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.
We must lead it and control it. There already is a liberal party in America and it ain’t us.
However, I disagree that just because they are Hispanic or whatever ethnic group they are inherently non or anti-Republican. This was the case with the Irish and Italians in the 1800s, they have perhaps don't vote GOP in a majority, they do vote GOP. I am of the view that immigrant groups can be "converted," but it requires an argument and a good alternative.
Blacks voted GOP long, long after the GOP had abandoned them. They now vote Dem long after the Dems have sold them down the river. We'll see how long it lasts.
So if what Barry and the RATS do have another 20 year effect for republicans, that's for the rest of my life.
Yeah, but as conservatives, we believe in transcendent values-—that it’s as important what we leave our children as what we personally experience.
Yep, I've done that to the best of my ability with our kids, and I'm still doing it - now with the grandkids.
Our granddaughter whose in 3rd grade, had a mock election for POTUS in her class. She voted for McCain and PalinShe was proud as 'heck' and made sure her mother (our oldest daughter) called and told me about it. :-)
umgud writes:
“Long term, I see far too much bleeding blue due to the ever increasing Latino vote. Anchor babies are coming of voting age and I expect some large number of new citizens under an Obama admin. Even downplaying this, demographics is still a big hit against the republicans.”
A little further down, in reply to nathanbedford, LS writes:
“Now, as I see it, the issue before is it to correctly identify and address the primary issue of the day”
Umgud has answered LS’ question regarding the key issue before us.
That issue is:
Can the unique philosophy of American conservatism survive in the face of the changing demographics of America?
I’ve written about this before, but at the risk of becoming broken record (how many folks actually remember “records”?), I’ll state it again:
Conservatism as we know it in America is, by and large, a cultural/philosophical value system that sprung from the northern Europeans (mostly Scotch/British/Irish) that created America.
Not all Euro-Americans are conservative, but...
The overwhelming majority of conservatives are white Euros.
Everything worked so long as the demographic makeup of the United States remained white. Even after the awful destruction of the Civil War, the fundamental bonds of ethnicity, culture, and race remained underneath and enabled the nation to rebuild.
But that is no more. American Euros are in demographic decline, and those who are replacing them do not have the heritage of ethnicity, culture and race that will persuade them to embrace the mores of conservatism as taken up by the Euros who - like the soldiers of the Great War and World War II - are slowly fading away.
The newcomers seem to want little of what conservatives offer. They see us across a barrier of ethnicity and, when a choice has to be made, mostly choose their own with whom to identify. They are coming from cultures where “conservatism” never had a foothold, and where those who were “on the right” were all-too-often dictators.
Combine these new, growing brown cohorts with enough whites who are willing to embrace liberalism and socialism, and it will become increasingly difficult for conservative Euros to fashion an electoral majority. It’s not that our ideas won’t “sell” to whites any more; rather, it’s that they won’t sell to _enough_ whites (thank the public schools for the Gramscian re-education of the kids), and they’ll hardly sell to non-whites at all. With demographic projections yielding 2042 as the year Euros no longer represent a national majority, there won’t be enough “saleable whites” to overcome the demographic handicaps we face.
Sorry to be pessimistic. Regardless of how optimistic one tries to be of one’s prospects, the demographic numbers presage our destiny. And “the numbers” can’t be wished away. LIke Dr. McCoy told Mr. Spock in an old Star Trek episode, “Dammit, Spock, it’s a machine - you can’t argue with a machine!”
- John
“We agree on what needs to happen on immigration. I’m certainly not anti-immigration, nor do I think any “removal” has to be vicious or inhumane. But it must be done.”
Here’s part of the problem:
You claim to not be “anti-immigration”, yet you “agree on what needs to happen.”
You state that “removal” (I’m guessing of illegals, right?) should not be vicious or inhumane, then go on to say that “it must be done”.
Unless and until so-called conservatives drop the mealy-mouthedness about the subject, it’s a lost cause. We are doomed to be driven into demographic insignificance by the ever-increasing non-Euro hordes teeming to our borders.
