After I saw the movie Lincoln, I wondered: When did the Republican Party go from being the champion of inclusion to advocating the “politics of nullification”?

The answer is analyzed in a fascinating and important new article in The New Republic, “Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people.”  The author, Sam Tanenhaus, is the editor of The New York Times Book Review and an astute observer of political history and the ramifications of ideology.

Tanenhaus was interviewed on CNBC’s Squawk Box this weekend and his controversial ideas were put to the test. “This article is going to get some people a little crazy,” said Squawk Box host Andrew Ross Sorkin. He cited the GOP’s “new diversity” and rising stars such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio as a means of disagreeing with Tanenhaus’ central point. Sorkin was joined by co-host Joe Kernen, former Vermont Governor and Democratic National Committee Chairman Dr. Howard Dean, and CNBC commentator Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who described herself as a conservative Hispanic.

Tanenhaus contends that the GOP dominated U.S. politics from 1968 to 1988 through “a strategy of polarization that essentially gathered up much of the population against … African-Americans.” He noted that before the November election, there was great concern by political analysts about how President Obama might not receive even 40 percent of the white male vote. “Three or four election cycles ago, that would have ruined him. Today, that is the minority in this country. It’s not just African-Americans; it’s Asians, it’s Latinos, it’s women who see themselves as an outsider group—this is the new majority that Republicans have to deal with,” Tanenhaus said on the show.

Actually, according to The Atlantic, Obama’s voters were 56 percent white, 24 percent Black, 14 percent Latino and 4 percent Asian, while Romney’s were 88 percent white, 6 percent Latino, 2 percent Black and 2 percent Asian.

Tanenhaus agreed with the view of Wall Street Journal political reporter Neil King, who spoke at DiversityInc’s Innovation Fest last week, that the changing demographics of the electorate are making white people—and the white people’s party—an anachronism quickly. That point was also stressed by DiversityInc CEO Luke Visconti in his column Diversity Wins: Demographics, Psychographic Shifts Decided Election. Tanenhaus delved deeply into the reasons why the GOP has failed to understand the changing electorate and why it may just put itself out of business shortly. Watch the video.

Asked by the hosts about the business angle, since CNBC’s main audience is business executives, Tanenhaus noted that corporate America “has been pretty good on race,” specifically with affirmative action and corporate diversity programs.

Caruso-Cabrera also took exception to Tanenhaus’ theories. “As a Hispanic conservative I reject some of the underlying premise in terms of rejection of affirmative action. Republicans are not necessarily rejecting affirmative action because they’re anti-minority; it’s because they don’t want to tell businesses how to do their business,” she said.

The Republican party’s issues, Tanenhaus argued, are more ideological. “These are the two oldest parties in Western democracy, and one of them has a long history of not being so great in civil rights,” he said.

Dean disagreed, noting that he believes the Republican Party does have a future but that it’s been captured by a hard-line conservative minority and its leaders need to stand up to that group.

When asked if Lincoln was the last nonracist Republican president, Tanenhaus became irritated and asked the hosts “if anyone actually read my article?”  They responded that they had, indeed, read it.

What He Really Said About the GOP

You can read Tanenhaus’ eloquent but very lengthy article for yourself, but to summarize: He notes that while President Eisenhower advocated for civil rights (and Brown v. Board of Education occurred on Eisenhower’s watch), the GOP in the early 1950s drew on the theories of 19th century politician John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina slavery apologist who believed in “institutional democracy” and states’ rights that “became the justification for conservative politicians to resist, ignore, or even overturn the will of the electoral majority.” Calhoun basically said that states can ignore federal actions by saying they are not valid, which Tanenhaus refers to as “nullification.”

Calhoun “called slavery ‘a positive good’ and ridiculed the Declaration’s ‘all men are created equal.’” (“Taking the proposition literally,” Calhoun once said, “there is not a word of truth in it.”) Years later in The National Review, William F. Buckley’s editorial “Why the South Must Prevail” defended voting restrictions as the region’s right.

The era of Barry Goldwater and Democrat George Wallace of Alabama heightened the racial politics, which went “into remission” under Richard Nixon, Tanenhaus indicated, but came back full force under Ronald Reagan, under whom efforts were made to roll back affirmative action. George W. Bush’s success with Latinos was attributed directly to tax and educational initiatives he supported while governor of Texas. In the era of Romney—and after—Tanenhaus contends that better recruitment of Blacks and Latinos isn’t enough.

The image of the “angry black man” still purveyed by sensationalists such as Ann Coulter and Dinesh D’Souza is anachronistic today, when blacks and even Muslims, the most conspicuous of “outsider” groups, profess optimism about America and their place in it. A politics of frustration and rage remains, but it is most evident within the GOP’s dwindling base—its insurgents and anti-government crusaders, its “middle-aged white guys.” They now form the party’s one solid bloc, its agitated concurrent voice, struggling not only against the facts of demography, but also with the country’s developing ideas of democracy and governance.

