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



=>
 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
/
2000 Election

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

Ancient Greek mythology explained the origins of the great Trojan War by claiming that the goddess of jealousy incited a quarrel among other goddesses over the question of which one was the most beautiful. Probably not even the Greeks themselves ever really believed this, but perhaps it makes more sense than most democratic political theory does in explaining why the United States is governed the way it is. The theory is that, on a designated day, every four years, the “people” betake themselves to voting booths and express their “will” by secretly marking a ballot, pulling a lever or punching a hole. Up until this year, the theory, while entirely disprovable, managed to survive without serious challenge.

This year, because of the late unpleasantness in the state of Florida, the theory is in the process of collapsing. It is now transparent that whatever happened in Florida on Nov. 7, and whoever is eventually inaugurated as the next president, the “people” and their “will” had virtually nothing to do with it.

It’s quite true that the “people” of Florida voted. Some actually managed to vote for the candidate they wanted to vote for, but after three weeks of counting, recounting and refusing to count, and failing to count the votes cast; after doing so according to different rules and standards in different counties; after throwing out certain absentee ballots because they were not properly postmarked, or had not been properly signed by the proper bureaucrat; after not counting at all the returns from two entire counties because they didn’t meet the deadline set after the election was over, it is simply absurd to claim that the final results in Florida tell us anything whatsoever about what the “people” of the state “willed.”

Nor will that “will” be any more clearly expressed after the several lawsuits have wound their way to conclusion in the courts. The judges are also political partisans, as are the governor, the secretary of state, the legislature and the assorted munchkins and cooky-pushers of the county and state-election authorities. But even if the judges, cabinet officers, lawmakers and cooky-pushers were nonpartisan, it is unclear why their decisions would reflect any substantial body of opinion rather than their own personal and partisan preferences.

Even if we agree to accept one or another vote total as expressive of the “will” of the “people,” however, it is simply not much of an expression. Whether the “accurate” vote margin is 537, 930, 466, 157 or whatever smidgin is finally registered, the “people” did not so much roar a mandate as mumble it. With all due respect to the legality of the Electoral College, any “mandate” that democratic theory recognizes is expressed by the popular vote, not by the peculiar mechanisms of the Constitution.

Then there is the little matter of whether we can any longer (or ever could) speak of a “people” as a coherent body of collective political will at all. It is arguable that both the Constitution and the Federalist papers do not even recognize such a “people,” but rather a congregation of “factions” — interest groups, ethnic groups, classes, social categories, states and sections — that, together, constitute a functioning political society. Today, of course, added to that stew, we have voting blocs of recent immigrants who often don’t speak enough English to understand the political system into which they have been pressed, as well as various illegal aliens and convicted felons casting ballots themselves.

Finally, even if there is a “people,” in the state of Florida or in the United States as a whole, there is the question of its “will” and the capacity of the “people” to express it through casting ballots on a particular day. The more concretely you think about those questions, the more elusive each of them becomes.

The only sense in which any of these concepts reflect social and political reality is a purely legalistic one — the “people” express their “will” on a particular day, in a particular way because that’s what the Constitution and the federal, state, and local election laws say happens. That’s good enough for most of us, and throughout American history it’s been good enough to establish and conduct the functions of government in ways that most Americans are prepared to acknowledge are legitimate.

The German statesman Bismarck said that the process of making laws, like the process of making sausages, does not bear close examination. The same is true of the process of making presidents and expressing the “will” of the “people.” Americans might be well-advised not to look too closely at the mythologies by which they are governed. The real problem with this election has not been that we can’t tell who won, but that it has forced us to look.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election, Democracy 
🔊 Listen RSS

No sooner had America fluttered into the political twilight zone to which last Tuesday’s election delivered it, that the sages who miscalled the Florida vote began to jabber about how we’ve just got to abolish the Electoral College. By the end of the week, the demand for transforming the country into one big happy land of direct democracy seemed to be taking root, with Senator-Elect Hillary Clinton herself calling for abolition. But however attractive the idea might seem, it involves a bit more than altering the way we elect presidents. It needs to be noted in the first place that abolishing the Electoral College is probably not politically possible, if only because doing so would require approval of a constitutional amendment by a number of small states that would thereby effectively disfranchise themselves in presidential elections. It’s quite true that the Electoral College gives small states –not only conservative ones, like most of those in the West that Republicans tend to win, but also several New England states the Democrats usually carry — far more power than if the popular vote determined winners.

