Race identity politics doesn’t work
End the Race Party
Identity politics will get the GOP nothing good.
By Ward Connerly
{Excerpted}
“I, admittedly, have long held doubts about the wisdom and appropriateness of race-conscious appeals to voters. But like many other Republicans I have held my nose about such practices in deference to the noble aspiration that the Republican party could become a more representative collection of American society than is the case at present.
Recent events in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina have reaffirmed for me, however, the complete folly of any Republican strategy to increase black representation in the Republican party by appeals based on race. Whatever the name  “African American Outreach” or “Black Republicans for Bush”  any effort to attract blacks or any other ethnic group to the Republican party, based on explicit or implicit appeals to race or ethnic identity, are not only a waste of time and resources, but are also misguided and potentially quite damaging to the nation.”(more…)
=======
The point that he makes in this piece is one that we should take very seriously. We live in a society where individualism is becoming a dying concept. This racial grouping for political think is something that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of doing.
This “collective think” has greatly impaired our ability as a people to correctly engage in political discussion. For example, a person that is a Democrat is automatically assumed to be a die hard Liberal by many Conservatives. On the other hand, people (like myself) who embrace traditional Conservative ideology are automatically assumed to be a die hard Republican. I believe the reason behind this simplified polarization is because people in general are too lazy to accept alternative viewpoints that are made up of variations of the two prevailing viewpoints in this country. Intellectually for most people, adopting the “us” vs. “them”, “home vs. away” team, “red vs. blue” team, “whites vs. blacks” is all that many people will allow themselves to comprehend.
In other words, we must do away with “group think”. All blacks do not think the same way regardless of political persuasion. All of us, regardless of race, are individuals.
September 30th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Individualism in the U.S. has never really existed.
From the top of my head, you had political groups. you had groups identifying themselves by religion. The Mormons, on purpose, settled in Utah to make it a Morman state. You have the different ethnic groups during the industrial era in the North that showed itself with the little known or mentioned group riots. The questions concerning JFK becoming president because he was a Catholic. So, there you have the protestant vs. Catholic groups. Then there is the “individualism” of unions.
Why is it that “group think” is only derided when it comes to Blacks? But what is it when whites, who agree with Blacks, are called “guilty white liberals” or “race traitors”? Why are those people making the charges not being said to be embracing “group think”?
Lastly, when Blacks favor integration at higher rates than Blacks, in words and actions, and when most Blacks are not poor, the idea that Connerly puts forth that most Blacks are out of the mainstream are asinine.
October 1st, 2005 at 6:21 am
Individualism in the U.S. has never really existed.
Sure it did.
Consider the “original” homeschool movement where it was common practice for children all across the US to not only be educated at home, but to take on the family business when they were ready. Although poverty did exist during those days, America was nowhere near the welfare state that it is today. It was also during these times that we produced more geniuses/inventors than in any other time in American history. George Washington Carver did not need an “association” to provoke him to spend hours in the woods around his house –something that led to his interest in plants. Black history alone is full of individuals who did not solely need an association to become relevant. Fredrick Douglass had already proven himself to be a person that could think on his own feet before the Union decided to use him to bolster their reason to go to war against the south (that wasn’t a bad thing).
Why is it that “group think†is only derided when it comes to Blacks? But what is it when whites, who agree with Blacks, are called “guilty white liberals†or “race traitors� Why are those people making the charges not being said to be embracing “group think�
For starters, this does not only apply to blacks, however I am willing to bet that if you were to do a comparison between blacks who vote Democratic vs. whites, you will find that we tend to vote Democratic simply because our parents did so. As I mentioned in a posting that I wrote recently, ask most blacks why they favor Clinton OUTSIDE of race-based issues and you will be lucky if you get 3 reasons (I believe you are in Maryland, so the response to that question may be more favorable). But pose that same question to blacks in the southern region (where most of us live) and most inner-city areas and you will see that this assertion is pretty accurate. I don’t know if we could do a fair comparison to whites on this simply because whites make up a large percentage of both the Democratic and Republican parties (in other words, their ideologies are a lot more spread out than blacks who have a long history of sticking to one party REGARDLESS). We moved from being a mostly Republican voting block to a mostly Democratic block (hence my reason of considering this “group think”). The tragedy is when an individual in the majority voting block moves to “the other side”, that individual is generally viewed as a traitor to the race. Yes, some Conservatives play that game too, but nowhere near the level of black Liberals.
