A reader writes:
Have you noticed that no one on the right is willing to say anything about race and gender preferences during this election cycle? All the candidates had positions on preferences in 2000. Today, the pundits don't even chide them for keeping mum.
That's particularly strange because in November 2006, on a night that Republicans were getting drubbed across the country, Ward Connerly won a smashing victory in Michigan on his initiative outlawing racial and ethnic preferences.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
15 comments:
There are several dogs not barking in this election because the elites, mainline Dems & Reps, are making decisions against and over the voices of their constituents:
* Reps on Iraq War
* Anyone, especially the Dems, on Affirmative Discrimination (er Action) and race-based spoils system handouts
* Anyone on stopping illegal immigration and enforcing our borders (at least in realistic, actionable concrete terms)
* Anyone on campaign finance reform
There are dogs that are sounding like cats as well such as when Reps claim to be fiscal conservatives and for small government (despite Bushes explosion in spending and unfunded long-term obligations like his drug benefit giveaway).
It's disgusting - no wonder outsiders like Ron Paul are doing unusually well given the lack of institutional support and a virtual MSM black out.
Sorry, Steve, but it's not at all surprising. Many voters, preeminently female voters, can't abide any serious discussion of race because it will invariably lead to comparisons between the races, all of which are viewed as intrinsically invidious. It makes them feel, as we are now all encouraged to say, "uncomfortable". Even if they agree with the substance of what is being said, they still think it ought not to have been said. To use the other popular effeminate euphemism, it's "inappropriate" to mention such things. To their mind, it's just plain bad manners to point to some trait which is both "genetic" in origin and unfavorable to the person that exhibits that trait...so there will be no open serious discussion; instead, at best, people will speak in code. This is as it must be. Let's not kid ourselves.
Anon -- Ron Paul is a fringe/kook lunatic.
Nor are Republican voters looking for a good dose of "morally good for you defeat" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor are they willing to depend on the goodwill of the Mullahs or lunatics in AQ (when not if they take over Pakistan). Nor are Republican voters putting any faith in the UN, EU, NATO, or other toothless and useless organizations.
Republican voters want victory in both places, and generally a strong exec (not a weak one like Bush) asserting US power against threats before little ones (like bin Laden in 1992) grow into big ones (bin Laden in 1998).
What they don't want is another Iraqi occupation situation. "Nuke em till they glow and shoot em in the dark" would probably get a LOT of support, from Republicans and independents.
Paulnuts (like a few nuts rattling around in an empty can) will make Deaniac type noise YEAAAAAAARRRRGGHHHHHHH!!!!!! but turn off the non-insane voters. Paulnuts are more akin to Kucinich-Gravel-Richardson fringers (Richardson's first act as President -- opening up the Roswell files "because the truth is out there, man.") More importantly Paulnuts tend to be 9/11 "Truthers" or Stormfront types.
For all the talk of "diplomacy" in the Dem debate, no one there talked of the State Dept's failure to get anyone to go to Iraq. The US military has had to do it ALL because all other institutions failed or did not show up at all in Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Steve -- Affirmative Action so far is being discussed via code words. I.E. being against Illegal Immigration, open borders, amnesty, is understood as also encompassing opposition to AA. Regardless there is much to be discussed particularly in light of illegal aliens. Who would be eligible for AA measures and preferences *OVER* native-born Americans. Thompson and Romney have used that point in their campaigns.
The Driver's License fiasco in NY is one example. Spitzer/Clinton are for it, because it penalizes ordinary NY citizens (who have to pay more for what they got for free before -- a secure ID) while Hispandering to Hispanic voters.
Slightly off topic, but have you seen this City Journal article by Steven Malanga?
Hispanic Voting Myths
He's positively channeling Steve Sailer!
All the candidates had positions on preferences in 2000. Today, the pundits don't even chide them for keeping mum.
Too many things are more important: immigration, the war, spending, entitlements.
But, should you insist, let's go back and inspect how many of the promises that were made have been kept.
Nevermind - too depressing.
I don't care much because I know that the future of preferences is tied to immigration: we'll continue to have them (and then some) if we don't get immigration under control. Aside from that, there is only so much talk you can have about race in any given campaign. Immigration is tied to race, as are preferences. Start talking about both and the leftists in the media will say you're scaring up the redneck vote or "playing the race card."
Republicans and immigration realists can't win a debate that focuses on race. The one we need to have is the one which focuses on numbers.
Back on topic, Bobby Jindal was just elected (Republican) Governor of Louisiana. From a John Fund portrait of Jindal campaigning:
He treats his Indian background as an overall plus but won't trade on it. He left the space for "race" on his qualifying papers blank and attacks the division of people along racial lines. "I'm against all quotas, all set-asides," he says. "America is the greatest. We got ahead by hard work. We shouldn't respond to every problem with a government program. Here, anyone can succeed."
Also, from a screed entitled 37 Reasons to Vote Against Bobby Jindal, number 16:
16. Bobby Jindal quoted Martin Luther King, Jr in order to justify his opposition to affirmative action. In 2003, Jindal told The Times-Picayune, “I oppose set-asides and quotas. An insightful man got it right 40 years ago: people should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Jindal also misused a Martin Luther King quotation in order to claim that those protesting in support of the Jena Six were “outside agitators.”
I see evil neocon is being particularly evil today. :)
I agree with Evilcon that euphemisms are being used.
I wrote a paragraph about 5 minutes ago giving an example of a Republican candidate for President saying something about a certain policy and him being concerned about its effect on the birthrate of the underclass (euphemism used by him). I found myself gripped by paranoia about this being used against him and erased it all.