Yet it’s also true that in the absence of the Electoral College, the left would benefit the most. Candidates would contend for the most popular votes and concentrate on the more leftish urbanized areas where most voters live. Small towns and rural areas rather than cities, white voters rather than nonwhites, and middle income rather than low-income people would tend to be ignored. That, of course, is why champions of the left, like Senator Hillary and her fan club in the national press corps, want the Electoral College to go.

But even if abolishing it were possible and desirable, Americans ought to think through what the college is, why it’s there, and what abolishing it would mean, not only for practical politics but also for theoretical reasons.

The pundits last week were coaxing their hired experts to say that the Framers adopted the Electoral College because they distrusted the common man and wanted to control the results of letting him vote at all. That’s only partly true, though there’s nothing wrong or outdated about it. Our whole constitutional system is in fact a means of controlling the power of each part of society and government by the power of others.

A bigger reason for the creation of the Electoral College is that in the eye of the U.S. Constitution and the men who created it, there is no such thing as “the American people” as a whole. What there is are the people of the states that created the Constitution.

It follows that “the American people” do not elect and never have elected anyone. The peoples of the states choose electors, who then choose the president. The purpose of the Electoral College is not to control American voters, but to control the federal government.

The system controls the federal government by recognizing and protecting the power of the states. Rather than creating one big union in which a bare majority would elect the president directly and thereby give him an excuse to claim that he is the embodiment of the general will, the Constitution sought, through the Electoral College, to perpetuate the power of intermediary institutions like the states as checks on presidential and federal power.

Abolishing the Electoral College even today would go far to strip the states of one of their vital constitutional functions. Abolition would imply, in effect, if not in principle, that the states no longer exist, except as administrative units. The people of the states would cease to choose the electors who choose the president; instead, one big people, no longer defined by and contained within the states, would pick der Fuhrer — the leader.

Abolishing the Electoral College, then, would go far to transform the United States from a federal republic, formed by the union of states, to a unitary state created by the will of a single people and represented in a single man. The federal government would become the expression of that will, and any limitation of government would be a limitation of the people’s will. The range of governmental power would then be virtually infinite.

That, of course, is more or less what the American Civil War tried to turn the United States into. It didn’t quite do it, simply because the forms of the old Constitution, including states, managed to survive. But if the fans of expanded federal power could get rid of the Electoral College, they would go far in getting rid of the states that compose and constrain the union. That’s yet another reason Senator Hillary and her pals want to get rid of the college — and why those who want to retain some semblance of the old republic should want to keep it.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election, Constitutional Theory 
🔊 Listen RSS

A tip of the hat to George W. Bush, who — for all the press’s preaching about the “sharp disagreements” that supposedly have emerged between him and Vice President Gore — has managed to obfuscate whatever such differences exist and to advance, as his principal claim to being elected president, that he really doesn’t disagree with Gore very much.

In the last of the three presidential debates last Tuesday, Gore led off with one of his usual sermons about how much he and the federal leviathan he wants so desperately to master will do for the health of the citizenry. “I support a strong national patient’s bill of rights,” the vice president intoned. “It is actually a disagreement between us.”

“It’s not true,” the Texas governor riposted. “I do support a national patient’s bill of rights.” Like Gore, Bush in the previous debate also expressed support for federal hate crimes legislation. Like Gore, Bush is against “racial profiling.”

On affirmative action, Bush clearly did not want to say that he’s against it, though that was the direct question asked by the member of the audience and that’s the position the vast majority of his own supporters take. When Gore asked him point blank a second time, “Governor, are you against affirmative action?” Bush dodged again.

“If affirmative action means quotas, I’m against it,” he said. “If it means what I’m for, then I’m for it. You heard what I was for. He keeps saying I’m against things. You heard what I was for and that’s what I support.”

Why couldn’t the governor simply have said to the questioner, the vice president and the watching world: “Affirmative action means the federal government grants privileges to individuals on the basis of race and gender. I’m against that. I believe in promoting people on the basis of their merit, regardless of race and gender. I’ve done that in Texas, and I’ll do it in the White House if I’m elected, but I won’t let the federal government discriminate against people and deny them jobs, promotions and admissions to college on the basis of race and sex.”

