I found a segment on The Daily Show last night to be quite humorous in a sad sort of way. It talked about how there were some female, minority, and even homosexual Republicans that got elected in Tuesday's elections. On one hand, it's great that we're gradually becoming more diverse in politics. It's about time politicians looked a bit more representative of our country at large in modern-day America, as opposed to the 1950s (that may even be a bit too contemporary...). However, on the other hand, I know full well what the main reason is for the Republican Party to seek female, minority, and homosexual representatives - to try and appeal to more women, minority, and homosexual voters, and the troubling part about that is, they think it will be effective.
It reminds me of when Herman Cain ran to become the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Both he and the party in general seriously thought that if he were the nominee, he'd be able to win a much larger share of the black vote than someone like Mitt Romney (or pretty much anyone else that ran). The GOP similarly feels by having more women, minorities, and homosexual politicians of their ilk, they'll earn more votes from these very demographics. What they don't seem to realize is that the main problem with women's, minorities', and homosexuals' views of the Republican Party isn't the face of the party; it's the message.
Do they really think the following scenario will now happen?
Before
Homosexual #1: "So, who are you voting for?"
Homosexual #2: "Are you kidding me? The Democrat. The Republican doesn't think we should be allowed to get married, even though we've been together for 20 years! How about you?"
Homosexual #1: "I was just kidding. Yeah, same here."
After
Homosexual #1: "So, who are you voting for?"
Homosexual #2: "The Republican! He's gay, just like us!"
Homosexual #1: "But he's against us getting married, even though we've been together for 20 years!"
Homosexual #2: "So? We'll be just like him then, I guess!"
Homosexual #1: "Yeah, you're right! Let's support gays that don't support gays' rights!"
So, yeah, kudos to the GOP for attempting to be more diverse on the surface, but if you truly want to have a more diverse array of voters, you may want to work on that ancient message a bit...
It reminds me of when Herman Cain ran to become the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Both he and the party in general seriously thought that if he were the nominee, he'd be able to win a much larger share of the black vote than someone like Mitt Romney (or pretty much anyone else that ran). The GOP similarly feels by having more women, minorities, and homosexual politicians of their ilk, they'll earn more votes from these very demographics. What they don't seem to realize is that the main problem with women's, minorities', and homosexuals' views of the Republican Party isn't the face of the party; it's the message.
Do they really think the following scenario will now happen?
Before
Homosexual #1: "So, who are you voting for?"
Homosexual #2: "Are you kidding me? The Democrat. The Republican doesn't think we should be allowed to get married, even though we've been together for 20 years! How about you?"
Homosexual #1: "I was just kidding. Yeah, same here."
After
Homosexual #1: "So, who are you voting for?"
Homosexual #2: "The Republican! He's gay, just like us!"
Homosexual #1: "But he's against us getting married, even though we've been together for 20 years!"
Homosexual #2: "So? We'll be just like him then, I guess!"
Homosexual #1: "Yeah, you're right! Let's support gays that don't support gays' rights!"
So, yeah, kudos to the GOP for attempting to be more diverse on the surface, but if you truly want to have a more diverse array of voters, you may want to work on that ancient message a bit...
Comments
Post a Comment