January 31, 2010

The Edsall Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edsall wrote in Chain Reaction in 1992:
"Together, the twin issues of race and taxes have created a new, ideologically coherent coalition by pitting taxpayers against tax recipients, by pitting the advocates of meritocracy against proponents of special preference, by pitting the private sector against the public sector, by pitting those in the labor force against the jobless, and by pitting those who bear many of the costs of federal intervention against those whose struggle for equality has been advanced by interventionist government policies. "

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

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

77 comments:

wake up said...

>As everyone knows, the United States is undergoing a profound demographic transformation.

and we are a gigantic nation! remember only china and india are larger by population.......perhaps even the chinese are on guard against a future 1965 immigration act style of radical political attack within their own government which is eventually used to eventually leverage the chinese out of majority status in their own country.....

"we create our own reality!"

this sad state of affairs in america has come about due to coercive fraudulent *race does not exist* marshmellow intellectualism in our elite class...........the lesson is that political correctness wrecks entire nations

John Seiler said...

Some good points. But it was whites during the non-immigrant decades who imposed the Socialist Security system and Medicare, which were destined to go broke as soon as the baby boom generation (which funded the retirement of the WWII generation) started retiring and couldn't be sustained by the baby bust generation.

And it was white preppy G.W. Bush and his sidekick Cheney, the Laurel and Hardy of Republicanism, who got us into the fine mess of the Iraq War, which has cost $5 trillion so far (see Stiglitz), and the Afghan War. They and the GOP Congress also went on a wild spending binge, debased the currency, and destroyed our liberties with the national socialist "Patriot Act" and torture. And all along they were cheered by most of the Republican faithful.

The country now is bankrupt and will take decades to recover.

Average Joe said...

Of course, one of the reasons why the GOP will not stand up for white interests is because it is currently dominated by the Neocons. The Neocons see white gentiles as little more than cannon fodder in the wars against Israel's enemies.

Anonymous said...

Since when did Haiti become part of the United States and Haitians entitled to government support? You just wonder how long the Feds can continue to operate with their magic checkbook while the rest of society is having to cut back. It all boils down to the bond market, who are the enablers. They can't stay stupid forever, can they?

Mercer said...

"Republican leadership (such as it is) will find Edsall’s insights offensive"

David Bernstein writing on the right wing blog Volokh Conspiracy on 1/22 called Pat Buchanan a fascist for making the same observations as Edsall.

The Ghost of Steve's Past said...

"The Sailer Strategy" is probably the single most powerful idea/piece of advice that Steve has ever come up with. With it, the GOP could continue to win for decades.

The only draw back to the "Sailer Strategy" is that it would drastically increase racial politics since it would force the GOP to become the "White People's Party" and by default also force the Dems to become the "Non-White People's Party."

Anonymous said...

An even better strategy for the Republicans would be to accept the white (or thinks it's white) proportion of the Hispanic caucus. After all, you can claim that an Argentine and a Dominican are the same race, but all you have to do is give it a generation or two and the differences will be obvious.

If you break down the roughly 40 million Hispanics, you'll probably get something like this:

Mulatto: 5% (2 million)
Black: 10% (4 million)
Indigenous: 10% (4 million)
Mestizo: 50% (20 million)
White or mostly white: 25% (10 million)

Similarly, there are 15 million Asians and close to half of them marry whites. I have some half-Filipino cousins and behaviorally they are indistinguishable from whites, and their 1/4 filipino children look roughly as Asian as Keanu Reeves.

Looked at this way, the problem for the Republicans becomes more manageable. What they've got to do is stop being the Christian Party and the party of the culture wars and focus on fiscal responsibility and maintaining the borders of the United States.

KM

TH said...

How Come Tom Edsall Can Talk About The Sailer Strategy And I Can’t?

Yes you can!

Herbert Gintis, an unusually realistic leftist economist, explained in an Amazon review...

I urge everybody to read Gintis's Amazon book reviews, available here. They're among the most incisive you're likely to find anywhere. While perhaps nominally still a leftist, he is scathing about many cherished leftist notions, and has a decidedly biologically-informed understanding of human behavior.

OhioStater said...

As the white fertility rate declines, and the next generation is smaller, it seems like there is less need to worry about the future.

Or, its possible the white fertility has declined since the future is so bleak.

Chicken or the egg? These are my thoughts.

1. white parents don't think their kids will share their values and would rather consume now than pass money on to strangers.

2. the two income trap has made it too expensive for whites to have families

3. feminism has emasculated men making men less attractive to women.

