Posted on 11/13/2008 4:02:22 AM PST by LS
If I see one more "we are doomed" or "we'll never again win an election" thread I'm gonna puke!
ANY reader of American history knows that going back to the 1600s, EVERY generation has faced (yes) a similar challenge, every generation has thought it faced the "end of the colony/state/country.
*John Adams and the Federalists were certain that Thomas Jefferson would destroy the country he helped build, and forge an alliance with that "terrorist" country France.
*Both Thomas Jefferson and Martin Van Buren said that the Missouri Compromise (that would be 1820, for those of you from Rio Linda) was "the death knell of the Union."
*All "men of standing" were certain that Andrew Jackson would destroy the nation---and thought he proved it when he allowed mobs into the White House to guzzle the wine stock while he high-tailed it out back to a nearby bar. Even Davy Crockett---hardly an effete snob---thought Jackson was going to destroy the country.
*EVERY major Republican except Lincoln thought they had permanently destroyed the Democrat Party by 1864. In fact, they had put into place such astonishing obstacles to the Dems EVER getting power that they were stunned when the Dems not only won congressional seats, but had to be swindled out of an election in 1876!
*The only way a Democrat even won the White House for 100 years was to either a) pretend to be a Republican (Cleveland---DINO); or to get the Republicans to fracture into two parties (Wilson in 1912).
*FDR put every obstacle to Republican elections in place from 1932-1944, and STILL couldn't prevent a Republican from being elected president in 1952, and it took a terrible TV debate and some fraud to keep Nixon out in 1960. It wouldn't have taken much, with a President Nixon in 1960, for Republicans to have held power throughout the 1970s.
Lenin took power in Russia with a mere 20,000 committed communists---smaller than my little Ohio township---in a nation of 160 MILLION. Commitment, determination, and above all, having an idea to fight for is the key to victory.
I'm going to end with a Bible story: Gideon was leading the Israelites against an enemy. He had an army of 30,000 and God said, "Too many! Your soldiers aren't all committed. Some are faint hearted, some are grumblers." God gave Gideon a test to eliminate 27,000 men from the ranks. With just 3,000, Gideon got ready to fight and God said, "Too many. There are still too many complainers, nay-sayers, men weak of faith." He gave Gideon another test, leaving Gideon with only 300. Then God said, "You are ready now to go and WIN." And he did.
If you are all through with your little hissy fits and "poor me/we'll never win another election" pity parties, I'm ready to join 299 of you to GO WIN.
What's your choice for a destination? Australia is headed the same way as we are, from what I've heard, and I can't think of anywhere else.
From what I hear, the new Jack Bauer will be a soft-hearted Liberal who helps the new female president overcome hatred and intolerance!
I’ve watched every “24” since it started, but I’m not going to watch it this year.
As far as Vic Mackey, The Shield is one of the best shows out there...I can’t wait to see the next (and last of the series) two shows.
I’m not replying to your main thesis because I am still sickened by the results and am incapable of rational thought.
For so many years I have read stories of the UK banning criticism of gays and Muslims and banning all firearms but single-shot shotguns. I’ve read of them banning hunting and turning their neighborhoods over to rabid immigrants who hate them and everything they stand for.
I’ve read horror stories of pastors in Sweden who are sentenced to jail for preaching against homosexuality, I’ve read stories of Canadians who are forced to appear before tribunals because they criticize Islam, read stories of people who write letters to newspapers criticizing gays who are then forced to pay thousands of dollars to gay organizations because their letter to the editor was “hate speech.”
And through it all I never thought there would come a day when we would see such foolishness in this country...until now.
I’ve been a GOP activist for most of my life, going on some 35+ years, but I have never felt so discouraged and disheartened as I do now.
So I’ll just comment on fictional characters for the nonce...and leave the cold, hard reality behind until I get used to the phrase President Obama.
See ya’,
Ed
That is the past and unlikely to be repeated given demographic trends. The only way Reps may be able to attract more black votes is the growing friction among blacks and Hispanics as they compete for unskilled labor jobs. What is remarkable about blacks is their attitude toward immigration, which more closely mirrors the non-Hispanic white view. I attended not too long ago a seminar put on by Brookings about the media's coverage of immigration. The panel, including Marvin Kalb and E.J. Dionne, expressed some amazement that blacks thought much like whites when it came to immigration issues.
