OPINION & EDITORIAL
GOP overlooks minority voters
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Oliver Kiefer:
- Visiting speaker divisive, futile (October 25, 2007)
- GOP overlooks minority voters (October 11, 2007)
- Alcohol plan would be a sobering mistake (September 13, 2007)
- College Dems offer year of events, activism (September 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Public bickering demeans tragedy (September 13, 2005)
- Goldberg wrong on Katrina (February 8, 2006)
- Cities should laud denizens' diversity (February 1, 2006)
- Rebuilding should go beyond houses (September 21, 2005)
- Help for hurricane victims stuck in Iraq (September 15, 2005)
by Oliver Kiefer
Thursday, October 11, 2007
"George Bush doesn't care about black people."
Infamous words uttered about an infamous man. Many of us have the seen the clip on YouTube of Kanye West's unexpected statement in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Some people thought he was crazy. Others thought his statement encapsulated the desperate frustration of not only New Orleans' disenfranchised black citizenry, but also of America's minority population as a whole. Whatever one's opinion, his statement was a blunt reminder that the Republican Party has an image problem when it comes to people of color.
Considering the current (un)popularity of the Republican Party, one would think that a serious Republican presidential candidate would busy himself repairing bridges, mending relationships and, above all, restoring the "big tent" image that went over so well in the ’90s. Yet even in the face of an incredibly distrustful American public — as embodied by the powerful statement voters made in last year's Democratic sweep — and with one of the most unfavorable presidents in American history at the helm of their party, Republicans are still acting as though they just don't care about people of color.
One has to ask how this has happened. How could the party of Abraham Lincoln so alienate minority voters? Look no further than that most entertaining institution of the campaign trail: the televised debate. With the primaries months away, the field is packed and the debates are a sort of entertaining mix between political reality TV and an episode of "Survivor" as candidates try to upstage and undermine one another.
All of the Democratic frontrunners took part in the All-American Presidential Forum sponsored by PBS commentator Tavis Smiley at the historically black Howard University. The debate focused mainly on issues facing the black community. Democrats also reached out to Hispanic voters by taking part in an unprecedented translated debate on Spanish-language television channel Univisión. Gov. Bill Richardson was so excited about the Univisión debate that he offered to debate in Spanish.
Yet in an arrogant disregard for black voters, all four GOP frontrunners — John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson — bluntly declined to attend Mr. Smiley's Republican debate at Morgan State University. Their reason? Scheduling conflicts. Republicans, however, did not stop at black issues. The planned Republican debate on Univisión was cancelled because only Mr. McCain agreed to participate. What's wrong with this picture? Why are Republicans bowing out of debates that their Democratic counterparts were happy to attend?
Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a Republican's Republican, has called out the frontrunners for their absence. And even Mike Hahn, treasurer for the UW-Madison College Republicans, noted the error of these decisions in a recent Herald column. So if they can see the importance of engaging minority voters, why can't their candidates?
These primary debates may not be viewed by as many people as the primetime network TV debates we'll be watching next fall, but they still certainly have their place in shaping the election's outcome. The beginning of any campaign is all about outreach, building the big tent that any candidate needs to get elected in a country as vast and diverse as ours. On this the two national parties could not be more different.
The American public stands poised to do something they rarely do: Give both the legislative and executive branch to one party.
Surely Republicans know their image needs repairing, that bridges need building where they don't exist, if they are to win any sort of election in the next few years. Unfortunately, the Grand Old Party is out of touch and can't be bothered to reach out to anyone who doesn't fit the Republican mold. Hubris will cost you elections, and the Republican presidential candidates seem to have plenty to spare.
The 2008 election holds the possibility of completely reshaping the American electoral landscape. Democrats can be proud of a sexually and ethnically diverse field of qualified candidates. Sen. Barack Obama might be our nation's first African-American president, Sen. Hillary Clinton the first female president, and Mr. Richardson has a chance at becoming the first Hispanic president.
Over the next year we will write the next chapter in American history. We are at a crossroads, still confronted daily by issues of race, poverty and discrimination —but still moving forward and breaking down barriers as we go. But to reach that "shining city on a hill" that President Reagan saw as the United States, it's going to take engagement and dialogue with all people, regardless of their race.
Unfortunately, if their leading candidates' behavior is any indication, it seems that there just isn't enough room in the "big tent" of the Republican Party for anything but more of the same.
Oliver Kiefer (oliver.kiefer@wiscollegedems.org) is chair of the College Democrats.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 8:03am):
The sky is blue, girls have vaginas, fat kids love cake.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 9:20am):
Bush seems to have included far more minorities in his administration than Clinton. I wonder why that is given how few minority votes he got?
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 10:29am):
"Considering the current (un)popularity of the Republican Party"
-ummmmm... are the Democrats any more popular? it seems that the congressional approval ratings are undoubtedly lower now with a democrat majority in both houses than they were with a republican majority
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 11:52am):
to 10:29 -
it's only because we've got a President blocking all worthwhile congressional action and an obstructionist GOP Senate minority.
When the Dems rack up a bigger margin in the Senate in '08, and win back the Presidency, watch the popularity of both institutions to rise dramatically. That's what usually happens when you put adults in charge.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 1:54pm):
Why is the first comment OK but not mine calling out the College Democrats for their racist policies? Why is the Herald censoring me?
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 2:32pm):
to 11:52
how are the democrats going to get re-elected in '08 after doing nothing thus-far?
and don't tell me the war in iraq, because that dead horse has already been beaten
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 2:53pm):
I agree Oliver, we should vote for Ron Paul.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 3:16pm):
from dead horse:
I'm not dead!
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 3:18pm):
Al Sharpton doesn't care about white people.
-Slapps
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 3:55pm):
if you really think that the democrats are interested in a "do-nothing" congress you need to get your head checked, or at least get a remedial course in u.s. government.
the reason we won't pass schip is that we don't have enough republicans to override the president's veto. is that the fault of congress? no, the president and house republicans are standing in the way of expanding health care coverage to four million new american children.
want to talk about the war? then look no further than senate republicans. yes, democrats have a majority, but we don't have the sixty votes needed to close debate and bring iraq spending w/ a timeline to a vote. it's senate procedure, not the fault of harry reid, russ feingold, or any other democrat (save joe liebermann and his joe-mentum).
get your shit straight. quit blaming the democrats for not having the majorities needed to override the president's vetoes and bring the iraq war to a VOTE in the senate.
we need 290 votes in the house to override a veto (we only have 232 dems) and we need sixty votes in the senate to bring cloture and end debate (there are only 50 dems + liebermann right now).
quit complaining about the democrats not doing anything, get off your ass, and get speaker pelosi and leader reid the votes they need.
hot damn i'm angry.
Anonymous (October 11, 2007 @ 4:51pm):
hot damn i'm angry.
Word.
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.
