It’s Time: GOP Needs to Radically Change Tactics with Minorities
Republicans do poorly with minority voters.
As a general rule, the Republican Party gets about one-tenth of the black vote, one-third of the Hispanic vote, and one-fourth of the Jewish vote. If this seems like a huge problem today, demographic patterns point to the radical liberalism destroying the country today becoming the norm forevermore.
Why do minorities vote Democratic in such numbers? Part of the cause is issue-oriented. Liberals, whatever their race may be, aren’t going to vote for Republicans. People who are lower on the socioeconomic scale naturally tend to favor the party enlarging the taxpayer-funded dole. Given that blacks and Hispanics, taken as a group, have fallen behind other Americans economically, the Democrats have particularly fertile ground for their message there.
However, that doesn’t come close to telling the whole story. Ever since Reagan, people have been looking at the Christianity and social conservatism of Latinos and saying: “Hispanics are Republican; they just don’t know it yet.”
The biggest issue for Jews tends to be the survival of Israel, and Republicans are unquestionably much better on that issue than Democrats.
Then there are black Americans. Even setting aside the historical alliance between Republicans and black Americans, most black Americans go to church, oppose gay marriage, are pro-life, are anti-illegal immigration, and are pro-school choice. These are not inconsequential issues.
So why is the GOP doing so poorly?
Republicans believe it should be all about the issues, while Democrats push culture. They tell minority groups that Republicans hate them, and it works — despite the fact that it’s entirely false. They also tell minorities that their ethnic identity is tied up in voting for the Democratic Party.
A good example of this is Jesse Jackson saying: “You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man.” Then there’s the NAACP, La Raza, CAIR, MALDEF, the Congressional Black Caucus … on and on and on. All these prominent groups implicitly or explicitly try to tie the cultural identity of minorities to the Democratic Party, even as they demonize Republicans as “the other.” Republicans are not merely treated as political opponents — they’re framed as racial enemies.
As a general rule, Republicans have a strong negative reaction to these organizations not only because they unfairly demonize, but because they divide by race when we should strive to be colorblind. It’s fine to feel that way — I do myself — but is the approach working?
No. Are we seeing any evidence that the tide is turning? Is La Raza about to collapse? Are most black Americans calling for a colorblind world where it matters, like with affirmative action programs?
So if the approach isn’t working and isn’t going to work, isn’t it time to change it?
I remember John Stossel did a segment on local governments banning fish pedicures in Vietnamese owned spas, and how a (legal) Latina hot dog vendor was forbidden from selling bacon dogs out of “health” concerns. Why didn’t the Republicans come flying to their rescue, decrying abuse by the nanny states? I don’t recall religious Republicans expressing gratitude for the many minorities for beating back the white vote to pass prop 8, nor do I remember them standing by Mormons when they were under attack.
For reasons already stated, many minorities SHOULD be voting for the GOP. They GOP just have to connect their newly found message of limited government and personal freedom to culturally relevant issues among the minority / immigrant circles. If some Asians want to legalize dog or whale meat, they should at least make their presence known when the peta crowd scream bloody murder. “Eating a whale is not the same as the holocaust, I respect their culture, my personal opinion notwithstanding” or something.
They can score some extra points among some Koreans by at least pretending to care that the North Koreans sunk a South Korean warship (killing 40 plus) and that “Great Father” Kim is touring all over China. The GOP being the great anti communist party, you know. They probably missed an opportunity when they half heartedly defended Toyota.
The Goldwater Intstitute has brought a law suit against Arizona on behalf of the woman who owns the spa with the fish/foot treatment. You can probably Google Goldwater and fish to read about it.
But if you didn’t know about it, it may demonstrate that even when Republicans do the right thing, they may not have the skills at exploitation that the Dems do.
A substancial part of the problem is due to the anti-immigrant position. “Illegal immigration” is the last rationalization for this. “Legal” and “morally correct” are NOT synonyms, and Gop should understand this darn well. The first immigration law dates back to 1875, before that it was completely free as should be in a free society. So, “legal/illegal” applies only in regard of a law (the standard to establish the status “legal” or “illegal”).
Now, is the law moral or not? This is where most of the anti-immigrant people fail. Because they are so fixed on the legal/illegal question that they skip all what matters -as you pointed out: latinos are christhians, others are social conservatives, most of immigrants are fleeing socialist “paradises” all around the world, they have also entreprenurial skills which are penalized in the socialist paradises all around the world.
According to the legalist-worshipping mentality, Hitler’s Nuremberg laws against jews were OK, and had to be obeyed just because the LAW said so, and it’s good to have rule of the law, and it’s civilized to obey the law… It’s the law!
Don’t get confused here, Rule of the law can be good. Depending on which law you want to obey. And an objective standard is needed to find out what law is good (moral) and what is not (an immoral law). The Founding fathers gave a hint about it long ago, when they spoke about the Rights (you know, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness…).
Has a man the right to flee a socialist tyranny and set free in the only, the last, the freest place on the Earth? Or is he required to pay with his life for the will of every Hitler, every Napoleon, every Mugabe, Putin or Arafat on this earth?
Knowing well what republicans fear most, an alien invasion of muslims terrorists, non law abiding people from Mexico, drug cartels from Colombia and who knows what else is around.. Well, but all those problems are already dealt with in the law without of racial considerations. The problem is terrorism, drugs, violence, etc. NOT the race, provenance or skin color.
That’s what Gop and anti-immigrant people fail to separate. If you act on principles, then you should defend American principles, the Bill of Rights, your constitution and what is moral and good and fair. And you should encourage immigrants to become americans and all what it means. Because up to now, your anti-(illegal )immigrant position is intrinsecly racist even if you are not aware of it and it promoves the hatred even if you personally don’t hate anybody.
X: That was not even a good try. Most of it was incoherent and contradictory, while all of it was pure demagoguery.
Racism applied to our laws and what Arizona did is just the left pandering for votes. The left sees racism in everything and about everything in America. So that dog won’t hunt here.
Blotto: giving an empty answer as you just did, without any reasoning at all, doesn’t refute my points. Yourswas not even a try.
““Illegal immigration” is the last rationalization for this. “Legal” and “morally correct” are NOT synonyms, and Gop should understand this darn well.
Have you heard the expression “rule of law”, XXX? It means that we all agree to make laws, eliminate laws, change laws as the need arises and obey laws . For me to judge every law by my own personal political or moral philosophy, and to break them as I see fit, makes me an outlaw, a scofflaw, an anarchist or a librul. If I felt that way, I would cheat on my taxes, smoke in an airplane, use the illegal drug of my choice, maybe hurt somebody I disagree with, etc, etc.
Your comment has only shown that you are one of the above-mentioned anti-law characters, you silly boy you.
I put you a clear example with Hitler’s Nuremberg laws against jews. Would you still obey them in the name of the Rule of Law?
I am not proposing anarchism, as you think, I am clearly saying that an objective standard is needed in order to accept or fight to repeal a law. And I suggest the Founding Fathers philosophy, Bill of Rights and constitution as possible sources of that objective standard.
You obviously ommited that part in order to call me “silly” and “anti-law”. Great reasoning the yours!
Answer this:
Is stealing and killing a bad thing just because the law says so, or because there is still a higher principle that states it so?
Hint: stealing and killing actually violates natural rights, namely, life and property.
Now name one, just one, natural righ which is violated by “immigrating”. You won’t find anyone, unless you believe in “lefty-rights” like “right to a job”, “right to healthcare” so you can start arguing that immigrants are taking your jobs and putting an unfair load on the health care system. But, as I’ve said, those are not problems due to immigration, those are problems derivated from the leftist institutions and mindsets like health care, etc.
I hope to read some intelligent answer other than just name calling.
You sir are law-breaker.
Read the book “Three Felonies a Day”. Every adult American breaks at least three felony-level laws every day. Our laws are written that broadly. Ever give a toy to a child? Did you certify that it was lead-free? Felon! Ever move a wood product across a state border? Did you have certificates that prove that the wood was not from an endangered species? Felon! Ever not pay Use Tax? Felon! Ever send an email with perhaps incorrect information? Felon!
This idea that no one is above the law is just plain stupid.
The immigration issue isn’t one of natural rights but of sovereignty. You don’t have a natural right to movement in places that don’t belong to you. We have the right to regulate the manner in which we allow foreigners to live among us, and we can force those foreigners living among us to obey laws that don’t apply to us, until such a time as they either leave or become naturalized according to our laws.
“Because up to now, your anti-(illegal )immigrant position is intrinsecly racist even if you are not aware of it”
Man, what a classic leftist trope! “You’re racist even though you don’t know it.”
Are you saying it is somehow immoral for a sovereign nation to control its own borders? Look: Even setting aside the very, very real problem (in some places, crisis) of drug gangs and other first-order criminals passing unhindered into the country, there is also an entirely valid economic reason to control the borders. We already have an overpopulation of semi- and unskilled workers without enough jobs for which they are qualified; and the presence of masses of illegals necessarily depresses wages at the bottom end even before we get to the fact that so many of them will work for sub-minimum under the table. This pushes Americans onto the welfare rolls, and in addition there are vast numbers of illegals on the dole as well (what? You think there aren’t just because it’s against the law?) Illegals in the border states are overwhelming schools and hospitals, because their access to them is unfettered by law. WE CAN’T ABSORB ALL THESE PEOPLE.
And that, my friend, has precisely NOTHING to do with race.
Are you saying it is somehow immoral for a sovereign nation to control its own borders?
That’s precicely what he’s saying, and it’s insanity. A nation which does not control it’s own borders will not remain a nation for long. Ask the Romans.
Or the American Indians.
Speaking about leftism, the worst leftist is the one who’s unaware of being one.
You start setting aside the very very real problem (in some places, crisis -in your own words) which is related to criminal gangs, drug cartels etc -which is exactly the most important reason for a government to exist, in order to give a list of your reasons which is the real leftism here, ranging from “too many unskilled workers”, “not enough jobs”, “wage depression”, over loading of the welfare system (welfare is the most leftist invention of history) and charitable institutions.
Your reason for not accept immigrants is summarized in: I prefer my leftist institutions. If you study a bit, you will know that “right to have a decent salary” is a leftist invention, there is not such a “right”. “Righ to have a job” is against the capitalist principle of competition. You can hear a defense of those so-called “rights” all around the world. If you go to Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela, they will tell you the same sh*t. But somehow, people fleeing from those wonderful socialistic paradises are now facing their worst nightmares of deportations in the name of… saving you leftist welfare state. What a shame.
I’ll not offer you the simplistic argument that “America was made great by immigration”, because is not accurate. But the immigrants that made America great were not the ones who cried for jobs, for a government welfare or for a “right to have a decent salary”. Those old-guard immigrants made America great because they had a sought after idea, the idea of the self-made man that America represented.
America needs to go back to its core principles: free the markets, make easy for every one to buy and sell, to buy and sell properties, de-regulate, ease the trade, cut the taxes, be a capitalist, be an american. And you will see, how many of those “unskilled immigrants”* will start actually creating jobs, founding companies, starting new bussiness ideas, etc; and going out of the poverty and the charity dependence.
(*very unskilled as they were, the chinese immigration to Hong Kong managed to convert Hong Kong in a vibrant and rich society)
A leftist is anyone who disagrees with you?
A leftist surely is somebody who wants to keep and sustain the welfare state.
X:”And you will see, how many of those “unskilled immigrants”* will start actually creating jobs, founding companies, starting new bussiness ideas, etc; and going out of the poverty and the charity dependence.”
You are of course kidding, right? The unskilled and uneducated Mexican will be the savior of our nation. Rich, simply rich.
Where are you perfoming next?
The average asian is way smarter then the average mexican. Ops, forgot it not politic to point out the obvious.
I was always fascinated by the Vietnamese ability to take garbage (as defined by my culture, American) and turn it into something useful. They wasted nothing.
Are the strict immigration laws of other Countries (like Mexico’s) ‘racist’ in nature?
Is the USA the only place that should be a sewer for people to dump their drug-dealers, murderers, rapists and gang-bangers on our soil? Do you know how many illegals have criminal records?
You need to educate yourself.
Canada took in the dregs of Jamaica and Vietnam in the 1970′s and almost as soon as they arrived, drug and gang-related violence soared in every major Canadian city. There was just an article in today’s National Post in Toronto about the arrest of major gang members who sell illegal drugs and arms to criminals. A lot of the scumbags who cannot get into the States come here.
We don’t need huge quantities of industrial labor. We don’t have frontiers we need settled.
What we do have is an unsustainable welfare state.
Those are perfectly rational reasons to restrict immigration, and, especially to stop illegal immigration.
But those are also perfectly rational reasons to bring down the entire welfare state. Your choice, sir, is what makes you lefty or not, specially if you choose to keep the welfare state.
X – nothing but philosophical cant. Massive fraud in the labor market by magical unicorn workers who come to this country as blank slates – who will work slavishly for less money. What decent employer would particpate in this?
