The Right’s Civil War
Predictions of a “conservative crack-up” tend to be a dime a dozen in American politics, and it rarely happens. But this month, I really do get the sense that we’re witnessing the opening rounds in a significant battle inside the conservative movement. The difference, it seems to me, is that you’re increasingly seeing actual politicians and people who are very close to the political arena getting into the fray. That’s difference from a question of a handful of disaffected conservative intellectuals or an intramural squabble between pundits. Here, for example, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman basically calls the congressional GOP a “very narrow party of angry people”:
Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights?
A: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK…They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we’re going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost.
On Huntsman’s side, roughly speaking, I think you can also see Governor Charlie Crist of Florida and New York Times columnist David Brooks along with his merry band of reformist conservative pundits. Anchoring the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Bobby Jindal of Louisiana leading a weird band of stimulus rejectionists. He’s being backed up by the House GOP’s quasi-official leaders Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich both of whom have taken the reality-defying view that Jindal’s speech yesterday was secretly brilliant. Guys like Eric Cantor and Mike Pence in the House and Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell in the Senate have, likewise, really been digging in their heels on the idea that blanket oppositionism is the way to go. Thus far, though, you haven’t seen anyone on the Hill really take up the reformist banner. There’s the Senate’s troika of northeastern moderates, of course, but I think everyone agrees that they’re not the future of the American right. For the infighting to really become significant in a policy sense, you’d need some members of the House and Senate to try to put what Crist and Huntsman are talking about into practice.
105 Responses to “The Right’s Civil War”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 27th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Pretty lopsided fight. At the moment, it still seems less like a fight than like individual instances of dissent and defection.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Yeah, whatever, in the aftermath of a presidential election there’s always talk of a “split” in the losing party between “reform-minded governors” and the old guard in Congress. This is just part of the kabuki that proceeds to the flogging of myriad books about “the future of _____.”
No governor is actually going to reject more than a token grain of the stimulus, and no one who wants to run in a Republican primary is actually going to criticize Rush Limbaugh.
All that said, the comparison with the Tories isn’t ridiculous. Labour came in after the 1992 debacle, which discredited Tory economic policy for good. And that was a picnic compared to what we have now. So it’s conceivable that we could be looking at ten years in power. My hope is that looking back on it ten years from now, we don’t have to apologize and rationalize all the missed opportunities.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich both of whom have taken the reality-defying view that Jindal’s speech yesterday was secretly brilliant
They’re actually lying, you know. I’m sure they realize the speech stank — my dog could probably figure it out — but in their official roles as Head Bozos they can’t say so.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am
I don’t think that’s quite right — that for Republicans to have a positive future, GOP Representatives and Senators need to follow the reformist approach that is generally derided as RINO. It’s the wrong dynamic — all carrot, no stick to hold up the big tent.
Sure, libertarians like to talk a good game on gay rights, and evangelicals emphasize environmental ’stewardship’ , but that’s not the deal.
Democrats now control the Federal government in an economic crisis with two wars going on simultaneously, all created under Republican leadership — from Bush to Gramm. So the ONLY question for a Republican restoration (as if anybody would want one) is whether Democrats fail.
That’s the real deal, and it’s the oldest of political advice for handling success: first you BEAT your opponents, decisively and unmistakeably.
Then you let them have something — on your terms.
Since Republicans in the House have determined not to give Obama any support at all, we’re still in the first phase: beating ‘em decisively.
So in 2010, the key political lesson should be that Republican obstructionism hurts Republicans.
It’s not so much a matter of a Huntsman getting elected to Congress, as it is of a couple key obstructionists losing general elections in what had been reliably Republican districts, to teach the lesson that it is not good politics to wish for our President to fail in an economic crisis, with two wars going on.
Then — if Republicans start to work with Democrats — then it may be a good thing for the voters to reward some who are moving in a positive direction: but not before.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Brooks strikes me as more of a courtier/sycophant… he’s always sucking up to whomever he thinks is going to come out on top. Yes, he might be on the side of the “reformers” now, but he was a loyal Bushie for a long time while the movement he now derides was ascendent.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:50 am
OT, but dis any of you see this: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/17957?in=40:37&out=41:56? Why doesn’t some patriot put a bullet in Eli Lake’s brain?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Once again a Repubican does not understand demographics. The Republican party is suffering partially due to changing demographics of the U.S. Since the 1980’s Republicans like Huntsman have supported importing millions of poor Hispanics who will automatically become Democratic voters.
How does Gov. Huntsman believe that the Repubicans can very appeal to non-whites when the Democrats are proposing higher taxes on the rich (which will be read as whites in most non-white communities) and spending the money on them.
If Huntsman was to be in the party of high taxes, big spending, and open borders, he need to become a Democrat. The idea of big government compassionate conservative was tried for eight years and found to be a total failure. Why would any Republican or conservative want to continue with it?
February 27th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I have a feeling Huntsman knows he’s going to lose the nomination in 2012, and is actually kind of banking on it, with this Rainbow-McCain-type strategy, which would make him a “maverick” and yet still the heir apparent in 2016. Running for president is always a long shot, so what the heck, why not use a strategy that makes “heroic long shot” the obvious media narrative?
February 27th, 2009 at 10:02 am
The Republican party has serious existential questions to answer. They literally have no agenda for the future. Did Jindal make some proposals that I didn’t hear? I read Kristol’s column in the Post the other day and his advice was literally, Do everything you can to slow down the Obama agenda, and eventually we’ll think of some alternatives. Got it? Some of their biggest names would stake the party’s future on their ability to keep the economy in the tank through 2010. And that’s the closest thing to a unifying plan that they have.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Dear superdestroyer,
If you haven’t realized it yet you are the endangered species.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Eventually Republicans will support gay rights and anti-global-warming regulations in the same way that Democrats now support free trade, the death penalty, and don’t campaign on handgun bans.
At issue is that some people have naturally authoritarian personalities and believe that society is best run when everyone “knows their place” in the social and economic hierarchy. Those voters have to go somewhere, and while the Democrats make plenty of room for such types (see: Steny Hoyer, Diane Feinstein, most state house speakers), the Republican party is going to attract most of them. The question is how to channel such attitudes into something that doesn’t do too much damage while winning a majority of votes. I’m not sure that’s going to happen for a long time.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“For the infighting to really become significant in a policy sense, you’d need some members of the House and Senate to try to put what Crist and Huntsman are talking about into practice.”
