ABOUT BLACKS AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
LUCY WARNER
FEBRUARY 14, 2015


The following psmag.com news article aroused my curiosity. The Republicans have been in the news in the last couple of years voicing their desire to increase the number of black Republicans and other Conservatives, such as some who register their party as Independent. This article is about the Conservative mindset in particular, and the difference between 1950s Republicans who included Nelson Rockefeller and some other “liberals.” The Republican Party was in office when the Civil Rights movement began to make progress. Gradually white men, both Southern and Northern, have been trending toward Republicans, resulting in Republican takeovers in many Southern states which in my youth were solidly Democratic. Of course they weren't always liberals, but rather “Dixiecrats,” who were opposed to racial integration and basic civil rights. The shift of white men out of the Democratic party has been marked especially since 2008 when, not coincidentally, President Obama was elected, as part of an uptick in racial events and statements by some Tea Party candidates which they hastily back away from when they made the national news in a negative light. This article about the Conservative mind is similar to some other psychological profiles which have been reported in the news this last year. See my blog CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL – OUR INTELLECTUAL STRUCTURES, JANUARY 2, 2015, at https://plus.google.com/app/basic/.../posts?cbp...sview... for several interesting articles on that subject.

As my mind began to focus on the relative lack of black conservatives, I wanted to know what their numbers are. I couldn't find an article giving specific numbers of black membership in the Republican Party. All of these articles were on black conservatives, and the Pew Research article is the closest to my search terms, the percentages of blacks versus whites on avowed conservatism. Read them all. One of the most interesting is the claim by a conservative think tank that Martin Luther King, Jr was a Republican, and a rebuttal to that statement. I think until the conservative racial bias is totally eliminated among politicians and in the general public, and blacks gain more social, educational and economic advancement, most of them won't be joining the Republican Party whose policies overwhelmingly favor the wealthy, corporations over individuals, and the socially conservative who include many defacto racist individuals. They know better than to say they are superior to blacks -- that would be racist -- but they shun them and continue to make ugly jokes and comments about them.

Whether Republicans tend to group all people with a few black genes together as "black" or not, the real question is what color they want their president and congressional representatives to be, and that is still overwhelmingly "white." Michael Dunn may not have been using a racial bias in shooting the young black man -- he was defending himself -- but he told his girlfriend who was in the car with him that he hated "thug music," which is a term popular on the Internet nowadays to mean "black music." Likewise when police officers speak of "thugs," they mean "black men." Rather than working to wipe this racial taint out of their party membership, especially members of the Tea Party, they are supporting those right wing forces with their political contributions and their policies. The deeply seated problem is not going away, as far as I can see.






http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/white-or-black-conservatives-liberals-see-faces-differently-59293

White or Black? Conservatives, Liberals See Faces Differently
New research finds people on the political right are quicker to classify a racially ambiguous face as black.
TOM JACOBS 
JUN 5, 2013

Did you notice that mixed-race gentleman who passed you on the sidewalk yesterday? During the split second as he walked by, did he register in your mind as black or white?

Disturbing new research suggests the answer to that question may depend on your political ideology.

In three experiments, “we found that conservatives were more likely than liberals to categorize a racially ambiguous person as black than white,” a research team led by New York University psychologist Amy Krosch writes in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Intriguingly, this dynamic disappeared when the study participants—white Americans—were told they were judging Canadian faces. The tendency for those on the right to more quickly categorize someone as “black” only occurred when they were evaluating their fellow countrymen.

“Conservatives exhibit stronger preferences for order, structure, and closure, and greater intolerance of ambiguity in comparison with liberals.”

As the number of mixed-race Americans rapidly grows, the issue of how they are perceived is of more than academic interest. There is no shortage of evidence of continuing discrimination against blacks, such as a new report of racial bias in arrests for marijuana possession. Categorization comes with consequences.