Lastly, when Blacks favor integration at higher rates than Blacks, in words and actions, and when most Blacks are not poor, the idea that Connerly puts forth that most Blacks are out of the mainstream are asinine.
Although I do agree with your perspective that blacks are not out of the mainstream, I do not see how that ties into what Connerly is saying here:
How much longer must a majority of black people live a self-imposed exile outside the mainstream of American life simply because of their paranoia about race and their insistence on seeing every transaction in their country  social, political, and economic  through the prism of race?
I mean, if we mainly respond to issues that relate to race, that in of itself totally separates us from the rest of the nation and world for that matter. Weather that is justifiable or not is a whole ‘nother issue all to itself.
October 1st, 2005 at 6:58 am
Consider the “original†homeschool movement where it was common practice for children all across the US to not only be educated at home, but to take on the family business when they were ready.
If I remember the illiteracy rates correctly, most Americans were illiterate and the primary determination of who was literate or illiterate was class.
If you separate dependency on gov’t vs. individualism, I’ll agree that the dependency on gov’t is much greater, for all Americans, than the past.
you will find that we tend to vote Democratic simply because our parents did so
I’ll disagree with this one. In all conversations that I’ve had concerning voting, a very small minority have said I’ve voted this way because my parents voted this way. The GOP chair is saying something that I’ve been saying for years, and I’ve gotten slammed for doing it. Yet, the chair is getting a pass. What he has said about the GOP and how the GOP has approached or not, Blacks, have FAR more to do with Black voting patterns then anything else.
Yes, some Conservatives play that game too, but nowhere near the level of black Liberals.
I have to disagree with this one.
I do not see how that ties into what Connerly is saying here:
How can we be in self imposed exile from America when we, as a group, are fighting hard to beconsidered a part of it?
October 1st, 2005 at 8:50 am
“Individualism” has largely been nothing more than an ideology practiced by a miniscule percentage of Americans.
*Conformity* has been and is the most widely-based practice.
Whom has received the most attention in our textbooks, honored through statues and/or other memorials: those doing their own thing or those who appear to be following *white culturally-acceptable ways” of doing things in America? The conformists, not the individualists or radicals.
Hmmm. Howard Dean’s “individualism” or the “expressing of anger in public” (not a culturally accepted practice) got him kicked out of the presidential race.
However, I do agree with Duane (did I just write that?!) regarding “if we mainly respond to issues that relate to race.”
Case in point: On a popular talk radio show, Blacks rarely call in when the issue is about campaign finance, general educational issues, storm drainage problems, etc.
But if the topic relates to racism, Black representation is very much apparent among the callers.
However, white people must understand how racism pervades every aspect of People of Color’s lives, too, which is why the issue is so paramount in our minds…but we’ve got to respond to other issues as well (all of which have their aspect of racism, too).
As to Connerly, he ignores republicans’ opposition to affirmative action; the implementing of the most harshest criminal penalties in history during the Reagan-Bush years; how the republicans used “race” to win support for welfare reform (every time a republican gave a speech, there was a backdrop showing a Black single parent and 4-5 kids depicted as “milking the system”; the disenfranchisement of Black voters in Florida during the 2000 presidential election; announcements by republicans that they would monitor various polling places in predominantly Black areas; etc., etc., etc.
Hence, if the republicans want to attract Blacks, then they’re going to have to address these aforementoned issues; denounce William Bennett’s recent remarks about “killing every Black baby to reduce crime; and so on.
