I was pleased this week to see Rosa Parks come out and express sentiments that are sympatico with something I've been saying for some time.
When Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he ruefully remarked that he had just delivered the South to the Republican Party for the next generation. Some people like to insinuate that this is because the South is racist. What they gloss over is the fact that when Johnson signed that bill, the overwhelming majority of blacks in the South were Republicans. As a friend of mine from Georgia likes to point out, when Johnson signed that act, the Republican Party in Georgia alone was over 70% black. Johnson clearly thought he'd just delivered a ton of new voters to the Republican Party.
We also tend to forget that the Democrats were not merely the party of slavery. They were also the party of Jim Crow, of Segregation, and of "Separate but Equal." They were the party of George Wallace and Bull Connor. They were the party that...
...up until the 1960s did things like require black voters to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar as a "test" to be registered to vote. Condoleeza Rice, one of President Bush's closest friends and advisors, likes to tell how, when she was growing up in the segregated South, her father became a Republican because the Democrats refused to register him to vote. She's been a proud Republican for most of her life.
Only four blacks have ever been members of the U.S. Senate, and three of them were Republicans. Yet, over the last generation or so, most of black America has come to despise Republicans, and many seem to feel Republicans are the source of almost all racism in politics. Try as they might, Republicans can't seem to convince black Americans that they are welcome within the party. In fact, most Republican efforts in this regard are met with a sneer, and the insinuation that they "don't really mean it." Black Republicans are often called Uncle Toms and Oreo Cookies.
Whenever I ask black friends to explain all this, a few claim that they were economically damaged during the Reagan years. Fair enough, I say. That probably did happen to some people. I was economically damaged during the Clinton years, and I blamed some of his policies on that. But we know that more blacks moved from poverty to the middle class during the Reagan years than at any prior time in American history. Almost all the black friends I have are comfortable members of the middle class, despite years of Republican control of Congress and Republican governors in most of the states with heavy black populations. Economics alone cannot explain such widespread anti-Republican sentiment.
In the New Republic, Franklin Foer wrote an excellent piece that examines this issue. Unlike almost anyone else on the political Left, he knows the history of the Bush family on race and recognizes that it has been a highly active and progressive one. Prescott Bush, the President's grandfather, was the most pro-civil-rights member of the Senate during the Civil Rights Era. George H.W. Bush was an NAACP supporter and fundraiser for years, both before he got into politics and after. Bush 43 has surrounded himself with black advisors, has more black cabinet members than any President in history, has campaigned harder for black votes than any Republican in generations--yet mostly draws sneers from that community.
Foer comes to the somewhat reasonable conclusion that black voters don't like the Bushes because of their soft support for Affirmative Action. And yet, about 25% of black voters in California voted for an initiative that effectively ended Affirmative Action there. Nationwide polls show a similar trend. But only about 9% of blacks voted for Bush in 2000. Had Bush won 25% of black voters nationwide in 2000, Al Gore would not only have lost the popular vote, he would likely have taken the worst electoral vote beating since Bush's father whupped Mike Dukakis in 1988.
Foer also implies that blacks don't like Republicans because of conservative policies on welfare. But, does he really think that 90% of blacks are opposed to get-tough policies on welfare? If so, then why did so many of them vote for Clinton, who cut welfare spending more than any Republican in history? I have met many black people with very conservative views of welfare, and I would find it racist to assume that 9 out of 10 black people want more welfare money for the black community. In my experience, what most of them want to see is more jobs and more business opportunities.
The only other thing my black friends will say is that "perception is reality." How, then, are Republicans to overcome the perception? The answer is usually silence. The attitude seems to be, "Hey, we know what we think, and who are you to question us? Besides, what does it matter?"
Well, as an American, I think I have a right to worry when there's such widespread racial mistrust. I think it matters for several reasons. That's why I was pleased when one of my heroes, Rosa Parks, came out in support of J.C. Watts, the only black Republican in congress, and asked him not to quit.
"If you can, please remain as a pioneer on the Republican side until others come to assist you," she writes. "I am glad I stayed in my seat.''
Anita Peek, executive director of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development in Detroit said, "I certainly hope that he is able to inspire others to follow in his footsteps. That's my only concern. Who is going to take his place?"
In the November 2000 election, two new maverick black Republicans ran for the House. Both lost, in part because of lack of support from black voters and the national black political establishment. Watts is, sadly, still the only black Republican in congress, and now he's leaving.
Those who would say that this is "natural," that there shouldn't be any black Republicans, need to stop and take a closer look at what they're saying. Here's what it says to me:
Being black determines what you think about abortion.
