My new VDARE.com article explores the Marriage Gap in the 2012 election results, which turned out about as huge as I predicted it would be a few weeks ago.
Could it be that the Marriage Gap is just a byproduct of some other gap, such as race, age, education, or homeownership?
My new piece has lots of graphs I created from data in the Reuters-Ipsos American Mosaic Polling Explorer, which lets you drill down into crosstabs to look at apples to apples comparisons. (Here's an explanation of the Reuters poll.)
The one above shows the best alternative hypothesis I can find in this demographic data: it's not marriage that influences people to vote Republican, it's homeownership. As you'll recall, that was the big idea of Karl Rove and George W. Bush for converting minorities and working class whites into Republican voters: make it easier for them to get home loans.
The basic idea wasn't ridiculous, but the implementation set off the Housing Bubble and Bust. But, when you drill down to make apples to apples comparisons, the Marriage Gap appears to be stronger in driving voting to the GOP as the Homeownership Gap. For example, in the above graph we're looking just at white women ages 35-44. Those who own their home vote Republican at rates 6.7 percentage points higher if single and 9.5 percentage points higher if married. But the Marriage Gap for SWF 35-44 renters is 15.0 points, and 17.8 points for SWF 35-44 homeowners.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
59 comments:
So, Steve, what to do? Is it worth abandoning abortion? Would gains in one area offset losses in others?
It seems that allowing abortion would be a simple fix.
I am curious, though. What does the young voter turnout look like. I think the GOP can make a credible case for allowing 20 and 30 somethings to discharge their student loans and cram the losses down the throats of liberal universities.
Would making up any losses among young people suffice to narrow the gender gap?
Interesting article, Steve. It would be interesting to see a longitudinal study done to see if it is marriage itself which pushes people (and especially women) to vote for conservatives, or if marriage is just a marker for responsible people who have their s*** together. i.e. to identify those who will marry but haven't yet, and see how marrying affects their voting patterns.
A lot of women tend to take their lead from the husband, including the lead on politics. But most marriages are an indication of an intent to produce children, which causes a sea change in thinking. Suddenly "vibrant" takes on a whole new, and bad meaning. The husband's wage (and how that can be increased) becomes much more important relative to the woman's wage.
For those reasons I would think that marriage is as much about a change in thinking as it is a marker of responsibility. But it would be interesting to see some evidence either way.
It is interesting to compare the effect divorce has - since everyone who is divorced or separated must have been part of the married demographic. Divorced white people vote is split 50/50. But there is still no way to tell whether it's the irresponsible people who are divorcing (and if they could be weeded out of the married results, would go for conservatives with even greater fervor), or if it's the necessity of wedding the government that is driving divorced women into the arms of the Democrats.
Actually, there may be a way. It would seem that death is less a marker of irresponsibility than divorce. So widows/widowers would be a good comparison. They vote largely the same as the divorced. So it seems that marriage itself is the important factor in making whites into conservatives.
Get more of the white population to marry and stay married, and conservatives win. Prevent, delay and break up marriages - liberals win.
Driving down the cost of labor and driving up the cost of living (housing costs are one of the largest expenses of married couples) makes it much harder for folks to marry, as you say. The Republicans really are the stupid party it seems, in their acquiesence to immigration.
It doesn't matter that the marriage gap is a problem for the Republicans, because they will never, ever do what it takes to fix it, even though all it would take is holding women responsible for their sexual behavior (or merely taking a hands-off approach and letting them deal with the consequences themselves). We've already crossed that line, and there's no going back until a) we can't afford to indulge them any longer, or b) an authoritarian (probably Democrat) regime comes to power and finds the expense intolerable. Maybe it will be a combination of the two.
That's interesting.
You already have a spreadsheet set up, and obviously have the data handy.
What do the numbers look like for other ethnic groups of interest in the US?
Probably not as dramatic a difference, but I'd think you would see some.
Married gays would be natural Republicans.
It seems that allowing abortion would be a simple fix.
I am curious, though. What does the young voter turnout look like. I think the GOP can make a credible case for allowing 20 and 30 somethings to discharge their student loans and cram the losses down the throats of liberal universities.
It is pretty damned simple. Responsible capable people are more likely to get married, buy houses, save money, raise their kids instead of kill them, and oh, yeah, vote Republican. Democrat voters generally have some defect that overrides their confidence in themselves or others and so makes them parasites on the higher socially functioning more responsible and capable people.