By saying that, he would have placed Gore on the defensive, forcing him to deny that affirmative action discriminates on the basis of race and sex or to defend a policy that clearly does so discriminate.

Throughout the debates, Bush sounded like nothing so much as a schoolboy who hasn’t done his homework and is trying to bluff his way through his teacher’s scrutiny. Gore, for his part, sounded like a schoolboy who not only has done his homework but is eager to tell the teacher that George hasn’t. Gore, in other words, an unreconstructed and unapologetic liberal, knows exactly what he thinks, is able to support it with all the drippy cliches and slogans that have characterized liberalism in this century, and doesn’t hesitate to preach it. Bush isn’t exactly sure what he thinks and seems totally incapable of supporting whatever it is.

“It’s a difference of opinion,” Bush insisted again and again. “He (Gore) wants to grow the government, and I trust you with your own money.” “There’s just a difference of opinion,” Bush said again. “I want workers to have their own assets.” “I think after three debates, the good people of this country understand there is a difference of opinion.” Yes, there’s certainly a difference of opinion, which is why there were debates at all. But why is one opinion better than the other? Bush rarely told us. He brought up the “difference of opinion” to close off debate, not to deepen it.

“The difference,” the Texas governor finally assured us, “is I can get it done. That I can get something positive done on behalf of the people. That’s what the question in this campaign is about. It’s not only what your philosophy (is) and what is your position on issues, but can you get things done? And I believe I can.”

The “philosophy,” in so far as there is one, that Bush offers is political pragmatism at its baldest, the belief that goals, ends, purposes are irrelevant or are not up for discussion and the only thing that matters is the process — how to “get it done.” At no time did Bush challenge or question the basic assumptions and goals of the liberalism his opponent champions. The only question to Bush is which candidate can achieve those same goals more effectively.

Americans attracted to Bush need to think carefully before they pull the lever for him next month. They’ve been told there’s a difference between him and his opponent. What the debates proved is that there’s not very much.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

After two full years of beating drums, blowing trumpets and waving torches in support of the inevitable presidential triumph of George W. Bush, it has suddenly begun to dawn on many in the American conservative community that Al Gore might very well be on the eve of kicking Bush’s butt. What we can learn from this is that many in the American conservative community have the political brains of a goldfish. Last weekend, Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum held its national convention in Washington and unleashed the counsel that Gov. Bush “needs to articulate conservative positions” because “conservatives need to have a reason to work for him,” as one delegate put it. This week, National Review’s lead editorial whines that “the campaign is going badly for George W. Bush,” and insists that the Texas governor “will win it by making the public prefer a conservative to a liberal.”

To top it all off, The Weekly Standard, the neo-conservative analogue to National Review, sports as its cover article yet another pronouncement from its editor, Bill Kristol, this time on “How Bush Can Win.” Kristol’s answer is the same as that of National Review: “for starters, run as a conservative,” advises his article’s subheading.

That advice is especially sweet, considering how back in February, when Bush lost the New Hampshire primary to John McCain, Kristol pronounced yet again in The Washington Post that “leaderless, rudderless, and issueless, the conservative movement … is finished” and called for “a new governing agenda for a potential new political majority” that his hero of the week, McCain, was supposed to lead.

But if Bush really turns out to be the loser he seems to be, and if he really is losing in part because he’s failed to express conservative beliefs, the very conservatives who are now whimpering about the impending disaster have only themselves to blame. Most of them clambered onto the Bush bandwagon long before the current campaign; most would not hear of any other contender for the GOP nomination; most managed to fool themselves, and anyone dim enough to pay much attention to them, that the Texas governor really was a conservative. Now they’re astounded to learn that he offers even the milkish conservatism of the Beltway virtually nothing.

But why should he offer more? Having exploited the conservatives’ self-induced hysteria about Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Bush and his team of slickmeisters succeeded in making most conservatives think the real conservative principle consists simply in not being Bill Clinton or Al Gore. Bush didn’t have to lie to the right; it had already lied itself into believing he was the man who could and would bear its banner.

