Posted on 06/11/2009 10:38:35 AM PDT by Dayton3
Why does everyone insist on the GOP reaching out to Hispanic and black voters?
Sure, non Hispanic whites will be the minority in the U.S. (though by far the LARGEST minority) in the 2040-2050 time frame.
But there are a lot of presidential elections between now and then.
If the GOP increased its take of white votes from 58% (2004) or 55% (2008) to 70% or better, then it could win virtually any election with little minority support.
And why as so many claim would it be racist?
Is it racist when 94% of black voters vote for the Democratic candidate or 80% of Hispanic voters go Democratic?
Why waste the time and resources on making minor inroads among blacks and Hispanics when the GOP could start a quest to secure more white votes from a position of strength?
My filipina wife and her sister are uber conservative and realistic.... we sure have seen the better times in this country...sad to see it turn to shit.
The idea that Whites are ignored in the GOP if the undertakes an effort to recruit Minorities is a particularly snide point you keep trying to use. What do you suggest, that we try to be militant White people like some sort of NAACP for Whites? The GOP is a White party, too damn White for the good of its long term survival.
Not necessarily. Suppose a political party attempts to win the votes of a particular racial or ethnic group with basic conservative principles. But that racial/ethnic group instead votes lopsidedly for the opposition party, which promises them handouts and race preferences paid for largely at the expense of another race. Despite this, the conservative party continues to try to woo this racial/ethnic group. They even begin pandering to them by promising goodies just like the other party. They do this even though it screws their own loyal voters, who have to pay higher taxes and be victimized by affirmative action programs.
But the racial/ethnic group still votes for the other party, because it promises them still more racial spoils. At that point, it would be reasonable to regard the racial/ethnic group as engaging in racist actions. It would be quite reasonable to write them off.
Even so, I'm not in favor of totally writing blacks & Latinos off. A small number of blacks are conservative, as are about 25-30% of Latinos. We should welcome them and recruit them with general conservative principles. Any blacks or Latinos who demand that we support race preferences, largesse, and amnesty for their fellow ethnics aren't conservative and there's no point trying to win their votes.
The idea that Hispanics can't be good citizens or conservatives because they sympathize with illegals is nonsense. It was not unusual for other ethnic groups to have similar sympathies and take actions both legal and illegal actions on their behalf. What Dr. Tiller did was legal. Mere legality is not a decisive point.
Wrong. They are flat-out demanding that people who happen to be of their ethnicity be allowed to criminally enter our nation and avail themselves of taxpayer-financed goodies. They are doing this for racial reasons, to boost their numbers so they will have increased political clout to make further demands for benefits at the expense of other people. As for Tiller, he reportedly killed 60,000. Since 9/11/01, illegal aliens have killed around 50,000 Americans. In a couple of years, the illegal alien body count will equal Tiller's.
The idea that Whites are ignored in the GOP if the undertakes an effort to recruit Minorities is a particularly snide point you keep trying to use.
Assuming I'm making that point (which is iffy), how is it any different than your claim that it's a horrendous insult to non-whites if the GOP tries to increase its share of the white vote rather than trying (for the umpteenth time) to win the black or Hispanic vote?
Furthermore, there's a difference. The GOP can court white voters without harming or burdening non-whites. White voters aren't demanding that they be given race preferences or racial spoils of any kind. Nor are they demanding the importation of millions of Anglos, to be immediately eligible for benefits and race preferences on arrival at the expense of non-whites. But to win the non-white vote, we're told over and over that we need to support affirmative action, bilingualism, amnesty, and open borders, all of which come at the expense of white people.
What do you suggest, that we try to be militant White people like some sort of NAACP for Whites?
Unfortunately, it'll come to that some day. As the white population declines relative to the non-white, whites will have no choice but to practice the same racial identity politics that non-whites routinely practice. That's the inevitable legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act.
The GOP is a White party, too damn White for the good of its long term survival.
