Posted on 11/04/2008 4:39:42 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Pat Buchanan just snatched the security blanket from conservatives and stomped on it. Contemplating the prospect of an electoral loss, some conservatives are consoling themselves by imagining that the political pendulum will soon start swinging back their way.
Buchanan doesn't think so, and his very first words on the matter this morning explain why: "demography is destiny." Buchanan offered his analysis during the opening segment of today's Morning Joe.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
“Buchanan doesn’t think so, and his very first words on the matter this morning explain why: “demography is destiny.””
And, of course, Pat is right. In politics, demography IS destiny. We’re seeing this play out before us this very day.
Ronald Reagan’s America simply doesn’t exist any more. It has “changed colors”, and those colors are continuing to change. Indeed, what we’re seeing now is but a prelude of the deluge to come in the next two decades.
America’s “complexion” is slowly changing from white to brown. The current estimation is that by 2042 Euro-Americans will no longer constitute a majority of Americans - and that date has been moved _forward_ from the original projection of around 2050. Once the democrats open the immigration/amnesty floodgates, the country may tip over sooner.
As Euros are relegated to minority status, so too is conservativism. Conservatives will no longer be able to muster sufficient numbers to win the majorities needed to elect conservative (or even “moderate”) candidates. And even though we will still have a political voice, that voice will not be able to speak loudly enough to be heard over the screaming din of “minorities”.
Conservatism - by its nature - is the willingness to see things as they are, to recognize human nature with all its faults as well as its good points, and to be able to accept reality and “the hard truths”. Truths that are unpleasant, or contradict “the consensus of the moment”, are still true.
And I would like to state “Fishrrman’s fundamental truth of conservatism”:
Not all whites are conservative, but...
The overwhelming majority of conservatives are white.
Here on FreeRepublic we fall over ourselves to embrace the egalitarian dream: that anyone and everyone is exactly the same, and that everyone has the potential to become a conservative if persuaded by the right ideas. This is nonsense, as ridiculous as anything spewed out at us by the left.
The roots of conservatism flow from Europe itself - from the Scots/Irish and English who came here in the spirit of self-reliance and who harbored a distrust of government. It is they who form the fountainhead from which conservatism springs. Even today we see that in the “angry white males” who cling to their religion and guns... :)
Scant few years ago, we saw foolhardy Republicans in Congress angling to sneak amnesty by us through “comprehensive” immigration reform. These guys really, really seemed to believe that if only we gave them citizenship, they would vote for Republicans. What fools! Just this morning here on FR, there appears another thread that notes that 78% of Hispanics will vote for Obama. Who are we kidding?
The truth is that conservatism can survive in America only so long as America remains “Euro”. Up until 1965, we had immigration laws that protected the demographic makeup of America, and that intentionally discriminated against non-Euros. Of course, that changed, and only now are we started to see the results two generations down the line. When we surrendered our will to protect America “as it was”, we also gambled on the future, instead of directing it.
Buchanan makes a valid point. After Goldwater, conservatism could be “politically rebuilt”. After Reagan, it could still be rebuilt, because fifteen years ago, the demographic shift had yet to make its full weight apparent. But with twenty million Hispanics added to the voting rolls, and with millions more who will come via chain migration, it’s going to become increasingly difficult for Euro-conservatives to build winning voting blocs.
And, the ultimate result? We’re seeing the country “divide” against itself, just as it did prior to the Civil War. Then, we had “slave” and “free” states. This time, we’ve got Red and Blue states. One color represents achievement and self-reliance, while the other color embodies entitlement and expectation from government. Which is which?
In previous postings, I asked, “what will be left for conservatives to do, in the wake of the demographic waves sweeping America?” While some will argue to “stand and fight”, that makes little sense for, say, conservatives in California. Quite frankly, we are never “getting California back”, no matter what we do. Since your vote will count for less and less in places like that, the only recourse will become to “vote with your feet”. To get out while the gettin’s good for someplace that still resembles America as we once knew it, for however long we can keep those ideals burning.
Where shall we go? Call these the “New Conservative Homelands”, if you will. Entire states where conservatives can flock to and, by their sheer numbers, still command a majority. Perhaps in time even these homelands will be crushed by the leftists, who cannot stand to have any dissent against them, anywhere. But given the tendency of socialist governments to collapse under their own weight, I hope that in time the Conservative Homelands could preserve the original intents of the founders and someday once again become dominant, after “weathering the dark ages”, so to speak.
There are hard times for conservatism ahead, I fear- perhaps even akin to a political/cultural version of “the dark ages”. The left, having ascended to power, will do its best to shove “what was” down the Orwellian memory hole. Our best chances to protect the West from their efforts will be to concentrate our collective knowledge and artifacts into places where they will have a chance at survival. Hence, “homelands”.
