The Bartlett Plan

I had to resort to time travel scenarios to try to make sense of Bruce Bartlett's contention that African-Americans should like the GOP on the grounds that "Historically speaking," -- though, crucially, not currently or at any time in the recent past -- "the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats." John Holbo, however, sees zombies as the relevant issue:

But surely if African-Americans feel the need to be specifically receptive to long-dead candidates of not just one but both parties, then a oijia board, not a ballot box, is the appropriate medium.

It would be kind of fun to flip this Bartlett logic over and sort of cross it with Mark Penn microtrends. You could have necrotrends: McCain needs to reach out to recently deceased left-handed soccer moms. Or: Obama needs to be sensitive to the concerns of long-dead jai alai dads. So forth. So long as political considerations are divorced from concerns about biological vivification, the possibilities are endless. If some politician is caught with a ballot box stuffed with the names of the deceased, he could defend himself on the grounds that only letting the living vote is sheer ‘animism’.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping the reanimated corpse of Jesse Helms won't be haunting us, but the hosannas directed at him by the leaders of the conservative movement should remind us that the contemporary Republican Party has little continuity with the racial legacy of the pre-Goldwater, pre-Buckley version of the thing.

Comments

Thanks for the link. I hadn't quite decided whether it was a zombie story or a seance story when I wrote the post. Should we imagine a Mark Penn-like figure, like the kid in "The Sixth Sense" - 'I poll dead people'? Or are we supposed to imagine that the Republican party has William McKinley stashed in a shed somewhere, perhaps playing video games, like the former roommate at the end of "Shaun of the Dead"?

I could go either way. Bartlett will have to make a tough decision, jumping one way or the other.

Posted by jholbo | July 18, 2008 4:12 AM

Why choose? This is America dammit! Surely we can find room for both visions in this great country! I think that the Spiritualists and the Zombiephiles can reach across the aisle and find common ground to solve Bruce Bartlett's dilemma.

Si se puede!

Posted by DMonteith | July 18, 2008 4:25 AM

Your time-travel explanation was much clearer. Don't forget to post the new url.

Posted by Chris Dornan | July 18, 2008 4:28 AM

It's always possible that Jesse, like Ser Branca Doria, was taken to hell several years before he actually died, and his body animated by a demon...
(cf. Inferno)

Posted by ajay | July 18, 2008 4:49 AM

A typically goofy post--blinkered partisanship enhanced by historical ignorance.

Not only did Lincoln free the slaves and defeat the Confederacy, and subsequent Republican administrations push against Democrat-lead segregation and racial terrorism, none of LBJ's civil rights initiatives would have stood a snowball's chance in hell without the votes of liberal Northern Republicans.

Eisenhower moved forward aggressively with the full integration of the armed forces started by hesitantly by FDR and fiercely opposed by Democrats, and was the President who sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce Brown vs Bd of Ed. Nixon greatly expanded social programs targeting Black Americans, and Bush has appointed more of them to higher offices than anyone.

Good luck in your new career, Matt. I'm hoping for a more balanced and informed blog from your successor.

Posted by robert powell | July 18, 2008 5:31 AM

Powell: You didn't actually read any of the post or earlier stuff, did you? You just sort of glanced at it and just spun up the pompous generator to full power as you thought it was necessary here, too, as you do on each and every occasion.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 5:38 AM

How surprising, robert powell is as ignorant about the scope of Republican racism as he is about international relations and the use of force.

Posted by Not as stupid as robert powell | July 18, 2008 6:07 AM

I guess Powell will be voting for zombie-McKinley.

Posted by jholbo | July 18, 2008 6:13 AM

"none of LBJ's civil rights initiatives would have stood a snowball's chance in hell without the votes of liberal Northern Republicans."

Posted by robert powell | July 18, 2008 5:31 AM

You mean the virtually extinct group of Republicans generally referred to by most Republicans as RINOs?

"and Bush has appointed more of them to higher offices than anyone." ibid

Well, 90% or so "of them" have made their verdict on Bush. Ingrates, huh? New Orleans is a small price to pay for having Colin Powell reduced to Presidential Doormat and Condi Rice elevated to flatter-of-chief.

You're citing Nixon as a reason blacks should support Republicans? Really? And your other examples are so old as to fall neatly within the time-frame of when Matt acknowledged Republicans deserved (and earned) black support.

