RICHARD IVORY OP-ED: Republicans & Race
By HHR | March 4th, 2010 | Category: Featured, General, HHR Contributors |
By Richard Ivory
In his book, Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America , the Manhattan Institute Fellow John Mcwhorter writes: “When I hear someone say something along the lines of ‘why do we have to be talking about race? Why can’t we just be people and let that stuff alone’, I hear someone who hasn’t had the occasion to think hard about how the past effects the present.”
Today there is no better example of this avoidance of “race talk” than in the Republican Party where the very mention of race is viewed with suspicion. Republicans, who hold such a view, tend to be what I call color blind Republicans. They feel that anyone who even mentions race is guilty of race baiting. This sort of accusation is leveled even if the issue of race is relevant to the topic at hand. The color blind Republicans often clash ideologically with what might be called the race conscious Republicans, a group that when the facts suggest race has no problem mentioning it. The race conscious Republicans are always reluctant to mention race amongst the color blind Republicans for fear of being accused of playing the race card.
I believe that the color blind Republicans, while well meaning put our Party at a disadvantage when speaking in urban settings. I am speaking specificaly of things like police brutality, health disparities and incarceration rates for example. By not factoring in race we leave ourselves outside of the debate and to a mostly ethnic audience we appear insensitive on a whole array of issues. In other words, many Republicans have only one weapon in their arsenal when debating any subject surrounding race: simply state that it doesn’t exist!
Unlike Republicans, Liberals see issues of race under every nook and cranny with the net result being a Democratic Party that is perceived of as being more of an advocate on behalf of minorities. In theory, it would be nice if everyone did not see one’s race, but in practice we know that this is not the case. We all notice other people’s race! It is, however, what we perceive in that person after meeting him/her which determines a great deal about how we continue to view that person. The same argument can be made about class as it relates to the way we view people less educated than ourselves.
While most Republicans see the avoidance of race and of class as a good thing, the perception interpreted by a largely minority and poor people is one of avoidance. Many perceive that Republicans by virtue of not bringing up race or class by default are both racist and hostile towards the working class.The prevalent “color blind theory”, hurts Republicans in our efforts to micro - target diverse communities in order to bring them into the fold.
The Republican Party was formed to battle the hate crimes perpetrated on the Black Community by Democrats. The entire debates surrounding slavery and post-war reconciliation were issues of race. The current topic is a bit ironic given that the Republican Party’s origins were directly related to the issue of race. John Charles Frémont, who was the first candidate of the Republican Party for the office of President, surely felt that race was apropriate to speak on when he become the first presidental candidate to ever include race in his platform. Abraham Lincoln was clealry cognizant of race when during Reconstruction he implemented The Freedmen’s Bureau to help freed slaves in their transition to freedom. And let’s not forget that The Constitution was very much aware of race when on February 3, 1870, Republicans passed the first Civil Rights bill called the Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) which prohibited any State from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (i.e., slavery).
There is no assurance that Republicans will come to the same conclusions as Democrats about the cause and effect of any given scenario that involves race. As with anything there will be times where race is a huge factor and others where it will have no factor. But, by ignoring history and its overall impact on the events of the day, we Republicans lose the intellectual battle in promoting a better vision of assimilation for all Americans regardless of race.
The Republican Party in the past led the way in ensuring that blacks, who had been demoralized by the intuitions of slavery, became empowered citizens. There is no reason why the same Party, in today’s society, can’t reclaim that mantle again and lead a solution based movement “with race in mind” which helps to lead minorities out of poverty and into individual empowerment.
Richard Ivory is the Publisher and Founder, of Hip-HopRepublican.com, a blog that delves into urban issues from centrist perspective. Mr. Ivory is a political consultant who has worked on dozens of political campaigns around the country. He has worked for both the Republican National Committee and was the College outreach director for Republican Youth Majority. He is presently the founder of The John Langston Forum and is the College outreach director for Republicans for Black Empowerment
Believe it or not, they’re talking about this on RedState.
http://www.redstate.com/thesophist/2010/03/02/ethnic-politics-and-conservatism/
It’s a fantastic post about race. Probably the best I’ve ever seen from a movement conservative website.
