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
Ron Unz

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

In his The American Conservative magazine, physicist-turned-entrepreneur Ron Unz has just offered a lengthy critique of what he kindly identifies as the Sailer Strategy: the idea that the GOP can only and could easily win by mobilizing its white base, by championing issues that would actually benefit working class whites, such as an immigration moratorium. (Immigration, the Republicans, and the End of White America, American Conservative, September 21, 2011]. We’ve been writing about this for years on one post-Obama discussion is here.

Ron also treats respectfully’s central contention: there are mass immigration is causing problems, both politically (especially for the GOP) and economically (for example, worsening income inequality.) And he has succeeded in getting this concept discussed on national television, in Counterpunch [The Republicans, Immigration and the Minimum Wage, By Alexander Cockburn, September 30, 2011] and in National Review: Ron Unz on Immigration Part I,II,III,IV,V,etc(none of which acknowledged us, of course). Quite an achievement.

Heston As RichelieuWhile I quite enjoy being depicted as the evil brains behind the operation, rather like how Cardinal Richelieu is portrayed in The Three Musketeers, I must say that I was more struck by the second section of Ron’s article, in which he offers a fairly novel policy proposal.

But on the Sailer Strategy: my perspective is far less triumphalist than Ron makes it sound. I merely argue that the short-term electoral costs of taking steps to deal with the long-term electoral threats to the GOP posed by decades of mass immigration and Affirmative Action are more bearable than the eventual electoral costs of doing nothing … or of doing what the Democrats recommend.

The Democrats’ intention, as they’ve made clear in countless public venues, is literally to “elect a new people” who will turn the United States into Chicago writ large: effectively, one-party rule. Maybe the Democrats’ plan won’t work, but it’s hardly a secret that they expect to achieve permanent hegemony through demographic change.

This combination of mass unskilled immigration and Affirmative Action favored by the Democrats—a bizarre system under which foreigners, and their descendants unto the end of time, are legally preferred over American citizens—undeniably poses a severe threat to the long-term viability of the Republican Party.

My point: Republicans are better off dealing with this problem now rather than later. How, exactly, is this problem of hereditary privileges for illegal immigrants going to get better for Republicans by letting another generation go by?

In contrast, the conventional wisdom is largely driven by New York Times and Washington Post reporters calling up self-appointed Hispanic spokesmen who get right back to them with quotes saying, yes, indeed, the coming Hispanic Electorate Tidal Wave wants nothing more than more immigration.

In reality, that’s what people in the Hispanic Spokesperson racket want. Actual Hispanic voters are more ambivalent.

Bush strategist Karl Rove operated on the assumption, in effect, that it makes sense for Republicans to agree to massively boosting the number of Hispanic voters in the long run (i.e., post-Rove) in order to achieve a short-term, Rove-benefitting boost in the percentage of Hispanics who vote Republican.

(This also happens to be what Democrats keep advising Republicans to do. Who do you think is better at coming up with a cynical strategy concerning Hispanics: Republicans or Democrats?)

Put like that, the Rove strategy doesn’t sound too sensible. So it usually comes with some claims about how the GOP will permanently boost their share of the Hispanic vote by doing an immigration deal now.

I find these claims implausible—Republicans in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act at higher rates than Democrats, but blacks’subsequent attitudes have been (sensibly enough): “What have you done for me lately?”

Moreover, Hispanic political elites are 90% Democratic—so where is the impetus for radical electoral change going to come from? Most Hispanic elites have benefited from Affirmative Action, so naturally they gravitate to the party whose constituents are, inevitably, more favorable toward Affirmative Action. That tendency is simply not going to change.

But why have ordinary Hispanics consistently voted Democratic as far back as we have exit polls? Of course, the margins among Hispanics are not as utterly overwhelming as among blacks, but they are certainly what would be labeled “landslides” in a general election. At the peak of the subprime bubble in late 2004, George W. Bush managed to lose among Hispanics by only a Walter Mondale-like 58-40 margin. (The early report that Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote has long since been discredited, although that doesn’t stop Rove repeating it).

And that’s as good as it gets with Hispanics for Republicans i.e. pretty disastrous.