4. feminism has lured many women into well paying careers, increasing the opportunity cost of kids.

5. Resources equal reproduction. Redistribution increases the birth rate of the least productive and reduces the birth rate of the most productive.

6. The civil rights movement was designed to liberate black men, but this policy framework also liberated white women thereby emasculating white men.

Anonymous said...

There is no desire on the part of the two major parties to actually compete. They are in collusion with each other and the differences are small and mainly symbolic. They just throw scraps from the table to get their hopeful followers to continue to believe that someday things might take a turn their way. Voters are there as props to legitimize the decisions already made beforehand. Elections at the national level are just about which personalities will be in the spotlight for the time being, but that's about all. It's all akin to professional wrestling.

Canadian Cincinnatus said...

The problem with the Sailer Strategy is not what is says but what it leaves out. In other words, the Sailer Strategy is 70% of the GOP’s right answer. The problem with it is that for most white people, including most conservatives, racial equality and racial harmony are deeply held ideals, so much so that they will be repelled by any strategy that is explicitly pro-white, regardless of how well it appeals to their self-interest. What the Sailer Strategy lacks is an element that shields it from the criticism that it is pro-white. To be successful this must be addressed.

What could this element be? Consider the advice Thomas Sowell has given conservatives appealing to black voters. Instead of trying to be Democrat-lite, he suggests that Republicans should explain how various Democrat planks such as their pro-criminal rights, anti-school choice policies hurt poor urban blacks. What Sowell leaves out is that the principal advantage of the Sowell Strategy is not so much that it will get black votes but that it will get even more white votes. This is because for many white liberals, thinking that they are a champion of the downtrodden is a key to their self-esteem. If it can be demonstrated that their liberal policies hurt blacks it will cause a great deal of consternation among white liberals, but it will also push a significant number of independent whites who are not ideologically married to liberal politics away from the left and towards the right. Getting 20% of the black vote is nice, but capturing these independents will be decisive.

So here’s my idea: why can’t you marry the two ideal together? There is nothing in your advice that contradicts Sowell’s. Call it the Sailer-Sowell strategy.

Udolpho.com said...

good column...it's useful to remember that in the late 70s the GOP looked positively moribund...all it will take is a charismatic leader to step up and say what the pusillanimous hordes of timid, pussywhipped republicans won't

Anonymous said...

Fiscal conservatism is so tightly aligned to whiteness that it would make a great surrogate cause for whites. Too bad white people and GOP politicians forgot about fiscal conservatism under Bush, now they have no credibility, short of issuing some sort of contract with America. It's quite a sight seeing people who actually give a shit about government waste and taxes being referred to so derisively as teabaggers.

Now, remember, the theory is that Obama wants to turn Canada into America, I'll give you a little slice of Canuckistan: our PM recently cut the national sales tax from 7% to 5%, as "progressive" and fat a tax cut as one could ask for. Well, the city bureuacrats in my unfortunate duckburg actually scheduled a noon hour demonstration against the tax cuts. That's right: an actual demonstration against tax cuts, and not just high marginal tax rates affecting the rich, but a tax cut even the lowliest skid would benefit from. Sort of a reverse tea party whereby wealthy unionized taxspenders are actually begrudging giving the poor and everyone else a break, as it cuts into their loot.

When the townspeople here elected a tax freeze mayor, the military wing of the union goon movement - the police - had him charged with a BS influence peddling charge, which he beat. Third world stuff, man, I am telling you. Imagine if Chicago ever elected a clean mayor; the unions would have to whack him, metaphorically at least.

Alternatively, imagine Obama goes down to some fiscal conservative in 2012, I could see "anti-tea parties" of raging "youths" from a "diverse, vibrant background", orchestrated by "neo-conservatives" and less crypto salaried professionals of the grievance industry, "looting" the crap out of "heartland America" in protest against the "stolen election", like your typical third world election.

OK, I see win: we outsource gubmint to the ChiComs, specifically the thirty million umarried Chinese men. Johnny Rice Paddy does not fiddle around, he'll whip western civilization into shape.

RandyB said...

I agree that there's an important opening here because the Obama administration has become clearly dominated by the politics of minority benefit. But...

To win, the Republicans have to shake off their Sons of the Confederacy image. Outside the South, voters do not want the politics of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. The GOP has to convince voters that sensible immigration reform is not the first step towards repealing the Voting Rights Act.

Bruce said...

Steve,

I thought this was one of your best articles yet.

airtommy said...

