Steele's Arguments
Shelby Steele has written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal which purports to explain why the Republican Party cannot make inroads among persons of color. According to Steele, conservatives (whom Steele conflates with Republicans) do not appeal to people of color because Democrats have seduced them with a mutated form of liberalism that rejects individualism and replaces it with a politics of redemption.
Steele argues that "redemptive liberalism" attracts persons of color because it offers "moral accountability" for the nation's history of racism. Steele argues that liberals have used this moral trope to justify "social engineering," achieved through activism around particular causes like "integration" and "diversity." Conservatives, by contrast, would rather "ensure individual freedom" and leave the rest to the "invisible hand."
Steele argues that conservatives' focus on individualism, discipline and market principles alienates people of color for a couple of reasons. First, individualism and limited government are wholly inadequate vehicles for constructing a narrative of moral accountability. Second, people of color expect "moral activism" because they -- "especially blacks . . . are often born into grievance-focused identities." Whereas moral political activism appeals to a grievance-based culture, the "invisible hand" does not.
Problems With Steele's Arguments
Steele's arguments are troubling on many levels. I will now turn to some of the weaknesses in his essay.
Internally Inconsistent. Steele argues that persons of color have a "grievance identity," which he portrays as antithetical to conservatism. But Steele also observes that "blacks and Hispanics often poll more conservatively than whites on most social issues," which he says should make them attractive candidates for the Republican Party. Steele's observation concerning the embrace of social conservatism among persons of color is correct, but this fact undermines his simplistic effort to link Democratic support among persons of color with a grievance culture. Instead, the situation is far more complex.
Voters of all races are complicated. They often make compromises and prioritize among many issues. Civil rights concerns appeal to persons of color because they believe that remedying ongoing and past discrimination is an important function of government. Steele, however, reduces this belief in and desire for concrete solutions to a pie in the sky fantasy concerning American innocence and morality. Opinion polls, however, tend to show that people of color -- especially blacks -- have a far more cynical attitude concerning the status of race relations and the prospect for racial change.
Conservatism Is Contradictory. While conservatives espouse the virtues of limited government, they often embrace governmental intervention into some of the most personal areas of our lives, including pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation, marriage, and consumption of "obscene" materials like pornography and even "sex toys." They also support very strict restraints on liberty by expanding the criminal law, promoting heavy sentencing, and condoning highly permissive policing methods that invade personal privacy and autonomy. The "invisible hand" is only selectively invisible, and quite often, the results of conservative-sponsored governmental intervention has a disparate impact on persons of color. These policies, not a grievance culture, explain the inability of the GOP to appeal to many persons of color.
Steele's Claims Are Ahistorical. Steele argues that the 1960s civil rights legislation, busing, and Great Society programs form the redemptive glue that keeps people of color locked in the Democratic Party. But Steele's analysis could benefit from a richer appreciation of history -- and from a more deliberate effort to distinguish among different racial groups.
Blacks, for example, began voting for Democrats in great numbers in 1936, when Roosevelt received almost 80 percent of black votes. The only interruption in this pattern occurred when Dwight Eisenhower received 40 percent of black votes; his opponent, Adlai Stevenson, chose a southern segregationist as a running mate. The pattern has spiked in recent years (even before Obama) even though civil rights concerns have not dominated the Democratic Party's agenda. Bill Clinton dared to tinker with "welfare as we know it," but he maintained popularity among blacks, even though welfare is a New Deal/Great Society prized jewel.
Other groups of persons of color tend to vote for Democrats even though they do not fit neatly within the "redemptive" model Steele portrays. The busing controversy, for example, did not implicate Asian Americans as it did blacks and Latinos. And much of the civil rights legislation responded directly to black social movements. But a majority of Asian Americans vote for Democrats. On the issue of internment of Japanese Americans, a Democrat (FDR) issued the executive orders permitting the practice, and a Republican (Reagan) signed the reparations legislation into law.
