I think we agree.
Very similar things could have been said about Southern rural whites from the Great Depression until at least the 1970s and probably well into the 1980s. The old Democratic Party coalition depended on the ability of people like LBJ to give poor rural whites lots of “free stuff” to buy their votes.
The Democratic coalition broke down for many reasons, but social conservatives were a major part of that breakdown.
I believe the same thing can be done with Hispanics. The modern Republican Party is not anti-Catholic, and there are lots of conservative Catholics who are well-positioned to reach out to their socially conservative Hispanic Catholic fellow believers.
While it will be much harder, as more blacks become businessmen, it may be possible to split off enough black voters to deny Democrats a majority in close races. Conservative black pastors fighting homosexuality need to be encouraged as much as possible in that regard. The way in which Democrats fight tooth-and-nail against people like Congressman West show how concerned Democrats are that some prominent conservative black leaders will gain traction. If they're worried as Democrats, we should view that as a sign of their weakness and our opportunity. But short term, we've got a lot better opportunity with Catholic Hispanics and with the growing population of evangelical and charismatic Hispanics.
The loss of white Southerners from the Democrat coalition was due to three factors: the increasing urbanization and prosperity of the South after World War II; the support the Democrats outside the South gave to affirmative action and school busing; and the appeasement of Communists and (after 1979) Muslim extremists by Johnson and Carter. With middle class incomes and greater creature comforts, white Southerners had less need for government cheese. Unless Hispanic-Americans prosper economically as white Southerners did, or can be set against black Americans politically, a similar turning is unlikely. With the Democrats running the White House and Senate for another four years, the chances for a rising economic tide lifting all boats are not promising.
Even prosperity is no assurance that members of particular ethnic groups will vote in their own economic self-interest. A case in point is the Jewish voters, of whom it is said that they earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. Even with Romney being a strong friend of Israel and Obama questionable at best on this matter, almost 70% of Jewish voters supported the Democrat. Another example is the Asian vote. The increase in Asian-Americans post-1965 parallels that of Hispanics, although the former group's percentage is smaller relative to the overall population. Asians are far more likely to enter the professions and own businesses than Hispanics and the income levels of many Asian ethnic groups exceed the average for whites. Yet, like the Hispanics and the Jews, about 70% voted for Obama.
Some 85% of Muslim voters supported Obama, only a slight drop from the 89% he garnered four years ago.
It appears that white Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon voters represent the only base conservatives and Republicans have, and a shrinking one due to low white birth rates, higher minority birth rates, legal and illegal immigration, and the conversion of people from white Christian backgrounds to secular humanism, agnosticism, and atheism. At best, this country is on its way to becoming a European style social democracy; at worst, a cauldron like South Africa or Zimbabwe, where the formerly dominant whites are persecuted and killed.