The shape of things to come (John Derbyshire on the future of the GOP)

As I have been saying, there is no unity among white Americans. The old splits of education, class, sex, religion, city-country, and of course North-South still divide whites, and that is the basis of most of our politics. The Republican Party is white, sure enough, but whites aren't Republican.

This will presumably be less and less the case as whites head for minority status. At some point the fact of impending minority status will sink in, and whites will begin to sink their differences and circle the wagons. At some point the Lee Kuan Yew principle will take over. I've quoted it before, and I'll quote it again, because it's very quotable in this context. Quote from Lee Kuan Yew, who was Prime Minister of Singapore for thirty years, and the power behind the curtain for a further twenty in that very successful city-state, quote:

In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

What then will be the fate of the Republican Party? The Republicans themselves seem unable to discuss this at any level above the moronic. The usual thing you hear is that the GOP has to "reach out" to minorities, especially Hispanics, by handing out a few million sets of citizenship papers to illegals and by putting Marco Rubio on the 2016 ticket.

This is, as I said, moronic. Not "Mormonic" — been there, done that — moronic.

In the first place, Rubio's a white guy of Cuban ancestry, an outlier among Hispanics, from a group that Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Guatemalans don't much care for. In the second place, non-white, non-Asian minorities in the U.S.A. underperform in education and employment, and have for generations. You don't need to have a metaphysical theory about why this is so, it's just so, has been for decades in defiance of every kind of remedial action, and there's no evidence anyone can do anything about it. For example, we now have a good database on Hispanics covering the fourth and fifth generations: the statistics are terrible. High-school dropout rates, test scores, unmarried pregnancies, crime, every kind of social dysfunction — Hispanics in the generality are an underperforming group that depends on money transfers from whites and Asians via government. Why would this group ever, in any numbers, vote for a small-government white party? And you can of course write that out all over again in boldface large type and italics for blacks. In the third place, given the previous point, where on earth is the sense in expanding this never-going-to-vote-Republican demographic by awarding citizenship to a further three or four million of them? What's the logic here? "We got into this pickle because of uncontrolled immigration. How do we get out of it? Uhhh… I know! — let's try more uncontrolled immigration!" As Basil Fawlty would say: "Brilliant!" Or as a different Englishman, Daily Telegraph columnist Ed West, headlined his column this week, quote: Pundits tell the Republican party: "The only way you can win is by importing more Democrat voters", end quote. Did someone say "Stupid Party"? This is beyond stupid! In the fourth place, Republicans have poisoned their credibility in this zone by being complicit in the phenomenon they are now pretending to be vexed by, as I described before. The hunger for cheap labor on the part of Republican donor groups has been a big driver of our country's demographic transformation. Why should we listen to anything Republicans have to say about this? For fifty years they've been part of the problem; why should we now believe they're willing to be part of the solution? And in the fifth place, this talk about reaching out to minorities and diversifying the ticket just insults white people, the very group Republicans should be trying to rally. OK, say in 2050 our numbers fall below half the population. That's still a mighty lot of people. Are you telling me that for the next 38 years this huge bloc, the founding stock of modern America, should not be allowed to see themselves represented on a Presidential ticket? Where's the equity in that?

"But," (I hear you say), "if the GOP is to be the white folks' party, and if white folks are destined to be a minority even within the possible lifetime of a reactionary old fogey like Derbyshire, then the GOP will be a minority party, for ever excluded from power, won't it?"

That depends how things shake out over the next forty years. Yes: In a nation made up entirely of ethnic minorities, any ethnically-based party will of course be a minority party. To get power under the present constitutional order, supposing that continues to exist, two or more minorities will have to unite under one party.

But (A) I refer you to Lee Kuan Yew's observation quoted earlier, that in a multiethnic state, politics inevitably comes down to an ethnic shoving match; and (B) this logic will apply to the Democratic Party, too, only in the opposite direction.