"full integration of the armed forces started by hesitantly by FDR and fiercely opposed by Democrats" ibid

There's a reason those Democrats became Dixiecrats and then, wait for it, Republicans.

As for reanimating Jesse Helms, I hope they bring him back for Obama's inauguration.

Posted by Aleks | July 18, 2008 6:59 AM

Who cares it? Just want to date a rich man on Ric hki ss.c om. So many certif ied mil lionaires there. Let me have one. The rich, just come on, to kiss me! haha...

Posted by omg | July 18, 2008 7:02 AM

Must be a trend. David Brooks' NYT op-ed this morning explains how electorates facing great periods of national reorganization choose conservatives to enact it. His examples are Benj Disraeli and Theodore Roosevelt. That other Roosevelt guy--obviously an outlier. And the Johnson fella--well as Mr Powell graciously explained was merely a NewEngland Repub in disquise. See, everybody, it really does make sense. We've just been misunderestimating conservatives. C'mon guys!!

Posted by JohnMcC | July 18, 2008 7:16 AM

Note that Powell is also wrong about desegregation of the armed forces, which was accomplished by Truman. This official Army timeline is almost over by the time Eisenhower takes office.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 18, 2008 8:09 AM

Note that Powell is also wrong about

I've found it saves time to assign this phrase to a simple keystroke combination.

Posted by mds | July 18, 2008 8:20 AM

The latest from Mr. Yglesias' favorite columnist in todays Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

A sample below where Dr. Krauthammer gives Senator Osama the back of his hand.

"Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty. "

Posted by SLC | July 18, 2008 8:20 AM

Remember that Robert "Bobbitt" Powell believes the difference between the two parties on race is now "almost invisible", and that black southerners are going to start voting Republican any day now.

It's quite similar to his belief that Iraqis are going to start begging America to keep troops there. You really can convince yourself of anything when, like Powell, you're filled with hatred toward the darkies.

Posted by 23456 | July 18, 2008 8:23 AM

SLC has convinced me. Charles Krauthammer's penetrating mind and anthropological insights should definitely sway us from electing the narcissist Osama bin Laden.

(Bad news, SLC: Obama's your next President, Florida or no.)

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 8:41 AM

Oh no! It turns out that SLC is actually Dan Rather!

Dan Rather, on Morning Joe, just said something a handful of minutes ago that will dominate a lot of chatter today and will have implications for the race going forward. Asked by Tiki Barber about his take on Fox News' release of the Jesse Jackson off-camera video, Rather premised his take by noting that in today's 24/7 news media culture, you had better be ready for anything you say to be on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow, after being all over TV the day before.

Rather then proceeded to talk about his respect for Jesse Jackson, who had certainly "paved the way for Osama bin Laden." (Yes, the whole name.) Nobody reacted or said a word, and Rather did not notice. To drive the irony point home, he then finished by referring back to the "front page of the newspaper" a 2d time.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/07/ready-for-next-mini-maelstrom.html

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 8:44 AM

Bob,

Truman, the guy you have an undying disdain for, was the one who integrated the armed forces. His move to reconciliation was the beginning of a realignment of conservative democrats to the Republican Party. A list of southern dems that switched parties would be too long to provide here. As for Nixon, I'd suggest listening to his presidential tapes, you know, the ones where he calls blacks "niggers" and jews "cock suckers." What a champion of civil rights he was.

In any event, keep in mind that Robert also was declaring the Democratic Party (the oldest party on the planet) "the Wig Party" of the 21st century," a few days before the Democrats took control of House and Senate.

Posted by Pat Hendrix | July 18, 2008 8:45 AM

The interweb needs more Jai-Alai blogging. Less NAFTA, more cesta!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 18, 2008 8:48 AM

Re Pat Hendrix

Relative to Harry Truman, it should also be noted that the Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond walked out of the Democratic convention in 1948 when President Truman insisted on a civil rights plank in the partys' platform that year. Eventually, Senator Thurmond joined the Rethuglican party, along with fellow traveler Jesse Helms.

Ås for Richard Nixon, it was Mr. Nixon who initiated the Southern Strategy which involved using code words for racism to entice Southern whites into the Rethuglican party (e.g. crime in the streets, welfare cheats, etc.).

