Are the Republicans still a national party?

Daniel McCarthy,  the editor of The American Conservative, answers that question with a “no.”  He points out that Republicans have become very successful on the local and state levels, but haven’t won a plurality of votes in a national presidential race for four out of the last five elections.  McCarthy explores why this is and why Republicans keep nominating moderates who have to masquerade as conservatives, only to lose national elections.  Samples:

If the only effect in play were the strength of grassroots right-wing constituencies, you wouldn’t expect the party to consistently nominate moderates like both Bushes, Dole, McCain, and Romney. None of those nominees had impeccable conservative credentials — far from it. But once they got the nomination, they didn’t run as the moderates they were; most of them sold themselves as being at least as right as Reagan, even in the general election. At least since 2004, this is because the party has pursued a base strategy: an attempt to eke out a narrow win by getting more Republicans to the polls than Democrats, with independents — a small and difficult-to-market-to demographic — basically ignored. The party tries to leverage its regional identity and regional organization into presidential victory. It has failed four times out of five. . . .

Republicans tend to have a clear establishment front-runner going into their presidential contests, and that individual pretty much always wins the nomination, in part because he usually has far more money than his opponents. Indeed, that financial advantage allows the establishment front-runner to discourage viable semi-establishment opponents — your Mitch Daniels types — from even entering the race. That leaves the ideological groups to field their own non-viable standard-bearer — Huckabee or Santorum types. Because the eventual GOP nominee pursues a base strategy, though, he winds up embarrassing himself by trying to sound “severely conservative.” He has to get religious right and Tea Party voters to turn out for him. But even if they do, they’re not enough: those constituencies don’t add up to 50 percent of the electorate. Republicans are actually closer than Democrats to being the real 47 percent party. (Though it’s more accurate to say the GOP is the 48-49 percent party and the Democrats are the 49-50 percent party.)

This isn’t all about elections, however. The policy options that Congress and the president get to consider and the intellectual life of the nation are also warped by the GOP’s “47 percent” ideology. Because conservatives over-identify with the GOP, and the GOP’s identity is determined by factional and regional ideologies, the result is that conservatives take their definition of conservatism from the party and that definition is more regional- and interest-based than philosophical. This accounts for the spectacle of the GOP periodically getting worked up about “big government” while in fact expanding government — welfare state, warfare state, banning internet gambling, you name it — whenever it’s in power. The blue state/red state psychological divide is more fundamental to the party’s understanding of the world than is any consistent view of the proper extent and uses of government. . . .

None of this has anything to do with the historic conservatism of Edmund Burke or John Adams, Russell Kirk or Robert Nisbet. It doesn’t even look like the capacious conservatism of Ronald Reagan. It’s a scam: it does little for values in the culture as a whole because the values in question are those of an ideological minority only interested in winning through minority-organization politics; it can’t look at big-picture economics because doing so would tick off the financial interests and get anyone who broached the question read out of conservatism by Wall Street’s coalition allies. A traditionalist or consistently libertarian critic would be perceived as speaking up for lazy immoral city-dwelling welfare queens. This fanciful identity politics, and not principled economics, is what lies behind talk about “socialism,” “big government,” and the “47 percent.” If the case were otherwise, you’d see the anti-dependency case made against the Pentagon, defense contractors, churches taking government money, and red-state recipients of all kinds of largesse.

Is the GOP Still a National Party? | The American Conservative.

HT:  Todd

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Cincinnatus

    How does a non-national party win Congress?

    This is hogwash. The Party keeps nominating moderates (who keep losing) because party elites are idiots, not because another “type” of candidate would lose. In fact, your/McCarthy’s thesis about presidential candidate selection is unfalsifiable.

    Furthermore, in what way is the Democratic Party not “regional and interest-based”? Look at a red/blue map next time and tell me that the Democratic party is truly “national” in its appeal.

    McCarthy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  • Cincinnatus

    How does a non-national party win Congress?

