Discrimination by the GOP the

Discrimination by the GOP The GOP and Discrimination Looking at today's Republican legislators and the supporters of the Republican Party, it can be very difficult to remember that the Republicans were the party of Abraham Lincoln, and advanced civil rights, and did more to advance practical civil rights in the United States than the Democratic Party until the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Today's Republican Party does not reflect a commitment to diversity, but is, instead, disproportionately composed of Caucasians, and disproportionately led by males, especially Caucasian males.

In fact, the Republican candidates for president were Caucasian males, and it appears that John McCain, an older white male, will receive the Republican nomination for the presidency. In contrast, the two strongest candidates for the Democratic nomination were an African-American man and a Caucasian woman; and it is clear that the Democrat's nominee will be a historic candidate, though it remains to be seen whether that will be because of gender or race.

Therefore, it appears guaranteed that the Republican party will encounter charges of racism in the upcoming election, because the party appears to be pushing forward on an agenda of white-male dominance, in contrast to the Democrats, who are embracing a change in the countries' power structure. Whether or not these allegations are valid, it is almost certain that they will be made, therefore, the Republican Party, and voters, need to be aware of possible sources for discrimination allegations, and, more importantly, the validity of those allegations.

First, the Republican Party has a reputation for intolerance. This reputation has taken on sexist and gendered overtones, as evidenced by recent party controversies. For example, the revelation that Strom Thurmond, a noted segregationist, had a daughter with a black woman, demonstrated a combination of racism and sexism, harkening back to the days of slavery, when white men had children with black women, but failed to treat those children as family members.

Another example is Senator George Allen, whose use of a racial slur "played a significant role in his 2006 defeat." (Kuhn). The fact is that some very well-known Republicans have been overtly racist and sexist, which has lent a discriminatory air to the party. This air of discrimination means that it will be very difficult for the Republicans to run a traditional modern political campaign, which includes personal attacks, without attacking aspects that are related to the different gender or race of the Democrat's candidate.

Obviously, whether the candidate is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama makes a difference in how the Republicans could be accused of discrimination. The risk doubles if the Democratic ticket ends up featuring both Clinton and Obama. The Republicans have an established history of attacking the Clintons' personal lives. When these attacks were aimed at Bill Clinton and his infidelities, they could not be accused of gender-discrimination, because the attacks were launched against a white man.

However, if they were to bring up past issues of infidelity in connection with Hillary, they would be at great risk of being accused of gender-discrimination. Suggestions of Bill's past infidelity, used to attack Hillary, would imply that Hillary was somehow responsible for her husband's indiscretions. That would hearken back to old gender-roles, which made women responsible for the family and the caretakers of their marriages. In turn, that would seem to suggest that Hillary had failed in that responsibility by stepping outside of the domestic sphere.

Of course, the most dramatic example of stepping outside of the domestic realm would be running for the presidency. Therefore, bringing up past problems in Hillary's personal life would open the Republicans to charges that they were engaging in sexism. The Republicans could face charges of racism is they emphasize Obama's otherness. The reality is that many of Obama's life experiences differ from those of the average American, regardless of race.

He does have a tangential connection to Islam, which his opponents have already attempted to exploit, because of the connection Americans make between Muslims and terrorists. However, if the Republicans place any emphasis on the fact that Obama grew up in a largely Muslim country and did attend a Muslim school in his childhood, they face charges of both religious and racial discrimination. The first charge of religious discrimination should be very serious; the Constitution specifically prohibits a religious test for the presidency.

However, the elections of the last half-century or more have placed significant emphasis on a candidate's religious nature. The second charge of racial discrimination is more potentially damaging to the Republicans. Equating Obama with Islam harkens back to the days of the Civil Rights Movement, when many Americans feared the Nation of Islam.