Race Relations II - Not All African-Americans are Democrats
So, in order to get this post, you need to have read the post prior where I cut and pasted an article from the Boston Globe from last Monday. The whole gist of the article was to discuss the dilemma for Democrats in addressing "majority-minority districts (those districts packed with a specific minority - meaning African-American because if you read the article it never occurs to the national Democrats or the quoted African-Americans to acknowledge the Hispanics - so that a candidate is positively elected by that minority; yes, at ZACKlyRight we understand the implied racism and we are offended by it)". The dilemma is, since African-Americans vote fairly monolithically for Democrats (for reasons ZACKlyRight readers cannot understand and we will discuss below), should "majority-minority districts" be gerrymandered to include fewer of the targeted minority in the hopes that the neighboring district, with more of the targeted minority, just might vote for a Democrat candidate?
Okay, now having read the article where the entire thesis of the article assumes that ALL African-Americans are Democrats, let me tell you that NOT all African-Americans are Democrats.
Here are the numbers from the 2000 election, Bush vs. Gore (courtesy of CNN.com; these are facts so no chance for their extremely liberal bias to influence):
Bush 50,456,000 votes and 9% of the African-American vote versus Gore 50,996,000 votes and 91% of the African-American vote.
Here are the numbers from the 2004 election, Bush versus Kerry (courtesy of CNN.com again):
Bush 62,040,000 votes and 11% of the African-American vote versus Kerry 59,028,000 votes and 89% of the African-American vote.
Now, I don't know exactly how many African-Americans voted in each election and I don't know if African-Americans turn-out in a greater percentage than any other demographic. But, assuming such rates did not change dramatically from 2000 to 2004 (a very safe assumption), way more African-Americans voted for a Republican for President than at any other time in recent memory. A larger percentage (11 versus 9) of a much larger number (121 million total votes versus 101 million total votes) voted for the Republican. I believe that the African-American population was about 11% of the total US population in 2000 and 2004.
Now comes the analysis. Why are African-Americans voting in increasing numbers for Republicans?
Well, let's start with the fact that more African-Americans own their own home now that at any other time in American history.
Let's consider that some African-Americans just might take national security seriously. Or, some take it serious enough to not trust their kids safety to a man like Sen. John F. Kerry who constantly denigrates the US military, cannot vote for funds for Humvee armor-plating, waffles on sending our troops to war, and puts way too much faith in the French government and not enough in the British or Israeli governments.
Let's consider that some African-Americans are as offended by partial-birth abortion as any other demographic.
Let's consider that some African-Americans just may think child rapist/murderers should be put to death (as the US Constitution clearly allows).
Let's consider that some African-Americans, a huge church-going demographic, just may think "marriage" is defined as a union between a woman and a man (something I'm not entirely on-board with, whoa! me the progressive, but I digress).
Let's consider that some African-Americans may notice that the national unemployment rate is at historic lows.
Let's consider that some African-Americans may notice that national GDP is robust and that a robust national economy will improve their quality of life like it improves everyone's, rising GDP being the color-blind agent it is!
Let's consider that many African-Americans have wealth and just may think paying taxes on the same money four times! (from the paycheck; on the interest or dividend; on the capital gain; and at DEATH) is obscene so they, too, are offended by a death tax.
Let's consider that many African-Americans want to have their children educated in a school that can actually deliver an education to their children. Hmmmm . . . now there's a idea. Ask the African-American parents of children now actually being educated in Philadelphia and Cleveland through a voucher program if they're pleased.
As I have written before, you do not have to have white skin to have your values offended. Democrats have taken the African-American vote for granted for far too long. The Republican Presidential candidate in 2008 will get more African-American votes than President Bush got in 2004 because, as we all now know at ZACKlyRight, not all African-Americans are Democrats.
So, in order to get this post, you need to have read the post prior where I cut and pasted an article from the Boston Globe from last Monday. The whole gist of the article was to discuss the dilemma for Democrats in addressing "majority-minority districts (those districts packed with a specific minority - meaning African-American because if you read the article it never occurs to the national Democrats or the quoted African-Americans to acknowledge the Hispanics - so that a candidate is positively elected by that minority; yes, at ZACKlyRight we understand the implied racism and we are offended by it)". The dilemma is, since African-Americans vote fairly monolithically for Democrats (for reasons ZACKlyRight readers cannot understand and we will discuss below), should "majority-minority districts" be gerrymandered to include fewer of the targeted minority in the hopes that the neighboring district, with more of the targeted minority, just might vote for a Democrat candidate?
