The Unbearable Whiteness of the RNC
Standing approximately 35 feet away from Senator Joe Lieberman as he delivered his speech at the Republican National Convention last night I turned around at one point to get a good look at the delegates seated in the hall. As I surveyed the crowd, I had an overriding thought: 'This place is really white.'
Now I know it's a bit of a cliché to suggest that Republican conventions are largely white affairs, but the contrast between the extraordinary diversity of Invesco Field and the veritable sameness of the demographic make-up at the Xcel Center in St. Paul is perhaps the most striking feature of the two conventions.
It would hardly seem surprising that at the nomination of America's first African-American candidate in Denver there would be a diverse crowd, but really it was more about the type of diversity. At Invesco, I was surrounded by blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and whites; young and old; male and female; gays and straights were all represented. In just my one section, of an 84,000-person filled stadium it felt like the realization of the melting pot of America.
Absolutely the same cannot be said about the goings-on in St. Paul. The crowd consisted of middle-aged white men and middle-aged white women with some young people and a mere smattering of non-white Americans.
Apparently my eyes don't lie. At the DNC, 34 percent of the delegates were black or Hispanic. At the RNC, 93% of delegates are white, 5% Hispanic and only 1.5% African-American - in fact, it is the lowest black delegate representation at a Republican convention in 40 years.
Now on one level, being seen as the white party in American politics has paid enormous political dividends for Republicans over the years. Since 1964, Democrats have never won more than 50% of the white vote - and their conventions have always been more diverse affairs. In a majority white country it's a good reason why Republicans have won 7 of the last ten presidential elections.
But as that old troubador from 1964 reminds us, "the times they are-a-changing." According to the most recent census white non-Hispanics only make up two-thirds of the population and that number is shrinking. Amazingly, 45% of those under the age of 5 are not white. And by 2042, America will be a minority-majority country as whites will be less than 50% of the population.
According to William Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer, "The white population is older and very much centered around the aging baby boomers who are well past their high fertility years. . . The future of America is epitomized by the young people today. They are basically the melting pot we are going to see in the future."
Indeed the demographic difference between the nominees, an older white male and a young African-American, is being reflected in the two candidate's key supporters. Barack Obama is capturing 90% of the African-American vote; he is outperforming 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry among Hispanics and he is cleaning up with young voters. In short, his support comes from the part of the population that is fastest growing. John McCain's support comes largely from white voters and in particular older Americans. At a time when the Republican brand is clearly in decline, the party must find a way to reach out to more diverse and younger voters. Instead they are relying, for this election, on a declining segment of the population. Quite simply, this is a long-term recipe for political disaster for the GOP.
Now some would argue that Sarah Palin is the type of Vice Presidential pick that could improve the party's appeal to younger voters. But this is sort of like assuming that simply because she is a woman, female voters will flock to her candidacy. In reality, Ms. Palin is a conservative at a time when the country appears to be getting more liberal; and is a religious conservative at a time when the electorate, particularly younger voters, are showing less religious affinity. In fact, those under 30 are the most secular group of Americans.
Of course, this is not to say that John McCain will necessarily lose the 2008 election. America is still a majority white country and with an African-American atop the Democratic ticket we are in unchartered political territory. But having stood on the floor of both convention halls this past week, it seems quite clear that Denver represents the future of American politics - and St. Paul is the past.
Good post. I like the demographics info. I think middle and lower income americans need to learn a new word, solidarity. The rich know live it amongst themselves.
September 3, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZoC,
"The rich know live..."? You meant "know and live"?
Total agreement on solidarity. Also it would be helpful if more people knew which side their bread was buttered on. Rich people seem not to realize that stock market return under Democratic administrations nearly doubles returns under the business party. Over the last century. Lower and middle class families feel the difference.
Stoically yours,
z2v
September 4, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, I'm not the best typist in the world that's for sure.
September 4, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, racism and sexism is alive and well (or bad) in the USA. And it flows both ways.
In the Clinton-Obama contest we saw both sexism and racism in the press and from commenters, if not overt often sub-text. But that is part of the US (and most) culture(s). No revelation here for any woman or anyone of darker skin.
