Posted on 11/15/2002 7:29:29 AM PST by xsysmgr
When a victorious Roman general was granted a triumphal procession through the city, a slave was assigned to stand behind him in his chariot whispering "Remember that thou are mortal." When an American president enjoys an electoral triumph like that enjoyed by George W. Bush earlier this month, exactly the opposite happens: Pundits and analysts assure him that he is now immortal.
In this case Mr. Bush was told that his triumph was a historic one, establishing an extraordinary precedent for a Republican president in his first midterm elections by actually gaining seats, and that he may even have permanently realigned politics, assuring his own party's dominance for the next great electoral cycle.
The quickest way to disprove such rosy predictions is to believe them. American politics is a wasteland littered with the bones of parties that won "historic" midterm elections and soared confidently towards defeat two years later. Two examples are the Democrats in 1982 and the Republicans in 1994, and they point to the same bipartisan moral: Overconfidence comes before a fall.
What makes this lesson hard for the GOP to absorb in 2002, however, is that the election was a precedent-breaking one and that it really does contain within itself the seeds of a permanent realignment in a Republican direction. But since it also contains the seeds of an emerging Democratic majority, both parties have a great deal to play for — and to guard against.
To understand this, look at exactly why the Republicans won. Most commentators have rightly seized on September 11 as the prime cause of the GOP victory. Republicans were enthused, independents attracted rightwards, and Democrats disheartened because they all sensed that George Bush represented the feelings and instincts of the American people about the war on terrorism better than the Democrats did.
That representation went beyond specific policies. To be sure, most voters preferred the Republican positions on issues related to September 11. Mr. Bush's determination to disarm Saddam Hussein seemed more sensible to most Americans than the convoluted argument of Senator Daschle that Iraq was a distraction from the vital matter of the economy. Similarly, when the Democrats held up the president's Homeland Security bill in order to preserve union privileges, they seemed to be taking a frivolous view of national security. Anyone interested in self-preservation was bound to find the GOP the more attractive of the two alternatives.
But September 11 had transformed America and Americans culturally at a level that went deeper than policies but that had an impact on politics. In brief, it made patriotism and national unity culturally respectable again — "United We Stand" — and it undermined the social prestige of attitudes such as rebellion and dissent and of policies such as multiculturalism that the sixties had injected into the body politic. Since the GOP is the party of patriotism and national unity and the Democrats are the party of dissent and multiculturalism — everybody knows this even though they feel constrained to deny it whenever these points are publicly raised — September 11 helped the GOP at the polls. It created a national mood in which Republican attitudes seemed admirable and apposite and Democratic ones off-key and off the point.
This new national mood of sober patriotism is almost certainly not a passing one. It will last at least as long as the war on terror, and if the terrorists score some dramatic successes, it will probably intensify. If the GOP can attract new supporters with policies rooted in this deep cultural change, it will have a real chance of becoming the new natural party of government.
In order to do so, however, it will have to overcome long-term trends that favor the Democrats. They have been pinning their hopes for an emerging Democratic majority on a mixture of demographics and multiculturalism. They calculate that Latino, Asian, and black voters who vote heavily Democrat will sharply increase owing to immigration until they eventually outnumber the Republican-leaning white vote — sometime after 2008. And they rely on a national culture that was suffused with multiculturalism until September 11 to keep those minorities in ethnic ghettoes allied to the Democratic party.
Neither calculation was disproved by last Tuesday's election.
On the contrary, the key to the GOP's victory was differential turnout. More Republicans and fewer Democrats turned out to vote than in recent elections. When we examine that differential turnout through the lens of demography, we see that the white vote increased substantially; the GOP's share of the white vote increased; and minority turnout either fell or remained stable (except in Texas.) There was little evidence of minority voters crossing over to the GOP in large numbers. And Latino voters in particular remained overwhelmingly loyal to the Democrats-the largest exception being New York where Governor Pataki took giant strides to the Left to attract their votes. (My UPI colleague, Steve Sailer, examines these trends in scrupulous detail.[Posted on FR at The Color of Election 2002])
This combination of trends should worry the GOP. For turnout could easily reverse to favor the Democrats in a future election (It is invariably higher in presidential elections anyway.) Yet the share of the electorate accounted for by Democrat-leaning minority voters is set to rise inexorably because of the currently very high levels of immigration. That mixture must install the Democrats in office eventually — unless Mr. Bush is able to shape the new spirit of sober American patriotism into the foundation for a new American majority that unites whites and ethnic minorities.
