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
Democratic Party

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

From the NYT Magazine:

The Great Democratic Crack-Up of 2016

They may have a strong presidential candidate, but at every other level, the party’s politicians and activists are fighting to survive — and fighting with one another.


Maryland might seem a peculiar venue for a blood feud over the future of the Democratic Party. It is the second-bluest state in the United States, after Massachusetts, according to Gallup; its registered Democrats, more than 30 percent of whom are black, outnumber registered Republicans two to one. Maryland is home to an immense federal work force and is one of the states most economically dependent on the federal government. Its gun-control laws are among the strictest in the nation. In 2012, Maryland and Maine became the first states to ratify same-sex marriage by popular vote. Barack Obama’s statewide margin of victory was roughly 26 points in 2008 and 2012, the fifth highest in the United States. The last time the G.O.P. won control of the Maryland State Legislature was in 1897. So reliable is its party affiliation that, as a Democratic senator’s chief of staff puts it, “If Maryland ever becomes a jeopardy state, then the whole thing is gone.”

This past March, when Barbara Mikulski, the longest-serving woman in United States Senate history, unexpectedly announced that she would not be seeking a sixth term in 2016, national progressive groups quickly threw their weight behind their dream candidate: Donna Edwards. A pugnacious former community organizer, Edwards is a four-term African-American congresswoman from Prince George’s County, one of the most affluent majority-black counties in the United States.

But she wasn’t the favorite of establishment Democrats. For them, the obvious choice to replace Mikulski was the seven-term congressman Chris Van Hollen, who is considered a progressive like Edwards, but has a reputation for coolheaded practicality and for working well with Republicans. Of the bills sponsored by Van Hollen in the previous session of Congress, 37 percent included at least one Republican co-sponsor. For Edwards, the corresponding figure was 0 percent. Where she is viewed as a warrior for liberal causes, he is seen as a conciliator, one whose let’s-sit-down-and-talk-this-over geniality led to his tenure as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2007 to 2011 and, thereafter, to his designation as the House Democrats’ point man on bipartisan budget discussions. As their lead negotiator, Van Hollen has immersed himself in the sort of legislative sausage-making that typically entails compromise, like his expressed willingness, in 2012, to consider restructuring Social Security as part of an overall deficit-reduction agreement. To progressives, this was nothing less than apostasy.

Also, Chris Van Hollen, who represents rich Montgomery County in Congress, happens to be just about the whitest man in America, Deep State Division. Van Hollen’s father was an aide to Secretary of State Dean Acheson and then American ambassador to Sri Lanka. His mother was the top Afghan analyst for the State Department. Van Hollen’s like the Matt Damon character in The Good Shepherd who gets questioned by mobster Joe Pesci over what his Old American people own: “The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.”

My guess would be that the Democrats benefit from still having as a public face of the party some number of this kind of old-fashioned hereditary princeling with direct family ties to the Truman Administration’s waging of the Cold War. Just as the Republicans celebrate any GOP politician they can find who is from somewhat outside the Core (e.g., Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Mr. Columba Bush, etc.), logic suggests the Democrats should conversely find it tactically prudent to look favorably upon a good-looking representative like Van Hollen of the East Coast’s ancient Dutch/WASP elite that produced the Roosevelts.

But symmetrical logic is distasteful to Democrats. Moral asymmetry is their engine. Holding together the Democrats’ Coalition of the Fringes by demonizing Privileged Straight White Males like Van Hollen is too much fun and to necessary to turn off just for tactical reasons.

Progressives, of course, love that Edwards is not a backslapping insider. She has vigorously advocated for many of their pet causes — minimum-wage increases, college-tuition debt relief, overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict so as to regulate corporate expenditures on political activity — that they maintain are popular with the public despite having failed to pass in Congress.