The post GOP for White People Only? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Papa John’s profits are up 25 percent—that’s why CEO John Schnatter’s threat to cut workers’ hours and raise the price of pizza by up to 14 cents to offset the company’s cost of Obamacare resulted in a widespread boycott of the pizza chain.

“I got in a bunch of trouble for this,” Schnatter said. “That’s what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don’t think people know what they’re going to pay for this.” The Affordable Care Act dictates that companies with 50-plus full-time employees must provide healthcare coverage to those workers. That means some companies will need to cut back on employee hours to avoid added healthcare costs, according to Schnatter.

Earnings Increased But You Can’t Afford to Offer Healthcare?

Schnatter’s announcement came right after President Obama’s reelection (Schnatter hosted a fundraiser for Mitt Romney), which signals that the Affordable Care Act should remain intact.

In the summer, Schnatter said he would have to raise the cost of pizza by 11 to 14 cents per pie because of healthcare reform, yet the company recently reported a 25 percent jump in earnings and is proudly touting that it will give away 2 million free pizzas during the NFL season.

Never mind that CNN refuted that figure, pointing out that many of Papa John’s employees already are part-timers who are not guaranteed company-sponsored healthcare coverage. The company’s own 2011 annual report states that “most restaurant team members [of which there are 14,400] work part-time and are paid on an hourly basis,” suggesting that only the approximately 2,100 full-time employees—who presumably already have coverage—would be impacted. Moreover, many of the chain’s restaurants are owned by franchisees who may not have 50 full-time employees and thus are not responsible for providing coverage.

But even if Schnatter’s estimated cost increases were accurate, this is a company whose adjusted earnings per share for the third quarter of 2012 surpassed the numbers from a year ago by 25 percent. Moreover, Papa John’s third-quarter total revenue jumped 6.5 percent year over year to $325.5 million and domestic company-owned restaurant revenue improved 11.3 percent to $143.4 million. Per its annual report, the company’s 2011 revenue was $1.22 billion.

Consistency in Messaging & Accountable Leadership

Schnatter’s comments recall this memo from David Siegel of Westgate Resorts, the CEO who is building the largest private residence in the U.S. In October, Siegel suggested that his employees vote for Mitt Romney because “if any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.”

Siegel seems to have changed his tune post-election. He told Bloomberg Businessweek that not only had he not laid off any employees, but he “gave everybody in the company a raise this week—the average was 5 percent. I wanted to help them handle the additional burdens the government will put on them.”

The big difference between Schnatter and Siegel and CEOs who have inclusive workplaces is that the latter’s messages don’t vary and they stay true to values.

Schnatter likes to portray himself as a generous fellow who uses the profits he makes selling pizza to help others. After he made his recent comments in Naples, Fla., he told the audience that he was headed to a telethon to raise money for Hurricane Sandy victims, and his company pledged to donate $1 from every pizza sold last Wednesday to the American Red Cross.

But by using his political views to raise prices and slash employee benefits, he hurts his company’s image. In fact, online tweets are now calling for a boycott of Papa John’s.

To understand the importance of clarity of values—and communicating that consistently—see Ask the White Guy: Decision Making, Clarity of Values & What to Do When It Goes Horribly Wrong.

The post Papa John’s CEO Latest News: ‘In a Bunch of Trouble’ for Obamacare Job Cuts appeared first on DiversityInc.

This time, it wasn’t about the excitement of “hope” and “change.” It was a campaign that seemed to me to be rather uninspiring and visionless, in the middle of a searing, aching, endless recession that is destroying more household wealth than anything in 80 years. And in who won lies a lesson for business.

This election was about diversity. As I watched John King go over the election map on CNN the night of the election, it was clear to me that there were key counties in key states that were going to determine the electoral college—and that diversity was determining the trends overall as well. Of the nine battleground states, the President Obama lost only North Carolina.

If you look at who voted for each candidate, the demographics shaped up as older and whiter versus younger and multiethnic. I think Neil King’s analysis in the above video is exactly right. One amazing number is that Asian voters went from 2 percent of the total votes four years ago to 3 percent on Tuesday—but almost 75 percent of Asians voted for the president. In the end, youth will win over age and our country will become more than 50 percent nonwhite by 2043. (This year was the first time there were more nonwhite births than white births.) What most people fail to comprehend is that the rising trend influences the declining demographic: As families become more diverse, as recognition and respect of LGBT relatives becomes a part of more family realities, as the less-diverse old realize they need to have the support of the more-diverse young to pay for their Medicare, the demographic shift becomes a seismic psychographic shift.

