Conservatives and Blacks in Same Boat

Taking a sabbatical from JPP, I have had the time to think about things and make some observations and conclusions about American politics, and life in general. It occurs to me, the black voter has essentially the same problem as the conservative voter in the upcoming election. Both are being largely ignored by their party and taken for granted, while the success of the party relies largely on their support.

Black have historically voted for Democrats in higher numbers than any other voting bloc for any other party. Across the board, this has been true for over 60 years. Conservatives have historically voted Republican, not in the numbers that blacks vote for Democrats, but enough to establish the pattern clearly, and for just as long a period of history. Both conservatives and blacks will vote with the party more times than not, and this is the problem.

The National Democratic Party has long realized it has the black vote secured, as long as it pays lip service to black causes and issues, it can depend on blacks to continue supporting the party, and nothing ever need be promised or done to actually solve the problems or help the blacks. The same is true with the Conservative vote on the other side. The RNC knows that Conservatives are simply not going to vote for a liberal Democrat. They can pay lip service to Conservative issues, and pretend to share the concerns of Conservative voters, but as far as substance, there is none in the platform.

This has largely been the case for years, but this election cycle reflects the phenomenon more than anything ever has. Look at the candidates. Democrats are in chaotic battle between Hillary and a black candidate, whom they have promoted and propped up as their example of racial diversity. Hey, look at us blacks, we have a black candidate! Now, the DNC really doesn't want Obama to win, they just want him to finish well and make it appear the Democrats are proactive in the black cause, representing their black constituents. Obama was supposed to be the 'lip service' but he took off. They didn't count on that. Now they are frantically trying to figure out a way to swing the super-delegates to Hillary and deny Obama the ultimate win.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side, all is not as peaceful and harmonious as John McCain would like us to think. The Conservative base, which makes up a much larger segment of the GOP than blacks in the Democrat camp, are literally ready to set their hair on fire. Frustrated with the inevitable nomination of McCain (not our first choice), the conservatives are looking for something from McCain, some indication that he wants our vote. All he needed to do was play to the conservative base, pay a little lip service if nothing else, it's what we expect! What we get is John McCain on the Global Warming tour with Al Gore.... Hell, John might pick Al as his running mate, wouldn't surprise me a bit! This is what Conservatives get from John McCain, a swift kick in our conservative teeth. Like the blacks in the Democratic party, conservatives are taken for granted, expected to vote for McCain because we can't vote any other way.

While Obama tries to distance himself from Rev. Wright, McCain tries to distance himself from social conservatives. Clearly John is going for the Moderate vote, the Independents, the fence sitters. What he doesn't seem to understand is, there is no moderate position on most of the issues we face. We are either going to secure our borders, or we are not. There is no moderate position on that. We are either going to have universal healthcare or not, there is no moderate position on that. We are either going to fight terrorism or not, no moderate position there either. You can either support the sanctity of life or not, there is no middle ground.

McCain has always been considered a "maverick" and adored by the media who marvels at his humility and ability to reach across the aisle. He is someone a lot of Democrats have respect for because he bucked the party line and sided with them. McCain seems to feed off of this, it's his motivating factor... how many accolades can I get from the Democrats for this? And over the years, the democrats have obliged, they all love John for his style and integrity. Too bad they ain't gonna vote for ya John! You see, you can't out-liberal a liberal, and that is what John is trying to do this election.

As he takes this moderate approach and tries to appear sympathetic to liberal causes, the liberals are going to be trotting out one story after another regarding John's past, his business dealings, his campaign contributors, his personal issues, and any other dirt they can manufacture on the man. It won't even have to be true, just put it out there and let people get a whiff. John is in for the meanest dirtiest fight of his life, and he wants to go pet the tiger and feed him puppy kibble.

I don't know what the solution is for the black voter, it looks like you are in for a few more generations of being taken for granted. Conservatives make up too large a segment of voting Americans to remain silent, and our voice will be heard. Whether that happens through the traditional Republican outlets or not, remains to be seen.
 
While Obama tries to distance himself from Rev. Wright, McCain tries to distance himself from social conservatives. Clearly John is going for the Moderate vote, the Independents, the fence sitters. What he doesn't seem to understand is, there is no moderate position on most of the issues we face. We are either going to secure our borders, or we are not. There is no moderate position on that. We are either going to have universal healthcare or not, there is no moderate position on that. We are either going to fight terrorism or not, no moderate position there either. You can either support the sanctity of life or not, there is no middle ground.

While you make some decent points with respect to how the major parties take their respective "base" voters for granted and simply pay them lip service each election cycle (nothing new BTW), you might want to rethink your definition of "moderate" as equating to "fence sitter". Being moderate doesn't equate to "having no position" at all, nor does it equate to not adhering to a given partisan agenda of priorities, it is nothing more than indication of how ones perspective aligns to both the current status quo and the perceived "direction" and speed of change. It is in other words a place that is found between the extremes and is more commonly known as "the mainstream".
 
Im 1/3rd happy you are back Dixie.

But you are entirely wrong about the Black voter being taken for granted.

Black voters are very excited about this current Democratic field and election.
 
Hey, Dixie. Those "conservatives" you speak of have only been Republicans since the Reagan Revolution and were Dims before that. They are what history calls populists, and you can see how much they have fucked up the GOP and the country by the state of government spending/size/efficiency, the failure to execute a winning strategy in Iraq, and a whole host of issues.

