Comments on: What About Jindal? (III)

By: Sean S.

Sean S. — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:02:49 +0000

I think you’re mostly right in the idea that the Republican party is interested in creating a facade of racial inclusiveness, not because of any interest in attracting said minorities (which is doubtful to happen) but to prove to moderate white’s that they aren’t a party of race baiter’s. Jindal, Steele, and Palin represent attempts less to reach out to specific political blocs (though word is coming out of the McCain camp that that was the logic behind the Palin choice) but to reassure their base that they aren’t terrible people. I think you saw this with Palin; the most vociferous defenders were overwhelmingly men, who supported her as a way to deflect attention from their personal attacks of Hillary during the 90′s.

It is not an unfair criticism to point out that similar barbs come out from the Democratic Party about this or that minority Republican member being an “Uncle Tom” or some other derisive term; but they also generally have the mass support behind them from those groups. It also helps that many of those same terms are used derisively within their own ethnic communities.

By: Gustaf

Gustaf — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:54:20 +0000

Ahh, but Louisiana is a very different animal. It’s the only part of the South that is substantially Catholic. I’m sure, though, that faced with the choice of a Catholic and the Antichrist, Evangelicals will swallow hard and vote for the Catholic.

By: anticontrarian

anticontrarian — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:34:21 +0000

I think Jindal’s race and comparatively high melanin count are actually positives on the national Republican scene. This is a party, after all that put Sarah Palin and Michael Steele into positions of national prominence because it seemed like people liked women and black guys.

The wonkishness probably counts against him, but it’s a lot easier to fake being dumb when you’re smart than the other way around.

Either way, he’s out for a while, because the Villagers don’t take him seriously after the volcano-monitoring thing. Nor should they, since it was a dumb thing to say, and he wasn’t near mad enough saying it to fire up the base. Also, he doesn’t seem to hate anybody enough, but maybe I just haven’t been paying enough attention.

By: Derek Copold

Derek Copold — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:36:48 +0000

Publius,

As Daniel argued earlier, it points out that the south is more partisan. Yes, race has a role, but it’s obscured by partisan passions. Jamie Kirchik has a column in the NY Daily News where he points out that in 2007 about 1/3 of Democrats believed Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

By: Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:37:58 +0000

I don’t think Jindal’s pigmentation will be as much as a problem for him as his wonkishness. The GOP doesn’t take kindly to people who seem too highfalutin’ and expert.

Examples: Ike, who made a point of bumbling through his press conferences. He was no dummy, but sometimes acted like one.

Reagan was better read than he let on, but reveled in his “everyman” manner of speaking.

GHW Bush mocked “the vision thing,” Yalie that he was. As to W, nothing at all is ’nuff said.

The relatively wonkish types, like Jack Kemp (even he was a football player) and Dole didn’t get the base fired up.

Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton all tried to convey a certain policy seriousness, even if they owed much to ghostwriters. The New Class Dems like that sort of thing.

Can Bobby connect with a party that wallows in faux populism and patrioteering? I dunno.

By: publius

publius — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:20:34 +0000

This is an interesting post. I wonder though about the chart that floated around a couple of days ago showing that the South was much more skeptical that Obama was a citizen. Doesn’t that suggest that race is playing more of a role here?

I guess you could respond, though, that the South is simply the most nationalist, which is an alternative way to get the same numbers