« Inefficient credit booms | Main | Markets in everything, lawsuit edition »
Wrong on Race
Here is Bruce Bartlett´s new book, here is an overview. Incendiary, etc. The positive suggestion is that the Republicans should, and will need to, start courting black voters, and that greater electoral competition in this manner will help the courted parties. The main theoretical question is when the statute of limitations runs out for holding the background of a party against that party. I don't have a clear view on that question, although for individual candidates I think that the time horizon should be quite long.
Addendum: Here is a Matt-Bruce exchange. Perhaps I posted this link without enough explanation. What I find so interesting is why Bartlett remains a Republican, or from the synopsis seems to. After all, he has come close to endorsing Hillary. Whether you like that or not, it is a big step for someone from his market-oriented background. Does he stay a Republican because he thinks Republicans are better on race issues? I haven't read the book, but I thought there were many interesting issues going on in this new work of his. I am sorry to have given rise to an exchange with nasty comments. They've been deleted. I might add I believe there is plenty of racism all around; the interesting positive question is why it takes one form (more open) in Republican circles and another very different form in Democratic circles. Wage and other data show that discrimination is not especially concentrated in Republican areas, I hope to post more on that topic soon.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 24, 2007 at 10:12 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
if a single mention of states' rights 27 years ago is sufficient to damn the Republican Party for racism ever afterwards,
What nonsense. Whatever Bartlett thinks about those accusations, they are based on vastly more evidence than Reagan's speech. And the quotes from Democrats, some of them pretty ancient, do nothing do disprove Krugman's assertions about the party-wide strategy of the Republicans over the last 40 years.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Dec 24, 2007 10:32:55 AM
Does this ignoramus understand that the term "Democrat" currently has a meaning and represents a constituency 180 degrees from what it did 150 years ago?
Posted by: meter at Dec 24, 2007 10:49:28 AM
Tyler, Why would you want to link to disreputable nonsequitors like this? Leave it to the loony pages where it belongs.
Posted by: A student of economics at Dec 24, 2007 11:28:48 AM
The fundamental problem is that the Republicans can't play the interest-group game nearly was well as the Democrats because philosophically they claim to represent the national interest, not sectoral interests. In practice, of course, many of their policies are targeted to specific groups either in intent or in outcome, but the Republican Party has to deny this, or they become the cheapskate version of the Democrats.
The specific problem of attracting black voters, for the Republicans, becomes "what policies can we enact which will benefit the nation as a whole, but will have particular resonance among black voters?" The Republicans would lose far more votes than they would gain by becoming soft on crime or increasing welfare handouts, which are two policies which black voters appear to strongly favor. They can support ending discrimination, but strongly supporting affirmative action (as it is now practiced) will also lose them many votes.
About the only issue available to the Republicans is education, which many black voters don't really care much about (look at school politics in black-majority school districs for proof). In fact, the Republican party has made the attempt, with NCLB, which, if the Republicans were more willing to make explicit interest-group appeals, they would call "No Black Child Left Behind", since by mandating that schools achieve better results with their lower-performing students, they are mandating that schools do a better job educating black children. However, between the Republican Party's distaste for making specific interest-group appeals, and the strong support of several prominent and powerful Democrats for NCLB, the Republicans have not been able to take advantage of the Democrats placing the teachers' unions interests ahead of black people's interests.
Posted by: Anthony at Dec 24, 2007 11:35:44 AM
I think there were many german-american communities that didn't vote democratic because of Wilson's entry into WW1 against the Germans. This animus lasted until they died.
Posted by: eric at Dec 24, 2007 11:50:28 AM
Well that dramatically lowered my view of Bruce Bartlett. Shall we start discussions of free trade with the views the parties held in the nineteenth century?
I am not sure of the answer to Tyler's question although I think his point on individuals suggests a way - while a party is dominated by individuals who once held a point of view, then it is fair to hold that against the party. The other thought I had on the subject is that party reputations outlast the realities on which they were based.
Tom
Posted by: Tom G. at Dec 24, 2007 12:37:10 PM
There is no form of "reaching out" to black voters that will work for the Republicans if it doesn't also involve cash payments. Black voters vote Democrat because they get paid to vote Democrat. All the rest is nonsense.
Posted by: Randy at Dec 24, 2007 12:43:46 PM
Anthony:
"the Republican Party's distaste for making specific interest-group appeals"
Seriously?
Posted by: songar at Dec 24, 2007 12:47:54 PM
Anthony:
"the Republican Party's distaste for making specific interest-group appeals"
Seriously?
Posted by: songar at Dec 24, 2007 12:49:34 PM
"The Republicans would lose far more votes than they would gain by becoming soft on crime or increasing welfare handouts..."
What blacks support "soft on crime" policies?
Posted by: Angel at Dec 24, 2007 1:09:38 PM
That op-ed is beneath the level I would have expected to see here.
