Will Republicans finally face up to their bigotry problem?

BloombergOpinion Early Returns

Jonathan Bernstein

The relatively good news from a terrible weekend was that several Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz and George P. Bush (the Texas land commissioner and son of Jeb Bush) reacted to the mass shooting in El Paso with forceful words against white supremacy. A state senator in Nebraska went further, accepting his party's role in accommodating bigotry and vowing he wouldn't be silent. Both National Review and the Washington Examiner editorialized that President Donald Trump should call out white supremacy.  All that was welcome. (Alas, all we got about guns was more "thoughts and prayers," as if there's no possible public-policy response that could make any difference.) But we'll see how serious Republicans are going forward. After all, this is the party that nominated Trump and that just recently failed to condemn his string of bigoted attacks on members of Congress. If they go back to the same type of rhetoric they've indulged in since President Richard Nixon's southern-strategy campaign in 1968, then it'll be apparent that they weren't serious – and the consequences for the nation could well be horrific. Even if Republicans do make a sincere effort, it won't be easy. Democrats officially endorsed civil rights at their convention in 1948 (leading to a walk-out of "Dixiecrats"), but that didn't stop the party from accommodating southern racists well into the 1960s – and even longer in some cases. Republicans don't have as much to repair as mid-century Democrats did, but they do have plenty of work to do if they really want to get rid of the bigotry – if they want to make sure their campaign rhetoric isn't echoed in the manifestos of the people they're now condemning. In addition to rejecting poisonous rhetoric, a good start would be to restore the Voting Rights Act and to end efforts to make it harder for black Americans to vote.  Ah, but the Republican president. As Dan Drezner points out, Trump didn't show up to perform his chief-of-state responsibilities over the weekend. That's nothing new; it was clear six months into his presidency that Trump had mostly abdicated that part of his job. At this point, even if he wanted to speak for the nation in a way that would feel right to those who aren't his strongest supporters it would take some serious work, including renouncing much of his core political identity. Drezner is right that Trump is simply bad at unifying language no matter what. But anything that touches on race or ethnicity leaves him in almost impossible territory at this point.  Which is not to say he shouldn't try. Of course he should. And from a crass electoral viewpoint, expectations are so low that he would probably get some political mileage out of it if he managed to simply read a bland statement condemning racism without getting detoured into blaming "both sides" or talking about how wonderful he is for having black friends. For him to give a serious statement taking responsibility for his own rhetoric and actions? It would be very welcome, but I'm not holding my breath.  1. Molly Reynolds on the budget deal.  2. Josh Huder on last month's dust-up in the House over Speaker Nancy Pelosi's words about Trump.  3. Megan McArdle on Representative Will Hurd.  4. Ed Kilgore on the space available – perhaps – for Senator Amy Klobuchar.  5. And Quinta Jurecic on the Mueller report.  Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.

Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 Web ● Facebook ● Twitter Feedback ● Unsubscribe