Okay, now having read the article where the entire thesis of the article assumes that ALL African-Americans are Democrats, let me tell you that NOT all African-Americans are Democrats.
Here are the numbers from the 2000 election, Bush vs. Gore (courtesy of CNN.com; these are facts so no chance for their extremely liberal bias to influence):
Bush 50,456,000 votes and 9% of the African-American vote versus Gore 50,996,000 votes and 91% of the African-American vote.
Here are the numbers from the 2004 election, Bush versus Kerry (courtesy of CNN.com again):
Bush 62,040,000 votes and 11% of the African-American vote versus Kerry 59,028,000 votes and 89% of the African-American vote.
Now, I don't know exactly how many African-Americans voted in each election and I don't know if African-Americans turn-out in a greater percentage than any other demographic. But, assuming such rates did not change dramatically from 2000 to 2004 (a very safe assumption), way more African-Americans voted for a Republican for President than at any other time in recent memory. A larger percentage (11 versus 9) of a much larger number (121 million total votes versus 101 million total votes) voted for the Republican. I believe that the African-American population was about 11% of the total US population in 2000 and 2004.
Now comes the analysis. Why are African-Americans voting in increasing numbers for Republicans?
Well, let's start with the fact that more African-Americans own their own home now that at any other time in American history.
Let's consider that some African-Americans just might take national security seriously. Or, some take it serious enough to not trust their kids safety to a man like Sen. John F. Kerry who constantly denigrates the US military, cannot vote for funds for Humvee armor-plating, waffles on sending our troops to war, and puts way too much faith in the French government and not enough in the British or Israeli governments.
Let's consider that some African-Americans are as offended by partial-birth abortion as any other demographic.
Let's consider that some African-Americans just may think child rapist/murderers should be put to death (as the US Constitution clearly allows).
Let's consider that some African-Americans, a huge church-going demographic, just may think "marriage" is defined as a union between a woman and a man (something I'm not entirely on-board with, whoa! me the progressive, but I digress).
Let's consider that some African-Americans may notice that the national unemployment rate is at historic lows.
Let's consider that some African-Americans may notice that national GDP is robust and that a robust national economy will improve their quality of life like it improves everyone's, rising GDP being the color-blind agent it is!
Let's consider that many African-Americans have wealth and just may think paying taxes on the same money four times! (from the paycheck; on the interest or dividend; on the capital gain; and at DEATH) is obscene so they, too, are offended by a death tax.
Let's consider that many African-Americans want to have their children educated in a school that can actually deliver an education to their children. Hmmmm . . . now there's a idea. Ask the African-American parents of children now actually being educated in Philadelphia and Cleveland through a voucher program if they're pleased.
As I have written before, you do not have to have white skin to have your values offended. Democrats have taken the African-American vote for granted for far too long. The Republican Presidential candidate in 2008 will get more African-American votes than President Bush got in 2004 because, as we all now know at ZACKlyRight, not all African-Americans are Democrats.
posted by Zack at 7:42 PM
7 Comments:
outstanding effort on the last two posts and good for you in trying to discuss several touchy subjects, well done.
if 8% of the US population is homosexual, should 8% of the House be homosexual?
anonymous, you ask a great question and I know you know the answer, but allow me.
Of course, the House SHOULD NOT be 8% homosexual if 8% of the US population is homosexual.
Buried in the article, for those that missed it, is a sentence about how 12+% of the US population is African-American but ONLY 9+% of the House is. I think this is where anonymous gets the question.
If someone could tell me where we would draw the line with this craziness, then at least we could begin the conversation. How about Asian-Americans? Native Americans? Singles vs. married? Smokers vs. non-smokers? Catholics vs. Jews vs. Muslims? Etc.