I'm sure it's way too white for you, as is the entire nation. But don't worry. In a couple of decades the whole country will be like California, a dysfunctional branch of Mexico and assorted other third world enclaves.
"In a couple of years, the illegal alien body count will equal Tiller's."
Lol! You had to stretch pretty far on that one.
I think you want identity politics for Whites right now, with allowances for, "A small number of blacks are conservative, as are about 25-30% of Latinos".
How do most Filipinos vote?
I have no clue to be honest...
I know that the most likely minorities to vote C are those that have experienced collectivism.
that is ridiculous...don't you get it?
they don't want to play along...they do not want conservatism and traditional values and whatnot ..
a few Meximericans bvoted for Bush in Texas in 2000 (not 2004) on native son ticket but aside from old Cubans who are dying off, most Hispanics vote almost like Blacks and Jews.
not pandering to them and becoming like Dems in order to get their vote too is not "writing them off"
it's called sticking to one's principles and trying to woo more of your "LIKELY" supporters which in this case is conservative whites (or the handful of non white folks already mentioned) who stayed home last time with Queeg
that is infinitely more doable than pandering even more to minorities...like 96% black voters
Good lord, what is your real objective here to be so blind to reality sitting in your lap?
The Great Racial Avenger you are...lol
so be honest...which minority are you?
I'm white southern Christian ...and one of those unafraid to stand up as such....not neutered with PC crap
lay your cards on the table...what's your real point here?
You see self preservation as racism...I want to know why why I (and my spawn) should fall on my sword to sate your self righteousness about race.
too damn White for the good of its long term survival.
I think that statement of your's pretty much sums up whatever axe you've got to grind doesn't it? You got a cracker problema doncha?
it's never just purely objective reasoning when folks drone on and on about "whites" like you do
what sorta conservatism is this now...enlighten me....the John Brown/Thaddeus Stevens kind I'd wager
Well...i couldn’t say on a whole cause there is not a big community of them here...but my wife and her family are just common sense people that know BS when they see it...her sister can’t even talk about Obammy without going into a tirade....she is a long distance trucker and has seen how this country is going to the dogs....she certainly has plenty to say about Mexican truckers. ;)
The GOP does not have to pander but it does have to approach and make the case that what the Democrats are doing is not sound. If the economy gets worse or there is another 9/11 it could be sold. If the economy gets better and we don't get attacked and things are good, Obama wins.
no one said a thing about excluding anyone, but unless they change on their own by paying attention and being responsible of their own accord then most minorities baring the few we have discussed are indeed a waste of effort and political funds
why does no one ever get the fact that this paternalistic notion that we can somehow fix broken minorities by reaching out to them is not racist inherently
like somehow the success or failure of minorities...especially blacks is dependent on whites overtures
I don't buy that. I grew up in and had family that was active in the heyday of all this stuff in the 60s and 70s in Mississippi and even though blacks were indeed in a compromised spot politically, they functioned much better, had intact families, no rampant thuggery, few charlatan leaders and were not hostile to whites...at least not down South...and all of their own accord and initiative.
Now?, well...it's pretty obvious how pandering to them and excusing them has gone...
btw...we are both purloined by GOP moderate blogs on our lack of sympathy for Tiller
Obama is getting the love, lots of love from many quarters, but love is dangerous. When it turns, it turns really bitter.
I doubt the left or blacks will ever turn on Obama unless he becomes Jesse Peterson
some goofy whites might like those Jewish kids in Tel Aviv in that viedo already have
Racists.
go away.
The GOP then concluded that conservatism must be flawed. It needed to be modified so that blacks & Hispanics would find it more attractive. So they began supporting race preferences, amnesty, and began pandering to La Raza and similar groups. They did this even though it harmed the GOP’s most loyal voters. And it still didn't work. Blacks & Hispanics still voted Democrat. The reason is that for every concession the GOP made to these minorities, the Dems simply upped the ante and offered them more preferences and goodies.