It’s quite true that Bush essentially settled the nomination with his victory over McCain in the South Carolina primary, and he did so by running well to the right of the Arizona senator. And it’s also true that Bush has stayed in the lead in this election mainly by keeping the support of white male voters, who form the backbone of Republican conservatism at the grassroots level.

But Gore, having secured his own political base among ethnic minorities (including a 20-point lead among the Hispanic voters whom Bush was ballyhooed as being able to win), is now penetrating even that GOP base. As the Washington Post reported last week, “Gore’s aggressive pursuit of a populism that pits the middle class against the elite, corporations and the wealthy has provided a way to counter his major liability among white men: their doubts about his strength and leadership.” The Post attributes to this tactic the vice president’s rise in polls in “the battleground states of Michigan, Ohio and Missouri that hold the balance of power in the 2000 election. Among all voters in each of these states,” Gore “is either fully competitive with, or slightly ahead of” Gov. Bush.

What Gore discovered is that class warfare works. His is essentially the same strategy, with a leftish twist, that won the White House for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as the “Southern strategy,” a battle plan that Bush and the current leaders of the Stupid Party have consciously and deliberately abandoned for the moronic scheme of trying to win non-whites instead.

If the Bush campaign fails, as now seems likely, the Beltway Right will fail along with it, and the class and ethnic lines of social and political conflict in this country will resume the shape they have had for the last quarter century. Not until they do will a real right be able to replace the phony one that has given us a phony conservative as a leader and now wonders why he doesn’t act and talk like a conservative at all.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

“This is a conservative man,” George W. Bush says he said to himself as he reviewed the voting record of his prospective running mate, Richard Cheney. And so Cheney is. With a 90 percent rating from the American Conservative Union for his votes in Congress between 1979 and 1988, Cheney enjoys a title as a conservative that is beyond dispute. Or at least it was. It is precisely his conservative voting record that delights the Democrats. President Clinton chortled last week that he “actually was kind of pleased” with Bush’s selection. The Gore campaign was even more blunt. “Cheney’s a turnout machine — for us,” beamed one of Gore’s spokesmen.

What delights the Democrats about Cheney is not merely that they can now blast him and the GOP ticket as “right-wing extremists” but that they know the ticket and its defenders will try to evade the issue by edging away from and even apologizing for Cheney’s indisputably conservative record. By doing so, the Republicans will implicitly concede that the conservatism Cheney used to espouse is no longer relevant and that the liberalism brayed by their rivals is the only legitimate persuasion in American politics.

And so it has proved. No sooner had Cheney been named as the vice-presidential choice than the Democrats’ tame media torpedoes went to work on him, and no sooner had their badgering of Cheney begun than Cheney himself began to bend and back away.

The Washington Post reported that Cheney had voted against federal funding for abortions, against banning armor-piercing bullets and plastic guns, against funding the Head Start program and against a resolution urging South Africa to negotiate with the African National Congress and release Nelson Mandela from prison. Cheney, one might think, is sounding better and better.

But that’s not how he sounds today. Once the badgering began, the Post reported, “Cheney struggled to explain” his votes. “He said that he could not answer the questions in detail without reviewing the ‘context’ in which he opposed the measures.” But he was concerned whether the United States “could afford various spending programs during a time of growing deficits,” and he “often opposed bills whose sponsors sought to circumvent the normal legislative process.”

As for the single vote that is going to haunt him the most in the coming months, “Cheney also avoided a direct answer to the Mandela question” and insisted that “I don’t believe unilateral economic sanctions work.” As the Post commented, the resolution in question “had nothing to do with economic sanctions against South Africa.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this week, the retreat continued, with Cheney readily acknowledging that on most of the issues he was being grilled about, he would not vote the same way today.

But of course there are simple and straightforward answers to every one of the questions about Cheney’s votes. On the “Mandela question,” the answer is clear: It is none of this country’s business how a separate and friendly sovereign nation governs itself; the ANC was a communist-dominated terrorist organization armed and trained by the Soviets; Mandela was legally convicted and imprisoned for plotting terrorist crimes. But all the pathetic Cheney could think of to say was that he doesn’t believe sanctions work, though sanctions had nothing to do with the issue.

Cheney has generally chosen to wrap himself in evasion — with answers that reach for the “context” of the times, answers that appeal to procedural propriety, answers that cloak themselves in what is now the standard Republican response to any and every question: It costs too much.

