They may attack me with an army of six hundred syllogisms; and if I do not recant, they will proclaim me a heretic. – Desiderius Erasmus (c.1466-1536)
There is a lot of talk in Republican circles about “RINO hunting.” RINO hunting can be described as: kicking out anyone in the party who does not fit the definition of Republicanism. The self-styled RINO-hunter believes he is the tried and true Republican. Our party, therefore, lost this past presidential election because of moderates like Sen. McCain. The history of the Republican party is one of genuine coalition building and interest coming together to better the nation. Martin Rybicki in his article “The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals, and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party” argues the historical fallacies in the RINO hunter’s purist arguments:
In trying to find out who we should be as Republicans we must first look back in history to see what the party stood for. Many in the party, hard-line conservatives for the most part, are calling for a return to the roots of the Republican party. Fair enough. I think that is precisely what we should do. And to do this, the facts that can be bothersome to some must be brought to the forefront of this internal debate. The roots of the party, of course, must be from the very beginning of its conception.
The Republican party was formed in the late 1850’s in response to the Democrats who supported the expansion of slavery into the new territories, which the new party was vehemently opposed to. The party was from the beginning, a progressive party and by no means a conservative one. It was a party that sought to modernize the country, not to keep the status quo especially if the status quo was not working for Americans. They sought to modernize the country by supporting higher education, free homesteads to farmers (a rather non-conservative thing to do), free soil policies against slavery, banking, railroads, industry and cities.
This was a party that not only was aiming for the rural vote via homesteads, but also one that had a heavy lean towards urban America. Again something that is not apparent with today’s conservative-controlled Republican party. It was a party that believed industry and free markets were superior to slave driven ones. These were the founding principles of the party and it is these principles that should define real Republicanism instead of what has crept into the party over the last few decades. Taking into account these founding ideas must also include Abraham Lincoln himself who was a man of principle as well as pragmatism in being the first iconic leader of the Republican party. Lincoln from his early years warned against the slave-holding Southerners continuing power.
Of course so called RINO-hunters, are not big fans of the historical record because history is rarely ideologically neat or clean. If the RINO hunters have their way, they would choose candidates who emphasized social issues such as: anti-immigration or abortion over more substantive issues like job creation as their ideal winning strategy. To them, moderates in the party are the problem not the solution and must be tossed. This reasoning may seem strange given that despite their rhetoric and finger pointing most polls show that moderates were far from the problem this year. Instead, to the contrary, they may have been more of a help than any other faction of the party.
Also, if any of these RINO-hunters did just a little homework and checked the Census Bureau data, they would clearly see that the nation is undergoing a huge demographic shift. The population that Reagan reached out to in the 80’s is getting older and replacing them is a new group of kids who grew up in the 90’s. Most of these kids know very little about Reagan, but they are very familiar with the Clintons and now Bush. This new voter group is internet savvy; write daily on blogs and communicate through text messaging. The GOP’s old “my way or the highway” is destroying the party’s image and turning off young and potential new voters.
Of course, all of this is nonsense to the RINO-hunters because to them young voters are unreliable, whereas the base is tried and true. What they fail to grasp is that these younger voters are the future of this nation. How these younger voters vote early on can be an indicator of what party they and their children will choose. No more perfect example of this is a group we “did” reach out to yet still lost by large margins this year – Latino voters.
The Joint Center, a non-partisan research firm in Washington, DC, noted that Latino-Americans overwhelmingly voted for Sen. Barack Obama. In trying to explain their voting behavior, the Center’s pollster said that in every poll the key reason for supporting Obama was a disdainful reaction to certain xenophobic messages proclaimed loudly throughout our party. Despite McCain’s record of moderation on this issue, the GOP’s anti-immigrant image lost the Latino vote.
Some Republicans dispute such arguments as pandering. They think that we can ignore these voters and stick with the base. They can hold onto this belief, but they do so at our party’s own peril. Ignoring the handwriting on the wall will mean a GOP that is on its way to being a party without power and influence.