Posted by SLC | July 18, 2008 9:04 AM

Robert, what gives you the idea that the southern whites who vote Republican are going to tolerate having their party's politicians serve the interests of African Americans?

You can't overthrow the voters, and southern white voters are the core constituency of the Republican party. As long as that's true, Republicans are never going to be able to have a message that African Americans will want to vote for, unless the south gets demoted to junior status within the Republican coalition, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Posted by Tyro | July 18, 2008 9:09 AM

You and all your commentators continue to miss the point of my book. I don’t expect any Democrat, black or white, to read what I’ve written and suddenly decide to vote Republican because of their party’s past racial sins. The point of the book is to get Republicans interested in the race issue so that they will pursue black votes. There are two reasons why this is important. First, African Americans will be better off if both parties compete for their votes. As virtual captives of one party the Democrats are free to take them for granted while Republicans ignore them completely. Second, I believe that blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals. In the long run I don’t think they can both be in the same party. Since the Hispanic population is larger and growing faster, I think that the Democrats will gradually begin to favor Hispanics over blacks whenever there is conflict between them. I think this will eventually make blacks receptive to Republican outreach. And Republicans are going to need black votes because their immigration policy is driving all Hispanics out of their party.

Obviously, this scenario is not going to play out this year. When I wrote the book I never imagined that Obama would get the Democratic nomination or that the Republicans would nominate someone as soft on immigration as McCain. Nevertheless, what I wrote about are long-term trends. I even think the election of Obama may move them along by displacing the old generation of civil rights leaders like Jackson and Sharpton that were totally wedded to the Democrats. It may signal the beginning of a move by blacks into the political mainstream so that in the future they will vote on issues other than race, which may make the Republican message on taxes, national security etc. more attractive to middle and upper class blacks.

Finally, I would mention that liberals often use distant history to pursue current political goals. For example, Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism, the Hollywood 10, the Rosenberg and Hiss cases and so on are still very alive in certain quarters of the left, such as at The Nation. Liberals also like to dredge up long distant Republican missteps on race. Just a few months ago Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert were making a big to-do about Reagan’s Neshoba speech in 1980. More recently there was much discussion of Jesse Helms’ alleged racism. I don’t remember you or any other liberal saying at the time that this was irrelevant old news.

Posted by Bruce Bartlett | July 18, 2008 9:13 AM

More recently there was much discussion of Jesse Helms’ alleged [sic] racism. I don’t remember you or any other liberal saying at the time that this was irrelevant old news.

Perhaps because Helms was a Senator as recently as six years ago, and was widely described by conservatives as an exemplar of their movement as recently as two weeks ago.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 18, 2008 9:17 AM

Pat Hendrix,

I've been looking for mp3s of those Nixon tapes where he says all the bad stuff. The Nixon library has soundfiles, but they are tame stuff. Do you know of any links?

Posted by freddiemac | July 18, 2008 9:23 AM

"First, African Americans will be better off if both parties compete for their votes."

True. Though I suppose if by competing for their votes you mean turning a blind eye towards the second largest black city in America after a natural disaster, I don't think you'll see many black Republicans too soon.

"Second, I believe that blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals."

Um...no. Wrong.

"Just a few months ago Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert were making a big to-do about Reagan’s Neshoba speech in 1980. More recently there was much discussion of Jesse Helms’ alleged racism. I don’t remember you or any other liberal saying at the time that this was irrelevant old news."

Maybe because some of us can, you know, remember when these things happen. Sorry, I'm just a young whipper-snapper, I don't remember the glory days of Lincoln. So I guess that makes you what, 203 years old now? Perhaps Matt was off mark, maybe the Republicans are actually VAMPIRES and not zombies.

Posted by freddiemac | July 18, 2008 9:28 AM

The reason "Jesse Helms’ alleged racism" isn't old news is that the entire political leadership of the Republican party had nothing but good to say about someone who was, by any stretch, a bigot and racist who never apologized for his strenuous opposition to civil rights and equal treatment under the law for American citizens.

Jesse Helms' death would have been a perfect time to turn the page. Instead, the Republican leadership thought it would be useful to talk at length and everywhere about how great he was. You think black people don't notice things like that?