Why? I think it only marginally involves immigration and even (to a greater extent) Affirmative Action. The fundamental problem for Republicans: Hispanics tend to be poorer than whites. Thus, it’s perfectly rational for more Latinos to vote for the tax and spend party than for the GOP.

Children In Poverty 1976-2010Documenting this, a new Pew Hispanic Center report last week was grimly entitled Childhood Poverty Among Hispanics Sets Record, Leads Nation.[PDF] According to 2010 Census data, 35 percent of Hispanic children are poor. That’s not quite as bad as the 39 percent among blacks, but it’s far worse than the 12 percent among whites.

Among the children of immigrant Latinos, 40 percent are poor. Among the children of American-born Latinos, only 28 percent are poor—but even that’s more than twice as bad as among whites and four-fifths as bad as among blacks.

Thus, for example, in 2002 with Karl Rove in charge of Republican messaging, GOP House candidates won 38 percent of the Hispanic vote (according to the long-lost 2002 exit poll data I tabulated). In 2010, with Russell Pearce of Arizona SB1070 fame the most forceful Republican voice on immigration, the GOP’s share of the Hispanic vote plummeted all the way to … well, it didn’t fall at all. It was still 38 percent.

What can possibly explain this?

Well, illegal immigrants can’t vote. And Latinos who can vote, it turns out, don’t show the black-like levels of ethnic solidarity that the Main Stream Media expects of them.

The difference between 2002 and 2010, however, was that Hispanics made up 5.3 percent of voters in 2002 and, according to last week’s newly released Census Bureau data, 6.9 percent in 2010.

That’s not a tidal wave of new Latino voters; it’s more like a tide. And this rising tide of Hispanic votes isn’t going to lift all boats. But it will, all else being equal, tend slowly to drown Republicans.

Still, it’s also crucial to remember that this future of Hispanic electoral dominance hasn’t gone through the formality of taking place yet.

Clearly, it would have been electorally easier for Republicans to take the hard decisions about immigration and affirmative action in 2003 than in 2013. But, on Rove’s watch, they signally failed. Yet, it will still be easier to do what needs to be done in 2013 than in 2023.

So if not now—when?

Now for Ron Unz’s minimum wage proposal.

Ron argues that immigration restrictionism will never fly politically … but it’s still a good idea for America! He writes

“Passing legislation to curtail immigration seems a political non-starter with both parties, and enforcing such legislation even if passed is equally unlikely. Yet as an almost inevitable consequence of the current system, the bulk of the American population—including the vast majority of immigrants and their children—falls deeper and deeper into economic misery …”

So, rather than restrict immigration to raise wages, he proposes to raise wages to restrict immigration.

Ron’s big suggestion is a “very substantial rise in the national minimum wage, perhaps to $10 or more likely $12 per hour.” Unz contends that a higher minimum would cause the least valuable and least assimilated to self-deport:

“Those most recently arrived, especially illegal ones with weak language or job skills, would probably lose their jobs, especially since many of these individuals are already forced to work (illegally) for sub-minimum wages. However, workers who have been here for some years and acquired reasonably good language and job skills and who had demonstrated their reliability over time would probably be kept on, even if their employer needed to boost their pay by a dollar or two an hour.”

Presumably, Democrats could be tricked into supporting this plot to encourage self-deportation because of the minimum wage’s historic ties to FDR.

But Ron might be underestimating how strongly devoted to diversity uber alles modern liberals are.

And raising the minimum wage is going to be difficult in the current state of the business cycle.

Still, I rather like the idea, both for its symbolic value and as one component in a “defense in depth” strategy against low-skilled immigration. Ron presents a higher minimum wage as an alternative to traditional immigration restriction, but it’s actually more of a complement. The more arrows we have in our policy quiver the better. We’re going to need them.

As a statement of national intent, raising the minimum wage to lower the profit from unskilled immigrants would send a message countering the Davos class propaganda that the MSM has so faithfully transmitted for the last few decades: “Low wages are good for The Economy.”

Superstitiously reifying “The Economy” as something that must be appeased by sacrificing American citizens’ welfare is now taken as the height of intellectual sophistication (“I got an A- in Econ 101!”). Actually it’s the depths of naiveté. The simple reality is that poor-paying employers, such as, say, lemon growers, profit by passing on the costs imposed by their immigrant workers to schools, emergency rooms, jails, and so forth: in other words, to you and me.