    This is hogwash. The Party keeps nominating moderates (who keep losing) because party elites are idiots, not because another “type” of candidate would lose. In fact, your/McCarthy’s thesis about presidential candidate selection is unfalsifiable.

    Furthermore, in what way is the Democratic Party not “regional and interest-based”? Look at a red/blue map next time and tell me that the Democratic party is truly “national” in its appeal.

    McCarthy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  • Michael B.

    “McCarthy explores why this is and why Republicans keep nominating moderates who have to masquerade as conservatives, only to lose national elections. ”

    I hope this article doesn’t turn into group therapy for social conservatives: “We are very important! And we know more about politics than the Republican leadership — if only they would run guys like Santorum or Huckabee, then we’d win more elections.”

    We have to ask what percentage of the population are actually social conservatives, and which are already voting Republican. Seems like the Republicans are doing relatively well among social conservatives. On the other hand 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama, and 95% of blacks. Facts like these are what really trouble Republican insiders. Basically, the contrast between the coalition they have, and the coalition they have to build. Given that the percentage of whites is decreasing, it is mathematically impossible for Republican Party to win any elections in the near future if they have the same racial makeup as today.

    A statistic that everyone ought to know: Reagan and McCain both won the same percentage of the white vote. Reagan won in a landslide. McCain lost.

    If we really care about winning elections, what we ought to be talking about is how Republicans can more appeal to blacks and Mexicans.

  • Michael B.

    “McCarthy explores why this is and why Republicans keep nominating moderates who have to masquerade as conservatives, only to lose national elections. ”

    I hope this article doesn’t turn into group therapy for social conservatives: “We are very important! And we know more about politics than the Republican leadership — if only they would run guys like Santorum or Huckabee, then we’d win more elections.”

    We have to ask what percentage of the population are actually social conservatives, and which are already voting Republican. Seems like the Republicans are doing relatively well among social conservatives. On the other hand 67% of Hispanics voted for Obama, and 95% of blacks. Facts like these are what really trouble Republican insiders. Basically, the contrast between the coalition they have, and the coalition they have to build. Given that the percentage of whites is decreasing, it is mathematically impossible for Republican Party to win any elections in the near future if they have the same racial makeup as today.

    A statistic that everyone ought to know: Reagan and McCain both won the same percentage of the white vote. Reagan won in a landslide. McCain lost.

    If we really care about winning elections, what we ought to be talking about is how Republicans can more appeal to blacks and Mexicans.

  • Michael B.

    * Sorry I meant blacks and Hispanics, not Mexicans. I lived in the southwest for a good portion of my life, and sometimes the 2 words are used synonymously.

  • Michael B.

    * Sorry I meant blacks and Hispanics, not Mexicans. I lived in the southwest for a good portion of my life, and sometimes the 2 words are used synonymously.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael B.,

    Currently the only way to appeal to Hispanics and black is to favor open/unrestricted immigration and continued welfare largesse. Since both of these policies are, in general, bad ideas, I don’t see Hispanics or blacks becoming a Republican constituency any time soon.

    You’re probably right about the unelectability of “social conservatves” if your idea of a social conservative is Rick Santorum. Santorum could never–and should never–win a national election. But there are several rising stars in the G.O.P. who probably could, including, for example, Marco Rubio–who happens to be Hispanic.

  • Cincinnatus

    Michael B.,

    Currently the only way to appeal to Hispanics and black is to favor open/unrestricted immigration and continued welfare largesse. Since both of these policies are, in general, bad ideas, I don’t see Hispanics or blacks becoming a Republican constituency any time soon.

    You’re probably right about the unelectability of “social conservatves” if your idea of a social conservative is Rick Santorum. Santorum could never–and should never–win a national election. But there are several rising stars in the G.O.P. who probably could, including, for example, Marco Rubio–who happens to be Hispanic.

  • SKPeterson

    I do not understand the contention that a libertarian critic would be made out to be excusing lazy, immoral, urban-dwelling welfare queens. That simply does not square with a serious libertarian critique of standard Republican conservatism. This is just muddle-headed thinking.