Professor Huntington said something similar four years earlier when discussing the transformation of Miami: "The Hispanization of Miami is without precedent in the history of U.S. cities. The economic growth of Miami, led by the early Cuban immigrants, made the city a magnet for migrants from other Latin American and Caribbean countries. By 2000, two thirds of Miami's people were Hispanic, and more than half were Cuban or of Cuban descent. In 2000, 75.2 percent of adult Miamians spoke a language other than English at home, compared to 55.7 percent of the residents of Los Angeles and 47.6 percent of New Yorkers. (Of Miamians speaking a non-English language at home, 87.2 percent spoke Spanish.) In 2000, 59.5 percent of Miami residents were foreign-born, compared to 40.9 percent in Los Angeles, 36.8 percent in San Francisco, and 35.9 percent in New York. In 2000, only 31.1 percent of adult Miami residents said they spoke English very well, compared to 39.0 percent in Los Angeles, 42.5 percent in San Francisco, and 46.5 percent in New York.
The Cuban and Hispanic dominance of Miami left Anglos (as well as blacks) as outside minorities that could often be ignored. Unable to communicate with government bureaucrats and discriminated against by store clerks, the Anglos came to realize, as one of them put it, “My God, this is what it's like to be the minority.” The Anglos had three choices. They could accept their subordinate and outsider position. They could attempt to adopt the manners, customs, and language of the Hispanics and assimilate into the Hispanic community—“acculturation in reverse,” as the scholars Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick labeled it. Or they could leave Miami, and between 1983 and 1993, about 140,000 did just that, their exodus reflected in a popular bumper sticker: “Will the last American to leave Miami, please bring the flag.”
Still, for all the demographics you and Huntington put out there, the fact is that Hispanics are "Americanizing" at much faster rates than Scandinavians in the 1800s or Germans in the early 1900s. We've been through this before.
That just isn't true. And the numbers are far different than those early waves of immigration. The USG did not try to accommodate these earlier groups by teaching in their languages, providing ballots in their langages, or issuing USG publications in their language.
Huntington: Dual-language programs, which go one step beyond bilingual education, have become increasingly popular. In these programs, students are taught in both English and Spanish on an alternating basis with a view to making English-speakers fluent in Spanish and Spanish-speakers fluent in English, thus making Spanish the equal of English and transforming the United States into a two-language country. Then U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley explicitly endorsed these programs in his March 2000 speech, “Excelencia para Todos—Excellence for all.” Civil rights organizations, church leaders (particularly Catholic ones), and many politicians (Republican as well as Democrat) support the impetus toward bilingualism."
Perhaps equally important, business groups seeking to corner the Hispanic market support bilingualism as well. Indeed, the orientation of U.S. businesses to Hispanic customers means they increasingly need bilingual employees; therefore, bilingualism is affecting earnings. Bilingual police officers and firefighters in southwestern cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas are paid more than those who only speak English. In Miami, one study found, families that spoke only Spanish had average incomes of $18,000; English-only families had average incomes of $32,000; and bilingual families averaged more than $50,000. For the first time in U.S. history, increasing numbers of Americans (particularly black Americans) will not be able to receive the jobs or the pay they would otherwise receive because they can speak to their fellow citizens only in English.
In the debates over language policy, the late California Republican Senator S.I. Hayakawa once highlighted the unique role of Hispanics in opposing English. “Why is it that no Filipinos, no Koreans object to making English the official language? No Japanese have done so. And certainly not the Vietnamese, who are so damn happy to be here. They're learning English as fast as they can and winning spelling bees all across the country. But the Hispanics alone have maintained there is a problem. There [has been] considerable movement to make Spanish the second official language.”
In the mid-19th century, English speakers from the British Isles dominated immigration into the United States. The pre-World War I immigration was highly diversified linguistically, including many speakers of Italian, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, English, German, Swedish, and other languages. But now, for the first time in U.S. history, half of those entering the United States speak a single non-English language."
I don't believe in "lifetime" Democrats or "lifetime" Republicans: I've seen too many people who said they'd never vote one way or another change their mind (and often, their position permanently) with the right candidate or, more importantly, the right issue.
I was born in 1943. I have seen the Dems hold the House for 40 years straight and 58 out of 62 years from the period 1933 to 1995. I have also witnessed the rapid change in demographics that have changed the face of this country and increased its population from 151 million in 1950 to 305 million today, a doubling of the population in 58 years with most of the increase due to immigration. We will add another 162 million in the next 50 years, with about 105 million coming from immigration. If we have an amnesty, we could be a nation of half a billion by 2050.
In a decade, one in 7 residents of this country will be an immigrant, the highest in our history, and by 2050 one in 5 will be an immigrant. This country cannot assimilate those kinds of numbers and retain a national identity and culture. If you are going to look back in history, check out the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the days of the McKinley administration and the reaction of Congress and labor, which essentially shut down most immigration starting in the 1920s until the 1960s, which was helped by the Great Depression that caused immigrants to return home or not come at all.
