We’ve got a problem, old White men! At least, the conventional wisdom these days says that the Republican Party has a big problem. And really, when I say old White men and Republicans, isn’t it really just a distinction without a difference? The GOP is becoming way too White. The implication of course is that the racist platform of the Republican Party (like the respect for life, rule of law, and free markets) is driving minorities away from the party in droves. How do we know this? Why, just ask Politico, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the LA Times, Salon, Slate, and any other major media publication. The GOP is ruining the party by becoming too White in a country that is increasingly brown-ish. There are just millions of Blacks, Asians and Hispanics who are ready and rearing to become goose-stepping TEA Partiers, if only Republicans weren’t so gosh-darned racist. It’s great advice, except it’s not true.
Election results would seem to bolster the claims that Republican policies can’t appeal to minorities. After all, CNN exit polls showed that Barack Obama won the support of 71% of Hispanic voters, 93% of Black voters and a healthy majority of any variation of Asian voters. But, the Republican Party is not becoming more “White.” At least, not in the sense that Republicans are gearing their policies and message specifically toward (and thereby only appealing to) Whites. Rather, White People are becoming more Republican, and in that distinction there is a difference.
Let me explain: As the Daily Caller expounds, if the same electorate voted in 2012 that existed in 1980, Mitt Romney would have won by a bigger margin against Barack Obama than Reagan did against Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama lost the White vote by a whopping 20%. There is no doubt that the demographics in America are changing. Whites made up 88% of voters in 1980, but only 72% of voters are White today. There is a significant browning in America, and Republicans cannot seem to attract the votes of those people. Why? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not because they are racist, but it is the same reason that Whites are abandoning the Democrat Party in droves.
For hundreds of years, most all of the immigrants to the U.S. were White. They came from places like Germany, the U.K., Italy, Ireland and Russia. In other words, these immigrants came from Western Civilization. They had a familiarity with capitalism, the rule of law and with natural law. These immigrants found themselves initially in the lower income quintile (and a prime target for Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts), but after a generation they found themselves assimilated into American culture and also part of the middle class. Since the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, however, more than 80% of the immigrants have come from “developing countries”, which are usually non-White.
Per Gallup, the GOP won 51% and 41% of the White vote in each of the two presidential elections preceding the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. Today only 39% of Whites vote for Democrats. This is not because America is becoming more racist, though. You’d have to live under a pretty dark dingy corner of a very liberal rock to believe that. In reality, Party ID in large part comes down to the household income of the voter. Barack Obama won only two income groups, according to the NY Times’ National Election Pool survey conducted just after the 2012 election. Obama won a 62% share of those who had household incomes of less than $30,000 and a 56% share of those making between $30,000 and $49,999. Obama never got more than 46% of any other income demographic.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in (the earliest date of record) 1975 the median household income was $47,883 (all dollar amounts are inflation adjusted) for Whites, $28,745 for Blacks, and $34,399 for Hispanics. In 2011, White median income had risen 18% to $56,570. Black median household income had increased 13% to $32,366. Hispanic median household income had increased in the same time 12% to $38,624. The median income overall by 2011 was $50,054, an improvement from $45,788 in 1975. In other words, your average White person moved from right around the median income (and the sweet spot for Democrat recruitment) to significantly above the median income (where republicanism thrives). Blacks and Hispanics stayed well below the median household income.
The reasons that Blacks continually vote for Democrats is a special case, and one reserved perhaps for another post entirely. Their situation is dictated more by the central government’s wholesale multi-generational destruction of the Black family. Blacks, being poorer than the population at large, have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats since the New Deal.
Let’s step back for a moment, though. Remember how I said that second generation immigrants (SGI) tended to move into the middle class? That’s still true. In 2008, the median annual earnings for SGIs were $42,297 (US Census 2010), compared to first generation immigrants (FGI), at $32,631. 42% of SGIs made more than $50,000, while FGIs made more than $50,000 only 31% of the time. Astoundingly, 39% of American-born households receive government aid while 57% of immigrant households do.
So, voting for Democrats is based mostly on whether you are completely or substantially supported by government handouts or not, regardless of your skin color. This hasn’t really changed, well, ever. What changed was the faces of the people who were low-income. So shouldn’t we just wait a generation for all of the non-White FGI’s to have kids who will see the benefits to middle class families of low taxes, civilization and the rule of law? The answer is no, probably not.