Going beyond just the presidential race, there were remarkable wins for women candidates and same-gender marriage initiatives, and stunning, complete losses for male candidates who decided their opinions on rape and pregnancy were important to discuss. This election is a clear mandate from the voters.

Here are major victories to note:

Women Candidates Elected at Historic Numbers

At least 19 women will occupy seats in Congress, increasing the total number of women by 12 percent (from 17 to 19). This marks a new high in United States history.

Women that won reelection were: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.). Deb Fischer (Neb.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) will join the Senate. Additionally, according to the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers, about half of all Senate races had at least one female candidate.

• Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren Win: Record Number of Women Running in Election 2012
• Women In Senate: 2012 Election Ushers In Historic Number Of Female Senators
• Exit Polls: Obama’s Winning Coalition of Women and Non-Whites
• ‘War on women’ may have helped Democrats; Senate has record number of women
• Another year of the woman

Openly Gay Candidates Gain Seats in Senate & House

It was a landmark election for LGBT candidates, as seven of the eight running for seats won. Baldwin became the first openly gay person elected to the Senate; two openly gay Congressmen (Jared Polis of Colo. and David Cicilline of R.I.) won reelection; and as many as four other first-time candidates—including openly bisexual Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona—could be sworn in come January.

• Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin is first openly gay person elected to Senate
• Mark Pocan will be next openly-LGBT member of Congress
• New York sends openly gay candidate to U.S. Congress
• Openly gay Congressman Jared Polis cruises to re-election in Colorado
• Out Congressman David Cicilline re-elected in Rhode Island
• Openly gay Asian American first LGBT person of color in U.S. Congress
• Sinema widens lead, but CD9 race remains too close to call

Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Rights

Referendums showed that voters are ready for a change, as attitudes toward same-sex marriage begin to shift.

• Election 2012: Same-sex marriage passes in Maryland, Maine
• LIVE BLOG: 2012 election results important to LGBT Americans
• Gay Rights Groups — Mostly — Celebrate Obama’s Re-Election

Healthcare

President Obama’s win means that the Affordable Care Act should stand.

• Obamacare survives — now what?
• Culturally Competent Care: How Diversity Creates Better Patient Outcomes

‘Legitimate Rape,’ ‘God Intended Pregnancy,’ & Other Male Politician Gaffes

These male politicians decided to make rape and abortion “their” issues—and they suffered at the polls.

• Analysis: Todd Akin can blame his own words for Senate race loss
• Donnelly triumphs over Mourdock in Indiana Senate race

Lack of Diversity in Mainstream Press

72% of Newspaper Articles About The General Election Written by Men

For more on the election and a look back at the candidates’ campaigns, read DiversityInc’s coverage:

DOMA Rejected by Federal Court in N.Y.

President Obama Supports Marriage Equality

Ruling Against Defense of Marriage Act Is Major Diversity Victory

Diversity & Inclusion Includes Gays & Lesbians: Is Black Church Getting the Message?

Ask the White Guy: What Changed Obama’s Mind About Gay Rights?

Can You Prevent a ‘Todd Akin’ Moment at Your Organization?

‘God Intended’ Pregnancy After Rape, Says Romney’s Candidate

The post Diversity Wins: Demographic, Psychographic Shifts Decided Election appeared first on DiversityInc.

Just two weeks shy of the presidential election, a series of state-sponsored billboards reading “Si Quieres Votar, Muéstrala” (If You Want to Vote, Show It) were erected in predominantly Latino neighborhoods. The wording of the signs is highly misleading given that implementation of the law requiring photo IDs at the polls was postponed until 2013.

Sign this petition to tell Pennsylvania state officials and Clear Channel to stop intimidating Latino voters.

Former city councilman Juan Ramos is furious, say local news sources. Ramos now works for the Delaware Valley Voter Registration Education Project, a nonprofit that focuses on increasing voter registration in Philadelphia’s Latino communities. “This is a very slick attempt by the state government to carry out voter suppression,” he said.

But the Pennsylvania Department of State has no plans to remove the deceptive billboards. Officials say the campaign is the result of a court order to educate all voters that poll workers will ask for photo identification, although it is not yet a legal requirement.

Coincidence? You Decide

The state was slow to remove voter ID requirements from its websites: The Bucks County, Luzerne County and Borough of West Chester official websites stated until Oct. 9 that photo IDs were necessary to vote. Pontealdia.com points out that Luzerne County coincidentally has one of the fastest growing Latino populations in the nation, increasing 85 percent from 14,500 in 2000 to 26,782 in 2010. Read more data about the Latino demographic.

