OPINION & EDITORIAL
Minority issues crucial for GOP candidates
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Hahn:
- Recent polls reveal... absolutely nothing (December 4, 2007)
- 'Right to bear arms' stands up to scrutiny (November 27, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- The pitfalls of holistic admissions (November 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Thompson's debut far from stunning (October 11, 2007)
- Presidential race crazier than ever (February 19, 2007)
- GOP voters might 'heart' Huckabee (November 6, 2007)
- GOP overlooks minority voters (October 11, 2007)
- Colbert: Closest thing to real conservative in '08 (October 18, 2007)
by Mike Hahn
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The leading candidates for the Republican nomination for president have made a serious mistake. It isn't a policy mistake, or a mistake on the war or taxes or spending. The mistake is much simpler than any of that. The problem is that Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain all decided they could skip debates geared toward blacks and Latinos.
It makes no sense that leading candidates for president would pass on an opportunity to appeal to such large groups of Americans. Many political pundits may argue there is nothing the Republican candidates are losing; after all, more than 90 percent of black voters have voted for Democrats in recent presidential elections. But that is precisely why the Republicans must go to forums and debates that are aimed at minorities.
The major issues that many of the Republican candidates have raised in the campaign — such as lowering taxes, reigning in government spending, lowering the costs of health care and competent handling of the war in Iraq — are not issues that only white Americans face. These issues and many others cut across racial categories, so why would Republican candidates decline invitations to speak directly to minority groups?
I cannot give an answer because I can think of no legitimate reason — and by the way, "scheduling conflicts" does not count.
Besides skipping a forum on issues facing blacks in America hosted by Tavis Smiley, a nationally respected journalist, all the leading Republican candidates — with the notable exception of Mr. McCain — also passed on a debate sponsored by Univision. This decision makes even less sense.
When so many in the mainstream media are attacking Republicans day after day about their hard-line immigration policies, would it not make sense to address the Latino community in the United States and explain the position? Of course it would. I don't believe for a second that Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Thompson or Mr. Romney are promoting immigration policies that are racist, anti-Latino or anti-Mexican. Unfortunately, they have been accused of that many, many times. A debate before such a large, almost exclusively Latino audience would be the perfect forum to disprove those attacks.
By not attending the debate, these candidates have only made the matter worse—. It now looks as though the leading Republican candidates simply don't care about minority voters.
That may not be the case, but in presidential politics appearance is everything. It would be better for the candidates to attend these debates and perform poorly than to not attend at all, and then at least they would be making an attempt to reach out to voters who have generally dismissed the Republican Party.
I remember that when I began to identify as a Republican and as a conservative, leaders like President George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich and Tommy Thompson talked about the party as a "big tent." The Republican Party was supposed to be a party in which all Americans, regardless of their backgrounds, would be welcome. The party has fallen short of that ideal, and large majorities of minority groups continue to vote for the Democrats, but it is no reason to give up as it appears the frontrunners have.
Mr. Giuliani recently spoke before the National Rifle Association. The group has been one of the harshest critics of Mr. Giuliani's record as mayor of New York City, yet the former mayor had no problem engaging the obviously hostile group at all. Why then should he have a problem appearing before a black or Latino audience?
Mr. Romney has appeared before evangelical groups that are hostile to Mormons, Mr. Thompson is a Republican in Hollywood, and Mr. McCain is a Vietnam War hero. What is so frightening about speaking before a group of minorities?
The question these frontrunners should all face in the next debate is this: Why wouldn't the men who are trying to become the leader of their party be interested in putting an end to the stereotypes that are plaguing the Republican Party?
I can't wait to hear the answer.
Mike Hahn (mhahn@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and political science.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 3:38am):
Excellent article! Blacks and Latinos deserved to be lied to and exploited by today's Republican Party just as much as fiscal and religious conservatives do!
- Germain Q. Stemme
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 7:26am):
"Why wouldn't the men who are trying to become the leader of their party be interested in putting an end to the stereotypes that are plaguing the Republican Party?"
Because they're CONSERVATIVES who happen to thing the status quo is just fine. They're not interested in minority issues, they're interested in seeming the most pious and the most able to attack random countries without giving a second thought.
