The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

One day… maybe… the Bridget Johnsons will come to see the Republican Party for what it is — a private, political organization for advancing the causes of the wealthy — over and above any 1 ideological talking point they happen to embrace at any point in time. The GOP (largely) pays minorities no mind because none are organized in a way that represents a gentrified class or a large corporation. All the things American conservatives call ‘principles’ are just popular slogans and marketing ploys to exploit folks who really don’t know any better.

Is your assumption then that the Democratic party does not fit the same description or the direct opposite?

“Is your assumption then that the Democratic Party does not fit the same description?”

If you’re asking whether I believe Democrats are a private, political organization with the same mission as Republicans, the answer is ‘no’. Winning for either organization is only a means to an end. Democrats and Republicans have different ends.

Democrats’ objectives and strategies have nothing to do with explaining the modern GOP’s indifference toward Af-Ams. Or how the conservative middle- and underclass are routinely pimped by Republican politicians.

You answered only part of your description. Here is the other part you did not address:

The GOP (largely) pays minorities no mind because none are organized in a way that represents a gentrified class or a large corporation.

I’m with you, Duane. Might be tough for Republicans to get black votes today – but if they give up before they start, they guarantee they won’t get them.

They need better sales managers than they have!! Not to mention some moral fortitude.

Again, my feelings on Democrats aren’t germane to a description of the Republican Party and what it actually represents.

Why not zip up your man suit and ask if I believe Democrats exploit minorities as the GOP does evangelical Protestants?

Again, my feelings on Democrats aren’t germane to a description of the Republican Party and what it actually represents.

Whose suggesting that your feelings are germane? I’m simply asking here if you feel that Democrats somehow fill this void of reaching out (as pointed out by Johnson) you feel the GOP has left regarding Blacks.

As to the question you want me to ask you, I’ll let you elaborate on that one.

Make up your mind, Duane.

First, you try and bait me with a non sequitur about Democrats. I respond (twice) whatever I think about Democrats really isn’t pertinent when the subject is Republicans.

Then… you counter my feelings aren’t relevant but ask how I feel, again, about Democrats and Blacks, as if it has anything to do with the reasons Republicans don’t bother with addressing Black voters, or the conservative middle- and underclass, FWIW.

It doesn’t.

I respond (twice) whatever I think about Democrats really isn’t pertinent when the subject is Republicans.

You are correct, this post is about what Republicans are not doing to get the Black vote. But for someone who vigorously and regularly defends Democrats and liberals while being very critical of conservatives on this site, I wanted to know if you had the same feelings about Democrats. Clearly you must feel that Democrats are somehow above all of this, or at least their attitude towards Blacks is at a more tolerable form that is digestible for you. Whether or not you feel it pertains to this conversation is on you.

“You are correct, this post is about what Republicans are not doing to get the Black vote.”

Then discuss the GOP’s policies and results vis-a-vis Black people on the merits.

“But for someone who vigorously and regularly defends Democrats and liberals while being very critical of conservatives on this site…”

That’s patently and demonstrably false. If you’d care to check your archives, you’ll find I rarely discuss party politics or ideology. I’ve weighed in on law, technology, commerce, and media… but not to defend (again) any specific political party, candidate, or system of government.

Then discuss the GOP’s policies and results vis-a-vis Black people on the merits.

I did in this post and have done so more extensively in the past. The fact that you seem reluctant to apply the same level of scrutiny to Democrats/liberals while throwing up the “not on topic” card is quite telling. I have already elaborated several times on the issue of how the GOP has missed opportunities to go after the Black vote. This author also agrees with the basic point. You felt the need to place an exclamation point by adding your two cents. As far as I was concerned, the point regarding the GOP was made and over with. I then asked you if you believe that Democrats somehow fill that void and it has been avoidance to a simple question ever since. If your views on Democrats are not germane to the GOP, then that alone should make it that much easier for you to address.

That’s patently and demonstrably false. If you’d care to check your archives, you’ll find I rarely discuss party politics or ideology. I’ve weighed in on law, technology, commerce, and media… but not to defend (again) any specific political party, candidate, or system of government.

