The blog Mirror on America observes the GOP attack on Kagan using Justice Marshal as their foil and calls it racist. For the record, I don't support the Kagan nomination. I'm sorry, but I'm just sort of partial to the idea that a person who is going to sit on the highest court and adjudicate the Constitution, the basis of my individual rights as an American citizen, ought to have significant experience sitting in judgment and have experience in the practice of the law. So I'm not with her nomination. But I wryly and with great annoyance, like my blogging fellows at Mirror on America and blowhard Olberman, observed the GOP's attack, which sought to diminish Marshal and by doing so, damage Kagan.
They call it racist, which I don't think works well. Tagging the GOP as racist lacks precision, but if you read the charge to mean an apparent hostility to blacks as a political constituency, then its an entirely justified and foreseeable response to this performance. This is more of the same funky messaging to blacks that I've come to regard as a depressingly routine part of our political practice as a party. Using Kagan's association to a revered figure (within and without the black community) like Justice Marshal as proof of her unfitness to be on SCOTUS is clearly going to repel blacks and other minorities for whom Marshall's work to overturn segregation is legitimately heroic. What is the message the GOP sends to blacks, a group it claims it wants greater engagement with, by attacking Kagan in this way, ? The GOP figures its good political practice to attack a revered historical figure such as Marshall, the first black on the court and the man who led the effort to overturn segregated schools? And to do so in the context of an attack on a SCOTUS nominee by the first black president? That plays to the republican base all day, but it repels blacks and other minorities. Its not the political play of a party that actually cares about black votes. Its merely a continuation of the cavalier messaging the GOP does to blacks. Out of one side of our mouths we claim to want blacks and latinos in the party and out the other, we attack the heroes of the black community. Its politically stupid, unless of course, the GOP really don't mean it when they say they want blacks in the party.
Its my contention that the GOP does not consider blacks to be a political constituency necessary or essential to their aspirations for governance. Performances like this one prove my point. The Marshall attack line was a coordinated messaging attack on Kagan's nomination. They thought about it, refined it, to deliver it with the greatest impact. This is not the messaging behavior of a party that wants a greater relationship with blacks as a political constituency. Its not simple minded to read this performance and all the other cavalier and negative messaging by the GOP towards blacks as evidence of a disregard, even hostility, to them as a political constituency.
July 2, 2010
Logging you in...Post a new comment
Not displayed publicly.
Not displayed publicly.
This section is for comments from A Political Season's community of readers, a wide ranging and diverse group. Please don't assume that A Political Season's management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
culturalstrategist 20p · 769 weeks ago
You make a 100% buy in to the notion that the Black Permanent Interests as shown on our streets is encapsulated inside of the marble walls on Capitol Hill.
You focus on "How the GOP insures that Black will never vote for them by attacking Black historical figures".
MY FOCUS is on "What do the people who are IN CONTROL OVER THE INSTITUTIONS IN BLACK AMERICA TO-DAMNED-DAY have to do to lose support of the Black community?"
Aaron you fall for the claim that "You can't hit a Black Liberal With Glasses" strategy that has worked well for the left. Especially with Obama. The greatest irony is that after 18th month of the Obama Administration and with BLACK PERMANENT INTERESTS still in the aggrieved state - those who told us that YOU CAN'T ATTACK THE BLACK GUY IN CHIEF are not made to stand and account for where we are today.
Here is my read Aaron:
* Anyone who attacks a Black figure BECAUSE he is Black - should be called out
* Anyone who REMAINS SILENT in their attack against a Black Authority figure BUT WHO would be attacking a WHITE MAN who was in the same seat of power should be equally attacked.
The first is a WHITE SUPREMACIST.
The second is a BLACK INFERIORIST.
BOTH are equally contemptible.
A Political Season 53p · 769 weeks ago
I'm a GOP member. I believe the party engages in poor political practice with regard to blacks and latinos. Our messaging reflects the fact we have not made a decision that we really care about these political constituencies. I think its a fact worth pointing out.
That is separate and distinct from your core issue (one I essentially agree with) that democratic/liberal elites dominating the black community's politics must be held to account for their failing policies. I agree with this, however I'm unconvinced that your unremitting rhetorical war on this group will move the ball. In general, democrats have bad policy ideas that don't work because they proceed from a liberal ideological base. Unfortunately our communities are largely dominated by liberal ideological thinking or simply so heavily co-opted by liberal interests, you can't even make an argument for a conservative approach.
So while I think your tack is very relevant, I don't think you in essence convince these liberal thinking elites dominating the politics in our communities of the error of their ways. I think they have to be displaced and I think our people have to be persuaded to a different way of thinking. However, our people won't get there by being talked to, we have to show them what works, we have to lead with effectiveness.
So you make total sense CS, but you can't convince these elites to change direction.
I like that terminology Black Inferiorist. I'm gonna steal that. Its a nicely descriptive pejorative.