Today Arizona is a poster child for racism as defined by X or those in whole or partial agreement. As such it is not surprising that ‘netizens’, having grown accustomed to exploiting cheap labor that ‘lives in the shadows’ (or in X’s case philosophically comfortable supporting those that do) should by extension revile the self-determination of arizonian’s determined to stop this exploitive charade?
Who is for the status quo? Is X is for the status quo? Why? Cui Bono?
Let met get this straight; with all that has transpired in the past 3-4 years since we last had a very heated immigration debate prior to the ’06 midterm elections – where something like 12 trillion dollars of American equity and wealth has evaporated since sept of ’08 – where the mainstay (IN ADDITION TO THAT 12 TRILLION) of most ‘regular plummer joe’s’ savings – ones home values – have on a national average dropped 50% or more – where unemployment has nearly trippled on averaged since the hight of the prior economic boom – ….
What we need is a philosophical lecture from the likes of X on why we need his perscription for immigration?
Have you no shame sir…really. What do you need to see to get off your smug high horse? Blood in the streets? Why don’t you take your superior insights and dedication to reclaiming a failed society where it would do some good – like about 200 miles south of the Tucson corridor.
See how well it translates down were there is already a shooting war going on in the streets.
X – here is why your argument fails. You argue that this nation ought not be allowed to control its borders because the larger right for people to escape tyranny or poverty trumps our right to be secure. You want Americans to ignore illegal immigration because to do anything other than that is to be a Brown shirt. Why? Because legal classifications only seek to obscure hatred of all immigrants. Thus, anyone who believes that in these dangerous times we need to secure our borders…hates immigrants. You needn’t have spent so much time writing it out – you would’ve have saved us all the time by just announcing that Republicans are seething Nazis planning out the final solution in Arizona! Your whole argument is based on your prejudice!
I suspect that you’ve not met many Republicans, lest you wouldn’t so casually make such grave charges (if in fact you take the horror of Hitler’s National Socialism seriously). Republicans support immigration – and it isn’t extreme or unreasonable for this nation to want to know who is entering this country. Is there a nation on Earth that doesn’t care? In South America illegal immigrants are summarily jailed and deported. In Europe everyone has to carry their “papers”. In Russia you can’t even go from one town to the next without your “papers”. In the Middle East they demand identification because they’re looking out for Jews. Maybe in the wilds of Africa you might get away with crossing borders without identification, but only because you’re in a ‘lawless’ part of the land mass. So far that makes for about 5 billion Nazi-like absolutists in your book.
There are many reasonable concerns about letting immigrants flow into and out of this country without an ability to know who they are. Are they healthy? Could they innocently be carrying a communicable disease? What if they mean to carry in a deadly virus? Could they be transporting something into or out of the country? Are they criminals fleeing apprehension? Are they recidivist predators looking to lose themselves in our cities? It doesn’t matter that an overwhelming number of illegal immigrants are hard working and otherwise law abiding – what about they percentage that aren’t? In this world where great danger comes in small packages, why would we risk calamity to avoid offending migrants?
But if a terrorist attack occurs and is traced back to our lax border control, you’ll see a nation moved by fear, and all your talk about rights will be lost in the rush Americans will be in to trade in the rest of our liberties for promises of security. We might even see this country shut its borders entirely in its zeal to pacify a nation shaken. That would be a true shame, as some of Americas true patriots are those who know what its like to be oppressed – that’s why they’ve come here.
Shane.- I understand your arguments which I think are well presented. What I need to make clear is that in nowhere I’ve stated that you need no control and or no regulation. If you say Republicans support immigration, ok, I believe you and it makes me happy. But I think all the fixation with immigration problem is greatly exacerbated because you have already a very lefty welfare state. If you really had a capitalist society where everything has to be deserved by hard work and not by charity/welfare state, then nobody would object immigration as an unfair load on the welfare system.
Therefore, you will have still only the crimen-related question which is very legitim for a government to deal with, via some regulation and control at the borders. But then this regulation/control will focus in the real problem which is Crime, not specifically immigration. You punish a thief no matter if american or asiatic. And an immigrant without papers would be considered a minor ofender punishable with fines and not with massive deportations, and maybe with a legal path to regularization.
But, once you have the welfare state, and once you have come to accept it as normal and not as a lefty invention, then you will obviously object immigration on the basis of its unfair overloading of the welfare system. Being “immigration” not really any crime, you will have to get rid of them by differencing between immigrants with/without papers and then, after making a big fuss about it, deportation!
I’d rather say: ok, keep the controls at the borders and check closely the immigrants if you want, but first and over all, bring the entire welfare system down, shut it down. And, I keep that this is the real choice for a truly capitalism advocate.
Without welfare, the best of the immigrants (the hard working ones) would come.
With welfare, a non hard working potential immigrant would say: “well, why to be a welfare parasite in Europe, if I can be a parasite of America?”
Please, let’s not be blind to the fact that many of the objections to immigration are made on the lefty/welfare arguments like “they lower our salaries” “are taking our jobs” or “they are an unfair load to welfare system” or “they don’t pay taxes for health care but they benefit of it” etc.
You asked for one natural right that is infringed upon due to immigration?
That right is make and keep Governments and laws which enjoy the consent of those who made them. What you are suggesting is that the people have no right to make laws for themselves and to limit those laws to whatever group pleases them. You can’t think that and still think that the people have a natural right to create Government and laws.
You try to do this by claiming that immoral laws have no need to be followed, but then the onus is on YOU to prove that a law limiting immigration is immoral. Go ahead.
Immigrant is not the same as Citizen. You can let them in as immigrants and they still have to obey the rules of America made by americans. If they have no political power, therefore Immigration by itself is no violation of the so called “right to make and keep Governments and laws which enjoy the consent of those who made them”.
I’ve not said we need no controls. You can have the controls, but -as I said- an objective standard is needed here. You can’t just close the borders in order to save your welfare state, then you better admit you are a leftist and it will be honest.
But you can restrict in order to avoid crimes. Yet, you need to assume innocence unless proven guilty, so use some objective standar to avoid inflowing of criminals based on their records, not on their provenance. Is not that “oh, I remember drugs cartels from Colombia, so let’s just close the borders to all the people from Colombia”.
Makewi wrote:
You asked for one natural right that is infringed upon due to immigration?
That right is make and keep Governments and laws which enjoy the consent of those who made them.
You mean like the “right” that white people had in the 19th century to make laws that kept black people in slavery? Those laws certainly had “the consent of those who made them”.
My god, how on earth did conservatives ever get to the point of believing that if the majority wants to legalize the lynching of the minority, they have a right to do so? And you wonder why minorities don’t want your types of leaders in office?
Rule of Law and Morality are not mutually exculsive, as you would like us to believe. Indeed, the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment thinkers before them believed that a Moral Society is the only kind that can keep a Lawful Society. Without the Rule of Law, morality is a minor concern.
If you believe the Law to be “immoral”, the first course of action is to change the law, not ignore it. We are a democracy and a fairly just society, after all.
The purpose of the Law is to serve Justice, not enforce Morality.
Rule of Law and morality, however, are not equivalent.
X is absolutely correct on this issue.
There is no “right” to limit the numbers of people coming into America from other countries. Those quotas should be eliminated, and enough processing centers set up to screen everyone who wants to come here to insure they don’t have infectious diseases and are not wanted criminals/terrorists.
Other than that screening, government has absolutely no role to play in immigration.
Now, naturalization — the process of becoming a citizen and earning the right to vote — is a different matter. It is proper and appropriate to require that immigrants master basic English and learn enough about our Constitution and laws to make intelligent choices in elections. Such citizenship requirements are rational.
However: If I wish to hire a man from Norway to work in my business and he wishes to be my employee — or if I wish to rent my apartment building to people from Mexico and they wish to be my tenants — we have the perfect right to such voluntary associations and relationships. Nothing on earth justifies the notion that government has a right to initiate the use of physical force to veto our mutual decisions to enter into these relationships.
Free association between individuals is not a crime. No one’s rights are being violated by such associations — no one is being physically harmed at all.
There is no “right to national sovereignty” — the only person who has a moral right to decide who may or may not come onto property is the owner of that property. And although the U.S. government does indeed have jurisdiction over the United States, it does not own the United States. Jurisdiction and ownership are two different things.
Nor do “the people” have some sort of collective right to vote for restrictions on immigration that overrules and vetoes the decisions of private property owners concerning who may be on their property — no matter how popular such restrictions may be. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.
The attitude that only those born in America have a right to enter America is completely irrational — a man’s rights are not a function of where he is born. And the attitude that Americans posses some sort of superior rights by accident of birth is offensive and greatly alienates the Hispanic community. No wonder they won’t vote Republican — I wouldn’t either if I were in their shoes.
Conservatives are on the wrong side of the immigration issue — and it stems from their unwillingness to summon the moral courage to fight the welfare state. Conservatives have spinelessly surrendered to liberals on the welfare state — and so they take it out on those who wish to escape hell-holes of corruption and despotism by coming to America. It is a thoroughly disgusting attitude and one that liberals will continue to use to their advantage.
So wake up conservatives! The enemy is not the Mexican who wants to come here and work — the enemy is the welfare state that attracts those that want to come here and mooch. When you react by demanding that both types keep out, you send the message that your unwillingness to fight the welfare state is so deep-rooted you are prepared to forbid freedom to millions and force them to a lifetime of poverty and oppression instead.
No wonder they detest you for it — all rational people will find that attitude revolting.
What sophistry. Of course Government has the crucial role in immigration. It is one of their few legitimate duties. What an idiotic argument. The representatives of the electorate have a moral obligation to control citizenship but not the borders? Just loopy cant. The Marxist are using immigration to destabilize society here, just as they are in Europe. To support this is either to be a traitor or a fool.
This is the real truth behind it.
The Democrats are “on the wrong side of this issues”, and this will become abundantly clear this November.
Think about it this way, if this is a natural law issue, would you allow truly needy homeless people to break into your house, live there, and consume your food without permission? Even if these homeless provided useful services such as cleaning your bathroom, you would still ask them to leave or perhaps even call the police. Illegal immigration is no different.
Evelyn claimed:
Think about it this way, if this is a natural law issue, would you allow truly needy homeless people to break into your house, live there, and consume your food without permission? Illegal immigration is no different.
Nonsense.
The man who breaks into your house and takes your food has initiated the use of physical force against you and has thus violated your property rights. The man who accepts my invitation to work in my business and live in my apartment building has initiated NO use of force against anyone and has violated NO one’s rights at all. Equating the two is ludicrous.
Sorry, I hadn’t noticed the second half of your response until just now. You have some very interesting ideas! You seem to be advocating for a sort of unwritten constitution rooted in natural law that recognizes all rights as universal, is that true? As such I think you may have bigger issues with the concept of the nation-state than a mere disagreement about immigration policy. Even in the natural law heavy declaration of independence, it argues that, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” As such it does assert that governments exist to further the ends of their populations, not the rest of the world, unless those governed will such a purpose. While a nation-state may elect to create positive rights for non-members, it essentially stops being a nation-state at that point. These sorts of arguments are very similar to those used by the confederacy. They wanted to use constitutional bases for secession, but as soon as you start advocating for a post-national state, you can’t really use the nation-state’s law as your basis. At least it gets a bit trickier.
There can no longer be any doubt that conservatives have completely abandoned the principles articulated in our Declaration of Independence.
So the world will know exactly what conservatives now stand for, I offer:
The Conservative’s Version of the Declaration of Independence
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to evade the disastrous problems created when they betrayed their founding principles to erect an unsustainable regulatory/welfare state — and commit a second betrayal wherein they ignore their neighbor’s rights and instead pretend their problems stem from these neighbors — a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they cook up some excuses for their betrayals.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created Unequal, that those lucky enough to be born in the United States are superior beings endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and unlimited welfare financed by confiscating the earnings of the most productive — that those unlucky enough to be born outside the United States are inferior beings endowed by their Creator not with unalienable rights, but instead with an unalienable duty — the duty to stay out of the U.S. until the superior beings grant permission to enter — the duty to rot in hell-holes of corruption and despotism for whatever indefinite period of time the superior beings arbitrarily decide to impose.
That to secure these rights of the native-born while insuring the right-less foreigners stay put in their hell-holes of corruption and despotism, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers to keep out the foreigners from the consent of the natives. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends and admits too many foreigners, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to keep the foreigners in their place and evade any necessity of challenging the welfare state or discuss the looming financial disaster it represents.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Border Patrol, we mutually pledge to each other our Votes against immigration, our Contributions to candidates against immigration, and our sacred pledge to never challenge the welfare state.
Such is the manner in which a political party and a movement that claims to chamption capitalism and freedom manages to deliver both to total destruction.