Posted by Hektor Bim | July 18, 2008 9:33 AM

Bruce Bartlett, I'd also add that if your book argues that Republicans ought to be more open to pursuing black votes, that's laudable. Though it's unfortunate that the idea seems to be that they should do so by becoming increasingly hostile to Latinos.

But what we have before us at the moment is an op-ed, which consists entirely of a recitation of irrelevant (and sometimes inaccurate, as per Nixon) history, bracketed by the claim that in order to increase the GOP's appeal to black people in the future McCain ought to point out this glorious history. But the first step toward appealing to black voters is not pointing out the GOP's history on civil rights; it's changing the GOP's policies and attitude toward black people. (Not that I'm any expert on black votes, I'm just assuming that black people aren't all morons.) And to that extent the GOP's history on civil rights is completely irrelevant. The party could improve itself now even if it had never been the party of Lincoln.

If the goal of your book is to encourage the GOP to appeal to black voters, then I'd suggest you start writing op-eds that actually lay out the policy proposals that will do it. "The GOP Can Be the Party of Civil Rights" rather than "The GOP Is the Party of Civil Rights," especially since even on the most charitable reading "Is" should be "Was."

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 18, 2008 9:40 AM

Thanks for coming by to comment, Bruce.

The point of the book is to get Republicans interested in the race issue so that they will pursue black votes.

That would be terrific! You should first convince them to stop making it more difficult to register and vote, efforts that address no actual problem, and disproportionately impact blacks.

Also, your WSJ column doesn't read that way. It reads as a PR effort to improve the reputation of the GOP on civil rights, rather than doing anything that would actually address the issues blacks face. ("to increase Republican efforts to reach out to African-Americans. He can start by setting the record straight on the records of the two parties on race.")

I believe that blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals.

No more than Irish or Italians and blacks are natural competitors. Surely, as Hispanics, following the trend of every previous immigrant group, prosper and disperse, their views will change. But there's no objective reason to treat blacks and Hispanics as competitors in a zero sum game.

Respectfully, because I appreciate your honesty in many of your recent writings, I'd like to suggest that you come off as slightly condescending to black voters. They have concerns and perspectives that come from a specific context, and mere PR efforts won't get the job done. The suggestion that Obama's candidacy "may signal the beginning of a move by blacks into the political mainstream so that in the future they will vote on issues other than race, which may make the Republican message on taxes, national security etc. more attractive to middle and upper class blacks" is a little tone-deaf, in my opinion.

As to liberal rehashing of history, the point of Reagan’s Neshoba speech in 1980 is that TODAY'S GOP AS IT ACTUALLY EXISTS CRUISED TO ELECTORAL VICTORY ON THE BASIS OF VEILED RACISM. Lee Atwater was pretty forthright about that, as were Nixon advisers Kevin Phillips and Pat Buchanan.

As Jack Kemp has pointed out, THAT is the legacy you have to contend with. The efforts of the GOP in 1870 and 1890 are a little bit less relevant to voters today than the Southern Strategy.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 18, 2008 9:42 AM

freddie,

Most of these tapes have been transcibed and can be found in the LOC. Not posted to the internet as far as I know. Some of the most startling ones have come out very recently. I found them when researching Nixon's policies in Africa. During that research, I was surprised to discover that Nixon was mentally ill.

Mr. Bartlett,

The assertion that democrats take black voters as a given is a predictable and tired Republican talking point. You might be taken more seriously if you didn't use it.

Blacks are not a passive consituency in the Democratic Party; they are leaders in the party and they have helped craft the party platform for 30 years. As for their views on the Republican Party, they're not as dumb as you would like to believe. They recognize that talk about "midnight basketball," "welfare queens," and "state's rights" as a thinly veiled way of saying lazy, gold bricking, criminals that are ruining our public schools.

Face facts, losing the black vote is the price you pay for using the highly effective "Southern Strategy." But as the demographics change, you're going to see diminishing returns on that strategy.

Posted by Pat Hendrix | July 18, 2008 10:03 AM

Bruce, I'm glad to hear that the goal of your book is to get contemporary Republicans to reach out to black voters, but that really didn't come across at all in the WSJ article.

Two thoughts on your comment:

I believe that blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals.