It’s going to take a few election cycles to get to that. There is no current member of the House or Senate willing or able to contradict the orthodoxy. Republicans are going to have to wait for bottom-up change, just like Democrats did, and that can take quite a while.
For now, the GOP is what it is, and that ain’t much.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:33 am
In defense of right-wingers like superdestroyer, I have no idea what distinguishes the Tories from Labor anymore. It is not good when a two-parties system has those two parties agreeing on nearly everything.
Of course, it is even worse when one party is insane and denies reality and science, like the GOP is doing right now.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“I’m sure they realize the speech stank — my dog could probably figure it out — but in their official roles as Head Bozos they can’t say so.”
This is where being stupid or, more accurately, childish eventually trips you up. Does it actually help Jindal to coddle him after such a horrible performance? Does it in any way actually help conservatism or the GOP? If the Right ever wants to get anywhere again, they’ve got to learn to think beyond the momentary impulse to just piss off liberals.
Mike
February 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
MY, I tend to agree that much of the talk of the Republican “civil war” is overstated. Even now, I’m not sure we’re looking at things that will have broad electoral or ideological consequences to the party.
HOWEVER, it’s interesting that so many of these stories are happening at once- Bunning and Cornyn, Steele and the Ladies from Maine, Arnold and the Republicans and the CA Republicans, Bloomberg and the NYC Republicans, Limbaugh and the people who thought Jindal stank (everyone)…hell, yesterday, the Republican’s “No” Coalition (”No-alition!”) broke down.
All of these seem, to me, like one-week stories. But damn, what an awful week.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am
really dont think these political animals are gonna learn new tricks – theyll flow w/the instincts that got them them where they are until they wash out or the dems screw up enough to put them back in power – itll take actual new people to reform the gop
February 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Huntsman is just suggesting that the Repubicans commit suicides by becoming the Democratic-lite party (even though such an idea was a failure for the Bush Administration) instead of waiting for the demographic changes.
What Huntsman fails to realize is that appealling to blacks and Hispanics loses more votes than it gains. President Bush caused a huge amount of harm to the Repubicans by trying to pander to Hispanics. Middle class whites realized what harm unlimited immigration is doing to them. President Bush and John McCain thought that they could spit in the face of middle class white conservatives when in reality is caused massive election harms.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
McCain may have appeased the “Stay Stupid” side of the Republican party, but he isn’t one of them.
There’s hope.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I predict an outbreak of rampant NeoRockefellerism amongst the reformists, with lashings of PaleoJavitism.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:13 am
So superdestroyer is actually suggesting that Republicans should lose the vote of blacks for another generation, and also repel Hispanics and any other non-whites.
Brilliant.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:13 am
RE: Tyro’s comment – Do most Democrats support the death penalty? If anything, I thought momentum was swinging against capital punishment. At least I hope it is.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I tend to believe that the next Republican president, be that who it will be, will wind up running on a Democrat-lite platform, especially on economics.
Ultimately, I don’t think that the right has lost enough to become desperate. There are plenty of activists who are content for the GOP to be bombthrowers, but there are plenty of Republicans who are actually interested in winning. They might prefer that winning to involve actual conservatism, but they’ll live with it if not. In any event, losing over and over again really sucks, so they’ll eventually find their way to sanity. Just not yet.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:19 am
20 years ago, it was impossible to find a decent beer in this country. 20 years ago, a fine restaurant was a steak restaurant. We’re in the midst of a maturation process that is in many respects, inevitable. Although it’s fun to romantasize the wild west and robber baron capitalism, it’s not exactly the preferred life style choice of people who now see, quite visibly what’s been going on in Europe for decades. You don’t have to be rich to live a satisfying, rich life. As long as certain needs are met, like healthcare, safe food and water, and steady employment, people are satisfied. Democrats have tapped into this, Republicans still mock it as un-American. Unless they find themselves a niche within this maturation process, Republican will be talking about Reagan until it’s over.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Why Oh why,
My real argument is that it is impossible for the more conservative of the political parties to ever appeal to non-whites when the more liberal party supports race based government programs. No matter how much the Repubicans try to pander to Hispanics (or even blacks) the Democrats can easily outpander them. However, no white voters who currently vote Democratic will stop supporting the Democratic party no matter how much racial pandering the Democrats do. yet, white Repubicans will stop supporting the Republicans if they pander to minorities.
What Gov. Huntsman failed to understand is that the Republican Party is caught in a demographic trap. It is a minority party where the segments of the population that would be open to supporting Republicans is shrinking but anything the Repubicans do to change will lose more vote than it gains.
As the Republicans tried to become the second big government, big spending party, it lost the support of fiscal conservatives but did not gain any Democratic votes. As President Bush and Sen. McCain tried to pander to Hispanics, they a lot of middle class white support without gaining any Hispanic support.
What Gov. Huntsman is suggesting is a plan to keep the Repubican party going as a brand without any message to sell. Being the Democratic-lite party is a plan to be 25% of the electorate. See the Repubicans in New England when the Repubicans become the Democratic-lite party.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Superdestroyer,
I would just note that, if in fact the company is moving left, the Democrats will move further left. So the Republican party can still be the conservative party, but they have to accept some inevitable shifts in voter preference, like health care.
The Republican and Democratic parties were surely having much different debates 80 years ago. Just because the left prevailed on many of those debates, doesn’t mean that the current Republican party is the Democratic party lite.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
“What Huntsman fails to realize is that appealling to blacks and Hispanics loses more votes than it gains.”
As a partisan Democrat, I hope and pray that the Republican Party DOES realize this, and quickly.
Not becoming “Democratic-Lite” is one thing, and it’s probably the right strategy. But writing off entire segments of voters is just BEGGING to stay in the minority, especially when those segments are just going to grow AND when some of your core pricniples would appeal to those groups if you’d just push the Tancredos and Romneys off the stage.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
superdestroyer, the thing is that you are conflating whites with “southern whites.” The party that ends up taking on the southern whites as its base ends up screwing itself because they’re so demanding and end up constraining the ability of the party they support from moving beyond their narrow list of interests and demands.
