If the center-right decides to accept some electoral defeats and then seeks to gain adherents via argumentation and attraction—and, crucially, eschews making racial heritage its organizing principle—then the GOP can remain vibrant. Its fissures will heal and its prospects will improve, as did those of the Democratic Party in the 1920s, after Wilson. Democracy will be maintained. But if the center-right, surveying demographic upheaval and finding the prospect of electoral losses intolerable, casts its lot with Trumpism and a far right rooted in ethno-nationalism, then it is doomed to an ever smaller proportion of voters, and risks revisiting the ugliest chapters of our history.
His premise is that the demographic prospects are against the Republican Party. His thesis is that this is a dangerous time, because the transition away from a White majority will feel threatening to many whites.
I infer that one peaceful solution is for Republicans to win over enough Americans of African, South Asian, East Asian, and Hispanic descent to be competitive. That may not be so implausible.
But I think what you will find annoying about the essay is that he puts no burden on the left to behave itself. To me, the left comes across as both sore losers (Hillary Clinton) and sore winners (Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his disdain for his opponents). That does not help matters.
The REALITY is Donald Trump ran right center economics! Without calling Immigrants Rapist and chanting Wall, he ran on the same issues as John Kerry did 2004. And with the right level of taunting and complaining about Iraq War, he might won Ohio and the election! Kerry did not run a good campaign and was 100K votes in Ohio of winning against an incumbent in strong economy and a war that was popular 1 year before.
In November 2016, he was thought to be more center than HRC! Why?:
1) He promised to protect Social Security and Medicare. Does Romney win 2012 if he did this? Maybe?
2) He complained about trade deals and was the second biggest topic at his rallies. IT was the government and Clinton your jobs were outsourced!
Anyway, I think long term the parties are shifting position quicker (gay marriage for example went strong left in 2004 to not an issue in 2016) and I do think believe the minority politics is over-rated by the right as effective politics:
1) In case anybody notices, Biden is leading with African-American and Hispanic-American working class voters. (He leads big in SC, NV, NC, TX & AL…It is the whiter or college educated states Biden has middling polls.)
2) Of the four leading candidates, only Warren has been a heavy cultural warrior. Sanders, Biden and Mayor Pete have not been. (I do think Warren running less left and studied the 2018 Midterm victories would have been a stronger candidate.)
The fundamental problem is that the GOP will never win a majority of non-whites, especially if it tries to keep any of the principles that supposedly justify its existence.
What would it take for the GOP with win minorities (especially the demographically dominate one, Hispanics)? Increase the welfare state? Offer even more affirmative action? Is the GOP really going to win a race to the bottom on handouts with the Democrats? And if it did, would it be worth winning?
It seems to me that minorities vote GOP at about the rate of their genetic fortunes and relative to their social milieu. So Asians (especially upwardly mobile Asians) vote the most GOP, followed by white hispanics, followed by dark hispanics, followed by blacks. This holds for every single election within a range.
The interests of middle class whites (the foundation of the GOP) and the high/low coalition of fringes are just too at odds. Middle class whites want order and self sufficiency. Low IQ browns want handouts and ethnic favoritism. You can’t square those two demands, they are inherently opposed.
As far as I can tell the big turning point was the 1990s. We already tried this “proposition nation” strategy with Bush, McCain, and Romney. It failed. This is a matter of empirical FACT. They should have gone with the Sailer Strategy twenty years earlier than Trump forced it on them, then this demographic apocalypse wouldn’t be upon them.
Romney won as many white people as Reagan and lost the election. He was a NeverTrump diversocrat and the minorities voted for him at record lows.
If you believe getting low IQ brown people to vote for the GOP in a majority is impossible, then the whole essay is just so much self indulgent nonsense. But of course he never acknowledges this. It’s just the white immigration patterns of the pre-1924 era all over again. If we ignore genetics, we can pretend it’s going to be the same.
Ignoring genetics is why the GOP made the wrong decision of the neocons over the paleo in the 1990s, and it’s the real dead end.
Why can’t the Republicans win minorities? Bush got 40% Hi-Am which was probably fairly close to white working class at the time. There are past instances and parties are moving across issues faster.
For the screams of Left Identity politics, minority voters are keeping Biden in the poll lead! The least Guirri cultural candidate who isn’t promising lots of goodies.
1) Of the state polls, Biden is leading heaviest in SC, NV, TX, AL and NC!