Or, like I suggest in my post, just maybe Madison's Factions kick in (opinions on national security, abortion, taxes, marriage, etc. uniquely define us and how we vote) and none of the discriminating characteristics that I mentioned in the previous paragraph need to be "recognized" with a seat in the House.
Or, if a "district" is designated to be an "Asian-American" district, are the non-Asians in that district disenfranchised? I think I'd argue "yes" but only to the enlightened that think an "Asian-American" district makes sense.
Finally, if anyone is offended that 1% of the US Senate is African-American, please call all of your voting friends in the great state of Maryland, there is a dynamic man, Michael Steele, running for US Senate and he is black. Let's double the African-American representation in the US Senate! Oh, Mr. Steele is a Republican? Oh, then, he's the "wrong kind" of African-American according to our liberal friends.
Excellent post. This is completely off-subject, but this is a question only you could answer. Are "al-Fedabans" the same as "fifth columnists"? If not, please differentiate. Thanks.
ROC,
What's with all the questions today?
No, I don't consider al Fedaban Americans the fifth column.
First, I'm almost positive fifth column efforts are clandestine and al Fedaban Americans are anything but that.
Second, I think fifth columnist are loyal to something more than the entity they are thought to be loyal to. This is not al Fedaban Americans and this may be my fault given the name I derived. The driver of al Fedaban Americans is a dislike (I'll not use the hyped word "hatred") of America not a love of all things al Qaeda, Fedayeen or Taliban.
I think those two distinctions support my answer. Please let me know if you disagree and please supply your argument if you disagree.
as i've written a few times, good stuff, specifically on the race observations
tread gently with al fedaban comments, though
Let me start by saying that I recently read Taylor Branch's three volume biography of Martin Luther King/history of the Civil Rights movement through the 60's (which is a bit too heavy on details, but overall very good), and I must say that I have a new found appreciation for the struggles that African-Americans had to go through to preserve the basic rights that they should have had all along. Some parts of the story are truly astounding and eye-opening.
I agree with your posting on Race-Relations III that it is far too simplistic and just plain wrong to say that there are ___% _____-Americans, so there should be ___% of _____-Americans in Congress.
I disagree, however, with your assertion here that "the entire thesis of the article assumes that ALL African-Americans are Democrats." The thesis of the article is whether Democrats and minority representatives that have pushed for and succeeded in getting re-districting that creates heavily minority districts have shot themselves in the foot, so that they should re-think their strategy. This doesn't assume that ALL African-Americans are Democrats, but rather recognizes the historical fact that the vast majority of them are. I agree that purposefully re-districting along racial lines is inherently racist, and am generally opposed to the widespread practice of both parties to re-district in ways to gain political advantage (but can't ever see the practice disappearing).
Although believing that purposefully re-districting along racial is inherently racist and therefore problematic, I struggle with the counter-vailing fact of how difficult the fight has been for African-Americans to achieve a meaningful right to vote and the many ways in which voting practices historically have been rigged against them. So, to what extent should we allow re-districting along racial lines to counteract history? I don't know the answer, and struggle with it.
In the end, I don't think there's anything exceptional about the article you cite -- it's merely politics as usual.
Conscience, one of my points is we have to stop noticing each other's skin colors. Yes, yes, yes, African-Americans were harmed immeasurably. I say that there are simply no workable fixes to right those wrongs. But today, the African-American, Catholic, non-smoking, married, father of three with a job, a mortgage and no money saved for his kid's college education has way more in common with me than he does with an unemployed, uneducated (most probably due to the failure of an inner-city machinery headed by Democrats), African-American or that I do with an unemployed, uneducated (most probably due to the failure of a suburban NEA action) caucasian. Are not the first African-American and I going to vote for politicians that protect and educate our kids? The politician that will protect our job? Are he and I really going to notice skin color? Well, I guess the racist among us will. Why all the attention on skin color? This has got to stop. The sooner it stops the sooner we move onto healing. The longer we point out skin color (pre-hiring) and then ask that it be ignored (after-hiring) the longer we have to go until the healing can begin. I've got two books I need to get through then I'll know more: Shelby Steel's White Guilt and Juan Williams' Enough. I'll most def. do a post after these books.
Post a Comment
<< Home