They also see her as a model progressive in another sense: Edwards is not a white male. …

Shortly after Freddie Gray died after being injured while in police custody in Baltimore, Edwards told me: “I reacted to what happened from my perspective raising a young black son in an environment that’s complicated. And one of the voices that’s so important but that’s been missing are black moms who are raising their children and worrying about what’s happened to our communities.” …

Van Hollen nonetheless enters the race as the front-runner, owing to his legislative accomplishments and to his extensive fund-raising connections as the former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But Thomas Schaller, a University of Maryland, Baltimore County, political-science professor, says: “Any financial advantage by him will probably be evened out by the sweat equity of progressive grass-roots volunteers. So resourcewise, this is a draw. The differentiator will be policy stuff. Her people are probably going to be poring over every committee vote and every statement to see where he was siding with Wall Street. The Van Hollen people will be doing the same thing. And sure, race is always a factor” — a factor, Schaller said, that would help Edwards in black-dominated counties but hurt her in the rural stretches of western Maryland and along the Chesapeake Bay, with emerging neighborhoods of Asian and Latino voters potentially proving decisive.

As I’ve been saying, a major political question is whether Asians and Latinos will view the GOP more as the resented White Party or the Democrats more as the worrisome Black Party?

• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Democratic Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

While the rest of the country was still up in arms over the George Zimmerman verdict, I watched a webinar from the Brookings Institution on The Future of the Republican Party: Is the GOP DOA? It wasn’t the most scintillating debate, but it did give some insight into how influential Republicans think—and what they don’t think about.

Zimmerman’s ordeal demonstrated once again the centrality of race and ethnicity in American political passions. But three of the four discussants—Elaine Kamarck, William A. Galston, and Alex Castellanos—played down the topic.

You might think that the violent, mindless rage directed by Democrats at Zimmerman as the face of white racism (despite his being Hispanic) might get Republicans thinking about how to exploit the inherent cracks in the Obama Coalition. But the idea seems never to have occurred to the participants.

The Brookings confab was mostly of interest because it offered a look the one speaker who did discuss race: at Sean Trende, the RealClearPolitics election data cruncher. Trende has a chance to evolve into the Nate Silver of the Right. He is a lucid speaker and a handsome fellow in a James Spader-sort of way, so he should get numerous opportunities to inject some reality checks into Republican thinking.

Trende’s recent four-part series on The Case of the Missing White Voters, Revisited basically introduced the Main Stream Media—at long last!—to the existence of the white voter. Trende is properly skeptical of the conventional wisdom, offered by such disinterested well-wishers of the GOP as Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi, that the House GOP must grant amnesty to illegal aliens now or never win another Presidential election.

In contrast, Trende noted that white turnout was weak in 2012. In particular, at the county level, total turnout tended to be limpest in counties where Ross Perot did best in 1992.

Perot, who turned in the strongest Third Party run since Teddy Roosevelt, ran strongest in regions somewhat distinct from the GOP’s current Southern and evangelical strongholds. The renegade billionaire appealed most to patriotic populists, the kind of more downscale white voters who were distinctly ungalvanized by Mitt Romney’s corporate executive style (Trende: “Romney got killed on ‘Who cares about people like me?’”) and by Paul Ryan’s budget wonkery.

As a thought experiment demonstrating “there are multiple ways to skin an electoral cat,” Trende pointed out three things the GOP could have done to get to fifty percent plus one of the popular vote in 2012:

  • Win 21 percentage points more of Hispanics
  • Win 16 points more of blacks
  • Win 3 points more of whites

Which one seems easiest to do in 2016?

Trende is perfectly willing to admit that “30-40 years from now, it’s a different story”—mass immigration will have totally sunk the GOP, at least as we know it today. But the short-term numbers hardly suggest that the Republicans’ only hope to get out of the hole that post-1965 immigration policy has put them in is to dig faster.

Granted, the MSM failure to check the dubious math in their stories on how Senator Schumer is saving the Republican Party is more understandable than their getting the Trayvon tale so embarrassingly wrong. That was the kind of sad incident that happens all the time in every metropolitan region in America. It just needed meat and potatoes reporting to figure what really happened. But, instead, the MSM, after its long disinformation campaign, has found itself humiliated by the trial: yet another fiasco involving blacks.

Still, it’s worth asking: why couldn’t the MSM keep in their heads a simple distinction about the impact of immigration—

Answer: Because thinking is hard, especially about reality.

Thus for the last 8 months we’ve been hearing almost nonstop about how for GOP House not to pass the Schumer-Rubio bill would incur the Righteous Racial Wrath of Hispanics. The pervasive but seldom-articulated assumption among journalists: Hispanic voters are a cohesive group who are obsessed with helping their co-ethnics, due to their intense Pan-Hispanic devotion to Racial Solidarity.

