The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
2000 Election

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

[President Bush's] standing invitation to judge his heart shows a man of genuine compassion. But words are not enough. The fact remains that in the period Bush has been talking this talk, he’s not been walking the walk – not as far the AfricanAmerican community is concerned. In fact, Bush conducted himself in a way that has apparently eroded his standing among the ethnic group with the greatest claim on the American conscience. Bush got only 8 percent of the black vote in the recent election. That was a bit poorer than what Ronald Reagan got in 1984. He did worse than Bob Dole and worse than his father… But Bush had sought to become a new kind of GOP presidential candidate. He was not going to write off blackAmerica. He not only featured speeches by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell at the convention, but no black child in America was safe from his photo-op hugs. The effort producedwhat could only be called a magisterial rebuff.

Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 1/23/2001

For trying to win more minority votes, using Democratic-style multiculturalist campaign appeals, President George W. Bush has beenwidely commended. For failing to win them (only 8% of his votes came from minorities), he has been widely condemned … often by the same commentators. Since the election, Dubya and his nominees like John Ashcroft have been subject nonstop to questioning along the lines of “Have you stopped whipping your slaves yet?”

Dubya brought this on himself and his party. By pinning a big “I Care” button on his breast, Dubya automatically pinned an even bigger “Kick Me” sign on his butt. By campaigning on a theme that said, in effect,”I’m a new kind of Republican – I’m not a racist!” Dubya has only called down ferocious attacks upon his party. In contrast, Ronald Reagan radiated benign neglect and insouciance on the subject of his appeal – or lack thereof – to minority voters, leaving his enemies to gnash their teeth in impotent rage. (And, by the way, Reagan did just as well, if not better, than Dubya did with minority voters.)

The GOP’s obsession with minority votes has lead to some strange behavior. Fearing a backlash among minority voters, Republican politicians have fled in horror from the vote winning issues embodied in three recent successful California initiatives:

  • Getting tough on illegal aliens;
  • banning racial quotas;
  • Dumping bilingual education.

Instead, Republicans concoct hare-brained schemes like Newt Gingrich’s attempt to grant statehood to Puerto Rico in order to win over the fast growing Mexican immigrant population. Since Republicans don’t know much about minorities, nobody told Newt that Puerto Ricans aren’t immigrants, aren’t fast-growing, and aren’t Mexicans. Republicans tend to feel that “minorities is minorities.” If you do something nice for one group, they’ll all appreciate the gesture.

To get out of this trap, it’s crucial for Republicans to understand the fundamental fact of racial politics as it’s currently played out in national elections: at present, minority votes just don’t matter much one way or another for the GOP.

  • Minorities are just not all that numerous (making up only 19% of voters in 2000).
  • Minorities are radically divided along racial lines. Appealing to one group tends to lower your vote totals among at least one, if not both, of the other major races. For example, campaigningheartily for Hispanic votes alienates blacks who are losing jobs to immigrants. Or, acquiescing in quotas to please blacks (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) annoys Asian parents who want to get their kids into Berkeley.
  • Immigrant racial groups are further subdivided along lines of nationality, class, generation, and ideology, such that most issues turn out to be roughly zero-sum games for the GOP. For example, most Hispanics support bilingual education, but about35% vote against it in Ron Unz’s initiatives. Further, the “Asian” vote is in fact extraordinarily fragmented.

Let’s do the math comparing the results of Bush’s strategy to Bob Dole’s in 1996 Dole didn’t mount the same sort of minority-sensitive campaign. Bob Dole doesn’t do “sensitive.”

For example, Bush drew 35% of the Hispanic vote. Dole got only 21%. However, it’s not reasonable to say that Bush’s Hispanic-oriented campaigned netted him 14 percentage points more Hispanics. The analytical problem is that Dubya did 7.2 percentage points better overall than Dole (47.9% vs. 40.7%). Dole did worse because RossPerot’s respectable third party showing of 8.4% dragged him down.

Plus, in 1996 Bob Dole was approximately 112 years old and his campaign sorely needed some political Viagra. So the change in Hispanic votes from 1996 to 2000 needs to be adjusted somehow so we can compare the effects of strategies rather than personalities.

