The GOP is spending quite a bit of money and time trying to figure out how to win the next election and many more after that. Here are my thoughts on the matter, entirely for free :)
Discrimination is not a conservative value:
Women's rights, Gay rights, racial discrimination and other so called 'liberal' issues are not liberal issues, they are people's issues. These are issues of people who could become potential GOP supporters. Clearly some aspects of these issues are open for debate, however there are times when the discrimination is clear and in those cases it is not a liberal value to come out against it, it is actually what many would consider a strong conservative value..that of basic fairness.
The GOP does not have to change it's basic stance on these issues, often the arguments presented should be given consideration and are valid, however when the discrimination is clear the GOP should stand up and denounce it. The GOP would then be viewed by many of those in minority groups as tough on these issues, but essentially fair.
The GOP could argue their points condemning the system that deals with discrimination, or the essential fairness of policies that aim to level the playing fields, rather than making it seem that the general stance of the GOP is that discrimination is acceptable because those on the receiving end are not 'real' American's anyway, and don't deserve to be treated any better.
The Government intervention is not always a bad thing:
The Government (of which many in the party are a part), is not inherently evil. The idea that government can have a place in the lives of many in the form of aid to the poor, the elderly, children and the infirm is not a liberal value. Helping those in need is one thing that I have seen run very strong among many conservative and there are times when those who have fallen on hard times need some form of help just to get back on their feet.
Conservatives are very willing to give aid, but often they feel that those getting the aid should be worthy. Nothing that wrong with that point of view, depending on where the 'worthiness' threshold is placed. If you decided that an entire class or race of people are not 'worthy' of help, then it is possible you will be less favorable in voting for, or implementing policies that help them.
This duality is a double edged sword for the GOP, on one hand for example if you want to prevent pro immigration laws from being passed, all you have to do is convince your base that those immigrants are not deserving of help. The problem with that kind of politics arises when for various reasons you now want to pass pro immigration laws. You have now convinced your base that 'these' people don't deserve help and getting conservatives to change their minds once they have made them up, is not an easy thing has the GOP has recently found out. It also becomes problematic to reach out to the communities that have been demonized and ask them to vote for you even if they might agree with you on many issues.
Conservatives are a diverse bunch:
When most Americans think of an American conservative the image of a white southerner tends to come in mind. The truth is many minority and immigrant populations tend to be more conservative in general than the white population in general. Many minority and immigrant groups are very religious even if the churches, synagogs, Mosques and other places of worship are different from those that white conservatives attend. The social values of many of these groups align very nicely with that of the GOP rather than the Democratic party.
As people age they tend to get more conservative, when people are stressed or living in fear they tend to get more conservative and as people marry they tend to get more conservative. This means that the GOP should be winning every election hands down as, if you think about it, America by first world standards, is a very conservative country.
Most Conservatives are not rich
Both parties are often at the mercy of very rich people and corporations, but the GOP seems to be more open about this than the Democrats are. As is the case with diversity, the GOP does not need to become a second Democratic party, but at times, when it is clear that helping the rich at the blatant disadvantage of their constituents, the nation and the environment if the GOP came out and said that in this particular case they could not side with that the rich/corporation, they might lose a couple of supporters (not all that many, where are they going to go after all.. to the democrats?), but they would gain support amongst that... 47% that Mr. Romney thought it useless to even go after.
Again the GOP does not need to alter it's views, policies and values, all they need to do is be fair in some high profile cases even if the person/corporation is a GOP supporter and gives them lots of money. Conservatives just like Democrats respond favorably to anything they see as being inherently fair.
The GOP can win the popular vote
The GOP knows it has a problem when it comes to the popular vote, they have lost it the last 4 elections and would have lost the house with this last election had so many of the districts not been Jerry-rigged. My guess is as time goes on, as minority groups grow and prosper they will start moving into territory that was once considered conservative white America. This will mean that at some point these Jerry-rigged districts might change in demographics and no longer be sure republican seats.
Jerry rigging also makes it hard for those people elected in them to compromise, modernize, or do something needed that their constituency might not agree with. For example in a non Jerry-rigged, diverse community a republican representative will need to play to her base, but at the same time be aware that she can't alienate the rest of the people living there. If she does not, as the demographics change, and if she can appeal to the new demographics with her conservative views she can still win as she would have had to be somewhat of a centrist (this is true of Dems as well) to keep that seat. If you have an ultra conservative Jerry-rigged district, then the representative will have to play only to that audience, and will have to be much more to the right of her non Jerry rigged neighbor.
She will be fine as long as the demographics of her district stay the same, but if they change she is in trouble.
The other problem with Jerry-rigging, is that with a less diverse constituency it becomes harder to do the 'right' but unpopular thing (like agreeing with President Obama on certain issues), as they will simply replace you the next election with a more conservative representative that won't compromise.