Regardless of how the politicians try to spin what is happening, there is going to be a major blowback from the American people on immigration. The Reps need to hold to their principles on this issue, i.e., the rule of law. And we need to take the lead on immigration legislation that will reduce the numbers from 1.2 million to 300,000 annually per the Jordan Commission report of the 90s, eliminate birthright citizenship, go to a merit based system, and limit chain migration to the nuclear family. If an amnesty is passed, the political landscape of this country will be rearranged with many Dem blue collar whites and blacks seeking to align themselves with the Rep position on immigration, which is the defining issue of our time and will chart the future of this country.
Point is, they weren’t eradicated, even with ALL that political patronage. Read Burt Folsom’s book, “New Deal or Raw Deal” about how FDR funneled massive amounts of money to specific house and senate races. My point is that even at the very worst time, with the economy against them, with the Hoover taint still on them, with FDR pulling out all the patronage/spoils stops . . . they still hung in and by 1939 had 2/5s. I think that’s remarkable, almost as remarkable as the Dems hanging on from 1861-1877.
Yeah, France was at least theoretically a threat-—but of course the practical threat to the U.S. was the Royal Navy, not the French Army, and it eventually produced a war.
“Do you even bother to read comments before making reply?”
I was just taking exception to the ending phrase in that last sentence.
Bump and hear, hear!
The failure of the Dems to eradicate the opposition party shouldn't be viewed as any great triumph for the Reps. The fact that we were down to 89 members in the House in the 75th Congress was virtual eradication, especially when you consider that we only had 17 senators as well.
My point is that even at the very worst time, with the economy against them, with the Hoover taint still on them, with FDR pulling out all the patronage/spoils stops . . . they still hung in and by 1939 had 2/5s. I think that’s remarkable, almost as remarkable as the Dems hanging on from 1861-1877.
The reasons for the rebound in 1939 had to do with the start of WWII and the reluctance of many Americans to get involved remembering the WWI experience; the failure to fix the economy in terms of unemployment rates that were still at 17.3% after 8 years of FDR in office; and Roosevelt was in the process of running for an unprecedented third term in 1940. FDR had failed to deliver on many of his promises. Republicans like Lodge, Vandenberg, and others [so-called islolationists] offered an alternative to US involvement in another European war. This had some reasonance among the American people.
I attribute the Rep rebound in the 1938 midterms to FDR's weaknesses rather than a triumph of Rep ideals and policies.
But I grew up in AZ. I remember my dad (and virtually all foremen) spoke fluent Spanish, and substantially all Spanish (in the 1950s) to his crews; even as a child, I remember almost all car dealerships and furniture stores advertising, "Se hable espanol."
And it is simply not true that these immigration rates are unprecedented. When waves of Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians who helped found this country came here, they vastly outnumbered the English in many colonies. In Washington's army, the German elements were so dominant and incomprehensible that even when speaking "English" they needed a translator.
90% of this can be fixed by reversing the government's cow-towing to groups by returning to an English-only standard.
All that said, even as a security issue, this will NOT be the issue that will resurrect the Republicans. It is an important issue in the quiver of arrows, and one we must fight for, but if this is your lead issue, the you've already lost.
All the more reason to buckle up and fight. This is Valley Forge. We've lost some big fights, but the war has just begun.
Wow...we could truly have seen the end of America as we know it.
Which isn’t to say I’m sayin’ “Woe is me”!
Ed
P.S. Because I agreed with everything else you said.
The Federalist concern (Washington and Hamilton) was not that the French army would swim the Atlantic despite the Royal Navy. Although one should remember that before Trafalgar there was a real possibility France would use its allies’ fleets to gain control of the seas. It would then promptly conquer Britain and France would become a very genuine threat to the USA.
The Federalists were concerned that the revolutionary tendencies of France would spread to the American people. Since most of the Federalists thought of themselves as more or less aristocrats (European aristocrats would not have agreed), it’s not surprising this terrified them.
The French tried to stir up such a revolution, and some of the Jeffersonians produced fire-eating rhetoric along these lines, but the Rev never really got any traction. Probably because most Americans were farmers on their own land, and we had no giant city like Paris with a convenient mob.
They actually have a point there.
Yep, not to mention that the French population of America was tiny, while the Anglo population of America was immense.
Yeah, but it’s eerily similar to the Soviet’s politicizing psychiatry and saying anyone who opposed the magnificent USSR was “crazy.”