Huntsman will do just fine in a party that in which southern whites become a shrunken, junior partner after they’re drowned out by the rise of the mountain west and drowned out of their own states by nothern immigration of professional classes into the southern states.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
A hilarious moment from GOP on GOP Action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0CMgcCOoG8
February 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“It is a minority party where the segments of the population that would be open to supporting Republicans is shrinking but anything the Repubicans do to change will lose more vote than it gains.”
There’s just no evidence of this. In fact, the only Republicans to win a Presidential election in the last 20 years did so precisely BY broadening his appeal to hispanics.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
What makes constructive efforts to bring the Republican party forward seem unlikely, at least in the short term, is that their main selling point is the opportunity to blame your problems on other people. That’s going to be difficult for them to give up.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I think the Huntsman situation is very interesting and provides a great snapshot of the Republican Party, particularly if you contrast him with the other prominent Mormon Republican, Mitt Romney. (Interestingly, for the most prominent Mormon political figure, Harry Reid, his Mormonism is apparently irrelevant.)
Huntsman is p***ing off all of the Republicans in Utah. The decision to actually accept the stimulus money is proving very unpopular, even though the state economy is in a world of pain. The folks there actually believe that not taking the money wouldn’t hurt the state’s economy, and some seem to think that rejecting it would actually help.
Huntsman is much more practical than that, and has actually had to defend taking the money in the state. Huntsman knows that to actually win nationwide, you can’t just appeal to Utah-type voters, who are very close to your core GDP. The state went 65/35 for McCain (2 party share), which was second behind Wyoming. So it’s very atypical. Between the stimulus money and his support for civil unions, he is now unpopular in the state.
Romney has much better centrist credentials–from Massachusetts, worked with a Democratic legislature, healthcare reform, etc. But he’s run/is running as a true right winger, and has been against the stimulus.
It’s fascinating to see how this will play out.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Tancredo says Norquist should be jailed:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
DTM,
I am not arguing that there is any real solution for the Republican Party. I just argued that Huntsmen is picking one type of failure (the Democratic-lite, compassionate conservative idea). The stay the course, social conservatives have just picked a different form of failure.
If conseratives really want to affect policy, then the Republican party should disband and they should all start voting in the Democratic primary. white middle class conservatives turn out for elections better than blacks, Hispanics, or 20-somethings. If conservatives elected enough of their own candidates in the Democratic primary, they would not have to worry about the automatic voting tendenices of non-whites in the general election.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Superdestroyer,
The GOP is against the middle class. It has been since Reagan. So let’s stop this charade that Republicans are somehow beneficial to the “white middle class”, unless they are “conservative” – if you define conservatism as being anti-gay and racist.
Change policies, realize that TAX CUTS are not the answer to everything, then your party can be taken more seriously by people who actually follow the news.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Why Oh Why,
the most loyal Republican voters are married, middle class whites. You can argue that Republicans have done nothing for middle class whites but they still vote for them.
However, if the Repubicans support higher taxes, more spending, more entitlements, more social engineering, and race base set asides, they are no different than the Democratic party. Then those middle class whites will stop voting for the Republicans but blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, and urban, elite whites will still not vote for the Republicans.
Huntsman just does realize what a demographic trap the Repubicans are in and does not seem to have a clue how the Republicans can maintain their current supporters while attracting others. throwing middle class whites under the bus while trying to pander to blacks, gays, and Hispanics is a sure loser.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
“If conseratives really want to affect policy, then the Republican party should disband and they should all start voting in the Democratic primary.”
If they can’t beat ‘em in a general election, they’re not gonna do it in a Democratic Primary, dude.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Superdestroyer,
Actually, the rich are still the group most likely to vote Republican. The middle class tends to vote for, well, the winner in any election, since they are the biggest part of this country.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Governor Jon Huntsman believes in his own political future, and that’s all he believes in. Policy positions are means to an end.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
“However, if the Repubicans support higher taxes, more spending, more entitlements, more social engineering, and race base set asides, they are no different than the Democratic party.”
Nobody said they have to support those things. They can still be a fiscally conservative, small government party. But there are some things they absolutely need to change, namely:
The insistence on capital gains and corporate tax cuts over middle-class tax cuts as the solution to every economic problem.
The disapproval of any kind of gay rights.
The insistence on getting their church and state combined. Stop putting the ten commandments in government buildings and stop trying to get prayer in public schools.
The completely irrational denial of global warming.
The insistence on spending massive amounts of money in desert countries spreading democracy.
The fanatic obsession with Rush Limbaugh.
None of those things are in your list. They could do all that and still be very far from Democrat-lite, and be a lot more rational and liked. The issue you (and most Republicans) seem to have is that if Democrats have a position, you feel you have to have the opposite position. But Democrats do have some positions that are widely in tune with the public, and opposing that just for the sake of being an opposing party is just…dumb. There is plenty of room for a small government, fiscally responsible party that’s not all about God, guns, and gays, but Republicans aren’t it right now, and they need to be.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
DTM,
Thanks. I kept writing a response to Super Crazy Destroyer but as I scrolled down you said it better than I ever could.
Peace.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
DTM,
As you are well aware, all of those changes occured when voters were over 90% white. Past experiences do not reflect the current demographics of the U.S. Most blacks have probably never voted for a Repubican in their entire lives and are not going to start no matter what positions the Repubicans take. The same can be said for most Hispanics.
As the U.S. becomes a majority-minority country around 2030, then politics will become like the current majority-minority districts in the U.S., one party, very few competative elections, and with the replacement of an incumbent once a generation.
Middle class whites can either accept that and give up on politics or find a way to mitigate it. If all of the current Repubicans started voting in the Democratic primaries, they will have a bigger impact on taxes, the size of government, and policy than trying to move the Repubican Parety to the left to become the Democratic-lite, me too party.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“As the U.S. becomes a majority-minority country around 2030, then politics will become like the current majority-minority districts in the U.S., one party, very few competative elections, and with the replacement of an incumbent once a generation.”