Oookay! Now we are back to rationalizing again. When you do comment, you regularly either chastise ideology or viewpoints that are typically held by conservatives or Republicans while at the same time you defend those values, principals or even actions by those who are on the left. Now you may not like the left/right/conservative/liberal terminology and feel that you are some how above it, but you track record here on this site says differently–much differently. As for the interpretation of your past comments here and why similar chastisement for those on the left have never (as far as I can remember) come from you on this site, I’ll leave you to check the archives yourself for reinterpretation.

For the record, I am non-partisan. The democrats seem to have an easier time allowing for diversity. The republicans seem to like homogeniety among it’s members.

If I were an aspiring politician with a middle-of-the-road philosophy and decided to go with a party to pursue an election, a quick examination of the electorial results for black politicians would tell me the republicans have no real interest in supporting black politicians, whereas the democrats not only have an interest, but also take steps to help.

I think this is what the author is also observing.

The democrats seem to have an easier time allowing for diversity.

I agree.

Diversity in exchange for what? In other words, what has this diverse approach produced for Blacks who live in areas that have been under Democratic control for decades? Many Black folks have a long laundry list of complaints against a government they feel has been very irresponive to the needs of our community. And for the longest, the belief has been placing folks who look like the demographic will somehow change that.

Explained another way the GOP is a party of core principles that they rarely deiveiate from . On the otherhand the Dems are a collection of cheap whores that claim to support each and every agenda of each and every fringe group yet satisfy no one but the waelthy members of their party, just like the GOP.

The Dems are lucky that the GOP has crapped its pants recently by pushing its agenda too far because there are many blacks, latinos, asians, and democratic whites that would vote GOP in a hot minute if they would move closer to the center.

Oh, with white folks still composing about 70% of the population the GOP does not need any black voters to forward its agenda.

They are ALL are screwed up. NONE of them are for the actual people they claim to represent. The GOP have no more principles than Dems. They were in control of of the ENTIRE government for a number of years… No ban on abortion, No ban on gay marriage, no shinking of government (in fact they expanded it), no cut in spending… Their ONLY claim to fame is tax cuts… And they did that while we are in a WAR, running up HUGE debt in the progress… How dumb is that.

The “not on topic card”?

I’m responding now only because a) you’re not telling the truth re: me “chastising” any particular party or ideology and, b) I retain the slightest glimmer of hope you’ll one day develop the skill of defending your own arguments.

Your explanation for Republican indifference to conservatives and Blacks was the party’s focused on winning. While you may believe that’s a substantive analysis, it’s not. That you and people like Ms. Johnson continue to raise the issue indicates you don’t understand what you’re actually signing up for with the Republican Party, or maybe that you’re unable to distinguish their use of rhetoric from their legislation, administration, or jurisprudence.

All I did was point out the GOP isn’t about a particular ideology or set list of talking points. Those ‘issues’ are simply rhetorical appeals to a demographic perceived as up for grabs. At its core, the GOP has always been about protecting wealthy interests. Were Black Americans to ever organize along the lines of a industry lobby, Republicans would likely respond in kind.

You asked BrotherBrown, “Diversity in exchange for what?”. Diversity is a goal in itself — in this case, it’s a voice in the politics of the Democratic Party (one conspicuous by its absence in the GOP). But politics & government being what it is, having a say is not a guarantee that you’ll get everything you want; compromise is an intrinsic feature of ‘small-d’ democratic politics. Again, rational people of any political stripe understand this.

So while you may sit on one side of a ideological fence and accuse Democrats of using Black people for tokens, the real relationship is much more complex and equitable than anything Republicans at present are offering. Even so, we’re talking of a class of Black voters that support Democrats — they’re obviously getting something of value in return for their support. I’d submit to you, Ms. Johnson, and other Black conservatives/

Republicans that the remaining classes of Black people vote or not according their perceived economic sensibilities. The tragedy is there is no party who represents the American underclass.

a) you’re not telling the truth re: me “chastising” any particular party or ideology

You are way more smarter than what you are demonstrating here.

At its core, the GOP has always been about protecting wealthy interests.

Ultimately, yes I believe it. However the same can be applied with any large organization be it political or not.