    Now, a serious libertarian critic will get written out of “respectable” party politics, not for advocating largesse for welfare recipients, but precisely because (as I’ve said before) they recognize that the Wall Street banks and the defense sector are nothing more than a gang of temple prostitutes calling the social welfare whores a gaggle of sluts. We certainly wouldn’t want to equate the two, after all the banks and the defense complex are “sacred,” not profane.

  • SKPeterson

    I do not understand the contention that a libertarian critic would be made out to be excusing lazy, immoral, urban-dwelling welfare queens. That simply does not square with a serious libertarian critique of standard Republican conservatism. This is just muddle-headed thinking.

    Now, a serious libertarian critic will get written out of “respectable” party politics, not for advocating largesse for welfare recipients, but precisely because (as I’ve said before) they recognize that the Wall Street banks and the defense sector are nothing more than a gang of temple prostitutes calling the social welfare whores a gaggle of sluts. We certainly wouldn’t want to equate the two, after all the banks and the defense complex are “sacred,” not profane.

  • Tom Hering

    Look at a red/blue map next time and tell me that the Democratic party is truly “national” in its appeal. (@ 1)

    I see blue in the North, South, East, West, and across the center. Isn’t that national by definition? Or do you mean red takes up more square inches on the map? Well, sure it does, but what’s the population density of those areas?

  • Tom Hering

    Look at a red/blue map next time and tell me that the Democratic party is truly “national” in its appeal. (@ 1)

    I see blue in the North, South, East, West, and across the center. Isn’t that national by definition? Or do you mean red takes up more square inches on the map? Well, sure it does, but what’s the population density of those areas?

  • Tom Hering

    (I’m referencing the county-by-county map in the article.)

  • Tom Hering

    (I’m referencing the county-by-county map in the article.)

  • SKPeterson

    I think the Republicans could make serious in-roads into the Hispanic community – primarily by recognizing them as individuals, not as part of some monolithic, faceless constituency. Blacks have had that favor handed to them to the excess by the Democrats.

    The appeal to Hispanics could, and should, be about opportunity, culture and family values, and the merits of hard work, honest labor, and reduced intervention and favoritism from government that takes away the fruits of that industry. Those are things that many Hispanics (not just Mexicans, but also the Hondurans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, etc) could identify with. If, and it’s a mighty big if, the Republicans can get past their crass appeal as the party of whiteness, they just might find that their broader economic and social message will get a greater hearing. The Democrats seized on open immigration, primarily because it could cast the Republicans as the party of oppression, and not as a party of opportunity, by selling themselves as a party that will reduce (Republican) plutocratic privilege. Unfortunately, the Democrats simply repeat the standard progressive political pattern of replacing the existing plutocrats and elites with their own favored groups. They have sold themselves to Hispanics as the only means to get ahead: vote for us, (and we won’t set you free), we’ll put you at the head of the line for the government goodies and handouts, and remove those greedy so-and-so Republicans from the line altogether.

  • SKPeterson

    I think the Republicans could make serious in-roads into the Hispanic community – primarily by recognizing them as individuals, not as part of some monolithic, faceless constituency. Blacks have had that favor handed to them to the excess by the Democrats.

    The appeal to Hispanics could, and should, be about opportunity, culture and family values, and the merits of hard work, honest labor, and reduced intervention and favoritism from government that takes away the fruits of that industry. Those are things that many Hispanics (not just Mexicans, but also the Hondurans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, etc) could identify with. If, and it’s a mighty big if, the Republicans can get past their crass appeal as the party of whiteness, they just might find that their broader economic and social message will get a greater hearing. The Democrats seized on open immigration, primarily because it could cast the Republicans as the party of oppression, and not as a party of opportunity, by selling themselves as a party that will reduce (Republican) plutocratic privilege. Unfortunately, the Democrats simply repeat the standard progressive political pattern of replacing the existing plutocrats and elites with their own favored groups. They have sold themselves to Hispanics as the only means to get ahead: vote for us, (and we won’t set you free), we’ll put you at the head of the line for the government goodies and handouts, and remove those greedy so-and-so Republicans from the line altogether.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom,

    If anything, you should be able to note that both parties are truly nation in their scope and appeal, for better or worse. And that’s my real point: the author’s thesis is misguided.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom,

    If anything, you should be able to note that both parties are truly nation in their scope and appeal, for better or worse. And that’s my real point: the author’s thesis is misguided.