Mike Hahn, why do you care? You don't seem to be a minority.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 11:06am):
much better that the repubs leave all minorities to the dems, where they are enslaved by entitlements and the fear of losing them which keep them voting blue. it's really a neat system for the dfl. they pretend to care about minorities and simultaneously envelope them into a 19th century plantation system in which anger towards 'the man' and constant propaganda from age 2 (pbs) all the way through their lives (public schools, universities and mass media) keeps them hating repubs and whites in general. now, if only hillary or obama can get elected (if racist white repubs don't hold them back) the entire middle class, regardless of race, will too become enslaved by the dems who only can win with bad news for america, disenchanted minorities, and a constituency who fears losing benefits. (see ssi, and other middle class entitlements that can never be reversed). imagine if michael jordan ran as a republican. it would be the end of the dfl altogether. race baiters and the affirmative action generation who explicitly focus on color exemplify the fake dems.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 11:43am):
Republicans seem like they don't care about minorities because they really don't care about minorities.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 1:15pm):
11:06 - kinda funny how you slam the public institutions you attend.
11:43 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIUzLpO1kxI
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 2:38pm):
C'mon 11:06, you can't be blind to the tricks your own party plays with the common-folks' emotions, can you?
Why does Rudy Giuliani make sure to punctuate every sentence with "9/11," Tancredo call illegal aliens "invaders," and every right-wing pundit demonize those pesky liberals?
I happen to be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but there's no way I can vote for the current batch of republicans who MISERABLY FAILED to cut government spending. So, friend, what am I to do? Hillary's husband was a pretty good fiscal conservative... compared to Bush.
You might call universal health care "socialism," but I think there are a lot of potential small businesses that will never start because of the high price of health insurance. As a country, we really have to find a solution that works for MOST people; we will have to abandon our ideologies and use common sense.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 4:31pm):
just because i attend them doesn't mean i have to look at them with blind eyes.
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 5:24pm):
2:38
*when the mexican gov't prints cartoons and maps showing easy access to the usa, and puts up expecting mothers in mexican border motels so they can deliver in the usa...they ARE invaders.
*rudy talks of 9/11 too much for me, but the dems refuse to talk about it at all...so i'll take rudy instead even though i'm not a fan.
*there's no way you can be a fiscal conservative and espouse 'social' liberal entitlement policy. this is mishmash and your fear of being labeled a conservative (not the type that's been governing, but a true conservative)
*bill clinton was always a middle of the road type. you cannot base his term on what you project hillary to be.
*i don't know how to solve the heath care problem. i know that insuring the 45MM who don't have coverage will not repay in any fashion the rest of the country that does have coverage and i know that france, england and germany are breaking under their systems and moving towards a more privatized system...but truthfully, i really don't know how to solve it. maybe eliminate trial lawyers, insurance lobby and illegal invaders' coverage. and, we DO have a policy that works for MOST people. you're suggestion is one that might work modestly well for ALL people.
also, take this into account from mark steyn.
In the decade after 1995 -- i.e., since the last round of coercive health reform -- the proportion of the uninsured earning less than $25,000 has fallen by 20 percent, and the proportion earning more than 75 grand has increased by 155 percent. The story of the past decade is that the poor are getting sucked into the maw of "coverage," and the rich are fleeing it.
That last category is the one to watch: Americans 18-34 account for 18 million of the army of the "uninsured." So, out of 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million aren't American, 9 million are insured, 18 million are young and healthy. And the rest of these poor helpless waifs trapped in Uninsured Hell waiting for Hillary to rescue them are, in fact, wealthier than the general population. According to the Census Bureau's August 2006 report on "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage," 37 percent of those without health insurance -- that's 17 million people -- come from households earning more than $50,000. Nineteen percent -- 8.7 million people -- of those downtrodden paupers crushed by the brutal inequities of capitalism come from households earning more than $75,000
Anonymous (October 2, 2007 @ 7:50pm):
"There's no way you can be a fiscal conservative and espouse 'social' liberal entitlement policy."
Sure there is, because I'm doing it. If we have $1 Trillion for wars, we can throw a bone to hard working Americans who've busted their humps to keep this country rolling for the past 50 years. I'll meet you half way on this issue and agree that there is a lot of dead weight in the system.
Compromise.