John L.
October 1st, 2005 at 9:12 am
How can we be in self imposed exile from America when we, as a group, are fighting hard to beconsidered a part of it?
If we are fighting so hard to become a part of it, why are we so inclined to point out all of its faults especially since conditions for black folks are way better than slavery?
John,
I just checked the sky to see if Jesus was coming cuz someting like that has to be happening today
!
October 1st, 2005 at 9:59 am
*Conformity* has been and is the most widely-based practice.
BAM
If we are fighting so hard to become a part of it, why are we so inclined to point out all of its faults especially since conditions for black folks are way better than slavery
Specious argument.
Let’s see how I can demonstrate it….
Why do faithful Catholics seem inclined to point out the faults of the Catholic Church if they want to continue being a part of the Catholic Church?
That may not do it, so…
Just because someone poitns out the fault of something, it doesn’t mean the person doesn’t want to be a part of what they are pointing out.
There it is! The definition of society. CONFORMITY or ELSE.
October 1st, 2005 at 10:35 am
*Conformity* has been and is the most widely-based practice.
I never really disagreed with this point. What I do disagree with is your initial statement that individualism never really existed in this country.
Another example of this in modern history is the formation of the old west. Even many blacks were able to carve a niche for themselves (although it was for a short time–ex. the many black towns that were founded by us that had its own self-sufficient economies).
As far as your other point goes, I have to look at people like the CBC, NAACP who will rush with a press release when whites are suspected of doing some wrong against us. But when a small white church in the south gives a black single mom a furnished house and a job because she lost it all to Katrina–
Nothing!
By the way, there have been many cases like this that I have never heard these groups mention about whites.
Maxine Waters is another example–
She has police in her district that are not only paid crap, but are largely looked upon as crap simply because they are police. Yet the only time she will ever acknowledge their existence is when one of them steps over the line. These officers do a lot of great things in the community, but you will never hear her publicly acknowledge it.
No need to wonder why Help Wanted signs for the police department can be seen on billboards in her district. Why would someone in their right mind work with someone that is going to talk more about your faults than your successes?
My point is that there is nothing wrong with being critical, however we as a people have a loooooong history of placing more of an emphasis on the bad things whites do than the good (just look at most of the media WE produce to see it in action). Again, that does not give off the “we want to be treated as equals” vibe. This also touches on the whole Affirmative Action argument (which is a whole book in of itself).
The definition of society. CONFORMITY or ELSE.
True, but it doesn’t have to be that way.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:15 am
Duane: “If we are fighting so hard to become a part of it, why are we so inclined to point out all of its faults especially since conditions for black folks are way better than slavery?”
JCL: As long as “slavery” is the point of comparison, any condition above that would qualify…my standards are a lot higher.
As we climbed, did the rest of American society stand still? Nope.
We own 1/2 of 1% of all the wealth.
So whether it’s a master-slave status; landlord-tenant status; or a sell-consumer status, we’re still in the subordinate position.
“Interestingly,” during slavery more white men were hanged for killing Blacks than any other period of Amerikkkan history.
JCL
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:46 am
Duane: “But when a small white church in the south gives a black single mom a furnished house and a job because she lost it all to Katrina–”
JCL: When has the white media ever depicted Blacks helping whites…or even Blacks helping themselves?!
The paper I write for last year studied how the local white-owned paper depicted Blacks. The most frequent depiction, 167 times, was of “a white person helping a Black person.”
This year the Black Achievers program handed out over $800,000 in college in financial aid…but the local paper didn’t even cover it, resulting in a storm of protest.
And what’s more, several of the paper’s top management attended the function.
So why in the world should Blacks help white American with its self-promotion campaign of beneficient, benefactor to the world.
Duane: “These officers do a lot of great things in the community, but you will never hear her publicly acknowledge it”
JCL: Isn’t it like that generally, in that the good teachers, social workers, polticians never get any press, just the bad apples?
