Monday, May 29, 2006

Bush for a wall?

Catching up with the insights of so many great minds in the blogosphere after a few days on a nine acre lake in the hinterland (without an internet connection for miles), an item on the VDare blog brought to mind a conversation I had with one of the 95 or so Hispanics in Linn County, Kansas. Steve Sailer writes:

Bush Is Losing Hispanics’ Support, Polls Show;Surveys Find the Immigration Debate Is Also Alienating White Conservatives” by Thomas B. Edsall and Zachary A.
Goldfarb, May 21, 2006

The priority given Hispanics in this headline is another example of a consistent pattern of media bias. Hispanics cast only 6.0 percent of the vote in the last election, according to the Census Bureau. White conservatives, whom the Post admits are also alienated, account for roughly four to six times more votes than all Hispanics put together.
Growth in the size of an underperforming ethnic minority is just what the Left ordered. The GOP is committing hara-kiri. From record spending to amnesty, from the Iraq miasma to the Medicare profligacy (and the program's so bemusing/unattractive that the government has to spend money advertising a federal giveaway!), Bush is leading the Republican Party off a cliff. I've realized this for some time, being stultified again and again by the fallacious logic put forward by guys like Ed Gillespie:
The Republican Party cannot become an anti-immigration party. Our majority already rests too heavily on white voters [this guy was the RNC chairman--what kind of CEO tells his customer base that his company is sick of relying on them to keep the enterprise in business? Imagine Lee Scott telling the working class that WalMart is in trouble because it's relying on working class scum to beat Target], given that current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future...

Hispanic voting percentages are increasingly decisive in swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, Colorado and Arkansas. Mishandling the immigration debate today could result in the Republican Party struggling in these states and others in the same way it does now in California.
Is he serious? All the states mentioned used to be Republican strongholds. The deluge from south of the border has turned the red purple, and more immigration is going to give it a blue hue. Prop 187's attempt to lessen the incentives for an illegal Hispanic underclass did not doom the Republican Party in California. The failure to implement and build on it while retaining a white majority in California doomed the GOP. Gillespie needs to be working to halt the influx from the south. The popular support is there. It is self-immolation for the Republicans to turn their backs on white Americans and the middle class in general, as much as Gillespie laments the fact that the Republican Party has to rely on them.

But the Republican leadership's self-mutilation is nothing new. Heck, Steve's been writing about it for years. What got me was the conversation I had when, on a long hike, I came upon a field party. I was talking to a girl of Mexican descent (second generation I would later find out). When I inquired into her future, she responded by saying she wanted to become an immigration lawyer to "Help my friends. Bush wants to build a wall on the border and it's not right." For being a female in her late teens, she was pretty knowledgeable about the political scene. And she was under the impression that Bush wanted to seal the border!

I'm not sure what effect Bush's amnesty endorsements are having on the Hispanic electorate (although the vitriol directed at Bush in Mexico for his 'restrictionist' stance doesn't bode well for el Presidente), but given that the GOP can only afford to lose 1% of the voting white population for every 10% of the Hispanic vote that it picks up, the GOP will need a big gain among Hispanics just to break even. This girl, wrongfully angry at the President for a policy he's opposed to, made me doubly disgusted at Bush. No wonder he's in the dumps.

(Immigration2)

2 comments:

JSBolton said...

Appeasement only increases the expectations and demands; but Gillespie hopes that his base is too stupid or media-misinformed to notice. A revolution of rising expectations among Hispanics is ideal for the left to exploit, and they're doing so gleefully.
Notice also the abject cynicism of Gillespie; as if no ideals or principles could possibly have any bearing on such issues.
What is left out is the massive increase of aggression on the net taxpayer caused by openness to undesirable immigration. We owe loyalty to our fellow citizen, the net taxpayer, and not to the foreigner.
If the white percentage is to be assumed to fixed, on what basis may the latino percentage voting republican, be assumed to be variable? Actually the foreigner-firsters are about to cause massive defections from the republican base. That means impeachment proceedings against the top officials in the White House, as democrats regain their committee chairmanships. The tables are heaving, as if about to overturn.

crush41 said...

With such hubris Gillespie assumes the white vote fixed. Pride cometh before the fall. Imagine Howard Dean complaining that the Democratic Party relies heavily on blacks to its detriment, and that more needs to be done to reach out to white voters (although "middle class values" is a code phrase for trying to do just that).

The GOP is ignorantly encouraging the downsizing of its only solid majority bloc (white Protestants), believing that subsequent generations of 'hard-working' serfs are going to achieve social and economic parity of the white middle class.

The balance is going to be upset. Republican Congressman are trying to distance themselves from the White House/Senate establishment. We need a nationalistic leader to emerge--one that takes to heart John's obvious and popular assertion that loyalty is owed to the citizen and not the foreigner.