Among Latinos, Cuban-Americans have voted for Republicans because the Republican Party has utilized governmental power to penalize Cuba. The "invisible hand' does not exist in this context, and Republicans have gained tremendously from governmental restraints on trade with and travel to Cuba. Perhaps what Steele calls a system of grievance and redemption is really old-fashioned political patronage, in which both parties engage.
Final Thoughts. I do not believe in an "us/them" dichotomy. Many essays on this blog, for example, criticize liberals and defend Republicans (even though I am a progressive). Only nonpartisan scrutiny of the nation's problems will produce workable solutions. Steele's essay is explicitly partisan.
I believe in a two-party or multiple-party political system, and for that reason, I hope that a credible second-party emerges (even if it is the GOP). Nonpartisans across the political spectrum must do the necessary work to make political and social progress a possibility.
(Updated/edited for style 3/17)
Showing posts with label people of color. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people of color. Show all posts
Monday, March 16, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?
Yesterday, Michael Steele's Washington Times interview caused even yours truly -- a staunch progressive -- to take notice. Steele's plan to market conservative ideology to black and Latino urbanites intrigued me, but it also left me doubting that he could accomplish this mission. Although many blacks embrace some socially conservative agendas (e.g., soft on gay rights), the vast majority of blacks have preferred Democratic candidates over Republicans since FDR.
Black Voters' Candidate Preference
I have always believed that if Steele (or anyone else with a magic wand) could make the GOP more moderate and take the party closer to its "Rockefeller Republican" days, then he could perhaps modestly broaden the party's base. The Republican Party was not always synonymous with social conservatism, and the Democratic Party did not begin to monopolize black votes until the 1930s. The Republican Party sided with slaves over slaveowners, fought to establish racial equality after the end of the Civil War, and embraced civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, supported slavery and excluded blacks from participating in politics through a host of legislative schemes (not to mention violence and intimidation). And historically, the Democrats, not the Republicans, have led the country into expensive and deadly wars.
Large numbers of blacks moved away from the Republican Party to support FDR, who attracted over 70 percent of the black vote in 1936. Most Democratic presidential candidates have earned the same or a greater percentage of black votes since that time. There was one exception: Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower received nearly 40 percent of the black vote in his first election. Adlai Stevenson, his Democratic opponent, decided to run with a segregationist in order to win white votes in the South. The plan worked - but it cost him black support.
Despite the Roosevelt revolution, around 30 percent of black voters continued to support Republican candidates until 1964, the year Johnson sponsored important civil rights legislation. Since that time, no Republican presidential candidate has earned over 15 percent of black votes. McCain only received 4 percent. He also received only small percentages of Latino and Asian-American votes.
White Voting Patterns, the Southern Strategy and Social Conservatism
After Southern whites fled the Democratic Party in the 1960s, the GOP became increasingly more dependent upon socially conservative voters to win elections. By the time Ronald Reagan defeated Gerald Ford, the moderate wing of the Republican Party had lost much of its influence in defining the party's national political agenda. The party decided to supplant the moderates in order to capture the South's abundant electoral votes.
The "Southern strategy" produced amazing results for the GOP. Bill Clinton is the only two-term Democratic president since Truman. And until Obama's victory, Clinton and Carter were the only two Democrats to win the presidency since 1964. Furthermore, after 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white votes. Obama did not reverse this trend -- despite the dreamy rhetoric among many pundits which suggests that his election demolished race-based political cleavages.
Advice for Steele: Be Consistent About Governmental Intervention and About "Equality"
Obama's election, party loyalty, and deep distrust of the GOP make Steele's effort to lure persons of color a difficult, if not impossible, task. It would take a great deal of courage, innovation, and reformulation of ideology in order to accomplish modestly this goal.
In order to do this, Steele will likely need to convince Republicans to challenge their rhetoric that seeks to reduce deep social problems to individual pathology. This is a favorite trump card. Every group has "bad" apples - but unless conservatives believe that the majority of blacks and Latinos are bad apples (which is a conversation stopper), then they must remain open to other explanations for and solutions to prolonged inequity across social groups. Conservatives often blame the government for incentivizing people to choose poverty (and this still passes the laugh test), but this is just the extreme opposite of the notion that only governmental solutions can work. Room exists for both approaches.