But the USG is not/not going to do anything about it. If anything, there will be an expansion of these programs as more and more immigrants arrive. In a decade, one in 7 will be foreign born up from one in 20 in 1970 and the highest in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 will be foreign born. The majority of these immigrants will be from Latin America. I can envision Spanish being made an official language of this country. It is rapidly becoming a de facto official language now.
But I grew up in AZ. I remember my dad (and virtually all foremen) spoke fluent Spanish, and substantially all Spanish (in the 1950s) to his crews; even as a child, I remember almost all car dealerships and furniture stores advertising, "Se hable espanol."
I have no problem with businesses using Spanish to market their goods and services. The issue is the official use of a language other than English by the USG. Why should we issue ballots in foreign languages? Or the annual report from the Social Security Trustees? And there is also the problem of rewarding or requiring language proficiency in languages other than English for municipal jobs like firefighters, policemen, etc. This just incentivizes the creation of another official language and discourages immigrants from learning the language.
And it is simply not true that these immigration rates are unprecedented. When waves of Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians who helped found this country came here, they vastly outnumbered the English in many colonies. In Washington's army, the German elements were so dominant and incomprehensible that even when speaking "English" they needed a translator.
They are unprecedented in terms of numbers and persistency. And in a decade, they will comprise the highest percentage in our history. We have a continuous wave from Latin America that is growing annually. During the period 2000 to 2007, 10.3 million immigrants arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.
The comparison of immigration in colonial America with what is happening today is intellectually dishonest and factually wrong. In 1790, the population of the US was 3.9 million. We were a largely an agrarian economy and sparsely populated with a relatively weak central governent. There were no government welfare programs, entitlement programs, etc. Let's put some of the numbers in context for your Germans, English, and Scandinavians.
During the period 1607 to 1958, i.e., 350 years, here is the total number of immigrants who came to America by country of origin:
Germany--6,798,313
Great Britain--4,642,096
Sweden--1,255,296
Norway--843,867Z
Finland--28,358
According to the 2000 US Census there are 14,203,404 foreign born immigrants from Spanish speaking Latin America with 9,161,419 from Mexico. Those numbers have increased significantly since 2000. As of 2007 it is estimated that there are 20.4 million foreign-born immigrants from Latin America including 11.7 million from Mexico or about equal to the total number of immigrants who have come to America from Germany and the Great Britain during the 350 year period 1607 to 1958.
The 37.9 million immigrants residing in the United States in 2007 is by far the most ever recorded. Even during the great wave of immigration at the turn of the 19th century, the immigrant population was much less than half what it is today. We can use percentages and other spin to try to make what is happening today as being similar to other periods in American history, but it isn't.
90% of this can be fixed by reversing the government's cow-towing to groups by returning to an English-only standard.
But who is going to hang the bell on the cat? Certainly not Congress or President Obama. In fact, it will start going the other way as our population becomes more Hispanic and more foreign born. By 2050, one in 3 residents of this country will be Hispanic.
Huntington: "In 1917, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said: “We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural.” By contrast, in June 2000, U.S. president Bill Clinton said, “I hope very much that I'm the last president in American history who can't speak Spanish.” And in May 2001, President Bush celebrated Mexico's Cinco de Mayo national holiday by inaugurating the practice of broadcasting the weekly presidential radio address to the American people in both English and Spanish. In September 2003, one of the first debates among the Democratic Party's presidential candidates also took place in both English and Spanish. Despite the opposition of large majorities of Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys as the language of the United States. If this trend continues, the cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society."
The fact that in 2008, the Dems had one of their primary debates on a Spanish speaking cable television network and their debate translated into Spanish for the audience is a sign of things to come.
All that said, even as a security issue, this will NOT be the issue that will resurrect the Republicans. It is an important issue in the quiver of arrows, and one we must fight for, but if this is your lead issue, the you've already lost.It may not be the issue to resurrect the Republicans, but it will surely be the one that relegates them to permanent minority status. Four of the red states that went for Bush in 2004 and for Obama in 2008 had one thing in common--a significant increase in Hispanic voting. In Colorado, Hispanics rose from 8% in 2004 to 14% in 2008 as a percentage of the electorate. In NM, 32% to 41%. In Nevada 10% to 15% and in VA from less than 1% to 5%. As Hispanics become more involved in the political system, the more red states will become purple than blue.
If the Rep party cannot stop this unprecedented wave of immigration, legal and illegal, it wil continue to lose political power and relevance. Immigration is not everything, it is the only thing. Those who fail to understand its significance will continue to be surprised and amazed [and wrong] about future election results.
That cannot be the argument and never has been, and the minute America is perceived as "closed," it's finished as America.
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.