After all, aren’t Hispanics the New Blacks?

Well, it’s true that, as we’ve seen in the Trayvon controversy, African-Americans tend to be highly racialist. That doesn’t mean they always treat each other well, unfortunately— by, say, not shooting each other. But, clearly, they welcome chances to express verbally their racial solidarity—which also provides career benefits for a not-insignificant stratum of the more articulate blacks.

For example, the Rev. Al Sharpton still really is a Black Leader. He successfully played the same agitator role in the Trayvon tragedy as he did in the fictional Henry Lamb death under the name Rev. Bacon in Bonfire of the Vanities 26 years ago.

However, there’s a reason that this “Hispanic Is the New Black” assumption rarely gets aired explicitly: blacks are still the old black. They aren’t in any hurry (except for the most tactical of reasons) to share the moral mantle of America’s Designated Victim Group with Hispanics like, say, George Zimmerman.

But are African-Americans the best model for understanding people from Spanish-speaking countries?

For example, over the last 15 months, how many Hispanic leaders have stood up in the defense of the half-Peruvian Zimmerman? Not many.

The only honorable exception I’ve noticed: veteran tabloid TV host Geraldo Rivera. He has taken a lot of flack over the last 15 months for being a voice of moderation against the railroading of Zimmerman.

But even that lone example raises the question: Is Geraldo really a Latino Leader? Does he even claim to be? (Occasionally, he talks about retiring to his house in Israel and running for the Knesset.)

But if Geraldo, who at least is famous, isn’t a Latino Leader, then who is?

Well, there’s that Univision anchorman from Mexico City who looks like Anderson Cooper would after getting burnished on a rotary lathe to a gleaming sheen. And there’s that guy who gets paid $3,000 per year to hold the ceremonial office of mayor of San Antonio and who the Democrats had give the keynote speech at their last convention. And there is the ex-mayor of Los Angeles, who is kind of an overgrown juvenile delinquent. Also, the press seems to want to anoint that Desperate Housewives actress as the new Marta Luther King.

But it all seems very tenuous. In fact, a 2010 Pew Hispanic Center poll found that 74% of Latinos responded that their most important ethnic leader was either “Don’t know” or “No one.”

The Zimmerman case is more evidence that most of today’s professional Hispanic activists are transparently just in it for their own careers. The Establishment didn’t want anybody standing up for Zimmerman. So no Latino Leader younger than the 70-year-old Geraldo would.

The main examples of Latino Leadership noticeable over the last decade: the huge rallies of illegal aliens on May Day 2006. Who sounded the clarion call for those? Probably funny drive-time Spanish-language DJs, but nobody seems to remember.

Indeed, there’s not much evidence that the Hispanic masses cared one way or another about Zimmerman. The argument only seemed to concern blacks and, as always, two sets of white people getting very angry at each other.

In my experience, Hispanics are rather adept at not caring about a lot of things that seem important to white people at any one time.

The reality: it’s whites have dreamt up the notion of Latino Solidarity.

Sure, the diversity gravy train does provides an easy career for a few well-educated folks with Spanish surnames.

For instance, at the Brookings webinar one panelist was Alex Castellanos, the Cuban-born ad man who created the endlessly denounced Anti-Affirmative action “White Hands” commercial that helped Jesse Helms win re-election in 1990. But now Alex is beyond all that, reinventing himself as a Tom Friedman-like seer who recommends books on complexity theory by the Santa Fe Institute and on governing via the Internet by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom.

And Castellanos isn’t totally loath to get in on the ongoing Cuban putsch within the GOP by playing the victim card himself. At Brookings, he claimed: “We’re in a party where I have to carry my passport in my pocket to prove my citizenship.”

Huh? Castellanos looks like Dick Van Dyke during his Diagnosis Murderphase (his daughter looks like a young Tea Leoni). He talks like a slightly less folksy version of historian David McCullough narrating a Civil War documentary.

But immigrants from Latin America and their descendants don’t really care about this vast synthetic concoction of “Hispanicity.” In the World Cup, for instance, they root for the national soccer teams from their homelands.

Poor Zimmerman’s mom was from Peru, but who cares about Peruvian-Americans? Apparently, Mexican-Americans don’t.