Diversity is a goal in itself — in this case, it’s a voice in the politics of the Democratic Party (one conspicuous by its absence in the GOP). But politics & government being what it is, having a say is not a guarantee that you’ll get everything you want; compromise is an intrinsic feature of ’small-d’ democratic politics. Again, rational people of any political stripe understand this.

True, compromise can be an effective tool. My question to you this whole thread has been basically who has been doing most of the compromising in the Democratic party–the people it claims it represents or the upper strata of the party? Diversity does have its benefits, but the ultimate goal is the same as with any other party–getting the most votes.

So while you may sit on one side of a ideological fence and accuse Democrats of using Black people for tokens

(sigh!) And here is where the problem lies. I never suggested at all that Democrats have taken Blacks for granted (remember, that was the question you wanted me to ask). As far as the competition goes, Democrats cannot afford to totally take the Black vote for granted no more than they can take the gay vote for granted. The bigger issue here is what has their so-called attention to Black needs produced? Having people of color in chairman positions of various committees in DC to having Black mayors, Black congressmen, Black Senators has produced little in regards to addressing such needs BASED ON THE FORMULA ESTABLISHED BY BLACKS ON THE LEFT. The formula? Place Blacks in high positions in government because they are more sensitive to the needs of the community they represent. For years, the GOP has relied on a strategy whose foundation is largely based on the fact that Whites make up a majority of this nation. On the other hand, Democrats have also built their strength on the wealthy–FIRST. In addition they have pulled in minority groups, unions, and any other group that does not agree with the GOP. Their usage of minorities and the “disadvantaged” has played a central role in their PR to convince other Americans that they are the party of little guy that feels left out. But don’t get it twisted, Democrats are just as wealthy and influential as Republicans and will use those resources in the same manner: securing a win. Addressing the needs of each group is only necessary if a hold on that particular group appears to be in jeopardy. The problem with that last group I mentioned a moment ago (any other group that does not agree with the GOP) is that they have caused the party to be in a constant state of redefining itself in an attempt to fully please everybody. While Obama’s charisma has been successful at helping these divisions see past their differences (similar to when Clinton ran for his first term), his flock will quickly see that once again he or the rest of the Democratic party cannot please everybody–just like any other politician–if he is elected. For a party that feels that it is more sensitive to the needs of Blacks than the GOP, I find it interesting that under Democratic presidents, there has not been one statement of apology for slavery from the oval office. But again I guess we are to believe that they are beyond taking various groups within their fold for granted. What will be interesting to see if Obama gets elected is whether or not he will step up to the plate and do it. Coming from a Black man, I doubt it will mean anything.

Even so, we’re talking of a class of Black voters that support Democrats — they’re obviously getting something of value in return for their support.

Again, what are they getting? A chance to use the tool of compromise as you pointed out earlier? If this is the case, what has been the benefit starting from the local level? Better yet, what are YOU getting in return? But perhaps I cannot ask you that question since you do not support either party.

Duane, you argue here every single day that black people have come a LONG way in this country and we should be happy about it. “Conservatives” are busy trying to take down many of the programs that “liberals” have set up to help allow MANY black people to succeed. This success did not come around just because white people decided one day that they wanted to be nice to us and let us be equals in this country. It came from “liberal” legislation and “liberal” judges that FORCED white people in this country to treat us fairly… So yea.. We have gotten something out of the deal. We still have a long way to go but it’s a HELL of lot better than what we had during segregation and Jim Crow. So what have “conservatives” done to contribute to the black successes that we DO have?

“My question to you this whole thread has been basically who has been doing most of the compromising in the Democratic party–the people it claims it represents or the upper strata of the party? Diversity does have its benefits, but the ultimate goal is the same as with any other party–getting the most votes.”

The ultimate goal of a political party is to use the various mechanisms of gov’t to affect policies favorable to its constituents. Winning elections is just a means to an end. And even allowing for winning contests, the victors are constrained by the various checks and balances built into American gov’t (on all levels). The point being neither party has unilateral authority on any level — even when one side or another appears to dominate elections.