I will go on record by stating that I have reached the point where I _am_ “anti-immigration”. It must end, period. To go the way we are going is the road to disaster, and nothing less.
I would support a return to the official immigration policies of the country as of, say, 1930, but that’s it. Other than that, it’s time to close off the country to newcomers and at least try to deal with what we have here now.
And I _do_ support sending the illegals home. Yes, there is going to be pain in doing so. But there is no choice - IF we wish to survive as an ethnically-cohesive nation.
- John
You know, we, conservatives could take this nation back in a couple of years if we all relocated to red/purple states. We’d be able to take back the senate, after redistricting, we could take the house. Maybe even have enough states under control to force a constitutional convention. We won’t do it for a variety of reasons. But we do have the power to bring about change if we were willing to pay the price for it.
More practically we need to gain control of major media outlets. We need to gain controlling interest in a major tv network. In a battle against marxist propaganda, we need an outlet for the truth to reach the people.
I do not think deportation in the slightest is "inhumane."
I read and instantly reply.
I am GUILTY of thinking that the American Voter would actually take the time to THINK of the consequences of voting for Obama and that McCain would landslide into the Presidency.
I HATE what happened but I’m not sure we didn’t “deserve” it because we (Conservatives, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists) have gotten too complacent with our governing officials.
LOOK at how the Democrats used the Internet as opposed to the Republicans use of the Internet.
The Republicans will HAVE to have someone who will inspire “the common man/woman/child” in all the Congressional races for 2010 and definitely for the Presidential race in 2012.
That said, Sotoro-Obama, should he actually be inaugurated as a Natural Born US Citizen (or not), is not “the enemy of our souls” — enemy may he be — it’s the American Voter’s perspective of who Obama is, which is our “enemy.”
And it is up to us to change the Voters’ concept of Obama at every turn. AND to support the GOP and get involved (gag me, I refuse to ‘be’ anything but a BlueDog Democrat) with the Republican Party locally and/or State wide.
We can use the same power of the press and of the internet. When the Republican Party decides on their Congressional candidates, WE must get them to understand that using the Internet is ‘the way to go’ -— even to the point of “Twittering” their constituents.
Republican Candidates MUST Set up an interactive website; Email regularly; Keep in constant contact. Have some staff people to answer emails. The Republicans MUST get with the program in order to hold onto their base and ADD people to their base.
Shoot, there are 18 Million ?? women Voters who voted for Hilary. The Republicans need to convert some of those women, if possible and add them to the Rep base.
Also, The Republicans and the National Black Republican Association should coordinate some activities together and the NBRA should have some input in the Republican Agenda.
That might help, except the major networks are all seeing falling viewership. Now, I do think that they will continue to broadcast even if they have nearly zero audience, so from that perspective, a “Republican” network or two would be useful.
Hey, there’s an upside to everything. I’m investing heavily in the suicide pill industry.
...I am undone!
Attrition thru enforcement works. The problem is that Obama and the Dems will stop many of the enforcement efforts to pay off political debts to groups like La Raza. And an amnesty will total undercut enforcement efforts at the state and local levels, which are working.
Defenders and advocates of tens of millions of immigrants will take to the streets to press their case for immigration reform and remind Obama of one of the policy planks he plugged on the campaign stump as he wooed the Hispanic vote.
"On January 21 we will be here in Washington to ask for reforms and for an end to the raids" at workplaces that have seen illegal immigrants arrested and deported, said Angelica Salas, director of the Los Angeles-based Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. "We ask the president-elect to consider immigration reform one of his 10 domestic priorities," she told reporters Tuesday, adding that she hoped reform legislation would begin "in the first 100 days" of an Obama administration. Organizers of the January 21 march, totaling some 30 nongovernmental organizations, announced they will quickly begin lobbying lawmakers in Congress to drive the immigration agenda. "We are going to push it and keep it as a priority," said Jessica Alvarez, president of the National Capital Immigration Coalition.