Krosch and her colleagues describe three experiments. The first two featured 31 and 71 participants, respectively, all recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service. They indicated their political ideology on a seven-point scale (extremely liberal to extremely conservative.) The participants in the first study were white; the second featured a smattering of non-whites, but no African Americans.

All were asked to quickly label 110 male faces as black or white. The images were created by morphing two “parent” faces, one white and one black, and varying the degree to which each was represented.

In both experiments, the point at which a face was equally likely to be labeled black or white occurred before the point the two faces actually converged. (In the second study, it occurred well before.) This suggests one does not need to have 50 percent African American features to be labeled black.

What’s more, this tendency was exacerbated by ideology. Specifically, “conservatism was associated with a lower threshold for categorizing racially ambiguous faces as black,” the researchers report.

The third experiment, featuring 62 participants (all white), was identical to the first two, except that half the faces were identified as “Canadian.” They were presented against a red background, while “Americans” were seen against a blue background.

The results: “Political conservatism was associated with a lower threshold for categorizing racially ambiguous faces as black when it came to American, but not Canadian, faces.” Whatever impulse that led conservatives to think “black” was negated when they were told they were dealing with residents of a different country.

“There are several possible explanations” for these findings, the researchers write. “Conservatives exhibit stronger preferences for order, structure, and closure, and greater intolerance of ambiguity in comparison with liberals.” Thus they “might be more motivated to resolve racial ambiguity, and to resolve it in the most common or culturally accessible manner.”

Beyond that, Krosch and her colleagues suspect this reflects a phenomenon coined by New York University psychologist John Jost (a co-author of the paper): system justification theory. The term refers to the tendency, which is particularly pronounced among conservatives, to rationalize the sociopolitical system one inhabits as inherently fair and just.

In that context, these results “may reflect, among other things, the motivation to defend and uphold traditional racial divisions that are part of the historical legacy of the United States,” writes the research team, which also included Leslie Berntsen, David Amodio and Jay Van Bavel.

On the other hand, the researchers note, liberals and conservatives may simply focus their attention on different facial features, with those on the right more alert to any that deviate from the “norm” (which is to say, European ancestry).

“If so,” they write, “this would suggest that ideology may not only shape social judgments and behavior, but literally how people see the world around them.”




http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVSchrimpfFamily1105.html

New Visions Commentary – National Leadership Network Of Conservative African-Americans
It Takes More Than A Village
by Christopher Schrimpf

In her book It Takes a Village, Hillary Clinton used that African proverb to argue that a community is most important for proper child development.  Downplaying the importance of the family is never sound advice, especially when a recent hearing of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that strong families are a key factor increasing and accumulating wealth.

This finding comes as no surprise to conservatives.  And it would be wise for the African-Americans to bypass Hillary's preferred proverb - despite its African origins - in favor of another mantra: Conservative values lead to wealth.

For example, there is a distinct difference between the earning and wealth potential of an intact, married black household as compared to households headed by single black women.  Professor Douglas Besharov of the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs pointed out that married families earned $66,525 on average in 2003, while black female-headed families earned just $20,670.

Professor Besharov testified: "Study after study has shown that black poverty would be much lower if family structures had not weakened beginning in the 1960s... [H]ad the proportion of children living in female-headed families remained constant since 1970, the child poverty rate in 1998 would have fallen by one percentage point, rather than rising by 3.4 percentage points."

The child poverty rate in 1998 could have been 24 percent lower if not for the long-term degeneration of the American family.  Research shows the trend has an even more dramatic effect among black Americans.  Focusing on the effects of the weakening family structure of the African-American community, Besharov noted, "Had there been no changes in the family structure between 1960 and 1998, the black child poverty rate in 1998 would have been 28.4 percent rather than 45.6 percent."

While civil rights gains led to an expected significant rise in black income levels in contrast to whites between 1959 and 1979, the pace of progress has slowed markedly since 1980.  Dr. Harry Holzer, a public policy professor at Georgetown University, testifying about the problems faced by single-parent households, said: "Clearly, the growth of families with only one potential earner limits the ability of many black families today, and their children tomorrow, to join the middle class."