If the Republicans came out tomorrow for amnesty for 10 million Hispanics, the Dems would call for the same amnesty plus more welfare, bilingualism, and race preferences, and the Dems would walk away with 75% of the Hispanic vote. If the GOP came out for slave reparations of $500,000 per black person, the Dems would offer a million and walk off with 93% of the black vote. Oh, and they'd call the Republicans “racist” for offering such comparatively weak proposals.
No one is suggesting an all-white party. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't work to get the few minority voters who are conservative. But the idea that we should go after those minorities whose main focus is race, race, race, and more race plus handouts, handouts, handouts, and more handouts, even if it means screwing loyal GOP voters, is ludicrous.
Hell, if anything it's a slap in the face to the small percentage of conservative minorities to go running after the ones who aren't conservative. Minorities like Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and Herman Cain take enormous abuse from the left for being true conservatives. They're called every name in the book by leftist minorities and leftist whites. They're accused of selling out their race. And then some people here at FR show up calling for the GOP to go after the minority vote by supporting amnesty, race preferences, and other things demanded by leftist minorities, and ACCUSING THOSE WHO DON'T WISH TO DO SO OF RACISM. By making that accusation, they rationalize the attacks on Thomas, Malkin, Cain, and others, because what they're really saying is that it is indeed racist not to support those minority demands.
You added some stuff and the, "some people" reference is bull since this is between you and me on this thread. At no time did I say anything resembling, "go after the minority vote by supporting amnesty, race preferences". You started your responses to me by by trying to put words in my mouth and you are continuing.
However, it was met with some handwringing about it being a racist or offensive tactic. It isn't. But that's how people think in our liberal-imprinted nation. When Jesse Helms ran an anti-affirmative action TV ad, he was accused of "racism". His opponent, Harvet Gantt, supported race preferences for members of his race, at the expense of whites. That wasn't considered racist. Instead, Helms was considered racist for describing Gantt's position. Likewise, Obama wasn't considered racist for belonging to Wright's racist church. But people who were critical of his membership were said to be stoking the fires of racism.
That's the world in which we now live. So it isn't surprising that even on a conservative website it's often considered "racist" to recognize that white voters might have some interests of their own. It's okay to say that non-whites have their own interests and to target them, but not whites.
You responded to Dayton3 in Post 44 as follows:
You won't get enough percentage of the White people to get and maintain power. As a matter of fact if it was attempted the party would actually lose Whites who would not want to be associated with the tactic.
I responded to you in Post 47 as follows:
What you're basically saying is that white voters are so imprinted with liberalism that they would rather see America become a Third World nation than be perceived as racist. Note that I said perceived, because there is actually nothing racist about defending oneself against racial aggression. So millions of whites will continue to defer to the Obamas and the Sotomayors as they overtly work to promote the interests of non-whites at the expense of whites. They'll do this on the grounds that resistance would be an immoral tactic they wouldn't want to be associated with.
Well, you're probably right. Which is why at some point the nation will probably balkanize and that will be the end of the American experiment, assuming it isn't over already.
You can just forget about winning non-whites, because with the exception of some Asian groups which aren't all that big, it's a lost cause. So, in all likelihood, is America.
I was agreeing with you that whites may be unlikely to rally to an effort to win their votes. People today are so conditioned to think that way that it's almost Pavlovian for them. Go to a college campus where all-black or all-Latino clubs, fraternities, and programs are readily accepted, and mention starting a white one and almost everyone will shudder with horror at the racism. I was crediting you with having the foresight to recognize this fact. But I made a big mistake. You weren't just recognizing the tendency, you were engaging in it, as your subsequent posts indicated.
In Post 48 you wrote in response to me:
I said no such thing and go screw yourself for suggesting it. Being against racism and Jim Crow does not make one a liberal. The historical precedents for a White party strategy are parties like the Dixiecrats or American Independent Party, both defeated decisively in much Whiter times.
So you had immediately gone way overboard and concluded that Dayton3's mild suggestion that the GOP should try to increase its share of the white vote was a form of "racism and Jim Crow". You didn't just oppose going after more white voters because you thought it would fail, but because you found it immoral to do so.