Michael, Thanks for your response. First of all I had not argued that the “needy homeless person” had committed a violent act against you, only that they had broken into your house. Let me try to phrase my comparison in better manner. Let us assume instead that the “needy homeless person” is squatting in your yard and gardening and raising livestock. Clearly you and your family or your landlord own that particular land, and ownership entails rights (indeed that is what ownership means). Because of the “needy homeless person” you are no longer able to use some of your yard, and if they are injured on your property you may be held liable. Would you be comfortable with such as arrangement? A modern nation-state is essentially owned collectively by its citizenry. My point was, that if natural law requires states (which are owned collectively by their citizens) to render assistance to the needy even to the point of the possible harm of its collective owners, shouldn’t private “personal” property also be subsumed by such natural law requirements? Perhaps another way of putting this would be to ask if insurance companies ought to provide benefits to non-members…but these questions are moot if you don’t believe in special obligations or property…Also I’m interested in your argument vis-a-vis invitation. Do you believe that an invitation (in your case to work) overrides obligation to preceding law or moral obligation? Are you by any chance a consequentialist? cheers!
Evelyn wrote:
A modern nation-state is essentially owned collectively by its citizenry.
Not in a free society that recognizes individual rights.
“Collective ownership” is a contradiction in terms because it actually means the destruction of ownership — it means the destruction of the very concept of property itself.
“Ownership” of property means the right to determine the use and disposal of that property. Thus the owner of a piece of land or a business has the right to determine its use and disposal, including who may or may not be on that property or work at that business — just as the owner of a car has the right to determine who may drive it — just as the owner of money has the right to decide how or if to spend it — just as the owner of a DVD player has a right to decide what music to play on it.
(The only limitation on the property owner’s right to use and disposal of his property is the same limitation that applies to all rights — namely, that the property owner cannot use his property in a manner that violates the rights of others. Thus the non-owners can insist that the property owner not use his property in a manner that brings physical harm (or threat thereof) to them. They can rightfully insist that he not harbor wanted felons or terrorists on his land or bring onto his property individuals with infectious diseases. Hence, the government has a right to screen incoming immigrants for such threats. But this right to screen immigrants does not confer a right to impose arbitrary limits on who property owners may or may not choose to associate with.)
But “collective ownership” regarding immigration is the notion that all the citizens of a country have a right to impose — presumably by vote of their elected representatives — restrictions on who may or may not be on any particular piece of privately owned property or work at any particular privately owned business — restrictions that have nothing to do with prohibiting the property owner from using his property in a manner that brings physical harm to others.
Nothing justifies this notion. Nothing justifies the idea that all the non-owners of a given piece of private property have a right to veto the owner’s judgments and decisions about who to permit on that property (assuming, again, that there is no threat of physical harm to the non-owners). The man who works to earn a paycheck is its rightful owner. If he trades that money for land, he is the land’s rightful owner. The notion that those who did not pay for the land have rights that veto his is utterly groundless and is simply a blatant violation of his property rights.
No one would say that the majority in one’s neighborhood have a right to dictate to the owner of a DVD player what music he may or may not listen to — the notion would be rejected as utterly unjust. Immigration quotas restricting my right to bring onto my property or hire into my business whomever I wish are just as unjust.
“Collective ownership”, then — to the extent that it is practiced — is the destruction of ownership — because it means that no one, no single individual, has the right to determine the use and disposal of property. It means that such determinations may at any time be overridden by anyone who gets a big enough gang together to vote for some other use of the property.
And observe that even this gang could not then be said to own the property — because another gang could come along tomorrow and have the first gang’s use of the property changed to something else entirely. In fact, if practiced consistently, “collective ownership” would be the end of the concept of property — nothing could be said to be owned free and clear by anyone.
This is why I say that the notion of “collective ownership” is actually the destruction of ownership altogether. And you may observe that the destruction of ownership in this country is accelerating. In addition to restrictive immigration laws, such noxious notions as “imminent domain” are used to justify the seizure of one man’s property for another man’s use.
In a free society, a nation is not owned collectively by its citizens. Rather, it has a government elected by the citizens that has jurisdiction over the land — but the land itself is controlled by private property owners.
This is why we must have open immigration: it is the only way to respect the rights of property owners to freely determine who may be on their property or working in their business and to protect the right of free association possessed by all individuals.
Now, naturalization — the process of becoming a citizen and earning the right to vote — is a different matter. It is proper and appropriate to require that immigrants master basic English and learn enough about our Constitution and laws to make intelligent choices in elections. Such citizenship requirements are rational.
great stuff here Michael, lot’s to chew over! You’ve obviously spet a great deal of time thinking through these ideas. So it seems you would like to see American law reflect a much more thoroughgoing right to property than currently exists. I think the key here can be seen in the founder’s decision to change “property” to “pursuit of happiness.” As the law currently stands there isn’t an absolute individual right to property, only a tertiary right via “pursuit of happiness.” If you look at the 5th amendment its clear that the state may take property from the individual for the public good as long as it compensates the original owner. Thus there is at least a sort of collective ownership, according to our constitution. What you are talking about is a fairly radical departure from mainstreams concepts of sovereignty. However, I do yield that if and when such an absolute right of property were to be yielded to the individual then immigration as a concept could not exist as all privately held lands would be sovereign. But this comes back to my point that as the nation-state currently exists, such absolute rights do not exist and to set immigration policy based upon non-extant rights may lead to more problems than it solves. Sort of like using a map of Germany to find your way around Florida. You may disagree with the constitutional framework, but in a democracy laws don’t cease to exist because they violate “natural law” whatever that may be, they cease to exist because they are amended, eliminated, or replaced.
“The first immigration law dates back to 1875, before that it was completely free as should be in a free society.”
That is a silly specious argument. Slavery was also legal before the 1870s and only white males had the right to vote. Would you have us go back to that too?
FYI: Prior to the 1870s there was essentially no “immigration” to the U.S. If you did genealogy research, as I do, you would know that between the American Revolution and the Civil War, the U.S. population consisted of descendants of the former British colonists. When doing genealogy research, if your ancestors were in the U.S. prior to 1860, then it is almost a given that they were descendants of the British colonists and the term “immigrants” does not correctly apply to the British colonists. A true “immigrant” is someone who moves from one nation (government/culture) into another, but the majority of the settlers of the 13 original British colonies were British citizens who moved/resettled within what was then territory of their home country, Britain. We would not call an American who moved to Alaska an immigrant. In the same way, British citizens moving to the British Colonies were not moving to a new nation with a different government, culture, language, religion, etc., so they were not true “immigrants.” Additionally, it should be pointed out there is a huge difference between being a founder/settler and a modern day immigrant. Modern immigrants come into an existing nation/culture looking for jobs that already exist. The original founder/settlers had to build their farms, businesses, and communities from the ground up–from “scratch” and they remained within their own nation, with its existing language, system of law, etc. That is a big difference and why you cannot directly compare the pre-1870s to illegal immigration today.
Today’s illegal immigrants are not only immigrating from one nation to another, they are helping unscrupulous employers evade existing minimum wage, workplace safety, and employee tax laws. You often hear the argument that illegals are only taking the jobs that Americans “won’t” do. This too is a specious argument, because American citizens cannot legally accept jobs where the employer does not comply with employment laws–but illegals do. That is why they’re “illegals.” They not only come here illegally, they work illegally too.
“The first immigration law dates back to 1875, before that it was completely free as should be in a free society.”
That is a specious argument. Slavery was also legal before the 1870s and only white males had the right to vote. Would you have us go back to that too?
FYI: Prior to the 1870s there was essentially no “immigration” to the U.S. If you did genealogy research, as I do, you would know that between the American Revolution and the Civil War, there was hardly any immigration, so the U.S. population consisted almost entirely of descendants of the former British colonies. When doing genealogy research, if your ancestors were in the U.S. prior to 1860, then it is almost a given that they were descendants of the British colonists and the term “immigrants” does not correctly apply to the colonists. A true “immigrant” is someone who moves from one nation (government/culture) into another, but the majority of the settlers of the 13 original British colonies were British citizens who moved/resettled within what was then territory of their home country, Britain. We would not call an American who moved to Alaska an immigrant. In the same way, British citizens moving to the British Colonies were not moving to a new nation with a different government, culture, language, religion, etc., so they were not true “immigrants.” Additionally, it should be pointed out there is a huge difference between being a founder/settler and a modern day immigrant. Modern immigrants come into an existing nation/culture looking for jobs that already exist. The original founder/settlers had to build their farms, businesses, and communities from the ground up–from “scratch” and they remained within their own nation, with its existing language, system of law, etc. That is a big difference and why you cannot directly compare the pre-1870s to illegal immigration today.
Today’s illegal immigrants are not only immigrating from one nation to another, they are enabling unscrupulous employers evade existing minimum wage, workplace safety, and employee tax laws.
Answer this:
Is stealing and killing a bad thing just because the law says so, or because there is still a higher principle that states it so?
Hint: stealing and killing actually violates natural rights, namely, life and property.
Now name one, just one, natural right which is violated by “immigrating”
Umm….property? You can’t just move into my house because you want a better one than you’ve got. We, the citizens of the United States, own this country, therefore, Mexicans who move in without our permission are violating our property rights.
I suspect you’ll call my equating of our nation with our homes ridiculous. Please prove me wrong.
Jack wrote:
We, the citizens of the United States, own this country, therefore, Mexicans who move in without our permission are violating our property rights.
No, “we” don’t own this country. We, as individuals, can own individual private property. But there is no such thing as “collective ownership” of the nation by its citizens. See my response to Evelyn above.
X,
Illegal immigration is “free” immigration. Before 1875 the threats to national security were not the same and far from as intensive as they are today. One of the main functions of government is to provide a secure environment in which people can be free to function as they see fit under the Rule of Law, which is not the same as laws. As far as I know we are the only country that turns its head from providing that security for political gain. Without at least a certain level of security there can be no freedom. Only anarchists believe in no law. If you can figure out a way to ensure safety for the citizens of a country through anarchy, let me know.
Interesting article. Is there away to get these groups to ‘see the light’ as it were. Im not sure. It seems that alot of these groups are so based around handouts and race cards that i dont know if we as conservatives can actually woo these people without becomming the the opposite of what we stand for. I think it will have to be done one person at a time. Independantly its not that difficult to show people that the conservative view is more along the lines of what they truly believe. However, The fact remains that the longer and deeper you invest in an idea, the harder it is to break away from it. even if its wrong. Its easy to get a black teen to agree on individual issues that the Conservs believe. but hard to get him to break away from the ‘herd mentality’ ESP when the very enemy we are figting is actually the epitome of what we are wanting. It usually takes a major event to change these things. I feel in my heart that conservative values are the right ones. But as a recovering lib it took alot of soul searching and hard life experience to change my mind.
My mother-in-law has voted Democrat her entire lifetime. If Jesus returned and announced as a Republican, she would still vote Democrat.
The only way to get through to people is to start in the school system. We let the liberals take over the teaching of our children 50 years ago and this is the result.
I agree with most of what you had to say in your article. We do need to reach out to black and Hispanic conservatives and brand liberal bigots for what they are bigots.
Here is where you lose me, “How many Republicans treat CAIR as a legitimate representative of Muslims?”, the answer should be NONE.
It is sheer insanity to keep importing Muslims through our insane and suicidal legal immigration policy. Why would you actually WANT people who are commanded to subvert our Constitution and replace it with Sharia law and wage jihad by either converting, killing, subjugating or enslaving all non Muslims to come here in the first place.
Wanting Republicans to court this vote is what is wrong with our country. If we want to save our country we must halt all Muslim immigration ASAP. If their numbers continue to grow we will NEVER NEVER NEVER be safe and we will live in constant fear just waiting for their next attack forever.
Islam can not be reformed. It can’t be changed. Their texts including the Koran can not be reformed because it is thought to be the immutable word of allah by their followers.
So it intead of capitulating to the concept of Muslims being a growing perctenage of our population we must concentrate on not only stopping but also reversing this trend. Same for illegals. We can send most of the illegals packing by simply enforcing our immigration laws and sealing the border. They will leave on their own.
Time to stop being losers constantly on defense. The only way to win is by going on offense.
Totally agree. They are all a “sleeper cells”, and not one of them did anything to make me think otherwise. They will never stand for this country and it’s laws, and will provide any and every support to those who wish to harm us. It’s insanity to think otherwise.
It is comments made by Steve and Skydiver, which will keep scaring minorities away. It is the part of the republican party that is completely intolerant and xenophobic, or at least that is how they come off. I am friends with several guys from Pakistan who I guarantee are not sleeper cells. Like any religion there are different levels of observance. For instance my friends date non Muslims and like to drink, but they still call themselves Muslim. When the GOP spends most of its time courting the xenophobic extreme right winger from the south, the minorities are going to be put off a bit. You also get politicians calling colored people Macaque on camera, and there goes the minority vote. You have people saying all Muslims are sleeper cells and there goes the minority vote. I had Vietnamese friends who were going to vote for McCain until Palin came on the scene. She scares minorities. I agree with the author the GOP will have to go above and beyond to court the minorities.
Brian: So you think Islam and our western culture are compatible? If so then why did followers of Islam call for jihad against us?
Gee look at Europe and witness how acquiescence to Islam is working out for them? And I guess this latest terrorist incident is just, what, a misunderstanding?? He knew the bomb would malfunction because he really didn’t want to hurt all the children in the theater, right?