This intimidating billboard tactic, also has been used in Ohio, as reported by Mother Jones. Watch this video below, which shows a billboard on voter fraud in a predominantly Black community in Cincinnati.

Pennsylvania historically leans Democratic, but the state has become more of a battleground for Republicans in the 2012 election. Currently, President Obama holds an 11-point lead over Governor Romney. Other swing states include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

For more on voter ID laws and the election, read:

Are Voter ID Laws Racist?

The Voter-Fraud Myth: What Racist Voter ID Laws Are Really About

Are Obama & Romney Ignoring Latinos?

Why Obama & Romney Aren’t Connecting With Women

Racist Obama Facebook Pages & Your Office: What Do You Need to Know?

The post Purposely Inaccurate Billboards Terrorize Poor Blacks & Latinos appeared first on DiversityInc.

This puts Romney in a now-familiar bind—needing to do damage control after one of his allies goes public with a statement that many people find offensive. (The first was the Todd Akin comment that women who are raped rarely get pregnant.) It’s a situation corporate leaders also have faced, and it can impact everything from share price to employee engagement.

Here’s what happened this time. At a debate Tuesday night, when asked about whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Mourdock said: “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Social-media response was immediate and unforgiving. Romney’s campaign had to act quickly, since this pronouncement came so soon after Romney’s ad supporting Mourdock.

“There’s so much at stake. I hope you’ll join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate,” Romney says in the spot, paid for by the Mourdock campaign.

After Mourdock’s comment, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul issued a terse statement saying Mourdock’s comments “do not reflect” Romney’s views. But the Romney campaign has not yet pulled the ad. Watch it below.

Corporate Lessons

In 1996, when Texaco executives were caught on tape making racist remarks, the company’s stock price plummeted by double digits in one day, it had to pay $140 million in a discrimination lawsuit—and its reputation has never recovered.

More recently, documents in another discrimination lawsuit reveal that the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch demands that his all-male flight crew wears boxer briefs, A&F cologne and flip-flops.

What’s most important for corporate leaders facing public furor over potentially offensive actions and statements is clarity of values, from the start, and clear and constant communications about those values.

So first, always be very transparent about your values of respect and inclusivity. Look at this quote from Steve Howe, area managing partner – Americas, Ernst & Young (No. 5 on The 2012 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list) as an example:

“I can tell you that we truly do believe that inclusiveness is critical. It’s critical to us performing at a consistent, exceptional level all around the globe. It makes us better, more insightful; it helps us solve problems, manage risk and seize opportunities that much better. And we believe that driving multicultural teams is an absolute must.”

Second, act quickly and decisively and disassociate your organization and your leadership from what has been said/done.

Corporate advertisers have quickly dropped organizations and individuals who have made racist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory statements. Earlier this year, advertisers bailed on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show after he called a female student a “slut” and “prostitute” for advocating women’s reproductive rights. And when ABC came under fire for a television show that offended Latinos, lesbians and transgender people, it quickly dropped the program.

Governor Romney quickly went public to say he disagreed with Mourdock’s statement, but his ad is still running. We will keep you updated if that changes.

—Barbara Frankel

The post ‘God Intended’ Pregnancy After Rape, Says Romney’s Candidate appeared first on DiversityInc.

Women’s votes could swing the presidential election, yet both President Obama and Gov. Romney don’t get the benefits of feminine—and inclusive—leadership styles. 

By Barbara Frankel

With all the talk about women being the key factor in determining the presidential election, I am flabbergasted that both candidates went for the ultimate male leadership style of dominance and bullying in this week’s debate.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney clearly had been advised to be assertive and forthright. Nothing wrong with that, and President Obama’s passive responses in the first debate definitely impacted his poll numbers. But there’s a real difference between being assertive and being a bully who doesn’t listen. And both of them crossed that line.

If you aren’t a dog owner, I apologize for the analogy, but both candidates appeared to be trying to show the world they are alpha males. Their posture, their circling each other, their refusal to let the other speak—honestly, it reminded me of two male dogs marking territory.

There is a difference between male and feminine styles of leadership. The most effective leaders, like Jim Turley, chairman and CEO of Ernst & Young, combine the best of both styles. That means they actually listen to their employees instead of just issuing orders; it means they accept constructive criticism gracefully; and most of all it means they create inclusive workplaces. There are several CEOs on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list who also embody this inclusive leadership style, including  Bob Moritz of PricewaterhouseCoopers, André Wyss of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Clay Jones of Rockwell Collins, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, John Strangfeld of Prudential Financial, John Bryant of Kellogg Company, Arne Sorenson of Marriott International and John Lechleiter of Eli Lilly and Company.

Women leaders—and male leaders who have male AND feminine styles of leadership—don’t posture themselves this way. They send messages that they are listening (even if their chief rivals are speaking) and that they haven’t made up their minds before anyone else says a word.