Despite this bleak picture, there are clear policy prescriptions for increasing the wealth potential of black Americans.  Of paramount importance is increasing family stability.  At the very least, the number of two-income black families must increase.

What black America needs is an increasingly larger role to be played by fathers.  This can be achieved through a change in attitudes and policies to promote and preserve marriage as well as reform child support rules.  Dr. Holzer suggested, "These reforms, and perhaps some earnings supplementation for non-custodial fathers paying child support, could improve the attachment of low-income fathers to their children as well as to the labor market."

The Civil Rights Commission's hearing, while not a solution, was an important first step toward recognizing and correcting barriers to black wealth accumulation.  But it was only a first step.  Now the hard work must begin. 

While a village is not needed to raise our children the "village" of black activists - politicians, clergy, teachers, mentors and the like -  can help by spreading the word and promoting good values.  The black American family must return to the kind of strength seen prior to the Great Society programs of the 1960s.  With strengthened values comes the groundwork for wealth creation and prosperity.

###

Christopher Schrimpf is a research associate with the black leadership network Project 21.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Published by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.




National Center for Public Policy Research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a self-described conservative think tank in the United States. Its president since its founding has been Amy Ridenour. David A. Ridenour, her husband, is vice president, and David W. Almasi is executive director. Key staff include Caroline May, who oversees environmental programs, and Ryan Balis, who oversees United Nations studies. Dana Joel Gattuso, Council Nedd II, R.J. Smith, Deroy Murdock and Bonner Cohen are among those who frequently speak or publish under the NCPPR banner as senior/distinguished fellows.

Policy areas[edit]

NCPPR's work is in the areas of environmental, retirement security, regulatory, economic, and foreign affairs. Particular areas of interest include global warming, endangered species, energy policy, environmental justice, property rights, legal reform, Medicare reform, health care, Social Security, civil rights, foreign affairs/defense and United Nations reform/withdrawal.

NCPPR is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, whose object is described as "dispelling the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis".

Publications[edit]

Publications include National Policy Analysis papers, Talking Points cards, the newsletters What Conservatives Think, Ten Second Response and In the Newsamong other publications, and a National Center Blog. They also have full editorial control over the contents of the wiki-styled web portal GroupSnoop[1] which hosts conservative analyses of various high profile left-leaning non-profits.

Funding[edit]

NCPPR's revenues for the fiscal year ending 12/31/11 were $9,911,075 against expenses of $9,967,258; for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10 were $12,445,716 against expenses of $12,187,777; for the fiscal year ending 12/31/09 they were revenues of $11,609,920 against expenses of $11,521,721.[2]

As of October 31, 2013, the organizations's web site reported that its funding breakdown was 94% from individuals, 4% from foundations and less than 2% from corporations. The organization reported receiving 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 recent contributors.[3

Special projects[edit]

Since 1992, the group has sponsored Project 21, a "national leadership network of black conservatives". Project 21 provides research and commentary on public policy issues from a conservative black perspective to the U.S. news media at large and to African American community newspapers and media outlets. According to the organization, Project 21 members, all of whom are black, were published, quoted or interviewed over 12,000 times on a variety of public policy issues between 1992-2006.

Of Project 21, the liberal magazine The Nation said in May 2005, "Project 21 remains a crucial gear in the right’s propaganda factory. Without [Project 21, its] cadres would probably be at home screaming at the TV. But instead, they’re on TV."[6]




http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jan/17/raging-elephants/houston-group-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-repub/

Houston group says Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican
By Meghan Ashford-Grooms on Monday, January 17th, 2011

Raging Elephants, a Houston-based group involved in unsuccessful efforts to stop GOP state Rep. Joe Straus from winning another turn as Texas House speaker, says on its website that it's dedicated to bringing more "Americans of color" to the ranks of conservative voters.

