Demography is Destiny, and America’s deliberate demographic transformation is transforming our politics, though the GOP elite either doesn’t get it or just doesn’t care. The Obama Administration, on the other hand, knows exactly what it’s doing. By expanding Administrative Amnesty, fighting voter ID and in many other ways, it is hastening the transformation of the U.S. to something unrecognizable to the historic American nation.
Recently, Washington Post has confirmed much of what we have been saying through the years here at VDARE.COM, though written from a different point of view.
First was a blog post by Chris Cillizza (who has appeared on VDARE.COM before, for example, via James Fulford here.): Republicans have a major demographic problem. And it’s only going to get worse. [Chris Cillizza, Washington Post, April 22, 2014]. Here’s how it begins:
It's no secret that Republicans have a demographic problem when it comes to national elections. In 2012, roughly nine in every ten people who voted for Mitt Romney were white—even as the white vote continued its steady decline as a percentage of the overall electorate. He got crushed among Hispanics and African American voters.
This is indeed no news to VDARE.COM readers or even to the Main Stream Media, which claims it’s a Bad Thing—although mysteriously it’s not Bad that over 90% of blacks vote for the Democrats.
Cillizza’s point is that, unless “something big changes” that this is going to get worse for the GOP as the demographics change, that “…the 2016 presidential election will be a tough one for Republicans to win given the demographic changes in the country but it won't be nearly as difficult for them as the 2024 or 2028 elections could be.”
Thus the youth minority population is growing, which presumably means these younger generations will be producing more Democrats. Using Romney’s results as a base, the trends show the increasing difficulty of Republicans winning presidential elections if the Hispanic share of the electorate increases.
Geography also is a big factor, as Cillizza points out, “It's where the under 20 minority populations live that could prove politically problematic going forward. “ And it’s no longer just the Southwest, in the future it’s potentially the South as well:
The concentration of young minority population in the Southwest and South means that states like Texas and Arizona as well as Georgia and South Carolina—all of which have been conservative redoubts at the presidential level for decades could be in real jeopardy for the party in the medium and long term.”
Thanks a lot, GOP elite, for helping to bring this situation about. Immigration could have been cut way back in the 1990s, in accordance with the recommendations of the bipartisan Jordan Commission (and Peter Brimelow’s 1992 National Review cover story, which became Alien Nation in 1995). But Republicans donors wanted their cheap labor. Look where it’s gotten them.
Cillizza ends the blog post thusly:
Republicans have a demographic problem. And it is going to get way, way worse unless they find a way to improve their numbers among Hispanics.
That sounds like the typical Hispanic Hype, we must surrender to appease the Awakening Hispanic Giant blah blah blah. But not so fast! Shortly after, WaPo ran a follow-up blog post: Why immigration reform isn’t the answer to Republicans’ demographic woes (by Peyton Craighill , April 26, 2014):
We reported on Tuesday about the major demographic problem facing Republicans. So, how can the GOP start winning larger shares of non-white voters? Reforming the immigration system might not be the answer. Why not? Because reforming the nation's immigration laws could very well create a whole bunch of new Democrats, including in some key swing states….
That’s quite an admission coming from the WaPo, and (have I mentioned this before?) it’s what VDARE.COM has been saying all along—Hispanic Hype is much exaggerated:
The rise in the Hispanic population in the United States is problematic for the GOP, but so far it's been quite slow. In 2004, Hispanics made up 6 percent of all voters. That ticked up to 7 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2012. Census voting and registration data shows that Hispanics make up significant chunks of the population in some key states, but they are not yet a well-organized voting bloc. This chart shows the states with largest share of Hispanics (including non-citizens). In each state Hispanic voter turnout lags their share of the citizen population, demonstrating the political potential they could have if they were better mobilized.
The chart contrasts the total Hispanic population (including non-citizens), the Hispanic citizen population and the 2012 actual percentage of Hispanic voters for the entire U.S. and for seven particular states.
So even in the highly-politicized state of California, with its many Latino activists, there was a sizeable gap between those Latinos who could vote and those who actually went to the trouble.
The Hispanic vote is simply not yet that important. And Hispanics aren’t that obsessed with politics anyway, although their self-appointed leaders may be.
In Texas, for example, while 55% (a bare majority) of Hispanics are registered voters, only 39% bothered to vote in 2012 , which remember, was a presidential election!
So what was the point of this WaPo item? Certainly not to assert, as Steve Sailer and VDARE.com have pointed out for years, that the GOP would be better served by going for the white vote. Craighill can’t bring himself to write that, so here’s his ending:
Simply rejecting immigration reforms aimed at a path to citizenship carry big political risks as well, including the possibility of reducing Republicans' already-weak standing with the Hispanic voters (and future voters).
The takeaway? Hispanic citizens' lower turnout and registration rates have so far limited their political impact. But if the significant share of Hispanic non-citizens gain a path to citizenship and actually start voting, the electoral map could change much more quickly than what the slowing changing demographics of the country suggest. And that would be a bad thing for Republicans.
TRANSLATION: Amnesty is going to hurt the Republicans, but they should still support it.
Thanks! But I think there’s a better conclusion: Not all is lost, the Hispanicization of U.S. society and politics is not inevitable. There is still a window of opportunity within which we may oppose it and appeal to the historic American nation and traditional American interests.
But it will take courage. It requires leadership that doesn’t shake in craven fear at the rhetoric of the Treason Lobby and their hired Hispanic chauvinists—very different from the current GOP elite.
Here, in a nutshell, is what the GOP/ GAP should call for:
Such policies (for starters) would keep a National Conservative party in competition for the foreseeable future, while simultaneously slowing the demographic transformation and hopefully helping to assimilate some Hispanics.
These policies are diametrically opposed to what the GOP leadership (and its donors) favor. And they show no sign of learning, despite repeated electoral disasters.
So—is it time for a new party?
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. in 2008 after many years residing in Mexico. Allan's wife is Mexican, and their two sons are bilingual. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.