A Reply to Ebony Magazine

While one must acknowledge the inexcusable and insensitive remarks made by Messrs. Lott and Helms, Mr. Gilmore cherry-picks these instances to suit his own biases, while blithely ignoring other facts that are inconvenient to his claims.

Javier E. David

With the election of Barack Obama as the nation’s first African-American president and the negative perception of Republicans as a backdrop, the irony of two African-American candidates are currently vying to become chairman of the Republican Party could hardly be more brutal. And should either Ken Blackwell, former Secretary of State of Ohio, or Michael Steele, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland prevail, they will certainly have their work cut out for them: rebuilding a demoralized and divided party, improving a badly tarnished brand, and seeking to make inroads with an ethnic group that is likely to remain intensely loyal to the president-elect. For most observers, the words “poisoned chalice” spring most readily to mind.

Part of the (many) challenges either Mr. Blackwell or Mr. Steele will face, specifically among African-Americans, is a reflexive, perdurable hostility toward Republican policies - neatly encapsulated in an article that appeared in Ebony Magazine on December 15th.

Written by Washington, D.C.-based lawyer and writer Brian Gilmore, the piece ostensibly explores a laundry-list of options available to Messrs. Blackwell and Steele as they embark on a seemingly monumental task of improving the GOP’s image with blacks. The article simultaneously demonstrates why it is often so difficult for Republicans to penetrate the wall of anti-conservative propaganda that has cemented around the African-American and Latino communities.

After openly declaring that he “long ago gave up on any chance the Republicans would progress in a meaningful way”, Mr. Gilmore appears to at least hold open the possibility that either Messrs. Blackwell or Steele can reform the party’s image with minorities. But in doing so, the author indulges gross generalities about the causes and effects of black and Latino obduracy toward Republican policies, and often engages in flippant, simplistic intellectually slipshod reasoning in order to make his case - made worse by the fact that Mr. Gilmore is a lawyer who ought to have a better command of the facts.

The GOP’s alienation from the black community is widely known and due to a variety of factors. However, one of the many conclusions reached by Republicans in the aftermath of the 2008 elections is that the party badly needs to attract more people of color and improve its image with both African-Americans and Latinos. While the ascendance of the first African-American to a major party ticket this year was always going to make that proposition difficult for the GOP to achieve, the cumulative effect of missteps, misunderstandings and a lack of genuine interest in cultivating minority communities over the years ultimately expressed itself with devastating impact in 2008: the GOP presidential ticket attracted a scant 5 percent of the black vote, and only about a third of Latinos. Clearly a tableau of structural factors — a rapidly deteriorating economy, a highly unpopular incumbent President, the polarizing conflict in Iraq - took their toll, but it’s clear that Republicans have a massive challenge to confront in the years to come.

In his article for Ebony, Mr. Gilmore breezily glides over most of these built-in disadvantages, and immediately deploys the same specious charges and double-standards that often undermine Republican minority outreach efforts (however lacking they may be). Asserting that the modern-day GOP “is not the party of Abraham Lincoln,” and that it is “preposterous to keep invoking Lincoln when the party has racial division down to a science at this point”, Mr. Gilmore goes on to state that “the Republican Party of recent years is Trent Lott and Jesse Helms not to mention George ‘Macaca’ Allen of Virginia.”

While one must acknowledge the inexcusable and insensitive remarks made by Messrs. Lott and Helms, Mr. Gilmore cherry-picks these instances to suit his own biases, while blithely ignoring other facts that are inconvenient to his claims. During his two terms, President Bush made several high-profile appointments of African-Americans and Latinos to his government, including the first two African-American Secretaries of State (Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice), the first Hispanic Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales) and filled top posts at the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with blacks. And like other (liberal) commentators who appear all too eager to propound the meme of Republicans being rich, white and racist, Mr. Gilmore also ignores the long (and in some cases very recent) instances of Democrats demonstrating their own cultural insensitivity or outright racism (www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110011033).