The other item you continue to overlook or disregard is Republicans and Democrats represent different constituencies; the GOP advocates on behalf of plutocrats, while Democrats defend middle-class sensibilities. Neither focuses much on the American underclass — of which Black people are disproportional to their whole numbers. Most Black people happen to be middle-class, which is why (in part) they’ve been voting for Democrats of late. For these voters the Democrats’ emphasis on consumer/worker/

human rights and expansion of access to capital (e.g.; grants & loans for higher ed) are perceived by middle-class urban voters (incl. Blacks) as effective governance. I suggest those ‘middle class sensibilities’ are the common bond of Democrat voters and shaped through the process of negotiation with sometimes rival interests. Still, the Democratic Party is a private organization where membership or affiliation is voluntary. You pay your money… you take your chances. So too is the Republican Party.

“I never suggested at all that Democrats have taken Blacks for granted…”

Actually, this is your basic counterargument to any critique of conservative and/or Republican policy. You just don’t have the fortitude to spell it out explicitly.

“The bigger issue here is what has their so-called attention to Black needs produced?”

See earlier remarks on ‘consumer/worker/human rights’ and ‘access to capital’.

“Having people of color in chairman positions of various committees in DC to having Black mayors, Black congressmen, Black Senators has produced little in regards to addressing such needs BASED ON THE FORMULA ESTABLISHED BY BLACKS ON THE LEFT.”

Here (again) is where you don’t understand what the parties are about. “Blacks on the Left” don’t direct the Democratic Party… even on the local level. The party isn’t philosophical in that sense. It’s about economic sensibilities.

“For years, the GOP has relied on a strategy whose foundation is largely based on the fact that Whites make up a majority of this nation. On the other hand, Democrats have also built their strength on the wealthy–FIRST. In addition they have pulled in minority groups, unions, and any other group that does not agree with the GOP.”

That’s a thoroughly ahistoric and inaccurate compendium of the parties’ evolution.

“… Democrats are just as wealthy and influential as Republicans and will use those resources in the same manner: securing a win.”

That’s not entirely accurate either.

I’m going to refrain from further comment on this thread because it’s clear you’re just signifying and saying nothing of substance. You’re not even willing to concede the obvious — neither about Democratic voters nor yourself. You’re in no position to be so condescending.

Let’s go through some of those programs:

Under-performing schools - Schools that have a long history of producing kids that can barely read or write. As a conservative, I believe that you must pull the plug (Obama does not believe that btw) and give these parents better options–mind you the same options members of the CBC and the rest of the Democratic party have enjoyed for years.

AIDS pervention programs - Democrats have been behind programs that throw millions of dollars to AIDS prevention programs that have not done a thing to slow the trend of AIDS in the Black community. This is an individual choice issue and not one you or I should be paying for.

Gang prevention programs - Here in the Los Angeles area, the city has spent billions of dollars over the last decade and yet the problem has gotten worse.

Green-lighting an open borders policy at the expense of Blacks - Many of the public schools here in SoCal are filled with children whose parents are here illegally. This has created a lot of tension between the two groups because for one, resourses that could be used to better the school as a whole to serve the immediate community are being funneled to programs for Spanish-only learners.

This open-borders policy also has affected our health care system as border states have put out millions of tax payer dollars to serve another country’s citizens.

Please understand that these are just a few examples as I am in the middle of doing several things besides writing this comment.

In the meantime, here is a great question for you. Name the programs you feel conservatives are want to take down that are detrimental to the success of the Black community.

It came from “liberal” legislation and “liberal” judges that FORCED white people in this country to treat us fairly…

You are forgetting that the Republican party also played a critical role in the struggle for civil rights. I’ll leave the history lesson for you to research for yourself if you really want to know.

So yea.. We have gotten something out of the deal

What you got out of the deal was for all the Geraldine Ferraro’s of the world (and there are a whooooole lot of them) to remind you that because of THEIR good graces, not your own efforts, you are where you are today. If that is something worth grinning about, knock yourself out.

So what have “conservatives” done to contribute to the black successes that we DO have?