Not once had Mr. Cheney offered a clear answer that not only defended his votes but also challenged the liberal assumptions of the questions hurled at him. Not once has he dared raise questions about liberal support for abortion, liberal endorsement of failed socialist programs like Head Start, liberal violations of Second Amendment rights and liberal appeasement of communism and terrorism. All Cheney has done by his dodging is concede even further the moral monopoly that liberalism claims.

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, a co-chairman of the Republican Platform Committee assured the press that the platform this year won’t attack the Democrats too much. “There was a lot of bashing in (the last platform), a lot of complaining about Democrats,” Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina told the Washington Times, but in this year’s platform, “You won’t see any of that.”

The Democrats know that the Stupid Party does not have the brains or the guts to defend the conservatism for which it pretends to stand. Now they know it won’t even attack them for being liberals. No wonder Bill Clinton and the Gore campaign are pleased.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election, Dick Cheney 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Republican National Convention hasn’t even convened yet, and already the party’s leaders are licking their chops over selling out the GOP’s conservative base and most of its principles. That, however, is not the big news. The big news is that the party’s conservatives are licking their own chops over being sold out.

The Washington Post reported last week that the high command of the Stupid Party is trying to make certain there are no embarrassing splits at the convention over the content of the party’s platform. In years past, whenever the conservatives couldn’t quite get the candidate they wanted, they usually made do with dictating what was in the platform. But that wasn’t much of a problem, you see, because the party’s leaders and candidates never had any intention of abiding by the platform anyway.

Nevertheless, the existence of an ideologically conservative platform haunting the ticket like Banquo’s ghost meant that if (usually, when) the nominee violated the platform, the conservatives could yell and scream about it and threaten to walk out. Today the Stupid Party has evolved to the stage where such primitive emotionalism no longer occurs.

Today, says Platform Committee Chairman Tommy Thompson, governor of Wisconsin, “We don’t want to go back and fight old fights.” So what “we” are going to do is settle the platform before the convention. Conservatives will get to keep their beloved anti-abortion plank, but just about all other conservative positions will probably plop into File 13.

That seems to be OK with the conservatives, or what’s left of them in the party. So obsessed have they become with the “pro-life” language of the platform, vowing support for a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion nationally, that they’re willing to abandon virtually everything else.

Everything else includes, among other measures:

– Junking the plank, in the platform since 1980, that calls for abolishing the Department of Education; that means the fundamental conservative principle of no federal involvement in education is being surrendered;

– Just to confirm the surrender, the party leaders want to insert new language calling for federally-imposed national standards for education;

– The new platform will also get rid of the language inserted in 1996 calling for control of illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration; “we” can’t have that when “we’ve got to win over all those Hispanics, you know;

– The platform will also include what Gov. Thompson calls “a substantial section of a Republican commitment to spend money on women’s health issues,” as well as on a mass transit system. The purpose of all the new language, says the governor, is to put “more of a compassionate face on the Republican Party.” How sweet.

What the “new face” means, of course, is that the old conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan is defunct, at least within the GOP. There is no question that, despite all the Beltway conservative crowing about the “conservative revolution” they’ve supposedly pulled off, the new Republican platform has virtually nothing in common with the platforms of years past. The “more compassionate face” the party is adopting simply means it has surrendered serious conservatism and has gravitated into the philosophical orbit of the left.

But then there’s always the anti-abortion plank. Yes, but that plank has been in the platform since 1980, and there is virtually no chance whatsoever that it will be realized in the form of a constitutional amendment. Even under Ronald Reagan, a far more serious foe of abortion than George W. Bush, there was little chance for such an amendment, and Bush himself accepts abortion for rape and incest, and refuses to make opposition to it a “litmus test” for Supreme Court appointments.

So far from keeping alive any serious hope of ending abortion, the platform’s pro-life language simply dooms it to political oblivion by committing pro-life forces to a measure and strategy impossible to enact. Pro-lifers would be better off forgetting the amendment the platform promises and working on getting Roe v. Wade repealed and the issue returned to the states where it belongs.

