The Republican Party is the White Party

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Let me rephrase something on edit, since some replies suggest I was not optimally clear.

The Republican party is a racial identity party. It is designed to appeal to white people as white people... not as union-members or as unemployed people or as home-owners... as white people.

It is a crude racial-identity party and the numbers bear that out. It is an almost exclusively white party. Many white people vote Democratic, but the Republican party is pretty close to all white. (A fact that is soft-pedaled in out national dialog because it makes the modern Republican party sound like a racist institution, which it is.

And many millions of white people vote Republican, against all real self-interest, because they perceive it as "the white thing to do." Because the Republican party presents itself as "the white thing to do."

Orginal post __________________________

That is not a critique, it is a fact of contemporary political life.

This does not mean that all white people are republicans. There are millions and millions of reliable white Democratic voters. I'm of European descent and will never vote for a Republican. But no Democratic presidential candidate has carried the majority of white votes since 1964, and it is quite possible that no future Democratic candidate ever will in our lifetimes.

(The Republican party would shift positions to retain a majority of the white vote because it is all they have. If that means becoming more liberal on this issue or that issue they will do so. We do not have 70%-30% presidential elections in this country because by the time a major party got down to 30% there would be a third party of some sort.)

The Republican party is the white party on the same way the Democratic party is the gay party, the black party, the hispanic party, the single woman party, the poor party.

The Republican party:

1) Always receives a good majority of white votes, and
2) Identifies and caters to white people as an interest group

Most (all?) issues that are identifiable as "white interest" are racist. If a voter believes there are "white issues" that person is very, very likely to be Republican.

When the racist vote shrivels over the next generation there will be resulting changes in American politics, and probably changes in the Republican party. But as long as there is a "white vote" (as there is today) the Republican party will be usefully, meaningfully identifiable as "the white party."

[swayne]

1. That's exactly the point.

The GOP doesn't have to SAY they are the "white" party. It is obvious and patently true. For some reason the GOP racists think this somehow hides them from criticism.

[polichick]

2. The white MALE party.

[Scootaloo]

4. Well, now, I think we can expand it...

The Republican Party is the White Man's Party... and also the party for self-loathers from all other groups.

[JoePhilly]

8. Add the word Xenophobe.

The GOP does not speak for THIS white male.

[cthulu2016]

6. Yes and no

The Republican party does not cater to women as an interest group, and does cater to men as an interest group, but the Democratic voting advantage in gender gap terms is not large enough to make the Republican party a male party, IMO.

I would guess it likely that Reagan won women in 1984, and Republicans have won married women in several elections.

On the other hand, as I said in the OP, the Democratic party is very much the single women's party.

[librechik]

7. yes exactly--that's also why they pretend that Dems are "girls"

it's psychological warfare.

[patrice]

3. I, and some others, think the party differences are CLASS, not race. There are plenty of "Whites"

who are discriminated against in economic ways that are the SAME as those experienced by other ethnic groups, and these same "Whites" are also not discriminated against in ways that are related to the color of their skins, so the defining factor in the discrimination they experience is economic CLASS, not race.

Poor Whites need the Democratic party and the Republican party will make them poorer.

[Scootaloo]

5. I used to think the same, and there's some truth to the matter

But the other part of the truth is that race is STILL very much a factor in our society. You can't whitewash it - and no, that's not an unintentional metaphor - and dismiss this country's race issues as just issues of class.

The only way to handle the solution is to take on both racism and classism, rather than trying to trade one for the other.

[cthulu2016]

9. You can think that but it isn't true

The differences SHOULD be class-based, of course, but is there a Democratic advantage among working class white people?

West Virginia is a definitive white working class (and poverty) state, yet hates Obama more than anywhere.

The racial divisions in American history account for much of the reason Europe has more socialist traditions. Sad truth is that sharing appears to be easier in racially homogeneous populations.

When push comes to shove, race tends to trump class and nationalism trumps everything.

Dems do somewhat better among lower income people but, for instance, Dems are at rough parity or a slight disadvantage among lower-income non-college whites -- precisely the white cohort that Dems *should* totally dominate.

