At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


Why the Right is Wrong about the GOP’s Present and Future

posted by Jack Kerwick

Since the presidential and senatorial defeats it suffered this past Election Day, the Grand Old Party has been wrapped in the throes of an identity-crisis.

The thing of it is, far from being the epiphany that the usual talking heads on the right are making it out to be, the identity-crisis to which they speak is the very same crisis over which they have been perspiring for decades now.  It is the same crisis of identity of which Republicans become acutely conscious at least every four years—whether they win or lose. 

From all of the moaning and groaning, a common refrain can be gotten: The Republican Party must win over non-whites or else.  On this score, Democrats and Republicans agree.

Yet as is almost always the case with conventional wisdom generally, this piece of conventional wisdom in particular is deeply flawed. 

The speciousness of the conventional wisdom derives, not from what it says, but from what it fails to say. 

For one, the nation’s changing racial demographics of which Republican and Democrat alike can’t seem to stop talking are not the forces of nature that the pundits’ tone would suggest.  Asians and Hispanics—especially the latter—owe their growing numbers in no small measure to American immigration policy, specifically, immigration policy since 1965. 

Until this juncture in our history, our immigration policy had always favored immigrants of European stock.  But even throughout this time, there were several moments—like in 1924—when immigration was halted so as to allow for assimilation. 

In glaring contrast, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 assigned pride of place to Third World immigrants, about 90% of whom have constituted all immigrants to the U.S. over the span of the last five decades. Of these non-white immigrants, the vast majority stems from below our southern border.

Since 1965, not only has the American government refused to arrest the flow of immigration.  It has actually encouraged it via the non-enforcement of its laws, the allocation of all manner of goodies (entitlements) to illegal immigrants, bilingualism, and the granting of amnesty in one form or the other.

The point is this: unlike the shifts in the Earth’s tectonic plates, the tectonic-like shifts in America’s racial demographics are the products of design.  They are the results of policy. This means that something can be done about them.

The conventional wisdom is mistaken in another respect.  To hear the talking heads, particularly the Democratic talking heads, it is hard not to think that underlying all of the fatalistic chatter over the hemorrhaging of the white vote is the desire to expedite this pattern along.  Some perspective here is desperately needed.

Although blacks, Hispanics, and Asian voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama (93%, 71%, and 73% respectively), with just 59% of the white vote, Mitt Romney still lost the popular vote by only 2%.  In short, he would have defeated Obama handily had he garnered just 61% of white support.

This he could have done.  At any rate, he stood a far greater chance of doing so than any Republican stands of increasing appreciably their party’s share of non-white support.

Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, has noted that over six million fewer whites showed up at the polls this year than in 2008.  These whites dislike Obama, he notes, but, thanks to the President’s negative campaign strategy against his rival, they aren’t too keen about Romney either.  Romney, these jaded white voters believe, really is the aloof, vulture capitalist that Obama depicted him as being.

Trende’s analysis is cogent as far as it goes.  But it only goes so far.  Romney, like the typical Republican that he is, took these whites’ votes for granted. If their perception of him was flawed, it was up to him to rectify it.

And he could have.  He could have fought back against Obama’s smear campaign by speaking to those issues—affirmative action, Third world immigration (legal and illegal), crime, etc.—that are near and dear to the hearts of just those white voters who decided to stay home on Election Day.  In doing so, he could have knocked out several birds with one stone as he advanced themes that were simultaneously conservative and American while speaking to the precarious economy in a way that would resonate with such voters. (The language of national debts and deficits and all of the zeros that it entails just isn’t the stuff of which the passions of the average working man or woman are made.)

Radically revise current immigration policy and genuinely work for an ever greater portion of the white vote.  This is what the Republican Party must do if it wants to survive.         

 

 

 

 

 



Previous Posts

A Tale of Two Cops and the Many Brinsleys Who Murdered Them
“He was an amazing man.  He was the best father and husband and friend.” This is how a friend described Rafael Ramos, one of the two NYPD officers who was ambushed and murdered by Eric Garner and Michael Brown supporter, Ismaiiyl Brinsley. Ramos was sitting in a patrol car with his partne

posted 2:47:16pm Dec. 22, 2014 | read full post »

Natural Law, Positive Law, Rights and Duties
In the wake of the Eric Garner case, some libertarians have urged us to revisit the topic of natural law, a “higher” moral law that supplies an objective standard of justice for “positive law,” the law(s) posited (or made) by human beings. Garner, it’s been argued, had a “natural righ

posted 11:07:58am Dec. 22, 2014 | read full post »

Eric Garner and the Natural Law: What To Do When a Law is Unjust?
Eric Garner, many libertarians seem to think, was innocent as far as the natural law is concerned. “Natural law” is an ethical tradition with an illustrious pedigree stretching back millennia.  From this perspective, natural law is a transcendent moral order that provides the standard of jus

posted 8:33:32pm Dec. 14, 2014 | read full post »

More on the Eric Garner Grand Jury Decision
In this column, I recently argued in favor of a grand jury’s refusal to indict Officer Dan Pantaleo for the death of Eric Garner.  To my dismay (and, frankly, shock), a great many “conservatives” and “libertarians,” I’ve had the great misfortune to discover, disagree vehemently with the

posted 7:56:58pm Dec. 09, 2014 | read full post »

The "Eric Garner" Case: Truth versus Ideology
From the rough that is contemporary America, the grand jury that just decided that there were no grounds on which to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo for the death of Eric Garner is the second diamond to be retrieved.  The first is the grand jury that refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the d

posted 10:02:40pm Dec. 04, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.