Indeed, pro-lifers, as well as other conservatives, might be better off forgetting about the Republican Party itself as any kind of realistic vehicle for their beliefs. Neither the party’s nominee nor his henchmen want them or their ideas in the platform or the party, except as voting booth cannon fodder. Then again, if there really aren’t enough conservatives left in the party to demand and get a platform that reflects their beliefs, and if the only belief they insist on is opposition to abortion, maybe what’s left of the Republican right has finally gotten the party it really deserves.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2000 Election, Conservative Movement 
🔊 Listen RSS

With both George W. Bush and Al Gore running around the country gobbling tacos and jabbering in pidgin Spanish, the 2000 presidential race is beginning to look more like a Cisco Kid rerun than an American election. The reason for all the pandering to Hispanics is that one of the common assumptions of both parties and their leaders this year has been that the Hispanic vote will be critical in determining the victor. It’s an assumption that may not be true, however. The Hispanic vote has traditionally been a major pillar of the Democratic Party, so it makes sense for Gore to woo it. But Republicans have been hypnotized for the last four years by the chance of winning a big chunk of it. In 1996, GOP nominee Bob Dole took only 21 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally, down from the 35 percent or more that his party usually wins in presidential elections. Libertarian ideologues were quick to blame the loss of Hispanic votes on California Republicans’ support for immigration control and to argue that the party should put that issue on the shelf for good.

So the party did, with the result that immigration control as a political issue has virtually died. It also conceived the incredibly dumb notion of making Puerto Rico a state in the hope of winning Hispanics. And finally it flopped into the lap of Bush, who won some 39 percent of Hispanics in his landslide victory in Texas. That showing was one of the main reasons the party thought the Texas governor would be a winner this year. Indeed, recent polls show they may have been right.

But Bush isn’t ahead because he’s winning the Hispanic vote. In fact, he’s lost the Hispanic vote. A new poll from Voter.com/Battleground shows that Bush is now leading Gore by 48 percent to 42 percent overall. But among Hispanics, the Texas governor, in the same poll, trails the vice-president by 12 points — a reversal from polls in March that showed Bush ahead of Gore among Hispanics by 6 points. That means Hispanics have switched from the Democrat to the Republican by a swing of 18 points.

The Hispanics may switch back, of course, depending on which candidate swallows more tacos. But what the poll shows is that –entirely contrary to what pro-immigration ideologues warned about — Republicans do not need the Hispanic vote to win; they can win by keeping the real base of their own party — white men.

That lesson is confirmed by an article on the white male vote in the June issue of The Atlantic Monthly by Joel Rogers and Ruy Teixeira. So far, from Hispanics or the “soccer moms” of yore being the real key to political victory, it’s really the white male working class vote, which neither party is able to mobilize effectively. As for Hispanic voters, the authors argue, their role is overblown.

It’s overblown because census data show the Hispanic voter turnout is just not very big. Contrary to reports of a huge Hispanic electoral tide in 1996 and 1998 in reaction to immigration control proposals, the data show that the Hispanic turnout actually dropped in 1996 and increased only modestly in 1998. The Hispanic tidal wave is a myth.

What is not a myth is the enduring political power of white males, especially in the lower and middle income strata, what Rogers and Teixeira call the “Forgotten Majority” of American politics. They’re forgotten because all the attention — in the media and therefore among the political thickheads who believe what they read — has gone to women, homosexuals, blacks and Hispanics.

“Forgotten-majority men,” they write, make up “almost a fifth (19 percent) of the active electorate” and “voted Democratic at a rate of only 35 percent for the House in 1998 and 33 percent for the presidency in 1996.” In other words, they are a constituency on which the Republicans have depended for their political victories since at least 1968, when Richard Nixon started wooing them from the Democrats.

Other polls show that Bush is still winning the white male vote, even though he’s done precious little to deserve it, and it’s that constituency that puts him ahead of Gore. Maybe he can stay there, and maybe he’ll keep the forgotten majority in his political pocket, but the majority itself needs to remember who put him in the lead and not let the Republicans take their vote for granted. Demanding immigration control might be a good way to do that.

As for Bush, he needs to remember who keeps him in the lead and leave off pandering to Hispanics who don’t vote anyway, and wouldn’t vote for him if they did vote. If he does win and remembers who put him in the White House, the forgotten majority may no longer be forgotten.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: 2000 Election, Hispanics 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”