Anonymous (October 8, 2007 @ 11:13am):
The Republican Party a "big tent?" Ha!
As long as you are not a woman, gay, a racial minority, elderly, poor, or an immigrant, then yes, you can fit into their so-called tent.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 10:37pm):
A SURGE IN APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP
Voter registration is growing among Hispanics as more become citizens and more become enraged at anti-immigrant policies.
JUST A THOUGHT
Several decades ago, immigrants from Hispanic origin came to the USA. They didn't bother to participate in politics. They came to work and nothing else. Why to bother if the country was doing OK. They didn't speak the language very well and they thought let's leave politics in the hands of those who are in power. Working and keeping a job was their main goal. Many even didn't bother to change their immigrant status as residents.
But a couple of years ago, particularly this year, something happened. Because they cannot be recognized or distinguished by appearance, with the so-called illegals, they started to realize that they had to become citizens to obtain a higher level of protection. They realized that they were being demonized. Many of them are coming to vote for the first time.
Some of this population belongs to the group that came with the amnesty offered by President Reagan in 1986-1988. They too started to become citizens. There is no way that anyone can identify an illegal alien just by looking at them. You cannot tell who is an American citizen just by looking. Latino voters are tired of getting treated as something less than real Americans.
They could be legally here; they could have lived in the U.S. for generations. The only marker is skin color. The effect of the immigration debate on many Latino voters has been to make them feel like their Americanness is being questioned, even if they have been here for many generations.
The rampant xenophobia encased in fear of terrorism has made it critical for the legal immigrants, once illegal, to acquire the status that would grant them immunity from narrow legal persecution. However, it is not strange that in this xenophobic wave these people are feeling being threatened and insulted..
In the meantime, the Republicans had their chance for about 6 years to make a statement that the republican party would take care of the American people and they really showed they don't care by their non-actions and clearly directed actions against inmigrants. However, it is not only what Republicans say; it is also what they don't say. Republicans have been filibustering everything that comes up in the Senate.
It is true that some Democrats such as Jim Webb, Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill vote with the majority of Republicans to kill the Senate immigration compromise, without offering a realistic and achievable alternative that would establish a more humane policy.
But, it is also undeniable that the most vicious, the most wretched, the most offensive, the most revolting, the most ruthless, the most vilifying, the most repulsive attacks have come and are still coming from Republicans.
Just a few examples to illustrate it.
1) Sensenbrenner wanted the criminalization of these people.
2) Newt Gingrich, Former House speaker, who coined Spanish as the Language of the gheto
3) Fred Thompson just slammed Cubans, suggesting that they come to America not in search of freedom, but to bring "suitcase bombs."
4) Dana Rohrabacher in his speeches is warning "the end of America as we know it".
5) Tancredo, his motto: "a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation."
6) J.D Hayworth, not reelected, but still instilling hate. No comments.
The list goes on and on.. .
From the beginning, the bill's most forceful opponents were southern Republicans. GOP Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Jeff Sessions of Alabama led the charge, often backed by Texan John Cornyn.
One thing is certain, the past six years, the Republicans were mum on all issues with immigration reform as just one of them. They controlled the white house and congress. If there is anytime in which a party is able to get things done, it's when they don't have anyone to really interfere.
Immigration was just one of them.
Indeed, the Hispanic vote is hardly a monolithical block. But what the anti inmigrant rethoric has done is bringing them closer together, unifying and solidifying this block.
Therefore, it seems to me that the most recalcitrant and extreme positions are from Republicans, where no room is for middle ground. This whole episode has branded the Republicans as the anti-inmigrant party. So Republicans have done this at a national level. Pretty transparent move they did, and now the immigrant population, IRISH, PHILLIPINOS and many other immigrant groups, particularly HISPANICS, are aware of this issue.
As mentioned before, the most vicious, the most wretched, the most offensive, the most revolting, the most ruthless, the most vilifying, the most repulsive attacks have come and are still coming from Republicans.
For many of them have the following is an undeniable truth: "illegal immigrant" = equals "all Hispanics" = "terrorists" = "Muslims" an statement so widely and shameless repeated over and over.
At any rate, this is the beginning of the legal immigrant backlash directed against the Republican Party for their position on the immigration bill.
By your actions, you shall be judged.!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
