Buchanan rationalizes GOP snubbing minority voters

September 30, 2007

The decision this week by the Republicans’ top-tier presidential candidates — Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and McCain — to skip the debate in Baltimore focused on the concerns of the African-American community, continues to stir debate. No one seriously believes the “scheduling” explanation, and several prominent Republican voices — Gingrich, Kemp, Mehlman, Watts, and Steele — have taken the candidates to task for blowing off minorities.

On “Meet the Press” this morning, Pat Buchanan, whose tolerance for diversity is less than stellar, argued that the GOP candidates made the right call.

“[L]et me explain it, 90 percent of Republican votes are — in the general election are non-Hispanic, white. That is a higher percentage in the primaries, even higher percentage in New Hampshire and Iowa. These are [sic] what is going to decide this nomination, Tim.

“There is a risk going to this gathering here, and there’s very little reward, in my judgment, in those early battles…. Rudy’s got his own problems in New York with the Amadou Diallo thing, and I can understand why they don’t go down there and get asked about affirmative action. They look at the risks, they look at the rewards, they say, ‘Look, this is going to be decided in the month of January. How does this help me in January and what we’re building for, the Republican nomination?’ […]

“Tavis, about, I think, 13 percent of the country is African-American. About 10 percent of the votes are African-American and Republicans get about 10 percent of that. And so taking your time out of the critical areas — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina — does not make sense to me if I were advising them. I would look at the costs, look at the benefits, make the call there.”

You know, all of this might actually make some sense … if you’re willing to assume that white people are completely indifferent to the concerns of the African-American community. Indeed, if you’re convinced that the typical Republican primary voter doesn’t care about the challenges facing black people in the United States, and might even hold it against a presidential candidate who showed up to talk about those challenges, then sure, blowing off minority communities would certainly be the right call.

But therein lies the point: Buchanan’s rationalizing is offensive precisely because it rests on those assumptions. In his words, there’s a “risk” in talking to African Americans about the criminal justice system and healthcare, so it should be avoided, at least until after all the nice white people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina have had a chance to register a Republican preference.

If I’m Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or McCain, I’d be tempted to say, “Stay off my side, Pat.”

***If I’m Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, or McCain, I’d be tempted to say, “Stay off my side, Pat.”***

But they won’t tell him that. The issue will be that Buchanan’s the equivalent of a “whistle blower;” he’s telling a Truth that the goof-gaggle doesn’t want him to tell. They do not value any vote other than the WASP vote—which is just peachy with me. The longer this primary stretches out, the more time their is for all the groups snubbed by these goofs to realize—and appreciate—the pure, simple fact that the NeoConfederate Bundist White People’s Party does not want them.

Unless, of course, someone in “The Party” needs a toilet cleaned, their laundry done, or a late-night stop at the local Taco Bell….

  • You know, all of this might actually make some sense … if you’re willing to assume that white people are completely indifferent to the concerns of the African-American community. Indeed, if you’re convinced that the typical Republican primary voter doesn’t care about the challenges facing black people in the United States, and might even hold it against a presidential candidate who showed up to talk about those challenges, then sure, blowing off minority communities would certainly be the right call.

    Unfortunately, for the primaries, for appealing to Das Base, Buchanan is entirely right. This isn’t the party of Confederate White Supremacy for nothing, remember?

  • Why was the audience applauding at every inane answer given by the candidates including answers that were hostile to the interests of the black community — and wildly cheering at every answer of Ron Paul — doesn’t he have a history with the white supremacists? It was downright bizarre especially since it seemed that the most sympathetic answers were given by Huckabee and he got maybe the least applause.

  • Amelia,

    The absence of the frontrunners forced the crowd to behave in a way that they probably would not have if all the candidaties would have been there. If they moderate had played the race card with the first question and put those candidates who attended of a total defensive, the front runners could have held a press conference and claimed that they were correct in not attend such a forum.