My uncle will not work on saturday because he is jewish, does that mean all jews do not work on saturday. NO. You are taking a minority fringe and associating it with the rest of the group. This is what the left does with the tea party and you get upset about it. Just because one millitia group went fubar, should we go around and arrest them all? NO. Please see turkey for how islam and democracy can function. There is a reason we have seperation of church and state. It is because in the past we as westerners let religion take over government, which leads to disaster.
Blacks have been voting Democrat quite a while before the Republican Party began actively courting the Southern vote in the 1970s.
In fact, it can be said that in the early 20th century the Democrats had their own “Northern Strategy” before the so-called “Southern Strategy” of the Republicans came into existence.
Appealing to minorities isn’t what has kept the Republicans out of power and out of sync with the rest of the human race for decades. Any two elected Republicans in one room can’t stop fighting each other long enough for anyone in their right mind to figure out what the hell the GOP stands for, much less long enough for their political agenda to produce any lasting results.
Out of sheer political frustration what Mr. Hawkins is suggesting is understandable, but it would mean compromising a few things here and there in order to win elections. Hence, morals, principles, standards, pride, patriotism, faith in God, family values, hard work, compassion, individual rights, fidelity and due diligence are but a few cornerstones of conservatism (the supposed heart of the GOP.) that are now up for bid on the chopping block so that we can win elections.
It’s just a little bit dirty, but it is still clean makes it acceptable to more people. Or, she just flashes her boobs for a few seconds a few times means it gets an “R” rating rather than an “X”.
Dirt is dirt, porn is porn and there is no such thing as a little bit liberalized conservatism. Whatever your race, color or religion happens to be if you want a twisted perversion of life the Democrat Party will always be the best place for you.
Take A Deep Breath and Relax: The best thing that has happened to bring minorities into the Republican Party in many years is called Barrack Hussein Obama. It makes zero sense why anyone would want the Republican Party to try and be more like him.
Bit of a mouth full, aren’t you.
“Human race..” – wow, that’s reach. You don’t even understand, what republicans are all about. Those RINO’s you referring to as republicans, are not. And, I think, you are as ignorant about republicans as those who yell “discrimination”, at the top of these lungs, while destroying the very fabric of this nation. You, the democrats and liberals, are the greatest discriminators. But, you have mastered the art of propaganda and sold a line to all those, who think only about themselves, and have absolutely no intention to build and safeguard this great nation.
Big words, no substance. Typical democrat.
If it looks like a duck..
And wags it’s tongue like a duck..
Its probably a Ron Paul quack..
Republicans should focus solely on fiscal responsibility and national security. Grownups do not pander.
+1
Been waiting on that one for, like, 20+ years. I’ll believe it when I see it.
That in a nutshell is what their strategy should be.Stop allowing the Dems to define them.Unfortunately some do stick their own foot in their mouth.Dems do it also.The key is to let the Dems do it more often than the GOP.
The GOP doesn’t really have a narrative anymore that can appeal to minorities because they’re the light weight version of the Democratic Party. Even on issues that could be turned into civil rights for minorities like gun rights, there are so many Republicans that are basically like the Democratic establishment that the message is impossible to make.
Can you imagine the reaction within the Republican Party if a white conservative leader gave an impassioned speech at a church in the ghetto about how gun rights “protect law-abiding black folks from the gangbanger and the corrupt cop alike?”
You’d have @$$holes like David Frum falling all over themselves to denounce that sort of thing as violent extremism.
Won’t happen. The Nelson Rockefeller Country Club Republican Party can’t bring itself to shuck the lame Bozos like McCain, McConnel, Hatch, Boehner et al.
They call them “Leaders”!
Yes, I have to agree with you. But, as you said, it’s a “typical” GOP. Time for new leaders to come to the scene. And we do not have to be afraid to tell those old, time vested “leaders” that they have lost a touch with conservative, republican line of thinking.
Or we could just stop our current immigration policies. Which the dumb Republicans had a hand in creating while they watched all those new “Americans” marching in lock step with the left. Talk about committing suicide.
The only way the reps will really win over minorities to play them like the dems do and promise them undeserved entitlements to sooth their culturally propagated victim and entitlement mentality. They will have to sell out the country for votes. I’d rather not have those votes at that cost.
Hawkins, you really do NOT understand what it means to be conservative. With that in mind, your commentary is full of crap.
There are several reasons why minorities (we are really talking about blacks) will never accept the conservative ideology or vote GOP. Minorities, a liberal product, will never accept their own responsibiliity for their collective and individual failures so therefore will never accept conservatism. Furthermore, they have grown dependent upon the government handouts that liberals give them: Two generations of welfare, affirmative action and legal discrimination against white Americans, non-judgement by said liberals when minorities commit crimes, indulge in their OWN African culture at the expense of American culture, i.e. African-American, have their own colleges and scholarships, and freedom to blame every failure on America and white Americans.
“that blacks and Hispanics, taken as a group, have fallen behind other Americans economically, the Democrats have particularly fertile ground for their message there..” You fail to see that is has been liberal ideology and programs that have forced both races into not assimilating into American culture, not striving to improve themselves and falling more dependent upon the government. It is NOT America’s fault for their plight.
“Shouldn’t we be copying their approach instead of doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result?” No. We will never out-dole the liberals. And if minorities cannot see that their plight is the result of their obeisance to liberals then they deserve what they get. Why should we compromise our beliefs in what America is and what it means to be American?
That today’s liberals/progressive are using the playbook of Lenin and Marx is enough for us NOT to use the same playbook.
Isn’t this the same sort of Michael Steele-ish “the GOP has nothing to offer Blacks” nonsense?!
Anyone of any race, creed, color, gender, orientation (etc etc yada yada) with a modicum of self-respect, responsibility and self-reliance is offered something by the GOP.
Blotto, you seem to have grouped every Black American into one category to make it easy for you to rant about why you think your view is correct. Not every Black person in America bows their knee to the Democratic Party. I have been a Conservative Republican for 25 years, and know of other Conservative Black Americans who have not drunk from the spigot of stupidity that the Democratic Party offers for all Black Americans and minorities to drink from. So, please stop generalizing minorities in one statistical category (poor and ignorant on welfare), and instead offer true facts, and not just some off the cuff blabber. If the Republican leaders would take a true stand and counter the tactics that the Democratic party is using (Race Baiting), and Fear tactics of the Republicans want to take everything from you that you so rightfully deserve, and lay out a real game plan without smoking mirrors, then there may be a chance of reaching those who are appalled by what they see their government is doing (Democratic leaders, and Rhino’s) and the future they are setting them up to live in and their children, which is destruction and more poverty.
….and what happens when some Republicans DO counter the race-baiting garbage of the Left? RACISTS! FASCISTS! NAZIS! (repeat mantra until dizzy)
Of course not all blacks are liberal, but they are the reason that Obama is currently in the White House.
This will never work with minorities because it is so much easier to blame whitey for their problems of laziness, ignorance and race based hate. It can all be blamed on people that actually support the looters in a style envied throughout the world. If these people want more money, they simply have to demand it by screaming RACISM. They will GET IT AS DEMANDED.
Good thoughts, but there are a lot of folks on the right who don’t like identity politics in any form.
This is more about marketing to minorities then engaging in identity politics. First off the GOP has to match it’s action with its rhetoric. Hard to talk the talk, when they don’t walk the walk.
Once they get back on track, I can see crafting the message that GOP policies benefits you, GOP policies benefit everyone. And crafting the message so that it appeals to different voting blocks.
This is little more than ‘do anything and tell any kind of lie to win elections. It’s ok because the other side does it.’. No thank you. A republican pandering in this manner is just as disgusting as a democrat doing it.
Ugh. Here we go again. Another article with a promising title and intriguing premise that runs out of gas by the end.
May I respectfully submit that if an article argues that the GOP should change tactics to make inroads with minorities, that article should spend more than one, slim paragraph providing actual suggestions or tactics for doing so? This article, as well-meaning as it is, could be summed up as, “Hey, listen. We don’t seem to be increasing our share of minority voters. We should do…er, something about that!” Talk about stating the obvious.
What exactly is the author proposing? A conservative NAACP? How does that square with the conservative tenet that an organization devoted to the advancement of any, single race or ethnicity is inherently wrong? Probably just an unfortunate choice of words. Is the author advocating a conservative Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? Fight fire with fire? He doesn’t say.
To be fair, he does make a solid, though vague, suggestion about funding inner-city programs that “hand out scholarships” and otherwise help poor neighborhoods. This, to me, is critical. And it is not new strategy. See, for example, the article by Steven Teles in the Fall 2009 Issue of National Affairs for an extensive treatment of efforts by the GOP to court minorities (http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-eternal-return-of-compassionate-conservatism).
I do not argue that we need to return to “compassionate conservatism” (whatever definition may be assigned to it), but the conservative outreach to minorities, particularly those in poor, urban areas, is incredibly fertile ground. Why? Because the issue of a good education is of paramount importance to minority families, and it is perhaps the most glaring example of where liberal Democrats have failed their minority base in such an outrageous manner that minorities are open to alternatives, even from conservatives. For evidence, one need look no further than the shocking betrayal of minority families by Democrats in Washington, D.C.
For the past several years, the Federal government supported a voucher program which allowed over 5,000 low-income students in D.C. to attend private schools. Given the abysmal quality of D.C. public schools, it was an enormously successful program which, naturally, infuriated liberals and the public school unions. Democrats suffered fits of rage because they were caught between two constituencies with polar opposite interests. Democrats during the Bush 43 Administration dared not kill the program as the unions demanded but they dared not embrace or expand the program as the black community demanded. For the first time, Democrats were exposed as hypocrites, feigning concern for the poor while opposed to a program that accomplished minor miracles for the poor. When Obama took office, the Democrats finally acted and killed funding for the program, forcing the 5,000+ students to return to the failed public schools.
If the GOP wants to make serious inroads with minorities, THIS is where to start. Push hard in every major city for an expansion of the voucher program (both for private schools and for charter schools). Force the Democrats to choose between the huge union donations and the well-being of the minorities that they claim to care about. Dems will take the cash every time and conservatives will finally get a chance to demonstrate to minority voters that they have an alternative to the Democrat party.
+1
If you want to support an institution that supports the individual rights of the little guy, regardless of minority status, check out the Institute for Justice.
If the GOP were really smart they’d utilize testamonials from those affected parents and students to illustrate how hypocritical the donkeys are.
Our educational system does not promote critical thinking, so bringing a rational message to those semi-educated by it (not only minorities!) is an uphill battle.
I do not believe the GOP will ever, ever attract more than 15-20% of the black vote, due to the left-wing extremism of the black electorate. It will just have to adjust its electoral strategy accordingly. It is politically incorrect to say that you must write off blacks, but realistically, the GOP must do that.
By 2050, Asians will be as high as a percentage of the population as blacks, and this is the group upon which the GOP should focus, due to their high income, high level of education, and propensity to start small businesses and build them.
And us Jews? Demographics will take care of that — by 2050, Orthodox and Hasidim will be the vast majority of American Jews, so by then, Jews will be a GOP constituency.
I’m with you on what you are saying but I ditto #5, steve, on Islam. Also, as the Grace caper at Harvard and Dean Minow’s reaction illustrate the biggest group of ardent lefties and addicts to a pusher government isn’t even mentioned.
Maybe if the GOP stopped treating people as cattle for an election, it might get somewhere.
Wow, Alex, you really got us with that insightful if succinct bit of wisdom.
Please, elaborate. What do you mean by “cattle for an election”. May I have a name(s) of those who treated you like that???
If we act like the Democrats, then we are just democrat lite, and why vote for democrat lite, when you can vote for the real thing and get the warm fuzzies too?
The means create the ends.
I have wrestled with this issue for years. Thank you Mr Hawkins for your thoughtful analysis.
I have long thought that conservatives need to found and promote a conservative university that would present an educational opportunity and alternative to the liberal dominated university choices. Hilsdale college is a start, but we need more.
I disagree with several commentators above who think this problem is somehow intractable. I know minority people who are conservative, it is not a genetic predisposition. We need to offer a better message. It will take time and money to turn the tide. There are lots of minority middleclass people who have a lot to lose by voting for liberals. John is onto something when he talks about the organizations representing a liberal alternative for minorities only.
They already have what republicans would consider “conservative universities”, they are all religious institutions.
That’s the problem.
Republicans can’t find a way to be secular and conservative. They invariably end up with a religious component in the things that they do. The religious component eventually ends up being the driving component. So if the republicans are asked to choose between religion and free markets, they pick religion every time. This is part of the reason why they are such a lackluster warrior for individual freedom. If they have to pick between their principles and their desired way of making people do what they think they should do, its the principles that are abandoned first.
See post #5.
We have a really serious problem of hatred against white men in this country. Mr. Hawkins ignores this catastrophe. We had the entire United States media along with politicians salivating over their despicable hope that the NYC car bomber was a white man and even better a Tea Partier. Then chipmunked faced Katie Couric and RINO NYC mayor Bloomberg were saying that the terrorist was probably a white man and didn’t like Obamacare. That is hate.
