The contrast in diversity was striking on the screen.
The sea of red, yellow, white, black, and brown faces at the Democratic convention in Charlotte last night compared to the sea of white with black and brown specks at the Republican event last week in Tampa. It’s like watching color TV vs. black and white.
But is it really?
Nowadays we talk about red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) as code for conservative and liberal, but as the Democrats take their turn this week and re-nominate the first African American POTUS, I wonder how many black Democrats know their party’s history is much redder than the GOP when it comes to black people and other minorities. In fact, the DNC’s founding fathers would be red with rage that Barack Obama is the party’s leader.
You certainly wouldn’t know this by viewing the DNC’s website on your computer. The opening paragraph of the African American section reads:
“For decades, Democrats have stood with the African American community in the struggle for equality and the enduring struggle to perfect our nation itself.”
Really?
The section about the party’s history reeks with campaign spin:
“For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union.”
This is followed by a timeline with the entry being 1920.
C’mon now. Your official founding date is 1792, making the Democrats the nation’s oldest political party, yet your timeline begins in 1920? Is it because you are also the party of President Andrew Jackson that promoted the bloody takeover of Indian lands and the expansion of slavery? Is it because you are the party of President Andrew Johnson, the Confederate who during Reconstruction championed laws leading to Jim Crow that re-shackled black freedom for decades after the Civil War?
I was reared in a Democratic household in Brooklyn, New York, to parents who were union loyalists. My initial DNC history reached only as far as FDR and the New Deal. But as I came of voting age I sought the backstory for myself. In a word, it is racist.
The party of Obama had for centuries championed a laundry list of oppressive policies that have led to the tragic disparities and the areas of health, wealth, education, housing, and incarceration rates that continue to plague the African American community today. However, that revelation then didn’t stop me from voting my interest such as, helping David Dinkins to become New York’s first black mayor in 1990.
The truth before 1920 and after is easily accessible via several legit Web sites. Of course Republicans pointed this out themselves in 2008, no doubt as a way of throwing stones at then-Sen. Obama’s magical run for the White House.
What’s curious is why the DNC doesn’t openly embrace its full history — that the party that once championed slavery has produced the nation’s first African American president. Wouldn’t that show how far the party has led nation, though there’s still a ways to go? Wouldn’t that illustrate “change we can believe in,” and progress “forward?” Wouldn’t that show respect for blacks, a constituency that is supposed to be highly valued? DNC leadership obviously decided on the history revision. Where are the black Democratic leaders on this? Where are the whites who are supposed to be progressive?
For me, it shows that both parties share a common problematic history on the issue of race. One doesn’t want to hear about it, while the other doesn’t want to talk about it. This hasn’t changed much over the years. People have just switched sides and traded names.
Real change would be seeing a sea of colorful faces at both conventions, and two parties focused on meaningful policies rather than spin. I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, though.
But then again, I said the same about a black man becoming President of the United States.
I have to say, I read this and thought to myself the difference is minor about “coming clean about the past”. I think our country’s racial history is convoluted and not clean cut. I do not think there is a “clean cut” line between Republican past and Democrat past, but there is a fairly “clean cut” line between the present racial inclusion of the parties. There was like approx 250 minority delegates to over 5000 attendees last week in contrast to the sea of diversity is well seen and observed this week. That is consistent with the “state of the parties” today and for the past century or so.
If I were a Republican party official, I would be going out of my way to get some inclusion in the party. This has little to do with the current president, it was the same situation with Clinton in the 90s and has held true since. It is about policy, inclusion, and respect.
Plain and simple, the Democratic party has shown respect in their policies and positions to minorities and their current struggle whether that was in taking seriously profiling and hate crimes, immigration, or favorable stimulus and financial outreach. You can not “pander” for votes, you have to convey respect. I do not believe the Republican party has been able to effectively communicate anything close to a respectful, empathetic position.
Also, not shutting down Rush Limbaugh, which acts as an unofficial spokesman, has not helped. He is a one man destruction team for a party needed racial and gender inclusion.
I think it was no mistake that Jesus choose a Samaritan woman (and sent away his biased disciples) that was a social outcast with five husbands to announce his identity as the Messiah. He took the “marginalized” and “expendable” according to the current power structure, and lifted them up as His children and worthy of his love. If I hear complaining one more time that “white will not be the majority anymore” from a Republican news outlet or person, I will scream.
Most claim Christianity. I have no understanding of how that position fits with our life in Christ and I do not know how anyone reconciles that.