Being black determines what you think about school prayer.
Being black determines what you think about taxes.
Being black determines what you think about gun control.
Being black determines what you think about missile defense.
Being black determines what you think about welfare.
Being black determines what you think about School Choice.
Being black determines what you think about Social Security Choice.
Being black determines what you think about _[fill in the blank]_.
To say that it's "natural" that blacks should only support Democrats means you're saying that the black man's opinions are predetermined. It says the black woman's vote is to be taken for granted. It says that the color of your skin pre-determines your position on all the big issues of the day. You can be pigeonholed because of your skin color.
To black voters, it also means, ultimately, that Democrats can take you for granted. And Republicans can forget about you, because no matter what they do you'll never support them.
I just have to ask: is that healthy? Or would it be more healthy if some blacks were hard-core Democrats, some were hard-core Republicans, and some were in the middle--just like the rest of America?
I contend that the current state of affairs is bad for black voters, bad for the Democratic Party, and bad for America. Republicans really do want black support. They'll never get all blacks to support them, nor should they. We have a two-party system, and having all black support on one side is unhealthy for everybody.
I just ask my question again: should skin color determine party preference? When I see more than 90% of blacks voting a certain way, and ridiculing and dismissing the other party, it's hard not to conclude that, right now, it does.
Dean,
You brought up things re Rosa Parks I never knew. But regarding other things I arrive here armed.
I was told by black GA Republicans that the Republican Party in Georgia was 74% black in the 1940's. I was at first surprised to hear this until I thought about it for a few moments.
As you said the GA Democrat Party was the party of segregation and Jim Crow. They also hated the Brown vs. Board of Education maximally.
State Senator Don Balfour of Snellville GA told the Republican Party why he voted for the Georgia state flag change and did not support the argument that the confederate battle flag represented Georgia’s heritage.
He rejected the argument that the battle flag represented Georgia's heritage due to the poor way the Dems tried to get around the Brown v. Board of Education decision. They tried to privatize all types of publicly owned buildings: state parks, city parks, recreation buildings, school buildings, etc. They tried to privatize all government buildings except city halls to get around the U. S. Supreme Court Brown v. Bd. of Education decision of 1955. They then changed the state flag to contain the stars and bars in 1956.
This is typical of the majoritarian attitude the GA Democrats still have to this very day. They win the election therefore they make all the decisions. You Republicans simply live with the decisions the majority makes. This is straight majoritarian rule. The majority decides everything for everybody.
This attitude is also the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party. The Republicans could use this against the Dems to motivate Republican voters to vote AGAINST Democrats. But they won't.
The reason the GA Republican Party will not is because they do not have their act together enough to plan strategy. It is important now to note the GA Democrat Party enjoys the longest single period of jurisdictional dominance for ANY jurisdiction in the entire western hemisphere. You heard me right: ANY JURISDICTION! That stretch is from the North Pole down to the Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. That is the closest continental landmass to Antarctica by the way. It is a 140-year record!
In short, Georgia Democrats are used to getting their way. That is also why they take their politics so seriously. I suppose you can fairly trace this attitude back to Abraham Lincoln, William Tecumseh Sherman and Reconstruction. You must also give credit to the Republican's inability to effectively take credit for the things they deserve as well. But we will cover that at the end.
But more importantly you also have to understand what the Republicans did to themselves by imposing a harsh peace on the south, especially Georgia. By taking away the franchise from the only people who could vote prior to the Civil War all the stupid Republicans did was stoke the ire of the southerner even more.
Abraham Lincoln argued against this believing imposing a harsh peace upon the south would do just that. He was correct. Lincoln died before he could negotiate a fairer peace with the south. The harsh, white carpetbaggers descended upon the south and proceeded to piss off every single white male and female in GA behaving just as corruptly as Simon Legree in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
The only people who could vote were southern blacks. And they won seats in the U.S. House. Surprise! The whites were shut out until Reconstruction was declared a FAILURE and ended in 1871. Now, is it any surprise the Democrats call all northerners Yankees and all Republicans northerners Damn Yankees?
This has translated into a generational thing over the past century and a half. My daddy was a Democrat. My grand daddy was a Democrat. My great granddaddy was a Democrat. And his great granddaddy was a Democrat. On top of that all his relatives who ran for office the past 1000 years were Democrats, too!
The shortsighted Republicans on the 1860's really screwed up. Things might very well be different today if Lincoln were not assassinated. We might have broken the Democrat stranglehold before now. But then again, maybe not.