Democrats won state by state by making room for centrists within their party, and by not allowing the hard left to dictate every local election. In a similar move, the Republican party must reject any movement that calls for purging moderates. The truth be told, in order to win nationwide we need all ideological schools within our party. Often times, moderate Republicans are our best chance to withstand a Democratic tidal wave. By their very nature moderates are consensus builders. This often gets them into trouble with the purists in both parties.
Saying we lost solely “because of scandal and broken promises” has to stop! This train of thought is getting old. The facts are clear. We lost for many other reasons as well, and until we deal with all of these issues we will continue to loose.
In hindsight, however, instead of tearing down moderates, we should try to listen and to possibly learn from them. Perhaps their experience of running successful campaigns against an army of Democrats might be what the party needs. There is no better time like now; especially given that we will have four years to do so.
24 responses so far
1 BA McCormick // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:19 pm
What is author suggesting regarding immigration? Even after 4 generations, Latinos aren’t voting for the GOP? The fact is, most Americans want the border defended and don’t like seeing tax money going to illegal immigrants and their children. Reagen was in office for the last amnesty and that didn’t cause any generational changes in Latino support.
A better strategy would be win 5% of the white vote over from the Democrats. Even better, along with this 5%, the GOP should be trying to attract Asians, Indians, and Jews. These demographic groups tend to be upper middle class suburbanites and also less likely in need of government services which the Democrats are in favor of expanding.
How the GOP attracts this 5%+ is what we’re all trying to figure out. But I guarantee that trying to attract Latinos (or African Americans) is a waste of time. They benefit too much from Left-wing identity politics.
2 Stewardship // Jun 8, 2009 at 5:44 am
Hispanics are the largest minority group in the US today. Projections show there will more Hispanics than caucasians about mid-century. How can any entity–religious institution, for profit corporation, or political body–ignore that?
3 mpolito // Jun 8, 2009 at 5:58 am
Look, unless the GOP wants to abandon all dignity and shame, and wave someone else’s money in front of the immigrant’s faces, like the Dems do, we will lose their votes. Unless we want to intice them to break the law by coming over here and then promise to change the law so that they have not broken it, we will lose their votes. There’s just no way around it, folks. I’m all for centrists within the party, but since when have they been “attacked”? Lincoln Chafee did not even vote for George W. Bush in 2004 and still got funding from the NRSC! He was against just about every GOP position, too. And he still got funding. The same can be said about Specter, Snowe, and Collins, as well as lots of reps in the House.
By the way, we all know that the Dems are willing to recruit “centrists,” by President Obama was the most liberal senator in the Senate in 2007 according to the National Journal. This, in a country where at least 10% more people call themselves conservative than call themselves liberal.
4 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:42 am
BA McCormick:
When running for governor of Texas, Bush won some 40% of the Hispanic vote.
In 2004, Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote against Kerry.
If the GOP had managed to get a lock on 44% of the Hispanic vote from then on, that would have put states like New Mexico out of reach for the Dems. It would have secured the entire West (except the coast) for the GOP, and given them inroads in other Hispanic areas like the Northeast too.
By 2008, the Hispanics had deserted the GOP in droves. Because they were turned off by the GOP’s new nativism, which shot down Bush’s own immigration reform policy in droves.
And this nativism didn’t appeal to any other minorities either. When you start bandying around wild rhetoric about Hispanics getting drunk and killing native-born Americans and having too many anchor babies, other minorities like blacks are going to be appalled by it. They know from history that demagogues who turn on one minority group, often turn on other minorities later.
5 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:25 am
BA McCormick: Upper middle class suburbanites tend to be social liberals. They used to smoke pot in their younger days, and some still do. Some couples cohabit without getting married. Many women are confirmed feminists. Unmarried career women have recreational sex. Some have had abortions. Others are single moms. Suburbanites have friends who are gay and lesbian. And they rarely go to church.
The GOP won’t win over such voters, if it puts its social conservatism front and center.