  • DonS

    How are the Democrats any more of a national party than the Republicans? They both own certain parts of the country — the Republicans the South and the West, excluding the coast, the Democrats the East and West Coasts and portions of the upper Midwest. They fight over 10 or so swing states. To say the Republicans are no longer a national party is like saying the Republicans have a “gender gap” with women, while ignoring the Democrats’ similar “gender gap” with men.

    The presidential cycles are cyclical. Pick any point on the time line and you will see a dominance by one party or the other within the past 15 years, but if you look at the larger continuum you see the swings back and forth. Sure, the Democrats have held office for 12 of the past 20 years (2012 election still to be decided), but if you looked at the time line from 1981-2008 you would see the Republicans holding the office for 20 out of 28 years. Duh.

    Obviously, the Republicans do need to have greater success in fighting the demonization and pandering of Democrats, who are perfectly willing to give away the store (our store) to buy minority votes, by being smart and clearly articulating our values. Out-pandering is not an option, if you believe in your principles. This is the last election to involve the Republican old guard — the squishy “Democrats-lite” who have afflicted the Republican party, offering “just a little less” socialism and afraid to stand up for liberty and human rights. We have a new generation of bright stars ready to take the stage in the next cycle, whether that be in 2016 or 2020, such as Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and a host of others who will be of age by then (including a great number of highly intelligent, articulate, and accomplished PHC grads). No matter your race, color, or creed, the right message, one that values you, the citizen and individual, and offers you opportunity and a relief from some of the excessive burdens of the indebted welfare state, will resonate.

  • DonS

    How are the Democrats any more of a national party than the Republicans? They both own certain parts of the country — the Republicans the South and the West, excluding the coast, the Democrats the East and West Coasts and portions of the upper Midwest. They fight over 10 or so swing states. To say the Republicans are no longer a national party is like saying the Republicans have a “gender gap” with women, while ignoring the Democrats’ similar “gender gap” with men.

    The presidential cycles are cyclical. Pick any point on the time line and you will see a dominance by one party or the other within the past 15 years, but if you look at the larger continuum you see the swings back and forth. Sure, the Democrats have held office for 12 of the past 20 years (2012 election still to be decided), but if you looked at the time line from 1981-2008 you would see the Republicans holding the office for 20 out of 28 years. Duh.

    Obviously, the Republicans do need to have greater success in fighting the demonization and pandering of Democrats, who are perfectly willing to give away the store (our store) to buy minority votes, by being smart and clearly articulating our values. Out-pandering is not an option, if you believe in your principles. This is the last election to involve the Republican old guard — the squishy “Democrats-lite” who have afflicted the Republican party, offering “just a little less” socialism and afraid to stand up for liberty and human rights. We have a new generation of bright stars ready to take the stage in the next cycle, whether that be in 2016 or 2020, such as Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, and a host of others who will be of age by then (including a great number of highly intelligent, articulate, and accomplished PHC grads). No matter your race, color, or creed, the right message, one that values you, the citizen and individual, and offers you opportunity and a relief from some of the excessive burdens of the indebted welfare state, will resonate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@1) asked:

    How does a non-national party win Congress?

    Seems like you’re missing the point. The article restricts itself solely to the presidential election.

    And with good reason. Yes, Congress is a national-level government body. But, of course, its constituents are elected at the local, or at least state, level.

    In that light, the President is the only office that we vote for as a nation.

    Furthermore, in what way is the Democratic Party not “regional and interest-based”? Look at a red/blue map next time and tell me that the Democratic party is truly “national” in its appeal.

    Again, missing the point. That’s actually an appeal to politics at the local level. Sure, Democrats are largely clustered in cities, but please don’t mistake landmass for people.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@1) asked:

    How does a non-national party win Congress?