Why is no Republican controlled state enacting policies to try to lower single motherhood? Charles Murray has an idea that could probably be sold in purple states (eliminate all welfare programs and move to a minimum income; more babies means less income for mom), but no red state is even trying.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/11/are-cads-outbreeding-dads.html
The two likely confounding variables here that you haven't accounted for are:
a. Income--richer people tend to vote Republican more often, and this broadly tracks with that.
b. Local costs of living and housing--more expensive urban areas (especially onthe coasts) tend to be Democratic strongholds and also to be places with very expensive houses. The same woman in the same basic position in Durham, NC or in Alexandria, VA is a lot more likely to own a house in Durham, where houses are a whole lot cheaper.
I wonder if there is a good way to incorporate that information into the analysis somehow.
I suspect student loan burdens are one barrier to marriage, children, and home ownership amongthe prudent. Finding a long-term way to fix that would be worthwhile for a lot of other reasons, too.
The housing hypothesis is a reasonable one, largely because of the behavior purchasing a home requires. For instance, setting aside money for a down payment necessitates saving, which means shifting one's time preference towards future orientation. This could conceivably help Republicans.
Rove and Bush hilariously misread this by confusing mere possession of a home with the important changes that lead up to it. It turns out that giving people homes to live in for two years before being foreclosed upon fails to do much to better human behavior.
But at least all the McMansion building gave the blue collar workers something to do while the country's manufacturing base continued to be eroded.
Steve, your continuing analysis of the election results is a real pleasure to read. Your articles are much more persuasive than the garbage I encounter in the MSM.
The Rove-Bush efforts to turn low-income voters, especially Hispanics, into Republicans through home ownership was doomed from the start. In fact, not only did it fail, it failed spectacularly, causing the credit crunch and the housing bubble. I don't think it's home ownership per se that makes people tend toward the GOP, it's the personal qualities of diligence and self-discipline needed to amass a 20% down payment and then pay the mortgage every month that count. Such people are naturally going to vote for the party that allows them to keep what they've worked for. But subsidizing people who are naturally irresponsible isn't going to change their nature. We see that when a poor person wins a big lottery prize, blows through it, and usually ends up as poor as when he or she started out. The housing bubble wasn't all the fault of Bush and Rove - they had plenty of help from the Democrats - but the voters blame the Republicans, and the results are still being felt.
Well abortion in 1960 was low since it was hardera nd more dangerous. Bushes policies also destroy the remaining Republician counties in California which caused Billbray a foe against illegal immirgation to lose in San Diego because the district was changed and thousands of whites that were Republcian left. He caused Nevada and Florida to go Blue because a lot of minorities that could not afford California went to Nevada and probably some Republician Flordians left and more foreign born took their place in Florida.
Bush lost Blue state California by 10 points but did real well in the poorer inland countiea that tend to be white-mexician in 2004. Kern went a whopping 66 percent while Romney only received 59 percent. A lot of whites came to Kern from La and so forth but probably a lot of whites left. Bush also got 59 percent of Orange County but Romney only 53 percent. Lots of whites left OC as the housing got expense to Riverside and many out of the state. The super minority the Dems now have on California was causedd by the housing bubble empyting out of the white population and the redistricting that made it easier for Dems to win in former Republcian districts in Orange, San Diego or Riverside.
It's not the Home Ownership Gap. It's the White Home Ownership Gap.
Sticking NAMs into homes they can't afford doesn't make them Republicans. It does, however, ruin perfectly nice Republican neighborhoods. Which is the real point.
Perhaps, maybe Maggie Thatcher's policy of selling off 'council houses' (ie state built housing for the poor) - at a massive, unjustified discount - to their tenants possibly could have bolstered the Tory voting base a few notches, (I'm unconvinced since the lumpen-prole, sans-cullotes underclass of Britain has grown massively since here tenure in office, and these people are Labour fodder), but in terms of public policy, the scheme is and has been an utter, utter disaster.
In Britain, there are no less than 5 million persons on the waiting list for a council property.Typically candidates wait years, if not decades for a coveted council property, many prospective tenents live in appalling slum conditions in the private rented sector.
