Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

You bring up the issue of race and then suggest that I did, do you want to walk that back?

As been written many times, there are divisions within the Republican Party. If J Bush, Rubio and some others think the party has a demographic problem I doubt they will thrive in the party. All the Republican Party needs to do is to stay true to real conservative values.

You think in terms of superficial meaningless characteristics, I don't. If a group of people advocate for government subsidized birth control, that is the issue - not sex, not marital status, not age, etc. I, you everyone fit into various "categories" these categories have grown obsolete, but you and others want to hold on to them for some reason, why? It is very often offensive. Personally when I take a survey or am asked to check a box concerning race, I either ignore it, select other, stop responding or include a comment about the question. Depending on the numbers of others who feel as I do, and I can imagine many people who hold my views do, your data would be wrong.

 

Demographics, including race and ethnicity, are widely accepted across every political and socioeconomic area of study.

In politics they are particularly telling -- Obama won Hispanic votes by 71-27, Asians by an even higher margin, 73-26, and Blacks by 93 to 7.
Add two-thirds of voters under age 30 (higher among single women) and that is hard to beat.

These categories are hardly obsolete as they are the fastest growing segments of the voting public as White voters decline as a percentage of voters or as Condi Rice (another one of those obsolete Republicans?) said, "The Party is losing 'important segments of the electorate because it has not adjusted to changing demographics."

Many Republicans get it. Others will cling to a rigid ideology that is moving farther and farther away from most Americans.

Selfishly, as a Democrat, I hope the extremists among the Republicans prevail. But they present the greatest obstacle to bringing the country together to find common ground, and for the good of country, I would prefer that the pragmatic conservatives of the past prevail.

 

I say it is obsolete. First, given DNA science we know race is meaningless. Ethnicity or national origin is less important for each succeeding generation that has migrated here. What is the difference between a Italian American and a Greek American whose family has been here for over 100 years? And so it will be with newer ethnic groups who immigrate here. At some point it is about the issues - and all these other things are of no value in understanding society. I believe that some in our society have a vested interest in categorizing people in meaningless ways to gain/maintain power, their own selfish motivations. You can go along, I resist it.

If the majority of American want a more liberal nation, they will prevail. Real conservatives do not need to compromise their views. Those that play into the narrative you outline are doing it for political purposes - that is clear and perhaps we can simply agree on that.

 

I wish you were right about demographic influence, Ace. Here's to working toward the day... Unfortunately, race, creed and gender are still powerfully influential in American politics. Simply choosing to disregard them in favor of a strict dogma would be a mistake.

 

From my perspective, it is a good thing for the country that you're not a public policy analyst, economist or sociologist, many (most?) of whom recognize the significant political, economic and social impact of demographic changes in race/ethnicity (and age) the country is experiencing.

Demographics have always impacted most domestic public policy issues. To ignore the significant changes currently underway in those demographics is putting rigid, uncompromising ideology over pragmatic and achievable public policy on issues that that we face as a nation. As a divided country, we will best be served by putting those ideological differences aside as much as possible and finding common ground to address the numerous public policy challenges.

Establishment Republicans are coming back around to that point of view (where they were in the 70s-90s). It doesn't mean abandoning one's beliefs, but finding a way to work together for the greater good.

The Tea Party types and the far right evangelicals are not. I guess we'll see who will prevail in the internal war within the Republican party in the coming months/years.
--- merged: Feb 12, 2013 at 10:37 AM ---

Rock on dude....my foreign brother from another mother!

 

It takes individuals taking individual steps.
--- merged: Feb 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM ---

I am not saying all demographics are obsolete, some of the traditional categories are. I would argue that young urban males from South Central Los Angeles are a demographic group that has much in common with young urban males from the South Side of Chicago regardless of race/ethnicity/national origin - but less in common with young "black" males in upper middle class zip codes throughout the country or an 80 year-old "black" Southern Baptist great-grand-mother. The key is understanding the demographics that are actually important. For example I think it would be a mistake for the Republican Party to change its stance on immigration, thinking they will get Hispanic votes. I think the views of conservative Hispanics are generally the same as all conservatives on this issue. I think Democrats would love to see conservatives go into a period of chasing its tail like a dog does, just going around in circles accomplishing nothing. Democrats can keep their advice to themselves.