Among the issues raised by Mr. Gilmore in his litany are the charges that the GOP sees the government as “the devil” and the party’s supposed affinity for tax cuts for the wealthy. These charges, too, are a distortion of the party’s positions on key policies.

Conservatives do not believe the government is “satanic” in its nature, but should be limited in its size, scope and function while addressing only America’s most pressing needs as prescribed by the Constitution. It is also meant to empower individuals to determine their own fate, while allowing states and localities to address their citizens needs better than an omnipotent and omnipresent federal government.

The idea of restricting the caprices of an arbitrary and bureaucratic federal government, while emphasizing that government is not the solution to every problem, is a fundamental precept of Federalism that is not at all meant to “demonize government” as Mr. Gilmore derisively claims. And cutting taxes for businesses and ALL citizens, and not just the wealthy, is a key ingredient for economic growth - as even members of President-elect Obama’s economic team have acknowledged during their professional careers. And yes, Mr. Gilmore — tax cuts actually do increase revenues to federal coffers; before the current downturn, the federal budget deficit had begun to contract as tax revenues surged under President Bush’s tax cutting agenda.

A 2002 survey by the Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies found that despite the Republicans’ image problem, between one-third and one-half are sympathetic to Republican Party issue positions — suggesting that with hard work, the GOP could eventually broaden its appeal among younger African-Americans. While African-Americans and Latinos may continue to identify with the Democratic Party for the near future, minority public opinion is neither as liberal nor as monolithic as conventional wisdom would suggest. Both groups tend to be culturally conservative, and possess an entrepreneurial sensibility that expresses itself by way of small-business ownership.

Arguably, the sole basis of agreement with Mr. Gilmore’s article can be found in his analysis about Affirmative Action — though once again the author can’t seem to resist the temptation to indulge himself in more anti-Republican myths. It has never been conservatives’ intention to use affirmative action as a “racial wedge”, as Mr. Gilmore states. Conservative opposition to affirmative action tends to hinge on the societal impact and the constitutionality of race-based preferences, which ultimately harms the groups such programs are designed to help. With Mr. Obama’s election, perhaps we can all look forward to the day when the question of addressing past discrimination lay in the rear-view mirror, while still remaining vigilant about confronting racial discrimination and insensitivity wherever it may appear. In that vein, efforts to bring an end to affirmative action should be rendered moot, and can indeed “die a natural death”, as Mr. Gilmore so aptly describes.

Mr. Gilmore does his readers a disservice by not articulating a more balanced view of complex topics. To be clear, the GOP must do far better in its efforts to compete for black and Latino votes, and should avoid the divisive rhetoric and personalities of the past that has traditionally driven many minorities away from the Republican Party. That being said, observers such as Mr. Gilmore would do best to stop propagating tired myths, and could try to make a concerted effort to at least meet the GOP halfway.


Javier E. David holds a Masters Degree from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). He is a successful New York City public relations specialist and advocate for the Republican Party.

Can Hip-Hop & The Republican Party Co-Exist?

Public Enemy” discussed in their lyrics the movement towards
independence from the federal government, a solid Republican principle. The GOP for the last twenty years has struggled to present and market Republican policies in low-income neighborhoods across America. Perhaps Hip-Hop is the new solution to a dying brand amongst our youth.

Brandon Brice

In a recent rap song, featuring hip-hop icons Nasir “Nas” Jones and Jay-Z titled, “Black Republicans”, the concept of being a black republican has become the new mantra for hip hop moguls. The word “Republican” has experienced a form of ethnic taboo, suggesting that Republicans equate to old, white and wealthy males.