I would think it’s more likely that as the Democratic party moves left, what’s left of the sane Republicans form a new centrist party with the blue dogs, and the south gets its 10 Republican Senators as an oddball third party. But yes, a party that is generally in line with the public’s views does tend to stay in power. That’s the Republicans’ problem. The views of middle-aged whites are necessarily the same as the views of the country as a whole.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
er, *not* necessarily the same as the views of the country as a whole.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“Most blacks have probably never voted for a Repubican in their entire lives and are not going to start no matter what positions the Repubicans take.”
And up until 1936, the exact opposite was true.
“The same can be said for most Hispanics.”
I rather doubt it- Bush got 44% of the hispanic vote in 2004. I’d bet a lot of money that you could scrape together the other 6% pretty easily, especially with the Reagan and Bush Sr. landslides.
“As the U.S. becomes a majority-minority country around 2030, then politics will become like the current majority-minority districts in the U.S., one party, very few competative elections, and with the replacement of an incumbent once a generation.”
No, it won’t because- and this is sad for me- the Republican Party will be smarter than you, and it will realize that increased minority support DOESN’T have to come at the expense of white middle class support.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Colby,
Even liberal analysis was debunked the 44% number. the number was probably closer to 35% and Bush was helped by being a favorite son from Texas. I would guess that even in Texas, most Hispanics have never voted for a Repubican or at most just once or twice.
It does not matter what the Repubican does, it is whether there are issues where poor Hispanics and middle class whites can agree and those issues are few in number and lacking in importance.
No matter what the Repubicans do to appeal to non-whites, the Democratic Party can easily match it and put add even more racial pork and set aside.
When roughly 70% of blacks support race based reparations, there is no issue that the Republicans can use to get those voters. In addition, when the Democrats are promising open borders, free health care, free college, and maybe a government job, what can the Repubicans offer?
Pandering to Hispanics is costing the Repubicans white middle class support today. Look at how many former Republicans stayed home instead of voting for a racial panderer like McCain. Karl Rove thought he could pander to Hispanics and maintain the middle class white vote and he was wrong. Do you really think the current group of Repubicans is going to be any better?
February 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Superdestroyer,
The middle class didn’t vote for Republicans. They voted for Democrats. On the other hand, rich people voted for Republicans.
Deal with this fact before writing another race-obsessed comment.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Why oh Why,
Those Americans who earn over $200K vote for Obama 52% to 47%. Married middle class whites some of the most loyal voters for Republicans. They are the ones who opted to stay home instead of vote for an open borders big government Republican like McCain.
DTM,
Former President Bush and Karl Rove planned to use immigration reform as a pander to Hispanics. What they did not plan on was the revolt inside the Republican party (and blue dog Democrats against the foolish idea).
Ted Kennedy was smart enough to know that all of those Mexican immigrants would become automatic Democratic voters. The middle class white Republicans were smart enough to know the same thing. It was Bush adn his advisors who were too stupid to realize that poor Hispanics are automatic Democratic voters and would put more states and districts into the automatic Democratic column.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“Even liberal analysis was debunked the 44% number.”
Of course they did- liberals have a vested interested in perpetrating the “Republicans only get the white guys” meme. But even if the number IS 35%, I still bet you can find the other 15% between all of the elections.
But I get ahead of myself- it’s YOUR assertion that most Hispanics have never voted Republican- so prove it, or back off of it.
“It does not matter what the Repubican does, it is whether there are issues where poor Hispanics and middle class whites can agree and those issues are few in number and lacking in importance.”
Off the top of my head- keeping a strong military, relieving burdens on small businesses, and protecting the role of the family in society would be considered important issues (to those groups, at least), poor Hispanics and middle class whites would largely agree on that, and it’s perfectly consistent with what Republicans have done up to this point.
And of course, the “poor” thing- not all Hispanics ARE poor, so even if they DO completely disagree with middle class whites (And they don’t, no matter how many times you say it), the Republicans could still appeal to SOME Hispanics without them.
I gotta admit, this is pretty unique- a Republican concern troll is one thing, but doing it on a rather liberal blog? Gee.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
colby,
You are look at the writing of Ruy Teixeira. He debunked the 44% in 2004. http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000951.php
considering that most Repubicans get less than 30% of the Hispanic vote, it is farily safe to assume that if a Hispanic voter would not vote for Bush in Texas he probably has never voted for a Repubican. Do you really think that Hispanics who would not vote for Bush would really vote for Hutchinson or Barnes?
Know please show where the Congressional Hispanic caucus has supported a strong military or easing burdens on small business or protecting families. the Congressional Hispanic caucus is the second most liberal group in Congress behind the Congressional Black Caucus. It is hard to argue that poor Hispanics are conservative when they keep sending very liberal Congressmen to represent them.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Why Oh Why:
I actually don’t think it’s that unhealthy for a second party to implode; as I’ve stated elsewhere, this seems to be a natural part of two-party political systems, and has happened with some regularity in both the U.S and the U.K over the past couple of hundred years.
Eventually the GOP will either shift left to represent the right-wing of a more left-wing country, or they’ll implode and either be replaced by a new opposition party, or they fade away and the Democratic Party fractures into two new parties, or they just wait thirty years or so until the ideology of the country and/or the environmental circumstances are there for a come-back.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Steve,
First, the Republicans cannot wait 30 years because in 30 years the U.S. will be less than 50% and the number of people even open to voting for the more conservative party will be so small and to make the party meaningless.
Second, If the Repubicans move to the left, they lose more votes than they gain. If there is any lesson from Bush and McCain is that middle class white are not the same as black voters. Blacks will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter how bad the candidate. Middle class white will revolt and not support a candidate who moves too far to the left.
Third, Any new party will probably face exactly the same racial problems that the current Republican party has. A green/socialist party to the left of the Democrats would probably be as white as the current Republican party but have the support of a smaller portion of the population as the current Republican party.
The most likely scenerio is that the U.S becomes a one party state where the real election is the Democratic primary. See Maryland, Mass, New Jersey, and California as good examples of this scenerio.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Ruy Tuxeria was also the guy telling us that Kerry was really ahead in the polls in 2004. I don’t quite trust his analysis anymore.
“Do you really think that Hispanics who would not vote for Bush would really vote for Hutchinson or Barnes? ”
I don’t know, I’m rather unfamiliar with statewide TX politics. But even if they didn’t, they might’ve voted for Schwarzenegger, Pete Wilson, Crist, Mel Martinez, etc.