Georgia Republicans have never proved they can do strategy. They never do win the top three statewide offices even though they were a majority black party at least though the Eisenhower years. They still find a way to lose. Some people just have a knack for losing elections.
So, the GA Republican Party has much trouble attracting blacks as they have trouble attracting other people to the party. They consistently have voter turnout under 50% in even heavily Republican counties such as Gwinnett and Cobb. They do no active minority recruitment of blacks, either.
This partially explains why blacks do not join the Republican Party, at least in GA. We do have some bright spots in our party. One high-ranking woman in the state executive committee is an articulate spokeswoman. Councilman Melvin Everson in Snellville, GA is another. This is one small beginning, but it is a beginning.
The Republicans try, as they might not have not given themselves credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I cannot figure out why.
The only reason I can think of is that the Republican Party just does not effectively take public credit for this. More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats. Almost all southern Democrats voted against it. Including Al Gore!
The 1965 Voting Rights Act would not have passed without Republican support, either. But the Democrats just keep chugging along taking all the credit for all this. We can only blame ourselves.
I personally believe this will not change until we win a sufficient enough majority in state houses, governorships and do so likewise in Washington D.C. Then Democrats can no longer make excuses for themselves. I hope that is this year.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
I haven't had the time to look at the roll call of voting in Congress when the civil rights legislation passed in the 60's. But I do recall that it would not have passed without strong bi-partisan support.
That might be due as much to LBJ's arm-twisting as much as anything else. And since legislation of this sort is credited to the President who signs it, perhaps that's why we perceive that civil rights legislation is "Democrat-owned."
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (the same Robert Byrd who Democrats now call "the conscience of the Senate") was forced by cloture vote to end his filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, working with Republican leader Everett Dirksen, managed to achieve the 67 votes needed to overcome Byrd's filibuster with near-unanimous Republican support, along with some Democratic support.
Democratic opposition to the bill had been led in large part by Byrd, Tennessee Senator Al Gore and Arkansas Senator William Fulbright (who went on to be one of young Bill Clinton's most influential political mentors). While in the beginning some conservative Republicans had doubts about the bill, wondering about the Constitutionality of parts of it, the only Republican to join efforts to kill the bill before it could be voted on was John Tower.
In the House, the final vote totals had been:
Republicans in favor: 138
Republicans opposed: 34
Democrats in favor: 152
Democrats opposed: 96
Note that Democrats had a huge majority in the House at that time. If you look at it percentage-wise, over 80% of Republicans supported the bill, whereas almost 40% of Democrats opposed it.
In the Senate, where final passage took place, in the end only 6 Republicans voted against the measure. By comparison, 23 Senate Democrats voted against it, including Byrd, Gore and Fulbright.
Some of the few Republicans to vote against the bill agonized over their decision. For example, one of Arizona's Senators, as a lifelong desegregationist and NAACP supporter, wanted to support the bill, but had serious reservations about two provisions in it. That was Barry Goldwater.
Other things to note about the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Republicans wrote the bill. They based it on previous Republican civil rights bills that had been watered down or defeated by segregationist Democrats, or struck down by Democrat-controlled courts.
Future President Lyndon Johnson, when he was Majority Leader in the Senate, had managed to do very little to help previous efforts to pass serious civil rights legislation. As President, he managed a radical shift by reaching out to Republicans, much to his credit. He also got to sign the measure, giving himself a place in the history books as a civil-rights leader.
What's irksome, however, is the notion that somehow Johnson had to "armtwist Republicans" to get the measure passed. While that's true, it's incomplete, because it leads people to conclude that the opposition was mostly Republican. So let's be clear: the reason he had to get wavering Republicans on board was because of the fierce opposition from within his own party.
Fortunately for him, it wasn't very hard to get Republican support; since Republicans had written the legislation he only had to go after a handful of them. In the end he got them. And why should that be a surprise? They are, after all, the Party of Lincoln.
The simple truth is: Republicans wrote the bill. Republicans got it to the floor over Democratic opposition. Republicans were the key to overcoming a Democratic filibuster. An overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for the bill, and without their votes the measure would not have passed either the Democrat-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Some articles to read on this:
Everett Dirksen & the Civil Rights Act.
U.S. Senate History page
Congresslink Article
Courtesy of John Rosenberg, here's a Washington Times article showing that some cracks may be developing in the ice.