Obama's policies are as close to Clinton's as possible while showing a difference. McCain's are a mile away. So when women who supported Clinton say they will vote for McCain, are they being sexist or racist, or just spiteful? It's one, the other, or the third!
Lieberman is a bitter white guy jilted by his party and looking for relevance. He now has none. He's crossed the ground from the Dems to the Reps and no one actually loves or respects him. His use is only utilitarian: the Dems can have a majority, the Reps have an ally in the enemy's camp.
The US parties, with only 2 effective, shift their attractiveness to survive. For example, the racism inherent in the Southern neo-Democrats of the mid 60s, now shifted to the neo-Republicans of the 90s-00s, is a clear example, and has been a major force in white voting weight.
The ineffectiveness of the US press to show up the hypocrisy in its country's politics, particularly "Christian" politics, constantly amazes me. And most whites I know don't see it.
How about some reality?
September 3, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet Obama is doing well. I know what you're saying is true about racism. I just wish you would stop leaving whites who happen to be liberal out of the mix. I'm voting for Obama, thank you very much. I don't really care what color he is or gender for that matter. For me it's all about philosophy of governance. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes. I will do my best to enrich the community not the individual. Being a white southern born male trying to do the right thing ain't no picnic but my conscience can't allow anything less.
September 3, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zeno, a lot of us white Obama supporters don't feel the least bit offended when the truth about the Republicans being diversity-challenged is referenced.
I for one consider it a shameful embarrassment that in a nation as diverse as ours, there would still be a political party in the 21st Century with only 1.5% African-American delegates at their convention...
Worse than that, the fact so many factions in our Democratic party are labeled "unamerican" by the Republicans makes me livid. My ancestors were here 140 years before the Revolution, and fought in every war on this continent and many others in one form or another, and yet, when I question my government's reckless abandon and I admonish the Republicans for patent party racism, I get called "unpatriotic."
These republicans aren't only much too white, they are the worst sort of...
HYPOCRITES!
September 4, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the data on the ethnicity of the delegates? Who keeps count of such things? How do you know who was gay and who was straight?
September 3, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York Times/CBS poll of the delegates. The article. The pdf with complete results.
September 4, 2008 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ seashell
thanks.
September 4, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who ever said that OTY has reasaonable arguments is wrong. They always come on with an aggressive attitude. If you don't agree with them or refute them they insult.
OTY, all you had to do was tape/TIVO the RNC in St. Paul and do your own count on screen. This is no revelation to people of color! Or to women!
Sociopathic behavior may be acceptable in your world. Most people have some level of social empathy.
September 3, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ notthere
Those are three questions. I'm not responsible for your extreme defensiveness.
September 3, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ notthere
You seem to be a 55 year old white guy from the midwest. Who appointed you to speak with such authoritative outrage about the feelings and perceptions of women and people of color?
Now that's an agressive question...but you brought it on yourself.
September 3, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You like f&cking straw men don't you.
September 3, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno
I like answers to reasonable questions.
September 3, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
But you cannot demand them. No one on this blog is so entitled that others must obey. See criterion 5.
September 4, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, you could have just answered him by now!
Don't know about #1 or #2, but if two dudes are standing with their arms around each other ... chances are they're gay. As for the RNC, we already know there are like 4 log-cabin republicans anyone else is in the closet, so they don't count yet.
September 4, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ kgb999
thanks. I wanted to know who keeps track of these things for future reference and a further breakdown of the black and latin components.
September 4, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
from CNN political blogging....
"In Iowa and Minnesota, white voters are backing Obama. In Ohio, white voters are supporting McCain. What about those blue-collar white voters that were so important for Clinton in Ohio? They're pretty solidly for McCain," Schneider said."
September 3, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your erudition.
I was raised by Republicans in a Democratic state; I learned that THE word for Republicans (then) was "responsibility". Then, as now, THE word for Democrats is "inclusion".
That word - that identity - is, for the Republicans, no more. In her speech, Meg Whitman seemed only glancingly to refer to it.
However messy the Democratic party is, that messiness is associated with healthy inclusion.
I keep asking for people to vote; find your chance to ask, please.