Still- it’s YOUR claim that most hispanics never voted for a Republican. Offer up some proof of that or back off of the claim.
“It is hard to argue that poor Hispanics are conservative when they keep sending very liberal Congressmen to represent them.”
No, it’s quite easy- the Republicans are simply ceding Hispanic voters by and large. Hell, you’re even SAYING they should do that.
‘Cause the fact is, Hispanics, if I may generalize, are committed to traditional families, religious, involved in small businesses or agriculture, and concerned about national security. These issues are right in the Republicans’ wheelhouse, so to say they couldn’t compete for Hispanics is ridiculous.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
superdestroyer,
I’m Hispanic and voted republican until Gore ran. Hell, I will confess, I even voted for Dole! I didn’t leave the republican party because they didn’t pander enough to me- I left because I finally realized that republicans have been wrong on most issues like economic policy, education, the environment, and national security. It also didn’t help that somewhere along the way republicans started considering people like me the invading brown horde.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Here is the truth: the reason the GOP can’t appeal to brown people, gay people, educated people, young people, and so on, is that they cater to too many racist cranks like superdestroyer.”
And in that respect, SD’s right- the Republicans can’t address both Hispanic/Black issues AND racist issues at the same time. But they don’t HAVE to to win, ’cause even if there are that many racists out there, well, they’re not gonna be for long.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
DTM,
President Bush and Karl Rove were too stupid to realize that pandering to hispanics was a lose/lose situation for the Republican Party and conservatives. If President Bush had actually managed to pass immigration reform, the reform would have created millions of additional automatic Democratic party voters. Such a reform would have pushed battleground states into the solidly Democratic column, wold have costs many Republican politicians their jobs, and would have lowered the stand of living of millions of Americans.
Since the rank and file Republican managed to fight off such a stupid idea, they were branded as racist, did not benefit politically at all, and alienated upper class whites who would not be affected by increased immigration. Now the Obama Administration will get to pass immigration reform and the Republicans will be harmed by the creation of millions of automatic Democratic voters, the lowering of living standards in many areas of the U.S., and the paying of higher taxes to fund government programs aimed at poor Hispanics.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The Republians could compete for the Hispanic vote if they weren’t so prejudiced against them. What’s their long term goal? It appears the Southern states want to try seceeding again. Afterall, the last time they did that it worked out so well for them.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Colby,
If Hispanics were as conservative as you claim, they would be represented by blue dog Democrats not by some of the most liberal Congressmen. Hispanics appear to have zero interested in a strong defense and national security. Hispanics seem more interested in having a non-border with Mexico. They do not really care about small business as much as getting government goodies paid for by whites. Look at how the Democrats promise free healthcare to Hispanics. How can you claim that Hispanics are about agriculture. When was the last time a large group of Hispanic pushed for more subsidies for agriculture versus more government support for migrant workers?
bob,
If you voted for Dole, you were part of the 20% of Hispanics that did. Dole was more of the norm that Bush. Still there have been no Republican Presidential candidates that have received more than 35% of the Hispanic vote. That leaves a large number that have probably never voted for a Republican.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“President Bush and Karl Rove were too stupid to realize that pandering to hispanics was a lose/lose situation for the Republican Party and conservatives. If President Bush had actually managed to pass immigration reform, the reform would have created millions of additional automatic Democratic party voters. Such a reform would have pushed battleground states into the solidly Democratic column, wold have costs many Republican politicians their jobs, and would have lowered the stand of living of millions of Americans.”
It’s absolutely hilarious how all of these things DID come to pass AFTER the Republicans rejected Bush’s immigration reform. In fact- and this bears repeating- Bush, with his pandering, was the only Republican to win a Presidential election in 20 years.
In other words, you’re completely full of it. Republicans not only CAN win when the appeal to Hispanics, but it might be the only times they DO.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“If Hispanics were as conservative as you claim”
Woah now SD- I know your point is so weak that you’ve only really got a chance if you MAKE UP counter-arguments to respond to, but I never said that Hispanics were conservative, just that Republicans could appeal to them without violating their core values or pissing off the white middle class.
“Hispanics appear to have zero interested in a strong defense and national security. Hispanics seem more interested in having a non-border with Mexico. They do not really care about small business as much as getting government goodies paid for by whites.”
Prove any of this, or back off of these assertions.
And when you prove them, refrain from the icky racial implications you dove right into here.
And even if you can do that, your argument is basically, “They don’t support Specific Policy X (which just so happens to be the Republican position), so they actually don’t really share that value.” That’s an obviously specious argument- you can share a value but think there’s a different way to EXPRESS that value. And hell, in most of these things, the way the Republicans have chosen HASN’T been the Conservative way (farm subsidies, Iraq invasion, more regulation on immigration).
So there’s still plenty of ways the Republicans can appeal to Hispanics. They may have to change specific policies, but those policies weren’t very conservative to begin with, and have been widely discredited anyway, so whites aren’t going to get too upset.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Hispanics… do not really care about small business as much as getting government goodies paid for by whites.
This clearly explains the utter lack of restaurants, grocers, butchers and bakeries run by Hispanics in the US.
Your white hood is showing, pooperdestroyer.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Hispanics are actually underrepresented in small business versus other ethnic groups. See http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/006577.html
What part of pointing out statistical differences in ethnic groups is the racist part?
Colby, a greater dodge but why would the more conservative party want to appeal to Hispanics when they are not conservative and appealing to them requires the more conservative to become less conservative. If you look at http://www.naleo.org/downloads/2008NALEO_Latino_Voter_Survey.pdf you will see that small business, social issues, or family are well below free healthcare, free education, and an open border.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
All that said, the comparison with the Tories isn’t ridiculous. Labour came in after the 1992 debacle, which discredited Tory economic policy for good. And that was a picnic compared to what we have now.
The main problem with the comparison is the electoral cycle. David Cameron and most of the shadow cabinet weren’t MPs before 2001, and it’s hard to map those kinds of generational shifts to the US political climate of permanent election.