Dean, I totally agree that 90% of any population should not throw it's weight behind any single political party, regardness of the historical underpinnings. It is a question and concern that is definitely being debated, talked about, and probably not often enough, acted upon in the black community. I highly recommend viewing commentator Ed Gordon's Friday night roundtable on Black Entertainment Televison (BET). In terms of their value systems I would have to say that a significant number of blacks are undercover Republicans. The question is how do you translate that to a Republican vote under the cover of the voting booth. Unfortunately most people, including blacks, vote on momentum-what party did I vote for last, what name do I recognize, what will keep me "in" with the "in" crowd. And unfortunately the momentum of voting as a Democrat is a big snowball rolling down an almost vertical slope. Only time and the emergence of truly independent black voters will change things. As blacks we still carry a lot of baggage from the civil rights era of the sixties. Some of that luggage is reality, some perception. Until the perception changes in the black community, which it will over time as more and more of us come out of the political closet, you will definitely see a change. I could wave all the history I want, but nothing will be more effective than a legion of the famous, not so famous and just ordinary black folks unfurling their own flag of independent democracy and saying "I'm not a democrat, and you need to be okay with that, because I am."
One thing to keep in mind is that the Democratic party has always--and I mean going back a hundred years or more--had its power base in the big cities. Well what was the big trend among blacks in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s? To move out of the country and into the big cities!
So, let's say you grow up black in the late 1960s or the 1970s or the 1980s, and you want to be a politician. Well you're probably in a big city. So what party do you join? Well, duh! So by the 1980s there was a bumper crop of black politicians, mostly from the cities and mostly Democrats. If you are a good Democrat, you do not attack and criticize your fellow Democrats very often. So who do you spend most of your time bashing?
So, who do people see black politicians criticizing most often? Three guesses and the first two don't count!
Of course, black people are increasingly affluent, increasingly powerful, and mostly well-accepted wherever they go. (Hell, if you're black and show up at a local Republican party meeting in the suburbs, chances are someone will be talking about getting you to run for office before you can get out the door!). More and more blacks are moving into Republican country--the suburbs. When more of that happens, things will get more balanced I think. It'll probably be another generation or two before that becomes obvious.
I also remember this: I lived for about 20 years in Chicago. It is the most solidly Democrat city I've ever been in. I don't believe a Republican politician has won any election there, for any local job, in the last 50 years. If you voted in Chicago you pretty much automatically registered as a Democrat so you could vote in the primaries. You had to, because you knew that whoever won the Democratic primary would win the general election!
So Chicago is full of millions of registered Democrats, but who are very independent and often at least consider voting for Republicans for governor, for Senate, for President, etc. It was very common and nobody thought there was anything strange about it.
You're right Dean, "A change gone come" but it will probably be within the next couple of generations as all of us hopefully mature more as voters. What really scares me though is the much larger population of people who don't vote at all.
Warren,
You bring up some legitimate concerns about attracting black supporters. I can place the blame squarely on the shoulders of one organization: your local Republican Party.
If we Republicans do not actively seek out black candidates for office then we truly do not deserve support from the black community. You might be surprised how friendly and courteous individuals in the black community are to grass roots campaigners.
It is my experience that black voters appreciate grass roots campaigning. They expect candidates to knock on their door asking for their vote. They do not respect those who do not. They consistently complain that they are taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other. I can make the case for this statement.
Some blacks in GA such as Cynthia McKinney take the black vote for granted using her permanence in office to further her own socialist and crazy agenda. She consistently embarrasses her constituents and currently enjoys a 36% approval rating according to FNC.
But since the Republicans do no active campaigning whatsoever in the black community she has nothing to worry about. In short, the blacks in Dekalb County, Georgia are stuck with what they have.
I have knocked on doors for black candidates for office before sometimes in heavily black areas of metro Atlanta. I NEVER experienced rude or mean treatment from anybody. All the black folks I talked to were quite curious about my candidate. They accepted my literature, went down the road, and voted for our Democrat opponent on Election Day.
This is always a worthwhile experience even though we were not successful. You must remember some areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. However, we must start somewhere. We may have picked up few votes; but not campaigning only ensures that you NEVER will.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
Kevin's right. The fault of the GA party lies with the GA GOP. I sincerely doubt that black voters are awaiting their AJC to see how Cynthia Tucker tells them to vote...they're raised hearing all the stories about how Republicans are anti-black.
And deciding that the friggin' state flag is the #1 issue to run on is about as intelligent as stopping an all-star game after eleven inn....er.
The state (national) GOP has to do the outreach...the rhetoric over the years has done the damage and if the GOP is against affirmative action based on skin color, then they must articulate HOW they're going to address the situation of having blacks with 2nd class citizenship until the 60's, only to be told "okay, we're equal, go compete".