6 BA McCormick // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:43 am
“The GOP won’t win over such voters, if it puts its social conservatism front and center.” (sinz54)
I agree 100% and would like to see the GOP become the “Freedom Party.” Not in a weird Ron Paul way, but strong advocates of living and letting live.
So people would be free to have abortions and take part in gay marriage for the same reason that corporations would be able to hire and promote anyone they want.
Its called FREEEDOM!
The problem is whether or not social Conservatives would “stay home” on voting day? This will require a new perspective. We could entice social Conservatives with their new freedoms to use their school tax money to send their kids to schools that feature prayer and “creationism.”
Issues like abortion and gay marriage can be like sex outside of marriage is today. Christians will try to influence people, but won’t pursue these issues with the law. The trade-off for them will be more freedom to create the kind of communities they want to create.
The freedom of association ideology also needs to be considered for much bigger reasons than just a new Right-wing philosophy. It may be the only way a diverse America can function as a unit without a major loss of rights.
People can’t even agree on what cultural-religious symbols are allowed in the public square. I see no reason why small towns, villages, even neighborhoods can’t decide what “flavor” their area will be through democratic means? Of course, there are drawbacks to this to, but there’s no reason why America can’t have room for gay people walking the streets of San Francisco in their underwear while Conservative Christians have pictures of Jesus on every wall in town. As long as no-ones private property is violated this system can work for a diverse America.
7 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:42 am
“Despite McCains record of moderation on this issue , the GOPs anti-immigrant image lost the Latino vote.”
First the Republicans never had the latino vote. It reached a high of about 44%.
Second, the perception will take a very long time to change. Look at the black vote. In a very real sense there is a self-fulfilling tautology going on. 90% of blacks vote Democrat, Republicans must be racists, or otherwise insensitive, therefore 90% of blacks vote Democrat. They even cite the lack of black faces in Republican audiences as somehow proof that Republicans are clueless when it comes to race. The author most likely knows better than I how black Republicans are put down by black Democrats to further intimidate and isolate black Republicans and possible black republicans. So even when all the blacks in the GOP convention are put on display behind the keynote speaker the media is sure to point out that there are mostly whites in attendance and the GOP is a “white” party with some misguided blacks in their ranks.
The same situation is happening with Hispanics. Once a minority or ethnic group votes predominantly in one direction, it sends a signal that can’t very easily be undone, especially if they see themselves and overly identify as a group with ethnic grievances.
But the media, and more importantly the Spanish language media, will continue to promote the meme that Republicans are xenophobes, using and deliberately distorting legitimate calls against ILLEGAL immigration. McCain’s loss of even more Hispanic votes is evidence that it is not the reality but the perception and who creates the perception? The media. All they need is one real xenophobe on the right or lacking that they simply distort. Notice how often anti-illegal immigration is shortened conveniently to anti-immigration or anti-immigrant in the media.
The whole premise is un-American anyway. It seems the Democrats have succeeded in redefining America as a place where tribes can transplant themselves, demand equal treatment and full integration where it suits them, and refuse to integrate and mainstream themselves at the same time. This is particularly true with Hispanic mostly economic refugees from Mexico who came here not for American culture or opportunity but for work and sustenance. The massive levels have allowed them to stay aloof and not gradually integrate like other nonEnglish speaking groups.
When people identify themselves as Hispanic or Black before they identify as Americans that is a problem. The Republican party is the last hope of preserving the idea that anyone can be an American if they become a citizen and identify themselves primarily as such. If we have too many people in this country that identify themselves as something else first we have the land the Democrats want and it plays right into their hands. Furthermore self-differentiation will have a backlash. We are either all the same or we are different. If any group keeps insisting they are different (and alike in what makes them different) well then of course some people are going to put them in a group -a category and if they see that this particular group votes differently they will apply group characteristics to individuals, which is the foundation to racism. In short, these groups also perpetuate and create racism by isolating and overly defining themselves as a group.
Any pandering has the ultimate effect of long term defeat since it advances the tribal model and not the American model.
8 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“But the media, and more importantly the Spanish language media, will continue to promote the meme that Republicans are xenophobes, using and deliberately distorting legitimate calls against ILLEGAL immigration.”
