It has been widely reported that the Republican Presidential Primary frontrunners have slapped the African-American community in the face, on both cheeks, by failing to attend a debate in a Democratic city (renowned for its high violent crime rates), in a Democratic state, at a traditionally, and majority, black university. I, and I suspect many others, have struggled with the concept of this 'debate' for the last several weeks. As Akilah Smith said, "This isn't [the Republicans] environment. These aren't the people who voted for them. I guess they think this is a waste of their time," she said. "I would think it was a waste of my time." Smart woman. And, she was not alone.
Nine out of ten registered voters in Baltimore are Democrats. This was a Republican debate. The Democratic Party debates have been held in Democratic strongholds. Why hold this here, and why would anyone expect the candidates to show up here? Perhaps UMES would have drawn a larger audience and a larger pool of candidates while still maintaining a focus on issues of particular interest to the various population segments on which this gathering was to focus. Furthermore, the goal of highlighting a traditionally black university within a reasonable drive from Washington would have been met.
The lack of audience looks less like a disappointment than like a plan. Of the 2000 seats in the auditorium, only 800, slightly more than one-third, were available to the public and one-third went begging. I wonder which third was empty – the reserved or the available. This could have been caused as much by the venue itself as by the location in what is perceived as a very, very dangerous city where crime was the over-riding concern in the recent city election.
My wife and I both white, both over 50, she from Chicago and I from Baltimore, can name one-half dozen predominately-black colleges off the tops of our heads. Neither of us can name a predominately-white college. Each of us has attended two or more colleges, our children have attended three - all liberal arts - and I took a non-credit course at Morgan in 1980. The 2008 Democratic Presidential debates have been scheduled at traditionally black colleges where the candidates were roundly supported. The history of Republican debates at Morgan has been less than stellar. We hope last night helped to temper that history. Overall, was this really the best place, or even a reasonable place, to reach Republican Primary voters?
Lastly, Mr. Eugene Morris, a Democrat coming here from Chicago for the Republican Presidential debate (?), nailed down the real reason the Republicans should have rejected this debate completely, "Already, there is a big PR push to make sure the African-American community is very aware of what happened here," he said. If the community wants to complain about the bad thing that happened, they might want to focus on host Tavis Smiley repeatedly minimizing the venue by refusing to refer to it by its name, Morgan State University.
This was clearly a lose/lose proposition for the candidates. Those who did not show up because it was a bad idea to be there will be maligned, criticized and castigated by Republicans and Democrats, because each has an ox to gore by doing so. This started on the stage during the introductory remarks and continued into the spin-room afterwards where the host and questioners talked more about what did not happen that what did. Everyone has his or her agenda. Those who did show up will be criticized for the lack of content and depth of their positions and their presentations. The only winners here were the opponents of the Republican Party.
Traditionally low ratings for PBS primary debates; an unfriendly audience dominated by people who will not or cannot vote for them; and a format that gave unfriendly questioners more time to ask questions than the candidates had to answer them (and what was that bit with Juan Williams calling out people placed in the audience to illustrate his statements couched as questions - the NPR State of the Union Address?); this all added up to good reasons for candidates to make other plans for the evening. It does not take a political scientist to figure out that getting this event out of the PBS conference room last January set-up the Democratic Party to bludgeon the Republicans during the long campaign. There is more than one color of blood contemplated by the press adage, "if it bleeds, it leads". Occasionally, the messenger is wielding the weapon.
2 comments:
Allow me to be the first MBA member to second guess you on this one.
The purpose of this debate to be held at a HBCU was to have them discuss issues affecting black people. As a Black Republican, I am downright pissed off that the four top tier contenders chose to skip, continuing to try and control their message.
The other part of your argument is why bother having one and here's why. Blacks, as you know, have traditionally voted for democrats and sometimes do it out of inertia. It could have been a black college in a Republican stronghold, it would have been a lock that the audience would more than likely be democrat (at least for the black audience that was being targeted.)
The Republicans for the past couple of years have been trying to reach out and for Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson to not support the party's efforts is indeed a slap in the face to the party. Especially since the GOP apologized for the Southern Strategy back in 2005.
I hope this explains a little bit of the why and what for.
Thanks for adding another perspective, Ken. You have raised some additional, intriguing questions.
The reasoning behind selecting MSU had more to do with geography than with mission. Mission was to be met by having a moderator and questioners who have opening expressed their support for specific Democratic Candidates. If mission were the higher priority, then the producers would have gotten everyone, save Thompson, scheduled before promoting the event. This was far more the throwing down of the gauntlet challenging opponents, not so much of each other, as of the producers.
Is PBS really the best way to place this information before the stated target community? Only if we believe that the small numbers of viewers, out of the whole population, are blacks. I don’t think there is evidence to support that proposition.
I did not intend to argue that should not have been a discussion of the issues. I am concerned over the separatist veil that these issues were only about concerns of segments of the population. Although I acknowledge that we are, each of us, a special interest group (or ten or fifty such groups each) I am concerned at the segmenting of the campaigns the result of which is to segment and separate the populace. Perhaps my view is too narrow.
The core of my argument is that primary debates should target audiences of party partisans. Opposing partisans can use the statements and arguments from those events to demonstrate to the public that another position is better. In the end, the Republican Primary Election discussion arranged by the Democrats, in a Democrat dominated venue (state, city and auditorium), is for the Democrats.
Post a Comment