Actually it's undoubtedly the dumbest thing I'll read this week.
Sounds like he's saying up until Lyndon Johnson the Democrats pandered to Southern racism and now Republicans do, which is Krugman's point.
Posted by: curmudgeonly troll at Dec 24, 2007 1:45:40 PM
I want to live in the universe that Anthony inhabits. It sounds very pleasant.
I don't think it even says anything particularly bad about Republicans that Anthony's fantasyland version of them is so hilariously wrong. Political parties are more or less coalitions of interest groups with overlapping (and often conflicting agendas), who nevertheless cooperate to wield power. It might theoretically be nice if political parties acted more in the service of some abstract "national interest," but even this is not so clearcut. "Interest groups," after all, are sometimes referred to as "citizens." Democracy's a bitch.
All that said: my god, you have to be deluded to point of derangement to suggest that Republicans are somehow averse to interest group politics.
Posted by: Adam at Dec 24, 2007 1:49:57 PM
The republicans are soft on crime (if the felons are white). Step up
Scooter,Caspar and Elliot Abrams.
Posted by: Scooner at Dec 24, 2007 1:50:16 PM
I seem to recall the Bush administration making a big deal of NCLB's helping minority/disadvantaged students. Then again, that may have been because they never make any deal (big or small) out of helping minority or disadvantaged people.
Posted by: johnleemk at Dec 24, 2007 2:03:47 PM
Centuries?
Gore Senior voted against Civil rights Acts in 1963.
Who nominated Clarence Thomas? and who lyn
ched him?
Who nominated Powell and Condoleza Rice?
and who nominated more afroemerican to the bench?Bush ,and the democtrats stalled the game TWO YEARS
Not in the xix century by the way
Posted by: Juan at Dec 24, 2007 2:31:37 PM
"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme. That is why we Southerners are all Democrats."
--Sen. Ben Tillman (D., S.C.), 1906
Chairman, Committee on Naval Affairs, 1913-19
Remind me--what are Southerners all now?
Posted by: Andrew at Dec 24, 2007 2:55:28 PM
The most pro-black policy is to stop illegal immigration and drastically reduce legal immigration of non-college educated foreigners.
The second most pro-black policy is to slow down outsourcing of manufacturing to China and others.
Both policies are highly beneficial to lower and middle classes and, dare I say it, highly beneficial to the country at large.
Negatively affected groups like government employees and college professors should be provided funds for retraining.
Posted by: mik at Dec 24, 2007 2:59:58 PM
In the book I discuss both the implications of immigration for attracting blbalcks votes by Republicans and the need to put something on the table by talking about reparations. Those who want to know more about what I say will have to read the book.
Posted by: Bruce Bartlett at Dec 24, 2007 3:05:58 PM
Juan:
I love that you recite a list of nominated African-Americans as proof your party isn't anti black. Name me a singly elected black Republican.
As of 2006, there were 23 elected black Republicans at all levels of government -- local, state, and federal. There are zero black Republicans elected at a national level. There are fewer elected black republicans in this country than there are from the Green Party. There are fewer black people at the Republican Party's highest levels than there are in a single inner city classroom. But they nominated Clarence Thomas, so they must be ok? They nominated and humiliated Colin Powell, so they are pro black? Don't make me laugh.
Posted by: Tom In Texas at Dec 24, 2007 3:10:15 PM
"the need to put something on the table by talking about reparations."
Started celebrating early? What are you drinking?
Can I get reparations from Egyptians and Italians?
Posted by: mik at Dec 24, 2007 3:11:58 PM
"You may now proceed to call me a racist. . ."
You're a racist. The label is true, and your assertions are, well--merely assertions. One may be "economically illiterate" to believe that the government can cut taxes yet continue to function as it has in the past. Let's see: Bush and a Republican (read "conservative)congress cut taxes. Bush and a Republican congress continued spending and the deficit grew.
I keep my household budget. I learned early on, without studying great economic theorists, that if I didn't have enough money coming in to cover what was going out I would go into debt, and the debt would continue to grow until I either increased my income or changed my spending habits. That understanding makes me neither "economically ignorant" nor "emotionally irrational" nor a Democrat.
John, your thought processes are somewhat aberrant. I'm not saying they're "liberal" or "conservative", but they certainly are not unlike the thought processes of a racist.
Posted by: melonman at Dec 24, 2007 4:53:47 PM
The parties are more or less equally balanced in most of the country, with the major exception of the South where the Republicans dominate. How did they start to dominate - quite simply they adopted the racially polarizing politics (that were once the bread and butter of Democrats, but there was also not a southern Republican party back then either) that drive one race to vote for one party and another race to vote for another. Fortunately, for the Republicans there are more whites than there are non-whites in Southern states.