The way I’m going to concoct a more apples-to-apples comparison of 1996 to 2000 is to add Dole’s and Perot’s exit poll numbers together. This creates a putative Right-Center coalition that togethernetted 49.1% in 1996, just 1.2 percentage points greater than Dubya’s numbers. For purposes of creating a 1996 baseline for analyzing Dubya’s performance in 2000, it’s fairly reasonable to lump Perot’s votes with Dole’s. Perot’s appeal was always greatest to those in the right-center. In 2000, Dubya beat Al Gore 64%-27% among those who had voted for Perot in 1996. Similarly, in 1996, Bill Clinton had won only 22% of those who had voted for Perot in 1992. Finally, Perot always had a tin ear regarding minorities. Recall how he got razzed at the 1992 NAACP convention for referring to the delegates as “you people,” then freaked out and went into seclusion for months.

Ultimately, Dole, Perot, and Dubya all did almost equally poorly with nonwhite voters. Dole received got 93% of his votes from whites, Perot 90%, and Dubya came in right between the two. (The 1996Voter News Service exit poll and the 2000 exit poll are on Also, anyone looking for important data and solid sense on this topic needs to read “How Republicans Can Approach The Minority Vote,” by Adam C. Kolasinski on David Horowitz’s

Anyway, feel free to come up with your own analytical system. I strongly doubt that your results will look much different from mine.

  • Hispanics: In 1996, Dole (21%) and Perot (6%) combined towin 27% of the Hispanic vote. Dubya won 35%, for a pickup of 8 percentage points. In 2000, Hispanics cast 7% of the vote. So, 8% times 7% is 0.56%. In other words, Dubya’s improvedappeal to Hispanics added 0.56% to his national popular vote total.
  • African-Americans: Dole won 12% and Perot 4% of the 1996 black vote, for a total of 16%. Dubya garnered only 10% of their votes, for a net loss of 6 percentage points. Blacks cast 10% of the 2000 votes. So Dubya’s lack of appeal to blacks relative to the 1996 baseline cost him 0.60% of the national vote.
  • Asian-Americans: Dole (48%) and Perot (8%) combined to win 56% of the Asian vote. (By the way, in 1992 Dubya’s Dad won 55% and Perot 15% of the Asians, for a Right-Center Asian share of 70%.) How times have changed: Dubya took only 41%. Since Asians accounted for 2% of the total vote in 2000, Dubya’s 15 percentage point loss relative to 1996 cost him 0.30% of the total vote.
  • Arabs and/or Muslims: Dubya used some precious airtime during the second Presidential debate to say he would easeanti-terrorist policies that impact Arabs and Muslims more than others. This delighted some of the Arab-American and Muslim-American leadership. Still, their endorsements didn’t do him enough good to help him win Michigan, the most Arab state in the country. And Michigan’s Lebanese-American Sen. Spencer Abraham went down in flames, so Dubya game him the EnergyDepartment. Let’s take a wild guess and say that Dubya picked up 0.2% from these groups.

What does it all add up to? I come up with Dubya losing 0.14% of the minority vote versus what he would have gotten if he had run an old-fashioned Republican campaign. Your guess may vary. But I’m confident that it wouldn’t vary all that much from my conclusion that – from the point of view of winning minority votes – Dubya’smulticulturalist campaign turned out to be a lot of sound and fury signifying next to nothing.

Ultimately, Dubya’s diversity strategy only makes sense as an appeal to those whites (especially white women) who want to be seen as racially sensitive. In effect, the President is saying, “Hey, I’m not a racist! Look at all these minorities who voted for me! I got a majority of Arabs and Muslims, 41% of Asians, 35% of Hispanics, and … uh, 10% of blacks.”

The President’s problem is obvious. This list is the reverse of what he needs to raise his stock among these “nice” whites who want to feel morally superior to not-nice whites. Dubya’s emphasis on diversity just highlights the facts that:

  • The black race, which, indeed, does have “the greatest claim on the American conscience,” despises him. Further, they show no evidence that they will ever vote in substantial numbers for the GOP. Nor can anyone think of a plausiblereason why it would be in their self-interest to do so.
  • East Asians and mestizo Hispanics – who garner whitesympathy for being nonwhite, but also lose it for often having chosen to come to America, warts and all – dislike Dubya. Of these two, the group that the GOP may have the best shot attaking – East Asians – is increasingly treated by the press as not a “real minority.”
  • Yet, Caucasian immigrant Arabs and Muslims – who, rightly or wrongly, are routinely stereotyped by Hollywood as terrorists and hotheads – think Mr. Bush is just fine.