Turley told DiversityInc this recently: “The firm has become less masculine. I would say it’s become more neutral and more balanced. It’s become a lot less of a macho organization, a lot more of a ‘Let’s challenge each other and make the right decisions.’ One of the learning experiences was a board meeting where a couple of our women said something and then our men said something, and I picked up on it when the men said it. … One or two of the women on the board tackled me. The second half of the story is that it hasn’t happened again. That’s how you learn.”

By the Numbers

As we learn from studying diversity management, organizations that have equitable representation are more inclusive of other’s views and different leadership styles. An examination of the approximately 50 top campaign advisers for both President Obama and Governor Romney shows each have approximately 10 percent women, including a handful in key jobs—deputy campaign managers, national political director (Obama), communications directors, etc.

If we look at Fortune 500 companies, we still see a lack of women in key positions. Women CEOs account for only 4 percent of the Fortune 500. By contrast, women CEOs are 6 percent of The 2012 DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity. Women also make up 24 percent of the senior level of DiversityInc Top 50 Companies (CEO and direct reports), up 33 percent from five years ago, and 80 percent higher than the average for the Fortune 500.

What’s the difference between the companies with more women in senior roles and those without? Frequently, it’s the tone and tenor of the management style. Beth Mooney, chairman and CEO of KeyCorp and the first woman to lead a top 20 U.S. bank, told DiversityInc this last year: “Part of the difference is that we led not with differences but by trying to be a part of the team. Diversity has found its way to the C-suite by doing so.”

For more stories on feminine leadership, please click here.

The post Why Obama & Romney Aren’t Connecting With Women appeared first on DiversityInc.

“I think that both candidates are still not doing enough to frame the concerns of Hispanics in the United States as it relates to the economy; this is somewhat depressing given the significance of Hispanics making strides to move toward the middle class—even if only aspirationally,” said Richard Pineda, a communications professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, who was disappointed that neither candidate brought up during the recent debate how Latinos play an important role in continuing America’s economic recovery.

With eligible Latino voters at historic highs, shouldn’t America’s largest demographic be one of Obama’s and Romney’s campaign focal points? That’s 23.7 million voters each candidate potentially is passing up from this rapidly growing group, which the Pew Hispanic Center’s Mark Lopez discusses in the video below.

Is it because Blacks and whites are 30 percent and 32 percent, respectively, more likely to show up at the polls? The Pew Research Center reports that less than half of eligible Latinos (9.7 of 19.5 million) actually cast a ballot during the last election, 69 percent of them for Obama.

Perhaps more pertinent Latino issues, such as immigration, never came up because both candidates know President Obama pretty much has this demographic in the bag: About 70 percent of Latinos said they would vote for Obama, according to a CNN poll the night preceding the debate, and a Latino Decisions poll released the day after showed the president leading Romney 78 percent to 17 percent. Romney was reported to hold favor with only 21 percent prior to the debate, which is well below his campaign’s goal of 38 percent—not surprising considering his strong opposition for immigration policies such as the DREAM Act puts him in direct conflict with much of the Latino population.

Either way, observers agree that Obama and Romney missed a great opportunity to swing a few more electoral votes in their direction.

Read the debate questions Latino civic leaders wished PBS host Jim Lehrer would have asked. What other domestic issues and Latino concerns do you think were neglected at the debate? Can Obama and Romney regain traction among Latinos before the election, or will they continue to marginalize this demographic segment?

Share your comments with us below, then read these articles for more of DiversityInc’s coverage on Latinos and political issues:

‘Racist’ Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Struck Down

Romney’s ‘47%’: Racism or ‘Insensitive’ Rhetoric From ‘Out-of-Touch Man’?

Improving Healthcare for 68,000 Black & Latino Children

Hispanic Heritage Month: Facts & Figures for Diversity & Inclusion

The post Are Obama & Romney Ignoring Latinos? appeared first on DiversityInc.

What do you think about the 47-percent debate? Join the discussion!

Submit your comment at the end of this article to share your opinions about  the video with us. You also can view a clip of Romney’s response to the controversy.

If you haven’t seen the original video from Mother Jones, watch it here:

Readers Respond: Mitt Romney’s 47 Percent

Comment: Governor Romney’s comments about the “47%” are not a surprise to me. Let me just say the people in the room knew exactly who he was referring to when he used the words “victims” and “entitlement.” Republican leaders, journalists, the media, and social media have done a masterful job of promoting the narrative that Black Americans are the problem, a large number of Black Americans are getting handouts, and all blacks feel they are “victims” and therefore entitled to government help. That narrative keeps the white working class Republican base and Reagan Democrats angry and revved up so they will keep voting Republican while the Republican leaders/establishment continues to do what they have always done…Look out for and support the very wealthy and big business.