There's a grain of truth to this, but it's a crude distortion to describe this as a zero-sum game between competing tribes. Immigration could conceivably be used as a wedge issue by Republicans to win black votes, but that assumes black voters are comfortable voting for white candidates who push racially-loaded wedge issues against minority groups. I think you underestimate black voters.

Both groups are disproportionately represented in the working class with similar economic needs that Republicans show little interest in addressing. Both groups are also increasingly joining the middle class in large numbers. Both groups struggle with crime in their neighborhoods, with lousy schools, and with discrimination. Their interests tend to overlap.

"I don’t remember you or any other liberal saying at the time that this was irrelevant old news."

Sure, it's old news. But I hope you can appreciate that the Civil Rights Era, which many living people remember well, and Jesse Helms, who served in the Senate less than a decade ago, are considerably less irrelevant than the Coolidge Administration.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 18, 2008 10:09 AM

McCain campaign. Clinton campaign. Republican desire to nominate Ronald Reagan's corpse. Funniest policitical analysis to date, from a Republican watching an early debate: "I began to hope that Reagan's zombified corpse would arise at the next mention of his name (we were at 37 for the debate), anoint a successor, and eat the also-rans."

Zombies: the dominant metaphor of the election, I tell ya.

Posted by Deborah | July 18, 2008 10:29 AM

Bruce,

Just recently Mitch McConnell described Jesse Helms as "obviously" not racist.

How quickly does "recent" become "distant" for you?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 18, 2008 10:36 AM

Republican Party Southern strategy:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

Posted by croatoan | July 18, 2008 10:49 AM

Just a few months ago Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert were making a big to-do about Reagan’s Neshoba speech in 1980.

This has resonance because anyone that watched the early Republican debates heard the name Reagan, in the most hagiographic terms, approximately 328 times per debate.

And while the speech is a little older, the man only left office 20 years ago. And although I am heartened to imagine that we only have 10 more years of carping over Clinton's dalliance, a check of this board's comments will reveal quite a bit of unflattering discussion of Reagan's predecessor, not to mention a few right-leaning folks that find now an appropriate time to rehash Chappaquiddick.

Pat 'Race-Healer' Buchanan, one might also remember, ran a surprisingly effective primary campaign against a sitting president in '92. We don't have to reach too far back to find some real issues. And Helms and Reagan may be history, but they are of the recent and recently celebrated sort.

Posted by Brad L | July 18, 2008 10:57 AM

Bruce:

It's not just the Republican leadership or the official party apparatus that is responsible for black voters' distrust of the party in recent decades. Indeed, it's true that historically the party was very good on race and civil rights issues. And the party leadership is smart enough to avoid anything but appeals to racial harmony and equality.

But imagine you're a black man and you turn on your car radio and pick some conservative talk show. I'm from Massachusetts, so I'll use Jay Severin as an example. He's prominent here, he's a frequent guest on Imus, and I believe he used to be nationally syndicated.

If you'd turned on Severin's show lately you'd have heard him calling Barack Obama the "penultimate affirmative action hire," and, if he gets elected he'll be the "ultimate affirmative action hire." He is "Idi Amin Obama." He is "Yo-bama." Michelle Obama is a "Black Panther." These are not rare or random snippets that I've diligently jotted down in a notebook; this is his general way of talking.

He also spends time decrying the idea as fascist that black people can use the N-word but white people cannot. He told a black caller two days ago that whether he likes it or not the only reason the caller's son is in medical school is affirmative action. He finds it terribly unfair that Barack Obama can make speeches to black audiences about problems facing the black community but he cannot.

You could say that I'm only citing one example, and a somewhat extreme one at that, but I think his attitudes and aspersions are pretty representative of the medium of conservative talk radio. And it doesn't stop there. Go read Power Line's recent coverage of an assault case in Minnesota. Both John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson have made it plainly clear that they think the fact that the perpetrators are black is important and relevant. The comments section on the story are filled with people who use phrases like "black thugs."

As long as people like this are serving the Republican party in any official or unofficial capacity, the Republican party is going to have a difficult time convincing very many black people that their interests will be well-served by it.

Posted by mark f | July 18, 2008 11:16 AM

Mr. Bartlett, spitting on people and telling them it's raining is no way to start if you actually want people to think you are serious. When you use "alleged" in reference to Helms' racism you signal that you don't really know what it means and that you may have no capacity to learn what it means.