    However, in the long run Buchanan is correct. Blacks will never vote for Republicans so why should Republicans candidates even bother to spend any of their resources trying to get votes that do not exist.

    The more basic question is that the demographic trends of the U.S. will eventually eliminate the Republican Party as being a relevent political party. Thus, the question arises of whether the U.S. will become a one party state (the most likely scenerio) or will some of the groups currently in the Democratic Party break away to create their own political party.

    Also, another question is whether any conservative candidate could every get more than a few percent of the black vote. I doubt it. Is there even a Democratic primary where the black vote split fairly evenly between two white candidates. Or is the black vote, the most monolithic voting block in the U.S. today?

  • “…if you’re convinced that the typical Republican primary voter doesn’t care about the challenges facing black people in the United States, and might even hold it against a presidential candidate who showed up to talk about those challenges, then sure, blowing off minority communities would certainly be the right call.”

    Is it really such a stretch to view the “typical Republican primary voter” this way? I don’t think so.

    I think Pat has a good point. And that doesn’t happen often.

  • He’s right.
    If you’re happy with minorities not supporting you.

    Once upon a time, Dubya said the GOP should change and go after these voters.
    Buchanan is simply telling it like it is, has been, and (apparently) will be.

    I’m find this situation simultaneously pleasing and contemptible.

  • The more basic question is that the demographic trends of the U.S. will eventually eliminate the Republican Party as being a relevent political party.

    Yay! Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

    Thus, the question arises of whether the U.S. will become a one party state (the most likely scenerio) or will some of the groups currently in the Democratic Party break away to create their own political party.

    The Democrats have a tough time maintaining unity even in the face of ruthless Republican opposition. Could they keep it all together if their worst enemies have faded from the scene or (more likely) started co-opting Democratic targets of opportunity? I don’t see it.

    I think we’d end up with a far-right rump of inveterate Dobsonites, a center-right pro-corporate group of Washington establishment Dems (politically these would occupy the part of the spectrum where we used to have northeastern Republicans), and an actual progressive group that would split from the establishment Dems after they’d triangulated a few too many times.

    But before we get to that I think we really need to see to the destruction of the southern theocratic fascist party, if only as a prophylactic measure. These people can’t be allowed to get control of the federal government ever again.

  • Buchanan’s rationalizing is offensive precisely because it rests on those assumptions.

    Those aren’t bad assumptions when you’re talking about the Republican primary voting base, though. The GOP has successfully transformed itself from “The Party of Lincoln” into “The Party of Jefferson Davis” over the last few decades.

    And because they’ve worked so hard to push all the non-white, non-Evangelical Christian voters out of their tent, there are two ways that showing up at these debates “hurts” Republican candidates. First of all, they show themselves sympathetic to the needs of non-white voters in America. That’s bad for the racist base – they might start to think that the candidate isn’t racist enough for their tastes. Second of all, they don’t get anything out of it because only a slender percentage of the non-white voting blocs are stupid enough this cycle to vote for a president from the Racist Party. And the ones who are crazy-stupid enough to vote for a president from the Racist Party are going to vote for him anyway whether he shows up at the debates or not.

    Bush, Rove and Mehlman knew that the only way to have a “permanent Republian Majority” was to get the party to move away from the racism and to start expanding their tent toward black, Hispanic and Asian voters. Had they managed that they might not be in such dire straits this election cycle. But the racists had a resurgence in control using immigration as their excuse, and it’s going to be at least another election cycle before anyone will be able to try the expansion strategy again (maybe longer, depending on how bad the loss is next year).

  • NN,

    Then the question is: Can a small c conservative (small government, fiscal restraint, limited regulation) ever get a significant portion of the black or Hispanic vote?

    The Republicans probably have polling data that shows that no conservative candidate (and I am not talking about the borrow and spend, big government compassionate conservative) can every get the black vote. So the Republicans are also stuck with the problem that for any black vote gained, they will probably lose ten times as many white voters.

