 |
The GOP and Civil Rights: Symbolism vs. Reality |
 |
Saul Anuzis, one of the candidates for RNC chair, made the following comment on Twitter a couple weeks ago:
First woman in the U.S.Senate…Republican. First woman in the U.S. House…Republican. Same for African-Americans…GOP’s history strong.
He implies that because the first black and women representatives in both houses of Congress were Republicans, the GOP is somehow inoculated from criticism of their record on civil rights issues. This doesn’t come out of nowhere: Republicans make these kinds of statements because they feel the need to defend themselves.
First, if the facts Saul cites are the standard for a strong civil rights record, his argument doesn’t hold up today the way it may have historically. Let’s take a look at the balance in the 110th Congress: There are 42 black Democratic Representatives in the House vs. no black Republicans. 53 Democratic women Representatives in the House vs. 20 Republican women. While meaningful, the GOP having the “first” black or women representatives is no longer relevant to our modern political discourse.
Of course, the notion that the GOP, which absorbed the Dixiecrats, has a strong history on civil rights because of these “firsts” is absurd. The broader problem with Saul’s statement is that it reflects the GOP’s tendency co-opt progressive civil rights symbols for the purpose of justifying regressive policies.
Take Sarah Palin: by self-identifying as a feminist, invoking Hillary Clinton in her first campaign speeches, and as potentially the first woman Vice President of the United States, she adopted many of the symbols of women’s empowerment. Although she claimed the symbols of feminism, her actual purpose on the campaign trail was to reinforce existing gender roles. Culturally, she reinforced these existing gender norms by masking her ambition and “putting a skirt on,” as conservative commentators put it. In terms of public policy, she’s virulently anti-choice, opposes birth control and emergency contraception even in extreme cases, believes in abstinence-only education, and wouldn’t take a position on equal pay. She portrayed herself as a figure of women’s empowerment while undermining feminism as a movement.
Much like their attempt at subverting feminism in the 2008 campaign, conservatives use black politicians to advance regressive policies on civil rights issues. Ken Blackwell pushed to disenfranchise minorities as Secretary of State of the most critical swing state in 2004. Ward Connerly is the most prominent figurehead of the anti-affirmative action movement. As someone who supports policies that will lead to discrimination in the guise of advancing equality, he’s one of the best examples of appropriating the symbolism of civil rights for the purpose of undermining them. But as long as the GOP continues to blame black families for the financial crisis, engage in race baiting, oppose legislation to promote equality like affirmative action, actively antagonize the black community with discriminatory voter ID laws, and blame the victims of Katrina, these tactics shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Saul Anuzis’ comment neatly fits into this pattern — a superficial acknowledgment of progress that hides, and is even meant to legitimize, a much more disturbing value system. The next time you see the GOP using the symbols or language of civil rights, remember that they’re selling something very different than what they claim.
Good article. It appears we have common interest. I’ve written about similar topics. BTW thanks for the ping. I like to put a touch of my own humor to it, but most tend to get the point.
It’s good to see others tackle unpopular topics too. Once again, excellent article.
thanks man
Your article is clearly flawed.
The Republicans have said they’re against government abuses of power. And that means no one can say they’re not. I think that Obama guy should lay off of them.
Why does government need to regulate them anyway? Politics is self regulating. Give them a friendly slap on the bottom, hundreds of billions of dollars, and time. It’ll work itself out.
</surrealism>
I call major B.S. on Anuzis. The first African-American Congressmen served during Reconstruction in the 1870’s. You simply cannot compare the Republicans and Democrats today to the parties back then. They have changed completely. Also, the blacks in Congress then were only able to serve because of the strict restrictions of Reconstruction. Missippippi, then or now, would never come close to actually electing a black Senator.
Also, the first female Senator was a gimmick, an 87-year old woman named Rebecca Latimer Felton from Georgia who was appointed and served for just 24 hours. The first elected Senator was a Democrat - Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, who served from 1931-1945.
The only one of those four the Republicans should brag about should be the first female Representaive, Jeanette Rankin, elected in Montana in 1916.
I guess Anuzis, as Republicans often do, is counting on people to be ignorant.
yup, your first point was what i meant when i said that it wasn’t relevant today
ah, i guess i’d been duped as well by taking his comments at face value
Nirmal, when I said ignorant, I was thinking about those who vote Republican against theor own interests with little or no knowledge of history or the world today. I certainly didn’t mean you. My apologies if it came across that way.
no no no, i didn’t take it that way at all, no worries.