Stephen A. Smith & The Manchurian Constituency (op-ed)
Recently ESPN host Stephen A. Smith suggested Blacks should vote Republican to send a message to both political parties that Blacks (or The Manchurian constituency) are not under one party’s control. (Since 1964 the Democratic Party has receive over 80% of the Black vote.)
Smith offered a historical analysis for this democratic devotion. He summarized: The 1964 presidential race was Barry Goldwater vs. Lyndon B. Johnson. Goldwater, the Republican candidate, opposed civil rights legislation. Lyndon B. Johnson supported civil rights. Johnson wins, but there was a Republican senate that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation -- the southern Dixicrats. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, Black America assumed the Democrats were for civil rights.
Smith’s logic makes mathematical sense in a two party system. For example, political action committees contribute to both candidates. Their logic: contributions guarantee access to officeholders regardless of party.
But Smith compared Blacks to customers “shopping around” asking shops (Republican or Democrat) to “cater to them”. This argument is unconvincing because Smith doesn’t distinguish the general election from the primary.
In general elections it’s campaign lore that individuals don’t vote for someone they vote against something. To convince Blacks to vote Republican one would actually have to convince Blacks to vote against the Democratic Party.
But that problem doesn’t exist in the primary.
My personal voting record reflects Smith’s premise. In 2012 Barack Obama was running for reelection. (No Democratic primary for the presidency.) So I change my registration to Republican. Why? Because party affiliation only matters in primary elections, and I wanted to select the best candidate to compete against the president. Why? Why not?
Whenever I explain my switch of registration to a member of The Manchurian constituency they scoff and say, “One vote doesn’t matter.” (Neither does a whole voting block if the opposition wins. Did Bush return to speak to the NAACP after he won the presidency?) But if the Republican I selected in the primary wins the nomination it makes a big difference to me. How? Because I become a proactive voter instead of a reactionary. In 2012 I had a choice between two candidates I previously selected. In other words I could actually vote “for” a candidate in the general election instead of voting against the party opposite of my registration.
In Smith’s historical analysis Blacks didn’t vote for LBJ they voted against Goldwater. But what if during the 1964 Republican primary there was a significant number of registered Black Republicans and the candidates needed this Black voting block to secure the nomination? Would Goldwater have modified his stance on civil rights? Would Goldwater have won the nomination? If Goldwater’s opponent Nelson Rockefeller would have secured the Republican nomination would he have defeated LBJ in the general election? And, civil rights aside, would Rockefeller have handled Vietnam differently? LBJ resigned after one term.
Let’s fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, launched what he called Operation Chaos. He urged Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary because Hillary would be easier for the Republican nominee to beat. (Sun Tzu: The battles are won in the general’s tent, long before the battle is joined.) According to FactCheck.org: Turnout in Ohio was high, some of it due to Republican crossover voting … In heavily Republican Clermont County, nearly twice as many people voted in the Democratic primary as there are registered Democrats in the county. Warren County has only 12,440 registered Democrats, but 27,855 Democratic ballots were cast. In Cuyahoga County, 16,000 plus Republicans switched parties when they voted in the primary.
Smith’s argument was well intended. Why should a whole demographic of voters be ignored by one party, taken for granted by the other party, and, more importantly, not taken seriously by either? Unfortunately Smith doesn’t have Rush Limbaugh’s influence. He was criticized and told by The Manchurian constituency to stick to sports. Smith dealt a logical hand, but his deck was missing the queen of diamonds.
First published in The New Pittsburgh Courier 4/15/15
Smith offered a historical analysis for this democratic devotion. He summarized: The 1964 presidential race was Barry Goldwater vs. Lyndon B. Johnson. Goldwater, the Republican candidate, opposed civil rights legislation. Lyndon B. Johnson supported civil rights. Johnson wins, but there was a Republican senate that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation -- the southern Dixicrats. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, Black America assumed the Democrats were for civil rights.
Smith’s logic makes mathematical sense in a two party system. For example, political action committees contribute to both candidates. Their logic: contributions guarantee access to officeholders regardless of party.
But Smith compared Blacks to customers “shopping around” asking shops (Republican or Democrat) to “cater to them”. This argument is unconvincing because Smith doesn’t distinguish the general election from the primary.
In general elections it’s campaign lore that individuals don’t vote for someone they vote against something. To convince Blacks to vote Republican one would actually have to convince Blacks to vote against the Democratic Party.
But that problem doesn’t exist in the primary.
My personal voting record reflects Smith’s premise. In 2012 Barack Obama was running for reelection. (No Democratic primary for the presidency.) So I change my registration to Republican. Why? Because party affiliation only matters in primary elections, and I wanted to select the best candidate to compete against the president. Why? Why not?
Whenever I explain my switch of registration to a member of The Manchurian constituency they scoff and say, “One vote doesn’t matter.” (Neither does a whole voting block if the opposition wins. Did Bush return to speak to the NAACP after he won the presidency?) But if the Republican I selected in the primary wins the nomination it makes a big difference to me. How? Because I become a proactive voter instead of a reactionary. In 2012 I had a choice between two candidates I previously selected. In other words I could actually vote “for” a candidate in the general election instead of voting against the party opposite of my registration.
In Smith’s historical analysis Blacks didn’t vote for LBJ they voted against Goldwater. But what if during the 1964 Republican primary there was a significant number of registered Black Republicans and the candidates needed this Black voting block to secure the nomination? Would Goldwater have modified his stance on civil rights? Would Goldwater have won the nomination? If Goldwater’s opponent Nelson Rockefeller would have secured the Republican nomination would he have defeated LBJ in the general election? And, civil rights aside, would Rockefeller have handled Vietnam differently? LBJ resigned after one term.
Let’s fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, launched what he called Operation Chaos. He urged Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary because Hillary would be easier for the Republican nominee to beat. (Sun Tzu: The battles are won in the general’s tent, long before the battle is joined.) According to FactCheck.org: Turnout in Ohio was high, some of it due to Republican crossover voting … In heavily Republican Clermont County, nearly twice as many people voted in the Democratic primary as there are registered Democrats in the county. Warren County has only 12,440 registered Democrats, but 27,855 Democratic ballots were cast. In Cuyahoga County, 16,000 plus Republicans switched parties when they voted in the primary.
Smith’s argument was well intended. Why should a whole demographic of voters be ignored by one party, taken for granted by the other party, and, more importantly, not taken seriously by either? Unfortunately Smith doesn’t have Rush Limbaugh’s influence. He was criticized and told by The Manchurian constituency to stick to sports. Smith dealt a logical hand, but his deck was missing the queen of diamonds.
First published in The New Pittsburgh Courier 4/15/15
Comments
Post a Comment