Skip to comments.Kathleen Parker on Race and the Republicans
Posted on 09/04/2012 12:15:01 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Kathleen Parker wrote a column lamenting the Republican partys lack of racial diversity. I dont have any quarrel with her thesis Id like the party to do a better job of attracting blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, too but I found one remark of Parkers puzzling.
>>>>Republicans can honestly boast of having once been the party of firsts. The first Hispanic, African American, Asian American and Native American in the Senate were all Republicans. But that was before the GOP went south, banished its centrists and embraced social conservatives in a no-exit marriage.<<<<
In 90 percent of political commentary, the phrase social conservatives means people who oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. Hispanics have been slightly more likely, and blacks much more likely, to be social conservatives by this definition. Social conservatism polls better among both groups than does economic conservatism.
The Republican partys notable minority stars, some of them mentioned in Parkers column, are slightly more likely to be socially conservative (again using the standard definition) than white Republican officeholders. There are a lot of reasons Republicans tend to do badly among minority groups. If theres any evidence that the partys social conservatism is one of them, I havent seen it.
Parker is a “David Brooks Republican” - - more interested in getting invited to cocktail parties and sounding “reasonable” to her Learjet liberal friends than writing anything that would indicate she actually has a clue about “limited government” and economic freedom. She and Peggy “talks like she’s balancing a plate on her head” Noonan jumped the shark long ago when they got their claws out and screeched at Sarah Palin for ...being Sarah Palin.
Republicans need to stop complaining they do a poor job in attracting blacks and Hispanics-and recognize where the problem really lies. Truth is every time a prominent black becomes a conservative (Clarence Thomas, Adam West, etc), they are demonized and called “Uncle Tom” by racist blacks and liberals. This Jim Crow thuggery keeps the others in line.
Fact is, most blacks and Hispanics live in cities, and a high percentage of them depend on those "dirt-road sweeper" kind of government jobs. And if they have no connections and no ambition and no job, they depend on getting "free" stuff, confiscated for them from taxpayers ("Republicans") by Democrat politicians and handed over in exchange for votes.
The Republicans have no shot at the cities, and therefore no shot at significant minority support. Thinking about it, whining about it, and puzzling over it is counterproductive and a waste of time. Actually seeking support of the cities (and therefore, minority voters) is ludicrous.
Adam West is a Black Conservative ?
Fiscal and social conservatsm go together like a hand in a glove.
KP is a moroness. She will find another reason to support BO, again
HOLY POSTING MISTAKE BATMAN-THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLEN WEST.
...But that was before the GOP went south, banished its centrists and embraced social conservatives in a no-exit marriage...
I know, I was just having a little fun with ya. ;-D
This is why Democrats (like Algore) continually call for the demise of the Electoral College.
Me too. I wonder if tough love would be a good approach amongst others. IE Allen West gives a speech to a mostly Black audience and tells them it's a two way street and to open their minds. Or would that backfire?
GAG ME! What an imbecile. I made the mistake of going to her column and reading it - until I almost spit up.
She has her directions screwed up. The GOP went left. Enter the Tea Party where the GOP left off.
There’s no real downside. I mean, what will they do if it doesn’t resonate ? Still vote over 90-95% Democrat ? Frankly, I think the GOP establishment has a great fear of even trying to ask for their vote in a real and substantive way. We’ve seen it for a long time. They just yield time and time again to the Democrats. Nobody is expecting they’ll jump all the way back over to the GOP again en masse, but even if we got 1/4th of them voting that way, it would be enough to have a serious impact for the long run.
Just WHO is Kathleen Parker? Am I supposed to know her?
What does that mean exactly? Do we have to speak to blacks as blacks? Hispanics as Hispanics? I thought we were colorblind and it is only ideology that matters? Looks like another diversity lie.
i don’t like parker and would not waste two seconds reading her BS....that said the GOP has missed golden opportunities, as has the Romney campaign, by not fully embracing the likes of Project 21 and people such as Starr Parker....were i running the RNC i would have had at least one member of Project 21 up there speaking Thursday night...these are brave, patriotic, intelligent, articulate black Americans not afraid to tell it like it is about the disease of liberalism....