Posted on the site is a video of a speech by the group's leader, Apostle Claver Kamau-Imani, titled "Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats." Also on the site, the group claims: "Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!"

We weren't aware that the late civil rights leader ever expressed a partisan affiliation.

Yet, we discovered, Republican groups have previously declared King one of their own. In 2006, the Sarasota, Fla.-based National Black Republican Association ran radio ads in Washington, D.C.; Georgia; Maryland; Ohio; and Pennsylvania including the statement that King was a Republican, according to an Oct. 19, 2006, Washington Post news story.

And in 2008, according to news reports, the same group — whose website says it "is dedicated to promoting the traditional values of the black community, which are in concert with the core Republican Party philosophy of strong families, personal responsibility, quality education and equal opportunities for all" — paid for eight billboards bearing that message in Florida and South Carolina, as well as 50 billboards in Denver during the Democratic National Convention, where Barack Obama became the party's presidential nominee.

In July 2009, Raging Elephants made the same claim on a Houston billboard, according to a July 14, 2009, news article on the Fox News Channel's website and a July 9, 2009, column in the Houston Chronicle.

Kamau-Imani told FoxNews.com that the purpose of the billboard was to get blacks to rethink their political affiliation; African Americans typically vote for Democrats. "We think it's imperative that (the GOP) try and attract more people from the communities of color to vote their values — to vote conservative," Kamau-Imani told FoxNews.com.

The King message has drawn objections. In Houston, the Fox News story says, local activist Quanell X held a news conference to speak out against the sign. Earlier, an Associated Press news article about the billboards posted in Florida reported that the chairman of the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, Democratic state Rep. Joe Gibbons, called the statement ridiculous. "To make a claim without presenting proof is bogus," he is quoted as saying in the July 4, 2008, story.

Frances Rice, chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association, was quoted by the Post in 2006 as saying that the backlash from the radio ads was so great that she stopped answering telephone calls. But she stood by the claim that King was a Republican. "We were all Republicans in those days," she told the Post. "The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

The Post story says it's correct that Southern Democrats "blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades."

When we asked Raging Elephants for information to support its claim that King himself was a Republican, Kamau-Imani pointed us to a video made by the National Black Republican Association featuring one of King's nieces, Alveda King, founder of the faith-based group King for America. In the Sept. 14, 2008, video, she says: "I just want to share with you a little bit about my family and my history. My uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during his lifetime was a Republican, as was my father, his brother, Rev. A. D. King, and my grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King Sr."

She adds: "The Republican Party historically has supported the rights of the oppressed. During the times of slavery, many of the abolitionists were Republicans."

Our attempts to contact Alveda King were unsuccessful.

Next, we sought historical expertise, including by asking Thomas Jackson, a history professor at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro and author of From Civil Rights to Human Rights: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Struggle for Economic Justice, for his take on the video.

He told us that Alveda King's description of the Republican Party's history was on the mark. "The Party of (Abraham) Lincoln defended black rights most vocally in the 1860s and 1870s, then abandoned the cause when the Democrats and the (Ku Klux) Klan defeated Republican state governments in the South. Blacks started their historic switch to the Democrats during the New Deal," which were economic programs implemented in the 1930s under President Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.

But Jackson said that he would not consider King a Republican, calling him instead a " 'tax and spend' democratic socialist."

"He wanted the nation to spend billions of dollars directly to employ the unemployed when the private sector failed, and a vigorous mixture of affirmative action and anti-poverty programs championed by the liberal-left, and targeted federal spending in impoverished areas, especially the nation's slums," Jackson said.

David Garrow — author of Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for biography — advised against assigning King to either party. "It's simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican," Garrow told us.

However, he said he wouldn't call King a Democrat, either, because he had "very positive feelings" about Republican Richard Nixon in the late 1950s and "extremely positive feelings" about Republican Nelson Rockefeller, the New York governor who later served as vice president. Also, Garrow said, King became "a very harsh critic" of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson over his escalation of the Vietnam War and "wouldn't necessarily have backed (Democratic presidential nominee) Hubert Humphrey in '68 had he (King) lived."