The problem with the thesis is that the premise is faulty:

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

Obama promised this sort of bill and he was voted into office by a huge margin. During his year in office, it became increasingly obvious that he had no such plans. His health care legislation will do the opposite. It will force the poor and minorities to pay into the current system and it will strengthen the position of the insurance and drug companies. Thus, it will funnel more money from the poor and minorities into the hands of mostly white shareholders.

As this became more and more obvious, Obama's approval ratings have plummeted and Democrats have started losing elections.

Hence the rest of Edsall's (and Sailer's) article is pointless.

Peter A said...

Face it - the GOP is run by big business - the guys who run our corporations, banks and PE firms don't care if America is "majority white." For the most part they are part of the global cosmopolitan class. Nationalities like German, Indian, Brazilian, American - that simply is not as important as a Harvard MBA when determining to whom your real allegiance is. It's true that the elite class of certain countries - China for example, and arguably Japan and Korea - have not fully bought into the new world order yet. But look at how quickly the Russian elite essentially handed over their country. It's just a matter of time.

Glossy said...

"...the uninsured, a population disproportionately, although by no means exclusively, made up of the poor, African Americans, Latinos, single parents, and the long-term unemployed."

But isn't the bottom of sociey covered by Medicaid already? And this bottom is uh... pretty large. Numerically too. According to the Wikipedia, Medicaid covered 49 million people in 2008. The uninsured are working class people who are employed in the private sector. If blacks are overrepresented among that group, it's probably not by much.

OhioStater said...

Black voters will be very helpful for the GOP, I promise.

After Obama, you won't be able to energize the black vote unless there is a black on the ballot. Blacks will stay home in 2010.

Also after Obama, blacks are less worried about civil rights and I expect Republicans will receive more black votes on the margin.

There are racial preferences, which the GOP would try to eliminate, but many of the the best preferences benefit foreign born blacks rather than native blacks. Set asides are not a sacred cow.

Abortion smells more like eugenics each time I think about it and on this issue the black vote should trend pro life.

All told, I think the GOP can win black votes without changing its platform.

Anonymous said...

A little off topic, but T99/Whiskey is gonna love this one:

Obama budget aims at solidifying women's support
By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010
mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON — With women's advocacy groups voicing growing unease with administration policy, President Barack Obama will propose a $3.8 trillion budget on Monday that would exempt programs for women and girls from spending restrictions he's proposed for other programs.

Obama aides denied that political calculation was behind the emphasis on programs for women and girls, detailed in a budget document obtained by McClatchy entitled "Opportunity and Progress for Women and Girls."

"We're looking at a lot of significant funding increases for women's programs in a year when the president has ordered a three-year, non-security, discretionary spending freeze," Kate Bedingfield, a White House spokesman, said.

The document describes 15 federal programs that benefit women that would get increased funding under his spending plan...

Anonymous said...

The only draw back to the "Sailer Strategy" is that it would drastically increase racial politics since it would force the GOP to become the "White People's Party" and by default also force the Dems to become the "Non-White People's Party."

Uhh, hello? Where have you been for the last 50 years?

The DEMs haven't won a majority of the white vote since 1964.

And I doubt that the GOP has one double digits' worth of the black vote since roughly that same time.

Anonymous said...

OhioStater - you're just describing attributes of the underlying nihilism which is at the heart of the problem.

BTW, out in "deep-Red" America, white folks are still making babies.

You guys stuck in your hopeless corporate SWPL cubicle hells need to realize that - that not all hope is lost.

Anonymous said...

"the GOP has one" = "the GOP has won"

Sorry about that.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that white people, especially liberals, don't want to vote for the White People's Party. As Evan Sayet said, a liberal is someone who won't take his own side in an argument. And most white people who've been through the Marxist educational gauntlet have been infected with this in some way.

So if 2010 and 2012 are framed as the "white backlash against Obama", who's going to put out a yard sign or a bumper sticker? You might as well put a swastika out there. Going to a Republican campaign rally will be like throwing a big burning cross on the White House lawn. If there's too big a gap among whites, it will self-correct in this way.

OhioStater said...

Thanks anonymous. I'll try to be more optimistic!

Hey Steve, this is the most recent Friedman column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31friedman.html

He writes foreigners question the viability of our government since Congress doesn't have the power to address "obvious" long term issues like energy, education, and health care.

To foreigners, if last year wasn't enough impetus for change, then what needs to happen before America will right the ship?

He seems to say we need to improve our performance, or other countries will adopt China's one party authoritarian framework, since it seems they can make long term decisions but we can't.

Texas first! said...

To win, the Republicans have to shake off their Sons of the Confederacy image.

