Does GOP Reflect the US?

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by samclem

I deliberately did NOT make the distinction based on race, but I think I understand why you inserted the reference to "minorities" even though I didn't:
-- It helps you make your case
-- (Going out on a limb here)You are probably much more likely than I to see individuals as members of racial and other groups, with a set of group identities. I see individuals as individuals. Their identity is not based on skin color or national origin, but how they act and what they believe.

I said: "The GOP should not try to woo those who want to wallow in group victimhood, who take more pride in being a "hyphenated-American" than an "American." They can stay where they are--wherever that is."

Nobody is born into this set of people--it is strictly up to each individual to choose their set of beliefs. I think distinctions based on behaviors and attitudes are more useful than ones based on race/ethnicity. Just like Dr King said.

Might have to do with the fact that the discussion was about inclusion of minorities/people of color in the audience/delgations of the RNC - not their political perspectives.

It can feel "good" to say that you "don't see" people's race - and in fact you and many others may be the most down to earth, take people on an individual basis people out there. But we are all subjected to racialized ideas and perceptions in this country and it is much or genuine to admit them, then deny they don't exist.

I don't see people's race or ethnicity and assume anything - heck, I don't fit anyone's stereotype of asian women from my generation...I've had to blaze my own trail my whole life. But I also don't discount that there are some things that generally shape our experiences as a group - like immigration, english language ability, and yes, sometimes discrimination based on the other two factors.

Frankly, this discussion has only served to frustrate the heck out of me. I was sincerely hoping that some conservative folks would step up and say that they too, thought it was a concern, or think it is something the RNC should work on - but instead just got a bunch of hyper-debate about affirmative action and other lightening rod race issues.

If we tell folks to embrace a post-racial point of view, but refuse to listen to all of the perspectives of different peoples experiences - and it ends up just perpetuating the status quo, than it does nothing to improve equality in this country.

if people from different backgrounds are saying "it matters" and others from the majority keep getting defensive or "if you don't like it stay out" - then the divisions will only continue.

[armor99]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

Might have to do with the fact that the discussion was about inclusion of minorities/people of color in the audience/delgations of the RNC - not their political perspectives.

Not trying to do any "lightning rod" sort of thing as you put it.... but I am reading your own words, and thinking about what you are saying. You want inclusion of "people of color" in the audience, but at the same time you are not interested in their political perspectives? To my understanding... maybe I am wrong here... is that what party you want to belong to, has to do with a mental philosphy, and not a particular skin color. I guess I do not understand why you do not view people as individuals? If I were to see a black, indian, or hispanic man/woman, walking down the street and assume his/her political perspective based on just their skin color, would that not be the very pinnacle of racist thought? The idea that all people of a skin color, religion, etc, all act and think the same way?
Now if you are implying that because there were not many minority people present in the audience, that somehow the RNC was "stopping" such people from attending, then I would feel differently. If there is some proof that the RNC is preventing minorities from attending if they want to somehow, well that would be horrible, and I would want to see that injustice exposed. Just desperately trying to understand your point of view....

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by armor99

Not trying to do any "lightning rod" sort of thing as you put it.... but I am reading your own words, and thinking about what you are saying. You want inclusion of "people of color" in the audience, but at the same time you are not interested in their political perspectives? To my understanding... maybe I am wrong here... is that what party you want to belong to, has to do with a mental philosphy, and not a particular skin color. I guess I do not understand why you do not view people as individuals? If I were to see a black, indian, or hispanic man/woman, walking down the street and assume his/her political perspective based on just their skin color, would that not be the very pinnacle of racist thought? The idea that all people of a skin color, religion, etc, all act and think the same way?
Now if you are implying that because there were not many minority people present in the audience, that somehow the RNC was "stopping" such people from attending, then I would feel differently. If there is some proof that the RNC is preventing minorities from attending if they want to somehow, well that would be horrible, and I would want to see that injustice exposed. Just desperately trying to understand your point of view....

Ok, deep breath.

Let me try to break down my thoughts slowly.

