"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, weBecause the archaic Thurmond was a segregationalist (how else would he have possibly been elected in Mississippi at the time?), Lott was branded a racist, bigot, and all the other nasty epithets that get thrown at anyone who dare have anything to do with any person who might have at some time in the past said something straying outside the strict belief system of orthodox Cultural Marxists.
voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Republicans had worried that if Lott didn't step down as Majority Leader, the party would lose ground in trying to appeal to minorities. Bush nabbed 9% and 11% of the black vote in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, respectively, in heeding their concerns. Perhaps Republicans should focus on the 800-pound gorrilla of American democracy--whites--who make up over three-quarters of the voting electorate instead of pandering to various minority ethnic groups of whom not a single one votes Republican. Maybe they should focus on keeping the nation's ancestry largely European (as it slides steadily towards minority status--p75) and by instituting a merit immigration system that leads to future Americans of all ethnic and racial backgrounds being successful and therefore more likely to vote Republican.
Instead they seem content to play a moral superiority game that they cannot possibly win in the end. The boost the Republican Party has enjoyed from the efflorescence of talk radio, the internet, and cable (that is, Fox) news challenging the monolithic leftwing view in the media is being overwhelmed by demographic changes that favor Democrats.
Lott's comments were innocuous even if they were politically foolish. He did not voice support for segragational policies nor make note of Thurmond's previous support for them--he merely paid a rather generic compliment to a Mississippi legislator (Lott, of course, is a Senator from Mississippi) at the senescent guy's birthday party, and he was crucified for doing so.
Contrast that to this:
BET.com users have selected Minister Louis Farrakhan as the 2005 Person of the Year."Farrakhan was certainly an interesting choice. The leader of the Nation of Islam--which professes that an evil scientist created white devils (with Jews being the earliest white progenitors) from impure blacks--he's had a vision of Colin Powell plotting the destruction of the black race, accused the government of blowing up the New Orleans levees to drown blacks, called Hitler a great man, and Judaism a dirty religion.
An overwhelming percentage of our users agreed that Minister Farrakhan made the most positive impact on the Black community over the past year and chose him as the person most worthy to receive the honor of BET.com's 2005 Person of the Year," said Retha Hill, BET.com's vice president for Content.
He is an overtly black nationalist. I do not blame him for trying to look out for the well being of his extended family nor am I surprised that he has anything but acrimony for white America when he, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, knows that the easiest way to overcome innate disparities is to lobby for wealth transfers, at least in the short-term. Bill Cosby's push for self-reliance as a means of buoying black America is only championed in bigoted circles, of course.
Farrakhan's popularity in the black community should be a tocsin for America--multiculturalism breeds tension between groups and fans the flames of racial hatred. Coupled with democracy, multiculturalism turns the political arena into a special interest spoils system, with demagogues capitalizing on real and perceived differences by promising their particular group special things. Every occurence has a racial component in multicultural areas. Compare the racially-charged LA riots or the Katrina aftermath in New Orleans to the coal miners who recently perished in West Vriginia. In the first two, one large ethnic group lambasted another for prejudice, racism, etc. In the mining tragedy, this element wasn't present because it simply couldn't be--West Virginia is overwhelmingly white.
As Latin America continues to emigrate into the the US, groups that openly fight to secure benefits for Hispanics like La Raza and MechA will continue to gain clout. Affirmative action policies will pinch less endowed whites and Asians harder and harder. Whites will become increasingly aware of their racial identity and organizations like American Renaissance will grow in popularity. Cultural and language barriers will become more pronounced, as the moribund social policy of assimilation bites the dust (what does one assimilate to if there are ten distinctly different cultures to choose from, all of which are encouraged by various members of the polyglot?). Native Americans are the most distinctly separate group, technically constituting entirely different nations. With so many special privileges, Indian tribes are ripe for corruption--see Jack Abramoff. Do we want more of these special privileges for other groups?
America is rushing fullsteam into unchartered waters. Multiculturalism has an awful record (think confiscation of white farms in southern Africa and South America, Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka, Buddhist struggles in southwest China, the Balkans, riots in Australia and France, Islamic terrorism and ethnic enclaves scattered throughout the West, the Sudan, Jim Crow in the South, virulent anti-Judaism in the Middle East, ad infinitum) while the most homogenuous countries suffer little internal strife and enjoy prosperity (Scandanavia and Japan being the most salient examples). Often, when pinned down, multicult open borders enthusiasts will cite the US as the greatest example of a demographic mosaic, yet in the next sentence they will be condemning racial inequality in America and giving props to Kanye West. If the US is sui generis when it comes to successful multiculturalism, I'm definitely not convinced.
It's blatantly intuitive that people tend to gravitate toward those like themselves. Think of your friends--if you are a college graduate (or working your way to that), how many of your friends are doing the same? If you built relationships randomly, we would expect that of your twelve closest friends, two of them are college educated, seven finished high school and then went to work, and three are high school dropouts. Does that reflect reality? Probably not. Chances are most if not all of your friends are collegiates. How about the significant others in your life? How have the relationships where you shared common interests, pursuits, lifestyles, and enjoyed similar traits fared compared to the ones where you've been polar opposites on everything from politics to entertainment to lifestyle habits? The stellar success of EHarmony.com is a testament to the former--are there businesses devoted to matching you up with those the most unlike yourself as possible?
Why would polities be any different? Opposites don't attract on the individual level, and they don't attract on the national level either. Immigrants now account for over 60% of the US' population growth--they will determine the future composition of America. We should insure that they are conducive to the needs--culture, economic, occupational, cognitive, linguistic--of the native population by instituting a merit immigration system that scores potential new arrivals based on factors like English language fluency, occupational training, health, age, criminal record, educational attainment, IQ, and so forth. There are as many as 1.5 billion people who would like to come to the US--we can certainly afford to pick and choose those who will benefit the Union the most. Whether we can afford not to be picky and instead let family reunification, anchor babies, and desperation choose for us is what I'm not so sure about.