Did The Republican Party’s Vilification Of Muslim Americans Just Cost It The Presidency?

You reap what you sow. It seems hard to believe in the wake of the invasion of Iraq and widespread conservative hostility towards Muslims in the United States, but prior to 9/11, American Muslims were a solidly Republican voter demographic. Via Ray on the Royals, baseball blogger Rany Jazayerli pointed out yesterday that, fascinatingly, ex-Republican Muslim voters would have won the election for Mitt Romney:

In the 2000 election, approximately 70% of Muslims in America voted for Bush; among non-African-American Muslims, the ratio was over 80%. Four years later, Bush’s share of the vote among Muslims was 4%.

There is simply no way that I can justify voting for a party that denies the very legitimacy of my identity as an American. Nor can most other members of the American Muslim community, who just happen to be clustered in swing states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. If Nate Silver is right, not only will Romney lose the election, but it can be safely said that if the Muslim community had voted the same way they had in 2000, he would have won.

16 Comments on "Did The Republican Party’s Vilification Of Muslim Americans Just Cost It The Presidency?"

  1. alizardx | Nov 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm |

    The GOP also used to actively solicit the Hispanic vote. Apparently their 21st century formula of increasing turnout in their WHITE!!! base plus voter suppression is no longer workable. But since the right-wing blogs are already saying that they lost because Romney wasn’t conservative enough, I think the few moderates left there (e.g. Christie) will be defecting. What is the future of right-centrism in America?

    • Liam_McGonagle | Nov 7, 2012 at 4:46 pm |

      “What is the future of right-centrism in America?”

      It looks a lot like the Democratic Party.

      • alizardx | Nov 7, 2012 at 5:09 pm |

        You got it. The political realignment I see is the GOP drifting into minor party status, Democratic Party swinging even further right on economic policy / foreign policy / civil liberties issues, and the Democratic Party splitting into further left centrist vs right-centrist with the crazies marginalized out of the political debate.

        Obama’s future? Look at Clinton’s post-Presidential career, only with a bigger and better Obama Foundation, maybe funded well enough that Obama will get his own private jet instead of having to borrow rides on high-end corporate jets as Bill Clinton does.

        The US future from the Democratic “boil the frog slower” “left” centrism course that the election results appear to validate? Not optimistic. Neoliberal centrism, the modern version of the ancient “the purpose of government is to enable the wealthy to rent-seek, paying the costs of governance is for the little people” ideology justified via imaginary trickledown is the usual cause of death of nations and empires.

        Election results not all bad, but the good news relates to social issues that don’t cost the wealthy much or may increase their profits, i.e. gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization.

        • Liam_McGonagle | Nov 7, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

          I hope it all breaks down exactly that way–it’d mean the hypothetical emergence of a true left party in America.

          But I have my reservations. All the Republicans needed to do to win this thing was knock it off with “rape” sh*t all the time. If they get their act cleaned up, even if only superficially and to a very minor extent, it is only a matter of time until the Duopoly of Dunces sucks up all the political oxygen again.

          • alizardx | Nov 7, 2012 at 5:41 pm |

            Best possible scenario, but can the US wait for another couple of Presidential election cycles for competent governance which favors the interests of the 99.99% over the extremely short-term interests of everyone else? (social and political collapse is bad for EVERYBODY including the people stupid enough and rich enough to think they can buy their way out of it) Hurricane Sandy is a wakeup call telling America what the costs of bad political and economic governance are.

            Speaking of bad governance, W was rightfully slammed over FEMA response to Katrina. In the post-election euphoria, has anybody noticed that Occupy is providing disaster relief in the outlying (non-money) parts of NYC, NOT FEMA? “Better than Bush” is an awfully low bar to meet.

            Discussions of the GOP needing to moderate to win ignore a critical fact. The people who are now called the teabaggers, i.e. the “conservative” movement that started with Goldwater (he bugged out when they got too crazy for him) *is* the GOP Party machinery from the county central committee to the national level. Who can be nominated for things, who winds up on delegate slates, who controls state and national conventions, who makes caucus rules is the organization, and they ARE the organization.

            Taking over a national political party to take it in ANY radical new direction is a GENERATIONAL process even with lots of people and what for practical purposes, was unlimited funding (who was the “Powell memo” addressed to?)

          • Hadrian999 | Nov 7, 2012 at 5:52 pm |

            the tea party pretty much killed the GOP’s ability to control their message. sane republicans can talk all they wan’t about fiscal responsibility and limited government but then some tea party guy is gonna go all “rape rape rapity rape rape filthy mexicans, welfare queens,rape, gay agenda JOHN GAULT” and totally kill any small amount of credibility

  2. Sick and tired of the savagery of the musim lifestyle and sharia lawa being defended by pontificating idiots. Women and non-muslims are treated like cattle or worse. If you value liberty you cannot also support islamism. If you think you can try living in any muslim country and tell me how that is working out for you.

    • alizardx | Nov 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm |

      In the real world, rank and file Muslims are as secularized as rank-and-file Christians. If you want to bring back the holy wars that True Believing Christians used to have with True-Believing Muslims, go stage your own Crusade. Biggest difference is that the secularization process started later in Islam, the history of Christianity provides just as nasty anti-infidel laws as anything modern political Islam has produced.

      The real divisions in humanity are between the short-term interests of the top 0.001% v everyone else, and the psychological divide between authoritarian followers and non-crazies exploited by the superwealthy to preserve their dominance.

    • asshurtmacfags | Nov 7, 2012 at 8:38 pm |

      Islamism is fucked up, people who are muslims who keep that shit to themselves and don’t apply it politically are fine. It’s the same with evangelical christians, intellecutal neophytes are intellectual neophytes. Stupidity, lack of empathy and lack of logical thinking are the problems. The particular doctrines a ‘tard may follow don’t matter all that much.

  3. BuzzCoastin | Nov 7, 2012 at 8:10 pm |

    > Did The Republican Party’s Vilification Of Muslim Americans Just Cost It The Presidency?

    No, the people that rigged the election cost the GOP the presidency, the Muslims were the cover excuse for the rigged outcome.

    Obama hasn’t done one thing to relieve the racial/religious tensions, but has continued the Elite Wars against Muslims started by his predecessor. It would be hard to believe that they find his actions different from Bush.

  4. Not meant to dis Muslim Americans, but this headline makes abut as much sense as “Did the Cigarette I Just Smoked This Morning Give Me Lung Cancer?”

  5. No, their vilification of muslims, women, atheists, non-extreme christians, moderate republicans, the college-educated, scientists, teachers, union workers, rational-thinkers, gays, blacks, & hispanics cost them the election. Native americans and asians they just ignored. That didn’t help.

  6. Oh, and the Amish. They pissed off the Amish too.

Comments are closed.