September 3, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY,
I'm not sure if you are referring to my first post in which I think there are 3 questions, or the second where there were no questions, only statements. None of which you refuted. There is no defensiveness in either -- that would be your (inaccurate) interpretation.
Maybe you are are a really slow typer. I don't know.
Just because I don't lay facetious and inaccurate information on my profile doesn't make you right. Am I white? Am I from the MidWest? Am I 56 now? If I am a white male (or not?) can I be simpatico with black/hispanic/asian women/males or not? Could I have observed what goes on around me, here in the MidWest or elsewhere? Could I accurately observe your overt aggressive attitude that is personified by your tag?
How many questions is that? I can't be bothered to count.
Go away!
I know you won't. That's why I used the word sociopath.
September 3, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ notthere
I asked Michael Cohen 3 questions. I don't give a damn about you.
September 3, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice Cohen, And now your saying that it isn't good to be white?
September 3, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTY,
Best answer ever. Now we all know you are insane.
:
:
@ notthere
You seem to be a 55 year old white guy from the midwest. Who appointed you to speak with such authoritative outrage about the feelings and perceptions of women and people of color?
Now that's an agressive question...but you brought it on yourself.
Posted by offensivetoyou
September 3, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
SEE MY REPLY 9:37 PM, Notthere
@ notthere
I asked Michael Cohen 3 questions. I don't give a damn about you.
Posted by offensivetoyou
September 3, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice Cohen, And now your saying that it isn't good to be white? Who the hell are you? Go crawl back under that rock there racist.
September 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice Cohen, And now your saying that it isn't good to be white? Who the hell are you? Go crawl back under that rock there racist.
September 3, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm.
Are Obamawon (formerly Lville1975) and OTY the same insane people. I'm not sure what is going on here.
Anybody have an idea or opinion?
For OTY, that would be one question!.
September 3, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mmmm.
Are Obamawon (formerly Lville1975) and OTY the same insane people. I'm not sure what is going on here.
Anybody have an idea or opinion?
For OTY, that would be one question!.
September 3, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, now, you know there are many people of color at the RNC convention--they're all working as janitors, maintenance and food service personnel, but, hey, that's how the White Old Party likes it.
September 3, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard the RNC convention goers described on KGO radio (independent local talk in San Francisco) as a Lawrence Welk reunion with morticians. Bit of a lack of YOUTH there too, aside from the lack of COLOR.
September 4, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you aren't the only one who noticed the klannish look, if you will, of the RNC. White and old were the two demographics that have stuck out to me. But while that means those types of white people are barricading themselves into their Republican enclave, it also portends potential real problems for the country if and when these folks decide to become even more extreme than they have become. They are filled with hate and fear---especially of nonwhite people whether American or foreign. White people like that have a history in this country of being particularly violent, cruel and reactionary when threatened. Even if our side wins this year we need to stay very concerned about what those people are up to because they will stop at nothing.
September 4, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
... but the contrast between the extraordinary diversity of Invesco Field and the veritable sameness of the demographic make-up at the Xcel Center in St. Paul is perhaps the most striking feature of the two conventions.
Almost as striking is the contrast between the empty seats in the Xcel Center and the full to overflowing crowds in Denver's Pepsi Center.
September 4, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Twice tersely effective in 10 minutes. Maybe a new record.
September 4, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only did the room appear to contain unbearable whiteness, it also seem to be filled with unlimited stupidity. Okay, they proved they are capable of being snarky. But, what are they going to do for the country?
September 4, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drill, Baby, Drill!
September 4, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know how Jews are attending?
I'd have to guess that the repubs have a slight edge among modern orthodox, but all others are going for the dems.
September 4, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know how Jews are attending?
I'd have to guess that the repubs have a slight edge among modern orthodox, but all others are going for the dems.
September 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
They made a point to show that there were African-Americans there, sprinklings of them. What we in the African-American community call Uncle Toms and Aunt Thomasinas. But it is very telling. To me it looked like a KKK rally without the hoods. She attacked Obama when she should have been attacking the one she is going to debate, Biden. More than likely, she will never even have a conversation with Obama so why waste her time attacking him?