Selling off council properties (many council houses- as distinct from flats- were built from the 1930s-60s to an excellent standard, better in fact than many private dwellings)meant the best property has gone, leavinging a massive, massive shortfall in 'social housing' provision, that has never been made up and never will be made up. Due to mass immigration the demand for social housing has exponated.
The pent-up demand, and the depletion of stock has caused the return, especially in London, of extortionate private rents and truly Dickensian housing conditions.
Dunham was trashy but keep in mind Obama rejected her and played a stable father role and remained faithful to his wife and kids, and THAT had appeal to many married people. Finally a Negro who aint sexually wild and crazy. Indeed, even less so than Gingrich, Clinton, and Patraeus.
There is something fishy about this exit poll steve. I see it in Georgia
When the MSM talk about Republicans having demographic problems they talk about Texas and Arizona to demoralise them about immigration but a state which could be an even bigger problem is Georgia. There you have a large and growing black population giving the Democrats a rock solid base of about 45% and growing. In 2008 This state together with as far as I can tell, only Arizona and New Mexico(using the exit poll from CNN) displayed an interesting trend. Young whites voting more Republican than their grandparents. In 2008 McCain won young whites aged 18-29 with 79% of the vote compared with 78% for fossils and 67% for 30-44. This despite McCain's vote among young whites nationally running 14% behind fossils (44-58%). Nationally in this election, we apparently saw a big improvement in the Republicans share among young whites (to 51% or about even in the Reuters poll) but a drop in their support in Georgia among young whites to 58%. What gives? A 21% drop despite a 6% national swing? Unlike important states like Connecticut and Vermont there are no exit polls from edison to compare with. None from 2010 either.
I suspect they may be oversampling in urban areas.
Georgia 2008.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=GAP00p1
Mebbe rev. Mhoon was right. We need mass marriages.
There's a very strong correlation between being married and owning a home. Single unmarried people don't tend to buy houses.
Many of the single homeowners may be divorced, having bought the house when they were married.
I can see how the GOP could easily lose some Southern Bible Belt states with high black populations if they gave up on abortion. What non-Southern states would be put into play if they did that? I don't know, but maybe Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Iowa has a lot of pro-lifers(or is that phenomenon an illusion created by the caucuses?) but they're probably rapidly dying out.
Rove got the whole "cause-and-effect:" thing backwards not just on homeownership but marriage, too.
In his first term, Bush spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programs designed to encourage unwed welfare recipients to marry their baby-fathers. (Never mind the fact that polygamy is illegal, or that marrying an unemployed, drug-addled felon is seldom a good idea.)
If someone could invent a time-machine, go back to Karl Rove's high school days, and make sure he understood the difference between causation and correlation, the nation might still yet be saved.
"20 and 30 somethings to discharge their student loans and cram the losses down the throats of liberal universities."
Uh, we are the bagholders.
Whatever happened to the big Anglo-American names?
After WWII, John Kenneth Galbraith and John Hersey were major names in publishing and intellectualism, but we never hear of them anymore. Galbraith has especially gone down the memory hole. In the 50s, 60s, and even 70s and maybe 80s, everyone knew who he was. But ask young people today, and they never heard of the guy.
it's not marriage that influences people to vote Republican, it's homeownership. As you'll recall, that was the big idea of Karl Rove and George W. Bush for converting minorities and working class whites into Republican voters: make it easier for them to get home loans.
Rove may have been influenced by the "Thatcher Revolution" in Britain: the British Conservative party sold council houses to the people living in them, converting the people involved from renters (renters from the state) into private property owners who voted Conservative.
For a variety of different reasons, this could never work in the US.
Frank Sinatra sang about how love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. A half-century ago, most Americans were married ...
Irony Alert: This song was from the middle 1950s, but was written for a production of "Our Town", set a good half-century before that. A sign that the rot was already setting in.
Also, Sinatra's marital history is legendary. But lyricist Sammy Cahn himself divorced a few years later, and his son, guitarist Steve Khan [sic], has bitter memories, and changed his name. (And ethnicity, too, judging from the new spelling.) Composer Jimmy van Heusen (a WASP) enjoyed the ladies and the night life, didn't marry until his '50s and never had children.
But it's the banks which have loaned the liberal colleges the money for all those useless degrees. A loan discharge wouldn't hurt Professor Moriarty one bit. Perhaps the GOP can hatch a plan to make the universities the loaners. Quite possible when you consider all the endowment money they sit upon.