Similarly, since November, the MSM has been proclaiming Cuban-American Marco Rubio the savior of the Republican Party in 2016 because of his immense appeal to Latino voters. Except that the most recent poll by Latino Decisions of 1200 Latino voters found Rubio losing to Hillary Clinton 66-28 and to Joe Biden 60-28.

On the other hand, Rubio does have a cute British Invasion boy band look, so at least he’s got that going for him.

Latin Americans like looking white. They put expensive effort into it,cosmetically and genetically, and they pay a lot of money to their idols for looking white.

In contrast to Rubio or the glistening Jorge Ramos, Zimmerman is, visibly, some kind of pudgy tri-racial pardo.

The bottom line: while numerous elite white Americans have been going on TV to announce, like Kent Brockman on The Simpsons, “I, for one, welcome our new electoral overlords,” the truth is that Hispanic immigrants are just not formidable people, individually or (especially) collectively.

And that hints at the 30-40 year solution for the GOP’s massive demographic problem. (Assuming, of course, that the party elite absolutely refuses to allow an immigration moratorium).

If Americans whites started treating themselves with self-respect (e.g., don’t roll over for illegal aliens with fifth-grade educations), the Latinos would more or less fall in line as they tried to be white in an American where whiteness is no longer demonized.

Sean Trende told Brookings that the GOP might get up to 20 percent of the black vote someday. To me, that seems both implausible and unwise. The natural sweep of American politics is from blacks on the Left to, say, Mormons on the conservative side. In 2012, for instance, Romney got 3 percent of the black vote and 86 percent of the Mormon vote. (Of course, that gap was exaggerated by the identities of the two candidates last November, but it’s still characteristic).

Instead, my suggestion: rather than devote immense effort to pursuing a tiny number of persuadable black voters, Republicans would be smarter to concede that the Democrats are the natural home of blacks … and that blacks, as historic Americans, deserve to have a major party defer to them!

Indeed, just as Republicans are constantly demonized as the “White Party,” t hey should praise the Democrats for being the natural “Black Party”—the rightful vehicle for African American political aspirations, since blacks are the moral core of the Democrats.

As I wrote in wrote in 2009, before anybody had heard of Trayvon Martin:

Moreover, Republican rhetoric should encourage feelings of proprietariness among blacks toward their Democratic Party. It’s not all that hard to get blacks to feel that they morally deserve something, such as, for example,predominance in the Democratic Party. African-Americans are good at feeling that others owe them deference.

Hispanic and Asian voters should be encouraged to understand the central American political reality: they only get to choose between being the junior partners in the White Party or junior partners in the Black Party.

When that reality is made clear, white Democratic grandees like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer might be very surprised by what happens to their Rainbow Coalition.


Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative and writes regularly for Takimag. His features his daily blog. His book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here and here (Kindle)


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

After the 2008 election, both the youth bloc and the minority bloc were widely lauded for turning out in largenumbers to put Barack Obama in the White House.

Indeed, the MSM punditry conflated the young and the nonwhite into one overlapping harbinger of unbeatable Democratic hegemony in the rapidly-arriving demographic future—in contrast to those (nearly) dead white males who voted for John McCain.

Two years later, however, the future ain’t what it used to be.

A September 3, 2010 Gallup Poll report is headlined:Blacks, Young Voters Not Poised for High Turnout on Nov. 2: Republicans—and conservative Republicans in particular—are already tuned in to midterms.

The Gallup survey found the decisive factor in thisNovember’s midterms is that the older, whiter, and maler you are, the more interested you are.

That wasn’t true during the fatally inhibited (on the GOP side) 2008 campaign. According to the Census Bureau, the percentage of Hispanics age 18 to 24 who voted increased from 20.4 in 2004 to 27.4 in 2008. That was the highest young Hispanic turnout since 1972, before the vast wave of immigration made had the paradoxical effect of reducing the proportion of Hispanics active in American civic life. Turnout among young blacks and Asians was also up sharply. [Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History, Pew Research Center, April 30, 2009]

The 2008 exit poll found that 18 to 29-year-old Hispanics voted 76-19 for Obama. 18 to 29-year-old blacks 95-5. (The exit poll didn’t cover the Asian vote.)

