Psych, also, there is no such thing as minority outreach at CPAC. I mean, they can try. But are they trying over the louder roar of a party that considers being part of a minority group such a non-thing that no special outreach should be attempted because everyone is busy not seeing color and not recognizing special groups? Because as the SCOTUS just said recently...game over.
Sigh. Another missed opportunity. Growing the party means people would need to look beyond their own neighborhoods, and it would mean a white-dominated party saw minority outreach as being their business, and not the business of people of color, for example, finding the GOP and selling themselves on it.
If they can't capture minority demographics, blacks, latin@s, asians--do they see this as a possible problem? What if less of the voting pool was obviously white? Are they comfortable only getting a fraction of a white vote and nearly no minorities?
Their lack of a minority outreach will guarantee they are a minority party in the long run. But to be less cynical, why is it not more obvious that a political group should make a popular appeal that is inclusive and doesn't, for example, exclude people with voter ID laws that might prejudice against those potential voters by making them liable to jump hoops for their franchise to start with? They are doing it so wrong I am inclined to say no more for fear of offering better advice.
2 comments:
Vixen, Republicans had a resounding victory at the last mid-term, and I believe that they are going to do better in the approaching mid-term. I believe that Republicans will keep the House and gain a lot of strength in the Senate. Conceivably Republicans could take the Senate, but that is hard to speculate about. I believe that the President is trying to push some of his health care requirements until after the election to try to limit the right-wing blowout.
When I was young and an activist in the civil rights movement, the Left was challenging the status quo and speaking truth to power. Today the TEA parties are challenging the status quo and speaking truth to power. There is always a need to forestall the consolidation of government power.
I do not personally have a problem with the Left. If we have a situation where the Left would like a smaller military and more government programs, and the Right wants fewer programs and a stronger military, we can discuss that. That is a disagreement that reasonable people can come to some kind of satisfactory compromise on. What I am against are people trying to protect the state when it is gobbling power. To many of us a statist and and leftist are different breeds of animal.
Pat Moynihan was a lefitst, and so are Alan Dershowitz and Johnathan Turley. There are principled leftists who are as concerned as principled rightists.
Regrettably, both parties are filled with sycophants who have been thoroughly propagandized because parties are more interested in voters than in thoughtful people coming to their own conclusions.
--Formerly Amherst
I have a little trouble with the idea the the Tea Party was speaking truth to power when they were kicked off in part with a rebel yell from a Wall Street-friendly business journalist and carried the message of Taxed Enough Already in a time when taxes were at a 60-year low. Maybe there was something meaningful they could have said about feeling screwed by the system, but it got lost in WHHHARRRGGGAAARRBBLE about "Keep the gov't hands off Medicare" and stuff.
When they turned out en masse to vote in a Republican majority to the house, part of the problem was the apathy of Dems who simply failed to turn out at all, and the slate of Tea Party folks they gave us were ALEC and Americans for Prosperity types who ain't exactly here to stick up for the "little guys".
I have to give a little side-eye to the distinction between leftism and statism. It's all very well to be a leftist, the problem is when one thinks their government might be too?
Post a Comment