Better yet, why not just shake off the Sons of Confederacy and let them secede? Good luck, my white cousins, in Obamagrad!

Anonymous said...

The only draw back to the "Sailer Strategy" is that it would drastically increase racial politics since it would force the GOP to become the "White People's Party" and by default also force the Dems to become the "Non-White People's Party."

You make that sound like a bad thing!

Its whats going to happen in the end anyway. Better that white folks get with the program sooner rather than later.

David said...

The problem with democracy is voters = idiots. The voters have screwed us every time.

If we must continue on the "democracy" plan (actually we have long been an oligarchy, but I digress...), then we must improve the quality of the voter.

Turn the thing back over to white men 30+ years old who own property.

If this reform can't be effected at present, then perhaps it should be tried in a few or all of the breakway states after the USA implodes.

Anonymous said...

The media new-found willingness to explore racial issues of a less favourable kind is the only reason why whites are becoming aware of anything. I don't believe that would be the case were not for Obama's Cairo Speech (June/09). Though I'm not an expert (nor even american, or living there ) I could feel the palpable change in media behavior. So many hints, for example the extensive coverage of the Crowley-Gates incident (july/09) and the suggestive coverage of several minor incidents, like the student bus attack in Bedeville (set/09). I believe this means that at this stage even white racial anger can be used for political manipulation without fear of the consequences. Maybe because if some whites become aware of their situation at this particular point in history their efforts will be half-hearted and their organizing prone to infighting. "So," they could say, "who cares? Let's make a bit of use of whites' vanishing relevance to erase any possibility of Messiah bouts of overconfidence on ME affairs and in the process strike a hard blow by exposing the detachment and blindness of their unwilling leaders and the vanity and obtuseness of their willing leaders in order to lessen hope and confidence in their cause."

That's how I see it from afar.

Anonymous said...

steve wrote:


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


And don't forget that the racial segregation of that day also enhanced the social capital felt by the majority whites. Segregation united whites, the largest bloc, and along with the immigration moratorium, led to such high social capital and unity among whites that it led to a Golden Age of Labor in the 50s. Of course Capital ended all that with its "Civil Rights movement," which had the intent and effect of both lowering wages and destroying social capital.



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



majority rule is essential for democracy. That is why America is not a democracy.


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



Not destructive. They simply give lip service to populist measures such as anti-affirmative action and immmigration enforcement. If they were to go beyond lip service, Capital would target and demolish politically any politicians who actually did anything beyond a token effort.

-cryofan

Anonymous said...

No matter how many minorities / people of color there are in this country there will always be an equalibrium of sorts between the have and have nots and the makers and takers. As the number of takers swells due to demographics there will be refugees coming over to the otherside trying to escape economic servatude to the unwashed. I suspect that the first wave will be the hippies / baby boomers / feminists that will no longer be able to stand sharing their birth right with newcommers. The next will be jews and asians that will finally recognize that a black / mestizo dominated left will have no more use for them other than as an annuity. The blacks will always anchor the left in this country, never being able to lift themselves out of poverty, violence, and resentment. Quite a future.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain said...

John Seiler

The Libertarian party is basically a political nonentity because there is very little support for its draconian- extreme market policies. The party's Dear Leader Ron Paul- if elected president of the United Sates- would double -triple the number of legal immigrants entering the US.

I will state with full confidence that the White American population views your attacks on SO and Medicaid as insane.

The Libertarian experiment has already benn performed. White Americans of an earlier era fought for years against the Libertarian policy of zero social welfare programs for eldery and the physically diabled.

Libertarians have some excellent ideas. But their advocacy of extrem free market solutions has been rejected by a majority of White Americans. This is very strong evidence that there is something very abnormal-abnormal relative to human nature-about the Libertarian project.

Cordelia said...

Canadian Cinncinatus said: "Instead of trying to be Democrat-lite, he suggests that Republicans should explain how various Democrat planks such as their pro-criminal rights, anti-school choice policies hurt poor urban blacks. What Sowell leaves out is that the principal advantage of the Sowell Strategy is not so much that it will get black votes but that it will get even more white votes. This is because for many white liberals, thinking that they are a champion of the downtrodden is a key to their self-esteem. If it can be demonstrated that their liberal policies hurt blacks it will cause a great deal of consternation among white liberals, but it will also push a significant number of independent whites who are not ideologically married to liberal politics away from the left and towards the right."

Excellent, excellent insight. And excellent idea to marry the Sowell-Sailer strategies together. Absolutely right that Whites (not just the liberal ones, but them in particular) want to do good/be seen to do good esp. for the downtrodden. Great insight that this needs to be addressed in any political strategy -- and it would probably actually help a lot of the downtrodden, too!