In contrast, although young whites dutifully voted for Obama 54-44, their turnout actually dropped slightly, from 2004 to 2008, from 48.5 percent of their possible total to just 48.3 percent. Apparently the choice between Obama and John McCain was just less galvanizing for young whites than it was for their nonwhite classmates.

The punditariat is always denouncing conservative voters as ignorant and unsophisticated. Yet the revival of apathy among Democratic blocs in 2010 shows that the Obama fad of 2008 actually dredged up some of the least savvy citizens ever to find their way to the voting booth.

The Democrats are paying the price for the MSM over-promoting Obama to minorities and youth as if he were the awesomest Will Smith Fourth of July-weekend blockbuster movie hero ever. Now that Obama’s actually in office, he instead reminds them, vaguely, of that earnest adjunct professor who taught the boring Poly Sci 101 course at the community college that they dropped out of. Young people, minorities, and, especially, young minorities, have simply lost much of the interest in public affairs that they briefly displayed in 2008.

This suggests the medium-term strategy for Republicans for coping with demographic change: stand by your base.

Not surprisingly, that’s the exact opposite of the line preached by mainstream analysts: that Republicans can’t dare take an aggressive line with Obama or on immigration because they will then washed away by outraged young minority voters, who will never forget and never forgive the GOP for any disrespect toward Diversity. We’ve been instructed repeatedly by the press that Republicans must act gingerly upon any topictouching upon diversity—just as John McCain did.

But in 2010, that’s sure not happening. Past GOP Establishment spokespersons like McCain, Bush, and Karl Rove are discredited. New, un-neutered grassroots leaders, such as Arizona state senator Russell Pearce,author of SB1070, have emerged. Long-forbidden topics, such as anchor babies, have surfaced. Public discussion of these issues has, as VDARE.COM has always predicted,fired up the GOP base.

But also, contrary to the conventional wisdom, this political incorrectness has not only failed to elicit an effective backlash from young minorities—it has also apparently heightened their apathy, causing some of them to lose interest in politics.

Look at this table:

Moreover, 42 percent of whites have been thinking abouttheir civic duty, compared to only 25 percent of blacks and25 percent of Latinos. And almost half of the public age 50or over are contemplating the elections compared to merely 19 percent of the 18 to 29-year-olds.

(Gallup also found a sizable gender gap, although not thekind that the MSM likes to talk about: 45 percent of men have given some thought to the elections, compared to only 31 percent of women.)

From a historical perspective, there’s nothing terriblysurprising in the collapse of the vaunted liberal youth votein these midterms. Young people don’t vote much, and when they do, it’s typically because they got worked up over personalities during Presidential elections. Here areturnout percentages from the Census Bureau’s post-election surveys:

Young people (the orange line) were fired up, relativelyspeaking, over George McGovern in 1972, Bill Clinton in1992, and Barack Obama in 2008. In contrast, old people (the green line) reliably showed up to vote in Presidential and midterm elections every year except the depressing Watergate year of 1974.

Young people simply have more enjoyable things to thinkabout than public affairs: romance, music, friends, and who would win in a fight: Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man?

And this pattern of blowing off voting in off-years isparticularly marked for young voters of recent immigrantstock. Hispanics and Asians became somewhat interested in the high turnout 2004 election, and went wild (compared to their traditional lack of participation) over voting for Obama in 2008:

In contrast, the turnout of young Hispanics and Asians is generally dismal in midterms:

Only about one out of ten 18-24 year old Hispanics and Asians show up to vote in off-years.

Of course, a large reason that many young people of immigrant ethnicities don’t vote is because they can’t vote. They’re not citizens.

But that’s not the only reason. Another is civic apathy. We can tell because, in sharp contrast to the Census Bureau’s contention that it couldn’t possibly dream ofasking residents of the U.S. if they are citizens in the decennial Census, the Bureau always asks people in its post-election survey if they are citizens. It turns out that in the 2006 off-year election, looking at 18 to 24 year old citizens alone, turnout was 24 percent among whites versus 19 percent among blacks, 17 percent among Hispanics, and 15 percent among Asians.

Bottom line: the decline in the white share of the vote is happening slower than the decline in the white share of the population. But this is a lesson that many political strategists just can’t seem to keep straight in their heads.

And, conversely, appealing to white interests does not automatically alienate minorities.

