Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2003, pages 33, 54

Special Report

 

Muslim- and Arab-Americans Contemplate Another Vital Bloc Vote in 2004

 

By Richard H.Curtiss

The story of the bloc vote began 10 years ago, when a number of Muslim- and Arab-Americans and their supporters decided to make elections more effective for their community. The idea was that all members of the community would work together to ensure that they did not cancel out each other’s votes every four years.

The idea was first broached at a convention attended by representatives of all the other Muslim- and Arab-American organizations. It did not seem too complicated at first—but the devil was in the details.

At another conference not long afterward, members of the same groups held a private organizational meeting. They agreed to invite members of the Democratic and Republican parties to exploratory meetings, with the hopes of determining for whom Muslim-Americans might eventually vote in 1996.

After listening to the concerns of the two parties, it seemed that the Republicans were more receptive to what Muslim Americans had to offer than were the Democrats. It was clear that the Democrats were more concerned about alienating the Jewish vote than garnering any Arab or Muslim support.

When the discussions were concluded, the problem emerged that many of the Arab- and Muslim-Americans were predisposed to be Republicans or Democrats first, Arab- or Muslim-Americans second. The bloc vote quickly foundered over those realities. Although it appeared briefly that the Muslim-and Arab-Americans wanted to meet in Chicago to endorse the Republicans, at the last minute at least two of the major Arab-American groups backed out. An endorsement, therefore, was never made, and once again Republican and Democratic Arab- and Muslim-Americans simply canceled out each other’s votes.

Four years later, it was clear to all Muslim-Americans concerned about making their voices heard that there had to be some ground rules. Happily, by this time some of the smaller Muslim groups had amalgamated, so that the number was no longer quite so unwieldy as four years earlier. An umbrella group, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council (AMPCC-PAC), was formed to represent every Muslim American organization.

After everyone had their say, it was agreed that a very small number of Muslim Americans—the AMPCC leaders—would select which party would get the entire community’s vote. This time, something happened to make the decision even simpler: national Democratic Party candidates would not even participate in the discussions, because they did not believe the Muslim-American groups would be able to implement the bloc vote in the 2000 elections.

The decision, therefore, was simple. Because only the Republicans made informal promises to take Muslim-and Arab-American concerns into policy considerations, Muslim Americans, and many Arab Americans, went Republican.

 

It is only now that Democratic and Republican leaders are thinking through what will happen in 2004.

The result was astonishing: in the extraordinarily tight 2000 election, the bitterly contested vote finally went to the Republicans. In short, the bloc vote made the difference between George W. Bush’s election and Al Gore’s defeat.

One cannot say for sure how many people actually followed through with the bloc vote, but it was very apparent that, in Florida, a great number of Muslim- and Arab-American voters took the bloc vote seriously, and decisively influenced the election. Obviously, some Democrats now realize that if they had understood the strategic importance of the Muslim-American community, they might not have discounted its vote.

In the subsequent two years, many Arab-and Muslim-Americans have been deeply disillusioned with Bush’s foreign policy decisions, which seem regularly to tilt toward Ariel Sharon’s viewpoint rather than that of Palestinians and their American supporters. They also are appalled that, despite his campaign assurances, the Bush administration has made extensive use of profiling and secret evidence in the wake of 9/11.

The fact is, however, that presidential elections take place only every four years. It is only now that Democratic and Republican leaders are thinking through what will happen in 2004.

There are a minimum of 7.5 million Muslim Americans, and perhaps an additional million-and-a-half Christian Arab Americans. Because of an astonishing array of ways to minimize the statistics, these are modest estimates. The Jewish vote, on the other hand, is always estimated at five million people.

One thing, however, is certain: if Arab- and Muslim-Americans voters are combined, their numbers are considerably higher than even the highest estimate of the Jewish vote.

Another given is that nearly 80 to 90 percent of American Jews vote for Democratic candidates. As Republican former Secretary of State James Baker once said in a pejorative way, “The Jews don’t vote for us anyway.”

 

Lessons to be Learned

So there are lessons to be learned as the possibility of a bloc vote re-emerges. The Hispanic vote in the United States, for example, increasingly is up for grabs. It may more likely go Democratic than Republican, but it is not yet clear which way the Hispanic community actually is leaning.

The same is a matter of consideration for African Americans. Up until now, a vast majority of African Americans have voted Democratic. Ever so slowly, however, this, too is changing.

It is true that some African-Americans accuse such distinguished Republicans as Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice of being merely “token blacks.” But, in fact, many African Americans cannot help but notice that Powell and Rice are in two of the top national positions, and in this administration play extremely important roles. Whatever the Democrats may say, there will be some fallout from the African-American community in favor of the Republicans.

The point is, simply, that every time a limited number of Hispanic- or African-Americans decide to vote against their community majority, the effectiveness of a bloc vote is reduced. On the other hand, when an entire community switches its vote, as Jewish Americans did to oust former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the result can be very effective. McKinney’s Republican rival took the Jewish votes, campaign contributions and the election.

In 2004, both Democrats and Republicans probably will realize that they can now swing an election nationwide if the election is relatively close. Let’s assume that Democrats are wondering how to gain Democratic votes without alienating the Jewish vote. Similarly, the Republicans will have to do something to maintain their narrow margin.

Given the fact that many Muslim- and Arab-Americans have been deeply disappointed by the Republicans, I would guess that senior Republican strategist Karl Rove is thinking about the subject at this very moment. Let us hope that the Democrats are thinking about the same problem, and particularly about how to avoid writing off Muslim- and Arab-Americans voters.

Given the Muslim- and Arab-Americans’ current disappointment with the Republicans, and earlier disappointments with Democrats, the possibility of third-party votes is crossing everyone’s mind. But the grim reality is that a third-party vote, even for such a popular candidate among Arab-Americans as Ralph Nader, is a wasted vote. In fact, third-party candidates usually have the counterproductive effect of removing any possibility of influence from their supporters. Also, one of the major parties usually is somewhat more acceptable than the other.

Muslim- and Arab-Americans should at least choose the major party, Democratic or Republican, that is more useful to them and receptive to their ideas.

Richard H. Curtiss is executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

< Prev		Next >