Comment: Just because when you dig further you find that the majority of the people falling into that 47% are white, doesn’t mean that the comment was not “meant” to cast aspersions on Blacks and Latinos. If Romney had Blacks and Latinos in mind when he made the comment, then it was racist–pure and simple.

Comment: No, Governor Romney’s statements about the 47%, of which I am a member, were not targeted at any particular race color or creed but are a demonstration of the uncaring, uncharitable and general disdain for individuals that do not have the same standard of living. Mr. Romney is completely clueless of how a “normal” American lives and generally has no desire to find out what life is like if you are not a millionaire. Mitt Romney is yet another out of touch rich man who is does not give a whit about the “average” American and demonstrated by his words – “…the words you speak come from the heart–that’s what defiles you” (Matthew 15:18, NLT).

Comment: Alright so in your opinion, Romney’s 47% comments were not racist. Why are we not talking about the comments that were clearly bigoted though? When he talked about having a better chance at being president if he were Mexican, this was clearly offensive to me and other Mexican Americans and simply unacceptable. For a white man to claim to even begin to understand what it means to live as a Latino in the United States is disgusting. For someone like him to even take it a step further and claim that he would excel in his race for president if he were a minority makes my blood boil, and I am even more angry that the media is not talking about this more. This type of hateful rhetoric is unacceptable yet it is happening more and more by Republicans. And they wonder why it’s getting harder and harder to keep Latinos on their side. Just a few months ago, a candidate running for judge in Harris County made a similar biogted comment saying he could “beat a guy with a Mexican name.” (referring to Justice David Medina). At a time when many Latinos are facing such hate, scapegoating, and racism in our society by places like Arizona, I would expect someone in the public eye to be more sensitive to Latino voters to empathize and really try to understand the issues that are important to them. But Romney’s priorities just simply don’t match those of Latino voters these days. It is our job as voters to stand up and denounce behavior and attitudes like this.

Reply: Mr. Romney’s statement is not racist. It is a mere reflection of his political philosophy. I think the racism lies in the perception that only minorities are on welfare or that the so called entitlements were intended to help only minorities. People forget that many of these programs stem from government’s efforts to address the Great-Depression era. All nationalities that make up the fabric of America have benefited from Social Security, Medicare, and welfare. Our parents and grandparents paid into these systems. When Congress and the White House effectively manage our economy, these programs work and are sufficient to cover those who have worked for and invested into these programs. Continuous review and reformation must occur to address current needs. One can’t expect systems built 60-plus years ago to be relevant today.

Reply: Lend me your hand so I can stand
Lend me your hand to I can feel
Lend me your hand so I can move
I’ll take your so I could walk with you or follow you.
(VAL)

I am learning each day that I am my brother’s keeper and my role is to reach out to those in need, encourage those who are battered and weary, support those who are alone and to provide, love and touch those who are less fortunate.

To care is true Christianity and true leadership.

Maybe Mr. Romney should reflect on his words and examine his principles to determine where he stands and whose hands he should be holding.

Reply: I agree with you. Mr. Romney’s statement on the surface is not racist. But, I must say his statement is based on racially tinged statements that have been made over the years with relationship to all minorities. His statements [show] he has a lack of concern or sensitivity for others who are different from himself.

Comment: Medicare wasn’t built 60-plus years ago and is needed more now than when enacted, due to the continuing, meteoric rise in healthcare costs. In fact, some people—insurance companies excepted—believe that the ideal healthcare reform would be Medicare for all. The reason 47% don’t pay income taxes—especially those working—is the result of Bush-Era tax cuts, which the Republicans championed. It’s disheartening how quickly things can change, solely due to cynical, hypocritical, political partisanship.

Comment: Classism is nearly as bad.

Comment: The remarks were clearly racist because he characterized the 47% as dependent on government; voting for President Obama no matter what; having a victim mentality; and being irresponsible. Each one of those statements is a negative stereotype of African Americans that are frequently used by racist disciples of Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Strom Thurman. How can you ignore the comment about claiming that being Mexican born would help him politically? That’s not being pragmatic, that’s just one of the numerous examples of Romney Racism 2012.

Comment: Gov. Romney’s comments weren’t racist. Insensitive, yes………but not racist. It made me better understand how he would focus his efforts should he become president. It’s unfortunate he doesn’t seem to realize the “47%” are part of the middle class, and as such are the buyers of goods and services that will be a vital part of any economic recovery.

