Event: The Republican National Convention 2000

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: The 2000 G.O.P. National Convention

Governor George W. Bush, our newly elected President, presented himself at the 2000 Republican National Convention and shared his views of our society and government with the American public. He promised that the Republicans would be more accepting of difference; thus, the convention theme “inclusion.” It was quite clear that this theme was an attempt to tone down the all-encompassing White image of the Republican Party and to bring more minority voters into the Republican fold. During the convention minorities were something of a permanent fixture. There were minority speakers, as well as breakdancers, a gospel choir, and minority school children seated passively behind Barbara Bush as she praised the coming of more moderate and compassionate Republican Party.

If the actions of the Republican Party to depict inclusion at the convention were to be perceived as a ‘real’ desire to include minorities, their attempt fell short. Basically, inclusion was a mere guise intended to mask the true Republican identity. As a result, people of color were rendered silent and dehumanized. In addition, a stereotype was represented of black entertainment constructed for a white audience.

To gloss over racial inequities within their party and to distract attention from their own policies that have been and are detrimental to the well being of minorities, the Republican convention was selling the concept of inclusion. Clearly, the Republican Party has been viewed as ultra-white and since the 60’s they have enacted policies that have been persistently antagonistic to the interests of Black Americans. It appeared that in 1992 these views took a turn for the better with an increased number of black delegates. Even in 1912 there were more black delegates! Since these numbers indicated a more inclusive party, it may have signaled greater opportunities for minorities and better policies. But in the year 2000 these numbers dropped dramatically.[1] Not to mention, the Republican Party maintains its minority representatives in “symbolic positions,” that is, positions of no real consequence with little or no power, as exemplified by Condolese Rice and Colin Powell.[2] Minorities were utilized to mask these inequities. Consequently the convention reflected a “pseudo-event;” a deliberate occurrence, planned in order to deceive.[3]

Naturally, one wonders why the Republicans would go to such lengths to create an image that in no way resembles reality. But one question comes to mind: Is not the Republican Party allowed to change its identity? Politicians have to start somewhere. However, the key figures in this desire for change are the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees and, based on their speeches, there were no solid policy options offered as to how this theme of inclusion was to practically applied. Bush spoke of ending the “soft bigotry of low expectations” within the educational system, as well as stating “racial progress [is] steady if too slow.” He also mentioned “we [Republicans] are the party of idealism and inclusion.”[4] Cheney, on the other hand, said nothing. If inclusion is the platform upon which Republicans are reaching out to the people, then why not provide a substantive agenda for facilitating the recruitment of more minorities and some serious policies geared towards helping minorities? Or, are minority identities only to be appropriated and used as a vehicle to further a presidential candidate’s agenda so that he can get to the White House by any means necessary?

This appears to be the case as people of color were utilized as props, strategically utilized, as in theater, to embellish the conference, to make the theme of inclusion believable. The most obvious fact about props is that they are inanimate and displayed according the performer’s and director’s wishes. As props, minorities were placed near important Republicans, like Barbara Bush’s backdrop of minority children. As well, they were paraded across the stage as an oddity, an object, something to be ‘oohed’ and ‘ahhed’ about.

This spectacle is analogous to that of the “The Hottentot Venus.” Saartje Baartman, The Hottentot Venus was captured in Africa by a European farmer and shipped to England in 1819 to serve his interests of parading her in front of European audiences for financial gain. Saartje was objectified and compartmentalized into a set of sexual parts. [5] Of course, the context was different, but the purpose and effect are the same. Fundamentally, at the convention, minorities were robbed of their humanity and cast as instruments to serve a White candidate and impress the overwhelming White audience to get votes.

Going even deeper into the trivialization of minorities, Republicans perpetuated a stereotype of Black entertainment made for a White audience, in addition to activating the racist imagery of minstrelsy. It is a fact that from the 1920’s up until the 1950’s White audiences would only accept Black entertainers as long as they were singing and dancing. During the convention minorities were used mostly to entertain, as evidenced through the parade, the presence of break-dancers, and through the performance of a gospel choir. The Bush, Jr. convention portrayed Blacks as suppliers of a type of entertainment packaged for and lauded by White audiences years ago.

Indeed, minstrelsy comes into play, and may prove to be a risky comparison, by the mere fact that although the Republicans at the convention did not don blackface they were quite active in recreating a racist stereotype of Black entertainment. If minstrel shows reflected the sociopolitical atmosphere of their time, the convention did not signal the dawning of a new day for minorities. [6] Perhaps it revealed how George W. Bush truly views the inclusion of minorities. That is, they must stay in their place as unobtrusive elements to be appropriated, used as objects, and thrust into age-old stereotypes to enhance his image.

It is interesting note the Republican’s selective notion of inclusion, when in fact there are Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, and many more hyphenated Americans. In essence, the Republicans appeared culturally ignorant, socially calloused, and self-involved. It becomes glaringly apparent that inclusion was nothing more than a marketing ploy to entice minority voters, as well as the moderate Republicans straddling the fence. If the Republicans truly wanted to appear inclusionary, then provide a plan for change and offer some better policies for minorities. This would have been a real effort in perpetuating racial solidarity. Only under such conditions can inclusion begin with integrity. Until then the Republicans are “damned if they do include and damned if they don’t.”