In the past, Americans took pride in their heritage of making tremendous leaps forward in productivity—the steam ship, the telegraph, the telephone, the moving assembly line, the computer. These allowed us to prosper without teeming throngs of drudge laborers. Automating farm labor with the reaper and the tractor was particularly emphasized in the history books.

Heston As Cheap LaborThus, when Edward R. Murrow’s Harvest of Shame documentary [YouTube] about the abuses of the Bracero guest worker program was broadcast in 1960, it was widely assumed that stoop labor should follow the same path of mechanization. In 1964, when the last braceros were removed from the fields, lemon pickers in Ventura County in Southern California were still using medieval technology, such as heavy wooden ladders. Growers then responded to their new need to employ expensive Mexican-American citizens by equipping workers with aluminum ladders and nylon bags. Productivity grew 147 percent in 13 years.

But in recent decades, the cult of diversity has rewritten this history to assign credit for America’s wealth, not to our relative lack of population, but to the “huddled masses.” This interpretation is assumed to be progressive and egalitarian. Yet, funny thing, the assumed policy implication (bring in some more huddled masses, pronto!) always turns out to benefit big employers.

Today, you only rarely hear anything bad about the stoop labor business. After all, it’s a steady source of diversity. And diversity is our strength!

For example, consider how the story of union boss Cesar Chavez has been completely revamped—from anti-illegal immigration union boss to the patron saint of illegal immigrants—in such a way that just happens to favor the financial interests of the growers financial interests of the growers whom Chavez spent his prime years scheming against. It’s one of the more ironic stories in American history. But nobody gets the joke.

Defense in depth has been successfully used by Finland to resist illegal immigration despite having an 816-mile border with Russia. Besides a fortified frontier, Finland has a wide range of internal identity checks. Moreover, every employer has to pay union wages, so there is reduced economic incentive to import less-skilled foreigners. If you have to pay everybody as if they are Finns, you might as well hire Finns.

Boosting the minimum wage is a not uncommon form of low-profile resistance to low-skill immigration. And it’s not just effete Europeans. Affable, manly Australians do it, too. Ron cites booming Australia, where the minimum wage is currently $15.51 per hour in Australian dollars, or about $15 American. Yet, Australia’s unemployment rate in August was 5.1 percent.

Australia is a big, sunny, empty, resource-rich place: California with duller scenery. It would attract many tens of millions of poor Third Worlders if the Aussies ever stopped coming up with excuses for keeping some of them out. Sure, the Australians could strip-mine their continent faster and sell all their minerals to the Chinese cheaper if they opened the floodgates to millions of coolies. But, what’s the hurry? What’s in it for the average Aussie?

In the U.S., the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, but some states set their own higher minimums. Tellingly, the state of Washington leads the country at $8.75 (going up to $9.04 in January). The second highest minimum is in Oregon, at $8.50.

What do these two whiteopian, but not hugely wealthy, states share? Most famously, a strong urge to resist Californication: the influx of millions of outsiders.

Sure, if the minimum wage were $1.25 per hour lower, Portland might have a few more jobs (“Portland: where young hipsters go to retire“). Yet Oregonians seem to understand that favorable long run demographics are more important than negative short run economics.

Portland’s combination of a relatively high minimum wage with intense environmental restrictions on development attracts educated young white people and repels illegal immigrants.

The people of Portland seem pretty happy with that situation.

Of course, there are several problems with raising the minimum wage substantially, even if the implementation were delayed until the next economic boom cycle (whenever that might be).

Recall the old joke in which the starving economist on the desert island trumps the physicist and chemist in their debate over how to open a can of beans: “Assume we have a can-opener.”

Ron’s suggestion implies: “Assume we have the rule of law.” Of course, we don’t anymore—at least not in labor markets corrupted by decades of illegal immigration. The honest Finns can pass legislation about employment with some confidence that the law will be obeyed. But we have depleted that ancestral patrimony. So a new law would mostly just put out of work law-abiding American citizens.

Now, a higher minimum wage could be adjusted with, say, a lower rate for American citizens or for American teenagers.

Unfortunately, the most useful exemption—a lower minimum wage for African-Americans to encourage employers to take a chance on hiring that least employed and most imprisoned group of American citizens—would be absolutely unthinkable today.

That’s racist!

But I’ll be back next week with a list of other policy proposals that Karl Rove would never, ever think of.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: Ron Unz, Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ron Unz, VDARE’s candidate for America’s most intelligent high immigration enthusiast, here responds to Steve Sailer’s pieces on electoral demographics and the future of the Republican party. Says Unz: GOP attacks on affirmative action the way to go. Sailer explains why immigration reform the better route for splintering the burgeoning left-liberal/anti-American/anti-white coalition.

VDARE’s data-mining in the election results has generated lots of interesting mail. I’ll try to work my way through some of them over the next couple of weeks. Here’s one to start with.

Fresh off his initiative victory outlawing bilingual education in Arizona, Ron Unz wrote me a note in response to my column. He suggested that Bush’s unprecedented ethnic outreach effort had failed dismally, with the Republican Presidential candidate receiving about the lowest black percentage of the vote in history, and with W’s mediocre 35% of the Hispanic vote being as high as it was mostly because of the 90% Cuban support caused by the Elian Gonzalez factor. Unz argues that since black and to some extent Hispanic support for the Democrats has “maxed out,” the Republicans have nothing to lose and everything to gain by targetting the white working class through issues such as affirmative action. However, Unz doubts that the Republicans will follow this strategy, and fears that only huge and repeated political disasters will eventually persuade the national Republicans to stop trying to beat the Democrats at diversity politics.

A cogent analysis. I’d add that Ron’s issue — stomping on bilingual ed — is a natural vote winner too. I haven’t seen the detailed data from the Arizona vote, but I predicted before the election that Ron’s initiative would win in a landslide, but lose among Arizona Hispanics, just like in California in 1998. Was I right, Ron?

In California, Ron had hoped to win a majority of Hispanics. Yet, he ended up drawing only about 35-40%. Ron had hoped that the economic benefits of learning English well would lure the majority of Hispanics. Unfortunately, Ron, who has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a 214 I.Q., didn’t fully grasp the emotional costs of imposing monolingualism on immigrants. Using the public schools to assimilate children completely into English means that their ability to speak Spanish with their parents, grandparents, and extended family back home in Mexico fades away. It’s hardly surprising that many immigrants weigh the benefits and costs and come down on the side of maintaining family ties.

Unfortunately, during the early days of his California campaign, Ron made some effusive remarks about how his victory would be hollow if he didn’t carry a majority of Hispanics. I hope he’s learned since then that there is nothing illegitimate about the majority imposing its will on a minority. That’s democracy in action. In fact, the most successful federal domestic legislation of the Nineties, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, was largely imposed by whites upon blacks and browns, despite the fervent opposition of minority politicians.

By the way, anti-bilingualism draws a fair degree of black support in referendums. I doubt if it’s a pressing enough concern to mobilize many black voters in a general election, but it’s a convenient issue for driving a small wedge between “civil rights leaders” and their followers. Black parents know their kids have plenty to do at school just learning to read and write well in English. Making Spanish a necessity for ambitious Americans (e.g., President Clinton recently announced that he would probably be the last President who didn’t speak Spanish) will give affluent and clever white kids just another advantage over black kids.

The important point is not that the GOP might raise its share of the black vote from 10% to 15% or even 20% by emphasizing a patriotic agenda that puts the interests of American citizens ahead of the interests of foreign nationals. That would be nice, but doubling the Republican black vote would have added fewer votes to Bush’s total than increasing his fraction of the white vote from 54% to 56%.

No, the key problem facing the GOP is the mindset in the institutional press that automatically views every racial and ethnic issue as a conflict between victimized non-whites and the evil white majority. For evidence of this, check out the Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences website, which daily culls from the online media a couple of dozen new “news” articles and a half dozen or so “opinion” essays on race and gender controversies. While the op-eds tend to be highly sensible (helped along in no small measure by the frequent inclusion of VDARE pieces), the news articles are overwhelmingly driven by the crudest worldview imaginable: Minorities Are Victims, Whites Are Victimizers.

This constant propagandizing drives huge numbers of whites to the Left. Few white Democrats actually care much about minorities. What they do care deeply about is feeling morally and culturally superior to other whites. (Civil wars are always the most bitter.) The news organizations’ monolithic coverage of race just feeds this kind of status seeking among fashion-conscious whites.

The result is that the GOP isn’t cool. Just look at the Republican’s pathetic stable of celebrities. The only category of entertainers where the GOP leads the Democrats is in game show hosts (e.g., Pat Sajak and Ben Stein).

One step toward breaking up this absurd mindset is to drive wedge issues between minorities. By showing that each minority group has its own interests that they squabble over, you can slowly undermine the disastrous presumption that every single minority complaint is the fault of evil whites.

Three big racial wedge issues are bilingualism, affirmative action, and immigration. Ron and I are agreed on fighting bilingualism. He, however, would rather attack affirmative action while maintaining the current mass levels of immigration.

In contrast, I see immigration as the key to winning all three battles. During the next recession, we must the break the presumption among politicians that mass immigration will continue forever. It’s this assumption that makes them wary of lending their support to popular causes like these.

If we don’t cut the numbers of immigrants during the next recession, it will become much harder to do so during subsequent recessions due to their swelling numbers. In contrast, the most emotionally powerful argument in favor of affirmative action — that blacks deserve a period of preference as reparations — declines each year. After 30 years of quotas, the argument doesn’t make all that much sense to whites. After 40 years, it will make even less.

I’m interested in a campaign to limit affirmative action to native-born Americans. The moral argument for it is obvious: If you chose to come to America, why do you deserve advantages over the people who didn’t choose to be born here? It would be a wonderful issue for driving another wedge between the black masses, their leaders, and Hispanics, since most blacks deeply resent preferences for immigrants. Once in place, it would begin to wean much of the Hispanic population off supporting quotas.

In summary, the failure of Dubya to do well among minorities anywhere — except among Hispanics in his home state and Eskimos in Alaska — has visibly rattled the Republican establishment. They are starting to realize that immigration is driving the country toward the Democrats.

The Republicans need an entirely new philosophy to remain viable in the long run. The best alternative to the Democrats’ use of race appeals to harvest votes from racial blocs is an appeal to American patriotism. Bush says he wants to be a “uniter, not a divider.” But no group can be united without being divided from somebody else. The best division would be between American citizens and non-American citizens.

The first step to running the government for the benefit of American citizens: reform the immigration system so that it serves their interests as a whole.

Tomorrow: Sailer vs. Wanniski!

[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: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Ron Unz 
🔊 Listen RSS

Peter Brimelow on Ron Unz

Ron Unz asks Peter Brimelow a Question

Unzism – The (New) Doctrine of American Decline, by Steve Sailer

Ron Unz, the California political entrepreneur, has graciously distributed my VDARE critique of his pro-immigration / pro-assimilation strategy to his email list of supporters. This was an admirable gesture of open-mindedness and/or intellectual self-confidence. Either is a rare attribute among proponents of the current immigration system, whose first instincts are typically to stifle rather than encourage fresh thinking on the topic.

Here are Ron’s introductory comments and his response to my VDARE column.

Dear Friends,

My “Race and Republicans” article in The American Enterprise [ ] generated a considerable amount of response, mostly quite positive.

However, Steve Sailer replied to the article with a friendly but very skeptical analysis, suggested that my policy of “Unzism” (pro-immigration & pro-assimilation) was a defeatist strategy of American decline, similar to Henry Kissinger’s approach to the Soviet Union, prior to the coming of Reaganism…

Mr. Sailer is a conservative intellectual of growing prominence, described by National Review as one of the leading “evolutionary conservatives” attempting to reconcile conservative doctrine with the implications of Darwinism. He is also the manager of the Human Bio-Diversity (h-bd) e-mail discussion group, whose members (including myself) range from liberals to conservatives, and engage in a free-wheeling discussion of controversial issues of evolution, race, ethnicity, and social policy.

His article appeared on the web site, [among whose editors is] Peter Brimelow, whom I would describe as America’s most prominent “respectable” white nationalist intellectual (unsurprisingly Mr. Brimelow is in very strong disagreement with my assimilationist arguments).

As for my response to Mr. Sailer’s arguments, I would suggest that what he calls “Unzism” was actually the position of Pres. Ronald Reagan, the neo-conservatives, most old-line liberals, and probably the bulk of America’s thinking elite since before I was even born—and was hardly regarded as “defeatism” by any of these individuals.

That few prominent Democrats or Republicans today maintain this position is a sign of their cowardice in the face of ethnic activists, rather than any change in the underlying facts.


Ron Unz, Chairman English for the Children

Steve Sailer replies:

Ron’s strategy of mass immigration mitigated by old fashioned melting pot techniques would certainly be better for America than what the two main parties are proposing to either greater or lesser degrees — mass immigration exacerbated by multiculturalism. But, as Ron implicitly admits, he’s finding himself increasingly lonely in the middle. Why? It is now the general opinion of professional politicians that pushing Ron’s assimilation agenda would be more dangerous to their personal careers than appeasing the diversitycrats. The politicos may not know jack about what’s in the public interest, but they are the world’s leading experts on what’s in their own interest.

Why is “cowardice in the face of ethnic activists” growing at a time when fewer and fewer living white politicians bear any guilt for Jim Crow? One big reason is that immigration is multiplying the number and power (current and prospective) of the Army of the Professionally Resentful. They may or may not represent the minorities they claim to represent. But they are out there laying snares to catch Republicans in the high crime of making “insensitive comments.”

Not even George W. “Family values don’t stop at the Rio-Grande” Bush is immune. Take this extract from an April 19th AP story:

Bush appointee apologizes to lawmakers about remarks

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The state’s health commissioner apologized a second time Wednesday for remarks about Hispanics and teen pregnancy that sparked outrage in Hispanic communities and prompted calls for his resignation….

Last week, he apologized in writing for his comments in The New York Times and Austin-American Statesman. He had been quoted as saying Texas has a high teen pregnancy rate because the state’s Hispanic population lacked the belief “that getting pregnant is a bad thing.”

He told the Times: “If I were to go to a Hispanic community and say, ‘Well, we need to get you into family planning,’ they say, ‘No, I want to be pregnant,’ it doesn’t work very well….”

By the way, Hispanic 15 to 19 year old females give birth 2.66 times more often than non-Hispanic whites (see U.S. government statistics at /00news/00news/nrbrth98.htm). But, of course, truth is no defense when the charge is Ethnic Insensitivity. In fact, the more truth you tell, the more unspeakable your guilt.

So, Ron, could it be that this epidemic of “cowardice” in the Republican establishment isn’t based purely on hallucinations after all?

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

April 20, 2000

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Ron Unz 
🔊 Listen RSS

Ron Unz is California’s most interesting and adventurous political entrepreneur. An ultra-high IQ physicist turned Silicon Valley software baron turned politician, Unz, who is not yet 40, has already had a lifetime of electoral adventures. In 1994 he polled an impressive one third of the vote in the California Republican primary against sitting Governor Pete Wilson. In 1998 his referendum to abolish bilingual education in California public schools won in a landslide. (See my VDARE column at In March, though, his campaign finance reform referendum got, in his words, “clobbered.”

Undaunted, he is writing articles outlining his grand strategy for the Republican Party and America. In the November 1999 Commentaryappeared “California and the End of White America” and now the April/May American Enterprise is running his “The right way for Republicans to handle ethnicity in politics” (not on-line).

The GOP, Unz argues, should push a two-pronged strategy:

1] “a strong and forthright stand” in favor of mass immigration; and

2] the revival of the assimilation techniques that worked so well (he says) in turning Jewish and Italian immigrants into patriotic Americans.

Unz advocates three main policies to revive the Melting Pot:

A] abolish bilingual education.

B] get rid of classroom diversity-pandering: “In history and social studies classrooms, ‘multicultural education’ is now widespread, placing an extreme and unrealistic emphasis on ethnic diversity instead of passing on the traditional knowledge of Western civilization, our Founding Fathers, and the Civil and World Wars.”

C] replace racial quotas with special programs for people of all races from the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.

Unz prophesies that such a plan would attract Asians and even Hispanics to the Republican fold. Jews, too, might be amenable, since his plan would kindle nostalgic memories of their immigrant grandparents’ experiences at P.S. 213 back in 1911. Best of all, he believes, it would reduce whites’ complaints about immigration: “Under an assimilationist framework which supports and expects integration into American society, many public concerns about immigration will disappear.”