My OP merely raised the question of the lack of diversity at the RNC - something noted by the washington post and other folks who were there or saw it on TV. My original question below:

<<Is it possible for the GOP to recruit more minorities successfully or is it too late?>>

I never said that they were doing anything to "stop" people from joining/participating, as you ask - but just wondered if they had made any sincere efforts at all. And in the end, it was so lacking in participation that I, for one was alarmed since they are one of two major parties, and if they win (again), they're a party that does not have a notable membership of people from different backgrounds.

I think that most folks here would agree that there are probably a LOT of people from various backgrounds who may share the platform of the RNC - which makes their absence more perplexing. I don't think people hold one point of view based on their race/ethnicity - I know that's not a fact from my own experience!

But the discussion quickly spiraled out of my hands and into places I didn't think it would go, but that's just my naive self coming to light. Race is a touchy subject - but I thought a discussion about minority participation would not set off the usual set of arguments that come along with it - won't make that mistake again!

[armor99]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

Ok, deep breath.

Let me try to break down my thoughts slowly.

My OP merely raised the question of the lack of diversity at the RNC - something noted by the washington post and other folks who were there or saw it on TV. My original question below:

<<Is it possible for the GOP to recruit more minorities successfully or is it too late?>>

I never said that they were doing anything to "stop" people from joining/participating, as you ask - but just wondered if they had made any sincere efforts at all. And in the end, it was so lacking in participation that I, for one was alarmed since they are one of two major parties, and if they win (again), they're a party that does not have a notable membership of people from different backgrounds.

I think that most folks here would agree that there are probably a LOT of people from various backgrounds who may share the platform of the RNC - which makes their absence more perplexing. I don't think people hold one point of view based on their race/ethnicity - I know that's not a fact from my own experience!

But the discussion quickly spiraled out of my hands and into places I didn't think it would go, but that's just my naive self coming to light. Race is a touchy subject - but I thought a discussion about minority participation would not set off the usual set of arguments that come along with it - won't make that mistake again!

Thank you so much for the clarification. I think I now understand a bit more what you were trying to get at. The crowd looked under represented by minority skin colors, from your point of view, and you thnk the GOP should have done more to get more minorities to agree with their political point of view... and show up. At least that is what I think I am reading...
I guess my only question would be.. if for whatever reason there were no minority people that wanted to attend for whatever reason, is there something "no good" about that? Since we have already agreed (at least I think we have) that skin color has nothing to do with thoughts or political beliefs, then why is a diverse (from a skin color point of view) crowd a good thing, or a bad thing for that matter. I guess I just cannot see why that makes any difference.

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by armor99

Thank you so much for the clarification. I think I now understand a bit more what you were trying to get at. The crowd looked under represented by minority skin colors, from your point of view, and you thnk the GOP should have done more to get more minorities to agree with their political point of view... and show up. At least that is what I think I am reading...
I guess my only question would be.. if for whatever reason there were no minority people that wanted to attend for whatever reason, is there something "no good" about that? Since we have already agreed (at least I think we have) that skin color has nothing to do with thoughts or political beliefs, then why is a diverse (from a skin color point of view) crowd a good thing, or a bad thing for that matter. I guess I just cannot see why that makes any difference.

My point of view on this specifically is that it has always been "better" to have people than NOT. Even if they hold similar political points of view, they may have "gotten there" via different roads because of different life experiences, sometimes having to do with their race or immigration status - and therefore might see different ways of addressing the issues - even if everyone wants the same end - outcome. If anything, may be a more effective way to implement their policy goals.

And again, it makes me even more nervous that since this is not a small political party that may hold some seats in the house of reps or something - but has a viable chance at the oval office, not having people from different backgrounds there makes me uncomfortable.

[Texarkandy]

Well, to put it simply:

"Does GOP Reflect the US?"

The GOP seems to generally reflect the views of somewhere between 40% & 50% of the voting population as evidenced by their share of the vote in national elections of late.

So, yes - the GOP does reflect the US.