Comment: Mr. Visconti, with all due respect I disagree somewhat with your analysis. True, the makeup of the 47% in question is truly multiracial, but the coded language, the dog whistle as it were, still conjures up a Black face. Try singing “Tie a Yellow Ribbon” and change the color, but yellow still pops up in your mind no matter what word you say. So it is with “free stuff,” “dependent on government,” and no “personal responsibility” when uttered by Gov. Romney and his ilk. The reality of his words may be one thing, but the perception in the minds of those there I’ll wager was that of a Black welfare mother with multiple children. Ultra-conservatives now say “urban” instead of ghetto, and “African-American” instead of the n-word. Though the words have changed, the intent remains the same—to denigrate and demonize people based on race. Yes, the 47% includes folks who will vote for Romney, but most of them feel they deserve their tax deductions unlike Blacks, whom they feel have never worked in their lives. Was it racist, without a doubt, and spoke loudly to the subconscious racism that abounds in America, and its institutionalization into the very fabric of our society.

Luke Visconti: You’re right, but I don’t think Governor Romney put that much thought into his comment.

Comment: Mr. Romney’s comments may not be racist, but they are certainly stereotypical. When he labels this enormous group of people as “dependent upon government” as believing that “they are victims”, and as people who “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it” (in other words, people who are unable or unwilling to take personal responsibility for themselves)–those are stereotypes. Granted, there are some people who do abuse the system and who don’t have the personal work ethic or motivation to get to a better place, but that is a very small minority. (Just as there are some millionaires who enjoy nothing more than ripping off the little guy–but that’s certainly not the majority). But as Luke and many others have pointed out, most people who receive direct government benefits—such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, college-tuition assistance, Section 8 housing, Medicaid or Medicare, or Social Security—are hardworking, every-income Americans who have done everything they were supposed to do to get ahead in our country. Notice I said “direct”–as we are ALL beneficiaries of government ‘benefits’ (roads, street lights, bridges, police, fire departments, FDA, environmental protection, TSA, our armed forces, air traffic control, the list goes on). Stereotypes are inflexible generalizations at best, and inflexible generalizations with no factual basis (such as this one) at worst.

Comment: You people don’t get it! You’re focused on your sensitivities. If Obama wins–forget 47%. We’ll be on our way to much worse. The poor (no matter the race) will be poorer. The rich will not hire the poor. We cannot sustain on this course! … Caring is one thing. Entitlement is an entirely different story. Do your homework people. Stop listening to mainstream media to form intelligent opinions. Stop being so sensitive to your feelings and realize you’ve fallen into a trap like a bunch of sheep. Look at who is in charge and what he has done. Anything? Then take a look at a man that became wealthy with hard work and without handouts. You have problems with the idea that you too can apply yourself, work hard and become wealthy? I work for people like this! We NEED them. I wish America would wake up!

Luke Visconti: Governor Romney grew up in a very wealthy household. His father was a governor of Michigan and the CEO of American Motors. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s clear that Governor Romney’s father was a great American–and a proponent of civil rights–but young Mitt Romney had every possible opportunity, every possible door opened for him, and had every possible connection made for him throughout his life. Oh, by the way, it’s President Obama who grew up relatively poor. He is a model of a person who applied himself and became successful.

Comment: His goose is cooked!!! These latest comments from Romney are not racist, but…

Romney’s many, many comments over the months have demonstrated his ignorance. He lacks what it takes to be president—he has misspoken far too many times. You cannot take back your comments on the international stage; once the words leave your mouth it’s fact.

Comment: Mr. Romney’s foregone conclusion that the 47% are all for President Obama and his typifying them as “freeloaders” plays to the image of Black welfare recipients for life. Forget the fact that whites are the numerical majority of recipients of welfare, his statement plays to the latent, unconscious, embedded racism that exists in America today. If I were white, I myself would have the perspective that what he said is not racist, and let’s assume that he’s not being racist. In this case he is being classist and also writing off all those whites who make up the 47%, those who by some turn of fate need help to bridge them over a tough time. How does that feel?

Luke Visconti: Forty-seven percent is too large of a number for him to be racist: I agree that it plays into some stereotypes and that it’s classist. Dismissing people this way is also the hallmark of a person who feels their success is due to providence. That “feels” scary to me.

Comment: Was his statement racist, ABSOLUTELY, without a doubt and history has shown it. But also let me explain what I consider “divine intervention.” Had Mr. Romney used the numbers 20% or below, this would have been a TWO- maybe THREE-day story at best. After that, it would have been a talking point for the GOP and excited his base. When the Democrats complained, it would be described as “using the race card”. Let me that it a step further and as a matter of fact, his numbers would have gone up with white Americans because the lower numbers would have played into their conscience or unconscious racism that has been instilled in our society that ONLY BLACKS are dependent upon government, believe that they are victims, believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, believe that they are entitled to healthcare, food, housing, you-name-it. That’s an entitlement, and the government should give it to them. But when he said 47%, you don’t have to be educated or political savvy to understand that that number includes more than just African Americans. When he stated 47%, that’s half the population and NO WHITES, not even FOX news, could spin that one; therefore, they were forced to have to look at themselves and KNOW that he was certainly talking about them ALSO.