[...] Ivory takes the GOP to task for avoiding race. VN:F [1.8.3_1051]please wait…Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)VN:F [1.8.3_1051]Rating: 0 (from 0 [...]
Some good points here. There are four categories that exist when it comes to the views people hold on race:
1. A true race baiter - people who just see life through the lens of race. If they get turned down for a position, it was due to race. Heck, if they get cuf-off in traffic, it’s because of race.
Here’s the problem - when there is a legitimate instance of racial bias and these folks try to bring it to light, the temptation is to dismiss them since they’ve overplayed the “card” in the past.
2. The reasoned person - Will not inject race into a debate unless there is considerable evidence that racial bias is present. They evaluate the facts, and reach a conclusion.
3. Color-blind oriented - Is skeptical of anyone who injects race into the debate, often times because they prefer not to view their lives through a racial lens. Afterall, who wants to walk around feeling like they can’t reach great heights because of the color of their skin? They’ve made a personal decision to “do their own thing”.
4. The deniers - There is no racism, and if it exists, it’s very minute. Vigorous opposers of anyone who injects race into a debate and will often come up with stunning rationalizations to justify anything that even remotely suggests race could have played a factor. They often accuse anyone who brings up race as “race baiting”.
What’s my point?
Don’t confuse those in the 3rd category with those in the 4th. There is a difference between someone who prefers to live their lives without being race-conscious (I suppose one could question how realistic this is) and someone who is a vigorous opponent of any race-based discussion. I think many black republicans fit in the 2nd and 3rd categories, there are a few in the 4th too. The republican party, by and large, appears to be somewhere between the 3rd and 4th categories.
Superb article, though considering today the GOP has flipped 180 degrees from its original principles your hopes may not become reality anytime soon. Among possibilities why the Republican Party as its presently constituted are timid towards racial issues is the fact the party’s base is dwindling. Its understandable party rulers would want to cling onto power as long as possible. As this country’s population quickly become majority minority the GOP can foresee its demise unless they change. Unfortunately the Republican Party and its agents would rather fight this inevitable change than become part part of it and thereby ensure influence with whatever the outcome.
Good article Richard. There was a point that Earl Ofari Hutchinson brought up in one of his books saying how the GOP needs more votes from black voters (and non-white voters), but ultimately fear alienating white voters (Southern ones as well). Basically, they know they need those votes but fear losing the base. Why not? The base is shrinking and frankly one party rule under any party is not good for the country.
Your article reminds me of when Raynard Jackson in one of his articles said how conservatives say race doesn’t matter which is why you rarely see anyone outside of white people at their events.
Also when you focus on key issues and use language that only appeal to rural and suburban voters while not using language that appeals to urban voters you are destined to hvae a whiter party.
Well said HHR. I remember an article in my local newspaper a few years back asking the GOP why don’t they make more inroads with black and Hispanics (they do want an alternative party as they feel Democrats take them for granted, just not one that will say things to insult them en masse) since they don’t seem to have the fidelity with their base as they used to as he said. He pretty much said they fear losing suburban and rural voters. Last time I checked, the Republicans are losing suburban voters in the past few elections.
This is where people like us who are posting have to make the party change. We have more of a voice than in the past because of the Internet. The GOP has to change or risk being a minority party for a long time. Bob Mcdonnell did a pretty good outreach program from what I heard. Arnold in California appealed to other voters that don’t vote Republican usually and he did well (conservatives called him a sellout for that).
But to the current GOP base, they feel reaching out is the equivalent of surrendering your principles and becoming Democrats. It’s not, you’re just finding ways to appeal to groups and broadening the mind. Believe me, I talked to a Reagan Republican once and I mentioned outreach and he looked at me like I committed a heresy in his eyes (he changed the subject shortly after that, talking about being in denial about a changing America). I’ve had debates with people on this.
The language is how people interpret your message. That I agree with you on HHR.
I meant conservatives in California. I didn’t mean to paint all conservatives with one stroke, just the ones that refuse to see the changing demographics in America in the future. Jack Kemp was a good example of a diversity-oriented conservative.