We asked Garrow about the 2006 Post article's statements that King had voted for Democratic presidential candidates John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Lyndon Johnson in 1964. He said there is little doubt that King did so.

But that doesn't mean King made public his political preferences. In his book, Garrow writes that during the 1960 race between Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon, King declined to endorse either nominee — even after Kennedy associates interceded with officials in Georgia to help secure King's release from jail on a probation violation. The closest King came to that was a few days before the election when he released a statement that said: "I want to make it palpably clear that I am deeply grateful to Senator Kennedy for the genuine concern he expressed. ... (He) exhibited moral courage of a high order."

King was more vocal about the candidates in the 1964 presidential election, when Johnson faced GOP nominee Barry Goldwater, who as an Arizona senator had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Garrow told us that King "certainly did all but explicitly endorse LBJ in '64 and strongly criticize the Goldwater candidacy." Garrow writes in Bearing the Cross that King urged his supporters to vote against Goldwater and all GOP candidates who did not disassociate from him.

Next, we wondered what the King Center in Atlanta, founded by King's wife, the late Coretta Scott King, had to say about his partisanship. In 2008, Steve Klein, the center's communications director, told theNational Journal that "there is absolutely no confirmation that (King) was a Republican. ... He was never a member of any political party — and never formally endorsed any candidates."

Klein noted Coretta Scott King's recall of a 1960 phone call from Kennedy when her husband was in jail. In her book, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr., she wrote that she took the call but was later unsure what to say about it. "My husband had a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates," her book says. "And at this point, I did not want to get him or myself identified with either party."

The 2008 AP story about the Florida and South Carolina billboards included a statement from King's son, Martin Luther King III: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states."

Friends and associates of Martin Luther King Jr. also objected. The AP article says that the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with King, "said there is no reason why anyone would think King was a Republican." Lowery told the AP that King almost certainly voted for Kennedy and that the only time he openly talked about politics was when he criticized Goldwater in 1964.

Finally, we checked with political experts in the states where King spent most of his adulthood. Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, said King "didn't die a Republican." But Bullock speculated that King could have been Republican in his youth when Southern Democrats were intensely segregationist. William Stewart, a political scientist at the University of Alabama, said that if King was a Republican, he kept it a secret. King focused on civil rights, Stewart said, and "partisan politics wasn't relevant."

Upshot: Raging Elephants points to a King family member whose declaration lends support for its claim that King was a Republican: his niece Alveda. We didn't divine how she reached that conclusion. Another King relative, his son, disagrees, as do respected academic experts and former King associates and friends. The record shows that as a civil rights leader, King avoided partisan identification.

We rate the statement False.




http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

Pew Research Center – Section 9: Trends in Party Affiliation

The number of political independents has continued to grow, as both parties have lost ground among the public. Based on surveys conducted this year, 38% describe themselves as independents, up from 32% in 2008 and 30% in 2004.

The proportion of independents is now higher than at any point in more than two decades. Looking back even further, independents are more numerous than at any point in the last 70 years. (For trends in party identification from 1939-2012, see this interactive feature.)

Meanwhile, the percentage of self-described Democrats has fallen from 36% four years ago to 32% today. Republican identification has remained largely stable over this period (24% today, 25% in 2008). In 1991, however, there were nearly equal percentages of Republicans (31%), Democrats (31%) and independents (33%).

The Democrats continue to hold an advantage in leaned party identification: In 2012 surveys, 48% either affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic while 40% either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. That is little changed from recent years, but in 2008 the Democrats held a 15-point lead in leaned party affiliation (51% to 36%).

Race and Party Affiliation

As has been the case since 2008, a plurality of whites (38%) identify as independents. Among the remainder, more call themselves Republicans (32%) than Democrats (26%). Four years ago, party identification among whites was more evenly divided: 33% were independents, 30% Democrats and 31% Republicans.