I responded in Post 49 with this:
Where did anyone suggest promoting racism and Jim Crow? You see, you perceive any suggestion that white people have any interests at all as being racist. You perceive any suggestion that white voters should be courted as being racist and immoral. But no one feels that way about courting blacks or other minorities. All Dayton3 suggested was that the GOP should try to get more white votes (because winning the non-white vote is obviously not possible) and people think that's just the more horrible thing they've ever heard. To wit, they'd rather lose the country than try overtly to win white votes.
The debate continued along these lines through Posts 54, 64, 68, 71, and 74. You continued to insist that it would be racist and offensive to non-whites if the GOP were to court white voters, though never explained why it isn't offensive to whites when they court non-whites. And in Post 74, you accused McCain of insulting Hispanics by backing away (temporarily) from his support of the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill during the height of the campaign:
The first thing to do is not stupidly crap on their heads. For example when John McCain made an amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy and later said he would not support his own bill he managed to alienate White voters and destroy himself with Hispanics at the same time. He would have been a lot better off not doing anything. Being weak and treacherous is not a way to win friends and influence people.
In Post 75, I responded on the illegal immigration/amnesty issue as follows:
With all due respect, if Hispanic voters want and expect amnesty, then by definition it means they are siding with illegal invaders of our nation against their fellow citizens. In other words, it means they are putting their ethnicity ahead of the national interest and the rule of law. Given the choice between siding with fellow citizens who aren't Hispanic, and illegal invaders who are, they side with the invaders.
People who do such a thing are not going to be conservative Republican voters. If they get amnesty, the first thing they'll do is use their added political clout to demand less guarded borders, and then they'll demand another amnesty a few years down the road. Meanwhile, they'll be raiding the social welfare budgets of every state they occupy, while screaming "racism" at everyone who tries to cut them off. They'll do this even as they continue to support La Raza, MECHA, and howl that opponents of the next amnesty are bigots and xenophobes.
I also made other points in that post which people are free to read. In Post 82 you responded to my points regarding amnesty/illegals as follows:
Writing off a major racial or ethnic segment of the electorate is a racist action. The idea that Hispanics can't be good citizens or conservatives because they sympathize with illegals is nonsense. It was not unusual for other ethnic groups to have similar sympathies and take actions both legal and illegal actions on their behalf. What Dr. Tiller did was legal. Mere legality is not a decisive point.
The idea that Whites are ignored in the GOP if the undertakes an effort to recruit Minorities is a particularly snide point you keep trying to use. What do you suggest, that we try to be militant White people like some sort of NAACP for Whites? The GOP is a White party, too damn White for the good of its long term survival.
Emphasis was mine. That was the key post here where your game was exposed. What you're really promoting is amnesty and non-white racial identity politics, while accusing those opposed to those practices of "racism".
People should continue reading our debate after that point to get the full picture. Also, there are the posts involving wardaddy, which should be read. Also, in Post 95 you wrote:
You added some stuff and the, "some people" reference is bull since this is between you and me on this thread. At no time did I say anything resembling, "go after the minority vote by supporting amnesty, race preferences". You started your responses to me by by trying to put words in my mouth and you are continuing
I'll concede one point. I was using the term "some people" as a figure of speech, but I see that it was very poorly chosen. In fact, you are the only one on this thread defending those Hispanics who demand a racial/ethnic illegal alien amnesty for their fellow identity group members as a prerequisite for supporting a candidate or party.
Your characterizations are wrong and dishonest. You are the racial theorist with the attitude that dismisses efforts to outreach to minorities as a capitulation to the most extreme positions of their most militant groups. It is not and neither is the proposition that GOP long term survival depends on making inroads to those groups while keeping as many Whites as possible.
White EVANGELICAL Christians, including LCMS. Name one heavily Catholic region of the country (or Catholic districts) that vote Right. Can't think of any, outside of a few small outliers (the Acadian parishes in the nationals).
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.