2) We did not minority candidates for President but none of them took off. How many time was it assumed Harris was going to win all the African-American votes?
Anyway, in my area, the hardest working families to get their kids ahead are Hispanic-Americans and most them sound like they are straight out of 1950s white working class.
@collin
“Bush got 40% Hi-Am”
Guess how many elections you win when you get 40% of the electorate? That’s called a landslide loss.
The GOP has generally hovered between 20-40%, with not much understanding of why they go up and down (why did Trump do better then Romney?). In 2004 they ran up the score with Cubans and white Hispanic evangelical megachurch goers (Bush also had lots of name recognition in Texas). Most of that wasn’t sustainable and has been trending down (Cubans have been moving left since the Cold War ended).
Ronald Reagan, the GOP demigod, only got mid 30s Hispanic votes despite winning complete landslides amongst whites. He passed amnesty in 1987 only to watch those numbers sink to 30% (1988) and 25% (1992) for his Vice President George Bush.
He should never have passed amnesty. He should have deported every single one of them. Then the GOP would be fine.
Yes, blacks also voted for the last several mayors of Baltimore, who are all in jail.
I think blacks vote for black interests. Free college doesn’t help blacks. Medicare for All doesn’t help blacks because they are already on Medicaid. People like Warren are running on “free stuff for UMC white liberals”. No wonder blacks aren’t into that.
But they are into things like how Baltimore gets run today (sky high taxes applied to whites for handouts and graft targeted at blacks).
Remember Dems are a high-low coalition. The high and the low fight amongst themselves how to divide up what they steal from the middle.
Nothing in the statistics indicates that Hispanic American performance differs from their genetic profile in the slightest, your anecdotes aside.
And they state Democrats as identity politics! A lot of this is we have to see long term here and I rather be generous on why minorities are Biden versus they want all the goodies.
1) The other reality is Biden is also winning with Christian Democratic voters. Minority voters are moderate portion of the party right now.
2) I noticed the WWC social numbers are closing in on African- or Hispanic-American levels. And remember Trump won on bringing back coal and steel factories. So simple Bell Curve analysis without levels of lots of variation may likely hurt WWC in the long run.
3) Why has the US birth rates dropped since 2008? Mostly those low IQ Hispanic-Americans have huge single motherhood drops.
4) I don’t know why Trump did better than Romney other than Hi-American citizens are probably gaining the most wage increases in the Trump economy and HRC was not as popular as Obama. Trump is gaining with Hispanic-Americans even today.
5) Texas is not going Blue any time soon as the energy portion of the economy is still high. But Hispanic-Americans in Texas (~40%) is about even with Hi-Am in California (~40%). But if you a Republican in Texas, you will need their support long term. (Note California has more Af- and especially As-Americans so that is why white populations are below Hi-Am in Cali.)
4) I don’t why Baltimore, like Chicago, has not seen urban renewals. In Southern California, we did see the Rodney King riots (much worse than anything under 40 has seen) and there occurred when the crime drops were just starting to drop after 1990. The reality in heavy Af-Am areas has been the heavy Latino genetrification of the areas. Compton once the gang capital of the nation now has the largest. (All other claims of housing prices and more police occurred after 1994/5 when the drops were the most significant.)
I think the simplest point here is long term the Right-Center needs Hispanic-American voters (I mean next 20 years) and I think it wrong to assume they can’t win them.
1) Minority voters are bigots who hate fags and Jews and everyone else. It’s laundered so long as they will give Dems power.
They don’t give a shit about pronouns. However, they will vote for people who do give a damn about pronouns if it means more welfare for them. That’s what’s dangerous about them. No matter who wins the democratic primary, they are going to vote for them as long as the welfare keeps coming.
2) White numbers on every single social statistic aren’t even close to black/hispanic numbers. Only in your fever dream imagination.
3) And?
4) Blacks, especially large concentrations of blacks, destroy whatever they touch.
5) Let’s say your wildest dreams come true and the GOP wins a minority vote share equal to GWB in 2004, which was a record high.
So in 2050 the GOP gets-
White: 58%
Hispanic: 40%
Black: 12%
Asian: 44%
And the proportion of races in 2050 will be-
White: 47%
Hispanic: 30%
Black: 14%
Asian: 9%
They will get a whopping 44.76% of the vote, a landslide loss.