African Americans continue to overwhelmingly align with the Democratic Party (69%). But blacks’ identification as Democrats has declined since the mid-1980s; in 1984, nearly eight-in-ten African Americans (78%) said they were Democrats.

By contrast, only about a third of Hispanics (32%) identify as Democrats while nearly half (46%) say they are independents; just 11% of Hispanics identify with the GOP. More than twice as many Hispanics either identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party as identify with the GOP or lean Republican (57% vs. 24%).

Gender Gap in Party ID

The percentage of men identifying as independents is up sharply since 2008, from 35% to 43%. The share affiliating with the Democratic Party has fallen from 31% to 27%. About a quarter of men continue to identify with the GOP (27% in 2008, 25% today).

Democrats maintain an advantage in party ID among women. Nearly four-in-ten women (37%) describe themselves as Democrats, compared with 33% who are independents and 24% who are Republicans. The share of women who call themselves independents has risen from 29% in 2008 to 33% this year, while the proportion of Democrats has declined (40% then, 37% today).

Nonetheless, there continues to be a gender gap in party identification. Women are more likely than men to identify as Democrats (37% vs. 27%). That gap has changed little in recent years. Men are more likely than women to identify as independents (43% vs. 33%). About the same percentages of women and men affiliate with the GOP (24%, 25% respectively).
White men, in particular, are moving away from partisan labels. Currently, 43% of white men say they are independents, up from 36% in 2008 and 33% in 2004. However, the GOP continues to hold a sizable advantage among white men who identify with a party (33% Republican compared with 20% who identify as Democrats).

White women, on the other hand, are more evenly divided: 31% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans and 33% identify as independents. Though these numbers have fluctuated only slightly since 2009, Democrats have lost some ground among white women since 2008 (34% to 31%), while the number of independents has grown (30% to 33%).

Religion and Party Identification

The Republican Party has gained ground among white evangelical Christians in recent years. Currently, 49% of non-Hispanic white evangelicals say they are Republicans, up from 43% in 2009. The current figure nearly matches the 50% of white evangelicals who identified as Republicans in 2004 and 2005.

Pluralities of white Catholics (39%) and white mainline Protestants (38%) now identify as independents. In 2008, Democrats held a slight edge among white Catholics, while white mainline Protestants were divided in party affiliation (33% independent, 30% Democrat, 30% Republican).

The share of the religiously unaffiliated who identify as independents also has increased. Fully half (50%) of those with no religious affiliation say they are independents, up from 43% in 2008. The share of the religiously unaffiliated who identify as Democrats has fallen over this period, from 37% to 32%. The percentage of Republicans has fluctuated a bit, but is unchanged from four years ago (12% in 2008 and 2012).

Silent Generation Turns More Republican

The proportion of independents among the two youngest age cohorts – Millennials and Gen Xers – also has grown in recent years. Meanwhile, the oldest age group – the Silent generation – is turning more Republican.

Among Millennials, the youngest generational group (born 1981-1994), 45% say they are independents, a jump of six points since 2008. At the same time, the share of Millennials who identify as Democrats has dropped from a peak of 35% in the year Obama was elected to 31% today.

There is a similar pattern among Gen Xers (born 1965-1980). Currently, 42% say they are independents, 29% are Democrats and 24% align with the GOP. In 2008, 34% each said they were independents or Democrats, while 25% said they were Republicans.

The number of Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) calling themselves independents has edged up as well – from 31% in 2008 to 34% this year. Currently, as many say they are independents as say they are Democrats. The number of Baby Boomers saying they identify as Democrats has edged down slightly from 36% in 2008 to 34%, while the number who say they are Republicans is unchanged from four years ago (27%).

