Two contrasting articles on CNN.com give different opinions on the diversity in the GOP at this year's convention. The first author believes that the new range in the party is positive; cooperation and collaboration between different groups under a single party's banner will yield a greater chance of beating President Obama. In contrast, the other article questions if the attempts to unify the conflicting groups in the party will actually split the party.
The apparent racial and gender diversity that the convention is promoting is expected to portray the Republicans as an accepting group, despite their predictable "white-male" demographics. The more critical article suggests that the additional diversity will blur the identity of the party:
"This is some strange hash. What does it mean to be a Republican these days if unifying principles are so hard to come by?"
It identified various "camps" that will be in attendance at the RNC; groups that desire a wider and more inclusive member base, more conservative groups that frown on gay marriage, some believe that economic policy is paramount as well as the many divergent views on the logistics of immigration.
 |
| Governor Chris Christie |
What will be the effect of this new diversity in the GOP? Will it splinter or unify the party? Were last night's speeches effective to this end?
3 comments:
"What does it mean to be a Republican these days if unifying principles are so hard to come by?"
Honestly, if someone using race to define the members of a political party, then he may want to do some internal reflection. While the Republican party undoubtedly has the "white-male" demographic I think that it is of course unfair to generalize Republicans in that sense. I think promoting racial and gender diversity is not bad in any way, and certainly does not divide the party. What should divide the party is different opinions, not different races or genders.
In regard to Christie and others talking about their respective values, I am indeed somewhat skeptical about talking about personal values; I'd rather them talk about their personal values in action, in what they want for the country (and a definite plan, please).
Taylor has definitely made some good points about using race to defining members of one political party. The Republican party is certainly not one to be generalized as a predictable "white male" political party. CNN has certainly left out the fact that the Republican Party is filled with many members from all demographics and both sexes. To categorize the Republican Party as predictable "white male" is totally uncalled for. Besides that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with diversifying the GOP. It's a good start to keeping down the left from continually calling them the racist party. If anyone opposes these such changes, then they are the ones that need a reality check. As for the RNC, I'm tired of hearing Democrat-bashing speeches, like Tim Pawlenty's attempt at poking fun. They need some solid speeches of what they plan on doing because Obama bashing speeches ended in the Republican debates. Some solid plans on how they are going to win the election would in turn rally the Republicans together more than anything else.
The article that is positive about the diversification of the party states that the goal of this Convention is to repeat the success from the previous convention, to do so the Party "must replicate the same vision, clarity and diversity, not for diversity's sake, but for the sake of the wide swath of America's voters in need of help." Personally, looking at the way the GOP has been toting certain speakers to appeal to constituencies, the RNC seems to be seeking after diversity "for diversity's sake" and the votes that supposed diversity entails.
However, I do also agree with George that there is more than the stereotypical GOP member within the party. Whether this appeal will cause problems or not, I agree with Taylor that ideology not ethnicity should be the focus.
Post a Comment