The GOP's Black Problem 

National Review, vol. LII, no. 24
December 18, 2000

Well, I knew it would happen sooner or later. With the election of George W. Bush beginning to look likely, "leaders" of the "black community" are starting to do a little damage control. A recent headline in the New York Times read: "Black vote a concern for GOP." The subhead was, "Lawmakers: Bush will have fences to mend if he is elected."

So Bush has to mend fences? What awful deed did he or the Republican party visit on the black electorate that he should have to mend fences? This question inspires serious reflection on the relationship between the GOP and black Americans, and on the strategy that Bush used to appeal to black voters.

With the razor-thin margin in Florida, many of us have been playing the game of "what if": What if Bush had done this, and what if Al Gore had done that? Well, here is one "what if": What if the Florida supreme court had allowed an initiative on race preferences to appear on the 2000 ballot? And what if Bush had taken a strong stand against those preferences? When I first raised the issue of preferences with another Gov. Bush-Florida's Jeb-in January 1999, I was quickly reminded that race has become a "third rail" issue for Republicans. The GOP, I realized, was embarking on a crusade to show their hearts to a voting segment whose leaders see white hoods everywhere. These race professionals reinforce a victim mentality that cripples many of their fellow blacks and preserves reliance on government and the black power structure. In a contest to show who has more compassion, the GOP would be preaching what blacks wanted to hear, not necessarily what they needed to hear to achieve greater individual freedom and opportunity.

Jeb Bush, fearing that this "divisive" issue would harm his brother's campaign, acted last fall to preempt what I was proposing-the Florida Civil Rights Initiative-by ordering the elimination of some preferences while replacing others with a policy of "race consciousness" that was distinct, but not different, from old-style preferences. The Florida governor said he was "a lover, not a fighter." He acted in part because he believed the myth that increased black turnout on referenda such as mine would devastate Republicans. I continue to find this notion mind-boggling, because the large number of voters who have strong feelings against preferences would easily overwhelm pro-preference blacks at the ballot box.

Consider the findings of a national Gallup poll taken shortly before Election Day. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed opposed race preferences. Even 81 percent of Democrats opposed them. So why are Republicans so timid about taking a principled stand against something that is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people? Why are they so politically deferential to a voting bloc that has shown them nothing but contempt, time and time again?

For an answer, we may look to Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was forced by the likes of Maxine Waters to recant his position on preferences. When it comes to race relations in America, we find many politicians who follow the advice of the old New York mayor, Jimmy Walker: "There comes a time when all politicians must rise above their principles." And if the choice is a) defend the principle of equal treatment under the law and b) appease bullies like Maxine Waters, there is sadly not much difference between Lieberman and the GOP.

Jeb Bush's compromise precipitated a black boycott of his party-but then, that would have happened anyway. The irony is this: Because Jeb took the preferences issue out of voters' hands, black opposition to his brother's presidential aspirations was not countered and overwhelmed by a larger turnout of voters who would have been energized to end preferences.

It is a political myth that the Republican agenda of "cultural issues" has made the GOP inhospitable to "minorities." Part of this myth is derived from the Democratic trend in California since the mid 1990s. Some hypothesize that the anti-preferences Proposition 209, which passed in 1996, was responsible for Republican losses. But the facts do not support this theory. No study has shown how such a popular issue worked against its supporters, particularly if their support was based on a commitment to equal treatment and opportunity, and not crass politics or cynicism.

As elections and polls have demonstrated, the issue of preferences has remarkable crossover appeal among rank-and-file union members, independents, moderates, liberals, suburbanites, Democrats, Hispanics, women, and-yes-blacks. There is substantial to overwhelming support in every demographic group for ending preferences, a prospect that frightens the Democratic party but one that is inexplicably lost on the Republicans. That is why Al Gore tried to make "affirmative action" the battlefield instead of "race preferences." And by avoiding the issue, Bush gave Gore the home-court advantage.

My own view is that, for the good of the nation, Republicans should concern themselves about the principle, not the partisan effects, of race preferences and let the chips fall where they may. But even the most casual political observer must wonder how politicians who support a preference ban in good faith and for all the right reasons can be harmed in the final equation if they stick to their principles. As Prop. 209 coauthor Tom Wood observes, if a politician is not adroit enough to run on a winning issue with compelling constitutional and moral arguments in its favor, then he deserves what befalls him.

Blacks are the only voters in America who stoutly defend race preferences and who apply a litmus test to candidates on the basis of that issue. But Republicans never pass muster with blacks anyway-so what have we got to lose? If preferences are morally incoherent and constitutionally suspect, and our opposition to them can energize other voting blocs, why are we reluctant to support an end to preferences and the reign of true equality? In response to this question, I often hear from professional Republicans that it is simply "too hard" to convince blacks that preferences should be ended. Thus the decision to acquiesce in their continuation.