    Seems like you’re missing the point. The article restricts itself solely to the presidential election.

    And with good reason. Yes, Congress is a national-level government body. But, of course, its constituents are elected at the local, or at least state, level.

    In that light, the President is the only office that we vote for as a nation.

    Furthermore, in what way is the Democratic Party not “regional and interest-based”? Look at a red/blue map next time and tell me that the Democratic party is truly “national” in its appeal.

    Again, missing the point. That’s actually an appeal to politics at the local level. Sure, Democrats are largely clustered in cities, but please don’t mistake landmass for people.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@5) said:

    I do not understand the contention that a libertarian critic would be made out to be excusing lazy, immoral, urban-dwelling welfare queens.

    Honestly, have you read Grace’s, um, critiques of Ron Paul?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@5) said:

    I do not understand the contention that a libertarian critic would be made out to be excusing lazy, immoral, urban-dwelling welfare queens.

    Honestly, have you read Grace’s, um, critiques of Ron Paul?

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD@11:

    I’m puzzled by your responses.

    1) I’m aware that the author is focused on the office of the President, in which case he seems to have forgotten that Republicans have controlled the White House for a majority of the past 30 years. But congressmen, while elected at the “local” level, are nonetheless chosen from districts of roughly equal size (in terms of population). Recently, Republicans have captured more such districts–enough to maintain a strong majority in the House of Representatives. I can’t see a purely “regional” or narrowly interest-based party winning a majority in a national office. But again, either way, Republicans regularly win the White House, so…yeah.

    2) I don’t understand what you mean here. If a party is regional, that is a reference to “land mass”: it only manages to attract substantial interest among voters in certain geographic areas that are only a contiguous subset of the national land mass. In Presidential elections, it’s clear that Democrats (only?) consistently garner electoral votes from the coasts and a smattering of Upper Midwestern states. I.e., in Presidential elections, the Democratic party is apparently only a regional party.

    Of course, as Tom and I were discussing, county-level maps show that attachment to the two parties is generally distributed in a way that makes the map “purple.”

    However, I think a more useful rubric is this: the Democratic party is an urban party–reflective of its current status as an uneasy coalition of the uber-rich and the uber-poor–while the Republican party is a rural and suburban party. There’s probably much more to be learned from this comparison.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD@11:

    I’m puzzled by your responses.

    1) I’m aware that the author is focused on the office of the President, in which case he seems to have forgotten that Republicans have controlled the White House for a majority of the past 30 years. But congressmen, while elected at the “local” level, are nonetheless chosen from districts of roughly equal size (in terms of population). Recently, Republicans have captured more such districts–enough to maintain a strong majority in the House of Representatives. I can’t see a purely “regional” or narrowly interest-based party winning a majority in a national office. But again, either way, Republicans regularly win the White House, so…yeah.

    2) I don’t understand what you mean here. If a party is regional, that is a reference to “land mass”: it only manages to attract substantial interest among voters in certain geographic areas that are only a contiguous subset of the national land mass. In Presidential elections, it’s clear that Democrats (only?) consistently garner electoral votes from the coasts and a smattering of Upper Midwestern states. I.e., in Presidential elections, the Democratic party is apparently only a regional party.

    Of course, as Tom and I were discussing, county-level maps show that attachment to the two parties is generally distributed in a way that makes the map “purple.”

    However, I think a more useful rubric is this: the Democratic party is an urban party–reflective of its current status as an uneasy coalition of the uber-rich and the uber-poor–while the Republican party is a rural and suburban party. There’s probably much more to be learned from this comparison.

  • SKPeterson

    Maybe a better question to ask isn’t if the Republicans are a national party, but rather whether they can party like it’s 1999, or if they believe they have to fight for their right to party.

  • SKPeterson

    Maybe a better question to ask isn’t if the Republicans are a national party, but rather whether they can party like it’s 1999, or if they believe they have to fight for their right to party.