When you think about common human psychology, this shouldn’t be surprising. For example, the press’s notion that Latino voters would respond to Republican criticism of legal and illegal immigration with relentless resentment, with endless spite, is just another example of projection by the media elite.

The reality is that most nonwhites can’t be bothered to feel as much racial hatred as the MSM demands they feel. They’ve got a life.

Instead, human beings generally try to associate themselves with what is being praised by society and disassociate themselves from what is being criticized. Being callow, young people are particularly impressionable. Despite all the romantic piffle about young rebels, the fact is that young people (especially the kind who are likely to vote) tend to be conformists. Hispanic and Asian youths are perhaps even more conformist than white and black youths.

When viewed from this perspective, the rise and fall of young Hispanic and Asian excitement over Obama’s party in 2008 to 2010 makes sense. Voting for a black candidate for President was not an act of youthful rebellion for Hispanics and Asians, but of conformity to the endlessly spelled-out wishes of the respectable institutions of society: the media, the schools, and even, so far anybody could tell, the Republican nominee.

Similarly, if the President of the United States praises illegal immigrants (as George W. Bush did, saying“You’re going to come here if you’re worth your salt, if you want to put food on the table for your families”) well, Viva La Raza!

But on the other hand, if white people continue to become ever so slightly less intimidated about publicly defending their own interests, well, Hispanic and Asian young people have more fun things to do with their time than worry about elections.

This implies a simple, effective strategy for the Republican Party—the opposite of that pursued by Bush, Rove, and McCain: Instead of appeasing professional minority activists and thus making them more powerful by letting them claim to be able to deliver goodies, stand up to them.

The GOP remains, overwhelmingly, a party whose most enthusiastic supporters are mature white men. Stop being ashamed of that fact. Show some self-respect. Stand up for the interests of your voters. Don’t let ethnic hustlers bully your constituents so much.

The race racketeers can smell fear. Moreover, as a former young person, I can attest that young people care less about policy issues than that they want to be on a winning side. They are acutely sensitive to signs of weakness. The 2008 campaigns of Hillary Clinton and John McCain, with their terror of pulling the trigger on Obama’s soft spot—his long involvement with Rev. Jeremiah Wright—werepalpably abject, so they repelled the young. Young peoplewon’t invest their fragile egos in embarrassinglyemasculated political campaigns.

Young blacks felt naturally triumphalist about Obama’s candidacy. Less inevitably, the pathetic nature of the anti-Obama campaigns lured young Hispanics and Asians into jumping opportunistically onto the anti-white bandwagon alongside blacks—with whom they otherwise don’t have all that much in common.

Weakness invites contempt, especially from the young, who have a pack instinct. In contrast, self-confident strength, as demonstrated by Arizona’s SB1070 and some of the attacks on Obama, elicits respect and, at minimum, discourages the mass of opponents.

The reality is that Republicans aren’t going to win overblack voters. But, through a strong defense of their constituents’ interests, they can counter the black triumphalism that brought so many blacks to the polls in 2008. And they can definitely discourage Hispanic and Asian anti-white opportunism simply by stopping being such pushovers.

It just needs courage.

Oh! Wait a minute…

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

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

Many of the arguments in John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira’s recent book The Emerging Democratic Majority will be familiar to students of the VDARE.COM School of voting analyses. Indeed, the phrase “The Emerging Democratic Majority” probably first appeared in print as the cover line introducing Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein’s 1997 National Review article “Electing a New People.” (Curiously, Judis and Teixeira don’t mention this, although Judis is a biographer of William F. Buckley.)

Like me, the authors enjoy exploding the complacency of Karl Rove and Michael Barone. They too see Rove’s plan to woo minorities, especially Hispanics—volubly endorsed by Barone—as doomed:


“Although President Bush has, on Rove’s advice, loudly courted Hispanic voters, they don’t seem particularly receptive. In 2000, for instance, Bush pursued California’s Hispanics extensively while Gore neglected the state; but Bush still received only 28 percent of the Golden State’s Hispanic vote.


