Partisan politics has gone mainstream. FOX News, led by the hard-charging Bill O’Reilly, is a big favorite with hardline Republicans. More recently, MSNBC, led by the ascerbic Keith Olbermann, has become a safe harbor for ardent Democrats.
Some decry the loss of objectivity and balance; others argue that journalists have always been partisan and might as well let their biases show.
Partisanship is predictable. Jon Stewart recently played two equal-and-opposite clips of “paid partisans” spouting the orthodox Democrat and Republican lines. “Thank you for taking up time,” Stewart smirked. In other words, if everybody knows precisely what you’re going to say, why not keep it zipped?
Does critiquing a candidate’s judgment make one a partisan? During this election season, many solidly conservative pundits have declared neutrality. George Will and David Brooks can’t bring themselves to endorse Barack Obama outright; but the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has sparked some chilly prose from conservative elitists.
In an interview with an Atlantic reporter, David Brooks frankly admits that Sarah Palin is qualified to be neither vice president or president. Moreover, the New York Times columnist lavishes praise on Barack Obama. He doesn’t think much of the Democrat’s brief career in the Senate, but he says Obama has surrounded himself with world-class talent.
I would be nice to see more left-leaning columnists showing the same sense of fairness. It is one thing to criticize a politicians politics; the kind of character assasination we have seen in recent days gnaws at the foundations of democracy.
I have frequently criticized the Republican Party for its lack of racial inclusiveness. It isn’t just that the GOP becomes more monochromatic with each election cycle; my central concern is that so few Republicans seem concerned about it. George W. Bush made a good faith effort to woo black and Latino voters, but we haven’t seen much enthusiasm for the project among rank and file Republicans. The Southern strategy embraced by Richard Nixon is based on the assumption that the GOP can win without significant support from non-white voters. Tragically, this approach has worked very well. But it is only a matter of time until the racial equation tips in favor of the Democrats.
I would love to see two major political parties, one conservative, the other progressive, both valuing racial and ethnic diversity. Watching the all-white crowds fawning over Ms. Palin I sometimes spot a single black face prominently displayed behind the candidate. Are they paying this guy, I wonder, or is he too out of touch to realize he’s not welcome?
Newsweek recently published a story about “Obama’s other Pastor,” Kirbyjon Caldwell, a culturally conservative black pastor from Houston. Caldwell has prayed at several key Republican gatherings in recent years and is a good personal friend of George W. Bush.
But this year, Caldwell, like virtually every other black preacher in the country, is backing Obama.
White evangelicals often claim that they reject the Democratic candidate because of his liberal stance on homosexuality and abortion. Caldwell is strictly pro-life and, just like Sarah Palin’s home congregation, his church boasts a program dedicated to praying gay men straight. The Obama people have a problem with that but politics, as they say, is the art of the possible.
When Rev. Caldwell announced his support for Obama he was roundly denounced by the Republican establishment.
Why are black Christians embracing a candidate that most white evangelicals find unacceptable? Are black conservatives addicted to a single party, or do white evangelicals have a problem with racial diversity?
I take no delight in characterizing the GOP as “the party of white”. I wish it were otherwise. I want it to be otherwise. I have great respect for traditional conservatism, but unless we see dramatic change, and soon, a steady demographic transition will make it impossible to win a presidential election without a true rainbow coalition. That day has not yet arrived, but it isn’t far off.
Friends of Justice 
Great Post ! In regards to the GOP and black supporters , let me offer my opinion:
The GOP has to do better job attracting black candidates and supporters.The Dems have done a better job because they have advocated causes that are related to poverty and affirmative action . In the delegate selection for the Democratic convention this is obvious , there are threshholds that all interest groups need to adhere. The Republicans have a philosophy test often times in which moderate Republicans are excluded . Because it is a overwhelming a conservative party and most blacks perceive that they are not wanted , therefore blacks don’t want to attend GOP events or support candidates . In order for the GOP to be better served and African Americans to be better represented , blacks must move into the neighborhood.
Agree with the post and particularly the ending “I take no delight in characterizing the GOP as “the party of white…”
The GOP, claiming itself even today as the party of Lincoln, could do well to return to some of its Black Republican roots, that sobriquet not belonging to any black people today but rather to the abolitionists of Lincoln’s 1860 Republican party, the term “black” being used to deride that sentiment.
If not for race, the basic tenets of modern conservatism (now fully distorted into grotesque pharisee caricatures) would probably have seen most blacks as republican.
I wish the GOP had even one visible and principled Black voice as principled debate is obviously a good thing. By principled, I’m referring to somebody that, like him or hate him, you respect his reasoned stance based on identifiable values.
But from the lot of spokespersons and sympathizers with the party, you don’t really hear personal thought and reflection as much as you hear talking points.
What an opening there is for that voice…