Slog Comments
Bush and the Death of GOP Multiculturalism
1
They've switched tactics. Bringing in non-whites was tantamount to disbanding the GOP and becoming the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. What would have been the point?
Instead they're enlarging their voter base by giving full human rights to corporations. Expect corporations to vote, sit on juries, and hold office by 2050.
I know it all sounds absurd now, but a few years ago it would have been absurd to think the Supreme Court would affirm that money is speech. Welcome to the future.
Instead they're enlarging their voter base by giving full human rights to corporations. Expect corporations to vote, sit on juries, and hold office by 2050.
I know it all sounds absurd now, but a few years ago it would have been absurd to think the Supreme Court would affirm that money is speech. Welcome to the future.
3
@1 Brings new meaning to the phrase "a jury of their peers". The next time an oil company is sued, expect to see Monsanto, Kraft, Union Carbide, and General Motors on the jury.
4
@1 (May He bless you, and eat you first.)
Well, the Supreme Court affirmed that money were speech in Buckley vs Valeo about thirty-four years ago, and corporate personhood seemed dangerous enough to me that I thought their conclusion in the Citzens United... was kind of predictable.
Not that I liked it.
"Irrational"?
The rump G.O.P. are certainly more hysterical, but (at least in the economists' sense) it seems entirely rational to protest the loss of a competitive advantage you used to get for free, hold onto it as best and for as long as you can...so here's to F. W. de Klerk for seeing the writing on the wall and being reasonable---some others would have been of a more Samsonian temperament.
Well, the Supreme Court affirmed that money were speech in Buckley vs Valeo about thirty-four years ago, and corporate personhood seemed dangerous enough to me that I thought their conclusion in the Citzens United... was kind of predictable.
Not that I liked it.
"Irrational"?
The rump G.O.P. are certainly more hysterical, but (at least in the economists' sense) it seems entirely rational to protest the loss of a competitive advantage you used to get for free, hold onto it as best and for as long as you can...so here's to F. W. de Klerk for seeing the writing on the wall and being reasonable---some others would have been of a more Samsonian temperament.
5
Good Morning Charles,
I disagree. The GOP will be fine. And, they are indeed attempting to diversify their base. After all, an African-American and a woman ran for the nomination for President this year as Republicans. Also, consider this from 2010:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/17/…
Susana Martinez did win in NM.
However, I can concede much work needs to done to draw more minorities to the GOP. There is a point there.
I disagree. The GOP will be fine. And, they are indeed attempting to diversify their base. After all, an African-American and a woman ran for the nomination for President this year as Republicans. Also, consider this from 2010:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/17/…
Susana Martinez did win in NM.
However, I can concede much work needs to done to draw more minorities to the GOP. There is a point there.
6
I certainly hope that the demographic shifts of this country make it more progressive and equitable; but remember Charles, tomorrow is promised to no one. It is not impossible to imagine a future right wing made up of Hispanics drawn by social issues, and South-East Asians, who have long been termed a "model minority," inducted into the fold known as 'Whiteness.'
7
There is also the chance that Hispanics will become more conservative as a whole in a couple generations as they gain a greater stake in society.
8
@6:
See also the impressive essay, "Oppressed People Suck".
I agree, except that I think Indian (Deshi) Americans will be accepted as 'white' first, and may end up Republicans if the Rs don't macaca them away.
See also the impressive essay, "Oppressed People Suck".
I agree, except that I think Indian (Deshi) Americans will be accepted as 'white' first, and may end up Republicans if the Rs don't macaca them away.
9
Agreed with 8 and 6. A hundred to a hundred and fifty years ago, it would have been inconceivable madness that Jews, Italians, Irish and the various Slavic ethnicities would have been viewed as "white" in a form interchangeable with America's English/Welsh/Dutch/German populations. And yet, here we are. "Whiteness" has proved to be a remarkably adaptable concept; it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if my great-grandchildren considered people of east or south asian descent to be "white".
And to Charles: yeah, one of the bitter ironies of the GWBush administration is that the sole worthwhile initiative he ever proposed was murdered in its crib by his own party.
And to Charles: yeah, one of the bitter ironies of the GWBush administration is that the sole worthwhile initiative he ever proposed was murdered in its crib by his own party.
10
Including Hispanics who self-identify racially (or whose parents identify them) as "White", 74.6% of US children 5 and under (as of 2009) identified as "White".
The Al Jazeera analysis also assumes that "current minorities will become the majority", i.e., that non-white minorities will unite under a single ethnic and ideological banner. Unlikely, for several reasons noted above.
Sometime in the next century, US may become a minority-white nation, but then it will also be a minority-black, minority-API, and minority-anything-else-you-can-name nation.
And the idea that party identity 40, 60 or 80 years from now will adhere to today's racial and ethnic boundaries is backward and just plain silly.
The Al Jazeera analysis also assumes that "current minorities will become the majority", i.e., that non-white minorities will unite under a single ethnic and ideological banner. Unlikely, for several reasons noted above.
Sometime in the next century, US may become a minority-white nation, but then it will also be a minority-black, minority-API, and minority-anything-else-you-can-name nation.
And the idea that party identity 40, 60 or 80 years from now will adhere to today's racial and ethnic boundaries is backward and just plain silly.
11
@8 Thanks for the suggestion, I'll definitely check that out.
Lot's of great commentary here, RonK's conclusion is especially spot on.
Lot's of great commentary here, RonK's conclusion is especially spot on.
Comments (12) RSS