In broad terms, though, I think it’s right: the GOP is going to embrace nutjob social conservatism and market fundamentalism for a while, get its clock cleaned, and then look to a more broadly libertarian platform that might piss off the panty-sniffing God-botherers, but will also play against the Blair-esque streak that I suspect we’ll see in Obama.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
pseudonymous in nc
Do you really believe that some for of libertarian platform would be any more successful at attracting non-white voters and social conservatism?
Do you really think blacks and Hispanics want smaller government, more private sector, and fewer entitlements?
February 28th, 2009 at 5:27 am
DTM
It is impossible in today’s politically correct world, it is impossible for the more conservative to not be considered racist. If the conservative party supported minority set asides, quotas, 8a contracting, forced busing, race based social engineering, and affirmative action, can you really be considered the conservative party?
Also, the more liberal party will never be thought of as racist no matter how many separate and unequal laws and regulations that party supports.
Don’t you find it odd that the Democratic Party is considered the non-racist but they are the ones who are repeatedly sued for racial discrimination and racist behavior.
It was the core groups of the Democratic party that the Supreme Court ruled in the Gratz decision as having violated the civil rights of Americans. However, I doubt that you will ever call the former Democratic governor of Michigan a racist even though ever court during the lawsuit ruled that she was.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Re: Second, If the Repubicans move to the left, they lose more votes than they gain.
No they won’t. There’s no where else for those voters to go. Sure, some tiny fraction may vote for a fringe party, but the rest will stay with the GOP for lack of another option. Also, as time passes older voters die and younger voters come on the scene. The deceased take their opinions with them; the young have different opinions and define “conservative” in different ways. For example, they may not be strongly opposed to gay marriage. So the GOP can shift toward the (today’s) center without losing votes because its new voters won’t perceive that as a shift. Examples of this abound. No one today would seriously support monarchy, or slavery, or disenfranchizing women. Yet each of these had large-scale (once even majority) support in their day. The GOP will move (somewhat) leftward as the public consensus itself does. This is an entirely normal and natural process.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Presdient Bush tried to move the Republicans to the left. Karl Rove was giddy with the idea. What did that do for Republican fund raising? Did it create more and better Repubican candidates? It lost more middle class white voters than it gained.
Becoming the Democratic-lite, me too party gives reason for people to become indepedents, stay home, and drop out of politics. Look at how being middle of the road has not helped the Republicans in the Northeast. If people want big government, big spending, big entitlement, they will always vote for the Democrats.
Also, moving to the left has zero affect on non-whites and leaves the Republicans with a smaller base but no additional non-white voters.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:16 am
You have to love superdestroyer’s logical incoherence. Demographic changes are killing the GOP because they depend on a relatively narrow base. The only way to broaden the GOP’s appeal is to change policies. But they should not change policies because that would make them more like the Democrats . . . who are killing the GOP because of demographics.
You gotta love DTM’s logic. If demographic changes are hurting the GOP, the solution is for them to erasethe differences between themselves and Democrats. We will be able to get more politicans elected who have an “R” in front of their name that way, even though policy-wise, such labeling differences won’t actually man anything.
What DTM is, of course, ignoring, is the fact that the GOP could, instead of broadening its base, STOP THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES.
What we need to do to keep the GOP viable is not to give up on all of our principles, which is essentially what DTM and his ilk are trying to tell us to do, but to stop letting in all of those Mexicans, and to deport anyone who is here illegally. It’s not that hard to understand.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:25 am
‘Cause the fact is, Hispanics, if I may generalize, are committed to traditional families, religious, involved in small businesses or agriculture, and concerned about national security. These issues are right in the Republicans’ wheelhouse, so to say they couldn’t compete for Hispanics is ridiculous.
Mexico city requires all of the hospitals within city limits to perform abortions and recently legalized gay marriage. Mexican-American illegitimacy is much higher than non-Hispanic white illegitimacy. Mexicans may talk conservative, but they are not.
Besides, most non-Asian minorities tend to vote not on social issues but on who promises them the most racial spoils system goodies anyway.
What DTM and all of the other liberals here are doing is to ignore the possibility of changing the immigration system that is getting the GOP into this mess. According to them, its base is too narrow. Therefore, it has to expand its base by appealing to toher groups. The diea that it should fight the expansion of the Democratic base is nowhere on the radar.
So they are arguing that the demographic changes in the country are making it impossible for the GOP to stay viable in the future, so therefore the GOP has to change its policies and become as anti-white as the Democrats in order to stay viable. Unfortunately, the “crazies” in the country who don’t want open borders were so crazy that they stopped the national suicide plan that Bush, McCain, and Kennedy proposed in 2007.
There is an alternative of course. Deport all of the people who are here illegally, reduce immigration levels significantly. Stop the demographic changes. Then the GOP doesn’t have to expand its “narrow” base anywhere near as much (and maybe not at all) in order to stay viable.
But for the US not to open its borders to everyone would be – racist!!!! Oh, dear!!!
February 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am
By the way, let’s be clear here. “Anti-racist” nowadays means “anti-white.” No more, no less. In today’s parlance, to be an “anti-racist” white means to be a self-hating white. Anything other than constant sniveling and self-flagellation for hte sins of past generations gets labeled as racism.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“What part of pointing out statistical differences in ethnic groups is the racist part?”
Dunno, I didn’t call anything a “racist part” (what’s the phrase about “doth protest too much”?) I DID, however refer to things like “non-border” and “programs paid for by whites” as having icky racial implications. And they do, they may very well betray what’s really going on here.
“Colby, a greater dodge but why would the more conservative party want to appeal to Hispanics when they are not conservative and appealing to them requires the more conservative to become less conservative. ”
First- appealing to them would not require the party to become less conservative necessarily. I’ve outlined values that Republicans and Hispanics would, writ large, share (And all you’ve done to refute them is say, “Well, the Hispanics don’t agree with ME on specific ISSUES, so they DON’T actually share those values.” That’s just hilariously wrong). If they emphasize those values, and push the Tancredos and Superdestroyers off the stage, they can appeal to more voters without abandoning their core values- in fact, with EMBRACING their core values.
Second, Hispanics are NOT intrinsically “not conservative”- no segment of voters is intrinsically ideological (Except maybe “liberals” and “conservatives”). Everyone else is persuadable- and that’s a HUGE part of politics- persuasion. You’re acting like persuasion is impossible, and that’s not only illogical, it’s also just LAZY.