Indeed, it’s hard to think of a way the President could make his ethnic strategy even more unappealing – except possibly announcing that the French love him even more than they love Jerry Lewis.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

[ note: News from the year 2000! This, one of our earliest articles, is being pinned to the front page on election day, 2012, to remind you, as Steve Sailer blogged today, that no one seems to have drawn any lesson from the failure of so many minority voters to pass the intelligence test represented by a (slightly) confusing ballot.]

Having recently published a five part series in VDARE on the plight of the intellectually challenged in modern America, I was pleased that so many Al Gore supporters in Florida’s Palm Beach County have chosen to make themselves the poster children for the easily confused. By their willingness to go on national television and proclaim their failure to understand that an arrow pointing from Al Gore’s name to a punch hole means that they should have punched that hole … well, I never expected my argument to get that much free publicity. [For a picture of the baffling ballot, see here.]

Palm Beach Ballot

As IQ researcher Linda Gottfredson has pointed out, “Life is an IQ test.” Performance on practically every task that has ever been studied is positively correlated with IQ. Thus, it’s by no means surprising how much trouble the elderly and the permanently dim experience trying to decipher a new ballot design, no matter how simple.

Of course, stupidity is not confined to Gore supporters. While 19,000 ballots were screwed-up in Gore-loving Palm Beach County, the heavily Republican voters of Florida’s Duval County botched 22,000 ballots—an astounding 8% of the county’s total.

Democrats in Palm Beach complain that it was confusing to have the Presidential candidates names printed on both the left and right pages of the now-notorious “butterfly ballot.” In Duval, however, election officials chose the other possible layout. They put the names of the candidate just on the left hand page. They couldn’t squeeze all ten candidates onto just one page, so they printed, “Continued on the next page” at the bottom, and listed the rest of the candidates on a second left hand page. A remarkable fraction of Duval voters proceeded to vote for one Presidential candidate from each page! [Duval tosses 22,000 votes Unusually high rate to draw closer look By David DeCamp, Florida Times-Union, November 11, 2000]

No doubt in the rest of Florida, tens of thousands of other voters managed to make a hash of their ballots too. So, there is no reason to assume that the people of Florida “actually” wanted to elect Gore. No, the only thing unique about Palm Beach is the culture of kvetch and victimism that encourages the residents to assume that their mistakes are not their own fault and then loudly proclaim that they should get a second try to do it right. Can you imagine some respectable Japanese gentleman from Kyoto going on TV to say that his ineptness in the voting booth cost his party control of the Diet? If he did, he’d probably commit seppuku immediately afterward.

A high proportion of spoiled ballots in African American precincts have long been the bane of black candidates. Jesse Jackson used to complain during his runs at the Democratic nomination about how many of his supporters’ ballots were disqualified.

Jews, of course, tend to perform well above average at deciphering complexity. But age takes a terrible toll on problem solving ability. VDARE contributor Daniel Seligman reported on this in his A Question of Intelligence.

IQ test scores are adjusted for age. On the popular Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, a 25-year-old’s raw score of 114 and a 60-year-old’s raw score of 93 are equivalized to equal 100. Yet, the real slippage tends to take place after age 65.

“Crystallized Intelligence” remains fairly strong, though. Short of senility, for example, the old don’t lose much of their vocabulary. Most of the deterioration is in “fluid intelligence,” the kind you need to solve new problems. Seligman wrote, “Research performed over several generations tells us that elderly people have more difficulty than young adults in following instructions about matters not familiar to them.”

For example, when I was a personal computer technician at age 26, I enjoyed few things more than reading a new computer manual from cover to cover. By age 30, however, I had to seek refuge in the less rigorous field of corporate strategy. Today, at 41, my brainpower has so diminished that I must eke out my living as a pundit. (Fortunately, the competition has gotten increasingly less formidable with each career change.)