However, I disagree that just because they are Hispanic or whatever ethnic group they are inherently non or anti-Republican. This was the case with the Irish and Italians in the 1800s, they have perhaps don't vote GOP in a majority, they do vote GOP. I am of the view that immigrant groups can be "converted," but it requires an argument and a good alternative.
What is going on today is unprecedented in our history. When the Irish and Italians came here, there were no welfare systems, no entitlement programs, etc. And they shared a common European heritage with our founders. And being Irish and raised in an urban Italian immigrant neighborhood, I can personally attest to the desire to assimilate and become Americans. That is not happening among Hispanics who were once just 1% of our population in 1970, are now 15% in 2008, and will be 30% in 2050. We are making accommodations to them rather than the other way around.
If you want to see what America will look like in 2042, go to California where one-third of the population is Hispanic and one in four immigrants.
"Contemporary Mexican and, more broadly, Latin American immigration is without precedent in U.S. history. The experience and lessons of past immigration have little relevance to understanding its dynamics and consequences. Mexican immigration differs from past immigration and most other contemporary immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, persistence, and historical presence."
Continuation of this large immigration (without improved assimilation) could divide the United States into a country of two languages and two cultures. A few stable, prosperous democracies—such as Canada and Belgium—fit this pattern. The differences in culture within these countries, however, do not approximate those between the United States and Mexico, and even in these countries language differences persist. Not many Anglo-Canadians are equally fluent in English and French, and the Canadian government has had to impose penalties to get its top civil servants to achieve dual fluency. Much the same lack of dual competence is true of Walloons and Flemings in Belgium. The transformation of the United States into a country like these would not necessarily be the end of the world; it would, however, be the end of the America we have known for more than three centuries. Americans should not let that change happen unless they are convinced that this new nation would be a better one.
Such a transformation would not only revolutionize the United States, but it would also have serious consequences for Hispanics, who will be in the United States but not of it. Sosa ends his book, The Americano Dream, with encouragement for aspiring Hispanic entrepreneurs. “The Americano dream?” he asks. “It exists, it is realistic, and it is there for all of us to share.” Sosa is wrong. There is no Americano dream. There is only the American dream created by an Anglo-Protestant society. Mexican Americans will share in that dream and in that society only if they dream in English.
Blacks voted GOP long, long after the GOP had abandoned them. They now vote Dem long after the Dems have sold them down the river. We'll see how long it lasts.
With the nomination and election of the first black President, the Democrat party will have the alliegence and support of blacks for many generations. Moreover, the Dem Party has become the home for most minorities who view the Reps as the white people's party composed of bigots and racists. We Reps have a big challenge ahead of us as the country becomes more diverse and the non-Hispanic white population continues to decline as a percentage of the total population.
The GOP gave blacks their first congressmen and senators. That lasted 60 years.
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.
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.
72nd Congress(1931-33) House--216 Dems, 218 Reps, 1 Ind
73nd Congress(1933-35) House--313 Dems, 117 Reps, 5 Ind
74nd Congress(1935-37) House--322 Dems, 103 Reps, 10 Ind
75nd Congress(1937-39) House-- 333 Dems, 89 Reps, 13 Ind
76nd Congress(1939-41) House--262 Dems, 169 Reps, 4 Ind
After FDR took office in 1933, the Rep gains were marginal in the House. It was only in 1939 that they were able to get the Dems below 300. FDR actually increased the Dem margins in the House until 1939.
Not IMO. The Bolshies were a tightly disciplined Party.
American leftists and liberals are an utterly disorganized coalition of special interest groups. The only thing they agree on is their detestation for Bush and conservatives. They agree to support each other to win elections.
Now they’ve regained control, I expect fissures to form rapidly. Not every special interest group can get all the goodies they think they should, and they’ll resent it when another group gets more.
Just noticed the scare quotes around terrorist.
Given that France at the time was quite openly and proclaimedly engaging in terrorism against domestic opponents, not to mention waging war on the rest of the world, the term seems fully justified.
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.