Peter Brimelow On Obama-Romney, Patriotic Immigration Reform, And
Print Friendly and PDF

I just DON’T KNOW whether Governor Mitt Romney [R] or President Barack Obama [D] will win the November 6 2012 election—and neither does anyone else.

This has one comforting consequence: the great bulk of Main Stream Media horse-race commentary can safely be ignored.

They will wake us (alas) when it’s over.

But this can be predicted with absolute certainty:

  • If Romney wins, it will be attributed to his Etch-A-Sketch post-convention move to “moderation” (or, more accurately, what in British English is known as “wetness”—cowardly, appeasing me-tooism—a useful term that unfortunately has not made it past America’s cultural gatekeepers).

And on immigration, Romney has indeed quietly signaled to those with eyes to see that he will try for some form of illegal immigration amnesty; and also go the full Chamber of Commerce pigout on skilled immigration.

It can also be predicted with absolute certainty that Romney, obviously a deeply conventional man, will believe either/ both.

As an immigrant, I always find it touching how earnestly Americans deliberate over their presidential vote. The brutal fact: in most states, it just doesn’t matter—the presidential contest is simply not that close.

But this is liberating. You can act as a single-issue voter to Send Them a Message (in the immortal words of George Wallace—whose American Party candidacy in 1968 did send a message that the South, and the white working class, were fed up with the Democratic Party). You do this by voting for a minor party that has a key position at odds with the bipartisan majority-party consensus.

The bland jellyfish who run the generic, content-free major-party campaigns don’t have beliefs. But as marketing professionals, they know a market niche when they see one. One recent heroic example: the right-to-life movement, which—regardless of what you think of its issue, on which takes no position—has terrified the GOP munchkins that it is absolutely prepared to bolt if not paid at least lip-service.

(Of course, getting more than lip-service is another story. But lip-service is a start.)

Our position at the most important single issue facing the U.S. is its post-1965 immigration disaster, both legal and illegal. The bipartisan Permanent Government is literally Electing A New People. Among other problems caused by this utterly selfish and irresponsible policy—immiseration of the working class, cultural dispossession, linguistic balkanization, increased crime, overpopulation,   etc. —there is the amazing fact that within 30 years, the U.S. will be majority non-white. The U.S., as it has been known to history, will simply cease to exist within the lives of children now born (including my own).

My own very blue state of Connecticut is part of the Portland-ME-to-Portland-OR Greater New England that the GOP (or a GAP—“Generic American Party”) ought to be carrying easily, but isn’t, basically because it isn’t appealing to the white working class. It appears that Obama will carry Connecticut easily in 2012, as he did in 2008.

So in 2008, I Sent A Message by writing in Chuck Baldwin, the presidential nominee of the  Constitution Party, which advocates an immigration moratorium. It amazed our local polling officials, who didn’t realize it could be done. And it’s thrilling—you actually get to get see your vote! Baldwin got 64 votes here in the Connecticut Berkshires (I know one other of us) and 311 statewide.

Alas, in 2012 the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode did not qualify as a write-in candidate in Connecticut. So I will vote for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, who is useless on immigration but okay on foreign policy.

But what if you live a swing state? This is more of a problem. There are times when (as Trotsky said) Worse is Better. The GOP would not have taken Congress in 1994 if Bill Clinton had not been elected in 1992. The Tea Parties would not have carried the day in 2010 if John McCain had won in 2008. Plus, of course, McCain would certainly have attempted an amnesty, and many GOP Congressmen would have been swept along.

Of course, Mitt Romney is, objectively albeit not subjectively, the candidate of America vs. Anti-America (my terminology) or the American Core vs. the American Fringe (Steve Sailer’s).

But, paradoxically, the consequences of a Romney victory could be worse for immigration patriots, in the short-term, than an Obama victory—even though Obama seems now to have succeeded in finding a way round Congressional opposition to amnesty through Administrative decree (with, I suspect given its token opposition, the Romney campaign’s connivance). (See above).

Nevertheless, as has said many times, the war for patriotic immigration reform is being fought by the grass roots, in the country, outside the Beltway.

And I can’t help remembering something the late Sam Francis told me: attending a Council of Conservative Citizens election eve party in 2000, he was amazed to find that even those highly-motivated individuals were going to vote for (the catastrophic) George W. Bush rather that for Pat Buchanan’s heroic Reform Party insurgency—because they were fixated on the need to react against the Clinton Administration.

Only if the Right Wing of the Government Party—the GOP—is utterly discredited can we get to the full-scale Patriotic Third Party that Pat Buchanan presaged in 2000.

Peter Brimelow [email him] is the editor of

Print Friendly and PDF