    Look at how pandering to Hispanics with the immigration bill worked out for the Republicans.

  • I suspect the audience was applauding the best performances, not responding to particular political messages. When the “debate” part is rendered useless by the absence of all the front-runners, the proceedings become theatre.

  • Pukecannon would have us believe that minorities are sooo mean and stand-offish to people who try to be soooo nice to them and haven’t for example, used them as boogey men for all the evils of society.

    The other problem with Pat’s cost/benefit analysis is that he ignores (or fails to acknowledge) two facts:

    1. The ReThugs do try to get minority votes via simplistic ploys that wouldn’t fool a three year old. There are the “We’re the party of Lincoln! Lincoln set the slaves free! Vote for us brown people!” adverts and variations on the shtick Erlich and Steele used in the last election: Busing in minority homeless people to hand out deceptive sample ballots at polls in primarily African-American areas. Cute.

    2. When they aren’t pulling that crap they’re trying to keep minorities away from the polls. It costs money to spread rumours that the cops are arresting people when they show up to vote.

    So the GOP will spend the cash (and take the time), just not in a way that is conducive to earning anything other than more distrust and contempt. Arseholes like Pat will continue to bloviate on why this happens and as the demographics of the US continue to change, guess which party will take another step closer to extinction?

    Tsk. Tsk.

  • The other thing to keep in mind is that one did not have to be a person of color to attend the debate, plus, I think some of the applause was knee-jerk.

    The sad truth is that many people of color and those on the wrong side of the poverty line continue to vote against their own interests and vote Republican. Some of that is the effect of whatever is happening locally – if a person is represented in Congress or in the state legislature by a Republican, and things seem to be pretty good, there’s at least a better than average chance that that person will vote Republican in a presidential contest.

    If I were a Democratic candidate for president, I would put those Buchanan clips everywhere, and let as many people as possible hear that Pat Buchanan – a Republican – is strategizing that speaking to minorities at this stage is a waste of time.

    Given the chances that more states will have voter ID laws, and many will also be going the route of Florida and institutionalizing caging, I think it is imperative to register and get IDs for as many voters as possible now – waiting until next spring or next fall will increase the chances that millions of voters will be disenfranchised.

    It makes me so angry that there is so much time spent figuring out and legislating ways to make sure fewer people vote – as dismal the turnout is, we should all be working our asses off to make sure that as many eligibile Americans vote as possible.

  • Pat spoke “a” truth about political behavoir: politicians do cater to their bases and want to keep them. But he did not speak to the morality of turning your back on large segments of the US population (your potential future constituents) in order to do that catering.

  • And because they’ve worked so hard to push all the non-white, non-Evangelical Christian voters out of their tent, […] — NonyNony, @8

    Not *all*; they’re quite happy to keep non-Evangelical Christians and even non-whites in the tent as long as they’re *rich* non-Evangelicals and non-whites.

    And it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Hispanics this cycle, since Hispanic *Evangelicals* are a growing slice of the population.

    Buchanan’s mention of blacks being 13% of the total population rang a bell and, at first, I couldn’t think why. But then I remembered. There was something in today’s NYT which mentioned the same number, if in a different context. Apparently, although blacks are only 13% of the overall population, black males are 50% of the prison population. One more reason for the GOP not to even bother courting the black vote — prisoners don’t vote. And GOP likes the situation as it is — in the clink and not voting. Way easier than trying to think up tricks to disenfranchise them via other methods.

  • superdestroyer:

    Can a small c conservative (small government, fiscal restraint, limited regulation) ever get a significant portion of the black or Hispanic vote?