Bush did better in his home state of Texas, winning 43 percent of its Hispanic vote. But even there, the broader political trend suggests Hispanics are making the Democratic party their political home. In this year’s races for the Texas statehouse and state legislature, Hispanics ran in just four Republicanprimaries—and lost all of them. By contrast, Hispaniccandidates ran in 39 Democratic primary contests and won 35, including the gubernatorial primary…


All in all, Democrats can now count on about 75 percent of the minority vote in national elections. And like other Democratic-leaning groups, minorities are growing rapidly.”

(For more detail, compare Judis’ & Teixeira’s recent summary of their book in The New Republic to my 2001 review of Barone’s last book.)

There are many other similarities between their book and my articles (here’s my archive). For example, Judis & Teixeira validate my scoop from over a year ago that Hispanics only cast 5.4% of the votes in 2000, not the 7% that is universally cited.

So I naturally turned to their endnotes for confirmation that they’d read my stuff. I found, however, that they exclude all web-only publications from their notes, except for databases.

This has been standard scholarly procedure, but it is clearly obsolete. Endnotes should appear online with live links to source sites. That would benefit readers who don’t frequent research libraries.

Still, maybe Judis & Teixeira came up with this all on their own. After all, as I’ve pointed out about my own articles, it doesn’t take a genius to figure this stuff out—just MS Excel and a willingness to face facts.

I’m sorry to say, though, that this plodding, humorless book proved a disappointment compared to their relatively lively TNR essay. If you told me that two human beings could write a book almost solely concerned with candidates and their purported platforms without resorting to any discernible irony, sarcasm, or wit, I would havescoffed. After all, we’re talking about politicians!

Sadly, however, The Emerging Democratic Majority proves me wrong.

The only laughs you’ll get are from watching J&T suck up to the various Democratic interest groups. For example, they are shocked,shocked that some Republicans have attributed the AIDS epidemic in America to homosexuals. Of course, they don’t bother to put forward an alternate theory of causation. Perhaps twin HIV-bearing meteorites crashed simultaneously on Castro Street in San Francisco and Christopher Street in New York?

J&T are brusquer toward minorities (maybe they don’t think minorities buy books?). But they are extremely solicitous of white liberals, who want to view themselves as morally superior to white Republicans (those subhuman racist vermin). So J&T refuse to admit throughoutthe book that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes—and that this was crucial to Republican successes from 1966 onward.Instead, they just accuse Republicans of opposing “civil rights.”

Civil rights? My late father-in-law was a classical musician, a union organizer and strike leader, and a Democrat. He owned a house in an all-white neighborhood on the West Side of Chicago that was so crime-free that his first grade daughter walked to her school a mileaway. Then, blacks began moving in. Committed to integration, my father-in-law joined a liberal Catholic neighborhood group organized to prevent white flight. In 1968, however, his young children were physically attacked three times on the street and, following MartinLuther King’s assassination, rioters looted all the shops in the neighborhood.

So he sold his house for a crushing $18,000 loss. Being a big man who never did anything in a small way, he moved his family to an abandoned farm 63 miles outside Chicago, where they lived without indoor plumbing for their first two years.

And he started voting Republican.

Ironically, if J&T could have brought themselves to admit the historic role of black crime, then they could have strengthened their case that the Trend is Now the Friend of the Democrats.

At vast cost over the last 40 years, scores of millions of whites have succeeded in largely insulating themselves from black criminals—as my in-laws did. They put locks on their windows, moved to the suburbs,installed surveillance cameras in their stores, hired rent-a-cops, sent their kids to private schools, etc. etc. And they voted for tough-on-crime candidates who passed laws that insulated law-abiding people from crime by putting enormous numbers of bad guys in jail.

This has driven the black-on-white (and black-on-black) crime rate down. Which, paradoxically, poses a problem for the GOP. Just as winning the Cold War in the past isn’t going to help conservatives in the future, the Republican partial victory in the Crime War hasn’t doneanything for voters lately.

J&T’s basic framework is that the Democrats will dominate through three, possibly four, groups: 1) minorities; 2) women; 3) professionals; 4) bluecollar whites(…maybe).

1. Of course, J&T are right about minorities, although they acknowledge that will eventually backfire:


“Democrats could suffer from an embarrassment of political riches. As Democrats have gained majorities in cities or states… turf battles have begun to break out among the members of the Democratic coalition. They have pitted blacks against Hispanics or both against whites.”