The fact that Ann Romney has 23 legitimate descendants seemed to strike many people, especially politicized single women in the MSM, as creepy...
Three of those 23 are creepy-- they were borne by "gestational surrogacy". Apparently the Romneys involved are the genetic progenitors, but still... I'm all for married white couples breeding, but this is not the way to do it.
Surrogacy contracts are legally invalid in Mitt's home state of Michigan. But I don't see how they manage to escape the prostitution statutes anywhere.
Irony Alert #2: These SWFs who find the normal Romney births creepy may themselves be forced into using surrogates, should they wait too long.
But he's for tax cuts and bombing Iran and Syria, so he's a good Republican - one of us. Move along, nothing to see here.
Marco Rubio's favorite rap songs are surprisingly hardcore.
I think these are all proxies for the "47%."
The US today has tax payers and tax takers. Tax payers are married, own houses, raise families, traditionally employed with benefits.
Tax takers are single, rent, the women have 2.5 illegitimate children that rely heavily on social services, and work part-time or contract piece-work with no benefits.
Or, you could say all roads lead to affordable family formation, of which paying taxes is a distinguishing feature.
Steve, excellent data analysis, but I'd take issue that the Republicans get the winners in life, those with their act together, and Democrats the losers.
It is the other way around.
If you take Derbyshire's notion, that power is shown by an arrow, pointing to who you cannot criticize, those who are unmarried, sexually active, the Lena Dunhams, the Sandra Flukes, the single Black mothers (often illiterate) -- those are the winners in life. They are the ones with the power, while being married is to be seen as a loser, by women. See any Saturday Night Live skit on that.
Ann Romney is viewed as a loser, by most women. The words stultifying, prison, "White" (termed as an insult) or "White bread" are hurled about, meanwhile if you look at the affair Broadwell, the curious incident of the dog in the night-time is no woman (or man) has criticized either Broadwell or Kelly, married mothers of two and three respectively, for their actions and behavior.
The winners in society are those who cannot be criticized, get wealth transfers TO them (another unmistakable sign of power), and are subsidized generally (another power indicator). They are the ones with their acts together. Folks like Mitt Romney, but without great personal wealth, are basically losers.
[Yes, Romney's great wealth makes him a winner, but his personal characteristics made him repellent to much of the population, including the power centers of the media and the like. He was too "White" in that he deferred gratification, abjured excesses, lived a life of total moderation. Which the power centers of unmarried women/media, but I repeat myself, abhor.]
As for marriage, lets get real. There is no nada none zilch zippo possibility of making labor more expensive and land cheaper.
Obama's election means the reverse, tens of millions of more Mexicans pouring in, subsidized, particularly the teen single mothers.
The mark of a conservative is operating in reality not fantasy. The Mexicanization of America is now complete. It won't change.
The basic objective of White Americans should be simple survival, that means as many White kids as possible.
That in turn means recognizing that marriage is over, dead, gone. White women are not going to suddenly get married to ordinary White guys, because ordinary White guys lack (as you note) both material wealth to start a family in a nice, safe, paid-for house in a nice, safe, good-school suburb.
And just as important they lack the charisma, dominance, a-holery, to appeal to women absent those economic dominant features. That won't change, any time the next five hundred years. Third Worldization is a feature of ALL Western nations, not the least of which is most White women, married or not, want it (cheap domestic labor, basically, plus infinite employment in education, NGO-istan, welfare).
Thus the most important aspect for survival, culturally and socially, if not politically and economically, is embracing the birth-rate race; and nothing else. That means White guys need to stop playing a losers game (trying to "get their act together") because its not possible for most, and embrace the casual thuggery that gets the most fertile (youngest) women aroused and willing to bear kids.
That means other things too, which I as a social conservative don't like AT ALL.
But survival is paramount. I'm willing to see all sorts of things to see the English language, Halloween, Christmas as WE celebrate it, Easter as WE celebrate it, Thanksgiving, 80's Rock music, Shakespeare, Robert Burns, the billion great and majestic, and humble and small things, that made up White America and deserve to be saved, along with its people.
The nuclear family cannot be saved, but White people and culture CAN.
