interesting link. If ya'll are willing to skip the inane "my party is holier than yours" debate for a bit, I'd like to add some thoughts to that well written piece. (You'll never comprehend what I really mean below unless you get your minds out of defense/offense mode. This is badly written enough as it is, so please give me a break by just trying to understand me rather than jump me.) First off, I agree wholeheartedly with a contention the author made towards the end: African Americans, both parties and American democracy itself will be better off when blacks are not so wedded to one party. This is a real problem and understanding the causes would be useful. The author makes some good points as well as some wrong ones, but there's a couple reasons I'd like to add. Even more than demagoguery by black leaders and other liberals desiring to exploit Lott type weaknesses, the biggest obstacle to blacks joining the Republican party is the wide gap between Republican ideals and mainstream black culture. Mainstream black culture has a very strong, "those who have, help those who don't" ethic. And I don't mean donating 3.2% of your income to charity (the national average for givers). I mean giving to the point of equal outcomes. This ethic comes from generations existing on the bottom rung of society where opportunity is an illusion and survival depends on the taking care of each other. This understanding of society's relationship to the individual extends to government. On the surface, no revelation there, but the underpinnings of black liberalism are generally misunderstood by conservatives. It's not just people who don't have wanting the fruits of your labor, but an ethic that scarce resources should be shared. Unfortunately, this cultural ethic, which was so necessary for most of the post civil war years for African Americans, and is still necessary for survival in poverty, is quite detrimental to getting out of poverty. First, the attitude of scarcity and lack of opportunity magnifies obstacles to the point of insurmountable barriers. Second, a shared outcomes ethic is a major deterrent to achievement. In the mainstream black culture, if you succeed, you should give back that with which you are blessed (not 3.2%) or you are a sell-out who will be ostracized from your friends. You have probably heard complaints about black people who "make it" and then move out of their neighborhoods. From a middle class white perspective, the response is, "Well duh, who wouldn't?" But that just illustrates the difference in culture. Anyway, these cultural traits are very un-Republican. And legitimately, Republicans can say that the black population as a whole would gain from a more Republican outlook. But that brings me to my second point. Another obstacle to conservatism for black Americans is the extent that Republicans trivialize or underestimate the economic and social barriers African Americans face. Having removed almost all the explicit barriers, conservatives seem to assume the playing field is now level. But that belief ignores the extent that we are products of our environment - more specifically, the environment of our childhood. It always amazes me when people say, "It's the parent's fault" as if that's the end of it. While I certainly agree that our parents are the primary key to our success in life, where do these people think the parents came from? They didn't fall from the sky; they're the grown-up products of the parents before. (Note - that is an attempt to understand, not excuse, bad parenting.) Here's an interesting study that was done some time ago. (Sorry, no source. You can believe me or not as you choose.) Some sociologist types studied words children hear in their households for the 2 year period between ages 1 and 3. They categorized the families by class. What they found is that on average children in lower income households heard about 10,000 words during that period. And for every positive word they heard 2 negative words. For middle income children it was 30,000 words and 2 positives for every negative. For upper income children it was 50,000 words and a positive to negative ratio of 5 to 1. Of course, that's just the start. Then we send these kids to school with their peer groups (as is the norm in the US). Even given equal funding, which schools are going to be able to teach the classes at an accelerated level and avoid spending half their time on discipline problems? Guess which kids are likely to succeed whether or not they inherit the family business. And guess which kids are likely to become the sort of parents that do the same for their kids. (And yes, I know there is a lot of economic movement - but the lower income demographics tend to be very sticky.) Now this is just one of many differences lower income folk (disproportionately black) experience growing up and why success is much harder to obtain than it is for most of us. (Yes, yes. I know you all grew up in log cabins, so spare me.) While I agree that giving people an excuse for failure and emphasizing the barriers is itself a major deterrent to success (good conservative arguments IMO), lack of understanding and the resultant unwillingness to work on the problems poor and black people face creates a major disconnect for the Republican party. For instance, conservatives tend to correctly argue that school spending correlates very poorly with performance (family income does though). That makes sense given what I wrote above. But that is far from saying that given a particular group, providing greater resources will not help. And that brings me to the last barrier. Republicans seem to have a hard time grasping that a group that has such a horrible history of being wronged is going to be very sensitive indications of current discrimination. And that history didn't end with the civil war, it's as recent as the uncle who last week was pulled over for no infraction while driving in a white neighborhood. (And almost all black people have these stories.) Yes, the charges of discrimination often get to the point of paranoia, but that's natural for folks outside the circle when they don't have good representation in the circle. George Will wrote a column not too long ago calling racial profiling a myth. Oddly, what he ended up arguing is that racial profiling is just a good police tactic. Easy for George to accept, but not so for the black guy just trying to drive home. And I should point out, it takes very few instances of blatant discrimination to poison the well. And since they do occur, it is IMO a Republican mistake to poohpooh them. As Leonard Pitt wrote recently, it may be more reasonable to ask black folks to quit overemphasising the extent of discrimination if white folks will quit denying it altogether (Democrats do this far less). Again, I'm not trying to bash here. As I said above, I think it is in our nation's interest for black Americans to be much more divided between the parties. A favorite dismissive term for conservatives is to call something PC. The definition of PC is basically, "pandering to an illegitimate concern" and hence not to be done. But for folks who feel outside the circle, those little clues about what people in the circle really think are much more important. So what should be dismissed as inconsequential from the Republican "there is no problem here" view may be thought of by blacks who feel disenfranchised as very important information about what people on the inside really think. Yup, it's form over substance. But so's not belching at the dinner table. Most believe that says a lot about people too. Anyway, IMO those three factors (culture of sharing versus individual achievement, recognition and willingness to work on barriers, and sensitivity to discrimination issues) should be added to what the author wrote as to why so few blacks vote Republican.