Decision ‘08

Can The GOP Reach Black Voters, Asks Time?

You can read the short piece here. Answer: yes it can, but only in the long haul, by appealing to them as individuals and not a special interest group. We’ll never outpander the Democrats, nor should we attempt to. Incidentally, Time features a photo of Michael Steele, the Lt. Governor of Maryland. So does the left-leaning News Blog (hat tip to the Commissar). This is how you’re rewarded for being a black politician who doesn’t drink the Democrat Kool-Aid…

8 Responses to “Can The GOP Reach Black Voters, Asks Time?”

1 mtl Says:
October 27th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Increase home ownership, which has happened recently, dramatically.

It is better than affirmative action…and will do more to create an african -american middle-class.

Once they start paying property taxes, they will become republicans.
2 megapotamus Says:
October 27th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Republican policies are better for the whole country than the Democrat alternative and that should be the point, full stop. Let the Dems have the narrow-focus that bribes special interests for their votes. The trouble the Republicans have run into lately stem from their me-tooism on this front.
Here’s a funny thing though. Time quotes Cummings as a member of the House CBC, but doesn’t mention he is a Dem. Gee, a Democrat in the House doesn’t think much of Republican outreach. What a shocker.
3 peter Says:
October 27th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Well, now. It is not as though the GOP does not also bribe its own special interests. The difference is that Republican special interests (pharmaceuticals, financials, oil companies, etc.) are different from the Democrats’ special interests (unions, trial lawyers, etc.). However, in general Democratic special interests favor labor versus capital, or those who are less advantaged vs. those who are more advantaged. To the extent that blacks are economically disadvantaged, their interests are much more in alignment with the Democratic party than the GOP.
4 Mark Says:
October 27th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
peter, you’ll never convince me of the truth of your last sentence. Labor interests? You mean unions…driving up costs and increasing unemployment. Yes, Republicans favor business…and business (i.e., capitalism) is the single greatest benefactor of mankind ever devised. Why should I believe black people are not as capable of enjoying the upward mobility everyone else does?…
5 Mark Says:
October 27th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
peter, also, don’t think I’m inferring that you think this way or that way…what I’m saying, is that here we have a fundamental disagreement between the Left and the Right…the Left sees business as exploitive, and the Right as empowering…I exaggerate somewhat, but I think that’s largely true…
6 peter Says:
October 28th, 2005 at 8:36 am
I don’t see business as exploitative in the least, nor do I think that the government should regulate business to (purportedly) benefit the poor or anyone else. For example, I think it is wrong of Frist to call for hearings on the “price-gouging” of oil companies — the government should not regulate the cost of commodities to benefit those who have trouble paying $3 a gallon (or anyone else).

Nor am I a big fan of unions — I have no issue with collective bargaining, but I think it is wrong to collect dues and use the money for political purposes.

My only point is that the Democrats’ traditional allies are more likely to be on the side of the less advantaged. Unions will push for the minimum wage to increase. Teachers unions will push for expanded free education. Trial lawyers will advocate “the little man” or class actions against corporations. All three (or at least the first two) will push for expanded health care benefits. I’m not saying these positions are right or wrong — only that in general they favor those who need more help.
7 Mark Says:
October 28th, 2005 at 10:28 am
peter, fair enough…I’ll go along with you that far…though, as a good capitalist, I still say the rising tide lifts all boats…
8 peter Says:
October 28th, 2005 at 11:55 am
I think that rising tides lift all boats when the government plays some role in seeing that the benefits are spread broadly throughout society. During the Bush years, those at the top benefited much more than those at the middle and the bottom, many of which fell behind. While I do not have statistics handy, I recall reading articles which basically said that the rich now have a greater percentage of American wealth and there is a higher percentage of people below the poverty line. This makes intuitive sense, as cap gains tax cuts and a reduction in rates for higher brackets will obviously benefit those with assets and income. There are also factors which are exogenous to politics (e.g., the outsourcing of low-skilled jobs overseas as America makes a transition to a more service-oriented economy).

My point is this: I believe that the rich and powerful have enough built-in advantages in life that a proper role of government is seeing that the weak and the poor are, to some extent, protected. This is done through social welfare programs and through a tax code which enables lower income people to get ahead (or at least not fall behind). I believe that the Bush administration’s cuts in the natural growth of entitlement programs, combined with its revisions to the tax code, have created a situation where, even in a relatively decent economy, not enough boats were lifted.