Your statement is therefore both true and false. It’s true that they need to do better with minorities to win with those demographics.
It’s also true that its unrealistic to think the GOP will ever do better with minorities then the above no matter what they try (unless they completely morph into the more handouts and racial pandering them the Dems party, and then what’s the point).
So the only way to win is to make the demographics of the USA less non-white. That was the only path to viability the GOP ever had.
1) Sure Democratic & Christian voters have a large Venn Diagram crossing. In all reality 80% of Ds are not deeply concerned on pronouns either. In fact there is a gay candidate running fourth in the primary and it has hardly made news. (I still his believe Pete’s consulting background hurts him more with working class voters than his lifestyle.)
2) Again, maybe a lot of it is by class and single motherhood in working class whites moving closer to minority levels which is dropping. The reality of the Bell Curve there are lot low IQ white citizens and higher IQ minorities. (And these race differences are shrinking.) Anyway, I still hold Hispanic-American are certainly assimilating a lot more than anybody not on the SW border believes right now.
3) I am a Sean Trende Party coalitions and that groups move long term long term. We are in a party changing coalition right now and we will have to see how it plays out. Can conservatives win Hispanic-Americans? Seems very possible and if you are Texan conservative it will need for survival over the next 10 – 20 years. I remember when Asian-Americans were heavy Republican voters and my friends thought the world of Ronald Reagan.
“working class whites moving closer to minority levels which is dropping”
If I select out a subset of white people with IQs similar to Hispanics, then their social statistics look like Hispanics…this is both true and pointless!
Anyway, underclass whites aren’t the ones voting for the GOP, never have and still don’t under Trump. The core of the GOP are middle/above average income families with some skills/education but not advanced degrees.
3) Ask the California or NY GOP how this whole “coalitions always change” thing is working out for them. These places became one party rule states that never change.
Asians vote the most GOP of any minority, especially as you strip out the more successful East Asians from low IQ Asians like Hmong. This despite being heavily concentrated in deep blue social and professional spheres.
The drop in GOP share amongst Asians since Reagan is due to a fall in the astronomical share of votes it got from people who fled communist countries during the Cold War (Vietnam, China), and dropped methodically over multiple electoral cycles after the Soviet Union collapsed and anti-communism became a non-issue. Something similar happened with Cuban Americans. It’s hard to see how the GOP could have kept that up beyond keeping communism alive in Eurasia.
Ask the California….Um, I lived this change and some of this:
1) My kids have seen Reagan speeches and astonished he was not ranting against Mexicans!
2) The decrease of defense after 1988 made a huge impact to this process.
3) My state rep is Hi-Am Republican by the way.
4) We have gone through several cycles of WWC flight in our state. Housing prices were elevated for extended periods. Lots going to Nevada or Washington.
5) The last Republican Governor was an Immigrant! Again some the messaging can make a difference.
6) Like NY our state will always have a degree of Immigration. Anyway I believe the next wave of new Immigrants that everybody dislike are going from the Philippines.
I still hold there is Reagan DNA in our state and after Trump it will come out to disrupt one party rule.
The essentialism here is brutal. Genetics as political destiny. Identity politics absolutely does not belong solely to the left.
In any case whites gave us progressivism. So the point may stand but doesn’t go far enough, or threatens to muddy its own waters if it did.
Isn’t one of the talking point of some conservatives that the left wants to force order and self sufficiency on the working class？I.e. college for everyone not as a promise of a government handout but rather a promise (threat) to make all of the population compliant to the demands of the market.
Just what is “the Sailer strategy”? The eponym explains.
I suspect the BIG problem of the Sailer strategy is not California but Texas. (And NV and AZ) Remember the Hispanic-Americans are just as high in Texas as California (~40%) so it is going to increasingly harder for Conservatives to rant white identity politics there.
And I still hold Republicans can win Hi-Am but not with the Sailer strategy. And I do believe Bush Jr. did a fairly good job in 1994 and his Presidency elections.
> The fundamental problem is that the GOP will never win a majority of non-whites
There will always be a political divide. People always find something to fight about. If the GOP isn’t competitive at some point, then they will be replaced by another party that is competitive, but the name of the party is not particularly important.
I do think it seems likely that the GOP gets completely wiped out for a brief period, before it’s replaced by something else. But ultimately, people will always find something to fight about.