Again, I am not going to give you a whole laundry list here because of time. But I will say this. Like MLK, I believe that we should live in a country where folks are not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Democrats (as we have seen in these last few weeks have made color–not character–the central issue). I also believe what the Urban league used to believe as it related to affirmative action. The following was taken from the book “The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America”

Whitney Young, the founder of the Urban League, was one of the first blacks to push for an affirmative action plan. In Ending Affirmative Action, writer Terry Eastland says that Young called for a “compensatory, preferential Marshall Plan for black America.” In 1963, Young urged a “decade” of preferences to level the playing field. A decade! That would have ended affirmative action in 1973! Young’s board of directors, however, revolted. The president of the Urban League in Pittsburgh said the demand for affirmative action would cause the public to quite properly ask, ‘What the blazes are these guys up to? They tell us that for years that we must buy [non-discrimination] and then they say, ‘It isn’t what we want.’ A member of the Urban League in New York objected to what he called ‘the heart of it –the business of employing Negroes [because they are Negroes].’

I want government that is out of my way and out of my life. My family and I are a living testimony that as long as a person in this country has the desire and drive to make it, the sky is the limit. These are just some of the core values of the conservative movement that I firmly believe in. As I have been discussing on this site for a good while now, the Republican party has moved on and made many of these values expendable, which is why I no longer will be voting for Republicans, unless they change their course of action. The success of individuals (regardless of race) is not predicated on the ups and downs of politics. When we have arrived at that conclusion, we are setting ourselves up for perpetual disappointment.

while Democrats defend middle-class sensibilities

I am middle-class and based on my paycheck this could not be further from the truth. And let’s forget the major role they played in begging the mortgage industry to provide subprime loans in the first place. And who has that affected the most? The middle class.

Most Black people happen to be middle-class, which is why (in part) they’ve been voting for Democrats of late.

I think it is a lot more deeper than that. Most Blacks vote for Democrats because the smear campaign that suggests anything other than Democratic party is racist. Now this may not be your reasoning, but it sure represents most Blacks I have encountered who cannot tell me one thing coming from Republicans they feel has held them back AS INDIVIDUALS. Like you, they feel the need to speak for others who oftentimes don’t give a rip.

For these voters the Democrats’ emphasis on consumer/worker/

human rights and expansion of access to capital (e.g.; grants & loans for higher ed) are perceived by middle-class urban voters (incl. Blacks) as effective governance..

Perception and reality are two different things here. While loans, grants, etc. for Blacks are often pushed by Democrats, they equally play the other side of the coin. For example, by pushing for legislation to lower college tuition, taxpayers are still ultimately left to make up the difference in some form or fashion. Plus, you must also take into consideration that Democrats must also be careful not to cut into the salaries of teachers within the college/university system. This particular drama is being played out right now in CA. Currently, Democrats are proposing a car tax to make up the difference. Now add to that drama the trend of colleges lowering standards so that those who they perceive as victims are given a fair shot. In the meantime, many of our scientists, doctors, etc. come from overseas partly due to the fact that what we are graduating here is not qualified. But we are to all of a sudden feel some racial pride because they are people of color?

As far as grants go as it relates to business. A good thing. But, once again, Democrats believe that the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes.

Actually, this is your basic counterargument to any critique of conservative and/or Republican policy. You just don’t have the fortitude to spell it out explicitly.

Nope! This is my response to critiques over conservative/Republican policies coming from a person who is too afraid to acknowledge his leftist tendencies. As far as “spelling it out”, the question you wanted me to ask you was a poor assumption on your part in your attempt to see something that simply was not there.

Here (again) is where you don’t understand what the parties are about. “Blacks on the Left” don’t direct the Democratic Party… even on the local level.

You are right, they don’t direct the party. They just support it and will defend it just as you have been doing with this thread.

That’s a thoroughly ahistoric and inaccurate compendium of the parties’ evolution.

This is what the party IS. You are clearly on something if you do not think that Democrats are not just as loyal to their wealthy constituents as the Republican party .

I’m going to refrain from further comment on this thread because it’s clear you’re just signifying and saying nothing of substance. You’re not even willing to concede the obvious — neither about Democratic voters nor yourself. You’re in no position to be so condescending.

Okay, can I laugh now?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

I just love how you constantly will accuse me of not saying anything of substance, accuse me of insulting your intelligence (while, I might add assume that other readers feel the same way as you). Yet you will drag on a conversation like this to the point of frustration. Un-freakin-believable.