September 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They made a point to show that there were African-Americans there, sprinklings of them. What we in the African-American community call Uncle Toms and Aunt Thomasinas. But it is very telling. To me it looked like a KKK rally without the hoods. She attacked Obama when she should have been attacking the one she is going to debate, Biden. More than likely, she will never even have a conversation with Obama so why waste her time attacking him?
September 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They made a point to show that there were African-Americans there, sprinklings of them. What we in the African-American community call Uncle Toms and Aunt Thomasinas. But it is very telling. To me it looked like a KKK rally without the hoods. She attacked Obama when she should have been attacking the one she is going to debate, Biden. More than likely, she will never even have a conversation with Obama so why waste her time attacking him?
September 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They made a point to show that there were African-Americans there, sprinklings of them. What we in the African-American community call Uncle Toms and Aunt Thomasinas. But it is very telling. To me it looked like a KKK rally without the hoods. She attacked Obama when she should have been attacking the one she is going to debate, Biden. More than likely, she will never even have a conversation with Obama so why waste her time attacking him?
September 4, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things white people like: the RNC, Alaska, public displays of special needs babies, wars, drilling.
Things white people don't like: taxes, a press that asks questions, community organizers, Miranda rights.
September 4, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well well. A sneering racist hate piece posing as analysis and a comments section full of
snide remarks and racial hatred and malicious lies aimed at White people, even though not all White people are Republicans. First tactic of anti-White racists: hide your racism behind supposed "anti"-racism and feign concern for "black people", being too cowardly to just come out and say you hate White people (although it is very clear these days that you do).
There goes the left's/democrats self-proclaimed "anti-racist" stance. It is now very clear
that "anti-racist" is a lie and it is code for anti-White. If "racism" actually meant racial
hatred then it would apply to most of the snide, smug, goading posts here. I guess you all think
you can keep fooling the public and yourselves by hiding your racial hatred of White people
behind "anti" racism and the usual barrage of false accusation, present and historical. The
problem is, you're all so cocky now that the mask has slipped and your hatred is showing. It
will only serve to waken more White people up. For that, I thank you.
No mention of racist terrorist state Israel or the Zionist/Aipac ownership of the Republican
party from Cohen or his undoubtedly fellow jewish posters - I don't wonder why. No white fighter
jets are bombing Lebanese civiliians and no White soldiers are shooting Palestinian children.
Yes, jews are not White, Cohen is a jewish racist and so are the predictably smarmy posters (I've
seen their smug "witty" and/or tell lies about White people posting style many times before)
on here telling lies and making sweeping generalisations about White people, projecting your own nasty traits and trying to blame White people for your historical (slavery) and present daypolitical crimes (zionist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). If it's not that it's just the other typical jewish trait of superficial, faux-wit and baiting jibes. Such brave people over the net.
Jews hate Palestinians, Lebanese, Muslims, all White people, now Russians particularly - it would beeasier to ask: who do jews NOT hate?
"White people are the past" = jewish genocide. We are all Palestinians now.
September 4, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not only did the room appear to contain unbearable whiteness"
Only if you are a jewish racist bigot like Mikey Cohen or yourself.
"it also seem to be filled with unlimited stupidity"
There goes the legendary jewish ego - you call yourself intelligent therefore you are, despite being a meat-headed sneering jewish bigot. Saying something doesn't make it so. Neither does calling people names - unless one is jewish.
"Okay, they proved they are capable of being snarky."
No, that's what you just did and it wasn't even funny. That legendary jewish "wit".
"But, what are they going to do for the country?"
"The" country? Not "my" country? I suppose with Aipac and the Zionists in charge they will do a lot for your country, Israel, and you can still pretend that "evil white men" run the party so you get susidies for your parasite state and the illusion/wish fulfilment that White people are in charge and you can then indulge your racism by insulting/lying about White people and killing more Palestinians.
September 4, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas Kuhn, famously the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, observed, if memory serves, that a theory is never accepted because of its having been definitively proved (an impossibility) but because its opponents finally die off.
The Democratic Convention clearly was the face of our nation's future; the Republican Convention our nation as seen in a rear view mirror. Old, white, conservatives are dying off.
September 26, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink