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
/
Sailer Strategy

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

I’ve been analyzing elections since 2000, [GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote. November 28, 2000] and, ever so slowly, some of my insights are starting to become conventional wisdom.

For example, following the 2014 elections and the sputtering of the Democrats’ “Republican War on Women” strategy, it’s not quite as much of a secret anymore that the little known Marriage Gap is usually larger than the celebrated Gender Gap. George Hawley, a professor of political science at the U. of Alabama, writes in his informative new book White Voters in 21st Century America:

41BGaIZLfnL[1]Steve Sailer is one of the few journalists who began writing extensively on the marriage gap long before the 2012 presidential election.[P. 125]

Moreover, it may finally be sinking in that the Hispanic Tidal Wave doesn’t really look like the one in Interstellar.

What other ideas might pop up next? Perhaps the inherent fragility and divisiveness of the Democrats’ Coalition of the Diverse? Someday, it may even be understood that the Obama Administration’s choice to try to increase black turnout by angrying up the mob in Ferguson, MO was a textbook example of why assembling a party out of fringe groups is a tricky business.

Back in 2009, I suggested that, just as the Democrats and the mainstream media treat the GOP as the White Party, the GOP should slyly work to rebrand the Democrats as the Black Party. That would pose an interesting question for Hispanics and Asians: who do you think will treat you more fairly and competently? The leadership of the White Party or the leadership of the Black Party?

Ironically, in 2014 the Democrats made themselves the Black Party by anointing the late Michael Brown, the not-so-gentle giant of Ferguson, the face of the Democrats. Not surprisingly, Asian voters appear to have reacted with dismay.

The last century was one of ideology, while this one is driven by identity. In the relatively homogeneous America of the 20th Century, it was not uncommon for large numbers of voters to change their minds, as elections as wildly different as 1964, 1972, 1974, and 1984 demonstrated.

In the 21st Century, however, we live in an age, as we’ve so often been reminded, of diversity. And this Era of Identity means, as Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore pointed out, that voters couldn’t afford to change their minds or vote the issues. Elections are won less by coming up with better platforms than by ginning up turnout among your demographic slices.

A diverse country turns out not to be a very interesting one for rapid political change in response to new ideas or circumstances. Instead, we see a constant grinding out of small margin elections. The four Presidential elections of this century have been bizarrely consistent state by state, with partisan patterns correlating closely with the rate at which younger white women are married.

But we’re also not supposed to think honestly and hard about Diversity. So, the big parties routinely make stupid mistakes, and the press echoes their misunderstanding. This time, the Democrats believed their own hype and suffered a defeat by trying to knit their fractious coalition together over Ferguson, feminism, and foreigners to drive blacks, single women, and Hispanics (respectively) to the polls.

The Democrats’ divisive diversity politics can only hang together if they can keep their coalition of the fringes from turning their knives on each other. The obvious way to do this is to use the mainstream media to stoke fear and loathing among the fringes against the core of the country. The KKKrazy Glue that holds the Obama coalition together is the delusional paranoia about all the white male rapist racists running amok.

Of course, liberals want to define the core as narrowly as possible: white, male, straight, and, in a comic refinement that I started seeing in 2013, “cisgendered.”

In 2012, the Obama campaign, with the collaboration of the mainstream media, managed to keep the logic of its coalition building relatively obscured from its intended victims. Yet, the day-after touchdown dances by the press were of the crass “Suck it, white boy, hurry up and die” variety.

Ever since, the Democratic-Mainstream media Complex stoked hatred of Cisgendered Straight White Males. But after nasty cultural politics backfired in the 2014 election.

wendydavis The most notorious Democratic flop of 2014 was in majority minority Texas, where the national mainstream media had somehow got themselves excited over the gubernatorial hopes of “single mother” Wendy Davis. Feminist fury would turn the cornerstone of Red State America permanently blue, denying the Republicans any hope of ever winning the Electoral College!

The phoniness of the Democrats’ rhetoric about female victimization by evil men is wonderfully symbolized by the hopes they invested in this hot blonde adventuress who had dumped her first husband, the father of her daughter, for a rich Democratic politician who paid for her Harvard Law School tuition. (As Gerald Ford used to say, there will never be a final victory in the Battle of the Sexes because there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.) Then she dumped him too.

Democrat Davis wound up getting trounced by Greg Abbott 59-39.

It turned out that women in Texas voted against their designated avenger 54-45. There was a sizable gender gap of 12.5 points (men voted against her 66-32), but that was smaller than the marriage gap, which was 20 points between married and single women. Although Davis won 43-57 among single women, she lost married women 62-36.

Among white women she lost 66-31, and among whites of both sexes 72-25.

How did Davis do among married white women? The crosstab isn’t broken out, but she probably didn’t get more than 25 percent of their vote.

This wasn’t supposed to happen, as amusingly illustrated by the now notorious headline in Salon:

White women didn’t just fail Wendy Davis — they failed the rest of Texas, too

It’s already been said that Greg Abbott won among women voters. So are women of color not women?

By Jenny Kutner, November 6, 2014

Part of the mainstream media’s blindness over the Texas election was that in 2012 they didn’t bother doing an exit poll in Texas, so there was a lot of empty theorizing in 2014 about a feminist-Hispanic coalition without anybody being well informed about the impressive degree of white political solidarity in Texas. From the Reuters-Ipsos panel in 2012, I determined that Romney had thumped Obama 76-24 in Texas.

In 2014 the Democrats did even worse than the pre-election polls had predicted. Unlike in 2012 when the Democrats performed slightly better than the polls forecast, this time the survey-driven models were badly biased against Republicans. Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com reported the day after the election:

… the average Senate poll conducted in the final three weeks of this year’s campaign overestimated the Democrat’s performance by 4 percentage points. The average gubernatorial poll was nearly as bad, overestimating the Democrat’s performance by 3.4 points. … the polls were biased toward the Democratic candidate in almost all key races.

Silver doesn’t have a theory about the cause, but I might speculate: because the Democrats ran their campaign based on riling up blacks, single women, and Hispanics, political correctness could have easily become a problem for pollsters. When, say, a billionaire like Donald Sterling can have his NBA team taken away from him for what he said in private while being surreptitiously taped, how frank do the heterodox want to be with strangers who call them up out of the blue and demand their opinions on topics that might get them fired like Brendan Eich.

What should we have learned from the Democrats’ dismal 2014?

For example, the Republicans were told over and over by Democrats and the press that they were electorally doomed by the inevitable Hispanic outrage if they didn’t pass an Amnesty and guest worker bill.

Some innumerate Republican Senators, such as Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, signed on to this transparently disingenuous advice. Yet, enough perceptive Republicans in the House understood the numbers and political psychology well enough to not let Speaker John Boehner bring the Senate’s Amnesty bill to a vote.

The symbolism would be even more important. Passing an Amnesty bill would have been treated in the mainstream media as more or less the Articles of Surrender of White America. Enough House Republicans understood that humiliating your own side is no way to win a turnout driven election.

To this surprising show of strength by white Republican leaders, Hispanic voters responded as meekly as I, but few others, expected.Nobody will know what percentage of the vote cast was by Latinos until the Census Bureau issues its turnout report next year (the exit polls have overestimated Hispanic turnout every election since 2000). But all indications are that not many Hispanics bothered to vote. And among those who did, the Democratic House candidates took only 62 percent, which for the GOP is quite survivable.

In contrast, the GOP wound up with 60 percent of the white vote, which was roughly an order of magnitude larger than the Hispanic vote. Which would you rather have: 62 percent of Hispanics or 60 percent of whites?

Of course, 60 percent of whites are probably not enough to win the next Presidential election. That’s because the hoopla of a campaign for the White House brings to the polls the kind of fringe voters who don’t really grasp concepts like the Separation of Powers, but who do enjoy voting for the Celebrity-in-Chief. Since the Democratic Party is basically a high-low coalition against the middle, these kinds of marginal voters go strongly Democratic, if they remember it’s Election Day.

As I pointed out last year after analyzing the Census Bureau’s report on voting demographics, Obama in 2012 enjoyed a huge turnout among blacks, especially old ladies.

But with that nice Mr. Obama not on the ballot this year, how were the Democrats supposed to excite the black vote in 2014?

In 2012, the Trayvon Martin—George Zimmerman shooting had served to whoop up black anger at white men like Zimmerman. Granted, Zimmerman was obviously Hispanic and even a little black. (He looked disturbingly like the son Obama never had.) And Zimmerman’s trial in 2013 turned out to be an immense fiasco for the Narrative.

So what could get the Democrats through 2014?

Ferguson!

In a country of over 300 million people, tragic events happen every day. It shouldn’t be hard for the Democrats to find one genuine outrage in an election year to exploit. And yet, the Democratic-Mainstream media Complex routinely fouls up selecting the case to illustrate that black babies’ bodies are being gunned down by white racists on every street corner.

But that still doesn’t stop them.

On August 30, 2014, the New York Times reported:

At Risk in Senate, Democrats Seek to Rally Blacks

By JONATHAN MARTIN

August 31, 2014

WASHINGTON — With their Senate majority imperiled, Democrats are trying to mobilize African-Americans outraged by the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., to help them retain control of at least one chamber of Congress for President Obama’s final two years in office.

Please note that this article about Democrat strategy was published 15 days after the revelation of the convenience store video of 6’4” and 292 pound Michael Brown beginning his Thug Life crime spree by assaulting the little Asian clerk. At that point, it was obvious that the whole Ferguson narrative was going to unravel, but the Obama Administration and the national mainstream media simply doubled down and kept up the propaganda until late into the fall.

The White House should have immediately stopped hyping Ferguson on August 15, but they just couldn’t help themselves. The decision to send Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson was made in a private meeting by Obama, Holder, and Valerie Jarrett while they were all vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard, of all places. [ The Obama Whisperer, By Noam Scheiber, The New Republic, November 9, 2014]

Obama, Holder, and Jarrett are all from the African-American upper crust and know little about the black masses. Holder is a Barbadian who was raised in a West Indian bourgeois bubble in New York, while Jarrett was born in Iran.

Obama, Holder, and Jarrett decided, in effect, to hand strategic direction of the Democrats’ campaign over to the looters who painted “Snitches Get Stitches” on the side of the (wrong) Ferguson store they torched in vengeance.

One effect was that Asians suddenly swung sharply Republican. The 2012 exit poll claimed that Romney won only 27 percent of their vote. But in the wake of Ferguson, and the Obama Administration’s absolute lack of interest in the video of the giant black man attacking the Asian shopkeeper, Asians voted 50-49 for the GOP. This was the first election in which Asians went Republican since the 1990s, after the black pogroms against Korean shopkeepers during the April 1992 Rodney King riots.

It’s fun for Asians to make fun of the white man when the American mainstream media tells them to, but the idea that Obama, Holder, and Jarrett—the Black Party leadership, as it were—sided with black looters instead of Asian shopkeepers is, rightly, horrifying to them.

The lack of black enthusiasm for voting after the Democrats’ Ferguson Campaign speaks well for African-Americans’ sense of self-respect. They turned up in vast numbers two years ago to vote for Obama, who, for all his flaws, is at least a respectable credit to his race. This year, in contrast, they found the prospect of voting for Michael Brown depressing.

What will happen next to the Democrats as they continue to pursue the logic of a coalition of the fringes?

One little discussed problem that came home to roost for liberals in 2014 is that the transparent bogusness of their narrative about the evils of cisgendered straight white men tends to attract sleazeballs. For example, here we are in 2014 and veteran sleazeball Rev. Al Sharpton is at the apogee of his influence over the White House. The talking points of the mainstream media’s war on whites repel individuals of conscience but attract those hungry for money and attention. In turn, the poor human quality of the loudest liberal voices drives away normal voters.

For example, 2014 saw the Rise of the Politically Correct Adventuress. We’re used to being lectured on our sins by indignant lesbians, but the emergence of hot babes as politicized scolds wherever men with money were to be found was a recurrent pattern over the last 12 months. The most notorious example was Donald Sterling’s treacherous mistress V. Stiviano, while Silicon Valley was overrun by faux feminists, egged on by a press corps penning implausible stories about alpha male computer programmers.

In 2014, one set of cisgendered straight white males—guys who really like playing video games—noticed that the liberal journalists that cover their hobby (but mostly seem to denounce their own readers for being straight white guys) were in bed—sometimes literally—with various untalented female game developers they kept promoting as the exciting diverse alternative to boring old stale pale maleness.

This mainstream media scandal was dubbed Gamergate. In a unique incident in recent American history, the famous computer chip company Intel announced that it would stop advertising at one corrupt publication.

Aghast, the mainstream media swung into action to defend its journalistic colleagues by denouncing those uncovering press corruption as rapists implicitly violating the central if unspoken taboo of modern America: members of the Core cannot self-organize explicitly to defend their own interests; and everybody knows that videogamers are CSWMs, and thus deserve to lose.

The gamers replied that they were organizing not as straight white males defending themselves from denigration, but as consumers trying to clean up a conflict of interest. The mainstream media, however, was relentless in its umbrage at Gamergaters for valuing honesty over diversity. Moreover, gamers are seen as an implicit core defense group and thus should have no right to organize.

Did Gamergate open many voters’ eyes? Perhaps not, although here’s one example. But this novel controversy is highly representative of the cultural dynamics of the last 24 months that culminated in the Democrats’ repudiation last week.

Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days—feminism, diversity, etc.—turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and powerful politicians to get themselves even more money and power?

Steve Sailer (email him) writes regularly for Takimag and blogs at the Unz Review.

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

Last week, I critiqued Ron Unz’s recent article in The American Conservative, which argued that what we at VDARE.com call “The Sailer Strategy”—that the Republican Party should and can only win, not through “outreach”/minority pandering, but by “inreach”/mobilizing its own (white) base—wouldn’t really work and that a better way to prevent immigration overload would be to raise the minimum wage.

It reminded me that it’s time to post an update of my thinking on how the GOP—or, more accurately, the GAP, Generic American Party, a party representing the historic American nation, which currently votes overwhelmingly Republican—can survive.

The basic concept behind a long-term Sailer Strategy for Republicans: You want more of the kind of people likely to vote for your party in the country and fewer of the kind of people likely to vote for the other party.

This may sound a shocking thing for any Republican to say. But there’s a flagrant double standard here: the Democrats get to implement this logic quite unashamedly. They have long boasted that their policy of bringing in foreigners to vote for them will eventually give them a Chicago-like one-party hegemony over the United States.

And they may be right.

Of course, mass immigration also drives down the salaries and raises the housing and education costs of Americans, and thus makes them less likely to marry and establish families. The Democrats don’t brag about that as much.

Yet really, from a Democratic perspective, that’s not a bug, that’s a feature. People who vote Republican tend to be relatively successful in life. The harder it is for Americans to attain the basics of a successful life, such as marriage and children, the better for Democrats.

Democrats frequently offer Republicans advice on what to do about demographic change. It basically boils down to: “Lie back and try to enjoy it.”

It’s not rape if you agree to it! Remember, if you resist, you’ll just get hurt worse!

George W. Bush and Karl Rove apparently thought this was great counsel. They set about trying to hurry this process along. Thus, from 2005 to 2007, at the peak of the Bush housing bubble and the President’s encouragement of illegal immigration and amnesty, the number of babies born to married white women dropped 2.0 percent—while the number of babies born to unmarried Hispanic women grew 15.2 percent!

Heckuva job, Bushie!

(By 2009, the Hispanic birthrate had dropped sharply, and will probably be way down when the 2010 numbers finally come out.)

In contrast, consider Israel. You used to hear all the time that the Jewish State was doomed because the birthrate of Arabs was so much higher than that of Jews.

Strikingly, however, that fertility gap has narrowed considerably in recent years. Why?

Answer: because in Israel the major Jewish parties, although they can’t agree on much else, all support policies that boost the Jewish population and slow down the growth in the Arab population.

In America, however, Republicans have long abjured any sort of explicit population policy. Democratic politicians feel free to plot openly to “elect a new people”, but Republicans worry that attempting to boost the fortunes of their own kind of people a.k.a. Americans would be “racist”.

Moreover, Republican politicians really aren’t into long-term planning.Pump and dump is more their speed.

Which is foolish even on its own terms, of course. The reality is that policies that impact marriage, fertility, and identity— the building blocks of the long term—tend also to have a surprisingly immediate impact.

One unfortunate example from the 1960s: When liberals decided to raise welfare for unmarried mothers, that boosted the illegitimacy rate. Since being raised in a fatherless home correlates strongly with crime, you might expect that would have contributed to high crime rates 15 or more years down the road, which it did.

But the impact on crime became noticeable almost instantly as well—because young black fathers, not needing anymore to find steady work to support a wife, took up a lumpenprole lifestyle almost immediately.

Somewhat similarly, there is a rapid feedback loop between immigration and fertility. It has become fashionable to argue that Hispanic population growth is now being driven less by immigration than by births in America. But that overlooks how extraordinarily high Hispanic fertility is among new immigrants. Mexicans move to America to have more children than they could afford to have in their own country. After a generation or more in America, however, Mexican-Americans don’t find America such a great place to have a lot of children.

In a fascinating recent study, How High Is Hispanic / Mexican Fertility in the U.S.? Immigration and Tempo Considerations, Emilio A. Parrado of the U. of Pennsylvania’s Population Studies Center argues that because Latinas’ fertility spike so high immediately after immigration that the ethnic group’s future numbers can be easily overestimated:

“… without a significant change in immigration levels, current projections based on the premise of high Hispanic fertility are likely to considerably exaggerate Hispanic population growth, its impact on the ethnoracial profile of the country, and its potential to counteract population aging.”

In other words, Hispanic fertility is heavily concentrated among new immigrants. The extremely high total fertility rates seen among foreign-born Hispanics in the middle of the last decade (e.g., 3.7 among immigrant Latinas in California in 2005) were a result of the Bush Administration’s “compassionate conservative” policies.

And this has a couple of implications going forward.

  • The forecasts of a Hispanic electoral tidal wave, which are based on the extreme growth anticipated in the middle of the last decade, might not pan out quite as huge;
  • Immigration policy strongly affects Hispanic fertility. Without new immigrants, it falls rapidly.

Actually, the GOP has had a secret plan all along to mold the populace to its needs. It just wasn’t a very good plan. This is from the 2010 bestseller All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden Story of the Financial Crisis by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera:

“Republican senator Phil Gramm, an ardent champion of free markets, was in as good a position as any to cause Fannie and Freddie trouble; he became chairman of the Senate banking committee in 1994. But Gramm always gave Fannie and Freddie a pass. Why? Because … Gramm saw the political fruit that homeownership could bear. According to a former banking committee staffer, the Republicans studied what it was that made people vote Republican. ‘The number one predictor of voting Republican was a job in the private sector,’ he said. ‘Number two, and it’s a close second, is that you own your own home.’ He adds, ‘Gramm preached that gospel to all who would listen.’”

Oddly enough, in 1994 Bill Clinton also thought that undermining traditional credit standards for the benefit of minorities would be good for Democrats.

So whose political intuitions would you bet on: Clinton’s or Gramm’s?

The reality: only people who can afford to buy a home are likely to vote Republican.

Home ownership is becoming an outmoded factor in influencing who votes for whom. The better modern measure is marriage. In the old days, everybody got married, so it wasn’t a very good predictor of partisanship. Today, the kind of people who wait until they are married to have children are also the kind of people who wait to get a mortgage until they can afford to pay it back. And they are the kind of people who tend to vote Republican.

But they aren’t the people that the Bush Administration focused upon. McLean and Nocera note:

“George W. Bush believed in home ownership, too.

“In June 2002 … the president traveled to Atlanta, where, in an African-American church on the city’s south side, he unveiled his homeownership agenda. Entitled ‘A Blueprint for the American Dream,’ it promoted homeownership among minorities. The administration’s goal, Bush said, was to raise the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million by 2010.”

Bush told his regulators to make it easier for minorities to borrow by not requiring down payments or detailed documentation. This helped inflate the housing bubble, which was intended to turn Hispanics into home-owning Republicans.

You’ll notice that Texas Republicans like Gramm, Bush, Rove, and Rick Perry keep advocating these kinds of boondoggles. That may be because they aren’t as immediately disastrous in Texas, where there’s a lot of land and housing is cheap. When demand for homes goes up in Texas, supply follows along quickly.

But that’s not true in California, where spikes in demand lead to spikes in prices. These drive natural Republicans either out of the state or into the arms of the Democrats.

There’s an odd kind of political selection effect going on here. Policies pushed by Texas Republicans turn out to be disastrous for California Republicans by making California housing unaffordable.

But who listens to California Republicans anymore? They barely exist these days. They’re losers. Let’s listen to Texas Republicans. They’re winners!

Not surprisingly, by only listening to politicians who have had it easy, like Republicans in Texas (so far), nobody in the GOP ever learns anything.

A Sailer Strategy for the long run would have three main elements:

  • First: the voters most likely to vote Republican are whites who are married with children. So you want your base to thrive.

You want affordable family formation: incomes high enough and housing and education cheap enough that responsible folks feel they can afford to marry and reproduce.

The blogger Audacious Epigone wrote last week:

“In taking a fresh look at how what Steve Sailer deems the marriage gap held up in the 2008 election, I came across an interesting US Census report on marriage rates and things related with data from 2009. The marriage gap still existed in ’08, with McCain’s share of a state’s vote and the median duration of first marriages (age adjusted and for all races) in that state correlating at .85 (p = .00). … Those are extremely strong relationships for anything in the social sciences.”

This Census Bureau analysis ranks states by a measure I had never heard of before: Duration of First Marriages. Yet that number, which mostly measures when people can afford to get married, turns out to correlate closely with McCain’s share of the vote in 2008.

  • Second: since the GOP is inevitably the white party, you want marginally white people from places like Latin America and South Asia to identify as white.

How in the world could that be done?

Well, it’s not as hard as it sounds. These folks come from cultures where everybody tries to be seen as whiter, even to the extent of putting painful chemicals on their faces to make their skin fairer (for example, ex-slugger Sammy Sosa). Here in America, however, the federal government offers them the chance at money and prizes for claiming to be oppressed minorities.

Just take away that status. For example, abolish the government’s category of “Hispanic.” The government should count ethnicity no more than it counts religion. Without a count, nobody can file a “disparate impact” discrimination lawsuit requiring quotas.

(In a little noted story, the 2010 Census was worded more strongly to imply that, on the race question, Hispanic ethnics should choose an existing racial category, not “Some Other Race.” Almost all chose “white”—causing the number of self-identified racial whites to increase by 12.1 million from 2000 to 2010. This doesn’t mean all that much, but it’s a hint at which way these Hispanics would lean if the government stopped telling them to be minorities.)

Of course, Hispanic political elites will howl. But who cares? They are nine-tenths Democratic anyway. They exist as an organized interest group largely to protect their Affirmative action and Immigration privileges. Abolish those privileges and they’ll shrivel in power.

  • Third: you want to import fewer people who are likely to vote against your party.

So cut down on immigration. (This isn’t terribly complex.)

Also, you don’t want people who will likely vote against your party getting to vote just because their parents illegally snuck into your country. So no more birthright citizenship.

Everybody assumes that Latino voters will react with permanent apoplexy against any Republicans daring enough to do this. I don’t see much evidence for that. Cutting off Italian immigration in the 1920s didn’t stop Italians from migrating into the Republican Party (and being prominent immigration patriots today).

But I do have a suggestion for Republican politicians with guts (if there are any).

It’s this: Simply ask Mexican-American voters to vote for you because they want to do their patriotic duty. Say:

“I don’t think massive illegal immigration is good for you, but I’m sure it’s not good for your country. Please vote for me because I’m going to do what’s right for our country.”

Will many Mexican-Americans be persuaded by an appeal to their consciences?

I don’t know. It’s been decades since it’s occurred to anybody to appeal to the consciences of minorities. They might surprise you.

Or maybe not. But the point is that Republicans will have to act anyway.

And if not soon, then when?

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 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 VDARE.com: one post-Obama discussion is here.

Ron also treats respectfully VDARE.com’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

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush was at it again last week, urging the GOP to amnesty illegals in the middle of a recession, ostensibly to appeal to Hispanics who aren’t going to vote for the GOP anyway. Obviously, the only conceivable beneficiaries of this suicidal step would be the employers of cheap labor (until the Hispanics bring Latin American socialism with them) and the now partially-Hispanic Bush dynasty itself.

To gauge how staggeringly stupid, or darkly disingenuous, this sort of Hispandering is, we need to get back to the seminal article White Flight by veteran centrist pundit Ronald Brownstein, published in the January 8, 2011 edition of National Journal, a magazine for politics professionals.

Brownstein’s article had begun to get a lot of attention—but then the political class went berserk over that psycho shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona.

It began:

“By any standard, white voters’ rejection of Democrats in November’s elections was daunting and even historic. … In no previous exit poll had Republicans reached 60 percent of the white vote in House races.”

What’s important here isn’t the news, which won’t be terribly new to VDARE.com readers. We’ve been saying for a long time that the Republicans’ most practical route to victory is not outreach to unappeasable minorities, but inreach to its own, white, base—VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow insists on calling this the “Sailer Strategy”—and, furthermore, that this was how the GOP was winning elections, for example in 2002, 2004 and 2010. Brownstein just confirms that.

What was new about Brownstein’s article, however, is the metanews: the concept of “the white vote” is becoming a part of the conventional vocabulary.

As I’ve been pointing out for, roughly, ever: that development is an inevitable product of the much-celebrated demographic transformation of America.

It’s just Game Theory 101. When whites were the vast majority of voters, talking about “the white vote” at the national level was almost as pointless as talking about the “carbon-based life form vote.” As whites slowly drop toward minority status, however, political operators will (at least in private) start to think about whites in roughly the same way that they have traditionally thought about minority voting blocs.

Consider an example from across space rather than time: Even today, local political consultants in New Hampshire or Idaho don’t often wonder amongst themselves how big the white turnout will be. But they do in Mississippi and New Mexico.

If you find the racial politics of diverse states more unseemly than the non-racial politics of highly white states, well, perhaps you should have thought of that before starting America down the path toward being New Mexico.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Brownstein’s article was left more implied than explicit:

“The Hispanic vote for Democrats in House races slipped to 60 percent, compared with about two-thirds for Obama in 2008 … Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60 percent showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling.”

Let me spell this out more clearly than Brownstein does. In 2010, whites voted slightly more as a bloc for Republican House candidates (60-37) than Hispanics did for Democrats (60-38).

Which would you rather have: 60 percent of the Hispanic vote or 60 percent of the white vote? Which is an order of magnitude more significant?

(This would actually be a trick question for much of the MainStream Media, which has devoted endless column inches to the Latino Supervote. For the MSM’s benefit: according to CNN’s exit poll, Hispanics cast about 8%, that’s e-i-g-h-t p-e-r c-e-n-t of the total votes in House races in 2010. Whites cast 77%—an order of magnitude larger)

Brownstein’s National Journal bought the raw 2010 from the Edison-Mitofsky exit poll exit poll data and cross-tabbed it (as I did with the long-lost 2002 exit poll data). Now, we can’t trust exit poll data for Hispanics all that much (as we saw in 2004, when the exit people ultimately had to retract their assertions about the Latino vote). Still, it’s fascinating that after endless pronouncements in the MSM about how Republicans were dooming themselves in November by supporting the Arizona immigration law, it turns out that the GOP did fair to middling among Hispanic voters.

The unspoken reality: immigration is not that important an issue to Hispanic voters—certainly not anything like as important as it is to would-be Hispanic leaders. Moreover, Hispanics are very seldom thought-leaders in America. So their voting behavior tends to drift along parallel to the trends among whites, just systematically to the left.

Brownstein’s article suggested that to win re-election Obama will need to double down on his old high-low strategy of appealing to minorities and fashion-conscious white women. But were Obama’s attempts to rally Latinos in the week before the 2010 election, such as his “punish our enemies” demand, truly of net benefit to him? Or did they just alienate more white voters?

In contrast, David Axelrod, who might be described as Obama’s Karl Rove, told Brownstein that the Administration’s strategy will be, in effect, to try to make whites forget about 2009 and 2010 and act like it’s 2008—or, ideally, 2004. Obama will be, once again, the new blank slate for everybody to project their fantasies upon:

“Over the next two years, Axelrod added, Obama will return more consistently to other themes from his celebrated 2004 Democratic convention speech and his 2008 campaign, such as overcoming partisan divisions, reforming Washington, and molding government’s ‘important but limited role’ in American life. ‘We have to reclaim our fundamental message equities from 2008, Axelrod says. The issues we’ll burnish are ones that will resonate better with some of these [disaffected white]voters, because we’ll have an opportunity to choose them.’”

Maybe this will work. But it obviously failed badly in 2010. So is Obama doomed in 2012?

Of course not. He won pretty easily in 2008. And the population will indeed be (slightly) more minority next year, thanks to immigration and differential birthrates.

If the GOP wants to make 2012 different from 2008, it must try to nominate a good candidate for a change.

Republican Congressmen could also use their control of the House to mount hearings into wedge issues like an anti-unemployment immigration moratorium or the Obama Administration’s steady push for more implicit racial quotas. What’s more “job-killing” than “sending a sharp warning to employers nationwide” over yet another manifestation of disparate impact?

Of course, this will require courage. It’s not good news that the House GOP leadership wants to proceed cautiously with its immigration hearings.

Brownstein’s crosstabs show that the big divide in American politics is racial. In contrast to the 60% white vote for the GOP, among minorities, 73 percent voted Democratic. Brownstein wrote:

“From every angle, the exit-poll results reveal a new color line: a consistent chasm between the attitudes of whites and minorities.”

But is this color line “new”? The split is very similar to 2002, when Republicans got 59 percent of the white vote and only 23 percent of everybody else. What is “new” is that National Journal is now talking about it.

Most white subgroups, Brownstein found, voted more or less alike in 2010. A caption on the article claims:

“Previously unreleased results from the 2010 exit polls show a stark gap between whites and minorities and a smaller but still significant difference between blue- and white-collar whites.”

But that’s overplaying the differences Brownstein found among the whites. As Kevin MacDonald has noted, what’s most striking are the similarities among college-graduate and blue collar whites groups. Brownstein writes:

“… noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women–the so-called waitress moms–gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did. … College-educated white men backed Republican House candidates and registered negative views of Obama’s job performance as overwhelmingly as blue-collar whites did.”

Even college-educated white women, a fashion-forward segment who had given a majority to Obama in 2008, voted 55-43 Republican in 2010.

My technical comment: Brownstein should have looked at more important demographic distinctions among whites, especially the marriage gap, which far outweighs the more celebrated “Gender Gap”. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s crosstab of the 2004 exit polls found that George W. Bush carried merely 44% of the single white females, but 61% of the married white women—a 17 point difference.

Also, Brownstein should have used his access to crosstabs and state-level data to look specifically into whether statistician Andrew Gelman’s finding in his 2008 book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor Statestill holds.

Gelman made an important observation about the regional differences that cause political discussions of”elites” to be incoherent. In expensive Democratic states, the more elite the whites, the more liberal they tend to be. In New Haven, CN, for example, compare the whites on the Yale faculty to the other whites on the fire department, such as Frank Ricci.

But in less expensive states, downscale whites tend to be more Democratic than upscale whites. The 2009 hit movie The Blind Side, for which Sandra Bullock won an Oscar, provided a rare sympathetic portrayal of a white family at the top of the social ladder in Mississippi. Everybody they know is either a well-to-do Republican or a promising black athlete.

This pattern is likely to have remained true in 2010. Brownstein noted:

“Democratic Senate candidates carried a majority of white voters in just seven races and reached 45 percent of the vote in only two more. Except for West Virginia, those states were all near an ocean (or, in Hawaii’s case, in one).”

Brownstein went on to show how far apart white and minority voters are in their opinions—see graphic here.

(I’m less convinced than Brownstein is, however, that articulated opinions are hugely important in determining how people vote. In general, I suspect that allegiances are more fundamental, with opinions being adopted to justify them, rather than vice-versa.)

Brownstein reported:

“The new data show that white voters … registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.”

For example, regarding Obama’s performance:

“Exactly 75 percent of minority voters said they approved; only 22 percent said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35 percent approved of the president’s performance, while 65 percent disapproved.”

Moreover:

“Minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult.”

As Alternative Right’s Richard Spencer quips in reply: “Both might be right”.

(But again, I’m not as impressed by this last question about the future as Brownstein. This question is biased by the previous questions. Voters rationalize their votes by making broad—but cost-free—claims about the future. Supporters of the party in power typically put on a brave face for exit pollsters while fans of the out party proclaim the end is nigh. For example, in the 2006 exit poll, across all races 79 percent of Republican voters claimed the U.S. was going in the right direction, while 78 percent of Democrats disagreed.)

Brownstein was also wowed by ideological differences between the races:

“And on a question measuring bedrock beliefs about the role of government, the two racial groups again registered almost mirror-image preferences. Sixty percent of minorities said that government should be doing more to solve problems; 63 percent of whites said that government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals.”

He then offers some amateur psychoanalysis:

“The irony in these results is that minorities expressed more faith in both the future and the government than whites did, even though the recession has hit minority communities harder.Rodolfo de la Garza [Email him]… says that part of the explanation is that whites found the downturn more psychologically wrenching … More minority workers hold marginal positions in the private economy, he says, so they were less likely to be shocked by the severity of the downturn.”

Oh yeah? If minorities were so skeptical and perceptive about the future course of the economy, why are so many in foreclosure?

A likelier theory: minorities simply tend to be less successful at creating wealth in the private sector, so they are more inclined to favor taking from the private sector and giving to the public sector.

But the catastrophic success of George W. Bush’s White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership at liberating financiers like Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide from traditional credit standards in the name of fighting racial inequality makes clear that both parties remain inclined to high-low strategies that unleash the rich upon the middle in the name of minorities. How many Republicans have publicly repudiated Bush’s actions?

Finally, how much does economic ideology merely serve to justify partisan team affiliation? If you are the fan of an NFL team, is it because you admire your team’s strategy? Alternatively, is it because they are your team, the one that you started rooting for because people close to you rooted for them?

The importance of race in political partisanship doesn’t make much sense under the conventional wisdom that race is only a matter of skin color. In fact, of course, race is actually a matter of self-identification, of who your relatives are by blood and marriage and whom your descendents are likely to be. Examined from that perspective, a correlation between race and voting is inevitable.

Will the MSM’s slow acceptance of the term “white vote” mean that issues of importance to real live white people, such as immigration, will be open for discussion?

Probably not. The press constantly nags Hispanic voters to become more racially resentful, but any thought that turnabout might be fair play is crimethink. The primary mode of thinking in political life remains, as Lenin suggested, “Who? Whom?” The press implores Latinos to vote in a racialist manner not because racial voting is good or bad in the abstract, but because Latinos are a minority, so, by definition, racial voting is good in their case.

In fact, the most likely outcome is that the MSM’s dawning awareness of the white vote will result in more demands that whites prove themselves to minorities by bending over backwards.

The most perceptive word on Brownstein’s article was Richard Spencer‘s in his Alternative Right article entitled The Triumph of Sailerism (!!) from which I’ve already quoted:

“This irony leads me to conclude that the phenomenon Peter and Steve describe bodes quite poorly for White America. As the White vote—particularly the White, male vote—becomes more and more reliable, the Republican Party (as it’s currently constituted) would seemingly become less and less likely to do anything on White people’s behalf, like halt mass immigration.”

Is this true? White guys are indeed often pushovers, politically speaking, because they tend to be good team players. They want to see their team win. And because, as white guys like to say, there is”no ‘I’ in ‘team’”, they aren’t as likely to ask their self-appointed political leaders the essential question of all politics: “Hey, what’s in it for me and mine?”

But, again as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, despite all the intimidation, whites have been forming”implicit communities”—gathering themselves together while disavowing, consciously, any racial motive. MacDonald observes that “the granddaddy of implicit white communities is the Republican Party”—and the phenomenon is even more visible in the Tea Parties.

The first step toward ending whites’ streak of self-destructive idealism has to be awareness … self-awareness.

Fool me once—shame on you.

Fool me as often as many a GOP honcho has fooled his base over immigration—shame on us.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His websitewww.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

The 2010 mid-term elections were a dramatic reversal from the 2008 Presidential election year. But current commentary is losing sight of that—because it had looked like the election could have been even bigger, particularly for patriotic immigration reformers. Richard Hoste, among the most brilliant of younger commentators, has even suggested sadly that Sharron Angle’s loss to Senator Harry Reid in Nevada calls into question what VDARE.COM has called the “Sailer Strategy”—the idea that inreach to its white base, not outreach to minorities, is the key to future GOP success. I disagree.

Let’s recap what happened,

Governors: As of my writing this, some 36 hours after all the polls had closed, Republicans had won 23 gubernatorial races, Democrats nine, independents one, and four were still up in the air.

State legislatures: Numbers are hazy at present, but Republicans supposedly took 500 legislative seats from Democrats. That will be important in the upcoming redistricting based on 2010 Census numbers, and in furnishing bench strength for future races.

Senators: Republicans won 23, Democrats 12, with Alaska still not called.

House: Republicans have won 239 races, Democrats 186, with ten yet to be decided.

“House Democrats lost more than half of the land mass they once held.” [A Humbling Loss for Obama: How it Happened, by Katy Couric, CBSnews.com, November 3, 2010] The bright red Congressional districts on this map represent Democratic losses in 2010.

(In other words, the historic Republican House advances of 2010 occurred largely in the less densely populated parts of the country. This was as predicted by my theory of Affordable Family Formation. Back in the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin pointed out that the less crowded the country, the lower the land prices and the higher the wages. That means that more people can afford, and at younger ages, to get married and have children. The 21st Century partisan corollary to Franklin’s insight: “The party of family values” thrives most where and when family formation is most affordable. The political implication:urbanizing more and more of the country through mass immigration is bad for Republicans. But Republican politicians have been remarkably slow to grasp that concept.)

It’s important to remember: this strong Republican performance in the 2010 mid-term elections wasn’t supposed to be demographically possible anymore. After 2008, the whole country was supposed to have become like California—where, indeed, Republicans were mostly thrashed on Tuesday. (One commenter has suggested Republicans could now label Democrats “the Party of California.”)

The question was repeatedly asked after 2008: How could the GOP ever win again when the population becomes less white each year? (See CIS.org: Can Conservatism Survive Immigration? and VDARE.com: “Can Conservatism Survive… Ramesh Ponnuru And David Frum?”)

Well, the answer is obvious, but only semi-mentionable in polite society: the GOP needs to do two things—get white people to turn ou t; and get them to vote Republican. This is the “Sailer Strategy”.

That’s how Republicans have long won in the South, where the white share of the population is already lower than California. (Outside of Florida, GOP candidates won all but a handful of Southern Congressional districts that weren’t specifically gerrymandered to be majority minority.)

You’d prefer not to live in a country where whites vote like a minority bloc? Me too! But maybe we should have thought about that before putting whites on the long path to minority status through mass immigration.

In the GOP’s 2002 and 2004 victories, whites turned out in large numbers and voted Republican by sizable margins—basically as a patriotic response to 9/11 and the subsequent Bush wars.

With the war going sour in 2006, however, the Republicans failed to hold their share of whites: Republican House candidates only won the white vote 51-47 and thus lost the House.

 

In 2008, McCain beat Obama by a mediocre 55-43 among whites.That’s not awful, but McCain also didn’t inspire whites to turn out to vote in large numbers, while Obama excited minorities and the callow.(In 2008, 11 percent of voters said it was their first time ever in a polling booth, compared to only three percent in 2010.)

As David Paul Kuhn, author of The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Party, pointed out in RealClearPolitics, the MainStream Media rewrote the history of 2008 in line with their worship of Obama. The forgotten truth: after picking Saran Palin as his veep, McCain led Obama in the Gallup Poll for the nine days preceding the epochal bankruptcy of Lehman Bros. on September 15, 2008, after which Obama regained the lead. But the Crash of 2008 didn’t so much convert whites into Obama voters as depress them.

In 2010, in contrast, GOP House candidates crushed DemocraticHouse candidates 60-37 among white voters. And minorities had a hard time getting interested in a non-Presidential contest lacking in personalities and Will.I.Am videos.

The GOP picked up 91 percent of its votes among whites—in contrast to the Democrats’ 65 percent.

In other words, nation-wide the Sailer Strategy istriumphing. I argued that the most practical path to victory for the GOP was to get more white votes. And that’s exactly what it did. Obama, not least with his extraordinary attack on Arizona’s universally popular SB 1070, helped.

What about specific states?

The two biggest governor’s races—California and Texas—also illustrate the Sailer Strategy in action. In California, Hispanics and blacks together accounted for just 31 percent of the voters—compared to 30 percent in Texas. In California, Democrat Jerry Brown won Latinos 64-30. Democrat Bill White carried them 61-38 in Texas.

(Interesting side note: as Hispanics become more dominant inCalifornia’s Democratic Party, blacks have been trending slightly more Republican. Among blacks, Meg Whitman lost only 77-21, while Rick Perry lost 88-11. As I’ve argued, immigration will cause problems for the Democrats too)

Adding blacks and Hispanics together, Rick Perry did slightly worse with the Non-Asian Minority vote in Texas, losing it 73-26, than in Meg Whitman did in California, where she lost 68-27.

Why, then, did Perry cruise to a 55-42 victory in Texas,while Whitman failed 41-54 in California?

Answer: because Perry won the Texas white vote 69-28. In contrast, Whitman only edged out Brown 50-46 among California whites.

Moral: If a Republican candidate can’t win a majority of whites, he or she can’t win the election.

(The most politically relevant basic difference betweenCalifornia and Texas: the price of land. Texas has cheaphousing relative to its income, but California is expensive.That has profound effects on the political cultures of thetwo states that we are only beginning to understand. Forexample, Texas tends to attract young white families while California sheds them.

(Nevada falls in between California and Texas. Although it looks empty, much of the land is locked up from development by lack of water, federal ownership, Indian reservations, nuclear bomb testing, nuclear waste storage, UFO storage, and so forth. Land prices surged in Nevada during the Housing Bubble, and then collapsed with the worstdefault rates in the country.)

So what about Nevada?

Contrary to predictions after her nomination, Tea Partier Sharron Angle made a real race of it against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Polls showed her ahead right to the end. But then—in a development that requires explanation—Reid triumphed 50-45.

Instantly, the conventional wisdom congealed like this (from Politico, November 3, 2010):

Hispanics saved the Dems

Luis Gutierrez is pushing Harry Reid today to return to immigration legislation, on the grounds that Hispanic voters saved his hide.

“Reid got an amazing 90% of the state’s 12% Hispanic voters, according to exit polls; Sharron Angle got just 8%.”

Needless to say, Democrats (and the MSM) will read intoNevada the confirmation they desire: their long-runningstrategy of racializing the immigration debate—is the rightone. Republican immigration enthusiasts and Hispanicconsultants will urge their party not to respond.

But that 90-8 split among Nevada Hispanics turned out tobe…a typo.

As of early Thursday morning, CNN’s website says the breakdown was actually a more ho-hum 68-30. That’s roughly the same as the Whitman and Fiorina races in California, although both ran away from the immigration issue.

Of course, this will make no difference to the CW—just as irrefutable proof that Bush did not win 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 hasn’t stopped Karl Rove (and the MSM) from repeating that myth either.

(The result out of Nevada that really interests me: Asians going 79-19 for Reid, in contrast to a more typical 59-34 margin for Democrat Barbara Boxer in neighboring California. I don’t know what the story isbehind that.)

Angle’s real problem: she won whites 53-41, but (maybe for reasons to do with her own personality) that wasn’t aTexas-sized enough margin.

So what drove the result in Nevada? Why did Nevadans return their state’s longtime Provider of Pork to the center of power in Washington instead of anointing an outsider who has a philosophical aversion to Bringing Home the Bacon?

Could it be possible that some residents of Las Vegas are less motivated by principle than by money? I know it sounds crazy. But I think we have consider that disillusioning possibility about Vegasites.

It’s significant that, in contrast to Nevada, the statewide politician most closely associated with this year’s immigration controversy over SB1070, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, ran for election as governor on her own forthe first time. She lost among Latinos 71-28. But shecarried whites 60-36. And she won the state 55-42.

Similarly, the sponsor of SB1070, Russell Pearce, was re-elected to the Arizona state senate on Tuesday, as the Republican majority in that body grew from 18 to 21 out of 30. He was elected president of the state senate on Wednesday.

More Thoughts:

  • The relative unimportance of the celebrated gender gap.

Remember the gender gap? On Tuesday, white men voted Republican 63-35—and white women voter Republican too, 58-40.

Much more important recently than the gender gap has been themarriage gap. In 2008, McCain won 50 percent of the votes of married women, but only 29 percent of unmarried women.

Yet this year’s exit poll didn’t bother to ask voters if they were married!

  • Catholics surged from only 42 percent Republican in 2008 to 54 percent in 2010.

That’s partly due to the reduced Hispanics turnout. Butamong non-Hispanic whites, Catholic voters voted Republican 59-39.

Which is a significant change from the 2002 midterms, when Republicans kept the House despite getting only 50 percent of the white Catholic vote.

The Ricci and Crowley imbroglios of 2009 obviously didn’t help Obamawith northern white Catholics.

  • Educated voters aren’t necessarily Democrats.

Democrats take vast pride in being more educated thanRepublicans. But it’s never terribly evident in the data. In2010, Democrat voters reported an average of two weeks more schooling than Republican voters. (The mean Democrat asserted he had made it through 2.91 years of college versus 2.88 years for the typical Republican—a trivial difference.)

In comparison, when the GOP got drubbed in 2006, Republicans averaged a week more in the classroom, perhaps because their dimmer bulbs didn’t remember to turn out that year. When the Republicans won in 2002, they had better education statistics than the Democrats.

My views: in general, education levels seem to be a wash.Parties need to both motivate the less educated to show up at the polls (because they need votes) and appeal to the more educated to vote for them (because educated supporters are better for your prestige). It’s hard to do both simultaneously, but you have to try.

  • One obvious 2010 theme: Buyers’ remorse over the 2008 Presidential election.

In the exit poll, 37 percent said their House vote expressed opposition to Obama versus only 24 percent who said it expressed support.

The MainStream Media so flagrantly covered up the real Obama in2007-2008 that many naïve voters were surprised and displeased to discover in 2009-2010 that he was a black liberal from Chicago of underwhelming personality. (They should have read my America’sHalf Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story Of Race And Inheritance.”!)

Obama got to be President for the same reason George W. Bush got to be President: because of who his daddy was.

Just as the younger Bush’s career would have stalled out at about the regional sales manager level if he hadn’t been the son of George H.W. Bush, if everything else about Obama were the same except his father hadn’t been black, where would a white Obama be today? Teaching poly sci? Getting laid off from his copyediting job at Harper’s?

The President is a bright man, but not a big man. He lacksenergy, empathy, and an adequate sense of skepticism about all the praise he’s been showered with over the years.

The elite white press went soft in the head over Obama because of the one thing that you aren’t supposed to think about intelligently: race. They liked him because He’s black! (But, he’s not, you know, black …)

To the DC press corps, extravagantly hyping a black candidate proved you were better than other white people. More subtly, hyping Obama, who grew up sequestered thousands of miles away from any black community, was also intended to furnish blacks with a role model of nice white liberal behavior. Obama was the One the MSM had beenwaiting for.

But that kind of double bankshot theorizing just seemed silly after Obama got in office and had to start dealing with real national problems. Obama’s skill set is attuned to impressing white people who have just met him enough to give him a promotion —hence his Nobel Prize from the Norwegians, But there aren’t any more sinecures left for him to fail upward into.

  • But Republican politicians have not become terribly popular either.

Among voters on Tuesday, only 42 percent expressed a favorableopinion of the Republican Party, which was actually below the 43 percent approval rating they gave the Democratic Party whom they were “shellacking” (as Obama put it).

Republicans seemed to do better the more they simply remained the abstract embodiment of Not Obamaness.

The more personally conspicuous Republican candidates madethemselves, such as Meg Whitman in California, who spent a fortune in paid media, or Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, who were given abundant free media by a hostile press corps, the more they seemed to underperform. (Indeed, women in general didpoorly, with the number of Congresswomen apparently falling, which would be the first decline in three decades.)

Whitman wound up doing slightly worse in the governor’s race than her fellow Silicon Valley executive Carly Fiorina did in the Senate race—even though Fiorina, who has been battling the after-effects of cancer, maintained a much lower profile.

  • What about 2012?

My prediction: Obama, an adulation addict, will likely bepsychologically down for a few months. But he could comeback strong if the economy turns around. He remains wellsituated to win the Electoral College in 2012, with thealmost 200 votes of the Northeast, Illinois, and the WestCoast as his base.

In contrast, the Republicans need to win Ohio in 2012′sPresidential race, and would very much like to win NewJersey.

That puts Republican governors John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey into the national ticket discussion.

Granted, none of the above electoral analysis has much ofanything to do with what Republicans actually do aftergetting elected.

President Obama told Spanish-language Univision that his political philosophy is, “We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends…

Personally, I don’t care much about the “punish our enemies” part.

But Republicans need to start thinking, finally, about howthey are finally going to “reward our friends”.

My suggestions: what about an immigration moratorium? Abolishing birthright citizenship? Restricting Affirmative Action to African Americans?

And what about opposing the Democrats’ incessant efforts to racialize the immigration issue by appealing to Hispanic citizens as American citizens on the basis of what’s best for Americans—rather than as members of an alien racial bloc?

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

His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

Among the most interesting of the countless postmortems on Republican Scott Brown’s victory over Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race was veteran Democratic journalist Thomas Edsall’s Ghost Story in The New Republic on January 20, 2010.

Edsall’s article is one of the more realistic (if inadvertent) works of political advice the GOP has received—outside of the pages of VDARE.com. From a tsk-tsking Democratic perspective, Edsall outlines the inexorable logic of what Peter Brimelow calls the Sailer Strategy: as the non-white percentage of the electorate increases, the Republicans must (and can) win a growing share of the white vote.

Of course, the Republican leadership (such as it is) will find Edsall’s insights offensive rather than illuminating. They are less likely to comprehend them than to try to refute them, by more brilliant stratagems such as making Michael Steele head of the Republican National Committee.

Edsall writes:

“As everyone knows, the United States is undergoing a profound demographic transformation. Non-Hispanic whites are likely to become a minority by the year 2042. This shift underlies the theory of a Democratic realignment: Pro-Democratic groups are growing while the pro-Republican white population is declining.”

Edsall goes on, however, to note that just twelve months of the Obama Administration demonstrated to many white voters even in liberal Massachusetts that they might not be happy with their ordained future. Over the course of 2009, he says, “White, middle-classvoters ceased to think of Obama as a protector of theirinterests.”

Over the years, Edsall has repeatedly tried warned liberals that the diabolically clever Republican leadership is going to attempt to please the white majority by acting as “a protector of their interests.”

That would make sense. But I’ll believe it when I see it.

Heretically, Edsall points out that these long-termdemographic trends don’t automatically require whites tocontinue to vote for their own despoiling:

“There is evidence, however, that trends that have recently boosted Democratic prospects may also be a key factor in undermining thecapacity of the population for empathy, and, thus, its receptivity to programs like health care reform.”

In fact, racial diversity is, by its nature, politically divisive. Edsall cites, as “painful to those committed to diversity and equality”, the findings of Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam (whose work I repeatedly publicized when it was finally released several years ago). Putnam’s survey of 30 communities found, in his words, that “in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Edsall elaborates:

“Putnam’s findings offer critical insight into the explosive growth of the Tea Party movement and the strikingly sudden collapse of support for the Democratic Party. They suggest that the populace, especially the white populace, is on a psychic hair trigger. The demographic transformation of the country and the birth of multicultural America have made this group extremely status anxious…” [VDARE.COM link]

Of course, Edsall’s term “status anxious” trivializes the issue. Instead, we’re watching a much more fundamental struggle—over resources. As Edsall himself admits:

“The harsh reality is many voters consider the health care bill a multibillion-dollar transfer of taxpayer money to the uninsured, a population disproportionately, although by no means exclusively, made up of the poor, African Americans, Latinos, single parents, and the long-term unemployed. Providing medical care to this population is an explicit goal of the legislation, and a worthy goal, but politicalsuicide in the current environment.”

Health care funding isn’t about status or other frivolities; it’s about death and taxes.

How does Edsall get away with even this level of frankness? After all, pointing out the arithmetic reality of the white vote got VDARE.COM banned from Free Republic, to say nothing of more respectable MSM venues.

First: he’s a Democrat, so it’s okay—his heart is in the right place. He’s trying to expose the evil racist Republican plot.

Second: he uses scare quotes (such as in referring to “illegal immigrants” as ‘illegal’ immigrants”) and other post-modern gimmicks to give the impression that there’s no underlying reality, just Republican spin.

Similarly, in his 1992 book Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics Edsall claims:

“Taxes, in turn, have been used to drive home the cost to whites of federal programs that redistribute social and economic benefits toblacks and to other minorities.”

Of course, it would have been simpler to write “Taxes, in turn, drive home …” The passive voice phrase “have been used to drive home” is merely an obfuscation to cater to the Democratic fantasy that voters wouldn’t notice the burden of taxes if bad Republicans didn’t mention it.

Third: like most Democrats, Edsall is relentlessly focused on the past—blaming everything on Barry Goldwater’s Southern Strategy of 1964—rather than upon the future, where our children will have to live.

Edsall, who spent 25 years as one of the Washington Post’s premiere political reporters and is now a Columbia Journalism School professor and a writer for the Huffington Post, is a nostalgist for the New Dealdays—when politics (owing in large measure to the nationally unifying benefits of the 1920s immigration cut-off) revolved around class rather than race.

In Chain Reaction, Edsall informed the Democrats:

“The overlapping issues of race and taxes have permitted the Republican Party to adapt the principles of conservatism to break theunderlying class basis of the Roosevelt-Democratic coalition …”

FDR’s most popular reforms, such as Social Security andunemployment benefits, were politically successful because they provided the average voter with insurance against the randomness of life.

My father, for instance, is almost 93. When he retired three decades ago, he didn’t particularly expect to live to such an age, but having old-fashioned defined benefit” pensions from both Lockheed and Social Security has allowed him to live in modest comfort withoutworrying perpetually about living too long for his savings.

In contrast, many of the programs begun or expanded in LBJ’s era, such as food stamps and welfare, functioned less as insurance than asredistributionary incentives for the kinds of anti-social behavior, such as having children out of wedlock, that some races were more prone to than others.

Edsall wrote in Chain Reaction:

“Together, the twin issues of race and taxes have created a new, ideologically coherent coalition by pitting taxpayers against taxrecipients, by pitting the advocates of meritocracy against proponents of special preference, by pitting the private sector against the public sector, by pitting those in the labor force against the jobless, and by pitting those who bear many of the costs of federal intervention against those whose struggle for equality has been advanced byinterventionist government policies. “

Personally, I’ve long felt that Edsall’s alarums soundedlike an awfully good strategy for the GOP—politically, butalso morally. After all, what’s the point of majority rule if not to benefit the majority?

Edsall went on in his 1992 book to point out how race and resources combine to be almost an Occam’s Razor for understanding modern American politics:

“In a steady evolutionary process, race and taxes have come to intersect with an entire range of domestic issues, from welfare policyto civil-service testing, from drug enforcement to housing regulation, from minority set‐ aside programs to the decline in urban manufacturing jobs, from prison construction to the globalization of economic competition, from college admissions standards to suburban zoning practices, from highway construction to Federal Communications Commission licensing procedures. “

In 2006, Edsall published a follow-up to Chain Reactionentitled Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive For Permanent Power, whichcontained more inadvertently good advice for the GOP on how to take advantage of the inherent weaknesses of theDemocrats. Herbert Gintis, an unusually realistic leftist economist, explained in an Amazon review:

“Edsall characterizes the Democratic party as (a) an uneasy and unstable alliance of minorities and the poor, who have serious economic issues on the one hand, and liberal,affluent elites with interests in new age values and individual liberation on the other. … Liberal values, he argues, have led to the election of Republican mayors and governors, as for instance, noting that Dinkins in New York was so ineffective that he was followed by four successive Republican mayors.”

Of course, the GOP didn’t acquire “permanent power.” In fact, it managed to get itself whomped in the 2006 and 2008 elections. (Thanks a lot, Karl Rove).

However, the problem with Edsall’s analysis was not hislogic, but the GOP’s. Republicans controlled Congress and the White House in 2006. So, what Machiavellian scheme did the GOP brain trust throw its weight behind? The McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill!

And what did the Bush Administration do in 2007 to show white working class voters that it was on their side? Well, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sued the Fire Department of New York, which had sacrificed 343 men on 9/11, for discrimination in the ludicrous Vulcancase.

A Clinton-appointed judge has now ordered the FDNY to implement a 60 percent minority hiring quota.

This would be a perfect issue for the Republicans to use tofollow up the momentum they garnered among Northeastern white Catholics in Brown’s election.

Except that the GOP—unlike in Edsall’s nightmares—was, as so often, on the self-destructive side in Vulcan.

Edsall concludes his New Republic essay:

“And, so now a Democratic Party that seemed poised for electoral greatness has reverted back to the debilitating political condition that ailed it during the 1970s and 1980s. It is increasingly perceived as too liberal. It must convince the white working class that it will protect its interests—not just those of the very rich and very poor.”

Personally, I think that Edsall may be too gloomy about his party’s prospects. In reality, the Democrats don’t have to convince whites that they’ll good at protecting their interests in any absolute sense.

They just have to seem no more anti-white than the Republicans.

How hard will that be?

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

His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

I’m continuing to think about how the Republican Party—or, more accurately a generic patriotic party that reflects traditional American values—can win national elections if current immigration policy is not altered and the racial balance of the U.S. continues to be shifted by the federal government. I’ve argued that simple arithmetic proves the untried Sailer Strategy“—by which the Republican Party would worry less about “outreach” to hostile minorities and more about inreachto mobilize its natural white base—will be viable for a surprisingly long time, despite current immigration policy. I’ve also argued that the current Census category of “Asian”, which encourages anti-white rent-seeking by groups that otherwise have very little in common, should be abolished.

Today, I want to address that “Asian” vote, in as far as that’s possible given the weaknesses of the Census definition.

Until now, the Asian vote hasn’t received much attention. After all, Asians only cast 2.5 percent of the vote in 2008.

Although Asian immigration rates are high, their turnout rate is low. Only 47 percent of Asian citizens bothered to vote in 2008 versus over 65 percent for whites and blacks.

Moreover, their total fertility rate is fairly low: in California in 2005, only 1.4 babies per American-born Asian woman’s lifetime, and 2.0 for Asian immigrants—compared to 2.2 for American-born Latinas and a startling 3.7 for immigrant Latinas.

Still, if current policy is left in place, the Asian share of the vote is likely to about double over the next four decades—making them almost as important as Latinos are now.

If you take a simplistic model of partisanship, in which Democrats, as the tax-and-spend party, appeal more to those who get more out of government spending than they put in, then Asians should tend toward the Republicans.

Moreover, with some specific exceptions such as Small Business Administration loans, Asians are net losers from affirmative action, which Democrats support. (Republicans, however, have never spoken up on this issue and have largely dropped it in recent years.)

And, in fact, Asians apparently once did vote Republican. Exit polling of Asians only goes back to 1992, when George H.W. Bush is said to have done significantly better among Asians (winning 55 percent in that three way race with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot) than among whites (only 40 percent). Of course, the sample size then was really too small to trust.

Asians, however, have voted solidly Democratic in the last three Presidential elections. Obama drubbed McCain 62-35.

Some of this is due to demographic change among Asians. For example, in 1992 Chinese-American citizens were largely anti-Communist Republicans with roots in Taiwan. But most recent Chinese immigrants are from the mainland. Moreover, Indian-Americans make up an ever-larger fraction of the Asian total. And, although there are a number of (allegedly) conservative Indian pundits, South Asians appear to vote even more Democratic than East Asians.

Also, the GOP hasn’t helped itself by paying little attention to issues of particular importance to Asians. For instance, Asians dislike big urban school districts, because they lack the votes to get the schools to spend heavily on Advanced Placement courses for their children rather than on remedial courses for blacks and Latinos. Case in point: Asian parents in Los Angeles County have largely moved out of the huge Los Angeles Unified School District and into smaller surrounding municipalities, such as Arcadia, where they do have the votes to get the local schools to serve their kids.

Passing state laws to make it easier for parts of big school districts to secede would be popular with Asian voters. But it hasn’t been on GOP radar screens—because the secession issue is ultimately all about race, which Republicans are terrified to think about.

Overall, though, I believe the trend to East Asians voting Democrat stems largely from Democrats winning in the struggle to be chic among elite whites. East Asians tend to be rather conformist. They take quickly to mouthing a society’s dominant platitudes, which in America are increasingly liberal.

I’m reminded of something that surprised me in the late 1990s. My wife worked with a Korean immigrant lady named (unsurprisingly) Ms. Kim. The poor woman’s husband had died in a car crash a few years before, leaving her with two small children to raise.

I was startled to learn that Ms. Kim referred to herself as a “single mother” rather than as a “widow,” which seemed to me to be the more accurate and more respectable term.

But that just showed what an out-of-date fuddy-duddy I was. As a relative newcomer to America in the Age of Oprah, Ms. Kim had noticed what I hadn’t: that it’s now uncool for modern American widows to attempt to distinguish themselves from unwed mothers. That would be insensitive and discriminatory.

This doesn’t mean that, in her heart, Ms. Kim agreed with contemporary American mores. After all she grew up in a culture that stigmatizes illegitimacy as strongly as any in the developed world. In 2007, only 1.6 percent of babies were born out of wedlock in South Korea, versus a staggering 39.7 percent in the U.S. (That’s 72 percent illegitimacy among blacks, 51 percent among Hispanics, 28 percent among whites, and 17 percent among Asians).

But East Asians are used to hypocrisy. If the rich and respectable in America demand certain pro forma declarations, well, that’s a small price to be paid to not be excluded from polite society.

Granted, American hypocrisy is bizarrely inverted—rather than pretending to be better than she is, fashionable Americans want Ms. Kim to pretend to be worse than she is. But if that’s what the socially-influential whites in America say they want to hear, well, lip service is cheap.

Hu’s Rule, invented by journalist Arthur Hu in the 1990s, is that Asians tend to be slightly more conservative than their white neighbors—but they tend to choose liberal white neighbors.

At the beginning of the decade, 45% of all Asian-born immigrants lived in three heavily-Democratic metropolitan areas: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City. Although Asian voters tend to live in the more conservative parts of the megalopolises, such as the staid San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles rather than the trendy Westside, it’s still Southern California rather than, say, Northern Texas.

After the 2004 election, I calculated that 76 percent of Asians lived in states that voted for John F. Kerry.

Asians tend to emulate upscale whites. But, as Andrew Gelman pointed out in Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, a key difference between Republican states and Democratic states is that, in Republican states, wealthy white voters are more likely to be Republicans than downscale white voters. That’s not true in Democratic states, where social status among whites doesn’t correlate with voting Republican.

Thus in, say, Arkansas, respectable people (in the eyes of local Asians) vote Republican. But not many Asians live in states like Arkansas. Because Asians are concentrated on the coasts, they are exposed more to Democratic than Republican role models. And they tend to conform to the norms of the rich and powerful,

Moreover, Asians strive energetically to be accepted to the most elite (and thus most dogmatically liberal) universities. But they tend to lack the intellectually ornery streak that helps student resist indoctrination.John Derbyshire, author of the scintillating new book We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism, whose father-in-law was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, told me:

“Asian American freshmen may be particularly susceptible to campus radicalization. Youngsters from Asian families often have parents with little connection with American political life. So Asian-American youngsters, who spent their high school careers accumulating stellar grades in math and science, come relatively innocent to the professional multicultural evangelists in the universities.”

But what about the strong family values of Asians? This isn’t a myth, as it is in the case of Hispanics—Asians really do have, for example, much lower illegitimacy rates than any other race in America. So why don’t those values make Asians vote Republican?

My explanation for this paradox: many Asian immigrants cocoon their children so thoroughly that they don’t need much help from the federal government in insulating their kids from anti-family cultural threats.

In contrast, white parents, lacking these webs of extended family and customs, fear that their children are more at risk from a corrosive culture. They therefore want their elected officials to validate the norms helpful in raising their children.

In a way, the GOP’s Asian problem is a subset of its white problem. The Republicans’ fundamental problem in California, for example, is not that McCain only captured 35 percent of the Asian vote—but that he won only 46 percent of the white vote in the state.

A self-confident party that can win the 70 percent of the white vote it needs for long-term survival would likely be able to win close to half of the Asian vote.

Of course, at present, Asians can see that the opposite holds true. In modern America, Whites are as out of fashion as widows. And because the GOP is, whether it likes it or not, inevitably viewed as the white guy’s party, it’s out of fashion, too.

For example, consider how Asian politicians in California spin an issue that Asian voters care very much about: the technicalities of admission to the taxpayer-subsidized University of California.

Recently, the UC administrators have proposed reforms that fall into two categories:

  • First, in order to weasel around Proposition 209, which outlaws racial preferences, the UC administrators want to increase the number of students automatically admitted from each high school in the state from the top 4 percent by GPA to the top 9 percent.

This would increase admissions of blacks and Hispanics from slum high schools who lack adequate test scores.

  • Second, having used its power as the College Board’s largest customer to force the expansion of the basic SAT test to include a Writing test and tougher math questions, the UC system now, sensibly enough, wants to drop its requirement that applicants take not only the SAT but also three SAT Subject tests.

After all, the new SAT is a three-hour-and-forty-five-minute monster that incorporates much that the UC liked about the Subject tests.

But this simplification of the application process would likely hurt Asian high schoolers because their parents are more likely than other students’ parents to get them signed up in time to take all these superfluous tests.

Figuring out the various ideal points in your child’s high school career at which he or she should take each of the three SAT Subject tests is the kind of complicated strategizing that Asian parents are most likely to obsess over.

The California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus (who seem, significantly, to be all Democratic state legislators—the Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus is part of the California Democrats website) wrote an angry letter to the chairman of the UC Board of Regents denouncing the reforms.

Here’s what’s interesting: The Asian-Pacific Islanders could have framed their argument as an attack on the UC’s illegal attempt to get around the ban on racial preferences in the California constitution. Theoretically, they could have allied themselves with the other victims of affirmative action: whites.

Needless to say, there is no White Caucus for the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus to ally themselves with—at least, not yet. Right now, indeed, if the Asian politicians had made an appeal to white self-interest on this issue, it would have been publicly greeted by the white elite in California with incomprehension and horror.

So, not surprisingly, the Asian Caucus chose to cast their argument against the proposed changes as if they represented all minorities standing shoulder to shoulder against white oppression:

“According to the ‘low end’ projections of 2007-2008 admitted students provided by the UC, the total percentage of African American, Chicano/Latino, Native American, and Asian American students would decrease from 60 percent to 53 percent … whereas, the percentage of White students would increase from 34 percent to 41 percent.” [Letter, February 3, 2009 (PDF)]

Of course, this is deeply dishonest argument that assumes African Americans, Hispanics, etc can’t count. Their numbers would go up under the proposed reform—but the Asian numbers would go down enough to ensure that the non-white total goes down.

But attacking whites is what pays off these days. And America gets more of what it pays for.

My view: Asians will continue to hop on the anti-white bandwagon until such time as whites get up the backbone to tell them to stop. After that, whites and Asians should get along reasonably well.

Part of the problem is that Americans lack a useful vocabulary for discussing issues like Affirmative Action in colleges. The breakdown is definitely not whites v. minorities, because Asians gets few breaks.

One small but potentially significant step toward changing the political culture: popularize the acronym “NAM,” which stands for “Non-Asian Minority:” e.g., blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Pacific Islanders, and so forth (basically, any group with lower average test scores and higher average crime rates, who thus benefits from Affirmative Action).

Unfortunately, nobody has yet come up with as catchy an acronym for those who pay for racial preferences. “Whites and Asians,” for example, comes out “WaA”, which just sounds infantile.

But using the term NAMs would be a good start.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

I’ve shown recently that simple arithmetic proves the Sailer Strategy“—by which the Republican Party would worry less about “outreach” to hostile minorities and more about inreachto mobilize its natural white base—will be viable for a surprisingly long time, despite current immigration policy.

But it will obviously help if some minorities can be persuaded to be less enthusiastic about the Democrats. In devising any long-term strategy for preventing one-partyDemocrat rule in America, the Asian vote, which went forObama 62-35 over McCain, must be analyzed especiallyclosely.

A generation from now, Hispanics will have an abundance of votes, but Asians will have plenty of money and brainpower. Hispanics will naturally continue to gravitate toward the tax-and-spend party, but Asians are moreunpredictable. With their higher earning power, Asians, in theory, might not prove hostile to a party advocatinglimited government. On the other hand, if Asians continue their current shift to the left, their talents will magnify the impact of their numbers.

I’ll discuss the Asian vote in detail in an upcoming column, but today’s essay will merely explore the political implications of one basic question:

  • Who are “Asians” anyway?

Asia is an awfully big place. It has four billion people inhabitants. Is everybody from Asia an “Asian” according to U.S. government regulations?

For instance, everybody would agree that, say, DanielInouye, the Democratic Senator from Hawaii for the last46 years, is Asian because his parents were Japanese.

But what about Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a potential 2012 Presidential candidate? Is the blue-eyed Daniels an Asian? After all, he is of Syrian Christian descent, and Syria is in Asia.

Well, of course not! Everybody knows that West Asians aren’t whom we are talking about when we talk about “Asians”.

Then, how about Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana? He is of Asian Indian descent. Does that make him an “Asian” Asian?

Funny you should ask. See, Jindal was officially Caucasian for the first decade of his life. But then the Reagan Administration changed him to an Asian. So now he’s an Asian.

To begin at the beginning: originally, the concoction of the overall “Asian” category was another folly of the Nixon Administration. Rather than simply continuing to tabulate separately each of the m utually antagonistic East Asian nationalities, with their lurid histories of aggression and atrocity against each other, Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget lumped them together into the single racial category of “Oriental Americans”, making them a legally-protected class able to sue for disparate impact.

Nixon’s creation of an “Oriental” category (later changed to “Asian” to entrap unfashionable people who fail to keep up with the latest PC nomenclature shifts) inevitably called into existence a pan-East Asian class of activists to protect and extend their racial privileges.

As I argued when reviewing Sandra Day O’Connor‘s disastrous, Bush-backed, majority opinion in the Grutterquota case, if the government announced that people born on Wednesdays were now a legally preferred class, there would soon spring up pressure groups with names like The Children of Woe to lobby for more Wednesdaytarianpower. PBS would run Wednesday Pride documentaries during Wednesday History Month about esteem-building people born on Wednesdays, such as Jimmy Carter, Bruce Lee, and Rosie O’Donnell.

Of course, the (relatively) good news about “Asians” is that since they tend toward competence, they benefit from fewer quotas than blacks and Hispanics. Thus the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notorious Four-Fifths Rule for detecting disparate impact results in de facto quotas for Asians much less often than for Non-Asian Minorities (NAMs).

Still, those Asian activists are in action. Thus, back in the 1970s when Gov. Jindal was a child, Indian and Pakistaniimmigrants and their offspring were legally consideredracially Caucasian, in accordance with the general findingsof physical and genetic anthropology. But then, Indian immigrant businessmen clamored for the Small Business Administration’s low-interest minority businessdevelopment loans. So, in 1982, the Reagan Administration lumped immigrants from the Indian subcontinent in with East Asians, declaring them all to be “socially or economically disadvantaged Asians.

This is the result: Imagine you are a Taliban terrorist from the mountainous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. You immigrate to America. If you are from the Pakistan side of the Khyber Pass, you are now officially “Asian”, and you qualify for taxpayer-subsidized low-interest loans. But if you are from the Afghanistan side, you are officially white and are out of luck at getting a government loan.

Got it?

Lumping together East Asians and South Asians is transparently bogus. Pyong Gap Min, a professor at Queens College in New York City, pointed out:

[Asian] is a political term used by Asian-American activists and enhanced by governmental treatment. In terms of culture, physical characteristics, and pre-migrant historical experiences, I have argued, Southand East Asians do not have commonalities and as a result, they do not maintain close ties in terms of friendship, intermarriage or sharing neighborhoods.”

The Reagan Administration’s attempt to bribe a talented pressure group, the Indians, by declaring them legally nonwhite is another example of the shallow short-term thinking about race that has left the Republican Party with its future in doubt.

It’s absolutely nuts for Republicans to expand a system under which immigrants can win money and prizes by declaring themselves victims of whites.

You don’t make friends that way, you make enemies. It’s basic human nature.

Unfortunately, almost everybody thinks about diversity in only the most abstract terms: e.g., If we give Group X the special benefits their leaders demand, they will vote for us more. I mean, their politicians wouldn’t have ulterior motives, now would they?

But, in reality, to understand the effects of diversity, you have to think about how individuals actually act, about how they feel when they act. You have to put yourself in their shoes.

Consider this example. In 2005, the Office of the Inspector General sent a report to the SBA: Criteria for Overcoming the Presumption of Social Disadvantage is [sic] Needed. A whistle-blowing citizen had filed a complaint about an Asian businessman in his mid-20s who had qualified for the SBA’s 8(a) minority business development programs. The whistle-blower argued that the entrepreneur was not really disadvantaged.

See, in theory you don’t qualify for taxpayer-subsidized loans just by being “Asian”. No, you have to be a socially or economically disadvantaged Asian. And how do you demonstrate you are disadvantaged? You fill out a form about how you’ve suffered under the lash of whitebigotry.

Thus this Asian entrepreneur related a tale of woe on hisapplication, including:

“I then watched as young, less experienced white men got the promotions and salary increases that I had been promised.”

The Inspector General’s office discovered, however, that in the company where the victim toiled, his father was a senior officer and shareholder. In fact, this young martyr to social and economic disadvantage:

1. came from a wealthy family; e.g., according to a newspaper article, since 1996, three companies his parents founded and were affiliated with were sold for approximately $3 billion;

2. was raised in his parents’ home, which had an assessed value of $5.2 million as of January 1, 2005; …

5. was gainfully employed by the United States Senate, Goldman Sachs International … among others.

As the title of the 2005 report points out, after decades of handing out loans to each and every Asian who submitted a form claiming to be “socially or economically disadvantaged”, the federal government still hadn’t gotten around to developing criteria for “overcoming the presumption of social disadvantage”.

In other words, if you are Asian, the government just takes your word for it.

Consider the psychological effect of the government prodding you to lie about white persecution. Sure, this Asian applicant no doubt knew he was fibbing the first time the government asked him to complain about beingdiscriminated against by whites in order to qualify forquotas. Yet, as the years go by, and he keeps having to fill out these forms to get more advantages over whites, and keeps donating to ethnic lobbies to preserve his privileges, it will only be natural for him to start believing his cover story about how he’s the real victim and thus he deserves his loot.

If you pay people to exploit you, they will come to believe you deserve it.

In fact, maybe you do.

The policy implications are twofold.

  • First, the next time the Republicans get any power, they need to abolish all programs that treat “Asians” as victims deserving special treatment.

If Asians are put on a basis of legal equality with whites, they will get along well enough with them—and cease to identify with the people, and the party, benefitting from quotas

Sure, there will be a short-term political price to pay. But if you don’t do it now, when will you do it? When Asian voters are more numerous?

  • Second, South Asians must be reclassified back to Caucasian, and the “Asian” category renamed “East Asian” (if not Oriental).

It was particularly shortsighted of the Reagan Administration to declare South Asians officially nonwhite. South Asians tend (especially compared to East Asians) to be extraverted, loquacious in English, interested in politics and argument, and intellectually venturesome. There are already far more South Asian than East Asian pundits in America. Policies that incline these Indians to the left could turn out to be disastrous.

There are some grounds for hope. One of the main reasons for anti-white feelings among East Asian men is that white men are much more likely to marry East Asian women than East Asian men are to marry white women, leaving a lot of cranky East Asian bachelors left over. This is less of a problem for South Asian men, who keep their womenfolk on tighter leashes. Arranged marriages are still common among South Asians in America.

Because the GOP is inevitably destined to be considered the white party, it would be best to have the Indians, as Lyndon Johnson vulgarly but memorably said of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, “inside the tent p—–g outthan outside p—–g in”.

And it’s not at all too late to rectify the Asian definition to detach Indians. The current categories are hardly set in stone. For example, in 1997, the OMB broke apart the silly “Asian or Pacific Islander group into Asianand “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

Note, however, why this was done. Right now, only minority activists pay attention to the federal definitions of race and ethnicity. Thus the “Asian or Pacific Islander”group was split not because it was plainly stupid to lump massive Samoans in with wiry Vietnamese—and certainly not because it was good for America. Instead, it happened because Native Hawaiian groups felt that being aggregated with Asians was slowing their endless campaign to badger Congress into treating them like American Indians (for instance, let them have casinos to cater to gambling-crazed Chinese tourists).

Asians are richer than Pacific Islanders. So lumping them together statistically diminished the Polynesians’ claims ofvictimization.

Bottom line: American whites have long subcontracted out to minority pressure groups the question of how Washington develops the racial categories used to award legal privileges and perquisites.

When whites made up an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, as they did during the Nixon Administration, that heedlessness may have seemedtrivial.

But as whites lose their numeric dominance because Washington’s immigration policy, they will have to learn to play these grubby games, too.

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

His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

Two weeks ago, I noted that the Republican Party has been digging itself an ever deeper electoral hole by tolerating (when not exacerbating) the lax immigration policies of the last four-plus decades. These caused demographic changes that are indisputably and inevitablydeleterious to the GOP.

Yet, I pointed out, there remains a logical possibility that the countrycan avoid one-party Democratic rule even as far out as the middle of the 21st century. If all else remains equal, I calculated, Republican candidates could win in the 2048-2052 era simply by 1) increasing the GOP’s share of the white vote, from McCain’s 55 percent to 70 percent, and by 2) raising the white turnout level back to that seen in 1992.

At VDARE.COM, this fairly obvious but apparently unmentionable option is called the “Sailer Strategy”.

Of course, this arithmetic raises some difficult questions.

For example, how could the GOP go about deserving to get 70 percent of the white vote? That’s a question I can’t fully answer yet. But at least I’m thinking about it, which, I suspect, is more than you can say for anybody connected to the Republican Party in any official capacity.

Another difficult question is: How can the GOP keep “all else equal”while raising the white share of the vote?

For example, the blogger The Cold Equations reflected thusly on the possibility of the GOP getting about 70 percent of the white vote:

“This is not out of the question. Other races vote in blocs. But, I’m not sure how it could be done, especially without alienating other races and making the target even higher, high enough that you’d have to get white hardcore liberals, which isn’t going to happen.”

On this reading, the Republican Party can’t just have apositive strategy of attracting and mobilizing white voters. There has to be a supplementary tactic. Republicans must also drive voters away from the Democrats by using wedge issues and shrewd rhetoric to aggravate the inevitable fault lines in the Democrats’ unwieldy coalition.

Even if this doesn’t convert anyone to the GOP, it would lower turnout among potential voters who lean Democrat.

In 2008, McCain let Obama position himself to blacks as the black candidate, to other nonwhites as the nonwhite candidate, and to whites as the postracial candidate. Yet, unless treated as timidly as McCain handled his opponent in 2008, a black-led four-race coalition is an inherently fragile thing.

The good news for the GOP about black voters: it really can’t get much worse than 2008. McCain ran as gingerly as imaginable on topics even remotely related to race, and still lost 95-4 among blacks.

And black turnout was very high. Indeed, the highest turnout rateamong any group was among black women—which is quite remarkable considering that turnout typically correlates positively with income, education, and age. This is a tribute to the intensepoliticization of blacks.

Imagine that the GOP starts finally advocating and delivering on policiesthat are beneficial for America’s white majority, and in response the Republican Party drops a stunning three-fourths of its black support. Instead of losing among blacks 95-4, the GOP would then lose 98-1.

Big deal!

The more important question is: What about the growing immigrantgroups, the Hispanics and the Asians, who, together, cast 9.9 percent of the vote in 2008?

Karl Rove labored mightily to convert Hispanics into Republicans, with minimal success and catastrophic sideeffects. There simply are fundamental reasons why a low-income group will always be more attracted to the Democrats, with their proud tax-and-spend tradition. (Asians might be a different story, but there’s no evidence of it as yet and anyway nobody has paid them much attention.)

A more plausible Republican strategy, one with much history on its side, is to work to make Hispanics and Asians less enthusiastic about voting Democrat.

Maybe they could get so disgusted with the Democrats that they convert to Republicans. Or maybe not. Maybe they’ll just vote less. Half a loaf (or a non-cast vote from your opponent’s base constituency) is better than none.

Traditionally, Hispanics and Asians have been good at not voting. Hispanics tend to find politics a bore and Asians find it a distraction. Even in 2008, with the excitement of voting for a non-white candidate, neither group saw even half of its citizens turn out, versus 66 percent of whites and 65 percent of blacks. And lots of permanent residents(especially Mexicans) never bother becoming citizens.

But let’s be realistic. Being, in essence, the white party makes the GOP uncool. And that’s only going to get worse as the impact of decades of indoctrination in the uncoolness of white people by the school system and Main Stream Media continue to pile up.

Further, contra Karl Rove, the GOP will never be able to shake its white party image. It will either increase its share of the white vote or it will go out of business as a party capable of winning national power.

My suggestion: the only long-term option for the Republicans, the de facto white party, is to rebrand the Democrats as the de facto black party.

Not the Minority Party or the Cool, Hip, Multicultural Party—but the Black Party. Go with the flow of the fundamental Manichaeism of American thought: Black versus White.

Sure, it’s kind of retarded, but Americans, especially American intellectuals and pundits, aren’t good at thinking in terms of shades of brown. You can’t beat it, so use it.

Hispanics and Asians certainly will never be terribly happy with the idea of being junior partners in the white party. (Indeed, lots of white people have an allergy to belonging to the white party.) Hence, the alternative must be framed that if Hispanics and Asians don’t want to be junior partners in the white party, they get be junior partners in the black party.

Black or white: choose one.

Or they can not choose and stay home on Election Day.

The subtle cunning of the tactic of rebranding the Democrats as the black party is not to criticize the Democrats for being the vehicle of African-American political activism, but to praise them for it, over and over, in the most offhand “everybody-knows” ways.

Republicans can hurry along the coming Democratic train wreck by, for example, lauding blacks as the “moral core” of the Democratic Party. Respectfully point out that the Democratic Party is the rightful agent for the assertion of African-American racial interests, and that advancing black interests is central to the nature of the DemocraticParty. Note that, while individual blacks wishing to vote for the good of the country are more than welcome in the GOP, black racial activists have their natural home in the Democratic Party. That’s what theDemocrats are there for.

Don’t argue it. Just treat it as a given.

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.

This kind of subtle language, casually repeated, puts Democrats in a delicate spot. Either they insult blacks by denying this presumption, or they alarm their Asian, Hispanic, and white supporters by not denying it. As everybody knows, but seldom says, black political control hasn’t worked out well for places as far apart as Detroit and Zimbabwe.

For instance, 2016 on the Democratic side will be interesting. If Obama wins re-election in 2012, blacks will argue, not unreasonably, that they’ve brought the Democrats political prosperity and therefore a black deserves a spot on the 2016 national ticket. If Obama loses re-election, the media will relentlessly blame it on white racism, and blacks in 2016 will demand a black candidate to fight the scourge of anti-black feelings.

Even if blacks are rebuffed by the Democrats in the 2016 nominating process, they aren’t going to vote Republican in the fall. But without a black on the ballot, they won’t show up to vote in quite the huge numbers seen in 2008.

Conversely, if the Democrats pander to blacks in 2016, thus establishing a precedent of a permanent black spot on the national ticket, that will raise severe questions in the rest of this awkward alliance.

As the black sense of rightful ascendancy in the Democratic Party becomes more pronounced, Hispanics will be demanding that their burgeoning numbers mean that it’s now their turn. Meanwhile, more Asians will wonder why they are supporting an agglomeration dominated by blacks who don’t share their values. And white Democrats will wonder how exactly they can prosper in a party where everybody else is allowed to speak out in internal disputes as representatives of a legitimately aggrieved racial group, but they aren’t.

The GOP faces a daunting future of their own making. Then, again, so do the Democrats. All Democrats should be helpfully assisted to confront this.

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

His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS

The central question about the long-term future of the Republican Party is—does the Republican Party have a future?

The demographic changes unleashed by post-1965 immigration policies inexorably work to benefit Democrats, as Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein pointed out in their National Review cover story Electing a New People back in1997. (Those were the days! After William F. Buckley purged the magazine of patriotic immigration reformers, Brimelow and Rubenstein updated their analysis in the Hudson Institute’s magazine American Outlook in 2000.)

Brimelow and Rubenstein made three points:

  1. a static point: in American politics, race is destiny—the races vote systematically differently and these differences are very slow to change;
  2. a dynamic point: the major parties’ share of the overall vote sways back and forth according to political conditions, and the proportion they get of each race’s vote sways back and forth in parallel (but the differences between the races remain roughly the same);
  3. an immigration point: immigration policy is shifting America’s racial balance toward minorities, and therefore the ability of the Republican Party to win national elections is being steadily reduced.

Brimelow and Rubenstein’s conclusion in 1997: the GOP should move to cut off immigration.

Instead, under George W. Bush, the GOP did exactly the opposite, although Bush’s amnesty efforts ultimately failed.

Nevertheless, the trend that Brimelow and Rubenstein identified was undeniable. Thus, according to the gold standard Census Bureau survey of more than 50,000 households immediately after each election, the non-Hispanic white share of the vote declined slowly from 84.9 percent in 1988 to 79.2 percent in 2004.

Then the white share fell off a cliff, down to 76.3 percent in 2008.

Here are the details:

Share of Votes Cast 2000 2004 2008
Whites 80.7% 79.2% 76.3%
Blacks 11.5% 11.0% 12.1%
Hispanics 5.4% 6.0% 7.4%
Asians 1.8% 2.3% 2.5%
Others 0.6% 1.5% 1.7%

The reason for this sudden slump: turnout. In 2008, minorities surged to the polls to vote for Obama. Simultaneously, white turnout as a share of white adult citizens was down from the level of 2004.

Not surprisingly, the black turnout rate as a share of eligible black voters was up from 60 to 65 percent. But even more interestingly, other minorities, who are less politicized than blacks, were excited by Obama’s candidacy too. Among citizens, Asian turnout was up from 45 to 47 percent of eligible Asian voters, and Hispanic turnout increased from 47 to 50 percent of eligible Hispanic voters.

Here are the details:

Turnout 2000 2004 2008
Whites 61.8% 67.2% 66.1%
Blacks 56.9% 60.3% 65.2%
Hispanics 45.1% 47.2% 49.9%
Asians 43.3% 44.6% 47.0%

The more marginal white voters tend to vote Republican if they get motivated enough to show up at the polls. The opposite is true for the more marginal minority voters—they tend to vote Democratic.

The details

GOP Share 2000 2004 2008
Whites 54% 58% 55%
Blacks 8% 11% 4%
Hispanics 35% 40% 31%
Asians 41% 44% 35%

At a conceptual level, there are two ways the GOP can stay alive:

Oh, wait, that has been the strategy of George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John McCain. How’s that working out, by the way?

But there is an alternative, more obvious strategy that hasn’t been widely discussed:

  • The GOP could raise white turnout and win a larger share of the white vote.

Of course this means the GOP would have to advocate (and then perhaps actually implement) policies that, you know, do something for its natural (white) base.

The obvious example: cutting immigration. This would not merely benefit whites by, for example, reducing workplace competition, but it would also (whaddya know) halt the immigration-driven demographic deterioration in the GOP’s electoral position.

It’s so rational that it apparently can’t be discussed in respectable Beltway circles.

VDARE.COM calls strategy #2 the “Sailer Strategy”.

Even before the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the 2000 election, I pointed out in VDARE.com: GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.

“If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171.”

Despite all the subsequent hogwash from Karl Rove about his minority outreach strategy, the plain albeit unreported fact was that the GOP triumphs in 2002 and 2004 followed this game plan. GOP House candidates won 59 percent of the white vote in the 2002 off year election and Bush took 58 percent in the Presidential election of 2004.

However, the Republicans’ relatively strong showings among whites in those two elections were driven much less by any coherent platform intended to benefit the base than by post-9/11 appeals to their patriotism. My analysis of the lost 2002 exit poll results showed that:

“Whites were more interested in foreign-affairs issues than blacks or Hispanics. One out of five whites said the issue that mattered most in determining their votes was either terrorism or Iraq, compared to one out of ten Hispanics, and one out of 25 blacks.”

By 2006, though, the Bush-Rove-McCain Grand Strategy of

  • Invite the World
  • Invade the World
  • In Hock to the World

was running out of gas. And, in 2008, the Housing Bubble inflated by Bush’s 2002 plan to win over Hispanic voters by creating 5.5 million more minority homeowners via debauching traditional credit standards backfired catastrophically.

In 2006 in California, 56 percent of all home purchase mortgage dollars had gone to minorities. And in the subsequent mortgage meltdown, minorities accounted for the great bulk of defaulted dollars in California. A study by economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve of 239,101 mortgages issued in California during the Housing Bubble reported:

“We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.”[ Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California:The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown,by Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 26, 2008]

In other words, the Republican Establishment wasted eight years, while the party’s position was deteriorating demographically because of mass immigration, on minority outreach programs like tacitly encouraging illegal immigration and bad borrowing.

The result of all this cleverness was that the GOP was in even worse shape going into the 2008 election. Add in well-deserved blame for economic collapse and McCain’s themeless and politically correct campaigning, and Obama unsurprisingly won 365-173 in the Electoral College.

As I’ve shown above, McCain’s share of the white vote, 55 percent, was relatively weak, and white turnout was down.

Worse, in terms of the Electoral College, white Republican voters were over-concentrated in Great Plains, Great Basin, and Southern states.

But I’ve built the same kind of Electoral College model as I did in 2000. This time, it shows McCain could have eked out a 271-267 victory if he had gotten just five more percentage points of the white vote in each state—and if whites had showed up at the polls at the same rate as in 2004.

With just those two changes, McCain would have picked up Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

It’s striking that one can even dream up a path to victory for a candidate as feckless as John McCain was in 2008!

Recently, the bloggers Cold Equations and One STDV looked at the Census Bureau’s 2050 population projections, and in effect tried to update the 1997 Brimelow-Rubenstein forecast of the partisan tilt of the playing field in the 2048 and 2052 Presidential elections, assuming the GOP garners the same share of the vote within each race as in this decade. Upon that base, I built a model with a few more factors, such as age and citizenship differences.

The result: If—as in some time-loop nightmare—we just refought the 2008 election over and over, mere demographic change alone would propel the Democrats from 53 percent last year to 59 percent by mid-century.

That is, if the GOP keeps doing what it did in 2008, the country will become a more or less one-party regime—just like the President’s chosen hometown of Chicago. And that might be the best case scenario. Think Detroit. Or New Orleans.

And yet the GOP’s plight is not hopeless. Looking at my statistical model of the 2048-2052 elections: if

  1. the GOP’s share of the white vote grows from 55 percent to 70 percent; and
  2. white turnout returns to the level seen in 1992 (during Ross Perot’s insurgent run),

then, all else being equal, GOP candidates would still win in the middle of the 21st century. The party would get a 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent majority in the popular vote in 2052.

To put that in current perspective, about one third of Obama’s white voters would have had to switch to Republican by 2052.

That certainly wouldn’t be easy.

But does anybody have a better plan? (Other than an immigration moratorium NOW?)

In future columns, I will examine how it can be done.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com 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: Sailer Strategy 
🔊 Listen RSS
 

“President Bush’s campaign won re-election through the strategic gamble that there was more to gain from galvanizing conservatives and stressing moral issues than from reaching out to centrist voters… Rove’s decision tolargely ignore independent voters at the close of theelection was a strategic gamble. But by early Wednesdaymorning, Rove looked to have hit the jackpot – yetagain.” ["Bush's Strategic Gamble Pays Off" By David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, November 3, 2004 ]

It took four years, but the conventional wisdom has finally accepted the “Sailer Strategy”—my oft-repeated argument (which got VDARE.com banned by Free Republic) that the simplest way for the GOP to win national elections is not outreach to minorities, but inreach, to its white base.

No doubt my check is in the mail.

We ridiculed Karl Rove’s widely celebrated minority outreach initiatives—such as Bush’s misbegotten promise in the 2000 campaign to weaken anti-terrorist efforts in pursuit of the Muslim vote (which turned out to only make up 0.3 percent of the electorate anyway).

And we applauded when, in the crunch before the 2002 midterm election, Rove abandoned trying to broaden the tent in favor of turning out the base, with excellent results.

Bush got his 2004 re-election campaign off to a potentially disastrous start by calling for Open Borders last January. But CongressionalRepublicans quickly hushed it up. Indeed, Bush benefited from a bit of his patented luck—his proposal to allow unlimited numbers of the world’s six billion foreigners to move to America to work at minimum wage jobs was so insanely beyond comprehension that it simply didn’tregister with the media or the public. John Kerry never even attacked him for it.

That almost nobody could grasp that their President wanted to open the borders to hundreds of millions of aliens reminded me of that 1996 Simpsons’ election episode where Kodos, the green space monster, kidnaps and impersonates Bill Clinton, but the public can’t bring themselves to notice the hideous truth about their President:

Kodos [disguised as Clinton]: “I am Clin-Ton. As overlord, all will kneel trembling before me and obey my brutal commands.” [Crosses arms] “End communication.”

Marge Simpson: “Hmm, that’s Slick Willie for you, always with the smooth talk.”

Indeed, by the end of the campaign, Bush, who never lacks foreffrontery, was scoring points by denouncing Kerry for advocating amnesty for illegal aliens!

As the campaign wore on, the Bush campaign mostly stopped evenbothering to claim that they were broadening the Republican tent. The battleground states were primarily around the Great Lakes, where immigrants were few and African-Americans were alienated beyond wooing. Bush and Rove concentrated on mobilizing the base, getting whites who don’t typically vote to turn out, and winning back some Catholics who had voted for Reagan.

The victory Bush won was not particularly large—the typical margin in a Presidential election is nine points, three times what Bush enjoyed. Bush earned 51.0 percent, up 3.1 points from 2000′s 47.9 percent. In percentage terms, that’s a 6.5 percent increase in his share.

Not bad, but not terribly good either. The essential shortcoming of the Bush campaign was that while it appealed to the patriotism and family values of the working and middle classes, it didn’t offer them breadand butter benefits—such as relief from illegal immigrants.

Remarkably, despite all the tumultuous events over the last four years, few regional or demographic shifts were visible. All that happened was that Bush slightly expanded his support almost everywhere. Bush’s share of the vote grew in 45 states. A map of the counties Bush won in 2000 is almost identical to the same map in 2004, suggesting that Rove’s various strategic initiatives to seduce particular blocs faltered.

Here is a table comparing Bush’s share of the vote in 2000 and 2004 by state. It shows his performance growing the most in three highly disparate states: Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Alabama. His share shrunk only in Vermont, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Eyeballing the whole list, I can’t see any particular pattern to explain why Bush did better in some states than others—it simply looks like he did about three points better overall, with random dispersion aroundthat number.

The more I look at the results, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that, despite all the sound and fury of the last couple of years, all that has happened politically in the U.S. since the 2000 election is that 9/11 nudged the country three points to the right.

Now, though, Dick Morris, Clinton’s old campaign consultant, who became a pundit after a toe-sucking scandal, has been going around saying:

“George W. Bush was re-elected on Tuesday because the Hispanic vote, long a Democratic Party preserve, shifted toward the president’s side… Since Hispanics accounted for 12 percent of the vote, their 10-point shift meant a net gain for Bush of 2.4 percent — which is most of theimprovement in his popular-vote share.”

Personally, I like ol’ Dick, even though no commentator is more consistently wrong. (Just ask Senator Rick Lazio, R-NY!) You have to admire how loyal he is to his old client Vincente Fox, President of Mexico. Dick has been spouting lies for years about the size of the Hispanic vote to advance the interests of the Mexican government.

Back in July 2002, he proclaimed, “In 2000, [blacks & Hispanics]accounted for 24 percent of the ballots —equally divided between blacks and Hispanics.”

In reality, instead of 12 percent, in 2000 Hispanics made up 5.4 percent in the gold standard Census Bureau survey and 6.5 percent in the iffier VNS exit poll.

And what’s the deal with Dick’s arithmetic? He multiplies his supposed Hispanic 12 percent of the vote times a 10 point gain (sic) in share by Bush among Hispanics and gets not 1.2 percentage points, but 2.4.

In reality, even this fictitious 1.2-point estimate is less than half of Bush’s 3.1 percentage point improvement in the overall electorate since 2000.

Unfortunately, we’ll be arguing over the Hispanic vote in 2004 for some time because the main exit poll was badly botched. After the collapse of the old Voter News Service exit poll consortium followingthe debacle in 2002, the big news outlets organized a National Election Pool. Unfortunately, it proved as incompetent as most monopolies, notoriously predicting a sweeping three point victory for Kerry. In contrast, the much-derided pre-election telephone polls had, onaverage, ended up predicting a Bush victory of about two points.

Having stayed up all election night, around dawn I noticed that the exit poll data had been quietly rejiggered to show Bush winning narrowly. By Wednesday evening, it had been fiddled with again to give Bush a bigger margin.

This doesn’t leave me with a lot of faith in the exit poll.

The big difficulty with an exit poll is coming up with a representative sample of polling places. Apparently, the NEP failed to do this.

Most of the exit poll data, as it currently stands, seems not tooimplausible. It shows Bush’s share of the crucial white vote growing from 54 percent to 58 percent, which almost accounts for Bush’s three point overall rise by itself. Among blacks, Bush’s share grewfrom 9 to 11 percent, among Asians from 41 to 44 percent, and among American Indians and others from 40 to 41 percent—i.e. it’s trivial.

What stands out glaringly, though, is the exit poll’s claim that Bush’s share of the Hispanic vote rose from 35 percent all the way to 44 percent.

Of course, that’s still a decisive defeat for Bush—56 percent of Hispanics voted against him. But in fact this alleged Hispanic share seems dubiously large on several grounds.

  • First, Rove and his pollster Matthew Dowd didn’t talk much about any expected successes among Hispanics during the last few months of the campaign. Their focus was on white evangelicals and the like. The key to the Electoral College was the Great Lakes states, where there are few Hispanics.

 

  • Second, the two non-partisan polls of Hispanics just before theelection predicted almost 2-1 Kerry victories. The Washington Post poll found Kerry up 59-30, and the Miami Herald poll foundKerry up 61-33. As we saw in the overall prediction of whowould win, telephone polls this year tended to be moreaccurate than the exit poll.

 

  • Third, an independent exit poll of Hispanics conducted by the Velasquez Institute found Bush with only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote. I can’t attest pro or con to the accuracy of this exit poll, but then the media consortiums’ exit polls’ aren’t much to brag about.

 

  • Fourth, there’s little real world evidence in vote totals of a bigHispanic surge for Bush. Bush’s performance was notnoticeably better than average in heavily Hispanic states. For example, in New Mexico, California, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, and Illinois, all states with significant Hispanic populations, Bush’s growth in share was less than his national norm of 3.1 percentage points.

 

  • Fifth, if you drill down into the state data, while most of the Hispanic numbers pass the smell test (for instance, in thepredominant Hispanic state, California, Bush’s share is said to grow from 29 percent to 32 percent), one big state does not: Texas, which has the second-largest Hispanic population.

The exit poll claims Bush’s share of Texas Hispanics leapt from 43 percent to a staggering 59 percent. (My recollection is that this Texas figure was originally something like 52 percent, but in the rejiggering, itwas inflated to an unlikely 59 percent in the final numbers.) Texas is what’s driving this 44 percent national figure.

This is particularly odd because you would think such a shockingimprovement with an important bloc in Texas would lead to a much better overall performance by Bush in his home state. Yet, Bush’s growth in his share of the total vote in Texas was only 1.9 percentage points, below his national average of 3.1. The exit poll tries to explainthis by claiming that—while Bush’s share of the white vote grew by four points nationally—in Texas it shrank by 1 point, which seems odd, to say the least.

If 59% of Texas Hispanics supported Bush, then Bush should have carried just about every county in the state. But most of the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande Valley remained firmly in Kerry’s grasp. Of the 15 Texas counties lost by Bush, 13 had Hispanic populations of 75.0% to 94.3%. The other two were Travis County (Austin), a college and government town, and Jefferson County in the East, which is 32% black.

El Paso went for Kerry this year, and he won the Hispanic parts of Dallas, where Hispanics voted 2 to 1 against Bush.

My conclusion: I can’t find much evidence in the actual vote totals to support the idea that Bush won even a majority of Hispanics in Texas, much less 59 percent.

If the Texas number is much too high, this suggests his national share of Hispanics was something more like 38 to 41 percent. And that would be in line with the historic pattern—the Hispanic vote tends to rise and fall in the same cycles as the white vote, just much more heavily skewed toward the Democrats.

One more point: Election 2004 showed that immigration liberalization is simply not a winning issue.

  • First, Bush ended up going around lying about how Kerry’s immigration plan was amnesty and his was not, which shows that even he knew immigration liberalization was a loser.

 

  • Second, the one big battleground state with lots of Hispanics was Florida, but the Cubans and Puerto Ricans in that state don’t care much about immigration. All Cuban nationals who set foot on dry land in America are legally refugees, notimmigrants, and all Puerto Ricans are born citizens.

 

  • Third, Proposition 200 in Arizona, which cracks down on illegal immigration, apparently got 47% of the Hispanic vote, showing once again that Hispanic voters have distinctly mixed feelings about illegal immigration.

 

  • Fourth, Hispanic voters who moved to Bush appear to have been more motivated by his opposition to gay marriage.

Of course, this won’t stop Bush pushing his suicidal amnesty and expanded immigration programs.

Which in turns means that his Republican majority, essentially the result of the minority-dominated Democratic Party “tipping” like a housing project and being abandoned by whites, will itself be overwhelmed by immigrant-descended voters in the fairly predictable near future.

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

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

The Republican Party’s venerable Southern Strategy was publicly tarred and feathered as racist and obsolete by all the most “RighteousRight” Beltway “conservatives” back during the Trent Lott brouhaha. But (ahem) it remains the electoral strategy that actually, you know, WINS ELECTIONS for the GOP.

As last week’s Republican gubernatorial victories in the Southdemonstrated.

In Kentucky, U.S. Representative Ernie Fletcher was elected Governor 55 percent to 45 percent, ending 32 years of Democratic control of the statehouse. Down in Mississippi, Republican Beltway insider Haley Barbour defeated Democratic incumbent Governor Ronnie Musgrove 53-45. And Republican Amy Tuck was easily elected lieutenant governor, 61-37, over Barbara Blackmon, a wealthy Democratic lawyer who had attracted national media attention in her bid tobecome the first black elected to statewide office in Mississippi since Reconstruction.

After her walloping, Blackmon complained she was the victim of, guess what, racism.

Now it can be told: this comports exactly with what happened in the2002 House elections across the South. You may recall that on Election Night 2002, the national Voter News Service exit poll’s computer reporting system crashed and burned, so only spotty demographic data has been available on that election. Fortunately, theraw data was checked over by a team of academics and polling professionals and was recently put on sale by Roper. I’m currently up to my eyeballs in crunching the numbers, but I can give you a preliminary peek at the regional 2002 vote for the House of Representatives.

In the East, the GOP’s 2002 outreach efforts did relatively well amongblacks, garnering whole 18 percent of their votes. In the South, the GOP did very badly, earning only seven percent.

This would suggest that the Republican Party must be doing better in the East than in the South … if you believe the unspoken assumption behind almost all articles published on the subject of the racial demographics of voting: that a nonwhite person’s vote somehow counts more than a white person’s vote … or at least, morallyspeaking, it ought to.

Well, it doesn’t work that way under the United States Constitution.Everybody’s equal in the voting booth—even if the media thinks we ought to be more interested in minorities.

Despite winning some black votes, in the East, the GOP did poorly in the 2002 House races—because it won only 48 percent of the white vote.

In the South, however, the GOP performed strongly—because itcaptured 69 percent of the whites. Turnout among whites was also strong.

My theory: despite putting up a smokescreen about how crucial the minority vote was to the Party, Karl Rove surreptitiously put tremendous resources into a get-out-the-vote drive aimed especially at the kind of less-educated whites who don’t always show up to vote.

At VDARE.COM, we refer to this shocking idea of appealing to the white vote as “The Sailer Strategy” because I’ve described it in several articles. It shocked Jim Robinson so much that he banned us (and readers posting us) from Free Republic!

Although it’s not attracted as much attention, the challenge facing the GOP in the South is very like the problem notoriously confronting the GOP in California: there are a lot of minority voters there. (26 percent in the South in the 2000 election, compared to 29 percent in California). Haley Barbour’s Mississippi, in particular, is almost three-eighths black.

In the Golden State, this demographic fact-of-life caused the Republican Party to panic from 1998 through 2002. But GOP Southernstrategists apparently kept their cool by bearing in mind this simple truth: “Minority voters are a minority.”

(I say apparently because it’s always possible GOP strategists don’t know why they’re winning. They don’t have to: Southern whites instinctively vote as a bloc in a way that California whites do not—yet.)

This does not, of course, mean Southern Republicans favor a return to Jim Crow—a symbol, let it be noted, of the days when white Democrats monopolized the South. Practically everyone in the South understands that the entire region is vastly better off without the onerous, inefficient burden of a Hindu-style caste system. According to Michael Barone’s 2004 Almanac of American Politics,

Per capita income in Mississippi [traditionally the poorest state] was 36% of the national average in 1940; in 1999, it was 72 percent, well below the national average, but given the lower cost of living here, a level recognizably American.

But it does mean that instead of neutering their positions out of fear of minorities playing the race card, Southern Republicans have concentrated on issues that advance the interests of the white majority. With hugely successful results.

Barbour, for example, ran against affirmative action, against Head Start, against welfare, against Mississippi’s notoriously pro-plaintiff legal system, against vote fraud, and for keeping the current state flag(Musgrove had attempted to delete the Confederate battle cross from the flag). All of these are now alleged to be anti-black positions, although a black Mississippian 50 years ago would have found the liberal media’s complaints incomprehensible.

No exit polls results from either of last week’s races have beenpublished. However, a pre-election poll in Mississippi showed Barbour losing among blacks 83-11, but winning 70-25 among whites. (Similarly, a pre-election poll in Kentucky showed the successful GOP candidate carrying only 12 percent of African-American voters.) That’s less polarized, however, than the 2000 Presidential results in Mississippi. Gore won 96-3 (!) among blacks, but Bush captured the state easily (58-41 overall) by winning 81-17 among whites.

Recently, Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean said, “I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in theirpickup trucks. We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

After the other Democratic candidates got done jumping on his head, he has apologized.

I think it’s obvious that those who display the Confederate flag in 2003 do not want to secede and reinstate slavery. It’s simply a symbol of regional pride and orneriness. This is demonstrated in a roundabout way by the fact that in Texas few wave the Confederate flag, even though Texas was part of the Confederacy. Texans don’t need a regional flag—they already have a famous flag, the ubiquitous Lone Star flag, dating from the independent Republic of Texas of 1836-1845.

Clearly, Dr. Dean, a Park Avenue WASP turned Vermonter, and white Southerners, have problems with each other on fundamental cultural grounds. The great historian David Hackett Fischer, author of the landmark 1989 book, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, has told me that Dean has positioned himself as a “classic New England candidate who closely fits the cultural framework that evolved out of 17th-century Puritanism.”

So if Dean really wants to show he’s not the insufferable latte-sipping liberal snob that everybody south of the Mason-Dixon line automatically assumes he is, he’s going to need to take a stand on a21st Century issue—not a 19th Century one.

What would flummox Bush more than running to his right onimmigration, out where the great majority of Americans already are?

But I would be flabbergasted if Dean actually did anything that sensible. Instead, he’s pandering to win the endorsement of union bosses corrupted by their greed for dues from new illegal alien members into betraying the working people of America.

On the crucial long term issue of immigration, you can expect the2004 election to provide the edifying spectacle of Tweedledee and Tweedledum jostling to see who can stake out a rhetorical position farthest from what American voters want.

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

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

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

Bill Simon surprised the experts in losing California’s gubernatorialelection by only 5 percentage points, 47%-42%, to massively-funded Gray Davis. In contrast, in 1998, Dan Lungren, the Republican Attorney General, lost to Davis by 20 points, 58%-38%.

Simon was not a talented candidate, but he’s a good man who wouldn’t have deserved the humiliating loss that the smart moneywas gleefully predicting. The namesake of his impressive father William E. Simon, he leads an admirable life as a businessman, devout Catholic, major philanthropist, occasional surfer, and attentive father. During the campaign, my younger son went on a Cub Scout campout with Simon, who was tenting it as the leader of his son’s pack. It’s hard to imagine the ferret-like Davis spending a campaign weekend up a canyon in Cell Hell where he couldn’t dial for dollars for a full 48 hours—even if he had any children.

It was soon clear, though, that a man like Simon who enjoys such a fine existence away from politics didn’t need to win in the worst away, the way Pete Wilson—the most successful California politician since Ronald Reagan—needed to win … at least as the Los Angeles Timeswould define “worst.”

Ward Connerly, leader of the 1996 Proposition 209 initiative that banned the use of racial preferences in California government agencies,tried to explain to Simon right after his primary victory that Wilson’s re-election, despite the economic collapses, riot, earthquake, and fires during his first term, was because he took strong stands againstmulticulturalism, especially against illegal immigration. (Here at VDARE.COM, we call these “National Question” issues.)

But Simon didn’t listen. Instead, he ran on little more than twocontentions: that Davis’ for-sale sign on the governor’s office was a disgrace to a state which had a proud record of electing principled men like Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren, and Ronald Reagan. that Simon would be a better manager than Davis.

(Unfortunately, the two black marks against Davis’s management skills — the electricity crisis and the budget deficit — could be attributed plausibly to failures of the free market that Simon so enthusiastically endorsed: the Republican-instigated electricity deregulation of 1996; and the Internet bubble.)

Simon ran away from the three vote-winning but subsequently-ignored National Question initiatives (against illegal immigration, racial quotas, and bilingual education) that former Governor Wilson had endorsed to his political profit.

The legend has grown that California is now so Hispanicized that trueRepublicans have no chance. Harold Myerson writes the same article making this point over and over, most recently in the November 18 American Prospect Magazine. The take-home lesson: any attempt to motivate white voters will be massively punished by the supposedly huge number of Hispanic voters.

In fact, of course, whites a.k.a. Americans still make up three-quarters of California’s electorate. That’s the basic, brutal reason Simon came so close—despite being crushingly outspent by Davis.

George W. Bush, who wasted many millions of dollars in California in 2000 only to see Al Gore spend zip and drub him by double digits, tried to avoid being seen in public with Simon. Karl Rove, Bush’s Steve Sailer, may have been sulking because he failed to persuade California Republicans to select former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan in theprimary. In an election where the President’s prestige as Commander-in-Chief proved crucial, Bush’s absence was badly damaging. Even worse, while Rove unleashed his secret but now famous get-out-the-white-vote drive with tremendous results in some 30 states, California wasn’t one of them.

Nevertheless, the same absolute number of California whites showed up to vote in 2002 as in 1998. But the number of minority voters dropped by around 45%. Further, while Lungren lost 51%-45% among whites in 1998, Simon won the white vote 46%-43%.

The vaunted Republican “surge” among Hispanics didn’t seem to makeit out of Florida. Simon only received 24% of the Hispanic vote, according to the LA Times exit poll [Adobe Acrobat needed]. And sure, it would have been nice for Simon to win another 10 points of the Hispanic vote, the way Republican Rick Perry did in Texas.

But many pundits seem to forget that 10% of the Hispanics’s 10% share of the California electorate is a grand total of – one per cent(1%). That’s a ridiculously small increment to worry about.

The reason Perry won big in Texas and Simon lost in California was not their relative Hispanic appeal. It’s the fact that Perry won 70% of the white vote, vs. 46% for Simon. If Simon had won 70% of the 74% of the California electorate that was white, he wouldn’t have needed asingle minority vote to be elected governor.

The same applies at the national level. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 because he only got 54% of the white vote, vs. 59% for his father in 1988. But in 2002, the final Gallup Poll showed the House Republicans carrying the white vote 58%-38%. Combined with strong white turnout, this far more than offset the GOP’s performanceamong minorities—which actually worsened despite all the Bush-Rove pandering.

Got that? GOP performance among minorities worsened in 2002. TheGallup Poll, which correctly predicted a six-point Republican victory overall, also showed the Democrats winning the minority vote by an 82%-14% margin. In contrast, the 2000 Voter News Service exit poll had Gore beating Bush 77%-21% among nonwhites. (For the fullstory on the demographics of the latest election, see my updated and almost encyclopedic UPI article from last Tuesday, “Whites, not Latinos, win it for GOP.”)

Bottom line: Bush-Rove blew a good chance to elect a Republican inCalifornia and strip the Democrats of much of their 2004 fundraising muscle.

Can the California GOP win in the future? The lesson of the 2002 election: only if it motivates the white vote. To do that, I believe Republican candidates must directly attack the contradiction that lies at the heart of the California Democrats’ political perpetual motion machine: the interaction of immigration and environmentalism.

The Democrats favor mass immigration because more immigrants means more poor Democratic voters, which increases the population, which creates more sprawl, crowding, and pollution, which increases the pressures for more environmental regulations, which Democrats favor, which means more affluent, tree-hugging voters vote Democratic.

Got that? Well, then, you’re almost unique. Obviously, the Democrats’ positions are contradictory. But as long as the GOP isterrified of talking about immigration, it can’t point that out.

Now, there are plenty of Republican mouthpieces in the rest of the country who argue that Californian voters should just forget abouttrying to protect their environment and instead welcome ever more millions of immigrants. But they don’t understand why Californians are so peculiarly pro-environment.

It’s simply because our nature out here in California is so much morecivilized than yours. I used to live in Illinois. Going for a walk in the woods meant you were guaranteed to run into several of the following: mosquitoes, humidity, underbrush, mud, sleet, and/or flatness.

In contrast, if you want to see what California’s environment looks like, click here for samples from the late landscape photographer Galen Rowell, the Ansel Adams of color photography—and a supporter of immigration limitation.

In California, the only way to alleviate the ever-worsening conflictbetween property rights and environmental conservation is to alleviate population pressure—by cutting immigration. California GOP candidates must run strongly against immigration.

Indeed, a Republican who ran on building a security fence from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico like the one that successfully keeps would-be suicide bombers from the Gaza Strip out of Israel would probably win about the same percentage of Hispanic voters as Simon won by pretending that the immigration situation is hunky-dory. The recent Pew-Kaiser poll of registered Hispanic voters found that 48% say there are too many immigrants in this country, vs. only 7% who say there are too few. Hispanics do tend to like legal immigration because it gives them control over which of their relatives get to come here. But they frequently hate illegal immigration because they suffer the most direct consequences: lowered wages, overcrowded schools, and that annoying third cousin who shows up uninvited and wants to sleep on the living room couch until he gets himself established in a few years.

What about individual California races?

In 2004, Barbara Boxer, much the less respected of the state’s twoDemocratic women Senators, is up for re-election. In 2006, Davis will be term-limited out, and Diane Feinstein will be 73 and possibly retiring from the U.S. Senate.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is currently widely assumed to be a shoo-in for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2006, after he successfully sponsored an initiative providing after-school programs “for the children”—an ominously goo-gooish thing to do. Clearly, Schwarzenegger is a formidable man who has succeeded at everything he has tried in life. But he has no known views on immigration and the National Question. (Even more ominously, he tried to rescue Bush I from Pat Buchanan in the 1992 New Hampshire primary.) And Schwarzenegger did more to promote the use of one type of illegal and dangerous drug—steroids—than anyone else in history. That may (and should) raise some qualms about his candidacy.

Potential Senatorial candidates remain much murkier.

No Republicans will hold statewide office, so the party must get creative.

Many VDARE.COM readers will disagree, but personally I kind of like theidea of a black candidate willing to run on this National Question platform. That could inoculate against the inevitable charges of racism, which do matter to California’s liberal whites. I think Ward Connerlywould make an excellent candidate. Or maybe a military officer or one of the retired black jock millionaires that California is full of. For example, Joe Morgan, a Hall of Fame second baseman, according to baseball statistician Bill James the smartest ballplayer ever, currently a TV commentator, author, and owner of a Coors bottling plant, was converted to Republicanism when a Houston Astro in the mid-60s by–Congressman George H.W. Bush. I don’t know the politics of Dusty Baker, a hero to Los Angelenos as a baseball player and to San Franciscans as a manager, but the three-time Manager of the Year could do well.

OK, OK – I admit choosing Ezola Foster as his running mate didn’t help Pat Buchanan!

But California is a lot less hopeless for the Republicans than HaroldMyerson argued—or, to be honest, than even I believed before November 5th.

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

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

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

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


PastClassics
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?