> We already tried this “proposition nation” strategy with Bush, McCain, and Romney. It failed.
Sure. The GOP didn’t try to outflank the left on the left, and it’s strategy of moderation failed.
I see some demographics have a fierce loyalty to the Democratic party, that is hard to change.
The typical pattern is for the GOP to get permanently ‘wiped out’ in some jurisdiction (e.g., some Deep Blue city or district), and neither bounce back nor get replaced by anything else.
Instapundit has a running gag about the date some towns had their “last Republican mayor” to accompany any complaining article by a clueless writer asking why everything is terrible and broken in their city.
The typical result of attempts at local party reconfiguration, reformulation, or relaxation (i.e., significant compromises and moved to the left) is usually futility, and the only important debates happen intra-party as manifested in Democratic primaries, for instance, in the race between Ocasio-Cortez and Crowley. One exception in the “relaxation” category is the occasional ‘RINO’ GOP governor in what is otherwise a Blue state, but the RINO GOP Senators seem to be just a stepping stone to Democrat dominance though.
That’s what’s behind the tragi-comic dark humor of the “One Party State” term, because that’s what ends up happening. The GOP just dies and stays dead, and conservatives in the jurisdiction just have to grin and bear whatever the Democrats do, and perhaps try to vote strategically to help the less extreme candidates win.
I would add to your last paragraph that there’s no better sop to the bigoted right than an identitarian left. Like some pundit once said “They don’t know they’re on the Trump 2020 campaign, but they are!”
I infer that one peaceful solution is for Republicans to win over enough Americans of African, South Asian, East Asian, and Hispanic descent to be competitive. That may not be so implausible.
There is lots of recent, high quality evidence that it is completely implausible, and next to none that it could work.
It’s the Null Hypothesis of GOP election results. Consider: how would you react to someone saying that new teaching techniques raising test scores one standard deviation and closing The Gap “may not be so implausible”?
That goes along with the split I commented about earlier between the serious Null Hypothesis Right and the naive Wishful Thinking Right.
Hoping that non-white conversion to the GOP is plausible is, alas, wishful thinking, and has been for two generations.
I’ve been to hundreds of conservative and libertarian events. The participants and especially prestigious leaders always constantly go out of their way to demonstrate how open and welcoming and inclusive they are, and how universally applicable and appealing the ideology should be. And they are being 100% sincere.
But, it doesn’t do any good, and the crowds always look the same. Why?
A cynic / realist usually answers that it is simply the fact that, in general, these are the people who would do better under libertarian policies, and the noticeable presence of absence includes all the groups that obviously would do worse and be ‘losers’ under such a regime, i.e., their natural clients and constituency. That, to the extent adherents of these ideologies sincerely believe in them, it is mostly a consequence of a process of self-deception and self-delusion so that they can feel better and more justified than in consciously and explicitly grabbing for personal benefit.
A progressive cynic would go further and say that the whole ideology is merely a charade and cover story for the true agenda, which is merely to benefit white, straight males, and that the ideas are merely rhetorical frauds and the policies the result of backward-calculating those rules which would benefit these clients. That’s not true, but by the inexorable political logic of the situation, they are summoning up that demon by calling it by its name.
The sad truth is that when most people are given a choice between “identity-blind meritocratic fairness” and “unfair preferences for you that will make you come out ahead vs. the fair alternative”, they are going to choose the latter, and they are going to parrot whatever current rationalization or justification is out there as the socially acceptable excuse for why, when you really think about it, it’s more fair this way, no matter how facially absurd the argument may be from an objective, disinterested perspective.
The reason is that progressives credibly signal to everyone, in proportion to their distance from the Evil Archetype Identity (privileged straight white Christian males) that, by using state power on their behalf, their social status and material welfare will be boosted with the Democrats in charge, as near-explicit promises at this point.
Those are their clients, in the Roman, political sense.
The key is that the GOP can’t outbid those benefits for those clients, in the same way it can’t lure people who want more free stuff from the government by outbidding the progressives on socialism. All they can do is try to insist on structural conditions that makes it impossible to make those credible promises, because illegal and unconstitutional. Without that, it’s all hopeless.
That’s why even having racial preferences or redistribution is inevitably destructive to a healthy democratic culture, because the organized interests that could provide a countervailing force to going ever further in those directions can only (A) preach neutrality, which is inevitably a loser position for the reason given above, or (B) Fight fire with fire and turn those who who lose out from the fulfillment of progressive promises into clients of their own.