Well surprise, surprise he turned out to be a Pakistani-American Muslim, a U.S. citizen. How the hell did that happen? What did we let him come here in the first place? How could this benefit our country?
We don’t need to appeal to the racist haters on the Left. Just leave the door open to anybody who wishes to live in liberty and respect our Constitution. Asian Americans would be a better target than blacks IMO although we should appeal to all just on the basis of our message which should be that of our Founders.
Please read today’s Washington Times editorial, Blame It On The White Man and pass it along – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/05/blame-the-white-man/
First,I think this development should also be considered.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/democrats-worst-fear-is-about-to-come.html
Second, Hawkins says this:
“People who are lower on the socioeconomic scale naturally tend to favor the party enlarging the taxpayer-funded dole. Given that blacks and Hispanics, taken as a group, have fallen behind other Americans economically, the Democrats have particularly fertile ground for their message there.”
Ref to blacks, does he mean blacks were doing very well as slaves and soon after the Civil War, but now have fallen behind? Were “Hispanics” better off in Mexico, doing quite well, but now are doing badly in the U.S. I don’t get it and won’t buy it.
Then we see Hawkins say this: “Republicans have to make a choice. Do what it takes to pull minorities into the party, or cede them forever to the Democrats.” No sir, no. We certainly don’t want to pander to the gimme gimme factions. We need to let the Dems continue to buy votes with our taxpayer money.
I do like the Hawkins idea of a Republican-sponsored charity, funded voluntarily to promote opportunity, not welfare, and devoid of the racism inherent in the NAACP. As to Repubs recognizing Jackson and Sharpton as leaders, the MSM does that, not Repubs so much.
I agree 100% with your suggestion about engaging the culture. I would add, however, that Republicans, especially Conservatives, need to become more in your face about the race hustlers and groups you mentioned. We need to proclaim defiantly that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not the spokesmen of the black community. Nor are these two men Christian. Their work over the years has done nothing to improve the standing of the black community and, if anything, has only enslaved it to the liberal establishment. Conservatives need to call these guys out on their evil not be congenial with them. Scripture tells us to judge others by their fruits and Jackson and Sharpton have produced nothing but evil.
Social conservatives and conservatives in general need to be more confrontational about the social positions they share with minorities. We should point out that to vote with Jackson is to vote for abortion, for gay marriage, and for the destruction of the black family. We should carry the fight to these groups, use their own words and deeds against them, and expose them as exploiters of the people they claim to represent. It is not enought to share social positions with the minority groups. We have to show them how the liberal establishment – who they maintain in power – works against the very positions the people claim to support. We should expose every lie. Denounce every falsehood. And shame everyone who claims to be socially conservative and yet empowers the death merchants of the left.
Amen to the article. For all the talk and more talk; what you suggest is the only real way of changing things. It is called organization. The one problem I see is a core difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are individualists and Democrats are group think. This is why it is so hard for Republicans to “organize”. It is what Democrats have taken advantage of for years. If you can get past that what you suggest can be accomplished. Otherwise…..well just look at the entries under comments….see what I mean.
All of you – and the author – are forgetting that the battle for the political ‘soul’ of blacks was fought and lost a long time ago – back when the debate was between the “Booker T. Washington/George Washington Carver view that blacks would succeed by assiduous effort and focus on education and high standards of behavior, and those who were millennarians of one sort or another, from WEB DuBois, a Marxist, to Marcus Garvey and his ilk. Sensible ideas lost. Blacks still pretty much voted Republican, where they voted at all, before FDR, but the mass of the black community was gone to the Republicans when they let the Democratic South have it’s way with Jim Crow, especially as things got worse for blacks (including under Wilson) in the early 20th century.
Have to be very careful with generalizations.
First, while it may be true that alot of damage has been done to the black community by leftist and statist thinking, it is dangerous (and perhaps bigoted) to say write off an entire group of people by saying that the battle has been lost a long time ago.
As conservatives in a culture where the liberals control much of education, media, entertainment and politics, it is very tempting to get frustrated and simply write people off. That is a form of defeatism we cannot indulge.
Look at education. This is still an extremely important issue for the black community. There is an incredible amount of frustration and anger in Baltimore City, for example, over the atrocious performance of city public schools. Same with Washington, D.C. (refer to Comment #15 above). The black community is rightfully upset that after more than 40 years of Democrat control over the Baltimore school system, it has gotten progressively worse. The Democrats have no, real explanation for this except to pour ever greater amounts of money down the hole that is the public school system. They dare not challenge the teacher unions. And, worse, the Democrats refuse to allow a voucher system of any kind that would enable black students to attend the many excellent, private Catholic schools in the Baltimore area. (Sadly, over the last year, many of these private schools are being shut down due to lack of enrollment!) So here we have a population that is in desperate need of an alternative to the miserable public schools that their Democrat masters insist that they attend and a system of excellent private schools that are in desperate need of students to fill the classrooms. And all that stands between them is the Democrat Party machine.
As conservatives, can we not see that this is a HUGE opportunity to reaffirm a core belief in education (and correspondingly affirm that value in the black community) by supporting and rallying for vouchers for these kids? Does anyone think that a concerted effort by conservatives to get black children a good education (even if it fails due to Democrat obstruction) will not be noticed and appreciated by the black community, locally? (I concede that the so-called national black leadership will vilify conservatives, but that cannot be avoided regardless). Even if conservatives have to run for city council or state races as independents rather than GOP, the black community will eventually elect those who support a better education for their kids, even if they disagree on other subjects. (But the truth is, as the article and others point out, that there are many issues where blacks are conservative; we just have to establish a beach head somewhere— Education is that beach head!).
We don’t need people who play the victim and are consumed by grievance.
“X” spouts the knee-jerk “there are no illegals” nonsense, dressed-up in “but it’s Hitler-ish immoral, so it’s OK to reject it” sanctimony.
There is clearly no part of *IL*legal which “x” is willing to understand.
X tries to make the point that ignoring immoral laws is the moral thing to do.
Which is a defensible position.
Where he fails is in his attempt to show that any restriction on immigration is an immoral law.
He just declares it, along with some nostrums about being able to travel where ever you want being a human right. Another claim that he just dumps on us without trying to defend.
Whenever challenged, he retreats into his “ignoring immoral laws” defense, in which nobody disagrees with him.
Which shows that he either:
Doesn’t understand the two part nature of the argument he is trying to make.
Knows that he can’t defend the second part, so he accuses everyone of disagreeing with the first part.
MarkTheGreat wrote:
Where he fails is in his attempt to show that any restriction on immigration is an immoral law.
By any rational standard, it is immoral to initiate — to start — the use of physical force or threat thereof against others. When such force is initiated to steal property, that is the immoral act of theft. When such force is initiated to take life, that is the immoral act of murder.
And there is no distinction between the actual use of force and threatened use of force. When a man robs you at gunpoint, the fact that he doesn’t actually shoot you does not mean he is not forcing you to surrender your money. The threat is as good as the real thing.
The only moral use of physical force against people is when it is done in retaliation against those who have already initiated such force and have thus violated the rights of another. This is why we have the right to use force in self-defense — because self-defense is retaliatory in nature. This is why it is moral for the police to use physical force against criminals — because they are acting in defense of our rights by retaliating against a force initiator.
Now what is a law that limits the number of people that can immigrate into country A from country B? Such a law is the initiation of the threat to use physical force in the form of police action against those who have not initiated the use of force against others. It is the initiation of the threat of physical force against all those in country A who wish to voluntarily associate with those from country B in numbers greater than the specified quota. It is the use of force — in the form of initiating a threat — not in retaliation against a force initiator, but against those innocent of any use of force.
Such a law is indeed immoral — all initiations of physical force or threats to do so against those who have not initiated force themselves are immoral, including when the government does it.
(Proper laws — such as the laws against murder, stealing, extortion, etc — are also threats to use physical force — but these are threats to use force only in retaliation against those lawfully convicted of initiating force.)
Assuming one is not trespassing on private property, the mere act of crossing a border does not initiate the use of physical force (or threat thereof) against anyone. Any law that initiates the threat to use force against such individuals is every bit as immoral as any private individual initiating such a threat.
That’s why restrictive immigration laws are immoral.
This is a stupid argument. Democrats win because they out-bid Republicans as the credible anti-White Party.
Lets repeat that. Non-Whites hate/loathe Whites, and want as a practical matter, overt discrimination against Whites (Affirmative Action) plus wealth transfers (tax money from Whites spent on non-Whites).
NOTHING the Republican Party can do will beat that.
Dems will always outbid Reps for Black support (Blacks are only 12.5% of the population and not growing). Kick Whites out of leadership positions so Blacks can take over, as Obama’s Diversity Czar, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones suggested?
Sure, Dems HAVE urged, and done just that. Along with endless AA, endless social spending on Blacks, which Reps cannot match.
Look at Latinos. La Raza WORKS because at its heart it demands a Mexican-majority America voting itself goodies and power by discriminating against Whites, and turning America into Mexico Norte. With Whites in second class position (hence the signs “Whites go back to Europe” or “this is OUR LAND” or “Reconquista” and so forth). Dems will ALWAYS bid up Amnesty, open borders, instant citizenship, as Mexicans vote in blocs to maximize their numbers, put up essentially “No Whites Allowed” and so forth in government, and private employment, social spending and so on.
In 1940, Whites were 89.4% of the population and Blacks 10.1%, the rest (0.5%) were Hispanic, Asian, etc.
We have moved from overwhelmingly White to 66% White. With White America vanishing, Whites as second class citizens in our own country. White men being told that they are worthless, trash, “boring,” and of course, racist.
David Duke lives in a trailer park. Louis Farrakhan has a mansion bigger than Oprah’s.
It is time for Whites to stop being ashamed … of being White. For Republicans to embrace their status as the ONLY PARTY that has the interest of ordinary Whites at heart. Point out that Dems are rich White folks like Barbara Streisand, and anti-White Blacks and Hispanics, and urge action to limit non-White immigration, and kick out as many illegals as possible.
Indeed, the Republican Party ought to cite the Liberal view of the constitution as a “living document” with dead Amendments such as the 2nd and 10th, that no longer mean anything, and demand that “anchor babies” and their descendants be expelled from the US so that social spending can be focused on the majority population.
And specifically argue that kicking out illegals, and anchor babies, and their descendants, will allow ObamaCare to provide FREE and WORLD CLASS breast cancer screening and treatment (and prostate cancer screening/treatment) that would be otherwise unaffordable, to the remaining people. Hit middle and working class White women right where they are most concerned. Point it can be done, with no tax increases, and they can keep their breasts, not die of cancer. All it takes is kicking out Juan the Illegal Alien, and his kids, and grand-kids.
Politics ain’t beanbag, and its always spoils politics. Is that small government libertarianism? Nope. Because that’s a loser. No one will vote for it, or at least not in sufficient numbers. Instead, about 90% of the 66% of the White Vote is 59%, good enough to win.
Black people hate White people (look at the OJ Trial, or beating of Reginald Denny). We should not delude ourselves. Nothing will change that, and I for one feel no guilt over Segregation or Slavery, since neither I nor my family ever had anything to do with either. Mexicans hate Whites as well (read translations of La Raza). This is who non-Whites are. But more to the point, their interests are making Whites numerical minorities, and extracting the maximum amount of concessions from them. Cultural and other issues are side points beyond that which don’t really matter.
There is no “deal” to be made, because there is no common interest. No exchange of money for goods. Labor for money. The fundamental interests of non-Whites (putting Whites to the back of the bus, and making them second class citizens, last in line for anything in society, jobs, money, social spending, hiring, firing, government positions, media and so on) are incompatible with that of Whites: NOT BEING LAST.
Its as simple as that.
Standing up for White self interest does not mean the Klan, it merely means Whites are not going to meekly sit in the back of the Bus and be insulted by folks as arguably racist as that of the Klan itself.
I can only hope that you are being sarcastic or else that you will soon sober up.
It is no more acceptable for you to say that all non-whites hate whites than it is for the leftists to say that all conservatives hate minorities.
Yes, La Raza and the Nation of Islam and such groups are racist and repulsive. But they no more represent a majority of “non-whites” as you call them than the KKK or Nazi Party represents whites.
But if you want to radicalize large portions of the “non-white” community in the U.S., your kind of simplistic rant is just the way to do it.
Go find a hate group somewhere that you can be comfy in, please.
Just ignore the resident crazy-train going off the rails.
Um, isn’t that National Socialism?
All non-whites hate whites?
Tell that to my very black brother-in-law you racist moron.
If it’s any consolation, whiskey also hates women (of any shade of melanin but especially white women). Must be a balancing act to be a misogynist and a bigot all rolled into one.
Lets not forget that anyone who is born here is a citizen, so says our constitution. So you cannot kick them out just because their parents are illegal. Unless you are advocating ignoring the constitution. 14th “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
It is so often that our hearts go out to those we see on the news, who have been made victims of some disaster or shooting or some other horrendous event. It is also at these times, that the liberal damocrats come crawling from behind the woodwork, to offer government assistance along with their tears. These are the efforts that have made the Democrats appear as shining knights.