One of the aspects of the conservative movement/Republican Party which Frum has tried to take on with this site is the extremism of right wing radio.
And if you want one single media outlet that has poisoned the well for Republicans on this issue – look no farther than that source.
There is a theory that during the 00s, when Bush’s Presidency was becoming less popular, right wing hosts needed an issue to use to separate themselves from Bush. They had to support the war effort … they couldn’t harp on deficits after years of Republican control of both the executive and legislative branches … they weren’t going to go left of the administration on any issues, and there weren’t many places to go to the right of the administration.
They chose nativism and anti-immigrant fervor, and started beating those drums, since that’s one place where Bush was to the left of much of the party.
And those drums rang loud indeed in the ears of hispanics who had been wooed by Bush’s successful outreaches to them over a decade.
9 ChristianMiller // Jun 8, 2009 at 1:21 pm
balconesfault “There is a theory that during the 00s, when Bush’s Presidency was becoming less popular, right wing hosts needed an issue to use to separate themselves from Bush. They had to support the war effort … they couldn’t harp on deficits after years of Republican control of both the executive and legislative branches … they weren’t going to go left of the administration on any issues, and there weren’t many places to go to the right of the administration.”
And that theory is wrong.
Bush had the support of most conservatives and then he lost them with some of his positions. Harriet Miers was the initial fault line for me. It was cronyism and elitism that obviously infests Bush despite his down-home style. The Dubai Ports deal, alienated a lot more, (not me I thought it would be wrong to label an Arab country as moderate as Dubai untrustworthy).
Then there was Bush’s continued spending which eroded support over time. Also Bush never defended himself from brutal attacks he just said “It’s just politics” and didn’t confront the issues. Then they lost the 2006 elections.
The resistance to the amnesty bill was grass roots and not initiated by talk radio. You obviously think those who listen to talk radio are led around by the nose by the hosts. If anything it is the opposite. The popular hosts tend to follow popular opinion not lead it.
It is not as if the immigration issue isn’t central to the future of our country and the Republican party. Bush McCain et al made a big mistake in pushing this issue and they handled the resistance even worse.
Bush got 44% (at most) of the Hispanic vote and he wanted to bring more into citizenship. Even if he held 44% that is a losing proposition at best, but the new Hispanic citizens are and will be increasingly Democrat. They are poorer and less integrated into society and less educated (sorry but less educated poor people lean Democrat overwhelmingly) and less educated people who don’t really understand our country are fodder for Democrat pandering and victim politics. This would be a recipe for disaster and it is why they reacted as they did.
It is much like what happened with Spector. He never really was a Republican out of principle and he proved it when he bolted. the majority of Hispanics aren’t really Republicans even though they tend to be social conservatives. The minute someone says something that can be easily distorted by Democrats they are gone. Not a reliable constituency.
10 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Franco – you see the problem here? We’re talking about the latino community getting the impression that the Republican Party was very anti-immigrant/even anti-latino.
I noted that right wing radio banged the anti-immigrant drum with a very racial overtone. And you really didn’t address this at all.
Sure, a lot of movement conservatives were bothered by the process of selecting Miers – but did Bush really get a lot of flack from right wing radio over it? The Dubai Ports deal … nope, I remember Bush largely being defended over this one. Spending? Nope – he got a pass for that on the airwaves.
It really doesn’t matter who initiated the issue of immigration being a problem. It matters that a lot of right wing commentators finally took that as the issue to draw a difference between them and Bush after years of biting their tongues, blaming Dems, or even cheerleading.
The fact that they dedicated a lot of their airtime – and sadly, often fielded on-air comments from some of the really racist immigrant opponents, in addition to the many who were focussed simply on rule of law – to this issue was enough of a signal to the hispanic community.
That they chose this issue, instead of the many others you noticed, to draw their “line in the sand” with Bush just makes that worse for the post-Bush Republicans, as long as they are represented by those conservative commentators.