He will not build such a majority by, for instance, appeasing Latino pressure groups with multicultural appeals such as support for bilingual education since such appeals will depress the white turnout that gave the GOP victory last week. Nor will such an approach win over many Latinos as the elections also established. Indeed, if Republicans address Latinos as Latinos rather than simply as fellow Americans, they "privilege" multicultural ideology over American patriotism; they dishearten their own natural supporters in the Hispanic community; and they strengthen the minority psychology that keeps the rest voting for Democrats and multiculturalism. And the same is true for other minorities.
If the Bush coalition is to succeed the Roosevelt and Reagan coalitions as the governing majority of the next few decades, then President Bush will have to succeed in three very subtle and elusive tasks.
First, he must make the GOP the unmistakable voice and representative of the new patriotism. At present Republicans are no more than its lucky beneficiary. Thus far, Mr. Bush has shied away from fights over sensitive issues. He must now be ready to argue explicitly that the U.S. is better defended by a Republican policy of military strength than by the Democrats' diplomatic multilateralism-and that an America united by Republican ideas will resist terrorism more steadily than an America divided by Democratic ideology.
Which brings us to the second point: Mr. Bush must proclaim a vigorous new policy of assimilationism to draw ethnic minorities our of the multicultural ghettoes where their lobbies have led them and into a new version of the traditional melting pot. A durable Republican majority can be built only on the basis of assimilation. Assimilation reassures the white majority that the common American identity is a great ideal worthy of support. It appeals to those sizeable minorities in the various minority communities who have firmly and perhaps painfully chosen America over their former home and who therefore see multiculturalism either as simply baffling or as a roundabout way to deny them full acceptance as Americans. It is fully in tune with the national mood after September 11. And it gives the GOP a powerful message that attracts its potential supporters in all ethnic groups — rather than attracting some at the cost of annoying others.
And, third, he must reduce and reform immigration. If he fails to do that, it will undermine the GOP's position across the board. Current high levels of immigration retard and obstruct assimilation by fostering ethnic ghettoes, enabling immigrants already here to live culturally apart from the host society, and sharpening the sense of ethnic difference throughout society that underlies multiculturalism. Because immigrants are in general poorer than native-born Americans, they swell the constituencies for the government programs, regulation and higher taxes that are the province of the Democrats. And as we have already seen, immigration directly increases the electoral support for Democrats after a short time lag. As the example of New York's Governor Pataki demonstrates, Republicans end up having to choose between changing their policy on immigration and changing their policies on everything else.
These are not easy tasks — which may be why so far the administration has shrunk from them. As the elections demonstrated, however, there has never been a better time to attempt them.
The Democratic Party's plan to expand its base and dominate electoral politics in the future is based on the balkanization of the electorate into competing groups. It can be combatted by an assimilationist Republican Party.
As it stands, we have made enormous inroads into the Hispanic vote. That's what I don't believe O'Sullivan is seeing.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
O'Sullivan is like most fools who never got elected and never will.O'Sullivan is like William F. Buckley who thinks that politics is the act of superior men educating the unwashed masses to the brilliance their superior plans.
That is not worth a warm pitcher of spit.
I haven't seen evidence of it from last Tuesday. Excellent article, however.
Also, he writes:
The quickest way to disprove such rosy predictions is to believe them. American politics is a wasteland littered with the bones of parties that won "historic" midterm elections and soared confidently towards defeat two years later. Two examples are the Democrats in 1982 and the Republicans in 1994, and they point to the same bipartisan moral: Overconfidence comes before a fall.