Just as Galt ran off to the Gulch, so must conservatives find their “hideouts” and by gathering retain whatever majorites they can establish.
And pray for the future.
- John
His overriding concern is that native-born Americans are not replacing themselves biologically with replacement numbers of like-minded Americans.
Surely adoption of a foreign child to be raised as a like-minded American would increase the number of individuals that Buchanan's books imply that he would like to see peopling America.
You would also read arguments in favor of the teaching set forth in Humanae Vitae, arguments that are not made, so far as I know, by any public figure of comparable stature. Of course, Buchanan also has supported, throughout his whole career, the Church position on abortion, meaning that abortion is immoral in all circumstances. How many other Catholic figures can say the same?
Your comment tells me that you either miscalculate Buchanan's stature or that you are ignoring other Catholic public figures like, say, Mother Angelica or the Pope.
Moreover, defending Humanae Vitae on the utilitarian ground that obeying it would make for favorable demographics kind of misses the point of Humanae Vitae.
And yes, you did attack the Buchanans for not having any children. That was the sum and substance of your argument.
Pointing out an inconsistency is "an attack"?
Why you reserve so much venom for the man who holds to these beliefs--and always has--is beyond me.
Let's begin with Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum who, unlike Buchanan, were actually elected to national office on a major party ticket.
Why you reserve so much venom for the man who holds to these beliefs--and always has--is beyond me.
My distaste for Patrick Buchanan has nothing to do with with his stance on magisterial teaching regarding unborn life.
It has to do with his making excuses for Hitler and his scurrilous associations with groups like the New Alliance Party - and more importantly, his tarnishing of traditional Catholicism with those associations.
Oh my goodness! Little kids engaging in an American tradition, while their mothers are actually carrying more kids to term, rather than having abortions (horrors of horrors! call Planned Parenthood!). Someone speaking a language other than English? The sky is falling. And, worst of all, little kids taking "too much" candy. The republic is in peril / sarc
Whatever problems immigrants may have caused in this country, William Ayers and his ilk were not brought on by immigrants. He is a native-born American, as were the large majority of the 60's and 70's radicals who changed this country and fought for revolution. William Ayers is a homegrown American jackass.
Good, that's two. Out of thousands.
>>>>>>>> It has to do with his making excuses for Hitler and his scurrilous associations with groups like the New Alliance Party - and more importantly, his tarnishing of traditional Catholicism with those associations.
He hasn't made excuses for Hitler--read the book--and his only "association" with the New Alliance Party was accepting the support of Lenora Fulani, which support was withdrawn when Fulani realized Buchanan was giving nothing in exchange for the support, and she led her supporters out of the Reform Party convention to oppose Buchanan. Yet here you are, showing up with regularity whenever there is something dealing with Pat, spewing your venom.
I'm proud I voted for Pat each time he ran, and know we'd be a lot better off, both as a country and as conservatives, if Pat had been the nominee rather than Poppy Bush, Bob Dole, or Dubya.
You clearly missed the whole point of the post, which was in response to the original article that the United States is losing its cultural identity and is on its way to becoming a third-world country. I am sure you will happily and eagerly embrace that.
I understand the point you were trying to make. I just don't see how ehtnically-Mexican kids taking a couple of extra pieces of candy while their pregnant moms look on is going to bring about the end of this country.
You won't. Maybe this time, this election you will, but not in the future.
I like seeing people screaming about voter fraud, and crying about so many people voting for socialist etc. Yet they sat there for the past decade watching their own government encourage millions to enter illegally, as they allowed millions more from backwards third world countries to enter legally.
What did anyone think would result from all this?
“I just don’t see how ehtnically-Mexican kids taking a couple of extra pieces of candy while their pregnant moms look on is going to bring about the end of this country.”
Tell that to Southern Californians, especially Angelenos.
"....The RINO-infested GOP has surrendered its national power and thus sacrificed OUR Republic, rights and constitution on a silver platter on a bloody altar."
A person can complain about this forever. Demographics trumps everything. The Democrats will never stop the tide. They know they will get new voters. The GOP does not stop it because business interests want cheap labor. They will say that they are against illegals to burp the declining, but essential, GOP base but few actually mean it or are very late converts like McCain.
You are saying "Third Worlders" won't convert to Conservatism. If that is so there will not be enough people to stop a turn to socialism. I think you are wrong. As a person obtains more property they tend to want to preserve that and that is a Conservative value. The GOP has to reach out and build where it can or die out.
The difference between today and yesterday is that with this margin and the shifts in former GOP states it is really too late.
So we have another 2 decades until it is all over, huh.
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.