Cordelia said...

David said: "Turn the thing back over to white men 30+ years old who own property."

Men (not just White) 30+ years old who own property and HAVE CHILDREN (that they are actually fathers to, i.e. behave as proper fathers taking care of their kids).

Anonymous said...

David Bernstein writing on the right wing blog Volokh Conspiracy on 1/22 called Pat Buchanan a fascist for making the same observations as Edsall.




Volokh Conspiracy is a "right wing blog"? A neo-con blog, perhaps. But not a right-wing one.

Anonymous said...

Outside the South, voters do not want the politics of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.



What do those four people have in common, other than being Republicans elected from southern states? Nothing that I can see.

Big Bill said...

Udolpho, how about "pusillanimous pussy-whipped politicians". Better, don't you think?

Whiskey said...

Steve, a couple of points. First, FDR kicked out every Mexican he could find and excluded Blacks from the New Deal. So race was an important part of his coalition. It took Eleanor Roosevelt to make FDR finally, in 1944, allow Blacks to vote alongside Whites in Democratic Primaries (and not race separated primaries). This is why despite prolonging the Depression, FDR held power.

Second, I think you ignore the "bargain" in politics that held basically from Reagan's time until now. The Bargain was that Blacks and Hispanics would get AA and control of the bureaucracy, and social spending (but with Clintonian, Welfare-Reform limits). In turn, Whites were guaranteed economic growth in the private sector and minimal AA/Racial preferences which discriminate against Whites.

[Seiler -- See Instapundit's graph on deficits -- Obama's are five times higher than GWB's, and promise defeat in Afghanistan to balance Bush's victory in Iraq. Where by ten years, oil production will be more than the Saudis now. If you don't want $10 a gallon gasoline, thank Bush for it. What, you think you can run an economy on unicorn droppings and rainbows?]

Moreover there is no way the Dems can be "less anti-White" than Republicans. First we are seeing Tea Party activists take over the Republicans from the bottom up, which will lead to casting out of Steele, McCain, Grahamnesty, and other RINOS, and explicitly White Majoritarian / Middle Class oriented. Secondly, Dems by nature of their dependence on SWPL "Gentry Liberals" and non-Whites, cannot resist White-baiting at every turn.

Yes I DO love that. That's Obama. Women are much harder left than men (i.e. princess oriented, everyone is stratified except pretty women who can move up by being pretty, etc.) Women love Obama and will abandon him last.

Part of that is the disdain/hatred that most women have for Beta Males, and their worship of Alphas.

Anonymous said...

Its whats going to happen in the end anyway. Better that white folks get with the program sooner rather than later.

Right, that's one of the little "glass-is-half-full" blessings of the Obama presidency having arrived about 8 or 12 years earlier than it should have - it gives Caucasians a pretty clear foreshadowing of our nation's Castro-ite/Chavez-ian/Mugabe-ist future [given current demographic trends].

Anonymous said...

David Bernstein writing on the right wing blog Volokh Conspiracy on 1/22 called Pat Buchanan a fascist for making the same observations as Edsall.

Volokh Conspiracy is not "right wing" it is neoconservative which is a newer strain of leftist.

Anonymous said...

Since when did Haiti become part of the United States

Haiti is the 57th State in the Union.

That should be obvious.

Anonymous said...

The next will be jews and asians that will finally recognize that a black / mestizo dominated left will have no more use for them other than as an annuity.

Then the Jews will get themselves a new left, or whatever. You may confusing the monkey and the organgrinder.

Average Joe said...

The only draw back to the "Sailer Strategy" is that it would drastically increase racial politics since it would force the GOP to become the "White People's Party" and by default also force the Dems to become the "Non-White People's Party."

The Democrats are already the non-white people's party or, more specifically, the anti-white gentile party. If the GOP is going to survive it will have to become the pro-white gentile party.

Anonymous said...

The country now is bankrupt and will take decades to recover.

Not exactly. The working age population of this country is now more than 40% non-white and growing and for that situation long term economic "recovery" is a dubious proposition. On a macro level workers with college degrees and math science educations are being steadily replaced by high school dropouts.

And "decades to recover" is a risky proposition long term considering the demographic shift baked into the cake by 2030 or 2040. Picture 70%+ of the school age children across the nation as non-white by then.

Latin-American and African-American plus other non-white groups dishonestly counted as white are growing and not declining. The legal and financial culture is morphing to accomodate this new non-white American reality.