    Why not? If such conservatives actually still existed in the GOP that’s an ideology that actually isn’t inherently racist. Heck, Rove, Mehlman and Bush the Lesser made some substantial inroads into the Hispanic vote and they basically ran on a platform of tax cuts – everyone with money like tax cuts. But those types of conservatives don’t really exist anymore in the GOP – they’re like the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. People claim to see them but when you look closely you realize it’s all an illusion and it’s just a piece of driftwood (or, in this case, someone who loves tax cuts but thinks “deficits don’t matter”).

    libra:
    they’re quite happy to keep non-Evangelical Christians and even non-whites in the tent as long as they’re *rich* non-Evangelicals and non-whites.

    Well, sure – among the power brokers. But that’s a very small voting block – much smaller than, say, the 13% of the population who are black. Plus, I tend to lump even these folks into the “crazy-stupid” category – they’re at least playing with fire by going along (and even at times encouraging) the GOP’s racist vote pandering strategy. They’re pretty much like “Log Cabin Republicans” in my mind – crazy-stupid.

  • NN,

    I do not think that a fiscal conservative would ever get the votes of blacks or Hispanics. There is not a single fiscal conservative on the congressional black or Hispanics caucuses.

    THe other question is whether the black vote is something at can be divided. I wonder if anyone could find an election such as a Democratic Primary for an open seat with two white candidates where the blacks vote was evenly split between the two candidates.

    I suspect that the Republicans have data showing that blacks are either the most monolithic voters currently in the U.S. or maybe second behind the Jewish vote.

  • Buchanan’s thesis works if the world is a zero sum game: that if blacks succeed then they only do so at the price of a white not succeeding. Racism is pegged on this idea that if one race is not held down then the other race cannot succeed or continue to succeed. This only holds true if the economic pie never increases. But it does. The better minorities do, the better off this nation will be. So for Pat to argue that helping people of other skin colors address problems of concern to them as not being beneficial to those of the “official” skin color of the US is bunk

    Buchanan’s ideas are not only un-American, they are also anti-capitolist (God forbid.) Pat’s mindset can only appeal to people who are so insecure in their personhood that they feel the only reason they are where they’re at is because other races have to be artificially suppressed. Way to go Pat.

  • We never should have let all those Irish in. Or anybody without a visa and money. Wait, that’s me…

  • supderdestroyer:

    There is not a single fiscal conservative on the congressional black or Hispanics caucuses.

    First of all, the congressional black and Hispanic caucuses are – surprise surprise – mostly Democratic. Because the Republican Party is a party of racists. So of course in a primarily Democratic caucus you aren’t going to find a lot of fiscal conservatives – they’re not attracting those voters and are, in fact, pushing them away – remember?

    Second of all, there doesn’t seem to be a single fiscal conservative in the GOP caucus either if you’re using this definition:

    small government, fiscal restraint, limited regulation

    They don’t exist anymore. If they did exist could they appeal to black & Hispanic voters? – sure, a certain subset of them. Back in 2000 there were growing demographics of both the black and Hispanic upper middle class in the US. I’m not sure where those demographics are now, but in a world where the two parties differed only on ideology and not on racism, it would be silly to think that a chunk of those voters didn’t want tax cuts and less government interference in their businesses. And Rove and Co. KNEW that and specifically tried to spin themselves as a party reaching out to at least the Hispanic portion of that demographic. Then the racist bloc saw what they were doing and smacked them down.

    The fact is that Republican “fiscal conservatism” is code for “racist public funding policies” – GOP reps have no problems spending outrageous sums of money as long as it isn’t going to minorities. Their fiscal conservatism is just another cover for their racist agenda at this point.

    (Yes, I’m a disgruntled former Republican. For a good 10 years I took them at their word that they were small government, fiscal restraint watchdogs. Stupid me – I was young and naive and didn’t realize these were just code words for racism, classism, and sexism. You only have to look at former “fiscal conservative” Ted Stevens to see just how important fiscal restraint is to these bozos when they know the money isn’t going to a black family.)

  • Pingback: UNITED FRONT « Blackpressnan’s Weblog

    • Comments are closed.