11 BA McCormick // Jun 8, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“One of the aspects of the conservative movement/Republican Party which Frum has tried to take on with this site is the extremism of right wing radio.” (Balconesfault)
How do we measure the concept of “extremism” so it can’t be used as a hyperbolic propaganda classification technique? Every “side” likes to use words like “extremist” or “hate” to depict their opponents. This is used in order to make their own “side” look “normal.” Bill O’Riely calls the Daily Kos “Nazis” and the Hispanic nationalist organization “La Raza” (The Race) claims the same for Lou Dobbs. Of course, any honest and objective person would point out that the Left has been more successful in using this method compared to the Right. If John McCain attended a church for 20 years with a pastor who claimed that “Jewish greed runs the world,” not only would John McCain not be running for President, but most likely, we would have never even heard of him?
This is a major advantage that the Left has across the Western World and I’m even willing to speculate that at least 5% of Obama’s white voters came from people who for no other reason, voted for Obama to oviod thoughts of white guilt?
If there’s one topic I’d like to see discussed at the Conservative think tanks (AEI perhaps?) its how the Right can “deprogram” Americans from this innate fear of doing/being/or thinking something that people can call “racist.” The power that this ‘condition’ (for lack of a better term) has over people needs to be understood, and especially so as America experiences the most intense demographic transition of its existence.
I need to be clear that this is not an attempt to minimize REAL acts of intolerance or discrimination. I’m just suggesting that the “thinkers” on the Right start thinking a little about this becuase if there’s one thing I can GURENTEE; its that the Left will use this technique with greater frequency as the country diversifies. There are whole industries built around “looking” for “racism” and if/when “racism” is found, it generally results in lawsuits and/or in people having their reputations destroyed.
The power of this condition is very much ingrained in the minds of the public. One perfect example is the tourettes-like qualifier that people make before taking a politically incorrect stance on an issue. It usually goes like this : “I’m not a racist but, I oppose racial quotas.” The individual making the statement MUST say the words “I’m not a racist but,” becuase they’ve been so heavily socialized that their minds require this qualifier in order to say what they feel.
I urge Mr. Frum to present this topic to his organization (AEI). Deprogramming Americans will not only bring the GOP electoral success, but more importantly, will give our Nation an advantage over the whole world. This advantage is a clear thinking population that has the ability to think and express ideas without fear of being destroyed. Most parts of the world don’t enjoy this freedom (including Europe).
The GOP must truly be the Freedom Party, featuring free markets, free living (with personal discipline), and most important: A FREE MIND !!!!
12 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm
BA: In an odd way your article argues for why the right has been voted out of power and are teetering on the edge of disaster if they don’t broaden the tent, and fast.
Since its beginning, the United States has swung between right and left, that’s how it moves forward, period, fact, the end.
Both sides become puffed up by their positions and then are humbled by the electorate’s reminding them they represent a portion of the public that stays at either fringe and the country requires leaders who understand the middle. eg Reagan, Clinton.
Ba’s argument appears under the narrow outer edge of the electorate that struggles with taking the time to reflect on why the nation rejected their policies and leadership.
I’m sure in 4 or 8 years the country and those that decide elections will fairly and honestly assess how this administration is handling leadership. They’ll then decide if they wish a change of policy and direction.
Again, that’s how we move forward on a nation. Until the current GOP gets the humility to get over itself and face the failed polices of the W administration, it’ll be difficult to find the oxygen and vision to reinvent the party.
13 InTheMiddle12 // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:03 pm
sorry, last paragraph… “that’s how we move forward as a nation…”
14 balconesfault // Jun 8, 2009 at 10:46 pm
BA: ” I’m even willing to speculate that at least 5% of Obama’s white voters came from people who for no other reason, voted for Obama to oviod thoughts of white guilt”
Nope – white guilt is assuaged in public. Behind the cover of the voting booth people vote their self-interest.
I’ll actually push back here – I’ll bet that at least 5% of McCain’s white voters came from people who were persuaded by the barrage of ads that Obama was “the Other” – a closet Muslim, a Marxist, a radical bent on revenge against white people.
