How Can the Republican Party Make Small Inroads Among People of Color (POC)

[anonymous50]

                        This post asks a very hypothetical question.

                       

                          How can Republicans increase their share of POC (People of Color) voters?

 

                         A lot of points I made in previous posts will be reiterated.

                        A person of color is someone who is not considered traditionally white, meaning they are not of predominately European origin. This includes blacks, Asians, and the majority of Hispanics. Sometimes it even incudes darker Caucasians such as Arabs and Indians.

 

                        They really can't do it by their policies, especially with the party leaning closer to fascism, nationalism, and xenophobia just as the Democrats are leaning closer to Socialism and Marxism.

 

                        But maybe they can employ a divide and conquer strategy among minorities (especially among black people).

 

                        Let's start with the ADOS community. Not only could they try to keep as many of the small minority of traditional black conservatives, but also court the Red Pill Black Manosphere community online. There are already black incels that blame the findings in Moynihan Report (1965) for kicking black men out of the home and replacing them with black matriarchs. This is also a talking point among white, pro-family conservatives as well.  This could create political divisions between black men and black women with more black men voting Republican and black women remaining Democrat. Black Manosphere content creators such as Obsidian Ali and Oshay Duke Jackson profess to be Republican.

                         
                        Another way the Grand Old Party could increase POC voters is to declare Hispanics as being white.  What many people may not be aware of is that technically Hispanics are considered white anyway even though most nationalities are of mestizo or mixed-race descent. Of course, they are not treated as nor regarded as white by white people. But a century ago, they did not look upon southern Europeans as being white either. My grandfather always said that whenever a Mexican gets a nickel, he wants to be white. This goes back to the colonial days of Latin America when Criollos (the ruling white Latin American minority of predominantly European Spanish ancestry) considered their mixed blood offsprings as white if they had education, money, status and a minimum of non-European features. There is a saying today in Brazil and other Latin American countries that money "whitens."  There are some Hispanics that are legitimately white like Spaniards, Argentines, and white Cubans in Miami.

 

                        Hispanics voting Republicans is not something that is impossible, especially before the age of Trump. I still remember the Texas gubernatorial race of 1998 when George W. Bush was running for re-election before he ran for President. He courted Latinos vote and got nearly 50 percent of their vote. With demographic changes inevitable, at some point in the future the Republicans could say screw the racist and xenophobic populism that is so prevalent in the party today and go back to Jr. Bush's model of the open tent.

 

                        If Hispanics are looked upon as being white, that would increase tensions between them and blacks because they would no longer see themselves as an oppressed people. Thus, they would think they are better than blacks.

 

                        A second way the GOP could increase its turn out among ADOS voters is to support a separate racial category or "other" for black bi-racial people.  I mentioned this on my first post before I became a member that this was once proposed back in the '90s. But two black congressmen voted against it. The reason why they opposed it is because if bi-racial blacks were no longer seen as being traditionally black, they would not be as loyal to the black community as far as civil rights issues are concerned. Observation has shown this to be true. If a person compares American, black-identified bi-racials to multi-generational Dominican mulattoes and South African Cape Coloureds, there is a difference in self-perception. The latter in both cases want to identify more with their European ancestry and even shun African ancestry. Many South African Coloureds voted for the white Apartheid party. When many Dominicans come to America, the first words they speak in English are "we are not black." If American mulattoes (I still used the term mulatto because bi-racial could mean any racial mixture) adopt a similar attitude, that could increase Republican votes among them since that is the party most associated with white people. But, in order to accomplish this, the one drop rule would have to totally be abolished. I don't think most people, unless they are in the deeply racist Southern states, pay little attention to that anyway unless the person looks black.

 

                        To elaborate on this further, there is somewhat of an emerging third component of the online gender war that I mentioned in my last two posts. The best way I can describe it as the Multiracial Light Skinned (MLS) movement. This is mostly female oriented in that it is a space for light-skinned mixed women to respond to dark-skinned, pro-black, anti-colorist video creators. Basically, it is squabbling between light-skinned black women and dark-skinned black women on YouTube.  MLS side with black men more in the gender war than they do black women.  But they also bash black men and the black community as a whole. They sometimes refer to it as "blackistan."  MLS content creators call for a separate mixed-race classification (as some anti-colorists do). But what they classify as mixed are people who look like they are less than 100 percent full black and have a 25 percent black admixture. This would include a lot of people who are not bi-racial. For example, brown-skinned individuals who have white features like supermodel Iman.  People who phenotypically look like they have non-black admixture could comprise up to 30 percent of the African American population.

 

                        But, regardless of the methods above (even if combined altogether) Republicans use to increase their voting status among POC, it will never make up for the decline of the white population.

 

                        The Democrats once found themselves in a similar position.  As hard as it is to believe today, the American South used to be as Democrat as it is Republican today. The South was Democrat from the pre-antebellum days of Andrew Jackson to the Civil Rights era of Lyndon Johnson. They were a slave holding segregationist party.  Once the Democrats started supporting civil rights, they would permanently lose the white South.  At that time, many thought that the Democratic Party was over. But, by pivoting towards blacks, other minorities, and progressive special interest groups; the party of the donkey was able to reinvent itself by replacing white Southern voters.

 

                        Unfortunately, this won't be the case with the Republican Party as it embraces nationalism that alienates most non-white voters. 

[Pioneer1]

They already are.

In every racial and ethnic group.

[richardmurray]

@anonymous50 to piggy back off of @Pioneer1 the party of abraham lincoln is making small inroads, but I want to state one key point that you don't go into , in my view at least.

 

The population of the usa has a problem. Multiraciality. It may sound crude but the christian fable of babel has governmental value. PEople think of it in terms of many languages but I don't see the lessen in having many languages. the many languages is a cover for the deeper problem,which is, the people wants are not the same. 

People like to say the usa has division, meaning a split of two, di- the latin for two. but  always try to chime in it is a multivision, not a division , in the usa. multi means two or more, not just two. In terms of your assessment to the party of abraham lincoln or andrew jackson, they are both caught in that problem. 

The populace of the usa can not be dominated by the white - anglo-christian-european descended. YEs, many states in the usa can, but not the entire populace.

The USA has the most multiracial populace in humanity but with all its variance that populace still wants results and that means making bridges where none can be made. So, you end up getting the rainbows vote but never being able to provide rain for the rainbows. 

 

The populace in the USA is literally making the working cycle of the two major parties of governance in the usa. Neither said party has the members or strategy to satisfy the populace in the usa, but the populace in the usa has in the minor parties no plans or options that are viable as well. so, its a cycle of impotency in the usa.