who said this:
===========================
We pledge that an American citizen of Negro descent shall be given a square deal in the economic and political life of the nation. Discrimination in the civil service, the Army, the Navy, and all other branches of the government must cease. To enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, universal suffrage must be made effective for the Negro citizen. Mob violence shocks the conscience of the nation and legislation to curb this evil should be enacted.
===============================
A: It’s from the 1940 GOP Party Platform.
Contrast with 1948, wherein the Democrats had a schism within themselves over negro rights, leading to the “Dixiecrats”
I think that it’s eminently clear which party is historically pro-black. It is singularly mind-boggling how it is that the Dems manage to paint the GOP as racist because they generally don’t support race-based handouts.
> By the way, I am also a person that didn’t leave the Democratic Party: it left me. In giving up my support for the Democrats (until they come to their senses), family and friends treat me as an apostate.
THIS, BTW, is the kind of statement which makes me strongly doubt much erosion in GOP power in this year’s mid-term elections.
I never seem to hear anyone making statements the other way, and THOSE are the people I’d be hanging out with more, in terms of selection bias.
Meanwhile, THIS makes me seriously doubt they have much hope for 2008, either.
I believe the problem is that the Dems are making this equation:
Dissatisfaction with GOP == Support for Democrats
In reality, unfortunately for them, I believe the overriding equation is still:
Dissatisfaction with GOP < Dissatisfaction with Democrats.
I suspect that the lefty internal turmoils which followed their losses in 2002 and 2004 are going to intensify for 2006 and 2008.
” It is singularly mind-boggling how it is that the Dems manage to paint the GOP as racist because they generally don’t support race-based handouts.”
It’s the power of the MSM. The Reps could be running Condi Rice against the Dems’ David Duke, and 90% of the “Black Vote” would be for Duke, because the MSM would show sound bites 24/7 of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson insisting that Rice is a racist and Duke is not.
Only whites are racists just like only blacks can use ni**er.
Remember what King said. Judge people based not upon the content of their character, but the color of their skin and the words that these would allow to be used.
The handouts from 1950 really set it up. When a minority relies upon the government for handouts, they will always vote for the party that gives them more dole stuff. That’s just how a welfare human civilization works. It’s a blackhole that sucks people down.
When you have a minority addicted to the dole, like the Democrats are trying to addict Hispanics, rehab takes decades.
I’ve come from the opposite side, with a family that would vote for Hitler if he was a Republican. I can certainly sympathize with keeping one’s politics to one’s self to avoid family conflict. But I do think that one’s initial background shapes how one thinks about issues, even if one changes his mind about particular stands.