You can’t fight fire with ‘nothing’ (i.e., neutrality). You either put it out, or you fight it with more fire.
The first-order theory of politics is that the so-called ‘tribes’ aren’t arbitrary or random, and that the shape and circumstances of someone’s life situation and pattern gives rise to natural political interests and that they tend in general to migrate to the party perceived to best further those interests.
At any rate, hope is not a plan, and serious thinking involves contemplating strategies for multiple alternative contingencies to avoid the most dangerous, foolish, suicidal outcomes.
So, a GOP strategist would ask, “Ok, what if we pulled out all the stops and find that we still can’t recruit that critical mass of non-whites? What then?” And hew would answer, “Well, political death, as in present-day One Party State California. And thus, the only chance to avoid (or just delay) rapid political death is to pull out all the stops to stop the Great Replacement and demographic change as much as possible and to credibly signal to those who would lose out under progressive policies that we have their backs.”
By the way, this is a core issue which Caplan claimed to adequately address in Open Borders, but, predictably, actually didn’t at all. If Open Borders (without first fixing the problems created by allowing redistribution and identity-conscious policies – and good luck with that) means that national politics resembles California on the way to Venezuela with an extra-helping of racial tensions and resentment, then no thanks.
Unfortunately, that reality may be already baked in the cake, because the (well funded!) Wishful Thinkers had control over the GOP and used their time at the wheel to mess this matter up to the point of irreversibility.
Part of the issue here is that more softly conservative people like myself are less interested in promoting Republicans than they are defeating bad ideas from progressives.
That’s kind of like saying you’d like to to establish air dominance, but don’t really care very much what happens to the ground forces. The airmen and soldiers may hate each other, but unless they coordinate in joint operations, neither can accomplish their missions.
For example, with regards to the battle of ideas, you can’t contest ideas without access to the debate podium, i.e., a ‘platform’.
But the whole point of ‘deplatforming’ and ‘cancel culture’ (terrifyingly successful movements at the moment) is to leverage authoritative power and influence to intimidate, chill, and prevent those voices from ever getting a fair hearing in the first place.
Like it or not, one is going to need use political power to preserve the capability to express one’s heterodox ideas and sentiments, and if one doesn’t have it, there will be zero chance of winning any battles of ideas. That’s going to involve a lot of nose-holding and bitter-pill swallowing and sleeping with strange bedfellows, but, alas, that’s how it goes.
Handle, smart post. But ultimately, you need a solution. If there is no solution, then there is no problem. If it’s all “game over”, then what’s the point of talking about it?
Bryan Caplan predicts that large shocks of ethnic/religious diversity, will undermine collectivism and the welfare state and lead to a libertarian nirvana. If I believed that, I’d fully support open borders. I don’t think I’m unreasonably stubborn and mentally dug in to refusing to reasonably consider that. But I sure wouldn’t bet on it.
My preferred political strategy is to pump the brakes on immigration, and work on a plan B. Caplan’s libertarian nirvana sounds great, with cryptocurrency and functioning AnCap. Google-style private cities sound great. I do care about helping the global poor, but I feel like I’m probably going to be on the losing end of things, which I feel like I have a reasonable selfish interest in protecting.
We’re all going to die, so if you think about it, it’s “game over” for all of us. It’s kind of a philosophical point, but one might as well ask whether it matters whether one dies at 60 or 80. Most people instinctively think that extra good time is a good thing, especially if that extra good time provides a chance of some discovery or innovation or other change which enables even more extra good time.
So, your mileage may vary, but to me, working on the margin to achieve some marginal benefit, even in the face of certainty of ultimate doom, is still a worthwhile endeavor.
Democrats have labeled the GOP as racists and stupid since Eisenhower. Intelligent people know it’s not true. That’s why Trump got 30% of minority votes. The left hopes that continually accusing the right of racism they will deflect attention from their anti-antisemitism and history of eugenics. The GOP can continue to win by attracting more minorities.
Nonsense to think this started in the 50’s. It started with the passage of the Civil Rights Act (I’m sure that was purely coincidental). Then George Wallace showed the GOP how they could win elections and the Southern Strategy became their mantra.
“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Lee Atwater
It gets worse. Take a look at this picture of Stone, Manfort and Flynn from the 80’s.. These people have been deplorable their entire lives, and Trump is right with them.