You’re not even willing to concede the obvious — neither about Democratic voters nor yourself.

I am not the one who needs to do the conceding here. You are the one that regularly defend Democrats and liberals on this site and I am supposed to believe that you speaking mater-of-factly for both. I have no problem with admitting my support here of conservative values and have called out conservatives when I feel they have strayed away from those principals. You on the other hand have made your position clear here time and time again. The insult on intelligence is not coming from me.

You don’t have to beat around the bush to answer my question. The answer is nothing. You can rail agains all the “liberal” programs all you want. It does not change the fact that, even the bad ones, have helped a lot of people. Even yourself. You have said yourself that you have used government programs, federal and state to help both when you were down on your luck and to help you start a business. Obviously if they worked fine for you then they probably help a lot of other people too.

You don’t have to beat around the bush to answer my question.

Beating around the bush? I gave you a complete answer. The problem here is that you disagree with what I am telling you. So you discount it. The same fingers you use to defend Obama at every turn are suddenly too paralyzed to check the complete historical account of the civil rights movement. So you continue to peddle an incomplete historical account.

It does not change the fact that, even the bad ones, have helped a lot of people. Even yourself. You have said yourself that you have used government programs, federal and state to help both when you were down on your luck and to help you start a business. Obviously if they worked fine for you then they probably help a lot of other people too

Again, you are lumping a whole bunch of things together to make a point. For starters, I NEVER, NEVER said that government helped me to start a business. The money I used came from my own savings. Did I ever say that welfare should be cut? No. Did I ever say that medicare should be cut? No. Instead, what have I been telling you from day one.

Calm down, relax and follow closely. I’ll even bold it for you.

Instead of throwing more money into these programs in an attempt to fix it, we should first eliminate what does not work. Second, what does work–fund it. This is far from what your boy Obama is proposing: both as it relates to public schools and health care. Democrats fear this approach because they are more concerned with not appearing mean than being practical. Republicans have fallen into the same trap.

There you go… First off I don’t believe I am excited so I don’t need to relax. And everything that I say does not have something to do with Obama. But since YOU brought him up… He has spoken the EXACT same words you have highlighted on MANY occaisons… Which is why a lot of conservatives support him.. You just refuse to hear them.

As for your business… I was referring to you saying something about using a business incubator which Obama had proposed makeng available in inner cities… I believe you said you used a similar program in Atlanta.

As for your business… I was referring to you saying something about using a business incubator which Obama had proposed makeng available in inner cities… I believe you said you used a similar program in Atlanta.

Again, I never said such a thing.

I am begging you to stop.

Okay… I guess someone else was using your name when you said ths:

Public/Private business incubators

You said this in the post titled:

“Sooooo, are we to vote for Obama because he is Black or what?”

I know how to use search too…. So either you were wrong/lying then or you are wrong/lying now. But don’t get mad at me for bringing it up. Either way it is not a big deal. How about you calm down…

Now when I referred to that conversation to you before, you claimed (acted as if) not have remembered it. Now are you ready for the rest of that story?

Atlanta has what is called I believe the one-stop-something-shop. I cannot remember the exact name. I spent about 1/2 of an hour there listening to someone telling me where I could go to learn how to write a business plan. When he was done and over with, I decided to do the rest of the work on my own because the same goal was achievable by using my local library and my own access to the internet–which I did. Besides, this has nothing to do with the point I made in comment #23 which I even bolded for you. You made the connection between that organization (which I would have no problems crediting if it were the case), that clearly did not exist. What you also missed was my overall point in the post you referenced that while the program was a good one, Obama was simply reinventing icewater for proposing to do what has already been implemented in other cities.

But yes, I did use the word “use”, but your assumptions took over from there.

Again, you are really embarrassing yourself here. Leave the issue alone.

What are you talking about??? I never said anything about not remembering any of our conversations.. My memory is fine. And obviously then you were wrong/lying then.. Because that sounds nothing like the program Obama was proposing. And, as you stated, you didn’t even “use” that…

I’m embarrassing MYself??? LOL.. You, as usual, have a twisted sense of reality. I’ll leave you to it.