Governmental Intervention
While many conservatives passionately reject any role for government in reducing class and other types of inequity, they readily invite the government into areas of other people's lives in order to regulate personal choices that seem patently inappropriate for governmental intrusion (and certainly inappropriate for a governmental veto). Many social conservatives, for example, vehemently insist that the government alone should decide the conditions under which a woman terminates a pregnancy. They also want the government to dictate whether or not terminally ill patients continue to receive life-sustaining medical treatment against their family members' or their own wishes. Conservatives have supported making criminals out of people who consent to intimate relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex. And they believe that government-waged "wars" can reduce or rid society of drugs, kidnappings, sexual predators, violence, and terrorism.
If the government can accomplish all of these things better than "the people," then just maybe the government can do a few things to create conditions in which all people can have economic autonomy and opportunity. Favoring governmental intervention in order to police people, rather than to foster individual autonomy seems far removed from conservatism.
Social Equality
If Republicans want to broaden their base, they could fill the hole left by Democrats, who have not proposed solutions for substantive inequality -- by which I mean, actually doing something about the conditions of inequality such as poverty, homelessness, unequal schools, etc., rather than simply cheering the party's "diversity."
Conservative discourse already espouses the virtues of equality. When conservatives oppose affirmative action, for example, they do so by invoking the language of "equality." Conservatives presumably value racial equality so greatly that they view university admissions policies that dole out a few "points" to students of color in their applications as being the moral equivalent of the brutal regime of Jim Crow. If this is true, then this principle should lead them to at least the same degree of outrage concerning the detrimental effects of sending black, Latino and many poor white kids to vastly underfunded or racially isolated "poverty schools" (where a majority of the students qualify for "free lunch").
Blaming the children and their families for being locked into these suboptimal conditions contradicts conservative opposition to affirmative action. Instead of telling whites who challenge affirmative action to "suck it up" or accusing them of promoting socialism, conservatives criticize the government for treating people differently (even if only to a small degree).
Final Word
Unless conservatives begin to demand equality of opportunity in all settings and consistently remain open to the possibility of governmental and private solutions, then they will fail to expand their base to include people of color. Of course, I cannot demand that Republicans do these things when the "liberal" party has failed to do so or has done so inconsistently. But it's fun to dream. Also, unless the GOP can top the Democrats, then many people of color will just stay with the familiar.
So, Steele: if you can fit my long rant into a neat conservative package, put a ribbon on it, and sell it to Republicans, then you will have in fact done something "off the hook." Apparently, a "new school" of Republicans catapulted Steele to leadership. Maybe this will give him a chance to shake things up. Good luck!
Black Voters' Candidate Preference
I have always believed that if Steele (or anyone else with a magic wand) could make the GOP more moderate and take the party closer to its "Rockefeller Republican" days, then he could perhaps modestly broaden the party's base. The Republican Party was not always synonymous with social conservatism, and the Democratic Party did not begin to monopolize black votes until the 1930s. The Republican Party sided with slaves over slaveowners, fought to establish racial equality after the end of the Civil War, and embraced civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, supported slavery and excluded blacks from participating in politics through a host of legislative schemes (not to mention violence and intimidation). And historically, the Democrats, not the Republicans, have led the country into expensive and deadly wars.
Large numbers of blacks moved away from the Republican Party to support FDR, who attracted over 70 percent of the black vote in 1936. Most Democratic presidential candidates have earned the same or a greater percentage of black votes since that time. There was one exception: Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower received nearly 40 percent of the black vote in his first election. Adlai Stevenson, his Democratic opponent, decided to run with a segregationist in order to win white votes in the South. The plan worked - but it cost him black support.
Despite the Roosevelt revolution, around 30 percent of black voters continued to support Republican candidates until 1964, the year Johnson sponsored important civil rights legislation. Since that time, no Republican presidential candidate has earned over 15 percent of black votes. McCain only received 4 percent. He also received only small percentages of Latino and Asian-American votes.