  • kerner

    I have been arguing for years on this blog that Republicans could enlist a lot more Hispanics (and Asians) by simply applying conservative principles, such as encouraging work as a means of advancement, and discouraging reliance on government a a source of support.

    This is not necessarily “unrestricted immigration” so much as it is a willingness to look at immigrants as potential recruits rather than threats. Of course, potential immigrants who are REAL threats, such as criminals, need to be rejected as unsuitable recruits. But our present system is based on economic protectionism rather than on encouraging competition.

    The Democrats want to recruit immigrants by promising them food stamps and a free ride at taxpayers’ expense. I agree that this is an horrifically bad idea. The current prevailing Republican response is to regard immigrants as already in the Democrats’ camp, and try to keep them out (or throw them out). But I believe that it is a much better strategy (both politically and as a matter of principle) to encourage immigration of people who are willing to embrace work as a means of advancement. This does not have to be limited to white collar or blue collar workers. An immigrant is by definition a risk taker, and industrious risk takers are the kind of people upon whom our country was built? And are these not the kind of people to whom conservative principles appeal?

  • kerner

    I have been arguing for years on this blog that Republicans could enlist a lot more Hispanics (and Asians) by simply applying conservative principles, such as encouraging work as a means of advancement, and discouraging reliance on government a a source of support.

    This is not necessarily “unrestricted immigration” so much as it is a willingness to look at immigrants as potential recruits rather than threats. Of course, potential immigrants who are REAL threats, such as criminals, need to be rejected as unsuitable recruits. But our present system is based on economic protectionism rather than on encouraging competition.

    The Democrats want to recruit immigrants by promising them food stamps and a free ride at taxpayers’ expense. I agree that this is an horrifically bad idea. The current prevailing Republican response is to regard immigrants as already in the Democrats’ camp, and try to keep them out (or throw them out). But I believe that it is a much better strategy (both politically and as a matter of principle) to encourage immigration of people who are willing to embrace work as a means of advancement. This does not have to be limited to white collar or blue collar workers. An immigrant is by definition a risk taker, and industrious risk takers are the kind of people upon whom our country was built? And are these not the kind of people to whom conservative principles appeal?

  • Cincinnatus

    kerner:

    No, the Republicans should not encourage more immigration. I beg of them, don’t do it.

    Appealing to “hard work” and other stereotypically Hispanic virtues sounds plausible, though. But perhaps overstated: there’s a reason Mexico and numerous other Latin American states have been long governed by officially socialist governments.

  • Cincinnatus

    kerner:

    No, the Republicans should not encourage more immigration. I beg of them, don’t do it.

    Appealing to “hard work” and other stereotypically Hispanic virtues sounds plausible, though. But perhaps overstated: there’s a reason Mexico and numerous other Latin American states have been long governed by officially socialist governments.

  • DonS

    More to the issue of which party is more “national”, Republicans currently hold 29 governorships, while the Democrats hold 20.

    Republicans hold 27 state legislatures, including the “officially non-partisan” legislature of Nebraska, Democrats hold 15, and the remaining 8 are split.

    Silly, silly article. By a typically hand-wringing, timid conservative.

  • DonS

    More to the issue of which party is more “national”, Republicans currently hold 29 governorships, while the Democrats hold 20.

    Republicans hold 27 state legislatures, including the “officially non-partisan” legislature of Nebraska, Democrats hold 15, and the remaining 8 are split.

    Silly, silly article. By a typically hand-wringing, timid conservative.

  • Cincinnatus

    DonS@17:

    I agree. The author’s point seems to be that the Republican party depends upon an ideological coalition, none of whose constituent parts (e.g., fiscal libertarians, social conservatives) represent “the nation.”

    But this has been true of the Republican Party since at least the Reagan years, and complaining from these various constituencies notwithstanding, I don’t think the coalition is going anywhere because a) the Democratic party does not present a viable alternatives for them and b) none of them could start a winning party alone.

  • Cincinnatus

    DonS@17:

    I agree. The author’s point seems to be that the Republican party depends upon an ideological coalition, none of whose constituent parts (e.g., fiscal libertarians, social conservatives) represent “the nation.”

