the gop outreach that dare not speak its name - google groups

7/30/2019 The GOP Outreach That Dare Not Speak Its Name - Google Groups

1/3

3/29/13 5:he GOP Outreach that Dare Not Speak Its Name - Google Groups

Page ttps://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/groundswellgroup/A2fVMXgomls/KMvY0KZ8Og4J

Google Groups

The GOP Outreach that Dare Not Speak Its Name

Cutrona, Danielle (Judiciary-Rep) Mar 28, 2013 11:56

Posted in group: Groundswell

March 28, 2013

The GOP Outreach that Dare Not Speak Its Name

!"#$%&'()*&+,,%&'-

Mitt Romney's disappointing 2012 defeat has unleashed an orgy of GOP self-reflection aimed atwinning in 2016. Alas, nearly everything entails "outreach" and "inclusion" to assorted minoritygroups plus ending the alleged Republican "war on women." Disbelievers should enter "GOPpandering" into Google--1.6 million hits as of March 24th.

But of all this pandering, the most important is the official100 page Growth and Opportunity Projectissued by the Republican National Committee Chairman and its chair Reince Priebus. RNCresearchers spoke with some 2,600 people both inside and outside of Washington, lots of voters,technical experts, party members and elected officials, an assortment of pollsters, some 600Hispanic voters and former Republican voters who thought the party was either too little or tooconservative. Some 36,000 people also contributed their thoughts online.

The bottom line: "Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Partywhose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us. We need to remainAmerica's conservative alternative to big-government, redistribution-to-extremes liberalism, whilebuilding a route into our Party that a non-traditional Republican will want to travel. Our standardshould not be universal purity; it should be a more welcoming conservatism."

Specifically, "We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans anddemonstrate we care about them, too. [Young and low income people were included elsewhere.] Wmust recruit more candidates who come from minority communities. But it is not just tone that

counts. Policy always matters." The Reportabounds in lines such as "We've [Republicans] chased

the Hispanic voter out of his natural home." Inclusion might even require filling party positions byquota and rebranding the GOP the Growth and Opportunity Party."

But absent from the outreach was the one group whose future mobilization holds the greatestpromise for a GOP victory -- whites especially white males. This is the pandering that dare notspeak its name and its omission is especially odd since today's Democratic Party has a lock ontargeted constituencies, e.g., African Americans, gays, pro-abortion women among others. Note
http://www.americanthinker.com/robert_weissberg/http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspxhttp://www.americanthinker.com/robert_weissberg/


2/3



we , we are no spea ng o some w e na ona sm a n o re- a ng a w e coun ry. s s a oupromoting measures no different than those policies targeting minority groups, e.g., improvedaccess to higher education.

Intentions aside, the inclusionary tactic seems futile and almost guaranteed to alienate theRepublican ideological core. A savvy elected official surely knows that when seeking votes, huntwhere the ducks are, and today's ducks are white Republicans, not the handful of gays or pro-abortion women.

A small sampling of statistics make this whites-are-the-ducks strategy apparent (these data areculled from various sources, see hereherehere and here). Overall, Romney received 59% of thewhite vote in 2012, a far cry from the 64% share from Reagan's victory in 1984. Moreover, even asAmerica becomes more diverse, whites still comprise 72% of the electorate. The most tellingstatistic is that in 2012 whites cast seven million fewer votes than they did for the lackluster JohnMcCain. By comparison, blacks increased their turnout by 300,000 and Latinos by 1.7 million.

Evidence from battleground states is even more depressing for the GOP. Romney lost Ohio by 2%and received 57% of the white vote (whites comprise 79% of the Ohio electorate). If Romney hadcaptured 59% of the white vote in Ohio (his national average among whites) he would have carried

Ohio. Ditto for Iowa, where whites are 93% of the electorate. Here he received a paltry 51% of thewhite vote and thus lost the state by five percentage points. In sum, If Romney could have matchedReagan in attracting whites, 2012 would have been a GOP landslide.

