Posted on 05/27/2009 8:35:13 AM PDT by GOPGuide
snip
Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Over the past decade, racial groups have become more polarized, not less. A simple example will suffice. A personal friend, a white man who teaches at an inner-city school in Los Angeles County with an almost entirely Hispanic population, polled his students shortly before the 2008 election regarding their parents' presidential preferences. Every hand in the classroom went up for Obama. After class, my friend approached one of the students. "Why are your parents voting for Obama? he asked a 10-year-old Hispanic girl. She answered him in four words: "Because he's not white.
"Because he's not white has become the rallying cry for racial minorities all across the country. There are 24 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Twenty-three are Democrats, and one is an independent. Leaving aside U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and two members of Congress who represent no district, the Hispanic population in the districts they represent averages 59.23 percent. That means that concentrated pockets of Hispanics elect Hispanics.
The same is true for the Congressional Black Caucus. There are currently 44 members of the Congressional Black Caucus; all are Democrats. Leaving aside Senator Roland Burris, D-Ill., and two nonvoting, at-large members of Congress, the black population in the districts they represent averages 48.47 percent. That means concentrated pockets of blacks elect blacks.
The same is largely true of whites, of course. The difference is that whites elect members of both parties -- racial identity is not bound up in political identity. For the Hispanic and black communities, however, racial and socioeconomic identity increasingly mean allegiance to one party: the Democratic Party. Thus, when Miguel Estrada is grilled by Democrats, no one worries about the electoral ramifications for the Democrats among Hispanics, yet when Sotomayor is nominated, critics worry that Republican criticism will drive away Hispanics. The same holds true for the black community: When Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is raked over the coals by Democrats, no one worries that blacks will run from the Democratic Party; when Barack Obama is criticized by Republicans, however, the press declares that Republicans will lose the black vote forever.
The implications of the racial separation of our republic are supremely dangerous. It seems that racial groups more and more often vote along tribal lines; multiethnic democracy now means racial re-segregation, at least in terms of electoral politics. Small-R republicanism relies on the willingness of individuals to discern and vote for the politicians with whom they agree, not the politicians with whom they share a skin color, racial heritage, and economic background.
Barack Obama's candidacy was supposed to usher us into a post-racial America. It seems that his election, and his continuing exploitation of racial differences through nominations like Sotomayor's, has only deepened the racial divides.
Unfortunately, third world immigrants vote like white latte drinking urbanized intellectuals and are represented by people who, other than the color of their skin, are white latte drinking urbanized intellectuals (name a leftist ethnic leader who doesn't).
Ironically, while adoring ignorant poverty-stricken superstitious rural immigrants from the third world, white liberals absolutely despise that segment of their own group that is the most like these same people. Perhaps they deal with their frustrations with third worlders by diverting their anger at rednecks?
We get bourbonized intellectuals, instead.
Thanks. What would explain the huge difference between “Hispanic and Other Minority Catholics” and “Hispanic and Other Minority Protestants”?
“A personal friend, a white man who teaches at an inner-city school in Los Angeles County with an almost entirely Hispanic population, polled his students shortly before the 2008 election regarding their parents’ presidential preferences. Every hand in the classroom went up for Obama. After class, my friend approached one of the students. “Why are your parents voting for Obama? he asked a 10-year-old Hispanic girl. She answered him in four words: “Because he’s not white.
Honestly, anyone who is shocked by this is too moronic to ever be allowed to vote again. You really have to have your head in the sand to not see whats happening in the country.....or be John McCain
“The Liberals assumed they could actually turn third world immigrants into white latte drinking, urbanized intellectuals. Seriously, this is what they thought.”
Was always of the impression they thought they could turn them into votes.
But then everyone had this explained to them in 1965, when it was decided by those placed above us that the US need no longer be a majority European-based, Christian republic.
But, it was an unpleasant, even if true, message. Often it was delivered by truly unpleasant, even if truthful, people.
They will do to our country what they did in their countries before it got so back they came to our country. Stupid people produce stupid results. Ask California. Who cares anymore. Just stop working and get on welfare like the rest of the idiots.
Yes, smart aleck, there is. It can be summarized as "the continuance of Western society".
It is not a racially exclusive or hateful concept. All are invited to join in.
If we are talking about Americans of European ancestry (the only "caucasians" are Georgians and Armenians) versus say Chinese, East Indians, or Africans, than it is a different story.
Whites are also the only group to vote on (non-racial) cultural issues (ie abortion, school prayer, enviornmental issues, etc.).
As far as hispanics are concerned, the best way to measure assimilation into the dominant population(indeed the ONLY way) is via intermarriage, IMHO.
Methinks we are moving demographically towards Brazil, with whites and yellows on top, browns and schelp-class whites (and a few blacks) in the middle/lower middle, and blacks and browns at the bottom.
My concern is not driving people away from or attracting people to our cause, but to accurately define what is at stake in the battle of liberal vs. conservative values.
While I say, accurately, that all are welcome to join in and help defend and propagate this cause, it must be noted that this cause only exists where Caucasian people have settled and control the reigns of government.
Countries and nations that never experienced stuff like The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The Reformation, or any of the other experiences that define traditional Western thought tend to be poo-holes today. I do not want my great country to become that.
So I say again: All races and peoples are welcome to join up to further the cause of civilized Western society, as well as reap it's benefits. The alternative is living and dying in a poo-hole, sans indoor plumbing or penicillin
(As far as hispanics are concerned, the best way to measure assimilation into the dominant population(indeed the ONLY way) is via intermarriage)
Another way is thru religious conversion. Hispanic Catholics are rabid Dem voters even the ones who attend Mass frequently. Hispanic evangelicals and Mormons are open to supporting conservative candidates, provided they don’t come across as idiots.
It may be because so many Catholic Hispanic clerics are liberation theologists if not outright Marxists.
that chart looks like a variant of the Bell Curve (in more ways than one)
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.