Ironically, it’s been black and hispanic voters who have been instrumental in defeating the liberal same-sex marriage initiatives on state ballots all over the country.
Seems to me conservatives should get credit then for “reaching out” to the decent and moral elements of those communities to vote for their agenda, eh Kathleen?
It MEANS that we don’t concede anyone or any group to the Left — that we don’t let the Left define what conservatism is - or lie to anyone about us.
To the whine of “Republicans’ lack of racial diversity”,
I would ask -
why is it that minorities have a cultural aversion to an ideology where you are responsible for your own well-being and not forcing others to take care of you?
Who reads Parker anymore? I quit reading her four years ago after she stated Hillary was “well qualified to be president.” And that was before she started slamming Palin and saying Republicans didn’t deserve to win in 2008. Parker is a non-entity. You learn nothing from reading any of her columns.
Whenever I read this whiny Parker I throw up a bit of Spitzer!
Kathleen Parker is a Vichy Republican who supported Obama and then whored herself to CNN for Spizter-Parker. Why does Townhall carry the ideological trollop?
No, she's talking about "crackerheads". Southern whites, who bolted the Democratic Party after Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey embraced the black ward heelers and their demand to act against Them -- the Southern populists and their racist social politics. The Democrats ran Them out of the Party, or rather they themselves did. Their Dixiecrat protest movement, combined with the rumping-off of the Stalinists with Henry Wallace at the same time, failed when they failed to deny Harry Truman reelection against Tom Dewey in the famous "midnight reversal" election of 1948.
Jack Kennedy was the last Democrat successfully to paper over the racial rift in the Democratic Party, and by 1964 it was all over -- the South broke for Goldwater, and then LBJ and the FBI beat up the Southern "white citizens committees" and sent some of them to prison, and just about anyone with ties to the KKK. Johnson sent Leon Panetta down to Louisiana, e.g., with orders to take over the Louisiana school system and stomp on the segs: he did so by offering high schools new football equipment. When they accepted it, Panetta then called in their school boards seriatim, in his high terrible aspect as LBJ's executioner, and informed them that a) they could not resign, b) they could not refuse any order, and c) anyone who did not do exactly what he was told to do, when Panetta told him to do it, would spend the rest of his life in a federal prison. That's how Louisiana schools were integrated under LBJ, and it was kept out of the papers, because it was 1966, Vietnam and defeating LBJ had not yet become an obsession for the Left, and LBJ was still, in the immortal phrase of Molly Ivins years later, "sooo good on the issues".
LBJ remarked that he had just given the GOP the White House for the next 20 or 40 years when he signed one of the big civil-rights bills in 1964 or 1965 (the latter, the Voting Rights Act, should have been called the Take-Away-Voting-Rights Act, and is probably unconstitutional: it impaired the powers of the old Confederate States by statute, making their powers to hold elections subordinate to the approval of the Civil Rights Division of the FBI, i.e. the President).
The problem with LBJ's driving Southern whites out of the Democratic Party by making them legal pariahs was that nobody consulted the GOP about this, whose members, remembering Lincoln and Unionism, had proudly voted for both of the civil-rights acts and all their ancillary legislation. They didn't like Southern whites, with whom they'd once fought a brutal war of attrition for control of the country's destiny (making it over from a federal republic of circumscribed powers into a centralized, departmentalized empire with a despotic legislature and an increasingly despotic executive), and they flat didn't like "those people".
That is the divide that animates e.g. George H.W. and Barbara Bush today: they utterly despised people like Rick Perry, Phil Gramm, and other ex-Dixiecrats and considered them below-the-salt socially and indeed barely worth employing as kitchen help. Bush Sr., whose family came from Ohio by way of Yale and the U.S. Senate (Connecticut), refused to embrace them and has always detested them more-or-less openly.
That's what you're seeing when someone like Kathleen Parker or David Frum sneers about "social conservatives": they mean "Kluxers", "racists", "drooling seditious Bircher bigots". In other words, Them.
For the same reason the Washington Post set the liar Dave Weigel to covering conservative politics and issues "from the inside" when he was no conservative at all, but a false-flagging JournoLister.
Because she and they are politically and culturally simpatico and despise conservatives as much as the people at CNN and TIME do.
See my last.