Demography is destiny and the American workforce is tipping majority non-white well before the total population goes majority non-white (whites become a minority of the total population in the year 2045 or so according to race-obsessed AP News).

But all that really matters is who is in the American workforce currently and who is coming up through the school system. And the extreme demographic shift in these areas is happening right now and apparently will be a permanent feature of the New America. "Recovery" might be announced in the future but it will be a new sort of "recovery" that doesn't feel like the old type of recovery. Welcome to the new normal.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain said...

Some one mentioned that the Republican party should encourage a "natural" coalition on Whites with White Cubans and Asians.

Reality:White Americans and the Cubans almost came to blows during the Elian Gonzalez incident. The Elian Gonzalez incident triggered an enormous public expression of pent up White rage towards the Cubans. White Americans see the Cubans for what they are: a hispanic foreign occupation of an American Southern city.

The Dominicans? are you kidding me? Large parts of Manhattan and the Bronx are an extension of the Dominican Republic.

Remember the Danny Almonte incident? The ten year aniverasry is comming up this June. It was an upper-middle class White Mother fron Connecticut whose son's baseball got cheated out playing for the little league world championship the the Dominican team...gulp..from America. The whole thing is a scam..including a White-Cuban-Domincan political coalition.

Kylie said...

David said: "If we must continue on the 'democracy' plan (actually we have long been an oligarchy, but I digress...), then we must improve the quality of the voter.

Turn the thing back over to white men 30+ years old who own property."

Totally agree. I did vote (for the first time ever) in the last national election in the same spirit in which women took to the factories in WWII. I figured in a time of national emergency, women can temporarily substitute for men in the public sphere. I also got my 30+ white homeowning husband to register and vote for the first time ever.

"If this reform can't be effected at present, then perhaps it should be tried in a few or all of the breakway states after the USA implodes."

I hope that the vote will be restricted to white male property owners in all the breakaway states. I'd gladly relinquish my right to vote in order to live in such a state.

Pfffft said...

Here you go. Point your local genius GOP activist to this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

And, oh, look! The United States appears to be moving out of the top tier of transparent nations. Oh, well. No big deal! I'm sure everything will be OK. I'm sure massive non-white immigration has nothing to do with this trend. Just ask Mike Huckabee or Sara Palin or Mitt Romney or Bobby Jindal.

Kylie said...

Whiskey said: "Women are much harder left than men (i.e. princess oriented, everyone is stratified except pretty women who can move up by being pretty, etc.) Women love Obama and will abandon him last."

When you use the word "women" in this context, could you please qualify it with "some", "many" or even "empty-headed" or "foolish" or whatever else strikes your fancy?

I really don't care what modifier you use so long as I don't have to read such sweeping, absolutist descriptions and realize that for all intents and purposes, I've been lumped in with hard-left, Obama-loving women, with whom I have about as much in common as the average iSteve reader has with President Zuma.

Eric said...

The problem with it is that for most white people, including most conservatives, racial equality and racial harmony are deeply held ideals, so much so that they will be repelled by any strategy that is explicitly pro-white, regardless of how well it appeals to their self-interest.

That will change. The only reason the current situation persists is the fact that, say, 95% of black voters voted for Obama wouldn't have mattered if whites didn't go along.

When whites become a minority, if the NAMs still vote as a block white people will do the same.

Anonymous said...

It only took six posts for the Christian bashing (CBing)to commence. CBing is almost as quick to happen here as "the Jews" are (wink, wink). And to boot the CBer is encouraging the race mixture strategy. Derb is that you?

Anonymous said...

1) New England and the South hate each other; 2)there will always, always, always be (and, as Pinker points out, there is probably a genetic component to this) white liberals. All white strategies crumble in the face of these two facts.

Re: Obama, As several enlightened commentators have pointed out here, there is little chance that the primal drive amongst minorities (25% of the electorate and growing) to break the Anglo lock on the American Presidency will be subverted in 2012...Obama will win again.

Statsaholic said...

Is there any hard evidence the Cairo speech is what turned the non-MSNBC media against Obama?

In theory it makes sense, but I have my doubts.

Alticor said...

Abortion smells more like eugenics each time I think about it

In America abortion has been more dysgenic than eugenic. High IQ women have them, low IQ women don't. I would be pro abortion if it were eugenic. We need certain restrictions on abortion, which might tilt it the other way, but anyone seriously trying to eliminate it altogether is making themselves politically untenable.

The Bear said...

