Thursday, December 07, 2023
View Blog
Aug 2

Written by: Diana West
Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:47 AM 

Writing at (via View from the Right) Peter Bradley surveys the unemployment numbers, the state of the economy and the electoral map and asks why Romney is losing. His grim answer: Immigration is electing a new people.

What kind of a new people? A people beholden to and interwined with Big Government. A people magnetically drawn to  Hand-Out Nation. A people to whom liberties guaranteed by the Constitution mean less than the Food Stamps supplied by Big Brother. We are at or possibly beyond the tipping point when 20 percent of the population i dependent on the government for assistance, and  nearly 50 percent of the population pays no federal taxes.  

All is not lost (yet), however; Bradley calculates Romney can win with 61 percent of the white vote. In 2010 midterm elections, the GOP won 60 percent of the white vote in its historic midterm sweep. The main obstacle will be the Left hammering the agitprop home that such a skew can only be explained as a form of bigotry in action. (Correction: that such a "white" vote skew is bigotry in action. The fact that 95 percent of the black vote went for Obama in 2008 goes unremarked, un-judged, beatified.)

This will have the effect of boosting Obama's vote and suppressing Romney's as media-browbeaten Americans seek to a expiate the cardinal postmodern sin of perceived "racism." What we are looking at, in fact, in the race between Romney and Obama is an existential philosophical divide between Constitutional culture and Collectivist culture, which, for a variety of reasons, breaks down along racial lines, also by sex. Can Romney make the case?

Bradley starts by noting the demographic changes in the country since Reagan vaulted ahead of Carter in the final days of the 1980 campiagn: 

Some pundits still don’t realize how much. Thus National Review’s Jim Geraghty starts off his 1980 vs. 2012 column (July 25, 2012) promisingly by noting “It’s a demographically different country.”

But he then informs us that the country was 79.5 percent white in 1980 while it is 72 percent white today. He concludes: “So if the racial demographic change amounts to only a small shift in favor of the Democrats, what societal trend has helped them?”

From there it is all downhill, as Geraghty [Email him] stresses the lack of a foreign policy crisis and the spread of early voting in sealing Romney’s doom.

Of course, non-Hispanic whites were actually down to 63.7% in the 2010 Census and are certainly less in 2012.

I went through the bother of registering for NRO’s online comments section and sent in a polite correction on Geraghty’s elementary error. Of course, it was never posted.

Far from causing a “small shift” to the Democrats, the racial transformation of the U.S. caused by over-immigration is the only major reason why the GOP is sailing into oblivion.

In 2008, McCain won 55 percent of the white vote and lost by a near-landslide. In 2000, Bush won 55 percent of the white vote and squeaked by with a win. Shouldn’t that tell Geraghty and other Conservatism Inc. operatives that something is going on?

Bush, by the way, won 34 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2000, only slightly more than McCain in 2008.

The racial breakdown of the 2008 presidential race was as follows:

  • Whites             55% to 43% for McCain
  • Blacks             95% to 5% for Obama
  • Hispanics         67% to 31% for Obama
  • Asians             62% to 35% for Obama

The most recent polls show the same fatal trend in 2012: only whites support Romney in great numbers. Almost 90 percent of Republican votes come from whites. And Romney has yet to crack the 61% support of whites he likely needs to win. (It’s eminently doable—the GOP got 60% in its Congressional sweep in 2010).

Geraghty’s ignorance of the impact of demographics is unforgiveable, given that the magazine for which he writes once (pre-purge!) published a cover story that accurately predicted what would happen to Republican electoral prospects given unchecked immigration:

Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein presented the facts about the declining GOP majority in a National Review cover story in June 1997 [Electing a New People]. They crunched the numbers and predicted that 2008 would be the first year in which the demographic wave would catch up with Republicans. After that the prospects for electing Republican presidents would just get worse. They wrote:

Demography is destiny in American politics. This point was made brilliantly almost exactly thirty years ago, by Kevin Phillips in  The Emerging Republican Majority  (1968). In the shadow of the Democrats' long-dominant "Roosevelt coalition," and amid the wreckage and recrimination of the disastrous Goldwater defeat, Phillips boldly predicted a generation of Republican victories based on the persistent but dynamic pattern of ethnic politics. He has been triumphantly vindicated.

But the Republican hour is rapidly drawing to a close. Not because the "Phillips Coalition" of the West and the South, of the middle class and urban blue-collar voters, is breaking up in the traditional manner. Instead, it is being drowned—as a direct result of the 1965 Immigration Act, which ironically became effective in the year Phillips's book was published. Nine-tenths of the immigrant influx is from groups with significant—sometimes overwhelming—Democratic propensities. After thirty years, their numbers are reaching critical mass. And there is no end in sight.

The fact that so few conservative and Republican pundits even know the facts of the demographic revolution is remarkable, given how thoroughly and others have documented this issue for over a decade.

I think the ignorance is willful.

Read the rest here.

Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West