Except for a few pockets of minority-majority regions where Democrats dominate (ironically Republicans used to do well in these areas) the so-called Southern strategy has been a boon to the Republicans. Here's why the national party won't make a serious/legitimate outreach to African American voters (and by serious I don't mean putting out a press release or nominating Powell or Rice to a cabinet post): their domination among Southern whites is built on a solid majority of conservatives/lean conservatives and race conscience whites who know they are voting for the "white" party.
Take a state like Georgia that is (for math's sake) 70% white and 30% non-white on election day. Your average Democratic candidate gets 90% of the non-white vote and about 25% of the white vote for a total of about 45% of the statewide vote. Now lets say the Republicans broaden their appeal to go after blacks, say by focusing on moral conservativism (anti-gay being a likely target) and peal away 15% of the black vote. But in the process, they de-emphasize race among the white voters who vote based on such things and lose 15% of the white vote in the process as economic issues (anti-free trade, for example) once again dominate the voting patterns of those voters. Well guess what - if Democrats only get 75% of the non-white vote but increase to 40% of the white vote that puts them at 50.5%.
In other words, there goes the Southern power base of the party. Add in the fact that eventually a Democrat would be smart enough to come along and neutralize some of the other social issues (like abortion) and would completely dominate in an election where race is de-emphasized. While fewer non-Southern whites vote as heavily race-conscience in the rest of the country (though racial concerns certainly play a part elsewhere ahem Mayor Rudy Giuliani anyone?) and the math of a non-white shift (in exchange for losing some white voters) may make sense, the Southern Republicans who have built their dominance on this formula would go out of their way to prevent the national party from making this shift.
Posted by: Chris at Dec 24, 2007 6:02:38 PM
The belief that the republicans can do anything to appeal to blacks if laughably stupid. Being a Democrats is just part of black culture now since most blacks have never for a Republican in their entire lives.
When you look at changing demographics in the U.S., the Republicans are now in a position from which there is no recovery. The Republicans are a minority party that will lose more votes than they gain with any demographic appeals.
If you want to see the future of politics in the U.S. just look at California . The Republicans are a minority party there that will just keep getting smaller and will so be totaly irrelevant to politics.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Dec 24, 2007 6:50:58 PM
Angel - every black person quoted in the newspaper saying "he was a good kid - I can't believe he killed someone" is a soft-on-crime voter, if they vote.
The voting majority in Oakland is soft-on-crime, judging by the election results over the past 40 years. (So is the voting majority in San Francisco and Berkeley, but 40 years of one-party liberal-left rule has priced out most blacks from those cities, and the majority of the vote is very white.)
Posted by: Anthony at Dec 24, 2007 7:16:51 PM
Songar and Adam -
Republican appeals to interest groups are generally much more set in terms of overall national interest, rather than in terms of direct appeals to specific groups.
Republican sound bites:
"Lower taxes to help the economy/create jobs"
"Tough on crime"
"Strong foreign policy"
"Fix welfare to end dependency"
"Stop illegal immigration"
"Protect the children"
Many of these are quite possibly aimed at specific interest groups, but the general message is that these policies will be good for all Americans, except possibly government employees and parasites.
Democrat sound bites:
"Tax the rich"
"Protect defendants' rights"
"Help the poor"
"Enforce civil rights/affirmative action"
"We can't deport 12 million people"
Most of those are far more nakedly appeals to specific groups in the Democrat coalition, and it's not common for Democrat candidates to make a case that these are not just matters of "fairness" to those groups, but that they benefit all Americans.
Posted by: Anthony at Dec 24, 2007 7:25:11 PM
Anthony: Can you not see that no amount of logic-twisting will render "every" person of any color a "soft-on-crime voter" just because he/she may have failed to see the true nature of a neighborhood teenager or adult. The statement "I can't believe he killed someone" has been expressed by many (ever watch the evening news?) of all races when expressing their shock that a neighbor or even a family member committed some inexplicable crime. I, for one, cannot believe that "every" one of those individuals is a "soft-on-crime" voter.
Posted by: Phil at Dec 24, 2007 7:30:42 PM
Assigning traits to an entire race is illogical, and does in fact give others reason to distrust your assertions. Is any given black man more likely to be a criminal, murder, rapist, thug or addict than a white man? Unfortunately, yes, he is. But it does not follow from this that any individual white man is somehow more innocent than an individual black man, or that "blacks" in general need to be held accountable for the actions of black criminals, murderers, rapists, thugs or addicts (the later of which isn't even a crime).
Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions; period, end-of-story. Race (and other groupings) can be a useful indicator of the likelihood of certain traits, but thats about it. In fact, race is only used because its obvious. If we had our annual income stamped on our foreheads, that would probably be a more useful means of profiling than race.
Posted by: G at Dec 24, 2007 11:07:01 PM