Outside the South, voters do not want the politics of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

If some articulate, bright, clean, nice-looking Yankee ran on George Wallace's 1968 platform, he would win 80% of the white vote. Isn't the situation grave enough now for the survival instinct to prevail in White America over the desire for respectability?

Anonymous said...

Alternatively, imagine Obama goes down to some fiscal conservative in 2012, I could see "anti-tea parties" of raging "youths" from a "diverse, vibrant background", orchestrated by "neo-conservatives" and less crypto salaried professionals of the grievance industry, "looting" the crap out of "heartland America" in protest against the "stolen election", like your typical third world election.
------------------
I can't wait for them to show up:

http://www.catsprn.com/u_loot_we_shoot.htm

Anonymous said...

And I doubt that the GOP has one double digits' worth of the black vote since roughly that same time.

Who cares? Check out J. Helms...

sparkupthenight said...

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

Is utilitarianism always morally proper? I don't think the readers of this blog would agree with Steve's statement if it where applied to how whites are being treated in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

Whiskey said...

Obama's new budget is out. If policy is spending (it is) we can expect EVEN MORE of gimmes and handouts to various advocacy groups, and the WHAMMY --

FEDERALIZING CURRICULUMS.

Basically, the US Dept of Education is spending something ungodly, I don't recall the figure (but NRO's the Corner and Instapundit both had it, as did HotAir IIRC) to provide federal standards for curriculums.

Now, how much do you want to bet that "Science is White" will be cut, and ethno-studies will be HUGE.

Steve has written about how yuppie parents spend tons of money to maximize their kids chances in education and life. That's a dagger right in the heart of that strategy. Coupled with a deep and deepening recession, it means public school for Junior and Missy learning rap videos or ethno-studies. Not math or science.

Add to it a hugely inflationary deficit, about five times Bush's deficits, and growing, along with a private sector depressed already and crowded out, and none of the "Reagan Bargain" i.e. limited government, but one driven by AA, but with robust private sector growth driven by defense spending and cheap oil and little regulation/taxes, the stage for a revolt of the White middle class is set.

It won't be led by Palin. Or Romney (too upper class and elitist). Probably someone who is a Western governor, moderate, populist, and above reproach fiscally and in character.

I mean, really, what is going to happen to those people without jobs, or afraid of losing theirs, or running place faster just to keep up? You'll see a much greater White turnout, than 2008.

Anonymous said...

majority rule is essential for democracy. That is why America is not a democracy.




Majority rule is also essential for a democratic republic, which America is supposed to be but isn't.

Jack said...

new England hates the South? True...however Republicans do not need to win New England. By winning large amounts of white Catholics, they win NJ, PA, MI, OH, WI, MN. In other words, game over for Democrats.

Look, the Republicans are the white party. That will not change. The question is - will they ever man up and fight for their interests? Those New Haven and New York firemen deserve someone on their side. Why CANT Republicans be the pro-white Catholic party in the Northeast? The pro-Irish, Italian party? We all know that's what Scott Brown did to win. Look at his map of victory in Massachusetts. 30-40% wins in Catholic, middle class exurbs. If white Catholics can ever be recruited to vote like white Protestants Republicans rule.

The question is - will a true leader step forward for us and oppose illegal aliens, radical feminism, and racial quotas, a winning strategy? Bob McDonnell looked bland. Scott Brown is probably too liberal, though don't count him out. I have a feeling Brown is much more conservative than he lets on.

here's a thought - maybe with nothing to lose, Rick Lazio can adopt this strategy for New York Governor.

Anonymous said...

After all, what’s the point of majority rule if not to benefit the majority?

You would think so, yet its not something thats just not discussed. Once non-whites are the majority it will become the central plank of all policy, enforced by all means necessary.

David said...

>it means public school for Junior and Missy learning rap videos or ethno-studies. Not math or science.<

You left out having the hell beaten out of them, or being afraid all the time.

Homeschool.

Leave the system.

Here is a related article about German homeschoolers winning political asylum in the US.

Mr. Anon said...

"RandyB said...

To win, the Republicans have to shake off their Sons of the Confederacy image. Outside the South, voters do not want the politics of Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond."

Only in the North would someone not recognize the difference between a Newt Gingrich and a Jesse Helms or a Strom Thurmond. Gingrich isn't a southerner or a conservative, and he didn't really care about any of the social issues. For him, the only thing that mattered was free trade, and granting ever more permanent economic advantages to the wealthy. Gingrich is nothing but a power-seeking little toad.

Anonymous said...

If replacing a pro-American dictator with a Shiite Muslim republic friendly to Iran is a victory for the US than I'm a Hottentot's uncle!