“The Torturers’ Lobby’
There are multiple versions of how Trump and Manafort met. The political operative and longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone claims to have introduced the two at the 1988 Republican national convention in New Orleans. Another version has the introduction made by the late Roy Cohn, Trump’s former lawyer and his escort through the sybaritic 1980s New York nightlife.
Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Lee Atwater.
Stone, one of Manafort’s earliest professional associates, is in a position to know. After successfully working to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, Manafort and Stone opened a lobbying firm with associates Charles Black and, later, Peter Kelly. The firm came to specialize in cultivating favors in Washington on behalf of foreign clients with tricky images.
Paul Manafort: FBI used search warrant to raid ex-Trump chair’s home
“Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly lined up most of the dictators in the world that we could find,” Stone said in a podcast last year. “Pro-western dictators of course. Dictators are in the eye of the beholder.”
It wasn’t empty boasting. A 1982 article in Spy magazine ranked the firm at the top of its “blood-on-the-hands” index of Washington lobbyists, for its foreign accounts from Somalia to Zaire to the Dominican Republic. A 1992 Center for Public Integrity report titled The Torturers’ Lobby detailed payments the firm had taken from foreign regimes, and corresponding US aid that flowed to those regimes. ”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/23/paul-manafort-trump-mueller-russia-fbi
oops.
Stone, Manafort and Atwater, not Flynn
Yeah you have drunk deeply from the leftist kool-aid and fake history. But I know better because I’m old enough to have lived it.
Actual quotes; actual pictures; actual lobbying; actual history.
If you lived it, you lived it in a bubble.
Well, first of all there is no such thing as the center right. They stopped existing when Gingrich ran the House; almost disappeared when a black man took the Presidency, and totally died with Trump. And they’re not coming back, they sold their souls to the Devil.
And:
“I infer that one peaceful solution is for Republicans to win over enough Americans of African, South Asian, East Asian, and Hispanic descent to be competitive. That may not be so implausible.”
There is no chance of this happening unless the GOP actually moves away from their 50 year old Southern Strategy. And that would cost them the white working class votes that have kept them in power.
The country is totally divided, and it will stay that way until the old white people all die off. Can’t happen soon enough.
I am an old white person. You sound like you are filled with hate. That is not a good way to be.
I’m not filled with hate at all.
I do hate stone cold racists. Sorry, a character flaw of mine. I also hate liars, and the GOP is filled with them.
Thank you for joining the committee to re-elect Donald Trump. Your contributions to public discourse – getting out the vote for the GOP by totally freaking people out – are greatly appreciated.
My comments have no impact on the Trump voters. The same number of people who voted for him last time will vote for him again despite clear proof(s) that he is a lying con man.
I mean seriously, his charity was a crime scene. His university was a crime scene. His campaign was a crime scene. His Presidency is a crime scene. His tax returns are a crime scene.
And yet these same yahoos will vote for him again.
The reason why is obvious.
You didn’t say you wanted stone cold racists to die off. You said, “The country is totally divided, and it will stay that way until the old white people all die off. Can’t happen soon enough.”
That is hateful, and it is racist. And somehow you think you hate racists? You sure sound like one.
I’m an old white person.
Self-hating? 🙂
Or are you saying most old white people are racists who deserve to die but you are an enlightened one who has risen above your corrupt society and is without sin?
I can’t help thinking of Arnaud Amalric.
Deserve? No, just pointing out that until they die (of natural causes) this country will have a government dominated by racists.
For the record, I don’t want you to die. Though I wish you would become less hateful and more open-minded.
I do hate stone cold racists.
What if the Truth is racist? Blacks are different than Whites: they have more melanin in their skin; their hair is kinkier.
Today, most PC despots claim it’s racist to say Blacks and Whites are different, but the Reality facts. Because I claim there ARE differences, the PC folk would call me racist.
If you have some other definition of racist, stone cold or otherwise, you should probably give it.
“Racism” is bad when you support hurting one race in order to help another race. Of course, that’s exactly the point of “affirmative action”, to give extra help to some Blacks, who then get selected to higher social spots or get accepted to more elite college.
The fluid PC definition is that not helping Blacks extra, whenever there’s an elite selection where Blacks are not being selected, the lack of extra help for Blacks is racism. So for playing most sports, no help needed. To get to Harvard or Stanford, lower standards are a requirement.
