My goodness. The Republican Party is just having a horrible time with this issue these days, isn't it? First, there was l'affaire Lott, in which much ado about nothing -- and the remarks for which he was punished were as nothing to those he had made previously -- managed to cost him a position and caused the whole party to squirm uncomfortably. The press, deciding that where there was smoke, there must be fires under other peoples' chairs, then assiduously went to work, ferreting out comments here, questions there.
In the meanwhile, the California Republican Party decided to start itself a nasty little internecine squabble.
LA Times, registration reaquired - January 5, 2003: State GOP Official Apologizes for Letter: An article distributed in 1999 by a California Republican Party official suggesting that the country would be better had the South won the Civil War has created controversy within the party and led to accusations of bigotry on Saturday. The article, "What if the South had Won the Civil War?" was included in an online newsletter sent by Bill Back, now vice chairman of the state party. Written by conservative commentator William S. Lind, the article stated, "Given how bad things have gotten in the old U.S.A., it's not hard to believe that history might have taken a better turn." It also says that race relations in the South were damaged not by slavery but by reconstruction and migration of blacks to the north.
Granted, the newsletter was published in 1999, and the press only deigned to notice, apparently, now that everyone is mining the Republicans' recent past for such remarks. (Of which there seem to be a startling number. But I get ahead of myself.) But ... 1999. Let's just consider that, shall we? Thirty-odd years after the major developments of the Civil Rights movement. A full 134 years after the complete abolition of slavery. You'd think that even in 1999, someone might have pointed out to Mr Back that publicising a newsletter that expressed that point of view might be, shall we say, just the teensiest bit impolitic. That perhaps they might have squelched any such attempt altogether. But apparently not.
As a partial result of the fireworks over that little newly-rediscovered gem, the highest ranking black Republican in the California Republican Party expressed his sentiments:
Oakland's Reeves rips GOP racism: (Contra Costa Times, January 8, 2003) The highest ranking African-American in the California Republican Party on Tuesday condemned the racism he has endured working for the GOP. "Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise," party Secretary Shannon Reeves wrote in an e-mail to party board members. His comments were sparked by news last week that Vice Chairman Bill Back had circulated an electronic newsletter in 1999 containing an article by someone else suggesting that the nation would have been better off if the South had won the Civil War. [...] [Reeves] said "the time has come" for Republican leaders to understand what he has had to endure. "When I travel to speak at Republican conferences and events around the country, wandering through hotels, convention centers and social clubs, as I approach the rooms where I'm scheduled to speak, I am often told by Republicans that I must be in the wrong place," he wrote. "As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and (Republican National Committee) lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me (to) fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage."
Hmm. Just ... hmm.
Granted, this surely isn't the attitude of most white Republicans. It does make you wonder what on earth is going on, however, that they would simply ignore a "delegate" badge in that way. That, even now, they were simply not expecting to see a black Republican at the convention.
Not content to let Mr Reeves' comments die down -- as surely the national Republican organization ardently wishes they would -- a member of the state party's board of directors decided to contribute his opinions:
Racially Charged GOP Feud Escalates (LA Times, January 17, 2003, registration required): A California Republican Party leader has called on the highest-ranking African American in the state GOP to stop "parading" his race by complaining about "how awful it is to be a black Republican." In an angry letter distributed to GOP activists statewide, Randy Ridgel, a member of the party's Board of Directors, responded to an accusation by fellow board member Shannon Reeves, who is black, that Republicans have treated African Americans as "window dressing." Ridgel, a retired white rancher from rural Lake County, also endorsed an essay suggesting that there would have been an upside to a Confederate victory in the Civil War. Regarding blacks freed from slavery at the end of the war, Ridgel wrote: "Most of the poor devils had no experience fending for themselves, so they fared worse than before the war and during the war."
You know ... about ten seconds after that piece hit the news, probably every single official in the California Republican Party was calling Ridgel, yelling, "What the HELL were you thinking? WERE you thinking? Do you know how much more damage you've just done?"
Reached by phone at his office, Back said he would "rather not give an opinion" on Ridgel's letter. "I will consult with my wizards and we'll get back with you," he said.
One can appreciate a sense of humor that dark and acid. And Back is almost certainly correct when he notes later in the article that public discussion of this issue is not exactly helpful to the Republican cause. Although it might be useful in ferreting out people dumb enough to say these things in public and shunting them over to places where they can do less damage. (Which, as he was more or less one of them, he couldn't precisely say, now could he?)
Reeves notes that he was disappointed that there wasn't a mass outcry from within the party at Reeves' letter. However, given the way in which Republicans have historically used racial issues, there could scarcely be a public outcry without a resulting response from the press, besd characterized as, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about this, then? What about the various speeches at the national conventions from 1980-1996 inclusive?"
Before anyone gets all huffy, I'm not saying that the Democrats are much better in how they use racial issues. The Democrats generally make their own variously coded appeals to minorities and women which essentially translate as, "Look at what those evil rich white men are doing to you." That said ... the Republicans make that sort of appeal laughably easy for the Dems. Just when it seems that some sort of progress is being made -- and whatever one thinks about this president, I can't imagine that either Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice are in their positions purely as window dressing (although given the regularity with which they publicly undermine Powell, one does wonder what they think he's supposed to be doing) -- the party decides to self-destruct in a spasm of public racism.
And then, on top of watching the largest Republican state organization shred itself publicly, there comes the University of Michigan cases. Reportedly, the president didn't want the administration to take a position on this case, but was persuaded by his policy apparatus that he needed to do so to prop up his wavering appeal to the party's conservative wing. (Which makes one wonder exactly in which century the conservative wing thinks they are living.) At the same time, the White House is aware that when California adopted the policies they're advocating (or rather, trying very hard not to advocate; their briefs essentially say, "We think this is wrong" without going all the way to "... and we think these rules should be overturned"), admission rates for Hispanics and Blacks crashed through the floor. They don't particularly care about the blacks, but they're trying very hard to court Hispanics. They failed to do so in California, with the result that the nation's most populous state is trending Democratic (if an odd, conservative sort of Democratic), and they don't want the same things to happen in Texas and Florida. (That said, Texas seemed to find a reasonable location-based solution to the admissions issue for the University of Texas and Texas A&M University; one wonders why it wouldn't work as well in Michigan at the undergraduate level. It wouldn't work for a graduate school, however.) Unfortunately, trying to unify the party's most conservative elements and a significant number of racial minorities under the same umbrella may be an effort doomed to failure. Basically, they just don't like each other, and aren't willing to pretend that they do. (Well, clearly.)
Posted by iain at January 17, 2003 03:36 PMComments