    But this has been true of the Republican Party since at least the Reagan years, and complaining from these various constituencies notwithstanding, I don’t think the coalition is going anywhere because a) the Democratic party does not present a viable alternatives for them and b) none of them could start a winning party alone.

  • SKPeterson

    Cin @ 16 – It is precisely the last part of your response that propels and impels Hispanic immigrants to come to the U.S. It would seem that, to kerner’s point, it would be advantageous to the Republicans to recognize that and point out repeatedly that the Democrats are trying to impose a similar system of entrenched neo-socialism that has crippled their own opportunities to improve their lot in life. The Republicans should salute these people and indicate their desire for these people to integrated as smoothly as possible into the economic and social fabric of our nation, while declaring that the Democrats just want to turn them into a reliably dependent population beholden to just another caudillo and his cronies. Did they really risk so much to come to the U.S. to give it all away to another group of petty grievance tyrants?

  • SKPeterson

    Cin @ 16 – It is precisely the last part of your response that propels and impels Hispanic immigrants to come to the U.S. It would seem that, to kerner’s point, it would be advantageous to the Republicans to recognize that and point out repeatedly that the Democrats are trying to impose a similar system of entrenched neo-socialism that has crippled their own opportunities to improve their lot in life. The Republicans should salute these people and indicate their desire for these people to integrated as smoothly as possible into the economic and social fabric of our nation, while declaring that the Democrats just want to turn them into a reliably dependent population beholden to just another caudillo and his cronies. Did they really risk so much to come to the U.S. to give it all away to another group of petty grievance tyrants?

  • Tom Hering
  • Tom Hering
  • SKPeterson

    Tom – If the Republicans are dog food, are the Democrats cat food?

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – If the Republicans are dog food, are the Democrats cat food?

  • Tom Hering

    Subsidized, government-surplus cat food distributed to poor and disabled felines. And seniors.

  • Tom Hering

    Subsidized, government-surplus cat food distributed to poor and disabled felines. And seniors.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How about Asians? They seem much easier to recruit than hispanics who are highly dependent on government. They are much more socially and fiscally conservative in actual practice. How come no one ever talks about Asians? They are about 6% of the electorate, yet we heard endlessly about gays who are 1% and cannot grow as a demographic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How about Asians? They seem much easier to recruit than hispanics who are highly dependent on government. They are much more socially and fiscally conservative in actual practice. How come no one ever talks about Asians? They are about 6% of the electorate, yet we heard endlessly about gays who are 1% and cannot grow as a demographic.

  • DonS

    sg @ 23: Vietnamese, as a group, tend to vote Republican, dating back to the fact that Republicans were seen as being anti-Communist and more supportive of their freedom cause during the Vietnamese war, as well as in arranging for the rescue of their families from Vietnam after the war was lost. Other Asians, however, lean Democratic. There is not much of a sense of individuality in most Asian cultures, so the concept of individual liberty and freedom is lost on them. Asians are generally used to oppressive government, I guess :-)

    However, immigrants from more oppressive cultures, whether they be Asian, Mexican, African, or European, tend to learn quickly about the better way of valuing people as individuals, and ensuring that they are guaranteed their inalienable God-given rights if they are properly educated, rather than merely pandered to.

  • DonS

    sg @ 23: Vietnamese, as a group, tend to vote Republican, dating back to the fact that Republicans were seen as being anti-Communist and more supportive of their freedom cause during the Vietnamese war, as well as in arranging for the rescue of their families from Vietnam after the war was lost. Other Asians, however, lean Democratic. There is not much of a sense of individuality in most Asian cultures, so the concept of individual liberty and freedom is lost on them. Asians are generally used to oppressive government, I guess :-)

    However, immigrants from more oppressive cultures, whether they be Asian, Mexican, African, or European, tend to learn quickly about the better way of valuing people as individuals, and ensuring that they are guaranteed their inalienable God-given rights if they are properly educated, rather than merely pandered to.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X