No matter how ill-gotten and undeserved the image, the Democrats do hold it. And, it is also true that it has not been by any overt action of the Republicans themselves, that they have the opposite image. The Democrats have worked for decades to sharpen both images.
Yet, when it comes down to sponsoring individual rights and equal rights legislation and appropriating funding for school programs or other services, it is generally the Republicans who propose and vote in favor of this legislation. Republicans generally do so without adding countless amendments, which also add “pork” and likewise increase costs and the size of government.
That is why I mention the undeserved image of the Democrats, as a shining knight. Americans must return to their more base nature. The natural means by which this nation was formed and has grown. The spirit, if you will, which guarantees an indivdual’s positive sense of self-worth through effort, enterprise, invention and through charity. Not by gaining special favor through the election of a self described shining knight.
Part of the solution is going to have to include getting more conservative Black Republicans elected so that they can help communicate the benefits of conservatism. I get sick every time I hear Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton speak. They don’t represent my views, but they are used by the media and Democratic Party (one and the same) to help keep the Black vote in the Democratic Party by making the Republican Party the party of “racists.” Thus, the message of conservatism doesn’t even get heard because all that Black people hear is “racism, racism, racism.” This is an unfortunate but true reality and quite frankly I am sick and tired of it.
How do you counter this? You have to get other African-Americans to communicate the message. Unfortunately, the mindset in the Black Community is not to trust what a white politician tells you. (Unless, of course, he has been endorsed by a Black preacher or someone in the community who calls him “one of us.”) So, you’ve got to get conservative Black politicians elected who can then promote and explain the benefits of conservatism and show that it isn’t racist. Once more African-Americans hear what conservatism is all about, they’ll like it because it is consistent with the values of many in the Black community (i.e. pro-life, lower taxes, etc.)
I think that this year is a good start in this direction. It looks like there are a significant number of African-Americans running for office as Republicans. The more of these people that we can get elected, the better. Here’s a link to an article about this at HotAir: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/05/nyt-discovers-record-number-of-black-republicans-running-for-congress/
I’m 100% against identity politics of any kind, it’s utterly corrosive. Just look at Europe in general and the former Yugoslavia in particular to see where it ultimately leads. The Republican Party is never going to win by imitating the strengths of the Democratic Party, especially the dependence on government and multi-culturalism. Accept the fact that Republicans are the party of anti-government: keep your nose out of my business, let me earn a living as i see fit, and being a bureaucratic do-gooder doling taxpayer money is not an enticing career.
We should go with our strength, how to make a good living and live a good life. To that end, I suggest that the Reps set up business boot camps in the ghetto and other poor communities. Show up with a business plan, or even just an idea for a business, and we will show you what you have to do to succeed, including busting your behind 16 hours a day. Make it free to all who come even if they’re Democrats. It will change the culture over time.
Yes, I am certain it will continue to be hard for the GOP to attract votes from racial minorities when conservatives believe all people should expect to work for a living while Democrats grant minorities victimhood status with commensurate lifetime welfare benefits.
Republicans believe it should be all about the issues, while Democrats push culture. They tell minority groups that Republicans hate them, and it works — despite the fact that it’s entirely false. They also tell minorities that their ethnic identity is tied up in voting for the Democratic Party.
Aside from the traditional antagonism that the Republican party has shown toward minorities, who have been economically marginalized for centuries in this country and have needed programs to counter act both the institutional and societal racism that has kept them at the bottom for so long, its paragraphs like that that really do it. I don’t like being condescended to by Democrats to be honest. But this kind of thing really insults my intelligence. The idea that minorities are unable to see where their self-interest lies, but rather are led around the nose because they are so stupid is probably the biggest single factor causing minority people to despise Republicans. But then again, we both know that this treatise isn’t written for minorities in the first place.
…have needed programs to counter act both the institutional and societal racism that has kept them at the bottom for so long
What a crock.
Great Society programs have been hatched by some of the biggest lying hypocrites on planet Earth.
All the Titles this and Titles that have bound up the country in legalistic BS for decades now and have not served the aspirational and noble interests of a single individual.
We have a President, a Supreme Court justice and a whole host of individuals who wouldn’t even be close to the positions they’re in had their ascension been a function of merit as opposed to Affirmative Action.
Clarence Thomas (maybe Thomas Sowell) will back me up on that assertion.
Oscar:
“I don’t like being condescended to by Democrats to be honest.” First stupid comment. Yet you vote Dem anyway.
“But this kind of thing really insults my intelligence.” Second stupid comment. If you had intelligence then you would have noticed that since 1965, minorities have lost ground in all areas of American life except drug abuse, illegitimate childbirth, gang affiliation, crime, drop out rates and now employment. So gee, the Dems must be doing something right, eh? But apparently your superior intelligence has not picked up on those things.
“The idea that minorities are unable to see where their self-interest lies, but rather are led around the nose because they are so stupid is probably the biggest single factor causing minority people to despise Republicans.” Third stupid coment. That’s just it; blacks do only vote and support in their apparent self-interest even if it eventually leads them into modern-day servitude to the Dem party. So either they are stupid or are being led around like slaves to the Dems. Which is it?
First contradiction:
This so called antagonism exists in your mind only.
That’s a giant leap to make when no Conservative believes people can’t or don’t think for themselves. Its just the opposite. Not only that, Conservatives don’t want people to be led by the nose.
The problem lies in the fact that a Democrat will always convince you of how he is going to get government to help you, not how government will pave the way for you, yourself to become successful. Big difference.
Marginalization of minority groups only comes from those who count minorities as political tools for re-election. i.e. the Democrats. Conservatives, on the other hand, will always support your right to free speech, free expression and freedom to practice your religion. They’ll support you in your efforts to begin an enterprise of your own, allow you to remain free to defend yourself from criminal attack, and help you to freely petition the government, so you can have your voice heard. A Democrat will only tell you what you can get for free, in essence, bribing you for your vote.
(Democrats) tell minority groups that Republicans hate them, and it works — despite the fact that it’s entirely false. They also tell minorities that their ethnic identity is tied up in voting for the Democratic Party.
It doesn’t “work” with all members of so called minority groups.
So if the approach isn’t working and isn’t going to work, isn’t it time to change it?
Changing an approach, tweaking a message in order to appeal to this or that minority group for this or that reason is playing the Democrat game of identity politics.
Republicans have to make a choice. Do what it takes to pull minorities into the party, or cede them forever to the Democrats…Imagine the moment the Democratic Party can’t pull 70 million minority votes with: “Republicans hate you! Your race determines your thoughts!” It would forevermore change this country for the better.
A lot of Hispanics and blacks and everyone else under the sun (differentiated artificially as a function of melanin or country of national origin or gender etc.) understand and appreciate the fundamental principles of self-determination & free enterprise. Even now, people from around the world come to the US, and it isn’t because they’re drawn to some Democrat/Socialist agenda of free lunches all around or the political machinations of Progressives.
Are you suggesting that minorities are too stupid to see through the lies of the promises ? That they don’t have a natural aversion to the notion of government “taking care” of them ?
Michael Steele’s big drawback is that he’d like the Republican party to morph along lines you’re recommending (or purporting to recommend) here.
The GOP shouldn’t appeal to any race – matters of liberty and individual rights are outside of race entirely. If a person of color can’t understand that concept then so be it.
The Statist strategy of buying minority votes with tax dollars wins…
until the tax money goes away, and the protests (riots) begin.
The Conservative strategy should be to start preparing, now, to enlist
the competent minority of the minorities as caretakers of the incompetent
majority of the minorities, the masses of the underclass who will never
be able to earn a living on their own in the cruelly efficient future.
P.S. The IMM will vote for the party supported by the CMM, to continue
receiving the necessities of life.
I think the author makes a good point. It would seem to me that the experiments proposed by the Democrats in the 30′s, and again in the 60′s, have failed, and that the evidence of failure is incontrovertible.
Voting Democrat leads to urban decline. Allowing Union trusts leads to pervasive poverty. They have not let a Republican within a mile of Detroit’s city hall in 50 years. Look at the result. Are the blacks living in Detroit happy? Are they thriving? What about the south side of Chicago? Philadephia?
Yes, the Democrats vote them money, but they are USING them to gain power. I was thinking this morning that the modern Democratic Party is not that different in its paternalism from the Democrats who used to defend slavery in the South. In both cases, an elite claimed that only it knew what was best for the poor, benighted blacks. If you read the defenses of slavery written back in the 1840′s and 50′s, you see arguments that slavery was good FOR THE SLAVES, who could not be expected to run their own lives without supervision from their betters?
Have things really changed? I don’t see it. I see a broad swathe of destruction of rights, self respect, and wealth following the Democrats, like an oil spill, polluting everything in exchange for nothing.
Very well put.
Yes, the Democrats vote them money, but they are USING them to gain power.
The Democrat/Progressive message is absolutely reliant on keeping some alleged tension, some suggestion of unfairness, an “us versus them” mentality alive and well.
Any extant, sentient being of any skin color, gender, religious persuasion or whatever should be disgusted.
Not to mention that the receiving of so called freebies robs the essential will of an individual, keeps them in a dependent, childlike position.
Self evidently, the best, most principled way of winning blacks is to TELL THE TRUTH. There is no need for a strategy. You can’t fight lies with lies; the only way to fight lies is to tell the truth well, and get heard. That is all we can or should do.
So often I see people talking about the politics of power. Yes, the Democrats play that game well, since that is all they do. They have no principles. Yet, getting Machiavellian defeats the point of wanting power in the first place. Bush was elected twice, but for many intents and purposes may as well have been Clinton. Hell, Clinton was arguably a better fiscal conservative.
The point is not to get parties in power, but principles in power. That is all that will save us from ourselves, and the pervasive idiocy peddled daily by idiotic journalists and news programs, that together do so much to keep us in drooling mounds of subhumanity.
The imbecility has to stop, and the beginning point is clear, principle based thinking. In teaching that to people who have been indoctrinated since birth, we further the cause of what is Good in this world, and will be capable of winning votes.
The problem is evident in this article and the posts; treating people like nothing more than a vote, or some type of autobot that votes for whoever promises them the most in an election..frankly it portends much worse future for the GOP than might be understood.
This approach is somewhat politically ignorant and insecure. The problems in our economy are not superficial, they are traced in a single straight line to President Nixon removing the US dollar from Gold convertibility and replacing it with Petroluem
( The petro dollar) in 1971…really stupid move.
Does anyone even discuss this, anywhere..?? no, because there there is no profit in actually solving the problem, only in perpetually asking for money to fight the ” other side of the aisle” policies…
Republicans want smaller government…but we end up with larger Government each time they take control
Democrats want better economic opportunity, but we end up with higher debt which bleeds the economy each time they leave.
Republicans lower taxes, which leads to deficit spending
Democrats want health care for everyone, which leads to deficit spending
Etc, etc, etc…a never ending spiral that each ” side ” plays into and leaves the nation in worse shape than when elected.
There is little difference in the RESULTS each party leaves, they just have different marketing strategies. Anyone that takes the GOP or DNC seriously should take a good hard look at History..this nation is becoming a repeat of many failed and collapsed societies, run into the ground by its own leaders.
What I find so weird is how involved Republicans in the 1960s were in Civil Rights. Irv Dirksen, the Republican Senator from Pekin, Il, co-wrote the Civil Rights Act. He as much as Lyndon Johnson was responsible for that act. Take a look at the voting on that bill and the preponderance of Republicans voting for it. Is it possible that the shift began with Nixon’s courting of Southern Conservatives? To me, a life-long Democrat, the Republicans were the party of emancipators and the Democrats were the party of exploiters and corruption. I voted Democrat for so long based on their platforms and some very good local candidates.
This is a matter for historians, but I think it was the Roe v. Wade ruling that started to push the South in the direction of politically expressed social conservatism, towards which only Republicans were sympathetic, with the Democrats having been taken over by radicals.
If you look at the actual voting records, higher percentages of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats, since, of course, the South was then still heavily Democrat of the overtly segregationist variety. No Republican could have pushed through that bill against their opposition, and as it was LBJ had to call in a lot of favors and twist a lot of arms.
We see this word racist so often–we hear leftists cry wolf so often–that we forget that within the memory of many living, it actually meant something other than “person with whom I disagree, but don’t want to debate.”
Many black leaders, frankly, should be utterly disgusted with themselves. They promised Eden and have led their people into the Sinai, without any mitigating blessings. And don’t get me started on the Nancy Pelosi’s of the world and their malignant maternalism.
Blotto:
Stupid comment. Yet you vote Dem anyway.
I don’t actually. Idiot. What would you people do without your straw men.
Oscar: Is that the best you have? With you level of thought, voting Dem is about the best you can achieve. So I don’t think I was stretching the point.
This so called antagonism exists in your mind only.