They’re the ones the Republican Party needs to worry about – because if you watch Obama without the right wing soundtrack, those things don’t come through. You have the guy standing in Cairo declaring “I am a Christian”. You have the clearly dedicated family man. You have the politician who is attracting Republicans to come work for his administration. The Republicans are going to need something besides fear to get them back in 2012.
And playing tit for tat – what chance do you think Obama would have had to be elected had there been film footage of him being blessed in church by an African witch doctor? I’m thinking he would have been boxed by the media along with Al Sharpton.
15 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:39 am
balconesfault You don’t listen to talk radio obviously and you are just making this stuff up. Harriet Miers was a huge issue. Rush defended Bush on Dubai Ports but most others attacked the idea, but these issues pale in comparison to the amnesty issue and the fact that you believe that the amnesty debate is just another issue like spending or ports or a SCOTUS pick you are ignoring the ramifications of the amnesty bill.
And you are ignorant of talk radio when it comes to the amnesty debate as well that there was some kind of negative reaction on the part of Hispanics other than made up propaganda for the ignorant peasants to feed from. You can’t stop Democrats (and you are one aren’t you?)from lying, fabricating, distorting and propagandizing. It’s even worked on you and you don’t even realize it. In fact most voting Hispanics were against the bill. AND there was no racism or racially charged comments that I heard and I KNOW I listen to more talk radio than you. So stop referring to things about which you know nothing.
Lastly it is precisely because of operations like La Raza and other racially defensive groups that smart Americans will reject amnesty in any form. I am not going to put up with people who import themselves into my country-Yes, MY country – illegally, and then call me a racist. No way baby.
I’m for orderly legal immigration and the level of disingenuousness from the pro amnesty side is alarming and makes me dig my heels in even more. They constantly truncate the debate to be about “immigration” or “anti-immigration” when it is NOT about immigration but illegal immigration. And then they have the nerve to label people as xenophobic or nativist or racist.
16 balconesfault // Jun 9, 2009 at 6:16 am
” You don’t listen to talk radio obviously and you are just making this stuff up. You don’t listen to talk radio obviously and you are just making this stuff up.”
Nope – tune in relatively regularly, when I’m driving aroiund during the day.
“fact that you believe that the amnesty debate is just another issue like spending or ports or a SCOTUS pick you are ignoring the ramifications of the amnesty bill.”
Actually, I think spending and a Supreme Court pick are far more important than the amnesty bill … but if you’ll recall, my original post was focussed on immigration – you’re the one who brought up the other topics.
“And you are ignorant of talk radio when it comes to the amnesty debate as well that there was some kind of negative reaction on the part of Hispanics other than made up propaganda for the ignorant peasants to feed from.”
This is not a point. It is a rant.
“there was no racism or racially charged comments that I heard and I KNOW I listen to more talk radio than you.”
I have no doubt of that – but we also probably listen through different ears. And as someone who grew up in San Antonio going to Catholic schools with hispanics, who has a hispanic brother-in-law, and who is married to a woman who was born and raised in Mexico, I’m telling you that I heard plenty of comments that were outright racist.
Not all, as I said – there were many who also framed their arguments based on rule of law. And I also know many pro-labor liberals who oppose uncontrolled immigration. In general the latter tend to focus their attacks not on the illegal immigrants who they see as naturally responding to an economic demand, but on their employers.
I am still amused, but not shocked, that you don’t recall hearing anything you’d have considered racist coming from right wing talk show hosts, not to mention some of their most boorish callers, during that time. Unfortunately, it was almost inevitable considering the tone that these shows have cultivated … they have become theater, and part of the theater is racheting up the insults to whoever they disagree with.
17 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:12 am
First being an hispanic is not a race. If you believe it is a race then THAT is racist. Are Italians a race too? How about Morroccans? French? Latvian? Are they races?
You don’t say which shows you listern to but if you want to hear racism then it’s easy to divine for overly sensitive types.