So, why the Report's glaring omission? Let me suggest that appealing to whites as "an ethnic groupis now taboo, and the prohibition exists regardless of the appeal's economic allure or similarity toappeals made to other demographic groups.. Such electoral rhetoric automatically certifies theadvocate as racist, a nutcase, xenophobic and, worst of all, hateful.

Imagine a GOP candidate addressing college-aged whites. He might stress how their chances for adecent education have been undermined by affirmative action, a process probably personally know

to every listener. That is, black and Hispanic high school classmates admitted to top schools, usualwith generous scholarships while better qualified white classmates settle for second tier schools witless financial aid. Further add tuition increases thanks to costly campus diversity bureaucracy andfeel good identity courses. Moreover, this reverse discrimination will continue long after theygraduate as skin color and ethnicity trump merit in the quest for good jobs. Our GOP candidate

promises an apple pie and motherhood solution: a level playing field for everybody.

What about blue collar workers? Our candidate will describe how wages for the average factoryworker have gone nowhere, even declining over the past few decades and much of this stagnation,he asserts, results from unchecked immigration. In fact, even more skilled workers are hurt ascorporations recruit low cost foreign engineers and computer specialists from abroad.

How about the local Chamber of Commerce? They will hear how Washington imposes pointless,costly burdensome rules to prevent assumed racial and sexual discrimination. Yes, the speakercontinues, we all know that good workers, regardless of color or ethnicity, are hard to find so whyshould we be forced to hire the less qualified to avoid costly litigation? Does bigotry trump economiself-interest? Further add government contract set asides at a time when small business survival isdifficult enough.

How about attractin mothers and those lannin families? The s eech would stress how their
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/08/demographics-of-election-2012-behind-the-numbers-part-i/http://www.dickmorris.com/whites-stayed-home-and-re-elected-obama/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2012&oldid=538768822#Voter_demographicshttp://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president?hpt=elec_racenav


3/3



children's education is often hindered by Washington's incessant meddling to achieve "social justice-- forced busing that often means fleeing to a private school, the suburbs or home schooling, schoodiscipline by racial quota, requiring lessons heavy on feel-good invented history and dumbing downif not abolishing classes for the gifted. Again, an apple pie and motherhood solution: good publicschools.

Examples could be multiplied but the point should be clear: a campaign targeting whites even with

motherhood and apple pie proposals would elicit heartfelt cheers from massive crowds but,simultaneously, howls of outrage, accusations of racism and all the rest from "respectable folks."The GOP would be accused of trying to restore Jim Crow (or worse), depriving the disadvantaged oa deserved opportunity to catch up to whiles, stigmatizing Hispanic students and encouragingdangerous racial stereotypes. Ironically, of course, the opposite coming from a Democratic, e.g. yetmore affirmative action, would be hailed as genuine compassion (save, of course, those pushedaside). In other words, Democrats have mastered the art of demonizing Republicans by making themost productive electoral strategy unthinkable.

What might the future hold if the beleaguered GOP truly embraces the Reportfor 2016? Not only wthe Democrats win the presidency, but the party may fracture, perhaps something akin to the

Democrats in 1948 (Strom Thurmond running as both a Democrat and a States Rights DemocraticParty) who received 39 Electoral Votes. OrGeorge Wallace who ran in 1968 under the AmericanIndependent Party banner winning 10 million votes and carried ten Southern states while almostwinning Tennessee and North Carolina as well.

To repeat, we are not advising the GOP to embrace white nationalism. Reaching out to Democraticconstituencies is, moreover, always a useful strategy no matter what the odds of success. Our poinis less controversial: the Republican Party seems paralyzed to pursue its own best electoralinterests and one might surmise that any party so easily intimidated does not deserve to govern.

Time for a duck hunt.

Page Printed from:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/03/the_gop_outreach_that_dare_not_speak_its_name.html at March 282013 - 10:54:40 AM CDT
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_gop_outreach_that_dare_not_speak_its_name.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_campaign,_1968#General_election_resultshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

the gop outreach that dare not speak its name - google groups

Documents