LOL. The only two comments made here are antagonistic. You people are hilarious; you live in a fantasy world where you don’t have to take responsibility for anything you do. Republicans get your votes that way, by flattering your sensibilities and lack of introspection. You’re just two dumb to know it.
Republicans are politicians. They want to win elections. So they stand “against affirmative action” (at least in words). When they had every chance to change it like during 8 years of Bush they did nothing. Why is that? Because 62% of white males vote for them as a result. They are also “against” illegal immigration”. So are blacks who are attaining levels of unemployment not seen since the Great Depression. Did they do anything against “illegall immigration” or any other kind during 8 years of Bush. Absolutely not. Do you think that unemployed Hispanics are anxious to see more Hispanics migrate to compete with them for jobs? Well that is the Republican outreach to “minorities”.
Doing the same thing under the same conditions over and over again and expecting a different out come is the very definition of insanity. However I submit that conditions are radically changeing. As has been pointed out by republican hispanics the third generation of hispanic-Americans have the same voting pattern as anyother group of American immigrants. The vast waive of hispanic immigrants set off by Ted Kennidy’s 1966 law changes have overwhelmed the earlyer hispanic voting. The later ignorant voters coloring the community voting is a temporary phenominon. The black voting is also exclusively a phenominon of the Democrat control of MSM and something that can be wiped out in a single decade.
While there is plenty I don’t agree with in this post I think John Hawkins deserves credit for taking on a fundemental question conservatives have to contend with today. I moved to Phoenix from Cleveland in late ’99. Cleveland and the whole northcoast was struggling then – but today it is every bit as devastated as Detroit. Sadly, you can trace the decline right back to a squishy republican – George Voinovich.
When Voinovich started as Clevelands Mayor he was a solid republican with genuine conservative values. He fought against identity politics and the taking of power by the black caucus. Then he left first to become Ohio gov – and eventually its Senator.
In the late 80′s there was a genuine business resurgence – culminating with BP oil choosing Cleveland as it’s international headquarters. He deserved credit for starting it at the grass roots and helping to implement it once Gov.
But by the time he got to the senate he was ALREADY LARGELY UNRECOGNIZABLE AS A CONSERVATIVE!
Pretty quickly (barely halfway into Clintons 1st term) the prior gains were overcome by the kinds of machine politics legendary in Chicago (vintage Obama) – and were infused racial/racist. Now it is twenty years later and these parasites have feed off the dead carcus of a once great American City and turned it into a third world failed state – one with more in common with Mobuto & Zaire than Indianapolis or Pittsburgh – sister cities who have raised their standard of living – and racial comity along with it.
Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, as TS Alfabetts notes with Baltimore – over and over and over the ACORN/community organizer progressive left methods have left a wasteland of hollowed out and devastated landscapes – yet blacks in particular while other minorities in general continue to reject conservatism.
I am not so pessimistic that many minorities don’t look to conservatism today, right now. Prop 8 in California proved otherwise. And contrary to the firestorm and MSM reporting on Arizona today, hispanics who are legal have always supported cracking down on illegal immigration.
You have voices of reason out there as mentioned – Tom Sowell and Shelby Steele and others – and we have more black congressional candidates in this cycle then ever (even during Reconstruction).
I don’t believe we really have that far to go before the lock step black vote is again issue rather than racially driven. Nor do I share the paranoid suspicion that we are driving hispanics toward replacing/supplementing the black vote as a virtual electoral majority for progressives.
I believe we do have the growing infrastructure – mainly in growing christian backed/funded universities (Local U of Phoenix & Grand Canyon were recently featured – even if in a dim light – on a recent FRONTLINE piece) – along with established conservative think tanks like AEI & Heritage.
It certainly seems bleak at the moment. But lets just hold off until the midterms before we continue to go off insisting conservatives are destined to remain the equivalent of Botswana South Africa when it comes to being a whites only minority in American government folks.
Who knows – we just might win back the house of representitives WITH THE MOST DIVERSE COILITION OF WHITE/MINORITY REPRESENTATION EVER come this Nov….
It is possible… si su puede!
A replacement voter block is precisely what the Democratic Party is seeking in the Hispanic American voting public. The previous voting block is slowly disappearing. Many are wealthy and have joined the conservative movements. Not so much within the Hispanic minority. Therefore, in the Progressive/Democrat mentality, Hispanics must now be tapped for re-election.
Tapping is a good word.
Let me paraphrase Mr. Hawkins: “Let’s treat blacks and Hispanics like poor, simple-minded racial victims of oppression, and tell them that the GOP will give them toys and shiny objects if they vote for us! They’re so stupid, it just might work!”
I have a better idea, John. Let conservatives speak out even more clearly than we have that posturing yourself as a race-victim is unproductive, unnecessary, and un-American, and let those voters with the brains and guts to vote for candidates who reflect their values and support the positions of those voters.
There are not as many fools out there as you think.
Whiskey is absolutely right. Unless the Republicans become the unashamedly unabashedly white party both the party and whites are doomed. Blacks and Hispanics hate whites with a passion. Ordinary whites are well aware of this fact. Only academic twits and uber wealthy whites (some of them) deny the obvious. The future for the Republican Party lies in identifying itself with middle class whites. If it makes no bones about being the political home for whites the party will accrue at least 70% of the white vote which will assure majority party status for the GOP into the foreseeable future.
Ricpic,
What makes you think Hispanics and blacks hate whites? It would appear to me you are a leftist agitator–likely–or simply dumb (certain, even if the first applies as well). Whatever indoctrination you have received to the contrary, it is Leftists who are racist. They think that no one who is “suffering” can possibly save themselves without their help. Democrats say Republicans don’t want to do anything. Republicans say that the entirety of America moves every day without Nancy Pelosi’s permission, and to the extent she matters, it is in the direction of blocking the progress the rest of us were already making. Things happen without parties, capiche?
We are all Americans. What we need to restore is a sense of dignity to political dialogue that has been warped by pervasive and incessant leftist propaganda and indoctrination for the last 70 years. We have literally been taught, by design, to be stupid. This needs to end.
Sociological data is very clear that in general America is NOT a melting pot. Most groups–whites included–prefer to live with their own kind. I see nothing at all wrong with this. Sociological data is equally clear that “multiculturalism” leads to community break-down, loss of trust, and a decreased sense of belonging.
In a truly Liberal society we would be free to live as we choose, associate with whomever we like, and enact laws locally, so that what happens in Washington is not so very important.
Alex, #19 says it. The GOP classically has two issues here. 1) A lot of well-meaning conservatives, such as those who pollute the discourse by shouting “No amnesty!” to everyone who will listen instead of looking at the merits of particular pieces of legislation give the left all the ammunition they need to brand the Right as
“mean-spirited”. In a world of mass communications, the tone of the debate says a lot, and is easily demagogued. We always lean into the punch; Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham have a lot to learn from Jeb Bush, Michael Barone, and Sen. Jon Kyl.
2) The GOP basically ignores the problems and concerns of minorities until just before every election, then they whine about why we are ignored by that group. If we were looking at this as a strategic issue, we would be starting opportunity scholarship programs, making the DC voucher program the cause celeb instead of just making casual references, treating free market education as a civil right, etc., on an on-going basis not immediately attached to an election. The boys in DC ignore us already, they would ignore those financially poor, non-donating groups even more readily.
And- special bonus- we would not have had so such ugly and self-defeating criticism, internal leaks from his opponents, etc., of Michael Steele from the instant he won the RNC job. Get rid of him for his sins after the election if you must, idiots. But right now, shut up and work together for November instead of lining up in a circular firing squad.
THE problem is NOT the GOP. The problem is THE MEDIA. The media ,like law,academia, and politics, has been run by the political left since the end of WW2. Even former KGB agents like Yuri Benzenov admit that there syncophats like Move On. org have INTENTIONALLY basically taken over newsrooms with the INTENT of using the media as a propaganda tool. And theyve succeeded-you dont have to look any farther than CNN(commie news network) or MSNBC(marxist socilaist nincompoops blathering communism). No matter what the situation they toe the extremist left line. As for blacks and hispanics, Ill say this-Asians escaped Vietnam,Laos,Korea and Cambodia in the 70s under far harsher conditions than any american born blacks born during the last 40 years have EVER encountered. And for hispanics from Mexico-if Mexico is so great, then why are you LEAVING?????. The difference-most Asians ASSIMILATE and become AMERICANS(EXCEPT if your an idiot like Bill Lan Lee, Harold Koh, or Gordon Liu). Ive seen more than one example of a Korean family, for example, movng into the inner city and establishing a family run greengrocer or drycleaner and prospering. Why cant inner city blacks and hispanics do the same? Because most of them DONT WANT TO.
By the way Mr Hawkins-I can name some real fine Minority republicans who have real values-Col Alan West , for one , has a better understanding of Supremacist Islam scum than the entire media combined. Lynn Swann was a fine guberatorial candidate in 2006 in Pa, his time was just not in the correct climate. On the other hand, I dont see one demonrat, black, white , or hispanic, who acts like an American patriot or a defender of freedom. Most all of them act like communist thugs.
No matter what you try to do here you will fail. No one in the Republican Party or Conservatives can change this equation the way you are suggesting going about it.
Why?
So long as Liberals own the media and the public discourse and our side doesn’t take this issue head on we will never get control over the situation.
How do we fix it? We don’t let the Liberal media talk. We cut off their information sources, we don’t let them at the table.
A Republican President boots most of the lefty news organizations from his press room and he only talks to the Conservative ones. Republican politicians and agents ONLY talk to Conservatives news organizations.
You talk to Fox News, you give organizations like Hot Air and Pajama’s Media more of your time. You put one person each from CNN, CBS, NBC (ONLY – not MSNBC at all) in the back of the room and you don’t take questions from them.
You also have to find and support ethnic media that supports the right. Give them interviews and first bidding on stories.
You ignore them, you don’t go on their shows, you don’t give them scoops, you make sure that if the public wants to here FROM their leaders they have to go to good media and not bad media.
You treat lefty news like Obama treats Fox. With derision or by ignoring them completely.
This is how you take back the country and get the majority with you – control your message and don’t leave it in the hands of the traitors at Alphabet Pravda.
One more thing – you got to get control over local FOX stations and make them a part of the conversation.
I think the author makes an interesting point. Ideally, it would be best to just stick with principles and ideals, and not succumb to the identity politics of the left. But in order to break through the barriers that currently walls minorities off from the Republican Party, it may be necessary to make some specific appeals.
One “middle ground” suggesting I’ve been kicking around is maybe where Republicans have enough power to do so, implement “liberty zones” right in the heart of the worst barriors and ghettos in America. These zones would be places with low or no taxes, regulations, union rules, etc., and the schools turned over to charters and vouchers, new businesses allowed to grow and flourish, social service funding redirected to the churches, public housing sold to residents, etc. Then just step back and see what happens.
I suspect that more and more minority communities will demand the same for themselves, with Democrats being forced to take a stand against their constituents in order to protect the unions, government workers, the social liberal agenda, environmental extremists, etc. Republicans would gain converts by the thousands.
None of this is particularly unprecedented. Jack Kemp talked about some of it in the 90′s. Bush had faith-based initiative. There’ve been “enterprise zones”, etc., for a number of years. But they’ve got to be all put together and then concentrated in particular places for the desired effect.
Identity politics is the ONLY way the left can keep it’s people on the plantation. Witness the vitriol slung from the left re the Arizona immigration law, a law that threatens the democratic base by denying them the millions of potential votes from entitlement-grubbing opportunists seeking a handout from the gringos if the law is successful. That the law is identical to the current federal law is of no consequence, it’s all about perceptions. Here’s the unpleasant fact; people will almost always choose the path of least resistance and in this case what the left is offering is a deal they can’t refuse. The dems know this and even at the very real risk of this nation cratering because of it will continue to sink the already foundering ship for no other reason than they get to retain power. A truly sad state of affairs.
“How many Republicans are honest enough to admit that they get a little extra-excited about Marco Rubio because he’s Hispanic, Sarah Palin because she’s a woman, and Michael Steele because he’s black?”
I get excited about it, but not because it’s part of a political game. I get excited because I’m grateful that there are conservatives who will go AGAINST the game of identity politics in order to adhere to their true values!!
I don’t think Republicans should play identity politics. I think we should do a much better message of identifying and promoting our platform, and welcoming people into the party to make it stronger.
It’s great to have a “big tent”, but as we’ve seem over the last 15 months, when you try to be everything to everyone, you end up standing for nothing and angering many. I don’t want the Republican party to lie and pander for votes that we will never be able to deliver.
“How many Republicans are honest enough to admit that they get a little extra-excited about Marco Rubio because he’s Hispanic, Sarah Palin because she’s a woman, and Michael Steele because he’s black?”
I get excited about it, but not because it’s part of a political game. I get excited because I’m grateful that there are conservatives who will go AGAINST the game of identity politics in order to adhere to their true values!!
I don’t think Republicans should play identity politics. I think we should do a much better message of identifying and promoting our platform, and welcoming people into the party to make it stronger.