People are afraid to talk about it and I suspect that it is because we believe *less* in those idealistic notions than we did before, but not sure about how to deal with innate inequality.
tjf says:
Sorry, Steve, but it's not at all surprising. Many voters, preeminently female voters, can't abide any serious discussion of race because it will invariably lead to comparisons between the races, all of which are viewed as intrinsically invidious.
Actually, tjf, you are wrong.
Female voters don't like serious discussion of race because it leads on to discussions of sex differences. That is the real elephant in the room.
The dog isn't barking because it's a spineless, wimpering cur.
Rush Limbaugh actually called Watson a "clown" (explicitly because of his statements about African IQ) yesterday, and crowed about how all of his political ties were to the left, like that was some big moral victory for fa- er, Republicans.
Yeah, that'll take you real far Neokahns - being more leftist than leftists is a brilliant strategy.
TJF said...
Sorry, Steve, but it's not at all surprising. Many voters, preeminently female voters, can't abide any serious discussion ...
As i've said before, TJF, women's suffrage = Decline of the West.
I'll be even more evil.
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel and Tom Tancredo are all "fringe" candidates by the numbers.
Long story short, in checking out the Hsu-gate scandal on Hillary I used the FEC database to look for more pattern-donations and found their interface too hard to use and others lacking, so I built my own site using their data feed.
It's at www.campaign-money.com . I have to my mind a superior interface for searching on donations by same-day, same-zip, same "business" or occupation, and more. If you look at Hillary's donations in the 10002 zip code for example, you'll find CEOs of various Chinese-owned companies and cooks both giving 1-2K donation. It's hilarious as Warren Sapp would say.
Ron Paul's donations by occupations is chock full of engineers and software engineers including some at Microsoft and retired people. But unlike Obama and Hillary, he has no Wall Street types nor actors/actresses. He DEFINITELY draws from a different crowd. Thompson for example has lots of attorneys, doctors, real estate people, the self-employed professionals. So he definitely draws another demographic.
[Privacy implications: will the names/occupations/"addresses" of donors invite political retaliation? I assume that MS managers are searching DBs for this data, the Ron Paul donors could possibly risk retaliation.]
But here's the breakout for # of donations:
Ron Paul # donations: 6,242
Rudy # of donations: 33,557
Romney # of donations: 34,412
Fred Thompson # of donations: 8,320
McCain # of donations: 24,296
Tancredo # of donations: 1,597
Joe Biden: 1,818
Hillary: 52,778
Dodd: 8,280
Edwards: 21,919
Gravel: 210
Kucinich: 1,066
Obama: 61,629
Richardson: 14,448
Thompson is late in the game, and the FEC is lagging in their reporting so I suspect he'll have more. But Paul resembels Kucinich, Dodd, and Tancredo more than the front runners. Heck even Richardson has 14K # of donations (that's different checks, not individuals).
Right now I don't have stats/graphs for Republicans, I'll add those in a couple of days (the site is a side project). I just ran the counts off the DB directly. But looking at the Dems Kernal Density charts it seems that the front-runners or "major" candidates have a pattern to their donations: lots of donations on the small side (i.e. less than $500 or "middle class people" and lots in the high-side around $2300, i.e. the rich folk at the Hollywood/Wall Street fundraisers).
If there is a search or set of stats you'd like to see, just drop me a line and I'll see if I can drop it in.
[I think Tancredo has done a good service in raising Immigration as an issue, but he remains sadly a fringe candidate. Richardson's donor base frankly surprised me while I wonder why Dodd or Gravel or Kucinich even bother.]
David Davenport said...
As i've said before, TJF, women's suffrage = Decline of the West.
Not necessarily; but it does bung things up, by exacerbating/accelerating one of the worse effects of overabundance, which is a kind of decadence. This affects the political judgment of everyone, but women disproportionately. E.g., your standard sucker-mom has no real idea of how the economy works, or even how money she spends gets made, daddy-the-wallet just brings it on home and she has her own sphere of concern. Of course, she will be left-leaning; every family (her chief interest) subscribes to that infamous lefty principle: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. No one really thinks that we should all be govt. employees anymore, so the new hyper-emotional, effeminate brand of politics designates its victim class by race. But women aren't stupid (rather roughly the same, though the distribution curve is different), just slower on the uptake for the reasons I alluded to above. But they'll wise-up, too. Have a little faith in the truth, and peoples' ability to see and , eventually, appreciate it... at least in the West. And if you think things are grim in the West, I can only encourage you to scope out the rest of the globe. Talk about grim!
"Evil Neocon said...
If you look at Hillary's donations in the 10002 zip code for example, you'll find CEOs of various Chinese-owned companies and cooks both giving 1-2K donation. It's hilarious as Warren Sapp would say."
Yes, true to form, Hillary is proving to be "The Manchurian Candidate". I'll say this for her at least. She's loyal.......to her Chinese masters.
However, Mr. E.N., you must then admit that her staggering 52,778 contributions are not so indicative of wide-spread public support. If they are not the earnest contributions of average american citizens, but rather a concerted campaign of graft, then she's not so much a "front-runner" as her numbers suggest.
Then why would it be any different with Rudy or Romney? Do you think Republican candidates are immune to influence peddling? Perhaps their 30,000 some odd contributions each are also the result of the (illegal) bundling of contributions by interested parties. Mormons, for example, for Romney. And, perhaps, I don't know, transvestites for Rudy.
In any event by the same logic you apply to Hillary, Rudy and Romney can not be considered the front-runners that they are (by the media, by default) taken to be.
Steve, ever since you started to allowing comments I have thought that being associated with the various snarky malcontents who post here makes you look worse than anything you've ever written. I suppose some of them are more socially appropriate in real life, but someone who'd write "As i've said before, TJF, women's suffrage = Decline of the West" is someone who is too semi-autistic to hear himself or would prefer life under the Taliban.
Eternally Anonymous
Post a Comment