Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The Troubled Texas GOP?

In last weekend's paper, the WSJ's op/ed page ran a piece by Jonathan Gurwitz, a neoconservative columnist of the San Antonio Express-News, posing the question: Will Lone Star Republicans blow it on immigration like the California party did?

The state's Senators staved off an implosion by helping to bring down the Senate's most recent amnesty bill. That an affirmative-action 'eligible', mostly uneducated and unskilled, disproportionately entitlement-utilizing, broken familied, non-English speaking, ethnically underclass, urbanly-concentrated population will become GOP stalwarts is conceivable only if the Republican party becomes the party of big, active government. Presumably Cornyn and Hutchinson are cognizant of this. Cornyn, at the age of 55 and the more reliably pro-sovereign of the two, conceivably has decades left in office and will, unlike President Bush, have to exist politically through the long-term implications of the Hispanization of the US.

Gurwitz, of course, was repeating the myth that Proposition 187 doomed the Republican party in California. Demographic shifts had already set the chain in motion. Pete Wilson, who had been functioning as an unpopular moderate, boosted his governership is supporting the popular proposition that was killed in the courts. Political talking points are not of monumental importance. They're dwarfed by demographics. Recall how astoundingly predictive white fertility, home-owning, and marriage rates were in determining Bush's share of the 2004 Presidential election. The Scooter Libby stuff merely moves voter opinion around a little at the edges.

Of interest is that Gurwitz makes clear, save for the growing Hispanic immigrant population, Texas would remain a reliable GOP stronghold. This by county visual makes that understanding obvious enough. A few excerpts from the WSJ piece:
If the demographic shift continues to gain momentum, there's a real possibility that Democrats could achieve a majority in the Texas House by 2010. ...

Older and white voters who predominate in suburban and rural communities continue to have positive impressions about the Republican Party, but there's an image problem among the state's growing number of younger voters and Hispanic voters, who are more numerous in urban centers.
He's double-counting to an extent when he groups youngsters and Hispanics together, as the average non-Hispanic in the US is more than nine years older than the average Hispanic.

From the first column on his Express-News site:
"Bush and the war may have contributed to the downdraft," he says, "but demographics trump politics." The specific demographic Masset has in mind is the growing number of Hispanic voters in Texas.

Gurwitz's focus is on trying to convert the Democratic party's paragon into a Republican voter. Like many other neocons, he shows that he's not inclined to meticulous detail by asserting the demonstrably absurd claim that Bush picked up over 40% of the Hispanic vote in the 2004 Presidential election, an impossibility when one simply looks at the state-level exit poll results that were amalgamated to create national estimates. Even this minority of Republican-supporting Hispanics is inflated by the Cuban-American population. Yet the immigration issues in question have little to do with Cuba. Migrants from Cuba will likely retain privileged status that allows them to become legalized refugees no matter how the immigration debate turns out. Increasing revenue is not a good thing if it decreases profitability.

Why not embrace the surefire way to attain GOP dominance--ensure that as many voters as possible fit the mold of the Republican voter: Self-sufficient, financially secure, married, post-high school educated, and white? The average Hispanic immigrant is none of these things.

Gurwitz is writing from a harbinger city. To not advocate for open borders would be especially burdensome for a public figure in his position.

For those who believe the WSJ to be the print world's leading 'conservative' voice, however, it is worth considering the context of the Gigot-led op/ed board's decision to carry the piece. Accompanying Gurwitz is an editorial advocating greater executive privilege at the expense of Congressional power, another that optimistically believes Iran's growing regional influence as a result of the Iraq war will help solve the Israeli-Arab conflict (by turning Sunni Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt against Iran and the new Iraq--a civil war engulfing the entire Middle East is worth it to take a little pressure off of Israel!), and still another that celebrates Ahmed Chalabi as he dispenses advice on "where we go from here".

I'm not making up these bedfellow pieces. The American Right should not do business with this Pied Piper.


Anonymous said...

Im sorry if I offend anyone, but Im just going to state the truth that we all know, but cant say.

Guritz is your atypical Jewish neo-conservative who was brought up to believe that outnumbering whites in America will ensure that America never becomes some sort of "fascist" state, which apparently everyone of his ilk believes exists somewhere in all European-descended-peoples genetic make-up. He is pitifully pro-Israel, to the point that he would gladly see the USA fight in a WW3 to pre-emptively destroy any nation he percieves as a potential enemy of Israel. This includes China and Russia and Pakistan, nuclear powers all. In other words, he'd happily see an Armaggedon be fought if he thought it would ensure the continued being of Israel, but does not give a fuck about the voters and citizens in America who dont want to become "Amexica".

How in the hell did these people get to be considered "Republicans" is beyond me, but by campaign contributions to Bush, they got the candidate in all the hard-headed stupidity they wanted, and with Rudy having 19 million to Paul's 2 and a half million, they stand a pretty good chance of controlling the next nominee, who isn't even a goddamned conservative in my book.

If the Repubs wanna really survive, they had better PURGE themselves of the neo-cons very quickly.

By the way.................Ive said all along that neo-cons are just Trotskyites biding their time while the demographic destruction of the capitalist voting bloc happens in the USA while achieving their foreign policy goals (ensuring Israel's saftey, amongst a few other things) is achieved. They will slide right back over the aisle to be Democratic Socialist in twenty-five years. Mark my words folks................these are not Reaganites.

Anonymous said...

I am a Jew and I am pro-Israel. You don't offend me-this Guritz guy does. Look at how anti-Semitic Latin American leaders are, in contrast to most middle America Christians who are the sturdiest obstacle blocking a fascistic state from forming in the U.S. Nuts like Gurwitz are going to seal a future Jewish fate.

Audacious Epigone said...


What is so frustrating to me is how foreign-born Hispanics in the US are the country's most antagonistic group toward Jews and Israel. The Germanic-English-Nordic stock white Americans are the most ruggedly individualistic and perpetually skeptical of a big government, as well as being the most pro-Israel. So many Jews have a masochistic sense of self-preservation.