It’s great to have a “big tent”, but as we’ve seem over the last 15 months, when you try to be everything to everyone, you end up standing for nothing and angering many. I don’t want the Republican party to lie and pander for votes that we will never be able to deliver.
1.) We can never out-pander the other party. If we say we’re for a Cinco de Mayo federal holiday, they’ll be for a Cinco de Mayo holiday and stop signs in Spanish. If we say we’re for that, too, they’ll take it and raise you a Bronze People Reparations bill. You cannot out-pander unpricipled panderers.
2.) We are the party of the individual, the smallest minority. Democrats pit group against group in a divide and conquer scheme for power, even though it tears at the American fabric.
3.) If we simply embrace win-at-all-costs, we’ll have to accept open borders, race preferences, quotas and set-asides, permanent and expanding welfarism and multi-culturalism. In other words, a second Democrat Party. The first one is superflous; do we really need a second?
There is no way around it; we have to stick to our principles–broad, inclusive, conservative American principles. They bring success and freedom, whenever, wherever and by whoever they are tried. Yes, we can adapt and adopt policies, but if we choose pandering over principle, we’re done. If we don’t stand up for principle, there won’t be any at all.
Stand for what is right. If that is what the author is saying, OK. If not, then this is just more David Frum-like advice to say and do anything to get elected, then to pander to the lowest common denominator to stay in office. How would that change anything?
“How many Republicans are honest enough to admit that they get a little extra-excited about Marco Rubio because he’s Hispanic, Sarah Palin because she’s a woman, and Michael Steele because he’s black?”
Hey just because a liberal gets all shivery and excited over someones race doesn’t mean we all should.
People like Rubio get my attention because of their character and values, not color.
This is actually kind of offensive.
As a black man, I don’t need to be “wooed” by any party. I and my fellow minorities will gravitate to the party that looks out for minorities. As long as a party’s policies as a whole help minorities, we will join it. As long as a party’s policies as a whole are HOSTILE to minorities, we will avoid it like the plague.
It doesn’t help that the GOP is now picking and choosing which minority group to be hostile to, as if I as a black man am cool with the fact that the GOP is going after Latinos. It’s pretty disgusting. As long as a party is full of well-off white people and caters to the interests of well-off white people to the EXCLUSION of minorities, we will vote for the other guy. It’s really that simple.
Looks out for minorities being the key phrase. Personally, I’m tired of “looking out” for anyone, and I’m tired of being represented as racist being that I’m not pandering for your vote with promises I can’t keep. I tell you the truth. The fact is James, your idea is a house of cards that is very close to crumbling and America is in trouble. We are hopelessly divided trying to compartmentalize this and that, and until you understand your mindset a large part of the problem and that for at least forty years you’ve been promised a pipe dream, your life will not appreciably improve, no matter who holds office.
Tell me what your Democratic party has done the last forty years to improve your lot? The answer is nothing. You’re being used as a lackey and you don’t even recognize it.
Again, everything about you is centered by the prism of race. There is absolutely nothing racist or illegal about our nation protecting its borders. The fact the perpetrators are brown skinned is irrelevant. The fact that they are here illegally is the only issue that is relevant. If you can show me a nation on earth that allows anyone to simply cross the border without authorization, I’m listening. Laws are sovereign – for every race, creed and color. You want to make this a racial issue, and it is not.
Who is it that is now generalizing? Well off white people? There’s more poor white people in America than any demographic, for no other reason it’s the largest demographic. And many still vote Republican. How do balance that with your charges that everything racist James?
James – meet whiskey; whiskey – James.
Sorry dude. I don’t pay bribes to racists of any color trying to hussle something for a vote. The Democrats are where its at for that action. But, you might want to know that there are plenty of rich white guys who are Democrat. But I guess those guys are OK since they promise you goodies because of the color of your skin. Thats as racist as it comes dude.
lawl….you need a serious PR campaign then….you are going to have to throw away all those “real ammurikka” signs and “speak english or go hoame”, not mention repealing Arizonas racist anti-hispanic law.
AND not to mention rewriting history on anti-miscegenation laws and segration academies.
Hawkins, you can’t even get your party to stfu about SSM.
good luck with that.
i mean it.
But in order to break through the barriers that currently walls minorities off from the Republican Party, it may be necessary to make some specific appeals.
Didn’t you see that black guy at a recent tea party, on camera ?
“I’m with my people. Americans.”
I and my fellow minorities will gravitate to the party that looks out for minorities. As long as a party’s policies as a whole help minorities, we will join it.
The only way that condescending democrats are “helping minorities” is in the spirit of offering stuff and entitlements in order to get you to vote for them. That kind of “help” is soul destroying.
Granted, I’m a bit jaded, having watched that hypocritical blowhard Ted Kennedy* give speeches on behalf of people he truly considered his “lessers” over all those decades.
*only one of many
The main reason democrats/progressives pretend to have their shorts in a knot over the new AZ law is that they’re looking to illegals as another brave new voting bloc.
Along with convicted felons and, in the case of ACORN, goldfish.
That’s an America you like ?
You may have missed it but, if you cant beat em, join em, is what brought the Republican Party to their knees over the past two elections
The new democrat voting bloc.
Check out the sign
Oscar: Is that the best you have? With you level of thought, voting Dem is about the best you can achieve. So I don’t think I was stretching the point.
Add illiteracy to your character flaws. I told you I don’t vote Democrat. Never have. What I find more repulsive than even the repulsive Democrats are Republicans. And what I find most repulsive about you is how little you actually care about the economy or any of the other issues you purport to be interested in. You’re simply rooting for your favorite team. Thanks for ruining my country.
Legal immigrants are screened for infectious disease. Illegals are not, and they can expose hundreds of people to things like tuberculosis, leprosy, MRSA, necrotizing fascitis, chagas, and other deadly diseases and parasites (before they succumb and require medical care (which we pay for btw). (Children are especially susceptible to leprosy; adults rarely get it.) These people are often coming from third-world countries where such diseases/parasites are common. There’s no way to know if they don’t enter legally so they are subject to health screening (just like most other countries, including Mexico, require for immigration).
This has NOTHING to do with race. Do you want your children exposed to leprosy? Tuberculosis? Antibiotic resistant bacteria like MRSA? Worse? This is a public health issue.
And you are a fool if you think there are no Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Saudis, Somalis, and on…and on…coming across. If they can smuggle dozens of people or hundreds of pounds of drugs across, what else might they be bringing? WMD? Not impossible at all. Do you think the terrorists and cartels have never, and will never, work together? Think the cartels would turn down millions to smuggle in a terror cell and their weapons?
What will it take to convince people that we must control our borders and it has nothing to do with race? We must know who is in the country, and what they bring with them. Will it take a nuke, bio/chemical weapon, smuggled across the border, detonating in one of our cities? Will it take a loved one of yours being a victim of an illegal alien, whether by disease or by violence? Will the border citizens’ plight matter only if it happens to you? How selfish and short-sighted. The border states are the canary in the coal mine on this issue. Make no mistake: it will happen to you eventually as the violence spreads.
Repiblicans will never win at the pander game. Are our politics going the way of South American politics where the parties there all try to out promise each other on giveaways? Republicans can never win that game because anyone voting for more benefits will vote for the real thing, the Democrats.
The black libertarians and Tea Party memebers are more visible and are running for office. They can show thay liberty, property rights and a constitutionally limited govt can benefit EVERYONE.
That ts the only legitimate approach to ‘attracting minorities.’
“You’re just two dumb to know it.”
Lol.
Maybe the GOP should just start telling them they’re too stupid to know what’s good for them. Seems to have worked well for the Democrats but they do phrase it a bit less bluntly.
Might as well face it, most minorities are a hell of a lot more interested in their culture, preferred status, continued welfare….etc to see more than 2 inches past the end of their nose. Unless the GOP panders to them like the Democrats do, they’ll never get any large percentage of their votes.
The Jewish vote is probably the most puzzling. They should remember more clearly than most the all powerful big govermnemt ‘solution’.
As a general rule, they are too thin skinned and thick headed, a terrible combination.
43. oscar le sleazits….
Le oscar Le,
Le across the big Cesspool…
Yeah you’re not a Liberal. You’re Halloween. New mask, same straw.
New name. Is Frankenstein Existentialism is creeping into the Modern Liberal Cesspool? Le Cesspool? Le Dishonest? Le Whatever? Can le raw sewage actually have le philosophy?
Many names, same old le moho.
I would say that this latest version has been posting 90% of the comments (for some time now) PJM that are negative to anything remotely conservative. No political motive here, anything resembling a viewpoint other than the need to “correct” those in disagreement is just window dressing.
You people… Again, the tag which identifies the serial liar. Why not use something more honest, say like, ____________.
43. oscar le sleazits
“You people are hilarious
“You’re just two dumb to know it.”
May 5, 2010 – 12:31 pm
38. moho
“…you people… “.
Jan 8, 2010 – 5:38 pm
35. skeeziks:
You people are such chickenshits..”
Jan 30, 2010 – 12:55 pm
14. Diablo
“You people are two sides of the same sick coin.
April 23, 2010 – 4:48 pm
42. dahbouv
“You people don’t get hypocrisy and why that is bad …”
April 24, 2010 – 8:23 am
Brian N.
“Just because you people…”
Brian N.
“All you people talk about…”
30. skeeziks:
“You people need to raise your standards.”
Feb 22, 2010 – 6:24 pm
Really now!
Living in a cesspool has an advantage. You do see the only dregs of life, which qualifies you for a special status. The Jains would understand, but not agree.
“You don’t know what Kyber likes, only Kyber does.”
You don’t know what oscar likes, only Kyber does.”
Run with it Mr. Con Man, it’s all you have.
Van loves you Kyber. Ruff ruff! Whatever.
Not all Republicans are racists… but all racists are Republican. that’s the problem.
I come from conservatives..I was at my sons house and the whole extended family was there… all professional – white collar – self employed – college educated…
Someone said Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla. I couldn’t believe my ears.
It’s like Saturday night at an Orthodox Jew’s home and everybody snickers that they need gentiles – because ‘somebody must pay retail’…
It’s not something anybody advertises… but it’s bigoted and hateful and true.
??? Was that from the sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Or Louis Farrakhan? Perhaps a pre-eulogy for the Grand Wizard Robert Byrd?
Wasn’t it Bill Clinton, who during the last election cycle was accused of being racist in South Carolina? Anybody know when Clinton went Republican?
The article gets the problem wrong and only gets the solution about half right. The tone of the whole piece is emblematic of the disrespect with which the GOP and its membership have towards blacks in particular. I say that because the article essentially identifies the problem as minorities. Its all the minority groups fault the relationship is bad because they are basically brainwashed by liberal democrats and don’t think for themselves. When you start out trying to diagnose a relationship problem (by definition something that takes two) and conclude its just all the other person’s fault, you haven’t contributed to it, you are going to go off the rails with it.
The problem is not because blacks and minorities are brainwashed and poor. The GOP and blacks had a lot of common cause with each other up until 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed. The GOP embraced the “southern strategy” of picking off disaffected southern democrats who left the Dems because of civil rights legislation. Goldwater made his anti civil rights act vote a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. From the mid 60′s on, the GOP basically through blacks under the bus to this group of southern voters, who were attracted to appeals crafted against civil rights, opposed to busing and supporting states rights. Blacks left republicans in droves, Dems exploited the rift, supporting these issues and the GOP’s position with blacks has never recovered.
Fundamentally, the GOP has not turned this around because it has not yet made a decision that blacks and more broadly, latinos, are political constituencies necessary and essential to its aspirations for governance. We conduct our political practice accordingly, using political appeals and messaging crafted in ways that do nothing to build relationship with these political constituencies and in fact do exactly the opposite.
This commentary was spot on!!!!! I been screaming about this for years. The GOP must start calling out the DEMs on their manipulation of minority votes and showing in ads why blacks have more inn common with the GOP than the DEMS. Remind blacks of the GOP history with blacks……libs have removed that from all history books. GOP must remind latinos of our commonality and the divisive and corrosive race politics of the Dems. FINALLY, call out the DEMS………WHAT HAS THE DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY DONE IN YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR CULTURE, YOUR FAMILY? Promises made decade after decade and NEVER fulfilled.
It the ads on BET and every other ethnic channel. GOP MUST WAKE UP AND STOP SNOOZING THRU ELECTION AFTER ELECTION. WHO ELECTS THE GOP LEADERSHIP? WHOEVER DOES IS SCREWING UP! Black, Latino and Asian families are conservative, modest and faith practicing and very strict with core values…….they need to be brought into the conservative fold!!!!
Buy them off like the Democrats do?! Brilliant! Why didn’t we think of that sooner? Now… would we be using taxpayer money for this – like the Democrats do? Hm. And what would set us apart from the Democrats then? The Democrats lie and slander and take money from some groups to buy off others – and it works. And NO: we should NOT do this too. We should just keep telling the truth: about economics, about government, about liberty, about the Constitution, American history, morality, etc. And if that doesn’t work nothing will.