Echoing Darkstar, “Why do you *only* deride such behavior when it’s by Blacks?
Duane: “Why would someone in their right mind work with someone that is going to talk more about your faults than your successes?”
JCL: She’s sure had an excellent teacher, in that whites themselves have historically only illuminated the negative acts of Blacks while excluding our accomplishments and contributions.
And since whites have controlled the media for much, much, much longer than People of Color, which group has the longest history “of placing more of an emphasis on the bad things?!”
Looks like you need to take another week.
John L.
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:14 am
When has the white media ever depicted Blacks helping whites…or even Blacks helping themselves?!
I’ve seen it numbers of times. You just have to be willing to look for it.
I know of blacks helping whites get employment, housing, blacks helping homeless when they are white BUT you will not see this depicted in our own media. *help* (generally speaking) from our community usually goes to help our own. You will rarely hear of a black church giving money to help white Appalachian people, but it is quite common to see white orgs. giving to blacks. I think the reason why you do not see the “blacks helping non-blacks” story (I’m thinking along the lines of a black organization giving specifically to non-blacks) is because in most cases it is a rarity. I mean, when is the last time you heard of a successful black company specifically targeting its tax-deducted giving to impoverished whites?
This year the Black Achievers program handed out over $800,000 in college in financial aid…but the local paper didn’t’t even cover it, resulting in a storm of protest.
And what’s more, several of the paper’s top management attended the function.
White (assuming) media not showcasing black achievement? This is been my contention with MSM for years. You notice how MSM is now “spanking itself” for running with the wild stories that were coming out of N.O. I personally saw only a few heroic stories covered by MSM out of the N.O. area. My personal sources tell me that there were MANY heroic acts and plenty of selfless giving on the behalf of blacks helping blacks—but again MSM passed right over them. This is why I have been pissed off at our own media for not bringing us these stories. Instead they wanted to critique on MSM’s performance.
And since whites have controlled the media for much, much, much longer than People of Color, which group has the longest history “of placing more of an emphasis on the bad things?!â€Â
Doesn’t matter. Why do WE (our media) feel the need to follow suit?
White media emphasizes our bad points and our media does the same thing. This is wrong across the board and NOBODY is justified.
October 2nd, 2005 at 6:47 am
If you look clearly at the US you would see that there is only one party. They even posted it in the constitution. “And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. We are individuals but we do not need to play the game of race and nowadays I’m even finding it a slap in the face to even get out and vote when we are all voting for one party.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:36 am
By the way, take a look at George Lipsitz’s “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics.”
John L.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:58 am
Is there a set policy as to how long these topics stay up?
Or are you changing them whenever someone has posted something you don’t have a reply to?
John L.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:00 pm
I mean, when is the last time you heard of a successful black company specifically targeting its tax-deducted giving to impoverished whites?
Lawd… And then Blacks get critized for not “helping Blacks”. Ya can’t win fo’ losin’.
I know you didn’t intend for it to come out that way, but that’s the way it reads.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Lawd… And then Blacks get critized for not “helping Blacksâ€Â. Ya can’t win fo’ losin’.
This is my point (unless I am missing a point you are trying to make). This is a trap that we put ourselves in.
Black “leaders” will regularly talk about the plight the white poor in Appalachian areas, but you will never see them going to bat for them (staging protests against businesses like coal companies who milk them for years and leave them high and dry–I do believe some of our folks have been up there to talk to them, but as far as I know that is as far as it goes). Its been real easy for us to conclude that because they are white, whites should take care of them. But then again, we are all Americans. Why not use some of that “We shall overcome” juice with them?
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:15 pm
This is a trap that we put ourselves in
Excuse me?
“We” put “ourselves” in this trap?