From what I've seen & read the GOP does heartily welcome minorities of all stripes & genuinely denounces intolerance. They just don't pander to them as much.

And that's all I got to say about that.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

My OP merely raised the question of the lack of diversity at the RNC - something noted by the washington post and other folks who were there or saw it on TV. My original question below:

Since when do delegates at a convention speak to millions in a party?

<<Is it possible for the GOP to recruit more minorities successfully or is it too late?>>

I think you have it wrong. Conservatives don't "recruit" folks, they try to provide a platform that attracts people that share common values. There's no moveon.org and groups like that in the GOP........

I never said that they were doing anything to "stop" people from joining/participating, as you ask - but just wondered if they had made any sincere efforts at all. And in the end, it was so lacking in participation that I, for one was alarmed since they are one of two major parties, and if they win (again), they're a party that does not have a notable membership of people from different backgrounds.

I think both parties are more diverse than folks assume.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

And again, it makes me even more nervous that since this is not a small political party that may hold some seats in the house of reps or something - but has a viable chance at the oval office, not having people from different backgrounds there makes me uncomfortable.

So, when McCain says he's going to have Democrats on his cabinet, and probably more than one, does that make you happy at all??

[FUEGO]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

Frankly, this discussion has only served to frustrate the heck out of me. I was sincerely hoping that some conservative folks would step up and say that they too, thought it was a concern, or think it is something the RNC should work on - but instead just got a bunch of hyper-debate about affirmative action and other lightening rod race issues.

Here's my response to your question that I posted in this thread in post # 25:

"I think the RNC should do whatever they think is in their best interest. If winning elections and promulgating their policies is their main goal, and increasing the number of minorities in their ranks will help them achieve that goal, then they would be smart to actively recruit voting minorities....

I think it is possible for the GOP to recruit more minorities successfully. It is not too late. I don't think anything in the mainstream GOP platform is inconsistent with minorities."

I'm a registered Republican and a fiscal conservative (not so much socially). With a minority wife, minority kids, and a whole slew of minorities in my family. Happy?

It seems like you're looking for someone to renounce their political party and call them racist and try to force affirmative action on them. I'd rather the party encourage people with similar political philosophies and goals to fight for a common cause, and if the members happen to be of a different race, then great! The more colors the merrier.

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by FUEGO

It seems like you're looking for someone to renounce their political party and call them racist and try to force affirmative action on them. I'd rather the party encourage people with similar political philosophies and goals to fight for a common cause, and if the members happen to be of a different race, then great! The more colors the merrier.

No no no, no renouncing wanted...just thought some conservative folks might pipe up and say they thought it wasn't ideal or what they wanted - but guess i'm just grasping here.

i'm done.

[FUEGO]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

No no no, no renouncing wanted...just thought some conservative folks might pipe up and say they thought it wasn't ideal or what they wanted - but guess i'm just grasping here.

i'm done.

I'm sure some in the party will claim the need to have token minorities. I think most would rather have real party supporters that happen to be of a non-white racial background.

I don't think you are grasping. You asked an honest question and you seem to be upset or disappointed that you didn't hear the answer that you wanted to hear.

[bright eyed]

Originally Posted by FUEGO

I'm sure some in the party will claim the need to have token minorities. I think most would rather have real party supporters that happen to be of a non-white racial background.

I don't think you are grasping. You asked an honest question and you seem to be upset or disappointed that you didn't hear the answer that you wanted to hear.

Yup, that's the honest truth

I'm not advocating tokenism at all - but since we all seem to believe there are more minorities who support their platform than participated, then my inclination was to ask why they aren't represented in the delegation...

[FUEGO]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

Yup, that's the honest truth

I'm not advocating tokenism at all - but since we all seem to believe there are more minorities who support their platform than participated, then my inclination was to ask why they aren't represented in the delegation...

I actually just read the washington post article you linked in your OP. Per the article, 36 out of 2,380 delegates at the RNC were black. That is 1.5%. Yet the country is 12.4% black (let's assume the public eligible to vote is also 12.4% black). You might think this leaves the RNC underrepresented by blacks. However keep in mind that something like only 10% of black voters vote republican typically. So 1.24% of the US population would be black republicans.

