0

TODAY'S TIMES

BORROWED OPINIONS
The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.

I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: “No way, baby.”

They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush — they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, “All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you.”

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It’s time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.

Vaughn Tolle said:
 
I understand the calls for Congressional representation in the District; I really do. I just cannot agree.

I understand full well that when the framers of the Constitution provided for the creation of the District of Columbia they didn't want it to be a state, or the body of any partisan activity; besides, in those days, the thought that there would be a permanent population in the mosquito-infested swamps which made up the real estate ceded for the government, what with malaria during the summer, etc., was incomprehensible to these good people. The fact that the framers placed the responsibility for the District in the hands of the entire Congress shows me that the framers truly wanted the seat of the federal government to be representative of all the people.

I realize things have changed; a lot since 1787. Now, the District is inhabited on a permanent basis by primarily African-Americans; they occupy, for the most part, low-paying service jobs made possible by the presence of the federal government in the District, and the fact that "government employment" has bloomed into a full year fact. But, that still does not sway me.

I also realize that if the District had a predominant voting pattern of heavy Republican majorities, there would be great GOP support for the proposition. I wonder if that would be true whether the majority of the Democratic party would still support such representation. Sadly, I think not.

The twenty-third amendment gives the District (at present) three electoral votes; I opposed this at first, but now I think that's appropriate that the residents of the District be able to voice a choice for President, given that the residents are, under the Constitution, to be represented, if you will, by the federal government. Yes, to then say there should not be congressional representation for the District does seem to violate that logic; but there I am, with a feeling, as inarticulable as it is, that there shouldn't be congressional representation for the District.

Nor do I believe that DC should become a state. I feel that the seat of the federal government should be a separate entity, not dependent upon a "state" for its services, and under the control of the Congress and President (and, of course, the federal courts). I've a bit of "original intent" in this position, which doesn't necessarily square with some of my other thoughts on the Constitution and interpretation thereof; but, I happily agree that I'm inconsistent, and move on, so to speak.
 
posted 788 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Pontificating a bit further, this time on the GOP front runners not attending the debate to be televised on PBS. First, the fact it is on PBS says volumes, I'm sorry to say, about the (lack of) interest the public as a whole has in minority issues. Second, we're still in primary season. To the extent states have "closed" primaries (only Dems can vote in the Dem primary, only GOP in the GOP), there isn't much to be gained in the fight for the nomination, given the low numbers of registered minority GOP voters. I really don't think that this attitude is going to change much (with the exception of the Cubans in Florida) come time for the general election in 2008. Third, time and money are scarce commodities, thus the front runners need to maximize their share of the same. Sadly, this means not attending the debate in question.

On Clarence Thomas; he's not the brightest bulb in the SCOTUS chandelier, IMHO. However, he was nominated and confirmed as provided by the Constitution. There should not be a "quota" system on SCOTUS; if there wasn't one (although I'm sure many will assert there isn't one, including Justice Thomas, but it sure seems that way), I suspect Mr. Justice Thomas would not have been nominated. Hey, potential presidents, let's nominate clearly qualified folks to SCOTUS irrespective of race, sex, etc., and let the Senate do its job.

As GMC said "over there"; there is only one reason political parties exist, which is to win. End of discussion.
 
posted 788 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 

Search