They go on to cite poor Mark Green, a liberal white Democrat who lost the New York mayor’s race because he attacked his Puerto Rican primary opponent’s main ally, the Rev. Al Sharpton, for … well, for being Al Sharpton. More recently, in the New York Democratic gubernatorial primary, Andrew Cuomo, the son of the former Governor and a Clinton cabinet secretary, ran into the new law ofDemocratic politics: You can’t criticize a minority candidate. He was forced to drop out before the primary election.

But J&T’s other favorite categories just don’t have the analytical power of race/ethnicity.

2. The idea that the gender gap boosts the Democrats gets publicized because of the media’s unspoken assumption that women’s votes somehow count (or ought to count) more than men’s votes. In reality, the gender gap has proven largely a wash. In 2000, for example, 54% of women voted for Gore, but 53% of men voted for Bush.

The truth is that the more feminized the Democrats become, the more men will flee to the Republicans. Why? Because—let’s face it, guys—us real men are prejudiced against anything female-dominated. Look at Hollywood movies: men simply won’t go to see “chick flicks” in anynumbers. Female buddy movies are extremely rare because they don’t make big money. (“Thelma and Louise” was a famous exception that proves the rule.) If J&T are right in assuming that more womenwill move into the Democratic Party—which in fact they don’t present much evidence for—then more men are likely to move into the Republican Party.

Furthermore, and remarkably, J&T also generally ignore the huge voting gap between married and unmarried women. According to Lena Edlund and Rohini Pande of Columbia University, the emergence of the gender gap is due to the decline of marriage.

Husbands hand money over to their wives. (I’ve estimated that men give women something like a trillion dollars per year to spend.) Wives vote Republican. Unmarried women tend to look to the government for support. They vote Democratic.

I suppose the rate of marriage will continue to decline. But there are hints that these trends are starting to bottom out. After all, the divorce rate hit its peak over 20 years ago.

3. J&T show that in 1960, professionals were more likely than managers to vote Republican, but by 2000 that had reversed. But this doesn’t prove much because J&T are triple-counting their three favorite groups. The professions include many more minorities and women today than in 1960. In particular, the big expansion ingovernment after 1960 created a huge number of at least nominally professional jobs staffed by female minorities, many in what John Gardner calls the “Educartel.”

4. J&T hope Democrats will do well among blue-collar whites. But their arguments here seem confused. But it is clear that, although Reagan carried unionized whites twice, the GOP has since let these Reagan Democrats slip away. This could be because the once-vital WSJEditorial Page strategy of Do Nice Things For The Rich seems to have struck diminishing returns. Lowering the 70% marginal income tax rate in 1981 was a great idea, but eliminating the inheritance tax onbillionaires in 2001 might strike the average autoworker as a bit too generous.

Is there anything the Republicans can do? In reality, most of the authors’ four pillars of Democratic dominance are shaky.

The gender gap will remain a wash.

Professionals might indeed be a growing sore spot for Republicans, especially if the present coalition of libertarians and lackeys of industry continues to position the GOP as The Party That Hates Nature asopposed to the Teddy Roosevelt conservationist tradition of enjoying vigorous fun the in Great American Outdoors.

Here’s an illustrative potential wedge issue: California’s liberal Democratic senator Barbara Boxer wants to ban mountain bikers from 2.5 million acres of that state’s prime wilderness. The Democrats are on the side of backpackers, a declining Baby Boomer contingent. Thatopens the door for the Republicans to champion mountain bikers, a growing group of fashionable younger voters.

Republicans can win more blue-collar whites by pandering a little less to the economic interests of the rich. Although cutting back on mass immigration would irritate the wealthy by raising the wages they have to pay their pool guys, it would relieve a lot of the wage pressure on working class Americans.

But minorities are indeed a long-term problem for the GOP. The ranks of black voters will continue to grow, but at a declining rate due to rapidly falling fertility. So immigrant groups are the most obvious long-term threat to the survival of the GOP as a conservative party.Everything depends on future immigration policy.

Of course, J&T simply treat mass immigration in the conventional manner – as a vast natural force like global warming, beyond any human influence.

Yet the embarrassing failures of the Bush-Fox and Daschle-Gephardt amnesty plans show the tide is turning. More and more, Republicans are coming to understand that immigration control is the key to savingtheir party – and their nation.

[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: Democratic Party 
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?