The Silent generation (born 1928-1945) is the only one in which Republicans have gained ground since 2008. Currently, 34% say they are Republicans while an equal percentage identifies as Democrats; 27% say they are independents. Four years ago, the Democrats held a 38% to 29% advantage over the GOP among the Silent generation. The proportion of the Silent generation affiliating with the Republican Party is at its highest point in two decades. (For more on age and party affiliation, see “The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election,” Nov. 3, 2011.)

Little Shift in Ideology

Despite electoral swings in recent elections, the fundamental ideological breakdown of the American public has shifted little in recent years. So far in 2012, 36% describe themselves as politically conservative, 22% say they are liberal and 37% say they are moderate.

Throughout 2008, an average of 37% said they were conservative, 21% said they were liberal and 36% said they were moderate. The breakdown in 2004 was only slightly different: 37% conservative, 19% liberal and 39% moderate.

Looking at the breakdown of the adult population within the ideological spectrum of the parties – and among independents – also shows steadiness in recent years, but some longer term shifts.

As the Republican Party has gotten smaller, it has become more conservative. Currently, 17% of the public identifies as conservative Republicans, while about half as many (8%) are moderates or liberals. That balance has changed little recently, but in the early 2000s there were more GOP moderates; in 2001 and 2002, 12% of the public identified as moderate or liberal Republicans.

The balance of self-reported ideology among Democrats has remained stable in recent years, but also has shifted over the past decade. Currently, 12% of the public calls themselves liberal Democrats, 13% are moderate Democrats and 6% are conservatives. A decade ago, moderate Democrats outnumbered liberals by nearly two-to one (15% vs. 8%).

As the number of independents has grown, the ranks of the independents include more moderates and conservatives. Currently, 18% are moderate independents, 11% are conservatives and 8% are liberals. Six years ago, 15% of the public was made up moderate independents, 8% conservative independents and 7% liberals.

Republicans Unhappy with Party

While both parties have lost adherents, they also are drawing more criticism from their bases. Just 28% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP is doing an excellent or good job in standing up for its traditional positions on issues such as reducing the size of government, cutting taxes and promoting conservative social values. Fully 71% say the party is doing a poor or only fair job in advocating its traditional positions.

The proportion of Republicans and GOP leaners giving the party positive ratings has declined 12 points since November 2010, shortly after the Republicans’ sweeping victories in the midterm elections. Since 2004, there has been only one occasion – April 2009 – when Republicans gave their party lower positive marks. At that time, just 21% said the party was doing a good job in supporting traditional positions.

More Democrats than Republicans give their party positive ratings for standing up for its traditional positions (41% vs. 28%). Still, Democrats are far less satisfied with the party today than they were in April 2009, during the early months of Obama’s presidency. At that time, a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%) said the party was doing an excellent or good job of standing up for traditional positions, such as protecting the interests of minorities, helping the poor and needy and representing working people.

Within the ranks of Republicans and GOP-leaners, about a third of conservatives (32%) say the party has done an excellent or good job of standing up for its traditional positions, compared with just 19% of moderates.

Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, nearly identical percentages of liberals (45%) and conservatives (44%) say the party has done well in advocating its traditional positions; somewhat fewer moderates agree (37%).




http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/07/5_reasons_there_are_so_few_black_americans_in_the_republican_party/page/full

5 Reasons There Are So Few Black Americans In The Republican Party
John Hawkins 
Sep 07, 2012

How is it that the party of Lincoln, a party that led the way in opposing slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynching, the KKK, poll taxes, led the way on integration and voting rights for black Americans, and percentage wise, voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in greater numbers than Democrats is now only getting about 10% of the black vote? Democrats say racism, but any objective observer would quickly discard that explanation given the significant number of popular black Republicans. If even a large percentage of Republicans were racist,certainly Allen West, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Tim Scott, Mia Love, Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker, and Larry Elder couldn't exist, much less be popular with conservatives. Additionally, although Republicans don't support Affirmative Action, very few black Americans actually benefit from it andmany are harmed as well.

So, why are Republicans doing so poorly with black Americans?