Why are so many rich white men still running the country? I would argue because we see people in terms of race/sex/sexuality/ethnicity/national origin. However that is changing.
--- merged: Feb 12, 2013 at 2:15 PM ---

I disagree. In the eyes of many the solution to poverty and violence is misguided because they miss the key issue. The most impactful thing we can do as a society to reduce children living in poverty and young males growing up to become violent is to reduce the frequency of single mother households. This is not an offense to single mothers or to say single mothers can not do a good job or that other family structures can not work - but it is clear to me where we see the most poverty and the most violence we see the highest frequency of single mother households. Young men need fathers in their lives. One to provide the additional security (secure children do better in all areas) and two to help teach adolescent males the skills of conflict resolution. Trying to eliminate guns is a waste of effort, throwing more and more money into broken school systems is a waste of money. We know what works. Strong families equate to strong communities. I doubt passing out free condoms will make much difference. This is not a religious issue.

 

What is the Republican stance on the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country?

Other than misrepresenting a path to citizenship (with fines, back taxes, going to the end of the line....) as amnesty?

 

There are differing views on this question. What is common is that there is agreement that the border has to be secured first.

Some support a path to legal status, which may be a status that is not citizenship.

 

I hope you dont think the Arizona solution is one view...given that the Supreme Court ruled that three of four major provisions are unconstitutional.

what is common is continually changing the parameters.

A permanent second class status?

 

Start from my response to DC, I don't think classifications based on race have any value in establishing policy. Do you follow that?

Or, not caring about the person's ethic background, sexual preference, or religious beliefs and caring about the individuals ability. To some it was a big deal when Anderson Cooper, CNN stated he was gay, I thought so what. My opinion did not change one way or the other. I am not saying people need to hide anything, people should be comfortable being who they are, but if what they are is not relevant then it is not reverent. To me these are not difficult issues, so yes, if I go to Hooters I want to see what I am going there to see - I don't want to see a gay dude. If gay dudes want their version of Hooters, go for it.

 

You dont think language is a factor is establishing immigration policy at the local/state/federal level? For example, that cities should not have programs to help integrate Spanish speaking immigrants?

 

You could be a bit more specific. But I do believe law enforcement should have the right to request proof of identity if they have legitimate probable cause. I do not support random checks with no probable cause. I think the intent compared to the technicality of the Arizona law is what is in question. I believe I am in support of their intent. I recognize that intent alone is inadequate.

This will be the case until some serious legislation is put on the table.

If that is what you would call it, I would not. But if giving a person who is not a US citizen an expedited right to work/live/study/vacation/etc. the right to do those things is bad, please explain how? Heck, what if they don't want to be a citizen?

 

I don't understand your question. Language has nothing to do with immigration policy. But, I do believe local communities should provide resources to people needing language assistance for government services.

 

The integration of immigrants, including providing language services to non-English speaking immigrants, requires knowing who and where they are -- demographics.

 

Again, in my response to DC. He provided a graphic showing a trend for "white" voters, there has been discussion regarding the Republican Party becoming more "white". I read that as an indirect way of saying that Republicans are becoming increasingly racist. A single category. If that was the implication, I say let's discuss it in a direct manner. If I am misinterpreting the implication in the data, tell me why it is relevant - I think it has no value. I also explained that people like me, we won't answer the question - how many people like me are there. My guess is that the numbers of "black" Republicans in survey and poll data is under represented - not by a lot but maybe enough to show some differences.

True, because i believe we should focus on factors that have meaning.

 

No where did I equate White voters with racism.
--- merged: Feb 14, 2013 at 5:48 PM ---
A 2000 federal law requires the federal government and governments that are recipients of federal aid -- including virtually every locality -- to provide services to people who speak limited English (communities have latitude in how to implement those rules, and the extent to which they want to provide services beyond the minimums required by law.)

How is that to be accomplished w/o demographic data?

 

I think it is primarily the individual's responsibility to integrate into a community. But in terms of national origin, I realize and I stated, that there is a difference between first generation immigrants and decedents of immigrants whose families may have been here for a very long time. At some point it becomes meaningless, to try to track Italian, from Greeks - used as an example in a previous post. So, yes, If I am a government official working the Canadian boarder, I would accommodate the needs of those people. If I worked the Mexican boarder I would accommodate those people.