As a young black Republican the presumption is that the culture of Hip-Hop and the Grand Old Party can co-exist together. What if Jay-Z or LL Cool J supported a candidate like Gov. Mitt Romney or Gov. Mike Huckabee, on the basis that economics and self-sufficiency is the solution towards black empowerment? Imagine if MC Lyte or Lil Kim supported Secretary of State Condi Rice in an effort to promote the idea that black women can achieve anything in Congress or the White House when granted equal opportunity, not handouts. Def Jam founder, Russell Simmons has already designed and promoted a credit efficiency credit card for educating low-income families on financial literacy, a possible accomplishment to highlight for the GOP in 2012.

The Hip-Hop culture, which started out as a voice for neglected communities in the Bronx, has committed itself as a vessel of success for many young artists, since the 1970’s. Statistically hip-hop has created more black entrepreneurs than any industry in America, which in many cases correlates the message of the GOP. Historically, the Grand Old Party has contributed to the abolishment of slavery, the Women’s Suffrage Movement to vote and many other civil liberties for Americans. On the contrary, the Hip-Hop revolution has spoke on behalf of black issues in America, pertaining to oppression, poverty, women’s rights, injustice and empowerment for minorities.

Perhaps the idea of the Republican Party reflecting the changing dynamics of America can become a reality. It can illustrate a social and political shift in wealth from Wall Street trickling down to Main Street. Rap artist and political based groups like , “Public Enemy” have all discussed in their lyrics the movement towards independence from the federal government, a solid Republican principle. The GOP for the last twenty years has struggled to present and market Republican policies in low-income neighborhoods across America. Perhaps Hip-Hop is the new solution to a dying brand amongst our youth.

Brandon Brice - a graduate of Howard University and is a former graduate of the New Jersey Eagleton Institute of Politics fellow at Rutgers University. As a long time member of Republicans for Black Empowerment, Brandon is an active contributor to HipHopRepublicans.com. Brandon Brice has worked as a policy intern for the former House Speaker Honorable J. Dennis Hastert and has served as a fellow at the United Nations. He has been featured on C-SPAN’s Road to the White House, BET’s What’s At Stake and Hot97 with Lisa Evers. Brandon is a proud member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc, and attends the Greater Abyssinia Baptist Church in Harlem.

The Case for Housing Choice

From Harlem to Atlanta, the site of huge project buildings can be a sore spot for any developing community. The question that many people have concerning these government run facilities is are they empowering people or are they hindering them.Most of these facilities are run by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and exist to provide low-income housing tenats with housing alternatives. Over the years, a few Republicans have come up with an alternative reform view to such facilities known to policy specialist as Housing Choice.

The Heritage Foundations Dr. Ronald D. Utt, is one of the Housing Choice movement’s strongest advocates. One issue that Republicans can use to retake and remake the inner city is the issue of Housing Choice a policy very similar to school choice but with a focus on the project industrial complex industry. Never the less there is a well organized group of housing advocates and project building maintainers who prefer the status quo. The Democrats of course love these facilities because having thousands of people packed in one place can be very useful around election time.

If you would like to read more about Housing Choice, please see the article below from Heritage detailing a few suggestions on empowering the poor to home ownership.

The article is entitled Time for a Bipartisan Reform of Public Housing

INTRODUCTION

Because public housing serves only the poor, typically in large complexes of a hundred or more units, families assisted by this program are rigidly segregated from the rest of society, always by income class and also by education and workforce participation. In the major urban areas, public housing residents are segregated almost exclusively by race. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find another American institution that induces measures of racial segregation as effectively as does public housing.

To read the entire article please visit http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/BG1081.cfm

LARRY ELDER COMMENTARY: Suppose The Shoe Thrower Targeted Saddam

H/T BookerRising The libertarian Republican commentator, on the Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George W. Bush:

“Let us pose a few questions. Suppose one or both shoes hit their mark. What if President Bush had been struck in the eye and been seriously injured? After all, in the chaos, press secretary Dana Perino was injured when a microphone struck her in the eye. Would some in the media have considered it as comical had the reporter targeted Barack Obama? It is, after all, quite reasonable that the incoming President will be the subject of a greater than usual number of threats. This raises another question — how did the Secret Service allow the man to get off not one, but two attacks?”