Also, the placement of incompetents like Rice in positions of power, I'm certain, does not convince minorities that the Republicans are good on race - only that their brand of aggressive affirmative action shames those it "helps." Republicans say AA doesn't work - and the Republican style doesn't.

Speaking of shaming, let's see who else had a high-profile Bush position - Powell. How much shame did he heap on himself by going on and on at the UN about WMDs?

The modern Republican Party has zero black senators, and one...wait, zero black congressmen. Their outreach program appears to suck. How is it that in heavily southern states where they do well and there is a large portion of black voters they don't have any?

The problem isn't branding. The problem is vapid cheerleading that tells whites that blacks are stupid for not voting for Republicans.

Posted by Circus Freak | July 18, 2008 11:24 AM

"Second, I believe that blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals."

Some people just have creepy worldviews.

Posted by Reality Man | July 18, 2008 11:52 AM

"The problem isn't branding. The problem is vapid cheerleading that tells whites that blacks are stupid for not voting for Republicans.

Posted by Circus Freak | July 18, 2008 11:24 AM"

Which is why Bartlett has shown himself to be part of the problem.

Posted by Reality Man | July 18, 2008 11:55 AM

Meanwhile, anyone interested in zombie voting issues should check out Joe Dante's made-for-cable movie "Homecoming."

Posted by suburban-dc-guy | July 18, 2008 12:03 PM

"It may signal the beginning of a move by blacks into the political mainstream so that in the future they will vote on issues other than race, which may make the Republican message on taxes, national security etc. more attractive to middle and upper class blacks."

Get a clue - African Americans have long voted on issues other than race. And they know that the solutions the GOP offers don't help them.

Shifting the tax burden from the top 1% (Oprah) to the middle/working class (all other black people) does not make anyone want to vote GOP.

Most middle and upper class blacks got there within the past generation, they didn't inherit wealth. So they know they are one job outsourcing, medical emergency, home mortgage disaster away from the slide back into the lower class.

Sending troops (often black) on multiple deployments to Iraqistan to protect ExxonHalliburton contracts is not compelling to African Americans.

The point about GWB appointing lots of African Americans probably was initially well received. Unfortunately, so many of them turned out to be typical Bu$hco toadies and did little to improve African Americans (or anyone else's) lives in America.

Posted by CParis | July 18, 2008 1:22 PM

"Second, I believe that blacks and Hispanics are natural competitors and political rivals."

I think this is a mistake not simply because it essentializes two groups of people, but also because it is based on a false premise. If the belief comes from the idea that issues like immigration are perceived differently by blacks and Hispanics, it has no basis in race. The reason that African Americans might worry about immigration (and I am not sure I would even contend that they do) is out of a class-based fear not a race-based one. People held back by policies that allow the wealthiest 1% to keep more of their money inevitably hurts the poor. Since blacks are disproportionately represented among the poor they would have more to fear in terms of new labor entering the country. Clearly, Latinos and blacks are not natural competitors/rivals. The Republican party would likely receive more minority votes by pursuing policies that would aid the middle/working class instead of pitting racial groups against one another.

Posted by Larettj | July 20, 2008 1:12 PM

Just a few months ago Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert were making a big to-do about Reagan’s Neshoba speech in 1980.

This is another example of selective memory. In fact, that little set-to was initiated by David Brooks's effort to reimagine the Reagan speech and its context. Krugman and Herbert were merely responding to Brooks's revisionist history.

Trying to whitewash racist history, as Mr. Brooks and Mr. Bartlett attempt, is in itself an overtly racist act. It's historical denial of the same sort that has led some racists to propose that the Civil War was substantially unrelated to the practice of slavery, or to suggest that the Confederate flag didn't serve as a universally understood racist symbol.

So this sort of thing is ludicrously counter-productive to Mr. Bartlett's stated goal of enticing African Americans to give the Republican Party another look. With apologies to Godwin, it's like trying to attract Jewish voters by denying the Holocaust.

To argue in this dishonest, racist mode is merely going to alienate African Americans, not entice them to give the Republican Party another look. But it's pretty clear that Mr. Bartlett's intended audience is not blacks, but white Americans who are uneasy about supporting a party that includes white supremacists. There, he may have better luck.

Posted by politicalfootball | July 21, 2008 4:51 PM