I call Aff. Action a racist program, which was intended to be a form of sped up Black advancement, which has mostly failed the Black community, tho many middle class Blacks have benefitted as individuals who got “selection help”.
The definition of racist is the treatment of non white people differently than white people. And it certainly has nothing to do with pointing out the racial differences between people, just how they are treated.
The traditional definition of a racist is someone who treats people differently on the basis of race (or something they consider race). The idea that it can only involve whites v. non-whites is itself racist!
I’m talking about the US, stop with the taking all the context out of the subject.
Always remarkable that people say both that the PC bigots deny that whites and blacks are different, and then also that they want to enforce a racial hierarchy in which the victimized oppressed blacks would always be superior to the whites.
One can, of course, get around that by saying that race has no biological reality but does have a social reality. So those who are socially black (or whatever) are by definition oppressed and deserving of special concern.
This is the existential problem of the Constitution, the unresolved state scale issues. We have been there many times and have had many small civil wars and one large civil war over the issue.
Socialism to the small states has become the very inefficient earmark system, they get swamps by the national welfare programs. Nurses accelerate departure when Obamacare invests in gains to scale in the large states, SS recipients leave the state for warmer climes, and students use federal loan support to leave the state for bigger universities. The scale problem has become critical and senate stops have increased as welfare socialism places stress on earmark socialism.
It has never been solved, and the goal is to have the smaller versions of the civil war. Large state political organizations have to get the word.
Examples:
Rhode Island was a colonial civil war in Massachusetts bay Colony founded by religious split. Vermont founded from a land speculation war between New Hampshire and New York. New Hampshire won because they had the green Mountain Boys enforcing their deeds. California and John C Fremont trigger the civil war, they managed to cut the Southern states from the Pacific. Texas and California did not split the Manifest Destiny evenly. Then there is the whole native american problem, a form of civil war.
It has never been solved, The solution for the civil war was to buy off the southern states, ex post. By them off with cash in exchange for a smoother removal of legal slavery.
It is now ex ante with a known ex post, what say we just pay off the senate with cold hard cash to the state capitals, about 50 to 100 billion a year, top of the budget?
The Constitution almost explicitly requires the pay off, so just do it on a regular budgetary basis. The civil wars will be smaller, rebellions more intelligent. Senators will be incentivized to get clues.
It’s another ‘if you do things I like, you will thrive and if you don’t, you are evil and dangerous.’ *shrug*
What I find most annoying, and very common in Yoni’s article, is that he claims Reps are doing something they don’t seem to be doing so much, but Dems are actually doing a lot more of.
His insights are for a Republican who
seeks to gain adherents via argumentation and attraction—and, crucially, eschews making racial heritage its organizing principle
But actually, it’s the Dems who have mostly stopped using argumentation and persuasion, but instead use demonization and insults and are heavily using race, and sex, and ethnic heritage as organizing and differentiating principles.
Yoni at least does quote Trump:
“Our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage,”
But then implies Trump means all Democrats, when he clearly says “radical Democrat opponents” — and there seem to be lots of examples of Dems driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage.
The big story being obfuscated here is how Trump is trying to attract all workers into the Rep party, to make it an America First workers party.
In the analysis of how workers in the UK left Labour and voted Tory, Melanie Phillips says of the elite globalists:
These liberal universalists all voted to remain in the EU. And they haven’t stopped denigrating those who voted Brexit as half-witted, racist xenophobes.
https://www.melaniephillips.com/british-working-class-saves-britain-jews/
US Dems also can’t stop denigrating non-college educated US workers and those who voted for Trump. So Trump’s Republican party is … the non-hyphenated American Worker’s Party. With patriotic Love America instead of nationalistic Hate Others, altho the globalist Dem media that don’t love America claim Trump does hate others.
And certainly not Socialist. Oh no, NOT. Tho ever increasing gov’t spending and investment and budget deficits might look a lot like socialism, it’s not. Not.
Blacks who are working; Hispanics who are working; Asians who are working, and especially those (the majority still) who don’t have college degrees, all American workers are being welcomed by Trump into the Rep party. Unless there is a recession, I see Trump winning reelection. And if he is successful at getting significant minority worker support, the Reps could retake the House and do a lot more of the Trump Rep agenda.
Yoni seems oblivious to American workers being different from college grad elites and elite wannabees.