Finally, why would Republicans want to appeal to Hispanics, even if Hispanics don’t agree with them on policies? ‘Cause political parties are supposed to get votes, dude. The fact that you don’t grasp this fundamental rule of politics really calls everything else you say into question.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“What did that do for Republican fund raising? Did it create more and better Repubican candidates?”
George W. Bush was the most successful Republican fundraiser EVER, and Republicans increased their majorities in the House and Senate. It wasn’t until AFTER the Republicans stopped trying to appeal to other ethnicities (Katrina, scuttling immigration reform) that they lost everything.
So IF Bush tried to move the party to the left (and I’m incredulous- you haven’t been able to prove any other assertion so far), it was a successful move, and the problems didn’t arise until the Party reflexive bounced back to the right. These are just the facts, dude.
“What DTM is, of course, ignoring, is the fact that the GOP could, instead of broadening its base, STOP THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES.”
Good luck, dude. These things are notoriously hard to even slow down, the market and social forces at play routinely steam-roll anything the government does. Besides, the immigration patterns are highly based on the labor market, and the Republicans are rightly uncomfortable with regulating markets.
“Mexicans may talk conservative, but they are not.”
I could buy this. But the fact that they TALK conservative means there’s an opening for Republicans still (especially if, as you guys say, the Republicans have only been talking, too.
)
“By the way, let’s be clear here.”
Well, you were clearly wrong, so mission accomplished!
Man, as a white guy, nothing depresses me more than the other white guys who make up the white victimization routine just so they have something to whine about…
February 28th, 2009 at 10:53 am
The other thing is, many of the factors that push Hispanics or blacks away from the Republican party AREN’T conservative values. There’s nothing really conservative about harsh regulations on immigration, or the Katrina failure, or Iraq. Hell, most of the things that push minorities away aren’t policies at all, but specific politicians- Thurmond, Tancredo, Trent Lott. Nothing about conservative ideals or Republican principles says they have to embrace those kinds of guys. If the Republicans ACTUALLY turn to conservative principles and push the clowns off the stage, they’ll already start appealing to more minorities.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Colby,
Supporting open borders and unlimited immigration is the same as supporting higher taxes and more government. If you want lower taxes, you do not support the importation of millions of poor people who will want government services while paying little in taxes. Look at the California budget problems to see what happens when an economy is subject to open borders and unlimited immigration.
Welfare reform, controlling government spending, improving schools, and limiting sprawl are all much harder in a country with open borders.
I doubt if Hispanics and blacks are really interested about lower taxes, smaller government, and more personal responsibility along with school vouchers, or medical savings accounts. Hispanics and blacks appear to be much more interested in single payer healthcare, free college, no testing in schools, open borders, and an expansion of government.
To non-whites in the Democratic Party, taxing the rich is a dog whistle for “taxing whites.” When you hear a member of the CBC talking about “white folks” you know they are talking about taxing them, regulated them, or controlling them.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“Supporting open borders and unlimited immigration is the same as supporting higher taxes and more government. ”
You’re the only one talking about “open borders” and “unlimited immigration”, chief. And really, that tells us a lot.
But of course, even if that assertion is true (And you certainly haven’t proven it just by saying it), then your argument is essentially, “We need to put more governmental regulations on people because if we don’t, they might support things we don’t like”. There’s nothing conservative about that at all.
“I doubt if Hispanics and blacks are really interested about lower taxes, smaller government, and more personal responsibility along with school vouchers, or medical savings accounts. Hispanics and blacks appear to be much more interested in single payer healthcare, free college, no testing in schools, open borders, and an expansion of government.”
Maybe, maybe not- it’s another assertion that you’re not proving. But the point is, Republicans don’t do so incredibly BAD with minorities because they disagree on the nature of of social programs, but because Republicans have 1) pushed programs that are both not conservative AND divisive to minorities; and 2) embraced politicians who are divisive to minorities. Hell, voters vote for politicians they disagree with all the time.
It follows from that, then, that Republicans can appeal to minorities more without abandoning conservative values- in fact, they might be able to do it by EMBRACING conservative values, which would admittedly be a new trick for them.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Colby,
You should take a look at http://velazquez.house.gov/chc/taskforces.shtml
Not exactly a lot of interest in smaller government or lower taxes. However, lots of interests in 8a government contracts, government regulation of capital, quotas, set asides, affirmative action, amnesty for illegal aliens, no enforcement of border regulations, chain migration, anchor babies, and free college for illegal aliens.
There is nothing on the CHC program that most conservatives would support.
Now, you maybe you can provide some references for those blue collar Hispanics who want lower taxes, smaller government, and a bigger private sector.
Pandering to Hispanics with the idea promoted by the CHC would lose more votes than it would gain.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
DTM,
It is the politically correct left of center world that refuses to plan on the U.S. to be majority non-white. Look at the Department of Education as an example. After years of studying the education of blacks at majority white schools, the DOE refuses to study white students in minority/majority school.
Also, the low birthrate of whites is at least partially due to high taxes and big government.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
DTM,
The black and Hispanic birthrates are above replacement and they are both highly urbanized. Fertility is Baltimore for blacks has not been affected by urbanization or poverty.
In reality, the Government since the 1950 has rewarded poor people for having children but punished upper middle class people. NOw that private schools, private university, and graduate school is required to achieve an upper middle class income, whites have almost stopped having children due the costs. Of course, importing millions of Hispanics have made urban publish schools unacceptable to those families above poverty levels.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“Not exactly a lot of interest in smaller government or lower taxes.”
Which just means the Republicans need to do a better job convincing minorities that small government and low taxes are critically important goals. You’re right that minorities disagree with Republicans, but the flaw in your thinking is that they can’t change their minds.
Don’t get me wrong- I hope you’re right. But I’ve seen too many other segments of the voting population shift over time to believe that Democrats have an automatic lock on blacks or hispanics.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Colby,
The Republicans have zero chance of convincing Hispanics and blacks when the Democratic Party is promising to give them more government money paid by others.