Winning at all costs is not always a good idea
As I watched the first for years of the Obama administration I got the distinct impression that one of the calculated strategies of the GOP was to wreck the economy in order to win the election. It seemed like they figured that if the economy was weak, it would be easy to get him out of office, that turned out not to be the case and what we have as a result is the same president in a country that should be in a healthy recovery is not, and the GOP share the blame for this situation.
Personally I think the GOP would have done better in the elections, especially with minorities, single women and the younger generations, if they had focused their energy in getting the economy back on track, not in the least because they would have had less time to alienate whole swaths of American society. If they had done that they might have come up with some of their own counter-policies to President Obama's that might actually have been logical and sustainable. They could have taken credit for better conditions in their own constituencies and for helping the economy get back on track.
Laws that aim to prevent groups that have historically fought for the right to vote tends to have the effect of mobilizing those voting groups in higher numbers. Fighting for the right to bear arms tends to line the pockets of the NRA, the gun industry and thus eventually the coffers of the GOP, however it does not drive people to the polls quite as efficiently as trying to prevent them from exercising their right to vote. And while those in the constituencies that vote republican might not see their party trying to prevent people from voting, the people against whom those policies are directed know with 100% certainty what is happening.
Compromise is not a bad word
There was a time when people were upset that there did not seem to be that much difference between the parties. There were conservative democrats, liberal republicans and quite a bit of cross party talking and deal making between the parties. Once the elections were over, for the most part the parties got down to the business of governing. The other side was not 'Satan' or 'racist', they were simply 'wrong'. This is not just a GOP problem but the GOP have raised the ante this election season and at this point, with 'Satan' still president, the GOP have to figure out how to work with him without alienating their ever dwindling base.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
The Myth of Multiple Americas
How many Americas are there? In a news program about food insecurity, the expert noted that there are two Americas, one which is food secure and one which is not. He then went on to contradict himself by noting that food insecure individuals are in every community and could be your friend, neighbor or someone that works with you. It was interesting that he did not add that 'you' could be food insecure. He went on to note that 1 in 7 is food insecure, stating that if you are on a bus 1 in 7 of the people around you might not know where that next meal is coming from. He makes it clear which America he is talking to, and if you happen to be in the other America, it was clear that you were not part of the conversation, the conversation was about you.
It was fascinating because in the same conversation he spoke about need to stop seeing the problem as about 'us' and 'them', especially when it comes to school meals. He noted that one of the problems with those meals is that they are viewed as charity as 'us' being generous to 'them', with the mentality that because it is charity the kids should be content with just being fed and that it is viewed as something that can be 'cut' as it is in essence a hand out. He argued that we should see this as feeding 'our' kids, even though those kids are poor, often brown they are still American. Yet in this conversation he is talking to 'us' about them and not to 'US' about 'US'. Would it not be more productive to think about one America with different levels of food security? Where everyone is responsible for the problem and everyone is responsible for the solution?
I found something similar in a recent blog by someone who lives in Sandy Hook, CT where a tragic school shooting took place recently. I have to admit I had two completely conflicting thoughts going through my mind when I read the blog. One which empathized completely with her desire for privacy, and the other that was bothered by her use of 'our' school, 'our' tragedy and others wanting to share in 'our' pain.
I live about 30 min from Sandy Hook. After the shooting I wanted to go there pay my respects and to stand for a few mins outside the school contemplating what happened there. I do this whenever possible if I am close to a memorial or site of a major tragedy. I waited a week and then made my way down there, I got off at the exit and stopped just outside the town, there was still lots of traffic in and out of the town. I sat for a moment trying to decide what to do. I did not want to add to the loss of privacy and the congestion in Sandy Hook, and I also was not sure that I would be welcome there. While it might be hard to know for sure if some of the other people visiting were outsiders, being black and having lived 4 years in Ct, I knew that they would know instantly that I was from out of town.
After a few mins, I started my car and drove back home. I will visit the school (or what is left of it if they demolish it) one day to pay my respects and to contemplate the horror that happened there, and that happens all to often in 'other' areas of America (you know, that other, 'other' America, the one filled with poor and brown people). I have to wonder if this had happened in a poor black, Hispanic, Arab or Asian community, if people from the outside would have felt the same compulsion to visit. Is it better or worse for the communities when these things happen for people to care, or for them not to care?
I have never really looked at it going to these places as sharing in 'their' pain, I don't think I really have the right to that. I can never know what it is like to lose that particular person, or what those people went through. What I contemplate is that had I made different choices in my life, had I been born in a different country, or to different people, it could have been me, or my family that was involved in this horror (and not just on the victim side).
I don't have to have kids to try and wonder about the bittersweet feeling of being thankful that your kid survived, while her best friend, a six year old, died from multiple gunshots, or the pain of hearing that your beautiful little boy, was killed, or of being relieved that your 9 year old made it home, just to find out that your 6 year old did not. So I found the statements of many parents in the media that "as a parent I can understand what they are going through.." another way of dividing Americans into different groups, in that case it was a group I did not feel part of, almost as though as a non parent I did not have the right or the ability to grieve for those who had lost the little ones they loved. Were not the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends of those kids feeling pain and loss?