[patrice]

11. So you are in favor of dividing the parties by race?

"Sad truth is that sharing appears to be easier in racially homogeneous populations."

If the answer to that question is a yes; I must conclude that you are for a Democratic loss this November, which would be quite cthonic, btw.

[cthulu2016]

15. .

.

Yeah, I "favor" the racial effects of class consciousness the same way I "favor" the Atomic Number of Mercury being 80

What does "favor" have to do with anything?

Sorry for the harshness, but I don't much care for being told that I must want Obama to lose in November because I say (correctly) that the pugs do well working class whites.

How does it follow that by observing something I am wishing for it?

[patrice]

20. What is the logic of "The Republican Party is the White Party"? Not "a", "the White Party" i.e. . .

if they are in any other party, Whites are in a party that is not theirs. If you didn't intend to imply that, perhaps you should consider an indefinite article instead of a definite article.

[cthulu2016]

25. Using language the way people use language is communicative

Nobody is simplistic enough to read "cats are smaller than dogs" as a statement that all cats are smaller than all dogs unless they are in a nit-picking mood. Since the OP states that there are many millions of white Democratic voters it is obviously not saying that all white voters vote Republican.

But all white voters who pick a party based on race are Republicans.

The designed appeal of the Republican party is to white people, and to the exclusion of other people.

In the phrase "the white party" the word white modifies the word party. It is descriptive of the Republican party as an institution.

I am not advising white people to vote for republicans. I am identifying that they do in numbers that are at odds with class and interest.

And the reason many white people vote against class interest is because they opt for perceived racial interest. Being a Republican is perceived by many, many, many white people "the white thing to do."

This fact is often not appreciated because the media does not describe the Republican party base in terms of perceived racial interest, in the way the Democratic party base is routinely described described in terms of racial self-interest.

And the reason that identification is not made in the media is because it would make the Republican party sound like a racist institution.

By obscuring the relative racial exclusivity of the Republicans we craft a false view where race is not determinative.

For instance, anyone who is more worried about the deficit today than they were in 2006 is likely to be a racist, but we treat deficit concern that arises mysteriously when the president is black as being legitimate concern about the deficit, worthy of respect as a dry policy issue.

Any all-but overtly racist institution is granted legitimacy by pretending that it is not a party built on racial identification, which it is.

[patrice]

33. k. "the" is still the definite article, limiting to ONE specific person/place/thing - and - "a"

is an indefinite article, indicating any one of more-than-one persons/places/things.

Otherwise you'd be able to say, "Racial division is the political division" when in fact "Racial division is a political division", because there are many political divisions, all of which are meant to divide and conquer for one reason and one reason only: money.

[Zalatix]

17. Ayup, okay, so what happens if you take the white male vote out of the picture?

What happens to the GOP's turnout in that scenario?

Run the numbers.

[patrice]

19. Sorry, I don't understand. White males don't suffer from economic injustice? If I care about

economic justice, doesn't it put the lie to that if I only care about it for some people and not others? - which would make it, therefore, economic privilege, a worse case of what we already have, rather than economic justice.

[patrice]

10. And the Democratic Party isn't? What about poor Whites? Are they better off as Republicans? nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

12. The Democratic party should become the elderly party as well

If this election accurately focuses on just what Paul Ryan and his thralls like Romney want to do with medicare and social security I would think a majority of elderly whites would either stay home on election day or vote Democratic.

[ananda]

13. No, it's the party of hate and fear.

Many Whites are vulnerable to appeals to hate and fear
because Whites are moving into minority status and
have been, and still are, oppressors.

[Zalatix]

18. Some whites.

[patrice]

21. Which is my point. OP subject is a BROAD brush; what about poor Whites?

And I have to say that I find this hysteria against the argument that CLASS is the most dominant factor, kind of strange. Have seen it before when Shirley Sherrod had the nerve to say it and look what that got her.

[cthulu2016]

26. It is not broad brush

It is about the Republican party.

All Republicans are White is not literally true, but it is damn close.