He continues his commentary: “Suppose the Iraqi reporter had thrown his shoes at Saddam Hussein. During the dictator’s 24-year reign, Saddam killed an estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens. Some place the number at more than a million. This means that, on the low end, over the past six years, a still-in-power Saddam would have killed 75,000 people. Since the March 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq, the Iraq Body Count — which many consider reliable — puts the number of violent Iraqi civilian deaths at between 89,000 and 98,000, a number that includes ‘insurgents’ and civilians killed by them.

But Iraq now has a fledgling multi-sectarian democratic government, a better economy — and a free press. ‘All over central Iraq,’ wrote the BBC mere months after Saddam Hussein’s fall, ‘independent radio and television stations are suddenly emerging to fill the void left by the destruction and collapse of the old national broadcaster. Iraqis are enthusiastically embracing the possibilities of a free media after years of heavy censorship. Alongside these do-it-yourself radio and TV stations, dozens of newspapers representing every kind of political viewpoint are suddenly available.’ What of the fate of the shoe thrower in today’s Iraq? Eyewitness and NBC news producer Ghazi Balkiz put it this way: ‘(Under Saddam) any insult to the president or the president’s guests used to be punished by death.’ So while al-Zeidi remains in custody, he faces no feet-first visit to the wood chipper. Who knows? Maybe he’ll even get his shoes back.”

Warren, Prayer and “Unity”

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an “awesome God” in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States.

Dennis Sanders

I know that as a gay man I should be joining like everyone else in condemning President-elect Obama in selecting Rick Warren to give a prayer at the inaugeration since he vigorously supported Prop 8 which banned same sex marriage in California, but I’m not.I don’t agree with Warren’s views on this of course, but I’m not convinced that this is a fight we need to pick. Why? Well, I agree with Steven Waldman, Warren has done a lot to highlight and try to solve issues like global poverty and AIDS. He is trying to get other evangelical ministers to not focus so exclusively on gay marriage and abortion and really focus on “the least of these.” He’s still a social conservative, but he is one that takes the Biblical concern for the poor seriously. I can’t ignore that and I think that is something that needs to be lifted up. The more people who are involved in try to solve poverty, the better and I don’t care what their background is when dealing with an issue like poverty.

Second, many gays and lesbians seem to forget that Obama was about bringing people together. Let’s go back to that speech that made him a household name in 2004:

It is that fundamental belief — It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an “awesome God” in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Now, politicians always talk about “bringing the country together” and then govern as a pure partisan. While I still have my doubts, I think Obama really means what he says. I think he really wants unity, to find some way to get beyond the petty partisan bickering and towards some true American consensus.

Many who are now angry at the Warren selection talked a good talk about coming together and unity. But unity for them meant being in totally agreement. In essence, it meant politics as usual, except with a liberal face instead of a conservative one.

The fact is, the guy is living what he said four years ago. He is trying to build bridges, not create new chasms.

I don’t agree with Warren on same sex marriage. However, his work has shown that while he might not appease some gays and liberal interest groups on this one issue, he is not a James Dobson.

Besides, we gay folk need to pick our battles and not go after everyone who supported Prop 8. Objecting to a guy that goes to the Third World and feed sick kids makes us, not Warren look bad. Gays need to be about making the case for gay marriage, not acting as some kind of ’star chamber’ for those who disagree with us.

I’m not saying we can’t criticize Warren or any other person for their role. But lets show a bit of class, shall we?

Dennis Sanders is a pastor living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has worked on centrist Republican issues for years, including stints as President of the Minnesota chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (a gay/lesbian advocacy group) and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Dennis blogs at NeoMugwump and happily lives with his partner Daniel and serves two cats, Morris and Felix.

The John Langston Forum

http://blackrepublicans.ning.com/

This Forum is an online social networking forum for Republicans and Libertarians it is in honor of the black abolitionist John Langston