The state GOP must realize that the state Dems are race-hustlers waiting to race whore and the local press are their willing accomplices...that's a given. Now, DO SOMETHING that makes them have egg on their faces instead of saying "'King Roy' changed the state flag and I'm damn mad about it", as if that'll garner new voters.
Clay Waters linked to this interesting old Michelle Malkin column that seems appropriate here.
Michelle Malkin does mention one interesting, annoying fact: Democrats do get away with the double standard better than Republicans do. We always point out the media’s liberal bias as the cause.
Some Republicans I met really overused the moral superiority argument throughout the Clinton years. Who can blame some of the self-righteous people for so doing? After all, Clinton is an educated Arkansas hillbilly.
However, these same people also failed to understand the moral pickle they place all Republicans in when so doing. Some Republicans reasoned their candidates were morally superior to their opponents. By implication then, this means their opponents were morally inferior, right?
This slippery slope argument left the Clintonistas all the wiggle room they needed to repeatedly get Clinton off the hook. Since their opponent was morally inferior then his behavior is not very alarming. Ergo, Clinton is only behaving in a proscribed morally inferior way.
Getting away with doing this at first only enhances their ability to get away with it again. All they had to do in the end was blame all their woes on partisan politics. It is a panacea still used today.
This moral superiority argument also sets up Republicans who must be morally superior to their opponents since they are, well, so morally superior. Therefore, when Republican politicians naturally fall short of this standard of political purity the media descends upon them as flies on a carcass. This negative coverage plays very poorly (for Republicans) in election years making it difficult to get our message out. It conversely helps Democrats.
This scenario played itself out throughout the 1990’s. It was one reason for their loss of seats during the last decade. It was also one reason for Clinton’s success as President. All he had to do was dodge bullets from the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight to appear invincible. This gang is the Christian Coalition.
No reasonable person believes one politician is morally superior to any other politician. Some Republicans simply design poor strategy. And this is poor strategy.
Clinton and Reagan share only one common characteristic. They were both more successful due to their opponents’ underestimation of their abilities. Democrats did not have to pick up seats in congress in ’96, ’98 and 2000. But we gave them just what they needed making ourselves appear as the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight during election years.
I certainly hope Republicans have better advisers in 2000. This is a watershed election year. I hope the Republicans do not blow it again.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
If that's the case (and I agree with the premise) then the constant lefty implication that Bush is stoopid will only help him (remember when Gore was supposed to 'wipe the floor' with Bush during the debates - which Bush won?)
After all, the over-the-top rhetoric from the NAACP convention only HURT their efforts (purely partisan) and made the administration look even more the type of consensus building versus the NAACP coming off as mean-spirited and closed minded.
Now, the party must pounce. The absolute BEST thing would be a Bush/Condi Rice ticket in '04, but more work must be done on the local levels, IMO.
Civil rights has not been so much an issue of party but of ideology. A number of the southern democrats who fought so hard to prevent the passage of the civil rights bill, eventually became Republicans. I wonder if anyone has considered the effect that these conversions have had in redefining the Republican Party, in the minds of many, as a party opposed to civil rights.
Er, the Republican Party was never and anti-civil-rights party. In fact, its views on civil rights are pretty much the same as they've always been: that government should be color-blind and that we should have equal rights for all people regardless of race. That's been its position since Lincoln was President.
There was also no mass wave of segregationists who switched to the Republicans. The South started to became more Republican long after the civil rights era was over. A few segregationists did switch parties--Strom Thurmond, for example, although he's been apologizing for having been a segregationist for the last 40 years almost.
On the other hand, the same is true of segregationists who stayed with the party, like Robert Byrd.
The notion that Republicans are the "anti-civil-rights" party has always been a canard.
Most of the most racist people I've ever met in my life were and still are Democrats. But then, I grew up in Chicago.
dear Ms,Rosa Parks,
Hi my name is chantel and i would like to know if i could use your information and pictures because i think you are a wonderful lady with a lot of courage and confidents.
Dear, Mrs.Parks first I would like to say as a young 17 teen year old women you have made a huge impact on my life and I someday hope to be as great as you are. I really enjoyed reading your laments. Thank you Jennifer Sykes
Dear, Mrs.Parks first I would like to say as a young 17 teen year old women you have made a huge impact on my life and I someday hope to be as great as you are. I really enjoyed reading your laments. Thank you Jennifer Sykes
i think Rosa Parks was a very brave i mean like she was the only person who had the most boldness among all the other black ladies and man to refuse to stand up in front of the crowd i mean thats incredible.
i think Rosa Parks was a very brave i mean like she was the only person who had the most boldness among all the other black ladies and man to refuse to stand up in front of the crowd i mean thats incredible.