All whites are Republican would be a very broad brush.

The Republican party is, by design, a racial identity party.

The fact that not all members of that race vote Republican does not change the observation about the party.

[patrice]

34. So don't play THEIR game. nt

[malthaussen]

27. Another DUer pointed out something I found very illuminating:

Stipulating that there will always be severe economic disparity in this country, the proportion of whites getting the shaft is less than the proportion of non-whites getting the shaft. (He ran some numbers on this, but I don't have the links. It's a reasonable concept though, ne-c'est pas?) Ergo, if the misery were to be spread more equally, more whites would fall off the cliff that are now holding on precariously. By claiming that the Dems want to spread the misery more equally, the Republicans capture this white vote.

Which I thought was a pretty good retort to dems who mock them po' old rednecks for "voting against their best interests."

-- Mal

[patrice]

36. I understand, except that I think we're talking about pie here, not misery. That's the vision thing,

which I think Labor must have an intrinsic role in formulating. For that we need authentic Labor reform, something along the lines sketched in my post #35 here, which is why I brought up this point about PWM in the first place.

I like this point about why PWM appear to be "voting against their best interests". I expect that I will use that, but I fear that it can apply to any other ethnic group too, which means we now need to turn "Let's make a deal for me/mine" into "Let's make a deal for EVERYONE, even those _____________ who don't like me" and that adds up to Labor that's far far different from what we see out there right now.

[Zalatix]

31. Ummmm

This does not mean that all white people are republicans. There are millions and millions of reliable white Democratic voters. I'm of European descent and will never vote for a Republican. But no Democratic presidential candidate has carried the majority of white votes since 1964, and it is quite possible that no future Democratic candidate ever will in our lifetimes.

That's not broadbrushing as I know it. YMMV of course.

[patrice]

35. We don't need the majority of the White vote, but that doesn't mean that we don't need a significant

minority of it; failing enough White votes can likely put us right back where we were in 2010.

There's another point here too: Is the Democratic Party an authentically pro-Labor party or not? Is Labor authentically pro-Democratic Party or not? The answer to these reciprocal questions lies in the condition of Labor and Labor will NEVER come into its own unless it shares power with poor unions, including poor Whites. ALL of that is up for bids now and if Democrats want to write off poor Whites, because they ARE a problem in the Democrats' more racially diverse culture, I think that could turn out to be just be another instance of "Meet the 'new' boss; same as the old boss." Btw, if I'm reading the Paulian tea-leaves right, this will to some extent also affect young Americans too, who are less racially sensitive and more economic class sensitive.

[SoCalDem]

14. Actually, they are a "big-tent" party these days

The Freak Show tent is segmented into more than a few groups:

The extra Jesus-y scolds who want the Yooessay to pray away abortion & "the gays"..and they will not stop until there's a storefront Jesus school to replace every public school

The Richie-Rich Snobs who just want laws that let them keep all their money, and who don't give a crap how miserable the rest of us have to be so they can get all the money

The Pat Buchananites/LouDobbsian Xenophobes who fear any skin color more "olive-y/brown" than just-this-side-of-albino.

The CivilWarriors who refuse to believe that they lost, and who are always tapping into the anger that bubbles just below the surface.

The Misogynists who long for the DonnaReedification of modern women.

[lpbk2713]

16. The white 1%ers and the willfully ignorant.

The 1%ers couldn't make it without the easily beguiled to lead around by the snout.

[patrice]

22. And race is a handy way to do that, especially with anyone who is already pissed off about economic

class discrimination.

[lpbk2713]

23. So very true.

Paranoia is one of their most highly valued resources.

[patrice]

24. And, in my real life experience, poor white males are more often paranoid rather than not. nt

[malthaussen]

28. This PWM sure is

But a pair of noid is better than no noid at all.

-- Mal

[patrice]

29. Talking about family here, but lol anyway . . .

[Zalatix]

32. The Plutocracy is NOT ignorant - they create this divide by design.

[michaelcobb]

30. It is also the KOOK party.

NT

[Son of Gob]

37. White's Only Party is a better fit