When speaking of conservatism, you have to ask yourself, what would Robert Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. do? These guys were isolationists, and even hesitant to fund the Marshall Plan, because it was a handout to Europe, a foreign entity. McCain is a westerner, meaning, more in-line with old fashioned NE conservatives (like Lodge), which was largely transplanted out here (an inheritence from great men like the Adamses of the founding generation).

McCain has his quirks, like campaign finance (dumb violation of 1st Amendment), and his lip service to "climate change" (although, note that Gingrich others do the same). But he is also strong on spending and immigration (something that you dumbass, xenophobic, Tancrado-ite, southern populist types de-railed, despite Bush's support of it), defense, life, and the usual issues.

Fuck the South. Welcome back, by the way! :clink:
 
Hey, Dixie. Those "conservatives" you speak of have only been Republicans since the Reagan Revolution and were Dims before that. They are what history calls populists, and you can see how much they have fucked up the GOP and the country by the state of government spending/size/efficiency, the failure to execute a winning strategy in Iraq, and a whole host of issues.

When speaking of conservatism, you have to ask yourself, what would Robert Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. do? These guys were isolationists, and even hesitant to fund the Marshall Plan, because it was a handout to Europe, a foreign entity. McCain is a westerner, meaning, more in-line with old fashioned NE conservatives (like Lodge), which was largely transplanted out here (an inheritence from great men like the Adamses of the founding generation).

McCain has his quirks, like campaign finance (dumb violation of 1st Amendment), and his lip service to "climate change" (although, note that Gingrich others do the same). But he is also strong on spending and immigration (something that you dumbass, xenophobic, Tancrado-ite, southern populist types de-railed, despite Bush's support of it), defense, life, and the usual issues.

Fuck the South. Welcome back, by the way! :clink:

It's frightening how much I agreed with in that. But I must get back to collectivizing farms, and plagiarising Charver. We communists share.
 
Hey, Dixie. Those "conservatives" you speak of have only been Republicans since the Reagan Revolution

"Reagan Revolution" ... LOL Gimme a break , If Reagans presidency constituted anything approaching a "revolution" it was a "revolution" of wealth from the poor to the wealthy ..... stop believing everything you hear in Republican primary debates for cryin' out loud, Ronald Regean was a senile old ninny that was fortunate if he could discern his rear end from a hole in the ground on any given day .... in other words the neocons wet dream as a President.

When speaking of conservatism, you have to ask yourself, what would Robert Taft and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. do? These guys were isolationists, and even hesitant to fund the Marshall Plan, because it was a handout to Europe, a foreign entity.
Speaking of non-sequitars , it's 2008 time to join the rest of us in the HERE AND NOW.

McCain is a westerner, meaning, more in-line with old fashioned NE conservatives (like Lodge),
Really is that what "Westerner" means, who knew ? Based on what I've seen from Senator McCain I'd guess that it means self-serving, self-aggrandizing, pompous @ss but that's just my opinion.

McCain has his quirks,
Yeah I guess one could characterize being a corrupt, blood thirsty, warmonger as "quirks".....

and his lip service to "climate change" (although, note that Gingrich others do the same):
"Climate change" ? why the quotes are you one the last hold outs that don't really believe it's happening ?
 
The initial post in this thread is a completely flawed analysis and conservatives and African-Americans are in two very different boats with the conservative one floating rudderless down the river and the African-American boat powering its way upstream.

The conservative boat is in serious danger of crashing and drowning all its riders, while the African-American boat just got a new engine.

There is NO, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH reason for African-Americans to be considered in the same political view as conservatives and no reason for blacks to look to any alliance with conservatives in politics that is not firmly rooted in a liberal perspective.
 
Welcome back, Dixie - how does it feel to have been so woefully wrong about everything over the past few years? Especially Iraq; didn't you call that "the greatest military achievement of our generation?"

Oops....
 
"Now, the DNC really doesn't want Obama to win, they just want him to finish well and make it appear the Democrats are proactive in the black cause, representing their black constituents. Obama was supposed to be the 'lip service' but he took off. They didn't count on that. Now they are frantically trying to figure out a way to swing the super-delegates to Hillary and deny Obama the ultimate win. "

Where is the evidence of this?

If anything, what I see is the opposite. I think we'd see more of a flood of supers toward Obama, but most of them want Hillary to get out on her own terms, and not give an appearance of her being forced out in a way that would alienate her supporters. I don't think there is any question at this point that the party wants to coronate Obama; they know how damaging it would be if Hillary ended up the nominee at this point, without a lead in pledged delegates.
 
"Now, the DNC really doesn't want Obama to win, they just want him to finish well and make it appear the Democrats are proactive in the black cause, representing their black constituents. Obama was supposed to be the 'lip service' but he took off. They didn't count on that. Now they are frantically trying to figure out a way to swing the super-delegates to Hillary and deny Obama the ultimate win. "

Where is the evidence of this?

If anything, what I see is the opposite. I think we'd see more of a flood of supers toward Obama, but most of them want Hillary to get out on her own terms, and not give an appearance of her being forced out in a way that would alienate her supporters. I don't think there is any question at this point that the party wants to coronate Obama; they know how damaging it would be if Hillary ended up the nominee at this point, without a lead in pledged delegates.


I feel sorry for some of her supporters. I have been reading their comments at news sites. Many mothers were supporting Hillary for and with their daughters. They are really crestfallen, and looking for someone to blame.

So yeah, I think that the democratic party is being very cautious.
 
Back
Top