The easiest way to think about politics is that Hispanics are the new blacks and Asian are the new Jews. However, for the Republicans there are no new groups that will become the next Mormons. The voting right act is being used to keep Hispanics and blacks linked to the Democratic Party. Look how Attorney General Holder sent the message that the Obama Administration will increase the racial spoils that the government passes out.
I think historians will look back and decide that McCain was the last relevant Repubican who ran for president. By 2020, I doubt the media will even bother to cover the Republican primaries since the Democratic primary will be the real election.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
You really get the idea that superdestroyer doesn’t know any black or brown people. Asians also seem to not exist in his world. If someone wrote “white people will never vote Democratic because Democrats are against subsidies to country singers,” then everyone would think that person was nuts because it would be obvious this person doesn’t know any white people.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
R.M.
This is the time of year that whites should realize how disconnected most blacks are from the reality. I get to hear every day from black co-workers who are complaining about their taxes. Yet, no white is ever allowed to say “You always vote for politicians who support higher taxes, what were you expecting.” I have always assumed that when blacks vote for politicians who are planning on raising taxes, they believe that it will others (richer whites) who actually pay the increased taxes.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
…to reconnect with people of color…
Thinking in those terms makes it an exercise in futility anyway.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:01 am
Yet, no white is ever allowed to say “You always vote for politicians who support higher taxes, what were you expecting.”
Why not? Is it illegal? I’m pretty sure you’re not posting from prison, so that can’t be it.
Shorter superdestroyer: Around blacks, never relax.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:32 am
Chris D,
Because in modern America whites are never allowed to criticize blacks. Any questioning of the judgment of blacks will open one to accusations of racism.
It is the same as when urban blacks keep voting for politicians like Kwame Kilpatrick or Marion Barry and then complain about the city government being inefficient. What were they expecting when they voted for incompetent race hustlers?
March 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
“Because in modern America whites are never allowed to criticize blacks.”
Prove it or back off of it. I happen to know which one you’re going to have to do, so let’s just read to the bottom of the page: the whiney victimization routine that a very small number of whites do is not only false, but it reflects poorly on the rest of us whites, which pisses us off.
If the Republicans really do have to choose between minority voters and white voters (And they don’t, but IF), you are making a compelling case to just leave whites in the dust.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am
“The Republicans have zero chance of convincing Hispanics and blacks when the Democratic Party is promising to give them more government money paid by others.”
Yeah, you’ve said that a bunch of times now, but it’s still not true. I dunno, try typing it in all caps, maybe that will finally make it true.
But probably not, ’cause if you actually talk to one of these voters (and it’s pretty telling how you don’t actually QUOTE any of them, you just tell us what they think, even though you’re not one of ‘em), if you ask them why they don’t vote for Republicans, they won’t say, “Oh, I like bigger government” or “The Democrats support social programs that I like”. In fact, many of them will say they’re attracted to conservative ideas, they WANT to at least CONSIDER voting Republican- but the Party’s incompetence and hostility has pushed them away. Go to Ta-Nehisi Coat’s blog, you’ll see this sentiment repeated innumerable times. Again, it goes to non-conservative actions (Iraq, Katrina, Immigration Reform) and particular politicians (Lott, Tancredo).
So, if it’s the incompetent, non-conservative actions, and the hostile politicians that are pushing minorities away- and it IS- then the Republicans can easily appeal to a LOT MORE minorities if they just cut the incompetent, non-conservative shit.
“The easiest way to think about politics is that Hispanics are the new blacks and Asian are the new Jews.”
The easiest- but the most inaccurate, too. Hispanics aren’t the “new blacks”, they’re the Hispanics. There are a dozen reasons why this is a piss poor analogy (growth rates, geographic locations, political organization), but really, just they all stem from the idea that a minority group has to be the “new” other minority group, rather than have it’s own identity. But it’s really a natural outgrowth from the way you act like minorities think as a group and can’t change their mind, so why am I so surprised?
“Look how Attorney General Holder sent the message that the Obama Administration will increase the racial spoils that the government passes out.”
I can’t look at things that didn’t happen.
“I think historians will look back and decide that McCain was the last relevant Repubican who ran for president.”
Again, I hope so, but history doesn’t bear that out, and you sure haven’t made the case here.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Colby,
Look at what Bill Cosby has said about the behavior of blacks in America. He was not accused of stereotyping. He was not called a racist. Yet, no white leader or politician could remain in office if they came out and said what Bill Cosby said about blacks. And what part of stereotyping is it to point out the high level of out of wedlock birth, the lack of educational attainment, the high crime rate, and the newest one was the statistics that almost 50% of middle class blacks default on their student loans.
In everyday life, the message to whites is clear that you had better never criticize blacks. Look at how the CBC called Republicans racist when they started criticizing President Obama. The message is very clear.
I also linked to the CHC that showed strong support for all manner of race/ethnicity based programs. How are the Republicans suppose to not support race based programs and not be called racist.
If you look at http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2007/09/gop-leading-candidates-snub-tavis-forum-at-morgan-state/ you will see the comment, “I’ll start taking Republicans seriously when they start getting A’s on the NAACP Civil Rights Report Card instead of F’s” The only way to get an A from the NAACP is to stop being conservative.
And Hispanics are the new blacks because they will just as loyal to the Democrats no matter how many corrupt, incompetent Democratic Hispanic politicians are elected. Does anyone really believe that Los Angeles will ever have a white mayor again?
Also, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/politics/washingtonpost/main4777111.shtml Civil rights advocates are already outlining a long list of priorities, including changing laws that lead to disproportionate prison terms for blacks, ending racial profiling and stepping up the policing of discrimination in employment and housing. It is easy to see that Eric Holder want to establish more separate and unequal standards, not less. If the Gratz and Grutter cases we in front of the Supreme Court during the Obama Administration, Holder would be supporting separate and unequal college admission standards for blacks.
DTM
The problem that the Republicans face is not 49%/49% and fighting over a few in the middle but a 60/40 split where the election is moot because more than 50% will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. That is what currently occurs in big city elections and will soon happen everywhere.
The problem that the Republicans really have is that all non-whites are organized along ethnic/racial lines but whites are not suppose to organize that way. That leaves the Repubicans at a severe handicap.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I really like the set up of this site and have bookmarked it so that I can check back from time to time and see the new posts you made.