For more reactions on Romney and the 47 percent,  read the following comments from around the web, including responses from voters, political campaigns, Twitter users, and other social media users.

Also read:

Ask the White Guy: Why Gov. Romney’s ‘47%’ Comment Probably Isn’t Racist

NAACP: Romney Shows ‘Fundamental Misunderstanding’ of Blacks’ Needs

Romney Brings Marriage Inequality to Breakfast

Are Voter ID Laws Racist?

Racist Obama Facebook Pages & Your Office: What Do You Need to Know?

The post Romney’s ‘47%’: Racism or ‘Insensitive’ Rhetoric From ‘Out-of-Touch Man’? appeared first on DiversityInc.

Question:
Is Mitt Romney’s video about the 47 percent of “dependent” Americans another example of thinly disguised racism, much like Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queens”? 

Answer:

You’re referring to Governor Romney’s talk at a private fundraiser at Marc Leder’s home in Boca Raton. In response to a question about how he was goinm, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what … These are people who pay no income tax.”

Watch the video below, also found on Mother Jones, and read Romney’s ‘47%’: Racism or ‘Insensitive’ Rhetoric From ‘Out-of-Touch Man’? for some of our readers’ top responses.

I don’t find anything overtly racist in his comments. I think they’re more in line with other things Romney has said, such as in the video below. He’s pragmatic—he’s not focused on people he doesn’t think will vote for him.

A Lesson for Corporate Leaders? 

But there’s a larger story, if you break down who is in the 47 percent that Romney cites. According to the Tax Policy Center, more than half of that 47 percent are working people who pay payroll taxes but fall below the minimum threshold for paying tax. Most of the rest are elderly people whose income falls below the minimum threshold. It is noteworthy, however, that more than 100,000 American households with between $211,000 and $2.2 million in income also did not pay income tax.

As an entrepreneur, I find it impossible to not also mention that Romney reports that his income-tax rate was only 13 percent—an amazingly low percentage that must only be available to people who have better lawyers and accountants than I can afford. I pay more than half of my income in taxes. Just saying.

Here is a lesson for corporate leaders: You can be pragmatic to a fault; Black and Latino people are far more likely than the average American to have a poor person in their family or a person who has no “household food security.” On the surface, they may not mean anything to your profitability. But that doesn’t mean that expressing an opinion so unfeeling, so crass in its dismissal of people, doesn’t result in huge repercussions.

Aside from hurting the feelings (and productivity) of your Black and Latino employees and customers, there are more white people by number than any other group who have no “household food security,” and there are plenty of white people who have been devastated by this recession. People who have parents who receive Medicare sure care. Those who feel they are their brother’s and sister’s keeper also care. That covers a lot of people, and alienating them will hurt your company to a remarkable degree.

Racism, Bigotry & Politics

By the way, I remain a fan of Ronald Reagan. I was on active duty during his presidency and think his handling of the former Soviet Union during the Cold War prevented World War III. However, it must be noted that he started his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss., in an acknowledgement of the Republican Southern Strategy. President (then candidate) Reagan used the key phrase “states’ rights” (referring to the argument that desegregation was to be decided by each individual state, not the federal government) in his 1980 speech. For those of you who don’t remember, Philadelphia, Miss., was the town where three civil-rights volunteers were murdered in 1964 by members of the KKK.

Prior to this speech, in 1976, Reagan became famous for his “welfare queen” speech where he said “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran’s benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.” The identity of this person was never substantiated. It’s widely acknowledged that the character in his story was a fabrication.

In my opinion, these actions and words were completely bigoted and I’m sorry an otherwise accomplished man felt it necessary to stoop to that low level.

No, I don’t think Romney’s comments were racist, but they were so unfeeling, so grossly oblivious to the majority of Americans, so horrible in their scope and so in keeping with other rather scarily unfeeling, undiplomatic and insensitive incidents and comments that I feel it’s reasonable to question his competency to run anything of consequence, much less the world’s superpower, leading economy—and liberator of billions of people, most of them poor.

The post Ask the White Guy: Why Gov. Romney’s ‘47%’ Comment Probably Isn’t Racist appeared first on DiversityInc.

See also:
Observations on the End of DADT
Ask the White Guy: What Changed Obama’s Mind About Gay Rights?
Ask the White Guy: Is It OK to Alter Your Standards to Conform to Another Culture?

The post Romney Brings Marriage Inequality to Breakfast appeared first on DiversityInc.