White Voting Patterns, the Southern Strategy and Social Conservatism
After Southern whites fled the Democratic Party in the 1960s, the GOP became increasingly more dependent upon socially conservative voters to win elections. By the time Ronald Reagan defeated Gerald Ford, the moderate wing of the Republican Party had lost much of its influence in defining the party's national political agenda. The party decided to supplant the moderates in order to capture the South's abundant electoral votes.
The "Southern strategy" produced amazing results for the GOP. Bill Clinton is the only two-term Democratic president since Truman. And until Obama's victory, Clinton and Carter were the only two Democrats to win the presidency since 1964. Furthermore, after 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white votes. Obama did not reverse this trend -- despite the dreamy rhetoric among many pundits which suggests that his election demolished race-based political cleavages.
Advice for Steele: Be Consistent About Governmental Intervention and About "Equality"
Obama's election, party loyalty, and deep distrust of the GOP make Steele's effort to lure persons of color a difficult, if not impossible, task. It would take a great deal of courage, innovation, and reformulation of ideology in order to accomplish modestly this goal.
In order to do this, Steele will likely need to convince Republicans to challenge their rhetoric that seeks to reduce deep social problems to individual pathology. This is a favorite trump card. Every group has "bad" apples - but unless conservatives believe that the majority of blacks and Latinos are bad apples (which is a conversation stopper), then they must remain open to other explanations for and solutions to prolonged inequity across social groups. Conservatives often blame the government for incentivizing people to choose poverty (and this still passes the laugh test), but this is just the extreme opposite of the notion that only governmental solutions can work. Room exists for both approaches.
Governmental Intervention
While many conservatives passionately reject any role for government in reducing class and other types of inequity, they readily invite the government into areas of other people's lives in order to regulate personal choices that seem patently inappropriate for governmental intrusion (and certainly inappropriate for a governmental veto). Many social conservatives, for example, vehemently insist that the government alone should decide the conditions under which a woman terminates a pregnancy. They also want the government to dictate whether or not terminally ill patients continue to receive life-sustaining medical treatment against their family members' or their own wishes. Conservatives have supported making criminals out of people who consent to intimate relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex. And they believe that government-waged "wars" can reduce or rid society of drugs, kidnappings, sexual predators, violence, and terrorism.
If the government can accomplish all of these things better than "the people," then just maybe the government can do a few things to create conditions in which all people can have economic autonomy and opportunity. Favoring governmental intervention in order to police people, rather than to foster individual autonomy seems far removed from conservatism.
Social Equality
If Republicans want to broaden their base, they could fill the hole left by Democrats, who have not proposed solutions for substantive inequality -- by which I mean, actually doing something about the conditions of inequality such as poverty, homelessness, unequal schools, etc., rather than simply cheering the party's "diversity."
Conservative discourse already espouses the virtues of equality. When conservatives oppose affirmative action, for example, they do so by invoking the language of "equality." Conservatives presumably value racial equality so greatly that they view university admissions policies that dole out a few "points" to students of color in their applications as being the moral equivalent of the brutal regime of Jim Crow. If this is true, then this principle should lead them to at least the same degree of outrage concerning the detrimental effects of sending black, Latino and many poor white kids to vastly underfunded or racially isolated "poverty schools" (where a majority of the students qualify for "free lunch").
Blaming the children and their families for being locked into these suboptimal conditions contradicts conservative opposition to affirmative action. Instead of telling whites who challenge affirmative action to "suck it up" or accusing them of promoting socialism, conservatives criticize the government for treating people differently (even if only to a small degree).
Final Word
Unless conservatives begin to demand equality of opportunity in all settings and consistently remain open to the possibility of governmental and private solutions, then they will fail to expand their base to include people of color. Of course, I cannot demand that Republicans do these things when the "liberal" party has failed to do so or has done so inconsistently. But it's fun to dream. Also, unless the GOP can top the Democrats, then many people of color will just stay with the familiar.
So, Steele: if you can fit my long rant into a neat conservative package, put a ribbon on it, and sell it to Republicans, then you will have in fact done something "off the hook." Apparently, a "new school" of Republicans catapulted Steele to leadership. Maybe this will give him a chance to shake things up. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)