The more I am called a racist the more radical I become perhaps that is the plan of the left to antagonize endlessly to CREATE racism where there was none. They WANT racism, they THRIVE on it! I will not tolerate it anymore these false charges and they are actually the racists.
If you identify yourself as a separate race speak a different language and refuse to integrate and march on behalf of group rights”or for the “reconquista” YOU are the racist, not me. La Raza is clearly a racist organization. I just want one country and one race – human.
The whole idea of America is individual rights, not group rights.
I will also not tolerate a group trying to hijack their own victim status on the backs of blacks who had and still have, a legitimate issue. Illegal Hispanics came here on their own free will. They aren’t held captive here. So I don’t want to hear complaints in that regard.
So you don’t see what will happen if there is amnestia but then you are a Democrat, isn’t that correct?
18 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:16 am
Franco: “They [Hispanic immigrants] are poorer and less integrated into society and less educated (sorry but less educated poor people lean Democrat overwhelmingly)….This would be a recipe for disaster”
So you believe that the key to future GOP victories is to keep immigrants out. That’s pretty cynical and un-American, given that so much of this country was built by poor immigrants coming to America to find work and opportunity. Go read the inscription on the Statue of Liberty sometime.
But the main problem with your “solution” is that it’s unworkable.
The fastest-growing voting bloc in America today is Hispanics, even without illegal immigration. And the Pew Survey last year found that white married Protestants are now down to only 51% of Americans–and before this decade is out, white married Protestants are going to be a minority in their own country. If the GOP can’t appeal strongly to any other groups except white married Protestants, it will never win the White House again.
It is projected that by the year 2040 or so, white people are going to be down to a minority in America. America will be truly multi-racial. What will the GOP do then? Accommodate itself to being a splinter party of southern white Baptists?
It’s not impossible for the GOP to reach out to ethnicities it didn’t win before. Perhaps you forget that in 1960, Nixon won 40% of the black vote against JFK. In 1968, Nixon reached out to Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans who previously had voted staunchly Democrat. Reagan continued this, and won 40% of the Jewish vote too. Bush 43 won 44% of the Hispanic vote.
Now just suppose that those successes had continued rather than been thrown away by such as yourself. Suppose that today, a GOP candidate for President could count of 40% of the Black vote, 44% of the Hispanic vote, 40% of the Jewish vote–without losing the urban ethnics like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans. Combined with the GOP’s traditional appeal to white Protestants, that would have given the GOP a *permanent* lock on the White House that the Dems could not break–except in exceptional circumstances like impeachment or something.
It wouldn’t have taken a true majority of blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, to give the GOP a lock on the White House. Just respectable percentages, as past GOP candidates did.
If the GOP can only win elections if young people don’t vote, Hispanics don’t vote, and single women don’t vote, that’s a pretty pathetic party, in my view.
19 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:33 am
Franco: On the one hand, you say you want to treat everyone as an individual, not as a member of an ethnicity.
On the other hand, you want to enforce the immigration laws and quotas, NOT to keep Koreans or Russians or even Spaniards from immigrating to America, but specifically to keep Latin Americans from immigrating to America. (Because you’re afraid they won’t vote Republican.)
Isn’t that a contradiction?
The policy that would be most consistent with “treating everyone as individuals” would be to lift all immigration quotas, and let anyone who wants to come here, come here–whether from Korea or Mexico or the planet Vulcan–just so long as they swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of their ethnicity or economic class status.
You’re the one who’s not treating everyone as individuals. You’re trying to keep poor individuals out of the country, because you’re afraid they won’t vote for your candidates. That’s not racialist. But it’s cynical.
20 ChristianMiller // Jun 9, 2009 at 9:56 am
Look simple sinz, you are starting to annoy me. I’m really starting to wonder about your mental ability. You can write and you know a modicum of history but you are thick in the head. (Oh my god he called me a name, oh my!) Yes, you deserve it and more. because you are full of falsehoods and lies and I won’t stand for it.
“The policy that would be most consistent with “treating everyone as individuals” would be to lift all immigration quotas, and let anyone who wants to come here, come here–whether from Korea or Mexico or the planet Vulcan–just so long as they swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Regardless of their ethnicity or economic class status.”
