The 'Almost Exclusively White Phenomenon' of Conservatism

Every conservative should consider the profound and possibly awful observation made by the New York Times’ Josh Barro (italics added):

The rush to stand with Mr. Bundy against the Bureau of Land Management is the latest incarnation of conservative antigovernment messaging. And nonwhites are not interested, because a gut-level aversion to the government is almost exclusively a white phenomenon.

If there were validity to Barro’s observation, then any anti-government political philosophy (that wished to survive) would seek to reduce immigration.

After all, America is rapidly importing economically poor, poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants. Those immigrants generate racial inequalities, and inequality is then used to shame and guilt the majority. This is the neurotic cycle I call “America’s never-ending shame.” A constant influx of the “disadvantaged” guarantees a racialized political system and the growth of a Leviathan welfare state.

How can we verify that “a gut-level aversion to the government is almost exclusively a white phenomenon”? For starters, we could look to numerous polls and opinion surveys, which are a better indication of Latino opinion that any self-serving GOP talking points.

The Pew Research Center recently explored Hispanic views about the role of government. Seventy-five percent of Hispanics want “a bigger government providing more services,” while only 19% prefer “a smaller government providing fewer services.”

Source: Pew Hispanic Center, Pew Research Center

Among Asians (the second-largest group of immigrants today) the result was 55% favoring big government to 36% favoring smaller. In response to a similar question in 2002, far fewer Hispanics (55%) preferred bigger government; the trends are unfavorable for advocates of limited government.

So when we hear the squawk that the “government” imprisons black men at a rate 3x that of white men, that has to be racist because Mr. Sharpton said so. But when TP fans claim that government is too big and in your face, that too is racist because there aren’t any black Al Sharpton supporters behind the guy in NV. And it isn’t racist, of course, when the IRS goes after conservative groups 1000% as often as they do black non-profit groups.

Honestly, I don’t know liberals keep all this stuff straight.

“Here’s the word for word quote of the president’s most recent declaration against any and all who might disagree with his Big Government, no questions asked, agenda. They were spoken at a big money, California fundraiser:

The truth of the matter is, is that the reason that we have not seen Washington address the core concerns of too many working families around the country is that you have a party that has been captive to an ideology, to a theory of economics, that says those folks, they’re on their own and government doesn’t have an appropriate role to play.

And our goal and our task in this midterm has to be to break that grip, that particular view, that particular wrongheaded vision this country has so that we can get back to the business of investing in the American people and investing in America’s future.”

It’s only fiscal conservatism that qualifies as a SWPL (stuff white people like).

You see, social conservatism is something virtually all ethnic and racial groups in this country can get behind. Hence, proposition 8 in California - the state’s population is majority non-white, yet it voted several times in favor of real marriage. Almost every racial and ethnic group in this country is going to be a majority-in-favor voting block against perversion.

Social liberalism is the “almost exclusively white phenomenon” the author of this piece should have identified, along with libertarianism.

If you want the minority vote in this country you’re not going to get it with a combination of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, as a matter of fact that particular political blend a sure-fire way to send your party into total and complete obscurity. Anyone too naive or ignorant to realize that probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

This should generate interesting discussion. The Bible makes no mention of race save for the decedents of Noah’s kids. I think we’d be wading into a scriptural mess if we made racial determinations off Noah’s curse on Ham. The apostles got into trouble when they exhibited the slightest hint of racism: Samaritans, gentiles, etc.

For me, that dispels the best case to be made for racism. The next best case is experience which, unlike the first one, has nothing to do with genetics. We know by experience that we’re more likely to have crimes committed against us by non-whites. This isn’t just perception or racism, it’s reality. It’s also a reality that countries with large black populations are pretty miserable places. This, in know way, is proof of white superiority, but is proof that something is wrong culturally.

Culture explains the disparity between perceptions of government. This is something we’ve lost sight of. Democracy, liberty, individualism is an Anglo-American discovery, so to speak. It developed out of unfettered access to the teachings of the Bible. It wasn’t until the the Bible was allowed to be translated into English that the common man had access to the whole council of God with no liturgical filter. The more people who read the Bible, the more people understand there’s no King, Pope, priest, aristocrat, noble or parliament that intercedes between you and God.

Anyway, Asians, Mexicans, Blacks, etc don’t have the heritage Anglo-Americans have. To the extent that people assimilate into Anglo-American culture, they understand the evils of government. To the extent the Anglo-American heritage is ignored, harangued, abandoned, the more people will turn to government.

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.