American politics isn't, however, a wasteland littered with the bones of presidents who won "historic" (first-term) midterm elections and soared confidently towards defeat two years later. FDR only stopped becoming elected our president because he stopped breathing. The 22nd Amendment might end up being the only obstacle to Bush's several-term stretch as president.
WASHINGTON - Preliminary midterm election results confirm that Hispanics across the United States contributed significantly to the GOP’s historic victories in both chambers of Congress, as well as in re-electing Republican governors in key states like Colorado, Florida, New York, and Texas.
“Latino voters have a clear understanding of the difference between Democrats and Republicans, between inaction and a solid agenda for job-creation, jumpstarting the economy, and national security. Their voices have now been heard loud and clear throughout the country. We are honored to have the trust of the Hispanic electorate, and we look forward to working with them to advance the President’s agenda for a stronger America,” said RNC Chairman Marc Racicot.
At least 22 of the 93 non-incumbent Latino Republicans running for office were elected across the country. Among the national headliners are Mario Díaz-Balart and Devin Nuñez elected to the U.S. House of Representatives; Brian Sandoval elected as Nevada’s Attorney General; Juan Carlos Zapata and John Quiñones, the first Colombian and Puerto Rican respectively elected to the Florida House; and David Casas, the first Hispanic ever elected to the Georgia House.
FACT: Hispanics contributed to the GOP’s control of both chambers of Congress.
- In AZ, FL, NM, and TX, Hispanics were a determining factor in electing Republican legislators.
- In CO, GA, NC, and TX, Latinos played a key role in electing Republican Senators.
FACT: Latinos played a key role in re-electing Republican governors across the United States.
- Florida Governor Jeb Bush captured almost 60% of the Latino vote.
- Governors George Pataki (NY) and Bill Owens (CO) won close to 50% of the Hispanic vote.
- In Texas, Governor Rick Perry obtained 35% of the Latino vote against Tony Sanchez.
It is clear that a national trend – in terms of quantifiable Hispanic support – favors Republicans and hurts Democrats,” said Rudy Fernandez, RNC Director of Grassroots Development.
We've made no inroads with the Hispanic vote this importing of Mexico's criminal underclass is horribly stupid.
Firstly, I am not saying that there is not a critical problem with illegal immigration from Mexico. I understand that it is a long term threat to the national security interests of our country. Democrats don't care about this because they think in terms of electoral politics, period.
There is a growing national consensus that the flow of illegals over the border must be staunched, even if it includes stationing troops and mobile cavalry units to patrol the border. September 11th made this necessary and politically acceptable. Vicente Fox is not helping his cause any by opposing us on the Saddam question.
But to electoral concerns: our party must remain resolutely assimilationist, and I believe that we remain pretty close to that view, despite the vagaries and compromises of national politics. As such, the performance of Perry in Texas was remarkable. To get 35% of the Hispanic vote against Sanchez is quite notable.
Where we need to really start making an effort is in California, of course. Right now, the Dems own the Mex vote. A crafty Republican approach will emphasize that illegal immigration drives wages and employment opportunities down for those Mexican Americans who came here legally, got the damn green card, and are contributing and not sponging off.
In short, start a debate within the Mexican American community in California. This would force Democrats to hew to their left base vote and thus piss off some Mexican voters who are concerned about wage depression.
Remember, stand for principles we must, but we must also be prepared through assiduous use of agitation and propaganda, to drive wedges into the Democratic base.
The object of the exercise is not to pit one ethnic group against each other; that is what Democrats do, and they do it pretty well. Rather, our object must be to divide people within each ethnic group from one another: those that agree with us will come our way!
Thus, you drive a stake through the heart of the Democratic Party's base vote.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Exactly. I have been waiting for someone, ANYONE to use this approach as a retort to the old 'racist' canard. Illegals are a drag on nearly EVERYONE, regardless of skin tone.
Quietly accepting the Democrats'(and many Repubs) charge that to oppose illegal immigration is somehow bigoted against hispanics is subtle racism in and of itself. The "Soft bigotry of low expectations" is the term some use.
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.