Eventually, SGIs will ascend politically and economically and see the light, but not before the U.S. is reduced to something more resembling a Banana Republic than a representative one. Let’s take, for example, the state of California (or the state of disfunction, if you will). In a few decades the state that gave us Ronald Reagan, low taxes, business friendly government and Silicon Valley went from 89% White (1970 census) to about 40% White and gave us San Francisco, bankrupt municipalities, draconian tax codes and not just the Hilton sisters but also the Kardashians. It’s too late for California, and it might be too late for America.
The problem may in fact lie in that in decades past, job opportunities may have been a part of why people immigrated to the U.S., but immigrants of yore were fleeing persecution, oppression, communism and “yearning to breath free”, not “earning by doing jobs Americans won’t do, and getting Federal freebies.” Immigrants wanted to be Americans, not just to be in America. Today, as we can see in the modern debate about immigration reform, immigration is seen as a purely economic and not a political debate. Ann Coulter put it blithely in the Daily Caller last year:
Under Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, our immigration policy changed from one that replicated the existing ethnic population to one that strictly favored unskilled immigrants from the Third World. Since 1968, according to Peter Brimelow, author of “Alien Nation,” 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from what is euphemistically called “developing countries.”
We can’t admit computer scientists from Spain fleeing their failing socialist nation because we have to make room for a recent Senegalese immigrant’s brother-in-law with no skills but great needs.
Jonas Salk’s parents would be unable to immigrate to America today. But the good news is: Rich liberals and soulless businessmen have no trouble finding cheap busboys, gardeners and nannies! (Whom they underpay, requiring taxpayers to make up the difference.)
By “developing country”, people usually mean a country that hasn’t developed at all or has regressed ever since their communist or socialist regime or military junta took over their country. These immigrants seem much more comfortable with populist and socialist dictators like Hugo Chavez for the same reason that New Yorkers who move to North Carolina and Virginia are more comfortable with Barack Obama; they bring their politics with them, rather than assimilating to the culture that created the great economic opportunities they seek.
There is a rejection both by the Democrat Party and by the international community at large of the idea that there is anything exceptional about the American system. Our recent immigrants by and large mirror that disbelief (though I have met plenty of immigrants who speak glowingly of this country’s ideals). A Harris poll highlighted by Phyllis Schlafly (and re-posted by Coulter at the Daily Caller) recently showed that while 81% of natural born citizens think that American schools should teach students to be proud of America, only 50% of naturalized citizens think so. 67% of native-born Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme legal authority of the land. Only 37% of naturalized citizens agree. Instead, 73% of naturalized citizens think that the U.S. Constitution is superseded by international law.
Schlafly pointed out that it gets worse according to a Pew Research Study. Though a whopping 47% of liberals have a negative view of capitalism, 55% of Hispanics (immigrants and non-immigrants alike) hold the same negative view. And, while 75% FGIs support bigger government, that number only drops to 55% after three generations.
The bottom line is that today’s immigrants are just not as interested in preserving the ideals of freedom and opportunity that were established n the 18th and 19th centuries. And, they pass a bit of that distaste on to their children, perhaps by becoming vassals of the welfare state. People whose families have been here longer (and whose FGI ancestors did not have a welfare state to run to) have a greater understanding and a regard for the Constitution and capitalism (which were Western ideals, presumably appealing to Western peoples), and those people, by virtue of being here longer, tend to be White.
What this shows, is that freedom is not contagious, and, as Reagan once said, is not passed to our children through the blood stream. However, being here longer and being economically established gives one a greater perspective on the value of that freedom. Generally, the newer you are, the less you like the old America. Among many today, Democrats especially, there is a belief that America should be for everyone, not just Americans. It doesn’t matter what you believe, come to America, where freedom and reality TV will transform you into a flag waving patriot!
The Democrat Party has aims that are increasingly at odds with the Constitution, capitalism, natural law and the rule of law. In other words, Democrats are becoming more un-American. It surely is no secret that when Democrats talk openly of fundamentally changing the country they are opposed to America as it was founded. Is it any wonder that those who come from leftist nation states (who happen also to tend to be non-White) reject American ideals and are embraced by Democrats even before they get here?
This is not a screed against immigration. America is the first empire of the mind (as opposed to ethnicity, economy, religion, geography or militarism). Americans exist all over the world in mind and spirit, and we need more of them. America has done a very poor job of recruiting Americans (who exist in all shapes, sizes and colors). Instead, we’ve recruited cheap labor from socialist countries without regard to patriotism and we are reaping what we’ve sown. It has nothing to do with race. The Republican Party has become a vessel for the remnants of American pride and American ideals. If the Republican Party is losing America, it is not because it is becoming too White–It’s because America is losing itself.
David Teesdale is an old White man in a young White man’s (with a fantastic physique) body.