| Back to gregoryharms.com |

December 10, 2013

GOP in peril: race and climate

With the recent passing of Nelson Mandela, the response of influential conservatives ranged from positive to lukewarm to racist.[1] The jumble was unsurprising on account of where Mandela would have existed along the American political spectrum. Even the liberal center skims the surface when talking about Mandela, concentrating on the man's character and personality and less on his politics.

So how does one respond if one's politics run counter to those of a globally revered black populist who has just died? In the case of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, you smile nicely, say something polite, and talk about "broadening our appeal." What Cantor is saying, of course, is that his party needs to talk to the people it doesn't represent, and hopefully gain minority votes because the ship is going down.

The Christian Science Monitor article below acknowledges that "without exception, Republican elected officials have been as laudatory of Mandela as have Democrats." Yet, even when Republicans attempted to speak well of the South African leader, the comments to their blog posts were frequently denunciatory, if not outright racist. This image of GOP supporters being angry and bigoted, as the Monitor observes, is "a problem for the Republican Party generally as it seeks to attract black voters."

The GOP prescribes personal responsibility, free-market principles, and limited government - the mantra of the faith-based socioeconomic philosophy called libertarianism. These three tenets, however, are code and apply to the poor and the working class; self-reliance, hands-off government, and being subject to market forces do not apply to Wall Street, as we have recently seen.

Yet, this doctrine still has significant support among white Americans: if the discussion takes place within the bipartisan framework. The strength of ideology encourages this group from supporting policies that are against their interests. Outside of ideology, the policy preferences tend to liberalize. As routinely pointed out on this blog, the majority of Americans - usually by 60-plus percent - support policies that are populist in nature. Put another way, most Americans think more like Mandela.

But as things exist, color is becoming an increasing factor. An October piece in the New York Times addressed the impact demographics are going to have on American politics in the following decades:

Whites tend to hold negative views of Obamacare, while blacks tend to like it. Specifically, 55 percent of whites, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found this year, consider Mr. Obama’s health care law a bad idea, while 59 percent of blacks call it a good idea. On immigration, 51 percent of whites oppose legal status for illegal residents, but 63 percent of blacks and 76 percent of Hispanics favor it.[2]

In other words, most whites support the GOP's political agenda, while the increasing minority population tends to vote Democrat. Taken in aggregate, the minority groups are quickly forming a majority. As summed up by the Times: "the day draws closer when whites will no longer make up a majority of the population, which the Census Bureau projects will be in 2043."

This doesn't bode well for the Grand Old Party. And it is distinctly possible that the party could break in half in the coming years.

The current Republican predicament is also apparent when it comes to climate change. In a recent New York Times piece it was reported that many of the country's largest corporations are planning for anticipated penalties on carbon emissions.[3] The sober world of corporate power has seen the future and is adjusting its strategies accordingly. Even Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson has admitted that global temperatures are rising due to fossil fuels (he just doesn't think it's a big deal).

This maneuvering, however, represents a departure from the standard "conservative" line on both the issue of global warming and regulation. It would seem behemoths like General Electric, DuPont, Conoco Phillips, BP, and many others are realizing that facts are going to trump ideology. This, of course, doesn't sit well with the far-right, reactionary set that denies climate change and rejects government acting in the interest of the people and the planet. As stated in the article:

The divide, between conservative groups that are fighting against government regulation and oil companies that are planning for it as a practical business decision, echoes a deeper rift in the party, as business-friendly establishment Republicans clash with the Tea Party.

The country is becoming more diversely complected. Global temperatures are rising and are going to produce increasingly negative effects on human life. These two realities are here and will become increasingly present. The Democrats have their act down when it comes to pretending they're a labor party. The corporate sector is making preparations for the inevitable. However, on its present course, the Republican Party faces an uncertain future. It's options are a shift toward the center or, actually, that is its only option.

[1] Mandela and conservatives
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/1207/Nelson-Mandela-How-US-conservatives-viewed-him-then-and-now-video

[2] Politics and race:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/us/politics/behind-roar-of-politics-whispers-of-race-persist.html

[3] Corporations and carbon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/energy-environment/large-companies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html

Blog Archive