Let me elaborate on (B) there. The only thing binding the Democratic Party together right now is hatred of traditional white America. As traditional white America fades in power and importance, the Democrats, deprived of that binding force, may come unglued. By mid-century our politics may consist of three, four, or more minority parties in floating alliances with each other. It's plausible, for example — though I'll allow I may be influenced by personal bias here — it's plausible that whites and East Asians could go into coalition with each other. Or that successful white Hispanics like Rubio might be at odds with underperforming black and Amerindian Hispanics. Or that blacks and Hispanics may turn enemies, as they already are in jails and schoolyards all over the nation.

So I take the chatter about the death of the Republican Party with a grain of salt. However, I take the other chatter — the chatter about the Republican Party ceasing to be a white party — I take that with a whole truckload of salt. No, make that a one-hundred-wagon locomotive full of salt. Mm, come to think of it, let's make it a container ship …

We ABSOLUTELY MUST be proactive. We must attack at EVERY OPPORTUNITY then add each fail of the dems to a trend and theme. These themes must be simple, tailored, and repetitively broadcast to each target demographic.

I agree, but how do we stop our loud REACTIONARIES?

They do us no good at all!

The pain you feel today is the strength you'll have tomorrow.

That’s a good question. The answer stems from the new face approach that I outlined in LEADERSHIP.

The Right MUST have a summit AND SOON. The RNC might be able to coordinate this but needs to be careful about running it. Every fringe of the right needs their say but, also has a common enemy.

Another Hearts and Mind tenet learned the hard way in the Middle East (its an old arab proverb)”The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

The entirety of the right has to show a united front. If that takes some closed door negotiation, so be it. Knock it out in private not public but, exit the session united.

Rubio can do this. If it’s all thrown on the table, then every aspect of the right must be included in the plan. Reject the plan and be cast out.

In certain there’s more to it than that but, the concept is the start point.

Pass these thuoghts to as many as you can. I really beleive it needs to be in the hands of someone who can run with it at the RNC.

We need to stop running 20th century campaigns in a 21st century world. This is open political warfare. Lets fight it with the tactics that have proven themselves around the globe.

RLTW

>How did you vote? Did you vote like a deeply religious, dedicated pro-lifer, or like a person unaffiliated with a religion?

I always vote for the R and against the democrat.

I would not have an abortion even if I could, nor would I advocate for anyone having an abortion.
The akin and mourdock results showed that in the case of rape, most people (voters) do not think forcing a birth on a rape victim is a winning issue. I do not see any evidence that their comments helped them.

While I am religious, it appears that it may not be the “approved” religion by some here. In Romney’s case, it did not matter that he is religious if it’s not the “right” religion.

I could be wrong but injecting both subjects into an election appears to distract and degrade from the goal of protecting America from the leftists.

If most folks here are ok with letting the democrat scumbags in office now keep their power due to Romney’s religion and past abortion stances, then I guess I can live with it too.

And this time race was not a factor, it was the few million gonadal and religious voters that stayed home because Romney was Mormon and didn’t force rape victims to carry their rapist infected embryo. I’ll add that people also vote or abstain in accordance with their intelligence. Your intelligence doesn't seem very high when it comes to voting and elections.

The most pro-Romney voting block was the most religious, and the most pro-life group in America, the Evangelical Christians, who voted 79% republican, those with no religious affiliation voted 26% republican, Catholics voted 48% republican.

It seems as though you broke from the ranks of the majority of your religion, or denomination, and instead, you chose to vote with the Evangelicals.

I'm here in Singapore now, where I got to watch the election results last week from a safe distance. Singapore has plenty of poor people, but their quasi-socialistic health care and social security (CPF) systems are expertly managed, free of American-style corruption, and serve to keep the standard of living for the very poorest at a much higher level than in the USA. At the same time, Singapore's government is very pro-capitalist and the high-end here is ultra high-end.

The difference is competence - Singapore's authoritarian government has it in spades - our own, allegedly democratic government does not.

“The solution: business friendly “red zones” and benefit friendly “blue zones. Just like Hong hong China and PRC China. Let the blues stew in their filth.”

Actually, that might be a VERY workable solution for the nation’s future. A very interesting idea. One of the most original I’ve seen yet, considering how divided the nation (as a whole) has become.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.