Political Tribalism for Me, but Not for Thee

This really isn’t related to Super Tuesday, but I thought I’d post about it while it was floating about in my mind. Why is it acceptable for blacks and Hispanics to all vote overwhelmingly for one political party, but if whites were to do the same thing, they’d be called racists? To put the question in another way, if pundits accuse the GOP of being an increasingly white only party, why is that a problem? Why is it wrong for the GOP to be accused of working for white’s interests, while it is perfectly fine for the Democratic Party to work for black and Hispanic interests?

Imagine this hypothetical conversation:

Why is it ok for blacks to vote overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democrats? How is that not racist on their part?

It’s not racist because the Democratic Party actively helps black interests. The Democratic Party seeks to address problems faced by blacks and cares about their concerns.

Would it be right for the Republican Party, or any other party, to exclusively address white people problems and issues?

No, that would be racist. White people’s problems are diverse, differing according to socio-economic status, geography, etc.

So white people have diverse ideologies and interests, but black people don’t. Isn’t that kind of insulting.

No. Being black forces you to face unique problems and challenges that white people don’t have to face.

But there are no collective challenges for being white?

Not really.

Shouldn’t we move to a system where party loyal is not based on ethnicity, but ideology? Isn’t that a superior and far more cohesive system?

Sure.

End conversation.

The point is, I don’t think it’s right that you can justify a race’s support for a particular party based on the logic, “well they take care of that race.” Parties should not be about what they can do for members of particular ethnicities, creeds, or races. Rather, parties should be advancing their version of a universal public good. Parties should compete on ideology, which is irrespective of human particularities and is open to all. If you say, rightfully so in my opinion, that it’s wrong for a party to look after white’s and their interests, then you should also say, based on consistency and fairness, that it’s wrong for a party to look after blacks, Hispanics, etc and their respective interests. This is even assuming that racial groups have collective needs or wants, an assumption I think is A) wrong, B) insulting to those groups, and C) far too collectivist for American society. 

It goes beyond this. Look at this:

http://www.barackobama.com/african-americans/

Obama has an entire section of his site dedicated to African Americans. Where's the section for whites? If it's wrong to have a section for whites, then why is it not also wrong to have a section for blacks? They also have a pdf that's entitled, "The Obama Administration's Accomplishments for the African-American Community." Now imagine a fact sheet entitled, "The Bush Administration's Accomplishments for Whites" or "The Romney's Plan for White Americans." There would be unceasing moral outrage, and rightfully so. But why?