On another topic, Key and Peele did a video about the kind of teacher innercity boys need:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
Well, when the boom was going whites in Ca where in the more skilled construcation work actually to a black lady and her husband demanding about 100,000 a year to do a customize homes and 20 or more per hr for day labor she would not pay this and hire blacks from the south.
http://pasadenaartbeat.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/a-hovering-accusation-of-racism-shadows-cloud-atlas/#comment-1248
got this from a facebook film forum.
liberals bitching, whining, and accusing other liberals of 'racism'. too funny.
Good article.
Unfortunately, marriage is going out of fashion among lower-class whites (divorce and single-motherhood are way up) and is being delayed among middle and upper-class whites (until they can "afford it"). Couple this trend with the rapidly changing demographics of the USA, and this spells disaster for the GOP. Absolute disaster.
Moreover, I always laugh when people start offering solutions for the GOP. Do these people not realize that the Democrats control the Presidency and Senate? Why would the Dems ecourage policies that would benefit the Republicans? Unlike the Republicans, the Dems actually like these trends.
Oh, well.
That said, I am reminded of the title to one of "The Derb's" books: We are Doomed.
This is how the Republicans could pick up on the social issues make states rights. In fact the federal ban group is declinig while the states rights groups are growing. Republicians are still also bad at communicating the benefits of the dirty energy Sharrod Brown that's very ant-coal also won in OH. Republicians need to be more effective on that score that's how they won Kentucky and West Virginia alot on the coal issue.
"I can see how the GOP could easily lose some Southern Bible Belt states with high black populations if they gave up on abortion. What non-Southern states would be put into play if they did that? I don't know, but maybe Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. Iowa has a lot of pro-lifers(or is that phenomenon an illusion created by the caucuses?) but they're probably rapidly dying out."
You don't understand the "Bible Belt." They would continue to vote for the defacto white identity party. Abortion is not such an important issue to them that they would start aligning their interests with blacks over it. 5 percent at most would switch over to the Democrats over abortion.
"Three of those 23 are creepy-- they were borne by "gestational surrogacy". Apparently the Romneys involved are the genetic progenitors, but still... I'm all for married white couples breeding, but this is not the way to do it"
There was probably no other safe and effective way for them to have children. If IVF or surrogacy was what it took to have my own descendants, and I had the means to go for it, I would definitely utilize either option. I don't see anything creepy about it.
Paging Rev Moon, Rev Sun Myung Moon. Republican party on line 1.
Unfortunately, Rev Moon died earlier this year. But I don't think he patented the mega marriage ceremony. So the Stupid Party can try that. It makes about as much sense as whatever else they've been doing. Maybe more.
...all it would take is holding women responsible for their sexual behavior (or merely taking a hands-off approach and letting them deal with the consequences themselves). We've already crossed that line, and there's no going back ...
This late in the game, the only hope for the continued survival of the USA is a neo-Victorian movement based on large families, devote Christianity, bourgeouis morality and harsh judgementalism.
Godless, childless, self-indulgent, free-thinking, atheistic libertarians such as myself are the problem, no matter how "conservative" we claim to be.
"Get more of the white population to marry and stay married, and conservatives win. Prevent, delay and break up marriages - liberals win."
The stark irony is that most of the so called "conservatives" on this site have no kids, and have never, and never will be, married.
And just as important they lack the charisma, dominance, a-holery, to appeal to women absent those economic dominant features. That won't change, any time the next five hundred years.
Come now. Is there any trendline a person in the year 1512 could have successfully projected into today? Don't assume the pathologies of our decadent culture will last forever.
"Marco Rubio's favorite rap songs are surprisingly hardcore."
Hey that's kind of cool if you think about it, David; "your" next presidential candidate is blacker than the black president we have now!
Okay, I shamelessly copied this from a comment on guy white's blog and have it on a sticky on my desktop. The punchline still gets me every time:
"America's strength for 200 years was an abundance of human capital and a bold vision of the future. But in 1965 the tide began to turn. The immigration flood gates were opened and now we have a nation like Terry Gilliam's Brazil. No more bold expeditions to other planets. No brilliant medical research or cures. No great scientific achievements. Just fat, unhealthy, slovenly, uneducated, indeterminate race people waddling about a sagging, cracking, infrastructure, leading pointless lives of consumption and self amusement when they are not at their government jobs performing worthless bureaucratic tasks (or standing in line waiting for psychiatric counseling in Spanish). I hope an asteroid is on the way."
