Thursday, November 29th, 2012
9

Democrats: Party Of Racial Division


"In virtually every instance, the idea that the Republican Party is 'too white' is dropped with almost no discussion of what exactly that means. The phrase is being pinned like a scarlet 'W' on anyone who didn't vote for the Democrats' nominee. It's a you-know-what-we-mean denunciation. Its only meaning is racial…. The Democrats' insistence on pandering to political categories is a dead end for the country. Rather than spinning their own Rubik's Cube of race, gender and ethnicity, Republicans should start growing their share of the electorate by doing a better job of telling people how to succeed in the American melting pot, a wonderful organizing idea now mocked as a 'myth' by progressive Democrats. No one can beat the Democrats at the politics of social division."
The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger drops some hard truth about how American politics works.

Tags:

9 Comments / Post A Comment

hershmire (#233,671)

Interesting piece. But what the heck is "racial signaling?"

skahammer (#587)

@hershmire It's the flags they wave at a racetrack to communicate information during a stock-car competition. It's also known as "semaphoring."

Amasa Amos (#9,654)

If the Democrats are the party of "racial division", does that make the Republicans the party of "racial unity"? Sounds sinister.

Julia duMais (#237,428)

Its only meaning is racial

Well…yes? Isn't that kind of the point of the discussion?

G@twitter (#239,748)

I can't tell if this is being quoted ironically or not.

These two sentences, the one right after the other, they contradict each other: "It's a you-know-what-we-mean denunciation. Its only meaning is racial." Presumably "you-know-what-we-mean" means the message is hidden, that "white" is code for something else. I think the guy got "welfare president" and "white" mixed up.

skahammer (#587)

This is how you know the GOP didn't just lose the 2012 presidential election, but actually got embarrassed: Former triumphalists like Henninger start to sound like playground crybabies who've just been pantsed.

Imagine him essaying this tone on the WSJ's editorial page in 2005. You can't.

Barry Grant (#239,287)

Why would you even consider what the WSJ says about race? Or anything else, for that matter?

Helen Bedd (#239,784)

"the idea that the Republican Party is 'too white' is dropped with almost no discussion of what exactly that means."

Really? I see people discussing what it means all the time. The Republican party electorate is 90% white. The nation's electorate is 72% white.

African Americans have been voting Democratic at a 79% to 95% clip for decades now. Twelve years ago Bush got 35% of the Hispanic vote and almost half of the Asian vote. Romney got 27% and 26%.

Almost half of all Republicans now life in the South and 95%+ of Southern Republicans are white. That's not enough to be a national party much longer. That's the kind of thing we're discussing when we're discussing the Republican party being too white.

PS
Hey, Daniel, where exactly is the concept of the Melting Pot now mocked as a 'myth' by progressive Democrats? Got a website?

You might want to look at photos of the audience at the election night rallies Obama and Romney held…Guess which one looked like a melting pot?

Post a Comment