This problem isn’t going away. In 2011, the first wave of Baby Boomers hits 65. As with everything that has ever personally confronted my immensely tiresome generation, this issue will suddenly become the Biggest Crisis in the History of America.

But there’s no moral reason for waiting until then to start thinking about how to help our cerebrally limited fellow citizens. There are tens of millions of Americans out there who were born as clueless as those Palm Beach retirees took 80 years to become. As the Palm Beach / Duval examples show, it will never be easy to make things easier for the unintelligent. But it’s time we at least thought about it. And the single most obvious way to help our fellow Americans who lost out in the genetic IQ lottery is to not import unskilled immigrants to compete against them and drive down their wages.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

Something that was said during the October 11 Bush-Gore Debate II struck me profoundly.

Well, actually, that’s a bald-faced lie. Barely anything either candidate said during the entire debate has even lodged in my memory.

But Peter Brimelow insisted I read what the two candidates had to say about racial profiling. And here are excerpts from their scintillating slam-bang exchange:

Tweedledee: “Because, imagine what it, what it is like for someone to be singled out unfairly, unjustly and feel the unfair force of law simply because of race or ethnicity.”

Tweedledum: “I can’t imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed.”

This debate over racial profiling shows how utterly divorced American political discourse has become from personal reality. Every singleperson who lives in a diverse part of the country racially profiles every other pedestrian as he walks down the street at night. Jesse Jackson notoriously admitted that he does exactly that – and sighs with relief when he finds that the footsteps following him don’t belong to a young black male.

The reason we all do this is simple: African Americans commit far more violent crimes than anybody else. For example, according to officialClinton Administration statistics, in 1998 on a per capita basis blacks were seven times more murderous than whites. And this ratio is down significantly from the early nineties when the black crack wars were blazing.

Indeed, the black-white ratio would be even higher if the FBI didn’t insist upon counting most Hispanics as whites. This obfuscatory tactic makes it hard to break out precise crime figures for Hispanic groups. Most estimates place their rates of violence as well below those of African Americans – but well above those of whites. For example, Fox Butterfield reported in The New York Times on August 10, 2000 that Hispanics are imprisoned at a rate three times higher than “Anglo”whites.

Actually, now I come to think about it, I do recall meeting one (1) man who never engaged in racial profiling. At a wedding reception in 1985, I got to talking with someone from Grant’s Pass, Oregon. He was most upset by how whites (other than himself) worried more about blackmuggers than muggers of other races. “That’s pure racism!” he insisted.

I proposed to him a thought experiment. Say your wife’s car runs out of gas in the middle of the night in a desolate neighborhood. She has no idea which way to walk to find a gas station. However, if she walks one way she has to pass by a half dozen black youths lounging on a corner. If she walks the other way, she would have to pass by a half dozen Indian immigrant youths. Which way would you prefer she went?

“I would be completely indifferent,” he replied.

“Well, then, for your sake, I’m glad you live in Grass Pants, Oregon.”

“Where I live is irrelevant!” he responded triumphantly. “I’ve already been mugged three times!”

I was quite defeated by his logic.

The plain fact is that cultural diversity and human biodiversity are decisive in predicting who will commit crimes. Men are an order ofmagnitude more likely to commit crimes than women. Old people and children commit enormously fewer than post-pubescents. Blacks are a couple of orders of magnitude more likely to commit violent crimes than Japanese Americans. Etc. etc.

Thus there are only two alternatives to “racial profiling.”

* The cops could abandon proactive attempts to prevent suspicious characters from committing crimes. Instead, they could retreat to acompletely reactive posture.

* Or they could institute racial quotas. They could randomly stop whites and East Asians whom they are confident are no threat to the public safety in order to be allowed to occasionally stop the most dangerous-looking blacks and Hispanics.

In either case, the upshot will be the same: the long decline in crime rates, brought about by some fairly brutal in-your-face policing and a doubling of the number of jail inmates, is just about over. Thus the crime rate has already shot up in Los Angeles since the Ramparts “civil rights” scandal hamstrung the LAPD.

Whoever gets elected in November, the same “solution” is coming to your town.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?