Economics: Black Americans are suffering economically compared to the rest of the country. "In 2009, the average net worth for white households was $113,149 and $5,700 for black households." 14.1% of black Americans are unemployed compared to 7.4 percent of whites and "black households’ median annual income fell" more than twice as much over the last two years as white Americans.

Since black Americans have been monolithically voting for the Democratic Party for 40 years, those numbers are actually a terrific argument for voting Republican. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, it doesn't work that way. People who are doing poorly economically tend to welcome any short term help they can get, even if the increased dependence on the government ultimately makes it more likely that they'll remain mired in poverty. Combine that with the fact that black Americans are dramatically over-represented amongst government workers (11.6% of the population vs. almost 20% of the government work force) and there are strong short term incentives for many black Americans to stay in the Democratic Party even if they'd ultimately benefit more from adopting a more conservative philosophy.

The skin color of the speakers: One of the great ironies of the race debate in America is that Republicans have internalized Martin Luther King's famous saying, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," while most black Americans have rejected it. This creates a bit of a Catch-22 for Republicans. Black Americans are much more likely to listen and consider what black Republicans have to say, but there just aren't a lot of black Republicans to say it. This is a problem that's slowly, but surely being corrected as more and more black Americans are rising to prominence within the GOP, but we're just not there yet.

Racism culture: Even black Americans who are extremely prosperous and have never been significantly harmed by racism in their lives feel compelled to talk about America as if Democrats like George Wallace and Bull Connor were still running wild. There are three reasons for that.

It's at the core of the Democrats’ political strategy in dealing with black Americans. No matter how poorly served black Americans are by the Democrats, they won't listen to what Republicans have to say with an open mind if they're falsely convinced we hate them.

If you say that racism is no longer a serious problem for black Americans, then there still has to be some sort of explanation given for why black Americans aren't doing that well compared to white Americans. Many black Americans fear that other Americans might conclude that the old school Democratic racists were right and they are inferior. This is why pointing out that racism isn't a serious impediment for black Americans today can almost come across like a slap, as opposed to a plain statement of obvious fact.

Shouting "racism" is easy and it doesn't require you to do anything other than complain. Tackling other issues that are hurting black Americans like children being born out of wedlock and out of control crime in the inner cities is really hard.

Most Republicans do not consider racism to be a significant impediment to success anymore and that puts us up against a deeply ingrained, shared cultural belief with black Americans.

Outreach: That last item is the biggest factor in the GOP's mediocre, almost but not quite, non-existent outreach to black Americans. White Republicans assume what they say will be de facto ignored because of their race at best or they'll be called a racist no matter what they say at worst. Moreover, most Republicans have an almost instinctive dislike of identity politics that keeps us from creating a conservative NAACP and hiring our own Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to push the conservative message to black Americans. So, the solution to this problem has been to do very little outreach and hope that black Americans will just drift into the Republican Party on their own. Judging by the number of black Americans voting for the GOP, this strategy isn't working and isn't likely to work in the foreseeable future.

Issues: The Republican Party is on the same page as most black Americans
 on "abortion, gay marriage, and being friendly to Christianity. Many black Americans also agree with the conservative stance on illegal immigration, school choice, being tough on crime, and supporting entrepreneurs." We have to do a better job of working with black Americans in areas where our interests coincide instead of expecting them to come to us. We also have to start using conservative principles to address issues that disproportionately impact black Americans. We need to find ways to implement enterprise zones and micro-loans to help black Americans in inner cities. It's also a disgrace that any American, in any neighborhood, has to worry about getting shot in his yard or drug dealers selling on the corner where his kids go to school. We're the law and order party. We should be effectively tackling that the way Rudy Giuliani did in New York. It's not enough for Republicans to say, "Look at the places we agree." As John Maxwell once said, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." We have to show black Americans we care, not just with words, but by rolling up our sleeves and tackling the issues the Democrat Party has been ignoring for decades.