Takers

If the information coming out of the Census Bureau isn’t convincing, the racial voting statistics from the presidential election make the issue unavoidable: If the GOP is going to win the presidency in the future, it needs to attract more minority voters—especially Hispanics. The question is how does a party which benefits from exclusionary principles become inclusive without losing its exclusivity?

The GOP as an exclusive party may be easier to understand if it is contrasted against its main rivalry, the Democratic Party. The Democrats believe in government leveling the playing field, so they support programs that benefit low-income people and minorities. It's the principle of inclusion: If one does well, all do well. I know that can sound a bit Pollyanna-ish, but, for the sake of brevity, I think it works. On the other hand, Republicans believe that the playing field starts out level for everyone--whether white, poor, minority, or rich. Therefore, everyone should succeed solely on their own merits. Republicans see themselves as, in a word, earners. The Democrats are takers or supporters of takers. It’s the exclusionary principle of zero-sum: If others win, it’s at our expense.

Nowhere is this idea better illustrated than in Mitt Romney's own words: 

There are 47%...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims…who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing…And they will vote for this president no matter what….I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives (Romney).

He is describing the antithesis of the Republican Party: "victims", "entitled", lack of "personal responsibility". Though he never says "low-income" or "poor", there is no doubt that those are the people he is describing: Takers are low-income people who receive government benefits. (Side note: The 47% is more like 50%, and, for the most part, they are low-income working families and seniors who are benefiting from the tax code just as the 1% do (Pugh)).

It's not only the poor who are takers; minorities are takers as well. During election night coverage, Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, elaborated on Romney’s point about the 47%:

It’s a changing country. The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things, and who’s going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it. And, whereby, 20 years ago, President Obama would’ve been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff. You’re gonna see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things (O’Reilly)?

O’Reilly doesn’t exactly make clear what things women, blacks, and Hispanics will want, but he doesn’t have to. Anyone watching the Republican Party knows: abortions, government benefits, and green cards. The words may be harsh, but they are honest and generally believed by Republicans: Minorities are takers.

In another example of this minorities-as-takers thinking, right-wing news outlets have reported with disdain on the United States Department of Agriculture's "Reaching Low-Income Hispanics with Nutrition Assistance" program which is an offshoot of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Started under President George W. Bush, the program is designed to educate legal Mexican immigrants to the United States about food benefits for which they qualify. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama is spearheading an effort to overhaul SNAP and says, "An immigration policy should seek to bring people to the United States who will be able to function independently without government subsidies" (May).

Disturbing as it is, the Republican view that 50% of the American populace is made up of low-income people and minorities who suck off the teat of society and contribute nothing back is exactly what makes the party exclusive…and losing. (Never mind that some of those 50% count themselves as Republicans). The party will have to disentangle “the taker” from minorities which means distancing itself from a tool which, in recent years, has worked well: white fear. 

Recently, Chris Hayes, MSNBC host of Up with Chris Hayes claimed that racism is a Republican, not a Democratic, characteristic, and he was proven wrong. Results from the 2008 American National Election Study show that the percentage of racists in both parties is about the same (Sides and Tabarrok). Yet, Hayes’ comment is not without a kernel of truth: “Appealing to white resentment of minorities is an important part of the Republican brand in a way it’s not for Democrats, even if plenty of racists still inhabit the Democratic Party” (Drum “No, Republicans”). Even inside the Republican Party, this bigotry is acknowledged. Journalist and conservative Bernie Goldberg told Bill O'Reilly, "There is a strain of bigotry...running through conservative America" (Drum “Bernie”). 

White fear is no longer useful, though. Mitt Romney took 59% of the white vote to little effect (“Race”). It’s time for the Grand Old Party to highlight its sameness with the Other. Texas’ first Latino senator, Ted Cruz, believes the Republican Party can win over Hispanics by appealing to them as a hard-working, prideful lot who are intimately tied to their religions: “[Hispanics] have conservative values. Hispanics don’t want to be on the dole” (Lizza 55). Generally, the GOP’s traditional social values (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage) align with those of black and Hispanic ethnic groups. Indeed, if the 2008 California referendum on gay marriage is any indication, this approach could work quite well.

While it would be refreshing to see minorities far more evenly distributed among the parties, the idea of the rise of another “moral majority” (remember the explanations for Bush’s reelection in 2004?) is frightening. Yet, with this last election’s overwhelming support for gay marriage and ousting of Republican men saying ridiculous things about rape, it’s not clear that gays and pro-choicers are scary enough “takers”. But, then, there are always low-income people: Those who would seek to manipulate the tax system just so they can pay for groceries and rent.  

Sources:

 “2008 Time Series Study.” The American National Election Studies (ANES). ANES. ANES, 11 May 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.  http://www.electionstudies.org/studypages/2008prepost/2008prepost.htm

Drum, Kevin. “Bernie Goldberg on Conservative Bigotry.” Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 08 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/bernie-goldberg-conservative-bigotry

Drum, Kevin. “No, Republicans Don’t Have a Lock on Racism, but…” Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/08/no-republicans-dont-have-lock-racism

Joe. “A Racially Polarized Country: White Men Lose One.” Racism Review. Racism Review, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/11/08/a-racially-polarized-country-white-men-lose-one/

Joe. “White Voters Overwhelmingly for Romney: No Post-Racial America.” Racism Review. Racism Review, 04 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2012/11/04/white-voters-overwhelmingly-for-romney-no-post-racial-america/

Lizza, Ryan. “The Party Next Time.” The New Yorker. 19 Nov. 2012: 50-57. Print.

May, Caroline. “USDA Partnering with Mexico to Boost Food Stamp Participation.” The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller, 19 Jul 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/

O’Reilly, Bill. “It’s Not a Traditional America Anymore.” YouTube. YouTube, 6 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFJH8mY-UyI

Pugh, Tony. “Romney’s ’47 Percent’—Here’s Who’s Actually Not Paying Federal Taxes and Why.” McClatchy. McClatchy. 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/18/168914/romneys-47-percent-heres-whos.html

“Race and Results.” CNN. CNN, 15 Nov. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Roberts, Sam. “Projections Put Whites in Minority in US by 2050.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18census.html?_r=0

Romney, Mitt. “Mitt Romney’s ‘47 Percent’ Comments.” YouTube. YouTube. 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wqI7M

Sides, John. “Are Racists Only in One Political Party?” The Monkey Cage. The MonkeyCage, 19 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/08/19/are-racists-only-in-one-political-party/

Tabarrok, Alex. “Racism by Political Party.” Marginal Revolution. Marginal Revolution, 19 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/08/racism-by-political-party.html

Vick, Karl and Ashley Surdin. “Most of California’s Black Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 07 Nov. 2008. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html