In other words, the RNC is right where they probably should be in terms of proportion of black delegates. How the Washington Post ignored this is beyond me.

The GOP would have to change their platform to encourage more black participation. I'm sure they could take steps to do that, but that would be a different GOP than the one we have currently. That is a different issue than proportional representation of current party voters.

So what exactly are you criticizing regarding the GOP and RNC convention? Do you want them to alter their platform? Voters choose who they want in office. Why not encourage the GOP to get even more conservative (and racist!) and let the Dems get all the undecided moderates in the middle (assuming you prefer Dems over Repubs)?

[Abreutime]

Originally Posted by youbet

But your point is well taken. I remember one of the most outspoken liberal members of the board (long gone apparently) mentioned the town he lived in, a suburb of Minneapolis. I looked up the demographics. 97% white! What a joke his views turned out to be! A liberal mouth but a closet bigot chosing to live in an insulated suburban community when a wonderful, diverse city was only minutes away!

That's a horribly unfair and judgmental view.

[Abreutime]

I'm worried that the Democratic party is losing support from whites and asians. They were underrepresented at the Dem convention, and I'm not sure our policies are doing enough to attract these important groups. It's crazy that we would support policies (AA) that harm members of the 2 largest groups of Americans. Sounds like a losing strategy to me. What can we do to recruit more whites and asians?

[Martha]

Originally Posted by samclem

Maybe. Because we tended to move every 2-3 years, we got to live in a lot of different places. When I moved from California (where I grew up) to Mississippi, I was sure I was going to the end of the earth. And, yes, there were differences. But every place I've lived, the folks have been welcoming. If I take my time, respect the local culture (just as I would abroad) and keep hold my judgements about proper/improper until I first understand the reasons for the present situation, I've always gotten along fine.

My experience has been that people in rural areas friendly. If you are in rural Missouri and sit down at a lunch counter, the next person that sits down will likely start a conversation. If you start one, they'll reciprocate. People say 'hello' when they pass each other on the sidewalk. That's an unusual thing in big cities.

Maybe it is different when you are a child growing up in a town where the people are a different religion or race than you or you otherwise stand out from the crowd. We lived in two different small towns. Or maybe it just depends on the town. The first area, very rural, we lived in was very accepting of our differences but maybe it was because my family had a long history there. There even is a road named after our family. Small school, with class sizes in the 20s, from the time my father went to school to now.

The second town was very intolerant as to religious differences. A number of families would not let their children associate with us. My sibs and I were harassed regularly as to when we would accept Jesus. If we weren't harassed, we were pitied (poor, motherless children). Separate from the religious issue, my disabled younger siblings were also teased a lot. I finally saw that one was taken out of school and moved to the city with me. So, maybe it was just a town of jerks. I have nothing respectful to say about that culture.


I'm not sure if this post violates my pledge, but I wanted to clarify my prior post on my experience. Anyway, back to not talking about this stuff.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Martha

The second town was very intolerant as to religious differences.

It's sad when this sort of thing happens, but it's sure not limited to small towns. I grew up in a family where mom was protestant and dad was roman catholic and we lived in a urban neighborhood that was almost 100% roman catholic. Not good...... Especially since mom won the "what church to send the kid to" battle and I went to sunday school at a protestant church in a bordering neighborhood. Lots of harrassment from the neighbor's kids. Adults asked me if I wasn't ashamed mom was protestant, etc. In actuality, neither mom or dad attended church except for weddings, funerals, etc.

Because dad and other relatives worked for the city Dem machine, I put in lots of hours doing politcal work and always carefully hid my non-catholic situation, although I'm sure many knew.

Particularly in the past, and even to some extent today, Chicago is a city of ethnic/religious neighborhoods. "Outsiders" living in these neighborhoods have the same kind of experiences as you attribute to small town living.

Anyway.... just letting you know that intolerance is not limited to small towns. And, as you already mentioned, all small towns are not the same.