Unzism would of course alienate African-Americans. But he’s complacent about that. Hispanics, buoyed by legal and illegal immigration, plus higher birth rates, will soon outnumber blacks.

This is in many ways an impressive strategy. Many of the details are admirable. Nonetheless, it’s radically flawed, both as policy and as politics.

Unzism is analogous to Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy strategy of the Seventies. Kissingerism assumed that American power was in permanent decline. He thus advocated détente as an artful means to manage our decay. Dr. K’s remarkable tactical skills allowed him some limited accomplishments. But overall, détente proved to be a disaster.

Kissinger’s mistake was that once he had conceded the key point — that America’s military might would continue to decline — momentum swung catastrophically against us. From the Fall of Saigon until the day Ronald Reagan took office, America suffered one insult after another, not only from the resurgent Soviet Union, but also from medieval pipsqueaks like Iran. Our “allies” rushed to appease our presumptive heirs: the Soviets and various Third World upstarts from OPEC to Idi Amin.

Kissinger was no doubt a patriot. He would certainly have preferred an ascendant America. But as a foreign-born intellectual, he felt himself unable to personally fight back the defeatism that enveloped American elites in the mid-Seventies. The best he could do was make the best of bad situation. Unfortunately, his palliatives only made it worse.

The point Kissinger forgot was that when you let people think you’re turning into a 97-pound weakling, they kick sand in your face. Expectations are everything — in foreign affairs, in the stock market, and, maybe most of all, in professional politics.

Unz has forgotten that too. If the politicos feel that the traditional American voter is headed for insignificance, Unz’s traditional American policies are likewise dead on arrival. Just as America’s perceived military weakness was central to America’s strategic decline then, immigration is the keystone of domestic politics today.

Note that two of Unz’s planks have already been passed into law by California voters: Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action by the state, garnered a solid 54% majority. And Unz’s own Prop 227, which abolished bilingual education, received a landslide 61%.

These sound like winning issues, the kind any ambitious politician would want to get behind, right? So where are the pros? They’re staying away in droves. The smart money is betting that the old-fashioned assimilationist policies of Unz are doomed – for the precise reason that the old-fashioned white majority that voted for them is doomed.

Gazing at the burgeoning throngs of immigrant voters (in California Latinos and Asians doubled their share of the California vote between 1990 and 1998), and the drubbing Republican candidates took in California in 1996 and 1998, the Republican establishment turned its back on assimilationist ideas. Instead, they immediately signed on to George W. Bush’s multiculturally-friendly Presidential bid. During the Presidential primaries this year, the only aspect of Unzism that any of the four major candidates advocated was Hooray for Immigration.

President Clinton trumpets the End of White America every chance he gets – see The President’s message to whites is implicit but obvious:

“These dusky hordes are going to overwhelm us whites eventually, so you’d better placate them now with affirmative action and bilingual education and other multiculturalist handouts. Otherwise, well, let’s just say that things could get ugly, if you get my drift …”

Now, it’s crucial to understand that in reality whites remain by far the dominant political power in America, just as the U.S. was inherently far stronger than the Soviet Union in the Seventies. Let’s say seven out of ten American residents are white. But keep in mind that voter totals lag well behind population totals. Voters must be citizens and age 18. In general, the highest voting rates are found among the old, the native-born, the English-speaking, and the well-educated: in essence, whites. At present, there is no shortage of traditional voters.

Yet, in America’s domestic politics today, America’s white elites feel the way they did in foreign affairs during the Ford Administration: fated for triviality and morally unworthy of exercising power. The danger is that prophecies of decadence tend to become self-fulfilling. The longer we continue with our present immigration policies, the harder it becomes to change them.

Yet, it has become almost unthinkable for America’s white majority to explicitly act on its own behalf. Is there an alternative to whites having to descend to the philosophical mat and mud-wrestle in blatant racial politics? I believe there is. In a future column, I’ll outline an approach to controlling immigration stemming from a philosophy of colorblind American patriotism. In the long run, it may prove both better for America and better for the GOP than Unzism.

[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: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Ron Unz 
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?