I wonder if there's any way to encourage would-be-married couples to buy apartments rather than houses. It seems to me that the expectation for every would-be-married couple is that they gotta have the house and picker-fence, as if it is chiseled on stone like a 11th commandment. I think this is unrealistic as well as untrue - I know lots of married European couples who are perfectly happy and live in apartments - often for their entire lives. However, I might be unrealistic here, since as Mr. Sailer said almost all women - deep down - want to have a house (the implication being that if one man isn't able to afford this, then she'll move onto somebody else). Needless to say, because of the austerity that almost all Americans will be experiencing in the near future, there are a lot of young women who are going to end up as spinsters because of such expectations.
Singles don't buy houses cuz that is a commitment. They don't like commitments and don't want to fulfill them. As my son says, they are defective.
Most people stop thinking at 40. From then on, it's Memory Lane. No one can convince them that the world isn't substantially as it was in their heyday.
Demographic change and economic decline don't exist in the minds of many older people. You will never show them otherwise. America is a white country and the land of opportunity, PERIOD - to suggest otherwise is to be a "racist" or a "hippie."
Anyone who cares about the future should spend most of his time talking with it. The future is young people.
Stop trying to reach Bill O'Reilly types on the issue of racial decline, and people who boast of having made one million in sales in 1987 on the issue of economic decline. It would be a better use of your time to piss in the street.
You don't understand the "Bible Belt." They would continue to vote for the defacto white identity party. Abortion is not such an important issue to them that they would start aligning their interests with blacks over it. 5 percent at most would switch over to the Democrats over abortion.
Liberals always say that sort of thing given that they tend to think that nothing has really changed since 1965.
Given the police state/thought control atmosphere in the US, it would take some serious mind-reading to know what percentage of Bible Belters secretly identify primarily as whites. No doubt a lot of them aren't really sure themselves.
"As for marriage, lets get real. There is no nada none zilch zippo possibility of making labor more expensive and land cheaper."
Sure there is. All it will take is immigration restriction and mass deportation.
If we can roll back AA, white men will be able to better provide for their families. If we can roll back the laws preventing the creation of exclusionary communities, good, affordable housing will be much cheaper - even without deportation. The only reason a lot of housing is expensive is because white people currently feel the need to buy their way out of NAM infested neighborhoods, using high property values as a blunt tool to prevent NAMs from entering their neighborhood.
In the current climate, it would be referred to as apartheid to buy up some land and start a new town restricted to white ownership only. But surely if this town is new, what is the ethical problem with this? No NAMs existed there in the first place, so it's not like they are being evicted. It is merely a cheaper, more practical response to white flight - ethnic cleansing of whites by violent NAMs.
All of these measures implemented together would make family formation very affordable, far more affordable than it is now. Cheaper housing, better jobs, less competition for jobs, less fear - virtually every variable in the affordable family formation equation is improved.
Imagine that future - how do we get there? It could be on the horizon. Realized, it will be the key to victory after victory for conservatives.
If this last election is anything to go by, whites are starting to embrace racial bloc voting. Perhaps the GOP will be pushed to try something different this time. After all, studiously avoiding the racial divide has gotten them nowhere. This recent election loss was with a reasonably good presidential candidate in a bad economy who would have won like Reagan if he was running in a USA with 1980s demography. If the GOP wants to win, they have to change. They can no longer treat us as a cash/vote cow to be milked.
One of the things that is peculiar to white society, is that we are shorter term thinkers in some ways than other races (esp. East Asians). Focus on quarterly results to the exclusion of the long term picture is often derided. The result of this thinking was seen when the Japanese auto makers came in and drank the milkshake of the US auto makers by providing reliable, affordable cars.
The corollary to this short-term Western focus is that when the threat long on the horizon is now in front of us, we swing into action. Rather than give up, the US auto industry bounced back with higher quality cars. Politically, the threat is upon both us as a people and also on our de facto party. It is sink or swim time. If the change is to come, I would expect it to come now rather than 20 years ago.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that hispandering will get the GOP nowhere - just look at past history. And Sailer is influential, even if his ideas are verboten in most circles. Racial bloc voting is being widely talked about. Even discussing such matters is the first step to developing an "us-them" mentality.
If the GOP (or whatever replaces them) does flirt with policies designed to appeal to the white vote and campaigns by highlighting the racial divide, I can see a future where they win. I can also see them emboldened by the victory to reach further and solidify their gains.
