The GOP's Black Problem . . . . . . and the blacks' GOP problem

National Review, Dec 18, 2000 by Ward Connerly

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.