Er, we share a border with Mexico. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come from there, roughly 20 million. It is changing our culture. No country in the world country has a policy of rapid voluntary cultural change. Furthermore, for your edification please look up how to emigrate to Mexico, or for that matter any other country in the world. They will not consider you if you don’t have wealth or means. Forget it. Why? Because they are not stupid they realize that they are making things harder for their existing citizens if they let in too many people who are poor. And they will not take you if you can’t prove you are disease-free have a job or means and will not rely on whatever social services the government provides. Essentially they only want to let in people who they think will help their country. Are they nativist? Cynical?
“You’re the one who’s not treating everyone as individuals. You’re trying to keep poor individuals out of the country, because you’re afraid they won’t vote for your candidates.”
By calling a group of people “individuals” and making the case for them as a group is a hoot. You can’t get out of your own little box, can you?
The first duty of any government is to protect the country. this means it can’t just let anyone in. There are diseases there are criminals, there are freeloaders. Now of course we can always predict what the simpleminded dolts will do this with that argument, see if you can follow me here: Someone like me says, we can’t just let anyone in, there are freeloaders and criminals and diseases etc. and they are coming over the southern border.The leftists says “Oh you think all Mexicans have diseases and are criminal freeloaders, I see..”
sinz actually wrote”So you believe that the key to future GOP victories is to keep immigrants out.”
This is another false charge. Can’t you keep to logic and not your fantasies? You are a simpleton. And a liar.
21 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Franco: How should I interpret your earlier statement:
“Even if he [Bush] held 44% [of Hispanics] that is a losing proposition at best, but the new Hispanic citizens are and will be increasingly Democrat. They are poorer and less integrated into society and less educated (sorry but less educated poor people lean Democrat overwhelmingly) and less educated people who don’t really understand our country are fodder for Democrat pandering and victim politics. This would be a recipe for disaster”
— Franco
It sure sounds to me like you’re saying that the more Hispanics come into America, the more Dem votes there will be for Dem programs that you believe will be “disastrous.” And therefore, the only way to keep the Dems from getting all these new Hispanic votes is to stop them from becoming citizens.
Have I misinterpreted your statement? Did you intend these words to mean something else?
22 ChristianMiller // Jun 10, 2009 at 6:15 am
First, I’m talking about ILLEGAL immigration. Can’t you people read or interpret that word for what it is?
“Have I misinterpreted your statement? Did you intend these words to mean something else?”
The words mean what they mean. You, however, fabricated a conclusion that wasn’t made, that’s way beyond misinterpretation.
This is the offending sentence:
“So you believe that the key to future GOP victories is to keep immigrants out.”
You wrote that, right? OK, tell me where I said I wanted to keep immigrants out? Where? How do you get that from what I wrote? You see, that is a lie. You are drawing a completely false conclusion. It is your own fantasy that I said tor implied this.
23 You Had Your Tea Party » Cold Fury // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:04 am
[...] Dionne, the Frum-pwumps say “Stop Shooting RINOS”: The population that Reagan reached out to in the 80’s is getting older and replacing them is a [...]
24 24AheadDotCom // Nov 22, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Richard Ivory says: “If the RINO hunters have their way, they would choose candidates who emphasized social issues such as: anti-immigration or abortion over more substantive issues like job creation as their ideal winning strategy.”
It was similar comments from TimKaine that caused me to doubt his intelligence, and the same applies to Ivory. Can anyone trust the thoughts of someone who thinks that jobs and immigration aren’t linked? Can anyone trust the thoughts of someone who thinks the immigration – one of the major means by which the far-left and the Dems obtain power – isn’t important?
Don’t shoot RINOs, but don’t take the advice of those who are either corrupt or who can’t figure things out.
P.S. For more on the linkage, see this:
http://24ahead.com/hundreds-thousands-more-foreign-citizens-got-work-permits-an
Ivory would have you ignore that.
You must log in to post a comment.