When Blacks don’t help out other Blacks, folks like D’Souza point out other groups that DO help each other out. D’Souza said Blacks should act like Jewish people and immigrants who form groups and creating micro-loan groups. But, they do it within their group. D’Souza criticized Blacks for the low amount of times a dollar circulates within the Black community.
D’Souza criticized Blacks for lack of charity/non-profit work and giving. Yet, when the numbers were examined, Blacks actually help out MORE than whites.
Talk about a double standard and a gigantic cluster mind game….
Criticize Blacks for not helping out internally. Then criticize Blacks for helping out internally. And people wonder why stress issues exist in the Black community?
Danny Glover and Oprah Winfrey gives money for schools in S. Africa and other African countries, adn they are criticized for doing it and “ignoring” Blacks in the U.S.
Tom Joyner has raised $30 Million (?) for the UNCF, and he’s criticized. But then Black students are criticized because they don’t finish college. But critics ignore that funding issues are the primary reason why, NOT affirmative action.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:34 am
Criticize Blacks for not helping out internally. Then criticize Blacks for helping out internally. And people wonder why stress issues exist in the Black community?
You are still missing my point. Nobody (at least me) is criticizing black folk for not being charitable. The studies do show that we tend to be more charitable than whites (this is something that I want to believe, but like any other study I would like to see how they measured it). What I am simply saying is that “charity” is something that should come from everybody to everybody. That is why I brought up the “successful black company giving charity to poor whites”.
Criticize Blacks for not helping out internally. Then criticize Blacks for helping out internally. And people wonder why stress issues exist in the Black community?
Again, this stress is self induced. All of these hidden rules and expectancies that we have in our own community will drive anyone insane. Living out here in Cali, I can’t tell you the amount of blacks that I have come across who used to live back east who just took the atitude “screw the whole thing and let me live my life”. Then of course they are criticized for trying to be white because they now live out here. We miss out on so much like skiing, surfing, rock climbing, hiking, etc. all because WE perceive these things as being white (a.k.a. race denial). As far as I know, there is no other race that does this.
Getting back to my point about giving to poor whites…
Growing up, my family would regularly visit elderly people in our community–some were black, but many of them were white. These were people that family members would not even give them the time of day. We would also deliver food from time to time to poor families (poor rural whites included). Again, where was the “white” calvary for them?
I get very sick and tired of hearing Revs , bishops’, etc. etc. preach the same dagone message about helping “…the least of these” in our community. But what they really mean is just helping our own. Nothing wrong with that at all. But I think that if we really want to see real healing between whites and blacks, just as whites have been regularly giving to our needs (weather they wanted to or not), we (blacks) have to intentionally include their needy in our “charity” as well. Again, not saying that it has never been done (because I have seen it on a very small scale), but we need to increase these instances.
Although I think that the mico-loan scenario is achievable in the black community, I find it very hard to hold our race up against let’s say Asian groups who practice this regularly. The difference is they have a direct link to their culture that goes all the way back to their homeland. You can say that it is built into their culture –both here in the US and abroad. Although blacks during the post slavery days had a form of this mindset, it was institutionalized racism in this country that kept us from doing it. Although for the most part in today’s environment in this country we could continue where OUR elders left off, it would really take some time for it to become a genuine part of our culture. This is why I think it is unfair to make those kind of comparisons. Our generation missed the opportunity. This is why we are raising our kids to become more community-minded than we were growing up.
I think that it is great when I hear about people like Oprah and Danny giving to people in Africa. What is unfortunate is that WE pidginhole ourselves when it comes to charity (if it was discovered that these two people gave more to let’s say to poor Russian children, they would be blasted by US for not “keepin’ it real”. Never mind not looking at the two incidents as two separate circumstances with different needs–we just focus on the dollar amount).
I have learned a long time ago (thanks to my parents) that if I see someone in need, then I should do what I can to help them regardless of color. Personally, my experience with helping poor white folks has helped me to learn how to forgive them as I used to have a lot of anger towards them. I say, forget the critics and help ALL that need it.