Anonymous said...

Statsaholic, the only evidence I have is the clear impression I have of a surge in the reporting of exactly the kind of events and pictures which were always carefully kept out of sight. It is telling that even an epidemy of rape in South Africa was on (american) CNN when in my country the media would't dare to touch the subject because the FIFA World Cup is about to happen there.

In my estimate I have seen more unfavorable american coverage of black people in 2009 than in the whole decade before it. The downright path of Obama in the pools was in part the result of a slow dripping of unfavorable racial events: a serial killer (with pictures) here, an infuriated tennis player there, a Columbia profefessor punching some white lady...

Maybe Sailer thinks the big media fat cats are keeping an eye on him of late because of his well-crafted views. True, but I wouldn't underestimate their abilities for finding knowledge of the specific nature they need to better sharpen their tools. If they are looking for racial facts, they are going to exploit them.

Obviously this is just one of the several lines of attack they are using against Obama. But the presence of such line of attack and the extent they are using it is revealing.

Anonymous said...

That German homeschoolers story got more than 1000 comments at Slashdot.

That's a lot - even by Slashdot standards.

People [on both sides of the political spectrum] feel very, very strongly about homeschooling - normal people need it to save their children, but the nihilists who control our society are determined to wipe it out so that there will be no hope for the future.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"I hope that the vote will be restricted to white male property owners in all the breakaway states. I'd gladly relinquish my right to vote in order to live in such a state."

Me, too, but --
it's got to be White, male, property-owning, MARRIED men, who are net taxpayers.
The Roissys need to be marginalized for the good of all of us.

Another plan could be: everybody White and over 21 gets a vote, but more votes can be EARNED by:
* getting married
* being a net taxpayer
* owning property
* having and residing with and SUPPORTING one's biological children (to capitalize on the human instinct to improve society for one's children)

The more socially-desirable and beneficial behaviors you exhibit, the more votes you get.

Anonymous said...

Man, we need an iSteve pub crawl where all us bachelors get to meet posters like CCbLF.

Kylie said...

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said: "...it's got to be White, male, property-owning, MARRIED men, who are net taxpayers."

Yes, thanks, I had that in mind but failed to specify.

"The more socially-desirable and beneficial behaviors you exhibit, the more votes you get."

And requirements for immigrants should be similarly stringent.

Statsaholic said...

Anonymous,

Thanks. You've convinced me, the timing relative to the Cairo speech fits too well for it to be a coincidence.

David said...

Cordelia said

>30+ years old who own property and HAVE CHILDREN<

This is right, I stand corrected by Cordelia.

No one said the ladies can't remain the powers behind the throne... (smiling)

Mr. Anon said...

"Jack said...

If white Catholics can ever be recruited to vote like white Protestants Republicans rule."

If the Republican party could ever be recruited to support the interests of the white middle-class, they might get those Catholics to vote for them. It would help if they would stop being the party of bankers, oil men, real-estate developers, government contractors, and BigBox outlets.

Anonymous said...

Looked at this way, the problem for the Republicans becomes more manageable. What they've got to do is stop being the Christian Party and the party of the culture wars and focus on fiscal responsibility and maintaining the borders of the United States.

IOW, they have to stop being the Christian Party and start being the American Party.

Anonymous said...

The reason why we conservatives have to part ways with Christianity is because Christianity is against us. Christianity regards humans as behavioural blank slates (freely choosing good and evil) and if you believe that you're half way to being a flat-out blank-statist. Acceptance of individual and group social pathologies is a non-issue for HBD-ers and HBD can be employed in the service of conservative causes (like scrapping affirmative action and restricting immigration). Besides Pat Robertson's belief that the Hatian earthquake was caused by witchcraft is embarassing to us. Having idiots like that representing us undermines us and fuels our opponents.

Anonymous said...

The reason why we conservatives have to part ways with Christianity is because Christianity is against us. Christianity regards humans as behavioural blank slates (freely choosing good and evil) and if you believe that you're half way to being a flat-out blank-statist.

You Ayn-Randian nihilists really need to read the bible before you start claiming that it promotes an agenda which it does not:

For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Anonymous said...

You Ayn-Randian nihilists really need to read the bible before you start claiming that it promotes an agenda which it does not:
I'm not a Randian (not even close). Also, whatever Jesus thought about the enduring nature of poverty (right or wrong) doesn't have much to do with what I was talking about, unless Jesus was obliquely implying that HBD had something to do with it (but that's a stretch).

Anonymous said...

http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/02/australia-arson-suspect-arrested-muslim.html