There have been some liberal dems who have focused on the marriage gap for years. The mainstream media is too fixated on Latinos and feminists to pay attention.
Off topic:
I saw an AEI forum about "Conservatives and Immigration" on C-Span today. Only one of the four panelists, Ramesh Ponnuro, expressed any doubts about legalizing illegals.
According to Richard Land the restrictionist side is loaded with money and funds a loud opposition
that is pure astroturf because all ordinary people see the wisdom of reform. Tell the truth Steve: Come clean about the luxurious lifestyle you enjoy while the poor people at the Chamber of Commerce subsist on rice and beans.
"The stark irony is that most of the so called "conservatives" on this site have no kids, and have never, and never will be, married."
Really? I'm married with kids.
Anonymous Orthodox said...
Why is no Republican controlled state enacting policies to try to lower single motherhood? Charles Murray has an idea that could probably be sold in purple states (eliminate all welfare programs and move to a minimum income; more babies means less income for mom), but no red state is even trying.
11/19/12 5:42 AM
Good question. But I doubt it would do any good. First, in many so called republican states democrats are still 45 percent of the population and so they might not have the super majority needed to pass some of these measures.
Second, even if they did pass these measures, the national leftwing enforcers would come in like the cavalry to stop them. You'd see ACLU type lawsuits and then the federal courts would get involved.
Look at what just happened to Michigan and its affirmative action policy. At the end of the day, the other side holds the trump card. Until that changes, little can be done
And just as important they lack the charisma, dominance, a-holery, to appeal to women absent those economic dominant features. That won't change, any time the next five hundred years.
Anyone who makes a statement like that doesn't know history. You cannot project 50 years let alone 500. Do you think the people in 1962 expected us to end up like this? Things change. Look at how quickly the Germans changed in the 1930s.
Thus the most important aspect for survival, culturally and socially, if not politically and economically, is embracing the birth-rate race; and nothing else. That means White guys need to stop playing a losers game (trying to "get their act together") because its not possible for most, and embrace the casual thuggery that gets the most fertile (youngest) women aroused and willing to bear kids.
Advice everyone here needs to take EXCEPT for you.
to see the English language, Halloween, Christmas as WE celebrate it, Easter as WE celebrate it, Thanksgiving, 80's Rock music, Shakespeare, Robert Burns, the billion great and majestic, and humble and small things, that made up White America and deserve to be saved, along with its people.
You forgot to add Israel and the Jews to your wish list.
Republicans should have passed a law when they had a majority to send federal money to states in block grants with strings attached--The money would increase as the illegitimacy rate in each state decreased. Of course, the country club Republicans never would have gone along with it.
Joe H.
"Really? I'm married with kids."
Welcome to the club, please choose a seat; there are plenty open.
Well, some of the dumbed Republicians and Tea party folks say nice things about George W Bush and Trashed Romney. Carlos G was appointed by George W Bush promoting legalizing the hispanics he says negative things against Romney about the self-deport and the far-right of the party he became one of Romney's advisers but owns his job to Bush. Romney at least had the guts to talk about the gifts of Obama which is more conservative than comes out of the mouths of the Bushes or M Rubio.
Paul Mendez said...
This late in the game, the only hope for the continued survival of the USA is a neo-Victorian movement based on large families, devote Christianity, bourgeouis morality and harsh judgementalism.
Leave out "bourgeois morality", and replace it with a bomb-shelter or lifeboat morality. One that is communistic in the sense of the State (or Church[es], or mob shaming, or some other authority) has supreme economic authority over the individual. I don't mean the government/state owning everything, and trying to divide wealth equally or per "need".
Godless, childless, self-indulgent, free-thinking, atheistic libertarians such as myself are the problem, no matter how "conservative" we claim to be.
Didn't the bourgeois morality lead to all that?
Its amusing to watch people discover realities the party has known on the ground for years.
Apartment dwellers vote Democrat? No kidding, the Republican party has been drawing apartments out of Republican legislative and congressional districts for the past two decades.
We need relatively more white children? Why do you suppose the Republican party supported the child tax credit, something only of particular benefit to realtively well off people with income against which it can be credited? Why do you suppose the party has never seriously tried to overturn abortion nationwide, which would bring about a catastrophic increase in the black and hispanic birthrates?
Post a Comment