Why is it that those same 'parents' did not seem to feel the same empathy when the children lost were in the inner cities? Was it because they were not part of the same America? It is true that how you experience life in America can be very different depending on where you were born, who you were born to and what gender, race, ethnicity and religion you belong to. It will be different if you have lots of money, it will be different if you are homeless, if you live in the suburbs, the intercity, major metropolitan areas (not inner-city), or rural areas.
How you experience life in America will be different depending on age, if you have a job, if you are religious, married, what your sexual orientation if, what your gender is, if you are extroverted, if you have kids, if you work and so on. But that does not mean that each of those things is a different America. It is one America with many different types of people. It is one America where things like the economy, crime, health care, education and civil rights affect all of us. I fear that until we see this country as one America again, that these divisions that are stalling our economic welfare, will continue as the efforts to separate America into imaginary groupings will only make us weaker as much as we would like to deny it, if some of us fail, we all fail as a country.
It was fascinating because in the same conversation he spoke about need to stop seeing the problem as about 'us' and 'them', especially when it comes to school meals. He noted that one of the problems with those meals is that they are viewed as charity as 'us' being generous to 'them', with the mentality that because it is charity the kids should be content with just being fed and that it is viewed as something that can be 'cut' as it is in essence a hand out. He argued that we should see this as feeding 'our' kids, even though those kids are poor, often brown they are still American. Yet in this conversation he is talking to 'us' about them and not to 'US' about 'US'. Would it not be more productive to think about one America with different levels of food security? Where everyone is responsible for the problem and everyone is responsible for the solution?
I found something similar in a recent blog by someone who lives in Sandy Hook, CT where a tragic school shooting took place recently. I have to admit I had two completely conflicting thoughts going through my mind when I read the blog. One which empathized completely with her desire for privacy, and the other that was bothered by her use of 'our' school, 'our' tragedy and others wanting to share in 'our' pain.
I live about 30 min from Sandy Hook. After the shooting I wanted to go there pay my respects and to stand for a few mins outside the school contemplating what happened there. I do this whenever possible if I am close to a memorial or site of a major tragedy. I waited a week and then made my way down there, I got off at the exit and stopped just outside the town, there was still lots of traffic in and out of the town. I sat for a moment trying to decide what to do. I did not want to add to the loss of privacy and the congestion in Sandy Hook, and I also was not sure that I would be welcome there. While it might be hard to know for sure if some of the other people visiting were outsiders, being black and having lived 4 years in Ct, I knew that they would know instantly that I was from out of town.
After a few mins, I started my car and drove back home. I will visit the school (or what is left of it if they demolish it) one day to pay my respects and to contemplate the horror that happened there, and that happens all to often in 'other' areas of America (you know, that other, 'other' America, the one filled with poor and brown people). I have to wonder if this had happened in a poor black, Hispanic, Arab or Asian community, if people from the outside would have felt the same compulsion to visit. Is it better or worse for the communities when these things happen for people to care, or for them not to care?
I have never really looked at it going to these places as sharing in 'their' pain, I don't think I really have the right to that. I can never know what it is like to lose that particular person, or what those people went through. What I contemplate is that had I made different choices in my life, had I been born in a different country, or to different people, it could have been me, or my family that was involved in this horror (and not just on the victim side).
I don't have to have kids to try and wonder about the bittersweet feeling of being thankful that your kid survived, while her best friend, a six year old, died from multiple gunshots, or the pain of hearing that your beautiful little boy, was killed, or of being relieved that your 9 year old made it home, just to find out that your 6 year old did not. So I found the statements of many parents in the media that "as a parent I can understand what they are going through.." another way of dividing Americans into different groups, in that case it was a group I did not feel part of, almost as though as a non parent I did not have the right or the ability to grieve for those who had lost the little ones they loved. Were not the grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends of those kids feeling pain and loss?
Why is it that those same 'parents' did not seem to feel the same empathy when the children lost were in the inner cities? Was it because they were not part of the same America? It is true that how you experience life in America can be very different depending on where you were born, who you were born to and what gender, race, ethnicity and religion you belong to. It will be different if you have lots of money, it will be different if you are homeless, if you live in the suburbs, the intercity, major metropolitan areas (not inner-city), or rural areas.
How you experience life in America will be different depending on age, if you have a job, if you are religious, married, what your sexual orientation if, what your gender is, if you are extroverted, if you have kids, if you work and so on. But that does not mean that each of those things is a different America. It is one America with many different types of people. It is one America where things like the economy, crime, health care, education and civil rights affect all of us. I fear that until we see this country as one America again, that these divisions that are stalling our economic welfare, will continue as the efforts to separate America into imaginary groupings will only make us weaker as much as we would like to deny it, if some of us fail, we all fail as a country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)