Yet here is a hard truth: When it comes to race in America, leadership requires directly addressing the misconceptions of the flock and the race-baiting of certain shepherds. Without that kind of commitment, there will be no fundamental change and respect from the targets of conversion. That is, in part, why Bush lost the black vote by a larger margin than Bob Dole did in 1996. Blacks voted for Gore 90 percent to 9. In his home state of Texas, Bush lost by a whopping 93 to 5. It doesn't get much worse than that. If politics is sometimes a game of inches, the disparity between Gore and Bush with respect to the black vote amounts to football fields, not inches or even yards.

To be fair, there were many powerful factors at work. The Democrats and their allies spent hugely on black turnout, and this money was supplemented by a campaign to promote fear-a despicable campaign waged by black leaders as well as by Gore himself.

So what did George Bush do about this effort to solidify the black vote against him? Substantively, his responses were inadequate or vague, with the effect of appeasement, not inspiration. Symbolically, however, no one can fault the good-faith effort of Bush to reach out to black Americans. He did everything possible to let them know that he respected them and wanted their support. He even distanced himself from backers like me to make sure that he didn't send the "wrong message" to blacks. He spoke at the NAACP's annual convention and (needlessly) portrayed his party as not always sympathetic to black people. He gave Colin Powell a prime-time spot at the GOP convention to bash us opponents of race preferences. And at the end of the day, what did Bush get? What did he have to show for his investment? Nothing-zero, zilch, nada.

Here is the nub of the matter: The black vote will remain captive to the Democratic party as long as black people see themselves as victims and view the Democrats as the party of "civil rights." Until black people lose their vulnerability to false and exploitative appeals to these (bogus) "civil rights," it is an exercise in futility for Republicans to modify their basic policy positions in an attempt to garner black support or to suppress that support for Democrats. As the Bush brothers and other Republicans should have learned from this election, no matter what they do to reach out to black voters by demonstrating their "compassion" for them, the black establishment is determined to demonize them. If Republicans are silent or fuzzy on race preferences, Democrats will accentuate their positions on "hate crimes," "racial profiling," the Confederate flag, Bob Jones University, and the like.

An old country song advises one to "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." With respect to Republicans who actively seek the black vote, my counsel is to "fold 'em," because you don't have the cards. This doesn't mean that the GOP should not want black support. It simply means that a different approach is required-one of benign neglect. Treat black voters the same way you treat white voters, or Asian voters.

The 9 percent of black people who vote Republican do not do so on the basis of racial identity. They do so on the values and principles they find attractive in the Republican party. They do so because they have come to realize that "civil rights" no longer transcend other matters in their lives. For them, as with the overwhelming majority of other Americans, their civil rights can be presumed and need not be preeminent in their political calculations. In 1996, that profound philosopher and NBA great Charles Barkley was asked why he supported Bob Dole. The questioner prefaced his question by saying, "Don't you know that Dole is in favor of the rich?" Barkley's response: "I am rich, you a**hole!"

When more black people recognize that the quality of their children's education and the bite of their taxes are far more important than the remote possibility of being the victim of a "hate crime," they will seriously consider the Republican party. Until that reality catches up with and sinks into the consciousness of the typical black voter, the black vote will continue to be cast on the basis of the false symbolism of the Democratic party as the party of "civil rights."

To be blunt, it is absolutely insane for black people to conclude that Al Gore would be about ten times (90 percent to 9 percent) better for them than George W. Bush, when the rest of the nation is evenly divided. Something is wrong with this picture-and it is not the Republican program.

Being the decent man he is, a President Bush would probably make nice to the black establishment-the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, Jesse Jackson-once he were sworn in. He would open his doors to them and use the next four years to build on his 9 percent of the black vote-in the hope of raising it to maybe 10. That would be a mistake, because in 2004 they would kick him in the political groin once again, just as they always do to Republicans. The more appropriate course of action is that old political adage "Reward your friends and punish your enemies." Yes, President Bush must be president of all the people, but it is not necessary that he give legitimacy to the NAACP and others who did everything possible to defeat him, and in the slimiest, most hateful ways. If more black people realize that by putting all their eggs in the Democratic basket they run the risk of being shut out if the Democrats lose, perhaps they might begin to rethink their political options.

It seems to me that the question is no longer "What can Republicans do to earn the support of blacks?" but "Why are blacks so out of touch with the rest of the country?"At some stage, for their own good, black people will have to be weaned off their political addiction to "civil rights" issues. Those who exploit black voters by appealing to their vulnerability on "civil rights" are no friends of black people. They are manipulators.

Of course, the self-anointed representatives of "the black community" often hide behind the moral fig leaves of "inclusion" and "diversity." In fact, though, they have little interest in the black underclass-those who lack jobs, education, and employable skills, who face crime and drugs in their neighborhoods, and who pay more for goods and services because there is no competition for their purchasing power in their communities. The terrible truth is that the black establishment has become intensely partisan, intolerant, self-centered, power-crazy, vindictive, mean-spirited. This establishment must be confronted, not accommodated.

In a game of inches, the Republicans have not wanted even to touch the ball. But they should shake their fear, straighten their backs, and run it up the field. And win.